1

Porter, Stacy

From: Mike Finnegan [MFINNEGAN@mp.usbr.gov]

Sent: Monday, January 22, 2007 10:43 AM

To: Shawn Oliver

Subject: Fwd:

>>> <pixlers2@comcast.net> 01/21 8:04 PM >>>

-------------- Forwarded Message: --------------

From: pixlers2@comcast.net

To: www.ca. gov, www.feinstein.senate.gov, www.boxer.sentae.gov, www.house.gov/lungren, 

themayor@folsom.ca.us, pixlers2@comcast.net

Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 03:57:34 +0000 

Jan. 21, 2007

To our Honorable Representive:

RE: Closure of Folsom Point:

Please be advised that we are concerned citizens of Folsom, CA. have been put on notice 

that a proposed closure of our park is scheduled for the fall of 2007. This proposal 

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

understanding that our beautiful park and recreation area will be used as a construction 

staging area for the different work projects on the Dam and Mormon Island Spillway by the 

Bureau and Army Corps of Engineers.

What a shame this would be for our already suffering local businesses, families that enjoy

the park , tourism (boaters and fishermen come from far to use our park), to say nothing 

of the environment. The wild life there would be disturbed and run out of the area. Also

this would run rattlesnakes and rodents into our neighborhood. This is a concern for us 

as we live in Briggs Ranch (thats 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 our families, businesses, wildlife and real 

esteate values. We have had short notice of this project and not had adequate time to 

address the issues.

We ask that as our voice and representative to PLEASE aid us in this endeavor.

Sincerely, 

Sandra and Lanny Pixler

100 McHugh CT.

Folsom, CA. 

email address: pixlers2@comcast.net
Porter, Stacy

From: Philip Lee [pel911@sbcglobal.net]

Sent: Monday, January 22, 2007 11:21 PM

To: Shawn Oliver

Subject: Re: Folsom Dam Raise

Page 1 of 2

1/23/2007

Mr. Shawn Oliver, 

 

Thanks for responding and extending the public comment period. I would like to submit the following 

comments regarding the 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. I am opposed to the flippant decision made to use the Folsom Point State Park for 

construction access or staging purposes, especially if it closes access to the boat ramp and parking. I 

know the decision was based on economics and convenience. 

 

If this was an economic decision, it is difficult to justify the need to save a few hundred thousand dollars 

on building a separate access road and staging area when the Federal Govt is spending half a trillion 

dollars to destroy and rebuild a foreign country, for reasons that defy prudent use of tax dollars (and 

soldiers' lives). 

 

I am slightly encouraged to hear from you that the closure is only considered for a few months during 

the off season, as in-season closure would wreak havoc on the already crowded adjacent ramps: Granite 

Bay and Brown's Ravine. But I don't believe the USBR has the fortitude to enforce that 

"promise", assuming it is even put into the contract. My fear is that as soon as the Folsom Point access 

is closed for construction, the USBR will allow the contractor to take over and full closure will take 

effect until job completion. This has been my observations with USBR's construction management 

record. They tend 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 of the dike, assuming that was the reason for this closure. I assume access for the main dam 

work is not an issue at this location? 

 

At the very least, please consider mitigation of the closure by constructing a separate construction access 

road, and locating the staging area such that the boat ramp and parking area can be still open and 

operational. 

 

As it is, Folsom Point needs MORE boat ramps and parking, with the exploding area population. Any 

type of closure or disruption to the facility would be disastrous. 

 

thanks for your consideration, 

 

Phil Lee 

2252 Fort Point Dr. 

Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 

(916) 858-8584 

PEL911@sbcglobal.net

 
Shawn Oliver <soliver@mp.usbr.gov> wrote: 

I am the Project Manager for the environmental document. I am the 

correct person to send comments to. 

One of the alternatives, among many, is a 3 to 6 year closure of the 

Folsom Point area. Six years is a "Worst Cast Scenario". It is highly 

unlikely that FP will be shut down for more that a few months a year 

during the offseason. 

If you send me your comments, I will be sure to get them added to the 

official record. 

Shawn 

Shawn E. Oliver 

Natural Resource Specialist 

Bureau of Reclamation 

Central California Area Office (Folsom) 

Email soliver@mp.usbr.gov 

Office (916) 989-7256 

Fax (916) 989-7208 

>>> Philip Lee 01/18/07 10:39 PM >>> 

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 not, please direct me to 

the lead person on this project. 

I wish to comment on the potential 7 yr. closure of Folsom Point SP. 

thanks, 

Phil 

Page 2 of 2

1/23/2007
Porter, Stacy

From: Tara Davis [TDavis@gtretail.com]

Sent: Monday, January 22, 2007 10:42 AM

To: soliver@mp.usbr.gov

Subject: Closure of Folsom Pointe

Page 1 of 1

1/23/2007

With all the vacant land around the Folsom Prison area, why would a spot of recreation in a 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 area. People have moved to Folsom for the boating, business have moved in due to the high traffic and 

like I said prior, there is so much land along Natomas street that is unused and would make no impact if it was 

used. It seems like you could also use a portion of the land near Folsom 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 Pointe.

Tara Davis Marketing Assistant 

Colliers International

1400 Rocky Ridge Drive, Suite 150

Roseville, CA 95661

www.colliers.com 

Our Knowledge is your Property

 

Tel 916 772 1700

Direct 916 830 2608

Fax 916 773 1711

tara.davis@colliers.com
1

Porter, Stacy

From: Mike Finnegan [MFINNEGAN@mp.usbr.gov]

Sent: Monday, January 22, 2007 10:40 AM

To: Shawn Oliver

Subject: Fwd: Folsom Point

>>> "Dan Normoyle" <dan.normoyle.nbz8@statefarm.com> 01/22 10:35 AM

>>>

To whom it may concern;

I strenuously object to the proposed closure of Folsom Point State Recreation Area. This 

proposition is unacceptable to me and to the citizens of Folsom and our surrounding 

communities. Folsom Point is used by many thousands 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 economy and quality of life for those in Folsom. Since the 

Dam Road closed, it has 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 consideration.

Dan Normoyle

State Farm(r)

Providing Insurance & Financial Services

25004 Blue Ravine Road, Suite 119

Folsom, CA 95630

(916) 608-2600 Phone (916) 608-2603 Fax

"WE LIVE WHERE YOU LIVE(tm)"
1

Porter, Stacy

From: Mike Finnegan [MFINNEGAN@mp.usbr.gov]

Sent: Monday, January 22, 2007 10:32 AM

To: Shawn Oliver

Subject: Fwd: Proposed Closure of Folsom Point, qualified opposition tothat.

>>> "Rennie James" <rennie1@comcast.net> 01/22 10:28 AM >>>

Good morning?

I oppose the 100% full time closure of Folsom Point for seven years!

I am writing in response to a report that all the alternatives to the construction of 

improvements at Folsom Dam and area dykes and dams will require the seven (7) year closure

of Folsom Point Recreation 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 is our back yard and the reason for remaining at this 

residence. We have been at 125 Landrum Circle for

11

years and the best thing about is Location.

If the Folsom Dam and dykes improvements depend on and the only alternative is to close 

Folsom Point then I say close Folsom Point and make the necessary improvements. However, 

I believe that this alternative is probably the most convenient alternative and others may

have been eliminated as inconvenient or cost more to accomplish. I concede that I do not 

have all the information that you who have been working overtime to accelerate this 

project have acquired. However, I believe that a compromise can and should be considered. 

I am sure that access control, the existence of a traffic light and existing gate provide 

considerable cost savings.

Also

there is considerable space to stage equipment and materials in one place.

If that did not require the closure of Folsom Point completely I would agree. The closure

of Folsom Point would cost the community more, in my opinion, than the costs of dispersing

these equipment and materials over a larger area in the community. For example the flats 

down stream from Mormon Island Dam on either side of Green Valley Road could be used for 

materials and equipment. Portions of the Folsom Point Recreation area could be used.

The area around Dyke Seven should be considered. Speaking of that

what

about the open space around the prison? Sure improved security would be needed, but it 

would not restrict access to Folsom Point. I believe that you are able to use Folsom Point

recreation area or parts of it without closing the park completely.

Have you ever paid attention to the financial impact of Folsom Point? 

Each

of those boaters, skiers, fishermen, day campers group picnic's at the Point and leisure 

boaters needs fuel, food, bait and equipment to make their visit everything they hope it 

will be. Many of the recreational users finish the day on the way home with refueling and 

having a quick meal on the way home.

While passing through Folsom they see things that they may not have been aware of. The 

Thursday Night Market, Cappuccino Cruisers night at the Red Robin, Music in the park, the 
2

new Library and our Zoo, these are all aspects that passers by notice. Then you have the 

Sutter Street Grill for breakfast and Hop Sings for dinner 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!

Rennie and Norma James

125 Landrum Circle

Folsom, Ca 95630

916-337-4263 Cell

916-351-5602 Home
Porter, Stacy

From: Gary Frolich [GFrolich@dfsfin.com]

Sent: Monday, January 22, 2007 10:27 AM

To: soliver@mp.usbr.gov; rebecca.a.victorine@usace.army.mil

Subject: Closure of Folsom Pt / Dike 8

Closure of Folsom Pt / Dike 8 Page 1 of 1

1/23/2007

This would be the worse idea I've seen in this whole Folsom Dam/Lake situation in our 17 yrs of residence. I know 

there is plenty of room around the point closer to the dam........let the rich people or the developers who are 

building out that entire point look at some equipment for awhile, instead of forcing thousands of people off the 

whole lake for years and years!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

We bought here for access to Folsom Lake which has become more trouble than this town is worth. We 

understand recreation is at the bottom of the list for the lake, but with 12 govt bureaus involved it has become 

typical govt waste and abuse of the public GOOD.

DON'T CLOSE FOLSOM POINT - would be the last straw in a long list of govt missteps since 9/11..........and the 

good residences of Folsom Town continue to pay the price and suffer the incompetence of our 

govt!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

We know you have a job to do...............please, please consider another alternative. 

We werent planning on moving, but we will and we will take our money with us (and we are not alone). 

Thanks you for your consideration. 
1

Porter, Stacy

From: Mike Finnegan [MFINNEGAN@mp.usbr.gov]

Sent: Monday, January 22, 2007 10:24 AM

To: Shawn Oliver

Subject: Fwd: Folsom Point, Dyke 8, Closure

>>> <Scott.Wiemerslage@lennar.com> 01/22 9:01 AM >>>

To whom it may concern: 

Upon recently hearing of the possible closure of Folsom Point, park and boat launch for up

to seven years, I have been beside myself.

Understanding the ramifications of this act and pursuing them without diligence is one of 

the more irresponsible proposals I have heard. This proposal coupled with the complete 

lack of public knowledge continues the ever widening gap between the "stewards," of the 

lands and the general public. 

Please consider any other potential alternatives to the proposed current one. The quality 

of life 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? 

What about homeowner's buying or selling in that time that will either loose tremendous 

value or never see the potential and look elsewhere? 

What about the already congested launches and park areas that will now have to be absorbed

by the other three entrances? 

What about the loss of potential income and profit from recreationalists looking 

elsewhere? 

What about the environmental impact statements? 

What about using Folsom Damn Road, already in existence, and not being used to access? 

Please reconsider........ 

Scott Wiemerslage

Lennar Homes, Bay Area

Field Supervisor, Established Communities

925-570-4585

scott.wiemerslage@lennar.com 
1

Porter, Stacy

From: Mike Finnegan [MFINNEGAN@mp.usbr.gov]

Sent: Monday, January 22, 2007 10:24 AM

To: Shawn Oliver

Subject: Fwd: Do not close Folsom point

>>> "Troy Watson" <troywatson73@sbcglobal.net> 01/22 9:03 AM >>>

We are completely opposed to closing Folsom point. There are too may people that use the 

park to shut it down. Please find an alternative site.

Thanks,

Troy Watson 916-730-4585
1

Porter, Stacy

From: Mike Finnegan [MFINNEGAN@mp.usbr.gov]

Sent: Monday, January 22, 2007 10:23 AM

To: Shawn Oliver

Subject: Fwd: Closing of Folsom Point

>>> david brown <browndl8@hotmail.com> 01/22 10:21 AM >>>

I am OPPOSED to closing Folsom Point. 

David L Brown

2331 Clapton Way

Folsom CA 95630

_________________________________________________________________

Get into the holiday spirit, chat with Santa on Messenger.

http://imagine-windowslive.com/minisites/santabot/default.aspx?locale=en-us
1

Porter, Stacy

From: Mike Finnegan [MFINNEGAN@mp.usbr.gov]

Sent: Monday, January 22, 2007 10:22 AM

To: Shawn Oliver

Subject: Fwd: Please do not close Folsom Point

>>> "Krista Fisher" <aggies00@gmail.com> 01/22 9:52 AM >>>

Mr. Shawn Oliver,

I strenuously object to the proposed closure of Folsom Point State Recreation Area. This 

proposition is unacceptable to me and to the citizens of Folsom and our surrounding 

communities. Folsom Point is used by many thousands 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 economy and quality of life for those in Folsom. Since the Dam Road closed, it has 

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 consideration ,

Krista Fisher 
1

Porter, Stacy

From: Mike Finnegan [MFINNEGAN@mp.usbr.gov]

Sent: Monday, January 22, 2007 10:23 AM

To: Shawn Oliver

Subject: Fwd: Closing of Folsom Point

>>> Viera Weldy <vieraw@sbcglobal.net> 01/22 10:21 AM >>>

I just wanted to go on record to oppose Folsom Point closing. We have lived in Folsom for

10 years and have used Folsom Point to launch our boat for some family time at the lake. 

We have experienced over crowding and at times were forced to use Brown's Ravine. With 

Folsom Point closed, all of the day users will be forced to use Brown's Ravine, which will

not be able to accomodate all of the overflow.....and what happens when some of the ramps 

are closed due to low water? Please keep Folsom Point open.

 

 Scott and Viera Weldy

 389 Fisher Ct.

 Folsom, CA 95630

 (916) 985-4640
Porter, Stacy

From: gregory.mercurio@att.net

Sent: Monday, January 22, 2007 10:02 AM

To: soliver@mp.usbr.gov

Subject: Folsom Point

Page 1 of 1

1/23/2007

Dear Shawn: As a stakeholder in the oucome of the decision to close/not close Folsom Point, I feel it is 

only fair to extend the piublic commentary period to allow the public a fair amount of time to research 

and comment. According to the newspaper article that I did read, the decision is already made, and the 

timing and durations are the only outstanding issues. 

 

As the owner of tasty Time Ice Cream & Frozen Yogurt, I am in the direct path of the consequences of 

the decision. I have NOT had enough time to adequately research this topic. I believe that public 

disclosure of the rationale behind the USBR's decisions should be the first priority, not the rush to close 

the Point. 

 

Kind regards, 

 

Greg Mercurio 

 

 

 
Porter, Stacy

From: Clyde [camatson@calweb.com]

Sent: Monday, January 22, 2007 9:47 AM

To: soliver@mp.usbr.gov; rebecca.a.victorine@usace.army.mil; clocke@sacbee.com

Subject: Folsom Dam Project

Page 1 of 1

1/23/2007

I have been following the discussion on the levies and dam modifications for quite some time now. To 

date I have found no recollection in this process of the near flood a few years back. 

 

As I recall, after some number of years the management of the dam facilities decided that now was the 

time to “test” the gates. This was during a period of time when inflows were very high. When they 

tried to open and close the first gate it broke. Remember this was only one of the existing gates. The 

gate jammed and broke, leaving it mostly open. This put almost enough water down the river to over 

top the levies. At the Howe Ave. bridge the river was about a foot from the top of the levee. At Rio 

Americano High School the situation was the same. My daughter went to that school at that time. As 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 that concerns me most is the modification to the dam. 

 

As I see it more gates are being added and on the south end of the dam a dirt burm is planned. The 

comment that was made about this burm was that if the water got to the point of over topping the dam 

this burm would wash out and prevent over topping the dam. 

 

The problem that I see is that the Burm is at least as wide as three gates, at a minimum. And once 

washed out is uncontrollable as to flow. 

 

This looks like a REAL problem to me and will be to most of Sacramento. I believe this is asking for 

another New Orleans levee failure. 

 

What do you think? 

 

 

Clyde Matson 

1430 Joby Lane 

Sacramento, CA 

95864-3129 

 

Phone: 916-487-5445 

 
1

Porter, Stacy

From: Katarzyna Turkiewicz [kturkiew@arb.ca.gov]

Sent: Monday, January 22, 2007 8:12 AM

To: mfinnegan@mp.usbr.gov; soliver@mp.usbr.gov; rebecca.a.victorine@usace.army.mil

Subject: Folsom Point Closing

I am a long time Folsom resident and take a great pride in our City and our community. I 

am strongly opposed to closing Folsom Point. Folsom Lake is an important part of our 

community. Closing it will not only reduce our access to the lake, but will also 

adversely impact businesses in our community. I especially would like you to consider our

senior citizens and our children. Seven years it's a long time in their lives. My 

younger daughter is now six, by the time you are projecting to open Folsom Point again she

will be 13 years old. Some of our elderly friends and neighbors may not 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.

Kasia Turkiewcz

665 Henry Court

Folsom, CA 95630

Phone: (916) 351-1526
1

Porter, Stacy

From: Mike Wall [mwall@fcusd.org]

Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2007 9:57 PM

To: mfinnegan@mp.usbr.gov

Subject: Closing Folsom Point...

To whom it may concern,

I am a longtime homeowner in the Briggs Ranch development of Folsom and much of the reason

I bought my home here was due to the easy access to Folsom Lake and the easy access to 

Granite Bay via the Folsom Dam Road. Now a little more than 6 years has passed and two of

the most logistical benefits of living where I bought my house are in danger of going 

away. Travel to Roseville is a nightmare and traffic in Folsom is a disaster due to the 

dam road closure. Now I hear that Folsom Point may close so that I will have to take my 

boat miles away, through this traffic, to get to the water. PLEASE DO NOT RUIN MY ACCESS 

TO THE LAKE!!! DO NOT CLOSE FOLSOM POINT!!! FIND ANOTHER ALTERNATIVE SO AS TO AVOID 

FURTHER HARDSHIPS FOR THE RESIDENTS OF FOLSOM. 

Thanks for your time and consideration.

Mike Wall

129 Loughridge Way

Folsom

916-985-0452
Porter, Stacy

From: Tony Cann [mikecann@pacbell.net]

Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2007 8:41 AM

To: soliver@mp.usbr.gov; mfinnegan@mp.usbr.gov

Cc: rebecca.a.victorine@usace.army.mil

Subject: Folsom Point Closure

Page 1 of 1

1/23/2007

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 by 

thousands of community members throughout the year for walking, biking, running, 

boatingand picnicing, its closure would be an 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. 

Thank you, 

Michael Cann 
Porter, Stacy

From: Van Saun [mkvansaun@comcast.net]

Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 10:32 PM

To: soliver@mp.usbr.gov

Subject: Concerned Residents

Concerned Residents Page 1 of 1

1/23/2007

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 

very concerned about this matter and ask that you would not only reconsider this proposal but give us more 

information. We have been Folsom residents and Briggs Ranch homeowners for over 11 years and we can not 

imagine what such a closure would do to our community and our neighborhood. 

Like many of our neighbors, we moved here primarily because of the lake access. Our family loves to take walks, 

run and mountain bike at the lake. We are extremely concerned about the devastating effect such a closure 

would have on the near by businesses as well as our home values. We personally know of a family that was 

considering several homes in the area to purchase and said yesterday that they will not buy here due to this 

issue.

Why haven't other access points been chosen to help with this matter without closing down an entire recreational 

area? Folsom Point is Folsom's only access where as Granite Bay has two access areas. 

We have dealt with the burden of the Dam Road closure and saw the effects of that decision on businesses, 

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. 

Sincerely, 

Mark and Kathy Van Saun Briggs Ranch Residents, Folsom 
Porter, Stacy

From: Jeffrey McCracken [JMCCRACKEN@mp.usbr.gov]

Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2007 8:20 AM

To: Shawn Oliver

Subject: Fwd: Submission to Reclamation

Page 1 of 1

1/23/2007

fyi...for the comment file.... 

