Folsom DS/FDR Final EIS/EIR – March 2007 3-1 

Chapter 3 

Summary Analysis of Preferred 

Alternative (Based on Revised Project 

Description) 

As described in Chapter 2, the Preferred Alternative (Alternative 3) has been revised 

in response to comments received on the Draft EIS/EIR and with regard to project 

refinements made by Reclamation and the Corps. The following summary analysis 

of the Preferred Alternative describes how the project refinements described in 

Chapter 2 relate to various aspects of the natural, physical, and social environments 

and how certain environmental impacts would be avoided, reduced, or otherwise 

modified by virtue of those project refinements, as compared to the impacts 

identified in the Draft EIS/EIR for the original proposal (i.e., Alternative 3 in the 

Draft EIS/EIR). The analysis below focuses especially on any changes in impacts 

identified in the Draft EIS/EIR as being significant and/or adverse, inasmuch as the 

ability to avoid or reduce such impacts, where feasible, is particularly relevant to the 

NEPA and CEQA review processes. 

The presentation of the resource areas (natural, physical, and social environments) in 

this Chapter follows same order as that presented that of Chapter 3 of the Draft 

EIS/EIR with the exception of Socioeconomics. In the Draft EIS/EIR, 

Socioeconomics was presented as Chapter 4.0. In the Final EIS/EIR, 

Socioeconomics is presented as Section 3.20. Because the environmental baseline, 

or the basis by which environmental impacts were determined in the Draft EIS/EIR, 

has not changed since issuance of the Draft EIS/EIR in December 2006, the Affected 

Environment portion of the Draft EIS/EIR is not repeated here. Appendix C of the 

Final EIS/EIR includes that text. The sections below only present the changes in 

impact determinations based on the refinements to the Preferred Alternative, as 

presented in Chapter 2.0 of this Final EIS/EIR. 

3.1 Hydrology, Water Quality, and Groundwater 

There would be no notable changes to the impacts related to hydrology and 

groundwater from those described in the Draft EIS/EIR. In the Draft EIS/EIR, the 

project-related effects to hydrology and groundwater were determined to be less 

than-significant. Mitigation monitoring activities proposed in Section 3.1 of the 

Draft EIS/EIR to demonstrate no significant adverse impact would occur from the 

project would still be followed under implementation of the revised Preferred 

Alternative. 
Chapter 3 

Summary Analysis of Preferred Alternative (Based on Revised Project Description) 

3-2 Folsom DS/FDR Final EIS/EIR – March 2007

The reduction of the project footprint, elimination of borrow activities in most areas 

along the reservoir shoreline, and elimination of cofferdams at Dikes 7 and 8, are 

expected to reduce, but not eliminate, the potential for adverse water quality impacts 

due to construction. Section 2.2.3 of this document shows the difference between 

the project footprints in the Draft EIS/EIR and revised Preferred Alternative 

graphically. Table 3-1 summarizes the difference by acreage. Nevertheless, the 

Partner Agencies will implement Storm Water Pollution Prevention and Water 

Quality Control plans to ensure that the water quality of Folsom Reservoir is 

protected during construction. 

Table 3-1 

Project Footprint under the Draft EIS/EIR and the Final EIS/EIR 

Construction Zone 

Draft EIS/EIR 

(total area in 

acres) 

Final EIS/EIR 

(total area in acres) 

Contractor Staging 

Areas 377 215 

Borrow Areas 1,040 154 

Dike Construction 

Zones 261 261 

Internal Haul Routes 94 35 

Total 1,772 665 

Based upon additional engineering analysis since the Draft EIS/EIR was published, 

the Corps has concluded that with optimization of all elements of its Selected Plan, 

including the 6STG Auxiliary Spillway, emergency spillway gate modification, and 

a 3.5-ft facility raise, an increase to maximum reservoir water surface elevation 

beyond current dam crest elevation is not anticipated in order to provide for flood 

damage reduction benefits. The future maximum water surface elevation for all 

flood events, inclusive of a PMF event, eliminates the risk that surrounding 

properties or habitat would be flooded beyond which occurs under existing 

conditions. Consequently, no property takes, flowage easements, or additional small 

scale impoundment features, such as dikes or berms, beyond the existing take line 

are planned as part of the Corps’ Selected Plan. The 3.5-ft raise of the Corps’ 

Selected Plan will undergo further design during pre-construction, engineering, and 

design phase and, if needed, addressed through supplemental NEPA/CEQA 

documentation. 

Because the engineering details of the approach channel for the Auxiliary Spillway 

are not known at this time, mitigation measure HWQ-13 has been revised as follows: 

HWQ-13: During the process of dredging material to construct the approach 

channel for the Auxiliary Spillway, sediment containing mercury will be controlled 

using a variety of methods, including, but not limited to, silt curtains, silt fences, as 

well as other BMPs and construction methods approved by the CVRWQCB. 
Chapter 3 

Summary Analysis of Preferred Alternative (Based on Revised Project Description) 

 

Folsom DS/FDR Final EIS/EIR – March 2007 3-3 

Dredged material will be placed on the downstream side of the reservoir in a 

contained area for drying and processing. The dredged material will then be 

contained either in the MIAD overlay or transported to a permanent disposal site 

outside of the reservoir. 

3.2 Water Supply 

The Draft EIS/EIR concluded that any construction-related impact to water supply 

provided by Folsom Reservoir would not be significant. There is no notable change 

in impacts to water supply resources as a result of the refinements of the Preferred 

Alternative; thus, that conclusion remains the same. 

3.3 Air Quality 

The Partner Agencies are required to conform to federal U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (USEPA) air quality regulations, being enforced by the SMAQMD. All air 

quality emissions will be required to be controlled to levels that must be in compliance 

with limits established by SMAQMD in the project’s air quality permits. In addition to 

watering roadways, excavation, and deposition sites to minimize dust, the Partner 

Agencies will be required to use the most up-to-date pollution reduction equipment on 

all fossil fuel powered construction equipment. The specific air pollution control 

measures to be employed and adhered to will be described in detail in the project’s air 

quality permits. Refinements to the project, including an air quality assessment of a 

more practical project, have shown that the project can conform to the Clean Air Act 

requirements. These refinements include: 

• Identification of available air quality emission credits, 

• Redistribution of material hauling and disposal to minimize haulage miles 

• Scheduling and sequencing of excavation and hauling work so that there is not a 

significant overlap with other project activities that contribute to air quality 

emissions, 

• Use of electrical power for all stationary equipment (note: electrical power will 

be obtained from commercial sources and will not impact Western Area Power 

Authority or CVP users and customers), and 

• Use of the most recent pollution control equipment for all off-road equipment. 

3.4 Aquatic Resources 

The Draft EIS/EIR concluded that potential impacts due to construction would not be 

significant because the shoreline habitat is marginal and the fish occupying the 

habitat are non-native. Notwithstanding, the elimination of some borrow activity 

around the shoreline of Folsom Reservoir has the potential for reducing impacts to 

fish. Figures 2-1 and 2-2 of this document illustrate the difference between the 

project footprints in the Draft EIS/EIR and revised Preferred Alternative. Table 3-1 

above summarizes acreage differences. 
Chapter 3 

Summary Analysis of Preferred Alternative (Based on Revised Project Description) 

3-4 Folsom DS/FDR Final EIS/EIR – March 2007

The Draft EIS/EIR concluded that staging site and construction work could adversely 

affect habitat supporting vernal pool species. The reduction of project footprints and 

some borrow activity may reduce the potential for impact vernal pool species; 

however, because the species are protected under the ESA, any disturbance of vernal 

pool habitat would be considered significant. As such, the refinements to the 

Preferred Alternative could ostensibly reduce the potential for, and/or extent of, 

significant impacts to vernal pools; but, for the purposes of this Final EIS/EIR, the 

basic earlier conclusion that significant impacts to vernal pools species may occur 

would not change. The measures identified in Section 3.4 of the Draft EIS/EIR to 

mitigate such impacts are still applicable and would be implemented under the 

revised Preferred Alternative. In the event of retention of floodwaters above the 

existing conditions maximum reservoir water surface elevation, all applicable federal 

laws will be followed by the responsible Federal Agency to mitigate impacts to 

vernal pool invertebrates and their habitats. 

Aquatic invertebrate mitigation measure AQINV-1c has been deleted as it is 

redundant to mitigation measure BIO-4" 

3.5 Terrestrial Vegetation and Wildlife 

The refinements to the project footprint for staging, haul roads, and stockpiling could 

reduce impacts to vegetation and wildlife. Figures 2-1 and 2-2 of this document 

illustrate the difference between the project footprints in the Draft EIS/EIR and 

revised Preferred Alternative. Table 3-1 above summarizes acreage differences. 

Table 3-2 delineates, by habitat type, the amount of habitat impact reduction that 

would occur under the revised Preferred Alternative compared with Alternative 3 in 

the Draft EIS/EIR. The reduction in the project footprint would reduce impacts to 

oak/grey pine woodland, chaparral, and seasonal wetland, but not riparian woodland. 

Impacts to riparian woodland would increase due to moving haul roads closer to the 

reservoir, which avoids oak woodland and cultural resources sites, but not riparian 

habitat. Also, a recent survey of the Dike 4 area identified additional riparian 

acreage. The four percent increase in impacts to riparian woodland area would not be 

substantial, especially when considered in light of the 37 percent reduction in impact 

area for the other habitat types, based on the project refinements. Nevertheless, 

because 52.4 acres of oak/grey pine woodland, 42.7 acres of riparian woodland, 0.7 

acres of chaparral, and 1.2 acres of seasonal wetland would still be affected, impacts 

to terrestrial vegetation and wildlife would remain significant and require mitigation. 

Mitigation measures introduced in Section 3.5 of the Draft EIS/EIR would be 

implemented to minimize the impact or to replace habitat lost as part of project 

construction. 

Based upon additional engineering analysis since the Draft EIS/EIR was published, 

the Corps has concluded that with optimization of all elements of its Selected Plan, 

including the 6STG Auxiliary Spillway, emergency spillway gate modification, and 
Chapter 3 

Summary Analysis of Preferred Alternative (Based on Revised Project Description) 

 

Folsom DS/FDR Final EIS/EIR – March 2007 3-5 

a 3.5-ft facility raise, an increase to maximum reservoir water surface elevation 

beyond current dam crest elevation is not anticipated in order to provide for flood 

damage reduction benefits. The future maximum water surface elevation for 

Table 3-2 

Comparison of Habitat Impacted Alternative 3 in 

Draft EIS with Revised Preferred Alternative 

Habitat Type Alternative 3 in 

Draft EIS/EIR 

(Impacted Acres)

Revised 

Preferred 

Alternative 

(Impacted Acres)

Oak/grey pine 

woodland 

80.4 52.4 

Riparian 

woodland 

41.0 42.7 

Chaparral 1.26 0.7 

Seasonal wetland 4.29 1.2 

Total 126.95 97.0 

all flood events, inclusive of a PMF event, eliminates the risk that surrounding 

properties or habitat would be flooded beyond which occurs under existing 

conditions. Consequently, no property takes, flowage easements, or additional small 

scale impoundment features, such as dikes or berms, beyond the existing take line 

are planned as part of the Corps’ Selected Plan. The 3.5-ft raise of the Corps’ 

Selected Plan will undergo further design during pre-construction, engineering, and 

design phase and, if needed, addressed through supplemental NEPA/CEQA 

documentation. In the event of retention of floodwaters above the existing 

conditions maximum reservoir water surface elevation, all applicable federal laws 

will be followed by the responsible Federal Agency to mitigate impacts to wildlife 

and their habitats. 

The mitigation measure BIO-3 has been clarified and supplemented to further 

mitigate any adverse effects to federally listed species and their habitats not already 

covered within the project mitigation measures. The refined mitigation measure, 

referred to as BIO-11, is as follows. 

BIO-11: To minimize adverse effects to federally listed species and their habitats, the 

responsible Federal agency shall implement avoidance and minimization measures from the 

project Biological Assessment and anticipated in the Biological Opinion from the USFWS. 

These measures will supplement and supersede, if necessary, other project mitigation 

measures.
Chapter 3 

Summary Analysis of Preferred Alternative (Based on Revised Project Description) 

3-6 Folsom DS/FDR Final EIS/EIR – March 2007

3.6 Soils, Minerals, and Geological Resources 

The quantity of in-reservoir area borrow that was proposed for excavation in the 

Draft EIS/EIR would reduce as part of the refinements to Alternative 3. Therefore, 

impacts to soil and geological resources would be less than those identified in the 

Draft EIS/EIR. The measures identified in Section 3.6 of the Draft EIS/EIR to 

mitigate significant impacts related to soil erosion and asbestos disturbance are still 

applicable and would still be implemented under the revised Preferred Alternative; 

hence, the earlier conclusion that such impacts to be reduced to a level less than 

significant still stands. 

3.7 Visual Resources 

The Draft EIS/EIR concluded that the potential for a raise of Folsom facilities that 

would result in a raise of the reservoir surface water elevation could result in the 

possible need for new embankments. The new embankments could introduce a 

significant visual impact for local residents and Folsom Lake State Recreation Area 

(FLSRA) visitors. Engineering evaluations conducted by the Reclamation and the 

Corps since release of the Draft EIS/EIR indicates that there no longer is a need to 

increase the reservoir water surface elevation to provide dam safety and flood 

damage reduction benefits. Therefore, construction of new embankments (dikes or 

berms) is not part of the Folsom DS/FDR actions and such is not included in the 

revised Preferred Alternative as addressed in this Final EIS/EIR. 

The revised Preferred Alternative that is currently proposed and addressed in this 

Final EIS/EIR does, however, include the possibility of construction of a 3.5-ft 

parapet wall or earthen raise, which would primarily provide increased freeboard 

capacity at the Folsom Facility1. The visual impacts of such a wall are acknowledged 

in Section 3.7 of the Draft EIS/EIR as being significant and unavoidable, which 

would still be the case for the revised Preferred Alternative. Similarly, temporary 

impacts to visual resources during construction, as described in the Draft EIS/EIR, 

would, under the revised Preferred Alternative, remain until disturbed areas are 

recontoured, stabilized, and revegetated. The new Auxiliary Spillway will be a new 

dam site visual feature that would be visible from the new Folsom Dam Bridge. 

Mitigation measures identified in Section 3.7 of the Draft EIS/EIR would still be 

applicable and would be implemented; however, as with Alternative 3, the revised 

Preferred Alternative would result in unavoidable significant visual impacts during 

construction. 

 

1

 The additional freeboard capacity provided by the 3.5-ft wall serves as a safety area above the 

reservoir water elevation during major storm events, to accommodate spontaneous changes in 

peripheral water surface elevations such as from winds or waves. 
Chapter 3 

Summary Analysis of Preferred Alternative (Based on Revised Project Description) 

 

Folsom DS/FDR Final EIS/EIR – March 2007 3-7 

3.8 Agricultural Resources 

The Draft EIS/EIR concluded that the Folsom DS/FDR actions would not affect 

agricultural resources, as none are within the project area. The refinements to the 

Preferred Alternative do not change this conclusion. 

3.9 Transportation and Circulation 

The Draft EIS/EIR identified several locations where LOS indices could be reduced 

as a result of transport of materials and supplies to the project sites. The Draft 

EIS/EIR noted the importance of a Traffic Management Plan to prevent significant 

impacts from occurring. Although refinements to the Preferred Alternative have 

changed some of the sequencing of hauling of materials, the refinements have not 

substantially changed the quantities of material transported to the project sites. The 

Partner Agencies remain committed to a Traffic Management Plan to ensure that 

significant disruption of traffic flow does not occur as a result of the hauling of 

materials. The Traffic Management Plan will include a peak hour analysis to aid in 

the determination of timing of construction traffic flow versus existing and future 

level of service information. 

3.10 Noise 

The refinements to the Preferred Alternative have eliminated a materials processing 

plant near Folsom Point and opposite to Mooney Ridge, reducing noise sources at 

those locations. Processing of materials would still occur south of Beal’s Point, at 

the Auxiliary Spillway excavation site (LWD and Observation Point), and at MIAD 

(D1/D2 locations). The processing of materials at Beal’s Point would have the 

potential for impacting recreational activities, including camping, near the processing 

site. At present, the Partner Agencies plan to conduct processing during the winter 

months when recreational use is at its lowest. Construction of seepage filters at Dike 

5 would be in the vicinity of the RV parking lot. Construction at this location would 

be only off-peak recreation season months and would not occur at night. 

The hauling of material from the Auxiliary Spillway site eastward to MIAD would 

still occur, although the Partner Agencies would seek to use stockpile and disposal 

sites at the LWD, Observation Point, and Dike 7 first to minimize truck noise. As 

part of the refinements to the Preferred Alternative, the Partner Agencies would 

reinforce their commitment to employ all possible noise-reduction measures to keep 

noise levels from excavation, hauling, placement, and processing materials to remain 

below local noise ordinance limits. 

3.11 Cultural Resources 

One aspect of the refinement of the Preferred Alternative was the reduction in project 

footprint, including the siting of proposed haul road routes that avoid cultural 

resources and the elimination of the potential borrow areas at Beal's Point. The 
Chapter 3 

Summary Analysis of Preferred Alternative (Based on Revised Project Description) 

3-8 Folsom DS/FDR Final EIS/EIR – March 2007

reduction in the project footprint reduces the overall extent of potential impacts to 

cultural resources resulting from project construction. Section 2.2.3 of this document 

shows the difference between the project footprints in the Draft EIS/EIR and revised 

Preferred Alternative in tabular format and graphically. The measures identified in 

Section 3.11 of the Draft EIS/EIR to mitigate impacts to cultural resources would 

still be applicable to the revised Preferred Alternative and would reduce the potential 

impacts to a level less than significant. The Partner Agencies will complete the State 

Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) consultation process as necessary to comply 

with NHPA requirements. 

3.12 Land Use, Planning, and Zoning 

The Draft EIS/EIR analysis of land use, planning, and zoning considerations 

associated with the project is influenced largely by the issue of a potential raise in 

reservoir water surface elevation, and the associated improvements and measures 

such as new flood control berms, easements, or property acquisition. The 

requirement for new flood control berms, easements, or property acquisition was 

removed from the Preferred Alternative because Reclamation and the Corps have 

determined that there no longer is a need for a raise in the reservoir water surface 

elevation to address dam safety and flood damage reduction concerns. Therefore, 

the revised Preferred Alternative would have no impact to land use, planning, or 

zoning. 

3.13 Recreation Resources 

The Draft EIS/EIR assessed impacts to recreation resources at FLSRA as a result of 

closure of recreational facilities due public safety and construction staging needs. In 

response to public comments on the Draft EIS/EIR, the Partner Agencies have 

reduced the amount of acreage needed for staging purposes by eliminating, 

consolidating, or reducing acreage from that presented in the Draft EIS/EIR (see 

Table 3-1 above). In principle, contractor staging areas would emphasize use of areas 

with no current public access, away from residential areas, use of excess materials to 

create platforms above the normal operating reservoir water surface elevation of 

466.0 feet and be placed so as to maintain existing or equivalent public recreation 

access and use capacity during the peak recreation season. 

To minimize potential impacts to recreation, staging areas at Beal’s Point and 

Folsom Point would be placed on constructed platforms or on adjacent unimproved 

areas a safe distance from primary recreational activities. Public safety would be 

maintained through the use of fencing or other similar measures. There would be 

nearly continuous public access to recreation areas and trails throughout the 

construction period through the use of traffic control measures and/or grade 

separated vehicular and/or pedestrian crossings and/or temporary alternate public 

access detours. Closures could occur while the Partner Agencies are implementing 

these new measures that allow continued access or to address public safety and 
Chapter 3 

Summary Analysis of Preferred Alternative (Based on Revised Project Description) 

 

Folsom DS/FDR Final EIS/EIR – March 2007 3-9 

facility security objectives. In such cases, temporary closures would be 

accomplished during off-peak days or the off-season to minimize impacts on 

recreation activities. Reclamation’s Central California Area Office would notify 

local agencies and the general public and accept input in advance of any possible 

extended closure(s) that may be necessary due to unforeseen project circumstances. 

The Draft EIS/EIR also introduced the possibility of construction use at, or near, 

Granite Bay and Browns Ravine. Under the revised Preferred Alternative, use or 

work at Granite Bay and Browns Ravine has been eliminated. There would also be 

no impacts at Rattlesnake Bar, the Peninsula Campground, Doton’s Point, Beeks 

Bight. 

