August 30, 2023 Engineering Criteria Review Board

1. Call to Order, Meeting Procedure Review
2. Staff Updates
3. Public Comment Period for Items not on the Agenda
4. Item of Discussion: Cargill’s Solar Sea Salt System Maintenance and Operations Project – Berm Stability (BCDC Permit Application 2021.003.00) (PDF).
   The Board will review geotechnical reports and data on berm stability, addressing issues raised by the ECRB in their first meeting with the Applicant of November 16, 2022. These documents are related to the Cargill’s application to the Commission for the “Solar Sea Salt System Maintenance and Operations Project” (O&M Project), BCDC Permit Application No. 2021.003.00, to continue maintenance and operational activities at Cargill’s solar salt facilities located in Newark, Fremont and Redwood City over a ten-year authorization period. The Board will advise BCDC staff and the Applicant as to additional studies, analyses, or actions to be undertaken to minimize the risk and consequences to the berm stability specifically for Ponds P2-12 and P2-13 due to a seismic event, overtopping, erosion, or sea level rise.
   (Sam Fielding) [415/352-3665; sam.fielding@bcdc.ca.gov]
   Attachment A (PDF) // Attachment B (PDF) // Presentation (PDF)
5. Adjournment

Meeting Transcript

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): We are recording. Proceed. Great. Thank you. Guys. I’d like to welcome everyone to this meeting of the Bay Conservation and Development Commission engineering criteria for today’s August thirtieth.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): 2023. This meeting will be recorded.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): we are meeting here in Vcbcs.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): the floor conference room today.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): and the public can join

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): either here in person or on the zoom link

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): and

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): everyone who is here.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): From the

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): Rob, do you wanna go?

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): Sure. Okay. So good afternoon. Welcome to this

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): virtual Bcd C. And in person as well. Bc. DC engineering criteria review board meeting.

I’m Rod Iwashta. I’m the chair of Bcd’s Engineering Criteria Review Board.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): Our first order of business is to call the role Board members. Please unmute yourselves, and to respond, and then mute yourselves again after responding.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): Jen, please call the roll

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: Rob, you Rushka!

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: Jim! French vice chair of the board.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): What’s that?

Jim French: So that’s the

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: alright got it?

Yes.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): Bob Batalio.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): it’s not present.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: and also not present.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: Jima Kasawi.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): present

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: precise

Kris May (Pathways Climate Institute): present.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: Marlene Gossorki

Ramin Golesorkhi: present

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: Maya Travisaro.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: and I know she couldn’t be here today.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): Nick Sutar here.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): Gail Johnson.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: I’m participating as a public attendee because I’m

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): presence here. Okay?

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): And Philip Travetti.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: I know he is absent

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): and just Samantha

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: applicant cargo today.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: And we have so we are doing to conduct business.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): Alright.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: Wanna share some instructions on how we can participate in this meeting

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): so that it runs as smoothly as possible. First, everyone, please make sure you have your microphones or phones muted to avoid background noise

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): for board members. If you have a webcam, please make sure it is on so that everyone can

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): period. That is part of an agenda item. You will need to do so in one of 2 ways. First, if you are attending on the Zoom Platform. Please raise your virtual hand in zoom.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): if you are new to zoom, and you joined our meeting, using the zoom application. Click the hand at the bottom of your screen, the hand should turn blue when raised

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): the second way. If you are joining our meeting via phone, you must press Star 9 on your keypad to raise your hand to make a comment.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): We will call on individuals who have raised their hands and the order they were raised during public comment period for each project. Finally, every now and then you will hear me refer to the meeting host Grace.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): who is acting as host for the meeting behind the scenes to ensure that the technology moves the meeting forward smoothly and consistently.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): Please be patient with us if it’s needed so a little bit about ex parte communications Board members in case you have inadvertently forgotten to provide

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): staff BC. DC. Staff, with a notice on any written or oral ex parte communications. I invite members who have engaged in any such communications to report on them at this point by raising your hand and unmuting yourself.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): Jen, has any board member raised his or her hand.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): I see none. Okay, great.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): Okay. On to agenda. Item, 3. Staff updates. Jen, you have staff updates.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: Yes, thank you, Cheri Rushka. I’d like to provide an update on a few items.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: On September twenty-seventh next month. I believe we will be meeting to discuss 2 permanent applications

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: with the design of the San Francisco Airport Shoreline Protection program.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: and also the consistency determination for the Us. Army corps of Engineers, Oakland Harbor, turning basins, lightning project. and also hopefully, we will have an engineer to recommend to you to fill the vacant alternate spot on the board.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: There currently no permit applications signed up for the October or November meetings, but that could change.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): On December sixth the Ecr meeting scheduled for them. India, based in Shoreline Park is currently on the agenda

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: and all future Ecrb meetings. After this one will be held on the first floor up of this building in the year Bergwina Conference room.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: And that’s it.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: Okay, on to other announcements. Are there any announcements from any members of the board?

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: Okay, so now move on

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: Can I take a moment just real quick?

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): as the ecr I’m II had always thought that we were not able to even attend meetings.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): But

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): you know Justin’s here, and I’m just curious if

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): that is

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): now allowed, or if this is just or what

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): michael and I went over this

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): participants.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: The

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: yeah, I think it’s fine

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: or

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): Justin. Justin’s, Chris, hey? I think you’re gonna be refused from participating in at all. I think we had given the

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: suggestion that if someone else was able to provide the presentation that providing that would be,

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: you know, I think, ideal. But ultimately, you know, it’s Cargill’s call on

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: that. And I think, as an advisory body to the Commission. Ultimately, you know. There’s not a significant conflict of interest issue that, you know

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: is going to.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: you know, undermine the ultimate decision here. I think the Commission.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: if and when you know this permanent application is brought to the Commission, don’t be made aware of that Justin is an Ecr member, but was used from participating. But provided Cardel’s presentation before the Ecrb. When it made its recommendation to the Commission.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: Okay onto agenda. Item number 3, public comment period for items, not on the agenda.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): So right now we will take any public comments for items, not on the agenda for public comments on the Cargill presentation. Please wait until after the presentation.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): After you are called on, you will be unmuted so that you can share your comment.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): Please state your name and affiliation at the beginning of your remarks. Remember, you have a 3 a limit of 3 min to speak on an item.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): please keep your comments respectful. We are here to listen to everyone who wishes to address us, but everyone has the responsibility to act in a civil manner. We will not tolerate hate, speech, threats made directly or indirectly, and or abusive language.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): We will mute anyone who fails to follow these guidelines, or who exceeds the established time limits without permission.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): So

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: is there any public comment?

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: Is there anyone online remotely to make a public comment? There’s nobody here in person.

BCDC HOST: I don’t see any hands raised on the attendees.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): No hands are raised. Okay. Great

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): onto agenda. Item number 4 the item of discussion. Cargill, Solar Sea salt system, maintenance and Operations project mixed. See salts, ponds, berm stability.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): So let’s see, first up. Jen Hyman, senior engineer from BCDC. Will make a short presentation with some background information on the issues

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): before the Board today, followed by Cargill’s presentation.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): I would like to remind the Board and participating members to please turn on your video when you’re speaking, and answer or answering questions

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): when you’re not actively engaged with the board, please turn off your videos so that we minimize distractions on the screen.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): okay.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): Jen, it’s on to you.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: Thank you. Good afternoon very much to the members of the engineering criteria Review Board.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: I’m Jenna, and I’m a senior engineer here at PC. DC. And Secretary of the Engineering Criteria Review Board, and this will be the Board’s second review of the cargo system, maintenance and Operations project.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: I have some background information on the project to share with you.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: Solar system maintenance operation permit meeting today. This is the agenda for the meeting.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: We already took public comments on the agenda. I’m going to give up presentation on background information with your presentation by Cargill and their representatives.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: we will take public comment on the presentation.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: and then there can be discussion by the engineering criteria view board and applicant team, and then we will adjourn

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: carcass maintenance and operations permit.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): was originally issued by BC. DC. In as a 10 year permit.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): Authorization has been extended. Numerous times

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: has applied for a new 10 year permit.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: Ecdc. Is preparing an environmental assessment for Ea to comply with sequa, assessing the potential impacts, continued maintenance and operational activities.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: The Ecr meeting today focusing on the stability and safety of the earth and Burns surrounding ponds and at Cargill’s Newark Plant 2.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: These ponds store mixed sea salts

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: due to its high salinity, and the fact that it’s ionic imbalance differs from day water

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: mixed sea salts could contribute

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: to potential environmental impacts if overtopping, scour and erosion caused a release of brine to the Bay. And that’s a quote from a report by acom from 2021.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: This figure shows the location of the 2. Mix sea salt ponds, p. 2, 12, and p. 2, 13. It’s located

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: just south of the Dumbarton Bridge, on the east side of the bay in Newark.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: circled here in red.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: This is also an aerial photo of the 2 mixed sea salt ponds and

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: taken from Google Maps. And you can see surrounding the ponds are tidal wetlands.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: On June seventh

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: I took a tour of the mix sea salt ponds at the Cargill facility.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: And this is a photo of the berm along p. 2, 12, that faces the bay

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: and see the

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: reddish water

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: of pond on the left, and the tidal marsh on the right side of the berm.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: Aecom’s 2021 sea level rise. Assessment of the Cargill facilities for Cargill

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: includes this figure.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: This figure shows

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: pond overtopping and

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: inundation

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: during a scenario of 100 year storm tide, plus 6 inches of sea level rise.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: Vcdc. Staff proposes that the new 10 year permit authorization period lasts 10 years, from 2024 to 2034,

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: and sea level rise at 2030 is estimated at 6 inches. Acom’s sea level rise. Risk assessment for Carville shows some overtopping of the mixy salt palm berms

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: in this scenario of a hundred year storm tide, plus 6 inches of sea level rise, and it’s indicated in this figure by the yellow lines along the berms around the ponds.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: So a little bit of a review of the Ecr’s review of this of the Cargill Mixy Salt Pond Burns

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: and the Ucr. Had their first meeting on the topic of the stability of the mixed sea salt. Pom. Burns, on November sixteenth, 2022,

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: in a follow up meeting in a follow up to that meeting. The ECRB. Requested that Cargill provide 7 different things. I’ll read them off now.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: A geotechnical investigation of the firms. site-specific surveys and Cross-sections of the Firms. History of mixed Sea Saltburn maintenance.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: Static Condition. Assessment of the Burns analyzing daily Operations. Ties and Seepage on Berm Stability seismic analysis of burn stability with earthquake scenarios, including 100 year flood, base flood event, scenario.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: an ecological risk assessment due to potential release of mixed sea salt into the environment

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: describing expected impacts from berm failures on adjacent communities or human developments.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: Second, presentation to the Ecrv which this is and an updated sea level rise, risk assessment, including wave run up wave-induced sperm erosion

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: and the risk of groundwater on berm stability. The Cargill submitted reports on items, one through 5 A, B and C, which are the focus of discussion today.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: Cargo will make a presentation also on Item 7. Today, the updated seal or as risk assessment. But this report has not yet been submitted to Pcpc.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: So in my staff report to the board

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: providing the information on today’s presentation, I ask the 7 questions for the Board to consider to day

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: are the scenarios and criteria in the static and seismic firm stability. assessment adequate for assessing the risk of berm failure at Ponds, p. 2, 12 and p. 2, 13.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: Do the static and seismic stability calculations for the Burns adequately characterize and model the berm’s civility. Stability. Considering the available geologic data and berm history, including any berm raising to address subsidence and sea level rise in 6 inches of sea level rise predicted for 2030.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: Does the scope and the Geotechnical Work plan provide data to increase the confidence of the geologic model and used instability modeling? And do you recommend updating the Burn Stability modeling.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: Following the execution of the work plan.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: does the updated Cross section memo with the 2 cross sections adequately address the Ecrb request for site, specific surveys and cross sections of the Burns. Considering the risks of worm failure related to both seismic stability and erosion from overtopping

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: does the summary of the history of p. 2, 12 and p. 2, 13. Firms adequately address the request for this information.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: Do you agree that the results of the berm stability modeling indicate that an ecological and human health risk analysis is not needed.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: Does the Board have any other concerns regarding burn stability that have not been addressed.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: So that’s the end of my presentation. And now we’ll hear from

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: Carpel’s presentation going up to the minute. Let’s

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: you probably do.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: Then Michael Willange be on the phone.

That’s okay.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: Okay.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: Thank you for your patience while we

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: get Cargill presenters added to the zoom.

BCDC HOST: I think I moved them all over. The only one

BCDC HOST: I see that doesn’t move over is Gina young?

BCDC HOST: Okay.

Gayle Johnson: if they’re presenting, we’re not hearing anything online.

Connie Lee, Cargill: send the environment

Connie Lee, Cargill: and also explored some conceptual sea level Rise adaptation strategies that could be implemented

Connie Lee, Cargill: to continue operations at the facility for the seal Brice scenarios that were evaluated as part of that assessment.

Connie Lee, Cargill: and as follow up to the fall meeting with the Ecr. PC. DC. Requested, the Cargill. Evaluate the impacts of wave run-up and overtopping, including the effects of C-level rise

Connie Lee, Cargill: on the bayfront berms. And that is what is being presented today.

Connie Lee, Cargill: I think we might have gone.

Connie Lee, Cargill: Okay. So the purpose of this assessment, was first acknowledging that the prior study focused primarily on the impacts of

Connie Lee, Cargill: extreme tides and storm surge on the berms and so this assessment includes consideration of the effects of wave run up and overtopping

on the berms for existing and future conditions, with sea level rise.

Connie Lee, Cargill: and the way that we approached this was by looking at 2 metrics to characterize the exposure of the berms, to wave overtopping

Connie Lee, Cargill: the first is tabulating the duration of berm toe exceedance during conditions for wave height. At the toe the berm exceeds a threshold of one foot.

Connie Lee, Cargill: and that was quantified in terms of average hours per year.

Connie Lee, Cargill: and the second was looking at the frequency of berm crest overtopping by waves, and that was quantified by characterizing the return period of the coastal storm event that would result in overtopping of the berm crest. So we I’ll I’ll get into that in a little bit more detail. But I just wanted to kind of emphasize that there’s these 2 metrics that we’re looking at.

Connie Lee, Cargill: And so all of the analysis and the maps that are included in this presentation are focused on sort of presenting graphically,

Connie Lee, Cargill: the results of that analysis. And these 2 metrics.

Connie Lee, Cargill: So the results of this will help Cargill identify the burn segments that may experience increased exposure to wave impacts in the future due to sea level rise.

Connie Lee, Cargill: So the approach that I’ll provide an overview of today and our plans to follow up with a more detailed memo and technical documentation, outlining the data sources and methods and findings for Re review by Vcdc. And Vcrb. But the steps that we follow there’s 6 steps that are outlined here.

Connie Lee, Cargill: first laying out the wave analysis, transect layout. which are essentially locations along the base shoreline where the analysis was performed.

Connie Lee, Cargill: We then extracted bithymmetry and topography, elevation profiles at each of those locations, and that was used to identify key sort of geometric and geomorphic

Connie Lee, Cargill: parameters on the berm’s, including the berm toe and the berm crest elevations.

Connie Lee, Cargill: We then subdivided the shoreline into approximately 300 foot segments, and assigned a representative wave analysis transect to each of those segments.

Connie Lee, Cargill: We then used a a long time series of simulated water level and wave model output data. to characterize water level and wait conditions at each point along the shoreline

Connie Lee, Cargill: and construct a time series of wave runup on each of those locations.

Connie Lee, Cargill: and then we performed a statistical analysis on that data to estimate

exceedance levels for wave run of elevations

Connie Lee, Cargill: that we’re then used to compare to the burn, tow, and burn crest elevations to assess the potential for overtopping and the frequency of which that would occur.

Connie Lee, Cargill: and then those results were tabulated.

Connie Lee, Cargill: and then translate it in Gis onto maps, depicting segments that could be exposed to You know each of these 2 metrics that we used

Connie Lee, Cargill: so we have those figures as well. Just in the bottom left is that wave run up plus water level.

Connie Lee, Cargill: so the figure on the bottom left. The blue line is showing the still water level, the Tide Time series, and then the red is is sort of the corresponding wave hype

Connie Lee, Cargill: so this figure does not yet combine everything. But the middle figure does show the total water level time series. And those are just kind of example plots. But I have some more specific.

Cases we can look at.

Connie Lee, Cargill: Okay. so this slide shows the process to lay out the transacts for the wave analysis.

Connie Lee, Cargill: The wave analysis transacts. These are oned transsex that are shown in yellow they’re numbered along the New York shoreline here from one to 37. And so the way of run-up analysis was conducted at each of these locations.

Connie Lee, Cargill: and the transects were placed to capture variations along the shoreline in terms of the shoreline orientation and wave exposure.

Connie Lee, Cargill: The presence or absence of fronting marsh in front of the berm.

Connie Lee, Cargill: Whether or not the shoreline is armored or unarmoured. So in some cases that required a higher density of transsex, because those conditions were changing

Connie Lee, Cargill: along the shoreline pretty rapidly, and in other cases where you had sort of straight uniform stretches, the transact layout is a little bit more sparse.

Connie Lee, Cargill: and the other thing I want to point out here is all of the Orange dots. Show the locations of the Wave and Water Level Model Time Series data. That we extracted from the Fema coastal flood study for San Francisco Bay. And so each wave analysis transect is essentially paired with a model output point, and those water level and wave conditions from that point are then used for the way they run up analysis at each transect.

Connie Lee, Cargill: And similarly, this shows the transect layout for the Redwood City shoreline.

Connie Lee, Cargill: It’s a much smaller area. So there’s fewer transacts here. But you can see that in total, we have 48 analysis locations.

Connie Lee, Cargill: throughout the cartel facility.

Connie Lee, Cargill: Okay? So this slide shows that next step of assigning a representative transect to each of the segments of berm. So we recognize that there’s variability in the berm press elevations along the shoreline

Connie Lee, Cargill: And through some kind of evaluation of that variability and and testing. We’ve decided on a 300 foot binning

Connie Lee, Cargill: of the firm. And so the orange line show all of the subdivisions of each of the firm segments in some cases like, where you see the transition from 2 to 3

Connie Lee, Cargill: there was, you know, a single segment might contain a segment of unarmored firm and a piece of armoured berm. So we added additional subdivisions in there. So there’s some subdivisions that are

Connie Lee, Cargill: shorter than that 300 foot segment. But in general, that was how the scrolling was partitioned, and within each of those segments we use the Lidar data that was available to calculate the average crest elevation

Connie Lee, Cargill: within that segment and assigned it to be representative of the Berm Crest elevation within that segment. So if you go to the next slide. It kind of shows how

Connie Lee, Cargill: each of those transects is mapped.

Connie Lee, Cargill: And so, for example, analysis transact, one is assigned to those first few segments at the north end, and 2 is assigned to the next view, and then you hit 3, which is representative of an armoured segment. So that’s kind of representing the the red color segment.

Connie Lee, Cargill: So this was basically a bookkeeping exercise, and this allowed us to use to know which wave run up results to assign to each segment of firm. So we did this for the whole shoreline. But this is just a snapshot showing what the process looks like. At the northern end of the Newark Ponds

Connie Lee, Cargill: Phony Directional.

Connie Lee, Cargill: But I guess it’s a few slides back. But

Connie Lee, Cargill: yeah, maybe if you go back to this slide with the transact layout.

Connie Lee, Cargill: you get one more that should show it. Yeah. So the so the orange points are where the waiting one level. They are. The wave data from the model is directional

Connie Lee, Cargill: and so we’re using the way period and wave direction from all of it, and then bring those pay conditions in to the yeah.

Nicholas SITAR: Excuse me, may I ask in all of these analyses.

Nicholas SITAR: are you taking into account long-term settlement? Do you have data on the crest settlement of these levies of these farms?

Connie Lee, Cargill: Yeah. So the question was whether this analysis accounts for 700 firm is not. We’re we’re taking that existing crest elevation average along that segment.

Connie Lee, Cargill: And and using that as a

Connie Lee, Cargill: okay.

Connie Lee, Cargill: we can jump back.

Connie Lee, Cargill: Okay.

so this slide

Connie Lee, Cargill: sort of defined some terminology.

Connie Lee, Cargill: Just to kind of Orient everyone.

Connie Lee, Cargill: We’re talking about wave run up, which is commonly referred to as the total water level.

Connie Lee, Cargill: and it’s called total water level, because it encapsulates all of the various coastal processes that contribute to flooding at the shoreline. So that includes the astronomical tide

Connie Lee, Cargill: storm surge, which which accounts for low, you know, low atmospheric pressure that can result in a rise in the water level.

Connie Lee, Cargill: Wind effects.

Connie Lee, Cargill: you know. Periodic El Nino effects. They can also elevate water levels at the shoreline. So all of those effects of the tide and the storm surge, or sort of already accounted for in the in the hydro dynamic model that was developed as part of the Fema study.

Connie Lee, Cargill: And then we add the wave analysis pieces at each of those transect locations which include wave setup, which is a super elevation of the water level of the shoreline, due to the presence of breaking waves, which kind of pile water level up against the shore, and then wave run up, which is that last piece of the wave actually breaking, and then running up the base of the berm.

Connie Lee, Cargill: And so the the relative magnitudes of each of these components are are shown here. And so when we’re talking about these extreme total water level events events that occur with, say, a return period of say, you know, every 10 years, 50 years, 100 years. Those events, and these, like annual maxima that we’re using in our analysis, are on the order of 10 to 15 feet.

Connie Lee, Cargill: elevation relative to the nabd Kba, datum.

Connie Lee, Cargill: So yeah, the schematic here kind of shows the waves coming in. In some cases we have a marsh plane. In some cases there’s there’s no marsh and the berm. The face of the berm sort of intersects a mud plaque, and there and and in those cases the berm is generally armored

Connie Lee, Cargill: and so we’re accounting for the wave breaking at the burn tow and looking at that wave height, and that feeds into the wave runoff calculation, and then calculating the the elevation of that total water level

Connie Lee, Cargill: on the face of the berm, and comparing it to the berm crest elevation, to determine whether or not overtopping is occurring.

Kris May (Pathways Climate Institute): Other.

Connie Lee, Cargill: Yeah. So just to clarify, I think everything else you’ll hear today is focused on the Mss. Pause. The request for the wave run up. Study was to do that for the entire facility.

Connie Lee, Cargill: So so all the neurons and legacy are available.

Kris May (Pathways Climate Institute): I have a question, too, back on the slide that you were on

Connie Lee, Cargill: schematic. It shows the overtopping with no water going into the pond. It’s just ending at the pond. Did you also analyze the amount of water that how much could make it all the way over the burn into the pond?

Connie Lee, Cargill: Yes, so we haven’t calculated any of our talking volumes. We’ve mainly been looking at

Connie Lee, Cargill: sort of the number of exceedances and duration that overtopping would occur.

Connie Lee, Cargill: So we haven’t looked at, say. overtpping volumes or velocity of water

Connie Lee, Cargill: extent, to which

Connie Lee, Cargill: overtpping with travel across the top. I mean, in general, the firm presss are relatively wide.

Connie Lee, Cargill: So wouldn’t expect that there would be a huge volume flowing down the back. But certainly for larger.

Connie Lee, Cargill: See? Otherized scenarios and large volumes of overtopping.

Connie Lee, Cargill: This. This is a okay. So finally, to get to that question, this is a a typical section showing some of the typical dimensions.

Connie Lee, Cargill: In this case, we’re we’re flip now, so the bay is on the right side, and the phones are on the left side.

Connie Lee, Cargill: I’m just sort of showing the the relative width of the Berm press

Connie Lee, Cargill: relative to the, you know, kind of side slopes and hype. So so they’re generally relatively wide compared to the hype. So I think there’d be more discussion with this later.

Connie Lee, Cargill: Okay, so to get that John, into your question about the Total Water Level Time Series. This is an example

Connie Lee, Cargill: showing the time series of total water level at transept 2 which is at the northern end of the Newark ponds.

And there’s a couple of things I wanted to point out. Here. One is the the model that I’ve been mentioning.

Connie Lee, Cargill: The model that was developed for the Fema crystal flood study has a 50 year, 54 year on cast

Connie Lee, Cargill: of water level and weight conditions with hourly data.

Connie Lee, Cargill: And so you can see, you know, we’re capturing all of this kind of daily seasonal inter annual fluctuations in the water level and rate conditions, and in general, the kind of annual Max run of events that are shown here are these red dots, and they’re on the order of like 9 to 10 feet elevation at this site. And you know, it’s really only those kind of like perfectly aligned combinations of

Connie Lee, Cargill: high tide, storm, surge, wind from the right direction, the result in the really high run of events.

Connie Lee, Cargill: And so you can see the the firm crest. Elevation at this location is approximately.

Connie Lee, Cargill: say, 13 or 13 and a half feet and so you can see that over that 54 year Time series, there’s a couple of events around the 1,982, 83 Amenio, where we’ve run up would have been projected to kind of approach platform press elevation. So essentially, what we’re doing at each of these transact locations is creating a time series like this.

Connie Lee, Cargill: and then using it as the basis for the extreme value analysis to estimate the elevations associated with those extreme run up events, and then also comparing those to the Berm toe elevation and the Berm Press elevation to get it. Those 2 metrics

Connie Lee, Cargill: that are used to kind of characterize the way run up exposure.

Connie Lee, Cargill: Question. Yes.

Connie Lee, Cargill: one only to 2010.

Connie Lee, Cargill: Oh, that’s when that’s basically when the the modeling effort

Connie Lee, Cargill: was was done for the Dean of Whistle Force study. So there is no data beyond 22.

Connie Lee, Cargill: Well, there certainly is data. But this modeling

software 2010. It’s

Connie Lee, Cargill: that was just when the work was done.

Connie Lee, Cargill: So so we’ve we’ve leveraged that prior modeling study. We haven’t done

Connie Lee, Cargill: you had to demand of modeling data specifically for this

Connie Lee, Cargill: purposes of this assessment.

Connie Lee, Cargill: So in fact.

Connie Lee, Cargill: any climate change, recent climate change.

Connie Lee, Cargill: the insights

Connie Lee, Cargill: I’m not in here, right? I would say yes and no.

Connie Lee, Cargill: we’re we’re adding in this levelized piece, so we’ve conducted this analysis, using the baseline time series

Connie Lee, Cargill: and then repeated it for 3 c levelize scenarios 6 inches 12 inches and 36 inches.

Connie Lee, Cargill: So just the sea level rise piece of climate change is included.

Connie Lee, Cargill: But storms are getting more intense, too, because I see that a lot. So my question is

Connie Lee, Cargill: his date, or Wendy goes to 2 things. I’m not clear is this data or this model

Connie Lee, Cargill: modeling? So I’m not the one.

Connie Lee, Cargill: So if it’s only modeling, that’s one thing. But is this data.

Connie Lee, Cargill: it’s a model driven by observational data. So the the record of water levels in the model. The model is driven by 0 tides at the San Francisco tide station.

Connie Lee, Cargill: It’s also driven by observed. When data.

Connie Lee, Cargill: various airports around the bay.

Connie Lee, Cargill: So it’s it’s it’s it’s a model. But it’s intended to be a model that simulates the historical conditions as they occur.

Connie Lee, Cargill: I’m very familiar with

Connie Lee, Cargill: is not well calibrated for waves, because there’s not a lot of data available in San Francisco Bay to calibrate a full San Francisco Bay.

Connie Lee, Cargill: and I don’t know. I’m gonna ask this question later. But

Connie Lee, Cargill: and my experience in working now with the storms that occur

Connie Lee, Cargill: from New Jersey and through March, particularly during the huge bomb cyclos.

Connie Lee, Cargill: Many cities in the bay had wave heights overtopping and flooding, that exceeded anything that occurred during the 54 year period. Amazing. The videos that people have collected is that the wave dynamics?

Connie Lee, Cargill: So I don’t know if you guys have looked at the data or tried to model some of the events that happened after 2,010. But I would definitely encourage you

Connie Lee, Cargill: to do that, is it?

Connie Lee, Cargill: Yeah, it is

Connie Lee, Cargill: since, particularly since this way modeling. And it was not calibrated. But we now have some storm events with very good ways to kind of

Connie Lee, Cargill: kind of look at.

Connie Lee, Cargill: So your analysis is basically closed 2020, 2020, 2020, 21.

Connie Lee, Cargill: Well, the the analysis goes through 2010,

Connie Lee, Cargill: I mean.

Connie Lee, Cargill: we are to wrivings

Connie Lee, Cargill: extreme value statistics from the slime cast.

Connie Lee, Cargill: So your data was 2010. Wasn’t your analysis performed in 2,021?

Connie Lee, Cargill: Yes.

Connie Lee, Cargill: right? So they 2021.

Connie Lee, Cargill: Well, this this analysis is new, right? The 2,021. They just looked at new analysis, looking at like.

Connie Lee, Cargill: But it

Connie Lee, Cargill: but it’s just not. It’s based on the model. It was completed in 2010. So

Connie Lee, Cargill: any events that happen after 2010

not be

Connie Lee, Cargill: represented in the slides. That’s true.

Connie Lee, Cargill: So the reliability of this particular model beyond 2010

Connie Lee, Cargill: is

Connie Lee, Cargill: who is bad or indifferent?

Connie Lee, Cargill: I

Connie Lee, Cargill: I don’t think it’s bad. I mean, I think it’s some of the best available modeling data that’s out there. It’s one of the most comprehensive modeling studies that’s been done for San Francisco Bay

Connie Lee, Cargill: already saying it should be up there and based on

Connie Lee, Cargill: should be updated by current by recent observations.

Connie Lee, Cargill: It’s a very significant model. I don’t think the model could be rerun through present day to take for account. And I agree that it’s like the most conference of data that we have for today. Absolutely.

Connie Lee, Cargill: But I think,

Connie Lee, Cargill: I think the team still could look at individual events that have occurred, and add them into the analysis, just to see what it would be with these bigger storm events.

Connie Lee, Cargill: and how that might affect some of the the

yeah. Yes.

Connie Lee, Cargill: Another question on simple question, what’s the date on the Survey date survey for the tops of rooms?

Connie Lee, Cargill: I will double check, but I believe it’s 2016 Lidar data

Connie Lee, Cargill: project specific record of engineers. It’s not project specific. It was collected for another purpose, but it was. It was purchased from the vendor

Connie Lee, Cargill: towards 2020

Connie Lee, Cargill: point of view.

Connie Lee, Cargill: I think it was me.

Connie Lee, Cargill: Okay.

so we’ve been talking a little bit about this

Connie Lee, Cargill: historical time series of data

Connie Lee, Cargill: at each location, and the next step in the process was to extract the annual maximum events and perform a statistical analysis

Connie Lee, Cargill: to estimate return carriers associated with total water levels of different elevations at each wave analysis transact. And so what we did was we use the 54 year time series. The annual maximum from those and estimated

Connie Lee, Cargill: essentially a a total water level exceedance curve

Connie Lee, Cargill: where we we came up with estimates of extreme total water levels renew from a one year event all the way up to a 500 year. Event.

Connie Lee, Cargill: And then we looked at those those 2 metrics that I mentioned. So the first one is is essentially

Connie Lee, Cargill: intersecting the Berm Press elevation at each of those 300 foot segments with that quota water level curve to estimate the return period, total water level event that would cause overtopping with the berm

Connie Lee, Cargill: so that could be like, maybe under current conditions. It would take a hundred year event to overtop the firm. If you add 6 inches of sea level rise. Maybe now it’s a 50 year event. You got another 6 inches. Maybe it’s a 25 year event.

Connie Lee, Cargill: So this analysis kind of allows us to project that sort of relative decrease in the level of protection provided by the firm over time due to sea level rise.

Connie Lee, Cargill: And then the second metric is looking at kind of the

Connie Lee, Cargill: we were trying to characterize the potential for wave impact directly on the face of the firms. And so the metric that was analyzed was basically counting up

Connie Lee, Cargill: for this 54 year time series, counting up the total number of hours for which the berm toe was exceeded by way of run up.

Connie Lee, Cargill: coupled with a wave hype greater than one foot.

Connie Lee, Cargill: and then divided by the length of the time series to calculate the average annual hours of burn to exceedance with waypipe graded at one foot, and that was done for. Each of the transsex.

Connie Lee, Cargill: So just to give an example of kind of what the output looks like that. You just have 3 example transsex here.

Connie Lee, Cargill: Where we’re showing just the 10 year total water level event and you can see how, as you add successive sea level rise, that 10 year event increases. So it turns out to it’s like, roughly 10 feet today, increasing to about 12 feet 13 feet, and then up to 16 feet.

Connie Lee, Cargill: As you add higher amounts of sea level. Rise.

Connie Lee, Cargill: So we have tables that have all of the results, for you know all of the transacts and all the different return periods as well. So that was used.

Connie Lee, Cargill: Okay, so that was kind of like the tabulation of the results. And then what we did was we took that that data and mapped it spatially,

Connie Lee, Cargill: onto a berm crest delineation.

Connie Lee, Cargill: And so this is the metric that depicts the return period that would result in

Connie Lee, Cargill: crest overtopping of each of the berm segments. And so these figures show a couple different things. The first is a delineation of the berm crest, and that’s the colored line.

Connie Lee, Cargill: The second is the the black hatching shows

Connie Lee, Cargill: existing armoring along the burns.

Connie Lee, Cargill: And so what you can see is as you progress. So if we pick one spot like the where it says so upon 5

Connie Lee, Cargill: and the the the bar on the bottom is covering up the labeling on the panels. But it basically goes

Connie Lee, Cargill: current conditions. 6 inches of sea level rise 12 inches of C over eyes and 36 inches of sea level rise. Those are the 4 panels.

Connie Lee, Cargill: I just wanna note that

Connie Lee, Cargill: is not current conditions. That’s the year 2,000. We’re almost at 2030 now. So

Connie Lee, Cargill: we should not be same deal with residents, 0 as current conditions anymore.

Connie Lee, Cargill: So, okay, so to.

Connie Lee, Cargill: So this is 0 added to the model

Connie Lee, Cargill: time series, which is

Connie Lee, Cargill: 2010.

Connie Lee, Cargill: Yeah. So split hairs a little bit. But

Connie Lee, Cargill: yeah, the sea level rise, numbers are intended to be added to year. 2,000 baseline conditions.

