Jane Gyorgy 
Member since Jul 21, 2012


Favorite Places

  • None.
Find places »

Saved Events

  • Nada.
Find events »

Saved Stories

  • Nope.
Find stories »

Custom Lists

  • Zip.


  • No friends yet.
Become My Friend Find friends »

Recent Comments

Re: “Opinion: Don’t Be Fooled by Drakes Bay Oyster Company’s Supreme Court Petition

04-09-2014 NOAA “OYSTERS could REMOVE ALL NITROGEN Polluting Potomac if 40% river bed cultivates shellfish”

Oyster aquaculture could significantly improve Potomac River estuary water quality

April 9, 2014

Oyster aquaculture in the Potomac River estuary could result in significant improvements to water quality, according to a new NOAA and U.S. Geological Survey study published in the journal Aquatic Geochemistry.

All of the nitrogen currently polluting the Potomac River estuary could be removed if 40 percent of its river bed were used for shellfish cultivation, according to the joint study. The researchers determined that a combination of aquaculture and restored oyster reefs may provide even larger overall ecosystem benefits. Oysters, who feed by filtering, can clean an enormous volume of water of algae which can cause poor water quality.

The study is based on data modeling and an ecosystem-wide scientific evaluation, which examined how activities in the watershed affected the river estuary’s water quality. The research team evaluated nitrogen flows from the Potomac River headwaters and the nutrient-related water quality conditions of the estuary, called eutrophication.

Eutrophication takes place when a body of water becomes enriched in dissolved nutrients that stimulate the growth of aquatic plants, causing nuisance algal blooms. These blooms often result in the depletion of dissolved oxygen and the loss of seagrasses.

The team sought to assess how shellfish aquaculture – specifically oyster aquaculture — could be used to remove nutrients directly from the water, complementing traditional land-based measures.

Although the estuary bottom area needed to grow oysters to remove the nutrients exists, it is unlikely that such a management measure would be implemented because of conflicting uses. However, a smaller area could still provide great benefits if aquaculture leases were approved. According to the study, if only 15 to 20 percent of the bottom was cultivated it could remove almost half of the incoming nutrients.

“Our study looked to see just how much impact oyster aquaculture could have in restoring some balance to the system,” said Suzanne Bricker, Ph.D., physical scientist in NOAA’s National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science and the paper’s lead author. “Eutrophication conditions in the Potomac River estuary are representative of conditions found in the Chesapeake Bay and many other U.S. estuaries. Historically, waters of the Potomac and other Chesapeake region estuaries were filtered by oysters, but as their populations declined so did their filtration capabilities. This resulted in increased concentrations of nutrients and related water quality concerns, such as algal blooms and low dissolved oxygen.

“The most expedient way to reduce eutrophication in the Potomac River estuary would be to continue reducing land-based nutrients complemented by a combination of aquaculture and restored oyster reefs. The resulting combination could provide significant removal of nutrients and eutrophication impacts directly from the water column, and offer innovative solutions to long-term persistent water quality problems.”

This alternative approach to water quality management has the potential to address legacy pollution, provide a marketable seafood product if there are no other contaminant issues that would prevent human consumption, and enhance local economies with additional income to growers through the possible development of a program — similar to those being considered in other parts of the country — where growers would be paid for the water cleaning services done by their oysters.

Flowing into the Chesapeake Bay, the Potomac River is the fourth largest river on the Atlantic coast, with more than six million people living in its watershed. The NOAA and USGS research about human influences on water quality found that the effects of high nutrient levels have not changed overall since the early 1990s. There are, however, some signs of improvement, such as decreased nitrogen loads from the watershed, increased dissolved oxygen and decreased algal blooms in the upper estuary, and continued regrowth of seagrasses.

While scientists have seen signs of improvement, they remain concerned with eutrophication. Dissolved oxygen, a key measure of water quality, is something fish and other aquatic species can’t survive without.

Atmospheric deposition — where gases and particles are released into the atmosphere from combustion of fossil fuels and return to the land as contaminants — also plays a role in polluting the estuary.

“Less attention has been paid to monitoring the effects of atmospheric deposition in headwater streams now that acidic emissions have declined because of the Clean Air Act and Amendments going into effect,” said Karen Rice, Ph.D., USGS research hydrologist. “Nevertheless, monitoring of forested, headwater streams that reflect changes in atmospheric inputs should be continued, if not expanded, so that changes in stream-water quality as related to atmospheric deposition can be tracked.”

The researchers believe the results of the study may be useful on a broad basis, as there are other river-dominated estuaries in the Chesapeake region and elsewhere along the U.S. coastline that could support shellfish aquaculture.

