1

December 31, 2020

Office of Director

National Pak Service

1849 C. Street, N.W. 

Attention: Correspondence Control Unit (CCU) 

1201 Eye Street NW 

Washington, DC 20240 

Email: Director@nps.gov

Re: Appeal of Denial of Complaint About Information Quality: REVIEW of the Sea Turtle 

Science and Recovery Program, Padre Island National Seashore

Dear Sir or Madam: 

On July 26, 2020, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) submitted an

Information Quality Complaint pursuant to the Data Quality Act of 2000, the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) Guidelines for Ensuring and Maximizing the Quality, Utility, 

and Integrity of Information disseminated by Federal Agencies, National Park Service (NPS) 

Director’s Order #11B: Ensuring Quality of Information Disseminated by the National Park 

Service and the U.S. Department of Interior (DOI) Information Quality Guidelines.1 

PEER submitted this Complaint to the NPS on its own behalf as well as on behalf of our client, 

Dr. Donna Shaver, a biologist and long-time NPS employee serving as The Chief of the Division 

of Sea Turtle Science and Recovery (STSR) at the Padre Island National Seashore (PAIS). The 

challenged information is an NPS document entitled “REVIEW of the Sea Turtle Science and 

Recovery Program, Padre Island National Seashore” [hereinafter “the Review”], dated June 8, 

2020 and approved by Michael Reynolds, Regional Director, NPS Regional Office serving DOI 

Regions 6, 7, and 8.2

Through this Complaint, we sought the following relief to cure the specified violations of the 

Information Quality Act: 

1. Retract or rescind the Review from official files, cease any further reliance 

upon it, cease further distribution, and correct its online and printed information on this 

matter. 

2. Issue a public statement, posted on official websites, that the Review has been 

rescinded and withdrawn from further official consideration due to violations of the 

Information Quality Act. 

1 https://www.peer.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/7_16_20_DQA_Complaint_STSR_Review_Final.pdf

2 https://www.peer.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/7_16_20_PAIS_STSR_Review_Report_final.pdf
2

3. Direct the superintendent at PAIS and relevant NPS regional officials that the findings 

and recommendations of the Review should not be the basis for any official action.

A document emailed to us on December 2, 2020 and e-signed by NPS Regional Director Michael 

T. Reynolds contained the following conclusion:

“After review and consideration, the remedy sought via your letter will not be granted 

and the Review report will not be retracted. The report has been amended and reposted 

with a new date.”

3

We regard this December 2nd memo from Mr. Reynolds as a denial of our Complaint. Through 

this document, we hereby appeal this denial pursuant to the procedures laid out in NPS 

Director’s Order 11B.4

Before going into the specifics of our Complaint, three initial observations are in order:

1. Nature of NPS Response Confirms Substance of Complaint

In response to our Complaint, the NPS revised the Review by removing a section, inserting nine 

footnotes, and adding three Appendices.5 These actions are a backhanded acknowledgement that 

the Review was not “accurate, timely, and reflect the most current information available” as 

required by Director’s Order 11B6in that it required amendment, amplification, and explanation.

Nor did Mr. Reynolds’ response explain why these revisions were appropriate rather than a 

complete retraction. Adding insult to the original injury, as detailed below, many of the 

representations in Mr. Reynolds’ short response are themselves inaccurate. Moreover, most of 

Mr. Reynolds’ 6-page response to our 28-page complaint consists largely of bland, conclusory 

denials with no supporting justification or explanation offered. The quality of this denial further 

indicates that Mr. Reynolds and his responsible staff do not have a firm grasp on the 

requirements – and certainly not the spirit – of the Information Quality Act. 

2. The Review Is Clearly “Influential Information”

Our challenge pointed out that the Review constituted “influential” information, meaning that 

NPS is held to a higher, more rigorous standard, according to the DOI Information Quality 

Guidelines. Mr. Reynolds’ response disputes this characterization:

“The Review does not constitute ‘influential scientific, financial, or statistical 

information’ and is not subject to procedures for evaluating influential scientific 

information. The Sea Turtle Science and Recovery Program (STSR) Review is an 

operations evaluation, also commonly referred to as a management review.”

This response is incorrect for several reasons:

3

See Exhibit I

4 At IV G

5 This revised and re-dated Review is displayed at https://www.nps.gov/pais/learn/management/upload/PAISSTSR-Review-Report_20201202_amended_signed_2.pdf

6

Sec. IIIB
3

a) The cited definition of “influential” information within the meaning of the DOI 

Information Quality Guidelines in that it “will or does have a clear and substantial 

impact on important public policies.”

7 There is no serious dispute that this Review 

affected PAIS and STSR practices on a number of topics.

b) The challenged Review is full of “scientific” and “financial” information. Much 

of this information is incorrect, however, hence this Complaint.

c) The characterization that this Review was merely a “management review” 

consisting of “recommendations regarding program operations for consideration 

by park management” is disingenuous, if not flat out false. 

In a memo from Mr. Reynolds to the PAIS Superintendent dated June 8, 2020 –

the same date on the issued Review – entitled “Report and Required Actions for 

the Sea Turtle Science and Recovery Program” lays out a detailed schedule for 

“Implementation of the report recommendations.”8

This Review was no causal assemblage of recommendations for possible future 

consideration. In fact, it was the blueprint for curtailing and restructuring the 

STSR effective immediately. The NPS staff persons behind this Review 

document may be hiding behind a label of “management review” but it is only a

bureaucratic fig leaf. Nor is a management review exempt from compliance with 

the Information Quality Act or an exception to what may be considered influential 

information.

d) The Review was distributed to the public. Indeed, the revised Review added an 

email from the PAIS Superintendent (the new Appendix J) which was a 

transmittal for its distribution. Nor was this distribution limited to staff. Mr. 

Reynolds’ response does not deny that Superintendent Brunnemann provided an 

electronic copy of the Review to a local newspaper, the Corpus-Christi Caller 

Times, as noted in our Complaint.

This public distribution triggers the higher standard of accuracy, completeness, 

and objectivity required of influential information.

e) Mr. Reynolds’ response offers a dubious explanation that NPS –

“disseminated the information within the meaning of 5 CFR 1320.3(d) in 

that it has acted to ‘conduct or sponsor’ the collection of information 

which comprises this Review. In that regard, the NPS provided this 

Review to third parties.”

7

See DOI Guidelines at VII, Subsection 9

8 Exhibit II
4

As discussed below, the Review was not distributed in draft form to solicit 

comments. Nor did the NPS solicit comment or make any visible attempt to 

collect information about the completed Review from third parties. Instead, the 

Review was assembled after a series of undocumented interviews9and then a 

final, completed Review was disseminated as a completed action – a “done deal” 

– for which no further input was sought. 

The fact Mr. Reynolds’ response disputes that the Review was “influential information” is itself 

a tacit acknowledgement that the Review cannot withstand the strict scrutiny required of this 

category of information. Instead, Mr. Reynolds seeks to mischaracterize the Review as loose 

talk, random suggestions, or a form of bureaucratic thinking out loud to justify its sloppiness and 

inaccuracy which should not be too carefully examined. In reality, the Review was carefully 

crafted to accomplish its predetermined goals of curtailing the scope, size, and effectiveness of 

the STSR program.

3. The Review and NPS Response Lack Transparency

As our Complaint points out, the NPS Information Quality Act guidelines stipulate that:

“Influential information will be produced with a high degree of transparency about data 

and methods. The information should include all pertinent information....”

10

 

Mr. Reynolds’ response addresses this issue with the following statement: “The Review is 

transparent in describing why it was initiated and how it was conducted (Review, pg. 7).” The 

entire discussion on page 7 on how the Review was conducted consists of the following:

“The program review consisted of three parts: 1) evaluation of plans and documents, 2) 

personal interviews with all permanent STSR staff (two were interviewed by phone) and 

all members of the park management team conducted on December 12, 2019, and 3) 

phone interviews with other Federal and State agencies and partner organizations 

conducted during January-February 2020. Information from these sources was 

incorporated into the findings, discussion, and recommendations included in section 4.”

This cryptic explanation does not constitute any reasonable measure of transparency. As our 

Complaint points out, the Review –

• Generally, there are no identified sources for asserted conclusions;

• Contains no transcription or interview notes, so it is impossible to tell if the Review fairly 

summarizes what it has been told. This problem is amply illustrated by the NPS decision 

to add Appendix K to the Review. That Appendix is a three-page memo from Barbara

Schroeder of the National Marine Fisheries Service explaining how her input to the 

Review team was mischaracterized and required clarification;

9 The Review team apparently failed to preserve notes of interviews or to allow interviewees the opportunity to 

review how interview contents were memorialized in the final Review

10 D.O. 11B at § III(A)
5

• People interviewed could not tell whether the Review’s authors understood what they 

were told. As the Complaint points out, a central figure in this matter, Dr. Shaver, 

certainly does not believe that her input was included in the Review.

Nor does Mr. Reynolds’ response address the fact that the Review was not circulated in draft 

form, so that persons interviewed could object if their views were not reflected or were distorted. 

As is done with literally hundreds of NPS documents each year, this Review was not posted at 

the NPS Planning, Environment and Public Comment (PEPC) website for public review and 

comment.

Instead of employing the open process usually associated with NPS planning documents, this

Review was released as “approved” in final form and promptly distributed without any 

opportunity to review and comment upon it. 

Our Complaint stressed that this lack of transparency is no mere procedural concern. The utterly 

opaque process pursued with this Review left it open to improper managerial influence in order 

to implement a personal agenda. This fundamental lack of transparency goes to the heart of 

crass bureaucratic manipulation that the Information Quality Act purports to prevent. 

Finally, the lack of transparency envelops Mr. Reynolds’ response, as well. This response has 

still not been publicly posted to our knowledge. It does not appear on the NPS website page for 

Information Quality Correction Requests and Responses11 although other non-substantive 

correspondence on this matter from Mr. Reynolds is posted. As a result of this continued nontransparent approach, a revised version of the Review is posted on the PAIS website without an 

explanation for why it was revised.12 Furthermore, the PAIS website does not even disclose that 

the Review has been revised. The front page of the website states at the relevant link: “Read the 

June 2020 Review and National Park Service Statement.” So much for transparency.

