National Enviro Group Smears Local Oyster Farm

From the Russian River Times November- December 2011 Issue

The National Parks Conservation Association’s (NPCA) campaign against the presence of historic Drakes Bay Oyster Company farm (DBOC) in Point Reyes National Seashore has a readily apparent pattern of inflammatory press releases and petitions timed to influence public input. The allegations in these press releases and petitions from NPCA and its coalition show a reckless disregard for the truth, using incendiary language such as, “threats to endangered species”, “repeal of the Wilderness Act”, “causing the deaths of  harbor seals”, “wiping out endangered eel grass” and a host of other words and misinformation designed to shock the public into responding to public comment periods for National Park Service actions and to their legislators.  These releases are distributed to a wide range of national and local environmental groups who re-release them, creating an echo-chamber of misinformation.  None of their charges are true.

Image from Goodman report to Marine Mammal Commission showing oyster cultivation areas looking East. The small channel from left to right in the middle of the picture represents the western edge of the Seal Protection Zone in the operating protocols. See map in RR Times article, "The Gang that Couldn't Map Straight". The boat that NPCA claimed is in violation is immediately above "Bag Culture" label. (Click for larger image)

The latest case is the public comment period for the National Park Service (NPS) Environmental Impact Statement of DBOC, made in conjunction with the extension of the oyster farm’s lease.  The NPCA recently issued press releases claiming that they submitted photographic evidence to the California Coastal Commission (CCC) September 7-9 meeting in Crescent City, in Northern California, demonstrating that Drake’s Bay Oyster Company violated the seal protection protocols by operating boats in prohibited areas.  Having manufactured the complaint, they then turned around and cited the CCC’s Sept 21 letter of inquiry to DBOC requesting a meeting, as ‘proof’ that the company was being ‘reprimanded’ for violations of the seal protection zone in Drake’s Estero.  The image in question shows the boat well outside the prohibited zone. By either design or coincidence, the draft EIS was released to the public two days later.

Tom Moore, recently retired from California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), supervised the State shellfish leases from 1988 until his recent retirement, and was responsible for the negotiation of the 1992 joint agency protocol agreement between CDFG, NOAA Marine Fisheries and National Park Service and the California Department of Public Health.  Upon his review of the photograph in question, Moore stated that “there is absolutely no way that anyone who had any familiarity with the protocols could claim that the photos show that DBOC is in violation. None of the signatories to the agreement have ever cited DBOC for any violation of seal protection protocols.”

Second image from Goodman/MMC presentation, taken at the same time as the first photograph, showing boat at extreme western end of lateral channel, as permitted in Joint Agency protocols. The western (left) edge of the seal protection zone runs down the small channel that runs from the lateral channel towards the upper edge of the image. NPCA stated that the only photos submitted to the CCC were the previous image, with and without labels, and some of the controversial NPS hidden camera photos, which show the oyster boats hundreds of feet to the left of the channel marking the edge of the Seal Protection Zone (Click for larger image)

Neal Desai, the NPCA official who made the claims, not only attended the National Academy of Science hearings on the oyster farm’s impact in Drake’s Estero, including a presentation by CDFG’s Tom Moore, where there was detailed discussion of the seal haul-out areas. Desai also represented the NPCA in the recent Marine Mammal Commission investigation and was one of two petitioners for the investigation. He was also present on official tours of the Estero to the same spot where he alleged that the violations occurred.  In addition, Desai attended meetings at which MMC was informed that DBOC, because of what they felt were false claims against them, were logging all boat trips by global positioning system, yet NPCA apparently felt no obligation to check with DBOC before making these claims.  DBOC never received any letter or citation of protocol violations by either CDFG or NPS since taking over operation of the oyster farm from 2005 to present.

Ironically, the photo in question is part of a series of aerial images taken as research to accurately determine positions in the Estero for a May 2011 Russian River Times article on the conflicting seal haul-out maps presented by NPS, entitled ‘The Gang that Couldn’t Map Straight”.  In the CCC letter to DBOC, the photo is credited to the author of this article, Times Contributing Editor John Hulls and his associate, Todd Pickering.  The only authorized and published use of the images was by local scientist Dr. Corey Goodman, who used two of the photographs in an August 29, 2011 presentation to the Marine Mammal Commission, labeling key areas and distances from oyster areas to seal haul out sites.  MMC released the report to NPCA and others on August 30th. The NPCA’s use of the doctored photo came to the Times attention when the photograph appeared on the National Parks Traveler (NPT) website on October 5^th with Dr. Goodman’s label removed.  National Parks Traveler confirmed that NPCA’s Desai was the source of the photograph, and presented it with the claim that CCC was ‘reprimanding’ Lunny for causing harm to harbor seals. Upon being shown the actual photos and discussing the alleged violations, NPT took down the photograph on October 6.  However, the NPCA press release triggered numerous on-line articles with headlines citing their false claims.

Image from NPT website, 5 Oct 2011 looking eastwards from end of lateral channel. (Original in color). NPT confirmed that Desai was the source of the image. Note that labels from authorized use by Goodman have been removed. NPT reduced the size of the image he provided to fit their format. The small channel marking the western end of the seal protection zone is clearly visible in the upper left portion of the image.

The previous incident of highly charged NPCA false claims took place during the public hearings to determine the scope of the NPS EIS.  On November 4, 2010, NPCA distributed an e-mail stating that there were endangered plants and animals within the Estero including harbor seals, birds including Black Brants and Great Egrets, along with eel grass that were being threatened by DBOC. According to the Fish and Wildlife service, none of these species are in any way threatened or endangered.  Significantly, NPS statistics make it possible to see the impact of this widely distributed press release.  Sarah Rolph, a writer, tabulated the results.  According to her review, the 3,894 responses received during the 15 October-10 November 2010 comment period, between 2,952 or 75 percent came in during the week following the NPCA flyer with 1,497 on the exact day as the release. The statistics show that misleading actions such as Desai’s using emotional trigger words like ‘threatened’ or ‘endangered’ bring about surges of well-intentioned one-click environmentalism. Rolph reports that many of the negative responses were simply cut and paste from the NPCA release.  In cases such as small communities like West Marin, local input must compete with a tide of national misinformation.  Informal local surveys by the Marin Independent Journal newspaper and local groups, where there has been in-depth coverage of the issue, put support for the oyster farm’s continued existence at around 90 percent.

In an earlier 2009 incident, NPCA participated in an equally blatant signature gathering campaign to convince Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey not to support the Feinstein legislation authorizing Interior Secretary Salazar to extend DBOC’s lease for ten years.  The group, SaveDrakesBay.org (SDB) had a table set up at the Sebastopol ‘Whole Foods’ store, manned by a person named ‘Brian’, who was telling the passing shoppers outrageous fabrications such as that seals were dying because of the oyster factory operation and there was also a conspiracy to destroy the Wilderness Act.  He displayed maps claiming to show that the eel grass, an important part of the ecosystem ‘was nearly gone” and that it was ‘dying because of the oysters”.  Once again, these claims fly in the face of evidence.  According to NOAA officials, the seal population is healthy, and according to the NAS, the eelgrass doubled in the Estero in the last 20 years, increasing from 361 acres in 1991 to 740 acres in 2007.  There was no explanation as to how extending the lease for an allowed pre-existing non-conforming activities (regularly allowed in wilderness areas) would open the door to commercial exploitation of areas protected by the Wilderness Act.  This episode was extensively covered in the July 2009 issue of the Times in an article entitled “Environmental Petition Spreads Discredited Information”

Records show that NPCA officials launched the SDB website in April of 07, registering the domain name and listing the Administration Contact as ndesai@npca.org. The site claims to involve a coalition of local and national environmental groups.  Many of the NPCA press releases appear to be distributed through the group, and the organization has recently launched a second website.  It is possible to trace the NPCA claims of the protocol violations through SDB to many other sites and environmental groups.  For instance, the California water news website Aquafornia.com leads a recent post with the headline, “Coastal Commission reprimands Drakes Bay Oyster Company; Motorized boats, plastic pollution “pose serious threats to marine habitats and wildlife”. and makes several other demonstrably false claims that appear to have their origin in NPCA’s inflammatory claims.  Aquafornia cites one of NPCA’s partners in the SDB organization as the basis of their article.

