Community Events: Brannan Island Meeting
The Delta Protection Commission reviews hundreds of local and regional land use projects in the Primary and Secondary zones of the Delta for consistency with the Land Use and Resource Management Plan (PDF) and submits comment letters to ensure projects stay on track with the Plan. Under state law (Public Resources Code Sections 29770-29772), any action taken by a local government or agency in the Primary Zone that is inconsistent with the Plan can be appealed to the Commission. Appeals may be brought by any interested person, or by the Commission itself. Learn more here.
December 16, 2024
Katherine Marquez, Program Manager
California Department of Water Resources
1516 9th Street, 2nd Floor
Sacramento, CA 95814
Dear Ms. Marquez:
We are providing comments on the proposed Delta Conveyance Project, Final Certification of Consistency For 2024-2046 Proposed Geotechnical Activities (C20242). On December 12, 2024, the Commission met and considered the content in the letter submitted by the Executive Director on November 27, 2024. The Commission voted to endorse the letter, with seven Commissioners voting in favor, one abstaining, and five absent; Chair Diane Burgis and Commissioner Gloria Sandoval recused themselves from the vote regarding the letter. This updated letter thus contains the comments of the Delta Protection Commission.
The Delta Reform Act defines a covered action as “. . .a plan, program, or project as defined pursuant to Section 21065 of the Public Resources Code. . .” (Water Code Section 85057.5(a)). Public Resources Code Section 21065 defines “project” for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The regulations implementing CEQA further define project as follows: “[a] Project” means the whole of an action. . .” (14 Cal. Code of Regulations Section 15378(a)). Because the covered action is defined by incorporating the definition of a CEQA project, the covered action must conform to the rules for CEQA projects. The regulations implementing CEQA state that a covered action must include the whole of the action, rather than a part of the action. The purpose of this rule is to avoid the possibility of obscuring the full scope of a project’s environmental effects, by considering only parts of the action.
The Courts have provided the additional test that agencies must analyze the “reasonably foreseeable consequences” of a project (Laurel Heights Improvement Ass’n v. Univ. of California, 47 C3d. 376, 396 [1988]). Projects that fail this requirement engage in illegal piecemealing of the project by failing to consider the whole of the action. Typically piecemealing questions involve projects that have some degree of separation, but factually may be intertwined. Here the geotechnical work is necessary to advance design of the Delta Conveyance Project and thus is a foreseeable environmental consequence of the project, and as such should be considered part of that project under Laurel Heights. The Department of Water Resource (Department)’s own documents in fact, describe the geotechnical investigations as part of the project for purposes of CEQA review (see Section 3.15 of the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the project) (DCP.D1.1.00010:134, DWR 2023).
The Certification of Consistency unambiguously states “To be clear, this is not a certification of consistency for the Delta Conveyance Project, as described below. This certification of consistency is limited to certain preliminary geotechnical work, described herein, related to the Delta Conveyance Project’s planning and design.” (DCP.X2.00001: 5, DWR 2024:1-1).
The Department thus has previously stated that geotechnical work is part of the project for purposes of CEQA (in the FEIR) and then later states that the covered action submitted for review is not part of the consistency certification for the Delta Conveyance Project (DCP) itself. These statements cannot be reconciled with the definition of covered action in the Water Code or the definition of a “project” for purposes of CEQA. Because the separation of the geotechnical work from the CEQA project would be improper piecemealing, it is also an improper division of the covered action for purposes of consistency review under Water Code Section 85022, which requires consistency of covered actions with the Delta Plan.
