To ypw --

I have a sense, in the accusations you quote by the NAS lead author of this report -- that quote about doubting the NPS' credibility and motivation -- that the NAS's lead author is wading into politics and political motivation of his own as well.

It is silly to say, as it says in the quote, immediately following the charge of 'motivation,' pointing to agency "lack of coordination" as if it were a charge against the NPS. How could it be thought that someone who could run such a sophisticated political lobby campaign as DBOC could EVER think that a California Fish and Game finding in ANY way is a finding or interpretation of the laws of the National Park Service must be malign, or at least driven by his own 'motivation' as well.

This sense of the lack of balance from the NAS lead author seemed apparent to me when listening to a panel discussion on the radio a couple of months ago. To me, at no time did his demeanor in that discussion seem to be that of a conscientious scientist trying to make sure that science is done right. He seemed to have joined attacks on the agency and the people involved, and seemed to be advocating for DBOC.

More importantly to me, it seems the "science" in this episode was from the first motivated by politics. Clearly, Sen. Feinstein and the NAS from the first were trying to make the 'scientific' assessment of the DBOC operation to be the decision-maker on whether or not this commercial fishing operation should be allowed to continue inside a national park. Other than commercial operations for park purposes, like a ferry of a park lodge, no commercial operations -- and certainly no park leases for commercial operations -- are consistent with park policy, whether in 'wilderness' or not.

Trying to assess the 'beneficial' effects of oyster culture operation is a slick device to try to say a commercial operation is part of the natural ecosystem. I have seen it argued that a dam across a park river should be considered consistent with park policy because it replicates the beaver dams that once were on the river involved. Well, if you are trying to bring back extirpated populations, such as bringing back the wolves in Yellowstone, parks do not do it by instead opening Yellowstone to hunting. They actually try to reestablish the original populations, as they did in Yellowstone with the wolves.

Once the NAS got into trying to find "beneficial" affects of this commercial operation, rather than confining themselves to an assessment of the impacts of the operation, the NAS author seemes to have revealed himself to be 'motivated' politically. When he introduced the red herring that someone could plausibly interpret a CA Fish and Game permit as a finding on NPS wilderness designation he again seems to demonstrate 'motivation.' And when he challenges the 'credibility and motivation' of the agency, rather than just sticking to the science, he again seems to demonstrate his own 'motivation.'

This whole effort appears to be an attempt to make the NPS argue from a position it could not possibly win, with inadequate resources, because even if an aquaculture operation could be shown to have no negative environmental affects, it deliberately obscures the key point that a commercial operation is not appropriate inside a national park.

First of all I'd like to say I made a few edits to correct some spelling mistakes and a few grammatical errors (I wrote "pore" instead of "pour" and just decided to rephrase about going over the NAS report), and when that's done the responses can be out of order.

d-2:
This whole effort appears to be an attempt to make the NPS argue from a position it could not possibly win, with inadequate resources, because even if an aquaculture operation could be shown to have no negative environmental affects, it deliberately obscures the key point that a commercial operation is not appropriate inside a national park.

There are already commercial enterprises in Point Reyes NS: the cattle ranches and dairy farms. There's also the Drakes Beach Cafe.

There are commercial operations inside of NPS boundaries. Nearly every single park concession is a profit-making enterprise, whether it's Delaware North Companies in Yosemite and Sequoia or Xanterra (rather extensive) in Yellowstone, Zion, Grand Canyon, etc. DNC even runs a permanent commercial operation in the High Sierra Camps from within the wilderness area boundaries of Yosemite. The orphan uranium mine in Grand Canyon operated for years and theoretically could be reopened. For years several mining operations ran out of Death Valley NM and I understand that there are still several mining claims that could go into full operation. If you want large-scale development, there's the Presidio of San Francisco. Lucasfilm has a big operation right in the NPS boundaries. The Disney Family just built a museum on the life of Walt Disney. I go there and shop at a profit-making sporting goods store (The Sports Basement). Within parts of Golden Gate National Recreation Area there are approved plans to build a couple of hotels that would effectively serve the same purposes as lodging available a few miles away in Marin County.

