BDCP study, independent analysis show canal could hasten species extinction

BDCP study, independent analysis show canal could hasten species extinction

by Dan Bacher

The state and federal government’s own scientists agree that the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) to build the peripheral canal, an effort continually touted by Natural Resources Secretary John Laird and other officials as a “visionary” effort to achieve the “co-equal goals” of ecosystem restoration and water supply reliability, could lead to the extinction of endangered Central Valley chinook salmon and Delta and longfin smelt.

Despite this assessment, Laird and the Brown administration remain committed to the fast-tracking of the BDCP process. “We believe the draft gives us (and the stakeholders) the information needed to define the basic elements of a proposed project in July, as previously announced by Governor Brown and Interior Secretary Salazar,” said Laird in a statement announcing the release of the revised “Effects Analysis” on February 29.

Two environmental groups, the Bay Institute and Defenders of Wildlife, responded that both the Effects Analysis and their independent preliminary analysis of the documents show that canal plan could lead to the further decline of imperiled fish species on the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta.

“The revised ‘Effects Analysis’ (EA), prepared for and funded by Delta water exporters and the state and federal governments, demonstrates based on its own findings that the proposed Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) – far from restoring the Delta’s endangered species and habitats – could hasten the decline of several species,” according to a news release from the Bay Institute.

A preliminary analysis by the Bay Institute and Defenders of Wildlife reveals that “because the EA severely underestimates the impacts of implementing the proposed BDCP, the actual effect on endangered species and habitats is likely to be even worse than portrayed, potentially leading to the extinction of several species.”

“A long-term solution is desperately needed to save the collapsing Delta ecosystem,” said Bay Institute program director Gary Bobker. “But a species recovery plan that actually causes species to go extinct hardly fits the bill for that solution. Governor Brown needs to pay less attention to high-speed rail and more attention to the high-speed endangered species train wreck his administration is unwittingly driving toward in the Delta.”

Despite over half a decade of critical reviews of the state of BDCP’s science by independent science panels, fish agency biologists, and other experts, the new EA continues to fail to meet a “minimum threshold for credible technical analysis” (while showing an improvement over previous versions in a number of areas, to be fair), according to the Bay Institute.

The review found that the EA “ignores known and likely negative impacts; overestimates the plan’s potential benefits; employs non-standard or questionable analytical approaches while ignoring proven scientific tools and metrics; “cherry picks” data to support a particular outcome; tailors model outputs to produce the most favorable results; and misrepresents current scientific research and the professional judgment of experts.”

Chinook salmon, Delta smelt and longfin smelt at risk

“The project evaluated in the EA would increase the risk of extinction for many imperiled Delta species, including two runs of Chinook salmon, delta smelt, and longfin smelt,” said Dr. Jonathan Rosenfield, conservation biologist with The Bay Institute. “Yet it adheres to a hope that the Delta’s endangered fish and habitats can be restored while exporting more water from the Delta. The disconnect between the data and the assertions made by BDCP is startling.”

The BDCP can be “fixed,” according to Dr. Rosenfield, if it adopts “specific, science-based, and enforceable targets for recovery of endangered species and habitats; designs actions to reduce the most important stressors known to prevent species recovery, such as flow alteration; and employs the best available science tools and methods to evaluate the likelihood of both positive and negative impacts of different proposed Delta actions.”

“The current BDCP presents targets that are often vague and/or will not lead to species recovery and actually reduces critically important fresh water flows into, through, and out of the Delta. And the current evaluation of the BDCP (the EA) presents a favorably biased view of the Plan’s outcomes by employing methods that appear to have been selected on the basis of anticipated results that would find that project operations have little effect on fish populations,” according to Rosenfield.

The BDCP is an initiative to develop a 50-year permit for operations of the State Water Project and federal Central Valley Project under the auspices of the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) and California’s Natural Community Conservation Planning Act (NCCPA).

The proposed plan, whose development is funded and subject to approval by water exporters before its submission to permitting agencies, is intended to support the State’s co-equal goals of recovery of “covered” species and habitats in the Delta and “improved reliability of water supply” for water exporters, according to Rosenfield.

BDCP’s primary elements include construction and operation of a new water diversion and conveyance facility (a peripheral canal or tunnel) in the North Delta and “restoration” of Delta wetland habitats.

“The Bay Institute and Defenders of Wildlife have worked together for the last five years in the BDCP process to try to craft a plan that meets the co-equal goals and the legal requirements of the ESA and NCCPA, albeit with disappointing results to date,” the groups stated.

“Our organizations will continue to work through BDCP and other venues toward a Delta solution that is based on the best available science; addresses flow alteration and other priority stressors that are driving species to extinction; and promotes alternative water management approaches that reduce exporter water supply reliance on the Delta,” said Bobker.

A coalition of Delta residents, fishermen, Indian Tribes, conservationists, family farmers and elected officials have united to stop the construction of the peripheral canal or tunnel. The conclusions of the Effects Analysis and the preliminary independent analysis by the Bay Institute and Defenders of Wildlife confirm what Delta advocates have been saying for years – the construction of the peripheral canal or tunnel, as promoted under the BDCP, will likely lead to the extinction of Sacramento River chinook salmon, Delta smelt and other imperiled species.

Conflicts of interest abound in the BDCP

The Bay Delta Conservation Plan, whose development is funded and subject to approval by water exporters before its submission to permitting agencies as the two groups point out, abounds with conflicts of interest.

In one big conflict of interest, an employee of the Westlands Water District is currently working “on loan” for the Department of Water Resources (DWR) on the Bay Delta Conservation Plan.

Documents obtained by this reporter under the California Public Records Act reveal that Susan Ramos, Deputy General Manager of the Westlands Water District, was hired in an inter-jurisdictional personnel exchange agreement between the Department of Water Resources and Westlands Water District from November 15, 2009 through December 31, 2010. The contract was extended to run through December 31, 2011 and again to continue through December 31, 2012. (http://blogs.alternet.org/danbacher/2011/12/14/westlands-official-working-for-dwr-on-delta-plan)

The news of Ramos’ service on loan from Westlands followed the alarming disclosure that DWR also hired Laura King Moon, the Assistant General Manager of the State Water Contractors, to assist in the completion of the BDCP. (http://blogs.alternet.org/danbacher/2011/10/25/state-hires-water-contractor-rep-to-help-oversee-bay-delta-plan/)

The Bay Delta Conservation Plan, overseen and funded by water exporters, parallels the equally corrupt, privately-funded Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Initiative to create “marine protected areas” on the California coast.

Catherine Reheis Boyd, the President of the Western States Petroleum Association, chaired the MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Force that created the “marine protected areas” that went into effect in Southern California waters on January 1, 2012. Reheis-Boyd is a strange kind of “marine guardian” who strongly advocates for new oil drilling off the California coast, the Keystone XL pipeline and the gutting of environmental laws while kicking sustainable fishermen and gatherers off the water.

The briefing paper by the Bay Institute and Defenders of Wildlife is available at: http://www.bay.org/assets/BDCP%20EA%20Briefing%20Paper%2022912.pdf

The “Effects Analysis” documents are available at: http://baydeltaconservationplan.com/Library/DocumentsLandingPage/BDCPPlanDocuments.aspx.

For more information about the preliminary analysis of the EA, contact: Gary Bobker, The Bay Institute, 415-272-6616 or Dr. Jonathan Rosenfield, The Bay Institute, 510-684-4757, visit http://www.bay.org.