Editor's note: This updates to include mention of a letter the oyster farm's attorneys sent to Interior Secretary Salazar on November 1 stating that his decision wasn't bound by the National Environmental Policy Act, an interesting point in that the lawsuit argues that he violated NEPA.
An oyster company denied an extension on its lease to operate in Point Reyes National Seashore has gone to court in a bid to overturn that decision, arguing that Interior Secretary Ken Salazar acted rashly and without cause to deny the extension.
The 100-page filing, which seeks an injunction to allow the Drakes Bay Oyster Co. to continue operating until the lawsuit is settled, maintains that Secretary Salazar has torn "the fabric of a rural community" with his decision.
Drakes Bay Oyster Co. has employed 31 workers who produced between 450,000-500,000 pounds of Pacific oyster meat a year from Drakes Estero inside the Seashore for Bay Area outlets. The company's fate has been fanned in recently years by both U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, an ardent supporter of the oyster company and its small workforce, and environmentalists and conservationists who wanted to see the estero granted official wilderness designation.
Those who wanted the oyster company to shut down maintain Congress long ago directed that Drakes Estero become officially designated wilderness once all "non-conforming uses" were removed. The Drakes Bay Oyster Co.'s 40-year lease to the area expired on November 30, and those in support of the wilderness designation saw it as the perfect opportunity to remove the company, a non-conforming use, from the estero.
But those backing the oyster company maintained that the lease carried a renewal clause that should have been triggered by the National Park Service.
It was in 1976 when Congress said the estero one day should be designated as official wilderness. The 1976 Point Reyes wilderness legislation that set aside 25,370 acres of the national seashore as wilderness cited another 8,003 acres encompassing the estero that would be "essentially managed as wilderness, to the extent possible, with efforts to steadily continue to remove all obstacles to the eventual conversion of these lands and waters to wilderness status" -- and the oyster operation was seen as being incompatible with such a designation.
The lawsuit filed in oyster company owner Kevin Lunny's behalf by Cause of Action, a law firm that works to hold government accountable, largely is built on the contention that the secretary's decision violated the National Environmental Policy Act, in part because the National Park Service failed to prepare a thorough environmental impact study on the oyster farm's operations at Drakes Estero.
The Seashore's Final Environmental Impact Statement, quietly issued on November 20, did not contain a "full and fair" discussion of the environmental impacts, reads the filing, and also fails to "inform decisonmakers and the public of the reasonable alternatives which would avoid or minimize adverse impacts."
However, Secretary Salazar was acting on a directive Congress issued in 2009 that he personally consider renewing the oyster farm's lease for another decade. When he announced his decision on November 29, the secretary specifically referred to that directive, noting that it "does not require me (or the NPS) to prepare a DEIS or an FEIS or otherwise comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 or any other law."
"The 'notwithstanding any other provision of law' language in Section 124 expressly exempts my decision from any substantive or procedural legal requirements," Secretary Salazar continued. "Nothing in the DEIS or the FEIS that the NPS released to the public suggests otherwise."
And while Mr. Lunny's lawyers maintain in the lawsuit that the Interior secretary was indeed bound by the legal provisions of NEPA and that his failure to adhere to that act was "arbitrary and capricious" as well as "an abuse of discretion," in a November 1 letter they pointed out that he was not bound by NEPA.
"...Section 124 includes a 'general repealing clause' that allows you to override conflicting provisions in other laws -- including NEPA -- to issue the (Special Use Permit)," wrote Ryan P. Waterman, an attorney with the firm of Stoel Rives that is representing Mr. Lunny, on Nov. 1 (attached below).
The lawsuit, filed in federal court in northern California, asks the court to either order Secretary Salazar to extend the oyster company's lease for 10 years or set aside his ruling and direct the Park Service to conduct a new DEIS and FEIS "that complies with all NEPA and other applicable substantive and procedural requirements to enable a new, neutral decision-maker to issue a NEPA-compliant (Record of Decision) allowing DBOC to continue to operate...."
Story Categories:
A copy of National Parks Traveler's financial statements may be obtained by sending a stamped, self-addressed envelope to: National Parks Traveler, P.O. Box 980452, Park City, Utah 84098. National Parks Traveler was formed in the state of Utah for the purpose of informing and educating about national parks and protected areas.
Residents of the following states may obtain a copy of our financial and additional information as stated below:
- Florida: A COPY OF THE OFFICIAL REGISTRATION AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION FOR NATIONAL PARKS TRAVELER, (REGISTRATION NO. CH 51659), MAY BE OBTAINED FROM THE DIVISION OF CONSUMER SERVICES BY CALLING 800-435-7352 OR VISITING THEIR WEBSITE. REGISTRATION DOES NOT IMPLY ENDORSEMENT, APPROVAL, OR RECOMMENDATION BY THE STATE.
- Georgia: A full and fair description of the programs and financial statement summary of National Parks Traveler is available upon request at the office and phone number indicated above.