USGS provides science for a changing world. Visit USGS.gov, and follow us on Twitter @USGS and our other social media channels. Subscribe to our news releases via e-mail, RSS or Twitter.

NOAA’s mission is to understand and predict changes in the Earth’s environment, from the depths of the ocean to the surface of the sun, and to conserve and manage our coastal and marine resources. Join us on Facebook, Twitter and our other social media channels.

For more on this go to:


8 likes, 9 dislikes
Posted by Jane Gyorgy on 04/15/2014 at 1:13 PM

Re: “Opinion: Don’t Be Fooled by Drakes Bay Oyster Company’s Supreme Court Petition

11-06-75 Documents show EAC founder Jerry Friedman Supported Oyster Farm

This quote is taken from the letter submitted to ”Senator J. Bennett Johnston, Chairman of the Senate Parks and Recreation Subcommittee”

made a part of the record for ”Hearings on Point Reyes Wilderness Legislation, Before the Subcommittee on Parks and Recreation of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, United States Senate, Ninety-Fourth Congress, 2d Session”

letter addressed to Hon. J. Bennett Johnston, Chairman, Parks and Recreation Subcommittee, Washington, D.C.

found on page 356, in his opening paragraph (emphasis added for clarity):

Mr. Chariman: My name is Jerry Friedman. I am a resident of West Marin and am
◾serving my second term as Chairman of the Marin County Planning Commission
◾During the past four months I have been representing Congressman John Burton on all matters relevant to the House counterpart of S. 2472 H.R. 8003.
◾Today I am here representing the following: ◾Marin Conservation League
◾Tomales Bay Association
◾Inverness Association
◾League of Women Voters
◾Bay Area: ◾Environmental Forum, Marin & Sonoma branches
◾Assemblyman Michael Wornum

(continued at the top of page 357:)

” These organizations not only support S. 2472, but they wholeheartedly endorse the wilderness recommendations of the GGNRA Citizens Advisory Commission….”

“3. All the organizations have deep and serious concerns over the lack of protection presently afforded to the tidal zone at Point Reyes. Such areas as Drake’s and Limantour Estero along with the seal rookery at Double Point deserve wilderness status. The State’s interests in these areas has been minimal with the exception of Limantour Estero which is a Research Natural Area, and we note little activity by the State in the area of patrol or marine resource monitoring during the past years. We accordingly hope that the tidal zone will be managed as wilderness area and we find this approach consistent with the State’s reservation of fishing and mineral rights. We wish to note the following points in this regard:

A. S. 2472 would allow the continued use and operation of Johnson’s Oyster Company in Drake’s Estero.”

E. We note nothing in the law which precludes the Congress from designating the tidal zone as wilderness despite the reservation of fishing and mineral rights….”

Page 358:

“….It is rare that so many organizations have agreed upon wilderness legislation for a given area. It is also unusual that such wilderness status DOES NOT IN ANY WAY INTERFERE WITH THE MANNER IN WHICH THE PUBLIC PRESENTLY USES THAT PARK….”

This is followed in the record on page 358 – 361 by the following:

“STATEMENT OF JOHN MITCHELL, SUBCOMMITTEE ON WILDERNESS, [GGNRA] CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMISSION….a fifteen-person Commission appointed in January 1975 by the Secretary of the Interior in accordance with the law establishing the Recreation Area….”

“….The balancing of the various interests represented by our recommendations was derived from a series of public hearings and subcommittee task force meetings. The compromises presented have won acceptance from representatives of each sector of the public that expressed concern. It is therefore hoped that the entire recommendation can be included in the legislation and the Committee report, so that the special provisions necessary at Point Reyes are firmly established. In that way, future administrative decisions can be assured of being in consonance with the principles and the details recommended.


Statement of Frank C. Boerger,

Chairman, Golden Gate National Recreation Area Citizen’s Advisory Commission

15 person Commission appointed in January 1975 by Secretary of Interior in accordance with the law establishing the Recreation Area.

“….The balancing of the various interests represented by our recommendations was derived from a series of public hearings and subcommittee task force meetings. The compromises presented have won acceptance from representatives of each sector of the public that expressed concern….”


“….An important factor in considering wilderness for the seashore was the intent of the commission that desirable existing uses be allowed to continue…..”

“….Two wilderness units are recommended for the northern half of the Seashore. They are separated by an area that includes the “pastoral zone” (designated in the enabling legislation to continue to accommodate ranching activities) and the access roads that serve most of the Seashore’s popular beaches. The first unit includes…Drakes and Limantour Esteros, and the lands that connect those features.”


