A plan for managing Tule elk at Point Reyes National Seashore could leave the elk subject to killing by ranchers/NPS file

The National Park Service has released a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for a General Management Plan Amendment to determine the future of 28,000 acres of park lands in Point Reyes National Seashore and the North District of Golden Gate National Recreation Area—lands currently leased for beef ranches and dairies. The DEIS was prepared in response to a lawsuit filed against the NPS for the agency’s systematic failure to address on-going environmental issues associated with the ranches.

The ranches predated establishment of the parks, but in the 1960s and 70s, the federal government (using American taxpayers’ money) paid ranch owners tens of millions of dollars to purchase the ranches, with ranch owners retaining a right of use and occupancy of not more than 25 years, or for a term ending at the death of the owner or the death of his or her spouse, whichever came later. When the end dates arrived, however, many ranchers did not want to leave. Many decades later, through an ongoing series of legislative manipulations, 24 ranches, and more than 5,500 cattle, remain in the parks. 

(In 2013, then-Park Service Director Jon Jarvis, at the direction of then-Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, gave the park permission to extend the leases by 20 years, into 2033.)

A key consideration in development of this GMP Amendment is the future of the Point Reyes Tule elk herds. In 1978, 10 Tule elk were successfully reintroduced to a 2,600-acre fenced reserve at Point Reyes to help save the species from extinction. At one time, there were more than 500,000 Tule elk in California, ranging from the Central Valley to the coast. They grazed the Point Reyes grasslands until they were hunted out of existence in the 1850s. By 1870, it is believed that only three remained in the entire state.

A second, free-ranging herd was established in Point Reyes through translocation of 28 animals in 1999. This group subsequently split into two herds. In 2018, the fenced herd had 432 animals, and the other two herds had roughly 124 animals (Drake’s Bay herd) and 174 animals (Limantour herd), for a total of 730 (compared to over 5,500 cattle). Point Reyes is the only national park unit where Tule elk occur.

The park’s website says:

“The majestic animals you see as you travel through the park embody the restoration of the dominant native herbivore to the California coastal ecosystem. They shape the landscape around them as they did for centuries before they were extirpated by humans. They symbolize the conservation of native species and ecosystem processes, one of the primary missions of the National Park Service.”

But now, the free-ranging herds are growing, and expanding into the ranched lands at Point Reyes, and the ranchers don’t like that.

Environmentalists say there is no place for cattle ranching at Point Reyes National Seashore/Karen Klitz

With this General Management Plan Amendment, the NPS has an unprecedented opportunity to phase out the ranches as was intended in the Seashore’s enabling legislation. Yet, contrary to all logic, five of the six alternatives in the DEIS perpetuate ranching, and the NPS’ Preferred Alternative actually expands agricultural opportunities for the ranchers. Brief summaries of the alternatives are as follows:

Alternative A: No Action

The No Action alternative is required by the National Environmental Policy Act, and would allow ranchers to continue to operate under 5-10 year leases. This alternative would not alter or limit the population level or geographic extent of tule elk in Point Reyes. If any elk left Point Reyes, however, they would be relocated or killed.
 
Alternative B: (NPS Preferred Alternative)

The NPS would issue 20-year leases to the ranchers, and would allow ranchers to diversify their agricultural activities by raising pigs, goats, sheep, and chickens; growing row crops; and establishing B&B’s and retail farm stands. This alternative would “maintain” a herd of 120 Tule elk at Drakes Bay; any additional elk in this herd would be killed (the NPS estimates 10-15 elk would be killed per year).
 
Alternative C 

This would be the same as Alternative B, but the entire Drakes Bay elk herd (currently 124 animals) would be removed and no new elk herds would be allowed to establish.
 
Alternative D

Ranches would be granted 20-year leases, but ranches with “minimal infrastructure” on 7,500 acres would be phased out over a one year period (beef operations). This would leave 19,000 acres in ranches and allow the diversification of agricultural activities as described in Alternative B. The six dairies would remain. Note the dairies have greater environmental and social impacts than beef ranches. This alternative would “maintain” a herd of 120 Tule elk at Drakes Bay; any additional elk in this herd would be killed (the NPS estimates 10-15 elk would be killed per year).
 
