While Congressional Republicans are investigating alleged misconduct of the National Park Service in its handling of an oyster farm at Point Reyes National Seashore, California officials are pushing the company to explain why it is out of compliance with its operating permit.
The inquires come as the Drakes Bay Oyster Co. nears the end of its 40-year lease, which expires in November, and while seashore officials are finishing an environmental impact statement examining impacts of the oyster farm on Drakes Estero.
In Washington, U.S. Sens. David Vitter, R-Louisiana, and James Inhofe, R-Oklahoma, this week wrote Interior Secretary Ken Salazar (see attachment) with a request that he "explain why he consistently ignored serious complaints regarding the scientific integrity of the Director of the National Park Service Jon Jarvis, and why these allegations were not addressed during Mr. Jarvis' nomination process."
"We've seen facts manipulated and science ignored across the administration while they've developed policies with huge negative effects on the economy," said Sen. Vitter in announcing his probe. "We want the public to be aware of the administration's scientific gimmickry, because important policy decisions by the EPA and Interior shouldn't be based on guesswork or manipulated facts - and we want the agencies to be transparent and explain their methods."
The Park Service director is being pursued because he was the agency's Pacific Region director with oversight of Point Reyes before being appointed director. He has declined to comment publicly on the Point Reyes matter.
Over in the House, meanwhile, Rep. Darrell Issa, who chairs the House Oversight Committee, also is looking into the Park Service's handling of the oyster company.
While the congressional investigations seem centered on possible misconduct within the Park Service, the California Coastal Commission is losing patience over its requests that Drakes Bay Oyster Co. explain why it seems to be out of compliance not only with where it is operating in the estero but also with a "Consent Cease and Desist Order" that company owner Kevin Lunny helped draft.
Specifically, the commission was referring to the company's use of a lateral channel in the estero that was specifically off-limits to its boats at certain times of the year (March 1-June 30) because of the harbor seal pupping season, and debris from oyster farm operations that washes up in the estero and nearby beaches. (Mr. Lunny has maintained that the debris is from operations under the company's previous owner and that his workers go out at least once a month to pick up the plastic apparatus used in oyster farming.)
In a February 1 letter (see attachment) to Mr. Lunny, the commission stressed that "you have known of our concerns on these two issues for more than four months, and we have yet to receive any written response. We feel that we have been very patient concerning resolution of these most recently alleged violations, especially in light of the many alleged violations we have brought to your attenion over the years," wrote Jo Ginsberg, the commission's enforcement analyst. "We are concerned that you have not responded to our letters, and we hope this failure to respond is not indicative of a lack of willingess on your part to resolve the outstanding alleged violations of the Coastal Act and the Order, and to comply with the Order in the future.
"Should this prove to be the case, we may have little choice but to seek such remedies as assessment of stipulated penalities and/or filing a lawsuit..."
On Tuesday, Mr. Lunny said he and his attorneys were working on a response to the commission, and that it had been held up while he awaited a response from Point Reyes Superintendent Cicely Muldoon over the Park Service's regulations concerning boats in the lateral channel. There long had been an understanding with the Park Service, he said, that the company's boats could enter a portion of the lateral channel on the western end.
The company's boats have "always shown there during pupping season, OK, so it’s not a new thing, and it’s not a thing we’ve ever have a concern about because it’s nowhere near the seals."
On January 23, a week before the commission's letter to Mr. Lunny, Superintendent Muldoon wrote him (see attachment) and stated that under the Special Use Permit granted Drakes Bay Oyster Co. in 2008, "During the breeding season, March 1 through June 30, the 'Main Channel' and 'Lateral Channel' of Drakes Estero will be closed to boat traffic. During the remainder of the year, the Lateral Channel and the Main Channel are open to boat traffic outside the (seal) protection zone."
"The plain meaning of this provision is that the entirety of the Lateral Channel is closed during the harbor seal breeding season (March 1-June 30)."
Those restrictions date to 1992, when protocols were established to protect harbor seals in the estero, and were recognized by the oyster company itself as recently as February 2009, according to California Coastal Commission records.
The interest in the fate of an oyster company that produces between 450,000-500,000 pounds of Pacific oyster meat a year for Bay Area outlets has been fanned by both U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, an ardent supporter of the oyster company and its small workforce, and environmentalists and conservationists who want to see the estero granted official wilderness designation.
The estero long has been viewed for designation as official wilderness -- the 1976 legislation that set aside 25,370 acres of the seashore as wilderness cited another 8,003 acres encompassing the estero that would be "essentially managed as wilderness, to the extent possible, with efforts to steadily continue to remove all obstacles to the eventual conversion of these lands and waters to wilderness status" -- and the oyster operation is seen as being incompatible with such a designation.
The Park Service's handling of the oyster company's future has been both contentious and embarassing for the agency. While a Park Service report on the oyster operation concluded that it was impacting harbor seals, the report at times has withered under scrutiny. In 2009 the National Research Council said the NPS report was skewed, "selectively" manipulated in several areas, and inconclusive overall.
A year later, the Interior's Solicitor's Office conducted an investigation into whether the staff at Point Reyes had intentionally mishandled research data it collected to determine the oyster farm's impacts, if any, on harbor seals during pupping season. That probe cleared the staff of any criminal behavior or criminal misconduct in the matter, a finding that itself has drawn criticism.
Last November, the federal Marine Mammal Commission weighed in with its own report, which found that that seal behavior at Drakes Estero was "at least correlated" with operations of the oyster company. The commission also said more research was needed to determine a "cause and effect."
All the reports and investigations haven't seemed, though, to alter the fact that Congress in 1976 intended for the estero to become official wilderness, that the oyster company's lease is set to expire in November, something Mr. Lunny knew when he took over the operation in 2005.
Indeed, at various times Mr. Lunny publicly acknowledged the November 2012 expiration date. But he also hoped that by improving the operation that perhaps the Park Service would be willing to extend the lease beyond that date
"We know the plan is to shut us down in 2012," Mr. Lunny told the Pacific Sun in 2007. "We went into this knowing that that was a chance. We also knew that (oyster farming) could be done right. (Johnson's Oyster Co.) was a black eye for the park. The environmental community was up in arms about the way it was being operated.... We thought, well, if we could prove that we could do it right, maybe we could get a new look in 2012."
Comments
I'm really unbiased on this one, as I really don't like oysters. I'm more of a mussel type of guy.
If there is no conclusive evidence of harm to the environment from the oyster farm, then it should stay there. It generates jobs locally and provides what seems to be a great service to our community. It seems that the NPS looked for the facts that supported its predetermined conclusion. I'm really no big fan of this new age environmental movement that seems to want to take us back to the stone age.
In terms of insularity, it seems that the NPS is like many governmental agencies that tend to defend their own regardless of the purported misdeed.
NPS lie..... you don't say? It's the same bunch of "BS" that's going on @ the Outer Banks of NC. This about sums it up, "We've seen facts manipulated and science ignored across the administration while they've developed policies with huge negative effects on the economy," said Sen. Vitter in announcing his probe. "We want the public to be aware of the administration's scientific gimmickry, because important policy decisions by the EPA and Interior shouldn't be based on guesswork or manipulated facts - and we want the agencies to be transparent and explain their methods."
They have mussels. Manila clams too. Occasionally even Kumamotos fished out of their regular Pacifics (I bought a few once, but it was very limited). They sell them at their retail counter, but they run out quickly. I think their other shellfish are mostly reserved for their wholesale customers. The other farms in the area do sell mussels, but it's complicated. Tomales Bay Oyster apparently gets their clams and mussels from out of state. $15 for a 2 lb bag too, which is outrageous. There are some oyster farms in the are that don't have retail counters - like Marin Oyster or Point Reyes Oyster Co. They might show up at farmer's markets.
"It generetes jobs loccally". Not sur about that. Look like a lot of saisonal workers from Mexico work for Lunny. Take a look at the Hog Island Oyster Farm, really different workers work here. I bet the wage is different between the two farms.
I don't think they don't have many seasonal workers at DBOC. Their retail business is small. I typically see Lunny's daughter working the counter. Their business is mostly wholesale to restaurants, markets, and wholesalers. Most of their workers are Hispanic immigrants, but the same goes for Hog Island. They harvest year round along with a canning operation. That's steady work, and they don't rely on their retail operations as a big part of their business.
What Hog Island does have is a much larger retail operation, where their counter staff is mostly white non-Hispanic. If you've ever been to their oyster bar in San Francisco, it's mostly Hispanic immigrant labor shucking oysters. Hog Island used to have a prominent photo of three workers (all Hispanic) on a boat hauling oysters back to their shore operation. Does this guy look white to you?
I will say there is something special about getting an oyster that isn't dry. I haven't had a dry or dead oyster from DBOC yet although I have when I bought their oysters from local markets and sometimes found they were almost dead and dry with barely any seawater left. Hog Island keeps theirs in tanks. I think they have tanks at their oyster bar in San Francisco, where I've bought some at the same price as at their farm.
Although the 1976 Congress wanted wilderness, the times have changed and I doubt Congress wants wilderness there now.
A lot of the workers at DBOC have been there for decades. Evvy Eisen, a fine arts photographer, has created some beautiful portraits, which are in a traveling exhibit; many of them can also be seen here: http://www.oysterfarmphotos.com/
A lot of the people who work in the processing plant are women whose husbands work on ranches. The oyster farm (which has been there for over 80 years) has historically provided much-needed work for the wives of farm workers in this agricultural community.
Veronica has been there the longest, I think, and has a small collection of pearls she has found over the years (they don't appear very often under these conditions, but they do happen!) One of Eisen's photos shows these pearls--look under Still Life.
Hmmm--
Drakes Bay Oyster Company Found Violating Harbor Seal Protection Regulations Since 2008
by Environmental Action Commitee of West Marin
Wednesday Feb 15th, 2012 11:26 AM
The California Coastal Commission has again strongly rebuked and warned Drakes Bay Oyster Company (DBOC) for illegally operating motorboats within a harbor seal protection area in Drakes Estero, a wilderness area within Point Reyes National Seashore.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
February 15, 2012
Contact:
Amy Trainer, Environmental Action Committee of West Marin (415) 306-6052 amy [at] eacmarin.org
Drakes Bay Oyster Company Found Violating Harbor Seal Protection Regulations Since 2008
Coastal Commission Says Full Scope of Company Violations Still Unknown
Point Reyes, CA. – The California Coastal Commission has again strongly rebuked and warned Drakes Bay Oyster Company (DBOC) for illegally operating motorboats within a harbor seal protection area in Drakes Estero, a wilderness area within Point Reyes National Seashore. DBOC recently admitted their motorboats have operated during breeding season within a seal protection area in Drakes Estero for at least four years. The controversial oyster company is seeking to extend its private use of the estero beyond its permit expiration this year, a move that would roll-back federal laws and policies intended to protect national park wilderness from commercial exploit.
The Coastal Commission sent a letter to DBOC earlier this month stating the company has violated the California Coastal Act and a 2007 Cease and Desist Order issued by the Commission, and warning of potential penalties and litigation if DBOC refuses to adhere to agreed-upon harbor seal protection measures.
The oyster company was warned by the Commission in September 2011 that ongoing illegal use of motorboats near sensitive seal areas poses “serious threats to marine habitats and wildlife” and was also put on notice for allowing thousands of pieces of plastic marine debris from its operations to litter the waters and beaches in the National Park. The Commission’s recent letter expressed concern that DBOC had failed to address their current and prior violations.
DBOC’s offered explanation for its repeated failure to adhere to harbor seal protections was rejected by the Commission as contradictory to the plain language of the harbor seal protections rules and agreement that DBOC signed as part of its special use permit with the National Park Service. The Commission noted DBOC’s previously written admissions of understanding what the protections require indicate “an admission of a longer violation.”
The Commission’s February 1st letter states: “as demonstrated by numerous photographs reviewed by Commission staff and corroborated by your admission during our meeting of January 4, 2012, DBOC has been consistently acting in a manner inconsistent with . . . .the 2008 special use permit that has been in place since April 22, 2008. As a result, DBOC has been in violation of the Order since April 22, 2008.”
Violations of the Cease and Desist Order could result in civil fines up to $6,000 per day, and any person who “knowingly and intentionally” violates the Coastal Act can be subject to civil penalties up to $15,000 per violation for each day the violation persists.
The Commission expressed its hope that DBOC’s failure to respond, “is not indicative of a lack of willingness on your part to resolve the outstanding alleged violations of the Coastal Act and Order, and to comply with the Order in the future. Should this prove to be the case, we may have little choice but to seek such remedies as assessment of stipulated penalties and/or filing a lawsuit, pursuant to Chapter 9 of the Coastal Act, to resolve the alleged violations and ensure compliance with the Order and Coastal Act.”