BART continued in 2023 to pioneer sustainability initiatives aimed at enhancing rider experience while prioritizing environmental stewardship. With a legacy rooted in forward-thinking transportation solutions, BART reaffirmed its commitment to reducing carbon footprints and advancing sustainable transit practices. The accomplishments of 2023 are detailed in the annual Sustainability Report, officially presented to the Board of Directors on July 11, 2024.
Source: BART
“BART’s sustainability efforts were all about innovation in 2023,” said BART Board President Bevan Dufty. “We are dedicated to integrating creative solutions that not only improve the rider experience, our immediate priority, but also emphasize long-term sustainability.”
Established over fifty years ago with a vision to alleviate regional traffic congestion through eco-friendly transit options, BART has continually evolved its practices to reflect contemporary environmental standards. Notably, engineers initially opted to power trains with electricity rather than fuel, a decision that laid the foundation for ongoing sustainability achievements.
In a poignant farewell to its legacy fleet, BART hosted a memorable “retirement party” in February 2024, marking the culmination of efforts to retire older vehicles. Thousands of attendees gathered to bid farewell to the trains that had served millions of passengers over the years. The decommissioned cars are being repurposed for various projects, including a BART car short-term rental in the Sierra Nevada and a youth bike shop and clubhouse in East Oakland, demonstrating BART’s commitment to sustainability beyond transit operations.
Source: BART
The introduction of new, energy-efficient train cars has furthered BART’s sustainability goals, boasting a 7% reduction in energy consumption compared to previous train car models. By running shorter trains during off-peak hours, BART has achieved significant energy savings. 88% of BART’s electricity comes from greenhouse gas-free sources like solar, wind, and hydropower.
“Our shorter trains not only save energy and reduce costs but also enhance safety and efficiency in maintenance,” BART General Manager Bob Powers added. “These innovations underscore our holistic approach to sustainability across all facets of our operations.”
In addition to transit improvements, BART expanded its Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) program, constructing 531 new housing units near BART stations. Projects like the Gateway at Millbrae Station and the Upper Yard at Balboa Park Station not only address regional housing needs but also promote sustainable urban development and economic revitalization.
Highlighting unique environmental initiatives, BART’s Sheep and Goat Fire Mitigation program has grown substantially, utilizing over 500 grazers to mitigate fire risks across its properties. Meanwhile, the Falconry-Based Nuisance Bird Control program, now implemented at 12 stations, effectively manages pigeon populations through pesticide-free methods.
For more information on BART’s sustainability initiatives and ongoing projects, visit bart.gov/sustainability.
“Demonstrates continued progress toward key plan goals” of housing, transportation, economy and environment in the nine counties including “a gradual shift away from the use of single-occupancy cars and trucks.”
Includes over $1.2 trillion to maintain existing transportation system, build and buy affordable housing, “Provide an income-based monthly payment to all Bay Area households” and to “Adapt to Sea Level Rise.”
Also working on parallel Transit 2050+ plan
Public input opportunities
By MTC & ABAG staff
The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC)’s and the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG)’s newly released Plan Bay Area 2050+ Draft Blueprint analysis outlines how the nine-county region can advance an affordable, connected, diverse, healthy and vibrant Bay Area for all residents by the year 2050.
The Blueprint is essentially a draft version of the plan. It is a foundational framework for a future vision of the Bay Area that includes:
Forecasts and Assumptions about the Bay Area’s future (population, jobs, financial needs and revenues, sea level rise, etc.);
Strategies for public investment and policy reform; and
Geographies where future housing and/or job growth can be focused under the plan’s Strategies.
The Blueprint is then analyzed through computer-generated models and simulations to measure how successful the strategies are in achieving shared goals for the future, such as housing affordability, reduced greenhouse gas emissions and much more.
As the first draft of the Bay Area’s next long-range plan, the Draft Blueprint demonstrates significant progress toward reaching key goals for housing affordability, post-pandemic economic recovery and environmental health and sustainability. This includes the addition of 840,000 affordable homes, with a total of nearly 1 million permanently affordable homes regionwide by 2050; a 17 percent increase in the number of lower-income households living within a half-mile of transit service; and a gradual shift away from the use of single-occupancy cars and trucks. MTC and ABAG planning staff stress that the expected progress would only come about if all the strategies to be detailed in Plan Bay Area 2050+ are implemented.
Source: MTC & ABAG
The full range of performance and equity outcomes from the Plan Bay Area 2050+ Draft Blueprint analysis may be found in the Draft Blueprint Compendium, which also demonstrates how the Bay Area can accommodate some 1.3 million additional jobs and nearly 1 million new households by the year 2050.
The Compendium shows the following proposed budget highlights for three of the Plan’s categories:
Transportation Strategies
$382 billion for T1 – Operate and Maintain the Existing System. Commit to operate and maintain the Bay Area’s roads and transit infrastructure while transitioning to zero-emission transit vehicles.
Housing Strategies
$250 billion for H2 – Preserve Existing Affordable Housing. Acquire homes currently affordable to low- and middle-income residents for preservation as permanently deed-restricted affordable housing, including opportunities for resident ownership.
$302 billion for H4 – Build Adequate Affordable Housing to Ensure Homes for All. Construct enough deed-restricted affordable homes to fill the existing gap in housing for the unhoused community and to meet the needs of low-income households.
Economic Strategies
$205 billion for EC1 – Implement a Statewide Guaranteed Income. Provide an income-based monthly payment to all Bay Area households to improve family stability, promote economic mobility and increase consumer spending.
Environment Strategies
$94 billion for EN1 – Adapt to Sea Level Rise. Adapt shoreline communities, infrastructure and ecosystems affected by sea level rise.
The Draft Blueprint also identifies challenges that will have to be addressed as part of the Final Blueprint process over the coming months. More work is needed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as well as to identify transportation investment priorities for the plan’s fiscally constrained transportation project list. The Draft Blueprint does not include significant transportation expansion or enhancement investments, as these will be identified through Transit 2050+ and the Final Blueprint process.
hoto source: MTC. Credit: Joey Kotfica
What’s Next?
In light of the pandemic’s lasting impact to public transportation, MTC is collaborating with the region’s transit operators on Transit 2050+ , a parallel planning effort to re-envision the future of public transit in the nine-county Bay Area. Two key updates in this process will be released in July: the Draft Project Performance Assessment and the Transit 2050+ Draft Network. It will be a comprehensive overhaul of the six transit-related strategies included in Plan Bay Area 2050.
The Draft Project Performance Assessment will analyze the costs and benefits of major capacity-increasing projects being considered for inclusion in Plan Bay Area 2050+, the vast majority of which are transit projects. These investments, including those adopted in Plan Bay Area 2050, now face a significantly reduced projected revenue stream. This is due largely to slow post-pandemic transit ridership recovery and other economic changes.
The Transit 2050+ Draft Network will identify strategies and investments (capital and operating) envisioned through 2035 and over the long term through 2050. Development of the Draft Network has been guided in part by public engagement conducted in summer 2023, when nearly 3,000 Bay Area residents provided input on the future of Bay Area transit. The Draft Network also is being informed by an existing needs and gaps assessment conducted in partnership with local transit agencies, the Draft Project Performance Assessment, local priorities and improvements to transit network connectivity and customer experience.
Source: MTC & ABAG
Summer 2024 Public Engagement
Beginning in August, MTC staff will conduct a second round of public engagement for Plan Bay Area 2050+, the content of which will focus on:
Sharing both the Draft Blueprint outcomes and the Transit 2050+ Draft Network
Gathering feedback to inform the development of the Final Blueprint and address identified Draft Blueprint challenges
Identifying early priorities for implementing Plan Bay Area 2050+
There will be a variety of in-person and virtual opportunities for the public to participate. Stay up-to-date on upcoming engagement activities in your community by subscribing to the Plan Bay Area 2050+ mailing list. There also will be dedicated engagement opportunities for technical partners and stakeholders, which will be publicized on the Plan Bay Area website’s Partner Engagement page.
Following an analysis of public input, the Commission and the ABAG Executive Board are expected to consider approval of the Final Blueprint in late 2024.
As Antioch searches for ways to rejuvenate its economy and community, it’s crucial to remember our rich heritage of leveraging local resources for growth and prosperity. Historically, from the coal mines to the steel mills, our city thrived by tapping into what was readily available. Today, we face a similar opportunity, not by following the trend of tech industry acquisitions, but by returning to our roots and using our natural assets—specifically, the abundant water of the Delta.
Creating hydroelectric power plants along the Delta can be Antioch’s modern-day coal mine. This initiative will not only provide sustainable energy but also generate a surge in job opportunities, echoing the industrial boom of our past. It’s a chance to align with global movements toward renewable resources while addressing local employment and energy needs.
Such a project would do more than just power our homes; it could stimulate local businesses, attract investments, and provide the city with a stable economic foundation. Furthermore, hydroelectric power is clean, reducing our environmental footprint and offering our community a leadership role in the sustainable practices that are increasingly valued worldwide.
We must also consider the broader implications of this shift. By focusing on sustainable energy, Antioch can set an example for cities across the nation that economic growth and environmental responsibility can go hand in hand. This is not just about energy; it’s about cultivating a resilient community ready to face the challenges of the future with innovative solutions derived from our historical identity.
As we ponder Antioch’s path forward, let’s choose to harness the natural strength of the Delta. This approach not only respects our past but also paves the way for a future where Antioch stands as a beacon of sustainable innovation and economic independence.
Lawson is an educator and sci-fi author from Antioch who writes under the pen name Will Scifi.
(Left) Maps of western Canada natural gas pipelines; Source: Canadian Energy Pipeline Association – defunct – and (center) TC Gas Transmission Northwest pipeline from Canada to California. Source: TC Energy provided by CRPC – see red circles for connecting point at national border crossing and (right) PG&E natural gas pipelines in California. Source: PG&E – see yellow circles for connecting point at Oregon-California state line and the pipelines to northern, central and western Contra Costa County.
