You are here

Dr. Gary Machlis Has Ambitious Plans As Science Advisor to National Park Service Director Jarvis

Share

Dr. Gary Machlis, the science advisor to National Park Service Director Jon Jarvis, believes much needs to be done to bolster the Park Service's science mission. NPS handout.

It was almost a mantra of the Bush Administration's Interior Department: Best science will guide on-the-ground decisions in the national parks.

Some will argue, citing snowmobiles in Yellowstone, personal watercraft in places such as Cape Lookout National Seashore, and the two-thirds reduction in the paleontological staff at Dinosaur National Monument, that former Interior Secretary Kempthorne and National Park Service Director Bomar never closely hewed to that pledge. But new Park Service Director Jon Jarvis hopes to put some teeth into that statement.

His ambition should be welcomed by those who view the parks not only as recreational destinations but also landscapes steeped in science, both that already probed and that which has remained hidden. And yet, despite these scientific founts, the National Park Service has never had a specifically assigned science mission, points out Richard West Sellars in his seminal book on the agency and its preservation mandate, Preserving Nature in the National Parks, A History.

In truth, the leadership culture of the Park Servie has been defined largely by the demands of recreational tourism management and the desire for the public to enjoy the scenic parks. Since the establishment of Yellowstone and other nineteenth-century parks, managers have had to deal not only with planning, development, construction, and maintenance of park facilities, but also with ever more demanding political, legal, and economic matters such as concession operations, law enforcement, visitor protection, and the influence of national, state, and local tourism interests. Such imperatives have driven park management. .... Indeed, even though the Organic Act of 1916 called for the parks to be left "unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations," it did not mandate science as a means of meeting that goal.

Surprisingly, when you consider Yellowstone with its thermal waters, Great Smoky with its dense forests, and Mammoth Cave with its subterranean passages, as well as the Park Service's nearly 100 years in existence, not until Jon Jarvis came to its helm has the agency had a director with a professional background in natural science, according to Mr. Sellars.

To help him address science in the parks, something that could be foiled at any turn by politics, Director Jarvis has hired a science advisor.

Dr. Gary Machlis, a professor of conservation science at the University of Idaho, comes to his role as the first science advisor to a Park Service director with strong views that the agency needs to polish its scientific credentials. The Park Service's science mission long has been underfunded, he told the Traveler, and that has hindered the agency in both research and educational outreach.

"Advancing science in and for the NPS needs to happen on several fronts simultaneously," said Dr. Machlis. "We need to confront the challenge of climate change, and develop the NPS response as an effective mix of mitigation, adaptation, and education. We need to respond to the recent Second Century Commission's recommendations, including the call for the NPS to direct its in-house science program. We need to take advantage of the park's extraordinary value as places for kids of all ages to learn science, and to make science education an enjoyable part of the visitor's experience. And we need to deal with a range of technical issues--from collection policies to ungulate management to peer-review of NPS science. Each of these requires creativity and initiative on the part of the Service."

When it comes to adequate funding for science, Dr. Machlis believes that the agency "has been chronically underfunded." Without adequate funds, he explained, it is difficult to understand not only what is being preserved, or what needs to be preserved, across the 84-million-acre National Park System, but also how the system functions, "particularly at the ecosystem scale."

While the decision by Dinosaur Superintendent Mary Risser to cut two-thirds of her paleontological staff due to budget constraints drew harsh criticism, she was optimistic that science wouldn't suffer because the national monument's lone remaining paleontologist could be aided by outside groups, such as universities and colleges. Dr. Machlis agrees that such a mix can be useful ... if properly administered.

"I think a mix of in-house scientists, USGS researchers, and university faculty with specialized expertise is worth looking at. The trick will be to get the balance of these right, and that is likely to differ for different parks and/or regions," he said.

Beyond conducting science in the parks, Dr. Machlis believes there's a need to provide NPS employees with continuing science education.

"The NPS has access to some outstanding training options; we need to develop science training that takes advantage of these options in ways that improve our use of scientific knowledge, makes training a key part of advancement (particularly to the superintendency), and saves money and resources," he said. "The focus should be on how to best use science to make good decisions, and for that, I am intrigued with using a case study approach, similar to top business and management schools--only in this instance the cases are science-based."

In the months ahead Dr. Machlis plans to travel about the country, visiting units of the park system to familiarize himself with the current state of science affairs.

"I'll be traveling to parks and regional offices, both to learn in the field and at the conference table. Some outstanding science is underway, in fields from archeology to wildlife zoology, and I'm excited to learn first-hand about the work. I'm a journaler, and my field notebook won't be far from me on the visits," he said.

Dr. Gary Machlis received his B.S. and M.S. in forestry at the University of Washington, and his Ph.D. in human ecology at Yale University. He is Professor of Conservation at the University of Idaho and has served as the NPS Visiting Chief Social Scientist, and as the National Coordinator of the Cooperative Ecosystem Studies Unit (CESU) Network. He has written several books on conservation, and his recent research has been published in journals as varied as Climatic Change, Society and Natural Resources, BioScience, and Conservation Biology. Gary is a member of the American Association for the Advancement of Science’s (AAAS) National Committee on Opportunities for Women and Minorities in Science, and the Advisory Board to the AAAS Center for Advancing Science and Engineering Capacity.