- Maryland: Documents and information submitted under the Maryland Solicitations Act are also available, for the cost of postage and copies, from the Secretary of State, State House, Annapolis, MD 21401 (410-974-5534).
- North Carolina: Financial information about this organization and a copy of its license are available from the State Solicitation Licensing Branch at 888-830-4989 or 919-807-2214. The license is not an endorsement by the State.
- Pennsylvania: The official registration and financial information of National Parks Traveler may be obtained from the Pennsylvania Department of State by calling 800-732-0999. Registration does not imply endorsement.
- Virginia: Financial statements are available from the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, 102 Governor Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219.
- Washington: National Parks Traveler is registered with Washington State’s Charities Program as required by law and additional information is available by calling 800-332-4483 or visiting www.sos.wa.gov/charities, or on file at Charities Division, Office of the Secretary of State, State of Washington, Olympia, WA 98504.
National parks and their natural resources belong to you. The National Parks Traveler works to ensure you know how these essential places are being cared for.
Sign Up For Our Weekly Newsletter
Unsubscribe at any time.
INN Member
The easiest way to explore RV-friendly National Park campgrounds.
Here’s the definitive guide to National Park System campgrounds where RVers can park their rigs.
Our app is packed with RVing- specific details on more than 250 campgrounds in more than 70 national parks.
You’ll also find stories about RVing in the parks, tips helpful if you’ve just recently become an RVer, and useful planning suggestions.
Comments
EC, Devaney didn't interpret, makeup, or write the House report that accompanied the wilderness legislation and which explained the congressional intent to designate Drakes Estero as wilderness; he quoted it.
As for relevancy, on December 4 the Park Service posted notice that "all uses in Point Reyes National Seashore that are prohibited by the Wilderness Act (Pub. L. 88-577) have ceased and certain Federal lands that were previously designated as potential wilderness are, upon publication of this notice, designated as wilderness."
http://govpulse.us/entries/2012/12/04/2012-29381/designation-of-potentia...
It seems a bit premature since the oyster racks are still there. Even if one assumes that NPS has the authority to order the removal of the oysters and oyster farm property, there was a 90 day notice given to complete the removal.
I'm still wondering what happened at the California Fish and Game Commission meeting in San Diego. The last I saw was that an attorney representing the oyster farm was arguing about who had authority over shellfish farming in Drakes Estero. I didn't really see anything after they came back from the lunch break. I don't know the whole list, especially since they took several comments and the were out of order with respect to agenda 7 items. I did see Neal Desai, someone from a Marin agricultural group, one person who was railing against NPS, and the attorney I mentioned previously.
Ah yes, hooray for buerocrats and legal speak to make this such a great country. Somehow this BS just doesn't match up to the "Intent" going back a bit farther in recorded history. Say, how about 1777 for a good year. I doubt there was mention of Point Reyes National Seashore/Drakes Bay Oyster but what do you think their intent was? Put Drakes Bay Oyster employees on food stamps so some administrator wearing the Hat won't have to watch people actually working? Certainly you can recognize a little tongue in cheek but there is some truth here, I believe. Find a way to work it out, please.
I am not responding to you, Y_P_W. I agree with others on here that appreciate your efforts and theme.
That is interesting, I thought only Congress could do that. Looks like another Bureaucrat stretching beyond his authority. And again as to intent, I think I will take the word of the bill's author over anybody else, including some staffer that writes a report before the bill is even passed and an administrator that selectively quotes - and thereby interprets - that report.
PS -If you want to call me EC, why don't you free up that name and he can post with complete transparency.
That is the way potential wilderness is converted to designated wilderness. Once the "nonconforming uses" cease, that is published in the Federal Register and the area becomes fully designated wilderness. The Congressional authority already exists.
However, to publish the notice at this point seems rather premature. The oyster racks are still there. I don't think Kevin Lunny is going to start to remove them until he's out of legal options. It seems like Director Jarvis is putting the cart ahead of the horse.
Ah, I am the beneficiary of разрядка and out of the Gulag.
Thanks again ypw, I wasn't aware that the only impediment from potential to actual was the elimination of nonconfroming uses. Puts a lot of incentive on the powers that be to get rid of those "nonconforming" uses no matter the consequences.
And just out of curiosity - is that just the way it works or is that defined in the Wilderness Act or some other legislation?
Edit: I meant to say перестро́йка rather than разрядка but they both are applicable.
The Point Reyes Wilderness Act of 1976 doesn't say anything about how it's supposed to happen, but publishing the notice in the Federal Register is the way they declared the former Muddy Hollow powerline corridor full wilderness. I remember seeing the notice somewhere.
The procedure is in the California Wilderness Act of 1984. I don't know if any areas have been added to full wilderness under the Act.
http://www.nps.gov/legal/parklaws/Supp_V/laws1-volume1-appendix.pdf
I'm also not sure that the NPS Director has the authority to publish the notice as he's attempting to do. I think it has to come directly from the Secretary of the Interior in order to be legal.
