Science and the DENR | Eastern North Carolina Now

    Publisher's Note: Jim Bispo's weekly column appears in the Beaufort Observer.

    A year of so ago, pile driving on the Rte. 17 bypass bridge across the Tar River (and several miles of wetlands) was stopped while anadromous fish (that would be fish that live in the sea and breed in fresh water) made their way up the river to perform their annual mating rituals. It is interesting to note that when the old Rte 17 Tar/Pamlico River bridge was built, the same "don't disturb the fish" argument ensued. The difference was that the people won that time, but somehow the fish seem to have survived; so maybe everybody won. At the time the proposed work stoppage was being discussed, it seemed that allowing the pile driving to continue and performing a follow-up study using the same protocols as were used in the study that supported the "stop work" decision (what a dumb assumption that turned out to be) would be worthwhile. As I recall, the suggestion was even supported by our local "River Keeper". Other than the support from the River Keeper, the suggestion was greeted by silence. As an aside, it was interesting to note that pile driving on bulkheads and piers at one of the local condo developments not far down river from the new bridge was not stopped when the bridge pile driving was stopped; the argument was that the pilings were much smaller than the bridge pilings (which was true). There was no discussion of the fact that the "bridge work" was being performed from well above the water while the work on the condo was being performed off of a barge floating in the water; a barge which surely acted like a drum and magnified the pile driving noise into the river. So, even though the bridge pilings were many times larger that the bulkhead and pier pilings, it seems likely that the disturbance to the migrating fish created by the bridge pilings was considerably less than the work that was allowed to continue. Such is life when you seemingly have the right friends in the right places. Hmmm....

    Now we have seen the same restriction placed on the contractor building the new "Belhaven Bridge" across Pantego Creek. Pile driving work has reportedly been brought to a halt so as not to disturb the migrating fish. This, even though most of the pilings required across the ½ mile wide (my estimate) Pantego Creek have been installed. The final few required pilings are very near the bank.

    I wrote to the Director of the NCDENR whom I was told was in charge of making the "don't bother the fish" decision (apparently, as it turns out, no matter what it does to the construction schedule and project cost). I wrote almost a month ago asking for help in locating the studies that were performed in support of the stop work decision. It was a note crafted so as to not aggravate anyone; it simply asked for help in locating the supporting scientific studies. To date, I have not even received an acknowledgment much less a reply. That leads me to conclude that, coupled with the non response to the suggestion offered when the Tar River bridge pile driving work was suspended, there have been no studies. Further, the decision to stop work (the public be damned) seems to be based on the opinion of DENR staff and is based on their "extensive" experience. As they have shown time and time again, tree huggers are wont to "go overboard" with their so called protection of the environment decisions. ( Do you suppose that was the same "extensive experience" that led the environmental movement to push for a $1B Bonner bridge replacement versus the $300M bridge the DOT supported??) They apparently are not to be questioned or be asked to support their opinions, however well intentioned.

    There are a lot of folks who are beginning to believe that it may well be time to reign in the seemingly "out of control" environmental movement (including most of the EPA). What we see from them seems to be a lot more "considered opinion" than scientific facts. If there is anything that we don't need, it is considered opinions from people who are predisposed in favor of any particular outcome. Of course, after the so called "scientific findings" reported about global warming and accepted by a lot of folks before the cat got our of the bag, we discovered that a lot of the data was "manufactured" to support a predetermined outcome. A lot of people would suggest that such behavior does great violence to the term "scientific investigation"; and they are right. And now, even NASA Scientists (real ones), in peer reviewed findings are questioning the efficacy of the models being used by the Al the Goracle crowd to push their largely discredited thesis. Go to http://sanfrancisco.ibtimes.com/articles/189649/20110730/global warming hoax nasa earth releasing heat space.htm

    To read about NASA's findings.

    So far, we have allowed the environmental movement to operate in a rather "reactive" mode. They "react" to proposals, but they seldom make any - unless it is to impose restrictions on us all. They demand endless environmental studies and reviews. It almost seems that they care little for our forests because they certainly create the need for endless amounts of paper on which to document all the additional information they demand and in support of all the law suits they instigate..

    Perhaps it is time to demand from the so called environmentalists a manifesto describing their proposals for the environment; specific proposals. "Apple pie and Motherhood" which they seem to have gotten away with for a long time will no longer suffice. What we need is specific proposals, specifically defined outcomes and cost benefit analyses accompanying each proposal. With the shoe on the other foot, it would be interesting to see the results.

    D'ya think??