Appendix B 

Public Hearing Summary Report 
 

 

Folsom Dam Safety and Flood Damage Reduction Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact 

Report 

Public Hearing Summary Report 

Prepared For: Prepared By: 

U.S. Department of the Interior A 

Bureau of Reclamation 

January, 2007 

Zoned Embankment 

Crest Length: 1,940 

feetMax. Height: 105 

f t

Zoned Embankment

Crest Length: 1,410 

feet 

M H i ht 45 f t

Zoned Embankment

Crest Length: 2,100 

feet 

M H i ht 135 f t

Zoned Embankment

Crest Length: 4,800 

feet 

M H i ht 110

Zoned Embankment 

Crest Length: 890 feet 

Max. Height: 38 feet 

Zoned Embankment 

Crest Length: 6,700 

feet 

M H i ht 115 f t

Concrete Gravity 

Section: 

Crest Length: 1,400 

feet 
Contents 

Page 

1 Introduction......................................................................................................1 

 1.1 Public Hearing Purpose and Process......................................................1 

2 Background ......................................................................................................3 

3 Project Alternatives .........................................................................................4 

4 Public Hearing Meetings .................................................................................4 

 4.1 Publicity .................................................................................................5 

 4.2 Staff........................................................................................................5 

 4.3 Meeting Agenda and Content ................................................................5 

5 Public Hearing Comments ..............................................................................7 

 5.1 Verbal Comments ..................................................................................7 

 5.2 Written Comments.................................................................................9 

Appendices 

Appendix A – NOAs, Print Advertisement, Notice, and Press Release 

Appendix B – Meeting Handouts and Information Displays 

Appendix C – Written Comments and Public Hearing Transcripts 

 i 
Folsom Dam Safety and Flood Damage Reduction 

Draft EIS/EIR Public Hearing Summary Report 

Acronyms and Abbreviations 

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality 

CEQA California Environmental Quality Act 

CVP Central Valley Project 

DS/FDR Dam Safety/Flood Damage Reduction 

DWR California Department of Water Resources 

EIR Environmental Impact Report 

EIS Environmental Impact Statement 

Folsom DS/FDR Folsom Dam Safety and Flood Damage Reduction Action 

JFP Joint Federal Project 

M&I municipal and industrial 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NOA Notice of Availability 

NOD Notice of Determination 

NOI Notice of Intent 

ROD Record of Decision 

SAFCA Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency 

SSLE Reclamation’s Safety, Security and Law Enforcement 

Program 

ii 
Folsom Dam Safety and Flood Damage 

Reduction Draft EIS/EIR Public Hearing 

Summary Report 

1.0 Introduction 

The Folsom Dam Safety and Flood Damage Reduction Action (Folsom DS/FDR) is 

a cooperative project to correct seismic, static, and hydrologic issues associated with 

the structures that make up Folsom Dam. The Folsom DS/FDR agencies, including 

the United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), 

the United States Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps), Sacramento Area Flood 

Control Agency (SAFCA), State of California Department of Water Resources 

(DWR), and the State of California Reclamation Board (State Reclamation Board), 

completed a Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report 

(EIS/EIR) on December 1, 2006, for the Folsom DS/FDR. Accordingly, these 

agencies held public hearings at the following locations to receive comments: 

• Sacramento Library Galleria, Sacramento, January 9, 2007 

• Folsom Community Center, City of Folsom, January 10, 2007. 

This public hearing summary report documents these meetings and the comments 

captured. Section 1 summarizes the purpose and process of a public hearing, Section 

2 provides background information on the project, Section 3 lists the project 

alternatives, Section 4 includes an overview of the public hearings, and Section 5 

summarizes the written and verbal comments received at the public hearings. 

1.1 Public Hearing Purpose and Process 

Agencies conduct public hearings to allow the general public to comment on 

environmental documents. During public hearings, the lead agency generally will 

outline the proposed project, identify alternatives to the project and tentatively 

present the preferred alternative. The agencies then consider those comments during 

development of the Final EIS/EIR. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations (40 CFR 1506.6) require 

agencies to involve the public in the EIS/EIR process. 

