IN JANUARY, THE future of ranching in Point Reyes National Seashore was upended. A landmark legal settlement agreement between environmental groups and the National Park Service promised to phase out 80% of commercial cattle operations across the protected coastline.
After a decade of litigation, the deal marked a victory for conservationists and a crushing loss for ranching families who have worked the land for generations.
But that agreement — once viewed as a definitive turning point in the long-running battle over land use in Point Reyes — now faces renewed scrutiny from the highest levels of government.
Last month, the House Committee on Natural Resources, led by Republican chair Bruce Westerman, launched a formal investigation into the deal and the role of The Nature Conservancy, which facilitated a $30-40 million payout to ranch owners in exchange for vacating their leases.
The investigation is also looking into the role that environmental groups — Resource Renewal Institute, Center for Biological Diversity and Western Watersheds Project — played in the January settlement. These groups are responsible for initiating litigation against the National Park Service in 2016 that led to the 2025 settlement agreement.
The committee demanded that groups turn over records of internal communications and financial and legal documents related to the settlement by April 24. Since then, the environmental groups under investigation have turned more than 3,500 pages of records related to the settlement, but declined to release these mediation documents citing attorney-client privilege and protections for attorney work product, according to KQED.
Among the committee’s concerns are the transparency of the agreement, the use of nondisclosure agreements with ranchers, and whether federal agencies acted lawfully in approving the plan. The investigation threatens to unravel the deal before its implementation is complete.
Lawsuit seeks to halt evictions
Meanwhile, legal threats against the settlement continue to mount. Attorney Andrew Giacomini filed suit against the National Park Service, the Department of the Interior, and The Nature Conservancy in February, alleging the agencies conspired to unlawfully evict ranchers and their workers.
Giacomini is representing 150 agricultural workers and their families. Unlike ranch owners, the workers were not included in the financial payout. Giacomini’s lawsuit claims their removal violates constitutional rights, housing laws, and environmental regulations — and seeks to halt evictions and reinstate the original 2021 general management plan in Point Reyes, which permits ranching on the land.
Rancher Bill Niman and his wife, Nicolette Niman, have filed a separate but related suit, contending that the National Park Service violated federal law by issuing a new management plan without public input, failing to conduct new environmental reviews, and ignoring congressional authorization to re-lease vacated land to other ranchers. It also criticizes the plan’s restrictions on sustainable practices and lack of tule elk management.
If either case prevails, they could unravel the settlement agreement that has come to define the next chapter of land use in Point Reyes — and potentially restore ranching to the seashore.
Giacomini is banking on support from the newly re-elected Trump administration, whose energy and land policies signal a sharp departure from conservation priorities. He believes the U.S. Department of Justice and the Department of the Interior may opt not to defend the settlement in court and could side instead with cattle ranchers.
“Under Trump, the Department of Justice and the Interior Department could be ordered to settle,” said Jeff Miller, spokesperson and senior conservation advocate at the Center for Biological Diversity.
The agreement that Miler helped push forward mandates the closure of 12 beef and dairy operations by June 2026. Many of the affected ranching families trace their roots in the area back several generations. To advocates of traditional land use, the settlement represents the forced dismantling of a 200-year agricultural legacy.
In exchange for leaving, ranchers signed private deals with The Nature Conservancy, receiving compensation and agreeing to vacate by the June 2026 deadline. Their former lands will be co-managed by the Conservancy and the National Park Service — transitioned away from agriculture and toward conservation and recreation.
Turning to Trump for a remedy
Giacomini argues that the agencies rushed the settlement through before President Trump’s second term began, anticipating his opposition. Since January, Trump has issued a series of executive orders rolling back environmental protections, promoting fossil fuel development, and dismantling environmental justice mandates — moves that suggest his administration is positioned to support private commercial operations over conservation efforts.
“Some things the Trump administration is doing will support the remedies we’re trying to get in these two lawsuits,” said Giacomini.
A new federal housing initiative may bolster Giacomini’s argument. In March, the Department of the Interior and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development announced the Joint Task Force on Federal Land for Housing, aimed at using underutilized federal lands for affordable housing. Giacomini says this supports his request to preserve housing for low-income agricultural families in Point Reyes.
“It’s likely that the new policy will influence how the Department of Justice handles our case,” he said.
“Some things the Trump administration is doing will support the remedies we’re trying to get in these two lawsuits.”
Attorney Andrew Giacomini, representing ranchers
Both Giacomini and the Nimans argue that ranching benefits the land. A 2018 UC Berkeley study led by ecologist Whendee Silver found that regenerative grazing can improve carbon sequestration, potentially aiding in climate change mitigation.
Regenerative grazing is a livestock management method meant to improve soil and plant health by allowing plants to regrow and establish deeper roots in the soil, enhancing the nutrients within and the structure of the soil.
The three environmental groups strongly disagree that ranching and cattle benefit the land, claiming that two centuries of cattle ranching in Point Reyes have degraded ecosystems, contributed to erosion, and caused water contamination.
A 2022 report conducted by the Turtle Island Restoration Network found fecal coliform levels 170 times the health-based standard in some park waterways — pollution attributed to livestock waste.
Fighting to preserve the settlement
The environmental groups view the January settlement as a long-overdue opportunity to restore the park’s ecology and expand public access and hoped to work with The Nature Conservancy to rezone land and expand trails, increase camping and recreation infrastructure, restore native grasslands, and improve wildlife habitat and water quality.
Now, with the legal and political future of the plan in flux, they are preparing to intervene in both lawsuits, said Miller.
“We’re anticipating that the Department of Justice might not only decline to defend the settlement and the new management plan, but they might also actively collude with the ranchers to try to put something else in place,” said Miller.
So far, the Department of the Interior and the National Park Service have not filed responses to either lawsuit. Until they do, their legal stance remains unclear.
The congressional probe adds a new layer of uncertainty to an already contentious situation regarding the possibility of the settlement being overturned.
As the House Committee on Natural Resources demands greater transparency and considers whether federal agencies and The Nature Conservancy overstepped legal or procedural bounds, the fragility of the January settlement is becoming clearer.
In response to the congressional probe, The Nature Conservancy told KQED that it was not a part of the litigation but rather an impartial facilitator to the deal.
Even if the lawsuits filed by ranchers fail in court, sustained political pressure from Congress could delay or derail implementation of the general management plan — placing restoration efforts, federal land policy, and the future of Point Reyes in a precarious state.
For now, the seashore remains at the center of a national debate over who gets to decide the fate of public lands: the courts, the agencies, or the politicians in Washington.
This article is part of The Stakes, a UC Berkeley Journalism project on executive orders affecting Californians and their communities.
The post Congressional probe threatens to unravel historic agreement on Point Reyes ranching appeared first on Local News Matters.