In 22 November meeting with NPCA’s Western Region Director, Ron Sundergill, he claimed that while NPCA was a member of the SDB coalition, NPCA was not responsible for the site or the actions of its members.  Regarding the photograph and the violations of the protocol, he stated that Desai checked with both the Marine Mammal Commission and the California Coastal Commission concerning violations of the protocols shown in the photograph.  He showed the Times two photographs from the controversial NPS ‘hidden camera’ program which show the boat in approximately the same location as the original photo. He claimed they supported NPCA’s contentions and also showed a marked up version of the original photograph in question that showed Desai’s interpretation of the protocols.

One of the NPS 'Hidden Camera' photograph submitted to CCC by NPCA, claiming violations of seal protection zone. Despite the low angle and foreshortening of the photograph, the mouth of the north-south channel delineating the edge of the zone is clearly visible to the right of the image, and the oyster boats and workers are tending the bags as shown in the previous image from the Goodman report to the MMC, well to the west of the protection zone. (Click for larger image)

Desai’s markup directly contradicts the protocols, especially a 2 June 92 letter from NPS to CDFG agreeing to allow use of the western channel to tend the oyster harvest areas. He also stated that he has relied on Desai to handle the DBOC campaign for the past five years.  He also stated that while he had not reviewed the protocols, he “had not seen any misrepresented facts” in NPCA’s presentations. Sundergill responded to Times claims that the original photo had been altered from its only published form by removing the labels by stating they were “removed in the process of copying”and that both versions had been submitted to the CCC. However, he confirmed that Desai sent NPT only the image with the labels removed, but claimed that this did not count as ‘cropping‘ the original photograph.  He did not know who else had received the doctored image, and declined to have NPCA issue a retraction stating that the original photograph did not show a violation of the harbor seal protection zones.

In a matter unrelated to the photographs, NPCA also claims that CCC imposed a fine on the oyster company $61,250 in December 2009 which is highly misleading as CCC attempted to impose a fine for which it had no legislative authority. The CCC was notified of this on 19 January 2010  The legislation establishing the Coastal Commission defines its relationship to other agencies and Section 30411(a) clearly states “The Department of Fish and Game and the Fish and Game Commission are the principal state agencies responsible for the establishment and control of wildlife and fishery management programs and the commission shall not establish or impose any controls with respect thereto that duplicate or exceed the regulatory controls established by these agencies pursuant to specific statutory requirements or authorizations.  The imposition of the fine was challenged under this section, and no attempts at collection have been made.

In addition, CDFG had previously notified CCC that the confusion over the lease areas resulted from a clerical error by CDFG which was already in the process of being corrected.  Tom Moore of CDFG said “I brought this mistake to the attention of the National Academy of Science in my presentation on mariculture in Drakes  Estero hearings in Mill Valley on September 4, 2008.  This whole idea of ‘rogue oyster growers’ is just ridiculous.  Their leases give them a specified time to fix any issues we observe, up to 90 days, and we rarely if ever fine anybody.  Lunny has done everything he was supposed to since purchasing the oyster farm”  The Fish and Game Commission corrected the lease on 9 December 2009, which has the force of law.

The Drake’s Bay situation points out the need for national organizations like NPCA to be responsible for their actions at the local level, or the integrity of the environmental  movement will continue to be divided and compromised,as has been noted by several researchers and pollsters.  More importantly, it show how the NPS, without a proper watchdog or national policy for agriculture and mariculture within the parks, places rural communities and their citizens at the whim of the local Park Superintendent. Over a third of the 400-some national parks, monuments and seashores contain culturally significant working landscapes.  In the case of  Drake’s Estero, the Superintendent flip-flopped from planning a multi-million dollar upgrade of the oyster farm facilities, signing off that it didn’t require any action under state and federal environmental laws, to conducting a highly questionable campaign to get rid of DBOC.  His actions resulted in millions of taxpayer dollars spent on reports, studies, staff time and environmental impact statements, and has yet to produce any data showing that the oyster farm is detrimental to the Estero.

Busting the Park Service Coverup

From the Russian River Times November 2011

In an all too rare case of bipartisan agreement, letters to Department of Interior Secretary Salazar from Senator Feinstein and House Committee Chairman Darrell Issa both state very similar concerns about the integrity of National Park Service science. The latest turn in the Point Reyes oyster farm debates brings it under the review of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, headed by Congressman Issa. (R-Ca)

In his 20 October 2011 letter to Salazar, Issa states, ” …In light of the damaging draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) released by NPS on Sept 23, 2011, it is imperative that a thorough, objective review of whether NPS’s conclusions are based on flawed science occur immediately…“.  He goes on to address the Frost report onconcealment of data concerning Kevin Lunny and Drakes Bay Oyster Farm and notices the interviews of seven Department of Interior and NPS officials, including Frost from the DOI Solicitors Office, NPS Director Jarvis and Point Reyes Superintendent Muldoon.

NPS "Hidden Camera" photograph of kayak approaching seals at the edge of the channel. This boat was identified as an oyster farm boat in data presented to National Academy of Sciences panel. Note date/time stamps.

While the Oversight Committee has identified the cover-up of the hidden camera photos, and the concealment of information that exonerated DBOC from claims of seal disturbance, the cover-up dates from Lunny’s 2006-2007 meetings with West Marin Supervisor Steve Kinsey when he asked for help as he was having trouble getting Neubacher to sign off on necessary permits for work required by the California Coastal Commission (2008 Inspector General’s report, P34)  At an April 2007 meeting Kinsey reported that Neubacher stated that he was not going to deal with DBOC and the permit issue any more because of civil and criminal violations of environmental law, and turned down a suggestion to convene a scientific panel to evaluate DBOC’s impact on the Estero.

Kayak flushes seals into water two minutes later.

NPS never filed any charges, notified DBOC of any violations or produced any data indicating any violation of criminal or civil environmental law that would substantiate Neubacher’s charges. The cover-up then continued with the Marin County Board of Supervisors meeting on May 8, 2007, which Kinsey asked Neubacher to attend.  At that meeting, (webcast), Neubacher and NPS scientists made incendiary claims that have since proved to be false, concerning massive loss of seal pups and a national environmental crisis.  None of Neubacher’s charges has been substantiated by any NPS data or documents.

However, a few days prior to the meeting, Neubacher and his staff initiated the hidden camera program, which they would keep concealed for nearly 4 years.  Deliberately withholding the existence of this program from the Inspector General and the National Academy of Science investigators is a significant focus of the Committee’s hearings on scientific misconduct. The Marin Supervisor’s meeting, despite the NPS accusations and objections, lead to a unanimous vote to ask Senator Feinstein to intervene which, in turn, lead to a 21 July 2007 meeting at Olema with Feinstein, NPS chief Mary Bomar, Western Regional Director Jarvis, Superintendent Neubacher and other NPS officials, along with Supervisor Kinsey, Kevin Lunny, Tom Moore of California Fish and Game, and Dr. Corey Goodman, a scientist of national reputation whom Supervisor Kinsey had asked to review Neubacher’s scientific claims and report to the Board of Supervisors.

At this point, the scope of the NPS cover-up expands rapidly.  As a result of the Olema meeting, Fenstein and Bomar reached an agreement that Goodman and Jarvis and Moore would work with the National Academy of Sciences to prepare a statement of work to evaluate the validity and ethics of the existing NPS science, as embodied in the Parks ‘Sheltered Wilderness’ report, and Goodman’s report to the Marin Board of Supervisors. The NPS document had been removed from their Point Reyes website at Feinstein’s request, because of errors.

At the very moment that Bomar and Feinstein were negotiating the review of the existing science, with Neubacher and Jarvis present, the hidden camera program was well underway.  NPS scientists were about to start work on new studies in an apparent attempt to find negative information about DBOC to obscure the fact that Neubacher, at the time he made his allegations of criminal and civil violations by Lunny and the claims of massive loss of seal pups and a national environmental crisis, had absolutely no data to support them or to scientifically justify closure of the oyster farm.