The Partner Agencies remain committed to providing year round access to FLSRA, 

although it is recognized that some inconvenience to the visiting public remains 

possible to address public safety and facility security objectives. The Partner 

Agencies also remain committed to replace any recreation structure, facility, or trail 

that is damaged or moved as part of construction work. Under current authorities, 

the Partner Agencies can replace in-kind existing facilities affected by the project, 

but cannot enhance or improve existing or new facilities. 

3.14 Public Services and Utilities 

Utility relocations discussed in the Draft EIS/EIR would still be necessary to 

construct elements of the revised Preferred Alternative. The Partner Agencies would 

relocate utilities in a manner that will not disrupt services to utility customers. 

3.15 Hydropower Resources 

The Draft EIS/EIR concluded that none of the Folsom DS/FDR alternatives would 

significantly affect hydropower resources because the alternatives would not change 

current operations. The revised Preferred Alternative also would not change current 

reservoir operations so it would not significantly impact hydropower resources. 

3.16 Population and Housing 

Construction of all features of the revised Preferred Alternative would be temporary, 

employing workers from within the region. There would not be a need for new 

housing for the construction workers. Because a raise of reservoir surface elevation 

is not part of the revised Preferred Alternative, there is no longer a potential for 

inundation impacts above the current federal take line around the reservoir. 

Therefore, the revised Preferred Alternative would not have impacts to population 

and housing. 
Chapter 3 

Summary Analysis of Preferred Alternative (Based on Revised Project Description) 

3-10 Folsom DS/FDR Final EIS/EIR – March 2007

3.17 Public Health and Safety 

The Partner Agencies remain committed to implement and construct all features of 

the revised Preferred Alternative in a manner that is protective of public health and 

safety. The refinements to the Preferred Alternative do not change that commitment. 

3.18 Indian Trust Assets 

There are no Indian Trust Assets within the footprint of the construction areas 

proposed for the revised Preferred Alternative. 

3.19 Environmental Justice 

There are no predominately minority and/or low income groups defined by 

Environmental Justice guidance within the revised Preferred Alternative project area 

that would be disproportionately adversely impacted by Folsom DS/FDR activities. 

Notwithstanding, the Partner Agencies remain committed to implement and 

construct all features of the revised Preferred Alternative fairly and justly in a 

manner that considers all peoples including race and economic status. 

3.20 Socioeconomics 

The Draft EIS/EIR presented the results of an economic analysis based on the 

assumption that recreational facilities would be closed for extended periods, 

including during the peak summer recreation period. The results of this analysis 

indicated a loss of revenues to the local economy due to reduced recreational visits, 

but a benefit to the economy due to the local purchases by the work force employed 

by an approximately $1 billion construction project. CDPR would experience an 

adverse economic impact because of lost revenues during the summer at the closed 

recreation sites. 

In response to public comments on the Draft EIS/EIR, the Partner Agencies are no 

longer planning to close any recreation facility during the peak recreation season 

(May through September). Facility entry kiosks staffed by CDPR personnel would 

remain open and CDPR would continue to collect revenue. During the non-peak 

season when use of the recreational facilities is low, visitors would still be able to 

use volunteer pay stations when they access open recreation sites. Because FLSRA 

would remain accessible throughout the year, frequent users would still purchase 

annual passes. Therefore, under the revised Preferred Alternative, there would not be 

a notable loss of revenues to CDPR. In the event of closures to recreation facilities 

due to uncontrollable circumstances, impacts to the local economy and CDPR would 

occur. Regional economic impacts would be minimal because visitors would still be 

able to recreate at other local recreation areas and open FLSRA facilities; therefore, 

they would likely spend money within the region. Also, the benefits of construction 

worker spending would continue to offset any losses in recreational expenditures. 
Chapter 3 

Summary Analysis of Preferred Alternative (Based on Revised Project Description) 

 

Folsom DS/FDR Final EIS/EIR – March 2007 3-11 

CDPR would loose some revenues as a result of unexpected closures, but they would 

be substantially less than those described in Chapter 4 of the Draft EIS/EIR. 

3.21 Impacts and Corresponding Mitigation Measures 

Eliminated in the Final EIS/EIR 

Section 2.5 provides the listing of mitigation measures proposed to reduce impacts to 

less than significant levels. These are essentially the same mitigation measures 

proposed in the Draft EIS/EIR. As a result of the revisions to the project description, 

several mitigation measures proposed in the Draft EIS/EIR are no longer necessary 

and/or applicable, and have therefore been eliminated relative to this Final EIS/EIR. 

Table 3-3 presents a list of the mitigation measures that have not been carried into 

the Final EIS/EIR, and the reasons for their elimination. 
Chapter 3 

Summary Analysis of Preferred Alternative (Based on Revised Project Description) 3-12 Folsom DS/FDR Final EIS

Table 3-3 

Mitigation Measures Eliminated since the Draft EIS/EIR 

Number in 

Draft 

EIS/EIR Mitigation Measure Reason for Eliminatio

Hydrology, Water Quality, and GroundwaterHWQ-10 

HWQ-10: Reclamation will monitor groundwater and surface water levels in wetlands downstream of MIAD and within the Mormon Island Wetland Preserve during dewatering of the MIAD foundation for excavation and replacement. If water levels decrease because of dewatering, the water obtained from dewatering will be tested and treated to meet surface water standards prior to being pumped back into the wetlands. 

This mitigation measure is no longer apExcavation and replacement of the MIAwould not occur under the Preferred AlteAlternative 3), as described in Chapter 2 EIS/EIR. 

Aquatic Resources AQINV-1c 

AQINV-1c: On-site personnel will receive instruction (from 

Reclamation, Corps, or trained representative) regarding the potential presence of listed species and the importance of avoiding impacts. 

This mitigation measure is redundant to measure BIO-4. 

AQINV-1e 

AQINV-1e: Effects caused by emergency retention of floodwaters will be minimized by conducting baseline surveys 

below the maximum potential surface elevation. Protocol surveys for vernal pool fairy shrimp and California vernal pool tadpole shrimp will be conducted by a USFWS-approved biologist at seasonal pools capable of supporting these vernal pool species.  • If these vernal pool species are not found, no additional 

minimization measures will be required. 

 • If vernal pool fairy shrimp and/or California vernal pool 

tadpole shrimp are found, sites supporting populations will be recorded. 

This mitigation measure is no longer nePreferred Alternative (revised Alternativincrease the reservoir surface elevation this Final EIS/EIR for the current project 
Summary Analysis of Preferred Alternative (Based on Revised 

Folsom DS/FDR Final EIS/EIR – March 2007 

Table 3-3 

Mitigation Measures Eliminated since the Draft EIS/EIR 

Number in 

Draft 

EIS/EIR Mitigation Measure Reason for Eliminatio

• Following a large hydrologic event that temporarily 

increases Folsom reservoir surface elevation above the normal operations maximum, affected pools supporting vernal pool fairy shrimp and/or vernal pool tadpole shrimp populations will be again surveyed by an approved biologist 

for presence/absence, and the responsible Federal agency will re-initiated consultation with the USFWS if necessary or appropriate.

Terrestrial Vegetation and Wildlife 

BIO-8 

BIO-8: In the event of emergency operations that increase the 

reservoir surface elevation of Folsom Reservoir above the normal OHWM, supplemental environmental compliance will be completed. It is anticipated that surveys would be completed after the event and post-inundation surveys would be compared to the most recent pre-inundation survey data available to 

assess impacts and compensatory mitigation. The responsible Federal agency would contact other federal, state, and local 

agencies to develop appropriate mitigation measures. These measures would be based on the extent and duration of the 

emergency inundation and survey data. Based on the results of these surveys, formal Section 7 consultation would be reinitiated by the responsible federal agency and consultation 

with CDFG would also be conducted. 

This mitigation measure is no longer nePreferred Alternative (revised Alternativincrease the reservoir surface elevation this Final EIS/EIR for the current project 

Visual Resources 

VIS-1 

To minimize the visual impact to less than significant level, move the processing facility at Browns Ravine southeast into 

the cove area. 

The processing facility at Browns Ravindropped from the Preferred Alternative. 

VIS-2 To lessen the impacts directly in front of the Granite Bay beach area, reduce the size of the borrow area so that excavation Borrow work at Granite Bay has been d

Preferred Alternative. 
Chapter 3 

Summary Analysis of Preferred Alternative (Based on Revised Project Description) 3-14 Folsom DS/FDR Final EIS

Table 3-3 

Mitigation Measures Eliminated since the Draft EIS/EIR 

Number in 

Draft 

EIS/EIR Mitigation Measure Reason for Eliminatio

would not occur in front of the beach area. 

Land Use, Planning, and Zoning 

LU-1 

LU-1: If a raise feature is selected, the determination regarding 

structural solutions (i.e., flood damage reduction berms) and/or acquisition of real estate rights (easements or fee title) for any impacted non-federal parcel will be made on a case by case basis and will depend upon feasibility, cost, and acceptability to the landowner(s). Efforts will be made to design and construct flood damage reduction structures that will reduce or eliminate the need for building flood damage reduction berms and/or acquiring real estate rights (easements or fee title), including potential relocation of residents, on impacted non-federal parcels. 

This mitigation measure is no longer nePreferred Alternative (revised Alternativincrease the reservoir surface elevation this Final EIS/EIR for the current project 

LU-2 

LU-2: The responsible agency will follow the procedures of 

local jurisdictions for zoning district changes, as needed to provide flood damage reduction measures. 

This mitigation measure is no longer nePreferred Alternative (revised Alternativincrease the reservoir surface elevation this Final EIS/EIR for the current project 

LU-3 

LU-3: To lessen visual impacts of flood damage reduction berms and reduce potential conflict with local visual resource policies, a berm will be located on a parcel so as to conceal it in 

the viewshed, if practical, and/or construction materials will be used to make the berm less visually conspicuous. 

This mitigation measure is no longer nePreferred Alternative (revised Alternativ

increase the reservoir surface elevation this Final EIS/EIR for the current project 

Public Services and Utilities

PSU-7 

PSU-7: Notification will be provided to the appropriate agencies if any additional utilities could be inundated as a result of the implementation of the Folsom DS/FDR. 

This mitigation measure is no longer nePreferred Alternative (revised Alternativincrease the reservoir surface elevation this Final EIS/EIR for the current project 
 

 

 

Chapter 4 

Comments and Responses 

4.1 Introduction 

This chapter and associated appendix (Appendix A) contain responses to all 

comments received to the Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR during the public 

comment period. The Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR was released for public review 

on December 1, 2006. The Partner Agencies conducted two public hearings where 

verbal and written comments on the Draft EIS/EIR were accepted. All comments on 

the Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR were due by January 22, 2007; however, at the 

Partner Agencies’ initiative, the comment period was extended four additional days 

to January 26, 2007. All forms of written comments were accepted during the 

comment period, including e-mails, letters, and comment forms. Numerous 

telephone calls were also received during the comment period. NEPA and CEQA do 

not require responses to comments made through telephone calls; however, the 

telephone call comments were similar to many of the written comments received 

during the comment period. 

This Chapter of the Final EIS/EIR provides the following information: 

 Section 4.2 summarizes the project background, describing the overall setting 

for why the project is necessary, and also explaining the technical and policy 

basis for many of the comment responses. 

Section 4.3 provides responses to “topical comments”. Topical comments 

reflect recurrent or common issues raised by reviewers during the comment 

period. 

Section 4.4 lists the entities that submitted written comments on the Draft 

EIS/EIR. 

Section 4.5 describes the public hearing locations and comment process, and 

identifies individuals that provided verbal and/or written comments at the 

hearings. 

Section 4.6 introduces the specific responses to comments submitted on the 

Draft EIS/EIR. Comments and their respective responses are provided in 

Appendix A of this document. 

Section 4.7 describes the petition forms that were submitted on this project. 

Folsom DS/FDR Final EIS/EIR – March 2007 4-1 
Chapter 4 

Comments and Responses 

Section 4.8 presents the comments and responses received on the Corps’ 

Project Authorization Change (PAC) Report. 

4.2 Project Background 

Folsom Dam is comprised of 12 impoundment facilities. These include the Main 

Concrete Dam, two adjacent wing dams, MIAD, and eight separate dikes. 

Evaluations of the operational flexibility and structure of the dam and associated 

facilities indicate that improvements are necessary to maintain dam safety and to 

improve flood damage protection benefits along the lower American River. 

Although there is potential for work on all 12 of the facilities, the major work 

proposed with potential recreation impacts is the construction of an Auxiliary 

Spillway to improve hydrologic control of extreme flooding events, modifications to 

the Right Wing Dam and Dikes 4, 5 and 6 to reduce seepage and piping concerns and 

construction of an overlay at MIAD due to seismic risk concerns. 

Folsom Dam and Reservoir were constructed between 1948 and 1956. By law, the 

dam must be operationally and financially integrated with all other features of the 

CVP. The authorized project purposes are flood control, water supply, hydropower, 

water quality, navigation, and fish and wildlife. Recreation activities at Folsom Dam 

and Reservoir are allowed under the authority of the Central Valley Project 

Reauthorization Act dated August 30, 1935 and the Federal Water Project Recreation 

Act. However, recreation is not a primary purpose of Folsom Reservoir. 

Reclamation administers project lands and the recreation program through a longterm agreement with CDPR. Under the terms of their long-term agreement with 

Reclamation, CDPR manages the full scope of lands and the recreation program on 

federally-owned lands at Folsom Dam and Reservoir, including resource 

management, fire protection, cultural resource protection, public health and safety, 

and law enforcement. Reclamation does not fund CDPR through appropriations. 

Instead, most land management activities are funded by CDPR through revenues 

generated by the recreation program. 

43 CFR 429 prohibits Reclamation from granting easements for projects that impact 

Reclamation functions and programs (i.e., dam safety and reservoir operations). 

Therefore, in order for the proposed project to proceed on Reclamation managed 

land, the project proponent must fully mitigate impacts to Reclamation’s land 

management, which includes resource management, fire protection, cultural resource 

protection, public health and safety, and law enforcement for Reclamation lands and 

recreation program. 

Additionally, under the authority of the Safety of Dams Act as cited in the Draft 

EIS/EIR, under which Reclamation exercises its authority to make the proposed 

modifications under this EIS/EIR, Reclamation cannot provide additional recreation 

4-2 Folsom DS/FDR Final EIS/EIR – March 2007 
Chapter 4 

Comments and Responses 

 

or other benefits. The Corps and local sponsor(s) ability are also limited in scope 

and nature under its authorities relevant to recreation, which include but are not 

limited to: 

1) Section 4, 1944 Flood Control Act (P.L. 78-534) as amended, Federal Water 

Project Recreation Act 1965 (P.L. 89-72) as amended; 

2) Section 103(c)(4) and 103(e) Water Resources Development Act 1986 as 

amended; and 

3) Reclamation Projects Authorization and Adjustments Act, Section 2804 (PL 

102-575). 

As public stewards of Federal interests and the property that the project is being 

undertaken, Reclamation, the Corps, DWR, and the local sponsors (Partner 

Agencies) acknowledge that the potential exists in the future to provide new 

beneficial recreational or other beneficial improvements which could be made to 

potential remnant temporary unimproved platforms, roads, and or trails following 

completion of the Folsom DS/FDR project construction. Such potential 

improvements are viewed at this time as being consistent with conceptual plans put 

forth in the Draft Folsom State Park Resource Management Plan and with other local 

recreation plans. These plans are conceptual in nature at this time. They are not 

funded and/or approved plans. As such, they are not considered an existing project 

future condition and are not required to be considered as offsetting mitigation for 

potential impacts. Future beneficial improvements may be undertaken by 

Reclamation under other applicable authorities and/or by the Corps, local sponsor(s) 

and/or other parties on approval by Reclamation, subject to future environmental, 

economic and other required analysis, but do not represent a commitment to provide 

such improvements as part of this EIS/EIR. 

4.3 Topical Responses 

Topical responses address those comments received during the formal comment 

period that were either frequent in nature, involved a common theme, or both. 

4.3.1 Recreation Mitigation 

The recreation impact analysis in the Draft EIS/EIR provided a very conservative 

(i.e., “worse-case”) assessment of closing recreation facilities for use as construction, 

contractor staging and processing sites. Many Draft EIS/EIR-related comments 

concerned the actual or perceived impacts of the project on recreation activities. 

Commenters were particularly concerned that all five alternatives presented in the 

Draft EIS/EIR assumed that Folsom Point could be closed for an extended period of 

time during construction. Various alternatives also assumed potential impacts at 

Beal’s Point and Granite Bay recreation areas. A large number of comments 

Folsom DS/FDR Final EIS/EIR – March 2007 4-3 
Chapter 4 

Comments and Responses 

pertained to the loss of convenience to recreational opportunities, including hiking, 

boating, swimming, picnicking, biking, and nature watching. In order to reduce 

impacts, many commenters suggested the use of alternative sites for the contractor’s 

main staging area or the construction of temporary facilities such as boat launches. 

Folsom Point was considered in the Draft EIS/EIR as one of the potential staging 

areas because it is the only currently relatively flat, large area centrally located 

between the spillway site and MIAD that could serve as a staging point for 

contractor office use, parking of equipment, and storage of supplies and materials. 

All other locations would require greater construction effort, impact a greater area to 

wildlife habitat, and possibly require filling of the reservoir’s shoreline. 

Reclamation has evaluated a number of potential alternative staging locations in lieu 

of staging at Folsom Point. These include locations within and outside of federal 

property. The possibility of staging at areas outside of federal property was 

eliminated due to security and safety considerations. The large number of vehicles 

and trucks required for this project will need to be contained on federal land and not 

be crossing public streets. This will particularly preclude staging west of the dam 

along Auburn-Folsom Road because access to the east side of the dam would involve 

use of city roads. 

Alternative staging sites within federal property include staging below the LWD 

along the alignment of the Auxiliary Spillway, at the Overlook parking lot, staging 

along the closed Folsom Dam Road, construction of staging near Dikes 7 and 8, 

construction of staging west of Folsom Point, and construction of staging north of 

Green Valley Road. The Overlook parking lot could be used for staging at least 

initially while project mobilization and road construction is started, but the area is 

too small to stage the number of equipment vehicles anticipated for the project. 

Staging near Dikes 7 and 8, and Folsom Point would require placement of fill within 

the reservoir. Staging near Green Valley Road would be temporary because the area 

would end up as a disposal site for excess excavated material. Staging along the 

closed portion of Folsom Dam Road is not possible due to limited area available and 

interference with construction of the new Folsom Dam Bridge. 

Since the issuance of the Draft EIS/EIR, project details have been refined (See 

Section 2.2), including identification of the most likely staging, processing, and haul 

road locations under Alternative 3. As a result of the refinement of the project 

details, there will be nearly continuous public access to recreation areas throughout 

the construction period through the use of traffic control measures and/or grade 

separated vehicular and/or pedestrian crossings and/or temporary alternate public 

access detours. Exceptions could include temporary closure incidental to completing 

construction of the grade separation itself or other access measures or to meet 

unforeseen project circumstances. In such cases, temporary closures would be 

accomplished during off-peak days or off-season to minimize impacts on recreation 

4-4 Folsom DS/FDR Final EIS/EIR – March 2007 
Chapter 4 

Comments and Responses 

 

activities. Reclamation’s Central California Area Office will notify local agencies 

and the general public and accept input in advance of any possible extended 

closure(s) that may be necessary due to unforeseen project circumstances. 

Any recreation facility impacted by construction will be repaired or replaced, in 

kind, to its existing function following disturbance during construction. As public 

stewards of the Federal interests and property which the project is being undertaken, 

The Partner Agencies acknowledge the potential exists in the future to provide new 

beneficial recreational or other beneficial improvements which could be made to 

potential remnant unimproved platforms following completion of project 

construction as an incidental benefit. 

The potential improvements are viewed at this time as being consistent with 

conceptual plans put forth in the Draft Folsom Lake State Park Resource 

Management Plan and with other local recreation plans. These plans are conceptual 

in nature at this time and are not funded and/or approved plans and thus not 

considered an existing project future condition and thus are not required to be 

considered as offsetting mitigation for potential impacts. Future beneficial 

improvements may be undertaken by Reclamation under applicable authorities 

and/or by other parties on approval by Reclamation, subject to future environmental, 

economic and other required analysis but do not represent a commitment to provide 

such improvements as part of this EIS/EIR. The Partner Agencies are committed to 

promoting these opportunities in partnership with other agencies and the public. 

The measures proposed by the Partner Agencies for reducing construction impacts to 

recreation to a level less than significant are discussed in detail in Section 4.3.1.1 below. 