Nicholas SITAR: Well, III just out of curiosity, what has been the sea level arise between 2,010. And now, as far as the base concerned.

Connie Lee, Cargill: how much is it? Yeah, it’s hard to to tease out a term in such a short time. Period. I’ve I’ve looked at it.

Connie Lee, Cargill: You fit a line to the data over a couple of decades.

Connie Lee, Cargill: I don’t have that here, but I

Connie Lee, Cargill: I believe, if you like, did a trend line at this point, but that would be worth

Connie Lee, Cargill: they actually looked at observers up to 2020 using satellite and time pages. And then they also did

Connie Lee, Cargill: an extrapolation of what is most likely to happen by 2050 based on current trends. They don’t go past 2050 because it. you know, not experiencing a lot of other dynamics. So I think you can get that information without doing

Connie Lee, Cargill: analysis.

Connie Lee, Cargill: Yeah, I just wonder if that’s done.

Connie Lee, Cargill: Does that consider

Connie Lee, Cargill: the historical data before

Connie Lee, Cargill: the year 2,000? Or is it like recent. That is done from 1970 to 2020.

Connie Lee, Cargill: So a longer time period.

Connie Lee, Cargill: it’s yeah, it’s pretty robust. And you can download all of the analysis online.

Connie Lee, Cargill: What does that suggest for me?

Connie Lee, Cargill: Well, I mean, it definitely shows that we’re on track to to meet or exceed the 6 inches.

Connie Lee, Cargill: I think, by 2030. I think we’ve had about 5 inches of seal of arise so far

Connie Lee, Cargill: since 2,000. So yeah, maybe 3 inches since 5 inches since 2,000. We’re now in a but time of sea level rise is currently accelerating on the West Coast.

Connie Lee, Cargill: It’s looking like 5 inches in the last 23 years.

Connie Lee, Cargill: And I think, if you

Connie Lee, Cargill: yeah,

Connie Lee, Cargill: so so yeah, these are a series of of figures that essentially show the results of that analysis. what I wanted to kind of step through was, just if you kind of look at one location.

Connie Lee, Cargill: you can like, for example.

Connie Lee, Cargill: and

Connie Lee, Cargill: we’ll do t 2, 12.

Connie Lee, Cargill: Yeah, we’ll okay, yeah, we’ll do. We’ll talk. Okay. So for the in the top left panel

Connie Lee, Cargill: there’s generally generally greens and yellows which imply overtopping, which we kind of qualitatively qualit, qualitatively characterize as rare to very rare. So something greater than a 10 year.

Connie Lee, Cargill: maybe even greater than a hundred year event to result in overtopping.

And then, as you progress through the sea level, rise scenarios, you’re getting more oranges.

Connie Lee, Cargill: and then, of course, it’s 36 inches of sea level rise. That would be a very frequent event, something

Connie Lee, Cargill: annual or less than a 2 year event. So that’s the intent of these graphics is to kind of show

Connie Lee, Cargill: the progression of that exposure under the different seal rice scenarios.

Connie Lee, Cargill: I think it would be helpful to bring to that 10 to 100 here

Connie Lee, Cargill: down, and do like an additional bin, unless those numbers are like very close to each other. I’m sure that’s all documented what the numbers and stuff are in that report, but it’s like it.

Connie Lee, Cargill: Do you like.

Connie Lee, Cargill: yeah.

Connie Lee, Cargill: orange? And so does that mean a lot of what was yellow and 0 was probably closer to the 10. And I think.

Connie Lee, Cargill: yeah, we so we could. Add another another.

Nicholas SITAR: May I ask the a question in a different direction.

Nicholas SITAR: What are the consequences of the burn being over topped

Nicholas SITAR: and looking at it in terms of firm stability? Stand point, duration of a specific storm.

Nicholas SITAR: and high water

Nicholas SITAR: really is a concern in terms of erosion of the structure.

Nicholas SITAR: If it’s over topped its water on the other side.

Nicholas SITAR: you have to dispose of it. You have to have provision to deal with it, but that doesn’t necessarily impact the stability of the structure. So what am I missing here?

Nicholas SITAR: It can result in erosion on the back side, so you can get erosion potentially at both. Oh, that’s why I’m looking at. It’s the it’s the duration of the event and potential for erosion of a specific location. But that’s more tied to a specific

Nicholas SITAR: duration. So one has to look at a duration of a wave run up

Nicholas SITAR: of this critical event

Nicholas SITAR: more than

Connie Lee, Cargill: how many times it happens.

Nicholas SITAR: Because, though how many times it happens, that’s how many times you have to repair it.

Connie Lee, Cargill: But

Nicholas SITAR: when it does happen.

Connie Lee, Cargill: what are the potential consequences? And obviously consequences is breach of the breach of the levy. And what are what is the problem, what are the

Connie Lee, Cargill: yeah, yeah, I mean, I think, you know, that’s a fairly tough

Connie Lee, Cargill: perspective. You have to look at that

Connie Lee, Cargill: at every location. So it’s pretty variable. And so so I mean. the the analysis that we’ve done was

Nicholas SITAR: facility by, you know, high level both parameters. We haven’t gotten to a level of detail looking at it. But you already show

Nicholas SITAR: locations that are more likely to be over topped, based on your analysis. So it seems to me that one could take it in that direction and say, since these are the areas that are more likely to be over top, let’s do a more detailed analysis on these, because they’re clearly are going to be critical.

Nicholas SITAR: Could others be overtocked in a extreme event, of course. but you already have identified what may be the sort of weak links in this

Nicholas SITAR: in this, basically, what you have a longitudinal structure that you know is quite challenging. And I accept that.

Nicholas SITAR: Yeah. And I agree, because even with 0, if we just look at

Connie Lee, Cargill: the 12, it has some spots that are. you know, orange. So they’re already in that moderate level. So those are probably your lowest click week link areas.

Connie Lee, Cargill: yeah, I wanna propose that you would do that kind of site specific analysis on all of the fun, but it would be helpful to do it.

Connie Lee, Cargill: you know, like at p. 12, for this purpose.

Connie Lee, Cargill: and just for a maintenance perspective. So following large storm events like, for example, the last this past winter, after any large summer event card, you’ll just go out and inspect and monitor the firms and I believe the only overtopping we observed was further up north, near Pond one, and it was minor overtopping. There was no emergency repair or major erosion that we needed to address.

Oh.

Connie Lee, Cargill: I noticed that there maintenance is out there monitoring everything.

Connie Lee, Cargill: and they do yearly helicopter tours

Nicholas SITAR: last

Nicholas SITAR: and response as well.

Connie Lee, Cargill: II appreciate that, and I, of course we expect that. But but but what I’m what I was driving at is, if the maintenance does not know where the critical areas are. They don’t. They don’t know where to look. There is a red spot, and there is no red spot is not necessarily going to lead you to a point where you say you know what this place didn’t overtop. But you better look at

Connie Lee, Cargill: shoreline. Make sure that there’s no erosion, because we know this is a critical segment. So I’m more a

Nicholas SITAR: suggesting that

Connie Lee, Cargill: a maintenance also in inspection should be also focused unknown

Connie Lee, Cargill: right that need to be inspected first or or paid special attention to. That would be my. Of course they have experience and they retire.

Nicholas SITAR: That’s right. So the the the point is, you know, it has to be documented some place where it says, you know, here is your priority list, and it’s not just space. Because

Nicholas SITAR: person A has been here for 30 years and knows by experience. We also have data that suggests that this is an area we should be looking at. So that’s that’s that’s where I’m sort of having experience. People, of course.

Connie Lee, Cargill: Yeah, I think, like you all are saying, map maps like this could help identify where some of those thoughts might be.

Connie Lee, Cargill: Of course it’s gonna be very particular to the characteristics of the given storm, you know, direct to where we come from, things like that. So

Connie Lee, Cargill: see also, I think

Connie Lee, Cargill: there are

Connie Lee, Cargill: be nothing

Connie Lee, Cargill: it would all be done like after, which is aimed

Connie Lee, Cargill: confusing to me if we’re having. Here’s a problem.

Connie Lee, Cargill: But we’re not. Gonna

Kris May (Pathways Climate Institute): we don’t have to do anything about it until down the road.

Connie Lee, Cargill: I don’t think that was the intent. The intent was to utilize this next 10 years to do investigations like we’re doing now and more, and to prioritize

Connie Lee, Cargill: a large firm like this, a large system is going to take some time to develop the process like which areas do we need? Can we raise them the same way we do now, or do we need different methods? And then also, there’s got to be budgeting large

Connie Lee, Cargill: company like that has, like every other government entity, you’ve got to go through a process to prove.

Connie Lee, Cargill: you know why you’re extending that like making these expenditures and doing different methods.

Connie Lee, Cargill: So we were hoping that we could use that time really again and make sure what what

Connie Lee, Cargill: we’re identifying as a me.

Connie Lee, Cargill: it’s actually technically feasible in an economical way as well.

Connie Lee, Cargill: Yeah. And I think when we say raising the burns, I think that’s is it? 6 inches? Well, right now we, we understand. Well, inch left is what is maintained all the time. And Mss, we’re gonna get to that later. But what we’re saying is that within our maintenance projections this year we can accommodate that within the standard maintenance methods and volume.

Connie Lee, Cargill: So we knew that in the Mss. We could handle that under the next. Get get that? Get that? At least a foot left done

Connie Lee, Cargill: while we’re processing and analyzing and investigating best ways to do things and and to what we’ll say we don’t wanna say to raise, because raising to us needs going above a foot lift

Connie Lee, Cargill: maintenance methods.

Connie Lee, Cargill: And and that’s what we’re trying to separate that vocabulary. When we say we’re raising, it’s over a foot. It would need to be over a foot.

Connie Lee, Cargill: and that takes a little bit more engineering, as you will, and that’s why we’re here.

Connie Lee, Cargill: But in my view, I think the predicament

Connie Lee, Cargill: we’re all in as society is that this sea level rise and climate change is happening in real time.

Connie Lee, Cargill: As we sit here.

Connie Lee, Cargill: So it’s trying to catch up to it.

Connie Lee, Cargill: 18.

Connie Lee, Cargill: It’s kind of like catching up. So I think it needs to be understood

Connie Lee, Cargill: what the impacts are like, Nick was suggesting. Then then you can focus where where the vulnerable spots on and then say, Okay.

Connie Lee, Cargill: we’re gonna look for it.

Connie Lee, Cargill: We don’t concentrate so that we we don’t have an impact or a negative impact on the day and on your facilities as well. So I think

Connie Lee, Cargill: that appreciation needs to be on the table

Connie Lee, Cargill: cannot be looking at data from 50 years ago and say, it’s okay, because we are. Storms are getting more intense.

Connie Lee, Cargill: deliberate happen.

Connie Lee, Cargill: And if we are already at 5, 2030, more than likely is more than 6.

Connie Lee, Cargill: I mean. that’s kind of

Connie Lee, Cargill: that’s the the issue that I think

Connie Lee, Cargill: every project of this nature has to be looking at because it’s it’s happening in real time.

Connie Lee, Cargill: All these changes.

Connie Lee, Cargill: and we cannot depend on on information that is sold.

Connie Lee, Cargill: Well, I haven’t

Connie Lee, Cargill: thinking that. you know there’s no guidance.

Connie Lee, Cargill: really, for changing climate, right for design criteria. So. And that’s why the Crv is here. Right. We have judgment.

Connie Lee, Cargill: you know, subject matter experts in our field

Connie Lee, Cargill: to help provide this kind of guidance.

Connie Lee, Cargill: And so I think that that’s

Connie Lee, Cargill: okay. Let’s see where this all goes, where this discussion goes, I think maybe we should continue the presentation.

Connie Lee, Cargill: And but but yeah, just keep in mind that I think that in terms of. you know, saying specifically, Okay, well, we have to include. But this year storms into a data set.

Connie Lee, Cargill: It’s probably not realistic. And

Connie Lee, Cargill: at at this point. But I but I agree that there are some good points that have been made about

Connie Lee, Cargill: focusing inspection work or strengthening

Connie Lee, Cargill: But yeah, what can we

Connie Lee, Cargill: claim the board.

Connie Lee, Cargill: Yeah, I think there’s

Connie Lee, Cargill: Yeah, just to kind of close out the the presentation. There’s just another another set of maps here related to that other metric. I think if you go one more. So these are kind of organized in the same way.

Connie Lee, Cargill: where we’re basically mapping that

Connie Lee, Cargill: metric around exceedance of the berm toe kind of impact on the berm face, and these are these are characterized in terms of the average

Connie Lee, Cargill: annual number of hours per year, where the total water level exceeds that burn toe

Connie Lee, Cargill: and so yeah, like in in Redwood City, you know, it’s very sheltered. Greco Island blocks a lot of the wave energy. So you would expect, you know, that that condition of having a large wave high, you know, to to be pretty infrequent, and

Connie Lee, Cargill: as the results show.

Connie Lee, Cargill: it shows up is very rare. So a lot of green, some yellow there and then contrast that where, if you go back. One.

you know, there, as we talked about, there’s some segments where

Connie Lee, Cargill: actually, can you go back one more

Connie Lee, Cargill: where there’s already armoring? The firm comes down and intersects the mud flat. So the toe is relatively low. So there’s a lot of impact on the firm face. Of course, where you see red. You also see the hatching which indicates that those segments are already armored. So it’s not necessarily an issue in terms of

Connie Lee, Cargill: erosion of the berms. But then you see that there are some unarmer segments. That kind of go to that same transition of like green to red as you add sea level rise. Which would be expected, as you kind of inundate the marsh, and

Connie Lee, Cargill: those type of events become more frequent.

Connie Lee, Cargill: Okay, so I think that’s all we had to

Connie Lee, Cargill: present on.

Connie Lee, Cargill: And as I mentioned, we’re working technically.

Connie Lee, Cargill: So just. And I mean.

Connie Lee, Cargill: I mean, I know there are a lot of different practice we’re looking at. But have you developed

Connie Lee, Cargill: a set of generalized conclusions and based on all this modeling that you have done? Maybe in terms of

Connie Lee, Cargill: the presence or absence of time, or you know what the impact that in terms of over the top and

Connie Lee, Cargill: no they need generalized

Connie Lee, Cargill: observations or conclusions that you develop based on.

Connie Lee, Cargill: I think that’s so. Fun. Well.

Connie Lee, Cargill: I think

Connie Lee, Cargill: drawing conclusions from, say, the overtopping analysis

Connie Lee, Cargill: you have to recognize that that analysis assumes that no further raising or modifications of the burns would occur. Right? We’re showing

Connie Lee, Cargill: increased frequency of overtopping. Assuming no action was taken.

Connie Lee, Cargill: And so I think that would be one thing to to keep in mind is that

Connie Lee, Cargill: okay, you know.

Connie Lee, Cargill: as you know, as most spots are observed or minor erosion occurs, general maintenance. using these maps to identify some of these weak links as as they were referred to.

Connie Lee, Cargill: I think all of those things will result in raising of the raising of the burns over time. so I think that the maps kind of

Connie Lee, Cargill: provide a little bit of a preview of what would happen under a no action scenario. I think this is useful from that perspective.

Connie Lee, Cargill: I just, you know. The more I looked at him II felt like the results kind of made sense, you know, areas that are generally more sheltered and protected by Marsh today

Connie Lee, Cargill: become more exposed in the future with sea level rise.

Connie Lee, Cargill: and that’s another caveat. This analysis is good. We’ve assumed the marsh is static and just becomes inundated. We know that

Connie Lee, Cargill: marshals accumulate sediment and grow to some extent over time whether or not they can keep pace to see all Verizon there question but to the extent that they do keep pace they could offset

Connie Lee, Cargill: some of those impacts that we’re projecting.

Connie Lee, Cargill: So yeah, I don’t think there were necessarily any like big big surprises.

Connie Lee, Cargill: progression of impacts kind of made sense to me.

Connie Lee, Cargill: I have one other question and one of the photos that Jen took like photos 6.

Connie Lee, Cargill: It’s just interior brought per rip wrap on on.

Connie Lee, Cargill: Has that to do with

Connie Lee, Cargill: like erosion that’s developing from waves in the pond. Is that why you have to armor it on the inside? Or is that due to something else?

Connie Lee, Cargill: Yeah, I think that’s correct. Yeah, Matt Pitcher would be able to answer that in more detail. But cause there are very large ponds. We do get waves, large waves in those sometimes.

Connie Lee, Cargill: Yeah, not a whole lot of maintenance is needed for the inboard sections, but there is some armoring required

Connie Lee, Cargill: any other questions on the sea level rise analysis.

Connie Lee, Cargill: if not, is Michael. Yeah. So one quick question you. You mentioned that he’s invited data from 2,016

Connie Lee, Cargill: for the elevation of the park. You know the level of accuracy of that

Connie Lee, Cargill: like that data, because it wasn’t specific to your site to purchase. You know, data that had been around for

Connie Lee, Cargill: at the current project.

Connie Lee, Cargill: So there is a

Connie Lee, Cargill: a tech technical documentation associated with the Lidar where they do like the ground checks and everything, and characterize the accuracy.

Connie Lee, Cargill: My sense is that

Connie Lee, Cargill: it’s probably fairly accurate on crests.

