I?ve started to write this blog several times this week. I almost got to the end at one point.
I was just waiting for some response from the Department of Interior or National Park Service in Washington, D.C.
So now it?s Friday at 4 p.m. and there is no response ? or at least no acceptable response.
So let me start at the beginning.
Sandy Semans, editor of The Outer Banks Sentinel, began pursuing the issue of the scientists who signed a National Audubon Society produced letter endorsing the strictest management protocols. Quite a few signed with their government affiliation, which, on the surface seems a violation of the federal ethics policy. The letter was dated Dec. 21, sent to seashore Superintendent Mike Murray and has been the subject of news articles and discussion for the past several months.
Semans first called the Inspector General?s office at the Department of the Interior on Feb. 22 ? and got no response. She kept calling back ? and still got no response.
Meanwhile, a notation in the acknowledgments on the recently released Draft Environmental Impact Statement for off-road vehicle rulemaking was called to my attention.
This is the notation at the top of Page 660 of the study:
Cohen, J.B., R.M. Erwin, J.B. French Jr., J.L. Marion, and J.M. Meyers In press. Recommendations for Management of Endangered Species at Cape Hatteras National Seashore. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2009-1262.
This particular study, also known as the Patuxent Protocols, was at the heart of the very differing views of the science of resource management at the seashore during the negotiated rulemaking meetings.
Among other things, the protocols recommend buffers for nesting shorebirds, including 1,000 meters on either side of foraging piping plover chicks. I wrote about this issue in last week?s blog.
I had no idea what ?In press? and ?Open-File Report? meant, so I e-mailed Mike Murray and asked him.
This is his response:
In general, please understand that under the NEPA process once a major planning document such as the DEIS is released to the public, NPS does not typically provide responses to individual questions about the document until the release of the final environmental impact statement (FEIS), at which time written responses to substantive comments will be provided as part of the FEIS. That said, I hope to assist you in finding the information you are seeking.
The USGS protocols are still posted on the NPS PEPC website (under the Interim Strategy document list; document name starts with “2006 03Mar 02…”) at: http://parkplanning.nps.gov/document.cfm?parkID=358&projectId=13331&documentID=12970
“In press” generally means the reference document is in the process of being published. In this case, after the conclusion of the negotiated rulemaking process NPS asked USGS to take another look at the protocols because of continuing questions about them. I understand that USGS decided to integrate the various reports into a single comprehensive document and will publish it soon as an “open file report.”
So did this mean that the protocols were being changed in some way?
Meanwhile, Semans enlisted some help from the staff in a congressional office.
After another four or five days, on Friday, March 12, Semans got an e-mail from Kendra Barkoff, a spokesperson for Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar extending an invitation to send along some questions.
Semans submitted questions on behalf of the Sentinel and The Island Free Press.
This is part of Semans? e-mail to Barkoff:
Attached is a letter drafted by Audubon and sent to Cape Hatteras National Seashore Superintendent Mike Murray, as well as a long list of other DOI officials. It obviously was an attempt to influence the development of the proposed rule for ORV access to the seashore which has just been released in the DEIS. This matter also is currently in the courts and has been very controversial. The letter was signed by about 90 scientists and others. A number of the signers are identified with the agencies who employ them. Of interest are the ones who are identified as working for federal agencies. My question is do their signatures on this conflict with the Ethical Standards rules for government employees?
Also of note is the signature of Jonathan Cohen, author of a report funded by the USGS in 2005 for the NPS. This report has been the basis of much of the controversy – it was not peer reviewed and seems to make arbitrary recommendations which are not supported by any presented science. Since he did this work as a contractor for the federal government and is actually endorsing his own work, does this come under the Ethical Standards rules?
Also of interest is that Cohen wrote a lengthy affidavit on behalf of the plaintiffs in Defenders of Wildlife and Audubon vs. Department of Interior and National Park Service. Since a failed attempt at negotiated rulemaking when many questions were raised about Cohen’s work, my understanding is that USGS was asked to review the document in light of those questions. Now the document is listed on the reference list in the DEIS both as “in press” and “open file” – it is probably safe to assume that changes have been made but they have not been shared with the public so there is no way to comment on them in responding to the DEIS. Does this comply with NEPA?
