APPENDIX 1 31 DEC 2011 HISTORY OF THE UC SIERRA FIELD STATION
Charles A. Raguse, Principal Author, and Paul D. Raguse, Computer Systems Manager
VOLUME I. Some Pure History, Administration & Committees; Organizations & Legislation; Documents
& Letters, Issues & Challenges, Most of All, People, and, Maybe a few Pictures
raison d etre
Front matter and Introduction
PART I. SEARCHING FOR HISTORY, A Prelude
“Chapter One”: Searching for History
Federal Legislation – The Morrill, Hatch, and Smith-Lever Acts: Organizing the means to conduct Research, Extension, and Teaching
Committee On Water, Forest, Range, and Natural Resource Conservation (COWFRANC)
Department of Forestry, CA Resources Agency
Division of Forestry of the California Department of Natural Resources
The Wildlands Research Center (WRC) and the Wildlands Research Program
Range Land Utilization Committee (RLUC)
Extension Committee on Natural Resources and Environmental Quality
CSRS Statewide Review of Forest and Wildlands Research
The Zivnuska Committee: Wildland Research in the California Agricultural Experiment Station,
John A. Zivnuska, Chair. (The Committee was established 3 Dec 1976.)
Task Force on Research and Extension
CSRS Review of the Department of Agronomy & Range Science at UC Davis. May 12-15, 1992.
UC Field Stations in Wildlands Research
UC Hopland Field Station (HFS)
Sierra Foothill Range Field Station (SFRFS)
PART II. A DECADE OF CHANGE
USFS Pacific Southwest Forest & Range Experiment Station
U.S. Forest Service San Joaquin Experimental Range (SJER)
UC Cooperative Program at SJER
A Parting of the Ways at the SJER
Purchase of the Forbes Ranch, its Location and Site Description
PART III. THE NEW FIELD STATION: ITS CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION
Fences, Roads, Structures, Fields, and Research-plot Exclosures
Equipment and its Operators
A Proposal for Irrigated Lands Development and Management
Water: The “Upper Main”, Springs, Streams, and the Yuba River
The Kellogg-McDonald “Proposal for Augmentation”
PART IV. STATION DEVELOPMENT: RANGE AND IRRIGATED PASTURE
PART V. LIVESTOCK AND LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION OPTIONS
PART VI. ADMINISTRATION
The Vice President’s (VP) Office
Research Advisory Committees (RAC) and Communication 15
The Field Stations Advisory Committee
Superintendents and Directors of Individual Field Stations
“Strategic” and other variations of, Planning
Cooperative Extension: An Historic Review
PART VII. ISSUES THAT DEFINED THE STATION, MOSTLY IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER
Recreation Research
Marysville Lake & Park’s Bar Dams
The Grumbly Report
Labor Re-charges
Prescription Clearing, Control Burns, & Woodcutting
The Heady Report
The “Chapman File”
Cattle Herd Ownership
1
Research Advisory Committee Discontinuance
Research for Cooperative Extension
“Long-term Management Units” (LTMU): A Failed Proposal
“Northern California Research and Extension Network” (NC-REN): A Failed Proposal
Wildlife Impacts & Hunting Rights
Riparian Management and Conservation
PART VIII. MEETING THE PUBLICS
PART IX. WITHER GOEST THOU NOW
Institute vs. Cafeteria-style (“Pushing on the Reins”)
PART X. APPENDIXES
Bits ‘n’ Pieces
Yuba County History
Ecology of Grazed Plant Communities
Yuba River Access
Wildfires: Adjacent and On-Station
Security, Liabilities, and Boundary Control
PARTXI. MISCELLANY
Selected Minutes of RAC Meetings
PART XII MAPS, GRAPHS, & TABLES
INDEX
Introduction and Raison d’ etre
TBA
Prelude
PART I. SEARCHING FOR HISTORY, A Prelude
“Chapter One: Searching for History”
>Commager, Henry Steele, Editor. 1949.
Documents of American History, Fifth Ed. Appleton-Century-Croft, Inc. New York.
>Scheuring, Ann Foley, for the Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources (DANR) 1988.
A sustaining comradeship – The Story of University of California Cooperative Extension (UCCE), 1913-1988. Prepared for the UCCE’s 75th anniversary. 64
pgs., many historical photos.
>Scheuring, Ann Foley, with Chester O. McCorkle and James Lyons 1995.
Science & Service – A History of the Land-grant University and Agriculture in California. DANR. 260 pgs., Profusely illustrated and annotated. A “must” for
the agricultural historian’s bookshelves.
>Raguse, C.A. History, Doctrine, and Perspective. 2003 (This essay was the first chapter in an earlier
version of Diamond…)
While suggesting by its title that it chronicles the history of a specific University field research station at a unique location, this book, Diamond in
the Rough – A history of the UC Sierra Field Station, is rooted in the history of range management in the United States as a whole.
It includes the nature of range, its historical uses, and its beginnings as a formally-acknowledged land class and thereby judged appropriate for the
conduct of research as to its characteristics and proper management as well as means of improvement. Taken into consideration is the nature of that
research and how it evolved over time.
And of fundamental importance to this work were the characteristics of the times (mid- to late-1950s) when the (as then named) UC Sierra Foothill
Range Field Station1 came into being and was formally recognized as a “brand new” member of California’s far-flung (from the Tule Lake Station
in County to the Imperial Valley Station in Imperial County) nine-station system.
These considerations influenced the list of specific criteria employed to select a proper location, which included the climatic, physiographic,
edaphic, and vegetational characteristics of the location. Following purchase of the "Forbes Ranch", a decades-long construction period was
1
For the sake of simplicity and to avoid the infinitely cumbersome "University of California Sierra Foothill Research & Extension Center"
(SFREC), I will use instead "Sierra Field Station" (SFS) in this manuscript.
2
required to make its 5,700 acres into the premiere "Research and Extension Center" (REC) of the California State Experiment Station that we see
today.
Arguably, the SFREC is also the Center with the brightest future.
The history of “rangelands” (a term synonymous with “grasslands”), beginning as it did in mid-continent, reaches back well before the history of
rangelands in California. Among the references cited here .John Weaver's enduring work establishes a tall grass prairie and classical ecology
benchmark.. Lee Burcham’s wonderful book “California Range Land” describes the period of Spanish settlement and the series of missions
established along the California coast from San Diego northward, and documents the movements of livestock from Mexico into the southwestern
United States along four routes, crossing the Mexican border into a region that now includes the states of California, Arizona, New Mexico, and
Texas.
Thus, the history of “rangeland improvement” in California is congruent with the history of growth of the livestock industry, which in turn began
with the Spanish missions. In those early days, little thought was given to rangeland “improvement” itself; there was no need because, as well
documented by the Spanish (see Lee Burcham’s book), there was an abundance of good forage.
So, range management began with an eye to the management of livestock on the land. The emphasis on improving the lands on which these
livestock would graze came later.
The oldest citation in the reference list for this Chapter is the “Report of Irrigation Investigations in California”, written by Elwood Meade of the
(then) USDA Office of Experiment Stations and published in 1901. It is by no means irrelevant here since one of the hallmarks of both
development and usage of the Sierra Field Station, as well as similar locations in a physiographic- and elevation-defined band in foothills along both
sides of the Central Valley is the use of externally conveyed and purchased water for irrigation.
Much of the knowledge and many of the techniques employed for this purpose had their origin during the Gold Rush period of the mid-1800s.
Unique in this regard among its California Field Station siblings, the development and usage of existing natural (consider the Headquarters Spring,
for example) and conveyed (e.g., the Upper Main) water supplies charted a rich history of how to manage water. That this history was not
systematically recorded for the benefit of others represents an unmistakable and unfortunate loss to the annals of agricultural history.
Control burning of edge-of-valley and lower foothill oak woodlands, with the aim of providing more forage for grazing livestock was a fundamental
practice in the new "foothill rangeland agriculture". Madera County's ranchers, Cooperative Extension Farm Advisers, and campus-based CE
Specialists, built a dynasty of knowledge and application methods that came to be the "How-to Bible" for other county organizations up and down
the state, and, indeed, as well as for visiting scientists and extension workers from other countries.
Keeping a re-defined view of "agriculture" in mind, and recognizing modern-day concerns about conservation and restoration of the landscape, F. P.
Adams, et al, present a detailed and complex treatment of a difficult, much-debated, and hydra-headed question from the mid-1930’s to the mid1960’s, "Is the control burning of brush and woodland-grass rangelands good or bad when viewed from the standpoint of subsequent water
management and soil erosion?” In a surprisingly broad and well-balanced document, Adams et al quoted the viewpoints of many foresters, soil
conservationists, engineers, geologists, “California livestock interests”, and the California Farm Bureau Federation. Sections on soil and rainfall
characteristics in the state’s brush and woodland range areas were included, and examples of points made in the narrative were drawn from virtually
the entire length of the state. Many pages are devoted to “experimental and observational evidence”2
An appendix is given on “The control burning program of the State Division of Forestry” An enlightening reference is made to three laws passed
by the 1945 Legislature, i.e., Chapters 1018, 1109, and 1420. Briefly:



“Chapter 1018 was primarily an enabling act, and an act establishing legislative policy, setting up broad principles of
operation, recognizing the need for experiments and research, and in pursuit thereof authorizing the use of state personnel and
equipment under certain conditions if they are not needed on wild fires.
“Chapter 1109 set up the legal procedure by which the enabling legislation may be operated.” In essence, it delegated
approval for, and regulation of, conditions and procedures for an individual land owner’s control burn to the State Division of
Forestry.
“Chapter1420 specifically established the legislative ‘policy of providing for and carrying on a continued study of range
improvement’ through the clearing and revegetation of range lands.”
Lest my gentle reader come to think that so much attention to control burning is unwarranted, a folksy anecdote is offered. During the time span
referred to above, there existed an extensive, comprehensive, and highly-regarded program of research at the U.S. Forest Service San Joaquin
Experimental Range (in Madera County near O’Neals and Coarsegold) in cooperation with faculty and staff from both the Berkeley and Davis
campuses. (For an example, see Hutchison and Kotok, Bulletin 663, 1942, below). This partnership was dissolved, in the late 1950s, as burgeoning
competition for assignable land areas and technical support of ongoing research led the U.S, Forest Service to reject an ambitious grazing
experiment proposed by the Animal Science Department on the UC Davis campus. The University immediately embarked upon a search for a
replacement land area of similar size and characteristics. When found, and the critical land purchases made, (then) Vice President for Agriculture
Paul F. Sharp, noting its ubiquitous brush and oak woodlands (which included profuse and quite healthy stands of poison oak), was said to have
remarked "There, now you guys can go ahead and clear brush and trees to your heart's content!” Thus, the Sierra Field Station came into existence,
and formulated its early research programs, substantially as a product of its times, which, in this instance not only required finding a new and
suitable location, but also the construction of a capable research facility together with a well-reasoned and creditable research program there as
well. Instead of challenges (especially from UC Administration) to disregard previous history but instead convene a blue ribbon review to decide
in what ways and for what reasons the replacement Field Station should shatter the old mold and fashion a new one, there is ample evidence
that the aim was to cast it as closely as possible in physical attributes and future programs as the one from whence it had just left.3
Adams et al also bring up an issue related to the uniformly-recognized need for "controls" in conventional arable land-based, small-plot
experiments. In this case, the concept of, and need for, pre-experiment "calibration", in rangeland grazing studies. A direct quote from their paper
goes as follows: “The long period of time needed for fully satisfactory experiments of the type that have been reported is not generally realized by
2
And when was the last time a peer-review journal accepted "observational evidence" in one of your manuscripts?
I hasten to disavow any pejorative intent in framing this paragraph as written. My main thesis, as also written above, is that the genesis of the
Sierra Field Station was substantially a reflection of the times within it emerged.
3
3
the public. For such results, experiments involving differential treatments need to be preceded by adequate calibration of plots or watersheds
before burning is started. Because of the demand for information at the earliest possible date, this essential calibration has not always been
done. Furthermore, data are available from some of the experiments for as few as two years. We believe that the public concerned should be
willing to wait for results until the conclusion of long-time studies; i.e., studies extending through both wet and dry cycles after all needed
equipment and facilities are available and in satisfactory working condition.” A far cry indeed, from annual crops, seeded, tended, and
mechanically harvested in the space of a single growing season .In the lab-oriented plant research world, pastures as well as small-plots, have mostly
been replaced by a tiny plant from the genus Arabidopsis, whose generational "turn-around" time can be measured in days, rather than in years or
decades.
I arrived in California in July of 1964 (and welcomed by Acting Chair Charlie Schaller, in Hunt Hall) as a new hire in the Davis Campus Agronomy
Department, and soon thereafter was introduced to the Sierra Field Station, I was instructed to discuss cooperative irrigated pasture and range
research with folks from the Departments of Animal Science (especially Roy Hull) and Water Science & Engineering (especially Del Henderson) at
Davis. In fact, this tri-departmental research program had been built into the requirements of a then-vacant position4 that I had been asked to assume.
Kenneth A. Wagnon, an Animal Science Specialist (UC Davis) with long experience in grazing studies conducted at the San Joaquin Range and, on
an informal basis, became the Acting Superintendent of the SFS, brought up the subject of calibration in discussions of grazing experiments
proposed for the SFS. Historically, the management of experimental livestock in grazing experiments had been a subject of major concern from as
far back as the 1930's, as detailed below in Wagnon et al and included in Hutchison and Kotok, 1942.
Not many years following my arrival in California I ceased to even hear the word "calibration" spoken, let alone be seriously considered in range
research. Its costs, in terms of time required, and publications delayed, was simply too great.
The references gathered to anchor this chapter constitute an interesting mix. Having been the beneficiary of the reference collections of
some of my departmental elders (notably Dr. R. Merton Love, who himself had as part of his own collection, a number of classics from his
elders, I am now the fortunate curator of original copies of all of the references cited below.
Suffice to say that much useful information (not to mention insights, and a realistic understanding of how rangeland systems function) can be
obtained from perusing the results and thoughtful interpretations of research done, by these folks and countless others, in decades past.
>Adams, F., P. A. Ewing, and M. R. Huberty. 1947. Hydrologic aspects of burning brush and woodland-grass ranges
in California. Division of Forestry, Department of Natural Resources. Sacramento, CA
A lengthy, detailed, complex, and many-authored treatment of a subject, which, in the mid-30’s to the mid-40’s
decade, was a difficult, much-debated, and hydra-headed question: ”Is the control burning of brush and
woodland-grass rangelands good or bad when viewed from the standpoint of subsequent water
management and soil erosion?”
The principal authors of this publication were by no means "light-weights". To quote from the Foreword, “Frank
Adams, Professor of Irrigation, Emeritus, University of California, was for more than 20 years associated with the
irrigation research of the United States Department of Agriculture, and organized, and for 25 years headed, the
Irrigation Division of the College of Agriculture. ... Paul A. Ewing, Senior Irrigation Economist, Division of
Irrigation and Water Conservation, Soil Conservation Service, has been connected with the irrigation research of
the Federal Department of Agriculture for 35 years. ... Martin R. Huberty, Professor of Irrigation, University of
California at Los Angeles, has been a member of the Division of Irrigation, College of Agriculture, University of
California, for more than 25 years and for the past 11 years has headed the irrigation research of the College of
Agriculture in Southern California.”
Page 27 offers a "Key to Soil Series of California", as devised by R. Earl Storie, and Walter W. Weir, as follows:
I. Soils on recent alluvial fans, flood plains, or other secondary deposits having undeveloped profiles, underlain with
unconsolidated materials.
II. Soils on young alluvial fans, flood plains or other secondary deposits having slightly developed profiles
underlain by unconsolidated materials.
III. Soils on older alluvial fans, alluvial plains, or terraces having moderately developed profiles
(moderately dense subsoils) underlain by unconsolidated material.
IV. Soils on older plains or terraces having strongly developed profiles (dense clay subsoils)
underlain by unconsolidated materials.
V. Soils on older plains or terraces having hardpan subsoil layers.
VI. Soils on older terraces or upland areas having dense clay subsoils, resting on moderately unconsolidated
materials.
VII. Soils on upland areas developed on (underlain by) hard igneous rock.
VIII. Soils on upland areas developed on consolidated sedimentary rocks.
IX. Soils on upland areas developed on softly consolidated material."
Initially, the treatise begins with quoted viewpoints of many foresters, soil conservationists, engineers, geologists, “California livestock interests”,
and the California Farm Bureau Federation. It continues with sections on soil and rainfall characteristics in the state’s brush and woodland range
areas, and examples are drawn from virtually the entire length of the state. There are many pages devoted to “experimental and observational
4
The previous position had been held by Professor Maurice L. Peterson, who previously had conducted a program of irrigated pasture research
(together with Professor Robert Hagan of Water Science), and at the time of my arrival, had migrated to the lofty perch of University Dean of
Agriculture in Berkeley
4
evidence”), and a surprisingly-distilled “Conclusions and Recommendations” Its Number 3 is worthy of being singled out for inclusion here,
especially since it speaks directly to the sequence of events that resulted in a research facility called the Sierra Field Station, which, most definitely,
was an unplanned event.
"No. 3: It is very desirable that the research program on the hydrologic aspects of brush and woodland-grass burning be
expanded; but it is also desirable that the agencies engaged in the research cooperate more closely than they have in the past, and especially,
that they reach closer agreement on technique and procedure. By these measures, it is believed, progress in the research will be advanced,
and a better basis will be provided for comparing and interpreting results."
.
An appendix is given on “The control burning program of the State Division of Forestry”. In this, enlightening reference is made to three laws
passed by the 1945 Legislature, Chapters 1018, 1109, and 1420, Statutes of 1945. Briefly,
“Chapter 1018 was primarily an enabling act, and an act establishing legislative policy, setting up broad principles of operation, recognizing the
need for experiments and research, and in pursuit thereof authorizing the use of state personnel and equipment under certain conditions if they are
not needed on wild fires.”
“Chapter 1109 sets up the legal procedure by which the enabling legislation may be operated.” This Chapter in essence delegated approval for and
regulation of conditions and procedures for an individual land owner’s control burn to the State Division of Forestry.
“Chapter 1420 specifically establishes the legislative ‘policy of providing for and carrying on a continued (emphasis mine) study of range
improvement through the clearing and revegetation of range lands. In a letter to the authors in August of 1946, the State Forester remarked that the
program “has worked quite satisfactorily, the primary difficulties being that:
“1. Too often the applicant does not want to expend money to in the necessary control lines prior to the burning in order that the fire may
be properly confined to the pre-described limits.
“2. Too often the applicant wants to burn a larger area than can be reasonably held under control. Under normal conditions it is difficult
and often impossible to properly control a fire burning more than 300 or 400 acres.
“3. The applicants are often unwilling to assume the responsibilities and liabilities that are required by law if their fires escape and do
damage to property of another.” `
In the Conclusions and Recommendations section the concept of, and need for, calibration is brought up, i.e., “The long period of time needed for
fully satisfactory experiments of the type that have been reported is not generally realized by the public. For such results, experiments involving
differential treatments need to be preceded by adequate calibration of plots or watersheds before burning is started. Because of the demand for
information at the earliest possible date, this essential calibration has not always been done. Furthermore, data are available from some of the
experiments for as few as two years. We believe that the public concerned should be willing to wait for results until the conclusion of long-time
studies; i.e., studies extending through both wet and dry cycles (emphasis mine) after all needed equipment and facilities are available and in
satisfactory working condition.” Its costs, in terms of time required, and publications delayed, simply was too great. In what I consider to be the
best range-related research I conducted during my career at UC Davis, a fortunate four-year set of weather years set the stage for a very successful
set of beef cattle grazing experiments5. The fact that no prior calibration was done notwithstanding! I am not hesitant to admit that “I lucked out.”
Note also in this reference the comment about the “highly developed” program in Humboldt Co. vs. that in Mendocino Co. Used as a comparison to
the excellent program management in Madera Co the key to success was a local group of competent and conscientious ranchers, working together
with the USDA Forest Service, the Department of Fish & Game, The USDA Soil Conservation Service, and UC Cooperative Extension (both local
and Campus-based Specialists) and College research faculty.
A quote from the "UC Agricultural Experiment Station Range Land Utilization Committee (RLUC) formed in _____ . More succinctly than its
title, from half of the first paragraph: "The studies of the hydrologic aspects of range burning conducted under the auspices of this committee have
been made by the Irrigation Division of the College of Agriculture of the University of California, mainly by Professors F. J. Veihmeyer and C. N.
Johnson. This committee was appointed by Dean C. B. Hutchison of the University of the California College of Agriculture at the request of
California cattlemen and sheep growers, the first chairman having been Dr. Geo. H. Hart, and the present chairman being Professor B. A. Madson.
It turned out that the "Committee on Range Land Utilization" was one of the most formative influences on the directions taken within the evolution
of the State Experiment Station, the latter an almost seamless one from that point (the 1940's) to the present day.
>Arnold, Keith, Dir., Calif. Forest & Range Exp. Station, U. S. Forest Service, USDA, and Paul F. Sharp, Dir., Calif.
Agricultural Experiment Station, University of California. December-31-1957.
Research operations at the USDA San Joaquin Experimental Range. In-house 2-page memo.
Coming as it did, dated on New Year's Eve Day, it was, for its recipients, indeed not a welcomed salutation to
the New Year. While names are listed alphabetically, it seems that this statement was less than a joint effort,
but one mostly written by the Director of the California Forest & Range Experiment Station. Its message is
brief and to the point and, considering its historic significance, justifies presentation here in its entirety.
"The productivity of California's extensive range lands is becoming of increasing economic importance to the livestock men of the states.
5
Raguse, C.A., J.L. Hull, M.R. George, J.G. Morris, and K.L. Taggard. 1988. Foothill range management and fertilization improve beef cattle
gains. California Agriculture Journal 42(3): pp. 4-8.
5
"Three research agencies, the California Agricultural Experiment Station of the University of California, the California Forest and Range
Experiment Station of the United States Department of Agriculture, and the Agricultural Research Service of the United States Department of
Agriculture, are developing information designed to increase productivity and income from the state's range areas.
"For the past twenty-five years cooperative research has been conducted on the federal San Joaquin Experimental Range of the California Forest and
Range Experiment Station. In this joint activity the University has been responsible for beef cattle, rodent, and some wildlife research. The
California Forest and Range Experiment Station has done plant ecology, plant control, range management, wildlife, and other types of research. The
Agricultural Research Service has worked on fertilization and other agronomic studies. Some wildlife research, particularly with quail, rodents, and
snakes, has been done by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish and Game, and other cooperating personnel.
"There is need to continue and to expand research centered around cattle in the Sierra Nevada foothill area. At the same time there is need for
intensive grazing management studies. In response to these needs, research programs have increased to the point where the San Joaquin
Experimental Range is no longer adequate for the large-scale range research programs of both the University of California and the California Forest
and Range Experiment Station. Separate areas and separate test animals must be used.
"The California Forest and Range Experiment Station plans to utilize essentially the entire grazing area of the San Joaquin Experimental Range for
intensive management studies involving deferred and rotation grazing which can be done only with cattle used exclusively for that purpose. The
beef cattle research on nutrition of range forage, reproduction, calving and weaning weights, and supplemental feeding which the University of
California is doing cannot be combined on the same area utilizing the same grazing animals. The San Joaquin Experimental Range is not large
enough to accommodate these two large-scale research programs. The University will remove its beef herd from the Range during 1958. It will try
to acquire another area for its beef cattle range research or discontinue this phase of its activity. The California Forest and Range Experiment Station
is arranging for permittee cattle which can be used for large-scale grazing management studies and other research involving coordinated use of
annual-type foothill range and higher elevation ranges on national forests.
"What will these changes mean to the research program at the San Joaquin Experimental Range?
"There will be a switch in emphasis from animal husbandry studies to grazing management studies. "There will be no change in the policy of the
California Forest and Range Experiment Station to provide small areas of land for other types of range research when requested by the University
of California, Agricultural Research Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the California Department of Fish and Game."
>Arnold, Keith, L.T. Burcham, R.L. Fenner and Rudy F. Grah. 1951.
Use of fire in land clearing. Calif. Agric. Journ. 3-7(5): 9-15.
The authorship of this article is emphasized here in recognition of this remarkable historic
document. The prominence of using control burning for range land clearing is long past. But in
the time period that it was written for it would have served well as a reference manual for the
planning and execution of a burn, as well as for use as a textbook for a college-level class in its
subject. Because of its superb fit within this chapter I add it in its entirety as an appendix. I had
the good fortune to have known both Lee Burcham and Rudy Grah on a personal level and hold
recollections of those associations in high regard.
>Beetle, Alan A. 1947.
Distribution of the native grasses of California. Hilgardia. 17(9) April, 1947. 309-357.
For those enamored of things historical (e.g., this was published in Hilgardia) and for those enamored of roots (no pun intended, considered that
grasses are noted for their prolific root systems), as well as those for whom the above two cohorts overlap, this publication would be a solid invitee
into some as yet non-existing “Hall of Fame” of agricultural research in California.
6
My copy is in mint condition, unblemished by a scrawled “owner’s” name, nor sullied in the least internally by crude blue-point pen underlinings, or
(Heaven forbid!) great swaths of yellow marker pen. It is the kind of document that if referred to in a nowadays student’s thesis draft, might bring
frowns of frustration to a “major prof’s” eyebrows. “Where did he/she ever find that?” Indeed. But Hilgardia is/was “A Journal of Agricultural
Science Published by the California Agricultural Experiment Station”. And there’s good stuff in it.
In the decade prior to the Hatch Act, Connecticut began to provide state funds directly to existing agricultural experiment stations. The structure of
these reflected the considerations of their founders as to how they should function. They ranged from independence as a state agency to a withincollege department. “Connecticut’s station represented one extreme while the nation’s second agricultural research station (the college farm of UC
Berkeley) represented the other”6 The University of California began experiments on its college farm at Berkeley in 1874 in an attempt to win
support for the land-grant institution from the state’s farmers (emphasis mine). Success gradually followed after the arrival of Eugene W. Hilgard
as director the next year. He combined new laboratory investigations with plot work and reoriented the entire program after traveling the state by
railway handcar (sic) to acquaint himself with the needs of California’s varied agriculture. Impressed with the director’s efforts to merge the
potentials of science with agricultures realities, the state legislature in 1877 designated the facility an agricultural experiment station under the
control of the university Board of Regents.
A footnote marker by the author’s name leads to the information that Alan Beetle was Assistant Professor of Agronomy and Assistant Agronomist
in the Experiment Station. Further (in the footnote) it is revealed that he “…resigned September 5, 1946.
Even though I was already 16 years of age then, I was living on a tiny family farm in Wisconsin and so failed to take note of his resignation. Be that
as it may, this information resonates with the fact that, as a rank, and insufficiently competent Assistant Professor joining the Department of
Agronomy at the University of California’s Davis Campus, I was informed part of the way along my time-line-to-tenure that my progress had been
deemed insufficient by those who had already made the grade. Unless I proved up by the deadline, I would be cast out. “Up or Out” and “Publish or
Perish” were phrases frequently heard, both then and to this day. Tacit admonitions they were, to those who might not recognize that they might not
be “fit” enough to “survive”.
In fairness to the system, the then chair of the Vegetable Crops Department, Oscar Lorenz, just downstairs from Agronomy in Hunt Hall, had told
me off-handedly in the hallway one time: “Become an expert in something.” There were two key words in that succinct bit of timely advice.
“Expert” was defined by the promotion and tenure committees, and gauged by the number of referred journal publications on one’s record.
“Something” meant it didn’t really matter what one’s research area was as long as one became an expert in it. It was a tight circle to be caught up in,
and while teaching assignments always were some fractional part of one’s responsibilities, they were counted for little, unless the class sizes were
large and the student reviews uniformly enthusiastic about the professor’s competence, the latter having a high correlation with the students
expectations as to how the course should be taught. Doubtless my gentle reader will find a large measure of “sour grapes” interlaced in this
description. However, I did survive, and retired voluntarily at Full Professor rank. In each December, campus administration provides a specialrecognition event (which serves wine, an excellent buffet, and joyful camaraderie) for those of us still extant. In my case it contains the academic
retirees from an original set of four agricultural departments that was coalesced into one, which instead of “Agronomy”, “Environmental
Horticulture“, ”Pomology“, and “Vegetable Crops”, it has the bland and expressionless moniker of “Plant Sciences”.
I have friends among this group. Although age (I am 79 at this writing, and fall into the youngest cohort), and death have pared the original number
down, it serves well for the future, in part because it is a sort of “running mean” that offers up an unwritten but nonetheless palpable and significant
summation of “Well, what did you think of it?” And, it is telling that a common thread in reply to the question is: “Well, I’m glad I served then,
instead of now.”
To close, it must be noted that while Alan Beetle submitted an excellent manuscript in 1946, and resigned the same year, it was published the
following year. In Hilgardia.
>Bentley, J. R. and R. F. Buttery. 1957.
Bumper forage crops. It takes more than just high rainfall. Western Livestock Journal. 35(47):152-154.
Herewith a single quote, stating a fundamental determinant of Mediterranean-climate annual-grassland production, albeit one not always
recognized, nor given its due measure of significance.
“A review of past precipitation records and herbage production data reveals the prime importance of timely rainfall distribution to insure
abundant herbage production.”
In fact, regional comparisons of forage production and quality based on differential values for total annual rainfall can be quite misleading,
if intra-seasonal distribution, as well as gaps in occurrence of rainfall events and their amounts, are not taken into account.
>Bentley, J. R. and M. W. Talbot. 1951.
Efficient use of annual plants on cattle ranges in the California foothills. Circular 870. USDA Washington, D.C.
Written from the USFS San Joaquin Experimental Range near O'Neals, in Madera County, CA, and covering research that was done at this Station
during the period 1935 - 48. A footnote in the "Experimental Area and Methods" section, p. 3, states "In this program the
University of California was responsible for the cattle studies, and the California Forest and Range Experiment Station
for the studies of range forage production and utilization.” (A very clear, and quite unfortunate separation of what
should have been an integrated approach between the University and the Forest Service.)
Figure 2, p. 4 shows the experimental pastures layout at the Range, with contour lines drawn at 100-ft intervals from 800 to
1600 feet in elevation.
Tables 1, p. 7, and 2, p. 8 give monthly means for precipitation for the seasons 1934-35 through 1947-48.
A section is devoted to the topic "Fitting Ranch Operation to Forage Growth". The authors describe three forage-availability
seasons: "Uncertain Green Forage in Fall and Winter", "Dependable Green Forage in Spring", and "Deficient Dry Forage in
6
Source of quotes: Kerr, Norwood Allen. 1987. The Legacy – A Centennial History of the State Agricultural Experiment Stations, 1887 – 1987.
Missouri Agric. Expt. Stn. Univ. of Missouri-Columbia. 318 pp. Illus.
7
Summer and Fall". Figures 5, 6, and 7, respectively. give lengths of time cattle grazed a) "inadequate green forage", b) "adequate green forage", and
"dry forage", for the seasons beginning in fall 1935 and ending in summer 1948.
The grazing study analyzed here employed three stocking rates: 10, 15, and 20 acres per cow, with two pastures allocated to each "grazing intensity"
treatment.
Three photographs (Figs. 18, 20, and 21) attended by explanatory captions show the appearance of "light", "moderate", and "close" utilization.
Discussion in the text supports January as the most appropriate month to evaluate treatments.
"Effect of Site on Grazing Capacity", p. 20, describes six site classes, from swale to steep, rocky bluffs.
From "Recognizing Satisfactory Range Utilization", p. 42:, "Full production of forage depends upon an adequate layer of old decomposing
litter lying flat on the soil surface".
A short list of common and botanical names of plants mentioned in the text is given on p. 50
>Biswell, Harold. 1989.
Prescribed burning. Univ. of California Press. Berkeley, Calif. First Paperback Printing, 1999. 255 p.
Shortly after my arrival on the Davis Campus in 1964, I was privileged for the opportunity to "sit in" on the final
lectures of UC Berkeley faculty in range and wildlands studies at Davis. Prior to that, and for a number of years,
there was a sort of exchange program, wherein key members of each faculty would conduct a semester's teaching
on the other campus. So, by virtue of that opportunity, I met Professor Biswell, and also Professors Arnold Schultz
and Harold Heady. The more I delve into the continuums of management and fundamental ecology, and ponder
the reciprocal influences of one upon the other, the more I value the immense repositories of experience,
knowledge, and fundamental truths that are resident in that "cohort" of early teachers and researchers whose
works and interpretive thinking far pre-dated the sea change represented by the break-up of the triad of the U.S.
Forest Service, UC Berkeley and UC Davis, working at the San Joaquin Experimental Range
Harold Biswell's book consists of a sparse set of only seven chapters:
1. Fundamentals of Fire Behavior
2. Fires Set by Lightning and by Indians
3. Wildfires
4. Prescribed Burning in Historical Perspective
5. (and perhaps the heart of this book) Prescribed-Fire Management Planning and Techniques in Burning
6. Effects of Burning on Resources
7. Why Not More Prescribed Burning?
In Biswell's Chapter 4 (p.95), in the section "Control Burning in California", the following:
"The concept of control burning in California's forests was very controversial in the early days, just as it was in the piney woods (Biswell spent a
career in Georgia before moving to California). ... The Forest Service policy of fire exclusion formulated in 1905 was not finally adopted by the
California Department of Forestry until 1924. Between these dates, there was vigorous debate in California about the wisdom of fire exclusion. Two
groups emerged. The first advocated light burning in the spring and fall as a means of hazard reduction. Such fires would do about what natural
lightning fires and burning by Indians had done for centuries. ... The second group maintained that wildfires could be stopped without much
difficulty and that fire exclusion must be the policy."Among the strong advocates of light burning were member of the Walker family of the Red
River Lumber Company in Shasta County. From 1909 to 1913 the Walkers made a thorough test of light burning on nearly 1 million acres of pine
lands under their management. ..."
And, a comment from the Foreword, by James K. Agee, Professor of Forest Ecology, at the University of Washington:
"The intrusion of residences into wildlands, with the attendant fire problems, was always a major concern of Biswell's In this book he warns of
impending catastrophic fire in the Berkeley Hills. His warning had precedence, not just prescience: one of the most devastating urban-wildland
interface fires prior to 1991 occurred in the Berkeley Hills in 1923. ...blown by hot, dry autumn winds, it swept down right to the edge of the UC
Berkeley campus..."
The thoroughness of Biswell's writing is accented by his inclusion of the mammoth Peshtigo Fire of my native Wisconsin, a fire attributed to a
wind-carried ember dropped into a pile of bone-dry sawdust at William B. Ogden's Peshtigo Lumber Company. That story has mostly been lost
over time, except to the serious scholar of calamitous wildfires, substantially because on that same day the same wind (which had its origin in the
eastern Dakotas) resulted in the Great Chicago Fire, attributed, albeit somewhat dubiously, to a Mrs. O'Leary's cranky cow. Happening as it did, in a
technological age when even the most calamitous news could be isolated by mere miles, has thereby a stronger hold in the history books.
And, by his words, a bit of Biswell's own personal research history: “I worked with ranchers for 13 years, 1947 – 1960, in their burning operations
in the foothill woodlands of Madera County. Nearly every Friday afternoon from about July 1 to September 15, I journeyed to the foothills so as to
be there early the next morning for a scheduled burn. I learned much from communicating with ranchers and participating in these burns. It
was a good experience. “I found that the ranchers were doing an excellent job in planning and carrying out the control burns. They were
well organized, well equipped, and proficient in handling the fires. More often than not, 50 to 60 ranchers came to a control burn, which might
cover portions of several ranches – up to 2,000 or 3,000 acres”.
During the period from 1965 through 1973, following Biswell's retirement from the university, he conducted demonstrations in Whitaker's Forest on
the safety of conducting re-burns in a properly managed forest. His comment on p110, "...The attendance and interest grew each year. On the last
field day, 175 attended. ... These demonstration burns in August amazed everyone. But elsewhere over the state, wildfires were raging."
Is it any different today?
8
>Burcham, L. T. 1957.
California Range Land: An historico-ecological study of the range resource of California.
Division of Forestry. Department of Natural Resources. Sacramento, CA
L. T. Burcham states in his Preface "In essentially its present form, under the title 'Historical Geography of the
Range Livestock Industry of California', this work constituted the writer's doctoral dissertation at the
University of California at Berkeley. “To do justice to adequate annotation of this classic historical document is
both a formidable and a daunting assignment. But in a sense, it is a fitting analog to John Weaver's "The
Prairie" as they relate both fundamentally and obliquely to this Chapter. Perhaps the most relevant fit from the
book is to be found in Burcham’s Chapter VII. The Impact of Man -- and his grazing animals -- on the Range
Resource, at sub-chapter "Replacement of the Native Vegetation". Burcham elaborated on this theme, later in
his career, in which he characterized successive "waves" of immigration. During the period in which I taught an
undergraduate "Grassland Ecology" course at Davis, I would regularly invite Dr. Burcham to present a lecture
on this topic. It never failed to generate animated questions and class discussions at the end, even though an
occasional student might disagree with him.
Nowadays, whilst pitched battles between evolutionists and creationists have yet to give evidence of abating, no
one in the plant ecology/range management world would deny that there existed, over time, a vast influx of
plants into the North American continent, some quite accidentally, others by the persistent, courageous, and life-long efforts of plant
explorers. A considerable number of these took hold and survived to become recognized members of the landscapes, albeit some less
welcome than others!
A contemporary mantra is "Restoration". This goal, if extended to an extreme, would seem to embrace a significant, if not total reversal of
plant migration history. Except under exceptional conditions, these attempts founder under the weight of two questions: "How does one
define the conditions one seeks to "restore" to?" and "How does one recognize when it is attained as a stable endpoint? With these criteria
in mind it is easy to conclude that it would require the closely-linked efforts of two or more successive generations of research to establish
whether, even if it be possible, "restoration" is worth the costs.
“The use of the range lands of California for grazing domestic animals dates from the arrival of the first Spanish colonists, in 1769. Before that
time these lands had been subjected only to limited grazing by game animals and use by rodents. Development of a range livestock industry
accompanied the growth of the missions and their associated settlements; it was the early foundation of the domestic economy of Spanish
California.” (p. 7, Introduction)
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
II. Major Factors Favoring a Range Livestock Industry
III. The Prelude in Mexico
IV. The Spanish Livestock
V. California’s Range Resource
VI. Development of the Range Livestock Industry in California
VII. The Impact of Man – and His Grazing Animals – on the Range Resource
See p. 185, “Replacement of the Native Vegetation”
P. 202 onward: documentation of overstocking
“Foundations of Range Improvement”, p. 216 (mention of 1862-64 drought)
VIII. Reversing the Trend
“Control of Undesirable Woody Vegetation”, p. 219
Clements “brush savanna”
“Range Revegetation”
“Range Fertilization Grazing Management and Forage Utilization
IX. The Range Livestock Industry in the State’s Economy.
Appendix I. Some early California Plant Collections
David Douglas, 1830-1833
Members of the H.M.S. Sulphur expedition, 1837-1838
Dr. J. M. Bigelow, 1852
Map, p39, showing movement of Spanish livestock into California:
“By the mid-1840s, livestock ranching was firmly established as the foremost activity throughout the coastal area from San Francisco Bay
southward. It extended northward into what now are Marin, Napa, and Sonoma counties. … The ranchers were predominantly Spanish Californians.
But about 1820 a small trickle of Americans and others of European origin began arriving in California. Some of these men, who came as seamen,
merchants, traders, or trappers, abandoned their former pursuits or combined them with the role of ranchers to settle down in the country. Most of
them became naturalized Spanish or Mexican citizens in order to qualify for grants of land.
While I was born in, educated in, and a resident of Wisconsin for over three decades, grew up with a familial heritage of German ancestors, most of
whom arrived in this country with a view of the Statue of Liberty to welcome them. Now a resident of California since 1964, I have come to accept
an immigration legacy tied to Spain, and played out in Mexico and the daisy chain of missions established along the California Coast. I count it one
of my good fortunes to have known L. T. (Lee) Burcham, and to have had him give guest lectures in one of my courses over a period of years. Lee’s
9
immense contribution to California history stands as a literary landmark7 equaled nowhere else. His collection of original historical books and
papers, compared with my, must have been awesome.
Too late after his passing, I asked his family if any of his collection was still intact, and available for loan. But it was, in fact, too late.
PS: The redoubtable and unexpectedly-scholarly Ken Wagnon was of equal stature.
>Dyksterhuis, E.J. 1958. USDA, SCS, Lincoln, Nebraska
Ecological principles in range evaluation. The Botanical Rev. 24(5) May 1958. 254-272.
This paper, used together with R. Merton Love’s 8, made a valuable reading assignment for my upper-division course in grassland ecology. While
covering what I considered to be salient individual points of each and, overall, how the two (both notable) men could be expected to differ from each
other. I assigned for them an essay question for the next midterm exam that would challenge each student to evaluate the readings carefully, then
“choose sides” and explain why their choice presented the more-compelling argument favoring that author’s point of view. The results were
astonishing, as well as rewarding to me as a teacher. The “Bluebooks” came back almost equally divided between Dyksterhuis and Love. I had also
previously pointed out that, as a student myself; I had been faced with much the same kind of exam question. Two sides; choose one and defend it. I
queried the instructor afterward. “If two students”, I asked, “each wrote essays structured with factual points and good arguments combined with
differing basic assumptions that were reasonable, which would grade higher, with you having the greater depth of knowledge that would clearly
make your own choice secure?” His reply: “I’d grade them the same.” In every upper division class there exists a (sometimes wide) spectrum of
students. When I first began to teach (1965) a class of 20 to 30 might have only two or three women. This ratio change quite a bit over time, as
might be expected. Almost always, one or more students are there because it is handy to fill some degree requirement, but have no interest
whatsoever in the subject matter. It should not be necessary to defend the assumption that some students bring to a course varying “portfolios” of
capability and benefits of previous instruction in aspects of the subject matter. Always, the instructor does not know an individual student’s personal
situation; death in the family, clinical depression, exhaustion from a part-time job or at-home responsibilities. Not surprisingly, I came to realize
over time that the “A-family” grades I gave for my course were seemingly disproportionately given to women students.
In the Introduction to his paper Dyksterhuis states, in part:
“For our purpose the term ‘range evaluation’ will be used to mean accurately estimating the amount, quality or worth of range. Range will mean
only native pasture on natural grazing land (emphasis mine). Ranges generally are extensive areas producing little per acre in comparison with
tame pastures. Moreover, ranges have far greater heterogeneity in soil and in vegetation, within units of practical size for appraisal and management,
than do tame pastures.
“One reason for evaluating ranges is direct interest in probable production of animal products over a term of years. Results from research as well as
practical experience are expressed in weight gains by animals of named size and age. Factors commonly considered are: (a) kind of forage produced
on the pasture, (b) weight of the forage consumed per unit area of the area, (c) nutritional balance of consumed forage, (d) efficiency of the animals
in converting the forage to animal products, and (e) effects of any soil amendments or animal feed supplements.
“There is another related but different area of interest in range evaluation; it is the one to be considered here (emphasis mine). Its devotees
concern themselves with the fundamental reasons for differences in yields of different ranges or of the same range at different times. The
primary concern is with average current yield and average potential yield. …
In contrast with the first area of interest, factors commonly considered are: (a) climate, (b) soil, (c) quantitative relations in the current vegetation,
and (d) past degenerative or possible future successional changes as viewed from a norm, potential or climax plant cover for the physical
environment.
“When men of both areas of interest are shown a range together, those of the first group may ask ‘What have we here?’ while those of the second
group should ask ‘What is happening here?’
“In 1916 F.E. Clements, with his Carnegie publication Plant Succession, first organized the field of dynamic ecology as a unified science. Shortly
thereafter, plant succession in relation to range management received monographic treatment by A.W. Sampson9
“Uncultivated range lands long protected from grazing and with relatively stable vegetation are used to determine practical subdivisions and
suitable names for units of the ecosystem. In developing this classification of abstract units we still may say with Clements 10: ‘The natural
(emphasis mine) plant communities are not merely the best integrators of the effects of climate and soil, but axiomatically they are also by far the
best judges of these two complexes in terms of plant production.’ The units of the physical environment that are mappable and that also subtend a
significant difference in kind or amount of climax vegetation are termed ‘range sites.’
Fast forwarding to SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS:
I include in this “brief annotation” only one segment from among a half-dozen tightly-packed paragraphs. Substantially, this closing quote was
chosen because it is consistent with the rest of my above selections.
“Yet, there are several limitations in practical application. Acceptable refinements in applied range ecology are dependent upon refinements in
range management that are economical and acceptable by stockmen. Modern soil survey information is lacking in many range areas and
not all rangemen are able to identify and map soil-groups such as those previously named. Data to properly establish gradients of
precipitation and temperature are lacking in many mountainous areas. Many, if not most, ecologic descriptions of vegetation in the
literature stress climatic and biotic but not edaphic features and avoid even ‘metaphysical approximations’ of climax communities for
various types of sites. Relicts of climax vegetation have not yet been found or reestablished in certain types of sites, making it necessary to
assume climax vegetation for them from established gradation along environmental gradients. Finally, application of ecological principles
in range evaluation is limited by the ecological knowledge that professional rangemen have, and that graduates from range curricula are
required to have.”
7
California Range Land – An Historico-Ecological Study of the Range Resource of California. Div. of Forestry, Dept. of Natl. Resources. State of
California. 261pp., illus.
8
9
Sampson, A.W. 1919. Plant succession in relation to range management. U.S.D.A. Bull. 791. 76pp.
Clements, F.E. 1935. Experimental ecology in the public service. Ecology 18:342-363.
10
10
Which seems to imply that some range curricula may be lacking. Such was the case in my own teaching and advising years at UC Davis. Merton
Love was a strong department chair, and also a strong devotee of rangelands plus a strong proponent of mounting it as a strong program in the
department. He prevailed over a cadre of dissonant faculty in changing the department’s formal name to Agronomy & Range Science, in part to
justify an undergraduate major in Range Management. This morphed to become Range Science, and ended as Range & Wildlands Science, in an
era when “science” and “wildlands” had become popular buzzwords.
>Emlen, J. T., Jr. and Ben Gladding. 1945.
Increasing Valley Quail in California. Bulletin 695. Univ. of Calif. Coll. Of Agric. Agric Exp. Stn. Berkeley, CA
A fitting testimonial to the California State Bird, and a thorough account of the behaviors and needs
(including the critical role of a many-faceted habitat).
It appears that an enormous amount of good work was done, and was lost for practical purposes to the
new Sierra Station, with one notable exception, the studies conducted by Burgess L. (Bud) Kay.
Concluding an eight-year (!) field study conducted on farms, range lands, and desert areas of California, the
manuscript for this publication was submitted in 1945. John T. Emlen, Jr., the principal field investigator, was
an Assistant Professor of Zoology and Assistant Zoologist in the Experiment Station; resigned July 27, 1943.
Emlen had previously published results of related studies in the Journal of Wildlife Management in 1939 and
1940.
Ben Gladding was Economic Biologist, California Division of Fish & Game. Among Gladding"s publications is
one, also in JWM, entitled Studies on the food of the valley quail in 1937, co-authored by H. H. Biswell (!),
and C. F. Smith.
Following is a small portion, presented verbatim, of this work that presents a clear understanding of
habitat essentials:
"The essence of habitat management for quail is the creation of the best possible mingling of feeding areas, protective cover, and watering sites
The highest development of land for quail is attempted only in those rare instances where an area is used solely for quail production. On most lands,
the objective of quail management is to create the best possible environment under the limitations imposed by essential land use operations. To
achieve this purpose requires a thorough understanding of the bird's habits, requirements, and enemies; in short, the ability to see the land through
the eyes of the quail.
The essential elements of valley quail habitat are as follows:
1. Food: The birds require an adequate and dependable supply of acceptable seeds in summer, fall, and early winter, and of greens in late winter and
spring.
2. Water: Except under certain unusual circumstances, quail drink at least once a day during the hot summer and fall months. Watering places
should be accessible on all parts of the range, and regard must be given to the limited mobility and special cover requirements of newly hatched
broods.
3. Cover: The needs of quail for cover or shelter may be listed under five types:
a. Loafing cover; Between feeding periods, quail spend most of their time dozing and preening in secluded spots protected from the sun of summer,
the winds and rain of winter, and the eyes of predators. Loafing cover should be close to the feeding areas and should be low. It should be dense
enough to provide concealment, yet open enough to permit considerable freedom of movement by the birds and good visibility from within. Dense
stands of brush that afford hidden avenues of approach for terrestrial enemies are unsuitable.
b. Escape cover: In their foraging excursions, quail seldom wander more than 50 feet from brushy cover into which they can escape if surprised by
an enemy. Cover suitable for loafing is usually good escape cover; but dense, low shrubs, trees, trailing vines, weed patches, piles of debris, and
even rock piles are used.
c. Feeding cover: Quail like to feed in clearings or in sparse vegetation that afford them an open view of the sky. They avoid dense thickets of brush
or patches of standing grass except where the edges adjoining clearings. When feeding, they will not remain long in a single spot; they like to keep
on the move, and feeding grounds should therefore be extensively distributed.
d. Roosting cover: In most parts of California, valley quail roost at night in densely foliaged trees or in shrubs 5 to 30 feet tall. One good roosting
site is normally enough for a covey inhabiting a 30- to 40-acre covey range, but where populations are large and the ranges overlap, numerous sites
are needed.
e. Nesting cover: Quail nest on the ground in almost any type of cover that affords a little shade and concealment. The available supply of such
cover is usually ample at the beginning of the nesting season. The chief limitation is imposed by farming operations and overgrazing that destroy
ground cover after nesting has started.
4. Other factors: Quail, like other seed-eating birds, require grit, either fine gravel or other hard particles. Grit is held in the gizzard and aids in
"milling" the hard-coated seeds. Certain mineral requirements of nutrition are also thought to be provided by the eroding of grit particles in the
gizzard.
Quail like dust baths and use available dusting places frequently. Dusting helps to keep the plumage in good condition and is thought to afford relief
for external parasites.
In any management program, all essential features of the habitat must be considered; each is a link in a vital chain. The aim of game
management is to detect these weak links and to correct them.
>Gordon, A. and A. W. Sampson. 1939.
Composition of common California foothill plants as a factor in range management. Bulletin 627. Univ. of Calif. Coll. of
Agric. Agric. Exp. Stn Berkeley, CA
11
"Results of a cooperative investigation conducted by the California Forest and Range Experiment Station of the United States Forest Service, United
States Department of Agriculture, and the California Agricultural Experiment Station. A. Gordon was Associate Plant Ecologist, California Forest
and Range Experiment Station, USFS; A. W. Sampson was Associate Professor of Forestry and Plant Ecologist in the Experiment Station." “The
study was undertaken in 1935, on the San Joaquin Experimental Range of the U.S. Forest Service, a branch station of the California Forest and
Range Experiment Station located near O’Neals.”
“In half a century of grazing by domestic livestock conspicuous changes have taken place in the plant population of this vast grasswoodland area. In many instances the carrying capacity has declined sharply, and a portion of the topsoil has been removed. Evidence
points to the fact that a substantial proportion of the original perennial graminaceous species has been replaced by annual exotic grasses
and other herbs of southern Europe; this accounts for the inclusion of many such species in this study. So conspicuous has been this
transformation that future grazing management plans must be focused largely upon this relatively early-maturing vegetation.” (On the face
of it, this statement by Gordon and Sampson, in 1939, could be taken as evidence of persistent overgrazing over a long period of time. If so,
no wonder the folks at the SJER weren't interested in taking on Glenn Lofgreen's proposed large-scale grazing experiment, and by that
refusal, began the chain of events that led to establishment of the Sierra Field Station! )
Chemical analyses were made of three broad groups of plant species:
Grasses and grass like species
Broad-leaved herbs
Shrubs and trees
Plant collections were made according to stages of plant development
1. Early leaf stage (initial aerial growth)
2. Just before flowering
3. Plants in full bloom
4. Seeds in dough stage (endosperm plastic)
5 Plants mature, seeds cast
6. Herbage dry and weathered
Compositional data are given for 3 years (1935-37) in tables Sampling date
Total ash, Silica, Silica-free ash, Calcium, Phosphorous, Potassium, Crude protein, and Crude fiber
The tables providing the above analyses for the three species groups offer a large amount of data, consistently achieved, that could lend itself well to
within-study comparative analyses of differences and similarities across the three groups.
>Hunt, T. F. 1919.
Suggestions to the settler in California. Circular 210. Univ. of Calif. College of Agric. Agric. Exp. Stn Berkeley, CA
The author is Thomas Forsyth Hunt. A section on prunes is authored by Thomas Francis Hunt. I worked in “Hunt Hall “, on the Davis campus, for
most of my University career, yet I do not know whether Hunt, the hall, is named for T. Forsyth or T. Francis.
The Circular begins with this statement: “In the selection of a farm perhaps the most important question is the gross income that may be expected.
On page 2, the author continues, “The next most important question, and perhaps this one should have been put first, is whether the wife and family
will be contented in the location contemplated. … Social contacts are necessary, not only to happiness but also to right living, all of which can
generally be worked out satisfactorily. The point is that unless some thought is given in advance to theses question, disappointments may occur.”
A table lists 31 agronomic and orchard crop and crop form (e.g., peaches, dried and peaches, shipping), and giving range of yield estimates. For
alfalfa, this range is from 3.5 tons/acre to 12 tons/acre. The latter value is in a column headed “Possible but extraordinary yield”.
The major aim of the Circular was to provide a detailed analysis of agronomic crop, orchard and vineyard products, and livestock and poultry
production. Twenty-six sections, each individually authored by an expert, were covered. Names familiar to me included B. A. Madsen (alfalfa,
barley), John W. Gilmore (beans, potatoes), Thomas Francis Hunt (prunes), W.W. Mackie (rice), and Gordon H. True (beef cattle, sheep). Professor
True considered that there were roughly four systems of production on “California ranges”, which stem from climatic conditions in the five regions
(see above) of the state.
Reference is also made to “…some 19,250,000 acres grazed under the supervision of the National Forest Service”, but nowhere was range
management or range improvement mentioned or alluded to. As mentioned elsewhere, the focus was on managing livestock ON the land,
without attempting to increaser the land’s carrying capacity for livestock, which chiefly involved only seasonal movements of livestock, or,
later on, feed supplementation.
>Hutchison, C. B. and E. J. Kotok. 1942.
The San Joaquin Experimental Range. Bulletin 663. Univ. of Calif. Coll. of Agric. Agric. Exp. Stn. Berkeley, CA
“With the establishment of the San Joaquin Experimental Range by the U. S. Forest Service in 1934, the
University of California entered into cooperation with the Forest Service on several projects.” (p 4, Introduction)
… It can thus be seen that on the San Joaquin Experimental Range, conceived and developed by the California
Forest and Range Experiment Station, a comprehensive group consideration and attack on the problems of the
range lands of California have been developed. The University has encouraged the cooperation of its specialists
wherever their specialized knowledge was needed to direct and assist in accumulation of pertinent data. The data
presented in the seven sections of the report by a total of eighteen authors constitute the information obtained by
the group attack on the range problems encountered from the beginning of the studies in 1934 up to 1940. …”
Table of Contents:
Introduction.
The experimental area. M.W. Talbot, J.W. Nelson, and R.E. Storie.
The forage crop and its management. M.W. Talbot and H.H. Biswell
Experimental herd management. K.A. Wagnon, H.R. Guilbert, and G.H. Hart
Interrelations of rodents and other wildlife of the range. E.E. Horn and H.S. Fitch.
12
Studies on Valley Quail. T.I. Storer, F.P. Cronmiller, E.E. Horn and Ben Gladding.
Other studies and experiments in the program of the San Joaquin Experimental Range. M.W. Talbot, H.H. Biswell, P.B. Rowe, and A.W. Sampson.
Under Contributors and General Acknowledgments (p 143), the following:
“CCC labor and various emergency funds have been of material assistance in the improvement and development of the area, including construction
of fences, buildings, livestock watering places, corrals, and other facilities required for the different experiments.
“Acknowledgment is due the Work Project Administration for the original drawings of figures 5, 6, 7, and 8, made by Pat Haskey, under WPA
Official Project No 65-2-08-369; and for assistance rendered on various phases of the work on interrelationships of rodents and other wildlife of the
range, under WPA Official Project No. 165-2-08-225.”
“Throughout the period the workers have had the advantage of a stockman’s advisory committee composed of producers of wide experience…”.
Mentioned is Neil McDougald, of the "Jackass Cattleman’s Association".
>Jones, Burle J. and R. Merton Love. 1945.
Burle J. Jones was Assistant Professor of Agricultural Extension (Agronomy), (an interesting title; it must indicate that, in the early history of
the University of California, those in Extension were accorded Professorial rank.) I wonder when that courtesy disappeared.)
R M. Love was Assistant Professor of Agronomy and Assistant Agronomist in the Experiment Station.
Improving California Ranges. Circular 129. Calif. Agric. Extn. Serv. Coll. of Agric. Univ. of Calif. Berkeley, CA
A singular contribution of Circ. 129 is its classification of “Year-round Livestock-feeding Practices”, as follows:
1. Home ranch the year round, with or without protein supplements for the dry summer.
2. Home ranch the year-round with part of the range cut green and fed during the summer or fall, out of windrow or shock
3. Home ranch the year round, with a hay supplement in the summer.
4. Home ranch the year round, with Sudan grass for summer.
5. Home ranch part of the year, with summer range at high elevations.
6. Home ranch part of the year, with summer feed on stubble, beet tops, and other crop residues.
7. Home ranch with meadow aftermath, or with use of part of the meadow for summer pasture.
8. Home range part of the year, with irrigated pastures for summer.
Each of the above eight systems is described in detail, along with much other useful information, some general, some tied to a specific "feeding
practice" A list is given (p44) of 99 plant species being tested in range nurseries
>Love, R. Merton. 1951.
Range grass and reseeding experiments in California. Calif. Agric. 5(1):8-10.
Lead paragraph: “More than 2,900 accessions of forage plants – including grasses, legumes and forbs – have been tested at Davis and at Berkeley, in
a long research program. In 1950, 90 species and varieties were planted which have never before been tried in California. These included 40 strains
of subterranean clover.”
Singled out for comment in this brief article were the perennial grass genera Oryopsis, Phalaris, and Stipa.
Author’s comment: “…range improvement is nothing more nor less than the process of replacing a relatively undesirable population of plants with
more desirable forage.”
The final sentence: “Season of use is an important factor to be considered with the three groups of range plants.” (essentially perennials, annuals,
and weeds)
A photo caption: “Three-year-old stand of Hardinggrass (Mendocino Co.) not grazed during the summer (1950) but left for early fall use.”
(A clue to the difficulties in stand establishment of perennial grasses)
>Love, R. Merton. 1961.
The range: Natural plant communities or modified ecosystems? J. Brit. Grassl. Soc. 16(2):89-99
A good bit of the history of agriculture to begin with, in an extensive essay that could be regarded as part historical, part philosophical, and
part hard-edged pragmatism, expressing the convictions of an agriculturist, as opposed to those of a climax-oriented classical ecologist. In
my Grassland Ecology course I provided copies of this paper along with an article by E. J. Dyksterhuis (whom Love refers to in this paper)
as published in Botanical Review (Vol. 24:253-272, 1958.) and included in this chapter. It is titled "Ecological principles in range
evaluation". I advised the class that the next midterm would include an essay question that invited them to compare the rationale and
conclusions of Love and Dyksterhuis and state, with reasons, which of the two was the more persuasive. It was always a delight to read the
resulting mini-essays.
Merton Love was a member of the University's "Range Land Utilization Committee" and Chair of the Agronomy Department at the time
the collaborative relationship with the Forest Service's San Joaquin Range collapsed. One of my major themes in "Diamond..." is that the
Sierra Field Station, was a product of the prior considerations and qualifications laid out in choosing its location, as well as of nature of the
research and extension programs being carried out, not just in California, but elsewhere. Thus, the Sierra Field Station became, in
California, a mirror to the world it inherited.
And this dictated the nature of its research, extension, and teaching activities for the better part of two decades thereafter.
It is not easy to choose passages from Love’s paper for an annotation; They tend to “cry out” that, alone, they call for supporting context. Love’s
perspective is that of an agronomist, which is used here in its classic encompassing of the management and modification of both harvested crops and
the lands on which they were produced. Love is an unabashed advocate of change.
13
In contrast, Dyksterhuis is, first of all, an ecologist, and an ecologist who presents quite a different pedigree. F. E. Clements, a giant of ecological
theory, is cited frequently, including his 1916 Carnegie Institute Publ. 242, entitled Plant Succession, and his 1936 paper in Jour. Ecol., entitled
Nature and structure of the climax.
Having addressed the fundamental difference between these two men, at least as I perceive them, I will offer selected quotes from Love’s paper.
“It is impossible, of course,, to discuss in detail the fascinating story of man’s attempts to conquer his environment. We must be impressed with the
slowness of his development. We must also be impressed with the fact that man owes his development to the fact that he could and did influence his
environment. …
“What we are interested in is the fact that, in spite of ignorance, superstition, and untold difficulties, man gradually developed an efficient
agriculture. As he gained experience in animal and field husbandry he became increasingly aware of the fact that he was dealing with the
interactions of a climate/soil/plant/harvest complex (emphasis mine). … Think of the bunchgrass association that once existed in the Sacramento
Valley of California, and compare it with a highly productive rice field. A great deal had to be learned about the limitations of nature and how to
overcome them by the controlled use of water, proper fertilization, improved plant varieties and specialized harvesting equipment. …
“As far as I can determine, range management concepts developed in the United States are unique. Weaver and Clements11 did pioneer work on an
understanding of the ecological relationships of grasslands. Sampson is credited by Dyksterhuis12 with the application of climax and succession
concepts to range management.
“In a standard textbook on range management13 the authors admit that ‘determining climax or normal conditions is difficult and sometimes almost
impossible’. But they go on to state that ‘protected areas, conservatively grazed ranges, ungrazed fence corners or cemeteries, and such indicator
areas must be sought out and studied carefully. Certainly it is unwise to outline management objectives before the site potential is well understood’.
“Compare, for example, the climax/relict area/site potential concept with the statement of Love and Williams14 : ‘The most feasible way of assessing
manipulations of the range complex is to compare them with non-manipulated range. For instance, on two soil types in California, seeded Trifolium
species produced over three times the forage and six times the protein when phosphated, compared with untreated land. It seemed inappropriate to
estimate range or site [potential] based on estimated climax vegetation that had not been present for 100 years before putting into practice the results
from manipulation experiments.”
>Lofgreen, G.P., Assoc. Prof. of Animal Husbandry; C.M. McKell, Research Agronomist (A.R.S. – Agronomy
Dept.; and (not listed), U.S. Forest Service. August 31, 1956.
RESEARCH PROJECT, Title: Studies on range improvement by seeding, fertilization, and grazing management
Research Advisory Committee: L.J. Berry, Extension Specialist in Agronomy; J.P. Conrad, Professor of Agronomy; M.B. Jones, Jr. Agronomist;
H.M. Laude, Assoc. Prof. of Agronomy; R.M. Love, Prof. of Agronomy; C. O. McCorkle, Jr., Asst. Prof. of Agricultural Economics; J.H. Meyer,
Asst. Prof. of Animal Husbandry; H.T. Strong, Extension Specialist in Animal Husbandry; W.C. Weir, Assoc. Prof. of Animal Husbandry; and
(unnamed), U.S. Forest Service.
Because of the crucial importance of this document to an understanding of the conception, birth and
development of the Sierra Field Station, this proposal by Lofgreen et al, when taken together with that of
Arnold and Sharp, (above), it is presented here in its entirety except for a simple sketch of the field layout.
“Justification:
California currently produces considerably less meat than its citizens consume, and, moreover, its population is increasing rapidly. Thus, it is
important to improve our livestock producing resources and to advance our knowledge of range resource development. About 60 million acres of
land in this state are used primarily by grazing animals. Much of this land has a potential of several times its present carrying capacity through
appropriate manipulation of the soil, plant, and animal factors of production. The proposed location for the study in the San Joaquin Valley foothills
is typical of a large segment of the California range, and the principles developed will be applicable with perhaps minor modification, to much of the
rangeland of the western United States.
Considerable information of an exploratory nature is available on the response of native range to fertilization, seeding improved species, and grazing
management. However, an integrated study is needed in which present information may be evaluated on a field scale basis and under an acceptable
statistical design. Applications of recent range improvement practices will be clarified and facilitated as a result of this study. Information
concerning basic soil-plant relationships and animal husbandry principles will be developed in the course of the study, which should be a significant
contribution to science.”
“Previous Work and Present Outlook:
During the past twenty years hundreds of adaptation trials of promising forage species have been conducted on California’s rangelands. As a result
of the information obtained a number of forage species have proven superior, and much has been learned about their usefulness and establishment.
The winter annual legumes rose, crimson, and subterranean clovers, in particular have a demonstrated place in range improvement (10).
Appropriate fertilization of range seeded to legumes with phosphorus (19) and sulfur (1) has further increased production of high quality forage.
The use of other species also has received considerable attention. Of particular interest are the perennial grasses, harding grass (12, 16), smilo,
11
Weaver , J.E. and F.E. Clements. 1938. Plant Ecology. McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York.
Dyksterhuis, E.J. 1958. Ecological principles in range evaluation. The Bot. Rev. 24(5) pp. 253-272.
13
Stoddart, L.A. and A.D. Smith 1955. Range management. McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York.
14
Love, R.M. and W.A. Williams. 1956. Rangeland development by manipulation of the soil-plant-animal complex in the difficult environments
of a Mediterranean-type climate. Proc. 7th Intl. Grassl. Congr. 509-517.
12
14
veldtgrass, and the annual, soft chess (14). Fertilized combinations of annual clovers and perennial grasses have been shown to be good producers
at the Hopland Field Station (11). At the San Joaquin Experimental Range sulfur fertilization of resident range has stimulated native legumes to
provide economical increases in forage productions and quality (2). During the past three years the Agricultural Extension Service has performed a
number of demonstrations involving field scale fertilization of resident range. The majority of these tests have produced economical livestock gains,
but since the treatments are unreplicated the results are not entirely conclusive (15). Although some work has demonstrated the value of improved
range to sheep (18) critical grazing data on range improved for beef cattle use by these techniques are lacking. Information is needed not only on
how livestock respond to improved range forage but on the role of supplemental feed in making possible most efficient use of increased seasonal
supplies of forage. It has been shown that supplementation is necessary to maintain continuous growth in cattle grazing unimproved native ranges
(6). Comparisons are needed, however, on the amount and kind of supplement required to maintain continuous growth on improved and
unimproved ranges.
A few grazing management studies have been performed in California. The effect of intensity of grazing on annual type range has been studied at
the San Joaquin Experimental Range along with the value of supplemental feeding in the operation of a breeding herd (3, 8). Field observations
have suggested desirable types of management for seeded and fertilized rangeland, but relatively little experimental work has been reported on the
management of range improved in these ways (8, 18). The feed value of the important native forage species at the San Joaquin Experimental Range
has been investigated by chemical analysis and by digestion trials (4, 5). The feed value if the species that are increasingly being used in seeding
range has not been studied intensively. However, a technique has been developed making it possible to determine directly the composition of the
forage eaten by grazing sheep (17). This technique provides a useful tool in evaluating a range cover in terms of acceptability to the animal and as
to nutrient content as selected by the grazing animal. Preliminary work is being done on adapting the cattle.
Objectives:
Evaluation of promising range improvement methods for the San Joaquin Valley foothill range; Weight gains of steers; desirable supplemental feed
level; production, nutritive value, timeliness of availability and utilization of forage; and basic soil-plant relationships of the forage species will be
determined for the following methods of improvement:
1. Establishment of improved forage species
2. Annual fertilization of native range
3. Fertilization of seeded range
4. Rotation grazing
Procedure:
Preliminary period: A period of three years will be necessary to accomplish the following:
1.
Provide fencing and water for 22 pastures.
2.
Calibration of the pastures with livestock.
3.
Detailed soil and vegetation survey.
4.
Small plot studies designed to obtain preliminary data on species testing, fertilization testing, and palatability and digestibility of
the species being tested. The data obtained from these plots will be used to determine the most desirable treatments and pasture
size for the main test period.
Test Period:
The duration of the main test should be a minimum of 5 years in order to obtain a reasonable sample of variability.
Five treatments are proposed:
1. Unimproved native range as control.
2. Improved by seeding introduced species.
3. Seeded as in 2., plus fertilization.
4. Native range as in 1., plus fertilization.
5. Native range grazed same time each year. For example, area (a) would be grazed each year during the four spring months,
February through May; area (b) would be grazed each year during the summer months, June through October; area (c) would be
grazed each year during the winter months, November through January.
Replications:
There will be two replications per treatment.
Pastures necessary:
In treatments 1, 2, 3, and 4 there will be two pastures per replicate.
These pasture pairs will be rotated on a schedule such as:
Pasture A
Nov., Dec.
Mar.
June, July
Pasture B
Jan., Feb.
Apr., May
The grazing periods on each pair of pastures will be reversed in alternate years.
In treatment 5 three pastures are necessary per replicate, one each to be grazed in the spring, summer, and winter.
The same pasture would be grazed the same season each year.
The total number of pastures necessary, therefore would be 22; 11 in each replicate. The total area necessary would be 1200 acres. This is based on
an allowance of 15 acres per steer per season.
Animals and animal treatment:
Eight steers per treatment within each replicate will be purchased as needed. Thus 40 head per replicate or a total of 80 head will be necessary per
grazing season. Additional steers must be maintained on another area of the range from which to draw additional animals as they might be needed.
The numbers of animals may have to be adjusted to the conditions of the range.
The animals within each treatment will be divided into four sub-groups with the following supplemental treatments:
Group
Protein content of supplement (%)
1
no supplement
2
10
3
25
4
40
15
The three protein levels roughly correspond to a supplement of barley alone, and equal parts mixture of barley and cottonseed meal, and cottonseed
meal alone. Once each day the animals to be supplemented will be cut out and individually fed in small enclosures. The level of supplement will
be determined by the response of the animals and the condition of the range.
Preliminary work is being done on adapting the esophageal fistula technique to cattle. If this is successful, measurements will be made of the
composition of the forage being consumed. Both chemical and botanical composition can thus be determined.
All cattle will be weighed at 28-day intervals and at times of rotation from one pasture to another if it is not feasible to have this correspond to a
weigh period.
Range and plant observations: A detailed botanical inventory will be kept and samples of forage collected periodically for analysis. Fertilizer
date and rate of re-application plots will be established in the pastures to aid in selecting appropriate subsequent fertilizer treatment on the fertilized
pastures. A detailed record of physical inputs and outputs will be kept for economic interpretation of the results.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
Citations
Arkley, R.J., W.N. Helphinstine, and W.A. Williams. Rangeland forage. Calif. Agriculture 9:15-16. 1955.
Bentley, J.R. and L.R. Green. Stimulation of native annual clovers through application of sulfur on California foothill range. Jour.
Range Mgmt. 7:25-30. 1954.
Bentley, J.R. and F.W. Talbot. Efficient use of annual plants on cattle ranges in the California foothills U.S.D.A. Circular 870. 52pp.
1951.
Gordon, Aaron and A. W. Sampson. Composition of common California foothill plants as a factor in range management. Calif. Agric.
Expt. Sta. Bull. No. 627. 95pp. 1939.
Guilbert, H.R. and H. Goss. Digestion experiments with range forages and flax hulls. Univ. Calif. Bull. No 684. 1944.
Guilbert, H.R., G.H. Hart, K.A. Wagnon, and H. Goss. The importance of continuous growth in beef cattle. Calif. Agr. Expt. Sta. Bull
No. 688. 35pp. 1944.
Hoglund, O.K., H.W. Miller and A.L. Hafenrichter. Application of fertilizers to aid conservation on annual forage range. 5:55-61.
1952.
Hutchison, C.B. and E.I.Kotok. The San Joaquin Experimental Range. California Agric. Expt. Sta. Bull. No. 663, 145pp. 1942.
Love, R.M. Preliminary trials on the effect of management of perennials grasses and legumes at Davis, Calif. Jour. Amer. Soc. Agron.
36:699-703. 1955.
Love, R. Merton. Range improvement experiments on the Arthur E. Brown ranch. California Jour. Range Mgmt. 1952
Love, R. Merton and Alfred H. Murphy. Fertilized pastures. California Agriculture. 9:3. 1955.
Love, R. Merton, Victor P. Osterli, and Lester J. Berry. Hardingrass for Re-seeding. Calif. Agric. 7:5, 12 (sic). 1953.
Love, R.M. and W.A. Williams. Range land development by manipulation the soil-plant-animal complex in the difficult environments of
Mediterranean-type climate. Pro. Seventh International Grassland Congress (in press). 1956.
Love, R.M., W.A. Williams, and L.S. Berry. California range roundup. Westland Past. Jour. 6(3):1-4. 1955.
Martin, W.H. and L.J. Berry. Fertilized range can pay dividends. Second Progress Report. Berkeley, Univ. of Calif. Agric. Extension
Service. 31pp. 1955.
Miller, H.W., O.K. Hogland, and A.L Hafenrichter. Re-seeding to aid conservation of Annual Forage range. Jour. Range Mgmt. 6:414422.
Torell, D. T. An esophageal fistula for animal nutrition studies. Jour. Animal Sci. 13:878-884. 1954.
Torell, D.T., A.H. Murphy, W.C. Weir, and R.M. Love. Improved pastures for lambs. Calif. Agriculture 10,5 16 (sic)
Williams, William A., R. Merton Love, and John P. Conrad. Range improvement in California by seeding annual clovers, fertilization,
and grazing management. Jour. Range Mgmt. 9:28-33. 1956.
>Lowdermilk, W. C. 1953.
Conquest of the land, through 7,000 years. Agric. Inform. Bulletin 99. Soil Cons. Serv. USDA. Washington, D.C.
Dr. Lowdermilk was Assistant Chief of the Soil Conservation Service
A compelling treatise, profusely illustrated with examples of some of the ruins created by destructive management of
the land in (perhaps desperate) attempts to wring human sustenance from it. Lowdermilk's travels, in 1938 and 1939,
to some of the most grievously despoiled parts of the planet, clearly, and repeatedly document the role of soil erosion
on the rise and fall of civilizations, as seen through the mind of an agriculturalist.
Excerpt: “One of the most important findings of this survey of the use of land through 7,000 years is that tillers of soil have
encountered their greatest problem throughout the ages in trying to establish a permanent agriculture on sloping
lands. (emphasis mine) We have read the record, as written on the land, of failures from place to place but of few instances
of success. This same problem is with us in our new land of America, where millions of acres have been destroyed for
further cultivation and abandoned.”
Among the scenes of destruction, a marvelous photograph appears (Figure 11, p21). It is of a terraced citrus orchard in southern France.
Believed to have been built about 2,500 years ago by the Phoenicians, they are still successfully farmed. The incentive? "There is a scarcity
of good land." Necessity can be the mother of invention, especially in strong-willed societies that qualify for the appellation "Survival of the
Fittest”.
>Madson, B. A. 1953. (approval date)
Brush range improvement organization plan of the state of California. Div. of Forestry. Dept. of Natural Resources. Sacramento, CA, and, Range
Management Investigations. Div. of Agric. Sciences. Univ. of Calif.
Written by B. A. Madsen, Chairman, Range Advisory Committee to the State Board of Forestry, and The Range Land Utilization Committee of the
College of Agriculture.
“… this organization plan follows closely the Madera County Controlled Burning Program as adopted by the San Joaquin Range
Improvement Committee at Fresno, on April 3, 1951…” (emphasis mine; Madera County was a proficient and widely acknowledged leader
16
in the art and science of conducting safe and efficient control burns)
“Credit for the actual arrangement of the details, and the preparation of the manuscript must go to Mr. J. L. Myler, Associate Specialist in the
Experiment Station, in charge of the Range Demonstration Projects, and to Mr. V. P. Osterli, Extension Specialist on Forage Crops.”
>Meade, Elwood. 1901. Report of Irrigation Investigations in California. Govt. Printing Office. 411 pp. illus.
(Assisted by William E. Smythe, Marsdon Manson, J.M. Wilson, Charles D, Marx, Frank Soule, C.E. Grunsky, Edward M.
Boggs and James D. Schuyler)
While Elwood Meade was the chief organizer of the monumental work, he had a great amount of scholarly assistance. Meade was the sole author of
the first section, titled The Agricultural Situation in California, the remaining sections bear, successively, the names listed above, with Marsdon
Manson writing the section titled Features and Water Rights of Yuba River, Cal.
For the mostly historical emphases of Chapter 1, I will cite from Elwood Meade’s section, and add appropriate quotes from Manson’s section on the
Yuba River in Chapters 8 (Yuba County History) and 12 (The Yuba River) of the full book, Diamond in the Rough…
It is sobering to reflect on the fact that preparations for publication of this book were made, not just at “the turn of the century” but at the turn of the
century before. Forgetting that, one might think “Well, that certainly isn’t true!”, when in fact over a hundred years ago it might very well have
been. For the most part, the laudatory remarks that are made about the glorious potential of this state have come true, if not exceeded, by the advent
of technologies undreamed of in Meade et al’s day and age.
The first words in Meade’s Introduction are: “As an agricultural State California stands alone. No other humid or arid commonwealth has as
diversified products or high-priced farming land. In some respects the climate is marvelous in its possibilities. Oranges ripen as early and surely at
Oroville, 100 miles north of San Francisco, as at San Diego, 500 miles south of that city, and much of the State has the unique distinction of being
able to grow all the products of New England and of Florida on the same acre of land. Sacramento, which has the same latitude as southern Illinois,
is surrounded by districts where blue-grass lawns are shaded by palm and orange trees. The summers are not too hot for the turf nor are the winters
too cold for the trees. Nowhere east of the Sierras are these products grown together.” …
The history of irrigation in California, from the time when the mission fathers first turned its streams on the thirsty soil, has shown and unusual
mingling of romance and selfishness. Men have worked with each other and for each other in cooperative ditch enterprises, many of which have
been remarkably successful, while on the other hand they have sought to place their neighbors in bondage by speculative appropriations of streams.
Along with remarkable ability shown by engineers and irrigators in diverting and using rivers has gone controversy over water rights in the courts
and armed raids to destroy headgates or interfere with the use of canals. Ability and success in material development have been rendered futile by
marked failure in legislation. Some of the best examples of ditch construction to be found in this country are in California 15, but the operation of
these works is embarrassed by legislation that violates every principle necessary to enduring success.
In a section Meade calls The Scope and Purpose of this Investigation he begins by saying “The investigation has been carried on by eight students
of irrigation of wide experience and recognized ability, each of whom, with his assistants, has gathered the available facts relative to the character
number, and value of water rights on the streams, and the methods employed in the distribution and use of that water supply. … While the lessons
drawn are based on researches in restricted areas, they apply with equal force to the entire state, because the streams studied are typical ones. Nor
are these reports of value to California alone. The principles which should govern the ownership and distribution of rivers are universal in their
application, and the experience of irrigators in the San Joaquin and Sacramento Valleys is not unlike that of irrigators in other States where similar
conditions prevail16.
15
When I first started traveling to the Sierra Field Station in 1965, was struck by the fine quality of its irrigated pastures. Grazing had been carefully
managed, as evident by the fine condition they were in, including a lack of clumpiness, hardly any bare ground, and a excellent dispersion of its
grasses and legumes. Browns Valley and other hardrock mines were numerous and the Blue Point Mine, just across the Yuba from the southern
boundary of the Station, still now after being shut down following the 1884 legislation that outlawed the dumping of fine debris from hydraulic
mining into local rivers and streams. The men who irrigated the pastures and laid out additional water-delivery ditches to them were experts at what
they did, mute testimony, long after their fathers or grandfathers guided a monitor that washed down the gold-embedded gravel into mercurybearing sluices. While these men were not engineers, they carried with them a legacy of how to take water and run it downhill and distribute it as
they chose for it to do. The irrigation system developed over time on the Station evolved into much more complex networks, with large PVC pipes
buried in deep trenches.
16
The Agricultural Field Stations system in California is run much like a cafeteria. The State, through the functions of the Morrill Act, provides
land, access roads, fences, a modicum of support labor, and the availability of various field and laboratory equipment, as well as buildings as
perceived to be necessary. Interested researchers, principally from University Campuses, but occasionally from other States and research
organizations. Examples would include the Agricultural Research Service of the USDA, Fish & Game Departments, and, on rare occasions, private
individuals. Research proposals are prepared on standard forms, which are submitted to a committee (constituted primarily of University faculty and
Cooperative Extension people, most of whom have working Projects at the Station. Applications are reviewed on an annual basis, and those
approved are provided with Station-based resources in the kind requested, but parceled out in numbered Projects in accordance with the resources
available. Project Leaders must file annual reports, and if academic, attempt to conduct researches that are suitable for publication in peer-review
scientific journals. The specific point of this footnote is that, while over its history, much research was done with studies requiring water. The Sierra
Field Station, if run as an institute might be, would now have a voluminous, and exceedingly valuable technical history of its irrigation water
acquisition, delivery, and application management systems, Sadly, although this information could have systematically been gleaned from the
irrigators and the workers who installed, modified and maintained the extensive network of water conveyance and delivery, it does not exist, except
in the memory of those still alive who did the on-the-ground design, installation, fine-tuning, and management. And, the University being what it is,
they are not likely to be asked.
17
Figure 1. Copy of a two-page-spread plate in Meade et al. The original is 8 inches by 13
inches. The red lines are referred to as "canals", and their distribution, many if not most of
which were installed during the Gold Rush of the mid-1800s, were built to serve the needs of
mining operations. Recall that the use of large-bored monitors, some with as much as 600
feet of head, was outlawed in 1884. Given that a need for irrigation water in a region
sparsely populated in those times was not likely such as to require the extensive network
portrayed here. This drawing was obviously quite meticulously done and clearly shows the
Yuba River’s Timbuctoo Bend, just below the “G” in irrigation” of the title “Brown’s Valley
Irrigation District”.
>Mollin, F. E. 1938.
If and when it rains. The stockman’s view of the range question. American National Livestock Assoc., 515 Cooper Bldg., Denver, CO
A treatise written mostly in defense of stockmen vis a vis the deterioration of U.S. rangelands in the 1930sThe cover is headed by a photograph of
several furrows created by a single moldboard plow pulled by a team of horses. A Sioux Indian made observed to the
plowman “Wrong side up!” Much emphasis is placed on the extensive droughts of the 1930’s as the cause of rangeland
deterioration and resultant invasion by alien plants, e.g., sagebrush. In the section “History of Public Land Policy”, the
following: “Most of the fertile public lands of the nation were taken under the Free Homestead Act of May 20, 1862.
The real damage was done when the dry farming Enlarged Homestead Law was enacted in 1909, providing for
homestead entry upon tracts of 320 acres, at least one-sixteenth of which area was to be continuously cultivated for
agricultural crops other than native grasses beginning with the second year after entry and one-eighth of the area
handled in similar fashion beginning with the third year of the entry. That law, passed on February 19, 1909, may well
be called the father of the dust bowl.”
"IN CONCLUSION: This booklet is a plea for more practical and less theoretical consideration of problems affecting
the western ranges. It has been the purpose to show that unintentionally perhaps there has been a tremendous
overemphasis on so-called overgrazing, with practically no mention of the fact that the situation complained of is
largely due to a temporary condition of drought, and that the stockman has wrongfully been held responsible for
conditions in the western plains region for which he is in nowise to blame Overstocking there has been, when pastures
dried up, before livestock could be relocated. Habitual overgrazing and poor management there has only in limited
degree The almost miraculous recovery of denuded pasture when even moderate rains came, attested from all sides, is proof that too dark a picture
has been painted. There is still grass on "them thar hills, even if the gold in them is hard to find, if and when it rains.”
>Moran, L.A., State Forester. 1974.
Controlled burning projects. IN: Brushland range improvement – Annual report 1973. Div. of Forestry. Dept. of Conservation. The Resources
Agency. State of Calif.
Invaluable for the Figures contained, which cover the period 1945 to 1973
Fig. 1.
Fig. 2.
Fig. 3.
Fig. 4.
Number of permits used & number of burns
Acreage burned under permit (including reburns)
Acreage treated mechanically & burned
Acreage seeded.
Some tabular data are also given, Figure 2. “Burned and reburned”, is a must.
>Robbins, W. W. 1940.
Alien plants growing without cultivation in California. Bulletin 637. Univ. of Calif. Coll. of Agric. Agric. Exp. Stn. Berkeley, CA A precursor to
the better-known “Weeds of California”, also by Robbins.
Two interesting historical quotes from the Introduction:
“The Pacific grassland was originally dominated by purple needlegrass; associated with it were the needle-and-thread, Junegrass, pine bluegrass,
melic grass, squirrel-tail grass, beardless wild- rye , and species of Danthonia, Bromus, and Festuca. Much of the original Pacific grassland of the
San Joaquin has been plowed or heavily grazed. The overgrazed areas are now occupied by such annuals as wild oat, Hordeum
species, red brome, red-stem filaree, broad-leaf filaree, common peppergrass, erect plantain, Hemizonia species, vinegar weed, and Russian thistle;
the most widely distributed being red brome and the Erodium species. Besides these annual invaders there are such perennials as California
matchweed and Isocoma veneta var. vernonioides>"
“It is interesting to note the geographical sources of the alien plants growing without cultivation in California. Approximately 360 species or 72
percent of the total number are from Europe and Western Asia, and fully 15 percent of these are from the Mediterranean region. Eastern Asia, South
Africa, and Australia have contributed about 10 percent; South America approximately 10 percent; and the United States, east of California, about 8
percent. Apparently, the introduction has been largely determined by the movements of peoples ... .
Also from the Introduction, a crucial rationale for, and definition of, "alien":
18
"In the list of California plants given herein and designated as alien or immigrant, a few species are doubtfully included. This
paper will not, however, undertake a critical discussion of these cases. Their inclusion indicates that they are regarded as
aliens by those botanists who have given most attention to the matter.
"Under the term "alien" would be included introduced crop plants, ornamentals of all sorts, and many weeds. But not all
introduced species can long maintain themselves without the care and attention of man; that is, they cannot persist without
cultivation. On the other hand, certain introduce species may escape from cultivation or from the area where first they gained
a foothold and may, with varying rapidity, become distributed over a larger area, growing independently of man's care.
"Certain introductions are designated herein as "naturalized". These have been within our borders for a long period, are
rather widely distributed, multiply readily, may compete more or less favorably with native species, and behave much as in
their own natural geographical range.. Other species, described as "adventive", are relatively recent introductions, less widely
distributed than naturalized species and not firmly established. Still others are "waifs" -- a few chance escapes from gardens
and other cultivated areas, even less firmly established than adventives and likely to disappear after a few years.
"The criteria in judging a plant an alien are as follows: (1) its natural geographic range; (2) its prevalence about habitations, along highways,
railroads, and in gardens and fields; (3) the presence of its seeds in imported crop seeds; and (4) its ability to compete successfully in native plant
communities."
