 |
|
 |
| ||
|
Giving Creeks and Cows Some Space
Astronauts lunching among the stars and cows grazing along Southern Alameda Creek have something in common. Resource managers for the creek employed a hazard analysis model developed by NASA and widely used in the food safety world to systematically identify, control and monitor contaminants to local waters. Such an exacting system, and the whole new celestial approach to bestial grazing in the 38,000 acre watershed it launched, became necessary when the landowner threatened to kick out the cows. Calves can convey the sometimes deadly bacteria Cryptosporidium into creeks, and the S.F. Public Utilities Commission didn't want this particular contaminant anywhere near its ratepayer's source of tap water.
It's been five years since the SFPUC made its threat and cows still dot the hillsides, but they aren't grazing the same way they used to due to the watershed protection project developed by the Alameda County Resource Conservation District, the U.S. EPA, the PUC and local ranchers leasing public lands. Among many measures, the project limits grazing in pastures near the creek and riparian areas to certain seasons (see diagram), fences off 24 miles of creekside, develops alternative cattle ponds and troughs away from sensitive areas, requires lessees to do herd health plans, sets stocking rates so that a minimum of 1,000 pounds of dry grass are still on the ground come fall and winter (just enough to reduce runoff but not too much to fuel fires), and prohibits calves under four months old from grazing in the watershed during peak flow events in April. Statewide studies suggest that about 10% of two-month-old calves "shed" (the polite word for poop) Cryptosporidium versus less than 1% of mature cattle.
As a result of the new project's preventive measures, use of the watershed lands by cows is now down by 40%. Other measures aim to reduce sediment and pesticide problems identified in the NASA hazard analysis.
Faced with the public health threat, especially to S.F.'s more susceptible immuno-deficient population, everyone's first instinct was to "fence every drain and draw," says the district's Sheila Barry. "But it's not like a city on a flat map. When you look at the land, it just doesn't work." A more sophisticated approach evolved as stakeholders ranging from AIDS activists to ranchers to scientists to water quality specialists joined in discussing their concerns. "If there's one axiom of watershed management that works, it's that you've got to get all the people out onto the land. They all need to be out there together to see the resource issues together and talk about them together."
The PUC, for its part, also changed its land leasing conditions. "In
the past the quality of our tenants suffered, and the system was mismanaged,
because it was revenue-driven - the highest bidder got the grazing contract,"
says PUC's Tim Koopmann, also a fourth generation rancher. The PUC now conducts
a stringent screening and scorecard tenant selection process. As a result,
five of its 17 tenants turned over, and the PUC absorbed a $200,000 loss
in annual grazing lease revenue. Despite the hole in his pocket, Koopman
is pleased with the environmental success of the program and says the only
hardship on cattlemen has been the labor involved in so much fencing.
"This became a hot issue because of the health hazard, and the threat
of a public body making a big decision that would affect everybody's lives,
both ranchers and urban water drinkers," sums up Barry. "The trick
will be to create the same excitement in other watersheds where there is
no such threat."
Contact: Sheila Barry (925)371-0154 ext. 41
[ ABAG HOME | SFEP HOME ]
Copyright © 2002, San Francisco Estuary Project