12-19-13 WMC Linford Brief Supports Agriculture in Point Reyes Nat’l Seashore

Linford Amicus Brief Supports Agriculture in Point Reyes National Seashore

By Sarah Rolph

This story is the seventh in a series of reports about the Amicus Curiae (“friend of the court”) briefs filed in support of Drakes Bay Oyster Company’s petition to the Ninth Circuit requesting an en banc hearing of its case. The historic oyster farm is fighting for an injunction to remain open in the face of Park Service wrongdoing while its lawsuit against the agency proceeds. Citizen readers are invited to read the briefs and to respond to these stories with letters to the editor, or with essays of their own.

This story summarizes the Amicus brief from the Monte Wolfe Foundation, written by San Rafael attorney Jim Linford. The Foundation’s core mission is the preservation of the Monte Wolfe Cabin, a structure located within the Mokelumne Wilderness Area. The Cabin is eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places and is under the aegis of the National Historic Preservation Act.

Linford’s brief argues that the Ninth Circuit should grant Drakes Bay Oyster’s request for an en banc rehearing for three reasons:  to reaffirm a pragmatic approach to the Wilderness Act, to reassure that agriculture has its place in Point Reyes National Seashore, and to restore confidence in the National Park Service.

Discussing the need for a pragmatic approach to the Wilderness Act, Linford points out that the environmental community is divided over the use of the Point Reyes National Seashore and over the term “wilderness.” Linford writes: “Purists take ‘wilderness’ to mean ‘pristine wildness.’ Pragmatists see ‘wilderness’ as a nuanced legal framework where the pristine ideal can coexist with a wider range of use and purpose, although always shaped by overarching preservationist values.”

Linford writes, “this fault-line appears and reappears throughout this matter, in the division between the majority and dissenting opinions,  in what may be a division within the Park Service itself, and in what is definitely a division in public opinion, not just about the oyster farm, but about agricultural activity in general within the National Seashore.”

“The issue of agricultural uses in the Seashore inevitably evokes the historic bargain between preservationists and ranchers that created the Seashore,” writes Linford, pointing out that “the attempt to remove the oyster farm is suspected by many in the Marin environmental community as a first step toward removal of all agriculture in the Seashore. Allowing the oyster farm to remain would assuage those suspicions.”

On the topic of restoring confidence in the National Park Service, Linford writes: “There is a public perception is that wilderness purists within the National Park Service have ignored both Congressional intent and abused scientific impartiality. Allowing the panel decision to stand would very likely be seen by those with this perception as rewarding the unethical actions of a particular faction of Park Service employees, thus bringing discredit on the Park Service as a whole.”

The brief also argues that the legislative intent for the Seashore clearly included a role for the historic oyster farm: “The dissent has convincingly demonstrated that there was substantial and unambiguous legislative intent that the oyster farm should remain indefinitely and was compatible with wilderness designation. The majority opinion does appear to acknowledge ‘the accuracy of the dissent’s recitation of the legislative history’ of the Point Reyes wilderness designation.”

The brief discusses several other cases that center on the division between purists and pragmatists and provides a relevant discussion of the Wilderness Act.

In his summary, Linford argues that “The controlling Wilderness Act provisions include the ‘grazing” exception to the prohibition of commercial activity [because oysters graze plankton] and the ‘historic use’ exception to both commercial and structure prohibitions.”

Linford also points out that, although the legal argument has not been sufficiently developed to allow legal review, “given the context of the National Seashore and the historic bargain between ranchers and environmentalists that created it, sustainable agriculture might be shown to be a ‘conservation use.’”

Read the brief here: https://oysterzone.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/amicus-curiae-of-attorney-james-linford-10-28-13.pdf

Send your letters and essays about this brief (and/or the others in this series) to the Citizen editor at editor@westmarincitizen.com

12-12-13 WMC Rolph Brief Argues Mishandling of Comments = Abuse of NEPA

Rolph Brief Argues Mishandling of Non-Substantive Comments was Abuse of NEPA Process

By Sarah Rolph

 

This story is the sixth in a series of reports about the Amicus Curiae (“friend of the court”) briefs filed in support of Drakes Bay Oyster Company’s petition to the Ninth Circuit requesting an en banc hearing of its case. The historic oyster farm is fighting for an injunction to remain open in the face of Park Service wrongdoing while its lawsuit against the agency proceeds. Citizen readers are invited to read the briefs and to respond to these stories with letters to the editor, or with essays of their own.

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process requires that agencies “make efforts to provide meaningful public involvement in their NEPA processes.”

When the Park Service at Point Reyes took public comments on its Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Draft EIS) about Drakes Bay Oyster Company, the voice of meaningful public involvement—in the form of thoughtful, considered responses—was drowned out by a huge number of form letters driven by four well-funded activist organizations using an automated direct-mail process.

These form letters constituted the vast majority of public comments—roughly 90% of the total.

The four organizations—the Sierra Club, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), the National Wildlife Federation Action Fund (NWF Action Fund), and the National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA)—fed their huge mailing lists into sophisticated direct-mail engines from a firm called Convio, which supports mass-mailings for fundraising and advocacy.

Members of these groups received an email solicitation asking them to take action. None of these emails mentioned NEPA, nor did they suggest that the recipient read and consider the Draft EIS, nor did they indicate where the recipient could do so. Instead, the emails used the sort of language standard to direct-mail efforts, emphasizing the request for action in simple, general terms. In many cases the information provided was not accurate.

Each solicitation included a pre-written form letter, which the Convio system electronically submitted as a comment on the Draft EIS when the recipient clicked the “send” button.

Thus the opportunity for a recipient—now a commenter on the Draft EIS—to actually read the Draft EIS he or she was supposedly commenting on was intentionally eliminated from the process.

In the final analysis, these form letters were deemed “non-substantive,” as the NEPA rules require for exact-match form letters; they did not officially count. Yet that analysis was not made public until the very end of the process, in November 2012.

At the height of public awareness, in March 2012, these non-substantive comments were released to the public, publicized, and included in an official-looking Park Service tally.

These actions created a false impression, for months, that public opinion was substantially in favor of not renewing DBOC’s lease, deceiving the public and deceiving decision-makers.

The manufactured 90% claim was quoted in news stories, and counsel for the government repeated that same misleading 90% claim at oral argument to the Ninth Circuit. This is an abuse of the NEPA process.

Read my brief here:

https://oysterzone.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/amicus-curiae-of-writer-sarah-rolph.pdf

Send your letters and essays about this brief (and/or the others in this series) to the Citizen editor at editor@westmarincitizen.com

12-05-13 WMC PLF Brief Argues Gov’t Must Opey NEPA Law

Pacific Legal Foundation Brief Argues Government Must Obey NEPA Law

By Sarah Rolph

This story is the fifth in a series of reports about the Amicus Curiae (“friend of the court”) briefs filed in support of Drakes Bay Oyster Company’s petition to the Ninth Circuit requesting an en banc hearing of its case. The historic oyster farm is fighting for an injunction to remain open in the face of Park Service wrongdoing while its lawsuit against the agency proceeds. Citizen readers are invited to read the briefs and to respond to these stories with letters to the editor, or with essays of their own.

The California Cattlemen’s Association (CCA), joined by the Pacific Legal Foundation and the Building Industry Association of the Bay Area, filed an important brief in support of the oyster farm that cuts right to the heart of the matter:  can the government abuse its power with impunity?

CCA has several members who ranch within the boundaries of Point Reyes National Seashore under permits or authorizations from the National Park Service.  These members have a strong interest in ensuring that the National Park Service complies with applicable laws when acting on future renewals of their permits.  CCA is concerned that the majority’s opinion, which held that decisions to deny permits are both exempt from the nation’s foundational environmental law  (the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA) and from judicial review, could tilt the balance towards non-renewal of their own permits.

The brief argues that allowing the government to disregard the NEPA process any time it believes its actions will benefit the environment would allow the government far too much power.

As the brief points out, NEPA is meant to ensure that a federal agency “makes well informed, carefully calculated decisions regarding environmental consequences and, just as importantly, enables dissemination of relevant information to external audiences potentially affected by the agency’s decisions.” The brief also notes that actions intended to benefit the environment do not always necessarily do so. And it argues that if the courts excuse federal agencies from complying with NEPA any time the agency claims to be acting to improve the environment, agencies would then have an incentive to avoid NEPA responsibility by simply claiming that any action, such as the denial of a permit, is environmentally beneficial.

The brief is well worth reading it its entirety. You can find it here: http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2013/10/25/1315227_Amicus_brief_by_Pacific_Legal_Foundation.pdf

Send your letters and essays about this brief (and/or the others in this series) to the Citizen editor at editor@westmarincitizen.com

11-28-13 WMC Oyster Workers to 9th Circuit: Closing Farm Would Hurt Working People

Oyster Workers to Ninth Circuit:  Closing Oyster Farm Would Hurt Working People

By Sarah Rolph
This story is the fourth in a series of reports about the Amicus Curiae (“friend of the court”) briefs filed in support of Drakes Bay Oyster Company’s petition to the Ninth Circuit requesting an en banc hearing of its case. The historic oyster farm is fighting for an injunction to remain open in the face of Park Service wrongdoing while its lawsuit against the agency proceeds. Citizen readers are invited to read the briefs and to respond to these stories with letters to the editor, or with essays of their own.

As has been reported in these pages, eight separate friend-of-the-court briefs have been filed in support of Drakes Bay Oyster Company’s request for a rehearing in the Ninth Circuit. The briefs shed light on legal, scientific, historic, economic, and cultural aspects of the case.

One of the most compelling briefs was filed by Jorge Mata and Isela Meza, two longtime employees at the historic oyster farm.  In the brief, Mr. Mata and Ms. Meza point out that “closing the oyster farm will hurt real working people and their families.”

The oyster farm provides employment for approximately 30 skilled men and women. As has been the community tradition for decades, the oyster farm and its processing facility—the last remaining oyster cannery in California—provides jobs for the wives of men who work at the surrounding ranches. These jobs will be lost if the oyster farm closes.

Jorge Mata has worked at the farm for 28 years, along with several members of his family. His wife Veronica has worked at the oyster farm for 24 years and is currently in charge of the shellfish packing operation. His sister Leticia has worked at the oyster farm for 29 years. His grown son Jorge Mata Jr. and his daughter Ruby work part-time at the oyster farm.

In the brief, Mr. Mata emphasizes that he is proud to work at the oyster farm, where his family is treated with respect, earns a living wage, is able to live and work together, and has developed personal relationships with his coworkers and the Lunny family.

Isela Meza (also known as Rosa), the oyster company’s staff marine biologist, has worked and lived at the oyster farm for five years. She oversees the handling of microscopic oyster larvae, ensuring that they set and begin to grow properly at the beginning of the oyster-planting process.  Ms. Meza has a decree in Marine Science and was trained as an Oceanologist at the University of Mexico, Baja, graduating in 2008.

Oyster farming requires specialized skills and compliance with numerous regulatory requirements. If the oyster farm closes, it is unlikely that the employees will be able to find other jobs in the area where they can put their specialized skills to work.

Please read the brief for yourself and consider sharing your thoughts about this issue with the readers of the Citizen. The brief can be found here:  https://oysterzone.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/amicus-curiae-of-employees-jorge-mata-and-isela-meza-10-28-13.pdf Send your letters and essays to the Citizen editor at editor@westmarincitizen.com

11-14-13 WMC Watt Brief shows Oyster Farm Was Always Intended to Stay

Watt Amicus Brief Shows Oyster Farm Was Always Intended to Stay in Seashore

By Sarah Rolph

It may come as a surprise to some readers to learn that for years, until recently, both the Park Service and local environmental groups supported the historic oyster farm in Drakes Estero. Drakes Bay Oyster Company’s petition for en banc rehearing in the Ninth Circuit provides this short history:

“Before it became obsessed with destroying the only oyster farm in Point Reyes National Seashore, the National Park Service had for many decades supported the oyster farm, as did local environmental groups and the community at large. The oyster farm and the surrounding cattle ranches provide the agricultural heritage the Seashore was created to protect.

When Congress was considering legislation that became the 1976 Point Reyes Wilderness Act, wilderness proponents stressed a common theme:  that the oyster farm was a beneficial pre-existing use that should be allowed to continue notwithstanding the area’s designation as wilderness. To this day, modern environmentalists and proponents of sustainable agriculture praise Drakes Bay as a superb example of how people can produce high-quality food in harmony with the environment.

