DCA Stakeholder Engagement Committee Delta Protection Commission Meeting March 19, 2020 1
Guiding Principles Provide clear, concise, accessible and timely information to the public Facilitate public participation in the planning process Improve mutual understanding, encourage dialogue and facilitate constructive public input Build trust through transparency, commitment and follow-through 2
Basic Framework 20 members appointed by Board Chaired by DCA Board member Represent broad range of Delta issues Members will be asked to solicit and bring input from their broader Delta constituency Initially meet twice per month for followed by monthly Each session 2.5 to 3 hours Report out at DCA Board meetings on discussion and feedback Compensation for time commitment 3
SEC Members • Phil Robertson, Recreation • Anna Swenson, At Large Yolo County • James Cox, Sports Fishing • Jesus Tarango, Tribal Government (Alt) • Cecille Giacoma, Public Safety • Malissa Tayaba, Tribal Government • David Gloski, At Large Contra Costa • James Wallace, Delta History/Heritage • Douglas Hsia, At Large Sacramento • Angelica Whaley, North Delta Local Business • Lindsey Liebig, Agriculture • Sean Wirth, Environmental NGO , Terrestrial • Mel Lytle, Ph.D., Delta Water District • Tom Hardesty, At Large Solano Co. • Karen Mann, South Delta Local Business • Gilbert Cosio, Ex-Officio • Phillip Merlo, At Large San Joaquin County • Michael Moran, Ex-Officio • Barbara Barrigan Parrilla, Environmental Justice • Isabella Gonzales Potter, Environment NGO - Aquatic 4
DCA/DWR Team • Sarah Palmer: DCA Board, SEC Chair • Barbara Keegan: DCA Board Alternate, SEC Co-Chair • Kathryn Mallon: DCA, Executive Director, Sponsor • Carolyn Buckman: DWR, Environmental Manager, Co-Sponsor • Valerie Martinez: DCA, SEC Facilitator • Nazli Parvizi: DCA, Stakeholder Engagement Manager • Luke Minor: DCA, Engineering Manager for Stakeholder Engagement • Jasmine Runquist: DCA, Board Clerk 5
Meeting Framework Meeting Agenda • Approve Meeting Minutes Distribute Q&A Update Log • • Roundtable discussion on previous meeting topic Technical presentation with Q&A • • Public Comment Period Follow-up: • Weekly support calls • Tours being scheduled to visit relevant sites 6
Communications are Well-Documented Detailed Meeting Minutes • Two-Page Summaries • Live Stream Meetings • Archived Video • • DCA Board Updates - General DCA Board Updates – “Report Out” • 7
Example SEC Presentation Material 8
Sacramento River Intake Siting Siting study area is from the American River • to Sutter Slough Sites on the east bank viable with the NOP • corridors • West bank not viable due to poor access • 1 to 3 intake sites required for likely alternatives Clarksburg Capacity Number of Intakes 3000 cfs 1 intake Hood 4500 cfs 2 intakes 6000 cfs 2 intakes Courtland Paintersville 7500 cfs 3 intakes Vorden Walnut Grove For Discussion Purposes Only, Subject to Change 9
Evaluation Results Sites C-E-1 and C-E-4 ranked as least favorable and not recommended for use unless other 3 sites not implementable Land use • • Proximity to existing development • Geotechnical issues Site C-E-3 is apparent best site • Lowest effects on existing property and features Excellent river conditions • Site C-E-5 • Low effects on existing property and features Good river conditions • Site C-E-2 Longest intake structure • • More substantial property effects • Adequate river conditions For Discussion Purposes Only, Subject to Change 10
Intake Type and Sizing – Comparison Vertical Flat Plate Screen Cylindrical Tee Screen Freeport Intake Screen Site C-E-2 For Discussion Purposes Only, Subject to Change 11
Construction Noise is Key Concern at Intake Sites Unmitigated Noise Level at Pile Mitigated Noise Level at Pile Pile Driver without Noise Reduction Equipment Source: Carpenters Training Institute 1 Mile Radius from Pile - Mitigated Noise Reduction Equipment - Shroud For Discussion Purposes Only, Subject to Change 12
FEBRUARY 12, 2020 For Discussion Purposes Only, Subject to Change For Discussion Purposes Only, Subject to Change 13
Siting Methodology FEBRUARY 12, 2020 • Siting methodology breakdown is in handout packet • Methodology is broken out into criteria and sub-criteria • Sub-criteria are assigned an Importance Factor to reflect their weighting • Criteria are based on design and construction considerations • The CEQA process will study additional environmental considerations For Discussion Purposes Only, Subject to Change Not Reviewed For Discussion Purposes Only, Subject to Change 14
Central Alignment –Shaft Site A FEBRUARY 12, 2020 For Discussion Purposes Only, Subject to Change 15
Questions or Clarifications? 16
Recommend
More recommend
