Delta Protection Commission MeetingMarch 19, 2020

DCA Stakeholder Engagement Committee

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

• 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

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 previousmeeting topic

• Technical presentation with Q&A

• Public Comment Period

Follow-up:

• Weekly support calls

• Tours being scheduled to visit relevantsites

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

Intake Siting

• Siting study area is from the American Riverto Sutter Slough

• Sites on the east bank viable with the NOPcorridors

• West bank not viable due to pooraccess

• 1 to 3 intake sites required for likelyalternatives

Sacramento River

Walnut Grove

Hood

Clarksburg

CourtlandPaintersville

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 Change9

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 Change10

Vertical Flat Plate Screen

Freeport Intake ScreenCylindrical Tee Screen

Intake Type and Sizing – Comparison

Site C-E-2

For Discussion Purposes Only, Subject to Change11

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 Change12

FEBRUARY 12, 2020

For Discussion Purposes Only, Subject to Change

For Discussion Purposes Only, Subject to Change13

Siting Methodology

• Siting methodology breakdown is inhandout packet

• Methodology is broken out into criteriaand sub-criteria

• Sub-criteria are assigned an ImportanceFactor to reflect their weighting

• Criteria are based on design andconstruction considerations

• The CEQA process will study additionalenvironmental considerations

FEBRUARY 12, 2020

For Discussion Purposes Only, Subject to Change Not Reviewed

For Discussion Purposes Only, Subject to Change14

Central Alignment –Shaft Site A FEBRUARY 12, 2020

For Discussion Purposes Only, Subject to Change15

Questions or Clarifications?

16