DOCSLIB.ORG

Conformity Analysis 2021 MTIP and Amendment #1 to MTIP

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Conformity Analysis 2021 MTIP and Amendment #1 to MTIP CONFORMITY ANALYSIS TO BE ADOPTED FEBRUARY 18, 2021 DEVELOPED AS PART OF THE SACRAMENTO AREA COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS’: AMENDMENT #1 TO THE 2020 METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN AND SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES STRATEGY AND THE 2021-24 METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM SACOG STAFF Renée DeVere-Oki, Program Manager for Regional Air Quality and Climate Planning Darren Conly, Modeling Analyst Shengyi Gao, Data and Modeling Analyst Sam Shelton, Senior Analyst José Luis Cáceres, Project Manager-2021/24 Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program Dustin Foster, MTIP Analyst Matt Carpenter, Director of Transportation Services Bruce Griesenbeck, Data and Analysis Manager Clint Holtzen, Planning Manager ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary 1 Conformity Requirements 1 Conformity Tests 2 Findings of the Conformity Analysis 2 Conformity Determination 4 Overview of the Physical Environment 4 Introduction 5 Background 5 Conformity Approach 6 Financial Constraint 6 Inclusion of all Federal and Regionally Significant Projects 7 Latest Planning Assumptions 7 Land Use Assumptions 7 Transportation System 8 Latest Emissions Model 9 Modeling Documentation 9 Air Quality Emissions Analysis 10 Years of Analysis 11 Analysis Techniques 11 Emission Calculations 12 Emissions Budget Test for Ozone (ROG and NOx) 12 Emission Forecasts for the Sutter Buttes Ozone Nonattainment Area 13 Emissions Budget Test for PM10 13 Interim Baseline Test for the Sacramento PM2.5 Nonattainment Area 13 Emissions Budget Test for the Yuba City-Marysville PM2.5 Nonattainment Area 14 Implementation of Transportation Control Measures 14 Public Participation Process 14 Resolution of Approval 15 Conclusion 15 iii APPENDICES Appendix A: Conformity Checklist Appendix B: Transportation Project Listing Non-Exempt Project Listing Exempt Project Listing Eastern Solano County Project Listing Appendix C: Conformity Analysis Documentation Figure 1-Air Quality Conformity Geographies by Nonattainment Area Table 1-SACOG Air Quality Conformity Emissions Analysis Table 2-Population and Employment Assumptions, and VMT Estimates Table 3-Vehicle Activity Estimates for Ozone Conformity Analysis Table 4a and 4b- Ozone Conformity Analysis (options based upon budget approval) Table 5a-PM10 Emissions Estimates and Conformity Test Table 5b-Paved Dust Calculation Table 5c-Road Construction Dust Emission Rates Table 5d-Road Construction Dust Seasonal (Winter) Table 6a- PM2.5 Emissions Estimates and Conformity Test-Sacramento Geography Table 6b- PM2.5 Conformity Analysis for Yuba City‐Marysville Area Table 7-Air Quality Conformity Assumptions Appendix D: Timely Implementation Documentation for Transportation Control Measures Appendix E: Charge of the RPP Appendix F: Resolution of Adoption and Public Notice Resolution of Adoption Public Notice Appendix G: Response to Public Comments iv EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) is the designated Metropolitan Planning Agency for the Sacramento Region and is responsible for all regional transportation planning activities in Sacramento, Sutter, Yolo, and Yuba Counties, and in El Dorado and Placer Counties outside of the Tahoe Basin. For purposes of conformity, SACOG is responsible for the analysis of transportation activities in that area and in eastern Solano County. Presented in this report is the Conformity Analysis for the 2020 Metropolitan Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy Amendment (2020 MTP/SCS) Amendment #1 and Adoption of the 2021-24 Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program (MTIP). The conformity demonstration requirement is described in the Clean Air Act Section 176(c) (42 U.S.C. 7506(c)) and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) transportation conformity regulations (40 CFR 93 Subpart A). Transportation conformity ("conformity") is a way to ensure that Federal funding and approval goes to those transportation activities that are consistent with air quality goals set for ozone, particulate matter, or nitrogen dioxide. The analysis presented in this report demonstrates that the 2020 MTP/SCS meets the criteria specified in these regulations. CONFORMITY REQUIREMENTS Conformity must be demonstrated in “all nonattainment and maintenance areas for transportation-related pollutants for which the area is designated nonattainment or has a maintenance plan” (40 CFR 93.102). The following are the designations within the Sacramento region: • 2008 8-Hour Ozone (including the ROG and NOx precursors) Severe-15 Nonattainment Area: o The Sacramento Metropolitan Area (Sacramento, Yolo and portions of El Dorado, Placer, Sutter, Solano Counties) and o The Sutter Buttes Area (Sutter County). The 2008 ozone standards classify the Sutter Buttes Area as an unclassified/attainment area for ozone, effective July 20, 2013. • 2015 8-Hour Ozone (including the ROG and NOx precursors) Moderate Nonattainment Area: o The Sacramento Metropolitan Area (Sacramento, Yolo and portions of El Dorado, Placer, Sutter, Solano Counties). o The Sutter Buttes Area (Sutter County). The 2015 ozone standards classify the Sutter Buttes Area as a marginal nonattainment area for ozone, effective June 4, 2018. • Particulate Matter (PM10) Maintenance Area (Sacramento County) • 2006 Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) Nonattainment Area and Maintenance Area: o Nonattainment Area - Sacramento Area (Sacramento and portions of Yolo, Solano, Placer and El Dorado Counties) o Maintenance Area -Yuba City-Marysville Area (Sutter and a portion of Yuba County) Under a determination of conformity, the following criteria are applied: 1. The latest planning assumptions and emission models are used. 2. The transportation plan and program pass an emissions budget test using a budget that has been found adequate or been approved by EPA or an interim emissions test where budgets have not been established. 1 3. The transportation plan and program provide for the timely implementation of transportation control measures (TCMs). 4. Interagency and public consultation is part of the process. SACOG follows the interagency review process described in SACOG’s Public Participation Plan. The dedicated interagency forum for this process is the bi-monthly Regional Planning Partnership meeting. Upon reaching a determination finding that is approved by SACOG’s Board, the conformity analysis is submitted to Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Federal Transit Administration (FTA) for final approval. The Conformity Checklist developed by FHWA contains items required for completing a determination. This list is included for reference in Appendix A. CONFORMITY TESTS Federal conformity regulations describe two types of tests; an emissions budget test and an interim emissions test. To run an emissions budget test, a region must have budgets in place that have been found adequate for transportation conformity purposes or are contained in an approved air quality implementation plan. Predicted emissions for the 2020 MTP/SCS Amendment #1 must be less than or equal to these budgets. The second test, an interim emissions test is used when approved or adequate budgets are not in place and the region is in nonattainment. Predicted emissions for the 2020 MTP/SCS Amendment #1 and MTIP must be less than or equal to emissions predicted in the baseline scenario. Applicable air quality implementation plans and conformity tests are further described within the text. FINDINGS OF THE CONFORMITY ANALYSIS A regional emissions analysis was conducted for the years 2022, 2023, 2024, 2026, 2027, 2035, and 2040 for each applicable pollutant. See Appendix C, Table 1, for the analysis years for each pollutant. Each analysis utilized the latest planning assumptions and emissions models. The conclusions of the SACOG analysis are: • Ozone: The Analysis determined that the implementation of the 2020 MTP/SCS Amendment #1 and the MTIP would result in less total regional on-road vehicle-related emissions (ROG and NOx) than the emissions budget found adequate by the EPA in the 2009 Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan, 2013 SIP Revisions. This analysis has used these budgets for demonstration of the 2008 and 2015 standards. This draft contains both approved and pending approval Ozone budgets. At the time of adoption, the analysis, the approved budgets will be used. • PM10: The Analysis determined that the implementation of the 2020 MTP/SCS Amendment #1 and the MTIP would result in less total regional on-road vehicle-related emissions than the emissions budget found adequate by the EPA in the 2010 PM10 Implementation/Maintenance Plan and Re-designation Request for Sacramento County. • PM2.5: The Analysis determined that the