Dip Once or Dip Twice? - New York Times

I have never been a fine of TV's Seinfeld but over the course of its many seasons it did raise a few important social questions. As we look to Super Bowl weekend the issue of double dipping comes to mind, no not should I take position as a consultant to the Town of Southern Shores on beach access while recieving federal retirement benefits, the issue of is it proper to take more than one scoop of salsa or quacamole with a single chip. The NYT reports that a college professor decided to see if "double dipping" really increased the risk of contamination in all those Super Bowl Snacks. The test was conducted by students at Clemson who dipped crackers in chips in a variety sauces, bit then dipped again. They tested the bacteria levels at each stage and found that double dipping did slightly increase the amount of bacteria in the condiment. Who knew?.
The experiment was inspired by an episode of the Seinfeld show. George Costanza is attending a funeral with his girlfriend and is caught by her cousin Timmy when he uses one chip for 2 loads of salsa:

“Did, did you just double dip that chip?” Timmy asks incredulously, later objecting, “That’s like putting your whole mouth right in the dip!” Finally George retorts, “You dip the way you want to dip, I’ll dip the way I want to dip,” and aims another used chip at the bowl. Timmy tries to take it away, and the scene ends as they wrestle for it."

I don't know about you but I plan to to stick to the chili.
Ciao

NYT - Building Costs Deal Blow to Local Budgets

Dare County Courthouse, Manteo, NC originally uploaded by infomotions
Saw this piece in the New York Times on the effect of rising building costs on local and state governments. It is interesting in light of the recent flawed building estimates handed to the county Board of Commissioners.

"State and local governments in many parts of the country are struggling to pay for roads, bridges and other building projects because of rising construction costs, adding another burden to budgets already stressed by the troubled housing market."

The news of the revised estimates on the cost of converting Dare County's historic courthouse are shocking. Missing an estimate by a factor of 100% makes pretty good copy. The engineers have some explaining to do and the Commissioners have a couple of choices. They can go on with the admittedly expensive rehab project, they can build a new meeting room beside the new county administration building or they can remain in their current meeting place. It looks like they may take a while to make the choice. Good for them.
I am not surprised the conversion of the courthouse has turned out to be very expensive. I don't know the specifics of the plans but I expect it is expensive in large part because the standards for public meeting space are high. You need handicapped access, lots of fire exits and a very solid floor, things a building built over 100 years ago didn't have when it was built and still doesn't. (The much maligned former board chairman Stan White opposed the plan for just these reasons, interesting that he and the plan's current critics have so much in common who knew)
I hope the BOC finds a use for the courthouse. I am not sure what the best use it but it would seem a real shame to see it torn down. An investment of several million to extend the useful life of this historic building won't look so foolish to our grandchildren when they are able to see the roots of our county.
I give the BOC credit for taking their time to make a decision and for moving to make sure they can choose the option of adding the council chamber to the new administration building if that turns out to be the best option. It is always cheaper to make changes while you are building as opposed to doing then after the building is complete.
As the Times article points out this trend isn't going to change any time soon. We can expect higher costs for these projects in the future. Thank heaven's the county has completed (or nearly completed in the case of CHHS) the Board of Educations's building agenda.
Ciao
Note:If you want to comment on this please don't write about my support of beach nourishment. It simply isn't relevant. There are lots of other things I voted to spend money on over my 20 years in elected office. Find something other than protecting our economy. I did vote to build Nags Head's beautiful Town Hall. It was not cheap. It holds an art collection valued at nearly a half million dollars. Maybe you should criticize our spending on the septic health inititive that pays homeowners to have their septic systems pumped or our water quality monitoring program, it doesn't provide any direct service to taxpayers.
Note 2: No more anonymous comments. Pick a name and play along!

Irony

The online Encyclopedia Brittanica defines irony

language device, either in spoken or written form in which the real meaning is concealed or contradicted by the literal meanings of the words (verbal irony) or in a situation in which there is an incongruity between what is expected and what occurs (dramatic irony).

You can read the Merriam Webster definition as well.
I define it by this comment:

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Southern Shores meets Animal farm":

Who are you anyway?

Posted by Anonymous to View from the Ridge at 6:49 PM

Ciao

Va Pilot on Cleaning Outfalls

Thought I had posted this earlier

Nice piece in the Va. Pilot this morning detailing plans for installing a filtering system on the Conch St. ocean outfall.

"The system, called the AbTech Smart Sponge, could be installed beneath the parking lot of the Conch Street beach access in Nags Head later this year, said Johnny Martin, a coastal and hydraulic engineer with the Raleigh-based firm Moffatt & Nichol.

