Drakes Bay Shells Conserve Snowy Plover
Habitat
A snowy plover chick takes refuge in the shade of a Drakes Bay oyster shell. Drakes Bay
Oyster Farm operated the last oyster cannery in California, making it the sole local source of oyster
shell, a valuable resource for habitat conservation. When the National Park Service shut down the
oyster farm in 2014, that resource was lost.
The federally threatened Western Snowy Plover nests on the former salt evaporation ponds in the
South San Francisco Bay. Each year many nests are lost to predators.
Beginning in 2008, the San Francisco Bay Bird Observatory and the Don Edwards San Francisco Bay
National Wildlife Refuge spread oyster shells on the ponds to help camouflage the Snowy Plover
nests and provide cover for the chicks to hide near to potentially increase reproductive success.
Oyster shells were donated by Drakes Bay Oyster, and much of the work was done by volunteers.
These volunteer efforts are great ways for kids to get involved in science and nature. Earth Island
Institute’s Kids for the Bay project reported in its Spring 2009 newsletter the story of Felix Ratcliff,
now a field biologist, who was inspired to enter that field when he helped with the Snowy
Plover/Least Tern, spreading oyster shells at the Hayward Shoreline.
The San Francisco Bay Bird Observatory, Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge,
California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Hayward Area Recreation and Park District, and the East
Bay Regional Park District together form the Western Snowy Plover (Charadrius nivosus nivosus)
Recovery Unit 3. The goal of this collaboration is to survey managed ponds and other habitats for
Western Snowy Plovers, track breeding success, and contribute to the management and recovery of
this species in the San Francisco Bay.
In 2012, the project documented more plover nests in shell plots (areas spread with oyster shells)
than in control plots: shell plots: 17 nests, control plots: 5 nests; this is consistent with findings of
previous years. Preliminary examination of nest survival data from 2009-2012 suggests that shells
provide some benefit to plover hatching success, perhaps because of the improved camouflage they
offer.
Detailed Snowy Plover Nesting Study reports are available at the project’s website.
West Marin Citizen Series on Ninth Circuit
Briefs Supporting DBOC
In October 2013, eight supporting briefs were filed in the Ninth Circuit in support of Drakes Bay
Oyster’s request for a rehearing. The West Marin Citizen ran a series of stories, one on each brief,
with the goal of promoting discussion in the community.
The series began with this note from the Editor:
One of the joys of running a community newspaper is the opportunity to bring people together. The
staff of The Citizen works hard to not only inform the community, but to listen. We pride ourselves
on being fair-minded, and we work to present a variety of views. Our letters section is open to all;
our only requirement for letters is that they not contain ad hominem arguments – in other words, no
personal attacks in place of factual arguments. We strive to create a safe and respectful environment
for community dialog, and nothing makes us happier than to hear that a reader has learned
something useful from another reader or from one of our stories.
In the two years I have been the editor and publisher of The Citizen, I have worked hard to provide
good coverage of the Drakes Bay Oyster controversy. It’s a complicated issue with many facets, so it
is not surprising that dialog on this topic can be difficult. It is dismaying, however, to see the
discussion devolve at times into name-calling, innuendo, and non-factual accusations.
In the past two weeks, as The Citizen has reported, eight significant friend-of-the-court briefs have
been filed on behalf of the oyster farm in its bid for a rehearing by the Ninth Circuit. Each brief
addresses a different facet of the story, and all of them are interesting.
Starting this week, The Citizen will present a series about these briefs with the goal of creating a
community discussion about them. Each week we will publish a profile of one brief and provide a
link to the document itself.
We encourage readers to read the whole brief, and we invite you to write to us about what you
learned. Opinions, insights, additional facts; reactions, essays, letters; a few lines, a few paragraphs
or a few pages – all contributions will be considered. We may not have room to print everything, but
we will print as much of your writing as possible. Our aim is dialog.
And of course, going forward, when significant briefs are filed in support of the Wilderness
designation we’ll expand the coverage – and the discussion – to include that.
We look forward to hearing from you!
Linda Petersen-Managing Editor
The following articles about the briefs are reprinted with permission from the West Marin
Citizen.
Bagley/McCloskey Brief Argues for Sustainable Agriculture
Published November 7, 2013
By Sarah Rolph
One thing that is notable about the Amici brief filed by William T. Bagley et al. on behalf of DBOC is
the number of supporters, many of them local luminaries. Joining the brief are:
·
Former State Assemblyman William T. Bagley, who in 1965 authored Assembly Bill 124
transferring the Point Reyes tidelands to the National Park Service, specifically reserving the State’s
right to fish,
· Former Congressman “Pete” McCloskey, coauthor of the Endangered Species Act, who and
intervened with the Office of the President to secure the 1970 Congressional appropriation that
enabled the National Park Service to create the Seashore,
· Phyllis Faber, a noted wetland scientist who helped found, and served on, the California Coastal
Commission, and co-founded the Marin Agricultural Land Trust,
· Mark Dowie, an award-winning investigative environmental and science reporter and resident of
Marin County with a stated interest “is in ensuring that public policy and decisions impacting the
environment are based on accurate facts and sound science,”
· Tomales Bay Association, a 50-year old West Marin County environmental organization that
supports DBOC “as a critical component of on-going habitat restoration projects for Threatened &
Endangered species, especially native oyster restoration projects in SF Bay and elsewhere in the
State, because it is the last operating cannery in California and therefore the only readily available
source of shell in California,”
· Patricia Unterman, owner of the Hayes Street Grill, known for its fresh fish, who says “The loss of
the oysters produced by DBOC would have a devastating impact on our mission, our menu and the
expectations and pleasure of our customers. We cannot replace the fresh, local, shucked oysters
from DBOC,”
· Tomales Bay Oyster Company, one of two oyster farms located on Tomales Bay in Marin County
with retail shops along State Highway One; its retail and picnic area is at capacity and its customers
will be adversely affected if DBOC’s 50,000 customers attempt to visit,
· Alliance for Local Sustainable Agriculture, an unincorporated association of people who believe
that “a diversified and healthy agricultural community is important to our individual health and to
our community’s and our nation’s safety, economy and environment,” and are “advocates for the use
of good science and fair processes,”
·
The California Farm Bureau Federation and the Marin and Sonoma County Farm Bureaus,
nonprofit voluntary membership corporations that exist to protect and promote agricultural interests
in the State and in their Counties,
·
Food Democracy Now, a grassroots movement of more than 350,000 American farmers and
citizens dedicated to reforming policies relating to food, agriculture and the environment,
·
Marin Organic, founded in 2001 to foster “direct relationship between organic producers,
restaurants, and consumers” to strengthen the commitment and support for local organic farms,
such as DBOC.