total regional on-road vehicle-related emissions associated with implementation of the 2020 MTP/SCS Amendment #1 and the MTIP for the analysis years are projected to be less than or equal to the emissions for the Baseline scenario, satisfying the test established in Interim Transportation Conformity Guidance for 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS Nonattainment Areas in the Sacramento area. The Analysis also found that implementation of the 2020 MTP/SCS and the MTIP would result in less total regional on-road vehicle-related emissions than the emissions budgets found 2 adequate by the EPA in the 2014 Yuba City-Marysville PM2.5 Maintenance Plan and Re-designation Request. • TCMs: The implementation of the 2020 MTP/SCS Amendment #1 and the MTIP will not impede the timely implementation of the TCMs identified in the 2009 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Science-Based Target Setting Manual Version 4.1 | April 2020
    Science-Based Target Setting Manual Version 4.1 | April 2020 Table of contents Table of contents 2 Executive summary 3 Key findings 3 Context 3 About this report 4 Key issues in setting SBTs 5 Conclusions and recommendations 5 1. Introduction 7 2. Understand the business case for science-based targets 12 3. Science-based target setting methods 18 3.1 Available methods and their applicability to different sectors 18 3.2 Recommendations on choosing an SBT method 25 3.3 Pros and cons of different types of targets 25 4. Set a science-based target: key considerations for all emissions scopes 29 4.1 Cross-cutting considerations 29 5. Set a science-based target: scope 1 and 2 sources 33 5.1 General considerations 33 6. Set a science-based target: scope 3 sources 36 6.1 Conduct a scope 3 Inventory 37 6.2 Identify which scope 3 categories should be included in the target boundary 40 6.3 Determine whether to set a single target or multiple targets 42 6.4 Identify an appropriate type of target 44 7. Building internal support for science-based targets 47 7.1 Get all levels of the company on board 47 7.2 Address challenges and push-back 49 8. Communicating and tracking progress 51 8.1 Publicly communicating SBTs and performance progress 51 8.2 Recalculating targets 56 Key terms 57 List of abbreviations 59 References 60 Acknowledgments 63 About the partner organizations in the Science Based Targets initiative 64 Science-Based Target Setting Manual Version 4.1 -2- Executive summary Key findings ● Companies can play their part in combating climate change by setting greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction targets that are aligned with reduction pathways for limiting global temperature rise to 1.5°C or well-below 2°C compared to pre-industrial temperatures.
    [Show full text]
  • A Review of Manchester's Carbon Budgets for Direct / Energy-Only
    A Review of Manchester’s Carbon Budgets for Direct / Energy-only CO2 Emissions Client: Manchester Climate Change Agency Document Reference: MCCA DIRECT Version: V.5.3 FINAL Date: February 2019 Prepared by: Dr Christopher Jones NB: All views contained with this report are attributable solely to the author and do not necessarily reflect those of researchers within the wider Tyndall Centre. 1 Introduction In June 2018 the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research at the University of Manchester was commissioned by Manchester Climate Change Agency to advise on science-based carbon reduction targets for Manchester. This led to the development of the Agency’s ‘Playing our Full Part’ proposal (http://www.manchesterclimate.com/targets-2018) and the formal adoption of science-based carbon reduction targets for Manchester’s direct1 /energy-only CO2 emissions by Manchester City Council, in November 2018. In November 2019 the Tyndall Centre was commissioned by the Agency to review the city’s climate change targets and recommend revised targets, as required. The review covers four areas of activity: Direct / energy-only CO2 emissions Indirect / consumption-based CO2 emissions CO2 emissions from flights from Manchester Airport Target-setting and reporting methodology for organisations and sectors The full brief is available from http://www.manchesterclimate.com/targets-2020. This report covers the review of direct /energy-only aspect of the brief in Part 1. Part 2 of this report considers a proposal for a 2030 zero carbon target. 1 This definition of ‘direct’ refers to fuel use (Scope 1) and electricity use (Scope 2) within the local authority geographic area.
