Holistic Resource Management of Fire, Livestock, and Oaks

Holistic Resource Management of Fire, Livestock, and Oaks

Summary

Holis­tic Resource Man­age­ment is based upon restora­tion and emu­la­tion of nat­ur­al ecosys­tem rela­tion­ships. It is a com­plex the­o­ry and prac­tice requir­ing extra­or­di­nary atten­tion and ded­i­ca­tion from land man­agers. Care­ful reg­u­la­tion of live­stock is one of its defin­ing qualities.

Fire Hazard Reduction

Accu­mu­lat­ed bio­mass from brushy plants and wood detri­tus, par­tic­u­lar­ly that which lies with­in wood­lands, under mature trees, or adja­cent to vul­ner­a­ble struc­tures, is the fuel which con­tributes most to fire haz­ard on the Aca­d­e­m­ic Reserve. Graz­ing does lit­tle to reduce this fuel, and improp­er graz­ing may increase it. Bay Area oak habi­tat man­agers pre­fer to remove it by burn­ing, which also may yield sub­stan­tial ecosys­tem restora­tion ben­e­fits. Inten­sive live­stock graz­ing can lessen fire haz­ards by aug­ment­ing fire­breaks or cre­at­ing low-fuel areas around sen­si­tive sites. This use of live­stock might meet HRM objec­tives bet­ter than disk­ing, and at sub­stan­tial sav­ings in disk­ing expense. Mow­ing can lessen fire haz­ard from annu­al plant bio­mass in a man­ner less destruc­tive than disk­ing and less dif­fi­cult to man­age than grazing.

HRM Grazing Regimes

HRM guide­lines for graz­ing rely upon high stock den­si­ties rotat­ed through pad­docks (fenced areas) to ensure thor­ough crop­ping of edi­ble for­age, fol­lowed by live­stock exclu­sion for peri­ods long enough to per­mit plants to recov­er the ener­gy lost to graz­ing. Increas­ing the num­ber of pad­docks results in each pad­dock­’s being more even­ly and ful­ly grazed; it improves the ratio of recov­ery peri­od to graz­ing peri­od; and it enhances the like­li­hood that repet­i­tive graz­ing with ade­quate inter­ven­ing recov­ery will be pos­si­ble. In all these ways, aug­ment­ing the num­ber of pad­docks lessens the risk of over­graz­ing, and increas­es uti­liza­tion of range pro­duc­tiv­i­ty. Tem­po­rary fences and full-time herd super­vi­sion are com­mon­ly nec­es­sary. Graz­ing by diverse live­stock (e.g. — goats used in con­junc­tion with cttle for brush con­trol), though chal­leng­ing to man­age, can gen­er­ate more ben­e­fi­cial impacts than sin­gle-species graz­ing. Horse own­ers are poten­tial con­trib­u­tors to an HRM pro­gram on the Aca­d­e­m­ic Reserve.

Oak Protection

More than two thou­sand young oaks wide­ly scat­tered across the Aca­d­e­m­ic Reserve are vul­ner­a­ble to graz­ing cat­tle and oth­er preda­tors. In the absence of mea­sures to pro­tect these, much of the uni­ver­si­ty’s invest­ment in oak regen­er­a­tion may be lost. Area exclu­sion of live­stock and pro­tec­tion of indi­vid­ual trees are meth­ods already proven on the reserve. The esti­mat­ed cost of mate­ri­als to defend indi­vid­ual trees from cat­tle and rodents is five to ten dol­lars per tree, though if live­stock prove deter­mined to dis­turb pro­tec­tive devices, mate­r­i­al costs might be twice this. Reg­u­lat­ing graz­ing by cat­tle or oth­er live­stock so that unpro­tect­ed seedling oaks can grow to matu­ri­ty may be pos­si­ble, but entails sub­stan­tial risk of fail­ure with con­sid­er­able ensu­ing loss.

Conclusion

Lack­ing con­fi­den­tial infor­ma­tion about uni­ver­si­ty pri­or­i­ties and about the costs and ben­e­fits of var­i­ous pos­si­ble cours­es of action to affect­ed par­ties, we are with­out basis to make firm rec­om­men­da­tions. We will be pleased to par­tic­i­pate in the devel­op­ment of an HRM pro­gram aimed at enhanc­ing ecosys­tem integri­ty and pro­duc­tiv­i­ty on the Aca­d­e­m­ic Reserve.

Holistic Resource Management1

Holis­tic Resource Man­age­ment is a process direct­ed at meet­ing objec­tives in three realms:

  1. human life-qual­i­ty,
  2. ecosys­tem yields, and
  3. nat­ur­al resource conservation.

An under­ly­ing premise of HRM is that main­te­nance of ecosys­tem integri­ty pre­serves the val­ue of land, by pro­tect­ing its capac­i­ty to gen­er­ate a sus­tain­able stream of ecosys­tem ben­e­fits. Stan­ford’s land endow­ment is unique. A con­sci­en­tious­ly devel­oped HRM pro­gram for the Aca­d­e­m­ic Reserve lands can be a way to con­serve and increase their value.

An HRM pro­gram can be designed to address Stan­ford plan­ners’ con­cerns about wild­fire, live­stock, and oaks with­in the con­text of more gen­er­al goals, like pro­tect­ing and enhanc­ing the qual­i­ty of soil, water, and air, main­tain­ing diver­si­ty and dynam­ic sta­bil­i­ty in liv­ing pop­u­la­tions, and increas­ing the amount of ener­gy stored in the ecosys­tem and the rate at which ener­gy is cap­tured by it. An HRM approach also will like­ly rely upon a broad range of tools and tech­niques, which may include per­ma­nent and tem­po­rary fenc­ing and stock water­ing facil­i­ties, wildlife attrac­tors and habi­tat enhancers, pre­scribed fire, range­land rest, disk­ing, mow­ing, seed­ing and plant­i­ng, inten­sive graz­ing by dif­fer­ent live­stock species, active herd­ing and mov­ing of ani­mals, and user edu­ca­tion. Per­haps most impor­tant­ly, an HRM plan will entail fre­quent mon­i­tor­ing and adjust­ment. Allan Savory, the founder of HRM, empha­sizes that a good prac­ti­tion­er always assumes that the man­age­ment strat­e­gy cur­rent­ly being imple­ment­ed is wrong.

Lying at the edge of the San Fran­cis­co-Oak­land-San Jose metrop­o­lis, the Aca­d­e­m­ic Reserve is more heav­i­ly impact­ed by exter­nal fac­tors than are most of the places where HRM has been prac­ticed. Hydrol­o­gy, air qual­i­ty, and sur­round­ing land use, as well as a pletho­ra of local, state, and fed­er­al reg­u­la­tions are large­ly beyond the con­trol of uni­ver­si­ty per­son­nel. Here, where unan­tic­i­pat­ed out­side influ­ences can be com­mon, and inter­ven­tions by land man­agers are con­strained in so many ways, the pat­tern of fre­quent, small-scale tri­al, assess­ment, and adjust­ment char­ac­ter­is­tic of HRM will nec­es­sar­i­ly be even more inten­sive than on a more typ­i­cal site.2

HRM Grazing

Stan­ford land man­agers con­tem­plate cat­tle graz­ing as one com­po­nent of an HRM strat­e­gy. In graz­ing com­pat­i­ble with HRM prin­ci­ples, live­stock are tight­ly con­trolled. Savory devel­oped HRM after years of observ­ing the role of wild African ungu­late herds in the ecol­o­gy of grass­lands. His live­stock man­age­ment meth­ods empha­size reg­u­la­tion of the tim­ing of an ani­mal’s bite on for­age plants. By sim­u­lat­ing some of the con­di­tions which exist­ed in grass­land ecosys­tems pri­or to the domes­ti­ca­tion of graz­ing ani­mals, Savory aims to restore pat­terns of inter­ac­tion clos­er to those which were present dur­ing the mil­lions of years over which grass­es and their her­bi­vore preda­tors coevolved.

Preventing Overgrazing

In explain­ing how HRM works, Savory describes the process of over­graz­ing in minute detail. Ani­mals graze cer­tain plants, often leav­ing oth­er near­by plants untouched. The bit­ten plants are stim­u­lat­ed to put on new growth, which offers more pro­tein and ener­gy, and less fiber, than old­er growth. Ani­mals in the area graze the new growth pref­er­en­tial­ly. When live­stock have pro­longed access to an area, cer­tain plants are over­grazed while their neigh­bors rest.

Herds of ani­mals graz­ing con­tin­u­ous­ly on rel­a­tive­ly large plots usu­al­ly both over­graze and over­rest plants in the same area. This out­come may man­i­fest as a mosa­ic of fair­ly exten­sive ungrazed and over­grazed patch­es, or it may take a more sub­tle form, dis­persed among a vari­ety of plants and species in a pat­tern dif­fi­cult to dis­cern with casu­al obser­va­tion. HRM prac­ti­tion­ers aim to pre­vent this result by con­cen­trat­ing stock in rel­a­tive­ly small areas for brief peri­ods. In these cir­cum­stances, ani­mals graze all edi­ble plants. They are then removed, and plants are per­mit­ted to grow undis­turbed until they can be safe­ly grazed again. This care­ful reg­u­la­tion of live­stock is a defin­ing qual­i­ty of HRM, and is essen­tial for HRM to ful­fill its promise.3

Resources for HRM

If Stan­ford per­son­nel decide to pro­ceed with the devel­op­ment of an HRM pro­gram, its var­i­ous com­po­nents might qual­i­fy for finan­cial sub­sidy or oth­er assis­tance from state and fed­er­al agen­cies. The Agri­cul­ture Sta­bi­liza­tion and Con­ser­va­tion Ser­vice offers grants of up to $3,000 per year for projects with resource enhance­ment objec­tives. Cal­i­for­nia Divi­sion of Forestry makes $10,000 cost-shar­ing grants for qual­i­fy­ing land man­age­ment projects, and through its Veg­e­ta­tion Man­age­ment Pro­gram, and For­est Stew­ard­ship pro­grams pro­vides oth­er types of tech­ni­cal sup­port for graz­ing, burn­ing, and oth­er activ­i­ties aimed at enhance­ment of wildlife and native plant habi­tat, or stim­u­la­tion of for­est and range­land pro­duc­tiv­i­ty.4

Fire Hazard Reduction

Wild­fire in the foothills sec­tion of the Aca­d­e­m­ic Reserve pos­es risk both to nat­ur­al fea­tures, like native oaks, and to arti­fi­cial fea­tures like research facil­i­ties and near­by homes. High val­ues of fire-vul­ner­a­ble ele­ments in and near the reserve, and con­cerns of res­i­dents, researchers, and recre­ation­al users are rea­sons to be thor­ough in fire haz­ard reduction.

Characteristics of Grassfires

The grass­es and low-grow­ing annu­als which pop­u­late much of the Aca­d­e­m­ic Reserve are a dis­persed fuel. Fire pro­fes­sion­als term them “cool-burn­ing” because they release much less heat per unit of land than for­est or scrub.5 Grass­fires are quick to spread, yet much less like­ly to “jump” fire­breaks than fires in for­est or chap­ar­ral.6 In oak wood­lands they very rarely become canopy fires in the absence of sub­stan­tial addi­tion­al fuel, like brushy under­sto­ry species or accu­mu­lat­ed woody debris.7

Risk vs. Hazard

CDF per­son­nel and oth­er pro­fes­sion­als with fire man­age­ment exper­tise empha­size the dis­tinc­tion between fire risk and fire haz­ard.8 Risk is the chance a fire will occur, haz­ard is the mag­ni­tude of dam­age like­ly to result. The for­mer can be of lit­tle con­se­quence where the lat­ter is small.

Areas like the Aca­d­e­m­ic Reserve can be man­aged so that fire haz­ard is close to zero.9 The strate­gies for doing so are: elim­i­nate con­cen­tra­tions of com­bustible mate­r­i­al; pro­vide fire­breaks; main­tain ade­quate fire-sup­pres­sion response capa­bil­i­ty; and edu­cate and reg­u­late users.

Hazardous Fuels

In the foothills region, chap­ar­ral and oth­er brushy under­sto­ry plants, and woody debris are mate­ri­als like­ly to fuel dam­ag­ing fires.10 These are more dan­ger­ous when sit­u­at­ed with­in or adja­cent to wood­land areas, or when they bor­der build­ings or trees near build­ings. Reg­u­lar removal of brush and woody debris from sen­si­tive areas is key to fuel reduc­tion in the foothills.11

Grazing and Fire

Graz­ing cat­tle can lessen the quan­ti­ty of fuel which accu­mu­lates as a result of a sin­gle sea­son’s growth by the species they eat. Their sup­pres­sion of the many annu­als and peren­ni­als which they reject as food, and their impacts upon dead branch­es, snags and oth­er woody debris-all of which are poten­tial­ly trou­ble­some fuels-are most­ly lim­it­ed to tram­pling.12, 13

Inad­e­quate­ly man­aged cat­tle can actu­al­ly increase fire haz­ard by con­tribut­ing to the spread of exot­ic annu­als like this­tle and mus­tard, which they refuse to eat.14 These oppor­tunis­tic species read­i­ly col­o­nize dis­turbed soils and places where oth­er plants have been over­grazed. On the Aca­d­e­m­ic Reserve they now grow in dense stands where cat­tle have his­tor­i­cal­ly con­gre­gat­ed. This is espe­cial­ly true under canopies of large oaks and around pre­vi­ous water­ing sites. As not­ed above, accu­mu­la­tion of bio­mass from such plants with­in the driplines of mature trees pos­es fire haz­ards which experts con­sid­er more sub­stan­tial than those pre­sent­ed by ungrazed grasslands.

The­o­ret­i­cal­ly, cat­tle can be man­aged to dimin­ish pop­u­la­tions of this­tle and oth­er unwant­ed exotics, but we have yet to find spe­cif­ic exam­ples of sig­nif­i­cant suc­cess in this endeav­or. Some ranch­ers using HRM graz­ing regimes report that stands of bunch­grass­es, pri­mar­i­ly Sti­pa pul­chra, are more vig­or­ous and wide­spread as a result, but those we inter­viewed stopped short of assert­ing that weedy exotics have been sub­stan­tial­ly reduced in num­ber or vig­or.15

Graz­ing gen­er­ates cash income for the uni­ver­si­ty, and the pres­ence of graz­ing lessee per­son­nel may enhance pub­lic safe­ty; how­ev­er, only care­ful­ly reg­u­lat­ed graz­ing to aug­ment fire­breaks or cre­ate low-fuel zones adja­cent to sen­si­tive facil­i­ties can con­tribute much to reduc­ing risk of loss from fire. In some loca­tions such graz­ing might meet HRM objec­tives bet­ter than disking.