Our analysis of the proper scope of covered actions for purposes of the Delta Reform Act is reinforced by the court order previously issued regarding geotechnical work and the consistency certification, which was also included in the certification submitted by DWR (DCP.X2.00001: 111, Superior Court of California 2024). The court order reads: “The motions for preliminary injunction are granted. The geotechnical work at issue here is part of the covered action, which requires certification of consistency with the Delta Plan before it is implemented. The Department is, therefore, enjoined from undertaking the geotechnical work described in Chapter 3 of the FEIR prior to completion of the certification procedure that the Delta Reform Act requires” (DCP.X2.00001: 121, Superior Court of California 2024:11-12, emphasis added). The court order makes the statement that geotechnical investigations are part of rather than separate from the covered action that must be certified for consistency prior to implementation (DCP.X2.00001: 114, Superior Court of California 2024:4). The Department’s attempt to split off a portion of the covered action and proceed with it separately from consistency certification for the whole action contradicts both its own representation of the project in the FEIR, the definitions in the Delta Reform Act and Public Resources Code, and the court order enjoining geotechnical investigations. The Commission considers the covered action to consist of all geotechnical work, the construction of the Delta Conveyance Project, and operation of the project.
The Department provides an analysis to determine whether the geotechnical work, by itself, would qualify as a covered action and thus trigger the need for a consistency certification. This analysis is factually incorrect. Even if the geotechnical work could proceed as a covered action separate from the DCP (which it cannot), it would qualify as a covered action under the Delta Reform Act.
On pages 4-2 of the consistency documentation, the Department concludes that because the geotechnical work does not have a significant impact on the achievement of the co-equal goals it is not a covered action pursuant to Water Code Section 85057.5(a)(4) (DCP.X2.00001: 27, DWR 2024:4-2). The Department relies on its assertion that the geotechnical work will not have any effect on the strategies developed by the Delta Stewardship Council and therefore will not have a significant impact on achievement either of the co-equal goals (DCP.X2.00001: 28, DWR 2024:4-3). This interpretation of the Delta Reform Act is misguided. The necessary test is provided in part, by Water Code sections 85057.5(a)(4) and 85054, which supersede the Delta Stewardship Council policies. The strategies to achieve the co-equal goals are subordinate to the co-equal goals, and merely provide guidance regarding how they may be achieved. Water Code Section 85054 defines the co-equal goals in part as “. . .protecting, restoring, and enhancing the Delta ecosystem.” This language thus provides the proper test for the coequal goals rather than the policies adopted to further their goals.
The Department’s administrative record demonstrates the geotechnical work will have a substantial effect on the protection of the Delta ecosystem (Water Code Section 85054). Figure 1 from the proposed consistency certification document is enclosed (Attachment 1). It shows the locations of geotechnical work. The map depicts a vast array of investigations that spans the entire eastern and southern Delta, with clusters around the towns of Locke, Hood, and Walnut Grove. The Department’s FEIR for the DCP provides a detailed appendix for terrestrial wildlife movement (DCP.D1.1.00117, Appendix 13E). Figure 13-E2 from this document (DCP.D1.1.00117, Appendix 13E) depicts “Natural Landscape Blocks” and “Essential Connectivity Areas” (enclosed as Attachment 2) clustered in the same portion of the Delta where the Department proposes a vast program of geotechnical work, that will introduce traffic, noise, light, and vibration for extended periods of time (Attachment 1).
The draft consistency certification contains a section entitled “Attachment 4 2024–2026 Proposed Geotechnical Activities—Evaluation of Consistency with the Delta Conveyance Project’s Final EIR.” This section asserts “Geotechnical activities will not involve construction, or placement of powerlines, will avoid take of listed species and habitat loss, will not involve surface disturbance that would disrupt terrestrial wildlife connectivity and movement” (DCP.X2.1.00001: 166, DWR 2024, Attachment 4: 19). This statement is completely unsupported by any facts or analysis. It is also contradicted by the scope of the program depicted in Figure 1 from the consistency certification (Attachment 1) and the mapbooks for wildlife movement from the DCP FEIR (Attachment 2). The Department effectively is asserting that a vast program of work requiring heavy equipment, noise, light, and vibration, that will occur over a period of only two years and will also occur in mapped connectivity corridors and natural habitat blocks will have no impact on wildlife movement, and thus will not affect the goal of protecting the Delta ecosystem. The Department’s own administrative record shows that the geotechnical work will have such an effect, and thus meets the test for a covered action in Water Code Section 85057.5(a)(4). Thus, even if the geotechnical work could properly be considered its own covered action (which it cannot), the Department’s attempt to define it out of the scope of covered actions is not supported by its own analysis.
