Comments on the Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR 

 

No. Name Comment 

1 Keoni Almeida 

Rebecca, I would like to ask you some questions regarding the EIS/EIR for Folsom Dam Area as I believe I am one o

along the lake (1428 Lakehills Drive, El Dorado Hills) that would be impacted if the dam was raised 4, 7, or 17 feet. [

#

and Housing affected property]. I would like to confirm which residences are referred to in the report on page 3.16-15 one possible residential relocation; Alternative 2 with 4-foot raise), page 3.16-16 (one possible residential relocation; 

a 3.5-foot raise); page 3.16-16 (six possible residential relocations; alternative 4, with a 7-foot raise); page 3.16-18 (3residential relocations; Alternative 5, with a 17-foot raise). 

[#1-2 PD residential effects]. As a general comment regarding the report, it seems to take the potential option of acquproperties lightly. This is evident by the numerous maps shown for the various alternatives showing work areas and construction sites without one of the maps showing the area that would be most impacted in terms of residential reloc

surmising that the houses along where I live will be impacted by the fact that the 500 foot contour depicting the work 

numerous maps is above the elevation of the properties in my neighborhood. [#1-3 Visual new berms.] The report proposes an option to avoid relocating residences. The proposal includes the coflood damage reduction berms to remedy temporary flooding of the above-referenced properties during extreme storm option would disrupt the natural setting surrounding the lake in the Lakehills Estates area. 

2 

Jason 

Zarghami 

My name is Jason Zarghami I reside in 1456 Lake Hills Dr in EDH, Ca. Our house backs up to the lake property on L

have lived in our house for about 18 years and love this area and are not at all willing to move anywhere else!! Even 

have to rebuild the house on a higher foundation. I have received a copy of the CD and have reviewed the 5 options. 

only way our house would be effected is if the Dam is raised by 17 feet, which I believe will be unsafe for the Dam. [#and Housing affected property]. From the CD, I can't tell where these 37 homes are located at? Can you help me loc

homes on the map.] I have the following questions for you. 

1- [#2-2 PD relation to previous studies]. There was a study done last year for raising the Dam by 7 feet and some of our neighbors received letters explaining the water level. Is this study the same as the one on this CD? The old study did not show the need for a concrete wall. Please explai2- [#2-3 PD residential effects]. The map of Folsom Lake shows the effected area on the Granite Bay side, but th

off on the east side of the lake where we live. Therefore I can't tell how our resident is getting effected by these option

documentation that I can obtain that shows the east side of the lake (South Fork of the American River, Lakehills Est3- [#2-4 PD alternative selection]. What is the likely hood of option 5, why is it even considered if it makes the Dam structure unsuitable for the amount of water it would store? 4- [#2-5 Population and housing affected property]. In option 3 the CD shows only one house is effected, what is the location of this house? 5- [#2-6 Population and housing property acquisition] What if the resident of the house refuses to move? 

3 Patrick Porgans 

Decrease in water storage due to Folsom DS/FDR action and his specific questions on: 

1) [#3-1 Reservoir storage]. Who pays for space now? 2) How much? 3) Where does the money come from? 

4 Anonymous [#4-1 PD footprint.] Does the project footprint go west of Folsom-Auburn Road? 5 Ken Champion 

 This e-mail is an effort at inter-agency coordination so that FHWA's issues may be adequately put forth, as requeste

Federal Aid funds went into the construction of many of the bridges below the Folsom Dam in the American and Sacr

waterways. [#5-1 PD Future Operations in relation to Downstream Bridges]. A 160,000 cfs sustained release study odamage should be made in order for this EIR to adequately identify (1) the potential bridge impact significance of suc
2 of 148 

No. Name Comment 

involving scour, destabilization, riverbed erosion, etc. , and (2) identify the various mitigations and mitigation strategies that may be employed to reduce the impact level of signibridges. To date, it appears that only water release studies on the order of 115,000 to 120,000 cfs have been condu

bridge sites in the American River below the dam.] Please review our attached intergovernmental review comment reenclosure expressing our issues. (Also see attachments)

6 Jim Silvester [#6-1 PD Project Support.] Let the corp do what ever it needs to do. The lives and property of the people down strea

important. 

7 Bruce Beck 

 Mr. Oliver: I have received disturbing information about the proposed closure of Folsom Point (Dyke 8) and/or Granite Bay as a 

equipment for the upcoming construction at Folsom Lake. 

I live in Rocklin and during the "boating" season we use the Lake almost every weekend for our boating. [#7-1 Recreclosure/alternatives]. Closing these two areas would very much cause a terrible situation on the public use of the Lakparking be established along Folsom-Auburn Road near the closed road to the Dam Or close Beal’s Point as boaters area. What about the parking area that is closed to the public next to the Dam? There are large fields near the Dam RFolsom area. Otherwise the expansion and creation of Beal's point for boat launching would help IF the closure of Dyke * were to hThere are a large number of boaters in the Sacramento area. [#7-2 Recreation remaining access points]. Requiring b

other locations would not only crowd those more but cause other environmental issues with more traveling, using mo

other lakes, causing more environmental issues at those locations, etc. Please establish other sites to use for staging. There are a lot of other areas that can be considered. 

8 Rosemary Beck 

We live in Rocklin, very close to Folsom Lake. [#8-1 Recreation lake access closure/alternatives]. We are opposed to current boating access to Folsom Lake for use of equipment parking. Possible solutions: 1. Close down these areas during the winter only (Oct - Mar) as most boaters do not use the lake during those period2. Park at Beal's Point and not Granite Bay, closer for your equipment and boaters are not allowed access there anyw3. Park in the parking lot next to the Dam on Dam Road, where POV's are not allowed anyway. 4. Park your equipment in the areas just north of Dam Road/Folsom Auburn areas. 5. There are areas on the other side of the Dam Road in Folsom where equipment can be parked. Please do not closed boating access during the heavy boating season. 

9 Robin Sharp 

Dear Mr Oliver, 

[#9-1 Recreation lake access closure] I hope you are the right person to contact regarding our dismay at the potentia

for up to 7 years. While I support the effort to update the dam and keep it safe for the community I can't believe that t

alternatives to closing a vital boat launch site. We are boat owners and launch from Folsom Point many many times 

summer. [#9-2 Recreation remaining access points]. The last thing we need is to reduce boat launch sites. Remember - Rattlesnake is a very small launch site with which can only be seen as one way street access. If you've know how narrow those roads are. We drove it once and will never take a boat there again. Further more it takes about 45 minutes to even get there from Rescue. Granite Bay is nice and large depending on the water level - often launches are closed because the water level is too 

the summer can be huge and if it is the only site available I can image the traffic jams of boaters queuing up earlier a
 

No. Name Comment 

they can get their boat on the water. Want to me us there at 6AM on a Sunday? Brown's Ravine often under water most of the season. We all want to be blessed with high water levels but let's face means one less boat ramp. You are planning on closing the only reliable and convenient launch point on this side of 

reconsider. If you do this, we might as well sell the boat. But wait, we won't be able to sell it because no one will wancan't use. Of course we could sell the house "Great Lake Views of a lake you can't get to".. 

10 Alan Hersh 

Regarding Folsom Lake EIR. Dear Mr Oliver. 

[#10-1 Recreation lake access closure/alternatives.] I oppose any actions that would close the public areas of Folsom 

summer months (boating season) the Corp of Engineers has proposed closing Folsom Point (Dike 8 area) for 7 years perhaps Granite Bay for 2 years. The closures are proposed so these areas can be used to stage the construction of and the raising of the dam. The Corps need to find alternatives that do no impact the public use and enjoyment of th

Please feel free to contact me with any questions or comment 

11 

Frank Myers 

Senior VP 

McClellan Park 

/ Stanford 

Ranch 

Dear Mr. Oliver, I understand that the modifications to the Folsom Dam currently being considered will potentially result in closure of la

potentially for several years. [#11-1 Recreation lake access closure/alternatives.] I would be opposed to any construresulted in such a closure. There must be an alternative that does not have such a negative impact on the use of the 

12 Phil Maestre [#12-1 Socioeconomics businesses.] Closure of Dike 8 would be devastating to the economy of State Parks Dept, loc

and dealers. It would also hurt the City of Folsom by possible loss of residents. 

13 Mary Henriksen [#13-1 General.] Would like to continue to use Folsom Point recreation area for fishing, picnics, and family activities. 

area intact. 

14 Aaron Boring 

[#14-1 Socioeconomics businesses.] My worry is that any work on Folsom Lake that prohibits recreational use will aff

income and many many others involved in the marine industry. The Sacramento Valley sells more boats than anywhcapita). Once publicity and word of mouth gets out that Folsom Lake is 1) closed 2) inconvenient 3) not worth boating construction, it will be very difficult to sell boats. And when boats don’t sell, many people will have to find new employ

interesting to see the potential impact on sales, and also the potential impact on lost revenue for the state/counties/ci

lack of sales tax income.] I would also like to mention that many people could not be here tonight, due to a boat show 

LA. If it came down to a vote of proposed alternatives, I would choose either Alternative 1, or No Action Alternative if Please think about this note when decisions are being made. Thank You,. 

15 Mach Bishop [#15-1 General]. Keep Folsom Point Open during construction. 16 Chris Hodges 

CHRIS HODGES: I'm Chris Hodges and I'm from Brother's Boats. We're a boat dealer in Sacramento. Two comme

Involvement meeting notification]. One, procedurally, is we found out about the details of how Folsom Lake is going t

very late. I only became aware of it last week on Thursday, and I know the report was released on the 21st just befothe news really hasn't gotten out and I think there are a lot of people that want to comment that aren't aware yet, so t

[#16-2 Recreation lake access closure/alternatives]. The second thing is as it relates particularly to the closure of Fol

recreation and use, if it was a request, our request would be that that wouldn't occur. and it looks like there's an altern

processing facility perhaps to the east side of the Mormon Island or Dike 9, the east end of it, and thereby avoid havi

Point. [#16-3 Recreation remaining access points.] I don't know all the factors that would be involved and how reasonalternative is, but closing Folsom Point would have a large impact on the whole community on the southeast side of twould only be one access point left and that is a tight access now up at the marina. There would still be access on t
4 of 148 

No. Name Comment 

the lake, but it's only at the marina and that's a rather limited facility. So to repeat it, our request is the processing facthe east end of the Mormon Island area to keep Folsom Point open. [#16-4 Socioeconomics businesses.] It seems fr800,000 people or users would be affected by the closure of Folsom Point, and I would think that that would translate to $10 million of lost opportunity at least and that that could be mitigated by moving the facility, the processing plant. 

expensive to have the processing plant in the Mormon Island area on the east side but the other side of it is that it wo

impact to the public and I think a good idea. 

17 Bill Watson 

Comment Card: 1. We ask that mitigation of the effects on recreation, especially at Folsom Point, be made. Possibly siting the bocrushing operations away from the public areas. 2. We ask that the comment period be extended. 3. We would like a presentation from the Bureau and Corps to our board in the near future. 

BILL WATSON: [#17-1 Recreation lake access closure/alternatives.] We would like to ask that the Bureau and Corps 

consideration to mitigating the effects on recreation especially at Folsom Point. We suggest that they consider movin

and crushing operations to areas other than the public areas so that the Point can stay open. [#17-2 Socioeconomic

economic impact of closing Folsom Point on our community, the City of Folsom, was not considered in the document 

already been hit hard by the closing of the dam road. And to have this on top of it really compounds the problems in Public involvement document notification]. Second, we would like to request that the comment period be extended. Wnotified of the document or the comment period and so we were unaware until this last Friday that we had a responsiwe would like to have a presentation from the Bureau and the Corps to our board of directors, if that could be arrangefuture. 

18 Steve Hodges 

 STEVE HODGES: [#18-1 Public Involvement document notification] First, I guess the first comment was the lack of we just didn't -- it's hard to get notified which we've discussed. We're not in the loop, the public loop. [#18-2 Recreaclosure] And then I think the recreational aspects we were trying to keep Folsom Point open as much as possible bec

main access to the lake from that side, from the Folsom side which is really heavily used, one of the most-visited par

But talking to the engineers, I understand that closing Dike 8 is really part of the development -- the improvement of 

Dam and you really can't get around it because of all the material they need to put there, and they need to get access 

main dam when they're doing the excavation at Mormon Island. So I would really like to see alternative facilities. [#1mitigation] We have other locations that we could use for access point in the park or the lake, if you will, that are unde

we could get those expanded. Like there's one a few miles from Folsom Point, the Brown's Ravine, if that facility couand that would, I think, do a lot to help the recreational loss of Folsom Point. MR. NEPSTAD: Right. So basically make up for the loss of access by increasing the capacity of the other access pgetting some of these that are under development put in earlier maybe than they would have otherwise? STEVE HODGES: Or, yeah, I don't think there's any plans of improvement or that I know of, at least the Brown's Ra

that would be a real bonus, and we were talking to -- was it John or one of the engineers said that it's unclear that Fo

what times it actually needed to be closed so I'm not sure. MR. NEPSTAD: So clarity on when it would be out of operation then? 
 

No. Name Comment 

STEVE HODGES: Yeah, I guess that would be a question. There again, I wouldn't want to slow the project down by open during the construction. I think the progress of the project would be the main concern, getting the thing finishedmentioned that with all the material, there could be -- Folsom Point when they're through, could be really changed andifferent type of facility, expanded, so that's kind of exciting to see. I don't know if the Bureau has any plans for that o

MR. NEPSTAD: Okay, and that would be something good to have explained? STEVE HODGES: Right, because they're the ones that manage the public recreation. So that would be a suggestio

19 Jerry Toenyes 

JERRY TOENYES: I've got some comments here. [#19-1 PD – 3 Projects) The first comment I have is it's not abund

you look at the EIS document that there's kind of three different segments. There's the Dam raise which is the Corps 

project; there is the auxiliary spillway, which is the Joint Federal Project; and then there's the Mormon Island which is 

dams project. And I think it would be good right up front to make that so that it's real clear when you look at the docum

kind of three separate parts there. And you could include I'm sure other phases to that besides that, that's L.L. Ande

the environmental work, those type things and whether those are -- I think those are all Corps projects too. MR. NEPSTAD: And it would be to get it up-front organized a little better so it's easier to follow through? JERRY TOENYES: Yeah. And then most of my comments aren't really in the EIS itself but it's stuff that certainly tha

on the water and power. [#19-2 Cost allocation.] The first one is the cost allocation. You know, I think it should be cfor example, the Dam raise, the Dam raise is 100 percent flood control which is a Corps project. Now, maybe you go

responsibilities there with SAFCA, but I think it should be clear as to what that is, you know? MR. NEPSTAD: Right. How the cost are allocated for the various phases? JERRY TOENYES: That's right. For the spillway, now that's going to be one that's going to be split between flood cof dams. And then we've got the Mormon Island that's going to be safety of dams. But on the split between flood codams, how that's going to occur in the process. Quite frankly, we just rolled out in the 2002 report a proposal, you kno

number. It was kind of like set in concrete. We didn't have any input into it and then later on it was said that, well, no

wasn't 48 percent/52 percent, we made an error. It should have been 42 percent/58 percent. We don't want to have 

want to be able to have the public input, know it and understand it, okay, we got it and we support it. [#19-3 AlternativI think kind of in conjunction with that too should be the cost of the alternatives. In the listing, there's nothing in the Eunderstand there's another document maybe that has some of that but, I mean, this was the first time I saw this, the $think it would be good to have a listing of what the costs are, and I'm assuming that the fuse plug would be cheaper tFederal Project, but I mean, and you can't see that from there and that's very helpful, quite frankly, for cost allocation

[#19-4 PD temperature control device]. One other item to comment on is the temperature control device. I t

opportunity here. I think, you know, it isn't, again, clear in the EIS what's going to be done on the temperature contro

there's a real opportunity to do something similar to what was done at Shasta where you're able to go down below whlevel is too and so that you can really control what the temperature is. And I think the environmental community would supportive of that too because they would want to know what the temperature is and be able to manipulate that. Rig

rudimentary. You pull off a shield or whatever that is, you know, it's just got three segments. It's pretty rudimentary, a
6 of 148 

No. Name Comment 

maybe just a little more thought and maybe not too much more cost, you can put a pretty good temperature control d

[#19-5 PD Folsom reoperation.] The next comment would be there are different projects going on, different p

is the reoperation of the Folsom Dam which is separate from this but certainly linked because what you come up with preferred alternative is going to have a tie-in on the reoperation there so something should be matched a little bit morreoperation. And what I really encourage is any EIS/EIR, you have a statement in there that the flood control reserva

400,000/600,000-acre feet. But I think there's a opportunity to -- you also talk about doing prereleases. Well, what I m

don't get set on 400,000/600,000. I think as we get smarter as we go through this and talk about for case-based ope

Corps is looking at. Maybe, I think, it would be easier – it should be better, I think the environmental community and wusers would like to see a fuller reservoir but make prereleases two or three days ahead of when the storm's coming iwhatever level you think is going to be necessary for the storm. And if you don't have a storm, which is nine times ougoing to have a storm coming, so it won't affect it. But then you've got a higher level, especially in dry years, to carry 

your water quality issues in the American River and the Delta and all that, and plus you've still got water obviously for interests and power, M&I interests, and Fish and Wildlife interest. So I just encourage you to stay flexible in that resewhether you're locking that in because once you lock something and here's the rule. I think we need to be wiser as won that one because water's going to get tighter and tighter, so making prereleases and then not having the reservoir 

anyone's interest. And we certainly have an example of that just in 2004, so pretty recently that occurred. 

[#19-6 PD security features and cost allocation.] And then the last comment I have is on security, security fe

more of a Reclamation feature, I think, but you know it's mentioned but it isn't mentioned what the project's going to b

of that, again, is going to be the responsibility of water and power to pay. And, you know, probably there's some natioyou don't want to go in and do much detail, but you've got to give us enough information so we know what's going on 

our cost responsibility is. If you're stringing out a big powerline or something like that, you know, we need to know th

the capital costs and what the O&M cost responsibility is going to be on that.] So I will be submitting these type of co

too before the 22nd, but as long as I'm sitting here today, I want to give you the oral comments too. 

20 Russ Harrington [#20-1 Cost Allocation.] 1. Reclamation and the Corps of Engineers need to engage in a public review process P

a Flood Control/Safety of Dams cost allocation. 2. The Dam Raise component should be exclusively allocated to Flood Control. 

21 Madeleine Moseley 

[#21-1 PD Auburn Dam.] Anyhow, the reason why I came is that I don't think we should raise our dam. The main thin

build the Auburn Dam. Our Folsom Lake is just a puddle. And they said that they're going to close Dike 8. I don't waand I know that is for the -- I think they're going to put a tunnel if there's a big rain so that they can divert the water. T

about the main dam to put in more openings to release the water, and instead they're going to not do that. We've go

in that dam to open up, so we don't need -- but this here is going to be like a tunnel and diverting from the Dam Road But anyhow, I don't want them to do that, and the main thing to do is to build the Auburn Dam and that will give us wa

else because our little dam out here, they said it would take about four or five years to fill it up.] The first year, we ha

overflowed. I've been a resident in Folsom in the area of Folsom since 1939. [#21-2 Visual dam raise.] We want to b

Folsom Lake and to see it because we can't see it if they raise it. We had an observation point up there and we used and of course, you know, like the Bureau, they told us that that was just temporary and the City of Folsom would not 

it, so now that's the reason why we've got to have a new bridge. [#21-3 Cultural] Mormon Island Cemetery. And ano

make is what are they going to do with the Mormon Island Cemetery? Nobody knows where it's at and it's not being 

they just hope it will disappear, and I will not let it disappear. There are bodies still there. The thing is that there's pemove bodies unless you get permission from their family and we don't know where their family is. The reason why th
 

No. Name Comment 

bodies, were moved from there before, they flooded the lake and they moved it over to Mormon Island off of Green V

those people, they had relatives to sign them out but the other ones, they're still there which is a shame because they going to put their equipment there. 

22 Robert Giacometh 

I wanted to offer my input into objecting to Folsom Point being closed. [#22-1 Recreation lake access closure/alternaFolsom will be denied recreational access, it would have a significant impact on the community denying us access to Socioeconomics businesses]. It would have a financial impact too. I'm an avid bass fisherman and I have a fishing gwill be impacted by closing access. We'll have to go significantly out of our way to access the lake for my business, aimpact on possible fishing tournaments coming to Folsom Lake because they'll have less areas to launch in. 

A fishing tournament -- a good fishing tournament can bring 100 anglers from outside of the area who may be here foThey'll stay in rooms, they'll buy meals at restaurants, and not having that in the communities is going to have a signimpact on the community. If you close one of the areas that gives access to the lake, it may impact -- make the other 

that these organizations won't come out to Folsom Lake at all so it will affect the outlying areas also. [#22-3 Socioecovalue.] One of the other major issues is when I purchased my home, one of the attractive things for me was being cloLake, and that's what was listed in the listing, because pursuit of the outdoors. So I feel by closing Folsom Point, it's 

have a negative effect on my property value because I'll no longer be able to access the lake. So I would really encou

that be to look at finding an alternate site to do whatever staging they have to do to keep the Folsom Point open. [#22mitigation.] If they are going to submit mitigation, offer mitigation of some sort, it needs to be in the form of some sort 

the citizens. Citizens are losing recreation; they need to be mitigated with recreation. I don't have any specific suggecan think about, but may come up with them later. 

23 Doug Pepper 

I'm here to voice objections to the alternatives that proposed closing Folsom Point for up to seven or eight years for w

staging of equipment. I'm not here because I care whether they build a gate, dam, spillway, or an auxiliary spillway. 

does not matter. I'm here because of the impacts it will have on recreation for the lake, the impacts it will have on tra

environment. [#23-1 Transportation impact analysis.] My understanding is this is supposed to be to review the Enviro

Report, and I don't believe most of the Environmental Impact Report properly addresses the impact. Most of it is blowtechnical term for ignored, including traffic and frustrations. I believe the issues with traffic will be worsened because before the new dam bridge will be completed, increasing more traffic through town and to other areas of the lake. So 

the way they're planning it. [#23-2 Public Involvement meeting notification.] I'm also objecting to the way they commu

meeting. Most people here I believe are here only by word of mouth. The Bureau did a really poor job in communica

they didn't even do a job of communicating it, there was no public information in newspapers or on TV until today. Totime we saw it in the paper and the meeting was tonight. I believe the Bureau needs to have another session, not prosession where people can give comments in a public room and hundreds of people can cheer on the person speakinBureau of Reclamation, w-r-e-c-k, wreck-lamation, which is exactly what they're trying to do to Folsom, wreck it with cRoad, wreck it with closing the Folsom Point and other Folsom Lake access points. I think that will be my comments 

that? 

24 Alfred P. Bulf 

[#24-1 Geology and soils dam stability.] I came tonight because I believe by raising the present dam, you weaken it. engineers I work with have said this. My brother has said this and he's a soil engineer, and [#24-2 Auburn Dam.] I bebuild the Auburn Dam because I moved to the Auburn area in 1949 from San Francisco and we saw, over a number the bridge at the bottom that leads from Placer County to El Dorado County get carried away twice because of flood wfather always told us that water was the most important thing. And I know aboard a ship, where I was in a nuclear sheither store water or you can make it. And you have to use energy to make it. So going along with building Auburn D
8 of 148 

No. Name Comment 

reforestation is very important for the surrounding watershed. I spent a lot of time in Japan because our ship needed down from Yokohama in Tokyo Bay. We used to go up to Hakone National Forest. This was the forest that surround

know, the Japanese holy mountain, Shinto religion. I saw a lot of Japanese dams up there and I talked to some of Japeople and they told me that maintaining a good forest in back of the dam was just as important as building a good d

storing water, and we have been very neglectful doing that. I know the Chinese had trouble with the Yangtze for thouand spent $24 billion and that took care of the problem. And I know the Brazilians built the Parana River -- on the Pathe Itaipu, which is one of the largest dams in the world shared by Paraguay and Brazil. And then I know the Chinesadditional dams in the upper Mekong and Brahmaputra, the rivers that drain from the Himalayas and India too becau

expanding populations. I, myself, like to take a shower at least once a day and I know how water is precious becausPalestinian friends that get their water turned off and on by the Israelis who control the utilities over in the Gaza Strip west bank, people don't realize that, so water is very precious. Here in the United States everybody uses an average per person. If you were in Africa, you'd be lucky to use 10 gallons. So water is very precious and it's going to be evein the future with the impressions of -- because the impression of larger populations in California because the populaCalifornia is 35 million. In 20 years, it's supposed to go to 50 million and we need to plan ahead, and I hope Mr. Arnorealizes that. Because where my father's from, he was an Austrian, and they do that, they maintain their forest and thdams for water. Thank you for your time. 

25 Mechelle Gooch 

[#25-1 Recreation lake access closure/alternatives.] Obviously, I have to let the professionals decide what's best as f

control and financial end of it; however, as a Folsom person who moved here because of the lake, I don't want Folso

closed off to recreational activities. I own a boat, I have kids. Six years is a long time in a lifetime of a child. My younsix to seven years optimistically he's going to start going to college and won't even be here. We're losing the time we the boat with our son. So they need to find another alternative to closing down Dike 8. 

26 Ian Cornell 

I'm here representing actually multiple viewpoints. And first of all, I've got to say that I support the flood control meas

being proposed. I'm president of the Sacramento Sports, Boat, and RV Show. Through that, I'm representing intereshundreds of outdoor product dealers and as a de facto representative of millions of outdoor enthusiasts who have vis

Sports, Boat, and RV Show I should say -- during its 54-year history. [#26-1 Socioeconomics businesses.] Folsom Limportant asset for outdoor recreational enthusiasts. Closing access to its shorelines and boat ramps would be very 

recreational enthusiasts and also extremely damaging to the boat, recreational vehicle, and outdoor products retailer

also a boater and I buy the annual pass to use Folsom Lake and we use Folsom Lake dozens of times each year. It'recreational entertainment and pride, and as a side note, as I'm sure there are representatives of Chamber of Comm

saying, it's true that when we go to the lake, we stop at the stores, the restaurants to stock up the ice chests, to fill the 

way into the lake. And after a day at the lake, we're starving. We hit the gas station to fill up, we hit the restaurants t

the local economy is greatly impacted by us as users and boaters as a whole. [#26-2 Recreation remaining access 

representation is I'm a multi-sport athlete. I use the lake and its shoreline for training and biking, running, and swimm

participate in the triathlons and duathlons that are held at the lake each year. The lake access points are already imp

very busy at peak times. There's lots of room on the water but limited room on the launch ramps. If one launch area 

reduced in its capacity, the others cannot carry the increased load. Other waterways in the region, such as the Amer

Sacramento River, also cannot handle the increase. [#26-3 PD alternative to lake access closure]. As a representativbusinesses impacted by access to the lake, outdoor recreational enthusiasts, and as someone who enjoys the lake a

athlete, I encourage the continued access to the lake and its shoreline before, during, and after the construction. Tha

27 Carol James [#27-1 Recreation mitigation.] My comment is to -- I would suggest increasing the parking facilities at the remaining e
 

No. Name Comment 

areas to accommodate more boats and trailers. I feel that people will be able to accept longer lines for launching but whether or not there will be enough space for them to leave their vehicles. I think this would be a permanent and posimpact because it would improve the existing facilities that are worked on and it would allow more recreation use than considered at this time. 

28 Elinor Brady 

[#28-1 Inundation affected property.] I live in the cove off of Lake Hills Drive and the cove is just where the south fork and I face right directly on the water, so I am interested in seeing how far the water will come up when you decide tha

raise the dam by seven feet or more. As I understand, it is now slated to be three and a half feet and I don't think that property, but if it should go higher, it will impact the property I do believe. So I'm interested in knowing very definitely 

happen there. [#28-2 Population and Housing property acquisition]. I'm concerned about eminent domain and recomthe property that I might lose. That's my main concern at the present time. I do have some concern about people beinthe dam is not reinforced properly, it would be a disaster, huge disaster, because so many homes are being built in th

just as a private individual, of course we would all be impacted by that. So I want the Corps of Engineers to do a very 

them to get the money to do it. 

29 Renee Howle 

[#29-1 Auburn Dam.] First of all, I don't see the Auburn Dam being mentioned anywhere as an alternative to any of thproject is proposing to do, and I think it would solve most of the problems. [#29-2 Purpose and Need.] The Folsom Da

the main gates to be repaired or replaced, that's the main problem. All of this is not adding any new hydroelectric powneeded desperately. It should be incorporated somehow into something, either this or the Auburn Dam or whatever. 

problem could be addressed by fixing the old rusted-out crappy gates that they can't even control the flood level. One 

of a reservoir is to store water. Folsom Lake could store more water if it were dredged aggressively, and it wouldn't rwouldn't do anything to the environment. The water level could stay the same, it would hold more water. The alterna

level of Folsom Lake as opposed to flooding the American River Canyons due to the Auburn Dam are detrimental, I b

there's a dwindling foothill habitat and the upper-level habitat has already been ruined because of logging and minin

be repaired. In creating new reservoirs up in the American River Canyon, it could be done in association with ecosywhich would increase the riparian habitats and could restore the forest habitats. Right now, I mean, the Foresthill Div

with Manzanita. They never replanted, okay? So a holistic approach to the Auburn Dam could address environmentpretty much everyone's satisfaction. Lastly, the increased hydroelectric power that could be added through the Auburto the Folsom Dam project would be a CO2-free form of energy which, considering global warming, is something we 

incorporate in every long-term infrastructure project that we are doing as a people regardless of the cost. 

30 Mike Coffman 

My concern is the Mormon Island auxiliary dam which is an earthen dam; it's not concrete, it's an earth dam. To me, 

bomb. Not only is it on an old riverbed on nonsolid bedrock on nonsolid ground, it's also right next to or on top of an 

Additionally, Mormon Island Dam has a known water seepage issue. Now at this point the water is clear and not clou

change over time. [#30-1 Mormon Island Dam stability]. My real concern is that the increased pressure placed upon 

auxiliary dam by a raise of the lake level will lead to a catastrophic failure and collapse of the Mormon Island Dam anhouses are downstream -- originally when the dam was built in 1948 to 1956, the only thing downstream of Mormon cattle pastures. Now there are hundreds of homes, thousands of residents in the path of that potential 30-foot wall of concern is that why are we continuing this project knowing we have this ticking bomb? I understand there's going to study done on the bedrock and foundation of Mormon Island Dam. I would like a copy of that result sent to me or mame. That's what I have. 

31 Patricia Gibbs [#31-1 Land Use – Property Line.] Please identify any changes to the current federal property line that surrounds Fol

changes relate to the various proposed alternatives regarding raising the dam level. Please provide this information g
10 of 148 

No. Name Comment 

showing contour lines at lake level as well as the surrounding properties around the lake. [#31-2 Recreation trails]. Aany changes to trail use around Folsom Lake. 

32 Robert Holderness 

Again, my name is Robert G. Holderness. I'm the president of the Folsom Tourism Bureau. I'm a former Mayor of tha former Vice Mayor, a former member of the Folsom City Council. I'm also an attorney in private law practice. Toni

on behalf of the Tourism Bureau. I have some extensive comments to make regarding the proposal to close Folsom with, I want to put my comments in a historic context, if you will. To begin with, this is the third time in less than 15 years that Folsom community, its businesses, have faced the occainjury at the hands of the Federal Bureau of Reclamation. In July 1995, by virtue of negligent maintenance activity at 

Number 4 at Folsom Dam broke and they had to close the Dam Road for several years to make repairs that should h

the ordinary course of business. In March of 2003, the Bureau of Reclamation closed Folsom Dam Road and thereby irreparably injured businesses aresidents of our community, most particularly in the Historic District, and did so on the pretense that they were protec

terrorism. And now they are proposing to close Folsom Point for a period of seven years by virtue of the necessity of 

dam raise program to add additional safety to downstream dwellers of Folsom Dam. We're not here to argue the mer

the overriding project. I am here to comment upon the impact of that project based on the proposals that are before 

advised by Jeff McCracken that the closure of Folsom Point is the worst-case scenario, implying that it would only ha

case scenario; however, we are further advised that all five alternatives that are being considered in the scope of the 

closing Folsom Point for an extended period of time. [#32-1 Study authority.] We are further advised by a gentleman Piccola -- who is identified as the chief of projects within the Corps of Engineers -- that the decision of whether or not Point will be based on engineering needs. That is an incorrect statement of the obligations of the Federal Governme

Corps of Engineers, and the Bureau of Reclamation in particular. Folsom Dam and Folsom Lake were created by act 1944, signed into law by United States President, the late Franklin D. Roosevelt. Under that Enabling Statute, the Fe

assumed a specific obligation to maintain access to Folsom Lake for the benefit of the citizens of the City of Folsom aaround Folsom Lake. There was a specific stipulation that the Congress specifically signed into law when President 

the statute. Closing Folsom Point for seven years violates -- violates -- the stipulations under which Folsom Dam was 

Folsom Lake was created. The Bureau of Reclamation, the Corps of Engineers do not have the power or the authori

Enabling Statute. To attempt to do so as they are currently planning to do is arbitrary, it's capricious, it's clearly illega

to law and it will require the necessity of litigation against them for which they have no legal defense. [#32-2 PD alterareas]. The solution to the problem is to work with the community in Folsom, to find a way to keep access to Folsom the residents of Folsom, to the tourist business and industry of Folsom, during the entirety of the construction project

there will be challenges in doing that, but those challenges do not mean it's impossible. This is not to be decided by ethat's only one factor and, frankly, it's probably the least significant factor. The more significant factors are political neneeds, fiscal needs, environmental needs, construction needs; all of those take priority over engineering needs. Engi

case, is simply a functionary activity. Once the policies are determined, then the engineers implement the policy. The 

Bureau of Reclamation and the Corps has to adopt is that Folsom Point will be open to access for the entirety of the s

project. That's the policy. The engineering staff is obligated by law, specifically the 1944 Enabling Statute, to implemthat is precisely what the Bureau and the Corps needs to explain to their employees and those persons who have be

task of implementing this project. To do otherwise will be to violate the law and to invite litigation. I make these comm

purpose of achieving their goals. The Folsom Tourism Bureau is a body created under California law, it is funded by 

Business Improvement District, in the City of Folsom. We raise about $300,000 a year of money from hotels to fund 
 

No. Name Comment 

in the past, those funds have been used to advance the cause of tourism within our community for the benefit of our benefit of our businesses, and frankly, for the benefit of those persons who seek to enjoy the tourist opportunities of o[#32-3 Socioeconomics.] In the face of this closure, we will be obligated to try to find ways to spend that money not otourism but trying to help businesses that are on the verge of failure as a result of implementing this policy should it 

We say that not from scare tactics or imaginings but from experience. When the Dam Road was closed in March of 2several businesses close within a year by reason of a failure of customers to be able to get to their place of businessbusinesses that survived suffered great consequences, a great drop in revenues. We've seen the statistics; we know We know that this is what is going to happen if indeed Folsom Point is closed for seven years, and we intend to vindand seek compensation for those damages on behalf of the Tourism Bureau itself as well as working with other priva

associations who will advance the cause of their members as well. The solution is one of collaboration. The Bureau 

should have already collaborated with the City of Folsom, the Tourism Bureau, the Chambers of Commerce and so f

publication of the draft EIS. They chose not to do that. That was an imprudent decision. They need to face the cons

decision by taking remedial action now before litigation eventuates, litigation that in my judgment they cannot prevail Public Involvement meeting format.] The last thing I'd like to comment upon is the truncated methodology that's being 

frustrate our right to exercise our right of freedom of assembly, our right of seeking redress of grievances and our righspeech. All three of those rights are rights that are guaranteed us as American citizens under the Constitution of the which was adopted in 1787. By virtue of requiring us to either, A, submit written comment, or B, subject ourselves to 

embarrassing setting of having to explain our position to a court reporter, who knows nothing of the subject matter, wtake down verbatim the statements made by the persons who are making statements, does not in any way satisfy the 

Bureau of Reclamation or the Corps of Engineers under the American Constitution.] They have to meet the precepts 

just like everybody else does. There's no exception in the Constitution for them. And for them to use this truncated m

disrespectful to the citizens of Folsom, it's disrespectful to the businesses of Folsom, it's disrespectful to all of the ins

of Folsom, including the City Government, the Tourism Bureau, the Chamber of Commerce, et cetera, and it's aston

all, the Federal Government is our servant. They work for us. The Bureau works for us, the Corps of Engineers work

American citizens are their employer. We pay the taxes that end up in their pocket as a salary and a paycheck. Thethat they know that, that they know that they're working for all of us rather than showing us how capable they are of igimportant interests of our community, of our tourist industry, and of our city government. It's not too late to remedy the situation. They can do it, we know they can do it because we had the same problems w

closure and it was very difficult to get the Bureau and the Corps to come around, but they did come around and now build a new bridge below the dam which is a product of a high-level, a historic level of cooperation between the City oBureau of Reclamation, and the Corps of Engineers, and so we know they can do it. They haven't done it yet on this they will understand that these comments are serious, they're based in law. They're not meant to be adversarial; thetheir attention. We will be adversarial if we must, it's not our preference. Thank you. 

33 Don Reid 

[#33-1 Recreation and Socioeconomics businesses]. I believe the EIR does not reflect the impact on the recreation aand the corresponding economic impact on the City of Folsom. Folsom Point has 800,000-plus visitors a year. [#33-2 mitigation]. It appears that Folsom Point will be shut down or at a minimum severely impacted. This impact should be relocating the staging and processing areas or creating an alternative recreation area during construction that minimiimpact and the corresponding economic impact on the City of Folsom and El Dorado County. If there are conflicts beconstruction haul roads and the access to Folsom Point recreation areas or any alternative areas, and the access for temporary bridges should be built over the public access roads for safety reasons. 
12 of 148 

No. Name Comment 

34 MK Veloz 

I'm M.K. Veloz of the Northern California Marina Association. [#34-1 Recreation lake access closure]. One of our con

from the boating community is closing off access to the lake and that would have, you know, a terrible impact on the 

and also of our businesses. [#34-2 Recreation and Socioeconomics Parks and Rec Dept.] But another related conce

Parks and Recreation obviously operates a facility here. If those are closed down for a substantial amount of time, threvenue. And what's happening now in the state is Parks and Recreation through the legislative process is ripping ofthe Harbors and Watercraft Fund, revolving fund. And so that money is going out of the Harbors and Watercraft Fund 

facilities like new marina developments or refurbishing of marinas, programs and things like that. If Parks loses more 

after more of the funds, there's a cascading effect that impacts not only this area but facilities all over the state, so I j

that point down. [#34-3 Public Involvement.] One more thing: An idea that I've heard expressed here is that you folkwith some of the stakeholders and the interest groups and come up with solutions, because I think some of the peopoperate businesses up here and use the lake have some ideas about how to lessen some of the impact so that it wou

them and for everyone. So I would encourage that you do that. 

35 Victor Becerril 

[#35-1 Recreation lake access closure.] Basically, I'm in favor of all the changes that are being made, the spillway, thtop of that. But the one thing I'm really concerned with is Folsom Point, the closing of the park there to use in place o

purposes that is being talked about. That's basically my comment. 

36 Kent Zenobia 

I would like to comment as a resident that could be potentially significantly impacted by the proposed alternatives preposter boards here tonight. I also have a background in civil and environmental engineering and am a registered eng

and in nine other states. I'm currently working on the levy reconstruction projects with the Department of Water Reso

Army Corps of Engineers. So I'm familiar with how these activities would occur and the details of how they would be Public Involvement clarity of presentation materials]. First, I'd like to point out that on this "Proposed Alternatives" pos

here that Alternative 3 does not clearly indicate that it would include the overlay to Mormon Island Dam which would a major impact on the Folsom Point recreation area and the boat launch. One of the gentlemen over here, John Wilso

Reclamation, indicated that the poster summary appeared to contain a shortfall in the bullets that were listed under th

alternatives. Although it has shown up later on the lower right-hand corner of elements common to all alternatives, it

the public to recognize these alternatives include potentially major impacts to Folsom Point recreation area, boat launimmediate neighborhood, and residences. 

Point Number 2: [#36-2 Recreation access closure/alternatives.] I would like to see a water haul alternative using ba

fill from the proposed spillway excavation location over to the Mormon Island Dam seismic upgrade location. This fillalternative would also require short truck hauls to carry the rock from the excavation site to the barge and then from tlocation on Mormon Island Dam. In addition, conveyors could be implemented to deliver the fill material to the specifiMormon Island Dam where it would then be worked in with heavy track equipment like bulldozers and compactors. I 

potentially be very cost-effective and may avoid a lot of the expense of the proposed coffer dams, haul roads, long tru

construction, truck traffic, labor and environmental impacts to the Folsom Point recreational area, and other impacts t

and church. It appears that the residences, the church, new commercial facilities, and new homes in the immediate a

Street and Briggs Ranch will be significantly impacted by the red construction zone shown on the maps that depict thhaul routes over to Mormon Island Dam. These impacts should also be considered when judged against a water hau

from the excavation site to Mormon Island Dam. For example, as a civil engineer on the DWR and Army Corps levy pevaluated the barging of major tonnages of fill materials to repair the levees for the State of California. We found bar

significantly cheaper than truck hauls to repair these levies. In addition, Point Number 3 is that these alternatives do

here what appears to be major impacts to the Folsom Point recreation area, the park, and the boat launch. I think the
 

No. Name Comment 

thousand homes that are in this immediate vicinity. The residents, including students and the public, use Folsom Poiliterally on the other side of Natoma Street. In addition, there are a lot of families that go over to the park, walk over th

with their pets and their children. And also, there are many families that simply drive across Natoma Street from Brig

launch their boats at the Folsom Point boat launch. It is a significant feature for the residents in the neighborhood, anbe considered highly when the final decisions are made with regard to the most appropriate alternative. The impacts Folsom Point for extended periods of time, which I understand could be from one to seven years, would be a major nthe residents in our community.] I appreciate you considering these comments and hope they can be evaluated in th

Thank you. 

37 Kris Gardner 

[#37-1 Recreation remaining access points]. I'm wishing to go on record to have the Folsom Point Dike 8 remain opeconstruction project; that the estimated seven-year time would be a huge impact to the recreational aspects of the bo

And the additional impact to Brown's Ravine and others around the lake would be excessive, so Dike 8 just must stay amount of boaters that have come to use the lake from around the region. The growth of Folsom has been so huge t

enormous amount of use of the boat ramps. And even now, Dike 8 on a summer day, the lines waiting to launch therRavine are enormous. So you wouldn't even be able to get out on the lake, it would take you hours to do it if that one you can find a different way of staging, that would be really good. 

38 Taylor Zenobia 

[#38-1 Recreation lake access closure.] Hello. My name is Taylor Zenobia, and I'm a nine-year-old fourth-grade stud

Hills School and resident in Briggs Ranch. I'm also a Student Council officer at Folsom Hills School in Briggs Ranch, 

our school would like to be able to keep going to Folsom Point. I like to go to Folsom Point often with our dog and waOur school also has field trips to the lake and I hope that this activity will allow us to keep going there throughout the Plus, there are a lot of wildlife and flowers that you can see in the summertime and I think that that makes the lake a that we should be able to go to. 

39 Sarah Griffith 

[#39-1 Recreation trails.] As a recreational trail user of the trails around the lake, one of my main concerns about the 

trails, when the project is finished, be left in a way that they are still usable in the way that they can be used now by h

and by bicycle riders. [#39-2 Recreation Trails Inundation]. Another concern I have is that if there was a1-in-200-year and that the water level came up and possibly temporarily touched the trails, that the trails would be able to be restorrecreational condition. And I'm also concerned that the project not negatively impact the public's use of this area also for hiking, bicycle riding, and anything that people are doing with this. [#39-3 Geology and Soils asbestos.] The other 

concerned about is that I don't know the specifics of the geology of the area where they are going to be digging the sa lot of serpentine rock in some areas of the foothills such as El Dorado County, and I would be concerned about pot

serpentine rock and creating extra asbestos exposure for both the people working on the site and for the people living 

driving through the area. And I would hope that the Bureau of Reclamation and the Corps would have some sort of s

that so the public would not be exposed to extra asbestos because it's dangerous. [#39-4 PD warning for flow releasestudied the entire document yet, but I would be hoping that if the spillway, the proposed spillway that they want to do release extra water flow, that there would be some sort of public warning system for the people downstream so they accidentally get caught in an extra water flow and we wouldn't be having people getting flooded, accidentally drowninlike a siren or something would be a good idea to consider. 

40 Keoni Almeida 

[#40 Inundation map request.] On behalf of my neighbors, I would like to request that the detailed maps showing the 

be posted to your web as not all could attend. Several properties in my neighborhood will be impacted by high water 

of a storm. Real estate ownership maps sheets 1-12. 

41 Cindi Dulgar “A family that plays together, stays together”. Families in the Folsom, El Dorado Hills Area value the opportunity to sp
14 of 148 

No. Name Comment 

on the water as a family, to sail, swim, picnic, ski, fish etc. [#41-1 Recreation and alternative staging areas.] This proj

recreation users for 5-8 years; that is an entire phase in a family’s life. If access is closed the Marina and Granite Bay accommodate summer users. The ramps will be closed. It is our request to look into other options for storage and rocnot negatively affect recreation on Folsom Lake by limiting access to the recreating community. 

42 Paul Moynier 

In the interest of time, I have prepared a statement. Good evening and thank you for hosing the Public Hearing tonight. I’m Paul Moynier, President of Sacramento Valley Association. The organization I represent has 30 members who have boat dealerships within the greater Sacramento 

and generate in excess of $100 million dollars in annual sales. Tonight I hope to provide information that will help the Bureau of Reclamation better understand the impacts this proj

Boat Dealers, Merchants, City of Folsom Parks and Recreation, and the local economy in the Sacramento region. As an organization representing the recreational industry, we support properly managed valuable water resources, th

upgrade and the bridge crossing at Folsom Lake. It is not our desire to stop this project...but instead help minimize oimpacts to the business community. As stated in the EIR with interpretation.. this project WILL cause hardship on the The City of Folsom, El Dorado Hills, and the South Placer Communities use Folsom Lake as the barometer for succe

community is directly tied to lake levels, public access, and water availability at this facility. After reviewing the EIR fo

suggests the closure and or partial closure of several major access points on Folsom Lake which include Folsom Poi

and Granite Bay. [#42-1 Socioeconomics businesses.] Closure or restriction of any access points to the lake will have revenue impacts on the local Boat Dealers and merchants, the City of Folsom Parks and Recreation who solely depefor their revenue. [#42-2 Public Involvement and PD alternative staging areas.] We ask that you allow us to provide input and include upossible through focus groups to help mitigate the lost revenue exposure described in the current plan. We submit to 

alternate options and ways to complete this project that will minimize impacts to lake access and maintain a healthy benvironment for the merchants. 

[#42-3 Recreation mitigation.] The following items are a few suggestions that should be considered: 

 Identify alternate staging areas to eliminate park access point closure  Minimize or restrict construction during peak summer season time  Construct additional lake launching access points and possibly retain after construction is complete] 

These are just a few examples of alternate ways to manage this project and help minimize financial loss to the busine

On behalf of the Sacramento Valley Marine Association, we look forward to providing input and working together to mbusiness and community friendly. Thank you for your time and consideration this evening. 

43 Gene Moynier 

[#43-1 PD alternative staging areas.] Please consider alternate construction locations for encompassing equipment a

lessen the need for closure of park areas, the economic impact from closure, and disruption will be significant based 

proposal. [#43-2 Cumulative and recreation mitigation]. The long term cumulative negative impact is directly proportio
 

No. Name Comment 

of closure and disruption. Consider: establish alternate storage, install new ramps or expand existing, schedule const

prime season, develop forum for input of new ideas prior to final draft. 

44 Michelle Lipowski [#44-1 Lake Access Closure] I have concerns regarding the closure of Folsom Point during work on the dam. Folsom 

experienced long term closure of the park facilities (powerhouse) for 2 years. There must be some way to keep Folsoduring this construction and keep the revenue [#44-2 Socioeconomics businesses.] flowing from the use of that site. 

45 James Clayburn 

[#45-1 Recreation remaining access points.] I am fully on board with the project and why we are doing it, however I hconcern about the closure of Folsom Point Recreation Area without providing an alternate option other than overflow Brown’s Ravine for boat launching. The lake launches are already overly crowded in the summer months and there salternate option to closing Folsom Point launch. You need to either consider not closing it or provide an alternate launinterim. I live and play in Folsom, if I cant play here anymore it makes me think its time to move to a more accessible 

46 Jon Soderman [#46-1 PD alternative staging areas.] I am in favor of improvements. I would favor looking at any other alternate sites 

Point, as the closure of the Dam Road has already significantly and financially put a burden on the town of Folsom an

47 Charles A. Hooper [#47-1 Recreation lake access closure]. Need more access, not less. Please do the project(s). But wed very much lik

lake. More; not less. [#47-2 Dam Road.] And we’d like access across on the Dam Road until the new bridge is built. Tmuch. 

48 Renee Howle 

[#48-1 Dam Road bridge]. While this project is well merited, and would yield numerous benefits, it will take resources immanent needs. The proposed bridge would be better located crossing the lake at Horseshoe Bar. It would remove of attack further from the dam. It would streamline auto and truck traffic as well. [#48-2 Auburn Dam.] Be that as it masystem of the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers need more immediate attention. The Auburn Dam should be built a

will add to the delays for that. The Auburn Dam would provide much needed CO2 free electrical energy – something address the most serious environmental problem, global warming. I would be glad to participate in the environmental 

to reservoir expanding or formation as in the case of the Auburn Dam. It could be done wisely, scientifically, and with the riparian habitats and surrounding forests. I sit on the Board of Golden Sierra a 501(c)3 organization dedicated to enhancements and ecosystem rebalancing. Thank You. P.S. Please provide access to the DEIS/EIR for the propose

49 Dennis Swenson [#49-1 Population and Housing affected property.] I am a home owner in the Park Vista neighborhood (next to the Gr

entrance of the park) and would like to know how the project will affect my property. 

50 Ken Christensen 

[#50-1 PD Use of excess material at Browns Ravine]. I manage Folsom Lake Marina at Browns Ravine. I just wanted you have extra material and are looking for a place to store it, we could sure use it. We really need an earth breakwaso we would be able to increase the number of slips and to better protect all the boats. We currently have one breakwof the entrance, but need to have them on both sides. Our current breakwater goes under at elevation 450ft and need

51 Russ Knapp [#51-1 In Support of Project.] We prefer Plan 3 and strongly oppose alternate plans 4 and 5. 52 Duane Cooney [#52-1 PD alternative staging areas.] Find an alternative to closing Dike 8/Folsom Point for 7 years. Do not close Dike 53 Cindy Speer 

[#53-1 Public Involvement meeting notification.] Today on the news was the first I heard of this meeting. Why were thFolsom not notified of this meeting before today? [#53-2 PD alternative staging areas.] Where are the alternative site

Folsom (and use Folsom Point every weekend during the summer). Because of the access to the lake is why we mov

54 Melissa Green 

[#54-1 Socioeconomics property values]. Project is needed but must be done without denying public access to currenFolsom Lake, including Folsom Point and Beal’s. Long term (more than one year) denial of access depresses home vunacceptable. 

55 Russ and Lisa Hoy [#55-1 PD Closure Time.] Specify times of closure! [#55-2 Recreation and Socioeconomic mitigation.] Need plan to m

recreational and economic effects for the community. Your public presentation of the project highlights the need for d
16 of 148 

No. Name Comment 

but does not address community impact quality of life issues for the multi-year project duration. There must be a way 

impact in other areas so as to not put undue burden on any one lake access recreational point – especially the one thFolsom Community the most. 

56 Jason Zarghami Alternative 3 to raise water level by 3.5 feet is the right alternative.[#56-1 In support of Project]. Alternative 5 to raise 

17 feet is plain bad. Safety of the dam plus too many properties will be effected by 17 feet of water. Why even considalternative?] Also have area photos and water line information available on a web page for all affected property owne

57 Ericka Cooney 

[#57-1 Recreation lake access closure] As a 10 year resident of Folsom, I will not stand by silently and allow my main 

recreation and a huge draw of young families in the area to be shut down for 7 years. Folsom is a large lake, Dike 7 ito the public, make use of it for storage. There are other options that would not leave thousands of Folsom residents am absolutely opposed to closing Dike 8 for 7 years or 1 year. Find another option. 

58 

Brian and 

Cindi Dulgar 

[#58-1 Recreation lake access closure/alternatives.] The Sacramento State Aquatic Center uses Folsom Point as a s

summer youth basic ski camp. University P.E. classes, P.W.C. classes and multi-level ski classes. Students and child

to the ski beach to meet their instructors – no where else on the lake can accommodate our numbers or program. Oulook into other options for storage and rock crushing, and not negatively affect recreation on Folsom Lake by limiting 

59 Sandy McKaig 

[#59-1 Recreation lake access closure]. As much as I realize that the project (of some sort) is necessary, public acceFolsom Point should not be limited or even denied.(I would hate to see Beal’s Point impacted as well). [#59-2 Public meeting format.] I really believe that there should be additional meetings (town mtg-like) to express viewpoints, to claand impacts, and discuss options or other solutions. The way this project is being presented and by given only a “comwrite concerns on – seems like a done deal where decisions will be made without public opinion. 

60 Jim Snook 

[#60-1 Recreation lake access closure.] I am extremely concerned for the impact of closing any of the public access t

the need for flood protection is agreed upon, eliminating any of the launching recreation facilities would be incredibly 

thousands of boat owners. [#60-2 Socioeconomics EIS Process.] In addition, I was disappointed to see that ECONOnot a consideration relating to IMPACTS and MITIGATION. This City has thousands of visitors to the lake that contribeconomy. Please consider how any closures to facilities would impact our city. 

61 Craig R Larson 

Major concerns I have: [#61-1 Recreation lake access closure]. Loss of water access for the thousands of people thahome lake. [#61-2 Socioeconomics businesses]. Loss of revenue to companies that depend on recreation use of Folshave always supported the lake. The youth of Folsom and outlying areas that will not be able to take part in the wondFolsom Lake. The overall loss of interest into the use of Folsom Lake and the activities such as boating that have hel

the city it is today. Please leave our boat ramps and access areas open to the people and families that build their melake!! The loss of revenue to the boat dealers in the Folsom area would be great and could not be made up for. 

62 Carol James 

[#62-1 Recreation mitigation]. Although it appears necessary to reduce boat launching facilities, would it be possible 

areas that will still be available for the public to park their vehicles and trailers? The public will surely adjust to longer 

launching, but knowing they CAN launch and store their vehicles will lessen the negative impact. I believe this investm

only be a good permanent upgrade, but show the public their recreation interests are still acknowledged. Thank you f

63 Chet Bloyd 

[#63-1 Socioeconomics businesses]. The proposed closure will affect not only the immediate surrounding areas in threvenue generated by the recreation areas. It will also be devastating to the marine industry in the Sacramento and sThe loss of revenue to these businesses will be greatly felt by most and some may even be closed. If there is an altewe should explore! 

64 Mike Garner [#64-1 Socioeconomics.] Keep the vitality of the lake and the surrounding community at the top of priority list. Keep th

million plus visitors flowing when the project begins. Enough has happened already with the closure of the dam road. 
 

No. Name Comment 

livelihood’s of these people anymore than what they’ve been subjected to already. 

65 John Poimiroo 

[#65-1 Visual loss of observation point] I am also concerned about the loss of the public viewing area (observation pend of the dam. That is potentially in the State Park plan as a future restaurant and public viewing area. I do not see 

this as a long-term recreational impact. Some sort of accommodation to retain this viewing area should be allowed. 

66 John Poimiroo 

[#66-1 Recreation lake access closure/alternatives.] Im John Poimiroo, Staff Commodore of the Folsom Lake Yacht C

of the oldest and largest recreational groups on Folsom Lake, having been established in 1956. Our club conducts sa

including races, cruises, water safety, instruction, and social events on Folsom Lake. On behalf of our members, I urgReclamation not to close Folsom Point during the time that Folsom Dam is being raised. [#66-2 Recreation remaining Closing Folsom Point would seriously impact Folsom and communities surrounding it, as well as public use of Folsom Recreation Area. Should the boat launch facility at Folsom Point be closed, most of the boaters who now launch at F

shift to the next nearest launch ramp at Browns Ravine in El Dorado Hills. There is not enough trailer parking at Brow

accommodate this shift which now runs at capacity on most weekend days throughout the boating season. Through monly one ramp is available at Browns Ravine. [#66-3 Recreation Transportation.] Closing Folsom Point would increasNatoma Street and Green Valley Road. It would also discourage boaters from using Folsom Lake because of the inc

long waiting times to launch, lack of parking, conflicts arising at the launch ramp because of delays and not knowing 

be space at Browns Ravine to launch. [#66-4 Socioeconomics businesses.] Should Folsom Point be closed, reestablamong those who have shifted to other recreational persuits wll take years. In the meantime, clubs such as FLYC anindustry in the Sacramento area will suffer and perhaps be irrepairably damaged. Alternative locations to stage const

and materials exist closer to the dam than Folsom Point, such as near the intersection of the Folsom Dam Road and 

areas of land owned by the California Department of Corrections are accessible from Folsom Dam Road that would amaterials on public land closer to the dam and that would also require that construction traffic travel along Natoma St Point be closed for nearly a decade. So we ask that you not close Folsom Point and avoid these negative impacts on community and boaters. 

67 Kevin Kraft 

[#67-General.] Not sure about this,as avid boaters,a bigger lake would be cool but.We need the flood protection, I guneed more bridges over the American river and Sacto too,as this would help with traffic. As a native sacramentan,I a

the traffic and really would like to see the house construction and builders go away.If the bigger dam will give the buil

more houses,I say no.Just my opinion. 

68 Peter Clark 

Hello, I was not able to attend the meeting last night in Folsom, so my friend/colleague sent me your address so I could proClosure of ANY ramps/facilities would mean certain negative impacts:  1. Being a regular boater at Folsom Lake over the last 12 years, I have seen a steady increase in traffic/delays/saf

problems/congestion/turn-aways at every ramp. This would only be compounded by a closure of one of the more po

accessible and convenient launch facilities. 

 2. [#68-1 Socioeconomics recreation fees]. Access fees would probably increase due to an overall decrease in pat

other ramps' capacities not being able to handle the diversion from Folsom Point. Fees are already borderline outrag

you purchase a season pass like I do. 

 3. [#68-2 Recreation] People would find even more "creative" ways of accessing the lake. This would include driviforbidden hillsides/embankments to swim, picnic, launch craft... especially PWC's. This is already a problem.  4. [#68-3 Recreation remaining access points.] The south end of the lake could only be serviced by ONE facility, w

operates at half capacity since the Hobie Cove portion is often inaccessible (I'm not complaining about lake levels 
18 of 148 

No. Name Comment 

must be at a maximum of about 75% to expose Hobie Cove for use. There would still be a significant increase in trafarea from the closure, which is something I am not sure this quite narrow/tight facility can handle. Most of Folsom's p

the south side of the dam, thereby making these southern facilities the most convenient for the public. 

 5. [#68-4 Recreation indirect effects.] If the capacity of the lake were increased (I believe part of this project is to rafeet), then most or all of the other ramp facilities would need to be modified since the current 100% waterline at those 

top of the ramp. This would cause a closure of the other facilities at some point as well, since the "new" 100% mark w

facilities useless. 

 6. [#68-5 Transportation.] There would be an additional increase in traffic through downtown Folsom as some wouGranite Bay. As you may know, the traffic through downtown has been a huge issue since the Dam Road closure.  7. [#68-6 Purpose and need.] Personally, I haven't heard or read convincing arguments on why the dam and dikes first place. If there is a mechanical concern with these structures, then come out and say it. At least the public would 

accept it. "Flood control" isn't enough explanation to warrant 7 years of inconvenience trying to use my floating ente

investment. What specific work is proposed to control flooding? It's kind of like shutting the Dam Road down 1.5 year

"security reasons" as the driver for the closure. If the Dam can't handle the increased traffic, then that's a much more 

than what was provided to the public. I would appreciate it if these could be forwarded on to any other appropriate individuals. 

69 Todd Drybread 

I was unable to attend the public hearing last night, so please excuse myself if I am out of line. [#69-1 Recreation lake 

I am incredibly upset with the possibility of closing Folsom Point. My family and I use the facility for walks and runs y

as boat access during the summer months. [#69-2 Recreation remaining access points.] Folsom lake has gained in closing Folsom Point would drive a large number of people to Granite Bay and especially Brown's Ravine. Browns Rcontinually overcrowded, plus it does not have the recreational access as does Folsom Point. Please let me know wh

stop this closure. 

70 Scott Howlett 

[#70-1 Recreation lake access closure.] We seriously disagree with any decision to close Folsom Point. We use the 

week from May through Sept. It is a very busy boating launch and picnic area. I can't imagine Browns Ravine being accommodate the extra traffic. There must be another staging area that could be used! 

71 

Rick and Pam 

Patterson 

Shawn, 

[#71-1 Recreation lake access closure.] I’m opposed to closing Folsom Pt. I never go anywhere else on Folsom Lake 

there is shade. Big mistake, 

72 

Sheila and 

Tom Leard 

Dear Mr. Oliver, 

[#72-1 Recreation lake access closure]. I write this as a very concerned resident of Folsom that the closing of Dyke 8 unreasonable burden that the residents of Folsom are expected to endure. Not only have we had to tolerate the closi

road, traffic on Sutter Street, but the inconvenience and lack of forthright public notification is too much to sit quietly t

personal story is of the enjoyment I have of running with my dog in the Folsom Point area. There are elderly men whyear ritual of walking in the early morning and stay connected to the world while exercising. This is the place I take arelatives and friends to show off our gorgeous lake and vistas. This is the lake that several friends swim in while we t

events. This is the lake that is part of an annual second grade field trip to learn about our local habitat. [#72-2 Vegeta

The loss of local vegetation and wildlife will be an irreversible loss to our children. The closing of Folsom Point has a 

that needs to be addressed before there is anymore disruption to the residents and near by communities. In the repoFolsom Point is 'only for day use and a boat launch'. It is so much more than that! I urge you to carry out an alternatistaging site for this project. 
 

No. Name Comment 

73 G R Petersen 

[#73-1 PD alternative staging areas.] Being a current resident of Folsom and long time Sacramentoan, I must say I wto hear that Folsom Point may be closed for 7 years for work on the dam. I understand that there is the need for a stdam, but I urge you to choose one that will not have such an impact on a community. Close access to the lake is one moved to Folsom from Carmichael. We enjoy being able to go to the lake, swim and boat from the close proximity to 

know that we would still be able to access Folsom Lake, but it wouldn't be the same. 

74 Greg Fales 

Dear Sir 

[#74-1 Recreation lake access closure.] I am writing to let you know my great concern and disapproval of shutting do

for any length of time. My family and I moved to Folsom over ten years ago and we use all of the parks located at the 

basis. Having access to Folsom Point or any other Park at Folsom Lake is a big reason that we moved to Folsom and quality of life that we paid for when buying our home. Giving up access for even one summer is not acceptable, let al

years. Please keep the parks open. 

75 

Marco and 

Patti Palilla 

Dear Mr. Oliver, 

[#75-1 Recreation lake access closure.] As a long time resident of Folsom we are strongly opposed to the potential c

Point for a long term staging area for proposed construction of a new spillway for Folsom Dam. Folsom is such a desin part to the beautiful recreational lake we have in our backyard. We recognized that right away when we moved int

Ranch neighborhood with our 3 daughters after relocating from Atlanta, GA 16 years ago. Folsom Point (formerly Dy

constant destination for our family over the years that has included enjoying the point on our walks, on challenging bi

the Point with our Girl Scout troops, spontaneous family picnics, taking the opportunity to enjoy the visual beauty of thclosure of Folsom Dam Road and of course, the abundance of fun-filled boating opportunities through the convenient 

access. Please reconsider what a huge negative affect this would have on the families of Folsom and on the wonderful quality 

such a beautiful, convenient destination has provided the ever growing number of Folsom residents. Eliminating accPoint for 6-7 years would be a devastating loss. 

76 Jonathan Walburger [#76-1 Recreation lake access closure]. This would be a terrible idea. One of the benefits to living in Folsom is the e

My family and I love being able to ride our bikes to Lake. Please don’t take this away. 

77 Dawn Lockwood 

Mr. Oliver, 

[#77-1 Recreation lake access closure] As a long time Folsom resident, I am writing to urge you to reconsider closing We value that area for our "warm weather" recreation; we moved to Folsom for this beautiful lake. Closing Folsom P[#77-2 Socioeconomics businesses.] impact businesses in Folsom but also the way of life for many of our residents. 

78 CVP Water Association 

[#78-1 PD No Action Alt.] Use of the 400,000/670,000 acre-foot rule as a key assumption in the No Action Alternative the uncertainty on continuation of that rule for Folsom reservoir operation over the design life of the Proposed Projectthe 400,000/670,000 acre-foot rule is embodied in the 2004 agreement between Reclamation and the Sacramento AAgency (SAFCA), that agreement terminates in 2018 or earlier and nothing compels SAFCA to enter into a new agreReclamation with the same rule to span the design life of the Proposed Project. Secondly, the Water Resources Dev

1996 (WRDA) characterized the 400,000/670,000 rule as in interim rule until such time as a flood damage reduction American River has been implemented. The pre-1993 400,000 acre-foot rule presents the most plausible default for i

the No Action Alternative. 

79 CVP Water Association [#79-1 PD Proposed Project.] The Proposed Project enables and contemplates studying a wider range of operations 

control and other purposes than those in use today, and any changed rules resulting from those studies will have var

positive and negative, on water users and the environment. [#79-2 Range of alternatives.] In addition, the range of al
20 of 148 

No. Name Comment 

control does not address the range of possible alternatives involving downstream levees. Simply adopting existing pla

strengthening and upgrades falls far short of the realistic range of alternatives that should be addressed. For instance

contemplates development and implementation of a flood damage reduction plan for the American River. No such pla

in the Draft Environmental Impact Study (DEIS). As such, the alternatives and their impacts are too narrowly describeDEIS to meet the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The studies must be completed and 

more comprehensive set of alternatives before a revised DEIS is issued. 

80 CVP Water Association 

[#80-1 Hydropower Folsom reoperation]. Extension of the prior comment: there are no estimates of the economic/fina

CVP water contractors, power customers of the Western Area Power Administration (WAPA), or other water users, ochanges to operation of Folsom Reservoir as a result of the Proposed Project or other alternatives. No remedies are 

compensate CVP water contractors, power customers of WAPA, or other users, due to reduced water or power supp

plausible or likely changes to Folsom Reservoir operation as a result of the Proposed Project or other alternatives. [#cumulative effects]. In short, the document fails to consider fully the indirect and cumulative impacts of the Proposed 

81 CVP Water Association 

[#81-1 CVP cost allocation.] We would also like to reiterate our general understanding that there cannot be an allocatContractors for costs for projects that do not meet an authorized CVP Project Purpose and/or are not designated as a 

Operationally Integrated part of the CVP. This general understanding is consistent with Reclamation Law. Neither do

the background calculations from which the cost allocations were derived. In addition, neither document specifies cos

specific entities. We are very interested in this information. 

82 CVP Water Association 

[#82-1 CVP cost allocation.] We also believe that any Safety of Dams allocation for any of these costs would be of susignificance to warrant a separate repayment period beyond the 2030 repayment deadline for pre-existing CVP Plant

as of 1980. Because these projects are not expected to be completed until time periods ranging from 2010 (at the ve

(if there are scheduling delays), a 2030 repayment period would considerably compress the repayment period for the

to the useful life of the project. Moreover, the CVP ratesetting policies incorporate a 50-year repayment period for cap

was used as the basis for determining a 2036 repayment date for the San Felipe Unit out-of-basin facilities costs. 

83 CVP Water Association [#83-1 Executive Summary text clarification.] Page ES-2: Within the last paragraph, elements that Reclamation and t

implement separately are mentioned, and a list “as summarized in the following paragraphs” is referenced. On what p

provided? 

84 CVP Water Association [#84-1 Study Authority.] Page ES-3: Regarding the top paragraph, was separate authorizing legislation provided for t

Modifications Project, which was morphed by the Corps into the Auxiliary Spillway Project? What was the PL number authorizing legislation for the Folsom Outlet Modification Project? 

85 CVP Water Association [#85-1 PD Fuseplug Relation.] Page ES-9: Will the referenced fuseplug in the top paragraph be built prior to the com

auxiliary spillway? 

86 CVP Water Association [#86-1 Relationship with security project.] Page ES-11: In the top paragraph, why is there a reference to security act

security activities been defined as part of the Joint Federal Project and either the Flood Damage Reduction or Safety program? 

87 CVP Water Association [#87-1 Study Authority for MODS.] Page ES-11: Did the authorizing legislation for the Folsom Outlet Modification Pro

subsequently revamped as the Auxiliary Spillway) specify a 100% flood control allocation? 

88 CVP Water Association [#88-1 Hydrology dam storage capacity.] Page ES-13 to ES-15: What incremental acre-foot storage capacities would 

3.5, 6 and 17 foot raise levels to the Folsom Storage Facility? How does this compare to the acre-foot capacities that 

be generated through a Probable Maximum Flood? 

89 CVP Water [#89-1 Safety requirement.] Page1-1: Are there specific (non-security related) safety requirements for the Folsom Fa
 

No. Name Comment 

Association basis that it is designated as a National Critical Infrastructure Facility? 

90 CVP Water Association [#90-1 Study Authority]. Page 1-20: Why is the authorizing legislation for the Folsom Outlet Modifications Project not 

legislative citations? 

91 CVP Water Association [#91-1 Study Authority/Security.] Page 2-73: Is site security being incorporated into this project? If so, under what aut

being done? 

92 CVP Water Association [#92-1 PD Alternative definition.] Page 2-85: Why is alternative 1 designated as a purely Safety of Dams alternative? 93 CVP Water Association [#93-1 Water Supply impacts.] Page 3.2-4: Would any of the proposed projects impact water deliveries while constru

progress? 

94 CVP Water Association [#94-1 Water Supply impacts.] Would deliveries to the City of Roseville, San Juan Water District, and Suburban Wate

significantly impacted during construction of any of the Corps Folsom Dam Modifications Projects? 

95 Jim Bayless 

Shawn – I have reviewed the EIR and have a few questions. I apologize that the answers may lie in the document, but I could 

on them. 

1. [#95-1 PD Dam capacity.] The alternatives include raising the reservoir’s containment level by 3.5’ to 17’. W

additional capacity be considered merely as freeboard, or would the facility be operated with the water stora

the facility to a higher level than the current capability? 

2. [#95-2 PD roadway construction.] Would each alternative include relocating or rebuilding all roads, parking l

above the new high-water line? 

3. [#95-3 PD vegetation.] Would the existing trees on the shoreline be cleared to above the new high-water lin4. [#95-4 PD hiking trails. Would all impacted hiking and biking trails also be relocated above the high-water lin5. [#95-5 Hydropower/Water Supply]. Presumably at least alternative 5 would impact some county roads. Wou

the Salmon Fall bridge, or any EID water intake facilities? 

6. [#95-6 PD alternative development.] Is there any consideration of alternative strategies that have less impac

park operations? 

7. Should official comments be sent to you? 

96 Lyndsay Smith 

Mr. Shawn Oliver & Mrs. Becky Victorine, 

[#96-1 Recreation lake access closure.] I am a student at Sacramento State and an resident of Folsom. I've just been the plan to potentially close Folsom Point (Dyke 8) for upwards to 5 years because of the project for Folsom Dam Sa

Damage reduction. I understand the need and encourage the project, but would like to strongly and earnestly urge tha plan that would not include closing Folsom Point. I am an avid wake boarder and use the boat launch at Folsom PoMarch through November. I live just five minutes from Folsom Point and would be greatly inconvenienced to have to 

location to drop my boat in. I know many other friends and family members that this would affect as well. If there is anthough could be implemented to prevent the closure of Folsom Point for 5 years, it would be greatly appreciated by thcommunity. Thank you for your consideration 

97 Anonymous 

Dear Friends, The project for Folsom Dam Safety and Flood Damage reduction is very important! 

[#97-1 Recreation.] We would however like to request a more supportive approach where recreation is concerned an

are offered. This project is proposed into 2012 (or longer) Closure of Folsom Point will negatively affect families, 
22 of 148 

No. Name Comment 

boaters and Aquatic Center clients who access the Lake though Folsom. #97-2 Recreation remaining access points. During the busy season Folsom Lake Launching Ramps will actually closspace (parking). Browns Marina and Granite Bay are the other options, which will be heavily impacted, with early closto limited space. This community is special because of the opportunities to recreate! Access to the water is critical! P

other options for debris storage and rock crushing. KEEP FOLSOM POINT OPEN!!!Any consideration for future recreation in this community is highly valued. Please look at the finished product. 

[#97-3 Recreation mitigation.] IS THERE BIKE TRAILS?? Have the existing trails been replaced? HAVE THE HORSE TRAILS BEEN REPLACED AND REPARED? HAVE TREES BEEN PLANTED FOR PICNICS (WITH PICNIC TABLES)?] 

98 Terry and Jim Lehman 

Mr. Mayor, 

[#98-1 Recreation lake access closure/alternatives.] We am very distressed at the idea of closing the Folsom Point (D

are for seven years as it is used for a site to stage the dam reconstruction. We feel this is removing a vital part of the 

city for an extended length of time. [#98-2 Transportation.] Not to mention the construction vehicles that will be travelsite for seven years. This will impact the traffic on Natoma (which will just be opening up for traffic across the dam on

is built), and will negatively effect our neighborhood due to the traffic and noise. We can not believe that there is not appropriate place on the opposite side of the dam that cannot be used for this purpose. Our city and neighborhoods h

hit in the past 5 years, can you not give us a break and use an area that will not negatively effect us for the next severethink your possibilities. 

99 Brian Austerman 

Dear Shawn,  I'm a very avid boater and live minutes away from Folsom Lake. My friends and I use the lake most of the ythroughout the winter. I see all the boating issues concerning Folsom Lake and I have some concerns with the new cproposals. 

[#99-1 Recreation Mitigation.] Unfortunately, I could not attend the latest meeting but I believe that the construction p

necessary flood protection improvements needs to include an interim access point to the lake before moving forward 

dyke raising project. The number of lake visitors has been increasing along with the growing population every year aninterim access point needs to be able to accommodate the forecasted growth. I understand that everyone needs to s

the proposed construction efforts, but maintaining access to the lake is crucial to the public and should be a high prioI hope that careful consideration of my concerns and those of the public, in general, will be addressed before a plan i

Thank you for taking the time to hear my out and good luck with your project. 

100 Mark Duer 

Dear Sir, I have recently read about the plans for shoring up and reinforcing the Folsom Lake Dam. It has come to my attention 

may include the closing down of Folsom Point, Beal’s Point and parts of Granite Bay. [#100-1 Recreation lake access 

family and I engage in recreational activities such as wakeboarding and waterskiing on Folsom Lake every summer adoing so for many years and I would hate to see part of the Lake closed off. As you may be aware, the lake is already 

lines for boat launching are long. Closing down any part of the lake for the several years it would take to complete thi

only add to the crowding on the water and hassle at the marinas and ramps. I realize that work on the dam and recrearound the lake may be necessary for the long-term saftey and protection of the lake, however I would ask you to conminimalizing the amount of the lake that needs to be closed. It would be a shame to see such a fine part of Northern 

recrational value due to over-crowding and waterway restriction. Thank you for you time. 
 

No. Name Comment 

101 Tim Steele 

[#101-1 PD Folsom Point use as staging area.] Please let me know what the rationale is for attempting to close Dyke 

that it may be closed for up to 7 years for a new construction project. That seems a bit excessive to me. If this is trueknow any specifics you may have so I can address them to the proper staff. The Closing of Dyke 8 would significantly 

daily/weekly and annual recreation of many Folsom Citizens. 

102 

Beth and 

Jim Carlsen 

Dear Mr. Oliver: 

[#102-1 Recreation lake access closure.] I am a resident of Folsom and specifically of the neighborhood next to the ePoint called Briggs Ranch. We use the Folsom Point access no less than once a week during the spring and summehusband runs there every single day with his dog. [#102-2 Socioeconomics businesses]. My husband and I are also 

in the City of Folsom and have been residents for over 15 years. We feel very strongly that the City will be HARMED closing of Folsom Point.] The City has already been harmed greatly by the closing of the Dam Road. I understand thbe a place to stage equipment, etc, but there must be another location that would do less harm. Folsom Lake is the je

You've already made it difficult to get to Beal's Point by the closing of the Dam Road and anyone who know's about t

know's the limited space available at Brown's Ravine. WHAT DO YOU EXPECT THE RESIDENTS TO DO FOR THYEARS? There has got to be another solution. 

103 Cindy Becker Dear Sir, [#103-1 PD alternative staging areas]. I am writing to ask for you to not close Folsom Point due its potential use as a 

provides much needed access and we would like to see an alternative with less public impact considered. Thank you

104 Jim Thompson 

Mr Oliver, 

[#104-1 Recreation lake access closure.] Just heard of the possible closing of Folsom Point. I realize the work on the 

certain inconveniences. My family and I have been in Folsom 18 years and use that access 1 to 4 times per week. R

biking or just hiking. This would detract from our community in a major way. It would CHANGE our community. Lets another town. There must be another way. 

105 Michael S. Hardoin 

Mr. Oliver, 

[#105-1 Socioeconomics businesses.] I am a resident of Folsom, Ca and am writing to you today to request that the B

Reclamation come up with alternatives to closing Folsom Point for up to 7 years during the Folsom Dam maintenancFolsom Point is the only Folsom Lake access point for Folsom residence and closing this facility would be detrimenta

Businesses and would negatively impact our quality of life in Folsom.] Closing for up to 7 years would be a nightmarealternative staging areas.] This is simply not acceptable and there are alternatives that would be a win win for everyo

There are other options. Build a new access point between Folsom Point and the Dam or at some other part of the ladisrupt existing access points. This is a minor cost relative to the budget for the total project and would allow the Folsproceed without the significantly negative impact closing Folsom Point would have on thousands of people. Thank you for your consideration. 

106 Angela Ankhelyi 

Dear Sir, 

[#106-1 Socioeconomics businesses] I am a resident of Folsom and very concerned with the proposal to close accesin Folsom for seven years, during the construction of the new bridge. I ask that you consider the economic stress thiour city. [#106-2 Property values.] Folsom's tourism and housing markets are tied into the lake. We are a lakefront cyears is an unreasonable time to close this part of our community. There are other alternatives. Please seek anothe

107 Chris and Susan Zaffree [#107 Recreation lake access closure.] Please keep our access to Folsom Lake open. We utilize Folsom Point more 

entrance to the lake. 

108 Lynda Lescault [#108-1 PD alternative staging area.] Please reconsider taking away such a beautiful park setting and recreation area 
24 of 148 

No. Name Comment 

There must be another "staging" area closer to the damn, behind the blocked off Damn Road area. As a fifteen year residing in Briggs Ranch, we utilize Folsom Point every day as a place to take walks, relax, and view the magnificent [#108-2 Socioeconomics businesses.] As a professional in the relocation industry who provides "candidate tours" to a

location was always a highlight of my tour in my quest to help "sell" the best and brightest candidates select a relocat

many other cities in this state boast a beautiful lake and many professionals from around the country and around the 

take a relocation and accept their job offer because of this lake and all that it has to offer. Please, please reconsider this choice. Do not allow this decision to impact our city for seven years - it would be such 

109 Doug Zezoff [#109-1 PD alternative staging area.] I have lived in Folsom for 20 years and one the highlights is being able to go to 

Don’t ruin this. You need to find another location to do your work. 

110 

Jim Cassio & 

Deborah 

Moreno 

Dear Mr. Oliver: 

[#110-1 Recreation lake access closure]. On behalf of our family, we wish to go on record as Folsom residents that s

any plan by the Bureau of Reclamation to close Folsom Point to public recreational use. We realize that the Bureau views recreational use of its properties as a privilege and not a right. However, many Fols

depend on access to Folsom Point. [#110-2 Recreation Transportation.] Our moving to Granite Bay, Beal's Point and 

would cause two problems: one, the heavier usage of the other Folsom Lake sites will cause numerous environmentaproblems; and two, the roads through Old Town Folsom and onto Granite Bay and Beal's Point will be impacted from 

traffic. [#110-3 Alternative recreation sites]. A third problem would be the spillover effect on other area sites, such as 

from the crowds turned away from Granite Bay, Beal's Point and Brown's Ravine when they reach capacity. We would suggest that all of these potential problems can be avoided by devising a practical plan in which Folsom P

for public recreational use. 

111 Jamie Ellsworth 

Dear Sir, 

[#111-1 Recreation lake access closure.] It was brought to my attention that you are considering closing Folsom Poin

space for storage. I have serious concerns about this decision. I have been the manager at a local health club since 

of my members utilize that access to the lake. They train for triathlons, walk their dogs, enjoy time with their childrenfriends among other activities It would sadden me to think that you would be limiting local residents to the lake acces

reconsider the decision to use Folsom Point as a staging area. There has got to be an alternative place to store the 

the repairs. I would appreciate a response to my concern. If I can assist in any way please do not hesitate to ask. I several other individuals who are passionate about saving our gathering place and they would be interested in helpinalternative as well. Thank you for taking the time to read my email. 

112 Darcie Eichner [#112-1 Recreation lake access closure.] This is a concern regarding convenient access to Folsom Lake. Please do 

entrance at Folsom Point. 

113 Vicky Cackler 

[#113-1 Purpose and Need/Bridge Project] My husband and I are Briggs Ranch residents and understand that you plFolsom Point to use as a staging area for the building of the new bridge. I want to express my concern for several rea

residents of Briggs Ranch (there are over 600 homes in this neighborhood), who have already been hit hard by the croad in the first place, and will be dramatically effected by the increase in traffic once the new bridge opens due to bu

Empire Ranch and El Dorado Hills areas in the years since the dam was closed, this is just another slap in the face. T

bridge stands to cause huge noise levels, increased traffic pouring through and behind our neighborhood, and thus, a property values. Closing Folsom Point, which is one of the features that draws people to live in Briggs Ranch, will furdecline to the value of our neighborhood specifically. [#113-2 Recreation lake access closure.] My second area of concern is for the residents of Folsom in general. Folso
 

No. Name Comment 

an entrance for many in the area of recreation. People bike, walk and boat from this point, and while yes, there are obegin your day of fun, this is a convenient place for so many and again a reason to have chosen to live in the immedI think I definitely speak for the residents of Briggs Ranch when I say - we have had enough. While building a bridgto the increased population - we are already being hurt by it's determined placement when there were other options. 

spread some of the pain and find another location to work from. 

114 Casey Keller 

Friends, 

[#114-1 Recreation lake access closure.] I strongly object to the closure of Folsom Point ! I do realize work needs to 

improve and enhance the dykes and dam. For this, I commend your efforts. However, Folsom Point is the only acce

within the City of Folsom and thousands of residents and visitors use this access. I myself use it almost every day. Wwalking my dog, running, cycling, kayaking, picnicking, boating, playing with my children, catching a moonrise or suninvaluable to Folsom residents and visitors. I strongly oppose the closure of Folsom Point State Recreation Area. Plalternatives to this proposal, as closing this gem is unacceptable. 

115 Chris Storz 

[#115-1 Recreation lake access closure.] I strongly object to the proposed closure of Folsom Point State Recreation 

proposition is unacceptable to the people of Folsom and surrounding communities. Folsom Point is used by thousan

members throughout the year for walking, biking, running, boating, picnicking, and its closure would be an outrage. P

alternative solutions, as closing Folsom Point is absolutely unacceptable. 

116 Lesley Storz 

[#116-1 Recreation lake access closure.] I strongly object to the proposed closure of Folsom Point State Recreation 

proposition is unacceptable to the people of Folsom and surrounding communities. Folsom Point is used by thousan

members throughout the year for walking, biking, running, boating, picnicking, and its closure would be an outrage. P

alternative solutions, as closing Folsom Point is absolutely unacceptable. 

117 Donna Gentry 

[#117-1 Recreation lake access closure]. I strongly object to the proposed closure of Folsom Point Recreation Area! This Proposition is unacceptable to the people of Folsom and surrounding communities. Folsom Point is used by thousands of community members throughout the year for walking, biking, running, boating, closure would be an outrage. Please consider alternative solutions, as closing Folsom Point is absolutely unaccepta Donna Gentry, Creekside Drive, Folsom 

118 Joanna Diaz 

[#118-1 Recreation lake access closure.] I strongly object to the proposed closure of Folsom Point State Recreation 

proposition is unacceptable to the people of Folsom and surrounding communities. Folsom Point is used by thousan

members throughout the year for walking, biking, running, boating, picnicking, and its closure would be an outrage. P

alternative solutions, as closing Folsom Point is absolutely unacceptable. 

119 Kimberlee Jones 

[#119-1 Recreation lake access closure.] Hello I want you to know I strongly object to the proposed closure of Folsom Recreation Area! This proposition is unacceptable to me, the citizens of Folsom and surrounding communities. Folsby thousands of community members throughout the year for walking, biking, running, boating and picnicking, its clo

outrage. My childrens' school take the second graders on a walking field trip their yearly. Some years this is the only 

educational activity the school could afford. Folsom Point is the only access to Folsom Lake in the City of Folsom. W

want to close the only access? Please consider alternative solutions, as closing Folsom Point is absolutely unacceptable. 

120 Liz and Andrew Byer 

To whom it may concern: 

 [#120-1 Recreation lake access closure] Please do not close Folsom Point access to Folsom Lake till 2013!!! This will be devastating to the city of Folsom and very unfair to the residents who live there. We use this access evercant imagine the chaos this will create! Please reconsider and find another option! 
26 of 148 

No. Name Comment 

121 Chris Jennings 

I understand that the Bureau of Reclamation proposes to close the Folsom Point recreation area for seven years to re

Dam. [#121-1 Public Involvement meeting notification] I seemed to have missed the public hearings and the EIR. Wand where do I get a copy? ] Surely there's a better, less disruptive, alternative. I visit the park nearly every other damy house, for among other reasons, because it's near Folsom Point. [#121-2 Recreation lake access closure] Put me opposed, not only to the proposal, but also to the process by which this idea was hatched. Bad idea. Really bad ide[#121-3 Veg and Wildlife] PS: Aren't there burrowing owls out there? 

122 Mike Brady 

[#122-1 Recreation lake access closure] Closure of park land needs to be very carefully considered, and if there is ev

reasonable alternative don't do it. Recreation areas are important, even if they're mainly (as with Folsom Point) boat 

Highway projects are essentially prohibited from using public recreational land, unless a very stringent process of looalternatives and mitigating remaining effects is followed - you should do the same. In other words, find an alternative staging areas, and minimize or eliminate use of Folsom Point and other recreation areas you may be affecting. Conv

are not the only considerations that should be used. 

123 Kathy Boyd 

[#123-1 Recreation lake access closure] First the government closed the dam bridge, bringing huge traffic problems a

financially to our Old Town. Now the government wants to close Folsom Point for 6-7 yrs! For heaven's sake, I don't 

absolutely no sites that will work besides closing our recreation accesses; in fact, according to Sreve Miklos, you won

other sites that don't involve closing Folsom Point. Perhaps you didn't realize how heavily used these lake accesses are. While I understand the need to upgrade the daappreciate the work you do for all of us, please find a way to do so without closing Folsom Point.] 

124 The Colldeweihs 

I am writing to you in regards to the proposed closure of Folsom point boat launch/picnic area .We are avid boaters a

of Folsom point boat launch/picnic area and would prefer other alternatives be explored. We as a citizens of Folsom understand the importance of flood protection and support the retrofit project. 

[#124-1 Socioeconomics Traffic] I am deeply concerned that the proposed closure would negatively impact the City o

financially and in added traffic congestion that this cities infrastructure can not handle. People who would normally uswould have to find alternative facilities around the lake thereby stressing already overwhelmed launch/picnic areas. C

would cost this area hundreds if not thousands of tourist dollars. This city can not afford to take another financial hit s

dealt by the post 9/11 closure of the dam road. 6-7 years is way to long a time to keep this area closed. I urge you to possible alternatives that have been placed on the table. Thank you for your consideration in this matter, 

125 

Mr. Neely 

Downing 

Dear: Mr. Oliver I am writing to express my strong opposition to any plan to use the area known as MIAD (N. of Green Valley Rd, E. o

staging, construction, rock crushing and any like activity regarding the Folsom Lake Dam construction project. 

[#125-1 Noise] I am a resident of Folsom CA and live in the foothills community of Empire Ranch which is across froRd. and Mormon Island. The noise levels are already extremely high from normal road activity 24 hours a day. As noExecutive Summary, noise levels will increase to unacceptable levels. This valley is shaped like a bowl, so noise wo

being muted. 

[#125-2 Geology and Soils asbestos] Also, the prevailing wind comes out of the north blowing across the current struto `carrying' the noise further distances. A potentially greater issue or threat to this family community is the exposure other construction dust and debris and the health problems these will create now and in the future.  In closing, the option would be unacceptable and would likely lead to considerable resident disruption and legal activ

126 David and Dear Mr. Oliver, 
 

No. Name Comment 

Patty Soulsby [#126-1 Recreation lake access closure] Please do NOT close Folsom Point. I'm sure you could find another alterna

construction staging area. [#126-2 PD Socioeconomics businesses] The merchants of Folsom have already been hu

the Dam Road. Now, more merchants near Folsom Point will also be hurt. Folsom Point is also used by a lot of families who enjoy spending the day swimming and picnicking at the lake. It is vyou close it, then we would have to go to Beals' Point and boaters would have to go either to the Marina in El Dorado 

Bay. [#126-3 Traffic] This is a big inconvenience especially during the warm months as you would be closing a boat lwould cause more traffic on the boat ramps at Granite Bay and the Marian.  So not only merchants will be hurt, but the boaters and families who enjoy going to this side of Folsom Lake will also 

127 Mike Stinson 

Folsom has suffered enough due to the Dam Road closure. 

[#127-1 Traffic, Socioeconomics property values,] Safety Please don't make it worse for our economy, home values a

traffic safety by closing Folsom Point. 

128 

Marianne P. 

Blake 

Dear Mr. Oliver:  Have you ever been to Folsom Lake on a hot summer weekend--and I'm not talking holidays. The picnic tables are 

boat ramps are long. It doesn't make any difference which part of the lake you go to or what time, it's busy. 

[#128-1 Socioeconomics state parks] Close Folsom Point and the State is going to be losing money. It's just going to 

get to the Lake. Folsom Point is used by numerous families who enjoy spending the day swimming and picnicking at very convenient for us who live on this side of the lake. If you close it, then we have to drive through town to use Bea

would have to go either to the Marina in El Dorado Hills or once again, through town to Granite Bay. [#128-2 Traffic] inconvenience especially during the warm months as you would be closing a boat launch which would cause more tra

ramps at Granite Bay and the Marina. Please do NOT close Folsom Point. An alternative for your construction stagi

the area on the Dam Road which the government has already closed and made traffic in Folsom a nightmare. [#128-businesses] The merchants of Folsom have already been hurt by this closure. 

129 Steve Paladino 

[#129-1 Recreation and Socioeconomics businesses.] I'm very disappointed that there has been any serious conside

closure of the subject recreational area for dam and/or dike repair. This would have a devastating impact on recreationorthern CA, and Folsom commerce and home values. Furthermore, this would be adding insult to injury after Folsom 

businesses have had to endure the highly detrimental consequences of the Dam Road closure following 911. There sbetter alterative because the closure of Folsom Point for any extended period of time (beyond 30 days) is completely any reason whatsoever. 

130 Gary & Lia Odell 

To Whom It May Concern: 

 [#130-1 Recreation lake access closure/alternatives.] We strongly object to the proposed closure of Folsom Point St

Area! This proposition is unacceptable to the citizens of Folsom and surrounding communities. Folsom Point is used 

community members throughout the year for walking, biking, running, boating and picnicking, its closure would be an Point is the only access to Folsom Lake in the City of Folsom. Please consider alternative solutions, as closing Folsom Point is absolutely unacceptable.]On a more personal note, we, like many families chose to relocate to Folsom primarily because of the proximity and a

Folsom Lake. 8 years ago when my husband was transferred to the bay area, we knew we didn't want to raise our fa

the choice to live anywhere within 2 hours of the Oakland airport, and we CHOSE FOLSOM BECAUSE OF THE LAK

did we realize that Folsom had other great aspects such as our schools, etc. However, had it not been for the lake th

communities with these other factors. [#130-2 Socioeconomics property value.] Also, our home is located in the deve
28 of 148 

No. Name Comment 

across the street, once considered one of the most desirable in Folsom. The closure and activity planned for this area 

our property values tremendously. We haven't even brought up the impact will it will have on the next closest access to the lake at Browns Ravine....you

El Dorado Hills next. This decision will affect the lives of many families like mine, who not only enjoy this lake throughwant to continue using summers on the lake to strengthen our families and creating memories for our children. PLEASE CONSIDER ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS! 

131 Nina Pucci 

To Whom it may concern, 

[#131-1 Noise]. I deeply oppose the Folsom Point Boat Launch being closed to build the bridge. I live right across fro

and the workers will basically be in my backyard. I do not want to hear the noisy trucks and have people looking into 

[#131-2 PD alternative staging areas]. Why can't you use the Folsom Dam Road exit where there are no residents beprisoners. I think the prisoners deserve to listen to the noise instead of me. 

132 

Kevin, 

Suzanne, 

Katie, and 

Amanda 

Reinard 

[#132-1 Recreation lake access closure.] We want to register our serious opposition to the proposed closure of FolsoAs residents of Folsom, we use Folsom Point for boating, biking, and picnicking, so closing this lake access point will effect on our and every other Folsom resident's quality of life. One of the main reasons we moved to Folsom (in partRanch neighborhood) was for access to this excellent resource, one that we use quite often. [#132-2 Socioeconomic

Closing Folsom Point would also have a negative effect on our housing values, as the area would loose much of it's ato people looking to relocate to Folsom based on the access to the state park through Folsom Point. 

133 Allen and Julie Carlson 

It has been brought to our attention that Folsom Point State Recreation Area may be closed for seven years during th

There are many reasons we are concerned about losing this access to the lake. We moved to Briggs Ranch because 

safe neighborhood, and because we wanted to be near "The Lake". East Natoma Street used to be a fairly quiet streand Traffic.] Ever since the dam closed, the noise level has increased immensely because traffic has increased, not tpollution. The noise and traffic will be even worse with all of the construction trucks coming and going from the site. [#133-2 Socioeconomics businesses.] The businesses on the corner of East Natoma and Blue Ravine rely heavily on 

lake visitors to purchase gas and food for their days on the lake. Some of these businesses are already hurting beca

vacancy left with the departure of Ralph's. Closing this entrance will definitely have a negative impact on these busin

[#133-3 Recreation lake access closure.] Folsom Point is used by thousands of Folsom residents throughout the yea

walking, biking, running and boating. The entrance on East Natoma Street is the only access to Folsom Lake in the c

[#133-4 Recreation remaining access points.] In addition to local and out of town boaters, Granite Bay and Roseville Beale's Point entrance which is already busy and fills up on regular basis. Brown's Ravine is also busy and used regout of town boaters, as well as El Dorado Hills residents. If access to the lake is difficult, people will just choose to go Lake Tahoe, Lake Berryessa, Don Pedro, Lake Camanche, The Delta, etc. We understand that there are other alternatives for equipment storage, so we are asking that you seriously consider 

or come up with an alternative solution. Closing Folsom Point will seriously hurt our city. 

134 

Julie 

Calderwood 

Dear Army Corp. Engineers, 

I was stunned to read that the Army Corp. of Engineers is considering closing Folsom Point for up to 7 years. [#134-staging areas.] Surely the Army Corp. can come up with an alternative that does not have such a devastating impact surrounding community. As you know, Folsom Point is the only access to Folsom Lake in the City of Folsom and is uby community members as well as tens of thousands of people who come from outside our community and benefit aThe closure would be very upsetting to my family. We purchased a home a year and a half ago, which is 4 blocks froFolsom Point, in order to take advantage of the recreational opportunities there. My children are in 3rd and 5th grade. 
 

No. Name Comment 

closure would mean that we would not have this very important part of our local experience until they were nearly out walk at Folsom Point almost daily, and enjoy boating, swimming and picnicking there in the summer. It is an area of 

and joy. After 7 years as a construction site, surely much of this would be lost. Certainly all of it would be lost to us f

the project. This is an unacceptable loss to us as a family, and to our community. I have not studied the proposals being considered by the Corp. yet, but certainly there must be a better alternative, in 

and quality of life impact on the City of Folsom, for the staging area for the Dam project. Substantial areas of undevenear the dam. Surely the Army Corp. can utilize land that will not impact the entire community so dreadfully. I want the Corp of Engineers to utilize an alternative to closing Folsom Point that meets the needs of your project whi

most important asset for the citizens of Folsom and the many thousands who come here to enjoy it. 

135 Kenneth Doherty 

The closing of Folsom Point is completely unacceptable. No, No, and No. [#135-1 Socioeconomics property values.] reason to close this recreation area to accommodate the dam retrofit project. This would ruin property values and de

lives. People move here specifically for the value of having access to Folsom Lake recreation. 

[#135-2 EIS Process.] Hiding this information within a 500 page document is reprehensible. This was handled in an emanner with regards to letting the citizens of Folsom know exactly what was being planned. [#135-3 Recreation lake 

Again, NO, NO and NO to closing Folsom Point. It is imperative that you to come up with other options that do not make such a negative impact on the citizens of this 

136 

Maria & Jeff 

Sickenger 

To whom it may concern: 

[#136-1 Recreation lake access closure.] I strenuously object to the proposed closure of Folsom Point State Recreatiproposition is unacceptable to me and to the citizens of Folsom and our surrounding communities. Folsom Point is uthousands of community members throughout the year for outdoor recreation such as walking, biking, running, boatin

The closure would be an outrage and detrimentally impact the quality of life for those in Folsom. Since the Dam Roa

been the only access to Folsom Lake within the City of Folsom and has been a serious draw for visitors as well. Please choose an alternative solution, as closing Folsom Point is absolutely unacceptable. Thank you for your consi

137 Frances Leon 

Hello, 

[#137-1 Recreation lake access closure.] I live in the Briggs Ranch area and I strongly object to the proposed closure 

State Recreation Area! This proposition is unacceptable to the citizens of Folsom and surrounding communities. Foby thousands of community members throughout the year for walking, biking, running, boating and picnicking, its clo

outrage. Folsom Point is the only access to Folsom Lake in the City of Folsom. Please consider alternative solutions, as closing Folsom Point is absolutely unacceptable. 

138 Cindy Sobotta 

To whom it may concern; 

[#138-1 Recreation lake access closure.] I strenuously object to the proposed closure of Folsom Point State Recreatiproposition is unacceptable to me and to the citizens of Folsom and our surrounding communities. Folsom Point is uthousands of community members throughout the year for outdoor recreation (walking, biking, running, boating and p

sometimes just contemplation. The closure would be an outrage and detrimentally impact the quality of life for those 

the Dam Road closed, it has been the only access to Folsom Lake within the City of Folsom and has been a serious 

as well. Please choose an alternative solution, as closing Folsom Point is absolutely unacceptable. Thank you for your consi

139 

Tracy 

Nordheim 

To whom it may concern; 

[#139-1 Recreation lake access closure.] I strenuously object to the proposed closure of Folsom Point State Recreatiproposition is unacceptable to me and to the citizens of Folsom and our surrounding communities. Folsom Point is u
30 of 148 

No. Name Comment 

thousands of community members throughout the year for outdoor recreation (walking, biking, running, boating and p

sometimes just contemplation. The closure would be an outrage and detrimentally impact the quality of life for those 

the Dam Road closed, it has been the only access to Folsom Lake within the City of Folsom and has been a serious 

as well. Please choose an alternative solution, as closing Folsom Point is absolutely unacceptable. Thank you for your consi

140 Lisa Tomiak 

[#140-1 Recreation lake access closure.] I writing this to voice my opposition and concern over the closure of Folsom resident of Brigg's Ranch my neighborhood will be most adversely effected by this proposed project. We use the par[#140-2 Traffic due to recreation site closure.] The closure of the boat launch will adversely effect an already overcrowValley Road with the added traffic of boaters launching at Brown's Ravine. I enjoy morning walks by the lake at Folso

picnics with my family and friends at picnic area, boating and swimming, not to mention the enjoyment the sheer bea

brings. These are all selfish reasons to not want the park to close but I have some true and valid concerns also. 

[#140-3 Air quality construction.] As the mother of children with asthma how is this going to effect the air quality. The from construction vehicles, concrete particles in the air, and the impact of asbestos from the soil being disturbed. [#14Socioeconomics property values. Living in the neighborhood directly by the proposed project will effect home values. The noise will also cause a disturbance to the residents of Briggs Ranch. [#140-6 Wildlife.] Environmentally this projdevastating effect on the wildlife living there. [#140-7 Public Involvement.] Please allow for an independent environmdone. I feel that this project was kept from residents. It seems like you would have alerted residents of your proposeEspecially when they will so adversely effect their quality of life. [#140-8 Socioeconomics businesses.] I am asking th

other options and don't close a state park that brings so much to the city of Folsom. The closure will effect tourism an

that count on tourist dollars. I can see nothing positive about the proposed location for the tax payers of our communinventiveness of the Army Corps of Engineers I am sure that another location could be found or built. Please find an 

141 

Mark and 

Kathy Van 

Saun 

To: Shawn Oliver From: Mark and Kathy Van Saun We are contacting you in regards to the proposed closing of the Folsom Point Recreation Area or Dike 8. We are ve

about this matter and ask that you would not only reconsider this proposal but give us more information. We have beresidents and Briggs Ranch homeowners for over 11 years and we can not imagine what such a closure would do to and our neighborhood. 

[#141-1 Recreation lake access closure.] Like many of our neighbors, we moved here primarily because of the lake aloves to take walks, run and mountain bike at the lake. [#141-2 Socioeconomics businesses and property values.] W

concerned about the devastating effect such a closure would have on the near by businesses as well as our home vapersonally know of a family that was considering several homes in the area to purchase and said yesterday that they 

due to this issue. 

[#141-3 PD alternative staging areas.] Why haven't other access points been chosen to help with this matter without entire recreational area? Folsom Point is Folsom's only access where as Granite Bay has two access areas.We havburden of the Dam Road closure and saw the effects of that decision on businesses, commutes and community acce

stomach another blow to our community. We ask you to please reconsider this decision and find an acceptable solut

142 Jennifer Thompson 

[#142-1 Socioeconomics.] It has come to my attention that the Army Corp of Engineers is considering closure of Fols

hope that this will not come to fruition as the closure of Folsom Point will negatively impact the City of Folsom by signdecreasing the resources the community has to offer its residents and tourists. 

[#142-2 Transportation.] As you are aware, the result of the closure of the Folsom Dam and resulting redirection of tra
 

No. Name Comment 

significant to the community in the loss of revenue and closure for businesses; and the traffic congestion on streets n

the volume of vehicles currently utilizing them on a daily basis. 

[#142-3 Socioeconomics businesses] In the event of the closure of Folsom Point, the lake visitors will be diverted to l

elsewhere, directing the potential revenue away from Folsom to El Dorado Hills and Granite Bay. Neighborhoods cloPoint will no longer have quick access to Folsom Lake for the many recreational purposes aside from boating and thidecrease the associated property values. Folsom residents are proud of Folsom Lake and it would be terribly ironic if community near Folsom Lake without access would be Folsom itself. Please consider options that would allow Folso

available to our residents and tourists so that we may enjoy it and continue to benefit from the revenue it brings to ou

Thank you for your consideration. 

143 Assunta L. Seivert 

[#143-1 Recreation lake access closure.] It is unthinkable that closing Folsom Point is to accommodate the Army Corstorage needs. Residents of Folsom have been using Folsom Point and its trails for years and provides the commun

share in nature's beauty. This is an established area for the people. Please use alternative places that are available Point. Thank you. 

144 

John and 

Cheryl 

Mandsager 

We understand the Bureau of Reclamation is proposing to close Folsom Point/Dyke 8 to all visitors for a duration of u

effective Fall 2007 while the Folsom Dam is retrofitted. [#144-1 PD alternative staging areas.] While we support the dunderstand there are many other alternatives that have yet to be explored. These alternatives would allow Folsom P

open to the public. 

[#144-2 Recreation lake access closure.] Since we enjoy visiting Folsom Point many, many times a year, this closure negative impact on our family. We imagine the impact on most, if not all, of the families in our neighborhood would b

urge the Bureau of Reclamation to pursue the Dam project in a manner that will allow Folsom Point to remain open to 

145 Maria Paladino 

To Whom It May Concern: I am very frustrated and disappointed to hear about the closure of Folsom Point and strongly object to it. I am shocke

even been considered. As a Folsom resident and homeowner in the immediately affected area, I am outraged that I through yet another devastating inconvenience. After the damn road closure and the detrimental affects on not only 

particular neighborhood (Briggs Ranch), this closure is absolutely unacceptable. 

[#145-1 Recreation lake access closure]. The entire Folsom community will be losing out on our use of this beautiful and picnicking (among other things). Our access to the lake via Folsom Point/Dyke 8 is a vital part of living in this areTransportation] [145-3 Socioeconomics property values.] As a resident of the immediate area, we will have to endu

congestion, as well as this detrimentally affecting our local environment and our property values. There has to be a better/alternate solution to this extremely long closure. 

146 Phil 

Hi Shawn, I was given your name as a contact for the raising of Folsom Dam. Are you the program manager for this project? If 

me to the lead person on this project. I wish to comment on the potential 7 yr. closure of Folsom Point SP. 

147 

Jennifer 

Hamilton 

To whom it May Concern, 

[#147-1 Recreation lake access closure.] I strongly object to the closing of Folsom Point. My family and I use this arebasis (boating, picnicking, walking etc) and would be devastated by this closure. There are many families in my neig

use this area on a regular basis and I know that losing this option to experience some peace and tranquility right in owould be a great loss to many. 

148 Michelle Thompson To whom it may concern; [#148-1 Recreation lake access closure.] I strenuously object to the proposed closure of Folsom Point State Recreati
32 of 148 

No. Name Comment 

proposition is unacceptable to me and to the citizens of Folsom and our surrounding communities. Folsom Point is uthousands of community members throughout the year for outdoor recreation (walking, biking, running, boating and p

sometimes just contemplation. The closure would be an outrage and detrimentally impact the quality of life for those 

the Dam Road closed, it has been the only access to Folsom Lake within the City of Folsom and has been a serious 

as well. Please choose an alternative solution, as closing Folsom Point is absolutely unacceptable. Thank you for your consi

149 David Lancisi 

Dear Bureau of Reclamation and US Army Corp of Engineers 

[#149-1 Recreation lake access closure.] I am writing this email to you to register our strong objection to the closure o

Launch Point as proposed for the purposes of Folsom Dam improvements. This is a HUGE recreation area for our to

main reasons why people buy homes and live here. It absolutely was for our family. The closure of this facility will m

impossible for Folsom residents to use this very highly regarded resource called Folsom Lake. [#149-2 Recreation repoints]. It will force the residents to use other already over-crowded launch points such as Browns Ravine and Granit

assure you that this will create major problems for these other areas as well As our town has grown, the use of the Lawell. As a matter of fact, you would be hard-pressed to find a weekend day that it wasn’t completely filled. We resid

Ranch area and use this resource extensively. 

[#149-3 Socioeconomics property values] In addition to the chaos you would create at the other launch ramps, this w

other major negative impacts, such as property value implications, increased traffic of trailered watercraft through the 

overwhelmed downtown streets of Folsom as people try to make their way to Granite Bay. Browns Ravine is already 

hardly be an alternative launch point. [#149-4 Transportation.] The largest impact will be the movement of constructithrough the area. This will create major issues with noise, pollution, congestion and access to city street for the resid

and those traveling through Folsom, which as we already know, is a very large amount (see ATD numbers from your studies). One solution would be to use the lookout point farther up the dam road for these purposes. This would allow Launch open and keep the construction activities away from the local resident. In the past, this was used for that purpose. 

In any case, we strongly object to the closure of this recreational area for many reasons and are sure you can find an 

to fit the construction needs. 

150 Ann Lindner 

To whom it may concern, 

[#150-1 Recreation lake access closure.] I am a resident of Folsom and have been for nearly 14 years. Six years ago 

I built a home right across the street from Folsom Point. This is where we planned on staying until our children are dMy youngest is 8 years old. When you talk about closing the Point for 7 years you are talking my children's childhood We use the lake on a weekly basis. We walk there, take the dog, swim, boat, picnic and bike. You are talking about 

our lifestyle. This may be temporary for you, but it is not for us. This will permanently change our life. [#150-2 Socioeproperty values]. On others levels, this will decrease our property value and cause much undue traffic and congestionmess on the streets with trucks coming and going. [#150-3 Transportation] You will be destroying the shore line with traveling back and forth. Our school walks there for field trips to see the wildlife and learn about nature. You say you years but for the lake to return to what it is now will take years past the damage you will be creating. [#150-4 Socioeconomics businesses.] The businesses that depend on that summer tourism will be destroyed. All of 

have speed boats say they will sell them if you close the Point. The impact upon the other launches will discourage 

boating on the lake. I hope you really understand the impact you will have on the community if completely close the point. These are our 
 

No. Name Comment 

of life that you will be effecting. Please make sure you have pursued all of your options and make the decision that iEVERYONE. 

151 Heather Sibilla 

January 18, 2007 To all of our honorable representatives: RE: “ PROPOSED” CLOSURE OF FOLSOM POINT STATE PARK (A.K.A. DYKE 8) by BUREAU OF RECLAMATIOARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS. Please be advised that we, citizens of Folsom, CA, have been put on notice that a proposed closure of our park is sc

of 2007. This proposal comes from the Bureau of Reclamation and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. It is our und

beautiful park and recreation area will be used as a construction staging area for different work projects on the dam a

Spillway by the Bureau and Army Corps of Engineers. It is our belief that this closure will have deep and dramatic effects on families, businesses, tourism and the environm

consequences are far reaching. [#151-1 Recreation lake access closure.] This is a family community. We bring our 

lake to walk, bike, swim, picnic, fish, boat and just enjoy nature. This scenario is repeated over and over again. Fols

the reasons people buy homes in this area. This park is one of the jewels of Folsom. Bird Watchers frequent the paVegetation and Wildlife.] I might point out that even though the Bald Eagle is no longer on the endangered species lis

protected by the “Bald and Gold Eagle Protection Act”. It is my understanding that one of the afforded protections is 

nesting area or flight pattern area. This needs more investigation. We have not been given adequate time to investig

that this proposal will have on our environment. We have other migratory birds that now nest there as well. [#151-3 A

environmental impact on our air quality could be dangerous for residents. This is a pathway for many other animals aRattlesnakes also reside at Folsom Point. 

[#151-4. Socioeconomics businesses.] The businesses in Folsom will definitely realize a financial impact. Our bus

forward to the summer months when tourists and other lake traffic provide much needed revenue. Our businesse

closure of the Dam Road and now this may be the proverbial “straw” for financial loss. Business owners have concern. We do not oppose positive improvements on the dam. We request a staging area that will not hurt so many famwildlife, and real estate values. [#151-5 Public Involvement.] In all truth we have not been given adequate time in 

these issues. Our first notice was on January 9th. 2007. We were advised that 3,000 flyers were sent out. Th

population of 63,000. The deadline given to us to discuss the closure is January 22, 2007. That was essentially “ no counsel as to our rights and the right of the wildlife who cannot speak for themselves. We ask all of you, as our voice and representatives, to please aid us in this endeavor. 

152 

Ann Linder fwd 

by Heather 

Sibilla 

Dear Mayor Morin, I know that you have received several e-mails about the closing of Folsom Point but I wanted to inform you about the 

taking place on Saturday at 12pm in the church parking lot as you enter Folsom Point. As mayor of the city, we, as a community, are expecting your support on this matter. Whether we can appeal to the 

Reclamation and the Corp of Engineers, we still need to know that you and your council stand behind your communitWe hope to see you all there! 
34 of 148 

No. Name Comment 

153 Lynn Derrick 

Mr. Starsky, As a homeowner of Folsom, and specifically, Briggs Ranch, I wanted to write to you. I understand the City Council w

whether or not to close Folsom Point for the next 7 years while the new bridge is constructed. I wanted to let you kno

opposed to this idea. One of the reasons we live in the Briggs Ranch area is because it is so close to Folsom Lake a

easy access to the boat launch at Folsom Point. 

[#153-1 Transportation.] I am also very concerned about all the construction trucks that will be disturbing this residenSocioeconomics property value.] I am also concerned what this closure and construction will do to property values in 

area. This closure can only hurt our lake and boating experience as well as tourism to Folsom Lake. Please vote on the side of your fellow residents and the welfare of your community. Voters have good memories abo

when election day rolls around again! 

154 Terry and Jim Lehman 

Mr. Mayor, We am very distressed at the idea of closing the Folsom Point (Dyke 8)recreation are for seven years as it is used fo

the dam reconstruction. [#154-1 Transportation.] We feel this is removing a vital part of the recreation for the city for a

length of time. Not to mention the construction vehicles that will be traveling in and out the site for seven years. This will impact the traffic on Natoma (which will just be opening up for traffic across the dam once the new bridge is 

negatively effect our neighborhood due to the traffic and noise. [#154-2 PD alternative staging areas.] We can not beis not a more appropriate place on the opposite side of the dam that cannot be used for this purpose. Our city and ne

taken such a hit in the past 5 years, can you not give us a break and use an area that will not negatively affect us for 

years? Please rethink your possibilities. 

155 Greg Fales. 

Dear Sir 

[#155-1 Recreation lake access closure.] I am writing to let you know my great concern and disapproval of shutting d

for any length of time. My family and I moved to Folsom over ten years ago and we use all of the parks located at the 

basis. Having access to Folsom Point or any other Park at Folsom Lake is a big reason that we moved to Folsom and quality of life that we paid for when buying our home. Giving up access for even one summer is not acceptable, let al

years. 

156 Doug Pepper 

Andy, 

[#156- Public Involvement meeting notification.] I just read on www.myfolsom.com that the Bureau of Reclamation is 

planning on closing Folsom Point for 7 years as part of the flood protections changes planned for Folsom Lake. Therbeen no public notice of this (at least that I saw) and yet I read there is a public hearing on Wednesday night. Does tposition on this? Folsom Point is the only lake access point (day use and ramp) in the Sac County portion of the lake

once again the Bureau is doing whatever it wants without concerns for Folsom. Will the City Council be responding t

position? I won’t go into all my concerns at this point, hoping that the city officials share the same concern. I’m hopinback many of us who will be showing up at the meeting on Wednesday night. 

157 Vicky 

Dear Mr. Morin, Ms. Howell, Mr. King, Mr. Miklos and Mr. Starsky, Attached is the e-mail that I just sent to you regarding the closing of Folsom Point. While messages are making the ro

neighborhood encouraging us to voice our displeasure at the closing of Folsom Point, my understanding was that the 

to the building of the planned bridge. After reading another e-mail which I received just shortly after the one I sent youmy mistake and that the closure is due to the retrofit of the dam. However, my comments remain the same as this is 

below, another slap in the face for the residents of Briggs Ranch. How many ways can The City and the Bureau of R
 

No. Name Comment 

choose to affect one neighborhood? [#157-1 PD alternative staging areas.] My request is that another location for the staging area be chosen. [#157-2 Tra[157-3 Noise]. The residents of Briggs Ranch stand to loose property value, have increased traffic pouring through, alevels caused by the construction of the bridge followed by it's use, will be unpleasant to deal with to say the least. Tclosure of Folsom Point, is just not right. Not to mention the mess, traffic issues and noise due to the construction of 

Thank you for listening, 

158 Chantell Harp [158-1 General]Save Folsom!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 159 Anonymous 

[#159-1 Recreation lake access closure] I heard a rumor that there is a possibility that Folsom Point on Folsom Lake 

temporarily so it can be used as a staging area for construction of the new bridge at Folsom Dam. I am a Civil Enginespecialize in heavy construction so I understand the need for a laydown yard and staging area but I must protest the 

recreation area for construction use. [#159-2 Recreation remaining lake access] This is a heavily used lake and the fa

access are already impacted and overused. The boat ramp and parking lot at Folsom Point are always filled to capaweekends. This would be a tremendous impact on the community and should be avoided at all costs. The location itself does not lend itself to use as a laydown and staging area for the bridge as there is no overland accsite without entering the public right of way. The size and type of equipment and material neeeded for constructing th

not be allowed to travel on the public roads. [#159-3 PD alternate staging areas] I would think the property bounded b

Natoma Rd. and the exiting Dam Rd. would be better suited for this purpose. As a resident of Folsom and frequent Lake user I urge you consider other alternatives to closing Folsom Point. 

160 Robert Flores 

To Bureau of Reclamation, I am submitting this letter to you regarding the irresponsible actions you and your administration are taking in your pla

Folsom Point (Dike 8) It is to be noted that over 140000 persons use this location to view and use Folsom Lake. Thus far Folsom has lost thaccess the lower point parking lot near Negro Bar (After the construction of the new bridge), Then in 2001 you decide

Point due to security reasons (This decision did little to improve security by any means, I am a security specialist and 

And now finally you want to close Folsom Point. I own a scuba shop in Folsom and made the decision to build here due to easy access to the lake. Over the years I h

the closures of the other two sites and found myself training students off of Folsom Point. While the restrictions have 

they were manageable. It has taken over 10 years of my life to build and develop a successful business here in FolsoProcess economic study] Your lack of conducting a financial impact study or minimum impact study is atrocious to sa[# 160-2 PD alternate staging areas] I have having difficulty in understanding why the Bureau of Reclamation cannot 

at Vista Point (currently closed site) for a staging area for its equipment. Why is it that you cannot use an area that hawith restricted vehicle access already in place. If equipment needs to be moved via water that a simple boat ramp coin place. I have surveyed the area at Vista Point both on land and underwater and It would seem to me that a boat rabe built there at minimum cost without impacting the general public. This option would not effect the general public at 

security being present and limited access all of your equipment would be in a much more secure location. The parkin

is large enough to secure any equipment you have for the entire project. I realize that this may also cause you some issues as equipment may have to be moved to the work area. But the needs and desires of the many out weight the 
36 of 148 

No. Name Comment 

desires of the few. [# 160-3 Recreation remaining lake access] As far as impacting the boating general population, I have seen lines as 

boats waiting to use Folsom Point during the summer. Now you expect these same people to go to Browns Ravine, BGranite Bay to launch their boats. With their compacity already over 100% use. One only has to contact the Folsom P

Recreations Officers and ask them how many times, altercations have occurred, over boat ramps being used beyond 

tempters due to long waits in line, just to gain access to launch at Granite Bay or Browns Ravine are normal already. Folsom Point and redirection of these boaters to above mentioned launch ramps, will no doubt have considerable rep

entire lake area. 

[#160-4 Public Involvement notification of project] If the Bureau of Reclamation has a need to conduct repairs or consconfident that you have known of these repair for quite some time, You have had plenty of time to prepare for this repshould have included an impact study and preparations should have been made long in advance with notification beibusinesses and residence to address this issue. Poor planning results in poor performance. The actions over the last few years regarding the access to the water at: Lake Natoma, Vista Point and now Folsom 

show little if no regard to impact on the public use of these facilities. I would be willing to bet that if a endangered field 

species had habitat in the area you would halt this action. But no thought has been given to the HUMANS that paid fothis facility. 

[#160-5 Public Involvement] Dropping the decision on our laps, with little response time, and little ability to react, only 

that the Bureau of Reclamation was not interested in hearing about any of the repercussions of its decision. It further 

a totalitarian attitude of the Bureau of Reclamation exists and needs to be addressed. 

[#160-6 Socioeconomics businesses I am opposed to closure of any part Folsom Point (Dike 8) for any amount of made decisions without looking at the financial or environmental impact it will have on Folsom. The general populati

businesses and will be impacted by this poor decision, including mine. Our government is supposed to work for us noaligns on a 12000.00 dollar Air Force hammer purchase, as far as government overlooking spending and decision ma

161 Naomi Wooten 

To Whom It May Concern: 

[#161-1 Recreation lake access closure] Please do not close Folsom Point to scuba divers! We have already lost selocal spots. Folsom Point is a convenient place to practice skills when I cannot get to Monterey. I have spent many hmy skills and having fun, and I hope to continue to do so in the future. I think it's an especially great place to have scubecause you don't have to deal with surf, salt, and sand; diving there reduces stress for new divers or those of us pra

162 Kristine Olding and Family 

[#162-1 Recreation lake access closure PD alternate staging areas] It has been bad enough that the DAM Road has to ruin the wonderful recreation area of FOLSOM POINT by closing it for 7 years is ridiculous. Do the construction at 

at the DAM road or on the prison grounds but don't wreck our lives by closing the Folsom Point.  DO NOT CLOSE FOLSOM POINT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 

163 Daryl Stieve 

Shawn, Becky 

 [#163-1 Recreation lake access closure] I feel that closing Folsom Point is not in the best interest of the area busdealers, Lake recreation would be cut by at least 35 % , Granite Bay and Browns Ravine are a zoo with Folsom Poin

would be impossible to access the lake, the monetary loss to state parks is also added into this situation including my sure that other areas could be used for staging, A 5-6 acre site at the north and south ends of the dam could be used growing weeds and the area behind Morman island dam, I'm sure the city of Folsom would assist as well. 

164 Dan & Sheri To who it may concern: 
 

No. Name Comment 

Stafford, and 

family [#164-1 Recreation lake access closure] I am writing this to you in hopes that you will reconsider the closure of the Fo

Launch area. ] Folsom has already been hit hard with the closure of the Damn Road. Folsom is a beautiful communi

lake that supports, Granite Bay, El Dorado Hills and Folsom, having three entrances into the lake for boat launching. 

crippled the city with the damn closure; now you want to attack our Lake. [#164-2 Recreation remaining lake access] load your boats in three different locations, which accommodates many local cities, with a lot of boaters. This is what buy in this area. The "Lake" is the "draw" to Folsom and the surrounding cities. Why would you do this to us? Closineffect all of our summer activities. Please, Please reconsider this for our community. We have a boat, we love the la

our we and our neighbors spend time in the spring, summer and early fall. Do not take this away from us!!!! 

165 Robert Halldorson [165-1 General] Losing folsom point for seven years, this is a bad idea all around.There has got to be another way.I 

them proceed until they find it! 

166 Garth C Hall EBMUD 

Hi Shawn ... Please use me as your primary contact at EBMUD in this regard. Best regards, Garth C. HallEast Bay Municipal Utility District375 Eleventh Street, MS 407Oakland, CA 94607-4240tel: 510.287.2061fax: 510.287.1295January 24, 2007 Mr. Shawn Oliver U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 7794 Folsom Dam Road Folsom, CA 95630 Ms. Rebecca Victorine U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1325 J Street Sacramento, CA 95814-2922 RE: Folsom Dam Safety and Flood Damage Reduction EIS/EIR Dear Mr. Oliver and Ms. Victorine: The East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Draft EIS/EIR prepar
38 of 148 

No. Name Comment 

Dam Safety and Flood Damage Reduction project. EBMUD is responsible for supplying water to parts of Alameda acounties on the eastern side of San Francisco Bay in northern California. EBMUD's water system serves approximatpeople in a 325-square-mile area. In 2006, the District executed a long-term renewal contract with the U.S. Bureau 

(Reclamation) for a supplemental dry-year supply from the Central Valley Project (CVP). As a CVP contractor, the opFolsom Dam and its appurtenant facilities are of concern to EBMUD. It is in this context that we offer the following co

Draft EIS/EIR. 

[#166-1 No Action Alternative] 1. The document does not adequately support the use of the 400,000/670,000 acre fo

reservation of flood control space (operating rule) as a key assumption in the No Action Alternative. The Interim Flood Operations Agreement (Agreement) between the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency (SAFCA

includes an interim 400,000/670,000 acre foot operating rule. The Agreement and operating rule were intended only temporary, interim flood damage reduction benefit until the Corps’ outlet modification project was completed. At this mechanism in place to compel continuation of the interim operating rule beyond 2018. NEPA requires that a no actio

account for a predicted change in future conditions. Given that the agreement is currently scheduled to expire shortly 

the construction of the improvements described in the DEIS/EIR, the no action alternative should use the pre-1993 40

rule as the default. 

[#166-2 Impacts reoperation] 2. The Draft EIS/EIR’s discussion of impacts and alternatives is insufficient because thaddress the implementation of new operations. The document states that any consideration of the impacts of changed operations cannot be determined and defers tdevelopment of operational alternatives to a point after this project has commenced. At that later point, however, opealternatives could be constrained or favored by the physical solution that is selected and constructed. In addition, the alternatives examined in the Draft EIS/EIR does not encompass alternatives involving downstream levees. Where thResources Development Act of 1996 contemplates development and implementation of a flood damage reduction pla

American River, no such plan is accounted for in the Draft EIS/EIR. As a result, the flood control alternatives and the

narrowly described in the Draft EIS/EIR to meet the requirements of NEPA. The studies should be completed and decomprehensive set of alternatives before a revised draft EIS/EIR is issued and operational impacts should be conside

possible. 

[#166-3 Impacts indirect and cumulative economic impacts to water users] 3. The Draft EIS/EIR should address the impacts on CVP water contractors. Because the Draft EIS/EIR has deferred any discussion or evaluation of operational rules, there are no estimates of teconomic/financial impact to CVP water contractors, due to likely changes to the operation of Folsom reservoir result

Proposed Project and other alternatives. In turn, no remedies have been identified to compensate CVP water contra

operational changes that could result in reduced water supply. The document, in other words, has failed to consider cumulative impacts that are likely to result from the project. ] 
 

No. Name Comment 

EBMUD requests that the Corps and Bureau of Reclamation consider these issues in finalizing the Draft EIS/EIR. W

opportunity to comment on this document and look forward to future opportunities to participate in the changes conteFolsom Dam. Sincerely, Alexander R. Coate Manager of Water Supply Improvements ARC:GCH:acr cc: Rob Alcott, EBMUD  Karen Donovan, EBMUD 

167 Kelly James 

Hello, 

[#167-1 Recreation lake access closure] I saw the article on Folsom Point on the News 10 website regarding the closPoint for seven years. I live in Folsom and use the lake on a regular basis. Closing a major ramp and parking lot is gmajor problems during the summer, not only for Folsom residents but for all who use Folsom's recreational facilities. I urge you t o find another solution that will not adversely impact the community. 

168 Gary Devers 

Dear Sir: 

[#168-1 Recreation lake access closure] If you intend on closing Folsom Point I will sell my boat and for the first time 

not buy a season pass. This launch is used by myself and most of my friends in the area. Please revise your staging 

else, my family loves the lake and will miss it in the event you use the parking lot for a staging area. 

169 

Director 

Raynor 

Tsuneyoshi 

Calif. Dept. of Boating and Waterways2000 Evergreen Street, Suite 100Sacramento, Calif. 95815

Tel: 916.263.4330

Fax: 916.263.0648 

January 22, 2007 

Shawn Oliver Bureau of Reclamation 7794 Folsom Dam Road Folsom, CA 93630 Dear Shawn Oliver: 
40 of 148 

No. Name Comment 

[#169-1 Recreation lake access closure] The California Department of Boating and Waterways strongly urgeBureau of Reclamation to refrain from closing the Folsom Point recreation area to visitors while Folsom Dam undergoing modification. The Folsom Point boat launching facility is very important to the thousands of recreational boaters each yeaon this launch ramp for access to Folsom Lake. [#169-2 Recreation remaining lake access] While there is aboat launching ramp at nearby Browns Ravine, it is not large enough to handle the additional boater demanwould be created by the closure of the Folsom Point launching facility.  Sincerely, 

Original Signed By: 

 Raynor Tsuneyoshi  Director 

170 Karin Miller

[#170-1 Recreation lake access closure] I would like to voice my opinion not to close Folsom Point. My husband and 

from our childhood homes in the Bay Area specifically to be close to the lake and enjoy the recreation of the Folsom 

neighborhood. We live in Briggs Ranch and bought a boat two years ago, we take my 10-yr. old son and his friends 

summer and feel privileged to be so close to the lake. The reason people move to Folsom is for all of the wonderful t

the lake). We hope you make decisions that are for the benefit of the people that live their today! 

171 Joel & Cathy Miller Mr. Oliver, sacrifice is necessary, even though we will be affected. [#171 In support of project] Those same people that are against the closure would be the 1st to put the blame on the 

flood. Do the right thing! 

172 Leslie Nagel 

Mr. Finnegan: 

[#172-1 Recreation lake access closure PD alternate staging areas] I would like to put my two cents in about the pos

Folsom Point for work on the dam at Folsom Lake. My family and I are against the closing of Folsom Point and woul

alternate site be found. 

173 

Derek & 

Deborah 

Reinbolt 

Mr. Shawn Oliver, Bureau of Reclamation and Ms. Becky Victorine, US Army Corp of Engineers 

Hello, My wife Debbie, our two school age children and myself have lived in Folsom since August of 1993. One of th

we moved to Folsom was the wonderful lake (Folsom Lake), located in the town. This lake provides much needed re

picnicking, etc.... for area residents during the warm months of the year. We frequent the lake often during the summ

enjoyed many days boating there. We have introduced many families and children to boating, water skiing, tubing an

sports over the years. [#173-1 Recreation lake access closure and remaining lake access] As you may or may not b

VERY limited access to the lake and there are principally only three boat ramps. Granite Bay, Browns Ravine and Fo

the launching points on the lake for power boats and each includes limited parking for lake guests and car/trailer parkweekends and holidays, these three ramps are busy most of the day and parking lots filled by late morning, at which boats are permitted on the lake. Browns' Ravine has the most limited facilities for launching boats and parking vehic

Point was to be closed, this would leave two ramp/parking facilities, one of which is the least desirable of the three. 
 

No. Name Comment 

The Folsom community was injured after the events of 9/11 when the Bureau of Reclamation took advantage of this oclose the Dam road. Many businesses have closed, were forced to relocate to stay in business or have been strappe

to the traffic created as a result of this closure. The community has endured the closure of a main artery to and from 

hopeful that the bridge connecting Granite Bay with Folsom will be built soon. [#173-2 Socioeconomics businesses] values] Closing Folsom Point for SEVEN years will deal the community another blow and likely cause property values 

businesses to close, increase traffic and hurt the style of living that many of us moved to Folsom to enjoy. Some mighseven years". In seven years my oldest daughter will be a junior in college and my youngest will be a senior in high s

Folsom community is primarily families and I would fully expect that most feel the same way about the possible closu

 The best location for construction and staging is right next to where the spillway is scheduled to be built. This area h

the public since 9/11 and would be ideal, as it is not currently used and the materials would be at the closest point for 

construction placement. There is amble truck access to this area as existing roads could be used and the area is alre

the public. Security and safety would be better than anywhere else as a result. We understand that another spillway may be needed for Folsom Lake. The people of Folsom are not against building 

the negative impact on this great community as a result of closing one of the few access points to Folsom Lake in Fonot necessary. Please reconsider the location for staging the spillway construction and keep Folsom Point open to th

community can enjoy this wonderful Lake. 

174 Stacey Mefford 

Mr. Shawn Oliver and Ms. Becky Victorine, 

[#174-1 Recreation access closure/alternatives] As a user of the Granite Bay launching point to Folsom Lake I’m very the news I heard about the closure of Folsom Point for seven years!! It is already very crowed at the launch areas on 

and closing another point will make it even worse. We have already had to endure the closure of access to Folsom wthe Dam road, which hurt Folsom deeply. Aren’t there some alternatives for the construction and staging like right ne

where a road was already closed to the public? I understand that the spillway is needed but can’t it be done without more inconvenience to the residents and uses of reconsider the location for staging and the spillway construction and keep Folsom Point open to the public so we can 

175 Cheryl & Andy Kurimay 

Dear Mr. Finnegan, and To all of you who can make a difference: 

 [#175-1 Recreation lake access closure] As a resident of Folsom, I am asking that you do everything in your powe

Point State Park open..... It is such a Blessing to have this beautiful park in our midst. What a loss it would be if it waaway..... This is a family community. We bring our children and grandchildren to the area to walk, picnic, fish and en

least it is such a peaceful place to get away from busy schedules and just reflect on what is important......and this iss

[#175-2 Socioeconomic businesses] Also, this is a popular boating area and the closure would definitely impact the b

area, especially in the summer.. Business owners have expressed great concern. Folsom has already suffered a lot closures due to the impact of closing the DAM Road. We ask you please to help us in this endeavor, 

176 Chere' Presley 

To all of our honorable representatives:  Please be advised that we, citizens of Folsom, CA have been put on notice that a proposed closure of our local state 

scheduled for the fall of 2007. The 100% closure is for a lengthy period of 6 - 7 years. This proposal comes from the 

Reclamation and the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers. It is our understanding that our beautiful park and recreation area construction staging area for different work projects on the dam and Mormon Island Spillway by the Bureau and ArmEngineers. It is our belief that this closure will have deep and dramatic effects on families, businesses, tourism and the environm

consequences are far reaching. [#176-1 Recreation lake access closure/alternatives.] This is a family community. W
42 of 148 

No. Name Comment 

children to the lake to walk, bike, swim, picnic, fish, boat and just enjoy nature. This scenario is repeated over and oFolsom Point is one of the reasons people buy homes in this area. This park is one of the jewels of Folsom. Bird Wathe park. [#176-2 Vegetation and Wildlife.] I might point out that even though the Bald Eagle is no longer on the enda

list, it is still protected by the “Bald and Gold Eagle Protection Act”. It is my understanding that one of the afforded pr

disturb the nesting area or flight pattern area. This needs more investigation. We have not been given adequate tim

the impact that this proposal will have on our environment. We have other migratory birds that now nest there as welquality]. The environmental impact on our air quality could be dangerous for residents. This is a pathway for many otwell. Rattlesnakes also reside at Folsom Point. [#176-4. Socioeconomics businesses.] The businesses in Folsom wil

a financial impact. Our business owners look forward to the summer months when tourists and other lake traffic prov

revenue. Our businesses suffered with the closure of the Dam Road and now this may be the proverbial “straw” for fBusiness owners have expressed a great concern. We do not oppose positive improvements on the dam. We requesthat will not hurt so many families, businesses, wildlife, and real estate values. [#176-5 Public Involvement.] In all tru

been given adequate time in which to address these issues. Our first notice was on January 9th. 2007. We were advis

flyers were sent out. This is a city with a population of 63,000. The deadline given to us to discuss the closure is Jan

That was essentially “ no notice.” We need counsel as to our rights and the right of the wildlife who cannot speak for We ask all of you, as our voice and representatives, to please aid us in this endeavour. 

177 Dan Otis 

Mayor Morin: 

[#177-1 Recreation lake access closure/alternatives] I want to urge you to take action to weigh in on the potential US

major recreation and boating facilities at Folsom Lake at Folsom Point and other locations. This could eliminate the m

and boating access for up to 7 years! My 13 year old son would be an adult by the time the facilities reopened for ou

USBR needs to revise its draft EIR to include the use of other areas for spillway construction staging--other areas bealready in use by hundreds of thousands every year. I am sure that there are sites that could be developed at slightly already developed areas such as boat launch facilities, but those minor costs are small in such a huge project as tha

Folsom Lake. We all agree that the work needs done, but USBR needs to find alternatives that will allow uninterrupte

Lake's boating facilities at the busiest State Park in the area. That is a very high value, especially for Folsom residenPlease let USBR know that you want an alternative that does not use the valuable boating facilities as the cheapest lconstruction staging. Comments are due by this Friday, and can be emailed to USBR at: soliver@mp.usbr.gov and 

mfinnegan@mp.usbr.gov, 916-988-1707. Thanks for helping us protect the use of Folsom State Park recreation and boating facilities for the hundreds of thoustaxpayers using the facilities, and the residents and businesses of Folsom. 

178 Angie McLaughlin 

[#178-1 Recreation lake access closure] The closure of Folsom Point by the Bureau of Reclamation will have a deep 

family community. We take our children to Folsom Lake to swim, bike, hike, fish, boat, & enjoy nature. This is our onl

lake in this area. 

[#178-2 Socioeconomics businesses] [#178-3 Property values] Closing it will hurt businesses & have a definite finan

Businesses in this area have already been hurt by the closure of Folsom Dam. It will also effect housing in the area. T

impact also needs to be investigated before any decision is made. 

[#178-4 Public Involvement notification of project Folsom citizens were not given proper notice of this "Proposed" clo
 

No. Name Comment 

Please help prevent this closure. 

179 Liz Young 

 [#179-1 Recreation lake access closure.] I strenuously object to the proposed closure of Folsom Point State Recreatproposition is unacceptable to me and to the citizens of Folsom and our surrounding communities. Folsom Point is usthousands of community members throughout the year for outdoor recreation (walking, biking, running, boating and picnicking) and sometimes just contemplation. The closure would be an outrage and detrimentally impact the quality 

Folsom. Since the Dam Road closed, it has been the only access to Folsom Lake within the City of Folsom and has 

draw for visitors as well.  Please choose an alternative solution, as closing Folsom Point is absolutely unacceptable. Thank you for your con

180 Teresa Romero 

To whom it may concern; 

[#180-1 Recreation lake access closure.] I am concerned about the proposed closure of Folsom Point State Recreati

that Folsom Point is used by many different people in the community for both recreation and just plain old peace and husband and I go up there with our lunch and sit and talk, it has become a place where we can relax, be away from a

our everyday lives. It is so peaceful and tranquil up there, overlooking the lake. Please do not take that away from us

Please choose an alternative solution, as closing Folsom Point seems tragic to me. Thank you for your time. 

181 Chris Landry 

To Whom It May Concern: 

[#181-1 Recreation lake access closure.] I strongly encourage you to find other options to the Corps of Engineers lev

closing Folsom Pt. My family and I are frequent visitors to Folsom Pt, and the proximity and ease of use of Folsom Pprimary reasons we chose the neighborhood that we now live in. The closure of Folsom Pt is simply unacceptable. 

Thank you for your consideration. 

182 Carrie Cain 

[#182-1 Recreation lake access closure.] I strongly object to the proposed closure of Folsom Point State Recreation 

proposition is unacceptable to the citizens of Folsom and surrounding communities. Folsom Point is used by thousanmembers throughout the year for walking, biking, running, boating and having picnics. It's closure would be an outrag

is the only access to Folsom Lake in the City of Folsom. Please consider alternative solutions, as closing Folsom Poiunacceptable. 

183 Maria Errante 

To whom it may concern; 

[#183-1 Recreation lake access closure.] I strenuously object to the proposed closure of Folsom Point State Recreatiproposition is unacceptable to me and to the citizens of Folsom and our surrounding communities. Folsom Point is uthousands of community members throughout the year for outdoor recreation (walking, biking, running, boating and p

sometimes just contemplation. The closure would be an outrage and detrimentally impact the quality of life for those 

the Dam Road closed, it has been the only access to Folsom Lake within the City of Folsom and has been a serious 

as well. Please choose an alternative solution, as closing Folsom Point is absolutely unacceptable. Thank you for your consi

184 Susan Mussett SLDMWA 

[#184-1 Cost Allocation.] Any costs attributed solely to Flood Damage Reduction must not be reimbursable by CVP c

example, since Reclamation has determined that a dam raise and operable spillway gates are not required for Dam S

should make it clear that any costs for a dam raise or in excess of the cost of a fuseplug spillway will not be borne by users. 

185 Susan Mussett SLDMWA [#185 New Bridge.] The bridge to be constructed immediately downstream of the dam is not related to either Dam Sa

Damage Reduction and no portion of the costs for the bridge are to be borne by CVP water and power users. 

186 Susan Mussett [#186 No Action Alternative.] We understand that the Folsom operations are not part of this environmental review, bu
44 of 148 

No. Name Comment 

SLDMWA language in the DIE/R could be confusing regarding this issue. It should be made clear that the Interim Operations pu

agreement between Reclamation and SAFCA is a temporary plan and has not been analyzed under NEPA or CEQA operations plan. Therefore the baseline or “without project’ alternative must be based on the 400,000 AF flood reserv

the variable flood reservation levels in the Interim Operations agreement. 

187 MK Veloz 

Dear Mr. Oliver: The Northern California Marine Association (NCMA), a non-profit trade association, represents approximately 300 me

the majority of which are located in Northern California. These small business firms represent businesses involved in 

boating industry; including boat dealers, brokers, marinas, boat yards, chandleries, marine equipment and electronics 

publishers, and marine finance and insurance specialists. In addition to supplying the needs of California’s 3.5 million 

anglers, the recreational marine industry has a significant impact on the state’s overall economy. California's Departm

and Waterways recently determined that statewide, boating contributed approximately $16.5 billion to the Gross State annually. In addition, boating contributed $1.6 billion in state and local taxes annually. There were 8,500 boating relat

the state that provided more than 284,000 jobs to the economy. The economic health of Northern California’s recreational marine industry depends on maintaining access to the areawaterways. The alternatives outlined in the Draft EIS/EIR rely on closing Folsom Point for use for up to seven years a

and storage area for the project. [#187-1 Recreation lake access closure/alternatives.] This proposal would seriously 

access for the approximately 125,000 annual visitors to the site. Over the six to seven year life of the project 816,021 

lost.] [#187-2 Socioeconomics businesses.] Not only would this severely impact recreational marine businesses, but impact the area’s local economy, since many of these visitors patronize local supply shops, restaurants, gas stations

stores. Furthermore, disrupting recreational activity at Folsom Point threatens to create congestion at other entrances 

Lake Recreation Area. The California Department of Parks and Recreation, which operates the Folsom Lake Recrea

suffer a serious economic loss if this were to occur. [#187-3 Socioeconomics state parks. State Parks already diverts 

the Department of Boating and Waterways’ Harbors and Watercraft Revolving Fund. Those funds, paid for by the gas 

boaters pay to fuel their boats, are used to repair and build marinas, launch ramps, and other boating facilities througThe $27 million diversion has already negatively impacted the Boating Department’s ability to adequately address the 

infrastructure needs. Putting further stress on the State Parks’ budget, by closing Folsom Point for an extended periolikely result in further attempts to divert funds from the Revolving Fund. Therefore, the economic impact would ripple 

state and would not just be limited to the local area. At the public hearing at the Folsom Community Center on January 10, several representative stakeholders from Fols

community suggested alternatives that would not so severely impact access. They suggested that the Bureau and thseries of forums with the stakeholders to identify mutually beneficial alternatives. The NCMA strongly supports this subelieve that there are alternatives that would allow the Bureau and the Corps to carry out its vital work without cripplin

state recreational community. The NCMA would also be more than happy to participate in and to contribute to this prThank you for the opportunity to comment. If you have any questions, please contact me at 510-334-8866 or at ncma

188 Jane Pearson 

[#188-1 Recreation lake access closure/alternatives.] I am sickened to hear that Dyke 8/ Folsom Point has a planned to this decision as it is the only access to the residence of Folsom on this side of the lake. We just bought a boat and 

already problematic due to over crowded conditions. I cannot fathom how we will be able to access the lake as the pclosures will no longer make boating feasible for those of us on the East (?) side of the lake. 