50% of gas now supplied to owner’s customers in Contra Costa originates in Canada as much as 3,500 miles away instead of 35, about 80% from fracking
“The farther that natural gas must travel to its destination, the greater the carbon emissions” – California Resources Production Corporation
They’re “just doing it for political reasons. That only benefits them, not us on climate change.” – local oil producer Bob Nunn
Proposed by District 4 Councilwoman Monica Wilson, Mayor Lamar Hernandez-Thorpe and District 1 Councilwoman Tamisha Torres-Walker joined her in opposing the 35-mile long, 12-inch pipe which carried 1.8 million cubic feet of natural gas daily which is enough to supply about 9,000 homes. District 2 Councilman Mike Barbanica and District 3 Councilwoman Lori Ogorchock supported the motion to renew the agreement. The result has been an increase in the emission of greenhouse gases and a much dirtier product being used by the refineries, from which Antioch is downwind, thus defeating the purpose the three council members claimed was the reason for their action.
Gas pipelines in Contra Costa County and the three cities in the yellow circles affected by the two city councils’ decisions. Source: National Pipeline Mapping System
The gas had been supplied from the Brentwood natural gas field, and natural gas fields in western San Joaquin County on Union Island in the Delta, southeast of Discovery Bay, as well as in French Camp and Lathrop. But the council’s decision also forced the pipeline company’s customer that it served, Chevron refinery in Richmond, to obtain their supply elsewhere. At least 99% of that supply originates out of state with over half from natural gas fields in British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan east of the Rocky Mountains in Canada, traveling a distance of as much as 3,500 miles instead of just 35.
(Top) Canadian Natural Gas Fields map shows the locations of natural gas and oil found in Canada. Red represents gas fields and green represents oil fields. Source: The Canadian Encyclopedia (Courtesy International Petroleum Encyclopedia 2010, ed. Joseph Hilyard, PennWell Corporation, 2010). (Bottom) Map of natural gas (pink) and oil (brown) pipelines in western Canada. Source: Canada Energy Regulator
In Canada, natural gas production is concentrated in the Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB), with the highest production in the provinces of Alberta and British Columbia with more than twice as much from Alberta than from BC.
Map showing the route of CRC’s natural gas pipeline that runs through Antioch. Source: City of Antioch
Pipeline Owner Sues City
Following the decision, the company that owns the pipeline, California Resources Corporation (CRC), believed they had the right to continue operating the pipeline. At that time, spokesman Richard Venn, Senior Director, Communications said, “We believe there are legal protections in place that prevent an arbitrary and immediate shutdown, and we will continue to work with the city and its staff on the best solution.”
However, that was not to be the case, the pipeline was shut down, and on Dec. 27, 2021 the company’s subsidiary, California Resources Production Corporation (CRPC), filed a lawsuit against the City of Antioch over the council’s decision.
CRPC did not file a lawsuit against the City of Brentwood and the company has reapplied for the franchise agreement for the portion of the pipeline that runs beneath that city.
CRPC did not file a lawsuit against the City of Brentwood and the company has reapplied for the franchise agreement for the portion of the pipeline that runs beneath that city.
Questions were sent on May 12, 2024, to a representative for CRC about the status of the lawsuit, details about the pipeline and any impacts the change in supply is having on the environment. Venn responded on May 28, 2024, with the company’s answers:
1. Where is CRC in the process with its lawsuit against the City of Antioch? Was one also filed against the City of Brentwood? When were they filed and how soon does CRC expect them to be finalized?
On May 25, 2023, the trial court sustained the City’s motion to dismiss CRPC’s complaint, effectively ending trial court proceedings against the City. On August 25, 2023, CRPC appealed this decision. The parties are currently briefing the appeal. CRPC’s opening appellate brief was filed on April 22, 2024. The City’s brief is due July 3, 2024. CRPC’s reply will be due on August 16, 2024. A decision is unlikely to occur until late 2024 or even early 2025.
No lawsuit has been filed against Brentwood. The application for renewal of the Brentwood franchise is still pending. Per the Brentwood City Council’s request, CRC hired independent consultants, Bear, Inc., to perform a safety study on the Union Island (“UI”) Pipeline, which was published in April 2022. The study confirmed the UI Pipeline is a very well maintained and safe pipeline.
2. If the company had certain rights granted by the California Public Utilities Commission (PUC) that would prevent the cities from stopping CRC from operating the pipeline and continuing to ship gas through it how has the City of Antioch been winning in court? What have been the decisions in favor of the City?
CRPC does not presently have any rights granted to it by the PUC related to the UI Pipeline. However, CRPC has applied for a certificate for public convenience and necessity (“CPCN”) to have the UI Pipeline converted from a private pipeline to a common carrier pipeline. If the CPCN is granted, CRPC would become a regulated public utility, with the CPUC controlling certain aspects of the UI Pipeline’s operations and the rates that CRPC can charge for use of the Pipeline. The UI Pipeline’s day-to-day operations would not change however, after flow through the UI Pipeline restarts, and CRPC would be subject to the same federal and state regulations for safety and environmental protection.
If the UI Pipeline right-of-way were condemned to allow it to resume operations as a common carrier pipeline, as part of the condemnation proceedings, CRPC would have to provide “just compensation” for use of the right of way.
3. Where does the natural gas originate that was running through the pipeline in Antioch and Brentwood?
The natural gas that was running through the pipeline originates from the French Camp, Lathrop, and Union Island natural gas fields in western San Joaquin County and the Brentwood natural gas field in Contra Costa County.
