Blowing the whistle on State Parks

November 27, 2023

Opinion by Will Harris, geologist

An open letter to State Parks:

Dear Director Armando Quintero,

We initially met at Oceano Dunes. I was just up from the shoreline, tending air sampling equipment. That was Oct. 2020 and you, newly appointed as director of State Parks by Governor Newsom, were on your first tour of that unique park south of Pismo Beach that allows camping and off-highway vehicle recreation for $10 per night. As you learned, it is a model of affordable coastal access, especially for those looking to escape the heat and poor air quality of the San Joaquin Valley.

Oceano Dunes, when established officially during Jerry Brown’s first run as governor, set aside 1,500 acres for camping and off highway vehicle (OHV) recreation within the 18,000 acre Guadalupe Nipomo Dunes complex.

But now, nearly half the park is gone. State Parks has spent more than $25 million giving up that acreage and chasing its tail at the direction of the San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District (SLOAPCD). And more of the recreational land will be cleaved away as public funds continue to be spent propping up a con game where State Parks is both shill and the mark.

How State Parks devolved from defending Oceano Dunes to a Stockholm-like collaboration with the SLOAPCD I will explain. But first, let’s get back to your tour on that fall day.

You stopped the caravan to learn about the work I was doing with Dr. Lynn Russell, atmospheric chemistry professor at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography. You listened intently, asked insightful questions, and gratefully accepted briefing material I had on hand hoping you would indeed stop by. As you drove off I thought: Finally! A State Parks director who wants to track the science!

The implications of the Scripps investigation: Not dust in the wind

Dr. Russell has since published the findings of her three-year investigation regarding the dust content of airborne particulate downwind of Oceano Dunes. She demonstrated that just 14% of the particulate, or PM10, measured on the Nipomo Mesa consists of dust.

That’s a big deal as I’m sure you know. The Nipomo Mesa, or Mesa, is a semi-rural, residential, and light-industrial region of south San Luis Obispo County that is two miles east of the park. The long-held claim by the SLOAPCD has been that high concentrations of PM10 on the Mesa are from dust that comes from the wind-blown sands of Oceano Dunes. The SLOAPCD was so convinced of this that in 2011, they created a regulation called “Rule 1001 – Coastal Dunes Dust Control Requirements” as a means to hold State Parks and Oceano Dunes responsible for high PM10 levels on the Mesa. They even called the regulation, “The Dust Rule.”

So scientific findings that show just 14% of the Mesa PM10 is dust are significant because they undercut the SLOAPCD’s all-dust claim. But what’s more, the 14% dust content is from a regional measure of PM10 that is two miles away from the park. That means something less than 14% of the Mesa PM10 consists of dust coming from Oceano Dunes. And further, the SLOAPCD believes but has yet to prove that dunes with OHV recreation emit just that much more wind-blown dust than the dunes outside the park. That “extra” amount of dust emission is what the SLOAPCD is trying to regulate, or in their own words: “After all, the goal is to get emissions down to what they’d be in the absence of OHV activity, not to reduce emissions to
zero.”

So if something less than 14% of the Mesa PM10 is dust from Oceano Dunes, then that amount of “extra” dust that is due to OHV recreation in the dunes and theoretically ends up as PM10 on the Mesa—that dust amount that the SLOAPCD is targeting—well, it has to be vanishingly small, if it exists at all.

Taken as a whole, this means that Dr. Russell’s 14% dust findings obliterate the SLOAPCD’s accusation that PM10 on the Mesa is due to OHV recreation in the dunes. A big deal indeed.

Like a donkey: The SLOAPCD’s assumption methodology

Now, it’s only natural to think, okay, that’s the Scripps work, but what about SLOAPCD’s data? How much dust did they determine was in the Mesa PM10?

The SLOAPCD did a couple of studies that they felt pointed the finger of blame at Oceano Dunes, including its deeply flawed Phase 2 report. That work, to them, justified building the Dust Rule regulatory framework they would use to fine State Parks for perceived “violations.”

But here’s the rub: Despite their dust claims, the SLOAPCD never did test the PM10 to determine the percentage of dust content. They simply assumed that because the prevailing winds blow over the dunes and to the Mesa, the PM10 must be dust from the dunes.

This is a habit with the SLOAPCD: Assume and then accuse, but do not test the original assumption. That is what brought on the silica scare.