While these supporters are indeed impressive, the brief is also notable for its facts and its analysis.
The brief argues: “The Drakes Bay Oyster Company is a treasured part of California’s coastal zone
in the Point Reyes National Seashore. Shellfish from Drakes Estero are an important part of the San
Francisco Bay Area’s world famous local sustainable agriculture movement. Modern
environmentalists hail Marin County and DBOC as a model for sustainable agriculture. Consistent
with Federal policies supporting increasing the Nation’s supply of sustainably raised seafood,
California, which leases Drakes Estero to DBOC, has declared shellfish cultivation there to be ‘in the
public interest.’ ”
Please read the brief, think about what it means to you, and share your thoughts with the Citizen.
You can find the brief here.
Watt Amicus Brief Shows Oyster Farm Was Always Intended to Stay in Seashore
Published November 14, 2013
By Sarah Rolph
It may come as a surprise to some readers to learn that for years, until recently, both the Park
Service and local environmental groups supported the historic oyster farm in Drakes Estero. Drakes
Bay Oyster Company’s petition for en banc rehearing in the Ninth Circuit provides this short history:
“Before it became obsessed with destroying the only oyster farm in Point Reyes National Seashore,
the National Park Service had for many decades supported the oyster farm, as did local
environmental groups and the community at large. The oyster farm and the surrounding cattle
ranches provide the agricultural heritage the Seashore was created to protect.
When Congress was considering legislation that became the 1976 Point Reyes Wilderness Act,
wilderness proponents stressed a common theme: that the oyster farm was a beneficial pre-existing
use that should be allowed to continue notwithstanding the area’s designation as wilderness. To this
day, modern environmentalists and proponents of sustainable agriculture praise Drakes Bay as a
superb example of how people can produce high-quality food in harmony with the environment.
Since 2005, for reasons that remain a mystery, the Park Service has changed position and sustained
a vendetta against the oyster farm. The Park Service has been reprimanded by the National
Academy of Sciences, which in 2009 found that the Park Service had “selectively presented, overinterpreted, and misrepresented the available scientific information”, and by the Solicitor’s Office of
the Department of the Interior, which in 2011 found “bias” and “misconduct” in the evaluation of
harbor-seal data. Despite these reprimands, the Park Service falsely asserted, in the final
environmental impact statement (“EIS”) made public in November 2012, that Drakes Bay had a
“moderate adverse impact” on harbor seals. It has since come to light that the Park Service’s
harbor-seal expert actually found “no evidence” of harm.”
(Find the petition here.)
In her Amicus Curiae brief in support of DBOC’s request for a re-hearing by the Ninth Circuit, Dr.
Laura Watt provides a detailed legislative history that makes it abundantly clear that the oyster farm
was always intended to stay.
The brief shows that even in the earliest discussion of the creation of the Seashore, in the 1950, “a
key concern was the possible effects of establishing a park on the local agricultural economy,” and
points out that NPS supported this concept and specifically supported maintaining the oyster farm
as well as the historic ranches. Dr. Watt observes that “the Point Reyes National Seashore … was
established with the explicit intention to protect local agriculture, including aquaculture, rather than
to erode or remove it.”
Congress’s view remained the same when, a few years later, Congress adopted the Point Reyes
Wilderness Act of 1976. “Nowhere in the legislative history does anyone make a specific objection to
the oyster farm or discuss an end to its operation in the future;” the brief argues, “nor did Congress
or the public give any indication that wilderness designation would be hindered by the farm’s
continued presence.”
In fact, Dr. Watt concludes that Judge Watford’s dissent (in the September split decision by the
Ninth Circuit against the oyster farm) correctly found that, in the Point Reyes wilderness legislation
of 1976, “all indications are that Congress viewed the oyster farm as a beneficial, pre-existing use
whose continuation was fully compatible with wilderness status.” Read the brief here.
Goodman Brief Details History of NPS False Science
Published November 21, 2013
By Sarah Rolph
Those who have closely followed the Drakes Bay Oyster Company (DBOC) controversy know that
local scientist Dr. Corey Goodman became involved in April 2007 when Marin County Supervisor
Steve Kinsey contacted Dr. Goodman, based upon his scientific credentials and experience in science
and public policy, and asked him to analyze the National Park Service (NPS) science on Drakes
Estero.
Kinsey then invited Dr. Goodman to testify as an independent scientist at the May 8, 2007 County
hearing as to whether NPS data supported NPS claims. At the time, Dr. Goodman did not know
Kevin Lunny, owner of Drakes Bay Oyster Company. Dr. Goodman’s analysis showed that NPS data
did not support NPS claims, and he testified that NPS officials misrepresented their own data.
Goodman is passionate on the topic of scientific integrity. At the May 2007 meeting, he stated:
“I believe that public policy decisions can and should be informed by quality science. But this must
be science conducted rigorously, without agendas or conflicts-of interest. The political process can
be dangerously misled by bad or misused science. One of my greatest concerns when I see science
being invoked in public policy debates is to make sure that it is good science and not pseudo-science
or — even worse — a blatant misuse of science.”
The history of the DBOC controversy has shown these comments to be prescient. What has
happened since 2007 has, sadly, been a blatant misuse of science.
Dr. Goodman’s Amicus brief supporting DBOC’s petition for en banc rehearing in the Ninth Circuit
provides an excellent summary of this blatant misuse.
There is no scientific basis for the view—promulgated by the National Park Service (NPS) Final
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)—that the oyster farm causes significant environmental harm
to Drakes Estero.
“To this day,” the brief argues, “NPS and their supporters continue to recite a fictional narrative that
they have evidence of environmental harm, when they have no such evidence.”
Goodman’s brief details the shocking history of false NPS claims. As the brief explains:
“The EIS is the latest chapter in a seven-year effort by NPS to claim the oyster farm causes
environmental harm. Again and again, NPS issued papers, reports and testimony claiming the oyster
farm harms the environment. Each time, NPS had to correct, revise, or retract its claims after being
sharply criticized by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), the Department of the Interior’s
Inspector General and Office of the Solicitor, or Congress. But each correction has proven to be a
new opportunity for NPS to misrepresent the science on some new issue—be it eelgrass, sediments,
fish, harbor seals, soundscape, and, most recently, a tunicate.
In the end, NPS spent millions of dollars searching for adverse environmental impacts that do not
exist. It is difficult not to conclude that this pattern was intentional. It certainly was not harmless.”
The NPS EIS even claims that the oyster farm is bad for water quality.
In fact, the opposite is true: oysters, being filter-feeders, provide environmental benefits to the
waters in which they live, which is why oyster restoration projects are under way globally. Just last
week, on November 15, the San Francisco Chronicle featured on its front page an exciting update
about the oyster restoration effort in San Francisco Bay (an effort made possible by the donation of
DBOC oyster shells). (In case you missed it, that article is here.)
