Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 7
CHAPTER 1
Introduction
Drakes Estero
Located 25 miles northwest of San Francisco, California, Drakes Estero is a shallow, tidal, soft
sediment coastal lagoon within the Point Reyes National Seashore. The region is characterized by warm,
dry summers and cool, wet winters. Major habitats in Drakes Estero are intertidal wetlands (mostly mud
and sand flats) and eelgrass beds.1 The Estero provides important habitat for a diverse assemblage of
shorebirds and waterfowl,2 and about 20% of California's mainland harbor seal population (NRC, 2009).3
The ecosystem consists of five branching bays (Barries, Creamery, Schooner, Home, and Estero de
Limantour) with an area of ~2,500 acres4 and a relatively deep (~26 ft),5 narrow mouth that opens to the
Pacific waters of Drakes Bay. The project area discussed herein (~1,700 acres) does not include Estero
de Limantour, but encompasses the four remaining bays and most of the main body of the Estero.6
Drakes Estero is well mixed vertically with a mean depth of ~6.5 ft and a tidal range of ~6 ft.7 Tidal
pumping is the dominant physical forcing mechanism most of the time, except for events that change
coastal water levels such as a storm surge or tsunami.
With the exception of major rainfall events (which occur most frequently during winter) land-based
inputs of fresh water and nutrients to Drakes Estero are low (especially during summer); and seasonal
variations in temperature, salinity, and nutrients in the Estero reflect those of the adjacent coastal ocean
in Drakes Bay (NRC, 2009). Thus, inputs of new nutrients to the Estero are highest during the upwelling
season (March September) and events such as the El Niņo-Southern Oscillation and Pacific Decadal
Oscillation can influence Drakes Estero water conditions. Phytoplankton blooms in the Estero occur most
frequently during summer (Buck et al., 2011; 2012, abstracts).
Shellfish Mariculture 1932 2012
Farming of the Pacific oyster (Crassostrea gigas, a non-indigenous species) began in 1932, and
has been conducted continuously since that time. As of 2005, local oyster operations have been owned
and operated by the Drakes Bay Oyster Company (DBOC). Today, shellfish culture (bags and racks) is
8
concentrated in the main body of Drakes Estero and near the mouths of Schooner and Home Bays.
Three main species of shellfish have been farmed in Drakes Estero: Pacific oyster, Manila clam
(Venerupis philippinarum), and purple-hinged rock scallops (Crassadoma gigantean; an indigenous
species). Annual production of Pacific oysters, the primary species farmed in Drakes Estero, has varied
considerably from year to year (e.g., from a maximum of 684,000 lbs of Pacific oysters in 1994 to a
minimum of 34,000 lbs in 2000). Since DBOC acquired ownership of operations in December 2004,
Pacific oyster harvest has increased from about 139,000 lbs in the first year (2005) to 585,000 lbs
(2010).9
1
Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), p. 158, 166, 170; Figures 3-1, 3-2, and 3-3.
2
DEIS, p. 181.
3
DEIS, p. 179.
4
DEIS, p. 8.
5
DEIS, p. 159.
6
DEIS, p. 166; Figures ES-1 and ES-2.
7
DEIS, p. 159.
8
DEIS, Figure ES-2.
9
DEIS, p. 66; numbers based on the conversion of 100 oysters/ gallon, 8.5 pounds of oysters/ gallon.
