How many people even know that Plan F exists?
For those who do not know, the park service had several proposals to choose from regarding a management plan for the park. Plan F, the wildlife friendly one, which complies with legislation's plans for the park, was not chosen. On the contrary, the LEAST wildlife friendly plan was chosen.
The general public are against this plan. The legislation's goals for forming a National Seashore are contrary to this plan. This plan is only good for the pocket books of ranchers which comes the expense of the wildlife.
The general public are against this plan. The legislation's goals for forming a National Seashore are contrary to this plan. This plan is only good for the pocket books of ranchers which comes the expense of the wildlife.
So, why does the park service staff of a national seashore support ranching instead of the wildlife and the public's desires for public land?
"ALTERNATIVE F
General Description and Management Zoning
Under alternative F, ranching operations would be discontinued, and visitor opportunities would be expanded. The free-range elk populations could expand across the planning area. Under alternative F, NPS would adopt new programmatic guidance that would amend the 1980 GMP. NPS would apply a new management zone to the planning area called the Point Reyes Peninsula/Olema Valley zone, which would replace the zones from the 1980 GMP. This 28,700-acre zone would be managed to support the desired conditions for the planning area defined in chapter 1 and to recognize the Point Reyes Peninsula Dairy Ranches Historic District and the Olema Valley Dairy Ranches Historic District listed on the National Register. NPS would also apply a Historic Ranch Preservation subzone that would be managed for the adaptive reuse of historic ranch complexes associated with the two historic districts (see figure 38 in appendix A).
Under alternative F, the 18 historic ranch complexes would be included in the Historic Ranch Preservation subzone. Maintenance and adaptive reuse of the developed ranch core would be prioritized for each of the historic ranches based on the condition and integrity of the existing infrastructure. For the Point Reyes Peninsula Dairy Ranches Historic District, B Ranch, C Ranch, D Ranch, Home Ranch, I Ranch, and L Ranch would be the highest priorities for preservation and adaptive reuse. For the ranches of the Olema Valley Dairy Ranches Historic District that occur in the planning area, Zanardi Ranch, R. Giacomini Ranch, McIsaac Ranch, and Stewart Ranch would be prioritized for preservation and adaptive reuse opportunities. The process for identifying new uses would consider the preservation priority and the framework for the use of unoccupied ranch complexes and historic structures outlined below.
Ranching operations with developed complexes would be phased out over a five-year period, except for the two life estates in the park (see figure 39 in appendix A). Grazing-only operations would be phased out in one year. After the life estates expire, no agricultural activities would be permitted. The agricultural leases, range management, subzoning framework, and diversification elements described for the other alternatives would not be applicable under alternative F. Shrub and weed management and seeding would occur only to meet NPS resource management goals and objectives, as described for alternative E." (p. 46)
Alternative F would discontinue ranching operations and cattle grazing, and allow Tule elk to establish new herds in the pastoral zone of Point Reyes National Seashore. We support this planning alternative.
And if you want more background detail, here it is from the National Park Service's proposal in their draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on the future management of Point Reyes National Seashore and the northern part of Golden Gate National Recreation Area (see https://www.nps.gov/pore/getinvolved/planning_gmp_amendment_deis.htm).
The anti wildlife plan
The park service's has chosen Alternative B (the management plan they are proposing to adopt unless public comments are overwhelmingly in another direction):
"...this alternative adopts a subzoning framework for the 28,700-acre [proposed new] Ranchland zone..." (page 35). "...authorizations would be similar to existing lease/permits, and approximately 2,400 AUs of beef cattle and 3,130 dairy animals would be authorized under alternative B." (p. 36)
"Pasture Subzone. The Pasture subzone is identified as lands where no sensitive resources are known to occur; therefore, a suite of vegetation management activities, including seeding and mowing, may be conducted in addition to grazing. The Pasture subzone includes grazed lands that are outside the Range subzone where introduced or domesticated native forage species exist and would be used primarily for the production of livestock. Approximately 9,000 acres (nearly 34%) of the area under lease/permit would be identified as Pasture subzone. Nutrient management on dairies would be authorized in the Pasture subzone. Under alternative B, some diversification activities would be authorized in the Pasture subzone as described in the “Diversification” section, below." (p. 35-36)
"Diversification
New diversification activities could be allowed in specified subzones under alternative B as defined below with the use of required mitigation measures specific to each activity (see appendix D). Diversification of ranching activities under alternative B could include new types of livestock, row crops, horse boarding, ranch tours and farm stays, small-scale processing of dairy products (e.g., cheese), and sale of local agricultural products. Existing diversification activities on ranches would be authorized consistent with the guidance under alternative B. All diversification activities and associated management needs (e.g., temporary fencing and guard animals) would be required to be incorporated into the individual ROA prior to implementation. Diversification activities authorized in the Ranch Core and Pasture subzones are:
Ranch Core subzone
▪ Livestock species (pigs, chickens, sheep, and goats)
▪ Horse boarding activities
▪ Row crops
▪ Public-serving ranch activities that support park goals for interpretation and education (i.e., farm stays, ranch tours)
▪ Small scale processing of dairy products
Pasture subzone
▪ Livestock species (sheep, goats, chickens)
"NPS would evaluate individual proposals for diversification activities; these activities may be subject to additional compliance.
Ranch Core Subzone. In addition to cattle, livestock species that could be allowed in the Ranch Core subzone include pigs, chicken, sheep, and goats. Any confinement of these species would be required to meet the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) regulations for waste management and any other applicable regulations.
Horse boarding activities could be allowed on additional ranches in the Ranch Core subzone. The scale of these activities would be determined on a case-by-case basis for an individual ranch and would consider existing infrastructure.
Up to 2.5 acres of row crops not requiring irrigation would be allowed in previously disturbed areas in the Ranch Core subzone. Tilling associated with planting row crops would be limited to the 2.5-acre Ranch Core subzone, and seeding would be limited to hand broadcast and no-till seed drill. Management of any wildlife associated with protection of row crops would not be allowed in the planning area; however, ranchers would be allowed to fence row crops to exclude wildlife." (p. 37)
"Pasture Subzone. Under alternative B, sheep, goats, and chickens would be allowed in the Pasture subzone. For grazing purposes, sheep and goats have AU equivalents of 0.2 and 0.15 AU, respectively (USDA-NRCS 2006a). For individual ranches, grazing by sheep and goats in the Pasture subzone would not be allowed to exceed 10% of their authorized AU or 10 AU equivalents if the authorized AU is greater than 100 (whichever is less). Alternative B would also authorize each residentially occupied ranch to request up to 500 chickens with up to 3 associated mobile huts in the Pasture subzone." (p. 38)