The SLOAPCD’s silica scare

Doubling down on their theory that the Mesa PM10 is dust from the dunes, the SLOAPCD also reasoned that because the sand grains from the dunes are mostly composed of the silica mineral quartz, then dust from the sand dunes must also contain silica in the form of tiny bits of quartz. And so, as early as 2008, they began to tell the Mesa community and others that it’s not just PM10 you need to worry about, but PM10 that is mostly dust composed of “crystalline silica.” They regularly trumpeted: The crystalline silica will cause silicosis! Fibrotic lung disease! It will cause cancer! (See the last sentence of the SLOAPCD’s response to the first question presented in this March 24, 2010 document C-1, page 7. Note too the phrase, “while not specifically measured in the study…”)

The SLOAPCD might as well have said that the Mesa PM10 is radioactive and State Parks is responsible.

They repeatedly warned the community and agencies such as the California Coastal Commission about what they perceived to be an acute health risk associated with silica—something far more serious than just PM10—stating in 2017 that much of the PM10 “occurs in the form of highly toxic crystalline silica” that impacts “downwind residents, representing a significant public health threat that must be abated.”

This garnered fevered support for the SLOAPCD’s attempts to regulate State Parks and Oceano Dunes operations. Some in the Mesa community even started a GoFundMe page seeking to raise $10,000 for “activities required to push this problem to a resolution,” and stating as justification, “these ‘particulates’ (‘fine silica particles’) are dozens of times smaller than a human hair. They can cause respiratory problems, heart and lung problems, even premature death, with children and seniors most at risk.” This group has collected approximately $3,100 from the Mesa community to date.

But despite fanning this fear, the SLOAPCD did not analyze the sand or the PM10 for silica content. Had they bothered to conduct a basic review of the geological literature regarding the dunes, they would have discovered that the sand grains are mostly feldspar, which is not a “crystalline silica” mineral. And had they sampled and analyzed the PM10 for silica, which is what industrial hygienist John Kelse and I did in 2017 and 2018 on behalf of State Parks, they would have found that there is “no evidence of a realistic pulmonary (inhalation) risk with respect to crystalline silica.”

Confronted with this information in 2018, the director of the SLOAPCD conceded that SLOAPCD’s silica accusation against State Parks and Oceano Dunes was “a red herring.” But the SLOAPCD never apologized to the community or to State Parks for promoting the maligning falsehood for more than 10 years.

The “transformation” of State Parks to complaisance

You would think that at this point, with evidence that the SLOAPCD fabricated health scares to turn the community and local and state agencies against Oceano Dunes, that State Parks would stand up for itself and the park. But sadly, I have learned that since State Parks reorganized under its “Transformation” process, it has become passive when it comes to defending public recreational lands. Oceano Dunes is the prime example of this, which I detailed in correspondence with the California State Park and Recreation Commission last September.

So no, despite having the silica-lie evidence in hand, State Parks did nothing in defense of Oceano Dunes. Instead, in May 2018, State Parks subjugated itself to the SLOAPCD under a Stipulated Order of Abatement, or SOA.

The SOA and the Scientific Advisory Group

The SOA mandates that State Parks eliminates violations of the state’s PM10 standard on the Mesa by reducing wind-blown dust at Oceano Dunes. (A more detailed explanation of PM10 and the state PM10 standard is provided in the one-page Chapter 3 of this document, which was appended to my correspondence with the State Park and Recreation Commission.)

To devise strategies to do this, the SLOAPCD appointed a team of specialists known as the Scientific Advisory Group, or SAG. Each SAG member—there are seven of them—has some expertise relevant to sand dunes, air quality, or botany. Based on investigations and data analyses it undertakes, the SAG dictates to State Parks the measures to be taken to meet the obligations of the SOA. And State Parks foots the bill for their services.

I know what you’re thinking: What about the Scripps work that shows just 14% of the PM10 on the Mesa is dust, with something less than that coming from Oceano Dunes? Unfortunately, Dr. Russell’s investigation did not begin until 2019.

So your next logical question I’m sure is: Okay, how much dust did the SAG find in the Mesa PM10 when they started their work in 2018?

Validation: Important when paying for parking or computer modeling

Well, like the SLOAPCD, the SAG did not analyze the PM10 for dust content. Their State Parks-funded computer models of PM10 lofting from Oceano Dunes to the Mesa assume that 100% of the PM10 is dust from Oceano Dunes. The SAG’s 100% dust assumption is based on their own measurements of the dust emissivity from the dunes—that is their only input for PM10 in their computer models. So of course the models showed that dust from Oceano Dunes created the PM10 on the Mesa—the bias was baked in.