>>> <skeeterfaust@comcast.net> 01/21 9:46 AM >>> 

From Keith Faust (skeeterfaust@comcast.net) on 01/21/2007 at 05:01:17 

MSGBODY: 

As a resident of Folsom I'm against the closure of Folsom Point by the Federal Government to raise Folsom 

Lake. Do we need to have Folsom Lake raised, yes. Can another staging area be found to accommodate the 

equipment needed by the Corp of Engineers, yes. 

During the closure of Folsom Dam Road for repairs on the flood gates, the parking lot adjacent to the Dam was 

used the staging area, why can't this be done again. 

Approx. 186,000 people use Folsom Point to either launch their boats, picnic, or dive on a yearly basis. We 

have enough traffic on the surface streets as the result of the Dam Road closure, now we are going to put an 

additional 186,000 on the already congested streets? 

There must be another answer to closing Folsom Point or any access to Folsom lake. Why does the Corp. of 

Engineers have to close an access road to the lake while they raise the level of the dam? I realize raising Folsom 

Lake is a huge project, but there must be another solution so that the tax payers and the Corp of Engineers can 

co-exist during the seven years it will take to complete this project. 

Respectfully 

Keith Faust 

106 Windstar Cir. 

Folsom, CA. 

(916) 985-7048 

Previous Page: http://www.usbr.gov/main/comments.cfm

 
1

Porter, Stacy

From: Dean Deguara [ddeguara@pacbell.net]

Sent: Monday, January 22, 2007 9:43 PM

To: mfinnegan@mp.usbr.gov

Subject: Don't close Folsom Point

Please don't close Folsom point and inconvenience the residents once again. Inconvenience 

the contractors and make them park their equipment somewhere else.

Dean Deguara

238 Montrose Dr.

Folsom, CA
1

Porter, Stacy

From: Shari Warr [shariw@spm1.com]

Sent: Monday, January 22, 2007 8:02 PM

To: mfinnegan@mp.usbr.gov

Subject: Folsom

Please don't close Folsom Point. Let this count as my opposal.

Shari Warr

Account Executive

Sierra Pacific Mortgage

50 Iron Point Circle

Folsom, CA 95630

(916) 769-4980 Cell

(916) 932-1700 Main

(916) 932-0536 Fax

Please refer to our website for real time Loan Status, Automated Approvals, Locking 

online, Ordering Docs online and Pipeline information at www.spm1.com
WARNING : Folsom Point ( Dyke 8) Closure! 

Closing for 7 years?!!

 

• Do you walk, picnic, ride bikes or trail horses at Folsom Point? 

• Do you launch your boat at Folsom Point? 

• Do you enjoy walking your dog at Folsom Point? 

If so, be aware they are going to close Folsom Point for 6-7 Years! ...This 

includes the boat launch, park & picnic areas!! 

If you enjoy the many recreational activities that Folsom Point/ Dyke 8, has to offer, you might be surprised to find 

out that effective Fall 2007, the Bureau of Reclamation is proposing closing Folsom Point/ Dyke 8 to all visitors for 

the duration of seven years. The Bureau, along with the Army Corps of Engineers are working to retrofit the dam 

and are proposing to use Folsom point as a staging area for construction materials and equipment. While the Bureau 

of Reclamation states that the closure of Folsom Point is a worst-case scenario, it is included in all five project 

alternatives. The full closure of Folsom Point for seven years is estimated to result in a loss of upwards of 820,000 

visitors, as well as negatively impact Browns Ravine, Beals Point, and Granite Bay boats launches due to 

overwhelming congestion. While we support the Dam project, there are many other alternatives that have yet 

to be explored that would allow for Folsom Point to remain accessible to the public. We need to ensure all 

options are considered. 

What can you do?.. Most Importantly.. Let your voice be heard.

All comments submitted by the public before the January 22, 2007 cut off date must be addressed by the 

Bureau of Reclamation. If we, the public don’t speak out, the Bureau has a green light to go ahead and certify 

the project without exploring alternative options. 

email: Bureau of Reclamation:

mfinnegan@mp.usbr.gov

soliver@mp.usbr.gov

916-988-1707

(U.S. Army Corp. of Engineers

rebecca.a.victorine@usace.army.mil

Join us on Sat. Jan. 20th @ 12:00 at the Folsom Point Park entrance 

to rally to save our park & boat launch!!! 

Please..even if you just show up to fill out a comment card....it will 

be delivered to City Hall on Monday, Jan. 22nd (we need every single 

comment) for more detail on the rally... 

call Nora Allarea @ 916-303-3452 
Folsom Point Closure 

Please help to prevent this from happening!!! 

 

*Make sure you email your opposition to closing Folsom Point for any 

length of time!!!! 

 email: Bureau of Reclamation:

mfinnegan@mp.usbr.gov

soliver@mp.usbr.gov

916-988-1707

(U.S. Army Corp. of Engineers

rebecca.a.victorine@usace.army.mil

Name: _Phil Vaughan_____________________________________ 

Street Address__14 Island Street_____________________________ 

City Saunders Beach______________ State Queensland, AUSTRALIA ____Zip Code_4818________ 

Email address: _amoz@getonit.com.au______________________________ 

To: the Bureau of Reclamation: 

 

Comments, Suggestions, Complaints, etc. 

 ___________________________________________________PLEASE DON’T LET ANYTHING HAPPEN 

TO PREVENT PEOPLE FROM USING THIS WONDERFUL RECREATION AREA. 

 I HAVE USED THIS LAKE FOR LEISURE PURPOSES ON PAST VISITS TO THE UNITED STATES 

AND IT TRULY WOULD BE A SHAME TO DEPRIVE FOLKS OF SUCH A BEAUTIFUL AND 

BOUNTIFUL ENJOYMENT AREA. 

____________________________________SURELY, IT WOULD BENEFIT THE LOCAL COMMUNITY 

FINANCIALLY AS WELL, WITH VISITORS RETURNING TO USE THE GREAT FACILITIES YOU 

HAVE TO OFFER THEM THERE. THEY SUPPORT YOUR COMMUNITY GREATLY WITH 

FINANCIAL GAINS FROM THE MONEY SPENT BY THE VISITING PUBLIC FROM ELSEWHERE 

OTHER THAN THE DEAR FOLKS OF THE FOLSOM AREA. 

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________ 

*Please send CD to the above address! 

 

 
Porter, Stacy

From: Wyatt, George [George.Wyatt@owenscorning.com]

Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2007 3:52 PM

To: mfinnegan@mp.usbr.gov

Cc: REINERT, MICHAEL (PBD)

Subject: Folsom Point closure

Folsom Point closure Page 1 of 1

1/24/2007

Please be advised that I am opposed to the closing of Folsom Point. I use the boat launch 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 is the closeness 

and availability of this facility. Please do not close it.

George Wyatt 

Area Sales Manager- Northern California 

916-608-9659 Office 

916-716-3225 Cell 

419-325-9455 Fax 

george.wyatt@owenscorning.com 

The information contained in this communication and its attachment(s) is intended only for the use of 

the individual to whom it is addressed and 

may contain information that is privileged, confidential, or exempt from disclosure. If the reader of this 

message is not the intended recipient, 

you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly 

prohibited. If you have received this 

communication in error, please notify postmaster@owenscorning.com and delete the communication 

without retaining any copies. Thank you. 

Translations available: http://www.owenscorning.com/emailfooter.html 
Porter, Stacy

From: John Sarno [jvsarno@comcast.net]

Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2007 12:48 PM

To: mfinnegan@mp.usbr.gov

Cc: soliver@mp.usbr.gov; rebecca.a.victorine@usace.army.mil

Subject: Folsom Point

Importance: High

Page 1 of 1

1/24/2007

I am writing this e mail to show my support AGAINST closing Folsom Point ,This action you are considering is 

ludicrous at best ! why can you not use the vista point area at the dam cite ? you have closed the dam road and 

that area is just sitting there, as a Folsom resident for approx 20 years we have put up with every inconvenience 

you can imagine why are you trying to inflict another ?

John and Sharon Sarno 
Porter, Stacy

From: Heather Sibilla [hsibilla@folsom.ca.us]

Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2007 10:49 AM

To: soliver@mp.usbr.gov

Subject: FW: Proposed Folsom Point Closure

Page 1 of 1

1/24/2007

From: Janelle Mau [mailto:janelle.mau@comcast.net] 

Sent: Saturday, January 20, 2007 2:03 PM 

To: The Mayor 

Subject: Proposed Folsom Point Closure

 

Dear Mayor Morin,

 

We are against the closure of Folsom Point!! 

 

Folsom Point is a park used by many people throughout our city. As a resident of a neighborhood near Folsom 

Point, you probably realize just how many of our neighbors walk over to use this facility on a daily basis. Dog 

walking, swimming, fishing, nature hikes, running, bicycling, and boating are just some of the activities people 

enjoy. The second grade classes at Folsom Hills Elementary take a walking field trip to Folsom Point to study 

nature every year. This is wonderful exercise for all who are able to walk to the lake!

 

Closing Folsom Point would eliminate that option for all residents of Briggs Ranch and nearby neighborhoods. 

We'd then have to get in our cars and drive to another park at the lake, thereby increasing traffic and pollution in 

the city. This closure will adversely affect our property values in these neighborhoods as well, and decrease the 

desirability of living here. In addition, the noise of heavy equipment, machinery, and increased truck traffic in and 

out of the area will negatively impact our neighborhood even further. 

 

Many other residents and businesses throughout Folsom will also be severly impacted by the closure of Folsom 

Point, as I'm sure you are already aware.

 

There must be some other options for the location of this construction 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 staging area. 

 

Sincerely,

 

Janelle & Curtis Mau

113 Marvin Ct.

Folsom (Briggs Ranch)
Porter, Stacy

From: Heather Sibilla [hsibilla@folsom.ca.us]

Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2007 10:41 AM

To: soliver@mp.usbr.gov

Subject: FW: Proposed Closure of Folsom Point State Park (A.K.A. Dyke 8) 

Page 1 of 2

1/24/2007

From: Scout2Family@aol.com [mailto:Scout2Family@aol.com] 

Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2007 2:13 PM 

To: The Mayor; rebecca.a.victorine@usace.army.mil 

Subject: Proposed Closure of Folsom Point State Park (A.K.A. Dyke 8) 

 

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 the convenience 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 hike. We walk our dog, 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 

away too. This is our life, 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 

scheduled for the fall of 2007. This proposal comes from the Bureau of Reclamation and the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers. It is our understanding that our beautiful park and recreation area will be used as a construction 

staging area for different work projects on the dam and Morman Island Spillway by the Bureau and Army Corps of 

Engineers.

It is our belief that this closure will have a deep and dramatic effects on families, businesses, tourism, and the 

environment. The consequences are far reaching. This is a family community. We bring our children to the lake, 

bike swim, picnic, fish, boat and just enjoy nature. This scenario is repeated over and over again. Folsom Point 

is one of the reasons people buy homes in this area. This park is one of the jewels of Folsom. Bird Watchers 

frequent the park. I might point out that even though the Bald Eagle is no longer on the endangered species list, it 

is still protected by the "Bald and Gold Eagle Protection Act". It is my understanding that one of the afforded 

protections is not to disturb the nesting area or flight pattern area. This needs more investigation.

We have not been given adequate time to investigate the impact that this proposal will have on our evironment. 

We have other migratory birds that now nest there as well. This is a pathway for many other animals as well. 

Rattlesnakes also reside at Folsom Point.

The businesses in Folsom will definitely realize a financial impact. Our business owners look forward to the 

summer months when tourists and other lake traffic provide much needed revenue. Our businesses suffered with 

the closure of the Dam Road and not this may be the proverbial "straw" for financial loss. Business owners have 

expressed a great concern.

We do not oppose improvements on the dam. We request a staging area that will not hurt so many families, 

busineses, wildlife, and real estate values. In all truth we have not been given adequate time in which to address 

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

a city with a population of 63,000. The deadline given to us to discuss the closure is January 22, 2007. That was 

essentially "no notice". We need 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.
Thank you kindly for your time and consideration,

Randy, Natasha, Autumn, Chelsea, Megan and Hailey Pike And Angus (our dog)

(Folsom Residents residing in Briggs Ranch near Dyke 8)

Page 2 of 2

1/24/2007
Porter, Stacy

From: Heather Sibilla [hsibilla@folsom.ca.us]

Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2007 10:33 AM

To: soliver@mp.usbr.gov

Subject: FW: FOLSOM POINT CLOSURE

Page 1 of 2

1/24/2007

From: Susan Akin [mailto:akinsja2@yahoo.com] 

Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2007 9:08 AM 

To: The Mayor 

Subject: FOLSOM POINT CLOSURE

 

To our Mayor Andy Morin,

 

I live within 5 minutes of Folsom Point State Park. I was not notified about the 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 week in the spring, summer 

and fall months. I buy the Annual Pass each year. I have not noticed any postings at the park entrance about the 

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 feel that this is of importance to us as well and deserved to be notified. This impacts us as families, 

businesses, tourists, it also impacts the real-estate values in our area.

 

Lake Point is an important asset for outdoor activities, such as boating, picnicking, hiking, bird watching, 

fishing,swimming, or just to enjoy nature. I and my children have sat at a park bench and watched a snake eat a 

frog, watch the deer who frequently graze on the shoreline grass or drink from the lake, we watch the migratory 

birds that rest on its shores. We have shared many memories at Folsom Point State Park. Folsom Point is an 

important asset for outdoor recreation enthusiasts and as such has a very big impact on home values and our 

economy. Closing access to its shore lines and boat ramps will be very detrimental to the people who use those 

amenities and extremely harmful to the local home values in the region. Some of the local businesses, which 

depend on their proximity to Folsom Point for their success, could very likely be forced out of business as well.

 

The impact of this closure would be enormous, not only to me and my family but to our community. In the light 

that there are other alternatives to consider, I hope you will give this further thought. I would suggest considering 

the sides of the now closed dam road as well as the large parking area to vista/picnic area which are already 

closed to the public.

 

I find it disturbing that the announcement of the meeting time came on the same day of its occurrence. I would 

obviously not be alone in being extremely disappointed to loose continued access to Folsom lake Point during 

and after any construction takes place.

 

I furthermore believe that ALL Folsom residents and businesses who have already taken a huge hit by the already 

closure of the Dam Road, the increase in traffic on our private streets would be granted the time necessary to 

seek counsel as to our rights and the rights of 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 

elections), to stand up and speak for us all, not just the 3,000 people who someone, some where deemed 

necessary to notify. 

 

Respectfully,

 

 

Susan Akin and Family

717 Hancock Dr.
Porter, Stacy

From: Nic ole [nic8119@yahoo.com]

Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2007 10:06 AM

To: rebecca.a.victorine@usace.army.mil; soliver@mp.usbr.gov; mfinnegan@mp.usbr.gov

Subject: Folsom Point

Page 1 of 1

1/24/2007

 January 22, 2007 

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 a place is needed to store equipment but I also understand that there are other 

storage options. 

 I am writing this letter because Folsom Point is not only important and meaningful to me, but it 

is crucial to the livelihood of local businesses. 

 I grew up in Folsom and every week my family and I would go for walks along the dyke. We 

have taken many Christmas photos out there over the years as well as enjoyed family picnics, BBQs’ 

and the Fireman’s Eco Challenge. 

 Businesses rely on the families that venture to and from this part of the lake year round, 

especially in the summer when the boaters are out and about. So many businesses would go under. Can 

you imagine what a financial nightmare this would create for many of the business owners located 

around this part of the lake? 

 Although I have moved to the Bay Area now and have my own family, I still look forward to 

Christmas morning walks at the lake and was looking forward to taking my son to picnic at the lake and 

watch the boats launch at Folsom Point this summer. You may argue that there are other places to go to 

at Folsom Lake, but none of them are like Folsom Point. 

 Please reconsider your plans to close Folsom Point. The City of Folsom has already destroyed or 

removed many things enjoyed by its’ residents, we don’t need another! 

 

Sincerely, 

 

Nicole Benson 

Be a PS3 game guru. 

Get your game face on with the latest PS3 news and previews at Yahoo! Games.
Porter, Stacy

From: Debbie Sultan [debbiesultan@sbcglobal.net]

Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2007 9:58 AM

To: soliver@mp.usbr.gov; mfinnegan@mp.usbr.gov; rebecca.a.victorine@usace.army.mil

Subject: NO on Closure of Folsom Point

Page 1 of 1

1/24/2007

To the Bureau of Reclamation,

 

 The proposed closure of Folsom point State Park is of great concern to the residents of Folsom We realize that 

improvements on the dam and other areas need to take place, but it should not be at the expense of the 

environment, wildlife,local businesses and our recreational enjoyment. 

Please seek other options.

 A Concerned Citizen of Folsom, Debbie Sultan

 
Porter, Stacy

From: Lynn and Eric Bonzell [fishbonz@cwo.com]

Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2007 8:58 AM

To: mfinnegan@mp.usbr.gov

Subject: Folsom Dam- Closure of Folsom Point

Page 1 of 1

1/24/2007

Dear Bureau of Reclamation,

 

We are opposed to the closure of Folsom Point for the upcoming construction to Folsom Dam. 

There will be a tremendous negative financial impact to the city of Folsom and it will adversely 

affect the residents of Folsom as well.

 

Thank You,

 

Lynn & Eric Bonzell

909 Palmer Circle

Folsom, CA 95630

916-351-1711
Porter, Stacy

From: Aimee Wendell [mxaimee@yahoo.com]

Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2007 9:20 AM

To: mfinnegan@mp.usbr.gov

Subject: Folsom Point

Page 1 of 1

1/24/2007

I am OPPOSED to closing Folsom Point. Thank you 

 

Aimee Wendell 
Porter, Stacy

From: Heather Sibilla [hsibilla@folsom.ca.us]

Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2007 9:41 AM

To: soliver@mp.usbr.gov

Subject: FW: Folsom Point closure

Page 1 of 1

1/24/2007

From: Lynn Derrick [mailto:lderrick5@comcast.net] 

Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2007 8:54 PM 

To: Steve Miklos 

Subject: Folsom Point closure

 

Steve Miklos,

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

Council will be deciding whether or not to close Folsom Point for the next 7 years while the new bridge is 

constructed. I wanted to let you know I am very opposed to this idea. One of the reasons we live in the Briggs 

Ranch area is because it is so close to Folsom Lake and the quick and easy access to the boat launch at Folsom 

Point.

I am also very concerned about all the construction trucks that will be disturbing this residential area. I am also 

concerned what this closure and construction will do to property values in the Briggs Ranch 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 

about these issues when election day rolls around again!

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Lynn Derrick

207 Briggs Ranch Dr.

Folsom, CA
Porter, Stacy

From: Heather Sibilla [hsibilla@folsom.ca.us]

Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2007 9:41 AM

To: soliver@mp.usbr.gov

Subject: FW: Folsom Point Rally

Page 1 of 1

1/24/2007

From: mcderbymadness@comcast.net [mailto:mcderbymadness@comcast.net] 

Sent: Friday, January 19, 2007 3:24 PM 

To: corrprincess@ardennetcom; eking@ericking.org; admin dept 

Subject: Folsom Point Rally

 

City Council Members, 

I had a very encouraging conversation with Steve Miklos today about fighting the closure of Folsom 

Point. As we spoke he told me he knew nothing of the rally tomorrow and I wanted to make sure that 

was not the same case for all of you. 

We are holding a rally in the church parking lot at the entrance of Folsom Point tomorrow to have 

residents of Folsom sign petitions to stop the closure. I hope we can see all of you there to support our 

community in this protest. 

Thank you for your time, 

Ann Lindner 

608-9676 
Porter, Stacy

From: Heather Sibilla [hsibilla@folsom.ca.us]

Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2007 9:41 AM

To: soliver@mp.usbr.gov

Subject: FW: 

Page 1 of 1

1/24/2007

From: bobolover@comcast.net [mailto:bobolover@comcast.net] 

Sent: Friday, January 19, 2007 5:29 PM 

To: Jeff Starsky 

Subject:

 

We are outraged that you, our elected officials, have basically stuck your heads in the sand regarding the 

closure of Folsom Point. It really upsets us and our neighbors that you haven't represented the fine 

citizens of our city in a diligent manner. We litereally found out about this issue on January 15, 2007. 

Why was this never mentioned in any literature from the city? Why were we and everyone we 

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 out detailed information regarding this matter. We left completely frustrated as if we 

were nothing but an imposition. We were left to take matters into our own hands when this clearly 

should be the City's responsibility to take care of us and the resources of this city that we moved here 

to enjoy. 

We can only wonder what the impact will be on property values, businesses and the community as a 

whole. 

 

We believe it is YOUR RESPONSIBILITY to address this significant isssue and make sure that the 

closure of Folsom Point does not happen. Surely you can come up with several alternatives that would 

not impact the lives of all that use this facility. 

 

Ken & Susan Doherty
Porter, Stacy

From: monique.wilber@edcgov.us

Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 12:18 PM

To: Porter, Stacy

Cc: soliver@mp.usbr.gov

Subject: El Dorado County comments on Folsom DS/FDR DEIS/EIR

Attachments: El_Dorado_County_FolsomDS-FDR_DEIS-R_comments_012607_scanned-signed.pdf; 

El_Dorado_County_Comments_Folsom_CAR_DEIR_012607_adobe-unsigned.pdf

Page 1 of 1

1/26/2007

Hello Stacy, 

Here are comments from El Dorado County regarding oak woodlands. I'm including the scanned pdf with 

signature, but our scanner is not great, and some type is small, so I'm also sending an Adobe pdf, unsigned, so 

the authors can actually read what I'm commenting on! 

Happy comment-gathering, and have a good weekend! 

Thanks, 

Monique 

Monique Wilber 

Assistant Planner

El Dorado County Development Services 

monique.wilber@edcgov.us 

(530) 621-5355 

http://www.co.el-dorado.ca.us/Planning/GeneralPlanImplementation.html 
1 

County of PLANNING 

EL DORADO http://www.co.el-dorado.ca.us/devservices SERVICES 

 

 

January 26, 2007 

Mr. Shawn Oliver 

Bureau of Reclamation 

7794 Folsom Dam Road 

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 Guidelines for General Plan Policy 7.4.4.4 – Forest and Oak Woodland 

Resources (Public Review Draft) was reviewed by the Draft EIS/EIR authors for information. 

As an update, the Interim Interpretive Guidelines were finalized and adopted by the Planning 

Commission on November 9, 2006. El Dorado County is currently conducting an intensive 

study of oak woodlands in the County which will result in an Oak Woodland Management Plan 

in spring/summer 2007, which will replace the interim guidelines. Ongoing documentation is 

posted on 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, indicates that Alternatives 1 through 5 will have a Significant but 

Mitigatable Impact (CEQA) and an Adverse Impact (NEPA) to protected oak woodlands. We 

have reviewed the DEIS/DEIR, and the USFWS Coordination Act Report, and offer the 

following comments: 

DEIS/DEIR comments: 

1. Section 3.5.1.2, Regulatory Setting, State: Although the California Environmental 

Quality Act (CEQA) PRC §21000 et.seq. is noted, in particular, CEQA PRC §21083.4 is 

not identified, which has a direct bearing on allowable mitigation for oak woodlands. 

PLACERVILLE OFFICE: LAKE TAHOE OFFICE: EL DORADO HILLS OFFICE: 

2850 FAIRLANE COURT 3368 LAKE TAHOE BLVD., SUITE 302 4950 HILLSDALE CIRCLE, SUITE 100 

PLACERVILLE, CA. 95667 SOUTH LAKE TAHOE, CA 96150 EL DORADO HILLS, CA 95762 

(530) 621-5355 (530) 573-3330 (916) 941-4967 and (530) 621-5582 

(530) 642-0508 Fax (530) 542-9082 Fax (916) 941-0269 Fax 

Counter Hours: 7:30 AM to 4:30 PM Counter Hours: 8-12 PM and 1-4 PM Counter Hours: 7:30 AM to 4:30 PM 

planning@co.el-dorado.ca.us tahoebuild@co.el-dorado.ca.us planning@co.el-dorado.ca.us

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT 
El Dorado County Response to Draft Folsom Dam Safety and Flood Damage Reduction Draft EIS/EIR 

January 26, 2007 

2. Section 3.5.1.2, Regulatory Setting, Local, Local Native Tree Protection Ordinance: At 

present, in El Dorado County, protection of 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 Oak Woodland and Savanna, pages 3.5-4 to 3.5-5: There do 

not appear to be any maps which spatially approximate the potential future inundation 

zone (1,323 acres) and the construction area (81 acres) which will affect oak woodlands. 

It would be helpful to see where the affected 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 and Important Habitat Mitigation Program Guidelines, 

adopted by the Planning Commission on November 9, 2006, and available at our oak 

woodlands website noted above, contains detailed recommendations regarding 

safeguarding trees during construction. 

Appendix B, Federal Biological Compliance, Draft Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report 

CAR) comments: 

5. Draft CAR – Table 7, Evaluation Species, Resource Categories, and Compensation 

Planning Goals selected for cover-types impacted by the Folsom DS/FDR Project, 

California, page 34: We acknowledge the value of the Mitigation Planning Goals of “No 

net 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 Project, 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 seedlings, 15 years for acorns) . Mitigation does not address 

the success rate of replanting, for which the County standard is 90 percent4

. 

7. Draft CAR – Recommendations, General, page 40: El Dorado County agrees that 

avoidance of impacts to woodlands and wetlands is a primary mitigation action. 

8. Draft CAR – Recommendations, General, page 41: “Compensate for unavoidable 

impacts to oak-grey pine woodland habitat by acquiring suitable lands and developing 

oak woodland habitat using the assumptions contained in Appendix A...” El Dorado 

 

1 The El Dorado County Oak Woodland Management Plan and Oak Tree Protection Ordinance are pending but not yet 

adopted. 

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. 
El Dorado County Response to Draft Folsom Dam Safety and Flood Damage Reduction Draft EIS/EIR 

January 26, 2007 

County notes that CEQA PRC §21083.4 only allows 50 percent of mitigation of impacts 

to oak woodlands to be in the form of replanting. Other mitigation options include 

conservation easements and contribution of funds to the Oak Woodlands Conservation 

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 measure for removal of older stands of trees cannot meet the 

immediate habitat needs of forest-dependent animal species. This realization has 

expanded 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 planting to model the development of blue oak stand structure 

attributes over 50 years (Standiford et al., 2002). The model showed that a 10 percent 

canopy cover of oak woodland could be achieved in 10 years if trees were planted at a 

density of 200 trees per acre and maintained at high management intensity. After 50 

years, trees in planted stands were still small (1-6 inch diameter at breast height) and 

wildlife habitat quality was not equivalent to that of mature oak woodland. Species 

composition shifted from wildlife species that utilize acorns, cavities and downed wood 

to those that utilize open areas. This study emphasizes the need for a comprehensive 

approach to 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 County acknowledges that 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 

 

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. 
Tisthammer, Troy

From: Buer. Stein (MSA) [buers@SacCounty.NET]

Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2007 9:21 PM

To: beckncall@inreach.com

Subject: FW: Opposition to Closure of Folsom Lake recreation Sites

Attachments: Folsom Lake Controversy.doc

Message Page 1 of 1

1/29/2007

Dear Mr. Beck:

Your comments will be included in the formal records and will be duly considered in preparation of the final. 

Thank you for taking the time to make your concerns known.

From: Bruce Beck [mailto:beckncall@inreach.com] 

Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 12:17 PM 

To: Buer. Stein (MSA) 

Subject: Opposition to Closure of Folsom Lake recreation Sites

 

Mr. Buei:

 

Please review and use the attached document of our opposition to any closure of any Folsom Lake recreational 

sites for equipment parking.

 

Thank you:

 

Bruce Beck

 

 

 

____________________________________________________________________________ 

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO EMAIL DISCLAIMER: 

This email and any attachments thereto may contain private, confidential, and 

privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, 

copying, or distribution of this email (or any attachments thereto) by other 

than the County of Sacramento or the intended recipient is strictly prohibited. 

If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender immediately 

and permanently delete the original and any copies of this email and any 

attachments thereto. 

_____________________________________________________________________________ 
1/26/2007 

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 Granite Bay as a 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 Folsom Lake for use of equipment parking. 

We have been boating on Folsom Lake for more than 25 years. Any closing of any boating 

access and public picnicking would not be in the best interest of the local economy, local boating 

area and the overall boating industry in general.

1. Why the equipment parking area can’t be established along Folsom-Auburn Road near 

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 Point (Dyke 8) were to happen.

 

There are a large number of boaters in the Sacramento area. Requiring boaters to travel to other 

locations would not only crowd those other locations more than usual but cause other 

environmental issues with more 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.

 

Thank you:

 

Bruce & Rosemary Beck

 (916) 789-1323 

 
Tisthammer, Troy

From: Micheaels, Jim [JMICHE@parks.ca.gov]

Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 3:58 PM

To: Shawn Oliver; Rebecca.A.Victorine@usace.army.mil

Cc: Nakaji, Scott; Gross, Michael

Subject: DPR Comments on DEIS/DEIR - Dam Safety/Flood Damage Reduction

Attachments: Letter to Reclamation - Dam Safety-Flood Damage Reduction DEIR-DEIS.doc; Attachment - 

Dam Safety-Flood Damage Reduction.doc

Page 1 of 1

1/29/2007

Shawn and Becky –

Attached are DPR comments on the DEIS/DEIR. Signed hard copies of the letter and attachment were hand 

delivered to Reclamation today and will go into the mail to others who have been cc’d. Thanks, JM.

Jim Micheaels, Staff Park & Recreation Specialist 

Gold Fields District

7806 Folsom-Auburn Road

Folsom, CA 95630

(916) 988-0513

(916) 988-9062 fax

 
State of California • The Resources Agency Arnold Schwarzenegger, Governor

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION Ruth Coleman, Director

Gold Fields District 

7806 Folsom-Auburn Road 

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 (DPR) Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Draft 

Environmental Impact Report (DEIS/DEIR) regarding the Folsom Dam Safety and Flood 

Damage Reduction Project. DPR has previously provided extensive comment and 

recommendations regarding this project including an April 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 providing additional flood protection for the region. As 

Reclamation’s managing partner for recreation, natural and cultural resources at Folsom 

Lake State Recreation Area (SRA), DPR is also concerned about the impacts of the 

project on these resources and uses. About 1.5 million visitors recreate at Folsom Lake 

SRA annually. Obviously this project will have some significant impacts on this 

recreation use and the facilities supporting this use. To date, DPR does not believe the 

project impacts to recreation use and facilities at Folsom Lake SRA have been 

adequately mitigated. We look forward to continuing to work with the lead agencies to 

find ways to avoid impacts to recreation use and facilities and to mitigate these impacts. 

Please see the enclosed Attachment with our specific comments for each of the 

recreation use 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 Superintendent Michael Gross at (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 

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 Reduction Draft EIS/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 excavated for the 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.” 

Without any explanation of how this spoil material would be used it seems 

premature to conclude it would be put to beneficial use, the material could just as 

well impact the native vegetation on the existing shoreline. DPR is 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 for both dam safety and flood damage 

reduction purposes; 7 feet to provide additional surcharge capacity for flood 

damage reduction purposes; and 17 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. The top of MIAD and Dikes 4, 5 and 6 are 

currently all utilized as part of the trail system within Folsom Lake SRA. The trails 

at Folsom Lake SRA are an important recreation amenity for the local 

neighborhoods, communities and Sacramento region. The trails along the tops of 

these dikes and dams provide vital connections to other trails downstream of the 

dikes and dams. The unobstructed views of Folsom Lake are an important part of 

the experience of recreation visitors using these trails. DPR is specifically 

concerned about the impact of options utilizing a concrete parapet wall on 

recreation trail users. This includes both the visual impact of obstructed views 

and also the impacts the concrete parapet wall and concrete retaining wall may 

have on access to the trails across the top of these dikes and dams. We believe 

the concrete parapet wall options will be an attractive nuisance (graffiti) and 

barrier for recreation use. DPR would not be responsible for any repair or 

maintenance of such a concrete wall, including graffiti removal. 

Recommendation:

DPR believes the conventional earthfill raise option provides the best 

opportunity for continued unfettered access to the trails across the dams 
and dikes and unobstructed views. A reinforced earth wall would be a 

second preference. 

2.2.4.10 New Embankment Construction 

The document indicates that depending upon the Alternative selected, up to 45 

new embankments may be constructed if a 7-foot raise of the dikes and dams 

was selected. The number of new embankments required for a 17-foot raise has 

not been determined. It does not appear that the document specifically identifies 

where these new embankments would be constructed and that no environmental 

analysis is provided for these new embankments. 

Recommendation:

DPR believes the environmental analysis for this aspect of the project is 

inadequate and that if any alternative is selected which requires additional 

embankment raises which are not specifically identified in this 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 which will close or impact recreation areas 

within Folsom Lake SRA including Folsom Point, Beal’s Point, Granite Bay and 

trails within the SRA. California State Parks believes there are some “win/win” 

possibilities with regards to mitigation for the impacts to and loss of recreation 

use which the lead agencies for the project are not taking advantage. In previous 

discussions with Reclamation we have explored the idea of rehabilitating some of 

the staging areas, once construction activities are complete, into improved 

recreation sites. DPR believes it is reasonable for the lead agencies to provide 

for these finished facilities as mitigation for the loss of recreation use at these 

sites. 

Folsom Point

The document indicates Folsom Point would be a main staging area for the 

Project including contractor’s offices, parking, material staging and processing, 

and borrow stockpiling. The DEIS/DEIR indicates Folsom Point would be closed 

to all recreation use from 6 to 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 for 77 vehicles. 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, local community members and others, that 
options are being explored to reduce or avoid the complete closure of Folsom 

Point during the construction 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 the Reservoir on the east side of Folsom 

Point to create additional areas for staging and material processing. DPR has 

suggested that following construction activities, Reclamation could contour and 

covert this proposed material processing and construction staging area into a 

new boat ramp, parking and additional picnic sites, including group picnic sites. 

DPR believes that the provision of additional new recreation facilities could serve 

to help mitigate the loss of recreation use. 

Recommendation:

To the extent that Folsom Point is utilized as a construction staging or 

materials processing area which results in a loss of recreation access and 

use, DPR believes the federal agencies have an obligation to mitigate the 

loss of recreation use. One option to provide such mitigation is to enhance 

the existing facilities or convert staging areas into additional recreation 

facilities following construction. This might include extending the existing 

boat ramp, rehabilitating 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 staging, stockpiling of borrow material 

and concrete production. The document indicates that portions of Beal’s Point 

would be occupied by construction 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. Recreation use of 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 Reclamation was considering filling a shallow 

portion of the Reservoir on the south side of Beal’s Point to create additional area 

for staging and material processing. 

Recommendation:

DPR would like to be consulted regarding the exact location of the staging 

areas. To the extent that Beal’s Point is utilized as a construction staging 

or materials processing area which results in a loss of recreation access 

and use, DPR believes the federal agencies have an obligation to mitigate 

the loss of recreation use. DPR has recommends that following 

construction activities, Reclamation should contour and convert this 
proposed material processing and construction staging area into additional 

parking, picnic sites and other day use recreation facilities. DPR believes 

that the provision of additional new recreation facilities could serve to help 

mitigate the loss of recreation use. 

Granite Bay

Construction staging areas at Granite Bay to support a variety of activities 

depending upon the Alternative including: contractor offices; parking; borrow site 

excavation; construction at Dikes 1, 2, 3; material processing, stock piling and 

storage. From the document it is 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 508,000 visitors which generates $1.6 million 

in revenues from user fees annually. 

Recommendation:

Locate construction staging areas so they avoid or minimize impacts to 

recreation access or use. DPR would like to be consulted regarding the 

exact location of the staging areas. To the extent that Granite Bay is 

utilized as a construction staging, borrow site or materials processing area 

which results in a loss of recreation access 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. The top of MIAD is utilized as a trail 

connecting Folsom Point to the trail to Browns Ravine. There is an existing 

parking area on the eastern side of MIAD for trail users which accommodates 

about 30 vehicles. This parking lot is regularly used by trail users. It appears that 

the construction or staging area will encompass the parking lot. 

Recommendation:

If the parking lot and trail connections are obliterated due to construction 

or staging activities, this parking lot will need to be replaced. DPR would 

like to consult with the lead agencies regarding the replacement of this 

parking lot. To the extent construction activities result in a loss of 

recreation access and use, DPR believes the federal 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 wing dam. It is also possible that activities in 

this area may impact the paved bike path which crosses this area and connects 

from Lake Natoma to Beal’s Point. 
Recommendation:

Avoid impacts to the above DPR facilities or mitigate any impacts by 

replacing these facilities as needed. 

The proposed staging area just south of Hinkle Reservoir appears to occupy an 

area that is proposed for the new entrance to Reclamation/DPR administrative 

offices and facilities as part of the new Folsom Dam Bridge Project. This area is 

also the locations where the American River Water Education Center (ARWEC) 

and DPR’s public contact station are proposed to be relocated as part of 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 Point (paved parking area on the east side of 

the left wing dam) was a popular public day use facility. This facility has been 

closed due to security concerns. The project will occupy this site for many years, 

if not permanently. Observation Point has perhaps the most dramatic view of 

Folsom Lake. 

Recommendation:

Reclamation and the Corps should mitigate the loss of Observation Point 

to future public use.

Borrow Sites

Folsom Point

Borrow material would be excavated from the along the shoreline all around 

Folsom Point. 

Recommendation:

DPR believes that borrow site excavation could be conducted in a manner 

that improved some recreation facilities. This might include extending 

existing boat ramps, developing an additional boat ramp, or contouring 

shoreline areas for use as a beach area. In order for these types of 

benefits to be realized, DPR believes the contouring needs to be 

coordinated with the mitigation ideas proposed for Folsom Point in 

2.2.4.11 above. We believe, as partial mitigation for the loss of recreation 

use, the lead agencies could complete improvements to recreation 

facilities at Folsom Point. 

Granite Bay

In Alternatives 4 and 5 it appears borrow excavation would occur in the north 

portion of this recreation area. It appears that the excavation may include the 

area of Main Granite Beach, which is a primary attraction and one of the most 

heavily used portions of Granite Bay. 
Recommendation:

DPR would like to avoid or minimize impacts to Main Granite Beach and 

the other primary recreation use facilities at Granite Bay during the 

summer use season. To the extent construction activities result in a loss of 

recreation access and use, DPR believes the federal agencies have an 

obligation to mitigate the loss of recreation use. One opportunity to 

partially mitigate this impact is to contour the area along main Granite 

Beach in a manner which will improve the beach area and water access at 

a variety of lake levels. DPR would like to consult with the lead agencies 

on opportunities to 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 the north side of Beal’s Point is utilized as a 

beach and swim area. 

Recommendation:

To the extent construction activities result in a loss of recreation access 

and use, DPR believes the federal agencies have an obligation to mitigate 

the loss of recreation use. One opportunity to partially mitigate this impact 

is to contour the area on the north side of the Beal’s Point in a manner 

which will improve the beach use area and potentially import sand. DPR 

would like to consult with the lead agencies on opportunities to contour the 

area around Beal’s 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. Brown’s Ravine is the 

location of the Folsom Lake Marina and one of the most heavily used recreation 

use areas within the SRA. The marina is operated by a concessionaire. It is 

possible that borrow excavation could benefit the marina operation by increasing 

the depth of the marina basin. However, this would need to be coordinated with 

DPR and the marina operator. From the figures in the document it appears that 

the excavation would be focused on the shoreline along the south side of Browns 

Ravine and may well not benefit marina operations. The point of land between 

Brown’s Ravine and MIAD is an undeveloped portion of the SRA with excellent 

habitat values due to the State land adjacent to the federal lands in this area. 

DPR is concerned about impacts to upland vegetation and habitat from the 

borrow excavation. 

Recommendation:

Keep borrow excavation activities, including hauling materials, below the 

466’ elevation, to avoid impacts to upland native vegetation, habitat and 

wildlife. To the extent construction activities result in a loss of recreation 

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 disposed of at several locations including, Dike 7, 

Folsom Point and Beal’s Point. Alternative 3 proposes permanent disposal of up 

to 500,000 cubic yards of material at Dike 7 alone. DPR has already provided 

ideas on how this excess material could be located, contoured and rehabilitated 

to provide improved or new finished recreation facilities at Beal’s Point and 

Folsom Point to help mitigate the loss of recreation use and impacts to recreation 

use in these areas. 