4.3.1.1 General Recreation Mitigation Strategy 

The primary federal objective is to expedite completion of projects that provide 

greater than 1/200 year flood protection and address critical dam safety requirements 

at Folsom Dam and Reservoir. Public health and safety are therefore paramount. 

Within this context and to the extent practicable, the Partner Agencies would 

schedule and manage construction activities to avoid impacts on recreation activities 

on and around Folsom Lake. There would be no significant impacts at Granite Bay, 

Rattlesnake Bar, the Peninsula Campground, Doton’s Point, Beeks Bight, or Browns 

Ravine. There would be some unavoidable, though largely incidental impacts to 

recreation activities at Folsom Point, Beal’s Point and trails at MIAD, Dikes 4, 5, 6, 

and the RWD. As a general principle, construction plans would not assume any 

extended closures to either Folsom Point or Beal’s Point. In order to meet project 

objectives, however, the Partner Agencies must necessarily retain the option for 

extended closures in the event of unforeseen project circumstances. 

Regarding recreation site access, the Partner Agencies would evaluate and 

implement reasonable alternatives to reconfigure entrance roads as necessary at 

Folsom DS/FDR Final EIS/EIR – March 2007 4-5 
Chapter 4 

Comments and Responses 

Folsom Point and/or Beal’s Point to allow concurrent construction traffic and public 

access. Cross traffic from haul routes and other construction activities would be 

managed through the use of traffic control measures and/or grade separated vehicular 

and/or pedestrian crossings and/or temporary alternate public access detours. Access 

to Folsom Point and Beal’s Point may be closed temporarily in order to construct 

grade separation and other access project features. 

Impacts to formal, existing access roads, bike paths and/or pedestrian trails would be 

minimized by constructing or identifying temporary, in-kind roads, bike paths and/or 

pedestrian trail detours in conjunction with public safety and traffic control 

measures. Access to and use of such roads and trails may be interrupted in order to 

construct detours or in-kind facilities themselves. 

In addition to access, the Partner Agencies have adopted other substantive measures 

to preserve the quality of the recreation experience as much as possible. 

Improvements to the project since the Draft EIS/EIR include: 

 1. Batching and materials processing operations would be consolidated within 

the Folsom Industrial Area, at the Observation Point and the adjacent area 

below the LWD. This greatly diminishes the potential for noise, dust and 

other impacts within the main recreation areas. The one exception is Beal’s 

Point where, in order to reduce impacts elsewhere, the Partner Agencies must 

preserve the opportunity for materials processing at the area adjacent to the 

RWD or north of Dike 6. 

 2. Staging areas at Beal’s Point and Folsom Point have been adjusted. New 

staging areas will be constructed adjacent to the Beal’s Point recreation area 

on constructed platforms at a safe distance from primary recreational 

activities. In the Draft EIS/EIR, existing facilities, primarily paved parking 

facilities, were identified as potential staging areas. To the extent practicable, 

existing recreation capacity would be fully maintained by relocating staging 

areas to adjacent areas which would not adversely impact the public’s ability 

to use these existing facilities. Staging requirements which cannot be 

practically avoided and result in impacts to recreational facilities during the 

peak recreating season would be mitigated by providing alternative access to 

the facilities and trails during the work week and maintaining full access 

capacity on holidays and weekends. 

3. The primary borrow source for the project would be material excavated from 

the Auxiliary Spillway and the new Folsom Dam Bridge. This diminishes 

traffic and other construction impacts at most recreation areas. The Partner 

Agencies must preserve the option to excavate from a site north and adjacent 

to Beal’s Point. Borrow from these sites may be necessary for material 

quality or quantity, or to avoid other significant impacts. 

4-6 Folsom DS/FDR Final EIS/EIR – March 2007 
Chapter 4 

Comments and Responses 

 

Project construction scheduling will be sequenced to minimize recreation impacts 

with an emphasis on avoidance and conducting recreation disturbing activities during 

the off-season from mid-September to May. Construction activities would occur at 

various locations over the period of the project in a phased approach. Phases are 

expected to be in 1- to 3-year increments with periods of inactivity ranging from 6 

months to 2 years. The duration of any single phase of work in the vicinity of any 

single recreational facility is not expected to exceed 3 years. By the above actions, 

impacts incurred are further reduced to less than significant as recreational facilities 

would not be impacted continuously for extended periods of time. 

Every effort has been made to avoid impacts to recreation; however, it is possible 

that unforeseen project circumstances may occasionally require more extended 

closures of various recreation facilities. Such closures may be necessary to regain 

time lost as a result of flood events or extended periods of inclement weather, 

substantive changes in materials assumptions or calculations, major public safety 

issues, infeasibility, and the like. Reclamation’s Central California Area Office will 

notify local agencies and the general public and accept input prior to initiating more 

extended delays. 

By the above general actions, and those specifically listed in this Final EIS/EIR 

below, impacts to recreation would be reduced to less than significant as nearly 

continuous existing or equivalent access capacity would be maintained to 

recreational facilities during the peak recreation season of approximately May to 

mid-September. The following text provides the Partner Agencies’ general response 

to the issues raised regarding construction impacts to FLSRA recreation facilities. 

4.3.1.2 Construction Relationship to Recreational Facilities 

Construction of the Auxiliary Spillway would involve the excavation of up to 3.5 

million cubic yards of earthen material and the transportation of this material to 

various temporary and/or permanent stockpile locations. Principle material 

distribution has been assumed to be off road haul trucks; however, through continued 

engineering analysis, the Partner Agencies continue to evaluate equipment size and 

other conveyance methods to reduce impacts, including recreation. 

Movement of excavated material would involve a significant number of haul truck 

round trips. To keep this amount of truck traffic off of city streets, a haul road would 

be located on federal property between the maximum high (480.5 ft) and normal 

operational water levels (425.0 to 466.0 ft) of the reservoir. The haul road would be 

approximately 40-ft wide. The haul route would be designed and maintained to 

minimize noise and fugitive dust emissions. 

To the extent practicable, the Partner Agencies would use existing topography and 

stockpiled materials to reduce noise along haul routes and control fugitive dust 

emissions by use of combinations of water, dust control surfactants, and gravel or 

Folsom DS/FDR Final EIS/EIR – March 2007 4-7 
Chapter 4 

Comments and Responses 

similar pavements. Public safety would be maintained via fencing or other similar 

measures. 

Currently, this volume of material equates to an estimated 120,000 haul truck round 

trips for the excavation and stockpile sites. Over the expected term of the 

excavation, this equates to a truck trip approximately every fifteen minutes to the 

various stockpile locations. Duration and intensity will vary over time, but noise and 

dust impacts would be maintained at or below regulatory limits, based on best 

management practices and mitigation measures outlined in Section 2.5 of this 

document. 

A soil overlay at MIAD would use 1.5 to 2 million cubic yards of the material 

excavated from the spillway site. This material would be placed at the D1/D2 

staging sites near MIAD for temporary stockpiling prior to construction. Any excess 

material would be permanently stockpiled at locations identified in Chapter 2 of the 

Final EIS/EIR. 

Folsom Point

In order to minimize traffic and other impacts on local arteries, the Draft EIS/EIR 

has proposed a haul route located entirely on Federal property. This haul route 

intersects the entrance road to Folsom Point. The Draft EIS/EIR originally proposed 

that Folsom Point be designated as a major staging area because of its optimal 

location as the only currently relatively flat, large area centrally located between the 

spillway site and MIAD. Because of the impact of construction traffic on the 

entrance road, combined with use of Folsom Point as a major staging area, the Draft 

EIS/EIR made a preliminary assumption that Folsom Point would not be available 

for recreation use for most of the construction period. 

The Partner Agencies received numerous comments from members of the public 

regarding a potential closure of Folsom Point. In response to these public comments, 

the Final EIS/EIR includes measures that provide the public with nearly continuous 

access to Folsom Point throughout the construction period as outlined below. 

Impacts to recreation access at Folsom Point would be reduced in accordance with 

the general recreation mitigation strategy outlined in Section 4.3.1.1 above. The 

public access entrances at all impacted recreation facilities including Folsom Point 

would be reconfigured, to the extent practical, to allow concurrent construction 

activity and continued public access. Access would be maintained with minimal 

disruption through the implementation of traffic control measures and/or grade 

separated vehicular and/or pedestrian crossings and/or temporary alternate public 

access detours. The Partner Agencies would place emphasis and priority on 

maintaining full recreation access at Folsom Point throughout the construction 

period. However, the project may require unavoidable impacts to Folsom Point and 

Beal’s Point due to unavoidable construction impacts. 

4-8 Folsom DS/FDR Final EIS/EIR – March 2007 
Chapter 4 

Comments and Responses 

 

Limitations and exceptions include temporary or extended closures would be to 

protect public safety and health, complete recreation accommodation measures, or 

responses to unforeseen project circumstances. Reclamation’s Central California 

Area Office would notify local agencies and the general public and accept input in 

advance of proposed temporary or extended closure(s) of Folsom Point. As a result 

of the measures outlined in this document, the public would be able to access Folsom 

Point throughout the year using one of the multiple existing access points or alternate 

new access points and would be fully informed of recreation impacting activities. 

In the unlikely event that construction related impacts cannot be reasonably avoided 

to recreational facilities, they would be mitigated by providing alternative access to 

facilities and trails. Access closures, when necessary to protect public safety, would 

be limited in duration to normal work hours, with no closure on weekends or 

holidays. Construction impacts to other facilities such as existing access roads, bike 

paths, trails, picnic areas, etc. would be minimized through providing alternative 

access and rerouting of trails where possible. Access and rerouting of trails could be 

temporarily limited for public safety, traffic control, and security concerns. 

Because other adjacent facilities would remain open and accessible, such as Browns 

Ravine, Beal’s Point, and Granite Bay, the public would still have access to Folsom 

Reservoir for boating, hiking, and picnicking. Existing recreation facilities and 

improvements would not be significantly impacted and incidental damage would be 

repaired or replaced in-kind. No new recreational facilities or improvements would 

be constructed under this action outside incidental reuse of facilities following 

construction. 

To maintain public access during the hauling of material to the MIAD stockpile sites, 

Reclamation would construct either a grade separation, a traffic control measure such 

as a stop light, and/or new access route/detour where the new construction haul road 

and the existing Folsom Point entrance road merge to allow continued safe public 

access. Contractor staging areas would not be located on existing improved parking 

facilities. Any staging previously identified at Folsom Point would be relocated on 

undeveloped federal property adjacent to the entranceway, at the D1/D2 location, so 

as not to close the boat ramp or limit boat parking capacity at Folsom Point. No 

processing of earthen material would occur at Folsom Point. 

Folsom Point has also been identified as a temporary and/or permanent stockpile site. 

Material may be stockpiled around the southeast tip of Folsom Point towards the 

right abutment groin of MIAD extending into the reservoir. Upon completion of 

construction activities this area would be reseeded. Permanent stockpiles and haul 

roads no longer in use would be graded and reseeded. Additionally, stockpiles, 

staging platforms, and haul roads no longer in use may be regraded to provide 

additional unimproved terrestrial recreation areas, trails and/or boat ramps. No new 

recreational improvements would be made outside of grading and contouring. 

Folsom DS/FDR Final EIS/EIR – March 2007 4-9 
Chapter 4 

Comments and Responses 

The above actions would allow Folsom Point to remain open nearly continuously 

throughout the construction period, and maintain the current experience enjoyed with 

minimal impacts. However, there could be times that Folsom Point would be closed 

temporarily to accommodate road construction/maintenance, construction of 

recreation accommodation measures and/or to insure public safety. As indicated in 

Section 4.3.1.1, the Partner Agencies must preserve the option to close the facilities 

for more extended period of time in response to unforeseen project circumstances. 

Should that be necessary, Reclamation’s Central California Area Office will notify 

local agencies and the general public and accept input prior to initiating the closure. 

Based upon the above measures, which have been added in conjunction with the 

revised Preferred Alternative, the potential impacts associated with loss of 

recreational use at Folsom Point would be substantially reduced compared to those 

identified in the Draft EIS/EIR. With these new measures and the mitigation 

measures presented in Section 2.5 of the Final EIS/EIR, the potential impacts 

associated with loss of recreational use at Folsom Point would be reduced to a level 

less than significant. 

Beal’s Point 

The Draft EIS/EIR assumed the primary entry for construction at the Right Wing 

Dam and Dikes 4, 5 and 6 would be the main access to Beal’s Point. Construction 

traffic from the RWD and Dikes would need to cross the public access route. 

In order to minimize traffic and other impacts on local arteries, the Draft EIS/EIR 

proposed a northern haul route located entirely on Federal property. This haul route 

would intersect the entrance road to Beal’s Point. The Draft EIS/EIR further 

proposed that Beal’s Point be designated as a major staging area because of its 

optimal location as the only currently relatively flat, large area centrally located on 

the north shore of the reservoir. Because of the impact of construction traffic on the 

entrance road, combined with use of Folsom Point as a major staging area, the Draft 

EIS/EIR made a preliminary assumption that Beal’s Point would also periodically 

not be available for recreation use for a short portion of the construction period. 

The Partner Agencies received numerous comments from members of the public 

regarding a potential closure of Beal’s Point. Recognizing the public may have 

similar concerns but did not substantially comment in regards to Beal’s Point 

specifically, in response to these public comments, the Final EIS/EIR includes 

measures that ensure the public would have nearly continuous access to Beal’s Point 

or at readily available equivalent access points to the reservoir, throughout the 

construction period as outlined below. 

Impacts to recreational access to Beal’s Point would be reduced in accordance with 

the general recreation mitigation strategy outlined in Section 4.3.1.1 above. The 

public access entrances at Beal’s Point would be reconfigured, to the extent practical, 

4-10 Folsom DS/FDR Final EIS/EIR – March 2007 
Chapter 4 

Comments and Responses 

 

to allow concurrent construction activity and continued public access. Access would 

be maintained with minimal disruption via traffic control measures and/or grade 

separated vehicular and/or pedestrian crossings and/or temporary alternate public 

access detours. The Partner Agencies would place emphasis and priority on 

maintaining full recreation access at Beal’s Point. However, the project may incur 

unavoidable impacts to the loss of convenience (but not opportunity) to recreational 

opportunities, including hiking, boating, swimming, picnicking, biking, and nature 

watching as defined by certain limitations and exceptions. 

Limitations and exceptions include temporary or extended closure to protect public 

safety and health, complete recreation accommodation measures, or respond to 

unforeseen project circumstances. In that event, Reclamation’s Central California 

Area Office would notify local agencies and the general public and accept input in 

advance of extended closure(s). Therefore, by the measures outlined in this 

document, the public would be able to access Beal’s Point throughout the year using 

one of the multiple existing access points or alternate new access points and be fully 

informed of recreation impacting activities. 

In the unlikely event construction related impacts could not be practically avoided to 

recreational facilities, they would be mitigated by providing alternative access to the 

facilities and trails during the work week and by maintaining full access capacity on 

holidays and weekends. Access closures, when necessary to protect public safety, 

would be limited in duration to normal work hours, with no closure on weekends and 

on holidays. Construction impacts to existing access roads, bike paths, trails and 

picnic areas would be minimized by providing alternative access and rerouting of 

trails where possible. Access and rerouting of trails may be temporarily limited by 

public safety, traffic control, and security concerns at times. 

Because other adjacent facilities would remain open and accessible, such as Granite 

Bay, Rattlesnake Bar, Folsom Point and Browns Ravine, the public would have 

continuous access to Folsom Reservoir for boating, hiking, and picnicking should a 

temporary closure be required. Existing recreation facilities and improvements 

would not be significantly impacted and incidental damage would be repaired or 

replaced in-kind. No new recreational facilities improvements would be constructed 

under this action outside incidental reuse of facilities following construction. 

Beal’s Point has been identified as a possible contractor staging area and fill material 

may be used to create staging platforms above elevation 466.0 feet to maintain 

existing parking capacity. Contractor staging areas would not be located on existing 

improved parking facilities during peak season. Equipment staging would not 

include noise intensive rock crushing or concrete batching equipment and would be 

limited to contractor accommodations, equipment and materials storage and low 

noise intensity material screening operations. 

Folsom DS/FDR Final EIS/EIR – March 2007 4-11 
Chapter 4 

Comments and Responses 

Upon completion of construction activities this area would be reseeded. Temporary 

stockpiles and haul roads no longer in use would be graded and reseeded with similar 

vegetation. Additionally, stockpiles, staging platforms, and haul roads no longer in 

use may be regraded to provide additional unimproved terrestrial recreation areas, 

trails and/or boat ramps. No new recreational improvements would be made outside 

of grading and contouring. 

The above actions would allow Beal’s Point to remain open to the public through 

most of the construction period. However, there would be times that Beal’s Point 

could be closed to accommodate road construction/maintenance, construction of 

recreation accommodation measures and/or to insure public safety. To the extent 

possible, these activities would be done during off-peak days or off-season for 

recreation. 

Granite Bay 

No use or closure of the Granite Bay recreation site is planned by the Partner 

Agencies under the revised Folsom DS/FDR Preferred Alternative actions. 

Recreation Trails 

A number of recreation trails cross or are immediately adjacent to the areas planned 

for construction work. The Draft EIS/EIR assumes some access roads, haul roads, 

and trails may be temporarily closed to public access, or rerouted to accommodate 

construction or until construction itself is completed. Although the Draft EIS/EIR 

also assumes that foot and bicycle traffic would be allowed on most trails, or 

alternate routes around Beal’s Point and north to Granite Bay, trails on or around 

Dikes 7 and 8, Folsom Point, and MIAD could be closed for longer periods. 

In response to public comment, the Final EIS/EIR adopts measures to reduce trail 

closures. The Partner Agencies would provide alternative trail and trail access when 

possible, depending on proximity to construction and public safety concerns. The 

management, closure, and rerouting of trails would be discussed in a Recreation 

Facilities Management Plan that the Partner Agencies would develop and provide to 

CDPR. The Partner Agencies would also post and provide public notices of all 

intents to close or reroute trails and trail accesses. 

4.3.2 Public Involvement 

NEPA requires that all Federal agencies disclose and consider the environmental 

implications of their proposed actions. The President’s Council on Environmental 

Quality (CEQ) has procedures and guidelines that Federal agencies must follow to 

implement NEPA. CEQ regulations include specific provisions for public 

involvement. Additionally, CEQA also includes specific provisions for public 

involvement. Numerous comments on the Draft EIS/EIR included concerns about 

public involvement. These concerns included claims of late/inadequate notification 

4-12 Folsom DS/FDR Final EIS/EIR – March 2007 
Chapter 4 

Comments and Responses 

 

Folsom DS/FDR Final EIS/EIR – March 2007 4-13 

of the proposed project environmental document preparation, late/inadequate 

notification of the public hearings, requests for additional meetings, and insufficient 

presentation materials and public hearing format. Reclamation and the Corps have 

complied with the applicable requirements for NEPA and the Partner Agencies have 

complied with CEQA relative to public involvement, as discussed in detail below. 

Table 4-1 provides an overview of public involvement for the Folsom DS/FDR 

project. 

The environmental review processes established by the NEPA and CEQ Regulations, 

and by CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, provide multiple opportunities for public 

participation. Scoping, public notice and public review of NEPA/CEQA documents, 

public hearings, and requiring lead agencies to respond to public comments in Final 

EIS/EIRs serve to encourage, promote, and support public engagement. Reclamation 

and Partner Agencies undertook appropriate steps and measures to fully comply with 

the requirements of NEPA and CEQA, as well as agency-specific requirements, to 

involve the public throughout the Folsom DS/FDR environmental review process. 

Consistent with NEPA guidance, CEQ regulations, and Reclamation requirements on 

public notification, Reclamation and Partner Agencies have published multiple 

notices in the Federal Register associated with the Folsom DS/FDR environmental 

review process. A Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an environmental impact 

statement, and announce two public scoping meetings, was published in the Federal 

Register on October 6, 2005. A Federal Register notice of change to public scoping 

meeting dates and locations was published on December 2, 2005, and a notice 

announcing a third scoping meeting, with the addition of the Partner Agencies, was 

published in the Federal Register on December 14, 2005. 

As integral components of the NEPA/CEQA process, public scoping meetings and 

public hearings were held to provide information and encourage public participation 

and input on alternatives, concerns, and issues to be addressed in the Folsom 

DS/FDR EIS/EIR. Opportunities for public involvement in the development and 

review of the EIS/EIR have complied with NEPA/CEQA and agency guidance and 

have been advertised through a variety of different channels. 
Chapter 4 

Comments and Responses 

Table 4-1 

Public Involvement for the Folsom Dam Safety and Flood Damage Reduction Project 

Activity Date PublisNotice of Intent (NOI)/Notice of Preparation (NOP) Notice of Intent (NOI) to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement and to hold Public Scoping Meetings published in the Federal Register. October 6, 2005 FederaNotice of Preparation (NOP) to prepare an Environmental Impact Report was filed at the State Clearinghouse. February 17, 2006 State CPublic Scoping Meetings Register Notices/Press Releases announcing Scoping Meetings mailed to 2,800 surface mail addresses and media. 