The lead agency of the proposed action is required to: 

a.) Make diligent efforts to involve the public in preparing and implementing 

their NEPA procedures. 

 1 
Folsom Dam Safety and Flood Damage Reduction 

Draft EIS/EIR Public Hearing Summary Report 

b.) Provide public notice of NEPA-related hearings, public meetings, and the 

availability of environmental documents so as to inform those persons and 

agencies that may be interested or affected. 

c.) Hold or sponsor public hearings or public meetings whenever appropriate or 

in accordance with statutory requirements applicable to the agency. Criteria 

shall include whether there is: 

1) Substantial environmental controversy concerning the proposed 

action or substantial interest in holding the hearing. 

2) A request for a hearing by another agency with jurisdiction over the 

action supported by reasons why a hearing will be helpful. If a draft 

environmental impact statement is to be considered at a public 

hearing, the agency should make the statement available to the public 

at least 15 days in advance (unless the purpose of the hearing is to 

provide information for the draft environmental impact statement). 

d.) Solicit appropriate information from the public. 

e.) Explain in its procedures where interested persons can get information or 

status reports on environmental impact statements and other elements of the 

NEPA process. 

f.) Make environmental impact statements, the comments received, and any 

underlying documents available to the public pursuant to the provisions of the 

Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552), without regard to the exclusion 

for interagency memoranda where such memoranda transmit comments of 

Federal agencies on the environmental impact of the proposed action. 

Materials to be made available to the public shall be provided to the public 

without charge to the extent practicable, or at a fee which is not more than the 

actual costs of reproducing copies required to be sent to other Federal 

agencies, including the Council (40 CFR 1506.6). 

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations (40 CFR 1502.9(c)(1)) require 

the implementing agency to make the EIS/EIR available for public review and 

comment. Reclamation issued a Notice of Availability (NOA) in the Federal 

Register on November 28, 2006. Appendix A of this public hearing summary report 

includes a copy of the Folsom DS/FDR NOA. 

California Environmental Quality Act 

Although California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not require public 

hearings, public involvement is considered an essential part of the CEQA process. 

2 
Folsom Dam Safety and Flood Damage Reduction 

Draft EIS/EIR Public Hearing Summary Report 

 

If an agency does, however, decide to hold a public hearing, the CEQA guidelines 

suggest the following: 

1.) The agency should include environmental review as one of the subjects for the 

hearing. 

2.) A public hearing on the environmental impact of a project should usually be held 

when the lead agency determines it would facilitate the purposes and goals of 

CEQA to do so. 

3.) A draft EIR or negative declaration should be used as a basis for discussion at a 

public hearing. 

4.) Notice of all public hearings shall be given in a timely manner. This notice may 

be given in the same form and time as notice for other regularly conducted public 

hearings of the public agency (CEQA Section 15202). 

Parallel to the process for NEPA, CEQA requires public notification of the 

availability of an EIR through a NOA (CEQA 15088.5). A copy of the Folsom 

DS/FDR NOA can be found in Appendix A of this summary report. 

2.0 Background 

The Folsom Facility is approximately 23 miles northeast of Sacramento, near the 

City of Folsom, in the State of California. There are 12 retention facilities (4 dams 

and 8 dikes) that make up the Folsom Facility. These retention structures impound 

the waters of the North and South Forks of the American River forming Folsom 

Reservoir. The Folsom Facility is a multi-purpose facility operated by law to provide 

flood control, irrigation water supply, municipal and industrial (M&I) water supply, 

and hydropower generation benefits. Additional purposes with notable associated 

benefits include recreation and maintenance of water quality for fish and wildlife. 

The improvements being considered for the Folsom Facility respond to varying 

degrees to certain objectives of each of the aforementioned agencies. Reclamation's 

Safety of Dams Program objectives focus on reducing the risk of failure under 

hydrologic (flood), seismic (earthquake), and static (seepage) loads. Folsom Dam has 

been designated as a National Critical Infrastructure Facility and any compromise of 

the facility could result in grave property damage and loss of life. Reclamation's 

Security Program objectives are to protect public safety by securing Folsom Dam 

and its appurtenant structures and other Reclamation facilities, including the Folsom 

power plant, from attack or damage. The Corps' flood damage reduction objective is 

to improve the annual recurrence level of flood protection provided to the lower 

American River corridor. Similarly, SAFCA and DWR seek to improve the level of 

flood protection for the Sacramento region. 

