NVR Logo
Cows to the rescue?
Near Berryessa, a plan to link ranchers to restoration
Saturday, March 07, 2009
Save and Share Share
Cattle may be making a comeback on federally-owned land at the edge of Lake Berryessa.

Under a proposal involving local ranchers and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Napa County cattlemen who agree to restore native plants along creek and river banks, plant oak trees and install bird boxes may be allowed to bring cattle back to graze on government-owned property.
It is an about-face from a strategy employed a little more than a decade ago.

Returning cattle to the shores of Lake Berryessa is “not a done deal,” said Phillip Blake, a district conservationist with Natural Resources Conservation Service in Napa County, which is working with ranchers and federal and state agencies on the plan. “But all agree it is the right thing to do. It is something that could be good for everyone. If done right, the land is in better shape.”
In 1998, ranchers at Lake Berryessa were asked by Bureau of Reclamation to remove their cattle from a six-mile strip of federally owned land parallel to the lake’s eastern shoreline. The feds wanted the cattle gone so the state Department of Fish and Game could restore the property to oak woodlands and natural vegetation, with some man-made ponds for waterfowl.

But Fish and Game did not have enough people on the ground or resources to manage the lands.
Fast-forward to 2009. The land is in no better shape than before — noxious weeds are still growing, oaks have not regenerated and a thick layer of dead grasses and weeds is suppressing growth of desirable plants. It is a fire hazard just waiting for a spark, authorities say.

About a year ago, the Bureau of Reclamation approached NRCS, which works with land owners on regulatory compliance and habitat restoration, asking for ideas on how to balance cattle grazing with preserving the landscape by the lake.

So Blake and Morgan Doran, the local livestock adviser with the University of California Cooperative Extension, teamed up to develop guidelines on how ranchers can manage cattle while protecting and enhancing wildlife habitat. The two agencies will present the guidelines to the Bureau of Reclamation in coming months.

If the bureau offers the green light, cattle could be back at Berryessa, and the plan could serve as a template to safely reintroduce cattle onto other public lands.

Berryessa-area ranchers John and Judy Ahmann, who’ve worked on other projects with NRCS, would like to be able to have their cattle grazing on the government-owned lands adjacent to their Running Deer Ranch.

Blake said the Ahmanns and other area ranchers are candidates to be the best stewards of the land. “They are out there on the ground,” he said. “Ranchers know what is going on.”

Judy Ahmann said she thinks this is a win-win approach: It reduces fire danger near the ranch, gives the cattle room to roam, encourages more wildlife and helps the government solve a problem it hasn’t been able to in a decade of trying.

“The fuel load in the thatch is so thick the deer won’t go near it to get a drink in the lake,” she said. Grazing will help bring back the desirable grasses and greatly reduce the fire danger in the area.

Ahmann said the public land in question was once over-grazed, which created the problem Fish & Game wanted to avoid. But cattle aren’t a problem if properly managed. “Cattle are a tool ... they are one of many tools in the toolbox,” she said.
15 comment(s)

glenroy wrote on Mar 7, 2009 6:56 AM:

" It’s about time some common sense returned to the equation…..now maybe the mountain lion situation will be addressed. "

Madison Jay Hamilton wrote on Mar 7, 2009 8:07 AM:

" I hope that cattle are kept off that land.

Cattle are an invasive species, too.

Ranchers ought to pay hefty prices for allowing cattle to grace on public lands. "

sdnapa wrote on Mar 7, 2009 9:40 AM:

" please don't forget that this is a drinking water source. when cows are allowed to graze so closely to the water, their feces & urine are washed into the lake by rain. that does not sound like a good combination to me. "

REPUBLICANKID wrote on Mar 7, 2009 10:51 AM:

" NRCS, which works with land owners on regulatory compliance and habitat restoration

What if i dont want a "habitat on my land? "

Wavey wrote on Mar 7, 2009 10:52 AM:

" (Cowboy) hats off to the Ahmanns, Phill Blake and the Bureau of Reclamation for this initiative. Madison Jay Hamilton is misinformed; thoughtful grazing by cattle can be a great restoration tool. This is a win-win! "

jeeper16 wrote on Mar 7, 2009 11:29 AM:

" Farms in Berryessa??? MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!! "

TAXPAYER wrote on Mar 7, 2009 11:39 AM:

" Good going Phil Blake!
It's about time some common sense was used by the Bureau of Reclamation.
"glenroy" your 100 % correct.

Have a nice day. "

Landshark wrote on Mar 7, 2009 12:17 PM:

" The cattle were on the land long before the Bureau of Reclamation and ranchers should be allowed to utilize the land for cattle grazing. Enough of the Berryessa Trial Nuts and Reclamation’s ill found and unethical plans of destroying $300M in private property of the Permitee’s and the Concessionaires for rhetoric of creating a “recreational opportunities” for their friends at PENSUS and FOREVER Resorts.

Ten years into Reclamation’s plan and complete failure. What left is a recreational economy that has been severally impacted, a building moratorium in Highlands due to failed sewage management with property values that too are heavily impacted.

Reclamation spends over $18,000 a month of tax payers’ dollars to provide “security” at the former resorts on the west shoreline. Why?

The mantra of “Managing Water in the West” is not going too well and it is my opinion that the time has come for the current administration to reel in Reclamation and let the State of California manage their land, water & “recreational opportunities”. "

Madison Jay Hamilton wrote on Mar 7, 2009 12:35 PM:

" Cattle don't graze thoughtfully.

Cattle cause erosion, soil compaction and huge quantities of methane (a greenhouse gas). It takes a year for some of those cow pies to decompose.

The entire planet would be better off if there were fewer cows. "

philc wrote on Mar 7, 2009 3:57 PM:

" I would be suspect of anything the BOR is involved with. Aren't they the individuals that came up the grand plan to "open the lake to everyone" by kicking out law abiding citizens? Been there lately...with the resorts closed and few locations to launch boats and the federal marshals Lake Berryessa looks more like the tornado ruins reminiscent of the mid west. I am not too wild about animal feces in drinking water either. Wasn't that what was eventually traced back to the contaminated spinach? "

suze wrote on Mar 7, 2009 4:22 PM:

" I find the idea that grazing cattle on federal lands will enhance wildlife and wildland habitat truly amusing. No one demands the death of more wildlife species than ranchers when they see their beef profits 'under attack.' Check out wolf and bison killing in Wyoming and Colorado! Cattle are very indiscriminate grazers. However, they will not eat the species growing on chaparral habitat - the MAIN fire fuel. They WILL eat tree seedlings and wildflowers - important nectar sources for many insects. They also tromp the hell out of creek banks and water access sites and yup, poop in the water. Cattle have to be fenced in. Do you have any idea how many native deer trails have been fenced off in the last 25 years? I don't, but it could be in the thousands. Can you see these good 'ol boys going around putting up bird boxes? Tell me another funny story! "

suze wrote on Mar 7, 2009 4:35 PM:

" And what is your problem with mountain lions Glenroy?
In times gone by, people managed their livestock, they kept guard over it 24/7.
Not nowadays, they just expect to be given licence to go out and kill anything that might hunt for a living.
There are WAY too many cattle (and pigs) on this planet anyway. "

guesswhoiam wrote on Mar 7, 2009 6:38 PM:

" philc the BOR just did what they had to. They were sued by the Sierra Club. A local Sierra Club member sued because they were denied access the water by walking through sites with trailers. Rightfully so, trailer owners told this person, "you can't walk through here". Then came the lawsuit for, "exclusive use". the lake is public and so is the first 15 feet of shoreline well the sierra club took this and ran with it. Sierra club wants a huge day use like oak shores where they can hike and bird watch, talk about exclusive use. "

dellasumbrella wrote on Mar 7, 2009 7:58 PM:

" guesswhoiam --

What you have said is incorrect. There was no lawsuit by Sierra Club against BOR. However, trailer owners sued the BOR, and created quite a fiasco regarding their plan for ending the exclusive use that had existed for years. That's been part of the problem in making the transition to greater accessibility for everyone.

As for habitat, there is quite a problem at Berryessa with star thistle and other invasive species. A careful, well-managed system of cattle grazing and other invasive management techniques has been found to be quite successful in other areas.

I believe there is a plan here to help restore the shoreline, and it is not just a question of letting cattle range at will. I'd like to hear more about the plan, however, and hope there will be an article that presents it in a way everyone can see the benefits.

I don't understand glenroy's comment, don't know what the problem with mountain lions is, and don't see how this plan will in any way affect mountain lions. "

Purpleice35 wrote on Mar 10, 2009 10:07 AM:

" Landshark wrote on Mar 7, 2009 12:17

"unethical plans of destroying $300M in private property of the Permitee’s and the Concessionaires for rhetoric of creating a “recreational opportunities” for their friends at PENSUS and FOREVER Resorts."

Hate to point this out to you Landshark but this is federal property not private property, the dumpy, trashy trailers should never have been on federal land. It is about time they were removed, as for the project taking forever, what do you expect with the old consessionars refusing to leave the property, and the other ones filing bankruptcy and refusing to remove personal property from federal land................ "

Comment Guidelines
The goal of the story comments section at NapaValleyRegister.com is to have an open, thought-provoking, civil community forum for all issues.
What gets your comment posted?
• Staying on topic
• Keeping your comment to 300 words or less
• Avoiding name-calling
• Addressing your comments to the message rather than the messenger
What gets your comment deleted?
• Personal attacks
• Derogatory remarks
• Name-calling of any sort
• Going off-topic
• Hate speech
• Racially-insensitive comments
• Implying guilt of a subject in a crime story before there is a court verdict
• Posting e-mail addresses
• Posting comments of a commercial nature
• POSTING WITH ALL CAPITAL LETTERS
• Linking multiple comments together with "to be continued..." to get around the 300 word limit.
The fine print
- Comments are either approved or denied. We do not edit comments.
- You are welcome to modify and resubmit a denied comment.
- Comments may take several hours to be posted.
- Comments posted are those of the writer, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of NapaValleyRegister.com, its employees or its parent company.
- Do you have information on a story? Please go to our virtual newsroom to send us a news tip.
- If you feel a posted comment has violated our guidelines, please contact online@napanews.com or add a comment indicating you have an issue and our moderators will review the comment in question.
Search:
Web Search Powered
By Yahoo! Search
Napa Valley Register on Facebook
Copyright © 2009 Napa Valley Publishing, a member of Lee Enterprises, Inc.
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy