Drakes Bay Oyster Company: Jeff Creque's Op-ed on Point Reyes National Seashore Misses the Point

A corporate paradigm of wilderness is explained by

"agroecologist" Jeff Creque in the Marin Independent Journal.

Would Aldo Lepold and the Wilderness Society agree? Hardly.

 

Try my prescription glasses, you'll see much better.



 

In a Guest Op-ed column, "agroecologist" Jeff Creque attempts to put into words his corporate paradigm through which he views Drakes Estero, and with which he justifies a continued commercial operation within the Point Reyes National Seashore wilderness area. Through his glasses Jeff Creque sees what he calls "unlimited biomass" potential.  He sees an open system in which there is "...an unlimited capacity for self-organized complexity, including enormous biomass production and biodiversity potential..." He suggests using his prescription glasses will help you see wilderness in the new, corporate way. 

 

There's always more, maybe over the rainbow

This perspective is the same as those in the shellfish industry of the mid-1800's who first stripped all the shellfish from California's great reefs and then moved north into Washington's Willapa Bay and Puget Sound. In their wake the native Olympia oyster populations were brought to near extinction. "There will always be more" the great industrialists of that time cried. Until they discovered there were no more. It was the same philosophy of Jeff Creque's which left ecosystems up and down the coast destroyed. There is not an unlimited amount of nutrients and carbon entering into Drakes Estero as he would have us believe. That is simply false. Even over the rainbow.

 

Aquaculture is not restoration nor is it wilderness, but it does change things

Attempts to recreate what nature had taken thousands of years to build were dismal failures and it is only through artificial and now industrial scale hatcheries that oysters grow today. But to claim this somehow fits into the congressionally designated wilderness of Drakes Estero is as short sighted as were the early shellfish farmer's belief of unlimited shellfish. More importantly, aquaculture is not restoration. Aquaculture is the artificial creation of an ecosystem which is destroyed each time shellfish are harvested. It is this twisted frame into which Jeff Creque attempts to force his "agroecologist" based justification for why Drakes Bay Oyster Company should be allowed to remain. It is corporate environmentalism at its worst, fracturing the reality of what a wilderness area is meant to be. Aldo Leopold is turning in his grave.

 

Corporate environmentalism through "enlightened management" must be good, right?

Jeff Creque attempts to explain how, through what he calls "enlightened management" that a new corporate view of environmentalism should exist in the Drakes Estero shoreline wilderness area. Lost in that "enlightened management" is what the Point Reyes National Seashore wilderness is supposed to be: a body of water which does not have a commercial shellfish operation operating in leased tidelands covering almost half of the available tidelands. Jeff Creque's attempt to portray Drakes Estero as the only body of water in which commercial oysters are able to grow is as simplistic as is the belief that the nutrient and carbon inputs into Drakes Bay are unlimited, which is his stated belief.  Wearing someone else's prescription glasses will not help your vision.

 

An oyster farm will not stop rising sea levels, neither will corporate profits

Jeff Creque's piece ends drifting in the doldrums when he writes:

Titular designation as "wilderness" will not "protect" it from rising sea levels, acidifying ocean waters, climate destabilization or the broader global catastrophe unfolding around us.

Drakes Estero's designation as a wilderness area is not intended to protect the marine environment from global man made events taking place any more than resisting the export of coal to China will stop carbon emissions. It will, however, make a statement that there are actions which are far more important than corporate profitability for future generations to look back on as inspiration. Especially when an area is designated wilderness, as defined by the Wilderness Act.

 

Self-organizing systems do not change what wilderness is. Man does.

The "complex, self-organizing dynamics of this living, open system" known as Drakes Estero exists with a commercial operation in it which is extracting nutrients and carbon, and which is changing the natural ecosystem through artificial structures and non-native species. It is the antithesis of what the Wilderness Act is supposed to preserve for future generations. Jeff Creque's "agroecologist" paradigm may be fine for other areas of California's west coast, such as Humboldt Bay or other parts of Tomales Bay, and a farm. But it most certainly is not what should be allowed to define a wilderness area.

