Drakes Estero: Op-ed on the Significance of a Shoreline Wilderness

Note: You may help support the efforts to allow Drakes Estero to become the shoreline wilderness Congress intended by donating to the West Marin Envirionmental Action Committee or the Natural Resource Defense Council.

 

Doug McConnell

OpenRoad.TV



The Marin Independent Journal has published an Op-ed by Doug McConnell on why Drakes Estero should be allowed to become the shoreline wilderness area Congress intended. Mr McConnell was host of Bay Area Backroads from 1993 to 2009. He is currently the co-Founder and Managing Partner of ConvergenceMedia Productions (CMP) in Sausalito, California. One of CMP's principal products is OpenRoad with Doug McConnell, Exploring the West for Public Television nationally. It is copied below with emphasis added.

Marin Voice: Restoring Drakes estuary

is a 'critical' opportunity

by Doug McConnell

Marin Independent Journal, 9/30/2013

IN CALIFORNIA, many of us are lucky to live near the ocean and estuaries, where salt water mixes with fresh water from rivers and streams to create ecologically rich yet vulnerable natural environments. I've spent most of my life within walking distance of three famous and beautiful estuaries: Alaska's Cook Inlet, Washington's Puget Sound, and our very own, San Francisco Bay.

 

These and other estuaries have long attracted commercial activities and are vital engines of our coastal economy. But as our population has grown dramatically, concerned citizens have had to play catch up to save these bays from being overrun by development. They've struggled with mixed success to give nature a seat at the bargaining table as they've sought to strike a balance between our economy and our environment.

 

Meanwhile, not a single estuary on the west coast has been preserved and managed solely as a wilderness sanctuary, where commercial and motorized activities are set aside to prioritize nature in its wild form.

It would be extraordinary to have at least one bay on the Pacific shore where we can cease our enterprises to simply watch, enjoy and study the life of a relatively unfettered estuary.
As we recently commemorated the 25th annual National Estuaries Week, that would be a grand gift to nature, to ourselves and to future generations.

Fortunately, such an opportunity exists in our own backyard.

In the 1970s, far-sighted leaders passed legislation promising that Drakes Bay in Point Reyes National Seashore would eventually become an aquatic wilderness. The company planting and harvesting oysters commercially in Drakes Bay was given fair warning that when its lease expired in four decades the operations would have to be removed. When the time came to fulfill the contract, the oyster company took the National Park Service to court, challenging the Interior Secretary's decision to let the lease expire as planned.

The fate of Drakes Bay and its oysters has stirred significant controversy with wise and well-intentioned people lining up at opposite ends of what's become a profoundly divisive issue in Marin County.

I've listened closely to the passionate arguments by close friends on both sides of the debate. But with due respect to those who believe that oyster farming should continue, I hope that the recent 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling will be upheld and that Drakes Bay will finally receive the unique wilderness protection it was promised long ago, allowing nature to find a new equilibrium.

Confronted with enormous 21st century challenges such as climate change and ocean acidification, we and our coastal environments face great uncertainties. It will be a tremendous benefit to nature and all of us to have at least one estuary on the edge of the Pacific that's free of commercial activity.

Drakes Bay is a special but fragile environment that nurtures thousands of migratory birds and one of our state's largest harbor seal colonies. Wilderness protection will give all these native residents and visitors to Drakes Bay a buffer from the changes that are assaulting them and their ancient ecosystems, while giving us a laboratory to monitor their reactions and learn lessons we might apply to aid estuaries elsewhere in the years ahead.

Since the Wilderness Act became law nearly 50 years ago, we've benefited from the protection it has provided to important terrestrial ecosystems across the country; places we can visit and enjoy more on nature's terms than our own. Drakes Bay adds a critical piece of our marine environment to that long and treasured wilderness legacy.

Such an achievement will be celebrated for generations to come.

Doug McConnell of Corte Madera is an environmental media producer, host of public television's "Open Road with Doug McConnell: Exploring the West" and former host of "Bay Area Backroads".

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. 

Drakes Bay Oyster Company, Ocean Acidification and Impacts from Reduction of Carbonate Ions

An article today in Huffington Post has reported the coastal waters off of California are becoming more acidic. Along with the waters off of Oregon, Washington and in Puget Sound, the drop in pH levels has been detected in Monterey Bay. The article on the report written by an arm of the California Environmental Protection Agency, notes:

Some of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is being absorbed by the ocean, altering its chemistry. Scientists have documented changes to waters at Monterey Bay, which have turned more acidic in recent years, raising concerns about impact to marine life.