4. Who are the customers served by the pipeline?
The gas is transported from the UI Pipeline to Chevron Corporation’s Richmond Refinery. The gas is used to power the refinery and used in its industrial processes to make jet fuel, diesel and gasoline that is distributed throughout Northern California.
5. From where are those customers now receiving the gas?
The gas that the Richmond refinery is no longer receiving from the UI Pipeline is supplanted by gas from PG&E’s system. The overwhelming majority of PG&E-supplied gas is from out of state. According to the most recent published information on PG&E’s gas sources, over 50% of the natural gas supplied by PG&E comes from Canada via the Gas Transmission Northwest (“GTN”) system. See 2023 California Gas Report, Table 5, https://www.socalgas.com/sites/default/files/Joint_Biennial_California_Gas_Report_2023_Supplement.pdf. Only around 1% of PG&E’s gas comes from California.
Around 80% of the natural gas produced in British Columbia, the upstream production region feeding the GTN pipeline, is produced by fracking. See https://stand.earth/.
6. Is the gas coming from Canada, is it not as clean as that produced in California, and how many miles is the gas now being shipped versus how many miles, previously?
As stated above, 80% of the natural gas produced in British Columbia is produced by fracking. Accordingly, we expect the majority of PG&E gas from Canada to be the result of fracking. This means that by stopping the UI Pipeline from operation, the City may be prioritizing the use of fracked gas.
The >1,300-mile figure does not reflect the total distance Canadian gas must travel to reach Richmond, California, though. The GTN system only runs from the Canadian border in Montana to northern California. Accordingly, Canadian gas going to the Richmond refinery must be transported from wherever the natural gas fields are located in Canada to the mouth of the GTN system in Montana. It must also be transported from northern California to the Bay area. Accordingly, gas from Canada travels well over 1,300 miles to reach the Richmond refinery.
By contrast, the UI Pipeline assisted in the transportation of local gas from the natural gas fields in western San Joaquin County and the Brentwood natural gas field in Contra Costa County to Richmond, a drastically shorter distance.
7. Have there been any environmental impacts because of the change in the natural gas supply to those customers?
The farther that natural gas must travel to its destination, the greater the carbon emissions attendant to those pipeline operations. Additionally, the gas transported by the UI Pipeline is not fracked, as compared to the majority of PG&E’s gas obtained from Canada.
Finally, any GHG emissions from gas production in California are compensated for under the cap-and-trade program, which is not the case in most of the other jurisdictions supplying PG&E.
8. Has there been a change in the costs to CRC’s customer(s) in both the purchase of the natural gas from one or more different sources and the production of their products to their customers? And ultimately to the consumers?
Without the UI Pipeline, local gas cannot be delivered to the Chevron refinery. The contribution of local gas to the refinery helps keep gas prices competitive, which further keeps prices low and the refinery open. The Richmond refinery has a workforce of over 2,700 company employees and 850 contract workers, according to the Richmond Chamber of Commerce. See https://www.rcoc.com/membership-directory-2/name/chevron-richmondlorenz/.
9. Is the pipeline that runs through Brentwood and Antioch different than the high-pressure line that exploded in San Bruno in 2010? What are the differences between the two pipelines?
Source: CRPC
10. What could the Antioch and/or Brentwood City Council do to remedy the situation?
The City could extend the franchise to allow for operation of the UI Pipeline. With an extension, the City could propose additional conditions on the operation of the Pipeline to address any of its continuing concerns. Using this authority to ensure enhanced protections or benefits for the City, while allowing the Pipeline to safely transport gas as it has for the past thirty years, was not something the City officials considered during the public hearing on the franchise renewal. This kind of win-win solution would have protected the citizens from the costs of litigation, brought revenue to the City, and given the City peace of mind about the UI Pipeline’s operations.
It is also important to keep in mind that the UI Pipeline is by no means the only natural gas pipeline running through Antioch. All federally regulated natural gas and hazardous liquid pipelines can be identified using the National Pipeline Mapping System Public Viewer, which can be accessed at https://pvnpms.phmsa.dot.gov/PublicViewer/.
There are several natural gas transmission pipelines running through Antioch besides the UI Pipeline. Some of these are high-pressure pipelines, in contrast to the UI Pipeline, which is considered a low-pressure pipeline. In addition to these other natural gas pipelines, there are over 34,000 natural gas connections in Antioch.
11. If the council(s) choose to settle the lawsuit(s) would the city(ies) have to reimburse CRC for their attorney’s fees?
The terms of any settlement would govern whether attorney’s fees are reimbursed by either side.
12. Is there anything else you would like to share about the matter?
CRPC is committed to operating in a manner focused on safety, environmental stewardship, and promoting the health and welfare of all Californians. One of our leading “Values” is being a responsible operator, meeting – if not exceeding – California’s high standards for safety and environmental protection. We have a decades-long successful track record of safely and efficiently operating critical energy infrastructure such as the UI Pipeline within the City of Antioch and we look forward to continuing to work with the City and its staff to provide safe, reliable, and low carbon.
