The National Park Service's draft environmental impact statement on an oyster farm at Point Reyes National Seashore was not perfect, but it was an "adequate analysis" in light of the "available scientific information," according to an outside consultant.
"Overall, the reviewers found the analyses to be appropriate, and that there is no fundamental flaw with the larger scientific underpinning of the DEIS," noted the evaluation prepared by Atkins North America. "The identified scientific misinterpretations, or lack of citation of appropriate literature are for the most part minor, and can be rectified if the NPS so wishes. This may also include making some additional adjustments to interpretation, and explicit acknowledgement of the lack of information on some key issues."
Interior Department officials, who released the report (attached below) Monday, said it will help the Park Service improve the final EIS on the Drakes Bay Oyster Co. operations at Drakes Estero in Point Reyes.
“The peer-review accomplished exactly what we were seeking – that is, specific recommendations on how to improve the final environmental impact statement to make it a better science product,” Dr. Ralph Morgenweck, Interior’s Scientific Integrity Officer, said in a prepared statement.
Dr. Morgenweck commissioned the independent peer review of the draft EIS in light of concerns over the science related to Point Reyes.
“We welcome these constructive recommendations that will help strengthen the final EIS,” added Peggy O’Dell, deputy director for operations of the National Park Service. “We will look to address the Atkins Report comments, as well as information contained in the public comments on the draft EIS as we work toward a more comprehensive and thorough final report."
Seashore staff have been crafting an Environmental Impact Statement to assess the oyster company's operations. The issue is timely, as the oyster company's 40-year lease runs out in November, and Congress long ago said the estero should be designated as official wilderness once all non-conforming uses are removed from it.
The draft EIS was released for public review back in December, and the final EIS is expected later this summer.
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.
To review the DEIS, Atkins North America retained five outside experts: Dr. James E. Wilen, who specializes in natural resource economics at the University of California, Davis; Professor Edwin Grosholz, who teaches environmental science at the University of California, Davis; Professor Dianna K. Padilla, who teaches in the Department of Ecology and Evolution, State University of New York at Stony Brook; Dr. Charlie Wisdom, a privately employed water quality specialist with nearly three decades' of experience, and; Dr. Christopher Willes Clark of the Cornell Lab of Ornithology.
Many of the greatest concerns raised by the outside review centered on socio-economic analyses tied to the Drakes Bay Oyster Co. operations in Drakes Estero at the national seashore.
"... it is my opinion that the methods used to conduct an economic assessment of policy options do not follow accepted economic impact analysis practice," wrote Dr. Wilen. "The basic issue appears to be that the data required to conduct an economic impact analysis has not been gathered.
"That basic data would include, at minimum, measures of the value of gross sales and of the costs of labor and other materials for DBOC. As a result of data deficiencies, the analysis is not able to quantitatively scale the direct first round economic impacts of the DBOC operations in a manner that is meaningful for judging overall economic impacts."
The report also found fault with Park Service conclusions that were either speculative or unsupported by peer-reviewed publications or which were "not reasonable based on scientific evidence."
"It should be noted that data from studies specific to Drakes Estero for birds and other taxa including invertebrates, fishes are cited from three unpublished theses by Harbin-Ireland, Press, and Wechsler," noted Professor Grosholz. "These theses have not produced a single peer-reviewed publication. Therefore, the conclusions from these studies should be viewed as very preliminary and with caution.
"The report relies too much on these studies," he added, though noting that that perhaps was understandable, "since there are really no other studies available."
At the same time, the reviewers noted, the Park Service overlooked dozens of existing, pertinent studies, such as "nearly a decade of studies" on how oysters can impact "water column productivity."
The failure of the Park Service to rely on such studies was a "remarkable oversight," they wrote.
Comments
There are some restrictions. Yosemite has trailhead quotas on backpackers. Some Forest Service wilderness areas have quotas (Mt Whitney Zone being a prime example) while others require a self-issued permit although without any quotas per se. Yosemite wilderness areas have no set limit on day use except for going up the Half Dome cables.
Actually - bikes aren't allowed in any wilderness area in Point Reyes. The legal bike paths are all fire roads and aren't in designated or even potential wilderness. They don't really control how many can access the fire roads, but that's somewhat governed by the side of the parking lots.
As for what good evicting the oyster farm would do, I'm in agreement. I think it really is more idealogical purity about what should or shouldn't be there.
ypw said it best. Unless the oyster harms the environment, which it does not seem to do, I would like to see it stay in business. Wilderness fanatics couldn't care less if that farm is good or bad for the environment, or whether their actions will put people out of business. It's pretty sad that we let the ultra drive the debate.