Carnegie Institution ecologist Chris Field, an acknowledged leader in the field of climate impacts, said the observations in the report "are more or less the gold standard of where we are now today" and provide a peek of the future.

Impacts to marine life go beyond a Pacific oyster larvae's inability to form shell
Of most significance to marine life is the change in the sea chemistry which the absorption of CO2 results in. The end result of the chemical breakdown, recombination and shifting of ions is there are fewer carbonate ions, affecting the saturation state for calcium carbonate, making it harder for shelled organisms to grow and maintain shells. In the Scientific Summary of Ocean Acidification in Washington State Marine Waters (a 9mb report) by scientists (as opposed to politicians, industry representatives and lobbyists) on Washington's "Blue Ribbon Panel on Ocean Acidification", it notes:

Negative effects of OA are not restricted to invertebrate species. In systems outside Washington, marine fish species have exhibited negative responses to OA conditions that

include changes in growth, survivorship, and behavior. Marine phytoplankton have shown varied responses to OA that include changes in growth rate and calcification.

It will get worse before it gets better.
Attempting to control CO2 levels is challenging. Worse, as the Blue Panel's Scientific Summary notes, the acidic waters currently being experienced in the upwellings off of Washington's coast, and presumably now detected in California, are from CO2 absorbed 50 years earlier. It will get worse before it gets better, because:

[CO2 in] water that is upwelling onto the coast of Washington and Oregon...has been out of contact with the atmosphere for approximately 30-50 years. Waters presently moving toward the upwelling centers [in the deep ocean] from the open ocean, which have had more recent contact with the atmosphere, are carrying even higher concentrations of anthropogenic CO2. Therefore, upwelled waters will be increasingly corrosive well into the future, even if emissions of atmospheric carbon were halted today.

 In  other words, the increasingly acidic waters we are currently experiencing are from CO2 emissions 30 to 50 years ago when CO2 levels were substantially below what the are now. Ocean acidification will increase and along with it will come waters with fewer calcifying agents needed for calcification by a many species in the system, not simply oysters, including those in Drakes Estero.

Drakes Estero: A difference of perspective between a professor of marine biology and a neuroscientist/venture capitalist.
In a recent exchange between Joe Mueller, a professor of marine biology in Marin County, and Corey Goodman, a neuroscientist/venture capitalist, 2 very different perspectives were given. The professor of marine biology took the perspective that Drakes Bay Oyster Company's planting of 20 million oysters and extracting of a reported 700,000 pounds of oysters from Drakes Estero "...clearly short-changes the non-human aspects of the system[i.e., native species]." Added to the removal of nutrients by this artificial population are calcifying agents needed by other species. The neuroscientist believes this level of planting and extraction has no impact because the system, as he sees it now (i.e., as it exists in its artificial state, presumably what the UC Davis studies he refers to also looked at) is "thriving", therefor it must be good.

What the neuroscientist misses in his perspective is what would be "thriving" in the designated wilderness of Drakes Estero if the artificial structures used and unnatural densities of non-native shellfish species were not there. Would there be an increase in the native shellfish, crab, and other fish species due to there being an increase in the calcifying agents needed? Would there be an increase in various species of fish which use eelgrass as a habitat due to a species of fish which use the structures which are no longer there? It's not considered because he only looks at what is there, created by man, artificially, not what could be in the natural state of a wilderness.

What has and has not been decided.
This difference in perspectives is similar to that of whether Drakes Bay Oyster Company's use of Federal lands is a contract issue or an environmental issue, something which will be decided in the courts, not in newspaper columns. What has already been decided is that impacts from past CO2 emissions are now affecting California coastal waters and species which live in them. CO2 emissions have resulted in a reduction of carbonate ions, affecting the saturation state for calcium carbonate, making it harder for shelled organisms to grow and maintain shells. The non-native Pacific oysters being grown and extracted from Drakes Estero makes it more difficult, and that is an impact worth considering.













 

 

 

Point Reyes National Seashore Wilderness: Part of the "Grand Plan" to eliminate farming in Marin and Sonoma Counties?