 3 
Folsom Dam Safety and Flood Damage Reduction 

Draft EIS/EIR Public Hearing Summary Report 

The Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR presents an assessment of potential impacts for 

a comprehensive range of structural modification alternatives, which may be 

implemented under either a joint structural modification approach, which address 

both dam safety and flood damage reduction objectives, or through specific, 

separable dam safety, security and flood damage reduction structural modifications, 

which solely address the specific agency objective. From this range of alternatives, a 

comprehensive proposed and ultimately preferred alternative will be identified that 

addresses both the joint and separable structural modifications. 

3.0 Project Alternatives 

A range of alternatives were carried forward in the Draft EIS/EIR to meet both 

Reclamation’s dam safety and security objectives and the Corps’ objective of 

providing flood damage reduction protection to the Sacramento metropolitan area. A 

complete description of the alternatives is provided in Chapter 2 of the Draft 

EIS/EIR (Volume I). The following alternatives, along with the No Action/No 

Project Alternative were evaluated in the Draft EIS/EIR. 

• Alternative 1 – Fuseplug Auxiliary Spillway, No Concrete Dam 

Raise/Embankment Crest Protection 

• Alternative 2 – Fuseplug Auxiliary Spillway with Tunnel, 4-foot 

Dam/Embankment Raise 

• Alternative 3 – Joint Federal Project (JFP) Gated Auxiliary Spillway with 

Potential 3.5-foot Parapet Wall Raise 

• Alternative 4 – JFP Gated Auxiliary Spillway with Potential 7-foot 

Dam/Embankment Raise 

• Alternative 5 – No Auxiliary Spillway, 17-foot Dam/Embankment Raise 

4.0 Public Hearing Meetings 

Reclamation, the Corps, SAFCA, DWR, and the State Reclamation Board held two 

public hearings in January 2007 for the Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR. The first 

hearing took place on Tuesday, January 9 at the Sacramento Library Galleria in 

Sacramento, and the second hearing took place on Wednesday, January 10 at the 

Folsom Community Center in the City of Folsom. 

Approximately 100 people attended the two hearings, including members of the 

public, elected officials, and representatives from public agencies, water resources, 

waterways, and electric power and flood control. Written and verbal comments were 

received at both meetings. 

4 
Folsom Dam Safety and Flood Damage Reduction 

Draft EIS/EIR Public Hearing Summary Report 

 

4.1 Publicity 

To publicize the meetings, a Notice of Availability for the Draft EIS/EIR was 

published in the Federal Register on November 28, 2006, and in the State 

Clearinghouse on December 4, 2006. Additionally, Reclamation distributed notices 

to approximately 1,600 interested parties, including state and local agencies, elected 

officials, and area residents. Print advertisements for the hearings were published in 

local newspapers including the Sacramento Bee (January 5, 2007), the Roseville and 

Granite Bay Press-Tribune (January 6, 2007), and the Folsom and El Dorado Hills 

Telegraph (January 10, 2007). Reclamation Public Affairs also distributed a press 

release on December 26th to all the regional newspapers in the project area. 

Appendix A of this report contains a copy of the State Clearinghouse Notice of 

Availability, the Federal Register Notice of Availability, a copy of the print 

advertisement that was published in the local newspapers, a copy of the notice 

distributed by Reclamation, and a copy of the press release. 

4.2 Staff 

The following is a list of agency and project development staff in attendance during 

the public hearings. 