Robbins follows with a plausible example, a weed well-known to most, lamb's-quarters. The substance of the above excerpts fits remarkably
well in explaining both the successes and the failures of concerted efforts in the 1950's and 1960's to establish new annual legumes and
perennial grasses into the Sacramento and San Joaquin Valleys, mainly those brought in from our agro-climatic analog, Western Australia.
There are extensive “Literature cited” and “Index of plant names” sections.
>Sampson, A.W. and Agnes Chase. 1927.
Range grasses of California. Bulletin 430. University of Calif. Coll. Of Agric. Agric. Exp. Stn Berkeley, CA
So, did Weaver copy Agnes, or did Agnes copy Weaver? The figure at right is
remarkably similar to Weaver’s root system drawing. The plant species chosen for
the 20 examples are, from left, Lichen, Moss, Tarweed, Knotweed, Annual fescue,
Red brome grass, Western annual fescue, June brome grass, Yarrow, California
brome grass, Tongue-leaved violet, Aster, Showy melic grass, Idaho fescue, Lupine,
June grass, Small needle grass, Kentucky blue grass, Smooth wild rye, Hair grass.
The (very brief) PREFACE begins with this remarkable sentence: “To apply
the best methods of range management, the stockman must be able to judge the
condition of the range for himself17.
Early on, it is apparent that the poetic prose of Weaver is echoed by these authors. In these days of stifling technical prose, administered one might
presume, by a legion of self-important reviewers and editors, there is, after all these decades, a refreshing breath of warmth and humanness
emanating from the first paragraphs under the heading “The Life and Home of the Plant”. And I quote: “The native cover is everywhere composed
of the kinds of plants that have fought for their lives, and won because they were the best able to adjust themselves to the conditions under which
they lived. Under natural conditions certain rigid laws determine the character of the earth’s clothing.
“Every plant produces far more seed than can find places to sprout and grow. There is a continuous struggle among plants for footholds and food. In
every place capable of supporting plant life, from bare rocks, seashore, or swamp, to rich forest lands, the struggle goes on, and those plants win that
can best endure hard conditions or make the most of favorable ones. But while plants are governed by the environment they in turn work changes in
it. These changes, slight but continuous, above and below the surface of the ground, react upon the plants, which must repeatedly adjust themselves
or give way to other kinds better fitted to the changed conditions18
“This development of vegetation is called plant succession. It refers to the successive series of relatively distinct plant types in a given habitat, each
dominant for a time, then giving way to the next series. Five typical stages are represented diagrammatically in the figure. On the bare rock the
windborne spores of lichens adhere and germinate. Any surface of bare rock, unless very recently exposed, will show little grayish-green patches of
lichens. The lichens corrode the surface of the rock, grains of dust and spores of mosses catch in the uneven surface of the lichen or around its edges.
The mosses develop and catch more dust and hold water from rain and snow. The tiny cracks produced by the rootlets of the lichens and mosses fill
with water, which freezes and enlarges the crack. Thus, little by little, the surface of the rock is broken up into grains, and its salts made available for
plant growth, until a covering of soil is formed and held by this first or pioneer stage (A).
“Seeds of all kinds are blown about by thousands, and fall by chance in all habitats, but all perish save the relatively few that fall in a spot that meets
their requirements. Seeds of shallow-rooted annual flowering plants find the scant soil developed by the pioneer type sufficient for their needs. The
plants of the first stage five way as these annuals increase and form the second or transitional stage (B).This type, by adding humus to the soil,
makes it more retentive of water, and in turn gives way before the deeper-rooted plants, which form the first herb stage (C).
“As the formation of soil and humus continues, its rate of progress depending on climatic conditions and the luxuriance of plant growth, the plants
of the first herb stage are replaced by a cover of perennial broad-leaved herbs and a few short-lived grasses. This forms the second herb stage (E)
“By this time the soil is well decomposed and capable of retaining a moisture supply available to vegetation sufficient to support the highest and
most stable type of which it is capable. The perennial grasses and other plants of the last or climax stage, therefore soon take possession (F).”
17
Doubtless, Ken Wagnon would have agreed.
Contrast the acceptance of the ruling arbitrariness of nature expressed here with the much more recent range-drill and Paraquat-strip method of
plant population replacement pioneered by Burgess L. “Bud” Kay.
18
19
Soon after the above, follows a section on grass morphology. Small but wonderfully-drawn sketches show and name the parts of a floret, a spikelet,
and examples of spike and panicle inflorescences. The opposite page presents what is called in the caption “A sod-forming grass (obviously
perennial) showing mode of propagation.” Interestingly, although it would likely be the case for true prairie, a network of connecting rhizomes is
drawn, but their above-ground equivalent, stolons are ignored.
There is a six-page “Key to Tribes and Genera”. Granted, it is quite brief, but the artist’s drawings, as is true throughout the Bulletin, are a joy to
behold. Regardless of a reader’s views on grasslands “succession” to “climax”, this small volume is worth a place on anyone’s bookshelves, if only
for the artistry of its illustrations. Sadly, in these times, an analog to Bulletin 430 would not contain such. Perhaps too costly, but beyond that, I
seriously doubt whether, for this group of plants, there is anyone left that is capable of doing it. The same might be said for teaching in what might
be called “Grasslands Science”, the drawings of reproductive morphology noted above would make excellent aids to exercises in plant
identification.
There was a time when writing, and illustrating, were done to do proper justice to the subject matter, in prose that often was a pure delight simply in
its reading, and not for academic acclaim and for simple survival in the academic and peer-review-journal systems that now are driven by the
absolute need for project support funds with which to support the academic and peer-review-journal systems. Ultimately, its size and prosperity
really depend on the availability of funding, i.e., money. Which, at the moment, for various reasons having little to do with scientific research,
teaching, and extension, is in short supply.
>Sampson, A.W. and H.E. Malmsten. 1935, Rev. 1942.
Stock-poisoning plants of California. Bull. 593. Univ. of Calif. Coll. of Agric. Agric. Exp. Stn. Berkeley, CA
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
Plants shown in (1) are: A. Menzies larkspur (Delphinium Menzieii; B. coast larkspur (D. californicum); C. St. Johnswort (Hypericum
perforatum; D. meadow death camas (Zygadenus venenosus; E. grassland lupine (Lupinous laxiflorus)
Plants shown in (2) are: A. Douglas water hemlock (Cicuta Douglasii); B. poison hemlock (Conium maculatum); C. woolly-leaved loco
(Astragalus leucophyllus); D. Mexican whorled milkweed (Asclepias mexicana; E. woolly-pod milkweed (A. eriocarpa)
Plants shown in (3) are: A. Black laurel (Leucothoe Davisiae); B. western azalea (Rhododendron occidentale); C. pale laurel (Kalmia polifolia);
D. rustyleaf (Menziesia ferruginea)
Plants shown in (4) are: A. Arrow-grass (Triglochin maritima); B. California false hellebore (Veratrum californicum) C. black greasewood
(Sarcpbatus vemiculatus); D. fitweed (Corydalis Caseana)
>Sampson, A. W. 1944.
Plant succession on burned chaparral lands in northern California. Bulletin 685. . Univ. of Calif. Coll. of Agric. Agric. Exp. Stn. Berkeley, CA
Published in March, 1944, with the Foreword written by C.B Hutchison, at that time Dean of the College of Agriculture and Director of the
Agricultural Experiment Station.
A quote from the Foreword: “A broad and comprehensive understanding of the problems involved in brush control requires research in a number of
sciences, including agrostology, silviculture, botany, geophysics, hydrology, soil physics, animal nutrition, and economics,
as well as knowledge of many administrative practices, involving public and private land use, wild life and forest
management,, fire prevention and control, forage production, water conservation, and soil-erosion control. “For this reason I
have encouraged especially qualified investigators of the College of Agriculture to study carefully the methods and results of
brush burning over a number of years. "In order to assure the broadest possible approach to these studies, I set up in the
College of Agriculture in 1933 a standing Committee on Range Management, consisting of nine investigators with special
knowledge in the fields of agricultural economics, agronomy, animal husbandry, irrigation engineering, forestry, soil
technology, and zoology. Among the studies which the Committee has already undertaken are some dealing with the effect
of brush burning on runoff and soil erosion, silting of streams and reservoirs, water penetration and water-holding capacity
of soils, and the ultimate vegetative succession. The findings of these studies will be reported by the College of Agriculture
from time to time as evidence is accumulated.”
>Semple, A. T., H. N. Vinall, and C. R. Enlow. 1934.
A pasture handbook. Misc. Publ. 194. USDA. Washington, D. C.
20
A. T. Semple was Associate Animal Husbandman, Bureau of Animal Industry; H.N. Vinall and C.R. Enlow were, respectively, Senior Agronomist
and Associate Agronomist, Bureau of Plant Industry; and T.E. Woodward, Senior Dairy Husbandman, Bureau of Dairy Industry.
A true relict from the past, but it perhaps formed the pattern for many similar publications put out in California as well as
many other states. Written and published by the USDA, with a Foreword by (then) Secretary of Agriculture Henry A. Wallace,
it was aimed almost entirely toward the eastern half of the country, and, out of that, mostly the eastern seaboard. Still, there is
included a photograph of sheep grazing in the Humboldt National Forest in Nevada.
Secretary Wallace's Foreword, albeit brief, was indicative of the times, and resonated with the perspective of one expected to
take a national view, but expected to offer encouragement in the face of nation-wide drought, bank failures and a crushing
depression. It is worth repeating here.
"Through a tragic sequence of drift and mismanagement, our economy has come into a state which makes it necessary to
revise the productions schedule of agriculture. Until we can again sell our surplus crops in foreign markets, there is no reason
for farmers to produce to the limit of the land's capacity.
"Today more than 2 million farmers are doing what they instinctively dislike -- they are reducing their total output by taking
out of surplus crops small acreages on the their individual farms. As time goes on, public agencies can help adjust supply to demand by returning to
forest, recreation, and wild-life uses much land that ought never to have been farmed.
"Another and fairly permanent way to promote a good balance in production is for farmers to change to less intensive methods of using the land.
During the war we plowed up about 40,000,000 acres of grassland. Now we ought to put much of it back. Fortunately, farmers are already moving
in that direction.
"Wider use of pastures and meadows in our farming system would reduce the production of cash crops, conserve the fertility of the soil, diminish
soil erosion, and, for agriculture as a whole, should produce increased net returns.
"This ship would not, as so many suppose, increase the production of meat and milk, because pasture, as we know it in America, does not produce
as much animal nutrients per acre as crops. About 70 percent of our present cultivated acreage produces feed for animals.
"Each farmer ought to examine for himself the possibility of sowing more land to pasture and roughage. Some will find that this would cut their
costs and result in increased net returns per farm. Others less favorably situated may find that they would get a lower income per farm.
"I suspect that we are going to revise some of our thinking about pastures. We usually find them on the poorest parts of our farms. They are as a
rule, compared with those of other countries, of low productivity. We must make them more productive eventually to justify our going back to a
grassland economy. The right grasses, the right legumes, proper mixtures, inoculation, fertilization careful use -- all these, and more, are necessary
to get and maintain good pasture.
>Shantz, H. L. 1947.
The use of fire as a tool in the management of the brush ranges of California. Div. of Forestry. Dept. of Natural Resources. State of California
The “About the Author” page gives the following, and many more:
Ph.D., university of Nebraska, 1905. H.L. Shantz was Professor of Botany and Bacteriology, University of Louisiana,
1907Plant Explorer, USDA, 1919-12Professor of Botany and Head of the Department, University of Illinois, 192628President, University of Arizona, 1928-1936Excerpts from the Foreword, as written by DeWitt Nelson, (then) State
Forester “Fire ~ a tool in range management ~ the use of which is an age-old problem, extending from the day of the nomadic
tribesmen down to the present time in California. Dense fields of brush have always been looked upon as a nuisance and
detriment to the herder of livestock. The conflict between the stockmen and brush has become more complex in this day as
the interest of other citizens in these lands of economic marginal value has increased. “The simplest method of eliminating
brush has been through the use of fire. The effect of this method of brush removal has long been a subject of study and
research to determine the effect upon the range land from the standpoint of soil erosion, change in plant succession and
economics. …“Therefore, in keeping with legislative authority and upon the recommendation of the livestock industry, the
State Division of Forestry secured the services of Dr. Homer Le Roy Shantz, an internationally recognized authority on plant
ecology, botany, plant geography and plant physiology. He was requested to review all available literature on the subject and to set forth in brief
form, the pertinent facts dealing with this complex problem. This gem is worth owning for the twenty-seven (27) pages, in small
print, of “Literature Cited”
>Wagnon, K. A., H. R. Guilbert, and G. H. Hart. 1942.
Experimental herd management, pp. 50-82 in Hutchison and Kotok, 1942.
Wagnon, Kenneth, A. 1968.
Use of Different Classes of Range Land by Cattle. Bulleting 838. Calif. Agric. Expt. Sta.
21
At left, the Bulletin’s cover. Note
that sole authorship, appropriately,
was given to Wagnon. I like to
imagine that Ken may have insisted
on this picture, because of the
remarkable capture of how a
bovine grazes, “grabbing” a
mouthful with its prehensile
tongue. At right, a view of
landscape at the San Joaquin
Range. Possibly chosen because it
was considered to be representative
of the area. My gentle reader is
invited to use the three photos
(from the above citation)
representing light, moderate and
heavy grazing to decide which
single category best describes the
grazing land shown here.
Also, how many of Wagnon’s 10 land classes (Appendix XX) are shown here? Why does this demonstrate the difficulty of assigning forage
preferences to a given land class?
>Wallace, H. A., Secretary of Agriculture. 1936.
The Western Range, A letter transmitting, in response to Senate Resolution No. 289, a report on the Western range – A great but neglected natural
resource. Document No. 199 of the 74th Congress, 2nd Session. US Government Printing Office, Washington 1936.
It is altogether fitting that this foray into things historical include this monumental work for its
times. Weighing in at 620 pages of fine print. A 16-page 2-column index, a four-page listing (with
both common and scientific names) of “Range species referred to in the report”, a list of 10 “range
types”, one of which is designated the “Pacific Bunchgrass” type (which includes the “California
needlegrass—Sandberg blue-grass sub-type), a 32-page Appendix divided into a more-thancursory description of the “Southern Forest Ranges” and Alaska, and a Literature Cited section of
189 references. Its Table of Contents (the entries in what looks like 4-point font size if there was
such an option) covers 6 pages that, from a cursory estimate provide a citation for less than 2
pages of text, on average. There are frequent instances where a primary entry is extended into its
fourth order.
Individual references in this group go back to the California Gold Rush era, and also include the
World War I period. These two factors could be regarded as important perturbations19, and
therefore worthy of a second look. In any event, such a massive, scholarly, and multi-authored treatise should by no means be ignored by any
serious writer of Western States agriculture.
Embedded in the first one third of The Western Range is this portrayal of land acquisition in the United States, all of it done within the span of 50
years. Rounded to the nearest 10 acres The (then) General Land Office provided them to the nearest one-tenth acre!). They were adjusted for this
writing to the nearest ten. So, in millions of acres (MA): Louisiana Purchase, from France in 1803, 530 MA; Texas Annexation (independent of the
Texas Purchase of 1850), in 1845, 170 MA; Oregon Territory, established in 1846, 180 MA; Texas Purchase in 1850, 80 MA; Mexican Cession, in
1853, 340 MA; Gadsden Purchase, in1853, 20MA; and (now Florida), ceded by Spain in 1819. While these numbers may not gibe with my gentle
reader’s total, they are close enough for our purposes, which are mostly to engender a feeling of shock and awe while viewing the illustration.
Shown here is Fig. 61, pg. 219, titled “The Rise and Fall of Homesteading in the West”. The first bar (at left) on
the abscissa is for the time period 1868 – 1872. Each bar represents a four-year interval, ending at the right for
1928 – 1932. On the ordinate is shown homestead areas (in millions of acres) patented for each time interval.
Time interval 1913 – 1917 lies just above, and time interval 1918 – 1922 lies just below the 40 million acre mark.
The caption for this illustration comments that the “…sharp advance in the 1913 – 1917 period is largely explained
by the passage of the so-called Three-year Homestead Act of 1912.” Accompanying the bar graph some
information on the beginning practice of irrigation in the Western states. “…only a small part of the western range
States can be irrigated. In Montana only 1.7 percent of the total land area has been placed under irrigation, and not
more than 2.8 percent can be so utilized. In Utah the corresponding percentages are 2.5 and 3.3. Even in California
where the markets are close at hand and the climate is such as to permit the raising of semi-tropical fruits, only 4.8
percent has been placed under irrigation to date.
“And then someone discovered the dry-land farming was a possibility, and that under the influence of favorable years these virgin grasslands could
be made to grow wheat. That it had taken nature centuries to build up a few inches of fertile topsoil, that frequent and severe drought would result in
crop failure, the “summer fallowing” practice was likely to facilitate wind erosion just as much as moisture conservation—these facts were not
realized. Millions of acres of excellent native grassland passed to private ownership under the homestead laws in a disastrous attempt to do what
nature would not permit. Other millions of acres were filed on and broken up but were abandoned even before patent was issued. Today the semiarid
19
Using a definition of perturbation given as “Secondary influence on a system; a slight disturbance of a system by a secondary influence within it.
22
West is dotted with abandoned shacks where a worn-out tractor stands aback of the fallen-down barn, witnessing what has proved to be the
crowning mistake of an attempt to force low-value lands into private ownership for crop agriculture.”
>Weaver, J.E. North American Prairie. University of Nebraska, January, 1944. American Scholar. pp. 329-339.
“From the highlands of central Mexico across the entire United States and northward into Canada extends the
great mid-continental prairie. On the east it is in contact with the deciduous forest. From this central mass the
prairie extends westward beyond the Rocky Mountains across Wyoming into eastern Utah, and
southwestward through northern New Mexico into northern Arizona. The Palouse Grasslands occurred in
eastern Oregon and Washington, and other parts of the Northwest. The Pacific Prairie was found in the Great
Valley of California, and the Desert Plains Grassland still occupies much of southern Arizona and New
Mexico and southwestern Texas. Together they constitute the Grassland or Prairie Formation, which is the
most extensive and most varied of all the natural units of vegetation of the North American continent. In fact,
native grassland formerly covered 38 per cent of the entire land surface of the United States.
“Throughout the entire Prairie Formation the climate is more favorable to grasses than to trees or shrubs or,
indeed, to any other type of vegetation. But within the vast range of grassland climate, marked differences
exist in degrees of favorableness for growth. These are illustrated especially by differences in precipitation
and relative rates of evaporation. Temperature and length of growing season are of less importance, for all
the grasslands seem to lie well within summer temperature limits favorable to growth of the grass life-form.
Since rainfall decreases and evaporation increases from east to west in the great mid-continental area, there
have resulted several different kinds or associations of prairie, each limited in extent by a distinctly different
minor grassland climate.
“This vast prairie is in summer a sea of waving grasses. Except for its grandeur of expanse, and the wealth of splendid flowers, the prairie appears
almost monotonous in the general uniformity of its cover. The absence of trees, the paucity of shrubs, the dominance of grasses and a characteristic
drought-enduring flora constitute its main features. The recognition of the communities of which prairie is composed, the wonderful manner in
which they are organized, the leading role played by dominant species, and the close adjustment of the various species to their physical environment
and to each other have only recently been clearly comprehend, even by students of grassland.
“In correlation with the amount of precipitation, grasses fall rather naturally into three groups: tall grasses such as big bluestem and slough grass,
which grow six to eight or more feet tall; mid grasses, like little bluestem and needle grass, which are two to four feet in height; and short grasses as
illustrated by buffalo grass and blue grama, whose heights range between 0.5 and 1.5 feet. Tall grasses occur in the wetter, eastern portions of the
grassland where precipitation is thirty-five inches or more. They are also found westward on lowlands along streams where precipitation is
supplemented by water running down the slopes, and in the general prairie area on sandhills where no water is lost by runoff and little is wasted by
direct evaporation through the surface mulch of dry sand. Conversely, short grasses occur mostly in areas of low precipitation such as the Desert
Plains Grassland of the far Southwest, and in the more arid portions of the main mass of grassland west of the hundredth meridian of longitude
under a precipitation of fourteen to twenty-three inches. Under intermediate conditions, as over the uplands of Iowa and eastern Nebraska, mid
grasses thrive. They intermingle with tall grasses on lower lopes but are shaded out by them in low wet soil. On the upland, in turn, short grasses are
rarely found except on the steepest and driest hilltops, since they cannot endure the shade of closely spaced mid grasses. This results in a great body
of mid grasses, commonly called True Prairie, extending eastward from Nebraska across Iowa and Illinois, but with Tall Grass Prairie not only on its
eastern border but also dissecting it along the flood plains of the thousands of streams. The long axis of True Prairie lies north and south, from
Canada to southern Oklahoma.
“West of a broad transitional area, approximately along the hundredth meridian, precipitation becomes too light, with increased evaporation, to
support a continuous stand of med grasses, and they are more or less widely spaced. The open spaces between have long been claimed by an
understory of buffalo grass, blue grama, or other short grasses. The result is a two-story prairie of short grass and mid grass intermixed, with-inch
blue grama for example under two-foot western wheat grass. This, the most massive association of all and the one that extends westward beyond the
Rockies, is appropriately designate Mixed Prairie. Southward it reaches far into western Texas; on the north it stretches half way across
Saskatchewan. This extensive Mixed Prairie association has been grazed so intensively that in most places over its drier western part the mid grasses
have all but disappeared. Short grasses have increased greatly and such areas have been designated sort-grass plains. Climatically they are mixed
prairie. Only in the arid Southwest does the extremely low precipitation, coupled with a remarkably high rate of evaporation, exclude mid grass. The
Desert Plains association is truly one of short grasses.
“Prairie everywhere owes its character to the most abundant and important grasses. These are called dominants, since they largely control the
abundance, vigor of growth, and often the very existence of other species. This control is exerted through their effects upon the water supply, light,
and other factors of the environment. Most of the dominants are bunch-formers although some propagate by rhizomes, and rarely by stolons, to form
a dense sod. Indeed, when one learns to recognize with of ten dominants in any prairie association and becomes familiar with their life habits and the
places in which they thrive, he is well on the way toward an understanding of grassland. This is true despite the fact that in True Prairie, for
example, there are fifty or more other important but subdominant grasses and numerous other species.
“The various groupings or types of grassland even within a single square mile are delimited by the presence in abundance of single dominant or two
or three dominant grasses on somewhat equal terms. Even the layman recognizes and understands what is meant by bluestem, slough grass, needle
grass, or wheat grass prairie. In fact, the entire True Prairie from Minnesota to Missouri and from Kansas to Dakota has been found to contain in the
main only six communities or types, three on lowland and three on upland.
“In wet, poorly drained or waterlogged soil (in sloughs) occurs the tall, coarse slough grass, often in practically pure stands. Where the soil is wet in
spring but later well drained and aerated, big bluestem holds forth in growth so tall and stands so dense that the herds of cattle of the early settlers
were lost to view and could be found in evening only by the tinkling of the cowbell or the waving of the tops of the nine-foot bluestem or Indian
grass, a phenomenon best observe from horseback. This was the famous bluestem corn land. But so thick and tough were the rhizomes and roots that
the soil was always broken by preference only after grazing or repeated mowing had weakened the hold of the bluestem.
23
Between these types lies land too dry for good development of slough grass and too poorly aerated for big bluestem. Here thrives a community of
tall switch grass or nodding wild rye or an intermixture of the two dominants. As in the other lowland types, the light is so greatly reduced by the
tall, dense stands of the dominants (often only 1 per cent reaches the soil) that most other species are excluded. Of the three lowland types, however,
big bluestem is by far the most extensive.
“On upland, little bluestem usually dominates all but the driest slopes and hilltops. Here occurs needle grass, ripening in June not unlike a field of
grain, or dense, nearly pure stands of prairie dropseed.
“Grasses are well adapted to withstand the grazing that has been imposed upon them through thousands of years by herds of bison, elk, and other
native animals, followed by the settlers’ cattle. Near the base of the leaf there is a transverse intercalary zone of growth. Hence if the major portion
of the leaf is cut or bitten off the part can readily be replaced; that is, the leaf can grow from the base until it reaches or surpasses its former size.
Portions of stems of grasses as well as the leaves are also removed in grazing. Growth then takes place from buds produced in the axils of sheathing
bases of the leaves at the lower end of the stems. Yet grasslands contain other kinds of plants – herbs that do not have the grass life-form. These are
designated as forbs.
“Forbs have accommodated themselves to the presence of grasses, as is shown by their seasonal activities and differences in height. The groups or
societies of forbs and the degree of development of the grasses lend to each season a distinctly different appearance of aspect. The prairie presents
four aspects, besides the more somber one of winter. The orderly succession of changes in the conspicuous features of the landscape proceeds with
marked regularity.
“In the earliest aspect, prevernal bloomers in the central prairie area appear in the warmer situations late in March or early in April. Among the most
important are prairie cat’s-foot, pasque flower, dog’s-tooth violet, windflower, and fennel-leaved parsley. Needle grass, June grass, and nodding
wild rye, all of northern extraction, are the only dominant grasses that have made considerable growth, but this is exceeded by the rapid
development of bluegrass.
“Late April introduces the vernal or spring aspect. The drab tone of winter is replaced by the greenish tinge of the new growth of grasses. The
bluestems, of southern origin, appear about the middle of April, but on low ground and north slopes the colors of the dried vegetation of the
preceding fall are not entirely obscured until the first week of May. This period initiates rapid growth of plants of summer and autumn as well as
those of spring. In the ravines and moist soil the tallgrowing, sawtooth sunflower, rosinweeds, tall goldenrod, and other late bloomers far outstrip the
grasses in rate of growth. Strawberries, violet wood-sorrel, and prairie violet develop both foliage and flowers before the light is too much obscured
by the rapidly growing grasses. The new shoots of blazing stars, goldenrods, sunflowers, and sage add tone to the landscape. In spring the prairies
pulse with life.
“From the background of green show forth the gems of nature, manifold in variety, radiant in beauty, endless in recurrence – the societies of the
vernal aspect. Among these are found blue-eyed grass, yellow star grass, puccoons, old-man-of-the-Platte, wild onions, vetches, false indigo,
spiderworts, and many others, all enhancing the beauty of prairie in spring. The yellow of the golden parsnip, the bright pink or purple of the prairie
phlox, the white masses of flowers of New Jersey tea, and the buffalo bean with its abundance of violet-purple flowers were all familiar sights to the
pioneers of the Midwest.
“Most of the estival plants have finished blooming; others are distinctly on the wane; but many continue into the autumnal aspect, at least for a time.
Now the yellow and gold of the sunflower and rough oxeye intermingle with the purple of the blazing stars. Many species of goldenrods occur,
sometimes in great masses, and all add much beauty to the autumnal landscape. Various rosinweeds dot the prairie where moisture is plentiful.
Pleasing variety is added to the wealth of autumnal colors by the grayish white flowers of the false prairie boneset, the gray color of the prairie sage,
and the black fruiting heads of lespedeza. Ironweeds, gentians, evening primroses, and many others are found. Numerous asters blossom from
August until late fall, their colors varying from white or lavender to blue or purple.
“During September and late fall, the great fields of fruiting grasses are beautiful to behold. On low ground scores of the forked inflorescences of big
bluestem may occur on every square yard. The golden panicles of Indian grass glisten in the sun.
The dried heads of nodding wild rye stand thickly in the ravines, while on uplands the open panicles of prairie dropseed are held aloft about the level
of the foliage. About the first week in September many prairie grasses begin to lose their green color and slowly take on the red and bronze and
golden tints of autumn. These gradually deepen until the landscape presents a color scheme rivaled in beauty and delicacy of painting only by the
autumnal coloration of the great deciduous forests. Late October of November witnesses the waning and finally the death of the aerial parts of the
forbs and grasses. Life in the prairie retreats underground.
“As a result of natural deterioration, augmented by the work of the wind and assisted by the weight of ice and snow, the once great cover of standing
vegetation gradually returns to the surface of mother earth. Here it forms a protecting blanket for the living parts within and beneath the surface of
the soil. But the prairie is still a living thing – though underground and dormant – awaiting only another summer to build anew the parts above the
soil.
“Plants are extremely crowded in their prairie home. Competition for light is often severe. Many forbs of early spring always remain near the surface
of the soil. They make a rapid growth, flower and produce seed early, and thus complete the important work of the season before they are
overshadowed by the grasses. Many species of late spring are likewise of low stature. But some, such as phlox and golden meadow parsnip, may
exceed the grass in height for a time. By midsummer nearly all are submerged to the general grass-level.
“Plants that blossom during midsummer or fall have likewise started an early vigorous development. They grow rapidly. Week by week during early
summer the struggle for light becomes more and more severe. Species of the summer aspect attain a moderate height, but autumnal blooming plants
continue to elongate until they are mostly far above the grasses. Not one is found in the understory. Except for the gentian, all are conspicuous at or
above the general grass-level and may reach a height of four to six feet or more.
24
“Within the prairie cover one finds the conditions of life severe. Though the soil is rich and deep, water is frequently scarce and the plants sharing
are legion. Deficiency of water usually occurs when the air too is driest, the temperature high, and the prairie swept by desiccating winds.
“The problem of an adequate water supply has been met by the development of deeply penetrating, usually widely branching, and thoroughly
efficient root systems. The perennial life habit is exhibited by all but a few of the prairie species. Hence a good absorbing system, once established,
may be used throughout a long span of years. Moreover, the roots and other underground pars are storehouses of food during the long period of
winter dormancy and account for the rapid growth of the plants following their early awakening in spring.
“Layering in prairie also occurs in the soil. Roots of different species do not all draw upon the same soil level for their supplies of water and
nutrients. Indeed, the root habit is so fixed in this respect that the various species may be grouped according to the layer or layers of soil occupied
by them A small percentage of plants extend their roots only about 1.5 feet deep; moderately deeply rooted plants attain a depth of four to five feet.
But about 65 per cent of prairie species extend their roots beyond five feet, maximum depths of eighteen to twenty-four feet sometimes being
attained. Indeed, the bulk of the prairie is below and not above the surface of the soil.
“Thus, the plan of life in the prairie is very diverse. So many species can exist together only by sharing the soil at different levels, by obtaining light
at different heights, by making maximum demands for water and soil nutrients at different seasons of the year, by fitting into the niches unoccupied
by other species, and by profiting by the incidental benefits afforded by the community of which they are a part.
“The great stability of the prairie denotes a high degree of equilibrium between the vegetation and its habitat under the control of the existing
climate. Large tracts of prairie, after ninety of more years of settlement, remain practically uninvaded by weeds except to the extent that trails or
roads have been made through them or soil has been washed into the ravines from adjacent fields. With rare exceptions, they remain free from
weeds, although surrounded for years by weedy fields and pastures.
“Stability is increased by the long life of many prairie plants. The dominant bunch grasses, once established, retain their vitality for many years. The
life span of certain forbs may extend over several decades. The prairie itself is an intricately constructed community. The climax vegetation is the
outcome of thousands of years of sorting of species and adaptations to soil and climate. In fact it is more than this, for the vegetation has had no
small part in determining the physical, chemical, and biological properties of the soil. Prairie soil and prairie climate are in a sense an expression of
one and the same thing. Indeed, the development of the soil and a parallel development of the plant cover have gone hand in hand from the
beginning of rock weathering to the production of mature soil covered with climax prairie.
“The constructional processes of soil development are due largely to the incorporation of plant parts and microorganisms among the mineral
particles. Upon the fall of leaves and stems the organic matter of the plant, which has resulted from synthetic activity, is incorporated into the soil.
These residues of grassland vegetation have returned more to the soil than the green plants have absorbed from it. Throughout their lives plants have
synthesized many organic substances – sugars, starches, celluloses, fats, and protein. Most of these materials return to the soil when the plant dies.
This added organic matter produced by vegetation introduces a fundamental change. The substrate is no longer the former one of mineral matter
alone, but now contains stored energy in the form of organic material, and a microflora of bacteria, fungi, and other organisms.
“The amount of living organic materials in prairie soils is very great, often three to four tons an acre in a surface of four inches. Thus, when the
farmer mows his prairie in fall and the yield is two to three tons of air-dry hay per acre, he is leaving a still larger amount of living plant material in
the surface four inches of the meadow.
“A reaction of major importance of the prairie cover occurs in breaking the force of beating rains. Even torrential downpours, so characteristic of
prairie climate, reach the soil with the velocity of the raindrops much decreased. Not only is the force of the impact reduced, but the surface soil is
not churned into a muddy suspension as is bard soil. The fine particles of soil remain in place and do not clog the pores as the water enters the soil.
That the pores remain open is a chief reason for the great absorptive power of prairie soil. Runoff water in prairie is usually slight unless rains are
heavy. The water that does run off is clear, since the soil is protected by letter and leaf mold and held firmly in place by the bases of the plants and
their widely and deeply spreading root systems. Nor does erosion by wind occur where there is a natural cover of grass.
“Grassland soils through untold centuries have been thoroughly protected by the unbroken mantle of prairie vegetation. The vegetation and soil are
closely related, intimately mixed, and highly interdependent upon each other and upon the climate. Hence, prairie is much more than land covered
with grass. It is a slowly evolved, highly complex organic entity, centuries old. It approaches the eternal. Once destroyed, it can never be replaced by
man.”
>Weaver, J. E. and T. J. Fitzpatrick. 1934.
The prairie. Ecological Monographs 4:109-295.
This absolute gemstone of grassland ecosystem history is the most treasured volume in my collection. While it was passed along to me by my
Agronomy Department Chairman, R. Merton (“Mert”) Love, it bears the autograph of Agronomy colleague M. L. (Maurice) Peterson, who was, at
the time I joined the department, the University Dean of Agriculture, stationed in Berkeley.
It became a favored source to quote from when I taught a course in grassland ecology. Granted, the prairies Weaver and Fitzpatrick wrote about, in
great detail and with professional photographic images and a remarkable drawing (no artist credit given) that portrays the differences in rooting habit
for selected perennial grasses and forbs. The genera chosen (none of which appear in the California annual grassland) include Andropogon,
Psoralea, Koelaria, Astragalus, and Kuhnia. But the drawing puts emphasis on the importance of a perennial plant’s mostly-unseen underground
realm, its root system, and the environment within which it lives and functions. The illustration’s caption, in part, reads “note…that the grasses
absorb at different levels; and that the forbs, which absorb little in the first foot, extend much deeper, some to 17 feet.
25
In the beginning of the book I marked a number of passages that I would read aloud to my classes,
directly from the book itself. The section from which they were chosen was headed “Complexity of the
Prairie” and begins “The prairie presents may changes in both major and minor variations. Responses to
major changes in habitat are more striking, since more pronounced, but of no greater interest than the
more minute ones that recur again and again in response to slight differences in the factors. As the
season advances, the panorama of the landscape varies to an extent that is almost kaleidoscopic in
character. (par.): Major variations in the plant cover are determined in part by the amount of
precipitation. They result also from differences in topography through their effect upon runoff and
exposure and consequent water relations. On low ground, the depth of the water table is a determining
factor. … (par.): Within the prairie cover one finds the conditions of life severe. Though the soil is rich
and deep, water is frequently scarce and the plants sharing it are legion. Deficiency of water usually
occurs when the air too is driest, the temperature high, and the prairie swept by desiccating wind.
…(par): So numerous are the individuals that those of greater stature shade the shorter ones, often to the
extent that seedlings and lower leaves die for lack of food. Through thousands of years there has resulted
an adjustment of the species to the environment. The plants, with few exceptions, are remarkably free
from disease, regardless of the weather; they are little injured by high winds or extreme heat. They may
be harmed by late freezing or infrequently stripped of their leaves and battered to the ground by hail, by
rarely or never killed. Those that were unfitted have disappeared; those that remained have reacted to the
factors of the environment so thoroughly that as species they successfully meet the most severe
conditions. … (par.): Just what adjustments the species have made to live and successfully compete with
their neighbors, to endure the conditions imposed upon them by the dominants, or to profit by the
presence of their fellows are problems of great complexity but of extreme interest.
The beauty and the quiet calm of the grassland should not obscure the fact that the prairie is a field of battle centuries old in which the
conflicting species, never wholly victorious nor never entirely vanquished, each year renew the struggle.
It is the bitter struggle for mere existence, for light, water, nutrients, etc., eagerly sought by numerous competitors Each species would
increase its holding; but parent plants must compete with their own offspring; as a result the population becomes enormously over crowded
for the best development of the individual.. Consequently all are reduced in size and underdeveloped compared to the stature they could
attain. They of fruit sparingly rarely than abundantly, and take years to accomplish what, unhindered by their fellow, might be
accomplished in a single season. Such is the picture of the prairie in its condition of stabilization.”
Federal Legislation: The Morrill, Hatch & Smith-Lever Acts -Organizing to Conduct Research, Extension and Teaching
>Kerr, Norwood Allen. 1987.
The Legacy – A Centennial History of the State Agricultural Experiment Stations – 1887-1987.
Missouri Agric. Expt. Sta., Univ. of Missouri-Columbia & USDA Coop. State Res. Serv. 318 pp.
Much of this section was adapted from Norwood Kerr’s comprehensive coverage of the subject, as well as from the two cited volumes by University
of California historian Ann Foley Scheuring,
Acceptance of scientific principles as guides to the growing of crops and the tending of livestock in early American history was fostered, in 1840, by
the publication of Justus von Liebig’s Organic Chemistry In Its Application to Agriculture and Physiology.
Liebig’s work gave credibility to the notion that to be most productive, agriculture needed to be conducted “scientifically”. Otherwise-competent
experimenters shrank in the face of challenges emerging from a research discipline that was not even (as yet) clearly defined. Unlettered
incompetents, envious of the potential to reap monetary benefits from farmers’ enthusiasm proceeded to bilk the unwary. The terms “scientific” and
“experimentation” only instilled in farmers a pervasive and highly resistant distrust of new methods, especially ones based on the application of
chemicals. Eventually, acceptance came, albeit gradually, as governmental and academic institutions plied their wares, and farmers became less
distrustful as well as more observant. Long-term research facilities were conceived of and constructed, along with sufficient funding and technical
support to ensure their survival.
In 1843, a student of Liebig was persuaded by Sir John Lawes to begin the conduct of field experiments on his estate at Rothamsted, Soon after
Liebig’s Organic Chemistry was published, an American, Samuel W. Johnson, traveled to Germany to study under Liebig. Upon returning home his
newly-found enthusiasm for the future of agricultural chemistry collided with the accumulated fruits of unscrupulous merchants of artificial (read
“fake”) fertilizers. In a moment of enlightened action, the Connecticut State Agricultural Society (a harbinger of the State Experiment Station
system that was to follow) engaged Samuel Johnson as a chemist to provide fertilizer nutrient analysis as a service to farmers.
The tide was turning, and would not be thrown back.
Following the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln’s administration put forth a series of bills that came to be known as the “Farmer’s Administration”.
Embedded in these were the Homestead Act and the Transcontinental Railroad Act. Their massive impact in opening up vast territories west of the
Mississippi is well known. What is less considered is that this sea change in dominion of land also brought to the fore a fertile imagination of how,
and in what ways, the awesome capability of the federal government could provide aid to agricultural experimentation and to the extension of that
new information to those who worked the land.
26
Now, demand for the teaching of vocational agriculture as a part of higher education resonated throughout the land. Educators, including Jonathan
Baldwin Turner of Illinois, advocated development of a system to establish state colleges using proceeds generated from the federal land grants.
Turner’s efforts contributed seeds of progress. A nod from the editor of Henry Steele Commager’s encyclopedic review reads:
“This act, granting public land for the support of industrial and agricultural education, is, with the exception of the
Act of 178520, the most important piece of legislation on behalf of education ever passed. Under the terms of this act
some 13,000,000 acres of the public domain have been given to the States for the establishment of mechanical and
agricultural colleges: the act gave a tremendous impetus to the movement for establishing State Universities. “
In December of 1857, a congressional Representative from Vermont proposed that each state of the union be given an area of land proportional to
the number of its Congressional members. The stipend was to be used as perpetual endowment for establishment of a college. The college was then
to provide instruction “in such branches of learning as are related to agriculture and the mechanic arts.”
The Representative from Vermont was Justin Smith Morrill. The bill was referred to the House Committee on Public Lands, which promptly killed
it. Morrill waited two years and re-introduced his bill. While passed by the House and Senate, it died again, this time under the veto of (then)
President James Buchanan. The bill was amended and subsequently brought before (then) President Abraham Lincoln who, on July 2, 1862, signed
it into law.
However, Kerr writes,
“Grand in design, the land-grant college act of 1862 proved less so in its initial execution. High administrative costs
in combination with a soft market for land sales caused by the Civil War and the Homestead Act prompted most
states to sell their entire entitlement to dealers at prices of between fifty cents and one dollar an acre. Suddenly,
many states found themselves supporting two colleges. For one of them they had to furnish most of the land and all
of the buildings. As a consequence, agitation for further federal aid to the states began within a decade, led again by
Justin Morrill, who was by then a senator. First introduced in 1872, the Second Morrill Act was finally passed in
1890 to give direct annual appropriations to each state to support its land-grant college. Congress gave to each state
and territory $15,000 the first year, then increased the appropriations in annual $1,000 increments until the sum
reached $25,000 yearly.”
An early, perhaps unforeseen, but ultimately divisive outcome of state institution endowments, and in fact the evolution of higher education in
general was the clash between passionate proponents of what might be called “a classical education”, where the arts, literature, history, political
science, law, philosophy and religious studies dominated vs. the equally passionate proponents of what might be called “education and training for a
lifetime profession”, be it farming, animal husbandry, soils, or olericulture, with a second tier dominated by human and veterinary medicine,
business administration, and law
With farmers demanding visible evidence of the colleges’ commitment to their well-being, and agricultural professors searching for practical ways
of instruction, many land-grant colleges added model and demonstration farms to their existing facilities. From their beginnings as orderly garden
plots to impress visiting farmers and to keep students employed, these college farms evolved into rudimentary research facilities. As farmers
became increasingly sophisticated in their requests for answers to their immediate problems and agricultural professors began to exhaust their
meager supply of science-based knowledge, experimentation began. Often these consisted of little more than test plots for combinations of crops
and fertilizers with supporting chemical analyses performed in the college laboratory21.
“This arrangement was common to a number of the land-grant colleges by 1875, when the nation’s first facility to be designated as an
agricultural experiment station was born.”
In Connecticut.
Just one year earlier, the University of California (read Berkeley) began experimentation on its “college farm”. A sea change occurred in 1875 with
the arrival of Eugene W. Hilgard, who became the farm’s director. Hilgard combined new laboratory investigations with plot work and reoriented
the entire program after allegedly traveling the state by railway handcar to acquaint himself with the needs of California’s varied agriculture.
Impressed with the director’s efforts to merge the potentials of science with agricultural realities, the state legislature in 1887 designated the
facility an agricultural experiment station under the control of the university Board of Regents By 1887, fourteen states scattered over the nation
had established agricultural experiment stations. … Practicality characterized the research at every site.”
Eventually, in 1883, the federal Commissioner of Agriculture called the third of a round of conventions of agricultural college and farmer
organization delegates who were advocates of a national approach in the attempt to coalesce teaching with field experimentation in experiment
stations that were attached to colleges. Delegates to this convention were asked to endorse a pending congressional bill that would create a national
system of agricultural experiment stations.
“Land Ordinance of 1785”, signed into law May 20, 1785, laid the foundations for the public land system, which remained virtually unchanged
until 1862. contained provisions for allocating lands for future educational use i.e., “There shall be reserved the lot No.16, of every township, for
the maintenance of public schools within the said township;”
21
As a “Research-Assistant funded graduate student under the guidance of Professor Dale Smith at the University of Wisconsin-Madison in the
early 1960s, along with quite a few others, I spent lengthy hours in the tiny basement lab of Moore Hall, where the Agronomy Department was
housed, “running Kjeldahls” (I still have one of the monstrous old flasks; it graces my living-room wall, much as an heirloom painting as I type
this). We helped prepare our major professor’s plot sites, planted the seeds, sprayed for insects and weeds (or simply hand-weeded), cut Jari-mower
strips for yield-weight measurements, sub-sampled and dried in a forced-air circulated dryer building set to run at 140 degrees F., ground dried
sample through a Wiley mill equipped with a 40-mesh screen. And, yes, then “ran Kjeldahls”. And brought in the “new technology” of
lyophilization. When I began I had the good fortune to be “taken under the wing” of a senior graduate student. His name was John Reynolds. We
still exchange Christmas cards. But we don’t talk anymore about “running Kjeldahls”. Or lyophilization.
20
27
Seaman A. Knapp, professor of agriculture at Iowa State College, authored a proposal to fund experiment stations connected with the state
agricultural colleges out of the national treasury. Knapp devised a solution that combined state and federal support. By the terms of the Knapp
proposal, each state agricultural college would receive $15,000 annually from the national treasury to operate an experiment station that would
pursue research into a number of broad areas.
As the federal grants could only be used to pay the salaries of scientists and support staff and to defray the expenses of investigation, the college
would furnish buildings, land, and other facilities. The college trustees would maintain “general control” and furnish a professor of agriculture to
supervise the station. Presumably this director and the station staff would decide on the specific experiments to be performed; the “general
character” of the work was to be determined by the station superintendent, the college president, and the federal Commissioner of Agriculture. By
retaining ultimate authority over funds, the Commissioner could shape station programs to national concerns.
In 1885, a meeting of agricultural educators called in Washington by the Commissioner of Agriculture, the convention endorsed the principles of a
bill drawn up by Agriculture Committee Chairman William Cullen and appointed a committee of college presidents to guide it to passage. Inserted
was a new rationale for support of legislation based on the duties of the state land-grant institutions, not on the duties of the federal agricultural
agency. The committee contended that the national government had exercised its obligation to provide for the welfare of farmers by creating a landgrant college system to educate them and improve their practices. In fulfilling this responsibility, the colleges had embarked on a search for new
knowledge to assist farmers, straining their meager resources to the limit. New assistance from the federal government specifically directed to
agricultural experimentation was necessary to continue the good work at the colleges.
In 1886, the House Agriculture Committee had, in total, eight such proposal to ponder. In 1887, on March 2, President Grover Cleveland signed the
Hatch Act (so-named because William H. Hatch was then chairman of the Committee) into law. The Morrill Land-Grant College Act was cited in
the preamble as the authority from which the Hatch Act arose. In Henry Steele Commager’s Documents of American History, the Hatch Act is
defined as “An act to establish agricultural experiment stations in connection with the colleges … under the provisions of an act approved July
second, eighteen hundred and sixty-two, and of the acts supplementary thereto”. Which is to say, the Morrill Act. Justin Smith Morrill’s legacy
had, and has, an enduring future, not the least of which was his visage on a U.S. Postal Service Commemorative stamp.
Implementation of provisions of the Hatch Act, however, proved to be perplexing. The Hatch Act was no more explicit in resolving other central
issues with which early station organizers had struggled. Still to be determined were effective working relations between the federal Department of
Agriculture and the state stations, between the stations and their allied land-grant colleges, and between the demands of farmers and the changing
capabilities of science. “By the end of 1888, experiment stations were organized (or in some cases, reorganized) in all thirty-eight existing states and
in the territories of Utah and Dakota. Each state interpreted the Hatch Act according to local political conditions, producing an array of institutional
arrangements that conformed to no standard pattern.”22
In 1887, in the “Far West”, California had the only functioning agricultural experiment station. With federal money to support work at its Berkeley
location, it used more local support to expand work onto eight outlying stations between 1888 and 1900. Other states in that region, avid for national
aid in promoting economic development, quickly moved to establish their own stations. Oregon, Colorado, and Nevada, as states with existing landgrant colleges, accepted the Hatch Act offer within the first year that money became available. Oregon’s twenty-year-old State Agricultural College
appointed its extant staff as station researchers in 1888. In 1891, the school president took over as station director. Colorado State Agricultural
College had used its farm for plant variety testing since 1883, so this facility was designated as the experiment station five years later.. Two
substations were immediately founded by the legislature and two more joined the system in the early 1890s. Nevada also attached its station to the
state land-grant institution but added no substations. Initially, the Nevada station did not even add any staff – the University of Nevada president was
made the station director and a professor of chemistry became its researcher.”
Although the Hatch Act provided a stable source of revenue for the general agricultural research system, it was a narrow base of support. Like many
of the land-grant colleges after the Morrill Act, the experiment stations after the Hatch Act also found winning the farmers over to their side an
arduous task. It was a time when scientific knowledge about agriculture was scarce, trained scientists were scarcer, and farmer discontent was
abundant. The infant years of the state experiment station system coincided with “…the culmination of nearly three decades of increasing
restiveness among the nation’s farmers”. Most farmers, still suspicious of “book farming”, ignored the stations. Simple tasks were suggested for
the new facilities -- test varieties for individual farmers who had neither the time nor the money to do so themselves, and disseminate knowledge
about the best practices.
Legislators in many states added another duty: To regulate a broadening array of products that the farmer either bought or sold. By 1899, at least
twenty-eight of the stations were required to inspect seeds, fertilizers, feeds, and foods.
In that way, “…practical investigations with immediate payoffs thus came to be expected from the state experiment station system”
“The development of administrative relations in the colleges with which the stations were connected also encouraged them toward practical work.
Still struggling for public acceptance themselves, the land-grant schools often regarded the new stations as little more than federally financed allies
in their cause. Encouraged by the vague wording of the Hatch Act23, most states simply incorporated the station into the general administration of
the college. The college board of trustees usually became the station board of control, bringing with the board an overriding concern for economy.
Common too, was the naming of college officers and faculty to corresponding positions in the station. As late as 1900, fourteen college presidents
were serving concurrently as station directors. At the other institutions, the heads of resident instruction usually filled the station director positions.
“ With few faculty experienced in the methods of scientific inquiry (read experimental design and statistical analysis) and with pressure coming
from college trustees and administrators to run the program as inexpensively as possible, the tendency was strong to operate station lands as model
demonstration farms that could pay their own way and present an attractive appearance to visitors. ‘Research’ on such a farm might consist only of
23
One needs only to actually read the Hatch Act to gain an understanding of the confusion that would ensue
28
plant variety trials alternating with plots displaying the effects of differing soil treatments and crop rotations. Whether used for demonstration or for
discovery of new knowledge, a single station farm was limited in its usefulness. Only those who visited the college could learn from its model farm
and only those who shared the farm’s climate and soils could apply its scientific discoveries. Recognizing these limitations and responding to public
demand, the station expanded beyond their own farms to enlist practicing farmers and more distant lands to broaden the scope of their investigations
and the support of their programs.
Some stations dispatched seeds, fertilizers, and report forms to farmers. West Virginia’s station gave wheat, fruit, and forage seeds along with
detailed planting and reporting instructions to each of the university regents to distribute to cooperating farmers. Of those who received wheat seeds
in 1889, only one out of 708 cooperators returned useful information, while 85 percent returned no information at all. The program was dropped
in1890 after three years and an expense of some $2,600.
“Off-campus research sites staffed by station personnel proved more popular than enlisting the aid of cooperating farmers, though often no more
enduring in the early years. Branch stations could provide opportunities for longer-term, supervised investigations on soil types and under climatic
conditions not available at a central station. They also could provide opportunities to disburse precious station funds so broadly as to dilute the entire
research effort. With its immense land area of radically different climates and soils, California’s research program with eight outlying branches,
developed the most elaborate system.
The Smith-Lever Agricultural Extension Act, passed into law in 1914, established a national system to provide vocational education to adult
farmers. Coming long after the Morrill and Hatch Acts, it took advantage of well–organized and thriving land-grant colleges by locating its state
administrators there. Instead of funding a uniform, nationwide template as was done for state experiment stations, it gave to the states the
opportunity to each devise their own program.
Committee On Water, Forest, Range, and Natural Resource
Conservation (COWFRANRC)
>Vaux, Henry J., Chairman. July 2, 1957.
Letter to the Committee, Subject: Meeting to discuss research for the State Division of Forestry.
“On June 12 the State Legislature adopted Assembly Bill 91, which appropriated the sum of $500,000 annually (commencing with 1958/59) from
the State Lands Act Fund to the State Division of Forestry for “basic research, field studies and operations with respect to activities under its
jurisdiction”. Officials of the State Division of Forestry have indicated informally that they wished to work closely with the University in both the
planning and execution of the research phases of this new program.
“Many of you will recall the work done in 1954 by the predecessor of the present Committee, under chairmanship of Professor H.H. Biswell, in
developing a report on needed research in natural resource conservation. In view of this previous work, it seems highly desirable to assemble the
present Committee to consider what research might most appropriately be initiated at the University under the AB 91 program.
“Accordingly, a meeting of the Committee will be held …July 16… in Berkeley. A meeting at this early date is necessary if we are to have specific
recommendations in hand in time to be considered in preparation of the budget for the State research funds.
“As the earlier Committee compiled a very comprehensive report of proposed research in the general field of water, forest, range, and natural
resource conservation requiring an annual operating budget of close to $1 million, it may be worth noting ways in which the AB 91 program differs
from the earlier proposal. On the one hand the funds available for University research will probably be only one fourth as large as those envisaged
in the 1954 plan. At the same time the basic legislation limits expenditure of the present appropriation to research with respect to activities
under the jurisdiction of the State Division of Forestry. (
“The latter qualification is important for realistic consideration of the extent of the University’s interest in this matter. In order to help clarify its
significance, I send you herewith a copy of a report entitled “Wild Lands Research in California” recently prepared for the State Board of
Forestry by a small committee representing the School of Forestry, the U.S. Forest Service, and the State Department of Natural Resources.
This report is probably the best available indicator of the framework within which the new forestry research program will be formulated.
“Perhaps our Committee’s attention might first be directed toward identifying those problems or areas of research included in “Wild Lands Research
in California” where direct participation by the University is most essential.”
>Vaux, Henry J. December 5, 1957
Letter to the Committee re meeting on 11 Sep in Walter Mulford Hall. “A number of developments in the State Board of Forestry research program
have taken place since our last meeting. Although these have resulted in some slowing down of the program, it appears timely for us to give some
further thought to the University’s role in the matter.” Attached is a set of research project outlines: 1. Why brushland plants grow where they do.
Project Leader Jack Major, Botany Dept., UC Davis; 2. Fire control by brush control. Project Leader, O.A. Leonard, Botany Dept., UC Davis (“in
cooperation with the State Division of Forestry”). 3. Helping survival of tree seedlings by brush control. Project Leader, O.A. Leonard, Botany
Dept. UC Davis. 4. Biological Control of Forest Insects. University of California Dept. of Biological Control. In sum, it might be surmised that
some thought was being given to having the University bring about some independence from the State Department of Forestry in matters of research
directions and implementation.
>COWFRANRC. October 15,1958.
Report of Committee on Water, Forest, Range, and Natural Resource Conservation.
I. Why research on wildland problems is needed,
Nature and extent of wildlands in California
Wildland uses and their importance to the Economy
Impact of population growth on wildland management problems
Improved wildland management essential as a base for economic growth
A dual need for research
Role of wildland research agencies
29
Need for expanded research in the Agricultural Experiment Station
II. Agricultural Experiment Station research on wildland problems and needed expansion in it,
Inventory and analysis of wildland
Protection of resources from wild fire, insects, and diseases
Economic analysis of wildland problems
Increasing useable water yield
Increasing growth of timber and yield of usable wood
Recreational use of wildlands
Increasing forage production and utilization from grasslands
Conversion of brush to more useful types
III. The needed program of wildland research. Two appendixes are attached.
Appendix A Summary of current wildland research within the University of California. September 28, 1958
1. Inventory and analysis of wild land
13 Citations
2. Protection of resources from wildfire, insects and disease
15 Citations
3 Economic analysis of wildland problems
9 Citations
4. Increasing yield of usable water
2 Citations
5. Recreational use of wildlands (only wildlife research is
currently in progress)
10 Citations
6. Increasing growth of timber and yield of usable wood
8 Citations
7. Increasing forage from grasslands
18 Citations
8. Conversion of brush to more usable types
2 Citations
Appendix B Bibliography of research on Wildlands July 24, 1958
This item is missing from my collection
>Botany Department (?? Campus). May 5, 1954.
“Prepared for the Conservation of Forest, Range, and Natural Resources Research Committee. Item 1. Minor Capital Expenditure for Active Brush
Control Project #1400 (request for a lath house), and, Item 2. Sub Project of the Brush Control Project #1400 (requests for a. Aircraft tests, and b.
Expansion of field plot testing with chemicals.
Item 1. “Work on Experiment Station Project #1400, the anatomical and physiological responses of woody vegetation to herbicides, has progressed
to a point where it is evident that chemicals can play an essential role in the reclamation of brush and woodland areas for grazing.
“With the tremendous variation of chemicals, formulations, methods of treatment, brush species, and climatic and edaphic factors that exist it is
practically impossible, using field plots, to determine the best formulation, the most effective method and the most favorable time and condition of
treatment for a given situation. A higher degree of experimental control is require in order to compare such factors accurately,
“The lath house being proposed will be used for growing, conditioning, and observing small brush plants in pots. Treatment of uniform plants
grown under like conditions, sprayed in lots, and handled simultaneously for observation will eliminate may field variables and enable one to
compare formulations, spray methods, times of application and the like with some assurance of obtaining reliable results. Use of such experimental
plants is the next step in the development of successful chemical brush control technics.
“Lath House: 40’ x 96’ including 8’ center aisle; simple all-weather access road. Total estimated cost - $10,000.”
Item 2a. Botany Department. Aircraft tests
“Reasons for sub-project: To make possible a series of planned aircraft tests. Aircraft tests are necessary because (1) air application is often the
only feasible le practical method of application, and (2) ground rig applications do not sufficiently simulate aircraft applications to serve as an
experimental substitute for them.
“Points to be Investigated:
A. Chaparral (mainly chamise). Effect of chemical sprays on brush sprouts and seedlings as influenced by age of sprouts and seedlings;
date of application; retreatment; and chemical sprays used.
B. Oak Woodlands. Effect of chemical sprays on oak trees (blue, live, and black) and sprouts as influenced by date of application
retreatment; and chemical sprays.
C. Scotch broom. Exploratory tests to determine whether Scotch Broom might be controlled by aircraft sprays without undue damage to
pine.
“The results from the above studies will be correlated with soil moisture; soil and air temperature; and plant characteristics such as flowering, leaf
moisture, cambial activity in roots and shoots, etc.
Organization: The project will be an enlargement of functions now being conducted under the brush control project. (Aircraft tests are properly a
part of the present brush control project, but no funds have been available to undertake such tests
Cooperators: Agronomy Department; Agricultural Engineering Department; State Division of Forestry; and California Fish and Game.
Funds required:
Chaparral: 6 tests at $300 for flying and $150 for chemicals. Total: $2,700
Oak Woodland: 3 tests at $300 for flying and $150 for chemicals. Total $1,350
Scotch Broom: 2 dates of application at $300 for flying and $150 for chemicals. Total: $900
Total funds needed per year: $4,950. The Project should run for a minimum of 4 years.
Extra funds for the first year: Soil and air thermographs, $1,000; Soil moisture determinations, $300. Total $1,300 or, $6,250 for the first year.
Item 2b. Botany Department. Expansion of field plot testing with chemicals
Reasons for sub-project: Present research personnel cannot adequately handle the chemical aspects of the extensive and varied woody plant
problems in California. It is desirable, also, to study more critically (under field conditions) some of the factors associated with chemical control
Points to be investigated:
A. Chaparral (mainly chamise). To establish plots on a minimum of two contrasting sites for studying: effect of date of application;
effect of age of sprouts and seedlings; and effect of various chemical sprays.
30
Records should be taken on soil and air temperatures, soil moisture and plant characteristics, including flowering, leaf moisture, cambial activity,
etc.
B. Oak Woodlands. Initially these tests will be on interior live oak. Spray treatments. The same factors as listed above under chaparral
will be studied. Cut-surface treatments. To study the seasonal cycle of sensitivity of live oak and attempt to relate the results with such factors as
soil and air temperatures, soil moisture, cambial activity, etc.
C. Left undone initially will be detailed studies on scrub oak, black oak, blue oak, sprouting manzanitas, Scotch Broom, poison oak, etc.;
however, the present research personnel will be able eventually to do some work on these problems
.Organization: The project will be an enlargement of the functions now being conducted under the brush control project, thus making more detailed
studies possible.
Cooperators: The Agronomy Department and the State Division of Forestry
Funds: required each year:
Junior botanist
$4,980
Garage
$1,500
Travel
$ 600
General Assistance
$2,000
Supplies & expenses
$ 500
Equipment & facilities
$ 400
Funds required first year only:
Soil and air thermographs
$1,000
Soil moisture determinations
$ 400
Chainamatic balance
$ 500
Drying oven
$ 500
Total first year:
$12,400
Total after first year
$10,000
>COWFRANRC. October 15, 1958
Committee Report: Statements on Wildlands: I. Why Research on Wildland Problems is Needed. II. Agricultural Experiment Station research on
wildland problems and needed expansion in it (Missing from my collection), and III. The needed program of wildland research. Two appendixes are
attached: Appendix A. Summary of current wildland research within the University of California. 28 Sep 1958, and Appendix B. Bibliography of
research on Wildlands, 24 Jul 1958
I. Why Research on Wildland Problems is Needed “Sixty five million of California’s 100 million acres of land are covered predominantly with
trees, grass or shrubs. This vast wildland area (which includes the alpine barrens) is more than six times as large as the acreage devoted to all crop,
fallow, hay and cultivated pasture. From it flows more than ninety five percent of all the water available in the State. It produces most of the wood
to meet the State’s needs for lumber, plywood, pulp, and other forest products; most of the forage to support its livestock industry and wildlife; and a
large share of the recreational environment that has become identified with the California way of life.
“Until recently the attention of those concerned with the use of rural land in California has been focused primarily on the State’s 10.5 million
cropland acres. There the remarkable productivity of the land and the intensity with which it has been farmed combined to produce an agricultural
economy of a stature unmatched elsewhere in the world, But the very achievements of California agriculture and the complexity of the problems that
have had to be solved in realizing them have tended in the past to obscure both the importance of the State’s uncultivated lands and the significance
for all Californians other wildland use problems. Now, with increasing pressures of a growing population being evidenced throughout the wildland
area, these largely undeveloped lands require much closer study than they have yet received.
2. Nature and Extent of Wildlands in California “The wildlands with which this report is concerned include the forest, range, watershed and
chaparral areas. In the main these are upland or mountainous areas. They are relatively low in fertility compared to cropland. More than90 percent
of the 65 million acres has been classified as not adapted for cropland use. But some kind of more intensive use of these lands is clearly needed. It
remains for research to develop the means for intensification, whether it be intensified production of forage, timber, water, or even certain cultivated
crops. An additional 22 million acres of desert and barren land have characteristics and uses that are often closely related to those of the wildlands
already described. Thus, for many purposes they may need to be included in consideration of many of the wildland problems and in the
development of wildland research.
“A detailed inventory of all of the wildlands of California has never been made. However reconnaissance surveys have identified its major
components as including 18.5 million acres of commercial timber, 9 million acres of noncommercial timer (including woodland and high-altitude
types), 19 million acres of grasslands and woodland-grass, 7 million of sagebrush and 8.5 million of chaparral.
“About half of the wildland area is in private ownership. About 22.5 million acres of it is uncultivated land in California farms. It also includes 6.5
million acres of private commercial forest not in farms and a somewhat smaller acreage of private non-farm wildland other than forests. The
remaining 31 million acres is in public ownership, most of it under Federal jurisdiction Ownership of the private lands is widely dispersed. For
example, private commercial forest lands of the state are owned by more than 10,000 individuals and corporations. Aside from the relatively few
forest ownerships associated with the wood using industries, individual ownerships are small, averaging less than 500 acres in size. A similar
pattern of numerous relatively small holdings appears to characterize the private noncommercial and range lands. This diffusing of ownership has a
dual significance for the problem of wildland management. On the one hand few owners have sufficient such land to merit directing much
managerial attention to it .As a result, interest in and support for needed studies of wildland problems have not been widely based. On the other
hand the job of disseminating and applying information needed to improve use of wildlands is complicated by the diverse and varied character of the
land ownership.
“On most wildlands cultivation is precluded either by steepness of slope, erodability or shallowness of the soil, or adverse climate. Within these
limitations the lands are adapted in varying degree to growing trees, herbs, and shrubs. The wildlands afford opportunities for a wide range of uses
including timber production, grazing, water yield and watershed stabilization, and the provision of habitat for wildlife and recreationists. Due to
differences in character of land, cover and climate, great variations in adaptability to these several uses exists. But the highly localized nature of the
variation and the close interrelationships between uses preclude sharp delimitation of particular use areas, at least in the present state of knowledge.
“Despite their diversity, the wildland areas have unifying characteristics. On distinctive feature that unifies them is that much of the “produces”
services wither in lieu of or in addition to physical commodities. Watershed and recreational services are the principal one involved. The service
31
nature of these 2functions differentiates the wildlands sharply from cultivated areas were output is principally in the form of commodities. Although
these services are real, their measurement in physical and economic terms is more difficult than in the case of physical commodities. Economic
problems arise because such services do not pass through a market system comparable to that which distributes commodities.
“Secondly, large areas of wildland are subject to multiple uses, that is, a given area of land may serve for timber production, recreation, and a
wildlife habitat as well as a watershed basin. Wildland management planning and practice must take these multiple-use characteristics into account.
“Special attention should be directed to the multiple land use concept. Emphasis on conservation does not necessarily imply complete elimination
of game animals, domestic stock, or any other particular type of use. As a result, cooperative research is imperative.
”The fact that much wildland management is performed by governmental agencies or as a direct result of a public decision is a third characteristic.
Consequently, many questions of wildland management must be handled as questions of public policy rather than as questions of a market economy.
“If the proposed land use is kept clearly in mind the research worker is better able to plan his research. This makes participation by the agricultural
scientist all the more urgent. Certainly, scientists from the several disciplines may not agree on the proposed land use. All should, however,
recognize the fact that the original climax vegetation (whatever it might have been is not necessarily the most desirable. It may be, but the
investigators should be open-minded in their approach. Wise use is a better conservation concept than non-use. Research on this vast area and its
many problems has lagged far behind that on the more productive and more amenable lands found in the foothill and the valleys and coastal plains.
Although productivity of the wildland may at the moment be low, its importance as a state resource necessitates the expenditure of relatively large
sums in research to unlock its secrets. As in more intensive agriculture, the emphasis should be on how to utilize effectively such natural advantages
as the wildland possesses.
3. Wildland Uses and their Importance to the Economy “The principal uses of California wildlands have already been listed as timber growing,
forage production , water yield and watershed stabilization, and the provision of habitat for wildlife and recreation. Each of these uses contributes
significantly to the economy of the state.
“California timber production in 1955 amounted to 6.0 billion board feet of logs harvested by 1,760 timber operators. The aggregate value of these,
delivered at the processing plants, was about $250 million. They were converted by the dependent industries into 5.5 billion board feet of lumber,
716 million square feet of plywood, and 900 thousand tons of paper and paperboard. The lumber industry alone in that year had insured payrolls
totaling in excess of $300 million and an average of 62,380 employees. Standing timber in private ownership provided a significant part of the tax
base in many forested counties. Studies in the North Coastal area for example have shown that up to a third of the general property tax lad in such
counties is paid directly on standing timber and timber dependent manufacturing plants.
“Range livestock production is a vital segment of California agriculture. It utilizes the wildlands to provide some 44.5 million acres of grazing land
. This use is essential to the state’s livestock economy, which valued the sales of cattle and sheep at approximately $300 million in 1954, The 22
million acres of grazed wildland in farms contribute significantly to the general property tax base of many rural counties.
“Forty two and a half million acres of the wildlands constitute the major water yield areas of California. Located principally in the Sierra Nevada
and northern Coastal Range, the alpine, commercial forest and woodland-brush –grass areas produce mean annual runoff amount to 68 billion acre
feet. More than 88 percent of this yield is produced in the area west of the Sierra-Cascade summit and north of a line from Tehachapi Pass to San
Francisco Bay. However, Southern California wildlands also contribute important economic benefits because of the strategic location of the water
they produce and because they must be managed so as to protect from flood damages the highly urbanized developments that lie at the foot of the
mountains.
“Wildland recreation has become big business. Visits to National Parks and National Forests in California in 1955 have been estimated at over 35
million visitor days. An additional 20 to 25 million visitor days were spent at State Parks. No figures are available on the use of private land for
recreational purposes but there is little doubt that the figure is substantial. Making only moderate allowance for such use, recreationists (including
fishermen and hunters) appear to be spending upwards of 70 million days per year on the wildlands, or roughly 5 days per year per capita. The
significance of the latter figure is emphasized by the fact that about 90 percent of the reported recreation use is by Californians. The economic
significance of wildland recreation cannot be precisely indicated or appraised with available information. Despite some divergence of view as to the
details of its importance, there is little doubt that it is great and that the economics of recreational use constitute a significant unknown area for
research.
4. Impact of Population Growth on Wildland Management Problems The trend of California population growth has been too often detailed recent
years to require repetition here. What needs to be emphasized is the fact that the increase in number of people is complicating the problems of land
management in much the same degree that it has affected education, transportation, and other areas of major concern. Only a few examples of the
increasing pressure of population on the wildlands will be mentioned to illustrate the point.
“Residential use of wildland areas is increasing rapidly. Apart from the reduction in land area available for various other productive purposes, such
residential use has served to increase greatly the critical problems of wildland fire protection. It has raised substantially the property values at stake;
it has added much greater hazards to human life; and it has materially increased the likelihood of fire on the wildlands. Small tract settlement is also
complicating water rights range use, and other aspects of wildland management..
“As a result of population and income expansion, wildland recreational use increased more than 50 percent between 1946 and 1955. Continued
rapid increase in such use is indicated for the future. But facilities for handling increasing numbers of people have not kept pace with the demand.
Apart from overcrowding and inconvenience to users, more fundamental problems have arisen.. How can the more intensive use of vital areas be
accommodated without destroying the attractive character of the areas? How can the recreational use of wildlands be integrated with other essential
uses such as watershed management and timber production? How can the increasing costs of recreational developments be paid in the face of both a
tradition of free recreational use and an increasingly severe competition for public funds?
“The sustained high level of construction activity needed to house the expanding population of the State has placed unprecedented strains on timber
resources. Since 1945 log production has more than doubled with consequent increase in capacity of wood-using plants. Such capacity now
exceeds the level that can be permanently sustained by our wood supplies unless very great increases in the efficiency of forest land and product use
are realized. Growing tax burdens for schools and other local services to meet the needs of a growing population pose increasingly critical problems
for the forest lands in private ownership. The increased rate of logging has accentuated the problems of fire protection, watershed protection, and
multiple use management on both public and private forest areas. Some of the most critical results of growth have been in the vital field of
protection against wildfire. Significant improvements have been made in recent years in wildland protection methods and facilities. In certain areas
improved range management practices have substantially reduced fire hazards. But despite these advances, the fire problem is today more critical
for the State’s welfare than at any time in the past.
5. Improved Wildland Management Essential as a Base for Economic Growth Underlying such specific problems as those just enumerated is the
more fundamental one of using the wildland resource so that it will contribute most effectively to future economic growth. During the postwar
decade, the industries based on wildland management expanded rapidly. On the one hand, this increased rate of utilization created new job
opportunities, but it also magnified the problem of determining the best economic rate of use. The consideration of this problem must take into
32
account may variables; for example, the near full exploitation of the state’s virgin forest resources, the growing demand for wildland products, and
the potential for developing improved wildland management practices. This potential must ve realized if wildlands are to meet the increased
pressure on them for more intensive use in a growing economy.
“That more intensive use of wildlands and their products can contribute substantially to the future California economy is apparent. We know for
example that our present rate of timber growth is less than half of that potentially available. Moreover, we currently use effectively only half of the
wood that is actually removed from the forest. At the same time there is little doubt that future wood markets will expand substantially. These tow
circumstances define an opportunity for growth and development through better use of forest land and products that is of major state-wide
significance.
“There are soils and topographical features of California’s grassland, woodland-grass, and chaparral areas that are amenable to greatly increased
forage production. We know, for example, that on certain soils and sites current meat production is less than one-third of the potential and on
others, particularly some of the chaparral; it is a very small percentage of the potential. To maintain present production goals, and increase them if
necessary, will require expanded research interest and effort. Recognition of multiple use concepts augments the need for intensified research
programs. Both domestic stock and some forms of wildlife are dependent on the forage and browse resources. People are making greater use of
these same lands for recreation purposes. Research scientists have an obligation to show the way to increased economic use of the wildland
resource
“In the past, management of wildlands for watershed protection has been largely custodial in nature with emphasis on prevention of major problems
of flood and siltation. As the State’s water stringency increases we are coming closer to the time when management of the land for increased
quantity and quality of water yield is becoming both desirable and essential. The importance of seizing effectively all opportunities for intensified
management of wildlands for water production can hardly be overemphasized in view of the fact that more than 95 percent of the State’s water has
its origin on these lands..
6. Role of Wildland Research Agencies “The California Agricultural Experiment Station shares responsibility for an adequate program of wildland
research with the California Forest and Range Experiment Station of the U.S. Forest Service. The Division of Forestry of the California Department
of Natural Resources and the California Department of Fish nod Game are concerned with certain aspects of wildland research, and the Department
of Water Resources is concerned with wildland hydrology.
“The United States Forest Services’ California Forest and Range Experiment Station was organized in 1927 and carries on research in forest
economics, forest management, forest genetics, fire, insect and disease protection, range management and watershed management. A liaison unit at
the Station serves to bring the Forest Products Laboratory at Madison, Wisconsin into touch with needed wood utilization research. The Station
operates research centers at Redding, Susanville, Arcata, Placerville, San Joaquin foothills, and San Dimas with field experimental and
demonstration facilities in a wide variety of the vegetation types characteristic of the wildland area. Since 1927, the Forest and Range Experiment
Station and the University of California have been parties to cooperative agreements which enable the two agencies to participate together in
research of mutual interest.
“The State Division of Forestry has only limited specific research responsibilities. These center in the fields of range land improvement, wildland
fire prevention and control, and certain types of timber management experimentation adapted for study at the State’s three demonstration forests. As
a result of action by the 1957 Legislature the Division of Forestry has also been authorized to spend $100,000 per annum on research and field tests
on subjects “within its area of responsibility”. The policy of the Division with respect to this broader range of research activities is to carry out its
responsibilities through contract work with the established research organization.. The Departments of Fish and Game, and Water Resources have
specific research responsibilities as defined by law.
7. Need for Expanded Research in the Agricultural Experiment Station The growing importance of wildland among California’s natural resources,
the recent emergence of critical problems in the use of these resource, and the potential significance of wildlands in the expansion of the State’s
economy point to the need for and expanded research program. Such research will require the combined and cooperative efforts of a broad range of
natural and social scientists. The Agricultural Experiment Station, among the agencies concerned with wildland research, has a unique capacity to
bring to bear both breadth and depth of scientific knowledge.
“The Experiment Station has therefore a major responsibility to lead in developing programs of wildland research adequate to meet the emergency
needs. It can serve effectively both as a place where growing interest in wildland use problems can be focused and one where the necessarily
diverse research programs can be coordinated. To abdicate such leadership will clearly result in failure to capitalize on an important opportunity for
public service and will encourage diffusion of research support among less well qualified agencies.
“As early as 1955 the present Committee was recommending substantial increases in the effort directed at wildland research. Subsequently, the 1957
Legislature acted to appropriate additional funds for wildland research; the State Board of Forestry has devoted substantial time to developing a
statewide wildland research program; and the American Forestry Associations’ study of wildland ownership in California has singled out the need
for research as the key factor in the problem. These and other signs indicate that the Committee’s 1955 recommendation was in no sense premature.
>Appendix A: Summary of Current Wildland Research within the Univ. of California .September 28, 1958
1. INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS OF WILD LAND
Berkeley
Davis
Classification of Soils of California and their Agricultural and Pedologic interpretation (1315) E. Storie
Wildland Soil-Vegetation Survey Tehama County (1480) K.D. Gowans, Fresno County (1481)
G.I. Huntington
Glenn County (1455) E.L. Begg
Wildland Soils Analysis (1288) E. Perry
Hopland Field Station Soil Survey (completed)
Fertilizer Requirements of Wildland Soils (1157) (with School of Forestry) J. Vlamis & H. Biswell
Influence of Various Forest Tree Species on Soil Properties (1762) P.J. Zinke (School of Forestry)
Aerial Photo Specifications for Forestry Purposes (1329) R.N. Colwell (School of Forestry)
Survey of Insect Fauna on Wildlands (1205) P. Hurd (Entomology & Parasitology)
Grassland Aspects of the Soil-Vegetation Survey (1691) R.M. Love and R.A. Evans (Agronomy)
Poisonous Plants: Plant Identification (1527) J.M. Tucker (Botany)
The Anatomical and Physiological Responses of Woody Species to Herbicides (1400) O.A. Leonard
2. PROTECTION OF RESOURCES FROM WILDFIRE, INSECTS AND DISEASE
33
Berkeley
Biological Control of Forest Insects (1760) A.D. Telford (Biological Control)
Control of Range Weeds by Imported Insects (1324) J.K. Holloway (Biological Control)
Biology and Ecology of Rangeland Grasshoppers (RRF-1720) W.W. Middlekauff (Entomology & Parasitology)
The Biology, Ecology, and Control of Regeneration Insect Pests (1777) A.D. Moore (Entomology & Parasitology)
Physiology, Ecology, and Control of California Forest Bark Beetles (1778) A.D. Moore (Entomology & Parasitology)
The Morphology, Classification, Biology and Control of Coleopterous Insects Injurious to Forests and Forest Products
(1223) E.G. Linsley (Entomology & Parasitology)
Sawflies Attacking Trees in California (1205) W.W. Middlekauff (Entomology & Parasitology)
Forest Tree Diseases: Fungi Associated with Branch Dieback in Mistletoe-infected Conifers (----)
John R. Parmenter (Plant Pathology)
Fungus Diseases of Mistletoe (Plant Pathology)
Environmental and Host-parasite Relationships of Dwarf Mistletoe (Plant Pathology)
Botrysphaeria Canker and Other Cancers of Conifers and Hardwoods (Plant Pathology)
Leaf Diseases of California Laurel (Plant Pathology)
Identification and Exploratory Study of Miscellaneous Disease Problems in California Forests (Plant Pathology)
Environmental Effects on Blister Rust Spread (Plant Pathology) (Plant Pathology) (Plant Pathology)
3. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF WILDLAND PROBLEMS
Berkeley
The Economics of Conservation (1244) S.V. Wantrup (Agricultural Economics)
Economics of Fire Protection J.A. Zivnuska (School of Forestry)
Forest Taxation in Mendocino County H.J. Vaux (School of Forestry)
Marketing Practices and Other Price Determining Factors for Logs and Stumpage (1711, WM31) J.A. Zivnuska (School of
Forestry
Logging Costs (1711) R.F. Grah
4. INCREASING YIELD OF USABLE WATER
Davis and Irrigation Effect of Range Management on Infiltration, Runoff, and Erosion (1108) R.H. Burgy and A.E. Pillsbury
Los Angeles Watershed Management Factors Influencing Disposition of Precipitation and Yield of Water (1658) R.H. Burgy and A.E. Pillsbury
5. RECREATIONAL USE OF WILDLANDS (“Only wildlife research is currently in progress”)
Davis
Hopland Feld St
Berkeley
Davis
The Chemical Controls Controversy – A Survey of the Effects of Animal Control Methods on the Biotic Environment.
R.L. Rudd (Zoology)
Ecology of Black-tailed Deer on Sheep Range. (1555) K.B. Koford
Brush Removal Effects on Game Ranges (1360) H.H. Biswell
Game Browse Establishment (1666) H.H. Biswell
Aquatic Insects in Fishery Management and Pollution Evaluation (1223) (Entomology & Parasitology)
Distribution and Abundance of Fish Populations in Sagehen Creek. P.B. Needles (Zoology)
Winter Factors Causing Fish Mortality P.B. Needles (Zoology)
Management of California Marshlands for Waterfowl A.S. Leopold (Museum of Vertebrate Zoology)
Effects of Beaver Dams on Trout Streams and Trout Populations. R. Gard (student) (Museum of Vertebrate Zoology)
General Biology of California Quail, Including Field Ecology, Reproduction, Growth, and Development of Young;
Physiologic Reaction to Stress Phenomena R.E. Genelly, R.J. Rait, V. Lewin, and D. Flickinger (students)
Bird and Mammal Influence on Reforestation (1396) S. McKeever (Zoology)
6. INCREASING GROWTH OF TIMBER AND YIELD OF USABLE WOOD
Berkeley
Forest Regeneration (1577) E.C. Stone (School of Forestry)
Natural Reproduction Survival D./W. Muelder (School of Forestry)
Methods of Measuring and Improving Restocking on Cutover Forests of the Sierra Region (1040) P.M. Barr (School of
Forestry)
Predicting the Yields of Young Growth Stands in the Redwood Region (1771) M.N. Palley (School of Forestry)
Technical Properties of California Woods (1195) B.A. Cockrell (Forest Products Lab)
Influence of Site on Mechanical Properties of California Red Fir (1727) Arno Schniewind (Forest Products Lab)
The Strength and Related Properties of California Wood Species: Determination, Evaluation and Application
(1727) Arno Schniewind (Forest Products Lab)
7. INCREASING FORAGE FROM GRASSLANDS
Davis
Physiology and Ecology of Range Plants (1194A) H.M. Laude (Agronomy)
Physiology and Ecology of Rangeland Legumes Related to their use for Soil Improvement and Dry Land Forage (
1526) W.A. Williams (Agronomy)
Ecological Balance in Range Species as Influenced by Environmental Manipulation (H-1654) M.B. Jones, H.M. Laude, W.A.
Williams, and R.M. Love (Agronomy)
Improvements of Range Grasses by Introduction, Selection, and Breeding; and Non-irrigated Pasture Improvement by
Seeding, Fertilization, and Livestock Use (1194B) R.M. Love (Agronomy)
Nutritive Value of Specific Range Forage Species as Influenced by Seasons, Fertilization, and Management (
34
1670) G.P. Lofgreen (Animal Husbandry)
Nutrition Studies on Farm Animals. II. Sheep (700) W.C. Weir (Animal Husbandry)
Fiber and Fibrous Feeds in Nutrition (1569) J.H. Meyer (Animal Husbandry)
Breeding Experiments to Investigate the Nature of Genetic Improvement in Beef Cattle Productivity with Special Emphasis
on the Performance of Inbred Lines and Their Crosses (1216) W.C. Rollins (Animal Husbandry)
Effect of Nutrient Restriction on Growth and Body Composition of Sheep and Cattle (1722) J.H. Meyer (Animal Husbandry)
Marketability of Beef as Affected by Age, Breed, and Environmental Stress (Drought) Prior to Fattening
(TII – 1739) F.D. Carroll (Animal Husbandry)
Effect of Environment on Response to Selection in Sheep (1801) G.E. Bradford (Animal Husbandry)
Range Livestock Management in the Granite Area of the Sierra Foothills, San Joaquin Experimental Range
(1005) F.D. Carroll (Animal Husbandry)
Distribution and Control Factors of Herbaceous Range Weeds (1635) J. Major (Botany)
Berkeley Improvements of Range Lands by Management Practices (1501) H.F. Heady (School of Forestry)
Production of Hybrid and Polyploid Strains of Forage Grasses G.L. Stebbins (Genetics)
Suitability of Dominant Range Soils for grazing in Humboldt County (1315) (Soils and Plant Nutrition)
Conversion of Brush Ranges to Grass Ranges J.E. Street (Hopland Field Station)
Relation of Wildlife to Agriculture with Emphasis on Rodents and Rabbits (1341) W.E. Howard (Hopland Field Station)
11. CONVERSION OF BRUSH TO MORE USEFUL TYPES
Berkeley
Brush Seedling Establishment and Soil Fertility (1570, W25) H.H. Biswell (School of Forestry)
Santa Barbara
The Nature of Plant Associations: An Analysis of Plant Distribution and Factors Affecting Association and Dissociation,
Particularly with Reference to the Role of Toxic Products of Plants (Southern California Deserts and Coastal Chaparral C.H.
Muller (Biological Sciences)
>COWFRANRC October 1, 1958
Committee Report Statement III. The Needed Program of Wildland Research
“Wildland management in California currently falls far short of achieving the yields, whether of timber, forage, water, wildlife, or recreation, which
the lands are potentially capable of producing. To realize these potentials wildland managers must be provided with much more extensive and
precise scientific information bearing on the various wildland resources. Additional research by the Agricultural Experiment Station, which would
provide a large share of this information, has been broadly surveyed in the preceding section. Many different scientific fields are involved and the
needed studies are both complex and fundamental. To solve a vast number of problems arising because of greatly intensified use of the wildlands,
an immediate and substantial acceleration of research is essential.
“Despite several decades of effective research by the Agricultural Experiment Station and other agencies, the evidence of the inadequate state of
present knowledge is clear. Existing information does not permit clear answers to such major practical questions as the potential yields from young
timber stands, the comparative returns from various alternative wildland uses, and effective and economical means of fire hazard reduction. That
this lack of information is keenly felt is shown clearly by the recent increase in grants-in-aid and contracts from private and public sources in
support of research on wildland problems. But to meet this deficiency will require a broadly conceived research program oriented toward basic
problems, not merely a piece-meal attack on current sore spots.
“As indicated in an earlier section, the wildlands make an important contribution to the California economy. Direct receipts from the sale of
standing timber and range forage now exceed $100 million per year. Harvesting, processing, and distribution of wood and meat products add many
millions more to the State’s wealth. In addition, vital economic benefits are associated with use of the lands for watershed, recreation, and wildlife
habitat. For example, over $430 million is spent annually in the State for needs incident t wildland recreation, hunting and fishing. Yet funds
presently available for Agricultural Experiment Station research in the wildland field amount to less than one quarter of one percent of these annual
direct returns.
“In judging realistically what increase in research support is needed and justifiable, the Committee has considered in detain the wide array of
projects summarized in Section II, the probable costs of such research, and the benefits that are likely to be derived from them. During the past year
it has screened the numerous requests from research departments in an effort to select those research areas that are of greatest significance for more
beneficial use of the wildlands. It has considered also the principal current problems in wildland management and what research is most essential in
relation to those problems. In the light of such considerations it believes that an initial expansion of wildland research effort in the Experiment
Station in the amount of $1 million per year is the minimum needed to carry out a research program adequate to meet the demonstrated needs.
“Such an expansion would mean trebling the Experiment Station expenditure on wildland research. The key research personnel need to plan, guide
and carry out such and expansion are available in the several interested departments of the University. Much of the expanded program would be
built on work already under way. The fact that such an expanded program would mean total research expenditures of less than one percent of the
direct economic return from the resources involved suggests that one million dollar increase is a relatively modest initial goal.
“The preceding survey of research needs also provides a basis for indicating the kinds of wildland research that such an increased program would
permit. In considering the relative priority of the various research areas and proposals, the Committee has taken into account the various factors of
cost and potential benefit already enumerated It has also recognized research already under way, the extent of related research by other agencies,
and the relative importance of the several different types of resources included in the wildland area.