The Department relies heavily on its assertion that the geotechnical work does not need to be certified for consistency, but then states, “Nevertheless, for the sake of thoroughness and to err on the side of facilitating the DSC’s informed decision-making process, the analysis that follows additionally considers Step 3 of the Checklist to determine whether the 2024–2026 Proposed Geotechnical Activities are covered by one or more regulatory Delta Plan policies contained in Article 3 of the DSC’s regulations codified at California Code of Regulations, Title 23, Sections 5003–5015” (DCP.X2.1.00001:29, DWR 2024:4-4). This section of the consistency certification thus provides analysis of consistency of the action in relation to the regulatory policies implementing the plan. This section’s conclusions are not supported by fact.
The Delta Stewardship Council regulations for the purposes of consistency review provide the following standard:
Water management facilities, ecosystem restoration, and flood management infrastructure must be sited to avoid or reduce conflicts with existing uses or those uses described or depicted in city and county general plans for their jurisdictions or spheres of influence when feasible, considering comments from local agencies and the Delta Protection Commission. Plans for ecosystem restoration must consider sites on existing public lands, when feasible and consistent with a project’s purpose, before privately owned sites are purchased. Measures to mitigate conflicts with adjacent uses may include, but are not limited to, buffers to prevent adverse effects on adjacent farmland (23 Cal. Code of Regulations Section 5011(a)).
The proposed geotechnical work fails this test for at least two reasons. First, the geotechnical work will result in the placement of a vast array of geodetic survey monuments in the Delta. These consist of metal markers, typically attached to a subterranean pipe or pole, that are permanently placed in the landscape. The consistency document references these in several locations including Section 3.6.2, Overview of 2024–2026 Proposed Geotechnical Activities (DCP.X2.1.00001:20, DWR 2024:3-15).
A cursory review of typical survey monuments shows a standard monument might consist of a 30-inch stainless steel length of pipe with a 3.25-inch bronze cap (Berntsen 2024). DWR relies heavily on the concept that geotechnical work is a transitory activity and will not create permanent facilities. However, the volume and location of monuments proposed would span the entire eastern and southern Delta (see Figure 1 from the consistency document, Attachment 1). Because the Delta is an agricultural landscape subject to tilling and other mechanical methods of farming, the geodetic monuments will leave a permanent impediment to farming across the Delta. Because the purpose of the geotechnical work is to support water management facilities and will leave permanent facilities consisting of survey markers, it is thus a “water management facility” that conflicts with the prevailing land use in the Delta, which is agriculture. For these reasons it does not satisfy the Delta Stewardship Council regulatory test that “Water management facilities, ecosystem restoration, and flood management infrastructure must be sited to avoid or reduce conflicts” (23 Cal. Code of Regulations Section 5011(a)).
Furthermore, the text of Section 5011(a) does not explicitly exclude temporary impacts created by water management facilities on local land use. These impacts logically include the potential for the concentration of equipment and vehicle traffic for extended periods of time that would generate conflicts. DWR states that “Proposed Geotechnical Activities will generate minimal traffic and will be conducted in coordination with property owners” (DWR DCP.X2.1.00001:29, 2024:4-3). This statement however provides little other than a bare assertion without any substantive analysis of how the cumulative effect of simultaneous geotechnical investigations at multiple sites compressed into a few years can be synchronized with critical periods of agricultural operations and trucking throughout the Delta.