The Ninth Circuit majority, having been misled by the NPS EIS, called removal of the oyster farm an
“environmental conservation effort.” Unless NPS intends to remove the surrounding cattle ranches
(which they publicly promise not to do), the prudent “environmental conservation effort” would be to
allow the oysters to continue to filter and clarify the water, not to eliminate the oyster farm.
The false claims in the EIS were so outlandish that Congress expressed concern about “the validity
of the science underlying the [Draft EIS]” and directed the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to
review it.
The NAS review pointed out that the EIS had it backwards—that the oysters are “beneficial” for the
environment: “… the committee determined that an alternate conclusion on the overall impact of
DBOC operations could be reached, with the beneficial effects of shellfish filtration outweighing the
adverse impacts from sediment disturbance and the low levels of contaminants generated by DBOC
activities.”
The EIS review is not the first time the Academy was asked by Congress to review NPS science. The
NAS was also asked to get involved in 2009. They convened a scientific panel, held a series of public
meetings, and ultimately released its review on NPS’s claims on May 5, 2009. That NAS panel came
to two major conclusions:
·
“[NPS] selectively presented, overinterpreted, or misrepresented the available scientific
information on DBOC operations …”
·
“… there is a lack of strong scientific evidence that shellfish farming has major adverse
ecological effects on Drakes Estero.”
Nevertheless, the NPS continued to press its false narrative.
The details are incredible. For example, a secret camera program was put in place to monitor oyster
workers without their knowledge. Apparently NPS was hoping to find evidence for its claims that
oyster boats disturb seals—the three years of data from the secret cameras instead proved the
opposite. The Park Service had those photos analyzed by outside experts, and the seal expert who
reviewed them found the same result. The Park Service had no other evidence for its claims about
seals, so it took the astounding step of changing the report, claiming in the EIS that the review
found disturbance to seals—the opposite of what was actually found.
Please read the brief to learn the full story of the Park Service’s malfeasance. You can find it here.
Oyster Workers to Ninth Circuit: Closing Oyster Farm Would Hurt Working People
Published November 29, 2013
By Sarah Rolph
As has been reported in these pages, eight separate friend-of-the-court briefs have been filed in
support of Drakes Bay Oyster Company’s request for a rehearing in the Ninth Circuit. The briefs
shed light on legal, scientific, historic, economic, and cultural aspects of the case.
One of the most compelling briefs was filed by Jorge Mata and Isela Meza, two longtime employees
at the historic oyster farm. In the brief, Mr. Mata and Ms. Meza point out that “closing the oyster
farm will hurt real working people and their families.”
The oyster farm provides employment for approximately 30 skilled men and women. As has been the
community tradition for decades, the oyster farm and its processing facility—the last remaining
oyster cannery in California—provides jobs for the wives of men who work at the surrounding
ranches. These jobs will be lost if the oyster farm closes.
Jorge Mata has worked at the farm for 28 years, along with several members of his family. His wife
Veronica has worked at the oyster farm for 24 years and is currently in charge of the shellfish
packing operation. His sister Leticia has worked at the oyster farm for 29 years. His grown son Jorge
Mata Jr. and his daughter Ruby work part-time at the oyster farm.
In the brief, Mr. Mata emphasizes that he is proud to work at the oyster farm, where his family is
treated with respect, earns a living wage, is able to live and work together, and has developed
personal relationships with his coworkers and the Lunny family.
Isela Meza (also known as Rosa), the oyster company’s staff marine biologist, has worked and lived
at the oyster farm for five years. She oversees the handling of microscopic oyster larvae, ensuring
that they set and begin to grow properly at the beginning of the oyster-planting process. Ms. Meza
has a degree in Marine Science and was trained as an Oceanologist at the University of Mexico,
Baja, graduating in 2008.
Oyster farming requires specialized skills and compliance with numerous regulatory requirements. If
the oyster farm closes, it is unlikely that the employees will be able to find other jobs in the area
where they can put their specialized skills to work.
Please read the brief for yourself and consider sharing your thoughts about this issue with the
readers of the Citizen. The brief can be found here.
Pacific Legal Foundation Brief Argues Government Must Obey NEPA Law
Published December 5, 2013
By Sarah Rolph
The California Cattlemen’s Association (CCA), joined by the Pacific Legal Foundation and the
Building Industry Association of the Bay Area, filed an important brief in support of the oyster farm
that cuts right to the heart of the matter: can the government abuse its power with impunity?
CCA has several members who ranch within the boundaries of Point Reyes National Seashore under
permits or authorizations from the National Park Service. These members have a strong interest in
ensuring that the National Park Service complies with applicable laws when acting on future
renewals of their permits. CCA is concerned that the majority’s opinion, which held that decisions to
deny permits are both exempt from the nation’s foundational environmental law (the National
Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA) and from judicial review, could tilt the balance towards nonrenewal of their own permits.
The brief argues that allowing the government to disregard the NEPA process any time it believes its
actions will benefit the environment would allow the government far too much power.
As the brief points out, NEPA is meant to ensure that a federal agency “makes well informed,
carefully calculated decisions regarding environmental consequences and, just as importantly,
enables dissemination of relevant information to external audiences potentially affected by the
agency’s decisions.” The brief also notes that actions intended to benefit the environment do not
always necessarily do so. And it argues that if the courts excuse federal agencies from complying
with NEPA any time the agency claims to be acting to improve the environment, agencies would
then have an incentive to avoid NEPA responsibility by simply claiming that any action, such as the
denial of a permit, is environmentally beneficial.
The brief is well worth reading it its entirety. You can find it here.
Rolph Brief Argues Mishandling of Non-Substantive Comments was Abuse of NEPA Process
Published December 12, 2013
By Sarah Rolph
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process requires that agencies “make efforts to
provide meaningful public involvement in their NEPA processes.”
When the Park Service at Point Reyes took public comments on its Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (Draft EIS) about Drakes Bay Oyster Company, the voice of meaningful public
involvement—in the form of thoughtful, considered responses—was drowned out by a huge number
of form letters driven by four well-funded activist organizations using an automated direct-mail
process.
These form letters constituted the vast majority of public comments—roughly 90% of the total.
The four organizations—the Sierra Club, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), the
National Wildlife Federation Action Fund (NWF Action Fund), and the National Parks Conservation
Association (NPCA)—fed their huge mailing lists into sophisticated direct-mail engines from a firm
called Convio, which supports mass-mailings for fundraising and advocacy.