Local Environmental and Economic Benefits of Pipeline, Supports Farmers
In addition, CRPC shared information from their application to the state’s PUC about the pipeline and its benefits to the environment and local economy. The company wrote, “The UI Pipeline currently provides the only viable avenue for the natural gas produced from the Fields to reach the market, including the Richmond Refinery, which currently utilizes all of the natural gas carried on the UI Pipeline. The use of in-state natural gas displaces the use of out-of-state natural gas produced in other states and transported by pipeline into California. Currently, California imports over 90% of its natural gas from out-of-state fields where the environmental and greenhouse gas regulations may not be as stringent as those required here in California. Absent the UI Pipeline, production from the Fields would cease and the State would have to look to alternate natural gas capacity at a time when natural gas supply constraints have been widely reported.
“Given California’s current natural gas demand, the natural gas production from these Fields would likely be replaced by out-of-state production, which would be contrary to statutory preferences for in-state production of natural gas and would result in appreciable environmental impacts and increased costs. Natural gas produced out of state is not obligated to follow California’s more stringent environmental and greenhouse gas regulations, and transporting natural gas from out of state through interstate pipelines increases greenhouse gas emissions, as compared to in-state production. Furthermore, in the future, the Field would be capable of converting to carbon dioxide storage and sequestration, which is widely considered a necessary component to achieving long-term climate goals. The UI Pipeline is therefore a key component in not only ensuring the Fields continue to provide in-state natural gas, but also in reducing the environmental impact of natural gas consumption. In-state natural gas production may also mitigate the substantial increases in natural gas costs to California customers over the past year.
“Closure of the UI Pipeline would also have a significant economic impact to the local community. Over 200 local landowners receive revenue from royalties associated with natural gas transported on the UI Pipeline. Many of the royalty holders are local farmers, and monetizing these mineral rights helps support local farming operations. Closure of the UI Pipeline would eliminate any opportunity for those mineral owners to monetize their assets.”
Questions for Council Members Go Unanswered
All five council members were informed of the answers provided by CRPC on Monday, June 24, 2024. Herandez-Thorpe, Wilson and Torres-Walker were asked if, knowing now that the action by the council majority has had a greater impact on the environment, will they reconsider and reverse their vote to deny the franchise agreement allowing the pipeline to resume operations in Antioch.
They were all also asked if they know how much the City has spent to date defending against the lawsuit by the pipeline owner.
None of the council members responded prior to publication time.
Additional Questions for CRC
Asked if the Antioch City Council reverses its decision and approves their franchise agreement can the pipeline reopen, company spokesman Venn said, “The renewal for the franchise for Brentwood is still pending.”
Both cities must approve their separate franchise agreements in order for the pipeline to reopen.
Local Oil Producer Says Council Members “Doing the Opposite of What They Claim”
When reached for comment about the information from CRPC and the council’s decision to shutter the pipeline, Brentwood businessman, Bob Nunn, whose company is the only holder of a permit to drill for natural gas and oil in Antioch said, “We have the strictest rules for oil and gas in California. The energy used to move the gas 100 times further is going to be greater.”
“California is doing its best in the name of climate change. But in the last three years, California has used more oil each year than in the previous year,” he continued. “The production of oil in California to support that demand has gone down each of those three years. CARB (California Air Resources Board) will show you, on the whole, imported oil will have more emissions than oil produced in California.”
“If they’re doing it in the name of climate change, they’re doing the opposite of what they claim,” Nunn stated. “The issue is to lower demand not squeeze supply. It’s Economics 101. Their model is flawed.”
“I support decisions that will reduce man’s impact on climate change. But make sure you do your homework that their positions are for the benefit of climate change,” he said. “If not, then you’re just doing it for political reasons. That only benefits them, not us on climate change.”
Please check back later for any updates to this report.
SACRAMENTO, Calif.— California State Parks’ Division of Boating and Waterways (DBW) today announced plans to control aquatic invasive plants in the west coast’s largest estuary, the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and its southern tributaries. Starting March 6 through Nov. 30, 2024, DBW crews will begin herbicide treatments on water hyacinth, South American spongeplant, Uruguay water primrose, Alligator weed, Brazilian waterweed, curly leaf pondweed, Eurasian watermilfoil, coontail, ribbon weed, and fanwort in the Delta. Depending on weather conditions and plant growth/movement, treatment dates may change. Select areas of the Delta with high infestations or coverage of water hyacinth will be controlled using mechanical harvesting efforts through December 2024.
DBW works with local, state, and federal entities to better understand the plants and implement new integrated control strategies to increase efficacy. These aquatic invasive plants have no known natural controls and negatively affect the Delta’s ecosystem as they displace native plants. Continued warm temperatures help the plants proliferate at high rates. Plants are also known to form dense mats of vegetation creating safety hazards for boaters, obstructing navigation channels, marinas, and irrigation systems. Due to their ability to rapidly spread to new areas, it is likely that the plants will never be eradicated from Delta waters. Therefore, DBW operates a “control” program as opposed to an “eradication” program.
“Thank you to the public and partners for working with us on combating these aquatic invasive plants,” said DBW’s Deputy Director Ramona Fernandez. “Together we are mitigating their impacts on the lives of all who live, work, and recreate in the Delta.”
All herbicides used in DBW’s Aquatic Invasive Plant Control Program are registered for aquatic use with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the California Department of Pesticide Regulation. Treated areas will be monitored to ensure herbicide levels do not exceed allowable limits and follow EPA-registered label guidelines. The public may view the public notices and sign up to receive weekly updates on this year’s treatment season on DBW’s website.