The Department relies heavily on the assertion that traffic impacts were previously described in and will be consistent with the FEIR. The Department fails to note however that the FEIR only describes the location of geotechnical work in a very general narrative fashion in Section 3.15 of the FEIR. The associated mapbooks for the “Bethany Reservoir Alignment” show that geotechnical investigations may occur anywhere there are project features or alignments (DCP.D1.1.0000.1, DWR 2023). This very general acknowledgement of when and where geotechnical work would occur stands in stark contrast to Figure 1 in the consistency analysis (DCP.X2.00001:10, DWR 2024, also enclosed as Attachment 1). Note that in addition to a newly, substantially greater specificity regarding location shown in the current consistency documentation, the Department also states, “This work would commence as soon as possible and conclude by the end of 2026” (DCP.X2.00001:18, DWR 2024:3-13). Figure 1 thus depicts a specific, concentrated, and large program of work that will occur in only two years. Taken at face value, DWR thus asserts that the traffic impact analysis and mitigation approach of the FEIR for traffic impacts now will adequately address the effects of a huge program of investigation that will occur in only two years that was never previously analyzed in detail corresponding to the specificity shown in Figure 1 (Attachment 1).
The 2024 consistency analysis provides no substantiation of how coordination with local property owners will be performed or how the Department will adequately address impacts on agricultural operations for a large and very geographically concentrated program occurring in a compressed time frame. Absent more analysis and substantiation, we conclude that the geotechnical work will conflict with local agricultural practices and trucking, and will conflict with existing land uses in a manner inconsistent with the regulatory policy of the Delta Plan codified in 23 Cal. Code of Regulations Section 5011(a)). The disparity in specificity and detail between the FEIR and the 2024 consistency documentation also warrants discussion in relation to CEQA.
DWR concludes that no additional CEQA analysis is required for the proposed geotechnical work because the geotechnical work was previously analyzed in the environmental impact report for DCP itself (DCP.X2.1.00001:9, DWR 2024:3-1). In support of this conclusion, DWR included in the 2024 consistency documentation “Attachment 4, 2024–2026 Proposed Geotechnical Activities—Evaluation of Consistency with the Delta Conveyance Project’s Final EIR” (DCP.X2.1.00001:147, DWR 2024). This memorandum states that DWR has analyzed “whether the geotechnical activities have the potential to result in any new or substantially more severe environmental impacts than shown in the Delta Conveyance Project’s Final EIR” (DCP.X2.1.00001:151, DWR 2024, Attachment 4:4). This is only part of the full standard for analyzing the need for subsequent CEQA documentation.
The CEQA Guidelines provide the following test for the need for subsequent environmental analysis. A subsequent or supplemental EIR is required when:
DWR thus has greatly simplified the language of the proper test and thus avoided significant parts of its meaning. Note that the process of screening for new environmental effects needs to consider the full scope of impacts subject to CEQA analysis. The CEQA Guidelines require that public agencies make a mandatory finding of significance when:
The project has possible environmental effects that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable. “Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects (14 Cal. Code of Regulations Section 15065(a)(3)).
This means that even if the project’s increment of effect is not significant at a project level, it may combine with other reasonably foreseeable projects or conditions to create a significant impact (14 Cal. Code of Regulations Section 15355).
The CEQA analysis in Attachment 4 to the consistency documentation provides no analysis of the cumulative effect of the proposed geotechnical investigations on any resource or threshold. The only instances of the word “cumulative” occur as explanatory footnotes to air quality standards.
DWR thus proposes a geotechnical program with newly identified specific locations that span the Delta, in a compressed time frame, and concludes that this work will not result in any new impacts on individual resources or substantial increases in the severity of significant impacts. This conclusion fails to consider the cumulative effect of a concentrated and large program of work occurring in a short period of time. This conclusion is largely supported by reliance on the scope of the previous EIR, which lacked the specificity of the 2024 documentation. Note that Section 3.15 in the FEIR for DCP provided only a high-level narrative overview of geotechnical work (DCP.D1.1.00010:134, DWR 2023:134). The conclusion that no impacts to agricultural operations or trucking, or wildlife movement, among myriad other resources, is unsupported by analysis. The available information suggests that these impacts will be more severe than previously disclosed, and thus warrant additional environmental review.