Members of these groups received an email solicitation asking them to take action. None of these
emails mentioned NEPA, nor did they suggest that the recipient read and consider the Draft EIS, nor
did they indicate where the recipient could do so. Instead, the emails used the sort of language
standard to direct-mail efforts, emphasizing the request for action in simple, general terms. In many
cases the information provided was not accurate.
Each solicitation included a pre-written form letter, which the Convio system electronically
submitted as a comment on the Draft EIS when the recipient clicked the “send” button.
Thus the opportunity for a recipient—now a commenter on the Draft EIS—to actually read the Draft
EIS he or she was supposedly commenting on was intentionally eliminated from the process.
In the final analysis, these form letters were deemed “non-substantive,” as the NEPA rules require
for exact-match form letters; they did not officially count. Yet that analysis was not made public until
the very end of the process, in November 2012.
At the height of public awareness, in March 2012, these non-substantive comments were released to
the public, publicized, and included in an official-looking Park Service tally.
These actions created a false impression, for months, that public opinion was substantially in favor
of not renewing DBOC’s lease, deceiving the public and deceiving decision-makers.
The manufactured 90% claim was quoted in news stories, and counsel for the government repeated
that same misleading 90% claim at oral argument to the Ninth Circuit. This is an abuse of the NEPA
process.
Read my brief here.
Linford Amicus Brief Supports Agriculture in Point Reyes National Seashore
Published December 19, 2013
By Sarah Rolph
This story summarizes the Amicus brief from the Monte Wolfe Foundation, written by San Rafael
attorney Jim Linford. The Foundation’s core mission is the preservation of the Monte Wolfe Cabin, a
structure located within the Mokelumne Wilderness Area. The Cabin is eligible for listing on the
National Register of Historic Places and is under the aegis of the National Historic Preservation Act.
Linford’s brief argues that the Ninth Circuit should grant Drakes Bay Oyster’s request for an en
banc rehearing for three reasons: to reaffirm a pragmatic approach to the Wilderness Act, to
reassure that agriculture has its place in Point Reyes National Seashore, and to restore confidence
in the National Park Service.
Discussing the need for a pragmatic approach to the Wilderness Act, Linford points out that the
environmental community is divided over the use of the Point Reyes National Seashore and over the
term “wilderness.” Linford writes: “Purists take ‘wilderness’ to mean ‘pristine wildness.’ Pragmatists
see ‘wilderness’ as a nuanced legal framework where the pristine ideal can coexist with a wider
range of use and purpose, although always shaped by overarching preservationist values.”
Linford writes, “this fault-line appears and reappears throughout this matter, in the division between
the majority and dissenting opinions, in what may be a division within the Park Service itself, and in
what is definitely a division in public opinion, not just about the oyster farm, but about agricultural
activity in general within the National Seashore.”
“The issue of agricultural uses in the Seashore inevitably evokes the historic bargain between
preservationists and ranchers that created the Seashore,” writes Linford, pointing out that “the
attempt to remove the oyster farm is suspected by many in the Marin environmental community as a
first step toward removal of all agriculture in the Seashore. Allowing the oyster farm to remain
would assuage those suspicions.”
On the topic of restoring confidence in the National Park Service, Linford writes: “There is a public
perception is that wilderness purists within the National Park Service have ignored both
Congressional intent and abused scientific impartiality. Allowing the panel decision to stand would
very likely be seen by those with this perception as rewarding the unethical actions of a particular
faction of Park Service employees, thus bringing discredit on the Park Service as a whole.”
The brief also argues that the legislative intent for the Seashore clearly included a role for the
historic oyster farm: “The dissent has convincingly demonstrated that there was substantial and
unambiguous legislative intent that the oyster farm should remain indefinitely and was compatible
with wilderness designation. The majority opinion does appear to acknowledge ‘the accuracy of the
dissent’s recitation of the legislative history’ of the Point Reyes wilderness designation.”
The brief discusses several other cases that center on the division between purists and pragmatists
and provides a relevant discussion of the Wilderness Act.
In his summary, Linford argues that “The controlling Wilderness Act provisions include the ‘grazing”
exception to the prohibition of commercial activity [because oysters graze plankton] and the ‘historic
use’ exception to both commercial and structure prohibitions.”
Linford also points out that, although the legal argument has not been sufficiently developed to
allow legal review, “given the context of the National Seashore and the historic bargain between
ranchers and environmentalists that created it, sustainable agriculture might be shown to be a
‘conservation use.’”
Read the brief here.
Shellfish Growers Amicus Brief Argues Park Service Analysis Misrepresented Oyster
Science and that Eliminating DBOC Would Damage Shellfish Market, Hindering
California’s Economic Competitiveness
Published December 26, 2013
By Sarah Rolph
Founded in the 1930’s, The Pacific Coast Shellfish Growers Association (PCSGA) was formed to give
a collective voice to oyster growers. Their main fight, which continues today, is for water quality and
reducing pollution in shellfish-producing bays. Today, PCSGA represents growers from small to large
in Alaska, Washington, Oregon, California, and Hawaii. It also engages state and federal decision
makers in development of policy to support shellfish aquaculture and has partnerships with several
universities and non-governmental organizations (“NGOs”) including with The Nature Conservancy,
Restore America’s Estuaries, Ocean Conservancy, Coastal States Organization, and several statebased NGOs.
In its Amicus brief, PCSGA argues that the Secretary’s Order of November 29, 2012 denying DBOC a
permit to continue to operate in the Point Reyes National Seashore, the Final Environmental Impact
Statement (FEIS) that informed his decision, and the Ninth Circuit’s majority decision, all ignore or
significantly underestimate the impact that evicting DBOC from their property and terminating their
operations would have on the region, the shellfish industry, and the ecological balance of Drakes
Estero.
PCSGA argues that the Secretary’s Order and the Ninth’s Circuit’s majority decision create a false
dichotomy between wilderness preservation and oyster cultivation, and ignore the positive impacts
of oysters.
In addition, the brief points out the economic damage of removing DBOC.
The Secretary’s Order, PCSGA points out, would not only destroy one of the most historic and
significant locations for shellfish farming in the state, but would also damage the state’s shellfish
industry—a point that the Park Service admits in its FEIS, which cites “long-term, major adverse
impacts on California’s shellfish market.” (See FEIS page 496.)
PCSGA points out that even with DBOC’s current shellfish production, California shellfish farmers
cannot meet market demand, resulting in a significant amount of shellfish imported into the state.
Thus, termination of DBOC’s lease and operations “will result in further strains on domestic shellfish
production, a potential failure to meet market demand, and increases in the price of shellfish as
additional shellfish would need to be imported to meet demand. At a time when the industry is
seeking to expand in California through efforts like the Humboldt Bay Mariculture Project and
California Shellfish Initiative, these impacts would represent a significant impediment to the growth
of the industry and threaten California’s competitiveness in a highly competitive national and
international market.”
