Sometimes, if you don?t want to hear the answer, you should not ask the question
Earlier, this week the National Park Service issued a media release that said the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) had published ?A Review and Synthesis of the Scientific Information Related to the Biology and Management of Species of Special Concern at Cape Hatteras National Seashore, North Carolina,? a 100-page report, by Jonathan B. Cohen and others.
This newly published document, the release said, is the same one that was previously released and posted on the Cape Hatteras National Seashore?s Park Planning Web site on March 3, 2006.
These USGS management, monitoring, and protection protocols for threatened and endangered species and species of special concern at the seashore are also known as the Patuxent Protocols and have been a point of contention as the Park Service has plowed through the difficult work of developing an off-road vehicle management plan for the seashore.
I wrote about some of the problems that many see with the protocols in a blog a couple weeks ago, entitled ?Keep asking them to show us the science.?
So, I was interested in what this ?new? report — or newly published report ? was all about.
It?s listed as:
Cohen, J.B., Erwin, R.M., French, J.B., Jr., Marion, J.L., and Meyers, J.M., 2010, A review and synthesis of the scientific information related to the biology and management of species of special concern at Cape Hatteras National Seashore, North Carolina: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2009?1262, 100 p.
In the introduction to the newly published report, John B. French of the USGS writes:
?Although no new original research or experimental work was conducted, this synthesis of the existing information was peer reviewed by over 15 experts with familiarity with these species. This report does not establish NPS management protocols but does highlight scientific information on the biology of these species to be considered by NPS managers who make resource management decisions at CAHA.?
That seemed promising. Maybe this new report, which was ?peer reviewed by over 15 experts,? would settle the debate over the science of the protocols ? and especially the buffers around nesting shorebirds.
So I e-mailed a half dozen or so Park Service and USGS officials to ask for the date of the peer review and the names of the more than 15 scientists. I also asked if the peer reviewers included two “qualified scientists who have no stake in the outcome of the review, who are not associated with the work being performed, and who are without conflict of interest,” as required by the USGS Peer Review Policy. And, finally, I asked for the comments of the peer reviewers and how they were addressed in the final report.
A.B. Wade, Eastern Regional communication chief for USGS, answered my questions on Wednesday.
It seems that the names of those peer reviewers have been right out in the open and under our noses since the document was published on the park Web site in 2006. We just didn?t know they were peer reviewers.
The peer reviewers, Wade said, are all listed in the ?acknowledgments? at the end of each section of the protocols.
Indeed, there are scientists listed in the acknowledgments in the 2006 report and the newly refurbished report that was released this week.
I can?t imagine why we didn?t pick up on this sooner.
The peer review, Wade said, happened between April, 2005, and February, 2006.
And, yes, she said at least two of those peer reviewers were independent, qualified scientists who had no stake in the outcome of the work.
Let?s take a look at these peer reviewing scientists.
We could start with the section of the protocols on piping plovers, a threatened species at the seashore, which was written by Jonathan Cohen.
The acknowledgments on this section are:
Funding for this Protocol was provided by the U.S. Geological Survey, Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, under USGS Cooperative Agreement number 1434?00 HQRV1573, Research Work Order 104. Special thanks to David Allen, Ruth Boettcher, Walker Golder, Anne Hecht, David Rabon, and Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge biologists and managers for reviews of these protocols. Administrative review was also provided by the following NPS personnel: Sherri Fields and Steve Harrison, and by Dr. J.B. French, USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center.
The reviewers were:
? David Allen of the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. He was a member of the failed negotiated rulemaking committee, and on at least one occasion voted with the so-called environmental caucus against other state and county officials.
? Ruth Boettcher who is the shorebird expert for the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries. She signed her name and government affiliation on the much talked about letter to seashore superintendent Mike Murray, asking him to support the most stringent closures in the protocols.
? Walker Golder, who works for North Carolina Audubon, whose parent organization, National Audubon, sued the Park Service in October, 2007, over its lack of an ORV rule. He gave a declaration in that lawsuit, was a member of the negotiated rulemaking committee, and was the author of a letter that appealed to scientists to support the most stringent of the protocols.