Below is a list of proposed control actions for the 2024 treatment season:
Water hyacinth, South American spongeplant, Uruguay water primrose, and alligator weed.
Herbicide Control
· Proposed Treatment Period All Sites: March 6, 2024 – Nov. 30, 2024
· Type of Herbicides: Glyphosate, 2,4-D, Imazamox, or Diquat
· Potential Treatment Areas: Initially in and/or around, but not limited to the following areas: San Joaquin River, Old River, Middle River, Fourteen Mile Slough, and Snodgrass Slough.
Mechanical Harvesting (If necessary)
· Harvesting Dates: March 2024 – April 2024 and July 2024 – December 2024
· Mechanical Harvesting Sites: Select areas of the Delta with high infestations or coverage of water hyacinth. See the Public Notice for potential mechanical harvesting control areas.
· Treatment Period: Starting March 6, 2024, through Nov. 30, 2024, treatment period is based upon DBW field survey data, water temperatures and fish surveys.
· Type of Herbicide: Fluridone, Endothall or Diquat.
· Potential Treatment Areas: In and/or around the following areas (individual areas will be noticed prior to treatment application):
Anchorages, boat ramps and marinas: B & W Resort, Delta Marina Yacht Harbor, Grindstone Joes, Hidden Harbor Resort, Korth’s Pirates Lair, Oxbow Marina, Owl Harbor, River Point Landing, Rivers End, St. Francis Yacht Club, Tiki Lagoon, Tracy Oasis Marina, Turner Cut Resort, Vieira’s Resort, Village West Marina, and Willow Berm. Near Old River: Berkeley Ski Club, Bullfrog Ski Club, Cruiser Haven, Delta Coves, Diablo Ski Club, Discovery Bay, Golden Gate Ski Club, Hammer Island, Italian Slough, Kings Island, Orwood Marina, Piper Slough, Sandmound Slough, Stockton Ski Club, and Taylor Slough.
SacramentoArea: French Island, Hogback, Long Island Slough, Prospect Island, Sacramento Marina, Snug Harbor, and Washington Lake.
StocktonArea: Atherton Cove, Buckley Cove, Calaveras River, Fourteenmile Slough, Mosher Slough, and Windmill Cove.
Mechanical Harvesting
This type of control method is not used for submersed aquatic vegetation. These plants are spread by fragmentation. Cutting the plants back exacerbates the problem, as shreds of the plants float away and re-propagate.
To report sightings, subscribe for program updates or more information regarding the control program, connect with us online at our website, via email at AIS@parks.ca.gov, or by phone at (888) 326-2822.
Last year, DBW treated 2,377 acres of floating aquatic vegetation and 1,405 acres of submersed aquatic vegetation. No mechanical harvesting was conducted. A combination of herbicide, biological, and mechanical control methods were used to help control invasive plants at high-priority sites in the Delta.
In 1982, California state legislation designated DBW as the lead state agency to cooperate with other state, local, and federal agencies in controlling water hyacinth in the Delta, its tributaries, and the SuisunMarsh. The Egeria Densa Control Program was authorized by law in 1997 and treatment began in 2001. In 2012, spongeplant was authorized for control upon completion of the biological assessment. In 2013, DBW was able to expand its jurisdiction to include other invasive aquatic plants, and since then other aquatic invasive plants such as Uruguay water primrose, Eurasian watermilfoil, Carolina fanwort, coontail, Alligator weed, and Ribbon weed have been added to the AIPCP program.
Revenues from boaters’ registration fees and gasoline taxes (Harbors and Watercraft RevolvingFund), provide funding for DBW’s Aquatic Invasive Plant Control Program.
Sources: Hernandez-Thorpe and Pacific Environment.
The pledge would reject any new, renewed public investments in gas or oil infrastructure in the city
“It does result in something if any of that comes about.” – Hernandez-Thorpe
Claims current atmospheric river storm is due to climate changecaused by fossil fuel use
By Allen D. Payton
Today, Thursday, February 7, 2024, Antioch Mayor Lamar Hernandez-Thorpe made a world-leading commitment to reject public investments in new, renewed, fossil fuel infrastructure in Antioch and steer the city toward timely climate mitigation and resilience.
“I’ve promised to address climate change head on,” saidHernadez-Thorpe. “We’ve ended oil and gas drilling in Antioch and, today, following a historic atmospheric river caused by climate change that has wreaked havoc across California, I have committed to end investing in new fossil fuel infrastructure. Moving away from fossil fuels will protect the health of our community, our air and water and leave a liveable planet for the next generation.”
Following the mayor’s press conference held earlier in the day, a press release on the matter was issue. It reads, “The pledge is a commitment to reject public investments in new, renewed or expanded fossil fuel infrastructure in the city of Antioch, CA. Fossil fuels are harming our families and communities. The average global temperature on Earth has irreversibly risen by at least 1.9 degrees Fahrenheit since 1880, with most of this increase occurring since 1975. Fossil fuels, including coal, oil and gas, are the largest contributor to global warming, accounting for 75% global greenhouse gas emissions and 90% of all carbon dioxide emissions.”
