Drakes Bay Oyster Company: NPS Rejects Pacific Coast Shellfish Grower's Association Data Quality Complaint

"...your May 30, 2013, letter is without merit..."

3 strikes and you are out -
The National Park Service (NPS) has written to the Pacific Coast Shellfish Growers' Association and informed them its 2013 Information Quality (IQ) complaint is without merit. PCSGA's 2007 IQ complaint was also rejected by the NPS. As was Cause of Action's 2012 complaint (submitted on behalf of Corey Goodman and Kevin Lunny) and their appeal. In baseball, after 3 strikes you are out.

Complaint is mooted - commercial activities are not compatible in a wilderness area
As with PCSGA's 2007 complaint the most recent complaint from PCSGA was mooted. In this most recent case it was when the Secretary of the Interior allowed Drakes Bay Oyster Company's "authorizations to expire by their own terms." NPS notes that the decision was "based on the incompatibility of commercial activities in wilderness and not on the data that was asserted to be flawed." Despite Jeff Creque's attempt to redefine "wilderness" in his recent Op-ed piece, wilderness is not a "sort of" concept.

Phantom allegations, repeated comments, not an affected person
PCSGA's allegations of harm was rejected as being "an unsubstantiated quotation of an aquaculture advocate in a report written by DBOC's former counsel [Cause of Action]."  They note further that their letter is nothing more than a repetition of comments raised in a December 9, 2011, comment letter. NPS notes it responded then to all substantive comments received. It notes: "The Information Quality Act is not to be used as a means of circumventing the NEPA public comment process." NPS notes PCSGA had the opportunity to comment, it did comment, and "...NPS responded to those comments in the FEIS. Your IQA Complaint essentially resubmits comments, and does not present any significant new information." Finally, NPS questions whether PCSGA is even an affected person, noting they argue "members might be harmed at some point in the future by some hypothetical arguments that could be raised by unnamed opponents" and "alleged harm offered in your Complaint concerns decisions made in states where your client has no members, and that example is based on an unsubstantiated quotation in a report by DBOC's former counsel."

Without merit
"In conclusion, we find that your May 30, 2013, letter is without merit..."

What now? Redefining the public trust doctrine
Already seen have been attempts to create a "corporate wilderness definition" using the glasses of "agroecologist" Jeff Creque. His false vision of Drakes Estero producing "unlimited biomass" created by "unlimited carbon and nutrients" solving the world's food problem will continue. On the horizon will be attempts to redefine what the "public trust" retained by California was when it transferred ownership to the Federal government. In that attempt to redefine the public trust retained by California, a claim will be made that the corporate profits generated by DBOC should somehow trump the contractual agreement to create a wilderness area to be shared by everyone. It should be rejected, as was the IQ complaint by PCSGA.

The Public Trust Doctrine: "By the law of nature these things are common to mankind – the air, running water, the sea, and consequently the shores of the sea….. All rivers and ports are public: hence the right of fishing in a port, or in rivers, is common to all men." --- Institutes of Emperer Justinian, Book 2, Div. 1 (535 A.C.E)

The public trust doctrine does not include the inalienable right of one shellfish farmer's profits to prevent the creation of a wilderness area for everyone.