“On the basis of these considerations, it believes that increased funds for wildland research should be distributed among the major areas of
investigation as indicated below:
Inventory and analysis: Increase by $90,000 per year.
“The program envisages a tripling of the existing rate of University contribution toward progress on the field inventory of soil and vegetation
resources ; a comparable expansion of work on analyses of physical, chemical, and biological properties of each major soil type and of soil-plant
relationships; expanded surveys of insect faun, both beneficial and injurious, associated with wildlands; and continued effort on other biological
inventories and improvements in inventory techniques.. Such studies will provide information fundamental to long –term management of the land
for each of the important wildland uses. Because soil characteristics are both widely varied and critical for determining best use of wildlands, an
35
effective resource inventory with supporting analytical information is essential to effective and widespread application of much of the research
described elsewhere in the program. In many instances it may also be fundamental to such research. For these reasons, prompt acceleration of the
inventory carries high priority and it may need during the earlier years of the program relatively more support than is suggested above.
Protection from wildfire, insects and disease: Increase by $230,000 per year.
“Losses on the wildlands from wildfire, insects and diseases are currently about $40 million per year, according to conservative estimates. In
addition, the already heavy costs of fire suppression and insect and disease control are increasing. Such considerations justify strong emphasis on
research in protection problems.
“Studies to improve measurement and evaluation of fire hazards and of methods of reducing fuel accumulation through chemicals, fire mechanical
means, or other treatments should receive intensive study. This aspect of protection from wildfire has been too little emphasized to date and
involves areas of research to which University personnel and approaches are particularly well adapted.
“A relatively strong program of entomological studies is now being carried on by the Agricultural Experiment Station. However, insect losses top
those of all other destructive agencies at work on the wildlands. Additional insect research can therefore pay substantial and relatively prompt
dividends. The program envisages expanded work on the physiology, ecology, and control of such forest pests as bark beetles, cone and seed
insects, secondary insects and defoliators; similar studies of major grassland insect pests; increased work on control of forest and range insects by
biological means; fundamental studies of taxonomic relationships among important forest and range insects; and studies of the role of insects in the
dissemination of plant diseases.
“Past research in wildland plant diseases has been on a restricted scale, in part because the damage potential of many diseases has not been clearly
recognized until recently. Much of the research that has been done has been directed toward disease surveys rather than toward basic studies
fundamental to prevention and control of damage. As a result, relatively large expansion of disease research is envisaged. Studies of the biology of
dwarf mistletoe and related organisms, the environmental requirements for establishment of major fungi of conifers, factors affecting establishment
and growth of root rots and rusts affecting timber stands, and exploratory studies of the diseases of economically valuable browse species have high
priority in this area.
Economic analysis of wildland problems: Increase by $120,000 per year.
“The economics of wildland use in California has been undergoing almost revolutionary changes. Lands and commodities that were submarginal or
worthless as little as fifteen years ago, such as timberlands and stumpage in certain localities, now command substantial prices. Continuing
population increases bid fair to intensify such changes in the years ahead. Unless owners and managers have a clear understanding of the economic
facts and trends to determining the returns from wildlands, wise application of physical and biological information is virtually impossible. Moreover
due to the multiple use character of the wildlands, the economics of their use and management takes on an added degree of complexity. The
Agricultural Experiment Station has in the past devoted more attention to economic problems that have other agencies concerned with wildlands.
However, a substantial increase in economic research is needed to clarify the bases for many important land management decisions,
“One high-priority aspect is expansion of studies of the costs and returns of various types of land management enterprises. Costs and returns of
timber growing, range forage production, and vegetative-type conversion must be analyzed for the wide array of physical and economic
circumstances present in the State. A second aspect of the proposed program is study of such economic institutions as marketing arrangements,
taxation practices, and public programs for resource protection and development and their impact on the way the wildlands are used. Finally, there
is need for broad study of the economics of conservation of wildlands and for work on such fundamental problems as determining satisfactory
measures of both physical output and economic returns from recreation, watershed management and other extra-market uses of the land. These
broader studies are essential for formulation of wise public policies and programs involving wildland use.
Increasing yield of usable water: Increase by $70,000 per year.
“The program envisages expanded research on the factors influencing disposition of precipitation and yield of water on wildland areas;
determination of rainfall-runoff relationships for the principal watershed lands; evaluation of the influence of different vegetative covers on water
losses, soil erosion, and soil properties; and the effects of various land management practices such as range management and timber harvesting on
water yield and erosion.
“Water has been characterized as California’s most valuable commodity and 95 percent of the State’s water flows for the wildlands. Thus,
fundamental knowledge of watershed behavior and analysis of the effects on water yield of various management practices is of very great
importance. Substantial beginnings on such research have been made but present efforts are inadequate to cover thoroughly the highly varied
use/rainfall/soil/vegetation patterns that characterize our extensive watershed areas. As other agencies such as the University’ Water Resources
Center are also concerned with water problems, work on watershed research will be coordinated with the research of such related groups.
Watershed research requires very substantial initial capital investments, followed by several years during which costs are much less. The increase of
$70,000 suggested here reflects an average over a period of years. Allocations in the initial year would have to be considerably larger than this
figure in order to get an effective program underway.
Increasing growth of timber: Increase by $190,000 per year.
‘The suggested program for timber-growing research includes additional work on the key problem of forest regeneration by both natural and
artificial means; on improving the quantity and quality of timber growth through genetic means of by treatment of the stand; studies of alternative
methods of managing each of the several major forest types including methods of coordinating timber production with other kinds of forest land use;
and studies of those aspects of wood utilization that promise to reduce the proportion of the forest crop now left in the woods or mill due to lack of
economical uses for it.
“Forests provide the largest single source of measurable direct value derived from the wildlands. Opportunities for increases productivity are
excellent for it is estimated that 60 percent of the commercial forest land is not well stocked with trees. The potential for increase timber growth is
about 3 billion board-feet per year, worth $40 million annually at current timber prices. Despite these potential values, timber growing research has
so far been conducted on a limited scale. Consequently, timber-growing studies should receive substantial emphasis in an expanded program
Increasing wildlife and recreational yields: Increase by $130,000 per year.
“Problems of wildlife management and of increasing the yields of fish and game that can be derived from the wildlands are of very great public
interest and concern. The personal contact of any Californian with wildland areas results primarily from fishing and hunting activities. Additional
research needed to solve current problems of wildlife management includes studies of deer physiology; relationship of vegetative cover to game
carrying capacity; ecology of upland game birds in relation to weather, habitat, and bird population; effects of predation on game species; population
36
dynamics of fish in wildland streams and lakes; role of aquatic insects in fisheries management; and effects of management of land for timber or
forage on productivity for fish and game.
“In the field of general recreation use of wildlands little research has been carried on to date by any agency. Yet no other use seems likely to
generate greater pressure on the wildlands. Increasing population, income, leisure and land accessibility are combining to produce explosive
increases in the numbers of people using wildlands for recreational purposes. Critical problems are already apparent, and immediate and very
substantial increase in research effort is essential if these are to be solved wisely.
“The array of research needed in wildland recreation is broad. Initial priority attaches to studies of how to measure and predict levels of recreational
use; how to determine amount of use different areas can support; how to maintain or improve existing vegetation for recreational purposes; methods
of managing recreational users to minimize site deterioration and maximize recreational enjoyment; and the development if improved methods for
correlating recreation with other important forms of wildland use.
Increasing yield of forage from grassland: Increase by $110,000 per year.
“Grasslands account for more than a fourth of the total wildland area and direct returns for forage use exceed $30 million per year. Potentials for
increasing yields and values through fertilization, introduction of improved grasses, or better management practices, are excellent. Expansion of this
effort can build on a well-developed existing research program and can yield results of substantial significance to the large number of ranch owners
directly concerned with grassland management problems.
“Expanded research activity should include basic work on the life histories, physiology and ecology of range plants; on factors affecting spread of
undesirable plant species and methods of preventing such spread; on the identification of more-desirable range plants and establishing and
maintaining them in the grassland cover; on studies of alternative practices for improving rage quality; on the evaluation of the quality of different
range plants and forage types for animal forage; and on the role of insects in pollination of desirable and undesirable range plants.
Conversion of brush to more useful types: Increase by $60,000 per year.
“Brush-covered lands constitute a particular problem because of their extent, their low current productivity, and the great variability of condition
which they encompass. On some sites the potential for increasing productivity by conversion to grass or timber is great. On other the potential is
poor and the concomitant hazard of erosion may be high. Thus, much information on brushland areas is needed to support wise management
programs. In addition to research already underway that deals specifically with brushland areas, some of the work in fields such as fire protection,
grassland, and timber-growing research applies to the brush problem.
“Expanded research efforts should emphasize determination of the ecology of major brush types on various important soils; development of criteria
for classifying brushland on the basis of suitability for conversion to grass or trees; physiology of brush species particularly as it relates to the killing
or suppression of brush through such means as fire, chemicals, or cover manipulation.”
Summary:
“Costs of the research program described above can be summarized as follows:
Area of Research
Inventory and analysis
Protection from wildfire, insects, and disease
Economic analysis
Increasing water yield
Increasing growth of timber
Increasing wildlife and recreation service
Increasing forage from grasslands
Conversion of brush
Total
Increased Annual Expenditure
$ 90,000
230,000
130,000
70,000*
190,000
130,000
110,000
60,000
$1,000,000_
* “Research in this area requires heavy initial capital investments. During early stages of the program annual expenditures
for watershed research should therefore exceed this average annual figure.”
“As has been indicated earlier, one of the central characteristics of wildland management is the complex interrelationship between physical features
of the land, types of vegetative cover, and the several different uses of the land. The same relationships are reflected in research. As a result the
categories used above to describe the research program are not neat pigeonholes, each distinctly separate from its neighbors. The Committee thus
envisages this summary as a general guide to the kind of research program expansion likely to be most fruitful in the years immediately ahead. In
the conduct of such a program, important essentials for success will be clear recognition of the interrelationships that are involved and a reasonable
degree of flexibility in the allocation of effort. The objective in an expanded research effort should be to emphasize those fundamental lines of
investigation that show most promise for enhancing our ability to use more productively our wildland heritage.
(Re the final paragraph: That is to say: “Just give us the $1 million each year -- we’ll figure out how to spend it.”)
Department of Forestry, CA Resources Agency
>Malain, Robert, Secretary, Range Improvement Advisory Committee (RIAC). January 23 , 1978.
Letter to Mr. Dennis Teeguarden, Chairman, Advisory Committee on Research, Univ. of Calif., Berkeley
“The RIAC held a meeting on January 12, 1978, the principal agenda item of which was consideration of range research needs for California. Using
the results of the Conference on Forestry and Wildlands Research Needs held at the University of California at Berkeley on November 22, 1977 as a
basis, sixty-two research problems were selected that were range or range related. These were divided into three groups – Food and Fiber
Production; Grazing-Multiple Use; Fires Ecology, Chaparral, and Policy. After much discussion about the most effective way to consider these
research problems, the group (of 26 persons) organized itself into three subgroups, each of which considered a major group of research topics. …
The RIAC, which is a standing advisory committee to the Board of Forestry, requests that you and your Research Committee consider these research
problem description and priorities for eventual integration with your committee’s report to the Board regarding ‘Research Needs for Forests and
Wildlands in California’ “Cc: L.A. Moran, L.E. Richey, Board of Forestry, RIAC & Consultants.
37
(Five pages are appended, containing in total more than 60 “research problems”. At the bottom of one group’s page it is noted: “Due to
shortage of time, no additional research problems were listed. It is an interesting collection to read, to say the least.)
“
Division of Forestry, CA Department of Natural Resources.
Division of Forestry. Sept. 1957.Survey of Long-Term Forestry Research Needs. 9pgs.
>CA Department of Natural Resources Division of Forestry. September 1957.
Survey of Long-Term Forestry Research Needs. 9pgs.
Introduction: “There are many worthwhile investigations that could be included in any wildlands research plan. Some are more important than
others to the people that may have concern in them. In the case of the Division of Forestry, its general interest in research can be wide and varied.
This might be termed the professional interest. However, there are certain fields in which the Division has a more particular interest, which stems
from authorities and responsibilities set forth for the Division in State law.
“The following array of research needs of the Division of Forestry arises from the question, what are the most important fields of investigative study
that are authorized by State law and have a direct relationship and impact up forestry programs operated by the Division?. In essence the items
included herein represent those adopted in a proposed basic research program for California’s natural resources , which was developed in 1954 in
promotion of research with the State Legislature, and which has been subsequently enlarged to take into consideration research needs submitted by
research agencies, the forest industry, and others concerned.”
Fire Protection Economics Study. For specific commercial and noncommercial forest and watershed areas, to appraise the kind and magnitude of
economic values protected by the fires control system; and to estimate the effects of different alternative levels of protection of these values; and to
compare these effects with the costs of the alternative levels of protection.
Fire Prevention Research. The aim of forest fire research is to discover what the citizens know about fire prevention, where they learned their
information, and what types of prevention action are most effective in changing their habits. The final goal is to provide ways of measuring
effectiveness of various kinds of prevention effort and to suggest new approaches to prevention methods.
Lightning Control Study. Research projects for lightning control should be directed to a system of cloud seeding in an effort to materially reduce or
eliminate lightning strikes that are now causing many forest fires each year. Evaluate the results of seeding and establish an operational cloud
seeding program Statewide that will reduce or eliminate fires caused by lightning, if such a program is deemed feasible.
Fire Climate Study. Fire climate research will be aimed at the development of a prediction system that will indicate the rate and direction of fire
spread, the intensity of burning and the blow-up potential for various weather, topographic, and fuel conditions, and their relation to fire behavior.
Studies will be made to determine effects of high-level winds on ground fires and to determine how fire danger rating can best be keyed into the fire
control organization.
Fire Equipment Research and Development. More than 3,900 wild fires occurred in California during 1955. Of these, about 550, or 14 percent,
were larger than 10 acres, indicating failure of initial attack. Total acreage burned was 390,387 acres, most of which was lost in the 550 fires that got
away from the initial attack crews. To give greater assurance that initial attack will be successful, ways must be found to reach fires more quickly
than is now possible by ground transportation. Some developments have been made in aerial tanker attack with Sodium Borate, and with Helicopters
as tankers, and hose-laying units. These projects require further exploration and refinement and additional research is required to determine the
value of the one man helicopters and the Hiller Flying platform as initial attack vehicles. Investigation into the new army tank for its possibilities
for personnel and water carrying capabilities into fire lines not now readily accessible with present types of equipment.
Valuation of Fire Control Methods Over the years many methods have been developed Statewide and regionally for the efficient control of forest
fires. There is need to examine the various techniques of detecting, reporting, dispatch, and initial attack to determine that those best suited for
certain areas and conditions are being properly utilized wherever and whenever possible.
Hazard Reduction on Southern California Brush Watersheds The tremendous complexity of controlling fires in Southern California brush fields and
the pressures to move ahead with large=scale tests of the most promising methods of fire control justify special emphasis at this time. Test plots
should be established to find methods of breaking up large areas of continuous fuel masses by compartmenting the area or by other means, with
particular emphasis on disposal of the brush by chipping or otherwise reducing brush fuel volume by machine. Care must be taken to control
erosion and an effort made to revegetate denuded areas with plants of natural low inflammability.
Study of Forest Type Fuel Characteristics Research, in this instance, should be directed toward obtaining a better understanding of fire behavior in
the various types of forest fuels – slash, ground litter, reproduction, etc. Very little information is available on the physical characteristics of natural
fuels in place; their arrangement, volume, distribution of fuel sizes, and amounts of green and dead materials within the fuel complex. The moisture
content of fuels varies with the weather, fuel type, vegetative stage, and season of the year. There is a serious lack of information correlating the
above interrelationships to the behavior of fire.
Detection and Communications Preliminary tests have shown that television can be used to detect fires and in some cases may be superior to
ground observations. Television detection from aircraft has not been tried. Extensive tests must still be conducted before television can be
incorporated into the detection system. Detection of fires by means of infra-red sensitive elements has been tried and shows promise. Further
exploratory work is require in this development. Further exploration is also required to develop electronic recording devices to transmit continuous
weather information form remote recording station to fire dispatchers. A micro-wave system should be developed as a more rapid means of
communication between fire control and administrative units.
Use of Fire as a Tool of Management Much of the information available or needed for the control of wild fire can be applied directly to the use of
fire as a management tool. As we determine what the effects of fire are on soils, plant succession and plant tissues, we can determine through
further study what firing techniques are best to accomplish a specific job.
Forest Growth and Yield There is urgency to develop methods of predicting growth and yield of forest stands in California that show wide
variability in stocking, age, uniformity, and past management. The level of the forest industry economy is dependent upon accurate growth and
yield information. The information also would be valuable in setting standards of forest practices necessary to promote the maximum sustained
productivity of the forests as prescribed in the Forest Practice Act. This matter is of increasing concern as old-growth stands are converted to the
young growth that will be managed in the future. A number of specific investigations can make worthwhile contributions to better management of
forest lands; those of high priority are a.) Methods of predicting growth and yield and b.) Site classification and yield tables.
Forest regeneration Climate and soil conditions, modified by all of the biological factors of the forest community, cause the natural restocking of
forests to be extremely uncertain in California. Artificial regeneration to date has been even less successful on the four million acres of poorly
stocked land in the state. To assure an adequate future of timber supply there is need to develop methods and techniques of securing adequate
38
restocking and to learn how to artificially reforest poorly stocked areas. Legislative authorization for this type of work is contained in Section 436165 of the Public Resources Code. Research is needed in the following specific categories: a) Physiological condition of planting stock and
conditions of planting site in relation to seedling establishment; b) Effectiveness of seed trees for natural regeneration; c) Rodent control for forest
regeneration; d) Direct forest tree seeding; e) Brush control; f) Site preparation; g) Seed orchard technology; h) Vegetative propagation.
Production and use of Hybrid Trees Over 4 million acres of commercial forest land in California are poorly stocked. As forestation techniques are
developed and planting programs expanded it is desirable that superior trees be used. Hybrid trees have been and can be developed that will grow
faster and that will be resistant to insects and disease. Studies to pursue are as follows: a) Mass production and use of promising hybrids; b) Field
plantings of hybrids for test purposes; c) Selection and development of seed sources for hybrid production.
Forest insects In terns of tree mortality, insects lead all other causes. The development of economic preventive and control methods is of prime
importance. Better knowledge about insect problems is desired by forest owners as well as being important in State control projects. Worthy
investigations include the following: a) Physiological and ecological requirements of bark beetles; b) Biological control methods; c) Improvement
of forest insect survey methods; d) Indirect control for Westside Sierra stands; e) Susceptibility of sugar pine to mountain pine beetle and Douglas
fir to Douglas fir beetle; f) Improvement of physical and chemical control measures; g) Studies about seed and seedling insects, defoliating insects,
flat-headed borer, white fir losses, and pine reproduction weevil.
Forest Diseases Of the destructive agencies, forest diseases lead all other in their total adverse effects of forest productivity. Although diseases do
not cause as much tree mortality as do insects, their total growth impact is greater. Diseases are constantly taking a toll in an unspectacular way. It
has been estimated that some 80 billion board feet of cull wood exists in present timber stands in California due to heart rots alone. Little is known
about most forest diseases. As I the case of insects, more complete knowledge can make material contributions to control activities participated in
by the State. Attention needs to be devoted to: a) Dwarf mistletoe control; b) Influence of environmental factors in heart rots; c) Blister rust
hazard as influenced by climate and environment; d) Development of economical methods of Ribes control; e) Root diseases; f) Native tree rusts;
and g) Diseases of unknown causes.
Forest Animal Damage In addition to rodents and rabbits, which cause problems in regeneration of forest lands, there are a number of mammals
that cause damage to forest trees that are of some concern to forest owner. Among these can be listed the bear, porcupine, and deer. Bear have
killed or damaged an average of over 5% of the conifers in some areas. Although some improvement has been show due to control efforts and
natural factors, bear depredation needs to be better understood in order to lower losses to an economically tolerable level for sustained yield
management. It has been reported that porcupine damage is on the increase. Control efforts used at present are those that have been practiced for
many years and appear to be ineffective at best. More complete knowledge concerning tree damage caused by deer, particularly as it applies to
young growth, essential too.
Disposal of logging slash There are many and varied opinions regarding the disposal of slash resulting from logging operations – the economics of
it and its relationships to prevention and control of fire, utilization, silviculture, and forest insects and disease. Conditions to be taken into account
are timber types, elevation, degree of cutting, and hazards and risk. Sound Forest Practice Rules concerning hazard abatement and fire protection
plans are difficult to formulate without more knowledge on this subject. Research projects that deserve attention are: a) Methods of logging slash
disposal; and 2) Effects of slash disposal on insects and disease.
Wood Residue Utilization Unused wood residues constitute a formidable source of raw material having great potential for further utilization in
California. The amount of logging and milling residues going to waste in 1952 was estimated to be 330 million cubic feet. This could support a
sizable expansion of pulp, particle board, and other wood product development. In order to promote the use of these residues there is need for an
up-to-date comprehensive inventory of the extent and location of them. Legislative authorization for accomplishing such a survey is contained in
Section 4445 of the Public Resources code.
Economic Analysis of the Timberland Resources The commercial timberlands of California represent 17 percent of the state’s area. These lands
provide primary raw material for industrial use; they constitute a major source of non-urban industrial employment and support important secondary
wood-using industries and construction. Timberlands and industries based upon them form a primary element in the tax base of the counties of the
mountain areas. The development of more diversified and permanent industries can promote stable employment and income and increased
utilization that is demanded by the expanding population and economy of the state. These timberlands also supply most of the state’s water needs,
contain forage for wildlife and domestic livestock, and provide opportunities for recreation. An important investigation that should be pursued
along these lines is to analyze timber resources in relation to county and state economic problems.
Relationships Between Soil and Vegetative Cover The soils that underlie the wildlands are basic to the products that they are capable of producing.
The soil-vegetation survey underway in California has developed an appreciable amount of information on the characteristics and distribution of
soils of the wildlands. Information produced by this survey should be utilized and expanded as basis for determining relationships between soils and
potential production and management practices. Investigative studies needed are: a) Relation of soil to timber site; b) Brushland site classification.
Foothill Range Management The foothill range lands of California constitute and important livestock producing area, providing about four-fifths of
all the range forage that is grown in the state each year. These lands embrace a total area of about 30.4 million acres. Approximately 10.4 million
acres are grasslands, characterized by a plant cover that is dominated by annual grasses and associated broad-leaved herbs. About 20 million acres
of these lands are dominated by woody vegetation, which includes a great variety of such divergent types as chaparral, woodland-grass, sagebrush,
and minor conifers. These brushlands have values as protective watersheds and provide forage for wildlife and domestic livestock. They also
constitute a hazard in terms of fire prevention and control. It has been estimated that it may be feasible to increase forage production on about nine
million acres of these brushlands. The problems of conversion of these lands to better forage is complicated from the standpoint of ecology and
economics. State interests and responsibilities in these lands and attendant problems are recognized in the Public Resources Code. Some of the
more pressing problems that deserve attention are as follows: a) Field studies to develop tools and techniques for converting brush to more desirable
forage by fire, mechanical, chemical, and management means; b) Economics of brushland range improvement.
Relationships Between Forage Production and Timber Management Over one-half of the private commercial forest land in California is in small
ownerships; about 20 percent of the private forest land is owned by farmers. In a considerable portion of the state a single ranch is constituted of
both forest land and range land. Solution of certain critical resource management problems could be facilitated by sound information on economic
returns, management-labor efficiency, and land-use conflicts that occur on these ownerships. Research studies that can be of much benefit include
the following: a) Economics and efficiency of joint forest products – livestock enterprises; b) Grazing of livestock and game on timber –growing
areas as it affects forest regeneration and management.
Watershed Protection and Management Over 42 million acres of California are made up of foothill and mountainous watershed lands – forest,
grass, and brush covered – varying greatly in type and quality. The average annual runoff from these lands represents about 99 percent of the total
runoff in the entire state. Consequently the protection and management of watershed affects the yield and quality of water that is required by
California’s rapidly expanding economy. The problems of water supply is n California are complex. The solution of these problems to a large
extent is dependent on more and better information about watershed protection and management. Studies that can offer solution are: a) Knowledge
39
and methods of management of southern California brush watersheds – hydrology, consumptive use of water by vegetation, manipulation of
vegetation to increase water yield, and emergency treatment of burned watersheds; b) Field tests in manipulation of vegetation and emergency
treatment of burned watersheds in southern California; c) Interception and use of rainfall by herbaceous vegetation; d) Snowpack management; e)
Impact of management practices on water yield and erosion fro timbered watersheds; f) Water use by upland forest cover; g) Efficiency of
vegetation in preventing or retarding erosion..
Development of Useable Products from Currently Unusable Materials California is a major contributor in meeting the nation’s need for forest
products such as lumber and plywood. In addition to this large output the state has the potential of a more diversified forest product economy.
Many more useable products could be developed from materials grown on the wildlands of the state. As these wildland resources grow in economic
importance, investigations such as the following will promote maximum returns commensurate with the best use of these wildlands. a) Developing
uses for California hardwoods; b) Utilization of residues and thinnings; c) Development of livestock feeds from chaparral; and d) Utilization of
brush for wood fiber and particle products.
The Wildlands Research Center (WRC) and the Wildlands Research
Program
>Wildland Research Center, CAES, UC Berkeley. October 1, 1959.
Conserving wildland resources through research, An introductory report from the Wildland Research Center. 64 pp.
To this reviewer, the volume is outstanding for its photographs alone. The frontispiece aerial of the interface between (Sierran?) mountains and an
urban landscape thrust hard against them, is spectacular. Another (vintage one) depicts “New varieties of range grasses are grown and tested on the
3,000-acre Davis campus.); an inside glimpse of the “…University’s Forest Products Laboratory, completed at Richmond in 1955…; “A bulldozer
mashing brush in an experimental project in Madera County, which, later, will be control-burned and reseeded to grass.”; “…forestry students
setting out an experimental plot of pine seedlings for breeding stock selection. (The location: Strawberry Canyon on the Berkeley Campus.; “A
stovepipe nursery at Davis used to compare drought tolerance and rooting habits of range grasses is examined by an agronomist (a young-looking R.
Merton Love) and an un-named range management student.; another spectacular aerial comparison of the famed Hopland watershed before and after
a highly successful control burn; and to end the selections, a very young-looking hydrologist, peering into shed-covered gauging station, at runoff
from the watershed conversion just mentioned. Probably at the location where an immense building was later constructed when the hydrologist’s
project prospered and grew.
>California Resources Agency Dept. of Conservation Div. of Forestry (in cooperation with) the UC School of Forestry
& Conservation, UC Berkeley; the US Dept. of Agric., the US Forest Service; the Pacific Southwest Forest & Range
Experiment Station and California Region; the US Dept. of Interior; the National Park Service; and the Bureau of Land
Management.. December 1969, Rev. 37 pp., illust.
The Foreword to this venerable document begins: “A little more than 10 years ago, the State Board of Forestry asked: ‘Given a finite land area and
increasing population, what knowledge is needed for wise management of California’s 60 million acres of wildland in the years ahead?’ The answer
became the Wildland Research Plan For California, published in 1958. … But the increase in research effort was spotty, and five years later the
total effort still fell short. … While the problems requiring research have become even more severe, our wildland research effort is lagging.
Another five years have passed, and another appraisal is called for. … Although California’s annual population growth rate has decreased from its
peal of a few years ago, that rate continues to exceed the national average. Also, the increasing income, leisure time, and mobility of California’s
growing population is reflected in a rising use of the state’s wildlands. In the past five years there has been an annual increase of 6 to 15 percent in
various kinds of recreational use of the wildland environment.”
>Kendrick, J. B., Jr. February 4, 1975.
Letter to Adams (Chair), Burgy, Evans, Fairbank, Heady, Laacke, Letey, Menke, Morris, Osterli, Radosevich, Raguse, Williams, and Youngner
establishing a task group on brushland and wildland ecosystems.
“I wish to request that each of you serve on a task group representing the Division of Agricultural Sciences and U.S. Forest Service to develop a
model to improve our statewide program on brushland and wildland ecosystems. This following a recommendation by the Extension Committee on
Natural Resources and Environmental Quality (attached) that a group be appointed to study (1) better management of brushlands to preserve and
enhance watershed, wildlife, scenic, recreation and agricultural values, and (2) alternate uses of brushlands according to ecological, physical
biological, economic and cultural factors. …
“You therefore should consider involving personnel from other agencies where appropriate, such as the California Department of Conservation,
California Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Forestry Service (sic), Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Station,
etc. Should there be need for appointment of additional personnel to the task group, please advise me. …
“Dr. M.N. Schroth will attend your first meeting and be an ex officio member of the committee.”
Cc to: W. M. Dugger, A. F. McCalla, W. E. Waters, G. B. Alcorn and W. D. McClellan

Zivnuska’s committee: A. G. Arganbright, W. J. Clawson, D. C. Erman, J. R. Goss, H. F. Heady, J. A. Helms, J. Letey, Jr., R. Merton Love, R. F.
Luck, J. W. Menke, and S. R. Radosevich.
Excerpts from the Summary of Findings:
“While there are definite areas of concentration, wildland research is widely dispersed through the entire Experiment Station (Emphasis mine)
structure, involving 28 separate budgetary units affiliated with academic departments and 17 of the 21 program units recognized in the total research
program. …
“Wildland research represents about 15 percent of the total Experiment Station research program …
“Factors affecting the future wildland research program are discussed, but we were not able to develop a comprehensive recommendation
concerning future research needs and priorities. If a quantitative (Emphasis mine) wildland research plan for the future is needed, we suggest that
40
consideration be given to having it developed by a committee of the associate directors of the Experiment Station and the proposed coordinator of
wildland research, with provision for consultation with departmental and divisional chairmen and with scientists working in wildland research. …
“We recommend the establishment of some form of coordinating mechanism for wildland research in the Division of Agricultural Sciences. …
“The needs and opportunities for increased coordination and cooperation between the Experiment Station and other research agencies and various
agencies of the State of California are discussed. Particular attention is directed to the legal responsibilities of the State Board of Forestry pertaining
to forest and wildland research …
“The role of the Agricultural Field Stations in wildland research is reviewed, with the importance of the Hopland and Sierra Foothill Range Field
Stations being emphasized. …
“The important role of Cooperative Extension in wildland research (Emphasis mine) is reviewed, with a compilation of wildland projects as
derived from the present management information system (CEMIS). The need for an improved basis for identifying the wildland research
component of the work of Cooperative Extension is emphasized.
(Given the above, the Davis Campus resistance to CE involvement in Field Stations research is puzzling.)
>Sammet, Loy L., Acting Director, Agricultural Experiment Station, January 8, 1981.
Letter to Associate Director Schlegel; cc to VP Kendrick, Asst. VP Siebert re a “short-term recall of Professor Fred Dickinson, 50% full-time, as
Director of the Wildlands Research Center.
“This will confirm our agreement last Monday that this office will support a short-term recall of Professor Fred Dickinson, 50% full time, as
Director of the Wildlands Research Center along the lines set out in your memo of December 12, 1980, effective as soon as necessary campus
appointment arrangements can be completed. Our concurrence in this proposal involves the understanding that: (1) Funds currently allocated to the
Center ($20,000, but not now assigned will be used to support Dickinson’s appointment and associated activities through June 30, 1981, and that
extension of the appointment beyond June 30 would require partial support of the appointment beyond June 30 would require partial support of the
appointment with salary savings; (2) That Dickinson will work in close liaison with the Task Force on Wildlands Research and Extension appointed
by Vice President Kendrick and chaired by Harold Heady; and (3) That the work Dickinson will initiate will lead to definitive conclusions about
this Center – that is, that unless it becomes clear that a viable program can be developed, a proposal to discontinue the Center may ensue.
“I believe that this effort to refocus and enliven the work of the Center should be very productive and that it is timely in view of progress being
made in the deliberations of the Task Force.
>Dickinson, Fred E. January 19, 1981
A call to meeting to discuss the Wildlands Research Center sent to John Anderson, Harold Heady, Dennis Teeguarden, Henry Vaux, and John
Zivnuska. The operative statement made by Dickinson was “As we all know, the Center, following an auspicious beginning in the late ‘50s and
early ‘60s has become almost dormant.” Dickinson then cites three documents pivotal to the deliberations of this meeting: 1) The cover and the
first two pages of the publication “Conserving Wildland Resources Through Research”, Berkeley, CA; Oct 1, 1959, UC Agricultural Experiment
Station: 2) “Revitalization of the Wildland Research Center”, prepared by Dennis Teeguarden, and 3) An interim report from Vice President
Kendrick’s Task Force on Wildland Research and Extension, which was submitted by Harold Heady to Acting Director Sammet.
Ccs went to Acting Director Sammet and Dean Schlegel.
>Menke, John W. January 1981
Draft of a proposal to form, on the Davis campus ,a new “Range, Wildlife and Forest Resources Center”, which would replace the Wildland
Research Center on the UC Berkeley Campus
>Passof, Peter C., Chairman, Advisory Committee to the Wildlands Research Center. April 30, 1982.
Minutes of the first meeting of the Committee. (Note the impressive array of people present at this important meeting)
“Present, were: R.L. Baldwin, Animal Science, UC Davis; W.J. Clawson, Agronomy & Range Science, UC Davis; Don C. Erman, Forestry and
Resource Management, UC Berkeley; B. Delworth Gardner, Agriculture and Resource Economics, UC Davis; Lanny J. Lund, Soil and
Environmental Sciences, UC Riverside; Peter J. Passof, UC Cooperative Extension, Ukiah, CA 95482; Dennis G. Raveling, Wildlife and Fisheries
Biology, UC Davis; Dennis El Teeguarden, Forestry and Resource Management, UC Berkeley; Dean David Schlegel, College of Natural
Resources, UC Berkeley; and Harold F. Heady, Forestry and Resource Management, UC Berkeley”
Selections from the minutes:
41
“Heady discussed the background of the WRC dating back to 1957-1958 when the Center was created under the direction of Dean Vaux. Over the
years it has existed and currently has a budget of $22,000 to cover administrative costs, travel, etc.
“In the early 1970s the Zivnuska Committee analyzed all wildlands research conducted by the Agricultural Experiment Station. Among their
recommendations was to re-activate the WRC with a beefed-up budget.
“V.P. Kendrick appointed a 20-member Task Force about two years ago to study coordination of Wildlands Research among the Departments,
Campuses, and Cooperative Extension. The Task Force also recommended that the WRC be re-vitalized and its main duty would be to examine
the research needs of the future in terms of wildlands.
“Wildlands are defined as all the non-cultivated, non-developed land existing in California and would include wetlands inhabited by waterfowl,
desert, chaparral, range, and forest lands.
“In July, 1981 Harold Heady was appointed as half-time Director of the WRC, with support for the position coming from salary savings.
“University Administration has been requested for a change in name of the “Wildlands Research Center” to the “Wildlands Resources Center”
with responsibilities having Systemwide scope. Six major objectives of the Center were articulated in a memo prepared by Heady.
“Research proposals aimed at funding through the Agricultural Investment Program met with failure. Discussion then pointed to communication
problems in dealing with state government, i.e., Research Agency who are annoyed (sic) with the University of California in terms of contracting
research.
“Rangeland Research is now part of the federal Farm Bill, although no funding authorization is available. Formula funding for wildlands research
may be in trouble because of current leadership in Washington.
“Discussions are underway to get private funding for some research. Examples given are the Elwin Roney Ranch and the Dye Creek Reserve.
(note the visits paid by the R.M. 105 class, as assigned by R.M. Love)
“A Symposium to discuss “Multi-Resource Values” received little interest and support.
“The center for Water Resources at UCD and the Wildlands Research Center have formed a Vegetation Management Advisory Committee to look
at environmental effects from prescribed burning. The possibility of research dollars to study the effect of chaparral management were discussed.
“Heady outlined his three main areas of involvement for the immediate future. These are: 1. Continue to seek funds for wildlands research
problems.
2. Develop and distribute the brochure to a wide mailing list Systemwide and to external audiences. 3. Start on the development of a Symposium
that addresses a broad Wildlands theme.”
>Heady, Harold F., Professor, UCB Wildlands Resources Center June 21, 1982.
Letter to Lowell N. Lewis, Director, Agricultural Experiment Station.
“This letter is to submit in writing the decision reached during out conversation this morning that I shall resign from the position of Director,
Wildlands Research Center. The effective date is June 30, 1982. (Hmmm. Note close proximity to first meeting of the Advisory Committee
to the Wildlands Research Center called by Pete Passof on 30 Apr 1982)
The Range Land Utilization Committee (RLUC)
>Hopland Research Committee. Report of Policy Sub-committee. R.H. Burgy, Chairman, March 29, 1955.
Report of a sub-committee formed to study the question of and relating to the matters of policy for the guidance and clarification of the Hopland
Research Committee regarding its duties and responsibilities.
“This committee has received and reviewed a series of proposals and questions relating to matters of policy as concerned with the Hopland Field
Station and the Research Committee. As a result of these discussions, conclusions have been reached on several matters. These conclusions
together with some recommendations are outlined here. It was the consensus of the sub-committee that the recommendations as presented would
materially assist the Research Committed in its deliberations by clarifying the duties and responsibilities of the Committee. Others of these
considerations, if adopted, would by record, become accepted procedure. The following are recommended for adoption:
“1. That the Director of the California Agricultural Experiment Station outline the policy and duties of the Hopland Research Committee.
“2. That a review committee of members of the Hopland Research Committee be appointed to consider the acceptance of new research projects and
proposals. This committee shall consider for acceptance new work proposed for the Station with regard to availability of space, facilities, livestock,
assistance, suitability for integration with the existing work load, suitability for accomplishment on the Station rather than elsewhere. Projects shall
be considered in view of the outlined criteria presented in Communication 15, Office of Director of Agricultural Experiment : and at such
other times as necessary. It is hoped that this committee would reduce the burden of administrative details for the Research Committee and would
relieve the Station Superintendent of the burden of making decisions of this nature. Projects may be submitted at any time. The word ‘Project’ as
used herein shall be taken to mean an experimental study or equivalent.
“3. That matters of agreements regarding authorship and publication of research findings resulting from work at the Hopland Field Station be
considered as a part of the project proposal at the time of initiation of such a project and be made a part of the project outline.
“4. Weir and Love were originally assigned responsibilities for the general sheep flock and general pasture use at the Hopland Field Station,
exclusive of those parts under experiment. They shall report annually on the disposition of the flock and the land for review by the Research
Committee.
“5. That the Hopland Research Committee shall meet quarterly in February, May, September and November. Meetings shall be called by the
Chairman and shall be rotated among the several stations as is desirable.
“6. That the Research Committee shall not act in support of projects or proposals for departments. Responsibility for such projects lie within
departments. Acceptance of proposals for work on the Hopland Field Station shall constitute endorsement of the work as being of a character and
nature suitable for study on the Station
“7. That a statement be prepared concerned with the balance between research and demonstration in the use of the Hopland Field Station in light of
information Director Sharp is gathering.
“8. That a decision regarding these points be made: (a) Desirability of an annual inventory of Edaphic, Biological, and Climatological data. (b)
Annual review and revision of maps, and of other physiographic changes. (c) Photographic record-responsibility and scope.
“9. That publicity and press releases concerned with work on the station shall be cleared with the project personnel concerned prior to release. A
publicity committee is acting for the Hopland Research Committee.
“10. That a recommendation is desired on the advisability of having an advisory committee composed of local people interested in the Field Station
and the work to be done there.
“Respectfully submitted, H.F. Heady; W.M Longhurst; W.C. Weir; R.M. Love, Ex Officio; B.A. Madson, Ex Officio; R.H. Burgy, Chairman
42
??????“Credit for the actual arrangement of the details and the preparation of the manuscript must go to Mr. J. L. Myler, Associate Specialist in
the Experiment Station, in charge of the Range Demonstration Projects, and to Mr. V. P. Osterli, Extension Specialist on Forage Crops.”
>Myler, James L., Secretary. February 14, 1956.
Minutes of the RLUC meeting in four pages
Committee Members Present: V.I. Cheadle, H.H. Biswell, T.I. Storer, R.M. Love, J.L. Myler, R.M. Hagan, D.E. Jasper, R.A. Bressler.
Committee Members Absent: H.H. Cole, B.A. Madson, S.F. Baker, J.J. McElroy
Others Present: P.F. Sharp, H.H. Heady, H.J. Vaux, R.H. Burgy, W.M. Longhurst, A.H. Murphy, J.E. Street, B.L. Kay
Only selected portions of current interest from this lengthy reported are given here, as follows:
“The Hopland Research Committee (HRC) has eight sub-committees appointed to study and report on special problems or responsibilities: (1)
Biological Inventory, (2) Brush, (3) Forage Analysis, (4) Pasture Naming, (5) Policy, (6) Publicity, (7) Space and (8) Watershed.
Among others, the Research Committee has, in the previous year:
“Worked out an agreement with Fish and Game concerning use of the Cow Mountain Recreation Area, and an annual exchange of work plans with
them”, (compare wi SFS and Yuba River)
“Arranged for soil-vegetation survey to a five-acre minimum on the Station in contrast to the original survey of 1946 to a forty-acre minimum”, and,
“Decided against active support as a committee of departmental budget requests.
”Burgy reported on the activities of the policy subcommittee. Their preliminary report discussed at the last meeting is still under study, in an
attempt to clarify certain points, and develop a standard operational guide for the Hopland Research committee.” Six of these tentative points were
listed here, but all seem to fit better under the heading of “Management’ rather than “Policy”
“Love brought up the desirability of having a liaison committee between the Hopland Research Committee and the Range Land Utilization
Committee; Director Sharp stated that the RLUC was primarily a policy committee and should not be involved in detail.
“Longhurst reported on the 1955 deer season at the Hopland Station, discussed the mechanics of the hunt, and indicated that some changes would be
desirable. The changes could be negotiated with the Department of Fish and Game. As conditions warrant the hunt should be expanded to an
antlerless hunt so deer populations could be regulated. …
“Myler reported on the status of University participation in the San Joaquin Range, and the meeting in January with Messrs. Wellman, Moseman,
Sharp, Peterson, Briggs, Bentley, Wolfolk and Myler. Financing, of the station is inadequate, responsibilities are split and the future program is
under review. Myler and Bentley are working on an operating budget to submit to Dr. Wellman and Mr. Jameson at an early date.
“Discussion developed that the RLUC should take a critical look at what research needs to be done that could best be accomplished at the San
Joaquin Range, assuming necessary funding is accomplished. Dr. Sharp suggested that the HRC should undertake this study to keep the University
program coordinated, although Love felt this could better be done by chairman of some of the departments concerned. Love will appoint a
committee to make this study after Myler and Bentley submit their report and we see what action might be taken by the USDA Forest & Range
Experiment Station and Agricultural Research Service, and the University of California.
“Dr. Love reported on the organization of the Range Advisory Committee to the State Board of Forestry, and the attempt by that Committee to get
educational material underway on control burns and range improvement through the State Division of Forestry education program. So far, little
success has been obtained.
“The need for University releases on range and watershed problems to schools and colleges was discussed in some detail. Love will consult with
Mr. Calkins in this matter.
“Biswell suggested the possible need of pressure from this committee in support of either-sex deer hunts at Hopland to further the deer studies. It
was felt by the committee that a few members of sportsmen’s clubs should not be allowed to prevent the experimental use of this method of deer
management. Storer suggested that the State Chamber of Commerce might be of help in this regard”.
>Love, R. Merton, Chair, Range Land Utilization Committee. March 3, 1956. Cc to Director Sharp and Ralph
Smith.
Letter to Mr. William Calkins, Publications Office, Giannini Hall, UC Berkeley.
Love encourages Calkins to respond to the need for “… the dissemination of educational materials to the elementary schools and to the junior and
state colleges … especially in the area of range, watershed, and wildlands – in short – our natural resources.”
“A year ago I brought up this matter before our committee but little headway has been made. … Briefly, it has to do with such topics as: grass for a
watershed compared to brush; the differences between a control burn and a wild fire; the overlap of rangeland into watershed; and so on.”
>Love, R. Merton, Chair, RLUC. Cc to Dir. P.F. Sharp, Asst. Director F.N. Briggs, and J. L. Myler April 10, 1956.
Letter to H.H. Cole and M.L. Peterson, Davis Campus, asking that they take a critical look at what research needs to be done that could best be
accomplished at the San Joaquin Range, assuming necessary funding is accomplished, and report at next scheduled meeting in two weeks.
>Cheadle, V.I., Secretary pro tem, RLUC Meeting. April 24, 1956.
“H.H. Cole presented the report prepared by M.L. Peterson and he on studies that might be conducted at the San Joaquin Experimental Range.
( see:….) Following much discussion, Cole moved that the Committee suggests that appropriate University administrators confer with the California
Forest and Range administrators in an attempt to determine the long-term policy concerning specific working arrangements for the cooperative
research activities of the University and the California FRES, respectively, at the San Joaquin Range. Motion passed.
“Dr. Storer then moved that the following be considered as an introduction to the first motion:
“The Range Utilization Committee has considered the possibilities for research in fields related to Agriculture at the San Joaquin Experimental
Range. It believes that a number of important projects could be carried on there in addition to those already in progress or completed. The Range
already has a fair physical plant suited for this work. More importantly, there is already available a large body of data pertaining to the area –
climatology, qualitative and quantitative aspects of the forage crops, livestock utilization, and the native mammals and other animals.
Therefore, ….(and then continue on with the preceding motion. The motion passed. The Chairman (R.M. Love) and Secretary are to compose these
matins into a letter to the appropriate University administrator, presumably Dr. Sharp.
43
“J.J. McElroy reported on his study of the feasibility of developing educational pamphlets dealing with range and watershed topics, particularly. …
It was generally conceded that something must be done to counteract poorly prepared or even erroneous statements, made by other agencies, that
refer to ranges and watersheds.
>Love, R. Merton. June 5, 1956
Letter to AES Director Paul F. Sharp. Love comments on discussions at the 24 April meeting of the Range Land Utilization Committee concerning
work at the USFS San Joaquin Experimental Range.
“The Range Land Utilization Committee (RLUC) has considered the possibilities for research in fields related to agriculture at the San Joaquin
Experimental Range.(SJER) … Therefore, the Committee suggests that appropriate University administrators confer with the California Forest and
Range Experiment Station (FRES) administrators in an attempt to determine the long-time policy concerning specific working arrangements for the
cooperative research activities of the University and the FRES, respectively, at the SJER”
“Limitations by law on the scope of the research work that may be undertaken by the FRES may make it difficult, if not impossible, for our plant
science people to engage in cooperative research work with them. These same limitations may reduce drastically the effectiveness of the
cooperative efforts between the Forest & Range Experiment Station (FRES) and the animal science people. Grazing intensity studies underway
since the start of the station have not paid off in dynamic results, or in rancher support for the station. Intensification of the same type of studies is
not likely to be more fruitful.
This is a tightly packed letter, and it ends on a surprisingly prescient note: “Therefore, unless top administrative decisions can work out these
apparent limitations to cooperative range research at the SJER, it may be desirable to consider University ownership of this station (sic), or
University purchase of a similar site in the same general area where such limitations are not imposed.” (Emphasis mine)
cc to Professors H.R. Wellman, K.A Ryerson, and F.N. Briggs, all of whom would eventually earn Davis Campus buildings in their names.
>Range Land Utilization Committee meeting, Davis Campus. January 8, 1958.
Minutes of meeting:
Committee members present were: R.M. Love, Chairman, J.L. Myler, H.H. Biswell, V.I. Cheadle, H.H. Cole, G.H. Hart, D.E. Jasper, B.A.
Madson, J.J. McElroy, G.L. Mehren, L.B. Rosenberg, T.I. Storer, H.J. Vaux and F.J. Veihmeyer. R.H. Burgy was present representing H.M. Hagan.
Committee members absent were D.G. Aldrich and R.M. Hagan. Others present were: P.F. Sharp, F.N. Briggs and C.O. McCorkle.
Dr. Sharp presented members with a copy of a joint statement prepared by himself and Keith Arnold and dated December 31, 1957, concerning the
“Research Operations of the USDA San Joaquin Experimental Range”. Dr. Sharp stated that copies of this statement were being sent to all County
Extension offices, as well as to other interested people, and to the press, to inform the public of the new policy.
Chairman Love stated that the reason for the meeting was for discussion of the need on the part of the University Research Staff for a Range
Research Field Station in the Sierra foothills, and that Dr. Wellman wished the counsel of this committee on this matter.
Cole moved that a Sierra Foothill Range be obtained. Biswell seconded the motion. The motion passed by a unanimous vote.
Dr. Sharp suggested that since the committee felt that such a range acquisition was essential, they should attempt to set up specifications and criteria
for its selection.
In the following discussion numerous points were listed, which should be considered in selection of the range. Among them were:
(1) The site should be representative of a comparatively large segment of the State’s range area.
(2) It should be of a different type than the granite soil as represented on the SJER.
(3) It should have varied elevations, perhaps going from 1,000 to 1,500-foot elevation up to 3,500 to 4,000-foot elevation.
(4) It should contain representative types, including good grass land, woodland-grass and brush, perhaps to border-line timber sites.
(5) The area selected should be a minimum of 9,000, and perhaps up to 1,500 acres. (Committee will further study size needs as dictated by
departmental needs.).
(6) It would be desirable to have the range within a 100-mile radius of the Davis Campus, for the convenience of research staff.
(7) Preferably, it should be near a town that offers possibilities of rental houses for staff and workers, to obviate the need of extensive University
housing. ( compare with the four houses at SFS: Superintendent, herdsman, machine operator, ??)
(8) It should contain one or more complete watershed units for hydrological studies.
(9) It should cover a wide range of wild land problems, as does the Hopland Field Station.
(10) It should not contain large areas of serpentine soils, soils of the Henecke type, or steep shale areas.
(11) Since needs were widely varied , it may be necessary to consider acquisition of a base area with separate areas in the same general area in order
to secure the necessary cover types.
Chairman Love appointed a subcommittee to further develop the following items relative to the proposed experimental range:
1. Justification
2. Needs of departments
3. Site criteria
4. Suggested acquisition budget - $1,000,000
The subcommittee so-appointed is charged to develop the above information in preliminary form and report back to the parent committee at its next
meeting, which will be held on January 30, 1958, at 2:00 pm in this room
Appointees were: H.H. Biswell, Chairman, J.L. Myler, B.A. Madson, E.C. Voorhies, L.J. Berry R.H. Burgy, and F. D. Carroll.
The subcommittee meeting to report on its charge was set for January 20, 1958 at 1:30pm to develop it report for presentation to the full committee
on January 30.
Respectfully submitted, (signed) James L. Myler, Secretary
Extension Committee on Natural Resources and Environmental
Quality
>Recommended to VP Kendrick to appoint a group to study (1) Better management of brushlands to preserve and enhance watershed; wildlife,
scenic; recreation and agricultural values, and (2) Alternate uses of brushlands according to ecological; physical; biological; economic; and cultural
factors.
44
(See: VP Kendrick’s letter of 4 Feb 1975 to T.E. Adams (as Chairman of a task group charged with development of a model to improve our
statewide program on brushland and wildland ecosystems.”), appointing a task group to “develop a model to improve our statewide program on
brushland and wildland ecosystems.”
Referring to the charge given to the task group chaired by T.E. Adams, VP Kendrick stated: “Your proposal should include a multidisciplinary, and
perhaps interagency, approach to coordinate research and education programs on the management and use of brushlands and wildlands. You should
therefore consider involving personnel from other agencies where appropriate, such as the California Department of Conservation, California
Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Forestry Service (sic), Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Station, tc.”
CSRS Statewide Program Review of Forest & Wildlands Research
>Kendrick, J.B. July 7, 1975.
Letter addressed to Rudolph F. Grah, Co-Chairman; Harold F. Heady, Co-Chairman; Powers S. Messenger; and Charles A. Raguse.
“This will confirm my wish, already communicated informally, that you serve as a local Steering Committee to assist in the planning and local
arrangements for the CSRS Program Review of Forest and Wildlands Research. … It is my hope … that the review will be an assessment of
activities, resources and research needs aimed at future program development.”
>CSRS Wildland Research Review, Univ. of Calif., Nov. 3-7. 1975, Final Version. October 21, 1975.
“Vice President J.B. Kendrick has requested a Program Review of research, extension, and teaching, statewide, in forestry, wildlands, and range.
This is the first such program review attempted in California. The objectives and focus of this review are as follows:
“Objectives
“This review concentrates on the subject matter of wildland research. We conceive wildlands as those where plants and animals are mainly subject
to uncontrolled environment, where naturally-occurring organisms persist under usage by society, and where continued natural reproduction of
many species, rather than controlled communities of one or a few species, dominate the landscape. None of these are without exceptions. Thus,
wildlands are uncultivated natural areas used by society for the production of wood, forage, wildlife, water, recreational opportunities, and many
environmental qualities desired by mankind. Forests, Shrublands, grasslands, deserts, and fresh-clear water characterize wildlands.
“Wildland research in the University of California occurs at many locations and examines a vast array of Problems with most research scientists not
fully aware of the whole program. Interests in wildlands continually change, resulting in greater need for some products but less demand for others,
and thereby continually originate needs for new research. From the viewpoint of the University, this review is an opportunity for all wildland
research workers in the U.C. system to examine their combined program for the following reasons:
“A. To review current project objectives, accomplishments, directions and integration.
“B. To receive suggestions on direction and extent of future research.
“C. To contribute in informational exchange among participants as to the extent, character, and direction of present and future wildland research.
“D. To establish a base from which to start new research and land-use planning.”
“Focus of Review
“1. Are goals of the forest and wildland research program clearly identified at the several levels of program operation – statewide, campus,
department and group?
“2. Do the character and extent of present projects meet the existing goals? What changes in goals and projects should be made to meet the
challenges of the people and resources of the State?
“3. Is there serious incongruity between program goals and present project efforts? Are further efforts needed to coordinate program elements
between campuses and departments?
“4. Does allocation of funding between the various elements of the Agricultural Experiment Station equitably reflect the significance of the
resources to the people of the State? What changes, if any, should be made? What policies should exist with respect to seeking outside grants?
“5. Uses of University talent. Are the various departments making effective use of the manpower available within as well as outside of the
department?
“6. Are the research programs within the University adequately coordinated with those of public and private agencies and other universities?
“7. To what extent are teaching and research programs coordinated? Are the desired feedbacks between each adequately noted and used to influence
program content?
Organization of Review
“ The review is intended to be programmatic in nature, that is, to cover all research efforts that relate to forest and wildlands irrespective of campus
or departmental boundaries. Elements of the review will consist of (1) meetings with administrators to determine organization, goals, programs, and
coordinating efforts within an organization that covers three campuses and a number of field stations; (2) meetings with individual research workers
to evaluate directions and effectiveness of individual projects, and (3) the formation of oral and written evaluations and recommendations by the
Review Committee.
> Raguse, C.A., Department of Agronomy & Range Science. October 21, 1975.
Letter to participants, Subject: Final Schedule
A 16-page document in four parts: 1. Davis schedule of participation, 2. Statement of objectives and focus of review, 3. General, statewide,
organization of the review, 4. Lists of participants (Experiment Station and Cooperative Extension) under seven “Research Categories”
In my cover letter, I gave my view of how the review should be conducted, in five reasonable (I thought) recommendations:
“Participation should be voluntary, based on the conviction that one’s work falls within the purview of the review.
“Because of time constraints, presentations should be verbal (perhaps supplemented with 1-page typewritten summary for the benefit of the CSRS
review committee). The use of 35mm slides is discouraged.
“Again, because of time constraints, some integration and summarization must be done within all research category groups, i.e., not everyone will
have the opportunity for a direct report. This should be worked out with the moderator within any given research category (see d below).
45
“The moderator for each research category will act essentially as a session chairman might for subject matter sections at a national meeting of a
professional society. It will be his responsibility to present a lead-off overview introduction, orchestrate the proceedings so as t remain within the
time schedule, and draw out essential supplementary information.
“Individual participation should be organized with the ratio of roughly one-third present work and two-thirds proposed future work and idealized
goals if resources were not limiting.”
Although it had almost been purged from my memory by time alone, it was during the 10:30am to Noon presentation of Topic III. “Biology,
Management and Protection of Range and Brushland Resources”, as Moderator, I was forced to shut Beecher Crampton down, as with his sonorous
voice and evangelical flair, he was on his way to consuming unlimited time in this opportunity for an epic oration.
>Raguse, C.A. December 1, 1980.
Administration of Wildlands Research – A Chronology of Deliberations and Recommendations. A summary report from an observer of the
Cooperative States Research Service (CSRS) “Wildland Research Review” (see item 4. below) conducted at the Berkeley, Davis, and Riverside
campuses of the University of California, on the 3rd to 7th of Nov 1975,
What follows here was taken as excerpts from my own 13-page summary of selected parts of its single day on the Davis Campus. I have tried to
remove personal opinions and comments from recorded facts by indented and colored separation. Any errors are solely those of my own.
1. 15 October, 1958: "Report of the Committee on Water, Forest, Range and Natural Resource Conservation" (Vaux committee).
This report was a revision of a previous report from the same committee (as chaired by H. H. Biswell), and released in 1955.
2. 1 October 1959: "Conserving Wildland Resources through Research Introductory Report from the Wi1dlnd Research Center".
This report was done in a slick paper, profusely illustrated, professionally organized format apparently intended for public as well as internal
consumption. The information presented followed the lines of the 1958 report and, importantly in the current context, defined the functions and
responsibilities of the newly-established Wild1and Research Center.
3. July 1975: "Report of the Ecosystems Task Group: A Review of the Statewide Brushlands Ecosystems Program and Recommendations for its
Improvement" (Adams committee).
By its own statement, this Task Group confined its review to climax chaparral. “It is this vegetation-type that is of major concern statewide."
4. 3-7 November, 1975: CSRS "Wildland Research Review" (also, a report by the same title).
The CSRS Program Review (a departure from the typical CSRS review scaled to organized research units such as departments or divisions) was
requested by Vice President J. B. Kendrick to consider the statewide research, extension and teaching (emphasis mine) programs in forestry,
wildlands and range. Of the five days allocated for the review, four were spent on the Berkeley Campus and one at Davis. Although included, the
Riverside Campus apparently was given little consideration, either directly or indirectly.
The Review was structured to be programmatic in nature, i.e., to:
“… cover all research efforts that relate to forest and wildlands irrespective of campus or departmental boundaries. Elements of the review will
consist of (1) meetings with administrators to determine organization, goals, programs, and coordinating efforts within an organization that covers
three campuses and a number of field stations; (2) meetings with individual research workers to evaluate directions and effectiveness of individual
projects; and (3) the formation of oral and written evaluations and recommendations by the Review Committee. …
In direct contrast to prior and subsequent exercises in self-contemplation the Review committee was constituted of a select group of outside senior
administrators and faculty as follows:
Aubrey Wiley, CSRS Coordinator, Coop. States Research Service, USDA,
Washington, D.C.
Robert Dils, Dean, School of Natural Resources, Colorado State University, Fort Collins.
Donald Dwyer, Head, Department of Range Science, Utah State University, Logan.
Robert Harris, Director, Pacific Southwest Forest & Range Experiment Station, Berkeley.
Ross Tocher, Professor of Forest Recreation, University of Michigan,
Ann Arbor.
The report itself, as would be expected, is a mixture of facts and assumptions; deductions and inferences; objectivity and value judgments, Despite
its apparent authority (and a prodigious amount of time spent) it seems to have had but little influence on the subsequent course of events. The focus
of this CSRS Review was on the following specific questions:
5. 20 October, 1976: Letter to J. B. Kendrick from the steering committee for the CSRS Wi1dland Research Review--"Comments on the Wildland
Research Review report" (Grah committee; included Heady and Raguse).
In this brief report, the steering committee for the CSRS wildland Research Review responded to Vice President Kendrick's request for their
assessment of the report.
Briefly, the steering committee's recommendations were:
"1) Reorganize the Wildland Research Program as a major component of the overall Agricultural Experiment Station Program.
2) Define the extent of the Wildland Research Program and establish broad goals and objectives for the Systemwide program.
3) Identify areas of emphasis for each campus as per the examples above.
46
4) Solutions to problems of coordination of programs between campuses and departments should be recommended by task forces appointed to deal
with specific fields. Organization, methods of operation and responsibilities of such task forces can be developed by prototype task forces such as
indicated below.
5) A prototype task force should be established immediately to study the range program. In the near future an additional task force should deal with
wildlife programs. These two programs are of high quality and of great vigor, but there is little coordination between campuses in areas of emphasis
or in goal formulation.
6) Additional task forces should be established for other elements in the Wildland Research Program as pressing problems emerge.
7) Review the program of the Forest Products Laboratory and study interrelationships between the Laboratory and other elements of the Wildland
Research Program.
6. 24 January, 1977: Meeting at DC-Davis, chaired by Rudy Grah at his request, D. R. Neilsen and J. M. Lyons collaborating.
The meeting was promoted in advance as a discussion of forestry
and forestry-related research and teaching programs in California vis a vis intercampus collaboration ("We are particularly interested in exchanging
suggestions as to how to enhance and coordinate our efforts between Berkeley and Davis.") The two-hour discussion centered mainly on
preservation of the McIntire-Stennis funds arriving at DC, and mechanisms for their allocation and re-allocation. Regarding enhancement of intercampus cooperation, little, if any, subsequent progress was apparent, despite the presence of more than a dozen administrators, mostly Associate
Deans and department Chairs.
7. July 1977: "Wildland Research in the California Agricultural Experiment Station." A report to J. B. Kendrick from the Zivnuska committee.
As Ted Adams, the chairman of the Task Force subcommittee to review
"Past Attempts at Solutions," notes in a cover letter to Chairman H. F. Heady, the activities of subcommittee members Adams, Teague and Raguse
evolved to concentrate in three areas. Ted Adams has separately reviewed intensively the Zivnuska committee report. This is appropriate, since that
committee also considered all available previous efforts and integrated them in its own analysis. Thus, an independent evaluation of past, present,
and future is provided in that report and I will defer to it and to the Ted Adams summary.
8. 4 April, 1978: Letter to Dean D.E. Schlegel from Rudy Grah, concerning activation of the Wildland Research Center.
10 April, 1978: Letter to Assoc. Dean J.M. Lyons from Dean Schlegel regarding Grah’s April 4th letter.
24 April, 1978: Report of the ad hoc committee (R.M. Love Chair) established by C.O. Qualset, Chair, Agronomy & Range Science Department,
to discuss the Grah, Schlegel et al correspondence.
The above three exchanges suggest a brief flurry of inter-campus and multi-level administrator activity and correspondence centering on Rudy
Grah’s highly-motivated attempt to resurrect the quiescent, but not yet defunct, Wildland Research Center.
(Apparently, it all died there. Again, in early 1978)
9. June 1979: "Wildland Research Program Needs and Policies for California" (Teeguarden committee report to the California State Board of
Forestry).
A literally awe-inspiring document which presents "…the findings and recommendations of a Standing Advisory Committee on Research Programs
on wildland research program needs and policies for California for the decade.
1979-1989." Of particular relevance is a section entitled "Cooperation and Coordination," beginning on page 76 of the report. The heart of that
section of the report is stated in one sentence: "A major state problem is that there does not now exist any institution for encouraging coordination
and cooperation of the research programs of the numerous organizations and individuals involved in wildland research." Still, the analysis is worthy
of inclusion here in its entirety: (See entire report in my Appendixes folder).
10. 15 July, 1979: Letter from D. W. Dwyer (Head, Department of Range Science, Utah State) to C. o. Qualset, Chair, Dept. of Agronomy & Range
Science.
This letter, following Dwyer's sabbatical leave at UC-Davis, gives rather extensive comments and recommendations on the statewide range program
in California. Dwyer's analysis was made following direct, substantive visits to all campuses which had either a research or teaching role in this area.
He further had the perspective gained as a member of the CSRS Wildland Research Review team which met in 1975 (item 4 above). In the letter,
Dwyer expresses concern for what amounts to less than a critical mass of resources allocated to both research and teaching in California,
substantially due to geographical and administrative dispersion. He comments, incisively and to the point:
"To repeat the California statistics relating to rangelands and their contribution, I'm sure is superfluous, though impressive. The real test in an
academic setting is whether the range program is genuine, viable, can service students and the profession, has significant, useful contributions to
make to society, and has a future that is unmistakably bright. For California and the UC system, these criteria are all met. The missing substance,
from my wholly unbiased view, is inadequate support administratively and financially from the higher levels--Deans and above."
His specific recommendations for improvement are substantially similar to those of the principal recent documents (the CSRS, Zivnuska, and
Teeguarden reports).
11. 28 January, 1980: Letter from D. W. Hedrick (Dean, College of Forestry, Humboldt State) to J. B. Kendrick.
The letter complains about lack of UC research and action programs in range. Hedrick’s stated criterion for this "lack" is the absence of citations
under" range management" or "range science" in the index of California Agriculture for 1979. He concludes: "It would be refreshing to see the
University of California take the initiative, as it did in the 1950's, to correct this imbalance."
12. 23 July, 1980: Meeting (UC-Davis) called· by Chancellor J. E. Meyer to discuss range and wildlands teaching and research.
No written summary was made, but Chancellor Meyer apparently asked Dean C. E. Hess to appoint a "work group" to review the Campus program.
As of the date of this compilation (January 1981), this "work group" has not been established. Apparently, the July meeting was precipitated by the
Agronomy & Range Science department's request for permission to recruit at the Associate level for a new range ecologist position.
47
The Zivnuska Committee: Wildland Research in the California
Agricultural Experiment Station, John A. Zivnuska, Chair.
Established 3 Dec 1976.
Zivnuska, John A. A Report to VP James B. Kendrick, Jr. from the Committee. July 1977.
A major contribution to the organization of accumulated information in this subject-matter area.
The Committee included Donald G. Arganbright, W. James Clawson, Don C. Erman, John R. Goss, Harold F. Heady, John A. Helms, John Letey,
Jr., R. Merton Love, Robert F. Luck, John W. Menke and Steven R. Radosevich.
The report was prepared under nine headings, including “Role of Agricultural Field Stations” and Relationships with Research Role of Cooperative
Extension. Three Appendixes brought the work to a total of 67 pages.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
1)” The wildlands of California include 83 percent of the land area of the state and are the primary source of the water supply, the lumber and other
forest products, the range livestock, the fish and game, the outdoor recreational opportunities, and various other amenity and environmental values
for the people of the state.
2) “The objectives of wildland research are expressed both in terms specific to wildlands and in terms of the research categories and program units
used for the analysis and planning of the entire Experiment Station research program. The latter approach has the great advantage of facilitating the
coordination of wildland research planning with total program planning.
3) “We consider it essential that provision be made for separate identification, guidance, and encouragement of wildland research.
4) “A computer-based analysis of the projects contributing to the wildland research program 1974-75 is presented in Appendix A. Highlights of this
analysis include the following:
a. While there definite areas of concentration, wildland research is widely dispersed through the entire Experiment Station structure,
involving 28 separate budgetary units affiliated with academic departments and 17 of the 21 program units recognized in the total
research program.
b. Wildland research represents about 15 percent of the total Experiment Station research program, with support per FTE faculty
member engaged in wildland research being somewhat lower in state-appropriated funds and somewhat higher in external funds
than the Experiment Station average.
c. The major portion of the wildland research program is about equally divided between Berkeley and Davis, with 7percent of the
wildland research effort centered at Riverside.
d. “The Berkeley program involves concentrations in forestry; in forest products; in range ecology and management; in wildlife and
fisheries research emphasizing wildlife ecology and management and freshwater ecology; in entomological, pathological, and
biological control research on wildlands; in wildland soils and plant nutrition; and in environmental issues and policy.
e. “The Davis program involves concentrations in range research emphasizing species introduction and evaluation, intensive
management practices, brushland conversion, and livestock-forage interactions; in range livestock research; in research on toxic
substances used on wildlands; in wildland soil and water problems; in wildlife and fisheries research emphasizing control of rodents
and problem birds and factors affecting fish populations; in the application of environmental horticulture to wildlands; in forest
engineering; and in the control of unwanted woody vegetation.
f. “The Riverside program reflects a regional emphasis in entomology and biological control, in brushland management, and in soilwater-plant relationships; Riverside would also the primary center for desert research if this area of wildland research were to be
developed.
5) “Factors affecting the future wildland research program are discussed, but we were not able to develop a comprehensive recommendation
concerning future research needs and priorities. If a quantitative wildland research plan for the future is needed, we suggest that consideration be
given to having it developed by a committee of the associate directors of the Experiment Station and the proposed coordinator of wildland research,
with provision for consultation with departmental and divisional chairmen and with scientists working in wildland research.
6) “We strongly recommend that provision be made in the operations of the Experiment Station for an annual compilation and analysis of the
wildland research program similar to that presented in Appendix A.
7) “We believe that external funding is directly beneficial to the wildland research program, both in substantially increasing the size of the program
and in ensuring responsiveness to issues of high priority in society. We recommend that the Experiment Station develop a program for seeking out
and responding to opportunities for the development of external funding of wildland research.
8) “We recommend the establishment of some form of coordinating mechanism for wildland research in the Division of Agricultural Sciences.
Alternative mechanisms evaluated include maintenance of the status quo. Organizational coordination through a re-organized Wildland Research
Center, administrative coordination by a special assistant to the Vice President of Agricultural Sciences; and combined organizational and
administrative coordination. We emphasize that any such coordinating mechanism must be fully compatible with the established system of
authority and responsibility in the administration of the Experiment Station program.
9) “The needs and opportunities for increased coordination and cooperation between the Experiment Station and other research agencies and various
agencies of the State of California are discussed. Particular attention is directed to the legal responsibilities of the State Board of Forestry pertaining
to forest and wildland research. We recommend that the person appointed to the role of coordinating and developing the wildland research program
(as proposed above) initiate actions to strengthen coordination with other research agencies and with state agencies. Examples of actions that might
be undertaken are presented.
10) “The role of the Agricultural Field stations in wildland research is reviewed, with the importance of the Hopland and Sierra Foothill Range Field
Stations being emphasized.
11) “The role of the three forest research stations administered by the Forest and Wildland Research Unit affiliated with the Department of Forestry
and Conservation, Berkeley Campus, is reviewed, with the recommendation that the present arrangements for the Departmental administration of
these research stations be continued. In addition, we support the Department’s recommendation that its present affiliated Wildlife-fisheries
Organized Research Unit budget, including the Sagehen Creek Wildlife-Fisheries Research Station, be transferred to the Forest and Wildland
Research Unit at the time of Professor Leopold’s retirement.
12) “The important role of Cooperative Extension in wildland research and information transfer is reviewed, with a compilation of wild projects as
derived from the present management information system (CEMIS) being presented in Appendix B. The need for an improved basis for identifying
48
the wildland research component of the work of Cooperative Extension is emphasized. Alternative approaches to improving the Cooperative
Extension program directed to wildland resources are briefly considered.”
The limited number of pages that came to me have been summarized above. Appended to them was Zivnuska’s comments on the “Role of
Agricultural Field Stations (pages 58, 59 from the original). He treats both the facilities administered by the Division of Agricultural Sciences and
by Campus Departments. The first of these two is reproduced here, mainly to include his summary of departments and agencies conducting research
at the Hopland and Sierra Field Stations at the time of his writing.
“The role of the Hopland and Sierra Foothill Range Field Stations is to provide facilities suitable for certain aspects of wildlands research conducted
by UC departments and other agencies. They have no research programs of their own. They play a very important role in teaching and extension
activities, not only for the Berkeley and Davis campuses but for several state colleges and universities. Through class field trips, the 25 years of
research at Hopland and the years at the Sierra Station (though fewer) serve as an excellent complement to lectures and laboratory exercises on
campus.
“Both stations are now served by one advisory committee with personnel from departments at Berkeley and Davis, and from Cooperative Extension
and the two Field Stations. University personnel have ample opportunity to (and do) interact with staff from county, state, and federal agencies
interested in wildlands research.
“Currently the following departments and agencies are conducting research at the Stations
Sierra Foothill Range Field Station
Hopland Field Station
Berkeley
Berkeley
Entomology & Parasitology
Forestry & Conservation
Entomology & Parasitology
Forestry & Conservation
Davis
Davis
Agronomy & Range Science
Animal Science
Botany
Cooperative Extension
Entomology & Parasitiolgy
Epidemiology & Preventive Medicine
Wildlife & Fisheries Biology
Agricultural Engineering
Agronomy & Range Science
Animal Physiology
Animal Science
Cooperative Extension
Entomology
Environmental Horticulture
Nematology
Soils & Plant Nutrition (LAWR)
Veterinary Medicine
Wildlife & Fisheries Biology
Other
Other
Calif. Dept. of Fish & Game
California Dept. of Health, Vector Control Section
Calif. Division of Forestry
USDA Western Regional Research Laboratory
USDI Bureau of Land Management
Lake County Air Pollution District
Mendocino County Cooperative Extension
Agricultural Research Service, Univ. of Nevada
California State Univ., Sacramento
Cooperative Extension, Yuba & Sutter Counties
US Army Corps of Engineers
Sutter-Yuba Counties Mosquito Abatement District
Task Force on Research & Extension
>Heady, Harold F., Chair of the Task Force. March 13, 1981.
Letter to the membership advising them of his sending a copy of “A Research Program Proposal to Improve the Management of Oak Woodland and
Associate Chaparral” to Directors Lewis and Siebert. Heady also refers to a “…proposed Land Resources Center as the coordinating body for the
program.”
“After much discussion with a number of you, the two attached documents have been sent to Directors Lewis and Siebert. This was the best way to
proceed because (1) The campus proposals (UCB, UCD, UCR)
are being coordinated through Director Lewis and (2) Director Lewis is the
University member of the Advisory Committee for the Agriculture Investment Program.
“By the time you receive this letter the Advisory Committee will have met twice. It is developing guidelines for pre-preparations of proposals;
hence my program proposal names only major ideas. If the Advisory Committee looks kindly on this pre-proposal (I have reasons to believe they
will.) all of us will need to have full project statements for submission, likely in a short time. Please be prepared.”
The Problem:
“The Oak Woodland and associated chaparral vegetational types, covering 20% of California’s landscape, are neglected areas in the store of
information on the State’s natural renewable resources. The grasslands at lower elevations and the forests above have been subjected to major
research efforts for decades.
“More and more the woodlands are subject to urban encroachment, fuel-wood harvesting, conversion to other uses and problems with wildfire. The
results are shrinking habitats for wildlife, fewer areas of watershed, and less grazing for domestic animals. A report by the Department of
49
Conservation claims that the area is eroding at a rapid rate. Yet these activities continue in the absence of suitable policy and before responses
associated with watershed protection, grazing management and erosion control have been developed.
“Pressures among alternative land uses in the woodland areas, where chaotic mixtures exist of governmental authorities and private rights, can be
expected to increase and the ecological assets of the lands to decrease. Problems will arise in metropolitan hill areas where economic risks are
extreme for fire, flood and soil instability, where recreational users are numerous, and where residential uses restrict wildlife. Fragmented private
ownerships in foothill areas absorb the brunt of pressures for fuelwood, for small scale gardening and much of the “back-to-the-land” movement.
Private ranchlands on a larger scale face economic and technical problems of managing forage, wildlife, and some timber. Private investment into
the production of these products for the public good may be incentive or other schemes determined at legislative levels. Much of the oak woodland
and associated brushland is in public ownership, which presents still different objectives and conflicts for multipurpose management.
“The oak woodland and associated brushlands can be effectively managed once the interactions and direct effects of the impacts and results are
understood. The oak woodlands and associated brushlands do not fall neatly into any University or State Department administrative category and
the relationships between management and resources are highly complex, as shown below:
Impacts of:
Range improvements
Land development; fragmentation of ownership
Preservation
Fuel management
Oak-wood harvesting
Results on:
Wildlife
Vegetational cover
Water production
Forage production
Wood energy
“The State’s woodlands and brushlands will soon become a major area for additional land-use conflicts. Increasing pressures for fuelwood
harvesting, fire protection, and, perhaps most important, water production, present an opportunity for a project demonstrating how the University
can marshal all its forces in anticipation of major research needs in natural resources, rather than react to developing crises.
Program Objectives:
1. “ Determine the effects of changing magnitude of multiple uses.
2. “Develop methodologies for cost/benefit analyses of alternative uses based upon management impacts, badly need for land planning and public
policy decision-making.
3. “Analysis and improvement of multiple-use allocation procedures.
4. “Develop an understanding of user impacts on the woodland areas in advance of crisis needs.
Examples of Subprojects in Researchable Areas:
1. “Removal of oaks increases water flow and forage for wildlife and domestic animals, but these conditions are temporary, and the values
unknown.
2. “Ideal habitats for most wildlife species in the woodlands and brushlands have not been determined.
3. “More and more the oaks are harvested for fuel wood and other uses. Almost nothing is known about the regeneration of oaks (Before DM!), the
silvicultural practices, and harvesting techniques needed to maintain the stands.
4. “Adequate measurement or inventory techniques are not available for the herbaceous understory, browse, and acorns.
5. “It is known that nutritional quality of browse and forage varies seasonally but not all species change the same on a seasonal basis.
6. “Determine the erosion hazard from different land uses and revise the universal soil loss equation for predictive application to these areas.
7. “Few efforts have been made to monitor results of use over a long period of time.
8. “Determine soil and vegetational conditions in the woodland and associated chaparral with th specific objective of identifying problems of erosion
and water quality.
9. “Further development of prescribed fire as a managerial tool.
10. “Examination and development of techniques for water harvesting.
11. “What are the ecosystem effects of removing the shrubs under the oaks?
12. “What are the land policy and land management problems caused by mixed land ownership?
Program Procedures:
“At this time the Task Force looks upon the proposed Land Resources Center as the coordinating body for the program. All members of the Task
Force have been active in developing the program and they are all interested in research and extension into specific phases. However, the individual
pieces of research would be accomplished through long-established procedures in the Agricultural Experiment Station and Cooperative Extension.
“University personnel who have taken part in developing the proposal for the Land Resources Center and the Program on Woodland-Associated
Chaparral Proposal are:
Cooperative Extension:
Ted Adams, Jim Clawson, Lee Fitzhugh, Roy Rauschkolb, Terry Salmon, and Richard Teauge, all of UC Davis; Rick Standiford of UC Berkeley;
Walter Johnson of Redding; Curtis Lynn of Redding; and Norman MacLeod of Santa Barbara.
Agricultural Experiment Station
Harold Heady, Chair of Task Force; Reginald Barrett, James Bartolome, Jeffery Romm, Ronald Wakimoto, and Paul Zinke, all of UC Berkeley;
Warren Johnston, John Menke, and Charles Raguse, all of UC Davis.
CSRS Review of Department of Agronomy & Range Science,
UC Davis, May 12-15, 1992
CSRS Review Team Members: May 12 – 15, 1992.
Dr. R.A. Moore, Chair, AES, South Dakota State Univ.; Dr. Charles A. Francis, Agronomy Dept., Univ. of Nebraska, Lincoln; Dr. Gary H.
Heichel, Dept. of Agronomy, Univ. of Illinois, Urbana; Dr. William Krueger, Dept. of Rangeland Resources, Oregon State Univ., Corvallis; Dr.
Paul Risser, Univ. of New Mexico, Albuquerque; Dr. Norman W. Simmons, University of Edinburgh, Scotland, UK; Dr. Thomas Sinclair,
USDA/ARS/SAA, Univ. of Florida, Gainesville; Dr. Robert L. Warner, Dept. of Agronomy & Soils, Washington State Univ., Pullman
CSRS-Defined Programs evaluated: Resource Management & Conservation: Genetic Resources & Plant Breeding; Crop Production and
Physiology; Forage Systems; Cropping Systems; Extension; Teaching; and International.
50
Resource Management & Conservation Program:
“The range science/resource management and conservation faculty has a long and distinguished history of significant contributions in teaching,
research, and extension. Contributions have involved forage production, restoration of perennial grasslands, plant ecology, introduction of legumes,
plant conservation, livestock grazing management, interactions of domestic and wild animals, and restoration of oak/hardwood ecosystems.
“The faculty’s principles and theories have developed from studies of a broad array of California ecosystems – from mountain meadows to chaparral
and annual grasslands. Issues that will arise in California’s natural resources future – those of water quality, water management, biological
diversity, and conservation policies – make the significance of these programs even greater.,
“Five major topics need to be resolved by this component of the department before the faculty determines its role in the management of natural
resources in California’s future: 1. Should the faculty shift emphasis to focus on specified themes? If so, what should those themes be? 2. Should
the traditional range science program be continued? Should it be expanded? How? 3. How should the faculty “connect” with its clientele? Should
such connections increase? Should clientele change to match new programmatic directions? 4. Should the curriculum be changed? If so, how? 5.
Underlying all other questions, what should be the future direction of this departmental component? How should this new direction be organized
and supported?
CSRS Review Team’s responses to the above-listed five questions:
1. Theme focus. “The faculty should refocus its efforts along clearly specified themes with clearly stated goals and objectives. Currently, the group
drifts among several interests, but does not have a critical mass to make a major impact in any of the areas. … Defining themes will reinvigorate the
group. … The process will indicate that the faculty recognizes that scientific investigation is moving toward a more integrated and holistic approach
to natural resource management and conservation.
2. Range management teaching: “There should be a range management academic program in the California university system. The department and
College faculty should be central to this program. Under the current circumstances, it is logical to combine the efforts of the faculties of UC Davis
and UC Berkeley, and perhaps of California State University at Chico State and Humboldt State.
“The program should meet civil service and State of California requirements by combining strengths of all the involved departments. Faculty travel
should be minimized to keep the programs viable over the long term. The program could be initiated by allocating responsibilities to two or three
campuses based on the relative strengths of each or by consolidating faculty in one location. (??????)
3, Curriculum. “The curriculum must be completely redone.”
“No matter how quickly or slowly universities across the state consolidate range science programs, or even if they do not consolidate at all, the
curriculum at UC Davis must be changed. Range science courses do not attract many students, so courses simply are not offered. The range science
curriculum needs a total resource emphasis that needs to be addressed in concert with the other campuses. The program, organized into a
sustainable ecosystems program, as outlined in 5 below, needs to graduate people who have skills in land use and vegetation management. 4.
Connections with clients: “The range science group must retain strong connections with its many client groups. … The integrated program would
include individuals from several departments, and more (and much-needed) attention could be paid to the new technologies – models, expert
systems, and geographic systems, for example – and to economic impacts of different management options.
5. Future directions: “We reaffirm the recommendations of the 1982 CSRS review of Forestry and Resource Management of UC Berkeley.
The UC Davis rangeland resource management group can combine with the UC Berkeley rangeland resource management group (and perhaps a few
other groups) to increase its critical mass and impact in current issues of interest.
“Beyond this, we recommend that the group accept responsibility for a much more aggressive and innovative effort under the general rubric of
“sustainable ecosystems”.
“The logic that supports this is as follows: a) Conservation biology is a popular topic at UC Davis. This topical approach should be a part of any
program directed at sustainable systems. b) Range management will always have a need for traditional production and multiple-use components,
but additional issues must relate to water management and the management of biological resources at local to landscape to regional scales. c) The
current configuration in range science (resource management and conservation is too narrow to comprehensively address today[s major resource
management issues. d) The campus is in a state of flux with respect to program organization. This presents an opportunity to construct a program
with an optimum structure. e) The Division and College sustainable agriculture programs are in early stages of development. These programs are at
a stage where leadership is needed. f) The department has not conceptually connected its sustainable agriculture initiative with conservation
biology. This is an important contribution that can be made, perhaps uniquely, at Davis. g) Across the campus there is a wide array of biological
and physical science expertise. These strengths should be brought together in the area of sustainable ecosystems.
“The range science group could take the lead in bringing conservation biology and sustainable agriculture together into “sustainable ecosystems”.
Such a program would recognize that range science includes such diverse topics as conservation of biodiversity, spatial configuration of vegetation
for controlling hydrologic flows at the landscape level, and small-farm integration consisting of intensive cropping systems and natural
communities.
“This sustainable ecosystems program could be the first proposal for the John Muir Institute. It would draw faculty from across the campus,
including from economic and policy areas.
‘This new program would need a strong intellectual rationale based on a discussion paper produced by a multidisciplinary task force. The
“sustainable ecosystems” academic program would probably have a core of courses/learning experiences that would include broadly-based concepts
fundamental to modern ecology and societal evaluation. In addition to the core, there could be well-developed specialties including range science,
biological conservation, production ecology (non-irrigated), and natural resources policy analysis.
“With a sustainable ecosystems program, the department and College could effectively serve Californians by providing an objective, technical base
for state law and policy. A program of this nature should attract state support.” (wanna bet?)
UC Field Stations in Wildlands Research
The UC Hopland Field Station (HFS)
>Hutchison, C.B., Dean, College of Agriculture, 101 Giannini Hall, Berkeley CA. May 19, 1951.
Letter to RLUC members (H.H. Biswell, C.N. Johnston, R.M. Love, T.I. Storer, W.C. Weir, and B.A. Madson, Chair. “Upon the recommendation
of Professor Madson, I am appointing the above-named group to work under his Chairmanship as a subcommittee of the Range Land Utilization
Committee to plan the research program for the new Range Management Field Station in Mendocino County, the for which the Regents have
51
recently purchased from Mr. Roy L. Pratt. On the thin, white, “carbon-copy” I have; the one sent to Dr. R.M. Love, under “Very sincerely yours,”
is the actual signature of Dean Hutchison, written in a bold and flourished hand, in green ink!
>UNIVERSITY of CALIFORNIA Agriculture & Natural Resources
Hopland Research and Extension Center Publication 104 June 2003 277 pgs.
Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 96-75126
Additional copies of this publication may be ordered from the address below for $10.00 per copy
(check payable to: Regents, University of California) to defray printing, shipping, and handling.
Publications
Hopland Research & Extension Center 4070 University Road Hopland, California 95449-9717
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
BERKELEY' DAVIS' IRVINE' LOS ANGELES • RIVERSIDE • SAN DIEGO • SAN FRANCISCO
SANTA BARBARA' SANTA CRUZ
RICHARD C.ATKINSON Pr cs lde ru
DIVISION OF AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES Hopland Research and Extension Ce m e r
4070 University Road
Hopland. California 95449-9717 (707) 744-1424
FAX: (707) 744·1040 EMAIL: uchrec@ucdavis.edu
W.R. GOMES
Vice President-Agriculture and Natural Resources
September 19, 2003
Dear Fellow Scientist/Author:
I am pleased, at long last, to provide you with our new publication, Research At Hopland: 1951-2001, An Annotated Bibliography. This compilation
cites and summarizes 1,220 publications by those working at the Hopland Research and Extension Center during its first half-century.
Each of you to whom this letter is sent served an important role by being part of Hopland's tradition of diverse and productive research. Despite the
"form letter" nature of this communication, I sincerely thank you for your contributions to the work that has been done at Hopland. I trust this
volume accurately represents the publications based on your work at Hopland ... and that if we've unintentionally omitted any, you'll let us know!
Our mailing list is incomplete, so if you have contact with other Hopland "alumni" who have not received a copy and would like one, please ask
them to contact us. We hope that this volume will be interesting to you. But beyond that, we desire for it to stimulate further field research that will
build on the knowledge discovered and the many contributions made over the past 50 years.
Sincerely,
Robert M. Timm Center Superintendent
enclosure
RESEARCH AT HOPLAND: 1951 - 2001 AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY
Introduction
The University of California's presence in southeastern Mendocino County dates from the purchase of the Roy L. Pratt Ranch on July 1, 1951. This
land, which became the Hopland Field Station, originally encompassed 4,630 acres of North Coast rangeland, historically the most important sheepraising region in California. A subsequent transfer of additional high-elevation acreage from the Bureau of Land Management to the University in
the 1960s increased the station's size to the present 5,358 acres.
Action that led to the field station's establishment occurred at the September 20, 1950 meeting of the Regents of the University of California. At that
time, they unanimously approved the concept of establishing a field experiment station within the College of Agriculture to investigate problems
pertaining to the conservation and use of the natural resources represented in some 30 million acres of California rangeland. Terms of the initial
purchase were $135,000 for the land, and $65,000 for the buildings including 3 residences and several barns, equipment, supplies, and 1,135 head of
sheep that came with the ranch.
Preliminary study of the need for such a facility was accomplished by a Range Land Utilization Committee in the UC College of Agriculture,
headed by B. A. Madson of the Department of Agronomy, UC Davis. It was on the basis of these defined needs that the Regents took action. The
committee stated,
"Very little work has been done on range management problems, the answers to which are essential to determine how a range must be handled in
order that it may be maintained in a productive and improved condition. These latter types of investigations must be carried on under carefully
controlled conditions and for a long period of time. It is for these studies in particular that a range experiment station is required.
"While the production of feed for livestock has been and often is regarded as the primary purpose of these range areas, they have other uses and
values which must be considered, i.e. production of game and other wildlife, recreation, and watersheds. These multiple uses pose problems that
have received but little attention and on which very inadequate information is available ...
"Many of the important problems will require the coordinated effort of several divisions of the College over a considerable period of time, and such
work can be effectively done only on a permanent site."
The large volume of research accomplished at Hopland, summarized here, is a testimony to the foresight of those who envisioned, located, built, and
developed the facility that is now known as the Hopland Research and Extension Center. Over a half-century, some 1,220 publications, included
here, have been identified as being directly the result of the Hopland facility's existence-- an average of more than 24 publications per year.
The return on the investment of time and money made by the University and its cooperators is increased knowledge, which is only briefly
summarized within this document. Some of the new knowledge received immediate application, not only in North Coastal California, but statewide,
nationwide, and worldwide. Other information obtained has had less immediate application, but no less value in terms of human
52
Understanding of biological, geological, and physical processes. Further, many dozens of undergraduate and graduate students have called this
facility "home" for a portion of their academic careers. In doing so, they have not only contributed to scientific progress, but they have gained
experience, confidence, and wisdom in ways that cannot be readily measured from working with researchers and with Center staff. This publication
cites nearly 50 Masters Theses and Doctoral dissertations that have utilized Hopland's facilities and resources.
A quick review of this bibliography reveals several areas of research that have received emphasis and have been significantly productive over more
than five decades: sheep biology and management; range improvement, particularly emphasizing vegetation management and soil fertility; wildlife
science, with particular attention to Columbian black-tailed deer and to coyotes; and entomology, parasitology, and disease, with emphasis on
species of public health and veterinary significance. For example, approximately 14 tick-borne microbial agents have been detected in or isolated
from wildlife or ticks at Hopland. Of these, 7 are proven or suspected causative agents of human or livestock diseases. These include the microorganisms that cause Lyme disease, tularemia, Rocky Mountain spotted fever, ehrlichiosis, and Q-fever as well as a Colorado tick fever-like virus.
Notably, the first isolate of the Lyme disease spirochete from western North America was obtained from a tick collected at Hopland in 1984. Lyme
disease is now recognized to be the most important arthropod-borne disease in California, the United States, and in other temperate regions of the
world.
The Subject Index, found on pages 249 through 277, offers a glance at the diversity of subjects studied at Hopland. Many of the studies have been
interdisciplinary in nature, resulting from a team effort of scientists and managers with diverse specializations. Watershed studies initiated in 1955,
for example, have had components and cooperators that include studies of geology, hydrology, agronomy, range science, plant ecology, and plant
physiology. A similar mix of disciplines came together to undertake brush management studies at Hopland, also beginning in the mid-1950s. The
information compiled through such studies not only soon provided a basis for revised management recommendations, but it also contributed to basic
knowledge about physical and biological processes.
A research location of this type, to which an institution has made a long-term commitment, offers opportunities for long-term and controlled studies
that are not generally found in the private sector. Professor Norman F. Baker describes the value of Hopland as follows:
" ... during the 1950s and 1960s Hopland was considered one of the foremost stations for evaluation of chemicals as anthelmintics in sheep. From
my point of view the principal reason for this was our unique ability to obtain lambs year after year with similar breeding, parasite exposure, and
parasites of restricted origin giving us a basis for year-to-year comparison. The validity of the continued source of lambs was confirmed by utilizing
a single control batch of phenothiazine year after year and confirming no significant differences in worm species and/or susceptibility to
phenothiazine. This was a contribution of the Hopland Field Station appreciated by pharmaceutical companies as well as persons at the Food and
Drug Administration."
In addition to its values to researchers, this facility has also served as an educational center where growers, technicians, land managers, public
interest representatives, and students have had the opportunity to view the progress of research and to interact with researchers. In addition to many
tours, workshops, and field days, Hopland has attracted a mix of visiting scientists from around the world who have come not only to obtain but also
to share information. It is impossible to quantify the educational benefits realized by these visitors, recently numbering in excess of 1,000 per year.
This bibliography is divided into five major subject areas: Animal Science; Entomology, Parasitology, and Disease; Plant Science and Ecology;
Range Management; and Wildlife. A few miscellaneous publications are grouped into the section "Other Subjects." Many publications are
interdisciplinary in nature and could
logically fit into two or more categories; however, we have placed each citation within only a single subject section, in order to avoid duplication.
The Subject Index can assist the reader in searching for all pertinent publications dealing with a specific topic.
Much of what has been discovered over the past years provides an important database for current and future research. Investigators exploring the
potential for new research at Hopland are often astounded by the available information on hand- a half century of weather data, sheep performance
trends, predation incidence, wildlife inventories, soil analyses, pasture production and improvements, and so on. The University's facility at Hopland
is, in a word, irreplaceable. The directions that research may take in future years are perhaps unpredictable. Yet, it is almost certain that the Hopland
Research and Extension Center will continue to be a highly productive facility for scientists exploring a diversity of subjects.
Alfred H. Murphy Superintendent, 1951 -1986
Robert M. Timm Superintendent, 1987 -
Acknowledgments
This annotated bibliography was made possible by funds provided by the Research and Extension Centers Administrative Office (Fred Perry,
Director); the former North Region, UC Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources (Terry Salmon, Director); and by Robert S. Lane (UC
Berkeley).
The following individuals graciously served as reviewers of the major sections of this publication:
Animal Science - G. Eric Bradford
Entomology, Parasitology, and Disease - John R. Anderson
Plant Science and Ecology and Range Management - Alfred H. Murphy and Charles E. Vaughn Wildlife - Guy E. Connolly
Thanks are also expressed to those authors who reviewed citations of their own publications and accompanying abstracts for accuracy and
completeness:
Theodore E. Adams Jr., John R. Anderson, Norman F. Baker, G. Eric Bradford, James W. Bartolome, William H. Brooks III, Guy E. Connolly,
Harold F. Heady, Walter E. Howard, Walter L. Graves, Milton B. Jones, Robert S. Lane, William M. Longhurst, James H. Meyer, John W. Menke,
Dale R. McCullough, Alfred H. Murphy, Edward O. Price, Vincent V. Resh, Kevin J. Rice, Randall E. Rosiere, Joseph 1. Schall, Jerry H. Scrivner,
Ahmed E. Sidahmed, Donald T. Torell, Charles E. Vaughn, Jan O. Washburn, Clarence J. Weinman, William C. Weir, and William A. Williams.
This bibliography is largely based on an earlier compilation of the Center's publications maintained by Superintendent Al Murphy with the
secretarial assistance of Dale Elkins, Barbara Weiss, and Nancy O'Ferrall. Jane Rohrbough, Amber Shrum, Barbara Butler, and Sue Murphy put
considerable effort into organizing the Center's archives of original publications, as well as assisting in development of the database of publications.
Amber Shrum and Jane Rohrbough further assisted in finalizing this publication by many hours of proofreading, scanning photographs, and
preparing camera-ready pages for the printer. The completion of this project would not have been possible without the able assistance of Jennifer
Terwilliger, a 1999 summer intern who devoted her time and energy to this project.
We regret that we do not know the source of all photographs included herein. Wherever possible, we have credited the photographer whose photos
we have included, and we express our appreciation to all those who have documented research and extension efforts at Hopland through their
photography.
53
To increase the usefulness and accuracy of future revisions of this publication, and to assist us in maintaining our database of research publications,
we encourage readers to inform us of needed corrections or additions.
Editors' Note
In compiling this Annotated Bibliography, we have endeavored to include all known publications resulting from field research conducted at
Hopland, and from educational events held at the Center (workshops and symposia), with publication dates 1951 through 2001. Also included are
certain publications authored or co-authored by faculty or staff who were located at the Hopland Research & Extension Center, even though these
publications may not directly reflect field research conducted at the Center. The rationale for including the latter publications is that these are
products of scholarly effort that resulted from the Center's existence and from the efforts of personnel at this facility.
In the citations and abstracts included here, we have used the original scientific names for species as they were stated by the publications' authors.
Some species names have changed over time, and where possible, we have cross-referenced these changes in taxonomic nomenclature in the Subject
Index.
A searchable database containing the citations in this publication is also maintained on the Center's web site, which can be accessed at
http://danrrec.ocdavis.edu/hopland/homeJ)age.html. We anticipate that new citations will be added to this web based database annually. An
additional source of information on recent work at Hopland is the November/December 2001 issue of California Agriculture (Vol. 55 No.6). This
issue was devoted to reports of research done at this Center, in celebration of the Center's 50 th anniversary
Bob Timm (left) and Al Murphy
Spring 1997
In Memoriam:
Alfred H. Murphy (left) Apr. 14, 1918 - Dec. 22, 2001
Superintendent, Hopland Field Station,
and Specialist in the Agricultural Experiment Station,
Department of Agronomy & Range Science,
UC Davis 1951- 1986
Francis C. Lile
May 25, 1933 -June 1.9,2003
Principal Superintendent of Agriculture,
Hopland Field Station 1961- 1991
The Hopland Field Station: History and Mission
The land
now comprising the Hopland Research and Extension Center (HREC), following
centuries of
use by Native Americans, was owned by a number of pioneer settlers who came to the
Sanel Valley
of North Coastal California in the 19th Century. Roy L. Pratt, an executive of the Del
Monte
Corporation in the Monterey area, subsequently purchased a number of these
landholdings
and the resulting "Pratt Ranch" was used by him and his family for recreation, while
also
functioning as a working sheep ranch. The site was one of several properties in
southern
Mendocino County investigated by a committee of UC academics who in 1950 began
seeking a
site for a research field station in the north coast area. The Pratt Ranch was
subsequently
purchased by the Regents of the University of California, in order to establish the
Hopland
Field Station.
Currently,
the Center is one of 9 such facilities located throughout California's various crop
production and climatic zones. The system of Research and Extension Centers is operated by the Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources, and
as such the Centers are a unit independent from any single UC campus. The three main purposes of the Research and Extension Centers are:
To provide University researchers with the opportunity to conduct research in climatic zones and in commodities best suited to their individual
research discipline or responsibility;
To provide University personnel the opportunity to research solutions for important regional problems; and
To extend the results of research to regional clientele and industries so they may put the new information into day-to-day application.
Because of its location and resources, HREC has historically been most heavily utilized by faculty and students from UC Berkeley and UC Davis, as
well as by Cooperative Extension advisors who are located in Mendocino County and adjacent counties.
Natural Resources
The Center, with more than 5,300 acres, provides rich opportunities for study of natural resources and related agricultural research, especially on
topics pertinent to rangelands of the central and north coast of California. Elevation ranges from 500 feet above sea level, on the floor of the valley
near the Russian River and East Hopland, to slightly over 3,000 feet on the Center's east boundary with the BLM Cow Mountain Recreation Area, at
the border between Mendocino and Lake Counties.
54
Soils: Geologically part of the Franciscan formation, soils are mostly sedimentary material and are quite variable, J with 17 soil series recognized.
A detailed soils map of the Center was completed and published in 1958.
Plant Communities: Four principal vegetation types (grass, woodland-grass, dense woodland, and chaparral) include more than 800 species and
cover 95% of the Center's acreage. The Center maintains a herbarium collection that is one of the most complete repositories of plant materials in
the north coast region. Divided into more than 30 fenced pastures, most of the Center's rangeland is grazed annually by sheep. Approximately 20
acres are managed as grazed irrigated pasture. However, livestock has been excluded from several "biological areas" set aside since the mid-1950s
to serve as controls for evaluation of grazing impacts. These total approximately 460 acres. One parcel. of approximately 7 acres has been fenced to
exclude both livestock and deer since about 1957.
With an unusually diverse array of native oak species, oak woodland management has received considerable attention since the mid-1980s, with
emphasis on sustainable management of valley oak. and blue oak. Protection and restoration of riparian corridors has also received increased focus;
sections of a corridor along Parsons Creek have been fenced to exclude sheep or sheep and deer. The recovery of native vegetation along these
sections in less than a decade of protection is dramatic and has significantly improved habitat for wildlife and for fish.
Wildlife: The Center supports more than 200 species of birds, 40 mammals, 27 reptiles and amphibians and 8 fish, including steelhead trout that
spawn in Parsons Creek, a tributary of the Russian River which has its headwaters on the Center. Historically, the Center's Columbian black-tailed
deer herd has received intensive study, making it one of the best-studied deer populations on the West Coast. Because of their continued impact on
the Center's research sheep and lamb flock, coyotes have been the subject of many studies designed to find new methods to solve this conflict.
Climate
Characterized by hot, dry summers and mild, rainy winters, the Center's Mediterranean climate varies somewhat according to elevation and aspect.
Rainfall normally occurs between October and May, with 75% of the precipitation received from November through February. Annual precipitation
averages 37 inches at 800 ft. elevation and 45 inches at 3,000 ft. Snow is infrequent, usually present at the upper elevations and generally not lasting
more than a few days. Annual mean temperature at 800 ft. elevation is 57°F; mean average temperature July through September is 70°F, while the
mean maximum is 92°F. Mean average temperature December through February is 45°F. The frost-free growing season averages 250 days. The
Center maintains climatic records from five weather stations at differing elevations, with some records extending from 1951.
Agricultural Resources
The Center maintains a research flock of 600 to 1,000 breeding ewes. These sheep, together with their lambs and a small flock of rams, graze the
majority of the Center's rangelands. Lambing generally occurs between November and February, and shearing takes place in April. Many of the
Center's sheep are involved in multiple animal science research projects.
Vegetation conversion and rangeland improvement studies at Hopland over time have resulted in more productive rangelands, some of which have
been seeded with varieties of subterranean clover and are fertilized periodically with sulfur and phosphorus. Chaparral vegetation in some locations
has been removed by crushing, controlled burning, and other techniques to improve habitat both for livestock and for wildlife. Two small vineyards
of wine grapes now occupy approximately 5 acres, providing opportunities for research on new varieties and on vineyard management strategies
appropriate to Mendocino County.
Facilities
The main office-laboratory complex houses a small library, a meeting room, and office space for permanent staff and researchers. The all-purpose
laboratory is equipped for a variety of standard soil, water, and vegetative analytical tasks and is supervised by a Staff Research Associate. A 950square-foot greenhouse and a 72-tank lysimeter complement plant science research. Livestock facilities include three sheep barns with working
corrals.
Warehouses, feed storage structures, and mechanical, welding, and woodshops provide support for Center
operations including animal husbandry and the maintenance, construction, and modification of equipment for research purposes.
Visiting researchers, technicians, and students may stay in a modern 22-bed bunkhouse equipped with cooking and laundry facilities. Additionally, 7
permanent residences are maintained for lease by Center staff.
Sierra Foothill Range Field Station (SFRFS) TBA
PART II. A DECADE OF CHANGE
USFS Pacific Southwest Forest & Range Experiment Station
The U.S. Forest Service San Joaquin Experimental Range (SJER)
>Smallwood, Charles M., Dean, CSU-Fresno. March 20, 1985.
Letter to Dr. William A. Williams, inviting his attendance at a 50th Anniversary Field Day to be held at the SJER.
A quote from the letter: “Last year, CSU-Fresno, and PSW entered into a long-term cooperative agreement whereby the University has assumed
administration and coordination of the Range, which well continue to function as a research and education center for annual-plant rangelands. Dr.
Don A. Duncan, who spent much of his career doing range research at SJER has retired from the Forest Service and has been appointed as Research
and Education Coordinator for the University at the Range.”
>Callaham, Robert Z., Dir. PSW, USDA Forest Service. March 14, 1983.
A letter to Dean Charles E. Hess, CAES re the SJER
First para: “This is a long-delayed response to your letter of November 30 expressing an interest in the University acquiring the SJER. … We want
to assure you that the Forest Service intends to keep the Range for its intended purposes. We. Will not dispose of the Range under the asset
management program that has been in the news recently.”
55
“Dean Charles Smallwood from CSU-Fresno has confirmed that his institution wants to continue on a long-term basis use of the grasslands by their
herd of cattle. It is my understanding that they now, or will in the future, use all of the AUM’s of grazing that are available.”
“… the Range will be available for range research and extension programs by your people. They should continue to contact John Kie about their
interests in using the Range until managerial responsibilities are shifted to the Sierra National Forest.”
Duncan, D. A. 1975.
Publications from the San Joaquin Experimental Range, 1935-1975. In: Comprehensive Network Site Descriiption: San Joaquin Grassland BiomeU.S.I.B.P., Tech. Report No. 296. 153 p.
An annotated bibliography that contains many references in obscure locations that ordinarily do not see “the light of day”
An author list is given, with number of citations for each author. An astounding total of 118 authors, representing from one to 56 citations, provides
an index to individual and institutional productivity. Kenneth A. Wagnon topped the list with 56 citations. Don A. Duncan and W. E. Howard each
had 32 citations. One reference cited is particularly dear to my heart: Bentley, J. R. and R. F. Buttery. 1957. Bumper forage crops. It takes more
than just high rainfall . West. Livestock J. 35(47):152-154. “Review of past precipitation records and herbage production data reveals the prime
importance of timely rainfall distribution (emphasis mine) to insure abundant herbage production.”
Wagnon, K. A. 1968.
Use of different classes of range land by cattle. Bulletin 838. Div. of Agric. Sci. Calif. Calif. Agric. Expt Stn Univ. of Calif.
Class 1. Swale. The swale soil (drainage bottom) is typically a dark gray, sandy loam with a fairly good water-holding capacity, as contrasted to the
shallow, brownish, sandy loams of low water-holding capacity that are found on the slopes. The swales receive a considerable amount of seepage
water; in wet winters some portions remain saturated for several months. Swales consist of heavy, poorly-drained phase, or wet swale, and a lighter,
better-drained phase, or dry swale, that usually borders the wet swale
Classes 2 and 3. Gentle slope. Located just above the swale, the fine sandy loams of gentle slopes represent the transition from transported soil in
the drainages to soil developed in place on the slopes. Gradient is below 10 %.
Classes 4 and 5. Open, rolling slope. These sites, with a gradient of 10 to 25 percent, have an open cover of trees and shrubs and only scattered
rock outcrops. Most of sandy loams are about 24 inches deep.
Classes 6 & 7. Rocky, brushy, rolling slope. The average gradient of these sites is greater than for the open, rolling slope but the range in gradient,
10 to 25 percent, is about the same. In general, the soils are shallower and coarser and more of the surface is covered by rocks, shrubs, and trees.
Such lands comprise more acreage than any other site class within the area of granitic soils.
Classes 8 & 9. Rocky, brushy, steep slope. These sites have a gradient of 25 percent or greater and numerous outcrops or many shrubs and trees.
The steep areas are not common in the lower foothills; they differ considerably from place to place, including some productive soils as well as thin,
sandy soils.
Class 10. Steep, rocky bluffs. These localized areas are small in size and practically unused by cattle.
Figures 5, 6, and 7 are hand-drawn distribution patterns of cows in Pastures I through VI as influenced by location of salt licks.
A map pocket contains two high-quality maps, one of Pastures I to VI, the other of Pasture XIV, showing distributions of the different land classes.
They are topo maps with contour interval of 12 and ½ feet. To top it all off, my copy is inscribed: “Compliments of Kenneth A. Wagnon”. (!)
>Sanderson, H. Reed and Don A. Duncan. 1966.
Publications from the San Joaquin Experimental Range, 1935-1965. Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Berkeley, Calif.
The subject index below provides a unique “snapshot” of the SJER research program bibliography, as seen by its own people:
Wildlife Depredation…..12
Range Management
Miscellaneous …….
Description.of annual type 8
Fertilization………. . 14
Fire…
4
General…………
.12
Grazing Capacity… 12
Legumes…4
Noxious Plant Control 6
Poisonous Plants………………. . 5
Reseeding………..
10
Taxonomy………
4
Techniques………
15
Livestock
Breeding
8
Grazing Habits….
3
Management……… 15
Supplemental feeding. 28
Wildlife
Birds (other than quail) 11
Insect Vectors, Parasites, and
Diseases……… . . 16
Mammals……
… .37
Quail……
……11
Reptiles and
Amphibians…………….12
56
. 6
Bentley, J. R., L. R. Green, and K. A. Wagnon. 1958.
Herbage production and grazing capacity on annual-plant range pastures fertilized with sulfur. J. Range Manage. 11(3):133-140.
“To determine how improvements in the vegetation from sulfur fertilization are reflected in range livestock production, a grazing test was started at
the SJER in 1949. A major objective was to learn how sulfur fertilization fits into year around management of foothill ranges. The experiment was
conducted cooperatively by the California Forest and Range Experiment Station, U. S. Forest Service, and the Department of Animal Husbandry,
University of California.”
From the summary: “…Initial response was stimulation of native clovers. Production of grasses and legumes increased in subsequent years after soil
nitrogen had been built up. Greatest returns were on the better range sites … Stocking of fertilized range could be raised materially above unfertilized
range during the dry-forage and green-forage seasons but not during the winter season. … Most of the greater growth on fertilized range occurred
during the spring months.”
I arrived at UC Davis in July of 1964, to follow M. L. Peterson in crop physiology and irrigated pastures. Soon after, I was also assigned to
range. I should have been told that it was mandatory to first study the publications that had emanated from the SJER. I wasn’t. Decades
later, I began to realize how much agricultural research done in current times is unnecessary.
Hutchison, C. B. and E. J. Kotok. 1942.
The San Joaquin Experimental Range. Bulletin 663. Univ. of Calif. Coll. of Agric. Agric. Exp. Stn, Berkeley, CA
What a revelation. What a “nail in the coffin”. There must have been a lot of disappointed, if not bitter, people, when this all fell apart. The Sierra
Station never approached the levels of organization and productivity achieved by the SJER.
“With the establishment of the San Joaquin Experimental Range by the U. S. Forest Service in 1934, the University of California entered into
cooperation with the Forest Service on several projects.” (p 4, Introduction) … It can thus be seen that on the San Joaquin Experimental Range,
conceived and developed by the California Forest and Range Experiment Station, a comprehensive group consideration and attack on the problems of
the range lands o California have been developed. The University has encouraged the cooperation of its specialists wherever their specialized
knowledge was needed to direct and assist in accumulation of pertinent data. The data presented in the seven sections of the report by a total of
eighteen authors constitute the information obtained by the group attack on the range problems encountered from the beginning of the studies in 1934
up to 1940. …”
Table of Contents:
Introduction.
The experimental area. M.W. Talbot, J.W. Nelson, and R.E. Storie.
The forage crop and its management. M.W. Talbot and H.H. Biswell
Experimental herd management. K.A. Wagnon, H.R. Guilbert, and G.H. Hart
Interrelations of rodents and other wildlife of the range. E.E. Horn and H.S. Fitch.
Studies on Valley Quail. T.I. Storer, F.P. Cronmiller, E.E. Horn and Ben Gladding.
Other studies and experiments in the program of the San Joaquin Experimental Range. M.W. Talbot, H.H.
Biswell, P.B. Rowe, and
A.W. Sampson.
A dandy, and interesting location map for the range on p. 84
Under Contributors and General Acknowledgments (p 143), the following:
“CCC labor and various emergency funds have been of material assistance in the improvement and development of the area, including construction of
fences, buildings, livestock watering places, corrals, and other facilities required for the different experiments.
“Acknowledgment is due the Work Project Administration for the original drawings of figures 5, 6, 7, and 8, made by Pat Haskey, under WPA
Official Project No 65-2-08-369; and for assistance rendered on various phases of the work on interrelationships of rodents and other wildlife of the
range, under WPA Official Project No. 165-2-08-225.”
“Throughout the period the workers have had the advantage of a stockman’s advisory committee composed of producers of wide experience…”.
Mentioned is Neil McDougald, of the Jackass Cattleman’s Association.
A typical San Joaquin Valley landscape view from the USFS San Joaquin
Experimental Range. Photo taken March 1977.
57
The UC Cooperative Program at SJER
>Peterson, M.L. and H.H. Cole, Division of Animal Husbandry, College of Agriculture, UC Davis. April 25, 1956.
Letter to Dr. Merton Love, Agronomy Dept., UC Davis, suggesting “…a tentative program of studies for the San Joaquin Experimental Range, and
submitting an array of 10 examples.
Full text of letter: “This is in reply to your request of April 10 to outline a tentative program of studies for the San Joaquin Experimental Range. We
should like to submit the following, which are examples of problems that might be undertaken or are in progress:
1. Soil fertility problems involving sulfur-nitrogen relationships on foothill granite soil. 2. Inoculation and other problems involved in obtaining
better initial establishment of legumes. 3. Expansion of nursery and field tests with species and strains of grasses, legumes and other forage plants. 4.
Grazing systems for foothill range lands. 5. Damage to range by rodents. 6. Studies relating to brush and tree control and to the impact of brush and
trees on productivity of the range. 7. Nutritive value of individual native species to be introduced at different stages of maturity. 8. Studies on
nutritive deficiencies of range forage. 9. Studies on plants having toxic effects on livestock. 10. Behavior studies of cattle on the range.
“We have made no attempt to indicate what departments might be involved in these various studies. This would of necessity be determined by the
personnel from the various departments that might be available.
“The first four of the studies indicated were proposed by Professor B.A. Madson and Mr. M.W. Talbot in a special report to Dr. Paul Sharp and Mr.
Stephen N. Wyckoff on November 2, 1953.
“After administrative relationships between the California Forest and Range Experiment Station and the University of California have been
established, an integrated program should be outlined.
“Respectfully submitted, M.L. Peterson /a/ H.H. Cole, H.H. Cole
(So Pete declined to sign it?)
A Parting of the Ways at the SJER
Lofgreen, G. P., C. M. McKell, and __?__, USFS. August 31, 1956.
Research Project Proposal: Studies on range improvement by seeding, fertilization, and grazing management. Location: San Joaquin Experimental
Range.
The above is part 1 of 2, the other being Arnold and Sharp, 12-31-1957. (see below)
My contention is that this proposal could very well have been “the straw that broke the camel’s back”, the camel being the cooperative USF-UC range
research program at the SJER.
Lofgreen’s proposal asks for provision of fencing and water in 22 pastures (of equal size), a 3-y preliminary period which would include pasture
calibration and small-plot work, then a 5-y experiment covering 1200 acres. One can almost hear the Forest Service guys saying “Now, wait just a
minute ~ you’re asking for what?”
New pasture calibration, while highly desirable, is also costly, and I never heard it mentioned seriously at the new Sierra Station.
>Myler, James L., Secretary, RLUC, ccs to G.H. Hart, B.A. Madson, T.I Storer, F. J. Veihmeyer, F.W. Briggs, K.A.
Ryerson, P.F. Sharp. December 20, 1957.
Letter to RLUC Committee members D.G. Aldrich, H.H. Biswell, V.I. Cheadle, H.H. Cole, R.M. Hagan, D.E. Jasper, R.M. Love, J.J. McElroy, G.L.
Mehren and H.J. Vaux.
“Director Sharp has asked the Chairman (of the RLUC), R. M. Love, to call the Committee together “for the purpose of discussing the problems
involved in the fact that the San Joaquin Experimental Range is no longer available to us for any measure of research activity.”
“Vice-President Wellman has indicated to the Chairman that he wants to include an item in the budget for acquisition of and experimental range, and
needs the information in February.
>Arnold, Keith, Dir., Calif. Forest & Range Exp. Sta, Forest Service, USDA, and Paul F. Sharp, Dir., Calif. Agr. Exp.
Sta., Univ. of Calif. December 31, 1957.
Research operations at the USDA San Joaquin Experimental Range. In-house 2-page memo
Quite likely part 2 of 2, the other being the Research Project outline of Lofgreen,
McKell, and? (latter unnamed from the US Forest Service.
The heart of the memo, which is the considered response of the USFS and the Director
of the UC Agricultural Experiment Station
“There is need to continue and to expand research centered around cattle in the Sierra
Nevada foothill area. At the same time there is need for intensive grazing management
studies. In response to these needs, research programs have increased to the point
where the San Joaquin Experimental Range is no longer adequate for the large-scale
range research programs of both the University of California and the California Forest
and Range Experiment Station. Separate areas and separate test animals must be
used. (Emphasis mine)”
This, read in conjunction with the research proposal above mentioned, seals the exodus
of the University from the SJER. Lofgreen, et al’s proposal was very ambitious, and
very demanding of SJER resources. It asked for “…fencing and water for 22
pastures … approximately 1200 acres…”, and preliminary and main research periods
totaling eight years. The preliminary test period called for “calibration of the pastures
with livestock’, a costly time and labor allocation, but one quite desirable for such field research.
58
Although pasture calibration was asked for here, it was never done, nor requested, after UC moved to the Sierra Station although Ken Wagnon
defended its value in achieving definitive results from grazing experiment on a large and variable landscape. The time had passed when a decade or
more could be committed to doing a single variable stocking rate grazing study.
Purchase of the Forbes Ranch
At right, a partial copy of the Agricultural Field Station Administration’s (then-current Five Year (1959 – 1964) list of proposed needs in its Capital
Improvement Program. Revision of this outlook occurred annually. The third entry from the bottom of the list indicates that an administrative
commitment had been made to acquire a facility, similar in many respects to the USFS San Joaquin Experimental Range; in order to continue research
programs such as had been active at the SJER. Perhaps a bit of inflation was factored into expressing the need for from 10 to 15 thousand
acres, at a cost of up to $1 million. In any event, land was obtained for far less, and the final 5,700 acres proved to be daunting enough indeed
to develop.
>Peterson, Maurice L., Chairman, Department of Agronomy. January 7, 1958.
Letter to Fred N. Briggs, Dean, College of Agriculture, Davis Campus, in opposition to establishment of a new Range Research Center.
“As a follow through to our discussion this morning, I wish to present what I consider to be rather clear and logical reasons for opposing the
establishment of a Range Research Center. The arguments in favor of a Range Research Center were as follows: 1) A Range Research Center
would ‘highlight’ the University’s program and attract funds more readily. 2) Interdepartmental research can be coordinated more effectively through
the Center than through established departments.
“Arguments that I present in opposition to the Center are as follows: 1) If a Center is more effective in attracting funds, it follows that
departments will subsequently become less effective. This would have the effect of undercutting the departments’ direct influence in range research.
2) If the departments have failed to attract funds, the failure should be corrected rather than circumvented. At what level does this failure occur? The
departments’ programs have been very effective in terms of research findings. 3) A Range Research Center will confuse the general public as to
where the responsibility for range research lies – in the Center or in the departments. 4) The responsibility for research and authority to back it up
with supporting funds and facilities should be inseparable. The Center would diffuse the responsibility and confuse the authority. 5) A Department
Chairman with a staff and budget is in a better position to encourage interdepartmental cooperation than the Head of a Research Center who has only
the powers of persuasion at his disposal. 6) Departmental budgeting procedures, which are already burdensome, would be still further proliferated. I
would dislike seeing any steps taken that would add to the administrative labyrinth through which we now struggle.
Rather, I would like to see administrative procedures simplified and programs of the departments strengthened.
Cc: Mr. Myler, Dr. Love
>Biswell, H.H., Chairman of the Sub-committee of the RLUC Committee appointed to develop a Statement of
Justification for new Experimental Range January 15, 1958.
Herein, Professor Biswell presents his draft of a statement of justification to be submitted to Vice President Wellman.
“The University Range Land Utilization Committee urgently recommends that a new experimental range station be established at the earliest possible
date to facilitate study of the many problems pertaining to the proper conservation and use of the natural resources represented in the 30 million acres
of range lands in California.
“The traditional use of this area has been for livestock grazing. More recently these lands have taken on great importance for water production,
wildlife, wood products, and recreation. The variety of products and uses presents many inter-related problems. Our staggering growth of population
is bringing accelerated pressure upon these rangeland resources. Consequently, more and more different groups of people are showing greater
concern about the development and conservation of this 30 percent of the State’s area.
“The University has only one experimental station where range problems are being studied – the Hopland Field Station. This was purchased and
established about seven years ago and has now become inadequate for the many inter-related studies that need to be made, being limited in size, and
naturally not representing all vegetation and soil types and other conditions.
“For many years the San Joaquin Experimental Range in the foothills of Madera County was used by the University for research on beef cattle,
nutrition of range forage, reproduction, calving and weaning weights, and supplemental feeding. This Experimental Range belongs to the U.S. Forest
Service. The facilities there became unavailable to the University in the past year since the Forest Service plans to utilize essentially the entire
grazing area for intensive management studies involving deferred and rotation grazing which can be done only with cattle used exclusively for that
purpose. The proposed experimental would make possible the continuation of certain necessary studies that were carried out at the San Joaquin
Experimental Range plus the initiation of additional studies made urgent in light of population increase and the other factors mentioned above.
“Specifically, these are some of the problem areas on which research is needed and which cannot be carried on with present University facilities:
(Here followed a blank third of a page with numbers 1 to 6 arranged vertically)
“To study these problems, the new experimental range should meet the following conditions:
(Here followed a blank third of a page with numbers 1 to 6 arranged vertically)
“The land for the above requirements we suspect will cost approximately $1,000,000 depending upon the particular areas available for purchase.
Range land is expensive these days. “We think this project will command widespread interest in California and its importance will increase as the
population grows
(signed)
University Rangeland Utilization Committee
One wonders what it looked like in final form.
During my first year at UC Davis 1964-65 fiscal, I “sat-in” on the last course Prof. Biswell taught on the Davis Campus. For a number of years prior
to that, when the campuses were still on the semester system, three UC Berkeley professors travelled to Davis to also teach there. In like manner,
59
several Davis Professors did the same for the Berkeley Campus. Prof Biswell repeatedly tried to convince the class that a book should be written on
the subject of his course, and that each student should submit to him a chapter for it.
>Vaux, Henry J., Dean, UC Berkeley School of Forestry. January 28, 1958.
Letter to James L. Myler, Secretary, RLUC, with comments on the Biswell subcommittee draft on specifications for a new range field station.
Excerpts: “…reference is made to ‘the continuation of certain necessary studies’. It is hard to see how these studies could be continued in any real
sense in view of the necessity of both moving their site and interrupting them. Hence I would suggest changing this wording to read ‘the resumption
at the earliest possible date of certain necessary studies, etc.’
“…dealing with elevation range (at the new location) seems to me so restrictive that it would hardly be useful. I wonder if it would not be more
effective of all major vegetation types from the lower foothills to the ponderosa pine zone’ “
(These two timidly-advanced suggestions from the Dean of the School of Forestry to one of his own professors probably ran off Harold like the
proverbial water off a rock; but they are indicative of what must have been a universal alarm at Harold’s prose and lack of personal effort.
Notably, it is of interest, however, that the elevational limits of the new Station do indeed match the “lower foothills to the ponderosa pine zone”)
>Love, R. Merton, Chairman, Range Land Utilization Committee. (My copy is undated.)
Subject: Need for Additional Range Field Station.
“The San Joaquin Experimental Range is no longer available to the University. This necessitates inaction or termination of important research
enterprises that have been carried out at that location. We therefore strongly recommend, in order that this research may be reactivated at the earliest
possible date, that a new experimental range be acquired at the earliest possible date. This essential to facilitate study of the many problems pertaining
to the proper conservation, improvement, and use of the natural resources of the range lands of California. Research is necessary to overcome the
mistakes of the past, to help prevent errors in the future, and to help ensure better utilization of the range resource.
“For many years the San Joaquin Experimental Range in the foothills of Madera County was used by the University for research on beef cattle,
nutrition of range forage, reproduction, calving and weaning weights, and supplemental feeding. This Experimental Station belongs to the U.S. Forest
Service. The facilities there became unavailable to the University in the past year since the Forest Service plans to utilize essentially the entire
grazing area for intensive management studies involving deferred and rotation grazing, which can be done only with cattle used exclusively for that
purpose.
“This leaves the University with only one experimental station where range problems are being studied – the Hopland Field Station, purchased in
1951. It is located in the north coastal zone with high rainfall and coastal influences. Conditions that obtain there, and the results of research
conducted there, are not necessarily applicable to the drier inland ranges of the Sierra foothills.
“The traditional use of California’s 30 million acres of range has been for livestock grazing. More recently these lands have taken on great
importance for water production, wildlife, wood products, and recreation. The Variety of products and uses presents many inter-related problems.
Our staggering growth of population is bringing accelerated pressure upon these rangeland resources. Consequently, more and more different groups
of people are showing greater concern about their development and conservation.
“The proposed experimental range would make possible the resumption at the earliest possible date of certain necessary studies that were carried on at
the San Joaquin Experimental Range plus the initiation of additional studies made urgent in light of population increase and the other factors
mentioned above.
“Specifically, the following are some of the problem areas in which research is needed and which cannot be carried on with present University
facilities:
A. Range livestock and wildlife
1. Genetics of beef cattle as affected by environment. 2. Physiology and nutrition of beef cattle as affected by environment and management. 3.
Nutrition of forage as related to livestock and game production. 4. Beef cattle – sheep relationships on range. 5. Livestock – wildlife relationships on
range. 6. Livestock and game diseases and pests. 7. Influences of rodent and insect control on forage and livestock production.
B. Range improvements
1. Establishment and utilization of legumes, browse, and other forages. 2. Plant – soil – fertilizer – animal relationships. 3. Nutritive requirements of
different kinds of range plants, including shrubs and herbaceous species. 4. Removal or control of undesirable range plants such as weeds, brush, and
toxic plants. 5. Control of range rodents and insects. 6. Genetics of range plants as affected by environment and management. 7. Physiology of
range plants as affected by environment and management. 8. Plant diseases and pests.
C. Watershed improvement
1.” Physical properties of soil and water runoff characteristics as influenced by livestock and wildlife relationships. 2. Runoff and erosion as
influenced by plant types. 3. Water use and interception by native and introduced species. 4. Water yields as influenced by vegetation management”
“To study these problems, the new experimental range should meet the following conditions: 1. Location: In the Sierran foothills and as
representative as possible of the grassland ranges, woodland-grass, and brush types. 2. Elevation: From the lower foothills to the Ponderosa pine
zone. 3. Size: Approximately 15,000 acres, distributed in one large operating unit, with outlying smaller areas if necessary to represent other soil,
vegetation, and watershed conditions.”
“The land for the above requirements is estimated to cost approximately $1,000,000, depending on the particular areas available for purchase.
“This experimental range research station will command widespread interest in California, and its importance will increase as the population grows.
Cc: Dean Briggs, Dean Ryerson, Director Myler
<Sharp, Paul F., Director, AES, February 12, 1958.
Sent to: Fred N. Briggs, D.E. Jasper, Reuben Albaugh, Harold H. Cole, Maurice L. Peterson, R. Merton Love and James L. Myler
“The following matter is to be held confidential.
“Dr. Wellman and I had a meeting with Mr. E. Floyd Forbes, who had formerly been contacted by Mr. Albaugh. Mr. Forbes had indicated that it is
his plan to make the University of California the ultimate heir to his ranch near Marysville.
60
“It looks as if satisfactory arrangements might be made for early acquisition of this property on essentially a rental basis. The property comprises
about 5,000 acres of land of which 130 to 140 acres are irrigated, with apparently good water rights, buildings, etc.
“Dr. Wellman and I have made arrangement with Mr. Forbes to visit the ranch on Wednesday, March 12, at which time Mr. Forbes will be there to
show us around and discuss the ranch facilities. I am writing you at this time so that you may hold this date open. I presume that one day will be
sufficient time for the examination. We can arrange to meet wither at Davis or possibly at Marysville. Maybe some of you besides Mr. Albaugh
know the location of the ranch, and we can make up cars with driver guides to reach the ranch at 10 o’clock in the morning.
“Would you please indicate tome if you will be available for this ranch visit.
>Love, R. Merton, Chairman, Range Land Utilization Committee. March 26, 1958.
Subject: Acquisition of the Forbes Ranch for a Sierra Experimental Range Station (Note that there are two letters on this subject. They
carry essentially the same message, and differ only in the greater detail in the 26 Mar letter.)
On Wednesday, March 12, 1958, the following staff members visited the Forbes Ranch, east of Marysville: Messrs. Sharp, F.N. Briggs, D.E. Jasper,
J.L. Myler, M.L. Peterson, H.H. Cole, H.H. Biswell, R.. Albaugh, and R.M. Love.
“The local farm advisor of Yuba County, Lemuel Osborne, Jr. discussed the topography of the area in question from maps in his office before we
went out to the ranch. Mr. Forbes showed us the farm buildings, corrals, etc., and took us over part of the ranch. Unfortunately, our tour was limited
because of inclement weather.
“Mr. Forbes told us the ranch is about 5,000 acres in size, with about 140 acres in irrigated pasture. He obtains 12 miners-inches of water free
annually and purchases 45 inches (9 acre-feet) for $684.00. He thinks the ranch would carry, now, 150 head of cattle year-round, though his practice
is to use it for the six winter months and then go elsewhere to irrigated pasture.
“As I recall, the ranch was subdivided into fields as follows: One of 2,000 acres, one of 1,600 acres, one of 500 acres, one of 160 acres, and three of
40 acres each. There is a possibility of obtaining additional acreage adjacent to the ranch.
“The ranch is quite accessible, and one and one-half hour’s drive from Davis. Mr. Osbourne told us the soil is chiefly Auburn. This is described by
Storie and Weir as supporting a woodland-grass or grass cover in the 16-28 inch rainfall zone. The Forbes Ranch is probably in the upper range of
the precipitation pattern. The parent material is hard igneous rock; the soil is a non-calcic brown stony clay loam, being slightly acid and brownish
red. It varies from 2 to 3 feet in depth and it is considered a good grassland soil.
The ranch has little or no chamise; much of it is heavily wooded (with blue oaks); there is abundant poison oak and some Ceanothus interregimus.
The topography is rolling to steep and the elevation range is 300 to 2,000 feet.
“The Forbes Ranch is quite different from what the RLUC first had in mind. However, those who were present on the 12 th of March agreed that much
valuable research in range land development and animal husbandry could be conducted there. And, I think they were agreed that the Regents should
be asked to go ahead with negotiations to acquire the property.
“ Before and since visiting the ranch I have talked with a number of farm advisors and others about the problem of acquiring an experimental range in
the Sierra foothills. I can only conclude that the chances are rare of obtaining one property with all the vegetation types and elevations we might
desire.”
Cc: J.L. Myler, Dean Briggs, Dean Ryerson, Dean Jasper, Dr. Peterson, Dr. Cole
>Love, R. Merton, Chairman, RLUC. April, 1958.
Subject: Acquisition of the Forbes Ranch for a Sierra Experimental Range Station.
“After visiting the ranch March 12, 1958, the following staff members agreed that it would be suitable for an experimental range field station: R.
Albaugh, F.N. Briggs, H.H. Biswell, H.H. Cole, D.E. Jasper, R.M. Love, J.L. Myler, M.L. Peterson, and P.F. Sharp.
“The ranch is about 5,000 acres in size and is cross-fenced into about eight fields varying in size from 40 to 2,000 acres. There is a possibility of
obtaining additional acreage nearby. It is quite accessible, being about one and one-half hour’s drive from Davis, via Marysville. Elevation varies
from 300 to 2,000 feet; the topography is rolling to steep. Much of the area is heavily wooded with blue oak; there is abundant poison oak and some
deerbrush. For more details see Love’s letter to Sharp (above) dated March26, 1958.
“It is expected that research will not be financed for three years. In the meantime it is suggested that it be run as a cattle ranch by the University.
This will serve as a calibration period and the time will allow the staff to become acquainted with the ranch.
“Examples of research planned by departments at Davis for this facility are…
Agronomy Department: 1. Genetics and physiology of range plants as affected by environment and management. 2. Nutritive requirements of range
plants. 3. Establishment and utilization of legumes and grasses. 4. Plant-soil-fertilize-animal relationships.
Animal Husbandry Department: 1. Genetics, physiology and nutrition of beef cattle as affected by environment and management. 2. Nutrition of
forage as related to livestock and game production.
Botany Department: Removal or control of undesirable range plants such as weeds, brush, and toxic plants.
“Irrigation Department: 1. Water use and interception of precipitation as influenced by plant types. 2. Runoff frequencies, rates and durations as
modified by management of vegetation, livestock, and wildlife. 3. Water yields as influenced by vegetation management and livestock use.
Field Stations: 1. Influences of rodents and insects on forage and livestock production. 2. Control of range rodents. 3. Livestock – wildlife
relationships.
School of Veterinary Science: Livestock and game diseases and pests.
>Sharp, Paul F., Director, Agricultural Experiment Station. September 23, 1958.
Letter to F.N Briggs, R.M. Love, H.H. Cole
“As of now, negotiations have broken down with respect to the Forbes Ranch. The appraisal was so much lower that Mr. Forbes was willing to
accept that from his standpoint the deal was not possible.
“From the standpoint of the University, Dr. Wellman and Mr. Underhill would not be willing to present the proposal th The regents other than on the
basis of the appraised value. Therefore, unless something very unanticipated should develop, it seems that we had better forget about the Forbes
Ranch.
“What is now the problem with respect to the fifty head of cattle that are being held in the anticipation of possibly putting them on the Forbes Ranch?
61
PART III. THE NEW FIELD STATION: ITS CONSTRUCTION AND
OPERATION
Fences, Roads, Structures, Fields, and Research-plot Exclosures
Equipment and its Operators
A Proposal for Irrigated Lands Development and Management
Water: The “Upper Main”, Springs, Streams, and the Yuba River
The Kellogg-McDonald “Proposal for Augmentation”
>Sierra Field Station Annual Reports.
FIRST REPORT 1960 – 1963
“Section 1 – Historical. 1960 – 1963”
“This is the first report on annual operations of this field station and covers the 1960-61, 1961-62 and 1962-63 fiscal years. The area, formerly
known as the Forbes Ranch, was acquired by the University on June 1, 1960. It consisted of two separated areas (see Figure) with the following
acreages:
Koch and Lewis
1,604 acres
Home ranch – Porter
500 acres
Home ranch – Forbes
2,910 acres
Total
5,014 acres
The two parts of the ranch were separated by three parcels of land owned by the following persons: Jones – 80 acres; Marty – 700 acres; and Selby –
2,100 acres. Access to the Koch and Lewis field is by road. However, the County road (Scott-Forbes) terminates on the Selby property where the
road crosses the Browns Valley Ditch. At this point Mr. Selby has a locked gate through which the Browns Valley Irrigation District, the State
Division of Forestry, Pacific Telephone and Pacific Gas and Electric Company have rights of entry. While Mr. Forbes previously also had a right of
entry, Mr. Selby would not allow the University to place a lock on the gate chain. Each time University personnel wished to drive to the Koch and
Lewis field they first had to go to Mr. Selby’s ranch house to secure loan of a key to pass through the gate. Movement of livestock between the two
areas is by trailing across the Marty property.
Most of the west boundary of the Koch-Lewis field is formed by Dry Creek even though two small parcels (in Section 4 and 28) extend to the west
side of the creek. While we do not use the small amounts of land on the west side of the creek we do use the neighbor’s property on the east side of
the creek. While cattle are not supposed to be able to cross Dry Creek, University cattle have done so each year and to date we have lost 4 yearling
steers. Similar situations exist in the Porter and Forbes fields. In the Porter field on corner (in Section 8) is just across Dry Creek. Otherwise this
field is completely fenced In the Forbes field the Yuba River forms the east and south boundaries. To date no cattle have escaped across the river.
Within this field are 4 or 5 small parcels of land that do not belong to the University. None are marked or fenced.
The present buildings, cattle working facilities, fences and University-owned “farmers telephone” line to Smartville are quite old and in poor
condition. The area was first surveyed in 1865 and only a few of the section and quarter-section corners have subsequently been re-marked.
Consequently, the locations of many of these points are unknown at present and there is doubt that all boundary fences are properly located. Due to
the poor condition of these fences there has been some movement of cattle between University and neighboring property.
The ranch was previously operated on a cow and calf basis with the cattle moved off the ranch to leased irrigated pasture from June to October each
year. Mr. Forbes reported that while the ranch carried 600 head of cattle in 1913, loss of forage from subsequent tree and brush encroachment had
reduced the carrying capacity 50%. While the ranch contained several springs and seeps, none had been developed for stock watering purposes. The
Koch and Lewis and most of the Forbes field were free from cross fencing.
About 100 acres of land had been cleared for the production of irrigated pastures by wild flooding. About 75 acres in the Forbes field adjacent to
headquarters, is now in irrigated pasture in need of renovation. Another 25 acres of irrigated pasture in the Porter field had been plowed up and
planted to oats and vetch for hay production prior to University acquisition of the property. The area has not been returned to irrigated pasture of hay
production The University purchases 45 miners inches of water from the Browns Valley Irrigation District annually. In addition, with purchase of the
ranch, the University supposedly acquired water rights to 10-12 inches of water from Porter Creek, which runs through Porter field. (It has been
subsequently learned that this water in Porter Creek is actually drainage water from the Marty and Selby ranches and escape water from the Browns
Valley Ditch.)
With acquisition of the ranch it was turned over to the Department of Animal Husbandry to operate until the area was funded as a Field Station. To
provide operating funds the Department purchased light-weight weaner calves each fall, which were carried on the ranch from 8 to 9 months.
Revenue from their increase weight gain provided needed operating funds. These calves were subsequently used in experiments on the Davis
Campus and at the Imperial Valley Field Station. Ranch operating funds, from the Animal Husbandry Department Feeding Trial Budget, were turned
over to Agricultural Field Stations to administer. In addition, three Department positions formerly at the U.S. Forest Service’s San Joaquin
Experimental Range (SJER) were transferred to the new Station. These positions were Specialist, Herdsman, and Assistant Herdsman. The former
(K. A. Wagnon) became acting superintendent and the latter two (‘Bub” Wright and ? ) resident in old ranch buildings on the Station.
Agricultural Field Stations provided increasing amounts of operating funds each of the three years in addition to a Minor Capital Improvement
Budget of $50,00 available for the 1962-63 and 1963-64 fiscal years.. The University Dean of Agriculture furnished funds for purchases of
equipment and vehicles from the State Educational Agency for Surplus Property. The Soil-Vegetation Survey was made by personnel for the
Departments of Soils and Plant Nutrition and Agronomy. Instruments for a weather station were furnished by the Water Resources Center.
62
The 48 grade Hereford cows remaining from the breeding herds at the SJER and 11 purebred two-year-old Hereford heifers, from the University herd
at Davis, were moved to the Station on June 24, 1960. Management of these breeding females and the weaner calves stocked annually has provided
information on carrying capacity of the area as will as some of the production problems in year-around operation. Lack of stock-water development,
lack of cross fencing and poor boundary fencing of the ranch prevented good control of the animals as well as desired management procedures.
Because of inadequate facilities and personnel, it was not possible to keep as complete and detailed records as desired.
“Section 2 -- Administrative, June 1, 1960 to June 30, 1961”
Administrative
Personnel
e.g.: K. A. Wagnon, Acting Superintendent and Specialist
e.g.: P. A. Wright, Herdsman
e.g.: D. N. Springsteen, Cowboy (temporary)
Station Improvements
1. Capital Improvements:
Replaced some of the old electrical wiring of headquarters buildings
2. Equipment and Facilities Inventory
Additions: 20 Redwood tanks, 500 gal., surplus property; 3 self-feeders
10 ft., cattle; 1 Flood Light trailer with 3KW generator,
surplus property
Organizations using Station facilities for research
Inventory of Livestock (incl. dollar value)
Cattle
Number
Value
Subtotal
Mixed-age breeding cows
43
$200
$8,600
Two-yr-old purebred heifers
10
250
2,500
Yearling heifers
21
150
3,150
Weaner heifers
11
90
990
Weaner steers
22
100
2,200
Total
107
790
$17,440
Feeder Cattle
Yearlings
Extension and Teaching
Research
Projects initiated
Project 1884 The use of herbicides to aid in establishing seeded forage
species. B. L. Kay, Agronomy
Research Advisory Committee
“This committee was organized June 8, 1960 by Dr. Paul Sharp,
Director of the Agricultural Experiment Station, as the Hopland
And Sierra Foothill Range Field Stations Research Committee
Members: R. Albaugh; H. H. Biswell, R. M. Hagan, F. F. Harradine,
H. F. Heady, O.A. Leonard, A. S. Leopold, W. M. Longhurst, C. O.
McCorkle, Jr., J. H. Meyer, W. C. Weir, Chairman. In separate
Column: W. M. Anderson, W. H. Brooks III, W.H. Johnson, Jr.,
W. C. Lusk
Ex officio members: J. L. Myler, A. H. Murphy, Secretary
Location and dates of meetings:
June 21, 1960 at Sierra Foothill Range Field Station
September 20, 1960 at Davis Campus
February 14, 1961
at Davis Campus
June 6, 1961at Hopland Field Station
“Section 3 – Administrative, July 1, 1961 to June 30, 1962”
Administrative
Personnel: New General Assistance: D. W. Labadie, Cultivationist (summer)
Capital Improvements:
a. Installation of a weather station at Campbell Divide
b. Development of Agronomic/Livestock facility in Forbes Field of about 900 acres;
start of tree poisoning phase.
c. Replacement of some old electrical wiring and additional wiring in headquarters
buildings.
d. Soil-vegetation survey – in progress
Equipment and Facilities Inventory – additions:
a. McCulloch 61 chain saw with 24” bar and chain
b. Air compressor, trailer – surplus property
c. Cat D-4 – surplus property
d. Dodge 4x4 – surplus property
e. Ten jet engine containers (for water troughs) – surplus property
f. AC HD 14 – surplus property
g. Oil storage tank, above ground, 1,000 gallon
63
h. Redwood trough – surplus property
i. Reo 6x6 dump truck – surplus property
j. Two self-feeders, cattle, 10 ft.
Irrigation water, 45 miners inches, $825.75
Research: Projects Initiated:
Project 1216
A comparison of the live performance and carcass traits of crossbred
Hereford, Angus, and Shorthorn calves with calves of their respective
Parent breeds. W. C. Rollins (leader), F. D. Carroll and K. A. Wagnon, Animal Husbandry.
Project 1884
The relative adaptability of Harding grass, rose clover, subclover and
Lana vetch on the major soil types and exposures present on the
Station. B. L. Kay, Agronomy.
Project 1691
Grassland aspects of the soil-vegetation survey. W. Robert Powell,
Agronomy
“Section 4 July 1, 1962 to June 30, 1963”
Administrative
Personnel
e.g. , D. N. Springsteen, Maintenance Man
e.g., K. A. Wagnon, Acting Superintendent and Specialist
e.g., P. A. Wright, Herdsman
e.g., D. W. Labadie, Cultivationist (summer)
Capital Improvements:
a. Development of Agronomic-Livestock facility in Forbes field - continuation
of tree poisoning phase
b. Development of new irrigated pasture area in Porter field – about 100 acres –
tree poisoning phase
c. Construction of 2 miles of boundary fence - on west side of Station from
the Yuba River to Scott-Forbes Road
d. Development of Meat Hook and Schubert Springs
e. Soil-Vegetation survey completed
f. 1963-68 Major Capital Outlay Program, Acquisition of Land and
Development – Step I, in progress
g. Replaced uninsulated wire on telephone line with insulated wire
Additions to Equipment and Facilities inventory:
a. Welder; Arc GED trailer – surplus property
b. TD9 – surplus property
c. IHC dump truck – surplus property
d. Cat D-7 – transferred from West Side Field Station
e. Scraper, 8-yd. – transferred from West Side Field Station
f. Tool set, mechanics, 94-piece with chest
g. Chain saw – surplus property
h. Victor Journeyman gas cutting and welding unit
i. Champion portable space heater, 75,000 btu
j. Four jacks, hand screw, 15-ton – surplus property
k. Hoist, chain, 2000 lbs. – surplus property
l. Bean sprayer, skids, 100 gal.
m. Hoist, cable 1,000 lbs. – transferred from Hopland Field Station
n. Two Model 5-AKS Sno-Fog fire extinguishers, 5 lb. CO2
o. One Model 10-AKS Sno-Fog fire extinguisher, 5 lb CO2
p. Two Model WC-400 pressurized water fire extinguishers, 2 ½ gal.
q. Three Model K221-S Knapsack Fireguard fire extinguishers, 5 gal.
r. Heater, branding iron, gas
s. Battery charger
t. Two work benches – surplus property
Organizations using Station facilities for research:
a. Agronomy, UC-Davis
b. Animal Husbandry, UC-Davis
c. Botany, UC-Davis
d. School of Forestry, UC-Berkeley
Irrigation water:
45 miners inches $911.25
Extension and Teaching
Groups, Tours and Extension:
April 5, 1963
University Animal Husbandry 116 – 12 attending
April 24, 1963
USDA, Rockefeller Foundation, and UC-Davis
Personnel – 5 attending
April 28, 1963
Sierra Club – 8 attending
May 3, 1963
USDA and JCD personnel – 4 attending
Research
Projects initiated:
64
Project H-2102
Project 1400
Misc. Project
Misc. Project
Project 1884
Project 1884
Projects current:
A study of management-disease interactions in range beef
cattle reproduction. F. D. Carroll, P. T. Cupps, J. A. Howarth,
R. G. Loy, D. G. McKercher, W. C. Rollins, and K. A. Wagnon
(leader), Animal Husbandry
Reaction of digger pine to Tordon and 2, 4-D when applied to
cuts. O. A. Leonard, Botany
Disposal of woody vegetation and its relation to forage availability.
H. H. Biswell, R.P. Gibbens, UCB School of Forestry, and K. A.
Wagnon, Animal Husbandry
The establishment and growth of browse species on woodland –
grass ranges. H. H. Biswell (leader), R. P. Gibbens and J. Valmis,
School of Forestry, Berkeley
Establishment of harding grass on annual-type range. B. L. Kay,
Agronomy.
Effect of treating blue-oak trees and stumps with 2, 4-D amine on
Subsequent forage responses. B. L. Kay (leader), Agronomy, and
O. A. Leonard, Botany, UC-Davis
1884, 1216, 1691
On April 15, 1963 Dr. Peterson appointed separate committees for the Hopland and Sierra Foothill Range Field Stations.
Extensive reports were given for Projects 1884, 1691, H-2102, 1400, and 1216. Of particular interest is the following,
from Project 1691, “Grassland aspects of the soil-vegetation survey”: “Inventory of herbaceous vegetation. Percent ground
cover of herbaceous plant species was measured from 5 percent in a brushy on 27 one-quarter-acre plats representative of various soils and
vegetation types over the ranch. The inventory was conducted in 1962 from April through June. On the plots were found 22 annual
grasses, 11 perennial grasses, and about 120 forbs. Thirty-eight species occurred on only one of the plots, and another 20 occurred on only
two of the plots, but not necessarily on the same plots. The number of species per plot varied from 17 to 46. The more-common species
were Avena barbata, Briza minor, Bromus madritensis, Bromus mollis, Bromus rigidus, Festuca myuros, other annual Festuca spp.,
Brodiaea laxa, other Brodiaea spp.,Daucus pusilus, Erodium botrys, Erodium cicutarium, Erodium obtusiplicatum, Geranium molle,
Hypochoeris glabra, Linanthus bicolor, Lotus micranthus Medicago hispida, Medicago hispida, var.confinis, Micropus californicus,
Navarretia pubescens, Perideridia gairdneri, Rannunculus occidentalis var.eiseni, Sanicula bipinnatifida, Sherardia arvensis, Torilis
nodosa, annual Trifolium spp., Tunica prolifera. Total herbaceous ground cover varied area to 99percent in open grassland.
Location of these plots is indicated on the soil-vegetation map of the Station and on the ground by
Steel stakes to which have been attached numbers on aluminum tape.”
SECOND ANNUAL REPORT 1963 – 1964
“This report is the final one prior to the funding and complete operation of the station by Agricultural Field Stations.”
I. A. Administrative
A. Personnel
1. Field Station Personnel
c. General Assistance
Graham, H. D., Cultivationist (summer)
Hernandez, N. V., Cultivationist
Holden, D. E., Cultivationist (resigned 5/20/64)
Holden, D. E., Jr. Farm Laborer (summer)
Koch, L. M., Cultivationist
Labadie, D. W., Cultivationist
`
Silva, E. M., Jr. Farm Equipment Operator II
Springsteen, D. N., Maintenance Man
2. Departmental Personnel at Field Station (Animal Husbandry)
Academic:
Wagnon, K.A. , Acting Superintendent and Specialist
Nonacademic:
Wright, P. A., Herdsman
Coffin, E. W., Animal Caretaker (Assistant Herdsman 3/1/64)
General Assistance:
Labadie, D. W., Cultivationist (summer)
Bishop, W., Cultivationist (summer)
B. Station Improvements
1. Capital Improvements
a. Development of Agronomic-Livestock facility in Forbes field – completion of tree-poisoning phase.
b. Development of new irrigated pasture area in Porter field – about 100 acres completion of tree poisoning phase.
c. Development of new irrigated pasture area in Campbell area of Forbes field initial survey of area completed and tree poison phase initiated.
d. Boundary fence construction – 2 miles, which completes fencing of west and
north sides of the Porter field. Initiation of ½ mile fencing on north side of Koch and
Lewis fields.
65
e. Road construction – completion of about 1.7 miles of road in the Porter Field. Initiation of 1 mile road
construction from county road to Schubert’s Divide in Forbes Field.
f. Development of Lewis No. 1, Koch No. 1, and Beckworth springs.
g. Brush nursery development – site selected and development of area initiated.
h. Temporary construction – shop facilities at headquarters, division fencing of
Koch and Lewis field and small stock-holding field and corral facilities adjacent
Meathook Spring.
2. Equipment and Facilities Inventory, additions:
a. Cat D-7 safety canopy
b. Ripper, tractor, heavy duty
c. Oil storage tank with stand, 1,000 gal.
d. Mountain jack, pickup
e. Tool set, heavy equipment
f. Nicopress wire-splicing tool
g.. Dodge 4x4 truck, surplus property
h. Solo Port 60 backpack portable sprayer, complete
i. International T-9 with winch, surplus property
j. Auger, earth, PTO-drive, 3 augers, surplus property
k. Scale, Health-O-Meter, 300-lb.
C. Organizations using Station facilities for research:
Agronomy , Davis
Animal Husbandry, Davis
Botany, Davis
School of Forestry, Berkeley
Zoology, Davis
D. Inventory of Livestock (Animal Husbandry)
II. Extension and Teaching
November 11, 1963: Yuba-Sutter 4H Club – 85 attending
April 10, 1964: University Animal Husbandry 116 class – 29 attending
May 27, 1964: Farm Advisor Traveling Conference – 12 attending
III. Research
A. Projects initiated:
Project 1555: Relationship of wildlife to agriculture. W.M. Longhurst, Zoology
B. Projects current: 1884-1, 1884-2, 1884-3; 1216 (Rev. 1963); 1400; 1691; H-2102;
Misc. Project Disposal of woody vegetation…; Misc. Project Establishment and
Growth of browse species…
C. Research Advisory Committee
R. Albaugh
W. M. Longhurst
``
H. H. Biswell
R. M. Love, Chairman
F. D. Carroll
B. McGowan, Jr.
R. M. Hagan
F. F. Harradine
Dr. Peterson made the following new appointments;
October 24, 1963, J. B. Enright temporary replacement of B. McGowan
while on sabbatical leave.
November 3, 1963, G.P. Lofgreen to replace F. D. Carroll.
`
February 18, 1964, R. M. Hagan acting chairman while R. M. Love
away on sabbatical leave.
D. Project Reports:
THIRD ANNUAL REPORT 1964 – 65
“This report is the first with funding and complete operation of the Station by Agricultural Field Stations.”
I.. Administrative
A. Personnel
1. Field Station Personnel
a.
Guild, J. P., Superintendent and Associate Specialist
b. Nonacademic:
Springsteen, D. N., Senior Superintendent of Cultivations
Wright, P. A., Herdsman
Coffin, E. W. , Assistant Herdsman (resigned 1/31/65 to return to college)
Estep, P. L., Assistant Herdsman (employed 2/15/65)
Silva, E. M., Jr., Farm Equipment Operator III
Koch, L. M., Cultivationist
c. General Assistance:
Bishop, W. A., Cultivationist
Hernandez, N. V., Cultivationist
66
Labadie, D. W., Cultivationist
B. Station Improvements:
1. Capital Improvements
a. Development of primary and secondary fire breaks for the Agronomic-Livestock
facility in Forbes Field – about 2.6 lineal miles. Step 1.
b. Continued development of new irrigated pasture area in Campbell Divide Draw –
about 95 acres – completion of tree poisoning phase. Step 1.
c. Drift fence construction along Dry Creek – about 1 mile.
d. Boundary fence – completion of ¼ mile fencing on extreme north boundary.
e. Development of tree poisoning phase of about 300 acres in the east Porter range area.
f. Road construction – completion of Road #2, which starts at Schubert’s Divide through to River Road and enters County
Road at Campbell’s Divide – 1.25 miles. Initiation of Road #3, which starts at Schubert’s Divide and around Buzzards Peak and then
enters the County near the entrance to the Scott area about 2.1 miles. Step1.
g. Development of five springs: Central and Pole Line Springs near the Yuba River, Upper and Lower River Road springs and
Campbell Divide Spring. Step1.
h. Completion of brush nursery site at Campbell’s Divide – “control burn” – about 15acres. Completed a deer- and cattle-proof
fence around this area.
i. Temporary construction of office shelter and restroom facilities near repair shop at Headquarters. Relocated old harness
shed near repair shop for grease and oil storage.
j. Construction of deer- and cattle-proof-fence to provide site for “Tea Project” – about 1 acre located nearentry to Station
property.
k. Pasture renovation and drainage system of irrigated pasture in Headquarters area.
Reshaped River Road.
Constructed 2-pen shed for holding and treatment of cattle.
2. Equipment and Facilities Inventory:
a. Additions:
WD-14 safety canopy
Refrigerator and freezer
Air conditioner
Bookcase
Cabinet; file and cabinet, storage
Desk and chair
Typewriter and table
Camera, 35mm
Camera, still, Speed Graphic, surplus property
Drill Press/fir – 17 inch
Forge, blacksmith, coal – surplus property
Grinder bench – E1/10 in.
Harrow, offset, tractor- mounted, Towner
Load, scoop, tractor mounted
Mower, 7’, tractor mounted, Ford
Plate Screw st/PRC
Plate Screw st/Little Giant
Saw, circular, electric, hand , portable
Tank, storage, metal, open 42,000 gal. – surplus property
Tank, storage, cold water 2300 gal. – surplus property
Tractor, 4-wheel, Ford
Truck, cargo, 21/1-ton, Reo surplus property
Trailer, utility, 2-wheel
surplus property
Trailer, office
Water heater, electric D. Organizations using Station facilities for research:
Agronomy , Davis
Animal Husbandry, Davis
Botany, Davis
School of Forestry, Berkeley
Zoology, Davis
II. Extension and Teaching
Groups, Tours and Extensions:
Boy Scout Troop 17,
Yuba City 35
Yuba County 4-H Livestock Club 72
Chico State College: Range Management Class45
Open House, Area Ranchers55
Yuba College: Agr. Class40
U.C. Extn. Leaders & Advisors 9
U.C. Forage Crops, W. A. Williams12
III. Research
A. Projects initiated:
H-1194 Plant Introduction Trial Nursery, Beecher Crampton, Agronomy
2176Evaluation of the Adaptation and Production of Tea in California,
Karl Ingebretsen, Cooperative Extension, Agronomy
67
B. Projects current
1216 (rev. ’63); 1400; 1555; 1666; 1884-1; 1884-2; 1884-3; 1884-4;
H-2101; Misc. Project, Disposal of Woody vegetation…
C. Research Advisory Committee Members:
R. M. Love, Chairman.
F.D. Carroll
Reuben Albaugh
Lemuel Osbourne, Jr.
H. H. Biswell
W. M. Longhurst
J. B. Enright
V. H. Scott
F. F. Harradine
Ex Officio Members;
J. L. Myler
J. P. Guild, Secretary
Location and Dates of Meetings:
January 14, 1965 at Davis, April 7, 1965 at Field Station
October 7, 1965 at Davis
FOURTH ANNUAL REPORT 1965 – ‘66
Station Capital Improvements:
a. Boundary fence construction – Completion of ¼-mile in extreme northwest corner of Scott area. Fence No. 8, Development Step 1
b. Completion of lane fencing between west Scott and east Porter to provide cattle passage from Headquarters to Koch and Lewis. 1.1-miles long,
Fence No. 9.
c. Completion of Scott saddle cross fence to separate irrigated field from dry range. 0.8-mile long, Fence No. 10
d. Construction of test fence in cooperation with U. S. Steel Corporation. Standard woven and barbed wire along with a new processed wire referred
to as ”cor-ten” was installed. This fence
will became a part of a lane connecting the cattle-handling facilities and the Scott-Porter lane referred to
in item b. above. This fence, No. 12, is 0.5-mile long.
e. Initial construction of a boundary fence on the south side of the county road adjacent to the new Headquarters. Fence No. 13 is 0.25-mile long.
f. Development of the Scott Headquarters spring for domestic use. Located near the new Station Headquarters. Step 1.
g. Enlarging the Headquarters Spring located southeast of the Headquarters. This spring has registered an average flow of 20 gallons per minute and
will be used for domestic water. The Headquarters Spring and the Scott Spring will be connected into a common system. Step 1.
h. Road construction: completion of Road No. 3, which starts at Schubert Divide, thence around Buzzard Peak, and then enters the county road near
Headquarters. Road No. 3 is 3.1 miles in length. The last 1.0 mile completed this year. Step 1.
i. Development of the Headquarters road network connecting the dwellings with the shop area and a second road with the shop and cattle area. This
road is 0.5 mile in length.
j. Initial construction begun of Road No. 4, which starts at Headquarters and thence west to Scott-Porter land and then north to the Scott saddle.
Completed 1.5 miles. When completed, this road will connect the southern area (Forbes and Scott) with the northern part of the Station (Koch
and Lewis. Step 1.
k. Completion of Road No. 5, which connects Road No. 4 and Road No. 1, entering Road No. 1 at the mid-south point. Length, 0.3 mile. Step 1.
l. Continuation of the tree-poisoning phase in the Porter Field, consisting of 70 acres.
m. Completion of stumping and treating 10 acres east of the Garadella. This will provide a fire break with private property east of Headquarters.
Step 1.
n. Mechanical clearing of a 10-acre plot in north Porter Field.. The trees in this area were poisoned in 1963 and mechanically cleared in 1966 due to
the urgency of preparing an area for plot work. The plot was fenced to control grazing. Step 1.
o. Development of a stock spring with tank and trough and located on Road No. 2. This is Spring No. 18. Step 1.
Additions to Equipment and Facilities Inventory:
Malsbary Steam Cleaner
Air compressor, trailer-mounted
Road ditcher, tractor-mounted
Willys Jeep
Willys Jeep
Flow meter, direct reading
Rake, side-delivery, towed
Wood saw, chain, gas engine
Work table, wood, steel legs
Storage fuel tank, metal
Tractor, TD-18-A
Trailer, office
Utility trailer, 4-wheel
Wrenches, Impactool set
Research:
Projects initiated:
68
H-2411 Use of animal, forage, and water resources necessary to maximize beef cattle production in foothill dryland range areas of
California. Charles A. Raguse, leader; John L. Hull and J. H. Meyer, Animal Science; William. E. Hart and Delbert Henderson, Water Science &
Engineering, Davis
Condensation of Transpiration Water from Woody Vegetation. E. L. Begg, P. R. Stout, and W. R. Allardice, Soils & Plant Nutrition, Davis
Seasonal Variation and Rate of Weathering Study. F. F. Harradine, E. L. Begg, P. R. Stout, and W. R. Allardice, Soils & Plant Nutrition, Davis.
Projects continuing: 2176; H-1194; 1216; 1400; 1555; 1666; 1884-1; 1884-2; 1884-3; 1884-5 Legume Inoculation;
H2102; Misc. Proj.:
Disposal of Woody Vegetation…
FIFTH ANNUAL REPORT 1966 – 67
Personnel:
Academic:
Guild, J. P., Station Superintendent and Associate Specialist
Nonacademic:
Estep, P. L.
Assistant Herdsman
Koch, L. M.
Cultivationist
Labadie, D. W.
Cultivationist
Leech, H. Jr.
Cultivationist
Silva, E. M., Jr.
Farm Equipment Operator
Springsteen, D. N.
Senior Supt. of Cultivations
Wright, P. A.
Herdsman
General Assistance
Bishop, W. A.
Cultivationist
Resigned 9/30/66
Coffin, E. W.
Cultivationist
Part-time
Hernandez, N. V.
Cultivationist
Resigned 8/31/66
Meadlin, J.
Cultivationist
Welch
Cultivationist
Casual Labor
Clark, Tim
July – August
Capital Improvements: Completion of major structures by a general contractor
a. Office and shop, 5, 160 sq. ft. with office and laboratory 1,280 sq. ft.; repair shop 1,280 sq. ftand machinery storage 2,560 (prefab
structure).
b. Cattle barn, pole structure, 7,200 sq. ft.
c. Horse barn, pole structure, 2,115 sq. ft.
d. Feed warehouse and herdsman’s office, 1,920 sq. ft. (prefab metal structure)
e. Four dwellings, wood frame, each approximately 1,230 sq. ft.
f. Utilities, including electrical, water and telephone.
g. Completion of a full span-reinforced concrete bridge across Porter Creek at the main entrance
to the Station
Headquarters.
Capital Improvements: Completion of development work by the Station crew
a. Site preparation for all structures constructed by a general contractor as well as for cattle facilities.
b. Install drain tile to provide drainage from roof of main cattle barn and cattle working shed as well as drainage all cattle water troughs.
c. Construction of a combination bull shelter and feeder.
d. Install stalls in horse barn.
e. Construction of a dog run adjoining the horse barn to house stock dogs.
f. Develop the Headquarters Spring, including 1,200 ft. of 3-inch pipe to connect with two 42,00-gallon water storage tanks. This will
provide domestic water for the new Station Headquarters.
g. Finished development of Scott Spring and assembly of a 1,200-gallon storage tank. This source of domestic water is tied directly into
the Headquarters water main.
h. Installation of drainage system in the vicinity of the main shop, feed warehouse and horse barn.
i. Trenched for burial of telephone lines to dwellings, feed warehouse, and main office.
j. Reinforced the upper Porter bridge.
k. Develop yards for the four dwellings.
l. Installed fire alarm system providing sirens for the dwelling area, shop area, and cattle area.
m. Installed fire hose boxes at each fire hydrant.
n. Conducted a control burn of approximately 300 acres in the vicinity of Road No. 2.
o. Continued construction of Road No. 4, starting this year at the Scott saddle and heading east and then north to the
Meathook Spring in the north end of the Lewis field. This section is 10,750 feet in length.
p. Fenced a 7-acre plot in the south end of Porter field for the Raguse and Hart Project. Five-wire barbed fencing. Designated as Plot No.
12.
q. Fenced a 2-acre plot west of the new cattle facilities for the Kay Project. Netting fence with outriggers. Designated as Plot No. 13.
r. Fenced a 2-acre plot east of dwellings and near the County Road for the Jones, Martin, and Kay Project. Designated as Plot No 14.
s. Fenced a 40-acre plot located east of Road No. 2. This plot was a portion of the area cleared by burning this year Designated as
Plot No. 15.
Plot fencing design is 5 barbed wires and the fence is designated as No. 17 and is 6,000 feet in
length.
t. Completed Scott cross fence. Designated as Fence No. 11, it is of 4-barbed-wire design and extends from Fence No. 10 to the SelbyUC boundary fence. Length is 3.500 feet.
69
u. Completed County Road Fence No. 14, which is 5-barbed-wire and begins at the junction of Road No. 3 and extends on the south side
of the County Road until it intersects with the west Selby fence. Length is 5,00 feet.
v. Completed Fence No. 15 in the new Headquarters area. Woven wire and 3,180 feet in length.
w. Completed Fence No. 16, which is of woven wire and is a permanent boundary fence extending from the lower Koch area south along
the west Selby line for 1,300 feet.
x. Completed Fence No. 18, of woven wire, which extends east on the north side of the County
Road from the Martin-Jones plot to the cattle guard. Length is 1,500 feet.
Equipment and Facilities Acquired:
Arc welder, AC, 250 amps
Bookcase, metal, for office
Jeep, Willys, U.C. #3085
Brush rake, tractor mounted
Saw, metal-cutting, hand
Saw, circle, radial
Threading machine, pipe
Tank truck, 1,000-gallon for water
Tractor, TD-18A
Feed mixer, one-ton capacity
Feed mixer, 1,000-lb capacity, wagon
Tractor, Trkyng. (sic), IHC, 45 hp
Lube system, central, 2D/man
Truck, weapons (sic), 52 Dodge
Truck, fork, power, 4,000 lb.
Gear puller set, auto engine
Jack, hydraulic, 4 ton
Refrigerator-freezer, 12 cu. Ft.
Typewriter, B1-17
Vacuum cleaner, HP/Portable.-Coml. (sic)
Valve grinder
Adding machine
Calculator
Scrubber, Fir., El. 181N (sic)
Cabinet, Plan Hanger., Vert., Metal
Desk, metal, dbl. ped. (2 obtained)
Bookcase, metal, office
Research Projects, Initiated:
1884-6
Range Fertilization, B. L. Kay, Agronomy. Cooperative with Dr. Milton B. Jones, Agronomy, Hopland Field
Station; and Dr. W. E. Martin, Soils Extension, Davis
1884-7 Forage curing, B. L. Kay, Agronomy; Cooperative with Don Torell, Animal Science, Hopland Field Station.
1884-8 Hardinggrass management study. B. L. Kay, Agronomy. Cooperative with Dr. Milton Jones, Agronomy, Hopland Field
Station.
1884-9 Hardinggrass row spacing study. B. L. Kay, Agronomy
1884-10 Perennial grass variety testing. B. L. Kay, Agronomy. Cooperative with Jim
Street, Agronomy Extension,
Davis
Research Projects, Current:
H-1197, 1216,1400, 1555, 1666, 1887-1, 1884-2, 1884-3, 1884-5,H-2102, Misc. Proj “Seasonal
“Condensation …”, 2176, H-2411,
SIXTH ANNUAL REPORT
1967 – 68
Field Station Personnel:
Academic:
Guild, J. P., Station Superintendent and Associate Specialist
Nonacademic:
Estep, P. L., Assistant Herdsman
Koch, L. M., Cultivationist
Labadie, D. W., Cultivationist
Leech, H., Jr., Cultivationist
Patterson, L. M., Typist Clerk
Silva, Jr., E. W., Farm Equipment Operator
Springsteen, D. N., Senior Superintendent of Cultivation
Wright, P. A., Herdsman
General Assistance:
Barney, E. J., Cultivationist
Cordova, R. L., Farm Laborer
70
Variation…”, Misc. Proj.
Hill, R. H., Cultivationist
McCullough, M. N., Cultivationist
Meadlin, J., Cultivationist
Welch, J. R., Cultivationist
Wright, M. I., Cultivationist
Yorton, D. M., Farm Laborer
(Resigned 2-8-68)
Summer Temporary:
Bradley, C. W., Farm Laborer
Brown, A. G.. Farm Laborer
Cagle, H. P., Farm Laborer
Cagle, R. L., Farm Laborer
Fults, R. R., Farm Laborer
Grisham, J. M., Farm Laborer
Massey, A. R., Farm Laborer
Rushton, K. W., Farm Laborer
Vaner Werff, G. M., Farm Laborer
Casual Labor: Control Burn
Bennette, S.
Childers, C.
Collins, D.
Countryman, M.
Fechner, C.
Frazee, L.
Frazee, L. (sic)
Fager, M.
Ghidotti, J.
Hill, S.
Johnson, R.
Lazier, J.
Pysher, G.
Koertgen, M.
Speck, P.
Van Meter, D.
Station Capital Improvements:
a. Construction of cattle lane fence west of cattle pens, connecting County Road to the south and
the lane to the north. Netting. 2,500 feet.
b. Construction of five-barbed wire fence in south S-12, connecting Gardella to Selby property
line. 1,625 feet.
c. Construction of fence on north side of Headquarters Corporation Yard. Netting. 1,000 feet.
d. Construction of fence along N.E. line of Sec. 34 in Koch. Netting. 2,810 feet.
e. Construction of fence in P-1 below Browns Valley Irrigation Ditch. Netting. 2,200 feet.
f. Construction of fence either side of road connecting County Road and the Englebright construction area. Five-barbed-wire. 15, 625 feet.
g. Construction of fence on common boundary with Selby, commencing at the Weather Station and proceeding west and then north to the Lewis line.
Netting 10,560 feet.
h. Construction of netting fence on north portion of S-14. 250 feet.
i. Construction of netting fence in H-ll. 2,750 feet.
j. Constructions of exits from the Reservoir Road, Cattle Lane Road, roads No. 1 and 3.
k. Burn brush piles in P-1.
l. Completion of main cattle-handling facilities and construction of a small handling facility in P-2 above the Browns Valley Irrigation Ditch,
consisting of chute-lane and six holding pens covering 3,600 sq. ft.
m. Construction of fire trails and lane in preparation for control burning of the Campbell Field and 900 acres in the Forbes Field (“Forbes Hill”).
n. On June 17, 1968, conducted a control burn of approximately 600 acres in the Campbell Field.
Miscellaneous Station Improvements:
a. Construction of a powder magazine and a cap magazine.
b. Installation of two climate-recording units in P-1 and P-2.
c. Cleared, piled and burned P-1.
Extension and Teaching:
Groups and Tours:
Open House – September 29, 1967
American Society of Range Management,
California Section, November 17, 1967
4-H Field Day, January 20, 1968
Number of Visitors:
In-state
Out-of-state
Foreign
95 attending
58 attending
64 attending
250
11
20
Research Advisory Committee Members:
R. M. Love, Chairman
J. A. Howarth
71
Reuben Albaugh
H. H. Biswell
F. F. Harradine
J. E. Herr
Ex officio Members:
J. L. Myler
Location and dates of meetings:
Davis Campus
Davis Campus
Sierra Station
W. M. Longhurst
C. A. Raguse
V. H. Scott
W. C. Weir
J. P. Guild, Secretary
January 25, 1968
April 4, 1968 (Space Sub-Cte)
May 10, 1968
Organizations using Station facilities for research:
Agronomy & Range Science, Davis
Agronomy & Range Science, Hopland Field Station
Animal Science, Davis
Soils & Plant Nutrition, Davis
Parasitology, Davis
Water Science & Engineering, Davis
Zoology, Hopland Field Station
School of Forestry, UC Berkeley
Research Projects Initiated:
1805
Introduction, adaptation and multiplication of domestic and foreign plants useful of
range, wildland and recreational
areas. Beecher Crampton, Leader. (This Project was formerly
part of Project H-1194, Cytogenetics of range species and their improvement by
selection and
breeding, R. M. Love and B. Crampton.)
Research Projects Current:
1884, Nos. 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11; 1216; H-2101 (rev. ’68); 1555; Misc. Proj. “Seasonal”; Misc. Proj. “Condensation”; 2176 H-2411;
SEVENTH ANNUAL REPORT
1968 – 69
Field Station Personnel:
Academic:
Guild, J. P., Station Superintendent and Associate Specialist
Nonacademic:
Coffin, E. C., Assistant Herdsman
Estep, P. L.., Assistant Herdsman
Koch, L. M., Cultivationist
Labadie, D. W., Cultivationist
Leech, H., Jr., Farm Maintenance Man
Patterson, L. M., Typist Clerk
Silva, E. M., Jr., Farm Equipment Operator
Springsteen, D. N., Senior Superintendent of Cultivation
Wright, P. A., Herdsman
(Resigned 7-5-68)
(Resigned 5-16-69)
General Assistance:
Barney, E. J., Cultivationist
Clark, T. A., Cultivationist
Cordova, R. L., Farm Laborer
Hill, R. H., Cultivationist
Meadlin, J., Cultivationist
Wright, M. E., Cultivationist
Yorton, D. M., Farm Laborer
(Resigned 2-26-69)
(Resigned 2-19-69)
Summer Temporary:
Gale, S. P., Farm Laborer
Timm, H. G., Farm Laborer
Casual Labor: Control Burn
Koertgen, Michael
Speck, Paul
Van Meter, Dennis
STATION IMPROVEMENTS:
Equipment and Facilities Acquired:
Platform truck
Press, 25 ton, Duke
72
Valve Shop
Air jack, 3,000 lb.
Air compressor
Safety stands (4)
Hydraulic hoist, Black Hawk
Flatbed truck, 1 ½-ton, Chevrolet
Willys Jeep, 1953 model, ¼-ton
Pickup truck, 1961 model, 1-ton, International
Capital Improvements:
a. Construction of fence on both sides of Scott Forbes Road at entrance into Station. Netting. 1.52 miles.
b. Construction of fence to separate P-1 dry range from H-11 irrigated pasture. Netting. 0.50 mile.
c. Construction of fence between the Koch and Lewis, changing from 3-barbed-wire to netting. Needed because of a cow-calf experiment in Lewis.
1.42 miles.
d. Construction of fence or common boundary with Selby from Lewis line, east and north to Richards line in Koch. Netting. 2.41 miles.
e. Construction of fence or common boundary with Collins in southwest corner of Section #4. Netting. 1.84 miles.
f. Construction of fence or common boundary between the Station and Kraft, from Collins line north to Dry Creek. Netting. 0.33 mile.
g. Construction of fence dividing P-2 into four fields. Needed for a cattle feeding experiment by Hull and Raguse. 4-barbed-wire, 0.80 mile; netting,
0.62 mile.
i. Construction of fence or common boundary with Selby from Weather Station eastward. Netting. 0.33 mile.
j. Construction of fence for Project 2102, north and east of Howarth, to become Field H-9. Netting. 1.66 miles.
k. Construction of fence to divide the 2,500-acre Forbes field into two areas for livestock research, to become Fields F-1 and F-2. Netting. 2.27
miles.