November 29, 2005 and December 1, 2005 

2,800 Sand meSacramGranite Folsom Telegra

Notices mailed to 180 newspaper and other media outlets, public entities, governmental and non-governmental organizations, tribes, and other interested parties. 

November 29, 2005 and December 1, 2005 

Press release announcing Public Scoping meetings on Reclamation’s Website. December 1, 2005 ReclamNotice of change to Public Scoping Meeting dates and locations published in the Federal Register. December 2, 2005 FederaPublic Scoping Meeting held at Granite Bay Activity Center. December 12, 2005 See AbPublic Scoping Meeting held at Folsom Community Center. December 14, 2005 See AbNotice announcing a third Public Scoping Meeting with the addition of Partner Agencies was published in the Federal Register. December 14, 2005 FederaPublic Scoping Meeting held at Sacramento County Administration Center. December 15, 2005 See AbRelease of the Draft EIS/EIR and Notice of Availability (NOA) NOA announcing the availability and means to obtain the Draft EIS/EIR, the public review and comment period for the document, and upcoming public hearings was published in the Federal Register. November 28, 2006 FederaPress releases announcing availability and means to obtain the Draft EIS/EIR, 53-day comment period, and public hearings were mailed to 2,800 surface mail addresses and emailed to media. December 1, 2006 2,800 s

media 

4-14 Folsom DS/FDR Final EI
Comme

Table 4-1 

Public Involvement for the Folsom Dam Safety and Flood Damage Reduction Project 

Press release announcing release of Draft EIS/EIR appeared in the Sacramento Bee. December 1, 2006 SacramNotice e-mailed to 180 Sacramento area newspaper and other media outlets, public entities, governmental and non-governmental organizations, tribes, and other interested parties. December 1, 2006 

E-mail interes

Draft EIS/EIR released to public for review and posted on Reclamation's website. December 1, 2006 ReclamNOA announcing the availability and means to obtain the Draft EIS/EIR, the public review and comment period for the document, and upcoming public hearings was published in the State Clearinghouse. December 4, 2006 State CNews article announcing release of Draft EIS/EIR and public hearings appeared in Folsom Telegraph. January 2, 2006 Folsom Public Hearings News article announcing both public hearings ran in Sacramento Bee. December 1, 2006 SacramPress release announcing public hearings mailed to 1,600 surface mail addresses and emailed to 180 interested parties and media. December 21, 2006 

1,600 smedia 

Corps sends mailer to 1,600 surface mail addresses to announce public hearings. December 21, 2006 1,600 sPress release announcing the public hearings on Reclamation’s website. December 21, 2006 ReclamPrint ad announcing public hearings ran in Sacramento Bee. January 5, 2007 Sacram

Rosevi

Print ad announcing public hearings ran in Roseville and Granite Bay Press-Tribune. January 6, 2007 Tribune News article announcing public hearings appeared in Folsom Telegraph. January 9, 2006 Folsom Public Hearing held at Sacramento Library Galleria. January 9, 2007 See Ab

Folsom 

Print ad announcing public hearings ran in Folsom and El Dorado Hills Telegraph. January 10, 2007 TelegraArticle announcing public hearings in El Dorado Hills Telegraph. January 10, 2007 El DoraPublic Hearing held at Folsom Community Center. January 10, 2007 See AbComment Period on Draft EIS/EIR Comment period extended by four days to January 26, 2007. January 19, 2007 See BePress releases sent out to media to announce extension of comment period. January 19, 2007 Media Press release on Reclamation’s website announcing extension of comment period. January 19, 2007 Reclam

Folsom DS/FDR Final EIS/EIR – March 2007 
pter 4 

ents and Responses 

Folsom DS/FDR Final EI

Table 4-1 

Public Involvement for the Folsom Dam Safety and Flood Damage Reduction Project 

News article announcing extension of comment period appeared in the Sacramento Bee. January 21, 2006 SacramNews article announcing extension of comment period appeared in the Folsom Telegraph. January 24, 2006 Folsom Close of comment period. January 26, 2007 See AbAdditional Information Meetings Press release mailed to media outlets announcing additional information meetings. February 14, 2007 Media Press release announcing additional information meetings on Reclamation’s website. February 14, 2007 ReclamNews article announcing additional information meeting in Sacramento Bee. February 16, 2007 SacramNews article announcing additional information meeting in Folsom Telegraph. February 16, 2007 Folsom News article announcing additional information meeting in Folsom Telegraph. February 20, 2007 Folsom Information meeting held at Folsom Community Center. February 20, 2007 See AbFinal EIS/EIR Final EIS/EIR released to public. March 30, 2007 Record of Decision (ROD) Dam Safety ROD released to public. May, 2007 

ChaComm4-16

JFP ROD released to public. May, 2007 Flood Damage Reduction ROD released to public. 

Will be determined at a later date. 
Chapter 4 

Comments and Responses 

 

Three public scoping meetings were held in the project impact area, which provided 

the public an opportunity to review informational displays about proposed Folsom 

DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR alternatives and ask questions as well as provide written 

and/or oral comments on alternatives development and significant issues related to 

the proposed action. These scoping meetings were held on December 12, 2005, at 

the Granite Bay Activity Center, December 14, 2005, at the Folsom Community 

Center, and December 15, 2005, at the Sacramento County Administration Center. 

Representatives from Reclamation, the Corps, SAFCA, and DWR were in attendance 

to answer questions and explain the proposed modifications to the Folsom Facilities. 

In addition to the Federal Register notices, press releases announcing the scoping 

meetings were mailed on November 29 and December 1, 2005 to over 2,800 surface 

mail addresses and 180 newspaper and other media outlets, public entities, 

governmental and non-governmental organizations, tribes, and other interested 

parties. 

Consistent with CEQA guidance to facilitate intergovernmental coordination and 

enhance public participation, a Notice of Preparation (NOP) to prepare an EIR was 

filed with the State Clearinghouse on February 17, 2006. 

Almost a year after the scoping meetings, the Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR was 

released for public review and comment on December 1, 2006. Per NEPA and 

CEQA direction, a Notice of Availability (NOA) announcing the availability and 

means to obtain the Draft EIS/EIR, the proposed project description and location, 

impacts of project construction, public review and comment period for the document, 

and upcoming public hearings, was published in the Federal Register on November 

28, 2006. A Notice of Completion of a Draft EIR was filed with the State 

Clearinghouse on December 1, 2006. The State’s NOA of the Draft EIS/EIR was 

published in the Sacramento Bee on December 4, 2006. Press releases announcing 

the availability and means to obtain the Draft EIS/EIR, the project description and 

location, alternatives development and procedures, 53-day public review and 

comment period for the document, and upcoming public hearings, were mailed on 

December 1, 2006 to over 2,800 surface mail addresses as well as e-mailed to 180 

Sacramento area newspaper and other media outlets, public entities, governmental 

and non-governmental organizations, tribes, and other interested parties. 

Beginning December 1, 2006, copies of the Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR were 

couriered or mailed to any individual or organization requesting them. In addition to 

four local public libraries and three agency libraries, the document is also available 

on Reclamation’s NEPA website and the Corps’ website. Several members of the 

public reported having difficulty accessing the document on the website. When such 

messages were received, Reclamation offered to mail copies of the document, if 

agreeable and convenient for the recipient. With each report of website malfunction, 

Reclamation checked and ensured that the website was functioning properly; any 

Folsom DS/FDR Final EIS/EIR – March 2007 4-17 
Chapter 4 

Comments and Responses 

reported malfunctions appear to have been temporary and/or perhaps related to high 

internet traffic on the website. 

Two public hearings provided the public an opportunity to ask questions, review 

informational displays about the project and EIS/EIR alternatives, and provide 

written and/or oral comments on the Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR. To further 

enhance public participation, the public hearings were held near the project site 

rather than agency headquarters and scheduled in accordance with Reclamation 

guidance allowing interested individuals and organizations an opportunity to review 

the document for at least 15 days but conducting the hearings at least 10 days prior to 

the closure of the public comment period on January 22, 2007. The hearings were 

held on January 9, 2007 at the Sacramento Library Galleria and January 10, 2007 at 

the Folsom Community Center. A court reporter and Hearing Officer were present 

at both meetings to record oral comments. Representatives from Reclamation, the 

Corps, SAFCA, and DWR were also in attendance to assist the public in providing 

comments, answer any questions, and explain the modifications being proposed to 

the Folsom Facilities in the action alternatives. 

With growing interest in the Folsom DS/FDR project, the public hearings received 

wider local attention by the public and media. Press releases on the public hearings 

were mailed on December 21, 2006 to over 1,600 surface mail addresses and emailed to over 180 representatives for public entities, governmental and nongovernmental organizations, tribes, and other interested parties as well as media 

outlets, including 105 radio and television stations and newspapers in Sacramento, 

the Bay Area, and northern California. Note that the surface mail address list used 

for the announcement of the public release of the Draft EIS/EIR generated numerous 

returns; an updated and corrected list was used for the public hearings announcement 

and the project mailing list continues to be updated and corrected as such 

information is received. A display ad publicizing the hearings ran in the Sacramento 

Bee on January 5, 2007, the Roseville and Granite Bay Press-Tribune on January 6, 

2007 and the Folsom and El Dorado Hills Telegraph on January 10, 2007. The 

advertisement included information on the project, the hearing locations and times, 

and information on obtaining the Draft EIS/EIR. Contact information for providing 

written comments and the comment due date were also included. 

In response to requests for an extension, the 53-day public comment period on the 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR was extended by an additional four days to January 

26, 2007. Press releases announcing the extension were sent on January 19, 2007 to 

over 1,600 surface mail addresses and e-mailed to over 180 representatives for public 

entities, governmental and non-governmental organizations, tribes, and other 

interested parties as well as media outlets, including 105 radio and television stations 

and newspapers in Sacramento, the Bay Area, and northern California. 

Approximately 350 unique comments were received on the Draft EIS/EIR from 

individuals and organizations (not including the public-generated comment forms). 

4-18 Folsom DS/FDR Final EIS/EIR – March 2007 
Chapter 4 

Comments and Responses 

 

Some reviewers repeated their comments in multiple formats. A total of 427 written 

comment forms, letters and e-mail messages, including 23 oral comments transcribed 

from the public hearings, 440 public-generated comment forms submitted as one 

package, and petitions with 1,085 signatures were received on the Draft EIS/EIR. 

Reclamation and Partner Agencies have read and responded to these comments in 

this Final EIS/EIR, and the Preferred Alternative has changed in response to these 

comments. 

In addition to press releases, print advertisements, and Federal Register notices about 

the availability of the Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR and the public involvement 

process, over 50 news stories on the project and/or Folsom Dam have been published 

since October 2005 in local media outlets including the “Sacramento Bee”, “Folsom 

Telegraph”, “El Dorado Hills Telegraph”, “Yuba Net”, “Rocklin and Roseville 

Today”, “Auburn Journal”, Channel 10 KXTV, Channel 40 KTXL, and Channel 3 

KCRA. Moreover, each of the Partner Agencies maintains project-related websites 

and/or newsletters plus Reclamation’s NEPA website for obtaining the EIS/EIR. 

At the request of the City of Folsom, the Partner Agencies met with congressional 

representatives, the City of Folsom, and other local entities on January 18, 2007 to 

review the project and comments on the Draft EIS/EIR. The Partner Agencies 

inaugurated planned neighbor-to-neighbor information meetings at the Folsom 

Community Center on February 20, 2007. Approximately 80 agency and local 

community members attended this initial meeting. 

This Folsom DS/FDR Final EIS/EIR was publicly released on March 30, 2007. 

Copies of the document were mailed to individuals and organizations requesting a 

copy, or who previously requested and/or commented on the Draft EIS/EIR, and for 

whom Reclamation has a current surface mailing address on file. The public will 

have an opportunity to review the responses to comments on the Draft EIS/EIR, and 

revisions to the Preferred Alternative, during the 30-day review period for this 

Folsom DS/FDR Final EIS/EIR. A NOA announcing the public release of the Final 

EIS/EIR was published in the Federal Register, coinciding with the public 

distribution of the document. Press releases announcing the public release of the 

Final EIS/EIR were sent to surface mail addresses, other interested parties, and 

media outlets as described above. In addition, with CDPR’s permission and at public 

request, press releases were also posted in high visitor use areas in the FLSRA. 

Coinciding with the release of the Final EIS/EIR, the Partner Agencies are 

continuing their planned series of community neighbor-to-neighbor meetings to 

discuss activities planned as part of implementing the Folsom DS/FDR actions. 

Additionally, the Partner Agencies will continue to coordinate with the City of 

Folsom on project activities. 

Folsom DS/FDR Final EIS/EIR – March 2007 4-19 
Chapter 4 

Comments and Responses 

Reclamation and Partner Agencies are responsive and committed to continuing the 

dialog with the public and neighboring communities throughout Folsom DS/FDR 

project development and construction. To promote communication about the project 

and enhance awareness of the flood damage reduction and dam safety improvements 

to Folsom Dam and Reservoir, a series of additional information meetings and 

discussions are planned for surrounding communities, with the first one held on 

February 20, 2007 at the Folsom Community Center. A press release announcing the 

meeting was e-mailed on February 14, 2007 to over 180 representatives for public 

entities, governmental and non-governmental organizations, tribes, and other 

interested parties as well as media outlets, including 105 radio and television stations 

and newspapers in Sacramento, the Bay Area, and northern California. Channel 3 

announced the meeting on the February 20 morning news show. Future press 

releases will announce forthcoming meetings. 

In early May 2007, Reclamation and the Corps are planning to issue a joint ROD on 

the JFP features of the Folsom DS/FDR EIS/EIR; Reclamation is also planning to 

issue a ROD on the Dam Safety and Security project features. The Corps also 

intends to issue a ROD on its separate flood damage reduction features, although that 

date has not been established at this time. 

As summarized in the above discussion, Reclamation and Partner Agencies have 

complied with, and, in fact, gone well beyond, public notification requirements in 

efforts to engage the public in the Folsom DS/FDR environmental review process. 

Public involvement in the EIS/EIR review process is just the beginning of an 

ongoing dialog between the Partner Agencies and local communities about the 

Folsom DS/FDR project and interested citizens are assured of additional 

opportunities for public participation as the project proceeds to, and throughout, 

construction. 

4.3.3 Socioeconomics 

The Draft EIS/EIR provided an economic analysis of impacts to CDPR and the local 

economy as a result from the closure of recreational facilities. The very conservative 

(i.e., worse-case) analysis predicted an economic loss to CDPR, but demonstrated 

little to no net adverse impact to the local economy as a result of the infusion of 

construction dollars into the economy. The Draft EIS/EIR analysis assumed 

recreation facility closures, which are not currently planned in this Final EIS/EIR. 

The potential economic impacts from the construction of the Folsom DS/FDR 

actions could occur from the loss of expenditures in the regional economy because of 

interruptions of recreational sales at or near Folsom recreation facilities. The analysis 

assumed that people who visit Folsom Reservoir spend varying amounts of money 

depending on the recreation activity. This money trickles through the regional 

economy because of linkages between different industrial sectors. For example, 

4-20 Folsom DS/FDR Final EIS/EIR – March 2007 
Chapter 4 

Comments and Responses 

 

visitors to Folsom may spend money on gas, food supplies, recreation equipment, 

and park fees. These stores purchase these goods from other producers, which in 

turn, also buy goods and services. The buying of goods and services continues until 

leakages from the region stop the cycle. Leakages represent purchases of goods and 

services from a producer outside of the specified region. 

The economic analysis also addressed expenditures by construction workers, who 

would be purchasing similar items (gas, food, etc.) during the work week. The 

analysis showed that worker spending would offset the lost recreational dollars for 

the local economy, but that if recreational facilities were closed during the peak 

recreation periods, there would be a loss of revenues to CDPR. 

The economic model used input-output (IO) linkages between local sales and 

industries providing the materials sold, and it measures the total economic impacts 

from a change in final demand for a product. IO modeling derives multipliers that 

describe the change of output for each and every regional industry caused by a one 

dollar change in final demand in another industry. These multipliers are used to 

estimate indirect and induced effects caused by a direct impact to the regional 

economy. In general, larger multipliers indicate a greater interdependence of the 

sector on the rest of the regional economy. Further definitions are as follows: 

• Direct effects – changes in final demand 

• Indirect effects – changes in expenditures within the region in industries 

supplying goods and services 

• Induced effects – changes in expenditures of household income 

The economic analysis used IMPLAN® to estimate regional economic impacts. 

IMPLAN is a widely used regional economic modeling and forecasting software that 

uses the most recent available individual industry data from a variety of government 

economic censuses to build a computer model of a specified regional economy. 

IMPLAN estimates multipliers for five measures of regional economic activity, total 

industry output, personal income, total income, value added, and employment. The 

Folsom DS/FDR analysis shows impacts for total output, value added, and 

employment. 

The specified economic region in the IMPLAN model includes Sacramento, El 

Dorado, and Placer Counties. This region is expected to capture most economic 

effects of the project alternatives. Section 4.1 of the Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR 

summarizes the existing economic setting in the region. 

The Folsom DS/FDR alternatives would result in two types of direct impacts: (1) 

losses in recreational expenditures and (2) increased expenditures from construction 

Folsom DS/FDR Final EIS/EIR – March 2007 4-21 
Chapter 4 

Comments and Responses 

laborers. These impacts were estimated using local data and statistics on Folsom 

Reservoir recreation and construction worker requirements and schedules. 

Recreation impacts include decreases in those expenditures that are related to 

spending a day at FLSRA. CDPR provided data on number of visitors, 

concessionaire sales, and park fees. The Corps national recreation spending profiles 

were used to estimate spending on other expenses, such as food, gas, and equipment. 

Section 4.3 in the Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR presents results on the economic 

impacts analysis for reduced recreational expenditures. The analysis estimates that 

should Folsom Point be closed during the peak recreation season, and the added 

value of additional construction activities be excluded from the analysis, the value of 

output in the region would decrease by about $4.9 million (0.005 percent of 2002 

baseline output), total value added would decrease about $2.3 million (0.002 percent 

of 2002 baseline value added), and employment would decrease by about 46 jobs 

(0.004 percent of 2002 baseline employment). These estimates only incorporate 

direct losses in spending on food, gas, park fees, etc. and the losses to the economy 

because of the linkages between sectors, as described above. Further analysis 

inclusive of the value added from construction activities results in an offsetting 

economic effect in both dollars and jobs for the local economy. See Chapter 4 of the 

Draft EIS/EIR for more information. 

In the event of unforeseen closures at FLSRA facilities during the peak recreation 

season for construction activities (see Section 4.3.1 of this document for potential 

circumstances), economic impacts to the regional economy and CDPR revenues 

would occur. These economic impacts would be substantially less than those 

identified in the above paragraph and Chapter 4 of the Draft EIS/EIR. The frequency 

and magnitude of economic impacts would be commensurate to the time period that 

the facility is closed. Economic impacts would be further decreased because visitors 

could access other local recreation areas and all other FLSRA facilities during the 

time Beal’s Point or Folsom Point would be closed; however, CDPR would loose 

some revenues because of visitors turned away from the closed facility. Reclamation 

would take efforts to reduce unexpected closures to the shortest period possible, 

reducing economic impacts. 

Losses in recreation expenditures do not include decreases in boat sales. Boat 

purchases are not considered an economic activity directly related to recreational 

spending at FLSRA. People purchase boats for many factors, including, but not 

limited to, disposable personal income, participation in water sports, proximity to 

water bodies, personal preferences, economic growth, and consumer confidence. 

Boats are typically considered a luxury good in which demand increases more than 

proportionately as income rises. For most people, disposable personal income is a 

larger deciding factor in purchasing a boat relative to use of FLSRA. Limiting the 

access to any recreational facility would not result in a direct economic effect to boat 

sales. 

4-22 Folsom DS/FDR Final EIS/EIR – March 2007 
Chapter 4 

Comments and Responses 

 

Boat sales in the Sacramento Valley are typically higher than other areas because of 

economic growth in the region, increases in personal income, and the proximity to 

numerous reservoirs, lakes, and rivers. For example, people living in the Folsom area 

have access to 104 boating opportunities within approximately 3 hours. Any closure 

of Folsom Point may require longer travel times for boating activities, but it is not a 

substantial disruption to the entire Sacramento Valley’s boating opportunities. 