Prescribed Fire

Fire is a nat­ur­al part of Cal­i­for­ni­a’s oak wood­land ecosys­tem, and peo­ple have used fire as a man­age­ment tool since pre-his­to­ry. Native Amer­i­cans reg­u­lar­ly set fires, and Euro­pean set­tlers con­tin­ued this prac­tice. Until the 1950’s con­trolled burn­ing remained an accept­ed means of improv­ing graz­ing lands and destroy­ing unwant­ed under­sto­ry plants and detri­tus.16 Dur­ing the next sev­er­al decades fire sup­pres­sion became increas­ing­ly com­mon, espe­cial­ly near urban set­tle­ments. As a result, fuel accu­mu­lat­ed and the risk of cat­a­stroph­ic wild­fires increased.17 In addi­tion, long-stand­ing eco­log­i­cal rela­tion­ships were dis­rupt­ed.18

In recent years, fire has again become more wide­ly accept­ed as a restora­tion tool. The capac­i­ty of fire to induce resur­gence of native plant pop­u­la­tions in degrad­ed ecosys­tems is well-doc­u­ment­ed. In Cal­i­for­nia man­agers of many Nature Con­ser­van­cy pre­serves, state parks, and nation­al parks, and a grow­ing num­ber of pri­vate landown­ers now employ pre­scribed burn­ing in oak bio­mes to restore native species diver­si­ty and with it, eco­log­i­cal sta­bil­i­ty.19

Like wild­fires, con­trolled burns leave a black­ened land­scape, which most peo­ple find ugly. Note, how­ev­er, that fire pro­fes­sion­als con­sid­er ear­ly sum­mer the time when pre­scribed burns are rel­a­tive­ly safe and most ben­e­fi­cial in terms of fire risk reduc­tion.20 This coin­cides with a lull in the uni­ver­si­ty cal­en­dar, and thus reduces neg­a­tive impact on the Stan­ford com­mu­ni­ty. Also, a pro­gram of rota­tion­al burn­ing will in any sin­gle year entail much less exten­sive scar­ring than that which results from a major wildfire.

Local reg­u­la­tions allow burn­ing on pri­vate lands between Novem­ber 1 and April 30 as a method of for­est man­age­ment. Burn­ing dur­ing oth­er times of the year can be per­mit­ted for the pur­pose of wild­land veg­e­ta­tion man­age­ment. Burn plans require approval by Bay Area Air Qual­i­ty Man­age­ment Dis­trict (BAAQMD) per­son­nel and a fire per­mit issued by the local fire author­i­ty. Fol­low­ing approval, burn­ing may take place on days des­ig­nat­ed by Bay Area Air Qual­i­ty Man­age­ment Dis­trict reg­u­la­tors. Bay Area air qual­i­ty stan­dards are strict and there are a lim­it­ed num­ber of days each year when weath­er and air qual­i­ty con­di­tions make a pre­scribed burn accept­able. Costs of burn­ing are borne by the landown­er, and include fees charged by fire safe­ty per­son­nel, plus any dam­age to peo­ple or prop­er­ty result­ing from a burn.21

Despite these con­straints Bay Area land man­agers have been employ­ing pre­scribed burns for the past decade to reduce unwant­ed bio­mass accu­mu­la­tion and to fur­ther restora­tion activ­i­ties. BAAQMD per­son­nel work close­ly with landown­ers to ensure that approved burns can take place, and peo­ple expe­ri­enced in fire man­age­ment at Annadell State Park, the BAAQMD, and U.C. Berke­ley’s Inte­grat­ed Hard­wood Range Man­age­ment Pro­gram have all offered their exper­tise to assist in design­ing and imple­ment­ing a pro­gram of pre­scribed burn­ing for the Aca­d­e­m­ic Reserve. Burn reg­u­la­tions are cur­rent­ly in flux, and pro­posed amend­ments appear like­ly to make fire an even more read­i­ly acces­si­ble tool.22

Firebreaks

The place­ment of fire­breaks and their spec­i­fi­ca­tions are large­ly beyond the scope of this report. Roads with­in the Aca­d­e­m­ic Reserve pro­vide some pro­tec­tion. Min­i­mum require­ments are estab­lished by law. Meth­ods of ful­fill­ing legal oblig­a­tions or imple­ment­ing addi­tion­al mea­sures to secure valu­able nat­ur­al or arti­fi­cial assets can be assessed on the basis of their con­tri­bu­tion to HRM objec­tives and their cost.

Disking

In many oak savan­nas and oak wood­lands, disked fire­breaks are con­sid­ered suf­fi­cient manip­u­la­tion of the land­scape to reduce fire risks to accept­able lev­els.23 The cur­rent sys­tem of roads and disked fire­breaks on the Aca­d­e­m­ic Reserve meet the uni­ver­si­ty’s respon­si­bil­i­ties as defined by local and state law.

Stan­ford plan­ners are par­tic­u­lar­ly sen­si­tive to the con­cerns of own­ers and occu­pants of build­ings and oth­er improve­ments in and around the foothills por­tion of the Aca­d­e­m­ic Reserve, and con­sid­er the val­ue of these assets and the peace of mind of uni­ver­si­ty com­mu­ni­ty mem­bers to war­rant extra­or­di­nary mea­sures. Addi­tion­al disk­ing imme­di­ate­ly adja­cent to high-val­ue homes and oth­er facil­i­ties has been used to pro­vide an extra mar­gin of safe­ty and peace-of-mind.

Disk­ing, like fire, leaves the land scarred, and some uni­ver­si­ty home­own­ers and Aca­d­e­m­ic Reserve recre­ation­al users con­sid­er it a nui­sance. In addi­tion, disk­ing accel­er­ates ero­sion, kills ben­e­fi­cial fau­na like snakes and lizards, obstructs the estab­lish­ment of peren­ni­als, includ­ing oaks, pro­vides the kind of dis­tur­bance which favors the spread of nox­ious species like this­tle, and entails sub­stan­tial expense. Because of its many draw­backs, espe­cial­ly its adverse affects on ecosys­tem integri­ty, disk­ing is used with restraint in HRM pro­grams.24

Mowing

Mow­ing can pre­vent fuel accu­mu­la­tion with much less ecosys­tem dis­rup­tion than disk­ing.25 Mow­ing sub­stan­tial­ly dimin­ish­es fire risk even where trim­mings are allowed to remain on the land, because it reduces the sur­face-to-vol­ume ratio of the fuel. Cut grass­es lying on the ground burn far more slow­ly than stand­ing dry grass. When mow­ing is accom­pa­nied by removal of plant mate­r­i­al, fire risk is low­ered fur­ther, but care must be tak­en to pre­serve organ­ic and min­er­al con­tent of soils, and to pro­vide ade­quate seed where annu­al plants are desired. In Con­tra Cos­ta Coun­ty, fire author­i­ties con­sid­er a three-inch mow­ing of a fif­teen foot-wide strip an accept­able fuel break on open space lands.26 If mow­ing is sub­sti­tut­ed for disk­ing, and prop­er­ly timed, it can be a means to encour­age the dis­place­ment of exot­ic grass­es and oth­er annu­als by native peren­ni­al bunch­grass­es.27

Whether mow­ing is in place of disk­ing or a sup­ple­ment to it, mark­ing oak seedlings in areas to be mowed with semi-per­ma­nent stakes so that mow­er oper­a­tors can eas­i­ly avoid them will reduce the risk that mow­ing will be an imped­i­ment to seedling recruit­ment. Mow­ing may even enhance sur­vival and vig­or of young oaks by less­en­ing com­pe­ti­tion for mois­ture and by reduc­ing shade from sur­round­ing plants.28

Reg­u­lar­ly mow­ing the open areas around the pri­vate res­i­dences along Junipero Ser­ra Boule­vard can reduce the poten­tial of fire dam­age to these res­i­dences and pro­vide reas­sur­ance to their occu­pants. The con­trac­tor cur­rent­ly respon­si­ble for disk­ing fire­breaks on the Aca­d­e­m­ic Reserve has not­ed that mow­ing a 250-foot wide swath start­ing at the fence near Junipero Ser­ra Boule­vard, fol­low­ing the fence­line behind the hous­es adja­cent to the Aca­d­e­m­ic Reserve, cross­ing the exten­sion of French­man’s Road which enters the foothills, and fol­low­ing the fence­line around to Junipero Ser­ra Boule­vard will entail only mod­est addi­tion­al cost.