Appeal Specifics

Our Complaint laid out two categories of specific issues and instances where the Review violates 

Information Quality Act standards: 

A. Lack of Integrity, Accuracy, Completeness and Reliability 

B. Review Lacks the Required Integrity, Accuracy, Completeness and Reliability 

As detailed below, we believe that every one of the elements specified in our Complaint still 

applies to the revised Review. In reply to each of the 17 specifications detailed in the Complaint, 

Mr. Reynolds’ response generally consists of approximately one or two sentences per issue. As 

discussed below, these responses offer little detail, and are unsupported by any evidence, 

references, or reasoning. 

The cursory nature of Mr. Reynolds’ response reinforces our contention that the NPS Regional 

staff responsible for both the Review and the response do not understand their statutory 

11 https://www.nps.gov/aboutus/information-quality-corrections.htm (accessed 12/24/20)

12 https://www.nps.gov/pais/learn/management/sea-turtle-review.htm (accessed 12/24/20)
6

responsibilities under the Information Quality Act to provide accurate, objective, and reliable 

information in official documents – especially, documents affecting NPS operations.

Discussing, each in turn –

A. Noncompliance with Law and NPS Policy

1. Bypass ESA Consultation Requirements.

The Complaint explains how the changes recommended in the Review impacted STSR and PAIS 

operations affecting endangered Kemp’s ridley and two threatened sea turtle species. As pointed 

out above, several of these steps involving issues such as beach patrols and responses to 

stranding events have already been implemented. Moreover, the Review failed to assess the time 

and expense of revising more than 20 Biological Opinions referenced in the Complaint in order 

to fully implement its recommendations. 

In response, Mr. Reynolds’ response says only:

“The NPS understands the need for appropriate consultation and will conduct Section 7 

consultation under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) as necessary and required at the 

appropriate step in implementation of the Review’s recommendations.”

This blanket assurance provides no timelines or budget for this work. Moreover, it ignores that 

several recommendations have been implemented or are in the process of being implemented

without required consultations.

In the succeeding months since the June 2020 issuance of the Review, no ESA consultations 

have taken place or have even been scheduled. The cavalier approach to ESA compliance 

evidenced by Mr. Reynolds’ response is not in keeping with the “proactive mandate” under ESA 

to prevent jeopardy.

13

 Mr. Reynolds’ failure to make a specific commitment on the timing and 

scope of required consultations an invitation to litigation.

2. Circumvent Public Involvement and Assessment Required by NEPA.

The Complaint points out that the Review was conducted out of public view and solicited no 

public input. It identified and recommended several significant changes in STSR operations, all 

of which would require public notification and an Environmental Assessment under the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) but the Review did not include NEPA compliance or even 

identify it as a recommended step.

In response, Mr. Reynolds asserts: 

“The Review is a recommendation, not an action directive, and so is not the appropriate 

place for NEPA evaluation or public input. Compliance with NEPA, including public 

involvement, will be initiated at a later stage as required or necessary.”

13 Review at 10
7

This assertion is both unspecific and deceptive. As discussed above, several of the Review 

recommendations have already been implemented without benefit of NEPA compliance. In 

addition, NEPA requires public input at the earliest stage of planning, such as scoping, well 

before a single “preferred alternative” is identified. In this case, the Review admittedly 

identified preferred alternatives on a number of major operational changes which should have 

triggered public notice and comment requirements.

The suggestion that NEPA will be triggered only “as required or necessary” reinforces our 

contention that this Review was designed from its outset to exclude public input for fear that 

public input would vociferously oppose Review recommendations, such as cutting back on beach 

releases (something the Review conceded was very popular). The very nature of how this 

Review was conducted underlines that it was “an inside job” for which the authors patently had 

no interest in public input.

Moreover, Mr. Reynolds’ response does not identify what the “later stage” will be or when 

promised NEPA compliance will take place. To date, there is no public sign that PAIS plans to

undertake a single step required by NEPA. Rather than dismissing our charged violation of 

policy, Mr. Reynolds’ cursory response only reinforces our point. 

3. Violate NPS Management Policies on Protection of Listed Species.

The Complaint listed several Review recommendations for restraints on STSR operations that 

would operate to the detriment of listed sea turtles, including: 

• Discontinuing “collection, incubation, and release of green and loggerhead eggs;”

• Ending study and management “of sea turtle species other than Kemp’s;” 

• Ceasing incubation and release of green and loggerhead “sea turtle eggs collected 

at PAIS, and those collected elsewhere along the Texas coast and sent to the 

park;” and

• Limiting stranding response “to inside the boundaries of PAIS.”

As the Complaint points out, the Review recommendations mean that affected threatened green 

and loggerhead turtles will surely perish – an outcome that runs counter to NPS Management 

Policies requiring NPS units to protect rare, threatened, or endangered species and actively work 

to recover and restore all species native to parks listed under the ESA. 

Mr. Reynolds’ response addresses none of the specific concerns raised in the Complaint. 

Instead, it airily asserts –

“The Review is consistent with Management Policies as it recommends options that balance 

managing for natural processes and active management for threatened and endangered 

species.”

Characteristically, Mr. Reynolds provides no explanation. Curtailing STSR operations does not 

reflect any “balance” as the Review offers no compensatory expansion to match reductions. The 

rationale the Review offers for these cutbacks is somewhat illusory, other than fiscal steps to 

save NPS money. However, that is exactly contrary to the Management Policy directive to 
8

protect rare, threatened, or endangered species and actively work to recover and restore all 

species native to parks listed under the ESA.14

4. Conflicts with Scientific Integrity Policy.

This specification of the Complaint was rooted in the Review recommendation that the scope of 

scientific research by the STSR be curtailed and limited to “efforts that directly improves 

management of the species within the park.”15 As the Complaint points out, limiting research to 

park boundaries runs counter to the goal of DOI’s Scientific Integrity Policy – promoting the 

value of “science and scholarship” in fulfilling the Department’s overall mission, especially with 

respect to the conservation and understanding of natural resources. Moreover, these scientific 

inquiries are meant to be useful beyond park boundaries to further the “credibility and value with 

all sectors of the public.”16

Nor does the Review or Mr. Reynolds’ response acknowledge that much of the STSR research 

work has direct application to PAIS and NPS management issues. For example, findings from 

STSR scientific research were used to help settle the DWH case with BP and to develop the 

closed area off south Texas to shrimping, after which nesting began to increase. 

In addition, the Complaint argues that implementing this Review recommendation would force 

STSR to end the only long-term, continuous mark-recapture program on nesting Kemp’s ridley 

turtles on the planet. Limiting data collection to only PAIS would disrupt the dataset tracking 

trends that are key to understanding the status of this endangered species and to make informed 

management decisions about it.

Mr. Reynolds’ response misses both of these contentions completely. Instead, the response 

states: 

“The Review was not conducted to assess the body of scientific work produced by the 

program. Rather, the Review recommends re-examining the scientific work through 

obtaining a literature review, developing a science plan with priorities, and adhering to 

DOI and NPS requirements regarding scientific and scholarly activities.”

Mr. Reynolds’ response is obviously incorrect. The Review, without offering any support, 

reached a conclusion that the collection of important biological data outside park boundaries was 

of limited value and should cease. Moreover, if STSR is the only source of such biological data, 

the suggestion that it conduct a “literature search” makes no sense. Finally, the Review makes 

no recommendation that STSR develop a “science plan” other than the cessation of scientific 

data collection.

Mr. Reynolds’ response suggests that our raising this issue in our Complaint caused the authors 

of the Review and his response to look up Interior’s Scientific Integrity Policy for the first time. 

That perusal resulted in the response citing an irrelevant provision of the DOI policy about lack 

14 See NPS Management Policies 4.4.1.1, 4.4.2 and 4.4.2.3

15 Review at 18.

16 DOI DM § 305 3.4 and § 3.4 A (2), respectively
9

of “scientific integrity.”17 The Complaint did not allege lack of scientific integrity or an act of 

scientific misconduct. The Complaint faults the Review’s dismissal of the value of STSR 

scientific work as running counter to the promotion of scientific inquiry in NPS operations, 

which is the spirit behind that Policy. 

5. Restricts Free Flow of Scientific Information.

The Complaint points out that as a result of the Review, Dr. Shaver has been under a “gag order” 

and forbidden to speak to the media or answer media inquiries, as she has done for years.

Mr. Reynolds’ response does not deny this but instead somewhat obliquely states:

“Departmental and NPS guidance provide for administrative review of material planned 

for dissemination to the public and also provide for scientists to discuss their science with 

the press and the public. Park management provides the administrative review and also 

provides procedures by which scientists and scholars may speak to the media and the 

public about scientific matters based on their official work and areas of expertise.”

The response does not provide a citation to identify where this “guidance” or the referenced 

review “procedures” can be found. The prior longstanding practice of reporters directly 

contacting Dr. Shaver violated no known NPS rule or procedure. Further, since the issuance of 

the Review, PAIS has denied several media requests to interview Dr. Shaver, and, to our 

knowledge, has not granted one. These media requests certainly concerned matters that are in 

Dr. Shaver’s “area of expertise.” Nor have PAIS officials identified any procedures Dr. Shaver 

must follow in order for her to once again conduct media interviews.

The NPS’ treatment of Dr. Shaver flies in the face of the DOI Scientific Integrity Policy’s call 

for agency managers to “Facilitate the free flow of scientific information....”18 In addition, it 

violates the Scientific Integrity’s directive against managerial censorship to –

“Ensure that public communications policies provide procedures by which scientists and 

scholars may speak to the media and the public about scientific matters based on their 

official work and areas of expertise.”19

6. Inhibit Public’s Environmental Education Opportunities.

The Division of Sea Turtle Science and Recovery conducts an extensive public education 

program regarding these issues and many other sea turtle issues. It is widely recognized that 

these public education efforts the STSR conducted have been directly responsible for public 

knowledge that sea turtles inhabit this area.