Therefore, it is not expected that boat sales would decrease because of closure of a 

single boat launch facility. 

The three county region has a large economic base that would not be substantially 

affected by decreases in recreational spending. The region has been growing since 

2000, both in population and commercial development. Population in the three 

counties increased from 1.6 million in 2000 to about 1.9 million in 2006. Cities are 

building new housing and commercial developments to accommodate growth. 

Private earnings in Sacramento County increased from $21.3 billion in 2001 to $25.6 

billion in 2004. Private earnings in Placer and El Dorado counties also increased 

substantially from 2001 to 2004, about $1.8 billion and $0.5 billion, respectively. 

Retail trade is currently a major sector within each county; food services are also 

growing. Discount stores and new restaurants have generated high revenues and will 

continue to generate economic output and sales tax revenue for the region. Other 

major economic sectors within the region include information services, finance and 

insurance, construction, and manufacturing. The region’s economy is further fueled 

by many job opportunities and low unemployment rates. In December 2006, the 

unemployment rate ranged from 3.6% to 4.4% in the three counties. The economy 

within the three county region is stable and continuing to grow. Because of this 

strong baseline economy, temporary, unforeseen closures of any recreation facility at 

Folsom Reservoir would not result in a major adverse effect to the region’s 

economy. 

Furthermore, the Folsom DS/FDR action is a major construction effort, which would 

temporarily boost the local economy. More than $1 billion of construction work for 

the Folsom DS/FDR actions is planned for the next 10 years which will be a 

significant, but temporary boost to the local economy. Construction workers will 

purchase products within the local region, increasing output and sales tax revenues. 

This additional spending would significantly positively offset any possible incidental 

decreases in recreational spending. Therefore, the combined effects of decreased 

recreational spending and increased construction spending would result in fewer 

economic effects. 

4.3.4 Affected Property 

The Draft EIS/EIR introduced the possibility of a Folsom Facility raise of greater 

than 4 ft that could require new embankments to contain reservoir water resulting 

from an increased reservoir surface elevation beyond existing conditions. Since 

Folsom DS/FDR Final EIS/EIR – March 2007 4-23 
Chapter 4 

Comments and Responses 

publishing the Draft EIS/EIR, Reclamation has determined that a Fuseplug Spillway 

alternative could pass a PMF event without the need for embankment raises above 

the current crest elevation. As a result, Reclamation has determined that no property 

takes, flowage easements, or additional small scale impoundment features such as 

dikes or berms would be planned as part of its role in the Folsom DS/FDR actions. 

Based upon additional engineering analysis since the Draft EIS/EIR was published, the 

Corps has concluded that with optimization of all elements of its Selected Plan, 

including the 6STG Auxiliary Spillway, emergency spillway gate modification, and a 

3.5-ft facility raise, an increase to maximum reservoir water surface elevation beyond 

current dam crest elevation is not anticipated to provide flood damage reduction benefits. 

The future maximum reservoir surface elevation with the Corps’ Selected Plan would 

not exceed the existing federal property take line for a 200-year flood design event. The 

anticipated lower maximum water surface elevation for all flood events, inclusive of a 

PMF event, eliminates the risk that surrounding properties would be flooded. 

Consequently, no property takes, flowage easements, or additional small scale 

impoundment features such as dikes or berms beyond the existing take line are planned 

as part of the Corps’ Selected Plan. The 3.5-ft raise of the Corps’ Selected Plan will 

undergo further design during pre-construction, engineering, and design phase and, if 

needed, would be addressed through a supplemental NEPA/CEQA document. 

4.3.5 Property Values 

A number of comments received on the Draft EIS/EIR expressed the concern that 

property values would decline as a result of construction at the Folsom Facility and 

the closure of Folsom Point and other lake access areas. The concern that the project 

would adversely affect property values has been addressed mainly through the 

modifications in the project use of Folsom Point and through revisions to the project 

description that allow recreation facilities to remain open during peak recreation 

times. Thus, the attraction to FLSRA would not be changed. 

Residential property values (i.e., prices), particularly those associated with singlefamily homes such as in the case of the proposed project, within the same 

neighborhood are influenced primarily by macroeconomic factors that operate 

independently of locally specific conditions. These include forces that determine the 

general demand for single-family homes, such as national, regional, and local 

employment growth rates and distributions; quality of schools; proximity to 

amenities; neighborhood settings; population age group growth trends; rates of 

household formation; regional economy; and household income trends. They also 

include the way these demand trends operate with respect to the supply of available 

housing (i.e., the number, type, and distribution of existing and new units) in a given 

market area. Values are also highly influenced by what households can afford to pay 

for housing, based on household income trends, mortgage interest rates, general price 

inflation, and changes in federal and state income tax law treatment of housing costs. 

4-24 Folsom DS/FDR Final EIS/EIR – March 2007 
Chapter 4 

Comments and Responses 

 

They are also influenced by the direct cost of new housing development, including 

the cost of land, construction, professional fees, development fees and permit costs, 

and construction loan rates. All of these factors interact in complex ways that 

change over time, and will continue to do so independently of any decisions that are 

made in conjunction with the finalization of the proposed project. 

4.3.6 Auburn Dam 

Comments received on the Draft EIS/EIR questioned why the Auburn Dam project 

was not being considered as a viable alternative to the modifications being proposed 

for the Folsom Facility. The potential for an upstream storage facility, including 

Auburn Dam, to meet the objectives of the Folsom DS/FDR was evaluated early in 

the alternatives assessment process (see Section 2.1.6 of the Draft EIS/EIR) and was 

eliminated because it could not meet seismic and static dam safety deficiencies at 

Folsom Dam and/or be accomplished in an expedited manner as required to meet 

dam safety requirements. There is an immediate need to upgrade the Folsom Facility 

which can be accomplished under current authorities. 

4.3.7 Operations 

Comments were received questioning why the Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR did 

not address in greater detail operations and the proposed changes to the Water 

Control Manual. Although the Draft EIS/EIR recognized current operations and the 

Water Control Manual, the Draft EIS/EIR did not address impacts of operations and 

changing the Water Control Manual. 

The Folsom DS/FDR EIS/EIR does not address operational impacts because 

construction of any of the Folsom DS/FDR features would not require a change to 

the Water Control Manual. The manner in which water is stored and released from 

Folsom Reservoir, for water supply, hydropower, and flood storage space would not 

need to change with the proposed new features. However, there is an unrelated 

requirement to update the Water Control Manual that is separate from the Folsom 

DS/FDR actions. Because the Water Control Manual update will be completed with 

or without the DS/FDR actions, it is not being linked to this project. 

The authorization for the Folsom Modifications Project directs the Corps to change 

the variable flood storage space at Folsom Reservoir from the current interim 

operation of 400,000 acre-ft to 670,000 acre-ft to a 400,000 acre-ft to 600,000 acre-ft 

(400/600) permanent variable flood space operation once the Folsom Modifications 

Project has been implemented. The Corps, with coordination by Reclamation, will 

develop a new flood control manual for Folsom Dam for implementation prior to 

completion of the JFP Auxiliary Spillway. The new flood control manual feature is 

currently being scoped as a parallel process. Therefore, in this EIS/EIR, operations 

are analyzed and disclosed based upon current operational requirements. The 

parallel flood control manual development and study will include variable flood 

storage space, including analysis of forecast based operations, new flood release 

Folsom DS/FDR Final EIS/EIR – March 2007 4-25 
Chapter 4 

Comments and Responses 

schedules and a plan component for repayment of potential water supply losses 

resulting from implementation of this flood control manual. This parallel study will 

be a collaborative process with the appropriate level of environmental analysis, 

public, agency and stakeholder coordination, and appropriate NEPA/CEQA 

documentation. 

4.3.8 Relationship of Safety of Dams, Dam Security, Joint Federal 

Project, and Flood Damage Reduction 

Several comments relating to the Draft EIS/EIR indicated a need for additional 

explanation as to the components of the Folsom DS/FDR. The Draft EIS/EIR 

presents the results of a joint agency study that incorporates the Safety of Dams risk 

reduction objectives and dam security obligations under the authorities of 

Reclamation, flood damage reduction objectives of the Corps and Partner Agencies, 

and an integration of the overlapping components of both objectives. 

The Corps’ initial studies to address Folsom Facility issues resulted in plans to 

increase outlet efficiencies and flood storage capacity at Folsom Dam and Reservoir, 

respectively. The focus of these studies was to increase flood damage reduction 

potential of the populace protected by levees along the lower American River. 

Reclamation evaluated public safety risk due to hydrologic, seismic, and static 

concerns to all of the Folsom facilities, and national security concerns of a reservoir 

upstream of a major metropolitan area. The focus of Reclamation’s evaluations was 

protection of the populace living adjacent to the Folsom Facility and the general 

populace downstream. 

The Draft EIS/EIR addressed project alternatives that included elements of the 

individual missions and combined missions of Reclamation and the Corps. The JFP 

gated Auxiliary Spillway was developed jointly by the two agencies to address their 

primary hydrologic concerns related to dam safety and flood damage reduction. The 

seismic and static upgrades proposed by Reclamation address dam safety objectives. 

The dam gate replacement and dam raise address the Corps flood damage reduction 

objectives. 

Although somewhat related, the Corps' and Partner Agencies’ efforts to improve the 

capacity of downstream levees and work on upstream facilities such as L.L. 

Anderson Dam are not part of the Folsom DS/FDR actions. Changing of current 

operations is also not part of the Folsom DS/FDR action (see Section 4.3.7 above for 

more information on operations). 

4.3.9 Transportation and Circulation 

Comments on the Draft EIS/EIR questioned the effects of potential increases in traffic. 

The projected traffic volumes and circulation patterns were analyzed in the Draft 

4-26 Folsom DS/FDR Final EIS/EIR – March 2007 
Chapter 4 

Comments and Responses 

 

EIS/EIR using an accepted methodology to evaluate transportation and circulation 

during construction activities of the Folsom DS/FDR. The analyses indicated that if 

construction traffic, including workers and materials deliveries, were to be managed 

under a traffic management plan, there would not be a significant impact to local traffic 

circulation. No permanent long-term traffic volume increases or changes in traffic 

patterns are expected as a result of implementing the Folsom DS/FDR alternatives. The 

Partner Agencies will work closely with City of Folsom traffic engineers on traffic 

management to ensure that traffic effects are controlled. 

4.3.10 Noise 

Comments were received on the Draft EIS/EIR related to issues of noise. Specific 

comments included concerns relating to haul trucks, general construction, and increased 

traffic. Section 3.10 of the Draft EIS/EIR presented potential noise impacts associated 

with construction and mitigation measures to control noise. As legally required and in 

response to public comment, the Partner Agencies would implement mitigation 

measures, in compliance with local noise ordinances so that noise levels remain within 

the allowable standards established for the local communities. Noise mitigation 

measures being considered include, but are not limited to, construction/placement of 

noise barriers, hauling of supplies during daylight hours, moving of processing facilities 

away from sensitive receptors, minimizing noise producing activities during night hours, 

and maintaining all equipment to ensure that noise baffles and mufflers are properly 

functioning. 

4.3.11 Air Quality 

Some comments on the Draft EIS/EIR included references to air quality effects during 

the construction phase of the Folsom DS/FDR. Specific issues included concerns 

regarding fugitive dust/particulate matter and emissions from construction machinery 

and vehicles. The Partner Agencies will be required to conform to federal USEPA air 

quality regulations, being enforced by the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality 

Management District. All air quality emissions will be required to be controlled to 

levels that must be in compliance with limits established by the District in the project’s 

air quality permits. In addition to watering roadways, excavation, and deposition sites to 

minimize dust, the Partner Agencies will be required to use the most up-to-date pollution 

reduction equipment on all fossil fuel powered construction equipment. The specific air 

pollution control measures to be employed and adhered to will be described in detail in 

the project’s air quality permits. 

Comments were also received regarding the project’s ability to conform to Clean Air Act 

de minimus standards. The very conservative (i.e., worse-case) air quality analyses 

presented in the Draft EIS/EIR indicated that there could be a non-conformity issue. 

Refinements to the project, including an air quality assessment of a more practical 

project, have shown that the project can conform to the Clean Air Act requirements. 

These refinements include: 

Folsom DS/FDR Final EIS/EIR – March 2007 4-27 
Chapter 4 

Comments and Responses 

• Identification of available air quality emission credits, 

• Redistribution of material hauling and disposal to minimize haulage miles 

• Scheduling and sequencing of excavation and hauling work so that there is not a 

significant overlap with other project activities that contribute to air quality 

emissions, 

• Use of electrical power for all stationary equipment (note: electrical power will be 

obtained from commercial sources and will not impact Western Area Power 

Authority or CVP users and customers), and 

• Use of the most recent pollution control equipment for all off-road equipment. 

4.3.12 Vegetation and Wildlife 

Comments were received on the Draft EIS/EIR that presented concerns regarding the 

potential impacts to vegetation and wildlife, including the potential impacts to 

special status species (e.g., bald eagle, burrowing owls), possible loss of 

habitat/wildlife, and the loss of trees. Potential effects to vegetation and wildlife due 

to the Folsom DS/FDR alternatives are presented in Section 3.5 of the Draft EIS/EIR 

and Section 3.5 of this Final EIS/EIR relative to the currently proposed revised 

Preferred Alternative. Impact estimates to habitat and wildlife were analyzed and 

mitigation measures developed jointly with USFWS. Mitigation measures that will 

be employed to protect vegetation and wildlife include pre-construction surveys to 

identify any protected species within or adjacent to the project footprint, fencing of 

sensitive habitats from construction work (including oak trees and vernal pool 

habitat), on-going surveys conducted during construction to ensure compliance by 

construction crews to mitigation requirements, mitigation measures to remove from 

the project area protected species (for example, transplanting of valley elderberry 

shrubs has already been initiated), replacement of sensitive habitats (such as riparian 

and oak woodlands), and revegetation and re-establishment of habitat in disturbed 

areas following construction. 

4.3.13 New Folsom Bridge 

Several comments received on the Draft EIS/EIR confused the New Folsom Bridge 

project for the Folsom DS/FDR. The New Folsom Bridge is a separate project being 

carried out by the Corps as part of Section 128 of the Energy and Water 

Development Appropriations Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-137), which authorizes the 

construction of a permanent bridge downstream of Folsom Dam. The Corps has 

completed separate environmental documentation for this project, entitled American 

River Watershed Post Authorization Decision Document Folsom Dam Raise Folsom 

Bridge Final Supplemental EIS/EIR, September 2006. Although construction of the 

New Folsom Bridge will likely occur parallel to that of construction of the Folsom 

DS/FDR, this project is a separate action. The New Folsom Bridge is evaluated only 

as a cumulative project in the Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR (Chapter 5). 

4-28 Folsom DS/FDR Final EIS/EIR – March 2007 
Chapter 4 

Comments and Responses 

 

4.4 Written Comments 

4.4.1 Elected Officials and Representatives Comments 

Several elected officials and representatives submitted comments on the Folsom 

DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR. Table 4-2 presents a list of the elected officials and 

representatives who submitted comments during the comment period and also 

provides the comment number which corresponds to the comments/responses found 

in Appendix A. 

Table 4-2 

Elected Officials and Representatives Comments 

Comment 

Government Official or Representative Number 

Dave Cox, Senator, First District 255 

Alan Nakanishi, Assemblyman, 10th 

District 255 

Ted Gaines, Assemblyman, Fourth District 255 

Roger Niello, Assemblyman, Fifth District 255 

4.4.2 Federal Agency Comments 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) was the only federal agency to 

submit comments on the Draft EIS/EIR. The USEPA comment is number 416 on the 

comment list. 

4.4.3 State Agency Comments 

Table 4-3 contains a list of the state agencies that submitted comments on the Draft 

EIS/EIR and also provides the comment number which corresponds to the 

comments/responses found in Appendix A. 

Table 4-3 

State Agency Comments 

Comment 

State Agency Number 

California Department of Transportation 

(CALTRANS) 5 

California Department of Boating and Waterways 169 

California Department of Parks and Recreation 312 

4.4.4 Local Agency and Organization Comments 

Table 4-4 contains a list of the local agencies, commerce organizations, and nonprofit organizations that submitted comments on the Draft EIS/EIR and also provides 

Folsom DS/FDR Final EIS/EIR – March 2007 4-29 
Chapter 4 

Comments and Responses 

the comment number which corresponds to the comments/responses found in 

Appendix A. 

Table 4-4 

Local Agency and Organization Comments 

Comment 

Local Agency Number 

Sacramento Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce 334 

Folsom Tourism Bureau 32, 390 

Folsom Chamber of Commerce 17, 389 

City of Folsom 392 

El Dorado County 310, 394 

Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District 406 

El Dorado Irrigation District 415 

El Dorado County Water Agency 400 

San Luis and Delta Mendota Water Authority 184 to186 

East Bay Municipal Utility District 166 

County Sanitation District 1/Sacramento Regional County 

Sanitation District 395 

20, 78 to 

Central Valley Project Water Association 94 

Friends of the River 347 

Sacramento Valley Marine Association 42 

Northern California Marine Association 34, 187 

Northern California Power Agency 19, 232 

4.4.5 Public Comments 

Table 4-5 contains a list of the members of the public that submitted comments on 

the Draft EIS/EIR. This list includes comments submitted at the public hearings. 

Table 4-5 

Public Comments 

Comment 

Comment Made By: Number 

Comment 

Number Comment Made By: 

Comment 

Number Comment Made By: 

Keoni Almeida 1 Ann Lindner 152 Scott and Viera Weldy 287 

Jason Zarghami 2 Lynn Derrick 153 Greg Mercurio 288 

Patrick Porgans 3 Terry and Jim Lehman 154 Clyde Matson 289 

Anonymous 4 Greg Fales 155 Kasia Turkiewcz 290 

Jim Silvester 6 Doug Pepper 156 Mike Wall 291 

Bruce Beck 7 Vicky Cackler 157 Michael Cann 292 

Rosemary Beck 8 Chantell Harp 158 

Mark and Kathy Van 

Saun 293 

Robin Sharp 9 Anonymous 159 Keith Faust 294 

Alan Hersh 10 Robert Flores 160 Dean Deguara 295 

Frank Myers 11 Naomi Wooten 161 Shari Warr 296 

4-30 Folsom DS/FDR Final EIS/EIR – March 2007 
Chapter 4 

Comments and Responses 

 

Table 4-5 

Public Comments 

Comment 

Comment Made By: Number 

Comment 

Number Comment Made By: 

Comment 

Number Comment Made By: 

Phil Maestre 12 Kristine Olding and Family 162 Phil Vaughan 297 

Mary Henriksen 13 Daryl Stieve 163 George Wyatt 298 

Aaron Boring 14 

Dan & Sheri Stafford, and 

Family 164 

John and Sharon 

Sarno 299 

Mach Bishop 15 Robert Halldorson 165 Janelle & Curtis Mau 300 

Chris Hodges 16 Kelly James 167 

Randy Pike and 

Family 301 

Steve Hodges 18 Gary Devers 168 

Susan Akin and 

Family 302 

Madeleine Moseley 21 Karin Miller 170 Nicole Benson 303 

Robert Giacometh 22 Joel & Cathy Miller 171 Debbie Sultan 304 

Doug Pepper 23 Leslie Nagel 172 Lynn & Eric Bonzell 305 

Alfred P. Bulf 24 Derek & Deborah Reinbolt 173 Aimee Wendell 306 

Mechelle Gooch 25 Stacey Mefford 174 Lynn Derrick 307 

Ian Cornell 26 Cheryl & Andy Kurimay 175 Ann Lindner 308 

Carol James 27 Chere' Presley 176 Ken & Susan Doherty 309 

Elinor Brady 28 Dan Otis 177 

Bruce and Rosemary 

Beck 311 

Renee Howle 29 Angie McLaughlin 178 Robert H. Miller III 313 

Mike Coffman 30 Liz Young 179 Greg Cook 314 

Patricia Gibbs 31 Teresa Romero 180 Jeremy Bernau 315 

Don Reid 33 Chris Landry 181 Catherine Vestito 316 

Victor Becerril 35 Carrie Cain 182 Jeff Kirsten 317 

Kent Zenobin 36 Maria Errante 183 Jeff Mittner 318 

Kris Gardner 37 Jane Pearson 188 Brian Joder 319 

Taylor Zenobin 38 

Branton and Jennifer 

Obenaus 189 

David and Karen 

Delparte 320 

Sarah Griffith 39 Michael Avakian 190 Kelly Beninga 321 

Keoni Almeida 40 Marcus MacTaggart 191 Peg Coverdale 322 

Cindi Dulgar 41 Jill Ellis 192 Maureen Snyder 323 

Gene Moynier 43 Mair Auerbach 193 Chris Wagner 324 

Michelle Lipowski 44 Lisa Tomiak 194 

Kristin and Robert 

Jeffrey 325 

James Clayburn 45 Jackie Kolander 195 Don Hendricks 326 

Jon Soderman 46 DS 196 Cheryl Walters 327 

Charles A Hooper 47 

John and Cheryl 

Mandsager 197 

Sharon Kindel Rosalie 

Barton 328 

Renee Howle 48 Anonymous 198 Obie Miller 329 

Dennis Swenson 49 George R Koch 199 Clint Claassen 330 

Ken Christensen 50 Ian B Cornell et al. 200 Jennifer Claassen 331 

Russ Knapp 51 Carole and David Jones 201 Russ Fay 332 

Duane Cooney 52 Rick Miller 202 Anonymous 333 

Cindy Speer 53 David Graves 203 Laura Hudak 335 

Melissa Green 54 John and Sandii Dalessi 204 Kay Ann Markham 336 

Folsom DS/FDR Final EIS/EIR – March 2007 4-31 
Chapter 4 

Comments and Responses 

Table 4-5 

Public Comments 

Comment 

Comment Made By: Number 

Comment 

Number Comment Made By: 

