Litigants in a lawsuit over the future of ranching in the Point Reyes National Seashore are urging a federal court to stop residents of the park’s ranches and dairies from joining the case.
In responses filed last week in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, both the National Park Service and the environmental organizations suing it opposed a motion by residents seeking a voice in the dispute. The ranchers, who themselves intervened in 2022, do not oppose the motion.
The residents argue that they are being marginalized in a process that could strip them of their homes and livelihoods. Represented pro bono by the San Francisco-based law firm Hanson Bridgett, they have kept their identities hidden, citing fears of retaliatory deportation and harassment.
“No one at the table is standing up for their rights, and efforts are being made to silence their voices,” said Andrew Giacomini, a managing partner of Hanson Bridgett and a San Geronimo resident.
The motion, submitted by Mr. Giacomini on behalf of roughly 20 residents across multiple dairy and cattle ranches, asserts their right to representation in a case that may result in eviction if the plaintiffs—three environmental groups—prevail. Many residents have lived on the ranches and dairies for decades.
The 2022 lawsuit, brought by the Resource Renewal Institute, the Center for Biological Diversity and the Western Watersheds Project, challenges the park’s general management plan and seeks to eliminate all agricultural activities on the peninsula.
Closed-door mediation talks, which have been underway for nearly three years, continue between the environmental groups, the park service and the ranchers. The Nature Conservancy joined the negotiations in March, reportedly with a plan to fund a buyout of the ranchers. With ranch leases and a litigation stay set to expire next Friday, U.S. District Judge Maxine Chesney is expected to rule soon on whether the residents will be granted a seat at the table.
Counsel for the ranch residents recently attended two mediation sessions with attorneys for the current parties to discuss the terms of joining the process.
“The problem was, they were going to condition our participation in the mediation on us agreeing that we would not seek to intervene,” Mr. Giacomini told the Light. In such a role, they would remain outside the litigation but part of the mediation process, much like the role The Nature Conservancy has taken. The ranch residents rejected the proposal and declined to withdraw their motion.
Under court rules, parties seeking to intervene must meet four criteria. They must demonstrate significant legal interest in the case, suffer potential harm if the case concludes unfavorably and lack adequate representation by existing parties. Finally, the motion must be timely.
In a response to the court submitted on Nov. 4, the environmental groups countered that, although they support workers’ participation in the mediation, the residents’ bid for permanent housing rights falls “far beyond the scope of the lawsuit” and would require a separate public process under federal environmental law. Such policy work, they assert, “has no place in the court of law.”
The lawsuit specifically challenges the park’s general management plan amendment—a framework for zoning and ranch regulation—rather than individual leases between the National Park Service and the ranchers, the lawyers representing the plaintiffs wrote.
Attorneys for the park service echoed this stance, asserting that the residents’ housing concerns are not part of the litigation. They cite the seashore’s 1965 enabling act, which prohibits private residential use within park boundaries, except for public accommodations. If the ranches were eliminated, the park’s lawyers say, there would be no legal basis for tenants to remain.
The Light’s requests for comment from attorneys representing the environmental groups and the ranchers went unanswered. Park spokesperson Melanie Gunn deferred questions to mediator Bradley O’Brien, who also did not respond.
In a brief filed on Friday that responded to the plaintiff and defendant’s opposition briefs, Mr. Giacomini underscored the ranch residents’ right to participate in discussions impacting their future. He criticized efforts to sideline their interests, highlighting the risk that a settlement made without their involvement could force them out of their homes and, in some cases, their jobs.
“Our clients have a legally protectable interest in the ranch housing that could be lost if the plaintiffs prevail or if a settlement is reached through secret negotiations,” Hanson Bridgett attorneys wrote, noting that similar motions to intervene filed by two groups of ranchers were previously granted on comparable grounds.
Excluding them, the residents argue, is an attempt to sideline legitimate legal interests. The environmental groups’ challenge to the park’s management plan, they contend, could ultimately lead to the elimination of ranching, thereby implicating their rights by displacing both the ranchers and their tenants. By framing the park’s management plan as separate from the ranch leases, the plaintiffs and the park service create a straw man that allows them to fail to recognize proposed intervenors’ rights, the brief states.
Citing the National Environmental Policy Act, Mr. Giacomini argues that the current process does not meet transparency standards and violates a 1994 executive order requiring federal agencies to protect low-income communities and communities of color from undue harm.
In their filing, attorneys from Hanson Bridgett advocate for the preservation of housing in the park, calling claims that permanent housing is an unachievable goal a “false premise.” They highlight language in the park’s own management plan and federal historic preservation law that protects the ranches and dairies within the designated historic district. According to the park service’s 2006 management policies, the park service can permit the use of historic properties though leases or cooperative agreements when such arrangements support preservation goals.
“The park believes that it doesn’t have the right to keep housing intact if the ranch leases are forfeited,” Mr. Giacomini told the Light on Monday. “But I disagree. There’s plenty of legislation and policy supporting a settlement that retains housing as a mitigation measure.”