Connie Lee, Cargill: Because there’s no vegetation on the crest of the burns in other locations like

Connie Lee, Cargill: where there’s marsh in front or vegetation on the toe

Connie Lee, Cargill: it, you know, there’s gonna be like. It’s gonna be less accurate there. But my sense is that the the definition of the crest elevations is probably pretty reasonable, especially when you consider that we’re

Connie Lee, Cargill: that we. We’ve averaged

Connie Lee, Cargill: some some links. So

Connie Lee, Cargill: to the extent that there’s uncertainty in those estimates

Connie Lee, Cargill: we would be averaging, accompanied by what the level of currency is.

Connie Lee, Cargill: you know that? Oh.

Connie Lee, Cargill: maybe you can check

Connie Lee, Cargill: if not, is Michael Whalen

Connie Lee, Cargill: think he’s a panelist? Yeah, I’m I’m right here.

Connie Lee, Cargill: Okay.

Connie Lee, Cargill: not really like a couple. People have their

Connie Lee, Cargill: like son and Christine, I think you came up a little bit soft in.

Connie Lee, Cargill: I’m talking with alright

Connie Lee, Cargill: someone who’s listening somewhere else. So maybe

Connie Lee, Cargill: I’ll just turn on mics. Or, yeah.

Connie Lee, Cargill: are we all gonna listen to Michael for your speaker, or we should turn our speakers on the desk phone dial in. And

Connie Lee, Cargill: good question.

Connie Lee, Cargill: or a Turner.

Connie Lee, Cargill: yeah, that might help just keep your mics. Yeah.

Michael Whelan: okay. testing testing. How does it sound? Is it working

Michael Whelan: for everybody?

Connie Lee, Cargill: Yes, go ahead. Okay.

Michael Whelan: very good. Thank you. Everybody.

Michael Whelan: thank you for this opportunity to speak. I’m Michael Whalen, with anchor. Qa. My colleague, Andrew Baird, is also listening in and our colleague Cole Bales assisted with this. I’m going to present static and seismic

Michael Whelan: stability of the of the berms

Michael Whelan: specifically the berms at the mix sea salt ponds and

Michael Whelan: and specifically on the next slide. Let me tell you what I’m going to tell you.

Michael Whelan: give a short sight overview. I think a lot of that’s probably

Michael Whelan: redundant, but I I’ll cover it briefly. I’ll talk about available site and subsurface particularly subsurface information

Michael Whelan: that we’ve made use of in the analysis

Michael Whelan: that I’m presenting will talk about and show

Michael Whelan: cross-sectional geometry of the of the berms and interest of interest.

Michael Whelan: I’ll discuss our interpretation of sub service conditions.

Michael Whelan: The engineering parameters that we’ve assigned to the subservice conditions and the water levels

Michael Whelan: from this. I’ll I’ll make note of the analysis of static stability of these terms under normal conditions.

Michael Whelan: Then we’ll spend a little more time on the on the seismic conditions, both in terms of what is an appropriate seismic event. Magnitude. To apply to these analysis, and then given the answer that we’ve developed to that question the results of that

Michael Whelan: of that analysis. all of which we’ve concluded show that these berms do, in fact, remain

stable

Michael Whelan: under these conditions. That said I’ll conclude by talking about our thoughts and proposal for some additional explorations

Michael Whelan: at ponds and 13.

So let’s let’s jump into this a little bit more introductory stuff. Here’s the the ponds that we’re

Michael Whelan: specifically talking about here. As I’ll mentioned in just a moment. This is all

Michael Whelan: directly following from our meeting with with you folks on the Ecrb last November and your subsequent correspondence from December. So we’re focusing on these.

Michael Whelan: Justin talked a little bit about well, actually, quite a bit about the use of Lidar survey, we made use of the same Lidar survey in our own evaluations

Michael Whelan: of these. Of these berms for these ponds. Let’s go to the the next. I wanna give a real short overview of the fact that there is a lot of existing geotechnical information around this

Michael Whelan: area and the surrounding region. Folks who may remember us talking a bit about this back in November. I’ll get a little more detail on this shortly, but there’s a lot of information available, and it is, of course, helped us

Michael Whelan: to perform these analyses in a meaningful way.

Michael Whelan: Let’s and I’ll talk about that in more detail. Here’s the our own picture of one representative spot along

Michael Whelan: the berms one of the berms. They are built out of native soils as a as was reported in in Jen’s statement, and as I think we all recognize

over time they have been compacted.

Michael Whelan: they’re wide enough to accommodate vehicle traffic. When conditions are

Michael Whelan: are are dry, the top is flat.

Michael Whelan: They’re they’re graded for that vehicle access.

Michael Whelan: and on the left side you see the interior of the pond as it appeared on on this day, and on the right, you see an example of the of the tidal marshes that are

Michael Whelan: frequently prevalent on the outside of the of the ponds. So just again, this is just for general context.

Michael Whelan: Let’s go to the to the next. Here. I mentioned the origin of of the specifics of the study I’m presenting, and this does go back to the letter from

Michael Whelan: Bcd’s Ecrb back on December twentieth item for a conduct, a static condition assessment.

Michael Whelan: including daily operations, routine tides, and so forth.

Michael Whelan: I’ll mention that item 5 a in that letter was, regarding

Michael Whelan: the seismic risk, assessment and occurrence with base flood event and just an understanding of a full range of scenarios. So this this really this text.

Michael Whelan: really was our our guide post towards what we proceeded with

Michael Whelan: studying here.

Michael Whelan: Okay, I think I’ve set the stage now. I guess I’ll I’ll start talking about things a little more specificity.

Michael Whelan: I showed that map a moment ago about the variety of sub service explorations in the region. But specifically here, at these ponds there is

Michael Whelan: a lot of

Michael Whelan: there. There have been a lot of investigations around these particular ponds. I’ll show a picture that in in a moment as we talked about last November they had. These berms

Michael Whelan: have performed very well for over a century. They’ve ever since they were originally built. We’ve talked about Cargill’s

ongoing inspections

Michael Whelan: and maintenance work, but the the these terms have held up well, including through all the seismic events that have occurred during that time span, and and of course there are occasions where cargo will perform routine maintenance. So II think that’s

Michael Whelan: been pretty well established. The keying point. I’ll I’ll show that in a minute in some of our cross sections.

Michael Whelan: Now let’s look on this next slide at the the Geo. Technical information that is, in fact, available. That circle in the middle is where that picture I showed a few minutes ago was taken.

Michael Whelan: Cargill’s done a number of

Michael Whelan: of explorations

Michael Whelan: on these berms. 24 borings to relatively shallow depths sufficient to get through the burns into the underlying, pre-existing native materials.

Michael Whelan: They’ve done a few borings that are deeper to over 80 feet in a couple of spots

and a lot of the explorations also have been augmented by cone penetration tests

Michael Whelan: with hydraulic profiling tools, which, of course, is useful for a a fuller understanding of the subsurface conditions that

Michael Whelan: that I will. I will lay out here, in fact, next slide.

Michael Whelan: we we see 3 basic sole units here under these ponds. And in fact, we see these

basic soil units existing throughout the region in, in, in, including, in the explorations that were done.

Michael Whelan: not in these ponds, but in neighboring areas.

Michael Whelan: We’ve got the berms themselves which are built of what we’re calling a densified fill. It’s again, it’s native material that was

Michael Whelan: that was trenched from adjacent and place to build the berms, and then has been used to to carry vehicle

Michael Whelan: traffic over all these years since.

Michael Whelan: And then below that, the pre-existing and still existing native sub service materials are are a classic sequence throughout the region of bay muds.

Michael Whelan: and we see that here young bay mud, which is relatively softer grading to old Baymud, which is

Michael Whelan: not not a soft. I’ll I’ll put some specific numbers to that in a minute.

Michael Whelan: You saw this in one edition of this in in Justin’s talk. Again. This is based on the Lidar survey

Michael Whelan: the Justin reference that we’ve also used. We’ve I guess you might say ground truth it from our own on site observations. This is a vertically exaggerated scale. If if that wasn’t apparent to you already. So it’s it’s exaggerated. But

Michael Whelan: the scaling is is appropriate, and you see the the berm itself made of densified fill. You see, it’s sitting on top of

Michael Whelan: Young Bay mud that extends down about 10 to 15 feet, and then below that is old bay mud, which extends well below the bottom of this

Michael Whelan: of this section, and of course, the mixed sea salts on the left, and

Michael Whelan: tid tidally influenced flood flood influence to waters on the right in the next slide. You see the same thing, except that we’ve added the fact that Cargill does perform the keying or corring or core compaction. There’s a couple of different terms that have been used for this, but that is

Michael Whelan: where Cargill’s done that where they excavate through the middle of the berm

Michael Whelan: to a depth of some 8 to 9 feet and put back compacted densified soils

Michael Whelan: as a as a means of

Michael Whelan: avoiding seepage. So that’s what that one is showing

Michael Whelan: now. The memo we wrote. Everything I’m talking about here is is a summarization of our memo which we put forth. It’s dated the very end of July, I think, was our our date on it, and

Michael Whelan: attached to that memo was a compilation of

Michael Whelan: all of these subservice explorations that I mentioned, not just the ones at the 2 ponds and 13, but also stranding areas as well that are relevant. And

Michael Whelan: I know, for you folks are well familiar with

Michael Whelan: sub service logs, and and our memo kind of gives for folks who are maybe less familiar with them. A little bit detail on what they’re seeing. Here’s one of many examples

Michael Whelan: and and what this is showing, if you look closely, is the presence of of clay, silt, silty clay, basically the bay muds that are again prevalent through the area.

Michael Whelan: the this particular pair of logs, and the other ones. We looked at closely

Michael Whelan: did not reveal to us. any significant sand lenses of any connectivity. And the reason I mention that is because

Michael Whelan: that that tends to be a pretty important thing to look for when you’re evaluating potential for liquefaction. So I’ll mention that when I, when I get to seismic in a few minutes.

Michael Whelan: And here’s some some other logs that show similar things.

Michael Whelan: So there, there’s all these logs we’ve put together and integrated and and looked at and what we did was

Michael Whelan: we assigned

Michael Whelan: what we believe to be reasonable or or reasonably conservative

Michael Whelan: engineering properties to these 3 soil types. The densified berm filled the young bay mud

Michael Whelan: in the old bay mud and this is really based on a compilation of of the blow counts, and the descriptions and the laboratory tests were done in a number of places for sheer strength and compressive strength, and and those of you who’ve been involved with that process recognize that you tend to get a lot of scattering the data. And and it’s the engineers job to distill that down into

Michael Whelan: are reasonable values.

Michael Whelan: These are, these are the values we’ve assigned for these materials. They’re all established as cohesive soils, that is to say, they behave in an undrained

Michael Whelan: manner we felt that was most appropriate for the material types and and the kind of potential risk of failure that we’re interested in. So that’s why, you see cohesion applied. You see, in each case we’ve applied a a linear increase in cohesion with depth throughout these

Michael Whelan: soil types.

Michael Whelan: And I, whoever’s controlling this, you can go to the the next slide. I

Michael Whelan: wait a minute. Is that the one I okay.

Michael Whelan: Yeah. Bef, the next stay right there. The next 2 slides will go back to that table.

Michael Whelan: I wanted to put a little more emphasis on how we derived geotechnical properties for the Bay muds. And this is a plot from us. Stress versus strain tests that should put kind of a classic

Michael Whelan: development of strain in a in a testing regime.

Michael Whelan: And are part of the the rationale we use from an engineering perspective

Michael Whelan: to select

Michael Whelan: the the strength properties, though cohesion properties that we did, and so on the next slide you’ll see that summarize for

Michael Whelan: well, for for everything. There, there’s the young bay mud again. Cohesion at the top of. We’ve assigned 300 pounds per square foot, increasing with depth down to 1,000 pounds per square foot at the base of the unit, and then the next slide just highlights, the same

Michael Whelan: but higher values

increasing with depth

Michael Whelan: for old bay mud.

Michael Whelan: The last thing I want to say about this? Is that someone had a question.

Ramin Golesorkhi: Yeah. May I ask a question?

Michael Whelan: Yep.

Michael Whelan: are you? Yeah. You might have gone back on mute. There.

Ramin Golesorkhi: let me get that code.

Ramin Golesorkhi: I was curious how you go from

Ramin Golesorkhi: 300 Psf. Cohesion at the top, which is reasonable to me, and 8 pounds per square foot per foot is also reasonable for a normally consolidated play, like

Ramin Golesorkhi: the Bay mud

Ramin Golesorkhi: and the thickness of your layers, and your cross section was about 10 to 15 feet, even if I put 15 feet at 8 pounds per square foot per foot

Ramin Golesorkhi: and add it to 300. I get something like 400. Psf, how do you get 1,000?

Michael Whelan: Yeah, you don’t get a thousand that that quick, do you? I think what what may maybe a better clarification on this table would be that

Michael Whelan: that that cohesion of 1,000 is actually would apply well below the base of the young bay mud. You’re right at the at the very base, down at the 10 to 15 foot mark. Your cohesion is more on the 400 to 500 Psf. Range, based on that increase with depth.

Michael Whelan: So it may, it may be that the

Michael Whelan: the 1,000 at the base unit isn’t actually what you’re getting at the at the base of the young bay

Michael Whelan: young Bay mode. That’s kind of a a maximum at a greater depth.

Ramin Golesorkhi: So you’re using actually the 300 plus 8 per foot rather than

Ramin Golesorkhi: some sort of linear interpolation up to 1,000 at the bottom of the layer. That’s right, yeah, is, in fact, increasing by 8 per foot. So it’s by the time you transition to the old Bay mud contact, you’re not actually up to 1,000. You’re actually quite a ways from it. You’re right about that. I would agree with your math.

Michael Whelan: We can. We can clarify the what what we mean by that, or perhaps just modify to reflect what happens at the depth at the base of the Ybm.

Michael Whelan: okay?

Michael Whelan: Other questions, I mean, I was going to make one more comment on the properties, and I’m going to shift into

Michael Whelan: the seismic analysis. Before I do that I’ll see if there’s any other questions the other the other point I was just gonna offer on these

Michael Whelan: properties is, yeah. We we took all this site information and boiled it down and integrated and chosen. But we also looked at it in terms of what have we used and other projects in and around the San Francisco Bay Area? And you know, use that as a reality check and it and it did seem to us that you know these seem pretty reasonable here, and and consistent in our view, with

Michael Whelan: with with the overall region.

Michael Whelan: Okay, any anything else. Before I go into seismic?

Michael Whelan: you’ll notice I skipped right over static we’ll get back to static in a few minutes. They. The reason is because the the factors, if you’re really high

Connie Lee, Cargill: under static conditions. So we we really focused here on what’s going on in seismic events. And what, in fact, are the appropriate events? One more question.

Michael Whelan: Okay.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: Michael. I mean, I haven’t looked closely at your boring logs. But what’s the variation in terms of moisture? Content

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: between the the compacted fell and and the natural. uncompacted baymat?

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: What kind of moisture contents were you?

Michael Whelan: Yeah,

Michael Whelan: I have. I haven’t tabulated the answer. That question in a handy place. II will say that the moisture contents to our eyes did appear consistent with the notion that

Michael Whelan: the the berm fill is in a much more compacted state. then the the the higher void ratios present below it.

Michael Whelan: in the in the younger bay muds.

Michael Whelan: It’s, in other words, a lower moisture content. But II can’t say I’ve got the a handy tabulation of that right here with me, although that

Michael Whelan: I could see that being a useful furthering of the rationale, for how we distinguish between the densified state of the berms and what’s below it.

Michael Whelan: That kind of what you’re getting at is, is that consistent with our interpretation of these properties?

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: Yeah.

Michael Whelan: Yeah. So III remember the the basic premise there. But III don’t have the the numbers in a handy place to

Michael Whelan: to recite them at the moment, or the range.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: I mean, did you?

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: Did they do a lot of moisture content?

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: Best of all. on the

Michael Whelan: what? What were you asking if there were a lot of moisture contents available there. There were quite a few. If that was a question.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: Yeah, I was trying to look at the logs. It’s kind of difficult to

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: see. Okay.

Michael Whelan: yeah, I’ve got the

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: and it was, go ahead.

Michael Whelan: I’m taking a scan through the the logs myself.

Michael Whelan: When we talk. I mean the logs.

Michael Whelan: Well, there, there’s there’s a lot of logs, but like if you were to look at

Michael Whelan: appendix B, 2, to the memo

Michael Whelan: which which is part of the the exploration is done around the

Michael Whelan: the ponds. You’ll see

Michael Whelan: you’ll see a number of moisture contents with pretty pretty wide ranging values.

Michael Whelan: and generally seem to be most frequently done in the underlying bay muds and less frequently above.

Michael Whelan: But given in like the 20 to 30% range.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: Yeah.

Michael Whelan: But I admit that’s just. That’s me. Looking through a few pages at the moment. There’s there’s more in there to that we could tabulate.

Michael Whelan: and, to be honest, I mean what we att fixed in that attachment is the boring logs, and

Michael Whelan: doesn’t include the full set of laboratory data. So there may be some further laboratory data that was part of those explorations that we that we didn’t include. Just because we were kind of curating the overall

Michael Whelan: batch that’s presented in that attachment.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: Yeah, yeah.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: you can go ahead.

Michael Whelan: Okay. Alrighty.