L. Construction of fence in Scott for livestock Project 2102, to become Fields S-12, S-13, and S-14. 5-barbed-wire. 1.85 miles.
m. Continuing construction of common access, all-weather road #4 from Meathook Spring to north end of Station. 2.20 miles.
n. Conducted a control burn of approximately 650 acres on July 24, 1968 in F-1. This area will be used for long-term livestock and plant
experiments.
o. Changing an existing irrigation system on approximately 40 acres (“Lower Haworth?). Involves reseeding and new methods of controlling water
application on a time schedule.
Miscellaneous Improvements:
a. Set up museum and herbarium cases to display animal and plant life found on the Station. (see )
b. Spray oak sprouts and poison oak in Field F-1.
c. Burn brush piles in P-1 in preparation for a control burn in 1970.
EXTENSION AND TEACHING:
Groups and Tours:
School of Public Health, UC-Berkeley
California Cattlemen’ Field Tour
4-H Club from Casper, Wyoming
Humboldt State College group
Moki Kani (sic) Campfire Girls
Advanced Medical Entomology Class, UCD
Cheryl Stevens, Psychology Department, UCD
Gary L. Stevens, Zoology Department, UCD
Marysville High School FFA Chapter
UCD Department of Zoology Group
UCD Dept. of Epidemiology and Preventative Medicine
UC Medical School, San Jose
July 68
August 26, 68
July 68
March 21, 69
March 25, 69
May 17, 69
May 18,69
May 18, 69
May 22, 69
May 23-25, 69
June 69
July 69
2
107
12
15
16
6
1
1
53
51
9
_2___
275
Visitors in addition to above:
In state
Out of state
Foreign
13
10
3
RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Members: . M. Love, Chairman
Reuben Albaugh
H. H. Biswell
F. F. Harradine
J. E. Herr
J. A. Howarth
W. M. Longhurst
C. A. Raguse
V. H. Scott
R. D. Teague
W. C. Weir, ,Ex officio:
J. L. Myler, J. P. Guild, Secretary
73
Location and dates of meetings:
Sierra Station
Sierra Station
Sierra Station
August 26, 1968
November 18, 1968
May 29,1969
(Advisory)
(Space)
(Advisory)
Organizations using Station facilities:
UC-Davis:
Agronomy & Range Science,
Animal Science,
Soils & Plant Nutrition,
Parasitology,
Water Science & Engineering,
Zoology
Hopland Field Station:
ZoologyBerkeley:
School of Forestry
Current Projects:
Numbers 1811, H-1216, H-2102, 1555, Misc. Projects “Condensation…” and “Seasonal variation…”, 1824,1805, 3605, 16770, and 1830
SIERRA FOOTHILL STATION VERTEBRATE MUSEUM AND HERBARIUM
The Museum was initiated in November, 1968 so that specimens of birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, fish and embryophytic plants occurring of
the Field Station will be available for study purposes and species and account lists of these animals and plants can be made.
The number of specimens of these taxa that are presently housed in the Field Station vertebrate museum and herbarium are: birds: 27 families, 51
genera, and 59 species; mammals: 16 families, 26 genera, and 29 species; reptiles and amphibians: 7 families,9 genera, and 14 species; fish: 5
families, 9 genera, and 9 species; plants: 65 families with approximately 300 species.
Study skins of birds and mammals are housed in museum cases donated and loaned to this museum by the Museum of Vertebrate Zoology at
Berkeley and Davis. The herbarium is temporarily housed in partitioned lockers.
Curator of the museum in Michael E. Wright.
PLANT PHENOLOGY
Phenological data of developmental and growth stages of ten species of trees and shrubs, three species of forbs and seven species of annual and
perennial grasses was collected from representative plants of the Weather Station and Meathook areas of the Station from November 27, 1968 until
the present date.
Plant species from which data was collected are: Tree species: blue oak, live oak, black oak and digger pine; Shrub species: California buckeye,
wedgeleaf Ceanothus, poison oak, redberry and coffee berry; Forbs: broadleaf filaree, tarweed and bur clover; Grasses: soft chess, slender wild
oat, foxtail fescue, ripgut brome, pine bluegrass, Stipa and Melica grasses.
Individual plants of tree and shrub species were observed each week of the study period, rather than different plants. This minimized variance of
results due to growth differences of individual plants.
Phenological data was collected in the two areas so that growth differences between plants of an exposed hilltop (Weather Station) and a shady ravine
with northern exposure occurring at a higher elevation (Meathook) might be observed from the results. Any differences were imperceptible;
therefore, after one year of observation, the Meathook study will not be utilized. Further difficulties encountered in making this comparison is that
plant species composition of the two areas differ.
The results of this study are filed at the Field Station, and observations are still being made on a weekly basis by Michael E. Wright of the Field
Station Museum
EIGHTH ANNUAL REPORT
1970 – ‘71
Field Station Personnel:
Academic:
Guild, J. P., Station Superintendent and Associate Specialist
Nonacademic:
Coffin, E. C., Senior Animal Technician
Cushman, R. E., Principal Animal Technician
Labadie, D. W., Farm Equipment Operator
Leech, Harvey, Jr., Farm Equipment Man
Meadlin, J., Cultivationist
Patterson, L. M., Secretary I
Silva, E. M., Jr. Farm Equipment Operator
Resigned 2-1-71
74
Springsteen, K. N., Principal Superintendent of Cultivation
General Assistance:
Ahrens, W., Farm Labor
Barney, E. J., Cultivationist
Hill, R. h., Cultivationist
McCullough, M. N., Cultivationist
Resigned 2-1-71
Resigned 2-1-71
Casual Labor:
Handy, J.
Casual Labor: Control Burn
Brunell, B.
Foster, G.
Guild, S.
Houser, J.
Houser, , M.
Mills, L.
Weatherford, J.
STATION IMPROVEMENTS
Equipment and Facilities Acquired:
Camera, Polaroid
Copier, Copystat
Communication system, Motorola
Shears, Metal cutting
Sterilizer, water
Pressure Tank
Counter w/storage cabinet
Sawdust collector (sic)
Welding fume exhauster, portable
Engine analyzer
Capital Improvements:
a. Construction of 2.56 miles of internal fencing – 4-barbed wire, and installation of working corrals in Forbes Field F-1
b. Construction of 0.05 miles internal fencing – netting type, in Scott Field
c. Construction of 1.1 miles external fencing – netting type, and 0.284 miles of internal fencing – barbed wire, in Porter Field P-1
d. Construction of 1.38 miles internal fencing – netting type, in Howarth Irrigated Pasture
e. Construction of a reservoir for stock water, and installation of a pump, 7000 (sic) ft. of water line and stock watering facilities in Forbes Field F-1
f .Control burn and seeding of the Porter Field P-1
g. Installation of a pipeline from the Scott Spring to Scott Lane (2,000 ft.) to provide stock water to P-1 and sub-fields
EXTENSION AND TEACHING
Groups and Tours:
Range Management class - Chico State
Recreation Group - UC-Davis
Biology Department - UC San Francisco
Browns Valley and Loma Rica 4-H Trail Ride
UC Internal Open House
UC Beef Day
5
8
9
13
41
144
220
Visitors in addition to above:
In state
Out of state
Foreign visitors
13
3
5
21
Talks by Station Personnel:
Superintendent J. P. Guild gave a talk and slides of the Station July 17, 1970, August 1970, and May 6, 1971 at (respectively) the Sierra Pamona (sic)
Grange, Brownsville; the Marysville Exchange Club; and the Yuba-Feather Businessmen’s Association
RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE
NINTH ANNUAL REPORT
1972
75
Field Station Personnel:
Rowell, P.L. Station Superintendent and Associate Specialist
Guild, J. P. Station Superintendent and Associate Specialist (Res. 6/30/72)
Staff:
Springsteen, D. N., Principal Superintendent of Cultivations
Coffin, E. W., Principal Animal Technician
Silva, E. M., Jr., Senior Superintendent of Cultivations
Hill, R. H., Senior Animal Technician
Leech, H., Jr. Farm Maintenance Man
Labadie, D. W., Farm Equipment Operator II
Meadlin, J., Cultivationist
Patterson, L. M., Secretary I (Res. 10/31/72)
Rocklein, S. M., Secretary I
General Assistance:
Barney, E. J., Cultivationist
Clark, T.A., Cultivationist
Ahrens, W., Farm Laborer (Res. 2/1/72)
DeBolt, T. E., Farm Laborer (Res. 6/30/72)
Freeman, K. L. Farm Laborer (Res. 6/30/72)
Casual Labor:
Purcell, J. M.
Zamvil, K.
Leal, M., Jr.
Departmental Personnel Stationed at SFRFS:
Staff:
Delmas, R. E., Staff Research Associate II, Dept. of Animal Science, Davis
STATION OPERATIONS
Organizations Using Station Facilities for Research Work:
Department of Agronomy & Range Science, UC Davis
Agronomy & Range Science, UC Hopland Field Station
Department of Animal Science, UC Davis
Department of Soils and Plant Nutrition, UC Davis
Department of Water Science and Engineering, UC Davis
School of Veterinary Medicine, UC Davis
Department of Entomology, UC Davis
Animal Science, UC Hopland Field Station
Animal Science, UC Imperial Valley Field Station
Department of Zoology, UC Davis
Department of Animal Physiology, UC Davis
Department of Entomological Science, UC Berkeley
Department of Forestry and Conservation, UC Berkeley
Plant Science Research Division, ARS, University of Nevada, Reno
STATION RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Members:
M. Ronning, Chair, Animal Science, UC Davis
J. R. Anderson, Entomology and Parasitioogy, UC Berkeley
J. T. Ellings, Animal Science, UC Davis
J. A. Harding, Environmental Horticulture, UC Davis
W. M. Longhurst, Animal Physiology, UC Davis
C. A. Raguse, Agronomy & Range Science, UC Davis
W. A. Williams, Agronomy & Range Science, UC Davis
H. H. Biswell, Forestry and Conservation, UC Berkeley
A. W. Mitchell, Agricultural Extension Service, Butte Co.
J. A. Howarth, Clinical Science, UC Davis
J. McEvoy, Sociology, UC Davis
D. A. Reed, Agricultural Economics, UC Davis
V. H. Scott, Water Science and Engineering, UC Davis
E. C. Stone, Forestry and Conservation, UC Berkeley
J. N. Luthin, Water Science and Engineering, UC Davis
76
Ex Officio Members:
J. L. Myler, Agricultural Field Stations, Davis
J. P. Guild, Secretary, SFRFS
Date of Meeting: October 29, 1971
STATION OPERATIONS:
Inventory of Livestock: (Note: Cattle are owned by the Department of Animal Science, UC Davis)
Sheep:
Ewes
Ewes, Yearling
Wethers, Yearling
Ewes, lambs
Wethers, lambs
Ram
(15)
(9)
(2)
(10)
(4)
(1)
Total
$215.00
135.00
36.00
150.00
72.00
30.00
$648.00
STATION IMPROVEMENTS
Capital Improvements:
a. Construction of 1.2 miles of internal fence (5 barbed wire) in Schubert 5271-F
b. Construction of 1 mile of access road into Schubert Valley 5271-F
c. Construction of 2.2 miles of fence (4 barbed wire) to delineate two natural reserve areas 5271-D
d. Installation of new irrigation system on 34 acres in Haworth 5271-E
e. Construction of 2,342 feet of pipeline and installation of pump, controls, and water troughs for livestock water in Porter (P1) area 5271-C
f. Reseeded Rose clover (Trifolium hirtum) and Subterranean clover (Trifolium subterraneum) on 30 acres in Porter (P1) 5271-C
g. Construction of 1.2 miles of fence (netting type wire) in Porter area (P1) 5271-C
h. Seeded Rose clover and Subterranean clover on 70 acres in Forbes area (F1-13, F1-14) 5271-A
i. Construction of 900 feet of pipeline in Forbes area for livestock water 5271-A
j. Construction of 2 miles of fence (4 barbed wire) in Forbes area 5271-A
Equipment Acquired:
Lathe, 1/3 hp motor
Scraper, Servis Landscaping
Breathing apparatus, self-contained
Jeep, ¼ ton, 4WD, 1964 model
Steel bin
EXTENSION AND TEACHING
Groups and Tours:
Water Science Class, UC Davis
Grass Valley 4-H
Range Management Class, UC Davis
Range Improvement Class, Chico State College
Meat Production Class, UC Davis
Western Regional Coordinating Committee (sic)
Total number in attendance 104
Additional Visitors:
In-state
Out-of-state
Foreign
5
1
2
TECHNICAL PUBLICATIONS (Derived from research work at the Station)
In:
California Agriculture
Journal of Animal Science
CAES Bulletin
Journal of Range Management
Abstract, SRM Annual Meeting, California Section
Crop Science
Agronomy Journal
Proceedings, California Weed Control Conference
(Note: One each in the above)
77
RESEARCH PROJECTS AT THE STATION
Projects Completed:
Nos.: 39, 2681; 33;1922; 35, H-2101; 32, 1926C
Current Projects:
Nos.: 34, 1670WR; 36, 1824; 37, 2624; 38, 1805; 40, H-2186
Projects Initiated:
Nos.: 42, 1670; 45, NASA NGL 05-003-004; 44, H-1400;
STATION LABOR AND FACILITY USAGE
Presented in six sections, as hereby listed:
1. Summary of Labor Usage – Man-hours
2. Supplemental Labor – Man-hours (Shown as “Outside sources”, “Contract Labor”, and “Departmental”
3. Summary of Land Usage (Acres minus Net Plot Acreage)
4. Summary of Building Usage (Assignable Square Feet)
5. Remarks (none listed)
6. Man-hours of Labor by Usage (Listed for 29 Station ID Nos.; Hours budgeted, used to date, percent of budgeted. Respective totals: 11,910,
13,189, 110.7%
7. Man-hours of Labor by Research Project (Presented for nine Project Nos.)
Fences, Roads, Structures, and Fields
(see also the Section on “Prescription clearing, Control Burns, and Woodcutting”)
>Raguse, C.A. October 11, 1966.
Letter to R. Merton Love, Chair, SFRFS Research Committee on management of Forbes Hill following the control burn in 1966.
“Recently, I have been asked to serve as the Agronomy Department representative in co-operative rangeland pasture research at the Sierra Foothill
Range Field Station, specifically involving the so-called ‘900 acres’ on the Forbes Ranch, where trees have been killed, and approximately 350 acres
have been burned during the summer of 1966.
“The 1966 burn divides itself into 4 sub-areas (see attached sketch).
1.” A southwesterly-facing slope and ridge of about 50 acres, reasonably well-cleared, and with sufficient white ash to justify seeding in
fall, 1966.
2. “A section toward the northeast corner, of steeper slope and more recent tree kill, where the burn was relatively poor and where
steepness and rockiness limit potential for pasture development.
3. “A section above and to the southwest of a station road, where the burn was essentially a grass burn and where little white-ash is
present (averaging 10 to 15 percent or less)
4. “ The remainder of the 1966 burn area, located below the station road (referred to in 3 above), and to the west of areas 1 and 2, and also
located in the extreme northeast corner of the burn and adjacent to Long Bar Road.”
“Recommendations regarding these areas are as follows:
1) “Area 1 appears to be the only one where fall 1966 seeding to an improved forage mixture is justified on the basis of success of the
burn and the presence of adequate amounts of white ash.
2) “Area 2 will need to be re-burned, and should therefore remain as a ‘Burned – Return to Resident Annual’ treatment. The re-burn is
not for the immediate future.
3) “Areas 3 and 4 present no great urgency for action because the fire left little actual effect. Area 3 could be re-burned when the
remainder of the ‘900’ is burned.
“In the current absence of a concrete, detailed, and long-range plan for research in the ‘the 900 acres’, plus the urgent need for immediate decisions
on forage management and improvement after the 1966 burn, the following measures are recommended:
a) “Aerial seeding of the entire burn, using about 6 pounds per acre of annual ryegrass, in order to take advantage of the scattered
white-ash spots , and to hasten the evening-out of the resultant small differences in fertility.
b) “If the Committee deems it advisable to pre-plan improved-rangeland seeding in advance of a committed research plan, area 1
should be seeded to a mixture of Hardinggrass, rose clover, and a mixture of subterranean clovers. This could be done by aerial
seeding, but success using a fixed-wing aircraft is doubtful considering limitations of the terrain. That leaves use of a helicopter or
ground seed using a drill.
“A drill of suitable size for efficient coverage of the area is not available from Field Stations. But seeding could be done using handcarried cyclone seeders. Assuming a minimum of ½-acre per hour and 6 hours per day, six men could seed the area in three days. This
method would have the advantage of more precise control over seed distribution.
c) “A fence should be constructed along the Station road, to allow herd management during the winter of 1966-67. This is particularly
because of the relatively open, erodible slops of area 1 in mind. This fence location is considered to be permanent regardless of
78
eventual experimental use of the general area because of the desirability of all-weather access to adjacent areas provided by the Station
road.
d) “Considerable effort will be needed to control re-sprouting from oak and poison oak. Mist-blower ground treatment can be used..
e) “Further action should be dependent on the emergence of a detailed master plan for experimental use, together with the completion of
burning, the latter to be accomplished in the summer of 1967, or later, depending on the suitability of the remainder of the ‘900
acres’ for
burning
(See also the Section on “Prescription clearing, Control Burns, and Woodcutting”)
A Proposal for Irrigated Lands Development and Management
>Raguse, C.A., Chair, HFS-SFRFS Research Advisory Committee.
August 22, 1974.
“A ‘Comprehensive Plan’ is needed for development, management, and experimental use of irrigated fields at the SFRFS. This is especially
important in view of the nearly completed minor capital improvement program (1974-75) for irrigated pastures and present deficiencies in their
management and utilization.
This ‘Comprehensive Plan’ should include:
1) Accurate baseline information:
a. Maps of irrigated fields, to a suitable and uniform scale, including acreage, general contours, and some information on soils (series,
depths, extent of rockiness). Indicate fence line and dry areas.
b. A separate map (same scale as above) of irrigated fields to show the present (and working) irrigation distribution systems.
c. A written description of present methods of managing irrigation water for each field, including irrigation schedules, estimates of
amounts of water used, and any problems associated with the system.
d. Present assignment of irrigated fields, either under research project use or by the Station, If under research project use, list any
special requirements asked of the irrigator.
2) A policy statement for use of irrigated land, a consensus as seen currently by the RAC, Agricultural Field Stations Administration, and the Project
Leaders using these resources. This statement would be developed by the “Irrigated Pasture Development & Management” sub-committee in
consultation with all parties, and discussed at a meeting of the RAC before incorporation into the Comprehensive Plan.
3) A considered and deliberate statement of basic management requirements for irrigated pastures, to be maintained by the SFRFS and observed by
Project Leaders with land assignments including irrigated fields. Deviations from this basic management plan, e.g., deliberate long-term over- or
under-watering, inefficient utilization of forage, or weediness, mandated by the Project Leader’s experimental objectives, would require prior
approval of the RAC. These basic management requirements include the following:
a. Ability to monitor, or at least reliably estimate, amounts of water applied and exiting as runoff.
b. Uniform surface application, adjusted for large seasonal variations in consumptive water use and un-irrigable areas of a field (e.g.,
rock piles)
c. Fencing of fields designed to permit, as far as possible, separation from dry areas, minimal damage to irrigated areas, suitability of
fields for purposes of replication in either water management or animal utilization studies; efficient management of experimental
animals.
d. Location and shape of fields and design of access roads to permit all necessary mechanical operations needed for seedbed
preparation and seeding, fertilization, weed and pest control, mechanical forage harvest and removal; and servicing of water
distribution and monitoring systems.
e. A target schedule (e.g., 5-year lead) for pasture renovation and re-seeding, fertilization, and stand maintenance (e.g., clipping).
Alteration from this plan could be arranged when necessary, but would require approval by the Irrigated Pasture Development &
Management subcommittee and the SFRFS Station Superintendent.
f. A target plan, revised as needed for long-tern (10-year lead) Station irrigated land development. Examples would include major
additions of new land, changes in system of irrigation, and inclusion of non-agricultural areas.
g. Acquisition by Field Stations of additional tillage, seeding, fertilization, herbicide-pesticide application and harvesting-clipping
equipment required for an acceptable level of management.
h. necessary policies must be developed to consider funding for costs of renovation, seeds, fertilizer, and water-monitoring equipment.
Water: The “Upper Main”; Springs; Streams; and the Yuba River
>Raguse, C. A., Chair, HFS/SFRFS Research Advisory Committee. August 16, 1983
Letter to Harold Myers re problems with water supplies from BVID and the Upper Main ditch.
Entire text of letter:
“There has been a long history of uncertainty for irrigation water supplied to the Station from the District’s so-called “Upper Main” ditch. Of the two
ditches that serve the Station, the Upper Main is especially important since because of its location it can potentially serve more of the Station’s needs
than can the Siccard Flat ditch. Also, the considerable planning, engineering, and physical development work in the Campbell Field is in jeopardy,
since research, or even average ranch field management, cannot be carried on under present conditions. A pragmatic observer could well conclude
that the Station would be advised to abandon irrigation development in the Campbell area in favor of more limited areas in the Porter and Haworth,
leaving the Campbell for strictly rangeland pastures.
“There appear to be three major barriers to an expeditious and adequate solution to present difficulties. First, the Upper Main ditch is some 2.5 miles
in length, with over 50 flumes. Both the ditch itself and many, if not most, of the flumes are in generally poor condition and various stages of
disrepair. The system as a whole in this part of the District appears to be so frail and leaky as to render it difficult for the District to serve its few
customers with contracted amounts of water. Secondly, it is alleged that management of District resources is such that further decline seems likely.
If true, this presents a problem which the University has little means of solving. Third, there appears to have been a long history of institutional
interactions among several water managers, including PG&E, the Browns Valley Irrigation District, and the Yuba County Water Agency. Included
are problems with original contracts, proposed contracts and usages, and trade-offs in water uses (e.g., hydroelectric power generation vs. irrigation),
all of which seem to have been complicated by honest but firm differences of opinion among individuals, as attested to by recall elections for
members of the District Board of Directors, changes in legal counsel, etc.
79
“While it could be argued that collectively we should have anticipated all of this and prudently reduced dependency on water from the Upper Main to
the barest minimum, that is history, and, though perhaps a more difficult and complex situation exists now than ever before, it can no longer be
ignored. Perhaps the catalyst is the Campbell Field development
since in this area, even if it were fully developed, it would be ill-advised to conduct serious research under current conditions.
“Although I have been exposed to much of this history through conversations with Paul Rowell and, more recently, with Don Springsteen and others
at the Station, I do not feel I have more than the barest minimum of factual knowledge on which a concrete proposal for specific actions could be
based. It may well be that the first step taken by the University should be a thorough and painstaking gathering of factual background information.
This could well take some time, and would at some point necessitate involvement of legal counsel to suggest what, if any, the viable options for
constructive action are.
“Apparently, a local suggestion that the ditch be condemned had enough strength as a rumor that the Marysville Appeal-Democrat called the Station
to inquire as to a reaction to this eventuality, should it come about. Also, a suggestion has surfaced from time to time over past years that the
University could secure its water rights by pumping out of Englebright Reservoir, a technically-feasible process using a hydraulic ram pump.
“In summary, it seems that despite plans for Station development to the contrary, we can delay no longer in evaluating the future, and then acting
upon that knowledge. While that could mean abandoning irrigation water supply to certain areas, that would still be better than plunging ahead with
the current deficiencies in amount, dependability, and seasonal timing of water delivery.
cc: J. M. Connor
D. W. Rains
R. W. Touchberry
RAC Members
Hull, J. L., Dept. of Animal Science, UC Davis. September 15, 1983.
Letter to Harold Myers, Dir., AFS, re SFRFS irrigation water supplies from the Browns Valley Irrigation District (BVID).
Entire text of letter:
“I have been following the correspondence between C. A. Raguse, Chair, HFS/SFRFS Research Advisory Committee and your office with more than
passing interest. Management of the herds at Sierra rely heavily on the availability of irrigated forage during the summer months. This was
especially noted when in mid-July of this year, there was not adequate irrigated pasture forage for the replacement heifers, resulting in the purchase of
alfalfa hay to feed as a supplement. Maintenance of continuous growth is necessary if these replacement heifers are to be bred as yearlings to supply
needed replacement animals in the cow herds. The shortage of forage was due to irrigation problems in the Campbell area and the lack of total water
in the ‘Upper Main’; thus, there was none available to switch some to the H. Q. area to pick up lost production in the Campbell area. It is my
understanding that 60% of the water ‘turned on’ at the start of the ‘Upper Main’ is lost – flume leaks, ditch leaks, evaporation, etc. – before it reaches
the Station, which is its main destination.
“I realize that there appear to be barriers to an expeditious and adequate solution to the present difficulties but I feel that we have no choice but to
work for a solution. Going over the problem with Mike Connor, SFRFS Supt., and others, I would like to strongly support Raguse’s suggestion of a
multi-pronged approach to come up with a specific plan of action. The suggestion presented – to pump out of Englebright Reservoir – appeals to me.
It would eliminate all of the very troublesome flumes along with future costly maintenance and repairs. Better control of available water should also
result and of course more water would be available to the Station. By installation of pump(s) in the low saddle in the Campbell-Englebright area,
water could be pumped to the existing ditch at the North-East corner of the Campbell, with some diverted to Mr. Selby – the other local user – the
remainder then coming to the University. I strongly support a cost and feasibility study of this as an alternative to repairing the miles of ditch and the
leaky flumes. I do not feel the the SFRFS should rely too heavily on irrigated forage, but some irrigated pasture of a dependable nature is vital
(personal note): to what extent was the Station obliged to support the Animal Science herds support? Was this any different from Hopland, where
sheep flocks needed to be sustained seasonally, except there they were owned by the Station, and any profit was returned to it.
cc: R. W. Touchberry
C. A. Raguse
J. M. Connor
Connor, Mike, Supt. SFRFS. September 29, 1983.
Letter to Ken Greene, Engineer, AFS, Davis re feasibility of pumping irrigation water from Englebright Reservoir.
Entire text of letter:
“A dependable supply of irrigation water delivered to the Station throughout the full irrigation season is essential to the conduct of approved and
future research projects, is important to the production of perennial and early annual forage on the Station, and must be determined before any long
term Station planning can be accomplished.
“Because of irrigation district management and some real physical and financial difficulties in maintaining a long ditch over such rough terrain, it is
questionable whether the District can be counted on to provide a timely and dependable irrigation supply. Because of extremely large ditch losses, we
received only 75% of our allotted flow rate this summer, and the water was turned into the ditch over a month late to save water. The District has
done nothing this summer or fall to convince me that the situation will be improved next year.
Several solutions are available to us. The most dependable appears to be the pumping of water from Englebright Reservoir. This alternative provides
some advantages to the District as well; aside from reduced maintenance requirements, they would enjoy some increased power generation
capabilities. How the costs of this projects will be borne will need to be negotiated, but first we must have a reasonable idea of what the initial and
annual costs will be. Thus, I am requesting your help in developing an initial cost estimate of the physical facilities required, their initial cost and
maintenance requirements, and predicted power usage.
“I have enclosed a sheet listing some pertinent facts concerning this project.”
cc: J. L. Hull
C. A. Raguse
Connor, Mike, Supt. SFRFS. September 30, 1983.
Letter to Harold Myers, AFS Director requesting legal counsel to determine the water rights of the SFRFS.
Entire text of letter:
“A dependable supply of irrigation water throughout the full irrigation season is essential to the conduct of approved and future research projects and
to the production of perennial and early fall annual forage on the Station. We received a reduced flow of water this season, and for the past several
80
years water has been turned into the ditch at least a month too late in the spring for our requirements. This has had a serious detrimental effect on
livestock feed production in the Campbell (if only I could have connected the LTMU concept with this situation) and Scott areas and in the research
planned for the Campbell. More seriously, Browns Valley Irrigation District has not yet taken any action this summer and fall that can be expected
to improve water delivery for next year.
“I plan to continue to work with the irrigation district administration to try to find a solution to this problem. I think we need to look at several
alternatives including pumping from Englebright Reservoir, encouraging the district to increase maintenance on the ditch, assisting in the ditch
maintenance, or abandoning irrigation from the Upper Ditch altogether.
“In order to properly assess these alternatives we need to know what our legal rights are in the Irrigation District. The only written record concerning
the subject that we have in our files is a letter from a previous district board member stating that the ditch will be maintained. I have collected
considerable other information, but it is all of a verbal nature.
“To this end I am requesting the help of legal counsel for advice and assistance in searching the records of the several agencies involved and
determining what we have a legal right to expect from irrigation district management. It is important that we decide our course of action concerning
the Upper Ditch in the near future because it has a vital effect on a wide range of Station activities.
Greene, K. E., Engineer, AFS, Davis. November 9,1983.
Letter to Mike Connor, Supt. SFRFS re summary of costs to pump water from Englebright Reservoir or Siccard Flat ditch.
“Attached is a summary of costs for pumping from Englebright or the Siccard ditch for varying quantities of water. These are preliminary costs since
I’ve not really looked at the pumping sites or pipeline alignments. The PG&E service cost (if any) is also an unknown; I think you can skip
contacting them further until options are narrowed down.”
The attached file consists of nine pages, two of which are routing sketches drawn on aerial photographs.
Connor, Mike, Supt. SFRFS. February 14, 1984.
Letter to Ken Tanji re irrigation water supply at SFRFS.
Entire text of letter:
“As you will recall from our earlier discussions, one of the serious problems at this station has been the irrigation water supply from the Upper
Browns Valley Ditch. This has especially been a problem in the Campbell area, where the lack of a timely and dependable irrigation supply is
jeopardizing research efforts. “This letter is to bring you up to date on some recent developments concerning the Upper Main Ditch. The irrigation
district has been reluctant to properly maintain the ditch because of high maintenance requirements and low returns from water sales. However, a
newly elected board of directors, at our urging, and that of our neighbors, has taken steps toward repairing some of the many flumes on the ditch so
that they can again carry water effectively. The enclosed copy of a letter from the irrigation district manager lists the materials costs they will put into
the ditch this winter. In addition, they have hired carpenters with flume building experience for about 150 man days. “Agricultural Field Stations has
allocated an additional $5,000 payment to the district for each of the next two years to help defray some of the maintenance costs. Also, we are
working on an agreement by which the station will annually pay increased maintenance costs to the district. “These developments should result in
substantially improved water delivery to the station. These high levels of repair and maintenance will have to continue for several years to have a
reasonably good ditch, but this is a good start in the right direction.
Encl.
cc: J. L. Hull
C. A. Raguse
Connor, Mike, Supt. SFRFS. March 29, 1984.
Letter to Ken Tanjii re the tour of “Browns Valley Upper Main Ditch on March 1.
Entire text of letter:
“On March 1, 1984, several of us toured the Upper Main Ditch to see firsthand the condition of the ditch and flumes and the progress that was being
made on flume repairs. The tour was planned for last winter, but had been postponed because of weather “ Those attending were: Roy Hull and
Charles Raguse from U. C. Davis; Ken Greene from AFS; Chuck Wilson, Sutter-Yuba Cooperative Extension; Pert Handy, BVID Director; Clark
Nelson, Acting Manager of BVID; Will Brown, Manager of Oat Hills Ranch, a neighboring water user on the Upper Ditch; and myself. “The Upper
Ditch is some 20 miles long, from Colgate Powerhouse to Campbell’s Divide, with over 50 flumes and siphons. During the six-hour tour we saw
most of the country through which the ditch travels, looked at a lot of the ditch and many flumes. Some of the flumes are in good condition, some
need rebuilding before the irrigation season, some can be patched and rebuilt next year, and some have been recently repaired or rebuilt.” Some of the
flumes we saw were: Wood’s Canyon – long wood flume; needs substantial repair soon; can only be patched this year.36” steel inverted siphon –
good condition; needs paint; a possible alternative to some of long flumes spanning canyons. Johnson’s Bluff – long wood flume around a vertical
cliff; several 16-foot sections were effectively repaired this winter; a couple more need repair soon; remainder in fairly good condition. “Burnt
Flume” – replaced in the last 10 years with corrugated aluminum 36” pipe over newer wood structures for several hundred feet; good condition. A
partially collapsed concrete flume spanned with two 15” PVC pipes; this can plug with trash; Ken Greene thought it should carry the 7 cfs flow rate;
will be replaced “next year”.
Small wood flume in poor condition, to be replaced this year.
Flume No. 2 – part of structure rebuilt this spring; 2,000’ of 36” corrugated aluminum pipe being placed on top of structure, as we arrived, by Ron
Knight and Pete McMahan. Appears to be a good job. This and Johnson’s Bluff is where the $5,000 extra payment from SFRFS will go.
Several hundred feet of PG & E flume – 36” pipe on 4” steel supports to carry water from the powerhouse to BVID. Most agreed this was the way to
build flumes if we had PG & E’s means of obtaining funds.
Ken Greene was asked to look into the comparative costs of several methods of crossing canyons; 36” aluminum pipe, steel half pipe sections, or
PVC piping wood or steel structures, or steel or PVC siphons.
“The ditch itself appeared to be in fairly good condition. Several areas of especially high percolation loss were pointed out. A crew had been
removing brush and trees effectively, although poisoning of stumps was left until later.
“Very substantial improvement in water carrying ability of the flumes has been made over the winter. It will be interesting to see how much this will
increase the amount of water delivered as percolation losses will remain.
“Raguse suggested a set of measuring devices be set up along the ditch so that areas of high water loss could be located. Perhaps this could be
accomplished through LAWR-Davis with the help of senior or M. S. students’ labor. BVID personnel like this idea.
81
“The district has rights to 2,500 ac.ft. of water at Colgate Powerhouse. (Some say this could be increase by certain legal agreements.) This allows 7
cfs to be placed in the ditch for the 180-day irrigation season. Last year I estimated only 27% actually reached the users, or 76 miners inches on
average. For this year, 140” have been requested (including our 75”), requiring a 50% efficiency if all other users are to be satisfied.
“BVID personnel present indicated a desire to maintain the ditch in better condition than we have seen the last couple of years.
“A question was asked as to the makeup of the BVID Board of Directors. They are as follows:
Bob Bordsen, immediate past chairman, Yuba Co. Road Foreman
A. T. (Hap) Leatherman, owner of Universe Paint, Marysville and San Jose
R. L. (Pert) Handy, retired rancher and long-time area resident
Ted Brucker, chairman, Cal OSHA Inspector – Marysville District
Jim Preston, househusband
“All except Bordsen are new on the Board as of 1/1/84.
“The District has not yet settled on a 1984 budget. The 1983 budget was as follows:
Income:
Sales of Water
$269,000
Sales of Power
74,000
Taxes
60,000
Interest
20,000
Other
9,000
TOTAL INCOME
Expenses:
General & Administrative
Operation & Maintenance
Pumping plant
Flume repair
General
Salaries
Long-term Debt Expenses
$434,000
$69,000
63,000
10,000
41,000
$114,000
117,000
119,000
TOTAL EXPENSES
$419,000
“Actual figures may have varied from this because the new board members claim a deficit occurred in 1983.
cc: Harold Myers
J. L. Hull
C. A. Raguse
Ken Greene
C. B. Wilson
Clark Nelson
Henderson, D. W. Dep. of Land, Air and Water Resources, UC Davis. April 19, 1984.
Letter to K. K. Tanji re water problems at SFRFS
Entire text of letter:
“The problem of a leaky supply ditch is technically simple but the solution will be expensive. To minimize costs, the most serious leaks must be
located and sealed. From the report there are two general sources: (1) structures (flumes and siphons), and (2) reaches of permeable earth.
“The repair of obviously leaking structures is being carried out. The next step, as has been suggested, is to begin making flow measurements to help
locate permeable reaches. Fortunately, in that terrain there is plenty of head available to use simple devices. Apparently the flow is steady for long
periods, so periodic readings should be meaningful despite their giving only instantaneous rates. This means it would not be essential to install water
stage recorders or expensive totalizing meters.
“The cooperation of the District is very fortunate. If repair of structures does not reduce losses to an acceptable level and seepage losses are not
confined to short sections, the final solution of lining or pipe installation will be extremely expensive.
“I will be glad to help develop a water measurement plan. Good water management requires that water be accounted for by measurement, and one
aspect of the plan should be that some devices should be permanent for indefinite use.
“I am not sure what is requested relative to the second problem. One facet seems to be to help design an irrigation system for a specific research
pasture. This can be done provided there are not too many constraints on costs or mode of operation.
“The second aspect involves developing innovative irrigation systems for foothill pastures in general. Here I am not optimistic because the foothill
lands have adverse characteristics that can be offset only at relatively high system costs, but returns are not available. Trees and vines may have more
chance than pastures, but markets are uncertain.
“Several years ago, largely at Raguse’s behest, Bill Hart and John Borrelli built and tested a semi-automated surface irrigation system on the SFRFS.
In my opinion, given the conditions and constraints, their approach was the best choice – a compromise between function and cost. The results must
have left something to be desired since the request is again being made. (CAR: At this writing (Jan. 28, 2004) I do not know what request Del is
referring to) Hart’s work was relatively brief and may have been incomplete when he left UCD. At any rate, their work should be described and
evaluated for those now being asked to assist.
“I feel that prospects for irrigated pastures on hill land are not promising because irrigation is exceptionally difficult and expensive if it is also
required to be efficient and water-conserving. Traditionally, upland areas were watersheds as well as producing lands. Running excess water over
them permitted cheap irrigation and the extra water generally became part of the water yield of the watershed. (emphasis mine) Currently, because
of concerns with pollution and with profligate first use, traditional upland water management is no longer acceptable. Another factor is more
intensive land use for residences and small acreages.
82
“I think the expectation that an innovative irrigation system can be developed to solve the problem is unrealistic. I suggest that it might be better if
irrigationists were given a figure that could be allocated for annual irrigation costs in producing some selected crops. They might then be able to
evaluate the potential for installing and operating systems for the money allocated.
cc: B. Hanson
W. Pruitt
C. Raguse
V. Scott
W. Wallender
Scott, Verne H. Dep. of Land, Air and Water Resources, UC Davis. April 25, 1984.
Letter to K. K. Tanji re water problems of the SFRFS.
Entire text of letter:
“Del Henderson is to be commended for his constructive, analytical, and straightforward comments of the two problems.
“I share his feeling that the opportunities for innovative research and solutions in areas of this type are unrealistic.
“I also recall the work of Hart and Borrelli and observed the performance of their semi-automated system on SFRFS. It is my recollection that their
work was summarized in a SFRFS Annual Report and in Experiment Station Project Reports.
“On the matter of improving the service on the Browns Valley Irrigation District Canal, it would seem that the University should join with its
neighbors in urging the District to improve its maintenance and to distribute the cost among the water users. For the AFS to make a payment to the
District to help defray costs without contributions from the other water users would seem questionable
cc: B. Hanson
W. Pruitt
C. Raguse
D. Henderson
W. Wallender
Henderson, D. W. Dep. of Land, Air and Water Resources, UC Davis. June 25, 1984.
Letter to K. K. Tanji, re water problems at the SFRFS.
Entire text of letter:
“On June 20, 1984 I went to the SFRFS with Charles Raguse. Raguse, Connor, and I drove up to the ditch at Negro Ravine, then drove back to the
Selby takeout. Unfortunately, we could not see much of the ditch from the road between these two points. Measurement flow with the weir at Negro
Ravine is roughly half the presumed inflow (154 vs. 320 M. I.).
“We inspected the ditch on foot from the Selby takeout to the Scott Field takeout of the SFRFS. There were several (6 to 8) major seepage areas
below the ditch apparent on the surface. These areas had green vegetation with sedges a common component, very wet surface soil, and frequently
water running over the surface. At any one seepage area the surface flow probably was a small fraction of the ditch flow (on the order of 5% or less),
but in aggregate were appreciable. Obviously, the surface flows are not the total flow, either.
“Most of the seepage areas are in or near small natural stream channels below the points where the ditch crosses the channels. Usually the ditch
makes a hairpin turn at the stream channel so that there is potential for seepage into the channel from both sides for a short distance. Sometimes the
green vegetation starts immediately below the lower band, but frequently the upper boundary is in the channel 150 feet or more below the ditch.
“There are natural springs and seeps in the area, so the existence of seepage is not conclusively leakage from the ditch. Probably it would be very
cost effective if ditch leakage could be verified as the sources. It seems probable to me that some will prove to be leakage, but at least a few will not,
but will be from natural groundwater flowing under the ditch where the stream channel was filled to construct the ditch.
“The soil is so rocky that observation wells probably are not feasible. Connor asked about tracers. I am skeptical, and Scott is also.
“We discussed using a temporary installation of a short section of low-pressure PVC pipe as a diagnostic test. This is a possibility, but I suspect it
would not be cost effective to remove a pipe section once installed, mainly because access is generally limited to small vehicles. Also, such pipe is
cemented together during installation and cannot be uncoupled into sections again. If not cemented, I think it would leak enough to be inconclusive,
especially at curves. There may be ways to join the pipe temporarily, yet be able to uncouple.
“I believe the most feasible test procedure is to install a temporary plastic film lining. There are problems here, too. Because of angular rocks and
gravel, relatively thick film (6 or 8 mil) would be required, and some loose rock would have to be removed. A conclusive test requires that cattle be
excluded. An advantage is that the film can be installed with water in the ditch, rather than waiting for dry periods next fall or winter.
“Connor and his crew have done a good job constructing and installing weirs, so measurements with them are quite reliable. If installation of
additional weirs is contemplated, it might be a good idea to replace the Campbell Divide weir with a 2-foot device, since the head is approaching the
recommended minimum for accurate measurement.
“The miner’s inch box at the outlet currently in use at Campbell is providing a very dubious measurement. The box is used to set the outlet gate, so in
that sense it is a control device. I judge the flow to be greater than normal , so it is not a problem except for accurate accounting of water. Other
boxes I saw are used without much regard to meeting standard conditions for such devices. There is not enough slowing of water upstream, and
contraction is incomplete because the orifices are formed in ¼-inch plywood rather than sheet metal, and frequently are placed too close to the bottom
of the box. All these conditions are in the direction of the actual flow being greater than the nominal flow. I find encouraging the possibility that
leakage is at least partially localized in that treating these sections only has some potential for economically feasible. Even if no testing can be done,
the seepage areas should be inspected to see if they persist into late summer and early fall when there is less potential for natural groundwater flow.
Special attention should be given after water delivery through the ditch is stopped, provided that occurs before fall rains begin.
cc: Mike Connor
Charles Raguse
The Kellogg-McDonald “Proposal for Augmentation” (PROP-AUG)
>Albin-Smith, Teresa K. and Charles A. Raguse. July 1984.
Environmental effects of land use and intensive range management: A Northern California example. Calif. Water Resources Center, Univ. of Calif.
Contribution No 187. Senior author’s MS thesis based on a proposal for augmentation of the SFRFS beef cattle carrying capacity.
83
ABSTRACT:
“This paper presents criteria for assessing and mitigating environmental impacts of manipulating foothill rangeland to improve its capacity for
livestock grazing. It is directed at ranchers, interested members of various local, State and Federal agencies, and numerous other decision-makers
who are concerned with the potential and known effects of, and alternatives to, range improvement practices used to improve livestock production.
The U. C. Sierra Foothill Range Field Station (SFRFS), near Browns Valley, in Yuba County, was used as a model study area.
“Environmental setting information provides the basis for impact analysis: baseline soil and vegetation types, hydrology, habitat, and land use history
of the foothill environment was assessed for sensitivity to range improvements and land use, including vegetation-type conversion, facilities
construction, grazing, and irrigation.
“Range improvement practices can have both beneficial (food production, reduced fuel/fire danger, etc.) and adverse effects on the environment.
Major potential adverse effects include (1) soil erosion resulting from road construction and from removal of vegetation cover via site conversion and
over-grazing; (2) water quality degradation from siltation; and (3) loss of wildlife habitat from removal of trees and brush.
“Where impacts are adverse, there are measures to minimize problems, e.g., fencing cattle away from streams; leaving aggregations of trees to
preserve relict habitat and to increase soil stability on steep slopes or in drainage channels. As a last resort, regulatory controls, and financial tax
program can be used to encourage wise use of rangeland resources.”
“Background:
“The thesis originated in 1975 as a preliminary report (unpublished) on the effects of expanding livestock facilities at the SFRFS. The facilities
expansion was intended to allow a two-fold increase in the total number of beef cattle in the experimental herds by making varied improvements on
34 percent of the total acreage of the Station (approximately 2,000 of the total 6,067 acres); in effect doubling the carrying capacity of the land.
Whereas the scope of the original report was on impacts of specific activities, this paper looks at the potential impacts of all grazing land-use
components. The purposed of this expanded assessment is to provide planning criteria for use in any grazing operation having a terrain-soil-plantclimate complex similar to the SFRFS.
A selected excerpt, but one fundamental in this thesis:
“Brush removal may be achieved chemically, mechanically, manually, and/or by burning. Often, brush removal involves a combination of the above
e.g., chemicals may be used to kill brush sprout regrowth for a two- or three-year follow-up period after prescribed burning. On moderate slopes (less
than 30 percent), caterpillars or tractors equipped with a brush rake or blade (or ball and chain on steeper slopes) can be used to remove brush
(Adams, 1976, 1977). In small areas, or areas where other methods are not acceptable, manual brush removal (lopping) may be used. In any case, no
one prescription for brush removal can apply to every situation. In recent years, complete type-conversion has been replaced by selective
manipulation of woody vegetation to leave a mosaic pattern, employing the following criteria:
1. Leave strips of all (emphasis mine) woody vegetation in natural drainage ways so as to reduce erosion.
2. Leave woody vegetation on rocky outcrops.
3. Leave scattered groups of trees (including all age-classes present) for aesthetic values, wildlife habitat, and livestock shade.
4. Completely clear areas best suited for agricultural operations (e.g., reseeding, fertilizing, etc.).
5. Avoid clearing of slopes in excess of 30 to 40 percent, except as needed to aid in livestock surveillance and handling.”
This publication contains an aerial photograph of the SFRFS showing three examples of vegetation-type conversion on the Station, as follows:
A. Completely cleared, woody plant regrowth completely controlled. (Forbes Hill)
B. Scattered trees left in a random pattern, regrowth controlled.
(Porter Hill)
C. Prescribed manipulation as described in this publication.
(Scott)
>SFRFS “Augmentation Project” Committee, G. E. Bradford, Chair. , to Dean C.E. Hess September 13, 1977.
A five-page report originating in the Davis campus Dept. of Animal Science. Defines research categories of high priority, schedule of improvements
and estimated costs, and estimated increase in returns from the larger carrying capacity for cattle. Hand-drawn maps of individual field areas are
included.
(Sort this out)
Letter for the Committee to C. E. Hess re attached report and recommendations. Responds to Hess’s letter of Feb. 1, 1977.
Membership of the Committee was as follows:
W. J. Clawson, B. D. Gardner, W. M. Longhurst, C. A. Raguse, P. L. Rowell, M. J. Singer, E. P. Speck, and G. E. Bradford, Chair.
What follows here is merely an outline of this five-page, single-spaced, small-type letter, which provides at best an indication of the breadth of work
to be attempted:
Item 1 – Research areas and cost of conversion; areas identified as high priority include:
1. Input-output relationships of the cow-calf system on the range.
2. Effects of vegetation conversion from tree-brush to grass on water yield and quality, soil erosion, etc.
3. Studies on the development of improved irrigated pasture and its integration with improved annual range into efficient beef production systems.
4. Methods of effecting genetic improvement in reproductive performance in range beef cows.
Improvement costs and schedule:
“Tables 1a to 1e outline the specific improvements proposed, by area and by year, and their estimated costs (updated August 1977). …
“Total cost of the improvements over a period of four years is estimated at $248,167, which includes an allowance of $20,000 for supervision,
inspection, etc., and an estimated labor cost of $77,127 (at $8.25/hour) …
Item 2 – Procurement of extramural funds to support the program:
“…has received less attention to date, since we feel that a certain basic research capability must be developed first. It appears that the latter can be
developed with the proposed endowment funds and existing resources.
Item 3 -- Estimated costs of increased research activities, and estimated increased returns from the larger herd:
“The estimates are detailed in Table 2. …
“In summary, it appears that the proposed $150,000 allocation will cover a minimum of three-fourths of the costs (above normal station
operations) of range, pasture, and facilities improvements designed to increase the carrying capacity from approximately 250 to 450 mature cows.
(Emphasis mine) Such an increase will permit significantly expanded research activity related to production of beef calves from foothill rangeland.
With the prospect of three-fourths of the needed funding in hand, the committee recommends that the project proceed forthwith.”
>Kendrick, J. B., Jr. October 29, 1974.
Letter to C. A. Raguse re initial PROP-AUG proposal.
84
“I am forwarding to you for your (SFRFS-RAC’s) consideration a proposal forwarded to me from Dean McCalla for the augmentation of the U. C.’s
range beef cattle research capability at the (SFRFS). You are undoubtedly familiar with the proposal, but I wish to have your committee review it
and forward to me and Director Myler your recommendations. In particular, I would like to have your Advisory Committee evaluate the proposal
from a feasibility point of view, a likelihood of achieving success, and the probability of obtaining multidisciplinary involvement in the entire project.
This proposal seems to be a natural to integrate the desires for information about carrying capacity of range land, management of range land, both
from a meat production point of view and from an environmental quality point of view. If it is the opinion of the (RAC) that this project is highly
desirable and it appears to be budgetarily sound, I will be happy to explore possibilities of seeing that it is funded.
“cc: Deans L. L. Sammet, W. M. Dugger, A. F. McCalla
Director G. B. Alcorn
Associate Dean M. Ronning
Acting Associate Director M. N. Schroth
AFS Director J. L. Myler”
>Kendrick, J. B., Jr., December 23, 1976.
Letter to Associate Director C. E. Hess, UC-Davis cc: W. E. Schoonover, L. N. Lewis, W. E. Waters, C. A. Raguse, P. Cassamajor re: proposed
improvements in livestock carrying capacity at the SFRFS.
Full text of the letter:
“I have considered your recommendation of October 19, 1976 and the extensive file concerning proposed improvements at the SFRFS. I agree that
increased livestock carrying capacity at the Station is needed in order to provide an adequate base for our research program there and I am prepared
to commit $150,000 of unallocated income from the Kellogg and McDonald Endowments in support of those objectives. I concur in the proposal
to appoint an Ad Hoc Committee to advise on the establishment of priorities and coordination of the research to be facilitated by this allocation of
funds, and in the membership you have suggested. (Emphasis mine)
“Since the Ad Hoc Committee’s advisory and coordinating role will be intimately associated with research in several Davis Departments, I believe it
should report to and be appointed by you, but with close liaison with this office. Responsibility for execution of the physical improvements will be
that of the Field Station Administration under the supervision of the Director of Administrative Services Warren Schoonover.
“I note that the total cost of the three-year improvement program as estimated in the November 1975 report of the Sierra and Hopland Field Stations
Advisory Committee – with amendments suggested by Associate Field Station Director Speck – amounts to approximately $220,000. With the
effects of price inflation taken into account, the current cost estimate would be significantly higher. It is clear therefore that the program actually
undertaken will have to be scaled down, or that new outside funds will have to be obtained. I believe that an important responsibility of the Ad
Hoc Committee should be to assist in identifying sources and soliciting extramural funds in support of this program. (Emphasis mine)
“The obstacle that has delayed commitment of funds along the lines described above is the excess of increased costs ($45,000 annually) over
increased revenues ($30,000) estimated to result from the proposed plan. As you know, once the unallocated balances in the Kellogg and McDonald
funds are committed there are no other funds available to me that could be assigned to cover operating deficits. Such a contingency would have to be
covered by campus resources.
“I had hoped that the difficulty over balances in the operating funds could be resolved before a formal move was made toward final commitment of
the unallocated Endowment funds to this program. However, I appreciate the difficulty of fully assessing this situation without detailed analysis of
the particular uses of these funds that would be made under current circumstances. The most important of these are the level of funding available as
compared with needs described in the development proposal and the price inflation that has occurred since the proposal was prepared.
“I agree with your suggestion that the proposed Advisory Committee be appointed and that its charge involve concentration on the critical
question of balances in the operating funds as affected by the development program actually to be undertaken. (Emphasis mine) As already noted,
resolution of this question is a prior condition (and the only one) to the immediate commitment of funds in the amount indicated above.
“If you agree that the Advisory Committee would best operate as a Davis campus committee, please proceed with its appointment. Its charge should
be in the context of this memo.
>Bradford, G. E., Anim. Sci. Dept., UC-Davis. Chair, SFRFS “Augmentation Project” Committee. September 13, 1977.
A quite lengthy letter to Dean Hess, in response to his letter of 1 Feb 1977 requesting information about the Project.
Bradford’s letter is organized around three headings: 1. Research areas and costs of conversion, 2. Improvement costs and schedule,
3. Estimated costs of increased research activities, and estimated increased returns from a larger herd.
To:
From:
Re:
C.E. Hess
Sierra Foothill Range Field Station “Augmentation Project” Committee:
W.J. Clawson, B.D. Gardner, W.M. Longhurst, C.A. Raguse, P.L. Rowell, M.J. Singer, E.P. Speck, and G.E. Bradford, Chair.
(J.G. Morris, J.L. Hull, and L. Nelson also participated in one or more meetings of the Committee.)
Committee report and recommendations.
In response to your letter of February 1, 1977, the committee has focused attention on items 1 and 3 of the charge, viz:
1. “Decide what aspects have highest priority and can be accomplished within available resources.”
3. “Identify the costs of conducting the increased research activities, estimate how much of the costs would be offset by increased productivity and
sale of livestock, and prepare a reasonably firm estimate of any deficit or surplus.”
Item 2, relating to extramural funds, has received less attention to date, since we feel that a certain basic research capability must be developed first.
It appears that the latter can be developed with the proposed endowment funds and existing resources, as outlined below.
Item 1 – Research areas and cost of conversion.
Areas identified as high priority include:
1. Input-output relationships of the cow-calf system on the range.(Dr. James G. Morris, Department of Animal Science) (See attachment A. This is a
research proposal not yet reviewed by the Field Stations Research Advisory Committee; it is included as an indication of planned research.) These
studies relate to development of more productive systems of producing beef calves from range, and include consideration or more economic
85
parameters than has been done in the past. The emphasis on the cow-calf system is recommended in spite of the fact that use of this land for stocker
cattle may be as profitable or moreso under present conditions because:
(1)The University has research facilities for cattle feeding at two locations (Davis and the Imperial Valley Field Station), but no other facilities for
cow-calf production research.
(2) Calf production is the basis of the entire beef industry, and it is an area much in need of research using a systems approach.
2. Effects of vegetation conversion from tree-brush to grass on water quality, soil erosion, etc. (Dr. Paul F. Rowell, Superintendent, Sierra Station.)
There have been two long-term studies of this kind at the Hopland Station, but none at Sierra, which differs from Hopland in soil types and in several
other respects. Yield and quality of water are matters of increasing concern to Californians, and information is needed from a variety of climatic,
topographic, and soil conditions on factors affecting them. This work will be under the direction of Dr. Michael Singer of the Department of Land,
Air, and Water Resources (LAWR), Dr. Paul Rowell, Superintendent of the Sierra Field Station, and Dr. Robert Burgy, also of LAWR. The work
will be carried out under Experiment Station Project number CA-D-XXX-3602 (copy attached; B-1). Additional information about the work
proposed is included in Attachment B-2. Construction of some of the runoff measurement devices, etc., needed for this work can be accomplished as
part of normal Station operating expenses. Other portions are as part of a Minor Capital Improvement request already submitted by Agricultural Field
Stations Administration. Also, this is an area where it is felt that extramural funding from agencies such as EPA can be readily obtained once the
initial physical facilities are obtained.
3. Studies on the development of improved irrigated pasture and its integration with improved annual range into efficient beef production systems.
This work will be under the direction of Dr. C.A. Raguse of the Department of Agronomy & Range Science, with the collaboration of Mr. John L.
Hull, Specialist, of the Department of Animal Science.
4. Methods of effecting genetic improvement in reproductive performance in range beef cows. This project will utilize the female offspring from the
project describe in Item 1 and attachment A, and will return mature cows to that project, i.e., it is fully complementary to it. It will be under the
direction of Dr. E.J. Pollack of the Animal Science Department, and will be written up in detail when potential implementation is closer.
Numbers of cattle needed for the four areas described are as follows:
1. 250 mature cows
2. Replacement animals from other projects
3. 110 mature cows
4. 80 mature cows; female calves from all Station cows, from weaning to the time they are pregnant with their second calf (at which time they would
be assigned to ne of the other projects).
Total: 440 plus replacements (Number 2. above)
The improvements in carrying capacity and the conduct of the research proposed under 1.-4. above would not preclude other projects, such as those
carried out in the past by Drs. John Anderson of UC Berkeley, and Ed Loomis of Extension, and in fact the expanded livestock activity would
facilitate these and other kinds of projects. Also, the proposed higher level of activity in the areas of livestock, range, and watershed research would
significantly expand opportunities for student internships (e.g., Work-Learn 192 as curriculum choices, and internships administered by the Campus
Work-Learn Department in South Hall). Although the Station was designed originally primarily as a research station, the member of the Committee
are of the unanimous view that its potential contributions to teaching in a variety of subject-matter areas are important to the University, that they will
be enhanced by the proposed improvements, and that this potential should be exploited more fully.
Other research areas discussed included metabolic profiles in cattle and effects of the regulation changes on deer and quail populations.
Dr. Norman (Veterinary Medicine Extension) and Dr. Kaneko (Clinical Sciences) are developing a proposal entitled “Metabolic and cellular profiles
as influences by production potentials, diet, fertility potential, and disease entities.” This would involve blood sampling of the animals in projects 1.
and 4. above. It would be not only compatible with them, but would augment that research.
Drs. Longhurst (Agronomy & Range Science), Nelson, and Adams (Extension), and Rowell (Sierra Station Superintendent) are drafting a proposal to
obtain data on the effects of the renovations and vegetation changes on deer and quail populations. It is anticipated that this work also will involve a
number of undergraduate and graduate students.
It is understood that Dr. Menke (UC Berkeley) has a research proposal for the Sierra Station in the process of development. From information
available to the Committee, this should be compatible with the projects described above.
These are the research areas discussed by the Committee. The Committee emphasizes that the augmented research capability encompassed in this
proposal would be of use to the Experiment Station, in ways foreseen and unforeseen, for a period well beyond the lifespan of these particular
projects. New knowledge on better ways of managing and utilizing land of the type represented by the Sierra Station is expected to be increasingly
important as pressure on California’s land resources increases.
Item 2 – Improvement costs and schedule
Tables 1a to 1e outline the specific improvements proposed, by area and by year, and their estimated costs (updated August 1977). The costs have
been estimated in most cases from actual experience with these kinds of improvements carried out in previous years at the Sierra Station, and are
believed to be realistic.
Total cost of the improvements over a period of four years are estimated at $248,167 (Table 1e), which includes an allowance of $20,000 for
supervision, inspection, etc., and an estimated labor cost of $77,127 (at $8.25/hour). Of this labor, Superintendent Rowell estimates 3,000 hours
available for Year 1 (because of current low cattle numbers) . Labor available in years 2 and 3 will depend on the rapidity with which the herd can be
built up again (discussed below). A realistic estimate might be 2,000 hours of Station labor available for the work outlined in Table 1b (year 2), and
1,000 hours in year 3 (Table 1c). This would cover $49,500 of the $77,000 labor cost and reduce the out-of-pocket costs of the proposed
improvements to approximately $199,000. The discrepancy between this and the proposed $150,000 allocation from Animal Science and Agronomy
& Range Science endowments should not be insurmountable. It is suggested it might be made up by some or all of the following: Minor Capital
Improvement funds; provision of the supervision, inspection, etc., services by Field Stations; use of additional endowment reserves (if needed) in year
3 or 4. With regard to schedule, the renovation of irrigated pastures is tentatively scheduled for year 3. However, portions of existing irrigated
pastures have died this year because of the lack of irrigation water. It may be decided to interchange portions of year 1 and year 3 activities, as
implementation progresses. This should be determined by the implementation Work Group.
86
Item 3. Estimated costs of increased research activities, and estimated increased returns from a larger herd.
The estimates are detailed in Table 2. The following explains the general basis of the projections. (More-detailed information on reproduction,
survival and growth rates, and prices assumed are available from the Animal Science Department if desired):
Cow numbers have been reduced (Spring 1977) from a normal number of approximately 250 breeding females, to 80, with corresponding reductions
in yearling heifers, heifer calves, and bulls, due to the 2-year drought. Thus, it will be necessary to rebuild the herd to “normal” numbers, as well as
to provide for expansion based on increased carrying capacity resulting from the planned range and pasture improvements. Table 2 outlines the
schedule and anticipated economic consequences of doing this.
The Animal Science Department Livestock Feeding Trial Budget, which provides the Sierra Station cattle, has been augmented by $50,000 during
1976-7 because of the drought, through forced sale of animals. The Department is requesting that this money be earmarked for purchase of animals to
rebuild the herd (see col. 16, Table 2). However, since the forced sales were of thin animals on a depressed market, the income realized is not
expected to cover cost of animals purchased to restock, but will perhaps cover cost of half the numbers sold.
The timetable for restocking will depend on when the rains come. It is not planned to restock until there has been sufficient rain to provide irrigation
water and to revive the stock-watering springs (now dry), as well as to provide forage. Our current guess is Fall 1978, though some might be
purchased Spring 1978 if 1977-78 is a year of good rainfall. It is planned to add approximately 100 cows per year for 4 years, which would provide
adequate animals for the expanded research program in step with the increased forage supply (assuming normal rainfall).
On this schedule, cattle numbers will reach pre-drought levels in 1980. Thereafter, additional labor will be required, estimated as 1,000 hours General
Assistance (GA) in 1981, 1 Full-time Assistant (FTE) in 1982, and 1.5 FTE thereafter, for handling the additional cattle (col. 13). In addition,
beginning in 1981, it is felt that 1 FTE (Staff Research Associate (SRA) 1) will be needed for the expanded research (col. 14). The estimated costs of
this labor have not been adjusted upwards for annual cost-of-living and merit increases, but neither have the cattle prices been adjusted for anticipated
increases. Since this period is expected to be a price increase phase in the cattle cycle, income increases should at least keep up with labor cost
increases.
As indicated in cols. 15 and 16, a net deficit is predicted during the expansion phase, with small surpluses predicted beginning in 1982 and continuing
annually thereafter. If cattle prices return to 1972-73 levels, these surpluses should be considerably larger; if prices remain near present levels and
labor costs continue to increase at present rates, the surpluses may not materialize. We believe the estimates are realistic, based on present
information. The balances shown in col. 16 can be used to offset prior deficits (as shown in col 17) or, preferably, to provide funding for expanding
research activity, if other funds can be obtained to offset the deficits projected for 1979-81. By 1985, it is projected that the expanded cattle
production will have paid for the additional cattle for increased feed and labor (1.5 FTE) costs and provided for one FTE SRA from 1981 onwards.
In summary, it appears that the proposed $150,000 allocation will cover a minimum of three-fourths of the costs (above normal station operations) of
range, pasture, and facilities improvements designed to increase the carrying capacity from approximately 250 to 450 mature cows. Such an increase
will permit significantly expanded research activity related to production of beef calves from foothill rangeland. With the prospect of three-fourths of
the needed funding in hand, the Committee recommends that the project proceed forthwith. Possible sources of the remaining funding needed are
suggested.
Our analysis also indicates that, although operating deficits are projected for three years during the restocking and expansion process, increased
income from the added cattle production is expected to remove this deficit by the time equilibrium herd size is reached, as well as providing the
increased labor needed on a continuing basis.
We therefore recommend implementation of the proposal according to the schedule outlined in Tables 1 and 2.
The Committee also suggests that a small Work Group, to include the Station Superintendent, be appointed to oversee the implementation of this
project, and that this Work Group maintain communication with the members of the Committee and with others with an interest in research and
training at the Sierra Station.
/gjg
Enclosures
cc: C.A. Raguse, Chairman
Hopland-Sierra Research Advisory Committee
>Myers, Harold, Director, Agric. Field Stations. February 22, 1984.
Letter to C. A. Raguse, Chair, HFS/SFRFS Research Advisory Committee re a committee to evaluate range conditions and carrying capacity at the
SFRFS.
“I sincerely appreciate your willingness to be a member of a select committee to study the range conditions and carrying capacity of the SFRFS. I
have asked Mr. Mike Connor, Supt. of the Station, to chair the committee and to make whatever arrangements necessary for your investigations.
Harold R. Myers, Director, AFS
>Raguse, C. A., Chair, HFS/SFRFS Research Advisory Committee, July 24, 1979.
Letter to the Budget Committee for the “Proposal for Augmentation of U. C.’s Range Beef Cattle Research Capability” re collecting documentary
information.
This committee was comprised of: J. L. Hull, C. A. Raguse, P. L. Rowell, and E. P. Speck
“Following the last meeting (Davis, AFS, July 12, 1979) of this committee, it was suggested that a set of documentary information be assembled to
provide a working record of this program, especially for the period following actual release of the Kellogg-MacDonald funds and including minutes
of the January 25 and July 12, 1979 meetings of the committee.
“ I agree and will proceed with this task. I hope to have this in hand prior to the next RAC meeting, which I now expect to convene, at the SFRFS,
sometime in September, at least prior to the beginning of the Fall Quarter.”
>Raguse, C. A., Chair, HFS/SFRFS Research Advisory Committee, November 19, 1975.
Letter to J. B. Kendrick in reply to JBK’s request of October 29, 1974, for RAC review of PROP-AUG for budgetary soundness.
Entire text of letter:
“Pertinent background information, already in your files, is contained in your letter of referral dated October 29, 1974, and my letter plus attachments,
of January 27, 1975.
“ With the present letter the RAC transmits its formal approval of the revised “Proposal…” (meeting of November 13, 1975). The motion for
approval, occurring after careful evaluation of the revised document, was passed without dissent. It also stated the committee’s concern that 1) a
higher on-going level of budgetary support to the Station will be required, and 2) that continuing emphasis be placed on encouraging multidisciplinary
87
involvement through integration of research from other departments and divisions, notably those representing resource economics, land and water
resources, and wildlife management and biology.
The proposal now consists of the following (attached):
1. A revised narrative, which includes generalized outline maps of the specific fields proposed for improvement, and a 3-year work timetable.
2. A detailed 3-year budget, prepared by Dr. P. L. Rowell, SFRFS Superintendent, with review and addenda by E. P. Speck
3. A “Draft EIS”, prepared by a Master’s Degree student in Range Management with considerable work experience in this general area. Since UC
now has a formal mechanism for this, we assume that this EIS could serve the AFS Office in their preparation of the “Initial Study” forms.
“A usual for items of this magnitude, there are other events and considerations that impinge on this proposal and this is recognized by the RAC.
Notably, the Parks Bar Dam issue. Perhaps Warren Schoonover has already indicated to you the nature of our progress there. Another is the basis
for future funding and re-charging of costs for labor, machinery, transportation, and supplies (e.g., the current $1-per-hour recharge issue).
“ I believe two comments are in order. First, we have effectively documented (prior to the January 23, 1975 RAC meeting) the support and interest of
scientists and departments presently not involved in major research at the Station. My own recent contacts with a few of these individuals indicates
no flagging of this interest. Second, an analysis of the evolution and research history of the Station shows that it has passed through roughly four
phases, as follows:
I. Physical development of the facility.
II. Small-plot and observational research.
III. Research with beef cattle herds, including genetic, Veterinary Medicine, and agronomic concerns.
IV. Field-scale, cow-calf herd, improved range, irrigated pasture, and management experiments, which have served also as a framework for other
studies (e.g., J. R. Anderson’s (UCB) entomological studies through the Ph. D. dissertation of R. W. Merritt).
“This evolution places us exactly on the verge of a new phase: a fully integrated program in domestic livestock – wildlife – watershed unit – resource
economics – systems analysis – water quality research. It provides an opportunity for a first-class program of Institute quality.
“ In short, and referring to your letter of October 29, 1974, it is the opinion of the RAC that this project is feasible, desirable, and budgetarily sound.
We respectfully request your help in arranging for its funding.
“cc: G. E. Bradford
C. E. Hess
J. L. Myler”
>Raguse, C. A., Chair, HFS/SFRFS Research Advisory Committee, August 12, 1976.
Letter to Dr. Loy L. Sammet, Div. of Agric. Sci. UC Berkeley, re K-McD $150k.
Full text of letter:
“As you requested by phone earlier this week, the HFS/SFRFS RAC considered again, at its November 11 meeting, the Proposal for Augmentation of
UC’s Beef Cattle Research Capability (PROP-AUG), in the light of your comments to me about its present status.
“The RAC reaffirms its support of the proposal. Work has gone forward, as possible, including development of several new irrigated pasture areas (in
Haworth H-1 and H-11), tree removal (Haworth H-7), fencing (Forbes F1-51 and 61), and preliminary planning for irrigated pasture development
(Campbell).
“We would encourage early assignment of a budget and committee appointment for planning specific details, in part so as to be able to liaison with
Ag Field Stations in their revision of the Minor Capital Improvement (emphasis mine) schedule (December).
>Raguse, C. A., Chair, HFS/SFRFS Research Advisory Committee, July 24, 1979.
Letter to the Budget Committee for the “Proposal for Augmentation of U. C.’s Range Beef Cattle Research Capability” re collecting documentary
information.
This committee was comprised of: J. L. Hull, C. A. Raguse, P. L. Rowell, and E. P. Speck
“Following the last meeting (Davis, AFS, July 12, 1979) of this committee, it was suggested that a set of documentary information be assembled to
provide a working record of this program, especially for the period following actual release of the Kellogg-MacDonald funds and including minutes
of the January 25 and July 12, 1979 meetings of the committee.
“ I agree and will proceed with this task. I hope to have this in hand prior to the next RAC meeting, which I now expect to convene, at the SFRFS,
some time in September, at least prior to the beginning of the Fall Quarter.”
>Rowell, Paul, Supt.,SFRFS. November 20, 1978.
Letter to J. L. Myler, Dir., AFS. Requesting additional funds for work on the Kellogg-McDonald augmentation project.
“In order to keep the Animal Science “Augmentation Proposal” development on schedule we are going to need additional General Assistance Funds
for this fiscal year (78/79).
“We would like to hire (re-hire) two G. A. employees beginning the first of January, 1979 and extend them through the month of June, 1979, to
continue work on this project. This will require approximately $9,000.”
In a follow-up letter, dated December 4, 1979, I supported Rowell’s request, saying “It is always better to maintain momentum than to regain it, and
the spring and summer of 1979 probably will be quite demanding.
>Speck, E. P., Assoc. Dir. AFS. October 31, 1975.
Letter to Rowell, re his K=McD cost estimates for 3 years.
“In general, I think the estimates are a little on the low side. They will be even lower if we are required to use contract labor for some parts of the
work in order to comply with the $10,000 provision regarding use of outside work forces on construction projects.
“Year 1. I recommend that you add a provision for engineering, supervision and inspection of $4,000 and a provision for mapping and surveying of
$3,000.
“Year 2. This program should also have a provision for engineering, supervision and inspection of $5,000 and a provision for mapping and surveying
of $4,000. Based on the sprinkler system recently installed a cost of $1,500/acre will be closer to probable costs.
“Year 3. A $1,000 provision for engineering, supervision, inspection and $500 for surveying and mapping is recommended.
88
“In preparing the irrigated pasture plans, have you taken into account the total water available in the upper ditch? It appears more acreage is to be
placed under irrigation than can be irrigated with the available water supply.”
>Speck, E. P., Assoc. Dir. AFS, August 2, 1979.
Letter to Roy Hull, C. A. Raguse and Paul Rowell, relaying the 1979-80 K-McD budget.
“… We have requested Dick Tom in Berkeley to transfer $46,000 to the McDonald-Kellogg account.
Details:
“Labor…………………………………………. 18,000
Supplies
Herbicides……………………………5,000
Seeds…………………………………1,000
Fuels, parts, equipment supplies.…….5.000
Materials for irrigated pasture …………………...3,000
Materials for corrals…………………………….14,000
Total
46,000
>Speck, E. P., Assoc. Dir. AFS, September 18, 1981.
Letter to Paul Rowell, Supt., SFRFS, re acknowledgment of a K-McD-related proposal, of September 9, 1981, submitted by Don Springsteen.
“In general, the proposal looks good, except we do have some questions concerning the Campbell sprinkler proposal. … I assume that Charlie, as
Chairman of the RAC, has the authority to approve the proposal and that a report at a future RAC meeting will be made.”
>Cornett, Duane, M.S. student in Range Management, UC Davis. January 1976
Unpublished paper, Management considerations for Haworth Fields H-7 and H-9; related to PROP-AUG.
This was done as a part of my (CAR) efforts to develop a set of guidelines to be applied in vegetation-type conversion (VTC) of foothill rangelands.
Duane Cornett was my student and he conducted other site analysis work at SFRFS.
The brief paper (two pages) is divided into three sections, as follows:
I. Preliminary determination or productive potential.
II. Suggested techniques.
III. Summary (Summary points follow)
A. Consider strip clearing of 50% of the total area, with attention to important browse species, riparian habitat, soil characteristics, and slope
categories.
B. Preserve a mosaic of habitats, aimed toward multiple-species animal use
C. Design a manipulation program for comparative values, considering the Forbes and Porter areas.
D. Exercise particular care with management of Ceanothus species.
E. Consider potential future value of shrubs as a major protein source for wild and domestic herbivores managed in a multiple-use program.
>Litton, R. Burton, Jr. July 1974.
Visual vulnerability of forest landscapes. J. of Forestry 72(7): (no pagination given on reprint) This paper was one of the formative influences for
generating VTC criteria.
ABSTRACT – Management decisions in land use planning, and in preparation of environmental impact statements, should be made with the
recognition that their physical results will alter the visual landscape. Certain characteristics can help predict the landscape’s vulnerability or
resistance to such man-made visual impacts as roads or timber harvest. The planner must recognize (a) landscape compositional types, (b) sensitive
parts and locations, and (c) outside influences and inherent effects, such as orientation, climate, seasons, slope, and soil and vegetation surfaces.
(Emphases mine)
Concluding paragraph:
“For purposes of this paper, my thesis is this: Before you consider the impact of any alterations, first consider the landscape as a resource in its own
right and analyze its visual vulnerabilities. With this background of understanding, it should be easier to design alterations that will lie easily upon the
landscape.”
In the implementation of land clearing at the SFRFS under the “Proposal for Augmentation…”, a concerted effort was made to abide by these
principles.
PART IV. STATION DEVELOPMENT: RANGE AND IRRIGATED
PASTURE
No text entered
PART V. LIVESTOCK AND LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION OPTIONS
No text entered
89
PART VI. ADMINISTRATION
The Vice President’s (VP) Office
Research Advisory Committees (RAC) and Communication 15
The Field Stations Advisory Committee
Superintendents and Directors of Individual Field Stations
“Strategic” and other variations of, Planning
Cooperative Extension: An Historic Review
The Vice President’s (VP) Office
>Kendrick, J. B, to M. RONNING, Chairman and Administrative Advisor; P. L. ROWELL, Secretary; A.H. MURPHY,
Assistant Secretary; J. R. ANDERSON; G. E. BRADFORD; W. H. BROOKS; W. J. CLAWSON; D. F. LOTT; R. A.
MATHEWS; J. W. MENKE; C. A. RAGUSE; J. L. MYLER, Ex officio. June 24, 1974.
Letter forming new HFS-SFRFS RAC and emphasizing key roles of the new RAC.
“The development of the long-range plans for the Division of Agricultural Sciences, together with administrative changes, retirements and sabbatical
leaves, have made it appropriate to revise the membership of the Field Station Research Advisory Committees.
“I invite you to serve on the RAC for the Hopland and Sierra Foothill Range Field Stations.
“As you probably know, the RAC for a Station reviews proposals for research and, within the limits of funds and facilities available, recommends,
modifies or rejects the proposals. The RAC has the responsibility of recommending the optimum utilization of Field Station resources. (Emphasis
mine)
“This committee is somewhat smaller than its predecessor and a substantial number of the members are new. The assignments have been made after
considerable administrative review and I hope you can accept this important assignment. No response is necessary unless you are unable to accept
this appointment.”
(Signed) J. B. Kendrick, Jr.
cc: G. B. Alcorn, W. M. Dugger, A. F. McCalla, L. L. Sammet
>Schoonover, Warren, E., Director of Administrative Services, Division of Agricultural Sciences. July 17 1975
Letter to G. E. Bradford (Animal Science Dept., UC Davis) in regard to Dr. Bradford’s concerns about the Marysville Dam issue.
In part, Schoonover wrote: “I believe it is important for us to develop some estimates of the costs, and I don’t mean in terms of dollars, but in research
efforts that we have put into the Station thus far, and assess the cost to us in terms of research efforts should the Station be discontinued in five to ten
years. We should also consider the possible cost of moving the Station to another location, and the efforts required of staff to get started on projects
once again. I will be discussing these ideas in greater details with Charles Raguse at a later date so that we may be prepared to discuss the matter and
go into battle as appropriate this coming year. I shall look forward to discussing this with you in greater detail in the near future also”.
In addition, Schoonover wrote: “While I share your concern, I believe we must be realistic and recognize that we may not be able to put up a
reasonable fight against the dam if there are no others who are opposing the construction and who would have greater public support.”
>Murphy, A. H., Superintendent, UC Hopland Field Station. July 29, 1976.
Letter to J. L. Myler re Stations labor reporting system.
Entire text of letter:
“Earlier you asked for comments on the labor reporting system and how it reflected the actual work being accomplished.
“In recent years there has been an increase in the use of students, either graduate or Work-Learn categories. Most of these people are working on
research projects yet they are listed under departmental groupings and do show with which project they are working. Consequently, when a
summation of man-hours use is made they are not shown with research projects. I realize that the report is mainly to show Field Station employees,
however, if you use these figures they will not show a true picture of labor use on research.
“In another area of project labor, we have people working at the Station as a place to collect samples; for example, insect collections or deer
collections. These people may be graduate students working on their study or assisting a project leader; they usually don’t require any land or labor
as such. They are here because the physical features of the Station meet the needs of their studies. Entomology grad students find frequent use of the
Station but we don’t keep any records of their ‘comings and goings’, only asking that if and when they write up their work that we get a copy.
“I’m not suggesting that we keep records of all these people, but anyone using the figures we report should be aware that they do not give a full
picture of the use being made of the Station research facilities. When the summary of labor for Station operation and research projects is viewed as
giving a true picture of the Station facility usage I think this is a misconception, particularly for upper echelon administrators who are not familiar
with Station operations.
Sad but very true, over many decades. These remarkably diverse, and protected locations, in geographical zones with life zone, plant and animal
species, and a host of ecological niches, these locations can, and did, make remarkable contributions to University teaching in the finest sense, but
teaching, in turn, was never acknowledged as a creditable and valued use. Sad, but very true. It reflects badly against the values demonstrated by
administrators. There are no check boxes or evaluation rankings to put teaching contributions by AFS into annual Station productivity summaries.
On this letter, I have a small sticky tab on which is written “Hastings Reserve as an analog” Perhaps some kind of comparison with Hastings would be
in order in this “Field Station History”.
>Heady, Harold F., Chair. VP Kendrick’s Task Force on Wildlands Research and Extension. December 17 1980.
Letter to Acting Director Loy Sammet.
“This is an interim report from Vice President Kendrick’s Task Force on Wildlands Research and Extension. It is submitted at this time to bring our
recommendations into consideration at the beginning of Fred Dickenson’s tenure as Director of the Wildland Research Center. Our understanding is
that his principal assignment is to revitalize the Center. The following recommendations are made to assist in that effort. “ Six recommendations
then follow (less than one page single-spaced), with the rather cumbersome full Task Force Report attached. These recommendations were: 1. The
name of the Center should be changed to Range, Wildlife and Forest Resources Center. Our reasons for this change are (1) that we want range and
90
wildlife to be identified so that the long-term home location in Forestry does not remain in people’s minds as the principal discipline of the Center; (2)
the work “Wildland” unfortunately still connotes “Wilderness” to most people in range and wildlife, and (3) “Research” is changed to “Resources” on
the basis that the Center should act as a vehicle for coordination of university programs in teaching and extension in addition to research. We see the
Center as much more than just its widely perceived current role in forestry research. 2. We recommend establishment of an internal Coordinating
Board along the lines of the administration of the Giannini Foundation or the Water Resources Center. This Task Force could form the basis for
the Board. (!?!) 3. For direct and frequent recommendations to the Director we recommend that a three-person Executive Committee be established
representing the three disciplines range, wildlife, and forestry and coming from the Coordinating Board. This will help put all parts on equal footing.
4. We also recommend that Cooperative Extension establish a Natural Resources Unit and that the appointed unit leader be, or designate a
member, of the Executive Committee mentioned in 3 above. (!?!) 5. The Task Force does not believe that the present funding level of the
Wildland Research Center is sufficient for the new director to be effective in attracting new research funds, promoting coordination and
interdisciplinary activities, serving as a source of information that will meet outside requests, or even in covering expenses of travel and office
operations. The Director’s budget should be at least $100,000. 6. It should be clear that the Director of the reconstituted Center report directly to the
Vice President. Our reason is that we conceive the Center’s Systemwide activities as crossing lines of teaching and research on three or more
campuses and extension statewide as well as being useful to persons in numerous disciplines, not all of which are in agriculture.
At the end of Dr. Heady’s cover letter, he writes: “Loy, this Task Force is taking the position that the University needs a Systemwide organization in
range and wildlife similar to that operating for water resources. Therefore, the Task Force wishes to stay with the assignment until some kind of
structure is established and operating.
>Heady, Harold F., Forestry and Res. Manage., College of Natural Resources, UC Berkeley March 13, 1981.
Letter to the Task Force on Research and Extension, referring to UCB,UCD, and UCR Campus research proposals being submitted through Director
Lewis, who, as the University member of the Advisory Committee for the Agricultural Investment Program, recommending having “…full project
proposals (ready) for submission, likely in a short time.” To this letter, Dr. Heady has attached an example of a model proposal to “…improve the
management of oak woodland and associated chaparral.”
Dr. Heady lists as “Program Objectives” the following:1. Determine the effects of changing magnitude of multiple uses. 2. Develop methodologies
for cost/benefit analyses of alternative uses based on management impacts, (which are) badly needed for land planning and public policy decision
making.
3. Analysis and improvement of multiple use allocation procedures. 4. Develop an understanding of user impacts on the woodland areas
in advance of crisis needs.
Dr. Heady lists “Examples of Subprojects in Researchable Areas” as follows: 1. Removal of oaks increases water flow and forage for wildlife and
domestic animals, but these conditions are temporary, and the values unknown. 2. Ideal habitats for most wildlife species in the woodlands and
brushlands have not been determined. 3. More and more, the oaks are harvested for duel wood and other uses. Almost nothing is known about the
regeneration of oaks, the silvicultural practices, and harvesting techniques needed to maintain the stands. 4. Adequate measurement or inventory
techniques are not available for the herbaceous understory, browse, and acorns. 5. It is known that nutritional quality of browse and forage varies
seasonally but not all species change the same on a seasonal basis. How the various animals maintain their nutritious diet needs study for land
management purposes. 6. Determine the erosion hazard from different land uses and revise the universal soil-loss equation for predictive application
to the areas. 7. Few efforts have been made to monitor results of use over a long period of time. 8. Determine soil and vegetational conditions in the
woodland and associated chaparral with the specific objective of identifying problems of erosion and water quality. 9. Further development of
prescribed fire as a managerial tool. 10. Examination and development of techniques for water harvesting. 11. What are the ecosystem effects of
removing the shrubs under the oaks? 12. What are the land policy and land management problems caused by mixed land ownership?
Dr. Heady states “Program Procedures” as follows: “At this time, the Task Force looks upon the proposed Land Resources Center as the coordinating
body for the program. All members of the Task Force have been active in developing the program and they are all interested in research and
extension into specific phases (sic). However, the individual pieces of research would be accomplished through long-established procedures in the
Agricultural Experiment Station and Cooperative Extension.
“University personnel who have taken part ion developing the proposal for the Land Resources Center and the Program on Woodland-Associated
(sic) chaparral are as follows:”
Cooperative Extension: Ted Adams (UCD), Jim Clawson (UCD, Lee Fitzhugh (UCD), Walter Johnson, Redding; Curtis Lynn, Visalia; Norman
MacLeod, Santa Barbara; Roy Rauscholb, UCD, Terry Salmon, UCD, Rick Standiford, UCB, Richard Teague, UCD,
Agricultural Experiment Station: Reginald Barrett, UCB; James Bartolome, UCB; Warren Johnston, UCD; John Menke, UCD; Charles Raguse,
UCD; Jeffery Romm, UCB; Ronald Wakimoto, UCB; Paul Zinke, UCB; and Harold F Heady, UCB, Chairman of the Task Force”
>Myers, Harold, Director, Agric. Field Stations. July 20, 1982.
Letter to several Davis Campus Dept. Chairs placing “…responsibility of decision making into the office of the Director of Field Stations…”
TO:
Richard W. Harris, Chairman
Environmental Horticulture
Charles A. Raguse, Chairman
Agronomy & Range Science
Robert K. Soost, Chairman
Plant Sciences
Noel Sommer, Chairman
Pomology
Charles W. Coggins, Jr., Chairman
Plant Sciences
Oscar G. Bacon, Chairman
Entomology
Jack, F. Hills, Chairman
Agronomy & Range Sciences
SUBJECT: AFS Research Advisory Committees
“Several of the AFS Research Advisory Committees are now defunct or are nearly nonfunctional due to either a lack of interest or are a low-priority
item on committee members’ agenda. There are, however, several committees that are very functional and are very involved in an advisory capacity
of the research station.
“In order to give the Superintendents direction for their assigned research programs, a new system will be put into effect, which shall place the
responsibility of decision making into the office of the Director of Field Stations and other administrators whose staff are directly associated.
(emphasis mine)
91
“Please read the accompanying paper and if you or your committee are strongly opposed to such a plan, please reply at your earliest convenience,
stating your concerns and reasons for opposition. The new system will be initiated by October 1, 1982, at which time the Research Advisory
Committees will be discontinued. (emphasis mine)
Attachment:
“According to Appendix I to Communication 15, Revision No. 5, the responsibilities of the AFS RACs are as follows:
o
“Recommend allocation of Field Station resources for most effective and efficient use thereof in accomplishing Division
research goals.
o
Recommend to Field Station Administration priorities for, and need of, additional land, labor, and facilities, and their
reallocation or disposal.
o
Recommend to the Systemwide Associate Director of the Agricultural Experiment Station research needed at a particular
Station or elsewhere.
o
Meet regularly with Field Station Industry Advisory Committees (where such committees exist) to advise them about work
accomplished and in progress, to review future needs, and to receive recommendations on items of interest to the industry.”
