By The Dunes Alliance
On July 11, the California Coastal Commission met at the Embassy Suites Hotel in SLO to deliberate on what should be done to resolve the California Department of Parks and Recreation’s four decades of failure to protect the natural and cultural resources of the Oceano Dunes, comply with its Coastal Development Permit (CDP) for the Oceano Dunes State Vehicular Recreation Area, San Luis Obispo County’s Local Coastal Plan, and the California Coastal Act.
Over the course of an exhaustive and exhausting public hearing, the Commission elected to hold in abeyance 13 conditions that Commission staff urged be imposed as amendments to the Coastal Development Permit. Instead, Commissioners told State Parks representatives in attendance that they would agree to Parks’ request that it be allowed to incorporate the Commission’s concerns – which include the management of sensitive species and their habitat, the ongoing generation of hazardous dust plumes in excess of safe air quality levels, and a bushel basket of environmental justice issues – into State Parks’ Public Works Plan (PWP) for the future management of the park, which is to be delivered to the Coastal Commission next summer for its approval.
In agreeing to that course of action, Commissioners made it clear to State Parks: The Public Works Plan had better resolve all the issues raised in those 13 suspended permit conditions or it will not get that approval. Specifically, they resolved:
“That the Coastal Commission send the letter of issues to the State Dept. of Parks, and that all of the conditions enumerated in this CDP staff report be addressed as permanent conditions within the PWP process, and that the draft PWP shall be presented to the Commission in the summer of 2020. The Dept. of Parks shall provide quarterly reports in person to the Commission over the next year.”
Less than three weeks after the Coastal Commission’s July 11 meeting in SLO, the public – or at least those of us who reminded State Parks that we are indeed “environmental stakeholder groups who have participated in the PWP planning process” -- got their first opportunity to see if the Coastal Commission’s message on mandatory protections for coastal resources got through to the Department of Parks and its Off-Highway Vehicles division.
In a word: No.
At a July 30 “focused stakeholder” meeting on the Public Works Plan held in Oceano, State Parks’ OHV staff revealed the extent of the disconnect between what the Coastal Commission said and what they chose to hear:
- The OHV division believes the Coastal Commission’s directive means they merely need to “take into consideration” the 13 recommended draft permit amendments, not that they must incorporate them into the Public Works Plan. They knew when they said this that it wasn’t true. On July 23, the Executive Director of the Coastal Commission had sent the Director of State Parks a letter memorializing the Commission’s actions at its July 11 meeting and explicitly citing the Commission’s directive “Requiring State Parks to incorporate all of staff’s recommended operational and other short-term changes in the staff report…as permanent conditions through the PWP.”
- Oso Flaco remains in peril. Parks managers are unfazed by the public outcry and blunt assessment in the Coastal Commission staff report that their plans for OHV development at Oso Flaco Lake show a Public Works Plan “going in the wrong direction,” and they are continuing to go in that direction, with all the threats to listed plant species, conversion of agricultural land and destruction of an Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area, with environmental justice issues in tow. In its current state, the PWP ignores the fact, per the California Native Plant Society, that the lake will be moving northeast over time into the areas planned for OHV development due to dune changes, as has occurred at Coreopsis Lake and Little Oso Flaco Lake.
- OHV staff does not appear to be looking to reduce the level of stress and fatalities (“take”) inflicted on the Pacific snowy plover and least tern; rather, they are seeking to enshrine or increase current levels of take in a Habitat Conservation Plan required by the Endangered Species Act. As a Parks biologist put it, we should all prepare for “sticker shock” when we see the suggested level of allowable take in the draft Habitat Conservation Plan. In the final draft, take levels must not be detrimental to the species, and required conservation measures must be robust.
- Steelhead must currently dodge SUV’s and other sand toys that get stuck in the mouth of Arroyo Grande Creek, erode the creek banks and release pollutants, but steelhead and measures to protect them are not included in the draft Habitat Conservation Plan.