Michael Whelan: Let’s let’s talk about earthquake evaluation. the. The the purpose here that we undertook was to derive

Michael Whelan: a meaningful and appropriate peak ground acceleration corresponding to a design level earthquake, or, in fact, design level earth

Michael Whelan: quakes now. here, we felt that it would, it would be

Michael Whelan: reasonable and even and even potentially conservative. potentially.

to use the the return periods

Michael Whelan: that appear in motems

Michael Whelan: design criteria for marine terminals. Now, of course, this is not a marine terminal, but th that that seemed like a good baseline to use, because it’s

Michael Whelan: it’s it’s got It’s it’s been used elsewhere. It’s been used for facilities with a high level level of critical nature and and it allows us to look at 2 different return periods. And and so that’s what this is

Michael Whelan: explaining. So we looked at what motems terms and operating level earthquake, which is essentially a 50 year return period.

and and and a larger.

Michael Whelan: less frequent

Michael Whelan: contingency. Level earthquake. Again, terms from motems which has a statistical 475 year return period. So

Michael Whelan: those are what we used, and I’ll and I’ll describe the numbers we came up with from them. And the other point is that we selected a site class of E

Michael Whelan: for basically for soft deposits, which is.

Michael Whelan: we feel appropriate. Given the preponderance of bay muds. So those those are the 2 return periods. That’s site class and so did a couple of things. First of all, we determined a a base PGA Peak ground acceleration, using the unified hazard tool from Usgs.

Michael Whelan: You folks familiar with that? I mean, that’s a basically an integration of risk from a variety of

Michael Whelan: regional fault centers and distances and so forth and and then overall distillation of that.

Michael Whelan: and just to jump to the punch line from the hazard tool for the contingency level earthquake. The larger 475 year event. We get a base

Michael Whelan: peak ground acceleration of about point 5 5G,

Michael Whelan: then, on the next slide, we took that.

Michael Whelan: and using the site class of E, we apply. And this is following ashto seismic design guidance.

Michael Whelan: we applied a site factor

Michael Whelan: based on this table here that

Michael Whelan: takes into account the site class of E and the base peak ground acceleration I just mentioned. And

Michael Whelan: and and that’s the basic mathematics. That’s the formula that we applied the and the answer we get from this and that we have applied for the for the contingency level earthquake for the larger

Michael Whelan: seismic event, the less frequent one is point 5G, that’s the

Michael Whelan: that’s the third bullet here.

Michael Whelan: And for the smaller, more frequent operating level event we end up with a PGA of 0 point 3 4G,

Michael Whelan: so, as you guys all know, these are really important values for this analysis, they really kind of drive, what comes of our analysis, and that those are the values we’ve selected

Michael Whelan: for this for those 2 return periods. And and actually, as you’ll see in a minute. We really focused our attention on the larger one again, which we felt to be

Michael Whelan: on the conservative side. But you know, in in design and engineering it.

Michael Whelan: that that’s usually a a good way to to go. So that’s that’s where we took our analyses.

Michael Whelan: And I’m gonna show you the results of our analysis. Any any any questions about what I just laid out there on the development of these

Michael Whelan: pgas?

Michael Whelan: Okay, well, let me describe our analysis and what we came up with. So we we selected the different places along these

Michael Whelan: berms. We use the Lidar survey we constructed mock up cross sections.

Michael Whelan: Michael, can I ask one more question? Going backwards now? A little bit couple of slides ago you had 4 75 that you got from Motems, and you also had a 50 year return interval. Where did that come from?

Jim French: And what did you do with that?

Michael Whelan: That is the what it did.

Michael Whelan: 50% chance of exceeding a hundred year interval. which you know nominally is 50 year return, interval.

Michael Whelan: or 50 year return period.

Michael Whelan: and what we did with it is not. I’m so pretty honest. But where did that come from? Is that a

Jim French: some some other code?

Michael Whelan: I believe that’s also from the motemps code.

Jim French: Okay, I don’t remember that

Jim French: 31 apple black all the time. Yeah.

Michael Whelan: now. So in some cases I’ve seen that referred to as a 72 72 year return interval just based on the

Michael Whelan: on the statistics. But the prospect of defining that

Michael Whelan: percentage of exceedance in a hundred year event as an operating level of earthquake. I think that’s directly from the motemps code.

Jim French: If 50 years, like a 67% chance at Cedenson 50 years or something like that.

Michael Whelan: Yeah.

Michael Whelan: might have been appropriate

Jim French: definitely. So so what did you do with this?

Michael Whelan: Well, to be honest, most of our work, we we use the 475 year event. But in both cases we use those to derive pgas

Michael Whelan: to apply to our seismic. 4, 75, I think.

Michael Whelan: Yeah. So the the 475 gave us a PGA of up point 5. And most of what I’m going to show you was using that one. Okay.

Michael Whelan: okay? Yeah. So the analysis we did using slide 2 software, we, we ran 5 different

Michael Whelan: as we saw at representative locations along these berms

Michael Whelan: we use the Lidar data ground truth by our own observations to construct these.

Michael Whelan: let’s go to the next. So the next. The next part of this is to determine what is the. As you guys know, the slope stability analyses result in a factor of safety

Michael Whelan: at at their at their simplest level. Now, there’s other analyses one can apply in terms of deflections and so forth. But we ran to see what are the factors of safety we’re getting.

Michael Whelan: and, in fact. what what factors the safety do we want to get?

And here we relied on Astro guidance

Michael Whelan: again. A a good and and well established

Michael Whelan: design type guidance that’s out there. And essentially, what we

Michael Whelan: concluded was that for static conditions.

Michael Whelan: depending on the long or short term durations as defined by Ashto.

Michael Whelan: You could use a 1.5 target fat or safety, or 1.3 3

Michael Whelan: 1.3 3 target factor safety we chose. Let’s look, let’s let’s aim for 1.5 and and use that as our basic criteria. It’s the worst case for static conditions, for seismic conditions. We followed a sto guidance recommending a factor, safety of 1.1

Michael Whelan: for for finite length. seismic events.

Michael Whelan: So those those are the target factors of safety we were bearing in mind as we performed our

Michael Whelan: our analyses.

Michael Whelan: And I will, I will stop at this table. I’ll tell you about this table, and then I’ll I’ll stop and see if anyone has some questions. Then I’ll show you some example.

Michael Whelan: Model runs. But he! Here’s the take away. So this is a compilation of of several of the runs we did. It’s not necessarily all of them, but this is a we felt a good handy way to boil them down.

Michael Whelan: and the 3 rightmost columns are the key, the the fourth column, static fos, static factor, safety. Our numbers were above 2.5, sometimes well above 2.5 every time.

Michael Whelan: even even when we applied. What you might think of is somewhat out outlandish scenarios. The static fact, save it was just. It’s it’s high. These look very stable under normal circumstances. It’s the seismic

Michael Whelan: that is more interesting. And when you look at the rightmost 2 columns, you can see that.

Michael Whelan: the right most column, the sixth column. That’s where we applied the

Michael Whelan: Pj. That pertains to the 475 year event. And you see those numbers range from 1 point

Michael Whelan: 6 down to 1.2. So they’re above our criteria, the criteria of 1.1 which suggests to us that the this is sufficiently stable even in the 475 year event.

Michael Whelan: the the in between column. The fifth one is the is the 50 year event. II would I would tend to agree which what I think Jim might have been saying that you could perhaps more mathematically, correctly call us to 72 year event. But regardless, it’s the smaller one that

Michael Whelan: that occurs. you know, within a century, statistically speaking, and and those numbers are are well above 1.1. They’re they’re 1.7 and higher. So

Michael Whelan: the the the overall conclusion we draw from these

analyses is that

Michael Whelan: these berms

Michael Whelan: are very stable under static conditions, and even under seismic conditions, even under a 475 return period, which is, is a long time in a in a

Michael Whelan: buy. Our reckoning is is a pretty large quake. even under those conditions.

Michael Whelan: These berms are stable, and the other comment I’ll make, and then I’ll pause for a minute. Is that you see in this table we ran the analyses at different

Michael Whelan: tide stages high and low

Michael Whelan: at flood, an interpretation of the of the theme of flood stage when the water is higher yet.

Michael Whelan: and and and that’s what encapsulates the overall numbers

Michael Whelan: farmer analysis. So before before we go to the the next set of slides

Michael Whelan: which is just running through a bunch of model results. Let me stop and see if folks have reactions or questions to about this.

Ramin Golesorkhi: I just wanna make sure, Michael, that you verify that

Ramin Golesorkhi: very high strength was not assigned to the bottom of the bay. Not layer, because all the seismic failure services. Obviously it’s kind of failing at the base. Oh, sorry.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: Your 8 pounds per square foot per foot. Kind of increase in strength was really used in your

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: stability analysis. Specifically, the seismic stability analysis.

Jim French: So please make sure that that you verify that, because kind of is concerning to me the one that we discussed before.

Michael Whelan: Ii yup, III can verify that right here by saying, that is indeed the case.

Michael Whelan: And I do understand the the nature of your question, because that would have a really significant impact on what kind of stability values we wouldn’t want to have

Michael Whelan: that 1,000 at the base of the young bay mud artificially driving up these factors. Safety. So II totally understand that. And it’s it’s a matter of correcting the table and not changing the analysis.

Nicholas SITAR: can I before, before we move on questions exactly about the geometry of, and especially what circles were being considered, because.

Nicholas SITAR: frankly looking at the analysis suggests, you know the whole

Nicholas SITAR: levy is failing. That’s not, as far as I can see, they’re concerned.

Nicholas SITAR: A toll failure on an embankment is the most common failure that one gets. And that’s really the critical failure during a major storm or whatever. And

Nicholas SITAR: I’m not sure how slide does it? But most

Nicholas SITAR: of these codes do the search algorithm and immediately do a deep seated failure circle, which I don’t believe is a realistic failure. Scenario for this

Nicholas SITAR: Toe circle should have been considered. And typically, you get very shallow failures on these things. But the consequence of a shallow failure is that now your effective crest of the levy is much less.

Nicholas SITAR: and this is essentially and then and that, as far as I can see, or consideration of that was completely missing from here. So I do not consider

Nicholas SITAR: these failure circles of actually being

Nicholas SITAR: of any consequence to the actual performance of these structures. That’s not what we see. That’s my concern. There would be do you have any way to report?

Jim French: What your search methodology are? Methodologies, were the search criteria I know with slope W. At least you can

Jim French: plot where your entry and exit points are, or where the bottom tangent points are. And there’s nothing that indicated how you searched on this, I think

Michael Whelan: slide does slide has that as a output possibility. But I don’t think that was reported, at least in the limited slides that we have. Right? Okay, let let’s talk a little bit more about this. Let’s jump ahead

Michael Whelan: this next slide. I don’t want to linger on too much, because it’s a little strange. I admit this. This was just part of our parametric analyses of water levels at different heights. I don’t want this to be interpreted as a

Michael Whelan: an actual flood stage over the room is just a a means by which we look to see what are the effects of different variables. And it’s just one example of a static condition.

Michael Whelan: but not really representing a true flood scenario. I II do think it would be useful to let’s go to the

Michael Whelan: I wanna talk about these circles, these failure circles. Okay? So

Michael Whelan: here’s one under seismic conditions. And quite a couple couple folks have asked.

Michael Whelan: how did we

Michael Whelan: limit the

Michael Whelan: search mechanism for failure circles?

Michael Whelan: We were pretty ex. And yeah, you you you do have various ways of kind of limiting or bounding, or or widening your

Michael Whelan: your search profiles, and and even, you know, semi-circular

Michael Whelan: failure arcs like this one or or non circular arcs, and we were pretty expansive in what we offered the program. The ability to to derive

Michael Whelan: including the with the the notion. I think it might have been Nicholas talking about, you know.

Michael Whelan: toe failures or or or failures kind of at at the at the front face of it.

Michael Whelan: That was that was part of the the searches we set up.

Michael Whelan: and I mean, what we’re showing in these series is the slides, which is admittedly a again kind of a curated selection of them.

Michael Whelan: But we found here was the the worst cases

Michael Whelan: in each. In each analysis. Now There! There was some commentary that you you weren’t convinced this was the

Michael Whelan: really the most high risk scenario for for failure.

Nicholas SITAR: That that that’s correct. II would I would submit that first of all, you’re going to have a vertical face at the at the edge of the fill, and you will have a non circular failure surface. So I would consider Spencer

Nicholas SITAR: method with a series of non circular surfaces that follow. Layering in the in the bay. Mud

Nicholas SITAR: is the most critical. For some reason we all kind of fall into this trap of assuming that because it is.

Nicholas SITAR: quote unquote clay that, you will get a circle of failure surface. But it’s a layered medium.

Nicholas SITAR: There are interbeds of silt and clay, and I have seen quite a few failures in this material that follow basically a distinct bedding plane. So I would

Nicholas SITAR: like to see a series of, you know, sensitivity analysis to see what happens if you consider that kind of a that kind of a scenario

Nicholas SITAR: rather than just purely.

Nicholas SITAR: even if you have a very extensive search, purely circle or failure surface. Because that’s not what we see in a, in a, in a embankment of this type

Nicholas SITAR: compacted embankment. It doesn’t fail along

Nicholas SITAR: circle of failure. Surface the scarp is gonna be almost vertical because it’s contacted material and the material below may or may not ever circle failure surface. So I would like to see a little more nuanced

Nicholas SITAR: approach to this, and and you may find it convince everybody and yourself that, in fact, that is, this is the

Nicholas SITAR: most likely scenario. But at the moment I I’m skeptical, right?

Nicholas SITAR: I it’s fairly sensitive to the thickness or height of the levy itself, and the thickness or depth of the bay mud of the young bay mud itself.

Nicholas SITAR: and so I think these are plausible circles as being critical. But I agree with Nick that it would be nice if you could see what your search for charity was with the search limits limits were, and see what was

Nicholas SITAR: my. My question is, gonna be generic circles shown in the plots here, but looks like your bay mud thickness here is something like

Jim French: 7 feet or 8 feet, or something like that, as little as 5 feet, and a couple on the right side of this particular image, and as deep as you know, 7 or 8 feet, or something like that. And if I look at the Cpt’s from

Jim French: Appendix B, 3 and one of your data packets, I think. There’s some Cpt’s that look like bay mud goes at least to 20 feet, which is the bottom of the plots that are shown.

Jim French: If I looked at the II don’t remember where I got this. I think it was part of the packet of information that was sent by BBC. DC. An old Gmatrix report

Jim French: that shows Isopax of bay mud that suggests, through most of Pons. E.

Jim French: A. A. Ponds, P. 2, 12 and 13. It should be

Jim French: least 10 feet, and really more like 15 to 20 feet in most locations. And

Jim French: you know, I’m you know the the yeah. Obviously, we’re, you know.

Jim French: the the enviable position of being volunteers on this type of work here, and haven’t spent as many hours, perhaps, as I would like to have. But the little data that I’ve been able to look at. It looks like the bay mud is really more like 15 to 20 feet, or maybe more, like 25, even based on the geometric isopax.

Jim French: and everything you’ve shown here.

Jim French: suggests that the bay mud is only a you know.

Jim French: 5 to 5 to 8 feet, or something like that, and that will be completely critical and sensitive your your stability analysis, both

Jim French: static as well as dynamic seismic. So curious what your thoughts are about that.

Jim French: And incidentally the bay mud, the the

Jim French: the Cpt’s look like the the strengths are going to be on the order of 300 ish, maybe 400 ish down to 20 feet, which is consistent with the model that you use, but not with the geometry.

Jim French: Yeah, Michael, why answering that question

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: the question. The larger question I was going to ask was, How did you determine where your cross sections. you know? To be taken? Are these the critical cross sections in your view. And what are the factors dictating that

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: those are the most critical cross sections? Right?

Michael Whelan: Okay? Well, III picked up 3 distinct questions. There, let me let me touch on each of them in turn. So the first one about

Michael Whelan: circular failures. Yeah, it’s true. All of these are all these figures show circular failures. We did run it with non circular failures. I think. Nicholas, your point about, you know, a vertical failure. Service and then kinda

Michael Whelan: sliding along the plane. II I’m hearing that I’m thinking of one variation on a

Michael Whelan: more like a non-circular.

Michael Whelan: Or, or, you know

Michael Whelan: wedge type of failure. It would be the way II would imagine that in what we’ve seen is expressed in this in this type of monarch, so we

Michael Whelan: when we have done those, we just didn’t show any of them here, cause they weren’t turning out to be the more

Michael Whelan: critical values. But II do understand the interest in that. II understand your point about. Might that not, in fact, be.

Michael Whelan: you know, a a worst case to be looked at, and

Michael Whelan: it would seem appropriate to share variations on that with you all as well. So so you see that we did more than the arc failures

Michael Whelan: the The question about the the young bay mud

Michael Whelan: thickness, and the and the point where it changes from young bay mud to older bay mud.

Michael Whelan: It it does vary from place to place, I mean, I think that was Jim. Your your comment was in what you’re seeing. That seems to be

Michael Whelan: appearing here and and and matching the base of the of the failure sources, of course, as less than 10 to 15 feet deep.

Michael Whelan: O over all. It’s our intention with these was to match really what we see in the borrings from ground surface downward.