We urge the Department to comply with the policy mandate of both CEQA and the Delta Reform Act by providing a timely analysis of the full scope of the covered action, supported by adequate CEQA analysis for the newly identified geotechnical program, which is substantially different and of greater detail than that disclosed in the FEIR for DCP.
If you have any questions, please contact our Senior Environmental Planner, Mike Aviña, at Mike.Avina@delta.ca.gov, or at (530) 750-6727.
Sincerely,
Bruce Blodgett, Executive Director
Delta Protection Commission
CC: Jeff Henderson, Deputy Executive Officer for Planning & Performance, Delta Stewardship Council
Berntsen. Flarable Pipe Monuments, SSBNB30. 2024. Madison, Wisconsin. Available: Flarable Pipe Monuments
California Department of Water Resources (DWR). DELTA CONVEYANCE PROJECT: FINAL CERTIFICATION OF CONSISTENCY FOR 2024–2026 PROPOSED GEOTECHNICAL ACTIVITIES. 2024. Sacramento, California.
DWR. Final Environmental Impact Report, Delta Conveyance Project. 2023. Sacramento, California.
Superior Court of California. Court Order for Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District v. California Department of Water Resources. 2024. Sacramento, California.
See full state map at https://federalfundingaccountmap.vetro.io/map#14.54/38.15723/-121.59566
ISLETON, Calif. (Dec. 16, 2024) – This map of Isleton from the California Public Utilities Commission shows that broadband internet – download speeds of at least 25 MB per second – is essentially non-existent in this rural Delta city of 800 people.
Last week at the Isleton Community Center, though, download speeds were clocked at over 900 MB per second.
What changed?
The results of the unWired speed test last week (Photo courtesy of unWired)
A new technology called Tarana Wireless and a public-private partnership between Isleton and unWired Broadband spurred a giant leap in economic, educational, health, safety, and social equity for this Delta town.
Broadband access is spotty in rural areas nationwide, and lack of access has become as detrimental to rural citizens’ opportunities as lack of electricity or phone service.
Bridging that gap in the Delta is even more challenging than in most rural areas: The preferred infrastructure solution – burying fiber optic cable along roads – isn’t an affordable option in Delta areas with high water tables and narrow levee roads.
Until now, that has left line-of-sight wireless as the main option, which can be problematic in heavily treed Delta communities.
A 2019 report (PDF) produced by Valley Vision for the Delta Protection Commission noted the severity of the problem in the Delta, and recommended solutions including public-private partnerships and using existing public assets, both of which happened in Isleton.
Tarana technology allows wireless signal to punch through trees and other obstacles, but it requires towers for transmission, and tower construction and permitting can be challenging. “The tower cannot lean or tip over, and we’re on an island that’s sinking,” said Isleton Vice Mayor David Kent, who took the lead for the City Council on the project.
unWired was – and still is – interested in piggybacking on the city’s iconic, but currently privately owned, water tower, but was not able to get access to it. One way the city was able to help was to provide a place for a tower on city land.
Installation of the unWired tower in Isleton earlier this month (Photo courtesy of unWired)
In exchange, the city gets rent and internet service for its facilities, and the option of better internet subscriptions for all its citizens.
Mark Peterson, Special Projects for unWired, said the company was serving about a dozen customers in Isleton with existing technology, but over 200 people expressed interest in the new technology, and the company has signed up 20 more since the tower went online.
These are small numbers compared with a service launch in an urban area, but this is the nature and challenge of rural broadband. It is also unWired’s focus. “Our mission has been to provide internet services to rural, underserved areas that couldn’t get underground high-speed providers like cable,” Peterson said.
One Isleton couple who attended the ribbon cutting reception last week – Byron Pon and Marlene Oyoung – saw an immediate transformation in their lives.
The retired couple bought a smart TV over a year ago, not realizing they could never get enough bandwidth to use it. They heard about unWired, signed up, and started watching all the programs they couldn’t watch on their old tube-style television, with its rabbit-ear antenna.
Marlene Oyoung and Byron Pon (Photo courtesy of unWired)
So far, that includes FX’s The Old Man, lots of basketball with endless on-demand replays, and a YouTube documentary. “We certainly have watched a lot,” Pon said. “To have it available after waiting a year is terrific.”
The better broadband also means business – including city business – can run more efficiently in Isleton, where just sending email has been routinely slow, and sometimes impossible during outages. It improves emergency response and access to remote work, telemedicine, and myriad educational opportunities.
Vice Mayor Kent called this progress “the proverbial win-win. It should be celebrated as an idealized and practical improvement to the quality of life for the citizens of Isleton.”
He wants it to serve as a test case for other rural communities as well. “If you can succeed here, you can succeed anywhere,” he said.
That’s also the focus of Valley Vision, which manages a broadband consortium funded by the state Public Utilities Commission.
“Most small cities have capacity problems,” said Valley Vision Managing Director Trish Kelly. Valley Vision works with agencies including the Delta Protection Commission to provide the advice and support needed to carry broadband projects to completion.
“It’s a big challenge, but we’re making progress,” Kelly said. “It’s a big milestone.”
Community Events: Lighting of Mount Diablo Beacon, Delta Stories Launch, Craft Fairs
ALSO: AWARDS, GRANTS, MUSEUMS, CLASSES/WEBINARS, and EVENTS
Community Events: Lighted Boat Parade, Holiday Markets and Craft Fairs
ANTIOCH, Calif. (Nov. 17, 2024) – More than 80 Delta heritage professionals and aficionados gathered Friday at the Antioch Historical Society Museum for a day of storytelling and inspiration at the 6th Delta Heritage Forum.
The Forum was organized by the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta National Heritage Area. The NHA – California’s first and only – was created by Congress in 2019, underscoring the region’s historical and cultural value. The NHA is coordinated by the Delta Protection Commission.
To receive notifications about next year’s Delta Heritage Forum, sign up for the NHA’s bi-monthly newsletter, the Delta Heritage Courier.
The Delta Protection Commission reviews hundreds of local and regional land use projects in the Primary and Secondary zones of the Delta for consistency with the Land Use and Resource Management Plan (PDF) and submits comment letters to ensure projects stay on track with the Plan. Under state law (Public Resources Code Sections 29770-29772), any action taken by a local government or agency in the Primary Zone that is inconsistent with the Plan can be appealed to the Commission. Appeals may be brought by any interested person, or by the Commission itself. Learn more here.
November 13, 2024
Tyson Zimmerman, Assistant General Manager
Ironhouse Sanitary District (ISD)
450 Walnut Meadows Drive
Oakley, CA 94561
Dear Mr. Zimmerman:
We are providing comments on the proposed Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Giant Garter Snake Mitigation Bank (Initial Study).
The Delta Protection Commission (Commission) is a state agency charged with ensuring orderly and balanced conservation and development of Delta land resources and improved flood protection in the Primary Zone. The Commission performs planning work to further the state’s basic goals for the Delta consistent with the Delta Protection Act (California Public Resources Code Section 29700 et seq.). The Commission is thus commenting as a state agency concerned with the best environmental outcomes for the Delta, consistent with state policy as defined in the Delta Protection Act.
We have reviewed the draft Initial Study posted by your agency. We commend Ironhouse Sanitary District (District) on preparing a robust document based on facts that are reasonably available to the District. Part of the process for initial studies under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is the public review period, of which you are aware. The purpose of the public review period is to allow the public, state and federal agencies, and other stakeholders, to provide comments. The comment process thus allows public agencies to consider information they did not have nor could be reasonably expected to have in preparing the draft study. With this in mind, we are submitting comments to add to the record in front of the District and support your environmental analysis.