I visited the Cape Verde islands in 2009. Unlike our sterilized vision of Wilderness portions of national parks, stripped of all historical context as though no native people or 19th century trappers ever lived in them, the majestic volcanic national park on the island of Fogo has residents living in it and making a living through agriculture. Not just for show, either.
See this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ch%C3%A3_das_Caldeiras
Similarly, in Switzerland, there are high-elevation hotels reachable only by helicopter (for resupplying) or by singletrack trail (for the cyclists and hikers who stay in them). They would be in Wilderness areas in the U.S.
We ought to rethink our laws. Ours is not the only model, and it is not necessarily the best one either. Also, a conservation model based on a rigid U.S. statute that hasn't been modified for decades is a poor way to go.
I'd have to disagree that here in the U.S. we have a "sterilized vision of wilderness." There are places you can go where you'll see not only old vestiges of human activity, but prehistoric vestiges in the form of petroglyphs, pictographs, and cliff dwellings.
And let's not compare apples (wilderness) with oranges (non-wilderness). Are those places you cite in Switzerland and the Cape Verde Islands wilderness?
There also are places here in the National Park System where preservation and habitation continue. I just returned from Canyon de Chelly National Monument, and Navajo families still have homes and farms inside this NPS area. Heritage areas are another example.
There's a place for official wilderness...just as there are places for landscapes with less "rigid" regulations.
That's interesting about Canyon de Chelly. Great place, isn't it? I was there once, years ago.
Of course we shouldn't compare apples with oranges. And on that point, of course the areas in Switzerland and Cape Verde are not "Wilderness," because that's a U.S. legal construct with few equivalents elsewhere in the world (a fact that might alert us to something). However, U.S. Wilderness is now larger than the surface area of California and much of New England if you include Alaska Wilderness areas. And those hundreds of thousands of square miles of U.S. territory have indeed been sterilized of all permanent settlement, including by indigenous peoples, and of almost all activity except walking, paddling a canoe, or riding a horse.
The debate will continue!
Excellent summary, ypw. That's the clearest explanation I've read anywhere of Point Reyes's jurisdictional background and how it impacts on the oyster farm. Thanks.
There are certainly Congressionally designated wilderness areas in the US where there was specific legislation that allowed certain preexisting used to continue. Quite a few wilderness areas were built around areas where water districts established rights to the water and are required by law to have motorized access to maintain their equipment even through a wilderness area. Even if legislation doesn't specifically state it, wilderness legislation can't override other laws like the Raker Act (Hetch Hetchy in Yosemite).
As for Point Reyes, it's really complicated. In my experience discussing it, quite a few people (myself included) have been or still are confused by the convoluted process of what is and isn't wilderness, and what is and isn't under the control of NPS, California Fish and Game, and the California Coastal Commission.
The only area where NPS has pretty much full jurisdiction is the land portion of the oyster farm. That's not wilderness and will probably never be wilderness. I remember getting that out of Neal Desai when he posted an article to NPT. That was purchased from Johnsons Oyster Company back in 1972 and "leased" back to JOC via a 40 year "reservation of use" that included language that it could be renewed. At the time the agreement was signed, there was no indication that there were any conditions that would preclude NPS from renewing the "lease", much like the cattle and dairy ranches had original 25 year terms with the NPS allowed to renew them for five year terms afterwards.
What was named "potential wilderness" (under the 1976 Point Reyes Wilderness Act) includes most of Drakes Estero. California still maintains fishing and mineral rights in perpetuity. They currently issue water bottom leases to what's now the Drakes Bay Oyster Farm, and the term of the lease is until 2029. This is the "wilderness area" that's in dispute. The National Park Service does not issue leases here or have any direct control over the mariculture activity.
Where NPS control comes in is that the state water bottom leases were tied to the oyster farm's current shore location. I don't know the official reason why this was the arrangement. I'm guessing CDFG doesn't want them processing oysters from some barge in the Pacific or perhaps a facility on the shores of Tomales Bay. I don't think it would make economic sense, and I'd think there's a risk of a transfer of invasive species now seen in Tomales Bay. If NPS evicts the oyster farm from their shore facilities, the conditional terms of the state water bottom leases are not met, and the leases are void.
I know you are not supposed to ride bikes in the Wilderness at Point Reyes. My point was that people are violating that exclusion every day, so if you can't control the bikes, why mess with an institution that does not seem to be hurting a thing? It is not wilderness, nor will it ever be wilderness because you can't stop the mechanical devices from being in the wilderness.