Michael Whelan: And and so II feel like it is, in fact, consistent. I mean it does. It does vary from place to place. I do understand the point at the very least, that you know. Let’s make sure we’re presenting the

Michael Whelan: a parametric analysis of this, because that that may be, in fact, the the most critical

Michael Whelan: factor of them all. I mean, we’ve talked about the strength of the of the young Bay mud, and and you’ve expressed your concerns about making sure we’ve correctly identified how we

Michael Whelan: numerically defined those strengths, but the depth of it is also important. So I feel like what we’ve shown here is representative of the of the borings that we used

Michael Whelan: and and looked at.

Michael Whelan: But II understand the point, and that perhaps a further clarification of that to satisfy you all, it could be appropriate. And then the the third.

Michael Whelan: The third question was, how did we choose our our sections? Our 5 sections?

Michael Whelan: That was primarily from looking at the Berm heights and the berm geometry from from the Lidar Survey

Michael Whelan: and to some degree based on the sub service conditions. But II would say it was, and and then just kind of looking to obtain a reasonable geographic spread. There wasn’t

Michael Whelan: in any of those conditions whether it’s a lidar or the subservience neither of those really I think, put up like a flashing red light like oh, gosh! You know there’s a place we really need to

Michael Whelan: focusing on at the expense of other places. So

Michael Whelan: it was, it was really largely driven, just trying to get a

Michael Whelan: spread of different sorts of conditions throughout the the berm complex.

Jim French: hey, Michael, let me let me let me jump in if I may.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: and I’m gonna snatch green and share mine

Jim French: you. You don’t have to do anything. I’ll just take it over, I think.

Jim French: and sick. Hello!

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: Oh, I can’t. Sorry you have to. You have to stop, sure.

Jim French: Oh.

Jim French: oh.

Jim French: okay. So here’s

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: I need 2 monitors.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: Here’s the Isapack map from the Gym matrix report that I mentioned earlier. And you could see, II think our ponds are

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: somewhere right here.

Jim French: Yeah, it’s 5, 1015, 20 2025 years. So we’re kind of in that range of 10

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: 1520. I wonder if it’d be useful and not too difficult for you to take one of your figures and create. You know

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: I mean, this is a

Jim French: as I don’t see.

Jim French: I

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: gis

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: block! It’s been digitized and all that. But if you just

Jim French: even have a overlay, the location of your Cpt’s or the ideal or boring.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: really quickly answer all of our questions. In about 30 s

Jim French: to heal a longer figure, but the that would be I think, really instructive for the critical sections, and we’re certainly gonna be saying the thickest bay. MoD is gonna be the criticalist sections. Among the ones that need be considered.

Jim French: And I I’m not sure where yours came from. Exactly if you’re using the with just Cpt’s or a little bit preferred for picking the tops and bottoms of bay mud in particular, because

Jim French: it’s a little transition that boring so often have trouble with

Jim French: automatically mud. You know the the next layer is

Jim French: will start to get any bit stronger, but it still is stained black, typically

Jim French: some of your boring thickness of the of the stronger material.

Jim French: So then, the Cpt’s that you show

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: suggested the thickness of the stronger material is maybe 3 or 4, or even 5 feet like that, and it tails off pretty rapidly. And I think your cross section suggests that the

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: the thickness of you know you call it densified fill, which is basically, you know, they must just had an opportunity to drain and be above water level of a above bay level for a few years.

Jim French: Until it drains enough that it’s strong enough to add another foot, and then let it drain for month or 2, and then they put another foot. So densified is kind of an overstated term, I guess, but but it looks like from your cpt’s actually, I think I can.

Jim French: are.

Jim French: do I have that? Yeah. So here’s here’s some of the Cpt’s.

Jim French: I’m not sure exact locations of these. But you can see down in here.

Jim French: You know the these numbers here are something like equivalent to 300 350 Psf, und sheer strength, maybe something that range it’s going down to 20 feet, which is the bottom shown on these plots

Jim French: and it doesn’t pick up at 20 feet. So we’re not sure where it goes. But this is pretty consistent with

Jim French: you know, some of these actually are starting to get better at 18. This might be the bottom of bay mud here.

Jim French: right? This is the bottom of bay mud.

Jim French: but anyway, so it looks like they mud, you know, at least on the Cpt’s that I have here here.

Jim French: You know lot thicker bay mud than what what is suggested in the

Jim French: in the half dozen cross sections that you show for your stability.

Michael Whelan: Yeah, this is a series that I think pretty consistently reach about 20 feet

Michael Whelan: throughout these. Cpt’s right, and, as you say, some of them, many of them can

Michael Whelan: don’t really show up much of a trend as you get to the bottom of them like this one here on screen. Right? Yeah. Yeah. So this one, this one doesn’t. This one doesn’t hit the bottom of bay mud. This one, doesn’t this one doesn’t.

Jim French: This one may be trying to pick up this one, doesn’t

Jim French: this one? Yeah. Here’s 2, then that are, you know this bay, maybe the bottom of bay mud.

Michael Whelan: Yeah.

Jim French: here’s bottom. They might a little bit higher here. This is you know, 16 feet.

Jim French: This one doesn’t hit the bottom.

Jim French: anyway. So I didn’t go back and

Jim French: look where each of these individual ones were. But

Michael Whelan: sure

Michael Whelan: and no. Then the the iso pack you were shown earlier is is good. I mean. One thing we were pondering was, how does the presence of these

Michael Whelan: berms sitting atop the young bay mud effect

Michael Whelan: what we see today under

Michael Whelan: the berms in terms of young Bay mud. And in other words, you know, we we gave some thought to. Was there some?

Michael Whelan: Yeah, I think, probably taken from the old.

Jim French: or they’ve probably started at least with that old

Jim French: Cdm. G. Used to be called California Division of Mines and geologies. I think it’s 1958 green book we call it.

Jim French: That has 2 maps. It has an isopact map when it has a bottom of a mud

Jim French: map, and the bottom of May. Mud won’t change by adding burns to the top of it and the settlement. It looks like

Jim French: like, I said from the Cpt’s that I was looking at that were just looking at a minute ago. here!

Jim French: Well, here, here it looks like the bay mud is it looks like the it. You’re getting really good strengthening up here. you know. These ones are, you know, getting strong down to maybe 10 feet. There’s some improvement. This one here is getting improvement really good improvement, only down to 2, 3 feet, and minimal improvement down to, you know, 6 or 10. So in terms of the Isopac.

Jim French: Some of this, you know, this is the fill that’s been placed, maybe, and this is where it’s consolidating underneath it and getting a little bit denser because it has some dry fill sitting on top of it.

Jim French: Same thing here, here, here’s where your your your fill thickness.

Jim French: I think you’re calling densified is really 2 feet thick or or so, and then there’s a little bit of improvement, because there’s some consolidation due to the drier berm sitting on top of it.

Jim French: Same thing here, you know. Here’s you probably got 4 feet of fill placed on top, and a little bit of densification for the next 4 feet.

Jim French: Same thing you got. You have. you know, 3 feet of fill with another 3 4 feet of slightly improved material. Incidentally, the

Jim French: the 1250. Is that what you used for the fill strength corresponds to a value about right in here, where my arrow is here. So anything that’s to the left of the air left of about 8. This is the A 10 TSF. Line. Here.

Jim French: Converting the tip resistance value into the

Jim French: into the sheer strength. This is about where this sheer strength of of a 1250 lands, and you know 3 or 400 is down in here.

Jim French: so I think I think you gotta look carefully at how how thick of of a berm you assume over the top of it, and how deep the bottom, and and most importantly, how deep the bottom they might is.

Jim French: And to to Nick’s question about the shape of the circles. The thickness of the berm will absolutely. very strongly influence whether you’re going to get failures that can pass through the toe, or through the middle of of the crest, and Alpha

Jim French: little beyond the tower, whether they try to go deeper to the bottom of payment. So these geometry. Questions, I think, are really critical

honestly.

Jim French: and maybe maybe you’ve done some of that. But it wasn’t. In the presentation which I understand. A presentation is

Jim French: is a mere an an hour, so to speak, a couple of hours

Jim French: which we’ve exceeded, you know. But

Jim French: But you know, maybe useful to submit also a geotechnical report along with the alongside the the presentation, so that we can review where you’ve documented some of your assumptions and methods and search criteria, and so on. Sure, sure.

Michael Whelan: Yeah. Well, I mean, I would agree. When you look at these, Cpt’s the the conclusion does suggest that you have very soft young bay mud to a

Michael Whelan: the depth that exceeds in some cases below the Cpt depths.

Michael Whelan: The numbers we selected don’t entirely take. They? They don’t take these only into account. Obviously, I mean, we we looked at the borings and the bull counts from the various borings that were done.

Michael Whelan: We looked at the lab testing and the and the the triaxial work that was done on selected samples. The the slide I showed with the stress train curves earlier was

Michael Whelan: was a large part of our are thinking as well, and and selecting the overall parameters, I mean, I know Jim, kind of what you’re showing here, as we as we focus on these, Cpt’s might suggest that we’re using

Michael Whelan: or applying strength parameters that are that are on the high side

Michael Whelan: or or the thicknesses, thicknesses that are on the low side, particularly or think this is the ybm on on the low side, now, II do, I do acknowledge that conclusion. And

Michael Whelan: and and and II would I would say that the reason

Michael Whelan: that our numbers don’t

Michael Whelan: completely reflect what you see here is driven in in part by the the results of the of the laboratory testing.

Nicholas SITAR: I would probably believe Cpt’s over.

Jim French: If there’s a disagreement between lab testing and Cpt’s. If there’s there’s a stark disagreement. I would believe the Cpt’s because there’s many ways that you can

Jim French: get lab data have problems with lab data. If there’s a subtle improvement over the lab data that it suggests, there’s a little bit of, you know, there’s still still, still, it’s it’s it’s pretty tricky. I think it’s tough to

Jim French: override cpt data like this.

Nicholas SITAR: if I may follow up Anjem absolutely. I averaging data in this kind of situation somehow doesn’t make sense.

Nicholas SITAR: Because you ha again have to, as we discuss, as I suggested earlier, have to look at the critical section. So you cannot just look at the average section. You have to look at the critical section here, and that means critical section in terms of

Nicholas SITAR: bemot strength. I don’t see any

Nicholas SITAR: strength regain over that distance? Typically does not

Nicholas SITAR: my experience.

Nicholas SITAR: And the other thing is that you know, that’s going that’s going to govern. So I agree with Jim that gone trumps, whatever else there may be, especially older laboratory data, as much as it may have been done with the you know, best possible procedure.

Nicholas SITAR: Unless you you can show that you collect that thing. Wall samples test for them within 24 h in underneath tests. Perhaps.

Nicholas SITAR: But con data is very difficult to trump. So my suggestion again, just to follow up is identify the critical locations.

Nicholas SITAR: either very thin that that is a critical tool, because then you basically force the slide surface to follow a defined plane or the deeper sections where you, in fact, have a much greater chance of getting a circle of failure as you as you analyze. So I think those are sort of the the sort of the end points of what you have to look at in in my view

Jim French: along the same lines. This is jumping ahead a few slides, fewer slides. I think we’ll get to it pretty soon, like you’ve proposed 4 borings and one Cpt. And I would probably cut it down to a boring, or may maybe even one boring, and for the same for the same price. 2 dozen Cpt. And make sure all the cpt’s hit the bottom of bay mud. It’s you know. It’s an extra

Jim French: $50 per cpt. It’s like it’s it’s nothing. Once you’re down there.

Jim French: they are fast, actually a close eye on it until the till the strength starts to climb a tiny bit, and that’s get 5 feet of strength. Climb.

Jim French: and that’s the bottom of bay mud, and we don’t care what happens. Below the bottom of bay mud.

Ramin Golesorkhi: And to next point I think we talked about before. But the run up analyses. There are critical sections there. How do those areas compare with

Ramin Golesorkhi: the slope stability sections that

Ramin Golesorkhi: that considered. So I think.

Ramin Golesorkhi: need to kind of tie in everything together, so that we’re not missing

Ramin Golesorkhi: so that everything has a comprehensive look to it.

Nicholas SITAR: Yeah, to follow up, basically, you have to consider a scenario.

Nicholas SITAR: The worst scenario is that you have a maximum credible earthquake at the time when we have a big storm. Now the probabilities of that are pretty low, but, as we have learned.

Nicholas SITAR: unfortunate things happen at the worst possible time pretty easily have a major storm within the 2 years.

Jim French: which statistically gets pretty complicated. But I don’t know how fast you’re gonna repair all these after big earthquake. How fast. how I have a priority these berms are gonna have

Jim French: after a big earthquake that everybody’s busy doing and repairing. falling down houses and freeways and stuff.

Michael Whelan: Well, the the sl

Michael Whelan: sections we used here were derived independently from the wave. Run up analysis. So your your observations to that they’re they’re not the same.

Michael Whelan: They were selected based on different considerations.

Michael Whelan: That’s not say they can’t be integrated. So they’re presenting or looking at consistent sections, but

Michael Whelan: we did consider those independently from the the run up. Analysis.

Michael Whelan: Is it worth looking for a moment, then, at our proposed

Michael Whelan: our proposal for additional boardings. Jim, you’ve made a comment about how you would see that being

Michael Whelan: conducted.

Michael Whelan: okay, yeah, this. This is the Jim. This was the figure you were referring to where we have 4 borings and one co-located Cpt.

Michael Whelan: We. We do intend to use these to get to greater depth. As I said earlier the the majority of these explorations, and in fact, a lot of the ones we’re looking at earlier

Michael Whelan: go to like 20 feet or so. So this is an opportunity to go to greater depths.

Michael Whelan: And, Jim I you were. You were pointing out that you could do

Michael Whelan: a number of Cpt’s A. A quicker than you could do a number of boardings. That that is certainly true.

Michael Whelan: Are there any other comments on the on the proposed additional explorations that we’ve put forth here.

Michael Whelan: Okay, can we go back just to just for a moment here? I did. Wanna II know we’ve talked in some detail, or you folks have commented in some detail on the

Michael Whelan: selection of soul properties, the the, the, the strategy underneath the berms just for the good of the order. Let me, if there, if time allows, if you go back

Michael Whelan: a couple of slides here. Yeah, go back one more. Yes, right there.

Michael Whelan: This was just W. Some of the reasons we we chose to show. The ones that we show is just show the effects of different parameters. And

Michael Whelan: this is a case where, at the same location the the difference in factor safety derived from our analyses

Michael Whelan: for the the larger 475 year return earthquake, and then on the next slide is the same

Michael Whelan: area with the with the 50 year. So it’s it’s just showing some of the parameters selected parameters that we that we ran through, and a lot of what I’m taking away from this conversation is just the importance of

Michael Whelan: further presentation of the parametric analysis that we performed, I mean what these ones show is

Michael Whelan: affects the water level and affects earthquake size. But there are also

Michael Whelan: parametric analysis to be presented, which which we did do, and I think can be presented more thoroughly in terms of selected thickness of of younger bay mud. I mean, you see, some variations as you go through this sequence. But

Michael Whelan: we haven’t put together like right next to each other. 2 examples. What difference does it make? Because it does? It does make a difference. The deeper it goes, the

Michael Whelan: the the the more of an effect it has on factor safety. So I guess one of the takeaways for me is to

Michael Whelan: present that in a way that everyone recognizes how how it plays a role in our conclusions

Jim French: right? And and to just point out again, these are about 7 foot thick of bay mud.

Jim French: I

Jim French: from the ground surface to the bottom of bay mud beneath the the berms. It’s a little bit less because the berm is consolidated. The upper portions of bay mud, although I would say the bottom half of the Burma, as you’ve shown, it is probably not full strength there.

Jim French: But if you were to make this bay mud 20 feet thick. say, or even 15. that Those contours of safety factor

Jim French: would get, you know, Oranger and Oranger, as you move further down, as the circle gets deeper and deeper. And so I don’t know if it’s gonna hit

Jim French: one or 1.1 or 1.3, it’s going to become, you know, the the the contours of, of, say, 2 factor are going to change. If you deepen the bay mud

Nicholas SITAR: well, and if I may, to follow up on Jim. I

Nicholas SITAR: III guess the question is, how did you select the proposed locations for boreholes? II do not believe that boreholes these days is the way to go. I think Ct. Should be the driving tool, and the reason you might want to collect deep samples if you have some suspicion of there is something odd about the deep bay, you know. The old bay mud underneath which,

Nicholas SITAR: we don’t believe is is an issue. Looking at this kind of analysis, but tying your cross sections to the critical sections that may be over topped and possibly doing investigations in those areas. Would make sense. So basically targeted investigation that ties this

Nicholas SITAR: and these analyses together in a kind of a consistent and and holistic way, so that you can convince yourself, not just us

Nicholas SITAR: that, in fact, you looked at the critical problems and and you analyzed them. And you have the data to support your conclusions. So that would be my sort of

Nicholas SITAR: take on what I have seen 400 foot boring. You could do a lot of 20 Cpt’s and one boring.

Ramin Golesorkhi: and Cpt’s don’t need to go, most of them at least more than 20 or 30 feet.

Ramin Golesorkhi: Maybe you want to put one to a hundred feet to get a

Ramin Golesorkhi: The average shearwater velocity to 100 feet. Yeah. but you but you could do that with a Cpt easier, faster, cheaper than you

Ramin Golesorkhi: do a couple of them. If you want to get a range.