The system would be paid for out of a $15 million state fund, but who would pay the annual maintenance cost is unclear."

The state and the Town will negotiate some distribution of the responsibility. There was a rather humorous disconnect at the meeting. The slides in the Powerpoint presentation all were headed "State Maintained Drainage Outfall". Even though the state seems to want the town to assume maintenance.
The town will probably accept some small share so that it has some leverage to require the state to do the maintenance. DOT has ignored the system for years. It is expensive to maintain. When it fails that Town has big flooding problems. The town needs to be able to get the maintenance done.
Also at the meeting some town officials took pains to point out the misrepresentations by the Coastal Federation.
The installation of this system is a big step. The drainage system is very important to the Town. There are pollutants in the discharge. Reducing pollution in the ocean is a good thing. Lets hope a maintenance solution is found and the system works well.
Ciao

Bagging the sandbags

Fresh evidence from last week's Coastal Resources Commission meeting that the state is serious about ending the use of sandbags to protect erosion threatened buildings. The N&O reports that the group denied an extension to the owners of an embattled condo project in Kure Beach

"State regulators say a Kure Beach condominium complex cannot keep the sandbags it has used to protect from erosion for more than two decades.

The Coastal Resources Commission rejected the sandbag request Thursday. The same panel had previously set a May 2008 deadline to remove the sandbags that protect homes, hotels and roads along North Carolina's coast."

The Riggings Condos have fought erosion for many years. The owners have been given a lot of time and aid in their fight to save the project. They have squandered it by not moving the building when the had the chance. You can get a good summary of fight in this editorial from the Wilmington Star News. Botton line when you get chance to move an erosion threatened structure DO IT!
WRAL (Raleigh Tv station) has a web article and a longer video piece on the sandbag issue. I am not sure I understand Yogi Harper's analogy about NASCAR racing.

"It's like running the Daytona 500," Harper said. "Everybody lines up at the beginning, and they run 450 miles in forward. Then they put it in reverse and run the last 50 in reverse."

The bags are coming out and the homes will follow. The legal fight will start soon but I don't expect the property owners to prevail. Sandbags have always been seen as a transitional measure to a nourished beach. With no nourishment project in sight the bags must go. I support the state's position if we aren't going to nourish then we can't build hard structures to protect homes indefinitely. If we do there will be no beach.
The state's position on sandbags poses an interesting contrast to the direction the state seems to be headed on building setbacks on nourished beaches with little erosion. The staff has increased the size of the structure that would be allowed in front of the presnourishment setback line. The Star-News has some of the details. When I find the full proposal on the CRC web site I may post a full discussion but the contrast of no sandbags but building in areas that have be nourished is pretty striking.
Ciao
Note: When sandbags are removed will flood insurance pay claims when the ocean claims the structures? Should it?

Southern Shores meets Animal farm

Ok, it is not as funny as an Uncle Jack post but this letter in the OB Sentinel may be the best written piece on local politics I've seen in a long time. The note titled T"Stand up to tyranny" draws parallels between the George Orwell novel "Animal Farm" and the current situation in Southern Shores. No jokes today about going to the beach. This is a town on the brink of crisis. Long term employees are being forced out to be replaced by a crew loyal to the Mayor. The future is bleak. Taxpayers in Southern Shores should heed the warning in the letter to pay attention and to get involved. The town government is on the brink of collapse, a collapse that could result in very ugly lawsuits. Even without collapse and lawsuits the town is being turned from serving the citizens to serving the whims of the Mayor and that is a recipe for trouble.
Ciao

Imagine a World Without Apple, Bloggers, Google or Dell

David Pogue invites you to grab your piano and sing along.

Response from Jan Diblieu and NCCF

I offered to post a reply to How Rumors Start part 2. Jan Deblieu asked me to post the following:

Please post this response:

Stormwater is now the #1 pollutant of North Carolina’s coastal waters. In 2004 and early 2005 I served on the Outer Banks Hydrology Committee, along with representatives from the Coastal Studies Institute, the Outer Banks Homebuilders Association, and every government entity on the Outer Banks. Our charge, set by Sen. Marc Basnight, was to come up with ideas for solving flooding problems and stormwater pollution on the islands. We met dozens of times and hashed over every conceivable solution. That report is available from the Coastal Studies Institute. The meetings were conducted in a true spirit of cooperation, and while not all of the committee members agreed all the time, they came up with a number of innovative ideas for controlling and eliminating stormwater runoff. Few, if any, have been adopted.