? Anne Hecht of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has developed that agency?s recovery plans for the piping plover.
? David Rabon works in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?s Raleigh field office.
? And unnamed U.S. Fish and Wildlife biologists and managers at Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge.
Almost all of the named scientists have done work that is listed in the acknowledgments for the piping plover section or other sections of the protocols. So contributors have become peer reviewers.
The author, Jonathan Cohen, of Virginia Tech worked as a contractor for USGS, which was paid by the Park Service for writing the protocols, gave a declaration in the lawsuit against the Park Service, and signed the Audubon letter.
This seems like a really tight-knit group of scientists, the members of which are all working in the same field or related fields, so I guess you could say they are peers. However, it would seem that the peers are all reviewing each other?s and their own work.
I am not a scientist, but I certainly think it?s fair to question the independence of these peer reviewers. They may be scientists with ability and integrity, but do they meet the requirement in the USGS policy that they ?have no stake in the outcome of the review??
Here are the acknowledgments for the other sections of the protocols.
American oystercatchers:
?We appreciate the comments and technical review of T. R. Simons of the North Carolina Cooperative Wildlife and Fisheries Research Unit (NCCWFRU) and A. L. Wilke of The Nature Conservancy. We also acknowledge the discussions and information from D. Allen (NCWRC), S. Cameron (NCWRC), S. Shulte (NCCWFRU), and D. Rabon (USFWS).
Peer reviewer T.R. Simons, by the way, is also a major contributor in this section, with his work on oystercatchers at the Cape Hatteras National Seashore.
Colonial Nesting Waterbirds:
We appreciate the comments and technical review of Dr. P.A. Buckley (retired, formerly NPS and USGS research biologist), D. Allen, NCWRC, S. Cameron, NCWRC, and D. Rabon, USFWS, Raleigh Field Office. Administrative review was also provided by the following NPS personnel: Sherri Fields and Steve Harrison, and by Dr. J.B. French, USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center.
Sea turtles:
Funding for this Protocol was provided by the U.S. Geological Survey, Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, under USGS Cooperative Agreement number 1434?00 HQRV1573, Research Work Order 104. Special thanks to Ruth Boettcher, Matthew Godfrey, Sandy MacPherson, and David Rabon for reviews of these protocols. Administrative review was also provided by the following NPS personnel: Sherri Fields and Steve Harrison, and by Dr. J.B. French, USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center.
Seabeach amaranth:
The author would like to acknowledge the input of beneficial scientific and technical reviews received from Dr. Claudia L. Jolls, Associate Professor, Department of Biology, East Carolina University and Dale Suiter, Endangered Species Biologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Administrative review was also pro?vided by the following NPS personnel: Sherri Fields and Steve Harrison, and by Dr. J.B. French, USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center.
The acknowledgement in this section also adds:
The USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center developed these protocols, based on the best available scientific information, to guide management, monitoring and research activity at CAHA that would result in the protection and recovery of each species. These protocols do not attempt to balance the need for protec?tion of these species with other activities that occur at CAHA, nor was NPS management policy considered in detail.
Dr. Michael Berry of Chapel Hill, who has been a vocal critic of the science being used in the rulemaking process ? and in the consent decree, has some familiarity with the government?s peer review process from his years as a manager with the Environmental Protection Agency.
He says the only difference between the two documents is that the one released this week ?is five years older? than the original work. And, he adds that in the world of science, five years is a long time to go without updating the work.
Berry does not consider that the document has been ?peer reviewed? by any scientific measure or by the peer review guidelines of the USGS.
The problem, as Berry sees it, is that the document is quite simply a ?discussion of the science,? and actually he said he thinks it?s a good discussion.
The management recommendations appended to the discussion are not science, he says. They are opinions and recommendations of the contributors that have not been specifically linked to scientific evidence, especially research that pertains to the Cape Hatteras National Seashore.
?What is wrong with this process is that the environmental groups and the Southern Environmental Law Center are using this discussion of science as a basis to deny the public access to the seashore.?
The government doesn?t show any inclination to back down from the claim that the protocols are ?peer reviewed,? and there doesn?t seem to be much the public can do about it.
