Update
This is the third newsletter from the National Park Service (NPS), designed to keep you informed on the progress of the NPS Gaviota Coast Feasibility Study. Our most recent newsletter was distributed in July 2000. Since that time, the NPS:

• Held two invitational workshops to seek community  perspectives on desired future conditions for the  Gaviota Coast and strategies for achieving those conditions;
• Decided to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) rather than the shorter environmental assessment (EA), due to the complexity and controversy of the project;
• Extended the scoping period through November 30, 2000, and received more than 2,500 public comments; 
• Organized an opportunity in October 2000 for a number of landowners and others to visit Point Reyes National Seashore and talk with ranchers and business interests there; and
• Met with numerous interest groups to discuss the study process and to listen to their ideas and concerns.

• the resources in the area are nationally significant
• there are other means of protecting the area's resources 
• the area's resources are already represented in the National Park System 
• it is feasible for the NPS to protect and manage the  resources.

The end result of the feasibility study process will be a report of findings and a recommendation to the U.S. Congress. We currently estimate that this report will be completed and transmitted to Congress in November 2002. A National Park designation can only occur in the Gaviota area with authorization through an act of Congress. [note: transmittal to Congress projected for 2003]

Scoping Summary Update: Summary of New Comments Received Since July 2000 Newsletter
Based on consultation with Congresswoman Lois Capps and in deference to interested individuals, organizations, and public agencies, the National Park Service (NPS) extended the scoping comment period for the Gaviota Coast Feasibility Study and Environmental Impact Statement to November 30, 2000. Over 2,500 comments were received between March and November 2000. The majority were part of postcard campaigns and petitions. The following is a summary of additional issues raised in the course of the extended comment period. A more detailed list can be found at the project website.

Protection of Resources

• Fragile resources such as tidepools, shorebird habitats and local aquifers
• Solitude as a valuable resource of the Gaviota Coast 
• Protection offered by legal covenants at Hollister Ranch
• Current air quality below standards

• Tax revenues for the Vista Del Mar Union School District
• Benefits of tax revenue generated by continued oil and gas extraction
• Economic values of undeveloped land
• Effects of protection measures on sport and commercial fishing allocations

• Bike trail along coast
• Dangerous egress/ingress at parking lots along US highway 101
• Wildfire risks

• Locally based conservation measures
• Private agricultural land trust, managed by a board of property owners, supported by an advisory council of experts and agency representatives
• Agricultural preservation district, charged with preservation of agricultural lands, preservation of  property values, and protection against restrictions on grazing and farming practices

Agriculture

• Agriculture is an important component of the Gaviota Coast. Family farmers have made the coastal area what it is today, have a close relationship to the land, want to keep the land in agriculture, with flexibility to change crops and practices to stay economically viable.
• Consider a designated agricultural preservation area with flexibility and respect for property rights, voluntary sale of conservation easements, and oversight by the agricultural community.
• The agricultural community representatives saw no need for NPS presence in the area.

• Protect Chumash sites and other culturally significant sites
• Maintain and connect wildlife areas and promote healthy functioning watersheds.
• Minimize impacts on ecological systems.

• Need greater access to the shoreline, especially for north county residents.
• Include private, for-profit recreational opportunities, e.g. campgrounds, eco-tourism opportunities, hunting, guest ranches.
• Focus new public access/park areas in a coastal corridor along Highway 101.
• Acquire land from willing sellers where public access is appropriate.
• Visitation must not exceed the capacity of the area, overburden infrastructure, damage natural and cultural resources, detract from the recreational experience, or adversely impact private property.

• Limit future commercial and residential development.
• Maintain the urban/rural boundary.

• Evaluate development pressure in the area, considering undevelopable land, zoning, planned infrastructure, etc.
• Assess the economic impacts of NPS proposals, including tax base and property value impacts.
• Address the interface between public and private lands.
• Consider a wide range of techniques, such as agricultural and conservation easements, an agricultural land trust, local development standards, zoning, agency coordination, collaborative management, incentive-based stewardship, habitat conservation banking, conservation buyers, transfer of development rights, state conservancy, open space district, entrepreneurial approaches, government support for private land management, Williamson Act contracts, and estate tax elimination.

The NPS welcomes the development of locally-based and locally-supported initiatives to protect the Gaviota Coast. The NPS has not yet made any proposals or recommendations regarding outcomes, and has not finalized alternatives for the study. NPS will fully consider protection strategies that do not include NPS involvement. In fact, NPS policies require that serious consideration be given to alternatives that do not involve NPS. The policies recommend NPS involvement only when other management alternatives cannot adequately preserve the nationally significant  resources. The study report will include at least one locally-based alternative. A conservation strategy with broad community support would be a valuable contribution.

Fact or Fiction?
Much has been said about the NPS and the Gaviota Coast Feasibility Study, including a significant amount of inaccurate and misleading information. The NPS wishes to clarify what is fact or fiction regarding the NPS Gaviota Coast study.

Fact or Fiction: Is existing land protection adequate to protect the Gaviota Coast?