With the exception of a trail discussed immediately below, DPR is not interested 

in creating additional recreation facilities in the vicinity of Dike 7 at this time. 

Recommendation:

At Dike 7, other than the provision for the trail, DPR recommends that any 

excess spoil material be contoured to match the existing natural upland 

areas and re-vegetated and restored as blue oak woodland or oak 

savanna or some similar native plant community. Contouring the shoreline 

and finishing the new shoreline with material suitable for 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 Point. DPR presumes this haul route would 

be above the 466’ elevation. The new draft General Plan/Resource Management 

Plan for Folsom Lake SRA provides direction for the development of a paved 

multi-use trail between Dike 7 and Folsom Point (and continuing across MIAD to 

the intersection of Green Valley Road and Sophia Parkway). This same paved 

bike route is identified in the City of Folsom Bikeway Master Plan as it connects 

to City bike trails. 

Recommendation:

For all internal haul routes, to the extent feasible, avoid removal of native 

oak trees. DPR recommends that following construction activities, the lead 

agencies convert the proposed haul route between Dike 7 and Folsom 

Point into a paved bike path that would continue across MIAD to the 

intersection of Green Valley Road and Sophia Parkway. DPR believes the 

federal agencies have an obligation to mitigate the loss of recreation use 

at Folsom Point and that providing a finished paved multi-use trail from 

Dike 7 to Folsom Point would serve as partial mitigation for the project 

impacts to recreation use and access. 

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 Point. Specific locations of these camera 

towers are not indicated in the document. DPR is concerned about the potential 

impact of the towers and bases on the trails across the top of the dams and dikes 

and the connections to other trails. DPR is also concerned about the visual 

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 made site visits with Reclamation staff 

to provide input on the specific locations of these towers. This includes the tower 

location at Beal’s Point, for which DPR has provided specific recommendations 

regarding the location of this tower to minimize the visual impact on recreation 

visitors at the Beal’s Point day use facilities. DPR hopes this information has not 

been lost in the process. 

Recommendation:

Site the camera towers so they do not interfere with the trails across MIAD 

and Dikes 4, 5, 6 and connections to these trails. Site the camera towers 

so the impact to the visual resources and views of the Folsom Lake and 

the 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 within the SRA utilize the top of MIAD and 

the dikes DPR requests that adequate pass-through openings are provided for 

trail users, including pedestrians, equestrians and bicyclists towing trailers. The 

existing bollard system installed over the past several years was installed without 

providing adequate pass-through openings for trail users. This lack of adequate 

pass through openings with the existing bollards has caused numerous 

complaints from trail users. 

Recommendation:

Ensure that a 60-inch wide opening, with even tread, is provided at the 

location of all vehicle 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. DPR believes that installing power 

lines on towers or poles along the top of the dikes and dams would be a 

significant impact to visual resources within Folsom Lake SRA. 

Recommendation:

DPR recommendation is that power lines be installed underground. If that 

is not possible our second preference is for power lines to be installed on 
poles along the downstream toe of the dikes and dams, out of the way of 

any trails or other recreation facilities, to minimize the visual impact. 

Project Lighting

The project proposes lighting to be installed to support monitoring of the barrier 

system. DPR presumes this is permanent lighting. No further detail is provided 

regarding this lighting. DPR is concerned that such lighting will be a visual 

impact, could further impact the night sky and might affect the nocturnal habitat 

of wildlife. The details and potential impacts of this lighting are not adequately 

discussed or analyzed in the environmental document. 

Recommendation:

Any permanent lighting should be of the minimum intensity required, 

should be hooded and downward directed to prevent impacts to the night 

sky and nocturnal wildlife. 

Alternatives 

DPR supports the project objectives of increasing dam safety and reducing flood 

damage. DPR request that the lead agencies select project alternatives which 

achieve project objectives while minimizing the impacts to recreation use and 

facilities, natural and cultural resources at Folsom Lake SRA. DPR believes the 

alternatives which include raising the dams and dikes, particularly the 7-foot and 

17-foot raises, will greatly increase the impacts to the recreation use and 

resources within the SRA. 

Chapter 3 - Affected Environment, Impacts Analyses, and Mitigation 

Measures

3.5 Terrestrial Vegetation and Wildlife 

The document identifies impacts to vegetation and wildlife from both construction 

related activities and from inundation caused by emergency flood retention. With 

regards to the latter, it appears the approach (BIO-8, page 3.5-52) is to wait until 

an inundation occurs, then to survey the damage and determine the appropriate 

mitigation at that time. DPR has concerns with this approach. Temporary 

inundation may not kill oak trees outright immediately, but could cause root 

damage which causes oak trees to deteriorate over time and may make trees 

more susceptible to wind fall or insect damage. A single survey, or even a survey 

over several years, may not 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 other habitat requiring mitigation, whether 

from construction related impacts or inundation, is to purchase of lands 

contiguous to Folsom Lake SRA which contain suitable quantity and quality of 
habitat value to meet the mitigation requirements. DPR understands that 

regulatory agency preference may be to create additional habitat through 

planting versus the purchase of mature habitat, such as the properties with 

mature blue oak woodlands that DPR has previously informally identified. DPR 

does not understand the logic of the lead or regulatory agencies in this matter. It 

would seem that mature oak woodlands would have a much higher habitat value 

than newly planted oak trees or other vegetation. The document acknowledges 

that development within the vicinity of Folsom Reservoir has created barriers to 

animal movement and migration. Purchasing lands contiguous to the SRA with 

high quality habitat which have the potential for development would not only add 

habitat value to the SRA it would also serve to help retain the habitat value of 

existing public lands within the SRA by preventing further barriers to animal 

movement and migration 

Recommendation:

Purchase ands contiguous to Folsom Lake SRA which contain suitable 

quantity and quality of habitat value to meet the mitigation requirements. 

DPR has specifically identified for the lead and 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 project, including riparian vegetation, 

oak woodlands and wetlands (BIO 10 and VEG-1-4). The document does not 

specify where this mitigation will occur and DPR is concerned about the specific 

location. DPR has two concerns, first that the mitigation does not impact or 

replace an existing viable habitat, with a mitigation habitat. DPR does not believe 

that this necessarily results in a net benefit to the natural environment, but merely 

results in the loss of one habitat for the sake of another. Secondly, DPR is 

generally concerned that locations for habitat mitigation do not conflict with 

existing or proposed future recreation facilities and uses within the SRA. Future 

recreation facilities and uses are described in the Draft General Plan/Resource 

Management Plan for Folsom Lake SRA. 

Recommendation:

DPR requests that the federal agencies avoid implementing habitat 

mitigation sites in areas which have existing viable native habitat (even 

though it may be compromised by exotics or other impacts) such as blue 

oak woodlands and savanna, areas with remnants of native grasslands 

and riparian areas. DPR also requests that the federal agencies 

specifically avoid mitigation sites in areas where existing recreation use 

and facilities exist or locations where future recreation use and facilities 

might be located (as identified in the updated General Plan/Resource 

Management Plan). DPR would 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 associated plant species will occur. The 

document does not specify where these conservations are located. 

Recommendation:

DPR requests that the federal agencies specifically avoid creating 

elderberry mitigation sites in areas within Folsom Lake SRA which might 

conflict with existing recreation use and facilities exist or locations where 

future recreation use or facilities might be located (as identified in the 

updated Draft General Plan/Resource Management Plan). Focus any 

habitat mitigation on heavily disturbed areas which do not provide any 

valuable existing native habitat. DPR would like to be consulted on any 

proposed mitigation sites within Folsom Lake SRA. 

3.7 Visual Resources 

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 impede recreation access to trails on the 

tops of the dikes and dams and will likely be a target for graffiti. The DEIS/DEIR 

does not analyze the potential a parapet wall creates for graffiti or the visual 

impact of this eventuality. The DEIS/DEIR claims the visual impact of the parapet 

wall is a significant but unavoidable impact. DPR believes this is incorrect. This 

impact can be avoided by selecting the conventional earthfill raise as the option 

to increase the height of the dams and dikes. 

Implementation of Security Measures

The document contends that the implementation of the security measures, 

including 30-foot camera towers, permanent lighting and power poles and lines at 

Dikes 4, 5, 6, 7, Folsom Point and MIAD would result in less than significant 

impacts to visual resources. There is no substantive evidence or analysis 

provided in the environmental analysis regarding the permanent visual impact of 

the towers, lights and lines. The document does not even identify specifically 

where towers would be located or if the lines would be underground, at the toe of 

the dams and dikes or on top of the dams and dikes. The specific location of 

these facilities has everything to do with the level of impact they will have on the 

visual resources of Folsom Lake SRA. 

Recommendation:

DPR believes the environmental analysis for this aspect of the project is 

entirely inadequate and that once the specific location of these facilities is 

determined, supplemental environmental analysis should be conducted. 

Unlike Chapter 3.5, the Visual Resources Chapter (3.7) does not analyze the 

potential impacts of inundation caused by emergency flood retention, only 

construction related impacts. DPR does not understand why this aspect of the 
project is analyzed for some resource areas and not others. DPR believes that 

the potential impact on visual quality of an emergency inundation could be 

substantial. Inundation could result in a band of dead or dying vegetation for 

many years following inundation. 

Recommendation:

DPR believes the potential impact of an emergency inundation on visual 

resources should 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 Point and Granite Bay which already 

experience in congestion and back ups on adjacent roadways during peak use 

periods. Additionally, construction related traffic will exacerbate congestion at 

these locations. 

Recommendation:

DPR believes that widening the entrance roads into Beal’s Point and 

Granite Bay and adding lanes for both entering and exiting these entrance 

stations will help mitigate these impacts. Adding an improved turn around 

to keep traffic circulating when these recreation areas reach capacity and 

gates are closed, should also be part of the entrance improvements. DPR 

would like to work with the lead agencies to determine how to re-configure 

and improve the entrances 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 receptors are located outside of the Folsom 

Lake SRA boundary. DPR understands the concern with noise impacts on 

adjacent residential areas. 

However, DPR does not understand why the campground at Beal’s Point, both 

the family (tent) campground and the RV campground, were not considered as 

sensitive receptors for noise impacts. Several large construction staging areas 

and material processing operations are proposed to be located immediately 

adjacent to these campgrounds. Blasting, trucks, rock crushing, excavation and 

other construction activities will occur in close proximity to these campgrounds. 

Campgrounds can be 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 recreation facilities and activities. It does not appear 
that the environmental analysis considers the impacts of construction related 

noise on any of these recreation uses or facilities. DPR believes construction 

related noise will significantly impact recreation use at the Beal’s Point 

Campground and result in a substantial loss of use at the Campground. 

3.13 Recreation 

DPR believes the document identifies many of the construction-related impacts 

to recreation use and facilities but does not adequately mitigate the loss of 

recreation use. 

3.13.1.2 Regulatory Setting

DPR does not believe the document (page 3.13-1) accurately describes the land 

ownership or management situation at Folsom Lake SRA. While Reclamation 

does own the lands immediately adjacent to Folsom Reservoir and Lake Natoma, 

the State of California owns 2243 acres of land contiguous to the federal land 

and this State-owned land is also part of Folsom Lake SRA. This includes lands 

around portions of both reservoirs and is not limited to lands associated with the 

Jedediah Smith Memorial Bike Trail. The State owns substantial acreage in the 

Granite Bay area, the Peninsula, between Mormon Island Cove and Brown’s 

Ravine, the Rattlesnake Bar area, near Old Salmon Falls and at various locations 

around Lake Natoma. 

The purpose of the long-term lease agreement is much broader than solely 

managing recreation, the lease agreement states that the purpose of the 

agreement is for developing, administering and maintaining the area as a State 

park. This involves more than managing recreation and DPR management 

activities include natural and cultural resource management and protection, 

public health and safety, law enforcement and a variety of other activities. The 

existing 50-year lease expired in the spring of 2006. DPR and Reclamation have 

extended this lease by mutual agreement on a month to month basis. Both 

agencies are working on developing a new long-term agreement. 

3.13.4 Mitigation Measures

DPR does not believe the proposed mitigation measures adequately mitigate the 

loss of recreation use and access which is documented for the various 

alternatives in this chapter. DPR believes the lead agencies have a responsibility 

to mitigate the loss of recreation use. DPR has previously recommended and the 

lead agencies have chosen to ignore a variety of additional measures which the 

lead agencies could take to help mitigate the loss of recreation use. DPR would 

like to work with the 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 construction. Improvements could be made to this 

lot to help mitigate impacts to and the loss of recreation use including: paving the 
parking area and access road to the parking area, installing a pre-cast concrete 

CXT-type restroom, installing trailhead information kiosk/signboard. 

RC-3

DPR understands that based on public input to date, the lead agencies are 

considering options to minimize or avoid closure of Folsom Point to the extent 

feasible. DPR is supportive of these efforts and would like to work with the lead 

agencies on these options. 

DPR has already described above how construction staging areas and material 

processing areas could be contoured and rehabilitated to provide additional or 

improved recreation facilities and opportunities at Folsom Point and Beal’s Point. 

DPR believes it is appropriate for the lead agencies to provide these finished 

recreation facilities as part of the mitigation for the loss of recreation use and 

access caused by the project. In the past the lead agencies have claimed there 

are legal constraints which prevent them from providing improved recreation 

facilities as part of the mitigation for the project. These legal limitations have 

never been specifically identified or articulated. DPR believes there are a variety 

of ways which these recreation facility improvements could be achieved by the 

lead agencies. These potential mitigation measures, most of which could be 

completed at the end of project construction activities, are highlighted below: 

• At Folsom Point extend the boat ramp, pave and finish the upgraded boat 

ramp. Repair and re-surface the existing parking lot for 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 was completed. 

• Convert the proposed construction staging and material processing area on 

the east side of Folsom Point into an additional boat ramp, parking, group 

picnic and beach area. Provide paving, parking, sand and other facilities 

needed to complete this work. 

• Convert the construction staging and material processing area to be 

developed on the south side of Beal’s Point into additional 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 of the Granite Bay boat launch, 

reconfigure the boat ramp complex at Granite Bay to better serve all lake 

levels, pave and upgrade the boat ramp 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 repairing trails impacted by the project, 

the loss of recreation use on trails should be mitigated by providing 

improvements to the trail system following construction. 

RC-4

DPR has already described above how construction excavation areas could be 

contoured and rehabilitated to provide additional or improved recreation facilities 

and opportunities. DPR believes it is appropriate for the lead agencies to provide 

these finished recreation facilities as part of the mitigation for the loss of 

recreation use and access caused by the project. These potential mitigation 

measures, 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 recreation. 

• Re-contour the beach area on the north side of Beal’s Point beach to improve 

recreation access at a variety of lake levels. Provide 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 long term. 

• Re-contour the beach profile at Granite Bay main beach to improve recreation 

access at a variety of lake levels. Provide sand and other facilities as needed 

to complete this work. 

• Excavation which lowered the marina basin at Browns Ravine would benefit 

recreation. Additionally, construction of a new breakwater on the west side of 

the entrance to marina area to help protect the marina basin from the 

prevailing winds. 

RC-6 

This mitigation measure does not commit to making improvements to the 

entrance of Beal’s Point and Granite Bay to mitigate the impacts of the project. 

DPR believes the closure of Folsom Point could result in displaced users seeking 

recreation access at Beal’s Point (picnic facilities) and Granite Bay (boat launch 

and picnic facilities). The environmental document accurately states that these 

areas reach capacity during peak season periods. During these times traffic 

backs up onto Douglas Boulevard and Auburn Folsom Road. Additional 

recreation users displaced from Folsom Point would exacerbate this traffic 

impact, as will the additional construction traffic. DPR is also concerned about 

the additional air quality impacts of trucks and other construction equipment 

entering and exiting these entrance stations and the potential health impacts on 

employees working at the entrance booths. 
Recommendation:

DPR believes that widening the entrance roads into Beal’s Point and 

Granite Bay and adding lanes for both entering and exiting the entrance 

station will help mitigate these impacts. Adding an improved turn-around, 

in order to keep traffic circulating when these recreation areas reach 

capacity and gates close, should also be part of the entrance 

improvements. DPR would like to work with the lead agencies to 

determine how to re-configure and improve the entrances 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 emergency flood retention, only construction 

related impacts. DPR does not understand why this aspect of the project is 

analyzed for some resources and uses and not others. DPR believes that the 

potential impact on recreation use and facilities due to an emergency inundation 

could be substantial. 

Any raise of Folsom Dam for flood control purposes and subsequent reservoir 

operations utilizing the additional surcharge space, have the potential to impact 

recreation facilities at Folsom Lake SRA. The recreation facilities around Folsom 

Lake have been developed by DPR with the full knowledge and consent of 

Reclamation over the course of fifty years. Presumably recreation planners 

assumed that 466’ was the effective high pool for the reservoir and developed 

facilities accordingly. As a result many of the recreation facilities 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 facilities, DPR believes the lead agencies 

should mitigate the impacts to these facilities. This may include the need to move 

selected facilities, to “flood proof” other facilities and to develop a plan and 

funding source for the clean-up and repair of facilities following an inundation. 

DPR would like to see the federal agencies take responsibility for developing (in 

consultation with DPR) a proactive planning effort to identify which facilities may 

need to be moved or retro-fitted to withstand inundation and then to provide 

funding to complete the recommendations of this plan. DPR does not want to 

wait until an emergency inundation occurs and then address the impacts. The 

emergency use of the additional surcharge space from a dam raise is an event 

that can be planned for and in large part mitigated before the emergency occurs. 

One example would be the Granite Bay Activity Center. This facility would get 

inundated if Folsom Dam is raised seven feet and a flood occurred in which it 

was necessary to utilize the surcharge storage. Inundation would likely render 

this facility unusable and the facility would need to be re-constructed. DPR does 

not have funding to replace this facility and even if funding were provided by the 

flood control agencies, it would take several years to re-build the facility. This is a 
very popular facility that is used at least several night and days a week year 

round. These users would be displaced during the protracted time period it would 

take to re-build the structure. 

The federal agencies also need to consider that the loss of recreation facilities 

due to the utilization of the increased surcharge space would also result in the 

loss of recreation use and user fee revenues which would need to be mitigated. 

Recommendation:

DPR believes the potential impact of an emergency inundation on 

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. However, the document does not indicate 

how these impacts will be addressed, if at all. 

Recommendation:

DPR believes that any loss of recreation use resulting from the project 

which 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 which may occur due to project impacts. DPR 

has previously provided the lead agencies with specific information for each 

concessionaire, the revenues they generate and the fees these concessionaires 

pay to the State. 

Recommendation:

DPR believes that any loss of recreation use resulting from the project 

which results in a loss of revenues to the concessionaires operating within 

Folsom Lake SRA should be compensated, including the portion of these 

revenues which would be paid as fees to the State. 
Tisthammer, Troy

From: Fed Corp [fed.corp@yahoo.com]

Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 4:04 PM

To: Shawn Oliver; Becky Victorine

Subject: Folsom Dam Safety and Flood Damage Reduction EIS/EIR

Attachments: Comment Letter to the Folsom Dam Safety and Flood Damage Reduction EIS-EIR.pdf

Page 1 of 1

1/29/2007

Please find attached the comment letter to the Folsom Dam Safety and Flood Damage Reduction 

EIS/EIR. 

 

Sincerely, 

Robert H. Miller III 

Senior Vice-President 

Folsom Economic Development Corporation 

It's here! Your new message! 

Get new email alerts with the free Yahoo! Toolbar.