This is the response that Semans got from David Barna, chief of public affairs with the National Park Service, on Monday, March 15:
This is in response to your e-mail to Kendra Barkoff in the Department of the Interior Communications Office.
We appreciate your interest and concerns about the EIS process at the Outer Banks.
As you know we are collecting public comment on the proposed plan. While we are in the public phase of this issue we want to be fair and provide everyone with the same level of detail. We very much respect the NEPA process and the science that goes into making public policy decisions on the management of this Nation?s natural resources.
Please understand that once a major planning document, such as the DEIS, is released to the public, NPS does not provide responses to individual questions about the document or the issue until the release of the final environmental impact statement (FEIS). At that time written responses to substantive comments will be provided as part of the FEIS.
We encourage you to submit your critiques and policy positions as comments, rather than questions.
In addition, we are reviewing the letter from the Audubon Society to Cape Hatteras National Seashore Superintendent Mike Murray which you refer to in your e-mail. Any comments that we have with respect to the letter will be transmitted to the Society.
Semans and I both responded to Barna right away that his answers ? or lack thereof ? were not sufficient
First of all, the ethics of the government scientists who signed the Audubon letter and the DEIS are not really related to one another ? and the question was asked well before the release of the DEIS on March 5.
And an inquiry about a completeness of a document that is a major building block in the Park Service?s preferred alternative for ORV access would seem one that could reasonably be answered before the Final Environmental Impact Statement, which won?t be ready until the end of the year at the earliest.
And, finally, neither Semans nor I has ever been asked to submit media questions as ?comments? to a federal document.
That would not be a way to get information to our readers in a timely manner.
So, the end of the week is here, and we still have no answers.
Did the scientists violate federal ethics guidelines?
We don?t know.
Will the management protocols look different when they are ?published??
We don?t really know that either, except it appears that we will get the same protocols with a new introduction.
And are they peer reviewed?
Everyone still says yes. But exactly who did the reviewing and what their comments were remain a mystery as far as I am concerned.
I also note that The Island Free Press has published several letters to the editor expressing their outrage about the publicly employed scientists and their letter to Mike Murray.
Two readers actually made their own inquiries ? one to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and one to the Department of the Interior.
They haven?t received an answer either.
When we hear, we will let you know.
The Draft Environmental Impact Statement should be withdrawn. There is much question as to the integrity of the document. Reading it one notices the careful choosing of words and manipulation of information.
The document does not carry the proper name of the area involved as named by Congress. A letter signed by the Assistant Director of the Department of Interior on May 10, 1954, as included in the Administrative History on page 239, instructed “formal memoranda and documents (which) require the correct, full name of ?Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreational Area? ” The current publication is not properly titled.
In addition, the 1964 Wilderness Preservation Act did not include Cape Hatteras. On page 192 of the Administrative History: “The Cape Hatteras National Seashore was not to have any designated wilderness areas despite the language of its own authorizing legislation. The Park Service considered the seashore a recreational area and, besides, the area had long been inhabited and most villagers on Hatteras and Ocracoke Islands sought to escape their rustic lifestyle, not perpetuate it.” The DEIS treats our Seashore as a wilderness area with closures that prohibit recreation in the most prized locations for such activities.
A question I have, is did the scientists physically sign the letter, or were their names and affiliations added by Audubon (as seems to be the case with the DU scientist) after a phone call/email request?
IMO, the first case would be an ethics violation, and not so much in the second case.
Crotalus,
You make a very reasoned point. But why don?t these scientists come forward and explain themselves? Why doesn?t Audubon? That would remove the cloud over all their heads.
Incidently, they at least signed their names. I don?t know how we learned it was Audubon. I sign my name on all my correspondance. Why don?t you? Do you have something to hide?
Experiences with internet stalkers and death threats makes anonymity more preferable than the alternative.
Ethics?ethics and audubon??? bird-doo.
