Op-Ed | National Park Service Capitulated To Point Reyes Ranchers
By George Wuerthner
The final Record of Decision (ROD) on livestock operations management at Point Reyes National Seashore was released this week. Unfortunately, and as feared, it not only maintains the ongoing degradation of this national park unit by privately owned domestic livestock, but it expands the opportunities for a handful of ranchers to do even more damage to the public’s landscape with additional lands opened for grazing, as well as the planting of row crops.
As in the draft document, the final management plan proposes to kill the native Tule elk if their populations grow beyond what the ranchers believe (as the NPS jumps to) is undesirable. The public submitted some 50,000 comments opposed to continued ranching and the killing of rare native Tule elk. Point Reyes Seashore is the only national park where Tule elk exist.
Among the impacts caused by the ongoing livestock operations is the pollution of the park’s waterways, increased soil erosion, the spread of exotic weeds, the transfer of park vegetation from wildlife use to consumption by domestic livestock, the use of public facilities j(the ranch buildings, etc. are all owned by the U.S. citizens but are used just as if they were private property, hindering public access to its lands.
Indeed, one stream in the park has some of the highest coliform bacteria counts found along the entire California coast. For instance, a recent survey found E. coli bacteria concentrations up to 40 times higher than state health standards. Likewise, enterococci bacteria were up to 300 times the state health standard at Kehoe Lagoon.
About one-third of the 71,000-acre national seashore is designated a “pastoral zone,” where 15 ranch operations graze approximately 5,700 cattle (more than ten times the number of Tule elk) on 28,000 acres of parkland as well as 10,000 acres in the adjacent Golden Gate National Recreation Area. A total of 24 ranches operate on these public lands.
Proponents of continued ranching/farming in the national seashore argue that ongoing livestock operations maintain a “cultural” and “historic” landscape. Imagine if we applied these same criteria to other national park units. Domestic sheep once heavily grazed Yosemite. Redwood National Park’s old-growth forests were once logged. Fur trapping was once a prevalent occupation in Grand Teton National Park. Oil and gas exploration and operating wells were historically common in Glacier National Park. And, of course, the killing of wolves occurred in Denali and other park units. Gold mining was common in Yukon-Charley Rivers National Preserve. Should we permit these “cultural” and “historic” traditions to occur in these parks?
It should be pointed out that there are numerous opportunities outside of a national park unit to produce beef and dairy. For example, more than 5 million cattle (dairy and beef) graze California private lands where ongoing livestock operations are permitted. Therefore, we don’t need to compromise a national park unit to produce something available elsewhere.
Interional Ecological Significance
In the 1950s, seven NPS studies concluded that a national park unit in the Point Reyes peninsula would protect the vulnerable landscape from future development. Point Reyes is a spectacular landscape of open prairies and patches of woodlands home to 460 species, 876 plants, and many different marine and terrestrial mammals. In addition, the seashore harbors a hundred listed rare, threatened, and endangered species, an incredible diversity given the seashore’s relatively small size.
This biological diversity prompted UNESCO’s Man and the Biosphere program to designate Point Reyes as an international biosphere reserve. California also gives the marine environment special recognization through its designations of the Point Reyes State Marine Reserve & Point Reyes State Marine Conservation Area, Estero de Limantour State Marine Reserve & Drakes Estero State Marine Conservation Area, and Duxbury Reef State Marine Conservation Area.
In 1962 when Point Reyes National Seashore was established, the federal government purchased the ranches found on the peninsula at fair market value. As a result, ranch owners received hundreds of millions of dollars. Some used the money to buy property in other parts of California so they could continue to farm. But some of the ranchers lobbied for and got a generous 25-year extension to operate using the publicly owned property. After that time, they were supposed to leave the park.
However, when the allotted time for vacating the public’s land arrived, they balked and managed to get another extension. This lease extension has been repeated several times for nearly 60 years, and again the NPS is buckling to political pressure to extend the leases for another couple of decades.
This plan is in direct violation of the law creating the national seashore. The legislation requires that Point Reyes National Seashore “shall be administered by the Secretary without impairment of its natural values, in a manner which provides for such recreational, educational, historic preservation, interpretation, and scientific research opportunities as are consistent with, based upon, and supportive of the maximum protection, restoration, and preservation of the natural environment within the area.” Therefore, permitting continued livestock operations in the park unit is not consistent with the stated legislative goals.
What Is Behind The NPS Capitulation?
I am extremely disappointed in the National Park Service for this decision and that the Biden administration upholds it. I can only assume that there is an underlying political motivation. If we can’t maintain a national park unit as a sanctuary for wild nature, where can we?
One idea suggested to me is that Governor Gavin Newsom put pressure on the administration to maintain the current dairy and livestock operations to avoid greater controversy for Democrats in general. Of course, I am not privy to any insider’s knowledge, but certainly endorsing private businesses and environmental destruction of public property for private financial gain is not the usual NPS management philosophy.
Western Watersheds Project, Center for Biological Diversity, and Resource Renewal Institute have previously sued to get the NPS to consider all the ecological values that are impaired and to follow the law. Let’s hope that a court will agree that the NPS is not following the legislative mandate to protect the park’s natural values and vacates this plan that is demeaning to the public and the reputation of the National Park Service.