“We applaud the city of Antioch’s first-ever commitment to rejecting new fossil fuel infrastructure,” said Dawny’all Heydari, Climate Campaign Manager, Advocacy for Pacific Environment, which works to protect people, wildlife and ecosystems around the Pacific Rim and the authors of the pledge. “The warnings from the international scientific community and recent catastrophic weather in California make clear that there is no time to waste in moving to a zero emissions world. We call on mayors across the United States and globally to follow Hernandez-Thorpe’s lead and say no to new fossil fuel buildouts.”
The press release further claims, “As a result of fossil-fueled global warming, Antioch will continue to experience longer, hotter and more common heatwaves, and increased flooding from increased chances of extreme precipitation and sea level rise.
In the last week, a historic atmospheric river made worse by the effects of the climate emergency has wreaked havoc on communities across California, causing at least 875,000 power outages, four deaths, record-breaking rain and flooding, and $11 billion in damages to homes and other property.”
PLEDGE BACKGROUND
By signing the pledge, the Mayor of the City of Antioch has committed to:
Mitigate Climate Change: We will prioritize the adoption of clean energy solutions, such as renewable energy generation, energy efficiency measures, and sustainable transportation systems, to significantly reduce carbon emissions and promote a low-carbon future.
Protect Public Health: By rejecting new fossil fuel infrastructure, we will improve air quality, reduce respiratory diseases, and promote a cleaner and safer environment for all, prioritizing the health and well-being of our residents.
Foster Sustainable Economic Growth: We will stimulate economic growth and create new employment opportunities by investing in renewable energy projects, energy-efficient buildings, and innovative sustainable technologies, supporting local businesses and attracting green investments.
Lead by Example: As city leaders, we commit to lead by example, demonstrating our commitment to climate action, inspiring other cities to follow suit, and contributing to the global effort to combat climate change.
Pacific Environment Rep, Hernandez-Thorpe Clarify His Pledge
Hernandez-Thorpe was asked what public investments and fossil fuel buildouts he is referring to, and if it’s the City’s gas pump used by the city-owned vehicles. Gwen Dobbs of Pacific Environment was asked the same question and passed them along to Heydari.
In response, the Climate Campaign Manager shared, “The mayor is committing to reject new, renewed or expanded public investments in the following fossil fuel infrastructure: oil and natural gas wells and drilling, coal mining, petroleum gas stations, bunkering facilities for ships and planes, power plants (including coal, oil, and natural gas), pipelines, oil refineries, transport terminals, natural gas processing plants, petrochemical plants and gas connections to new buildings.”
But while the city council can vote to approve or deny all those things, the City of Antioch has never invested in them, except for perhaps, possibly gas connections to new buildings that the city builds and owns. Hernandez-Thorpe, Heydari and Dobbs were then asked to further clarify the matter that if, by signing the pledge, the mayor is committing he will not vote to approve another home or commercial building in Antioch that has a connection to natural gas and that all new construction in Antioch must be all electric.
The mayor was also asked to further clarify what he’s committed to not doing and how far and wide the commitment reaches. Specifically, he was asked regarding “transport terminals” if he is also committing to not vote for a deepwater port along the Antioch shoreline if the ships that dock there use fossil fuels.
Challenged with the statement that the pledge really doesn’t mean anything in Antioch since the city doesn’t invest in the items listed, Hernandez-Thorpe provided clarity explaining, “It does result in something if any of that comes about. I would not support something like that. It doesn’t mean it can’t happen in Antioch.”
Speaking specifically about the City’s gas pump in the Maintenance Department’s yard he said, “We wouldn’t want to expand that. But we are working to expand to more charging stations and converting the city’s fleet to all electric. That’s the most obvious example. Our best option was to purchase hybrid vehicles for now, because the supply chain was preventing going all electric, which are matters beyond our control. We have to live in reality.”
Regarding the transport terminals, Hernandez-Thorpe said, “This wouldn’t preclude a deepwater port. What the pledge states is that there are fueling stations for ships. But we’re not stopping a deepwater port from being approved.”
“Our goal is to transition from this but not leave workers behind. There needs to be a balance,” he added.
Follows Other Actions Opposed to Oil and Gas Issues in Antioch
Today’s actions follow two others he has supported to reduce dependence on fossil fuels. In 2021, the mayor, following the lead of current Mayor Pro Tem and District 4 Councilwoman Monica Wilson and joined by District 1 Councilwoman Tamisha Torres-Walker, voted, in a split council action, to not renew the franchise agreement with the company that owns the natural gas pipeline that runs beneath the city. As a result, the pipeline owner, California Resources Production Corporation is suing the city costing thousands in fees to contract attorneys. CALIFORNIA RESOURCES PRODUCTION CORPORATION vs CITY OF ANTIOCH
California Delta levee work. Photo: Delta Stewardship Council
New flood-related regulations prioritize levee investments in the Delta and Suisun Marsh
By Delta Stewardship Council
SACRAMENTO – The new year has brought new flood protections for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. The Delta Stewardship Council has successfully amended the Delta Levees Investment Strategy (DLIS), a tool the state uses to prioritize investments in Delta levee operations, maintenance and improvements, thus reducing the likelihood and consequences of levee failures.
