JVL Inverness:
The only point that must be made clearly and sent to Washington is that any time the government or anybody else opens the door to allowing commercial enterprises in wilderness areas, this precedent constitutes a go ahead for other enterprises such as oil and gas exploration, uranium mining etc in other wilderness areas deemed necessary and politically relevant at the moment, but that in the end ursurp and or destroy our wilderness. Period

    I would note several issues with your argument. This isn't an issue about a new use in a wilderness area, but about a pre-existing commercial use. There are many such uses in NPS Wilderness Areas (and a heck of a lot more in Forest Service and BLM Wilderness Areas) that are allowed to remain indefinitely.

Another issue is that the State of California still maintains all fishing and mineral rights to Drakes Estero, and can't cede them to the federal government without legislation that I suspect won't happen anytime soon. I guess fishing is pretty basic. Someone could use a rowboat to enter Drakes Estero and fish. The mineral rights are trickier. I don't really imagine that California is going to issue leases for oil wells in Drakes Estero should there be a discovery, but theoretically California reserves the right. If the oyster farm is still there, I would expect them to raise a stink about it.

On the above; I have been edited. Second. The oyster company signed a contract agreeing to the termination of their tenure. Now others wish to negotiate a continuation of the contract. Not. A casual entry of a lone fisherman into the Estero in a rowboat cannot be compared with a commercial operation financed by deep pockets. Enough Already.

JVL Inverness:
On the above; I have been edited. Second. The oyster company signed a contract agreeing to the termination of their tenure. Now others wish to negotiate a continuation of the contract. Not. A casual entry of a lone fisherman into the Estero in a rowboat cannot be compared with a commercial operation financed by deep pockets. Enough Already.

 First of all, how has anything been edited? I cut and pasted an entire section of your comment without any edit to the content. It's not your entire argument, but I'm not responding to the part where you claim your credentials and argue your opinion on the use of science.

I was wondering when we were going to get to the "contract". The "contract" as you describe says no such thing. It was written before the 1976 Point Reyes Wilderness Act and did include a section that allowed for a special use permit to be issued to extend the term. It was written while John Sansing was the Superintendant, and he was far more amenable to the oyster farm than his successor. The "contract" mentions an "extended use period" in case the term is extended via a special use permit.

This is what "Save Drakes Bay" titles as "Drake's Bay Oyster Company's Reservation of Use (non-renewable operating rights contract) (1972) - Held by Johnson's oyster company from 1972-2005, purchased by Drake's Bay Oyster Company in 2005":

http://savedrakesbay.org/uploads/Drakes_Bay_Oyster_Company_Reservation_o...

11. Upon expiration of the reserved term, a special use permit may be issued for the continued occupancy of the property for the herein described purposes, provided however, that such permit will run concurrently with and will terminate upon the expiration of State water bottom allotments assigned to the Vendor. Any permit for continued use will be issued in accordance with National Park Service regulations in effect at the time the reservation expires.

    The regulations in effect include the rider that Sen Feinstein added to the 2009 Interior Dept appropriations bill. That specifically gives the Secretary of the Interior the authority to extend the term for 10 years.

Also - the reservation of use only applies to the shore operations. The map attached to the "contract" only shows an area "leased" from NPS that's about 3 acres of dry land. The "water bottom allotments" (i.e. the part that's actually in the wilderness plan) are leased from the State of California and were renewed for a term that expires in 2029, but are contingent on maintaining the current shore operations.

Dear Secretary Salazar,
Drake's Estero in the Point Reyes National Seashore is a treasure not only for those of us lucky enough to live nearby, but for all who value preservation of wild places.  Congress was right in designating this land "potential wilderness" in 1976, and generous in honoring the pre-existing 40 year oyster company lease.  Soon that lease will expire, and it is now time to honor the original intent of Congress that Drake's Estero be given full wilderness protection.  The need to preserve the very limited wilderness areas which remain has become only more urgent with the passage of years.
Katherine Mitchell, Inverness, CA 

Kurt Repanshek
That said, I would agree that a story looking at how the NPS deals with non-conforming uses in potential wilderness could be revealing. It's possible that the High Sierra Camps were given an exemption to continue operations, as they were operating long before The Wilderness Act was passed and long before the Yosemite wilderness was designated in 1984.

  I noted that the California Wilderness Act of 1984 doesn't make note of the High Sierra Camps one way or another. As for operating long before the Wilderness Act was passed, the same is easily true of Drakes Bay Oyster Farm.

However, I did find several mentions of why the High Sierra Camps were allowed to continue. As I suspected, it not a matter of law, but policy. There is no exemption per se, just that as long as park management decides that they want the HSCs there, they remain there even though their removal would probably establish the land as fully designated wilderness.

Here's a draft report on replacement of the septic system and (I kid you not) the grease trap system at the Sunrise High Sierra Camp. It notes that the High Sierra Camps are allowed to continue under concessionaire contract because of the 1989 Wilderness Management Plan. I've tried finding a copy of this plan and can only find references to it. However, there's pretty solid background that it's a policy decision that they stay. I would think that a leaky septic and grease interceptor problem would make for a golden policy to remove such a camp, but instead they put out bids to replace these systems in a potential wilderness area.

https://ideasec.nbc.gov/ows-cls/NP144302_4181283/Sunrise%20-%20Minimum%2...

Justification

The Sunrise HSC has been in seasonal operation since it was built in 1961, the current policy as stated in the Wilderness Management Plan of 1989 is to operate the High Sierra Camps under contract to the concessionaire and to continue to afford this opportunity to the public visiting Yosemite National Park. As such, the National Park Service has a fiduciary responsibility to provide a safe source of potable water and to protect both the public and the environment from injury or damage by expeditiously managing the human waste and wastewater generated at the camps in accordance with all applicable federal, state, local or other jurisdictional laws, ordinances and policies. The YNP Wilderness Management Plan states, “Should increased adverse impact on adjacent wilderness environments result from operation of existing facilities, those facilities will be removed”. It is therefore proposed to repair the existing system or replace the existing system in order to protect the environment, water quality and human health from the impacts of wastewater while Sunrise HSC continues to operate.