Grazing Management Proposal
The suggested Grazing Management Proposal (GMP) for the Villages Golf and Country Club was prepared by The Villages Hiking Club. The GMP was developed in order to use grazing management as an effective conservation and management tool, while preserving The Villages Hill Lands unique recreational opportunities.
Summary of Recommendation: The Villages Golf and Country Club should pursue a trial of cattle grazing on the hill lands to reduce fuel load for fires, bring the land back to a natural state of native grasses and native wild flowers. The suggested trial to be a heifer and calf grazing from December to March. A trial over the winter would minimize contact with Villagers and determining any damages to trails and signs. The Villages Hiking Club, with the help of Bill Johnston, has spoken with neighboring ranches to determine interest in participating. The ranch on the southern property line has expressed interest in participating in the trial. The ranch manager, Rich Vargas, would need time to access and repair the water system infrastructure, anticipating cattle on the hill by January.
- INTRODUCTION
The plan developed for the management of the VGCC hill lands leans/copies heavily on the plan developed for Santa Teresa County Park and the 1992 Parkland Range Management Policy for the Santa Clara County Park System. Additionally, San Jose Wild Land Fire Management officer, Mark Thomas, was consulted about fuel loads and ways to minimize fire load on the hill. It’s not if the hills will have a fire, it’s when the hills will experience fire.
- GRAZING MANAGEMENT GOALS, OBJECTIVES
Section 2 describes the eight primary goals that were identified for grazing management activities within the Villages Hill Land.
Seasonal, rather than year‐round, grazing will be encouraged as the hill lands experience heavy summer use, so as to minimize villager conflicts. The club should set a conservative approach to determine hill land cattle stocking rates so as to avoid short‐term damages, or long‐term range decline. We would seek the guidance of the rancher to find balance. Season cow/calf operations appears to be the better solution for the Villages.
- PREDICTED EFFECTS AND DESIRED CONDITIONS
Section 3 describes the predicted effects that the reintroduction of grazing may have on existing and potential resources within the hill lands. Chapter 3 evaluates both positive and negative potential impacts.
Section 1
The County of Santa Clara Parks and Recreation Department has had success in utilizing cattle grazing as a management tool, at several County parks (Joseph D. Grant, Ed Levin and Coyote Lake‐Harvey Bear County Parks), as well as open space preserves such as Tulare Hill, and Rancho San Vicente. Cattle grazing provides a cost‐effective and efficient means to provide vegetation control over significant tracts of land. Grazing is a preferred method over other management tools such as prescribed fires (which is heavily dependent on environmental factors and coordination with local firefighting agencies for a successful burn), manual methods of vegetation removal (which are labor intensive), or herbicide application (limited by County of Santa Clara’s Integrated Pest Management Ordinance).
1.1. Impetus for the Grazing Management Proposal
The Grazing Management Proposal was developed to provide, protect and preserve hill lands for the enjoyment, education and inspiration of this and future residents of the Villages.
1.2. The Hill Land Grazing Management Policy
The policy formalized grazing activities in order to protect, conserve and enhance the natural resources of the hill lands in recognition of grazing as an effective rangeland management tool.
Land management objectives of the policy include:
- Minimize fire hazards to hill lands and private property by managing vegetative fuels
- Provide Villagers and their guests access and recreational opportunities
- Provide for the safety of hill land users
- Establish cooperative relationships with adjacent property owners.
Section 2
In general, cattle grazing is an effective conservation management tool for grasslands dominated by non‐native annual grasses and pest (non‐native, invasive) plants. Our hill is primarily European grass. Habitat for many special‐status animals and plants in California’s Coast Range grasslands is improved by management activities that reduce the height and mass of the non‐native plants, and thus non‐native competition with native plants for space, sunlight, and nutrients.
2.1 The effects of modern livestock grazing on grasslands resemble the effects of native hoofed mammals such as elk that would have grazed across the hill lands and would have reduced the height and biomass of grassland plants and the reduced the cover of native woody plants. Other factors are different. The native perennial grassland with its associated native annual non grass plants was replaced over time by grassland dominated by European annual grasses and pest plants that outcompete natives. In addition, the behavioral patterns of livestock differ significantly from the behavior of native elk, and consequently the timing, intensity, and uniformity of herbivory and trampling effects differ. Livestock grazing can be ecologically beneficial if careful strategies and grazing prescriptions are devised to achieve specific conservation objectives in the non‐native dominated grassland, and to minimize the negative impacts based on the conditions at the grazed sites – this means care needs to be taken not to overgraze.
| Goals of the Grazing Management Plan | |
| Goal 1 | Reduce the fire hazards associated with the mass of dry vegetation in the grasslands during the summer and autumn seasons, and associated with the mass of woody fuels in the scrub, chaparral, and woodland communities. |
| Goal 2 | Maintain recreational access, enjoyment, and appreciation. |
| Goal 3 | Maintain the health of the rangeland ecosystem. |
| Goal 4 | Minimize the impacts of invasive non‐native “pest” plants. |
| Goal 5 | Improve wildflower displays and oak regeneration. |
| Goal 6 | Provide the working conditions for Livestock Operator to maintain a cooperative and productive relationship. |
| Goal 7 | Maintain cooperative relationships with adjacent property owners. |
| Goal 8 | Reduce shrub encroachment into grassland habitats and maintain minimum grass/es. |
2.2 Shrub Encroachment into Grassland
Natural succession from grassland to northern coastal scrub and chaparral to mixed woodland is typical of central California sites influenced by the coastal maritime climate. In the absence of grazing and fire, natural succession from grassland to shrub land is common. Coyote brush and other common shrubs are encroaching into many low‐lying grasslands sites in Santa Clara County. In the Villages Hill Lands, shrub encroachment, particularly northern coastal scrub and chaparral species such as coyote brush, California sage, and chamise, has reduced the amount of grassland habitat in many areas. In addition to the northern coastal scrub, other woody types have expanded as well, and probably contributed to the displacement of the grassland. Encroachment into grasslands occurs most readily in the lower elevations adjacent to existing stands of coyote brush or other shrubs, as a result of expected natural succession as well as climate change, which could accelerate the process. Favorable conditions for scrub encroachment include above‐normal precipitation, precipitation extending into the summer, and absence of livestock grazing during the dry months. Under favorable climate conditions, within a few decades even more of the hill land’s grasslands could be encroached upon by woody vegetation unless management action is taken.
2.3 Fuel Loads and Fire Hazards
The accumulation of highly flammable herbaceous fuels in annual grasslands is a well‐known problem during the dry seasons. Recent fires in the area have burned as much as 80 acres. The cost of suppressing a single fire can be very high. The goal of fire suppression is to prevent fire damage to the hillside and to the surrounding lands; however, fire suppression and or lack of grazing has allowed substantial woody and herbaceous fire fuel to build. Because the highly productive grasslands in the hill lands are not grazed currently, the fire hazard potential is significant. The grassland herbaceous fuels would be likely to carry a wildfire very quickly during the dry seasons, and potentially carry the fire to the woody fuels of the shrub lands, woodlands, and riparian habitats, increasing the potential for a major fire.
Significant fire hazards exist throughout the hill lands, encompassing each of the existing vegetation types. Some general conclusions may be drawn based on preliminary observations.
- Under existing conditions, wildfires in the hill lands have the potential to be severe under certain fire and weather conditions. The fire fuel loads of the hill land grasslands, and woody fuel loads of chaparral and woodlands constitute a significant fire hazard in the absence of fuels management.
- Fuel loads in the chaparral and woodlands are currently large enough that controlling a wildfire in this area might not be possible during moderate or extreme fire weather. Depending on the prevailing winds and fire behavior, burning embers could be transported downwind. Post‐fire erosion would also be expected, causing additional damage.
- The likelihood of negative long-term ecological effects from a wildfire in the hill lands is lower than the potential harm to human structures. A wildfire in the oak woodlands would will some trees, but some would survive.
3 GRAZING MANAGEMENT GOALS
Six primary goals have been identified for grazing management of the VGCC Hill Lands. Each goal is described below, as related to the Mission of providing recreation resources as well as protecting and preserving the natural resources of Villages hill lands.
- Provide villagers access and recreational opportunities.
- Provide for the safety of hill land users.
- Protect, conserve, and enhance natural plant communities.
- Minimize fire hazards to hill lands and private property by managing vegetative fuels.
- Rehabilitate degraded vegetation and wildlife habitat.
- Establish cooperative relationships with adjacent property owners.
4 PREDICTED EFFECTS AND DESIRED CONDITIONS
4.1 Overview of Grazing Effects on Natural Resources
The potential effects of grazing vary seasonally. Grazing must be timed to minimize negative impacts and maximize the benefits to all of the resources. This is accomplished by focusing on the general conservation goals of the GMP and timing grazing accordingly. Negative effects on some resources will still potentially occur within the established grazing timelines; therefore, additional management strategies and a monitoring program have been developed to protect existing and potential resources, and to ensure the effectiveness of these strategies. Further, grazing outside of the general timelines may be employed under certain controlled circumstances to manage for specific conservation goals, such as invasive non‐native plant control and shrub encroachment.
In general, grazing applied between January and May would maximize the benefits of reduced mass and height of the annual grasses. Grazing before February poses risks of soil erosion during above‐ normal rainfall years. Whereas, grazing after May may cause a reduction in native plant species richness, and increase erosion potential in subsequent years. Grazing after May also poses risks to woody plant species in the riparian habitats, wetlands, and oak woodlands, but can help to control shrub and tree encroachment into grasslands. Both beneficial and negative impacts to special‐status plants are associated with spring grazing: reduction of the mass and height of annual grasses would favor special‐status plants, but direct herbivory of special‐status flowers would reduce reproductive success.
Grazing has both beneficial and negative effects on potential special‐status wildlife species.
