In my March 26 blog, I wrote about the U.S. Geological Survey protocols for managing threatened and endangered species at the Cape Hatteras National Seashore and whether these documents were peer reviewed according to the agency?s guidelines.
The USGS and, I presume, The National Park Service still insist that the protocols, which recommend buffer zones for nesting shorebirds, were peer reviewed.
It is becoming increasingly obvious that the USGS has not followed its own guidelines for peer review on this document, which was recently ?re-issued? with no changes last month.
Sandy Semans, editor of The Outer Banks Sentinel, took over where my March 26 blog left off.
She was particularly interested in the unnamed U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biologists and managers on Pea Island who were cited as peer reviewers.
Semans sent follow-up questions to A.B. Wade, USGS Eastern Region communications chief, and to several USFWS employees, including David Rabon, who was a named peer reviewer. She wrote in today?s Sentinel that Wade was not able to provide names of the Pea Island ?biologists and managers? who contributed to the peer review. And Semans notes there were only one biologist and one manager at the refuge during the 2005-2006 peer review process. And each told her that he did not peer review the protocols.
The re-cap of the story from my March 26 blog is:
The peer reviewers, Wade said, are all listed in the ?acknowledgments? at the end of each section of the protocols. The peer review, she 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.
Here are the ?acknowledgments? on the chapter on piping plovers, which sets out 1,000 meter buffers for chicks:
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 named reviewers are:
? 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, who worked in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?s Raleigh field office in 2005 and is now supervisor for the Red Wolf Recovery Program at Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge.
? 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.
Rabon told the Sentinel in today?s article:
“I reviewed the draft protocols back in 2005 (I think). So that qualifies me as a peer-reviewer, I guess, in a very general term…From what I recall, the authors of the protocols sought peer-review of the draft in 2005-06, which is common among scientists preparing any type of manuscript. Then when completed, the document(s) was provided to NPS…In this case, I don’t think NPS sought any additional review beyond what was conducted by the authors in seeking peer-review. However, it is possible that USGS conducted an additional peer-review of the version that was officially published (i.e., 2010 version) because it is a USGS publication now. If so, they (USGS) would have followed their own peer-review process, which is a very specific peer-review process…”
So Rabon thinks or guesses he was a peer reviewer in 2005. And, by the way, the most recent publication of the protocols did not receive another updated peer review.
The Sentinel reports that Mike Bryant, manager of Pea Island and several other eastern North Carolina refuges, said he did not peer review the document.
“I don’t recall reviewing any document,” wrote Bryant. “… On this issue I was part of the ‘peanut gallery’ (an observer mostly) since Pea Is NWR didn’t have beach driving and beach driving as an activity was non-negotiable for the refuge. So, from my perspective, the refuge was not directly a part of the reg-neg or consent decree stuff – only by proximity and affinity was there a relationship to the issues at play. We were observers unless we were asked to give specific information about our management of our barrier island refuges.”
And, finally, the Sentinel reports that Dennis Stewart, biologist for the refuge, also said he did not peer review the publication.
“I remember a lot of phone calls and some meetings but I don’t remember ever writing peer review comments about this,? Stewart said. ?And I disagreed with some things.?
This issue of peer review matters to all of us who value public access to the seashore because the Park Service?s Draft Environmental Impact Statement and preferred alternative for managing access is based on the USGS report and its recommended buffers for nesting birds.
The buffers are excessive and are turning out to be the most contentious issue in the DEIS.
These reports on endangered and threatened species on the seashore are a discussion of science, and, according to the authors, they are ?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 protection of these species with other activities that occur at CAHA, nor was NPS management policy considered in detail.?
The authors have discussed the science of nesting birds and buffers in detail, but their recommended buffers are not based on any scientific method and cannot be defended.
Most importantly, despite the USGS ? and National Park Service — claims that they have been peer reviewed, the protocols do not meet the agency?s own standard for peer review, which includes this statement:
Peer reviews must include at least 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.
There are not two scientists on the list of peer reviewers for the piping plover protocols ? and most of the others ? who do not have a stake in the outcome of the review, who are not associated with the work, and who are without conflict of interest ? either now or when the peer reviews were allegedly conducted in 2005-2006.
It is becoming increasingly troublesome that the USGS ? and environmental groups ? continue to insist this is peer-reviewed science.
