|
|
| The Pulitzer Prize-Winning Weekly Newspaper |
«
Go back |
| Community Conversation disappoints |
Andrew DeFeo
2009-11-19 |
|
Ninety people who attended a public presentation by Point Reyes National Seashore staff last Monday left with over 40 unanswered questions and an invitation to Superintendent Don Neubacher’s office. Moderators skirted around contested issues, including lease extensions for ranches and the fate of Drakes Bay Oyster Company. The event was the third in a series of Community Conversations aimed at facilitating communication between the National Park Service and the community.
“People had questions and the questions were censored, so there was no conversation. When they wrote down questions they thought they would be answered, and instead they were modified or deflected, and because of that the night was a wasted evening,” said Community Conversation Task Force member Phyllis Faber.
After discussions with seashore staff during the past few months of planning, the Community Conversation Task Force decided to ban questions from the floor, opting to pass out pencils and paper and have moderators read questions aloud. Pointed questions and questions that have already been exhausted were also banned.
“This particular night was not intended to be a two-way street. It was a chance to hear from the park,” said Fred Smith, a task force member and director of the Environmental Action Committee. “We advertised in local media, in letters to the editor, that the intention was to hold a listening session, and if people came thinking this was going to be a debate between the community and the park service then they were misinformed.”
But many attendees expected a similar format to previous conversations, which featured roundtable discussions and open dialogue. About 140 people attended the first Community Conversation in March, while just over 90 were counted on
Monday.
Sim Van der Ryn, chair of the task force, defended Monday’s format. “There has been no conversation with the park for five years. They have not communicated with the people.” Van der Ryn said that because seashore staff are concerned about attack, they would not have participated if they had to deal with open questions from the floor.
In the West Marin School Gym on Monday, Neubacher was joined by Chief of Interpretation John Dell’Osso, Science Advisor Sarah Allen, Cultural Resources Chief Gordon White, Hydrologist Brannon Ketcham and Fire Management Officer Roger Wong. Presentations covered recent land development projects, scientific discoveries and the effects of climate change on the seashore.
Neubacher emphasized the responsibilities and limitations he faces in managing the seashore. “Local communities have the strongest influence on the park—but the park is part of a federal system,” he said, adding that he must consider the man in Ohio and the West Marin community equally. Later he commented that he was required to manage potential wilderness essentially as wilderness.
Allen announced that a vertebrate new to science was recently discovered in eelgrass in Tomales Bay, and discussed the reintroduction of the endangered tidewater goby. At least twice she mentioned the lack of funding for research, and said she relies on partnerships with high schools and universities. White discussed the zoning of the seashore, which consists of pastoral, wilderness and potential wilderness. The National Park Service is considering adding a new, archeological zone. Ketcham talked about the threats of non-native plants, plans for species relocation and the challenges of battling marijuana cultivation on parklands.
With 20 minutes left, moderators Ken Otter and David Weckler began a Q&A session. Questions were collected, and in an attempt to avoid controversial statements, Weckler tried to synthesize questions.
“We knew going into this that there were certain questions that weren’t going to be addressed directly, because we decided that this wouldn’t be the appropriate forum to discuss these issues that have already been brought up with the park,” Weckler said, adding that many questions included accusations that, if read aloud, would have isolated members of the park and community.
The first summarized question concerned the relationship between the seashore and ranches. “How do you balance natural assets of the park with cultural, historical assets like ranching—how do you deal with that conflict?” Weckler asked. The second summarized question concerned science. “There are a range of questions asking about science and scientific studies,” Weckler said. “When you need to use science for making decisions, how do you decide what science to use?”
Allen reiterated the lack of funding for research and the need for partnerships, and Weckler attempted to restate his question, mentioning the discrepancies between the National Academy of Sciences and park service studies.
“Science is not black and white. Data is there for anyone to analyze. There is a range of interpretations of data, and a range of modeling that can give different results,” Ketcham said. Neubacher added that he follows the “precautionary principle.” “If we don’t have enough science, maybe we should leave it alone,” he said.
One issue that was addressed directly by the park was the impending General Management Plan, which is long overdue for updates. Community members expressed concern that they will not have adequate time to comment on the 600-page document, which will dictate park management policies for the next 15 years.
Some people were disappointed with these answers, while others voiced frustration with the moderators’ decision to reword questions.
“It was like having a big balloon filled with air between the park service and the people in attendance—primarily so that the park service couldn’t be hurt,” said Tamara Trusse, who grew up in Inverness. “I think a lot of people thought because the title of the event was Community Conversation, there would be a dialogue.”
Some participants chose not to submit questions at all. “I had come hoping for the park to apologize to the Lunnys for the mistreatment that they have received. But when I saw them reading the questions and sifting through them, I knew it wasn’t worth submitting anything,” said Michael Greenberg, an Inverness resident who attended all three meetings.
“I think we’ve succeeded in disappointing both sides equally,” Otter joked.
|
|
| |
|