I suppose you could be right that the sides on this are fitting their reports to achieve a predetermined conclusion. I think it's disingenuous to state that the NPS reports on Drakes Estero weren't simply science in the interest of serving a predetermined conclusion that the oyster farm was causing harm to plants and wildlife. However - I do find it troubling that a federal agency would do that. If indeed they felt that the 1976 Act mandated the removal of the farm, they wouldn't have to tweak a report to help their cause.

My understanding is the only commercial businesses that can remain on park lands long term are, like concession services, specifically sanctioned because park purposes cannot be achieved without the service. All others should be phased out.

I agree that science should not serve a predetermined conclusion, and hope my comments could not be construed otherwise. It would be troubling. I hope the NPS studies were as conscientious as possible.

But, I think we need to consider how neutral 'science' may actually be these days. Look at how Fox Channel is using 'scientific reports' funded by the insurance companies to attack the President, or the way drug studies reflect preexisting bias. You must know how clubby scientists can sometimes be with colleagues' work. As social scientists since Gunnar Myrdal have recognized, 'objectivity' may be impossible to achieve, and it may be better to acknowledge the context and ideally to identify existing bias.

And, I think we underestimate ( " heads should roll" ) the difficulty of operating as a government agent in this world of high-paid litigators, lobbyists, and people who's access to elected officials like Senator Feinstein allow them to rewrite an agency's management system, etc. Add to that politically-motivated underfunding of needed studies and you place your public servants in impossible situations. How should a Regional Director like Jarvis evaluate the struggles of park staff working in this environment? Fire them all?

On the question of funding science, I well remember efforts some years ago to document mammal populations in the new parks in Alaska and to develop housing for park employees in local villages so they could be close to their work. (Not in far away Fairbanks like the other agencies.) Even though the local communities agreed with the proposal for NPS presence, Senator Stevens consistently blocked these efforts to get the data and to work closely with the resource.

I had some acquaintances in the Senator's office who told me that there was a concern that if the NPS could document population losses from poaching it would have the evidence it needed to crack down on the poachers. Ultimately, NPS made progress in these areas, but it took years and years, and most of those parks have fewer staff than in the 1980's.

I am not saying Senator Feinstein was deliberately underfunding Point Reyes to promote oyster culture; I do not know. But she must be aware that the NPS, like many agencies, has been fighting with an arm tied behind its back. The central office staffs needed to back up and mentor park staff have been decimated, and many experienced people have been pushed out. A focused attack on primary precedents of park law, on behalf on an individual commercial user for a private purpose, with no benefit of the doubt to the agency struggling in this environment seems to me to be a pretty cheap shot for a supposedly progressive legislator.

Like you I hope the NPS tried to do its work with the highest standards, not with any predetermined outcome in mind. Despite the scrutiny, it is commendable that mistakes were acknowledged, but even more so that fundamental management principles are not tossed out because of the political heat. After all, throughout the process, Director Jarvis must have known he was a potential candidate for the job as Director. If it were in anyone's interest -- if they were 'motivated' as NAS would have it -- to pander in this case, it would be to pander to a senior Democratic senator at the beginning of a Democratic Administration.

I suppose the radio program you mentioned was the KQED Forum program from several months ago with Kevin Lunny, Gordon Bennett, and the editor of the Point Reyes Light. Of course Bennett (representing the Sierra Club) didn't present himself well when he referred to her paper as the "Point Reyes Blight".

I will say I am a fan of the DBOC and would like it to continue operations. I don't know the Lunnys personally, but I'm sure that he's done his research. I've taken a huge interest in this. Apparently Senator Feinstein has too. I've heard that she's personally arranged for and sat in on meetings with Lunny, Jarvis, and Neubacher. Her home near Stinson Beach is just a short trip to Point Reyes and I'd think on a good day she can see the mouth of Drakes Estero from her home.