Fire Suppression

Avail­abil­i­ty of fire-sup­pres­sion per­son­nel and equip­ment are gen­er­al­ly beyond the scope of this report. Instal­la­tion of emer­gency call box­es sim­i­lar to those increas­ing­ly com­mon along pub­lic high­ways might enable quick­er response by trained fire-sup­pres­sion per­son­nel and oth­er­wise con­tribute to the safe­ty of peo­ple and prop­er­ty on and near the Aca­d­e­m­ic Reserve.

User Education and Regulation

Cur­rent­ly open fires, includ­ing smok­ing, are pro­hib­it­ed in the foothills. Vol­un­tary com­pli­ance and enforce­ment by a ranger work­ing for the uni­ver­si­ty and by users them­selves have result­ed in near uni­ver­sal adher­ence to this regulation.

Holistic Resource Management – Grazing Regimes29

Graz­ing live­stock on the Aca­d­e­m­ic Reserve entails costs and ben­e­fits. Which of these pre­dom­i­nates depends upon the val­ue of lease income, and of the pos­i­tive and neg­a­tive impacts of graz­ing upon the land. Because the cumu­la­tive effects of decades of graz­ing are impos­si­ble to iso­late and pre­cise­ly quan­ti­fy, the cal­cu­la­tion of net costs or ben­e­fits to date is at best a dif­fi­cult under­tak­ing. Cost-ben­e­fit analy­sis of con­tem­plat­ed future action is even more prob­lem­at­ic. His­toric graz­ing prac­tices may be very poor basis for eval­u­at­ing the impacts of graz­ing reg­u­lat­ed by HRM prin­ci­ples. Ongo­ing dis­rup­tions of the larg­er envi­ron­ment in which the Aca­d­e­m­ic Reserve exists make extrap­o­la­tion of many aspects of past expe­ri­ence unsound.

Though cat­tle graz­ing has been impli­cat­ed in the degra­da­tion of oak wood­lands through­out Cal­i­for­nia, recent research by HRM prac­ti­tion­ers has shown that care­ful­ly con­trolled live­stock can arrest and even reverse cer­tain types of eco­log­i­cal degra­da­tion.30 Prop­er­ly man­aged ani­mals may pro­vide valu­able agi­ta­tion to oak wood­lands.31 By remov­ing decay­ing mate­r­i­al and old growth from peren­ni­als, live­stock can stim­u­late regrowth, con­tribute to the devel­op­ment of stronger and more sta­ble root sys­tems, and improve water and min­er­al cycles. HRM pro­po­nents assert that a prop­er­ly grazed ecosys­tem can become a sus­tain­able oak savan­nah or wood­land com­mu­ni­ty. At the same time, both they and vir­tu­al­ly all oth­er qual­i­fied observers con­cur that a mis­man­aged graz­ing regime can push these often frag­ile habi­tats towards deser­ti­fi­ca­tion.32

Cat­tle and oth­er her­bi­vores graze selec­tive­ly.33 Over­graz­ing may be viewed as a result of inad­e­quate recov­ery between graz­ings. Plants unable to replen­ish their ener­gy stocks even­tu­al­ly die. Over­graz­ing can trans­form a diverse, sta­ble plant com­mu­ni­ty into a less com­plex and more brit­tle one by sub­tle extir­pa­tion of more vul­ner­a­ble species. On lands like Stan­ford’s Aca­d­e­m­ic Reserve, over­graz­ing may be occur­ring even if a lush cov­er of annu­al plants returns each year.

HRM gen­er­al­ly pre­scribes the estab­lish­ment of sev­er­al pad­docks rough­ly equal in size, or more impor­tant­ly, in live­stock car­ry­ing capac­i­ty. Over­graz­ing occurs when ani­mals linger too long on a site or return too quick­ly to it. Ade­quate recov­ery peri­ods, prop­er siz­ing of pad­docks, and appro­pri­ate stock den­si­ty are essen­tial to pre­vent overgrazing.

Grazing Schedules

The recov­ery peri­od for a giv­en pad­dock is the time nec­es­sary for plants with­in it to replen­ish the ener­gy lost by being grazed. Recov­ery peri­ods depend upon weath­er, inten­si­ty of graz­ing, species mix, soil qual­i­ty, pres­ence of preda­tors and pathogens, and a host of oth­er fac­tors. They can vary wide­ly year-to-year and site-to-site. Over time they can become much longer or short­er.34

Once the recov­ery peri­od has been esti­mat­ed, graz­ing peri­ods for each pad­dock can be cal­cu­lat­ed by the for­mu­la: graz­ing peri­od = recov­ery period/(number of pad­docks — 1). This for­mu­la pre­sumes that pad­docks are of rough­ly equal pro­duc­tiv­i­ty. For exam­ple, a nine­ty-day recov­ery peri­od for an area with six equal pad­docks yields an eigh­teen day aver­age graz­ing peri­od. In gen­er­al, slow plant growth requires slow­er moves among pad­docks, and rapid growth calls for more rapid moves.

A live­stock man­ag­er may want to move ani­mals soon­er than the end of the cal­cu­lat­ed peri­od because the grass appears over­grazed, the stock need to be sup­ple­ment­ed, or for oth­er rea­sons; how­ev­er, cut­ting the graz­ing peri­od for one pad­dock reduces the recov­ery peri­od for all others.

Paddock Size and Number

As more pad­docks are avail­able to a man­ag­er, the ratio of recov­ery peri­od to graz­ing peri­od ris­es. Increas­ing the num­ber of pad­docks also results in each pad­dock­’s being more even­ly and ful­ly grazed, because graz­ing impacts can be con­cen­trat­ed, and repet­i­tive graz­ing with ade­quate inter­ven­ing recov­ery is more like­ly to be pos­si­ble. This lessens the risk of over­graz­ing, and increas­es uti­liza­tion of range productivity.

For exam­ple, where the total graz­ing sea­son is 180 days, and the recov­ery peri­od is nine­ty days, a four pad­dock arrange­ment will allow each of two pad­docks to be giv­en a sin­gle thir­ty-day peri­od of graz­ing, and each of two oth­ers to be giv­en two thir­ty-day peri­ods with nine­ty days of recov­ery between graz­ings. With the same graz­ing and recov­ery peri­ods, a six­teen-pad­dock arrange­ment will per­mit every pad­dock to be grazed twice for six days. Though such cal­cu­la­tions are first-order approx­i­ma­tions, and adjust­ments to reflect rates of for­age growth and oth­er vari­ables are ongo­ing, they illus­trate clear­ly the advan­tage of increas­ing the num­ber of paddocks.

Ranch­ers and oth­er land man­agers com­mon­ly use elec­tric fenc­ing or oth­er tem­po­rary restraints to restrict live­stock to small­er pad­docks with­in larg­er, per­ma­nent­ly fenced areas. Elec­tric fenc­ing can be moved eas­i­ly, and in many stock oper­a­tions has proven eco­nom­i­cal­ly sound. The flex­i­bil­i­ty with which elec­tric fenc­ing can be rearranged is well-suit­ed to the HRM prac­tice of accom­mo­dat­ing sea­son­al and year-to-year changes in range pro­duc­tiv­i­ty with altered graz­ing regimes. Though the lessee report­ed numer­ous dif­fi­cul­ties aris­ing from ini­tial tri­als of elec­tric fenc­ing on the Aca­d­e­m­ic Reserve for a few weeks dur­ing the 1993–94 graz­ing sea­son, dif­fer­ent deploy­ment and mon­i­tor­ing arrange­ments might yet yield sat­is­fac­to­ry results.

Stock Density

Stock den­si­ty is the num­ber of ani­mals per unit of land. Though stock den­si­ty might at first seem the fac­tor most like­ly to be cor­re­lat­ed with over­graz­ing, Savory and oth­ers have sub­stan­ti­at­ed the claim that exces­sive­ly long stays in a pad­dock, and insuf­fi­cient pad­dock rest between graz­ings are often more critical.

HRM prac­ti­tion­ers have not­ed a num­ber of advan­tages to dense stock­ing. Ani­mals graze a greater pro­por­tion of avail­able plants and graze them more even­ly, leav­ing few­er ungrazed or severe­ly grazed. Dis­tri­b­u­tions of dung and urine are more uni­form. Ani­mals move with greater fre­quen­cy, stim­u­lat­ing them and pro­vid­ing a more con­stant lev­el of nutri­tion. Tighter plant com­mu­ni­ties devel­op, and for­age con­tains more leaf and less fiber. As a result of these and oth­er fac­tors, ani­mal per­for­mance in gen­er­al improves.35 How­ev­er, these ben­e­fits come at some risk. Dense­ly stocked ani­mals pose dan­ger of severe ecosys­tem dam­age if they remain too long or return too quick­ly. Net improve­ment of range­land like the Reserve has yet to be shown.

Live­stock oper­a­tors engaged in HRM esti­mate stock­ing den­si­ty on the basis of range car­ry­ing capac­i­ty. A stock­ing rate of 1:20 indi­cates that each ani­mal will be allo­cat­ed twen­ty acres of pas­ture. If the graz­ing sea­son lasts 180 days, this lev­el of graz­ing can only be sus­tained if each twen­ty acres can sup­ply 180 ani­mal-days of feed. Under this regime, each acre must sup­ply nine ani­mal-days. Thus, one-ninth acre (a square approx­i­mate­ly sev­en­ty feet by sev­en­ty feet) must feed one ani­mal for one day. A suc­cess­ful HRM ranch­er fre­quent­ly assess­es the con­di­tion of land and for­age to deter­mine whether these are con­sis­tent with exist­ing and planned stock den­si­ties. Find­ing sus­tain­able stock­ing lev­els is an on-going process of tri­al and error. Because of the com­plex­i­ty of mul­ti-herd oper­a­tions, some HRM con­sul­tants sug­gest that tran­si­tion to HRM be made while run­ning a sin­gle herd.35

Herding

Pri­or to the intro­duc­tion of domes­ti­cat­ed live­stock, native graz­ing ani­mals herd­ed togeth­er to min­i­mize their vul­ner­a­bil­i­ty to preda­tors. They grazed inten­sive­ly and moved often. Lat­er, dogs and cow­boys replaced preda­tors and cat­tle replaced pop­u­la­tions of native species. In mod­ern times, preda­tor extir­pa­tion has made herd­ing large­ly unnec­es­sary for live­stock protection.

HRM advo­cates are accu­mu­lat­ing evi­dence that herd­ing improves the integri­ty of grazed ecosys­tems. Unherd­ed ani­mals often find favorite areas with­in a pad­dock. This can espe­cial­ly be dam­ag­ing if the pad­dock is large, stock den­si­ties are low, and graz­ing is pro­longed. Many por­tions of the Aca­d­e­m­ic Reserve where mus­tard and this­tle are dense today mark areas where cat­tle pre­vi­ous­ly con­gre­gat­ed and over­grazed. Often these will be only a few feet from stands of native peren­ni­als which are com­mon­ly ungrazed when stock roam large pad­docks for long peri­ods. Herd­ing can ensure that ani­mals graze all areas and all edi­ble species with­in a pad­dock, and per­mits them to be used to com­pact soil or break down capped soils, and to tram­ple down exces­sive­ly heavy crops, such as mus­tard and thistle.

Herd­ing can be accom­plished by one full-time farm­hand on a horse. At night ani­mals can be left to roam or cor­doned off with a sim­ple light­weight fence (such as a piece of wire or cord wrapped around four trees).36

HRM con­sul­tants have not­ed that in areas like the Aca­d­e­m­ic Reserve, oppor­tu­ni­ties for inte­grat­ing horse own­ers and their ani­mals into man­age­ment pro­grams abound. Cur­rent local horse board­ing rates can be three to four hun­dred dol­lars per month. Horse own­ers may find it advan­ta­geous to assist with herd­ing in exchange for board­ing, graz­ing, and access priv­i­leges on the Aca­d­e­m­ic Reserve.

Some ranch­ers have exper­i­ment­ed with salt blocks, water, and baled feed to cre­ate herd­ing impacts in spe­cif­ic areas. For exam­ple, a salt block placed in the cen­ter of a dense stand of mus­tard can cause ani­mals to thor­ough­ly tram­ple the area. In this way, the mus­tard can be sup­pressed. How­ev­er, it is impor­tant to move salt blocks at least twice dai­ly to pre­vent dam­age from over-tram­pling. Again, the goal is to sim­u­late nat­ur­al pat­terns in which a dense­ly packed herd moves quick­ly through an area. Achiev­ing this effect is par­tic­u­lar­ly impor­tant in areas which have already suf­fered from overgrazing.

Water

On the Aca­d­e­m­ic Reserve, the lim­it­ed avail­abil­i­ty of water pos­es a con­straint in pad­dock siz­ing and con­fig­u­ra­tion. HRM prac­ti­tion­ers com­mon­ly design pad­docks so that bor­ders radi­ate out­ward from a water source, per­mit­ting stock to access a sin­gle source from a num­ber of pad­docks. They also may use tem­po­rary water­ing facil­i­ties to herd ani­mals. A vari­ety of equip­ment for truck­ing water and pro­vid­ing ani­mals tem­po­rary troughs is avail­able, and the instal­la­tion of per­ma­nent water­ing facil­i­ties in addi­tion­al Aca­d­e­m­ic Reserve loca­tions may be justified.

Diversity of Animal Grazers

Intro­duc­ing dif­fer­ent species of graz­ing ani­mals is a wide­ly rec­og­nized method for achiev­ing native plant diver­si­ty. The for­age pref­er­ences, hoof and mouth phys­i­ol­o­gy, and herd­ing habits of ani­mals vary.37 An inte­grat­ed graz­ing plan that uti­lizes cat­tle, hors­es, sheep, goats, and even deer may fos­ter oak regen­er­a­tion, and con­trol mus­tard, this­tle, and tar­weed pop­u­la­tions more effec­tive­ly than any scheme entail­ing cat­tle alone;38 how­ev­er, man­ag­ing mul­ti­ple herds on the same land requires sophis­ti­cat­ed exper­tise, and inten­sive monitoring.

Community Education

Rein­tro­duc­tion of cat­tle as part of an HRM pro­gram will require vis­i­ble changes to the Aca­d­e­m­ic Reserve. Mod­est com­mu­ni­ty edu­ca­tion, like explana­to­ry signs at reserve entrances, and writ­ten mate­ri­als avail­able upon request, may prove invalu­able in recruit­ing com­mu­ni­ty sup­port and coop­er­a­tion. Such actions seem par­tic­u­lar­ly essen­tial if the inces­sant stream of changes and adjust­ments char­ac­ter­is­tic of HRM are to be met with under­stand­ing and accep­tance. In addi­tion, com­mu­ni­ty par­tic­i­pa­tion in var­i­ous HRM activ­i­ties may low­er uni­ver­si­ty and lessee costs, and enable pro­gram enhance­ments oth­er­wise impossible.

