Restore the Delta offers comments on the Draft Planning Agreement
September 30, 2006
Scott Cantrell
California Department of Fish and Game
Habitat Conservation Division
1416 Ninth Street, Room 1342-C
Sacramento, CA 95816
Sent via fax: (916) 651-7824 and e-mail: scantrel@dfg.ca.gov
RE: Draft Planning Agreement for the proposed Bay Delta Conservation Plan HCP/NCCP
Restore the Delta, a new grassroots organization, represents hundreds of concerned residents from Stockton and the greater Delta Area. Our goal is to make the California Delta, fishable, swimmable, drinkable, and farmable by 2010.
We appreciate this opportunity to comment on the Draft Planning Agreement (Agreement) for the proposed Bay Delta Conservation Plan HCP/NCCP (BDCP).
We commend the Department of Fish and Game for their recognition of the need for serious actions in response to the declining ecological health of the California Bay-Delta Estuary. An HCP/NCCP for the Bay-Delta and its tributaries could improve the long-term viability and sustainability of the region, providing tangible improvements to the environment and to public health.
Unfortunately, the BDCP, if carried out according to the current draft of the Planning Agreement, will not achieve those essential outcomes and will instead exacerbate the current and long-term decline in the health of the estuary.
We therefore urge the Department of Fish and Game and all other potential parties and signatories to reject the Agreement until the following concerns are fully addressed:
1) The Agreement proposes to provide decades of assurances while ignoring the current ecological collapse in the Delta.
Permanent changes in water project operations are necessary today to reverse the continuing ecological collapse and avoid the impending extinction of endangered Delta species. These actions must occur immediately, and cannot be delayed while agencies focus on negotiating decades-long assurances for water project operations under the BDCP. The Agreement should officially recognize the imperiled state of the estuary and explicitly call for implementation of immediate modifications of water project operations and other restoration activities necessary to stabilize and improve the ecological health of the region. Scott Cantrell, Dept. of Fish and Game, September 30, 2006
In addition, Delta marine owners, fishing groups, and other Delta business owners, who will suffer substantial economic harm as Delta fisheries continue to collapse, have been left out of participating in the planning of the Agreement. If current water project operational practices continue, hundreds of millions of dollars annually will be lost by the local Delta economy. Where are the assurances for Delta Stakeholders who are economically dependent on the fisheries?
2) The Agreement does not commit to recovery of endangered species.
Currently, the Agreement allows the Potential Regulated Agencies to seek take authorizations under either the Natural Community Conservation Planning Act (NCCPA), which requires actions that provide for the recovery of endangered species, or the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) sections 2080.1 and 2081, which only require mitigation of impacts.
The health of the Bay Delta Estuary has been too severely degraded to sustain the ìbusiness as usualî approach embodied in the CESA mitigation standard. In addition, both state and federal regulatory agencies are required by law to provide for the recovery of endangered species. To fulfill those obligations, the agencies must ensure that the entities they regulate undertake actions that lead to species recovery. The agencies must therefore require that the BDCP meet the recovery standards outlined in the Natural Community Conservation Planning Act (NCCPA) before granting any further assurances.
The Agreement must be revised to include a clear commitment on the part of all parties to the preparation of an NCCP to bring endangered species back from the brink of extinction. And without a commitment to bringing back species from the brink of extinction, Delta stakeholders who are economically dependent on fisheries will be greatly harmed.
3) The Agreement encourages increased export of freshwater from the Delta.
The Agreement specifically allows major damaging projects such as the SDIP and the SWP/CVP Intertie, which together could increase water exports out of the Delta by over a million acre feet per year, to proceed, regardless of their impact on the health of the estuary. (ìThe Parties acknowledge and agree that MOA Projects will not require separate or additional review pursuant to the interim project process set forth in this section.î p.17) These projects threaten to shred the ecological fabric of the estuary, pushing endangered species past the point of recovery. The Agreement must require that wildlife agencies review all proposed projects affecting the Delta, including the MOA projects, and reject any that will degrade the environment, prevent species recovery, or compromise successful completion of the BDCP.
Furthermore, as with fishermen and marine owners, Delta farmers have not participated in the drafting of the Agreement. Delta farmers till 500,000 productive acres annually; however, they are not being consulted on how increased water exports will increase salinity, thereby resulting in decreased production yields of irrigated crops throughout the Delta. What will be the economic impact on Delta agriculture as water exports increase and production yields decrease? Again, where are the assurances for Delta stakeholders who are part of the regionís vast agricultural economy? Scott Cantrell, Dept. of Fish and Game, September 30, 2006
4) The Agreement allows exporters to continue damaging upstream areas.
The Agreement excludes upstream areas from the BDCP Planning Area, allowing the water exporters to receive assurances for additional pumping without being held responsible for the effects of their actions on upstream areas.
To recover endangered species, especially migratory species such as salmon, the Agreement must link actions in the Delta with the rivers that flow into the estuary. Negotiating assurances for water exports in the Delta without addressing the health and sustainability of the upstream watersheds will only ensure species continue to collapse. The Agreement must therefore include upstream areas in the BDCP Planning Area and commit to implementing changes in water project operations and other necessary restoration actions that improve conditions for species recovery both upstream and in the Bay-Delta.
