California Department of Parks and Recreation Direction Toward “Preserves”
By Barbara J. Ferguson, Vice President, Public Lands
Listed below are all the California State Parks General Plans in progress. I urge all of you to take the time to participate in the development of these plans. We have participated in two California efforts in the past few years. One was our comments on the State’s Trail Plan and the other was our comments on the Anza-Borrego Desert State Park Draft General Plan.
I have combed the web sites for the Dept. of Resources and State Parks and would like to share some of the information I have collected that supports my contention that the Dept. of Resources is directing State Parks toward establishing Parks as “preserves” and not public lands for recreation. The consistent theme through out my reading is that parks and recreation areas are damaged by recreational visitors.
Please read the discussion that follows this list. We all need to be aware that the direction that State Parks is going will not only restrict our recreational use and access but all other using publics’ recreational use and access.
California State Parks General Plans - In Progress
Anza-Borrego Desert State Park
Asilomar State Beach & Conference Center
Bidwell-Sacramento River State Park
Big Basin Redwoods State Park
Castle Rock State Park
Cornfields Project
Crystal Cove State Park
Doheny State Beach
Donner Memorial State Park
Folsom Lake State Recreation Area
Folsom Powerhouse State Historic Park
Kenneth Hahn State Recreation Area
Lighthouse Field State Beach
Malibu Creek State Park
Millerton Lake State Recreation Area
The Forest of Nisene Marks State Park
Fort Ord Dunes State Park
Lake Perris State Recreation Area
Pacheco State Park
Point Sur SHP
Red Rock Canyon State Park
San Luis Reservoir State Recreation Area
Sinkyone Wilderness State Park
Sonoma Coast State Beach
Sugarloaf Ridge State Park
Taylor Yard Project
Tomales Bay State Park
Will Rogers State Historic Park
NOTE: The underlined general plans are available on the State Parks web site at www.parks.ca.gov Go to the Planning link and then to General Plans In Process link.
The following is California State Parks Mission Statement:
The Mission of the California Department of Parks and Recreation is to provide for the health, inspiration, and education of the people of California by helping to preserve the state’s extraordinary biological diversity, protection its most valued natural and cultural resources, and creating opportunities for high-quality outdoor recreation.
It would be interesting to discover the genesis of this mission statement. I find it extraordinary that outdoor recreation is listed last. The voting public in California has been duped by the state into passing billions of dollars of bonds for Propositions 12 and 40 for the public to enjoy parks.
The California Outdoor Recreation Plan 1993 in the Executive Summary states: The plan portrays, in sum, a recreation-oriented state with a large number and scope of opportunities for individuals to engage in outdoor activities of their choice. (My emphasis added.) However, in Chapter I under Policy Statements, 2 Opportunities (page 7), we find this statement: It is state policy that parks, open space lands, lake resources, reservoirs, rivers and riparian resources, seashores, and beaches will be planned to optimize the opportunities for the myriad of recreational experiences without threatening or disturbing the natural or cultural resources of the area. Here in lies the rub. It is my experience that State Parks initiates closures and reduces access under the umbrella of either a threat or a disturbance to the natural or cultural resource. Note also that in the mission statement above, protection of the resource is paramount. The question that needs to be asked is how does any event happen without a “disturbance”? Trails are a disturbance just as a weather event is a disturbance.
State Parks requested comments on six “pressing” issues by Dec. 20, 2002 for incorporating into a “new California Outdoor Recreation Plan.” Issues 3 and 4 were of particular interest.
Issue 3 is Access Obstacles. The environmental obstacle of special status species was recognized but glossed over and not addressed in the Action section.
Issue 4 is Protecting and Managing Natural Resource Values. The highlighted section continues the theme with the statement: “Natural resource values that make California a special place to live and play are being subjected to unrelenting pressures.” What follows makes it crystal clear that use is a problem: “The living biota occupying California’s parks and outdoor recreation areas are sensitive to any kind of use. Many plants and animals, along with the physical components of soil, water, and air can be irretrievably damaged with even light human use. For extreme ecosystems of desert or alpine environments, even one set of tire tracks on the desert floor or a lightly used hiking trail through an alpine meadow can leave indelible marks on the landscape for decades. A single massive oak tree standing guardian over the landscape for hundreds of years can be “loved” to death by those seeking shade in a matter of a few years.”
Finally: “The ever increasing population and subsequent number of visitors pursing outdoor recreation activities threatens the proper functions of ecosystems, disrupts and displaces wildlife and degrades the natural, environmental and aesthetic quality of an area…” (My emphasis added.)
Now the coup d’ etat, the items listed under Actions will further exacerbate the difficulties users have in accessing their public lands and reinforce “resource protection” over recreational use. Because they are all important I have copied them verbatim.
ACTIONS:
1. The California Legacy Project, under the direction of the State Resources Agency, should complete a comprehensive gap analysis of biological diversity, bio-corridors and linkages, and sustainable landscapes noting priority areas. (More on this below.)
