CSPA
California Sportfishing Protection Alliance
“Conserving California’s Fisheries"

Home

More News

Your 501(c)(3) tax deductible cash donations are desperately needed if the fight for our fisheries is to continue. Read how you can donate!
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Enter your Email address to sign up 
for our Weekly Newsletter
For Email Marketing you can trust
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

More News

 

horizontal rule

 

Here We Go Again - Two Gates: another slick connivance from the cabal that brought fisheries to the brink of destruction

 

A description of the "Two Gate" project

 

by Bill Jennings, Executive Director, CSPA

July 27, 2009 -- Having spent much of the last week reviewing the draft Biological Assessment and draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Two Gates project, including several hours with Metropolitan Water District (MWD) technical staff reviewing the projects assumptions and modeling, I'm concerned that this project is another bullet speeding toward the Delta's heart.

Two Gates is a project developed by MWD and other state water contractors to install operable barriers in Old River and Connection Slough.  The stated purpose is to circumvent the export restrictions in the recent Biological Opinions (BiOp) issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) by preventing Delta smelt from entering the south Delta where they are susceptible to entrainment in the massive export pumps of the state and federal projects.  The project was hatched in secrecy but has now been handed to the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation where it is on a breathtaking fast track to construction this fall.

Two Gates is being merchandised as a scientific experiment and admittedly seeks answers to a series of hypotheses that need to be verified (i.e., do Delta smelt “surf” the tide, can intermittent operation of the gates affect turbidity, will subtle changes in turbidity cause smelt to avoid certain areas, etc.).   Unfortunately, the reality is that the project is an increased water export scheme masquerading as science.  Suggestions that conveyance be decoupled from the actual scientific experiment and that any positive effects serve to restore smelt abundance have been rejected.  The clear intent of the project is to increase water exports over limits imposed by Judge Wanger's Delta smelt decision and the recent BiOp.

The history of hydraulic modification projects in the estuary should serve as a cautionary tale; i.e., every one of them has promised benign or beneficial results and all have exacerbated conditions.  Promised mitigation measures have either failed or were never implemented.  Only in our hubris, can we claim to understand the incredible complexity of this estuary, as evidenced by the premise of the experiment.  Experience counsels that projects developed in secret and then publically unveiled, as a dash to the finish line should be regarded with extreme caution.

In an effort to provide an umbrella of scientific respectability to the project, a CalFed - i.e., the organization that presided over the collapse of Delta fisheries - has scheduled a science panel review for 6 August 2009.  Information can be found at: http://www.science.calwater.ca.gov/pdf/reviews/Final_2_Gates_meeting_notice.pdf 

Given that Delta smelt are clinging to existence by a thread, is it reasonable to embark upon a rush project to alter the hydrology of their designated critical habitat simply to get around water export restrictions imposed by the BiOp.  Among many pertinent concerns are:

1.      Environmental review has been short-circuited.  A Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) and Mitigated Negative Declaration is proposed instead of a full Environmental Impact Statement/Report - this for a project whose purpose is to keep an endangered species out of a part of its critical habitat.

2.     Required authorizations (i.e., 404 & 401 permits, streambed authorization agreement, consistency determinations with federal BiOps, etc.) are proceeding with reckless and unprecedented haste.

3.     The models justifying the project have never been peer-reviewed, are based upon questionable assumptions and exclude significant relevant information.

4.     There has been no effort to determine whether the hypotheses the experiment seeks to verify could be answered in other ways that don't require major structural components and altered hydrology.

5.     Evaluations of potential impacts to other species (salmon, steelhead, sturgeon, longfin, splittail, threadfin shad, striped bass, etc.) are cursory, if nonexistent.

6.     There is no evaluation of potential water quality impacts to non-conservative constituents (i.e., the suite of pesticides, industrial and household chemicals, oxygen demand, selenium, mercury, toxicity and other dissolved constituents) that are identified as plaguing Delta waterways.  Indeed, the MWD modeling indicates that residence time and water quality problems in Old River at Tracy could increase.  Data collection of constituents will be limited to salt, turbidity and chlorophyll.

7.     Potential problems that arise, like increased predation, will be addressed on the fly by the seat-of-the-pants.

8.     Should Delta smelt show a slight increase in abundance (for whatever reason); there will be enormous pressure to quickly ramp up exports without waiting for the scientific experiment to run its course.  There can be no confidence that the Water Operations Management Team or the fishery agencies will be able to withstand that pressure.

9.     The recent NMFS BiOp bluntly prohibited installation of the South Delta Improvement Project (SDIP) operable barriers because of numerous fishery impacts.  That project was developed over the span of a decade and subject to an EIR/EIS.  If the SDIP operable barriers in Grantline Canal and Old and Middle Rivers were environmentally unacceptable, what can justify the haste to install the Two Gates operable barriers?  

In sum: what can be the necessity of short circuiting the normal rigorous environmental review and permitting processes to hastily embark upon yet another hydraulic modification of the estuary when every previous effort has led to disastrous consequences?  

CSPA believes that a full EIR/EIS should be conducted and that any increased conveyance should be uncoupled from the scientific experiment.  Of course, history suggests that is not likely to happen short of litigation.