Tisthammer, Troy

From: Cook, Gregory [GCook@caiso.com]

Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 4:54 PM

To: soliver@mp.usbr.gov

Subject: Proposed Closure of Folsom Point

Importance: High

Page 1 of 1

1/29/2007

Hi,

I am writing to state my concern about the seemingly misguided idea of closing Folsom Point so that is can be 

used as a staging area for construction equipment in the planned upgrade of Folsom Dam. While I understand 

the need to have effective flood control for the area, it seems that there has to be a better alternative than using a 

highly popular recreation site for staging equipment. From the standpoint of a local resident, it appears that the 

Bureau of Reclamation provides little significance on the local impact of its actions. First, Folsom Dam road was 

closed due to a perceived terrorist threat—an obvious sledge hammer approach to a potential problem that 

caused serious harm to businesses and quality of life in the Folsom area. Now, it appears that the USBR is 

taking a similar approach to finding a convenient staging area for its equipment. This does not appear to be a 

well thought out plan and highlights the Bureau’s lack of sensitivity to local quality of life issues. Closing Folsom 

point would require local residents to access Folsom lake from either Browns Ravine Marina, which is already 

over crowded, or cross through downtown Folsom which is a nightmare due to the Folsom Dam road closure and 

would further congestion problems in the area with boater and beachgoer traffic on its way to Beahls or Granite 

Bay lake access areas.

There have got to be better options. The obvious one would be to use some of the vast Folsom Prison land next 

to the dam that is unused by anything other than a few cows. I would hope that the environmental impact of these 

issues is thoroughly and fairly assessed before closing Folsom Point.

Sincerely,

Greg Cook

193 Briggs Ranch Drive

Folsom, CA 95630
Tisthammer, Troy

From: Jeremy Bernau [jbernau@sbcglobal.net]

Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 4:51 PM

To: soliver@mp.usbr.gov

Subject: Folsom Dam Safety and Flood Damage Reduction EIS/EIR

Attachments: 2284317035-BDC Comment letter.doc; 2014156220-Morning Walk.pdf

Page 1 of 1

1/29/2007

Shawn, 

 

Please find attached my comments to the above mentioned EIS/EIR. Please include the PDF exhibit 

also attached which shows the location of my property. 

 

Sincerely, 

 

Jeremy Bernau 

 

JEREMY BERNAU

 921 SUTTER STREET

 FOLSOM, CA 95630 

 (916) 355-1333 

 (916) 355-1334 FAX
Mr. Shawn Oliver 

Bureau of Reclamation 

7794 Folsom Dam Road 

Folsom CA 95630 

Mrs. Becky Victorine 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District 

1325 J Street, Sacramento, CA 95814 

RE: Folsom Dam Safety and Flood Damage Reduction EIS/EIR 

Dear Mr. Oliver and Mrs. Victorine, 

Bernau Development Corporation is the owner of a subdivision named “Morning Walk” 

currently under construction located at Elvies Lane and E. Natoma Street immediately 

adjacent to the Folsom Lake State Recreation Area south of Dike 8 (see Exhibit A). 

Unfortunately, I was not notified directly by the Bureau of Reclamation of the EIS/EIR 

that is currently circulating even though the impacts from the proposed project to my 

property are substantial. I do not feel that the notice was sufficient or the potential 

impacts clearly defined so that I am able to evaluate what measures are adequate to 

mitigate the 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 exactly what will be the impacts to my current project and how 

the Bureau intends to mitigate these impacts. 

1. Please indicate the volume of truck traffic that is projected on E. Natoma Street 

 and on the property immediately north of my subdivision. 

2. Please provide projected noise levels that will reach my property boundary from 

 the processing facility, truck traffic or other construction work. 

3. How much fugitive dust is expected to be generated? How will that dust be 

 controlled? 

4. Has soils sampling been done to determine if naturally occurring asbestos is 

 present in the excavated material? What mitigation measures will be 

 implemented to control this potential hazard? 

5. Based on the information presented in the EIS/EIR, I cannot determine the 

 impacts to my property because there is not enough detail regarding the specific 

 construction work or the processing facility proposed. Please provide this detail 

 and specific mitigation measures, so I can evaluate the impacts. 

6. Can the processing facility be moved to the Bureau’s property to the southeast of 

 Folsom Point? There appears to be plenty of room for the facility, storage staging 

 and even reasonable buffers. 
7. I am unsure why Folsom Point needs to be closed during construction. It appears 

 that a haul route could be located on the lakeside of dike 8 and continue between 

 the boat ramp parking lot and the Folsom Point access road. The road could cross 

 or go under the Folsom Point access road to reach the processing facility 

 (recommended location in #5 above) and MIAD. 

8 Several of the lots at Morning Walk have a view over dike 8 of Folsom Lake. 

 The homes on these lots will command a premium because of this view. How 

 will this project impact the view shed of these lots? 

9. Lake access is an important factor in the buying decision of my potential 

 homeowners. Not having access to Folsom Point will negatively impact the 

 marketability and value of these homes. What measures can be implemented so 

 that Folsom Point can remain open? 

10. There appears to be no consideration given in the EIS/EIR to finding alternative 

 locations for visitors that may be turned away from FLSRA facilities that are 

 impacted by this project. Please evaluate increasing capacity at other existing 

 facilities so visitors can still have access to the FLSRA. 

11. The economic model seriously under estimates the impact to the local community. 

 The model does not include the reduction in sales of big ticket items that will 

 result because over 815,000 visitors will not be able 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 

 to buy a boat if 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 of the project sponsor to mitigate any of the recreational 

impacts that left unmitigated will result in a substantial economic loss to Bernau 

Development Corporation and the surrounding community. 

Since the EIS/EIR incorrectly states that the recreational impacts are unavoidable after 

failing to consider any alternatives that could maintain recreational access to Folsom 

Point and other FLSRA facilities, it is likely that this project will be delayed as a result of 

a legal challenge. I would ask the project sponsor to study all reasonable alternatives to 

the closure of Folsom Point and/or provide temporary launch, day use and campground 

facilities at other FLSRA locations for visitors that are impacted because of this project. 

I also look forward to a detailed description of how the project will impact my property 

and the specific mitigation measures proposed to ensure that those impacts will be 

reduced to a level of insignificance. 

Sincerely, 

Jeremy G. Bernau 

President 

921 Sutter St., Folsom, CA 96530 Phone 916.355.1333 FAX 916.355.1334 
Mr. Shawn Oliver 

Bureau of Reclamation 

7794 Folsom Dam Road 

Folsom CA 95630 

Mrs. Becky Victorine 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District 

1325 J Street, Sacramento, CA 95814 

RE: Folsom Dam Safety and Flood Damage Reduction EIS/EIR 

Dear Mr. Oliver and Mrs. Victorine, 

Bernau Development Corporation is the owner of a subdivision named “Morning Walk” 

currently under construction located at Elvies Lane and E. Natoma Street immediately 

adjacent to the Folsom Lake State Recreation Area south of Dike 8 (see Exhibit A). 

Unfortunately, I was not notified directly by the Bureau of Reclamation of the EIS/EIR 

that is currently circulating even though the impacts from the proposed project to my 

property are substantial. I do not feel that the notice was sufficient or the potential 

impacts clearly defined so that I am able to evaluate what measures are adequate to 

mitigate the 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 exactly what will be the impacts to my current project and how 

the Bureau intends to mitigate these impacts. 

1. Please indicate the volume of truck traffic that is projected on E. Natoma Street 

 and on the property immediately north of my subdivision. 

2. Please provide projected noise levels that will reach my property boundary from 

 the processing facility, truck traffic or other construction work. 

3. How much fugitive dust is expected to be generated? How will that dust be 

 controlled? 

4. Has soils sampling been done to determine if naturally occurring asbestos is 

 present in the excavated material? What mitigation measures will be 

 implemented to control this potential hazard? 

5. Based on the information presented in the EIS/EIR, I cannot determine the 

 impacts to my property because there is not enough detail regarding the specific 

 construction work or the processing facility proposed. Please provide this detail 

 and specific mitigation measures, so I can evaluate the impacts. 

6. Can the processing facility be moved to the Bureau’s property to the southeast of 

 Folsom Point? There appears to be plenty of room for the facility, storage staging 

 and even reasonable buffers. 
7. I am unsure why Folsom Point needs to be closed during construction. It appears 

 that a haul route could be located on the lakeside of dike 8 and continue between 

 the boat ramp parking lot and the Folsom Point access road. The road could cross 

 or go under the Folsom Point access road to reach the processing facility 

 (recommended location in #5 above) and MIAD. 

8 Several of the lots at Morning Walk have a view over dike 8 of Folsom Lake. 

 The homes on these lots will command a premium because of this view. How 

 will this project impact the view shed of these lots? 

9. Lake access is an important factor in the buying decision of my potential 

 homeowners. Not having access to Folsom Point will negatively impact the 

 marketability and value of these homes. What measures can be implemented so 

 that Folsom Point can remain open? 

10. There appears to be no consideration given in the EIS/EIR to finding alternative 

 locations for visitors that may be turned away from FLSRA facilities that are 

 impacted by this project. Please evaluate increasing capacity at other existing 

 facilities so visitors can still have access to the FLSRA. 

11. The economic model seriously under estimates the impact to the local community. 

 The model does not include the reduction in sales of big ticket items that will 

 result because over 815,000 visitors will not be able 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 

 to buy a boat if 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 of the project sponsor to mitigate any of the recreational 

impacts that left unmitigated will result in a substantial economic loss to Bernau 

Development Corporation and the surrounding community. 

Since the EIS/EIR incorrectly states that the recreational impacts are unavoidable after 

failing to consider any alternatives that could maintain recreational access to Folsom 

Point and other FLSRA facilities, it is likely that this project will be delayed as a result of 

a legal challenge. I would ask the project sponsor to study all reasonable alternatives to 

the closure of Folsom Point and/or provide temporary launch, day use and campground 

facilities at other FLSRA locations for visitors that are impacted because of this project. 

I also look forward to a detailed description of how the project will impact my property 

and the specific mitigation measures proposed to ensure that those impacts will be 

reduced to a level of insignificance. 

Sincerely, 

Jeremy G. Bernau 

President 

921 Sutter St., Folsom, CA 96530 Phone 916.355.1333 FAX 916.355.1334 

1

Tisthammer, Troy

From: casey vestito [eldorv@sbcglobal.net]

Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2007 3:51 PM

To: mfinnegan@mp.usbr.gov

Subject: Folsom Point

Please reconsider on closing Folsom Point boat launch.

 With a population of 60,000 and growing, it would be far too dangerous trying to use 

Brown's Ravine for boat launching this summer as well as congesting traffic on Green 

Valley more than it already is. 

Please find another alternative.

Sincerely,

Catherine Vestito
1

Tisthammer, Troy

From: Jeff Kirsten [jeff_p_kirsten@yahoo.com]

Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2007 1:44 PM

To: soliver@mp.usbr.gov; rebecca.a.victorine@usace.army.mil

Subject: Folsom Dam retrofit and lake access

Hello Mr. Oliver and Ms. Victorine,

Please explore alternatives with Sacramento area communities and governments to closing 

park and lake access points during dam retrofit. I belive people would understand if 

there were simply no other way to get the job done, but it is not clear how hard 

alternatives have been pushed.

Folsom lake boat launch and park access fills to closure on many summer weekends as it 

stands. 

Restricting access further will create tension instead of a relaxing and positive 

atmosphere among the many people in the area who try to visit the lake.

Regards,

Jeff Kirsten

111 Alvaston Ct.

Folsom, CA

916.769.0233
Tisthammer, Troy

From: Paula Mittner [mittner@msn.com]

Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2007 10:43 AM

To: soliver@mp.usbr.gov

Cc: Rebecca.A.Victorine@usace.army.mil

Subject: Folsom Point closure

Page 1 of 1

1/29/2007

Dear Shawn Oliver/Becky Victorine: 

 

I urge you to review and consider City of Folsom's alternatives to this closure. My wife and I 

purchased a home here in Folsom 4 years ago, and a major determining factor in our decision to 

move here was the accessibility to Folsom Lake and all its wonders. Folsom Point is a 10 minute 

jog from our house. I know six people personally, friends and family alike, who use Folsom Point's 

boat launch religiously. Four members of this group continue to use the launch even in late 

autumn and winter, not just the summer months. 

 

 I would agree there are other access sites relatively nearby. However, I would like you to 

consider the economic impact as well. My wife works for a small business located at the corner of 

Natoma St. and Blue Ravine Rd. They rely significantly on revenues generated from visitors to 

Folsom Point. You need to be aware that a number of locally owned 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 a potentially grave decision. 

 

Thank You, 

 

Jeff Mittner/1668 Bayer Court, Folsom CA 

(916) 984-0975 

 

 
1

Tisthammer, Troy

From: Brian Joder - OUTBOUND Ind. [imoutbound@yahoo.com]

Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2007 10:16 AM

To: soliver@mp.usbr.gov

Subject: Folsom Dam Construstion - pending closures

Hello Bureau of Reclamation,

I am flabbergasted that the first I heard of this impending closure of our largest natural

local resource was on the last day of comments accepted about this proposal.

It seems to me that the public should have a little more input 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 here!

On average I am at the Folsom Point area three times a week. This would seriously curtail 

my and many other peoples outdoor activities.

Please consider puplic input and a way to keep Folsom Point open during this period.

Thank you,

Brian Joder

120 Ore St.

Folsom, CA 95630

____________________________________________________________________________________

Get your own web address. 

Have a HUGE year through Yahoo! Small Business.

http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/domains/?p=BESTDEAL
Tisthammer, Troy

From: Karen Delparte [kdelparte@yahoo.com]

Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2007 8:21 AM

To: soliver@mp.usbr.gov

Subject: Folsom Point Closure

Page 1 of 1

1/29/2007

David And Karen Delparte 

731 Hunter Place 

Folsom, CA 95630 

 

To whom it may concern, 

 

I we are totally against Folsom Point being closed for any length of time. We bought a boat last year and 

use the Folsom Point Launch almost exclusively. There are no real alternatives! Brown's is often 

crowded and could not handle the increased use that closing Folsom Point would cause. Granite Bay is 

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 reason we moved to Folsom. Please consider other options. I should be possible to keep 

Folsom Point open for most of the construction of the new bridge with just a little thought and 

consideration. 

 

Regards, 

David and Karen Delparte 

Bored stiff? Loosen up... 

Download and play hundreds of games for free on Yahoo! Games. 
Tisthammer, Troy

From: kbeninga@aol.com

Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2007 1:29 PM

To: soliver@mp.usbr.gov; Rebecca.A.Victorine@usace.army.mil

Subject: Folsom Lake Faciilties

Page 1 of 1

1/29/2007

 Dear Shawn and Becky - 

 

I read with dismay about your plans to close facilities at Folsom Lake for dam construction. I am 

wondering if this construction is really necessary, or is this another government boondogle. Is the safety 

need here really based on sound engineering practices? The Lake is only half full now and hasn't been 

full in years. Because of increased water usage and reduced snow pack due to global warming, this trend 

is likely to continue. Have you considered these factors in your analysis, or are your calculations based 

on antiquated data? 

 

To disrupt an entire community and spend millions of dollars over an extremely unlikely failure scenario 

is ridiculous. The way this project has been handled is another example of why Americans mistrust our 

government. 

 

Kelly Beninga 

121 Ballast Way 

Folsom, CA 95630 

 

916-599-9933 

Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to 

millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more. 
Tisthammer, Troy

From: Prcoverdale@aol.com

Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2007 1:17 PM

To: soliver@mp.usbr.gov

Subject: (no subject)

Page 1 of 1

1/29/2007

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 Counties) onto our streets and into our small town creating havoc. Now they are going to start a 

Two or three year project to build a new bridge for these same out of town cars, and with this construction we will 

have air pollution, noise pollution and large construction trucks running up and down our already crowded streets. 

 

And now you want to close Floss's only access to the lake - Fulsome Point...where Fulsome residents spend most 

of their summers, swimming, boating, picnicking and having reunions. You are going to tear up this lovely spot 

and demolish it for a staging area for dam repair. Can't an undeveloped site be found?????With this (for seven 

years!!!!!!!)comes air pollution, noise pollution and large truck traffic to our already 

 

 

 crowed streets. Most cities and towns would give anything to have a park like this and you are going to destroy 

this one. I don't know whose decision this was, but it was a really stupid one. 

 

I think its time El Dorado and Placer Counties come up with a spot on their portion of the lake that could to used 

for this staging area, since its their people who benefit the most. 

 

Fulsome residents(espectially on the North side) have done enough, now its someone else's turn.... 

 

Enough is enough......... 

 

 Peg Coverdale 

 111 Moreland, CT. 

 Fulsome, Ca. 

 

 

 

 (916)608-1536 

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.... 

Mystery to me. I hope you get this... 
Tisthammer, Troy

From: maureensnyder [maureensnyder@sbcglobal.net]

Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2007 10:18 AM

To: soliver@mp.usbr.gov

Subject: Closure of Dyke 8

Page 1 of 1

1/29/2007

Hello,

 

I am writing to express my concern over the plan to close Dyke 8 during the construction of the 

new Dam. We are residents of El Dorado Hills and use Dyke 8 regularly for lake access with 

our jet skis. During the summer Browns Ravine is closed/full on a regular basis with launching 

of water craft directed to 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 will be so limited, unrealizable and extremely 

inconvenient. Please make a better choice during the construction process and do not close 

Dyke 8.

 

Thank you,

Maureen Snyder

916 933-7230
Tisthammer, Troy

From: Dave and Chris Wagner [waggy@sbcglobal.net]

Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 8:10 PM

To: soliver@mp.usbr.gov

Subject: Folsom Point

Page 1 of 1

1/29/2007

To Whom it may concern, 

 

I am emailing to say that I am firmly against the closing of the Folsom, Beal and Granite Bay point. 

This would severly hinder recreational activities and revenue from boaters. 

 

Thank you for your time on this matter. 

 

Chris Wagner 

Chris Wagner 

waggy@sbcglobal.net
Tisthammer, Troy

From: KRISTIN JEFFREY [jeffreys4@sbcglobal.net]

Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 6:30 PM

To: soliver@mp.usbr.gov; Rebecca.A.Victorine@usace.army.mil

Subject: closure

Page 1 of 1

1/29/2007

I am writing this letter to protest the closure of Folsom Point. This access is one of the main entries into 

the Lake and allows for parking of boat and trailer. It is the only immediate Lake access to Folsom 

residents that can accommodate the large volume of boats put in and taken out of the water. Brown's 

Ravine certainly isn't equipped for this, thus leaving Beale's point and Granite Bay entrances as the only 

remote access. We moved to Folsom 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 5 minutes. Closure of Folsom Point is unacceptable 

especially for 7 years. Not only does it limit the use of the Lake, but the amount of lost revenue to the 

City of Folsom will be enormous. Please find an alternative place to house the equipment. 

 

Sincerely, 

 

Kristin and Robert Jeffrey 

Folsom Residents since 1996 

916-983-2959 
1

Tisthammer, Troy

From: Mike Finnegan [MFINNEGAN@mp.usbr.gov]

Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 5:24 PM

To: Shawn Oliver

Subject: Fwd: Don't Close Folsom Point

>>> "Hendricks, Don" <DDH0@pge.com> 01/26 5:12 PM >>>

I am a resident of Folsom of 8 years. The closure of the Dam Road has diminished our 

quality of life enough. The thought that closing our access off to the only feasible 

access by bike or walking to lake is outrageous. I realize the dam needs to be raised to 

hold more water.

The

idea is a total disregard for us residents of Folsom. I live two blocks from the lake and 

we are not boaters, but I have children and a dog that frequent Folsom Point. There must 

other alternatives for your staging area.

Please reconsider you position. It almost appears to be a personal issue vendetta against 

us.

Thank you, 

Don Hendricks

PG&E Sr. New Business Representative

5555 Florin-Perkins Road, Rm #142

Sacramento, CA 95826

Office (916) 386-5469

Fax (916) 386-5288

E-mail ddh0@pge.com 
Tisthammer, Troy

From: Cheryl Walters [walterscheryl@msn.com]

Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 5:00 PM

To: soliver@mp.usbr.gov

Cc: Rebecca.A.Victorine@usace.army.mil

Subject: Proposed closure of Folsom Point

Page 1 of 1

1/29/2007

 

Dear Interested Parties: Please don't close Folsom Point! Like most nearby residents, we were 

attracted to this area by the easy access to Folsom Point, where activities like hiking, biking, 

fishing swimming, waterskiing and boating are close to us. We did not move to Folsom and don't 

have grandchildren and our grown children visit to they can go to the newest McDonald's or 

Starbucks. They like to walk or take their bikes up to the lake where they can enjoy the natural 

beauty surrounding the reservoir and participate in the many activities that go along with it. We 

share the area with many of nature's inhabitants as well, seeing bluebirds and owls, red tailed 

hawks and turkey vultures, even an occasional rattler or a coyote running through the grass. This 

loss would be a sad occasion for Folsom, and the surrounding boaters and fishermen who 

frequent our lake and drop some change in Folsom while they are here. Please consider the 

negative impact on our community before you close this natural gem. Cheryl Walters, Folsom 

resident for 9 years. 
1

Tisthammer, Troy

From: smkscribe@comcast.net

Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 4:59 PM

To: soliver@mp.usbr.gov; Rebecca.A.Victorine@usace.army.mil

Subject: Folsom Point

Please understand that 7 years is a lifetime to many of us. Do not close Folsom Point for 

a lifetime.