Below is the complete text of the Coastal Federation’s letter to the Division of Coastal Management, objecting to the rebuilding of ocean outfalls in Dare County:

Jim Gregson, Director

Division of Coastal Management

400 Commerce Street

Morehead City, NC 28557

RE: CAMA Permit Request to Construct Stormwater Outfall #6 in KDH

Dear Jim,

The North Carolina Marine Fisheries, Environmental Management, and Coastal Resources Commissions (CRC) unanimously adopted the North Carolina Coastal Habitat Protection Plan (CHPP) in December 2004. One key provision in the plan was the following recommendation:

Prohibit new or expanded stormwater outfalls to coastal beaches and to coastal shellfishing waters (EMC surface water classifications SA and SB) except during times of emergency (as defined by the Division of Water Quality’s Stormwater Flooding Relief Discharge Policy) when public safety and health are threatened, and continue to phase-out existing outfalls by implementing alternative stormwater management strategies.

Now the NC Department of Transportation (NCDOT) is asking for a Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) permit to undertake a project to reconstruct ocean stormwater outfall #6 in Kill Devil Hills. This proposal is exactly the kind of project the CHPP and the Commissions that adopted it sought to prevent. Therefore, on behalf of the North Carolina Coastal Federation, I urge you to deny the CAMA permit application that would allow this outfall to dump untreated stormwater into the Atlantic Ocean. Granting this permit would result in the pollution of a popular public beach. The permit cannot be granted without violating specific development standards adopted by the CRC.

The permit if granted would allow the reconstruction of between 35 and 40 feet of pipe washed away by ocean surf and the removal of sand from the remaining pipe, currently buried three feet below the beach. Because of the sand, no water is currently draining through the outfall. This is not a new situation. The outfall has not been functioning for years. In 2001 DCM denied a similar permit that would have allowed its reconstruction. That was the correct decision in 2001, and the precedent established by this earlier permit denial should be upheld.

CAMA permit applications must be denied upon finding that rules of the CRC will be violated by a proposed development activity. This proposed development activity will violate the following CAMA regulations (bold indicates rules violated):

15A NCAC 07H .0207 PUBLIC TRUST AREAS

(a) Description. Public trust areas are all waters of the Atlantic Ocean….

(b) Significance. The public has rights in these areas, including navigation and recreation….

(c) Management Objective. To protect public rights for ….recreation and to conserve and manage the public trust areas so as to safeguard and perpetuate their biological, economic and aesthetic value.

(d) Use Standards. Acceptable uses shall be those consistent with the management objectives in Paragraph (c) of this Rule.

15A NCAC 07H .0208 USE STANDARDS

(a) General Use Standards

(2) Before being granted a permit by the CRC or local permitting authority, there shall be a finding that the applicant has complied with the following standards:

(C) Development shall not violate water and air quality standards.

Water quality standards adopted by the EMC will be violated if this proposed activity is permitted. Based on the EMC’s water quality classifications and standards, the NC Division of Water Quality (DWQ) is on record as prohibiting new direct discharges of stormwater into the Atlantic Ocean. DWQ has acted to stop these new outfalls because it has concluded that such direct discharges will violate the intent of the federal Clean Water Act, which is to protect the cleanliness of the nation’s waters for fishing and swimming. To achieve this goal, the EMC has adopted water quality regulations that prohibit discharges of wastes such as stormwater that will preclude existing uses of our public trust waters.

A few years ago, DWQ told the Town of Emerald Isle that it could not construct stormwater outfalls to SA or SB waters in order to reduce flooding on its streets. This action by DWQ forced the Town to find alternative “non-discharge” options, including the acquisition of 40 acres of property that now serve as a Town Park and stormwater disposal area.

DWQ has enforced this prohibition on outfalls because of overwhelming scientific evidence that direct stormwater discharges contain high levels of bacteria, nutrients, and pathogens. These may cause public health problems, especially in waters used by the public for recreation and swimming. For this reason, swimming advisories are now posted at stormwater outfalls that flow into swimming waters. Issuance of a swimming advisory for this outfall would be a violation of the state’s Antidegration Policy, which prohibits the loss of “existing uses” of our public trust waters.

Specifically, issuance of this permit will violate the following water quality standards (shown below in bold type):

15A NCAC 02B .0201 ANTIDEGRADATION POLICY

(a) It is the policy of the Environmental Management Commission to maintain, protect, and enhance water quality within the State of North Carolina. Pursuant to this policy, the requirements of 40 CFR 131.12 are hereby incorporated by reference including any subsequent amendments and editions….

(b) Existing uses, as defined by Rule .0202 of this Section, and the water quality to protect such uses shall be protected by properly classifying surface waters and having standards sufficient to protect these uses….