FOR MORE INFORMATION
To read the entire story on peer review and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in The Outer Banks Sentinel, go to
http://obsentinel.womacknewspapers.com/articles/2010/04/07/top_stories/tops269.txt
To read the USGS guidelines on peer review, go to http://www.usgs.gov/usgs-manual/500/502-3.html
It makes me sick to my stomach. The ?Defenders? and ?Audobons? will fight till the end of time. They are sick, twisted people. What about Duck and Corrola? Those beaches are like roads. If Hatteras and Ocracoke were built up like Myrtle Beach there wouldn?t be a DEIS. Stop the madness!!!
And one more thing. I have no idea which way the NPS feels about all this. No people, no worries, less work for them. I don?t trust them. Shooting so called predatory animals. How are they going to stop a Hurricane?
Thanks Irene and Sandy. Very refreshing and hopeful to know tthere are still some journalist who investigate and check facts and report the unbiased truth. Thank you for all you have done to keep those who care informed.
Thank you,Irene.You are exposing what we know to be the truth.God bless you?each ray of light into their murk of lies reveals more of their subterfuge.These are NOT nice people!Keep up the good work and we?ll be seeing you in the coming weeks!
Allright, for argument?s sake, let?s assume there is no science, peer-reviewed or otherwise about the impacts of ORVs on birds, distances for buffers, etc. What happens then? The law (which is peer-reviewed) says no driving on the Seashore can be allowed UNLESS it is will not harass wildlife or harm wildlife habitat. No science. No driving. A simple solution but I expect not acceptable to many. Instead of coming forward with any credible science or credible scientist to support any specific wildlife protection measures, those who advocate ORV use spend all their effort trying to attack the scientists (over 100 now) who have come forward in support of specific measures proposed by the Park Service. Shooting the messengers is a losing strategy. Instead why don?t you show us some science? Can?t you find a single scientist to support your views? Of course you would need two more so the opinion would be peer-reviewed.
Anon- What about talking to the PIPL biologists that came up with the standard 200 meter buffer used in other parks? Surely they are outside this little circle of trust.
Anon,
Have you read the DEIS? In it you will find that the scientists involved in its creation could find no physical long lasting harm to any bird or turtle habitat due to ORV use. In Chapter 4, “Environmental Consequences” section, you will find that the very dynamic nature of a barrier island system simply negates most ORV impacts. It?s a great read, and one I suggest you look into!
Also, your proposal of our side “showing the science” flies in the face of the very basis of our legal system, as you are asserting that we are guilty until proven innocent.
Well, Rick, the scientists of whom who speak are indeed some of the ones who peer reviewed the Protocols. And if you go back to the Piping Plover recovery plan you will see that Appendix G does indeed suggest the need for 1000 meter buffers for mobile broods, particularly where intensive monitoring efforts are not feasible.
Dapster is simply mistaken about the DEIS. Throughout the DEIS chapter, it is clear that ORV regulation will have long-term beneficial impacts to piping plovers, the degree of which depends on the alternative chosen. What alternative does he support?
Honest people will admit that science is not the issue here. It?s the fact that science suggests the need for management that conflicts with your personal preferences. That?s what this is about, no matter how much you want to ?shoot the messengers.? You won?t present peer reviewed scientific evidence supporting laxer standards for ORVs because you can?t. There is none.
The organic act and executive orders allow for beach driving ONLY on officially designated routes and areas, and those routes can ONLY be designated where it can be shown that there will be no adverse impact on the environment. To whatever extent that offends Dapster?s sense of fairness, well, it is the law.
Why are you hiding behind anon, if you feel so strong about the science and your position come forward. As we have seen more than once the science can be manipulated to reveal what interested parties want. The fact is beach users have been the stewards of the beach long before the enviro terrorist showed up and storms and natural predators have a bigger impact on the birds and turtles, who are at the farthest reaches of their breeding grounds. Actions have been taken in the past to create nesting areas, but alas bad management allowed them to be overgrown and over run so the birds dont find them suitable, so lets just close the beaches and turn the park into a refuge, wait already have one of those and dredge islands, but they dont count cause they are not available to the people for enjoyment.
Anon2- You are failing to balance your argument with the preceding paragraphs in Appendix G. Can you say honestly say that the broods in the Seashore are not ?intensely? monitored? I don?t know how it would be feasible to observe them any more closely then is done now. That leaves us with the 200 m minimum closure for ORVs which may need expansion based on the mobility of the brood. What then are the grounds then for the blanket 1000 m closure? To suggest this is necessary by citing the well traveled Ocracoke brood misses the point.
What do you think about the suggestion for a 200 m closure for kite flying? 50 m for pedestrians?