17 The citation in the Response is “The Department recognizes that managers exercise judgment every day to 

make decisions in the context of complex fact patterns, divergent opinions, and uncertainty, and disagreement 

with management decisions does not itself constitute a case for loss of scientific integrity.” (305 DM 3, Section 1.4, 

Scientific Integrity Procedures Handbook)

18 DOI DOM at § 3.4 A (5)

19 Id at §3.4 A (7)
10

Nonetheless, the Review strongly urges a reduction in “the number of public sea turtle release 

events to reduce costs and reduce the impact on staff from other divisions.”20 The Review even 

goes so far as to suggest that public releases be confined to only “one week” in the entire year, 

re-branded as “’Turtle Week!’ or ‘Turtle Daze!’”21

Incredibly, Mr. Reynolds’ response incorrectly maintains: “The Review does not recommend 

eliminating or inhibiting educational opportunities.” Yet, it cannot be disputed that the public 

hatchling releases are educational opportunities for the public. Instead, Mr. Reynolds asserts that 

“The Review recommends options regarding the STSR program functions to address operational, 

personnel, and budgetary concerns.” 

That response is patent nonsense. The Review clearly advocates a major curtailment of the main 

public education program conducted by STSR. In so doing, the Review and Mr. Reynolds’ 

response both ignore the tremendous impact these public releases have on visitors, especially 

children, as well as the apparent large reservoir of goodwill these public events build in the 

community.

B. Review Lacks the Required Integrity, Accuracy, Completeness and Reliability 

This category of the Complaint has eleven specifications: 

1. Inappropriately Minimizes the Significance of STSR Operations.

The Complaint itemizes a number of statements made in the Review that downplay the 

significance of the STSR, including minimizing –

• The importance of its nest relocation program to the overall recovery of Kemp’s;

• The significance of establishing a secondary nesting colony of Kemp’s ridleys, the most 

endangered sea turtle on the planet;

• The value of work with green and loggerhead turtles at PAIS and that approximately 85% 

of green turtle nests in Texas are found at PAIS while more loggerhead nests are found at 

PAIS than anywhere else in Texas; and 

• The role played by STSR in providing training, technical guidance, and record keeping 

and reporting for all nesting and stranded sea turtles on the Texas Gulf coast. 

Mr. Reynolds’ response does not reply to any of these contentions. Instead, it only refers to a 

correction made in the revised Review to correct “an internal contradiction and possible error 

concerning the historic evidence of Kemp’s nesting at Padre Island National Seashore (PAIS).”

While we appreciate the correction of that obvious error, we view Mr. Reynolds’ total lack of a 

response to the issues noted above as confirmation of the validity of this Complaint specification.

2. Misstates Purpose of STSR.

20 Review at 29

21 Id at 26
11

The Complaint took issue with the Review’s incorrect statement that –

“The park’s intensive sea turtle nest monitoring and management program has continued 

to be implemented to allow unrestricted public beach driving with motor vehicles and in 

response to reported beach inundation that may be associated with ongoing erosion and 

sea level rise.”22

STSR does not exist to facilitate beach driving. The program incubates turtle eggs because it 

does not have the power to stop beach driving or control several other threats that would greatly 

reduce egg and hatchling survival.

23 This is a fundamental misperception of STSR’s purpose 

calls into question the reliability and objectivity of this Review.

Mr. Reynold’s response deflects but does not respond to this issue by saying “One purpose of 

STSR is to mitigate impacts associated with beach driving.” This equivocation is a different 

statement than that contained in the Review. Moreover, it masks the important issue that the 

STSR’s main purpose is to establish and maintain a vitally needed secondary Kemp’s ridley 

colony on the Gulf coast.

The Complaint also faults the Review’s incorrect assessment that ocean pollution and marine 

debris are not threats that “directly apply to PAIS operations or are within the discretion of park 

management.”24 As the Complaint points out, the STSR records and reports turtle entanglements 

with debris. While the origin of marine debris may be outside park control, the response to 

debris inside park waters is within its purview. Moreover, ocean pollution and marine debris are 

also the subjects of several STSR studies, precisely the sort of important scientific research that 

this Review seeks to discourage.

Mr. Reynolds at least recognizes this point but does not refute it when he states the following:

“A misunderstanding may exist regarding the statement about park operations and discretion 

with respect to marine debris...Marine debris is an external impact over which the park has 

no control, except in a reactive manner once debris is deposited on the beach.”

This non-denial denial ignores the impact of debris on listed sea turtle species – an issue over 

which STSR has some control through its rescue operations. 

3. Is Based Upon an Unrealistic Assumption.

The Complaint objected that the Review’s principal critique of STSR is premised upon the 

cessation of beach driving yet neither the PAIS Business Plan nor its Foundation Document 

mention elimination of beach driving. 

While we are not aware of any publicly available NPS effort to limit beach driving at PAIS, the 

Review repeatedly references such a development. Nor does the Review acknowledge the unique 

22 Review at 10

23 A noteworthy example is poaching of nesters, eggs, and hatchlings. Law enforcement rangers are rarely on

remote beach areas. If STSR staff on these beaches, there would much more poaching.

24 Id at 11
12

management challenges that exist in Texas at PAIS, including year-round beach driving provided 

as a matter of state law.

The Complaint also explained the Review was inaccurate in accusing STSR of actions 

inconsistent with NPS Management Policies requiring natural processes to occur uninhibited to 

the degree possible. 