- OHV staff claimed that the Public Works Plan will be “in compliance” with the Coastal Act. When questioned, they acknowledged that it really won’t be. Some provisions of the Coastal Act that Coastal Commission staff have made clear are being violated now, and which OHV staff made clear will continue to be violated in the draft PWP, include riding in Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas, riding in the County-owned La Grande Tract, and the conversion of agricultural lands for off-road recreation.
And when it comes to the Coastal Commission’s big enchilada -- include a path to a recreational future at the dunes in the PWP that excludes off-highway vehicle activity – the answer was blunt: Repurposing off-roading at the park is off the table because it would require a re-classification of use. But as the July 11 Coastal Commission staff report made clear, it would require no such thing. (OHV staff apparently missed the footnote, so here it is.*)
Those of us who attended that July 30 meeting looking to see if there was any change in habitat conservation, the protection of public health and safety, or environmental justice reflected in the draft Public Works Plan as a result of the Coastal Commission’s July 11 directive got our answer.
The July 30 meeting drove home the point for anyone who was not yet aware: State Parks’ OHV staff sees preserving off-road riding as their number-one job. They do not, and never will, prioritize resource protection unless forced to.
In the words of Larry Allen, former SLO Air Pollution Control Officer for San Luis Obispo County and battle-scarred veteran of the dunes dust wars:
“I’ve never dealt with a more recalcitrant or unscrupulous organization than State Parks’ OHV Division. Their corporate culture is simply not conducive to solving any issue that’s not beneficial to their core mission: To enhance and expand OHV parks.”
Allen passed along this hard-won wisdom to the California Coastal Commission, one regulatory professional to another, at the Commission’s meeting in SLO. They didn’t hear it.
Coastal Commissioners: Can you hear him now?
The Dunes Alliance is the American Woodland Conservancy, Morro Coast Audubon, Center for Biological Diversity, SLO CoastKeeper, ECOSLO, Friends of Oso Flaco Lake, Northern Chumash Tribal Council, Oceano Beach Community Association, Sierra Club, and Surfrider
* “… it is important to note that that legislation (i.e., PRC Section 5090 et seq; see earlier discussion) supports and encourages OHV recreational use, but at the same time it does not support it at all costs. In fact, the legislation is clear that when OHV use is leading to problems, such as is the case at ODSVRA, then it is appropriate to shut down that use if necessary to protect sensitive natural and cultural resources. For example, PRC Section 5090.02(a)(3) states that the Legislature finds: “The indiscriminate and uncontrolled use of those vehicles may have a deleterious impact on the environment, wildlife habitats, native wildlife, and native flora”; and PRC Section 5090.02(c)(4) states: “When areas or trails or portions thereof cannot be maintained to appropriate established standards for sustained long-term use, they should be closed to use and repaired, to prevent accelerated erosion. Those areas should remain closed until they can be managed within the soil conservation standard or should be closed and restored”; and PRC Section 5090.35(a) states: “The protection of public safety, the appropriate utilization of lands, and the conservation of natural and cultural resources are of the highest priority in the management of the state vehicular recreation areas.” Thus, although it has been argued by some that this enabling legislation does not allow for the phasing out of OHV use, the legislation itself paints a different picture, one that clearly recognizes that it does not stand for OHV use at all cost, and rather requires such use to be undertaken in a manner consistent with long-term sustainable use where the conservation of natural and cultural resources is prioritized; and it certainly allows for closing off OHV use where it is causing the types of problems it is causing at ODSVRA. In addition, and perhaps just as compelling, PRC Section 5090 does not somehow preempt other State laws, including the Coastal Act (and by extension the LCP). On the contrary, as with other laws affecting the same resources, it is important to harmonize the laws as much as possible. On that point, here, proper application of both laws based upon facts on the ground would appear to suggest the same outcome: namely that OHV use at this location is not sustainable, and the time has come to transition to other appropriate recreational uses.”
– California Coastal Commission staff report, 7/11/19, pp. 59-60.