 I live near Briggs Ranch Road. I've lost easy access to Roseville and I-80 North bound due to the closure of the Da

hearing that my close residential boat launch access is being curtailed. I have been a resident of Folsom for 20 year
 

No. Name Comment 

"improvement" has adversely effected my quality of life. Please don't close Folsom Point to the residence of the city. 

other options that are available. 

189 

Branton and 

Jennifer 

Obenaus 

Hello, 

[#189-1 General.] Please do not close this valuable and extensively used neighborhood recreational resource (FolsoThe state park on East Natoma is one of the reasons we chose to buy our home in this area. 

190 Michael Avakian 

Mr. Oliver, 

[#190-1 Recreation lake access closure.] I am a recent resident of Briggs Ranch. A major decision in moving to this 

the Lake access at Folsom Point. We lead a very active life and enjoy the close Lake Access and have become very Folsom Point would be closed to Stage the construction of a new Dam Road. I ask that the team please consider a n

staging their equipment. Why would this project want to impact the quality of life for Folsom Residents in such a negPlease consider other locations. 

191 Marcus MacTaggart 

Hello, 

[#191-1 Recreation lake access closure/alternatives.] I recently became aware of the proposal to close Folsom Point increase flood protection. I have been a Folsom resident for the past 16 years and 2 years ago I was finally able to p

My family and I use it year round exclusively in Folsom Lake for water sports, fishing, picnics etc. Folsom point is not access on the whole lake, it is the most convenient for us. 

[#191-2 Recreation remaining access points.] I have attempted to put my boat in at both Browns Ravine and Granite While Browns Ravine is not that far away, the boat ramp is often extremely crowded and the boat trailer parking is lim

water level is high as it is for several months during peak fishing and boating season. Granite bay is at least a half hoalso it is often crowded due to the easy access from I80. If Folsom Point was closed for the proposed 6 years I a very 

utilization of my boat would be cut in half if not more. My kids are in their early teens and we have been able to strengbond through our many outings on our boat. By the time Folsom Point opens up again, my kids will be going away to Essentially this means we would miss out on critical time with our children during their teenage years. This prospect 

an I greatly. 

[#191-3 Socioeconomics businesses.] In addition to the loss to my family, I am also concerned about the loss to the FWe have already suffered business loss due to the damn road closing....now this. I am one of those people who throw

Folsom economy to support my boating lifestyle. If that lifestyle is significantly cut back, I will be significantly cutting bI spend in Folsom to support my boating activities. This includes fuel, food, drinks, boating accessories, and maintena

kind of scenario will likely happen to a lot of Folsom boating families and the city business will also suffer from the loscoming from out of town to use Folsom Point. I personally do not understand why another area can not be used in the same capacity as the proposal for Folsom po

the old parking lot by the dam has not been used in years. [#191-4 Recreation mitigation.] At the very least if the prop

Folsom Point does get approved it should require that better access and trailer parking should be provided at Browns 

make up for the loss. Thanks for allowing me to comment on this subject 

192 Jill Ellis 

Dear Mr. Oliver, 

[#192-1 Recreation lake access closure.] I live in the Briggs Ranch area in Folsom, and I am hearing that the Bureau planning on closing Folsom Point while the bridge is under construction. I urge you not to do that. Folsom Point is a people walk their dogs, go for runs and use the boat ramp for water recreation. [#192-2 Recreation remaining access 

the summer Folsom Point is so busy. Closing it would cause major traffic congestion at the other boat ramps.] One 
46 of 148 

No. Name Comment 

chose Briggs Ranch to live was because it is so close to the lake. I understand there needs to be an area for the brid

equipment, but please consider a different area. Closing Folsom Point for seven years would not be the right decisio

Thank you for listening! 

193 mair auerbach [#193-1 Public Involvement Process.] I am writing to object strongly to any idea of closing Folsom point, also to the u

whole affair appears to have been handled.] mair auerbach 

194 Lisa Tomiak 

Mr Oliver, I writing you to voice my opposition to planned closure of Folsom Point. This proposal will impact this community in s

that it may never recover, destroying the lives and financial stability of residents still struggling to recover from the cloroad. Your planned proposal will not only effect the quality of life but the health and safety of residents and wildlife. According to the Bureau's Findings: 

[#194-1 Vegetation and wildlife.] Destruction of wetlands or possible permanent loss of wetlands The loss of wetland

species of birds, mammals, protected amphibians, fish, and endangered insects. Our need for more water is going to wildlife of the lake possibly forever. It also mentions the creation of solid waste. This is a beautiful state park you are 

cement factory and staging area. This delicate environment and the many animals that call it home could be perman

and that is just too high a price for more water. One issue you did not address was our resident Eagle (aka lovingly kAlthough the Bald Eagle may no longer be on the endangered species list, it is still protected by the "Bald and Golden 

Act" It is my understanding one of the afforded protections is not to disturb the nesting area or flight pattern. Is your 

violation of this Act? 

[#194-2 Water Quality.] Damage to Water Quality: Folsom lake is known for its beautiful clear water. Families flock to 

increased turbidity and siltation will make this impossible. 

[#194-3 Air Quality.] Air Quality This is my greatest concern. I live in Brigg's Ranch, the neighborhood directly acros

Folsom Point. I have two daughters that have asthma. Your own study says that NOx and Particulate PM10 emissiodeminiis thresholds. How is this going to effect their already challenged lungs? How are they going to hang out in th

when you poison the air? What are the long term effects of breathing these chemicals. Another issue to air quality is occurring asbestos in the soil, it is not an issue until you start moving it around. The soil relocation and blasting will p

carcinogenic chemical into the air to poison Folsom Families. 

[#194-4 Transportation.] Significant Impact to Roadways: Getting around Folsom has been challenging to say the leaRoad closure. Natoma Street is already severely overcrowded, the addition of construction traffic will make it imposs

the city and dangerous for residents. Emergency vehicles may have difficulty responding to emergencies due to traff

The increase of traffic will also damage our roadways. 

[#194-5 Visual loss of lake views] Permanent Loss Of Lake Views:

Many of us in Folsom bought our homes because of Folsom Lake and the beautiful views. This proposed closure is 

adversely effect the [#194-6 Socioeconomics property value.] property values of our homes. This will have a huge im

financial stability of this community. The loss of lake views is going to eliminate the very reason we moved to this co

[#194-7 Noise.] Increased Noise Levels: According to your study Noise levels will surpass levels at the three receptonighttime noise will be an issue. Daytime blasting will cause loss of quality of life and possible damage to our homesscheduling truck traffic during daytime hours will only further impact our roads. How are residents supposed to deal wnoise levels. You are destroying our quality of life. [#194-8 Recreation park post-construction.] Change in Folsom Point State Park: What will be left of Folsom Point afteproject? With increased water levels how much of our park will remain? 
 

No. Name Comment 

[#194-9 Recreation lake access closure.] Loss Of Recreation: I personally use Folsom Point on an almost daily basis

walks around the lake for exercise, my dog enjoys walking and swimming in the lake, my family picnics and celebratin the picnic area, boating and fishing are also family favorites. The lake and easy access is why we bought our hom

[#194-10 Recreation remaining access points.] If you close Folsom Point the other local boat launches will be overwhto handle the added traffic. [#194-11 Public Utilities.] Public Works: Folsom recently went through the headache of putting in the Natoma pipelinenecessary inconvenience for residents. Your proposal includes the possible damaging or relocation of this pipeline. this lead to on our community. Folsom is a wonderful family oriented community, the proposed closure of Folsom Point will destroy our quality of lifean alternative plan that will not create such adversity. 

195 Jackie Kolander 

I grew up water skiing on Folsom Lake, and although I don't water ski there right now, it is one of the reasons we cho

Briggs Ranch 9 years ago when coming back to this area after college. [#195-1 Recreation lake access closure/alter

the area to hike to often as a family and walk from our home. Closing the bridge for 7 years is unreasonable amount will be grown and out of the house in 6 - 10 years. Closing the bridge for that long will change the memories we have 

exploring along the lake shore. [#195-2 Property value.] It will affect the property values in Briggs Ranch. It is not reaoff a highly utilized access to Folsom Lake because of the construction of the new bridge for a period of 7 years. I w

object to closing Folsom Point, as one of the great things about living here is access to the lake. 

196 DS 

To whom this may concern. The Folsom Point Recreation Area (FPRA) is just what it is called; a "recreation Area". However, the unacceptable and unnecessary closure to the area would require a name change. 

[#196-1 Lake access/alternative staging areas]. What is sad is that there are alternative sites which can be used for t

as that which the FSRA would serve. 

[#196-2 Socioeconomics businesses.] Also the unforseen costs (the adverse of the benefits of having the rec. area) t

which has come to depend on it as a way of life would and do far outweigh the costs of forgoing the use of this site foThese benefits such as : biking, boating, running, walking, nature seeking, picnicking and simply a place to relax from 

stresses the local and regional taxpayer encounters. Having the recreation area is not a luxury to the people of Folsom and its surrounding areas BUT a Necessity! Therefore it is strongly recommended and encouraged that another site is chosen. It must be understood that at any 

is well worth it to adapt another site than that of the FPRA. 

197 

John and 

Cheryl 

Mandsager 

We understand the Bureau of Reclamation is proposing to close Folsom Point/Dyke 8 to all visitors for a duration of u

effective Fall 2007 while the Folsom Dam is retrofitted. [#197-1 PD Lake access closure/alternative staging areas.] W

the dam project, we understand there are many other alternatives that have yet to be explored. These alternatives wPoint to remain open to the public. Since we enjoy visiting Folsom Point many, many times a year, this closure would impact on our family. We imagine the impact on most, if not all, of the families in our neighborhood would be the sam

Bureau of Reclamation to pursue the Dam project in a manner that will allow Folsom Point to remain open to the pub

198 Anonymous 

[#198-1 Recreation lake access closure/alternatives.] As a resident of Folsom I urge the Bureau of Reclamation to fin

site to stage improvement operations to the Folsom Dam. In the spring and summer I use Folsom Point as a place to 

my boat from.] [#198-2 Socioeconomics businesses.] If Folsom Point is closed I will no longer purchase an annual re

access to the lake and I will not stand in line at Browns Ravine or any other launch facility to launch a boat (economic 

Additionally, Folsom Lake is open to the public and access to it should remain in the public’s domain. Completing the 
48 of 148 

No. Name Comment 

another staging area makes sense. This would allow continued access to the lake at Folsom Point for fisherman, recand those using the picnic areas. Thank you for your consideration. 

199 George R Koch 

In relation to the hearing which was recently held regarding the possible use of Folsom Point as a supply and equipm

forthcoming raising of Folsom Dam, please allow me to point out what time and evolution of purpose has occurred: 

We are well aware of the original purpose of Folsom Dam and Lake was to provide flood protection and water source 

area. Well and good idea. That was a long time ago. Since then, the population has more then doubled. The recreatio

lake has been fulfilled in that access to it is, although minimal during the warmer months of the year, has been develoenjoyment of the public. 

[#199-1 Recreation remaining access points.] Any reduction in access at this time will have drastic consequences for use of the lake, for during busy times at the launching areas long lines of vehicles and boats must wait patiently for la

Likewise, water craft seeking to return to the shore have quite a time slipping in to a dock to gain their turn. Any reduction in access to the lake must make matters worse and simply cause many to go elsewhere, or simply red

recreation. [#199-2 Socioeconomics businesses.] Of course, reduced income for access is a certainty. [#199-3 PD alternative staging areas.] Surely for a project as large as raising the level of the lake, a process taking yespecific area for both stockpiling materials and equipment and could also have its own lake access for barge transpo

cost is involved, but, compared to the cost of the project and the benefit to the public and the reduction in income from 

justified. Thank you for allowing me to contribute my feelings in this matter. 

200 Ian B Cornell 

[#200-1 Recreation lake access closure/alternatives.] We represent the interests of hundreds of outdoor product deathe de facto representatives of the millions of local outdoor enthusiasts who have visited the Sports, Boat and RV Shhistory. While we support the flood control and security measures planned for Folsom Dam and the surrounding dykeoppose the closure of the lake, launch ramps, and surrounding trails during the construction. Folsom Lake is an important asset for outdoor recreation enthusiasts. [#200-2 Socioeconomics businesses.] Closing 

shorelines and boat ramps will be very detrimental to the people who use those amenities and extremely harmful to t

vehicle and outdoor product retailers in the region. Some of those, which depend on their proximity to Folsom lake fo

would very likely be forced out of business by the closure. The access points to the lake are already highly impacted. While there is plenty of room on the water, space on the lalimited during peak times. If one launch area closes or is reduced in its capacity, the others cannot handle the increas

waterways in the region, such as the American River and Sacramento River, also cannot handle the increase. As boaters, we know the impact we, and the hundreds of thousands like us, have on the local economies. A typical d

starts with a visit to a gas station and store to stock up on snacks, beverages, ice, and fuel. When the day ends, we r

and usually visit a restaurant for dinner. Even a small group of people spending a day on a boat brings hundreds of dbusinesses before and after a trip to the lake. As representatives of the industries impacted by access to the lake and local outdoor recreation enthusiasts, we enco

access to the lake and its shoreline before, during, and after any construction takes place. 

201 Carole and David Jones 

We wholeheartedly agree with the need for this project and understand the benefit to all. We are impressed with the c

between the departments involved. [#201-1 Noise and Transportation.] As a Briggs Ranch resident, we are concerne

and traffic impact during what will be a project lasting years, not months. We have the impression we may be more imsites. Please keep affected residents informed of the work schedule, maybe on your website. Monday-Saturday 7-7 will seem very long. Please give us our Saturday afternoons in summer and standard holidays 
 

No. Name Comment 

Please discourage worker and truck vehicles from using Briggs Ranch as a short cut! Please put yourselves in our po

this will not affect our quality of life to drastically. Remember, we are homeowners and voters! 

202 Rick Miller 

[#202-1 Noise.] I am writing as to my opposition to any plan to use the area known as MIAD (N. of Green Valley Rd, any staging, construction, rock crushing and any like activity regarding the Folsom Lake Dam construction project. I am a resident of Folsom and live in the foothills community of Empire Ranch which is across from Green Valley Rd. 

are already extremely high from normal road activity 24 a day. As noted in the current Executive Summary, noise lev

unacceptable levels. This valley is shaped like a bowl, so noise would travel without being muted. 

[#202-2 Air quality.] Also, the prevailing wind comes out of the north blowing across the current structure over our comaddition to ‘carrying’ the noise further distances, a potentially greater issue or threat to this family community is the ex

asbestos and other construction dust and debris and the health problems these will create now and in the future.] 

In closing, the option would be unacceptable and would likely lead to considerable resident disruption and legal activ

203 David Graves 

I am strongly opposed to the closing of Folsom Point. I have lived in Folsom for 17 years and I am currently building 

the Vista Del Lago development on East Natomas right next to the Lake. One of our major decisions to build in that cdevelopment was the proximity to the Folsom Point recreation area. I have (2) teenage boys 14 & 16 and own a ski 

family time with them. The next 5 years are critical & special years for us as a family prior to both of them going off to and I created a strong long term plan to build and enjoy their High School years in our new custom home right up the Folsom Point. Our whole family enjoys boating, picnicking, and jogging at the lake for family time. All of which we do Lake at Folsom Point. You can imagine our disappointment and shock when it was announced January 9th 2007 th

recreation area would be closed for the next seven years. [#203-1 Socioeconomic property values] This would devasfamily let alone our life investment into the custom home we are building just up the street from Folsom Point. Our hoapproximately 2 months from completion and I can only imagine what this is going to do to its value and our Family p

new house. You just can not get back these next 5 years that we are entering into with our boys. These years only c

time and we thought we had a very solid plan ready to be realized in a couple of months. 

I urge you to reconsider this plan. [#203-2 PD alternate staging area] Please find another location to stage constructcause much less impact for seven years. Many sites come to mind, primarily the look out point on the dam road whicinaccessible to the public. That is a huge area in close proximity to your project. [#203-3 Recreation mitigation] Even boat launch is required for project construction access to the lake it would be a straight shot to the dam and complete

the dam road that is already closed to traffic. To build a boat launch when the lake is low would be a much better idea 

Financially I am sure it would calculate out as well when compared to the lost revenue of losing Folsom Point for 7 ye

lost revenue to the local businesses that rely on the Lake. [#203-4 Traffic] The increased traffic at Folsom Point on Nloss of property values would be a huge negative impact to the City of Folsom Residents. Also, there is plenty of statend of the dam road that could be utilized for construction staging as well that would create less impact to the City of 

provide an impact report for consideration of all of these sites prior to taking the easy one of Folsom Point. 

[#203-5 Socioeconomic businesses] Please consider the Fiscal Impact to the many Folsom Residents & Local Businsimilar story to mine. ]Please understand the additional stress of building a custom home for the last two years right 

from the lake access that was just announced to be closed for seven years. I throw myself at your mercy and plea with you to find another location more suitable for the community. 

204 

John and 

Sandii Dalessi 

To whom it may concern; 

[#204-1 Recreation lake access closure/alternatives] We strongly object to the proposed closure of Folsom Point Sta

and urge you to choose an alternative solution. ] Folsom Point is used by many thousands of community members in 
50 of 148 

No. Name Comment 

El Dorado Hills area throughout the year for outdoor recreation (walking, biking, running, boating and picnicking) and contemplation. [#204-2 Socioeconomic businesses] The closure would be an outrage and detrimentally impact the lo

quality of life for those in Folsom. ] Since the Dam Road closed, it has been the only access to Folsom Lake within thand has been a serious draw for visitors as well. Please choose an alternative solution, as closing Folsom Point is abunacceptable. Thank you for your consideration. 

205 Anonymous 

[#205-1 Recreation mitigation] Folsom Point Park Closure: During the spring, summer and fall months numerous bastournaments have been held (almost every weekend) at this boat ramp site. Similarly, Granite Bay is crowded. Will amade to accommodate loss of access to the lake? 

206 

Thomas E. 

Leard 

January 24, 2007 To: Mayor Andy Morin CC: Shawn Oliver at Bureau of Reclamation & Becky Victorine at U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

RE: "PROPOSED' CLOSURE OF FOLSOM POINT STATE PARK (AKA) DYKE 8) by BUREAU OF RECLAMATION CORPS OF ENGINEERS Please be advised that we, citizens of Folsom, CA have been put on notice that a proposed closure of our local state 

for the fall of 2007. The 100% closure is for a lengthy period of 6 - 7 years. This proposal comes from the Bureau of 

the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers. It is our understanding that our beautiful park and recreation area will be used as 

staging area for different work projects on the dam and Mormon Island Spillway by the Bureau and Army Corps of EnIt is our belief that this closure will have deep and dramatic effects on families, businesses, tourism and the environm

consequences are far reaching. [#206-1 Recreation lake access closure.] This is a family community. We bring our cto walk, bike, swim, picnic, fish, boat and just enjoy nature. This scenario is repeated over and over again. Folsom reasons people buy homes in this area. This park is one of the jewels of Folsom. Bird Watchers frequent the park. Vegetation and Wildlife.] I might point out that even though the Bald Eagle is no longer on the endangered species lis

protected by the “Bald and Gold Eagle Protection Act”. It is my understanding that one of the afforded protections is 

nesting area or flight pattern area. This needs more investigation. We have not been given adequate time to investig

that this proposal will have on our environment. We have other migratory birds that now nest there as well. [#206-3 Aenvironmental impact on our air quality could be dangerous for residents. This is a pathway for many other animals aRattlesnakes also reside at Folsom Point. [#206-4. Socioeconomics businesses.] The businesses in Folsom will definitely realize a financial impact. Our bus

forward to the summer months when tourists and other lake traffic provide much needed revenue. Our businesse

closure of the Dam Road and now this may be the proverbial “straw” for financial loss. Business owners have concern. We do not oppose positive improvements on the dam. We request a staging area that will not hurt so many famwildlife, and real estate values. [#206-5 Public Involvement] In all truth we have not been given adequate time in 

these issues. Our first notice was on January 9th. 2007. We were advised that 3,000 flyers were sent out. Th

population of 63,000. The deadline given to us to discuss the closure is January 22, 2007. That was essentially “ no counsel as to our rights and the right of the wildlife who cannot speak for themselves.] We ask you, as our voice and representatives, to please aid us in this endeavor. 

207 Phil Lugo 

My family and I moved to Folsom recently for many reasons but one of the main reason was Folsom Lake. We boughEmpire Ranch partly because it was close to Folsom Point boat launch. 

 [#207-1 Recreation lake access closure] The idea of closing this access point would essentially take away a large fa
 

No. Name Comment 

children are currently 6 and 8 which mean if Folsom point was to close for 7+ years then this would prevent us from t Please - DO NOT CLOSE! ]  [#207-2 Recreation remaining access locations] PS: Brown Ravine is already impacted for many summer weekends Folsom Point would make this situation worse. 

208 Ted and Maggie White 

This e-mail is in protest of the possibility of closing Folsom Point during the building of the new span across the Amer

 After 911 the dam road was closed creating a hardship on many people and businesses. Instead of using less fuel f

increased gas usage. The reason for the closure was that someone could blow up the dam from the roadway. I'm a 

Highway Patrolman and I know that anyone that wants to can blow up ANY dam they want to can by filling a boat up 

and driving it into the dam itself. This would cause more damage than a vehicle sitting on the road at the top of the d

explosives. Now, your considering closing Folsom Point for the duration of building the new span. 

 I have a boat and use Folsom Point every week during the summer. The launching areas available now are so busy 

that there's a good chance you can't even get in. On the weekends when the weather is exceptional all of the parkin

lake fill up quickly. [#208-1 Recreation remaining lake access] If you close Folsom Point that leaves only one other fa

side of the lake, Browns Ravine, to launch. Browns Ravine is very limited in parking. I know for a fact that there are 

the dam property that could be used, i.e. the parking lot at the east end of the bridge is an ideal place. It would be ou

would not affect anybody. Thousands of residents have been affected with the closure of the dam road and now thou

be affected. 

 [#208-3 Public Involvement comment period] From the flyer's I've read the public was given notice on January 9, 200

flyer's????????????? The city of Folsom has a population of approx 63,000 and then there's El Dorado Hills and oth

that use Folsom Lake We were given a deadline to discuss the closure of January 22, 2007. Our elected officials are at the overall picture and do what's right for the residents in the area - THIS WHOLE THING SMELLS TO ME........... Please think of the public when you make your decision as to this issue.  PS: We moved to your city to have quick access to Folsom lake. If you close Folsom Point I would consider moving

209 Mark Rucker To whom it may concern, [#209-1 Recreation remaining lake access] It seems that you think that all the rest of the launches will handle the ext

closing Folsom point would create do not do this. I pay taxes and fees just like everyone else. 

210 Nigel Olding 

Dear Mr. Oliver,  I am writing to provide feedback to you about the Draft document published recently. 

 [# 210-1 Recreation lake access closure/alternates] As a Folsom resident, I believe that the closure of Folsom Poinwill be a disaster for the City and local area, and must be reconsidered immediately. [#210-2 Socioeconomic busines

on local business and residents will surely equal the other disastrous decision made by agencies out of the local area closing of the Folsom Dam road due to 'security threats'. It is plain to me by looking at the condition of the historic ar

closure has had a profound effect on the City, and the closing of facilities at the dam - Folsom Point - will surely have effect, and hardly can be considered a 'fair' or 'shared' impact on the local community. Any plan that calls for the clos

recreational areas for multiple years, or other huge local impact, has to be regarded as flawed, particularly in light of t

to the City in the last few years by similar ill-considered closures. What are the other options that were considered and discarded? Why can't a staging area be constructed elsewhere 

impact on the existing recreational facilities? A project of this magnitude should surely be capable of including the co

staging area in an area with less impact. If not, why not?  Please amend this draft plan to include staging in an area that will have far less local impact. 
52 of 148 

No. Name Comment 

 [#210-3 Public Involvement web access] Also, I would like to point out that the EIS/EIR PDF documents are currently 

review at the www.usbr.gov/mp website - any attempt to access them simply crashes the browser (Internet Explorer, 

Is there an explanation for this sorry state of affairs? 

211 Brady Beckmann 

To all concerned, Our family was astonished when we heard of the possibility of Folsom Point closing. We moved to Folsom 6 years ago and access to the Lake was one of our key purchase decisions. We bought a boa

vicinity to the lake. We poured a driveway and re-landscaped our yard to store our boat. We have purchased an ann

year and we use the lake all of the time!! Our kids are 7 and 10. They both learned to kayak, kneeboard, waterski on 

a single ski and now are venturing into wakeboarding. We go fishing, swimming and sometimes just drive around the 

with friends to have picnics and enjoy our incredible surroundings. Closing Folsom Point will dramatically effect the quality of our lives. It is not like we can just drive down the road and 

Ravine. [#211-1 Recreation remaining lake access] The other launch ramps will NOT be able to keep up with the dem

Most of us will be turned away on the weekend. 

[#211-2 Recreation lake access closure/alternatives] A seven year closure will mean that our "Family Time" on the bountil my kids are 14 and 17. High school and college age. In essence, the rest of their childhood. Please do someth

THIS!!! Is it possible to stage the work equipment on property closer to the Dam Road or the prison? I just cannot fa

on the residents and businesses of Folsom. Please recognize this decision a complete disaster for the residents of Folsom.  I sincerely appreciate your efforts to find another solution to this problem. 

212 Brett Heeke [#212-1 Recreation lake access closure] I am a Folsom Resident living within walking distance to Folsom Point/Dyke 

opposed to the proposition of closing the Folsom Point.access. This will be heavily destructive to our community and makes Folsom such a great place to live. Please use all means necessary in finding an alternative for the Folsom Da

213 Matt Henry 

Dear Shawn Oliver, 

[#213 In support of project] I am sending you this e-mail to voice my opinions about the Folsom Dam Upgrades. I thinFolsom Dam is an excellent project. My feeling is that it is not a matter of if there is another major flood in the area onwhen. Post Hurricane Katrina I don't think is responsible to ignore any reasonable opportunity to improve flood contro

Water Guide on the South Fork of the American River and so my initial thoughts regarding dams are usually negative

this is a very positive project. I'm sure you know the arguments better than I regarding this project so I will not rehash 

a local Sacramento resident and spend much time around Folsom lake. Thank you for your consideration. 

214 Sonia Deauville 

Dear Mr. Oliver, 

{#214-1 Recreation lake access closure/alterantives] My e-mail message is in regard to the "proposed" SEVEN" year 

Point State Park (AKA Dyke 8), with the purpose being, to use this beautiful state park as a staging area for different work dam and Mormon Island Spillway. I just cannot figure out why in the world, the Bureau of Reclamation and the U.S. A

Corp of Engineers, would ever make this decision, when there are other properties available, nearby, in which to use area? Closing a California State Park to thousands and thousands of families, for SEVEN years makes absolutely no 

and I am outraged!!!! What are you thinking? 

[#214-2 Socioeconomics businesses] - I do not oppose positive improvements to the dam, of course, but there should consideration, and thought, given to these many, many families, businesses, and the environment, of which all, will b

by this ridiculous proposal. Closing a very, very utilized state park for SEVEN years is just plain nuts!!! 
 

No. Name Comment 

 - Please explain to me why our government came up with this particular site, when there are other nearby areas that 

with far less impact on the community? Our two daughters, and their families, live in Folsom and are absolutely devastated with this "proposal". Please, Mr. 

your heart, and choose an alternate site for this project. 

215 

Darrell 

Fullerton 

Robert Hicks 

Diane Star 

AndersonHicks 

To Bureau of reclamation. 

[#215-1 Recreation lake access closure] We are very concerned about the potential closure of various recreations arLake. Our family utilizes the Lake at least 2 times a week. [#215-2 Public Involvement] How can we obtain more infoissue? 

216 P McM 

[#216-1 Recreation lake access closure] At this idea to close Folsom Pt for 7 years. Why? I find this unacceptable apeople are terrible. This is a drought year coming up, we take all our kids there to beat the heat.] This is the LAST op

Folsom left. F**k off with this!!!!! I'm going to the meetings to protest and I live in Carmichael and vote. 

217 Susan Patchett [#217-1 PD alternate staging location] Why not use the Folsom Dam Road recreational area for a staging area? The

parking lot that could be used and also there would access to the lake. 

218 

Mr. Kelley V. 

Thorn 

Dear Mr. Oliver, 

[#218-1 Recreation lake access closure/alternatives] Today I read in the Folsom Telegraph newspaper of intentions tPoint at Folsom Lake. I am shocked and dismayed that it is the intent of the government to close a recreation area th

to so many. Just as the Bureau looked for ways to close the most beautiful scenery (Folsom Dam road) in the area, n

take away even more from area residents. I go on record as opposing the closure. Surely there must be a compromis

219 Barbara 

[#219-1 Recreation lake access closure/alterantives] I am writing to ask you PLEASE do not close Folsom Point (Dykretrofit the Folsom Dam. We suffered the loss of our travel trailer spot on Lake Berryessa where we used to launch o

of Federal Bureau of Reclamation issues and purposely moved to Folsom to be able to continue our pleasurable boa

and waterskiing. [#219-2 Recreation remaining lake access] If you close Folsom Point, we will never be able to use Bwithout the risk of overcrowding because of the closure of Folsom Point. We have our son and his family (an 8 yr. old and 4 yr. old) who love to water-ski and go out on the lake in our boat. Please consider other options for your retrofit project and do not close any of the launching facilities on Folsom Lake. 

I look forward to your reply. 

220 

Fernando 

Gaudy 

City Council Members, 

[#220-1 Recreation lake access closure] I would like to express my disapproval for any plans to close Folsom Point aby the Fed Govt. The city has already been affected greatly by the quick closure of the Dam Road, and this move woimpact all of the residents of Folsom and the surrounding areas that use Folsom Lake for recreation. 

221 anonymous 

Comment: We won't stop fighting this just because the comment period ends....look for our full page add too. 

Story: Folsom Point closure protested Hundreds attend Saturday's rally in effort to save lake access 

[# 221-1 Recreation lake access closure] Protesters angry over the Bureau of Reclamation's proposed closure of Fol

up at the recreation area on Saturday. By 12:15 p.m., approximately 150 people filled the parking lot at the corner of 

Street and Folsom Point and more continued to stream in throughout the afternoon. Many took to the sidewalks to wa
54 of 148 

No. Name Comment 

encourage drivers to honk in protest. For more of this story, click on or type the URL below: http://folsomtelegraph.com/articles/2007/01/24/news/top_stories/01protest.txt

222 Robert Jeffrey 

Shawn and Rebecca, I am writing to voice my displeasure with the proposed closure of Folsom Point. As a husband and father of two, the 

access afforded by Folsom Point is an integral part of my family's outdoor life. We launch our boat to fish, ski and pic

Point year round. [#222-1 Recreation lake access closur/alterrnatives] It is unacceptable to fully close a major part oconvenience and cost savings by construction crews. [#222-2 Recreation remaining lake access] The remaining laun

Folsom Lake will be shut down with regularity during peak season due to severe overcrowding. As it is, Folsom Point occasionally. Please re-consider closing Folsom Point and create a floating barge and/or temporary platform system equipment. It is important to all of us, in Folsom, and beyond, that a part of our livelihood remains accessible. Our ch

years are the most critical, do not deny their opportunities for the sake of convenience. There are more reasons that should remain open, but I feel I have stated the most important one. Thank you for reading this letter and please feel 

any time. 

223 Charlie Parrish 

To Bureau of Reclamation & Army Corp of Engineers, 

[#223-1 Recreation lake access closure/alternatives] I was shocked this morning to open up the Folsom Telegraph a

proposed closure of Folsom Point. Along with many of the protestors at Folsom Point last week, I too live in the area 

spends many summer days at Folsom Point picnicking and boating. The entire Folsom Dam issue including the road a real sore spot for me and many Folsom residents and my family and adding to that for another seven years is ridicuto the newspaper article, the city has already proposed alternatives which appear to have gone unrecognized by youorganizations. As you continue to restrict access to the lake more and more, we, the residents of Folsom, become more and more aactions. Look for an alternative and keep access to our lake OPEN!! 

224 Anonymous 

[#224-1 In Support of Projectl] I’ve lived in Folsom for 13 years. I have no problem with the closure of the point so tha

work you need to do. People in this town are greedy, and selfish. They only care about themselves. Since the closure 

traffic has increased on Green valley. I say close Dyke 8 and get rid of the drugs, drinking and traffic for the next 7 yesomewhere else in Folsom they will only complain over that spot too. 

225 Vicky Walasek [#225-1 General.] Please keep this place open to boaters!!! 226 Andy Benson

As a long standing member of the community of Folsom, I have seen many changes to our community throughout thSocioeconomics businesses.] I know that the City Leaders could careless if Folsom Point is closed for seven years, 

is going to be greatly altered for surrounding businesses, not only in Folsom, but also El Dorado Hills. Many locals 

Summer and Fall recreational use of the lake to greatly supplement their income. Closure of Folsom Point could be dlocal businesses. 

[#226-2 Recreation lake access closure] Folsom Point is not just a boat launch, but also an area for locals to run, wa

throughout the year. Seven years (if not longer), is a long time to not be able to enjoy what little of nature we have lef

concerned, uninformed community, we encourage you to find an alternative area to store your equipment for upcomiPlease, help us to save what little open space we have left to enjoy. 

[#226-3 Recreation remaining lake access.] Think about what affect the closure of Folsom Point will have on other co

as El Dorado Hills and Granite Bay. The closure could prove to be an overwhelming blow to an already busy, overcro

season. 

227 Teresa Black [#227-1 Recreation lake access closure.] To whom it may concern; I strenuously object to the proposed closure of Fo
 

No. Name Comment 

Recreation Area. This proposition is unacceptable to me and to the citizens of Folsom and our surrounding communis used by many thousands of community members throughout the year for outdoor recreation (walking, biking, runnipicnicking) and sometimes just contemplation. The closure would be an outrage and detrimentally impact the quality 

Folsom. Since the Dam Road closed, it has been the only access to Folsom Lake within the City of Folsom and has 

draw for visitors as well. Please choose an alternative solution, as closing Folsom Point is absolutely unacceptable. Thank you for your consi

228 Roy Moore 

[#228-1 Socioeconomics.] I take exception to closing the Folsom Point ramp for seven years. You undoubtedly heard economic impacts already. I hope someone already mentioned that these impacts constitute quality-of-life issues thareflected in real estate values, etc. [#228-2 PD alternative staging area.] Please consider another staging site, or if it is the ramp that you need, please bBrowns Ravine or nearby then close Folsom Point. Id even be happy with a good ramp system at Beal’s Point. I worked in state government long enough to understand the trouble not-in-my-backyard attitudes can cause. I hope wattitudes with the Folsom Lake upgrade. 

229 Jim Kinnicutt 

I am writing to both of you on this topic, as I was unable to attend a meeting a 6 pm on the 10th at the Folsom Commu

Natomas Street. I received an email from one of my neighbors that morning. Unfortunately I was on the east coast fo

otherwise I would have been able to attend. I was a little taken aback however on the extremely short notice for this m

[#229-1 Socioeconomics businesses]. Folsom Lake is an important asset for outdoor recreation enthusiasts and as s

impact on home values and our economy. Closing access to its shorelines and boat ramps will be very detrimental to 

use those amenities and extremely harmful to the local home values in the region. Some of the local businesses, whi

their proximity to Folsom Lake for their success, could very likely be forced out of business as well. I myself just purchased a home in Briggs Ranch. It closed in May and I just moved in last July. I paid a premium, evein a “down” market, for the specific purpose of having access to Folsom Point. There were several families at that po

homes in this area and it was at a time where there were surplus homes that were, and still are, available in other are

attractive comparative prices. Now to think of losing this access for up to seven years is, to say it politely, very disapp

from an access to the lake point of view, but from the perspective of the impact it will have on my investment. All of th

becomes a bad investment. Is this truly the impact you wish to have on our community? 

The impact will be enormous, not only to me but our community. [#229-2 PD alternative staging areas.] In the light th

alternatives to consider, I hope you will give this further thought. I would suggest considering the sides of the new clowell as the large parking area to the closed vista/picnic area, also closed to the public. 

[#229-3 Public Involvement meeting announcement.] I find it interesting that the announced time of the meeting came day of its occurrence.] I would obviously not be alone in being extremely disappointed to lose continued access to the shoreline before, during, and after any construction takes place. 

230 Neva J Cimaroli 

[#230-1 Recreation parking.] You are undoubtedly familiar with the location of Pinebrook Plaza and Pinebrook Village 

proximity to your office. We have two major concerns with the proposed closing of Folsom Point and the raising of the It is a natural presumption that closing Folsom Point would not impact this side of the river. This is not true. Because 

one of the most popular recreational areas in the State, we often feel the impact from Beal’s Point. There is an inclina

or more cars in our parking lot at the Plaza so that a third car is the only one charged a Park entry fee. Beal’s Point is also closed a number of times throughout the summer because of overflow crowds. We again find the 

our parking lot. Any reduction in access to Folsom Lake, although it may be on the other side of the river, will bring mavailable parking. Fourteen businesses will be adversely influenced. The Plaza is the closest point of entry to Beal’s 
56 of 148 

No. Name Comment 

can be left when roadside parking is unavailable or the park is closed. Recreational users walk into the lake leaving t

Pinebrook Plaza. If Folsom Point is not available they will come to this side of the river further aggravating the curren

[#230-2 Geology and soils.] We also have a continuing concern about the high water table in this area. Because manare installed on piers, any loss of stability of the soil is a concern. We feel these items should be considered when auin the project are under consideration. [#230-3 Recreation lake access closure.] Folsom Point must remain open to mneeds. 

231 Paul Moynier 

Thank you for discussing the Folsom Lake Flood Control Project with me at the Public Hearing last week. I’m writing 

concerns on behalf of the Sacramento Valley Marine Association. The organization I represent has 30 Members who 

dealerships within the greater Sacramento Metropolitan area and generate in excess of $100 million dollars in annuaI hope to provide information that will help the Bureau of Reclamation better understand the impacts this project will h

Dealers, Merchants, City of Folsom, Parks and Recreation and the local economy in the Sacramento region. As an organization representing the recreational industry we support properly managed valuable water resources, the 

upgrade and the bridge crossing at Folsom Lake. It is not our desire to stop this project, but instead help minimize or impacts to the business community. As stated in the EIR with interpretation, this project will cause hardship on the locThe City of Folsom, El Dorado Hills and the South Placer Communities use Folsom Lake as the barometer for succescommunity is directly tied to lake levels, public access, and water availability at this facility. After reviewing the EIR fo

suggests the closure and or partial closure of several major access points on Folsom Lake which include Folsom Poi

and Granite Bay. [#231-1 Socioeconomics businesses]. Closure or restriction of any access points to the lake will hav

revenue impacts on the local Boat Dealers and Merchants, the City of Folsom and Parks and Recreation who solely d

facility for their revenue. 

[#231-2 Public Involvement]. We ask that you allow us to provide input and include us in any way possible to help mitrevenue exposure described in the current plan. [#231-3 PD alternative staging areas.] We submit to you there are aand ways to complete this project that will minimize impacts to lake access and maintain a healthy business environmmerchants. The following items should be considered as options: 

• Identify alternate staging areas to eliminate park access point closure. 

• Minimize or restrict construction during peak summer season time. 

• [#231-4 Recreation mitigation.] Construct additional lake launching access points and possibly retain after c

complete. 

On behalf of the Sacramento Valley Marine Association, we look forward to providing input and working together to m

business and community friendly. If you wish to contact me for further discussion, I can be reached at 916-988-1704. 

232 James H Pope 

This letter responds to your December 21, 2006 request for comments on the Folsom Dam Safety and Flood Damag

(DS/FDR) Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR). The Northern California Po

(NCPA) provided oral comments at the public hearing on January 9, 2007, and this letter supplements those stateme

NCPA supports the flood damage reduction features proposed for this project. In our review of the document, howevmore thorough explanations of some of the features and relationships of the project are needed. The following comm

those concerns. 

[#232-1 Agency responsibility and cost allocation.] We recommend that the EIS/EIR more clearly state in the opening 

various components of the DS/FDR, which agency has the responsibility for completion of each component, and the sharing responsibility. Table ES-1 could be expanded to include the above request, and should include ecosystem re
 

No. Name Comment 

Anderson work. The opening paragraphs should clarify that the only joint federal project is the auxiliary spillway. The process to allocate the joint federal project auxiliary spillway costs between safety of dams and flood control shodiscussed, along with opportunity for public input on the proposed allocation. The 2002 Corps of Engineers Chief’s Rthat approximately 48% of the proposed project cost would be allocated to safety of dams and 52% would be allocate

The basis for this determination was not disclosed. Later, a computation error was found in the report, and the propos

changed to 43% for safety of dams and 57% to flood control. Again, the basis of the allocation was not disclosed. We cost allocation process be made transparent for all of the project features and allow for public input. We believe the separable costs/remaining benefits allocation procedure should be used to allocate the joint federal pauxiliary spillway. The costs that are specific to the Corps of Engineers should be allocated to flood control, and Recl

specific to safety of dams should be allocated in accordance with the existing safety of dams formula. [#232-2 Alternaalso believe that the estimated costs of the five alternatives, along with the benefits, should be included in the EIR/EI

cost and benefits for the preferred alternative were shown on an informational display at the public hearing, but were 

socioeconomic section of the EIS/IER. 

[#232-3 Flood control reservation.] We are concerned that a flood control reservation is being set between 400,000 a

000 acre-feet for Folsom Dam, when a more flexible reservation system would greatly increase the value of the wateflexible reservation should include factors such as the water year type, ability to make earlier releases to increase the 

reservation as needed, and forecast based operations. Thus, for example, a drier water year would have a smaller recontrol, allowing more water to be kept in Folsom Dam to meet recreation, water temperature, water quality, environm

municipal and industrial, and power needs. Pre-releases could be made if a large storm approaches the area in ordeflood control reservation. A strict acre-foot flood control reservation system may create too large of a hole in a dry wathe reservoir to fill and meet the Folsom Dam water requirements. 

[#232-4 Folsom reoperation.] We also support the continued utilization and improvement of forecast based operation

events. We believe it is important for the Corps to incorporate an advanced release methodology based on weather f

the flood exposure in California. A discussion of how the Folsom Reoperations Study ties into this EIS/EIR should be document. 

[#232-5 Temperature control device.] There is little discussion on the temperature control shutters in the document. W

presents a great opportunity to design a more comprehensive temperature control device, similar to that being used f

where water can be gathered from all levels of the reservoir and put through the generation penstocks. This would grability to control American River temperatures, and would also eliminate the need to bypass the generators in dry wadeprives California of greenhouse gas emissions free power generation. [#232-6 Security.] My last comment relates to the security features, which are only obliquely discussed under the altethis EIS/EIR. The document did not provide any details regarding the anticipated cost or how those costs would be a

various project purposes. We believe these issues should also be vetted in a public forum. We appreciate your consideration of these comments. Please contact Jerry Toenyes at 916-781-4297 or Alan Zepp a

NCPA staff if you have any questions regarding these comments. 

233 Kristi Cooper 

S Oliver, 

[#233-1 Property value.] I am writing in protest to the proposed closure of Folsom Point. Many people in this area hahomes here because of the easy access to the lake. Businesses and residents alike have suffered because of the cl

road. Now we are having to take another blow with the possible closure of our access to the lake. There has got to b

accomplish what needs to be done without closing this park. 
58 of 148 

No. Name Comment 

[#233-2 PD alternative staging areas.] The lookout point by the Dam itself sits empty and is already set in an area witthe Dam. The road there is already closed and would put no one out. Please find another way to accomplish your task. 

234 Marilyn Daily 

Alan Daily 

[#234-1 Property values.] We live a few blocks from Folsom Point and would be very disappointed to have it closed fotime. Closure and storage of construction equipment would have a serious negative impact on this residential area. Please utilize other non-residential and less used areas. Closure would negatively impact locals as well as thousands 

come to the lake for year round enjoyment. Please remember that the Folsom Dam road has already been closed with a significant negative impact. No more, pl

235 Matt & Emily Brayton 

Ladies and Gentlemen, 

[#235-1 Property values.] We appreciate the hard work you are doing for retrofit the Folsom dam; however another a

be found that would allow Folsom Point to remain open to the public. 

The economic impact of closing Folsom Point would hurt businesses and home values in the area. [#235-2 Recreatiaccess points.] The availability of Folsom Lake for people to enjoy would be greatly diminished. Already the lake fills 

summer days. With Folsom Point being closed many recreational enthusiasts would not be able to enjoy the lake. Please do not close Folsom Point. 

236 

Michael G 

Butler,Jr 

Dear Shawn, As a long time River Park resident in Sacramento, I have lived one block from the American River for 45 years. Folso

provided adequate protection during these years. 

[#236 Auburn Dam.] If funds are available now, why not complete the unfinished Auburn Dam that would give us added flood protection, ample water storage, clean hydroelectric power and recreation. Wouldn't this be a better safe

added spillway? 

237 Sherri McNear 

To whom it may concern; 

[#237-1 Recreation lake access closure.] I strenuously object to the proposed closure of Folsom Point State Recreatiproposition is unacceptable to me and to the citizens of Folsom and our surrounding communities. Folsom Point is uthousands of community members throughout the year for outdoor recreation (walking, biking, running, boating and p

sometimes just contemplation. The closure would be an outrage and detrimentally impact the quality of life for those 

the Dam Road closed, it has been the only access to Folsom Lake within the City of Folsom and has been a serious 

as well. Please choose an alternative solution, as closing Folsom Point is absolutely unacceptable. Thank you for your consi

238 Sandy Econome 

Mr. Oliver, 

[#238 Recreation lake access closure.] I am writing to express my disappointment regarding the potential closure of F

is the ONLY boat ramp my family used in 2006 because of its proximity to our home, ease of use and overall courtesfellow boaters. I have seen the crowds and heard horror stories regarding lengthy wait times and lack of parking at ot

facilities, and do not desire to experience it first-hand. Boating traffic is increasing, not decreasing, thus it seems foo

closing one of the needed facilities. There must be other alternative sites that will not interfere with the recreational as

Lake. Please find a better solution! 

239 

Gail and 

Dennis 

Wierzba 

Dear Shawn Oliver, Bureau of Reclamation, we are property owners who live not 6mins. from Lake Folsom launching We object severely the proposal to close down Folsom Point recreation area for storing equipment while building a ne

[#239-1 Dam Road closure.] First off we believe as many others that upping security of the original dam road was a bclosing it in the first place. Most of which I do believe was politically motivated. 
 

No. Name Comment 

[#239-2 PD alternative staging areas.] If dam worked is done there are many other options for storage along the lake not infringe on the recreation of all Folsom residents and others in the surrounding areas. For starters there is the Fo

prime real estate that has access to being right on the lake. Lot's of property that could possibly be loaned out to the area for your purposes of storing equipment. If not that idea, there are plenty of spaces along the lake edge to be cre

accomplish the same thing without disturbing a beautiful recreation and park area we presently enjoy very much. 

[#239-3 Recreation lake access closure.] Six to seven years of closing this facility is outrageous and insensitive to the 

good families in the area. We bought our home knowing the asset of living near the lake and having direct access to Our homes in our neighborhood have many boats that use this facility with their family and friends. I'm sure that this can be worked out to where another location can be made workable. It may take a little more effort 

I do believe it is highly possible to do so. 

240 Linton A. Brown 

Mr. Oliver: 

[#240-1 Public Involvement information availability.] I am staring at this web page: http://www.usbr.gov/mp/nepa/nepa_projdetails.cfm?Project_ID=1808. which shows a dozen or so reports, all with the same name (or close to it). How utterly unhelpful! Can you point out a place where an interested party can discover (in two pages or less) the answer to this obvious quWhat is it that you propose to build (or modify), and when?The environmental analysis process has reached, indeed gone far beyond, information saturation. It has certainly losfor clarity and conciseness in governmental reports. 

241 

Sharlene & 

Calvin 

Kasadate 

To whom it may concern. 

[#241-1 Recreation lake access closure.] I have heard about the recent proposal to close Folsom Point State Recrea

7 years, and I am strongly opposed to this closure. We live in Briggs Ranch, and often enjoy having convenient acces

With the proposed closure, we would no longer have this access. Many people who live in Folsom and the surroundinuse Folsom Point for all sorts of recreational activities (ie-walking, biking, running, boating, etc.). 

I hope you will consider other alternative solutions, rather than the closure of Folsom Point. Thank you for your considmatter. 

242 Deb and Tony Baratta 

To Whom it may concern, 

[#242-1 Recreation lake access closure/alternatives.] I object to the closure of Folsom Point. Folsom Point is one of 

points here in my vicinity to the Lake.] We are new business owners to this town and have lived here for almost 8 yehere and what this town has to offer. With the closure of the Dam road it not only was an inconvenience but had a ne

traffic.....I could go on and on.] I'm sure you have heard this many times. I'm sure this is an important phase in revamroad, I only hope that there are other options to consider. 

243 Raymond D. Hart, P.E. G.E 

Shawn and Rebecca, this e-mail is to submit comments on the EIS for the Folsom Dam Safety improvements. [#243Socioeconomics businesses.] Specifically, my comments pertain to the multi year closure of Folsom Point recreation 

a construction staging area. As you know closure of this highly used recreational area will cause millions of dollars in impacts to the Folsom community. 

[#243-2 PD alternative staging areas.] Have you evaluated another and potentially much less costly alternative to clo

which is to lease land from the State of California that is currently used for cattle grazing adjacent to Folsom Prison a

road? With the construction of the new bridge just downstream of the Dam on recently acquired prison property, it w

additional land could be leased that would allow for construction operations for both projects. Once the new bridge is construction traffic for the dam improvements could be handled via a temporary traffic light on the new road servicing 
60 of 148 

No. Name Comment 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment. I look forward to your response. 

244 Jason Fanselau 

[#244-1 In Support of Project). Please consider this e-mail my formal comment in support of the project evaluated in tSafety and Flood Damage Reduction EIS/EIR. I am in favor of the project and believe that all of the environmental impacts have been sufficiently minimized and mitplan. The project is important for the greater metro area of Sacramento and will greatly reduce flood risk to the familie

that make this area their home. Thanks to the staff at the US Bureau of Reclamation and the US Army Corps of Engineers for their hard work. 

245 

Bruce R. 

Thomas 

Shawn Oliver, Bureau of Reclamation, 7794 Folsom Dam Road, Folsom, CA 93630. Dear Mr. Oliver, 

[#245-1 In Support of Project.] Folsom Dam upgrades are needed to increase protection against flooding in Sacrame

currently has the least protection against flooding of any major city in the US. Upgrading of Folsom Dam is cost-effecIt also protects the environment by reducing the need for new water development projects elsewhere. 

246 Jim Carlsen 

To Whom in May Concern: 

[#246-1 Recreation lake access closure.] I am writing this note to express my displeasure with the suggestion that yo

Folsom Point to use it as a staging area for Folsom Dam repairs. I have lived in Folsom for over 15 years and I use tDAY. I was there yesterday and saw at least 20 groups of people out enjoying nature and enjoying the resource. Fosacred to our community. I am deeply disturbed that our government would even consider closing a well used, existi

kidding me? For SEVEN YEARS. Are you nuts? There is a lot of land around and certainly you can find a better altFor the record, you already took away the gateway to our community by closing the Dam Road. Please be assured tFolsom don't believe that the Dam represented a "terrorist threat" and that was just a smoke screen that the Bureau d

behind. I'm sorry that this sounds like an impolite note, but when you come up with something as absurd as closing a years, it is hard to be subtle when expressing an opinion. Quite frankly, the Bureau's back to back ideas of closing thnow Folsom Point has caused me to lose all confidence in your organization. 

247 Jeff Angeja 

[#247-1 Recreation remaining access points.] Please, please, please come up with any alternative that does not clos

(Dyke 8) while you retrofit the Folsom Dam. I live less than 10 minutes from Folsom Point and use those facilities all sure you are aware over 820,000 people use that site. If you close it, all of those people will have to use Brown's Ra

or Granite Bay. Those places are already overcrowded, and what will happen is they will fill up and people will be turhappens to people at all of the locations on holiday weekends even now). In short, if you close this site (one of the lain a DENIAL of access to all but the lucky few who get to the remaining sites first. This is a tragedy, and there MUST 

option. On a personal note, closing that site will damage my family life on multiple levels. I have 2 children (8 and 4 years ol

waterskiing and riding the jet ski with me, and my parents are heavily into fishing. My children have been enjoying qufamily togetherness while learning these sports, and if you close Folsom Point for 8 years, THEY WILL NOT HAVE AFOLSOM LAKE DURING THEIR CHILDHOOD. They will be well into their teenage years before you reopen it unde

proposal. This is a travesty. There must be other options. You have already closed the Dam road, which includes that moderately-sized vista poibefore the dam and it has easy access to the water's edge. It seems to me that it would not take much to modify thastaging area for equipment and materials, with the added safety and security of the now-closed Folsom Dam Road baccess road to this alternative site. It may not be as readily available as Folsom Point, but the cost to fix the vista po

REASONABLE option in light of the loss of wholesome family recreational opportunities, not to mention the devastati
 

No. Name Comment 

local businesses.] I look forward to your response, please. 

248 Amber Kennedy 

To whom it may concern; 

[#248-1 Recreation lake access closure.] I strenuously object to the proposed closure of Folsom Point State Recreati

proposition is unacceptable to me and to the citizens of Folsom and our surrounding communities. Folsom Point is usthousands of community members throughout the year for outdoor recreation (walking, biking, running, boating and picnicking) and sometimes just contemplation. The closure would be an outrage and detrimentally impact the local ecquality of life for those in Folsom. Since the Dam Road closed, it has been the only access to Folsom Lake within the 

and has been a serious draw for visitors as well. Please choose an alternative solution, as closing Folsom Point is absolutely unacceptable. Thank you for your consid

249 Margaret Wong 

To Whom it May Concern: 

[#249-1 Public Involvement. It has recently come to my attention that there is a possibility that Folsom Point will be clyears. This is the first that I have heard of this and I am wondering why the public was not notified of this earlier.] I Folsom and I live very close to the Folsom Point entrance. [#249-2 Noise.] I'm concerned about possible noise of the equipment being in such close vicinity to my house, disrupting my quiet neighborhood. [#249-3 Socioeconomics prop

also concerned about property values going down due to this and also due to the fact that we no longer will live in wa

the Folsom Lake entrance, which is a great selling point. [#249-4 Recreation remaining access points]. Also, we will 

enjoy boating at Folsom Point. True, Brown's Ravine is only 1 mile away, but is much more crowded and will be eve

once Folsom Point is closed. [#249-5 PD alternative staging areas]. Are there any other alternatives for places that c

staging area? What about the big open grassy area off Natoma St. and Folsom Dam Rd? I believe that is part of the Couldn't that be used instead? Or what about the parking lot of the overlook on Folsom Dam Road, just before cross

Please consider other options before using Folsom Point. The Folsom Point entrance is very close to residential neigwould be a great inconvenience and affect our quality of life, as well as our property values. 

250 Ron Wisdom 

[#250-1 Recreation lake access closure.] I strenuously object to the proposed closure of Folsom Point State Recreati

proposition is unacceptable to me and to the citizens of Folsom and our surrounding communities. Folsom Point is u

thousands of community members throughout the year for outdoor recreation (walking, biking, running, boating and p

sometimes just contemplation. The closure would be an outrage and detrimentally impact the local economy and qua

in Folsom. Since the Dam Road closed, it has been the only access to Folsom Lake within the City of Folsom and hadraw for visitors as well. 

251 Mark Younger 

have been unable to complete my reading of the EIR due to the time allotted and the volume of the document. My initial comments are: 

1. [#251-1 Noise.] The road noise currently exceeds noise standards. The City of Folsom has been promising a "rub

surface" for the past decade. How is the increase in noise of construction traffic going to be mitigated? (Tire and exh

2. [#251-2 Air quality.] There is an Elementary School within 400 yards of the site. How will you mitigate harmful par3. [#251-3 Transportation.] How and when will the damage to the surrounding roadway be repaired? 4. [#251-4 New Bridge Noise.] The original dam road had a traffic burden of less than 10,000. How is the noise impaincrease to 40,000 with the new bridge going to be mitigated? 5. [#251-5 Recreation mitigation.] I personally built my home in it's present location for me and my family to utilize th

Folsom Point, facilities. My understanding is the closure will be so long that my elementary school children will be ouwhen and if the facility is reopened. What additional facilities are going to be added to on the south side of the lake to 
62 of 148 

No. Name Comment 

removal of Folsom Point? 6. [#251-6 Recreation.] Will foot traffic to the lake be allowed or will the area from Brown's Ravine to Beal's Point be (approximately 6 miles) 7. [#251-7 Transportation.} My primary access is thru Briggs Ranch Drive at either light. How many and how long arexpected to be? 8. [#251-8 Transportation]. What alternate access to Briggs Ranch will be provided during the closures? 9. [#251-9 Noise]. For how long, where and how many noise sampling stations are going to be utilized to provide qua

impact data? 

10. [#251-10 Air quality.] For how long, where and how many particulate pollution sampling stations are going to be quantitative pollution control? 11. [#251-11 General construction]. How is the additional road debris from construction going to be cleaned up? 

252 C. Fred Wilcox 

I am writing to you as the voice of a concerned citizen and local business man. I have spoken with several business o

Folsom Lake enthusiasts who are virtually up in arms over the possible closure of Folsom’s only lake access point. Wthat there may be sacrifices needed to finally get the new bridge built and the Folsom Dam reinforcement work, it see

Folsom keep getting hammered while Placer and El Dorado counties are business as usual. 

[#252-1 Socioeconomics businesses.] There are several businesses that have been living on a shoestring since the D

now you are taking away their last minute shoppers who are planning for a day at the lake. This will likely be a last st

these small businesses. [#252-2 PD alternative staging areas.] It seems to me that there are plenty of access points 

to share in this endeavor and thus allow Folsom’s citizens their access during these next few years. Let some others is the right thing to do after five years of suffering. 

253 

Scott and Teri 

Becker 

This letter is in regard to the closing of Folsom Point Recreation Area. 

[#253-1 Socioeconomics businesses.] Id like to ask you and the powers that be not to close Folsom Point because siattacks, Folsom has been messed up as I’m sure you know. Business has suffered greatly and some have gone out [#253-2 Transportation.] The traffic situation is not good due to the closing of the Dam Road. [#253-3 Recreation lake closure/alternatives.] My wife and I as well as many others really enjoyed going up to the parking area on the Dam R

and others went for the great fishing and scuba diving. I really don’t want to sound like a whiner and do understand why the Dam Road was closed. However, we and many Folsom Point for picnics, fishing, launching boats and the scenery. My wife and I use Folsom Point almost every singthe summer and as long as possible until the water level gets too low. I don’t know anything about your business, bu

flood control is necessary and that what you are doing is good. However, if there are any other arrangements that co

would work just as well without greatly disrupting life in Folsom any further, I hope that you would please consider it. maybe you could still keep Folsom Point open for us and still run your operation from there. The whole idea of closing 

down for 7 years is a total bummer to us and many others. It always seems like one thing after another is taken from That’s my selfish point of view but more importantly Folsom businesses don’t need another hit like this. They’ve alreaby the closing of the Dam Road. Please consider all alternatives and don’t close Folsom Point because thousands o

on it for many different reasons. 

254 Stephen Templeton 

Have lived in Folsom for 17 years and have experienced many changes, for which the most part have been good. 

However, am quite concerned about the 7 year project proposed for the new bridge. [#254-1 Transportation.] With thdam road for 911, and the blocking off of certain streets in Folsom, it has presented a driving nightmare as it relates t

congestion and the flow of traffic trying to get over both bridges. There has to be a well-thought-out plan prior to the b
 

No. Name Comment 

work, to insure that the flow of traffic in and out of Folsom will not be more adversely affected than it is now. With the population and added traffic on a daily basis, your plan must be appropriate so that the traffic flows better than it does 

255 

Dave Cox 

California 

Senator 

This is to request that you reconsider using the parking lot and boat launching facilities at Folsom Point State Recrea

construction activities associated with the Folsom Dam Safety and Flood Damage Reduction project currently under 

review process. 

[#255-1 Socioeconomics businesses.] We have heard from many constituents in Folsom and the surrounding areas adevastating economic impact that closing the Folsom Point facility for the duration of the construction period would ha

community. After the economic consequences of the closure of Folsom Dam Road nearly three years ago we do not 

additional economic impact should be imposed on the City of Folsom and the State of California at this state-owned f

since there are nearby alternatives available. [#255-2 PD alternative staging areas.] We urge the Bureau to meet with 

Folsom and stakeholders concerned about the impact of this proposed action to seek resolution prior to the publicatio

environmental impact document. More than 100,000 visitors per year use the Folsom Point recreation facility. And surrounding boat ramps cannot hanuse. If Folsom Point is closed for seven years or longer due to the actions of the Bureau of Reclamation, the econom

be severe and even more permanent than the action taken to close the Folsom Dam Road. This in our minds is not aPlease take our comments, which we make on behalf of our constituents, into consideration as you take comments o

Folsom Dam Safety and Flood Damage Reduction project. We look forward to your timely response. 

256 Rana and Bryan Church [#256-1 Recreation lake access closure]. We are opposed to closing Folsom Point. Don't you think Folsom residents 

inconvienced enough. You close the Folsom Dam Road, not Folsom Point. That is the only place we take our boat tpaid for a season pass, we should have that opened to us. Had I known, I would not have bought a pass. 

257 

Jeanne and 

Albert Pfaff 

To whom it may concern; 

[#257-1 Recreation lake access closure.] I am concerned to hear of the proposed closure of Folsom Point State Recr

proposition isn’t an equitable and sound solution to the problem. We have been residents of Folsom for 7 years. We 

to be near Folsom Lake and all the beautiful amenities the city of Folsom had to offer. Folsom Point is the only boat la

ever used and it is used by thousands of community members throughout the year for outdoor recreation such as warunning, boating and picnicking. Since the Folsom Dam Road closed, Folsom Point has been the only access to Fols

within the city of Folsom and has been a serious draw for visitors as well. [#257-2 Socioeconomics businesses.] The Dam Road was extremely inconvenient for Folsom residents and devastating to many Folsom businesses. Closing Fbe an outrage and will detrimentally impact the quality of life for Folsom residents as well as cripple many businessesseverely affect the economy in Folsom and adversely change the entire dynamics of the city. If there is work to be doneeded, there are other alternatives to closing Folsom Point. There would be less of an impact to businesses and reswas done during evening hours in the summer and full days in the winter when the weather is cold and there is less dFolsom Point. Please choose an alternative solution, as closing Folsom Point is absolutely unacceptable and not the right thing to dFolsom. 

258 Jeff Hopkins 

[#258-1 PD alternative staging areas]. There are other alternatives to Folsom Point for a staging area. Please take the time to do some sort of cost/benefit analysis. Upon hearing of the potential closure, I minimized the im

After some thought, I realize the negative impact will be greater than most think. Please look at the alternatives. 

259 Robert dulinski Mr. Finnegan 
64 of 148 

No. Name Comment 

[#259-1 Socioeconomics] The idea to close Folsom point would be a disaster for the Folsom residence and business 

long term Folsom resident and would like to be noted as opposing this action at Folsom point. 

260 Arthur D. Shmarak 

Mr. Oliver, 

[#260-1 Recreation lake access closure.] As a resident of Folsom who is not a boater, but who enjoys taking visitors view the lake and dam, I urge the Bureau not to close this delightful spot to the public! . As I recall, there was a large 

along the old Folsom Dam Road (Folsom side) which is much closer to the dam, and, surely, is not getting any use fr

Why not use that space as a construction staging area since it has already been taken away? 

261 Lori Neal 

[#261-1 Recreation lake access closure]. I have been informed that there is a possibility that Folsom Point might be cAGAINST such a closure. There is little outdoor recreation for the citizens of our community in El Dorado Hills. We g

a lot and appreciate the hikes and nature. This is a wonderland in a town of concrete. Please do not let Folsom Poin

262 Troy and Shari War [#262-1 Recreation lake access closure.] We are Folsom residence and feel this is a mistake to suggest closing this 263 John Dillon 

Attached please find my comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report for th

Safety and Flood Damage Control Project. Thank you for this opportunity to provide comments on this document, an

a copy of the Final EIS/EIR when responses to comments are completed. Thank you for this opportunity to provide comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Imp

Folsom Dam Safety and Flood Damage Reduction Project (FDSP). I would appreciate their inclusion in the official re

document, and I look forward to responses to my comments in the Final Environment Impact Statement/Report. I acknowledge the level of effort and professional preparation of the DEIS/EIR, but I do not believe that it is an adequ

the potential environmental impacts of the proposed FDSP which is the topic of the DEIS. In short, I do not believe th

is an adequate basis for the adoption of a positive Notice of Determination and environmental approval by the standa

NEPA regulations, nor with the requirements of California’s CEQA regulations. My comments are directed at the areDefinition, Scoping of the DEIS/EIR, and the Assessment of Impacts in several categories. The Project Definition and subsequent assessment of Project impacts are deficient. Analyses of the long-term conseq

Project are not discussed in the DEIS/EIR, and these impacts are deferred to a future Facility Management Plan. Th

of the Project Description and environmental assessment process which is not consistent with NEPA and CEQA requ

regarding the complete disclosure of foreseeable consequences of a Project which will receive federal funds. The Facility Management Plan is critical to the assessment of potential environmental impacts resulting from the highsurface elevation which is the objective of the FDSP. The DEIS/EIR cannot accurately assess the impacts of the FD

consideration of the Facility Management Plan as an integral component of the Project Description. Following are co

specific topics which illustrate the inadequacy of the DEIS/EIR as a basis for a positive Notice of Determination for th

Please provide responses to the general comment regarding the segmenting of the Project Description, as well as to 

specific comments: 

1. [#263-1 PD Facility Management Plan.] The DEIS/EIR is not an adequate assessment of potential Project impac

segmented Project Description which does not consider the operations of the expanded Folsom Dam facilities. Ithe information which is to be provided in a future Facility Management Plan, it is not possible to accurately assethe FDSP in several important issue areas. This segmenting of the Project description, and treatment in separatreviews does not allow sufficient information for the FDSP, and is not consistent with federal and state environmassessment practice and requirements. 

2. [#263-2 Vegetation and wildlife inundation.] The DEIS/EIR does not provide information regarding the extra days 
 

No. Name Comment 

inundation for areas of the Folsom Lake federal property and surrounding private properties as a consequence osurface level. This deficiency prevents the accurate assessment of potential impacts to terrestrial plant and anim

will be displaced for greater periods of time, and forced into smaller habitat areas. This deficiency is an example 

of segmenting the Project Description into “construction” and “management”. The environmental consequences dependent upon the operation of the expanded facility, and cannot be separated in the DEIS/EIR for the propose

respond by providing additional information about the impacts of additional days/weeks of inundation on terrestrianimal species within the FLSRA and surrounding private properties. 

3. [#263-3 Recreation facilities inundation. The DEIS/EIR does not identify portions of the trail network or other pub

within the Folsom Lake State Recreation Area which will be inundated for greater periods and to a greater extenthe case. For example, in the Beeks Bight/Doton Point area of the FLSRA, the parking lot and many of the trails currently inundated after the spring snowmelt. With the greater storage capacity and higher surface elevation of 

what will be the impact of additional days and areas of inundation on specific trails and other public use facilities FLSRA? Please respond by providing a detailed map of the expanded inundation area of the raised Folsom Laktrails and other public facilities would be impacted. Also, please assess the issue of extra days of inundation of aexternal to the FLSRA in terms of lost availability for public use. 

4. [#263-4 Recreation impacts to users.] The DEIS/EIR does not adequately or accurately assess the construction 

impacts of the Project on all users of the FLSRA. The DEIS/EIR acknowledges that its estimates of FLSRA park 

include users who enter on foot, by bicycle or on horseback. Based on empiric observation, many park users accon foot, by bicycle and on horseback. Therefore, the DEIS/EIR significantly underestimates the total number of a

visitors, and specifically excludes any information about trail user groups. Please respond by providing additiona

about the levels of FLSRA park usage including the substantial number of visitors who access Folsom Lake on fand on horseback. Please provide additional information on the number of park users who currently use trails or 

which will be rendered unavailable by expanded inundation, and on the resultant impacts to those specific user g

provide specific discussion of the impacts of expanded days/areas of inundation on the Beeks Bight/Doton Point Disabilities Act (ADA) trail on disabled park visitors. Please discuss impacts to the disabled users of the FLSRA consistency with the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act. 

5. [#263-5 PD alternatives to proposed project.] The DEIS/EIR does not adequately address Alternatives to the Pro

The DEIS/EIR dismisses upstream management of the American River drainage area, as well as any consideratdownstream flood control constraints or strategies as beyond the scope of the Project description. This ignores 

alternatives to the FDSP, for example construction of additional upstream storage capacity. As these are feasib

the Project as proposed, they should be considered within the DEIS. 

Thank you very much for your consideration of my comments on the DEIS for the Folsom Dam Safety Project, and I responses to these comments in the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Project. 

264 Mary Strauss [#264-1 Recreation lake access closure.] Please do not close Folsom Point. It is our main access to Folsom Lake. I a

resident and local business owner here for 17 years. 