Despite Bomar’s belief that Jarvis was proceeding as directed, he was in fact negotiating directly with the National Academy to do a study, not of the validity and ethics of the existing NPS science, but of alleged harm caused by DBOC.  At the same time, Jarvis was delaying delivery of information to Goodman and essentially cutting Goodman and Moore out of the National Academy scoping process despite the fact that Goodman was an elected member of the NAS. Bomar’s understanding is clearly documented in a Nov 13 letter from NPS Director Bomar to Kevin Lunny in which she states, “…I assure you that I am committed to the National Park Service following through as was agreed to in Olema. As my letter to Senator Feinstein indicates, we are not seeking new scientific review, but rather, an independent review of what has already been done….I am copying Regional Director Jarvis as I have assigned him responsibility for managing this issue….”

The trajectory of the cover-up leads finally to the Frost report, but there is another important point in the process demonstrating the lack of NPS integrity concerning the entire planning process.  As part of the process, NPS policy requires that socio-economic impacts be studied as an integral part of park planning, which it did in 2008.  In a contemporaneous interview, Dr. George Goldman, a Berkeley professor and expert in planning pointed out that they had misused the software, failed to study alternates and badly misrepresented the scope of agriculture in the park.  He stated that the report “bears little resemblance to actual socioeconomic impacts and seemed designed to make Park policies look good.” (See “Statistics, Damnable Statistics and Lies” Pt. Reyes Light/Nov 2008) The report only devotes three pages to agriculture.  The oyster farm? Notwithstanding that it is the largest local employer next to the Park Service itself, a major factor in California mariculture and the State’s last oyster cannery,  it is simply not mentioned in the report. The inescapable conclusion is that Neubacher had already decided to get rid of it.

If the agreement with Bomar and Feinstein had been honored, the issue of NPS scientific integrity in Point Reyes would have been resolved years ago. Instead, Jarvis has, until now, managed to avoid any truly independent investigation of scientific integrity, especially one that might have prevented his rise to Director of the National Park Service.

In the interim, millions of dollars of taxpayer money has been and continues to be spent on investigations from which Jarvis and the NPS conspired to conceal exculpatory information and now on the hopelessly flawed and biased Environmental Impact Statement which triggered Chairman Issa’s letter to Secretary Salazar

Scientific integrity is not just a bipartisan issue, but an ethical one that is as vital to the nation as it is to our coastal communities and the sustainability of their futures.

Investigating the National Park Service

From the Russian River Times, October 2011

Are the National Park Service really the ‘good guys’ in the dispute over the future of oyster harvest in Point Reyes National Sea Shore?  To understand the situation, consider the nature and history of NPS investigations in general, rather than the NPS results and statistics, which–as one high ranking Department of Interior official noted–are “not worth the paper they are sent in on.”

Thanks to the University of New Mexico Press and the National Parks Traveler, one can see the stunning parallels between events surrounding an investigation of the National Park Service Hubble Trading Post and Drake’s Bay Oyster Company, operating within Point Reyes National Seashore.

The Traveler reviewed “The Case of the Indian Trader,” written by Park Service investigator Paul D. Berkowitz. Rather than reporting NPS corruption and perversion of law to his superiors, many of whom were directly involved, he took his findings directly to the Inspector General. The review describes the book as telling three stories: “one that details what seems to be a grave injustice done to a man, Billy Malone, many describe as the last and one of the best of the country’s true-to-life Indian traders; a second on mismanagement within one of the National Park Service’s largest co-operating associations; and a third that reveals an incredibly dark side of the National Park Service. Read the Park Traveler review at: http://www.nationalparkstraveler.com/review/2011/case-indian-trader-billy-malone-and-national-park-service-investigation-hubbell-trading-post8015

The National Park Service acquired the Hubble Trading Post with the understanding that a recognized Indian trader, integrated with the Navajo community, would operate it in the traditional manner. This exactly parallels the situation in Drake’s Estero, where the park (the Point Reyes National Seashore) was formed with the understanding that within the historic pastoral landscape, ranching and the oyster farm could continue to play their roles within the community. The authors of the Point Reyes National Seashore legislation, including environmental icon Congressman Pete McCloskey, who talked the Nixon Administration into funding for the seashore as well as authoring the Endangered Species Act, recently reaffirmed this fact.

The parallels continue with Berkowitz’ documentation of NPS behavior, including Park Service agents making false statements to obtain search warrants of Malone’s Store, unlawfully seizing the majority of his personal property and wrongfully claiming that Malone had stolen federal funds. He also describes the improper collusion between NPS officials and Western National Parks Association, when newly appointed WNPA Executive Director LeeAnn Simpson became convinced that Malone had stolen millions of dollars and insisted that the NPS investigate.

Once again, the history closely parallels that of Drake’s Estero. Gordon Bennett of the Sierra Club launched an attack on Kevin Lunny, whose family had recently acquired the oyster farm from the failing Johnson Oyster company. In a May/June 2006 article in the Sierra Club Yodeler, he claims that Lunny was disturbing harbor seals, poisoning the estuary, importing invasive species, violating his permits and failing to meet the terms of a California Coastal Commission consent decree with his predecessor, the Johnson Oyster Company. None of these charges have been shown to have merit.

Because of newly surfacing NPS intransigence, Lunny could not obtain the necessary approvals from NPS to comply with the consent decree and finally asked Marin County supervisor Steve Kinsey to intercede.  Kinsey told the OIG, in its subsequent investigation, that Don Neubacher, then Superintendent of the Point Reyes National Seashore, stated he would not negotiate further with Lunny, because of his civil and criminal liabilities and that he was bringing charges. Lunny asked the NPS to document those charges, but no response was forthcoming.

Just as in the Indian Trader case, the NPS, acting in concert with Sierra Club, through their then-spokesman Gordon Bennett, made unsubstantiated claims of misconduct, apparently to remove someone who did not agree with their (NPS and Bennett/Sierra Club) new policy position. The policy to demand removal of the oyster farm represents a complete reversal of the NPS and environmental group’s positions from 1998. At that time, the NPS and the Johnson Oyster Company jointly prepared a plan for completely rebuilding and expanding the entire shore facility, including preparation of drawings, surveys and a finding of negative environmental impact (No need for Environmental Impact Statement) under Federal and State regulations, signed by Park Superintendent Neubacher.

Neither the NPS, or the agencies and environmental groups such as the Sierra Club, the West Marin Environmental Action Committee who all signed off on the plan, have ever explained this about-face, or what changed in the law or science to justify it. Because of financial difficulties in the Johnson family, the plan did not move forward, and the Lunny family acquired the oyster operation in 2005.

The significance of this reversal becomes apparent in the light of following events. As a result of NPS obstructionism on permits and Neubacher’s claims of criminality, Kinsey asked Senator Diane Feinstein to intercede. The Senator responded that she would investigate only if the members of the Marin County Board of Supervisors were in unanimous agreement, which they were.

This led to a public meeting where Neubacher and his scientists made misleading presentations, clearly designed to convince the public that the oyster farm was causing severe loss of seal pups and damage to the environment in Drake’s Estero. The meeting in the Marin Supervisors Chambers was fully recorded on video, and the manner in which the Park service attempted to portray the oyster operations is unambiguous, despite subsequent attempts by NPS and environmental groups to distance themselves from the misleading NPS presentation (see videotaped archives at http://www.co.marin.ca.us/depts/BS/Archive/Meetings.cfm )

In addition to the videotaping of the Park Service attempts to mislead the public, the 8 May 2007 Marin County Board of Supervisors meeting is significant, leading to a meeting in Olema between Feinstein, Mary Bomar, then Head of the Park Service, other NPS and local officials and Kevin Lunny. More importantly, it establishes the approximate date at which NPS began to create new, supposedly scientific underpinnings for their attempts to get rid of the oyster farm.