There's a whole lot of precedents for preexisting commercial operations to continue under NPS jurisdiction - or for new ones to be started depending on the status of the unit. I can assure you that Golden Gate NRA doesn't need a new lodge in the Marin Headlands in order to properly serve visitors. There are plenty of hotels/motels in Mill Valley and Sausilito that could serve that goal, as well as the rest of Marin and San Francisco. The commercial interests in the Presidio are hardly visitor concessions. They're commercial enterprises, such as Sports Basement (which has three other locations not on NPS lands) or the Presidio Bowling Center. Then I suppose there are some commercial operators that raise eyebrows such as the Presidio Golf Course as well as the Wawona Golf Course in Yosemite NP. I suppose the most controversial addition to land under NPS jurisdiction was the Jackson Hole Airport, which in fact is completely within the boundaries of Grand Teton National Park.

I'd also note that a simple look of the map of Tomales Bay would indicate that pretty most of the water area is under the jurisdiction of the National Park Service - either Point Reyes on the west or Golden Gate NRA on the east. I don't have a map of where the oyster racks are, but from what I've seen the commercial oyster farming operations do seem to be within the NPS jurisdiction. It would certainly be difficult for the NPS to ban such operations, as it has zero control over the land area along Highway 1 and the State of California has the mariculture and mineral rights. It's far more complex than saying that commercial enterprises other than concessions can't remain on NPS areas long term.

I've even seen some strident talk about getting rid of the road, parking area, and pit toilet at the oyster farm. That would take away a prime kayak launching site. Kayaking is still legal 8 months out of the year and the NPS is tasked with balancing recreational uses with natural resource protection. I don't know how convenient kayak access at the Bull Point Trailhead parking lot is, but the current oyster farm location seems to be what the NPS recommends. I also can't understand some aspects of the DOI's Solicitor General report - especially where it mentions that the "oyster farm tract" is slated for conversion to wilderness status. I've seen the map that accompanied the 1976 Point Reyes Wilderness Act and the official park map that lays out exactly what's in the wilderness plan whether or not it was potential or full wilderness. The northernmost 3/4 mile of Schooner Bay doesn't appear to be in the wilderness plan and zero land area surrounding Drakes Estero is in the wilderness plan.

Just on a few of your points, ypw, and then to let this thread go, because I don't have your interest or insights into the specific operation, was only talking to the merits of the integrity of the National Park System.

-- The airport in Jackson Hole is not owned by the NPS. NPS does not issue permits there, or control the operation. NPS has tried to phase out the airport, but unlike Point Reyes where the issue of the preexisting lease was addressed, it appears Congress did not want to phase out the airport when Congress finally passed legislation in effect recognizing the National Monument.

-- For Point Reyes, I can't argue about specifics or challenge the Solicitor unless I read the entire legislative history, saw the maps as they evolved, and understood the law. I'd heard the issue was when the wilderness status would kick in, and that there was discussion that congress would not so designate the wilderness until the lease ended, with an understanding that it would not be renewed. But I don't know myself.

I have read other parks' legislative histories, for example once when a Member of Congress was insisting that a mining operation be permitted to be continued. He said the miner ran a clean and well managed operation, and clearly had not so despoiled the land that people did not want it as a National Park. You could read in the discussion how painful it was for other Members to challenge this colleague. At first they put the discussion over to later consideration.

Finally the Committee Chairman carefully explained that if Congress wants to permit that mine to continue, Congress can authorize it, but then the area should not be designated as a national park because that is not what parks are for, to be free of such commercial operations. Over and over, people try to install a special interest in a national park, often with brilliant rationalizations, and the insistence that it will not affect the park system as a whole, or the area under consideration. But in the end people need to confront that same simple question: do you want a national park here, or not?

Because if you chip away at the authority of the national park service just a little bit here, and then a little something else over there, pretty soon you won't have the national parks of integrity we need.

-- Presidio has special legislation. Revenue generation was built into the plan. Even with that, many complain that the board is permitting much more than was intended. But again, with its special exceptions in its special legislation, Presidio is not a good example.

-- NPS does sometimes continue certain uses that are not considered inconsistent with the park. For example, in places farmers have been permitted to continue operations when it had been determined that the historic setting that was a purpose of the park requires the continuation. For example, where the farm helps preserve the historic setting. I have no idea how the cattle permits at Point Reyes are provided, if they are part of the original legislation and are grandfathered in, if they are being phased out, or if they are considered consistent with park purposes. So I cannot tell from what you describe. But I accept the statements from the NPS that congress did consider the way NPS should deal with the oyster operation, and that was to phase it out.

