Investigations

DBOC Interior PDF

Fact Sheet on DQA Complaint concerning the National Park Service

• After substantial inaccuracies were identified in two publications published by the National Park Service (“NPS”) regarding Drakes Bay Oyster Company’s (“DBOC”) alleged impact on the environment, thereby threatening the reissuance of their operating permits, Dr. Corey Goodman and DBOC owners Kevin and Nancy Lunny and submitted a Complaint on Aug. 7, 2012 to NPS requesting corrections based on the grounds the information was scientifically flawed.
• Relevant publications:
  • (1) Draft Environmental Impact Statement: Drakes Bay Oyster Company Special Use Permit (the “DEIS,” which purports to analyze the environmental impact of DBOC)
  •  (2) March 2012 Atkins North America, Final Report on Peer Review of the Science Used in the National Park Service’s Draft Environmental Impact Statement: Drakes Bay Oyster Company Special Use Permit (the “Atkins Report,” which assessed portions of the DEIS)
  • (3) Sept. 2012 Scientific Review of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Drakes Bay Oyster Company Special Use Permit (the National Research Council’s “Scientific Review Report,” which reviewed the data and methods used in the DEIS and Atkins Report)
  • Since the Lunnys have a limited term permit allowing for the operation of DBOC, which will expire on Nov. 30, 2012, they requested an expedited correction to the errors in the DEIS and Atkins Report.
  • On Oct. 3, 2012 NPS responded to a Complaint filed by Cause of Action (CoA) on behalf of the Lunnys and Dr. Goodman.
  • On Oct. 16, 2012 CoA issued an administrative appeal letter to NPS rebutting their objections to our complaint.

Summary of new activity:

On Oct. 16, 2012, CoA submitted a letter to Margaret O’Dell at the National Park Service appealing the response from NPS on Oct. 3. Essentially, NPS continues to ignore the rules for how complaints should be handled and instead marches forward without regard for their false scientific data that could shut down a family business in the Bay area.

CoA argues that despite its claims to the contrary, NPS is statutorily obligated to consider the complaint, as it was submitted in accordance with the procedures prescribed by Director’s Order 11B. Under that order and the Information Quality Act, NPS is required to adhere to specified information-quality obligations. It has failed to do so and has inaccurately claimed that it possesses discretion over which proposed corrections it will address.

On November 30, 2012, the Lunny family faces the loss of their business due to the refusal of the NPS to correct the DEIS. Corrections based on accurate science would benefit DBOC, the Bay area, Drakes Estero, and ultimately, the Park Service itself.

110799462-Final-Administrative-Appeal-Letter-to-NPS (1)