265 Amy Cooke 

To whom it may concern: 

[#265-1 Recreation lake access closure.] In regards to the closure of Folsom Point State Recreation Area I must say opposed to this idea. Folsom Point is a wonderful recreational area not only for the communities within Folsom but th

as well. Many people use this area year round for hiking, biking, running, boating, fishing, etc. and to take that away devastating impact on Folsom. Please reconsider using Folsom Point as a storage area for your equipment while wo
66 of 148 

No. Name Comment 

levee's. Folsom is a wonderful city who boasts at being "family and community friendly". Don't take that away from u

266 Connie Freese 

 I am writing this email to go on your Official Record that our entire family of seven is completely opposed to the clo

Point for may reasons. We built our first custom house on 107 Jumper Ct in Briggs ranch 16 years ago. Our family g

plus a grandparent and we needed to build a second custom house. This was based on the complete joy of living so 

beautiful Folsom Pt rec. area and boat launch. This second house is at 106 McDerby Ct. which is very close to the Fo

We constructed a 6 bedroom 5 1⁄2 bath custom home that literally was built by tremendous sweat equity and much 

but we considered it all worth while because it would be a future asset to us as our children grew, went to college , m

retired. Our children’s ages are 16,15,13,and 11. All girls. My husband and I are 53 and 51. As you can see our hugquickly coming upon us and our major asset is our beautiful custom house that was to be our safety net as means of 

financial burdens of the future. 

[#266-1 Recreation lake access closure.] We have actively used this facility for 16 years and the thought that we couboat or go for a walk there is unbelievable,. If this facility is closed and used for a staging area for construction, Our fadirectly impacted. [#266-2 Air quality.] My mother is 85, who lives with us and she suffers from weakened lung condi

he to cough quite a bit now. With the added air pollution to our location I am very concerned to what this will do to he

problems. I also have 2 daughters with asthma like conditions that will be inflamed with the dust and carbon emissiNoise.] I am very concerned with the increased noise levels that will occur. We have a pool and I feel that will limit ou[#266-4 Socioeconomics property value]. My biggest complaint though is what this 6-7 year closure will do to my prop

worked so hard on all these years. I have been told that there is something called eminent domain that could allow us for restitution if in fact this project causes us to lose 100,000's of thousands of dollars on the future sale of this houseThe dollars that would make all the difference to our future and that of our children. The quality of all our lives will be 

impacted if this closure project takes place so close to our residence. [#266-5 Public Involvement notification.] I fell t

Folsom have had no warning and little knowledge of what your agency's are about to do. I know the majority of the p

outraged and against to Folsom Point closure. Please find a different plan and place for your construction staging are

267 Carmella Santos [#267-1 General.] Opposed to the closing of Folsom Point. I wanted this on record, my opposition. 268 Carrie Cota 

To whom it may concern; 

[#268-1 Recreation lake access closure.] I completely object to the proposed closure of Folsom Point State Recreatio

proposition is unacceptable to me and to the citizens of Folsom and our surrounding communities. Folsom Point is uthousands of community members throughout the year for outdoor recreation (walking, biking, running, boating and p

sometimes just contemplation. The closure would be an outrage and detrimentally impact the quality of life for those the Dam Road closed, it has been the only access to Folsom Lake within the City of Folsom and has been a serious 

as well. Please choose an alternative solution, as closing Folsom Point is absolutely unacceptable. Thank you for yoanother alternative solution. 

269 Aimee Peterson 

[#269-1 Recreation lake access closure.] I strongly object to the proposed closure of Folsom Point State Recreation Area! This proposition is unacceptable to the citizens of Folsom and surrounding communities. Folsom Point is used 

community members throughout the year for picnics, walking, biking, running and boating. Its closure would be an ouFolsom Point is the only access to Folsom Lake in the City of Folsom. Please consider alternative solutions, as closin

absolutely unacceptable. 

270 Jody Biaggi To whom it may concern; [#270-1 Recreation lake access closure/alternatives.] I strenuously object to the proposed closure of Folsom Point St
 

No. Name Comment 

Area. This proposition seems unnecessary and unreasonable due to many other alternatives. My family and I have 

Folsom for 16 years. We moved to Folsom to be near Folsom Lake. Folsom Point is the only boat launch we have evused by many thousands of community members throughout the year for outdoor recreation such as walking, biking, and picnicking. Since the Folsom Dam Road closed, Folsom Point has been the only access to Folsom Lake within th

and has been a serious draw for visitors as well. [#270-2 Socioeconomic businesses.] The closure of Folsom Dam Rinconvenient for Folsom residents and devastating to many Folsom businesses. Closing Folsom Point would be an odetrimentally impact the quality of life for Folsom residents as well as cripple many businesses. This would severely a

in Folsom and adversely change the entire dynamics of the city. If there is work to be done or repairs needed, there alternatives to closing Folsom Point. There would be less of an impact to businesses and residents if the work was doevening hours in the summer and full days in the winter when the weather is cold and there is less desire to use FolsPlease choose an alternative solution, as closing Folsom Point is absolutely unacceptable to all residents of Folsom.] Thank you for your consideration. 

271 Bob Grunsky 

[#271-1 Recreation lake access closure.] I have been a Folsom resident for nearly 17years. One of the primary reaso

was because of the recreational activities provided by Folsom Lake. Access to the lake at Folsom Point was a huge fchose to purchase my home. I oppose the closing of this facility and would hope that you would hear the voice of the 

community" and if at all possible, select another location for your project. 

272 

Sandra J. 

Gallardo and 

Michele Flores 

To whom it may concern: 

[#272-1 PD alternative staging area.] In regards to the proposed closing of Folsom Point, I want to express my strong plan. Please consider an alternate site to be used for the staging area during the dam construction. 

273 Christina Flores [#273-1 PD alternative staging areas.] In regard to the proposed closing of Folsom Point, I want to express my oppo

Please consider an alternate site to be used for the staging area during the dam construction. 

274 Franco Salluce 

[#274-1 PD alternative staging areas.] I am writing to ask that alternatives to closing the Folsom Point State Recreatioconsidered during the upcoming construction project at the Folsom Dam. I am an Elk Grove, CA resident and drive nseveral times a year to enjoy the closest recreational lake to me and my family. [#274-2 Recreation mitigation.] If an outright alternative is not viable please consider all the users of this site and restnecessary. Perhaps a compromise would allow public use during lulls in the project and/or peaks of recreational use. Surely, the success of the Folsom Dam project lies not only in its completion, but also in the Bureau's consideration f

275 Kevin Long 

[#275-1 Public Involvement project notification.] The reason we selected the house we live in (Briggs Ranch developm

near the Lake and the entrance to the Lake. Currently we are in the process of moving across the street (Natomas) to development to be even closer (LA Collina Del Lago) and this was never even noted that they may be closing acces

[#275-2 Recreation lake access closure]. Folsom Point is the only access we have in the City of Folsom and during thmany weekends Folsom Point is filled to capacity. If something needs to be closed it should be an area that has multaccess. Please Do Not Close Folsom Point! 

276 Judy Henderson 

[#276-1 Recreation lake access closure/alternative staging areas.] There must be other places that can serve as a st

repair work scheduled on the dam. I am a senior citizen and some of the entry points, to the lake, are gravel pathway

slippery for me. This is a wonderful spot for me to walk, exercise my dogs and bring my family. Please don't destroy this area brings to so many people by closing it off to the public. 

277 Sandra and Lanny Pixler Please be advised that we are concerned citizens of Folsom, CA. have been put on notice that a proposed closure of 

scheduled for the fall of 2007. This proposal comes from the Bureau of Reclamation and the U.S. Army Corps of Eng
68 of 148 

No. Name Comment 

understanding that our beautiful park and recreation area will be used as a construction staging area for the different 

the Dam and Mormon Island Spillway by the Bureau and Army Corps of Engineers. 

[#277-1 Recreation lake access closure/alternatives.] What a shame this would be for our already suffering local busthat enjoy the park , tourism (boaters and fishermen come from far to use our park), to say nothing of the environmenVegetation and wildlife. The wild life there would be disturbed and run out of the area. Also this would run rattlesnakeinto our neighborhood. This is a concern for us as we live in Briggs Ranch (that is adjacent to Folsom Point). We realize that improvements need to be done and don't oppose to that. We request a staging area that won't hurt obusinesses, wildlife and real estate values. [#277-3 Public Involvement project notification.] We have had short noticand not had adequate time to address the issues. We ask that as our voice and representative to PLEASE aid us in this endeavor. 

278 Phil Lee 

Mr. Shawn Oliver, Thanks for responding and extending the public comment period. I would like to submit the following comments rega

proposed raise of Folsom Lake Dam: 

I am in hearty agreement with the raise of the dam and dikes for flood control and seismic strengthening purposes. [Folsom Point as staging.] I am opposed to the flippant decision made to use the Folsom Point State Park for construcor staging purposes, especially if it closes access to the boat ramp and parking. I know the decision was based on econvenience. If this was an economic decision, it is difficult to justify the need to save a few hundred thousand dollars on building a 

road and staging area when the Federal Govt is spending half a trillion dollars to destroy and rebuild a foreign countr

defy prudent use of tax dollars (and soldiers' lives). [#278-2 Recreation remaining access points]. I am slightly encouraged to hear from you that the closure is only cons

months during the off season, as in-season closure would wreak havoc on the already crowded adjacent ramps: GraBrown's Ravine.] But I don't believe the USBR has the fortitude to enforce that "promise", assuming it is even put int

fear is that as soon as the Folsom Point access is closed for construction, the USBR will allow the contractor to take 

closure will take effect until job completion. This has been my observations with USBR's construction management r

to succumb to the contractor's whims, and often allow the contractor to run the show. The preferred alternative is to provide construction access and a staging area for Mormon Island from the east end o

assuming that was the reason for this closure. I assume access for the main dam work is not an issue at this location

[#278-3 Recreation mitigation]. At the very least, please consider mitigation of the closure by constructing a separate 

access road, and locating the staging area such that the boat ramp and parking area can be still open and operationaAs it is, Folsom Point needs MORE boat ramps and parking, with the exploding area population. Any type of closure the facility would be disastrous. 

279 Tara Davis 

[#279-1 PD alternative staging areas]. With all the vacant land around the Folsom Prison area, why would a spot of re

small town like Folsom be chosen for closure. It makes no sense to take a very popular, convenient spot in Folsom and close it for basically a construction storage have moved to Folsom for the boating, business have moved in due to the high traffic and like I said prior, there is so 

Natomas street that is unused and would make no impact if it was used. It seems like you could also use a portion oFolsom Pointe and still keep this recreational area open. As a resident of Folsom and living very near to this site, I am very opposed to the closure of Folsom Point. 

280 Dan Normoyle To whom it may concern; 
 

No. Name Comment 

[#280-1 Recreation lake access closure.] I strenuously object to the proposed closure of Folsom Point State Recreati

proposition is unacceptable to me and to the citizens of Folsom and our surrounding communities. Folsom Point is usthousands of community members throughout the year for outdoor recreation (walking, biking, running, boating and 

picnicking) and sometimes just contemplation. [#280-2 Socioeconomics businesses.] The closure would be an outragdetrimentally impact the local economy and quality of life for those in Folsom. Since the Dam Road closed, it has beeto Folsom Lake within the City of Folsom and has been a serious draw for visitors as well. Please choose an alternative solution, as closing Folsom Point is absolutely unacceptable. Thank you for your consid

281 

Rennie and 

Norma James 

I oppose the 100% full time closure of Folsom Point for seven years! I am writing in response to a report that all the a

construction of improvements at Folsom Dam and area dykes and dams will require the seven (7) year closure of FoRecreation area. My wife and I and Punkin visit the Point every day in the winter and twice a day in the summer if we are in town. This and the reason for remaining at this residence. We have been at 125 Landrum Circle for 11 years and the best thing 

[#281-1 PD alternative staging areas.] If the Folsom Dam and dykes improvements depend on and the only alternativFolsom Point then I say close Folsom Point and make the necessary improvements. However, I believe that this alte

the most convenient alternative and others may have been eliminated as inconvenient or cost more to accomplish. I not have all the information that you who have been working overtime to accelerate this project have acquired. Howe

a compromise can and should be considered. I am sure that access control, the existence of a traffic light and existin

considerable cost savings. Also there is considerable space to stage equipment and materials in one place. If that did closure of Folsom Point completely I would agree. The closure of Folsom Point would cost the community more, in mthe costs of dispersing these equipment and materials over a larger area in the community. For example the flats do

Mormon Island Dam on either side of Green Valley Road could be used for materials and equipment. Portions of the Recreation area could be used. The area around Dyke Seven should be considered. Speaking of that, What about the open space around the prisosecurity would be needed, but it would not restrict access to Folsom Point. I believe that you are able to use Folsom 

area or parts of it without closing the park completely. [#281-2 Socioeconomics businesses]. Have you ever paid attefinancial impact of Folsom Point? Each of those boaters, skiers, fishermen, day campers group picnic's at the Point a

boaters needs fuel, food, bait and equipment to make their visit everything they hope it will be. Many of the recreationday on the way home with refueling and having a quick meal on the way home. While passing through Folsom they smay not have been aware of. The Thursday Night Market, Cappuccino Cruisers night at the Red Robin, Music in the 

Library and our Zoo, these are all aspects that passers by notice. Then you have the Sutter Street Grill for breakfast adinner on the way home. I am sure you can come up with other options and still complete this project as planned. Please take a moment and consider my suggestions before you throw them in the trash can! 

282 Gary Frolich 

[#282-1 PD alternative staging areas.] This would be the worse idea I've seen in this whole Folsom Dam/Lake situatio

residence. I know there is plenty of room around the point closer to the dam........let the rich people or the developers 

out that entire point look at some equipment for awhile, instead of forcing thousands of people off the whole lake for y

years!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!] We bought here for access to Folsom Lake which has become more trouble than this town is worth. recreation is at the bottom of the list for the lake, but with 12 govt bureaus involved it has become typical govt waste 

public GOOD. DON'T CLOSE FOLSOM POINT - would be the last straw in a long list of govt missteps since 9/11.....

residences of Folsom Town continue to pay the price and suffer the incompetence of our govt!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 
70 of 148 

No. Name Comment 

We know you have a job to do...............please, please consider another alternative.] We weren’t planning on moving, but we will and we will take our money with us (and we are not alone). Thanks you fconsideration. 

283 Scott Wiemerslage 

Upon recently hearing of the possible closure of Folsom Point, park and boat launch for up to seven years, I have be

[#283-1 Public Involvement project notification.] Understanding the ramifications of this act and pursuing them withou

of the more irresponsible proposals I have heard. This proposal coupled with the complete lack of public knowledge c

widening gap between the "stewards," of the lands and the general public. [#283-2 Recreation lake access closure.] Please consider any other potential alternatives to the proposed current onelife both for the boaters, park visitors, and neighborhoods is weighing on your decisions. Seven years? What about the kids who will grow up in that time and not to have ever known the beauty of the lake? [#283-3 Socioeconomics property value]. What about homeowner's buying or selling in that time that will either loose 

or never see the potential and look elsewhere? 

[#283-4 Recreation remaining access points]. What about the already congested launches and park areas that will noabsorbed by the other three entrances? [#283-5 Socioeconomics businesses.] What about the loss of potential income and profit from recreationalists looking 

What about the environmental impact statements? What about using Folsom Damn Road, already in existence, and not being used to access?] Please reconsider........ 

284 Troy Watson [#284-1 Recreation lake access closure.] We are completely opposed to closing Folsom point. There are too may pe

park to shut it down. Please find an alternative site. 

285 David L Brown [#285-1 General.] I am OPPOSED to closing Folsom Point. 286 Krista Fisher 

[#286-1 Recreation lake access closure.] I strenuously object to the proposed closure of Folsom Point State Recreati

proposition is unacceptable to me and to the citizens of Folsom and our surrounding communities. Folsom Point is usthousands of community members throughout the year for outdoor recreation (walking, biking, running, boating and p

sometimes just contemplation. [#286-2 Socioeconomics.] The closure would be an outrage and detrimentally impact and quality of life for those in Folsom. Since the Dam Road closed, it has been the only access to Folsom Lake within 

Folsom and has been a serious draw for visitors as well. Please choose an alternative solution, as closing Folsom Point is absolutely unacceptable. 

287 Scott and Viera Weldy 

[#287-1 Recreation remaining access points.] I just wanted to go on record to oppose Folsom Point closing. We hav

for 10 years and have used Folsom Point to launch our boat for some family time at the lake. We have experienced 

at times were forced to use Brown's Ravine. With Folsom Point closed, all of the day users will be forced to use Brow

will not be able to accommodate all of the overflow.....and what happens when some of the ramps are closed due to 

keep Folsom Point open. 

288 Greg Mercurio 

Dear Shawn: [#288-1 Public Involvement and EIS process.] As a stakeholder in the outcome of the decision to closePoint, I feel it is only fair to extend the public commentary period to allow the public a fair amount of time to research 

According to the newspaper article that I did read, the decision is already made, and the timing and durations are the issues. As the owner of tasty Time Ice Cream & Frozen Yogurt, I am in the direct path of the consequences of the decision. enough time to adequately research this topic. I believe that public disclosure of the rationale behind the USBR's dec

the first priority, not the rush to close the Point. 
 

No. Name Comment 

289 Clyde Matson 

I have been following the discussion on the levies and dam modifications for quite some time now. To date I have forecollection in this process of the near flood a few years back. As I recall, after some number of years the manageme

facilities decided that now was the time to “test” the gates. This was during a period of time when inflows were very htried to open and close the first gate it broke. Remember this was only one of the existing gates. The gate jammed a

it mostly open. This put almost enough water down the river to over top the levies. At the Howe Ave. bridge the rive

from the top of the levee. At Rio Americano High School the situation was the same. My daughter went to that scho

it worked out luck held and the levees did not get over toped. I have looked at the levee plans (not well) and looked at the sketch of the dam modifications. As I see them the thing most is the modification to the dam. 

[#289-1 PD fuseplug Operation.] As I see it more gates are being added and on the south end of the dam a dirt berm 

comment that was made about this berm was that if the water got to the point of over topping the dam this berm wou

prevent over topping the dam. The problem that I see is that the Berm is at least as wide as three gates, at a minimu

washed out is uncontrollable as to flow. This looks like a REAL problem to me and will be to most of Sacramento. I b

asking for another New Orleans levee failure. What do you think? 

290 Kasia Turkiewcz 

[#290-1 Recreation lake access closure]. I am a long time Folsom resident and take a great pride in our City and our strongly opposed to closing Folsom Point. Folsom Lake is an important part of our community. Closing it will not onl

access to the lake, but will also adversely impact businesses in our community.] [Recreation lake access closure. I elike you to consider our senior citizens and our children. Seven years it's a long time in their lives. My younger daug

the time you are projecting to open Folsom Point again she will be 13 years old. Some of our elderly friends and neig

live long enough to see it reopen, and for them it is difficult to seek an alternative access.] I would appreciate if you could take my comments into consideration before you make a final decision. 

291 Mike Wall 

I am a longtime homeowner in the Briggs Ranch development of Folsom and much of the reason I bought my home the easy access to Folsom Lake and the easy access to Granite Bay via the Folsom Dam Road. Now a little more thpassed and two of the most logistical benefits of living where I bought my house are in danger of going away. Travel 

nightmare and traffic in Folsom is a disaster due to the dam road closure. Now I hear that Folsom Point may close s

take my boat miles away, through this traffic, to get to the water. [#291-1 Recreation lake access closure. PLEASE D

ACCESS TO THE LAKE!!! DO NOT CLOSE FOLSOM POINT!!! FIND ANOTHER ALTERNATIVE SO AS TO AVOIHARDSHIPS FOR THE RESIDENTS OF FOLSOM. 

292 Michael Cann 

[#292-1 Recreation lake access closure]. I strongly object to the proposed closure of Folsom Point State Recreation 

proposition is unacceptable to the citizens of Folsom and surrounding communities. Folsom Point is used by thousanmembers throughout the year for walking, biking, running, boating and picnicking, its closure would be an outrage. the only access to Folsom Lake in the City of Folsom. Please consider alternative solutions, as closing Folsom Point is absolutely unacceptable. 

293 

Mark and 

Kathy Van 

Saun 

To: Shawn Oliver We are contacting you in regards to the proposed closing of the Folsom Point Recreation Area or Dike 8. We are ve

about this matter and ask that you would not only reconsider this proposal but give us more information. We have beresidents and Briggs Ranch homeowners for over 11 years and we can not imagine what such a closure would do to and our neighborhood. 

[#293-1 Socioeconomics property values]. Like many of our neighbors, we moved here primarily because of the lake 
72 of 148 

No. Name Comment 

family loves to take walks, run and mountain bike at the lake. We are extremely concerned about the devastating eff

would have on the near by businesses as well as our home values. We personally know of a family that was considehomes in the area to purchase and said yesterday that they will not buy here due to this issue. 

[#293-2 PD alternative staging areas.] Why haven't other access points been chosen to help with this matter without entire recreational area? Folsom Point is Folsom's only access where as Granite Bay has two access areas. [#293-3 Socioeconomics.] We have dealt with the burden of the Dam Road closure and saw the effects of that decisi

commutes and community access. We cannot stomach another blow to our community. We ask you to please reconsider this decision and find an acceptable solution. 

294 Keith Faust 

As a resident of Folsom I'm against the closure of Folsom Point by the Federal Government to raise Folsom Lake. Do 

Folsom Lake raised, yes. Can another staging area be found to accommodate the equipment needed by the Corp of 

[#294-1 PD alternative staging areas.] During the closure of Folsom Dam Road for repairs on the flood gates, the par

to the Dam was used the staging area, why can't this be done again.] 

[#294-2 Transportation.] Approx. 186,000 people use Folsom Point to either launch their boats, picnic, or dive on a yhave enough traffic on the surface streets as the result of the Dam Road closure, now we are going to put an addition

already congested streets? There must be another answer to closing Folsom Point or any access to Folsom lake. Why does the Corp. of Enginean access road to the lake while they raise the level of the dam? I realize raising Folsom Lake is a huge project, but t

another solution so that the tax payers and the Corp of Engineers can co-exist during the seven years it will take to c

project. 

295 Dean Deguara [#295-1 General.] Please don't close Folsom point and inconvenience the residents once again. Inconvenience the c

make them park their equipment somewhere else. 

296 Shari Warr [#296-1 General.] Please don't close Folsom Point. Let this count as my opposal. 297 Phil Vaughan 

 [#297-1 General]. PLEASE DON’T LET ANYTHING HAPPEN TO PREVENT PEOPLE FROM USING THIS WONDRECREATION AREA. I HAVE USED THIS LAKE FOR LEISURE PURPOSES ON PAST VISITS TO THE UNITED STRULY WOULD BE A SHAME TO DEPRIVE FOLKS OF SUCH A BEAUTIFUL AND BOUNTIFUL ENJOYMENT ARSURELY, IT WOULD BENEFIT THE LOCAL COMMUNITY FINANCIALLY AS WELL, WITH VISITORS RETURNING 

GREAT FACILITIES YOU HAVE TO OFFER THEM THERE. THEY SUPPORT YOUR COMMUNITY GREATLY WITGAINS FROM THE MONEY SPENT BY THE VISITING PUBLIC FROM ELSEWHERE OTHER THAN THE DEAR FOFOLSOM AREA. 

298 George Wyatt 

[#298-1 Recreation lake access closure.] Please be advised that I am opposed to the closing of Folsom Point. I use ramp quite often, and pay an annual fee to be able to do so! One of the reasons that my family lives in Briggs Ranch and availability of this facility. Please do not close it. 

299 

John and 

Sharon Sarno 

[#299-1 PD alternative staging areas.] I am writing this e mail to show my support AGAINST closing Folsom Point ,Th

considering is ludicrous at best ! why can you not use the vista point area at the dam cite ? you have closed the dam area is just sitting there, as a Folsom resident for approx 20 years we have put up with every inconvenience you can you trying to inflict another? 

300 

Janelle & 

Curtis Mau 

Dear Mayor Morin, 

#300-1 Recreation lake access closure/alternatives.We are against the closure of Folsom Point!! Folsom Point is a ppeople throughout our city. As a resident of a neighborhood near Folsom Point, you probably realize just how many 

walk over to use this facility on a daily basis. Dog walking, swimming, fishing, nature hikes, running, bicycling, and b
 

No. Name Comment 

some of the activities people enjoy. The second grade classes at Folsom Hills Elementary take a walking field trip to 

study nature every year. This is wonderful exercise for all who are able to walk to the lake! Closing Folsom Point wooption for all residents of Briggs Ranch and nearby neighborhoods. We'd then have to get in our cars and drive to an

lake, thereby increasing traffic and pollution in the city. [#300-2 Socioeconomics property value] This closure will advproperty values in these neighborhoods as well, and decrease the desirability of living here. In addition, the noise of 

machinery, and increased truck traffic in and out of the area will negatively impact our neighborhood even further. 

Many other residents and [#300-3 Socioeconomics businesses.]businesses throughout Folsom will also be severely closure of Folsom Point, as I'm sure you are already aware. There must be some other options for the location of this 

staging area for the work projects on Folsom Dam. Those other options need to be explored further!! Please speak out on behalf of the residents of Folsom, and work towards finding another location for the construction 

301 Randy Pike 

To all of our honorable representatives: I am going to start this letter on a personal note... I live ONE block from Dyke 8. We bought our home because of th

Dyke 8 offered to launch our boat and the beauty that it offered when we wanted to have a picnic or just out for a hikedog, from our home, to Dyke 8 for a fun afternoon swim. We've already lost our ''easy'' connection to other towns using Folsom Dam. Please don't let them take our park awalife, our children's life... our lifestyle. Please don't take it away! Here's is the letter that we were asked to circulate among the honorable representatives: Please be advised that we, citizens of Folsom, CA, have been put on notice that a proposed closure of our park is sc

of 2007. This proposal comes from the Bureau of Reclamation and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. It is our undebeautiful park and recreation area will be used as a construction staging area for different work projects on the dam aSpillway by the Bureau and Army Corps of Engineers. 

[#301-1 Recreation lake access closure.] It is our belief that this closure will have a deep and dramatic effects on fam

tourism, and the environment. The consequences are far reaching. This is a family community. We bring our childre

swim, picnic, fish, boat and just enjoy nature. This scenario is repeated over and over again. Folsom Point is one of 

people buy homes in this area. This park is one of the jewels of Folsom. Bird Watchers frequent the park. [#301-2 Vwildlife]. I might point out that even though the Bald Eagle is no longer on the endangered species list, it is still protec

and Gold Eagle Protection Act". It is my understanding that one of the afforded protections is not to disturb the nestinpattern area. This needs more investigation. 

[#301-3 Public Involvement notification.] We have not been given adequate time to investigate the impact that this pro

on our environment. We have other migratory birds that now nest there as well. This is a pathway for many other anRattlesnakes also reside at Folsom Point. 

[#301-4 Socioeconomics businesses.] The businesses in Folsom will definitely realize a financial impact. Our busineforward to the summer months when tourists and other lake traffic provide much needed revenue. Our businesses sclosure of the Dam Road and not this may be the proverbial "straw" for financial loss. Business owners have expressconcern. [#301-5 PD alternative staging areas.] We do not oppose improvements on the dam. We request a staging area that 

many families, businesses, wildlife, and real estate values. In all truth we have not been given adequate time in whic

these issues. Our first notice was on January 9th, 2007 We were advised that 3,000 flyers were sent out. This is a 

population of 63,000. The deadline given to us to discuss the closure is January 22, 2007. That was essentially "no 
74 of 148 

No. Name Comment 

counsel as to our rights and the rights of the wildlife who cannot speak for themselves. We ask all of you, as our voice and representatives, to please aid us in this endeavor. 

302 Susan Akin 

To our Mayor Andy Morin, 

[#302-1 Public Involvement project notification.] I live within 5 minutes of Folsom Point State Park. I was not notified proposal to close this wonderful park which I, my family use at least 2 time a week in the winter months and 5 days a spring, summer and fall months. I buy the Annual Pass each year. I have not noticed any postings at the park entran

plans to close this park for 7 YEARS! I have heard that there were 3,000 notices sent out. Well I and 60,000 others 

importance to us as well and deserved to be notified. This impacts us as families, businesses, tourists, it also impactvalues in our area. Lake Point is an important asset for outdoor activities, such as boating, picnicking, hiking, bird watching, fishing, swimenjoy nature. I and my children have sat at a park bench and watched a snake eat a frog, watch the deer who frequshoreline grass or drink from the lake, we watch the migratory birds that rest on its shores. We have shared many m

Point State Park. [#302-2 Socioeconomics property values] Folsom Point is an important asset for outdoor recreation as such has a very big impact on home values and our economy. [302-3 Socioeconomcis businesses.]Closing acceslines and boat ramps will be very detrimental to the people who use those amenities and extremely harmful to the locthe region. Some of the local businesses, which depend on their proximity to Folsom Point for their success, could veout of business as well.] [#302-4 PD alternative staging areas]. The impact of this closure would be enormous, not only to me and my family bcommunity. In the light that there are other alternatives to consider, I hope you will give this further thought. I would considering the sides of the now closed dam road as well as the large parking area to vista/picnic area which are alre

public. I find it disturbing that the announcement of the meeting time came on the same day of its occurrence. I would obvioin being extremely disappointed to loose continued access to Folsom lake Point during and after any construction takI furthermore believe that ALL Folsom residents and businesses who have already taken a huge hit by the already clo

Road, the increase in traffic on our private streets would be granted the time necessary to seek counsel as to our righof those who can not speak for themselves such as the local wildlife. I am asking you as our Voice in this great City of Folsom and our Mayor (of whom I chose to vote for in our last electiand speak for us all, not just the 3,000 people who someone, some where deemed necessary to notify. 

303 Nicole Benson 

To Whom It May Concern:  I received an email notifying me that Folsom Point would be closed for several years to the public. I understand that 

to store equipment but I also understand that there are other storage options. I am writing this letter because Folsom 

important and meaningful to me, but it is crucial to the livelihood of local businesses. I grew up in Folsom and every wand I would go for walks along the dyke. We have taken many Christmas photos out there over the years as well as e

picnics, BBQs’ and the Fireman’s Eco Challenge. [#303-1 Socioeconomics businesses.] Businesses rely on the famiand from this part of the lake year round, especially in the summer when the boaters are out and about. So many busunder. Can you imagine what a financial nightmare this would create for many of the business owners located around 

lake? 

[#303-2 Recreation lake access closure]. Although I have moved to the Bay Area now and have my own family, I still 

Christmas morning walks at the lake and was looking forward to taking my son to picnic at the lake and watch the bo

Folsom Point this summer. You may argue that there are other places to go to at Folsom Lake, but none of them are 
 

No. Name Comment 

Please reconsider your plans to close Folsom Point. The City of Folsom has already destroyed or removed many thinresidents, we don’t need another! 

304 Debbie Sultan 

 To the Bureau of Reclamation, 

 [#304 PD alternative staging areas]. The proposed closure of Folsom point State Park is of great concern to the resi

Folsom We realize that improvements on the dam and other areas need to take place, but it should not be at the exp

environment, wildlife, local businesses and our recreational enjoyment. Please seek other options. 

305 

Lynn & Eric 

Bonzell 

Dear Bureau of Reclamation, 

[#305 Socioeconomics businesses]. We are opposed to the closure of Folsom Point for the upcoming construction to There will be a tremendous negative financial impact to the city of Folsom and it will adversely affect the residents of 

306 Aimee Wendell [#306 General.] I am OPPOSED to closing Folsom Point. Thank you 307 Lynn Derrick 

Steve Miklos, As a homeowner of Folsom, and specifically, Briggs Ranch, I wanted to write to you. I understand the City Council w

whether or not to close Folsom Point for the next 7 years while the new bridge is constructed. I wanted to let you kno

opposed to this idea. One of the reasons we live in the Briggs Ranch area is because it is so close to Folsom Lake a

easy access to the boat launch at Folsom Point. 

[#307-1 Traffic] I am also very concerned about all the construction trucks that will be disturbing this residential areaValues] I am also concerned what this closure and construction will do to property values in the Briggs Ranch area. only hurt our lake and boating experience as well as tourism to Folsom Lake. Please vote on the side of your fellow residents and the welfare of your community. Voters have good memories abo

when election day rolls around again! 

308 Ann Lindner 

City Council Members, I had a very encouraging conversation with Steve Miklos today about fighting the closure of Folsom Point. As we spo

he knew nothing of the rally tomorrow and I wanted to make sure that was not the same case for all of you. 

[#308-1 General] We are holding a rally in the church parking lot at the entrance of Folsom Point tomorrow to have r

Folsom sign petitions to stop the closure. I hope we can see all of you there to support our community in this protest

309 Ken & Susan Doherty 

We are outraged that you, our elected officials, have basically stuck your heads in the sand regarding the closure of F

really upsets us and our neighbors that you haven't represented the fine citizens of our city in a diligent manner. We 

about this issue on January 15, 2007. Why was this never mentioned in any literature from the city? Why were we a

encountered shocked to hear about this at the 11th hour? I went Folsom City Hall on Tuesday the 16th with my neighbors to express our objections and concerns and to find oinformation regarding this matter. We left completely frustrated as if we were nothing but an imposition. We were lef

into our own hands when this clearly should be the City's responsibility to take care of us and the resources of this cit

here to enjoy. We can only wonder what the impact will be on property values, businesses and the community as a w

[#309-1 Recreation lake access closure] We believe it is YOUR RESPONSIBILITY to address this significant issue a

the closure of Folsom Point does not happen. Surely you can come up with several alternatives that would not impathat use this facility. 

310 

Steven D Hust 

El Dorado 

County 

January 26, 2007 Mr. Shawn Oliver Bureau of Reclamation 7794 Folsom Dam Road 
76 of 148 

No. Name Comment 

Folsom CA 95630 Re: Folsom Dam Safety and Flood Damage Reduction Draft EIS/EIR Dear Mr. Oliver; El Dorado County appreciates the opportunity to review and respond to the Folsom Dam Safety and Flood Damage Reduction (DS/FDR) Draft EIS/EIR. This letter is in response to actions which may affect terrestrial vegetation and wildlife, specifically oak woodlands. As noted in Section 3.12, Land Use, Planning and Zoning, page 3.12-3, the El Dorado County Interim Interpretive GuGeneral Plan Policy 7.4.4.4 – Forest and Oak Woodland Resources (Public Review Draft) was reviewed by the Draft 

for information. As an update, the Interim Interpretive Guidelines were finalized and adopted by the Planning CommisNovember 9, 2006. El Dorado County is currently conducting an intensive study of oak woodlands in the County whic

Oak Woodland Management Plan in spring/summer 2007, which will replace the interim guidelines. Ongoing documeon our oak woodlands website, available at: http://www.co.el-dorado.ca.us/Planning/GeneralPlanOakWoodlands.html . ] Table 3.5-4, Summary Comparison of Impact of Alternatives of Section 3.5, Terrestrial Vegetation and Wildlife, indicaAlternatives 1 through 5 will have a Significant but Mitigatable Impact (CEQA) and an Adverse Impact (NEPA) to protwoodlands. We have reviewed the DEIS/DEIR, and the USFWS Coordination Act Report, and offer the following comments: DEIS/DEIR comments: 

[#310-1 Habitat Inundation] 1. Section 3.5.1.2, Regulatory Setting, State: Although the California Environmental Qua

PRC §21000 et.seq. is noted, in particular, CEQA PRC §21083.4 is not identified, which has a direct bearing on allow

oak woodlands. 2. Section 3.5.1.2, Regulatory Setting, Local, Local Native Tree Protection Ordinance: At present, in El Dorado Coun

native trees and oak woodlands is set by general plan policies and interim interpretive guidelines.1 3. Section 3.5.1.3, Existing Conditions, Vegetation, Upland Plant Communities, Interior Live Oak Woodland, Blue OaSavanna, pages 3.5-4 to 3.5-5: There do not appear to be any maps which spatially approximate the potential future zone (1,323 acres) and the construction area (81 acres) which will affect oak woodlands. It would be helpful to see w

oak woodland areas lie, as well as noting the amount of acreage for each county/city affected. 

4. Section 3.5.4, Mitigation Measures, pages 3.5-51 to 3.5-52: El Dorado County’s Interim Biological Resource Study 

Habitat Mitigation Program Guidelines, adopted by the Planning Commission on November 9, 2006, and available at woodlands website noted above, contains detailed recommendations regarding safeguarding trees during constructio

[#310-2 Coordintaion Act Report mitigation] Appendix B, Federal Biological Compliance, Draft Fish and Wildlife Coo

Report CAR) comments: 
 

No. Name Comment 

5. Draft CAR – Table 7, Evaluation Species, Resource Categories, and Compensation Planning Goals selected for cimpacted by the Folsom DS/FDR Project, California, page 34: We acknowledge the value of the Mitigation Planning Gnet loss of in-kind habitat value” for Oak-grey pine woodland and Oak savannah. 6. Draft CAR – Table 8, Oak Woodland – Grey Pine Woodland Mitigation Site Development Criteria, Folsom DS/FDR California, page 39: Mitigation exceeds El Dorado County’s replanting requirements (of 200 trees/acre)2, matches the 

management intensity (moderate to intensive)3, but falls below the County’s standard for monitoring (of 10 years for years for acorns) . Mitigation does not address the success rate of replanting, for which the County standard is 90 pe7. Draft CAR – Recommendations, General, page 40: El Dorado County agrees that avoidance of impacts to woodlais a primary mitigation action. 8. Draft CAR – Recommendations, General, page 41: “Compensate for unavoidable impacts to oak-grey pine woodlaacquiring suitable lands and developing oak woodland habitat using the assumptions contained in Appendix A...” El DCounty notes that CEQA PRC §21083.4 only allows 50 percent of mitigation of impacts to oak woodlands to be in the replanting. Other mitigation options include conservation easements and contribution of funds to the Oak Woodlands 

Fund or other trusts to purchase oak woodland conservation easements in perpetuity. Recent studies by Giusti et al. (2005)5 states, “...it is becoming apparent that replacement seedlings as a mitigation 

removal of older stands of trees cannot meet the immediate habitat needs of forest-dependent animal species. This rexpanded the discussion beyond simple replanting schemes as a means of mitigating impacts.” The limited effectiveness of plantings for mitigation were demonstrated in a study that used data from 10-year-old pla

development of blue oak stand structure attributes over 50 years (Standiford et al., 2002). The model showed that a 

canopy cover of oak woodland could be achieved in 10 years if trees were planted at a density of 200 trees per acre high management intensity. After 50 years, trees in planted stands were still small (1-6 inch diameter at breast heightwildlife habitat quality was not equivalent to that of mature oak woodland. Species composition shifted from wildlife spacorns, cavities and downed wood to those that utilize open areas. This study emphasizes the need for a comprehen

mitigation and not to rely solely on replacement planting of oak woodlands. 9. Draft CAR – Table 10, Summary of Cover-Types, Acres Impacted, and Compensation Needed by Alternative Proposed for the Construction of Folsom DS/FRD Project, California, page 60: El Dorado Couthat the mitigation acreage ratio exceeds the County maximum requirement of 2:1. ] Thank you for this opportunity to review and comment upon the Draft EIS/EIR. If you have any questions, please contact me at (530) 621-5355, or by email at SHust@co.el-dorado.ca.us . Sincerely, Steven D. Hust Principal Planner El Dorado County Development Services 2850 Fairlane Court Placerville CA 95667 
78 of 148 

No. Name Comment 

1 The El Dorado County Oak Woodland Management Plan and Oak Tree Protection Ordinance are pending but not yadopted. 2 McCreary DD. 2001. Regenerating rangeland oaks in California. Berkeley (CA): University of California, 

Agriculture and Natural Resources. Communication Services Publication #21601. 62 p. 3 Management intensity assumes that 10 years after planting 1 year old saplings that trees that have been nurtured with high management intensity will be on average 2 inches DBH with 90 percent survival; moderate management intensity will result in trees that are on average 1.5 inches DBH with 85 percent survival. From: Standiford, R.B., D. McCreary, and W. Frost. 2002. Modeling the effectiveness of tree planting to mitigate habitat loss in blue oak woodlands. In: Standiford, R.B., D. McCreary, and K.L. Purcell (tech. cords.), Proceedings of the 

Fifth Symposium on Oak Woodlands: Oaks in California’s Changing Landscape. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-184. Pacific Southwest Research Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. 

4 Refer to El Dorado County Interim Interpretive Guidelines for General Plan Policy 7.4.4.4 (Option A), adopted November 9, 2006, Definitions, page 2, 1:1 Woodland Replacement. 5 Giusti, G.A., A. Leider, J. Vilms, and J. Fetherstone. 2005. Planning options for oak conservation. In: Giusti, G.A., D.D. McCreary, and R.B. Standiford (eds.), A Planner’s Guide for Oak Woodlands. University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources Publication 3491. 

311 

Bruce and 

Rosemary 

Beck 

To Whom It May Concern: RE: Folsom Point/Folsom Lake Controversy: We have received/read about disturbing information about the proposed closure of Folsom Point (Dyke 8) and/or Gra

staging area for equipment for the upcoming construction at Folsom Lake. We live in Rocklin, very close to Folsom Lake. We are opposed to any closure of all current boating access to Folso

equipment parking. We have been boating on Folsom Lake for more than 25 years. [#311-1 Socioeconomics businesof any boating access and public picnicking would not be in the best interest of the local economy, local boating area boating industry in general. 

1. [#311-2 PD alternative staging areas] Why the equipment parking area can’t be established along Folsom-A

the closed road to the Dam? 

2. Close some of Beal’s Point as boaters can not use that area for launching? 3. What about the parking area that is closed to the public next to the Dam? 4. There are large fields near the Dam Road in the Folsom area, use them? 5. Otherwise the expansion and creation of Beal's point for boat launching would help IF the closure of Folsom 

were to happen. 

[#311-3 Recreation remaining access locations] There are a large number of boaters in the Sacramento area. Requirtravel to other locations would not only crowd those other locations more than usual but cause other environmental is

traveling, using more gas to travel to other lakes, causing more environmental issues at those locations, etc.  Please establish other sites to use for staging. There are a lot of other areas that can be considered. 

312 Jim Micheaels CDPR Gold Fields District 7806 Folsom-Auburn Road 
 

No. Name Comment 

Folsom, CA 95630 January 26, 2007 Michael Finnegan, Area Manager U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Central California Area Office 7794 Folsom Dam Road Folsom, CA 95630 Re: Folsom Dam Safety and Flood Damage Reduction DEIS/DEIR This letter is to express the concerns and recommendations of the California Department of Parks and Recreation (DEnvironmental Impact Statement/Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIS/DEIR) regarding the Folsom Dam Safety Damage Reduction Project. DPR has previously provided extensive comment and recommendations regarding this pApril 6, 2006 letter and several rounds of comments regarding administrative drafts of this DEIS/DEIR. DPR is supportive of the twin goals of this project, improving public safety relative to the dams and dikes and providinprotection for the region. As Reclamation’s managing partner for recreation, natural and cultural resources at Folsom 

Recreation Area (SRA), DPR is also concerned about the impacts of the project on these resources and uses. About 

recreate at Folsom Lake SRA annually. Obviously this project will have some significant impacts on this recreation us

supporting this use. To date, DPR does not believe the project impacts to recreation use and facilities at Folsom Lake adequately mitigated. We look forward to continuing to work with the lead agencies to find ways to avoid impacts to r

facilities and to mitigate these impacts. Please see the enclosed Attachment with our specific comments for each of 

areas within the SRA that may be impacted by the proposed project. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please contact either myself or Folsom Sector Superintenden(916) 988-0205 or the Gold Fields District Planner Jim Micheaels at (916) 988-0513. Thank you. Sincerely, Scott Nakaji Gold Fields District Superintendent CC Stein Buer, Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency  Colonel Ronald N. Light, Sacramento District, Army Corps of Engineers 

Shawn Oliver, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 

 Becky Victorine, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

Joe Lucchi, City of Folsom, Economic Development Director 
80 of 148 

No. Name Comment 

Joe Gagliardi, President and CEO, Folsom Chamber of Commerce and Folsom Tourism Bureau 

 Paul Romero, California State Parks, Chief Deputy Director  Ted Jackson, California State Parks, Deputy Director Park Operations 

Tony Perez, California State Parks, Chief Southern Field Division 

Attachment: DPR Comments and Recommendations Regarding Folsom Dam Safety and Flood Damage ReduEIS/EIR Chapter 2 - Project Elements and Alternatives

2.2.4.1 Auxiliary Spillway On page 2-37 of the Auxiliary Spillway description the following statement is made in reference to spoil material exca

approach channel to the spillway gates which will be deposited on the shoreline: 

“It is anticipated that the material excavated from the approach channel would be put to beneficial use.” 

[#312-1 PD beneficial use of excess material] Without any explanation of how this spoil material would be used it see

conclude it would be put to beneficial use, the material could just as well impact the native vegetation on the existing 

interested to know how this spoil material would be used. 2.2.4.7 Embankment Raises (Dikes and Wing Dams) The Alternatives in the document propose three options for raising the height of the dikes and dams: less than 4 feet 

safety and flood damage reduction purposes; 7 feet to provide additional surcharge capacity for flood damage reduct17 feet as an alternative to meet flood damage reduction objectives without any increased discharge capacity. DPR has previously commented regarding our concerns about the method used to achieve the dam and dike raise. T

and Dikes 4, 5 and 6 are currently all utilized as part of the trail system within Folsom Lake SRA. The trails at Folsom 

important recreation amenity for the local neighborhoods, communities and Sacramento region. The trails along the t

and dams provide vital connections to other trails downstream of the dikes and dams. The unobstructed views of Fols

important part of the experience of recreation visitors using these trails. DPR is specifically concerned about the impa

utilizing a concrete parapet wall on recreation trail users. This includes both the visual impact of obstructed views and 

the concrete parapet wall and concrete retaining wall may have on access to the trails across the top of these dikes abelieve the concrete parapet wall options will be an attractive nuisance (graffiti) and barrier for recreation use. DPR w

responsible for any repair or maintenance of such a concrete wall, including graffiti removal. 

Recommendation:

[#312-2 PD raise type] DPR believes the conventional earthfill raise option provides the best opportunity for unfettered access to the trails across the dams and dikes and unobstructed views. A reinforced earth wall w
 

No. Name Comment 

preference. 

2.2.4.10 New Embankment Construction The document indicates that depending upon the Alternative selected, up to 45 new embankments may be constructof the dikes and dams was selected. The number of new embankments required for a 17-foot raise has not been det

not appear that the document specifically identifies where these new embankments would be constructed and that no 

analysis is provided for these new embankments. 

Recommendation:

[#312-3 Analysis of new embankments] DPR believes the environmental analysis for this aspect of the projeand that if any alternative is selected which requires additional embankment raises which are not specifically document, additional environmental analysis is required. 

2.2.4.11 Miscellaneous Construction Construction Staging, Materials Processing and Contractor Work Areas

The project includes development of construction staging areas, material processing and contractor work areas whic

impact recreation areas within Folsom Lake SRA including Folsom Point, Beal’s Point, Granite Bay and trails within tState Parks believes there are some “win/win” possibilities with regards to mitigation for the impacts to and loss of rec

the lead agencies for the project are not taking advantage. In previous discussions with Reclamation we have explore

rehabilitating some of the staging areas, once construction activities are complete, into improved recreation sites. DPreasonable for the lead agencies to provide for these finished facilities as mitigation for the loss of recreation use at t

Folsom Point

The document indicates Folsom Point would be a main staging area for the Project including contractor’s offices, parstaging and processing, and borrow stockpiling. The DEIS/DEIR indicates Folsom Point would be closed to all recrea

7 years. Anywhere from 670,000 to 816,000 recreation visits would be lost due to construction. Recreation facilities at Folsom Point include a boat ramp with parking for 125 vehicles and a picnic area with parking Annual use at Folsom Point is about 112,000 visitors, which generates about $127,000 in user fees annually. 

DPR understands that based on concerns expressed by the City of Folsom, the Folsom Chamber of Commerce, locamembers and others, that options are being explored to reduce or avoid the complete closure of Folsom Point during 

period. DPR is supportive of these efforts and we need to be part of these discussions. In past discussions with Reclamation, DPR understood that Reclamation was considering filling a shallow portion of tthe east side of Folsom Point to create additional areas for staging and material processing. DPR has suggested that construction activities, Reclamation could contour and covert this proposed material processing and construction stagnew boat ramp, parking and additional picnic sites, including group picnic sites. DPR believes that the provision of adrecreation facilities could serve to help mitigate the loss of recreation use. 
82 of 148 

No. Name Comment 

Recommendation:[#312-4 Recreation mitigation] To the extent that Folsom Point is utilized as a construction staging or materi

area which results in a loss of recreation access and use, DPR believes the federal agencies have an obligathe loss of recreation use. One option to provide such mitigation is to enhance the existing facilities or conve

into additional recreation facilities following construction. This might include extending the existing boat ram

the existing picnic facilities and/or creating a second boat ramp and additional picnic facilities. 

Beal’s Point

Beal’s Point would also be utilized as a primary staging area for contractor offices, parking, material processing and s

of borrow material and concrete production. The document indicates that portions of Beal’s Point would be occupied 

staging activities from 3 to 6 years and would result in approximately 40,000 to 673,000 lost recreation visits. About 220,000 visitors recreate at Beal’s Point annually which generates about $447,000 in user fees annually. Recr

Beal’s Point may be less desirable because of construction activity, traffic and noise. Similar to the situation at Folsom Point, based on previous discussions with Reclamation, DPR understood that Reclaconsidering filling a shallow portion of the Reservoir on the south side of Beal’s Point to create additional area for staprocessing. 

Recommendation:

[#312-5 Beals’ Poin Site Use Consultation] DPR would like to be consulted regarding the exact location of thTo the extent that Beal’s Point is utilized as a construction staging or materials processing area which result

recreation access and use, DPR believes the federal agencies have an obligation to mitigate the loss of rechas recommends that following construction activities, Reclamation should contour and convert this proposeprocessing and construction staging area into additional parking, picnic sites and other day use recreation fabelieves that the provision of additional new recreation facilities could serve to help mitigate the loss of recre

Granite Bay

Construction staging areas at Granite Bay to support a variety of activities depending upon the Alternative including: 

parking; borrow site excavation; construction at Dikes 1, 2, 3; material processing, stock piling and storage. From the 

difficult to determine exactly where the staging areas are planned. Granite Bay is the most heavily used recreation use area within the SRA. Annual use at Granite Bay is approximately which generates $1.6 million in revenues from user fees annually. 

Recommendation:

[#312-6 Granite Bay Recreation mitigation] Locate construction staging areas so they avoid or minimize impaccess or use. DPR would like to be consulted regarding the exact location of the staging areas. To the exteBay is utilized as a construction staging, borrow site or materials processing area which results in a loss of r
 

No. Name Comment 

and use, DPR believes the federal agencies have an obligation to mitigate the loss of recreation use. 

Mormon Island Auxiliary Dam (MIAD)

The entire area around MIAD is proposed as a construction zone, construction staging area or potential borrow site. T

utilized as a trail connecting Folsom Point to the trail to Browns Ravine. There is an existing parking area on the east

for trail users which accommodates about 30 vehicles. This parking lot is regularly used by trail users. It appears that or staging area will encompass the parking lot. 

Recommendation:

[#312-7 MIAD Recreation mitigation] If the parking lot and trail connections are obliterated due to constructioactivities, this parking lot will need to be replaced. DPR would like to consult with the lead agencies regardin

of this parking lot. To the extent construction activities result in a loss of recreation access and use, DPR be

agencies have an obligation to mitigate the loss of recreation use. 

Right Wing Dam

DPR has a maintenance yard, storage buildings, State Park Ranger offices and other facilities adjacent to the right w

possible that activities in this area may impact the paved bike path which crosses this area and connects from Lake N

Point. 

Recommendation:

[#312-8 RWD Recreation mitigation] Avoid impacts to the above DPR facilities or mitigate any impacts by refacilities as needed. 

The proposed staging area just south of Hinkle Reservoir appears to occupy an area that is proposed for the new entReclamation/DPR administrative offices and facilities as part of the new Folsom Dam Bridge Project. This area is also 

where the American River Water Education Center (ARWEC) and DPR’s public contact station are proposed to be re

the Bridge project. Left Wing Dam

Activities at the left wing dam do not appear to conflict with existing public use. However, at one time Observation Po

area on the east side of the left wing dam) was a popular public day use facility. This facility has been closed due to sThe project will occupy this site for many years, if not permanently. Observation Point has perhaps the most dramatic 

Lake. 

Recommendation:

[#312-9 LWD Recreation mitigation] Reclamation and the Corps should mitigate the loss of Observation Poiuse. 

Borrow Sites
84 of 148 

No. Name Comment 

Folsom Point

Borrow material would be excavated from the along the shoreline all around Folsom Point. 

Recommendation:

[#312-10 Folsom Point mitigation] DPR believes that borrow site excavation could be conducted in a mannesome recreation facilities. This might include extending existing boat ramps, developing an additional boat r

shoreline areas for use as a beach area. In order for these types of benefits to be realized, DPR believes the needs to be coordinated with the mitigation ideas proposed for Folsom Point in 2.2.4.11 above. We believe, mitigation for the loss of recreation use, the lead agencies could complete improvements to recreation facilitPoint. 

Granite Bay

In Alternatives 4 and 5 it appears borrow excavation would occur in the north portion of this recreation area. It appea

excavation may include the area of Main Granite Beach, which is a primary attraction and one of the most heavily useGranite Bay. 

Recommendation:

[#312-11 Granite Bay mitigation] DPR would like to avoid or minimize impacts to Main Granite Beach and threcreation use facilities at Granite Bay during the summer use season. To the extent construction activities r

recreation access and use, DPR believes the federal agencies have an obligation to mitigate the loss of recopportunity to partially mitigate this impact is to contour the area along main Granite Beach in a manner whi

beach area and water access at a variety of lake levels. DPR would like to consult with the lead agencies on contour this area following excavation activities. 

Beal’s Point

Borrow material would be excavated from the along the shoreline on the north side of Beal’s Point. The area along th

Beal’s Point is utilized as a beach and swim area. 

Recommendation:

[#312-12 Beal’s Point mitigation] To the extent construction activities result in a loss of recreation access anbelieves the federal agencies have an obligation to mitigate the loss of recreation use. One opportunity to pathis impact is to contour the area on the north side of the Beal’s Point in a manner which will improve the bepotentially import sand. DPR would like to consult with the lead agencies on opportunities to contour the are

Point following excavation activities. 

MIAD (Left Abutment)

In Alternatives 4 and 5 it appears borrow excavation would occur in the area between the northeast end of MIAD and 

Brown’s Ravine is the location of the Folsom Lake Marina and one of the most heavily used recreation use areas with

marina is operated by a concessionaire. It is possible that borrow excavation could benefit the marina operation by in

depth of the marina basin. However, this would need to be coordinated with DPR and the marina operator. From the 
 

No. Name Comment 

document it appears that the excavation would be focused on the shoreline along the south side of Browns Ravine a

benefit marina operations. The point of land between Brown’s Ravine and MIAD is an undeveloped portion of the SR

habitat values due to the State land adjacent to the federal lands in this area. DPR is concerned about impacts to upl

and habitat from the borrow excavation. 

Recommendation:

[#312-13 MIAD mitigation] Keep borrow excavation activities, including hauling materials, below the 466’ eleimpacts to upland native vegetation, habitat and wildlife. To the extent construction activities result in a loss 

access and use, DPR believes the federal agencies have an obligation to mitigate the loss of recreation use

Disposal of Excess Materials and In-reservoir Fill

The document indicates between 1 million and 2.5 million cubic yards of excess material could be permanently dispo

locations including, Dike 7, Folsom Point and Beal’s Point. Alternative 3 proposes permanent disposal of up to 500,00

material at Dike 7 alone. DPR has already provided ideas on how this excess material could be located, contoured aprovide improved or new finished recreation facilities at Beal’s Point and Folsom Point to help mitigate the loss of rec

impacts to recreation use in these areas. With the exception of a trail discussed immediately below, DPR is not interested in creating additional recreation facilof Dike 7 at this time. 

Recommendation:

[#312-14 Dike 7 mitigation] At Dike 7, other than the provision for the trail, DPR recommends that any exces

contoured to match the existing natural upland areas and re-vegetated and restored as blue oak woodland osome similar native plant community. Contouring the shoreline and finishing the new shoreline with material informal beach use would also be useful. 

Development of Internal Roadways

Internal haul roads are proposed for several locations within the project area, including between Dike 7 and Folsom Ppresumes this haul route would be above the 466’ elevation. The new draft General Plan/Resource Management Pla

SRA provides direction for the development of a paved multi-use trail between Dike 7 and Folsom Point (and continu

to the intersection of Green Valley Road and Sophia Parkway). This same paved bike route is identified in the City of Master Plan as it connects to City bike trails. 

Recommendation:

[#312-15 Dike 7 to Folsom Point mitigation] For all internal haul routes, to the extent feasible, avoid removal trees. DPR recommends that following construction activities, the lead agencies convert the proposed haul Dike 7 and Folsom Point into a paved bike path that would continue across MIAD to the intersection of Greeand Sophia Parkway. DPR believes the federal agencies have an obligation to mitigate the loss of recreatioPoint and that providing a finished paved multi-use trail from Dike 7 to Folsom Point would serve as partial mproject impacts to recreation use and access. 
86 of 148 

No. Name Comment 

2.2.4.13 Security Features Security Cameras

Security cameras installed on 30-foot steel towers are proposed at each end of Dikes 4, 5, 6, 7, MIAD and at Beal’s Plocations of these camera towers are not indicated in the document. DPR is concerned about the potential impact of 

bases on the trails across the top of the dams and dikes and the connections to other trails. DPR is also concerned a

impact of the towers on recreation use and on views within Folsom Lake SRA. Prior to these security measures being included in this Dam Safety/Flood Damage Reduction DEIS/DEIR, DPR staff 

with Reclamation staff to provide input on the specific locations of these towers. This includes the tower location at B

which DPR has provided specific recommendations regarding the location of this tower to minimize the visual impact 

visitors at the Beal’s Point day use facilities. DPR hopes this information has not been lost in the process. 

Recommendation:

[#312-16 Security mitigation] Site the camera towers so they do not interfere with the trails across MIAD and connections to these trails. Site the camera towers so the impact to the visual resources and views of the Fothe SRA are avoided or minimized. Consult with DPR staff regarding the specific location of camera towers. 

Vehicle Barriers and Gates

Various types of vehicle barriers and gates are proposed for MIAD and the various dikes. Because system trails with

the top of MIAD and the dikes DPR requests that adequate pass-through openings are provided for trail users, includ

equestrians and bicyclists towing trailers. The existing bollard system installed over the past several years was instal

providing adequate pass-through openings for trail users. This lack of adequate pass through openings with the existcaused numerous complaints from trail users. 

Recommendation:

[#312-17 Security mitigation] Ensure that a 60-inch wide opening, with even tread, is provided at the location barriers and gates on dikes and dams that are utilized as trails. 

Power for Security Components

Power lines are proposed for all security feature locations needing power including the vehicle barriers and cameras. that installing power lines on towers or poles along the top of the dikes and dams would be a significant impact to vis

within Folsom Lake SRA. 

Recommendation:

[#312-18 Security mitigation] DPR recommendation is that power lines be installed underground. If that is nosecond preference is for power lines to be installed on poles along the downstream toe of the dikes and dam

of any trails or other recreation facilities, to minimize the visual impact. 
 

No. Name Comment 

Project Lighting

The project proposes lighting to be installed to support monitoring of the barrier system. DPR presumes this is permafurther detail is provided regarding this lighting. DPR is concerned that such lighting will be a visual impact, could furt

night sky and might affect the nocturnal habitat of wildlife. The details and potential impacts of this lighting are not addiscussed or analyzed in the environmental document. 

Recommendation:

[#312-19 Security mitigation] Any permanent lighting should be of the minimum intensity required, should be downward directed to prevent impacts to the night sky and nocturnal wildlife. 

Alternatives [#312-20 PD alternatives] DPR supports the project objectives of increasing dam safety and reducing flood damage. the lead agencies select project alternatives which achieve project objectives while minimizing the impacts to recreat

facilities, natural and cultural resources at Folsom Lake SRA. DPR believes the alternatives which include raising the particularly the 7-foot and 17-foot raises, will greatly increase the impacts to the recreation use and resources within 

Chapter 3 - Affected Environment, Impacts Analyses, and Mitigation Measures

[#312-21 Veg and Wildlife mitigation for inundation] 3.5 Terrestrial Vegetation and Wildlife The document identifies impacts to vegetation and wildlife from both construction related activities and from inundatio

emergency flood retention. With regards to the latter, it appears the approach (BIO-8, page 3.5-52) is to wait until an then to survey the damage and determine the appropriate mitigation at that time. DPR has concerns with this approa

inundation may not kill oak trees outright immediately, but could cause root damage which causes oak trees to deteri

and may make trees more susceptible to wind fall or insect damage. A single survey, or even a survey over several y

adequately capture the damage caused by a temporary inundation. 3.5.4 Mitigation Measures

DPR has suggested to the lead agencies and to the USFWS that our preference for mitigation of oak woodlands and 

requiring mitigation, whether from construction related impacts or inundation, is to purchase of lands contiguous to Fo

which contain suitable quantity and quality of habitat value to meet the mitigation requirements. DPR understands thaagency preference may be to create additional habitat through planting versus the purchase of mature habitat, such a

with mature blue oak woodlands that DPR has previously informally identified. DPR does not understand the logic of regulatory agencies in this matter. It would seem that mature oak woodlands would have a much higher habitat value 

planted oak trees or other vegetation. The document acknowledges that development within the vicinity of Folsom Recreated barriers to animal movement and migration. Purchasing lands contiguous to the SRA with high quality habita

potential for development would not only add habitat value to the SRA it would also serve to help retain the habitat vapublic lands within the SRA by preventing further barriers to animal movement and migration 

Recommendation:
88 of 148 

No. Name Comment 

[#312-22 Veg and Wildlife mitigation oak woodlands] Purchase lands contiguous to Folsom Lake SRA which quantity and quality of habitat value to meet the mitigation requirements. DPR has specifically identified for t

regulatory agencies potential properties which might meet some of these mitigations needs. 

The document identifies mitigation measures for replacement of a variety of habitat types that will be impacted by the 

riparian vegetation, oak woodlands and wetlands (BIO 10 and VEG-1-4). The document does not specify where this 

occur and DPR is concerned about the specific location. DPR has two concerns, first that the mitigation does not imp

existing viable habitat, with a mitigation habitat. DPR does not believe that this necessarily results in a net benefit to t

environment, but merely results in the loss of one habitat for the sake of another. Secondly, DPR is generally concernfor habitat mitigation do not conflict with existing or proposed future recreation facilities and uses within the SRA. Fut

facilities and uses are described in the Draft General Plan/Resource Management Plan for Folsom Lake SRA. 

Recommendation:

[#312-23 Wildlife habitat mitigation] DPR requests that the federal agencies avoid implementing habitat mit

areas which have existing viable native habitat (even though it may be compromised by exotics or other impoak woodlands and savanna, areas with remnants of native grasslands and riparian areas. DPR also reques

agencies specifically avoid mitigation sites in areas where existing recreation use and facilities exist or locat

recreation use and facilities might be located (as identified in the updated General Plan/Resource Managemwould like to be consulted on any proposed mitigation sites within Folsom Lake SRA. 

INV-1b – 1e (page 3.5-53)

These mitigation measures refer to conservation areas where transplanting or planting of elderberry shrubs and asso

species will occur. The document does not specify where these conservations are located. 

Recommendation:

[#312-24 Veg and Wlidlife elderberry mitigation] DPR requests that the federal agencies specifically avoid cmitigation sites in areas within Folsom Lake SRA which might conflict with existing recreation use and facilitlocations where future recreation use or facilities might be located (as identified in the updated Draft Genera

Management Plan). Focus any habitat mitigation on heavily disturbed areas which do not provide any valuahabitat. DPR would like to be consulted on any proposed mitigation sites within Folsom Lake SRA. 

3.7 Visual Resources 

[#312-25 Visual parapet walls graffiti] Construction of parapet walls – Alternatives 2, 3 (pages 3.7-21&22)

DPR has previously expressed that the concrete parapet wall will be a visual impediment to views of the Lake, may imaccess to trails on the tops of the dikes and dams and will likely be a target for graffiti. The DEIS/DEIR does not analy

parapet wall creates for graffiti or the visual impact of this eventuality. The DEIS/DEIR claims the visual impact of the significant but unavoidable impact. DPR believes this is incorrect. This impact can be avoided by selecting the converaise as the option to increase the height of the dams and dikes. 
 

No. Name Comment 

Implementation of Security MeasuresThe document contends that the implementation of the security measures, including 30-foot camera towers, permane

power poles and lines at Dikes 4, 5, 6, 7, Folsom Point and MIAD would result in less than significant impacts to visuThere is no substantive evidence or analysis provided in the environmental analysis regarding the permanent visual itowers, lights and lines. The document does not even identify specifically where towers would be located or if the line

underground, at the toe of the dams and dikes or on top of the dams and dikes. The specific location of these facilitieto do with the level of impact they will have on the visual resources of Folsom Lake SRA. 

Recommendation:

[#312-26 Security impacts analysis] DPR believes the environmental analysis for this aspect of the project is inadequate and that once the specific location of these facilities is determined, supplemental environmental be conducted. 

Unlike Chapter 3.5, the Visual Resources Chapter (3.7) does not analyze the potential impacts of inundation caused flood retention, only construction related impacts. DPR does not understand why this aspect of the project is analyze

resource areas and not others. DPR believes that the potential impact on visual quality of an emergency inundation csubstantial. Inundation could result in a band of dead or dying vegetation for many years following inundation. 

Recommendation:

[#312-27 Inundation Impacts Analysis] DPR believes the potential impact of an emergency inundation on visshould be analyzed and that the environmental analysis is insufficient without it. 

3.9 Transportation and Circulation DPR believes that displaced recreation use from Folsom Point could increase traffic and circulation impacts at Beal’s 

Bay which already experience in congestion and back ups on adjacent roadways during peak use periods. Additionarelated traffic will exacerbate congestion at these locations. 

Recommendation:

[#312-28 Recreation Traffic mitigation] DPR believes that widening the entrance roads into Beal’s Point and adding lanes for both entering and exiting these entrance stations will help mitigate these impacts. Adding a

around to keep traffic circulating when these recreation areas reach capacity and gates are closed, should aentrance improvements. DPR would like to work with the lead agencies to determine how to re-configure anentrances to both Beal’s Point and Granite Bay to help mitigate these impacts. 

3.10 Noise Sensitive Receptors – Figure 3.10-2

Six locations are identified as sensitive receptors for construction related noise impacts. All of these six sensitive rece

outside of the Folsom Lake SRA boundary. DPR understands the concern with noise impacts on adjacent residential 
90 of 148 

No. Name Comment 

[#312-29 Noise campgrounds] However, DPR does not understand why the campground at Beal’s Point, both the famcampground and the RV campground, were not considered as sensitive receptors for noise impacts. Several large co

areas and material processing operations are proposed to be located immediately adjacent to these campgrounds. Brock crushing, excavation and other construction activities will occur in close proximity to these campgrounds. Campg

legally occupied for overnight use by recreation visitors for up to 30 days per calendar year. These same construction activities and noise impacts will also occur immediately adjacent to many day use recreatio

activities. It does not appear that the environmental analysis considers the impacts of construction related noise on a

recreation uses or facilities. DPR believes construction related noise will significantly impact recreation use at the Be

Campground and result in a substantial loss of use at the Campground. 3.13 Recreation 

[#312-30 Recreation Use Mitigation] DPR believes the document identifies many of the construction-related impacts 

and facilities but does not adequately mitigate the loss of recreation use. 3.13.1.2 Regulatory Setting

[#312-31 Recreation existing conditions] DPR does not believe the document (page 3.13-1) accurately describes the management situation at Folsom Lake SRA. While Reclamation does own the lands immediately adjacent to Folsom Lake Natoma, the State of California owns 2243 acres of land contiguous to the federal land and this State-owned la

Folsom Lake SRA. This includes lands around portions of both reservoirs and is not limited to lands associated with t

Smith Memorial Bike Trail. The State owns substantial acreage in the Granite Bay area, the Peninsula, between Morand Brown’s Ravine, the Rattlesnake Bar area, near Old Salmon Falls and at various locations around Lake NatomaThe purpose of the long-term lease agreement is much broader than solely managing recreation, the lease agreemepurpose of the agreement is for developing, administering and maintaining the area as a State park. This involves morecreation and DPR management activities include natural and cultural resource management and protection, public law enforcement and a variety of other activities. The existing 50-year lease expired in the spring of 2006. DPR and R

extended this lease by mutual agreement on a month to month basis. Both agencies are working on developing a neagreement. 3.13.4 Mitigation Measures

[#312- 32 Recreation mitigation] DPR does not believe the proposed mitigation measures adequately mitigate the los

use and access which is documented for the various alternatives in this chapter. DPR believes the lead agencies hav

to mitigate the loss of recreation use. DPR has previously recommended and the lead agencies have chosen to ignoadditional measures which the lead agencies could take to help mitigate the loss of recreation use. DPR would like to lead agencies to identify and develop specific mitigation measures to help mitigate the loss of recreation use. RC-1

It appears that the existing parking lot near the left abutment of MIAD will need to be replaced following project constImprovements could be made to this lot to help mitigate impacts to and the loss of recreation use including: paving th
 

No. Name Comment 

and access road to the parking area, installing a pre-cast concrete CXT-type restroom, installing trailhead information 

RC-3

DPR understands that based on public input to date, the lead agencies are considering options to minimize or avoid Point to the extent feasible. DPR is supportive of these efforts and would like to work with the lead agencies on these 

DPR has already described above how construction staging areas and material processing areas could be contoured 

to provide additional or improved recreation facilities and opportunities at Folsom Point and Beal’s Point. DPR believe

for the lead agencies to provide these finished recreation facilities as part of the mitigation for the loss of recreation u

caused by the project. In the past the lead agencies have claimed there are legal constraints which prevent them from improved recreation facilities as part of the mitigation for the project. These legal limitations have never been specificarticulated. DPR believes there are a variety of ways which these recreation facility improvements could be achieved 

agencies. These potential mitigation measures, most of which could be completed at the end of project construction ahighlighted below: • At Folsom Point extend the boat ramp, pave and finish the upgraded boat ramp. Repair and re-surface the existi

the boat ramp. 

• Rehabilitate the existing picnic area at Folsom Point. • Convert the proposed haul route between Dike 7 and Folsom Point into a paved bike path when construction wa• Convert the proposed construction staging and material processing area on the east side of Folsom Point into an 

ramp, parking, group picnic and beach area. Provide paving, parking, sand and other facilities needed to comple

• Convert the construction staging and material processing area to be developed on the south side of Beal’s Point 

parking, picnic sites and day use facilities. 

• To mitigate the loss of the boat launching facility at Folsom Point and to accommodate potential increased use o

boat launch, reconfigure the boat ramp complex at Granite Bay to better serve all lake levels, pave and upgrade facilities as needed. 

• Rehabilitate the picnic area and facilities at Granite Bay. • Many trails will be impacted by the project and the project will result in a loss of use on these trails. In addition to 

impacted by the project, the loss of recreation use on trails should be mitigated by providing improvements to the 

following construction. 