Summary

The Aca­d­e­m­ic Reserve is a brit­tle ecosys­tem, an area where decay is pri­mar­i­ly dri­ven by oxi­da­tion and weath­er­ing, rather than by decom­pos­er organ­isms. In such ecosys­tems agi­ta­tion plays an impor­tant role in pre­serv­ing bio­log­i­cal diver­si­ty and main­tain­ing ecosys­tems in dynam­ic equi­lib­ri­um. Cat­tle and oth­er live­stock can pro­vide this agi­ta­tion and can effec­tive­ly remove cer­tain types of bio­mass; how­ev­er, employ­ing graz­ing ani­mals in the frame­work of HRM requires that they be man­aged so that their behav­ior close­ly mir­rors that of nat­ur­al grazers.

The com­bi­na­tion of brief, inten­sive graz­ing and ade­quate recov­ery is an essen­tial ele­ment of HRM live­stock pro­grams. Con­fig­ur­ing the Aca­d­e­m­ic Reserve into numer­ous small pad­docks, and stock­ing them at high den­si­ties for short peri­ods will enable uni­ver­si­ty plan­ners and lessees to begin to ascer­tain whether HRM yields results con­sis­tent with their objectives.

Protecting Young Oaks

Imple­men­ta­tion of the Veg­e­ta­tion Man­age­ment Plan for the Aca­d­e­m­ic Reserve (VMP) began ten years ago. The VMP authors pro­posed that the north­ern slopes of the reserve be divid­ed into four pad­docks, and that graz­ing be rota­tion­al­ly exclud­ed from each of these for ten years in order to per­mit nat­ur­al regen­er­a­tion to occur. On south­ern slopes they pro­posed estab­lish­ment of iso­lat­ed pro­tect­ed sites for direct seed­ing of oaks.

The orig­i­nal frame­work of the plan has been repeat­ed­ly adjust­ed to accom­mo­date con­di­tions on the land, results of oak regen­er­a­tion research at Stan­ford and else­where, and chang­ing uni­ver­si­ty pri­or­i­ties. Today there are at least two thou­sand young oaks scat­tered across the reserve. These include nat­u­ral­ly seed­ed trees which escaped pre­da­tion in areas from which cat­tle have been exclud­ed, nat­u­ral­ly occur­ring seedling and sapling trees indi­vid­u­al­ly pro­tect­ed from cat­tle in grazed areas, and trees plant­ed under the aus­pices of the VMP through­out the area.

Under the con­di­tions which have pre­vailed for the last decade, oaks on most parts of the reserve have grown too slow­ly to become capa­ble of resist­ing cat­tle after only ten years. In many areas live­stock have been exclud­ed for less than half that dura­tion. Where plant­i­ng occurred recent­ly with the expec­ta­tion that live­stock exclu­sion was to extend at least a decade into the future, young trees are espe­cial­ly vul­ner­a­ble to depre­da­tion by graz­ing cat­tle. On the Aca­d­e­m­ic Reserve and else­where in Cal­i­for­nia, voles and oth­er rodents have been found to pose a seri­ous threat to juve­nile oaks. Unless both nat­u­ral­ly and arti­fi­cial­ly estab­lished seedlings and saplings are giv­en con­tin­u­ing pro­tec­tion from live­stock and rodents, much of Stan­ford’s invest­ment in oak regen­er­a­tion may be lost.

Divers pro­tec­tion strate­gies are avail­able. These include con­tin­u­ing cat­tle exclu­sion from large areas, con­trol­ling the tim­ing of graz­ing to enable young oaks to recov­er after live­stock have been removed, installing tree shel­ters around indi­vid­ual trees, and fenc­ing sin­gle trees or groups of trees.

Cattle Exclusion Areas

Bar­ring live­stock from graz­ing young oaks is the surest means to pre­vent them from inter­fer­ing with regen­er­a­tion. Whole­sale exclu­sion from the north­ern slopes of the reserve has enabled many seedling and sapling trees to grow with­out set­backs from graz­ing. Escaped ani­mals were com­mon in the ear­ly years of live­stock exclu­sion, and repeat­ed­ly dam­aged seedling trees. Dur­ing the most recent graz­ing sea­son (1993–94) cat­tle have less often invad­ed the exclu­sion area, and lessee per­son­nel have act­ed more prompt­ly than in past years to recap­ture ani­mals and return them to the leasehold.

The rest afford­ed land by live­stock exclu­sion can encour­age evo­lu­tion of a diverse and sta­ble plant com­mu­ni­ty, and can be espe­cial­ly heal­ing in an area where over­graz­ing has occurred; how­ev­er, in ecosys­tems like those on the Aca­d­e­m­ic Reserve, where a sig­nif­i­cant amount of decay occurs by oxi­da­tion and weath­er­ing, the ben­e­fi­cial effects of rest may decrease in val­ue when the dura­tion of rest is exces­sive and the ben­e­fi­cial agi­ta­tion which stock can pro­duce is forfeited.

Oak wood­lands in Cal­i­for­nia have evolved with agi­ta­tion from peri­od­ic fire, and from cycli­cal brows­ing and graz­ing by diverse her­bi­vores.39 Dis­plac­ing these long-stand­ing phe­nom­e­na by fire sup­pres­sion and sus­tained mono-species graz­ing has dis­rupt­ed water and min­er­al cycles, brought whole­sale shifts in types and quan­ti­ties of bio­ta, and con­tributed to the decline of oak ecosys­tems through­out the state.40 Also, in the absence of graz­ing, the risk of grass fire remains higher.

Strictly Timed Cattle Grazing

If cat­tle are removed from an area while mois­ture lev­els in the soil are still ade­quate to sup­port oak seedling growth, grazed oaks may recov­er well enough to grow-albeit slow­ly-into mature trees.41 Many soils on the Aca­d­e­m­ic Reserve are too dry to sup­port seedling growth after April or May. Whether an HRM pro­gram can be designed both to reduce sig­nif­i­cant­ly the fire haz­ard from stand­ing bio­mass which remains after graz­ing has end­ed, and to allow suc­cess­ful recov­ery by seedling oaks is yet to be proven.

Unpro­tect­ed oaks that are grazed after water is inad­e­quate to sup­port growth will be unable to recov­er until the next grow­ing sea­son, when they will again be grazed.42 Only seedlings in the most favor­able loca­tions are like­ly to endure this cycle for more than a few years. Those that do will often remain stunt­ed shrubs, unable to estab­lish a cen­tral leader because the ter­mi­nal buds of dom­i­nant branch­es are repeat­ed­ly removed by graz­ers.43

Tree Shelters

Plas­tic tree shel­ters placed around plant­ed trees and oth­er young seedlings have proven in some Cal­i­for­nia loca­tions to be a sol­id defense against graz­ing cat­tle and rodents. In addi­tion, the micro­cli­mate with­in shel­ters encour­ages rapid growth and improves tree vig­or, so that trees move beyond the reach of graz­ing ani­mals and can with­stand graz­ing pres­sure ear­li­er in their lives.

Tree shel­ters fas­tened to a heavy T‑post have been used exper­i­men­tal­ly in an area grazed by cat­tle at the U.C. Berke­ley Sier­ra Field Sta­tion. In gen­er­al, cat­tle ignored the shel­ters. Where cat­tle did rub up against the shel­ters, they proved resis­tant to dam­age. Pro­tec­tion might be improved by keep­ing the ground around shel­tered trees clear of veg­e­ta­tion, to dis­cour­age cat­tle from even approach­ing them.44

Results of the fire of 1992 and exper­i­ments con­duct­ed by Mag­ic per­son­nel pro­vide bases for assess­ing the fire haz­ard posed by shel­ters. Both types of shel­ter deployed on the Aca­d­e­m­ic Reserve are flam­ma­ble; how­ev­er they burn much like a can­dle, slow­ly and at low inten­si­ty. Most of their heat is dis­si­pat­ed into the air. Though above-ground growth of enclosed trees may be con­sumed, root sys­tems will like­ly be spared severe dam­age since the burn­ing shel­ters raise the tem­per­a­ture of the ground very lit­tle. Wild­fire may destroy the shel­ters, entail­ing replace­ment expense, but in a con­trolled burn, shel­ters can be removed before­hand and replaced after­wards with­out exces­sive cost.

For effec­tive pro­tec­tion from graz­ing, four-foot shel­ters may be suf­fi­cient, but five-foot shel­ters are more secure.45 One heavy steel T‑post is required for each shel­ter. Shel­ters of these sizes cost between two and three dol­lars each in the quan­ti­ties required to pro­tect iden­ti­fied vul­ner­a­ble seedlings. These include about nine hun­dred plant­ed sites and an equal num­ber of vol­un­teer trees. Posts cost approx­i­mate­ly as much as the shel­ters themselves.

Though a T‑post and tree shel­ter scheme may prove ade­quate defense against graz­ing ani­mals and rodents, the behav­ior of live­stock can be dif­fi­cult to fore­see. In sit­u­a­tions where live­stock repeat­ed­ly dis­turb shel­ters, or where trees have grown too bushy to be con­fined to shel­ters with­out destruc­tive prun­ing, fenc­ing may be required.

Fencing Individual Trees

In the savan­na region, a design uti­liz­ing about twelve feet of stur­dy build­ing fab­ric wire and two T‑posts has proven ade­quate to pro­tect indi­vid­ual oaks from cat­tle. If nec­es­sary, this sys­tem can be enhanced with a wrap of barbed wire. The cost of mate­ri­als to pro­tect an indi­vid­ual tree in this way is about ten dol­lars. One draw­back to this design is that it can encour­age rodent activ­i­ty near the base of the tree.46 Sup­press­ing veg­e­ta­tion with­in the enclo­sure with mulch has reduced rodent intru­sion, but entails addi­tion­al cost.

Area Fencing

In some places nat­u­ral­ly or arti­fi­cial­ly estab­lished seedlings grow close enough to each oth­er to make fenc­ing groups of young oaks poten­tial­ly less expen­sive than fenc­ing indi­vid­ual trees. Secure­ly fenc­ing fifty trees on a half acre requires about eight thou­sand lin­ear feet of barbed wire, one hun­dred fifty light steel T‑posts, and four dou­ble-braced four-by-four wood­en cor­ner posts. Because instal­la­tion of this type of fenc­ing requires spe­cial equip­ment and skilled labor, the total cost per tree will like­ly be greater than that for fenc­ing for indi­vid­ual trees installed by unskilled vol­un­teer labor using sim­ple tools and super­vised by con­trac­tor per­son­nel. Fur­ther­more, fenced areas will con­tin­ue to hold large quan­ti­ties of annu­al plant bio­mass, increas­ing the chance that a fire which reach­es such an enclo­sure will spread to all trees with­in it. Graz­ing between indi­vid­u­al­ly enclosed trees lessens this risk.

Other Devices

Ranch­ers have employed oth­er schemes to pro­tect trees in grazed areas. For exam­ple, four wood­en pal­lets can be wired togeth­er to enclose indi­vid­ual seedlings. Though this tech­nique can be imple­ment­ed with min­i­mum expen­di­ture for mate­ri­als, it will add sub­stan­tial­ly to the fuel load on the reserve, and will increase the risk of tree mor­tal­i­ty result­ing from ground heat­ing in the event of fire. Anoth­er alter­na­tive entails cut­ting out the bot­toms of fifty-five gal­lon drums and stak­ing sin­gle drums around indi­vid­ual trees. This method appears infe­ri­or in effec­tive­ness, and at least as cost­ly as the wire cages described above.

Conclusion

A suc­cess­ful appli­ca­tion of HRM in the foothills will entail sub­stan­tial depar­ture from past prac­tices. The inte­grat­ed nature of HRM demands that all stake­hold­ers par­tic­i­pate whole­heart­ed­ly. Such par­tic­i­pa­tion implies broad con­sen­sus about man­age­ment objec­tives and how they may be attained, with result­ing align­ment of interests.

We have out­lined here some of the mech­a­nisms by which the Aca­d­e­m­ic Reserve might be man­aged to address issues of fire, graz­ing, and oak regen­er­a­tion. Lack­ing pro­pri­etary infor­ma­tion about uni­ver­si­ty pri­or­i­ties, and about the costs and ben­e­fits of the dif­fer­ent prac­tices we have described to each affect­ed par­ty, we are with­out suf­fi­cient basis to offer firm recommendations.

We are grate­ful to have had the oppor­tu­ni­ty to con­tribute to native oak regen­er­a­tion and to com­mu­ni­ty under­stand­ing of the stew­ard­ship respon­si­bil­i­ties and human ben­e­fits of the foothills por­tion of the Aca­d­e­m­ic Reserve. We will be pleased to par­tic­i­pate fur­ther in the devel­op­ment of an HRM pro­gram for the reserve.

End Notes

The full name, affil­i­a­tion, and tele­phone num­ber of indi­vid­u­als ref­er­enced, and full cita­tions for pub­lished and unpub­lished doc­u­ments may be found in the Sources sec­tion which fol­lows these notes.

  1. Unless oth­er­wise not­ed asser­tions of fact in this sec­tion are based upon Savory and Bing­ham, 1990, and Savory, 1988.
  2. Work, pers. comm.
  3. Ibid.
  4. Stan­di­ford, pers. comm.; Hast­ings, pers. comm.
  5. Buse­man, pers. comm.; Wach­tel, pers. comm.
  6. Ibid.
  7. Adams, pers. comm.; Buse­man, pers. comm.; Hast­ings, pers. comm.
  8. Ibid.
  9. Adams, pers. comm.; Buse­man, pers. comm.; Wach­tel, pers. comm.
  10. Ibid.
  11. Ibid.
  12. Adams, pers. comm.
  13. Buse­man, pers. comm.; Hast­ings, pers. comm.; Wach­tel, pers. comm.
  14. Adams, pers. comm.; Buse­man, pers. comm.; Wachtel,pers. comm.
  15. Edwards, pers. comm.; Work, pers. comm.
  16. Stan­di­ford, 1994.
  17. Exam­ples include recent Yel­low­stone Nation­al Park, the Oak­land hills, and Mal­ibu hills fires.
  18. Stan­di­ford, 1994, cit­ing others.
  19. Local exam­ples include Annadell State Park, the Nature Con­ser­van­cy’s San­ta Rosa Plateau Reserve, the East Bay Region­al Park Dis­trict, and others.
  20. Hast­ings, pers. comm.
  21. Open burn­ing falls under reg­u­la­tion 5 of the Bay Area Air Qual­i­ty Man­age­ment Dis­trict. Reg­u­la­tions and assis­tance can be obtained from Ray Peter­son at BAAQMD.
  22. Buse­man, pers. comm.; Hast­ings, pers. comm.; Peter­son, pers. comm.; Wach­tel, pers. comm.
  23. Buse­man, pers. comm.; et. al.
  24. Savory, 1988.
  25. Gilpin, pers. comm.: McLaran, 1981.
  26. Gilpin, pers. comm.
  27. Gilpin, pers. comm.; Kephardt, pers. comm.; McLaran, 1981.
  28. Bern­hardt, pers. comm.
  29. Unless oth­er­wise not­ed asser­tions of fact in this sec­tion are based upon Savory and Bing­ham, 1990, and Savory, 1988.
  30. Bing­ham, 1990; Edwards, 1992; George, 1991; et. al.
  31. Edwards, 1992; et.al.
  32. Adams, pers. comm.; Bing­ham, 1990; Edwards, 1992; George, 1991; Hast­ings, pers. comm.
  33. Blun­ler, 1992; Edwards, 1992; Savory and Bing­ham, 1990.
  34. Research by M.R. George (1991) sug­gests that dur­ing peri­ods of slow­er growth recov­ery peri­ods typ­i­cal­ly range from six­ty to nine­ty days. Dur­ing peri­ods of more rapid growth recov­ery peri­ods can be as short as twen­ty to thir­ty days.
  35. Rec­om­mend­ed by Adams, pers. comm.; Thomp­son, pers. comm.; Work, pers. comm.; Savory and Bing­ham, 1990; and Savory, 1988.
  36. Work, pers. comm.; Roger Ingram, an ani­mal han­dling expert, con­sults and trains.
  37. Stan­di­ford, 1994; Edwards, 1992; George, 1991; et.al.
  38. Bern­hardt, unpubl.; George, 1991; Stan­di­ford, 1994; Whit­ney, 1989.
  39. Edwards, 1992.
  40. Adams, pers. comm.; Bern­hardt, pers. comm.; Blun­ler, 1992; Edwards, 1992; Hast­ings, pers. comm.; Kephardt, pers. comm.; McCreary, pers. comm.; Stan­di­ford, 1994.
  41. Adams, pers. comm.
  42. Ibid.
  43. Ibid.
  44. McCreary, pers. comm.; McCreary, 1993; McCreary and Teck­lin, 1993.
  45. Exper­i­ments at the U.C. Berke­ley Sier­ra Field Sta­tion were suc­cess­ful with four-foot shel­ters, but Tree Essen­tial, a shel­ter man­u­fac­tur­er, sug­gests five-foot shelters.
  46. McCreary, pers. comm.; Adams, pers. comm.; et.al.

Sources

Personal Communications

  • Adams, Ted; Agron­o­my and Range Sci­ence, U.C. Davis, (916) 752‑1011
  • Bern­hardt, Eliz­a­beth; Prin­ci­pal, Phy­tos­phere Research, (707) 452‑6735
  • Buse­man, Rex; Cal­i­for­nia Depart­ment of Forestry and Fire Pro­tec­tion (CDF), (415) 345‑4091
  • Clin­ic, Rich; Park Super­vi­sor, Pleasan­ton Ridge Park, (510) 862‑2963
  • Fer­ri, Lar­ry; Park Super­vi­sor, Mt. Dia­blo State Park, (510) 687‑1800
  • Gilpin, David; Native Plant Spe­cial­ist, Pacif­ic Coast Seed Inc., (510) 463‑1941
  • Hast­ings, Mar­la; Restora­tion Ecol­o­gist, Annadell State Park, (707) 938‑1519
  • Ingram, Roger; Ani­mal Han­dling and HRM Con­sul­tant, (916) 237‑4563
  • Kephart, Paul; Resource Man­age­ment Spe­cial­ist, Elkhorn Ranch, (408) 763‑1207
  • McCreary, Doug; Inte­grat­ed Hard­wood Man­age­ment Pro­gram, U.C. Berke­ley, (916) 639‑2418
  • Peter­son, Ray; Bay Area Air Qual­i­ty Dis­trict, (415) 771‑6000
  • Stan­di­ford, Rick; Inte­grat­ed Hard­wood Man­age­ment Pro­gram, U.C. Berke­ley, (510) 643‑5429
  • Thomp­son, Rocky; Restora­tion Ecol­o­gist, Cir­cuit Rid­er Pro­duc­tions Inc., (707) 838‑6641
  • Wach­tel, Dave; Mor­gan Hill head­quar­ters, CDF, (408) 779‑2121
  • Wills, Robin; Direc­tor, San­ta Rosa Plateau Reserve, The Nature Con­ser­van­cy, (909) 699‑1856
  • Work, George; Ranch­er and HRM Con­sul­tant, (805) 467‑3233

Literature Cited

  • Bern­hardt, E.A.; and Swiecki,T.J., 1991, Min­i­mum input tech­niques for restor­ing val­ley oaks on hard­wood range­land, Report for CDF.
  • Bernhardt,E.A.; Swiecki,T.J.; and Drake,C., Fac­tors affect­ing blue oak (Quer­cus Dou­glasii) sapling recruit­ment, unpub­lished.
  • Bing­ham, S., 1990, Where ani­mals save the land, World Mon­i­tor, pp.34–40.
  • Blun­ler, M.A., 1992, Some myths about Cal­i­for­nia grass­lands and graz­ers, Fre­mon­tia, 20:3, pp. 22–27.
  • Edwards, S.W., 1992, Obser­va­tions on the pre­his­to­ry and ecol­o­gy of graz­ing in Cal­i­for­nia, Fre­mon­tia, 20:1, pp. 3–20.
  • George, M.R., 1991, Graz­ing and land man­age­ment strate­gies for hard­wood range­lands, USDA For­est Ser­vice Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-126, pp. 315–319
  • Hall, L.M.; George, M.R.; Adams, T.E.; Sands, P.B.; and McCreary, D.D., 1991, The effect of sea­son and stock den­si­ty on blue oak estab­lish­ment, USDA For­est Ser­vice Gen­er­al Tech­ni­cal Report PSW-126, pp. 312–314.
  • Hall, L.M.; George, M.R.; McCreary, D.D.; and Adams,T.E., 1992, Effects of cat­tle graz­ing on blue oak seedling dam­age and sur­vival, J. Range Man­age­ment 45(5): pp. 503–506.
  • Hart, R.H.; Samuel, M.J.; Test, P.S.; and Smith, M.A., 1988, Cat­tle, veg­e­ta­tion, and eco­nom­ic respons­es to graz­ing sys­tems and graz­ing pres­sure, J. of Range Man­age­ment, 41(4), pp. 282–286.
  • McClaran, M.P., 1981, Prop­a­gat­ing Native Peren­ni­al Grass­es, Fre­mon­tia, 9:1, pp. 21–28.
  • McCreary, D.D.; and Teck­lin, J., 1993, Tree shel­ters accel­er­ate val­ley oak restora­tion on grazed range­lands (Cal­i­for­nia), Restora­tion and Man­age­ment Notes, 11:2, p. 152.
  • McCreary, D.D., 1993, Tree shel­ters pro­tect oak seedlings from cat­tle, Oaks ‘n’ Folks, March.
  • Savory, A., 1988, Holis­tic Resource Man­age­ment, Cov­elo Island Press.
  • Savory, A.; and Bing­ham, S., 1990, The Holis­tic Resource Man­age­ment Work­book, Island Press.
  • Stan­di­ford, R.B., 1994., The role of fire in Cal­i­for­ni­a’s oak wood­lands, Oaks ‘n’ Folks, 9:2.
  • Stef­fen, J., 1993, Study exam­ines the heat of com­bus­tion of decid­u­ous tree leaf lit­ter (Illi­nois), Restora­tion and Man­age­ment Notes, 11:2, p. 152.
  • Whit­ney, S., 1989, The Pacif­ic North­west, A Sier­ra Club Nat­u­ral­ist’s Guide, Sier­ra Club Books.