Potential benefits associated with moderate grazing include increased heterogeneity of the landscape, increased native plant populations, and lower herbaceous cover, all of which improve opportunities for foraging and movement, and improve habitat for small mammals. Small mammals, in turn, provide a prey base as well as burrows for upland, refuge, and denning habitat for many potential special‐status wildlife species.
4.2 Fire Hazards
Livestock grazing is the preferred method for reducing fire fuel loads, among the common methods. Mowing is expensive, can spark a wildfire, and is impractical in uneven terrain. Prescribed fire causes smoke pollution, can potentially escape to cause damage to property and human health, and is impractical for repeated treatment of large areas. Most grassland managers find the benefit of fire hazard reduction to be the primary incentive to employ grazing on their lands; however, grazing of annual grasslands at conventional levels has been shown to reduce the hazard of fuel loads and thus to alter the behavior of wildfires, but not to significantly reduce the risk of fire ignition and spread. Grazing to achieve fire hazard reduction objectives should occur during the wet seasons prior to the dry wildfire season, and at a high enough intensity to minimize the fuel load.
4.3 Alternative Grazing Management Scenarios
There are three types of livestock operations. The cow/calf initially seems to be the preferred operation to a stocker operation because the experience is that cows and calves are more compatible than stockers in areas used for recreation; however, seasonal cattle grazing with stockers is more likely to achieve conservation goals while minimizing potential impacts to sensitive resources. The following discussion summarizes this assessment:
- Year‐round cow/calf operation. Water may be limited depending on the production of the springs in the hill lands. The ranch manager, Rich Vargas, would be able to help with that assessment. A year‐round operation might necessitate the purchase water from a domestic water supplier, adding an additional cost to the operation.
- Seasonal cow/calf operation. There are several reasons why a seasonal cow/calf operation may not be the preferred alternative. Mother cows are retained for the entire year, and might need to be moved to a different property during high hill land use. Cows with calves require more supplementary feeding because of the nursing calves. Cows with calves distribute less thoroughly across a grazing field and graze less on steep hillsides than stockers.. On the other hand, seasonal cow/calf operations are better suited to recreation.
Seasonal stocker operation. Cattle grazing could be managed to accomplish the conservation objectives during only 6 months each year. So a year‐round operation is not required, and it could potentially negatively affect special resources such as water quality, summer flowering plants, riparian vegetation, and oak seedlings. A seasonal cattle grazing lease/license would be less controversial in terms of exposure of the cattle to the villagers, and would require less maintenance and management. A seasonal stocker operation would have less safety risk and greater flexibility than a seasonal or year‐round cow‐calf operation. Stocker cattle require less supplementary feeding and more thoroughly distribute the herbivory effects across a grazing field; however stocker cattle require stronger fences (or more fence maintenance) because of their exploratory behavior.
4.4 Springs
There are several springs that have been identified for possible reconstruction to support cattle. These include three small springs and one large spring along the Bay Trail, and a spring along Rawhide. There are two springs along Oak. There is also a significant spring on Meadow with cisterns. Additionally, cattle should not exhaust the flow available as some is required to support wildlife and riparian vegetation. There are troughs in disrepair near most of the spring locations. Thanks to the hiking club members who followed every rusty pipe located along the trails to find the spring boxes
Issue Tracking List
| Issues | Possible Approaches to Solutions |
| Liability/Insurance for Farming or Ranching |
https://landforgood.org/wp-content/uploads/LFG-Liability-and-Insurance-in-a-Farm-Lease-Guide.pdf. This guide is from Vermont. Speaking with the ranch manager, he stated that the ranch was owned by a San Jose based real estate development company and that the company is well insured including for leases. |
| Cost | Once the infrastructure is in place, the rancher will pay the Villages. None of the troughs were in good condition. |
| Fencing | Fencing to the north is maintained by the Khune Ranch. Fencing to the east is maintained by Grant Ranch cattle lease operator. Fencing to the south is maintained currently by the Richardson Ranch by Rich Vargas, the ranch manger and potential lessor. |
| Water |
Infrastructure and spring production will be evaluated on October 30. Springs have supported grazing in past years. Equestrians are concerned grazing will effect the well used by the stable. The springs will produce the same amount whether there is grazing or not and should not impact the well near the barn. The issue with water will be are the cows consuming so much of the spring water that the wildlife currently consuming water be driven into the neighborhoods/golf course, adjacent ranches. |
| Legal Expense | |
| Lease Terms | |
| Damage to hiking trails | Cattle will leave hoof prints and in mud these hoof prints can harden into hoof sized pot holes. |
| Damage to signs | Signs will be damaged by the cows scratching against the signs. Mitigation ideas are to 1. Wrap barbed wire on the signs. 2. Extend the posts to 6 ft. 3. Block the area surrounding the signs. |
| Evaluation of sheep or goats grazing the hill |
This is used along the Coyote Creek Trail and Silver Creek Country Club. Estimates can be provided by https://www.rentagoat.com/about/ Bay Area option: Goats R Us: http://www.goatsrus.com/faq.htm How much does it cost to have a site grazed? |