RC-4

DPR has already described above how construction excavation areas could be contoured and rehabilitated to provid
92 of 148 

No. Name Comment 

improved recreation facilities and opportunities. DPR believes it is appropriate for the lead agencies to provide these 

facilities as part of the mitigation for the loss of recreation use and access caused by the project. These potential miti

most of which could be completed at the end of project construction activities, are highlighted below: • Excavation which widened and extended the existing boat ramp at Folsom Point could provide benefits for recre• Re-contour the beach area on the north side of Beal’s Point beach to improve recreation access at a variety of la

sand and other facilities as needed to complete this work. 

• Excavation at Granite Bay could help lower and extend boat ramps to improve boating access at this site in the l• Re-contour the beach profile at Granite Bay main beach to improve recreation access at a variety of lake levels. 

other facilities as needed to complete this work. 

• Excavation which lowered the marina basin at Browns Ravine would benefit recreation. Additionally, construction 

breakwater on the west side of the entrance to marina area to help protect the marina basin from the prevailing w

RC-6 

This mitigation measure does not commit to making improvements to the entrance of Beal’s Point and Granite Bay to 

impacts of the project. DPR believes the closure of Folsom Point could result in displaced users seeking recreation a

Point (picnic facilities) and Granite Bay (boat launch and picnic facilities). The environmental document accurately staareas reach capacity during peak season periods. During these times traffic backs up onto Douglas Boulevard and A

Road. Additional recreation users displaced from Folsom Point would exacerbate this traffic impact, as will the additio

traffic. DPR is also concerned about the additional air quality impacts of trucks and other construction equipment ente

these entrance stations and the potential health impacts on employees working at the entrance booths. 

Recommendation:

[#312-33 Recreation Mitigation] DPR believes that widening the entrance roads into Beal’s Point and Granitlanes for both entering and exiting the entrance station will help mitigate these impacts. Adding an improved 

order to keep traffic circulating when these recreation areas reach capacity and gates close, should also be entrance improvements. DPR would like to work with the lead agencies to determine how to re-configure anentrances to both Beal’s Point and Granite Bay to help mitigate these impacts. 

Unlike Chapter 3.5, the Recreation Chapter (3.13) does not analyze the potential impacts of inundation caused by emretention, only construction related impacts. DPR does not understand why this aspect of the project is analyzed for s

and uses and not others. DPR believes that the potential impact on recreation use and facilities due to an emergency 

be substantial. Any raise of Folsom Dam for flood control purposes and subsequent reservoir operations utilizing the additional surch

the potential to impact recreation facilities at Folsom Lake SRA. The recreation facilities around Folsom Lake have be
 

No. Name Comment 

DPR with the full knowledge and consent of Reclamation over the course of fifty years. Presumably recreation planne

466’ was the effective high pool for the reservoir and developed facilities accordingly. As a result many of the recreat

around Folsom Lake are located between elevations 466’ and 474’ elevation. To the extent that the operation of the reservoir at higher Lake levels (above 466’) results in impacts to recreational fabelieves the lead agencies should mitigate the impacts to these facilities. This may include the need to move selected “flood proof” other facilities and to develop a plan and funding source for the clean-up and repair of facilities following DPR would like to see the federal agencies take responsibility for developing (in consultation with DPR) a proactive pidentify which facilities may need to be moved or retro-fitted to withstand inundation and then to provide funding to co

recommendations of this plan. DPR does not want to wait until an emergency inundation occurs and then address themergency use of the additional surcharge space from a dam raise is an event that can be planned for and in large p

before the emergency occurs. One example would be the Granite Bay Activity Center. This facility would get inundated if Folsom Dam is raised sevoccurred in which it was necessary to utilize the surcharge storage. Inundation would likely render this facility unusab

would need to be re-constructed. DPR does not have funding to replace this facility and even if funding were provide

control agencies, it would take several years to re-build the facility. This is a very popular facility that is used at least sdays a week year round. These users would be displaced during the protracted time period it would take to re-build th

The federal agencies also need to consider that the loss of recreation facilities due to the utilization of the increased swould also result in the loss of recreation use and user fee revenues which would need to be mitigated. 

Recommendation:

[#312-34 Recreation inundation and operation impacts] DPR believes the potential impact of an emergency recreation use and facilities should be analyzed and that the environmental analysis is insufficient without it. 

Chapter 4 - Socioeconomics

This Chapter documents the impacts to State revenues due to the loss of user fees resulting from project impacts. Hodocument does not indicate how these impacts will be addressed, if at all. 

Recommendation:

[#312-35 Socioeconomics State Parks revenue] DPR believes that any loss of recreation use resulting from results in a loss of user fee revenues to the State within Folsom Lake SRA should be compensated. 

The document also discussing the loss of revenues to concessionaires operating at Beal’s Point and Granite Bay wh

to project impacts. DPR has previously provided the lead agencies with specific information for each concessionaire, 

generate and the fees these concessionaires pay to the State. 

Recommendation:

[#312-36 Socioeconomics concessionaires] DPR believes that any loss of recreation use resulting from the 
94 of 148 

No. Name Comment 

results in a loss of revenues to the concessionaires operating within Folsom Lake SRA should be compensaportion of these revenues which would be paid as fees to the State. 

313 Robert H. Miller III 

Dear Mr. Oliver and Mrs. Victorine On behalf of the Folsom Economic Development Corporation, please find below comments to the Folsom Dam SafetDamage Reduction EIS/EIR. 

1. [#313-1 Public Involvement notification] Public Notice. Given the massive size of this project, the length of t

period and negative impacts on the City of Folsom and surrounding area, the public notice for this lengthy edocument was inadequate. Until the Folsom Telegraph, the Sacramento Bee and KCRA Channel 3 ran stor

2007, the public was not aware of the closure of Folsom Point which would result in the loss of over 800,000 substantial economic loss to the local economy. Since the media coverage was the same day of the Folsom 

held January 10 and a day after the only other public meeting held in Sacramento on January 9, it was too lcitizens to attend and impossible to review the environmental document in advance of that meeting. In additowners who are located immediately adjacent to the work areas were not notified by mail of the EIS/EIR. ] 

2. [#313-2 Public Involvement hearing format] Public Meeting. Especially in light of the lack of insufficient notic

house’ public meeting format did not provide the attendees an adequate presentation of the project, the proj

and/or the proposed mitigation measures. It did not allow attendees to benefit from each other’s public testim

questions and answers from the project proponent. Public input was either transcribed by someone who waanswer any questions or attendees were given comment cards to fill out. Based on the insufficient notice, lapresentation and lack of public testimony, it appeared that the project proponent was not interested in notify

the project specifics or the impacts but rather the proponent was only “going through the motions”. The lack 

and the public meeting format did not provide full disclosure given the scope of the project and did not meet environmental review process. 

3. [#313-3 Socioeconomics] Economic Analysis. The economic impact of the loss of over 800,000 visitor trips t

Folsom, Folsom area businesses, property owners and residents is not adequately addressed in the econom

presented in the EIS/EIR. 

a. The economic model does not take into account the impact on the sale of large ticket items including motor 

sailboats, tow vehicles, sports equipment, homes, residential and commercial property etc. The model only of “picnic basket” type items. Given the extended life of the project and the lack of access to Folsom Lake o

outdoor recreation facilities, the sale of these large ticket items will decline. The analysis should be revised tinform the public of the true economic loss including these large ticket items. 

b. The economic impact from the loss of visitors from outside the tri-county region is underestimated. The econ

assumes that only those users who stay at the campground facilities at Folsom Lake are from outside the tr

The analysis fails to consider those users who are staying with friends or family or choose to stay at area hoRV parks. Based on the assumptions of the analysis, a large and more accurate number of visitors from outincrease the economic loss to both the local economy and the region. The analysis should be revised to reflaccurate percentage of visitors from outside the region. 

c. The economic analysis does not adequately disclose the economic loss to the local (Folsom Lake) economy

analysis mixes the regional benefit from monies spent on the project with the economic loss experienced by 

Lake ) economy. The analysis should separately disclose the loss to the local economy and any potential ga(tri-county) economy. The regional trucking company that may benefit from increase hauling fees does not c
 

No. Name Comment 

loss of the local business who sells recreational equipment to the lake users. 

d. Close proximity and access to Folsom Lake are quality of life amenities that attract businesses and employe

Without access to this amenity for an extended period of time, it will be less attractive to locate here. The ec

should be revised to include this negative impact to businesses and employee recruitment. 

e. Property values in close proximity to Folsom Lake are higher because of better access to this recreational a

consideration was given to the loss in value that will occur when access is substantially limited as indicated alternatives. The economic analysis should estimate the potential loss in property values during the construcaccess is limited. 

f. The total loss of Folsom Lake user fees to the State of California over the length of the construction period is 

indicated. Please provide a total number. 

4. [#313-4 PD Alternative Staging] Recreational Impacts. The EIS/EIR is inadequate because it did not analyze 

to closing Folsom Point but simply concluded that the recreational impacts are unavoidable and displaced vconsider indoor recreation alternatives. 

a. The haul route between the proposed spillway and MIAD could easily be located to avoid the boat ramp, pa

areas of Folsom Point (see attached Exhibit A). The route could run on top of or in front of Dike 8 and continthe launch ramp parking lot and the Folsom Point access road. The haul route could then cross under the Faccess road between the gate house and the location where the Folsom Point access road splits (left to boato the right of the picnic area). The haul route cold then continue east (south of Folsom Point) to MIAD. This appears to cover a shorter distance than following the waters edge around Folsom Point. Given the number (37,500 to 75,000 depending on truck capacity) necessary to move 1.5 million cubic yards of dirt from the spthis proposed shorter haul route is likely to also be more cost effective. Please analyze the cost of this alterncomparison to the user fee revenue loss to the State of California and the local economic loss resulting from closure. 

b. The processing facility that is proposed to be located at Folsom Point in each of the project alternatives cou

south and east of Folsom Point between the Folsom Point access road and MIAD (see attached Exhibit A). aerial maps shown in Section 2, Part 2 of the EIS/EIR, it appears that this property is currently designated to 

project. It also appears that the impacts to the environment (oak woodlands and wetlands) appear to be less location. The impacts to existing homes located on Elvies Lane uphill from the Folsom Point processing facireduced if the facility was relocated to this suggested location. The existing topography and size of this sugg

location could accommodate large buffers and berms to mitigate the construction impacts. Please analyze alocal economic and environmental impacts of the location designated in the EIS/EIR to the location suggesteaddition, please analyze the specific impacts (noise, dust, lighting etc) to the properties located on Elvies La

View Drive that are located uphill from the proposed processing facility at Folsom Point. What specific mitigacould be implemented at this suggested location to reduce the impacts to the surrounding community (ie. Be

hours of operation, etc). Based on this one suggested alternative haul route and processing facility re-location, it appears that there mmore alternatives available to meet the needs of the project and keep access to Folsom Point open and othless impacted. Until the environmental document anlayzes this and other alternatives, the EIS/EIR is flawed 

that the recreational impacts and the resulting economic loss are unavoidable. Please analyze all alternative

recreational impacts at the affected FLSRA facilities. ] 
96 of 148 

No. Name Comment 

5.[#313-4 Recreation mitigation] Alternative Recreational Facilities. The EIS/EIR is inadequate because no alternative 

studied where temporary facilities could be added to accommodate visitors that would be displaced because of the coactivity. Again, the EIS/EIR simply states that the impact to recreation is unavoidable. a. Temporary facilities could be added at existing FLSRA facilities to relieve congestion that will be caused from this econstruction activity. For example, additional launch, day use or campground facilities could be added at Browns RavBeal’s Point, the former Monte Vista campground, Old Salmon Falls or other existing facilities (see attached Exhibit Bthe cost of the temporary expansion of all potential recreational facilities at FLSRA to accommodate the displaced visresult from the impacted facilities. Please compare the cost of these temporary facilities to the user fee revenue loss 

California and the local economic loss resulting from visitors not having access to the impacted facilities. 1. Brown’s Ravine. This existing facility could be temporarily expanded across the inlet from the marina on property o

Bureau (see Exhibit C). Sufficient land area is available to accommodate launch facilities, campgrounds and/or day u

addition, the facilities at Hobie Cove could be temporarily expanded to accommodate displaced visitors from other im

2. Monte Vista Campground. The former private Monte Vista campground encompassing several hundred acres (loca

north of Green Valley Road on Salmon Falls Road) could be put back into use to accommodate displaced visitors (seThere are existing roads (which would need improvement), water, telephone, electricity, and even BBQ pits available launch and small parking lot could be located on the eastern tip of this site. 3. Old Salmon Falls Road. For years, this facility (see Exhibit D) has provided an alternative launch location for small 

jet skis. Once the water level reached 435’, the lower gate was opened and small craft launched here during the pea

through September). Once water receded below 435’, the lower gate was closed to prevent vehicles from impacting tminor improvements to the road and parking lot and the return of portable restrooms, this facility could accommodate 

with small water craft during the peak season. The launch access was closed a few years ago, because FLSRA staffavailable to adequately monitor this location. Given the potential restriction to alternative launch facilities, additional s

be required if this launch facility was reopened. This appears to be a very low cost alternative to provide some additio4. Beals Point. This existing facility could be temporarily expanded. Sufficient land area is available to accommodate 

facilities, campgrounds and/or day use areas. 5. Granite Bay. This existing facility could be temporarily expanded. Sufficient land area is available to accommodate 

facilities, campgrounds, and/or day use areas. With over 18,000 acres and 18 existing facilities identified in the EIS, there appear to be many alternative locations th

expanded to accommodate displaced recreation users in the FLSRA. The EIS/EIR did not study even one alternativeimpacts can be mitigated and they are avoidable. Folsom Economic Development Corporation understands that flood control improvements are extremely important an

to see them delayed. However, the draft EIS/EIR, which came into public awareness on January 10 has numerous fu

and is likely to face legal challenges. The EIS/EIR fails to consider reasonable alternatives that would dramatically re

negative economic effects. The EIS/EIR also significantly underestimates the magnitude of these local losses.] We r

Bureau of Reclamation work with all flood control stakeholders to keep the project on course while a solution is identiminimizes the hardship placed on the local community. We look forward to a revised document that includes this ana

mitigation measures that will be implemented to achieve this goal. 
 

No. Name Comment 

Sincerely, Robert H Miller III 

314 Greg Cook 

Hi, I am writing to state my concern about the seemingly misguided idea of closing Folsom Point so that is can be used a

for construction equipment in the planned upgrade of Folsom Dam. [#314-1 Recreation lake access closure] While I need to have effective flood control for the area, it seems that there has to be a better alternative than using a highly 

site for staging equipment. ] From the standpoint of a local resident, it appears that the Bureau of Reclamation provid

significance on the local impact of its actions. First, Folsom Dam road was closed due to a perceived terrorist threat—

sledge hammer approach to a potential problem that caused serious harm to businesses and quality of life in the FolsRecreation remaining lake access locations] Now, it appears that the USBR is taking a similar approach to finding a staging area for its equipment. This does not appear to be a well thought out plan and highlights the Bureau’s lack o

quality of life issues. Closing Folsom point would require local residents to access Folsom lake from either Browns Rwhich is already over crowded, or cross through downtown Folsom which is a nightmare due to the Folsom Dam road would further congestion problems in the area with boater and beachgoer traffic on its way to Beals or Granite Bay la]There have got to be better options. The obvious one would be to use some of the vast Folsom Prison land next to tunused by anything other than a few cows. I would hope that the environmental impact of these issues is thoroughly 

assessed before closing Folsom Point. 

315 Jeremy G. Bernau 

Dear Mr. Oliver and Mrs. Victorine, Bernau Development Corporation is the owner of a subdivision named “Morning Walk” currently under construction lo

Lane and E. Natoma Street immediately adjacent to the Folsom Lake State Recreation Area south of Dike 8 (see ExhUnfortunately, I was not notified directly by the Bureau of Reclamation of the EIS/EIR that is currently circulating even 

impacts from the proposed project to my property are substantial. [#315-1 Public Involvement notification] I do not fe

was sufficient ] or the potential impacts clearly defined so that I am able to evaluate what measures are adequate to 

impacts of this massive project. Below I have listed a few comments and questions. However, I would like to meet with Bureau staff to find out exactimpacts to my current project and how the Bureau intends to mitigate these impacts. 

1. [#315-2 Traffic] Please indicate the volume of truck traffic that is projected on E. Natoma Street and on the p

immediately north of my subdivision. 

2. [#315-3 Noise] Please provide projected noise levels that will reach my property boundary from the process

traffic or other construction work. 

3. [#315-4 Air Quality fugitive dust] How much fugitive dust is expected to be generated? How will that dust b4. [#315-5 Geo and Soils asbestos] Has soils sampling been done to determine if naturally occurring asbestos 

excavated material? What mitigation measures will be implemented to control this potential hazard? 

5. [#315-6 Impacts and Mitigation to specific property] Based on the information presented in the EIS/EIR, I cathe impacts to my property because there is not enough detail regarding the specific construction work or the process

proposed. Please provide this detail and specific mitigation measures, so I can evaluate the impacts. 

6. [#315-7 PD alternate location for processing] Can the processing facility be moved to the Bureau’s property of Folsom Point? There appears to be plenty of room for the facility, storage staging and even reasonable buffers. 
98 of 148 

No. Name Comment 

7. [#315-8 Recreation lake access closure and PD alternate location for haul route] I am unsure why Folsom Pclosed during construction. It appears that a haul route could be located on the lakeside of dike 8 and continue betwparking lot and the Folsom Point access road. The road could cross or go under the Folsom Point access road to rea

facility (recommended location in #5 above) and MIAD. 

8 [#315-9 Visual] Several of the lots at Morning Walk have a view over dike 8 of Folsom Lake. The homes on 

command a premium because of this view. How will this project impact the view shed of these lots? 

9. [#315-10 Recreation lake access closure] Lake access is an important factor in the buying decision of my pohomeowners. Not having access to Folsom Point will negatively impact the marketability and value of these homes. can be implemented so that Folsom Point can remain open? 10. [#315-11 Recreation Mitigation] There appears to be no consideration given in the EIS/EIR to finding alternavisitors that may be turned away from FLSRA facilities that are impacted by this project. Please evaluate increasing 

existing facilities so visitors can still have access to the FLSRA. 

11. [#315-12 Socioeconomics] The economic model seriously under estimates the impact to the local communit The model does not include the reduction in sales of big ticket items that will result because over 815,000 viable access the lake. There is no reason to buy a home by the lake if you can’t access the lake. There is no reason 

you won’t be able to use it. The model should accurately reflect the true economic loss to the community. ] While I understand the importance of this flood control project, I am very surprised at the lack of notice and the failure sponsor to mitigate any of the recreational impacts that left unmitigated will result in a substantial economic loss to BeDevelopment Corporation and the surrounding community. Since the EIS/EIR incorrectly states that the recreational impacts are unavoidable after failing to consider any alterna

maintain recreational access to Folsom Point and other FLSRA facilities, it is likely that this project will be delayed as 

challenge. I would ask the project sponsor to study all reasonable alternatives to the closure of Folsom Point and/or launch, day use and campground facilities at other FLSRA locations for visitors that are impacted because of this proI also look forward to a detailed description of how the project will impact my property and the specific mitigation meaensure that those impacts will be reduced to a level of insignificance. 

316 Catherine Vestito 

[#316-1 Recreation lake access closure] Please reconsider on closing Folsom Point boat launch. With a population o

growing, it would be far too dangerous trying to use Brown's Ravine for boat launching this summer as well as conge

Green Valley more than it already is. Please find another alternative. 

317 Jeff Kirsten 

Hello Mr. Oliver and Ms. Victorine, 

[#317-1 PD alternate staging areas] Please explore alternatives with Sacramento area communities and governmentand lake access points during dam retrofit. I believe people would understand if there were simply no other way to gebut it is not clear how hard alternatives have been pushed. Folsom lake boat launch and park access fills to closure 

weekends as it stands. Restricting access further will create tension instead of a relaxing and positive atmosphere a

people in the area who try to visit the lake. 

318 Jeff Mittner 

Dear Shawn Oliver/Becky Victorine: 

[#318-1 PD alternate staging areas] I urge you to review and consider City of Folsom's alternatives to this closure. ] M

purchased a home here in Folsom 4 years ago, and a major determining factor in our decision to move here was the 
 

No. Name Comment 

Folsom Lake and all its wonders. Folsom Point is a 10 minute jog from our house. I know six people personally, frie

alike, who use Folsom Point's boat launch religiously. Four members of this group continue to use the launch even in 

winter, not just the summer months.  I would agree there are other access sites relatively nearby. [#318-2 Socioeconomics businesses] However, I would 

consider the economic impact as well. My wife works for a small business located at the corner of Natoma St. and BThey rely significantly on revenues generated from visitors to Folsom Point. You need to be aware that a number of 

businesses located in proximity to Folsom Point are in exactly the same boat. A seven-year closure would tear a chunk out of the heart of this community. Again, I implore you to reconsider such decision. 

319 Brian Joder 

Hello Bureau of Reclamation, 

[#319-1 Public Involvement notification] I am flabbergasted that the first I heard of this impending closure of our largeresource was on the last day of comments accepted about this proposal. It seems to me that the public should have a for this project and a bit more advanced notice about these activities. Closing the Folsom point area would be a huge blow to the area. The recreation from Folsom Lake is why I moved he

am at the Folsom Point area three times a week. This would seriously curtail my and many other peoples outdoor actPlease consider public input and a way to keep Folsom Point open during this period. 

320 David and Karen Delparte 

To whom it may concern, 

[#320-1 Recreation lake access closure] I we are totally against Folsom Point being closed for any length of time. We last year and use the Folsom Point Launch almost exclusively. [#320-2 Recreation remaining lake access] There ar

alternatives! Brown's is often crowded and could not handle the increased use that closing Folsom Point would caus

quite a-bit further and is often full. ] We want to be able to use our boat in a convenient manner. This is part of the rea

Folsom. Please consider other options. I should be possible to keep Folsom Point open for most of the construction o

with just a little thought and consideration. 

321 Kelly Beninga 

Dear Shawn and Becky - 

 [#321-1 Purpose and Need] I read with dismay about your plans to close facilities at Folsom Lake for dam constructwondering if this construction is really necessary, or is this another government boondogle. Is the safety need here rsound engineering practices? The Lake is only half full now and hasn't been full in years. Because of increased watereduced snow pack due to global warming, this trend is likely to continue. Have you considered these factors in your 

your calculations based on antiquated data? To disrupt an entire community and spend millions of dollars over an ex

failure scenario is ridiculous. The way this project has been handled is another example of why Americans mistrust o

322 Peg Coverdale 

Why does Fulsome always have to take the hit??????  We going along just fine until the Dam Road was closed and backed up traffic (80% of it from El Dorado and Placer 

streets and into our small town creating havoc. Now they are going to start a Two or three year project to build a new 

same out of town cars, and with this construction we will have air pollution, noise pollution and large construction trucdown our already crowded streets. 

[#321-1 Recreation lake access closure and PD alternate staging areas] And now you want to close Floss's only acceFulsome Point...where Fulsome residents spend most of their summers, swimming, boating, picnicking and having re

going to tear up this lovely spot and demolish it for a staging area for dam repair. Can't an undeveloped site be found

(for seven years!!!!!!!) comes air pollution, noise pollution and large truck traffic to our already crowed streets. Most 
100 of 148 

No. Name Comment 

would give anything to have a park like this and you are going to destroy this one. I don't know whose decision this w

really stupid one. I think its time El Dorado and Placer Counties come up with a spot on their portion of the lake that c

this staging area, since its their people who benefit the most.Fulsome residents(espectially on the North side) have dits someone else's turn.... Enough is enough......... If this e-mail is a little disjointed, its because I'm a 78 year old grandma and computers are a Mystery to me. I hope you get this.... 

323 Maureen Snyder 

Hello, 

[#323-1 Recreation lake access closure] I am writing to express my concern over the plan to close Dyke 8 during the the new Dam. We are residents of El Dorado Hills and use Dyke 8 regularly for lake access with our jet skis. [#323-2 remaining lake access] During the summer Browns Ravine is closed/full on a regular basis with launching of water cr

Dyke 8 or Beal's Point. My honest feeling is that my annual pass will be of no value because me access to the lake wunrealizable and extremely inconvenient. Please make a better choice during the construction process and do not c

324 Chris Wagner

To Whom it may concern, 

[#324-1 Recreation lake access closure] I am emailing to say that I am firmly against the closing of the Folsom, Beal point. This would severely hinder recreational activities and revenue from boaters. 

325 Kristin and Robert Jeffrey 

[#325-1 Recreation lake access closure] I am writing this letter to protest the closure of Folsom Point. This access is 

entries into the Lake and allows for parking of boat and trailer. It is the only immediate Lake access to Folsom reside

accommodate the large volume of boats put in and taken out of the water. [#325-2 Recreation remaining lake access

certainly isn't equipped for this, thus leaving Beale's point and Granite Bay entrances as the only remote access. We 

because of the easy access to the lake and had just purchased a boat this Fall so we could be on and off the lake in 

Closure of Folsom Point is unacceptable especially for 7 years. [#325-3 Socioeconomics] Not only does it limit the us

the amount of lost revenue to the City of Folsom will be enormous. Please find an alternative place to house the equi

326 Don Hendricks 

I am a resident of Folsom of 8 years. The closure of the Dam Road has diminished our quality of life enough. [ #326-access closure] The thought that closing our access off to the only feasible access by bike or walking to lake is outra

the dam needs to be raised to hold more water. The idea is a total disregard for us residents of Folsom. I live two bloand we are not boaters, but I have children and a dog that frequent Folsom Point. There must other alternatives for y

Please reconsider you position. It almost appears to be a personal issue vendetta against us. 

327 Cheryl Walters 

Dear Interested Parties: [#327-1 Recreation lake access closure] Please don't close Folsom Point! Like most nearby 

were attracted to this area by the easy access to Folsom Point, where activities like hiking, biking, fishing swimming, 

boating are close to us. We did not move to Folsom and don't have grandchildren and our grown children visit to they newest McDonald's or Starbucks. They like to walk or take their bikes up to the lake where they can enjoy the natura

surrounding the reservoir and participate in the many activities that go along with it. We share the area with many of inhabitants as well, seeing bluebirds and owls, red tailed hawks and turkey vultures, even an occasional rattler or a c

through the grass. [#327-2 Socioeconomics} This loss would be a sad occasion for Folsom, and the surrounding boafishermen who frequent our lake and drop some change in Folsom while they are here. Please consider the negative community before you close this natural gem. ] Cheryl Walters, Folsom resident for 9 years. 

328 Sharon Kindel [#328-1 Genera]l Please understand that 7 years is a lifetime to many of us. Do not close Folsom Point for a lifetime. 
 

No. Name Comment 

Rosalie Barton 

329 Obie Miller [#329-1 Recreation lake access closure] 7 years is too long to leave this key recreational access point closed to the p

uses is 2-3 times per month, all year long. 

330 Clint Claassen 

To whom it may concern, 

 [#330-1 Recreation lake access closure] I heard today that you are considering closing the Folsom Recreation Area 

understand the reasoning for this, and as a Sacramento resident I would benified from the increased flood protection

there has to be a better way. I am a mountain biker and I use the area at least once a week with the local mountain bFolsom Breakouts. This would devistate our team. We have been riding the area trails every Tuesday for 26 years! imagine what the closure would do to the local economy and I would think it would be devastating. Especially in the Please do not proceed with this proposal. 

331 

Jennifer 

Claassen 

To Whom It May Concern: 

[#331-1 Recreation lake access closure] Please, please, please don’t close the Folsom Point Recreation Area! All yehusband is an avid mountain biker and goes to the area at least a couple times a week to blow off steam after work oweekend riding with friends. He would be devastated if you closed it off, and so would I!! I’m not about to deal with haround... he’d drive me crazy! For the sake of my sanity... please keep it open! 

332 Russ Fay 

[#332-1 Recreation lake access closure] I would strongly oppose Folsom Point. There has to be another option. I live the easy access I have to the trails around Folsom Lake. I am planning to retire here soon. It seems like a bypass tra

could be built so that there would be no impact to the daily users. 

333 Anonymous [#333-1 General] DO NOT CLOSE DYKE 8 THAT WOULD BE A BIG MISTAKE. I HAVE BEEN GOING THERE FO

STORE YOUR EQUIPMENT SOMEPLACE ELSE. 

334 Matthew R. Mahood, 

January 26, 2007 Bureau of Reclamation Mr. Shawn Oliver 7794 Folsom Dam Road Folsom, CA 95630 

Re: Sacramento Metro Chamber Comments on the Folsom Dam Safety and Flood Damage Redu

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

Dear Mr. Oliver The Sacramento Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce represents over 2,500 member businesses and business o

six-county Sacramento region. The Metro Chamber serves as the “Voice of Business” in the six-county Sacramento 

leading proponent of regional cooperation, encouraging local elected officials to cooperate across jurisdictiona

important public policy issues that impact jobs and the economy. We are writing to request that the Bureau of Rec

additional consideration to avoiding and/or mitigating the economic damage of restricting recreation at the FRecreation Area, specifically in regards to Folsom Point recreation area, and portions of Beal’s Point and Gran

facilities. 
102 of 148 

No. Name Comment 

Since its founding in 1895, the Sacramento Metro Chamber has been a leading force in supporting the consinfrastructure to improve the economy, improve flood control and enhance the quality of life in the greater SacramentThe Metro Chamber endorses the Folsom Dam Raise Project to provide greater flood protection for Sacramento. [#3haul and staging] We respectfully ask that the Bureau amend its' plans to include inexpensive engineering solutions

their haul road and relocating their staging areas so that public entry to Folsom Lake will remain open duriconstruction period. This much needed project will increase flood protection for the Sacramento Region to the 1 in 200 year level. Ho

seven year construction period, public access to Folsom Lake will be drastically curtailed. Granite Bay and Beal's P

partially closed, Folsom Point will be closed completely and Brown's Ravine will be impacted by overuse due to t

[#334-2 Socioeconomics] It is estimated by the Bureau that 816,000 visitors will be turned away with an ecocommunities of $50,000,000. These statistics are troubling. We respectfully request that you provide additional co

moving forward with this project. There appears to be inexpensive engineering solutions to the Folsom Point closure that were not considereSpecifically we believe that during the different stages of the overall project, material processing could potentially 

observation point, which is closed to the public, and in Section 29 near the Mormon Island Auxiliary Dam (MIAD) wh

public access. We think it is of note that both of these alternatives are actually closer to the work sites. In regards 

we suggest Dike 7 and 8 areas could be utilized as disposal sites and leave Folsom Point free or designate it as a losite. And, we suggest a slight alteration of the haul road route from that contemplated along the shoreline to slig

Folsom Point passing through a culvert under the present public right-of-way. We ask that alternative solutions be given serious consideration and adopted so that our community will not seconomic disturbance and does not dramatically downgrade the quality of life activities people from the greater S

have when using the Folsom Lake State Recreation Area. Sincerely, 

Matthew R. Mahood, John A. Lambeth President & CEO Chair, Board of Directors Cc: Governor Schwarzenegger 
 

No. Name Comment 

United States Corps of Engineers 

 Sacramento Region Congressional Delegation  Sacramento Region State Legislative Delegation  Sacramento County Supervisors  El Dorado County Supervisors 

City of Folsom City Council 

335 Laura Hudak 

[#335-1 Recreational Access Closure] I am writing to voice my concern of the closure of Folsom Point / Dike 8. This irecreational area for people in the Folsom community. With all of the different closures, there will no longer be conve

Folsom Lake. This area is used by so many different people (boaters, family picnics, scuba classes/training) and it wo

to see it closed. 

336 Kay Ann Markham 

[#336-1 Recreational Access Closure] My family has lived right down the street from Folsom Point (formerly known a

fifteen years and we have thoroughly enjoyed and have taken advantage of the recreational opportunities that go aloproximity/access to Folsom Lake (boating, fishing, jogging, walking, etc.). Close access to the lake was one of the pr

purchased our home. Closure of Folsom Point would be a loss not only for my family and the surrounding neighborh

entire city. Folsom Point is the closest access to the lake for many, if not most, of the citizens in Folsom. It would be 

citizens of Folsom were denied access to the lake on top of being forced to endure seven years of traffic impacts due 

itself (impacts that are in addition to the existing traffic problems caused by closure of the dam road). Additionally, threcreational visitors would have a negative impact on the city economically. Folsom Point needs to remain completethe public during the entire duration of the safety and flood control project. 

337 Jodi Wright 

[#337-1 Recreational Access Closure] As a resident of the Parkway and a boat owner, I am vehemently against the c

Point. The Granite Bay boat launch fills up fast and many times during the summer you cannot even launch your boalaunch. We usually launch our boat from Folsom Point because it is less crowded and only 1.5 miles from our house. resident, I am greatly concerned about the loss of income this would cause my community. There has to be another l

years to be closed is much too long, and that is assuming everything would go as planned. The closure would more longer if deadlines were not met. The BLM must find another alternative. Closing Folsom Point for seven years is una

338 Anonymous 

[#338-1 Recreational Access Closure]I am certain there is another answer than closing Family point, we are a Folsom this picnic and and launch facility several times a week in the boating months. The lake is why we live in this area anthe launch facility we along with hundreds of other visitors use. Seven years is along time to close anything and as westimates is probably well short of the actual date. You should look for an alternative access for the duration of this cand maintain the value of this lake access to all residents and visitors. Please, Please, Please DO NOT close our community access to the lake!!!!!!!! 

339 Kevin A. Miller 

Dear Shawn Oliver, 

[#339-1 Recreational Access Closure] We are appalled at the decision to close Folsom Point access. We have lived 

1991 and have enjoyed the use of the access since then. In the fall, we fish and summer, boat camp and ski. We hawith assesories. We just finished building a RV access for the boat that cost $5,000. In the summer months the access is always crowed in the mid-day hours. Where will these boaters go? Think how acrowding will create unsafe launching elsewhere. We try to get on the lake early day to keep from waiting for long accwait makes more sense then to drive all the way around, (since the dam is closed) to Beal Point. In addition to the ex

extra congestion on Riley, Rainbow Bridge and Folsom Auburn Rd. Beal Point can be crowded and unsafe too. I can 
104 of 148 

No. Name Comment 

the additional demand will create. Why are there no options? Why can't the project include creating an access? I am sure the Core of Engineers can fFirst it's Folsom Dam closure, now our favorite and almost only launch access. If I had known this was happening, I our boat and saved the $5,000 boat access we just built. (I finished the gate yesterday) 

340 Dianna Bowling [#340-1 Recreational Access Closure] I oppose the closure of the Folsom Point Recreation Area. Find another place

our communities access to this area. 

341 Kim Carrasco 

Shawn Oliver: 

 [#341-1 Puiblic Invovlement] The manner in which this proposed closure was presented to residents is ridiculous. CBureau of Reclaimation of seven years is even more ridiculous. Seven months would be too long. Count me as a re

opposed to staging, storage or ANY closure of this treasure. 

342 Richard A. Shaw 

Dear M Finnegan, I am usually in total agreement with the work and plans of the Bureau of Reclamation in providing the flood protectionrecreation that we need. I agree that providing flood protection for the Sacramento Valley is necessary and vital to th

residents, but I don't agree that closing Folsom Point is the only option for achieving that goal. 

[#342-1 Recreational Access Closure] Folsom Lake is a publicly owned lake but it only has a few access points for th

the remaining shore access is privately owned. When the dam road overlook was closed it afffected traffic flow, but d

recreation much. However, the closing of Folsom Point restricts the access for recreational use to only one access pside of the lake. Since the ramps already close early in the day because of high usage, we will have to tow our boat

busy afternoons to launch at one of the three access points on the north side of the lake. Folsom streets cannot accoimpact, which will happen. 

[#342-2 Wildlife] I am a biologist and hiker and I regularly hike through the open areas around Folsom Point. I have da great horned owl and a bald eagle. I believe that they are attempting to rehabitate Folsom Point. Your biologists sconsulted on this for verification. I also serve on the school board for the Folsom-Cordova Unified School District. We adults are all concerned about t

fitness of our children. Folsom Point is used by children for recreation for many months of the year, adding an incent

play with their families. I ask you to consider other options for staging the work on the spillway. We would be willing to work out some compr

accomodate the needs and desires of the Bureau of Reclamation and the residents of the area as well. Again, I support your efforts and hope that we can reach an agreeable solution. 

343 Denise Hackett 

Mr. Oliver, 

[#343-1 Recreational Access Closure] Please add my families name to the list of those in Folsom outraged by the pro

Folsom Point until 2013. Folsom lake is one of the most attractive features of life in Folsom and this closure would refind alternate sources to enter the lake such as Eldorado Hills and Granite Bay. The traffic through Folsom due to the already very extreme. If Folsom Point is closed, all summer, people will be driving through town to get to alternate si

access. Please reconsider this decision as it will have a great negative impact on our fine ciy. I do not believe that the bureau of reclamation has considered all options as there must be a better alternative. 

344 Debra Rose [#344-1 General] am a frequent user of Lake Folsom, and I subscribe to an annual pass, I am opposed to closing the 
 

No. Name Comment 

Dike 8 for launching and other recreational uses. 

345 Chris Jennings 

Shawn, 

[#345-1 Geologiy/Soils/Asbestos] Thanks for the info. I've briefly looked at a draft already on line. The potential risks naturally occurring asbestos - a big deal around here given the additional millions spent to mitigate the risk at the new - is given remarkably little attention (no sampling, no risk assessment studies, etc.) in the document and should be re[#345-2 Recreational Mitigation] With regards to the loss of recreational opportunity with the proposed closure of Fol

EIR states that an "RC-1" mitigation measure will be instituted ("All construction related damages to recreation faciliti

in kind by the appropriate agency..."). What exactly is being proposed to replace in kind seven years of lost utility for 

recreational outlet? Especially since all other similar outlets will also be negatively affected? 

[#345-3 Widllife] With regards to the burrowing owls, have any walking surveys been performed at the affected areas

346 Leslie Grayson 

Dear Mr. Oliver and Ms. Victorine, 

[#346-1 Recreational Access Closure] I am writing to express my dismay at the proposal to close Folsom Point for an while the damn is retrofitted. Given the extremely high level of use of this facility/area, the corresponding public impa

economic impact (both for business and for individuals that have made significant financial investments based upon t

other locations should be identified to serve as construction staging areas. I recognize the importance of the retrofitti

believe that there are other alternatives for staging that don't have such a significant impact on the local population. 

talking about recreation. There are always alternatives. It is my hope that you will find them. 

347 

Ronald Stork 

Friends of the 

River 

Shawn Oliver January 26, 2007 U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 7794 Folsom Dam Road Folsom, CA 95630 Annalena Bronsen Reclamation Board/Department of Water Resources 3310 El Camino Avenue, Rm. 140 Sacramento, CA 95821 Becky Victorine U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Sacramento District 1325 J. Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Re: Comments on the U.S.A.C.E. Folsom Dam Modifications and Folsom Dam Raise Draft post Authorization Changand the U.S.B.R./California Reclamation Board Folsom Dam Safety and Flood Damage Reduction Draft EnvironmenStatement/Environmental Impact Report. Friends of the River offers the following comments and its support for alternor refined alternatives that feature a Folsom Dam auxiliary spillway capable of making objective-release flood release

with Folsom Dam’s existing outlets) from the bottom of Folsom Reservoir’s flood pool, minor raises of Folsom Dam to of the available flood pool, and environmental features such as the improvements to Folsom Dam powerhouse inlets environmental restoration and recreational improvements in the Lower American River Parkway and Folsom State R
106 of 148 

No. Name Comment 

We also support operational refinements to take advantage of new capabilities of the proposed project and look forward to working with Federal agencies, DWR, and SAFCA to develop them.Comments on Specific Sections: PAC pp. ES-1 & 1-2: The background discussion could benefit from greater precision. We quote the following section report: In February 1986, major storms in Northern California caused record flood flows in the American River basin. Unprecoutflows from Folsom Dam and Reservoir, together with high flows in the Sacramento River, caused water levels to r

design freeboard of levees protecting the Sacramento River area. And in the draft EIS and EIR, the following statement consistent with the above was made: Dam operators at Folsom Dams were required to release approximately 130,000 cfs, 15,000 cfs more than the downstream levees were designaccommodate as a sustained rate. Water levels rose well above the designated freeboard of downstream levees... pReaders might conclude from this discussion the following: 1) The 1986 American River flows were record inflows, 2) flood flows required the release of “unprecedented” high flows from Folsom Dam, and 3) there was widespread encro

design freeboard of Sacramento Area levees. There are problems with each of these statements that may mislead th

Record flows: The 1986 166,000 cfs 3-day mean volume unregulated inflows did exceed the previous 1964 3-day vo

of 140,339 cfs. However, 1986 unregulated inflows did not exceed 1964 record mean 1-day unregulated inflows (171183,240 cfs)1 or peak unregulated inflows (220,0002 or 255,0003 cfs versus 260,000 cfs). In addition and more importantly, in its official rain-flood analysis for the American River Basin, the Corps has concludBased on descriptions of the 1862 event, the Corps supports the position that the estimated volume of the 1862 even

less than that of the 1997 event because the 1862 event resembles both the point precipitation and antecedent condoccurred during the 1997 event. 4) The 1997 3-day volume was 164,000 cfs (essentially the same as 1986) with a much larger mean 1-day volume of 

experienced in 1986 (ACE 1998 Rainflood analysis). Thus it appears that the Corps believes that the 1862 flood was than the 1986 event—this unrecorded 19th century but still observed and estimated event prior to 1986 that served afoundation of the design considerations for Folsom Dam. 5) Implication that unprecedented high outflows were required by high inflows: In a review of 1986 operations Folsom National Research Council concluded that operations based on then existing operational rules would not have resulte

above the objective release from Folsom Dam.6 The NRC described this as follows: On February 13 and 14 the California Department of Water Resources (CDWR) began preparations for a full flood figcomputer projections of a[n] extraordinary storm approaching the state from across the Pacific (CDWR, 1986). The A

flood flows began in earnest on February 15, with inflows rising to over 60,000 cfs early the next day, but Figure 2.1 soperators did not begin to evacuate the flood control storage volume, nor did releases from Folsom match the inflows 
 

No. Name Comment 

Operators expressed a major concern for the effect of large Folsom releases on recreational facilities in the lower Amfloodway; releases were held to 20,000 cfs for 36 hours. This is inconsistent with the 1977 USACE flood control diagin force at the time; the diagram states that when Folsom storage is in the flood control reservation the water "shall b

rapidly as possible" subject to ramping limits. Even after increased releases from Folsom began on February 16, and before they reached the 115,000-cfs limit, Focontinued to lag behind inflows into Folsom Lake by 30,000 cfs or more. USACE-prescribed ramping limits of "15,000 during any 2-hour period" do not appear to have limited the rate of increase of Folsom releases during the 1986 floodphysical release rate limits at Folsom Dam a constraint given the initial elevation of the reservoir. 

If the Bureau of Reclamation had been able to more closely match outflow to inflows while inflows were less than 115

releases into the American River would not have exceeded 115,000 cfs during the 1986 flood using the nominal storareservoir, even without anticipation of the Auburn cofferdam failure. Fortunately, disaster was averted by the use of e

storage in Folsom and by the ability of the downstream channel and levee system to handle releases of 130,000 cfs. 7) In a partial response to this 1986 operational history that would be reviewed by the NRC, the Flood Management P

the Sacramento District A.C.E. and Reclamation in 1995 incorporated policies to avoid excessive delays in making rereleases from an encroached reservoir flood pool. 8) The NRC’s subsequent conclusion is not inconsistent with Folsom Dam’s design criteria. As you know, the originadesign flood for Folsom Dam had a peak inflow of 340,000 cfs, well above the unregulated peak flow experienced at the dam in 1986. Encroachment of design freeboard: While the 1986 event did cause significant encroachments into the design freebo

Sacramento area levees, the Natomas East Main Drain (Steelhead Creek) being the principal example (a circumstan

the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency’s [SAFCA] North Area Local Project), the high water in 1986 did not resu

encroachment into the design freeboard of Sacramento area levees. A description of design freeboard of American R

the 1986 flows was made published in the January 1995 Proceedings of Phase Two, The Lower American River TasProceedings assessed existing levee freeboard conditions at various flows along the American river and concluded tFor a release of 115,000 cfs, the existing minimum is the same for both left and right bank levees (about 6 feet). The release condition also has about the same freeboard at the lowest point (interpolated to about 5.5 feet). p. L-2, L-3. As described in more detail in the Proceedings, the original (before Folsom Dam and the accompanying levees) desi

the then existing American River levees was three feet. Presently, the design freeboard varies by river reach betwee

of freeboard (at 180,000 cfs) or three feet of freeboard (at 152,000 cfs). Thus, with the important exception of some o

conveyed flows from creeks upstream of Natomas, the 1986 event did not result in flows that would be necessary for 

into the design freeboard of Sacramento area levees. 

[#347-1 Hydrology Existing Conditions] In light of these comments, the final documents should be revised to provide 
108 of 148 

No. Name Comment 

more accurate, complete, and useful description of the background circumstances that resulted in the last two decadplanning in the Sacramento area. PAC Report, p. 3-2: The PAC report asserts the following: To date, and based on current technology, no reliable foreoperation has been identified that could be implemented without the potential for both induced flooding in other areas 

Valley and major impacts to other water resources outputs from Folsom Reservoir. This statement makes inferences as to facts and law that both appear to be both premature and in error. The draft EIprovide a more careful and satisfactory explanation of the process and considerations that may result in operational (

based) changes to Folsom Reservoir operations once construction is complete: The Corps and Reclamation as directed by, and/or authorized by Congress, and under the appropriate agency authoagreements would update the existing Water Control Manual of 1987 or develop a new water plan and control manuaselection of either preferred joint Folsom DS/FDR alternative or stand-alone dam safety hydrologic risk reduction or freduction alternatives, the Corps as the lead agency, in cooperation with Reclamation, would determine the basis for updated/new plan. Decisions would be based on existing authorizations or reauthorizations, or new authorizations. 

The updated/new plan would analyze weather, basin wetness, precipitation, upstream reservoir storage, and reservoto help determine appropriate comprehensive flood control operations procedures. The environmental impacts on all of the human environment, and the natural environment, and the natural environment would be evaluated in a separa

compliance document. The Water Control Manual would likely go through multiple revisions as the various structural completed at the Folsom Facility, but it is expected that a Final Updated Flood Management Plan and Flood Control completed before construction on the Folsom DS/FDR project is completed. This Folsom DS/FDR EIS/EIR generally considers operations affected by proposed structural modifications; however

analysis of operational impacts cannot be determined at this time. Upon the selection of a preferred alternative(s), Rethe Corps, SAFCA, and the DWR/Reclamation Board would fully coordinate and address relevant congressional dire

the existing requirements related to operations and consider possible changes as appropriate. The environmental im

with proposed changes and operational impacts required for supplemental environmental compliance documentation required compliance documentation shall be completed in parallel with a Final Updated Flood Management Plan and Manual, and is anticipated to be completed in 2010. pp. 2-69, 2-70. Other similar discussions concerning revisions to the Water Control Manual can be found throughout the draft EIS/EI

43, for example) Although the draft EIS/EIR language would argue that a critique of the PAC report’s conclusionary sregarding forecast-based operations is premature, comments and a responsive revision to the final documents are pr

Therefore, the following observations are offered: • The Central Valley areas that might experience (slightly earlier) induced flooding from advanced releases in very larof the Sacramento River Flood Control Project river and bypass system. The rights to make operational flood release

already exist and are routinely exercised. 
 

No. Name Comment 

• Forecast-based operations during very large floods (such as advanced releases before reservoir flood-reservation e

pre-emptive releases [releases in excess of objective-release constraints to avoid making leveebreaking larger releas

more routine situations (conditional storage into reservoir flood pools)—were operational requirements in the ACE FoRegulation Manual from1956 to 1987. Congress directed the Corps to resume such operations in 19939 and again d

to update these operations in 1999 when it authorized outlet improvements at Folsom Dam in the Water Resources Dof that year. Forecastbased operations were also part of the Folsom Dam raise project described in project documenCongress in 2004. • The Sacramento District A.C.E. developed a Spring forecast-based operations plan, with analysis and rationale, for 

on a trial basis and presented the plan to the California Weather Symposium at the 2003 Lower American River ScieConference.10 • Technical experts at the many annual presentations of the California Weather Symposium, including Corps, DWR, a

Weather Service staff have generally shown considerable confidence about their ability to predict very large floods in the American River Basin. • Any multipurpose reservoir operation involves a balance of risks between flood-control and water conservation/powForecast-based operations preserve that balance of risks but enhance the multipurpose benefits of the dam with ope

both interests—with both early flood-control releases (for very large events) and conditional storage (during most yealarge floods do not appear). If language in the PAC Report cannot be constructed to provide the reader with a clearer grasp of the opportunities a

involved in developing a revised Water Control Manual that resumes forecast-based operations, the misleading PAC 

should be deleted and the draft EIS/EIR language can stand alone. 

[#347-2 PMF Risk Calculation] ]We noted with some interest the depiction of the calculated annual risk or recurrence associated with the Corps of Engineers’ or Reclamation’s estimated PMF(s). The draft EIS/EIR notes the following: Recent estimates indicate that a frequency of flood approximately the same size as a PMF would have a recurrence somewhere between 1 in 7,100 and 1 in 22,000 years. (p. 1-10) The draft EIS/EIR also notes the following: There is a high probability of a series of large storm events occurring within the American River Drainage Basin abov

Due to the limited capacity of the reservoir to safely contain these inflow volumes and the Dam to control releases withe safe carrying capacity of the downstream levees, structural modifications are required to reduce the probability of during a PMF event. Structural modifications are also required to improve the current level of flood protection during lesser flood events. (p. 1-5) By their very conception and purpose, PMFs are not high probability events. Indeed, they are created by modelers to features such as spillways so that an exceedance never occurs. The proceeding paragraph could be read to imply otherwise. 
110 of 148 

No. Name Comment 

It is, of course, interesting to have some idea of the calculated annual risk probability of experiencing the estimated P

draft EIS/EIR fails to provide sufficient cautions to the reader about the reliability of such frequency extrapolations of 

stream-flow record and estimates on the volume of the historically experienced 1862 flood. The Bureau’s Flood Hydr

provides important insights that should be reflected in the EIS/EIR: In fact, there are not enough data to extend frequ

anywhere near this limit [the PMF]. (p. 195) Practical rule-of-thumb knowledge, which is supported by statistical calculations, indicates that frequency curves are reliable out to return periods of about the sample record length. The current Bureau practice is to limit the extrapolatio

twice the length of record, or 100 years, whichever is longer. In cases where catastrophic loss, loss of life, or dam sa

further extrapolations can be used as justified on a case-by-case basis. (p. 204) The American River rain flood frequency analysis by the Corps of Engineers prepared with the advice of the National Council’s Committee on American River Flood Frequencies does not extrapolate the frequency curve beyond 1 in 20consistent with Reclamation’s manual guidance as well, although both documents acknowledge that some uses may 

additional extrapolation. We suggest that the draft EIS/EIR contain a more accurate description of the purposes for which PMFs are created a

improbable nature. Also, when describing the annual risk or recurrence intervals of such a high-flow event, it would b

explain that these are calculated extrapolation estimates and that the actual probability distribution of the American R

PMF, is not known. Nevertheless, regardless of calculated frequency estimates, it is Reclamation’s policy and a gene

standard to construct spillways adequate to convey PMF estimated flows where the consequences of failure are sign

[#347-3 Design Flood Calculation] Finally, we request that project performance also be portrayed in terms of the rese

flood—that is, the volume of the design hydrograph in terms of peak, 1-day mean, and 3-day mean, or perhaps 5-day 

that can be accommodated before some critical design constraint such a design freeboard at the dam, dike, or levee 

These operational constraints should, of course, be documented as well. The purpose for such documentation is to permit comparison of historic and modeled floods with contemporary perfo

as well as those that are available in historical flood-damage-reduction planning documents before the adoption of le

risk-and-uncertainty-based performance descriptions. We are not alone in requesting such estimates. We believe thasupplementary descriptions are supported by SAFCA. Also, the National Research Council’s Committee on Flood Coin the American River Basin suggested the use of design flood volume comparisons with known flood flows to assess 

performance.13 

348 Duran Quick [#348-1 General] I object to limiting access to Folsom Lake for 7 years to accommodate construction equipment. 349 Bonnie Amoruso 

First, the Bureau of Reclamation closes Folsom Dam Road which caused financial hardship on many small business

well as huge traffic congestion and now you want to close Folsom Point recreation area for up to seven years? [#349Socioeconomics] Does the Bureau have any idea what this will do financially to the businesses in that area? [#349-2 Access Closure] There is plenty of vacant land around Folsom that I'm sure could be used for the staging area for thiof closing down a major summertime recreation area. Why doesn't the Bureau come up with a few different locations 

area and then let those choices be reviewed by the City of Folsom for a final decision. 
 

No. Name Comment 

350 Jerry Boyd 

To whom it may concern, As I know there is a need to increase the flood protection, there much be other avenues to the staging area for the eq

Causing such a impact to a community financially as well as to the citizens that live within and around that community unacceptable. I have live in Folsom for nearly 13yrs. One reason that drew me to this city was the recreation activiti

Folsom Lake for my three kids. [#350-1 Recreational Access Closure] Closing one of the main recreational areas for I believe is unacceptable especially during the formable years of my kids lives. 

351 Dave Buck 

[#351-1 Recreational Access Closure] I am writing to you about the conflict with Folsom Point. I am amazed that ther

alternatives other than to screw the people of Folsom once again. Why don’t you rename the lake “Granite Bay Lake

Hills Lake”. The people of Folsom are tired of being pushed around by the bureaucratic process. First, Came the clos

road and now the closure of a very popular recreation area. Mr. Oliver I am sure the people of Folsom can come up w

burial ground or Spotted Owl habitat that would shut this program down for several years. Thank you for your time a

“DON’T CLOSE FOLSOM POINT”. 

352 Daylene Buck 

Mr. Oliver: [#352-1 Recreational Access Closure] I'm still in shock that anyone thought this suggestion to close Fols

years was a good idea. A staging site for construction equipment??? Entire shopping centers are remodeled and replace of business ever closes to the public to make this happen. Yes, I expect some sort of inconvenience, but I can  I have lived in Folsom since 1983--I bought a boat in 1984 and I have owned one ever since. I have launched my Point (we still call it Dyke 8) at least 2-3 time a week since then. We can have a family (and friends) vacation any da

don't have to make long term plans and drive for miles to make some lasting memories. My friends and I take our wa

our dogs there, we take school children on hikes and nature studies there, we enjoy the sunset there. I live in FolsoFOLSOM LAKE--why should I have to drive to another town to see it???enjoy it???use it??  I'm sure there are other solutions to this construction problem that would not shut out 60,000 citizens from Folsom 

it has to offer .  Thank you for your time and your careful consideration 

353 Neil Pearl 

Hello, 

[#353-1 General ] Just a note to let you know how my family and I feel about the proposal to close Folsom Point... Eawhy we moved here, and Folsom Point is our favorite family recreation spot. If it closes, we will move out of the Coun

another place to live. I don't think you realize the impact to business and families.... 

354 James D. Sprenger 

My name is James Sprenger. I am not satisfied with the statement that you would close several public access areas 

construction equipment, supplies & debris. 

[#354-1 Recreational Access Closure] The idea that you can not find enough area in which to store construction equimerit. Why not build into construction cost an area to be built up just north of the dam that can be turned into another 

area at the completion of construction? Will it cost a bit more yes but it will also keep the other areas open for the pub

added bonus it will create more public access area for the Sacramento areas continuing growth. Remember the Sacrpopulation should be around 2.6 million in the year 2010. We are growing fast. If I, a layman, can come up with this syou can make something work. Something, that really works for everyone. 

355 Maria Noori 

To whom it may concern, 

[#355-1 Socioeconomics] As a former resident of Folsom I was informed of the possible 7yr closure of Folsom Point. outrage for the people who live there in Folsom and also for the many who visit Folsom Point to enjoy all the beauties 

agree that this will damage the economic situation as all the people who would normally spend their time and money will be going elsewhere. We used Folsom Point for taking the dog for a walk, for familiy picnics and to take our boat o
112 of 148 

No. Name Comment 

think this is a grave mistake and should be thought over and some other decision made. 

356 Julia Fox 

Hello, 

[#356-1 General ] Closing Folsom Point for seven years would have a negative impact on the area. Folsom Point is o

that make Folsom so attractive for visitors and residents. 

357 Linden 'Chip' Lim [#357-1 Recreational Access Closure] Please find an alternative to closing Folsom Point. 358 Jim Donnell 

To whom it may concern: 

[#358-1 Recreational Access Closure] I am opposed to the current plan to close Folsom Point and other parts of Folsrecreation to enhance the flood protection. I recognize the need to improve our flood protection and water storage capacity and ask that the Bureau look at other 

will not affect the public use of Folsom Lake. 

359 Barbara Zawadzki [#359-1 Recreational Access Closure]I am against the closure of Folsom Point. I live in Folsom and have seen the da

small park closed. I used both of those facilities until the closure. Now, the point is to be closed. I also use it. There 

alternative. I'm tired of my recreational areas being closed. 

360 Jane Cook 

[#360-1 Recreational Access Closure] I am so upset that you are now considering closing Folsom point for the constrcrossing. I live in Briggs Ranch. We bought our house for two reasons – access over the river and access to the lakRoseville and my husband works in Folsom and one of had to cross the river so the Damn crossing made our neighbmy commute. After the damn was closed my commute went from 40 minutes a day to well over 1 hour and 45 minutchildren and that was unacceptable. I quit a job I loved because of the closure. Now I hear that you are going to desreason we bought our house which is the great access to the lake. You have the entire look-out point to work with as 

of the damn and the other side of the damn road at Folsom Blvd, not to mention the State prison land. Leave our StaHonestly, you have hurt our neighborhood enough. You have hurt our town enough. I’m disgusted at even the carel

doing this. We are people. We pay a ton in taxes. We pay for the right to use our state park every time we enter it. 

into our town but it also is something that the families of Folsom use together. It is at the heart of our town. Please d

361 Bruce R. Thomas 

Dear Ms. Victorine, 

[#361-1 In Support of Project] Upgrades at Folsom Dam are needed for protection against flooding in Sacramento. Scurrently has the least protection against flooding of any major city in the US. Upgrading of Folsom Dam is cost-effecand will rapidly provide the enhanced flood control so desperately needed for Sacramento. 

362 Barry Fowler 

Hi, I'm a long time resident of Placer County and typically use Folsom Point (Dyke 8) frequently. I'm pretty familiar with t

Point is a unique venue of Folsom Lake in it is a wonderful family place where one can drive in to and meet people w

in other situations, experience a simple nice day in a beautiful cove and play in the water. It has may old oak trees, s

slope to the water and is generally a very safe place for family picniking as well as combining "non aggressive boatinbeach environment. I don't have a photo of the situation but perhaps I can point it with words. 

One time (well before my 8 yr. old son was born) I idled to the shore there and ate a sandwich while the sun warmed 

bottom (no rocks to hurt one's feet). We got out and sat on the edge of my little boat's deck and watched some childr

water's edge. I remember hearing a little 3 (or so) old girl shrieking with amazement that she's found a large frog. He

found one and her's got away. It was so priceless to hear her say "he's got a frog but I don't have one." Sort of silly 

really torture the frogs too much bug it was such an innocent experience.After my son was born, it was the first place lake because I *knew* it was a family-friendly place on the lake. Frankly, the best. 
 

No. Name Comment 

[#362-1 Recreational Access Closure] There are many places to stage a construction crew on the lake. To the East 

there is a large parking lot that is no longer used (thanks to 9-11). There is a very good road leading to the site. Tha

such staging area. There are others downlill to Natomas Road. There are so many other possibilities and I realize yo

dealing with constraints of many types but there is so much room to deal with that is available. Please take Folsom P

consideration when making your choices. It is frankly *the* best launch ramp and family picnic area on Folsom Lake using it since 1980. It's a healthy respite to the likes of Granite Bay. 

363 David Pate 

Hi, 

[#363-1 Alternatives Formulation] I don't know much about the situation with Folsom dam. I just had a thought I wantIf the big problem is raising the dam to increase flood control, why not build a 2nd dam just downstream that is taller? 

need to close the gates in case of an emergency situation. Folsom dam as it is could still be used. Plus you could o

a terrorist blowing up the dam would lose any real impact. Just a thought. Thanks for your time. 

364 Casey Keller 

Mrs. Victorine, 

[#364-1 Recreational Access Closure] I strongly object to the closure of Folsom Point ! I do realize work needs to be and enhance the dykes and dam. For this, I commend your efforts. However, Folsom Point is the only access to Fo

the City of Folsom and thousands of residents and visitors use this access. I myself use it almost every day. Wether dog, running, cycling, kayaking, picnicing, boating, playing with my children, catching a moonrise or sunset, this acce

Folsom residents and visitors. I strongly oppose the closure of Folsom Point State Recreation Area. Please find othethis proposal, as closing this gem is unacceptable. 

365 Jeff Onderko 

[#365-1 Recreational Access Closure] As a frequent user of Folsom lake and the beaches and trails, i would like to vo

the proposed Folsom Dam Project. I frequently use the Beales Point Recreation Area and multiple other recreation afor personal pleasure and excersise. I would be greatly disapointed in seeing the closure of this great recreation areaothers would. However, if the closure of the recreation area means a safer dam, building a new spill way and reinforcIsland than i support the closure for the use of storing equipment. Having said that, i will expect the area to re-open A

366 Robert Simpson [#366-1 General] As a resident of Folsom, I request you intervene to prevent the closing of Folsom Point on Folsom L

potential federal construction. 

367 James A Cost 

I would like to voice my very strong objections to closing the Folsom Point recreation area for dam re-fitting. I am a m

30-year veteran police officer with congestive heart failure and throat cancer. I relocated to Folsom for it’s therapeuti

have wild turkeys in my yard, I can hear coyotes at night, and I see Canada geese overhead. There is an overall quiflows freely and people are friendly. This is a stress free environment that helps keep me alive. 

One of my few remaining recreations is going to Folsom Point with my family or occasionally alone to enjoy the uniqu

natural surroundings, which intertwine with the splendor of a man-made lake. From hiking, boating, picnicking or jus

of coffee, Folsom Point truly a treasure. Having worked in government all my life I know there are others options available for the re-fit staging. They may cos

may be a little less convenient, but most certainly are less destructive to the quality of life we have here than closing 

[#367-1 Recreational Access Closure] As a fully disabled person who depends on Folsom Point, I urge you to do the keep Folsom Point recreation area open. 

368 Steve Canova To whom it may concern, After living in the Bay Area for 46 years, I moved my family to Folsom 3 years ago for many reasons. One of the mos
114 of 148 

No. Name Comment 

the lake. We are boaters, live 5 minutes from the ramp and have been in absolute heaven ever since we moved. We for our house and were glad to do so to be able to get on the lake so quickly and easily. We invite friends and family come and visit and we take them out on the lake. If you close the ramps you would be taking all this away from us, no

destroy our property value. It was one heck of a difficult effort to sell our last house, buy our current one, find new job

out of his old school and send him to a new one. But, we did it and we are all thriving here. The lake is a major reasowakeboard, tube, kayak, fish and more. 

 [#368-1 Recreational Access Closure] My story is certainly not unique. I would guess there are hundreds if not thous

same reason for being here. Closure of the ramps would negatively affect us all. Just as closure of the Dam Road did

work is necessary but, surely there are other areas to stage from. I implore you not to take away our jewel while the w

done. 

369 Barry Calfee 

[#369-1 Recreational Access Closure] I live in Folsom and use the Folsom Point Recreation area on average 15 time

not want to see it closed. Please figure out another alternative so that it remains open. Move some dirt to the side of the parking lot at Folsom have plenty of room, there are acres of land and use that as the staging area. 

370 Richard Reid 

[#370-1 Recreational Access Closure] SURELY WITH ALL THE LAND THAT THE BUREAU OWNS AROUND FOLSLESS DISRUPTIVE STAGING AREA CAN BE FOUND AND LEAVE FOLSOM PT. TO BE ENJOYED BY THE CITIZPULL THE GOV’T HEAVEY HAND ROUTINE WITHOUT DOING YOUR DO DILIGENCE TO FIND A MORE SUITAB

371 Scott T. Davis 

[#371-1 Socioeconomics]I would like to register my objection to the proposed closing of the Folsom Point Recreation 

area for the Folsom Lake Bridge Project. Closing this area for several years will severely impact area businesses anquality of life for all residents of Folsom. 

372 James A. Roberts 

[#372-1 PI Extension Request] An extension of the time for review of the reference EIS/EIR is requested. 

This request is made both (1) as a member of the Facilities, Transportation, and Finance Committee of the San Juan 

District and (2) as a resident in an area which would potentially be adversely impacted by the potential adoption of th

neither case (the District or the residences in the potentially affected area) did we receive notice of the availability of tEIS/EIR for review. At a meeting last Wednesday, January 24th, to review draft materials on another Bureau project

my opinion was of the referenced project. I had no idea that it was even being proposed! After reading a copy of the 

Summary, which was given to me that day, I realize that careful and full review of the document is critical. Today, at was told that the comment period was to close today. As a professional in the field of environmental assessment, I understand what pressure you are going through to prepdocumentation and to act upon the project. However as a citizen of the community which may be adversely affectedunderstand that we must do whatever we can to ensure that the document is fully vetted by all stakeholders. Needlea full review by all stakeholders, the Bureau's process is considerably flawed. 

373 James A. Roberts [#373-1 Climate Change] How are you handling the effects of climate change on the project and the effects of the pr

change? The text that I have seen is silent on these issues. 

374 Dan and Dalisa Sanford 

My family resides in El Dorado Hills and we are enthusiastic boaters who regularly use the Brown’s Ravine boat laun

you are aware, this facility is extremely busy during the warmer months and we find that boating on the weekends is 

facility is essentially impacted. With the expected growth of El Dorado Hills in the next few years, it is logical the presRavine will become even greater. I was very surprised to learn of the Bureau’s plans to close down one of the few ac

(Folsom Point) for 7 years. I was even more surprised to read that the City of Folsom was just as surprised at your p
 

No. Name Comment 

incomprehensible that The City which your plan so dramatically affects would not be part of the process and consulte[#374-1 Recreational Access Closure] I would strongly urge the decision makers to look for other options for the consMany people in this region would be adversely affected by your proposed plan and closing one of the few access poialready difficult situation even worse. A City of Folsom Official was quoted as saying they are offering alternative site

consideration. I sincerely hope the Bureau makes every effort to keep Folsom Point open. 

375 

To Whom It May Concern: 

[#375-1 General] We live at 209 Briggs Ranch Drive in Folsom and my family and friends have enjoyed having close access to the Folsom Point park and recreation area. The highest selling point when buying our house 3 years ago w

so close to the lake. Please include me on the record as being Opposed to the Closing of Folsom Point. 

376 Martin Kiff 

[#376-1 Recreational Access Closure] As regular users of Folsom Point, It would be very difficult to go to a different loyears this would be closed and unavailable to the public. We strongly recommend a staging location that is not used segment of the public. 

377 Michelle Schelgel 

Please be advised that we, citizens of Folsom, CA, have been put on notice that a proposed closure of our park is sc

of 2007. This proposal comes from the Bureau of Reclamation and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. It is our under

beautiful park and recreation area will be used as a construction staging area for different work projects on the dam a

Spillway by the Bureau and Army Corps of Engineers. 

[#377-1 Recreational Access Closure] It is our belief that this closure will have deep and dramatic effects on families, tourism and the environment. The consequences are far reaching. This is a family community. We bring our children 

bike, swim, picnic, fish, boat and just enjoy nature. This scenario is repeated over and over again. Folsom Point is on

people buy homes in this area. This park is one of the jewels of Folsom. Bird Watchers frequent the park. [#377-2 Wi

out that even though the Bald Eagle is no longer on the endangered species list, it is still protected by the "Bald and G

Protection Act". It is my understanding that one of the afforded protections is not to disturb the nesting area or flight p

needs more investigation. We have not been given adequate time to investigate the impact that this proposal will havenvironment. We have other migratory birds that now nest there as well. This is a pathway f or many other animals a

Rattlesnakes also reside at Folsom Point. 

[#377-3 Socioeconomics] The businesses in Folsom will definitely realize a financial impact. Our business owners loo

summer months when tourists and other lake traffic provide much needed revenue. Our businesses suffered with the 

Dam Road and now this may be the proverbial "straw" for financial loss. Business owners have expressed a great co We do not oppose positive improvements on the dam. We request a staging area that will not hurt so many families, wildlife and real estate values. In all truth we have not been given adequate time in which to address these issues. Oon January 9th 2007. We were advised that 3,000 flyers were sent out. This is a city with a population of 63,000. The 

us to discuss the closure is January 22, 2007. That was essentially "no notice". We need counsel as to our rights and wildlife who cannot speak for themselves.  We ask all of you, as our voice and representatives, to please aid us in this endeavor. 

378 Emily Daniels 

Dear government people, 

[#378-1 General] My name is Emily and I am 7 years old. I live by Folsom Point in Folsom, CA. Please do not close 

because I love driving mom's jeep there. I love having picnics there. If I can't go there for 5 years I might not have a 

doing a report about it in Mrs. Thompson's 2nd grade class at Empire Oaks Elementary. Empire Oaks Elementary is 

Folsom Point. P.S. Folsom Point was the first place that I went in the world when I was just a little baby. 
116 of 148 

No. Name Comment 

379 Veronica Thompson 

[#379-1 Recreational Access Closure] I would like to express my opposition to the closure of Folsom Point for any len

staging area for the construction of a new bridge. I feel our community has suffered enough with the Dam Rd. closure 

away our only access to the Lake would be wrong. If Folsom Point is closed then those of us (on the east side Lake 

majority of Folsom residents) who enjoy the picnic grounds and launch access will suffer. Other launch access includRavine, which is already over crowded and many times is closed because there is no parking available or Granite Bamean traveling with trailers on Riley Street through "Old Town", an already overly-congested street to get out to Gran

[#379-2 Alternative Staging] I urge the Bureau of Reclamation to search for other areas which could be used. How a

point parking area on Dam Rd. which is now closed to the public? Finding a site that is not being used by the public sense. 

380 Kathi Hamburg [#380-1 General] I have been a resident of Folsom for over 13 years. I believe our community has suffered enough. I 

against the closure of Folsom Point. There are other options. Do not take anymore away from our community. 

381 Vickie [#381-1 General] My family and I spend many hours during the summer together at Folsom Point. Please do not clos

huge community of people in the Folsom area. 

382 Marty and Judy Boyea [#382-1 General] Please include me in the fight to not close Folsom Point. Thank You. Marty and Judy Boyea. 383 Annette Manz 

I am very disappointed to hear that there is talk about closing Folsom Point. This is the one boat launch, recreation a

Folsom residents. If this area is closed we will be forced to drive to either Folsom Auburn Road (Seal Beach I believe 

or to Brown's Ravine in EDH. [#383-1 Alternative Staging] There must be another area that can be used as a staging 

bridge. Please consider other options. 