The brief also argues that the Secretary’s claims that he did not rely on the FEIS and that the FEIS
merely “informed” his decision are beside the point, since “the flawed and biased analysis in the
FEIS was fundamental in his decision to deny DBOC’s lease.” A central aspect of the Secretary’s
decision was a conclusion that the FEIS “support[s] the proposition that the removal of DBOC’s
commercial operations in the estero would result in long-term beneficial impacts to the estero’s
natural environment.” PCSGA points out that this finding “disregards the positive sociological,
economic, and ecological benefits of DBOC’s shellfish farm that would be lost upon termination of its
lease,” arguing that “If such factors had been properly included in [the Secretary’s] analysis, he
could have concluded that the factors weigh in favor of extending the lease, similar to his decision to
extend the leases for pastoral lands ‘[b]ecause of the importance of sustainable agriculture on the
pastoral lands within Point Reyes.’”
The brief notes that the analytical process that the FEIS used to establish that removal of shellfish
operations would result in a beneficial impact, and that continuing existing operations would result
in an adverse impact, “highlights perceived negative impacts and downplays positive impacts,
despite all scientific data supporting the opposite conclusion.”
For details about this flawed analysis, read the brief in its entirety. Find the brief here.
Oyster Restoration Helps the Environment
All over the world, oyster-restoration projects are taking place to improve the ecosystem. Native
oysters once provided these ecological services, but they have been over-fished. It’s estimated that
85% of the world’s oysters have been lost. Oyster farming and oyster restoration projects are making
up for this loss.
In the San Francisco Bay, oysters are being restored using shells from Drakes Bay Oyster Company.
As the last oyster cannery in California, Drakes Bay is the only local source of shell. A Point Reyes
Light article from 2006 tells the story of how Drakes Bay got involved, making the project possible.
A front-page story in the San Francisco Chronicle November 15, 2013 highlights a recent milestone
in this important project: two million baby oysters have settled on the man-made reefs created from
Drakes Bay shells.
The SF Bay oyster restoration project is part of the San Francisco Bay Subtidal Habitat Goals
Project. These oysters will never be harvested for human consumption.
Farmed oysters provide the same benefits to the ecosystem. For this reason, the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) promotes aquaculture. Read about the benefits of oyster
farming at NOAA’s website FishWatch.gov.
NOAA’s oyster-restoration work in the Chesapeake Bay is discussed here.
A number of private-sector programs are also using oysters to improve the environment. This nonprofit is restoring oysters in Massachusetts. Oysters for Life is helping to save the Chesapeake Bay
with an innovative, entrepreneurial approach to oyster farming.
A Pattern of Deception
This editorial was first published in the West Marin Citizen August 27, 2013. Reprinted with
permission.
A Pattern of Deception
By Sarah Rolph
Last week in these pages I reported on a false story at the online publication Food World News
claiming that Drakes Bay oysters had been recalled, and two tweets that were sent within minutes of
the story, claiming that Drakes Bay Oyster Company (DBOC) was making people sick.
The tweets – which pointed not to the false story but to a year-old press release from the California
Department of Public Health — were sent by Amy Trainer, executive director of the Environmental
Action Committee of West Marin (EAC), and by Steve Maviglio, who heads a Sacramento PR firm,
has recently been echoing the EAC narrative, but says he doesn’t work for Amy.
Amy’s tweet was deleted, and the cause of the story and the tweets remains a mystery.
This pattern, however, is familiar.
In September 2009, Tess Elliott, editor of the Point Reyes Light, published a story in The Nation
magazine objecting to the nomination of Jon Jarvis to head the National Park Service. Entitled
Scientific Integrity Lost on America’s Parks, the story is still online. In response to this story, Gordon
Bennett, who was at the time a spokesperson for the Sierra Club, posted a letter that was so
offensive that the publication saw fit to remove it from their web site.
In October 2011, Neal Desai of the National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA) sent a
photograph to Kurt Repanshek’s National Parks Traveler blog, a photo Desai claimed was evidence
that DBOC was causing harm to seals. The photograph showed no such thing. In the course of his
unauthorized use of the photograph (taken by John Hulls and Todd Pickering and used by Desai
without permission), Desai had altered it, removing labels that make the context of the photo clear.
When the misuse was explained to Repanshek, the misleading photograph was immediately removed
and the story revised.
A tweet, a letter, a photograph. Three different incidents, three different organizations, and one
common behavior: smearing DBOC, using false charges egregious enough that they had to be
removed from the web.
There’s ample evidence that these organizations work together. When the Park Service released the
public comments about its Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) on DBOC, within minutes,
a press release was issued jointly by NPCA, EAC, and the National Wildlife Federation, claiming that
92% of the comments supported removal of the oyster farm. Since 92% of anything is a very unusual
result, I read those comments, and found that most of them were form letters. Using a computer
program, I performed an analysis that showed that roughly 92% of the comments were in fact
manufactured by the anti-oyster-farm activists, using sophisticated direct-mail software that pushed
emails to the members of these organizations and sent the comment (which in most cases was not
even modified by the so-called respondent) directly into the NPS comment system.
The emails used to gather these so-called DEIS comments did not even mention the DEIS, much less
provide a link to the document. Instead they used scare tactics, claiming harm to wildlife and danger
to wilderness. One of the email alerts, from Neal Desai of NPCA, even claimed that Harbor seals
were an endangered species. Harbor seals are not endangered, threatened or even listed by U.S.
Fish and Wildlife. When this misrepresentation was pointed out to Desai, he declined to correct the
record.
According to the NEPA process under which the DBOC DEIS was created, public commenting “is not
a vote,” and duplicate comments don’t actually count.
But the press release was very effective. It created the desired impression, and that’s apparently all
that mattered to the activists working against DBOC.
It seems these activists are willing to say and do anything to undermine the ability of the Lunny
family to operate Drakes Bay Oyster Farm. Law, science, history – and most recently, health
regulations – have been misrepresented in the non-stop campaign to shut down the oyster farm.
Why is the NPCA allowing Desai to conduct a misinformation campaign? What kind of direction is
the board of EAC providing to Amy Trainer?
The anti-oyster-farm activists have indicated they are not planning to stop with the elimination of the
oyster farm. In a story earlier this year in the online publication Grist, Neal Desai seemed to indicate
that the ranches are next, saying:
“If the ranching has impacts, those should be managed to the extent possible,” says Desai, with the
National Parks Conservation Association. “Can more be done? I’m sure. Has this actually been
addressed? Probably not. The park has been focused on this oyster farm issue.”