    [Show full text]
  • San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission Teleconference Board Meeting
    Chair, Christina Fugazi, City of Stockton Commissioner, Nancy Young, City of Tracy Vice Chair, Leo Zuber, City of Ripon Commissioner, Kathy Miller, San Joaquin County Commissioner, Jose Nuño, City of Manteca Commissioner, Melissa Hernandez, Alameda County Commissioner, Lily Mei, City of Fremont Commissioner, Mikey Hothi, City of Lodi Executive Director, Stacey Mortensen SAN JOAQUIN REGIONAL RAIL COMMISSION TELECONFERENCE BOARD MEETING June 4, 2021 – 8:00 am Call-In Information: +1 (646) 749-3122 Access Code: 185-391-325 GoToMeeting Link: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/185391325 SPECIAL NOTICE Coronavirus COVID-19 In accordance with the Governor’s Executive Order N-29-20, San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission Board Members will be attending this meeting via teleconference or videoconference. Members of the public may observe the meeting by dialing +1 (646) 749- 3122 with access code: 185-391-325 or log-in using a computer, tablet or smartphone at GoToMeeting.com using link: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/185391325 Please note that all members of the public will be placed on mute until such times allow for public comments to be made. If a person wishes to make a public comment during the meeting, to do so they must either 1) use GoToMeeting and will have the option to notify SJRRC staff by alerting them via the “Chat” function or they can 2) contact SJRRC staff via email at [email protected] in which staff will read the comment aloud during the public comment period. Emailed public comments should be limited to approximately 240 words as comments will be limited to two (2) minutes per comment.
    [Show full text]
  • Greenhouse Gas Mitigation in Land Use – Measuring Economic Potential
    Dominic Moran and Kimberly Pratt CHAPTER XI Greenhouse gas mitigation in land use – measuring economic potential INTRODUCTION As noted in other sections the global technical mitigation potential of agriculture, excluding fossil fuel, offsets from biomass is around 5.5–6 Gt CO2eq/year. This can be delivered through a range of technically effective measures that can be deployed in a variety of farm and land-use systems. These measures can be deployed at varying cost, including a range of ancillary environmental and social costs and benefits that need to be taken into account when moving to some consideration of the socio-economic potential of mitigation pathways. This chapter will explore the distinction between the technical and economic potential as applied more generally to land-use mitigation measures. Specifically, the chapter considers how issues of efficiency and equity are important corollaries to the effectiveness of grassland mitigation. The consideration of efficiency is made with reference to a carbon (C) price, which provides a benchmark cost for comparing mitigation options on a cost per tonne basis. The equity dimension then addresses the distributional impacts arising if efficient measures are adopted across different income groups. We demonstrate these points with the example of biochar, a soils additive that is widely considered to offer a low-cost mitigation potential applicable in a wide variety of high- and low-income farm and land use systems. This example is used to illustrate the data requirements for developing a bottom-up marginal abatement cost curve, which is essential for judging the relative effectiveness and efficient of mitigation measures.