Comments
The original deal was (generally) 25 years or life, a ROP, on the deed. in 76, the discretionary power of the secretary to issue leases after expiration was establihed. Everyone there now is one one of these discretionary leases. Of course, the power of the secretary to grant leases does not override other more fundamental laws, such as the Organic Act, which stipulates that the land must be management without impairment for future generations. Before recently, we did not have an EIS. Now, because of the lawsuit, we do (the NPS was forced to run a study of the ranching impact.) Does the EIS establish that the ranch operations are illegal? I think clearly, yes:
The National Park Service just issued its final decision regarding the future of ranching inside Point Reyes National Seashore. The final IES indicates regarding air quality, that more ranching under the selected plan would "continue to emit criteria pollutants and greenhouse gases associated with cattle grazing, manure management on dairies, fugitive dust, and mobile source emissions." Regarding soil, "activities associated with ... ranching [will] continue to affect soils because of erosion, compaction, and alteration of soil fertility, primarily from livestock grazing, forage production, high intensity use areas, and manure spreading." Regarding water, more ranching will "continue to contribute adverse impacts...from ranching, manure and nutrient management, and water consumption related to ranching activities." Regarding vegetation, ending ranching "would eliminate adverse impacts on vegetation from the ranching activities across the entire planning area." Regarding wildlife, ending ranching "would eliminate impacts [on native wildlife] of forage production, manure spreading, and diversification and would reduce high-intensity-use areas compared to existing conditions," and would not require shooting or starving any tule elk.
And yet the final decision then says, "In the best professional judgment of the NPS staff...no impairment of the park's resources or values will result from the implementation of the selected action." Sounds suspicious, doesn't it?
To me, issue is simple. Cattle do not belong in a protected National seashore. when I go to these specially designated wildnerness area, I don't want to see cattle defecating in streams (studies showed E.Coli) levels 400 times federal limit). I don't want to see a toxic dump site for old machinery (being investigated by regulator). cattle are really heavy, compact the soil, destroying all micro biome that are invisibl. Elk, Snowy plo er nests are being diminished...list is endless. Point Reyes a unique place of what was once thriving biodiversity is now resembling a barren, moonscape
There was a specific intent on naming this area as a national seashore as opposed to a national park. Also - the designated wilderness areas are specifically mapped out. While Drakes Bay was designated as potential wilderness (subject to the oyster racks being removed), the pastoral area has never been in the wilderness plan.
The entire area was agricultural land since the mid 19th century. I find that it's very much like the rest of West Marin. NPS manages other lands in West Marin for agricultural purposes, such as Bolinas Ridge and to a lesser degree Slide Ranch.
There are certainly issues regarding wildlife diversity - especially of invasive species such as the fallow and axis deer that were brought in for hunting. There was a ton of controversy when the previous Superintendent authorized professional hunters to shoot at these deer from helicopters.
no, the ""not to exceed 25 years or the life of the rancher or spouse." language is from the RUPs that were arranged for the GGNRA lands, not PRNS. The PRNS ones were all 20 year terms, except for one ranch which purchased a 30-year term, and Johnsons Oyster Co. which had a 40-year term. Many statements, and the ranchers' role in actually protecting parts of Point Reyes from being sold off *by the NPS* in the late 1960s for residential development, can be read, with numerous citations to original documents, in Watt's _The Paradox of Preservation: Wilderness and Working Landscapes at Point Reyes National Seashore_ (2017), chapter 3, "Acquisition and Its Alternatives."
small self-correction: in addition to the GGNRA's legislation in 1972, the 1978 legislation that created the mechanism for changing from RUPs to leases included the "25-year or life" language, but all of the ranches within PRNS had ALREADY established their RUPs with the 20-year terms -- since those acquistions occurred in 1971 & 1972, before the '78 legislation was written.
Too many people being allowed to put too much lipstick on too many pigs. The truth is there to see, plain and simple, right before everyone's eyes; but, they don't want to see it. They'd rather go back and forth about whether that shade of lipstick is best for that particular pig.
20 or 25 or 30 years doesn't matter. The terms were definite, and the right of the Secretary to extend, which came later, is discretionary.
The ranchers often claim Seashores and different from parks, but there is no legal difference whatsoever - they are both national park units, and this meaningless distinction is used to try to justify continued commercial use of the park lands. The PRNS specific legislation and the Organic Act both have clear langauge that environment trumps other uses, and the ranches are proven to be incompatible. Here is from the recent ROD about Seashores vs Parks: "At the time this language was added, the NPS used a three-tiered management approach for lands under
its jurisdiction based on the classification of each unit. Areas classified as national seashores and national recreation areas were managed with less emphasis on natural resource protection than areas classified as national parks. The intent of the 1976 amendment was to direct NPS to manage Point Reyes under the higher standard then used for national parks. H. Rep. 94-1680, at 3-4 (1976). The NPS abandoned the three-tiered management approach in the 1980s and thereafter managed all park units, regardless of classification, to the same high standard mandated by the National Park Service Organic Act, as amended and supplemented. The import of Section 459c-6 today is to reinforce the mandate of the National Park Service Organic Act, as amended and supplemented, which is to conserve the park's resources and values and avoid their impairment while also providing opportunities for the public to enjoy those resources and values."