Gaviota Coast Newsletter #5

May 2002 Newsletter No. 5

This newsletter provides an update on the status of the Gaviota Coast Feasibility Study. In January 2002, the National Park Service (NPS) distributed a "Protection Strategies Worksheet" to provide an additional public input opportunity for the study. This worksheet included:

a brief description of alternative approaches under consideration by the NPS for the draft feasibility study;
the NPS's assumptions for the alternatives under consideration
a list and description of potential protection strategies
two maps on which to provide comments to the NPS.

The worksheet invited the public to submit ideas and suggestions to inform and focus the study alternatives. The initial deadline for comments was March 8, 2002; however, that deadline has been extended to September 1, 2002. The text and maps from the Protection Strategies Worksheet can be found on the NPS web site. The map in this newsletter has been revised to more fully reflect current landownership and conservation status. Additional copies of the worksheet and newsletter are available upon request. We appreciate the thoughtful comments we have received to date and look forward to hearing more of your ideas.

Next Steps
Our next newsletter, in the fall of 2002, will provide a full summary of the comments received from the Protection Strategies Worksheet through September 1 and other updates on the study process.

The draft feasibility study/EIS is scheduled for release in January 2003.

click here for Current Land Protection and Status Map

Summary of Protection Strategies Worksheet Response to Date

The NPS’s goal in seeking comments at this stage in the study process is to solicit suggestions and workable mixes of strategies to better inform and focus the study alternatives. This summary focuses on the suggestions and conservation strategies identified in people’s comments. It does not attempt to address people’s concerns about the study process, but does include a map providing additional information about landownership and existing land and conservation initiatives. The draft feasibility study and environmental impact statement will address these issues in further detail.

By the end of March, the NPS received approximately 260 responses to the Protection Strategies Worksheet. These comments covered a wide range of subjects, ideas, and concerns. This is a general and preliminary summary of responses based on the framework provided in the worksheet. It represents respondents’ suggestions, not NPS proposals. Some respondents suggested the use of only one or two strategies, while others suggested the use of a mix of strategies over the entire study area. The NPS will evaluate these suggestions and will incorporate those that are feasible, appropriate, and fall within commitments the NPS has made regarding the ongoing roles of existing public and private land managers.

Continue Current Programs and Policies
Many respondents advocated the continuation of current programs and policies, some for the entire study area, and some for specific public or private locations within the study area. Existing land use regulation, (county, Coastal Commission) and local private initiatives (land trust), were cited as the best way to protect the coast. Other suggestions included: promote existing conservation and agricultural easement programs; focus available federal dollars on maintenance and enhancement of existing parks, or on threatened lands closer to urban areas, and; maintain public access and visitor services and visitation at current levels.

Establish a State-Legislated Gaviota Coast Land Conservancy
Various respondents advocated a state land conservancy along either the entire coast or a portion thereof. The role of this conservancy would be land protection with less public visibility than a national park unit and serve as a vehicle for state funding for easements and fee acquisition. Some respondents believe that there is no need to create another conservancy duplicating the work of the California Coastal Conservancy, which has been a significant funding partner in Gaviota Coast acquisitions.

Establish a Gaviota Coast Agricultural Land Trust
Various respondents advocated involvement of an agricultural land trust for much or all of the study area, to provide voluntary long-term protection of agricultural lands with fair compensation to property owners. Related suggestions included: public funding for acquisition of easements and development rights; and a trust to work with landowners to develop stewardship plans. Other respondents noted that the Land Trust for Santa Barbara County and other non-profit land conservation groups are able to carry out land preservation transactions without creating a new land trust.

Establish a Santa Barbara County Open Space District
Various commenters suggested a county open space district either for the entire study area or for the eastern end of the study area.

Develop a Coastal Trail
Some respondents recommended development of a coastal trail along the entire length of the study area. Others recommended a coastal trail along the eastern end of the study area, from Coal Oil Point to Gaviota State Park, to Jalama Beach County Park, or into the southern portion of Vandenberg. Recommendations included separate foot, bike, and equestrian paths, following the railroad right of way, and provide frequent vertical access to the beach, provide low impact access with minimum development at trailheads.

Trails and Trail Connectors
Respondents who recommended trails and trail connectors suggested connectors from a coastal trail to the Los Padres National Forest; or the coast to various peaks; trails along creek corridors; primitive trails; and primitive camping.