Comment 

Number Comment Made By: 

Russ and Lisa Hoy 55 Anonymous 205 Jodi Wright 337 

Jason Zarghami 56 Thomas E. Leard 206 Anonymous 338 

Ericka Cooney 57 Phil Lugo 207 Kevin A. Miller 339 

Brian and Cindi Dulgar 58 Ted and Maggie White 208 Dianna Bowling 340 

Sandy McKaig 59 Mark Rucker 209 Kim Carrasco 341 

Jim Snook 60 Nigel Olding 210 Richard A. Shaw 342 

Craig R Larson 61 Brady Beckmann 211 Denise Hackett 343 

Carol James 62 Brett Heeke 212 Debra Rose 344 

Chet Bloyd 63 Matt Henry 213 Chris Jennings 345 

Mike Garner 64 Sonia Deauville 214 Leslie Grayson 346 

John Poimiroo 65 

Darrell Fullerton, Robert 

Hicks, Diane Star 

Anderson Hicks 215 Duran Quick 348 

John Poimiroo 66 P McM 216 Bonnie Amoruso 349 

Kevin Kraft 67 Susan Patchett 217 Jerry Boyd 350 

Peter Clark 68 Mr. Kelley V. Thorn 218 Dave Buck 351 

Todd Drybread 69 Barbara 219 Daylene Buck 352 

Scott Howlett 70 Fernando Gaudy 220 Neil Pearl 353 

Rick and Pam 

Patterson 71 Anonymous 221 James D. Sprenger 354 

Sheila and Tom Leard 72 Robert Jeffrey 222 Maria Noori 355 

G R Petersen 73 Charlie Parrish 223 Julia Fox 356 

Greg Fales 74 Anonymous 224 Linden 'Chip' Lim 357 

Marco and Patti Palilla 75 Vicky Walasek 225 Jim Donnell 358 

Jonathan Walburger 76 Andy Benson 226 Barbara Zawadzki 359 

Dawn Lockwood 77 Teresa Black 227 Jane Cook 360 

Jim Bayless 95 Roy Moore 228 Bruce R. Thomas 361 

Lyndsay Smith 96 Jim Kinnicutt 229 Barry Fowler 362 

Anonymous 97 Neva J Cimaroli 230 David Pate 363 

Terry and Jim Lehman 98 Kristi Cooper 233 Casey Keller 364 

Brian Austerman 99 Marilyn and Alan Daily 234 Jeff Onderko 365 

Mark Duer 100 Matt & Emily Brayton 235 Robert Simpson 366 

Tim Steele 101 Michael G Butler,Jr 236 James A Cost 367 

Beth and Jim Carlsen 102 Sherri McNear 237 Steve Canova 368 

Cindy Becker 103 Sandy Econome 238 Barry Calfee 369 

Jim Thompson 104 Gail and Dennis Wierzba 239 Richard Reid 370 

Michael S. Hardoin 105 Linton A. Brown 240 Scott T. Davis 371 

Angela Ankhelyi 106 

Sharlene & Calvin 

Kasadate 241 James A. Roberts 372 

Chris and Susan 

Zaffree 107 Deb and Tony Baratta 242 James A. Roberts 373 

Lynda Lescault 108 

Raymond D. Hart, P.E. 

G.E 243 

Dan and Dalisa 

Sanford 374 

4-32 Folsom DS/FDR Final EIS/EIR – March 2007 
Chapter 4 

Comments and Responses 

 

Table 4-5 

Public Comments 

Comment 

Comment Made By: Number 

Comment 

Number Comment Made By: 

Comment 

Number Comment Made By: 

Doug Zezoff 109 Jason Fanselau 244 

Elizabeth and Brian 

Kastern 375 

Jim Cassio & Deborah 

Moreno 110 Bruce R. Thomas 245 Martin Kiff 376 

Jamie Ellsworth 111 Jim Carlsen 246 Michelle Schelgel 377 

Darcie Eichner 112 Jeff Angeja 247 Emily Daniels 378 

Vicky Cackler 113 Amber Kennedy 248 Veronica Thompson 379 

Casey Keller 114 Margaret Wong 249 Kathi Hamburg 380 

Chris Storz 115 Ron Wisdom 250 Vickie Lee 381 

Leslie Storz 116 Mark Younger 251 Marty and Judy Boyea 382 

Donna Gentry 117 C. Fred Wilcox 252 Annette Manz 383 

Joanna Diaz 118 Scott and Teri Becker 253 Jean Peterson 384 

Kimberlee Jones 119 Stephen Templeton 254 Fred Tombo 385 

Liz and Andrew Byer 120 Dave Cox 255 Pam Langbehn 386 

Chris Jennings 121 Rana and Bryan Church 256 Taira Byrne 387 

Mike Brady 122 Jeanne and Albert Pfaff 257 Thomas E Martin 388 

Kathy Boyd 123 Jeff Hopkins 258 Anonymous 391 

The Colldeweihs 124 Robert Dulinski 259 Kelly Richardson 393 

Mr. Neely Downing 125 Arthur D. Shmarak 260 Robert W Bense 396 

David and Patty 

Soulsby 126 Lori Neal 261 John P Fondale 397 

Mike Stinson 127 Troy and Shari War 262 Rich Rumsey 398 

Marianne P. Blake 128 John Dillon 263 Ben Roth 399 

Steve Paladino 129 Mary Strauss 264 Linda Freeman 401 

Gary & Lia Odell 130 Amy Cooke 265 Peter 402 

Nina Pucci 131 Connie Freese 266 Robin Clary 403 

Kevin, Suzanne, Katie, 

and Amanda Reinard 132 Carmella Santos 267 Paul & Connie Freese 404 

Allen and Julie Carlson 133 Carrie Cota 268 Steve & Jan Volker 405 

Julie Calderwood 134 Aimee Peterson 269 Christopher Hodges 407 

Kenneth Doherty 135 Jody Biaggi 270 John M. Sanfilipia 408 

Maria & Jeff Sickenger 136 Bob Grunsky 271 Rob Langbehn 409 

Frances Leon 137 

Sandra J. Gallardo & 

Michele Flores 272 Jeffrey Paylor 410 

Cindy Sobotta 138 Christina Flores 273 Nicole Johnston 411 

Tracy Nordheim 139 Franco Salluce 274 

Joseph and Jeanette 

Abbate 412 

Lisa Tomiak 140 Kevin Long 275 Scott Schaffer 413 

Mark and Kathy Van 

Saun 141 Judy Henderson 276 Katrina Jackman 414 

Jennifer Thompson 142 Sandra and Lanny Pixler 277 Jan and Steve Volker 417 

Assunta L. Seivert 143 Phil Lee 278 Beth Lusar 418 

John and Cheryl 

Mandsager 144 Tara Davis 279 Michelle Hamilton 419 

Folsom DS/FDR Final EIS/EIR – March 2007 4-33 
Chapter 4 

Comments and Responses 

Table 4-5 

Public Comments 

Comment 

Comment Made By: Number 

Comment 

Number Comment Made By: 

Comment 

Number Comment Made By: 

Maria Paladino 145 Dan Normoyle 280 Patricia Gibbs 420 

Phil 146 Rennie and Norma James 281 K. Leonard 421 

Jennifer Hamilton 147 Gary Frolich 282 Ron Adley 422 

Michelle Thompson 148 Scott Wiemerslage 283 

Brian and Jolene 

Shirey 423 

David Lancisi 149 Troy Watson 284 Eric & Heather Olson 424 

Ann Lindner 150 David L Brown 285 Robert Walter 425 

Heather Sibilla 151 Krista Fisher 286 Kathy and Troy 426 

4.4.6 Folsom Point Closure Forms 

Members of the local community distributed a comment form to the local populace 

related to, and in opposition of, the proposal for closing Folsom Point during 

construction. These forms were provided to Reclamation at the closure of the public 

comment period. Approximately 440 signed forms were submitted. Table 4-6 

contains a list of each person who signed such an opposition form, with copies of all 

forms incorporated in Appendix A. These forms were reviewed for comment issues, 

but primarily reflected the communities desire to keep Folsom Point open. In 

addition to the no-closure request, the majority of forms requested that consideration 

be given to establishing alternate sites for the proposed centralized 

staging/construction facility area. Numerous forms offered suggestions for alternate 

staging areas or alternate construction methods that could alleviate the need to close 

Folsom Point. The forms also included concerns regarding negative impacts to 

socioeconomic conditions, transportation, property, remaining recreation, vegetation 

and wildlife, air quality, sound quality, and visual quality if Folsom Point were 

closed. The topical responses presented in this chapter respond to the above-listed 

concerns. 

Table 4-6 

Folsom Point Closure Forms 

Sammuel Griffin Jill Morrison Cory Dow Katherine Sims James Moffitt 

Dana Corey Mark Tappan Rocky Dow Carli Pichard Shirley Delao 

Mike Mello Paul Phillips Susan Doherty Jon Smith Dean Deguara 

Katie Wood Suzanne Reinard Alis Wanninger Mats Jansson Lauren Huber 

J. Dermer Holly Larson Cassie Dow Bruce Bailey Jim McCarthy 

M.E. Michna Tom Esselstrom Cody Dow Mike Pendleton Laura Moffitt 

Polly Petersen Daniel Nemiroff Michelle Carrey Tim Harris Cheryl Green 

Mark Hogge Richard Sebren Ray Debenedetto Greg Smith Chris Newman 

Autumn Gartamala Lori Sebren Travis Kane Andrian Kurimay Robert W. Peterson 

4-34 Folsom DS/FDR Final EIS/EIR – March 2007 
Chapter 4 

Comments and Responses 

 

Table 4-6 

Folsom Point Closure Forms 

Cody Bridenbaker Jeff Hopkins Miler Allarea Curtis & Janelle Mau James V. Cagney 

Katie Arnold Naomi Haueter Mike Stinson Kent Zenobia Darin Homer 

Keith Nicholson Christa Cobabe Russ Cunningham Jill Huckaby Ernest Green 

Nick Hromyak Shirley Norris Lisa Hunter Ellen Zenobia Charles F. Ingram III 

Dan Marlatt Mikaela Luis Bottini Jillian Mintz David Frey 

Lisa Baker Charles Welsh Paul Freese Jody Johns Julie Ingram 

Alyse Marlatt Gail Borgman Mary Cake Doug Fisero Aarti Pendse 

Katherine Rhodes Dan Otis Angela Graves Chip Huckaby Steve Wetklow 

Sandy Kaul Leigh Sippel David Graves Mair Auerbach Seth Frey 

Jessica Womack Donna Gentry Brad Catalan Lesley Storz Terrell Frey 

Samuel Goldsby V.V. Pendse Payton Burri Chris Tomiak Heidi Garner 

David Sanders Karen Collins Devin Burri Lisa Tomiak Chad Holloway 

Steve Thomson Liz Bryant Dove Burri Paul M. Deauville Kathryn Clayton 

Amber Kennedy James Anthony Jake Decker A. R. Spencer Lee Wieband 

G.L Alvarado Anthony Galatti Steven Jones Liz Sliger Rob Adair 

Naomi Shoemaker D Murray Anne Petchaller R. Hansen Larry Larosa 

Jennifer Kamuhey Kevin Kelsey Decker Y. Darly S. Wilkins 

Nathan Norwood Don Glueckert Rita Decker Awe Brosamte Dana Keffer 

Rebecca Pavan Liz Winter Bill Luce Alan Haynes Jesse West 

Robert Gehbauer Annette Slack Austin Web Elaine Lotta John Lensch 

Rachel Schwab Deborah Winter Robin Bottini Keven Carmichael Caroline Hindmarsh 

Kathy Bradley Kevin Pine Jean Marks Joe Curcio Charles S. Strom 

Brandon Schwab Allison Pina Colby Sykes Jeff Leonetti Peggy McGinness 

Carolyn Nelson Julie Surry Don Decker Eric Portela Cynthia Anderson 

Marsha Robinson Jaquay Knowles Julie Marshall Lilly Sinnott Ashley Smith 

Camella McIntosh Lori Tel Sandra Davis Natalie Flasco Tarah Eavly 

Dusty Combs Joann Curtis Webb Chris Curcio Jason Pick 

Dale Raisbeck Kimberly Lopez Lynn Webb Mary Wayne Christina Brazzel 

Scott Headington Judy Major Nicole Webb Duane Cooney Keith Faust 

Tony Guerrera Brett Yenzer Bill Petchauer Jeff Sipora Joseph Thomas 

Mary Martineau-Pealer Steve Schmiesing Ray & Sylvia Specnt Courtney Garahan Camille Faravelli 

Amanda Rusk Cramer P Janice Pettit Sonia Deauville TM Roehm 

Mandy Price Carolyn Bollinger Katie & Brady Whitlow Dee Shawhan Deena Lynch 

Alberta Strom Caree Wentz Susan Greendale Kathie Graening Jodi Albalos 

Lisa Ratcyczak Paul Guevara Mike Beretta Andy Dale Bill & Denise Silvan 

Sim Ratajczak Wayne Toutges Theresa Perezo Cheryl Kurimay Aelena Gayton 

Kailey Ziebarth Alex Cosentini Janet Arnold Emma J. Kevin Schneider 

Jennifer Westover William Coles Carol Kinnicutt John Collins Johnny Bennett 

Michelle Harrison Pia Knight Doug Swystun Louis V. Borges Chris Kamucha 

Henry Collins Daniel Westmoreland Dana Richardson Leslie Woods Manlu Ward 

Steve House Jack McCarthy Scott Arnold David Ramirez Kylee Heuer 

Lori Phillips William Safford Kelly Richardson Ann Musso Meredith Santos 

Lori Moore Frank Torrente Bill Palmer Cesca Brown Nina Robyn 

Thomas Okeeffe Carol Rondeau Jine Kinnicutt Scott Spangler Mike Bowden 

Folsom DS/FDR Final EIS/EIR – March 2007 4-35 
Chapter 4 

Comments and Responses 

Table 4-6 

Folsom Point Closure Forms 

Karan Crofut Tom Robinette Catherin O'mardha Tiffani Gibs Hannah Bowden 

Vivian Welsh Gabriela Sienna-Cuno Bob Weiss Steve Hansen Carrie Brown 

Dennis Werzlin 

Bruce and Carmie 

Brincka Marjorie Marmorstein 

Barbara 

Luerandorsel Tracy Sharpe 

Andy and Carolyn 

Hudson Dylan Schwarz Lydia Rodrigez Lisa Malatesta Garret Jennings 

Tom Leard Nicole Schwarz Bruce Williams Amanda Garvin Alice Huerta 

M Sipprel Tom Hippenstell II K Jackson Dawn Adicoff Tony Scharle 

Cristin Bassham Tara Blanton Charles Cornell Dave Williams Karin Miller 

Chad Hewitt Beverley Farrell Melissa Caris Corrie Johnson Lisa Jarrett 

Raymond Garit Katy Oreskes Neda Dehgahani Jim Castro Kristen Spaylor 

Carlos Gaudy J Reese Gary Manzer Mazloom Marty Finato Charlene Dougherty 

Elsa Gaudy John Sherry Roberto Medina Stephanie Winthrop Bahman Fozeuni 

Dennis Jarret Nini Dow Catherine Subryan Brad Cahoow Ginger McMurckey 

Connie Freese Jane Pearson Nancy Shisa Don Chesney Kristin Napolillo 

Todd and Becky Wolger Annette Mastroieni Ann Lake Anna Ruggiero Cary Gallagher 

Jennifer Daniels Harish Reddy Jesus Garcia Stella Winingham Brian Vidlock 

Michelle Gray 

Rod, Karen, Jordan, Tyler 

(and Chloe and Scout) Kathleen Leveille Tracy Folau Katalin K.B. Walcott 

Jeannette Clark Victor Cosentini Sally Dermenjian Joshua Morell Victoria Murphy 

Esther Amezcua Eddie Rodgers Juan Amezcua Lisa Griffin Randy Griffin 

Alexis Tarczy Mercury Acosta Gail Price Hebert Hiren D Vashi Dean Campbell 

Chris Tarczy Velma E Gand Lori Deauville Nora Allarea Jaime Derrick 

Julene Nichols Roberta Ward Lynn Derrick Tina Campbell Vicky Cackler 

Bernard T Homme Jim Arellano Linda Crawford Dan Vincent Shanan L. Hewitt 

Judy Homme Dana Lee Roy E. Coverdale Karyl Sutton Jamie Capps 

Albert Newman Todd Carrey Frank Jacobs Aflinba Nrowahue John Dunne 

Nancy Rucker Chuck & Deena Lynch Colin Glueckert 

Dale & Julie 

Kolodziej Les Compagno 

Karen Burri Rebecca N. Kraemer Michael Codina The Laymans Cameron Tarczy 

Scott Seibel Brett Quackenbush Robert Goolis John Leung Greg Buck 

Denis Fitts Sally Giampapa Jim Aitken Debra Leung Stephen Parra 

Kara Tumminelli Robert Cline Taira Byrne 

Randy & Julie 

Cannedy Todd Cackler 

Daniel & James Lanham Tim Rametta Elizabeth Biggers Robie A Coles Leonard Auerbach 

Carol A Gray Allison Meeker M. Franklin 

Joanne TepperSaffren Mary Tarczy 

Don Wanninger Paris Muller Kelly Richardson Robert Saffren Marty and Ronni Sloan 

Ken Nichols Kevin Unruh Brad Graham Joey Saffren Sandra Pixler 

Alan Fahndrich Todd Kolodzig Charles D. Gray Pete Tumminelli Jeff Pettit 

Paul M. Deauv Joe Daniels Pete Leonard Lanny Pixler 

4-36 Folsom DS/FDR Final EIS/EIR – March 2007 
Chapter 4 

Comments and Responses 

 

4.4.7 Telephone Calls 

Numerous telephone calls were received by Reclamation and the Corps during the 

comment period. CEQA and NEPA do not require responses to such comments; 

however, the comments were of a similar nature to the many written comments 

received during the comment period and the topical responses presented in this 

chapter respond to those concerns. 

4.5 Public Hearing Comments 

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

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

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

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

Folsom Community Center in the City of Folsom. 

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

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

waterways, and electric power and flood control. 

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

the Hearing Officer. Twenty-three verbal comments were given during the two 

public hearings. Each verbal comment was recorded by a court reporter. In addition 

to verbal comments received at the public hearings, agencies also accepted written 

comments on comment cards that were distributed to each attendee. There were 60 

written comments received at the two public hearings. Copies of the public hearing 

transcripts and all written comments from the public hearings are available in the 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR Public Hearing Summary Report, found in Appendix 

C of this document. 

4.5.1 Transcripts 

A copy of the transcripts from the public hearing meetings can be found in the 

Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR Public Hearing Summary Report in Appendix C. 

Table 4-7 presents a list of all speakers that provided verbal comments at the public 

hearings. 

