Our mission is to protect the habitat of Puget Sound tidelands from the underregulated expansion of new and intensive shellfish aquaculture methods. These methods were never anticipated when the Shoreline Management Act was passed. They are transforming the natural tideland ecosystems in Puget Sound and are resulting in a fractured shoreline habitat. In South Puget Sound much of this has been done with few if any meaningful shoreline permits and with limited public input. It is exactly what the Shoreline Management Act was intended to prevent.

Get involved and contact your elected officials to let them you do not support aquaculture's industrial transformation of Puget Sound's tidelands.

Governor Inslee:
http://www.governor.wa.gov/contact/contact/send-gov-inslee-e-message
Legislative and Congressional contacts:
http://app.leg.wa.gov/DistrictFinder/

Additional information
Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/protectourshore
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ProtectOurShoreline



Wednesday, May 28, 2014

Drakes Bay Oyster Company: DOI Responds to DBOC's Petition - "Misguided, lacks merit."

 "This isn't about environmental crimes."
Dr. Corey Goodman, Range Magazine, 2013
 
 
"The purchase documents specifically informed
petitioners that the right to operate in the
National Seashore would expire in 2012."
DOI Brief
 
"After careful consideration of the applicable law and policy, I have directed the National Park Service to allow the permit for the Drakes Bay Oyster Co. to expire ... and to return the Drakes Estero to the state of wilderness that Congress designated for it in 1976."
DOI Secretary Salazar, November, 2012 [Note: date corrected 5/29] 
 
NEWS: Interior Dept. Files Supreme Court Brief, Concludes No Credible Argument Presented

Contact:
Amy Trainer, Environmental Action Committee of West Marin, 415-306-6052
Neal Desai, National Parks Conservation Association, 510-368-0845
 
 
Interior Department Brief Concludes No Credible Argument Presented by Oyster Company
Interior Filing Confirms Oyster Company’s Petition is Misguided, Lacks Merit 
Today, the Department of the Interior filed its opposition brief against the Drakes Bay Oyster Company’s petition for review to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Interior Department’s opposition brief handily rejected the oyster company’s desperate attempt to continue operating more than a year after former Interior Secretary Salazar decided to let the 40-year lease expire on its own terms as planned. The Federal District Court and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the legality of Salazar’s decision, including that the oyster company was well aware of the lease’s 2012 expiration date.
 “The Interior Department’s brief strongly articulates the many reasons why the Obama Administration’s decision to let the 40-year commercial oyster lease expire and allow Drakes Estero to be restored to wilderness is definitively supported by federal court decisions, as well as federal law and policy,” said Amy Trainer, executive director of the Environmental Action Committee of West Marin. “The Interior Department’s brief handily rejects the oyster company’s misguided and erroneous legal arguments, and seamlessly shows why the Supreme Court should pass on reviewing this case.”
“Three federal court rulings have rejected the oyster company’s assault on taxpayer purchased lands, bringing Americans one step closer to enjoying their national park wilderness as planned decades ago,” said Neal Desai, pacific region field director of the National Parks Conservation Association.
 
Highlights from the Interior Department’s brief include:
 
-- The court of appeals accordingly considered on the merits (and rejected) every objection that petitioners [Drakes Bay Oyster Co.] raised against the Secretary’s decision. Pg. 11
 
-- The petition does not identify any particular, specific, reviewable arguments that were presented to, but disregarded by, the court of appeals. Pg. 14
 
-- Because the court of appeals did not conclude that there was “no law to apply” in this case, the decision below does not implicate any of the circuit conflicts alleged by petitioners. Pg. 15
 
-- The decision in this case did not alter the legal status quo. This is not a circumstance in which an agency is required by statute or regulation to act on a permit application. Rather it is a circumstance in which rights reserved in a contract conveying land to the United States were set to expire on their own terms, and the agency did nothing to change that situation. Allowing such rights to expire is not naturally characterized as “major agency action.”And none of the circuit decisions relied on by petitioner suggests that NEPA would apply in a circumstance like this. Pg. 23


                                                                                                         # # #




Amy Trainer
Executive Director
Environmental Action Committee of West Marin
Box 609 Point Reyes, CA 94956

(415) 663-9312 office
(415) 306-6052 cell

Protecting West Marin Since 1971!
*Like* us on Facebook





Those who contemplate the beauty of the Earth
find reserves of strength that will endure
as long as life lasts.  ~ Rachel Carson

No comments:

Post a Comment