The National Park Service’s recently announced preferred plan for Point Reyes National Seashore fails the public.
NPS received a remarkable 7,627 comments on their draft plan and environmental impact statement. An astounding 6,969 comments voiced opposition to ranching (91%). Yet NPS intends to adopt the plan that only 2.3% of the commenting public supports.
Taxpayers paid full market value (in today’s dollars it would be about $370 million) to purchase all these farms and ranches more than 30 years ago. The purchase contracts allowed limited continued use of the properties for family transition purposes, but clearly stated the intent to end private commercial uses on our national seashore.
However, NPS preceded to grant unlawful extensions of the private leases for decades, without public review, until the Resource Renewal Institute and others sought a court review of NPS compliance failures with the Seashore Act and with several other laws.
The documentation of non-compliance is persuasive and legally solid. The ranchers, farmers and NPS recognized this and asked the litigants for an out-of-court settlement. The NPS agreed to do their job: develop a management plan consistent with the Seashore Act; comply with the water, air and species protections laws; address the public interests, publish the results (an EIS) and solicit public comment.
Alas, NPS intends to adopt the “preferred alternative” the public resoundingly rejected in (6,969 letters). A plan that Congressman Jared Huffman couldn’t get Congress to support.
If one reads even some of the letters submitted to NPS, one finds compelling arguments requesting our government to protect the integrity and beauty of our seashore and don’t kill our elk. NPS plans to kill elk to protect cows.
It is common for elected officials to exercise enormous influence on the management decisions of their particular local national park. Huffman, while touting the “sustainable” and “culturally significant” values of Point Reyes cattle and dairy operations (which the science doesn’t support), has advocated for longterm and expanded leases for the private interests.
Huffman assured us that NPS will listen to the public. From my perspective, it did not and neither did Huffman. This seems like a case of a very small group of special interests overriding the public’s interests.
The assertion that we have healthy and sustainable agriculture on Point Reyes is not backed by science.
The science tells us, specific to Point Reyes and especially to the selected plan: ranching and dairying are contributors to climate degradation; water quality pollution will continue to degrade; marine mammals will continue to be harmed; endangered and threatened species will experience population declines and habitat losses and some species could be extirpated.
In addition, the economic contribution by agriculture to the local and regional communities will remain minuscule compared to the visitor economy. Cultural resources are of minor interest to seashore visitors (read the letters and informal polls), while cultural history offers nothing unique.
Regarding economic sustainability: This is magical thinking, as we subsidize all these private operations through below-market lease pricing, road and infrastructure requirements, pollution abatement, NPS staffing serving lessee issues, property tax exclusions and general farm subsidies. Based on the history of dairying and ranching, the subsidies won’t end.
From my perspective, this looks like a political giveaway of our seashore, to accommodate a handful of special interests that won’t honor their property sale contracts.
With the new plan, I believe NPS is poised to kill our elk to protect cows, allow more air and water pollution, harm more marine mammals, lose more species, kill more coyotes, foxes and mountain lions, while keeping the public fenced out of large swaths of our seashore.
The NPS is failing the public interest, failing to protect our Point Reyes National Seashore and failing our future generations.
Daniel D. Heagerty, of Mill Valley, is an environmental consultant who has worked in federal lands management for more than 40 years.