Comments

The recent Ken Burns film pointed out, perhaps unintentionally, the NPS' managerial bias towards recreational management concerns, to the detriment of environmental education, natural science research, and natural resource protection. (Alas, cultural resource research and protection suffers as well. How will the science appointee incorporate these concerns into his stewardship?)
One would hope that this new appointment will move interpretive programs towards a more science/education based platform, and away from the "touchy-feely let's use emotions instead of scientific facts" approach that is currently in favor.
Whatever successes this appointee can achieve better happen quickly and effectively, because you can be darn sure that a focus on science in our National Park System will go away once a Republican administration is back in power in Washington.


It would be encouraging to see collaboration between NPS and any of the various NGO's that have the scientists already in the field and the money to pay them. The Nature Conservancy comes to mind as one example. TNC isn't operating on Park Service ground, but they study and manage their properties often in close proximity to NPS units. They also have less of an acrimonious history with the federal government and the National Park Service than some of the conservation groups that are more litigious.

In Kurt's interview with Jarvis, the new director said he's expecting better collaboration between NPS, BLM, and the Forest Service that should lead to better creation and management of protected areas such as migration corridors. Even if informal, an open exchange of ideas with a land acquisition group like TNC could only come to good.


In the months ahead Dr. Machlis plans to travel about the country, visiting units of the park system...

What a horrible job to have! :-)


I certainly hope scientific integrity is the goal. Director Jarvis has been accused of backing up employees who presented information that was incorrect with some people severely questioning the scientific integrity of several NPS reports that he signed off on.

http://www.hcn.org/issues/41.13/what-we-got-here-is-a-failure-to-collabo...


Kirby--

Be encouraged!

At least for natural resource inventory & monitoring, NPS already collaborates with NGOs and universities. TNC, or more often NatureServe, the spinoff from TNC that does science, does quite a bit in collaboration with NPS. Some natural resource inventorying and monitoring is contracted to NatureServe, particularly in areas where they have local expertise in complementary to that of the local NPS folks (e.g., vegetation monitoring where the few NPS scientists have expertise to cover the water quality, air quality, and animal aspects of park nautral resource monitoring). Similarly, a fair bit of work in Everglades is contracted out to university folks (graduate students are very cost-effective).

But alas, I suppose be disappointed, too.

Unfortunately, NatureServe doesn't have TNC money to fund work in national parks (NatureServe was spun off from TNC to become a self-funding recharge shop), and while they have some good scientists and naturalists, they don't have very many. That's pretty much the same with Wilderness society or any other NGO: they don't have resources or funding to give to work in parks, but can either be cost-effective for NPS or be great collaborators when NPS can bring some resources to the table.


Thanks for providing that link. I hope people will read the artiole. It's more than just "some people severely questioning the scientific integrity of several NPS reports." The National Academy of Sciences found that the reports in question were wrong and misleading, and the Inspector General of the United States found them to be the result of scientific misconduct. Not just mistakes--wrongdoing. In that context, "backing up employees" is a pretty radical thing to do. It certainly does not suggest a strong interest in scientific integrity.


Sarah--

The Gary Paul Nabhan editorial y.p.w. linked to is a pretty one-sided advocacy piece by someone strongly in favor of keeping DBOC in Point Reyes, as made clear by his August 12 response to Gordon Bennett of the Sierra Club (an advocate for Drake's Bay reverting to wilderness) and the rest of the comments on that editorial.

Have you read the full NAS report, or just press releases? I actually read the entire NAS report because I am a curious scientist (I doubt Nabhan did). The full report is available at:
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12667
[Ignore the buy a copy part and look for the download free pdf link.]

The criticism of the NPS reports was that they "never achieved a rigorous and balanced synthesis of the mariculture impacts". The problem was that the NPS reports were analyses of the available data from other research and baseline monitoring, not results of a study targeted at the positive and negative effects of DBOC. A rigorous and balanced synthesis would require data on aspects where no data exist.

The major complaint was that NPS didn't include information on the water quality effects of pre-extirpation native oyster beds and the potential for commercial oyster farms to replace that ecosystem function, and thus did not include potential positive effects of DBOC operations. The biogeochemists on the NAS panel were right to point out the nutrient cycling issue, but those data don't exist because no one has collected the current measurements, and certainly no one collected measurements 150-200 years ago (pre-extirpation of the native oyster beds) for the "shifting baselines". Point Reyes NS doesn't have funding to perform such research; under the current lease DBOC doesn't have to fund such research or monitoring of the effects of their operations, either.