Alternative E

All six dairy farms would be phased out over 5 years. Dairy operations could be converted to beef ranching, and would be eligible for 20-year leases. The NPS would take no action to limit population growth or geographic extent of free-ranging elk in Point Reyes.
 
Alternative F 

All ranching operations in the planning area would be discontinued, and visitor opportunities on these lands would expand. The NPS would take no action to limit population growth or geographic extent of free-ranging elk in Point Reyes. Following cessation of ranching, the elk fence at Tomales Point would be removed, allowing that herd to be free-ranging as well.

Ranching was not one of the intended purposes of the parks. In the enabling legislation, Congress established Point Reyes National Seashore in 1962 “to save and preserve, for the purposes of public recreation, benefit, and inspiration, a portion of the diminishing seashore of the United States that remains undeveloped.” The purchase of the ranches clearly indicates that the intent was to remove the ranching operations in support of the enabling legislation.

The DEIS itself (pp 1-2) clearly defines the “stated purposes” of the two park units:

The purpose statement identifies the specific reason(s) why Point Reyes was established and lays the foundation for understanding what is most important about Point Reyes.

The purpose statement for Point Reyes is as follows: Established for public benefit and inspiration, the Point Reyes National Seashore protects a rugged and wild coastal peninsula and surrounding waters, connecting native ecosystems, enduring human history and recreational, scientific, and educational opportunities.

The purpose statement for Golden Gate is (NPS 2014a): The purpose of Golden Gate National Recreation Area is to offer national park experiences to all, including a large and diverse urban population, while preserving and interpreting the outstanding natural, historic, scenic, and recreational values of the park lands.

Despite the enabling legislation, the stated purposes, and the apparent pride the NPS takes in its elk reintroduction, five of the six alternatives presented in the DEIS perpetuate ranching, and the NPS’ Preferred Alternative gives the ranchers everything they could possibly want, including the killing of elk every year. The killing of native Tule elk for the benefit of ranchers runs contrary to everything the National Park Service represents.

Additionally, the DEIS makes it clear throughout that the ranches and their operations pose significant threats and cause damage to the parks’ air and water quality, native vegetation, and wildlife. They adversely affect the experience of park visitors, and prevent visitors from accessing a full one-third of their park lands.

Alternative F is the only alternative that is in keeping with the enabling legislation and stated purposes of the parks. If you look carefully at the DEIS, the data all support the adoption of Alternative F, not Alternative B. Alternative F would benefit soils, water quality, air quality, elk, and the experience of park visitors. Impacts of Alternative F on vegetation and soils cannot be easily summarized, but if the NPS would commit to habitat restoration after the cows are removed, both vegetation and wildlife would benefit overall from cessation of ranching. The same cannot be said about any of the other alternatives.

The parks were not intended to support ranching in perpetuity. To grant ranchers new 20-year leases and allow “diversification” by permitting pigs, chickens, sheep, and goats; horse boarding; row crops; processing of dairy products; and public farm stays and tours would be huge steps backwards, and will further harm the natural environment of the parks over the long term. If the NPS’ Preferred Alternative is adopted it’s likely that ranching on these park lands will never end, the land will continue to be degraded, and the millions of dollars the American people paid for these lands (money that has been kept by the ranchers) will be for naught. It’s time to phase out the ranches and manage the parks for the superlative natural beauty and diversity they offer—it’s time to adopt Alternative F.

The NPS will accept public comments on the Draft EIS until midnight on Monday, September 23.

https://parkplanning.nps.gov/document.cfm?parkID=333&projectID=74313&documentID=97154

For more than 20 years, Barbara J. Moritsch worked for the National Park Service as an ecologist and interpretive naturalist. At various times from 1982 to 2006, she served at Yosemite as well as four other national parks in the western United States. She holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Natural Resource Planning and Interpretation from Humboldt State University, and a Master of Science degree in Environmental Science from Oregon State University.