Rick
Baltimore
If a scientist?s peer-reviewed literature is cited in another paper, that doesn?t make them a contributor to that paper.
Sheesh!
Close the beaches and let the Ghost crabs and other predators eat! They like themselves some Plover?. Now that is science that no one argues. I will bet my house on the fact these birds will never thrive on this island. Would you Crot care to take that bet? Then meet me at the Hampton road DEIS meeting.
Samsdad,
You just made more sense in 48 words than 810 pages (DEIS) of government bureaucratic (biased-or-otherwise, peer-reviewed-or-otherwise) documents. The fact remains that God?s creatures must eat! Perhaps Audubon, with the help of DEW and SELC will embark on a mission to suck millions of dollars from their members on a campaign to eradicate ghost crabs if they are successful in banning humans from the Cape Hatteras National Seashore RECREATIONAL area. Sad, but maybe that is the time when Audubon members will finally realize that the folks that run their organization and DEW/SELC are the equivalent of Bernie Madoff/Jeffrey Skilling/Michael Milken/etc. ? GREED personified!
Very sad indeed.
Well, Another Anon,
“Dapster is simply mistaken about the DEIS. Throughout the DEIS chapter, it is clear that ORV regulation will have long-term beneficial impacts to piping plovers, the degree of which depends on the alternative chosen. What alternative does he support?”
You missed my point. Anon 1 made the comment that ORV uses is detrimental to HABITAT, which the DEIS cleary shows it is not. I don?t think anyone disagrees that nesting species are affected by ORV use, the disparity falls into the categories of closure size(s), durations, and levels of effectiveness.
1000m closures are likely to be detrimental to the species in question simply because they allow more area for the myriad of predators to operate around each nest. (Human presence tends to scare predators away as well, in case you have forgotten that point.)
If the measures put forth under the CD are so darn effective, then why are the PIPL numbers for 2009 DOWN across the board when compared to 2008, in a quiet weather year? (DEIS, C3, P?s 187, 188, 195) Perhaps the predators have figured out the system to thier advantage, as storm events and human disturbance were clearly not factors for CY 2009, firmly under the CD.
If human disturbance were anywhere near the top percentiles for nest/fledging failures, I would agree with you, but since human disturbance statistically falls well below the thresholds of predation and overwash, I stand by my beliefs that we are not as detrimental as is suggested. Do I have science to the contrary? Some, but not much. However, many island locals do have years and even decades of personal obsvervations and data,(eg:Larry Hardham?s Turtle Studies), but guess what? Most, if not all of the data that has been presented from island residents during this whole affair has been subsequently ignored or rejected offhand.
Sense of fairness? Your words, not mine. I would state my belief set as more of a sense of “balance”, which is completely realistic and achievable. Law? We?re going to get a chance to explore that chapter of this saga within a year or two, mark my words.
My favored Alt? That?s easy! The one that was issued a FONSI in 2007.
From F&F Board. Note the time is in the title line
DEIS ACCESS WORKSHOP RALEIGH April 27, 6:00PM posted by Frank Folb Sr
NPS Will have public comments on April 28 as follows:
Raleigh, NC – Wednesday, April 28, 2010, 6:00 pm to 8:00 pm
NPS Will have public comments on April 28 as follows:
Raleigh, NC – Wednesday, April 28, 2010, 6:00 pm to 8:00 pm
In support of the Coalition for Beach Access that includes OBPA, Cape Hatteras Anglers Club, NC Beach Buggy Assoc. and other groups; I will be hosting with the gracious help Jim Dargus of Shore Lures(Glass Minnows), a work shop on April 27, 2010 to quickly go through what the coalition has put together in a power point and handout session To help you learn more
about the DEIS and how to make informed and effective comments.
The meeting will be held at:
The BBQ LODGE, 4600 Capital Boulevard, Raleigh, NC 27604,(919) 872-4755
Cost to me and Jim will be $13.01 and we will have donation jar for anyone that attends to help, but that is totally up to you. This will include dinner, ice tea or coffee, tax and tip.
They would like to know how many we expect to attend the meeting I hpoe it will be over a hundred, but they will need advance notice of the number so please email me at ffff1@mindspring.com or call 252-995-4171 to let us know you will be there.
If you know somewone that wants to attend call them, if you know someone at a radio station that can give us a public announcement on this workshop call them, if you know someone at a TV station at will get a public announcement ou on this work shop call them and if you can get the local paper to put an announcement about the workshop please call them.
Many of you have asked how you can help. NOW IS TIME TIME TO BE HEARD!!!!!
__________________