Table 4-7 

Public Hearing Verbal Comments 

Commenter 

Comment 

Number Commenter 

Comment 

Number 

Madeleine Moseley 21 Don Reid 33 

Robert Giacometti 22 M.K. Veloz 34 

Doug Pepper 23 Victor Becerril 35 

Folsom DS/FDR Final EIS/EIR – March 2007 4-37 
Chapter 4 

Comments and Responses 

Table 4-7 

Public Hearing Verbal Comments 

Commenter 

Comment 

Number Commenter 

Comment 

Number 

Alfred Bulf 24 Kent Zenobia 36 

Mechelle Gooch 25 Kris Gardner 37 

Ian Cornell 26 Taylor Zenobia 38 

Carol James 27 Sarah Griffith 39 

Elinor Brady 28 Chris Hodges 16 

Renee Howle 29 Bill Watson 17 

Mike Coffman 30 Steve Hodges 18 

Patricia Gibbs 31 Jerry Toenyes 19 

Robert Holderness 32 

4.5.2 Written comments 

A copy of all written comments received during the public hearings is available in 

the Folsom DS/FDR Draft EIS/EIR Public Hearing Summary Report, included in 

this Final EIS/EIR as Appendix C. Table 4-8 presents a list of all reviewers that 

provided written comments at the public hearings. 

4.6 Responses to Comments 

Appendix A presents the index of entities submitting comments, the text of the 

comment, and the Partner Agencies' responses to the comments. To save paper, the 

comments and responses are provided in electronic format only. For members of the 

public without the means to access/read the electronic format version, hard copies of 

the comments and responses are available for review at the El Dorado County Public 

Library, Folsom Public Library, Roseville Public Library, and Sacramento Central 

Public Library. 

4.7 Petitions 

During the comment period, the Folsom DS/FDR agencies received a total of 64 

pages of petitions that stated “I oppose the closing of Folsom Point for any period of 

time for the Bureau of Reclamation and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to modify 

the dam”. The petitions contained a total of 1,085 signatures. The petitions do not 

pertain to, or raise, environmental issues related to the proposed project alternatives. 

The petitions that were received during the public review period for the Draft 

EIS/EIR are included as part of Appendix A of this Final EIS/EIR and may be 

considered by decision-makers during project deliberations; however, written 

responses to such comments are not required by NEPA or CEQA. 

 

4-38 Folsom DS/FDR Final EIS/EIR – March 2007 
Chapter 4 

Comments and Responses 

 

Folsom DS/FDR Final EIS/EIR – March 2007 4-39 

Table 4-8 

Public Hearing Written Comments 

Commenter 

Comment 

Number Commenter 

Comment 

Number 

Phil Maestre 12 Russ Knapp 51 

Mary Henriksen 13 Duane Cooney 52 

Aaron Boring 14 Cindy Speer 53 

Mach Bishop 15 Melissa Green 54 

Russ Harrington 20 Russ and Lisa Hoy 55 

Keoni Almeida 40 Jason Zarghami 56 

Cindi Dulgar 41 Ericka Cooney 57 

Paul Moynier 42 Brian and Cindi Dulgar 58 

Gene Moynier 43 Sandy McKaig 59 

Michelle Lipowski 44 Jim Snook 60 

James Clayburn 45 Craig R Larson 61 

Jon Soderman 46 Carol James 62 

Charles A Hooper 47 Chet Bloyd 63 

Renee Howle 48 Mike Garner 64 

Dennis Swenson 49 John Poimiroo 65 

Ken Christensen 50 John Poimiroo 66 

4.8 Comments on Corps PAC Report 

The Corps’ PAC Report documents recommended changes to the Folsom 

Modifications and Folsom Dam Raise projects for the JFP and flood damage 

reduction elements of the Corps’ Selected Project (6STG Auxiliary Spillway, 3.5-ft 

dam raise, and replacement of the 3 emergency spillway gates on the Main Concrete 

Dam). The draft PAC Report was made available for public review in conjunction 

with the Draft EIS/EIR. Table 4-9 provides the comments received relating to the 

draft PAC Report and responses to those comments. 
Chapter 4 

Comments and Responses 

Table 4-9 

Corps Project Authorization Change (PAC) Report Comments and Responses 

No. Commenter Agency Comment 

1 Gary Estes 

Pg. ES-1, Lines 23-24. Of concern is the continued use of the 1986 "unprecedented high outflows from Folsom Dam" for justification of increased flood protection for Sacramento from the American River. The cause of these "unprecedented high outflows" was explained by the National Research Council’s (NRC) Committee on Flood Control Alternatives in the American River Basin in its 1995 report entitled, "Flood Risk Management and the American River Basin: An 

Evaluation. Based upon the NRC Report, I recommend changing 

the sentence on Line 24 beginning "Unprecedented..." to read: "These record flood flows together with high flows in the Sacramento River prompted a reevaluation of the flood management system protecting the Sacramento area." 

Concur in part. The follfinal PAC Report. RefeReference to "record higreferencing the cause o

2 Gary Estes 

Pg. ES-3, Lines 25-31. The focus is on the physical or structural changes, but this project also includes operational changes which the structural changes make possible. Since this report might lead to additional Congressional authorization, it is important that updating the Flood Management Plan found in the Defense Appropriations Act of 1993 in Section 9159 (f)(2) and in the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 in Section 101(a)(6)(E) be described. We do not want this work to be inadvertently left out of any new Congressional authorization because the Folsom Modification Project consists of structural changes and operating changes. The structural changes make the operational changes possible. This should be made clear in the Project description. 

A separate long term reupdate to the flood manway. This effort also incText clarifying this has bfinal EIS. This is also dPAC. 

3 Gary Estes 

Table ES-1 needs description of units added to "Design Flood Event" line. What do those numbers mean? 

Concur. The following rewere made. Reference table and a footnote is aflood event" numbers. 

4 Gary Estes 

Table ES-3 lacks "Note 2" being used in the table body. Either insert or remove this note. 

Concur. The following rwas made. The second 

4-40 Folsom DS/FDR Final EI
Comme

Table 4-9 

Corps Project Authorization Change (PAC) Report Comments and Responses 

No. Commenter Agency Comment 

5 Gary Estes 

Pg. ES-12, Lines 8-10 please add language explaining the difference between "updating prices to October 2006 price levels" and "if priced at current price levels." It also reads at line 14, "This cost would also be significantly greater if repriced at current price levels." Don't we want to know what the actual real cost will be? So why are we not using these higher prices? 

Concur. The following rwas made. The second 

6 Gary Estes 

Table ES-4 and Table ES-5 are confusing in "Note 1." As noted in comment 5, 

explaining the difference procedures. 

7 Gary Estes 

Page 1-2, Line 26 is a repeat of above comment for Pg. ES-1, Lines 23-24 as this is the same language repeated. 

Concur in part. The follfinal PAC Report. RefeReference to "record higreferencing the cause o

8 Gary Estes 

Line 3-14 is a repeat of Comment for Pg. ES-3, Lines 25-31 above. A separate long term re

update to the flood manway. This effort also incText clarifying this has b

final EIS. This is also dPAC. 

9 Gary Estes 

Pg, 1-8, Lines 10-11 refers to 160,000 cfs outflows "for a sustained time (currently being evaluated)." The qualifier of "currently being evaluated" appears to be in conflict with Note 1 of Table ES-3 which says "up to 48 hours." Can you clarify which is correct? Seems the length of the sustained time has been decided. 

The following revision wText referencing "up to being evaluated)". Effothroughout report. 

10 Gary Estes 

Pg. 2-1, Lines 25-26 refers to PMF. Is date correct for 2001 PMF? Is date correct for 2001 PMF as I understand the PMF report was 2004? Also provide a reference on the PMF report on this page and in Chapter 8, References. 

The 2001 PMF date is cAmerican River Basin, CRevised PMF Study, anSacramento District in Obe added where reques

11 Gary Estes 

Repeat above comment from Pg. 1-8, Lines 10-11. The following revision w

Text referencing "up to being evaluated)". Effothroughout report. 

Folsom DS/FDR Final EIS/EIR – March 2007 
Chapter 4 

Comments and Responses 

Table 4-9 

Corps Project Authorization Change (PAC) Report Comments and Responses 

No. Commenter Agency Comment 

12 Gary Estes 

Pg. 3-2, line 11-14 contains the sentence beginning "To date..." which is wrong and should be removed. The problem with this sentence can be found in the presentation entitled, "Spring Forecast Based Operations, Folsom Dam, California" given by Paul Pugner. It is a printed Symposium’s Proceedings. 

Concur. Sentence dele

13 Gary Estes 

Pg. 4-8, Lines 37-40 states the percent chance the selected plan has to protect Sacramento from flooding. Percentages are given for the 250-year and 500-year storm. In 1999 the National Research Council’s Committee on American River Flood Frequencies published its report entitled “Improving American River Flood Frequency Analyses.” The report was in response to a request by the Corps of Engineers. Extrapolating the size of floods beyond the 200-year flood on the American River cannot be scientifically supported and should not be done. Computing the unregulated peak inflow to Folsom Dam past the 200-year flood is not appropriate for planning purposes without doing other analyses. This is especially true for the 500-year storm mentioned. 

This description of risk (

14 Gary Estes 

Pg. 4-11, Lines 27-30 is a repeat of comment above (Pg. 4-8, Lines 37-40) 

This description of risk (

15 Gary Estes 

Appendix E, Attachment B has a tables showing peak unregulated inflow to Folsom Dam as computed by HEC-FDA. Floods with the annual chance up to 1-in-550 chance per year are shown. Comment 14 applies to these tables. Using this data past the 1-in-200 chance flood is not supported by scientific data and the NRC Committee says it is an area needing further research. Decision-makers should be based upon reliable information. Remember, garbage-in equals garbage-out. 

This description of risk (

4-42 Folsom DS/FDR Final EI
Comme

Table 4-9 

Corps Project Authorization Change (PAC) Report Comments and Responses 

No. Commenter Agency Comment 

16 James Pope NCPA 

Recommend that the EIS/EIR more clearly state in the opening paragraphs the various components of the DS/FDR, which agency has the responsibility for completion of each component, and the proposed cost sharing responsibility. Table ES-1 could be expanded to include the above request, and should include ecosystem restoration and L.L. Anderson work. The opening paragraphs should clarify that the only joint federal project is the auxiliary spillway. 

Section 1.1 of the final Ethis. 

17 James Pope NCPA 

The process to allocate the joint federal project auxiliary spillway costs between safety of dams and flood control should also be discussed, along with the opportunity for public input on the proposed allocation. The 2002 Corp of Engineers Chief's Report indicated that approximately 48% of the proposed project cost would be allocated to safety of dams and 52% would be allocated to flood control. Later, a computation error was found in the report, and the proposed allocation was changed to 43% for safety and 57% to flood control. The basis of these allocations was not disclosed. We recommend the cost allocation process be made transparent for all of the project features and allow for public input. 

The Corps definition of between project purposused because dam safebenefits. Cost distributiReclamation and Corpsdiscussed in the final PAlists of work items each JFP. The final PAC repreview. The flood damaJFP will be reported in t(Reclamation) work pacreported in the Reclamahas no standard public for the 2002 Long Term is approved. The JFP wFolsom Dam Raise will reduction purpose. 

Folsom DS/FDR Final EIS/EIR – March 2007 
Chapter 4 

Comments and Responses 

Table 4-9 

Corps Project Authorization Change (PAC) Report Comments and Responses 

No. Commenter Agency Comment 

18 James Pope NCPA 

We believe the separable costs/remaining benefits allocation procedure should be used to allocate the joint federal project costs for the auxiliary spillway. The costs that are specific to the Corps should be allocated to flood control, and Reclamation costs specific to safety of dams should be allocated in accordance with the existing safety of dams formula. We also believe that the estimated costs of the five alternatives, along with the benefits, should be included in the EIR/EIS. The estimated cost and benefits for the Preferred Alternative were shown on an informational display at the public hearing, but were not shown in the socioeconomics section of the EIS/EIR. 

Separable Cost Remainit is not fully applicable tfor allocation between pnot a project purpose. Tuseful method is the proin the PAC Report. SC-discussed in the Cost D

19 James Pope NCPA 

We are concerned that a flood control reservation is being set at between 400,000 acre-feet and 600,000 acre-feet for Folsom Dam, when a more flexible reservation system would greatly increase the value of the water resource. A flexible reservation should include factors such as the water type, the ability to make earlier releases to increase the flood control reservation as needed, and forecast based operations. Pre-releases could be made if a large storm approaches the area in order to create a larger flood control reservation. A strict acre-foot flood control reservation system may create too large of a hole in a dry water year to allow the reservoir to fill and meet the Folsom Dam water requirements. 

As per WRDA 1999 (PL agreement is assumed completion of the Folsoterm reoperation study woperations and the implmanual is currently beinThe final PAC report coThe reoperation study wenvironmental analysis, coordination, and envirodocumentation. 

20 James Pope NCPA 

We also support the continued utilization and improvement of forecast based operations to predict flood events. We believe it is important for the Corps to incorporate an advanced release methodology based on weather forecasts to reduce the flood exposure in California. A discussion of how the Folsom Reoperations Study ties into this EIS/EIR should be included in the document. 

As per WRDA 1999 (PL agreement is assumed completion of the Folsoterm reoperation study woperations and the implmanual is currently beinproject. The final PAC ron this. The reoperation level of environmental apublic coordination, and documentation. 

4-44 Folsom DS/FDR Final EI
Comme

Table 4-9 

Corps Project Authorization Change (PAC) Report Comments and Responses 

No. Commenter Agency Comment 

21 James Pope NCPA 

There is little discussion on the temperature control shutters in the document. We believe this presents a great opportunity to design a more comprehensive temperature control device, similar to that being used for Shasta Dam, where water can be gathered from all levels of the reservoir and put through the generation penstocks. This would greatly enhance the ability to control American River temperatures, and would also eliminate the need to bypass the generators in dry water years, which deprives California of greenhouse gas emissions free power generation. 

Comment Noted. Ecoincludes the shutters) is "Other Features' in the 

22 James Pope NCPA 

The security features are only obliquely discussed under the alternatives listed in this EIS/EIR. The document did not provide any details regarding the anticipated cost or how those costs would be allocated to the various project purposes. We believe these issues should also be vetted in a public forum. 

The Security Upgrades EIS/EIR and all impacts environment were discloappropriate document foSecurity upgrades. 

23 

Alexander 

Coate EBMUD 

The document does not adequately support the use of the 400,000/670,000 acre foot variable reservation of flood control space (operating rule) as a key assumption in the No Action Alternative. The No Action Alternative should use the pre-1993 400,000 acre foot rule as the default. 

As per WRDA 1999 (PL agreement is assumed completion of the Folsoterm reoperation study woperations and the implmanual is currently beinThe final PAC report coThe reoperation study wenvironmental analysis, coordination, and envirodocumentation. 

Folsom DS/FDR Final EIS/EIR – March 2007 
Chapter 4 

Comments and Responses 

Table 4-9 

Corps Project Authorization Change (PAC) Report Comments and Responses 

No. Commenter Agency Comment 

24 

Alexander 

Coate EBMUD 

The Draft EIS/EIR's discussion of impacts and alternatives is insufficient because the document fails to address the implementation of new operations. The document states that any consideration of the impacts of changed operations cannot be determined and defers this discussion and development of operational alternatives to a point after this project has commenced. At that later point, however, operational alternatives could be constrained or favored by the physical solution that is selected and constructed. In addition the range of alternatives examined in the Draft EIS-EIR does not encompass alternatives involving downstream levees. The flood control alternatives and their impacts are too narrowly described in the Draft EIS/EIR to meet the requirements of NEPA. 

As described in the finaof this effort is to work cdetermine a project that to the Folsom Modificatprojects while also addrobjective. Downstream dam safety objectives, aDams project. Once the constructed and is functspillway will adhere to cwould not require changorder to operate. 

25 

Alexander 

Coate EBMUD 

The Draft EIS/EIR should address the range of financial impacts on CVP water contractors. Because the Draft EIS/EIR has deferred any discussion or evaluation of operational rules, there are no estimates of the economic/financial impact to CVP water contractors, due to likely changes to the operation of Folsom reservoir resulting from the Proposed Project and other alternatives. In turn, no remedies have been identified to compensate CVP water contractors for likely operational changes that could result in reduced water supply. The document, in other words, has failed to consider the indirect and cumulative impacts that are likely to result from the project. 

Comment noted. Reserimpacted as a result of tmade in accordance witManual. No impacts hapower deliveries as a remitigation is required. Iwhich are outside the scaddressed in a separate scoped. The final PAC ron this. The reoperation level of environmental apublic coordination, and documentation. 

26 

Daniel 

Nelson 

San Luis & DeltaMendota Water Authority 

Any costs attributed solely to Flood Damage Reduction must not be reimbursable by CVP contractors. For example, since Reclamation has determined that a dam raise and operable spillway gates are not required for Dam Safety, the DEIS/R should make it clear that any costs for a dam raise or in excess of the cost of a fuseplug spillway will not be borne by water and power users. 

Comment noted. The ficlarifying this 

4-46 Folsom DS/FDR Final EI
Comme

Table 4-9 

Corps Project Authorization Change (PAC) Report Comments and Responses 

No. Commenter Agency Comment 

27 

Daniel 

Nelson 

San Luis & DeltaMendota Water Authority 

The bridge to be constructed immediately downstream of the dam is not related to either Dam Safety or Flood Damage Reduction and no portion of the costs for the bridge are to be borne by CVP water and power users. 

The EIS and the PAC awas evaluated in an eardocument in 2006. The make a determination oassociated with the brid

28 

Daniel 

Nelson 

San Luis & DeltaMendota Water Authority 

We understand the Folsom operations are not a part of this environmental review, but some of the language in the DEIS/R could be confusing regarding this issue. It should be made clear that the Interim Operations pursuant to the agreement between Reclamation and SAFCA is a temporary plan and has not been analyzed under NEPA or CEQA as a long-term operations plan. Therefore, the baseline or "without project" alternative muse be based on the 400,000 AF flood reservation only and not the variable flood reservation levels in the Interim Operations agreement. 

As per WRDA 1999 (PL agreement is assumed completion of Folsom Mreoperation study, which a new water control maparallel to this project. Tanalyze forecast based will include the approprianalysis, agency, stakeand environmental com

29 

Robert 

Stackhouse CVP 

Use of the 400,000/670,000 Acre-Foot rule as a key assumption in the No Action Alternative is flawed due to the uncertainty on continuation of that rule for Folsom reservoir operation over the design life of the Proposed Project. Firstly, although the 400,000/670,000 rule is embodied in the 2004 agreement between Reclamation and the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency (SAFCA), that agreement terminates in 2018 or earlier and nothing compels SAFCA to enter into a new agreement with Reclamation with the same rule to span the design life of the Proposed Project. Secondly, the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (WRDA) characterized the 400,000/670,000 rule as an interim rule until such time as a flood damage reduction plan for the American River has been implemented. The pre-1993 400,000 Acre-Foot rule presents the most plausible default for incorporation in the No Action Alternative. 

As per WRDA 1999 (PL agreement is assumed completion of Folsom Mreoperation study which a new water control maparallel to this project. Tanalyze forecast based will include the approprianalysis, agency, stakeand environmental com

Folsom DS/FDR Final EIS/EIR – March 2007 
Chapter 4 

Comments and Responses 

Table 4-9 

Corps Project Authorization Change (PAC) Report Comments and Responses 

No. Commenter Agency Comment 

30 

Robert 

Stackhouse CVP 

The Proposed Project enables and comtemplates studying a wider range of operations rules for flood control and other purposes than those in use today, and any changed rules resulting from those studies will have various impacts, both positive and negative, on water users and the environment. In addition, the range of alternatives for flood control does not address the range of possible alternatives involving downstream levees. Simply adopting existing plans for levee strengthening and upgrades fall far sort of the realistic range of alternatives that should be addressed. The 

Comment Noted. As peinterim operation agreemplace or until completion permanent reoperation implementation of a new being scoped parallel to study will also analyze freoperation study will inenvironmental analysis, coordination, and envirodocumentation. The seusing existing criteria unis anticipated one year pof the Auxiliary Spillway

31 

Robert 

Stackhouse CVP 

Extension to the prior comment: there are no estimates of the economic/financial impact to CVP water contractors, power customers of the Western Area Power Administration (WAPA), or other water users, or plausible or likely changes to operation of Folsom reservoir operation as a result of the Proposed Project or other alternatives. No remedies are identified to compensate CVP water contractors, power customers or WAPA, or other users, due to reduced water or power supply caused by plausible or likely changes to Folsom reservoir operation as a result of the Proposed Project or other alternatives. In short, the document fails to consider fully the indirect and cumulative impacts of the Proposed Project. 