Sharon Kindel

Rosalie Barton
Tisthammer, Troy

From: Obie Miller [obie@greenstone-llc.com]

Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 4:34 PM

To: soliver@mp.usbr.gov

Subject: Folsom Point boat ramp

Page 1 of 1

1/29/2007

7 years is too long to leave this key recreational access point closed to the public. Our family uses 

is 2-3 times per month, all year long.

 

Thanks,

Obie Miller

Greenstone Enterprises

888.509.4492

530.626.4492 ph

530.626.4462 fx

 
Tisthammer, Troy

From: Clint Claassen [cjclaassen@gmail.com]

Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 4:15 PM

To: soliver@mp.usbr.gov

Subject: Proposed Closure of Folsom Point

Page 1 of 1

1/29/2007

To whom it may concern, 

 

I heard today that you are considering closing the Folsom Recreation Area for seven years. I understand 

the reasoning for this, and as a Sacramento resident I would benified from the increased flood 

protection. However, I think 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 bike club the Folsom Breakouts. This would devistate our 

team. We have been riding the area trails every Tuesday for 26 years! I can also imagine what the 

closure would do to the local economy and I would think it would be devistating. Especially in the 

summer and fall! 

 

Please do not proceed with this proposal. 

 

Thank you, 

 

Clint Claassen 

 

 

Sacramento resident. 
Tisthammer, Troy

From: Jennifer Claassen [jlclaassen@ucdavis.edu]

Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 3:51 PM

To: soliver@mp.usbr.gov

Subject: Closing Folsom Point Recreation Area

Page 1 of 1

1/29/2007

To Whom It May Concern:

Please, please, please don’t close the Folsom Point Recreation Area! All year round, my husband is an avid 

mountain biker and goes to the area at least a couple times a week to blow off steam after work or enjoy his 

weekend riding with friends. He would be devastated if you closed it off, and so would I!! I’m not about to deal 

with him if he can’t ride around... he’d drive me crazy! For the sake of my sanity... please keep it open!

Regards,

Jennifer Claassen

Sacramento Resident

 
Tisthammer, Troy

From: Motoxng@aol.com

Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2007 6:39 PM

To: soliver@mp.usbr.gov

Subject: closing Folsom recreation

Page 1 of 1

1/29/2007

I would strongly oppose Folsom Point. 

 

There has to be another option. 

 

I live here because of the easy access I have to the trails around Folsom Lake. I am planning to retire here 

soon. 

 

It seems like a bypass trail around the point could be built so that there would be no impact to the daily users. 

 

Russ Fay 

an active member of Folsom Auburn trail Riders Action Coalition 
Tisthammer, Troy

From: Charlotte8017@aol.com

Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2007 7:20 PM

To: soliver@mp.usbr.gov

Subject: Folsom Dyke 8

Page 1 of 1

1/29/2007

 DO NOT CLOSE DYKE 8 THAT WOULD BE A BIG MISTAKE. I HAVE BEEN GOING THERE FOR 40 

YEARS, STORE YOUR EQUIPMENT SOMEPLACE ELSE.
Tisthammer, Troy

From: Penny Cobarrubia [PCobarrubia@metrochamber.org]

Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 3:48 PM

To: soliver@mp.usbr.gov

Cc: Matt Mahood; Michael Faust

Subject: Folsom Dam Raise Project EIR 3 FINAL

Attachments: Folsom Dam Raise Project EIR 3 FINAL.doc

Page 1 of 1

1/29/2007

 
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 Reduction Draft 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 organizations in the six-county Sacramento region. The Metro Chamber serves as the “Voice 

of Business” in the six-county Sacramento region and is the leading proponent of regional cooperation, 

encouraging local elected officials to cooperate across jurisdictional lines to address important public 

policy issues that impact jobs and the economy. We are writing to request that the Bureau of 

Reclamation provided additional consideration to avoiding and/or mitigating the economic damage of 

restricting recreation at the Folsom Lake State Recreation Area, specifically in regards to Folsom Point 

recreation area, and portions of Beal’s Point and Granite Bay recreation facilities. 

Since its founding in 1895, the Sacramento Metro Chamber has been a leading force in supporting the 

construction of critical infrastructure to improve the economy, improve flood control and enhance the 

quality of life in the greater Sacramento region. 

The Metro Chamber endorses the Folsom Dam Raise Project to provide greater flood protection for 

Sacramento. We respectfully ask that the Bureau amend its' plans to include inexpensive engineering 

solutions, such as rerouting their haul road and relocating their staging areas so that public entry to 

Folsom Lake will remain open during their extended construction period. 

This much needed project will increase flood protection for the Sacramento Region to the 1 in 200 

year level. However, during the seven year construction period, public access to Folsom Lake will be 

drastically curtailed. Granite Bay and Beal's Point entries will be partially closed, Folsom Point will be 

closed completely and Brown's Ravine will be impacted by overuse due to the other closures. It is 
estimated by the Bureau that 816,000 visitors will be turned away with an economic loss to our 

communities of $50,000,000. These statistics are troubling. We respectfully request that you provide 

additional consideration before moving forward with this project. 

There appears to be inexpensive engineering solutions to the Folsom Point closure that were not 

considered in the EIR/EIS. Specifically we believe that during the different stages of the overall project, 

material processing could potentially be sited at the old observation point, which is closed to the 

public, and in Section 29 near the Mormon Island Auxiliary Dam (MIAD) which does not have public 

access. We think it is of note that both of these alternatives are actually closer to the work sites. In 

regards to the disposal site we suggest Dike 7 and 8 areas could be utilized as disposal sites and leave 

Folsom Point free or designate it as a low priority disposal site. And, we suggest a slight alteration of 

the haul road route from that contemplated along the shoreline to slightly inland through 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 suffer unnecessary economic disturbance and does not dramatically downgrade the quality of 

life activities people from the greater Sacramento region 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 

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 

 

 
Tisthammer, Troy

From: Laura Hudak [Laura.Hudak@amdocs.com]

Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 3:37 PM

To: soliver@mp.usbr.gov; mfinnegan@mp.usbr.gov

Subject: Opposed to closure of Folsom Point - Dike 8

Page 1 of 1

1/29/2007

I am writing to voice my concern of the closure of Folsom Point / Dike 8. This is a great recreational area for 

people in the Folsom community. With all of the different closures, there will no longer be convenient access to 

Folsom Lake. This area is used by so many different people (boaters, family picnics, scuba classes/training) and it 

would be a shame to see it closed.

Thank you

Laura Hudak

Folsom resident, and frequent user of that area

 

This message and the information contained herein is proprietary and confidential and subject to the 

Amdocs policy statement, 

you may review at http://www.amdocs.com/email_disclaimer.asp 
Tisthammer, Troy

From: MrkhmFam@aol.com

Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 3:30 PM

To: soliver@mp.usbr.gov; rebecca.a.victorine@usace.army.mil

Subject: Draft EIS/EIR Dam safety and flood control project at Folsom Dam

Page 1 of 1

1/29/2007

My family has lived right down the street from Folsom Point (formerly known as Dyke 8) for fifteen years and we 

have thoroughly enjoyed and have taken advantage of the recreational opportunities that go along with such 

close proximity/access to Folsom Lake (boating, fishing, jogging, walking, etc.). Close access to the lake was 

one of the primary reasons we purchased our home. Closure of Folsom Point would be a loss not only for my 

family and the surrounding neighborhood but for the entire city. Folsom Point is the closest access to the lake 

for many, if not most, of the citizens in Folsom. It would be a travesty if the citizens of Folsom were denied 

access to the lake on top of being forced to endure seven years of traffic impacts due to the project itself 

(impacts that are in addition to the existing traffic problems caused by closure of the dam road). Additionally, 

the loss of recreational visitors would have a negative impact on the city economically. Folsom Point needs to 

remain completely accessible to the public during the entire duration of the safety and flood control project. 

 

Kay Ann Markham 
Tisthammer, Troy

From: Wright, Jodi [jlwright@DowneyBrand.com]

Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 3:08 PM

To: soliver@mp.usbr.gov

Subject: Closing of Folsom Point

Closing of Folsom Point Page 1 of 1

1/29/2007

As a resident of the Parkway and a boat owner, I am vehemently against the closure of Folsom Point. The 

Granite Bay boat launch fills up fast and many times during the summer you cannot even launch your boat from 

that boat launch. We usually launch our boat from Folsom Point because it is less crowded and only 1.5 miles 

from our house. As a Folsom resident, I am greatly concerned about the loss of income this would cause my 

community. There has to be another location. Seven years to be closed is much too long, and that is assuming 

everything would go as planned. The closure would more than likely go longer if deadlines were not met. The 

BLM must find another alternative. Closing Folsom Point for seven years is unacceptable!

Jodi Wright 

DOWNEY BRAND 

555 Capitol Mall, 10th Floor Sacramento, CA 95814 

P: 916/444-1000 

F: 916/444-2100 

jlwright@downeybrand.com 

www.downeybrand.com 

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication and any accompanying 

document(s) are confidential and privileged. They are intended for 

the sole use of the addressee. If you receive this transmission in 

error, you are advised that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or 

the taking of any action in reliance upon the communication is 

strictly prohibited. Moreover, any such inadvertent disclosure shall 

not compromise or waive the attorney-client privilege as to this 

communication or otherwise. If you have received this communication 

in error, please contact our IS Department at its Internet email address 

(is@downeybrand.com), or by telephone at (916)444-1000 x6325. Thank 

you. 
Tisthammer, Troy

From: Dan Stafford [dstafford@airservicesinc.net]

Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 3:06 PM

To: soliver@mp.usbr.gov

Subject: Family point at Folsom Lake

Page 1 of 1

1/29/2007

I am certain there is another answer than closing Family point, we are a Folsom resident and use this picnic and 

and launch facility several times a week in the boating months. The lake is why we live in this area and Family 

point is the launch facility we along with hundreds of other visitors use. Seven years is along time to close 

anything and as with most time estimates is probably well short of the actual date. You should look for an 

alternative access for the duration of this construction project and maintain the value of this lake access to all 

residents and visitors.

Please, Please, Please DO NOT close our community access to the lake!!!!!!!!

 

Concerned Folsom Resident
Tisthammer, Troy

From: Kevin A. Miller [kamiller@emailcorp.com]

Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 2:15 PM

To: soliver@mp.usbr.gov

Subject: Folsom Point Closure

Page 1 of 1

1/29/2007

Dear Shawn Oliver,

 

We are appalled at the decision to close Folsom Point access. We have lived in Folsom since 1991 and have 

enjoyed the use of the access since then. In the fall, we fish and summer, boat camp and ski. We have a $14,000 

boat with 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 additional crowding will create unsafe launching elsewhere. We try to get on the lake early day to keep from 

waiting for long access. Even the wait makes more sense then to drive all the way around, (since the dam is 

closed) to Beal Point. In addition to the extra gasoline, the extra congestion on Riley, Rainbow Bridge and 

Folsom Auburn Rd. Beal Point can be crowded and unsafe too. I can only imagine what 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 figure something. First it's Folsom Dam closure, now our favorite and almost only launch access. If I had 

known this was happening, I would have sold our boat and saved the $5,000 boat access we just built. (I finished 

the gate yesterday)

 

Please make some other considerations!

 

 

 

 

Thank you, 

Kevin A. Miller 

107 Atfiels Way

Folsom, CA 95630

916 247-7326 tel. 

916 404-7394 fax 

kamiller@emailcorp.com
Tisthammer, Troy

From: Dianna [dianna@epaiges.com]

Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 2:13 PM

To: soliver@mp.usbr.gov

Subject: Folsom Pt. Closure Opposed

Message Page 1 of 1

1/29/2007

I oppose the closure of the Folsom Point Recreation Area. Find another place, don't take away our communities 

access to this area.

 

-Dianna Bowling

 

 

 
Tisthammer, Troy

From: Kim Carrasco [karrasco@sbcglobal.net]

Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 2:10 PM

To: soliver@mp.usbr.gov

Subject: Folsom Point

Page 1 of 1

1/29/2007

Shawn Oliver:

 

The manner in which this proposed closure was presented to residents is ridiculous. Closure by the U.S. Bureau 

of Reclaimation of seven years is even more ridiculous. Seven months would be too long. Count me as a 

resident who is opposed to staging, storage or ANY closure of this treasure.

 

Kim Carrasco

1005 Glennfinnan Way

Folsom, CA 95630
1

Tisthammer, Troy

From: Mike Finnegan [MFINNEGAN@mp.usbr.gov]

Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 2:07 PM

To: Shawn Oliver

Subject: Fwd: Against Closure of Folsom Point

>>> <richardshaw230@comcast.net> 01/26 11:21 AM >>>

Dear M Finnegan,

I am usually in total agreement with the work and plans of the Bureau of Reclamation in 

providing the flood protection, power and recreation that we need. I agree that providing

flood protection for the Sacramento Valley is necessary and vital to the well being of the

residents, but I don't agree that closing Folsom Point is the only option for achieving 

that goal.

Folsom Lake is a publicly owned lake but it only has a few access points for the public. 

Most of the remaining shore access is privately owned. When the dam road overlook was 

closed it afffected traffic flow, but did not impact recreation much. However, the 

closing of Folsom Point restricts the access for recreational use to only one access point

on the south side of the lake. Since the ramps already close early in the day because of

high usage, we will have to tow our boats through town on busy afternoons to launch at one

of the three access points on the north side of the lake. Folsom streets cannot 

accomodate this impact, which will happen.

I am a biologist and hiker and I regularly hike through the open areas around Folsom 

Point. I have directly observed a great horned owl and a bald eagle. I believe that 

they are attempting to rehabitate Folsom Point. Your biologists should be consulted on 

this for verification.

I also serve on the school board for the Folsom-Cordova Unified School District. We 

adults are all concerned about the health and fitness of our children. Folsom Point is 

used by children for recreation for many months of the year, adding an incentive to get 

out and 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 compromises that will 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.

Sincerely,

Richard A. Shaw
Tisthammer, Troy

From: MICHAEL/DENISE HACKETT [denhack@comcast.net]

Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 1:24 PM

To: soliver@mp.usbr.gov

Subject: proposed closing of Folsom Point

Page 1 of 1

1/29/2007

Ms. Oliver,

 

Please add my families name to the list of those in Folsom outraged by the proposed closing 

of Folsom Point until 2013. Folsom lake is one of the most attractive features of life 

in Folsom and this closure would require residents to find alternate sources to enter the lake 

such as Eldorado Hills and Granite Bay. The traffic through Folsom due to the dam closure 

is already very extreme. If Folsom Point is closed, all summer, people will be driving 

through town to get to alternate sites for 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.

 

 

Thank you,

Denise, Mike, Allison, Nicole and Samantha Hackett 
Tisthammer, Troy

From: diverchk@cwnet.com

Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 4:09 AM

To: soliver@mp.usbr.gov

Subject: Oppostion to closing the boat ramp and Dike 8

Page 1 of 1

1/29/2007

I am a frequent user of Lake Folsom, and I subscribe to an annual pass, I am opposed to closing the boat 

ramp and Dike 8 for launching and other recreational uses. 

Debra Rose 

Msg sent via CWNet - http://www.cwnet.com/ 
1

Tisthammer, Troy

From: Chris Jennings [trg94@comcast.net]

Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 12:25 PM

To: Shawn Oliver

Subject: Re: Folsom Point

Shawn,

Thanks for the info. I've briefly looked at a draft already on line. The potential risks

associated with naturally occurring asbestos - a big deal around here given the additional

millions spent to mitigate the risk at the new local high school - is given remarkably 

little attention (no sampling, no risk assessment studies, etc.) in the document and 

should be revisited. 

With regards to the loss of recreational opportunity with the proposed closure of Folsom 

Point, the EIR states that an "RC-1" mitigation measure will be instituted ("All 

construction related damages to recreation facilities will be replaced in kind by the 

appropriate agency..."). What exactly is being proposed to replace in kind seven years of

lost utility for a major nearby recreational outlet? Especially since all other similar 

outlets will also be negatively affected?

With regards to the burrowing owls, have any walking surveys been performed at the 

affected areas?

Thank you for your time.

Chris Jennings

----- Original Message -----

From: "Shawn Oliver" <soliver@mp.usbr.gov>

To: <trg94@comcast.net>

Sent: 01/25/2007 8:20 PM

Subject: Re: Folsom Point

> Mr. Jennings,

>

> A cd will be mailed to you tomorrow that has the entire Environmental

> Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report on it.

>

> The Public Hearings were held in Sacramento on January 9th, and in

> Folsom at the Folsom Community Center on January 10th.

>

> There are no burrowing owls at Folsom Point, or within the project

> footprint.

>

> Shawn

>

> Shawn E. Oliver

> Natural Resource Specialist

> Bureau of Reclamation

> Central California Area Office (Folsom)

> Email soliver@mp.usbr.gov

> Office (916) 989-7256

> Fax (916) 989-7208

>>>> "Chris Jennings" <trg94@comcast.net> 01/25/07 7:23 PM >>>

> I understand that the Bureau of Reclamation proposes to close the Folsom

> Point recreation area for seven years to retrofit the Folsom Dam. I

> seemed to have missed the public hearings and the EIR. When were they

> and where do I get a copy? Surely there's a better, less disruptive,

> alternative. I visit the park nearly every other day to run. I bought

> my house, for among other reasons, because it's near Folsom Point. Put
2

> me down as being opposed, not only to the proposal, but also to the

> process by which this idea was hatched. Bad idea. Really bad idea.

> Thank you.

>

> Chris Jennings

> 126 Chambersburg Way

> Folsom, CA 95630

> 916-983-9366

>

> PS: Aren't there burrowing owls out there?

>

>

> -- 

> No virus found in this incoming message.

> Checked by AVG Free Edition.

> Version: 7.1.410 / Virus Database: 268.17.11/652 - Release Date: 1/25/2007

>

> 
Tisthammer, Troy

From: Leslie Grayson [leslie.grayson@gmail.com]

Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 10:33 AM

To: soliver@mp.usbr.gov; Rebecca.A.Victorine@usace.army.mil

Cc: Chad Grayson; Steven Grayson; Terry @ Home

Subject: Proposed Closure of Folsom Point

Page 1 of 1

1/29/2007

Dear Mr. Oliver and Ms. Victorine, 

I am writing to express my dismay at the proposal to close Folsom Point for an extended period while 

the damn is retrofitted. Given the extremely high level of use of this facility/area, the 

corresponding public impact and the economic impact (both for business and for individuals that have 

made significant financial investments based upon this public access), other locations should be 

identified to serve as construction staging areas. I recognize the importance of the retrofitting project. I 

believe that there are other alternatives for staging that don't have such a significant impact on the local 

population. We're not just talking about recreation. 

There are always alternatives. It is my hope that you will find them. 

Thank you, 

Leslie Grayson 

100 Coval Court 

Folsom CA 95630 

my home, my largest investment, 3 blocks from Folsom Point by decision
Tisthammer, Troy

From: Ron Stork [rstork@friendsoftheriver.org]

Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 10:08 AM

To: soliver@mp.usbr.gov; Victorine@usace.army.mil; abronson@water.ca.gov

Cc: washburnt@saccounty.net

Subject: FOR comments ACE PAC Report & Folsom Dam modifications draft EIS

Attachments: Combined Federal Project FOR comments.pdf

Page 1 of 1

1/29/2007

Ronald Stork

Friends of the River

915 20th Street

Sacramento, CA   95814

(916) 442-3155 ext. 220

rstork@friendsoftheriver.org

 

www.friendsoftheriver.org

 

 
Ronald Stork

Friends of the River

915 20th Street

Sacramento, CA 95814

(916) 442-3155 ext 220

rstork@friendsoftheriver.org

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 Change (PAC) Report and the U.S.B.R./California

Reclamation Board Folsom Dam Safety and Flood Damage Reduction Draft

Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report.