    [Show full text]
  • RPP Packet Attachments
    Sacramento Area 1415 L Street, tel: 916.321.9000 Suite 300 fax: 916.321.9551 Council of Sacramento, CA tdd: 916.321.9550 Governments 95814 www.sacog.org Regional Planning Partnership Wednesday, October 23, 2019, 2:00 to 3:30 p.m. SACOG Rivers Room, 1415 L Street, Suite 300, Sacramento, CA Meeting Information: https://www.gotomeet.me/GoToMeetingSACOG1 You can also dial in using your phone: Dial-in #: 877-568-4106 Access Code: 732-591-877 The purpose of the Partnership is to assist SACOG with its transportation and air quality planning and programming processes, with an emphasis on technical issues, by providing consultation with a broad range of public and private constituencies. It also provides a forum for local agencies in the region’s transportation and land use industry to contribute to the policy-making and fund programming activities of SACOG, and to improve coordination within the region. The Regional Planning Partnership (RPP) consists of the five local air districts, representatives of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), California Air Resources Board (ARB), Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Federal Transit Administration (FTA), and state and local transportation agencies. The RPP meets bimonthly. Each RPP meeting is open to the public and held at the SACOG offices. 1. Introductions (Renée DeVere-Oki, 5 minutes) o Welcome o What is the RPP? o Introductions in room, phone, computer. Please enter your name upon logging in. 2. The SACOG Regional Agencies Partnership Update o Updates from Staff (12 minutes) . Topics in Transit – (Barbara VaughanBechtold, 5 minutes) Update on any current topics in transit and SACOG’s Transit Coordinating Committee.
    [Show full text]
  • San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority Agenda March 24, 2017
    Supervisor Vito Chiesa, Chair, Stanislaus County Alternate Richard O’Brien, City of Riverbank Councilmember Don Tatzin, Vice-Chair, City of Lafayette Alternate Federal Glover, Contra Costa County Councilmember Patrick Hume, Vice-Chair, City of Elk Grove Alternate Don Nottoli, Sacramento County Supervisor Rodrigo Espinoza, Merced County Alternate Mike Villalta, City of Los Banos Supervisor Scott Haggerty, Alameda County Alternate Tom Blalock, BART Councilmember Bob Johnson, City of Lodi Alternate Bob Elliott, San Joaquin County Supervisor Doug Verboon, Kings County Alternate Justin Mendes, City of Hanford Supervisor Brett Frazier, Madera County Alternate Andrew Madellin, City of Madera Supervisor Sal Quintero, Fresno County Alternate Michael Derr, City of Selma Supervisor Amy Shuklian, Tulare County Alternate Bob Link, City of Visalia AGENDA March 24, 2017 – 1:30 PM Stanislaus County Board of Supervisors Chambers 1010 10th Street (Basement), Modesto CA This Agenda shall be made available upon request in alternative formats to persons with a disability, as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. § 12132) and the Ralph M. Brown Act (California Government Code § 54954.2). Persons requesting a disability related modification or accommodation in order to participate in the meeting should contact San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission staff, at 209-944-6220, during regular business hours, at least twenty-four hours prior to the time of the meeting. All proceedings before the Authority are conducted in English. Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Authority regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection at the offices of the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission located at 949 E.
    [Show full text]
  • PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION August 16, 2017 Advice Letter 5042-E Erik Jacobson Director, Regulatory Relations Pacific Gas An
    STATE OF CALIFORNIA EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Governor PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION 505 VAN NESS AVENUE SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-3298 August 16, 2017 Advice Letter 5042-E Erik Jacobson Director, Regulatory Relations Pacific Gas and Electric Company 77 Beale Street, Mail Code B10C P.O. Box 770000 San Francisco, CA 94177 SUBJECT: Encroachment Agreement with Sacramento Regional Transit District Request for Approval Under Section 851 and General Order 173 Dear Mr. Jacobson: Advice Letter 5042-E is effective as of August 10, 2017, per Resolution E-4856 Ordering Paragraph. Sincerely, Edward Randolph Director, Energy Division Erik Jacobson Pacific Gas and Electric Company Director 77 Beale St., Mail Code B10C Regulatory Relations P.O. Box 770000 San Francisco, CA 94177 Fax: 415-973-1448 March 30, 2017 Advice 5042-E (Pacific Gas and Electric Company ID U 39 E) Public Utilities Commission of the State of California Subject: Encroachment Agreement with Sacramento Regional Transit District – Request for Approval Under Section 851 and General Order 173 Purpose Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) requests approval under Public Utilities Code Section 851 (Section 851) and General Order 173 to grant an encroachment agreement (Agreement) to the Sacramento Regional Transit District, a Public Corporation (RT). The Agreement permits the encroachment of a light rail system and passenger station platform (Improvements) within PG&E’s Easement Area (PG&E Easement). A copy of the Agreement is attached hereto as Attachment 1. PG&E has inspected the encroachment agreement and has determined that granting the encroachment will not interfere with PG&E’s operations or its ability to provide utility services to its customers.
    [Show full text]
  • Valley Rail Sacramento Extension
    NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY OF A DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Valley Rail Sacramento Extension PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD: MARCH 31, 2020 – MAY 15, 2020 DATE: March 31, 2020 TO: Responsible Agencies, Trustee Agencies, and Other Interested Parties FROM: San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission SUBJECT: Notice of Availability of a Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Valley Rail Sacramento Extension Project (SCH #2019090306) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission (SJRRC), acting as lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), has prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Valley Rail Sacramento Extension Project (proposed project). A. Valley Rail Sacramento Extension Location and Limits SJRRC is the designated owner, operator, and policy-making body for Altamont Corridor Express (ACE) service, which currently provides commuter rail service between San Jose and Stockton. The existing 86- mile ACE service corridor passes through Santa Clara, Alameda, and San Joaquin Counties, with 10 stations along the route. At the western end of the ACE corridor, ACE operates on an approximately 4-mile segment of track between San Jose and Santa Clara owned and operated by the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (PCJPB, also referred to as Caltrain). North of the Santa Clara Station to Stockton, ACE operates on approximately 82 miles of track owned by Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR). ACE operates on portions of UPRR’s Coast, Niles, Oakland, and Fresno Subdivisions. The San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority (SJJPA) is the designated administrator and manager of the San Joaquins passenger rail service, which currently provides intercity rail service between Oakland, Sacramento and Bakersfield.
    [Show full text]
  • Zero Emissions Pathways to the Europe We Want
    O NET ZERO BY 2050: FROM WHETHER TO HOW ZERO EMISSIONS PATHWAYS TO THE EUROPE WE WANT SEPTEMBER 2018 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We are grateful to the following organisations for their expertise and insight. CONTENTS Model testers - the following organisations supported the analytical team in testing the model, which is itself derived from the ClimateWorks Foundation’s Carbon Transparency Initiative (CTI): 4 FOREWORD 6 METHODOLOGY & SCENARIOS OVERVIEW 8 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 18 INTRODUCTION 20 1. REACHING NET-ZERO GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS IN 2050 IS FEASIBLE but requires robust action across all sectors, widening the range of low-carbon options used for the transition Agora-Energiewende, Climate Strategy, The Coalition for Energy Savings, Friends of the Earth (FoE) UK, Grantham Research Institute - 30 2. NET-ZERO GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS IN 2050 London School of Economics, Iberdrola, Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP), Institute for Sustainable Development and International Relations (IDDRI), Third Generation Environmentalism (E3G), UK Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy REQUIRES RAISING THE 2030 AMBITION LEVEL (BEIS), and the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) European Policy Office. to leverage the no regrets options and Members of these organisations tested the model during the summer of 2018 and explored a variety of decarbonisation pathways. These set Europe on the right trajectory scenarios have informed our conclusions but were not used directly. Other organisations were consulted on sector specific discussions:
    [Show full text]
  • Foundations of Science-Based Target Setting