As per WRDA 1999 (PL agreement is assumed completion of Folsom Mreoperation study which a new water control maparallel to this project. Tanalyze forecast based will include the approprianalysis, agency, stakeand environmental com

32 

Robert 

Stackhouse CVP 

We would also like to reiterate our general understanding that there cannot be an allocation to CVP Contractors for costs for projects that do not meet an authorized CVP Project Purpose and/or are not designated as a Financially and Operationally Integrated part of the CVP. Neither document provides the background calculations from which the cost allocations were derived. In addition, neither document specifies entities. We are very interested in this information. 

Comment noted. The ficlarifying this. Costs arnot a financial disclosur

4-48 Folsom DS/FDR Final EI
Comme

Table 4-9 

Corps Project Authorization Change (PAC) Report Comments and Responses 

No. Commenter Agency Comment 

33 

Robert 

Stackhouse CVP 

We also believe that any Safety of Dam allocation for any of these costs would be of sufficient significance to warrant a separate repayment period beyond the 2030 repayment deadline for preexisting CVP Plant-In-Service costs as of 1980. Because these projects are not expected to be completed until time periods ranging from 2010 (at the very earliest) to 2020 (if there are scheduling delays), a 2030 repayment period would considerably compress the repayment period for these costs relative to the useful life of the project. Moreover, the CVP rate setting policies incorporate a 50-year repayment period for capital costs, which was used as the basis for determining a 2036 repayment date for the San Felipe Unit outof-basin facilities costs. 

Comment noted. The finclarifying this 

34 

Robert 

Stackhouse CVP 

Within the last paragraph, elements that Reclamation and the Corps of Engineers would implement separately are mentioned, and a list "as summarized in the following paragraphs" is referenced. On what page is this list provided? 

Comment Noted. Additbeen finalized since the in the Final Report. 

35 

Robert 

Stackhouse CVP 

Regarding the top paragraph, was separate authorizing legislation provided for the Folsom Outlet Modifications Project, which was morphed by the Corps of Engineers into the Auxiliary Spillway Project? What was the PL number for this authorizing legislation for the Folsom Outlet Modifications Project? 

Page 1-19, 1.5.9: EnerAppropriations Action of Auxiliary Spillway. PaWDRA 1999 (PL 106-53

36 

Robert 

Stackhouse CVP 

Will the referenced fuseplug in the top paragraph be built prior to the completion of the auxiliary spillway? 

No, the proposed joint pSpillway that will take th

37 

Robert 

Stackhouse CVP 

In the top paragraph, why is there a reference to security activities? Have security activities been defined as part of the Joint Federal Project and either the Flood Damage Reduction or Safety of Dams program? 

The Security upgrades because they are a necupgrades. Much of the upgrades will take place therefore any potential irequired to be disclosed features. 

Folsom DS/FDR Final EIS/EIR – March 2007 
Chapter 4 

Comments and Responses 

Table 4-9 

Corps Project Authorization Change (PAC) Report Comments and Responses 

No. Commenter Agency Comment 

38 

Robert 

Stackhouse CVP 

Did the authorizing legislation for the Folsom Outlet Modifications project (which was subsequently revamped as the Auxiliary Spillway) specify a 100% flood control allocation? 

No, but the purpose of fin the authorization, becdocuments referenced bthe Energy and Water R2006 (PL109-103) authoto work together on an A

39 

Robert 

Stackhouse CVP 

What incremental acre-foot storage capacities would be provided by 31/2 foot, 7 foot, and 17 foot raise levels to the Folsom Storage facility? How does this compare to the acre-foot capacities that are expected to be generated through a Probably Maximum Flood? 

The JFP and the TSP bfrom the existing 483.3

40 

Robert 

Stackhouse CVP 

Are there specific (non-security related) safety requirements for the Folsom facility on the basis that it is designated as a National Critical Infrastructure facility? 

Drew Lessard has been 

41 

Robert 

Stackhouse CVP 

Why is the authorizing legislation for the Folsom Outlet Modifications project not included in the legislative citations? 

Section 1.5 provides all project (pages 1-9 to 1-2

42 

Robert 

Stackhouse CVP 

Is site security being incorporated into this project? If so, under what authorization is this being done? 

USBR 

43 

Robert 

Stackhouse CVP 

Why is alternative 1 designated as a purely Safety of Dams alternative? 

Alternative 1 does not pbenefits. It was designeDams issues. 

44 

Robert 

Stackhouse CVP 

Would any of the proposed projects impact water deliveries while construction is in progress? 

The project will not have power deliveries. It may on a temporary basis duand the Corps are awar

45 

Robert 

Stackhouse CVP 

Would deliveries to the City of Roseville, San Juan Water District, and Suburban Water District be significantly impacted during construction of any of the Corps' Folsom Dam Modifications projects? 

The Corps is no longer Modifications Project. Tconstruction for of the Aand the Corps is proposconstruction of these feimpacts to water or pow

4-50 Folsom DS/FDR Final EI
Comme

Table 4-9 

Corps Project Authorization Change (PAC) Report Comments and Responses 

No. Commenter Agency Comment 

46 

Robert 

Stackhouse CVP 

The no action plan should be based on the fixed 400 thousand acrefeet storage space that has only been superseded on an interim basis. 

As per WRDA 1999 (PL agreement is assumed completion of Folsom Mreoperation study which a new water control maparallel to this project. Tanalyze forecast based will include the approprianalysis, agency, stakeand environmental com

47 

Robert 

Stackhouse CVP 

Why does the No-Action Plan include the implementation of several projects that will affect the Folsom Dam's flood capacity and one project (the Folsom Bridge) that will not have any bearing on the safety or flood capacity of the Folsom Dam. 

 The Folsom Bridge is bcongressionally authorizRaise project. Chapter Report contain text clari

48 

Robert 

Stackhouse CVP 

It is our understanding that there will be no cost allocation to CVP Contractors on the basis that the LL Anderson facility is not an integrated component of the CVP and is not owned by the Federal Government. Our understanding is further reinforced by the statement that the Placer County Water Agency will independently implement this project. 

Improvements to the LL currently recommended Agency is the owner of improvements required 

49 

Robert 

Stackhouse CVP 

In figure ES-2, how do we get access to the back-up calculations that were used to derive the 172.8 million Dam Safety allocation in the section titled "6 STG Element"? 

Some of the backup calDistribution. Further bacontacting the Corps, SReclamation Central Ca

Folsom DS/FDR Final EIS/EIR – March 2007 
Chapter 4 

Comments and Responses 

Table 4-9 

Corps Project Authorization Change (PAC) Report Comments and Responses 

No. Commenter Agency Comment 

50 

Robert 

Stackhouse CVP 

In figure ES-2, how was the Non-Federal Share for the Temporary Bridge of $9.6 million determined? Why is there an additional $28.0 million in non-Federal cost estimated for Added Features"? What are these additional features, and who will pay these costs? 

Cost sharing determinatshown in the American Dam Raise, Folsom BridDocument, September, term "added features" hto reflect the other featuthat are being carried fochanges (Folsom Bridge Costs of the ecosystem by the Corps and its noncontains text clarifying t

51 

Robert 

Stackhouse CVP 

In table ES-6, why does the Authorized Folsom Modification Project have no Safety of Dams allocation, while the "6 STG Element" includes $172.8 million in safety of Dams costs? 

See Section 3.1 Folsom Section 3.1.3. The Folsdesign had no significanAuxiliary Spillway desigtable ES-6 provides hyddistributed to both dam reduction. 

52 

Patrick 

Porgans 

Porgans & Associate 

The Folsom Dam facilities should be returned to the Army Corps of Engineers and jointly operated with the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency, primarily for "flood control" protection, power production, recreation, and fish and wildlife enhancements/protections within the American River Watershed. A minimum of 500,000 acre-feet of the reservoir should be made available during the entire flood season for flood control storage, weather and watershed conditions permitting. This recommendation can be accommodated by the proposed structural changes at the dam, designed to allow for the release of water when the reservoir is at lower elevations. Furthermore, the reduction in the rate of discharge will limit the erosive impacts on downstream levees along the American river and throughout the Delta. 

Comment Noted. As peinterim operation agreemplace or until completion permanent reoperation implementation of a new being scoped in parallel study will also analyze freoperation study will inenvironmental analysis, coordination, and envirodocumentation. 

4-52 Folsom DS/FDR Final EI
Comme

Table 4-9 

Corps Project Authorization Change (PAC) Report Comments and Responses 

No. Commenter Agency Comment 

53 

Patrick 

Porgans 

Porgans & Associate 

Based upon the proposed alternatives for the Folsom facilities, the impacts on existing storage may be minimal under most scenarios. It may be argued that under the proposed alternatives, accomplishment of the safety and flood protection can be achieved without any reduction in annual yield to Reclamation's federal Central Valley Project water contractors. It is P&A's position that the water that Reclamation delivers to its contractors has and continues to impact public trust resources and private property within the American River watershed. 

Comment Noted. 

54 

Patrick 

Porgans 

Porgans & Associate 

All water impounded in the reservoir after the flood season has ended, should be allocated for existing municipal and industrial purposes, recreation, power production and for the protection and enhancement of "public trust" resources. 

Comment Noted. 

55 

Patrick 

Porgans 

Porgans & Associate 

The outstanding capital component owed by the agricultural contractors can be derived from Congress, sale of power, and/or from other local sources. If you need more information, please contact P&A accordingly. 

Comment and informati

56 

Bruce De 

Terra 

Dept. of Transport 

Under the Common Features levee improvements below Folsom Dam, it is planned that completion of improvements to the levees along the lower American and Sacramento Rivers would allow these levees to "safely contain sustained water releases of up to 160,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) from Folsom Dam." The DEIR needs to identify the potential damage to bridges downstream from Folsom Dam due to such sustained releases. With sustained high velocity water releases, mitigation to minimize structural bridge damage and potential traffic disruption should be identified. 

Comment Noted. The Awill be operated in accoControl Manual. All releoperations criteria. The EIS/EIR, will not have imincluding bridges. This wappropriate level of envstakeholder and public creoperation study that is this project. 

Folsom DS/FDR Final EIS/EIR – March 2007 
Chapter 4 

Comments and Responses 

Table 4-9 

Corps Project Authorization Change (PAC) Report Comments and Responses 

No. Commenter Agency Comment 

57 

Bruce De 

Terra 

Dept. of Transport 

On October 24, 1995, FHWA delegated Caltrans the responsibility of informing local City and County Governments and their respective agencies of the need to bear responsibility and cost for bridge impacts if local governments have been found negligent in their actions toward the protection of such structures. Accordingly, the Project needs to identify measures, if any, needed to protect the stability and structural integrity of downstream bridges from high velocity water release impacts. 

Comment Noted. The Awill be operated in accoControl Manual. All releoperations criteria. The EIS/EIR, will not have imincluding bridges. This wappropriate level of envstakeholder and public creoperation study that is to this project. 

58 

Bruce De 

Terra 

Dept. of Transport 

It is not clear whether studies of hydraulic impacts and water surface elevations adequately discuss proposed increases in water velocities and any attendant erosion upstream, downstream or at the bridge sites. The proposed raising of the levees on both the American and Sacramento Rivers and the resulting increased flows could have significant impacts on the ability of the bridge structures to safely handle the increased flows. The proposed 160,000 cfs volume is considerable higher than the 120,000 cfs used in our current analysis. Additionally, the increased water height may inundate some of the bearings on the lower clearance bridges. Consequently, we request hydraulic reports, along with the detailed scour analysis of all the bridges below Folsom Dam on the American River. To the extent that the high velocity water releases will create adverse impacts beyond the confluence, we will need similar information for the affected bridges on the Sacramento River. 

Comment Noted. The Awill be operated in accoControl Manual. All releoperations criteria. The EIS/EIR, will not have imincluding bridges. This wappropriate level of envstakeholder and public creoperation study that is this project. 

4-54 Folsom DS/FDR Final EI
Comme

Table 4-9 

Corps Project Authorization Change (PAC) Report Comments and Responses 

No. Commenter Agency Comment 

59 

Bruce De 

Terra 

Dept. of Transport 

With higher velocity releases planned from the Folsom Dam, the EIR should address whether changes in bridge inspection procedures should be made to respond to higher water volume and velocity releases. Caltrans would be pleased to meet with project proponents to discuss how to address this matter and to provide technical information that we have that will assist in evaluating bridge issues. To schedule a meeting, please call Ken Champion at (916) 274-0615. 

Comment Noted. The Awill be operated in accoControl Manual. All releoperations criteria. The EIS/EIR, will not have imincluding bridges. This appropriate level of envstakeholder and public creoperation study that is this project. 

60 Beth Lusar Citizen 

The Folsom Dam was originally built with certain specifications regarding the height, water holding capacity, and number of outlets in the base. To raise the height in order to increase the holding capacity and at the same time cute more outlets in the base, in my thinking, would weaken the original base. Also, late last year, the Sacramento Bee published a statement from the Corps of Engineers saying that it would be very difficult to find competent workers to do this kind of reconstruction. The answer to flood protection is the complete the Auburn Dam promptly. 

Comment noted. The pAux spillway, instead of the outlets on the Main 

61 

Clyde 

Matson Citizen 

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 high inflows and the first gate broke upon opening. The broken gate was open and put almost enough water down river to over top the levees. I have looked at the levee plans (not well) and looked at the sketch of the dam modifications. As I see it, more gates are being added and on the south end of the dam, a dirt berm is planned. The comment that was made about this berm was that if the water got to the point of over-topping, then this berm would wash out and prevent over-topping the dam. The problem I see is the berm is at least as wide as three gates, at a minimum. And once washed out is uncontrollable as to flow. The 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? 

If Reclamation was doinwould use a fuse plug dproposed for the joint prtainter gate structure thareduction and dam safeAlternative 1 in the EIS/

Folsom DS/FDR Final EIS/EIR – March 2007 
Chapter 4 

Comments and Responses 

Table 4-9 

Corps Project Authorization Change (PAC) Report Comments and Responses 

No. Commenter Agency Comment 

62 

Ronald 

Stork 

Friends of the River 

PAC pp. ES-1 & 1-2: The background discussion could benefit from greater precision. Specific sections (see memo) may incorrectly lead readers to conclude 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. 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. (See Friends of the River memo for more specific details and recommendations). 

The reviewer's analysis regarding record inflow. reflect the effects of the that release of 130,000 

replacement text is as foIn February 1986, majocaused record flood flbasin. Due to the failucofferdam, Folsom offUnprecedented high oReservoir, together wiRiver, caused water le

design freeboard of leRiver area. 

63 

Ronald 

Stork 

Friends of the River 

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. 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). 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. 

 A permanent reoperatioimplementation of a new being scoped in associareoperation study will aloperations. The reoperappropriate level of envstakeholder and public ccompliance documentatReport contains languag

4-56 Folsom DS/FDR Final EI
Comme

Table 4-9 

Corps Project Authorization Change (PAC) Report Comments and Responses 

No. Commenter Agency Comment 

64 

Ronald 

Stork 

Friends of the River 

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). 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. 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. 

Concur. Generally, the as 1/105 to 1/104. Statis

from estimating or labelthe unregulated frequenAmerican R basin. At thare trying to develop a mfrequency for extreme etext is as follows: Recent estimates indiapproximately the samrecurrence interval so

1 in 22,000 years. betw

this time, several interdevelop a method for such an extreme evendam safety purposes, sizing the spillway to pthe consequences of f

65 

Ronald 

Stork 

Friends of the River 

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-anduncertainty-based performance descriptions. 

Do not concur. This infothe hydrology section of or EIS/EIR. 

Folsom DS/FDR Final EIS/EIR – March 2007 
 

 

 

Folsom DS/FDR Final EIS/EIR – March 2007 5-1 

Chapter 5 

Document Recipients 

This Chapter lists Federal, State, regional, and local public and private agencies and 

organizations that have either received a copy of this Final EIS/EIR or a notification 

of document availability. In addition to the regulatory agencies, agencies with 

special expertise or interest in evaluating environmental issues related to the project 

are included. Private agencies, organizations, and individuals who may be affected 

by the project or who have expressed an interest in the project through the public 

involvement process are also included. 

The Folsom DS/FDR Final EIS/EIR is available on the internet at: 

http://www.usbr.gov/mp/nepa/nepa_projdetails.cfm?Project_ID=1808

Copies of the Final EIS/EIR are available for public review at the following 

locations: 

• Bureau of Reclamation, Denver Office Library, Building 67, Room 167, Denver 

Federal Center, 6th and Kipling, Denver, CO 80225 

• Bureau of Reclamation, Mid-Pacific Regional Office Library, 2800 Cottage 

Way, W-1825, Sacramento, CA 95825-1898 

• El Dorado County Library, 345 Fair Lane, Placerville, CA 95667-56991

• Folsom Public Library, 300 Persifer Street, Folsom, CA 956301

• Natural Resources Library, U.S. Department of the Interior, 1849 C Street NW, 

Main Interior Building, Washington, DC 20240-0001 

• Roseville Public Library, 225 Taylor Street, Roseville, CA 956781

• Sacramento Central Library, 828 I Street, Sacramento, CA 95814-25891

 

1

 Hard copies of the Final EIS/EIR are available at this library and include a separate volume (Vol. 

IV) that contains hard copies of all comments received on the Draft EIS/EIR and all responses. 
Chapter 5 

Document Recipients 

5-2 Folsom DS/FDR Final EIS/EIR – March 2007 

5.1 Elected Officials and Representatives 

Governor of California 

 Honorable Arnold Schwarzenegger 

 United States Senate 

 Honorable Barbara Boxer 

 Honorable Dianne Feinstein 

House of Representatives 

 Honorable John Doolittle 

 Honorable Doris Matsui 

 Honorable Daniel Lungren 

California Senate 

 Honorable Dave Cox 

California Assembly 

 Honorable Roger Niello 

 Honorable Ted Gaines 

 Honorable Alan Nakanishi 

5.2 Government Departments and Agencies 

5.2.1 U.S. Government 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service 

Army Corps of Engineers 

Bureau of Land Management 

Bureau of Reclamation 

Council on Environmental Quality 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Federal Emergency Management Agency 

Federal Highway Commission 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

Geological Survey 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

National Park Service 

Natural Resources Conservation Service 

Office of Environmental Project Review 

Western Area Power Administration 

5.2.2 State of California 

Senate Committee on Natural Resources 

Assembly Committee on Water, Parks, and Wildlife 

Air Resources Board 
Chapter 5 

Document Recipients 

 

Folsom DS/FDR Final EIS/EIR – March 2007 5-3 

California Water Commission 

Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board 

Department of Conservation 

Department of Corrections 

Department of Fish and Game 

Department of Parks and Recreation 

Department of Transportation 

Department of Water Resources 

Native American Heritage Preservation 

Office of Transportation Planning 

Reclamation Board 

State Clearinghouse 

State Lands Commission 

Water Resources Control Board 

5.2.3 Regional, County, and City 

City of Folsom 

Folsom Tourism Bureau 

Folsom Chamber of Commerce 

El Dorado County 

Granite Bay Advisory Council 

Placer County 

Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency (SAFCA) 

Sacramento County 

Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD) 

Sacramento Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce 

El Dorado County Water Agency 

San Luis and Delta-Mendota Water Authority 

East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) 

County Sanitation District 1 (CSD-1)/Sacramento Regional County 

Sanitation District (SRCSD) 

Central Valley Project Water Association 

Northern California Power Agency 

5.3 Private Organizations and Businesses 

SARA – Save The American River Association 

El Dorado Irrigation District 

Friends of the River 

 LARTF – Lower American River Task Force 

Sacramento Valley Marine Association 

Northern California Marine Association 
Chapter 5 

Document Recipients 

5-4 Folsom DS/FDR Final EIS/EIR – March 2007 

5.4 Members of the Public 

All members of the general public who requested a copy of the Final EIS/EIR will be 

mailed either an electronic version (on CD) or a hard copy of the document. 

Additionally, those who submitted comments on the Draft EIS/EIR and provided 

complete mailing addresses will also receive a copy of the Final EIS/EIR document. 
 

 

 

Folsom DS/FDR Final EIS/EIR – March 2007 6-1 

Chapter 6 

References 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2002. American River Watershed, California, LongTerm Study Final Supplemental Plan Formulation Report EIS/EIR, (Vol. I-III). 

February 2002. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2004. Letter to SAFCA regarding release capacity of 

dam and capacity of downstream levees. December 9, 2004. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2005. American River Watershed, California, 

Folsom Dam Modification Project Final Environmental Assessment/Initial Study, 

October 2005. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2006. American River Watershed Project, Folsom 

Dam Raise, Folsom Bridge Public Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact 

Statement/ Environmental Impact Report May 2006.