And, by the way, A.B. Wade did not answer my question about what comments the peer reviewers had on the document and how they were addressed.
I e-mailed her back to ask if an answer to that question was coming.
And I haven?t heard back yet. I?ll let you know if I do.
POSTSCRIPT
Just as we were getting ready to post this blog, I did hear back from A.B. Wade, the USGS communications chief.
I am adding her further comments as a postscript to this blog with no editing. Nothing she said in her reply made me want to rewrite any part of the blog, but now we have further answers to questions about the USGS and peer review.
Wade is correct that when Walker Golder peer reviewed the document, Audubon had not yet filed a lawsuit against the NPS. Had Audubon been considering litigation at that point? We don?t know. I will note here that Golder has two mentions in the acknowledgments, both dating from 1985 — 20 years before the protocols were written ? and both published in The Chat, the quarterly bulletin of the Carolina Bird Club.
Here is A.B. Wade?s response to the rest of my questions:
As promised, I wanted to provide further explanations to some of your questions and comments in previous emails. Again, my reply is in red.
You asked:
And were at least two of them “qualified scientists who have no stake in the outcome of the review, who are not associated with the work being performed, and who are without conflict of interest,” as required by the USGS Peer Review Policy?
The answer remains YES that the peer review for each chapter had at least 2 impartial reviewers and for some chapters there were more than 2 reviewers. Chapter 1, for example, had 6 reviewers, one of whom was Walker Golder. He was selected because of his expertise in the biology of piping plovers. He was an employee of Aubudon in 2005, and that was not a conflict of interest. Note that the peer review predated the lawsuit filed by Audubon by a couple of years.
You asked: What comments did they have when they reviewed the protocols and how were the comments addressed?
In 2005 when the USGS prepared the original report for Cape Hatteras National Seashore, there was no mechanism to catalog peer reviewer comments in one central location. It was the USGS policy then and is the policy now that authors address and resolve all peer review comments and modify the manuscript where warranted before supervisory approval for publication is given. Also, as a matter of policy and practice, the USGS does not give peer reviewer comments to the public.
And your last concern/question: Many of the others listed as peer reviewers, also have work cited in the acknowledgments — so they peer reviewed their own work?
It’s not uncommon for an author to cite a publication for a scientist who later ends up being a peer reviewer. While striving for a strict independence and neutrality of opinions and the avoidance of possible bias in the selection of reviewers, we also want a cross-section of the most knowledgeable scientists who can objectively critique the science contained within a given manuscript. The community of experts is sometimes large and other times smaller depending upon the subject. So, to select a peer reviewer whose work is also cited is not unusual and, in no manner, would this imply that they “peer review their own work”
FOR MORE INFORMATION
To read the Peer Review Policy of the U.S. Geological Survey, go to http://www.usgs.gov/usgs-manual/500/502-3.html
To read previously released 2005 USGS management, monitoring, and protection protocols for threatened and endangered species and species of special concern at Cape Hatteras, posted in March, 2006, go to:
http://parkplanning.nps.gov/document.cfm?parkID=358&projectId=13331&documentID=12970
To read the document released in March, 2010, by the U.S. Geological Survey, go to
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2009/1262/
The room is spinning and I think I am going to pass out..I feel like I was dropped into the water in middle of diamond shoals during a hurricane, after being kicked in the groin by a proffessional soccer player.
At no fault of Irene or Sandy I feel dumber now, then I was prior to reading this blog and Sandy?s recent economic impact article. It is 100% official that at the end of the day this BS is only a giant spin game..
The craftiest thinkers are the ones doing all the talking..
Thanks Irene and Sandy
Thank you,Irene,as usual for your good work and clarifications.This body of work should should actually be called the ?Puxatauny Phil Protocols?,whereby Walker Golder,et.al?rise up,see nothing and go back in a hole ?til next time.How is it our government can be so blindly one sided as to repeatedly rely on five to twenty year old biased,stacked,crony-?synthesized? studies upon which to base policy to control its people???
This is embarrassing. The scientific community should be ashamed.