The analysis of seal haulout and calving behavior were about as good as possible with data collected for other reasons, not specifically targeted at measuring the positive and negative effects of DBOC. NAS criticized the data as being incomplete and non-representative, and for being collected by volunteers under NPS supervision as well as by NPS technicians, but they are the only existing data. The fact that visitor use may have a larger effect on seals does not change whether DBOC operations do or do not affect seals (and kayakers are now kept out of the Estero during the breeding season). The NAS report notes that mariculture activities are now the major human activity in the Estero in the breeding season, and that in Europe such activities are kept 500-1500 meters from haul out locations. The NAS wanted more data, which is a reasonable perspective for applying science to a management question.

DBOC is a political minefield. My opinion is that Jarvis did about as well as anyone could in negotiating the minefield. Attacking him (as in the Nabham editorial) for not negotiating an extension of the reservation of use and occupancy, something the solicitor general said is non-negotiable law, is absurd.
Jarvis properly defended defensible science against lawyerly non-scientific attack by advocates without data nor better analyses, and properly oversaw modification and revision of the analyses and interpretations that were validly challenged. It would be wonderful if Jarvis could magically find money to fund the research NAS recommends, but even the NAS report notes that NPS doesn't have funding to perform such research. Unfortunately, Feinstein's rider to extend the RUO did not provide funding for the research or monitoring, nor require DBOC to fund it as a condition of the use (NAS-level research & monitoring might eat up more than DBOC's entire profits), so I don't know where the needed additional scientific data will come from.


Yes - I actually have a copy of the NAS report that I downloaded a couple of weeks ago, but haven't really had the chance to read it in depth past the summary findings. My reading of it was that the report makes claims about the original NPS reports that describe it as more than just than just corrections of minor errors or inadequate research, but conclusions reached to achieve a specific purpose of painting the oyster farm in a bad light. I can read the initial summaries and already get the sense that previous research reports were cited claiming things that put the oyster farm in a bad light when said reports made no such claims and sometimes went uncorrected in the final NPS report.

I picked that article because it has the strongest allegations. It's not the only opinion piece I can find that was critical of Director Jarvis's handling of that particular report. Perhaps Director Jarvis was just sticking up for the people who worked for him, but there are some people who were wondering why some heads didn't roll over this.

Here's the summary paragraph (in full) where several lines have been quoted over the months by various media sources:

While NPS in all versions of Drakes Estero: A Sheltered Wilderness Estuary
accurately depicted the ecological significance and conservation value
of Drakes Estero, in several instances the agency selectively presented,
over-interpreted, or misrepresented the available scientific information
on potential impacts of the oyster mariculture operation. Consequently,
Drakes Estero: A Sheltered Wilderness Estuary did not present a rigorous
and balanced synthesis of the mariculture impacts. Overall, the report
gave an interpretation of the science that exaggerated the negative and
overlooked potentially beneficial effects of the oyster culture operation.
NPS has issued two documents correcting and clarifying Drakes Estero: A
Sheltered Wilderness Estuary—
“Acknowledgment of Corrections to Previous
Versions of the Park News Document Drakes Estero: A Sheltered Wilderness
Estuary
,” posted on July 25, 2007 (NPS, 2007e), and the September
18, 2007 document, “National Park Service Clarification of Law, Policy,
and Science on Drakes Estero” (NPS, 2007d). The Clarification document
represents the most accurate NPS release of science relating to mariculture
impacts, although it does not fully reflect the conclusions of this
committee. It appears that hasty responses to local stakeholder concerns
by NPS led to the publication of inaccuracies and a subsequent series of
retractions and clarifications during this process from 2007–2008, which
cast doubt on the agency’s credibility and motivation. A lack of coordination
among the multiple agencies regulating the mariculture operation
also gave mixed messages to stakeholders, fueling the controversy. For
example, the extension in 2004 of the DBOC shellfish leases until 2029 by
the California Fish and Game Commission sent a message that could be
construed as conflicting with the Department of the Interior Office of the
Solicitor’s interpretation of the congressional mandate for designating
Wilderness in the Point Reyes National Seashore, which would prohibit
the extension of the lease beyond 2012. The California Fish and Game
Commission did, however, stipulate termination of the leases if the RUO
was not extended. The committee describes below the major scientific
conclusions presented by NPS and how these conclusions change among
the various NPS public releases.

The original report apparently had a claim that the oyster farm could be a potential source of non-native species transplanted from imported seed. I suppose that might happen in Tomales Bay where all the oyster farms typically import seed oysters from Washington, it's been well reported that DBOC produces its own oyster seed on site.


Add comment

CAPTCHA

This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.

The Essential RVing Guide

The Essential RVing Guide to the National Parks

The National Parks RVing Guide, aka the Essential RVing Guide To The National Parks, is the definitive guide for RVers seeking information on campgrounds in the National Park System where they can park their rigs. It's available for free for both iPhones and Android models.

This app is packed with RVing specific details on more than 250 campgrounds in more than 70 parks.

You'll also find stories about RVing in the parks, some tips if you've just recently turned into an RVer, and some planning suggestions. A bonus that wasn't in the previous eBook or PDF versions of this guide are feeds of Traveler content: you'll find our latest stories as well as our most recent podcasts just a click away.

So whether you have an iPhone or an Android, download this app and start exploring the campgrounds in the National Park System where you can park your rig.