Bomar and Feinstein agreed that local scientist and NAS member Corey Goodman and Tom Moore, of California Fish and Game, would work with Western Regional Park Service Director Jon Jarvis to design a program under which the National Academy of Sciences would specifically investigate the integrity of the NPS science, presented in a report on the NPS website that contained false information, revealed when contradictory research reports were leaked to local scientists and journalists. Just as Berkowitz documented in the Indian Trader case, NPS’ superintendents overlooked NPS policy and directives. Jarvis ignored Bomar and Feinstein’s orders and negotiated directly with the National Academy to divert the investigation away from the integrity of NPS science and towards an investigation of Lunny, evidently in the hope of finding potential evidence that might substantiate Neubacher’s charges.

A clear pattern in NPS behavior emerges. When Berkowitz was assigned to take over the Hubble case, he conveyed to Assistant U.S. Attorney Rob Long that he was told by his NPS Washington superiors, “I want this guy arrested,” and “I don’t care what we charge him with.”  In the case of Point Reyes, NPS senior officials evidently directed their staff to produce results to back their claims against Lunny and support their policy position. This started immediately after the 2007 Board of Supervisors meeting, when they placed hidden game cameras to observe the oyster operations and take date and time stamped evidence, and prepare statistical studies of existing data to show harm to seals from the oyster operation, generally referred to as the Becker papers

NPS failed to notify the DOI IG of these programs during his investigation, failed to inform the Marin Mammal Commission scientists, and failed to notify the NAS scientists of the existence of the photos, even when the NAS report clearly stated that resolution of disturbances by oyster workers could only be resolved “by a data collection system that could be independently verified, such as time and date stamped photographs. This verification is especially important in circumstances where there is an indication of a source of disturbance that could lead to a regulatory action, as was the case with disturbances attributed to DBOC.” (NAS report Shellfish Mariculture in Drake’s Estero p47). The films showed no disturbances by oyster workers. In fact, NPS scientists apparently never even bothered to check them against disturbances their volunteer survey program claimed to have seen.

It would take an entire book to document the similarities between the NPS Indian Trader investigation and the campaign against the Lunnys. So many of the things that Berkowitz documents also show up in the Drake’s Bay matter. The NPS never bothered to interview Malone as to the charges against him. The NPS never bothered to ask Lunny for the data on oyster harvest and boat operations, and as a result made serious errors in their analyses. The Hubble investigation was instigated by individuals outside the NPS in the Western National Parks association, who then participated in the investigation. The current Marine Mammal Commission investigation was triggered by two individuals, Gordon Bennett of the Sierra Club and Neil Desai of National Parks Conservation, with the support of the NPS.

Incredibly enough, it appears that the MMC has received no documentation from Desai and Bennett beyond two sentences in the original letter of complaint against Lunny alleging error by the National Academy of Sciences. As in the case of the Indian Trader, where WNPA received insider information and participated in the investigation, NPS has consistently given information to friendly local factions such as Bennett of the Sierra Club and his supporters before releasing it to the public.

In the most blatant recent case, Amy Trainer of the West Marin Environmental Action Committee released the latest version of the NPS/Becker paper alleging seal harm to the local press before the Marine Mammal Commission had even received it!  It appears that the NPS even withheld this paper from the DOI solicitor investigating scientific misconduct. This repeats the pattern with the 2006 Sheltered Wilderness report, handed out to the public by Gordon Bennett of the Sierra Club, documented in the IG report.

In addition, with every critique of the Park Service,  their supporters in the local environmental movement launch highly inaccurate broadsides, run misleading public surveys gathering signatures based on fabricated claims that  the oyster ‘factory’ is killing seals, has wiped out the eelgrass and imported non-native species.  They then send their calls-to-action to some 50 plus national environmental groups, most of whom take the claims at face value, thus totally distorting the public debate. A recent survey by the Marin Independent Journal, which serves all of Marin, showed that the local populous, who are considerably more aware of the tactics of Bennett and EAC’s  Amy Trainer, voted 90% in favor of the oyster farm continuing to operate, whereas the majority of national public comments appeared to stem from ‘click-the-button’ e-mail responses to the false claims against the oyster company.

However, what is most striking in both the case of the Hubble Trading Post and the Drake’s Bay Oyster Company is the stunning unresponsiveness of the NPS to outside authority, be it Department of the Interior, or even Congress. Berkowitz, discussing ethics and values in the NPS, quotes DOI Inspector General Devaney in his 2003 testimony to congress on failure to implement mandated reforms: “Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I have served in Federal Government for a little over 32 years. I have never seen an organization more unwilling to accept constructive criticism or embrace new ideas than the National Park Service. Their culture is to fight fiercely to protect the status quo and reject any idea that is not their own.”  There is no more perfect example of this than the just-released NPS Environmental Impact Statement on Drakes Estero. (Remember that just a few years ago, the same Park Superintendent signed a negative declaration on rebuilding the Johnson oyster, i.e. no EIS necessary.)  The Park Service has never accepted the critique of its first document, the 2006 Sheltered Wilderness report withdrawn when Senator Feinstein stated that the scientific errors must be corrected.

Now, five years and several million public dollars later, we have findings by the Inspector General that NPS scientists deliberately misled the public, NAS findings that the NPS had failed to demonstrate their claims of harm from oyster operations and had exaggerated and misrepresented their science, DOI solicitors’ findings that NPS officials and scientists violated NPS’ Code on scientific and scholarly conduct, and an upcoming report from the Marine Mammal Commission.

So, what’s in the new Environmental Impact Statement? With the boldfaced lie about oysters being the main source of sediment being removed, the NPS simply says “We’re right and everyone else is wrong,” and thumbs its nose at Congress, the DOI Inspector General and the National Academy of Sciences and all scientific criticism.  The EIS, prepared by the same NPS staff members, merely restates the false claims of the long-discredited Sheltered Wilderness report, which they themselves fabricated.

The Gang that Couldn’t Map Straight

View of Drake's Estero looking towards ocean. Seals haul out near the main channel on the left of the image, which winds towards the ocean. The oyster bag areas are out of view, off the right side of the image. Photo Credits: Russian River Times/Todd Pickering & John Hulls

From the Russian River Times, May 2011

The Russian River Times ‘asked’ the seals what they thought about the National Park Service (NPS) Drakes Estero controversy, via an aerial survey. The seals seemed happy in their usual haul-out spots, on the well-drained sandbars with safe escape routes. The humans at NPS, however, are arguing over maps. The first, in a 2011 academic paper by NPS scientists Becker et al., claims to show harm to seals from proximity to mariculture. This map, released after the Frost report on scientific misconduct (Russian River Times/Mar-April 2011) directly contradicted NPS’ second map, from Park Superintendent Cecily Muldoon, showing the maximum utilization of seal haul-out areas. The NPS/Becker map again directly contradicts a third NPS map, documenting the most recent 2008 agreement between Drake’s Bay Oyster Company (DBOC) and NPS.

The latter two maps agree with the seals’ preferred use of the haul-out sites on the sandbars. Further review of published papers and an appendix to the Becker paper reveals that NPS had aerial photos of the estero, and related documents, showing that they clearly knew about 1982-95, 2002 and 2004 aerial surveys of seal locations. Yet Becker et al. are silent as to the paper’s extension of the haul-out area, which effectively cuts the oyster farm in half. Without unsupported extension of the haul-out area, the Becker paper’s claims that oyster bags have been placed on the sites used by seals is specious.

The Becker paper has a map headed “Displacement of Harbor Seals By Shellfish Aquaculture,”  showing the alleged haul-out areas overlapping areas where oyster bags are placed (see photo).  This conflicts with map provided to DBOC by Park Superintendent Cecily Muldoon in June 2010, showing the “maximum extent” of seal utilization in areas on the lateral channel. The NPS/Muldoon map matches images from the hidden camera photos, which show seals hauling out close to the eastern end of the lateral channel, and also shows an abundant available haul-out sites along the deep main channels. This is clearly shown in the photos from the Time’s survey.