Since 2005, for reasons that remain a mystery, the Park Service has changed position and sustained a vendetta against the oyster farm. The Park Service has been reprimanded by the National Academy of Sciences, which in 2009 found that the Park Service had “selectively presented, over-interpreted, and misrepresented the available scientific information”, and by the Solicitor’s Office of the Department of the Interior, which in 2011 found “bias” and “misconduct” in the evaluation of harbor-seal data. Despite these reprimands, the Park Service falsely asserted, in the final environmental impact statement (“EIS”) made public in November 2012, that Drakes Bay had a “moderate adverse impact” on harbor seals. It has since come to light that the Park Service’s harbor-seal expert actually found “no evidence” of harm.”

(Find the petition here: http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2013/10/18/13-15277_PFR.pdf)

In her Amicus Curiae brief in support of DBOC’s request for a re-hearing by the Ninth Circuit, Dr. Laura Watt provides a detailed legislative history that makes it abundantly clear that the oyster farm was always intended to stay.

The brief shows that even in the earliest discussion of the creation of the Seashore, in the 1950, “a key concern was the possible effects of establishing a park on the local agricultural economy,”  and points out that NPS supported this concept and specifically supported maintaining the oyster farm as well as the historic ranches. Dr. Watt observes that “the Point Reyes National Seashore … was established with the explicit intention to protect local agriculture, including aquaculture, rather than to erode or remove it.”

Congress’s view remained the same  when, a few years later, Congress adopted the Point Reyes Wilderness Act of 1976. “Nowhere in the legislative history does anyone make a specific objection to the oyster farm or discuss an end to its operation in the future;” the brief argues, “nor did Congress or the public give any indication that wilderness designation would be hindered by the farm’s continued presence.”

In fact, Dr. Watt concludes that Judge Watford’s dissent (in the September split decision by the Ninth Circuit against the oyster farm) correctly found that, in the Point Reyes wilderness legislation of 1976, “all indications are that Congress viewed the oyster farm as a beneficial, pre-existing use whose continuation was fully compatible with wilderness status.”

Read the brief here: http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2013/10/25/13-15227_Amicus_brief_by_Dr_Laura_Watt.pdf

11-07-13 WMC Bagley/McCloskey Brief Argues for Sustainable Agriculture

Bagley/McCloskey Brief Argues for Sustainable Agriculture

By Sarah Rolph

One thing that is notable about the Amici brief filed by William T. Bagley et al. on behalf of DBOC is the number of supporters, many of them local luminaries. Joining the brief are:

  • Former State Assemblyman William T. Bagley, who in 1965 authored Assembly Bill 124 transferring the Point Reyes tidelands to the National Park Service, specifically reserving the State’s right to fish,
  • Former Congressman “Pete” McCloskey, coauthor of the Endangered Species Act, who and intervened with the Office of the President to secure the 1970 Congressional appropriation that enabled the National Park Service to create the Seashore,
  • Phyllis Faber, a noted wetland scientist who helped found, and served on, the California Coastal Commission, and co-founded the Marin Agricultural Land Trust,
  • Mark Dowie, an award-winning investigative environmental and science reporter and resident of Marin County with a stated interest “is in ensuring that public policy and decisions impacting the environment are based on accurate facts and sound science,”
  • Tomales Bay Association, a 50-year old West Marin County environmental organization that supports DBOC “as a critical component of on-going habitat restoration projects for Threatened & Endangered species, especially native oyster restoration projects in SF Bay and elsewhere in the State, because it is the last operating cannery in California and therefore the only readily available source of shell in California,”
  • Patricia Unterman, owner of the Hayes Street Grill, known for its fresh fish, who says “The loss of the oysters produced by DBOC would have a devastating impact on our mission, our menu and the expectations and pleasure of our customers.  We cannot replace the fresh, local, shucked oysters from DBOC,”
  • Tomales Bay Oyster Company, one of two oyster farms located on Tomales Bay in Marin County with retail shops along State Highway One; its retail and picnic area is at capacity and its customers will be adversely affected if DBOC’s 50,000 customers attempt to visit,
  • Alliance for Local Sustainable Agriculture,  an unincorporated association of people who believe that “a diversified and healthy agricultural community is important to our individual health and to our community’s and our nation’s safety, economy and environment,” and are “advocates for the use of good science and fair processes,”
  • The California Farm Bureau Federation and the Marin and Sonoma County FarmBureaus, nonprofit voluntary membership corporations that exist to protect and promote agricultural interests in the State and in their Counties,
  • Food Democracy Now, a grassroots movement of more than 350,000 American farmers and citizens dedicated to reforming policies relating to food, agriculture and the environment,
  • Marin Organic, founded in 2001 to foster “direct relationship between organic producers, restaurants, and consumers” to strengthen the commitment and support for local organic farms, such as DBOC.

While these supporters are indeed impressive, the brief is also notable for its facts and its analysis.

The brief argues:  “The Drakes Bay Oyster Company is a treasured part of California’s coastal zone in the Point Reyes National Seashore.  Shellfish from Drakes Estero are an important part of the San Francisco Bay Area’s world famous local sustainable agriculture movement.  Modern environmentalists hail Marin County and DBOC as a model for sustainable agriculture. Consistent with Federal policies supporting increasing the Nation’s supply of sustainably raised seafood, California, which leases Drakes Estero to DBOC, has declared shellfish cultivation there to be ‘in the public interest.’ ”

Please read the brief, think about what it means to you, and share your thoughts with the Citizen. You can find the brief here:

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2013/10/22/13-15227_Documents.pdf

 

02-13-12 US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works

Senators Vitter and Inhofe to Secretary Salazar:  “On three occasions in 2009, while the Jarvis nomination was being vetted, Dr. Corey Goodman, an elected NAS member, submitted three letters to you detailing a case of serial scientific misconduct by Jon Jarvis and NPS officials and scientists under his direct supervision…We are in possession of the three letters dates April 27, 2009, May 10, 2009 and May 16,2009. That a distinguished member of the NAS would need to send such letters of concern to you directly is distressing. Even more distressing is the fact that you have failed to respond.”

For the full statement click on this link:

http://1.usa.gov/zp1jfD

Letter from Senators Vitter and Inhofe to Salazar 02-13-12 http://1.usa.gov/wQIK4G

12-23-11 Nat’l Parks Traveler “Congress Wants NAS to Review Studies”

12-23-11 in the National Parks Traveler reports today on language inserted into an appropriations bill calling for the National Academy of Sciences to evaluate the [POINT REYES NATIONAL SEASHORE’S] agency’s science. For the full article, click the link below.

12-23-11 NPT article “Congress Wants NAS to Review Studies at PRNS

12-18-11 Drakes Estero Oyster Farm a Natural Fit

12-18-2011 Gary P. Nabhan and Jeffrey A. Creque in SF Gate.com article”The intent guiding the Point Reyes National Seashore General Management Plan makes “potential wilderness, agriculture, ranching and mariculture all co-equal management objectives.” Tragically, for the past eight years, the Park Service has attempted to obfuscate the clear intent of Congress: to establish Point Reyes National Seashore as a cultural landscape where dairy farms, ranches and shellfish aquaculture would demonstrate to the American public that conservation and sustainable food production are indeed compatible.

The Park Service now asserts that the oyster farm is not compatible with wilderness and must be removed. Can memory loss within the Park Service be reversed? It can and must, given the Park Service’s near-decade of denial of the original operating instructions for Point Reyes National Seashore.”

For the full article Click this link: 12-18-2011 Drakes Bay Oyster Operation – a Natural Fit

12/10/2011 NorCal Oyster Farm Dispute Spreads to Capitol Hill

NorCal Oyster Farm Dispute Spreads to Capitol Hill

By JASON DEAREN Associated Press
POINT REYES NATIONAL SEASHORE, Calif. December 10, 2011 (AP)

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/norcal-oyster-farm-dispute-spreads-capitol-hill-15128432

12/10/2011 Former Assemblyman Says Original Legislation Favors Oyster Farm

12/10/2011

Marin Voice: Former assemblyman says original legislation favors oyster farm

By Bill Bagley
Guest op-ed column

Posted: 12/10/2011 05:50:00 AM PST

 http://www.marinij.com/opinion/ci_19512853

12-07-2011 University of Ca Agriculture & Natural Resources

On 12/07/2011 Ellie Rilla, Community Development Advisor and Lisa Bush, Agricultural Ombudsman with the University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources Cooperative Extension, Marin County sent the following letter to the Superintendent of Point Reyes National Seashore and cc’d Senator Dianne Feinstein in support of the Oyster Farm.

UofC Extension 12-07-2011

12/08/2011 7700 letters – 47 States, 29 Countries in Support DBOC – Delivered to PRNS

12/08/2011 Drakes Bay Oyster Company Submits Comments to NPS EIS on behalf of 7,700 Seashore Visitors from 47 States and 29 Countries

 20111208 DBOC 7700 letters to PRNS

12/07/2011 Co-Founders of Marin Agricultural Land Trust Weigh In

“Marin County’s agriculture and open space, whether publicly or privately held, are inextricably interconnected. The balance is tenuous, and it’s not unfathomable that all of it—the park, open space, organic food, agritourism—could rapidly evaporate. Once Drake’s Bay Oyster Company gets forced out, there will be a clear road map for eliminating the rest of agriculture in the Point Reyes National Seashore. As the farming dominos fall, so will critical mass of agricultural infrastructure, making the future of Marin agriculture increasingly uncertain, putting at risk all of our hard-won gains. In short, productive farming is critical to preserving open space.”

For the full article, click on the link below:

http://www.michaelstraus.org/2011/12/06/ellen-oysters-and-agriculture/

The Twelve dEIS Comments (that you can make)

City, State, and Zip Code are the ONLY requirements when posting comments and

you can post multiple comments.

Below are twelve comments you can make, just copy a comment and paste it into the comment area at

 http://parkplanning.nps.gov/commentForm.cfm?parkID=333&projectID=33043&documentID=43390

Then go back and do it again, until you have added all twelve.

 

1

I support a renewable Special Use Permit for Drakes Bay Oyster Company

I support the Collaborative Management Alternative proposed by Drakes Bay Oyster Company.

DBOC must be allowed to continue the existing uses under the existing California Department of Fish and Game leases and regulatory authority. 

 

2

Potential impact on wildlife is not properly assessed.

The dEIS claims that removing the oyster farm would benefit harbor seals; that claim is false. Drakes Estero is currently home to one of the largest harbor seal populations on the California coast and the harbor seal population has remained constant for decades, according to Dr. Sarah Allen’s Annual report on Harbor Seals at Drakes Estero.

I support a renewable Special Use Permit for Drakes Bay Oyster Company

I support the Collaborative Management Alternative proposed by Drakes Bay Oyster Company.

DBOC must be allowed to continue the existing uses under the existing California Department of Fish and Game leases and regulatory authority. 

 

3

I support a renewable Special Use Permit for Drakes Bay Oyster Company, especially the Collaborative Management Alternative proposed by Drakes Bay Oyster Company.

The dEIS includes much discussion about special-status species

It concludes that the oyster farm could potentially negatively impact these species

NONE OF THE SEVEN Endangered species mentioned in the dEIS live in the project area!

  • §         NO Myrtle Silverspot Butterfly live IN project area they make their habitat nearby, but not IN the project area (dEIS pg 187)
  • §         NO Red-legged frogs live in the project area: salt water kills them
  • §         NO Ca Coho Salmon live in project area (dEIS pg 189)
  • §         NO Central Ca Steelhead live in project area (dEIS pg 190)
  • §         NO Leatherback Turtles live in project area (dEIS pg 191)
  • §         NO Western Snowy Plovers live in project area (dEIS pg 192)
  • §         NO Ca Least Terns live in project area (dEIS pg 192)

The dEIS fails to provide an accurate assessment of the oyster farm’s proven ability to operate without harming wildlife or wildlife habitat.

The final document should reconsider all wildlife issues and provide a data based assessment.

I support a renewable Special Use Permit for Drakes Bay Oyster Company

I support the Collaborative Management Alternative proposed by Drakes Bay Oyster Company.

DBOC must be allowed to continue the existing uses under the existing California Department of Fish and Game leases and regulatory authority. 

4

Environmental benefits are misrepresented and/or missing.

PRNS has been rebuked for misrepresenting the facts about the environmental benefits of oyster farming yet, the dEIS misrepresents those facts again, calling the removal of the oyster farm the “environmentally preferable” alternative.

The dEIS fails to address the important ecological services provided by oysters, including filtering water and reducing nitrogen in the water. Drakes Estero is one of the most pristine estuaries IN THE COUNTRY DUE TO THE PRESENCE OF THE OYSTERS.

The dEIS fails to address the environmental impacts of the following:

  • §         Replacing a local, sustainable food source with 35,000 pounds of oysters that would have to be flown in from Asia each week to compensate
  • §         Comparisons of the carbon footprint of the existing food source with the replacement food source must be analyzed in the dEIS.
  • §         The dEIS fails to consider world population food needs.
    • o       1960 world population 3 BILLION PEOPLE
    • o       2011 world population 7 BILLION PEOPLE, 2.33 times greater in 51 years

I support a renewable Special Use Permit for Drakes Bay Oyster Company

I support the Collaborative Management Alternative proposed by Drakes Bay Oyster Company.

DBOC must be allowed to continue the existing uses under the existing California Department of Fish and Game leases and regulatory authority. 

5

Economic impacts are not adequately addressed.

The dEIS states, removing the oyster farm would cause “major, long-term, adverse effects to the California shellfish market but

  • §         The dEIS does not provide a complete analysis of these MAJOR, LONG-TERM, ADVERSE IMPACTS! 
  • §         The dEIS does not include these impacts in the overall analysis.
  • §         The dEIS does not analyze the impacts of eliminating one of the largest employers in West Marin.

The dEIS must assess and address the economic impacts of eliminating the production of nearly 40% of California’s oysters and the subsequent impact on the economy.  

I support a renewable Special Use Permit for Drakes Bay Oyster Company

I support the Collaborative Management Alternative proposed by Drakes Bay Oyster Company.

DBOC must be allowed to continue the existing uses under the existing California Department of Fish and Game leases and regulatory authority. 

6

Socioeconomic impacts are not properly addressed furthermore the analysis is flawed.

Geographic parameters used throughout this chapter

  • §         Switch back and forth from Inverness proper, to greater West Marin, to Marin in general, to Multi-County, to Statewide, and even to Nationwide.
  • §         This switching of parameters is used to argue that the job losses would be minimal.

Considered properly:

  • §         DBOC is one of the largest employers in the area.
  • §         West Marin is a community isolated 20 miles away from the main population of the county by farms, ranches, open space and parkland therefore, these job losses would be anything but minimal

The analysis presented here is insufficient.

This section should be reformulated and corrected for the dEIS.

I support a renewable Special Use Permit for Drakes Bay Oyster Company

I support the Collaborative Management Alternative proposed by Drakes Bay Oyster Company.

DBOC must be allowed to continue the existing uses under the existing California Department of Fish and Game leases and regulatory authority. 

7

Impacts to local habitat restoration efforts and endangered species are not addressed

  • §         The oyster shell byproduct from the Drakes Bay Oyster Farm cannery is the sole, critical resource for reestablishing native oyster beds, and for restoring CA Least Tern and Western Snowy Plover habitat, in San Francisco Bay.
  • §         The California Least Tern is a U.S. federally listed endangered species
  • §         The Snowy Plover is in decline due to habitat loss.
  • §         If Drakes Bay Oyster farm were shut down, the restoration operations could also be shut down.
  • §         The d EIS does not address the impacts to wildlife or the environmental issues surrounding the loss of these restoration efforts.
  • §         The dEIS should correct these flaws.

I support a renewable Special Use Permit for Drakes Bay Oyster Company

I support the Collaborative Management Alternative proposed by Drakes Bay Oyster Company.

DBOC must be allowed to continue the existing uses under the existing California Department of Fish and Game leases and regulatory authority. 

8

The historic cultural role of the oyster farm in West Marin is not adequately addressed. The EIS must assess

  • §         The cultural impacts of eliminating an institution that has been in operation for generations
  • §         The importance to
  • §         Park visitors
  • §         Local restaurants
  • §         Local food shed

I support a renewable Special Use Permit for Drakes Bay Oyster Company

I support the Collaborative Management Alternative proposed by Drakes Bay Oyster Company.

DBOC must be allowed to continue the existing uses under the existing California Department of Fish and Game leases and regulatory authority. 

9

Existing management policies are not considered.

  • §         The current General Management Plan for Point Reyes National Seashore, adopted in 1980, strongly supports the continued operation of the oyster farm, as do all of the relevant Marin County planning documents.
  • §         The d EIS does not include any reasons for, or discussion of, this decision to bypass
  • §         The existing General Management Plan and
  • §         Marin County’s planning processes

The existing management policies must be considered and addressed.

I support a renewable Special Use Permit for Drakes Bay Oyster Company

I support the Collaborative Management Alternative proposed by Drakes Bay Oyster Company.

DBOC must be allowed to continue the existing uses under the existing California Department of Fish and Game leases and regulatory authority. 

10

National aquaculture policies are ignored.

Shellfish aquaculture is widely recognized nationally, and globally, as having a valuable role in the protection of wild fish resources.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is encouraging aquaculture for this and many other reasons.

The dEIS should consider these policies.

I support a renewable Special Use Permit for Drakes Bay Oyster Company

I support the Collaborative Management Alternative proposed by Drakes Bay Oyster Company.

DBOC must be allowed to continue the existing uses under the existing California Department of Fish and Game leases and regulatory authority. 

11

None of the alternatives is appropriate. While the NEPA process mandates the consideration of a “no-action alternative,” there are no alternatives presented in the dEIS that qualify as “no-action.”

  • §         Alternative A forces DBOC out of business next year,
  • §         The other alternatives force it to shut down in 10 years.
  • §         The DEIS fails to provide a valid status-quo baseline.
  • §         A new set of alternatives must be created that meet the actual criteria for this process. 

 

I support a renewable Special Use Permit for Drakes Bay Oyster Company

I support the Collaborative Management Alternative proposed by Drakes Bay Oyster Company.

DBOC must be allowed to continue the existing uses under the existing California Department of Fish and Game leases and regulatory authority. 

 

12

 

DRAKES BAY OYSTER COMPANY SPECIAL USE PERMIT:

Collaborative Management Alternative

 

 

COLLABORATIVE MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVE: A Ten-Year Special Use Permit with Option for Extension; Rehabilitation of Existing Facilities; and Construction of New Processing Facilities

 

This alternative permits DBOC to continue to utilize onshore facilities within the Seashore (PRNS) pastoral zone to support shellfish cultivation in Drakes Estero pursuant to its leases from the California Department of Fish and Game [CDFG]. DBOC would pay “fair market value” for use of the on-shore facilities, which would take into account the value of interpretive services provided and the investment needed to rehabilitate existing facilities and construct new processing facilities. The rehabilitation and construction work would be as described in the discussion of Alternative D.

 

Under this alternative, DBOC will collaborate with relevant organizations, including but not limited to the NPS, the CDFG, the UC SeaGrant program, and other educational and research agencies and in developing interpretive programs and scientifically valid research projects as recommended by the NRC and MMC. This alternative provides educational opportunities for people of all ages, including Seashore visitors, students, and researchers, relating to estuarine ecology and mariculture. 

 

This alternative is consistent with the “national interest” expressed in President Clinton’s May 26, 2000 Executive Order 13158 directing the Departments of Commerce (DOC) and Interior to expand and strengthen the “Nation’s system of marine protected areas.” It respects the California Fish and Game Commission designation, effective May 2010, of Drakes Estero as a State Marine Conservation Area (SMCA), a protected area in which recreational clam digging and shellfish cultivation pursuant to CDFG leases are permitted. DBOC’s operation within a SMCA and PRNS presents a unique opportunity for collaborative research that supports the policies of the National Shellfish Initiative [Initiative] announced by NOAA and DOC in June 2011, and responds directly and positively to NRC and MMC recommendations regarding collaborative efforts to inform adaptive management of Drakes Estero.

 

This alternative supports the goals of the Initiative, which are to increase domestic seafood production, create sustainable jobs, and restore marine habitats. It provides opportunities for research as called for by the Initiative, “….on the interactions between shellfish and the environment in terms of climate change, ocean acidification, naturally occurring pathogens and parasites, and other factors . . .” This alternative supports DBOC’s efforts to restore native oysters in Drakes Estero and to study the potential for native oysters to withstand the effects of global ocean acidification now beginning to affect all Pacific coast shellfish.

 

This alternative sustainably supports the local economy by continuing to attract thousands of ethnically diverse visitors to West Marin every year and continuing to provide over half of the San Francisco Bay Area’s sustainably farmed shellfish. It protects desperately needed affordable housing for farm workers on remote Point Reyes ranches.

 

Under this alternative, DBOC will continue to provide essential oyster shell for environmental programs, such as the San Francisco Bay Native Oyster Restoration Project, the SF Bay Bird Observatory Snowy Plover Habitat Enhancement Project and the California Department of Fish and Game Least Tern Habitat Enhancement Project.

 

This alternative supports a landscape that is ecologically and economically sustainable. It is consistent with the natural resource management provisions in the PRNS General Management Plan, and enables the Seashore to collaboratively integrate ecosystem science and natural and cultural resource management to better understand and manage relationships among the physical, biological, and cultural elements of a working land and seascape, while maintaining its distinctive “sense of place and character.”

 

I support a renewable Special Use Permit for Drakes Bay Oyster Company

I support the Collaborative Management Alternative proposed by Drakes Bay Oyster Company.

DBOC must be allowed to continue the existing uses under the existing California Department of Fish and Game leases and regulatory authority. 

 

 

 

Collaborative Management Alternative Respond to the dEIS on their Website

COLLABORATIVE MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVE: A Ten-Year Special Use Permit with Option for Extension; Rehabilitation of Existing Facilities; and Construction of New Processing Facilities

This alternative permits DBOC to continue to utilize onshore facilities within the Seashore (PRNS) pastoral zone to support shellfish cultivation in Drakes Estero pursuant to its leases from the California Department of Fish and Game [CDFG].  DBOC would pay “fair market value” for use of the on-shore facilities, which would take into account the value of interpretive services provided and the investment needed to rehabilitate existing facilities and construct new processing facilities.  The rehabilitation and construction work would be as described in the discussion of Alternative D.

Under this alternative, DBOC will collaborate with relevant organizations, including but not limited to the NPS, the CDFG, the UC SeaGrant program and other educational and research agencies and in developing interpretive programs and scientifically valid research projects as recommended by the NRC and MMC.  This alternative provides educational opportunities for people of all ages, including Seashore visitors, students and researchers, relating to estuarine ecology and mariculture. 

This alternative is consistent with the “national interest” expressed in President Clinton’s May 26, 2000 Executive Order 13158 directing the Departments of Commerce (DOC) and Interior to expand and strengthen the “Nation’s system of marine protected areas.”  It respects the California Fish and Game Commission designation, effective May 2010, of Drakes Estero as a State Marine Conservation Area (SMCA), a protected area in which recreational clam digging and shellfish cultivation pursuant to CDFG leases are permitted.  DBOC’s operation within a SMCA and PRNS presents a unique opportunity for collaborative research that supports the policies of the National Shellfish Initiative [Initiative] announced by NOAA and DOC in June 2011, and responds directly and positively to NRC and MMC recommendations regarding collaborative efforts to inform adaptive management of Drakes Estero.

This alternative supports the goals of the Initiative, which are to increase domestic seafood production, create sustainable jobs and restore marine habitats.  It provides opportunities for research as called for by the Initiative, “….on the interactions between shellfish and the environment in terms of climate change, ocean acidification, naturally occurring pathogens and parasites, and other factors . . .” This alternative supports DBOC’s efforts to restore native oysters in Drakes Estero and to study the potential for native oysters to withstand the effects of global ocean acidification now beginning to affect all Pacific coast shellfish.

This alternative sustainably supports the local economy by continuing to attract thousands of ethnically diverse visitors to West Marin every year and continuing to provide over half of the San Francisco Bay Area’s sustainably farmed shellfish.  It protects desperately needed affordable housing for farmworkers on remotePoint Reyesranches.

Under this alternative, DBOC will continue to provide essential oyster shell for environmental programs, such as the San Francisco Bay Native Oyster Restoration Project, the SF Bay Bird Observatory Snowy Plover Habitat Enhancement Project and the California Department of Fish and Game Least Tern Habitat Enhancement Project.

This alternative supports a landscape that is ecologically and economically sustainable.  It is consistent with the natural resource management provisions in the PRNS General Management Plan, and enables the Seashore to collaboratively integrate ecosystem science and natural and cultural resource management to better understand and manage relationships among the physical, biological, and cultural elements of a working land and seascape, while maintaining its distinctive “sense of place and character.”

 

11/30/2011 Fighting Climate Change WITH OYSTERS!

The Coming Green Wave: Ocean Farming to Fight Climate Change

Excerpt (link below):

Oysters also absorb carbon, but their real talent is filtering nitrogen out of the water column. Nitrogen is the greenhouse gas you don’t pay attention to — it is nearly 300 times as potent as carbon dioxide, and according to the journal Nature, the second worst in terms of having already exceeded a maximum “planetary boundary.” Like carbon, nitrogen is an essential part of life — plants, animals, and bacteria all need it to survive — but too much has a devastating effect on our land and ocean ecosystems.

The main nitrogen polluter is agricultural fertilizer runoff. All told, the production of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides contributes more than one trillion pounds of greenhouse gas emissions to the atmosphere globally each year. That’s the same amount of emissions that are generated by 88 million passenger cars each year.

Much of this nitrogen from fertilizers ends up in our oceans, where nitrogen is now 50 percent above normal levels. According to the journal Science, excess nitrogen “depletes essential oxygen levels in the water and has significant effects on climate, food production, and ecosystems all over the world.”

Oysters to the rescue. One oyster filters 30-50 gallons of water a day — and in the process filters nitrogen out of the water column. Recent work done by Roger Newell of the University of Maryland shows that a healthy oyster habitat can reduce total added nitrogen by up to 20 percent. A three-acre oyster farm filters out the equivalent nitrogen load produced by 35 coastal inhabitants (PDF).

http://www.theatlantic.com/life/archive/2011/11/the-coming-green-wave-ocean-farming-to-fight-climate-change/248750/1/

ReTweet with #dboyster

11/22/2011 MMC Report and Appendix F

11-22-2011 MMC Drakes Estero Report Mariculture and Harbor Seals in Drakes Estero, California

We recommend you read Appendix F prior to reading the full report which can be summed up by the MMC statement on page iii of the Executive Summary here:

The Marine Mammal Commission believes that the data supporting the … analyses are scant and have been stretched to their limit. Nevertheless, the analyses in Becker et al. (2011) provide some support for the conclusion that harbor seal habitat-use patterns and mariculture activities in Drakes Estero are at least correlated. However, the data and analyses are not sufficient to demonstrate a causal relationship.

Appendix F appendix_f

MMC Report drakes_estero_report

 

DEADLINE FOR COMMENTS

DECEMBER 9, 2011, MIDNIGHT MOUNTAIN TIME

 CLICK THIS LINK TO MAKE COMMENTS

http://parkplanning.nps.gov/commentForm.cfm?documentID=43390

11/22/2011 MMC Report Overlooked Key Studies and Testimony of Dr. Allen

The MMC report, page 57, item (3) states

 The tolerance of seals for disturbance and the biological significance of such disturbance should be evaluated. At present, indicators of disturbance are defined as ranging from head alerts to flushing into the water. The existing information is not sufficient to describe the biological consequences or reactions at either end of this continuum.”

 In 2005 and 2006, Dr. Sarah Allen, herself an NPS scientist and co-author of all of the Becker reports investigated by the National Academy of Sciences and the Department of the Interior as well as the more recent Becker Reports used by the MMC, published two extensive and key reports on just that subject matter. Furthermore, Dr. Allen testified in a court case in San Diego about that topic.

 Report #1, 7 year 4 month study

“Monitoring the Potential Impact of the Seismic Retrofit Construction Activities at the Richmond San Rafael Bridge on Harbor Seals (Phoca vitulina): May 1, 1998 – September 15, 2005”http://bit.ly/rpKpRu  Dr. Sarah Allen found the following:

1.      “Construction-related disturbances [as close as 20 yards from haul-out sites]… were attributed to two main factors; watercraft … and  construction activities such as jack-hammering, rivet work, hammering and the movement of cranes on barges near the haul-out site the total number of seals hauling out … did not decrease.”

2.      Harbor seals habituated to much more serious disturbances at much closer distances.

2.1.  The tiny outboard motor boats operated by Drakes Bay Oyster Company come no closer than 600 yards to the one seal haul-out in the estero; that is 6 football fields away.

2.2.  According to the dEIS section on sound-scapes, at 500 FEET the decibel level is 51 – equivalent to a quiet urban area at daytime.

2.3.  At 600 yards (1800 feet), the minimum distance of the motor boats from the one seal haul-out site, and the decibel level is reduced substantially.

2.4.  If reduced only by 10 decibels to 40 decibels that would equate to a bird call http://bit.ly/sC86dY

 Report #2

“Harbor Seal Monitoring at Point Reyes National Seashore and Golden Gate National Recreation Area, Annual Report 2005”, http://bit.ly/sLTUHU Dr. Allen found

1.      “Causes for [harbor seal] disturbance at Drakes Estero … birds most frequent cause, followed by non-motor boats [kayakers], humans [hikers], aircraft.” in conclusion she finds “

2.      The number of disturbances … remains similar to previous years and

3.      No trends are detected….

4.      Hikers and boaters remain the two most frequent sources of disturbance ….”

 2005 San Diego Court Decision:

“Dr. Allen testified that seals habituate (or anthropomorphizing) to disturbance sources that are determined not to be a threat.” http://bit.ly/rpKpRu

 

(Author’s comments:

Turning Drakes Estero into “Wilderness” will not change the most frequent causes of disturbances. The birds, kayakers, hikers, and aircraft will continue to frequent the area – 2,500,000 people on avaerage visit the area every year according to the NPS website.