5) The Agreement does not answer the fundamental question, ìHow much water can be diverted from the Bay Delta Estuary, and under what conditions, while maintaining a healthy ecosystem?î
As the current ecosystem collapse in the Delta demonstrates, the current understanding of the Deltaís needs are insufficient for granting the type of long term assurances proposed in the BDCP. Regulatory agencies simply do not know what resources the Estuary needs for recovery or for sustainability. The BDCP must determine first and foremost what conditions are necessary to sustain a healthy ecosystem, including how much water must remain in the Estuary and how much would then be available for diversions and exports. Once this essential information is attained, actions should only be permitted within those known parameters. The Agreement aims to provide long term assurances for water exports without first determining those parameters and must be revised accordingly.
Moreover, it bears repeating that ecosystem health within the Delta is not only essential for the protection of species, but also for the Delta economy. Water quality drives the agriculture and recreation industries within the region, and diverting water, without first protecting the Delta as a natural resource, will, thus, have a negative impact on the Delta economy and the nearly 1,000,000 residents living within the region.
6) The BDCP decision making process is weighted in favor of the water exporters.
The Agreement empowers water exporters to decide how to proceed on any issue where the full steering committee cannot reach agreement. This structure clearly favors exporter priorities above actions necessary to achieve a healthy ecosystem. This allows the process to easily become ìhijackedî and severely limits the ability of public agencies and public interest organizations to shape the development of the BDCP.
The Agreement must ensure that the health of the estuary drives decision making. Accordingly, exporters should not be granted ultimate decision making power, and steering committee members who advocate for the environment, in addition to the economic interests of the Delta, as well as the regionís cultural and historical heritage, must be allowed equal footing in the decision making process. Scott Cantrell, Dept. of Fish and Game, September 30, 2006
7) The BDCP is being rushed to provide assurances at the expense of the environment.
While most conservation plans take five to ten years to develop, the BDCP is scheduled to be completed in only three - with CEQA and NEPA review completed by early 2009. This timeline is inadequate especially considering the size, complexity and fragility of the region. The Agreement must articulate that the BDCP will be prepared according to the needs of the estuary, not the desire for rapid implementation of increased pumping regimes. Plan Length of development process Species covered Cedar River Watershed HCP 6 years Total of 83 species, including anadromous fish such as Chinook salmon and steelhead trout Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Plan 10+ years 27 species from three different states Coachella Valley MSHCP-NCCP 10+ years 27 species and their corresponding 27 natural communities Bay-Delta Conservation Plan Projected completion in 3 years Aquatic, riparian and floodplain species including Chinook salmon, steelhead trout, Delta smelt, bank swallow, giant garter snake, etc.
8) The BDCP will bypass other public processes that are investigating how to achieve a sustainable Delta.
The Delta faces severe threats from water project operations, sea level rise, seismicity, subsidence, and urban encroachment. Several efforts including the Delta Risk Management Strategy Study and the Delta Vision Process have been recently initiated to analyze issues of risk and uncertainty in the Delta and develop broadly-supported long-range plans for sustainable management of the Deltaís many resources. Although these efforts are intended to shape future actions, the BDCPís timeline is sufficiently abbreviated that it will likely be finalized before these important processes have developed recommended. The Agreement must include a commitment to incorporate emerging science and implement Delta Vision policy recommendations.
It must also outline how operations and permits will be modified in response to changing environmental conditions or unforeseen circumstances, identifying clear decision making mechanisms and processes for adaptive management that will achieve species recovery.
Conclusion
The Bay-Delta Estuary, the largest estuary on the west coast of the Americas, is a natural treasure akin to the Florida Everglades, the Mississippi Delta, and the Chesapeake Bay. It provides habitat to millions of waterfowl and aquatic species, offers recreational opportunities including fishing, boating, and windsurfing, and sustains an historic agricultural tradition. It is
Scott Cantrell, Dept. of Fish and Game, September 30, 2006 an irreplaceable component of our natural heritage and a public trust resource for all Californians.
It is also an imperiled environment experiencing an unprecedented ecological collapse that will have serious economic implications for the region.
To remedy this situation, state and federal wildlife agencies must establish a new level of accountability, demanding immediate and ongoing modifications in water project operations to reduce their impacts on the environment to non-detrimental levels. They must ensure that the public, particularly Delta stakeholders, are adequately informed and allowed to participate fully in all important management decisions. Lastly, they must articulate and implement a viable long-range plan for a sustainable estuary.
This Planning Agreement for the BDCP fails in all those regards and must be rejected. It does not commit to recovery of endangered species and instead allows extremely harmful projects to proceed. It ties the hands of the regulatory agencies while leaving fundamental questions concerning how much water can be sustainably removed from the ecosystem unanswered. It rushes to provide assurances to the detriment of the environment.
For these reasons we respectfully urge you to reject the current Agreement and develop a new document that addresses the above concerns and can lead to recovery of this important resource.
We encourage you to act on our recommendations so as to work toward restoring the Delta for present use, and to preserve it for future generations. We encourage you to make Delta stakeholders equals in the planning process!
Thank you for your consideration,
Barbara Barrigan-Parrilla
Campaign Director
Restore the Delta
Cc:
Karen Scarborough, Resources Agency
Joe Grindstaff, California Bay-Delta Authority
Steve Thompson, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services
Russ Strach, National Marine Fisheries Service
Senator Mike Machado
Assemblywoman Lois Wolk
Bill Jennings, California Sportfishing Protection Alliance
Matt Vander Sluis, Planning and Conservation League