Graphic showing boundaries of the various NPS maps. (Click for larger image)

In addition, the oyster farm operator, Kevin Lunny, stated that his workers don’t see seals when working in the lateral channel because of the great distance to the preferred channel haul-out area shown on the NPS/Muldoon maps—more than six to seven football-field lengths.  This is about seven times the mandated 300’ distance from seals specified in the protocols under which DBOC operates, based on National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) guidelines. The latest revision to the agreement, reached in 2008 between NPS and DBOC, shows no conflict between the oyster bags and the seal protection area, which already includes a substantial buffer zone. The protocols were first set in 1992 in a joint meeting between California Department of Fish and Game, National Marine Fisheries Service, NPS and Department of Health Services.

The Becker analysis of seal harm in the estero misleadingly claims specific evidence in its title, “Evidence for long-term spatial displacement of breeding and pupping harbor seals by shellfish aquaculture over three decades,” published online in Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems. Becker has abandoned the claims of the earlier papers that mariculture disturbances caused population shifts, no doubt because the embarrassing revelations of the hidden camera program (previously covered in the Times) showing that no such disturbances occurred. He now substitutes the mere presence of the oyster farm as being the cause. The paper provides no evidence of cause, but concludes “Encroachment by aquaculture or other chronic activities on or near preferred pupping sandbars may displace seals but not have a detectable effect on the colony or the region until natural fluctuation occur which further limit habitat, and cause additional competition for limited space resource.”  In plain English, Becker’s “Evidence” of harm from the oysters becomes mere speculation that there “may” be negative effects if the seal population increases so much that they run out of haul-out space.

Becker’s most recent analysis not only contradicts earlier versions of his paper, published in another journal, but the findings of the National Academy of Science in their 2009 study requested by Senator Feinstein. The NAS notes that the NPS database was designed to detect general long-term overall shifts in seal population, unsuited to Becker’s attempts to determine movements between sites in a given colony. NAS (p78 of the study) sums up the accuracy of Becker’s work: “The entire estero should be considered as one unit for population analyses for comparison to trends at other nearby locations occupied by harbor seals. For these reasons, the Becker et al. (2009) paper has limited value for understanding the long-term trends in seal counts in Drakes Estero.”  The conclusion, from a leaked earlier version of the report, is more blunt: “The observations of disturbance presented in and analyzed by Becker et al. (in Press) are so seriously biased that they cannot be reliably used to infer impacts of mariculture, relative importance of different sources of disturbance, or impacts of seal fitness.”  The Frost Report found that NPS scientists displayed,“bias…advocacy…a troubling mindset” and “a willingness to allow subjective beliefs and values to guide scientific conclusions.”

More worrying is that the NPS/Becker map seems to arbitrarily extend the alleged seal haul-out areas to bolster their unsubstantiated claims of oyster bags being placed in seal haul-out areas, claims first made by the Park Service shortly after Lunny started operating the farm, but not reflected in either the NPS/Muldoon maps or the 2008 seal-protection area. This became apparent from our aerial reconnaissance of the estero, whose main purpose was to accurately match seal locations from the previously undisclosed NPS hidden-camera photographs with actual seal locations vs. the oyster bags, as shown in the marked-up photograph. The survey was also consistent with other NPS photographs of hauled-out seals, showing their clear preference for clean sandbars with deep-water escape routes. Results to date indicate that the available NPS hidden-camera photos show the seals within the area marked on the NPS/Muldoon map.

The issue of the maps and records supporting them raises many questions, especially in light of the recently issued Frost report on scientific misconduct (Russian River Times Mar/April 2009).  Asked to comment, Frost replied by e-mail, stating that he “is not authorized to respond substantially” to the Times request for information. Thus the question remains: Did NPS inform Frost of the latest Becker et al. paper? If so, how does Becker reconcile the contradictions with the earlier versions of the paper and the 2009 NAS findings that “NPS selectively presented harbor seal survey data and over-interpreted the seal disturbance data”?  The latest Becker paper is simply a continuation of this practice.

There are real consequences to NPS presenting biased and unsubstantiated information to the public. An Oct 2009 Russian River Times article on coastal sustainability quoted a 2008 NOAA presentation by Dr. Stonich, who characterized the behavior of different environmental groups, saying some groups work with regulatory agencies to preserve both the environment and sustainable mariculture, while others (citing an anti-mariculture group in Puget Sound) support “…strategies of mobilization and confrontation rather than sitting down with diverse stakeholders to reach consensus….support bringing suit against shellfish firms”…and “ view sitting down at the table with adversaries as co-option.”  NPS’ politically motivated policy positions on Drake’s Estero, dressed up as science, feed into the negative behavior, divide communities and threaten the sustainability of our coastal towns.

So, who pays?

We do.  Investigations by the Department of Interior Inspector General, the National Academy of Sciences, the Frost report, and a forthcoming report from the Marine Mammal Commission represent an expense to the taxpayers of millions of dollars, yet the NPS pattern continues: after each report, a new set of claims of harm, and the disclosure of previously undisclosed information. From all this time and expense, the only thing that can be said for certain is that the NPS cannot be trusted to reach a fair and impartial decision regarding the fate of Drake’s Estero.

Sonoma’s Shark Superhighway

From the Russian River Times November 2010

Late each summer, great white sharks return from their Northeastern Pacific ‘Café’ to the same locations on the California Coast.   One of the major destinations is a triangular area generally defined by Anno Nuevo to the south, the Farallon Islands to the West and the mouth of Tomales Bay, home to many elephant seals, sea lions and harbor seals; a major source of prey for the Great Whites. A recent paper from the Royal Society of Sciences shows how electronic tracking of tagged sharks is providing new insight into the behavior of this important predator.

Tracks of sharks moving between sites off the California Coast (Royal Society 2009) The thickness of the lines indicate the number of times sharks moved back and forth between locations, with the greatest number of patrols between REY (Point Reyes) and across TOM (mouth of Tomales Bay) A total of 179 sharks were tagged and the numbers in the circle represent the number of sharks with failed tags who were identified photographically. San Francisco Bay is located to the right of the image.

The illustration is from “Philopatry and migration of Pacific white sharks,  Jorgenson et.al, 2009 Proceedings of the Royal Society,” published on-line where you can read the full explanation of the chart and see how the sharks move between the Café and the coast on-line. All web links are published at the end of the article, and given the recent fatal attack on a surfer on 22 October which occurred just north of Santa Barbara, readers may wish to read more in the Shark Research Committee information sheet on shark predation, included in the list of links.

Each winter, the sharks leave their coastal sites and swim thousands of kilometers to what the paper calls the ‘Shark Café’, a name selected by the authors to imply an area where foraging and breeding might explain why these predators make the long, energetically costly migrations from the coast to the ‘Café’ and back. It is located within the eastern boundary of the Pacific Gyre, in an area where the paper hypothesizes that ‘shoaling’ of the oxygen minimum layer concentrates pelagic (living in the open ocean) fish within a shallower layer of the ocean.  And, as summer ends, the sharks return to the coast to the areas where there are the most pinnipeds (elephant seals, sea lions and harbor seals), for which the great whites are atop the food chain as the apex predator.

Do the Great Whites take a bite out of Park Service claims against the Drake’s Estero oyster farm?

Shark Eats Seal Off Pt. Reyes Headlands. Photocredit: NPS/ S. Anderson

The shark research came to light as part of the Russian River Times coverage of the attempts to shut down the historic oyster farm located within the Point Reyes National Seashore.   The Park Service has based its claims of harm to the seal population on one of their own research papers which purport to show that disturbances by oyster workers are causing a decline in population.   Nowhere in the papers does it mention predation as a significant factor in seal population.  However, California Fish and Game lists Great Whites as  “playing a crucial role in the marine ecosystem, helping to suppress pinniped populations.  The only real threats white sharks face are from humans, as well as the occasional killer whale”.

Despite the fact that the NPS website for Point Reyes (listed below) references over 23 years of observational sightings and 11 years if decoy surveys, and notes that the white sharks seem to be feeding mostly on harbor seals and sea lions, none of this is mentioned in the NPS paper blaming a decline in harbor seals on the oyster operation.  Apparently, none of the NPS and related papers on shark predation appear to have been presented to the National Academy of Sciences who were requested by Senator Feinstein, to review the NPS science on the estero, except for one paper on trends in pinniped population dynamics, (Sydeman/Allen 1999) which makes an oblique reference to an increase in predation of juvenile and subadult elephant seals by white sharks on the South Farallon Islands and that shark predation may also be limiting seal populations.