(c) The Commission shall consider the present and anticipated usage of waters with quality higher than the standards, including any uses not specified by the assigned classification (such as outstanding national resource waters or waters of exceptional water quality) and shall not allow degradation of the quality of waters with quality higher than the standards below the water quality necessary to maintain existing and anticipated uses of those waters.

15A NCAC 02B .0222 TIDAL SALT WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR CLASS SB WATERS

The following water quality standards apply to surface waters that are used for primary recreation, including frequent or organized swimming, and are classified SB. Water quality standards applicable to Class SC waters are described in Rule .0220

of this Section also apply to SB waters.

(1) Best Usage of waters: primary recreation and any other usage specified by the “SC” classification;

(2) Conditions Related to Best Usage: the waters shall meet accepted sanitary standards of water quality for outdoor bathing places as specified in Item (3) of this Rule and will be of sufficient size and depth for primary recreation purposes. Any source of water pollution which precludes any of these uses, including their functioning as PNAs, on either a short-term or a long-term basis shall be considered to be violating a water quality standard;

(3) Quality Standards applicable to Class SB waters:

(a) Floating solids, settleable solids, or sludge deposits: none attributable to sewage, industrial wastes or other wastes;

(b) Sewage, industrial wastes, or other wastes: none shall be allowed that are not effectively treated to the satisfaction of the Commission; in determining the degree of treatment required for such waters discharged into waters which are to be used for bathing, the Commission shall take into consideration quantity and quality of the sewage and other wastes involved and the proximity of such discharges to the waters in this class; discharges in the immediate vicinity of bathing areas may not be allowed if the Director determines that the waste can not be treated to ensure the protection of primary recreation;

(c) Enterococcus, including Enterococcus faecalis, Enterococcus faecium, Enterococcus avium andEnterococcus gallinarium: not to exceed a geometric mean of 35 enterococci per 100 ml based upon a minimum of five samples within any consecutive 30 days. In accordance with 33 U.S.C. 1313 (Federal Water Pollution Control Act) for purposes of beach monitoring and notification, NORTH CAROLINA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE Eff. May 1, 2007 Page 42“Coastal Recreation Waters Monitoring, Evaluation and Notification” regulations (15A NCAC 18A .3400) are hereby incorporated by reference including any subsequent amendments.

NCDOT is operating its stormwater drainage system under a Phase I NPDES Permit No. NCS000250. As stated in Part 1, Page 2:

This permit does not include water quality-based effluent limits; therefore, in the event the permittee's discharges are found by the Division to cause or contribute to a violation of in stream water quality standards, the Division (NCDENR Division of Water Quality) may take enforcement action or NCDOT and DWQ shall conduct an assessment and implement the permit requirements necessary to adequately address the permittee’s contribution to the water quality standards violation.

This means that NCDOT is not permitted under the terms of its Phase I NPDES permit to construct an ocean outfall that it knows will result in violations of water quality standards. If the pipe is constructed, NCDOT will be subject to enforcement actions by NC DWQ, as well as citizen enforcement actions as allowed by the citizen suit provisions of the federal Clean Water Act.

It is outrageous that the reopening of this outfall is being considered at a time when the NC Legislature has provided $15 million to the Department of Transportation (DOT) to study ways of removing existing ocean outfalls or reducing and treating the stormwater discharged by them. Using these funds, the Raleigh engineering firm Moffat and Nichol has launched a pilot project to treat stormwater being discharged by three ocean outfalls in Nags Head, just south of Kill Devil Hills. It is hoped that construction of a holding vault for stormwater from the Conch Street outfall will begin this winter. Why is DOT applying for a permit to rebuild the Kill Devil Hills outfall in the middle of the study, and during drought conditions? The lack of rain has slowed data collection for the study—just as it has greatly lessened flooding problems in the watershed drained by Outfall #6.

Please notify me immediately of any decision made to issue or deny this permit, or any amended application requests. Thank you for the opportunity to submit these comments.

Sincerely,

Jan DeBlieu

Cape Hatteras Coastkeeper

How rumors start Part 2 (Shame on you Coastal Federation)

I received a copy of an email written by North Carolina Coastal Federation local rep Jan Deblieu soliciting action from her allies to block the reconstruction of storm water ocean outfalls in Nags Head and KDH. I believe it is this is what prompted the letter in the OB Sentinel that I discussed in an earlier post.
Not surprisingly the letter distorts both the impact of the project and the legislative and policy background. The letter opens with the following statement:

In 2004 the NC Legislature allocated $15 million for the state Department of Transportation (DOT) to study removing ocean outfalls—the pipes that carry stormwater into the Atlantic.