    Foundations of Science-based Target Setting Version 1.0 April 2019 Table of Contents 1. Introduction ...............................................................................................................................4 1.1 Outline ........................................................................................................................4 2. Background ................................................................................................................................6 2.1 Target-setting methods ................................................................................................6 GHG budgets ......................................................................................................................................... 7 Emissions scenarios ............................................................................................................................... 7 Allocation approach .............................................................................................................................. 8 Constructing SBTi methods ................................................................................................................... 8 Box 1. Understanding scenarios ..............................................................................................9 Box 2. Determining useful GHG budgets ............................................................................... 11 3. Methods and scenarios the SBTi currently endorses .................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program
    - 2021-2024 Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program SACOG MISSION BOARD MEMBERS AND MEMBER JURISDICTIONS Provide leadership and a Karm Bains, Sutter County dynamic, collaborative public Krista Bernasconi, City of Roseville forum for achieving an efficient regional transportation system, Gary Bradford, Yuba County innovative and integrated Chris Branscum, City of Marysville regional planning, and high quality of life within the greater Pamela Bulahan, City of Isleton Sacramento region. Trinity Burruss, City of Colfax Jan Clark-Crets, Town of Loomis Rich Desmond, Sacramento County Lucas Frerichs, City of Davis Sue Frost, Sacramento County Jill Gayaldo, City of Rocklin Lakhvir Ghag, City of Live Oak Bonnie Gore, Placer County Martha Guerrero, City of West Sacramento Shon Harris, City of Yuba City Rick Jennings, City of Sacramento Paul Joiner, City of Lincoln Patrick Kennedy, Sacramento County Mike Kozlowski, City of Folsom Rich Lozano, City of Galt Porsche Middleton, City of Citrus Heights Pierre Neu, City of Winters David Sander, City of Rancho Cordova Michael Saragosa, City of Placerville Don Saylor, Yolo County Jay Schenirer, City of Sacramento Matt Spokely, City of Auburn Tom Stallard, City of Woodland Darren Suen, City of Elk Grove Wendy Thomas, El Dorado County Rick West, City of Wheatland Amarjeet Benipal, Ex-Officio Member 2021-2024 MTIP Contents A Guide to the Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program Contents Page Number Introduction .................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Paul Blackburn (1-1, 3.74) Night Games: 8-8 (.500) Wednesday, June 2 OFF DAY
    GAME NOTES Tuesday, June 1, 2021 2019 PCL Pacific Southern Division Champions Game 24 – Road Game 12 Sacramento River Cats (9-14) (AAA-S.F. Giants) vs. Las Vegas Aviators (12-11) (AAA-Oakland Athletics) Aviators At A Glance . The Series (L.V. leads 4-1) Overall Record: 12-11 (.522) Home: 6-6 (.500) PROBABLE STARTING PITCHERS Road: 6-5 (.545) Day Games: 4-3 (.571) SACRAMENTO LAS VEGAS Tues. (7:05) – RHP Shun Yamaguchi (0-3, 5.89) RHP Paul Blackburn (1-1, 3.74) Night Games: 8-8 (.500) Wednesday, June 2 OFF DAY Follow the Aviators on Facebook/Las Vegas Probable Starting Pitchers (Las Vegas at Albuquerque, June 3-8) Aviators Baseball Team & Twitter/@AviatorsLV ALBUQUERQUE LAS VEGAS Radio: Raider Nation Radio 920 AM - Russ Langer Thurs. (5:35) – LHP Ryan Rolison (1-0, 8.10) RHP Brian Howard (0-2, 6.38) Fri. (5:35) – RHP Jose Mujica (0-3, 11.15) RHP Daulton Jefferies (0-0, 0.00) Web & TV: www.aviatorslv.com; MiLB.TV Sat. (5:35) – RHP Dereck Rodriguez (0-1, 11.74) RHP Parker Dunshee (1-3, 6.15) Aviators vs. River Cats: The Las Vegas Aviators professional baseball team, Triple-A affiliate of the Oakland Athletics, will face the Sacramento River Cats, Triple-A affiliate of the San Francisco Giants, tonight in the finale of the six-game series in Triple-A West action at Sutter Health Park (14,014)…Las Vegas is 4-1 in the series…following an off day tomorrow, the Aviators will continue the season- long 12-game road trip and travel to Albuquerque, N.M., to face the Isotopes, Triple-A affiliate of the Colorado Rockies, in a six-game series from Thursday-Tuesday, June 3-8…Las Vegas will then return home to face intrastate rival, the Reno Aces on Thurs., June 10.
    [Show full text]