None of the specific papers on shark predation in the areas adjacent to the Estero were provided to the Marine Mammal Commission panel currently reviewing the oyster farm and the seal population, nor to the earlier half-million dollar NAS study that concluded that the NPS had misrepresented and misstated the impacts of the oyster farm, which they found to have no significant negative effects from the oyster farm, and that the seals in the estero should be treated as a single population.  Other crucial data has also been withheld from researchers reviewing the estero, including two and one half years of automatic cameras.

Researcher says Great White Population may be Recovering 

To understand the role the Great Whites play in the overall ecosystem, the Russian River Times talked with Dr. Chris Lowe, director of the Shark Lab at CSU Long Beach.  He and his colleagues have just completing a study of California Great White population, to be published in a forthcoming paper.  “You can’t do biological population studies without understanding the role of predators and the Great White is the apex predator at the very top of the ocean food chain”, says Dr. Lowe.  Predators fulfill a vital role in the overall health of their prey.  They weed out the unhealthy animals, making sure that the fittest survive and breed, and keep the system in balance.  If there is an overabundance of pinnipeds because of a lack of their predators, they will deplete the fish stocks on which they feed, which, along with environmental changes caused by other events like the El Nino cycles, can lead to starvation.

Dr. Lowe and colleagues studied fishing records back to 1936,  documenting how the fishing industry has interacted with sharks.  The record shows that responsible fisheries management is benefiting the Great Whites, as well as the targeted fisheries.  Bycatch (fish accidentally caught when fishing for other stock) increased dramatically with the introduction of monofilament gill nets, used just offshore to harvest halibut, sea bass, white croakers and others.  In the halibut fisheries, this highly indiscriminate method had a target species catch of only 11.2% and a discard rate of 67.8%.  Fatalities included not only immature Great Whites, who feed immediately off-shore, but seabirds, and marine mammals, with California Fish and Game reporting that in some years, over a thousand pinnipeds were killed.  Fortunately, the use of monofilament gillnet fishing has been banned in California state waters since ’94, as well as in nearly all other coastal states.

In addition to the gillnet ban, taking of Great White sharks has been banned in California waters since 1997.  By comparing bycatch in offshore areas where gillnet fishing is still permitted, Dr. Lowe recorded an increase in the Great White shark bycatch, indicating a recovery of the shark population.  In addition, the Monterey Bay Aquarium, which collaborates with a number of southern California fishermen to bring bycatch Great Whites (all immature) for tagging and release, shows that most of them are surviving.  But how do they feed?    Sharks go for the ‘fat content’, says Dr. Lowe.  “Imagine there’s two tins of brownies….one has all the butterfat and sugar, and the others are lowfat.  After one sample, you know which ones taste best.  However sharks don’t have hands and do their tasting with a large bite.  Immature Great Whites (~ 8-10’ long) will attack sea otters, but will spit them out, because the otter is a furry, muscular animal, with comparatively very little body fat.  The reason sharks scavenge off dead whale carcasses is because of the high blubber content.”

This bite and spit approach is often fatal, even if the shark decides not to eat what it has just sampled. The Great White ‘ambushes’ its prey, by cruising along the bottom, apparently relying on the silhouette of a pinniped on the surface.  Researchers suspect that this is why divers and surfers are vulnerable.   The shark uses different techniques depending on the size of the prey. Its preferred prey is the automobile sized adult elephant seal, where it will lunge upwards, take the largest possible bite out of the hindquarters to disable the prey and wait for it to bleed to death before tearing off chunks and eating them on the bottom.  Smaller pinnipeds, attacked on the surface, are pulled to the bottom till they stop struggling. Juvenile harbor seals are often eaten whole.  Nature is not always gentle in the struggle to survive.

Dr. Lowe says that his studies show that responsible fisheries management can benefit the whole ecosystem, including the Great Whites, even though they are not a targeted fishery, and that it is really important to understand the entire food chain, especially the apex predators like the Great Whites.  “ I nearly always end my talks by reminding people that we humans are the top of the food chain, and will bear the consequences of our actions.  Toxic pollutants get concentrated as you move up the food chain. For example, artisanal (or traditional local) fisherman in Mexico, who fish for their own food, often eat the Great Whites that they catch, even though our studies showed that the mercury content is eight times the EPA recommended levels for a single monthly adult serving.  Currently, little is known about the effects of these levels on the sharks, but we do know a lot of the mercury comes from human activities.”  We are what we eat.

 “Hitched to everything else in the Universe”

Studies like the Royal Society study of migrations, and the work of Dr. Cole and his colleagues  on Great White population serve to show how important it is to understand the entire ecosystem, not only the sharks, but the pinnipeds and the salmon and other fish on which they feed as part of a greater, complex web of ocean life.  A National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) paper, Impact of sea lions and seals on Pacific Coast salmonids,  shows areas where pinniped predation on salmon and steelhead is of concern, noting that harbor seals have been documented feeding on salmonids in the Russian River, and the steelhead runs that spawn in Papermill Creek, which feeds into Tomales Bay, are in danger of extinction.  However, much remains to be learned of the interaction of these species.   It is impossible to separate the health of one species from another, and John Muir put it best when he said,  “When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the universe.”

Web links:

Philopatry and migration of Pacific white sharks. http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2009/10/29/rspb.2009.1155.full

White Sharks at Point Reyes  http://pointreyesscience.wordpress.com/2008/05/28/white-sharks-at-point-reyes/

Predatory behavior of Great Whites http://www.sharkresearchcommittee.com/predation.htm

NOAA Areas of concern for pinnipeds/California. (chapter from NOAA techmemo tm28) http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/publications/techmemos/tm28/areas.htm#ca

Whitewashing the coverup

From the Russian River Times Nov 2010

As recently reported in The Russian River Times,  the National Park Service (NPS) withheld scientific data (automatic camera records) that contradicted its supposedly scientific claims of harm to harbor seals by workers at Drake’s Bay Oyster Company.  Dr. Corey Goodman, a local scientist and National Academy of Sciences Fellow, had filed a scientific misconduct complaint about the suppressed camera data; the recently released report by Department of the Interior (DOI) solicitor Gavin Frost purports to investigate the claimed scientific misconduct.

Dr. Goodman is the unidentified complainant in the Frost report, which reads more like the opening statement of a defense council for DOI and NPS management than an independent evaluation of scientific misconduct. It fails in the principal goal of investigating scientific misconduct: to remove tainted information from the research record and prevent it being used in the future. This is particularly vital in cases where research drives public policy that directly affects the citizenry.

NPS management knew of earlier scientific-misconduct charges by Goodman in 2007, which he filed after the Marin County Board of Supervisors asked him to review Point Reyes National Seashore Superintendent Don Neubacher’s claims of having data to support civil and criminal violations of environmental law by the owners of the historic oyster farm. These claims were made to Marin County Supervisor Steve Kinsey and repeated before the full Board of Supervisors at a public hearing on  May 8 2007.

The Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to ask Senator Diane Feinstein to intercede. Since then, through broken commitments and administrative maneuvering, DOI and NPS have managed to avoid review of scientific misconduct, a matter discussed in Dr. Goodman’s written complaints and in letters to NPS from the Lunnys (owners of the oyster farm). On September 13, 2006, Inspector General Devaney was asked by Congress to address the “institutional culture of managerial irresponsibility and lack of accountability” within the DOI. He described a major problem within DOI, namely, “intricate deviations from statutory, regulatory and policy requirements to reach a predetermined end.”  

The DOI record on Drake’s Estero fully supports Devaney’s statements. The Frost report is merely the latest in a long chain of such behavior. This problem was also brought to the attention of Jon Jarvis, then NPS Western Regional Director and Don Neubacher, then Superintendent of Point Reyes National Seashore, prior to a 2007 meeting in Olema between Senator Feinstein, local and state officials and national Park Service leadership, including then NPS Chief Mary Bomar, a DOI solicitor, Dr. Corey Goodman, California Fish and Game and Kevin Lunny.