Here is the actual language directly from the budget bill:

SECTION 30.20. Of funds available to the Department of Transportation, up to fifteen million dollars ($15,000,000) shall be used during the 2004‑2005 fiscal year for a stormwater pilot project to clean up State‑maintained ocean outfalls and associated outlets through new and innovative technologies and filtering mechanisms.

Note that it says nothing about "removing ocean outfalls". These are the funds being used to install the data logging equipment on the outfalls and it funds outfall study based at UNC-CSI. Jan continues to explain that the money for "removing outfalls" might also be used for the purposes described in the authorizing statutes.

The money is also to pay for looking at ways that stormwater might be treated, if it must be released into the ocean. But treatment techniques are proving to be expensive and difficult.

This part is right, treatment will be expensive and the discussions about who will pay the operating costs for the pilot project aren't getting very far. Jan was at least telling the truth here.
Jan goes on to explain the the Coastal Habitat Protection Plan, a comprehensive water quality policy adopted by the state, has policy on ocean outfalls. Here is how Jan characterizes the policy:

One of its key provisions was to bar the use of ocean outfalls. Under the CHPP, stormwater is not to be released into the ocean except in emergencies.

Ok, sounds like we shouldn't permit the project under this policy, here is the actual language from the CHPP:

Prohibit new or expanded stormwater outfalls to coastal beaches and to coastal shellfishing waters (EMC surface water classifications SA and SB) except during times of emergency (as defined by the Division of Water Quality’s Stormwater Flooding Relief Discharge Policy) when public safety and health are threatened, and continue to phase-out existing outfalls by implementing alternative stormwater management strategies.

Well lets see, it does prohibit new outfalls but these outfalls have been around for over 3o years. It says we shouldn't expand outfalls but this project repairs the outfalls but doesn't expand the amount of discharge in any way. It does suggest we phase out ocean outfalls and as indicated people are working on finding a way to do that. Even if we phase out existing outfalls for normal drainage events this policy accepts the continued use ocean outfalls for emergency situations (ocean overwash, hurricanes etc). If this is the policy then fixing the outfalls for that use alone makes the actions consistent with the policy.
Here is my favorite passage from Jan's letter:

Stormwater carries a host of pollutants into public waters, including fecal coliform, gas, oil, and sediments that can harm marine life. Rebuilding the outfalls will lead to permanent public advisories against swimming near the pipes.

I have already addressed the issue of just how much pollution actually comes out of these pipes. Water quality testing has been going on for almost 10 years now and has yet to find anything more that momentary spikes in bacteria levels around the outfalls and damn few of those. The real kicker is that hte letter suggests fixing the outfalls might led to signs on the beach warning about swimming near the outfalls. JAN, THEY ARE ALREADY THERE. Do you go to the beach, have you been to the outfalls? The signs have been up for several years as a result of a state program that eliminated actually responding to real threats as demonstrated by water quality monitoring. (This is explained in this post)
Jan goes on to call for emails to the state and to the NC legislature protesting the project because the CHPP is being ignored.
The piece is filled with what I believe are misrepresentations of legislation and public policy that are pretty clear. Further it ignores the existing data and more importantly the needs of the property owners and the community. Allowing the existing outfalls to fail would lead to an inability to drain storm water in emergency situations (think Kitty Hawk during Isabel and the Halloween storm.)DCM staff thinks the project is consistent with state rules. It wouldn't even be on the radar if it didn't need a variance. The variance is related to installing hard structures on the beach because DOT will use steel sheets to stablize the pipe while the extensions are being added. They will be removed when the project is complete.

Should we try to reduce pollution from ocean outfalls? Sure. Should we not install new outfalls? Yes. Should we continue to use the existing outfalls that have not been demonstrated to pollute materially? Yes. Should we distort the facts to promote our mission and energize our followers? NO! That's what the NCCF has done with this email and that's why I don't trust them. They do not accurately represent the facts, they twist them to support their mission of gaining contributors. If they were really interested in clean water and good public policy they would simply tell the truth.
Ciao.
Note:I like Jan. I used to think we were on the same side. You can find the full text of the letter below.

From: Jan DeBlieu
To: hatteraskeeper@nccoast.org
Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2007 1:56 PM
Subject: REBUILDING OCEAN OUTFALLS!!!



Folks,



Happy Holidays! And now, regrettably, back to business . . .



In 2004 the NC Legislature allocated $15 million for the state Department of Transportation (DOT) to study removing ocean outfalls—the pipes that carry stormwater into the Atlantic. There are a few ocean outfalls down south, but most are in Dare County. The money is also to pay for looking at ways that stormwater might be treated, if it must be released into the ocean. But treatment techniques are proving to be expensive and difficult.



