DCA Stakeholder Engagement Committee Delta Protection Commission - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
dca stakeholder engagement committee
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

DCA Stakeholder Engagement Committee Delta Protection Commission - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Feb 25, 2024 304 likes •475 views

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

slide-1
SLIDE 1

Delta Protection Commission Meeting

March 19, 2020

DCA Stakeholder Engagement Committee

1

slide-2
SLIDE 2

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

slide-3
SLIDE 3

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

  • n discussion and feedback

Compensation for time commitment

3

slide-4
SLIDE 4

SEC Members

  • Phil Robertson, Recreation
  • James Cox, Sports Fishing
  • Cecille Giacoma, Public Safety
  • David Gloski, At Large Contra Costa
  • Douglas Hsia, At Large Sacramento
  • Lindsey Liebig, Agriculture
  • Mel Lytle, Ph.D., Delta Water District
  • Karen Mann, South Delta Local Business
  • Phillip Merlo, At Large San Joaquin County
  • Barbara Barrigan Parrilla, Environmental Justice
  • Isabella Gonzales Potter, Environment NGO - Aquatic
  • Anna Swenson, At Large Yolo County
  • Jesus Tarango, Tribal Government (Alt)
  • Malissa Tayaba, Tribal Government
  • James Wallace, Delta History/Heritage
  • Angelica Whaley, North Delta Local Business
  • Sean Wirth, Environmental NGO, Terrestrial
  • Tom Hardesty, At Large Solano Co.
  • Gilbert Cosio, Ex-Officio
  • Michael Moran, Ex-Officio

4

slide-5
SLIDE 5

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

slide-6
SLIDE 6

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

slide-7
SLIDE 7

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

slide-8
SLIDE 8

Example SEC Presentation Material

8

slide-9
SLIDE 9

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

Sacramento River Walnut Grove Hood Clarksburg Courtland Paintersville Vorden

Capacity Number of Intakes 3000 cfs 1 intake 4500 cfs 2 intakes 6000 cfs 2 intakes 7500 cfs 3 intakes

For Discussion Purposes Only, Subject to Change

9

slide-10
SLIDE 10

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

slide-11
SLIDE 11

Vertical Flat Plate Screen Freeport Intake Screen Cylindrical Tee Screen

Intake Type and Sizing – Comparison

Site C-E-2

For Discussion Purposes Only, Subject to Change

11

slide-12
SLIDE 12

Construction Noise is Key Concern at Intake Sites

Noise Reduction Equipment - Shroud Pile Driver without Noise Reduction Equipment Source: Carpenters Training Institute

Unmitigated Noise Level at Pile 1 Mile Radius from Pile - Mitigated Mitigated Noise Level at Pile

For Discussion Purposes Only, Subject to Change

12

slide-13
SLIDE 13

FEBRUARY 12, 2020 For Discussion Purposes Only, Subject to Change For Discussion Purposes Only, Subject to Change

13

slide-14
SLIDE 14

Siting Methodology

  • 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

FEBRUARY 12, 2020 For Discussion Purposes Only, Subject to Change Not Reviewed For Discussion Purposes Only, Subject to Change

14

slide-15
SLIDE 15

Central Alignment –Shaft Site A

FEBRUARY 12, 2020 For Discussion Purposes Only, Subject to Change

15

slide-16
SLIDE 16

Questions or Clarifications?

16