Friends of the River offers the following comments and its support for alternatives

or refined alternatives that feature a Folsom Dam auxiliary spillway capable of

making objective-release flood releases (in combination with Folsom Dam’s

existing outlets) from the bottom of Folsom Reservoir’s flood pool, minor raises of

Folsom Dam to increase the size of the available flood pool, and environmental

features such as the improvements to Folsom Dam powerhouse inlets and

environmental restoration and recreational improvements in the Lower American

River Parkway and Folsom State Recreation Area. 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.
1

 U.S.A.C.E. Sacramento District, American River, California Rain Flood Flow Frequency Analysis,

Feb. 3, 1998, sheet 2, plate 2.

2

 MBK Engineers estimate of 1986 peak flows from revised estimate of mean peak

unregulated 1-day flows developed during the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins

Comprehensive Study (personal communication).

3

 U.S.A.C.E. Sacramento District, Folsom Dam and Lake, American River, California, Water Control

Manual, Appendix VIII to Master Water Control Manual, Sacramento River Basin, California, 1987 p. IV-7.

Comments of Friends of the River, Folsom Dam Modifications Page 2

Comments on Specific Sections:

PAC pp. ES-1 & 1-2: The background discussion could benefit from greater

precision. We quote the following section of the PAC report:

In February 1986, major storms in Northern California caused record flood flows in the

American River basin. Unprecedented high outflows from Folsom Dam and Reservoir,

together with high flows in the Sacramento River, caused water levels to rise above the

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 and Nimbus Dams were required to release approximately

130,000 cfs, 15,000 cfs more than the downstream levees were designed to

accommodate as a sustained rate. Water levels rose well above the designated

freeboard of downstream levees... p. 1-5.

Readers might conclude from this discussion the following: 1) The 1986 American

River flows were record inflows, 2) these record flood flows required the release of

“unprecedented” high flows from Folsom Dam, and 3) there was widespread

encroachment of design freeboard of Sacramento Area levees. There are problems

with each of these statements that may mislead the reader.

Record flows: The 1986 166,000 cfs 3-day mean volume unregulated inflows did

exceed the previous 1964 3-day volume record inflow of 140,339 cfs. However, 1986

unregulated inflows did not exceed 1964 record mean 1-day unregulated inflows

(171,000 cfs versus 183,240 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 concluded the following:
4

 U.S.A.C.E. Sacramento District, American River, California, Adopted Rain Flood Flow Frequency

Analysis, April 1999, p. 3.

5

 “In the design of Folsom Reservoir, the Corps of Engineers recognized the need to provide

protection against a very large winter rain flood. The flood of January 1862 was thought to be the largest

experienced flood for which estimates could be made, and those estimates were initially considered by the

local Corps of Engineers’ staff for the Folsom flood control design operation plan. Objections raised by

higher echelons of the Corps of Engineers, based on flood control experience throughout the United States

resulted in discarding the estimated 1862 flood hydrograph and preparing a revision of the design flood to

assure that a higher or “project design” degree of protection would be provided by the flood control operation

under consideration, when allowance for unforseen contingencies was included.” Amendment to the Final

Environmental Statement and Supplement on Auburn-Folsom South Unit American River Division Central

Valley Project-California, Volume 1, Prepared by Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation, p. 38. 

“The Corps is of the opinion that there have been no flows on the American River since 1850 that would have

required the release in excess of 115,000 cfs [from Folsom Dam].” Study of the Flooding Potential of the

American River, California Department of Water Resources, April 1965.

6

 Objective releases were made in 1964. In describing December 1964 operations, the ACE notes,

“controlled releases were increased to a peak rate of 115,000 cfs and maintained for approximately fifty

hours.” 1987 Water Control Manual, p. IV-7.

Comments of Friends of the River, Folsom Dam Modifications Page 3

Based on descriptions of the 1862 event, the Corps supports the position that the

estimated volume of the 1862 event should not be less than that of the 1997 event

because the 1862 event resembles both the point precipitation and antecedent

conditions which occurred 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 248,000 cfs than experienced in 1986 (ACE 1998 Rainflood

analysis). Thus it appears that the Corps believes that the 1862 flood was also larger

than the 1986 event—this unrecorded 19th century but still observed and estimated

event prior to 1986 that served as the beginning foundation 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 Dam, the National Research Council concluded

that operations based on then existing operational rules would not have resulted in

releases 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 fight, given computer projections of a[n] extraordinary storm

approaching the state from across the Pacific (CDWR, 1986). The American River flood

flows began in earnest on February 15, with inflows rising to over 60,000 cfs early the

next day, but Figure 2.1 shows that Folsom operators did not begin to evacuate the

flood control storage volume, nor did releases from Folsom match the inflows to the lake.
7

 Flood Risk Management and the American River Basin: An Evaluation, National Research Council

Committee on Flood Control Alternatives in the American River Basin, National Academy Press, Washington,

D.C., 1995, box 2.2, pp. 46–47. 

8

 While not responding to the Congressional direction to reimplement an advanced-release program,

the plan adopted policies that would prevent more than a 4-hour delay in making required releases during

critical flood-control operations—a substantial improvement over 1986 operations that, in part, were reflected

in the more successful operations in the similarly sized 1997 runnoff event. Flood Management Plan American

River and Folsom Dam California, published by the Army Corps of Engineers (ACE) and the Bureau of

Reclamation in March 1995. See the October 17, 1997 joint letter from Friends of the River, Sierra Club,

Planning and Conservation League, and the National Wildlife Federation to Reclamation’s Regional Director,

Roger Patterson, and the A.C.E. Sacramento District Engineer, Colonel Dorothy Klasse, for a fuller

explanation of the legislative history of the Congressional direction to undertake an American River flood

management plan and analysis of this plan. 

Comments of Friends of the River, Folsom Dam Modifications Page 4

Operators expressed a major concern for the effect of large Folsom releases on

recreational facilities in the lower American River floodway; releases were held to

20,000 cfs for 36 hours. This is inconsistent with the 1977 USACE flood control diagram

in force at the time; the diagram states that when Folsom storage is in the flood control

reservation the water "shall be released as 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, Folsom releases continued to lag behind inflows into

Folsom Lake by 30,000 cfs or more. USACE-prescribed ramping limits of "15,000 cfs

during any 2-hour period" do not appear to have limited the rate of increase of Folsom

releases during the 1986 flood, nor were physical 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 115,000 cfs, then releases into the American River would

not have exceeded 115,000 cfs during the 1986 flood using the nominal storage

capacity of the reservoir, even without anticipation of the Auburn cofferdam failure. 

Fortunately, disaster was averted by the use of extra surcharge 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 Plan developed by the Sacramento District A.C.E. and

Reclamation in 1995 incorporated policies to avoid excessive delays in making

required flood releases 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 original reservoir inflow design flood for Folsom Dam had

a peak inflow of 340,000 cfs, well above the unregulated peak flow experienced at

the dam in 1986.
Comments of Friends of the River, Folsom Dam Modifications Page 5

Encroachment of design freeboard: While the 1986 event did cause significant

encroachments into the design freeboard of some Sacramento area levees, the

Natomas East Main Drain (Steelhead Creek) being the principal example (a

circumstance that resulted in the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency’s [SAFCA]

North Area Local Project), the high water in 1986 did not result in general

encroachment into the design freeboard of Sacramento area levees. A description

of design freeboard of American River levees and the 1986 flows was made

published in the January 1995 Proceedings of Phase Two, The Lower American

River Task Force. The Proceedings assessed existing levee freeboard conditions at

various flows along the American river and concluded the following:

For a release of 115,000 cfs, the existing minimum is the same for both left and right

bank levees (about 6 feet). The 130,000 cfs 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) design freeboard of the then existing American River

levees was three feet. Presently, the design freeboard varies by river reach between

three or five feet of freeboard (at 180,000 cfs) or three feet of freeboard (at 152,000

cfs). Thus, with the important exception of some of the levees that conveyed flows

from creeks upstream of Natomas, the 1986 event did not result in flows that would

be necessary for encroachments into the design freeboard of Sacramento area

levees.

In light of these comments, the final documents should be revised to provide the

reader with a more accurate, complete, and useful description of the background

circumstances that resulted in the last two decades of flood-control planning in the

Sacramento area.

PAC Report, p. 3-2: The PAC report asserts the following:

To date, and based on current technology, no reliable forecast-based operation has

been identified that could be implemented without the potential for both induced

flooding in other areas of the Central 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 EIS/EIR appears to provide a more careful and

satisfactory explanation of the process and considerations that may result in

operational (including forecast-based) changes to Folsom Reservoir operations once

construction is complete:
Comments of Friends of the River, Folsom Dam Modifications Page 6

The Corps and Reclamation as directed by, and/or authorized by Congress, and under

the appropriate agency authorities and agreements would update the existing Water

Control Manual of 1987 or develop a new water plan and control manual. Upon

selection of either preferred joint Folsom DS/FDR alternative or stand-alone dam safety

hydrologic risk reduction or flood damage reduction alternatives, the Corps as the lead

agency, in cooperation with Reclamation, would determine the basis for the

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 reservoir inflow forecasts to help determine appropriate

comprehensive flood control operations procedures. The environmental impacts on all

pertinent aspects of the human environment, and the natural environment, and the

natural environment would be evaluated in a separate environmental compliance

document. The Water Control Manual would likely go through multiple revisions as the

various structural modifications are completed at the Folsom Facility, but it is expected

that a Final Updated Flood Management Plan and Flood Control Manual would be

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, a detailed analysis of operational impacts cannot be

determined at this time. Upon the selection of a preferred alternative(s), Reclamation,

the Corps, SAFCA, and the DWR/Reclamation Board would fully coordinate and

address relevant congressional directives to evaluate the existing requirements related

to operations and consider possible changes as appropriate. The environmental

impacts associated with proposed changes and operational impacts required for

supplemental environmental compliance documentation [sic]. The required

compliance documentation shall be completed in parallel with a Final Updated Flood

Management Plan and Water Control 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/EIR (pp. 1-8, 1-9, 1-43, for example)

Although the draft EIS/EIR language would argue that a critique of the PAC report’s

conclusionary statements regarding forecast-based operations is premature,

comments and a responsive revision to the final documents are probably warranted.

Therefore, the following observations are offered:

• The Central Valley areas that might experience (slightly earlier) induced

flooding from advanced releases in very large floods are part of the Sacramento

River Flood Control Project river and bypass system. The rights to make

operational flood releases into these areas already exist and are routinely

exercised.
9

 §9159 of the 1993 Defense Appropriations Act, P.L. 102-396

10 Proceedings of the 2003 California Weather Symposium, “Theme: ‘Forecasting Extreme

Precipitation in the Sierra Nevada and Implications for the American River Watershed.’ ” Lower American

River Science Conference, College of Natural Sciences and Mathematics California State University,

Sacramento, Sacramento, CA, June 5–6, 2003. “Spring Forecast Based Operations, Folsom Dam, California,

Paul E. Pugner, PE, Chief, Water Management Section, Sacramento District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,

Sacramento, CA.

Comments of Friends of the River, Folsom Dam Modifications Page 7

• Forecast-based operations during very large floods (such as advanced releases

before reservoir flood-reservation encroachment, and pre-emptive releases

[releases in excess of objective-release constraints to avoid making leveebreaking larger releases])—and during more routine situations (conditional

storage into reservoir flood pools)—were operational requirements in the ACE

Folsom Reservoir Regulation Manual from1956 to 1987. Congress directed the

Corps to resume such operations in 19939 and again directed the Corps to

update these operations in 1999 when it authorized outlet improvements at

Folsom Dam in the Water Resources Development Act of that year. Forecastbased operations were also part of the Folsom Dam raise project described in

project documents authorized by Congress in 2004.

• The Sacramento District A.C.E. developed a Spring forecast-based operations

plan, with analysis and rationale, for implementation on a trial basis and

presented the plan to the California Weather Symposium at the 2003 Lower

American River Science Conference.10

• Technical experts at the many annual presentations of the California Weather

Symposium, including Corps, DWR, and National 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/power interests. Forecast-based

operations preserve that balance of risks but enhance the multipurpose

benefits of the dam with operations that benefit both interests—with both early

flood-control releases (for very large events) and conditional storage (during

most years when very large floods do not appear). 

If language in the PAC Report cannot be constructed to provide the reader with a

clearer grasp of the opportunities and considerations involved in developing a

revised Water Control Manual that resumes forecast-based operations, the

misleading PAC report language should be deleted and the draft EIS/EIR language

can stand alone.
11 Flood Hydrology Manual, A Water Resources Technical Publication, by Arthur G. Cudworth, Jr.,

Surface Water Branch, Earth Sciences Division, First Edition, 1989, United States Department of the Interior,

Bureau of Reclamation, Denver Office.

Comments of Friends of the River, Folsom Dam Modifications Page 8

We noted with some interest the depiction of the calculated annual risk or

recurrence interval 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 interval 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 above Folsom Dam. Due to the limited capacity of the

reservoir to safely contain these inflow volumes and the Dam to control releases within

the safe carrying capacity of the downstream levees, structural modifications are

required to reduce the probability of overtopping 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 size dam-safety features such as spillways

so that an exceedance never occurs. The proceeding paragraph could be read to

imply otherwise.

It is, of course, interesting to have some idea of the calculated annual risk

probability of experiencing the estimated PMF. However, the draft EIS/EIR fails to

provide sufficient cautions to the reader about the reliability of such frequency

extrapolations of a 100-year stream-flow record and estimates on the volume of the

historically experienced 1862 flood. The Bureau’s Flood Hydrology Manual11

provides important insights that should be reflected in the EIS/EIR:

In fact, there are not enough data to extend frequency curves to anywhere near this

limit [the PMF]. (p. 195)

Practical rule-of-thumb knowledge, which is supported by statistical calculations,

indicates that frequency curves are reasonably reliable out to return periods of about

the sample record length. The current Bureau practice is to limit the extrapolation of

the curves to twice the length of record, or 100 years, whichever is longer. In cases

where catastrophic loss, loss of life, or dam safety are involved, further extrapolations

can be used as justified on a case-by-case basis. (p. 204)
12 U.S.A.C.E. Sacramento District, American River, California, Adopted Rain Flood Flow

Frequency Analysis, April 1999, plate 1.

13 Flood Risk Management and the American River Basin, An Evaluation, National Academy

Press, 1995, pp 153-156. 

Comments of Friends of the River, Folsom Dam Modifications Page 9

The American River rain flood frequency analysis by the Corps of Engineers

prepared with the advice of the National Research Council’s Committee on

American River Flood Frequencies does not extrapolate the frequency curve beyond

1 in 200.12 This seems consistent with Reclamation’s manual guidance as well,

although both documents acknowledge that some uses may require cautious

additional extrapolation.

We suggest that the draft EIS/EIR contain a more accurate description of the

purposes for which PMFs are created and their highly improbable nature. Also,

when describing the annual risk or recurrence intervals of such a high-flow event, it

would be helpful to explain that these are calculated extrapolation estimates and

that the actual probability distribution of the American River PMF, or any PMF, is

not known. Nevertheless, regardless of calculated frequency estimates, it is

Reclamation’s policy and a general dam-safety standard to construct spillways

adequate to convey PMF estimated flows where the consequences of failure are

significant.

Finally, we request that project performance also be portrayed in terms of the

reservoir design flood—that is, the volume of the design hydrograph in terms of

peak, 1-day mean, and 3-day mean, or perhaps 5-day mean flows in cfs that can be

accommodated before some critical design constraint such a design freeboard at

the dam, dike, or levee is encroached. 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 performance estimates as well as those that are

available in historical flood-damage-reduction planning documents before the

adoption of level-of-protection or risk-and-uncertainty-based performance

descriptions. We are not alone in requesting such estimates. We believe that such

supplementary descriptions are supported by SAFCA. Also, the National Research

Council’s Committee on Flood Control Alternatives in the American River Basin

suggested the use of design flood volume comparisons with known flood flows to

assess relative project performance.13
Comments of Friends of the River, Folsom Dam Modifications Page 10

Sincerely yours,

_____________________

Ronald Stork

 
Tisthammer, Troy

From: Duran Quick [duran.quick@fedex.com]

Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 10:08 AM

To: soliver@mp.usbr.gov

Subject: Folsom Lake

Page 1 of 1

1/29/2007

I object to limiting access to Folsom Lake for 7 years to accommodate construction equipment.

 

Regards,

Duran Quick

 
Tisthammer, Troy

From: Bonnie Amoruso [BAmoruso@dtsc.ca.gov]

Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 9:46 AM

To: soliver@mp.usbr.gov

Subject: Folsom Point Proposed Closure

Page 1 of 1

1/29/2007

First, the Bureau of Reclamation closes Folsom Dam Road which caused financial hardship on many small 

businesses in Folsom, as well as huge traffic congestion and now you want to close Folsom Point recreation area 

for up to seven years? Does the Bureau have any idea what this will do financially to the businesses in that 

area? There is plenty of vacant land around Folsom that I'm sure could be used for the staging area for this 

project, instead of closing down a major summertime recreation area. Why doesn't the Bureau come up with a 

few different locations for their staging area and then let those choices be reviewed by the City of Folsom for a 

final decision. 

 

 

 

Bonnie Amoruso 

Associate Governmental Program Analyst 

Fees Unit 

Department of Toxic Substances Control 

(916) 322-8676 FAX (916) 445-9549 

email: bamoruso@dtsc.ca.gov
Tisthammer, Troy

From: didder437 [didder437@comcast.net]

Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 10:07 AM

To: soliver@mp.usbr.gov

Subject: Folsom Point

Page 1 of 1

1/29/2007

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 equipment. Causing such a impact to a community financially as well as 

to the citizens that live within and around that community is just unacceptable. I have live in 

Folsom for nearly 13yrs. One reason that drew me to this city was the recreation activities and 

access to Folsom Lake for my three kids. Closing one of the main recreational areas for seven 

year, again I believe is unacceptable especially during the formable years of my kids lives. 

 

Thank you and please do not continue this process,

 

Jerry Boyd

Folsom, CA
Tisthammer, Troy

From: Dave Buck [dbuck@clarkpest.com]

Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 9:45 AM

To: SOLIVER@MP.USBR.GOV

Subject: FOLSOM POINT

Page 1 of 1

1/29/2007

Hello Mr. Oliver,

 I am writing to you about the conflict with Folsom Point. I am amazed that there are no more 

alternatives other than to screw the people of Folsom once again. Why don’t you rename the lake “Granite Bay 

Lake’ or “El Dorado Hills Lake”. The people of Folsom are tired of being pushed around by the bureaucratic 

process. First, Came the closure of the Dam road and now the closure of a very popular recreation area. Mr. 

Oliver I am sure the people of Folsom can come up with an ancient burial ground or Spotted Owl habitat that 

would shut this program down for several years. Thank you for your time and remember “DON’T CLOSE 

FOLSOM POINT”. 

 SINCERELY,

 Dave Buck

 Folsom Resident 
Tisthammer, Troy

From: dave buck [ddkbuck@sbcglobal.net]

Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 9:44 AM

To: soliver@mp.usbr.gov

Subject: Folsom Point

Page 1 of 1

1/29/2007

Mr. Oliver: I'm still in shock that anyone thought this suggestion to close Folsom Point for seven years 

was a good idea. A staging site for construction equipment??? Entire shopping centers are remodeled 

and rebuilt and not one place of business ever closes to the public to make this happen. Yes, I expect 

some sort of inconvenience, but I can still shop. 

 I have lived in Folsom since 1983--I bought a boat in 1984 and I have owned one ever since. I have 

launched my boat at Folsom 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 day of the week. We don't have to make long term plans and 

drive for miles to make some lasting memories. My friends and I take our walks there, we walk our dogs 

there, we take school children on hikes and nature studies there, we enjoy the sunset there. I live in 

Folsom and this is FOLSOM 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 Lake and all that it has to offer . 

 Thank you for your time and your careful consideration--Daylene Buck
Tisthammer, Troy

From: Neil Pearl [neil@neilpearl.com]

Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 6:44 AM

To: soliver@mp.usbr.gov

Subject: Regarding Folsom Point

Page 1 of 1

1/29/2007

Hello,

 

Just a note to let you know how my family and I feel about the proposal to close Folsom Point...