Now, even as the ocean outfall removal/treatment study continues, DOT has asked the NC Division of Coastal Management for permits to rebuild three ocean outfalls in Nags Head and Kill Devil Hills. They're on the verge of receiving the permits, and will receive them unless concerned citizens speak out. If the outfalls are rebuilt, they will carry polluted stormwater into the ocean for years to come.



Three years ago state officials asked for public comments on the Coastal Habitat Protection Plan. The plan was adopted with great fanfare and was touted as a turning point in state coastal policy. One of its key provisions was to bar the use of ocean outfalls. Under the CHPP, stormwater is not to be released into the ocean except in emergencies. Stormwater carries a host of pollutants into public waters, including fecal coliform, gas, oil, and sediments that can harm marine life. Rebuilding the outfalls will lead to permanent public advisories against swimming near the pipes.



Why are the CHPP provisions being ignored? A few years ago, state officials refused to let the town of Emerald Isle rebuild an ocean outfall within town limits. Instead, property was set aside to treat the stormwater. There are alternatives to dumping stormwater into the ocean.



If you believe that rebuilding the Outer Banks ocean outfalls is bad public policy (we do!), please speak out. Send an email immediately to Jim Gregson, the director of the NC Division of Coastal Management, at jim.gregson@ncmail.net Tell him you object to the rebuilding of ocean outfalls #1, #4, and #6. (These are on Conch and Curlew streets in Nags Head and Lake Drive in Kill Devil Hills.)



Also, please contact key state legislators to let them know you object to the rebuilding of the outfalls. Write letters to the editor. Raise a ruckus! This can only be stopped if enough people speak out against it.



I have a detailed comment letter that NCCF wrote objecting to the reconstruction of the outfalls. If you'd like a copy, let me know and I'll send it to you.



Thanks, as always, for your help in protecting our beautiful coast. Best, Jan



Jan DeBlieu

Cape Hatteras Coastkeeper

North Carolina Coastal Federation

Celebrating 25 Years of Coastal Conservation

ORV and Outfall followup

Here is some follow up information about two recent posts.
ORV regulations in Cape Hatteras National Seashore.
The NPS apparently is going to make their workbook available as a Word document for easier handling. They also are going to extend the time for comments to Feb. 15th.
I recieved a slimmed down version of the workbook. It has just text of the information and options, no blocks for entering info. It is very helpful for comparing policy options in each section. I have posted it as a Google Doc web page. Thanks MHGM for the file.
You can also download the original Adobe Acrobat version I posted earlier. This has all 80+ pages and is fillable. Use the web page to review the choices then use the Adobe file to send in your comments.
Not sure why but all the interest in this issue has come from the ORV side of the debate. The ORV-rec. fishing groups seem to be using the web well to get organized, informed and involved. Bully for them.

Storm Water
There is another update meeting on the ocean outfall monitoring program at 10 am. on Thurs. 1/10 at the auditorium at Jockeys Ridge State park. Topics include monitoring results from some rain events in Dec. and more discussion of a pilot project planned for Conch St. in Nags Head. The project would process flow from the outfall to clean it up before it enters the ocean.
I have a conflict but will try to follow up with the results.

Ciao

How rumors start

Saw a letter in the Editorial/Letters section of the Sentinel website. The author got my attention by protesting a plan to install ocean outfall stormwater drains at three locations in Nags Head and KDH.

I want to add my name and my family's name, to the list of people who are against building the three ocean outfall pipes into the ocean at Conch and Curlew Streets in Nags Head, and Lake Drive in Kill Devil Hills. These pipes will contain contaminated storm run-off waters with a host of fecal matter, oil, gas, asphalt debris, and host of other pollutants.

I found this position interesting since there already are ocean outfalls at these sites and they have been there since the late '60s. The pipes were installed to reduce flooding after storms. At the time there was litle or no development west of the beach road. I don't think the big road had even been built. Pollution wasn't an issue since there was nothing to pollute the water that was drained. As the community developed these outfalls have become a stormwater drainage system for the nothern end of Nags Head and the southern end of KDH.
Ok so the author of the letter got it a little bit wrong. The pipes already exist so we can't protest there installation. What can we protest? I wrote to the gentleman identified in the letter and asked what could have prompted this mistake. Here is what I learned.