Update: It should be noted that Robin Carpenter only hosts a program on KWMR, but is not an employee of the station. The views and opinions expressed on her program are not necessarily those of the radio station, its funders or members.

Robin Carpenter

 

On June 17th, Amy Trainer, Executive Director of Environmental Action Committee of West Marin (EAC), was interviewed by Robin Carpenter on Marin County's independent non-profit radio station KWMR (scroll to June 17, click on play button, interview begins at 28 minutes), located at Point Reyes Station. Ms. Carpenter, a supporter of Drakes Bay Oyster Company's (DBOC) continued commercial operation in the Drakes Estero wilderness area, expressed concerns about whether EAC still represented the knot tying environmentalism to farming or if it was instead trying to eliminate farming on all of Point Reyes. [Note: If Ms. Carpenter is truly concerned about "discourse," collegial conversations and building relationships between farmers and others she may want to consider dropping her lead in song which implies the "city kids" are somehow "going to pay" because they don't have "fluffy dogs that smell like hogs."]

Amy Trainer

EAC Executive Director

 

In that interview Ms. Trainer was asked to address the belief by West Marin County farmers that allowing Drakes Estero to revert to the Congressionally designated wilderness was only part of what Phyllis Faber has described as a "Grand Plan" whose end goal was to eliminate farming in all of Marin and Sonoma Counties (see below).

Local Coastal Program Update
The interview began with a brief discussion about concerns expressed by EAC over amendments proposed to the Marin County Local Coastal Program. Ms. Carpenter expressed that the Farm Bureau felt EAC's letter was a surprise to which Ms. Trainer replied that it had only expressed a summary of concerns previously known. Among other points in that letter were concerns over the Farm Bureau's advocating for increased housing density:

Additionally, the Farm Bureau advocates that C-APZ-60 owners, in addition to one farm house, an agricultural home-stay or a bed-and-breakfast, and farm worker housing, should be allowed guest housing and second units as a Permitted Use, and two inter-generational homes for family members not engaged in agriculture on the property as a Principal Permitted Use.

Is a "Right Wing Agenda" causing a divorce in the family?
After addressing the Coastal Plan issue Ms. Carpenter then moved to the question of whether supporting DBOC's continued commercial operation in Drakes Estero was supporting a "right wing agenda" of expanding commercial operations within wilderness areas and whether that was causing a "divorce" between EAC and the Farm Bureau. At 44 minutes Ms. Trainer explained that EAC, most of its local members, and many others throughout the nation believe very strongly that preventing commercial operations within Drakes Estero is critical to the future integrity of other wilderness areas. If DBOC's commercial operation is allowed to continue it will open the door to other wilderness areas becoming developed. Following a discussion on whether oysters provide any filtering of significance and who will be responsible for overseeing the removal of oysters and associated gear, the interview ended with how EAC saw itself, with Ms. Trainer noting that EAC has always taken on what she describes as "the tough challenges." Included is strong support of the creation of the only shoreline wilderness area on the west coast.

Phyllis Faber

Part of the Grand Plan?

 

Response to the Trainer Interview - Part of a "Grand Plan"
In response to the 30 minute interview with Ms. Trainer, KWMR provided DBOC attorney Peter Prows, MALT co-founder Phyllis Faber, and Farm Bureau President Sam Dolcini 60 minutes to discuss DBOC and their perceived threat to agriculture its closure represented. In that interview, Ms. Faber, at 25:30 minutes, describes what she sees as the "Grand Plan" which starts with eliminating cattle on Point Reyes. In that "plan" she sees first, DBOC's commercial operation ending, followed by the Center for Biological Diversity coming along the shoreline to sample waters for pollution. There they will find nitrogen traced to cows which will result in the farmers being told "the cattle must go." She states that environmentalists "do not understand" what support for the Drakes Estero wilderness means. In her eyes it is that first the oyster farm will cease operation, then farming on Point Reyes will cease, followed by farming ending in all of Marin County, after which Sonoma County's farming will cease (28:34).

[Is this what the opening song for the 6/17 interview, "City Kids" refers to? In that song those "city kids" with TV's and "fluffy dogs which didn't smell like hogs" have seen the tables turn and "now they're gonna pay". As noted above, Ms. Carpenter should consider whether that really improves the dialogue she professes to believe in.]