A few wilderness activists are trying to control what happens in your community—who is allowed to
do business here, who is allowed to live here, and who is not. They seem to believe that their
wilderness goal trumps everything, including contracts and permits, renewal clauses, scientific
integrity codes, and a tall stack of rules and regulations. They seem to believe their plans for West
Marin are more important than the plans of the multi-generation families who live here. They act as
if their desire for a certain kind of recreational environment is more important than your local
coastal planning.
These people want control of your community. Are you going to let them take it?
Dirty Tricks?
This editorial was first published in the West Marin Citizen August 22, 2013. Reprinted with
permission.
False Oyster Story Raises Questions
By Sarah Rolph
On Tuesday, August 13, an alarming story appeared in a little-known online publication called Food
World News (FWN), reporting that the California Department of Public Health had issued a warning
against Drakes Bay Oyster Company (DBOC) and that illnesses had been linked to their oysters. The
story was entirely false, and when that was pointed out, the publication removed it.
Over a week later, those are just about the only facts that are clear.
Food Safety News, a respected publication, was cited in the false story by FWN, so Food Safety
News looked into what happened. Editor Dan Flynn wrote in an August 18 editorial that he thinks
the most likely explanation is that the FWN reporter made a terrible mistake. Flynn’s reasoning is
based on two coincidences: there was a warning about DBOC oysters exactly one year earlier,
reported by Food Safety News on August 13, 2012, and there was also a story in Food Safety News
on August 10 of this year about potential contamination from oysters in Connecticut. The FWN news
story managed to confuse the two, which is really quite a feat, but that’s the best guess about what
happened based on what we know so far.
More puzzling are two tweets that were sent within minutes of each other right at the same time this
false story was published.
Amy Trainer (I presume; the tweet was posted under the account @ProtectPtReyes, which is
associated with the website “Save Point Reyes Wilderness,” which is registered to Trainer) tweeted:
“Oysters from @drakesbayoyster are making us sick. @CAPublicHealth shuts DBOC down.”
This tweet did not link to the FWN story. It linked to a story at the California Department of Public
Health website about last year’s recall of DBOC oysters. That story was posted on August 10, 2012,
and it was not mentioned in the recent FWN story. Did Amy instantly remember that story from a
year ago, and then instantly forget it was a year old?
Steve Maviglio, linking to the very same 2012 California Department of Public Health story, tweeted:
“@CAPublicHealth shuts down @drakesbayoyster. Time to close it for good.”
Is it a coincidence that these tweets happened at the same time as the FWN story, even though they
didn’t link to it? How odd.
Who is Steve Maviglio? He is principal of the Sacramento PR firm Forza Communications, and very
active in politics. He is the publisher of the political website “California Majority Report.” He often
sends negative tweets about DBOC, and often leaves negative comments at the DBOC Facebook
page. The similarity of his comments to the prevailing anti-oyster-farm narrative has caused some to
wonder whether he is working for EAC. When that came up in the online comment section at the
Marin IJ, Maviglio replied: “I’m not ‘Amy Trainer’s PR person.’ I’ve never met her face to face. What
I am is President of the Sacramento Natural Foods Cooperative (one of the largest in the state) and a
passionate believer in protecting our national seashore and against the right-wing interests trying to
exploit our public lands for corporate benefits.”
That’s disingenuous at best. I have to wonder whether someone who isn’t forthcoming about his
identity might be willing to play dirty tricks.
The reporter for FWN regrets the error, and has promised to follow up with more information about
the source of the false story. Perhaps more will be revealed.
Tweeting that people are getting sick from eating DBOC oysters (when they are not) is akin to
yelling fire in a crowded theater (when there is no fire). It does not reflect well on EAC and its allies.
At least one of the wilderness advocates appears to agree. Gordon Bennett responded to Amy’s
tweet on Wednesday, August 14 by tweeting “Please correct this, which is from last year and not
helpful to current Wilderness efforts.” Can’t argue with that.
Anti-Oyster-Farm Activists Spread
Misinformation
The following editorial was first published in the West Marin Citizen July 18, 2013. Reprinted with
permission.
Outside Interests
By Sarah Rolph
In her letter in last week’s Citizen, “Prefers wilderness over private profit,” Carissa Brands
expresses her sorrow over the “division among our community,” and accuses Drakes Bay Oyster
Company (DBOC) of “aligning themselves” with a “Koch-brothers-and-friends agenda.” She wonders,
“Was this always part of a plan by outside interests to divide and conquer”?
The answer is yes. The divisions are indeed part of a plan by outside interests. But it has nothing to
do with the Koch brothers.
The outside interests dividing this community are the anti-oyster-farm activists.
Amy Trainer, the current executive director of the Environmental Action Committee of West Marin
(EAC), came to West Marin on assignment. She was “brought here,” as she puts it, “to kick butt and
take names.” Amy worked as a professional activist in Washington state and in Colorado on smallscale projects before she got her potential big break in West Marin, helping the Park Service kick
out the oyster farm.
The mantle of “environmentalist” is powerful—especially in West Marin, where so many people care
passionately about environmental issues.
But “environmentalism” is not always what is seems, as Tom Knudson pointed out in his
groundbreaking five-article series in the Sacramento Bee, “Environment, Inc.” The series examines
the “high-powered fund raising, the litigation and the public relations machine that has come to
characterize much of the movement today.” Knudson points out that fear-mongering is a way of life
for these groups. “Crisis, real or not, is a commodity,” he says, “And slogans and sound bites
masquerade as scientific fact.”
Knudson’s meticulously researched series points out that many of these groups spend about half of
their money on fund-raising, far more than the philanthropic guideline of 35 percent. The Sierra
Club and the National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA) are cited as the two biggest offenders.
A lot of the money goes to the people who run these groups. When the NPCA fired its president Paul
Pritchard, in 1997, it paid him $760,335 to settle his contract. Salaries for the heads of these groups
rival those of the biggest commercial firms. Knudson quotes Martin Litton, a former Sierra Club
board member as saying: “Those salaries are obscene.” Litton’s important work—he helped bring
about the creation of Redwoods National Park and Sequoia National Monument—was unpaid.
Paid professional activist Amy Trainer is skilled at creating alliances with other groups. From Big
Environment stalwarts like the NPCA and the Sierra Club to tiny groups like Save Our Seashore (a
very small group indeed—it seems to consist solely of Gordon Bennett), Trainer has coordinated
efforts against DBOC using the same tactics outlined in Knudson’s expose’ – scaremongering,
manufactured crises, and the use of slogans and soundbites masquerading as fact.
Amy’s slogans and soundbites are reflected in Carissa Brands’s letter. Privatization is the most
recent term, and the issue is entirely made up. Nobody is trying to “privatize” anything, the Lunnys
simply want to keep farming oysters in Drakes Estero as has been done for almost 100 years.