Irene, thanks for all you do. It?s appreciated!
Why hasn?t the Island Free Press or the Outer Banks Sentinel printed the National Audubon?s response letter to the Dare County Commissioners after the board Chairman, Warren Judge verbally attacked the original letter?
Ray,
The Island Free Press has not printed either Warren Judge?s comments about the letter or the Audubon response. We have printed a couple articles on the controversies surrounding the letters and the signers. And we have published the letter in its entirety. That, I think, has been the news, rather than the back-and-forth attacks on each other by various figures in the dispute.
I might also add that Audubon did not send the letter to Island Free Press, though I have seen it elsewhere. We also don?t get media releases from SELC, which I have asked about several times. I manage to see them because colleagues share.
So, what is your point about the Audubon letter?
Irene
Several points, Irene. 🙂
(1) Judge attacked the original letter, in writing and verbally, in an unmerciful way, during a commissioner?s meeting. His letter and verbal comments are on the county website and Protect Beach Access which I assume you and the Sentinel have promoted and/or quoted from. In addition, the Sentinel printed a letter to the editor written by Commissioner Shea attacking the Audubon response letter, knowing full well (in my opinion) that the letter had not been made public by any legimate news media source.
(2) Audubon?s response was that they “did not advocate total beach closures,” and they asked for more civility in the matter. I am not defending Audubon, but Island Free Press and the Sentinel expect their readers to believe them when they say different. All I have seen is “the proof is in the protocols.” Could you and or the Sentinel print exactly where it says in the protocols that there should be total beach closures to ped?s and ORV?s?
(3) And, why wouldn?t you want to print Audubon?s response? If you doubt its authencity, simple do as I did and call them.
And, finally, in my opinion, by whipping a dead horse about some gray area federal law that may have been unwittingly violated by a federal employee who surely doesn?t want to lose their job, you are taking away from what needs to be done; and that is promoting a closer relationship between the oposing sides.
Ray,
I don?t want to continue debating this issue in the response to my blog, but I will continue to write about it.
However, let me me a few points here:
1. I have not quoted from or promoted in any way Warren?s comments on Audubon letter, which is not to that I disagree with him. Just didn?t go there since there is so much going on. Since I didn?t quote from or promote Warren?s written and verbal response, I didn?t see any reason to publish Audubon response.
2. Island Free Press ? and to my knowledge, the Sentinel ? has never said that Audubon, Defenders, SELC, etc. want ?total beach closures.? They have not asked for total beach closures, and I have noted that at various time. I have call the closures they do support as ?draconian.? The most protective measure in the Patuxent protocols would close the most popular areas of the beach ? Bodie Island spit, Cape Point, South Beach, Hatteras Inlet, and north and south points of Ocracoke ? year round to ORVs, and, in some cases, pedestrians.
3.I didn?t print Audubon?s response because I didn?t publish Warren?s comments on the letter. Has nothing to do with authenticity.
4. Finally, Sorry I couldn?t disagree more with your last point. If the federal employees violated ethics policy by signing with name and agency, then the federal government should just say so and be over it. My blog is more about transparency. Just not getting a straight answer on ethics violation ? and especially whether or not the Patuxent protocols are peer-reviewed. The government and the environmental groups say they are. So why don?t they just provide the date of the peer review, the names of the scientists, and their comments on the study. It would be as simple as that.
I don?t think the public is being well served by this lack of transparency.
And, I will close my saying that I have written about civility in this rulemaking processes several times in the past few years. I?ve called more more civility on the part of beach access partisans on the island and on the blogs that I felt had gone too far. I?ll send you links if you want.
Irene
I am a great fan of the Outer Banks Sentinel and consider its editor a very close friend; likewise for your great website. However, it is clear, based upon historical reporting from both of you, that if the Audubon response letter was more favorable to the pro-side of this issue it would have been printed in a heartbeat. And, actually, the letter is not more favorable to either side, but attempts to make some kind of peace; and, that?s why I recommend it being put out there.
? the letter is not more favorable to either side, but attempts to make some kind of peace?
It?s a little late for that.