Ideals should not diminish with time.
At 28:59 she states her fatalistic view: wilderness will never exist, and at 46:00 states people should just "be happy with the wildness the park does provide them" and to focus on something else, like climate change. How would she have felt if, when she was younger, she was told by developers in San Francisco that her idea of forming the Marin Agricultural Land Trust was a waste of time and she should instead focus on the ozone hole. Wilderness can still exist and ideals still drive actions.

Sam Dolcini, President

of the Marin County Farm Bureau

"continued pressure"

DBOC: Canary in a Coal Mine or an Egg about to Hatch?
Sam Dolcini, President of the Marin County Farm Bureau, at 35:50 uses a metaphor to describe what he sees as growing pressure on the agricultural community. In his eyes, the shifting views on agriculture represented by the closure of DBOC is an egg in the nest which is about to hatch, becoming a canary in a coal mine which will "go onto life support," something he sees as being "very scary." He feels the agricultural community is being given advice from a community (represented by EAC) who doesn't understand them.

Can't we all just get along? It's just a little oyster farm.
After DBOC accepted support from Cause of Action, David Vitter and Doc Hastings, the link to larger agendas was found to be harming efforts to continue operations in the shoreline wilderness area. Now a new shift scripted by others is attempting to create the current frame for the DBOC issue. Now it is  one of "can't we all just get along" and that there are more important things in the world than a wilderness area in Marin County for people to focus their energies on.

Statements by DBOC attorney Mr. Prows that support for the wilderness area Congress created is an "attack on this little oyster farm" and to go elsewhere only demonstrates a lack in understanding the larger picture of the importance wilderness plays in people's lives now, and more importantly, the role it will play for future generations. It is most certainly not an attempt to eliminate farming in Marin and Sonoma Counties. It can exist and it is worth fighting for.

Drakes Bay Oyster Company: Attorney Who Worked for Koch Brothers Upset with PBS Report, Files Freedom of Information Request

Update: 5/23 - Cause of Action has withdrawn its FOIA request to PBS.
Updated 5/18: From a local Marin County resident - "my they are touchy, aren't they!"
5/17: from Cause of Action web site: "Today, Cause of Action submitted a FOIA request to PBS for the footage of interviews that went into this piece to determine if PBS misled viewers." 




What a tangled web ...

Cause of Action's executive director Dan Epstein, past attorney for a foundation run by one of the conservative Koch brothers, is apparently upset he was described as such by PBS ( “an attorney who once worked for a foundation run by one of the conservative activist Koch brothers”). In reaction Cause of Action has filed a request under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) for footage of interviews, presumably under his direction as executive director. He is trying to understand why others mentioned (e.g., Tom Strickland and Amy Trainer) were not described with adjectives he sees fit.

Dan Epstein, past attorney

 for conservative Koch Brothers





(Prior to his current position at Cause of Action, and after working for the conservative Koch Brothers foundation, Mr. Epstein became a "Republican counsel for the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, which is chaired by Obama administration critic Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.)" (from Cause of Action web site). Representative Issa's reputation stands on its own conservative platform.)

Ms. Phyllis Faber

"Environmental activist" (per Mr. Epstein) is upset

she is now tied to Mr. Epstein's group.

One of the directors of Marin Media Institute

which owns Point Reyes Light newspaper.

MMI was co-founded by Dr. Goodman.

In addition to his being upset with his past job description Mr. Epstein is also upset that Phyllis Faber is not happy with her now being tied to groups such as his Cause of Action who clearly view the Drakes Bay Oyster Company as a means to obtain resource extraction rights from other wilderness areas. In the PBS interview, Ms. Faber states she is:

“not happy to be on the same side as Cause of Action.”  In the May 1, 2013 NewsHour broadcast, Ms. Faber is quoted as stating, “I am very disturbed by that and I don’t agree with it at all. I think what they’re headed for is trying to use a commercial operation in a park – they want to establish that in other public, on other public lands and I think that’s terribly unfortunate.” [regrettably it was something she might have considered before filing a lawsuit against the California Coastal Commission for taking action against Drakes Bay Oyster's "egregious" ignoring of violations]  

Note: The CCC has filed suit against Drakes Bay Oyster Company. DBOC's reaction? It's "in retaliation" for all of the law suits filed on our behalf. A "how to respond" lesson learned from Mr. Epstein. (click here for article) 

Like Mr. Epstein being upset with the description of he and his past employers, he also feels Cause of Action was not described to Ms. Faber as it should have been. He claims the only reason Cause of Action became involved was over concerns about the quality of information developed, brought to his attention by Drakes Bay Oyster Company's Kevin Lunny and Dr. Corey Goodman. Apparently he was unaware it was something which shellfish attorney Billy Plauche wrote to the National Park Service about in August of 2007, as requested by the Pacific Coast Shellfish Growers Association. (click here for 2007 letter)

Shellfish attorney Billy Plauche

who wrote to NPS about "information quality"

in 2007 for the PCSGA.