“Although the system has worked quite well in the past, I would like to have your thoughts and recommendations on the following alternative as it
applies to the Station(s) of which you are the current chairperson.
“Because of the increased demands on time and efforts of RAC members, the office of the Director of Field Stations will be willing to share the
responsibility of decision making with the appropriate Associate Dean, Department Head, Cooperative Extension Program Director, and/or the
Associate Director for the programs.
“1. The Director of Field Stations shall publicize among all potential research users of the Field Station Facilities (sic) the deadline date for
submission of project proposals. The proposals will be of the following category: one for terminated projects, one for current projects and one for
new projects. The current forms used for the project proposal will continue to be used.
“2. Submission of Project Proposals:
a. Experiment Station Staff:
“Faculty and staff members shall submit their proposals (prepared as described in Part 1 above) to their Department Chair for review, approval
signature, and designation of labor recharge funding source. (emphasis mine) The Chair shall send the departmental-approved project to the Station
Superintendent for review and transmittal to the Director of Field Stations.
b. County Cooperative Extension Staff:
“Members of CE who are based in County Offices shall submit their proposals to their County Director for review, approval signature, and
designation of funding sources (if to be funded from County-controlled resources). The County Director shall submit the proposal to the appropriate
CE Regional Director for review and approval signature. The proposal shall then be submitted to the appropriate Department Chair for review,
approval, and submittal to the Station Superintendent for review and transmittal to the Director of Field Stations.
c. “State” Cooperative Extension Staff:
“Cooperative Extension “State” staff shall submit their proposals to the appropriate Program Director for review and approval signature. The
proposal shall then be forwarded to the appropriate Department Chair who, upon approval, shall submit the proposal to the Station Superintendent for
review and transmittal to the Director of Field Stations.
d. Other Agency Staff:
“Personnel of the USDA (or other agencies which have memoranda of agreements with the Regents of the University of California for agricultural
research) who carry University appointments as “Associates in the Agricultural Experiment Station” shall submit their proposals to their Unit
Administrator. The Unit Administrator, upon approval, shall designate funding sources within the unit and transmit the proposal to the Chair of the
Department of the Agricultural Experiment Station to which they are appointed. The Department Chair, upon approval, shall submit the proposal to
the Station Superintendent for review and transmittal to the Director of Field Stations.
3. Action by the Station Superintendent:
The Station Superintendent shall review the project proposal to determine that all information required by the Director
of Field Stations has been supplied by the Project Leader. The Station Superintendent shall verify that a current AES
project number has been designated by the Project Leader or Department Chair, or that a project number is pending. For
pending projects, the number would be designated by Campus-Department-Pending, as: D-ARS-Pending. Where additional information is required,
the Station Superintendent shall, by direct contact with the Project Leader, secure the
additional information. The Station Superintendent shall also determine that resources (land, labor, isolation, etc.)
required by the Project Leader are available at the Station to meet the project requirements. Following the above action,
the Superintendent shall transmit the proposal to the Director of Field Stations, the Station Superintendent shall assign a Station Identification
Number to the project proposal. All project proposals shall be submitted to the Director of Field Stations for final action, irrespective of the findings
of the Station Superintendent regarding available resources.
Prospective Project Leaders shall consult with the Station Superintendent prior to initiating a project proposal to verify
the availability of resources adequate to meet the project needs.
4. Action by the Director of Field Stations:
The Director of Field Stations shall review project proposals to determine
”Availability and adequacy of resources.
Appropriateness of the proposal to its Field
Station Priority
“In case of conflicts or concerns where advice or direction is needed, the Director of Field Stations will consult with the Appropriate Associate Dean
and/or Department Chairperson, Program Director or USDA Unit Administrator. The Project Leader will be notified of that meeting and shall be
included. The resultant decision shall be transmitted to the Project Leader.
92
“Land requests will be on a first come, first serve basis with the exception to prior committed assigned areas. Decisions relating to man hours of labor
assigned to each research project will be accomplished by the Station Superintendent and the Director of Field Stations. If upon review by the Project
Leader it is not acceptable, and then appeal through the appropriate Department Chairman to the Director of Field Stations would need to be made in
that labor overcharges will continue to be made.
“Decisions concerning the scientific integrity of the proposed research is rightfully the prerogative of the Department Chairman and/or the Associate
Dean or Cooperative Extension Associate Director for Programs. If a concern is expressed by the Station Superintendent or another Project Leader
concerning the project’s integrity as it might relate to other ongoing Station work, then the Director of Field Stations, Project Leaders involved, and
the Associate Directors will resolve the question.
>Lewis, Lowell N., Assistant Vice President and Director, Agricultural Experiment Station. October 10, 1983. Letter to
G. E. Bradford, Dept. Animal Science, Davis, re the decision to separate the HFS/SFRFS into two committees.
Entire text of letter:
“In reference to your letter of September 29, let me first express my appreciation to you for your willingness to serve on the HFS RAC. These
committees are not only important to us (you are a valued client/customer; feel important) in our administration of the Field Stations, but they also
play an important part in indicating research needs. (Really?!)
“The decision to separate the combined RAC … into separate committees was recommended to me by Director Myers (Oh) after he had concluded an
examination of the Stations’ effectiveness in offering their services to the researchers associated with the University. (Eric, was this report ever
released to the RAC?)
“At the current time there are 23 projects at the Hopland Station and of that number only three are being conducted by CE personnel. At the SFRFS,
there are 24 studies being conducted, and of that number CE personnel are involved in only two. None of the CE personnel are involved in research
at both Stations. By splitting up the committee, it was felt that greater encouragement might be given to all researchers to better utilize the Stations
for their research.
“Also taken into consideration was the concept that Field Stations serve in a geographical role rather than a role oriented toward commodities.
Although many of the problems and approaches are common between the two stations, it appears that much of the research at one station
compliments (sic) research at the other. (Run that one by me again??) It is not to say that this is wrong,, but perhaps there are other research concerns
applicable to a geographical area that are being overlooked, and it was with this concern that additional consideration was given to dividing the
committee.
“Attention was also given to broadening the committees in the various specialties represented on the stations. This was more easily accomplished by
rotating some members off the committee.
“I hope that these reasons help in answering your concerns. We think that we made the right decision, and with conscientious members on these
committees we are looking forward to not only better usage of the stations but also to stronger communications with all concerned. (Emphasis mine)
“Thank you for your concern and interest.
I guess one way to assess this letter and its reasoning, which seems to be that of Harold Myers and not that of Lowell Lewis, is to look at the decade
that followed.
xc:
Harold Myers
>Myers, Harold, Director, Agric. Field Stations. October 17, 1983.
Letter replying to R. W. Touchberry re his charge of ‘stacking’ RAC membership, and issue of AFS ownership of cattle at the SFRFS.
Two relevant excerpts: “In answer to your memo of October 14, let me assure you that there was no thought given to stacking any committee. I
assume that by the tenor of your memo that you are quite unhappy about our recent actions of restructuring this particular committee. It is however,
my responsibility to recommend to the Director of the Agricultural Experiment Station any actions which I feel would aid in the promotion and
maximum utilization of our Field Stations.
(Myers then lists the past and the then current constituency of the RACs, and defends these memberships)
“I do wish however, to apologize for not informing you of our intent on cattle ownership. Unfortunately I had visited with several members of the
Advisory Committee on certain aspects of the feasibility of AFS supplying certain cattle needs for specific projects. I thought the conversations were
to be held in confidence by apparently they were not. I was waiting until after I spoke with the Director of the Experiment Station before I was to
visit with you. My visit with him was this past Friday but unfortunately rumors beat me to you. I will, in the very near future, ask for a meeting with
you in order to discuss several items of concern which we have.
“If this explanation is not satisfactory to you, please call me at your earliest convenience. I feel that personal visits are much more conducive to
problem solving and I look forward to meeting with you.
cc:
D. W. Rains
C. E. Hess
L. N. Lewis
>Kendrick, J.B., Jr., Vice President, Agriculture and University Services January 13, 1984.
Letter to C.A. Raguse re activities and recommendations of the RAC.
“I appreciate receiving a copy of the recommendations for continuing the improvement of working arrangements at the Hopland and Sierra Foothill
Range Field Station. I do keep in touch with these facilities even though the direct responsibility for their activities fall to Directors Lowell Lewis and
Harold Myers.
“I want to express my sincere thanks to you, Charles, for bearing the responsibility of chairing the Research Advisory Committee for these two
stations these past 10 years. I am fully aware of the progress that has occurred during this period under your leadership. I am pleased that you found
rewarding satisfaction in that role.
“Change is inevitable and it is what keeps large institutions and organizations alive. With new leadership in the Experiment Station and in the Field
Stations we expect things to be done differently. I support this attitude completely and feel confident that the Experiment Station and the Field
Station have a bright future in serving California’s agriculture.
“Best regards and best wishes.”
93
Research Advisory Committees (RAC) and Communication 15
>Communication 15 (“COM-15”), Revision No. 5, October 1978
>Hopland Research Committee. Report of Policy Sub-committee. R.H. Burgy, Chairman, March 29, 1955.
Report of a sub-committee formed to study the question of and relating to the matters of policy for the guidance and clarification of the Hopland
Research Committee regarding its duties and responsibilities.
“This committee has received and reviewed a series of proposals and questions relating to matters of policy as concerned with the Hopland Field
Station and the Research Committee. As a result of these discussions, conclusions have been reached on several matters. These conclusions together
with some recommendations are outlined here. It was the consensus of the sub-committee that the recommendations as presented would materially
assist the Research Committed in its deliberations by clarifying the duties and responsibilities of the Committee. Others of these considerations, if
adopted, would by record, become accepted procedure. The following are recommended for adoption:
“1. That the Director of the California Agricultural Experiment Station outline the policy and duties of the Hopland Research Committee.
“2. That a review committee of members of the Hopland Research Committee be appointed to consider the acceptance of new research projects and
proposals. This committee shall consider for acceptance new work proposed for the Station with regard to availability of space, facilities, livestock,
assistance, suitability for integration with the existing work load, suitability for accomplishment on the Station rather than elsewhere. Projects shall
be considered in view of the outlined criteria presented in Communication 15, Office of Director of Agricultural Experiment Station,
November 5, 1954. This review committee shall meet annually or oftener to consider proposals. The meeting shall be held in February and at such
other times as necessary. It is hoped that this committee would reduce the burden of administrative details for the Research Committee and would
relieve the Station Superintendent of the burden of making decisions of this nature. Projects may be submitted at any time. The word ‘Project’ as
used herein shall be taken to mean an experimental study or equivalent.
“3. That matters of agreements regarding authorship and publication of research findings resulting from work at the Hopland Field Station be
considered as a part of the project proposal at the time of initiation of such a project and be made a part of the project outline.
“4. Weir and Love were originally assigned responsibilities for the general sheep flock and general pasture use at the Hopland Field Station, exclusive
of those parts under experiment. They shall report annually on the disposition of the flock and the land for review by the Research Committee.
“5. That the Hopland Research Committee shall meet quarterly in February, May, September and November. Meetings shall be called by the
Chairman and shall be rotated among the several stations as is desirable.
“6. That the Research Committee shall not act in support of projects or proposals for departments. Responsibility for such projects lie within
departments. Acceptance of proposals for work on the Hopland Field Station shall constitute endorsement of the work as being of a character and
nature suitable for study on the Station
“7. That a statement be prepared concerned with the balance between research and demonstration in the use of the Hopland Field Station in light of
information Director Sharp is gathering.
“8. That a decision regarding these points be made: (a) Desirability of an annual inventory of Edaphic, Biological, and Climatological data. (b)
Annual review and revision of maps, and of other physiographic changes. (c) Photographic record-responsibility and scope.
“9. That publicity and press releases concerned with work on the station shall be cleared with the project personnel concerned prior to release. A
publicity committee is acting for the Hopland Research Committee.
“10. That a recommendation is desired on the advisability of having an advisory committee composed of local people interested in the Field Station
and the work to be done there.
“Respectfully submitted, H.F. Heady; W.M Longhurst; W.C. Weir; R.M. Love, Ex Officio; B.A. Madson, Ex Officio; R.H. Burgy, Chairman
>Raguse, C.A., Chair, Hopland/Sierra Foothill Range RAC December 6, 1983.
Last meeting of the combined-Stations committee. From the Committee’s deliberations, a 2-page
list of twelve recommendations that included matters of a vision statement, policy formulation,
and operational objectives. These constituted as much a statement of the times as the mechanics
of operating a Field Station, for example, No. 9: “At Sierra, a major effort to resolve the irrigation
water supply problem must be continued. Three criteria are essential: A. Availability of adequate
amounts of water, B. Dependable and consistent delivery across the irrigation season, and C.
Adequate length of season, with flexible, seasonally-determined “in” and “out” dates by
arrangement with the Browns Valley Irrigation District.
>Lewis, Lowell N., Assistant Vice President and Director, Agricultural Experiment Station. October 10, 1983.
Letter to G. E. Bradford, Dept. Animal Science, Davis, re the decision to separate the HFS/SFRFS into two committees.
Entire text of letter:
“In reference to your letter of September 29, let me first express my appreciation to you for your willingness to serve on the HFS RAC. These
committees are not only important to us (you are a valued client/customer; feel important) in our administration of the Field Stations, but they also
play an important part in indicating research needs. (really?!)
“The decision to separate the combined RAC … into separate committees was recommended to me by Director Myers (Oh!) after he had concluded
an examination of the Stations’ effectiveness in offering their services to the researchers associated with the University. (Eric, was this report ever
released to the RAC?)
“At the current time there are 23 projects at the Hopland Station and of that number only three are being conducted by CE personnel. At the SFRFS,
there are 24 studies being conducted, and of that number CE personnel are involved in only two. None of the CE personnel are involved in research
at both Stations. By splitting up the committee, it was felt that greater encouragement might be given to all researchers to better utilize the Stations
for their research.
“Also taken into consideration was the concept that Field Stations serve in a geographical role rather than a role oriented toward commodities.
Although many of the problems and approaches are common between the two stations, it appears that much of the research at one station
compliments (sic) research at the other. (Run that one by me again??) It is not to say that this is wrong,, but perhaps there are other research
concerns applicable to a geographical area that are being overlooked, and it was with this concern that additional consideration was given to dividing
the committee.
94
“Attention was also given to broadening the committees in the various specialties represented on the stations. This was more easily accomplished by
rotating some members off the committee.
“I hope that these reasons help in answering your concerns. We think that we made the right decision, and with conscientious members on these
committees we are looking forward to not only better usage of the stations but also to stronger communications with all concerned. (emphasis mine)
“Thank you for your concern and interest.
I guess one way to assess this letter and its reasoning, which seems to be that of Harold Myers and not that of Lowell Lewis, is to look at the decade
that followed.
xc:
Harold Myers
(need citation for item below)
Entire text of letter:
“On August 1, 1983 I spent several hours at the Newlands Field Laboratory at Fallon, Nevada, visiting with John ‘Mike’ Connor, our new SFRFS
Superintendent. Among other things, we discussed the potential and desirability of having a genetics research component at the Station. This is not a
new idea, of course, and in fact was one of the four cornerstones of the ‘Proposal for Augmentation of UC’s Range Beef Cattle Research Capability’,
which was authored by the Animal Science Department some years ago (G. E. Bradford, Chair) and led to the so-called ‘Kellogg-McDonald’ Station
development program. At one point, Dr. John Pollack was to have led this research, but for one reason or another work never materialized.
“There are several reasons why we should give serious thought to developing a sound program of genetics work, now, at the SFRFS.
First, from my own conversations with Tom Famula, it appears there is again serious interest in your department in this kind of research.
Second, the new Superintendent, Mike Connor, once he has had sufficient time to orient himself, seems quite interested in contributing as a
cooperator. Since he was a rancher once himself, and did at that time collaborate with UC research personnel, this seems a very logical and workable
support relationship.
Third, it may be that the badly-needed image enhancement for the SFRFS would be considerably aided by research, on-going with a stable Station
herd, of interest to the area beef cattle industry, for example, cross-breeding for specific range adaptive characteristics.
Fourth, the purebred herd, presently assigned under Project No. 85 (Campbell Field) could be developed for this purpose, while simultaneously
meeting the objectives of the Project 85 program and including a necessary component of herd health, which both Dr. Norman Baker and Dr. Robert
Bushnell could contribute to for indigenous parasite and reproductive problems. It seems that the value of any specific research component will be
enhanced by the opportunity to account for results within the framework of a year-long, comprehensive management system, which, in fact, is one of
the major objectives of Project No. 85.
Fifth. Although I have received no direct and positive signals yet from AFS administration, it seems that the matter of Station ownership of research
animals will be discussed at some time in the near future. The relationship of this issue to the concerns of this letter seem at least to be the concept of
a ‘Station’ herd, i.e., one where long-term stability and integrity are ensured and where replacements are generated ‘in situ’ as an integral part of the
management system.
“All-in-all, it seems that we have a clear opportunity to build a comprehensive, integrated, multi-disciplinary research program with a strong line of
genetics work, which would not only be a credit to the Station, but also serve as a basis for seeking extramural funding support.
“Mike Connor will be at the Station about August 18. Prior to that, he will be in Harold Myers’ office for several days. I have suggested to Harold
that he arrange for an opportunity for interested people from campus departments to meet with Mike at that time (e.g., a Faculty Club 4-6 pm mixer or
some such arrangement). I will follow up on that to see that it is scheduled.
“Finally, I wrote this out following my visit with Mike Connor and my conversation with Tom Famula. It may be that I have left out important
elements. My main concern is that we have an opportunity here that we should develop as best we can.
cc: Tom Famula
Roy Hull
D. W. Rains
>Kendrick, J. B., June 24, 1974.
Letter to several, forming new HFS-SFRFS RAC. Emphasizes key roles of the RAC.
M. RONNING, Chairman and Administrative Advisor; J. L. MYLER, Ex officio
P. L. ROWELL, Secretary
A.H. MURPHY, Assistant Secretary
J. R. ANDERSON
G. E. BRADFORD
W. H. BROOKS
W. J. CLAWSON
D. F. LOTT
R. A. MATHEWS
J. W. MENKE
C. A. RAGUSE
“The development of the long-range plans for the Division of Agricultural Sciences, together with administrative changes, retirements and sabbatical
leaves, have made it appropriate to revise the membership of the Field Station Research Advisory Committees. “I invite you to serve on the RAC for
the Hopland and Sierra Foothill Range Field Stations. “As you probably know, the RAC for a Station reviews proposals for research and, within the
limits of funds and facilities available, recommends, modifies or rejects the proposals. The RAC has the responsibility of recommending the
optimum utilization of Field Station resources. (Emphasis mine)
“This committee is somewhat smaller than its predecessor and a substantial number of the members are new. The assignments have been made after
considerable administrative review and I hope you can accept this important assignment. No response is necessary unless you are unable to accept
this appointment.
(signed) J. B. Kendrick, Jr.
cc:
G. B. Alcorn
W. M. Dugger
A. F. McCalla
L. L. Sammet
>Myers, Harold, Director, Agric. Field Stations. October 17, 1983.
95
Letter replying to R. W. Touchberry re latter’s charge of ‘stacking’ RAC membership, and issue of AFS ownership of cattle at the SFRFS.
Two relevant excerpts:
“In answer to your memo of October 14, let me assure you that there was no thought given to stacking any committee. I assume that by the tenor of
your memo that you are quite unhappy about our recent actions of restructuring this particular committee. It is however, my responsibility to
recommend to the Director of the Agricultural Experiment Station any actions which I feel would aid in the promotion and maximum utilization of
our Field Stations.
“I do wish however, to apologize for not informing you of our intent on cattle ownership. Unfortunately I had visited with several members of the
Advisory Committee on certain aspects of the feasibility of AFS supplying certain cattle needs for specific projects. I thought the conversations were
to be held in confidence by apparently they were not. I was waiting until after I spoke with the Director of the Experiment Station before I was to
visit with you. My visit with him was this past Friday but unfortunately rumors beat me to you. I will, in the very near future, ask for a meeting with
you in order to discuss several items of concern which we have.“If this explanation is not satisfactory to you, please call me at your earliest
convenience. I feel that personal visits are much more conducive to problem solving and I look forward to meeting with you.
cc:
D. W. Rains
C. E. Hess
L. N. Lewis
>Touchberry, R. W., Chair, Dept. of Animal Sci., UC Davis. October 14, 1983.
Letter to Harold Myers questioning membership of the HFS SFRFS RAC and cattle ownership at the SFRFS.
“In a letter of October 10, 1983, to Prof. G. E. Bradford, Director Lowell Lewis gives as the reasons for forming two advisory committees the
following: (emphasis mine) Greater encouragement might be given to all researchers to better utilize the stations for their research.
The geographical role of each station might be served more effectively by two committees.
“Both of these reasons seem rather arbitrary and tenuous since both stations are range stations and most of the research at each station is concerned
with range management and productivity including a substantial component of research on wildlife.
“To me it doesn’t really matter that we have two committees, but the structure of those committees is very important. I would like to know the
composition of the two Research Advisory Committees. If the majority of members of each committee does not represent faculty of Agronomy &
Range Science and Animal Science, or Extension Specialists associated with these two departments or related subject matter areas, I for one would
like a logical and scientifically sound justification for the composition. This would be analogous to stacking the Imperial Valley RAC with animal
scientists and social scientists and a minority of plant scientists.” (The age-old conundrum: Do you have knowledgeable foxes in charge of the
henhouse, or completely objective ninnies? Is the RAC a court with zero prejudice, or a ‘Good ‘ol Boys’ club to run the Station for the
benefit of the members’ Departments?)
The “Field Stations Advisory Committee”
>Schoonover, Warren E., Director of Administrative Services, Agric. & University Services. April 19, 1976
Alerting the Committee to the 1977-78 Budget Request (hand-drawn copy attached) and to comments received on upcoming labor recharges effective
on 1 Jan 1977.
“Attached is the 1977-78 Budget Request for the Field Stations. … I would appreciate any comments that you may have.
“I have received a number of comments about the proposed dollar-per-hour recharge rate and its implementation, effective January 1, 1977. … I will
be sending this to you shortly for your review and further comment. I would anticipate a need for another meeting
>Schoonover, Warren E., Director of Administrative Services, Agric. & University Services. Jan uary 28 , 1977
Call to meeting of the Field Stations Advisory Committee: Oscar G. Bacon, Wesley P. Hacket, Lowell N. Lewis, Oscar A. Lorenz, James. L. Myler,
Charles A. Raguse, Milton N. Schroth, Robert K. Soost, Ivan J. Thomason, Schlaegel, Charles Coggins.
Agenda: 1. Implementation problems on recharge change, 2. Minor Capital Improvement Program; 3. Steady state budgeting problems; 4. Kearney
Horticultural Field Station, growth plan
Speck, E.P., Agricultural Field Stations Office, UC Davis Campus. March 1, 1977.
Table: Summary of Estimated Research Hours at One Dollar for 1977-78 and the Comparison with Assigned Research Hours in Year 1976-77 and
Actual Research Hours in the Years 1975-76. The data are displayed for the Berkeley, Davis, and Riversides Campuses and Cooperative Extension.
Column totals for Campuses and Cooperative Extension were: Berkeley, 3,870; Davis, 40,018; Riverside, 14,957; Cooperative Extension, 12,514; for
a Grand Total of 71,359.
Note: This is the “1977-78 Budget Request” referred to in Schoonover’s letter of 19 Apr, 1976 (above).
>Schoonover, Warren E. Director of Administrative Services, Agriculture & Univ. Services. January 20, 1978
Letter to C.A. Raguse re research labor hour charges.
“Your letter of December 15, 1977 to Vice President Kendrick concerning the Hopland and Sierra Foothill Range Field Stations has been referred to
me. I believe before we make decision as to the appropriateness of charging for research labor at the range field stations, the matter should be
reviewed by the Field Stations Advisory Committee. … Hopefully there will be other agenda items coming up shortly so that it will be worthwhile
calling a meeting. (Ouch!)
>Schoonover, Warren E., Director of Administrative Services, Agriculture & University Services. May 11, 1978.
Letter to members of the Field Stations Advisory Committee attaching notes from a meeting of the Committee on 18 Apr 1978.
In Attendance:
Robert Soost; Ivan Thomason; Charles Coggins, Jr.; Don Nielsen; Oscar Bacon; Oscar Lorenz; Gene Speck; Dave Schlegel; Wesley Hackett; Warren
Schoonover.
“The proposed revision of Communication No. 15 was carefully reviewed. A number of minor editorial changes were recommended and
modification of Section B, dealing with responsibilities of various personnel There was particular need for revision of this section dealing with the
96
responsibilities of the Station Superintendent, as they relate to management of the Station and to research. Mr. Speck agreed to prepare appropriate
rewriting of Communication 15 for final review.
“The dollar-per-hour recharge was reviewed and discussed at length. While it is apparent that there is increased clerical work on behalf of Field
Station staff, there has not yet been sufficient experience with the system to permit effective evaluation. It was decided that, at a minimum, another
six months’ experience should be obtained after which evaluation should be made. Criteria for evaluation need to be established.
“The request from the RAC for the Range Field Stations to continue the exemption of those Stations from the recharge procedures was reviewed an
discussed. With the exception of the Chair of the RAC for the Range Field Stations, there was general consensus that the Range Field Stations
should be subject to the same recharge policy as all other Stations.
“The minor capital improvement budget for 1979-80 was reviewed. While there was general concern that the items for the Sierra Foothill Range
Field Station, shown as AFS-9-79 and AFS-9-70 were of high priority to that Field Station, no action was taken to change the priorities. Warren
Schoonover agreed to investigate the possibility of funding the proposed dwelling for Tulelake Field Station, shown as Item AFS-5-79, from other
funding sources.
“The proposal for separate research advisory committees for the Kearney Horticultural Field Station and the West Side Field Station was reviewed
and there was general agreement that such a separation would be appropriate.
>Heady, Harold F., Assistant Vice President, Agriculture and University Services. May 3, 1978.
Letter to Director Warren Schoonover re the dollar per hour recharge.
“I concur in your recommendation for exempting the two range field stations until June 30, 1979. Objective evaluation of the program with agreedupon criteria should be completed by that time when a permanent solution should be found. Cc to J.B. Kendrick and J.L. Myler
>Raguse, C.A. An aside:
After this Committee had been established and I had attended a couple of meetings, I promptly christened it “Super-RAC”. The name stuck. The
Committee wasn’t in force for very long. Comprised largely of the Chairs of individual RACs, each member naturally was compelled to look after
his own Field Station and associated constituency. I proved a good example of that, as I voted against implementation of the dollar-per-hour recharge
in the first place.
Superintendents, and Directors, of Individual Field Stations
No text entered
Cooperative Extension: An Historic Review
>Cooperative Extension. August 5, 2011.
Advisor Vacancy for Kern County, headquartered in Bakersfield.
“The advisor will develop linkages with individuals, client groups, researchers, policy makers, agencies and organizations relevant to livestock and
natural resource management. The advisor will also develop and test livestock, range and natural resource manage practices and strategies that
protect water quality and food safety and restore degraded ecosystems while supporting economically viable livestock enterprises.
“A minimum of a Master’s Degree is required, though other advanced degrees are encouraged, in disciplines of rangeland management or a closely
related field. Ideally, the applicant will have a degree in animal science or related field(s) and one degree in range management or have the minimum
coursework to be as Certified Rangeland Manager. This is an academic career-track appointment.”
(And, in the fine print between the lines: “This is a 24/7 position; time off for personal illness or accident is to be arranged in advance.”
“Strategic”, and other, Planning
>Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources (DANR). IN: ANR Report June 4, 1996.
“The statement spells out, in five concise, easy-to-read sections, DANR’s mission and core values (“who we are”), vision (“what we hope to
become”), context (“what we must keep in mind about the changing world around us”), and criteria for deciding program priorities (“what is
important to us”).
“In publishing the statement, DANR reached the first of three critical mileposts in designing a new strategic plan.
“The plan’s second element – high-priority, midterm program goals – will be developed by the program planning advisory committees (PPACs) over
the next few months, as they refine and update recommendations initially made last year.
“The third element concerns organizational goals and strategies. These are plans for improving the way the Division works and organizes itself.
They will be developed by the Council of Deans and Directors (CODAD), aided by ad hoc advisory teams, beginning this (1996) summer. …”
“Our mission:
“To serve California through the creation, development and application of knowledge in agricultural, natural, and human resources.
“Our Vision:
“1. In keeping with our mission and consistent with our core values, we will be the link between abstract knowledge and the pragmatic world.
“2. We will generate new knowledge, … [and] reach out to help people make use of the knowledge to solve everyday problems in … agriculture,
human, and natural resources.
“3. We will actively involve the public … bringing a global perspective to … local issues…. Integrating research, education, and extension, we will
transform ideas into solutions.
“4. We will connect the people of California with the research-based information that can help them improve their quality of life and enhance the
environment for all.”
>Planning Subcommittee of the SFS RAC. Undated.(probably 1992?)
97
A strategic plan for the UC Sierra Foothill Research and Extension Center with sections headed Vision, Introduction, Goals, Areas of Focus for
Research and Extension, Objectives, Research Advisory Committee, and Affirmative Action Efforts. An excellent example of the PowerPoint bullet
lists that make one think “Well, ok, but exactly how do plant to accomplish that (Goal, Focus, Objective, and the ubiquitous “Vision”).
PART VII. ISSUES THAT DEFINED THE STATION, MOSTLY IN
CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER
Recreation Research
>McCreary, Doug. IN: ANR Report, June 4, 1996.
Oak woodland nature trail opens at Sierra Foothill REC
“The Sierra Foothill Research and Extension Center (SFREC) has opened the Porter Creek Nature Trail. Accessible to the general public and schools
on weekdays, the trail features 11 interpretive stops, describing the natural and cultural resources found at the 5,700-acre field station, as well as the
types of research conducted there. Among the highlights on the trail are: Bedrock mortar grinding rocks used by Native Americans; Riparian
restoration plantings of willow, oak, and buckeye; Special habitat elements important for woodland wildlife; and Research into techniques to improve
regeneration of native oaks.
The trail was constructed by SFREC staff, assisted by California Youth Authority crews from a nearby California Division of Forestry Conservation
Corps camp. Students from a shop class at a local intermediate school also helped by building bird boxes and making entrance signs. One of the
trail’s major attractions is an elevated 400-foot-long walkway, accessible by wheelchair, through a lush marsh. The marsh is especially rich in
wildlife and is home to a pair of black rails – a California threatened bird species recently discovered at SFREC, which had been thought to occur
only in coastal wetlands.
>University of California Sierra Foothill Research and Extension Center (SFREC) Undated.
Doug McCreary’s Porter Creek Nature Trail Map Brochure, Annotated
Provides a brief description of each of the 11 stops on the trail.
From left to right:
First view:
Site map, and,1) California’s Water and 2) Native
Americans
Second view
3) Riparian Planting; 4) Wildlife Habitat; 5) Improved
Pastures) Oak Woodlands
Third view
7) Oak Regeneration; 8) Dying Oak Tree; 9) Marsh
Vegetation; 10) Eucalyptus Grove;
Fourth view
11) Natural Resources and Brochure Cover
>Ad hoc Committee, U. C. SFRFS. September 22, 1967.
My own comments on the report of a committee to investigate opportunities for outdoor recreation research on and around the Station.
The report is quite lengthy, so will be included as one of the Appendixes in the finished book. Listed here are the sections into which the report is
divided:
“Opportunities for Research
“Possible Limitations for Research
“General Considerations
“Appendix I: Problems and Opportunities for Research in Recreation at the U. C. SFRFS
“Appendix II: A series of quotes from ‘Clawson, M. and J. L. Knetsch. Outdoor recreation research. In: Resources for the future. May 1963.”
The Report makes a strong case and plea for construction of a multidisciplinary and integrated research program, almost to the point of becoming an
institute-like organization. The lack of same is well-documented, as well as reasons why it has not developed. The statements (quotes) that follow
were taken from the Section “General Considerations”.
“Considering the extremely rapid growth of outdoor recreation in California and the problems engendered by this activity in resource production, land
use, land values, taxation, facility development and maintenance, health and safety, adequate provision of satisfactory recreation opportunities, and
many other aspects, it is startling to find the relatively limited amount of University-supported involvement in solving these problems in previous
years.
“While there has been a great deal of University-originated information available that is applicable to the solution of recreation problems (as well as
many discussions of recreation land use policies), there has also been very little direct research on recreation areas, use, and specific recreation
problems. And most of the support for those direct recreation study projects accomplished has been from federal and state agency special contracts
with minimal Division of Agriculture or University financial support. Possibly more significant is the probability that very few projects have been
proposed and submitted by researchers for University financing. Within the Division of Agriculture this reluctance probably stemmed from a
tradition emphasis on commercial resource production and reluctance to identify with the presumed non-academic area of outdoor recreation (see
Appendix II).
“Most apparent has been the lack of a continuous and cohesive research program over the years on outdoor recreation by many schools or
departments within the University that should have been involved in this area. Under the University discipline-oriented organization, this situation is
perhaps understandable. Outdoor recreation is not a single field for research endeavor and it can include many established disciplines such as
biological sciences, engineering, architecture, landscape architecture, sociology, psychology, physical education, economics, public health, wildlife
management, forestry, political science, business administration and law. In addition, there is a strong relationship between the provision and
management of outdoor recreation areas and open-space and regional planning interests in the state. The University organizational system and
researcher attitudes in the past have produced a fragmented and sporadic approach to the general problem.
“At the same time it is recognized that the University position regarding teaching and research in outdoor recreation and recreational land
management has been undergoing vigorous review on several campuses in the past year. And several recreation-oriented University supported
98
projects established recently are evidence of change. So despite criticism of past activities, organizational changes and concepts directly related to
outdoor recreation either established or near establishment give promise for the future.
“With University departments moving increasingly to basic research (emphasis mine), however, a void is developing in certain land management
information of crucial and immediate importance in California. In this category the field of outdoor recreation is notable. A review of University
research directly related to outdoor recreation has provided a partial list illustrating the variety and scope of studies underway or completed in the past
six years (also see Appendix II).
(A list of thirteen examples followed.)
“Although these examples suggest a sizable research involvement within the University on a variety of recreation problems, the amount of activity is
relatively small, considering the scope of the general problem and the size of the total University research capability. It should also be pointed out
that most of these efforts were intermittent contract studies with minimum or no University financial support, and often designed to meet emergency
situations. Significantly, the initiative for establishing many of these studies often came from non-University sources. This re-emphasizes the lack
of a planned and continuing University program in recreation research. Furthermore, sociology and psychology studies on recreation needs and
values to the recreationist (the recreation product consumer) within the University have been negligible. And this information, joined with improved
data on actual use and participation in various kinds of recreation, is essential to adequate analysis in other disciplines.
“While there have been excellent results from the discipline approach to components of recreation problems, these are not contributing to the solution
of a major California dilemma on sufficient scale. The institutes and centers established within the University to bring together various disciplines in
joint effort on complex problems is only a partial solution for encouraging recreation research. Here again these units may receive only limited
University financial support, and often depend upon individual initiation of projects and solicited funds from outside sources. And without good
control and coordination from the unit administration, center projects can easily dissolve again into narrow and non-coordinated efforts. (Sort of like
the Super Bowl commercial of a few years ago, “herding cats”)
“Without detracting from the importance of independent discipline-oriented research in outdoor recreation and the need for more of this, there are
compelling reasons for some centralized direction and coordination of recreation research within both the Division of Agriculture and the total
University. …”
The ad hoc committee membership of the above-described report:
James P. Gilligan, AES, Extension Forester, Chair
Maynard Cummings, AES, Assistant State Director
Warren E. Johnston, Assistant Professor, Department of Agricultural Economics, UC Davis
Richard Teague, AES, Extension Wildlife Specialist.
>Animal Science Department, of UC Davis. Undated.
Draft, no authors listed, of a proposal to do “recreational research” at the UC SFRFS
From the Introduction or Abstract:
“Consistent with long-range research goals, the Department of Animal Science, University of California, Davis, is proposing a recreational research
project on the Sierra Foothill Field Station located on the Yuba River. As this activity develops, a number of other departments and agencies will
initiate cooperative programs that will extend attention to this important problem affecting large areas of California lands and large numbers of urban
people, as well as ranch operators.
“The work will involve studies of interrelationships between people, animals and environments when the land is used simultaneously for recreational
activities and livestock operations. The ultimate objectives are to accumulate necessary data and information to permit design of management
procedures for optimum utilization of foothill rangelands in the multiple use concept. (emphasis mine)
“In order to initiate this long-term program, a capital investment of about $215,000 will be required – for operational headquarters and resident staff,
$145,000; supporting laboratories and service buildings, $25,000; and trail and campsite development, $45,000.
Text of the proposal:
SIERRA FOOTHILL RECREATION RESEARCH
A research program is under development relative to soil, water, plant and livestock management as applied to Sierra Foothill lands. In order to
promote optimum utilization of this resource the recreation potential should be assessed. Being readily accessible to population centers in the coastal
areas as well as the central valley, it appears that these lands offer excellent potential for outdoor recreation. In this respect, livestock ranchers who
presently are primary users have a number of alternatives to consider, but limited information upon which to base decisions. For example, there may
be need to consider whether to convert this land use completely for recreation, integrate present activities for multiple use or exclude holdings
completely from recreation use. Of special concern is the lack of information relative to effects, if any, upon range livestock when acutely exposed to
humans. Neither is known what influence the presence of livestock might have upon people engaged in recreational pursuits. It is not even clearly
known what type of recreation activities people would be seeking in areas such as these.
“In order to obtain some quantitative data along these lines, the Department of Animal Science proposes to redirect some of its resources to research
on recreation as a multiple use component of rangeland at the Sierra Foothill Field Station. The initial project in cooperation with the Department of
Applied Behavioral Science will be directed toward physiological and behavioral stress upon animals grazed on land used intensively and extensively
for recreation purposes. Others will be invited to participate with both cooperative and independent research projects and with establishment of the
physical operational facilities needed. It is obvious that agencies and departments representing a wide variety of disciplines and missions will avail
themselves of this opportunity.
“The University of California Sierra Foothill Range Field Station, while basically a facility for cattle and range research, is well suited for
development of an outdoor recreation research program. The range is located near Marysville in Browns Valley, adjacent to the Yuba River,
represents land largely in private ownership, but which offer recreation potential within easy driving distance from populated areas in the central
valley and elsewhere.
“On this range is a suitable area (A-Campbell) of about490 acres which will be set aside to be used as a closed modal system for controlled studies
related to rangeland use for livestock production and recreation. The area, ranging from 600 to 1,000 feet in elevation, is wooded to varying degrees,
has about one mile of lake frontage on the U. S. Corps of Engineers Englebright reservoir on the Yuba River, and has two ravines with natural springs
so that it is suitable for a variety of recreational activities. In addition, access will be made available to about 1,250 acres in another area (B-Koch),
which ranges up to 2,000 feet in elevation where cattle are grazed and where hiking and riding trails will be developed as well as auxiliary overnight
camping facilities and possibly pond fishing. Both of these areas are located adjacent to 1,800 acres (C, D-Forbes/Shubert) which is divided between
an area disturbed only by cattle and another which will be maintained livestock-free. These permit ideal opportunities for comparative environmental
studies between areas subjected to various uses.
99
“Objectives: The long-range objectives will be to study the influence of recreational use of foothill lands upon:
1. Cattle productivity on unimproved and improved rangelands
2. Type of livestock and forage management
3. Animal behavior and physiological responses – both domestic and wild
4. Water resources
5. Economics
“Specific objectives of the initial research work proposed for the near future are:
1. To study influences of intensity and type of recreational activity upon stress and behavioral responses and growth and development of livestock.
2. To study influence of livestock upon people in pursuit of recreational activities.
3. To determine types of recreation people are seeking in foothill environments.
“Procedures:
“The 490-acre area assigned as the closed model system for recreational studies will be stocked with cattle at rates previously determined during a
calibration period. Different but comparable sub-areas will be subjected to two different intensities of recreational use, differing mainly in numbers
of human subjects. Recreational activities may involve day use such as bird and nature studies, group barbecues, and evening campfires and
overnight camps. Indicator animals will be fitted with telemetric monitoring devices to record physiological stress responses such as heart and
respiration rate, body temperature, and behavior patterns by plotting ambulatory movements in each area. (emphasis mine; shades of Ken Wagnon
and Mel George!) Other criteria usually used to assay animal responses, such as weight gains and condition of the animals will be measured also.
Human response will be assayed through the use of appropriate questionnaires and interviews.
“In an adjacent area of 1,250 acres, similar studies will be conducted but on a less intensive basis. Animals are already grazing in this area and there
is considerable background of information relative to their performance and behavior. Recreational activities to be imposed on this area will be trail
hiking and horseback riding, and overnight dry camping in unimproved campsites, by small (2-3) to medium (6-10) sized groups of people. Similar
criteria as in the more intensive study will be used to evaluate responses of humans and cattle, but at a less intensive level in the case of the latter.
“For both areas through successive seasons brood cows, cows with calves, and calves and steers will be selected as subjects in a manner consistent
with representative livestock operations characteristic of this type of range. Human subjects will be selected to represent various segments of urban
populations in the Sacramento and Bay areas.
“During a two-year period while physical facilities are being developed to initiate the program, the experimental areas described will be calibrated
(emphasis mine) with respect to flora and fauna, range utilization patterns, cattle behavior and performance. At the same time, and while human
subjects are being selected, questionnaires and interviews will be used to collect information relative to types of recreational activities people might
desire in foothill areas.
Facilities:
“To facilitate this program it will be necessary to establish an operational headquarters, to be located adjacent to the access road to the closed model
system, but at some distance from the area itself in order to minimize disturbance from operational activities. Two trails, each about 5 miles in length,
one for hiking and another for riding, will be designed and constructed in the extensive area B. Access to both areas will be controlled. The
following outlines the facilities to be constructed:
1. Headquarters complex with program office and conference space; laboratory-workshop for servicing electronic gear for the telemetry system;
accommodations for about four non-resident research personnel; a visitor center including museum to display plant, animal, geological, historical, and
other items of interest pertaining to the general area.
2. Mobile telemetry monitoring laboratory (house trailer).
3. Two residences for resident staff.
4. Service buildings, including a garage and tables.
5. Hiking and riding trails and campsite development.
Unfortunately, this is where my transcription must end, because there are no more faint, chemical-paper, draft-appearing pages left. I have no idea at
all at this point (January 2004) if this ever got to the point of becoming a Land, Labor & Facilities Request, nor whether there ever was any real
prospect of obtaining the nearly half-million dollars to mount the project. But it does give some clues to the visions people had as to what could be
accomplished, given whole-hearted support at every level, and the grand, institute-like “Station” the SFRFS could have become. CAR.
>Ad hoc Committee, U. C. SFRFS. September 22, 1967.
REPORT OF THE U. C. SIERRA FOOTHILL RANGE FIELD STATION AD HOC COMMITTEE ON OUTDOOR RECREATION RESEARCH
SIERRA FOOTHILL RANGE FIELD STATION
OPPORTUNITIES FOR RESEARCH
While the Station area cannot be considered an outstanding area for diversified types of recreation of recreation, it does contain opportunities for
several specific kinds of recreational activity and research. The developable recreation opportunities in this area are for such activities as dove, quail,
and deer hunting, development of horseback riding trails, picnicking, nature study, and possibly ranch pond fishing, boating, and swimming. Other
opportunities lie within the adjoining reservoir development zones that will be discussed later. Furthermore, the Station area is representative of
thousands of acres of lower Sierra foothill terrain, which is steep, brush or woodland covered, and snow-free much of the year. It is also characteristic
of lands lying within easy driving distance from populated areas of the Central Valley, most of which are in private ranch or other ownership.
These conditions prescribe a primary focus for a research program. That is, concentration on recreation development potentials and problems facing
private livestock-operating ranch owners. In a practical vein, and considering that the basic purpose of this station is for cattle and range research, it
is possible to develop recreation research possibilities from three points of view now extant among foothill rangeland owners. These include aspects
associated with:
Integration of public recreation use with maximum cattle production, and modest expectations of recreation use income.
Planning, development, and operation of specific kinds of recreation use, where some modification or reduction of cattle production would be
required. But recreation income expectations would be a sizeable or important feature in the total land use.
100
Recreation land use problems without regard to cattle production. (This might include landowners who wish to convert from livestock operations
exclusively to recreation use for income.)
Some specific suggestions for research areas or projects are listed in Appendix I.
The second major opportunity for research is related to the existing and proposed reservoir development projects immediately bordering the Station
lands. There are not only good research possibilities for reservoir water-oriented recreation (typical of many reservoir areas in the Sierra foothills),
but there are special problems of peripheral impact of recreation use on lands in the near vicinity of reservoir sites. (Apart from research possibilities,
this may become a practical operating issue for the Station area and deserves planning consideration now.)
POSSIBLE LIMITATIONS FOR RESEARCH
Since much of the Station land is now obligated for livestock, pasture, and range research projects, any recreation research proposals must be
carefully integrated, unit by unit, with these predominating and established projects. These prior uses, which comprise the major purpose of the
Station, will have a limiting effect on recreation research – particularly tight control of use, developments, or vegetation manipulation are
requirements of a recreation research project. These limitations are probably more severe at this location than on an average operating ranch
ownership, and it may be less expensive and time consuming to implement a comprehensive recreation research program with a private ranchercooperator, such as the existing project on the Dye Creek Ranch in Tehama County. Furthermore, if a recreation-research program is initiated at the
Station the committee considers it essential to have a full-time resident scientist available to implement research programs.
The existence of the Englebright Reservoir along the southeast side of the Station, and firm authorization for impounding waters all along the south
and southwest boundaries of the Station, can be either a benefit or detriment to recreation research opportunities, depending on the administrative
position toward incorporating these areas into a research program. This situation is further complicated by plans of the reservoir development agency,
the Corps of Engineers, to “take” 300 feet back from the high water level of the new developments and into the Station lands. Plans are already being
developed by the Corps to establish recreation sites in these “take” zones. It is entirely possible that cooperative arrangements could be developed
with the Corps to utilize these areas in either University recreation research or, perhaps, in joint projects with the Corps.
Further impact in Station lands and recreation research potentials may arise from plans to develop a large privately-owned area adjoining the
southwest corner of the Station as an extensive summer home area. This possibility also exists for a large property adjoining the Station at another
location.
In summary, there are specific opportunities to develop recreation research projects on and adjacent to the Foothill Station. There are also possible
strong limitations for recreation research, dependent upon space made available, cooperation, and policies established by the Station Directors. The
kinds of expertise needed in solution of recreation use problems include a variety of disciplines. Adequate and effective implementation of recreation
research within the University will require:
Acceptance of recreation oriented research as essential and important by individuals in many disciplines of the University.
Recognition, encouragement, and financial support for recreation oriented research projects by administrators. At present, administrative
encouragement and coordination are of prime importance.
On some problems, interdisciplinary cooperation not only within the Division of Agricultural Sciences but between agricultural departments and other
University disciplines, is essential.
GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
This committee was appointed to provide guidelines in developing a program of outdoor recreation research at the U. C. Sierra Foothill Range Field
Station, at the request of Dr. R. Merton Love of the Station Research Advisory Committee. The committee has examined the recreation research
potential at the Station site, collected related information, and discussed the opportunities by phone and letter.
While the committee confined its initial effort to the station area, it quickly concluded that realistic recommendations for recreation research involved
more than sole consideration of the station site. A number of specific suggestions can be and are made in this report for recreation research at the
Station. But these ideas must be considered within the University organization and oriented to conduct recreation research, if the situation is to be
examined it total context. Therefore, a brief review of the Division of Agriculture and University activities and attitudes toward recreation research is
appropriate. Considering the extremely rapid growth of outdoor recreation in California and the problems engendered by this activity in resource
production, land use, land values, taxation, facility development and maintenance, health and safety, adequate provision of satisfactory recreation
opportunities, and many other aspects, it is startling to find the relatively limited amount of University-supported involvement in solving these
problems in previous years. While there has been a great deal of University-originated information available that is applicable to the solution of
recreation problems (as well as many discussions of recreation land use policies), there has also been very little direct research on recreation areas,
use, and specific recreation problems. And most of the support for those direct recreation study projects accomplished has been from federal and
state agency special contracts with minimal Division of Agriculture or University financial support. Possibly more significant is the probability that
very few projects have been proposed and submitted by researchers for University financing. Within the Division of Agriculture this reluctance
probably stemmed from a tradition emphasis on commercial resource production and reluctance to identify with the presumed non-academic area of
outdoor recreation (see Appendix II).
“Most apparent has been the lack of a continuous and cohesive research program over the years on outdoor recreation by many schools or
departments within the University that should have been involved in this area. Under the University discipline-oriented organization, this situation is
perhaps understandable. Outdoor recreation is not a single field for research endeavor and it can include many established disciplines such as
biological sciences, engineering, architecture, landscape architecture, sociology, psychology, physical education, economics, public health, wildlife
management, forestry, political science, business administration and law. In addition, there is a strong relationship between the provision and
management of outdoor recreation areas and open-space and regional planning interests in the state. The University organizational system and
researcher attitudes in the past have produced a fragmented and sporadic approach to the general problem.
At the same time it is recognized that the University position regarding teaching and research in outdoor recreation and recreational land management
has been undergoing vigorous review on several campuses in the past year. And several recreation-oriented University supported projects established
recently are evidence of change. So despite criticism of past activities, organizational changes and concepts directly related to outdoor recreation
either established or near establishment give promise for the future. With University departments moving increasingly to basic research, however, a
void is developing in certain land management information of crucial and immediate importance in California. In this category the field of outdoor
recreation is notable. A review of University research directly related to outdoor recreation has provided a partial list illustrating the variety and
scope of studies underway or completed in the past six years (also see Appendix II).
101
1. Widespread activity in life history and ecological studies of flora and fauna pertinent to recreation area management.
2. Well-established wildlife research programs at Davis and Berkeley, but of limited scale (some directed primarily to reducing animal depredations
in agricultural production areas).
3. Biologic and ecologic studies in several state and national parks in California (School of Forestry, Berkeley).
4. Landscaping and recreation area planning development at Davis and Berkeley, some cooperative with the U. S. Forest Service (Landscape
Horticulture, Landscape Architecture, and City and Regional Planning Departments).
5. National study of wilderness areas (directed from the School of Forestry and the Wildland Research Center, Berkeley).
6. Demand for outdoor recreation facilities in southern California 1976 and 2000 (School of Business Administration, UCLA).
7. Economic analysis bearing upon outdoor recreation (Giannini Foundation, Berkeley).
8. Evaluation of the Lake Tahoe recreation development crisis (Department of Political Science, Berkeley).
9. Lake Tahoe pollution problem (Departments of Sanitary Engineering and Public Health, Berkeley).
10. Elk-cattle relationships and controversy in the Owens Valley (Committee on Natural Resources, Berkeley).
11. Open space in California – issues and options (Landscape Architecture, Berkeley).
12. Park and recreation sites in California (Botany Department, Berkeley).
13. An economic study of the demand for outdoor recreation (Department of Agricultural Economics, Davis).
Although these examples suggest a sizable research involvement within the University on a variety of recreation problems, the amount of
activity is relatively small, considering the scope of the general problem and the size of the total University research capability. It should also be
pointed out that most of these efforts were intermittent contract studies with minimum or no University financial support, and often designed to meet
emergency situations. Significantly, the initiative for establishing many of these studies often came from non-University sources. This re-emphasizes
the lack of a planned and continuing University program in recreation research. Furthermore, sociology and psychology studies on recreation needs
and values to the recreationist (the recreation product consumer) within the University have been negligible. And this information, joined with
improved data on actual use and participation in various kinds of recreation, is essential to adequate analysis in other disciplines.
While there have been excellent results from the discipline approach to components of recreation problems, these are not contributing to
the solution of a major California dilemma on sufficient scale. The institutes and centers established within the University to bring together various
disciplines in joint effort on complex problems is only a partial solution for encouraging recreation research. Here again these units may receive only
limited University financial support, and often depend upon individual initiation of projects and solicited funds from outside sources. And without
good control and coordination from the unit administration, center projects can easily dissolve again into narrow and non-coordinated efforts.
“Without detracting from the importance of independent discipline-oriented research in outdoor recreation and the need for more of this,
there are compelling reasons for some centralized direction and coordination of recreation research within both the Division of Agriculture and the
total University. These include:
Establishment of a focal point for collection of recreation data of many kinds and continuing review of major research problem areas.
Stimulation of research effort in appropriate departments and initiating and coordinating joint projects.
Serving as a contact and coordinating liaison with a variety of federal and state agencies, and private organizations, who are engaged in recreation
research or have particular concern with recreation problems.
Assistance in developing budget requests and research fund sources.
In summary, it is the conclusion of this committee that the University in total has not contributed sufficiently and consistently to an
accelerating problem of outdoor recreation use with all of its corollary impact on land use and public welfare. It also notes and commends the
encouraging new attitudes and recent University developments for teaching and research in this field. The Division of Agriculture contains a high
degree of expertise in many fields that could and should make important contributions in recreation research. Some of this recommended effort
should be integrated with corresponding research in non-agricultural divisions of the University. In addition to encouraging various departments to
initiate recreation research, it is further suggested that a workable plan be established to coordinate and stimulate such research on a continuing basis,
including financing.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS
James P. Gilligan, Chairman AES, Extension Forester; Maynard Cummings, AES, Assistant State Director; Warren E. Johnston, Assistant. Professor
of Agricultural Economics; Richard Teague, AES, Extension Wildlife Specialist
Marysville Lake & Park’s Bar Dams
Chapter 58.0 U S Army Corps of Engineers Marysville Lake Dam & Reservoir and Park’s Bar Dam-& Reservoir Project Proposals, or,
dam that wasn’t built”
“A
“Investigation into the possibility of constructing a dam or dams on the Yuba River upstream of Marysville for flood control was begun after
the December 1955 flood in Marysville and Yuba City in which 38 people lost their lives, 3,300 homes were flooded, thousands were forced to
evacuate, and flood damages were estimated at 20.5 million dollars. By resolution the Committee on Public Works, House of
Representatives, requested a report from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on the Yuba River basin on 23 July 1956. Federal participation
in flood control in the Yuba River basin was publicly formulated and was presented in detail in the Yuba River Basin review report, House
Document No. 180, 89th Congress, 1st Session. That report proposed Federal participation for flood control in the Yuba County Water
Agency’s New Bullards Bar Dam, to be followed later by Corps construction of the Marysville Dam in the lower Yuba River basin. The
Marysville Dam was authorized for construction by Congress by the Flood Control Act of 7 November 1966 (Public Law 89-789),
substantially in accordance with recommendations of the Chief of Engineers in the Marysville project document, House Document No. 501,
89th Congress, 2nd Session. Federal participation for flood control in the State of California’s Oroville Dam on the Feather River was also
part of the overall flood protection plan for the area. The Marysville Lake project is authorized to be built and operated by the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers. Irrigation and power functions of the project would be integrated into the Central Valley Project of the U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation. The selected project would be located 15 miles upstream from Marysville and 4 miles upstream from the site proposed in the
project document. Marysville Lake would be created by construction of a dam on the Yuba River at Parks Bar and a dam on Dry Creek.
The impoundment would inundate the existing Englebright Dam on the Yuba River and two power plants, the Pacific Gas and Electric
Company Old Narrows power plant and the Yuba County Water Agency (YCWA) New Narrows power plant. The Yuba River arm of the
102
lake would extend upstream to immediately below the existing YCWA Colgate power plant of the New Bullards Bar project. A channel
would be excavated through the saddle between the Yuba River pool and the Dry Creek pool to facilitate the exchange of water between the
two pools during periods of low lake level. The excavated materials would be used in construction of the dams. The lake would impound
916,000 acre-feet when the water is at the gross pool elevation of 560 feet above mean sea level (msl). At this elevation the pool would cover
6,640 acres and would have 67 miles of shoreline.. At the lake’s minimum pool, storage capacity would be 273,000 acre-feet, pool elevation
428 feet msl and surface area 3,180 acres. The average pool expected to be available for recreation in the summer months (May through
Aug.) is 801,000 acre-feet or about 6,160 surface acres.” Source: Environmental Working Paper, Marysville Lake Project (Parks Bar Site),
Yuba River, California, prepared by the U.S. Army Engineer District, Sacramento, California, July 1976
*********************************************************************************************************************
1969
*********************************************************************************************************************
15Oct1969. Marysville-Yuba City Appeal Democrat. Hearing on road changes.
“Yuba County supervisors today voted to conduct a public hearing in their chambers next Tuesday at 2 pm on a report concerning county roads that
are to be relocated and new routes which are to be built in the Browns Valley – Smartville area in connection with construction of the proposed
Marysville Dam. … Roads to be located include Smartville – Hammonton Road, Spring Valley Road, Bald Mountain Road and Peoria Road. … In a
letter to Road Commissioner Alvin Finch, Col. George B. Fink of the Corps of Engineers explained that as a result of dam construction the Corps will
pay for relocation of roads on a ‘same kind of service’ basis. Any ‘betterment’ of road facilities over existing roads would have to be paid for by the
county, the letter stated.”
22Oct1969. Marysville-Yuba City Appeal Democrat. Hearing on road changes.
A quite extensive and detailed treatment of the roads-adjustment picture. Some quotes from this long article:
“Eugene Speck of the University of California read a report about the activities of the Sierra Foothill Range Field Station, which he said would be
bisected by the proposed East – west arterial to Englebright Reservoir. Speck said the Davis campus had had experience in being divided by a major
highway and found the situation greatly hindered agricultural projects. Speck said the university had spent eight years and invested nearly $1 million
in the station and did not want to see research activity disrupted by roads. U. C. owns 5,800 acres off Scott Forbes Road. … “Carl Selby, who said he
owned 2113 acres of range land north and east of the U. C. property, asked Finch if the road would cross the Englebright Dam. Finch said only very
general lines could be drawn until surveyors were put to work. Selby asked if the new roads would be in before the roads they replaced were
inundated. A Corps of Engineers spokesman, Richard Burbrick, said the entire project would be scheduled so that what was inundated could be
relocated and serviceable before flooding. …Carl Rubel, a former county supervisor, asked if there would be a bridge on Hwy. 20 across Daguerre
Point Dam. Rubel complained that the county maps did not put the area in proper perspective as to its relation to Marysville. Finch said that Hwy. 20
probably would be moved across the river leaving the metropolitan area from Linda, on the route of the Hammonton-Smartville Road, with probably
some re-location across dredger tailings.”
26Oct1969. Sacramento Bee, Ancient Yuba River and its siltation.
“The Yuba River system with a score of feeder streams from high-altitude source has always poured down its steep, rocky channel with a force
unhampered by any controls. It once ran into the Feather at Marysville, between high, gravelly banks, without posing a threat to the then-unleveed
city. However, years of hydraulic mining along the upper tributaries and the bars east of Marysville, resulted in severe silting of the channel. It was
estimated in 1955, the time of the last flood, that the present channel is 70 feet higher than the channel of 1850.”
29Oct1969. Marysville-Yuba City Appeal Democrat. Possible routes of Hwy. 20 “Senior engineer of the Yuba County Road Department, John
Middlebrook, told the planners that the State Division of Highways was considering taking Hwy. 20 across the Yuba River in the Hallwood area, if
the Marysville Dam wiped out the Parks Bar Bridge crossing. Middlebrook said from the Hallwood area Hwy. 20 might be taken on a westerly
course into the District 10 area with a new freeway crossing over the Feather in District 10.”
1970
*********************************************************************************************************************
9Sep1970. Marysville-Yuba City Appeal-Democrat. Army engineers oppose road across top of Marysville Dam.
“’The Corps cannot justify a road across Marysville Dam for county road purposes’, County Road Department Engineer John Middlebrook said in a
report on a meeting in Sacramento with officials of the Corps.
“Another problem is the Browns Valley dump, according to the report. Middlebrook said the engineers feel they will have to close the Browns
Valley Dump at the time construction is to begin on the project, but have not decided what to do about it. Alternatives are to cover and seal the dump
or to dig it out and move it to some new location, he said. ‘This problem has them vexed because this apparently is the first experience the Corps has
had with dumps in a reservoir site. …
“Also involved is the location of grave sites within the proposed reservoir and dam area. ‘The Corps is making extensive efforts to locate sites with
the project site and request any available information concerning grave location’
21Sep1970. Marysville-Yuba City Appeal Democrat. Article: Hub dam building funds cut.
29Oct1970. Marysville-Yuba City Appeal Democrat. Article: Brownsville area meeting with the Corps. “More than 50 foothills residents met at the
Brownsville Grange to ask Lt. Col. James Higman of the Corps questions about the dam’s impact on roads near Browns Valley, the need for the dam,
the effect on Yuba County’s economy and on the control and use of water stored. … “The approximately 130,000 acre feet of new water resulting
103
from the new dam on the river would be sold by the state for distribution in the Central Valley Project. He said none of the water would go directly to
Southern California. Higman said control of the water is up to the Bureau of Reclamation, and said all question should be directed to them
(emphasis mine) “A $500,000 allocation for start of construction on Marysville Dam has been cut by the Senate – House conference committee, but
$894,000 in planning funds for the project was left in the Public Works Appropriations bill. … George Woodall, assistant chief of the engineering
division for the Corps in Sacramento, said plans had been made to use the $500,000 for land acquisition in the reservoir area had it survived
congressional action. …
“On the irrigation aspects, Woodall said, the U. S. Bureau of Reclamation is considering ‘integrating’ Marysville Reservoir with the Central Valley
Project, which would involve export of water developed by Marysville Dam ‘beyond local needs’ to other areas.
19Dec1970. Marysville-Yuba City Appeal Democrat. Article: Second meeting in Brownsville with representatives of the Bureau of Reclamation and
the Corps. “About 75 persons attended the meeting to hear John H. Turner, chief of the East Sacramento Valley branch of the U. S. Bureau of
Reclamation; and Edwin C. Johnson of the project planning branch of the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, answer questions raised at an October
meeting in Brownsville. Also attending last night’s session were Colin Handforth, manager of the Yuba County Water Agency, Yuba County
Supervisor Roy Lander man, Philip Roth of the Bureau of Reclamation and J. W. Borland of the Corps of Engineers. … “The Bureau plans a
powerhouse system to generate from 50,000 to 70,000 kWh of electricity. Further, it plans to market annually 130,000 acre feet of the water stored
behind the new dam. It would be diverted and sold locally – under federal regulation that place 160-acre limits on the amount of land to be irrigated –
or transported to the Central Valley Project (Sacramento and San Joaquin valleys) for sale there. … “The Bureau of Reclamation will sell water
locally, if requested, but intends mainly to market it in the San Joaquin Valley
1971
*********************************************************************************************************************
17Feb1971. Marysville-Yuba City Appeal Democrat. Article: UC Davis offers economic study.
“Experts at the University of California Davis would be ‘receptive’ to conducting a study of the economic impact of the proposed Marysville Cam at
little or no cost to the city, Marysville Planning Commissioner Frank Comarsh told the city council last night. Comarsh said he had no commitment
from the university, but from discussions with faculty members he gained the impression they ‘would be receptive at to talking’ about making the
study. Mayor Jack Gavin said it was his impression that if the study were made by the university it would be ‘a free, gratis service the university
provides’
A detailed geographic description is given for the sketch “Possible Alternate Routes for Highway 20” as given in the AD on 10-20-70.
An interesting section of the article is “Dredging Towns”:
“Historical sites ‘of any note’ found along the proposed alternates are the old sites of the gold dredging towns of Hammonton and Marigold. Neither
of these sites would be affected by any of the alternates.
“’A the easterly end of the proposed relocation, the highway will pass by, but not affect, the old Stage Stop Barn on Hammonton-Smartville Road’
according to the draft.
“There are three schools located near the relocation study area, Cordua, Rose’s Bar, and Brophy, but none will be affected. The relocated highway
will be further removed from two of the schools – Rose Bar and Cordua – than the existing highway and will reduce the highway-oriented noise at the
schools, according to the draft. The relocation ‘may also reduce the noise and traffic’ at the Brophy School by diverting traffic from HammontonSmartville Road, which passes directly in front of the school.
Mar 1971 Sierra Club Bonanza, Mother Lode Chapter. Marysville Dam, A case for deferment. Notable for its map of the Yuba River Basin (i.e.,
watershed), and including the location of the New Bullards Bar Dam, together with its Colgate Tunnel and powerhouse. The article also notes that the
(projected) Marysville Reservoir and its afterbay would back water 12 miles up the Yuba River to the base of Englebright Dam. Also, “The sleepy
community of Browns Valley, two gold mines, a small cemetery, a school and I number of farms would be displaced by the reservoir.
The map follows the Yuba River basin from Marysville/Yuba City to the New Bullards Bar Reservoir and includes an outline sketch of the perimeter
of the originally-proposed (emphasis mine) Marysville Lake (reservoir).
A few excerpts from the article:
“Area description: Marysville Reservoir and its afterbay will back water from 12 miles up the Yuba River to the base of Englebright Dam. Included
within the reservoir site is a broad, shallow, sparsely populated valley bordered by low rolling foothills. The sleepy community of Browns Valley, two
gold mines, a small cemetery, a school and a number of farms would be displaced by the reservoir. Agriculture in the area consists of lowland range,
irrigated pasture and scattered olive orchards. The natural vegetation is characterized by grassland interspersed with oak, digger pine and shrubs.
Lush growths of alder, cottonwood and sycamore trees border 50 miles of water courses with the reservoir site including the attractive French Dry
Creek with its deciduous forest and numerous swimming holes.
“Inadequate stream flow: Most alarming is the fact that the Bureau of Reclamation, who has been authorized to operate the Marysville project, has
tentatively scheduled a downstream flow release from the dam of only 250 cubic feet per second (cfs), a mere trickle compared with present flows,
which exceed 2,000 cfs during the salmon spawning season. (Looks like a repetition of the American River situation.) A flow of 250 cfs would
virtually destroy the salmon, steelhead and shad fishery, not to mention river touring. The Department of Fish and Game, which has recommended a
year-around flow of 800cfs, has yet to receive a response from the federal agencies regarding flow provision.
“Economic impact: The Marysville Reservoir afterbay, roads and borrow area are expected to take 23,000 acres ($1.6 million in assessed valuation)
off the Yuba County tax rolls or about seven percent of the county total. Yuba County officials who are concerned that the county already has one of
the highest tax rates in the state are hoping that lost revenue can be replaced by recreation revenue if someone can be found to pick up the tab on the
nonfederal portion of the recreation facilities costs (not a very bright prospect at this time). The 1970 Yuba County Grand Jury is particularly
concerned with the fact that tax relief in the form of in-lieu taxes was not written into the project authorization. The Grand Jury also found the Corps
report on the project so inconclusive that it recommended the Congress make a more detailed study of project costs and benefits. Of particular
concern is the fact that the Marysville Reservoir will flood out about one-third of the Browns Valley Irrigation District service area, making it
104
extremely difficult for the district to repay $5 million in federal funds recently borrowed for the irrigation system. Altogether, about 190 landowners
will be displaced by the reservoir.
“Is the project justified for flood control?: Most of the local demand for the Marysville Project was prompted by the disastrous December flood of
1955, which claimed 42 lives and $53 million in property damage. With completion of the Oroville Dam on the Feather River and New Bullards Bar
Dam on the Yuba River, much of the urgency for prompt construction has been eliminated. Robert Pafford, a regional director of the Bureau of
Reclamation, in a presentation to the Senate Fact Finding Committed on Water Resource (October 1965) stated that ‘we in the Bureau are not
convinced that the need for flood control is so urgent as to overshadow the importance of properly resolving other problems associated with
Marysville Dam before it is authorized.’ (emphasis mine) Mr. Pafford pointed out that the Corps own report maintains that ‘all floods of record
(including the 1955 flood) can be controlled to project channel capacity with flood control at Oroville and New Bullards Bar dams. Despite this, the
Corps contends that 260,000 acre-feet of additional flood storage capacity is needed on the Yuba River …The permanent inundation of 11,000 acres
of land by the $178 million Marysville Project is a rather high price to pay for flood reduction of relatively insignificant magnitude.”
17Sep1971. Anti-Marysville Dam Committee. Letter to C. A. Raguse transmitting two brochures.
outline of opposition to the Marysville Dam”
Covers: “Flood Control”, “Cost”, “Irrigation & Water Conservation”, “Power Generation”, “Tax Loss”, “In Lieu Taxes”, “Recreation”, “Gravel
(aggregate)”, and “Benefits if the Marysville Dam is NOT built” “A Review of the Marysville Dam and Reservoir Project, 1952 to date”
“Presented to the Yuba County Water Agency, Marysville, California”
This is a seven-page (legal) document presenting an impressive chronology.
The cover letter was written (and signed) by Nell Abernathy, for the Anti-Marysville Dam Committee
22Sep1971. Marysville-Yuba City Appeal Democrat. Article: Decision next year possible on Hub Dam. “After years of indecision, the future of the
proposed Marysville Dam Project may finally be resolved early next year, according to Col. James C. Donovan, chief of the Sacramento District of
the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. Speaking to an audience of about 80 people during meeting last night in the Yuba County supervisors’ chambers,
Donovan said preliminary reports from the Corps’ current re-evaluation of the entire project should be available in February providing data to
determine the feasibility of the project and the dam site. According to Donovan, the study includes detailed engineering analysis of possible dam sites
both at Browns Valley and at Parks Bar, and a survey to determine the economic feasibility of the project with the total cost now estimated at $190
million. “The report concludes, ‘prior to final adoption fro relocation of State Route 20, a public hearing will be held to present the alternate routes
studies and the engineering, economic, social and environmental data accumulated during the study’
6Oct1971.Marysville-Yuba City Appeal Democrat. Article: Alternates T,X,W,Q explained.
A detailed geographic description is given for the sketch “Possible Alternate Routes for Highway 20” as given in the AD on 10-20-70.
An interesting section of the article is “Dredging Towns”:
“Historical sites ‘of any note’ found along the proposed alternates are the old sites of the gold dredging towns of Hammonton and Marigold. Neither
of these sites would be affected by any of the alternates.
“’At the easterly end of the proposed relocation, the highway will pass by, but not affect, the old Stage Stop Barn on Hammonton-Smartville Road’
according to the draft.
“There are three schools located near the relocation study area, Cordua Rose Bar and Brophy, but none will be affected. The relocated highway will
be further removed from two of the schools – Rose Bar and Cordua – than the existing highway and will reduce the highway-oriented noise at the
schools, according to the draft. The relocation ‘may also reduce the noise and traffic’ at the Brophy School by diverting traffic from HammontonSmartville Road, which passes directly in front of the school.
“The report concludes, ‘prior to final adoption for relocation of State Route 20, a public hearing will be held to present the alternate routes studies
and the engineering, economic, social and environmental data accumulated during the study’”
29Dec1971. Marysville-Yuba City Appeal Democrat. Article: “flood-prone area?” flood insurance. At a meeting of the Yuba County supervisors.
“The role of the controversial dam project entered when it was noted that if the area was not designated ‘flood prone’, it would eliminate one of the
arguments for support of the project. … “Yuba County Counsel Alvin Landis, and ex-offcio member of the Marysville Dam Committee, a group
pushing construction, brought in the role of the project when he took exception to that statement. He said there was a ‘risk’ involved, adding that was
the ‘need’ for seeking the Marysville Dam project
1972
************************************************************************************************************************
*****
25Jan1972 Staff writer, Marysville Appeal-Democrat. Marysville dam funds in new U.S. budget.
The $950,000 earmarked for Marysville Dam in President Nixon’s fiscal year 1972-73 budget should be sufficient to complete advance engineering
and design on the project, permitting work to get underway when construction funds are budgeted by Congress, according to Marysville engineer
Charles de At. Maurice. The funds for the Marysville project are included in $168 million proposed for water projects in California during the fiscal
year beginning July 1. The amount for Marysville Dam is more than Yuba-Sutter proponents of the project expected the President to seek from
Congress. The $170 million project has become a source of controversy in the Yuba-Sutter area, with opponents circulating petitions in opposition to
it and proponents gathering signatures in its favor. The earthfill dam on the Yuba River near the existing Daguerre Point Dam would inundate about
11,000 acres of land and would take about 23,000 acres of land off county tax rolls, opponents argue. They claim it is not needed for flood control
and would be of questionable recreation value. Proponents of the project, including the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, insist that studies show the
dam is necessary to provide adequate flood protection for the Marysville-Yuba City area. Opponents say a better site could be found for the dam,
perhaps at Parks Bar, where a project would not inundate the town of Browns Valley and the area surrounding it. The Corps has reported, however,
that the Parks Bar site has been investigated more than once and studies indicate a project there would not be financially feasible. (Emphasis
mine) The Marysville Dam project would be constructed by the Bureau of Reclamation. In addition to providing flood control it would be a storage
105
reservoir for Bureau water and would be used as a reservoir for regulation of Yuba County Water Agency water released from Bullards Bar
Reservoir.
27Apr1972. Marysville-Yuba City Appeal Democrat. Article: Prospects fade for Hub Dam.
“Although planning for a Marysville Dam project will continue through the next fiscal year, odds against the project being constructed and
continuing to mount. Speaking in Marysville last night, Col James Donovan of the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, which proposes to construct the
dam, acknowledged he was very concerned about the future of the project. …
“The target of criticism from some area resident, the project faces two major obstacles that have developed in recent months”:
“One that could deal a death blow to the Marysville project is what is called a ‘discount rate’. Essentially, the rate is similar to the interest rate on a
commercial loan. The benefits derived from a project over an extended period of time must exceed the estimated annual cost of the project. The
federal Water Resources Council is seeking to establish a 7 percent rate for the next five years. The Marysville project cost estimates were based on a
3.75 percent rate. Using only the proposed increased discount rate … Donovan said last night ‘It appears that the Marysville project would not be
economically justified’. In his own words, he said the project ‘…would fall out the window…’ if the new rate is adopted.
“The other major obstacle to the Marysville project is recreation development at the lake site. Following up what was reported last week, Donovan
said he has a ‘great concern’ over the lack of local support for recreational facilities at the lake even though Corps figures indicate it still would be
economically feasible to construct the dam without fully developed recreational facilities. The benefit—to—cost ratio for the project now is barely
1:1, a figure the Corps does not like to see, Donovan said.”
“Also, Donovan said that, in addition to making studies on two alternate dam sites—Parks Bar and Edwards Crossing—the Corps is now
investigating other alternative projects primarily for flood protection. One is a flood bypass system from the Yuba River to Bear River (Emphasis
mine) and the other would involve modifying the levee system along the lower reaches of the Yuba and the Feather River floodway. … Going back to
the proposed dam project at the Browns Valley site, Donovan told the group, ‘On the basis of comprehensive foundation explorations, we have taken
a closer look at our designs for the dam, and have found that some significant changes are required, as compared to the design presented in the
original survey report.’ Because of these and other factors, the current cost estimate for the project is ‘considerably higher than the estimate shown in
the 1963 survey report…’ Donovan said. The current estimate is $263 million compared to the 1963 estimate of $i32.9 million.”
“Among other things brought out at last night’s meeting was the acknowledgement that $2.6 million already has been spent by the Corps on the
project
1973
None found
********************************************************************************************************************
********************************************************************************************************************
1974
The Crucial Year of Decision
*********************************************************************************************************************
8-13Aug1974. Marysville-Yuba City Appeal Democrat. A series of articles on the Marysville Lake/Parks Bar Dam.
This series of articles was accompanied by excellent aerial photographs of the Browns Valley site (2), and one of the Parks Bar site. Also, a
surface photograph of a so-called underground river in the Hammonton dredger ponds,
“…where the water gushes out of the rocks and rushes through the ponds at a speed approximating that of the river channel itself. Opponents of
the Marysville Dam claimed the depth of material overlying the bedrock and the fact water flows through the entire area will make it very
expensive to keep the construction site dry and to maintain the integrity of the dam’s clay core after construction.”
106
23 Jun 2014 Note: Obviously, renditions of this quality are of little value here. They
are articles and illustrations taken from the Marysville Appeal-Democrat. It is likely that I
have them still….it’s simply a matter of finding out where. Eventually, I (intend to) will rescan the originals and re-insert them into this document.
107
*********************************************************************************************************************
1975
*********************************************************************************************************************
24Apr1975. Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District. Transcript (by Valley Reporters, Chico, CA) of a public hearing held at the Yuba County
Supervisors Chambers The meeting was chaired, for the Marysville Dam Committee, by E. Thaddeus Platter. (Colonel Donovan is now (two-star)
General Donovan.) Colonel Frederick G. Rockwell, Jr.:
“Originally, a year or so ago, (Emphasis mine) we felt fairly confident that the project would consist of a dam located at Browns Valley, and that this
dam would provide project purposes that I have enumerated. Now there were a number of alternatives discussed throughout the evolution – and I am
sure many of you can cite chapter and verse of all the alternatives you have heard – suffice it to say that the only really viable alternative that
appeared on the horizon was that particular dam, and when compared to the site at Parks Bar, which I will discuss tonight, the real basic difference
was while Parks Bar would provide flood control necessary, the irrigation necessary, the hydro power necessary, and the recreation necessary, it cost
too much money because we had to build, in fact, two dams instead of one dam. I might add also that we were to use a dam as an afterbay, whereas
now we would have to build an afterbay in this particular complex, so the real issue was cost (Emphasis mine). Although we could provide for the
project purposes it was too expensive to go to Parks Bar. “Now the question is, what is changed? (Emphasis mine) … the only thing we really had to
look at was the impact of recent years on power and the value of power, not only in our immediate future but in the long-range future as to what it
is worth to us as a nation and as consumers, in the sense of producers from the power companies point of view. … And it wasn’t related to just Parks
Bar, Marysville, at that time: it was a request from Congress, through the committee, down to the Corps, to say, ‘Where can you incorporate power
in your dams that are built or can be built?’ (Emphasis mine)
“We determined we could increase the production of power at both places by having pump- storage. (Emphasis mine) … This isn’t anything unique.
… So the issue, then, was Browns Valley or Parks Bar, and the only reason we are discussing Parks Bar tonight, frankly, is the change in the power
requirements of our country. “The Parks Bar site is a little bit smaller, but then in terms of conservation yield, the nature of the terrain allows a
smaller surface area and, therefore, less evaporation, so when you look at the actual yield it is equivalent to that which would be provided at the
Marysville Browns Valley site. (Emphasis mine) … “There are no illusions that we have perpetual motion or anything like this. It takes more energy
to pump the water uphill than we get from it coming downhill. … And I am not here to tell you it doesn’t cost energy to “In gross approximation the
level of the lake will be twenty-or-so feet above the top of Englebright Dam. I can’t be precise about this, but it is twenty to thirty feet above there, so
it will go up, and, of course, the limiting factor is Colgate Power House, which produces a considerable amount of power, as do the Narrows 1 and 2
power houses. Obviously, if you are going to go over Englebright you are going to flood out Narrows 1 and 2, so effectively you have to examine
that out as energy producing, but these are base line power houses and are not that significant in terms of power production… “Timbuctoo, in fact,
would be inundated and Smartville will be on the periphery of the lake, as it looks right now. … “Local interests must pick up fifty percent of the
identifiable costs associated with recreation as well as be responsible for the operation and maintenance of it, so effectively what we are saying is this
is a figure that we have used in the medium level of activity and recreation, and we hope there will be cooperation from local interests … “…power
is the key issue … there is double the benefits going to Parks Bar as Marysville, and that is quite obvious if you are going from a 450 megawatt plant
to a 750 megawatt plant. …
“…it is not cheaper to go to Parks Bar, because our latest estimate on the Browns Valley site is $380 million, and the estimate for the Parks Bar site
is $591 million. These are based on last summer’s construction costs, and they are based on annualization in terms of looking at these annual benefits
at three-and-a –quarter percent interest. … “…we come up with a benefit-cost ratio of 1.9 for Parks Bar and 1.8 for Marysville. Again, power has
made the difference. (emphasis mine) … “…we have changed our direction to the Parks Bar site, not because of the benefit-cost ratio, because you
can see that is approximately the same. We have changed our orientation to the Parks Bar site because of the power benefits that you get there. …
“Now I know I talked to Mr. Abernathy yesterday, and he said, ‘Can’t you tell everybody to forget Browns Valley, that it will never happen?’ Well,
I can’t do that… “So, a key date that we have projected is the environmental working paper to be issued to the public next January. Now many in the
room have received the working paper on the Browns Valley site, and we put this out because at the time it was ready we didn’t know which way we
were going to go, and there is a great deal of information contained, and evaluations that will be appropriate to the Parks Bar Site…
“…after we submit the Environmental Impact Statement – which would occur in about December of 1976 – we would then proceed in our detailed
engineering evaluations that would lead to the plans and specifications and finally the first contract, again assuming the congress appropriates the
money, because, after all, that’s the key issue. Assuming they appropriate it, the money would be in March of 1979. …
“… As you know from past testimony before you, or in the paper, we have tried to say or we have said that we hoped we could get a contract going
in 1977. That was predicated on the site being at Browns Valley. …
A lengthy discussion session ensued, with most of it centered on costs and cost estimates, and irrigation water
A question: Where will the irrigation water from this project go? Rockwell: As far as I know, to a service area near Fresno
25Apr1975. Marysville-Yuba City Appeal Democrat. Article titled “Parks Bar Dam Site Favored. One of the articles: “Parks Bar Dam Site
Favored”: “A plan to move the proposed Marysville Dam on the Yuba River upstream from Browns Valley to Parks Bar met with sighs of relief and
promises of support both by proponents and opponents of the Browns Valley site. “The plan, presented by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, calls
for the inundation of the historic Timbuctoo townsite, the covering of Englebright Dam with about 30 feet of water and the possibility that Smartville
will become a lakefront community. Over 125 persons jammed into Yuba County supervisors chambers last night to hear the report on the proposed
change at a meeting of the Marysville Dam Committee. Although some concerns were expressed about the availability of irrigation water, no
opposition to the plan was raised. “The Corps spokesman, Col. F. G. Rockwell, said the Corps decision to shift the site upstream was made earlier this
month after a year-long study, and showed the ‘value of power that might be generated at Parks Bar’
5Jun1975. Raguse, C. A., Chair, HFS/SFRFS Research Advisory Committee, Letter to Col. Frederick G. Rockwell, Jr., confirming Col. Rockwell’s
attendance at a SFRFS RAC meeting on July 19.“This is to confirm (your) presentation of the proposed Parks Bar Dam development program, and its
effect on the U. C. Sierra Foothill Range Field Station, Browns Valley…”
24Jun1975 Raguse, C.A. Letter to Dr. James B. Kendrick. A report of the HFS/SFRFS RAC meeting on 19 Jun 1975, at which Colonel Frederick
G. Rockwell, Jr. participated to inform the committee of the current status of the proposed Parks Bar Dam program. Two pertinent excerpts from the
letter: “In terms of alternatives, serious question was raised concerning acquisition (to the SFREC) of adjoining land at higher elevation. There
108
appear to be possibilities for “bargaining” with the Corps regarding both the amount and usage of land within the take zone if retention of the
remainder is considered a viable option. … “Several viewpoints were expressed regarding the possible negative effects on new research of knowing
that the SFREC may be substantially changed or even closed down, and on the length of time require in order to conduct essential long-term studies
that are feasible only at such a research site.” All in all, a very candid, informative, and civil discussion
24Jun1975. Raguse, C. A., Chair, HFS/SFRFS Research Advisory Committee, Letter to Vice President J. B. Kendrick reporting on the RAC
meeting with Col. Rockwell at the SFRFS on June 19.A portion of the content: “It is presumed at this time by the Corps that the UC property will be
acquired and priced on the basis of ‘highest and best use’, based on comparable sales for this type of land within the area. “Discussion following
Colonel Rockwell’s departure elicited a wide range of reactions. For a number of the committee present, this was the first detailed and authoritative
description of the physical impacts of the proposed reservoir project on the SFRFS. “I believe there was general agreement that the likelihood of
construction is good, because of the current nation importance of providing additional sources of non-fossil-fuel-based power, and further, that
attempts to ‘fight’ the project would not be desirable. “In terms of alternatives, serious question was raised concerning acquisition (to the SFRFS) of
adjoining land at higher elevation. There appear to be possibilities for ‘bargaining’ with the Corps regarding both the amount and usage of land
within the take-zone if retention of the remainder is considered viable option. “Several viewpoints were expressed regarding the possible negative
effects on new research of knowing that the facility may be substantially changed or even closed down, and, on the length of time required (up to 4050 years) in order to conduct essential long-term studies that are feasible only at such a research site. “The Animal Science-based ‘proposal for
augmentation of UC’s range beef cattle research capability’ must now be viewed differently, at least because a substantial part of carrying capacity
increase claimed in the original proposal was based on further improvement of irrigated pasture lands that would be lost under the proposed reservoir.
27Jun1975. Kendrick, J. B., Letter to C. A. Raguse re Parks Bar Dam.
“Thanks for the complete rundown on the proposed Yuba Dam and its potential effect of the SFRFS. I have asked Warren Schoonover to take on this
matter and to work with your committed to develop information which we will need in dealing with this project, if it becomes a reality. I am opposed
to the concept of ‘highest and best use’ rate of compensation as it relates to a field experimental area. I’ve had some experience with this in another
state, and I think there is good legal precedent for considering the University property in the ‘special use’ category. Compensation for that kind of
loss is based on the cost of replacing the land and facilities, with ‘equal facilities of like utility’ (emphasis mine). You can immediately see what
implications that interpretation leads to in estimating our replacement costs.”
A very important concept and one that should be tied to the ‘Station Development’ Part. Roads, fences, lanes, plots, water development, both
domestic and livestock, various maintenance required for a higher developmental level
1Jul,1975 Speck, Eugene P., AFS Office, Davis. Letter to Warren E. Schoonover, ____ re impact of Corps’ proposal for the Marysville Dam. “Dr.
Charles Raguse, as Chairman of the Hopland/Sierra Foothill Range Field Station Research Advisory Committee, wrote to Vice President Kendrick on
June 24, 1975 to inform V.P. Kendrick of the current situation regarding the proposed Marysville Dam. So that you will be aware of our concern and
proposed actions, I thought I should follow up Raguse’s letter with a letter to you. Paul Rowell, Superintendent of the Sierra Foothill Range Field
Station, has been in close contact with the Corps of Engineers and has been keeping us informed of the various proposals. Additionally, Colonel
Rockwell, District Engineer, has assigned Ms. Margaret S. Petersen as our official contact point within the District. Colonel Rockwell has furnished
us a map that shows the current proposed ‘take’ lines for the Parks Bar Site. My personal opinion is that if the Corps does take the lands outlined, it
will effectively ruin the Station for the purposes for which it was acquired and developed. Thus, it appears we should a t this time be taking an ‘all or
none’ position regarding acquisition of University lands. There are of course many ramifications to this. I would appreciate yours, and Jack
Schappell’s, advice as to the course of action we should take in dealing with the Corps of Engineers. Because the Marysville Dam is far from being a
reality I recommend that we continue to operate and develop the Station as if the threat of its construction did not exist. This policy of course would
change when and if the dam construction becomes firm. Enclosed for your convenience is a copy of Dr. Raguse’s letter. Also enclosed is a copy of
Colonel Rockwell’s letter to me. The map is a hand colored map that will not reproduce and since we had such a difficult time obtaining it from the
Corps, I’d prefer not to mail it.”
8Jul1975. Bradford, G. E., Dept. of Animal Science, U.C. Davis. Letter to Vice President J. B. Kendrick re the Corps and Parks Bar project.
“Dr. Raguse’s letter (of June 24) outlines the problem, but in my opinion does not reflect fully the impact of the proposed project on U.C. range
research. In my opinion, the project, if effected, would eliminate the Sierra Station as a useful range research facility; there would no longer be the
necessary mix of land types to do much of the research that needs doing on foothill lands of significant potential agricultural productivity.
“I am not al all sure that ‘to fight the project would not be desirable’. That is to imply that we accept the Army Corps of Engineers judgment as
superior to ours – which I don’t. It may be that a fight at this stage would be judged to be futile, though I hope not. If that is the University’s
judgment, I would like to urge strongly that the University move to acquire an entirely new foothill research facility at the earliest opportunity.
“I would appreciate the opportunity to discuss this issue and its implication with you.”
17Jul,1975. Schoonover, W. E., Dir. of Administrative Services, V. P.’s Office. Letter to G. E. Bradford re his letter of July 8 to Vice President
Kendrick.“
Your letter of July 5, 1975, concerning the Sierra Foothill Range Field Station has been referred to me. Obviously we are greatly concerned about the
Army Corps of Engineers’ plans to build a higher level dam on the Yuba River that would inundate a major portion of the field station. We recognize
that to cut short research now underway or yet to be started at the field station will be highly detrimental to the overall goals of the University. While
I share your concern I believe we must be realistic and recognize that we may not be able to put up a reasonable fight against the dam if there are no
others who are opposing the construction and who would have greater public support. “I believe it is important, therefore, for us to develop some
estimates of the costs, and I don’t mean in terms of dollars but in research efforts that we have put into the station thus far, and assess the cost to us in
terms of research efforts should the station be discontinued in five to ten years. We should also consider the possible cost of moving the station to
another location, and the efforts required of staff to get started on projects once again. I will be discussing these ideas in greater detail with Charles
Raguse at a later date so that we may be prepared to discuss the matter and to go into battle as appropriate this coming year.
10Aug1975 Source: An old newspaper clipping (identity of newspaper unknown) New quake fears in Mother Lode.
The first few paragraphs, Robert Hollis, staff writer: “The violent earthquake that damaged parts of Oroville nine days ago could be the first of a
string of potentially disastrous temblors that could rock California’s Mother Lode country. Some geologists and seismologists thought the state are
109
seriously questioning whether massive new dams and reservoirs in the Sierra foothills might contribute to earthquakes where none have occurred for
more than two million years. Since the quake that jostled Oroville Aug 1, scores of scientists have flocked to the bucolic Butte County seat. ‘What’s
interesting,’ said one geologist ‘is why the earthquake happened. The event was totally unexpected.’ (emphasis mine) Indeed, there are literally
dozens of earthquake faults running north-south from north of Oroville south to about Mariposa, some 150 miles distant. Most were first mapped by
state geologists in the 1890s. According to a state Division of Mines and Geology fault map published in 1973, the so-called Mother Lode fault belt
has been dormant for more than two million years. … In 1968, the huge Oroville Dam was completed. The seven-year period between the creation of
Lake Oroville and the temblor ‘is like the blink of an eye in geologic time,’ said one Stanford geologist. Now, two more enormous dams are being
built at almost even intervals along the Mother Lode belt. They are the 650 foot high Auburn Dam on the Yuba (sic) River and the New Melones
Dam, 625 feet high on the Stanislaus River. Both of these dams will create reservoirs larger by far than anything yet built along those parts of the
fault belt. … Dr. Roger Sherburne, a geologist for the state Division of Mines and Geology, declared: ‘But the possibility is always there.’ “
17Sep1975 Warren E. Schoonover, Director of administrative Services, Division of Agricultural Sciences. Letter to Ms Margaret Petersen, U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento. “This is a follow-up to our phone conversation concerning the Corps of Engineers project to construct a dam
on the Yuba River in the Marysville area. As you are aware, the University of California has acreage at the Sierra Foothill Range Field Station that
would be partially inundated by the waters from the dam project. We are greatly concerned about this, inasmuch as the major portion of the prime
area of our Field Station would be area desired by the Corps. ”It would be appreciated if you would contact e at an appropriate time when you will be
able to discuss our concerns.
cc: Director James L. Myler, Professor Charles Raguse, Real Estate Officer Schappell.
16Oct1975. Rowell, Paul, Supt., SFRFS. Letter to Gene Speck, Assoc. Dir., AFS, Davis, CA.
Entire text of letter:
“In regards to the first paragraph of your ‘notes’ I-12-3 SFRFS – Marysville Dam, Parks Bar site, I’m in some disagreement with Dr. Raguse’s
statement ‘… that public opposition against the Dam has diminished considerably since the site was changed from the Daguerre Point (sic) Browns
Valley site to the Parks Bar site’ “I don’t believe there is any good evidence now or in the past four or five years to show what the ‘local’ (grassroots)
opposition is or has been to a Dam on the Yuba River. The only ‘evidence’ I can find is an article (8/10/74) in the Marysville Appeal-Democrat
newspaper. One paragraph in the article states: ‘Abernathy and other Dam opponents contend that if the Dam were moved upstream to the muchdiscussed Parks Bar site, most of the opposition to the project would disappear’. … “During the past three years that I have been here, there has not
been strong local participation in the fight against the Marysville Dam at the Browns Valley site. I have been a member of the Anti-Dam Committee
and there have never been more than eight people at any meeting. The opposition to the Dam has been done largely through the hard work and
outspokenness of two individuals, George and Nell Abernathy and through the efforts of Yuba Consolidated Industries (a land owning and gold
dredging company in the area affected by the Dam). “Now that the Corps has switched its emphasis to the Parks Bar site, Nell and George Abernathy
have no longer the need to ‘save’ Browns Valley, and Yuba Consolidated Industries are not affected as much; therefore, this ‘opposition’ has
diminished. Many of the people currently affected by the Dam at the Parks Bar site are opposed to it, and these people currently are looking for a way
to voice their opposition, through the formation of another Anti-Dam Committee or whatever. “I believe the University of California should take a
stand on the Dam issue based on the effect on the SFRFS, and the merits of the proposed project. If we feel we have a legitimate stake in the issue,
then let’s take a stand based on our time, and past and future contributions to research on foothill lands and associated problems.”
21Oct1975 Eugene P. Speck, Associate Director, Agricultural Field Stations, Division of Agricultural Sciences. Letter to Ms Margaret S. Petersen,
Water Resources Planning Branch, Sacramento District, Corps of Engineers.
“As discussed at our meeting of this date, I am sending you the following: 1. Annual Reports for 1972, 1973, and 1974; 2. The current Field Station
Plan; 3. The current Headquarters Plan; 4. The Research Project Area Map; 5. The Headquarters Master Plan; 6. The Station Master Plan. Dr.
Raguse is preparing a summary of the research work at the Sierra Station, which will be forwarded to you after the appropriate reviews
We thank you for the opportunity of discussing the project with you and your staff and hope that you will keep us informed of developments that will
affect the Sierra Station.
********************************************************************************************************************
1976
*********************************************************************************************************************
Undated. “Composite map of alternates” for re-routing Highway 20 around the original (“Browns Valley”) site of the proposed Marysville Dam.
Five routes were shown in general view, along with descriptions of the routes covered (land requirements, effects on owners, assessments and taxes,
and estimated costs), and engineering data (length, distance between common points, length of bridge across the Yuba River, 20-year user cost, and
project cost estimates for 4-lane freeway and 2-lane expressway). In this scenario the impounded water would back up the Yuba River to the base of
Englebright Dam, and essentially cut off access to the Sierra Field Station.
“As shown on the enclosed map, we currently plan to acquire the minimum amount of Field Station lands possible, consistent with the land needs for
a Federal reservoir project. Acquisition would be limited to lands to be inundated and lands extending 300 feet horizontally from the gross pool. …
“As agreed in the referenced telephone conversation, we are tentatively scheduling a meeting with you the first week in May …”
12Mar1976. Greene, K. E., Engineer, AFS, Davis Note to P. Rowell, W. Schoonover, C. Raguse re fault. “I heard from a Steve Whipple, head
specification writer for the Sacramento Corps of Engineers that a major fault was discovered about two months ago across the Parks Bar Dam site.
This is causing a major analysis to be made on earth fill dam, vs. concrete arch, vs. is the site suitable at all.”
20Mar1976. San Francisco Examiner. Article: Pres. Carter puts 226 water projects back onto ‘safe list, but not Marysville and New Melones Dams.
30Apr1976. Rockwell, Col. F. G., Jr., Corps. Of Engineers, Sacramento District. Letter to E. P. Speck, AFS, re land acquisition at SFRFS.
“Reference is made to the telephone conversation between Mr. James Smith of this office and yourself on 21 April, 1976 concerning the Marysville
Lake, California project and its impact on the UC SFRFS.
110
“As discussed in that conversation enclosed is a map showing the project gross pool (elevation 560 feet) and tentative acquisition lines for the project
where they relate to the Field Station. …“A number of California flood control, navigation, and power projects have escaped the Carter
administration’s economy ax, but two of the most important remain on his ‘endangered’ list. The White House has moved to drop 226 projects from
its hit list and thus allow continued construction by the Army Corps of Engineers and Bureau of Reclamation, reducing the number of endangered
water projects to about 80. … “The President, whose relations with Congress have been strained because of his effort to stop work on a variety of
water projects, said the vast majority of the Corps of Engineers and Bureau of Reclamation projects under review would be restored. “Major projects
not on the ‘safe’ list included California’s $708 million Marysville Dam, on the Yuba River, and the $306 million New Melones Dam, on the
Stanislaus River. “Work on the New Melones Dam is well under way, but the Marysville Dam is still in the planning stages. Administration officials
said both may be added to the ‘safe’ list later. “New Melones would be 625 feet high and 1,560 feet long. It would have a 300-megawatt power plant
and had been scheduled for completion in 1979. Its construction, critics contend, would destroy irreplaceable archeological and white water
recreation features “The Marysville Dam would be a 12,000-foot-long, 215-foot-high structure 11 miles northeast of the valley town, and would
supply a 50,000-kilowatt power plant. “(Senate Majority Leader Robert) Byrd, Carter’s chief spokesman in Congress, said there was little doubt
Congress would continue funding all but perhaps ‘one or two in the whole caboodle’ on Carter’s list. He never doubted it, Byrd said, adding the
Carter’s attack on the projects amounted to ‘much sound and fury signifying nothing.”
6May1976. Speck, E. P., Assoc. Dir. AFS., Conference notes from meeting with the Corps re land acquisition for the Parks Bar Dam site.
“The meeting was requested by Mr. James Smith of the U. S. Corps of Engineers to review progress to date on the Parks Bar Dam issue as it
concerns the SFRFS. In attendance from the Corps were: James Smith, Jim Gibson, Brian Doyle and Larry Bowermaster. Representing the
University were Paul Rowell and Gene Speck. The meeting was held in the Corps of Engineers’ Office in Sacramento.
“Jim Smith opened the meeting by presenting a map that showed the proposed reservoir line and the proposed take-line of University properties.
This map is the same as was transmitted with Col. Rockwell’s letter of April 30, 1976 to Gene Speck.
“Smith indicated that their idea of acquiring land west of the reservoir in exchange for University land that would be inundated did not appear too
feasible, as the bridge across the narrow strip of the reservoir was estimated at twelve million dollars. Also quite a bit of the land west of the reservoir
would be needed for dam construction such as contractor mobilization; administration area and dam overlook area. He stated that the proposed
access road in from the north to the University property would cost about 5 million dollars. (Emphasis mine)
“Rowell and Speck reviewed the University’s position, which was substantially that the U. S. Corps of Engineers were taking some primary irrigated
pasture area and without this area the station usefulness was practically reduced to zero. In order to continue to use the station it would be necessary
to have equal irrigated areas. If obtaining lands to the west is not feasible, acquisition of the Selby Ranch should be studied. The Corps wanted to
know, if they were unable to secure the Selby Ranch, would there be other suitable lands. They proposed acquisition of a site that might be separate
from existing properties. We stated that it was essential that the lands acquired be contiguous with existing lands because of the difficulties of
managing separate pieces of property.
“Rowell reviewed the many facets with which we are concerned. While they listened to his presentation, I question their understanding or sympathy
to the situation. I think this was illustrated by my question, ‘do they think we have sufficient justification to prevent the project from coming into
being?’ To which they indicated, that it was probably obvious to us, that they did not think so. As they, even in spite of the information they have
obtained, are proceeding with planning for the project. They stated that their investigations had not revealed any earth faults that would create serious
seismic problems for the project.
111
“Their schedule is to have a working paper ready for review in June of this year and the EIS completed by December of this year. (emphasis
mine) They will be contacting or furnishing us a draft of the working paper for review and hope that
we will be making comments at that time. They are going to look into the possibility of additional water in the upper BVID ditch to determine if we
could obtain sufficient water to provide irrigated areas to replace that which will be lost. They do not plan to start an investigation concerning the
acquisition of the Selby Ranch until a later date. The proposed construction start date is still 1980. (Emphasis mine)
“U. C. Sierra Foothill Range Field Station, 6 May, 1976, JBS:
Field Station total lands (planimetered): 5870 acres
Field Station lands impacted:
Inundated:
740 acres
Minimum lands required: 400 acres
Total
1140 acres”
20Jun1976. Rockwell, Col. F. G., Jr., Corps. Of Engineers, Sacramento District. Letter to E. P. Speck, Assoc. Dir., AFS, Davis, CA re Parks Bar
“project take-line” Enclosed for your information is a drawing which indicates a very preliminary project take-line as it relates to the Field Station.
As we develop the project we will be working closely with you to further refine the land acquisition requirements. As I mentioned, the “Associated
Lands” noted on the drawing are to provide a buffer area and it would appear that present agricultural use of the Buzzard Peak area would be
compatible with our needs. In any event, these details can be further investigated with you. …”
Jul,1976. U. S. Army Engineer District, Sacramento, California. Environmental Working Paper, Marysville Lake Project (Parks Bar Site), Yuba
River, California. 157p. plus appendixes and maps.
The cover letter for distribution was written by George C. Weddell, Chief, Engineering Division. Following are the first two paragraphs of this cover
letter:
“The enclosed Environmental Working Paper for the Marysville Lake Project, Yuba River, California, is being distributed to known interested
Federal, State and local agencies, citizens’ groups and individuals for informal, working level review and comment. Comments received will be used
to prepare the draft environmental statement for the project.
“This working paper reflects the change in project site from Browns Valley to Parks Bar. The project at the Browns Valley site was
discussed in the November 1974 Environmental Working Paper, which is now superseded by this new working paper. Studies on the
projects at the Parks Bar site are continuing, and the results contained herein are tentative. All the data, including costs and benefits, are
subject to revision in the draft environmental statement, which will be released for formal comment in the spring of 1977. (Emphasis mine)
From “Section I – Project Description, Introduction, p. 1:
“Investigation into the possibility of constructing a dam or dams on the Yuba River upstream of Marysville for flood control was begun after the
December 1955 flood in Yuba City in which 38 people lost their lives, 3,300 homes were flooded, thousands were forced to evacuate, and flood
damages were estimated at 20.5 million dollars. By resolution the Committee on Public Works, House of Representatives, requested a report from the
Corps of Engineers on the Yuba River basin on 23 July 1956.
“Federal participation in flood control in the Yuba River basin was publicly formulated and was presented in detail in the Yuba River Basin review
report, House Document No. 180, 89th, 1st Session. That report proposed Federal participation for flood control in the Yuba County Water Agency’s
New Bullards Bar Dam, to be followed later by Corps construction of the Marysville Dam in the lower Yuba River basin. The Marysville Dam was
authorized for construction by Congress by the Flood Control Act of 7 November 1966 (Public Law 89-789), substantially in accordance with
recommendations of the Chief of Engineers in the Marysville project document, House Document No. 501, 89 th Congress, 2nd Session. Federal
participation for flood control in the State of California’s Oroville Dam on the Feather River was also part of the overall flood protection plan for the
area.
“The Marysville Lake project is authorized to be built and operated by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. Irrigation and power functions of the
project would be integrated into the Central Valley Project of the U. S. Bureau of Reclamation. The selected project would be located 15 miles
upstream from Marysville and 4 miles upstream from the site proposed in the project document. (emphasis mine).
“Marysville Lake would be created by construction of a dam on the Yuba River at Parks Bar and a dam on Dry Creek. The impoundment would
inundate the existing Englebright Dam on the Yuba River and two power plants, the Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) Old Narrows power
plant and the Yuba County Water Agency (YCWA) New Narrows power plant. The Yuba River arm of the lake would extend upstream to
immediately below the existing YCWA Colgate power plant of the New Bullards Bar project. A channel would be excavated through the saddle
between the Yuba River pool and the Dry Creek pool to facilitate the exchange of water between the two pools during periods of low lake level;
excavated materials would be used in construction of the dams. The lake would impound 916,000 acre-feet when the water is at the gross pool
elevation of 560 feet above mean sea level (msl). At this elevation the pool would cover 6,640 acres and would have 67 miles of shoreline. At the
lake’s minimum pool, storage capacity would be 273,000 acre-feet, pool elevation 428 feet msl, and surface area 3,180 acres. The average pool
expected to be available for recreation in the summer months (May through August) is 801,000 acre-feet, or about 6,160 surface acres.”
6Aug1976. Rowell, Paul, Supt., SFRFS Personal letter to Col. Donald O’Shei, the Corps, commenting on the Environmental Working Paper.
This is an 8-page document that does not lend itself easily to distillation into a few short paragraphs, but Paul’s beginning and ending statements are
worthy of note:
“Much of the study is written in such a biased manner toward construction of the ‘project’ that it is difficult to respond to without separating what
may be a legitimate attempt to produce an ‘environmental working paper’ from the biasness in the Corps of Engineers for the advantage of building
dams and reservoirs. …
And, to end it: “In conclusion, the ‘environmental working paper’ for the Marysville Lake Project is an extremely biased and single-purpose
document. The choice of words to heighten benefits and lessen adverse impacts, the underestimation of costs both in terms of economics and
impacts, the inaccuracies in reporting so-called ‘facts’, the rejection and exclusion of viable alternatives, and the unequal amount of emphasis given to
flood control, which account for just 5% of the ‘benefits’, all are an indication of the Corps of Engineers perverse commitment to dam building.”
6Aug1976 . Rowell, Paul, Supt., SFRFS, Letter to E. P. Speck on the Corps “Environmental Working Paper, Parks Bar site”
112
“The ‘Environmental Working Paper’ doesn’t go into enough detail regarding the impact of the Marysville Lake Project on the research and
educational activities of the SFRFS. The Corps of Engineers has not recognized the uniqueness of the Field Station as evidenced by their references
to it as ‘grazing land’, ‘rangeland’, ‘agricultural land’, etc. This uniqueness should be brought out in the draft EIS.
“Other impacts we should be concerned about are: (there follows a very long list of unique Station attributes and activities)
“I have attached a copy of a letter written to Col. O’Shei, detailing my own personal thoughts, and in no way meant to represent the University…”
(How many different Colonels are there by now?)
11Aug1976 Anderson, John R., Professor of Entomology, UC Berkeley, letter to James L. Myler, Director of Agricultural Field Stations.
“My principal concern with respect to the U.C. SFRFS is that no special consideration seems to have been given to the value of the land as an
important (unique) research site, much of whose value derives from the historical information obtained in the long term research projects. I would
include in this line of thought the cost of developing and seeding the special irrigated pastures scheduled to be taken, as well as the special fencing,
roads, etc.”
11Aug1976. Wood, William W., Jr., Economist, UC Cooperative Extension. Letter to Warren E. Schoonover re the Environmental Working Paper,
Marysville Lake Project.
Entire text of letter:
“On pages 2 and 3, summarizing the benefit: cost analysis, a discount rate of 3 ¼ percent is used, which is absurdly low. OMB recommends a 10
percent rate on all federal projects while congress legislated a 5 percent rate in 1974. Wince a substantial short run cost will accrue to Yuba County in
the form of reduced tax base, it may be questionable whether the Corps will receive the local cooperation needed. At 5 percent, the project will
approximate a benefit: cost ratio of 1, and at any reasonable discount rate will be substantially below 1. Since Yuba County considers itself to be in a
serious situation regarding assessed value and tax revenue, this project may not be viewed with great approval.
“The economic analysis on pages 113-116, confirms the above. There appear to be two other serious problems with the analysis. The incidence of
costs and benefits are analyzed without adequate attention to time. Most of the non-project costs – decreased assessed value, increased pressure on
housing and schools, and increased road and other public service sectors – will occur toward the beginning of construction. Benefits – increased
property values and recreation day expenditures – will not begin until ten or more years after the project is begun. Thus, short run financial crises
may make projected long run economic expansion irrelevant.
“The second problem relates to jobs. Given the nature of unskilled, unemployed labor in the Yuba County area, one must question whether any
significant percentage of jobs will be filled by resident labor. In fact, my impression is that for most such projects, most labor requirements are met
by outside workers moving in for the period of construction. It may be reasonable to assume that some portion of that labor influx may even
contribute to further unemployment following completion of the project.
“A further difficulty not necessarily involved in benefit: cost analysis but which must be recognized is that many of the estimated benefits accrue to
Sacramento and Sutter Counties while costs are predominantly borne by Yuba County. Unless some type of Joint Powers agreement is negotiated,
this may lead to substantial conflict. Very simply, Yuba County taxpayers may not look very favorably upon paying for benefits in the form of
flood control to Yuba City or recreation to residents of Sacramento. (emphasis mine)
“On page 121, the report infers a multiplier of 6.68 from water delivered to irrigated agriculture. This figure is at least twice as high as any estimates
with which I’m familiar. Even with a more realistic multiplier estimate, it is inappropriate to attribute that economic contribution to only one
production input such as water.
“With respect to the UC Field Station, if the Corps’ estimate of recreational use materializes, what impact will this influx of people in the vicinity
have on field research activities? Substantial expenditure for cyclone fencing, etc., will probably be a minimum impact
“In summary, I recognize that this is an environmental rather than economic impact report. However, several loosely hypothesized economic
benefits are used to offset adverse economic impacts. In most cases the incidence of benefit – both as to location and time—does not coincide with
adverse impacts
18Aug1976. Singer, Michael J. LAWR: Soils and Plant Nutrition Section. Letter to James L. Myler, Dir., AFS re the Marysville Lake Project.
Entire text of letter:
“My first impression is that this is a very large project with a very small payoff. Two dams each over 300 feet high to impound less than one
million acre feet of water seems inefficient. The total volume of irrigation water is even smaller. I doubt that local agriculture in the area would be
able to afford the new water. Most of it is likely to go south.
“Direct effects of the project on the Station include reduced access, disruption of irrigation water supply, and loss of area. My project at the Station
will not be inundated, but access will be more difficult. I assume the University will be compensated for land taken by the project. I am concerned
that the taken land will not be easily replaced.
“A last concern I have is what will the effect of an increase in population seeking recreation have on the Station? One major advantage of the Station
is the knowledge that experiments and equipment are secure and safe from vandalism. Can we be assured that this will continue after the lake is
completed? The answer, I suspect, depends on the location and type of recreation areas.
26Aug1976. Myler, J. L. Director, Agricultural Field Stations. Letter to Loy L. Sammet, Vice President’s Office, forwarding responses of RAC
members to members of the Research Committee for the Sierra Foothill Range Field Station regarding adverse effect of the project. EDIT!. Mr.
Schoonover has a response from Bill Woods and, I believe, has requested a response from John Mamer. Perhaps you could have a writer digest this
material and draft a strong letter for vice President Kendrick to sign, transmitting such copies of the enclosed letters as seems desirable with his letter
protest. We believe that this project, by taking some 1100 – 1400 acres of the Station (including most of the irrigated land), would severely limit the
usefulness of the remaining 4,300 acres. The research data base accumulated over the last 17 years would b largely lost by the loss of the 1,400 acres.
Thus, the usefulness of the remaining land for research and teaching would be affected to a much greater extent than the loss of 20 -25% of the land
area involved. No place in the report does it give credit for the fact that this research station is the only location owned and operated by the
University of California where problems of land management can be researched for the millions of acres of range land on both sides of the great
valley. No mention is made of the usefulness of the Station as a teaching laboratory for both undergraduate and graduate students of the University of
California in resource management in a wide variety of disciplines. The station is also used as a laboratory for teaching purposes by various State
University and Junior College classes The 17 years of research data base is particularly valuable to the graduate students, whose research problems
continually add to the data base. Relocation of the Station, or any part of it, would require many years to build a data base of equal usefulness for
113
research or teaching purposes. It has taken the University 17 years to develop the physical facilities, including headquarters, springs, fences, roads,
dormitory, and livestock facilities to make this one of the outstanding range stations in the western United States. Relocation of the Station to a new
site at this time, even with unlimited resources, would take perhaps 10 years and several times the investment required to develop this Station to its
current level of us\usefulness to the State of California. The Station is in the process of being listed in the Institute of Ecology Experimental
Ecological reserves, which is a national listing of Ecological Reserve areas. This National registration is a result of the 17 years of data base and is a
step toward national recognition of the unique research potential of the current site for ecological studies of nation-wide importance. Loss of the
extensive riparian vegetation types and the lower elevation biological (livestock-free areas) would eliminate its usefulness as a National Ecological
Reserve. Any letter of Dr. Kendrick should go to the Corps of Engineers on September 1, 1976, or as soon thereafter as possible
27Aug1976. Raguse, C. A., Chair, HFS/SFRFS Research Advisory Committee, Letter to Larry Bowermaster, Corps of Engineers, commenting on
the Environmental Working Paper for the Parks Bar site.
Excerpts from the letter:
“This letter is to comment on the Environmental Working Paper (EWP) for the Marysville Lake Project (Parks Bar Site). My comments are derived
from 1) I am a research and teaching faculty member of the Agronomy and Range Science Department, UC-Davis, who has conducted both research
and teaching programs at the SFRFS for the past ten years, and 2) my role as chairman of the Research Advisory Committee for the Hopland and
Sierra Foothill Range Field Stations. …
“I believe at least two general observations are in order. First, the SFRFS is a research, teaching and public service arm of the University of
California’s Division of Agricultural Sciences and the State Experiment Station. As such, it is a unique feature of the Marysville Lake Project area.
Since acquisition of the land in 1960, a long, arduous, and productive sequence of land, facility, and research capability development has ensued.
One of the products has been an irreplaceable research history and record of environmental changes. A singular attribute of the SFRFS is its unique
suitability for research and teaching related to land, water, and agricultural development and management in the so-called marginal land areas.
National and worldwide interest in this subject has grown markedly in recent years, a fact that can be readily documented. A major contribution to
planning, execution, and interpretation of such studies is an adequate historical background. Thus, the displacements indicated by the Marysville
Lake Project cannot help but constitute a major disruption to present and future research and teaching progress at the SFRFS. …
“In my view, the SFRFS has evolved through at least four phases in chronological sequence: I. Small-plot and observational plant and animal
research in the early years, when very little field and facility development to support research was present; II. Beef cattle research (Animal Science,
UC-Davis) on a unit-herd basis, often in conjunction with Veterinary Medicine (UC-Davis); III. Field-scale improved-range, irrigated pasture, and
beef cattle management, now based on previous information gathered and improved facilities, including those for animal handling. These, larger-scale
studies sometimes served as a framework permitting scientists of other disciplines to conduct studies otherwise not possible, e.g., entomological
research in four different range and pasture ecosystems utilized by beef cattle; IV. (Present and future) integrated watershed-unit resourcemanagement, now including water management-water quality relationships, watershed stability and nutrient cycling, and wildlife biology and
management. …
“In summary, may I repeat the two points this letter is all about: One, the UC SFRFS is a unique facility, and the environmental impact analysis
must be developed with this clearly in mind. And two (or, therefore), remedial, protective, and mitigation measures must, similarly, be uniquely
devised to match the impacts the Marysville Lake Project.
Excerpts from the letter:
“We believe that this project, by taking some 1100 to 1400 acres of the Station (including most of the irrigated land), would severely limit the
usefulness of the remaining 4,300 acres. The research database accumulated over the last 17 years would be largely lost by this loss. Thus, the
usefulness of the remaining land for research and teaching would be affected to a much greater extent than the loss of 20 to 25% of the land area
involved.
“No place in the report does it give credit for the fact that this research station is the only location owned and operated by the University of California
where problems of land management can be researched for the millions of acres of range land on both sides of the Central Valley. NO mention is
made of the usefulness of the Station as a teaching laboratory for both undergraduate and graduate students of UC in resource management in a wide
variety of disciplines. The Station is also used as a laboratory for teaching purposes by various State University and Junior College classes. The 17
years of research is particularly valuable to graduate students, whose research problems continually add to the database. …
“It has taken the University 17 years to develop the physical facilities, including headquarters, springs, fences, roads, dormitory and livestock
facilities (emphasis mine) to make this one of the outstanding range station in the western United States. Relocation of the Station to a new site at this
time, even with unlimited resources, would take perhaps 10 years and several times the investment previously expended to bring the Station to its
current level of productivity.”
23Sep1976. Mamer, John W. Agric. Extension, Giannini Hall, UC-Berkeley. Letter to Warren Schoonover, re EWP, Marysville Lake Project, Parks
Bar Site. Similar in content to that of William W. Wood, Jr., August 11, 1976.
Three excerpts: 1)“I have come to the conclusion that this report is, as it is described, a ‘working paper’. As such, it is intended to generate
discussion and provide the basis for such. In reading the report one gains a great deal of information about the area. However, it is not always
possible to derive the final dollar benefits and costs from the material presented. For example, on page 3 the flood control benefits are listed as $2.24
million annually. Yet on page 109 the report states, ‘Flood damages are estimated to total $3.15 million on an average annual basis…’.There is
probably a rational explanation, but I could not find it. Further, I was not able to locate a monetary assessment of the cost of submerging part of the
UC field Station (p. 120). …2) There is no question about the fact that an expansion of agriculture will have a multiplier effect on the economy
greater than the original direct increase in agricultural production (p. 121). However a multiplier of 6.68 seems quite high. In the input-output studies
that Wallace, Goldman, and I did on similar situations, we seldom got a multiplier larger than 4.2. Under very special circumstances a higher
multiplier might be generated, but that special circumstance should be specified – if that is the case here. I am doubtful that it is. …3) Not only is it
difficult or impossible to determine exactly how some of the more important figures were derived but there is a vast body of information that could
have been referred to. There have been may constructions similar to the one contemplated in this report. The changes in property values along the
lake create, the recreational activity that materialized, and related information would be useful in developing the projects presented in this report.
Perhaps some of the information will be revealed in discussions that the document will generate.
30Sep1976. Kendrick, J. B., Jr.,
114
Letter to Marshall Jones, Consulting Engineer, Sacramento, CA, re Paul Rowell’s “unauthorized” remarks at a California Water Commission
workshop on September 2.
Several excerpts from the letter:
“I have reviewed your letter of September 8, reporting statements made by Dr. Paul Rowell at a workshop held by the California Water Commission
on September 2. Mr. Rowell is Superintendent of the Sierra Foothill Range Field Station, a part of the University’s Agricultural Experiment Station.
The Field Station is located on the Yuba River and a substantial portion of its developed area would be lost for our use should the Marysville Dam
project be consummated. …
“Mr. Rowell is free to express his personal views on the subject but he has not been authorized to speak on behalf of the University or the Station on
this matter. When we do make a position determination, Mr. Rowell may be authorized to speak for the University consistent with its position. I am
reminding Mr. Rowell that the University has not yet taken a position on this matter, and that any statement he may make must be identified as a
personal view pending the establishment (emphasis mine) of a University position and authorization to him to represent it. Further, I will be advising
the California Water Commission that as the time of the meeting, the University had not taken a position to oppose the project.
13Oct1976. Myler, J. L. Director, Agricultural Field Stations. Letter to J. B. Kendrick re Paul Rowell’s remarks at a meeting of the California
Water Commission.
The “Slap on the Wrist” reported back to the Chief.
“I have discussed this matter with Dr. Rowell and he has assured me that he is well aware that he has no authority to speak for the University on the
Marysville Lake Project.
“He attended the workshop held by the California Water Commission on September 2 on short notice since he was not informed of the hearing until
that morning. (Emphasis mine) Upon hearing of the workshop, he called this office and Mr. Speck accompanied him at the workshop. With the
short notice, he had not prepared a statement and was perhaps a little nervous during his testimony. Dr. Rowell was trying to point out that the EWP
was inadequate in pointing out the significant impact that the loss of 1,100 – 1,400 acres would have on the total Station program... Mr. Speck verifies
that Dr. Rowell was speaking in this context, and that Dr. Rowell, though denying speaking for The Regents, represented personal opinions rather
than Station policy. In informal discussions following the workshop, both Dr. Rowell and Mr. Speck clarifies that as of that time no position had
been taken by the University regarding the Marysville Dam.
“Dr. Rowell, like me, does have strong personal opinions against the Marysville Dam because of its adverse effects on a University program that we
both sincerely support. We will, however, make certain in the future that opinions expressed are clearly identified as personal unless authorized to
speak for the University.”
In my (C. A. Raguse) humble opinion, Lowell Myler wrote a fine letter. He makes clear that he supports Paul Rowell’s opinions – in fact,
they are his own, as well. Where V.P. Kendrick’s letter initially refers to Dr. Paul Rowell, Kendrick then pointedly and repeatedly uses Mr.
instead, a demeaning and humbling tactic. Finally, after all of this time, and all of the communications from many people, why had the
University not risen off its butt and taken a position? This is one instance where Vice President Kendrick may have felt a bit sheepish.
8Nov1976Lyons, James M., Assistant Director, UC Agricultural Extension. Memo to C. A. Raguse, Chair, HFS-SFRFS Research Advisory
Committee re draft of a statement of potential impact of the Marysville Lake Project.
“This is in response to your memo of October 28, including a draft of a statement on the potential impact of the Marysville Lake project. I have
examined the document and feel that it’s well written and clearly states the case. I have no suggestions to add. I do not know where the document
should go, but would suggest you forward this to Vice President Kendrick’s office, leaving it up to them to determine the circulation. I feel that it
should get into the hands of the State Water Resources Agency and Legislators from that area, but I would have to leave this up to Kendrick to
decide. (Emphasis mine)
Again, in a complex bureaucratic structure, the power to influence can be exerted by simply doing nothing. Memory at this point in time (January
2004) does not respond as to what happened to that draft. Perhaps nothing.
12Nov1976. Raguse, C. A., Chair, HFS/SFRFS Research Advisory Committee, Letter conveying to Dr. Milton B. Schroth, Division of Agricultural
Sciences, UC Berkeley campus a draft statement of the University’s position on the Marysville Lake Project.
“Attached is a draft of the statement of the University position on the Army Corps of Engineers Marysville Lake Project, which you requested
recently. “I prepared it as a response to the Environmental Working Paper released by the Corps July 1976, and by editing the file of correspondence
submitted to Dr. Sammet by James L. Myler with his letter of August 26.
“The draft was reviewed by the HFS/SFRFS Research Advisory Committee at its November 11 meeting and approved. Besides the Corps, it was
suggested that the statement be sent to the State Secretary of Resources Claire Dedrick, for referral to al least the State Water Resources Control
Board and Department of Water Resources, to the State Department of Agriculture, to the California Cattleman’s Association, and to appropriate
legislators. (Emphasis mine)
“By request, copies should be available from either the Division of Agricultural Science or Agricultural Field Stations”
THE DRAFT
Addressed to: Department of the Army, Sacramento District Corps of Engineers, 650 Capitol Mall, Sacramento. Attn: Mr. Larry Bowermaster
“The University of California’s Division of Agricultural Sciences has reviewed the Environmental Working Paper (EWP, July 1976) prepared by the
US Army Corps of Engineers for the Marysville Lake Project through study and comment by Systemwide Administration, Agricultural Field Stations
Administration, the Research Advisory Committee for the Hopland and Sierra Foothill Range Field Stations, and other Experiment Station and
Cooperative Extension persons with relevant expertise.
“A consensus of opinion has emerged with respect to 1) impacts on the UC Sierra Foothill Range Field Station (SFRFS) and resultant remedial,
protective, and mitigation procedures, 2) location of the proposed dam, and 3) overall economic analysis of the Marysville Lake Project.
“First, regarding impacts of the project on the UC SFRFS and the present analysis by the Corps as presented in the EWP:
a) The EWP does not credit the UC-SFRFS as being a unique feature of the Marysville Lake Project area, developed and managed as a UC field
laboratory for research, teaching, and public service. It is the only UC facility where long-term, integrated studies of beef cattle production, range
improvement and management, watershed management, and multiple-use relationships are being studied in relation to productive and wise
115
management of 10 to 20 million acres of valley-edge and foothill areas of the Sierra Nevada. The information being developed is applicable to other,
similar marginal-land areas of the world.
b) The EWP does not recognize the value of the accumulated research data, acquired both with development of the Station and through research
experiments. In addition, Station development, through building of roads, fences, headquarters area, livestock-handling facilities, irrigated fields and
water distribution systems, and through development of numerous small field facilities for specific research objectives, has consistently been oriented
to the needs of research and teaching. As such, this combination has become a virtually irreplaceable resource.
c) The indicated land acquisition cannot be viewed in the simple terms of its proportion of the total land area of the SFRFS. If anything, the SFRFS
is of inadequate size fir the large-scale, comprehensive experiments needed in range beef cattle and watershed
management studies, and a proposal for augmentation of beef cattle carrying capacity by additional development of land and facilities has been
approved and work presently is underway. More important, however, is the simple fact that this land acquisition takes (by inundation or peripheral
‘take zone’), or directly affects (by proximate location) the best soils, the most highly-developed fields, the watershed areas most strategically and
efficiently located with respect to the headquarters area.
“Because a major objective of research at the SFRFS is development of improved systems for integration of improved and unimproved rangeland
with irrigated pastures for red meat production, maintenance of a broad spectrum of soils and physiographic features characteristic of foothill area is
essential. All of the presently irrigated and potentially irrigable land of the SFRFS is essential to achievement of this long-range objective. The
proposed dam and reservoir, however, would eliminate or adversely affect the use of this land, thereby severely reducing the scope, quantity, and
quality of the research that could be conducted. The feasibility of simple relocation of the displace land is questionable. Mitigation of impacts in this
instance must be considered in terms of compensation based on the cost of replacing the land and facilities with equal facilities of like utility.
“Second, considering all known and possible impacts together with the purposes of the Project, it appears warranted that the Corps should consider
other sites within the project area for construction of a dam. One example is the Yuba Rivers Narrows area close to the Present Englebright Dam.
This would have less effect on the SFRFS than the Parks Bar site.
“Third, regarding the overall economic analysis:
a) The discount rate used in the benefit-cost analysis, 3 ¼ percent, appears unrealistically low.
b) The agricultural output multiplier used (6.68) appears unrealistically high. The EWP suggests the estimate was derived from a Nebraska study.
California-based studies suggest a value approximately one-half as large.
c) Some of the benefits attributed to the project for the local area are either questionable (e.g., employment), or not properly interpreted with respect
to time (e.g., increased property values or recreation-day income).
d) Some of the estimated benefits would accrue to areas other than Yuba County, while costs will be borne in Yuba County.
E) These points, and others, raise question to the validity of the estimated benefit-cost ratio of 1.5.
“(to be signed by Dr. James B. Kendrick, Jr., for the Division of Agricultural Sciences)
29Nov1976. Rowell, Paul, Supt., SFRFS. Letter to J. L. Myler, re Corps mtg. In Marysville.
Entire text of letter:
“As you are aware, I attended a meeting on Tuesday night, November 23, in Marysville where the Corps discussed the Marysville Dam Project. Very
little ‘new’ information was presented. The only new information is that the Corps has, or is going to, submit to Congress three proposals concerning
the construction of the ‘Marysville Project’.
Proposal # 1 – Two dams, one on the Yuba River at the Parks Bar Site, the second on Dry Creek. (This is the standard proposal that has been
advocated by the Corps for some time.)
Proposal # 2 – The same as proposal # 1 except for a power plant and less water release downstream.
Proposal # 3 – A single dam on the Yuba River at the Parks Bar Site and no dam on Dry Creek. A dike would be built in the saddle (Forbes Ranch)
between the Yuba River drainage and the Dry Creek drainage to prevent water from spilling over from the reservoir into Dry Creek.
“The Corps is also currently studying the possibility of a dam immediately below Englebright Reservoir (Yuba River Narrows Site), which
apparently is a feasible site except for the problems involved with the relocation of the Colgate powerhouse. Colgate is owned by the Yuba County
Water Agency and the Corps doesn’t seem to want to tangle with them. The reservoir created by a dam at the Yuba River Narrows site would have a
gross pool of 850 to 900 feet above mean sea level. It would affect the Campbell area of the Field Station but nothing else.
“As far as impacts on the UC SFRFS are concerned, no dam or dams in this area would be best. However, of all the present dam sites being
investigated, the Yuba River Narrows site would have less impact on the Field Station. Of the three proposals being submitted to Congress for dam
and reservoir construction the proposal of a single dam at Parks Bar on the Yuba River would have the least impact on the Field Station. It would
inundate the old Forbes Headquarters area (Haworth), but not affect other areas such as H-11 and Porter. The single-dam proposal at Parks Bar is
also much superior to the other two in regards to adverse impacts on the environment, including wildlife and plants, land, and people.
“If the University were to support any of the current three proposals being submitted to Congress, I would strongly recommend the single-dam
proposal at Parks Bar. (‘ this seems like an unexpected turnaround’ pc by Paul Rowell)
“During the meeting the Corps acknowledged several times the fact that the UC SFRFS would be heavily impacted by the Marysville Project. They
also stated that he single-dam proposal at Parks Bar on the Yuba River would have the leas
30Nov1976 Schroth, M.N., Academic Assist. to the Vice President. Letter to C.A. Raguse re preparation of a draft of the University’s response to
the Corps on the Corps’ Marysville Lake Project. “Thank you for the draft of a statement on the University’s position on the Army Corps of
Engineers Marysville Lake Project. I have passed it on to Jim Kendrick for his review and signature. I’ll add here the comments made by Paul
Rowell, SFREC Superintendent: “I believe your draft adequately reflects the impacts of Marysville Lake Project (Parks Bar – Dry Creek Dam
Sites) on the SFREC. … Your comments on economic analysis and alternative locations don’t go into enough depth and detail. Also, other issues
such as adverse environmental impacts in the “project” area are not discussed. This is understandable and is probably beyond the scope, desire and
intentions of the Division of Agricultural Sciences and the Hopland-Sierra Research Advisory Committed. I see our function as one of emphasizing
the impacts of the project” on the Sierra Field Station only and I would be surprised (although not opposed) if these other areas are ever discussed. …
I would hope the other issues would be addressed by members of the academic community as individuals who have the expertise in these areas and
whose knowledge and dissemination of same would be helpful to the public, governmental agencies, environmental groups, etc. Concerned with the
worthwhileness of the project
8Dec1976. Kendrick, J. B., Jr., Letter to Col. Donald O’Shei, Sacramento District Corps of Engineers, Attn. Mr. Larry Bowermaster, re the
Marysville Lake Project EWP.
116
“Dear Colonel O’Shei:
“I have asked various members of the University of California’s Division of Agricultural Sciences to review the Environmental Working Paper (July
1976) prepared by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers for the Marysville Lake Project and have received comments from Agricultural Field Stations
staff, members of the Research Advisory Committee for the Sierra Foothill Range Field Station, and other Experiment Station and Cooperative
Extension persons with relevant expertise.
“I believe it is important for the Corps to be aware of our concerns related to the proposed project. These concerns pertain to the impact of the
project itself on the University of California’s Sierra Foothill Range field Station (SFRFS) and resultant remedial, protective, and mitigation
procedures, and validity of some aspects of the overall economic analysis of the Marysville Lake Project set forth in the Environmental Working
Paper (EWP).
The above actually contains some phrases and constructions I used in my transmittal of comments on the EWP, but what floored me absolutely was
that the rest of the letter, sent over J. B. Kendrick’s signature was word for word what I had sent to Dr. Milton N. Schroth, Div. of Agric. Sci., as a
draft of the statement of the University’s position on the Army Corps of Engineers Marysville Lake Project (Parks Bar – Dry Creek) January 12,
2004; PS: How ‘bout that?!
*********************************************************************************************************************
1977
*********************************************************************************************************************
01Jan, 1977 – 28Mar1977 Compiled by SFS Superintendent Paul Rowell. A sheaf of small articles about the controversy over the prospect of
building the Marysville Dam. The last article in this series, published in the Marysville-Yuba City Appeal Democrat, was prefaced by this “Editor’
Note”: “In 1962, Congress approved a plan to dam the Delaware River above Shawnee, PA. The U.S. Corps of Engineers went to work to clear the
area. It bought up more than 45,000 acres of fertile farm land, displaced 23,000 people, bulldozed hundreds of homes. Now, 15 years later, it looks
as though the dam will never be built.”
10Jan1977. Marysville-Yuba City Appeal Democrat. The Corps of Engineers is back!
“The Marysville Dam project has a favorable benefit-cost ratio even at the higher interest rates that may be required to figure the benefits, according
to the Corps.
“And the project – now estimated to cost about $1 billion (emphasis mine) – would provide water and power to alleviate shortages of both, Corps
officials said in a briefing of the California Water Commission committee studying the state position on the project.
“The Corps said that with a 1.35 megawatt power plant, the Marysville project would have a benefit-cost ratio of 2.0 at the old 3 ¼ percent interest
rate, or 1.1 at the 6 3/8 percent interest rate now used for determining project benefits.
“With a 2.25 megawatt power plant, the Marysville projects would have a benefit-cost 2.3 at 3 ¼ percent and 1.2 at 6 3/8 percent.
“Among the adverse impacts cited by the Corps for the project would be the inundation or disruption of approximately 8,000 acres, including 1,140
acres of UC livestock field station land.
“The project also would inundate 230 archaeological and historic sites, eight miles of salmon and steelhead spawning gravels, the Dry Creek
‘riparian habitat’ and displace about 200 residents.
“On the plus side, the Corps said, the project would provide gains in peaking power of 950 megawatt hours yearly, yield an additional 150,000 acrefeet of water, guarantee Yuba River flows and regulate temperatures, ‘restore and relocate the Timbuctoo Wells Fargo Building’, provide a net gain in
fish of 80,000 annually, provide flood protection, provide Yuba River corridor vegetation and gravel preservation and recreation access, increase
recreation opportunities and create jobs, among other things.
“The initial installation would be the 1.35 megawatt power plant, with ultimate development of the 2.25 megawatt one.
“According to the Corps, the anticipated operative date of the project is 1990 (emphasis mine), by which time there is expected to be a shortage of
1.4 million acre-feet of water and a shortage of power.
“The California Water Commission committee hearing on the Marysville project was attended by members of the pro-Marysville Dam Committee,
who spoke in favor of the project.
17Jan1977. Marysville-Yuba City Appeal Democrat. Federal funds allocated for Parks Bar construction. “President Ford’s proposed federal budget
2Feb1977 Marysville Appeal-Democrat. Corps pressing hub dam plans. ‘A ‘fast track schedule’ for the Marysville Dam Project has been prepared
by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and a draft plan for the project could be ready for release to the public in April, Corps engineer James Smith
said in Yuba City yesterday. Smith described the project at a meeting of the Environmental Management Policy Committee of the Sacramento
Regional Area Planning Commission. The Marysville – Yuba City Chapter of the League of Women Voters has asked SRAPC to conduct its own,
independent review of the Corps studies on the project. … Smith said the ‘fast track schedule’ prepared in Sacramento for the project now is under
review in the San Francisco regional office
If approved, it could accelerate preparations for construction of the billion dollar project. Construction now is scheduled to begin in 1981, with
completion of the main project in 1990. Plans call for expanding the main powerplant capacity of 1,350MW by 9090MW in the year 2000, The
project also includes a smaller, 15MW powerplant … If funds are allocated by Congress, there will be a three-year period of design, with the first
construction contract to be awarded in 1981
15Feb1977. Marysville-Yuba City Appeal Democrat. Article: The Corps reveals a “Fast Track Schedule”
“A ‘fast track schedule’ for the Marysville Dam Project has been prepared by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers and a draft plan for the project
could be ready for release to the public in April (emphasis mine), Corps engineer James Smith said in Yuba City yesterday. Smith described the
project at a meeting of the Environmental Management Policy Committee of the Sacramento Regional Area Planning Commission (SRAPC).
“The Marysville-Yuba City Chapter of the League of Women Voters has asked SRAPC to conduct its own, independent review of the Corps’ studies
on the project, and League representatives Debbie Naglee and Jane Ellis presented the request to the Committee during the meeting at the Y C
Women’s Club. …
117
“The League contends the Corps’ project will have local disadvantages as well as advantages and that, as proposed, the project isn’t necessarily the
best one for the area. The Corps’ studies should be reviewed by a regional agency more oriented toward regional needs and problems (Emphasis
mine), an agency able to take an objective look at the studies, the League argues
21Feb1977. Marysville-Yuba City Appeal-Democrat. Despite cuts, Hub Dam funds in budget.
The President (Carter) sent off a shock wave in Northern California and elsewhere over the weekend when it was reported that he has included the
massive Auburn Dam project among 22 water projects that he will ask Congress to stop for an economic and environmental review.
But $150,000 proposed in the federal budget to complete design work on the relocation of the Marysville Dam project remains for the first phase of
the relocation. The dam has been a source of controversy for several years now and Browns Valley opponents were successful in at least getting the
project site moved up river to Parks Bar… One concern about the proposed Auburn Dam is its safety during an earthquake. It has been predicted that
a100-foot wall of water would rush down the American River, top the 340-foot Folsom Dam and the 76-foot Nimbus Dam and flood Sacramento.
25Feb1977. Marysville-Yuba City Appeal Democrat. Article: Marysville Dam faces stiff review.
“The Marysville Dam will be subject to a thorough economic and environmental review by at least four federal agencies within the next 60 days as
part of President Carter’s call for scrutiny of virtually all proposed federal water projects.
“The $374 million dam project may also face additional environmental studies by the Sacramento Regional Area Planning Commission (SRAPC) as
a result of a request by the Yuba-Sutter league of Women Voters for a survey of alternatives to the 916,000 acre-foot lake.
“While $150,000 for additional pre-construction planning of the two adjacent dams remains in the budget submitted by President Carter for fiscal
1978, an aide to Rep. Harold T. Johnson confirmed yesterday in Washington that Carter included the dam in the long list of projects that must be
reevaluated before they can proceed further. (emphasis mine) Dwight Barnes said the President has ordered a review of ‘all projects under active
consideration.
“He said the Army Corps of Engineers – which would build the dams on the Yuba River and on Dry Creek – the Bureau of Reclamation, the
Department of the Interior and the Bureau of Environmental Quality all must pass on the project within the next 60 days for it to be included in future
water project planning. ‘Basically, they will review it on its economics – the cost-benefit ratio – and on its environmental impact
26Feb1977. San Francisco Chronicle. Article: Plans to ax dam funds began in 1972.
President Carter’s controversial decision to withhold funds for 19 major dam projects – including Auburn Dam near Sacramento – parallels costsaving measures proposed as far back as the first term of former President Nixon, according to government documents.
“In mid-1972, the documents indicate, the Office of Management and Budget and the Council on Environmental Quality suggested that federal funds
for 20 dam projects be suspended for a year pending a review of the projects by governors and other officials in states affected by the projects.
Under the OMB-CEQ plan, the President would have decided whether to continue financing the projects after reading the evaluations. The plan made
it through the Domestic Council in the White House to the Oval Office, where Nixon killed it.
But while the plan died, opposition with the executive branch to these and other project did no. After the Watergate scandal forced Nixon out of
office, the agencies decided to try again. “In the fall of 1974, 1975, and 1976, lists of from 20 to 35 water resource development projects – which the
two agencies believed the country would be better off without – were sent to the White House. The argument was always the same: The projects had
major adverse environmental impact, safety problems, dubious economic benefits and opposition from state and federal agencies.
“Unfortunately, Congress has continued to authorize and seek presidential support for a large number of water resource projects that have been
designed (under) outdated planning criteria and which benefit narrow, local interests,” opponents argued in a letter to the White House. “When
current planning criteria are used, the net economic benefit to the nation as a whole from most of these projects is marginal at best.” Congress, they
pointed out, made sure the projects would have favorable cost-benefit ratios by authorizing them at discount rates averaging two percent, when the
cost to the government to borrow money to pay for the projects was closer to seven percent. …Auburn Dam was one of many examples cited. With a
3.375 percent discount rate, Auburn has a highly-favorable cost-benefit ratio of 2.2 to 1. That means the public should get $2.20 back in benefits for
each dollar spent to construct it.
However, when recomputed at the current discount rate of 6.375 set by Congress for all projects authorized after 1974, Auburn’s cost-benefit raio
drops to 1.3, a marginal $1.30 returned for every $1 spent to build it. “But despite the opponents’ examples and their persistence, the answer from the
Oval Office – even at a time when President Ford was desperately seeking ways to cut the budget – was always the same, ‘No’. ‘It was like 40 days
in the desert’ said one staff member who fought the projects. “’The cumulative impact of these projects would be devastating,’ the staffer said. ‘They
would destroy several hundred thousand acres of productive forest, farm land, wildlife habitat, and several hundred miles of rivers and streams’.
Many of the projects were, he said, ‘conceived in an earlier era – as far back as 1938 – and conflict with current federal policies on transportation,
flood control, water development and environmental protection.
Most of the 19 dams Carter chose to be reviewed before he decides whether to ask for additional financing for them were on all three lists sent to the
White House, according to the staff member
Carter, a White House staff member recalled, said during the campaign for the presidency that he doubted the need for all of the 320 authorized water
development projects and would conduct a review of them if he was elected”
4Mar1977. California Water Commission Marysville Lake Review Committee, Michael Glazer, Chair, The report of the Review Committee,
back to the California Water Commission, with findings and recommendations.
Introduction to the report (“Memorandum”):
“The Committee on Federal Appropriations submitted a preliminary recommendation on October 4, 1976, on the proposed fiscal year 1977-78
budget for federal flood control and reclamation items that involved significant questions by the Department of Water Resources, local controversy,
or complex factual situations that deserved further in-depth review and understanding by the Commission prior to making its final recommendations
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1978.
“One of these projects was identified as the Marysville Lake Project being planned by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. I have been delegated to
chair the Marysville Lake Review Committee with Commissioners Thomas Beard and Michael Glazer and to report back to the Commission with
findings and recommendations by the Committee. (emphasis mine)
118
“In preparing this report, the Committee held two public meetings. The first, in Monterey on December 2, 1976, and the second in Sacramento on
January 6, 1977. Present at these meetings were representatives of the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, the U. S. Bureau of Reclamation, the project
sponsors; and the general public.
On April 1, 1977 California Water Commission Chairman Michael Glazer transmitted the above-described report to Warren E. Schoonover, Director
of Administrative Services, Office of the Vice President for Agricultural Sciences, University of California Systemwide Administration, Berkeley,
CA
In the cover letter, Mr. Glazer acknowledges transmittal by UC to the California Water Commission of “… an analysis of how the Marysville Lake
Project might affect the UC SFRFS.”
The report is organized into 8 sections, as follows:
1. History and description of project.
2. Project purposes (the most extensive)
3. Seismicity
4. Relocation requirements
5. Benefit-cost ratios
6. Alternatives
7. Concerns of the committee
8. Recommendations
The report also presents a benefit-cost analysis table, which looks at power, water supply, flood control, recreation, anadromous fishery enhancement,
and area redevelopment, comparing these at 3 ¼ and 6 3/8 percent interest rates.
A few excerpts, briefly:
“Concern for flood control is the major reason for local support of the project. However, because the floods to be protected against are very rare, the
estimated annual flood control benefits are quite small.
“In the absence of a non-federal sponsor for recreation at the lake, recreation development at the lake would be limited to the provision of facilities to
protect public health and safety at the 13 road ends at the lake. In addition, existing developments at two road ends at Englebright Lake and other
Englebright facilities would be relocated. Facilities at the road ends would include parking, turnaround area, sanitary facilities, and a water supply…
“Acquisition of land below the dam on the Yuba River for preservation of fish spawning gravels, protection and replacement of riparian vegetation
and wildlife habitat, and constructing fish hatchery facilities. The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service has also recommended and active stream
management program and a four-year joint study with the State Department of Fish and Game to adjust project operations to ensure the mitigation
goals are being met. The projected net result would be an increase in the annual salmon and steelhead runs of 80,000 fish.
“The following features are included for wildlife mitigation:
1. Habitat improvements for about 5,000 acres of the Spenceville Wildlife and Recreation Area, to promote increased growth of riparian vegetation
for wildlife.
2. Improvement and management of approximately 14,000 acres of land to provide habitat for deer, turkey, and other wildlife.
3. Acquisition of a corridor along the Yuba River from the afterbay to the Feather River, and along Dry Creek, to protect the riparian habitat.
“The project originally proposed at the downstream Browns Valley site would have involved substantially greater relocations and generated
considerable local opposition. With the change in the site, this local opposition seems to have largely disappeared.
“Alternatives considered included multiple-purpose projects at Browns Valley and on The Narrows on the Yuba River, and at Edwards Crossing on
the South Yuba River; single-purpose flood control reservoirs at the Browns Valley or the Parks Bars sites; levee improvements along the Yuba and
Feather Rivers; a flood bypass from Hammonton to the Bear River; a diversion of the South Yuba River headwaters into the Bear River; nonstructural flood protection measures; and a no-action alternative.
“The Corps of Engineers is nearing the completion of its Phase I study of the project. The information available to date has not included a full
analysis of alternative projects and mitigation measures. Accordingly, the study must be completed and the results made available to the public for
comments and analysis before an informed decision can be made on whether or not to construct the proposed project. In that connection, the
comments and analysis of the California Energy Resources Development and Conservation Commission will be of particular importance because
the primary justification for the project is as a peak-load generating facility. (emphasis mine)
The complete and only reference to the Sierra Foothill Range Field Station is: Costs of destruction and replacement of the University of California
research base by the project should be quantified and incorporated in the analysis of the project.
16Mar1977. Rowell, Paul, Supt., SFRFS. Letter to Gene Speck, on CA Water Commission Mtg.
Entire text of letter:
“I attended the California Water Commission meeting on Friday, March 4 th. The Marysville Dam Project was discussed briefly and the
Commissioners voted in favor of recommending to Congress an appropriation of $150,000 for continued studies by the Corps of Engineers.
“When the Commission recessed, I had a chance to talk with Daniel Frost, one of the commissioners and chairman of a California Water
Commission sub-committee for the Marysville Dam Project. He expressed many reservations regarding the Marysville Dam Project. He said he is
particularly concerned about the impact of the Project on the Sierra Foothill Range Field Station. He also went on to discuss many other aspects of
the Project, including its many marginal features, such as flood control and power production. He emphasized the fact that he would like to see
members of the University of California academic community evaluate various aspects of the Project in their fields of expertise. He said this kind of
’expert’ evaluation would shed light on the many problems and marginal attributes of the Project and in so doing provide a valuable service to
government officials concerned with the pros and cons of the Project, and also the public in general.
“Because of Mr. Frost’s concern with the effect of the Marysville Lake Project on the SFRFS, I think it would be appropriate to send him a copy of
Vice President Kendrick’s letter discussing the impact of the Project on the Field Station to Colonel O’Shei of the Corps of Engineers. Also, a copy
of the letter should go to Mr. Michael Glazer, Chairperson of the California Water Commission.
18Mar1977. Speck, E. P., Assoc. Dir. AFS. Letter to W. E. Schoonover re involving UC expertise.
“Attached is a copy of a letter (March 16, 1977) from Paul Rowell to me concerning the Water Commission meeting he attended on March 4, 1977.
Would you send the letters as he requests?
“Have you any ideas as to how we could provide the evaluations as suggested by Mr. Daniels? Bob Hagan earlier expressed concern about our
public opposition to the project. Should we be working with him on an evaluation of the project? He certainly should know the ins-and-outs of the
119
water situation. Also, should Ira Finks’ group be made aware of out actions and solicited for assistance? I would be glad to follow through on any of
these aspects if they have merit.”
(A fine example of the “prickly” gray area and “fine line” calls the University often has to make. How do its people, especially
administrators, decide what is unwarranted service to private interests? When is it appropriate to intervene when a situation obviously
involves contention between one of its parts, in this case the SFRFS, and another public agency?)
19Mar1977. San Francisco Chronicle. Article: Carter’s approved water projects do not include the $708 million Marysville Dam.
Entire contents of the letter:
Dateline, Washington: “White House officials told members of Congress yesterday that 226 flood control, reservoir and power projects being built by
the Army Corps of Engineers have been cleared for continued construction. Senators and House members were told of the ‘safe’ projects in
telephone calls.
“The exemption of the 226 projects from further evaluation left 99 Corps projects on what White House officials are calling the ‘endangered species’
list. Projects not on the list are still under review and could be added to the ‘safe’ list later.
“The clearing of the projects was in line with President Carter’s earlier assurance to Congress that ‘a vast majority’ of the 325 Corps project under
review would be continued. Most of the projects on the ’safe’ list were either relatively small or else nearing completion.
“Major projects not on the ‘safe’ list include California’s $708 million Marysville Dam…” (Emphasis mine) …
Among major projects cleared for continued financing were the $11 million Carters Lake power project in Georgia, the $83.8 million Jones Bluff dam
in Alabama, the $317 million Dworshak dam in Idaho and a $525 million powerhouse addition at the Bonneville dam between Oregon and
Washington.
“The complete list of the cleared projects in California includes the following:
Bodega Bay; Cottonwood creek; Merced county streams; San Luis Rey river; Wildcat and San Pablo creeks; Corte Madera creek; Cucamonga creek;
Santa Ana river basin; Humboldt harbor and bay; Imperial beach; San Diego county; Port San Luis, San Luis Obispo harbor; Sacramento river and
major and minor tributaries; Sacramento river bank protection project; Sacramento river, Chico landing to Red Bluff; San Diego river and Mission
Bay; Santa Cruz harbor; Santa Maria valley levees; Surfside-Sunset and Newport beach (Orange County).”
19Mar1977. Marysville-Yuba City Appeal Democrat. Article: Marysville Dam status disputed.
“The billion dollars Marysville Dam Project has failed to make the Carter Administration’s ‘safe list’. Or has it? That’s the situation today as
conflicting reports come out of the White House on the status of the Yuba River project. …The project, according to wire service reports and
information passed along to the area’s congressman, is among those on what some White House officials are calling the ‘endangered species list’.
Administration officials late yesterday told members of Congress that 226 flood control, reservoir and power projects being built by the Army Corps
of Engineers have been cleared for construction
Senators and House members – including Yuba County’s Harold T. Johnson, D-Roseville, chairman of the powerful House Public Works Committee
– were told of the ‘safe’ projects in telephone calls. Those included various Sacramento River projects.
But two major California projects not on that list were the Marysville Dam and the two-thirds complete New Melones Dam White House officials
described those two and 97 other Corps projects that have not made the ‘safe list’ as ‘endangered species.’
Johnson, speaking from his Roseville home this morning, said he was of the same impression about the status of the project. But he said he is hopeful
Congress, in making appropriations later this spring, will continue to be ‘sympathetic to good water resource development’. That would mean
funding of the Marysville Dam, he explained.
“Later this morning, however, a White House spokesman for the Office of Management and Budget disputed reports that the Yuba River project was
‘endangered’. The project, he said, is now not subject to extensive review because it is only in the first phase of planning, and authorization for its
construction has not been sought. (Emphasis mine)
“Therefore, the spokesman added, the $150,000 set aside by President Gerald Ford earlier this year will remain in Carter’s budget for 1977-78.
Those funds would complete design work on the relocation of the project from the Browns Valley area upstream to Parks Bar. (Emphasis mine)
…
“The Corps has put the Marysville project on a ‘fast track schedule’ and has hopes of getting construction under way by 1981. (Emphasis mine)
20Mar1977. San Francisco Examiner. State water projects back into Carter budget.
White House aides phoned individual senators and representatives Friday to tell them of the 226 ‘safe’ projects. The President, whose relations with
Congress have been strained because of his effort to stop work on a a variety of water projects, said the vast majority of the Corps of Engineers and
Bureau of Reclamation projects under review would be restored.
Major projects not on the ‘safe’ list included California’s $708 million Marysville Dam on the Yuba River and the $306 million New Melones Dam
on the Stanislaus River. Work on the New Melones Dam is well under way, but the Marysville Dam is still in the planning stages.
New Melones would be 625 feet high and 1,560 feet long, It would have a 300MW powerplant and had been scheduled for completion in 11979. Its
construction, critics contend, would destroy irreplaceable archeological and white water recreation features. The Marysville Dam would be a 12,000foot-long, 215-foot-high structure 11 miles northeast of the valley town and would supply a50,000KW powerplant Senate Majority Leader Robert
Byrd, Carter’s chief spokesman in Congress, said there was little doubt Congress would continue funding all but perhaps ‘one or two in the whole
caboodle’ on Carter’s list. He never doubted it, Byrd said, adding that Carter’s attack on the projects amounted to ‘much sound and fury signifying
nothing.’
21Mar1977. Marysville-Yuba City Appeal Democrat Article: $150,000 in ‘design’ funds assured for Parks Bar.
“There will be federal funding this year to complete design work on the billion-dollar Marysville Dam Project. But if and when federal funds actually
are sought for construction, that move will be subject to extensive review by the Carter Administration.
“The Army Corps of Engineers, which plans to build the project at Parks Bar on the Yuba River, hopes to get construction under way by 1981. That’s
the work today out of Washington, D.C., as federal officials, including Senate and congressional aides, attempted to clarify the dam’s status.
“Reports released over the weekend by Capitol news reporters said the Marysville project was not on the administration’s ‘safe list’, but instead was
on what White House officials were calling the ‘endangered species’ list.
120
“But a federal budget spokesman said that wasn’t true – that Marysville Dam is not part of the extensive review because actual construction funds are
not involved.”
26Mar1977. Marysville-Yuba City Appeal Democrat. Article about a dam that “…won’t be built…” in Delaware.
“Editor’s Note – In 1962, Congress approved a plan to dam the Delaware River above Shawnee, Pa. The U. S. Army Corps of Engineers went to
work to clear the area. It bought up more than 45,000 acres of fertile farm land, displaced 23,000 people, bulldozed hundreds of homes. Now, 15
years later, it looks as though the dam will never be built.
“SHAWNEE, Pa. (AP) – Joan Matheson didn’t want to leave the Upper Delaware Valley where her ancestors had settled 227 years ago. ‘That valley
was our religion,’ she says, ‘We cherished it. It was a living history book.’
“But a flood control project was on the way, so Joan Matheson had to sell her house near Dingman’s ferry and leave with 23,000 others.
“Now, after spending nearly $100 million to buy the land and uproot the people, and after bulldozing oak and stone homes – some older than the
nation—the U. S. government has given up on the Tocks Island Dam and Delaware Water Gap[ National Recreation Area
“Mounting opposition, second thoughts in Congress, and rising costs brought the project to a halt, and there’s doubt that anything will come of it.
Today, the government is landlord for 120 remaining tenants and 48,951 acres of mostly idle land.
“In theory, the Congressional authorization is still on the books. But groups ranging from the Four-County Task Force, encompassing areas of
Pennsylvania and New Jersey affected by the dam, to the President’s Council on Environmental Quality, have asked Congress to deliver the coup de
grace. Even the U. S. Corps of Engineers wants it killed.
“Why fight a losing battle?’ asks Joseph Cook, head of the Corps real estate office in Philadelphia, ‘we wish we had never heard of the damn thing’.
And Paul Rowell’s hand-written comment at the top: “Is this the same Corps of Engineers we have come to know and love!
28Mar1977. Daily Independent~Herald. Opinion: “Yuba dam will move slowly”
“There has been a great deal of exaggeration and distortion in recent days about the status of the proposed federal project to build a dam on the Yuba
River somewhere in the vicinity of Parks Bar, where the three forks of the river become a single stream before joining the Feather River at
Marysville.
“There will be $150,000 in next fiscal year’s federal budget to continue design planning for the dam by the U. S. Corps of Engineers as sure as Rep.
Harold Johnson is chairman of the House of Representative Public Works and Transportation Committee. But whether there ever will be a major
federal dam on the Yuba River is something else again – regardless of environmentalists or local anti-dam forces. The major obstacle will be costs.
“The so-called Marysville Dam has been under discussion for more than a score of years (emphasis mine) and for several years it has been properly
a subject of study by the Corps of Engineers. The water situation in California is such that every stream potential should be accurately explored and
documented so that it can be given a priority rating. The reason for pessimism concerning the Yuba River dam rests with the rising expense factor.
There was a time when the anticipated costs were listed around $300 million; now the figure is up to $1 billion with no feeling that the inflation in
dam building costs will moderate.
“Furthermore, the flood threat which was influential in thinking 20 years ago has diminished, although in a year of high precipitation on the Yuba
watershed there could always be a hazard to the Linda and Olivehurst areas from a levee break (emphasis mined) or a bank overflow. That could be a
more serious menace these days than in past years when the stream broke through at Hammonton, since the population growth in Linda and
Olivehurst has been significant. Still, this minimal threat would hardly be persuasive to federal authorities without other arguments.
“Those would have to involve water conservation and energy production, which are serious enough problems but whether the argument will be
strong enough in future years to separate the federal establishment from a billion dollars (emphasis mine) is an unanswered question. There is no
likelihood ever that local or state agencies would finance such a development.
“As a viable project, the matter of water resources has to be dealt with and the Yuba watershed is only an average producer of water. (Emphasis
mine) It is not in the same league with the Sacramento and Feather watersheds, is less prolific than the American watershed and is only superior to
such sheds as the Consumnes, Mokelumne, Tuolumne, Merced, and San Joaquin watersheds in the southern tier of the Central Valley.
“In this drought year the Yuba River will probably have a stream flow of less than 600,000 acre feet. In a normal year, the stream flow runs about
2,274,000 acre feet and the maximum flow of record on the Yuba was 4,544,000 acre feet, roughly equivalent to the average flow through the
Feather. (emphasis mine)
“Someday, if the water demand situation becomes so acute as to threaten normal lifestyles, the federal government may build a dam on the Yuba
River. In the meantime, we suspect the studies will be carried to completion and perhaps there may be a strong push to create the reservoir. But it is
not a project that is over the immediate horizon. (emphasis mine)
01Apr1977 Michael Glazer, Chairman, Department of Water Resources California Water Commission. Letter to Warren E. Schoonover, Director
of Administrative Services, Office of the Vice President, Agricultural Sciences, University of California Systemwide Administration. “Thank you for
your recent letter transmitting a copy of an analysis of how the Marysville Lake Project might affect the University of California Sierra Foothill
Range Field Station.
The California Water Commission adopted a committee report supporting appropriations for fiscal year 1977-78 at its March 4, 1977 meeting in
Sacramento. A copy of the committee report (as adopted at that meeting) is attached. The Commission supported appropriations to continue Phase I
planning studies so that all concerns can be adequately addressed. The Commission is appreciative of your courtesy in providing your views on this
matter. Stamps of receival on the cover letter show that the 11-page committee report, sent out over the signature of Daniel S. Frost, Chairperson, was
received b the Office of Vice President, Agricultural Sciences on April 5, by Agricultural Field Stations Office (Davis) on April 6, and by the Sierra
Field Station on the 13th of April, Agricultural Field Stations also provided me with a copy
15Apr1977. Corps of Engineers, South Pacific Division, San Francisco. Public Notice of Preliminary Phase I General Design Memorandum for
Marysville Lake Project, Yuba River, California
Sent out over the signature of Richard M. Connell, Brigadier General, and Division Engineer, U. S. Army.
The “Public Notice” document is organized into the following sections:
1. Browns Valley Site (Original Authorization)
2. Parks Bar Site (1976 Authorization)
3. Results of Phase I GDM Studies
4. Description of Recommended Plan
121
5. Response to this Notice
From #1:“Preconstruction planning studies for the authorized project were initiated in 1968. During these studies, it became clear that with the advent
of the energy crisis and the increasing value of hydroelectric power, that the Browns Valley site is not the most economical site in terms of optimum
development of the water resource potential of the Yuba River basin. In addition, there was increasing local opposition to the authorized site because
it would remove a large acreage of high quality farm land from production and would inundate the community of Browns Valley. …
From #2:“It was because of those advantages of utilizing the Parks Bar site that Congress, in Section 159 of the Water Resources Development Act of
1976 (Public Law 94-587), modified the existing authority for the Marysville Lake project by directing the Secretary of the Army, acting through the
Chief of Engineers, to undertake the Phase I design memorandum stage of advanced engineering and design for a multipurpose project located at the
Parks Bar site, including power development with pumped storage. (emphasis mine) In view of this action, construction cannot be initiated without
further Congressional action of the project. After receipt of public testimony, as requested by this notice, the GDM will be finalized and processed
through the Office, Chief of Engineers, in accordance with Section 159 of Public Law 95-587
From #3: “…The contributions that each alternative (listed elsewhere) would make toward satisfying the study objectives
Were measured in terms of a set of evaluation criteria, generally in conformance with the President’s Water Resources Council Principles and
Standards. These contributions were grouped into four categories:
1. Technical
2. National economic development (NED)
3. Environmental quality (EQ)
4. Social-regional development
“In essence, the EQ plan would sacrifice economic efficiency (power revenues from pumped-storage) to gain non-monetary environmental benefits
(conservation of fossil fuels, preservation of riparian habitat, and less adverse environmental impacts in general). On the other hand, the NED plan
would maximize economic efficiency, by would sacrifice such environmentally desirable measures as preservation of the Dry Creek watershed,
preservation of cultural resources, and preservation of fossil fuels. It has been determined, in the overall public interest, that the plan selected for
implementation should strike a balance between the NED and EQ plans; it should provide both economic efficiency and environmental enhancement.
From #4: “A total of 13,350 acres of land would be managed for wildlife mitigation, including utilization of 600 acres of Government-owned lands
below the afterbay, and management and improvement of 12,750 acres of other lands for wildlife use. About 6,130 acres would be purchased
specifically to mitigate for adverse impacts on fish and wildlife. Mitigative and protective measures for the documentation, preservation, restoration,
and salvage of cultural resources would also be included in the plan.
From #4: “The Sacramento District Engineer recommends construction of the selected project, subject to the conditions that responsible local
interests will: (emphasis mine)
a. Prevent encroachments in that portion of the Yuba River floodway identified as Area A in accordance with Sections 75 and 76 of the “Rules and
Regulations for Designated Floodways and Floodway Encroachment Lines” as set forth in Title 23, California Administrative Code, Sections 45
through 95.
b. In accordance with the Federal Water Project Recreation Act:
(1) Administer project land and water areas for recreation.
(2) Pay, contribute in kind, or repay (which may be through user fees), with interest, one-half of the separable cost of the project allocated to
recreation, the non-Federal cost involved currently being estimated at $227,000 for initial development and $145,000 for future development along
the lower Yuba River.
(3) Bear all costs of operation and maintenance, and replacement of recreation lands and facilities, the non-Federal cost currently estimated at
$25,000 for initial development on an average annual basis, and an equivalent annual cost of about$13,000 (based on an average annual cost of
$26,000) for future facilities.
“Yuba County Board of Supervisors has indicated by letter of 1 March 1977 that they will provide these items of local cooperation.” (emphasis
mine)
From #4: Copies of the report and the companion draft Environmental Statement are also on file and available at:
Yuba County Library, 301 4th Street, Marysville, CA 95901
Yuba College Library, Linda Avenue & North Beale Road, Marysville, CA 95901
Sutter County Library, 750 Forbes Avenue, Yuba City, CA 95901
23Aug1977. Marysville-Yuba City Appeal-Democrat. State reviews Hub Dam plans
State officials generally look favorably upon the billion dollar Marysville Dam project, but they do have some concerns, area officials were told
yesterday.
Meeting with top state officials, Yuba-Sutter representatives supporting the Parks Bar project were told that the state – which must give its opinion of
the project as the approval process continues -- looks favorably upon the project because of flood control and water conservation factors.
But state officials reportedly have question about proposed power generation facilities and points like the location of a proposed fish hatchery
The meeting, attended by, among others, Yuba County Supervisor Harold J. Sperbeck, Sutter County Supervisor Mary Knapp, and area engineering
consultant Charles de St. Maurice, was held in the Governor’s Office. Gov. Edmond G. Brown, Jr., however, did not attend.
30Aug1977. Johnson, Huey D., Secretary for Resources, The Resources Agency of California. Letter to Colonel Donald O’Shei, pages 3 to 11.
Pages 3 to 11 are titled “Detailed Comments on Marysville Lake Project Draft Environmental Statement and General Design Memorandum. It is
authoritative, dense, and hard-hitting. As such, it is very difficult to condense, summarize, or extract a few paragraphs to give the essence of the
document. The expertise available in the Resources Agency of California shows through very clearly.
The document is ordered into separately-authored sections, as follows:
ENERGY: Department of Water Resources; Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission
(This section is given the most attention, covering 3 ½ of the 12 pages)
FISH AND WILDLIFE: Departments of Fish and Game and Water Resources
WATER YIELD AND SERVICE AREA: Department of Water Resources; State Water Resources Control Board
122
WATER RIGHTS: State Water Resources Control Board
WATER QUALITY: State Water Resources Control Board
FLOOD CONTROL: Department of Water Resources
DAM SAFETY AND GEOLOGY: Departments of Water Resources and Conservation
HISTORIC PRESERVATION: Department of Parks and Recreation; Native American Heritage Commission
REVIEW REQUIREMENTS
This review fulfills the requirements under Part II of U. S. Office of Management and Budget Circular A-95 and the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969. It has been coordinated with the Department of Conservation, Fish and Game, Navigation and Ocean Development, Parks and
Recreation, Water Resources, Food and Agriculture, Health, and Transportation; the Air Resource Board, the Reclamation Board, the Solid Waste
Management Board, the State Water Resources Control Board, the Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission, the Public
Utilities Commission, and the State Lands Division of the State Lands Commission.”
Exercising his Sacred Rights and Prerogatives, this reviewer now selects four sections for attention, ones that have seen very little written
about them, if, for that matter, anything at all.
Energy:
In contradiction to the national policy of energy conservation, the project represents a net energy loss. Although intended to provide 1,350 MW of
capacity in Stage I and 2,250 MW in Stage II, the project would also inundate two existing power plants and use energy in its pump-back operations.
This would create an average annual loss of 55 million kWh in Stage 1 and 455 million kWh in Stage II. We question whether expenditure of $1.14
billion for the Marysville Lake Project would be in the public interest. In its present form, the project should not be approved. (emphasis mine) The
FEIS should contain expanded discussions of the project’s economic feasibility and of other power development alternatives. …
PG&E has begun construction of the 1,100 MW Helms Pumped Storage Project and is planning for an additional 2,400 MW of pumped storage
generation by 1995. Either (or both) of these would adequately meet the ‘peaking generation’ requirements of 1995 as described in ERCDC’s
projection. Marysville Lake, therefore, would be competing with 3,500 MW of planned pumped storage generation in the Northern California area.
…
Another factor that may decrease the need for additional peaking in the future will be the initiation of time-of-day pricing, which is intended to
discourage use of electrical energy during peak periods. …
It appears that the project was analyzed independent of the Central Valley Project (CVP). The study should include power load and supply forecasts
of the CVP with and without the Marysville Lake Project. The intended power market should be clearly stated, and the legal basis under the terms of
Reclamation Law for the selection should also be explained. Integration of the Marysville Lake Project into the CVP supply system may require
substantial revisions to the project’s dependable capacity and project repayment. The assured potential power purchaser is one of the key factors in
the justification of the power plant sizing and site selection. (emphasis mine) The CVP presently cannot generate sufficient electric energy to supply
preference customer annual requirements but has installed capacity available in excess of these customer needs. If, under the terms of Reclamation
Law, the Bureau must sell the power to preference customers, the proposed mode of operation of the Marysville Lake Project is unrealistic and the
power benefits are considerably overstated. …
Reliance on Nuclear Development. The economic feasibility of the project as set forth in the DEIS depends upon the availability of off-peak nuclear
plant energy to meet pump-back requirements. It is doubtful that nuclear plant energy will be available for the pump-back function by 1993 as
assumed in the report. On page 212 of the DEIS it is stated that the Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission (ERCDC0, in an
October 1976 report, estimated that the peak demand in California in 1995 would be 53,300 MW. The Department of Water Resources estimates that
the minimum demand during 1995 would be about 20,800 MW, based on present electric utility load characteristics in California. Nuclear plant
generation would be used to meet the minimum system loads before being available to supply pump-back requirements. …
Alternatives. The FEIS should contain a discussion of whether more-favorable hydroelectric sites are available in California. In 1975 the Federal
Power Commission (FPC) issued a report entitled ‘Potential Pumped Storage Projects in the Pacific Southwest’. Fifty-six potential sites were
identifies in California, based on (seven) criteria. Twenty Northern California sites were identified in the report. The Marysville site did not
qualify. The maximum head for the proposed pumped-storage plant at Marysville Lake is 367 feet, about half of the lower limit adopted by the FPC
as one of the criteria. The Marysville Lake site, therefore, has an inherent construction cost disadvantage compared to other sites in Northern
California. (emphases mine)
Water Rights:
The FEIS should explain that water rights for the project are not assured. The State filings for unappropriated water cannot be transferred to the
presently proposed project because it is different than the project conceived when the Stat filings were made. Additional permits will be necessary
because the State filings do not reserve sufficient water for the total project water supply. The Bureau of Reclamation intends to file new applications
for unappropriated water and request a release of priority from the State filings. (got that?)
“Because the approval of water rights permits may be the most significant State approval needed for the project, the State Water Resources Control
Board may have to review the final EIS and determine if supplemental information will be necessary before it can certify compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act. The certification will be required before the Board can approve any permits for the project.
“In addition, the FEIS should explain how the riparian corridor along the Yuba River will be acquired – in fee title or by easement. If by easement,
what uses (such as grazing) will be permitted?
“Finally, the Corps used a dry year reduction in minimum fish flows in its operation study for the project, despite its consultant’s conclusion that the
project would almost always meet minimum flows and thus would be essentially self-mitigating for fish. Water rights for the project should not
include a dry year reduction unless measures, such as enlargement of the mitigation hatchery, are provided as compensation.
Dam Safety and Geology:
123
The dam designs presented, based on existing major dams in the Central Valley, are, engineeringly, feasible. Because these designs are generally
more conservative than those used for the existing dams (e.g., embankment slopes are slightly flatter), the quantities used for cost estimating should
also be conservative.
“The Corps recognizes the Foothills Fault System as a major consideration in the design of the project. However, additional geologic work has been
done since the DEIS was written and the following points should be considered in the next stages of site and design studies:
1. The Swain Ravine lineament, which passes through the Dry Creek Dam site within three kilometers of the Parks Bar site, is now considered a
capable fault.
Historic Preservation: The proposed Marysville Project is presently unparalleled in California in its potential for adversely affecting significant
examples of California historic record and Native American historic and prehistoric record . The impact area is exceptionally rich with American
Indian cultural resources – 473 recorded sites to date, a number of them sacred (burial sites, Big Time Dance sites, religious worship sites). In the
project area 245 sites are below gross pool (132 historic, 113 prehistoric).
“The mitigation measures proposed will not adequately offset the total anticipated losses, as required by the National Environmental Policy Act and
the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. The Corps has allowed $1 million of mitigation for the loss of these sites, but the Anthropological
Report indicates such a program could cost at least $23 million. We question whether any mitigation could adequately compensate for the loss of
such a substantial amount of non-renewable and irretrievable cultural resources.
“The project sponsor has also failed to follow proper procedures in the analysis and review process. The California Native American Heritage
Commission (NAHC) clearly has expertise relative to the project, but did not receive any information, nor were they requested by the Corps to
provide consultation. Subsequent to its inclusion in the review process, the NAHC must decide whether to conduct an independent study, hold public
hearings to receive input from the American Indian Community, and make and publish findings of fact regarding the project’s affect on Native
American cultural resources.
“Further omissions are as follows:
1. Absence of evidence indicating that the eligibility requirements of 36 CFR 800.4a-2 have been met or that actions in this direction have been taken
according to procedures outlined in 36 CFR 63 and in consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer.
2. Absence of the consulting archeologist’s final report on the intensive archeological/historical/ethnographic survey of the undertaking’s area of
potential environmental impact.
3. Absence of documentation indicating that 36 CFR 800.4e and f have been complied with or that action in this regard has been taken.
4, Statements in the reports relevant to the requirements and conditions contained in 3a36 CFR 800-5c-f have not been drafted in consultation with
the State Historic Preservation Officer.
5. Absence of information describing the Corps’ specific intent regarding a Memorandum of Agreement with the State Historic Preservation
Officer.”
31Aug1977. Sacramento Bee. Article: Brown administration asks the Corps to alter its plans for the Marysville Lake Project.
“The Brown administration is asking the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers to alter its plans to build a $1.14 billion flood control and power project near
Marysville. Newly-appointed (emphasis mine) Resources Secretary Huey D. Johnson said the state opposes the project’s present design, although it
supports the idea of providing additional flood control for the Marysville-Yuba County area. Nonetheless, he said in a prepared release, “we have
looked the Corps’ plans for this project very carefully, and we do not believe they are economically feasible or environmentally sound.
31Aug1977. Marysville-Yuba City Appeal Democrat. Article: State opposes M’ville Dam. Follow-up to Resource Secretary Huey Johnson’s
statement. Most of the article reviews Huey Johnson’s statement.
“The Army Corps of Engineers said today that roughly $6 million has been spent so far in planning the project and in site investigation and other
work. …
“George Weddell, chief of the Corps engineering section in Sacramento, said the project would not be built if there is strong opposition from the state
… although he commented there is no legal way the state can bar the project. (Emphasis mine)
Today, Johnson’s assistant, Frank Goodson, characterized that opposition as ‘strong’ as far as the Parks Bar proposal is concerned. … However, he
said that state officials believe that there are alternatives to the proposed project that would meet flood control objectives and reduce the serious fish,
wildlife and cultural resources damage expected from the Parks Bar project. The state so far is not recommending a specific alternative, he said, but
some studied in insufficient depth by the Corps include a flood by-pass, raising levees, raising Englebright Dam or building a dam at the Narrows site
on the Yuba River
A Corps spokesman said the project currently is given a benefit-cost ratio of 1.4 to 1 at the current interest rate of 6 3/8 percent. (emphasis mine)
As proposed, the Parks Bar project would inundate 245 archeological and historical sites out of the 430 in the project area. These include old
buildings and Indian sites. It also would include 20 miles of stream, 12 miles of which is identified as having ‘significant riparian habitat’.