 

Aldo Leopold would not agree Jeff Creque's eyeglasses help see anything more clear

Finally, to pretend that Aldo Leopold would agree with this corporate paradigm being espoused by Jeff Creque to justify the continued operation of Drakes Bay Oyster Company in the designated wilderness area only shows how bad his eye sight is. Saving DBOC is not one of the "pieces" which Aldo Leopold would have wanted saved. He helped found the Wilderness Society, dedicated to expanding and protecting the nation's wilderness areas. November 29, 2012, the Wilderness Society's President Jamie Williams wrote this:

Area in Point Reyes National Seashore is critical refuge for wildlife 

“The Wilderness Society is pleased to see Drakes Estero protected as the only marine wilderness on the West Coast. Preserving this critical marine area is crucial for the long term conservation of the Point Reyes National Seashore,” said Wilderness Society President Jamie Williams. 

“We applaud U.S. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar for the decision to protect this important scenic and ecological natural resource.” 

 

 

.

Superior Court Orders Drakes Bay Oyster Company to Comply with Coastal Commission's 2007 Cease and Desist Consent Order and 2013 Cease and Desist Order's Interim Use Provisions

Update 7/30: The Marin Indepent Journal has reported that Drakes Bay Oyster Company has asked Marin Superior Court Judge Duryee to reconsider her ruling that DBOC must comply with the California Coastal Commission's interim use provisions contained in the most recent Cease and Desist order. The interim environmental protection measures which Mr. Lunny had previously been willing to act on is something he no longer agrees with.
Update 7/19: Superior Court Judge Duryee's ruling that Drakes Bay Oyster Company must comply with the California Coastal Commission (CCC) 2013 Cease and Desist Order's interim use provisions has generated numerous articles, including the Los Angeles Times, the San Francisco Chronicle, KTVU News, and the Marin Independent Journal . All have noted DBOC must comply with the coastal regulations it has either violated or ignored. It was far from what attorneys representing Phyllis Faber and DBOC had asked for, which included "Issuance of a declaratory judgment that the Commissions Orders were unlawful". 

DBOC must act on, among other things, the removal of the non-native invasive manila clams; creation of a management plan to prevent the growth and spread of the non-native and invasive tunicate Didemnum vexillum; limit production of shellfish to 2007 levels; and, to develop an operational debris management plan. While DBOC implied the CCC was attempting to "shut them down", in fact what the CCC was trying to get DBOC to do was comply with the coastal regulations we all are supposed to work within. It was something DBOC agreed to in 2007 but simply ignored. 

They said what?
Unlike the others news outlets, the San Francisco Sentinel declares the ruling forcing DBOC to address the numerous coastal regulations it has been in violation of a "Major Victory" for DBOC. It goes on to devote a large portion of the "reporting" to what can only be described as a "Karl Rove" discourse on Amy Trainer, Executive Director of the West Marin Environmental Action Committee, the EAC and CCC with broad unsubstantiated statements. SFS might consider first vetting its news sources before simply publishing a press release, from whomever they received it from.

Update 7/18: Drakes Bay Oyster Company may no longer ignore the 2007 California Coastal Commission's Consent Order No. CCC-07-CD-04 (beginning on page 17) signed and agreed to by Mr. Lunny November 29, 2007. Further, DBOC must also comply with the 2013 Cease and Desist Order's interim use provisions CCC-13-CD-01 (a 42mb file - Section V, starting on page 132).

 

>>>
For Immediate Release                                                                                   

July 18, 2013

 

Contact:

Amy Trainer, Environmental Action Committee of West Marin, 415.306.6052

Gordon Bennett, Save Our Seashore, 415.663.1881 

Court Order Requires Drakes Bay Oyster Company to Comply With Coastal Act

Company Must Remove Invasive Clams, Clean up Marine Vomit, and End Plastic Pollution

 

Point Reyes, California.  The controversial Drakes Bay Oyster Company will be required to remove the invasive Manila clams it planted, manage its invasive “marine vomit” problem that coats its oysters, and finally address the significant amounts of the company’s plastic debris that has polluted beaches all over the Point Reyes National Seashore according to a court ruling yesterday afternoon. Marin County Superior Court Judge Lynn Duryee sided with the California Coastal Commission and ruled that the Drakes Bay Oyster Company must take immediate steps to comply with the 2007 and 2013 [2013 file is 42mb, a result of DBOC attorney's last minute "document dump"] Cease and Desist Orders, which mitigate some, but not all, of the company’s ongoing environmental harm to the national park wilderness area.

 

 “Since inception, the Drakes Bay Oyster Company has been operating illegally as if basic regulations that protect our spectacular coastline don’t apply to it,” said Amy Trainer, executive director of the Environmental Action Committee of West Marin. “The court’s ruling supports what the public has known for years: this unsustainable oyster company that pollutes beaches, fosters the spread of invasive species, and causes harbor seal disturbance has no place in a national park wilderness area.”