It will however, remove the filtering system that makes Drakes Estero one of the most pristine estuarine systems in the country. Eel grass has double in ten years. It is not only a home for one of the largest populations of harbor seals on the coast but also, provides a safe harbor in years of trouble. Much has been made of “disturbances” however the greatest on record was in 2003 and 2004 when an elephant seal killed 40 harbor seals.

Removal of the oyster farm would however cause a major reduction in filtering of the waters putting the estuary in jeopardy of becoming polluted by the accumulation of seal feces as noted by three of the original panel of experts in the first MMC report. The dEIS does note this as a MAJOR NEGATIVE IMPACT however, does not study the subject.)

 After the Gavin Frost of Department of the Interior (Frost Report) found “violations of scientific and scholarly conduct”, and the National Academy of Sciences found “the National Park Service selectively presented, over interpreted, or misrepresented available sicentific information on Drakes Bay Oyster Company”, the Sierra Club and National Parks Conservation Association wrote to the Marine Mammal Commission asking it to reject the NAS report and do its own investigation. Jon Jarvis promoted Dr. Sarah Allen to the Pacific West Regional Office with the title “Ocean Steward”.)

 

 Neither of Dr. Allen’s 2006 – 7 year study, nor her 2005 Annual Report, nor her court testimony is mentioned in the MMC report or listed in the bibliography on page 61.

Decide for yourself what is going on and make your comments known about the draft EIS on the the National Park Service Website  by following this link: 

DEADLINE FOR COMMENTS

DECEMBER 9, 2011, MIDNIGHT MOUNTAIN TIME

 CLICK THIS LINK TO MAKE COMMENTS

http://parkplanning.nps.gov/commentForm.cfm?documentID=43390

11/22/2011 Wilderness? North America is 38% wilderness, Africa is 28% wilderness

North America – 38% wilderness

Africa – 28% wilderness

Check it out

http://anse.rs/stG5Bv

DEADLINE FOR COMMENTS

DECEMBER 9, 2011, MIDNIGHT MOUNTAIN TIME

 CLICK THIS LINK TO MAKE COMMENTS

http://parkplanning.nps.gov/commentForm.cfm?documentID=43390

2011-11-22 Analysis of MMC Report by Dr. Corey Goodman

Briefly, the following three points, as stated by Dr. Corey Goodman, sum up the MMC report.  

1. The NPS data are too thin, and too highly leveraged by a stochastic event in 2003, to be able to support the NPS correlation between harbor seals and oyster activity. Moreover, the NPS data are inadequate for MMC to affirm the NPS claim of a correlation between harbor seals and oyster activity.

2. What was called a long-term displacement OUT of Drakes Estero was actually a short-term displacement INTO Drakes Estero caused by events at Double Point. There is no evidence for long-term spatial displacement of seals and pups OUT of Drakes Estero that can be related to shellfish aquaculture.

3. The MMC mistakes could have been avoided had the MMC proceeded with their original open process rather than the insular closed process they conducted. Open dialogue, open discussion, and open exchange could have helped avoid these mistakes. Unfortunately, the closed process led to a flawed MMC Report.

For the Summary of MMC I and MMC II, click here: Summary of Analysis of MMC Reports I and II.CG&DL

For the Analysis of MMC Report I, click here: Analysis of MMC Report I. acceptance of NPS correlation.CG&DL

For the Analysis of MMC Report II, click here: Analysis of MMC Report II. rejection of Goodman.pdf models.CG&DL

DEADLINE FOR COMMENTS

DECEMBER 9, 2011, MIDNIGHT MOUNTAIN TIME

 CLICK THIS LINK TO MAKE COMMENTS

http://parkplanning.nps.gov/commentForm.cfm?documentID=43390

11-16-11 Ca Historical Society – Reception Invitation

ClusterOfOysterShellsWednesday, November 16, 2011, 5:30 to 7:30 p.m.

Oyster Farm Opening Reception

Free Event at the California Historical Society, 678 Mission Street, San Francisco
 
Join artist Evvy Eisen at the California Historical Society for a reception celebrating the new exhibit, Oyster Farm. Drinks and hors d’oeuvres will be served. RSVP to 415.357.1848, ext. 229 or rsvp@calhist.org.

To see the photos click here: http://www.oysterfarmphotos.com/

ABC TV, 4 Years of Coverage of DBOC on “Assignment 7”, Ken Miguel Producer

ABC7, “Assignment 7” has been reporting on this story for over four years. Use this link to get to all their segments up to and including September 12, 2011

Video feed: http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/assignment_7&id=8351748

12-31-05 Dr. Sarah Allen, Harbor Seal Annual Report 2005

Harbor Seal Report 2005

12-18-2007 Dr. Corey Goodman Letter to NAS

Dr Goodman to NAS 12-18-07

 

01-18-09 Dr. Corey Goodman Letter to NAS

Dr Goodman to NAS 01-18-09The 2009 Nat’l Academies of Sciences Report

02-03-09 DBOC Letter to NAS

DBOC letter to NAS 02-03-09

03-22-11 Frost Report

Frost report 03-22-2011

11-10-11 THINGS DON’T ALWAYS GO BETTER WITH COKE — Did Corporate Donation Sway Reversal of Grand Canyon Plastic Water Bottle Ban?

11-10-11 PEER report: “Washington, DC — Just days before Grand Canyon National Park instituted a ban on sale of individual plastic water bottles, the ban was indefinitely suspended on orders from the Director of the National Park Service (NPS).  After receiving reports that this abrupt about-face was tied to large donations from the Coca Cola Company, which sells bottled water, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) today filed a lawsuit to obtain records on this policy u-turn after NPS declined to surrender them. ”

For the full article click here: http://www.peer.org/news/news_id.php?row_id=1533

11-03-11 NPS forces Indian Trader out of business in Arizona

11-03-11: Indian Country Today, National Park Service Gone Rogue: A Whistleblower Speaks

“The laundry list of unethical acts and abuses of Malone by corrupt and incompetent agents, administrators and employees make one’s blood boil. The one person in this mess, aside from Berkowitz, who maintains a modicum of respect and trust in others is Malone, even as the very people charged with protecting his basic rights plot to destroy them. This inside look at how a great American institution actually undermines its own public image is as disturbing as it is necessary reading.”

http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2011/11/national-park-service-gone-rogue-a-whistleblower-speaks/#ixzz1dK6dHiAT