Wilderness as the “highest use” is a slogan crafted to advertise the anti-oyster-farm cause, as is the
famous “deal is a deal,” which has gotten tremendous traction even though it’s untrue.
The third article in Knudson’s series, “Litigation central,” shows how these groups frequently use
litigation as a weapon. The anti-oyster-farm activists are now adding this to their playbook. Known
shakedown artist Jack Silver, whose so-called environmental group Riverwatch is famous for
extorting funds by threatening to sue, has filed a shakedown suit against the Lunnys. The suit has no
merit.
Carissa Brands has been duped into believing that “It’s time to honor the contract with the people of
the U.S by returning Drakes Estero to the wild.” There is no such contract; the State of California
owns the water bottom leases of Drakes Estero, and the oyster farm has a State lease that is valid
until 2029. Wilderness designation of the estero would be on paper only. To quote the authors of the
friend-of-the-court brief filed on behalf of DBOC: “the sounds of motorcycles racing by Drakes Estero
on the adjacent highway will not cease if the Oyster Farm is closed.”
Who are the real environmentalists here? The shakedown artists getting headlines with a pointless
lawsuit? The professional activists paid to create anti-oyster-farm slogans? Or is it the Lunnys, who
spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to clean up the oyster farm and the estero, whose awardwinning oysters are recognized as among the cleanest greenest shellfish in the world, and whose
continued success at shellfish mariculture depends on their careful stewardship of the land and
water?
I think the answer is clear.
The Truth About Permits
This editorial was first published in the West Marin Citizen August 1, 2013. Reprinted with
permission.
An Egregious Record of Outrageous Accusations
By Sarah Rolph
In a front-page story in the West Marin Citizen two weeks ago (“Water watchdog to sue oyster
company,” July 18, 2013) Amy Trainer, executive director of the Environmental Action Committee of
West Marin (EAC), is quoted as saying Drakes Bay Oyster Company “…has an egregious record of
non-compliance with state and federal environmental and coastal protection laws…”
Trainer claimed: “The Drakes Bay Oyster Company has failed to get the required permits and
authorization from the Army Corps of Engineers, the California Coastal Commission, the National
Park Service, and now from the Environmental Protection Agency.”
These statements are false and misleading.
Drakes Bay Oyster Company (DBOC) has a valid permit from the National Park Service. The stay
that was granted by the 9th Circuit means that the Special Use Permit and the Reservation of Use
agreements are still in force; for legal purposes, the stay, in effect, stopped time. In addition, DBOC
has explicit, written authorization from NPS to continue doing business under the 9th Circuit
decision; there should be no confusion whatsoever about compliance with NPS.
The permit required from the California Coastal Commission was held up by the Commission itself
pending the finalization of the NPS EIS. Although NPS did publish what it calls an FEIS (final
environmental impact statement), that document has never been finalized (there is no Record of
Decision; the document was never filed with authorities as required by law). The Commission has
now changed its story, but the fact remains that all necessary paperwork for the Coastal Commission
permit was filed long ago.
The Army Corps of Engineers recently finalized a nationwide permitting process that calls for
blanket permits of all shellfish operations in a given area. This nationwide process was applied first
on the East coast, and then in Washington State. The Corps has not yet begun implementation of this
permit process in California. When it does, DBOC will be among the first to be covered, and the
Lunnys are already in discussion with the Army Corps about this permit process.
No permit is required from the EPA.
In 2007, the EAC falsely accused DBOC of unpermitted discharge of pollutants in a letter to the
Regional Water Quality Control Board. The board inspected DBOC, found no discharge of pollutants,
and further found that the DBOC did not require any permit. There is no issue with water quality.
(California River Watch, the so-called “watchdog” that is suing the Lunnys for a non-issue with
water, is well known for this type of shakedown suit, and has no credibility among knowledgeable
environmentalists.)
The oyster farm is also monitored by the California Department of Public Health, and is in
compliance with the CDPH Drakes Estero Management Plan, Shellfish Shipping and Handling
Permit and the CDPH septic system monitoring agreement.
DBOC also has a Small Community Water System permit —the same level of regulation as a public
water system. DBOC provides weekly water samples for this permit, and is in full compliance.
The oyster farm is also monitored by the FDA and the CDPH, in accordance with the Interstate
Shipping Shellfish Conference, and is in full compliance.
In short, there is no record of non-compliance here, “egregious” or otherwise. Ms. Trainer’s
statements are libelous. She owes the Lunnys, and the community, an apology. The West Marin
Citizen should cease quoting Ms. Trainer on the topic of DBOC unless she can provide evidence for
her outrageous accusations.
2013 Harbor Seal Report Shows Park
Service Claims Are False
The following editorial was first published in the West Marin Citizen September 19, 2013. Reprinted
with permission. A related news story can be found here.
Duplicity
By Sarah Rolph
What a ray of sunshine the new NPS seal-count data provides! The latest report tells us that 2013
has been a great year for seals, with one of the highest counts ever for seal pups, and more seals in
Drakes Estero than anywhere else in Point Reyes. That should alleviate the fears of anyone who
might have gotten the impression that seals could be in danger from Drakes Bay Oyster Company.
I was fascinated to see that the Park Service’s seal-count report includes a disclaimer, saying that
the data and related graphics “are not legal documents and are not intended to be used as such” and
“The National Park Service gives no warranty, expressed or implied, as to the accuracy, reliability,
or completeness of these data.”
This disclaimer isn’t found on any previous science reports from the Park Service at Point Reyes. I
find it ironic that they would offer it now, given the clear deficiencies of many of their scientific
efforts.
For example, the one paper the Park Service clings to as purported evidence for its false claims that
the oyster farm disturbs seals, by Park Service scientist Ben Becker, doesn’t even claim to find
anything more than a correlation.
If there’s one thing most of us learn about science, it’s that correlation does not imply causation.
Seems like the Park Service ought to have put a disclaimer on the Becker paper.
They should probably put a disclaimer on the Park Service’s Environmental Impact Statement (EIS),
too, since its claims about oyster-farm disturbance to seals are based largely on Becker. The EIS
downplays that, pretending it has been sources by saying “the impact analysis in the EIS places
emphasis on the data review, analysis, and interpretation of scientists in NAS (2009) and MMC
(2011b).”
NAS (2009)? Isn’t that the report by the National Academy of Sciences that found fault with the Park
Service data? Indeed it is. Checking the EIS to see what data review, analysis, or interpretation they
included from that NAS review, I found exactly one sentence, and it’s very misleading: “Factors
influencing the behavior of harbor seals within Drakes Estero have been review by NAS (2009).”