384 Jean Peterson 

I am opposed to the closure of Folsom Point during the construction of the new bridge south of the dam. I think the p

have been "punished" enough since the closure of the dam road! [#384-1 Alternative Staging] Please seek an altern

would not have such a big impact on recreation and businesses. 

385 Fred Tombo 

I am writing to both of you on this topic, as I was unable to attend a meeting at 6pm on the 10th at the Folsom Commu

Natomas Street. I received an email from one of my neighbors this morning. Unfortunately I was on the east coast fomeetings; otherwise I would have been able to attend. [#385-1 Public Involvement] I was a little taken aback howeve

short notice for this meeting. Folsom Lake is an important asset for outdoor recreation enthusiasts and as such has a very big impact on home valeconomy. Closing access to its shorelines and boat ramps will be very detrimental to the people who those amenities harmful to the local home values in the region. Some of the local businesses, which depend on their proximity to Fols

success, could very likely be forced out of business as well. I myself just purchased a home in Briggs Ranch. It closed in May and I just moved in last July. I paid a premium, evein a “down” market, for the specific purpose of having access to Folsom Point. There were several families at that po

homes in this area and it was a t a time when there were surplus homes that were, and still are, available in other are

attractive comparative prices. Now to think of losing this access for up to seven years is, to say it politely, very disapp

form an access to the lake point of view, but also from the perspective impact it will have on my investment. All of the 

becomes a bad investment. Is this truly the impact you wish to have on our community? The impact will be enormous, not only to me but our community. In the light that there are other alternatives to consid

give this further thought. I would suggest considering the sides of the now closed Dam road as well as the large park

vista/picnic area, also already closed to the public. I find it interesting that the announced time of the meeting came out on the same day of its occurrence. I would obvio
 

No. Name Comment 

in being extremely disappointed to loose continued access to the lake and its shoreline before, during and after any cplace. 

386 Pam Langbehn 

Dear Mr. Oliver: The proposed closure of Folsom Point recreation area during the 7 year construction of Folsom Dam improvements i

Please comment on the following alternatives which were not included in the draft EIS/EIR [#386-1 Alternative Stagin

1) Alternatives that allow Folsom Point to remain fully open by relocating staging and processing area to the w

or further west to Dike 7. 

2) If Folsom Point closure is unavoidable then restricting the closure time to the off season period of Oct 1 – Ap3) If Folsom point closure is unavoidable then adopt congestion relief measures using Brown’s Ravine or Hobie 4) If Folsom Point closure is unavoidable then relieve congestion by adding facilities at Beal’s Point and only c

after the new bridge is completed at the end of 2008. 

5) Route the haul road at Folsom Point out of the public areas and use a flagman crossing or an underpass at 

road to minimize disruption and the resulting congestion. 

[#386-2 Socioeconomics] Regarding the economic modeling used in the EIS/EIR there appears to be a significaof the local economic impact. The reduction in sales of large ticket items (homes, land, boats, vehicles, water toyconsidered. [#386-3 Public Involvement]Regarding the opportunity for public input it appears that local stakeholders were not project. In the future, please copy me on the official notices. Also please post notices at he entrances to Folsom 

Recreation areas as well as noticing local user or neighborhood associations. 

387 Taira Byrne 

Dear Bureau of Reclamation, 

[#387-1 General] Please do not close Folsom Point! Enough damage has been done to the citizens of this communitthe dam road! My life has been impacted in a very negative fashion by the dam road closure—my business-real estahighly impacted in terms of property value decreases, time, energy and money (gas)! If you also close the recreation see a further decline in property values, beauty, enjoyment of the area and the facilities you do leave alone will see ecrowding and people getting alone on the launch ramps in particular!  I am very concerned—hence this letter! However, if there is anything else I can do to voice my opinion—meable to attend, etc., please do not hesitate to contact me. 

388 Thomas E Martin 

Dear Mr. Oliver, 

[#388-1 General] Please take a moment to review my concerns as well as many of my associates and Folsom neighbyour consideration of closing Folsom Point Recreation Area. I am a property owner as well as developer in Folsom. Ranch Shopping Center at the corner of Natoma Street and Blue Ravine Road. The closure of Folsom Dam Road haimpact for the owners of businesses at the Briggs Ranch Shopping Center. Closing Folsom Point would close these bdoubt. I and my partner Sid Dunmore Jr. own and are currently developing the 16 acres on the lakeside of Natoma Street th

Folsom Point. We are developing this property to include 79 single family homes plus neighborhood amenities. We bapproximately 4 years ago, have many Folsom residents on a long time waiting list to purchase a home. The ramifica
118 of 148 

No. Name Comment 

Folsom Point are too numerable to list in this letter. Please carefully read, review and re-review all of the letters that you will be receiving form the residents of Folsom as 

of the recreation area at Folsom Point. The idea of closing this facility to the recreation lovers is heartbreaking. The th

revenue to the businesses that are already suffering due to the Dam Road closure in incomprehensible. 

389 Joseph P Gagliardi 

Dear Mr. Oliver: This letter presents the Folsom Chamber of Commerce’s comments on the above-referenced EIR/EIR. In short, the C

supports the intended results of the proposed project, increased flood protection for the Sacramento Region. Howeveadditional consideration should be given to avoiding and/or mitigating the economic damage of restricting recreation 

Lake State Recreation Area, especially Folsom Point. Summary The situation is partially encapsulated in the Executive Summary (page 21) accompanying the EIS/EIR: “The establis

areas and borrow sites within existing recreational use areas coupled with construction work at Folsom facilities and 

would have significant and unavoidable adverse impacts to recreation at Folsom State Parks, the entity managing the 

aspects of Folsom, would be impacted by losing all public access at the Folsom Point recreation area, and portions o

Granite Bay recreation facilities. This would result in a significant loss of recreation revenue to the State.” 

Comments 

[#389-1 Socioeconomics] Not included in this statement is the sales and sales tax revenue lost by communities borde

having an estimated 816,000 fewer visitors pass through those communities on their way home from the lake. The Ethese fewer visitors equal an economic loss of $50,000,000 to out area. Unfortunately, this analysis only considers thtype use. It does not analyze the loss of “big ticket” type items, i.e. residential lots and homes, recreational vehicles, b

vehicles and toys, and tow vehicles, etc. We feel the true economic impacts to this area could be $250 - $500,000,00

To ameliorate this situation we ask that alternatives to those activities proscribed in the EIR/EIS be used in order that 

require Folsom Point be closed. Table 2-10 (Summary of Folsom DR/FDR EIS/EIR Alternatives) lists for the preferred 

Alternative 3, the following for Folsom Point. 

1. Material Processing – Disposal Site 2. Haul road construction 

Material processing and Disposal Site 

[#389-2 Alternative Staging] We suggest that construction, staging, and processing areas proposed for Folsom Point either: presently unused, unimproved areas within Folsom Point; unused, unimproved area adjacent to MIAD; undeveprivate property adjacent to Folsom Point and LIAD; or a combination of these alternative sites. After the need cease

processing and construction areas in or near Folsom Point, these sites should be converted to addition parking or picHaul road construction We support the concept of using rock from the spillway construction at the MIAD and save bringing more rock from oarea through transport over city streets. We suggest a slight alteration of the haul road route from that contemplated 
 

No. Name Comment 

shoreline to slightly inland through Folsom Point passing through a culvert under the present public right-of-way, so adisruption of recreation uses of the area. Conclusion There appears to be inexpensive engineering solutions to the Folsom Point closure that were not considered in the Ethat these solutions be given serious consideration and adopted so that our community will not suffer unnecessary ecdislocations. Sincerely, Joseph P. Gagliardi CEO/President Folsom Chamber of Commerce 

390 Mary Ann McAlea 

Dear Mr. Oliver, Ms. Victorine and Ms. Bronson: This letter represents the position of the Folsom Tourism Bureau on the above-references EIS/EIR. The Folsom Tour

recognizes the need for increased flood protection; clearly these results cannot be achieved without some accommodsurrounding community. The proposed closure of Folsom Point as an integral part of the Bureau’s work plan, howeveimmediate consequences for the viability of the tourism program and long term consequences for the marketing and 

that are essential to the growth of tourism. 

[#390-1 Socioeconomics] In specific, we are concerned that the document does not provide an analysis of the financ

closure of Folsom Point related to the loss of tourist/visitor dollars. While the document studies the effect of the loss oState Park’s budget, it does not address any other financial impact. We feel the financial impact on the city’s busineswill be significant and needs to be addressed. The Tourism Bureau has identified Folsom Point as one of its key assets in attracting visitors and events to the Folsoaccessibility and multi-use features of Folsom Point make it a very marketable attraction. Significant effort has been precruiting of athletic and recreational events utilizing Folsom Lake that will produce overnight stays in Folsom hotels (generating tourism revenue). The resources of Folsom Point are equally attractive to the leisure tourist and with the cDam Road, the last boating access area to engage in water recreation within the city limits. The closure of Folsom Point will require the end of all proposed and potential visitor and event activities that are outliTourism Bureau’s strategic plans for the foreseeable future. Over the last two years, the Folsom Tourism Bureau has implemented a $190,000 print and electronic media promot

Establishing Folsom as a destination for recreational, cultural and event-based tourism has required significant budge

community resources. The proposed closure of Folsom Point is devastating to the tourism effort both due to its elimin

asset and the proposed duration of the closure. In short order, the very positive message that has bee created arounFolsom will quickly transition to a sound bit: “Avoid Folsom at all Costs.” Over a period of years, the message will bec

with the public’s perception of this area and could be intractable. When the resources of Folsom Point are fully acces

future date, it will be very costly to re-educate the potential visitor. 
120 of 148 

No. Name Comment 

We believe the EIR/EIS document does not adequately address the impact of closing Folsom Point in particular, the 

resulting from both the loss of visitors to the area and the fact that it severely undermines the marketing efforts of the 

Bureau. Sincerely, Mary Ann McAlea Vice President 

391 Anonymous 

Citizens of Folsom statement of position 

On 

Possible closure of Folsom Point (previously known as Dike 8) 

 As tax paying business people, citizens and home owners, we consider the choice of closing Folsom Point fstaging area / construction site for the bureau of reclamation to do the necessary retrofits to the existing dam and to bnew spillway to be a significant threat the our livelihoods, health & quality of life. This threat is in the form of the bureaexcessive pollution, traffic, noise, that will result from the dynamiting and large equipment movement. We are very co

will also be structural damage to existing homes, pools, buildings from as well as significant drop in the value of our h

of this proposal. 

 [#391-1 Alternative Staging] This impact can an should be avoided by the use of the look out point located judam itself on the dam road that has already been closed to all Folsom traffic, which in itself caused a drastic reductiorevenues as well as an enormous traffic issues. We have already taken a large hit with the closure of the dam road, athe bureau can use that area with far less destruction and disturbance to our lives. In addition, this proposed 6-7 year closure, with all of its hazardous issues, was not publicized near well enough for u

392 Kerry L Miller 

Dear Mt. Oliver, Mr. Victorine, and Ms. Bronson: The City of Folsom (City) is providing this written response to the Folsom Dam Safety and Flood Damage Reduction Environmental impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR). The City understands the proposed project 

construction of a gated auxiliary spillway and also, may include improvements and enhancements to the associated dembankments around Folsom Lake. The purpose of the project is to improve the safety of Folsom Dam as well as red

damage to the dam and these other flood-control facilities due to overtopping, seismic events, and seepage. In additialso improve the temporary storage capacity of the reservoir for flood control. The City fully recognizes the importancand supports the goals of improved dam safety and flood damage reduction at Folsom Lake. 

[#392-1 NEPA/CEQA Significance Conclusion] However, after reviewing the DEIS/EIR, the City is concerned with the significant negative impacts on Folsom due to the project. The DEIS/EIR examined five action alternatives and identias the “preferred alternative.” This alternative considers the closure of Folsom Point for six years. Under both CEQA 

lead agencies have a legal obligation to identify and analyze the significant environmental impacts to a less than sign

Cal. Pub. Res. Code §§ 21081; CEQA Guidelines 15092; 40 C.F.R. 1502.14, 1502.16). In fact, CEQA precludes the 

carrying out of a project that would result in significant effects on the environment unless mitigation measures are imp

the impacts to less than significant, or unless, after through study of potential mitigation measures, the approving age
 

No. Name Comment 

the significant impacts are unavoidable and adopts a statement of overriding consideration, or determines that the m

are feasible, but outside the jurisdiction of the approving agency. (See Cal. Pub. Res. Code §§ 21081; see also 40 C[federal lead agency must identify significant impacts that cannot be avoided through mitigation measures]). The City 

that the mitigation measures described in the DEIS/EIR do not adequately address the significant impacts of the proje

community that further study and imposition of addition mitigation measures is necessary; and, the scope of the proje

significant impacts on a variety of resources that are critical and of vital importance to the City. These comments are 

from City staff and departments within their respective areas of expertise. The City’s concerns center around seven major potential environmental impacts these are: Water Supply, Aquatic ReTerrestrial Vegetation and Wildlife, visual Resource, Transportation and Circulation, Noise, and Recreation Resourcebelow, organized under each of these potential impacts, are brief narratives and comments including, in certain circurecommended addition mitigation measures. The City respectfully requests that these comments be addressed and i

final environmental document; and, that further mitigation measures be imposed to mitigate the significant impacts de

Section 3.2 Water Supply

Issue: Folsom Lake is the sole water source for the majority of the City. This water is conveyed to Folsom vi

above-ground Natomas raw water pipeline. (According to the DEIS/EIR, the California Department of CorrecCorps of Engineers’ (USCOE Resident Office fire protection system, and San Juan Water district (SJWD) alrespective water supply from this same pipeline). The proposed auxiliary spillway crosses a portion of the Nrequiring replacement of about 300 feet of the pipeline. The DEIS/EIR indicates this portion would be replacground pipeline, construction of which would result in temporary interruptions of water delivery to the City andescribed in the DEIS/EIR, the interruptions would be for less than one working day. Disruption of service frthe City for any extended period of time would jeopardize the City’s ability to provide water service to its cusTemporary planned water outages can only be achieved during low water demand months (January and Feoutages are performed, an alternative supply or bypass system is required. 

[#392-2 Water Supply Line Relocation] Section 3.2 of the DEIS/EIR does not provide any information on the the portion of pipeline that is to be replaced, not does it discuss the issue of maintaining an ongoing supply 

during construction of the new section of pipe. Additionally, it is not clear how the new replacement pipeline 

auxiliary spillway. Also, there is not mention in the DEIS/EIR of a below-ground alternative for the pipeline. Ithe spillway, it is unclear regarding what measures will be taken to ensure that the pipeline will not be impacoperation or other outside threats. Further detail is needed to explain how these issues will be addressed as explanation of why a below-ground alternative for the pipeline alignment is not considered. In addition to the impacts from this project, a portion of the Natoma raw water pipeline is being realigned and accommodate a new bridge. The DEIS/EIR does not provide any information on how changes to the pipelinof the bridge project may affect the replacement of the section of the pipeline affected by Dam Safety and FReduction project. Further explanation of these impacts is needed. In addition to the above comments, the city recommends that Mitigation Measure WS-1 be revised to includ
122 of 148 

No. Name Comment 

language: “any plans for temporary, schedule disruptions of water supplies associated with replacement of twater pipeline will be coordinated with the City. City concurrence is required for scheduling of any temporary water supply deliveries.” 

Section 3.4 Aquatic Resources

[#392-3 Folsom Point Borrow/] The DEIS/EIR on pages ES9 and 10 identified Folsom Point as a potential “bthe scope of the “borrow” operations at this location is unclear, the City is concerned about how the borrowinthe use of Folsom Point and the potential impact to this area as a local fishing resource. Pages 3.4-15, 3.4-2describe significant impacts to fisheries, particularly bass, due to deepening of the lake bottom near the shoareas are popular fishing spots; and, as the City understands it, efforts have been made in the past to improhabitat at these locations. The impact of the “borrowing” operation on the fish habitat, particularly bass, adjaPoint should be explained further. Additionally, mitigation measures should be imposed if found feasible. 

Section 3.5 Terrestrial Vegetation and Wildlife

Issue: the city specifically recognizes the biological values of wetlands, riparian habitat, and native oaks. Fo

surrounding it, and the land all the way to the Mormon Island Auxiliary Dam (MIAD) have significant oak treeconsiderable wildlife including birds and deer. Section 3.5.2.2 includes local policies and ordinances for biolo

as a criteria of significance; but the DEIS/EIR does not specifically acknowledge the Folsom Municipal Code 

17.98 Wetland and Riparian Habitat Management and Chapter 12.16 Tree Preservation. The significance cr“conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation poAccordingly, the DEIS/EIR should evaluate the significance of impacts of oak tree loss and effects on ripariaresources within the City 9chapters 12.16 and 17.98 respectively of the FMC). Both ordinances stress prese

resources, and if impacted, rely on mitigation within the limits of the City (or, in the case of wetland or ripariabe mitigated also within its Sphere of Influence). 

[#392-4 Folsom Oak Mitigation] The City recommends that Mitigation Measure BIO-10 be modified to includrequiring that the oak tree adjacent to active construction zones be protected and securely fenced and that qbe available throughout the construction period to ensure that all construction activities are conducted in a mimpacts to protected trees, including the tree’s root zones. The City is concerned about the impacts on wildlife in the area of this project, particularly with night operatio

noise. The city believes additional mitigation measures should address these potentially significant impacts. In addition, the city recommends that mitigation measures be included that requires coordination with the citDevelopment Department to implement a mitigation plan for the loss of oak trees, wetlands and riparian habconsistent with Chapters 12.16 and 17.96 of the FMC. 

Section 3.7 Visual Resources
 

No. Name Comment 

Issue: [#392-5 Parapet Wall Graffiti Mitigation] the preferred Alternative 3 includes a 3.5-foot raise via a colo

concrete parapet wall. The city is concerned that a bare parapet wall might invite graffiti and related nuisanc

security concerns. The city suggests that a mitigation measure be included that either requires a funded graprogram in perpetuity, or the parapet wall be design in such that it is screen from public view by an earthen . 

Section 3.9 Transportation and Circulation

Issue; the increased vehicle traffic generated by the project, particularly the volume of large trucks carrying 

have potentially significant structural and operations impacts on City roads. Heavy moving loads increase thon asphalt roadways and significantly reduce the useful life of such roads. These vehicles also take up more 

roadway and accelerate/decelerate much slower that most vehicles, meaning that a single heavy truck can effect on roadway level of service as several smaller vehicles. The city is also concerned that if Folsom Pointhe public, as is desired by the community, safety issues need to be more adequately addressed, particularllocations where public and project traffic intersect. Section 3.9 of the DEIS/EIR indicates that the various project alternatives will increase Average Daily traffic city arterials by between 300 and 400 daily trips. Many of these trips will be heavy trucks carrying gravel and project site and nearby quarries. While the document concludes that the resulting Level of Service (LOS) imthan significant, it is unclear if the document takes into consideration the added impact that these moving, hon the physical integrity of the roads or the operational impacts associated with large, slow-moving vehiclesTable 3.9-12 through 3.9-16 refer to route letter designations A through E in regard to daily workers’ trips peyear. No explanation is provided regarding the location of these routes and whether there are significant relaFurther detail is needed to clarify these issues. Additionally, the ADTs cited in 3.9-86 through 3.9-93 are vastly inconsistent with the ADTs cited in Table 3.1

discrepancy should be clarified. The ADTs cited in Chapter 3.10 provide for up to 5,000 trips per day, but Chnot indicate increases of more that 400 vehicles on any given road segment. It is also unclear if the vehicle twith heavy trucks and daily workers on the project were treated as such in the LOS calculations; this should more detail. 

[#392-6 Transportation Mitigation] Mitigation Measure T-1 is vague and should be more specific about the instudied, including which agency will be responsible for analysis and review, which agency will perform the reimprovements and which agency will be responsible for funding those improvements. Currently, this mitigatithese important parameters and is, therefore, deficient. The DEIS/EIR should provide more information on the volume of vehicular traffic that will be generated withparticularly in areas where public access will be preserved. Based on this information, conclusions should bpotential traffic safety impacts to the public and possible mitigation measures. The location of the internal haand should be clarifies. Regardless, if this haul route crosses a public access road, appropriate traffic contro
124 of 148 

No. Name Comment 

should be incorporated as mitigation, whether in the form of physical grade separation or a temporary traffic different operation periods for construction activities and peak recreation activities, it is possible a temporary assign right-of-way to construction traffic during the work week and functions in flashing yellow on weekends may suffice; but, this require more information and analysis. Furthermore, the City recommends that the following mitigation measures be added to the DEIS/EIR: 1. Heavy truck traffic in excess of 5 tons Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) is prohibited from suing pu

not designed as a truck route unless it is the only route possible to reach the trip origin/destination; in ththe driver must take the shortest distance from the nearest designated truck route. 

2. The Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) should be responsible for preserving the integrity and safety of the p

damaged by project-related traffic through 

• Periodic emergency repairs and, if deemed necessary by the City, resurfacing of affected 

project completion. Roadways shall be returned to the condition they were in prior to the sconstruction, including in-kind replacement of existing surface treatments, such as rubberconcrete (RAC) or open-grad asphalt concrete (OGAC). 

• Routine street sweeping following rock/gravel deliveries, taking necessary care to ensure 

and bicycle lanes are kept clear of rock and gravel. The street sweeping schedule shall be and approved by the City. 

3. In order to avoid exacerbating congestion issues, heavy trucks traveling to and from the project site sho

from using the following road segments unless specifically authorized by the city: 

• Folsom Boulevard from US highway 50 to Greenback Lane • Greenback Lane from the Folsom city limit to Folsom –Auburn Road • Folsom-Auburn road from Greenback Lane to Folsom Dam Road • Iron Point Road from Folsom Boulevard to Empire Ranch Road • Blue Ravine Road from Folsom Boulevard to Oak Avenue Parkway • Empire Ranch Road from US Highway 50 to Sophia Parkway 

4. If determined appropriate by the city, the lead agencies and/or their contractors shall pay a fee, to be de

adopted by the City, to mitigate the impacts and damage to the City’s roadways resulting from this proje

Section 3.10 Noise

Issue: As acknowledged in the DEIS/EIR, construction noise may impact sensitive land used within the City

standard noise mitigation measures are included in the document to reduce the noise impacts to a less than 
 

No. Name Comment 

[#392-7 Noise Mitigation] In addition to the mitigation measures described in this section, the City recommenresidences and businesses receive 72-hour notification prior to scheduled blasting activity. Blasting permits are processed through the City Police Department. Requests for a variance from the City’s Ordinance are processed through the Community Development Department. 

Section 3.13 Recreation Resources

Issue: Folsom Point would be the main construction staging area along the reservoir’s southern edge, includ

work area, construction materials and equipment storage, borrow material storage, and a crushing and procaddition, an internal network of haul roads for the project is proposed to be developed with one portion of thextending from the proposed auxiliary spillway through Folsom Point to MIAD and eventually to Brown’s Ravalternatives include a coffer dam in front of the Folsom Point boat launch effectively eliminating any boat lau

location. According to the DEIS/EIR, these construction-related activities will result in the full closure of Fols

2007 through 2012. Due to this closure, public access to boat launching, picnic, and trail facilities will be curnumber of loss visits at Folsom Point during this period is estimated to be 816,021. (To a lesser extent, consactivity will also impact public access to recreational facilities at Beals Point and Granite Bay. These impacts 

affect Folsom.) 

[#392-8 Recreation Mitigation] Without adequate mitigation, these actions could have direct and long-term dimpacts on recreation resources supported and relied upon by the residents and businesses in Folsom. With the Dam Road four years ago, Folsom Point became the only public means of access to the Folsom Lake Rlocated within the City. Closure of the Dam Road caused significant negative impacts to the businesses and 

Folsom. Closure of Folsom Point would further negatively impact these businesses and those residents whicrely on public access at this location. Folsom Point is a highly used access point to Folsom Lake and, as previously mentioned, the only access pThe City has a long history of promoting the use of the lake, and considers it a vital resource for community 

important factor for tourism in Folsom. Folsom Point is used by thousands of visitors and residents to boat, jbike, picnic, and swim. The recent closure of the Ralph’s Market at Blue Ravine Road and Natoma Street, ju

Point has significantly impacted the remaining businesses in that center who are struggling to continue to opFolsom Point as a recreational destination will further harm these remaining businesses, as well as those loRaley’s Center across the street. It is the City’s view that Folsom Point must remain open year round and all recreation amenities must remaiminimizing the adverse effects of the project. Absent Folsom Point remaining open for all uses year round, amust be done and alternatives created to provide the maximum access, particularly during peak season (MaSeptember). 

[#392-9 Recreation Trails] The DEIS/EIR does not address pedestrian/bicycle use at Beals Point and Granit
126 of 148 

No. Name Comment 

feels the pedestrian/bicycle trails at these locations are a significant regional resource that must remain operoutes offered at all times. [#392-10 Reservoir Water Levels] The Environmental document also does not address maintenance of the wthe construction activity timeframe. The City further believes it is very important to maintain the highest poss

at all times during this project for preserving the recreational aspects of Folsom Lake. The DEIS/EIR describes, in general terms, development of a network of internal haul routes for construction the approximate routes for these internal haul routes are depicted in Figure 2-15, the exact alignment, size, configuration is unclear. As mentioned, previously, further explanation is needed that clarifies the final alignmproposed haul routes, as well as details any impacts these routes may have on existing wildlife and vegetatareas. 

[#392-11 New Bridge Pedestrian Trail] More specifically, staff understands that construction of one of the prwould result in a delay of over 6 years in construction of a portion of the planned Class I pedestrian/bicycle tnorth side of the new Dam Road located between the existing vista/observation point and Dike 7. This delay significant impact, since it would eliminate use of the new Class I pedestrian/bicycle trail on the new bridge athe length of the Folsom Dam Safety and Flood Damage Reduction project. It is important that the Class I p

trail begin constructed as part of the new bridge project be complete and functioning from Folsom/Auburn roNatoma Street as earlier as possible. The DEIS/EIR needs to explain how the project will impact this propospedestrian/bicycle trail and what means will be employed to ensure this Class I pedestrian/bicycle trail is fun

new bridge is open. 

[#392-12 Dike 8 Coffer Dam] There is no mention in chapter 3.13 regarding construction of a coffer dam at Din Figure 2-1 through 2-5, this coffer dam is so situated that it closes the channel providing waterborne acceramp at Folsom Point. Use of a coffer dam at this location should be either eliminated, or if truly necessary, [#392-13 Folsom Point Mitigation] Mitigation Measure RC-3 should be revised to require that construction, sprocessing areas proposed for Folsom Point be located to one or more of the following alternative sites: unuarea within Folsom Point, unused unimproved area adjacent to MIAD, undeveloped vacant private property Folsom Point and MIAD, or a combination of any of the above alternative sites. Following the completion of activity, proposed material processing and construction staging areas at or around Folsom Point should be cadditional parking and picnic sites. In addition, the DEIS/EIR also should explore alternative locations for construction-related activity at Beals Pdisruptions for public access to recreational facilities. Design of truck haul routes at these locations to permipublic access to recreation facilities needs to be explore further. The DEIS/EIR should also analyze conversproposed material processing and construction staging areas at Beals Pint into addition parking and picnic sMitigation Measure RC-7 also should be revised to require that construction work be limited during peak sea
 

No. Name Comment 

recreational facilities at Folsom Point, Beals Point, and Granite Bay to weekdays and non-holidays to minimrecreational uses at these locations. Section 3.13.4 of the DEIS/EIR identifies preliminary mitigation measures for impacts to recreational resourc

recommends that the following additional mitigation measures be added to the DEIS/EIR: 1. Realign proposed truck haul route to south of Folsom Point so as to not impact the boat launching and 

facilities. Design the rout through Folsom Point to eliminate conflicts between construction vehicular travehicular access while also maintaining the protected oak trees at Folsom Point. One possible deign altshould be considered is construction of a culvert east of the existing Ranger Station along a natural swaconstruction truck traffic would use to move unimpeded through Folsom Point to and from the auxiliary MIAD. If this alternative should prove to be not feasible, install a temporary traffic signal within the Folsofacilitate continuous public access to recreational facilities during construction-related hauling activity. 

2. To address any displaced demand at Folsom Point for boat launching, construct temporary additional b

(i.e., launch ramp and parking) at or around Browns Ravine. 

3. The alignment of the proposed haul road between the auxiliary spillway and Browns Ravine should be c

State Parks and City to ensure the alignment is consistent with the Class I pedestrian/bike trail planned 

Upon completion of the project, a Class 1 pedestrian/bike trail shall be constructed, per State Parks and 

in place of the haul road. 

4. Per the City Bikeway Master Plan, a Class I pedestrian/bike trail is planned on the surface of Dikes 7 an

part of the Folsom Lake Trail. Consistent with this plan, raising of the dikes and dam shall be design to pedestrian and bicyclist use. No barriers shall put in place to eliminate pedestrian and bicycle access othe dikes and dam. 

5. If a coffer dam is require at Dike 8, the DEIS/EIR should require widening and deepening of the channe

improved access to the dock and boat ramp at Folsom Point. Access via Folsom Point is imperative to recreation resources in the City. 

The City appreciates this opportunity to review and comment on the DEIS/EIR. The City is supportive of the Dam Safety and Flood Damage Reduction project. In addition, the City is extremely appreciative of the BOR outreach efforts to the community during this comment process and willingness to meet and discuss possiblpotential impacts associated with the project. These efforts, including the decision to extend the comment pe26, are indicative of the spirit of on-going, close cooperation and communication that exists between the City

USCOE. However, the City is concerned that this project and the preferred alternative identified in the DEIS/EIR will h

and adverse environmental impacts on Folsom. To lessen these impacts, a more thorough analysis of mitiga
128 of 148 

No. Name Comment 

needs to be undertaken and additional mitigation measures must be implemented to lessen the impacts. 

Consistent with Public Resources Code section 21177, the City reserves the right to provide further written aon this matter at any time prior to the close of the public hearing on the project and before the issuance of a

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

Thank you for you consideration of these matters. Sincerely, Kerry Miller 

 City Manager 

393 Kelly Richardson 

Dear Mr. Oliver: The proposed closure of Folsom Point recreation area during the 7 year construction of Folsom Dam improvements i

[#393-1 Alternative Staging] Please comment on the following alternatives which were not included in the draft EIS/E

1) Alternatives that allow Folsom Point to remain fully open by relocating staging and processing area to the we

further west to Dike 7. 

2) If Folsom Point closure is unavoidable then restricting the closure time to the off season period of Oct 1 – Apr3) If Folsom point closure is unavoidable then adopt congestion relief measures using Brown’s Ravine or Hobie 4) If Folsom Point closure is unavoidable then relieve congestion by adding facilities at Beal’s Point and only clo

after the new bridge is completed at the end of 2008. 

5) Route the haul road at Folsom Point out of the public areas and use a flagman crossing or an underpass at th

road to minimize disruption and the resulting congestion. 

Regarding the economic modeling used in the EIS/EIR there appears to be a significant under estimate of the lo

impact. The reduction in sales of large ticket items (homes, land, boats, vehicles, water toys) should be considerRegarding the opportunity for public input it appears that local stakeholders were not notified of the project. In thcopy me on the official notices. Also please post notices at he entrances to Folsom Lake State Recreation areas noticing local user or neighborhood associations. 

394 Gregory L. Fuz 

Dear Mr. Oliver, Ms. Victorine, and Ms. Bronson: El Dorado County has reviewed the extensive comments prepared by the City of Folsom regarding the above referenunderstand the concerns they have and believe that impacts to traffic and more importantly, loss of recreational facili

impact the citizens of El Dorado County. 

[#394-1 Alternative Staging] We support the proposed changes requested by the City of Folsom as well as the additiomeasures and request that they are reflected in the final EIR/EIS. 
 

No. Name Comment 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments. Gregory L. Fuz, Director Development Services 

395 Michael Myer 

Dear Mr. Oliver, Subject: Draft Folsom Dam Safety and Flood Drainage Reduction EIS/EIR The County Sanitation District 1 (CSD-1) and Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District (SRCSD) have review

sections of the subject document and have the following comments. 

[#395-1 Dam Release Impact to Downstream Facilities] Alternatives in the EIS/EIR that release large amounts of wat

American River may have significant damaging impacts on SRCSD facilities that cross under the river. A report, prep2002 by Ayres Associates, assessed the scouring of the American River for the Arden Sewer Force Main crossing unAmerican River. The primary purpose of the assessment was to estimate the vertical scour potential at the Arden Forunder the bed of the Lower American River near River Mile 7.3. Standard methodology for estimating scour published 

Highway Administration in hydraulics Engineering Circulars number 18, 20, and 23 were used. The total scour depth two flood events for peak discharges of 115,000 and 160,000 cubic feet per second (cfs). 150,000 cfs was used becamaximum capable outflow of Folsom Dam, and 160,000 cfs was used because it’s the discharge at or near the point 

expected to breach. The total potential for scour that was estimated at the force main crossing is 31 ft below the existfor the 115,000 cfs event, and 36ft for the 160,000 cfs event. Currently SRCSD operates a parallel force main and triple siphon under-crossing. The Arden Force Main crossings asewer force mains within twin 72-inch casings that convey as much as 100 million gallons of wastewater per day (MG

the Arden Force Main ranges from 30 to 40 feet beneath the existing river bottom. The triple siphon under-crossing, kNortheast Interceptor Section 3, consists of triple 48-inch pipelines buried approximately 10 feet below the river botto

with 2 feet of rip-rap (large rocks) protection above the pipeline. The Northeast Section 3 Interceptor conveys as muc

Based on the potential of scour for 115,000 cfs and 100,000 cfs flood events, alternative that affect the aforementione

crossings’ ability to convey wastewater could have serious human health and environmental impacts. If you have any regarding these comments please contact me at (916) 875-7123.  Sincerely,  Michael Meyer 

Senior Engineer CSD-1/SRCSD Policy and Planning 

396 Robert W Bense Dear Mr. Oliver: The proposed closure of Folsom Point recreation area during the 7 year construction of Folsom Dam improvements i
130 of 148 

No. Name Comment 

[#396-1 Alternative Staging] Please comment on the following alternatives which were not included in the draft EIS/E

1. Alternatives that allow Folsom Point to remain fully open by relocating staging and processing area to the wes

further west to Dike 7. 2. If Folsom Point closure is unavoidable then restricting the closure time to the off season period of Oct 1 – Apri3. If Folsom point closure is unavoidable then adopt congestion relief measures using Brown’s Ravine or Hobie C4. If Folsom Point closure is unavoidable then relieve congestion by adding facilities at Beal’s Point and only closafter the new bridge is completed at the end of 2008. 5. Route the haul road at Folsom Point out of the public areas and use a flagman crossing or an underpass at th

road to minimize disruption and the resulting congestion. Regarding the economic modeling used in the EIS/EIR there appears to be a significant under estimate of the lo

impact. The reduction in sales of large ticket items (homes, land, boats, vehicles, water toys) should be considerRegarding the opportunity for public input it appears that local stakeholders were not notified of the project. In th

copy me on the official notices. Also please post notices at the entrances to Folsom Lake State Recreation areas noticing local user or neighborhood associations. 

397 John P Fondale 

Dear Mr. Oliver: The proposed closure of Folsom Point recreation area during the 7 year construction of Folsom Dam improvements i

[#397-1 Alternative Staging] Please comment on the following alternatives which were not included in the draft EIS/E

1. Alternatives that allow Folsom Point to remain fully open by relocating staging and processing area to the wes

further west to Dike 7. 2. If Folsom Point closure is unavoidable then restricting the closure time to the off season period of Oct 1 – Apri3. If Folsom point closure is unavoidable then adopt congestion relief measures using Brown’s Ravine or Hobie C4. If Folsom Point closure is unavoidable then relieve congestion by adding facilities at Beal’s Point and only closafter the new bridge is completed at the end of 2008. 5. Route the haul road at Folsom Point out of the public areas and use a flagman crossing or an underpass at th

road to minimize disruption and the resulting congestion. Regarding the economic modeling used in the EIS/EIR there appears to be a significant under estimate of the lo

impact. The reduction in sales of large ticket items (homes, land, boats, vehicles, water toys) should be consider
 

No. Name Comment 

Regarding the opportunity for public input it appears that local stakeholders were not notified of the project. In th

copy me on the official notices. Also please post notices at the entrances to Folsom Lake State Recreation areas noticing local user or neighborhood associations. 

398 Rich Rumsey 

Shawn, I am a lifelong resident of Folsom, and I want to voice my disapproval of the proposal to close Folsom Point. Closure 

has placed an unfair burden on Folsom already, but to compound it by closing Folsom Point and depriving us of our oFolsom Lake seems unconscionable. After all, it is FOLSOM LAKE (but you can’t get there from Folsom?). Placer an

counties refuse to share in any of the expense of providing security to open the Dam Road, but it is their traffic that is 

[#398-1 Alternative Staging] Why not use land around Beals Point or the open land in front of Mormon Island? Our buafford, and don’t deserve to shoulder this additional burden. I am a Broker Associate with Prudential California Realty

about the affect on our home values, as well. We already face the bleak prospect of Intel doing a major lay off this ye

the two forces, the financial impact on our town could be quite significant. 

399 Ben Roth 

Dear Mr. Oliver: The proposed closure of Folsom Point recreation area during the 7 year construction of Folsom Dam improvements i

[#399-1 Alternative Staging] Please comment on the following alternatives which were not included in the draft EIS/E

1. Alternatives that allow Folsom Point to remain fully open by relocating staging and processing area to the wes

further west to Dike 7. 2. If Folsom Point closure is unavoidable then restricting the closure time to the off season period of Oct 1 – Apri3. If Folsom point closure is unavoidable then adopt congestion relief measures using Brown’s Ravine or Hobie C4. If Folsom Point closure is unavoidable then relieve congestion by adding facilities at Beal’s Point and only closafter the new bridge is completed at the end of 2008. 5. Route the haul road at Folsom Point out of the public areas and use a flagman crossing or an underpass at th

road to minimize disruption and the resulting congestion. Regarding the economic modeling used in the EIS/EIR there appears to be a significant under estimate of the lo

impact. The reduction in sales of large ticket items (homes, land, boats, vehicles, water toys) should be considerRegarding the opportunity for public input it appears that local stakeholders were not notified of the project. In th

copy me on the official notices. Also please post notices at the entrances to Folsom Lake State Recreation areas noticing local user or neighborhood associations. 

400 William T Hetland Dear Mr. Shawn Oliver: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this Draft EIS/EIR. We acknowledge that the Folsom Joint Federal Proj
132 of 148 

No. Name Comment 

developed to coordinate the efforts of both the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engthe long-term viability and safety of Folsom Dam and associated flood damage reduction benefits. [#400-1 Exisitng Conditions Operations] As we understand it, current flood control operations for Folsom Dam and Reregulating criteria) are set out in the Corps’ Folsom Dam and Lake, American River, California Water Control Manual the Interim Flood Control Plan Diagram for Folsom Reservoir (a.k.a. Interim Flood Operations) was developed coopethe USBR and the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency (SAFCA). A significant component of the Interim Flood O

variable 400,000 to 670,000 acre-feet empty space storage requirements for Folsom Reservoir which changed the th

storage space which was fixed at 400,000 acre-ft. As a 5-year Interim Agreement, this was intended to increase the astorage space in Folsom Reservoir to a maximum of 670,000 acre-feet depending on upstream storage conditions prgreat flood storage relief during times of high runoff or reservoir inflow. Upon expiration in 2000, this Interim Agreemefor 2-years. From 2002-2004, however, no agreement was in place. In 2004, a new agreement was negotiated between the USBR and SAFCA to continue with the 400,000 – 670,000 acflood storage operation unless and until such time as the Corps implemented a new water control manual and associ

control diagram. Under this current agreement, the operational criteria (e.g., 400,000-670,000 acre-feet variable flood storage) will exp

current understanding is that, as part of this joint effort, the Corps will be developing an Updated Flood Management Control Manual (e.g., a new flood control diagram). Regarding the interests of the El Dorado County Water Agency, Folsom Reservoir represents a key water supply sousignificant portion of the western slopes of El Dorado County. Accordingly, the El Dorado County Water Agency as well as the El Dorado Irrigation District hold strong and continuinin the long-term management, operation, and viability of this federal facility. Any change in reservoir operations that m

storage upon which the western slopes of El Dorado County depend is of significant interest to us. With a variety of wthat depend on water year type and, therefore, indirectly on year-to-year reservoir carryover, any change in operation 

vis a new flood control diagram) could affect the degree with which we would be able to obtain full deliveries under oucontracts. Consequently, as the Corps develops the Update Flood Management Plan and Flood Control Manual, the El Dorado Agency will be very interested in ensuring that the operation assumptions used to develop a new flood control diagra

consider the demands, seasonal timing, and infrastructure requirements (both current and future planned) associated 

supply needs of El Dorado County Water Agency and El Dorado Irrigation District. As an example, any forecast-base

feasibility studies that contemplated the release from storage of water earlier, in advance of coming storms, must car

seasonal demand curve of El Dorado County purveyors, reservoir refill capabilities based on historical records, the se

flood diagram shoulder periods (early spring and late fall), and the potential future changes in runoff hydrology from t

basin resulting from long-term climatic variations. 
 

No. Name Comment 

We look forward to reviewing the Final EIS/EIR and appreciate the opportunity to comment on this document. Please me if you seek clarification on any of our comments. Sincerely, William T. Hetland, P.E. General Manager El Dorado County Water Agency 

401 Linda Freeman 

To all of our honorable representatives: RE: “ PROPOSED” CLOSURE OF FOLSOM POINT STATE PARK (A.K.A. DYKE 8) by BUREAU OF RECLAMATIO

ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS. Please be advised that we, citizens of Folsom, CA, have been put on notice that a proposed closure of our park is sc

of 2007. This proposal comes from the Bureau of Reclamation and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. It is our und

beautiful park and recreation area will be used as a construction staging area for different work projects on the dam a

Spillway by the Bureau and Army Corps of Engineers. It is our belief that this closure will have deep and dramatic effects on families, businesses, tourism and the environm

consequences are far reaching. [#401-1 Recreation lake access closure.] This is a family community. We bring our 

lake to walk, bike, swim, picnic, fish, boat and just enjoy nature. This scenario is repeated over and over again. Fo

of the reasons people buy homes in this area. This park is one of the jewels of Folsom. Bird Watchers frequent the Vegetation and Wildlife]. I might point out that even though the Bald Eagle is no longer on the endangered species lisprotected by the “Bald and Gold Eagle Protection Act”. It is my understanding that one of the afforded protections is nesting area or flight pattern area. This needs more investigation. We have not been given adequate time to investigthat this proposal will have on our environment. We have other migratory birds that now nest there as well. [#401-3 A

environmental impact on our air quality could be dangerous for residents.] This is a pathway for many other animals Rattlesnakes also reside at Folsom Point. 

[#401-4. Socioeconomics businesses.] The businesses in Folsom will definitely realize a financial impact. Our bus

forward to the summer months when tourists and other lake traffic provide much needed revenue. Our businesse

closure of the Dam Road and now this may be the proverbial “straw” for financial loss. Business owners have concern. We do not oppose positive improvements on the dam. We request a staging area that will not hurt so many fam

wildlife, and real estate values. [#401-5 Public Involvement.] In all truth we have not been given adequate time in 

these issues. Our first notice was on January 9th. 2007. We were advised that 3,000 flyers were sent out. Th

population of 63,000. The deadline given to us to discuss the closure is January 22, 2007. That was essentially “ no counsel as to our rights and the right of the wildlife who cannot speak for themselves. We ask all of you, as our voice and representatives, to please aid us in this endeavor. 
134 of 148 

No. Name Comment 

We use this point multiple times a week from May to August and a few times per month during the winter. Our childre

have family barbeques in the picnic area. We need a place to walk our dog on the leash. We need easy access to a bPoint is a place our community needs to gather and enjoy family time. We need not have easy access to Granite Bay Dorado Hils boat ramp cannot accommodate all of us. Please do not close Folsom Point. 

402 Peter 

To all of our honorable representatives: RE: “ PROPOSED” CLOSURE OF FOLSOM POINT STATE PARK (A.K.A. DYKE 8) by BUREAU OF RECLAMATIOARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS. Please be advised that we, citizens of Folsom, CA, have been put on notice that a proposed closure of our park is sc

of 2007. This proposal comes from the Bureau of Reclamation and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. It is our und

beautiful park and recreation area will be used as a construction staging area for different work projects on the dam a

Spillway by the Bureau and Army Corps of Engineers. It is our belief that this closure will have deep and dramatic effects on families, businesses, tourism and the environm

consequences are far reaching. [#402-1 Recreation lake access closure.] This is a family community. We bring our cto walk, bike, swim, picnic, fish, boat and just enjoy nature. This scenario is repeated over and over again. Folsom reasons people buy homes in this area. This park is one of the jewels of Folsom. Bird Watchers frequent the park. Vegetation and Wildlife.] I might point out that even though the Bald Eagle is no longer on the endangered species lis

protected by the “Bald and Gold Eagle Protection Act”. It is my understanding that one of the afforded protections is 

nesting area or flight pattern area. This needs more investigation. We have not been given adequate time to investig

that this proposal will have on our environment. We have other migratory birds that now nest there as well. [#402-3 A

environmental impact on our air quality could be dangerous for residents. This is a pathway for many other animals a

Rattlesnakes also reside at Folsom Point. [#402-4. Socioeconomics businesses.] The businesses in Folsom will defin

financial impact. Our business owners look forward to the summer months when tourists and other lake traffic providrevenue. Our businesses suffered with the closure of the Dam Road and now this may be the proverbial “straw” for f

Business owners have expressed a great concern. We do not oppose positive improvements on the dam. We requesthat will not hurt so many families, businesses, wildlife, and real estate values. [#402-5 Public Involvement.] In all tru

been given adequate time in which to address these issues. Our first notice was on January 9th. 2007. We were advis

flyers were sent out. This is a city with a population of 63,000. The deadline given to us to discuss the closure is Jan

That was essentially “ no notice.” We need counsel as to our rights and the right of the wildlife who cannot speak for We ask all of you, as our voice and representatives, to please aid us in this endeavor. Have all other avenues been exhausted? This seems crazy that closing the point fro 7 years is our only choice. Businworse than the closing of the Dam Road. Home values will erode. It should NOT be up to citizens to come up with altabout using land behind the P.I.A as staging area? 

403 

404 Paul & Connie We do not oppose positive improvements on the dam. We request a staging area that will not hurt so many families, 
 

No. Name Comment 

Freese wildlife, and real estate values. [#404-1 Public Involvement.] In all truth we have not been given adequate time in wh

these issues. Our first notice was on January 9th, 2007. We were advised that 3,000 flyers were sent out. This is a 

population of 63,000. The deadline given to us to discuss the closure is January 22, 2007. That was essentially “no 

counsel as to our rights and the right of the wildlife who cannot speak for themselves. We have built 2 custom houses in Briggs Ranch over the last 16 years because we have loved the access & recreatiPoint has given us in the raising of our 4 daughters. We go for daily walks there & have enjoyed years of boating on 

invested close to if not over a million dollars in the building of these homes & quite frankly would not want to live anyw

Folsom or Sacramento but here. If this construction takes place for the period of time your project we will have no altmove & take our family, business, and livings elsewhere. I project that will be the path MANY will follow if this happe

405 Steve & Jan Volker 

Dear Shawn Oliver, 

[#405-1 Public Involvement.] Would you be willing to help us here in Folsom with finding an alternate site for staging 

equipment for the retrofitting of Folsom Dam? Folsom has already been negatively impacted by the closure of the Da

overlook parking & access area. Closing our only other real access to the lake would be only what we would call tragmoved here knowing there was lake access for picnics, swimming, walks with kids, camp fires, boating, viewing and 

and taking visitors to Folsom. Please encourage the construction people and the engineers to find another staging sto use the alternatives that the Folsom City Council has proposed. They should flex a little and make it possible that 

such a drastic closure of our one park & picnic & access area to our Folsom Lake. 

406 Joseph Hurley 

Thank you for sending the Folsom Dam Safety and Flood Damage Reduction Draft Environmental Impact Study/Env

Report (DEIR) to the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (District) for review and comment. D

comments follow. 

[#406-1 Air Quality.] Section 3.3, page 7 of the DEIR contains Table 3.3-4 which summarizes General Conformity de Thresholds. Please note that the thresholds listed in this table may change as a result of the United States Court of A

District of Columbia decision, December 22, 2006 in South Coast Air Quality Management District v. Environmental (Case number 04-1200). Section 3.3 (Air Quality) page 10 of the DEIR state:  “If project construction NOx emissions exceed 85 lbs/day, then a standard set of construction mitigation meincorporated into the Draft EIR and mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP). The inclusion of these meapplicant to assume a 20 percent reduction in NOx emissions from construction activities. If the mitigated NOx emiss

85 lbs/day, SMAQMD’s policy is to charge a mitigation fee of $14,300/ton of excess (greater than 85 lbs/day) NOx emBecause this project is anticipated to generate significant emissions of criteria pollutants, it is likely that the District wsignificant staff resources for administration of the mitigation program. Consequently, the district recommends that ththe updated fee calculation methodology scheduled to commence on February 15, 2007. The updated fee calculatio

includes an administrative fee that will offset district expenditures related to this project. The updated fee calculator c

downloaded from the following internet site: http://www.airquality.org/cega/index.shtml#MitFees. 
136 of 148 

No. Name Comment 

As identified in section 3.3, page 26, the meteorological data used in the dispersion analysis is based on Lakes Envir

Webmet. Please note that SMAQMD has not reviewed the Lakes data for accuracy, and does not endorse it, or any data, at this time. However, we recognize that Lakes data is commonly used as a source of meteorological data for edocuments. Section 3.3, page 35 of DEIR lists “AQ-5” (use of emulsified or aqueous diesel fuel) as a potential measure to mitigat

resulting from the project. This mitigation measure is infeasible because this type of diesel fuel is not available in the 

Area. The district recommends that this mitigation measure be omitted in the Final EIR/EIS. Section 3.3, page 38, includes a discussion of a particulate matter. The district recommends changing the discussion 

matter modeling results to provide a more thorough disclosure of the project’s impact. The district suggests using the 

language: “The project’s impact (with mitigation) on the 24-hour PM2.5 concentrations is up to 40% of the NAAQS. Tcontributes to existing violations of the NAAQA occurring in the area.” This would replace the current language. 

Appendix E in Volume II of the DEIR contains detailed tables of anticipated emissions of criteria pollutants from vario

construction equipment that will be used on the project site. The total amount of anticipated emissions is calculated u

based on the duration of equipment use, year of use, and emission factors from the District’s 1994 CEQA guidance dthe release of the 1994 document, updated emission factors that better reflect actual emission rates from off-road ve

period of active construction have become available. The District provided up to date emission factors to project stafrecommends that the final EIR/EIS utilize these updated emission factors. Please contact me at 916-874-2694 or jhurley@airquality.org if you have questions regarding district comments on th

Sincerely, Joseph Hurley Assistant Air Quality Planner/Analyst Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District Cc Larry Robinson SMAQMD 

407 Christopher Hodges 

RE: Summary of Comments on Folsom Dam Safety and Flood Reduction EIS/EIR Dear Mr. Oliver: Attached are 4 letters of comments I have on the Folsom Dam Safety and Flood Reduction Draft EIS/EIR. I divided t

four letters by subject (Congestion, Economic Modeling, Staging and Notices) to assist in your distribution to the app

responsible individuals. I have not fully considered all issues but felt it was most important to get comments in before 

deadline. I may submit additional comments at a later time. I sincerely appreciate the hard work that your organizations have invested in this project, the cost savings you have a
 

No. Name Comment 

rapid speed in which the project has been assembled. I thank you for the time you have spent in the last week and a 

the project with myself and the community. There is just this one little issue... the closure of Folsom Point. Thank you again for your time and dedication. Respectfully, Christopher Hodges Vice President Brothers Boats- Sacramento RE: Comments on Folsom Dam Safety and Flood Reduction EIS/EIR – Staging Dear Mr. Oliver: 

[#407-1 Alternative Staging.] The following are comments on the Folsom Dam Safety and Flood Reduction Draft EIS/construction staging on the east side of Folsom Lake. No alternatives were considered that avoided major impacts to public access. I would appreciate responses to the following suggestions on maintaining Folsom Point public access

1) Relocating the staging area to the west side of Dike 8 2) Relocating the staging area to the east of Dike 7 (lake side). 3) Relocating the staging area to the west of Dike 7. 4) Relocating the staging area to the south of Folsom Point or south of MIAD with a haul road that allows conti

access to Folsom Point. 

5) Relocating the staging area to the northeast of MIAD with a haul road described in suggestion 4. 

Respectfully, Christopher Hodges Vice President Brothers Boats – Sacramento RE: Comments on Folsom Dam Safety and Flood Reduction EIS/EIR – Congestion Dear Mr. Oliver: The following are suggested alternatives for the Folsom Dam Safety and Flood Reduction Draft EIS/EIR regarding co

1) Maintain full public access to Folsom Point by relocating the staging and processing areas to the west side o

west to Dike 7. 

2) If Folsom Point closure is unavoidable then the closure time should be restriced to the off season period of O3) If Folsom Point closure is unavoidable then adopt congestion relief measures that utilize Brown’s Ravine or 
138 of 148 

No. Name Comment 

4) If Folsom Point closure is unavoidable then relieve congestion by adding facilities at Beal’s Point and only c

after the new bridge is completed at the end of 2008. 

5) Route the haul road at Folsom Point out of the public areas and use a flagman crossing or an underpass to 

entrance road to minimize loss of use at Folsom Point and the resulting congestion around Folsom Lake. 

6) Relocate public facilities to the area northeast of MIAD but south of Brown’s Ravine. 

Respectfully, Christopher Hodges Vice President Brothers Boats – Sacramento RE: Comments on Folsom Dam Safety and Flood Reduction EIS/EIR – Notices Dear Mr. Oliver: 

[#407-2 Public Involvement.] The following are comments on the Folsom Dam Safety and Flood Reduction Draft EIS/

notices given and future notices: 

1) The comment period should be extended for at least 30 days. 2) Public notice was not adequate regarding possible closure of Folsom Point. Our business received no direc

notices describing the potential closure were published in local papers or covered in press releases. 

3) No notice of possible closure was posted at Folsom Point until an ad-hoc flier appeared early this week. 4) In the future, I would like to receive notices directly. 5) Local community and user associations should receive notices directly. 6) Neighboring property owners and neighborhood associations within proximity to the affected areas (1000 fe

receive direct notification. 

7) As the project moves forward please involve our organization before setting times during which access to Fo

be restricted. 

Respectfully, Christopher Hodges Vice President Brothers Boats – Sacramento RE: Comments on Folsom Dam Safety and Flood Reduction EIS/EIR – Economic Model Dear Mr. Oliver: 

[#407-3 Socioeconomics.] The following are comments on the Folsom Dam Safety and Flood Reduction Draft EIS/EIModeling: 
 

No. Name Comment 

1) There appears to be a significant under-estimate of the local economic impact. The reduction in sales of lar

(homes, land, boats, vehicles, water toys) should be considered. 

2) The annual “retail effect” listed in Table 4-14 at $174,500 is very low. The impact on our business alone (ex

the losses caused by the closure of Folsom Dam Road and closing of the Folsom Lake during the past flood estimate at more that $500,000 per year. 

3) The economic model only examines the regional “tri-county” effect yet the losses are primarily in the City of 

gains are regional. The modeling should explicitly examine the net effect to the City of Folsom. 

4) The gains and losses shown in Table 4-24 which imply a net economic gain during construction will mislead 

considering comments 1-3 above. 

Respectfully, Christopher Hodges Vice President Brothers Boats – Sacramento 

408 John M. Sanfilipia 

[#408-1 Alternative Staging.] As a Resident of Folsom I urge the Bureau of Reclamation to find an alternative site to s

operations to the Folsom Dam. In the spring and the summer I use Folsom Point as a place to fish and launch my bo

Point is closed I will no longer purchase an annual recreational pass for access to the lake and I will not stand in line or any other launch facility to launch a boat (economic impact). Additionally Folsom lake is open to the public and acremain in the public’s domain. Completing the work from another staging area makes sense! This would allow contilake at Folsom Point for fisherman, recreational boaters, and those using the picnic areas. 

409 Rob Langbehn 

The proposed closure of Folsom Point recreation area during the 7 year construction of Folsom Dam improvements i

[#409-1 Alternative Staging.] Please comment on the following alternatives which were not included in the draft EIS/E

1) Alternatives that allow Folsom Point to remain fully open by relocating staging and processing area to the w

or further west to Dike 7. 

2) If Folsom Point closure is unavoidable then restricting the closure time to the off season period of Oct 1-Apr3) If Folsom Point closure is unavoidable then adopt congestion relief measures using Brown’s Ravine or Hobi4) If Folsom Point closure is unavoidable then relieve congestion by adding facilities at Beal’s Point and only c

after the new bridge is completed at the end of 2008. 

5) Route the haul road at Folsom Point out of the public areas and use a flagman crossing or an underpass at 

road to minimize disruption and the resulting congestion. 

Regarding the economic modeling used in the EIS/EIR there appears to be a significant under estimate of the local e

The reduction in sales of large ticket items (homes, land, boats, vehicles, water toys) should be considered. Regarding the opportunity for public input it appears that local stakeholders were not notified of the project. In the fut

me on the official notices. Also please post notices at the entrances to Folsom Lake State Recreation areas as well auser or neighborhood associations. 
140 of 148 

No. Name Comment 

410 Jeffrey Paylor 

The proposed closure of Folsom Point recreation area during the 7 year construction of Folsom Dam improvements i

[#410-1 Alternative Staging.] Please comment on the following alternatives which were not included in the draft EIS/E

1. Alternatives that allow Folsom Point to remain fully open by relocating staging and processing area to the wesfurther west to Dike 7. 2. If Folsom Point closure is unavoidable then restricting the closure time to the off season period of Oct 1-April 13. If Folsom Point closure is unavoidable then adopt congestion relief measures using Brown’s Ravine or Hobie 4. If Folsom Point closure is unavoidable then relieve congestion by adding facilities at Beal’s Point and only closafter the new bridge is completed at the end of 2008. 5. Route the haul road at Folsom Point out of the public areas and use a flagman crossing or an underpass at th

road to minimize disruption and the resulting congestion. 

Regarding the economic modeling used in the EIS/EIR there appears to be a significant under estimate of the local eThe reduction in sales of large ticket items (homes, land, boats, vehicles, water toys) should be considered. Regardin

for public input it appears that local stakeholders were not notified of the project. In the future please copy me on the 

Also please post notices at the entrances to Folsom Lake State Recreation areas as well as noticing local user or neassociations. 

411 Nicole Johnston 

The proposed closure of Folsom Point recreation area during the 7 year construction of Folsom Dam improvements i

[#411-1 Alternative Staging.] Please comment on the following alternatives which were not included in the draft EIS/E

1. Alternatives that allow Folsom Point to remain fully open by relocating staging and processing area to the wesfurther west to Dike 7. 2. If Folsom Point closure is unavoidable then restricting the closure time to the off season period of Oct 1-April 13. If Folsom Point closure is unavoidable then adopt congestion relief measures using Brown’s Ravine or Hobie 4. If Folsom Point closure is unavoidable then relieve congestion by adding facilities at Beal’s Point and only closafter the new bridge is completed at the end of 2008. 5.Route the haul road at Folsom Point out of the public areas and use a flagman crossing or an underpass at the road to minimize disruption and the resulting congestion. 

Regarding the economic modeling used in the EIS/EIR there appears to be a significant under estimate of the local e

The reduction in sales of large ticket items (homes, land, boats, vehicles, water toys) should be considered. Regardin

for public input it appears that local stakeholders were not notified of the project. In the future please copy me on the 

Also please post notices at the entrances to Folsom Lake State Recreation areas as well as noticing local user or neassociations. 

412 

Joseph and 

Jeanette 

Abbate 

We definately support the building of a new bridge, but our community has suffered enough. [#412-1 Recreation Site 

believe there may be other sites that are usable without taking away our recreation area and lake access, e.g the old 

on the now closed Dam Road. We understand officials of the city of Folsom have offered three alternatives to the use of Folsom Point, Beals Point o

recreation areas. The use of our recreation areas should only be considered when there are absolutely no other posThank you for taking the time to read this. 
 

No. Name Comment 

413 Scott Schaffer 

My family and I moved up here to Folsom for the primary reason of being close to the lake and the Folsom Point boa

purchased our home in the Parkway as apposed to other areas of less cost so we would have such easy access to thlaunch. The thought of trying to get out early enough to launch from the other launch this side of the lake is terrible. 

try and get out of Granite Bay side leaves us in similar circumstances. We moved away from a city where you had to 

the lakes early enough before the parking lots filled and closed for the day. Many other residents of Parkway also fee

why we moved to this track in particular is now being taken away. Is there not enough open land in other parts of the 

not cause all of us to loose the ramp? I can not imaging the cost vs. alternate ares could be so impactful to cause an 

boating population to loose there ramp for 7 years! 

 [#413-1 Recreation Site Closure] I’ am discouraged and disapointed at the lack of effort for not designing alternate pplans simply take away from Folsom residents. How will this effect our homes values? And if this does effect values

compensated. 

414 Katrina Jackman 

Don't you think Folsom has had enough? [#414-1 Recreation Site Closure] First you close the Dam Road and now yconsidering Folsom Point. Do you plan on financially helping all those residents and business effected? I really do n

take one more thing. Around the corner is the building of the new bridge. This will also make if difficult in Folsom an

areas. Enough is enough. Please come up with one plan that incorporates all the pieces before you start throwing d

without taking into account how your decisions effect those around the job sites. How about storing your equipment aThey have lots of land. While your at it you could consider actually planning the bridge we all have been promised. 

415 

Daniel M 

Corcoran – El 

Dorado 

Irrigation 

District 

Re: Folsom Dam Safety and Flood Damage Reduction Project Draft EIR/EIS Comments Dear Mr. Oliver and Ms. Victorine: The El Dorado Irrigation District (EID) has reviewed the draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) / Environmental Imp

(EIS) completed for the Folsom Dam Safety and Flood Damage Reduction Project. Folsom Reservoir serves as the p

supply source for the western portion of EID’s service area. As such, EID submits the following comments related to 

impacts associated within construction in the reservoir and water supply impacts associated with placement of additioreservoir. Water Quality

[#415-1 Water Quality] Section 3.1 of the EIR/EIS discusses potential water quality impacts and potential mitigation m

Basin Plan standards. Specifically, this section includes mitigation measures with best management practices (BMPs

plans to minimize water quality impacts during in-reservoir borrow excavation and placement of fill. The EnvironmentMonitoring Plan described in Section2 of the EIR/EIS should specify a procedure for notifying affected parties that tre

reservoir for consumptive purposes if implementation of BMPs and monitoring do not succeed in protecting water quanecessary for the affected parties to take the appropriate actions necessary to ensure proper water treatment. Water Supply

[#415-2 Water Supply] Section 3.2 of the EIR/EIS discusses potential water supply impacts and potential mitigation m

necessary to maintain water supply during construction and subsequent operation. According to the EIR/EIS, Folsom 

supplies about 140,000 acre-feet of municipal and industrial water supply and up to 1,243 acre-feet of reservoir capa
142 of 148 

No. Name Comment 

replaced with fill through implementation of each project alternative. The EIR/EIS states that during construction and 

water allocations and timing of deliveries to Central Valley Project contractors, including EID, would remain the same 

conditions. The EIR/EIS should specify how the reduction in storage volume will be handled in modeling analysis, suc

when determining availability of water for existing and future water service or Warren Act contracts to demonstrate thallocations and timing of deliveries will not be affected. 

[#415-3 Water Supply Infrastructurey] The EIR/EIS lists the water contractors from Folsom Reservoir and point of de

contractors diverting from the Natomas Pipeline. However, there is no information provided for water contractors dive

locations within Folsom Reservoir. EID diverts water through a pump station located within Folsom Reservoir on U.SReclamation property between Brown’s Ravine and New York Creek tributaries. Any dam raises discussed through p

should address potential impacts to water supply through inundation of infrastructure such as the EID pump station. 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft EIR/EIS for the Folsom Dam Safety and Flood Damage Reduyou have any questions, please contact me at (530) 642-4082. Sincerely, Daniel M. Corcoran Environmental Review Division Manager DMC:le 

416 Laura Fuji USEPA 

Dear Mr. Oliver: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has reviewed the above project pursuant to the National Environm

(NEPA), Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508), and Section 309 of the Clecomments are provided in accordance with the EPA-specific extension granted by you on January 8 (email verificatio

January 17) from January 22, 2007 to January 29, 2007. We greatly appreciate the additional time provided for our rdetailed comments are enclosed. Based upon our review, we have rated this DEIS as EC-2, Environmental Concerns – Insufficient Information (see at

of the EPA Rating System). We have concerns with the potential adverse effects of the proposed project on air quali

implementation of aggressive mitigation measures to reduce project-related emissions to the maximum extent feasib

the required General Conformity Determination should be included in the Final EIS (FEIS). A number of actions were evaluated at a programmatic level pending completion of the detailed engineering design. 

the updated Folsom Facilities operations manual and Auxiliary Spillway dredging are of specific interest to EPA given water quality effects. We request notification of these actions and receipt of the project-level environmental documenThe Folsom Dam Safety and Flood Damage Reduction Project integrates the engineering solutions addressing hydroseismic, and static issues authorized in the US Corps of Engineers Folsom Dam Modification and Folsom Dam Raise comments regarding these projects are enclosed for your reference and consideration. 
 

No. Name Comment 

We appreciate the opportunity to review this DEIS. Please send two copies of the FEIS to the above address (mail c

it is released for public review. If you have questions, please call Nova Blazej, the new Manager of the Environmentaat 415-972-3846, or Laura Fujii, the lead reviewer for this project, at 415-972-3852, or at fujii.laura@epa.gov. 

Sincerely, Paula Bisson, Manager Environmental Review Office Communities and Ecosystems Division 

SUMMARY OF EPA RATING DEFINITIONS 

This rating system was developed as a means to summarize EPA’s level of concern with a proposed action. The ratincombination of alphabetical categories for evaluation of the environmental impacts of the proposal and numerical cat

evaluation of the adequacy of the EIS. 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF THE ACTION

“LO” (Lack of Objections) 

The EPA review has not identified any potential environmental impacts requiring substantive changes to the proposa

have disclosed opportunities for application of mitigation measures that could be accomplished with no more that minproposal. 

“EC” (Environmental Concerns) 

The EPA review has identified environmental impacts that should be avoided in order to fully protect the environmentmeasures may require changes to the preferred alternative or application of mitigation measures that can reduce the 

impact. EPA would like to work with the lead agency to reduce these impacts. 

“EO” (Environmental Objections) 

The EPA review has identified significant environmental impacts that must be avoided in order to provide adequate p

environment. Corrective measures may require substantial changes to the preferred alternative or consideration of so

alternative (including the no action alternative or new alternative). EPA intends to work with the lead agency to reduc

“EU” (Environmentally Unsatisfactory) 

The EPA review has identified adverse environmental impacts that are sufficient magnitude that they are unsatisfacto

standpoint of public health or welfare or environmental quality. EPA intends to work with the lead agency to reduce ththe potentially unsatisfactory impacts are not corrected at the final EIS stage, this proposal will be recommended for CEQ. 

ADEQUACY OF THE IMPACT STATEMENT
144 of 148 

No. Name Comment 

“Category 1” (Adequate) 

EPA believes that the draft EIS adequately sets forth the environmental impact(s) of the preferred alternative and tho

alternatives reasonably available to the project or action. No further analysis or data collection is necessary, but the r

suggest the addition of clarifying language or information. 

“Category 2” (Insufficient Information) 

The draft EIS does not contain sufficient information for EPA to fully assess environmental impacts that should be av

fully protect the environment, or the EPA reviewer has identified new reasonably available alternatives that are within 

alternatives analyzed in the draft EIS, which could reduce the environmental impacts of the action. The identified add

data, analyses, or discussion should be identified in the final EIS. 

“Category 3” (Inadequate) 

EPA does not believe that the draft EIS adequately assess potentially significant environmental impacts of the action

reviewer has identified new, reasonably available alternatives that are outside of the spectrum of alternatives analyzewhich should be analyzed in order to reduce the potentially significant environmental impacts. EPA believes that the 

additional information, data, analyses, or discussions are of such a magnitude that they should have full public review EPA does not believe that the draft EIS is adequate for the purpose of the NEPA and/or Section 309 review, and thus formally revised and made available for public comment in a supplemental or revised draft EIS. On the basis of the p

impacts involved, this proposal could be a candidate for referral to the CEQ. EPA DETAILED COMMENTS, DEIS FOLSOM DAM SAFETY AND FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCITON PROJECT, FOJANUARY 22, 2007 Air Quality Comments

Implement aggressive air quality mitigation measure and include the General Conformity Evaluation 

Environmental Impact Statement. The project area is located in an area designed as non-attainment for ozone and 

matter. Construction-related emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx), a precursor for ozone, and particulate matter less thmicrons in diameter (PM10) and PM2.5) would exceed Federal and/or California air quality standards (pps. 3.3-29 to measures are necessary to reduce these adverse emissions. Even with mitigation, NOx, PM10 and carbon monoxide would be greater than the General Conformity de minimis thresholds, triggering the requirement for a full general con

for the selected preferred alternative prior to the Record of Decision (ROD) (p. 3.3-37). We note that the incremental 

NOx, PM10, and CO emissions would be significant under the cumulative condition (p. 3.3-38). 

Recommendations:

[#416-1 Air Qualiity Conformity and Mitigation] EPA recommends aggressive implementation of all feasible mmeasures to address exceedances of air quality standards. The FEIS should include a detailed mitigation plimplementation schedule, the responsible parties, and monitoring and reporting requirements. We recommend that required General Conformity Determination be included in the final environmental impa
 

No. Name Comment 

with a description of the mitigation/offset measures that will be implemented prior to the project start date. 

The FEIS should also include a description of the projected operational emissions that will be generated by project. 

NEPA Compliance

Commit to future NEPA compliance for project changes. Alternative 5 would raise the Folsom facilities b

to increase the reservoir capacity to contain the Probable Maximum Flood. While we recognize this would be a “dry” 

an increase in flood storage capacity, there is concern with the potential future conversion of this storage and flood s

water supply or multipurpose use (“wet” dam raise). Of specific concern is the potential for changes in use without ap

and environmental review. 

Recommendation: 

[#416-2 Futue NEPA Compliance] We recommend the FEID and ROD include a commitment to future NEPA appropriate public review processes, prior to any decision to modify the use of the additional flood storage c

General Comments

Notify EPA of supplemental environmental documentation. A number of actions were evaluated at a pro

pending selection of the final preferred alternative and completion of the detailed engineering design. For example, thplan to complete a revised water plan and control manual (p. 1-9), and the US Corps of Engineers (Corps) may dredgAuxiliary Spillway approach 40 feet deeper than planned by the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) (p. 3.10-18). B

would be evaluated in supplemental NEPA compliance documentation. EPA has interest in these actions, given their 

on water quality and beneficial uses within Folsom Reservoir and downstream in the American River. 

Recommendation:

[#416-3 Updated Flood Management Plan]Please send two copies of the supplemental environmental compdocumentation and a copy of the Final Updated Flood Management Plan to the address above (mail code: Care released for public view. Document final decisions in separate Joint Federal Project, Reclamation, and Corp Record of Decisievaluates a Joint Federal Project that will meet Reclamation’s dam safety hydrologic objective and the Corpreduction objective, plus a range of alternative that address other stand-alone flood damage reduction, dam 

security actions (p. 1-25).Recommendation:

[#416-4 Clear Project Definition and Responsibilities] The FEIS should clearly identify the specific decisions parties for the Joint Federal Project and stand-alone flood damage reduction, dam safety, and security actio
146 of 148 

No. Name Comment 

recommend the final decisions be documented in three distinct Record of Decisions for the Joint Federal PrReclamations’ stand-alone actions, and the Corps’ stand-alone actions. Complete and include in the FEIS all Federal requirements. Various Federal 

requirements will be completed prior to completion of the FEIS or ROD. For instance a draft US FWS biological opini

prior to completion of the Final EIS/EIR and a General Conformity Determination completed prior to issuance of the R

1-35). 

Recommendation:

[#416-5 NEPA Process Coordination]The NEPA process is intended to assist public officials make decisions an understanding of the environmental consequences, and take actions that protect, restore, and enhance thCFR Part 1500.1(c). We recommend that information sources such as the US FWS Biological Opinion and GDetermination be completed prior to the ROD and included in the FEIS. 

417 Jan and Steve Volker 

Dear Becky Victorine – 

[#417-1 Alternative Stagingl] I am writing to request that you could help us if you would be willing. Many, many (in facmajority) of Folsom residents request that you and some other creative engineers could find an alternative place for a construction equipment rather than closing our one access to Folsom Lake—Folsom Point. Please listen to our city cother places.  Folsom has already had much negative impact from the closure of the Dam Road and the overlook parking of this town have already flexed and suffered from traffic problems, inconveniences, and business slow down, and pe

that we fell affects property values and whether Folsom is a desirable place to live since the Lake is a key part of peomoving to Folsom.  We believe the construction people and engineers could flex and move to an alternative site. The residents not have to have our one access closed for 7 years. Folsom Point is a key, central part of living in Folsom. 

418 Beth Lusar 

Becky Victorine, 

[#418-1 Auburn Daml] I have lived in Sacramento since 1939 and will remember the flowing part of the American Riv

of the 14 Street Bridge. Then the Folsom Dam was built with certain specifications as to height and water holding capnumber of outlets on the base. To raise the height to increase the holding capacity and at the same time cut more ou

in my thinking, would weaken the original base. Also, late last year, the Sacramento Bee published a statement from 

of Engineers that it would be very difficult to find consultant workers to do this kind of reconstruction.  The answer to flood protection is to complete the Auburn Dam promptly. 

419 Michelle Hamilton [#419-1 General] Please do not close Folsom Point!! One of the reasons we moved to Folsom was to be close to the 

our boat at home and use Folsom point all the time. I think it is a huge inconvenience for the citizens of Folsom to us

a storage facility. Shame on the city officials for even considering such actions. 

420 Patricia Gibbs

Ms. Lasala,My name is Patricia Gibbs I spoke to you at the Folsom Meeting last Wednesday night.

[#420-1 Possible Property Impacts]I own property, in Placer County, which borders Folsom Lake. As I had mentionam concerned about possible changes to the current Fed Gov property line around Folsom Lake as a result of raising 
 

No. Name Comment 

surrounding dikes. Any information and/or maps or other graphical info referencing elevations or contour lines you c

regarding changes to the Fed Govmnt property line as it affects my parcel (number 036-190-075-000) would be gre

421 K. Leonard [#421-1 General] Hello, I fish Folsom Lake all the time. Folsom Point is the only ramp I use. I don't care if constructi

driving in the area or over the Point road. I just want to be able to launch. Please do not close our ramp. 

422 Ron Adley 

Mr. Finnegan, As a twenty year resident of Folsom, the last 14 years in Briggs Ranch, I certainly would not want to see Folsom Poin

so than those you have heard from already. At the same time, having years of experience in the steel business havin

to Kiewet Pacific among other firms for large bridge jobs including C.C. Myers after the collapse of the Santa Monica Prieda damage, the new Folsom Bridge and many other projects of this magnitude, I understand the difficulties assocwith logistics, equipment containment and public safety concerns involved on such large projects. With that said, and 

acknowledgement of my experience in such matters, I would like to offer what could be a reasonable solution. I originally hale from Louisiana where, as you know, flood water is overly abundant which has and will forever more reconstruction of coffer dams, "large drainage ditches" to divert water away from much needed levee repairs and/or pro

projects, including new bridges, not unlike this one on a smaller scale. [#422-1 Barging Alternative]To meet those de

large quantities of dirt and rock must be moved and/or excavated as is the case here. In the face of similar concerns 

the solution was the use of barges to move the materials needed. In fact, I suggested the use of barges on the San R

addition project a few years back and they worked perfectly. You may know but if not, the water depth around that bshallow and sometimes gets very shallow depending on the tide movement and weather. Certainly, a much greater mgiven the varying water depths when compared to Folsom Lake. Frankly, I would have to believe you have considereoption already. By plotting the depths and lake bottom topography necessary to accommodate barge tare weight (there are several bchoose from depending on the application) and material load capacity, surely barges would be the way to manage th

Granted, the barges would need to move across recreational boating lanes but if properly marked off noting these bahardly see that as an encroachment to recreational boating. If need be, the barges could be moved at night and stagthe next working day. Take a look at your aerial maps on hand and you will see that barge traffic from point to point s

problem. Also, where the depths are not sufficient to accommodate a large load, dredge the bottom accordingly there

usable materials to shore up the Dike at Mormon Island. Again, I would think this option has been considered and if so, I would strongly encourage you to go a bit further in yo

in determining the validity of this option. I've seen it work many times in areas much more difficult than what I see at 

However, given the likelihood there may be more involved details to this project limiting my simplistic view, you are m

qualified as to whether this option has merit. As I watched the public outcry unfold over the last weeks however, I ha

read where this option would be considered so thought I would throw my hat in, for what it's worth. Whatever the final outcome, closing Folsom Point is not viable just from recreational revenue losses alone much less public's ire focused on your every move. Thanks for taking the time in reading this and good luck with the decision. chance you feel it necessary to call me, please feel free in doing so. 
148 of 148 

No. Name Comment 

423 Brian and Jolene Shirey 

Mr. Finnegan, I just read the article in the paper about Folsom Point. My husband and I have not yet participated in voicing our opin

but would like to add our names to the "concerned residents" list. This closure would significantly affect the active life

which is why many people brought there families here. [#423-1 Socioeconomics] It would definitely hurt local businesfrom the use of Folsom Point. We just wanted to add our two cents in hopes that you will listen to the community and alternative. 

424 Eric & Heather Olson 

Mr. Finnegan, We missed the open comment period on the proposal to use Folsom Point as a staging area for the Folsom Dam spi

we hope that you'll consider our two cents in your planning for the project. To the point, we moved to the Briggs Ran

nearly four years ago to start a family and have easy access to Folsom Lake. Now that our two children are almost o

years old, we often walk from our home to Folsom Point for "getaway adventures." I assume that we're not counted i

official visitors to Folsom Point since we arrive on foot. [#424-1 Alternative Staging] My purpose in writing you is to u

alternate staging location for as many years as it takes to finish the project so that my family and the hundreds of othneighborhood can enjoy the lake that inspired us to move here. 

425 Robert Walter Dear Sirs, [#425-1 General ] Please do not close Folsom Point. My family our our friends in the nieghborhood use tha

boating and have picnics. Robert Walter 203 Davies Court Folsom, CA 95630 

426 Kathy and Troy 

[#426-1 General] We oppose the closure of Folsom Point for staging of the new bridge construction.. [#426-2 Alterna

Please try another alternative that will not impact the recreational area for families and all. Thank you.... Kathy and TResidents 
Responses to Comments 

Comment No. Response No. Response 

1 1-1 

 The Draft EIS/EIR included alternatives that had the potential for increasing that reser

that could also potentially flood property immediately adjacent to the reservoir. HowevReclamation nor the Corps are considering actions that would result in an increased reelevation. Therefore, there is not a need for new embankments or berms. 

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

that with optimization of all elements of its Selected Plan, including the 6STG auxiliary spillway gate modification, and a 3.5-ft facility raise, an increase to maximum reservoir 

elevation beyond current dam crest elevation is not anticipated in order to provide for fbenefits. The future maximum reservoir surface elevation with the Corps’ Selected Plathe existing federal property take line for a 200-year flood design event. The anticipatewater surface elevation for all flood events, inclusive of a PMF event, eliminates the ris

properties or habitat would be flooded beyond that which occurs under existing conditi

property takes, flowage easements, or additional small scale impoundment features su

beyond the existing take line are planned as part of the Corps’ Selected Plan. The 3.5

Corps’ Selected Plan will undergo further design during pre-construction, engineering, if needed, addressed through a supplemental NEPA/CEQA document. 

1 1-2 See Response # 1-1. 1 1-3 See Response # 1-1. 2 2-1 

 Population and Housing/raise – Alternatives 4 and 5 involving a 7-ft raise and 17-ft ra

included in the Draft EIS/EIR analysis for comparative purposes, and have been eliminconsideration in the Final EIS/EIR. Chapter 2 of the Final EIS/EIR includes language t

see Response to Comment #1-1 for additional information on property impacts. Also sFinal EIS/EIR for additional information on the project description. 

2 2-2 

 Previous Corps Studies – The Corps Selected Plan for the Folsom Raise Project, as d

Long Term Study Final EIS/EIR included a 7-ft dam raise. Because of the hydraulic beauxiliary spillway, the Selected Plan now recommends a 3.5-ft raise, primarily to provid

capacity, instead of a 7-ft raise. Preliminary cost estimates indicate that a parapet waleffective than an earthen raise, however, the design of the 3.5-ft raise would be determappropriate environmental analysis, coordination and compliance documentation, in th

Engineering and Design phase when more detailed information is available. The CorpFinal EIS/EIR to satisfy the requirements of NEPA for the flood damage reduction feat

action (JFP, 3.5-ft raise and emergency gate replacement) that would be accomplishe

Folsom Dam Modifications and Folsom Dam Raise Projects. A Record of Decision (R

damage reduction only features of the Selected Plan (3.5-ft raise and emergency gate 
2 of 68 

Comment No. Response No. Response 

completed separate from the Joint Federal Project ROD, and would be completed in thengineering and design phase of the project. 

2 2-3 

 The Draft EIS/EIR included alternatives that had the potential for increasing that reser

that could also potentially flood property immediately adjacent to the reservoir. HowevReclamation nor the Corps are considering actions that would result in an increased reelevation. Therefore, your property would not be inundated or subject to take under the Based upon additional engineering analysis since the Draft EIS/EIR was published, ththat with optimization of all elements of its Selected Plan, including the 6STG auxiliary spillway gate modification, and a 3.5-ft facility raise, an increase to maximum reservoir 

elevation beyond current dam crest elevation is not anticipated in order to provide for fbenefits. The future maximum reservoir surface elevation with the Corps’ Selected Plathe existing federal property take line for a 200-year flood design event. The anticipatewater surface elevation for all flood events, inclusive of a PMF event, eliminates the ris

properties or habitat would be flooded beyond that which occurs under existing conditi

property takes, flowage easements, or additional small scale impoundment features su

beyond the existing take line are planned as part of the Corps’ Selected Plan. The 3.5

Corps’ Selected Plan will undergo further design during pre-construction, engineering, if needed, addressed through a supplemental NEPA/CEQA document. 

2 2-4 Alternative 5 Selection – Alternative 5, the 17-ft raise, is no longer being considered, a

2.3.4 of the Final EIS/EIR. 

2 2-5 See Response 2-3 2 2-6 See Response 2-3 3 3-1 

 Reservoir Storage – There is no planned decrease in "Water Storage" at Folsom Dam 

Safety/Flood Damage Reduction action. Costs incurred with storage of irrigation and m

(M&I) water supply and hydropower generation at Folsom Reservoir are recovered by 

Central Valley Project water and power contractors and non-project purveyors as spec

service and repayment contracts with Reclamation. Costs incurred with water supply fother non-reimbursable project purposes are funded by tax payers in the form of feder

4 4-1 

 Project Footprint - Section 2.2.3 of the Final EIS/EIR indicates haul routes as being p

Federal Boundary property. The government will not be using property outside of Fols

project work. 

5 5-1 

 Operational Effects to Bridges - The Partner Agencies view this concern to be a result 

improvements below Folsom Dam, as noted by the commentor. Accordingly, it is bein

Common Features authority, and not the subject of this EIS/EIR. The agencies positio
Comment No. Response No. Response 

concern follows, as does a description of the work that is ongoing and planned to furthThe proposed project significantly reduces the frequency and magnitude of flood flows American River (LAR). A project condition outflow of 160,000 cfs corresponds to subs

outflows under existing (pre-project) conditions. Pre-project condition flows ranging frocfs) to the 1/240 chance events (449,000 cfs) would all be reduced to 160,000 cfs. Ththe size and frequency of large flood events under proposed project conditions represein the risk to downstream bridges. In this regard, the proposed project actually mitigatbridges that might result from improving the downstream leveed conveyance system to objective sustained release of 160,000 cfs. Therefore, neither the project proposed in EIS/EIR nor improvements to the downstream levees represent an "impact" to the LAR Because the LAR bridges are critical elements of multiple flood evacuation routes and integrity represent a threat to the leveed LAR conveyance system, the project agencie

the risk of pier/abutment scour. An analysis completed by Ayres Associates for the Cothat there is significant pier/abutment scour potential at all LAR bridges under existing concluded that an increase in flow from 115,000 cfs to 160,000 cfs does not significanscour depths. Therefore, the project agencies plan to assess what measures have beLAR bridges from pier scour under existing conditions, and whether such measures aragainst a sustained release of 160,000 cfs. The project agencies plan to work with the the LAR bridges to ensure that the bridges are adequately protected to this standard, bproposed project nor downstream levee improvement efforts are responsible for deferradequately protect the bridges from the existing flow regime. A study to determine what measures are necessary to assure the long-term vertical anLAR under the proposed flow regime, including the objective sustained release of 160

being performed under the Common Features authority. This study will address the po

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

LAR leveed flood conveyance system and the bridge structures within it. Proposed methis study could range from grade control to increased monitoring. In any case, hydraulic modeling performed indicates that 160,000 cfs will pass under abridges on the LAR without inundating their low chords. Previous analyses performed concluded that pier/abutment scour potential doesn't increase significantly when flows cfs to 160,000 cfs. This response also applies to bridges on the Sacramento River. Twill be made available - please contact Mr. Brett Whitin of the Corps at (916) 557-7530
4 of 68 

Comment No. Response No. Response 

appreciate the commentor's offer to assist. Mr. Champion will be contacted by Corps Please note: Additional attachments were sent with this comment. These are available the Final EIS/EIR Appendix. 

6 6-1 The Bureau of Reclamation and the Army Corps of Engineers appreciate the commen

the project. 

7 7-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F7 7-2 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F8 8-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F9 9-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F9 9-2 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F

10 10-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F11 11-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F12 12-1 

The socioeconomic analysis in the Draft EIS/EIR was based on a very conservative ap

using the assumption that recreation facilities would be closed for extended periods. B

received on the Draft EIS/EIR, the Partner Agencies no longer plan for extended recre

(See Response to Comment # 7-1). Therefore, there will not be an adverse impact to elocal revenues due to the Folsom DS/FDR project. Please see Section 4.3.3 in Chapteof the Final EIS/EIR for more information on the Socioeconomics analysis required und

13 13-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F14 14-1 Socioeconomics - See Response to Comment #12-1. 15 15-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F16 16-1 

The Partner Agencies have complied with both NEPA and CEQA regulations regardin

For more information, please see the Topical Response for Public Involvement in Sectof the Final EIS/EIR. 

16 16-2 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F16 16-3 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F16 16-4 Socioeconomics - See Response to Comment #12-1. 17 17-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F17 17-2 Socioeconomics - See Response to Comment #12-1. 17 17-3 

The Partner Agencies have complied with both NEPA and CEQA regulations regardin

addition, the comment period was extended by four days (to January 26th) to allow mo

Draft EIS/EIR. For more information, please see the Topical Response for Public Invol
Comment No. Response No. Response 

4.3.2 of Chapter 4 of the Final EIS/EIR. 

18 18-1 

 The Partner Agencies have complied with both NEPA and CEQA regulations regardin

In addition, the comment period was extended by four days (to January 26th) to allow 

Draft EIS/EIR. For more information, please see the Topical Response for Public Invol

4.3.2 of Chapter 4 of the Final EIS/EIR. 

18 18-2 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F18 18-3 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F19 19-1 

 Project Description - The project addressed in the Draft EIS has three elements: Dam 

and Flood Damage Reduction. Dam Safety and Dam Security are the responsibility of Flood Damage Reduction is the responsibility of the Corps and its local partners. Con

that Reclamation and Corps seek common solutions where possible. The Joint Federaspillway has been designed to address the Dam Safety and Flood Damage Reduction both agencies. Work at L.L. Anderson, the Folsom Bridge Project, and along the lower separate Corps projects, not related to the Folsom DS/FDR actions. Spillway improvements at L.L. Anderson Dam were included in the originally authorizeProject. However, the Corps’ current Selected Plan, as described in the PAC Report, 

this element from the Folsom Dam Raise Project, as it has recently been determined tWater Agency, the owner of the dam, will take responsibility for these improvements. Sdescribes coordination of the projects. 

19 19-2 

 Cost Allocation - Any raise would be for flood damage reduction purposes only and funded by the Corps and their cost share partners. Reclamation would recover up to 1

costs at Folsom Dam and Reservoir from among the reimbursable project functions, n

supply, municipal and industrial water supply and power. Recovery of dam safety coscompliance with prevailing statutes and policies. 

19 19-3 

 Alternatives Costs – Costs of the alternatives are normally not presented in an EIS/EI

not a primary comparison criterion when presenting and evaluating alternatives in the 

is focused on the project’s potential impacts to the physical, biological and social envir

identifies an environmentally preferred alternative based on an assessment of impactscosts. The cost of the fuseplug spillway would be less than the JFP gated spillway becexcavation, concrete, and steel work than the JFP gated spillway. However, the fusepany flood damage reduction objectives and is not a joint federal project. 

19 19-4 

 Temperature control devices are not assessed in this EIS/EIR. As described in the Co

originally authorized Folsom Dam Raise Project included improvements to the tempera

as part of the ecosystem restoration component of the project. The Selected Plan (ReProject) described in the PAC Report does not recommend any changes to this eleme
6 of 68 

Comment No. Response No. Response 

project, which is analyzed in the 2002 Long Term Feasibility Study/EIS/EIR. Supplemanalysis, coordination and documentation would be completed if needed for this featurconstruction, engineering and design phase of the project. 

19 19-5 

 Project Reoperations - The Corps will initiate a collaborative process with CVP water 

Reclamation and other stakeholders to develop a concept and plan for permanent re-oDam and Reservoir. The Corps is committed to that process and will not make any fin

the outcome of the process. Permanent re-operation of Folsom Reservoir is outside thEIS/EIR and will require separate environmental documentation. 

The authorization for the Folsom Modification Project directs the Corps to change the v

space at Folsom Lake from the current interim operation of 400,000 acre-ft to 670,000 acre-feet to 600,000 acre-feet (400/600) permanent variable flood space operation oncModification Project has been implemented. The Corps, with coordination by Reclama

flood control manual for Folsom Dam for implementation prior to completion of the JFP 

The new flood control manual feature is currently being scoped as a parallel process. 

are analyzed and disclosed based upon current operational requirements in this EIS/Econtrol manual development and study will include variable flood storage space, includ

forecast based operations, new flood release schedules and a plan component for rep

water supply losses resulting from implementation of this flood control manual. This p

collaborative process with the appropriate level of environmental analysis, public, agencoordination, and appropriate NEPA/CEQA documentation. 

19 19-6 

 Security Features - Congress required Reclamation to recover operation and mainten

with security operations from reimbursable project beneficiaries beginning in Fiscal Ye

costs associated with physical site security will remain non-reimbursable. 

20 20-1 

 Cost allocation -Flood control costs associated with the project are non-reimbursable 

from CVP water and power contractors. Reclamation is responsible for recovering the 

of the safety of dam costs from contractors. Reclamation will comply with the spirit an

and policies concerning coordination and review by beneficiaries of recoverable costs. 

dam raise will be 100% flood damage reduction. The Corps PAC Report provides text 

21 21-1 

 Auburn Dam – The potential for an upstream storage facility, including Auburn Dam, t

of the Folsom DS/FDR was evaluated early in the alternatives assessment process (se

Draft EIS/EIR) and was eliminated because an Auburn Dam would not meet project puConstruction of a new facility upstream of Folsom Reservoir would not address the dasecurity objectives as described in Chapter 1 of the Final EIS/EIR. There is an immedthe Folsom facilities which can be accomplished under current authorities. Also see S

4 of the Final EIS/EIR. 
Comment No. Response No. Response 

21 21-2 The 3.5-ft raise options currently being considered would be unlikely to block views of 

people using Folsom recreation facilities. 

21 21-3 Mormon Island Cemetery – The Mormon Island Cemetery is located remote from any 

from the Folsom DS/FDR project. 

22 22-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F22 22-2 Socioeconomics - See Response to Comment #12-1. 22 22-3 

 Residential Property Values - Neither CEQA nor NEPA requires an analysis of project 

property values. This is because: (1) potential project impacts on residential property 

economic impact, not an effect on the physical environment; and (2) estimating prospeimpacts of a proposed project may involve an impermissible degree of speculation due 

issues that affect property values. Please see Section 4.3.5 in Chapter 4 of the Final Einformation. As discussed in Chapters 2 and 4 of the Final EIS/EIR, Folsom Point wou

recreation during peak season; therefore, impacts to property values with regards to t

Point would not occur. 

22 22-4 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the 23 23-1 

 Traffic impacts due to the project were addressed in the Draft EIS/EIR in Section 3.9. 

84 pages of text and tables presenting existing traffic conditions and circulation patternproblems, and the impacts of construction traffic on local traffic patterns. The City of Fo

comments and suggestions on the EIS/EIR traffic impacts. Prior to construction and h

Partner Agencies and their contractors will submit a traffic control plan to the City of Fo

proposed routes and times of transport. The Partner Agencies and their contractors wmutually agreed to with the City of Folsom. There would be less additional traffic on citconstruction due to haul roads remaining on Federal land. See section 4.3.9 in Chaptefor more information. 

23 23-2 

 The Partner Agencies have complied with both NEPA and CEQA regulations regardin

For more information, please see the Topical Response for Public Involvement in Sectof the Final EIS/EIR. Also, see the Topical Response for recreation mitigation in Sectiof the Final EIS/EIR regarding refinements to the project to keep Folsom Point open. 

24 24-1 

 Geology, soils, dam stability - During the pre-construction, engineering and design ph

the project would be designed to ensure that the stability of the concrete dam and all e

decreased. Previous engineering analyses indicate that the 3.5-ft raise being conside

24 24-2 

 Auburn Dam – The potential for an upstream storage facility, including Auburn Dam, t

of the Folsom DS/FDR was evaluated early in the alternatives assessment process (se

Draft EIS/EIR) and was eliminated because an Auburn Dam would not meet project puConstruction of a new facility upstream of Folsom Reservoir would not address the da
8 of 68 

Comment No. Response No. Response 

security objectives as described in Chapter 1 of the Final EIS/EIR. There is an immedthe Folsom Facility, which can be accomplished under current authorities. Also see Se4 of the Final EIS/EIR. 

25 25-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F26 26-1 Socioeconomic Business - See Response to Comment #12-1. 26 26-2 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F26 26-3 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F27 27-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F28 28-1 

 Alternatives 4, a 7-ft raise, and Alternative 5, a 17-ft raise, are no longer being conside

raise is still possible. The Draft EIS/EIR included alternatives that had the potential for 

reservoir surface elevation that also could potentially flood property immediately adjacHowever, neither Reclamation nor the Corps are considering actions that would result reservoir water elevation. Therefore, your property would not be inundated or subject tPreferred Alternative. Please see Chapter 2 of the Final EIS/EIR for additional informaproject description. Based upon additional engineering analysis since the Draft EIS/EIR was published, ththat with optimization of all elements of its Selected Plan, including the 6STG auxiliary spillway gate modification, and a 3.5-ft facility raise, an increase to maximum reservoir 

elevation beyond current dam crest elevation is not anticipated in order to provide for fbenefits. The future maximum reservoir surface elevation with the Corps’ Selected Plathe existing federal property take line for a 200-year flood design event. The anticipatewater surface elevation for all flood events, inclusive of a PMF event, eliminates the ris

properties or habitat would be flooded beyond that which occurs under existing conditi

property takes, flowage easements, or additional small scale impoundment features su

beyond the existing take line are planned as part of the Corps’ Selected Plan. The 3.5

Corps’ Selected Plan will undergo further design during pre-construction, engineering, if needed, addressed through a supplemental NEPA/CEQA document. 

28 28-2 See Response #28-1 above. 29 29-1 

 Auburn Dam – The potential for an upstream storage facility, including Auburn Dam, t

of the Folsom DS/FDR was evaluated early in the alternatives assessment process (se

Draft EIS/EIR) and was eliminated because an Auburn Dam would not meet project puConstruction of a new facility upstream of Folsom Reservoir would not address the dasecurity objectives as described in Chapter 1 of the Final EIS/EIR. There is an immedthe Folsom facilities which can be accomplished under current authorities. Also see S
Comment No. Response No. Response 

4 of the Final EIS/EIR. 

29 29-2 

 Project Purpose - The reviewer is referred back to Chapter 1 of the Draft EIS/EIR for m

purpose of the project. Folsom Dam is made up of 12 separate facilities, each requirin

improvement. Although the spillway gates require upgrade, as is indicated in the com

gates are not properly situated to provide the necessary hydrologic control of large floodam safety requirements. The auxiliary spillway is being proposed as a future operatio

hydrologic control needs. The main dam also needs seismic upgrades for earthquake 

Mormon Island Auxiliary Dam. Many of the earthen structures require filter upgrades t

Dredging of the reservoir bottom is not a viable option due to the existing spillway gate

to put millions of yards of dredged material that would be required to increase reservoi

30 30-1 

 Mormon Island Dam Stability - The Safety of Dams modifications to be constructed in

improvements to Mormon Island Auxiliary Dam. The foundation will be strengthened w

large earth fill overlay will be constructed on the downstream face to prevent failure duevents. In addition, the embankment will be protected against seepage pressures by c

and drainage zones along the entire length of the dam. Detailed seismic analyses, sestatic stability analyses have been completed to ensure the dam will remain strong in a

loading condition. Based upon additional engineering analysis since the Draft EIS/EIR was published, th

that with optimization of all elements of its Selected Plan, including the 6STG auxiliary spillway gate modification, and a 3.5-ft facility raise, an increase to maximum reservoir 

elevation beyond current dam crest elevation is not anticipated in order to provide for fbenefits. The future maximum reservoir surface elevation with the Corps’ Selected Plathe existing federal property take line for a 200-year flood design event. The anticipatewater surface elevation for all flood events, inclusive of a PMF event, eliminates the ris

properties or habitat would be flooded beyond that which occurs under existing conditi

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

phase and, if needed, addressed through a supplemental NEPA/CEQA document. 

31 31-1 

 Federal Property - The proposed JFP, 3.5-ft raise, and emergency gate replacement 

the federal property line as part of the proposed project. There are no plans to acquire Section 4.3.4 in Chapter 4 of the Final EIS/EIR for additional information. Based upon analysis since the Draft EIS/EIR was published, the Corps has concluded that with optelements of its Selected Plan, including the 6STG auxiliary spillway, emergency spillw

and a 3.5-ft facility raise, an increase to maximum reservoir water surface elevation be

elevation is not anticipated in order to provide for flood damage reduction benefits. Th

reservoir surface elevation with the Corps’ Selected Plan would not exceed the existin
10 of 68 

Comment No. Response No. Response 

line for a 200-year flood design event. The anticipated lower maximum water surface eevents, inclusive of a PMF event, eliminates the risk that surrounding properties or habbeyond that which occurs under existing conditions. The 3.5-ft raise of the Corps’ Seleundergo further design during pre-construction, engineering, and design phase and, if through a supplemental NEPA/CEQA document. 

31 31-2 

 Recreational Trails - Construction work near the dikes, wing dams, and MIAD would r

closure, and where possible, rerouting of trails. A recreation management plan will be 

describe which trails will be closed or rerouted, when, and for how long. At present, trPoint, Dikes 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8, the wing dams, and MIAD will be temporarily affected duconstruction. See Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the Final EIS/EIR for additional informa

32 32-1 

 Study Authority – The current study was implemented under several existing authoriza

authority and guidance for flood damage reduction is provided in the Folsom Dam ModAuthority under Section 101(a) (6) of the Water Resources Development Act (PL 106-

Dam Raise Authority under PL 108-137, the Energy and Water Development AppropriThe Folsom Dam Modification and Folsom Dam Raise authorities share the objective o

management on the American River, primarily through structural modifications to the e

and appurtenant facilities. With the Folsom Dam Raise authority, Congress also autho

construct an ecosystem restoration project component on the Lower American River aprovided that certain funding conditions were met. In addition, Reclamation has been pursuing Safety of Dams modifications separately t

Safety of Dams Program. Investigations and analyses by Reclamation have identified modifications at Folsom Dam and appurtenant facilities. In response to these studies, 

Corrective Action Study (CAS) to identify technically feasible and environmentally and alternatives that would address the identified safety concerns. A CAS Report, supporte

this EIS/EIR, will present a preferred alternative for incorporation into a Modifications R

Modifications Report will be submitted to Congress for approval. Recent modifications 

existing authorities were made in the Energy and Water Appropriations Act of 2006, wSecretary of the Army and the Secretary of the Interior to collaborate on authorized acflood damage reduction improvements and address dam safety needs at Folsom Dam project; and authorized both agencies to expend funds for design of a joint project. See Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the Final EIS/EIR for information on changes to use 

construction. 

32 32-2 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F
Comment No. Response No. Response 

32 32-3 Socioeconomic Business - See Response to comment #12-1. 32 32-4 

The Partner Agencies have complied with both NEPA and CEQA regulations regardin

For more information, please see the Topical Response for Public Involvement in Sectof the Final EIS/EIR. 

33 33-1 Socioeconomic Business - See Response to comment #12-1. 33 33-2 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F34 34-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F34 34-2 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F34 34-3 

The Partner Agencies have complied with both NEPA and CEQA regulations regardin

For more information, please see the Topical Response for Public Involvement in Sectof the Final EIS/EIR. 

35 35-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F36 36-1 

 The Partner Agencies have complied with both NEPA and CEQA regulations regardin

For more information, please see the Topical Response for Public Involvement in Sectof the Final EIS/EIR. 

36 36-2 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F37 37-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F38 38-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F39 39-1 

 Recreation Site Restoration - The Partner Agencies will return (with the concurrence 

facility that is removed or altered as part of the construction of the Folsom DS/FDR feacondition. 

39 39-2 

 Recreation Trails Inundation – The Folsom DS/FDR Project will not result in an increa

elevation that would impact recreational facilities greater than already occurs today. Rtrails that have been established by DPR within the operational flood zone of Folsom R

the responsibility of DPR to perform. This project will not cause additional flooding of tResponse to Comment #49-1. 

39 39-3 

 Geology and Asbestos - Geologic evaluations of soil and rock conducted by Reclama

shown that there is no serpentine rock or asbestos bearing rocks within the area propo

the Auxiliary Spillway. Soil and rock that may contain minute amounts of asbestos maDust abatement measures will be employed for disturbance of soil at all construction seast of Dike 8. See Section 3.6 of the Draft EIS/EIR for more information. 

39 39-4 

 Flood Warning for Flow Release – The decision for release of flows potentially threateAmerican River levees would be a multiple agency decision (DWR, Corps, Reclamatio

emergency response plan developed by these joint agencies relative to potential flood
12 of 68 

Comment No. Response No. Response 

Folsom Reservoir would be implemented in advance of a significant flow release. 

40 40-1 

 The Draft EIS/EIR included alternatives that had the potential for increasing that reser

that could potential flood property immediately adjacent to the reservoir. However, nethe Corps are considering actions that would result in an increased reservoir water ele

property would not be inundated or subject to take under the Preferred Alternative. 

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

that with optimization of all elements of its Selected Plan, including the 6STG auxiliary spillway gate modification, and a 3.5-ft facility raise, an increase to maximum reservoir 

elevation beyond current dam crest elevation is not anticipated in order to provide for fbenefits. The future maximum reservoir surface elevation with the Corps’ Selected Plathe existing federal property take line for a 200-year flood design event. The anticipatewater surface elevation for all flood events, inclusive of a PMF event, eliminates the ris

properties or habitat would be flooded beyond that which occurs under existing conditi

property takes, flowage easements, or additional small scale impoundment features su

beyond the existing take line are planned as part of the Corps’ Selected Plan. The 3.5

Corps’ Selected Plan will undergo further design during pre-construction, engineering, if needed, addressed through a supplemental NEPA/CEQA document. 

41 41-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the 42 42-1 Socioeconomic Business - See Response to Comment #12-1. 42 42-2 

The Partner Agencies have complied with both NEPA and CEQA regulations regardin

For more information, please see the Topical Response for Public Involvement in Sectof the Final EIS/EIR. 

42 42-3 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F43 43-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F43 43-2 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F44 44-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F44 44-2 Socioeconomic Business - See Response to Comment #12-1. 45 45-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the 46 46-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the 47 47-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the 47 47-2 

 Dam Road Closure – The Record of Decision for the closure of the Folsom Dam Road 

reopening of the road during rush hours. Reopening is pending capital, operational, acommitments from the City of Folsom. 
Comment No. Response No. Response 

48 48-1 New Bridge comment. - The subject bridge is a separate project and is not part of the 

project. See Section 4.3.13 in Chapter 4 of the Final EIS/EIR. 

48 48-2 

 Auburn Dam – The potential for an upstream storage facility, including Auburn Dam, t

of the Folsom DS/FDR was evaluated early in the alternatives assessment process (se

Draft EIS/EIR) and was eliminated because an Auburn Dam would not meet project puConstruction of a new facility upstream of Folsom Reservoir would not address the dasecurity objectives, as described in Chapter 1 of the Final EIS/EIR. There is an immed

the Folsom facilities which can be accomplished under current authorities. Also see S

4 of the Final EIS/EIR. As indicated in Chapter 2 of the Final EIS/EIR, Alternative 3 is the preferred alternativedescribes access to the project documents. 

49 49-1 

 The Draft EIS/EIR included alternatives that had the potential for increasing that reser

that could potential flood property immediately adjacent to the reservoir. However, nethe Corps are considering actions that would result in an increased reservoir water ele

property would not be inundated or subject to take under the Preferred Alternative. 

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

that with optimization of all elements of its Selected Plan, including the 6STG auxiliary spillway gate modification, and a 3.5-ft facility raise, an increase to maximum reservoir 

elevation beyond current dam crest elevation is not anticipated in order to provide for fbenefits. The future maximum reservoir surface elevation with the Corps’ Selected Plathe existing federal property take line for a 200-year flood design event. The anticipate

water surface elevation for all flood events, inclusive of a PMF event, eliminates the risproperties or habitat would be flooded beyond that which occurs under existing conditi

property takes, flowage easements, or additional small scale impoundment features su

beyond the existing take line are planned as part of the Corps’ Selected Plan. The 3.5

Corps’ Selected Plan will undergo further design during pre-construction, engineering, if needed, addressed through a supplemental NEPA/CEQA document. 

50 50-1 The potential to accommodate the request to provide material will be assessed during 51 51-1 The Bureau of Reclamation and the Army Corps of Engineers appreciate the commen

the project. Alternatives 4 and 5 are no longer being considered. 

52 52-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F53 53-1 The Partner Agencies have complied with both NEPA and CEQA regulations regardin

For more information, please see the Topical Response for Public Involvement in Sect
14 of 68 

Comment No. Response No. Response 

of the Final EIS/EIR. 

53 53-2 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the 54 54-1 

 Residential Property Values - Neither CEQA nor NEPA requires an analysis of project 

property values. This is because: (1) potential project impacts on residential property 

economic impact, not an effect on the physical environment; and (2) estimating prospeimpacts of a proposed project may involve an impermissible degree of speculation due 

issues that affect property values. Please see Section 4.3.5 in Chapter 4 of the Final Einformation. As discussed in Chapters 2 and 4 of the Final EIS/EIR, Folsom Point wou

recreation during peak season; therefore, there would be no impacts to property valueclosure of Folsom Point. 

55 55-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F55 55-2 Socioeconomic Business - See Response to Comment #12-1. 56 56-1 The Bureau of Reclamation and the Corps of Engineers appreciate the comment refle

project. Alternative 5 is no longer being considered. 

57 57-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F58 58-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the 59 59-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F59 59-2 

 The Partner Agencies have complied with both NEPA and CEQA regulations regardin

For more information, please see the Topical Response for Public Involvement in Sectof the Final EIS/EIR. 

60 60-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F60 60-2 Socioeconomic Business - See Response to Comment #12-1. 61 61-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F61 61-2 Socioeconomic Business - See Response to Comment #12-1. 62 62-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F63 63-1 Socioeconomic Business - See Response to Comment #12-1. 64 64-1 Socioeconomic Business - See Response to Comment #12-1. 65 65-1 

 Observation Point Mitigation – The observation point was closed due to national secu

addressed in the Folsom Dam Access Restriction EIS. There are no plans under the F

to replace the observation point. 

66 66-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the 66 66-2 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the 66 66-3 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the 
Comment No. Response No. Response 

66 66-4 Socioeconomic Business - See Response to Comment #12-1. 67 67-1 

 The comment does not pertain to, or raise, environmental issues related to the propos

alternatives. This and other such written comments, not related to environmental issuereceived during the public review period for the DEIS/R are included as part of the Fina

considered by decision-makers during project deliberations; however, written response

are not required by CEQA or NEPA. 

68 68-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the 68 68-2 

 Recreation illegal access – Reclamation plans additional security measures near the 

control access. Illegal entry points will be closed and blocked as necessary. CDPR w

for security around the facilities it manages. 

68 68-3 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the 68 68-4 

 The Folsom DS/FDR project will not involve increasing the storage capacity or raising 

during recreation season. The reservoir will continue to be operated as it currently is, reservoir’s operation manual is put into place. Changing reservoir operations will be s

environmental review process. Also please see Chapter 2 of the Final EIS/EIR for a cothe project. A 3.5-ft raise is being considered at this time; a 7-ft raise is no longer being 

68 68-5 

 Recreation Transportation – There is a potential for some additional recreational traffi

traveling through downtown Folsom; however, after the new bridge is complete, this trashorter route. See section 4.3.9 in Chapter 4 of the Final EIS/EIR for more information

Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the Final EIS/EIR. T

Folsom Point would reduce potential traffic through downtown Folsom. 

68 68-6 

 Purpose and Need - The Dam Safety and Flood Damage Reduction objectives for thin Chapter 1 of the Draft EIS/EIR. Also see Chapter 2 of the Final EIS/EIR for addition

the potential need for flood damage reduction improvements. 

69 69-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the 69 69-2 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the 70 70-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the 71 71-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the 72 72-1 

 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F

The Partner Agencies have complied with both NEPA and CEQA regulations regardin

and will alert the public of any potential temporary interruptions to recreation facilities. please see the Topical Response for Public Involvement in Section 4.3.2 of Chapter 4 

72 72-2 Vegetation and Wildlife - Reclamation and the Corps have been working closely with 

identification of impacts that could result from Folsom DS/FDR construction actions an
16 of 68 

Comment No. Response No. Response 

of mitigation measures to prevent or minimize those impacts. This work has resulted iendangered species and wildlife habitats potentially affected. The results of the coordpresented in the Wildlife Coordination Act Report and Biological Assessment documenproject, Appendices D and E of the Final EIS/EIR. These documents along with the mioutlined in Chapter 2 of the Final EIS/EIR will protect wildlife species to the extent pracmigration of wildlife species from the Folsom Point area is not expected because the mintended for use is either already paved or is within the inundation zone of the reservosensitive habitat. Section 3.5 of the Draft EIS/EIR presents the potential impacts to terwildlife. See Section 4.3.12 in Chapter 4 of the Final EIS/EIR for more information. 

73 73-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the 74 74-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the 75 75-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the 76 76-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the 77 77-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the 77 77-2 Socioeconomic Business - See Response to Comment #12-1. 78 78-1 

 No Action Alternative Relative to Operations - As per WRDA 1999 (PL 106-53) an inte

agreement is assumed to continue in place until 2018 or until completion of the revised which is anticipated to complete one year prior to completion of construction of the JFPoperation study addressing these concerns is currently being scoped, and will include environmental analysis, agency, stakeholder and public coordination and documentati

79 79-1 

 Project Description relative to Operations – This EIS/EIR introduces the likelihood tha

Reservoir may change in the future as a result of updating the Water Control Manual. 

Water Control Manual and resulting changes would occur irrespective of the Folsom Dchanges are not directly linked to this project. Project agencies are in the process of id

and when the changes are defined, they will be assessed and disclosed in a separate 

document. 

79 79-2 

 The Folsom DS/FDR project addresses measures to improve the seismic, static, hydr

flood damage reduction issues related to Folsom Dam and its associated facilities. Imdownstream levees are being addressed under the Corps Folsom Modifications Projecauthorization. 

80 80-1 

 Hydropower relative to reoperations/cumulative effect – There are no proposed chang

Folsom Reservoir under the Folsom DS/FDR that would affect power customers of WA

1999 (PL 106-53) an interim operation agreement is assumed to continue in place or u

Folsom Modifications Project. A permanent reoperation study which will include the im
Comment No. Response No. Response 

water control manual is currently being scoped parallel to this project. The reoperatioanalyze forecast based operation. The reoperation study will include the appropriate lanalysis, agency, stakeholder and public coordination and environmental compliance d

80 80-2 

 Hydropower - The proposed project will not change the manner in which the hydropow

and Nimbus dams are operated and managed. As per WRDA 1999 (PL 106-53) an intagreement is assumed to continue in place or until completion of the Folsom Modificat

permanent reoperation study which will include the implementation of a new water conbeing scoped parallel to this project. The reoperation study will also analyze forecast 

reoperation study will include the appropriate level of environmental analysis, agency, coordination and environmental compliance documentation. 

81 81-1 

 CVP Cost Allocation - CVP cost allocation and repayment are outside the scope of the 

reimbursable costs associated with the projects at Folsom Dam and Reservoir will be Reclamation as appropriate in compliance with Reclamation law and policy. The Corps 

cost information for the flood damage reduction portion of the project. 

82 82-1 

 CVP Cost Allocation - CVP cost allocation and repayment are outside the scope of the 

their discretion, CVP water and power contractors may elect to approach Reclamation 

their proposal to establish a separate repayment period for recovery of Dam Safety coand Reservoir. 

83 83-1 

 The text referenced in the comment relates to the specific Congressional authorizatio

Reclamation to address dam safety and the Corps flood damage reduction issues at FReservoir. Those specific authorizations are presented in the text immediately followinES-2 statement on pages ES-3 and ES-5. 

84 84-1 

 Study Authority - The authorizations are as follows: 1.5.9: Energy and Water Develo

Act of 2006 (PL109-103) for the Auxiliary Spillway (Page 1-19 of the PAC) and Folsom 

authorization is WDRA 1999 (PL 106-53) (Page 1-17). 

85 85-1 

 Construction of a fuseplug control for the auxiliary spillway by Reclamation would be a

prior to the Corps construction of the gated spillway. Reclamation would construct a fuonly if it was determined that there would be a delay in Congressional funding for the C

gated spillway 

86 86-1 The security features are a Safety of Dams only project feature. 87 87-1 

 Study Authority for Folsom Modifications Project - No, but the purpose of flood damag

in the authorization because it is specified in the documents referenced by the legislat

Energy and Water Resources Appropriations Act of 2006 (PL109-103) authorizes the 

to work together on an auxiliary spillway. 

88 88-1 The Folsom DS/FDR project would not involve any increase in permanent reservoir po
18 of 68 

Comment No. Response No. Response 

increase over existing storage limits would be temporary and only based on hydrologic to flood damage reduction. The 7-ft and 17-ft raises are no longer being considered. 

89 89-1 

 Safety Requirements – Features to ensure facility security will be included in this proje

such features are retrofits to existing facilities or areas that are not being modified for f

or dam safety purposes, the features will be funded through Reclamation's Site Securi

security features are a part of modifications necessary for flood damage reduction andwill be incorporated as part of the facilities authorized to be constructed through those 

90 90-1 Study Authority for Folsom Modifications Project - Section 1.5 of the of the Corps' PAC 

authorities specific to the Folsom project (pages 1-9 to 1-20). 

91 91-1 

 Study Authority for Security – Beyond the fiduciary responsibility that the federal gove

owner of the facility, Presidential Directive HSPD-7 (Critical Infrastructure Identification

Protection) requires federal agencies to protect the nation's critical infrastructure and k

terrorist acts that could cause significant harm. 

92 92-1 

 Alternative 1 is a Safety of Dams only alternative because in includes the fuseplug sp

spillway would not meet the flood damage reduction goals established by the Corps anAlternative 1 would only be implemented if the Corps did not receive funding to construAuxiliary Spillway. 

93 93-1 

 The Folsom DS/FDR project will not change current operations nor will it change wate

contractors. The authorization for the Folsom Modifications Project directs the Corps to 

flood storage space at Folsom Lake from the current interim operation of 400,000 acrefeet to a 400,000 acre-feet to 600,000 acre-feet (400/600) permanent variable flood spFolsom Modifications Project has been implemented. The Corps, with coordination by develop a new flood control manual for Folsom Dam for implementation prior to complAuxiliary Spillway. The new flood control manual feature is currently being scoped as is not linked to the Folsom DS/FDR. Therefore, in this EIS/EIR, operations are analyzbased upon current operational requirements. The parallel flood control manual devel

include variable flood storage space, including analysis of forecast based operations, n

schedules and a plan component for repayment of potential water supply losses result

implementation of this flood control manual. This parallel study will be a collaborative 

appropriate level of environmental analysis, public, agency and stakeholder coordinati

NEPA/CEQA documentation. 

94 94-1 

 The Folsom DS/FDR project would not impact water deliveries to the City of Roseville

District, and Suburban Water District. Any rerouting of pipelines will be handled in a minterrupt water supply. 

95 95-1 Any raise under the Folsom DS/FDR project would be to add additional freeboard or t

capacity (related to hydrologic control issues) and not to increase the operational stora
Comment No. Response No. Response 

reservoir. The Draft EIS/EIR included alternatives that had the potential for increasing elevation that could potential flood property immediately adjacent to the reservoir. HowReclamation nor the Corps are considering actions that would result in an increased reelevation. Therefore, property would not be inundated or subject to take under the PreBased upon additional engineering analysis since the Draft EIS/EIR was published, ththat with optimization of all elements of its Selected Plan, including the 6STG auxiliary spillway gate modification, and a 3.5-ft facility raise, an increase to maximum reservoir elevation beyond current dam crest elevation is not anticipated in order to provide for fbenefits. The future maximum reservoir surface elevation with the Corps’ Selected Plathe existing federal property take line for a 200-year flood design event. The anticipatewater surface elevation for all flood events, inclusive of a PMF event, eliminates the risproperties or habitat would be flooded beyond that which occurs under existing conditiproperty takes, flowage easements, or additional small scale impoundment features subeyond the existing take line are planned as part of the Corps’ Selected Plan. The 3.5Corps’ Selected Plan will undergo further design during pre-construction, engineering, if needed, addressed through a supplemental NEPA/CEQA document. 

95 95-2 The Folsom DS/FDR project would not result in a permanent increase in reservoir sto

require relocating or rebuilding roadways or structures supporting recreation at Folsom 

95 95-3 

 The Draft EIS/EIR included alternatives that had the potential for increasing that reser

that could potential flood property immediately adjacent to the reservoir. However, nethe Corps are considering actions that would result in an increased reservoir water eleBased upon additional engineering analysis since the Draft EIS/EIR was published, ththat with optimization of all elements of its Selected Plan, including the 6STG auxiliary spillway gate modification, and a 3.5-ft facility raise, an increase to maximum reservoir 

elevation beyond current dam crest elevation is not anticipated in order to provide for fbenefits. The future maximum reservoir surface elevation with the Corps’ Selected Plathe existing federal property take line for a 200-year flood design event. The anticipatewater surface elevation for all flood events, inclusive of a PMF event, eliminates the ris

properties or habitat would be flooded beyond that which occurs under existing conditi

property takes, flowage easements, or additional small scale impoundment features su

beyond the existing take line are planned as part of the Corps’ Selected Plan. The 3.5

Corps’ Selected Plan will undergo further design during pre-construction, engineering, if needed, addressed through a supplemental NEPA/CEQA document. There would b

vegetation along the shoreline in relation to reservoir levels. All vegetation removed wconstruction of the auxiliary spillway and staging for construction near MIAD, the wing 
20 of 68 

Comment No. Response No. Response 

Where possible, disturbed areas will be restored following completion of construction. 

95 95-4 The Folsom DS/FDR project would not result in a permanent increase in reservoir sto

require relocating trails at Folsom Reservoir. 

95 95-5 Alternative 5 is no longer being considered as a viable project that would meet the pu

project. 

95 95-6 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the 96 96-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the 97 97-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the 97 97-2 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the 97 97-3 

 Currently, maintenance and replacement of trails and vegetation is the responsibility o

Agencies will repair any facility or reroute any trail affected by construction work on an

Facilities. Vegetation replacement will be in accordance with approved plans. Please sChapter 2 of the Final EIS/EIR for additional information on the Recreation mitigation m

98 98-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F98 98-2 

 Transportation Impacts – It is recognized that construction projects involve increased 

to the construction site. The project agencies will develop a transportation manageme

input from city traffic engineers. The plan will provide guidelines on preferred traffic roand time of day restriction on using certain routes. Contractors will be required to adh

section 4.3.9 in Chapter 4 of the Final EIS/EIR for more information. 

99 99-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the 

100 100-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the 101 101-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the 102 102-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F102 102-2 Socioeconomics Business - See Response to Comment #12-1. Also see Section 4.3.

Final EIS/EIR for changes to the use of Folsom Point for construction activities. 

103 103-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F104 104-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F105 105-1 Socioeconomics - See Response to Comment #12-1. 105 105-2 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F106 106-1 Socioeconomics Business - See Response to Comment #12-1. Please see the Topica

Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the Final EIS/EIR. 

106 106-2 Residential Property Values - Neither CEQA nor NEPA requires an analysis of project 

property values. This is because: (1) potential project impacts on residential property 
Comment No. Response No. Response 

economic impact, not an effect on the physical environment; and (2) estimating prospeimpacts of a proposed project may involve an impermissible degree of speculation due issues that affect property values. Please see Section 4.3.5 in Chapter 4 of the Final Einformation. As described in Chapter 2 and 4 of the Final EIS/EIR, Folsom Point will rerecreation during the peak season; therefore, there would be no impacts to property vaof Folsom Point. 

107 107-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F108 108-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F108 108-2 Socioeconomics - See Response to Comment #12-1. 109 109-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the 110 110-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the 110 110-2 

 Recreation Transportation - The comment assumes that all rerouted traffic would star

which is not the case. Traffic would take several routes depending on the origin of the Granite Bay and Beal's Point are configured to accept their capacity traffic. Also, beca

would be left open under the revised project description, less recreation traffic to get to 

occur. See Section 4.3.9 in Chapter 4 of the Final EIS/EIR for more information. 

110 110-3 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the 111 111-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F112 112-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F113 113-1 

 Bridge Project Purpose and Need – Folsom Point would not be closed for staging of c

bridge. Please see Section 4.3.13 for more information on the New Folsom Bridge ProFor more information on Recreation, please see the Topical Response for Recreation 

Chapter 4 of the Final EIS/EIR. 

113 113-2 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F114 114-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F115 115-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F116 116-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the 117 117-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the 118 118-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F119 119-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F120 120-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F121 121-1 The Partner Agencies have complied with both NEPA and CEQA regulations regardin

For more information, please see the Topical Response for Public Involvement in Sect
22 of 68 

Comment No. Response No. Response 

of the Final EIS/EIR. 

121 121-2 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the 121 121-3 

 Vegetation and Wildlife - See Response to Comment #72-2. Surveys that have been have not identified any burrowing owls in the project area. See Section 4.3.12 in Chapter 4 of the Final EIS/EIR for more information. 

122 122-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F123 123-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F124 124-1 

 Socioeconomics Businesses - See Response to Comment #12-1. The Partner Agencthat Folsom Point will remain open during the peak recreation season. Opportunities to also be maintained during the remainder of the year because alternative lake access pclosed at the same time as any temporary closure to Folsom Point. Recreation traffic f

at Folsom Point would not longer occur under the revised project description. For furth

Sections 4.3.1, 4.3.3 and 4.3.9 in Chapter 4 of the Final EIS/EIR. 

125 125-1 

 Noise – Existing daytime noise levels are higher than the City of Folsom noise standa

traffic along major secondary roads around Empire Ranch. However, projected daytimimpacts will be reduced to less than significant levels by implementing mitigation measDraft EIS/EIR Section 3.10.3. The construction noise analysis did take into account top

atmospheric conditions when estimating noise impacts at noise-sensitive receptors. It 

3.10 of the Draft EIS/EIR that under certain atmospheric and wind conditions, the nois

higher than those projected for each noise-sensitive receptor at night. No excavation o

during nighttime hours; however, drilling and concrete for spillway work on the main cooccur 24 hours a day. There are not sensitive noise receptors in the area. Therefore, t

construction nighttime noise impacts would be further reduced. 

125 125-2 

 Geology/Asbestos – The prevailing winds for the region are from the south and southwrecognized that there are times when winds can blow from the north. The soils and ro

Spillway site area have been tested for asbestos and no asbestos is present. Testing 

shown the possibility of minor amounts of asbestos mineral, but at levels well below reNevertheless, dust control measures identified in Section 3.6.4 of the Draft EIS/EIR woprevent dust issues as part of construction work. 

126 126-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F126 126-2 Socioeconomics - See Response to Comment #12-1. 126 126-3 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F127 127-1 See response to comment #12-1. As described in Chapter 2 and 4 of the Final EIS/E

remain open for recreation during the peak season; therefore, there would be no impa
Comment No. Response No. Response 

from the closure of Folsom Point. Neither CEQA nor NEPA requires an analysis of proresidential property values. This is because: (1) potential project impacts on residentiarepresent an economic impact, not an effect on the physical environment; and (2) estimproperty value impacts of a proposed project may involve an impermissible degree of swide range of issues that affect property values. Please see Section 4.3.3 and 4.3.5 in EIS/EIR for more information. 

128 128-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F128 128-2 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F128 128-3 Socioeconomics - See Response to Comment #12-1. 129 129-1 

 See response to comment #12-1. As described in Chapter 2 and 4 of the Final EIS/EIremain open for recreation during the peak season; therefore, there would be no impa

from the closure of Folsom Point. Neither CEQA nor NEPA requires an analysis of proresidential property values. This is because: (1) potential project impacts on residentia

represent an economic impact, not an effect on the physical environment; and (2) estim

property value impacts of a proposed project may involve an impermissible degree of s

wide range of issues that affect property values. Please see Section 4.3.3 and 4.3.5 in 

EIS/EIR for more information. 

130 130-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the 130 130-2 

 Residential Property Values - Neither CEQA nor NEPA requires an analysis of project property values. This is because: (1) potential project impacts on residential property 

economic impact, not an effect on the physical environment; and (2) estimating prospeimpacts of a proposed project may involve an impermissible degree of speculation due 

issues that affect property values. Please see Section 4.3.5 in Chapter 4 of the Final Einformation. As described in Chapter 2 and 4 of the Final EIS/EIR, Folsom Point will re

recreation during the peak season; therefore, there would be no impacts to property vaof Folsom Point. 

131 131-1 

 Noise – Section 3.10.2.2 of the Draft EIS/ERI summarizes the results of the transportaanalysis. Construction truck traffic noise impacts along East Natoma Street were estimthan 2 dBA in 2009 (when peak truck traffic would occur) and less than 4 dBA over cu

noise level increases during the day are considered to be perceptible by most people, 

ordinance standards. The Project Agencies will be required to meet those levels and wmeasures to ensure that noise standards are met. Also see Section 4.3.10 in Chapter 

131 131-2 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F132 132-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F132 132-2 Residential Property Values - Neither CEQA nor NEPA requires an analysis of project 
24 of 68 

Comment No. Response No. Response 

property values. This is because: (1) potential project impacts on residential property economic impact, not an effect on the physical environment; and (2) estimating prospeimpacts of a proposed project may involve an impermissible degree of speculation due issues that affect property values. Please see Section 4.3.5 in Chapter 4 of the Final Einformation. As described in Chapter 2 and 4 of the Final EIS/EIR, Folsom Point will rerecreation during the peak season; therefore, there would be no impacts to property vaof Folsom Point. 

133 133-1 

 Section 3.10.2.2 of the Draft EIS/EIR summarizes the results of the transportation noi

Construction truck traffic noise impacts along East Natoma Street were estimated to in

dBA in 2009 (when peak truck traffic would occur) and less than 4 dBA over current co

level increases during the day are considered to be perceptible by most people, but ar

ordinance standards. The Partner Agencies will be required to meet those levels and w

mitigation measures to ensure that noise standards are met. Also see Section 4.3.9 anof the Final EIS/EIR. The Partner Agencies are in consultation with SMAQMD and will 

standards set forth by the Clean Air Act. 

133 133-2 Socioeconomics - See Response to Comment #12-1. 133 133-3 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F133 133-4 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F134 134-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F135 135-1 

 Residential Property Values - Neither CEQA nor NEPA requires an analysis of project property values. This is because: (1) potential project impacts on residential property 

economic impact, not an effect on the physical environment; and (2) estimating prospeimpacts of a proposed project may involve an impermissible degree of speculation due 

issues that affect property values. Please see Section 4.3.5 in Chapter 4 of the Final Einformation. As described in Chapter 2 and 4 of the Final EIS/EIR, Folsom Point will re

recreation during the peak season; therefore, there would be no impacts to property vaof Folsom Point. 

135 135-2 

 The Partner Agencies have complied with both NEPA and CEQA regulations regardin

For more information, please see the Topical Response for Public Involvement in Sectof the Final EIS/EIR. 

135 135-3 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the 136 136-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the 137 137-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the 138 138-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the 
Comment No. Response No. Response 

139 139-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the 140 140-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the 140 140-2 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the 140 140-3 

 Air Quality - All construction projects involving large equipment produce air quality em

the Draft EIS/EIR describes the types of emissions possible for this project. Reclamatinitiated discussions with the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management Distric

and mitigation requirements. All construction work will comply with the air quality emis

that have been established to protect human health, and as presented in the air quality 

the Air Quality Management District. Also see Section 4.3.11 of Chapter 4 in the Final 

140 140-4 

 Residential Property Values - Neither CEQA nor NEPA requires an analysis of project property values. This is because: (1) potential project impacts on residential property 

economic impact, not an effect on the physical environment; and (2) estimating prospeimpacts of a proposed project may involve an impermissible degree of speculation due 

issues that affect property values. Please see Section 4.3.5 in Chapter 4 of the Final Einformation. As described in Chapter 2 and 4 of the Final EIS/EIR, Folsom Point will re

recreation during the peak season; therefore, there would be no impacts to property vaof Folsom Point. 

140 140-5 

 Noise – Noise production is a recognized outcome of any construction project, includitransport of materials. The noise impacts due to the Folsom DS/FDR action is discuss

3.10 of the Draft EIS/EIR. The City of Folsom, and Sacramento, El Dorado, and Placeordinance measures that limit the amount of construction noise during the daytime and 

Agencies will be required to meet those levels and will implement mitigation measures standards are met. Also see Section 4.3.10 in Chapter 4 of the Final EIS/EIR. 

140 140-6 

 Vegetation and Wildlife - See Response to Comment #72-2 See Section 4.3.12 in Chapter 4 of the Final EIS/EIR for more information. 

140 140-7 

 The Partner Agencies have complied with both NEPA and CEQA regulations regardin

For more information, please see the Topical Response for Public Involvement in Sectof the Final EIS/EIR. 

140 140-8 Socioeconomics - See Response to Comment #12-1. 141 141-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F141 141-2 

 Residential Property Values - Neither CEQA nor NEPA requires an analysis of project property values. This is because: (1) potential project impacts on residential property 

economic impact, not an effect on the physical environment; and (2) estimating prospeimpacts of a proposed project may involve an impermissible degree of speculation due 
26 of 68 

Comment No. Response No. Response 

issues that affect property values. Please see Section 4.3.3 and 4.3.5 in Chapter 4 of t

more information. As described in Chapter 2 and 4 of the Final EIS/EIR, Folsom Point recreation during the peak season; therefore, there would be no impacts to property vaof Folsom Point. Socioeconomics- See Response to Comment #12-1. 

141 141-3 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the 142 142-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F142 142-2 

 Transportation Impacts – It is recognized that construction projects involve increased 

to the construction site. The project agencies will develop a transportation manageme

input from city traffic engineers. The plan will provide guidelines on preferred traffic roand time of day restriction on using certain routes. Transportation contractors will be r

the plan. See section 4.3.9 in Chapter 4 of the Final EIS/EIR for more information. 

142 142-3 

 Residential Property Values - Neither CEQA nor NEPA requires an analysis of project property values. This is because: (1) potential project impacts on residential property 

economic impact, not an effect on the physical environment; and (2) estimating prospeimpacts of a proposed project may involve an impermissible degree of speculation due 

issues that affect property values. Please see Section 4.3.3 and 4.3.5 in Chapter 4 of t

more information. As described in Chapter 2 and 4 of the Final EIS/EIR, Folsom Point recreation during the peak season; therefore, there would be no impacts to property vaof Folsom Point. Also see Response to Comment #12-1. 

143 143-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F144 144-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F144 144-2 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F145 145-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F145 145-2 

 Transportation Impacts – Construction projects involve increased transport of materiasite. The project agencies will develop a transportation management plan that will incltraffic engineers. The plan will provide guidelines on preferred traffic routes, route restday restriction on using certain routes. Transportation contractors will be required to asection 4.3.9 in Chapter 4 of the Final EIS/EIR for more information. 

145 145-3 

 Residential Property Values - Neither CEQA nor NEPA requires an analysis of project property values. This is because: (1) potential project impacts on residential property 

economic impact, not an effect on the physical environment; and (2) estimating prospeimpacts of a proposed project may involve an impermissible degree of speculation due 

issues that affect property values. Please see Section 4.3.3 and 4.3.5 in Chapter 4 of t

more information. As described in Chapter 2 and 4 of the Final EIS/EIR, Folsom Point 
Comment No. Response No. Response 

recreation during the peak season; therefore, there would be no impacts to property vaof Folsom Point. 

146 146-1 Mr. Oliver is the primary point of contact for Reclamation for the Folsom DS/FDR EIS/147 147-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the 148 148-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the 149 149-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the 149 149-2 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F149 149-3 

 Residential Property Values - Neither CEQA nor NEPA requires an analysis of project property values. This is because: (1) potential project impacts on residential property 

economic impact, not an effect on the physical environment; and (2) estimating prospeimpacts of a proposed project may involve an impermissible degree of speculation due 

issues that affect property values. Please see Section 4.3.3 and 4.3.5 in Chapter 4 of t

more information. As described in Chapter 2 and 4 of the Final EIS/EIR, Folsom Point recreation during the peak season; therefore, there would be no impacts to property vaof Folsom Point. 

149 149-4 

 Transportation Impacts – It is recognized that construction projects involve increased 

to the construction site. The project agencies will develop a transportation manageme

input from city traffic engineers. The plan will provide guidelines on preferred traffic roand time of day restriction on using certain routes. Contractors will be required to adh

section 4.3.9 in Chapter 4 of the Final EIS/EIR for more information. 

150 150-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the 150 150-2 

 Residential Property Values - Neither CEQA nor NEPA requires an analysis of project property values. This is because: (1) potential project impacts on residential property 

economic impact, not an effect on the physical environment; and (2) estimating prospeimpacts of a proposed project may involve an impermissible degree of speculation due 

issues that affect property values. Please see Section 4.3.3 and 4.3.5 in Chapter 4 of t

more information. As described in Chapter 2 and 4 of the Final EIS/EIR, Folsom Point recreation during the peak season; therefore, there would be no impacts to property vaof Folsom Point. 

150 150-3 

 Haul Truck Traffic – The primary reason that construction haul traffic is planned to rem

reservoir boundary is to keep that traffic off city streets. This is a primary safety issue, 

children. See section 4.3.9 in Chapter 4 of the Final EIS/EIR for more information. 

150 150-4 Socioeconomics - See Response to Comment #12-1. 151 151-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the 
28 of 68 

Comment No. Response No. Response 

151 151-2 

Bald eagles are known to winter and forage in the Folsom DS/FDR Action area. There eagle occurrence as breeding birds within the Folsom DS/FDR Action area based upoadequate nesting sites and foraging habitat. Successful nesting has not yet been recoReservoir. Based on anecdotal observations, a pair of immature eagles was noticed e

breeding behavior in early Spring 2006. By March 2006, the eagles had left the Folso

without any sign of successful breeding (SPR pers. comm. per the Biological Assessm

No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Direct impact to individuals of 

significant impact. Wintering bald eagles occurring within or less than 0.5 mile from proposed dike constrroutes, staging areas and borrow sites could incur effects as a result of noise and hum

Alteration of aquatic habitat could temporarily prevent bald eagles from foraging in areconstruction-related activities. There will not be any operations-related impacts to this species under the current projeConstruction activities, including earth moving, earthen dike retrofit, and haul route con

in permanent alteration of up to 95 acres of potential bald eagle wintering habitat. The 

minimization measures would reduce the effects to this species. Because the bald eagle is federally listed as a threatened species, Reclamation shall iand prudent measures and conservation measures, per the Biological Assessment thaUSFWS and the Biological Opinion that is anticipated from USFWS. Proposed avoidameasures included in the Biological Assessment for the Project are: Prior to the implementation of vegetation removal, a Service-approved biologist will co

ensure no bald eagles are present within the area in which vegetation is to be removeobserved, then no further mitigation measures will be implemented. 

If bald eagles are present, vegetation removal will be postponed until eagles vacate th

volition. Eagles would not be disturbed in order to clear them from the area. If breeding bald eagles are found to be present within or less than 0.5 mile from the prDS/FDR Action boundaries, a 0.5-mile buffer would be established around the nest sit

would not be entered for Folsom DS/FDR Action construction activities until the eagles breeding activities and have vacated the area of their own volition. See Section 4.3.12 Final EIS/EIR for more information. 
Comment No. Response No. Response 

151 151-3 

 Air Quality - All construction projects involving large equipment produce air quality em

the Draft EIS/EIR describes the types of emissions possible for this project. Reclamatinitiated discussions with the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management Distric

and mitigation requirements. All construction work will comply with the air quality emis

that have been established to protect human health, and as presented in the air quality 

the Air Quality Management District. Also see Section 4.3.11 of Chapter 4 in the Final 

151 151-4 Socioeconomics - See Response to Comment #12-1. 151 151-5 

The Partner Agencies have complied with both NEPA and CEQA regulations regardin

For more information, please see the Topical Response for Public Involvement in Sectof the Final EIS/EIR. 

152 152-1 

 The comment does not pertain to, or raise, environmental issues related to the proposalternatives. This and other such written comments, not related to environmental issuereceived during the public review period for the DEIS/R are included as part of the Fina

considered by decision-makers during project deliberations; however, written response

are not required by CEQA or NEPA. 

153 153-1 

 Transportation Impacts – It is recognized that construction projects involve increased 

to the construction site. The project agencies will develop a transportation manageme

input from city traffic engineers. The plan will provide guidelines on preferred traffic roand time of day restriction on using certain routes. Transportation contractors will be r

the plan. See section 4.3.9 in Chapter 4 of the Final EIS/EIR for more information. 

153 153-2 

 Residential Property Values - Neither CEQA nor NEPA requires an analysis of project property values. This is because: (1) potential project impacts on residential property 

economic impact, not an effect on the physical environment; and (2) estimating prospeimpacts of a proposed project may involve an impermissible degree of speculation due 

issues that affect property values. Please see Section 4.3.3 and 4.3.5 in Chapter 4 of t

more information. As described in Chapter 2 and 4 of the Final EIS/EIR, Folsom Point recreation during the peak season; therefore, there would be no impacts to property vaof Folsom Point. 

154 154-1 

 Transportation Impacts – It is recognized that construction projects involve increased 

to the construction site. The project agencies will develop a transportation manageme

input from city traffic engineers. The plan will provide guidelines on preferred traffic roand time of day restriction on using certain routes. Transportation contractors will be r

the plan. See section 4.3.9 in Chapter 4 of the Final EIS/EIR for more information. 

154 154-2 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F155 155-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F
30 of 68 

Comment No. Response No. Response 

156 156-1 

 The Partner Agencies have complied with both NEPA and CEQA regulations regardin

For more information, please see the Topical Response for Public Involvement in Sectof the Final EIS/EIR. 

157 157-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the 157 157-2 

 Transportation Impacts – It is recognized that construction projects involve increased 

to the construction site. The project agencies will develop a transportation manageme

input from city traffic engineers. The plan will provide guidelines on preferred traffic roand time of day restriction on using certain routes. Transportation contractors will be r

the plan. The cumulative noise impacts of Folsom DS/FDR and the New Folsom Bridg

to occur during the same period beginning in 2008. Both projects include mitigation menoise impacts to less than significant levels. Noise impacts and mitigation for the new are presented in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2006, American River Watershed 

Draft SEIS/EIR, May 2006. See section 4.3.9 in Chapter 4 of the Final EIS/EIR for mor

157 157-3 

 Noise – Noise production is a recognized outcome of any construction project, includitransport of materials. The noise impacts due to the Folsom DS/FDR action is discuss

3.10 of the Draft EIS/EIR. The City of Folsom, and Sacramento, El Dorado, and Placeordinance measures that limit the amount of construction noise during the daytime and 

Agencies will be required to meet those levels and will implement mitigation measures standards are met. Also see Section 4.3.10 in Chapter 4 of the Final EIS/EIR. 