Having witnessed a Superintendent that was quite full of himself and his power it doesn't surprise me that some may assume power that they should not have. It's all about the greater good, you know. Powers that many went to great lengths to delineate because they understood the weakness of the human condition. But then, I appreciate humbling where as politicos despise it:)! I'm going to step aside a bit, realizing there are better minds dealing with getting to where we want to go to truly connect and convey to individuals and not the masses as many in resource management seek. It's me, I know, as I've had so many incredibly personal experiences with visitors and do not treat them lightly.
I'm confused. So this is a California designation not a national one? Isn't this federal land? How does California have the power to designate on federal land and how does the NPS have authority to implement a California law?
I just included the section from the California Wilderness Act because that's the way the feds declare that potential wilderness has been converted to full wilderness. It was a law passed by Congress. The Point Reyes Wilderness Act was the first time Congress had used the term "potential wilderness additions" and they didn't define the mechanics of how it could be done.
However, there still is confusion over the authority to control the rights to shellfish farming. The state hints that it still has those rights. The feds unilaterally act as if those rights have been ceded to the feds. This is a situation that lawyers love.
The California Wilderness Act of 1984 was what Congress called the package of wilderness bills....
I found something interesting:
http://books.google.com/books?id=8kXQAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source...
Besides the fact that they have Alan Cranston as being from Wyoming, there's something from the cosponsor, who I believe is John Burton.
He stated (page 273) that the oyster farm could be included in the wilderness as a "prior, non-conforming use".
On page 361:
Regarding the conversion of potential to formally designated wilderness, there is at least on prior example in California. In January 2011, the BLM signed off on the Elkhorn RIdge potential wilderness, an area that had been designated as potential wilderness in the 2006 Northcoast Wild Heritage Act. Inholdings acquired prior to the legislation had been heavily logged but were recovering satisfactorily to the point where the BLM office in Arcata felt that they could be included.
You can read the Federal Register notice here: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-01-13/pdf/2011-606.pdf
Thanks Kurt - I should have figured that one out my self. Now here is my conundrum.
The referenced paragraph indicates the properties go to wilderness with the cessation of non-conforming activities. That paragraph, however, limits those conversions to lands specifically listed in Section 106. A search for Point Reyes produces no entry in Sec 106. Is it part of some other titled land that is listed?
Also, I would note that this (very broad) legislation was in 1984 and certainly cannot be assumed to reflect the intent of the original legislation that was specific to Point Reyes.
Oh, and by the way. This land grab is but the beginning of Agenda 21. The UN has designated 50% of US territory as land that should be devoid of human presence.
https://sites.google.com/site/waterwatchalliance/wildlands.jpg
I only brought up California Wilderness Act Section 108 because it's a decent overview of how it's been done regardless of whether the specific method was spelled out in the enabling legislation. The Point Reyes Wilderness Act doesn't actually say anything about how a potential wilderness addition gets converted to fully designated wilderness. However, in the past they simply published a notice in the Federal Register and it was considered full wilderness.
ecbuck---Among all the comments from the armchair lawyers on the oyster farm issue, it's good that you refocused our attention on Agenda 21. Maybe now we can have an equally robust discussion on the U.N. I am sure it would be enlightening.
Rick
It seems that some aren't very respectful of grass roots efforts. It appears to me for the most part it's those folks with all the abreviations before and after their names that have departed from much common sense in exchange for whatever is driving things. Snark is where it's at, apparently.
Has that been done outside the lands listed in the 1984 act? Do you have any examples. Not questioning your truthfullness, I just want to get a full understanding of the process. If that is something established as a legislated practice, there wouldn't seem to be a need to include that language in the 1984 act.
Yeah. In fact it was done in Point Reyes.
http://www.nps.gov/pore/parkmgmt/upload/lawsandpolicies_fr_doc_99_29779.pdf
I can't seem to copy and paste. However, it references Public Law 94-567, which was a larger wilderness bill that seemed to have duplicated most of the the language of Public Law 94-544 (Point Reyes Wilderness Act). That was actually enacted two days later.
http://www.nps.gov/pore/parkmgmt/upload/lawsandpolicies_publiclaw94_567.pdf
And you know the whole thing about "managed as wilderness to the extent possible"? That's not even in the Point Reyes Wilderness Act. That was language specified in future Congressional wilderness designations. The PRWA was the first time "potential wilderness" had ever been designated.
http://www.nps.gov/pore/parkmgmt/upload/lawsandpolicies_publiclaw94_544.pdf
I still think they're messing up the procedure. The NPS Director seems to think that he can make issue the notice and it's legal, when the law clearly says that his boss needs to do so. The NPS Director actually issued the 1999 notice for Muddy Hollow.
Thanks ypw. Your post are quite informative.
Pages