7
OCR for page 8
8 Scientific Review of the DEIS DBOC SUP
Policy Context
Drakes Estero (Figure 1.1) is part of the Point Reyes National Seashore (henceforth referred to
as "the Seashore") which was established by Congress in 1962 (Point Reyes National Seashore Enabling
Act, 16 U.S.C. § 459c459c-7). In 1972, the mariculture property was sold to the National Park Service
(NPS), in exchange for a 40-year Reservation of Use and Occupancy (RUO) and Special Use Permit
(SUP) allowing continuation of commercial shellfish operations until expiration. In the Point Reyes
Wilderness Act of 1976, Congress designated 25,370 acres of the Seashore as wilderness and 8,00310
acres as potential wilderness (NRC, 2009). The latter includes approximately 1,363 acres of tidal
wetlands and subtidal waters within Drakes Estero utilized by DBOC operations (Point Reyes Wilderness
Act, Public Law 95-544).11 The current RUO and SUP will expire by law on November 30, 2012,12 thereby
terminating DBOC operations in Drakes Estero. The removal of this sole nonconforming activity would
result in conversion of Drakes Estero from congressionally designated potential wilderness to
congressionally designated wilderness, becoming one of eleven marine wilderness areas in the U.S. and
the first on the west coast (NPS, 2007).
FIGURE 1.1. Drakes Estero is located within the Point Reyes National Seashore in Marin County,
California. Inset provides larger view of Drakes Estero and shows the location of Drakes Bay Oyster
Company (DBOC). Map courtesy of David Press, NPS (reprinted from NRC, 2009).
10
DEIS, p. 15.
11
DEIS, p. 11.
12
In 2004, the U.S. Department of the Interior Solicitor determined that, based on the intent of Public Law No. 94-544, Public Law
No. 94-567, and NPS wilderness management policies, NPS had no authority to extend the RUO and SUP beyond November
30, 2012. DEIS, p. 2.
OCR for page 9
Introduction 9
At the request of the NPS, the National Research Council conducted a study to help clarify
potential impacts of shellfish farming on the ecology and socioeconomics of Drakes Estero (NRC, 2009).
After evaluating the limited scientific literature available on Drakes Estero and relevant research on other
similar ecosystems, the committee concluded that "there is a lack of strong scientific evidence that
shellfish farming has major adverse effects on Drakes Estero" at current (2008-2009) levels of production
and operating practices (NRC, 2009).
On October 30, 2009, Congress granted the Secretary of the Department of the Interior (DOI) the
discretionary authority to issue a new 10-year SUP (Public Law 111-88, Section 124). This authority
allows, but does not require, the Secretary to permit DBOC's continued nonconforming use of the
potential wilderness area until November 30, 2022. DBOC submitted a request for the issuance of a new
permit upon expiration of the existing authorizations. Thus, the NPS prepared an Environmental Impact
Statement pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to inform this decision. Through the
NEPA process, NPS engaged the public and evaluated the effects of alternatives related to the issuance
of a new 10-year SUP for the commercial shellfish operation.
The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), released in September 2011, examines
DBOC operations and facilities in and adjacent to Drakes Estero, and offers four alternatives for
consideration by the Secretary of the Interior with regard to the permit request (Box 1.1).
BOX 1.1
Four Alternatives Presented in the DEIS
Alternative A evaluates the "no action" alternative. If the Secretary of Interior does not approve renewal of the SUP,
DBOC must terminate all shellfish mariculture, remove its personal property and nonconforming infrastructure, and
undertake steps to restore the area to good order and condition.
The NPS DEIS also analyzes the impacts of three alternative scenarios with differing levels of shellfish production if
the SUP were to be extended:
Alternative B would permit continued shellfish mariculture at the fall 2010 levels of operation (the date when NPS
initiated evaluation under the EIS). Shellfish production would be limited to 600,000 lbs/yr; total acreage of the SUP
area, both onshore and offshore, would be ~1,083 acres; Pacific and European flat oysters (Ostrea edulis, a non-
indigenous species), and Manila clams could be grown in Area 1 (1,077 acres),13 and purple-hinged rock scallops
could be grown in Area 2 (1 acre); new lease boundaries would exclude shellfish culture from harbor seal protected
areas with a 100 yard buffer; boat routes, to be approved by NPS, would avoid seal protected areas and minimize
prop damage to eelgrass beds. DBOC operations would be subject to NPS harbor seal protection protocol.