“Two activities presently carried on within the seashore existed prior to its establishment as a park and have since been considered desirable by both the public and park managers. Because they both entail use of motorized equipment, specific provision should be made in wilderness legislation to allow the following uses to continue unrestrained by wilderness designation:

1 Ranching operations on that portion of the “pastoral zone” that falls within the proposed wilderness…..

2 Operation of Johnson’s Oyster Farm including the use of motorboats and the repair and construction of oyster racks and other activities in conformance with the terms of the existing 1,000 acre lease from the State of California.”


The final bill designated Drakes Estero as only “potential wilderness”.

The Interior Department told Congress that Drakes Estero could not be full wilderness until California gave up its rights there–which it has NOT done.

For more on this click on or copy and paste the link below into your web browser:


8 likes, 8 dislikes
Posted by Jane Gyorgy on 04/15/2014 at 1:10 PM

Re: “Here Come the Vultures

Please read the facts, the actual NAS studies, and others, disproving all claims of environmental harm, the actual legislation permitting the continuation of the leases in perpetuity (both after the deal was brokered by the Sierra Club and the Park Service to sell the land to protect it in perpetuity for continuation of ranching and farming, which includes oyster farming that created the PRNS in '62, the '76 Wilderness Act and all the rest at www.oysterzone.org
The present day upper eschelon of the EAC, NPCA, Sierra Club, etc have been caught red handed year after year in the DBOC situation and others, providing false evidence, doctored evidence, and blasting their membership with the same, never retracting a word when the truth comes out and continue to blast their membership with the same disproven statements both environmentally as well as legally. Shame on Amy Trainer (EAC), shame on Neal Desai (NPCA), shame on Gordon Bennett (SOS - membership of one!!!), shame on Cicely Muldoon (PRNS), shame on Jon Jarvis (NPS), shame on Ken Salazar (DOI). Sadly, shame on all of you who take for granted the missives from these people and these organizations under the assumption they are the ones wearing the white hats when in fact they are the PIGS of George Orwell's Animal Farm. Re-read the book, it is short enough, then read the actual scientific reports, the actual investigations, the actual legislation and you will sing a new song, in tune and on key - or not, be lazy and stupid, the choice is yours!

1 like, 4 dislikes
Posted by Jane Gyorgy on 12/27/2012 at 11:11 AM

Re: “Drakes Estero Deserves Full Wilderness Protection

Once again, your article is full of incorrect information .Get the story straight! Go to www.oysterzone.wordpress.com
PS: The Oysterfest bacterium was a chicken borne bacertium, remember the stand that was selling chicken skewers?

5 likes, 10 dislikes
Posted by Jane Gyorgy on 10/04/2012 at 6:49 PM

Re: “Dianne Feinstein's Scientist Rebuked

You are talking about the same Tim Regan who completely rewrote the scientists' findings in the MMC and relegated all of their findings to an "Appendix F" - in other words, Regan Appendixed F'd them all, the ACTUAL SCIENTISTS FINDINGS, that Tim Regan, right?

The current NAS NRC panel was given only half of the MMC report, in other words all of the appendices were omitted. They were lead to believe that what they were given was the complete report and expressed surprise to find out there was more to the report than they had been led to believe. We corrected that "fundamentally unsound and materially insufficient" fact on the spot at the NAS NRC meeting in Irvine last week.

After the meeting Kevin Lunny, and I were talking over a cup of coffee when Dr.Roberts approached us to say how "surprised" she was the appendicies were overlooked, she said "it must have been an oversight". Just a few minutes later and IN MY PRESENCE, why Kevin Lunny asked Dr. Susan Roberts why Environ was not invited to the meeting in Irvine last week. At first she tried to claim they had been. When informed they had not received an invitation she stated "I guess the invitation must have gone to the wrong number."

And let us not forget to mention Gavin Frost, field solicitor for the DOI, when asked why the NPS did not disclose the hidden camera program, claimed "the intended to, but forgot".

There is far too much "forgetfulness", "intent to disclose" without disclosing, "intent to invite" without inviting going on on the side of the NPS not to mention the falsification of data by the NPS already exposed, misrepresentation of data by the NPS already exposed.

For the story you will not get from the NPS et al, go to www.oysterzone.wordpress.com and read the "Reports and Investigations" as well as the "Scientists Weigh In" section

2 likes, 15 dislikes
Posted by Jane Gyorgy on 07/21/2012 at 4:25 PM

Readers' Favorites

Most Popular Stories

© 2017 East Bay Express    All Rights Reserved
Powered by Foundation