 A local newspaper, the Point Reyes Light, filed a Data Quality Act complaint about the NPS “Sheltered Wilderness” report and consulted with Dr. Brian Schrag, a scientific  ethics expert at the Poynter Institute for the Study of Ethics and American Institutions, who made the following statement. “Some have charged that under the current administration, government scientific research has become politicized. One of the things that is worrisome if that happens is that the normal checks and balances of scientific research can be compromised. In such circumstances, appealing to internal procedures of a particular government agency may turn out to be futile.”

Dr. Schrag’s 2007 comment was prescient: the NPS failed to respond to any of several DQAs, as required by regulation, and the NPS and DOI have subsequently failed to follow generally accepted procedures in investigating scientific misconduct. For instance, the Frost report accepts ridiculous statements by NPS researchers to justify excluding the photographic data, such as the fact that the photos are fuzzy, were taken only once a minute, and not reviewed, etc.

These excuses, taken at face value, would invalidate thousands of scientific papers based on automatic camera evidence. In any scientific-misconduct investigation, one of the first steps is to examine the raw data. In fact, the case of the suppressed photographs and logs bears significant parallels to a recent case wherein Dr. Mark Hauser, of Harvard University, was found guilty of scientific misconduct.

Dr. Hauser’s troubles go back to 1995, when a researcher, Dr. Gordon Gallup, who questioned Dr. Hauser’s paper on behavior in tamarin monkeys, demanded to see the films of experiments on which Hauser had based his conclusions. Gallup is quoted in the 30 Sept 2010 issue of The Scientist; “When I looked at the tapes, I was absolutely shocked,” he said. “There was not a shred of evidence in any of the videotapes…”When Gallup asked for additional tapes mentioned in the report, Hauser told him that they had been stolen. Hauser was later forced to publish a paper showing that the results of the first paper could not be reproduced.

Hauser’s latest issues, extensively reported in the Chronicle of Higher Education and elsewhere, resulted in his being found guilty of scientific misconduct after some of his graduate students bravely accused him of failing to consider contradictory data. In an almost exact parallel to the suppressed NPS photo data, the article says, “They then reviewed Mr. Hauser’s coding and, according to the research assistant’s statement, discovered that what he had written down bore little relation to what they had actually observed on the videotapes.” 

Faculty of Arts and Sciences Dean Michael Smith, acknowledging the allegations and the results of the investigation, noted: “the key obligation in a scientific misconduct case is to correct any affected publications, and our confidentiality policies do not conflict with this obligation. In this case, after accepting the findings of the committee, I immediately moved to have the record corrected for those papers that were called into question by the investigation.”  The Dean’s letter states that Harvard sent its confidential report to the appropriate agencies, including the PHS Office of Research Integrity, the NSF Office of the Inspector General and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Massachusetts, Hauser went ‘on leave’  pending the outcomes of these investigations.

The Department of the Interior and the Frost report show none of the steps taken by Harvard in its investigation of scientific misconduct, and NPS and DOI management have obstructed a fully independent assessment of misconduct in Drake’s Estero. The Department of Interior’s NPS science has been investigated by the DOI Inspector General, (who did not investigate the science, but only misconduct, which they found) the National Academy of  Sciences (which did not investigate scientific misconduct), and allegedly by the Frost report. A Marine Mammal Commission is forthcoming. In each case, the NPS apology mantra is repeated, that “mistakes were made.”  But though these mistakes have major consequences for the West Marin community, and the Lunnys and their oyster company, NPS has failed to identify the mistakes or corrective measures they have claimed to be making.

Lunny questioned Jarvis in a letter responding to his statements in a  Dec 27, 2007 article in the San Francisco Chronicle, in which Jarvis reinstated all the claims of harm caused by the oyster farm that he had previously retracted in an NPS document that corrected errors in the original NPS “Sheltered Wilderness” report. On  January 14, 2008. In response to Lunny’s request to identify corrections and any new research to justify his comments in the article, Jarvis wrote, ”I do not think long detailed point-by-point responses are productive…”

On May 5, 2009 Lunny again wrote to Jarvis, asking him to identify the mistakes and corrections that Jarvis acknowledged in his comments on the NAS report, which found that the NPS could not justify its contention that the oyster farm was harming the estero. Jarvis did not respond. Now the Frost report again states that mistakes were made without specifically acknowledging what they were or any remedies for the harm caused to the scientific record or the Lunny’s reputation. Thus, it is impossible to examine the errors now admitted by the NPS, to see if they indicate bias. But Dr. Goodman, in an earlier  instance, compiled a list of 25 errors in information submitted by NPS to the National Academy.

If NPS were merely sloppy, a  basic ‘coin flip’ test would show that the errors were equally divided in favor of NPS or the Lunny’s. Strikingly, every ‘mistake’ is in favor of the NPS position.

The possibility of this happening by chance is less than two hundred and ninety eight million to one. This represents the chance of a coin flip coming up tails 25 times in a row, to use Dr. Goodman’s number of errors, calculated using a binomial, i.e. ‘heads or tails’ probability calculation. Frost failed to evaluate bias in the admitted NPS errors in the earlier “Sheltered Wilderness” report, or the many changes made in the various iterations of the Becker report, or the significant reduction in the number of reported seal disturbances claimed by the Park Service, even before the camera-data revelations. These errors are all reflected in Dr. Goodman’s list.

DOI is allowing this clearly-demonstrated bias and data manipulation by the NPS staff to  continue, shown by the NPS document-reference list for the upcoming Environmental Impact Survey. The Becker paper, for example, now fully discredited by the suppressed photo data, is listed as a source, but the photographic evidence and logs noted in Dr. Goodman’s most recent complaint are once again withheld. Not only that, but the very people who should have been investigated are now conducting the EIS to determine the fate of the oyster farm. Even after millions of dollars of taxpayer funded studies, the fox is apparently still in charge of the chicken coop and has the keys readily to hand, and is still playing with the same loaded coin.

The point of ethics failure for NPS and DOI management was the 2007 Olema meeting. Mary Bomar, then head of the Park Service, reached an agreement with Senator Feinstein that Dr. Goodman and Tom Moore of California Fish and Game, who supervise the oyster operations, develop a study plan to review the existing science and ordered Jarvis to participate. Jarvis disobeyed Feinstein, stonewalled Goodman and Moore and submitted his own study plan to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) for what was essentially a study of the Lunnys, rather than a study of scientific misconduct. At the same time, Jarvis denied data-quality act requests on the existing science, claiming that the NAS would investigate the misconduct that was the basis of the complaints, even while contracting with NAS to do the exact opposite. NPS prepared new ‘science’ for the NAS investigation in the form of the discredited Becker report, again in direct conflict with written agreements between Bomar and Feinstein.  Now the Frost report once again provides a convoluted interpretation of misconduct that lets Jarvis and NPS management off the hook.

All this protracted coverup ignores damage to the community, the Lunnys and public perception of government and scientific integrity.

It makes a mockery of the Obama science policy and all the many federal statutes, rules and regulations governing scientific misconduct.

It is time to have a fully independent investigation defined by those well versed in scientific ethics to decide who is responsible and deal with them accordingly.

        

Point Reyes National Seashore Caught in its own camera trap.

From The Russian River Times, Nov 2010

Note that web-links are included at end of post.

Just recently,  I went to the first of the Point Reyes National Seashore scoping meetings on the upcoming Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) focused on Kevin Lunny and his family’s Drakes Bay Oyster Company (DBOC). The meeting, the first of three, was held at the West Marin Dance Palace community center, and was pretty well attended by all sides in the long standing oyster farm controversy.  The Park had prepared a series of posters describing the EIS process, and staff stood by each poster, writing down comments from the public. They also had a handout inviting people to participate, with the controversial potential wilderness areas colored a rather lurid purple reddish color, alongside the Kelly green wilderness areas.  The posters mostly raised the issue of wilderness and said virtually nothing about preserving the working landscapes of the Park.  What was pointedly not presented was the recent revelation that NPS had a minute-by-minute record from automatic cameras focused on the oyster operations since 5 May 2007, which they had withheld from investigations by the Inspector General, the National Academy of Sciences, and the Marine Mammal Commission.

