Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword or section
Like this
3Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Lunny and Goodman Complaint About Information Quality to NPS - 08 07 2012

Lunny and Goodman Complaint About Information Quality to NPS - 08 07 2012

Ratings: (0)|Views: 1,248|Likes:
Published by Cause of Action
Information Quality Complaint to National Park Service
Information Quality Complaint to National Park Service

More info:

Published by: Cause of Action on Aug 08, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

04/08/2013

pdf

text

original

 
iiSection 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001(hereinafter “DOI Guidelines”); Director’s Order #11B: Ensuring Quality of Information Dissemi-nated by the National Park Service (hereinafter “Director’s Order #11B”); and other applicablestatutes, regulations, Executive Orders, manuals, orders, policy statements, instructions, direc-tives, and guidelines establishing binding information-quality standards.Information disseminated by NPS in the DEIS and Atkins Peer Review Report fails toconform to minimum information-quality standards established by the OMB Guidelines, DOIGuidelines, and Director’s Order #11B. This inaccurate, nontransparent, and deliberately mis-leading information is reasonably likely to cause severe harm to the Lunnys—who may be forced to close their family business, Drakes Bay Oyster Company (hereinafter “DBOC”)—and Dr.Goodman, who is a user of the information provided in these publications and adversely affected by the scientifically invalid data and methods used therein.
3
 After substantial inaccuracies were identified in the DEIS and Atkins Peer Review Re-port and the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) (of which Dr. Goodman is an elected mem-ber) initiated a review of the DEIS, the Lunnys and Dr. Goodman retained Cause of Action forthe purposes of drafting and submitting this Complaint.
4
Cause of Action is a nonprofit, non-partisan organization that uses public advocacy and legal reform strategies to ensure greatertransparency in government and protect taxpayer interests and economic freedom and providesits services on a pro bono basis. Expedited correction of the manifold errors in the DEIS and At-kins Peer Review Report is especially important given the limited term of the permit that allowsoperation of DBOC, which provides livelihoods for not just the Lunnys but their employees.Pursuant to Director’s Order #11B, which establishes NPS-specific information-qualitystandards, the DEIS and Atkins Peer Review Report must be withdrawn from the public domainand timely corrected as described below. Specifically, corrections must be included in the FinalEnvironmental Impact Statement: Drakes Bay Oyster Company Special Use Permit (hereinafter“Final EIS”) and the Atkins Peer Review Report must be withdrawn, corrected, and reissued.
 
3
This is not the first time that NPS has published scientifically flawed information regarding DBOC’s alleged im-pact on the environment under circumstances suggesting a lack of scientific objectivity.
See
DOI
 
O
FFICE OF
I
NSPEC-TOR
G
ENERAL
,
 
R
EPORT OF
I
NVESTIGATION
—P
OINT
R
EYES
N
ATIONAL
S
EASHORE
, Case No. OI-CA-07-0297-1, at 2 (July21, 2008) (concluding that NPS employees “misrepresented research” in initial versions of a 2007 report regardingDBOC’s oyster farm) (Exhibit 1). Even other federal agencies, such as the National Marine Fisheries Service(NMFS), have “recommend[ed] that NPS [revise the DEIS to] … [p]rovide a more balanced consideration of … thepositive impacts of shellfish aquaculture [i.e., DBOC’s oyster farm] on habitat and water quality….” Letter fromRodney R. McInnis, Regional Administrator, National Marine Fisheries Service, to Cicely Muldoon, Superinten-dent, Point Reyes National Seashore, p. 2 (Nov. 17, 2011) (Exhibit 2).
4
As explained in greater detail below, because NPS took great pains to conceal the inaccuracies and deliberate mis-representations in the DEIS, Dr. Goodman did not discover the extent to which the conclusions in the DEIS weresupported by false and deliberately misleading information until well after the initial public comment period had closed. (The DEIS was made publicly available on September 21, 2011; the public comment period closed on Decem-ber 9, 2011.)
 
iii
Table of Contents
1.
 
Individuals Submitting this Complaint About Information Quality………………………………
1
2.
 
Background……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
1
3.
 
Summary of Complaint………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
2
3.1
 
DBOC Does Not Cause A “Major Impact” to Soundscape………………………………………………
2
3.2
 
DBOC Does Not Cause a “Major Impact” to Wilderness………………………………………………..
4
3.3
 
DBOC Does Not Cause An “Adverse Impact” to Harbor Seals, Birds and Bird Habitat, or Visitor Experience and Recreation…………………………………………………………………
5
4.
 
Authority for Complaint Submittal…………………………………………………………………………………………..
5
4.1
 
The Lunnys and Dr. Goodman are Affected Persons Entitled to Petition NPS forCorrection of Information Contained in the DEIS and Atkins Peer Review Report…
5
4.2
 
The DEIS and Atkins Peer Review Report are Subject to Information-QualityStandards Mandated by the Data Quality Act, OMB and DOI Guidelines, and Director’s Order #11B………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
8
4.3
 
The DEIS and Atkins Peer Review Report Disseminate “Influential ScientificInformation” and are Therefore Subject to Heightened Information-QualityStandards…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
9
5.
 
Because this Complaint Concerns Analysis Conducted Under the NationalEnvironmental Policy Act (NEPA), A Response to this Complaint Must beIncluded in the Final EIS………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
10
6.
 
The DEIS and Atkins Peer Review Report Must Be Accurate and Timely; Objective;Highly Transparent About Data, Sources, and Methods; Reproducible; Based onReliable Data and Sound and Accepted Practices For Data Collection and Analysis;and Use the Best Available Science………………………………………………………………………………………......
12
7.
 
Description of Inaccurate, False, or Deliberately Misleading “Information”Disseminated in the DEIS and Atkins Peer Review Report that Fails to ComplyWith Applicable Information-Quality Standards and Must Be ImmediatelyCorrected….....................................................................................................................................
14
7.1
 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement: Drakes Bay Oyster Company Special UsePermit (Sept. 2011)…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
14
7.1.1
 
DEIS References to Alternative A Using “Expected Future Conditions” as aBaseline for Assessing Environmental Impact………………………………………………………..
14

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->