A fundamental step in computer modeling is to validate a model’s assumptions. Validation, such as weighing and analyzing samples of the Mesa PM10 to determine if it is indeed 100% dust, or something close to it, demonstrates whether or not the model reasonably represents reality. But the SAG did not do this. They never validated their model’s most basic assumption.

Thankfully, Dr. Russell’s work provides that check, and with a quantified measure of just 14% dust in the Mesa PM10, her findings demonstrate that the SAG’s 100% dust assumption is incorrect. In other words, the Scripps work invalidates the SAG’s computer modeling. (I provide greater detail regarding the SAG’s dune emissivity data collection and their computer modeling relative to other PM10 sources and the Scripps findings here.)

Dunes undercover and money for nothing

So with that all-dust assumption and their computer models, the SAG told State Parks where within Oceano Dunes to place row upon row of orange plastic fencing, where to place thousands of hay bales to cover the sand, and where to plant vegetation on dunes so dynamic that they have always been open sand.

Under SLOAPCD and SAG direction, State Parks has sacrificed more that 700 acres of camping and OHV recreational land at Oceano Dunes and has spent more than $25.2 million doing so. And guess what? There has been no reduction of Mesa PM10 violations, which is the objective of the SOA (see the one-page Chapters 6 and 7 in this document). Given the 14% dust findings from Scripps, this is not a surprise .

Yes, $25.2 million. And counting. As I mentioned before, State Parks has become passive, not proactive. In what is reminiscent of the Silica Scare situation, State Parks has in hand scientific proof that the Mesa PM10 is not dust from Oceano Dunes—proof that the SLOAPCD’s most fundamental claim against State Parks is fundamentally wrong. And with that proof, State Parks has done…nothing. State Parks continues to go along with the SLOAPCD, the SAG, and the SOA.

Try, try, try again and here’s our invoice

Remember that part about the SLOAPCD saying, “the goal is to get emissions down to what they’d be in the absence of OHV activity”? Well State Parks has said its goal for 2024 is to do just that—to find that “extra” amount of wind-blown dust that theoretically comes off those dunes where there is OHV recreation. By working with the SLOAPCD and SAG in this coming year, State Parks hopes to “quantify emissions in excess of naturally occurring emissions.” (See State Parks’ presentation to the SLOAPCD Hearing Board in October 2023, time mark 0:22:43.)

I can read your thought bubble: Shouldn’t the “emissions in excess of naturally occurring emissions” be known by now?

Yes. If there truly are such emissions. Here’s a basic reality check: It was 2010 when the SLOAPCD first claimed OHV recreation at Oceano Dunes was causing high PM10 on the Mesa. They had no proof of this, but that did not stop them from blaming State Parks for the high PM10. The charge was based on an assumption they hoped to prove true, and in 2018 they enlisted the SAG to assist. Now, going into 2024, they still don’t know. As if to underscore that uncertainty, the SAG is calling this next push for data (and money) their “Fruit Salad to Fruit Salad” approach. I wish I was joking.

So with approval and money from State Parks, the search for “emissions in excess of naturally occurring emissions,” continues—even though the 14% dust findings from Scripps indicate a search for that “extra” dust theoretically due to OHV recreation is futile.

The wrong to remain silent

Why then is the Scripps work not being considered? Put simply, for the SLOAPCD and the SAG to acknowledge Dr. Russell’s work is to acknowledge they are wrong. But it goes beyond any point of pride. For the SLOAPCD to admit error now, after 14 years of accusation without proof and forcing millions of dollars of State Parks expenditures, is to admit fraud. And for the SAG, after five and a half years of not asking the right questions, it means admiting complicity.

Also, it would stop the SAG’s State Parks gravy train.

As for State Parks, things have gone too far down the river to acknowledge the Scripps work. Doing so at this late date would spotlight the department’s lack of proper scientific oversight, its managerial incompetence, its general complaisance, and the waste of more than $25.2 million.

Start spreading the news

Rather than tout the Scripps work and its peer-reviewed publication, State Parks pretended it did not exist. So I announced it, in part to expose the department’s ostrich mentality, but mostly to draw attention to the waste of millions of public dollars.

I have continued to bring forth this complex story, breaking it down in simple terms to allow the heft of Dr. Russell’s 14% dust findings to sink in. I have spoken with the state’s Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Commission, the State Park and Recreation Commission and to the SLOAPCD Board and have submitted hard copies of the published Scripps findings to them.

Some on the SLOAPCD Board have been antagonistic to the point of absurdity in the face of the Scripps work, but to their credit overall, they invited Dr. Russell to present at their meeting last September and subsequently voted unanimously to Receive and File her work (time marks 01:10:11 and 03:06:27, respectively).