 

Easy Lake Access is why we moved here, and Folsom Point is our favorite family recreation spot.

 

If it closes, we will move out of the County, and look for another place to live.

 

I don't think you realize the impact to business and families....

 

Sincerely,

 

Neil Pearl

-- 

No virus found in this outgoing message. 

Checked by AVG Free Edition. 

Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.11/652 - Release Date: 1/25/2007 3:32 PM
Tisthammer, Troy

From: James D. Sprenger [James@pioneerfleet.com]

Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 8:32 AM

To: soliver@mp.usbr.gov

Cc: Rebecca.A.Victorine@usace.army.mil.; kthron@pioneerfleet.com

Subject: Use of Folsom Lake public recreation areas for construction staging

Page 1 of 1

1/29/2007

My name is James Sprenger. I am not satisfied with the statement that you would close several public access 

areas in order to stage construction equipment, supplies & debris.

The idea that you can not find enough area in which to store construction equipment is with out merit. Why not 

build into construction cost an area to be built up just north of the dam that can be turned into another public 

access area at the completion of construction? Will it cost a bit more yes but it will also keep the other areas open 

for the public and as an added bonus it will create more public access area for the Sacramento areas continuing 

growth. Remember the Sacramento area population should be around 2.6 million in the year 2010. We are 

growing fast. If I, a layman, can come up with this solution I’m sure you can make something work. Something, 

that really works for everyone. 

James D. Sprenger

Sacramento area resident.

American Veteran

Park user.
Tisthammer, Troy

From: Maria Noori [thenooris@hotmail.com]

Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 9:11 AM

To: soliver@mp.usbr.gov

Subject: Folsom Point Closure

Page 1 of 1

1/29/2007

To whom it mas concern, 

 

As a former resident of Folsom I was informed of the possible 7yr closure of Folsom Point. This is an 

outrage for the people who live there in Folsom and also for the many who visit Folsom Point to enjoy 

all the beauties of nature. 

 

I also agree that this will damage the economic situation as all the people who would normally spend 

their time and money at Folsom Point will be going elsewhere. 

 

We used Folsom Point for taking the dog for a walk, for familiy picnics and to take our boat out. I 

really do think this is a grave mistake and should be thought over and some other decision made. 

 

Thank you 

Maria Noori 

Valentine’s Day -- Shop for gifts that spell L-O-V-E at MSN Shopping
Tisthammer, Troy

From: Julia Fox [foxjulia@gmail.com]

Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 8:35 AM

To: soliver@mp.usbr.gov

Subject: Folsom Point

Page 1 of 1

1/29/2007

Hello, 

 

Closing Folsom Point for seven years would have a negative impact on the area. Folsom Point is one of 

the factors that make Folsom so attractive for visitors and residents. 

 

Sincerely 

 

Julia Fox 
Tisthammer, Troy

From: Lim, Linden "Chip" [LLim@boe.ca.gov]

Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 7:54 AM

To: soliver@mp.usbr.gov

Subject: DO NOT CLOSE IT!!!

Page 1 of 1

1/29/2007

Please find an alternative to closing Folsom Point. 

Linden 'Chip' Lim

Staff Services Analyst

CATS/Information Center

(916) 324-0109

 

 
1

Tisthammer, Troy

From: Jim Donnell [public@tahoepeaks.com]

Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 6:42 AM

To: soliver@mp.usbr.gov

Subject: Folsom Plan

To whom it may concern:

I am opposed to the current plan to close Folsom Point and other parts 

of Folsom Lake to recreation 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 alternatives that will not affect the public use of Folsom Lake.

Sincerely,

Jim Donnell

2916 Woodleigh Lane

Cameron Park, CA 95682
Tisthammer, Troy

From: barbara zawadzki [screenok@yahoo.com]

Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 6:38 AM

To: soliver@mp.usbr.gov

Subject: Folsom Point

Page 1 of 1

1/29/2007

I am against the closure of Folsom Point. I live in Folsom and have seen the dam road and the small 

park closed. I used both of those facilities until the closure. Now, the point is to be closed. I also use it. 

There has to be another alternative. I'm tired of my recreational areas being closed. 

 

Barbara Zawadzki 

231 Evelyn Way 

Folsom, Ca 95630 

Never Miss an Email 

Stay connected with Yahoo! Mail on your mobile. Get started!
Porter, Stacy

From: Cook, Jane [Jane.Cook@aerojet.com]

Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 6:19 AM

To: soliver@mp.usbr.gov

Subject: Folsom point closure

Importance: High

Page 1 of 1

2/13/2007

I am so upset that you are now considering closing Folsom point for the construction of the new crossing. I live in 

Briggs Ranch. We bought our house for two reasons – access over the river and access to the lake. I worked in 

Roseville and my husband works in Folsom and one of had to cross the river so the Damn crossing made our 

neighborhood perfect for my commute. After the damn was closed my commute went from 40 minutes a day to 

well over 1 hour and 45 minutes. I have 2 small children and that was unacceptable. I quit a job I loved because 

of the closure. Now I hear that you are going to destroy the other reason we bought our house which is the great 

access to the lake. You have the entire look-out point to work with as well as all the top of the damn and the other 

side of the damn road at Folsom Blvd, not to mention the State prison land. Leave our State Park alone. 

Honestly, you have hurt our neighborhood enough. You have hurt our town enough. I’m disgusted at even the 

careless thought of 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. It brings money into our town but it also is something that the families of Folsom use 

together. It is at the heart of our town. Please don’t do this.

Jane Cook

 

Aerojet

Sr Manufacturing Engineer

Development Ops

PO Box 13222

Sacramento, CA 95813

Office: (916)355-3948

Fax: (916)355-2716

E-mail: Jane.Cook@aerojet.com

 

 
1

Tisthammer, Troy

From: Porter, Stacy

Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 12:40 PM

To: Tisthammer, Troy

Subject: FW: I support Folsom Dam upgrades for flood control (UNCLASSIFIED)

-----Original Message-----

From: Victorine, Rebecca A SPK [mailto:Rebecca.A.Victorine@spk01.usace.army.mil]

Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 12:35 PM

To: Shawn Oliver; Porter, Stacy

Cc: Wondolleck, John

Subject: FW: I support Folsom Dam upgrades for flood control (UNCLASSIFIED)

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED

Caveats: NONE

-----Original Message-----

From: Bruce Thomas [mailto:brt_brt_brt@yahoo.com]

Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2007 9:30 PM

To: Victorine, Rebecca A SPK

Subject: I support Folsom Dam upgrades for flood control

Becky Victorine, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District, 1325 J St., 

Sacramento, CA 95814

Dear Ms. Victorine,

Upgrades at Folsom Dam are needed for protection against flooding in Sacramento. 

Sacramento currently has the least protection against flooding of any major city in the 

US. Upgrading of Folsom Dam is cost-effective for taxpayers and will rapidly provide the 

enhanced flood control so desperately needed for Sacramento.

Sincerely,

Bruce R. Thomas

2477 Sycamore Ln, Apt G6

Davis, CA 95616

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED

Caveats: NONE
1

Tisthammer, Troy

From: Porter, Stacy

Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 12:29 PM

To: Tisthammer, Troy

Subject: FW: Comments on using Folsom Point as construction site (UNCLASSIFIED)

Another one!

-----Original Message-----

From: Victorine, Rebecca A SPK [mailto:Rebecca.A.Victorine@spk01.usace.army.mil]

Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 12:26 PM

To: Shawn Oliver; Porter, Stacy

Cc: Wondolleck, John

Subject: FW: Comments on using Folsom Point as construction site (UNCLASSIFIED)

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED

Caveats: NONE

-----Original Message-----

From: barry [mailto:bearie@hughes.net]

Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2007 5:55 PM

To: Victorine, Rebecca A SPK

Subject: Comments on using Folsom Point as construction site

Hi,

I'm a long time resident of Placer County and typically use Folsom Point (Dyke 8) 

frequently. I'm pretty familiar with the area. Folsom Point is a unique venue of Folsom 

Lake in it is a wonderful family place where one can drive in to and meet people who have 

boats or in other situations, experience a simple nice day in a beautiful cove and play in

the water. It has may old oak trees, shade, a gentle slope to the water and is generally 

a very safe place for family picniking as well as combining "non aggressive boating" with 

a beautiful beach 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 us up. It's a soft 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 children playing in 

the water's edge. I remember hearing a little 3 (or so) old girl shrieking with amazement

that she's found a large frog. Her brother also 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 and they 

didn't really torture the frogs too much bug it was such an innocent experience.

After my son was born, it was the first place we visited on the lake because I *knew* it 

was a family-friendly place on the lake. Frankly, the best.

There are many places to stage a construction crew on the lake. To the East of Folsom 

Dam, 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. That could be one such staging area. There are others

downlill to Natomas Road. There are so many other possibilities and I realize you folks 

are dealing with constraints of many types but there is so much room to deal with that is 

available.

Please take Folsom Point in to consideration when making your choices. It is frankly 

*the* best launch ramp and family picnic area on Folsom Lake and I've been using it since 

1980. It's a healthy respite to the likes of Granite Bay.

Sincerely,

Barry Fowler

Newcastle, California
Tisthammer, Troy

From: Porter, Stacy

Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 12:45 PM

To: Tisthammer, Troy

Subject: FW: 2nd dam (UNCLASSIFIED)

Page 1 of 1

1/29/2007

More!

From: Victorine, Rebecca A SPK [mailto:Rebecca.A.Victorine@spk01.usace.army.mil] 

Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 12:29 PM 

To: Shawn Oliver; Porter, Stacy 

Cc: Wondolleck, John 

Subject: FW: 2nd dam (UNCLASSIFIED)

 

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED

Caveats: NONE

 

From: JOEL PATE [mailto:capates@sbcglobal.net] 

Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2007 8:02 PM 

To: Victorine, Rebecca A SPK 

Subject: 2nd dam

Hi, 

 

I don't know much about the situation with Folsom dam. I just had a thought I wanted to pass on. 

 

If the big problem is raising the dam to increase flood control, why not build a 2nd dam just downstream 

that is taller? You would only need to close the gates in case of an emergency situation. Folsom dam as 

it is could still be used. Plus you could open the road since a terrorist blowing up the dam would lose 

any real impact. 

 

Just a thought. Thanks for your time. 

 

David Pate 

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED 

Caveats: NONE
1

Porter, Stacy

From: ckel@comcast.net

Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 7:21 PM

To: soliver@mp.usbr.gov; mfinnegan@mp.usbr.gov

Cc: themayor@folsom.ca.usericking@folsom.ca.us; corrprincess@ardennet. com; 

smiklos@folsom.ca.us; jstarsky@folsom.ca.us

Subject: DONT COSE FOLSOM POINT

Friends,

I strongly object to the closure of Folsom Point ! I do realize work needs to be done to 

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

Point is the only access to Folsom Lake within the City of Folsom and thousands of 

residents and visitors use this access. I myself use it almost every day. Wether I am 

walking my dog, running, cycling, kayaking, picnicing, boating, playing with my children, 

catching a moonrise or sunset, this access is invaluable to Folsom residents and visitors.

I strongly oppose the closure of Folsom Point State Recreation Area. Please find other 

alternatives to this proposal, as closing this gem is unacceptable.

Sincerely,

Casey Keller
Tisthammer, Troy

From: Porter, Stacy

Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 11:27 AM

To: Tisthammer, Troy

Subject: FW: Folsom Dam Project (UNCLASSIFIED)

Page 1 of 1

1/29/2007

From: Victorine, Rebecca A SPK [mailto:Rebecca.A.Victorine@spk01.usace.army.mil] 

Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 10:58 AM 

To: Porter, Stacy; Shawn Oliver 

Cc: Wondolleck, John 

Subject: FW: Folsom Dam Project (UNCLASSIFIED)

 

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED

Caveats: NONE

 

From: Jeff Onderko [mailto:jderko@comcast.net] 

Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2007 4:55 PM 

To: Victorine, Rebecca A SPK 

Subject: Folsom Dam Project

As a frequent user of Folsom lake and the beaches and trails, i would like to voice my opinion on the proposed 

Folsom Dam Project. I frequently use the Beales Point Recreation Area and multiple other recreation areas on the 

lake for personal pleasure and excersise. I would be greatly disapointed in seeing the closure of this great 

recreation area, as so many others would. However, if the closure of the recreation area means a safer dam, 

building a new spill way and reinforcing Mormon Island than i support the closure for the use of storing equipment. 

Having said that, i will expect the area to re-open ASAP. Thank you for your time and here is my contact info: 

916-390-0042

Jeff Onderko, Roseville

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED 

Caveats: NONE
1

Porter, Stacy

From: Victorine, Rebecca A SPK [Rebecca.A.Victorine@spk01.usace.army.mil]

Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 2:40 PM

To: Shawn Oliver; Porter, Stacy

Cc: Wondolleck, John

Subject: FW: Do Not close Folsom Point (UNCLASSIFIED)

Follow Up Flag: Follow up

Flag Status: Completed

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED

Caveats: NONE

-----Original Message-----

From: Robert Simpson [mailto:go_boating@hotmail.com]

Sent: Monday, January 22, 2007 4:41 PM

To: governor@governor.ca.gov; themayor@folsom.ca.us; www.mfinnegan@mp.usbr.gov; Victorine,

Rebecca A SPK

Subject: Do Not close Folsom Point

As a resident of Folsom, I request you intervene to prevent the closing of Folsom Point on

Folsom Lake related to potential federal construction.

thank you,

Robert Simpson

Folsom, Ca

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger - www.ca.gov

Senator Dianne Feinstein

Senator Barbara Boxer

Representative Daniel Lungren (3rdDistrict) Mayor Andy Morin Bureau of Reclamation U.S. 

Army Corp. of Engineers

_________________________________________________________________

Type your favorite song. Get a customized station. Try MSN Radio powered by Pandora. 

http://radio.msn.com/?icid=T002MSN03A07001

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED

Caveats: NONE

Tisthammer, Troy

From: Porter, Stacy

Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 8:15 AM

To: Tisthammer, Troy

Subject: FW: Folsom Reservior (UNCLASSIFIED)

Page 1 of 1

1/30/2007

From: Victorine, Rebecca A SPK [mailto:Rebecca.A.Victorine@spk01.usace.army.mil] 

Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 4:42 PM 

To: Shawn Oliver; Porter, Stacy 

Cc: Wondolleck, John 

Subject: FW: Folsom Reservior (UNCLASSIFIED)

 

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED

Caveats: NONE

From: SJCANOVA@aol.com [mailto:SJCANOVA@aol.com] 

Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 3:27 PM 

To: Victorine, Rebecca A SPK 

Subject: Folsom Reservior

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 most important being the lake. We are boaters, live 5 minutes from the ramp and have been in absolute 

heaven ever since we moved. We paid a premium 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 from all over to 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, not to mention destroy our property 

value. It was one heck of a difficult effort to sell our last house, buy our current one, find new jobs and pull my 

son 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 reason why. We ski, wakeboard, tube, kayak, fish and more. 

My story is certainly not unique. I would guess there are hundreds if not thousands with the same reason for 

being here. Closure of the ramps would negatively affect us all. Just as closure of the Dam Road did. I realize 

the work is necessary but, surely there are other areas to stage from. I implore you not to take away our jewel 

while the work is being done.

Thank you for listening,

Steve Canova

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED

Caveats: NONE
Tisthammer, Troy

From: Porter, Stacy

Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 8:15 AM

To: Tisthammer, Troy

Subject: FW: Folsom Point Closure, Folsom Dam, Folsom California (UNCLASSIFIED)

Page 1 of 1

1/30/2007

From: Victorine, Rebecca A SPK [mailto:Rebecca.A.Victorine@spk01.usace.army.mil] 

Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 4:55 PM 

To: Shawn Oliver; Porter, Stacy 

Cc: Wondolleck, John 

Subject: FW: Folsom Point Closure, Folsom Dam, Folsom California (UNCLASSIFIED)

 

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED

Caveats: NONE

From: BCalfee@FLR.FOLLETT.COM [mailto:BCalfee@FLR.FOLLETT.COM] 

Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 7:50 AM 

To: Victorine, Rebecca A SPK 

Subject: Folsom Point Closure, Folsom Dam, Folsom California

I live in Folsom and use the Folsom Point Recreation area on average 15 times per year. I do 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 Point and you will have plenty of room, there are acres of 

land and use that as the staging area. 

regards, 

 

Barry Calfee 

157 Canyon Rim Drive 

Folsom CA 95630

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED 

Caveats: NONE
Tisthammer, Troy

From: Richard Reid [rrreid3@surewest.net]

Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 6:17 PM

To: soliver@mp.usbr.gov

Page 1 of 1

1/30/2007

SURELY WITH ALL THE LAND THAT THE BUREAU OWNS AROUND FOLSOM DAM, A LESS DISRUPTIVE 

STAGING AREA CAN BE FOUND AND LEAVE FOLSOM PT. TO BE ENJOYED BY THE CITIZENS. DON’T 

PULL THE GOV’T HEAVEY HAND ROUTINE WITHOUT DOING YOUR DO DILIGENCE TO FIND A MORE 

SUITABLE SITE. rrreid
Tisthammer, Troy

From: Davis, Scott T [scott.t.davis@lmco.com]

Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 12:41 PM

To: themayor@folsom.ca.us; mfinnegan@mp.usbr.gov; soliver@mp.usbr.gov; 

rebecca.a.victorine@usace.army.mil

Subject: Foslom Point- Objection to Proposed Closing

Foslom Point- Objection to Proposed Closing Page 1 of 1

1/30/2007

I would like to register my objection to the proposed closing of the Folsom Point Recreation Area as a staging 

area for the Folsom Lake Bridge Project. Closing this area for several years will severely impact area businesses 

and negatively effect quality of life for all residents of Folsom.

Scott T. Davis 

107 Estabrook Lane, Folsom CA 95630 

Director, Common Strategic Supplier Management 

Lockheed Martin Space Systems Company 

Aerojet Resident Office Hwy 50 & Aerojet Rd. 

Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 

Office: (916)355-2553 

Cell: (916)233-7482 

Fax: (916)355-6422 

scott.t.davis@lmco.com 

l 
1

Tisthammer, Troy

From: James A. Roberts [jemsjar@comcast.net]

Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 1:17 PM

To: 'Shawn Oliver'

Cc: 'James A. Roberts'

Subject: RE: Folsom Dam Safety and Flood Damage Reduction EIS/EIR

Shawn:

How are you handling the effects of climate change on the project and the effects of the 

project on climate change? The text that I have seen is silent on these issues.

Jim Roberts

-----Original Message-----

From: Shawn Oliver [mailto:soliver@mp.usbr.gov]

Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 9:47 AM

To: jemsjar@comcast.net

Subject: RE: Folsom Dam Safety and Flood Damage Reduction EIS/EIR

Please let me know if I can provide anymore information.

I don't know how I messed up Ginni's name, but she was very nice about it.

Thanks for getting back to me.

Shawn 

Shawn E. Oliver

Natural Resource Specialist

Bureau of Reclamation

Central California Area Office (Folsom)

Email soliver@mp.usbr.gov

Office (916) 989-7256

Fax (916) 989-7208

>>> "James A. Roberts" <jemsjar@comcast.net> 01/29/07 7:49 AM >>>

Shawn: 

Thanks for the information. I am not a member of the group that Ginni represents. 

However, I have been interested in what they have been doing for the community and thought

they might be interested in the proposed project.

Jim Roberts

-----Original Message-----

From: Shawn Oliver [mailto:soliver@mp.usbr.gov]

Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2007 7:09 PM

To: jemsjar@comcast.net

Cc: jpalmer@sanjuan.edu; MDencavage@sanjuan.edu; senoch@sanjuan.edu; ginniaj@yahoo.com

Subject: Re: Folsom Dam Safety and Flood Damage Reduction EIS/EIR

Mr. Roberts,

Reclamation and the Corps are unable to extend the comment period again.

 Our schedule to get the project to Congress and get funding for the project is 

aggressive. Both agencies want to reduce the risk to the downstream public as soon as 

possible. 

I understand that you still have concerns about the project, and I encourage you to send