The longstanding association of ranchers in the Point Reyes National Seashore has reconstituted in the face of a lawsuit that challenges their operations in the park, after the group splintered two years ago.
“The ranchers are working together as a unified group through the association,” said Dave Evans, a fourth-generation seashore rancher and the association’s vice chair.
The newly energized Point Reyes Seashore Ranchers Association, now led by an executive committee chaired by Bob McClure and comprised of Mr. Evans, Jackie Grossi, Jolynn McClelland and Kevin Lunny, has decided that its members will request to intervene in that lawsuit as co-defendants with the National Park Service. As intervenors, they would have the right to participate in all arguments and any future settlement proceedings.
“We realized that we needed a seat at the table, and we need to be a part of this process,” he said. The ranchers will probably submit a formal motion in federal court sometime in the next couple of days.
The group is particularly concerned about a preliminary injunction the environmental groups who have brought the suit are planning to file on Aug. 12. The ranchers do not know what the injunction will seek to stop, but they’re worried about the potential impact on their operations, many of which are over a century old.
Furthermore, the suit could pose big problems for the a comprehensive ranch management plan being drafted by the park service, which could allow more diversification and longer leases and clarify how the park will manage tule elk in the pastoral zone—an effort that, has been a positive and collaborative process, Mr. Evans said.
“We have been working so closely with environmental groups and the park service to build this ranch management plan. It’s such a good process. I feel good about it,” he said. “This lawsuit threatens to interrupt that.”
On Wednesday, the park said in court filings that it will stop working on the plan until at least Aug. 17.
The plaintiffs in the lawsuit—the Resource Renewal Institute, the Center for Biological Diversity and the Western Watersheds Project—have said in statements as recently as this week that although the suit is asking for the park to both update its general management plan before it undertakes a ranch plan and conduct a full-scale environmental review of the impacts of ranching, it is not asking a judge to end grazing in the park.
“The lawsuit does not ask the court to stop ranching at the Seashore, nor will the court decide the future of ranching at Point Reyes. By law, that must be decided through a general management plan and an environmental impact statement that gives opportunities for public input,” the groups said in a statement this week.
Yet ranchers see a clear attempt to end their dairy and cattle operations. The lawsuit itself argues that ranching can have deleterious environmental impacts, such as to water quality. It said ranching is not required in the seashore, and that the park has not “evaluated whether current ranching collectively impairs the National Seashore, in violation of the National Environmental Policy Act… and the underlying substantive requirements for management,” or whether ranching impacts are “compatible” with the park.
Yet ranchers say their operations are part of the historical and cultural landscape. The families, they argue, have worked diligently to steward pastures, with many ranches going organic as well as taking other measures to protect the environment, like fencing streams to protect water quality.
Mr. Evans said they “have a lot of faith in the park to defend this, but when it comes to a settlement discussion, it’s important that the people who will be affected be in the conversation.”
Two years ago, a dozen ranchers, including Mr. Evans, resigned from the association. According to a letter sent to the park and elected officials at the time, the resignations stemmed from what they felt was inadequate input into a letter submitted to the park in the association’s name concerning future uses for Drakes Bay Oyster Company buildings.
But the ranchers perceive the lawsuit as an imminent threat to their livelihoods, spurring them to reunite. The association voted unanimously to allow its members to intervene in the suit—a move that one set of ranchers attempted last week but was denied for procedural reasons.
“We want to help the park defeat this thing,” said Mr. Lunny, of G Ranch, who noted that ranchers can advocate for their specific interest, which is important since the park has a number of different interests to balance.
The ranchers are not all represented by the same legal team—in large part because of how many ranchers there are—but their lawyers are working closely together and coordinating efforts, Mr. Evans said.
Fourteen ranches run by 13 families—the Nunes, Mendoza, Spaletta, Evans (including Dave and his father, Daniel), McClure, Kehoe, McClelland, Giacomini and Niman families—are being represented by Arnold and Porter LLP, an international law firm. Another cohort of ranchers—the Lunny, Grossi, McIsaac, Lucchesi, Giamonna, Gallagher, Giacomini, Rogers, Zanardi and Percy families—is being represented by the Western Resources Legal Center, which is associated with the Lewis and Clark Law School in Portland, Ore.
Mr. Evans said the ranchers will need to fundraise to cover some of their legal expenses.