Fishlink Update - Salmon in SF Bay not being protected
12:02/01. CALFED SCIENCE PANEL RIPS NMFS OVER BIOLOGICAL OPINION ALLOWING MORE WATER DIVERSION FROM SAN FRANCISCO BAY/DELTA: The CALFED Science Program review of the National Marine Fisheries Service’s (NMFS) Biological Opinion (BiOp) for the planned increase in water diversions from the San Francisco Bay-Sacramento/San Joaquin Delta for delivery to the San Joaquin Valley and Southern California was released late Friday, 6 January. The review found that the BiOp, issued for the proposed Operations, Criteria & Plan (OCAP) for the joint Delta diversions by California’s State Water Project (SWP) and the federal Central Valley Project (CVP), did not utilize good science. Originally issued in October 2004, the BiOp from NMFS was required for OCAP because of Endangered Species Act (ESA) listed salmon and steelhead trout (see Sublegals, 10:12/01; 10:10/07; 10:09/01; 10:03/01; 9:03/05; 8:06/02). OCAP, among other things, increases diversions by the water projects and weakens temperature standards on the Sacramento River necessary for protecting ESA - listed winter-run chinook, as well as for the abundant Sacramento fall-run kings that support a large ocean commercial and recreational fishery offshore California, Oregon and Washington.
The six-member panel unanimously concluded that the OCAP BiOp did not use the “best science available.” The Science Panel confirmed what fishing and conservation groups have been saying for the past year…NMFS did not comply with legal requirements when it found that the OCAP would not jeopardize the survival of listed salmon species. It further confirmed the assertion that NMFS is choosing politics over science, the environment and legal compliance.
NMFS’ BiOp, finding “no jeopardy” for listed salmon and steelhead, came about in the summer of 2004 after Jim Lecky, with NMFS’ Southwest Region, overrode his agency’s own biologists (whose draft BiOp found OCAP would threaten the fish) and ordered the BiOp rewritten to find no jeopardy. Reportedly, this second BiOp was written by staff at the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), which operates the federal water project. Lecky was subsequently promoted and is now at NMFS’ Headquarters in Silver Spring, Maryland.
Following the uproar over the OCAP BiOp, NMFS Southwest Regional Director Rod McInnis ordered an independent review. However, according to a Contra Costa Times article, this was a science “panel whose work was………requested by the fisheries service, but was put together by officials at the California Bay-Delta Authority. That made Bush administration officials uneasy, so they requested a second review to be organized by the University of Miami's Center for Independent Experts, McInnis said.”
McInnis told the Contra Costa Times, “he still believes the biological opinion is sound and that his agency will wait until a separate review by a federal scientific panel is done at the end of this month before deciding whether to make any changes to the salmon protection guidelines.” The Department of Commerce’s (NMFS’ parent department) Inspector General has already found that NMFS failed to follow proper procedures when it prepared the OCAP BiOp. That report was issued this past summer. The CALFED Science Panel report focused on the science behind the BiOp.
Both NMFS and the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS), which was responsible for the OCAP BiOp on Delta Smelt, have been under political pressure by the Bureau of Reclamation and the Bush Administration to buckle under and not let the fish “interfere” with plans for more diversions. Moreover, the CALFED Science Panel report raises issues about the BiOp that was developed for the “South Delta Improvement Plan” (SDIP), the euphemism used by the water agencies for increasing capacity for Delta pumping. That BiOp was tiered off of the OCAP BiOp, thus calling into question the scientific validity of SDIP and contract renewals, and possibly even the San Luis Drainage Feature.
For more, see the complete CALFED Science Panel report reviewing NMFS’ OCAP BiOp at: http://science.calwater.ca.gov/pdf/workshops/OCAP_review_final_010606_v2.pdf; and the 7 January Contra Costa Times article by Mike Taugher, “Federal guidelines for Delta plan have scientific flaws, report says,” at: www.contracostatimes.com/mld/cctimes/email/news/13572405.htm.
The six-member panel unanimously concluded that the OCAP BiOp did not use the “best science available.” The Science Panel confirmed what fishing and conservation groups have been saying for the past year…NMFS did not comply with legal requirements when it found that the OCAP would not jeopardize the survival of listed salmon species. It further confirmed the assertion that NMFS is choosing politics over science, the environment and legal compliance.
NMFS’ BiOp, finding “no jeopardy” for listed salmon and steelhead, came about in the summer of 2004 after Jim Lecky, with NMFS’ Southwest Region, overrode his agency’s own biologists (whose draft BiOp found OCAP would threaten the fish) and ordered the BiOp rewritten to find no jeopardy. Reportedly, this second BiOp was written by staff at the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), which operates the federal water project. Lecky was subsequently promoted and is now at NMFS’ Headquarters in Silver Spring, Maryland.
Following the uproar over the OCAP BiOp, NMFS Southwest Regional Director Rod McInnis ordered an independent review. However, according to a Contra Costa Times article, this was a science “panel whose work was………requested by the fisheries service, but was put together by officials at the California Bay-Delta Authority. That made Bush administration officials uneasy, so they requested a second review to be organized by the University of Miami's Center for Independent Experts, McInnis said.”
McInnis told the Contra Costa Times, “he still believes the biological opinion is sound and that his agency will wait until a separate review by a federal scientific panel is done at the end of this month before deciding whether to make any changes to the salmon protection guidelines.” The Department of Commerce’s (NMFS’ parent department) Inspector General has already found that NMFS failed to follow proper procedures when it prepared the OCAP BiOp. That report was issued this past summer. The CALFED Science Panel report focused on the science behind the BiOp.
Both NMFS and the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS), which was responsible for the OCAP BiOp on Delta Smelt, have been under political pressure by the Bureau of Reclamation and the Bush Administration to buckle under and not let the fish “interfere” with plans for more diversions. Moreover, the CALFED Science Panel report raises issues about the BiOp that was developed for the “South Delta Improvement Plan” (SDIP), the euphemism used by the water agencies for increasing capacity for Delta pumping. That BiOp was tiered off of the OCAP BiOp, thus calling into question the scientific validity of SDIP and contract renewals, and possibly even the San Luis Drainage Feature.
For more, see the complete CALFED Science Panel report reviewing NMFS’ OCAP BiOp at: http://science.calwater.ca.gov/pdf/workshops/OCAP_review_final_010606_v2.pdf; and the 7 January Contra Costa Times article by Mike Taugher, “Federal guidelines for Delta plan have scientific flaws, report says,” at: www.contracostatimes.com/mld/cctimes/email/news/13572405.htm.