|
|
| The Pulitzer Prize-Winning Weekly Newspaper |
«
Go back |
| Park critiques NAS report |
Andrew DeFeo
2009-11-12 |
|
In a critique of the National Academy of Science’s report on Drakes Estero, the National Park Service accuses the agency of straying from its scientific foundation, making unfounded claims and relying on value-based judgments. In particular, the critique addresses the claim of a native oyster presence in the estero and disputes the assertion that Drakes Bay Oyster Company is helping to restore a historical ecological function.
“Overall, the report inadequately considers the appropriate application of its scientific findings to informing decisions about the natural resource” wrote John Dennis, deputy science advisor for the National Park Service (NPS) and author of the untitled paper. The report was submitted to the Ocean Studies Board, a committee of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS).
On May 5, the NAS released Shellfish Mariculture in Drakes Estero, Point Reyes National Seashore, California, a report commissioned by the NPS to analize past studies on the impact of the oyster farm on Drakes Estero. The NPS had previously reported that the oyster company threatened seals, eelgrass and other natural elements within Drakes Estero.
The academy report concluded that park officials exaggerated and misrepresented its existing body of scientific research. The report found no evidence that the cultivation of oysters in Drakes Estero damaged the local ecosystem.
The seven-page critique published by the NPS questions factual information, scientific inferences, legal and regulatory misinterpretations, and the overall style and use of language and terminology.
The first point questions the presence of native oysters in Drakes Estero. While the academy report accuses the NPS of ignoring the past presence and ecological role of native Olympia oysters in the estero, the critique states that no specific documentation for the historical presence of native oysters is cited. Dennis says the report also gives evidence of limited natural substrate that would support native oysters, further implying a lack of evidence for a
native presence.
The critique also questions the academy’s claim that the farming of nonnative Pacific oysters helps restore a historic function in the estero. Dennis writes that the uncertainty created by this inability to compare existing conditions to former natural conditions is a key question that must be resolved when making resource management decisions.
The next dispute regards the impacts of mariculture activity on harbor seals. Dennis argues that there is a lack of discussion related to habitat factors that might influence a seal’s decision regarding where to haul out under varying circumstances.
He also says that it is not possible to assess potential ecological change in relation to the estero’s current water quality, nutrient inflow, sediment inflow and effect of tidal dynamics to the natural condition that would have existed in the absence of human influence.
Concerning the relationship of the estero to local ranching operations, the academy report states that cattle ranching takes place on all of the lands abutting the estero, probably modifying the composition and appearance of terrestrial vegetation. Dennis asserts that this is not entirely true. “Drakes Estero is not surrounded by cattle lands; the section east of Limantour Estero is full designated wilderness and the section between Limantour and Drakes Estero is undeveloped backcountry with one ranch,” he notes.
In the second section of the critique, titled “Legal and Regulatory Misinterpretations,” Dennis questions the report’s lack of explanations related to the statutory and regulatory environment within which NPS operates. He says that the discussion of the oyster farm’s Reservation of Use and Occupancy Agreement is outside of NAS’ professional expertise, a legal rather than a scientific matter.
Dennis critcizes the NAS’ use of the term wilderness, noting an absence of discussion of the park’s statutory definition of wilderness as land that is untrammeled, natural, undeveloped and provides solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation.
Local attorney Bill Wigert elaborated on this point. “These are all valid citations. The problem is that Drake’s Estero was designated ‘potential wilderness’ because it couldn’t meet the requirement for full wilderness protection,” he said. Wigert cited three reasons why Drakes Estero was not designated wilderness: the presence of the oyster farm; the fact that the state retained mineral and water rights when it conveyed the land to NPS; and the existence of the “pastoral zone,” which is the grazing land that borders much of the estero. “It is my firm opinion that the estero cannot be given full wilderness status unless all three objections are met, which I don’t believe will happen,” Wigert said.
The final legal point concerns the oyster farm as an interpretive facility. Dennis says that although the past owner had an interest in this endeavor, a center was never approved through a public process.
Kevin Lunny, owner of Drakes Bay Oyster Company, disagrees. The farm underwent a robust public process including National Environmental Protection Agency and the California Environmental Quality Act reviews, and received letters of support from environmental organizations including the Sierra Club and the Environmental Action Committee, he said.
“The center is and always has been a very important interpretive center,” Lunny said. “We provide tours and information to everyone from kindergarten classes to graduate students in marine biology.”
The rest of the critique focuses on style and terminology, citing the title of the document as misleading and questioning the value judgments made while considering certain ecological change as “beneficial,” or “enhanced.”
|
|
| |
|