The court ruling is the latest to reprimand the oyster company for its lack of compliance with coastal protection laws, including its failure to: comply with the production cap established in 2007, remove all the invasive Manila clams and Didemnum vexillim “marine vomit,” clean up its plastic debris pollution, remove several pressure-treated wooden racks that are outside the permit area, and stay out of protected habitat for harbor seals.

The Drakes Bay Oyster Company, which was removed from the Monterey Bay Aquarium’s Seafood Watch Partner list more than 3 years ago, is being supported by the Koch brothers funded Pacific Legal Foundation and Americans For Prosperity in its quest to commercialize Drakes Estero Wilderness. Yesterday’s court ruling follows on the heels of this week’s news that California River Watch is preparing to sue the oyster company for violating the Clean Water Act.

Drakes Estero: Public Lands and Entitlements

"The ability to use public land for private profit

is a privilege, not an entitlement."

Drakes Estero National Seashore 

 

In all of the articles written on Drakes Bay Oyster Company's (DBOC) press to continue using Point Reyes National Seashore for their commercial shellfish operation, no better sentence encapsulates DBOC's reasoning behind why a nonconforming commercial operation in Drakes Estero should continue. It brings forward the primary issue faced at the court hearing on January 25: Should a nonconforming commercial operation on public lands, purchased with full and clear knowledge the use had an explicit end date for an explicit reason, be allowed to challenge the terms of that agreement and prevent the creation of the only marine wilderness area on the West Coast of the United States? [see the Wilderness Act here]

 

Arguments about the science behind the Environmental Impact Study provide a convenient smoke screen to hide the fundamental question at hand: Is the Lunny family owned DBOC entitled to continue using areas of Drakes Estero for a commercial shellfish operation at the expense of its diminished value as a wilderness area for all the public to enjoy?

 

it is hereby declared to be the policy of the Congress

 to secure for the American people

of present and future generations

 the benefits of an enduring

 resource of wilderness.

The Wilderness Act

 

This is not about the Lunny family, nor is it about shellfish farming or displaced employees. It is not an attempt remove all public lands from commercial use. At the foundation of this case is whether a nonconforming use by corporations, owned by a family or publicly traded, is entitled to continue on public lands designated by Congress to become wilderness after a specific date. Relying on a legislative rider to extend the agreement will set a precedent for other legislatures to create their own riders to extend agreements for other nonconforming commercial operations in other designated wilderness areas, ad infinitum.

In this case, that the nonconforming commercial operation was to end in November of 2012 was clear in the agreement between DBOC and the National Parks Service, signed in 2005. That Drakes Estero was designated to become wilderness was known for decades. That the commercial shellfish operation was considered "nonconforming" was clear. That the commercial shellfish operation was given a more than reasonable amount of time, 40 years (November 2012), to end their operation was accepted as reasonable by the Johnson family's Johnson Oyster Company (JOC), who chose to cease operations earlier, in 2003.

For DBOC to arrive in 2004, purchase the assets and take over the agreement, and now claim their attorneys said it could be extended is nothing more than bad business and bad legal advice. Lobbying to have Senator Feinstein add a rider giving the Secretary of the Interior discretion - not the requirement - to extend the agreement is only an example of corporate lobbying efforts. DBOC's continuing to place shellfish in the designated wilderness area and now claim they will have to be "destroyed" is nothing more than a reflection of their belief in the entitlement they have to continue profiting from the only nonconforming commercial operation preventing the creation of the only National Seashore wilderness area on the West Coast outside of Alaska. An operation they knew full well was intended to end in November of 2012.

It is time for DBOC to cease operations, remove the structures and nonnative shellfish, and allow the Point Reyes National Seashore to become the wilderness Congress intended 40 years ago, for the benefit of present and future generations of all Americans. To do otherwise strikes at the integrity of the Wilderness Act, clearly why Cause of Action has chosen to become involved.

For further detailed legal analysis of this issue see the following:
1. "Will the Wilderness Act Be Diluted in Drakes Estero?"
2. "Congressionally Designated Potential Wilderness Areas"
3. "Contextualizing Secretary Salazar’s Recent Decision on Oyster Farming at Point Reyes"4. "Passions Run High in Bivalve Battle"