This group of scientists is so inbred if some of its? members would have children together physicians would probably warn them of the risk of birth defects. If this isn?t collusion what is? This “independent review” is the equivalent of a bunch of elementary school children grading each others papers. (“hey look we all got “A”s)
This is a group made up of exclusively “bird people” who see everything through the prism of birds. The problem is the park was created for the enjoyment and recreation of the people. Not just a select group, but all the people. And that means multiple forms of recreation, not just bird watching. What these people and their obsession remind me of is when in the movie “Forrest Gump” Forrest meets the Mississippi shrimper Bubba. Bubba is obsessed with shrimp and shrimping, and everything he seeing he somehow relates to and of shrimp and shrimping. So it is with our bird friend “Bubbas”.
By their own admission in the USGS report there were ZERO nesting plovers reported in CHNSRA from 1902-1960. This included a time period in which plover population rebounded in the 1940?s and there was no development on the Outer Banks. Why no nesting? Obviously the conditions naturally present, provided very marginal nesting conditions compared to the prefered areas to the north. They then refer to 4 nesting pairs in the park by 1984 with their numbers peaking in 1989 at 15 pairs with nesting pairs declining since. Let me connect some dots for the birders. They also mention in this report how the Northeastern population went into decline until efforts were put in place during the 1980?s to improve their natural/native nesting areas in the Northeast. I?ll go slow birders, when one nesting area gets compromised/degraded, the birds are likely to emigrate to other nesting grounds (Cohen August 2009), so with development in the 1950s-70?s in the Northeast areas, the birds expanded their nesting grounds to what is naturally less desirable/productive nesting areas, like CHNSRA. When the preferred natural nesting areas further north were upgraded, they emigrated back, reducing the nesting population in CHNSRA. If you look at the big picture it?s pretty obvious. The base number of nesting population of plovers at CHNSRA is ZERO!
The lead author of this “report” Jonathan Cohen published some more recent science (as cited above) where he talks about populations emigrating from one nesting area to another. He also talks about the removal of grasses and creation/restoration of quality habitat including using beach nourishment projects. This is not unlike proposals “pro access” people have been suggesting for years at the point. This study also starts out with an interesting comment
“The threatened population of Atlantic Coast piping plovers (Charadrius melodus) has increased under intensive management of predation and disturbance. However, the relative importance of habitat quality, nest predation, and chick predation in population dynamics and reproductive success of this species are poorly understood.”
http://www.wildlifejournals.org/perlserv..
Cohen makes another observation of note in his August 2009 study: “Restored breeding sites that attract plovers will not contribute to overall population recovery if reproductive success is poor and such sites may become ecological traps (i.e., locations where settlement cues are not coupled with fitness benefits; Robertson and Hutto 2006).”
In other words, we may be doing more harm than good for the plovers by trying to attract them to nest in an area that is naturally not productive for them. We might better their success by discouraging nesting at CHNSRA so that they will emigrate further north to areas where they would naturally have better reproductive success. How does this get glossed over?
Also missing in the USGS report is the little known actions taken by none other than Walker Golder and the NC Audubon during the late 1980?s-90 to use audible calls and decoys to encourage the very birds they cite as being in decline to nest on dredge spoils. By simply moving the nesting location a few hundred yards all the birds drawn to the spoils from the park reduce the nesting counts in the park! Little information is available about this action.
This is a disgrace and the “science” should be scrapped. This almost makes “Vogelsong” look credible. Bottom line, the CHNSRA was formed for the people and the management of it should be directed by the people and not some “bird politburo”.
Irene,
It?s real easy if you don?t like the results.
Take the document and send it to two (or three) piping plover biologists, two (or three) American oystercatcher biologists, two (or three) colonial waterbird biologists and two (or three) sea turtle biologists and have them review it.
My money says you still won?t like the results.
Thanks, Irene, for another example of your excellent journalism. Croatus misses the point. Nothing new there. No matter how many biologists you send it to, it will not matter if they make up the rules as they go along.
Crotalus : (pit-viper,rattlesnake),you need to sing a new song.It?s not the science that we don?t like?it?s the lies and subterfuge that promulgates it.The truth would be a sweet pill compared to what?s being forced on us by totalitarian ?birders? and ?snakes in the grass?.Does the word FREEDOM have no meaning in the U.S. anymore?It does to those of us who remember and respect those who fought for it and now lie under those very grains of sand that you and your ilk would steal for a virtually non-existant problem.