Rosemary Stefani, Reclamation Alicia Kirchner, Corps of Engineers 

Shawn Oliver, Reclamation Lisa Clay, Corps of Engineers 

Larry Hobbs, Reclamation Jane Rinck, Corps of Engineers 

Mike Finnegan, Reclamation Miki Fujitsubo, Corps of Engineers 

Jeff McCracken, Reclamation Jeff Hawk, Corps of Engineers 

Gary Egan, Reclamation Annalena Bronson, DWR 

Mike Nepstad, Reclamation Peter Buck, SAFCA 

John Wilson, Reclamation Tim Washburn, SAFCA 

John Laboon, Reclamation John Wondolleck, CDM 

Rick Johnson, Reclamation John Clerici, CirclePoint 

Dee LeSala, Corps of Engineers Sonja Wadman, CirclePoint 

Frank Piccola, Corps of Engineers Carol Glatfelter, CirclePoint 

Rebecca Victorine, Corps of Engineers 

4.3 Meeting Agenda and Content 

Both public hearings were held in an open house forum. Attendees were asked to 

sign in and all names were entered into a database for the exclusive purpose of 

keeping participants up-to-date on future activities, meetings, and project 

information. Meeting materials made available to each participant included: 

• A welcome sheet with an explanation of the purpose of the meeting, the various 

display stations and how to provide comment; 

 5 
Folsom Dam Safety and Flood Damage Reduction 

Draft EIS/EIR Public Hearing Summary Report 

• A seven-page handout showing the content of the displays; 

• A speaker card (for those who wished to make verbal comments); and 

• A comment card for written comments (a self mailer for participants who wanted 

to mail in there comments at a later time). 

Seven information displays were set up to provide the public with an overview of the 

information contained in the EIS/EIR. Reclamation and Corps staff were available at 

each display and invited the public to ask questions and voice concerns regarding 

each respective topic. Participants with specific comments were urged to provide 

either written or verbal comments through the means provided at the public hearing. 

Appendix B contains a copy of the displays and the handout provided to all meeting 

participants. The displays included the following information: 

Display 1. Welcome 

• Background information about the Folsom Dam and Reservoir, its role in the 

Central Valley Project, its role as a flood control facility for the Sacramento area, 

the critical need for improvements, and the proposed alternatives. 

Display 2. Roles and Responsibilities 

• An explanation of the collaborative relationship between Reclamation and the 

Corps designed to improve the structural integrity of Folsom Dam and protect the 

region from floods, and a description of the common issues regarding Folsom 

Dam and Reservoir addressed in the EIS/EIR. 

Display 3. Purpose 

• The purpose of the Folsom DS/FDR and a description of the five areas of 

proposed improvements that are addressed (hydrologic, seismic, static, dam 

security, and flood damage reduction) in order to maintain the long term safety of 

Folsom Dam. 

Display 4. Corps of Engineers Post Authorization Change Report 

• An explanation of the Corps’ recommended changes to the Folsom Dam 

Modification and Folsom Dam Raise Authorizations 

Display 5. EIR/EIS Process 

• A timeline and explanation of the complete environmental review process from 

developing the purpose and need, to adopting the Record of Decision (ROD), 

with information describing continued public involvement. An explanation that 

defines the purpose of the ROD and NOD (Notice of Determination). 

Identification of the CEQA environmentally preferred alternative. 

6 
Folsom Dam Safety and Flood Damage Reduction 

Draft EIS/EIR Public Hearing Summary Report 

 

Display 6. Proposed Alternatives 

• Summary of the no action and five action alternatives. Description of the 

common features that all action alternatives share in order to increase seismic 

stability and improve facility security. 

Display 7. Impacts and Mitigation 

• Outline of the potential impacts from project construction at the reservoir and 

within the communities around the reservoir. Mitigation measures are 

summarized for each potential impact. 

A Comment Station, with court reporter, was also provided where meeting 

participants could make verbal comments to the Hearing Officer. 

5.0 Public Hearing Comments 

Agencies accepted both verbal and written comments at the public hearings. The 

following section is an overview of the comments submitted during the public 

hearings. 