NAS did indeed review those factors. Here’s what they found:
“NPS selectively presents harbor seal survey data in Drakes Estero and over-interprets the
disturbance data which are incomplete and non-representative of the full spectrum of disturbance
activities in the estero.” And: “…research that has been conducted within Drakes Estero cannot be
used either to directly demonstrate any effects of the oyster farm on harbor seals or to demonstrate
the absence of potential effects.”
So given that the Becker paper casts no light on the situation, and that NAS (2009) simply points out
the scientific errors of the NPS, on what basis could the EIS possibly have found “long-term
moderate adverse impacts on harbor seals due to the continuation of commercial shellfish
operations”?
The only other thing cited in the EIS is the MMC report. Does it contain the evidence?
The scientific analysis for the MMC study was conducted by seven independent seal scientists. One
can read their full verbatim reports in Appendix F of the report.
It’s eye-opening to do so. None of the scientists find the Becker paper convincing. Instead they point
out that the design of the Becker study is entirely inappropriate for the issues it attempts to explore,
and that everything that is known about harbor seals suggests that the concerns expressed by NPS
about mariculture disturbing seals in Drakes Estero are unfounded. (Somehow, the executive
summary of the MMC report manages to suggest otherwise, though just barely. It also suggests the
Park Service continue funding MMC studies of the issue.)
The scientists on both the Academy panel and the MMC panel pointed out that the best way to learn
whether the oyster farm operations disturbed seals would be with time-and-date-stamped
photographs. It must have been a shock to later learn that the Park Service had been capturing
exactly that data since May of 2007, but chose not to disclose it.
It certainly bothered Brian Kingzett. Kingzett is Deep Bay Marine Field Station Manager at the
Center for Shellfish Research, Vancouver Island University, and one of the seven scientists who
served on the MMC panel. Kingzett reports, “The panel even suggested to the Parks Staff while on
site above the estero how easy it would be to put wildlife cameras on the estero to resolve some of
the questions and staff looked at us and agreed that maybe it was an option worth considering when
they had them up the whole time. We then spent the rest of the week discussing the lack of any
good data.”
NPS has falsified the record to further its own agenda. The duplicity extends further: Interior is
talking out of both sides of its mouth, claiming Secretary Salazar’s decision against the oyster farm
was not based on the fraudulent EIS while also using that same EIS to argue in court against the
oyster farm.
If left unchecked, this out-of-control Federal agency will destroy the livelihoods of dozens of people
and eliminate a popular, historic, successful, and benign oyster farm.
And it will damage the California economy. The EIS itself clearly states that eliminating the oyster
farm “could result in long-term, major, adverse impacts on California’s shellfish market.” That is a
feature of the Park Service’s “preferred alternative.”
The scientific credibility of the Park Service at Point Reyes is in shreds. No disclaimer can save it.
Nature Includes Us Too
The following editorial was first published in the West Marin Citizen on September 26, 2013.
Reprinted with permission.
Environmental Stewardship at Drakes Bay
By Sandor Schoichet
Growing up hiking and camping as a Boy Scout, the ethic of leaving campsites cleaner than you
found them was instilled in me at an early age. Attending college in the early 1970’s among the
misty redwoods of UC Santa Cruz inspired my love of natural environments. Now I’ve become an
avid sailor, enjoying the San Francisco Bay and supporting conservation and restoration groups like
BayKeepers. I respond immediately and emotionally to calls for wilderness protection.
But I’m also a student of environmental thinkers like Stuart Brand, Bill McKibben, and Emma
Marris, who from quite distinct perspectives all advocate a more active and nuanced engagement in
environmental stewardship. I appreciate the chaos, change, interdependence, and serendipity
behind the multi-layered beauty of nature, which includes us too. The conventional preservationist
strategy, trying to “save” small patches of “pristine wilderness” by putting fences around them, just
isn’t always appropriate.
Nowhere is this clearer than in the long-running battle by the Park Service and its supporters to
shut down Drakes Bay Oyster Company (DBOC) and return the estero to its “natural” state. Their
vision of an estero frozen in time seems badly misguided, given that it’s surrounded by working
cattle ranches, which the Park Service supports, and given that the National Seashore will continue
to provide access for millions of visitors each year.
DBOC and its supporters point out that the original purpose of the 1970 Environmental Policy Act,
under which the National Seashore was created, was “to create and maintain conditions under
which man and nature can exist in productive harmony.” They argue for the appropriateness of a
working landscape in which the filter-feeding oysters have an active role maintaining the
environmental quality of the estero.
When I first learned about this conflict, I expected to be on the side of the Park Service. After
learning more about the facts of the situation, I’m not. Despite my emotional attraction to the idea
of “protecting” this beautiful area, I believe the Park Service has become locked into an outdated
and overly rigid notion of wilderness. Worse still, in pursuit of its goals the agency has become a
political bully and intentional purveyor of junk science, distorting regulatory requirements and
ignoring the ongoing value of the oyster farm to both the estero and the community. DBOC, in
contrast, has emerged as a core player in the Bay Area sustainable food movement, and a champion
of the diversity and health of the estero.
The 9th Circuit ruled against DBOC on September 3rd. The Lunnys will appeal, citing the split
decision. In a blistering dissent, Judge Watford wrote “all indications are that Congress viewed the
oyster farm as a beneficial, pre-existing use, whose continuation was fully compatible with
wilderness status.”
The visionaries who created Point Reyes Seashore realized that humans are part of our everchanging world, and that we have an unavoidable responsibility to be effective stewards of the
ecosystems we care about. Let’s hope the appeal is successful and the vision is upheld.
Sandor Schoichet is a management consultant working with biopharma and sustainability clients.
He lives in San Rafael.
March 2013 Scientific Misconduct
Complaint
West Marin scientist Dr. Corey Goodman has been working for years to bring attention to the Park
Service’s false narrative about Drakes Bay Oyster. Goodman first became involved in April 2007,
when Marin County Supervisor Steve Kinsey asked Goodman to analyze the National Park Service
(NPS) science on Drakes Estero and to testify as an independent scientist at the May 8, 2007 County
hearing as to whether NPS data supported NPS claims. At the time, Dr. Goodman did not know
Kevin Lunny, owner of Drakes Bay Oyster Company. Dr. Goodman’s analysis showed that NPS data
did not support NPS claims, and he testified that NPS officials misrepresented their own data.
Goodman is passionate about scientific integrity and has filed several formal complaints about NPS
false science. On March 4, 2013, Goodman filed a comprehensive Complaint detailing serial
scientific misconduct with Dr. John Holdren, the President’s Science Advisor (and architect of
President Obama’s Scientific Integrity Policy). The 150+ page Complaint addresses an “Enterprise
of Misconduct” at three Federal agencies — the National Park Service (NPS), the US Geological
Survey (USGS) and the Marine Mammal Commission (MMC).
Click here to read the letter