Here’s some local scuttlebutt on the oyster farm. Speculation as to why NPS is doing what it is doing depends on who is talking.

—NPS is just doing its job, and Western Regional Superintendent Jon Jarvis deserved his 2009 appointment as head of NPS, and Neubacher deserved his promotion as Superintendent of Yosemite National Park.

—NPS cooked the science, and Jarvis continues to try and sweep the whole controversy under the rug to avoid any clash with the environmentalists that might influence any subsequent promotions and elevated Neubacher to Yosemite to get him out of the firing line.

—Former Park Superintendent Neubacher had it in for Kevin Lunny and his oyster farm because he formed an association of ranchers within the park to negotiate with NPS and refused to sign away rights to the renewal clause in his lease.

—Kevin Lunny runs a large corporation that is attempting to destroy the Wilderness Act for personal financial gain, and is doing irreparable environmental damage.

—There’s a national movement to protect the Estero from commercial exploitation and save the Wilderness Act, and all right thinking environmentalists have signed on.

—A few extreme environmentalists plotted with the Park Service to get rid of the oyster farm, and have provided bogus information to national environmental groups to enlist their support.

—I like oysters/wilderness (choose 1 if you must)

The underlying facts of the matter are contained in extensive documentation, especially reports by the Department of Interior Inspector General and the National Academy of Sciences, who reviewed the NPS science at the request of Senator Feinstein.  There is a forthcoming study by the Marine Mammal Commission, who also held extensive public meetings in Point Reyes.  There’s also a very interesting exchange of letters in The Nation, attached to an article on loss of NPS scientific integrity, with participation from academics, the former head of the Sierra club, and others. (web links provided at the end of article)

What NPS was not talking about at the scoping meeting was the recent revelation that the Park Service had, in May 2007, placed hidden cameras in Drakes Estero, focused on areas of oyster operation.  To understand the implications of this discovery, it’s important to look at a few key points in the maze of this long-running controversy, as this latest incident goes beyond just the science, beginning with a federal official making unfounded claims of criminal and civil legal violations against Kevin Lunny and DBOC in an attempts to force Lunny to sign away his rights to a lease extension as provided for in his permit.

In 2005, the Lunny family purchased the oyster farm from Johnson’s Oyster Company, agreeing to correct permit violations brought against the former owner by the California Coastal Commission.  Disputes over the permits led to a 5 April 2007 meeting between Marin County Supervisor Steve Kinsey and then Park Superintendent Neubacher.  In his interview with the IG, Kinsey recalls that Neubacher stated that he had evidence to prove that Lunny and DBOC were guilty of civil and criminal violations of environmental law and thus NPS was ceasing all permit negotiations.  This lead to an 8 May 2007 meeting with the Marin Board of Supervisors wherein Neubacher and his staff made further allegations against Lunny, including causing massive loss of seal pups. The purpose of the Board Meeting was to consider asking Senator Feinstein to intercede in the conflict with NPS, an action for which the board voted unanimous approval.

These dates are key when one considers that the NPS now admits the hidden camera surveys started on 5 May 2007, just days before the meeting with the Marin Board of Supervisors. The record clearly shows that Neubacher, a federal official, had absolutely no evidence to justify his claims of criminal activity made just a few days earlier.  A 24 April 2007 e-mail from the PRNS senior scientist, copy to Neubacher, addressed to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency, stated the Park Service had no “direct observations” of seal disturbances.  Furthermore, NPS never once contacted Lunny about any of the subsequent claimed incidences of seal disturbances.  Had they occurred, and we now know from the hidden camera records that they didn’t, they may well have constituted violations of the Marine Mammal Act, and it stretches credulity to believe that Neubacher would not have acted on them if he had any evidence.

All the subsequent events, covered by the Inspector General report, the NAS study, and now the Marine Mammal Commission report, show NPS is conducting a concerted ongoing cover up; a failed attempt to manufacture evidence to justify their earlier false claims. Both the Inspector General’s report and the NAS report document years of misrepresentation, misdirection, omission and selective use of scientific data and other information. The pattern continues, as shown by this issue’s page 1 article on shark activities.  However, the revelation of the hidden cameras is of a different order.  Not only did NPS hide this information from the IG and the NAS at the time of their investigations, but Park scientists submitted papers to scientific journals with the full knowledge that they had excluded data that contradicted their claims of seal disturbances.

The importance of NPS concealing the existence of the photograph is made clear by the statement in the 5 May 2009 NAS report on the controversial seal disturbances, “… It is not possible for the committee to resolve the controversy over individual survey sheets, but the focus on these observations highlights how this type of [volunteer] monitoring program is best utilized to indicate potential disturbance problems (that might result in decreased use of a haul-out habitat) rather than to quantify them definitively. The latter would require a data collection system that could be independently verified, such as time and date stamped photographs. This verification is especially important in circumstances where there is an indication of a source of disturbance that could lead to a regulatory action, as was the case with disturbances attributed to DBOC.”

 The 5 year record of their dealings with the Lunny family and DBOC shows that the Park Service is incapable of behaving in an ethical and impartial manner, and should be removed from the process.   Department of Interior Secretary Ken Salazar is ultimately responsible for NPS, and must act.  The first thing he must do is force the NPS to retract their papers on seal disturbances, now totally discredited by the photographic evidence.  The seal disturbance paper is the only new “evidence” of harm introduced by the Park Service since 1998, when Neubacher signed a FONSI (finding of non-significant impact) Environmental Assessment declaration under the National Environmental Policy Act for a major rebuild and expansion of the oyster operation, then owned by the Johnson family.   (The actual shellfish growing areas are leased from the State of California, to whom the Lunny’s pay rent)  With the now discredited claims of harm removed, the 1998 Environmental Assessment would still stand.

It appears that NPS may well have wasted in the order of $2 million taxpayer dollars by their attempts to manufacture evidence and justifications for their initial actions towards the oyster farm, especially considering the IG report, the upcoming Marine Mammal Commission report, and the National Academy of Sciences report, which itself cost over half a million dollars.  Now they want us to pay for a lengthy and unnecessary EIS process, especially considering the depth and scope of the NAS and Marine Mammal Commission work.   The EIS will take two years, and who knows what those responsible for the current deceptions would ‘discover’ and publish in that time. As documented by the NAS and the Inspector General, there is no reason for the public to believe that NPS would handle itself any more ethically in preparing the new EIS than they have in the past, especially since they are in many cases the same people who attempted to hide the exculpatory camera data for over three years and during three separate investigations.

Let us hope that Salazar deals firmly and decisively with his errant subordinates in a manner to restore confidence in NPS science and integrity. Simultaneously, he should use his authority to extend the oyster farm lease as permitted in the original permit and under current law, and work with Lunny’s on the addition of the interpretive center, upgraded facilities and the research program set forth on pages 82 and 83 of NAS report.  That would be fair to the Lunny’s, their workers as well as benefiting the local community, not to mention the countless Park visitors who come to enjoy the wilderness, the wildlife, the historic working landscapes of the park, and of course, the oysters.

Referenced web links.

Department of the Interior IG report.  Testimony of Supervisor Kinsey is on p. 34.

http://www.doioig.gov/images/stories/reports/pdf/Point%20Reyes%20REDACTED%20FINAL3_071808%20with%20transmittal1.pdf

National Academy of Sciences report.

http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12667

NPS Press release on FONSI findings on proposd 1998 upgrading the oyster farm.

http://www.nps.gov/pore/parknews/newsreleases_19980513_johnsonsoysterco_ea.htm

The Nation article.  Click on Web Letters to see all correspondence

http://www.thenation.com/article/scientific-integrity-lost-americas-parks

NPS website for public comments on EIS   (Closing date is Nov. 22)

http://www.nps.gov/pore/parknews/newsreleases_20101022_dboc_public_scoping_closing_date.htm