Front Page  »  

Scientist to report on Oceano Dunes despite Gibson, Paulding’s objections

September 26, 2023

By KAREN VELIE

Despite objections from supervisors Bruce Gibson and Jimmy Paulding, a scientist with the prestigious Scripps Institution of Oceanography is scheduled on Wednesday to present findings from a study that refutes previous assumptions made by the San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District (APCD) regarding dust on the Oceano Dunes.

In 1975, the dunes were set aside for off-road vehicle recreation as part of the California Coastal Plan, which states off-road vehicle use “shall be permitted.” State Parks currently operates an off-vehicle park at the Oceano Dunes that attracts enthusiasts from across the state and the world.

In 2010, the APCD claimed that toxic crystalline silica dust from off-road activity posed a health risk for people living on the Nipomo Mesa. Years later, a study of the dust determined it did not contain crystalline silica.

Since 2011, the APCD has attempted to regulate and fine State Parks for dust blowing on the dunes. In 2018, it imposed a stipulated order of abatement against State Parks, which demanded a reduction of dust blowing on the Mesa.

Over the years, the air district has given varying reasons as to why State Parks should be held accountable. And to one extent or another those reasons all regard the prevailing winds, dust blowing from the riding area, and the argument that 100% of the particles measured were mineral dust.

Lynn Russell PhD, a scientist with the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, analyzed the particulate and determined only 14% of the particles blowing on the Mesa consist of mineral dust. State Parks hired Russell to conduct the study.

Shortly afterwards, APCD Board Member Bruce Gibson attempted to demean Russell, while also arguing that they should not consider the study until it is peer reviewed and published. Russell then listed her credentials, successfully derailing Gibson’s attack.

In response to Russell’s report, the APCD asked State Parks to pay for a second study.

After more than a decade of alleging dust on the Mesa was 100% mineral dust, the APCD’s Scientific Advisory Group ran their own smaller study, which also found a low percentage of mineral dust contained in the particulate matter blowing on the Mesa.

After Russell’s study was published, on June 1, APCD Board Member John Peschong made a motion to have Russell present her findings to the board.

Board Members Gibson and Paulding strongly objected. The board then voted 6-5 to have Russell present her findings.

As of March 2023, State Parks has spent $25.2 million on APCD-related measures and services, including $3.1 million this past fiscal year. The expenditures are ongoing.

Russell is scheduled to give her presentation to the APCD Board on Sept. 27 at 9 a.m. at the SLO County Government Center on Monterey Street in SLO.


Loading...
Subjects:
Related:


21 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Why listen to what someone else has to say when your sure you’re right.


21

It is apparent to me that when the taxpayers are funding the discussion some choose to keep talking with the intent to ignore the facts. This is the real problem that should be challenged. Those who ignore science and choose to filibuster anyway, should have their discretionally funds charged to pay the bill. The millions already wasted on their bad breath would have repaired many miles of roads and lowered the PM 10 count. That is science.


36

Hey Gibson and Paulding, what happened to follow the science?


70

They only follow the science when it supports their argument.


15

The main problem with the dunes is bad management. If it was managed better, there would not be such a conflict between the OHV crowd and those opposed. And state parks claims there are millions of people who use the dunes each year. That would mean that they bring in more people than many national parks. But look at the condition of the dunes state Park compared with national parks. It is a travesty. Things just do not add up. Do the math. Do the research. Look at the entrance to the dunes at the end of Pier Avenue. There is not another state park that is so unkempt, with potholes, overflowing dumpsters, and vehicles, literally going twice the speed limit on the beach continually. Something ain’t right.


-25

The apcd is a smaller arm of the Ca air resorce board, (carb) one useless board of that type is enough, the San Luis board tries to make up its own rules about carbon, dust,smoke and so on, its big fight as we’ve seen for years is the Oceano dunes, for what purpose is beyond me, they would do better dropping this fight and get on the band wagon to try and defeat the battery storage unit that the state wants to shove up us here in Morro Bay, opps bruce seems to be in favor of that also, something about this guy he is always in favor of what the taxpayers are not.


56

The funny thing is….so what?


I’m sure, by now, that everyone except the APCD, Gibson, and Paulding, know that the Mesa is a sand dune, piled on for millions of years by the wind blowing sand from the beach.


The ONLY reason it’s viable land now, are the 100’s of 1000’s of trees planted in the late 19th century, that stabilized the sand, dropped debris and detritus which encouraged other plants to encroach, and slowed the winds from the ocean.


The dunes and the Mesa have been there, doing what dunes and the mesa have been doing since before Lake Guadalupe was drained (you didn’t know most of the Santa Maria valley was a lake, did you!)


Put up all the snow fences you want. Stop anyone and anything from using the dunes or beach. The sand and wind doesn’t care, it will keep on doing what sand and wind does, long after we mere humans exit this earth.


79

Put Karen Bright and Jimmy Paulding on the recall list. By refusing to hear an expert view they are compromising the people who elected them to represent their interests. Shame on them.


94

It is my understanding that they merely wanted the Russell report peer reviewed before being presented which is a responsible action for any scientific study of this scope.

Nobody refused to hear the study of which you somehow think being responsible to the people that elected them is grounds for a recall.

It’s comparable to someone writing a book that doesn’t know what they are talking about by pawning themselves off as an ‘expert’.


-46

In the beginning, that was Bruce Gibson’s argument. However, by June, the study had been peer reviewed in a major magazine. Bruce Gibson, Jimmy Paulding and Karen Bright still did not want to hear the report even after it was peer reviewed. On a side note, the study by the APCD’s scientific group was not peer reviewed in a science magazine. Instead, the authors paid an online site, that is not recognized by most review groups, to do a short review and publish their study on a website.


42

The intent of the majority of the APCD board was not to not hear the Russell report but was to POTPONE the report to the November meeting to be presented at the SAME TIME as the peer reviewed report.


-13

Lynn’s report was peer review. The report by the science group tied to the APCD was not peer reviewed by a trusted science group. Their argued today you should trust out scientists more than Lynn. The APCD scientists claimed silica, then 100% dust, but now they are right with there third assertion that all particulate mater is the same – salt or dust.


8

Jimmy Paulding and Bruce Gibson are bought and paid for Board members they are NOT being honest in their dealings with regards to this APCD matter. This woman, Ms. Russell, is highly qualified to speak on the dust matter. Her bona fides are impeccable. So why wouldn’t they want her to speak? Because they have ulterior motives. Shall we start a petition to recall Bruce and Jimmy?


110

“Shall we start a petition to recall Bruce and Jimmy?” Uh, yeah.


77

So go ahead and start the recall petition and let me know when its ready, I’ll sign it :)


76

“Don’t confuse me with facts – my mind is made up” – Bruce & Jimmy


94
1 2