“We have all heard the chorus from NPS supporters about noisy oyster boats disturbing wildlife in Drakes Estero,” Goodman wrote in the letter, adding that NPS and contracted employees “knew or should have known that NPS had no such acoustic data from Drakes Estero, and so data were substituted from a report done for the New Jersey State Police in 1995 including measurements from a loud Jet Ski along the New Jersey shores.”
He added: “Surely it is time to put a stop to this repeated pattern of deception. Millions of dollars of taxpayer money have been spent to deceive the public, and to fool you.”
Greenwire http://www.eenews.net/gw/
4. INTERIOR:
NPS noise data for Calif. oyster farm based on 1995 study in N.J.
Emily Yehle, E&E reporter
Published: Tuesday, March 27, 2012
From 50 feet away, an oyster tumbler at Drakes Bay Oyster Co. reaches 79 decibels, on par with a noisy urban neighborhood, according to the National Park Service.
That is far higher than the Park Service’s 60-decibel limit, and it supports the agency’s calls for the farm to cease operations at its current location in a California wilderness area.
But there’s one problem: NPS never measured the sound of the oyster tumbler — or any other equipment at the farm.
A table in the agency’s recent draft environmental impact statement appears to imply otherwise, adding another allegation of scientific misconduct to an issue that has been mired in controversy for years.
The farm has operated in Point Reyes National Seashore for a century, receiving an exemption when Congress designated the land as a wilderness area more than 40 years ago. But its lease is up this year, and the EIS has become the focus of a fierce debate over whether the farm disturbs surrounding flora and fauna.
Noise from the farm’s operations has become the latest lightning rod. Employees routinely use motorboats to collect harvests and tend to the oyster bags, while a few pieces of equipment use small engines. Environmental groups say that disturbs wildlife and visitors.
The Park Service tackles the issue in the draft EIS, producing a table titled “Noise Generators at DBOC” that cites sound levels ranging from 71 decibels to 85 decibels. The report then refers to those numbers to conclude that noise from the farm “would result in long-term unavoidable adverse impacts on wildlife such as birds and harbor seals and visitor experience and recreation.”
But none of those numbers are measurements of the farm’s equipment. Instead, NPS used a 17-year-old study from Noise Unlimited on the New Jersey Police Department and a 2006 “Construction Noise Users Guide” from the Federal Highway Administration.
Then officials removed all language that made it clear the numbers were estimates.
A June 2011 internal version of the EIS shows a table with clear citations; three months later, Interior released a public draft that, among other things, referred to the sound levels as “representative” rather than “estimated.”
The National Park Service removed language that made it clear the noise levels were estimates, as shown in scientist Corey Goodman’s comparison between an internal June 2011 version and the September 2011 public draft. Click for a larger version. Graphic courtesy of Corey Goodman.
The comparisons can be a stretch. For the oyster tumbler, for example, NPS appears to have used one of five pieces of equipment listed in the 2006 user’s guide: a concrete mixer truck, a drill rig truck, a front end loader, a rivet buster or a ventilation fan.
The sound level for the farm’s motorboats matches up with the measurement of a 1995 Kawasaki Jet Ski in the Noise Unlimited study. The two have different engines; among other differences, the motorboats run at most on 40-horsepower engines, while the Jet Ski was fitted with a 70-horsepower engine.
Corey Goodman — a scientist who has long criticized NPS for its research on the farm — contends the agency knowingly misled the public. In a letter sent yesterday, he asked Interior Secretary Ken Salazar to investigate possible scientific misconduct.
“We have all heard the chorus from NPS supporters about noisy oyster boats disturbing wildlife in Drakes Estero,” Goodman wrote in the letter, adding that NPS and contracted employees “knew or should have known that NPS had no such acoustic data from Drakes Estero, and so data were substituted from a report done for the New Jersey State Police in 1995 including measurements from a loud Jet Ski along the New Jersey shores.”
He added: “Surely it is time to put a stop to this repeated pattern of deception. Millions of dollars of taxpayer money have been spent to deceive the public, and to fool you.”
Interior spokesman Adam Fetcher declined to comment on the details but said Goodman’s allegations “will be reviewed under the standard procedures contained in DOI’s scientific integrity policy.”
Problems with peer review
It is the latest headache for Interior in the controversy over NPS research on the California oyster farm.
Congress has already ordered a review from the National Academy of Sciences on whether the EIS has a “solid scientific foundation.” The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration also has criticized the conclusions of the EIS, questioning whether research supports the EIS contention that the farm disturbs nearby harbor seals — and pointing out that there is no indication of negative impacts on fish protected by the Endangered Species Act or on “essential fish habitat” (Greenwire, Jan. 11).
Last week, ostensibly to combat such criticism, Interior released a peer review it commissioned. That review — facilitated by consulting firm Atkins North America — concluded that the EIS had no “fundamental flaw” in its scientific underpinnings (Greenwire, March 19).
But one peer reviewer based at least part of his conclusions on a false premise.
Christopher Clark, a bioacoustics expert at Cornell University, confirmed to Greenwire that he believed the table in the draft EIS on the oyster farm’s sound levels “represented measurements taken from DBOC activities.”
Clark declined to comment further, but in his review he refers to the table in his assessment that the draft EIS is “robust.”
“I conclude that there is ample acoustic scientific evidence by which the DEIS can determine that DBOC noise-generating activities have negative impacts on both the human visitor experience and the seashore’s wildlife,” he wrote.
To the farm’s owner, that is enough to brand the peer review as “absolutely worthless.”
“Here I read a peer review citing and congratulating the Park Service on data that don’t exist,” said DBOC owner Kevin Lunny, who has fought for years to keep his farm in Point Reyes National Seashore. The EIS, he added, “is meant to go to decisionmakers, and I see something that couldn’t pass any test of honesty or integrity. Somebody is not being honest with somebody here.”
Lunny also questioned why Clark was not given a copy of a study DBOC commissioned on the noise of its equipment.
That study — completed by ENVIRON International Corp. — measured the sound levels as far lower than the estimates in the draft EIS. The oyster tumbler, for example, clocked in between 50 and 59 decibels, rather than the 79 in the draft EIS.
NPS did not get the measurements until after releasing the draft EIS, as ENVIRON submitted a report with the study results during the comment period. But Lunny contends that Clark should have gotten the information.
He also criticized the selection of another peer reviewer: Ted Grosholz, a professor from University of California, Davis. Grosholz was one of two peer reviewers who studied the sections of the draft EIS dealing with marine estuarine ecology and coastal zone management. Both found the scientific analyses in the draft EIS “reasonable,” though they pointed to some interpretations that were not supported by evidence.
Grosholz’s name has come up throughout the controversy over the farm’s future in Drakes Estero. In 2007, for example, he was one of more than a dozen scientists NPS asked to review the agency’s research on Drakes Bay Oyster Co., in response to Goodman’s criticism. He has also pursued research at the site, though he has not received funding for it.
In a recent interview, Grosholz said he made it “extremely clear with everyone what my background is” when he was asked to conduct the review. He conceded that he is well-acquainted with two NPS scientists — Ben Becker and Sarah Allen — who have been at the center of the controversy for their research on the farm’s affect on wildlife, particularly nearby harbor seals.
But he dismissed Lunny’s contention that he is biased, pointing to his past work with other shellfish companies. The situation, he said, is “difficult” on all sides.
“I tend to work across the spectrum,” Grosholz said. “It’s not correct to say I’m somehow in the hip pocket of the Park Service.”
The Premier Information Source for Professionals Who Track Environmental and Energy Policy.
© 1996-2012 E&E Publishing, LLC Privacy Policy Site Map
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!
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:
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 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
Considered properly:
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
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
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 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.”
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.
Share this:
Posted by Jane Gyorgy on December 6, 2011
https://oysterzone.wordpress.com/2011/12/06/the-twelve-deis-comments-you-can-make/