State Parks plays the fall guy for SLOAPCD failings

That’s much more than can be said about State Parks. Once publicly confronted with the Scripps publication and the findings that just 14% of the Mesa PM10 is dust, State Parks meekly said, well, we’ve been told by the SLOAPCD and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) that we can’t pick and choose things in the PM10. We are responsible for all of it.

That’s akin to sheepishly accepting a speeding ticket from a known crooked cop though his radar gun confirms you’ve been sitting on your front porch sipping coffee all morning.

The SLOAPCD’s failure to understand the air quality complexities on the Nipomo Mesa is not for State Parks to bear. The SLOAPCD’s failings, their technical and ethical shortcomings, are theirs alone.

What’s more, CARB does indeed allow for segregation of PM10 constituents as this 1997 letter details regarding the undue influence of sea salt on PM10 readings in Monterey County.

My work and its awkward end

You must realize now what I have long known: State Parks—the department—can’t get out of its own way. But it may surprise you to also know that I love State Parks. I worked under contract with State Parks, embedded with the Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Division team, providing general geological consulting services to them for 17 years. My work included collaborating with experts in related fields, such as Dr. Russell.

The investigations I undertook in that time required cooperation and assistance from the spectrum of State Parks employees, particularly at Oceano Dunes—from lifeguards and rangers to maintenance workers, mechanics, and environmental scientists—and it was an absolute joy. They are good, exceedingly capable people striving to put a shine on State Parks, and I call many of them friends.

But my contract ended abruptly in December 2021. I was told that there was no more work for me to do, and that another geologist had been hired on staff to fill my role. You are right to think that those are contradictory explanations, revealing both to be untrue. They are an indication that there was an internal scramble to rationalize canceling the contract as Dr. Russell and I were completing the three-year investigation of Mesa PM10. Dr. Russell in fact had just presented third-year findings of the investigation to the OHMVR Commission a couple of weeks prior. The results even then were unequivocal: The Mesa PM10 contained only 14% dust.

Pressing on to peer-reviewed publication

But there was still work to do. Per Dr. Russell’s contract with State Parks, the final report was due in Feb. 2022, and an article for scientific, peer-reviewed publication had to be prepared, submitted, and hopefully accepted. While most of this work was Dr. Russell’s and her contract was still intact, my involvement in the investigation was not insignificant. I helped design it and shepherded the field effort. I anticipated contributing to and proofing the final report and academic article. But because State Parks had canceled my contract, I could not do this work officially. So I did it unofficially, on my own time.

Dr. Russell submitted the final report to State Parks by the February 2022 deadline, and we received word in November 2022 from the scientific journal Atmospheric Environment that the write-up of our data collection, analyses, and findings had been accepted, was available online, and would be placed in the journal’s February 1, 2023 print edition.

Getting word of the publication was vindicating, particularly because I heard you say at a Feb. 2022 meeting of the OHMVR Commission, effectively, let’s wait for publication because, “peer review means that there’s a whole team of scientists that look at a study and vet it between them to basically verify that they agree with what’s being done” (time mark 01:36:08). And prompted by your words, the head of the SAG at that time, Dr. Raleigh Martin, followed up, stating that peer review is “an added layer of certainty in terms of the rigor of the science that’s been conducted” (time mark 01:38:12).

So I felt pretty good that something would finally be done with our published work, that State Parks had what it needed to stanch the bleed of public money, reclaim recreational acreage taken by the various SOA projects, and recoup the $25.2 million spent to appease the SLOAPCD and its false premise that Mesa PM10 is dust from Oceano Dunes.

Time to blow the whistle

But as I have documented in this letter to you, State Parks keeps its head in the sand, hoping that awareness of the Scripps work fades away. And as they say, choosing to do nothing is still a choice. So with that choice you remain complicit with the SLOAPCD and the SAG in wasting millions of public dollars and needlessly sacrificing hundreds of acres of public recreational lands.

It is for this reason I filed whistleblower complaint number I2023-0190 with the California State Auditor and have submitted a follow-up complaint supported by the information I have presented herein.

I still believe you are a State Parks director who wants to follow the science. I hope you are also a director who will ultimately do the right thing based on it.

Will Harris is a California-registered Professional Geologist, Certified Engineering Geologist, and Certified Hydrogeologist with more than 30 years of practicing experience. From 2005 to 2022 he worked under contract for California State Parks, providing general geological consulting services to their Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Division