NOTE: This post has been modified as of January 7. 2021 following notice by the California Coastal Commission that the hearing date on this item has been postponed. A new hearing date has not been scheduled.
SEE BLOG POST HERE FOR INFORMATION ON THIS CHANGE.
Drakes Estero, State Marine Conservation Area, December 8, 2020. Photograph by Morgan Patton.
The National Park Service (NPS) is seeking to wrap up the Point Reyes National Seashore’s General Management Plan Amendment (GMPA) by obtaining approval from the California Coastal Commission (Commission) on January 14, 2021.
Background
In September 2020, NPS released the Final Environmental Impact Statement (Final EIS) for the GMPA in which NPS selected Alternative B as their preferred action that would authorize 20-year leases to ranchers on 28,000 acres of the Point Reyes National Seashore.
The proposed GMPA would update the zoning and ranch management framework for the ranches for the first time since the 1980s. In addition, the plan allows ranchers to diversify their operations (add new ranching activities like row crops, farm stands, overnight accommodations, and new types of livestock like sheep, goats, pigs, and 500 chickens per ranch). The plan requires the killing of native tule elk (establishing a population threshold for the Drakes Beach Herd) and preventing the establishment of new tule elk herds. Read more about the GMPA background here.
The Role of the Coastal Commission
Before NPS can finalize the GMPA, they must obtain consistency determinations from other federal and state agencies. On January 14, 2020, NPS will make their case to the Commission.
The Commission is charged with ensuring the GMPA is carried out in a manner that is consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act.
This standard of review includes all other applicable federal and state requirements established by the Clean Water Act, the California Ocean Plan, and the California Water Code Section 13142.5, and the directive in Chapter 5 of the Coastal Act (Section 30412(a)) to coordinate with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and State Water Resources Control Board (Commission Staff Report, Page 12).
The Commission is limited in some areas, for example, they do not have authority to review proposed actions on federal lands. The Coastal Zone Management Act (that provides the Commission with their authority to implement coastal zone management plans) specifically excludes “…from the coastal zone … lands the use of which is by law subject solely to the discretion of or which is held in trust by the Federal Government (Federal Consistency and the National Interest, Chapter 11, see page 87)…”
This means the Commission is limited in their review to actions that have spill over negative impacts in the coastal zone.
This is important, as it is arguably the most widely-publicized item included in the GMPA is the killing of the tule elk that live on federal lands. However, the Commission does not have jurisdiction to act on this issue.
The commission does have jurisdiction over any actions that may happen on federal land and spill over into the coastal zone; for example, negative impacts on water quality.
Despite limitations, the Commission does retain broad authority to review the NPS proposed actions impacting resources in the coastal zone and to make recommendations.
Coastal Commission Federal Consistency Determination Process
Since the release of the GMPA’s Final EIS, the process has moved quickly, making it difficult for the public and public agencies to review and fully understand the complicated management plan proposal.
On December 18th 2020, the Commission staff released their initial report for public review and recommended action for Conditional Concurrence.
This report recommends the Commission approve the proposed action (the GMPA) with new conditions that incorporate relevant, enforceable policies of the California Coastal Management Program that consists of primarily Chapter 3 policies of the Coastal Act.
It is important to note the Commissioners are not bound to the recommendations of the Commission staff and that after public comments are received by the Commission, an addendum to the report will most likely be released on January 11th.
In addition, if the Commission agrees with the staff report and NPS does not agree to the conditional concurrence, it will be treated as an objection.
Recommendation of Conditional Concurrence
Conditional concurrences are generally limited to situations where minor modifications are necessary to bring a project into consistency and because of administrative constraints modifications to the project cannot be agreed to within the timeline for Commission action.
The Commission staff proposed several new conditions to protect water quality including the requirement of assessment plans and protections for creeks and discharges to Drakes Estero, Abbott’s Lagoon, and to the Pacific Ocean.
NPS would be required to provide the Commission a water quality assessment plan for review and approval before new leases with ranchers are finalized.
NEW CONDITIONS:
1. An overall strategy and timeline for assessing and improving water quality.
2. Proposed sampling methodology for collecting quantitative water quality data that is consistent with state and federal agencies sampling coverage and frequency procedures and reporting of results.
3. A provision for annual reporting of results from NPS to the Commission Executive Director that includes monitoring results from prior years, assessment of results against state and federal water quality standards, proposed measures to address issues, and evaluation of the efficacy of existing measures.
What This Means
While the new recommendations are important (and reflect many of our initial concerns) there is a need for additional public input and review as there may be additional considerations to include. It is also unclear if NPS accepts the new conditions, how they will be implemented.
Additional time for public review and comment on the new conditions and inclusion of items that have been overlooked is needed.
Our Concerns
This process is being rushed. Based on the amount of public interest and the proximity of the Point Reyes National Seashore to the urban areas of the Bay Area, it is important that adequate time is allowed to review and comment on the GMPA. The decisions being made now will guide management for the next two decades. It is essential that the GMPA is guided by science, policy and the public interest.
The GMPA will guide park management for the next two decades. It is essential that the Commission has enough information and time to review the documents in regular order. The Commission’s review timeline was rushed during the holiday season and in the middle of a global pandemic and spike in cases that resulted in new Stay-At-Home orders being issued in California.
In addition, the Commission staff has not had adequate time to review the complexities of the GMPA and negotiate with NPS to reach agreements to improve and modify the plan to protect coastal resources. This is out of character with past federal consistency determinations that afford both agencies the time to comprehensively review plans.
The initial review focuses on violations of Sections 30230 and 30231 of the Coastal Act to protect areas of special protection and biological significance. However, there are other spillover impacts that were not addressed in their initial review. For example: a) Harm to nesting migratory birds when fields are mowed and silage is harvested during nesting season. b) Emergency authorization to pump surface water from fresh water creeks for commercial dairy use during drought conditions without additional assessment and review.
The GMPA lacks information on when or how plans to reduce negative impacts (or harm to the environment) would be put into place. This is especially concerning for new types of ranching activities (diversification).
The GMPA lacks triggers and funding to implement best management practices and mitigations for current operations. Plans are just plans without the ability to implement them.
New conditions must include a timeline for public review. The present Commission process is out of character with past consistency decisions where additional input and scientific and expert opinions are incorporated to ensure conditions are comprehensive and reasonable. Additional time is necessary for the public to review the new conditions in order to build public confidence and transparency before they are finalized.
What We Are Doing
You can count on EAC to remain engaged and active in this process. We will be submitting comments to the Commission to follow up on our December 5, 2020 comments and December 8, 2020 public testimony to the Commission. In addition, we are coordinating with partners and fellow advocates to ensure decision-making is transparent and based on science, policy, and the public interest.
Additional Resources:
Coastal Commission Federal Consistency in a Nutshell
