The first letter is addressed to Chair Felicia Marcus of the State Water Resources Control Board. In the letter, they ask for total Delta outflows and Bay inflows to be increased during the update to the Bay-Delta Water Quality Control Plan and cite several scientific reports as evidence of the need for the increased flows.
They also ask that the BDCP analyze the effects on the San Francisco Bay:
“The BDCP omits any analysis of possible effects on San Francisco Bay. The Plan Area terminates at Carquinez Bridge, effectively excluding the entirety of San Francisco Bay. As a result, impacts to water quality, aquatic habitats, fish and wildlife, and estuarine dynamics in the San Francisco and San Pablo Bays have not been considered adequately in the Draft EIR/EIS and Effects Analysis. As noted by the National Research Council review of BDCP in 2011: since BDCP aims to address management and restoration of the San Francisco Bay-Delta, this is a significant omission that must be rectified.”
The second letter is addressed to the federal and state agencies participating in the development of the BDCP. “The BDCP has significant flaws,” they say. Besides not analyzing the effects of the BDCP on the San Francisco Bay, they also say that all the operations scenarios evaluated reduce total Delta outflow as compared to current conditions, and they point out that a broad range of federal and state agencies have stated that current Delta outflows are not sufficient to maintain, recover or restore ecosystem processes and declining fish species. Delta outflows must be increased to meet the coequal goals, they say. They also point out that there is no evidence that the planned habitat restoration projects will offset the adverse impacts to species.
The letter states:
“It is clear that significant changes are needed to ensure a viable future for the Delta region and California’s water supply; however, the above points demonstrate that the current Administrative Draft BDCP does not fully adhere to the state’s co-equal goals, does not adequately represent California stakeholders, and most importantly does not fulfill its goals as a Habitat Conservation Plan.”
Read both the letters by clicking here.
827 total views, 1 views today