-- I don't know what the commercial operation situation is at Golden Gate. But concessions do require a justification, and presumably they have one properly done for each concession. I was involved once in trying to justify a concession proposal where not far away, private businesses operated. The scrutiny was fairly intense, and it took a lot to justify the new concession. Presumably, Golden Gate would have the same level of scrutiny, consistent with the purposes and law of Golden Gate.

-- For historic structures, the law does provide for special historic leases, with the idea that continued use and maintenance is the best way to protect an historic structure. In many ways, this authority seems to some people as inconsistent with the basic idea that parks are for all the public, because some lessees of historic structures use them for non-park purposes and can close them to the public. But it is a law. This is the controversy you've read about in these pages about Fort Hancock in New Jersey, in Gateway NRA, the companion to Golden Gates. The authority clearly exists in the law. Whether the historic leasing regulations as written are too flexible or not flexible enough is a different question.

But this authority is only for historic structures, and this inconsistency would not apply to other leases. And, it begins with the premise that the structures involved are key resources for the park, and require maintenance. I don't think this exception would apply in any way to the Point Reyes situation.

D-2: Actually, several cultural or historical NPS units have non-visitor commercial activities such as grazing; the ranching in Point Reyes is not unique, and it is part of the law establishing the park, albeit with NPS ability to regulate grazing on the NPS-owned lands. DBOC is different: the 40 year RUO for the oyster operations in the estero and the on shore plant was part of the negotiated deed of sale of the original oyster farm to NPS. The price was less than what NPS would have paid without the RUO but more than if the use was permanent. The 40 year RUO was certainly part of the sale of the oyster farm to DBOC, and given California real estate & business law, the 1976 Wilderness designation was also fully disclosed.

I don't know enough to be in favor of keeping DBOC in Drake's Estero after 2012 (with some royalties to NPS equivalent to grazing fees and lease of the land under the facilities) or in favor of removing it when the current law requires. The most important measurements to understand the impacts of DBOC (positive and negative) haven't been taken. Almost all of the reports arguing all sides that I've read have problems that would cause me to reject them as a reviewer: the NPS reports, the USGS reports, the stuff from UC Davis, and the NAS report. [Yes I'm a hard-assed reviewer, but I sign my reviews, and most of my reviews result in a stronger revised paper.]

My own bottom line is whether DBOC can make enough profit to pay $100-200K per year for the necessary (independent) research & monitoring. If it can, then I have no problem with starting the monitoring now, extending the RUO a few years past 2012, and basing decisions about continued operations on the data. If it can't, then I have a real problem with NPS spending $100-200K per year as a hidden subsidy to DBOC operations within Point Reyes NS, or extending the RUO in the absence of any solid data on the impacts.

My block quote from the NAS report summary (page 3) is:

Ultimately, the NPS “Acknowledgment of Corrections” (July 2007) and “Clarification of Law, Policy, and Science” (September 2007) retracted several misrepresentations of the Anima (1991) and (Elliot-Fisk, 2005) studies and presented descriptions of ecological impacts of the shellfish culture operations that closely approach the conclusions reached by this committee, with two major exceptions. First, NPS does not acknowledge the changing ecological baseline of Drakes Estero, in which native Olympia oysters probably played an important role in structuring the estuary’s ecosystem for millennia until human exploitation eliminated them in the period from the mid 1800s to the early 1900s. Second, NPS selectively presents harbor seal survey data in Drakes Estero and over-interprets the disturbance data which are incomplete and non-representative of the full spectrum of disturbance activities in the estero.