Michael Whelan: Sure. Yeah, that that depth target is consistent with our thinking about confirming the shearwave velocity with the at least one deep exploration. But I would agree they don’t all need to go

Michael Whelan: that deep. It’s really a matter of confirming or

Michael Whelan: or furthering our understanding of how deep does the the young bay mud extend.

Ramin Golesorkhi: and say, if you were to do any boring.

Ramin Golesorkhi: the intent would be to get some very high quality samples to do consolidation tests, so that you can understand the settlement characteristics of of the Baymag. The young Baymag.

Ramin Golesorkhi: in terms of

Ramin Golesorkhi: firm kind of operational if you will.

Ramin Golesorkhi: maintenance issues with time to having to raise it, etc. II don’t see I don’t see any

Ramin Golesorkhi: real value in strength. I think Cpt will do pretty good job at that. and

Ramin Golesorkhi: I think if you do boring, you should consider at least taking some

Ramin Golesorkhi: d and M type samplers and things like that. To to run some

Ramin Golesorkhi: dissipation would be adequate to give you that kind of information.

Nicholas SITAR: There’s a question. These these terms are.

Nicholas SITAR: how old? 70 years 80 years old. Something like that most are since the 18 sixties and Ms. S. From

Michael Whelan: shall we follow up or finish up with our

Michael Whelan: final slides.

Michael Whelan: Jump ahead to

Ramin Golesorkhi: and yeah, do do some piston sampler samplers or ramen, said DM, DM, samplers. There’s there’s number of types of pistons that you could use

Ramin Golesorkhi: but I’m not sure you need to emphasize that a lot. I think one or 2 would be great to supplement like Nick is talking about and get poor pressure dissipation tests. you know a a handful of them. At least, I’m not sure that that’s the the most critical part of the whole of this project, or the sickness

Ramin Golesorkhi: of the bay mud, and the and the strength of the bay mud that you can get from correlations on the Cpt’s, I think, is. should suffice for this type of project. Mostly.

Ramin Golesorkhi: I agree. II

Ramin Golesorkhi: I think, very limited. If borings are going to be drilled. then that’s what my suggestion was.

Ramin Golesorkhi: It’s not imperative. But if you are planning to do boring.

Ramin Golesorkhi: then I think that the value of the borrowings are in terms of getting

Ramin Golesorkhi: good samples into Baymont and seeing the consolidation characteristic of the Bay mountain. Yeah, get get the samples sealed nicely and protected, and that.

Michael Whelan: Yeah. Get the undisturbed samples

Michael Whelan: suitable for undisturbed testing of strength and compressibility. Right?

Michael Whelan: And what there was comment about poor pressure dissipation

Nicholas SITAR: test these days. You can run it relatively quickly, takes.

Nicholas SITAR: depending on the hydraulic conductivity of the bay mud from less than an hour to maybe a little longer than an hour per interval.

Nicholas SITAR: But you get the consolidation characters. You get the hydraulic conductivity, get the consolidation, and it’s in situ test. So you don’t collect any salad. You don’t

Nicholas SITAR: pull any samples. You’re not doing additional testing. It’s it’s been used very successfully, and all the congratulations on hiring.

Michael Whelan: I mean, II missed the tail end of the congratulations. Comment

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: the board members. Some of the board members Nick talked about

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: you know the layer and and the potential, for

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: you know, wedge type failure. We’ve talked about some of the terms actually have court section where?

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: Yeah? Actually, quite true. And then you compacted material

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: to minimize the potential for. And I’m wondering whether the

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: vertical interface between

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: that.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: you know, and the material which is already there introduces another potential for the failure surface created by this interface.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: Alright. So I’m wondering whether to be useful to look at one of those sections as part of the analysis.

Michael Whelan: II understand. Does. Does the the the presence of the of the cord or the keyed interior present? A. I think. What you’re

Michael Whelan: pondering was, does that present a

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: an an additional failure. Opportunity.

Michael Whelan: do you see?

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: Okay, well, I think that’s a lot of

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: very expensive consulting that you just received for free. Are there any more?

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: It’s

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: okay. And so looks. It looks like we’re at the.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: are we? At the end of the presentation, or

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: well, I have a

Michael Whelan: but you know that that says

Michael Whelan: we, we conclude sufficient stability. But the commentary here is putting forth some questions about the underlying assumptions I get. That

Nicholas SITAR: may may I make one more comment on this? Throughout the the

Nicholas SITAR: you mean the speaker.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: my microphone is unmuted. Yeah.

Nicholas SITAR: Okay,

Nicholas SITAR: okay. Throughout the various reports. There are references to 1,906 earthquake.

Nicholas SITAR: and we’ll upgrade our earthquake. 1906.

Nicholas SITAR: Completely different scenario is nothing to do with the performance in 1906, the height of these

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: structures and everything

Nicholas SITAR: was so insignificant it really has no bearing.

Nicholas SITAR: what are these

Nicholas SITAR: structures are going for fall. Well, now.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: in present, and the same thing

Nicholas SITAR: lower grade. I was

Nicholas SITAR: in terms of magnitude, a big earthquake. It was about the shortest possible duration earthquake you can have for the magnitude.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: It really is not representative of

Nicholas SITAR: anything that is significant. Typical magnitude.

Nicholas SITAR: earthquake of that size. If it

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: zippers all the way across, it’s gonna be 20 cents. This. This was offensive.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: We, we agree.

Nicholas SITAR: patting ourselves on the back, saying that these things perform well in a 1906, which I really, you know, is a completely different

Nicholas SITAR: lifetime. It’s lifetime away. And and Loma Prieta is not a representative of what we would expect. So I’m I’m simply saying to tone down that time. hey, we’ve done well in the past earthquakes. Therefore we’re okay. Recommendation.

Michael Whelan: We we? We do acknowledge that and and agree with it, and in fact, I mean

Michael Whelan: II may have. I know I mentioned their performance. I don’t want to completely ignore that. But no doubt the whole point of this analysis was to say alright, how are they going to do in future earthquakes? And it does lead

Michael Whelan: to one question. I guess I I’m interested in in all of your reaction to our use of a 475 year earthquake event I mean

Michael Whelan: by by to our way of thinking that that right there is the single

Michael Whelan: biggest element of conservativeness. In this analysis. I mean it. It is true we can.

Michael Whelan: We can look at the variability of the young bay mud strengths and thicknesses, and that all play a role. But

Michael Whelan: is, isn’t it. Doesn’t it also seem that the application of that particular earthquake sizes itself a significantly conservative assumption? I mean, never. I agree. Let’s never mind what happened in the

past 100 years that may or may not be of any relevance. But looking ahead.

Michael Whelan: that is that is a big earthquake for us to be focusing ourselves on and and part of me wonders if it’s if if it’s above and beyond what really should go into this analysis, and that the the operating level earthquake may be a little bit more of a meaningful

Michael Whelan: re recognition of of the timeline towards Cargill’s activities. Is there any commentary on that

Ramin Golesorkhi: on that portion of this analysis. We haven’t really focused.

Ramin Golesorkhi: You know, before we get along.

Ramin Golesorkhi: Yeah, yes, yes, we know.

Ramin Golesorkhi: you know, 25 years now. So

Ramin Golesorkhi: you know, in terms of design criteria. And you know, we’re saying, comparing

Ramin Golesorkhi: the berms here to marine oil terminal, or.

Ramin Golesorkhi: you know, buildings that are subject to as TE. 7.

Ramin Golesorkhi: Is this appropriate for berms?

Ramin Golesorkhi: You know that that are.

Ramin Golesorkhi: you know, retaining

Ramin Golesorkhi: material that is, you know, toxic right or not. I don’t know how you characterize it. But

Ramin Golesorkhi: unnatural, natural.

Ramin Golesorkhi: Okay, Johnson, one of our board members is in the audience. Is there a way that

Ramin Golesorkhi: we can get him to

Ramin Golesorkhi: weigh in on this as well in terms of

Nicholas SITAR: you know. What

Nicholas SITAR: with other.

Michael Whelan: what other side am I? Okay.

Gayle Johnson: yeah, just just so. Just so. Folks know. The only reason I’m not there in person is because I got Covid last week. So I was told to participate as a public

Gayle Johnson: public participant today.

Gayle Johnson: I. When I when I heard you

Gayle Johnson: characterizing 4, 75 as like extremely conservative. I

Gayle Johnson: I do

Gayle Johnson: disagree with that characterization. That’s not a a large number compared to what we use all the time in the Bay area. or

Gayle Johnson: any kind of assessments of existing facilities.

Gayle Johnson: So I think that’s that’s

Gayle Johnson: II don’t think I don’t think that’s appropriate

Gayle Johnson: characterize it that way.

Gayle Johnson: However, having said that one thing that I think is the context that’s missing here. That II don’t know if any of us understand is.

Gayle Johnson: if you can, you describe the failure modes that occur, and then what are the actual consequences in terms of.

Gayle Johnson: you know. is is seepage an issue? Does it take collapse of the whole

Gayle Johnson: berm and pouring out of.

Gayle Johnson: you know the water inside

Gayle Johnson: to cause a problem. How how sensitive are we? And that’s something I don’t really have have a good feel for to

Gayle Johnson: identify how conservative this is. I don’t know if that’s something

Michael Whelan: you’re able to address Michael or somebody else could. Well, I would. I’ll tell you what I mean. We were looking prepared to look at that exact kind of question. You know. Okay, how much.

Michael Whelan: what kind of failure we’re gonna see over. What length of berm are we gonna see it? How quickly is it going to occur? You know those sort of questions that would all feed into a you know, an evaluation of ecological risk.

Michael Whelan: But the analysis I’ve I’ve shown you folks, you know, I

Michael Whelan: acknowledging your commentary on the selection of parameters and and and thickness of materials.

Michael Whelan: The analysis we did here led us to conclude that that isn’t gonna happen. And so it it W. What we came out of this believing was that we have an absence of a failure. And so there wasn’t really a cause for us to go down the road of

okay. You know how much.

Michael Whelan: what mechanism of failure. Really, we came at this from the from the beginning point of

Michael Whelan: is there going to be a failure. And

Michael Whelan: you know, let ourselves to conclude that that isn’t what’s gonna happen. So that that’s really where we ended up with on those kind of questions, Gail, I mean, we were prepared to look at that exact

Michael Whelan: a sort of evaluation until we came up with the results that we did

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: well, just and just for a point of reference, and the charge was, you know, in terms of what we are trying to

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: answer, based on what the Crb had given you. You know. Yes, to analyze any expected damage that may occur.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: and any expected associated release of Mss.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: And my question is, I mean. What you’ve shown us is limit, equilibrium

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: type of analysis. Don’t you think it would be more appropriate to also do a displacement type of analysis because he might not have a failure.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: But you could get displacement

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: that doesn’t result in. If you have, there is no display.

Michael Whelan: I mean I right, I mean III hear you. I mean, we’ve we’ve done that kind of analysis in cases where we find a low factor of safety, and we believe me. We’ve had

Michael Whelan: plenty of projects where we’ve come to that conclusion to say, Okay, well, we got a fatter safety of of one

Michael Whelan: point 9, or you know something that indicates failure. And then.

yeah, we’ve applied various sliding block or other displacement sorts of analysis to understand. Okay, what did that mean? What actually moved. How much did it move? And

Michael Whelan: if if we III would imagine we would have done that exact sort of thing had we been coming up with low factors of safety here. But

Michael Whelan: we we haven’t at this point. So we did not apply the the displacement analyses.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: So

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: so if you know, based on the comments you’ve received. You know, if you’re looking at 24 thick layout

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: they might. and your factor of safety is lower than what you are currently reporting. Are you going to do a displacement analysis? Then

Michael Whelan: II would think that’d be the only way to draw a meaningful conclusion about what it’s telling us. Yeah, I would. I would think so.

Michael Whelan: I mean, that would be my intention.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: Yeah.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: So Michael.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: going back to your question about is 4, 75. Appropriate. I think that there’s

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: so I guess I have 2 questions back to you or the team. What’s the design line

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: of the project or

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: design criteria, you know. Do you want to have no room failures? Are you? Life, safety.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: and what is being protected? Are we protecting?

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: You’re nice and concentrated salts from getting diluted by a little bit of overtopping waves. You know. That’s worth very much, Fenbergs to do that.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: If you’re worried about spilling some of your well, that’s another issue. If there are subdivisions behind your

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: your pawns that would potentially be afforded. then that’s

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: another issue also. So I’d be interested in, you know, having some sort of maybe a simple bulleted list of what’s what’s the design life we want? We want to protect it for

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: 10 years, 30 years, 50 years.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: year 2,100

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: whatever and what are the things that are being protected, whether it’s a failure.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: maybe address that last time. Last presentation. A little bit more, maybe

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: Monkey was wondering.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: but but some of that goes into 475 appropriate

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: and whether 4 75 is the right number. It’s certainly the right number, if there’s any consequences, and maybe you could argue, the consequences are relatively

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: modest here. I would think that a 72 year return interval is probably a pretty low number.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: living 4 miles from the Hayward fault, or 6 miles from Hayward. Fault, or whatever you are down there

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: at Newark. but maybe a 2, 25 would be an arguable number.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: So I think the 225 is something that we can expect in the next 30 years. The next 15 years from the usages reports.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: Think we’re gonna get some big events

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: during whatever your design like this. If your design life is 20 years or 30 years, I think there’s a good chance. We’re gonna get something that’s relatively close to 2,225 year terminople.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: Yeah.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: one person in 50 years, or

Michael Whelan: well, I wonder if the marine terminal guidance

Michael Whelan: provide some

Michael Whelan: some

Michael Whelan: thoughts toward that right? I mean just the very terminology that they apply with the operating level

Michael Whelan: event, the ole, which is essentially I I’m admittedly oversimplifying a bit when I say this, but the idea being that for a

Michael Whelan: the, the, the, the operating level earthquake is one that the facility needs to be able to handle and not be

Michael Whelan: damaged, whereas the contingency level earthquake, the Cl. The 475 year event is is one where

Michael Whelan: it has to be reparable. It doesn’t. And again, I’m talking about motems, and I know this is not

Michael Whelan: well. We’re this project is not a Motems project, but

Michael Whelan: I do think the the concepts are useful that there may be damage in a in a contingency level earthquake, but it can’t be catastrophic. It has to be reparable damage. That’s really the way.

Michael Whelan: Th, that’d be my summarization of the way motems

Michael Whelan: lays those out. And I mean, II feel like what we’re doing here is we’re applying the contingency, level earthquake, 475 year event, and looking to see, is there any damage or not?

Michael Whelan: And again, the conclusions we’ve been presenting, or that we don’t see that there is damage. Now

Michael Whelan: you’ve offered a lot of comments about some of the underlying assumptions that that may change that

Michael Whelan: it. Maybe they don’t it might. It might come down to the understanding of deflection analysis that might come out of it. Perhaps we end up in the same place. I’m not sure, but I guess I’m just offering

Michael Whelan: the the motems example as as one way that that large earthquake can be addressed.

Michael Whelan: Is there risk, I mean. Well, yeah, I mean, I don’t know. I’m not an ecologist, but certainly that’s forefront. The minds of the motems

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: 2 25 is probably not too bad of a number to use. If, before that presented the reason why you say

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: and not enormous dollar value, wants to gamble their own money on a smaller earthquake, and that’s

Ramin Golesorkhi: then that’s their prerogative. II think as long as there’s no life safety involved.

Ramin Golesorkhi: But I don’t think 2 25 is probably a better number to use.

Ramin Golesorkhi: Okay.

Ramin Golesorkhi: I tend to think. First of all, I think the conclusions reached here

Ramin Golesorkhi: are based on the analyses that have been performed.

Ramin Golesorkhi: We have to discuss that there may be

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: Hello.

Ramin Golesorkhi: analysis that could be more critical and may not result in the same conclusions. I think the 475 level of shaking in a pseudo static sense

Ramin Golesorkhi: half a G. That’s pretty significant. If the same conclusions can be reached with more critical sections.

Ramin Golesorkhi: Then I think the 4 75 is pretty

Ramin Golesorkhi: good level of shaking that these

Ramin Golesorkhi: firms are being analyzed for.

Ramin Golesorkhi: No, I don’t know. III suspect we are not looking at the most critical

Ramin Golesorkhi: sections that may result in

Ramin Golesorkhi: other types of conclusions.

Ramin Golesorkhi: I think 2, 25. It’s probably more

Ramin Golesorkhi: appropriate for a Hayward scenario type kind of level of shaking.

Ramin Golesorkhi: And that’s something that maybe deterministically looking at it. That could be. And that kind of

Ramin Golesorkhi: also is consistent with level of hazard that everybody is talking about in the Bay area. that

Ramin Golesorkhi: more than likely all of us will be experiencing it

Ramin Golesorkhi: in our lifetime so hopefully not. But but I think that that puts a little more context in terms of

Ramin Golesorkhi: is this a more appropriate level rather than just saying 72 year or not.

Ramin Golesorkhi: So so I think my suggestion would be for the lower level 2, 25 kind of makes sense. But I think you can also compare it to a deterministic scenario. Hayward type, the magnitudes.

