|
Dear Friends,
Just before the holiday week, on Friday, Dec. 18,?California Coastal Commission staff published their?recommendation on?the National Park Service's (NPS) General Management Plan Amendment for Point Reyes National Seashore. The Coastal Commission has to review the NPS?plan?and assess if it is compliant with the California Coastal Management Act.?If you haven't already,?.
In their?report, staff at the Coastal Commission?recommended a conditional compliance of the NPS?plan. The condition refers to potential problems for?marine resources and?water quality, although?staff expects the National Park?Service to respond to this concern?in order to win the Commission¡¯s approval.
This was not the outcome we've been fighting for, but there is still hope. At their Jan.?14 meeting, a majority of?Coastal Commissioners will?vote for or against the staff-recommended report to render their decision. That means we have just over two weeks?to?appeal to Commissioners?and share the many?reasons why the staff recommendation must be voted against.
We're working overtime to make sure this happens. We cannot stand by while?cattle ranching and?farming are?expanded at the expense of?the health of our native wildlife, ecology and?access to public land.?
You can help us push back on this National Park Service?effort to fast-track?approval before Trump leaves office. We¡¯ve drafted a sample?letter below to go to the Coastal Commission and the new Point Reyes National Seashore Superintendant Craig Kenkel. This letter can be personalized and emailed to:?PointReyesManagementPlan@...?(with a 'cc' to?John.Weber@...?and?Craig_Kenkel@...). ?
We must convince the Coastal Commission to vote against the conditional compliance recommendation. They?need to take the appropriate time to review every letter and?all the technical data?rather than?rush to judgment,?simply because NPS has given Inauguration Day as a?deadline.?
Once again, it¡¯s up to the public to protect what we value.?I've included a sample letter below?to get you started. You can also write your own letter?if you prefer. We may be days away from this plan becoming permanent ¡ª let¡¯s not stop now.?
Thank you again,
Diana, Founder of For Elk
?
Sample letter:
Hi California Coastal Commission,?
I am writing to ask you to vote AGAINST the?staff-recommended conditional compliance to the Point Reyes General Land Management Plan Amendment (GLMPA),?and instead object to the National Park Service consistency determination, as it is not consistent with the California Coastal Management Plan.
The vote on the conditional?compliance is?scheduled for?January 14th.?That is just a few weeks after the staff report came out.?The CCC received over 20,000 comments opposing the park's plan to continue commercial cattle operations within the National Park.?Many of those comments contain scientific and technical data that will take longer to analyze than just a few weeks.?And, we know more information is still being collected and submitted.
The CCC staff had requested until March 2021 to analyze information before issuing the report, but was denied by the National Park Service.?They asked that the?vote happen in January¡ª denying adequate time for a proper assessment of their plan. It is not a coincidence that the vote will happen just a week before the current administration leaves office.?Public lands are under attack, and Point Reyes seems to be one of them. ?
In addition, the staff report?lacked?sufficient data on other spillover effects from the Point Reyes GLMPA.? For example, nothing about water quantity was addressed?in the entire Point Reyes National Seashore portion of the planning area.?Nothing about climate impacts from cattle was?addressed.?What about migratory birds??What about eelgrass and orcas??What about endangered salmon??
I am not a scientist, but when making a decision that will impact the California Coast for the next several decades, it is imperative to have all the relevant information, and enough time to analyze that information.?
That's why it is important to vote against this compliance¡ª there is simply not enough information, and not enough time to analyze it.?
Let's do this right ¡ª let¡¯s keep our parks alive and ensure parks for all our residents.?
This is not an issue we should?rush through.?In California, we set the example of environmental integrity¡ª so let's not rush our decision making process without proper analysis of all the information. Please vote against the conditional compliance on January 14.?
Sincerely,
[YOUR NAME HERE]
|