Public Access Points and Trailheads
Various commenters suggested: public access points and trailheads throughout much of the study area to provide access to the coast; connect existing public park lands to open areas that are not currently open to public use; and access to interpret historic resources. Additional suggestions included: a visitor center at Gaviota Pass to interpret natural and cultural resources and the area's significance as a transportation corridor; wildlife corridors; and environmental campgrounds.

Additional Land Acquisition and Management by Existing Public and Non-Profit Landowners
Respondents who suggested additional land acquisition by existing groups focused primarily on land east of Gaviota State Park.

Conservation Easements
Most respondents who supported conservation easements identified the entire study area as appropriate for conservation easements, on a voluntary basis, to maintain and enhance agricultural activities, wildlife and open space, while maintaining private ownership and management.

NPS Land Acquisition from Willing Sellers
Some commenters suggested that NPS should purchase land when people want to sell, for fair market value. They suggested that NPS acquire land for low intensity public use, for agriculture, where there are opportunities to enhance scenic, cultural, natural or recreational resources, or where development is imminent.

Chumash Interpretive and Ceremonial Sites
Respondents suggested locations throughout much of the study area for Chumash interpretive and ceremonial sites. Recommended sites were largely on existing public land, however other locations were cited as well. Other suggestions included stewardship of Chumash archeological sites by local Chumash bands.

Transfer of Development Rights
Commenters recommended a transfer of development rights program for either the entire study area, or for properties at the eastern end of the study area in order to allow landowners to continue agricultural uses of their land and pass land on to subsequent generations.

Other Strategies
Some of the conservation strategies suggested by commenters did not fit within the framework of strategies provided. They included:

Privatize park management
Sell some National Forest land to private owners; use the money to create parks closer to where people live
Provide high quality, private housing along the coast to allow more people to enjoy the area Privatize park management
Control development so as to avoid adverse impacts to adjacent lands
Develop stewardship plans for each farming operation
Remove urban-type development from the area, e.g. landfill, gas processing plants
Respect private property and management authority
Offer tax incentives for landowners
Provide public funds for fencing to keep cattle out of streams, retire grazing lands, and limit public access on a voluntary basis
Restore salmon/steelhead to park watersheds
Allow future wind generation farms for electricity
Remove telephone poles and place transmission lines underground
Seek a reverter clause to transfer Vandenberg AFB to NPS, should it become available
Offer research and education programs throughout the area
Designate a national marine reserve

Clarification on Items in the Protection Strategies Worksheet

This section has been provided to answer questions and clarify some misunderstandings regarding the Protection Strategies Worksheet.

Extension of comment period for the Protection Strategies Worksheet
On March 13th, the National Park Service announced the extension of the comment period to September 1, 2002 to allow for more input to be considered in the draft study report, including locally generated land protection alternatives. We appreciate the thoughtful responses that many of you have already provided. Those of you who have already sent in comments may submit additional comments or modify the comments you sent in, if you wish. Please write or call us if you would like additional copies of the worksheet.

The "status quo" will be considered and analyzed as a complete alternative
On page 2 of the worksheet, we stated that “...the status quo in land use regulation is not adequate to protect the resources and landscape of the Gaviota Coast into the future.” This statement was made based on the observation by the study team that the current land use regulations, while largely effective to date, are subject to changes in the economy, political leadership, and the desires of individual landowners. However, the phrasing may have been interpreted as a prejudgment of the study’s outcome. As a clarification, Alternative I, “Current Programs and Policies,” will be presented and fully analyzed as a relevant alternative in the draft study report and environmental impact statement. We will also analyze at least one alternative that does not involve management by the National Park Service, but relies on state and county management as well as private land conservation tools to protect significant resources.

“Draft Alternatives Framework” section
Some respondents had specific questions about the alternatives discussion. The descriptions in the newsletter are brief descriptions of concepts. The alternatives in the draft feasibility study report and EIS will reflect input from the Protection Strategies Worksheet, and will provide much more extensive description, documentation, and analysis of impacts.