Ramin Golesorkhi: 7. Something at whatever distance you are, and then

Ramin Golesorkhi: kind of considering the amplification of software deposits. And where the site is that sort of thing, then that kind of gives you a little more

Ramin Golesorkhi: kind of context and perspective of kind of this is more real and how real it is, and how does it compare with

Ramin Golesorkhi: what everybody thinks that the Bay Area is going to be subjected to in the next.

Ramin Golesorkhi: Whatever number of years near future, I would say.

Gayle Johnson: you’re not actually referencing motems correctly.

Gayle Johnson: They don’t have Ole and Cl. They have level one and level 2. So just

Gayle Johnson: to be aware of that

Michael Whelan: I may be confusing port port design with motems and the oily designation.

Gayle Johnson: And then and then one thing about motems that actually could work to your advantage is that

Gayle Johnson: the reason the reason they have

Gayle Johnson: different? They have different return periods for different risk levels.

Gayle Johnson: So, depending on how much oil you’re exposed to you, could you could classify it as a low medium or high risk. and the range for the level. 2 earthquake goes from 4, 75 years for a high risk

Gayle Johnson: to 2, 24 for a low risk. So it’s 10% and 50 years. Medium is 15% and 50 years

Gayle Johnson: and low as 20% in 50 years. And the O in the level, one earthquake, or ole, as you call it also goes down from 50, 65, 70, 75%.

Gayle Johnson: So I think if you want to use motions as a reference.

Gayle Johnson: it’s probably not a bad reference, because it’s in the building code, and it’s risk based.

Gayle Johnson: But I would suggest, if you have a even a qualitative reason for tying the risk to the return peer, do you choose?

Gayle Johnson: that that would be

Gayle Johnson: defensible. I think

Michael Whelan: that makes sense.

Michael Whelan: That makes sense.

Michael Whelan: Okay?

Michael Whelan: Good comment.

Michael Whelan: Huh?

Michael Whelan: Well, it’s a good thing I write fast because I’ve been taking a lot of notes

Jim French: looking at with Cp. Is not only the depth to the bottom of bay mud. But look at the thickness of the

Jim French: berm itself.

Jim French: And the thickness of improved bay mud below the broom. I think you’re gonna find that the fill is gonna have a distinct, you know, 1250 might be a pretty good number for that

Jim French: and I think there’s gonna be a rapidly attenuating strength as you get below the actual fill that’s placed because the berm has densified has caused a little bit of consolidation.

Jim French: And

Jim French: and you might take take a look if you can. At what?

Jim French: what the

Jim French: firm geometry looks like beyond the toe. It’s a little bit tough to see sometimes I know, because

Jim French: these burns were created by reaching out with a long arm backhoe and a scooping up.

Jim French: and so there’s often a ditch in front of the toes of the Bermms that may or may not show up in Lidar, if it’s if it’s water filled.

Jim French: The

Jim French: the

Jim French: bay mud below the toe of the berm will densify a little bit, but not as well as it densifies underneath the middle of the berm. So some of that stuff has been looked at in previous reports. I suspect you can find some old, maybe tow excavations, or reaching out with the

Jim French: a canoe and a and a and a stick see how how deep things are out there, but that those are some things

Jim French: can make some difference, and

Jim French: we should be considered at least, and see if you can see if you make some estimates. So what you know. If there are any ditches you borrow ditches in front of out beyond the toes of Burns, and so on. Yeah, are there still dishes that that still exist there? And I and and I didn’t

Michael Whelan: feature this in the slide, but we would expect that as part of the additional explorations we’d also be doing

Michael Whelan: visual observations of what’s going on at and past the broom toe, and probably some

Michael Whelan: shallow may maybe just hand auger type work to understand. Is there a significant difference in in Ybm properties outside or at the toe of the berm than what we see directly underneath it, because II would tend to think it would be a bit different

Michael Whelan: without the loading. So that actually is part of our our approach for the additional explorations. Now, you know, we’ve talked about various refinements and further parametric analyses that that you folks have put forth, I mean is.

Michael Whelan: is, is it? Is it your

Michael Whelan: opinion that

Michael Whelan: that is, that is

Michael Whelan: appropriate to do? Following the additional explorations that ha! How? How would you see that fitting? And I mean, I guess I guess that’s kind of what I would imagine. But I’m I’m not sure what everyone’s opinion is there.

Nicholas SITAR: But it’s fine.

Nicholas SITAR: I may. I think. You know, we we sort of focus on suggestion suggesting that you identify the critical areas

Nicholas SITAR: and in those critical areas, then focus your investigation.

Nicholas SITAR: And in that context, I think Jim’s point is very well taken. Nobody ever documents these borrow areas because the maintenance goes out there, and

Nicholas SITAR: few years later nobody knows where the pit was dug for this, for the stuff and vegetation fills it in. So on those sections that you then analyze

Nicholas SITAR: and identify as critical. Try to do, a really detailed geometry of the of the of the

Nicholas SITAR: of the ground in front of the under.

Nicholas SITAR: say, base side of the levy, and on the other side, and it can be done. Very simple, as Jim said. You go out there with the boat and measuring stick, and just get get the actual profile of the ground rather than guessing it from

Nicholas SITAR: you know everything else you have, and

Nicholas SITAR: if you focus it on series of sections, it’s not a major problem to do it, you know, if you had to do it along the entire section. Of course, it becomes a problem unless you identify

Nicholas SITAR: ahead of time that you already know where there are some of these borrow areas. You know it’s a classic on river levies that. The borough areas are on the river side and create problems that nobody thought about, you know. And

Jim French: these firms. Think you might have retired a couple. Pat. What’s Pat’s last name?

Jim French: Yeah, talk, talk, talk to him.

Nicholas SITAR: The idea is to focus your attention rather than disperse it over the whole thing, and say, You know, from overtopping analysis, you already know.

Nicholas SITAR: Then you can look at it from terms of depth of Bay mud. The geometry get the geometry in those locations, and I think that can make a very compelling

Nicholas SITAR: case. And then, in terms of the seismic, I agree with Jim that you know 4, 75. We use 4, 75 routinely for significant earthquakes, but in terms of your

Nicholas SITAR: performance, objectives in a kind of more

Nicholas SITAR: expect an you know more likely occurred. Scenario to 2 25 is is a good one

to look at.

Michael Whelan: That’s

Jim French: okay.

Jim French: We’ve had a lot of I mean a lot of advice. I think it. We’re kind of. We’re at the point where we should have public comment.

Jim French: So how do we run public comment. Jen.

Jim French: let’s ask

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: ask anybody online if they have public comment to raise their hand.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: and we’ll see if any hands are raised

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: for all the

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: there are no people from the public in the meeting in person. So I just wanna open it up. Is there. Is there anybody online? Who would like to make a public comment? Please raise your hand in the zoom.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: I’m not seeing anybody.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: Okay. Well.

BCDC HOST: I think we could get if Gail wanted to make one final comment.

Gayle Johnson: No, II think I’m good. Thanks

proposal.

BCDC HOST: I think there’s one public that’s trying to raise her hand, but it goes away. It is

BCDC HOST: Gail. I’m not sure the pro. The last name Ravi, RABE, with CCCR.

BCDC HOST: I will allow her to talk, cause I think she’s trying to raise her hand. But it goes away.

BCDC HOST: Do you agree?

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: Thank you, Grace?

Gail Raabe CCCR: Can you hear me. This is Gail Robbie.

BCDC HOST: Yes, we hear you for the record. Please state your name and your affiliation, and you have 3 min.

Gail Raabe CCCR: You may, you may proceed.

Gail Raabe CCCR: Alright. My name is Gail Robbie. I’m Co. Chair for the Citizens Committee to complete the Refuge. Good afternoon, Chairman Iwashita and Board Members.

Gail Raabe CCCR: We submitted a joint letter with, Save the bay for your November 2022. Meeting.

Gail Raabe CCCR: expressing a number of concerns and questions related to pawns, p. 2, 12 and p. 2 13.

Gail Raabe CCCR: It appears that some of the questions we raise remain unanswered.

Gail Raabe CCCR: Additionally, I was unable to locate. The Boudro associates. Cover letter to Bcd. C. Referenced in the staff report, and I’d appreciate it if you could make that correspondence available.

Gail Raabe CCCR: analyzing the integrity of these specific pond levies under various risk scenarios is extremely important

Gail Raabe CCCR: to make sure. Adjacent wetlands and slews are protected.

Gail Raabe CCCR: Potential future increases in the volume of stored Mss. In these 2 ponds over an extended period of time is especially problematic

Gail Raabe CCCR: and should be factored into the various risk assessments. Citizens Committee appreciates the Board’s time and attention in evaluating the information Cargill has provided.

Gail Raabe CCCR: Please ensure that the final reports answer all questions, that the studies are sufficient, and that the conclusions are based on good data. Thank you very much.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): Thank you. I wanna acknowledge that we received a letter

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: from save the day this morning the email and it was it was too late to share the letter with

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: everybody in advance. But I did bring a copy of the letter to this meeting, and

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: print it out and circulate it to each board member that was here in person as well as to the Cargill representatives. We will post the letter on the meeting notice

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: on our website for this meeting. Notice?

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: And we’ll work to answer the questions in it.

Gail Raabe CCCR: Very good. Thank you.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: Make sure. Your comment.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: okay, well, now, time for board discussion.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: I think we

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: this, and maybe we’ll just kinda go around the Horn. Yep, you wanna start

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: question first, I mean.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: I mean, I mean, discussion going to cover both. What Justin presented are we focusing on? I think it’s for both sections of

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: recitation.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: I have no further comment.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: Chris.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: I think my only further comment, if it hasn’t already been addressed, is that

Kris May (Pathways Climate Institute): I know they didn’t address the what the consequences would be of a breach in the sailing water getting out into the environment? Because they didn’t think that was an issue. But it would be good to describe that, so that we fully understand the the impacts. And that will also help determine that. Yes, 4, 75 is

Kris May (Pathways Climate Institute): is an appropriate earthquake.

So

Ramin Golesorkhi: thank you. I think.

Ramin Golesorkhi: her name. No.

Ramin Golesorkhi: I think just one other quick thing. In your additional exploration to say you’re gonna evaluate. Among other things in the faction potential

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: reiterate. What we said about Cpt is probably being preferable to emphasize rather than boring’s.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: And in particular, great job.

Michael Whelan: Was that a question for me? I mean, II agreed to what you said. That is a good way to assess it. I I wasn’t sure if that was question for me to respond to. But II heard it.

Gayle Johnson: Everyone’s muted. Not sure if anyone’s talking.

Michael Whelan: Yeah, I just said II agreed that Cpt’s are a good way to

Michael Whelan: further evaluate look of action. Potential.

Michael Whelan: Fair enough. You and I aren’t hearing anything. Okay?

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: Okay? Yes.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: So so you know, additional information on

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: this core construction would be helpful.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: and and that maybe

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: also kind of well, you need to look at if there are impacts

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: to the there being, you know, kind of a differential different

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: set of material along that plane. And if that causes issues with the berm.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: yeah, stability. Yeah.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: I had one more thing also about the Lidar

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: I think the really useful light Lidar is usually quite reliable in terms of getting shape.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: But in this particular case. It’s not just the shape of the birds we care about this, the absolute elevation that we care about

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: because we’re talking about sea level fish. It was all a cost specification and your office extensions. It’s still the right shape that might make a difference.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: So do a couple. There’s a couple of ways to look into that, maybe just check and see where is the nearest ground? Truth? Aye. to anchor the Lidar nearby.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: having 82, or wherever.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: probably preferably to do a couple of spot checks on terms. Just shoot some a couple of phrase after I make sure that the elevations that they’re doing right elevations.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: if they if they get off a little bit on that.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: Yeah, a little bit.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: I mean, I think, Jen relating to that. I mean, if you order the light you know, because down in a few times they would actually give you

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: the quality quality

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: report on what the level of accuracy is, I think in this case they bought

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: the lighter data which was flown for some other purpose. So I mean, you can either approach the vendor who sold you the data and see whether they had well.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: the level of accuracy report. II think we we have the reporting and initiative kind of quality

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: report associate with that. Yeah.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: okay, okay.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: so so make sure you’re checking, though, Justin. Not just there. not just the shapes, but the absolutely width of David.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: the actual elevation.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: Thanks.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: and make sure that the items are correct.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: Yeah, I’m certain it is.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: I would actually like to see. Like, where versus channel.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: Okay, Jen, thank you for putting the the questions that we’re

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: we had at the beginning of the meeting back up. I think this is just a good prompt. Are there any other comments or

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: issues that

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: need to be raised here? I think we’re getting down to the the item 7. Any other concerns.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: But

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: from the level of discussion and the questions and the suggestions that we’ve had, it sounds like we are going to need another

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: presentation from you after you’ve had a chance to work on

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: all of these issues

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: is that kind of a general consensus. So

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: motion for them. Yes, please. So moved. Second.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: second, that. and then all in favor unanimous.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: I

yeah.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: Do you want them to come back after they do the geotech or or before with an updated work plan.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: I think. Well again, this is another item for discussion. Then I think a work plan can be distributed

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: to the board members for comment. I don’t that we need to go through another one of these sessions at that point. It’s actually problematic to distribute to us for a week.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: So having actually be a meeting, oh.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: so hmm!

Nicholas SITAR: May I suggest.

Nicholas SITAR: unless we have a reason to think that somehow the guidance that was offered fell on deaf ears. We, you know, professionals, and I would trust them to proceed with the you know their their take care about making sure that they get

Nicholas SITAR: and

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: alright, it’s too much different.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: And they can say, Yeah, looks like it’s good, or you know, let’s just continue this. But

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: I thought that the Board is asking for. I think it’s it’s acceptable allowable

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: month of rest, and we can do whatever we want.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: So he said he was calling in on phone or something. but I but I think it’s possible for Jen to talk a week

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: talk to talk to other staff, but also talk to.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: She attached it

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: just source of some.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: So not really a board meeting. It doesn’t so much time, but

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: otherwise I’m not. I’m not sure I need the

yeah. Bye, bye.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: Well, well, how about how about this?

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: Yeah, submitted. And Jen looks at it. She can use her judgement as the weather, and she can talk to Staff Staff, and then she can use her judgement whether

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: she thinks they’re discrepancies with what got discussed here today. What’s what’s on the paper?

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: And if there is, then okay.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: that sounds good. And I will sort of try to summarize in a formal communication. To the applicant. The main points in our discussion today. And I think there were a number

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: adoption.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: Yeah.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: Okay, well, let’s see, where are we now?

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: I think we’re at adjournment. Honestly.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: yeah. Adjournment. Do I have a motion to adjourn all favor? Okay, thank you. Everybody.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: Yeah. thank you.

Michael Whelan: Thank you. Folks.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: Take care.

Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act

As a state agency, the Commission is governed by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act which requires the Commission to: (1) publish an agenda at least ten days in advance of any meeting; and (2) describe specifically in that agenda the items to be transacted or discussed. Public notices of Commission meetings and staff reports (as applicable) dealing with matters on the meeting agendas can be found on BCDC’s website. Simply access Commission Meetings under the “Public Meetings” tab on the website and select the date of the meeting.

How to Provide Comments and Comment Time Limits

Pursuant to state law, the Commission is currently conducting its public meetings in a “hybrid” fashion. Each meeting notice will specify (1) where the meeting is being primarily held physically, (2) all teleconference locations, which will be publicly-accessible, and (3) the ZOOM virtual meeting link. If you would like to comment at the beginning of the meeting or on an item scheduled for public discussion, you may do so in one of three ways: (1) being present at the primary physical or a teleconference meeting location; (2) emailing comments in advance to public comment until 10 a.m. on the day of the meeting; and (3) participating via ZOOM during the meeting.

If you plan to participate through ZOOM, please use your ZOOM-enabled device and click on the “raise your hand” button, and then wait to speak until called upon. If you are using a telephone to call into the meeting, select *6 to unmute your phone and you will then be able to speak. We ask that everyone use the mute button when not speaking. It is also important that you not put your phone on hold. Each speaker may be limited to a maximum of three minutes or less at the discretion of the Chair during the public comment period depending on the volume of persons intending to provide public comment. Any speakers who exceed the time limits or interfere with the meeting may be muted by the Chair. It is strongly recommended that public comments be submitted in writing so they can be distributed to all Commission members in advance of the meeting for review. You are encouraged to submit written comments of any length and detailed information to the staff prior to the meeting at the email address above, which will be distributed to the Commission members.

Questions and Staff Reports

If you have any questions concerning an item on the agenda, would like to receive notice of future hearings, or access staff reports related to the item, please contact the staff member whose name, email address and direct phone number are indicated in parenthesis at the end of the agenda item.

Campaign Contributions

State law requires Commissioners to disqualify themselves from voting on any matter if they have received a campaign contribution from an interested party within the past 12 months. If you intend to speak on any hearing item, please indicate in your testimony if you have made campaign contributions in excess of $250 to any Commissioner within the last year, and if so, to which Commissioner(s) you have contributed. Other legal requirements govern contributions by applicants and other interested parties and establish criteria for Commissioner conflicts of interest. Please consult with the staff counsel if you have any questions about the rules that pertain to campaign contributions or conflicts of interest.

Access to Meetings

Meetings are physically held in venues that are accessible to persons with disabilities. If you require special assistance or have technical questions, please contact staff at least three days prior to the meeting via email. We will attempt to make the virtual meeting accessible via ZOOM accessibility capabilities, as well.