Finally, the Complaint faulted the Review for not citing STSR research showing that a single 

vehicle drive-over will crush any eggs in a nest. The Review also ignored STSR data showing 

that in situ incubation in Texas results in at least 20% lower hatching success and the hatchlings 

are not protected as they enter the sea and then suffer high loss. 

In response, Mr. Reynolds does not appear to dispute these points but suggests that the Review 

“recommends testing alternate management strategies. The recommendations focus on program 

management operations and encourage the park to integrate the STSR with its other natural and 

cultural resource programs.”

This response both ignores the points made in the Complaint and is barely coherent. It is not 

clear, based on Mr. Reynolds reading, precisely what PAIS and STSR are supposed to do. 

Neither the Review nor Mr. Reynolds’s response identify any STSR research conducted during 

the past decade using NPS funds which does not inform alternate management strategies. 

Consequently, both the Review and Mr. Reynolds’ response are neither reliable nor complete as 

required by the Information Quality Act.

4. Dismisses the Value of STSR Research without Justification.

The Complaint took issue with the Review prescription that STSR “research projects should then 

be prioritized and conducted in a manner so that the results would directly inform key 

management questions and assist with adaptive management”25 without what management issues 

it was referencing. This central recommendation lacks basic clarity required to make it complete 

or reliable. 

Mr. Reynolds does not address this fundamental issue in his response. Instead, he cites the 

addition of two appendices and footnotes clarifying inaccurate statements in the review. While 

these additions concede the validity of specific points the Complaint makes, they are inadequate 

to cure violations of the Information Quality Act for three reasons:

a) Rather than remove inaccurate statements, Mr. Reynolds decides to insert footnotes to 

a new Appendix K, consisting of a memo from a NMFS official seeking to clarify 

how NMFS input was misquoted in the Review. Here is a typical example from that 

memo:

“2. STSR Review Report Statement (page 18): NMFS indicated that the park is 

performing more necropsies than is required, and that they have communicated to 

park staff that a reduction (sub-sample) is appropriate. 

25 Review at 19
13

NMFS Clarification: This comment was specific to necropsies associated with lar 

ge cold-stun events. When large numbers of turtles die from a known cause of 

mortality, such as a cold-stun event, it is appropriate to sub-sample for necropsies. 

Since the number of strandings varies by year, we cannot set a target for number 

of necropsies to conduct each year. Moreover, the number of necropsies indicated 

depends on the circumstances and concurrent findings. For example, more 

necropsies may be necessary to investigate unusual events or strandings suspected 

to be caused by human activities. Our goal is to enhance mortality investigations 

and ensure they are done systematically and consistently. It is true that Texas has 

conducted more necropsies than Florida (Gulf coast only) each year under the 

DWH Sea Turtle Early Restoration project. Necropsies are a critical part of the 

DWH Sea Turtle Early Restoration Project and we intend to continue these 

collaborative efforts across the GOM to enhance mortality investigations. NOAA 

has provided in-person support for necropsies in Texas and will continue to 

provide that support at PAIS and elsewhere in Texas as long as it is needed and 

welcomed.”

It is clear from the NMFS clarification that the Review statement is inaccurate, and the issues 

are far more nuanced than the Review portrays. Rather than removing or rewriting this 

inaccurate Review observation, the language is left unchanged in the revised Review, adding 

a footnote with a reference to Appendix K. This requires the reader to go find the 

clarification at the end of the Review in order to draw a different conclusion from that of the 

inaccurate Review text. This approach is both cumbersome and misleading.

b) The three pages of NMFS clarifications following publication of the Review suggests that 

interviews were not fully or accurately recorded or reflected in the Review’s final text. As a 

misdirected attempt at explanation, Mr. Reynolds’ response states that “A copy of the 

questions used for interviews with PAIS staff and external cooperators was added to the 

Review report as Appendix I.”

Clearly, the problem is not so much the questions but that the answers were not accurately 

recorded. If each interviewee felt compelled to add three pages of clarifications, the 

clarifications would exceed the length of the Review text.

In particular, the Complaint points out that Dr. Shaver, the longtime STSR Director, did not 

feel that her interview content was reflected in the final Review. Nor was she asked to 

comment upon or explain any of the supposed critiques from other interviewers.

This failure to accurately record interview notes and then double-check with interviewees 

denotes a basic lack of professionalism that does not befit an NPS management document. 

c) The core issue here is the duplicitous approach taken by the Review, which contains 

denigrating comments amidst this startling admission that it “did not address whether the 

research substantially contributed to, addressed, or guided park management actions related 
14

to sea turtle management or other park activities at PAIS.”

26

 This conclusion underlines 

what a confusing, unsupported mish-mash the Review is, reflecting defects that no additional 

footnotes or appendices can cure. 

5. Urges Reduction of Beach Patrols with No Rationale or Assessment of Consequences.

The Complaint faults the total lack of justification for the following recommendation: 

“Patrols on down island stretches should be reduced to five days per week (e.g. Thursday 

through Monday), 8- or 10-hour days, and one or two patrols per day (as was done in the

past). Patrols can focus on protecting nests from beach driving and monitoring to assess the 

potential impacts of inundation and predation.”27 

Mr. Reynolds’ response does not defend this recommendation but instead shifts to describe 

something different from what the Review clearly stated. In Mr. Reynolds’ retelling the Review 

was only recommending development of a “natural resource science plan [that] would provide 

information that would help with development of potential improvements in beach patrol 

practices. Implementation of the recommended nesting beach management plan would include 

an evaluation of beach patrol alternatives and their environmental consequences.”

Setting aside that this mischaracterizes what the Review stated, Mr. Reynolds’ reformulation is 

confusing doubletalk that does not specify the alternatives to be tested or the criteria by which 

they are to be evaluated. As such, neither the Review nor Mr. Reynolds’ new version provides 

reliable or complete information on which to base management options. 

6. Embraces In Situ Incubation and Reduces Use of Incubation Facility without 

Supporting Analysis.

The Complaint recounts several Review passages urging PAIS to stop relocating eggs, even 

suggesting at one point that PAIS should not relocate eggs because it could cause the NPS to 

receive pressure from other NPS units that may want to relocate eggs.28 The Complaint points 

out that relocation is necessary to save the eggs from destruction. In addition, the Complaint 

notes that multiple NPS units already relocate eggs from nests that are threatened by inundation.

Again, Mr. Reynolds ignores the central point of the Complaint. Again, he tries to rewrite the 

Review so that now, in his words:

“The recommended nesting beach management plan as described in the Review would be 

used to fully evaluate and assess the potential effects of different beach, environmental, and 

human behavior characteristics on nest management strategies.”

It is not clear what this even means (for example, which “human behavior characteristics” does 

he want to assess?). Again, Mr. Reynolds posits a further review process that is not even 

26 Id at 18

27 Id at 16

28 Id at 12-13
15

referenced in the Review. In short, the shortcomings of the Review identified by the Complaint 

are not addressed – and perhaps are even magnified – by Mr. Reynolds’ response. 

7. Asserts without Basis that Fewer Public Hatchling Releases Saves Money.

The Complaint cited the total absence of justification or supporting data for this unambiguous 

Review recommendation: “Reduce the number of public sea turtle release events to reduce costs 

and reduce the impact on staff from other divisions.”29 

Mr. Reynolds’ response does not provide any such documentation or supporting detail. Again, 

his response constitutes a confusing recharacterization of what the Review clearly said:

“Changing the approach to public hatchling releases can help the park adjust budget 

imbalances, reduce stress on intra-park communications, and alleviate some of the overtime 

excesses as described in the Review.”

Mr. Reynolds does not explain what “budget imbalances” he is referencing (or how much money 

could be saved). Nor does he explain what he means by “stress on intra-park communications.” 

Is he saying that a reduction in public hatchling releases is needed or that a different “approach” 

is called for instead? Nor does he address the clear benefits from these public releases that are 

articulated in the Complaint.

By seeking to water down the Review’s recommendations after the fact Mr. Reynolds offers no 

meaningful defense to the Complaint’s charges of Information Quality Act violations.

8. Unreliably Predicts a Future Budget Shortfall.

The Complaint points out that the Review’s conclusion of an impending budget shortfall is an 

unwarranted overstatement. The Review concedes that there is nearly six years of outside 

funding is available to support the sea turtle rescue activities – the very activities that the Review 

seeks to restrict.

Further, the Complaint points out that the Review’s recommendations placing strictures on STSR 

financing make its prediction of a shortfall a self-fulfilling prophecy. As further evidence 

supporting this point, after the Review was issued NPS ordered STSR to turn back 

approximately $300,000 in grant funds it had been awarded for green turtle recovery work 

through 202330 even though Padre Island is the most important green turtle nesting beach in the 

U.S. northwestern Gulf of Mexico.

In addition, the Complaint faulted as misleading the Review’s conclusion that ongoing STSR 

program operations should not be funded by special project funding but out of the park base 

funding. However, project funds are not used for permanent STSR personnel. There are some 

permanent staff funded by Early Restoration Funds, which are not special, soft project funds. 

Permanent positions paid from this funding were approved by the NPS. The Review masks the 

fact that base funding for the Division of Sea Turtle Science and Recovery was obtained entirely 

29 Id at 29

30 https://www.peer.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/9_10_20_Loss_Green_Turtle_Grants.pdf
16

due to proposals that Dr. Shaver wrote for those base increases, which came to the park as line 

items in the Green Book specifically for the sea turtle program. 

Finally, the Complaint faulted the Review’s implication STSR is draining resources from other 

PAIS resource activities when, in fact, the opposite is the case. Funding that Dr. Shaver has 

secured for STSR has helped defray indirect PAIS costs though the many actions of STSR staff 

that aid most other park Divisions during the nesting patrol season and other times that they are 

working on the beach.

Mr. Reynolds again ignores the substance of this specification. He merely repeats that 

Deepwater Horizon restoration funding, which constitutes “approximately 26% of the total STSR 

projected total funding,” will run out over “the next five to ten years.” His non-response ignores 

the actions that Dr. Shaver had in place to meet any projected shortfall as well as NPS actions, 

presumably on his say-so, to block those actions. As a result, his response is as incomplete and 

misleading as are the Review conclusions that are the subject of the Complaint.

9. Criticisms of Overtime and Staff Training Unwarranted.

The Complaint contended that Review criticism of overtime ignored the number of unfilled 

vacancies of Full-Time-Equivalent (FTE) positions within STSR: 14 of a total 22 STSR 

positions are vacant. STSR does not have independent hiring authority. New hiring is 

dependent on PAIS and NPS administration. The Review does not mention that every year in 

the recent past STSR has requested full support to hire the full seasonal staff with adequate time 

to recruit, interview and onboard before the nesting season. That request has not been met due to 

hiring inadequacies beyond the control of STSR.

For those reasons, the Complaint maintains that the Review’s critique on this topic is unfair. Yet, 

Mr. Reynolds does not address these arguments at all. Instead, he concludes that “The Review 

addressed nesting patrols and activities and recommended developing a staffing plan to provide 

beach patrol coverage to cover a 40-hour work week for employees and recommended 

implementing an Incident Command System for unpredictable events.” But, as noted, these 

staffing issues are beyond the control of STSR and should appropriately be directed to the PAIS 

Superintendent.

10. Falsely Alleges STSR is Not Aligned with PAIS Priorities.

The Complaint cited the lack of factual support for Review declarations that –

“NPS funding, particularly PAIS funding, for Kemp’s recovery is disproportionately high 

compared to the number of partners involved and the percentage of the turtle population 

being addressed.”31 

“The funding level of the STSR program is not aligned with overall park priorities.”32 

31 Review at 4

32 Id at 20
17

Mr. Reynolds does not defend these inaccurate, bias-laden statements. Nor does he explain why 

they were not removed from the Review. 

Instead, once again, he changes the subject, asserting that “The Review considers how the park 

natural resource program and some operational aspects of STSR would benefit from 

restructuring.” He does not explain specifically how the park resource plan would benefit but he 

does not consider how the Review’s recommendations would hurt the STSR. The net result is 

that inaccurate, inappropriate statements in the Review are left uncorrected. 

The Review also omits mention of the fact that STSR annual funding has been raised entirely by 

the efforts of its staff, unlike any other Division at the park. Dr. Shaver obtained the entire 

annual Base Account funding received by STSR from competitive proposals she wrote that 

resulted in line items in the NPS Green Book specifically to fund this sea turtle work at PAIS.

In addition, left uncorrected are Review statements about the extent of special project financial 

support for STSR. Base, grant, and special project funding that Dr. Shaver and her staff received 

have paid for Division costs. These funds would not be at PAIS if it were not for the efforts of 

STSR and that the park benefits greatly from the work conducted by this Division and the funds 

that they bring in.

In short, all of the budgetary Review sections should be rescinded as inaccurate – for which Mr. 

Reynolds offers no defense.

11. Cites Irrelevant Issues in Assessing STSR.

The Complaint cited the Review’s use of irrelevant issue to criticize operation of the STSR. One 

issue cited was bookstore sales that reflected a high visitor interest in sea turtle-related items. In 

response, Mr. Reynolds stated, “Discussion of the Bookstore has been removed.”

While that removal is welcome, Mr. Reynolds ignored the Complaint’s underlying point: 

inclusion of these irrelevant issues in the Review as points of criticism reflect an inappropriate 

bias against the STSR by Review authors. 

The other issue was trash. The Complaint argued that this criticism should be directed to the 

PAIS superintendent, not to sea turtle researchers. In addition, the Review failed to mention that 

STSR personnel collect more trash off the beach than any other Division at PAIS and are often 

thanked and praised for picking up trash by visitors.

In response, Mr. Reynolds claims “This section of the Review provides overarching park 

recommendations to which STSR currently contributes (in the case of trash) or can contribute in 

the future.” He did not explain how STSR operations contribute to trash or make a specific 

recommendation as to what the sea turtle researchers are supposed to do differently to reduce 

trash. In short, the Review’s criticism of STSR on this score, like many of its conclusions, is 

misplaced.

Conclusion
18

Significantly, Mr. Reynolds’ denial did not dispute that PEER and Dr. Shaver are “affected 

individuals” (within the meaning of DOI Information Quality Acy policy), who have standing to 

bring this Complaint and Appeal. 

Nor does the Reynolds denial dispute that Dr. Shaver has engaged in a protected disclosure 

covered by the Whistleblower Protection Act33 by filing this Complaint –and this Appeal – as 

she is disclosing violations of law, rules, and agency policy. This law outlaws retaliatory action 

taken against employees in connection with their protected disclosures. To that end, we would 

request that you notify responsible managers and supervisors that such reprisals are legally 

categorized as a “prohibited personnel practice” subject to discipline, up to and including

termination.

For all of the reasons articulated above, we believe that not only are there several blatant 

Information Quality Act violations that remain uncorrected but that these violations are so 

extensive that recission of the entire Review is the only appropriate remedy.

Finally, should you concur with our assessment of this matter, we also would ask that you 

undertake an evaluation of the fitness of Mr. Reynolds and the Regional staff responsible for this 

Review and his overdue and utterly unpersuasive response to continue in their current positions.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. We look forward to your determination.

Sincerely,

Jeff Ruch

PEER Pacific Director

Cc. Mike Reynolds

NPS Correspondence Control Unit (CCU)

33 5 U.S.C.§ 2302(b)(8)-(9), Pub.L.101-12 as amended