Mr. Epstein is certainly free to describe the reason for his actions however he wishes, but the fact is if this private commercial operation is allowed to operate in the designated wilderness it will set a precedent for how to dismantle the wilderness act and create a new "corporate wilderness" which benefits only private corporations or individuals, such as Mr. Epstein's past employer, the Koch Brothers.

 

Dr. Goodman (r) and Mark Dowie (l)



As an end note, if Mr. Epstein is truly concerned about unbiased press and government transparency he might consider exploring whether the local Point Reyes Light newspaper (owned by the Marin Media Institute which Dr. Goodman co-founded and which Phyllis Faber was also a director of) may be using unbiased adjectives in their reporting on Drakes Bay Oyster Company's problem, or how much money has been spent on water quality testing in Marin County using technology Dr. Goodman helped privatize (click here). More likely Mr. Epstein will continue to complain about the press and government overreach.

Drakes Bay Oyster Company Lease will Not be Renewed

Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar has agreed that the Drakes Bay Oyster Company commercial shellfish farm is not compatible with Drakes Estero wilderness designation. As such the lease will expire November 30. Despite the immense resources of the Pacific Coast Shellfish Growers Association and the East Coast Shellfish Growers Association, it was clearly demonstrated that commercial shellfish aquaculture has significant adverse impacts.
[click here for article]

Drakes Estero

Drakes Bay: Industrial Shellfish Farming in Wilderness Areas Should Stop

In 2005 a non-conforming shellfish farm located within Drakes Estero, California was purchased with full knowledge the right-of-use-and-occupancy authorization expired in 2012.  Drakes Estero would then be returned to a wilderness area as Congress had intended when it passed the Point Reyes National Seashore Wilderness Act of 1976.  Plastic bags and artificial structures with associated harvesting equipment and upland buildings would no longer be part of the designated wilderness area. In their place would be natural oyster reefs filtering the waters, providing permanent habitat for other species.  An area used for centuries by the Coast Miwok Indians and discovered by Sir Francis Drake in the 1500's would return to its natural state.

(photo by Robert Campbell)

This is wilderness?

When the Lunny family asked the Point Reyes National Seashore (PRNS) superintendent what he thought about their purchasing the farm, his answer was quite clear:   "I really don’t think that’s a very good idea. You know they have permit and environmental problems."  Despite this sage advice the Lunny's purchased the farm in 2005 based on their belief a profit could be made by 2012 when the permit expired.  It was a bad business decision.

The Lunny family and public relations friend Sam Singer (click here), with help from the Pacific Coast Shellfish Growers Association and the East Coast Shellfish Growers Association, are trying to frame the issue as the Lunny's being picked on by the National Park Service with catastrophic results if shellfish are no longer present to filter water.  It is a classic attempt to deflect the focus from the real issues, which are the Lunny's made a bad business decision and that natural shellfish reefs provide more habitat and filtering functions than an industrial farm does. (Read the US Fish and Wildlife's Bilogical Opinion on shellfish farming here. Searching for "Dumbauld" will provide ample evidence of the negatives of industrial farming vs. natural reefs.)

Why should this matter? If the Lunny's farm is allowed to continue beyond the expiration date other designated wilderness areas will be put at risk of being converted to industrial shellfish operations or other industrial activities (e.g., clear cutting in a wilderness area or placer mining in a wilderness river).  These operations do alter the habitat and species makeup of the natural ecosystems they impact and replace.  Harvesting destroys whatever habitat may have been created.  It is not what Congress intended the definition of "wilderness" to become.

A wilderness area is not meant to be a factory or an aquarium.  It is meant to preserve, or provide nature the opportunity to recreate, what once was for our future.  It is the difference in philosophy between John Muir and Gifford Pinchot.