The amendment assigns very high, high, or other priority to islands or tracts within the Delta and Suisun Marsh and directs the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) to fund levee improvement projects by order of priority. Additionally, it requires the DWR to submit an annual report to the Council describing Delta levee investments relative to the established priorities. The amended regulation took effect on January 1, 2024.
Executive Officer Jessica R. Pearson at a Delta Stewardship Council meeting. Photo: DSC
“Delta flood risk is one of the most urgent threats to California and will continue to worsen in the future with changes in sea levels and storm patterns,” says the Council’s Executive Officer Jessica R. Pearson. “Limited funding to address that risk demands clear priorities. The product of nearly a decade of public input and collaboration, the strategy represents one of the Council’s greatest milestone achievements.”
The amendment assigns very high, high, or other priority to islands or tracts within the Delta and Suisun Marsh and directs the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) to fund levee improvement projects by order of priority. Additionally, it requires the DWR to submit an annual report to the Council describing Delta levee investments relative to the established priorities.
“Flood protection is a key piece of DWR’s work to increase water resilience as California moves toward a hotter, drier future,” says DWR Director Karla Nemeth. “DWR stands in partnership with the Delta Stewardship Council across multiple initiatives, including the Delta Levees Investment Strategy. These efforts will provide needed protections to the diverse communities that call the Delta home.”
The Dutch Slough Tidal Marsh Restoration Project site, located in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta near Oakley, California. The restoration project implemented by the California Department of Water Resources will restore 1,187 acres into a tidal marsh to provide habitat for salmon and other native fish and wildlife. Photo taken May 18, 2023, by Florence Low / California Department of Water Resources.
The Delta’s 1,100 miles of levees provide protection for residences, agricultural lands, and infrastructure, which need deliberate and sustainable maintenance and funding. Many of the levees date back to when the Delta was reclaimed for agricultural purposes in the late 1800s.
The updated strategy prioritizes the protection of people, property, and state interests and advances statewide water supply reliability and Delta ecosystem resilience in a manner that protects and enhances the Delta as a place where people live, work and recreate.
Source: DSC
On September 21, 2023, the Office of Administrative Law approved the Council’s Administrative Procedure Act process to amend the California Code of Regulations, title 23, sections 5001 and 5012, to implement the Council’s Delta Levees Investment Strategy. The amended regulation took effect on January 1, 2024, and is available at on the Delta Levees Investment Strategy web page at deltacouncil.ca.gov/DLIS.
ABOUT THE COUNCIL
The Delta Stewardship Council was created by the California Legislature in 2009 to advance California’s water supply reliability and the Delta’s ecosystem resiliency in a manner that protects and enhances the region’s unique characteristics. It is composed of seven members, advised by an independent 10-member science board, and supported by a dedicated staff. For more information, visit the Council’s website at deltacouncil.ca.gov.
Visuals of the Delta can be found in DWR’s photo galleries (pixel-ca-dwr.photoshelter.com).
To public agencies prior to certification per CEQA requirements
By California Department of Water Resources
The California Department of Water Resources (DWR) is today releasing the Final Environmental Impact Report to public agencies that commented on the Draft EIR, per the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).* Proposed responses to comments, as well as the Final EIR and accompanying informational resources, can be accessed at www.deltaconveyanceproject.com. This action signifies the last step DWR is required to take under CEQA prior to deciding whether to certify the EIR and approve the proposed project.
The Final EIR was prepared by DWR as the lead agency to comply with the requirements of CEQA. The Final EIR is presented in two volumes: 1) the contents of the entire Draft EIR, as revised, and 2) all comments received on the Draft EIR and responses to substantive comments.
At the conclusion of the CEQA process, DWR will determine if the Final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA and whether to certify that the Final EIR reflects DWR’s independent judgment and analysis. Following certification of the Final EIR, DWR would then determine whether to approve the proposed project, an alternative or no project. Learn more about the CEQA process here.
The proposed project identified in the Final EIR would modernize the state’s water infrastructure in the Delta to help protect the reliability of this important water supply for 27 million Californians and 750,000 acres of farmland from earthquakes and climate-driven weather extremes.
Community Benefits Program: Should DWR certify the Final EIR and approve the proposed project, DWR plans to release the Community Benefits Program Implementation Plan and Guidelines Discussion Document next year for review. There will be associated public engagement opportunities announced when that document is released.
Additional Permitting: DWR continues to pursue additional required federal and state planning processes, including but not limited to federal and state Endangered Species Act compliance, adding points of diversion to existing water rights and Delta Plan consistency. Information and updates related to these processes can be found on the project’s permit portal website. *DWR is releasing the Final EIR to public agencies prior to certification per CEQA requirements. While CEQA does not require—and DWR is not providing—a public comment period on a Final EIR, it does require DWR to send its proposed responses at least 10 days prior to a decision on certification of the EIR.
If you need further assistance, contact: Si necesita ayuda adicional, comuníquese con 如果您需要進一步的協助，請洽 Yog koj xav tau kev pab ntxiv, txuas lus rau ប្រសិនបើអ្នកត្រូវការជំនួយបន្ថែម សូមទាក់ទង Kung kailangan mo ng karagdagang tulong, kontakin ang Nếu quý vị cần thêm trợ giúp, vui lòng liên hệ 1-866-924-9955 deltaconveyance@water.ca.gov