5.1 Verbal Comments 

During each of the hearings, the public had an opportunity to give verbal comments 

to the Hearing Officer. A total of 23 people provided verbal comments during the 

two public hearings. Each verbal comment was recorded by a court reporter; a 

transcript is included in Appendix C. The Final EIS/EIR includes an account and a 

response to every verbal and written comment received on the Draft EIS/EIR. The 

following sub-sections provide an overview of the verbal comments received during 

the hearings and are not intended to be a substitute for the formal comments and 

responses in the Final EIS/EIR. 

EIS/EIR Process 

There were several comments regarding the EIS/EIR process, the notices for the 

public meeting, and the methods for giving verbal comment. Comments included: 

• Not enough notice was provided to adequately respond to the Draft EIS/EIR nor 

was there adequate community outreach regarding the impacts of the proposed 

activities; 

• More clarity is needed in describing the three separate parts of the overall project 

and how they are linked; and 

• An opportunity for community verbal comments should have been provided.

 7 
Folsom Dam Safety and Flood Damage Reduction 

Draft EIS/EIR Public Hearing Summary Report 

Closure of Folsom Point 

The majority of verbal comments focused on the potential closure of Folsom Point, 

the principal water access point on the south side of Folsom Dam and Reservoir. 

Concerns included: 

• Access to the lake for a variety of water sports – most notably boating; 

• Impacts to businesses serving lake-based recreation; 

• Disruption of long established family oriented activities at Folsom Reservoir; 

• Traffic and air quality impacts of the construction activities at Folsom Point; and 

• Impacts to other recreation sites (potential overuse) if Folsom Point is closed 

during construction. 

Cost Allocations 

The document should compare the costs of the proposed alternatives and elaborate 

on how those costs would be distributed among the project participants. 

Temperature Control Device 

There was a suggestion of using a temperature control device in the reservoir (for 

regulating the temperature of water for downstream fish habitat) similar to the one 

designed for Shasta Dam. 

Reservoir Levels and Dam Raises 

There were several comments regarding the flood storage take line of the reservoir in 

the event of a dam raise. Concerns included: 

• Provide additional clarity about where the high water level would be (described 

in more detail than in the document) and what eminent domain issues may result. 

• Describe potential impacts to lakeside recreation (mostly to non-motorized trails) 

in the event of a flood. 

Auburn Dam 

Auburn Dam should be considered as an alternative to modifying Folsom Dam for 

flood management purposes. 

Other Comments 

• Provide for proper internment of remains left at the old Mormon Island Cemetery. 

8 
Folsom Dam Safety and Flood Damage Reduction 

Draft EIS/EIR Public Hearing Summary Report 

 

5.2 Written Comments 

In addition to verbal comments received at the public hearings, agencies also 

accepted written comments on comment cards that were distributed to each attendee. 

Copies of all written comments are shown in Appendix C of this report. There were 

31 people who submitted written comments at the two public hearings. Additionally, 

several people who submitted verbal comments also submitted similar written 

comments on speech cards. Overall, written comments tracked closely with the 

verbal comments described above. The majority of the written comments focused on 

the potential closure of Folsom Point and the potential economic, recreational, and 

quality of life impacts. The following bullets present a summary of the written 

comments received during the public hearings that are different from the verbal 

comments described above. . 

Alternatives 

Several commenters expressed their support for Alternative 3. Alternative 5 received 

several negative comments. 

EIS/EIR Process 

Additional community meetings should be scheduled to discuss specific impacts of 

the proposed activities – most notably the closure of Folsom Point. 

Other Comments 

Provide a siren to notify downstream entities when the floodgates are opened. 

 9 
Folsom Dam Safety and Flood Damage Reduction 

Draft EIS/EIR Public Hearing Summary Report 

Reservoir Levels and Dam Raises 

There were several comments regarding the flood storage take line of the reservoir in 

the event of a dam raise. Concerns included: 

• Provide additional clarity about where the high water level would be (described 

in more detail than in the document) and what eminent domain issues may result. 

• Describe potential impacts to lakeside recreation (mostly to non-motorized trails) 

in the event of a flood. 

Auburn Dam 

Auburn Dam should be considered as an alternative to modifying Folsom Dam for 

flood management purposes. 

Other Comments 

• Provide a siren to notify downstream entities when the floodgates are opened. 

10