I wouldn't go so far as d-2 in my criticism of the NAS panel (I'm also not quite sure if d-2 is criticizing the NAS authors or Nabhan). However, as a scientist I'm appalled at the NAS interpretation of small projects not finding statistically significant effects as evidence for no ecologically significant effects. That fails intro stats: the basic logic of null hypothesis significance testing. Rigorous analyses in the subsequent peer reviewed paper (Becker et al. 2009) show a significant effect of year to year oyster production (as a proxy for mariculture activities) on seal counts at all 3 sites near the oyster farm (and strongest at the 2 closest) even after accounting for El Nino. Oddly, the NAS report addressed the Becker et al. paper by arguing that correlation is not causation (so nothing less than a fully randomized and replicated manipulative experiment would be sufficient?), and that the significant result might be confounded by some unspecified changes in culture methods or management practices. Whether the effect is direct or via latent (unknown and unmeasured) management practices, the result remains that greater oyster production is associated with lower counts on areas nearest the oyster farm.

[I'm also appalled at the NAS evidence-free assertion in the quote above that the native oysters probably played an important role in the ecosystem. Sure, it's almost certainly true that native oysters were important, but its also almost certainly true that oyster feces greatly increase sedimentation rates, yet NAS severely criticized that statement for not having data from Drake's Estero to back it up.]

Back to Kurt's original post, I'm relatively hopeful that Jarvis and Machlis _will_ get solid science in order to make management decisions such as this. My take is that getting solid science is more likely with Jarvis as director than with any of the alternatives.

y.p.w.: The full report is pretty interesting, especially the background information, and I'm sure you'll learn quite a bit about the ecology and history of the estuary, as I did.

>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.

The goal of interpretation is to allow for visitors to forge a connection between the resources and themselves. For many visitors, the way to do this, is to approach them through their emotions because part of the reason that we work to protect these places and these resources is because they do indeed provoke emotion. That is why this so called "touchy-feely" approach can be an effective tool at times.

BUT the other role of an interpreter is to teach, and the interpretive division works hand in hand with the resource management division to share the scientific knowledge that has been learned about a park with the public. So data and fact must also be a part of every program. One of the most important tenets of interpretation is "to know the audience" and tailor your program accordingly. When I am creating a program for a group of visiting scientists, it is almost pure fact and data. But when I am working with a group of 3rd graders on the National Mall, the most important thing to them, is going to be what they're seeing right then, and how it makes them feel -because that is what they will remember.

It is all about audience and context.

I have read the full report and have been following the story closely for about three years.

Your comments suggest you are biased toward the Park Service in this matter. Either that or you are really bad at seeing the forest for the trees. To cite just two examples:

1. It is not at all correct to say "the NAS report addressed the Becker et al. paper by arguing that correlation is not causation."

The report says: "it is important to recognize that the analysis showing a relationship between mariculture activities and a decline in the mean seal attendance at two of three haul-out subsites in Drakes Estero does not demonstrate cause and effect."

This has nothing to do with correlation. The seal data is bad, and the Park Service analysis is wrong. As the Academy says in the very beginning of the report: "NPS selectively presents harbor seal survey data in Drakes Estero and over-interprets the disturbance data which are incomplete and non-representative of
the full spectrum of disturbance activities in the estero."

2. It is not at all correct to refer to the Academy's mention of the historical role of oysters in the estero as an "evidence-free assertion." They cite *three papers* as evidence.

Furthermore, your comment about sedimentation suggests you are missing the point of this aspect of the report. The issue being addressed is that the Park Service has conducted a misinformation campaign designed to make the oyster farm look bad. As the Academy's report says: "none of the NPS documents released to the public acknowledges that oysters were part of the historical baseline ecosystem before substantial human intervention and that oysters typically have largely beneficial biogeochemical functions in estuarine and lagoonal ecosystems."

In other words, the Park Service documents in question--the ones the Academy of Sciences was asked to review, along with all the available scientific literature--consistently failed to mention that oysters are good for the estero, and that the commercial oyster farm provides the benefits that native oysters did in the past.

The basic facts are clear. The oyster farm is not causing any harm. The oysters clean the water.

As the NAS report says: "Our review of available scientific information fails to demonstrate any empirical evidence of food web shifts in response to oyster farming in Drakes Estero. The scientific literature on the effects of culturing oysters and other suspension-feeding bivalves does not support a broad characterization of degradation of function, especially in physically well flushed estuaries and where stocking densities are relatively low, as in
Drakes Estero."