DOT applied for a permit in November to extend Ocean Outfall #6 an additional 40 feet to its original length. Due to inconsistencies with our rules that permit was denied. DOT will be seeking a variance from the Coastal Resources Commission at the January 17th meeting in New Bern. DCM is supportive of the variance. We are currently processing permit applications for repair of the other two outfalls (#s 1 and 4). It is likely that these permits will be issued. The repair of these two outfalls would normally not require permit authorization from DCM, however DOT is proposing to install temporary sheet piles around the pipes during the repair. This temporary structure would require permit authorization.

Ok, so now we have the facts. The state wants to move any pollution (more on that canard in a minute) offshore, improving near shore water quality and more importantly the performance of the drainage system, saving on maintenance long term and they are going through all the necessary hoops to get it done. Wow, what a really bad idea, NOT! Over the last 50 years or so the pipes in the ocean have been damaged by storms and corrosion. Now sand builds up at the mouth of the pipe and blocks the flow. This means that the neighborhoods that rely on the drains get flooded. Ask the residents of Wrightsille Blvd and Memorial Ave. whether they think this is a good idea. They get flooded a couple times a year because the system doesn't function properly. Oh yeah, by the way, This improvement will be accomplished with no increase in pollution. Let me repeat that. NO CHANGE IN THE DRAINAGE AREA - NO INCREASE IN POLLUTION.
The letter asserts that "I'm sure swimming will be banned near these run-off pipes." Interesting thought but lets look at the facts. In 2006 the Natural Resources Defense Council name KDH a "Beach Buddy" for its work cleaning up ocean drainage. If you look at their report "Testing the Waters" you will find a list of the water quality testing results from every testing site in the state including, interesting enough, all 3 of the outfalls cited in the letter. Ok so what are the facts. Each outfall had 34 weeks of testing and each outfall had one high bacteria reading. Not too bad, and certainly not as catastrophic as the letter predicts.
I guess the final straw is that, as regular readers know, there is a big program to understand the impact of the outfalls and find a way to reduce the amount of pollution they dump into the ocean. Lots of money is being spent to clean them up, with a lot more coming.
So I guess the letter got it a bit wrong, no new outfalls, no increase in pollution, no beach closings and no crisis. The letter closes saying "This is no pipe dream" Yeah, actually it is.
So you say, OK Bob big deal, someone wrote an inaccurate letter to the Sentinel. This has happened before get over it. My question is at what point does the Sentinel have a responsibility to point out the inaccuracies in the letter. By printing it without comment it seems that they tacitly endorse the facts presented if not the position. At what point of inaccuracy does this become the proverbial "Shouting fire in a crowded theater"? If I send a letter to the Sentinel saying that I know there are 25 communists working in Dare County government should they print it without proof? If the paper's mission is to inform (and make money doing it), should it print this kind of misinformation without some notice or correction? People see the letter, accept it as true and then they talk to their friends and say "Heard what our dumb government is doing?". This is how rumors, false rumors, get started and I think its wrong. Come on Sandy, wake up, tell your readers what the facts are. Don't print stuff like this that just plain wrong. At least help your readers know the truth.
Enough of the rant, no new pipes, no new pollution unless you count the contents of the Sentinel.
Ciao

Global Warming Video

What will happen in 2008

Some thoughts about what might (and might not) happen in 2008:

• I will continue to walk and lose weight. This has been a great trend in 07 that I plan to continue in the new year, including walking the OBX Haf Marathon.
• Lots more photographs to take. I learned a lot last year. Time to put it in practice.
• I will graduate. I plan to complete the requirements for the Duke Non Profit Management Certificate this year. I have learned a lot and look to learn more. I plan to keep taking courses even after I meet the requirements for the certificate.
• I won't run for elected office. Nuf said, it won't happen, no matter what you may hear.
• Little will change in County politics. All the incumbents will be reelected (if they run) don't expect much opposition for Richard Johnson or Allen Burrus. Warren Judge will win because he works so hard for the people of Dare County.
• The bridge won't get built. Lawsuits and bureaucratic wrangling led by organizations that don't have local interests at heart (see Monty), will delay the bridge. Lets hope no one gets hurt but don't count on it.
• Beach erosion will continue. Our lack of an effective policy to deal with it will continue as well. The next battle ground for erosion will be at the state level. This is an election year so it won't get much work but look to 2009 as the year NC gets serious about addressing this issue.
• We will drink more wine. I have been trying to learn more about wine. I have been enjoying it and even started to try to keep track of what I enjoyed.
• Country Deli will continue to make the best sandwichs east of Jockeys Ridge. Sorry just a blatant plug for one of my favorite local businesses.
• I will thank my friends. Nice piece on OBR about New Years Eve reminded me just how much I value my friends. I spent that night at a local restaurant with about 10 friends that I am in contact with all the time. We talk, go out, cry, help, advice, tease and everything else. Without them my life wouldn't be nearly as rich. I don't thank them enough for the gift they give me. They deserve to hear it everyday. Thanks guys