Recommendations about private lands
Several property owners expressed concern over the study team asking for recommendations regarding private property within the study boundary. For example, some property owners felt that it was inappropriate for others to suggest trails and other visitor facilities to be constructed on private property. Private property ownership is, of course, paramount over information regarding trails, facilities, or other actions. The NPS will consider all ideas and suggestions in light of the current ownership of the land. We emphasize, as stated in the worksheet, that no public access can be allowed on private land, within, or outside of public land boundaries, except as authorized by the landowner or required by state and local agencies as a condition of development.

There was confusion expressed over the white lines shown on the color base maps obtained by some interested parties at their request. These white lines are not trail routes. They mark the watershed divides for each of the canyons along the Gaviota Coast. The study team has sought input on potential trail routes, but not made any recommendations for trail routes nor made other conclusions regarding outcomes of the study.

Significance
One of the responsibilities of the National Park Service is to evaluate different types of resources and identify the most significant resources for potential protection under different themes. Determination of significance is one part of the feasibility process and does not mean an area will be recommended for inclusion in a park system.

As requested by Congress, the National Park Service will evaluate whether all or portions of the study area have national significance through this study process. The study team has tentatively found the study area to contain nationally significant resources. Some significant resources that have already been confirmed through separate, unrelated evaluation processes, include the Juan Bautista de Anza National Historic Trail, Space Launch Complex 10 (a National Historic Landmark), the Point Conception Light Station (listed on the National Register of Historic Places at the national level of significance), Point Sal (recommended for inclusion in the registry of National Natural Landmarks), and significant habitat for numerous threatened and endangered species. Additional documentation will be completed as part of the study process, and the significance determination will not be finalized until completion of the final feasibility study following public review.

Potential development threat
The worksheet described some indicators of development pressure on the eastern portion of the study area, from Gaviota State Park to Goleta, including: non-renewal of Williamson Act conservation contracts; the amount of acreage currently for sale; land owned by speculative interests; recent development proposals; a lawsuit brought by certain owners against the county on lot line adjustment restrictions; and the market for large home estates. The study team is continuing to research these issues and will present a detailed analysis in the draft study report. As clarification, much of the study area is currently zoned for agriculture, allowing agricultural activities, agricultural sales, animal boarding, one single family dwelling unit and one guest house or artist studio per lot, on-shore oil development, excavation or quarrying, home occupations and accessory structures.

Purchase private property at fair market value only from willing sellers
Respondents expressed concern that the federal government would force landowners to sell their property and would not compensate them at fair market value. The National Park Service would acquire land only if authorized to do so by Congress, only from owners who choose to sell to the NPS pursuant to any congressional authorization, and only if a unit of the National Park System were to be established by Congress. If such a unit were established, the National Park Service would be required by Congress to offer full fair market value plus relocation costs to willing sellers. Further legal protection would be provided by including a prohibition on land acquisition except from willing sellers in legislation authorizing any NPS involvement in the Gaviota Coast.

Current land protection
Many respondents noted that we did not acknowledge current land protection mechanisms already in place. We recognize that there is substantial Williamson Act agricultural preserve contract land in the study area, and that current county zoning substantially restricts the land development potential in much of the study area. These Williamson Act contracts protect land in agricultural use for ten years, providing no long-term assurance that the land will stay in agriculture. Similarly, current zoning and permitting decisions are political decisions that can change when the political leadership changes; they do not provide long-term assurances. These issues will be explored in further detail in the draft study report and EIS.

As shown on the study maps, substantial lands are already managed by public agencies for resource conservation or public use. The Los Padres National Forest and state and county parks comprise approximately 23,000 acres of the study area, and provide public access. Vandenberg Air Force Base’s 100,000 acres, while managed to support a military and civilian space launch mission, include significant buffer land that is managed for agriculture or natural resource conservation. Groups such as the Land Trust for Santa Barbara County have also acquired land and permanent easements in the study area for conservation purposes, and several additional acquisitions are underway.

A map of current land protection and status is provided within this newsletter, indicating the location of these various land protection mechanisms.

Map corrections and clarifications
(1) White areas on the maps are private property. Some of these areas were labeled, such as Hollister Ranch and Bixby Ranch Co., but there are also other parcels held by private owners. A majority of these lands are in agricultural (grazing) use. (2) The farmland shown on the maps is cropland, and does not include grazing land. (3) We mislabeled one of the codes on the maps: the second “PA” should be “EPL” referencing additional land management by existing public and nonprofit landowners.