Alternative C would require a reduction in the current scale of DBOC operations, consistent with the conditions and
operations that existed at the time the current SUP was signed in April 2008. Shellfish production would be limited to
500,000 lbs/yr; total acreage of the SUP area, including both onshore and offshore areas, would be ~901 acres;
Pacific and European flat oysters could be cultivated in Area 1 (896 acres), Manila clams and purple-hinged rock
scallops could be grown only in Area 2 (1 acre); new lease boundaries would exclude harbor seal protected areas
with a 100 yard buffer; boat routes, to be approved by NPS, would avoid seal protected areas and minimize damage
prop to eelgrass beds. DBOC operations would be subject to NPS harbor seal protection protocol.
Alternative D permits an increase in the scale of operations, and an additional or modified onshore facilities and
infrastructure as requested by DBOC as part of the EIS process. Shellfish production is limited to 850,000 lbs/yr; total
acreage of the SUP area, including both onshore and offshore areas, would be ~1,087 acres; Pacific, Olympia and
European flat oysters, Manila clams, and purple-hinged rock scallops may be grown in Area 1 (1,082 acres; Area 2
would no longer be managed as a separate permitted area); new lease boundaries will exclude harbor seal protected
areas with a 100 yard buffer; boat routes, to be approved by NPS, will avoid seal protected areas and minimize prop
damage to eelgrass beds. DBOC operations would be subject to NPS harbor seal protection protocol.
13
See DEIS p. 61 and Table 2.5 (p. 122-125) for description of lease areas under the action alternatives and Figure 2-1 for map that
shows locations of Areas 1 and 2.
OCR for page 10
10 Scientific Review of the DEIS DBOC SUP
The DEIS was open for public comment from September 23, 2011 to December 9, 2011, and
three public open house meetings were held in the vicinity of the Seashore. More than 52,000 public
comments were submitted to NPS during the comment period. The DOI commissioned an independent
peer review of the DEIS (specifically Chapters 3 and 4) by Atkins, North America, specifically targeted at
the scientific underpinnings of the DEIS. The peer review was tasked to "examine the scientific and
technical information and scholarly analysis presented in the document and assess whether: (1)
appropriate scientific information was used; (2) reasonable conclusions were drawn from the information;
(3) significant information was omitted from consideration; and (4) NPS interpretation of the information is
reasonable" (Atkins report, p. 1). In addition, in December 2011, Congress requested an NRC review of
the scientific foundation of the DEIS. In May 2012, the NPS commissioned the NRC to conduct the review
reported herein.
Statement of Task
The ad hoc committee was given two tasks by the NRC: (1) Assess the scientific information,
analyses, and conclusions presented in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for Drakes Bay
Oyster Company Special Use Permit and (2) evaluate whether the peer review of the DEIS conducted by
Atkins, North America for the U.S. Department of the Interior, is fundamentally sound and materially
sufficient. The committee was asked not to perform an independent evaluation of the environmental
impacts of the proposed alternatives, but will restrict its findings to the strength of the scientific arguments
in the DEIS and identify concerns, if any, not covered in the Atkins peer review.
The DEIS identifies and evaluates eleven (11) resource categories that may be affected by
continued commercial farming of shellfish. Of these, the committee's evaluation is limited to eight (8):
wetlands, eelgrass, wildlife and wildlife habitat, special-status species, coastal flood zones, soundscapes,
water quality, and socioeconomic resources. Because the impact assessments for the other three (3)
categories covered in the DEIS (wilderness, visitor experience and recreation, and the National Park
Service [NPS] operations) are not based primarily on scientific research and analysis, the current study
will not cover these topics nor will it review any policy or legal information.
National Environmental Policy Act
The NPS DEIS discussed herein was developed under the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) process. NEPA requires federal agencies to prepare Environmental Impact Statements (EISs) for
"major federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment" (NEPA, Section
102(2)(C)). The NRC committee is mindful that the DEIS is a NEPA document and not a scientific paper
subject to the rigorous requirements of professional journal articles. While a NEPA document must be
scientifically rigorous (see: e.g., 40 CFR § 1502.24), EISs are prepared for a lay audience and to inform
the public and agency decision-makers regarding the potential environmental impacts of a proposed
action and reasonable alternatives.
In addressing the statement of task, the committee understands that to "assess the scientific
information, analyses, and conclusions" in the DEIS means to address whether, in the committee's view,
the data and analyses are consistent with academic scientific practice. The committee recognizes that
such a standard may be different than those generally applied to documents prepared in conformance
with NEPA. For example, scientists formulate conclusions based on the collection and analysis of data.
By contrast, the EIS process requires formulation of conclusions based on the data and analyses that are
available or that could be reasonably attained given time and resources, as long as it is sufficient to allow
a decision maker to make a reasoned choice among alternatives. Therefore, in addition to evaluating the
quality of the scientific information in the DEIS, the committee provides an assessment of the level of
uncertainty in the conclusions reached in the DEIS to indicate the strength of the scientific evidence
underlying these conclusions.
OCR for page 11
Introduction 11
Approach and Organization of the Report
The NPS asked the NRC to provide a review of the DEIS on an expedited schedule of three
months to fit within the timeframe of the NEPA analysis and the November 30, 2012 expiration of the
Special Use Permit that allows DBOC to operate in Drakes Estero. As a consequence, the committee only
convened one in-person meeting held at the National Academies' Beckman Center in Irvine, California on
July 9-12, 2012. On July 10 of the meeting, the committee held a public session open to organizations
that have been involved in the DEIS or that otherwise have an interest in the DEIS to participate either in
person or via web conference. The public session was organized to allow the committee members to
efficiently gather information of relevance to their review of the DEIS through a question and answer
session. Time was also set aside for public comment. The agenda and list of participants in the public
session is available in Appendix D. Organizations and members of the public were also encouraged to
submit information for the committee's consideration in writing. These documents are part of the public
record for this study, available through the National Academies' Public Access Records Office,14 and
posted on the internet.15
The committee's evaluation of eight of the DEIS resource categories (wetlands, eelgrass, wildlife
and wildlife habitat, special-status species, coastal flood zones, soundscapes, water quality, and
socioeconomic resources) was conducted in three stages as follows:
(1) Review and compare the information and analysis provided for alternatives A, B, C, and D for
each resource category by addressing the following questions:
· Are interpretations, analyses and conclusions scientifically sound based on (a) information
and data provided in the DEIS, (b) additional results of scientific studies not considered in
the DEIS, and (c) your expertise?
· Are there alternate conclusions that are equally sound or logical based on current scientific
knowledge?
(2) Evaluate the Final Report on Peer Review of the Science Used in the DEIS (the Atkins report)
against the committee's evaluations of the DEIS to determine whether the peer review is
fundamentally sound and materially sufficient.
(3) Provide suggestions for strengthening the scientific information in the final EIS.
The committee's review of the DEIS begins with a discussion of observations related to how the
DEIS analysis was framed (Chapter 2). The committee then evaluates the information, analyses and
conclusions presented in the DEIS (Chapter 3). The evaluation includes a discussion of the uncertainty
underlying the conclusions in the DEIS and offers alternative interpretations of the existing information
where appropriate. Following the committee's evaluation of the Atkins Peer Review (Chapter 4), the report
concludes (Chapter 5) with a scientific assessment of the DEIS that leads to a set of suggestions for
strengthening the science presented in the DEIS and reducing levels of uncertainty associated with the
conclusions reported in the DEIS. The committee was not asked and hence does not comment on the
sufficiency of the DEIS to meet NEPA requirements.
14
www8.nationalacademies.org/cp/ManageRequest.aspx?key=49463.
15
dels.nas.edu/global/osb/DrakeEstero.
OCR for page 12
