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 certainly hope the NPS will renew the license for DBOC at Pt Reyes for the next 1000 years. This area has been a fishing and farming community for over 100 years and there is no indication, environmental or otherwise that the activiies of man cannot coexist with nature.
I find this contrast interesting.
A few days ago, the San Francisco Chronicle reported that the campaign to close this modest business continues, even though:
"In 2009, a panel of scientists concluded that park officials had, in fact, made errors, selectively presented information and misrepresented facts in a series of reports about the shellfish operation. Last year, the Interior Department's office of the solicitor released a report outlining what it termed biased, improper, mistake-ridden work by park scientists, but cleared the researchers of misconduct."
Naturally, the opponents of the Drakes Bay oyster-farming operation include (was ever anything so predictable?): "the Sierra Club, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Wilderness Society and the Marin Audubon Society[, which] have rallied to the park service's side. They argue that private commercial exploitation harms Drakes Estero."
http://www.sfgate.com/science/article/Drakes-Bay-review-inconclusive-on-...
That same day, the Chronicle reported about the assemblage of the economy's global commanders at Grand Teton National Park. The big lure is trout-fishing amidst luxurious accommodation:
"Every August, the world's financial markets shift their attention from the centers of global commerce - New York, London, Tokyo - to a mountain valley in northwest Wyoming. On Friday, they will hear a speech by Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke.
"So how did Jackson Hole, Wyo., come to wield such outsize importance in global economic affairs?
"In a word, trout.
". . .
"The event now draws 140 people every year, including some of the biggest names in economics and finance. They come to enjoy breathtaking views of the Grand Teton mountain range and Jackson Lake, to hike and fish and to engage in intellectual combat in the halls of the Jackson Lake Lodge.
" 'Jackson Hole provides a nice opportunity for central bankers to let down their hair a bit - only figuratively speaking, of course - and mingle with other members of their tribe and a few academics in an informal setting,' says Eswar Prasad, a Cornell University professor who will speak on a Jackson Hole panel this year.
"One annual tradition is the Friday night barbecue. There, some of theworld's most high-powered economists don cowboy hats, string ties and other Western gear and sometimes join in a line dance."
http://www.sfgate.com/business/article/How-Jackson-Hole-hooked-economic-...
I have a suggestion. How about if the heroic crusaders for the temperance movement branch of modern environmentalism (which I hasten to add is not the only branch; other people work on serious issues like global climate change) teams up to close the luxurious Jackson Lake Lodge and restore the area to whatever it was before? And leaves the Drakes Bay Oyster Company alone?
Failing that, I hope that Sierra Club etc. members are showing solidarity with their crusading organizations' stance by refusing to eat any oysters. Oppose Big Oyster!
They argue that private commercial exploitation harms Drakes Estero."
Which part is harming the Drake Estero? The fact that it's a private enterprise or the oyster exploitation? It's pretty sad when ideology takes precedence over science.
Good point. If a government agency were doing the harvesting, would that be OK with the objectors?
I am certainly no expert on the situation at the Drakes Bay Oyster Company, but I believe it was the intent of Congress to set aside the area as a Marine Wilderness, at least that is the impression you get when you read the bill. It is also difficult to understand the oyster company agreeing to the terms of the lease, and then thinking that they might be able to change it down the road. I know this is a contentious issue and I can understand the complaints about the studies done, but it seems to me some protection of our coastal estuaries is a high priority. I have no answers, but it is an interesting issue.
Hi, Ron — Good points. The issue shows one of the big problems with the U.S. idea of formally designated Wilderness areas, a system that as far as I know isn't followed anywhere else in the world. Namely, that it's either-or. There's no middle ground. If an area is a Wilderness, you can't do anything in it but walk, fish, hunt under very limited circumstances, canoe, or ride a horse. No cottage businesses, no bicycles, no baby strollers, no nothing except the very few permitted activities.
And one of the problems is that people have come to believe that if an area isn't Wilderness, it isn't environmentally protected. In fact there's a range of less restrictive land designations that provide huge amounts of protection to areas while allowing some economic activity.
Of course, as this battle shows, the Wilderness designation has become problematic now that formally designated U.S. Wilderness covers an area larger than California plus about half of New England. So Congress has created all sorts of bizarre and ironic exceptions to the strange Wilderness rules, even to the point of allowing military operations in a number of Wildernesses. And even when Congress doesn't act, individual members of Congress become upset when the situation becomes ridiculous. An example is in Washington state, where Wilderness activists got a court order to tear down an historically important fire lookout, because Wilderness designation doesn't allow for any permanent structures (not even a hitching post!). Members of Washington's congressional delegation then put their foot down and told the executive branch to keep the lookout in place.
But generally the system is inflexible. If Congress doesn't create an exception, then, officially speaking, Wilderness can only be an area for 19th century forms of transient recreational activity, with no economic activities allowed except for luxury packstock dude ranch operations (and that's another big irony about Wilderness).
I don't get the impression you get from reading the Point Reyes Wilderness Act. Here' it is:
http://www.nps.gov/pore/parkmgmt/upload/lawsandpolicies_publiclaw94_544.pdf
It doesn't really say anything about a timetable. I've noted that the High Sierra Camps in Yosemite are in potential wilderness, and they continue to exist even when previous wilderness plans could have called for their removal. Their impacts are large, with a permanent footprint in a potential wilderness area with buildings and waste removal provided by helicopter.
Also - the terms of the "lease" (technically the reservation of use) were drafted in 1972, before the Point Reyes Wilderness Act in 1976. The Johnson's sold their 3 acres of land to NPS under the threat of eminent domain and made arrangements that would allow the farm to stay in business. That was a 40 year term, but the RUO has a specific clause that allows for renewal via a special use permit, although that's been contentious. Apparently former Supt Neubacher was OK with Kevin Lunny taking over the operations until he brought up the subject of possible renewal.
The other tricky thing is that technically NPS is only considering those 3 acres shore operations for "lease" renewal. DBOC only pays NPS to rent out the 3 acres on the shoreline. The water bottom leases are from the California Dept of Fish and Game and were renewed by the California Fish and Game Commission in 2004. The water bottom leases are tied to the shore operations. If DBOC loses the shore operations, the water bottom leases are no longer valid. The Fish and Game Commission has made a statement (from their May 2012 meeting) encouraging DBOC and NPS to work things out.
And here's the video:
mms://media.cal-span.org/calspan/Video_Files/CFG/CFG_12-04-12/CFG_12-04-12.wmv
Bill Bagley has a very well reasoned pleading to the CFGC starting at about 3:33. He wrote the law granting rights to Drakes Estero to NPS, and he makes it clear that the only NPS issue is over "land use" - not water use.
You can download all 598 MB here:
http://www.cal-span.org/calspan-media/Video_Files/CFG/CFG_12-05-23/CFG_1...
y_p_w, another group, the National Research Council, also agrees that it was Congress' intent to have the estero designated as official wilderness. They cite that in their latest report: