Tag Archives: Sir Francis Drake

Dodgy, agenda-driven NPS oystergate policies comments and webcast July 10

National Academy of Sciences hearing on dodgy NPS “scientific” evaluation of permit renewal for Drakes Bay Oyster Company. Thanks to Jane G. of Point Reyes and her Oysterzone blog.

back to the pod invasion

When where, who can access/comment? the Webcast (need to pre-register)

——- from an email ——-

Good Morning Everyone:

It has come to my attention that for those who cannot attend,

  1. their comments and submissions may be made prior to the meeting and
  2. the meeting may be attended remotely (webcast and teleconference).
  3. whether attending in person or via webcast / teleconference you must RSVP to this address:

http://www.surveygizmo.com/s3/960544/Evaluation-of-DBOC-Special-Use-Permit-DEIS-Peer-Review

I strongly suggest attending in person if you can, and if you cannot, please attend remotely.

This from Donna Yamagata:

This could be the last opportunity for all of us to show our support in a public arena for the oyster farm. If enough folks are interested in attending, a bus would be hired to drive everyone from West Marin to Irvine and back. This would be an all-day and all-night commitment since just the drive down to Irvine would take approximately 7.5 hours. (Travel pillows, blankets and caffeine are recommended.) Please use the attached Doodle link to let us know whether you would be willing to make the trip and if anyone else will be travelling with you.

http://www.doodle.com/wmu6y2eck8k9epdh

Jane Gyorgy

FYI:

National Research Council’s committee to review the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Drakes Bay Oyster Company Special Use Permit will hold a public information gatheringmeeting on the afternoon of July 10.

a. The committee will hold a public information gathering meeting on July 10, 2012, at the NAS’Beckman Center in Irvine, CA from 1 p.m. – 5:30 p.m.

b. A teleconference line will be available for those wishing to make public comments, but cannot attend in person.

c. The meeting will be webcast and a teleconference line will be available for people to participate remotely.

d. Audio recordings of the public meeting will be available at this website sometime after the meeting ends.

The committee expects to invite representatives associated with the preparation of the following reports:

a. Draft Environmental Impacts Statement Drakes Bay Oyster Company Special Use Permit (NPS, 2011)

b. Final Report on Peer Review of the Science Used in the National Park Service’s Draft Environmental Impacts Statement Drakes Bay Oyster Company Special Use Permit (Atkins, 2012)

c. Comments on Drakes Bay Oyster Company Special Use Permit Environmental Impact Statement Point Reyes National Seashore (Environ, 2011)

d. Mariculture and Harbor Seals in Drakes Estero, California (MMC, 2011)

The National Research Council welcomes the suggestion of questions and submission of other relevant information that may inform their discussion with the invited representatives at the meeting. Again, the committee requests that such information and questions be provided as early as possible to one of the addresses above.

§ supplemental information

§ analyses

§ oral comments relevant to its review from attendees of the meeting.

Anyone wishing to attend and/or to provide oral comments to the committee should use the following link to RSVP:

http://www.surveygizmo.com/s3/960544/Evaluation-of-DBOC-Special-Use-Permit-DEIS-Peer-Review

People wishing to make such oral comments will

a. have only a few minutes and

b. should limit their comments to information relevant to the committee’s task that has not already been presented,

c. are welcome to submit longer written comments at the above e-mail address or physical mail address.

d. Visual presentations can be submitted electronically, but cannot be displayed at the meeting because many are expected to attend the meeting via the webcast.

Additional information regarding the agenda can be found on the Academies’ Current Projects System (CPS, available at: http://www8.nationalacademies.org/cp/) and the technical details regarding remote access will be made available on this website at a later time.

One must RSVP to attend (see item 1 below)

Time to speak and the number of people allowed to speak are limited. (See item 2-f, below)

Keeping in mind item 2-f below, those wishing to comment publicly, should meet soon to decide exactly what needs to be said and to choose who wants to present which topic(s) to ensure all salient points be covered.

From the websites:

  1. To RSVP for the open session listed below please go here:http://www.surveygizmo.com/s3/960544/Evaluation-of-DBOC-Special-Use-Permit-DEIS-Peer-Review. For additional information please go to the committee website:http://dels.nas.edu/global/osb/DrakeEstero
  2. The open session will be
    1. Webcast and recorded (recordings will be available online after the meeting).
    2. A teleconference line will be available for those wishing to make public comments, but cannot attend in person.
    3. Detailed instructions for those planning to attend or participate remotely will be made available on the committee’s website at a later time.
    4. In addition, the committee is interested in receiving supplemental information, analyses, and oral comments relevant to its review from attendees of the meeting.
    5. Anyone wishing to attend and/or to provide oral comments to the committee should use the following link to RSVP: http://www.surveygizmo.com/s3/960544/Evaluation-of-DBOC-Special-Use-Permit-DEIS-Peer-Review
    6. People wishing to make such oral comments will have only a few minutes and shouldlimit their comments to information relevant to the committee’s task that has not already been presented, but are welcome to submit longer written comments at the above e-mail address or physical mail address.
    7. Visual presentations can be submitted electronically, but cannot be displayed at the meeting because many are expected to attend the meeting via the webcast.
    8. Additional information regarding the agenda can be found on the Academies’ Current Projects System (CPS, available at: http://www8.nationalacademies.org/cp/) and the technical details regarding remote access will be made available on this website at a later time.

Comment on Provisional Committee Appointments

Viewers may communicate with the National Academies at any time over the project’s duration. In addition, formal comments on the provisional appointments to a committee of the National Academies are solicited during the 20-calendar day period following the posting of the membership and, as described below, these comments will be considered before committee membership is finalized. We welcome your comments (Use the Feedback link below).

Please note that the appointments made to this committee are provisional, and changes may be made. No appointment shall be considered final until we have evaluated relevant information bearing on the committee’s composition and balance. This information will include the confidential written disclosures to The National Academies by each member-designate concerning potential sources of bias and conflict of interest pertaining to his or her service on the committee; information from discussion of the committee’s composition and balance that is conducted in closed session at its first meeting and again whenever its membership changes; and any public comments that we have received on the membership during the 20-calendar day formal public comment period. If additional members are appointed to this committee, an additional 20-calendar day formal public comment period will be allowed. It is through this process that we determine whether the committee contains the requisite expertise to address its task and whether the points of views of individual members are adequately balanced such that the committee as a whole can address its charge objectively.

You have 15 day(s) remaining after today (06/25/12) to provide comments during the formal comment period.

http://www8.nationalacademies.org/cp/CommitteeView.aspx?key=49463

——-

Related articles

20120709-175220.jpg

Advertisements

Beware The Pods! National Park Service crusade on sanity zeroes in on 30 people shucking sustainable oysters

Beware The Pods! National Park Service crusade on sanity zeroes in on 30 people shucking sustainable oysters

Russ Imrie July 2012 – disclaimer: I know the owners of and am in favor of continuing the operation of  Drakes Bay Oyster Company in Point Reyes National Seashore and believe the National Park Service’s  (NPS) vendetta [on the oyster operation] is misguided and an abuse of power. This is an OPINION piece. Many others have weighed in on this issue which has touched on Washington DC, (Congress and is even, in some fevered minds, Obama’s fault) and Sacramento but which actually involves every American. For absolutely the best collection of documents, letters, news on this PLEASE go to the Oysterzone, a blog created by Jane G. of Point Reyes Station.

IMPORTANT before you go on: YOU CONNECT WITH July 10 IRVINE NAS HEARING ON DODGY “SCIENCE” OF NPS PERMIT PROCESS HERE

now read on…

What’s there not to like? 

This tiny sustainable operation has so much going for it above and beyond its position as a local “poster child” for malignant regulation abuse.

From the "table with a view" at Drake's Bay Oyster Farm. It. Does. Not. Get. Any. Fresher.

From the “table with a view” at Drake’s Bay Oyster Farm. It. Does. Not. Get. Any. Fresher. – photo Russ Imrie

Thirty skilled aquaculture workers are tasked with moving raw shellfish to the crowded counter a few feet away in a wholly transparent operation that adds to park visitors’ experience and pleasure.

Park visitors Shelley and Chet - photo Russ Imrie

Park visitors Shelley and Chet – photo Russ Imrie

The oysters are raised in a very natural manner that does not disturb wildlife more than many human activities and the oysters filter water in the estuary.  This is a natural function that (according to a July 6, 2012 article in the San Francisco Chronicleall-but-extinct native oysters performed before they were lethally harvested and polluted out of the picture along the California Coast.

Zealotry’s collateral damage

The farm harvests 40% of the total California oyster totals and its fees to the beleaguered state budget (about $15,000 per year) support much of the states’s aquaculture budget. This is to say nothing about payroll taxes from the aforementioned employees. That’s not a lot but what are they thinking? Can California afford throwing away a single dollar and adding to unemployment? Is the NPS in charge of California’s state budget? Are partisan politics and policy blinding the NPS from the fact that local business and workers pay a lot of tax in this country, on this planet?

The nonsense goes on…the NPS at Point Reyes is celebrating it’s 40th year. They have a “green” electrically-powered Toyota RAV EV all painted at the park headquarters. But, but…Importing the tons of oysters expertly produced at Drake’s from Washington or Louisiana would dump tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. Local is more than a buzzword in the  Point Reyes community and about the furthest away you can find the shellfish is in San Francisco.

In the law creating the Seashore, the California Department of Fish and Game explicitly reserved the right to license fishing and aquaculture operations in the seashore boundaries. Not the NPS. This kind of jurisdictional overreach is a big part of the dispute over Drake’s permit extension.

The pods are here! Lets weaponize National Park Service administration!

In 1956 the bar was set for paranoia in America with Don Siegel’s  film “Invasion of the Bodysnatchers“. This is SO rife with parallels in the NPS oystergate affair today. In the film, protagonist Dr. Bennell battles against an overwhelming takeover of small-town…well let’s read the synopsis from IMDB…

Dr Miles Bennell returns to his small town practice to find several of his patients suffering the paranoid delusion that their friends or relatives are impostors. He is initially skeptical, especially when the alleged dopplegängers are able to answer detailed questions about their victim’s lives, but he is eventually persuaded that something odd has happened and determines to find out what is causing this phenomenon. This film can be seen as a paranoid 1950s warning against those Damn Commies or, conversely, as a metaphor for the tyranny of McCarthyism (or the totalitarian system of Your Choice) and has a pro- and epilogue that was forced upon Siegel by the studio to lighten the tone.Written by Mark Thompson <mrt@oasis.icl.co.uk>

It's...it's awful! Screenshot from Invasion of the Body Snatchers 1956 (IMDB)

It’s…it’s awful! Screenshot from Invasion of the Body Snatchers 1956 (IMDB)

OMG right there in our park! Alien pod-pickers?

OMG right there in our park! Alien pod-pickers? – and in delicious irony for the metaphor, the pods have an uncanny resemblance to our beloved oysters!

Then add in the horrifying radiation-activated monster Godzilla  (1954), bus desegregation, nasty “wetbacks” and the peak of the Bracero Program, and white-bread America had a load of buttons to be pushed. The zealot-fueled NPS process today is similarly being activated with terror-mongering ideology and shaky science-like justifications in pursuit of a mythical ideal. Both the film and the NPS thinking are fantasies. (again, PLEASE go to Oysterzone)

“I will act in the interest of the advancement of science and scholarship for sound decision making, by using the most appropriate, best available, high quality scientific and scholarly data and information…and I will not intentionally hinder the scientific and scholarly activities of others…” (Interior Department’s Code of Scientific and Scholarly Conduct)

But sound files from a New jersey Police study of JetSki noise was inserted into a sandbagged report that falsified the racket  as being generated by the skiffs the Oyster harvesters use. Busted.

Complaints about the integrity report and a hasty closed-door “investigation” to “clean up the paper trail” was quoted as including the phrase:

sloppy use of data, but forgive the troops.”

So what’s going on here? 

There is nowhere on this planet which is unaffected by the human race and its doings. To even think that Point Reyes can somehow be utterly “cleansed” or “purified” by some kind of exorcism of the last 150 years of fishing and ranching. let alone human existence, is ludicrous. The law creating the Point ReyesNational Seashore foresaw this. It is clear. It is realistic. It must not be twisted to the irrational zealotry of a few who want to bankrupt good governance, robust and healthy science, and sanity.

more links:

BayCitizen

MarinMagazine

distant US Capitol dome

U.S. Capitol SOTU eve, 2011 – photo Russ Imrie

Russell Imrie is a  Networking and Content Specialist, webmaster and an American Indian blogger living in the Washington DC area.

Copyright © forever by Russell Imrie