‘Good enough for government work’
To PEER executive director Jeff Ruch, the debate over the noise data is irrelevant. Even if NPS made mistakes in presenting the data — by not clearly marking the sound levels as estimates — it falls short of scientific misconduct, he said.
The Park Service has limited funds and limited time. The draft EIS is “good enough for government work,” he said.
“It’s a minor mistake. It doesn’t invalidate the larger product,” he said. “This is a game of academic gotcha that misses the broader point.”
Greenwire
3. INTERIOR:
Battle escalates over allegations of NPS misconduct
Emily Yehle, E&E reporter
Published: Wednesday, April 11, 2012
Environmental groups are pushing back against allegations that the National Park Service falsified data in an effort to oust a California oyster farm from a wilderness area.
The Interior Department — which houses NPS — is looking into allegations that officials purposely misled the public by using 1995 data from New Jersey police boats to represent the noise coming from Drakes Bay Oyster Co. A table in the draft environmental impact statement (EIS) appears to imply the data were collected at the farm, and it misled a scientist who reviewed the document as part of a peer review Interior commissioned (Greenwire, March 27).
The controversy is the latest in a string of headaches for Interior over NPS research on Drakes Bay Oyster Co., which is fighting to renew its lease in a national wilderness area. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who has closely followed the controversy, has since accused the service of building a “deceptive and potentially fraudulent” case against the company (E&ENews PM, March 29).
But Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility and the Environmental Action Committee of West Marin say the charges are overblown. They point to the fact that the EIS fully cites the sources of the noise data in its references, even if such clear citations are not on the table itself.
In a recent letter to Interior Scientific Integrity Officer Ralph Morgenweck, EAC executive director Amy Trainer calls the allegations “unfounded.”
“We are particularly concerned about the recent claims both because of the manner in which they have been politicized by Senator Feinstein, and, like previous ones, are baseless, unscientific, and distract from the real issue facing Secretary Salazar: whether to uphold long-standing national park laws and policies, or roll them back to allow private industry to commercialize the heart of a national park,” she wrote.
A Feinstein spokesman did not return a request for comment. But in her letter to Salazar last month, Feinstein referenced the repeated problems found with NPS research on the farm; that includes a 2011 report from Interior’s solicitor’s office that found park scientists mishandled evidence and acted improperly (Greenwire, March 23, 2011).
Guessing game
The mystery over how NPS came to its estimates lingers. Interior is refusing to detail how NPS extrapolated the sound levels of the farm’s equipment from the 1995 New Jersey study and a 2006 “Construction Noise Users Guide” from the Federal Highway Administration.
Most puzzling is the sound level for the farm’s oyster tumbler. Five items in the 2006 guide match the sound level attributed to the tumbler in the draft EIS: a concrete-mixer truck, a drill-rig truck, a front-end loader, a rivet buster and a ventilation fan.
None come close to the tumbler, a piece of equipment that uses a small electric motor to sort oysters. In her letter to Interior, Trainer suggests that a concrete mixer is the most likely substitute.
But she also presents a seemingly random hypothesis. NPS, she writes, could have taken the 85 decibels attributed to “all other equipment” in the 2006 users guide and then “conservatively decided to reduce the loudness attributed to the oyster tumbler” to get the 79 decibels cited in the draft EIS.
Trainer uses similar logic in her defense of the 71 decibels the draft EIS attributes to the oyster farm’s motorboats, the loudest of which has a 40 horsepower engine. The only number that matches in the New Jersey study — which is cited in the EIS as the source — is the sound level for a 1995 Kawasaki Jet Ski.
But in her letter, Trainer hypothesizes the Park Service instead based the loudness of the farm’s motorboats on the sound level for a boat with a 175 horsepower engine. That engine is far louder than those of the farm’s boats, and the New Jersey study measured its sound level at 81 decibels.
Trainer contends that NPS just took off 10 decibels to reach the 71 decibels that is attributed to the farm’s boats in the EIS.
When asked how she came to these calculations, Trainer said her group “took an objective, reasonable approach to consider what equipment the NPS was likely comparing to like.”
But Interior is keeping silent on how NPS actually came to its numbers, which are used in the EIS to make a variety of assertions. Among them is that the farm’s motorboats can be heard more than 1.3 miles away. The draft EIS also contends that the oyster tumbler — which sorts the shellfish with a far quieter engine than that of the boats — can be heard 2.3 miles away.
‘Good enough for government work’
To PEER executive director Jeff Ruch, the debate over the noise data is irrelevant. Even if NPS made mistakes in presenting the data — by not clearly marking the sound levels as estimates — it falls short of scientific misconduct, he said.
The Park Service has limited funds and limited time. The draft EIS is “good enough for government work,” he said.
“It’s a minor mistake. It doesn’t invalidate the larger product,” he said. “This is a game of academic gotcha that misses the broader point.”
That point, to environmental groups, is that the oyster farm sits in an area that Congress designated as wilderness decades ago. If Interior allows the company to stay, they contend that it would go against policy and set a precedent that could endanger wilderness areas throughout the country.
Indeed, the Park Service was poised to kick out the farm before Feinstein intervened in 2009, inserting language in the fiscal 2010 spending bill that explicitly allowed Interior Secretary Ken Salazar to grant the farm a 10-year renewal. The EIS process began after that.
Feinstein, Ruch said, “appears to be upset by the process her own legislation created.”
“This is not rocket science — motor boats and machinery make noise and this location, Drakes Estero, is supposed to be wilderness,” he said. “Senator Feinstein’s repeated personal interventions for this one company have become the very epitome of political interference with science to which she claims to be objecting.”
Ruch and Trainer have taken particular aim at Corey Goodman, a scientist who has long criticized NPS for its research on the oyster farm. Goodman became involved in the controversy when he gave expert testimony to the Marin County Board of Supervisors in 2007; since then, he has spent countless hours scrutinizing the Park Service’s research.
Goodman publicized the noise data issues last month, sending a letter to Salazar that requested an investigation into possible scientific misconduct.
In a recent interview, Goodman said Trainer’s letter responding to his allegations raised more questions than answers. The assertion that the sound levels in the EIS were the result of random calculations would be a more serious problem than his assumption that NPS based them off louder equipment.
“Whatever it is, it was a completely inappropriate number to pick that completely misrepresented what the engine sounds like and it clearly bamboozled the peer reviewer,” Goodman said.
Interior spokesman Adam Fetcher said the department is conducting a review of the allegations. The agency’s scientific integrity policy requires Interior to launch a preliminary review to determine whether such allegations are substantiated and thus necessitate a larger investigation.
But all sides of the controversial issue seem to agree to one thing: NPS should make it clear how they calculated the noise levels of the farm’s equipment.
“I do think it would help in the final EIS to list all of their assumptions and specify how these numbers came about,” Trainer said. “There’s room for improvement.”
Wednesday, November 16, 2011, 5:30 to 7:30 p.m.
Drakes Bay Oyster Company & the National Park Service. Watch the video, "THE FRAMING OF AN OYSTER FARM" at http://vimeo.com/52331881 
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/