2. The California Biodiversity Council, headed by the State Resources Secretary and including representatives of the major federal and state resource land managers, should facilitate a coordinated land acquisition strategy so as to ensure that resource-based land acquisitions give priority to:
A. Comprehensive coverage of under-represented critical ecosystems as identified in the gap analysis to be completed by the California Legacy Project.
B. Additional lands for resource-based recreational activities so as to reduce pressure on sensitive, yet heavily impacted, resource lands.
3. Establish a Council on Carrying Capacity based on input from the California Biodiversity Council, the California Roundtable on Recreation, Parks, and Tourism, the U. C. and CSU systems. From this, a guide should be developed for resource managers to use in how to plan for and assess visitor use, resource values at risk, and the quality of the recreation experience to minimize damage to both environmental and social carrying capacity. (More on this below.)
4. Adopt a statewide environmental education program and code of ethics for appropriate use of parks and recreation areas and make materials readily available for any public, private and non-profit provider.
A. Research environmental education programs by private nonprofit vendors to determine their capability, ability to publish multiple languages, and the adequacy, availability, and cost of materials.
B. Develop a contract with a vendor to provide desired environmental outreach materials.
C. Develop an outreach plan to distribute the code of ethics, especially to youth, and implement such as through PSA's.
D. Promote a Child's Bill of Rights for California's Outdoors.
5. The major federal and state resource land managers should undertake an aggressive public education and outreach program to better inform the public on the objectives.
6. Identify successful models for large-scale regional projects, e.g., The Blue Ridge/Berryessa Natural Area Conservation Partnership. Prepare a chronology of events that lead to the success of the project for others to model their projects after.
Point 1 and 2 above will certainly lead to more Park Bonds in order to identify more “priority” areas for purchase to establish biodiversity corridors and critical ecosystems. Just a note, the Resources Agency has just released a report on Propositions 12 and 13. Contact Helen Pelzman at 916-313-4521 to get a copy.
Point 3 would have the Biodiversity Council determine the “carrying capacity” of Parks. This would be a disaster for public access. Public Resources Code 50001.96 states: “Attendance at state parks system units shall be held within limits established by carrying capacity determined in accordance with Section 5019.5.” Section 5019.5 states: “Before any park or recreational area developmental plan is made, the department shall cause to be made a land carrying capacity survey of the proposed park or recreational area, including in such survey such factors as soil, moisture, and natural cover.” Clearly, State Parks has the mandate to establish carrying capacities but to my knowledge has not done so in any of the General Plans I’ve reviewed. This is a very difficult concept to implement unless there is a pre-determined acceptable level of change in the resource due to use.
The last examples I want to address are from the Natural Resource link on the Parks web site.
The State Park System Plan recommends a different approach to acquisition and development planning than previously used by the Department of Parks and Recreation. This new approach emphasizes establishing statewide objectives in categories consistent with our mission in the areas of Natural Resources, Cultural Resources, and Recreation and Trails. Implementation of this program has begun using remaining funds from Proposition 12 and funds from the recently passed Proposition 40 allocated in the 2002 / 2003 California State Budget. Using the State Park System Plan's direction, guidance for acquisition has been developed for "Sustainable Ecosystems" and "Unique Natural Resource Areas." (My emphasis added.)
SUSTAINABLE ECOSYSTEMS
Program Objectives
California is the most ecologically diverse state in the nation. With ten landscape provinces stretching over 750 miles across nearly 10 degrees of latitudes, 30% of California’s plant species are endemic. For this reason and since it is the most populated state, the California Floristic Province is one of the world’s 25 hot spots where biological diversity is seriously at risk. The State Park System (SPS) is the most ecologically diverse system of protected lands in the State. The long-term preservation of the State’s biological and physical values is a core function of the Department. Sustaining these values is a high priority of our acquisition and restoration programs. (My emphasis added.)
Project Selection Characteristics
In seeking potential project lands to be nominated for acquisition, the following characteristics should be considered.
Landscape/Habitat Linkages: The Department is seeking properties that link to, or contribute to linking, existing units of the SPS with other large blocks of protected habitat. Linkages must serve to connect existing protected areas, facilitate wildlife movement/botanical transfer, and result in sustainable combined acreage. (My emphasis added.)
The question is: Should the Department of Parks be allowed to acquire lands paid for by the public under the “auspices” of a Park, which implies public use in the form of recreation, for the express purposes stated above?
Each of us needs to pursue the status of the next version of the “California Outdoor Recreation Plan” with the goal of getting some of the “using public” on the committee that is developing the revised plan. Somehow, we need to “derail” the direction the “issue” document implies they are heading.
I also hope that we can bring to light to the using public just how far away from recreational use and access the management of our Parks have gone and how the citizens of California have been bamboozled by the Park Bonds.
Take the time to review the general plans in work in your area. Ask for assistance from your state legislators, both Assemblymen and Senators. Get as many other user groups as possible to participate in keeping State Parks open and available for the recreating public.