At page 14, the Initial Study makes the statement that “Conversion of Farmland of Local Importance is not a significant impact for purposes of CEQA” (Ironhouse Sanitary District 2024:14). We would like to take this opportunity to clarify the nature of CEQA significance thresholds and the Appendix G checklist for purposes of CEQA review. The leading desk book on CEQA practice states “the questions in the checklist do not necessarily cover all potential impacts that may result from a particular project” (Kostka and Zischke 2023:13.15). CEQA common law echoes this rule (Joshua Tree Downtown Bus. Alliance v. County of San Bernardino, [2016] Cal.5th 677,689). Courts have overturned CEQA conclusions based on a literal reading of the Appendix G checklist when other impacts beyond the checklist were not fully analyzed (Protect the Historic Amador Waterways v. Amador Water Agency [2004] 116 CA4th 1099, 1110-1112). Put another way, the District’s reliance on the Appendix G checklist is a reasonable starting point for analysis but is not, by itself, adequate to screen for all potential environmental impacts.
Agriculture is a significant driver of the Delta economy. Agriculture is economically important and conversion of agricultural land threatens this economy. Between 2014 and present, over 12,000 acres of farmland have been lost in the Delta (Delta Stewardship Council 2024). Our planning work documents that agriculture is the main economic driver of the Delta economy (Delta Protection Commission 2012:274). A dollar of agricultural crop revenue generates three to five times greater regional income than other leading revenue sources such as recreation or tourism (Delta Protection Commission 2012:274).
The policy of the State of California is to protect the agricultural economy of the Delta (Cal. Public Resources Code Section 29702(b)). Grazing is a significant part of that economy. Irrigated pasture alone covered 41,000 acres in 2013 (Delta Stewardship Council 2013:184). Dry pasture (i.e., grazing land that is not irrigated) contributes significantly to total grazing land in the Delta. The conversion of agricultural land of any type can lead to diminished viability of associated and necessary processing and transportation facilities required for the ultimate agricultural product. Put another way, conversion of farmland may undermine the viability of associated services, making the primary agricultural practice less viable.
The Delta Protection Commission tracks land use patterns and agricultural land use conversion on an ongoing basis. In 2024, the list of proposed projects that would convert agricultural land in the Delta, includes, but is not limited to:
Note that sale of cattle and calves (rangeland agricultural products) accounts for $4.76 billion annually in California (California Department of Food and Agriculture: 2024). The California Department of Conservation reports a total loss of California grazing land of 1.6 million acres between 1984 and 2018 (Department of Conservation: 2024). Urbanization is a leading cause of grazing land loss identified by the Department of Conservation, with ecological restoration projects being another significant cause (Department of Conservation: 2024). While grazing land and grazing are significant drivers of the California agricultural economy, it is relatively rare in the Delta (Delta Stewardship Council 2013: Chapter 5, Figure 5-3), which also weighs in favor of preserving grazing when it can be harmonized with other land uses.
Based on these facts, the ongoing conversion of farmland of all types is a cumulatively considerable problem. The decline in farming also has a synergistic effect. Agricultural land conversion (a physical impact) fuels the loss of individual farm revenue (an economic impact) that in turn fuels ongoing farmland conversion (a physical effect on the environment) as agricultural viability is diminished because the web of services and processing that support agriculture is undermined. Economic effects are relevant under CEQA to the extent they cause physical environmental changes (14 Cal. Code of Regulations Section 15131(b)).
In addition, the CEQA Guidelines require that public agencies make a mandatory finding of significance when:
The project has possible environmental effects that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable. “Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects (14 Cal. Code of Regulations Section 15065(a)(3)).
The total size of the proposed mitigation bank is 189 acres and the existing land use on site includes grazing (Ironhouse Sanitary District 2024:1). Here because the bank has the potential to alter the land use and end an agricultural practice, it has the potential to effectively convert land from agricultural use. While the Initial Study states no permanent conversion would occur (Ironhouse Sanitary District 2024:18), the facts are slightly more complex. The bank proposes to create aquatic habitat for giant garter snake accompanied by upland basking habitat by grading to create a sinuous landscape of waterways and berms. This land will then be sold on credit basis for mitigation purposes to mitigation consumers. If grazing is not a project commitment through either environmental commitments or adopted and enforceable mitigation, the bank creation may effectively lock in a new land use where grazing is disallowed or discouraged and create a significant cumulative impact.