Crot
How about a review by some scientists totally unrelated to birds/turtles, asking them to just comment on the overall scientific research data gathering process, analysis and peer review.
Get any bird/turtle bias arguement out of at least the big picture equation.
Yeah, I know some would argue such scientists would not be ?peers?, but it just depends on whether you consider say medical researchers as peers of bird/turtle researchers.
Such review just might shed some more light on the work. And who knows who may or may not like it then. But certainly harder for either side to throw rocks.
Hawk,
Too funny.
Don?t like the science so call it “lies and subterfuge” so you can claim you aren?t anti-science. Nice.
The post has nothing to do with “FREEDOM“. Irene?s post is about the science and what she believed hadn?t been peer-reviewed (and now shock that peers actually work in close proximity to each other).
It would also be helpful if you knew that what the science says and a what a specific management plan proscribes do not have to follow each other verbatim.
BTW, driving is a privilege, not a right.
Crot.,glad you are amused.We are trying to see the science, not cronies reviewing each others? papers and patting themselves on the back.The freedom to which I refer has nothing to do with your insinuation and,in fact,little to with driving,a short sighted view.This has everything to do with the imposition of one crew?s ideas upon a vast society,most notably the native peoples?is that a priviledge???
DinD says:
By their own admission in the USGS report there were ZERO nesting plovers reported in CHNSRA from 1902-1960. This included a time period in which plover population rebounded in the 1940’s and there was no development on the Outer Banks. Why no nesting?
Not “reported” because who was looking for them? I can?t find any studies, reports or records of surveys for nesting plover on Cape Hatteras for that period.
HH,
Look up “peer”.
Who is this “vast society” being oppressed and what do American Indians have to do with anything?
We have checked as many sources as we can find to discover what animals were native here when the park was founded. We have found most of the animals now being trapped and killed to have been mentioned in books, including the Enabling Legislation and remembered by older “locals”. We can find no mention or memories of plovers . We even consulted old cookbooks but can find no recipes for plover pie or stew and we know they ate everything available.
?BTW, driving is a privilege, not a right.
Crotalus ( Email) ? 28 03 10 ? 12:16?
Crotalus, Don’t be so sure on that one….
The Enabling Legislation clearly mandates that the Legal Residents of the Villages shall have a right to earn a livelihood by fishing within boundaries of said area. How are Local Commercial Fisherman and the Local Business owner’s going to earn a livelihood if they or their patrons “right of way” is barricaded and access is denied?
Crot.,I?ve been a health care provider for 37 years.I don?t need to look up ?peer?.The vast society is the hundreds of thousands of humans being denied the right to utilize the seashore recreational area.I did not refer to native American Indians,rather,native American ISLANDERS.Look up ?native?.
I have been following the ?discussions? of this subject quite intently for a number of years. As a layman and frequent visitor to Hatteras Island, I find that the editorial comment that makes the most logical sense to me is the one from ?Denny in Dayton? (dated March 27, 2010). A base population of ?0? Piping Plovers on Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreation Area at a time the Piping Plover population rebounded, is very interesting indeed. I would love to see this information expounded upon. It is my belief that both people and wildlife can coexist, however, in the end the human species should trump out. As citizen, I believe I have a ?right ? to access the beach at Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreation Area that my tax dollars have been and are used for. A recreation area is for human recreation, not Piping Plover ?recreation?. I do think we can allow the Plovers to ?visit? our human recreation area without fourcing us out! But the extream human setbacks do not make any logical sense in light of everything I have read!
I almost choked on my teeth when I read this. Luckily, they fell out and I was spared to issue this comment. What policy? What rationale? What scientific method? What objectivity? What transparancy? What in God?s name can anyone cite in support of the following statement? This is government nonesense run amuck.
?Also, as a matter of policy and practice, the USGS does not give peer reviewer comments to the public.?
Not surprised. The original made it clear that the peer reviews that SELC references are nothing more than A REVIEW BY THE PUBLISHED AUTHORS FOR THE PURPOSE OF VERIFYING THAT THEIR WORK WAS ACCURATELY SUMMARIZED. That is, they are NOT the type of peer review normally associated with science that is used as the basis of resource management plans.
In the previous version USGS noted that the Protocols are a summary of published scientific data. Now despite the fact that USGS did not even update the data they eliminated the following statement regarding the nature of the data.
?published scientific data on which management is based is often incomplete and less specific to the particular location of species under management than is desirable.?
The lack of complete and specific data is one reason that the USGS stated that the protocols were preliminary suggestions to be considered in conjunction with other appropriate data.
I have to ask, since no new articles were reveiwed and no new research conducted, why did USGS remove the above qualification?
?The peer review, Wade said, happened between April, 2005, and February, 2006.?
Ok, the first letter of intent to sue was filed by Defenders on May 18, 2005 for failure to consult with USFWS regarding species management.
December 18, 2006 was another letter of intent again by Defenders challenging the Interim Plan.
This is the letter of intent that was ultimately revised by SELC when they filed the suit in Oct. 18, 2007 on behalf of Defenders and Audubon. Audubon did not sign either of the previous letters but they Walker was here and I bet if I search very vocal in his comments on all meetings starting as early as 2003.
Barbara,
From what I understand, “beach chicken” was many species.
Scott,
There are provisions made for the few (3-6) dory fishermen.
HH,
You said native peoples ? which is usually aboriginal in context. No one is being prohibited from “utilizing” the seashore. Over-blown hyperbole.
Ken,
Again, who was surveying for nesting piping plover from 1902-1960? The first plover nests they eventually found were by accident, because they were surveying the terns. Heck, read the annual reports, even when they were looking for them, they weren?t finding all of them.
To put it concisely ? Humbug. The people peer reviewing the article (not reserch project) were the same people who wrote other parts of it and in some case wrote it themselves and the article was nothing but opinion, not supported by any scientific data at all. This is the worst kind of malfeasance one can imagine, and all of it paid for by us taxpayers. Oh, and BTW they were the same people making plans to sue to have their plot made into law. Isn?t that special? I guess Mengela reviewing his own research at the death camps was good science too. I say again HUMBUG!
?No one is being prohibited from using the seashore??When the point is cordoned off and people line up at the rope with their families and children,looking wistfully through the wire at what was freedom,they all think??overblown hyperbole?,don?t they?
HH,
There wasn?t a day I couldn?t drive or walk on the beach last year. You going to die if you don?t get to the Point? Come September-March (last year it was open mid-August or so).
Crot says: “There wasn’t a day I couldn’t drive or walk on the beach last year. You going to die if you don’t get to the Point?”
Nope, no one is going to die. However, implying all beaches at CHNSRA are equal is like implying all geysers in Yellowstone are equal.
Crotalus,was there not a day that you could not go where you WANTED to go?Or do you just go to the sheep pen,bleet and think(?),?This is good enough??I AM dying because I cannot get to the places (Bodie Spit,Ocracoke,thePoint) this thing is truly taking a terrible toll?on me,personally,because this is All I do to recreate.I go to Hatteras?my friends and family come?I meet my friends who live there.We go to the Point and I breathe in the air of freedom at the end of God?s Earth and I thank him.This is overblown hyperbole to you?this IS life to me and I am sincere about that.
Salvo,
That?s true. Cape Point in October is much, much, much better than Cape Point in July.
HH,
The Flying Spaghetti Monster (praise his noodliness) has told me the air (and fishing) is better in October and November.
Crot says: “Cape Point in October is much, much, much better than Cape Point in July.”
Yep and Bodie Island Spit in Jul is mo bedda dakine for families with small kids than Bodie Island Spit in Feb for the same families.
And just to be more on POINT.
Cape Point in the Hook in July is much, much, much better than the Hook in Oct when I have my 2 yr old grandson around.
Crot, is the Cobia bite at the Point, better in late May, June and into early July or late September-October?
And the (spring) ?big-headed? Bluefish taste better than the (fall) fat ones because they are leaner.
DEIS Workshops by Access Coalition.
I?m sure Irene will post this but thought I?d get a jump on getting it out.
http://www.preservebeachaccess.org/newsr..