Time to go for a walk and take some photos. My New Years wish is that your year will be as great as mine is going to be. Happy New Year
Ciao

Access issues

Not sure if this is just me but I have had a really hard time accessing the Internet files related to the rulemaking process for Off Road Vehicles (ORV) in the Cape Hatteras National Seashore (CAHA) Bill pointed out that the rule making process is now opened up and that there is a great opportunity for us to participate but when I followed the links to the National Park Service site I couldn't access any of the files.
Before I start my rant, I have provided a copy of the Workbook that enables you to offer your opinion on the issue. Follow the instructions below:

1. Right click on the link in 3
2. Select "Save Link As"
3. Workbook Link
4. Then download the file and open it from your computer with Adobe Acrobat Reader.

When you open the workbook ignore the link that says you can download the file here. It doesn't work (OK I'll wait while you try it but planning only has 2 n's not 3). Now you get to start your way through an 86 page document. Don't worry if you don't finish reading and checking the boxes in one session, if you stop you can start all over again from the beginning next time since you can't save the file.
OK, short story, you can't open the files from the web site unless you figure out that you can download them and then rename them as pdf files (see my comment on Bill's blog). If you are savvy enough to figure that out then you have to devote about an hour (if you are familiar with the issue) or a lot more to make your views known. Of course you can go to a meeting and get a copy of the workbook but if you bring it home and suggest a friend use the link printed on the cover to share their thoughts it won't work since the link printed on the workbook isn't valid and if it was then they probably would have the same problems getting the files described above.
The NPS has gone to a lot of trouble to open up the rulemaking process. They are being driven by environemental groups who want to stop all beach driving (see Monty here and here) and a judge in Raleigh who thinks (for some inexplicable reason) that they should comply with Federal rules issued in 1972 requiring the park to adopt ORV regs.
I'm not going to comment on the issue, I will do that in a separate post. I will say that this is pitiful. The NPS apparently doesn't care enough about public input to make it accessible on the web. I have a simple poll on my site. Bill and Ronnie do it all the time. We discuss sophisticated issue, post photos, files, even allow comments and it it all works but when the bureaucracy (and I use that term as a long term bureaucrat) solicits public input it somehow just doesn't work very well.

• Use a word file
• Use an excel spreadsheet
• Break up the workbook into sections (You have chapters)
• Create an online survey
• Create an online comment site
• Code the thing so you can come back to your comments (Java, javascript or something else)
• Find some way to people to participate that does not REQUIRE an 86 page document that must be printed or processed online in one shot.

OK enough. Download the workbook from here and send it in or attend a meeting. I will talk about beach driving, user conflicts and habitat/species protection in a future post. Right now I just want to scream at the NPS for a really bad job of doing the right thing.
Ciao

Libby Dole on Guns

This comes directly from the NC Democratic Party. I thought I would share it. Consider what this bill would allow as you consider the questions involved in the discussion of ORV regs. in the Cape Hatteras National Seashore that Bill writes about. I plan to comment a bit more on the ORV issue but this piece stands on its own.

Where is Liddy on Carrying Guns in National Parks?

Elizabeth Dole wants to endanger the lives of millions of families who visit America's national parks each year.

Dole recently petitioned the Department of Interior to end a federal ban on openly carrying firearms in most national parks.

But Dole's request is unnecessary, dangerous to visitors and potentially harmful to wildlife, park rangers say. [Time, Dec. 21]

Under the current rule, visitors can drive through a national park with a firearm as long as it's not loaded and readily accessible. This cuts down on poaching and accidental shootings.

This isn't about protecting Second Amendment rights. Why would someone need to carry a loaded gun in a park that doesn't allow hunting?

This is about pandering. A recent poll shows Elizabeth Dole with an approval rating below 50 percent. As long as Liddy Dole engages in bumper sticker politics, she hopes that voters won't notice that she isn't in North Carolina very often.

Dole hopes voters won't notice that she voted against expanding health care insurance to our children or providing benefits to our nation's veterans.

She's hoping voters won't notice that it took her two months to oppose an outlying landing field in Eastern North Carolina after state leaders and the congressional delegation came out against it.

She's hoping voters won't notice that when it comes to the concerns of North Carolinians, she's gun shy.

Think about Cape Point with legal, loaded guns in every truck. The piping plovers have enough to worry about from Sammy without putting Glocks on the beach.
Come on Libby do you really think this is good for North Carolina???
I don't.
Ciao