Communications with the District indicate that grazing would be compatible with the mitigation bank functions of the site. We encourage and welcome a land use approach where the District affirmatively commits to continued grazing in a manner that is consistent with the mitigation bank function. Absent such a commitment, the conversion of 189 acres would constitute an incremental effect that contributes to the cumulatively considerable loss of agricultural land triggering CEQA Guidelines Section 15065(a)(3)). Our review of the framework for CEQA analysis provided above demonstrates that the fact that farmland of local importance is not in the Appendix G checklist is not, by itself, persuasive that the project’s potential for conversion of farmland is insignificant. Here because the change in land use has the potential to diminish agricultural land use, it will make a significant contribution to a cumulatively considerable loss of agricultural land unless mitigated[1].
The most succinct and direct means of addressing this issue isto make minor revisions to the impact analysis in the agricultural and cumulative sections and adopt a mitigation measure committing to continuing grazing to avoid a cumulative impact.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on your document and to provide facts regarding Delta-wide trends. To reiterate, we appreciate the District’s analysis in the draft document, and simply intend to provide facts to support your administrative record in making a robust and well supported mitigated negative declaration, with an appropriate suite of mitigation.
If you have any questions, feel free to contact Mike Aviña at Mike.Avina@delta.ca.gov or at (530) 750-6727.
Sincerely,
Bruce Blodgett, Executive Director
Delta Protection Commission
[1] Note that CEQA imposes an affirmative duty to mitigate environmental effects where feasible (Cal. Public Resources Code Section 21002). Where mitigation is necessary to avoid significant effects, and that mitigation is not adopted, an Environmental Impact Report is required (No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 C3d 68, 75).
California Department of Conservation. Fast Facts. 2024. Available: https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/Pages/Fast-Facts.aspx
California Department of Food and Agriculture. California Agricultural Production Statistics. 2024. Available: https://www.cdfa.ca.gov/Statistics/#:~:text=California’s%20Top%2010%20Agricultural%20Commodities,the%202023%20crop%20year%20are:&text=Dairy%20Products%2C%20Milk%20%E2%80%94%20$8.13%20billion,Almonds%20%E2%80%94%20$3.88%20billion
Delta Protection Commission. Economic Sustainability Plan for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. 2012. West Sacramento, California.
Delta Stewardship Council. The Delta Plan. 2013. Sacramento, California
Ironhouse Sanitary District. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Giant Garter Snake Mitigation Bank. 2024. Oakley, California.
Kostka, Stephen L, and Michael H. Zischke. Practice Under the California Environmental Quality Act. 2023. Oakland, California
Community Events: Indigenous Cooking, Californio Rancho Fandango, ‘River’s End’ Screening
Community Events: Rio Vista Fall Festival, Sandhill Crane Festival, Christmas on the Farm
Use .highlight class with .panel-standout for triangle effect. Integer posuere erat a ante venenatis dapibus posuere velit aliquet. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus. Curabitur blandit tempus porttitor. Integer posuere erat a ante venenatis dapibus posuere velit aliquet. Cras justo odio, dapibus ac facilisis in, egestas eget quam. Aenean eu leo quam. Pellentesque ornare sem lacinia quam venenatis vestibulum.
Integer posuere erat a ante venenatis dapibus posuere velit aliquet. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus. Curabitur blandit tempus porttitor. Integer posuere erat a ante venenatis dapibus posuere velit aliquet. Cras justo odio, dapibus ac facilisis in, egestas eget quam. Aenean eu leo quam. Pellentesque ornare sem lacinia quam venenatis vestibulum.
Integer posuere erat a ante venenatis dapibus posuere velit aliquet. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus. Curabitur blandit tempus porttitor. Integer posuere erat a ante venenatis dapibus posuere velit aliquet. Cras justo odio, dapibus ac facilisis in, egestas eget quam. Aenean eu leo quam. Pellentesque ornare sem lacinia quam venenatis vestibulum.