158 158-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F159 159-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the 159 159-2 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the 159 159-3 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the 160 160-1 

 An economic study is not required for an EIS unless there would be physical or naturathe economic impacts. The Draft EIS/EIR did include an economic discussion. See So

Comment Response #12-1 

160 160-2 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the 160 160-3 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F160 160-4 

 The Partner Agencies have complied with both NEPA and CEQA regulations regardin

For more information, please see the Topical Response for Public Involvement in Sectof the Final EIS/EIR. 

160 160-5 

 The Partner Agencies have complied with both NEPA and CEQA regulations regardin

For more information, please see the Topical Response for Public Involvement in Sectof the Final EIS/EIR. 
Comment No. Response No. Response 

160 160-6 Socioeconomics - See Response to Comment #12-1. 161 161-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the 162 162-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the 163 163-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the 164 164-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the 164 164-2 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the 165 165-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the 166 166-1 

 No Action Alternative Operations Presentation – The authorization for the Folsom Moddirects the Corps to change the variable flood storage space at Folsom Reservoir from 

operation of 400,000 acre-feet to 670,000 acre-feet to a 400,000 acre-feet to 600,000 

permanent variable flood space operation once the Folsom Modifications Project has bCorps, with coordination by Reclamation, will develop a new flood control manual for F

implementation prior to completion of the JFP Auxiliary Spillway. The new flood contro

currently being scoped as a parallel process and is not linked to the Folsom DS/FDR. 

are analyzed and disclosed based on current operational requirements in this EIS/EIR

control manual development and study will include variable flood storage space, includ

forecast based operations, new flood release schedules and a plan component for rep

water supply losses resulting from implementation of this flood control manual. This p

collaborative process with the appropriate level of environmental analysis, public, agencoordination, and supplemental environmental compliance documentation. The existinmanual is for a fixed flood space of 400,000 acre-feet. A new NEPA document will be impacts of changing the operation from the fixed 400,000 acre-feet in the existing wate400,000 acre-feet to 600,000 acre-feet (400/600) permanent variable flood space opercontrol manual. This NEPA document will also be completed as part of the process. 

166 166-2 

 Impacts of Reoperations- Although it is recognized that there is a need to update the Wthat need and process are totally separate from the Folsom DS/FDR actions. The autFolsom Modifications Project directs the Corps to change the variable flood storage spfrom the current interim operation of 400,000 acre-feet to 670,000 acre-feet to a 400,0acre-feet (400/600) permanent variable flood space operation once the Folsom Modific

been implemented. The Corps, with coordination by Reclamation, will develop a new f

Folsom Dam for implementation prior to completion of the JFP Auxiliary Spillway. The 

manual feature is currently being scoped as a parallel process and is not linked to the 

Therefore, in this EIS/EIR, operations are analyzed and disclosed based upon current 

requirements. The parallel flood control manual development and study will include va

space, including analysis of forecast based operations, new flood release schedules a
32 of 68 

Comment No. Response No. Response 

for repayment of potential water supply losses resulting from implementation of this floThis parallel study will be a collaborative process with the appropriate level of environmagency and stakeholder coordination, and appropriate NEPA/CEQA documentation. 

166 166-3 

 Impacts and economic impacts to water users – Permanent re-operation of Folsom Rscope of the EIS/EIR. The Corps has committed to a collaborative process with CVP wcontractors, Reclamation and other stakeholders to develop a consensus approach to 

operation. The Corps has consistently stated that no final decision will be made on pepending the outcome of that process. 

167 167-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the 168 168-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the 169 169-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the 169 169-2 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the 170 170-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the 171 171-1 The Bureau of Reclamation and the Corps of Engineers appreciates the comment refle

project. 

172 172-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F173 173-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F173 173-2 Socioeconomics - See Response to Comment #12-1. 173 173-3 

 Residential Property Values - Neither CEQA nor NEPA requires an analysis of project property values. This is because: (1) potential project impacts on residential property 

economic impact, not an effect on the physical environment; and (2) estimating prospeimpacts of a proposed project may involve an impermissible degree of speculation due 

issues that affect property values. Please see Section 4.3.3 and 4.3.5 in Chapter 4 of t

more information. As described in Chapter 2 and 4 of the Final EIS/EIR, Folsom Point recreation during the peak season; therefore, there would be no impacts to property vaof Folsom Point. 

174 174-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the 175 175-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F175 175-2 Socioeconomics - See Response to Comment #12-1. 176 176-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F176 176-2 

 Vegetation and Wildlife - See Responses to Comment #151-2 See Section 4.3.12 in Chapter 4 of the Final EIS/EIR for more information. 

176 176-3 Air Quality - All construction projects involving large equipment produce air quality em
Comment No. Response No. Response 

the EIS/EIR describes the types of emissions possible for this project. Reclamation hadiscussions with the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District on emimitigation requirements. All construction work will comply with the air quality emissionhave been established to protect human health, and as presented by the Air Quality MAlso see Section 4.3.11 of Chapter 4 in the Final EIS/EIR. 

176 176-4 Socioeconomics - See Response to Comment # 12-1. 176 176-5 

 The Partner Agencies have complied with both NEPA and CEQA regulations regardin

For more information, please see the Topical Response for Public Involvement in Sectof the Final EIS/EIR. 

177 177-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F178 178-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F178 178-2 Socioeconomics - See Response to Comment #12-1. 178 178-3 

 Residential Property Values - Neither CEQA nor NEPA requires an analysis of project property values. This is because: (1) potential project impacts on residential property 

economic impact, not an effect on the physical environment; and (2) estimating prospeimpacts of a proposed project may involve an impermissible degree of speculation due 

issues that affect property values. Please see Section 4.3.3 and 4.3.5 in Chapter 4 of t

more information. As described in Chapter 2 and 4 of the Final EIS/EIR, Folsom Point recreation during the peak season; therefore, there would be no impacts to property vaof Folsom Point. 

178 178-4 

The Partner Agencies have complied with both NEPA and CEQA regulations regardin

For more information, please see the Topical Response for Public Involvement in Sectof the Final EIS/EIR. 

179 179-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the 180 180-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the 181 181-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the 182 182-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the 183 183-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the 184 184-1 

 Cost Allocation – Any reimbursable costs associated with the projects at Folsom Dam 

recovered by Reclamation as appropriate in compliance with Reclamation law and polReport contains text clarifying this. 

185 185-1 

 New Bridge Costs – The Folsom Dam Bridge is covered in separate documentation, t

Corps of Engineers Post Authorization Decision Document and EIS, American River PRaise, Folsom Bridge. Although the bridge is mentioned in the PAC Report, no change
34 of 68 

Comment No. Response No. Response 

the bridge since the 2006 report. See Section 4.3.13 in Chapter 4 of the Final EIS/EIR information. 

186 186-1 

 No Action Relative to current operations – As per WRDA 1999 (PL 106-53) an interim 

is assumed to continue in place until 2018 or until completion of the revised water cont

anticipated to complete one year prior to completion of construction of the JFP. A perm

study addressing these concerns is currently being scoped, and will include the appropenvironmental analysis, agency, stakeholder and public coordination and documentati

187 187-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F187 187-2 Socioeconomics - See Response to Comment # 12-1. 187 187-3 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F188 188-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the 189 189-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the 190 190-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F191 191-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the 191 191-2 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F191 191-3 Socioeconomics - See Response to Comment # 12-1. 191 191-4 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the 192 192-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the 192 192-2 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the 193 193-1 

 The Partner Agencies have complied with both NEPA and CEQA regulations regardin

For more information, please see the Topical Response for Public Involvement in Sectof the Final EIS/EIR. Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F

194 194-1 

 Vegetation and Wildlife - See Responses to Comments #151-2. See Section 4.3.12 in Chapter 4 of the Final EIS/EIR for more information. 

194 194-2 

 Water Quality – Very few activities are planned near or within the water of Folsom Re

affect water quality. To protect water quality, all construction activities will conform to a 

Prevention Plan that will keep construction runoff out of the reservoir. The dispersion at in-water construction sites will be controlled through the use of sediment curtains or 

will not observe any water quality changes along recreational site shorelines and beac

194 194-3 Air Quality - All construction projects involving large equipment produce air quality em

the EIS/EIR describes the types of emissions possible for this project. Reclamation ha
Comment No. Response No. Response 

discussions with the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District on emimitigation requirements. All construction work will comply with the air quality emissionhave been established to protect human health, and as presented in the air quality perAir Quality Management District. The soils and rocks for the Auxiliary Spillway site areasbestos and no asbestos is present. Testing of soil near MIAD has shown the possibof asbestos mineral, but at levels well below regulatory standards. Nevertheless, dust be implemented to prevent dust issues as part of construction work. Also see Section the Final EIS/EIR. 

194 194-4 

 Transportation Impacts – It is recognized that construction projects involve increased 

to the construction site. The project agencies will develop a transportation manageme

input from city traffic engineers. The plan will provide guidelines on preferred traffic roand time of day restriction on using certain routes. Transportation contractors will be r

the plan. The amount of truck traffic anticipated for this project on City streets will not emergency vehicles nor cause major damage to City roadways. See section 4.3.9 in C

EIS/EIR and Section 3.1 of the Draft EIS/EIR for more information. 

194 194-5 

 Visuals – The proposed project will not cause any permanent changes to the views of currently can see the reservoir. See Section 3.7 of the Final EIS/EIR for additional dis

impacts to visual resources resulting from the currently proposed Preferred Alternative

194 194-6 

 Residential Property Values - Neither CEQA nor NEPA requires an analysis of project property values. This is because: (1) potential project impacts on residential property 

economic impact, not an effect on the physical environment; and (2) estimating prospeimpacts of a proposed project may involve an impermissible degree of speculation due 

issues that affect property values. Please see Section 4.3.3 and 4.3.5 in Chapter 4 of t

more information. As described in Chapter 2 and 4 of the Final EIS/EIR, Folsom Point recreation during the peak season; therefore, there would be no impacts to property vaof Folsom Point. 

194 194-7 

 Noise – Existing daytime noise levels at Briggs Ranch are higher than the City of Folsprimarily due to traffic along East Natoma Street. However, projected daytime constru

be reduced to less than significant levels by implementing mitigation measures presenEIS/EIR Section 3.10.3. The construction noise analysis did take into account topograatmospheric conditions when estimating noise impacts at noise-sensitive receptors. It 

3.10 of the Draft EIS/EIR that under certain atmospheric and wind conditions, the nois

higher than those projected for each noise-sensitive receptor at night. No excavation o

during nighttime hours; however, drilling and concrete for spillway work on the main cooccur 24 hours a day. There are not sensitive noise receptors in the area. Therefore, t

construction nighttime noise impacts would be further reduced. 
36 of 68 

Comment No. Response No. Response 

194 194-8 

 Recreation post construction – There would be no changes to recreational use of Folscompletion of the proposed project. There would be no additional flooding of recreatio

this project. Any flooding that could occur would be the same as what is occurring todreservoir operations. 

194 194-9 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F194 194-10 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F194 194-11 

 Public utilities – The proposed project will not damage any water supply pipelines. Th

will need to be moved out of a construction zone. This pipeline will be moved in a mandisruption to water supply. See Section 3.2 of the Draft EIS/EIR for additional informat

195 195-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F195 195-2 

 Residential Property Values - Neither CEQA nor NEPA requires an analysis of project property values. This is because: (1) potential project impacts on residential property 

economic impact, not an effect on the physical environment; and (2) estimating prospeimpacts of a proposed project may involve an impermissible degree of speculation due 

issues that affect property values. Please see Section 4.3.3 and 4.3.5 in Chapter 4 of t

more information. As described in Chapter 2 and 4 of the Final EIS/EIR, Folsom Point recreation during the peak season; therefore, there would be no impacts to property vaof Folsom Point. 

196 196-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the 196 196-2 Socioeconomics - See Response to Comment # 12-1. 197 197-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the 198 198-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the 198 198-2 Socioeconomics - See Response to Comment # 12-1. 199 199-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the 199 199-2 Socioeconomics - See Response to Comment # 12-1. 199 199-3 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the 200 200-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F200 200-2 Socioeconomics - See Response to Comment #12-1 201 201-1 

Noise and Transportation- Noise production is a recognized outcome of any constructi

projects that involve transport of materials. The noise impacts due to the Folsom DS/F

discussed in detail in Section 3.10 of the Draft EIS/EIR. The Partner Agencies will follo

standards. Also see Section 4.3.10 in Chapter 4 of the Final EIS/EIR. Prior to onset an

construction, the Partner Agencies will keep residents informed through appropriate co

(such as websites, news media and flyers) of activities producing noise. The Project A
Comment No. Response No. Response 

their construction contractors will be preparing and implementing a traffic managemenproposed routes that would avoid residential areas, such as Briggs Ranch (See Draft ETransportation and Circulation and see section 4.3.9 in Chapter 4 of the Final EIS/EIR 

202 202-1 

Noise - Existing daytime noise levels are higher than the City of Folsom noise standardtraffic along major secondary roads around Empire Ranch. Noise – Existing daytime nthan the City of Folsom noise standards primarily due to traffic along major secondary Ranch. However, projected daytime construction noise impacts will be reduced to less by implementing mitigation measures presented in the Draft EIS/EIR Section 3.10.3. Tanalysis did take into account topographic features and atmospheric conditions when 

impacts at noise-sensitive receptors. It was noted in Section 3.10 of the Draft EIS/EIR atmospheric and wind conditions, the noise levels could be higher than those projecte

sensitive receptor at night. No excavation or hauling will occur during nighttime hours; 

concrete for spillway work on the main concrete dam could occur 24 hours a day. Thenoise receptors in the area. Therefore, the projected construction nighttime noise impareduced. 

202 202-2 

Air Quality - The prevailing winds for the region are from the south and southwest, alth

that there are times when winds can blow from the north. All construction projects invo

produce air quality emissions. Chapter 3.3 of the EIS/EIR describes the types of emiss

project. Reclamation has already initiated discussions with the Sacramento Metropolit

Management District on emission controls and mitigation requirements. All constructio

the air quality emissions requirements, that have been established to protect human hin the air quality permit to be issued by the Air Quality Management District. The soils Auxiliary Spillway site area have been tested for asbestos and no asbestos is present. MIAD has shown the possibility of minor amounts of asbestos mineral, but at levels we

standards. Nevertheless, dust control measures will be implement to prevent dust issuconstruction work. Also see Section 4.3.11 of Chapter 4 in the Final EIS/EIR. 

203 203-1 

Residential Property Values - Neither CEQA nor NEPA requires an analysis of project 

property values. This is because: (1) potential project impacts on residential property economic impact, not an effect on the physical environment; and (2) estimating prospeimpacts of a proposed project may involve an impermissible degree of speculation due 

issues that affect property values. Please see Section 4.3.3 and 4.3.5 in Chapter 4 of t

more information. As described in Chapter 2 and 4 of the Final EIS/EIR, Folsom Point recreation during the peak season; therefore, there would be no impacts to property vaof Folsom Point. 

203 203-2 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F
38 of 68 

Comment No. Response No. Response 

203 203-3 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F203 203-4 

Traffic - It is recognized that construction projects involve increased transport of mater

site. The project agencies will develop a transportation management plan that will incltraffic engineers. The plan will provide guidelines on preferred traffic routes, route rest

day restriction on using certain routes. Contractors will be required to adhere to the plin Chapter 4 of the Final EIS/EIR for more information. 

203 203-5 Socioeconomics - See Response to Comment #12-1 204 204-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F204 204-2 Socioeconomics - See Response to Comment #12-1 205 205-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F206 206-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F206 206-2 Vegetation and Wildlife - See Responses to Comment #151-2. See Section 4.3.12 in 

EIS/EIR for more information. 

206 206-3 

Air Quality - All construction projects involving large equipment produce air quality emi

the EIS/EIR describes the types of emissions possible for this project. Reclamation hadiscussions with the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District on emimitigation requirements. All construction work will comply with the air quality emission

have been established to protect human health, and as presented in the air quality perAir Quality Management District. Also see Section 4.3.11 of Chapter 4 in the Final EIS

206 206-4 Socioeconomics - See Response to Comment #12-1 206 206-5 

The Partner Agencies have complied with both NEPA and CEQA regulations regardin

For more information, please see the Topical Response for Public Involvement in Sectof the Final EIS/EIR. 

207 207-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F207 207-2 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F208 208-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F208 208-2 

The Partner Agencies have complied with both NEPA and CEQA regulations regardin

For more information, please see the Topical Response for Public Involvement in Sectof the Final EIS/EIR. 

209 209-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F210 210-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F210 210-2 Socioeconomics - See Response to Comment #12-1 210 210-3 The Partner Agencies have complied with both NEPA and CEQA regulations regardin
Comment No. Response No. Response 

The Draft EIS/EIR was made available to the public in several manners, such as on Cform at local libraries and to those who requested a copy, in addition to being accessibmore information, please see the Topical Response for Public Involvement in Section the Final EIS/EIR. 

211 211-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F211 211-2 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F212 212-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F213 213-1 The Project Partners appreciate the comment reflecting support for the project. 214 214-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F214 214-2 Socioeconomics - See Response to Comment #12-1 215 215-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F216 216-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F217 217-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F218 218-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F219 219-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F219 219-2 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F220 220-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F221 221-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F222 222-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F222 222-2 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F223 223-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F224 224-1 The Bureau of Reclamation and the Corps of Engineers appreciate the comment refle

project. 

225 225-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F226 226-1 Socioeconomics Business - See Response to Comment #12-1 226 226-2 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F226 226-3 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F227 227-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F228 228-1 Socioeconomics Business - See Response to Comment #12-1 228 228-2 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F229 229-1 Socioeconomics Business - See Response to Comment #12-1 Residential Property Values – See Response to Comment # 203-1. 
40 of 68 

Comment No. Response No. Response 

229 229-2 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F229 229-3 

The Partner Agencies have complied with both NEPA and CEQA regulations regardin

For more information, please see the Topical Response for Public Involvement in Sectof the Final EIS/EIR. 

230 230-1 

Recreation Parking – Although we sympathize with the parking problems in your shopReclamation and CDPR do not have the authority to control illegal parking on private p

responsibility lies within the property owner. 

230 230-2 Geology and Soils/High Groundwater – The proposed project will not increase groundw

area. No actions are being proposed that would increase groundwater recharge. 

230 230-3 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F231 231-1 Socioeconomics Business - See Response to Comment #12-1 231 231-2 

The Partner Agencies have complied with both NEPA and CEQA regulations regardin

and will continue to keep the public informed throughout the construction phases. For 

please see the Topical Response for Public Involvement in Section 4.3.2 of Chapter 4 

231 231-3 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F231 231-4 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F232 232-1 

Agency Responsibilities and Cost Allocation – The EIS/EIR stated that the Dam Safety those of Reclamation and Flood Damage Reduction actions those of the Army Corps oFederal Project (JFP) Auxiliary Spillway addresses both Dam Safety and Flood Damagand addresses the missions of both agencies. The seismic and static upgrades to the earthen structures are Dam Safety issues and are the responsibility of Reclamation. Aa Flood Damage Reduction measure and thus the responsibility of the Corps. Cost alEIS/EIR issue, therefore, not discussed. The allocation of costs between the two agen

under a separate processes within each of the agencies Congressional authorities. Th

more fully described in the PAC Report. 

232 232-2 

Costs of Alternatives – Costs and the benefits of the alternatives are not required in an EIS/EIR addresses the environmental impacts of the alternatives and assumes that codocumented elsewhere. Costing of the alternatives and the presentation of benefits is supporting documents for the Folsom DS/FDR actions. The Corps costs are more fullReport. 

232 232-3 

Flood Control Reservation – Flood control reservation is an operations feature and disControl Manual; it is not an issue for this EIS/EIR. This EIS/EIR addresses the constru

to hydrologic, seismic, static, and security concerns for the Folsom Facility. This proje

flood control reservation nor operations. Changes to the Water Control Manual will be 

separate project. The updated Water Control Manual will include variable flood storage 
Comment No. Response No. Response 

forecast based operations, new flood release schedules, and a plan component for popotential water supply loses resulting from implementation of the revised Manual. Devmanual will be a collaborative process with the appropriate level of environmental anaand stakeholder coordination, and appropriate NEPA/CEQA documentation. 

 232-4 

Folsom Reoperation – The Folsom DS/FDR project addresses hydrologic, static, seism

concerns for the Folsom Facility. The authorization for the Folsom Modifications Proje

change the variable flood storage space at Folsom Lake from the current interim opera

feet to 670,000 acre-feet to a 400,000 acre-feet to 600,000 acre-feet (400/600) permaspace operation once the Folsom Modifications Project has been implemented. The Cby Reclamation, will develop a new flood control manual for Folsom Dam for implemencompletion of the JFP Auxiliary Spillway. The new flood control manual feature is curr

a parallel process and is not linked to the Folsom DS/FDR. Therefore, in this EIS/EIR

analyzed and disclosed based upon current operational requirements. The parallel flodevelopment and study will include variable flood storage space, including analysis of operations, new flood release schedules and a plan component for repayment of poten

losses resulting from implementation of this flood control manual. This parallel study w

process with the appropriate level of environmental analysis, public, agency and stakeand appropriate NEPA/CEQA documentation. The Water Control Manual will not need construct this project. 

 232-5 

As described in the PAC Report, the originally authorized Folsom Dam Raise Project i

to the temperature control shutters as part of the ecosystem restoration component of Selected Plan (Refined Authorized Project) described in the PAC Report does not recoto this element of the authorized project, which is analyzed in the 2002 Long Term Fea

Supplemental environmental analysis, coordination and documentation would be compfeature in the pre-construction, engineering and design phase of the project. Temperatare not addressed in this EIS/EIR. 

232 232-6 Security – The costs for security upgrades are outside the scope of the NEPA process233 233-1 See Response to Comment #12-1. Residential Property Values – See Response to Comment #203-1. 233 233-2 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F234 234-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F

Residential Property Values – See Response to Comment #203-1. 

235 235-1 See Response to Comments #12-1 and #203-1. 235 235-2 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F236 236-1 Auburn Dam – The potential for an upstream storage facility, including Auburn Dam, to 
42 of 68 

Comment No. Response No. Response 

the Folsom DS/FDR was evaluated early in the alternatives assessment process (see Draft EIS/EIR) and was eliminated because an Auburn Dam would not meet project puConstruction of a new facility upstream of Folsom Reservoir would not address the dasecurity objectives, as described in Chapter 1 of the Final EIS/EIR. There is an immedthe Folsom facilities which can be accomplished under current authorities. Also see S

4 of the Final EIS/EIR. 

237 237-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F238 238-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F239 239-1 Dam Road Closure – The closure of Folsom Dam Road is addressed in the EIS for the 

Access Restriction, an action which is not related to the Folsom DS/FDR actions. 

239 239-2 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F239 239-3 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F240 240-1 

The originally proposed Folsom DS/FDR actions are described in Chapter 2 and summExecutive Summary of the Draft EIS/EIR. The revised Folsom DS/FDR project, includi

construction schedule, is described in Chapter 2 of the Final EIS/EIR. The complexity a comprehensive project description. The Partner Agencies have complied with both N

regulations regarding public involvement. For more information, please see the TopicaInvolvement in Section 4.3.2 of Chapter 4 of the Final EIS/EIR. 

241 241-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F242 242-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F243 243-1 Socioeconomics - See Response to Comment #12-1 243 243-2 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F244 244-1 The Bureau of Reclamation and the Corps of Engineers appreciate the comment refle

project. 

245 245-1 The Bureau of Reclamation and the Corps of Engineers appreciate the comment refle

project. 

246 246-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F247 247-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F248 248-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F249 249-1 

The Partner Agencies have complied with both NEPA and CEQA regulations regardin

For more information, please see the Topical Response for Public Involvement in Sectof the Final EIS/EIR. 

249 249-2 Noise - Noise production is a recognized outcome of any construction project, includin

transport of materials. The noise impacts due to the Folsom DS/FDR action is discuss
Comment No. Response No. Response 

3.10 of the Draft EIS/EIR. The City of Folsom, and Sacramento, El Dorado, and Placeordinance measures that limit the amount of construction noise during the daytime and Agencies will be required to meet those levels and will implement mitigation measures standards are met. Also see Section 4.3.10 in the Final EIS/EIR. 

249 249-3 Residential property values – See Response to Comment #203-1 249 249-4 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F249 249-5 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F250 250-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F251 251-1 

Noise - Current noise levels (i.e., levels without the project) do exceed the City of Fols

standards along many of the major secondary roads in Folsom. However, constructioimpacts along the proposed truck hauling routes were estimated to increase less than peak truck traffic would occur) and less than 4 dBA over current conditions. These noconsidered perceptible by most people but are within the noise ordinance levels. There

mitigation measures will not be required. Also see Section 4.3.10 in the Final EIS/EIR. 

251 251-2 Air Quality – See Response to Comment #202-2 251 251-3 

Transportation – A transportation management plan will be developed that will address 

patterns and limitations. Any damage to city streets as a result of construction traffic w

the City’s traffic engineers. 

251 251-4 

Bridge Traffic Noise – Noise impacts as a result of use of the proposed Folsom Dam Bthe Corps 2006, American River Watershed Project Folsom Bridge Draft SEIS/EIR, Ma

DS/FDR project is not directly related to that project. See Section 4.3.13 in Chapter 4 o

251 251-5 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F251 251-6 

Trail Access – Currently, there is no direct means of walking between Beal’s Point to the new Folsom Dam Bridge is opened, a trail may be established using the new bridgnot part of the Folsom DS/FDR project. 

251 251-7 

Transportation – There are no plans to close any access to Briggs Ranch or current suassociated with Briggs Ranch under the Folsom DS/FDR project. See section 4.3.9 in 

EIS/EIR for more information. A transportation management plan will be developed tha

251 251-8 Transportation – See Response to Comment #251-7. 251 251-9 

Noise – The locations for noise monitoring during construction have not been identified locations will be addressed in a Noise Mitigation Plan to be developed for the project. 

4.3.10 in the Final EIS/EIR. 

251 251-10 Air Quality – The locations of air quality sampling stations have not been identified at t

locations will be addressed in the air quality emissions permit granted for this project. 
44 of 68 

Comment No. Response No. Response 

251 251-11 

General Construction – All loads entering and leaving the construction areas will be cominimize road debris. All hauling of excavated materials will be conducted within the b

Reservoir and city streets will not be used. 

252 252-1 Socioeconomics - See Response to Comment #12-1 252 252-2 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F253 253-1 Socioeconomics Business - See Response to Comment #12-1 253 253-2 

Transportation - It is recognized that construction projects involve increased transport construction site. The partner agencies will develop a transportation management pla

from city traffic engineers. The plan will provide guidelines on preferred traffic routes, time of day restriction on using certain routes. Transportation contractors will be requiplan. See section 4.3.9 in Chapter 4 of the Final EIS/EIR for more information. 

253 253-3 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F254 254-1 Transportation – See Response to Comment #253-2. Please see the Topical Respon

Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the Final EIS/EIR. 

255 255-1 Socioeconomics - See Response to Comment #12-1 255 255-2 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F256 256-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F257 257-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F257 257-2 Socioeconomics Business - See Response to Comment #12-1 258 258-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F259 259-1 Socioeconomics Business - See Response to Comment #12-1 260 260-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F261 261-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F262 262-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F263 263-1 

Facility Management Plan Project Segmentation – If the comment regarding the “Facil

is in reference to the future plans for revision of the current/interim Reservoir Water CoEIS/EIR does recognize that there is a need to revise the Manual, with or without this p

Manual is neither a direct outcome nor a requirement of this project. Until the Manual 

must be operated consistent with the current Manual. The Folsom DS/FDR actions, in 

cause a reoperation of Folsom operations. The development of the revised operations lengthy, comprehensive process involving Reclamation, the Corps, DWR, SAFCA, and agencies and power users. An EIS/EIR will be developed concurrently with the formul

operations manual that will describe the impacts, if any, of the reoperations proposals. 
Comment No. Response No. Response 

263 263-2 

Vegetation and Wildlife Inundation – The Draft EIS/EIR included alternatives that had tincreasing that reservoir surface elevation that could potential flood property immediat

reservoir. However, neither Reclamation nor the Corps are considering actions that wincreased reservoir water elevation. The Folsom DS/FDR actions will not result in any direct changes in operations of Folso

additional habitat inundation from what currently happens. The future determination oReservoir’s Water Control Manual and the preparation of an accompanying EIS/EIR w

operational changes that could result in additional inundation effects. This is an action Folsom DS/FDR. Please see Section 2.5 for information on mitigation measures, and information on vegetation and wildlife impacts. 

263 263-3 

Recreation Facilities Inundation - The Folsom DS/FDR actions will not result in any dir

operations of Folsom Reservoir causing additional inundation to recreational facilities fhappens. Repair of any recreational facilities as a result of current operations is the re

Parks. The future determination of revisions to the Reservoir’s Water Control Manual 

an accompanying EIS/EIR will address any re-operational changes that could result in effects. This is an action separate from the Folsom DS/FDR. 

263 263-4 

Recreation Impacts to Future Users - The Folsom DS/FDR actions will not result in anoperations of Folsom Reservoir causing additional inundation to recreational facilities f

happens. Repair of any recreational facilities as a result of current operations is the re

Parks. The future determination of revisions to the Reservoir’s Water Control Manual aan accompanying EIS/EIR will address any re-operational changes that could result in 

effects. This is an action separate from the Folsom DS/FDR. The Draft EIS/EIR used current, available information on park visitor use received from 

paid use and free use of the FLSRA facilities. Specific data visitors by foot, bicycles, a

available. Beeks Bight and Doton's Point would not be affected by construction; therefconflicts with American with Disabilities Act at these locations. Please see Chapter 2 oa complete description of the project and the project footprint map. 

263 263-5 

Section 2.1, and more specifically, Tables 2-1 through 2-7 in Chapter 2 of the Draft EIS

overview of the dam safety and flood damage reduction measures evaluated as part o

development. The tables also provide a rationale for the elimination of the measures thforward for further analysis. The potential for a new upstream storage facility, to meet 

Folsom DS/FDR was evaluated early in the alternatives assessment process (see Sec

EIS/EIR). Upstream storage was eliminated because it would not meet project purpose Construction of a new reservoir upstream of Folsom Reservoir would not address the d

security, or flood control needs of the Folsom facilities. There is an immediate need to 
46 of 68 

Comment No. Response No. Response 

facilities which can be accomplished under current authorities. Also see Section 4.3.6 Final EIS/EIR. 

264 264-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F265 265-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F266 266-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F266 266-2 Air Quality – See Response to Comment #206-3. 266 265-3 Noise – See Response to Comment #249-2. 266 265-4 Residential Property Values – See Response to Comment #203-1. 266 265-5 

The Partner Agencies have complied with both NEPA and CEQA regulations regardin

For more information, please see the Topical Response for Public Involvement in Sectof the Final EIS/EIR. 

267 267-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F268 268-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F269 269-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F270 270-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F270 270-2 Socioeconomics - See Response to Comment #12-1 271 271-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F272 272-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F273 273-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F274 274-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F274 274-2 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F275 275-1 

The Partner Agencies have complied with both NEPA and CEQA regulations regardin

For more information, please see the Topical Response for Public Involvement in Sectof the Final EIS/EIR. 

275 275-2 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F276 276-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F277 277-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F277 277-2 Vegetation and Wildlife - See Response to Comment #72-2 277 277-3 

See response to comment #12-1. Also, the Partner Agencies have complied with both regulations regarding public involvement. For more information, please see the TopicaInvolvement in Section 4.3.2 of Chapter 4 of the Final EIS/EIR. 

278 278-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F
Comment No. Response No. Response 

278 278-2 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F278 278-3 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F279 279-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F280 280-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F280 280-2 Socioeconomics Business - See Response to Comment #12-1 281 281-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F281 281-2 Socioeconomics Business - See Response to Comment #12-1 282 282-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F283 283-1 

The Partner Agencies have complied with both NEPA and CEQA regulations regardin

For more information, please see the Topical Response for Public Involvement in Sectof the Final EIS/EIR. 

283 283-2 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F283 283-3 Residential Property Values - See Comment to Response #203-1. 283 283-4 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F283 283-5 Socioeconomics Business - See Response to Comment #12-1 284 284-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F285 285-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F286 286-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F286 286-2 Socioeconomics Business - See Response to Comment #12-1 287 287-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F288 288-1 

The Partner Agencies have complied with both NEPA and CEQA regulations regardin

For more information, please see the Topical Response for Public Involvement in Sectof the Final EIS/EIR. Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 Final EIS/EIR. 

289 289-1 

Fuseplug Operation - Since the gate failure which you are referring to, Reclamation haelements to make them stronger. Additionally, Reclamation implemented various mainand installed automated maintenance devices to ensure reliable operation of the gates

The function of the fuse plug is to save the dam from overtopping and subsequent failu

hydrologic events. The fuse plug would only be operated during these extremely rare 

only after the downstream levees have overtopped causing major flooding and damagmetropolitan area. 
48 of 68 

Comment No. Response No. Response 

If Reclamation was doing a dam safety only project, they would use a fuseplug design the Joint Federal Project, a permanent 6 submerged tainter gate structure is proposed both flood damage reduction and dam safety. For more information see the description Chapter 2 of the 

290 290-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F291 291-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F292 292-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F293 293-1 Residential Property Values – See Response to Comment #203-1. 293 293-2 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F293 293-3 Socioeconomics Business - See Response to Comment #12-1 294 294-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F294 294-2 There would not be an additional 186,000 people using the streets; these would be the 

the streets today. See Response to Comment #253-2. 

295 295-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F296 296-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F297 297-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F298 298-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F299 299-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F300 300-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F300 300-2 Residential Property Values – See Response to Comment #203-1. 300 300-3 Socioeconomics - See Response to Comment #12-1 301 301-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F301 301-2 Vegetation and Wildlife - See Responses to comment # 151-2. See Section 4.3.12 in 

EIS/EIR for more information. 

301 301-3 

The Partner Agencies have complied with both NEPA and CEQA regulations regardin

For more information, please see the Topical Response for Public Involvement in Sectof the Final EIS/EIR. 

301 301-4 Socioeconomics - See Response to Comment #12-1 301 301-5 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F302 302-1 

The Partner Agencies have complied with both NEPA and CEQA regulations regardin

For more information, please see the Topical Response for Public Involvement in Sectof the Final EIS/EIR. 

302 302-2 Residential Property Values – See Response to Comment #203-1. 
Comment No. Response No. Response 

302 302-3 Socioeconomics - See Response to Comment #12-1 302 302-4 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F303 303-1 Socioeconomics - See Response to Comment #12-1 303 303-2 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F304 304-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F305 305-1 Socioeconomics - See Response to Comment #12-1 306 306-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F307 307-1 

Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F

Construction truck traffic noise impacts along East Natoma Street were estimated to in

dBA in 2009 (when peak truck traffic would occur) and less than 4 dBA over current co

level increases are considered perceptible by most people, but within noise ordinance 

Section 3.10.2.2 summarizes the results of the transportation noise impact analysis. T

will develop a transportation management plan that will include input from city traffic enprovide guidelines on preferred traffic routes, route restrictions, and time of day restric

routes. Transportation contractors will be required to adhere to the plan. See section 4the Final EIS/EIR for more information. 

307 307-2 Residential Property Values – See Response to Comment # 203-1. 308 308-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F309 309-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F310 310-1 

Habitat Inundation – The Folsom DS/FDR actions will not directly change current oper

will not be inundation of habitat beyond what happens currently. There is a proposal to 

Water Control Manual, but it is not know at this time whether any reoperation of the fac

additional inundation. 

310 310-2 

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report Mitigation - As a federal facility, the project aunder federal law to coordinate with US Fish and Wildlife Service mitigation requireme

be based on the impact analysis for the project which was completed in conjunction wultimate project mitigation for oak woodlands will be coordinated with USFWS. 

311 311-1 Socioeconomics - See Response to Comment #12-1 311 311-2 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F311 311-3 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F312 312-1 

The dredged material and or the spoils excavated from the approach channel will be inmore of the modifications, stockpiled in an area designated for stockpiling, or the matein a contractor use area. The material will not be placed in a manner or location that h

in the EIS/EIR. 
50 of 68 

Comment No. Response No. Response 

312 312-2 

Both options, including an earthen raise and concrete parapet walls, are still being conportion of the project. The Corps will not make a final decision on which option will be construction until more detailed design information is available. Supplemental environdocumentation will be completed as necessary. 

312 312-3 The Corps has determined that the 3.5-ft raise will not increase surface water elevatio

operations. Therefore, new embankments are no longer a part of the Preferred Altern

312 

Partner Agencies have determined that Folsom Point would remain open during consttherefore reduce the recreation impacts discussed in the Draft EIS/EIR. Borrow areas have been removed from consideration under the preferred alternative (See Chapter 2 

damaged areas will be restored as discussed in Section 2.5 of the Final EIS/EIR. 

312 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F312 312-4 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F312 312-5 

The locations for all potential staging areas have been identified. All staging areas hain the process in order to survey them for biological and cultural resources, and to dete

they were suitable for project purposes. Chapter 2 of the Final EIS/EIR contains a des

and maps outlining the contractor use and staging areas, and other construction zones

Chapter 2 of the Final EIS/EIR provides the mitigation measures for the project. DPR wopportunity to review the Recreation Mitigation Plan for the project prior to construction

312 312-6 

Granite Bay Mitigation – At present, the Project Agencies do not plan to use the Granit

for construction staging. The Corps will not make a final decision on which raise altern

for construction until more detailed design information is available. Once a design is cenvironmental compliance documentation will be completed as necessary to analyze t

that design. Appropriate mitigation measures cannot be developed until a final design impacts are known. 

312 312-7 

The existing parking lot at MIAD will most likely fall within the enlarged footprint of MIADraft EIS/EIR, if the parking lot is damaged or inaccessible after construction, then Re

the parking lot “In kind”. It is more than likely that one or more of the designated stagin

MIAD will be utilized for parking and access to MIAD for recreational activities. Reclam

with DPR on the location and configuration of a post-construction parking lot if mitigati

312 312-8 

The two proposed staging areas downstream of the Right Wing Dam that were in the vRiver Water Education Center and the new DPR facilities have been removed from coenvironmental considerations. Please see Section 2.2 of the Final EIS/EIR for addition

312 312-9 

The impact of closing the Folsom Dam Road, which included the closure of the Observwas analyzed in the Folsom Dam Road Access Restriction EIS. The impacts of that a

in this environmental document for this project, and no mitigation is proposed. Any mi
Comment No. Response No. Response 

closure of the Observation Point for this project would be considered an “Enhancemenauthorized under the Safety of Dams Act. The status of Observation Point is now cons“Existing Condition”, which does not require Reclamation or the Corps to mitigate for thpublic use. 

312 312-10 

Once all of the borrow material has been excavated at any borrow site, the area will be 

closely as possible to its original condition. Reclamation will partner with DPR to discu

recontoured; however, Reclamation is not authorized under the Safety of Dams Act to enhancements. 

312 312-11 There are no plans under the Preferred Alternative to use Granite Bay or to take borro

Granite Bay. 

312 312-12 

Once all of the borrow material has been excavated at any borrow site, the area will be 

closely as possible to its original condition. Reclamation will partner with DPR to discu

recontoured; however, Reclamation is not authorized under the Safety of Dams Act to enhancements. 

312 312-13 

Nearly all of the vegetation located within the band of elevation that the reservoir norm480.5 ft, has been lost over the 50 years that the reservoir has been in operation. Sinc

construction occurring year-round, the majority of the in-reservoir haul routes are locat

elevation to allow for construction traffic when the reservoir elevation is above, at, or broutes to the borrow areas are generally from 425 to 466 ft to allow for borrow activitie

access to all of the construction sites year-round, it has been necessary to establish ha

have been vegetated. All habitat impacts from the construction of haul routes has bee

mitigation has been developed per the USFWS recommendations in the Fish and WildReport (See Appendix E of the Final EIS/EIR). 

312 312-14 

Reclamation may permanently stockpile 500,000 cubic yards of material at Dike 7. If f

re-contoured to be stable and consistent with adjacent areas; however it is highly likely 

material deposited at Dike 7 will limit the ability of Reclamation and the Corps to return configuration. Reclamation and the Corps believe that it will be problematic to re-vege

construction is complete, due to the depth and nature of the material stockpiled at the 

312 312-15 

Reclamation and the Corps designed proposed haul routes to avoid as much vegetatiohabitat that could not be avoided, Reclamation and the Corps are mitigating per the US

recommendations in the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report (See Appendix E of 

Once construction has been completed, it may be feasible to leave reduced-width hau

could be converted to formal bike paths by DPR. Reclamation and the Corps cannot cpaths, as that would be considered an improvement, which is not permitted under the 
52 of 68 

Comment No. Response No. Response 

Additionally, the project agencies have determined that Folsom Point would remain oprecreation season; therefore impacts to Folsom Point addressed in the Draft EIS/EIR w

312 312-16 

The location of the base and camera are sited to maximize security of the dike areas. positioned the base of the towers to avoid interfering with the trails on top of the dikes The visual impact of the placement of the base and camera to the overall viewshed of and unavoidable. Reclamation has consulted with DPR on the placement of the base Point. The placement of the rest of the cameras will be determined by Reclamation’s s

is an opportunity for some flexibility in the placement, then Reclamation will consider D

location for the equipment. 

312 312-17 The width of the opening will be determined by Reclamation's security requirements. T

security features will allow for bicycle, equestrian and foot traffic. 

312 312-18 Power for the upgraded security features will be supplied through buried power lines. 312 312-19 

The intensity of any lighting associated with the security upgrades will need to meet wrequirements; however, Reclamation will fully consider the use of the lowest intensity trequirements. All lights will be directed downward to the extent practical. 

312 312-20 

Reclamation and the Corps have worked to avoid or minimize project impacts to all resproject footprint. Alternative 3 is the preferred alternative. As described in Chapter 2 o

recent refinements to the project description have resulted in certain impacts associate

be substantially reduced compared to those identified in the Draft EIS/EIR. Those projimpact reductions are largely in direct response to comments received on the Draft EIS

the 17-ft raise alternatives are no longer being considered, as discussed in Chapter 2 

312 312-21 

There are no plans under the Preferred Alternative to increase reservoir level beyond 

Therefore, there will be no impact to vegetation surrounding the reservoir. Until a decision has been made to implement the 3.5-ft raise, and a subsequent enviro

produced, existing conditions for the project includes inundation up to 480.5 ft in elevacurrently described, without a dam raise, will not have impacts above 480.5 ft. To a la

to 480.5 ft is denuded due to normal reservation fluctuations. Mitigation measure Bio-8 has been removed from the EIS/EIR contingent upon the Cothe 3.5-ft raise 

312 312-22 Reclamation is considering all mitigation lands, including purchasing lands contiguous 

SRA. 

312 312-23 Reclamation will continue to coordinate with DPR and other agencies as appropriate, t

areas on Reclamation-owned lands will be selected as mitigation sites. 
Comment No. Response No. Response 

312 312-24 

Reclamation will continue to coordinate with DPR and other agencies as appropriate, tareas on Reclamation owned land will be selected as mitigation sites. Mitigation for th

proposed by either agency to occur within Folsom Lake or contiguous areas. 

312 312-25 

Both options, including an earthen raise and concrete parapet walls, are still being conportion of the project. The Corps will not make a final decision on which option will be construction until more detailed design information is available. Supplemental environdocumentation will be completed as necessary. 

312 312-26 

While the exact locations for placement of all of the security upgrade features is not yegeneral location of the feature is provided in the EIS/EIR and is addressed accordinglyadequate and appropriate for a programmatic level of planning and analysis, recognizi

commentor points out, supplemental environmental documentation will be completed aof project planning. The locations of the features are generally determined by their fun

flexibility of their location. Reclamation spent considerable time analyzing the impacts 

upgrades to environmental resources, visual resources, recreation, and aesthetic reso

from the security upgrade features to environmental resources are minimal and after m

reduced to a less than significant level. Reclamation is confident that their assessmen

related to the security upgrades, is accurate and comprehensive. 

312 312-27 The Preferred Alternative will not include a raise of the reservoir water elevation beyon

operations. Therefore there will be no impact to visual resources. 

312 312-28 

Reclamation does not concur with the need for improved entrances for Beal’s Point an

areas would be filled to capacity regardless of whether or not the project was construcmodifications to the site that would allow for increased traffic capacity would be consid

for existing conditions and not necessarily for project impacts. In order to mitigate man

described above, Reclamation has scheduled construction on the Right Wing Dam, anduring the off season for recreation from approximately mid-September to May 1. If it construction needs to run concurrently with the peak recreation season, Reclamation w

managing partner to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the impacts associated with construc

in Chapter 4 of the Final EIS/EIR for more information. 

312 312-29 

Campground Noise Sensitive Receptor - It is anticipated that during the more than two 

activities at Beal’s Point that construction noise impacts will be significant, as acknowleof the Draft EIS/EIR. However, since the issuance of the Draft EIS/EIR, the Bureau of 

restrict excavation activity to the daytime (7:00 AM to 7:00 PM) and to reduce material

operations. Therefore, the projected construction daytime and nighttime noise impacts 

reduced. In addition to the noise mitigation measures presented in Section 3.10.3 of thfollowing additional mitigation measures will be evaluated for the campground area: 
54 of 68 

Comment No. Response No. Response 

· Limit excavation activities to off-season periods as much as possible. · Locate construction staging areas and materials processing as far from the capossible. · Locate the access and egress for haul trucks as far from the campground · Design the construction site to minimize haul trucks from backing up to minimi Work with the Contractor’s noise consultant to strategize on noise control meaconstruction noise impacts for campers. 

312 312-30 

As described in Chapter 2 of the Final EIS/EIR, Reclamation and the Corps have rece

project and substantially reduced project impacts to all resource areas in part by sequethat no two recreation areas are being impacted at the same time, construction has beperiods when recreation levels are lowest, and both agencies are committing to mitiga

their respective authorities. As presented in Chapter 3 of the Final EIS/EIR, Reclamation and the Corps have reasrelated impacts as a result of the recent project changes to decrease impacts. Mitigatcurrently being developed to mitigate for those impacts. Reclamation is considering D

suggestions, as well as the public’s comments in the reformulation of the mitigation memitigation measures will be included in the Record of Decision for each action by Recl

312 312-31 

This document only discusses lands that fall within the project footprint. The lands des

occur within the project footprint, or directly influence the project in any measurable wa

are not included in the EIS/EIR for discussion. 

312 312-32 See response to comment # 312-30. 312 312-33 See response to comment # 312-28. 312 312-34 The Preferred Alternative will not increase reservoir water elevation beyond current op

there will not be an impact to recreation facilities beyond current conditions. 

312 312-35 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F312 312-36 

The only FLSRA recreation area with a concessionaire in the vicinity of construction is 

recent determination that Beal's Point will remain accessible during peak recreation sewhen concessionaire is active, there will be no impact). 

Reclamation will provide DPR with a construction schedule to assist the concessionairof their business. 

313 313-1 

The Partner Agencies have complied with both NEPA and CEQA regulations regardin

For more information, please see the Topical Response for Public Involvement in Sectof the Final EIS/EIR. 

313 313-2 The Partner Agencies have complied with both NEPA and CEQA regulations regardin
Comment No. Response No. Response 

For more information, please see the Topical Response for Public Involvement in Sectof the Final EIS/EIR. 

313 313-3 Socioeconomics - See Response to Comment #12-1 313 313-4 Residential Property Values – See Response to Comment #203-1. 313 313-5 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F313 313-6 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F314 314-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F314 314-2 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F315 315-1 

The Partner Agencies have complied with both NEPA and CEQA regulations regardin

For more information, please see the Topical Response for Public Involvement in Sectof the Final EIS/EIR. 

 315-2 

The current and projected traffic volumes on E. Natoma are provided in Section 3.9 of Projected traffic on the haul road north of the property is approximately 100 round trips 

the phases of construction of the Auxiliary Spillway. Chapter 2 of the Final EIS/EIR prconstruction work. Also see Section 4.3.9 in Chapter 4 Topical Responses of the Final 

 315-3 

Potential construction noise levels near Elvies Lane and Natoma Street would be simil

for East Natoma Street (noise-sensitive receptor 1) as presented in Draft EIS/EIR. Con

will be higher during construction activities (stockpiling of borrow material) occurring neProject Agencies will be required to adhere to noise standards at the federal property b3.10 of the Draft EIS/EIR for allowable increases in noise levels. Construction noise w

properties. Also see Section 4.3.10 in the Final EIS/EIR. 

315 315-4 Air Quality – See Response to Comment #206-3. 315 315-5 

The testing of soils for asbestos has occurred in the project area. Soil and rock in the 

Dike 8 areas do not contain asbestos. Soil and rock east of Dike 8 has shown to possamounts of asbestos, well below regulatory standards. See Section 3.6 of the Draft EI

Section 4.3.11 in Chapter 4 of the Final EIS/EIR. 

315 315-6 

As described in Chapter 2 of the Final EIS/EIR, the Corps cannot select the type of rai

until more detailed design information is available. Therefore, the potential impacts of 

this time. After the type of raise is selected, the Corps will complete supplemental envi

documentation, as necessary. 

315 315-7 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F315 315-8 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F315 315-9 Visuals – Lots at this location will have direct views of haul roads and haul trucks, stoc

materials and the staging of construction equipment. 
56 of 68 

Comment No. Response No. Response 

315 315-10 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F315 315-11 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F315 315-12 Socioeconomics - See Response to Comment #12-1 316 316-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F317 317-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F318 318-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F318 318-2 Socioeconomics - See Response to Comment #12-1 319 319-1 

The Partner Agencies have complied with both NEPA and CEQA regulations regardin

For more information, please see the Topical Response for Public Involvement in Sectof the Final EIS/EIR. 

320 320-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F320 320-2 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F321 321-1 

The purpose and need for this project is provided in Chapter 1 of the Draft EIS/EIR. T

address dam safety and hydrologic concerns and to provide better flood protection for 

Sacramento area. Construction activities will not be occurring for all years in one partic

will be phased over the entire project. Appropriate noise mitigation measures presente

be implemented to minimize construction noise impacts. 

322 322-1 

The purpose and need for this project is provided in Chapter 1 of the Draft EIS/EIR. T

address dam safety and hydrologic concerns and to provide better flood protection for 

Sacramento area. Construction activities will not be occurring for all years in one partic

will be phased over the entire project. Appropriate noise mitigation measures presente

the Draft EIS/EIR will be implemented to minimize construction noise impacts. 

323 323-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F323 323-2 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F324 324-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F325 325-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F325 325-2 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F325 325-3 Socioeconomics - See Response to Comment #12-1 326 326-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F327 327-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F327 327-2 Socioeconomics - See Response to Comment #12-1 328 328-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F329 329-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F
Comment No. Response No. Response 

330 330-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F331 331-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F332 332-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F333 333-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F334 334-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F334 334-2 Socioeconomics - See Response to Comment #12-1 335 335-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F336 336-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F337 337-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F338 338-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F339 339-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F340 340-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F341 341-1 

The Partner Agencies have complied with both NEPA and CEQA regulations regardin

For more information, please see the Topical Response for Public Involvement in Sectof the Final EIS/EIR. Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 Final EIS/EIR. 

342 342-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F342 342-2 Vegetation and Wildlife - See Responses to Comment #151-2. See Section 4.3.12 in 

EIS/EIR for more information. 

343 343-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F344 344-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F345 345-1 

Geologic evaluations of soil and rock conducted by Reclamation geologists have showserpentine rock or asbestos bearing rocks within the area proposed for excavation of tSoil and rock that may contain minute amounts of asbestos may exist east of Dike 8. 

measures will be employed for disturbance of soil at all construction sites including act

Section 3.6 of the Draft EIS/EIR discusses the potential presence of asbestos in soil a

mitigation measures to be employed should asbestos bearing rock be encountered. Tasbestos has occurred in the project area. Soil and rock in the Auxiliary Spillway to Dicontain asbestos. Soil and rock east of Dike 8 has shown to possibly contain minute a

well below regulatory standards. See Section 3.6 of the Draft EIS/EIR. Also see Secti

of the Final EIS/EIR. 

345 345-2 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F
58 of 68 

Comment No. Response No. Response 

345 345-3 Vegetation and Wildlife - See Responses to Comments #72-2 and #121-3. 346 346-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F347 347-1 

Hydrology Existing Conditions – Flood control planning is not the scope of this EIS/EI

DS/FDR EIS/EIR addresses construction of required changes to the Folsom Facility, sflood damage reduction issues. There are a number of documents, including those recomment, that describe flood control planning for the region. The data cited in the comment does not reflect the effects of the Auburn cofferdam fail

releases of 130,000 cfs was not required. Suggested Replacement text in the Corps P

follows: In February 1986, major storms in Northern California caused record flood flow

River basin. Due to the failure of the Auburn Dam cofferdam, Folsom officials released Unprecedented high outflows from Folsom Dam and Reservoir, together with high flow

River, caused water levels to rise above the design freeboard of levees protecting the area. 

347 347-2 

Corps - Concur. Generally, the PMF event is extremely rare such as 1/105 to 1/104. Sdissuaded us from estimating or labelling events beyond the 1/200 using the unregulatdeveloped for the American R basin. At this time, several interested parties are trying 

for determining the frequency for extreme events. Suggested replacement text is as foRecent estimates indicate that a frequency of flood approximately the same size as a 

recurrence interval somewhere between 1 in 7,100 and 1 in 22,000 years. between 1 ithis time, several interested parties are trying to develop a method for determining the extreme event on the American River. For dam safety purposes, the PMF event is nespillway to prevent dam overtopping where the consequences of failure are significant

347 347-3 

Design Flood Calculation -The Corps typically analyzes the flood damage reduction peprojects in their engineering reports. However, the minimum project requirement is to 

federal sponsor’s goal of 200-yr design flood protection for the Sacramento area. 

348 348-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F349 349-1 Socioeconomics - See Response to Comment #12-1 349 349-2 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F350 350-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F351 351-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F352 352-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F353 353-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F
Comment No. Response No. Response 

354 354-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F355 355-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F

Response to Comment #12-1. 

356 356-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F357 357-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F358 358-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F359 359-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F360 360-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F361 361-1 The Bureau of Reclamation and the Corps of Engineers appreciate the comment refle

project. 

362 362-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F363 363-1 

Alternatives Formulation – As described in Chapter 2 of the Draft EIS/EIR, a number oproposed project were evaluated as part of the project planning process. These includalternative reservoir locations. Due to population growth and land use issues, there is downstream reservoir. In addition, this alternative would not address Reclamation's da

364 364-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F365 365-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F366 366-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F367 367-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F368 368-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F369 369-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F370 370-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F371 371-1 Socioeconomics Business - See Response to Comment #12-1 372 372-1 Public comment period extension request. A 4-day extension was granted for the pub

Also see Section 4.3.2 in Chapter 4 of the Final EIS/EIR for more information on public 

373 373-1 

Climate Change – Upgrades to the Folsom Facility are being considered to address po

due to increased rain precipitation in the watershed. Operation of the project is not exnotable effect on the global climate change issue. 

374 374-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F375 375-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F376 376-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F377 377-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F377 377-2 Vegetation and Wildlife - See Responses to Comment #151-2. Also see Section 4.3.12 
60 of 68 

Comment No. Response No. Response 

Final EIS/EIR for more information. 

377 377-3 

Socioeconomics - See Response to Comment #12-1. The Partner Agencies have com

and CEQA regulations regarding public involvement. For more information, please see 

for Public Involvement in Section 4.3.2 of Chapter 4 in the Final EIS/EIR. 

378 378-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F379 379-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F379 379-2 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F380 380-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F381 381-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F382 382-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F383 383-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F384 384-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F385 385-1 

Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F

Partner Agencies have complied with both NEPA and CEQA regulations regarding pub

more information, please see the Topical Response for Public Involvement in Section the Final EIS/EIR. 

386 386-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F386 386-2 Socioeconomics - See Response to Comment #12-1 386 386-3 

The Partner Agencies have complied with both NEPA and CEQA regulations regardin

For more information, please see the Topical Response for Public Involvement in Sectof the Final EIS/EIR. 

387 387-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F388 388-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F

Socioeconomics - See Response to Comment #12-1. 

389 389-1 Socioeconomics - See Response to Comment #12-1. 389 389-2 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F390 390-1 Socioeconomics - See Response to Comment #12-1. 391 391-1 

Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F

Partner Agencies have complied with both NEPA and CEQA regulations regarding pub

more information, please see the Topical Response for Public Involvement in Section the Final EIS/EIR. 

392 392-1 NEPA/CEQA Significance Conclusion – The project agencies disagree with the City’s 

a NEPA or CEQA obligation to analyze impacts to a less than significant level. Under 
Comment No. Response No. Response 

requirement is disclose the level of significance. Under CEQA, agencies are required reducing impacts to less than significant, but in some instances it is not possible to redlevel less than significant. In such cases, CEQA require the approving agency to carefof the project against the acceptability of any unavoidable significant impacts from the occurs during the decision-making process, after the EIR is complete. Relative to NEPany adverse impacts associated with the proposed project/action is also addressed in process, as part of the Record of Decision. 

392 392-2 

Water Supply Relocation - During this phase of the project, Reclamation will coordinat

Folsom to address specific concerns regarding delivery of water as stipulated with the 

Reclamation/City of Folsom water contract; outages will be limited to short city-approvmeans to deliver water will be incorporated. Also note that the Corps PAC Report contains the following information: Reclamation othe existing aboveground raw water pipeline (Natomas pipeline) that provides water fro

to the City of Folsom and California Department of Corrections water treatment plants, Corps resident office fire protection system. The pipeline is 42 inches in diameter, and 2,800 feet long from where the pipeline exits the dam at Adit 4 to the Folsom standpipraw water pipeline is made of American Water Works Association C200 welded steel winterior lining. The chute alignment for the auxiliary spillway would cross a portion of th

pipeline. It would extend from an existing anchor block on the dam side of the chute to the far side of the chute. A new steel pipeline bridge, about 180 feet long, would be coauxiliary spillway chute to support the 42-inch pipeline. The pipe relocation would be ccut into the pipeline at each of the anchor blocks, limiting the disruption of water supply 

needed to make the change over at the anchor blocks. The chute would be excavated pipeline after its completion. 

392 392-3 

Borrow impacts to Fish Habitat - Fish habit along the shoreline where borrow is planneAny excavation of borrow would occur when the reservoir was low and thus the shorelfish are expected. 

392 392-4 

Folsom Oak Mitigation - Impacts to habitat, including oak woodland, are being addressand Wildlife Coordination Act Report process with the US Fish and Wildlife Service. Aimpacted will be on federal property and not within the jurisdiction of the City of FolsomE of the Final EIS/EIR. 

392 392-5 

As described in Chapter 2 of the Final EIS/EIR, the raise type, earthen or parapet wallby the Corps. Once selected, the raise type will be addressed in a supplemental docusupplemental document will address maintenance of a parapet wall, if that option is se

The Corps intends to adopt the Final EIS/EIR to satisfy the requirements of NEPA for t
62 of 68 

Comment No. Response No. Response 

reduction features of the proposed action (JFP, 3.5’ raise and emergency gate replaceaccomplished under the Corps’ Folsom Dam Modifications and Folsom Dam Raise ProDecision (ROD) for the flood damage reduction only features of the Selected Plan (3.5gate replacement) would be completed separate from the Joint Federal Project ROD, acompleted in the preconstruction, engineering and design phase of the project. 

392 392-6 

Traffic volumes of proposed routes are provided in Section 3.9 of the Draft EIS/EIR. Twill comply with all federal and state regulations and policies when transporting equipm

the site. This will include keeping truck traffic to designated truck routes. The project City transportation officials in the designation of those routes. See Section 4.3.9 in ChEIS/EIR for more information. 

392 392-7 

Blasting will be a daily routine while the excavation of the spillway occurs. The Project 

the community at the start of blasting periods, but will not provide daily notices. All wo

federal property and therefore, blasting permits from the city are not required; howevewould follow all federal requirements for blasting. 

392 392-8 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F392 392-9 

Recreation Trails - The project will not affect trails at Granite Bay. The Project Agenci

in addressing trails near construction sites. Trails will either be temporarily closed, or 

to protect public safety. 

392 392-10 

The Folsom DS/FDR project will not affect current operations. Reservoir levels will rem

are operated to provide for flood control, water supply, hydropower, fish and wildlife, wnavigation. The reservoir is not operated for recreation purposes. 

392 392-11 

Due to safety concerns, it will not be possible to have foot traffic and haul traffic in the 

Dam Road and Folsom Point during the periods of excavation and transport. The prop

route along the southern boundary of the reservoir will need to wait until completion of The haul road will be regraded to serve as a portion of that trail at the completion of ha

392 392-12 A coffer dam at Dike 8 is no longer being proposed. See Chapter 2 of the Final EIS/EI

the revised project. 

392 392-13 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F393 393-1 

Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F

see Response to Comment #12-1 regarding the economic analysis for the Folsom DS/

Agencies have complied with both NEPA and CEQA regulations regarding public invo

information, please see the Topical Response for Public Involvement in Section 4.3.2 oFinal EIS/EIR. 

394 394-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F395 395-1 Dam Release Impact to Downstream Facilities – The Folsom DS/FDR project will not c
Comment No. Response No. Response 

which releases are allowed from the reservoir. Only a change in the Water Control Machanges. Therefore, the Folsom DS/FDR project will have no effects to downstream fcurrently can happen under the Water Control Manual. Please see Section 4.3.7 in ChEIS/EIR for more information. The authorization for the Folsom Modification Project directs the Corps to change the vspace at Folsom Lake from the current interim operation of 400,000 acre-ft to 670,000 acre-feet to 600,000 acre-feet (400/600) permanent variable flood space operation oncModification Project has been implemented. The Corps, with coordination by Reclamaflood control manual for Folsom Dam for implementation prior to completion of the JFP The new flood control manual feature is currently being scoped as a parallel process. are analyzed and disclosed based upon current operational requirements in this EIS/Econtrol manual development and study will include variable flood storage space, includforecast based operations, new flood release schedules and a plan component for repwater supply losses resulting from implementation of this flood control manual. This pcollaborative process with the appropriate level of environmental analysis, public, agencoordination, and appropriate NEPA/CEQA documentation. 

396 396-1 

Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F

see Response to Comment #12-1 regarding the economic analysis for the Folsom DS/

Agencies have complied with both NEPA and CEQA regulations regarding public invo

information, please see the Topical Response for Public Involvement in Section 4.3.2 oFinal EIS/EIR. 

397 397-1 

Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F

see Response to Comment #12-1 regarding the economic analysis for the Folsom DS/

Agencies have complied with both NEPA and CEQA regulations regarding public invo

information, please see the Topical Response for Public Involvement in Section 4.3.2 oFinal EIS/EIR. 

398 398-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F399 399-1 

Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F

see Response to Comment #12-1 regarding the economic analysis for the Folsom DS/

Agencies have complied with both NEPA and CEQA regulations regarding public invo

information, please see the Topical Response for Public Involvement in Section 4.3.2 oFinal EIS/EIR. 

400 400-1 

Existing Conditions Operations – The Project Agencies appreciate El Dorado County Win current and future reservoir operations as operations relate to water supply. The authorization for the Folsom Modification Project directs the Corps to change the v
64 of 68 

Comment No. Response No. Response 

space at Folsom Lake from the current interim operation of 400,000 acre-ft to 670,000 acre-feet to 600,000 acre-feet (400/600) permanent variable flood space operation oncModification Project has been implemented. The Corps, with coordination by Reclamaflood control manual for Folsom Dam for implementation prior to completion of the JFP The new flood control manual feature is currently being scoped as a parallel process. are analyzed and disclosed based upon current operational requirements in this EIS/Econtrol manual development and study will include variable flood storage space, includforecast based operations, new flood release schedules and a plan component for repwater supply losses resulting from implementation of this flood control manual. This pcollaborative process with the appropriate level of environmental analysis, public, agencoordination, and appropriate NEPA/CEQA documentation. 

401 401-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F401 401-2 Vegetation and Wildlife - See Responses to Comment #151-2. See Section 4.3.12 in 

EIS/EIR for more information. 

401 401-3 Air Quality – See Response to Comment #206-3. 401 401-4 Socioeconomics - See Response to Comment #12-1. 401 401-5 

The Partner Agencies have complied with both NEPA and CEQA regulations regardin

For more information, please see the Topical Response for Public Involvement in Sectof the Final EIS/EIR. 

402 402-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F402 402-2 Vegetation and Wildlife - See Responses to Comment #151-2. See Section 4.3.12 in 

EIS/EIR for more information. 

402 402-3 Air Quality - See Response to Comment #206-3. 402 402-4 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F402 402-5 

The Partner Agencies have complied with both NEPA and CEQA regulations regardin

For more information, please see the Topical Response for Public Involvement in Sectof the Final EIS/EIR. 

403 403-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F403 403-2 Transportation – See Response to Comment #203-4 403 403-3 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F403 403-4 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F404 404-1 

The Partner Agencies have complied with both NEPA and CEQA regulations regardin

For more information, please see the Topical Response for Public Involvement in Sectof the Final EIS/EIR. Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 
Comment No. Response No. Response 

Final EIS/EIR. 

405 405-1 

The Partner Agencies have complied with both NEPA and CEQA regulations regardin

For more information, please see the Topical Response for Public Involvement in Sectof the Final EIS/EIR. Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 Final EIS/EIR. 

406 406-1 Air Quality - See Response to Comment #206-3. 407 407-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F407 407-2 

The Partner Agencies have complied with both NEPA and CEQA regulations regardin

For more information, please see the Topical Response for Public Involvement in Sectof the Final EIS/EIR. 

407 407-3 Socioeconomics - See Response to Comment #12-1. 408 408-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F409 409-1 

Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F

see Response to Comment #12-1 regarding the economic analysis for the Folsom DS/

Agencies have complied with both NEPA and CEQA regulations regarding public invo

information, please see the Topical Response for Public Involvement in Section 4.3.2 oFinal EIS/EIR. 

410 410-1 

Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F

see Response to Comment #12-1 regarding the economic analysis for the Folsom DS/

Agencies have complied with both NEPA and CEQA regulations regarding public invo

information, please see the Topical Response for Public Involvement in Section 4.3.2 oFinal EIS/EIR. 

411 411-1 

Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F

see Response to Comment #12-1 regarding the economic analysis for the Folsom DS/

Agencies have complied with both NEPA and CEQA regulations regarding public invo

information, please see the Topical Response for Public Involvement in Section 4.3.2 oFinal EIS/EIR. 

412 412-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F413 413-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F414 414-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F415 415-1 Water Quality - The Stormwater Pollution Prevention and Water Quality Management 

requirement to notify water agencies of any release into the reservoir that could affect 

415 415-2 Water Supply - The Folsom DS/FDR project will not result in the reduction of water sup

Please see response to comment # 93-1 for more information on development of a ne
66 of 68 

Comment No. Response No. Response 

for Folsom Dam and Reservoir. 

415 415-3 

Water Supply Infrastructure - The Folsom DS/FDR project will not affect the infrastruct

longer is a plan to increase the surface elevation of the reservoir. Please see Chapter 

for more information. 

416 416-1 

Air Quality Conformity and Mitigation - The Project Agencies have engaged discussionMetropolitan Air Quality Management District on measures to reduce emissions and adAlso see Section 4.3.11 in Chapter 4 of the Final EIS/EIR. A conformity demonstration 

provided to USEPA prior to identification of the Preferred Alternative in the JFP Record 

416 416-2 Future NEPA Compliance - The Final EIS and RODs will state where future NEPA com

necessary in order to complete the overall project. 

416 416-3 

Updated Flood Management Plan - The Corps of Engineers will provide USEPA with a flood management plan and associated NEPA document, when available. The authorization for the Folsom Modification Project directs the Corps to change the v

space at Folsom Lake from the current interim operation of 400,000 acre-ft to 670,000 acre-feet to 600,000 acre-feet (400/600) permanent variable flood space operation oncModification Project has been implemented. The Corps, with coordination by Reclama

flood control manual for Folsom Dam for implementation prior to completion of the JFP 

The new flood control manual feature is currently being scoped as a parallel process. are analyzed and disclosed based upon current operational requirements in this EIS/E

control manual development and study will include variable flood storage space, includ

forecast based operations, new flood release schedules and a plan component for repwater supply losses resulting from implementation of this flood control manual. This p

collaborative process with the appropriate level of environmental analysis, public, agencoordination, and appropriate NEPA/CEQA documentation. 

416 416-4 

Clear Project Definitions and Responsibilities - The Project Agencies concur on the ne

RODs, one for Dam Safety, one for the JFP, and the third for Flood Damage Reductio1 of the Final EIS/EIR. 

416 416-5 

NEPA Process Coordination - The Project Agencies have been active in coordinating 

Coordination Act Report requirements with US Fish and Wildlife Service and conformitSacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District. 

417 417-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F418 418-1 

Auburn Dam – The potential for an upstream storage facility, including Auburn Dam, to the Folsom DS/FDR was evaluated early in the alternatives assessment process (see 

Draft EIS/EIR) and was eliminated because an Auburn Dam would not meet project pu

Construction of a new facility upstream of Folsom Reservoir would not address the da
Comment No. Response No. Response 

security objectives of the Folsom facilities. There is an immediate need to upgrade the which can be accomplished under current authorities. Also see Section 4.3.6 in ChaptEIS/EIR. 

419 419-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F420 420-1 

The Draft EIS/EIR included alternatives that had the potential for increasing that reserv

that also could potentially flood property immediately adjacent to the reservoir. Howev

Reclamation nor the Corps are considering actions that would result in an increased re

elevation. Therefore, your property would not be inundated or subject to take under the Based upon additional engineering analysis since the Draft EIS/EIR was published, ththat with optimization of all elements of its Selected Plan, including the 6STG auxiliary spillway gate modification, and a 3.5-ft facility raise, an increase to maximum reservoir 

elevation beyond current dam crest elevation is not anticipated in order to provide for fbenefits. The future maximum reservoir surface elevation with the Corps’ Selected Plathe existing federal property take line for a 200-year flood design event. The anticipate

water surface elevation for all flood events, inclusive of a PMF event, eliminates the risproperties or habitat would be flooded beyond that which occurs under existing conditi

property takes, flowage easements, or additional small scale impoundment features su

beyond the existing take line are planned as part of the Corps’ Selected Plan. The 3.5Selected Plan will undergo further design during pre-construction, engineering, and deneeded, addressed through a supplemental NEPA/CEQA document. 

421 421-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F422 422-1 

Barging Alternative - The barging of material between the spillway site and Folsom Poearly during alternative development process. Barging is no longer being considered ddistance between the spillway and Folsom Point, normal reservoir fluctuations would mloading difficult, it would result in double handling of material, has recreational conflictsquality control issues. Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.

Final EIS/EIR. 

423 423-1 Socioeconomics - See Response to Comment #12-1. 424 424-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F425 425-1 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F426 426-1 

Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F

Also please see Chapter 2 of the Final EIS/EIR for a complete project description as this not part of this project. 

426 426-2 Please see the Topical Response for Recreation in Section 4.3.1 in Chapter 4 of the F
68 of 68