Ranchers, farmers, the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors and planning commission, the California Coastal Commission, public land managing agencies and environmental groups have all played an important role in the protection of the Gaviota Coast's significant resources. They are why the coast is still scenic, biologically rich, and culturally unique. These groups have a critical role now and in the future. However, based on experience throughout California, existing land use protection mechanisms rarely withstand the pressures of real estate speculation, increasing land values, development pressures and growing population:

• Zoning can be changed by a vote of the County Supervisors, meaning land protection is as secure as the next vote or the next election.
• Williamson Act contracts keep land in agriculture for 10 or 20 years into the future with interim tax relief based on agricultural rather than speculative property taxation rates. A number of landowners in the eastern portion of the study area have opted not to renew their Williamson Act contracts, meaning that their land can be developed without penalty within the next ten years. Several studies have shown that while the Williamson Act is effective in reducing tax burdens, it is not effective as a long-term land conservation tool.
• The Coastal Commission has strong regulatory powers in the coastal zone. However, its authority has recently been challenged in the courts, and it could be reconfigured in the future. Additionally, the Coastal Commission is comprised of political appointees, whose commitment to conservation changes over time, depending on who is appointed. 
• Public land managing agencies are restricted to managing the lands they own. Existing state and local land management and acquisition funds are limited.

Fact or Fiction: The NPS has refused to adjust the study area boundary to respond to public and landowner requests?

The study area boundary was established by the NPS at the beginning of the study process as part of normal NPS study procedures. It was drawn based on watersheds and the boundary of Vandenberg Air Force Base. A study area boundary is generally selected by NPS on a logical basis, and is an area within which to focus the feasibility study. It indicates the area to be studied, nothing more. The alternatives proposed in the draft study will have different boundaries within the study area boundary, in response to resource values and management feasibility as well as public opinion. Some portions of the study area may not be included under any alternative, and will not be included in any study recommendations.

Fact or Fiction: No one approach will work for the entire study area - it's too large and too diverse?

The NPS study team agrees completely. Different management strategies will be developed for different portions of the study area. Some areas may have no NPS management suggested under any alternative, while for other areas NPS will suggest a range of possibilities, including differing levels of NPS involvement. Some portions of the study area boundary will likely be entirely dropped from further consideration.

Fact or Fiction: Will the NPS use condemnation or eminent domain to acquire land?

The NPS will acquire land only if authorized by Congress, and only from willing sellers. Any legislation authorizing NPS involvement in the Gaviota area can include language restricting NPS to acquisition from willing sellers only. The NPS supports this type of restriction. While some have suggested that the authorizing legislation could later be amended to change this restriction, there are few if any precedents. If land acquisition from willing sellers is authorized, the NPS is required to pay full fair market value plus relocation costs.

Fact or Fiction: Will the Gaviota Coast be overrun with visitors if NPS is managing any of it?

NPS policy is to manage all of its units to protect park resources as the highest priority. Visitor services are secondary to resource protection. A National Park unit along the Gaviota Coast is unlikely to cause dramatic changes to the number of visitors in the area. Visitation at the county and state parks along the Gaviota Coast currently totals approximately 1.1 million visitors per year and constitutes a fraction of the traffic in the area. The possible designation as a unit of the National Park System would likely create a change in visitation limited by the level of development and additional publicly accessible land in the area. If the area becomes a National Park unit, we anticipate minimal development, small-scale facilities, and an emphasis on day-use. A management goal for the area would be to retain its quiet, pastoral nature. Potential visitation and its impacts will be addressed in greater detail in the draft feasibility study.

Fact or Fiction: Will NPS involvement affect the operations of Vandenberg Air Force Base?

The NPS understands that VAFB is an active military base with essential military, civilian and commercial missions. NPS understands the importance and long-term nature of VAFB's mission and operations, and does not intend to propose any actions that would compromise VAFB's mission or operational flexibility. The NPS study team believes that there may be additional opportunities for limited and controlled public access, to enhance the public's understanding of the significant natural and cultural resources of VAFB, and to contribute to the stewardship of these resources, without compromising VAFB's operations.

Temporary Moratorium on New National Park Units?
The Department of the Interior has announced that it is not supporting designation of new National Park areas at this time in order to focus on funding a backlog of maintenance projects. The Department will re-evaluate its position during the second session of the 107th Congress, in 2002. Funding for new feasibility studies will not be requested by the Bush Administration. Studies currently underway, such as the Gaviota Coast study, will continue.  In similar situations in the past, Congress has continued to designate new park areas despite the Administration's opposition, and without NPS feasibility studies. What will happen this time around? We don't know, but we're directed by Congress to complete the Gaviota Coast study. We plan to complete it as efficiently and effectively as possible.

Change of Address and Phone Number
The National Park Service Pacific West Region and Pacific Great Basin Support Offices will be moving from San Francisco to Oakland in July 2001. This means that the Gaviota study team and other staff will be difficult to reach during mid July.

After approximately August 1st, our new mailing address will be:

National Park Service
Planning and Partnerships Team
1111 Jackson St., #700
Oakland, CA  94607

Our new phone numbers are:

Ray Murray (510) 817-1439
Martha Crusius (510) 817-1447
Justin DeSantis (510) 817-1322

Our e-mail addresses (PGSO_gaviota@nps.gov)
will remain the same, though there may be a short disruption in service.