Opposition to the project, according to Resources Agency Johnson, was based on detailed studies of the Corps proposal by the State Energy
Commission, Department of Water Resources, Department of Fish and Game, Department of Parks and Recreation, Department of Conservation, the
state Water Resources Control Board, the state Water Commission, the state Reclamation Board and the Native American Advisory Commission.
Goodson said the Native American group characterized the project as more damaging to archeological sites than any they had seen.
(At this point, it seems, the Corps could have been asked “Just what part of “No” do you not understand?”
01Sep1977 Appeal-Democrat Re: Huey Johnson, Harold J. Sperbeck, and Governor Brown. Sperbeck, Gov. Brown’s campaign chairman in
Yuba County in 1964 said there is ‘little doubt that Gov. Brown will approve the report of his subordinates who disagree with the best flood control
organization in the country – the Corps of Engineers’…’If Brown does agree with his appointees, the dam is dead, according to the best of
information we heard in Sacramento.’ Sperbeck said. There was no indication today that the governor plans to disagree with the report signed by
Johnson. A spokesman for the governor’s office said the governor ‘has not been close to the project’. At this point a Colonel O’Shei was the
representative for the Corps.
“The Army Corps of Engineers will spend about 18 months re-reviewing state-recommended alternatives (emphasis mine) to construction of the
Marysville Dam Project, according to Congressman Harold T. Johnson.
124
“In a letter to Marysville Dam Committee secretary Charles G. de St. Maurice, Johnson said the study will cost $50,000 beyond the $150,000 in
project planning money allocated by the federal government for fiscal year 1978. ‘One would assume that the State will support additional funding
for this purpose’, Johnson said.
1Sep1977.Marysville-Yuba City Appeal Democrat. Article: “State officials misleading”. Harold J. Sperbeck charges another meeting (in Oct.) was
promised.
“Sperbeck – a longtime supporter of Governor Brown and his father, former governor Edmund G. Brown, Sr. – insists that another meeting was
promised before the state took a stand on the issue. “I think our local people who have worked long and honestly for many years have been dealt a
low blow by the state administration” said Sperbeck.
“Sperbeck, Gov. Brown’s campaign chairman in Yuba Count in 1974, said there is ‘little doubt that Gov. Brown will approve the report of his
subordinates who disagree with the best flood control (emphasis mine) organization in the country – the Corps of Engineers.’
“’Almost $6 million has been spent in planning and studying this project, and it seems a bit more time could and should be spent by the state people.
Some of the top people in the Resources Agency have been in office but a short time,’ (emphasis mine) Sperbeck said.
6Sep1977. Marysville-Yuba City Appeal Democrat. Article: Yuba Co. Bd. of Supervisors denounces Gov. Brown’s Marysville Dam opposition.
“The supervisors voted unanimously to send Gov. Edmund G. Brown, Jr. a telegram worded ‘in the strongest possible language’ asking the
governor to ‘give serious personal consideration’ to overruling the state Resources Agency’s opposition to the project. …
“Supervisor Roy Landerman denounced the Resources Agency’s action as ‘a breakdown in due process.’ Without meeting with county
representatives the Agency ‘harkened to a few environmentalists who made a big noise’ and opposed the project. ‘I think it stinks.’ Landerman
declared.
“Sperbeck said similar telegrams are expected from the Sutter County Board of Supervisors and city councils in Yuba City and Marysville.”
7Sep1977 Staff writer, Appeal Democrat. PG&E queries hub dam plans
‘Pacific Gas and Electric Co. says the proposed Marysville Dam is ‘not economically justified, ‘does not have adequate operating flexibility, and has
a ‘dependable capacity benefit (that) has been significantly overstated and the costs understated’. The giant utility, itself eyeing a south Yuba County
location as a site for a $1 billion coal-fired electrical generating plant, makes the comments in an 18-page project evaluation to the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers. Yuba County Supervisor Harold Sperbeck said today the PG&E report ‘doesn’t change my views one damn bit. Everybody knows
what PG&E thinks of public power.’ Although prepared in June, the PG&E report was only released this week – just one week after state officials
announced opposition to the $1.1 billion dam project.
The state’s stand – which could kill the project – has been roundly denounced by Yuba County supervisors. Board members yesterday voted
unanimously to send Gov. Edmund G. Brown, Jr. a telegram worded ‘in the strongest possible language’ asking the governor to ‘give serious personal
consideration’ to overruling the state Resources Agency’s opposition to the project. Yuba City and Marysville councilmen followed that lead last
night saying they will send a letter to Brown urging support of the project. Sutter County supervisors are expected to consider the issue next week.
The flood control question also was addressed by PG&E officials in their analysis: ‘We are concerned that the project has been changed significantly
from a flood control project to a major pump-storage power plant” ..’ The size of the proposed power project is certain to have a profound effect on
the electric supply situation if the Northern and Central California area.’
As originally authorized in 1966, the report goes on, Marysville Dam would have been located in Browns Valley and would have been primarily used
for flood control, irrigation, recreation and fish and wildlife enhancement with ‘modest’ power capabilities. When the project was reauthorized last
year the plans changed significantly, placing ‘a great deal of emphasis on power production’ PG&E said. ‘Our conclusion … is that the proposed
pumped-storage power features are not economically justified, are not sufficiently flexible in operation to contribute reliably to the electric needs of
the area and are not in the interest of the area
S electric power consumers’ PG&E officials claimed. ‘The project as it is now proposed is obviously a power plant with only minor benefits related
to flood control’, the report goes on. The current proposal, according to the Corps general design memorandum (GDM), estimates 72 percent of the
project’s benefits will be derived from power while ‘a relatively insignificant 4.6 and 10 percent are to be realized from flood control and irrigation,
respectively,’ the utility said. In the original project only 21.1 percent of the project’s benefits would have come from power production while 13.9
percent would have come from flood control and 31.5 percent from irrigation.
‘We find this change to be particularly troublesome because the pumped-storage features of the project proposed in the GDM do not represent an
economically sound and operationally flexible power plant. Furthermore, if the proposed pump-storage features of the project are installed, other
more economic pumped-storage power plants may not be installed in the Northern California areas because regulatory agencies may prohibit such
construction in the interest of avoiding duplication. The effect would be that the … power consumers in the area would be denied the lower rates…’
The PG&E report does not mention the utility’ consideration of the south Yuba County site for the coal-fires electrical generating plant and how
– or if – authorization of that plant might be affected by construction of the Marysville Dam. Yuba County and PG&E officials are discussing
methods of getting water to the proposed coal0-lfired plant. An early proposal was for a canal to the south county area using Bullards Bar and
Marysville Dams. Yuba County officials said the sale of water to the utility could help finance the canal, which also could be used to supply
irrigation water to the south county. Such a water supply system ‘could be done with or without Marysville Dam’, according to Yuba County Public
Works Director Donald Frost. But without Marysville Dam less area could be served.
PG&E , among other things, claims the Corps used incorrect ‘cost assumptions’ to determine the ‘economic justification’ for the project The ‘best
case’ assumptions were used, the utility says, ‘thereby producing a benefit-cost ratio that is optimistic (and) … may well not represent a realistic
evaluation of the project’s economic soundness. The utility cites the $19.9 million compensation proposed for the inundation of two existing PG&E
power plants, and calls it ‘inappropriate’ PG&E also claims that an important component of the ‘economic viability of the pumped-storage project is
the ability to purchase relatively cheap energy for use in pumping the water back into the reservoir’ during off-peak hours. Cheap energy does not
exist and probably never will, according to the report. By using the ‘best case’ figures and ‘failing to realistically determine the project’s dependable
capacity, the benefit-cost ratio has been overstated,’ the report continues.
More conservative estimates of the Corps various project assumptions ‘could reduce the benefit-cost ratio to as low as 0.51 to one. This is far below
the ratio needed to justify the project,’ PR&E says. This does not mean we opposed the project for flood control or irrigation purposes’ the report
concludes. ‘However, we do believe that a modified project which did not inundate the existing the existing Narrows Powerhouse and did not involve
a large pumped-storage facility, would better serve the interests of the area.’
125
7Sep1977 Peterson, Ken, Staff Writer for the Marysville-Yuba City Appeal Democrat. Article: “PG&E analysis rips Yuba Marysville Dam project”
Entire text of letter:
“The Pacific Gas and Electric Company has joined the growing list of opponents to the Marysville Dam project, calling the $1.14 billion facility ‘an
uneconomical power generating facility based on incorrect economic assumptions that could make it even more costly.’ In an18-page memorandum
submitted to the Army Corps of Engineers, state and county officials last June and released yesterday to the Independent-Herald by Citizens Opposed
to Marysville Dam, PG&E analysts conclude that: * The dam design is inefficient for power generating and the same amount of hydroelectric power
could be produced at a $250 million savings if another site were selected. * To improve the efficiency of the dam’s generators, a ‘minor flood’ would
have to rush downstream towards Marysville six hours a day – a practice that would also result in the loss of vital storage water during a drought year.
* Correcting faulty economic premises on which the benefit-cost ratio of the dam have been bases could push its annual operating cost up by $36.5
million and reduce the annual benefit from the project by $46.6 million. The release of the information in the report followed by several hours a
unanimous vote of the Yuba County Board of Supervisors to send a strongly-worded telegram to Governor Edmund G. Brown, Jr. asking for state
support for the project. The Marysville City Council joined in the action last night on a 4-1 vote, Councilman Dan Ferrari opposing. But at least on
supervisor, Fifth District representative Roy Landerman, is already asking for a serious re-evaluation’ of the project in light of the PG&E report.
Landerman said the Yuba supervisors were unaware of the utility company’s view on the dam project. The report itself included a cover letter
showing copies were sent to the supervisors, however. If the dam is not built, Landerman said, Yuba County faces construction of a multi-million
dollar dam project itself, since the county is legally committed to constructing a re-regulation facility in connection with its power generation units at
The Narrows below Bullards Bar Dam. The foothill supervisor said estimates for eight to nine years ago pegged construction costs a $8 million. The
PG&E analysis of the Marysville Dam project, prepared by Chief Siting Engineer Elmer E. Hall, expresses ‘concern’ that the dam has been changed
significantly from a flood control project to a major pumped-storage power project from its conception in 1966 through its more recent design
proposals. A pumped-storage dam releases water into an after bay. The water is subsequently re-pumped into the main reservoir at hours when
power needs are relatively low – generally at night – and then recycled through the dam’s hydroelectric generators at hours of peak electrical energy
demand. In the Marysville Dam Project at Parks Bar, separate dams would be built on the Yuba River and Deer (sic, Dry?) Creek, creating a 916,000
acre reservoir and inundating about 25,000 acres of Yuba County land. The Brown Administration came out in opposition to the project on Aug 30
because of its cost, the low cost-benefit ratio and because of damage to historical sites. ‘Our conclusion … is that the proposed pumped-storage
power features (1) are not economically justified, (2) are not sufficiently flexible in operation to contribute reliably to the electric needs of the area,
and (3) are not in the interest of the area’s electric power consumers,’ the PG&E report states. It notes that, while the dam was originally intended
primarily as a flood control and irrigation project, drawing 45.4 percent of its benefits from these elements, it is now 72 percent justified as a power
generating facility, with flood control and irrigation comprising only 14.6 percent of the benefits. Because the Marysville Dam generating units
would be inefficient and costly, PG&E concludes that ‘electric power consumers in the area would be denied the lower rates that could result’ by
committing money another project. The PG&E analysts note that, ideally, a pumped-storage dam should have a’ high head’ –that is, be a tall dam.
Another 44 pumped-storage sites in the state suggest to the Federal Power Commission as potential hydroelectric sites all would involve dams at least
700 feet high. The Parks Bar site has a dam ‘head’ of only294 feet.. PG&E also notes that ‘this modest head is accomplished at the expense of
building a higher dam than is otherwise needed for flood control’ rather than siting the power units ‘at a location where a high head can be archived
by using natural terrain’. The analysts estimate that investment costs for the dam’s power features would be 25 percent higher at Parks Bar than at
some other site, a cost increase of $250 million for the 2,250 MW capacity of the dam’s generators. They also note that pumping efficiency is
between 13 and 21 percent lower than at another site, requiring the purchase of more energy from some other source to pump the water back into the
dam in order to get comparable power generating benefits. Picking at the economic assumptions underlying the 1.24 to 1 benefit-cost ratio, PG&E
analysts say the power needed to pump the water back into the dam will likely not be available at the low price estimated by the Corps of
Engineers; that the peak power demand may not be as high as the Corps estimates; the project benefits analysis ‘does not properly account for the loss
of the power from the Narrows I and II plants which the project will inundate, removing 56 megawatts of dependable capacity and the dependable
power capacity of the project is overstated at 2,139 MW because the level of water in the reservoir could easily go below the estimated depth needed
to assure the power output. That power output would be cut by 830 MW because of the necessity of using considerable water to fill the afterbay of
the dam for re-pumping and release during peak power periods. Extra water rights claims upstream of the dam and drought conditions could further
reduce the dam’s generating potential. Combining all these factors will drop annual benefit to $6,790.000 from the corps estimate of $109,400,000.
At the same time, it will boost annual costs from $87,300,000 to $121,260,000. The overall benefit-cost ratio drops from the Corps’ estimate of 1.24
to 1, falling instead to 0.51 to 1. A further complication noted by PG&E is the six-hour generating limit imposed by the size of the afterbay. The
analysis notes that ‘a pumped-storage plant (must) be able to operate at least 12 hours at full load,’ adding that existing PG&E facilities can meet or
exceed this capability. In order for the Maysville Dam to achieve the same efficiency level, an estimated 100,000 cfs of water would have to be
pumped out of the afterbay and into the Yuba River, creating ‘a minor flood’ And, PG&E notes, ‘It would not be realistic to release these large
quantities of water during a critical dry year when water must be saved’. “The Company firmly believes that the power features of the proposed
project should not be constructed unless they are demonstrated to be reasonable and fully justified economically when compared to other potential
pumped-storage projects’, the analysis concludes, having already noted that ‘the proposed project is not economically justified; “
8Sep1977 Marysville-Yuba City Appeal Democrat. Article: PG&E dam report disputed, and, how did it get “lost” for so long?
“A report claiming the $1.1 billion Marysville Dam Project cannot be justified is not ‘the word of God or God’s law.’ In fact, says Yuba County
Supervisor James Pharris, the report by the Pacific Gas & Electric Co. is ‘insignificant’ and ‘baloney’. Pharris comments today followed yesterday’s
release of the PG&E report. In that report, the utility says the project cannot be economically justified, is not flexible and its benefits have been
overstated while its costs were understated. …
“The PG&E report was delivered to the Corps in Sacramento and San Francisco June 15. (emphasis mine) Copies of the report were sent both to
the Yuba County Water Agency and the Yuba County Board of Supervisors. Apparently, no one here read the report – although it was listed under
‘miscellaneous correspondence’ on the Board’s July 5 agenda. ‘Probably you could say it was lost in the blizzard’ Pharris said. But his fellow
supervisor Jim Martin, chairman of the Water Agency, says he is puzzled that the report was not brought to the Board’s attention. He said he is going
to try to find out why. The dozens of reports the county receives every week are not duplicated for the Board ‘unless they are of extreme, extreme
importance to the Board of Supervisors’, Pharris said. …
“Although Pharris claims the PG&E report is not significant, he does not deny the loss of the dam could be significant. Among other things, it would
increase the cost of a proposed water conveyance system to the south county area. September 13 Yuba County officials are to meet with PG&E
representatives to talk about the system. The utility has more than a passing interest in the water, which it needs to cool a proposed $1 billion coal-
126
fired electrical generating plant in the Wheatland area. Yuba officials hope to sell the water to the utility to help finance the system. Using the same
system, irrigation water could be brought to an area now almost wholly dependent on well water.
“Plans for a south county water conveyance system go back years. In fact, such a system was planned as part of the Bullards Bar Dam project of
the 1960’s. But money ran out and the system never was constructed. (emphasis mine) Yesterday, Public Works Director Frost said the system can
be built ‘with or without Marysville Dam,’ but without the dam, less area could be served. Frost said there are no cost estimates for any system.
Elimination of Marysville Dam would have a ‘pretty significant’ impact on the system’s cost, claims Pharris. ‘Probably we’re talking terms of $12
million if we have to construct an afterbay and transmission facilities (without the Dam), and probably $4 million with the Dam.’
“PG&E is processing applications through the State for four potential north state power plant sites, Pharris said.
09Sep1977 Eric Davis, Appeal-Democrat staff writer. A
report claiming the #1.1 billion Marysville Dam project cannot be justified is not ‘the work of God or God’s law’. In fact, says Yuba County
Supervisor James Pharris, the report by the Pacific Gas and Electric Co. is ‘insignificant’ and ‘baloney’. Pharris’ comments today followed
yesterday’s release of the PG&E report. In that report, the utility says the project cannot be economically justified, is not flexible and its benefits have
been overstated while its cost understated. The PG&E’s project analysis is similar to but independent of a state analysis , which is the basis of state
opposition to the project. That opposition was announced last week. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers say the dam will not be constructed again
the states will. The state, according to a letter from Resources Agency Director Huey Johnson to Corps Col. Donald)’Shea, contends the dam ‘is not
economically sound.’ ‘The majority of the project’s costs and benefits are attributed Ito a ‘peaking pump-back’ hydro-electric operation that is a net
energy user,’ Johnson wrote. The state also cites allegedly inadequate protection for wildlife and fish, and historical and prehistorical sites in
opposing the project.
The PG&E report was delivered to the Corps in Sacramento and San Francisco June 15, copies of the report were sent both to the Yuba County Water
Agency and the Yuba County Board of Super visors James Pharris, of the County Board of Supervisors, said that the report was unread during the
Board meeting, although it was listed under “miscellaneous correspondence’ on the Board’s July 5 agenda. “Probably you could say it was lost in the
blizzard, Pharris said.. But his fellow supervisor, Jim Martin, chairman of the Water Agency says he is puzzled that the report was not brought to the
Board’s attention, saying he would try to find out why it was not. Pharris says he knows why the report wasn’t photocopied for the Board meeting:
‘…The PG&E report was ‘baloney,’ remarking that the many reports the county receives every week are not duplicated for the Board ‘…unless they
are of extreme, extreme importance to the Board of Supervisors. Yuba County Public Works Director Donald Frost, Water Agency administrator,
said he does not know what happened to the copy of the PG&E report that went to the Board. But the copy that came directly to his office for the
Agency was ‘laid aside, never read and forgotten about.’ ‘It’s not a report of a private company’ Pharris said. “What could the Board of Supervisors
doe about their comments?’
State Resources Agency spokesman Frank Goodson said today that the PG&E position actually was of no significance in the formation of the state’s
position of the project. State officials, he said, received the report after completing their analysis of the power aspects of the project – the issues
PG&E addresses in its report. ‘We do agree with their position,’ Goodson said. ‘Had they disagreed strongly with us, it would have been
significant.’ Although Pharris claims the PG&E report is not significant, he does not deny the loss of the dam could be significant. Among other
things, it would significantly increase the cost of a proposed water conveyance system to the south county area.
On September 13 Yuba County officials are to meet with PG&E representatives to talk about the system. The utility has more than a passing
interest in the water which it needs to col a proposed $1 billion coal-fired electrical generating plant in the Wheatland area. Yuba officials hope to
sell the water to the utility to help finance the system. Using the same system, irrigation water could be brought to an area now almost wholly
dependent upon well water. Plans for a south county water conveyance system go back years. In fact, such a system was planned as part of the
Bullards Bar Dam project of the 1960s. But money ran out and the system never was constructed.. Yesterday, public works director Frost said there
are no cost estimates for any system. But elimination of Marysville Dam would have a ‘pretty significant’ impact on the system’s cost, claims
Pharris. “Probably we’re talking in terms of $12 million if we have to construct and afterbay and transmission facilities (without the dam) and
probably $4 million with the dam,’ the Board chairman said. He said his figures are ‘rough’ because the county has spent ‘just about zip’ on
engineering studies of the system. The county won’t , until there is firm construction commitment from PG&E for the power plant, he added. PG&E
is processing applications through the state four potential north state power plant sites. Pharris said it will probably will be nest year before a
final selection is made.’
10Sep1977. Daily Independent~Herald. Article: Yuba River Dam battle.
Yuba County Supervisor James Martin put his finger squarely on the justification for the Marysville Dam on the Yuba River this week when he
pointed out that the idea for the dam was generated by the need for flood control and irrigation water, and it is with flood control the strongest
arguments lie. There are three forks of the Yuba River that come together above the old debris dam at Englebright and the maximum annual stream
flow ever measured at Smartsville was 4,544,000 acre feet, the average is about 2,275,000 acre feet and, in this severe drought year, it will be
surprising if the runoff is much more than 500,000 acre feet. This type of stream flow could not insure a great deal of hydroelectric power, the prime
source for revenue. Water sales are not likely to be a major revenue item although the irrigation water could be extremely important in both Sutter
and Yuba Counties. And recreation benefits are ephemeral at best.
“But the flood control factors for the Yuba River are of considerable import to Yuba Count in its present stage of development.
“And, of course, this is the basis for the continued unanimous support of the Yuba supervisors for the project, which we understand, will be
supplemented next week by the Sutter County supervisors, who have more than a neighborly interest in a controlled Yuba River. In high water years
the stream flow comes rushing down the Yuba and into the Feather River where the pressure on Sutter County levees can be dangerous along
approximately 40 miles of channel. (emphasis mine)
“The Yuba River project, as planned by the U. S. Corps of Engineers, ran into obstacles this week in reports that the State Resources Agency would
probably oppose it because the plans are too expensive and in release of analysis by Pacific Gas & Electric Co. that was antagonistic to the project.
Both actions are not going to help furtherance of the project.
“The state agency’s position is rather puzzling, especially in light of the flood control-irrigation-recreation elements involved in the program.
(emphasis mine) But the PG&E position is not surprising since it has never been inclined to support public power development, and, of course, any
hydroelectric power developed would go into the Central Valley Project system, operated by the Federal Government.
“The fairly similar stances, however, would certainly tend to make the outlook for the Marysville Reservoir dim in the foreseeable future. There is
too much demand for federal funds to entertain optimism about an expensive and controversial project. … Still, it might be a reasonable and
intelligent approach to re-examine the dam project in light of what the real needs are. And that’s in flood control and irrigation. … Anyone who has
loved in this area during flood times has to welcome river controls such as Shasta, Oroville and even Bullards Bar dams when the rivers run high.
127
/and there is special reason for considering full flood control on the Yuba River in these modern times. In 1955, when we had the last great flood, the
Yuba River stayed within its levees, but earlier in that decade the stream broke through the levee at Hammonton and poured through East and West
Linda in Olivehurst. A quarter of century ago that flood was through sparsely settled country and there was no great menace to life and property. But
today in the same area there are approximately 20,000 residents and the same typed flood would wreak incalculable damage and possibly cause
considerable loss of lives.”
30Sep1977.Kendrick, J. B., Jr. Letter to Lt. Colonel Robert D. Cremer, Jr., Acting District Engineer, Corps of Engineers, Sacramento
Entire text of the letter:
“On June 6, 1977, we acknowledged receipt of the draft Environmental Statement for the Marysville Lake Project and indicated some initial
reservations about it. After further review we find that while the draft Environmental Statement has dealt with some of the concerns expressed in my
letter of December 8, 1976, on the Environmental Working Paper, it has not dealt satisfactorily with the major points of our concerns.
“Our position as enumerated on December 8, 1976, remains unchanged as the project would impact on our Sierra Foothill Range Field
Station. All of the presently irrigated and potentially irrigable land of the Field Station is essential to achievement of the long-range objectives of the
Field Station. The proposed dam and reservoir, however, would eliminate or adversely affect the use of this irrigable land, thereby severely reducing
the scope, quantity and quality of the research that can be conducted. The feasibility of simple relocation of the displaced land is highly questionable.
Mitigation of impacts in this instance must be considered in terms of compensation based upon the cost of replacing the land and facilities with equal
facilities of like utility. The fact that the proposed project would take only 20 percent of the Field Station does not mean that it would have only a 20
percent impact on it. The impact will be so great that it is quite likely that we will have to discontinue the operation of the Field Station with its
present objectives. Any Environmental Statement should make this point clear.
“Also, we still have concerns about the economic analysis and the adequacy of the estimates contained therein. Again, we call to your attention the
economic multiplier of $6.68, as shown on page 245, as being unrealistically high in the views of our Agricultural Economist.
“We believe these concerns would be dealt with appropriately in any Environmental Impact Statement prepared for the project
“cc: J. L. Myler
Charles Raguse “
25Oct1977.Marysville-Yuba City Appeal Democrat. Article: “Corps in further Hub Dam review
Entire text of article:
“The Army Corps of Engineers will spend about 18 months re-reviewing state recommended alternatives to construction of the Marysville Dam
project, according to Congressman Harold T. Johnson. In a letter to Maryville Dam Committee Secretary Charles G. de St. Maurice, Johnson says the
study will cost $50,000 beyond the $150,000 in project planning money allocated by the federal government for fiscal year 1978. ‘One would assume
that the State will support additional funding for this purpose’ Johnson says, ‘although the preliminary recommendations of the Department. of Water
Resources do not include any such funding…’ The two-dam proposal on the Yuba River and Dry Creek has been severely criticized by state officials
because of the pump-storage aspects of the project. The Corps plans to re-evaluate alternatives to the dam come following announced strong
opposition by the state to construction of the project as proposed. In August, State Resources Agency Secretary Huey Johnson announced the Brown
administration’s opposition to the plan for the $1.14 billion two-dam project in the Yuba and Dry Creek in the Parks Bar area upstream from
Marysville. State officials say they believe there are alternatives to the proposed project that would meet flood control objectives and reduce the
serious fish, wildlife and cultural resources damages expected from the Parks Bar project. While not recommending one specific alternative the state
has pointed out Corps of Engineers suggestions, including a flood by-pass, raising eves, raising Engle bright Dam or building dam at the Narrows site
on the Yuba River. Johnson’s letter was received today by Yuba county supervisors sitting as directors of the Yuba County Water Agency. The
supervisors offered no comments.
*********************************************************************************************************************
1978
*********************************************************************************************************************
10Feb1978 Gonzales, Anne. Sacramento Bee Correspondent. Soggy Yuba residents debate Parks Bar Dam. As Yuba County residents nervously
watch rain-swollen creeks rise, debate is swirling over whether a proposed dam on the south fork of the Yuba River would save homes or create a
multibillion dollar boondoggle. The Parks Bar Dam, proposed to be built 14 miles northeast of Marysville, would create a new lake about two-thirds
the size of Folsom Lake, stretching from Parks Bar to Englebright Reservoir. The reservoir would store a maximum of 640,000 acre-feet of water,
including flood storage capacity of 240,000 acre-feet. Supporters say the 400—high multipurpose dam proposed near Timbuctoo could save the
community. They also cite studies that say the dam could be built without tax money, depending instead on sales of water and hydro-electric power.
Opponents, however, say another dam isn’t going to protect lives and property downstream. Instead it will encourage more developments in what is
now floodplain, they argue, take away land from up to 500 private citizens and could wipe out salmon spawning beds and bald eagle habitat. In the
last few weeks, the controversy has heated up with Green Scissors ’98, a national environmental group, last month denouncing the Parks Bar proposal
as one of the nation’s most wasteful and environmentally harmful. The Yuba County Water Agency next month will begin a $700,000 study of flood
control alternatives that should yield recommendations by the middle of 1999. The alternatives include the Parks Bar Dam, which would submerge
almost 5,000 acres of land, and another project, a dam and reservoir at Waldo Bridge on Dry Creek that would put 4,200 acres of land under water.
The study will be made even though the US Army Corps of Engineers on Friday issued its fifth rejection of the Parks Bar project since 1976, saying it
isn’t environmentally, technically or economically feasible. Corps engineers recommended instead that Yuba County make levee improvements
costing $28 million. But officials of the Yuba County Water Agency, which built the New Bullard’s Bar Dam in 1970 against Corps advice and some
business people, say they have to take local control to prevent another flood. Since 1950, Yuba County has suffered $817 million worth of flood
damage, said Dan Logue, a Marysville real estate broker and founder of the Flood Control Committee for Yuba-Sutter Counties. ‘We can’t handle
another flood’ Logue said. ‘Our community will be finished. If we have one more flood, businesses will leave the area by the truckload’. The
committee is urging levee repairs, dredging of riverbeds and construction of the $680 million Parks Bar Dam, first proposed in 1957 as one in a threepronged control of water flows down the Yuba and Feather rivers. The Oroville Dam on the Feather River and New Bullard’s Bar Dam on the north
fork of the Yuba River, have been built. Still, that isn’t adequate to protect cities downstream, said Donn Wilson, administrator for the Yuba water
128
agency. Wilson said that during high river levels in January 1997, the agency was able to constrict water flows through New Bullard’s Bar to 55,000
cfs, but the Yuba River rushed past Marysville at a peak of 173,000 cfs, straining the channel far beyond its capacity of 120,000 cfs. ‘We knew it was
coming from some uncontrolled area of the river,’ Wilson said. He estimates that had Parks Bar Dam been there, the water agency could have slowed
flows through Marysville to 106,000 cfs. The dam is vehemently opposed by a Nevada City-based property rights and environmental group that says
Parks Bar Dam can’t be built without also building the Waldo Bridge Dam about 12 miles east. The Waldo project would provide water sales to
finance the construction of Parks Bar Dam. The projects would cost taxpayers at least $1 billion, flood a state wildlife refuge, condemn more than
11,000 acres of private and public property in Nevada and Yuba counties and inundate an abandoned copper mine, said Shawn Garvey, executive
director o South Yuba River Citizens League…’This is a boondoggle,’ he said. ‘It’s going to cost us tens of billions of dollars mitigating the
destruction caused by these projects’. The league was formed in 1983 to preserve Yuba River property rights and so far has successfully beaten back
seven dam proposals on the south fork. The group also opposes Waldo Dam, which would submerge Spenceville Wildlife Area, a refuge for 180
species of birds and 16 threatened and endangered species, including the bald eagle. Garvey fears that a copper mine near Spenceville, abandoned
more than a century ago, will leach hazardous waste if submerged. Wilson said his agency is studying the projects at Parks Bar and Waldo separately,
but both projects are feasible if the agency can mitigate losses of wildlife habitat and clean up the copper mine. He agrees the agency is mainly
interested in a dam and reservoir at Waldo for water storage and sales, but says the project also could allow more water to be released at Oroville as a
flood protection measure.
The Grumbly Report
>Grumbly, Thomas P. Graduate School of Public Policy, UC-Berkeley. January 30, 1974.
A report to Vice Pres. J. B. Kendrick, entitled “The present state and ‘costs’ of Agricultural Field Stations”. 29p., unpublished.
From Part I. Introduction:
“This inquiry into the UC’s Agricultural Field Stations was initiated at the request of Dr. James B. Kendrick, Jr., Vice President, Agricultural
Sciences. Its purpose is to gather data on the ‘costs’ and other non-scientific aspects of field research at UC. Time and resource constraints have
limited the study to those nine Agricultural Field Stations directly supervised by Mr. James L. Myler and his associates.
“Though the UC briefly operated Field Research facilities for agriculture at the turn of the century (1898 – 1901), the present system of
stations has existed only since 1948. The number of stations has varied since that year, attaining a maximum of tem during the years 1959-69. 1969
saw the divestiture of one Station in the Antelope Valley region of Southern California, and the present system of nine Stations has remained constant
since that date.
“The stations are operated independently of any UC campus. Their administrative personnel are responsible to the Vice President – Agricultural
Sciences, operating through his agent, the Director of Agricultural Field Stations. Campus departments make occasional permanent research
appointments to the Stations, though the majority of research is done on a part-time basis by members of the Agricultural Experiment Station (AES).
These researchers hold full-time appointments through the Berkeley, Davis, or Riverside campuses of the University.
129
From Part II. Limits and Constraints of the Analysis “In the course of investigation, approximately eighty (80) interviews were
conducted with members of the agricultural community, both within and outside of the University of California (UC). These interviews took place
entirely during the summer of 1973, and totally within the confines of the state of California. 41% of those were with members of the AES, and 25%
were with University administrators at levels of responsibility ranging from Station Superintendents to a campus chancellor (Dr. Ivan Hinderaker).
The remainder were conducted with local growers and local governmental officials. Whether the opinions of such a small number of people
adequately represents the views of the agricultural community at large is open to question. …
From Part III. The Political Costs of Field Stations and the Nature of Community Support “The primary objective of
this study is to assess the ‘cost’ to UC of conducting field research in the present format of fixed locational field stations. It is neither trivial nor
sophistic to speak of politics as a ‘cost’.
…
“To the extent that some Division of Agricultural Sciences (DAS) funds are seemingly locked in, the AES stations present political costs to the
University. A 1971 survey of the agricultural campuses of the University, conducted through the Vice President’s Office, indicated that the Tulelake
Station was the lowest-priority Station from the perspective of the campuses. … However, this Station is highly valued by the Cooperative
Extension Service (CES) and by the community, as interviews with the County Farm Advisor and several Siskyou and Modoc County supervisors
made clear. A similar situation exists in the Imperial Valley, where county supervisor Herman Sperber vowed to fight any attempts to close or reduce
the funding of the University’s Imperial Valley (“Meloland”) Field Station. …
“With the possible exception of the Sierra Foothills Station, no facility lacks substantial community support. Intensity of support does vary, however,
and seems to be determined by the visibility of the Station in the community. Under the general heading of visibility would be included: (1) The
productivity o the station in terms of direct application of research results to the locality; (2) The presence of other University facilities or any
competing public institutions in the area; (3) The amount of land in use by the University relative to local holdings; and (4) The manner in which the
land was originally acquired by the University. … Surprisingly enough, no hard evidence exists to link the economic condition of an area to tis
support of the Field Stations. … Sierra Foothills, however, has had, and continues to have support problems.
“Two different reactions flow from the same set of economic conditions.: The first applauds University actions for it impact on jobs and possible
research output helpful to the community. The second opinion sees high property tax rates, which presumably would be lower if more land were in
private hands, as well as lower state income tax rates if few University facilities existed overall. While this latter attitude is narrowly economic and
ignores possible wider ranges of social and economic benefits accruing from higher education, candor compels one to admit that it is not entirely
unreasonable in Yuba County, home of the Sierra Foothills Station, where over one-half of the county’s land is held by either state or federal
governments. Additionally, the 5,700 acres of the Sierra Station could be leased to cattle grazing, were it not in governmental hands.
“The University’s reputation continues to be blemished in the state by the unrest on some of its campuses during the 1960s. Most of the lingering ire
seems directed toward faculty and students rather than toward administrators, although a number of interviewees expressed displeasure at the evident
inability of administrators to control their ‘employees’, i.e., the faculty.
“In the light of the foregoing, no doubt exists that substantial lobbying was undertaken by both former Vice President Harry Wellman, and
Agricultural Dean Daniel Aldrich in the San Joaquin Valley. Close to $200,000 was pledged by Valley growers for Field Station development. It is
irrelevant to ask who initiated the demand for these facilities. What is relevant is that the University and grower have increasingly become entangled
in financial arrangements over field stations, and that many growers see the University as having a commitment as long as any trace of local money is
present. In terms of sheer financial impact, moreover, it is clear that University interests will be entangled with grower interest as long as the
University permits its campus-based researchers to solicit research funding from private citizens and corporations Fiscal 1972 saw 5.5% of the
University’s $32,000,000 Experiment Station overall-expenditures result from gifts.
“Given the present field station structure, it is not at all clear that the decision to squarely face the question of ‘Who benefits from agricultural
research?’ would result in a relative increase of freed University financial resources. One can reasonably construct a scenario in which increased
research support by industry would result in demands upon legislators that the University maintain physical plants at a level higher than it presently
does. … (As to the extent of local community support to it field station) …’… it is quite reasonable to assert … that the total support is not
identical to the total productivity of the station (but more likely to) the ration of that productivity to relative land use, i.e., the benefits per acre of land.
The presence of competing public institutions can further change the question of community support from total support to one of marginal support, if
the station is competing for support with other local institutions.
“Put simply, in areas with few competing institutions, field stations may provide the most for one’s tax dollar, but this may not be true in an
area that possesses institutions such as the Agricultural Extension Service.” (!!) …
“The field station operating budget is seen by all field station superintendents, and by the Director (James L. Myler), as being at least somewhat
related. Total unanimity exists among the Field Station administration that further real operational reductions will bring about reductions in
productivity. In other words, there is general agreement that no ‘fat’ is left in the budgets. … From a policy point of view, however, this information
is important because it reduces uncertainty regarding the effects of budget reductions. The University is finally in the position where it can quite
quickly decrease the amount of community benefits derived from field research, if it chooses to do so. …
“While I have no final conclusions, it would be worthwhile to investigate the possibility of selling parts of field station acreage while maintaining the
same work force. Most field stations have acreage ‘held in reserve’. In some cases this approaches 25% of the station holdings. One additional
benefit of such partial sales would be increased competition among Experiment Station members for available land, leading to discrimination by
Station Research Committees and a forced prioritizing. (Grumbly’s reasoning [as an economist] fails to take into account the vast physical
differences among Stations, in this example, say either Hopland or Sierra vs. West Side, Kearney, or Imperial Valley. It’s the old
extrapolation problem again.)
“It is also useful to explore the notion of competing public institutions and their effects upon support. The Division of Agricultural Sciences
encompasses the Agricultural Extension Service as well as the Agricultural Field Stations. In many areas of the state, but most notably in Tulelake
and at the Kearney Field Station in the San Joaquin Valley, the Extension Service is closely interlocked with the Field Stations. From an
organizational point of view this may have some benefits, but from a political point of view, this interlocking character is debilitating. Such close
connections reduce the number of pressure points open to the Vice President-Agricultural Sciences. By keeping the Field Stations and Extension
Service as separate entities in fact and in name, the Vice President can increase or decrease the value of Field Stations to a local community, by
changing the visibility of the Extension Service in any area, without touching the Field Stations apparatus. …
“I have concentrated on the variables of space and competing institutions because productivity and its relation to operating budgets has been stressed
so exclusively in debates surrounding the Field Stations to date.
130
“The question has always been, ‘Should we increase or decrease Field Station funding?’. Any recommendations flowing from this section
depend upon a prior answer to the following policy question: Does the University of California wish to expand or contract the place of Field
Stations relative to its other agriculturally related programs?
From Part IV. The Economic Costs of AFS
“Six categories of economic costs have been identified: (1) Direct budgetary expenditures, (2) Travel costs to and from the field stations, (3) Direct
and indirect Full Time Equivalency (FTE) costs, (4) ‘Opportunity’ cost to the University in maintaining fixed locational Field Stations, (5) Physical
plant pro-rated construction costs, and (6) A correction factor to more realistically reflect equipment costs.
(In my opinion, given the almost four decades that have passed, most of the information given in this Section is of little use here. Be that as it
may, under Item (4) Opportunity Cost on the Land, Grumbly presents a table of estimated land values [for 1973] embedded within a
hypothetical consideration of whether it would be better for the University to rent rather than own the land holdings of the Field Stations )
“At first glance, the notion of an ‘opportunity cost’ may appear specious. … but, as Paul Samuelson has put it, ‘some of the most important costs
attributable to doing one thing rather than another stem from the foregone opportunities that have to be sacrificed in doing this one thing’. Given
increasing land values, it appears that the best alternative use of University-held field station land would be rental.
TABLE I
LAND VALUES OF AGRICULTURAL FIELD STATIONS
AUGUST 1973
Station
Acreage for Sale
Deciduous
Hopland
Imperial
Kearney
Lindcove
Sierra
South Coast
Tulelake
West Side
`12
5,358
268
175
5,721
200
18
320
Value per Acre
$5,000
$30
NO SALE PERMITTED
$2,500
$3,000
$100
$2,000
$2,000
$600
Total Value
Market Value per Station
$60,000
$160,000
$670,000
$525,000
$575.000
$$400,000
$36,000
$192,000
________
$2,618,740
“At this point, Grumbly derives what he calls the ‘Rental Value’, which he bases on the tax-free gross income the University might derive from a total
sale amortized over 25 years at 9% interest, which amount to $250,000 per year. He adds, parenthetically, that ‘It has been suggested by Dr. Eric
Thor (presumably of the UC Berkeley faculty) that much of this expected revenue would likely accrue to the State of California rather than to the
University, and hence should not be included as a cost to the University. Given the tenuous present nature of the University’s budgetary
relationship with the legislature, this could be quite likely. (And that’s almost 4 decades ago!)
(Then, there are the costs of equipment acquisition and replacement.)
“Director Myler noted in a memo of March 9, 1973 that:
‘Equipment owned by the Agricultural Field Stations is carried on our assets inventory at
$1,241,948.33. This value represents acquisitive costs or fair market value at the time of acquisition.
Most of this equipment is 10 to 30 years old, obsolete, and long past the time when it would have
been completely depreciated and junked by private industry. Replacement cost would be several
times the value at which it is carried on our inventory …’
Grumbly continues: “In my judgment, the budgetary figure grossly underestimates the cost of replacing equipment, especially since State surplus
sales are producing progressively fewer usable items, according to all Superintendents and the Director. If Director Myler is correct, and there
is every reason to believe that he is, the yearly costs of equipment could quadruple over the next few years.”
(Although not noted by Grumbly, Land-grant colleges across the land had access to the dispersal of
“surplus” war equipment and supplies following WWII. To some degree, the government simply
threw usable equipment was away, in order to provide the US “war plants”, which had performed so
heroically during the war, a better opportunity to regain their prior standing in production of cars,
trucks, tractors, and the like, with minimal market competition from equivalent military items
returning home. It was said that soldiers returning home from the war were kept occupied on board
ship by repairing and cleaning potentially-serviceable Jeeps, and then pushing them overboard, to
descent to the ocean depths. During the mid-1950s I attended sessions of the University of
Wisconsin Farm Short Course at Madison, working summers in the University’s Farm Crew. I took
delight in driving a 6-wheel drive Army surplus truck alongside a corn-silage chopper in the fields,
then returning to unload the contents into a tower silo on one of the University Farms. At one point
a young farm lad enrolled in in Short Course canvassed the dormitories trying to enlist buyers of
surplus Army Jeeps. The Jeeps were new, with the engine wrapped in Cosmoline and canvas, and
laying behind the seats. The farm lad who was promoting their sale, at $50 each, needed to come up
with a total of 50 purchases in order to have access to a remarkable deal.
131
From Part V. The Objectives of AFS:
“This section revolves around the widely accepted notion that ‘service’ es the prime reason for Field Station existence. Field Station service has been
interpreted to mean the provision of land, labor and physical facilities to members of the AES and their staffs. In examining this objective, two major
questions must be kept in mind: (1) How divisible is this service objective? – Should the AES be involved in pursuits other than research? (2) How
substitutable is this ‘service’? – Can any other system do what the fields stations do, as well as they do?
“Note that the major questions do not involve the value of field research per se.
“Any answer to these overarching questions of divisibility and substitutability require consideration of: (1) The attitudes of Division members in both
the Experiment Station and the Extension Service; (2) The level and efficiency of present services; and (3) The feasibility and price of alternative
modes of field research. Attached to this last question are the issues of the ‘administrative recharge’ instituted by the Division, and that
charge’s utility, and the cost of research at Field Stations versus campus operations.
A. Reactions to a Differing Role
1. Teaching
“Some field stations are clearly content with their limited role as ‘service’ facilities for research. The Imperial Station seems to have an ideal
relationship between the researchers and station personnel. It possesses little desire to upset its rather significant research role in the community.
Any mention of a further teaching and public service role elicited negative comment from both field station personnel and local cattlemen. On the
other hand, two stations, Hopland and Sierra Foothills, will very shortly be in a strong position to support full-fledged teaching programs, due to
dormitory construction. The Sierra Superintendent is particularly eager to encourage undergraduate groups from the Davis Campus. The reactions of
research faculty are mixed. I encountered only limited support for undergraduate programs, though most experiment station members would not
object to increased student participation, particularly if it meant increased recognition without substantial additional work. Uniform agreement was
elicited concerning the difficulties in encouraging graduate student field work, though some is being done. The length of time required to do adequate
experiments isolating particular variables is likely to be great in the field environment; too great for most graduate students’ personal thesis
timetables.
2. Public Service
“The Agricultural Extension Service is slowly making inroads in the use of physical facilities at the Field Stations. … Extension appears to have all
but taken over the environment at Tulelake. While it is not a necessary outcome of extension-field station relations, it appears that potentials for
conflict still exist between Experiment Station Project Leaders, and Extension staff.
“I have dwelled a bit on the relations of Extension with the field stations because of the implication for any public service role for the stations.
Typically, I found complaints from field station supervisory personnel and experiment station members concerning the number of inquiries directed
their way that, in their judgment, should have been handled by the Extension Service. This reaction of indigence toward Extension’s ‘failure’ to
fulfill their public service function is indicative of the reluctance of both field station personnel and experiment station members to expand operations
into an overt public service function.
“A general reluctance also exists throughout the system toward encouraging visits from the public. This reluctance is clearly a product of diminished
resources. Field Stations perceive their niches as research facilities, and resist efforts to ‘dilute’ their strength by expanding services. Station
Superintendents uniformly requested an assistant supervisory position if the stations were to expand services to include lectures, tours, and the like.
“In the end, it seems clear that any true expansion in objectives must await increased financial support, and the wholehearted support, rather than
just presence, of the Agricultural Extension Service.
B. Level and Efficiency of Present Services
(1) The level of service
“Concerning manpower, all station superintendents report that few additional project can be handled satisfactorily unless more personnel become
available. Interviews with non-supervisorial field station personnel confirm this, and reported increased pressure from supervisors to work more
intensively. This labor constraint is exacerbated by mixed cooperation from experiment station members concerning their needs for labor. Last
minute requests from Project Leaders for routine services (are difficult) especially since the superintendents make every effort to comply with
requests, not wishing to alienate Project Leaders, on whom they are obviously dependent for support.
“Agricultural Field Stations distinguish between the provision of ‘ordinary’ and ‘extraordinary’ services. The former are undertaken as a matter of
course, and no project charge is made to the researcher. The latter must be paid for by the researcher from grants or departmental funds. The
ordinary service includes, most typically, those elements conventionally required for the proper care of field crops. While most disagreements over
the constitution and payment for unusual services were handled amicably, some bad feeling festers within the ranks of the Experiment Station. As the
stations are indeed designated as ‘Experiment Stations’, it seems reasonable to expect a periodic policy review of the definition of ‘usual’ services
that are ‘free’ to the experimenter. On the whole, experiment station members who use the field facilities are quite pleased with the quality of service
received, though there are differences among stations. The rather limited market for both experienced and properly-motivated field personnel seems
to account for the differential success of the stations.
(2) Efficiency of Station Service
“No clearly-defined measures of efficiency for field station operations currently exist. Attempts have been made to approximate efficiency measures
through an administrative accounting mechanism, but this has been largely unsatisfactory. … In the absence of generally-accepted measures, we
have attempted to look at five areas designed to give a rough index of system efficiency: Salary overhead costs; Project failures; Coordination
between field-station and experiment-station researchers; Farm income situation at the stations; and the quality and role of the Superintendents.
(The first four of the five “measures’ listed above seem rather dry and unproductive for inclusion here. The fifth, however, is of interest.)
(2e) The Role of the Superintendent
“The demand for increased accountability has fallen hard upon the Field Station Superintendents. None are professional administrators, and increased
paperwork loads are seen to be infringements upon either field or research time. Four of the nine superintendents are engaged in research activities,
the quality of which is frequently questioned by campus Experiment Station members. In addition to their administrative and research burdens, a
public-relations function is clearly considered to be part of the job by all superintendents, if only because they are placed in the position of justifying
University expenditures to their friends and neighbors. In my opinion, the administrative, supervisorial, and public relations roles are slowly
squeezing out whatever research role the superintendents might have.
“One would hesitate to say, however, that research capacity is an unimportant characteristic for the superintendent. The necessity to attract and deal
with experiment station members in a satisfactory manner makes it imperative that superintendents have some interest and expertise in research
design. In essence, the job demands a person with research capabilities but little ambition, an academic willing to exist in a non-academic
132
environment, an excellent administrator, a first-rate foreman, and a public relations man. Needless to say, such people are few and far between,
especially at the prevailing rates of pay.
“It is not surprising, therefore, that many superintendents are not as high quality as local growers. With the exception of the Hopland and possibly the
Sierra superintendents, growers were often technically more sophisticated and inclined to be better managers. The result is that some influential
growers do not take the Field Stations seriously, or that industrial advisory groups, where they exist, can come to dominate a superintendent. In my
judgment, these industrial advisory committees do not need to be discouraged. The role of the superintendent needs to be reevaluated, and pay rates
adjusted to attract more administratively-competent applicants. Needless to say, this is easier said than done.
(3.) Alternatives to Fixed Locational Field Stations
“Assuming that one accepts the notion that field research is justified, the question then becomes one of how to best meet the demand. We have
pointed out some of the present strengths and weaknesses of the present mode of operation, as well as the costs involved in the venture.
Two alternative arrangements have been suggested: (1) Perform all field work at campus locations, and (2) Enter into short-term leasing
arrangements with California growers. Each alternative merits only a brief discussion at this time. Following a couple of pages of discussion,
Grumbly concludes: “In summary, both situations need to be studied more, both from the scientific angle and from the organizational angle before
any final conclusions could be reached. However, an initial evaluation would have to conclude that neither offer clear-cut cost advantages without
relinquishing significant benefits.
(4.) Cost Accounting and the “Administrative Recharge”
“Beginning in 1971, the Division of Agricultural Sciences instituted an ‘administrative recharge’ to those departments with members working at the
Field Stations. This ‘recharge’ was designed to account for the State funds expended at the field stations on a Project-by-Project basis that could be
incorporated into the Department of Agriculture’s Current Research Information System (CRIS). The policy has had unintended consequences that
are proving disastrous to the Agricultural Field Stations.
“Much misunderstanding exists concerning both the purposes of this ‘recharge’ and its computation. Most obvious is the assumption that it is, in fact,
a ‘recharge’, along the lines of others in which funds appropriated to the departments are actually earmarked for payment and transferred to other
accounts within the University. It is not a ‘recharge’ but the notion is persistent among Experiment Station members. This idea is reinforced by the
attitudes and actions of campus deans who are not averse to using the administrative figures in order to put off requests for supplemental funds from
departments with heavy field station usage.
“The result of this mistaken ‘recharge’ perception is to completely reverse the incentive system. The separation of the field stations from the rest of
the agricultural operations and the ‘free’ nature of services to experiment station members is an attempt to encourage field station usage. The presence
of the ’recharge’ makes it appear that the cost of using the stations is quite high to the researcher.”
“Computation of the ‘recharge’ presents serious problems. The average cost per man-hour is multiplied by the number of man-hours per Project to
obtain a Project-cost figure. This average cost figure is determined on a system-wide, rather than on a per-station basis, and destroys whatever
efficiency incentives exist at stations by permitting high dollar per hour stations the comfort of knowing part of their costs will be borne by others.
Additionally, there is no determination of the marginal cost per Project, to indicate the kind of Projects that could be added at relatively less additional
cost. Again, additionally, no differentiation is made between the crop Stations and the range Stations.
“The costs are also not calculated on a consistent basis from year to year. For 1971-72, the total cost figure used to pro-rate the charge was the sum
appropriated by the State. In 1972-73, the total cost figure included income received from farming, as well as the State appropriations. The average
cost per hour figure increased by a startling 40%.
“This system of recharge should be abolished or drastically altered unless it is deemed desirable to discourage Field Station usage.
From Part VI. The Amount and Nature of Field Station Research
From Part VI. The Amount and Nature of Field Station Research
“While this inquiry does not primarily concern itself with the scientific quality of field research, it would be incomplete if it failed to assist in the
effort to evaluate quality. Presumably, the demand for field station services will tell something about the perceptions of Experiment Station members
concerning the Stations. … Hence, this section of the report emphasizes demand only under the very specific and confused cost conditions
surrounding the stations.
B. Who’s Doing the Research
“Proponents of Field Station research often despair for its future on two grounds: (1) Little new blood in the University is undertaking Field
Research, and (2) Those who do undertake field research do not get tenure.
“The truth of both assertions is clearly crucial to the continuance of a viable field research operation that produces worthwhile results. If the second
assertion is true and there is little hope of changing the internal incentive structure of the faculty, any further resources devoted to Field Stations could
be money down the drain.
“However, neither of the assertions appears, upon analysis, to have much merit.
“The presence of multiple-project leaders in field stations research means that only 68 members of the Experiment Station are in charge of the 100
Agricultural Field Station Projects.
After presenting some numbers , Grumbly concludes this paragraph by remarking: “Hence, if anything, more rather than fewer Field Station
professors have tenure.”
From the concluding paragraph in this Section, three remarks:
“One could, however, hypothesize that younger men are being deterred from Field Station work and that those professors with tenure received it prior
to some shift in policy. One might also speculate that the tenured members ‘sublet’ their projects to other non-tenured, members. …
“… Indeed, the real policy problem may be that there is little fresh blood within the Experiment Station, period. It may also simply be an indication
of the prestige and recruiting policies of U.C., which permits the University to draw from other universities after men have established themselves as
first rate.
C. Research Committee Ineffectiveness
“This section of the report has spoken to some empirical questions of field research. To a great extent, the answers to these questions are the
organizational responsibility of the Field Station Research Committees (sic). It is their duty to decide what and for how long projects are permitted to
remain at Field Stations. Interviews lead me to believe that many of these committees are no more than ’rubber stamp’ operations. With occasional
exceptions, no attempt is made to modify projects or subject the research proposal to internal scrutiny.
“Several reasons exist for this reluctance. First, no station has ever been forced to reject a project due to lack of space. While some stations like to
hold parcels of land in reserve, no station has had a problem in finding new land for a project. With no pressure to discriminate, harried experiment
station members have no incentive to scrutinize projects other than professional integrity. Second, professional integrity cuts both ways. While there
is some idea of discrimination among projects on merit, experiment station members are wary of questioning a peer’s right to do as he pleases,
especially when that peer’s specialty is in a different area. Since there is no wish to have their own research subjected to justification, the tendency is
133
to ‘lay off’. Finally, the institutional structure forces the department chairman to make prior decisions on the efficacy of research before the project
reaches the research committee. Needless to say, there is reluctance to ’overrule’ a department chairman’s decision.
Labor Re-charges
>Kendrick, J. B., Jr. October 24, 1975.
Letter to Members of Council of Directors re instituting a $1 per hour labor charge for all projects at Field Stations, effective July 1, 1976.
“This will be charged to all research projects regardless of funding source. Pending revision of Communication No. 15, it would be appreciated if you
would advise your department chairman of this planned change so that they may incorporate it into their Field Station use plans for 1976-77”
In my personal files, this is the earliest record I have of the labor recharge issue. Obviously, it had been simmering for some period of time prior.
>Myler, James L., Director, Agricultural Field Stations. January 8, 1976.
Letter sent to T. Kretchun, A. Murphy, G. Worker, A. Deal, R. Copeland, P. Rowell, R. Keim, P. Puri, and R. Hoover, the Superintendents of the nine
Field Stations, advising them that the Council of Directors (COD) “…decided to temporarily suspend the requirement of a dollar an hour charge for
labor at the Field Stations, effective July 1, 1976. Warren Schoonover had delivered the message by phone, and added: “The matter will be given
further study before setting a new date and method of charge.” Lowell Myler’s comment: “We still intend to develop as quickly as possible more
uniform methods of accounting for time spent on overhead items and research projects and for reporting the time to the project leaders, department
chairmen and the administration.
>Speck, E. P., Assoc. Dir. AFS, April 13, 1976.
Letter to Station Superintendents re Labor Reporting Guidelines, with attachment of a draft outline.
Section I General
“A. An accounting system was developed and is currently in use at the AFS, which uses codes 1 through 99 for identification of labor used for
overhead items and for research projects. This system was selected to be compatible with existing accounting office computer capabilities. Codes 1 –
29 were selected for items related to overhead expenses and codes 30 – 99 for assignment to research projects.
“B. Stations are not required to use identical labor reporting forms. They are however required to record, develop and maintain the following
information:
Daily Time Sheets – Each employee is to keep a daily time sheet which identifies by code his activities for the day to the nearest ½ hour. The sheet
shall reflect the work done, location and the type of materials and equipment used.
Code Summary Files – Each coded item (both research projects and overhead expenses) shall be maintained as a separated file. Information from
each daily time sheet is to be entered into the appropriate code file so that a complete record of activities associated with each coded item is
maintained.
Labor Usage Reports – A monthly summary shall be made indicating the hours of labor devoted to each code. This summary is to be used as a basis
for preparing the various reports going to AFS, RAC Chairmen, Project Leaders, and Department Chairmen.
“C. Labor to be reported shall include all staff personnel paid from AFS funds. This includes salary roll, general assistance, and casual labor
personnel, including those paid on contract basis and as deducts from sales. It does not include the Station Superintendent.
“D. Labor which is recharged in full to departments shall be reported against the respective code, but shall be deducted from the administrative report
used to develop Experiment Station support costs for the various departments.
Section II Overhead Codes – Description of Use for Each Code
Section III. Research Project Codes 30 – 99. Field or Row Crop Type Projects
Section IV. Research Codes 30 – 99. Orchard or Vineyard Type Projects
Section V. Animal Type Projects.
Sections II – V were not transcribed.
>Krass, Conrad, Staff Research Associate, Division of Agricultural Sciences. July 15, 1976
Letter to Mr. Warren E. Schoonover, Director of Administrative Services, Agriculture & University Services.
Attaching a “…revised draft of the field station recharge guidelines.”, and includes some “…points for consideration as suggested by Dr. L.L. Sammet…” as
well as from Field Stations Director Lowell Myler and Associate Dean James Lyons.
“Attached is a revised draft of the field station recharge guidelines. The wording has been changed slightly and sections have been added concerning
quarterly statements of hours used and recharges for special project expenditures.”
“Item 7, concerning anticipated proceeds, was modified in consultation with Mr. Myler and Associate Dean Lyons.”
(The “revised draft” referred to above was divided into 10 Items, of which Item 7 read as follows: “Anticipated
proceeds from institution of these new recharges will be placed into a special field station budget provision, with a
reasonable percentage available for allocation on a temporary basis by each Associate Dean for Research, in
consultation with the Director of Field Stations, to relieve financial strain on those projects which are the heaviest users
of field station labor.) The interested reader, if there is one, can decide if there is a difference
“I would like to raise the following points for consideration as suggested by Dr. Sammet after a brief discussion with him on July 13, 1976.
1. “Will the recharge policy accomplish its purpose, i.e., to provide equitable recharges, viz., reduce unnecessary field station work, without creating
considerable distress among a number of researchers? Mr. Myler feels that there is relatively little “wasteful” work at present. Would the institution of a more
rigorous screening procedure at the field station research committee be preferable?
2. “Should charges for labor in excess of that budgeted be assessed on an individual project or a departmental basis? Consider the situation where a department
has one project well over the budget and five that are under, perhaps by a greater margin than the one is over.
3. “Of particular concern is the fate of certain types of long-term projects, e.g., new rootstock development, new tree fruit varieties, and animal breeding, which
are heavy users of field station land and labor. There might, quite understandably, be some reluctance by certain departments to establish projects that would
require the commitment of several thousand dollars or more per year for a ten to fifteen year period that would be necessary to obtain the requisite data. Yet,
over the years, the results of such projects, which are almost the exclusive domain of the University, have been invaluable to California agriculture.
134
4. “Institution of the recharge is likely to reduce or eliminate some of the voluntary contributions that certain projects have made in the past toward field station
expenses. This would leave a greater deficit in the F.S. budget; earmarking recharge money to relieve projects “caught short” would further undermine the
budget. It has the potential of becoming an exercise in shuffling money from one pocket to another, with the concomitant losses that such exercises usually
entail.
5. “Field Station research is highly visible to the public, in contrast to the majority of that performed in campus laboratories. We have been working to improve
out public image; might not a recharge be perceived as an actual or potential “threat” to field station research, with an attendant public protest?
“In summary, it is my opinion that institution of a field Station recharge policy is liable to create more problems than it would alleviate. The policy is likely to be
perceived by researchers as a threat to their work, or at least as more administrative “red-tape”. The potential curtailment or elimination of long-term, large-scale
research, particularly at a time when the need for new varieties, disease and nematode-resistant rootstocks, and other products of such research is so readily
apparent, might prove to be most inexpedient, both from a political and a public-relations viewpoint. Is the amount involved (0.2% of the AES budget) worth it?
(WOW!)
>Murphy, A.H., Superintendent, Hopland Field Station
July 29, 1976
Letter to J.L. Myler commenting on educational values as a product of Field Stations.
“Earlier, you asked for comments on the labor reporting system and how it reflected the actual work being accomplished.
“In recent years there has been an increase in the use of students, wither graduate or Work-Learn categories. Most of these people are working on
research Projects, yet they are listed under departmental groupings and do show which Project they are working. Consequently, when a summation of
man-hours use us made they are not shown with research Projects. I realize that the report is mainly to show Field Station employees, however, if
you use these figures they will not show a true picture of labor use on research.
“In another area of project labor, we have people working at the Station as a place to collect samples; for example, insect collections or deer
collections. These people may be graduate students working on their study or assisting a Project Leader. They usually don’t require any land or labor
as such. They are here because the physical features of the Station meet the needs of their studies. Entomology grad students find frequent use of the
Station but we don’t keep any records of their ‘comings and goings’, only asking that if and when they write up their work that we get a copy.
“I’m not suggesting that we keep records of all these people, but anyone using the figures we report should be aware that they do not give a full
picture of the use being made of the Station research facilities. When the summary of labor for Station operation and research projects is viewed as
giving a true picture of the Station facility usage I think this is a misconception, particularly for upper-echelon administrators who are not familiar
with Station operations.
(Sad, but very true. These remarkably diverse and protected locations, in geographical areas with life zones, plant and animal species, and a
host of ecological niches, can, and have, made remarkable contributions to University teaching in the finest sense. But teaching, in turn,
seems never to be credited as a value. There are no “check boxes” or evaluation rankings on administrative documents, to put teaching
contributions by Agricultural Field Stations into annual productivity summaries. How come?)
>
Schoonover , Warren E. August 5. 1976
Letter addressed to FIELD STATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE, cc to Conrad Krass ..It appears to me that we might wish to consider an
alternative to the dollar per hour recharge arrangement. …”
“Gentlemen: Since our meeting last March and as a result of numerous written comments received from you and other interested parties, we have
attempted to prepare a draft to announce the establishment of the dollar per hour recharge policy. Conrad Krass of our office here assisted me in this
project and he has prepared the attached draft for review at this time. In addition to the draft on the dollar per hour recharge, also enclosed is a draft
of guidelines for recording labor at the Agricultural Field Stations.
“In transmitting the proposed draft to me, Dr. Krass had some concerns about the dollar per hour recharge which he expressed in a letter of July 15. I
enclose a copy of this letter for your information as a number of his concerns are placed.
“It appears to me that we might wish to consider an alternative to the dollar per hour recharge arrangement. Such an alternative might provide a
budget for each Field Station specifying the total labor hours available each year. The Research Advisory Committee (RAC) would then be
responsible for reviewing all of the labor requests and assign a firm hour allocation to each project. This allocation presumably would allocate all of
the hours available. Any project not receiving sufficient hours in the allocation by the RAC would be free to contract with the Field Station for
additional hours on a recharge basis with the understanding that the recharge would reflect the full direct labor and staff benefits costs related thereto.
Any project not approved for allocation of hours by the RAC, but accepted by the Committee for use of space at the Field Station would be free to
purchase all of the labor hours necessary for the conduct of the research. This is one alternative that we had not considered but would provide an
equitable recharge based upon priorities established by the RAC.
“It would be appreciated if you would review the enclosed documents in preparation for a meeting to be scheduled in med-September. I will be in
touch with you prior to that time to ascertain the best date and to provide any additional agenda items.
“Thank you for your help. Please call me if you have any questions.” Attachments. Cc: Conrad Krass
>Kendrick, J. B., Jr. October 26, 1976
Sent to: Associate Directors
“After extensive review and discussion, it has been decided to proceed with the one dollar per hour recharge policy for the Agricultural Field Stations
effective January 1, 1977. To provide for the orderly implementation of this change, the following guidelines have been established.
1. “Every research project will be assessed one dollar for each hour of Field Station labor devoted to the project in accordance with the approved labor
budget.
2.” Each year the Field Station Research Advisory Committee will review all requests, whether new or continuing, for Station land and labor and
approve allocations to individual research projects for both land and labor within the total available at each Station.
3. “Should subsequent needs of a project exceed the labor hours allocated, any excess labor hours used will be charged to the project at a flat rate of
$6.00 per hour.
4. “Any project submitted as a “late comer” subsequent to the Field Station’s RAC’s allocation of labor within the total available at the Station may
purchase labor at the rate of $6.00 per hour if land is available for the project.
5.” Quarterly statements detailing projects and hours used will be sent to the departments concerned on a quarterly basis.
6. “Guidelines have been established to differentiate between general Station work and Project work, for the determining the allocation of labor hours.
135
7. “Proceeds from these recharges will be placed into a special Field Station Budget Provision. A portion of these funds will remain in Field Stations
to offset their operating costs with the remainder to be returned to the Associate Directors of each campus or of the Cooperative Extension Service, in
proportion to the amount paid into this Fund by their respective departments or units. These funds will be expressly designated for use as a drawing
account at the Field Stations and each Associate Director will develop policy as to the criteria for allocation back to the user departments or units.
8. “Special expenditures and equipment will be recharged to individual Projects as in the past.
9. “Cooperative Extension Staff conducting research at Field Stations will be subject to the recharge policy as stated above.
10 “The USDA will be required to pay for labor used at a flat rate of $6.00 per hour. (This provision may require implementation over a two-year
period to provide budget planning on their part).
11. “Field Station Superintendents who hold a research appointment with an Experiment Station department and have Projects requiring labor will
need to seek funds from the department concerned to comply with the recharges outlined.
“Questions concerning these guidelines should be addressed to Warren Schoonover.”
>Kendrick, J. B., Jr., December 8, 1976.
Letter to Associate Directors Hess, Lewis, Siebert, and Waters, and to W. E. Schoonover re $1 per hour labor charge
Cc: P. Cassamajor, J.L. Myler, Field Stations Advisory Committee
“After extensive review and discussion, it has been decided to proceed with a one dollar per hour recharge policy for the Agricultural Field Stations
effective July 1, 1977. To provide for the orderly implementation of the change, the following guidelines have been established:
1. “Every research project will be assessed one dollar for each hour of field station labor devoted to the project in accordance with the approved labor
budget.
2. “Each year the Field Station Research Advisory Committee will review all requests, whether new or continuing, for station land and labor and
approve allocations to individual research projects for both land and labor within the total available at each station.
3. “Should subsequent needs of a project exceed the labor hours allocated, any excess labor hours used will be charged to the project at a flat rate of
$6.00 per hour.
4. “Any project submitted subsequent to the allocation of all available labor may purchase labor at the rate of $6.00 per hour if land is available for
the project. (Research Advisory Committees should not necessarily allocate all the available labor at the annual meeting unless the proposed projects
are of high quality and deemed important. A small reserve of labor to be allocated before the advent of the field season would provide some
flexibility to researchers whose needs for land and labor were not anticipated at the date of the Advisory Committees’ meetings.
5. “Statements detailing projects and hours used will be sent to the departments concerned on a quarterly basis.
6. “Guidelines have been established to differentiate between general Station work and Project work for determining the allocation of labor hours.
7. “Proceeds from these recharges will be placed into a special Field Station Budget Provision. A portion of these funds will remain in Field Stations
to offset their operating costs with the remainder to be returned to the Associate Directors of campus or of the Cooperative Extension Service, in
proportion to the aggregate amount paid into this Fund by their respective departments or units. These funds will be expressly designated and
restricted for use in support of research at the Field Stations. Each Associate Director will develop policy and criteria for allocation back to the
departments or units.
8. “Special expenditures and equipment usage will be recharged to individual projects as in the past.
9.”Field Station Superintendents who hold a research appointment with an Experiment Station department and have projects requiring labor will need
to seek funds from the department concerned to comply with the recharges outlined.
“Questions concerning these guidelines should be addressed to Warren Schoonover.
>Raguse, C. A., Chair, HFS/SFRFS Research Advisory Committee, January 7, 1977.
Letter to the committee forwarding Systemwide letter that implemented the dollar per hour recharge.
Entire text of letter:
“1. Attached is a copy of a letter out of the office of the Vice President-Agricultural Sciences (December 8, 1976), which formally implements the
dollar per hour recharge. Despite comments made to me suggesting that the HFS and SFRFS would be excluded, at least initially, it appears that the
new policy will be administered without exception. As the RAC, we need to address point 2 quite directly. I would appreciate some words of
wisdom as to how we can best carry out this function. At present, I am inclined to the view that all projects be re-submitted (and, therefore, rejustified through sponsoring departments). (emphasis mine) The RAC would receive them for review by June 1, 1977 and make the project
allocations about June 20.
“2. Also attached is a recently-revised minor capital improvement program for 1977-78, abstracted for the items applicable to all field stations, and
for those specifically for HFS and SFRFS. The circled number under each description indicates present rank in the overall list. Also given are the
individual project costs and the accumulative totals for the complete list. I have shown the best estimate (guess) for year-by-year funding, assuming
annual state allocations of somewhere in the neighborhood of $350,000 to $400,000 and no re-ordering of priorities, additions and/or deletions.
“I have some comments on the ordering of priorities, as follows:
“a) No. 14 should be increased in priority, because of its value in enhancing station irrigation efficiency and in support of water quality-water
management research.
“b) No. 10 should be decreased in priority because recent modifications in feed handling procedures have decreased the need from the original
condition.
“c) No. 16, increased, because of the support needed for the planned augmentation program for beef cattle research. Assuming an allocation of
$150,000 for this purpose from Vice President Kendrick’s office sometime during 1977 (see item 3 below), it is debatable as to what year the
additional support from minor cap would be most appropriate. Also unknown is what time constraints, if any, are attached to the disbursement of the
Kellogg-McDonald funds.
“d) No. 17, decrease, because of little clear evidence of present need, at least in a comparative sense in relation to other items.
“e) Nos. 21, 26, increased, since they have been in need, as well as on the list for some time. If likelihood for funding is to be increased to a
reasonable level, they cannot continually be relegated to a 3- or 4-year position on the list.
“f) No. 24, increase, as back-up to the augmentation program.
“I would appreciate comments on the minor cap situation. Warren Schoonover has indicated he will call a meeting of the Field Stations Advisory
Committee soon, at which time priorities for the Field Station system as a whole will be ‘discussed’.
(Saved as Funding, Major and Minor Caps)
136
“3. In a letter to Assoc. Dir. C. E. Hess (December 23, 1976), Vice President Kendrick stated that he is prepared to commit $150,000 of unallocated
income from the Kellogg and McDonald Endowments (funds from these have historically been channeled to the Animal Science and Agronomy &
Range Science departments) in support of the proposal for augmentation of UC’s beef cattle research capability.
“He noted the present disparity between the total cost indicated in the proposal ($220,000), and his intended allocation, as well as the inevitable factor
of inflation. Further, he indicated that the delay in commitment of funds is a result of the projected imbalance between increased operating costs
($45,000 per year) and increased revenue ($30,000 per year).
“He concurred with Assoc. Dir. Hess’ prior recommendation that an ad hoc committee be appointed to ‘…advise on the establishment of priorities
and coordination of the research to be facilitated by this allocation of funds. He asked that the first charge to the ad hoc committee be to resolve the
cash flow operating cost disparity, with immediate commitment of funds by him upon satisfactory resolution.
>Schoonover, Warren E., Director of Administrative Services, Agric. & Univ. Services. January 14, 1977.
Re: “Numbered Paragraph 2 of V.P. Kendrick’s letter of 12/8/76 Announcing Labor Recharges.”
“This paragraph states: ‘Each year the Field Station Research Advisory Committee will review all requests, whether new or continuing, for land and
labor within the total available at each station.’
“Hopefully, this review can be standardized somewhat between the six committees so that it can be accomplished with the least amount of conflicting
instructions to project leaders and Department Chairmen. The new policy will undoubtedly have some effect on the service requested at each of the
nine stations. Review of this effect and re-allocation of available resources should be accomplished by July 1, 1977 when the policy becomes
effective.
“We in Agricultural Field Stations (Station Superintendents and myself) need to know what information and in what format your committees need it
to effectively accomplish the re-allocation. Will it require a complete resubmission and justification from each project leader, or will an updated
‘Project Leader’s Plans for Next Report Period’ to cover plans for 1977-78 be sufficient? The current form has been revised to fit this possible new
use and a draft of a possible letter Department Chairmen to transmit the forms to him for circulation of these forms to project leaders. His signature
on the completed forms would indicate approval of the expenditures and indicate fund source.
“Agricultural Field Stations would need to inform you of the total amount of labor available at each station for allocation to projects. This office, in
consultation with the Station superintendents, must determine the acceptable level of resources to maintain and operate the physical plant, though
certainly some flexibility exists in this aria.
Enclosed is a summary of the 1975-76 labor use at the nine stations and the budgeted labor at each station for 1976-77.
“This letter and enclosures hopefully will provide some information and lead to discussions at the committee meeting in Berkeley on February 7,
1977.”
>Peterson, M.L., Agronomy & Range Science Department. January 19,1977.
Letter sent to Dean C.E. Hess, with comments on the labor recharge at AFS
“I have had a meeting with 10 members of my staff (including Agronomy Extension) and Mr. Myler to consider our response to the policy statement
issued December 8, 1976 regarding the assessment of hourly charges for labor on Projects at Field Stations.
“First, let me say that we recognize that a problem of funding of research at Field Stations exists and that a solution must be found. The
solution proposed in the December 8 policy statement appears not to have given adequate consideration to the effects it will have on a department
such as ours. We urge that you request further consideration of it before imposing the policy regulation.
“The two aspects of the policy that encountered the most criticism by this department were items numbered 7 and 9. My staff and I view that part of
statement 7 allocating funds back to Associate Deans for reallocation to field station research as an unfair assessment on previously approved and
funded research. We are not particularly comforted by oral statements that these funds might be re-allocated back to departments from which they
came. If this were the intention, there would be no purpose in recycling the money which at best would result in overheard loss and needless paper
work. In our department, these charges would most likely come from grant funds. Funds returned to Associate Directors and reallocated to other
purposes constitute a diversion of grant or 19900 funds from their original purpose. A question of the legality of using grant funds for this purpose
might be involved.
“Statement 9 states that Station superintendents will need to seek funds from departments concerned. Five of the Station superintendents appear on
the roster of our department. In the past, they have been entirely funded for research by Agricultural Field Stations and no provisions have been made
to departments to supplement the funds for these purposes.
“The Field Stations in California were expanded in the 1950’s and 1960’s because our agricultural clientele did not believe our campus-based
research was being carried far enough t meet the specific climate, soil, and cropping situations of the more distant agricultural areas. (Pete
studiously avoids reference to the livestock industries, and sheep and beef cattle production are the hallmarks of the Hopland and Sierra
Stations) The Stations were to engage in that kind of research to answer site-specific problems. To avoid, insofar as possible, needless duplication or
competition from Station to Station, the policy was to place the responsibility for research direction with departments. The departments were
expected to respond to advice from industry and university advisory committees. This system seems to have worked reasonably well.
“Some of the Station overload comes from campus-based research to solve more-generalized problems rather than site-specific problems. These
kinds of problems probably should be fully supported by departments.
“If our department were to carry on research at the 1976 level, assessments against it would be an additional $17,066.00, plus $1,831.00 for our
Extension Agronomists. We do not have funds available to pay these assessments.
“Following are some options we considered in our staff discussions last week:
1. “Field Stations can operate within their allocated budgets for high-priority research specific to the area as determined by the Station
Superintendents and their advisory committees. This seems a reasonable expectation. It also is in keeping with the manner we operate our
Agronomy Farm. As costs go up, we cut back or obtain grant funds to cover expenses. This policy for Field Stations would not preclude lower –
priority research if departments would pay full costs. We do this for other departments at Davis that use Agronomy land and facilities.
(value
judgments; always value judgments)
2. “Allocate funds to the department from Experiment Station resources to cover the extra research costs of ‘off-campus research
personnel”, including Station Superintendents. This policy is proposed in the College’s new budget system. Four off-campus Agronomists (Bassett,
Jones, Seaman and Lehman) would be allocated an additional $2,000 each. Three of the five Superintendents have Experiment Station Projects in
137
Agronomy. The ultimate effect of the above policy would be a reallocation of funds from campus to Field Station’s research. However, this would
be in order since they are associated with departments on this campus.
3. “Exempt Station Superintendents from the policy. This is a reasonable suggestion because they are engaged in research significant to the area rather
than state-wide. Paul Puri is breeding wheat, barley, and triticale adapted to the Tulelake area and George Worker is breeding sorghums for the
Imperial Valley,
4. “Transfer support of Station Superintendent research from Field Stations to departments. This would provide the funds to pay the labor fee but
accomplish nothing in generating additional money for Field Stations.
5. “Transfer projects of Station Superintendents to Field Stations. This would save the Department funds, but not generate any new money for Field
Stations, nor provide research guidance at department levels.
6. “Terminate the Station Superintendents’ projects. (How would this translate into the current situation where there is both a “Superintendent”
AND a “Director”, in residence on the Station?) Only as a last resort. Would be undesirable but could become necessary to meet the financial
crisis.
“In order of preference, we recommend:
1) Field Stations operate within budget allocations for high-priority research.
2) Exempt Station Superintendents from the hourly charge.
“We need an early decision on our recommendations because Worker and Puri are currently preparing seed for spring planting. If the policy stands as
written, they cannot proceed with their planting plans. We will not have funds in current budgets to pay charges.
>Frost, Dick, Campus Accounting Officer, UC Davis.
January 24, 1977
Letter to W.E. Schoonover, Director of Administrative Services re the Agricultural Field Stations Recharge Policy
“Vice President Kendrick’s December 8, 1976 letter to the Agricultural Experiment Station’s Associate Directors announced a recharge policy for
Agricultural Field Stations scheduled for implementation effective July 1, 1977. The letter indicated that questions should be addressed to you. After
reviewing the letter with Lowell Myler and Gene Speck I had some questions. As you know, Business & Finance Bulletin A-47 ‘University Direct
Costing Policy’ requires the campus accounting officer to review recharge transactions for compliance with applicable University policies. Since I
am both the Accounting Officer for Agricultural Field Stations (the recharging unit) and the Accounting Officer for many of the user Experiment
Station departments, I have a particular interest in this new recharge policy. My questions are:
1. “Exceptions to BFB A-47 Guidelines
BFB A-47 gives University guidelines governing recharges and provides for granting exceptions to the guidelines. Have exceptions been obtained for
the following guidelines?
a. “All elements of cost resulting from the good or service provided should be recharged to the user …?
b. “Recharges may not be based upon prorations or other indirect method of cost allocation.
c. “Services rendered by general administrative or campus support units are normally provided without charge to other campus
departments/units/activities/projects
2. “Definition of Terms
“Have definitions been developed for the terms used in the policy letter? Does the term ‘Field Station Labor’ include casual labor, contract labor and
temporary general assistance labor or are these costs included in the term ‘Special Expenditures and Equipment Usage’?
3. “Current Agricultural Field Station Recharges
“Will consideration be given in the allocation of the new recharge proceeds that approximately $40,000 per year is currently recharged to Experiment
Station departments for special expenditures (including labor) and equipment usage? As you know, the proceeds from these recharges have been
entirely budgeted back to the Agricultural Field Stations budget to finance the cost of providing the goods and services.
4. “Rationale for Converting Restricted Funds to Unrestricted Funds
“Has a rationale been developed for recharging restricted funds, e.g., federal grants and contracts, converting the proceeds to unrestricted funds
(General Funds) and allocating a portion of the proceeds for University research? Could we withstand a close audit of this practice? Since the
Agricultural Field Stations operation is budgeted as General Funds research, might not a federal auditor take the position that the University is simply
transferring General Funds research costs to federal contract and grant funds in order to augment the University’s research budget?
5. “Support Funding for Field Station Superintendents
“Will an Experiment Station department’s budget be augmented for the cost of the new Field Station labor recharges related to research conducted by
Field Station Superintendents holding a research appointment in the department? I understand this support cost has always been included in the
Agricultural Field Stations budget.
6. “Budget Control for the Recharges
“Will the Experiment Station account/fund/sub be known when the Field Station Research Advisory Committee approves the labor allocations? The
department head (sic) may be unaware of these liens against his/her budgets. I believe it would be helpful to lien the amounts in the General Ledger
and reduce the liens as the recharges are recorded.
“As we approach July 1977 I may have further questions, but I would appreciate answers to these questions now.
cc:
D. La Rue
J.A. Pastrone
J.L. Myler
bcc:
R. E. Padden
M.L. Peterson
>Raguse, C. A., Chair, HFS/SFRFS Research Advisory Committee, February 7, 1977.
Letter to Research Project Leaders re implementation of the $1 per hour labor recharge.
The letter is re-produced in its entirety/
“The Systemwide Administration of the Division of Agricultural Sciences has formally imposed a one-dollar-per-hour recharge assessment for
research labor using in the servicing of projects at all Agricultural Field Stations. A copy of the implementation directive is attached. Please note that
this policy becomes effective on July 1, 1977.
138
“Because this new requirement will force adjustments in many research programs at the Project Leader and/or Department levels, and because of
present uncertainties as to how the policy will be administered, the Research Advisory Committee for the Hopland and Sierra Foothill Range Field
Stations has decided to use the following procedure in carrying out Guideline 2 of the December 8, 1976 directive attached. (See above)
1. “Each project leader will ‘re-submit’ his or her project to the Research Advisory Committee (RAC) by May 1, 1977, by re-submitting the project in
its entirety through a Land, Labor and Facilities request, following the procedures outlined in Communication 15. This is the recommended
procedure. Alternatively, it can be done by means of a continuation form plus check list (available from Ag. Field Stations or station superintendent).
In either case, consultation with the station superintendent as necessary will be required in order to obtain realistic estimates of project labor
necessary, so as to avoid paying six dollars per hour for overage above the RAC allocation. Agricultural Field Stations has developed a set of ‘Labor
Recording Guidelines’, which differentiate between labor assignable to station maintenance and overhead vs. labor assignable to project research.
The guidelines are available by request from the Agricultural Field Stations office at Davis.”
2. “Re-submission” of a project must include approval of the sponsoring department. The RAC can only accept new, revised, or continuing projects
with the assumption that they carry departmental guarantees of funds to cover labor hours requested plus any overage at $6/hour.
3. “The “re-submitted” project labor requests are to be forwarded to the RAC by May 1, 1977. The RAC will then review all requests as an entire
package for the Hopland and Sierra Foothills Stations, and allocate research hours within each Field Station’s labor budget, reserving 15% of that
budget for contingency use.
4. “A review and any necessary realignments of Project labor allocations will continue on an annual basis.
“Questions and comments regarding the above can be directed to me, to Gene Speck, or to Warren Schoonover.”
cc: Chairmen of departments with research Project Leaders; J.M. Lyons, A.H. Murphy, J.L. Myler, P.L. Rowell, and R.D. Teague.
>Speck, Eugene P. Associate Director, Agricultural Field Stations, Davis Campus. March 9, 1977
Subject: DOLLAR HOUR CHARGE. Letter sent to Tom M. Kretchun, Alfred H. Murphy, George F. Worker, Jr., Andrew Deal, Curtis Richardson
Ray D. Copeland, Paul Rowell, Randolph Keim, Y. Paul Puri, and Burton J. Hoyle (Field Stations Superintendents)
“The Chairmen of the Station Research Advisory Committees met last Friday, March 4, 1977 and decided to continue with the implementation of the
dollar an hour charge effective July 1, 1977. Based on discussions with Director Schoonover and Chris Grain of the Ag Dean’s Office in Davis, it is
imperative that we have (prior to July 1, 1977) a firm commitment of funds from the Department Chairmen and Assistant Directors of Cooperative
Extension to cover each research project at the Stations. This means that we need the account number to which each charge is to be made and the
signature of the person having control of those funds. In most cases, this will be a Department Chairman for Experiment Station Projects, and an
Assistant Director of Cooperative Extension Service for Extension Service Projects.
“Please note that a Department Chairman’s signature is still required on Cooperative Extension projects, even though an Assistant Director of
Cooperative Extension signs for funding.
“Because of the shortage of time, I suggest that you work directly with your RAC Chairman and decide between yourselves how you will obtain the
required account numbers and signatures for 1977-78.
“We plan to revise Communication #15 and related forms to be consistent with the new policies, but it will be some time before the revisions are
published. In the meantime, please let your best judgment be your guide.
“The new Labor Guidelines are to be followed when assigning and reporting Station labor.
“A one-year’s moratorium for initiation of the dollar charge was approved by the Committee for the Hopland and Sierra Foothill Range Field
Stations; thus, the above action does not apply to them this year.
cc:
W.E. Schoonover
Irene George
RAC Chairmen:
W.P. Hackett
C.A. Raguse
R.K. Soost
O.A. Lorenz
C.W. Coggins, Jr.
O.G. Bacon
>Schoonover, Warren E., Director of Administrative Services March 14, 1977
Letter sent to FIELD STATIONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE, attaching a summary of the March 4 meeting and noting VP Kendrick’s approval of
the recharge deferral for the Range Field Stations.
>Kendrick, J.B., Jr., Vice President, Agricultural Sciences. March 17, 1977.
Letter sent to ASSOCIATE DIRECTORS regarding “… a portion of the (recharge) proceeds would be returned to each campus and Cooperative
Extension to be used only in support of research at the Field Stations.” Attached was a table (prepared by Gene Speck on March 1, 1977) showing for
the nine Field Stations a “Summary of Estimated Research Hours at One Dollar for 1977-78,” AND a “Comparison with Research Hours for 1976-77
& 1975-76”.
Also attached was a table headed “Allocation of Special Field Station Budget Provision Based on Estimated 1977-78 Hours. In this table, the
“Tentative Allocation (in dollars), based on “Total Estimated Hours Requested”, was, for Berkeley, $3,000; for Davis, $25,400; for Riverside,
$13,500; and for Cooperative Extension, $11,100.
Dr. Kendrick writes: “My December 8, 1976 letter setting forth the recharge policy for the Agricultural Field Stations, effective July 1, 1977,
indicated that a portion of the proceeds would be returned to each campus and Cooperative Extension to be used only in support of research at the
Field Stations. Only preliminary data are available on which to base the allocation, but I recognize the urgency of providing advice for planning.
(Shown in above paragraph)
“These funds are not being actually ‘returned’ to the campus or CE at this time, but are being held in a reserve against which you may make
commitments up to the amount indicated to help offset the impact of the recharge.
“The Field Stations Advisory Committee has recommended that the initiation of recharges at the Hopland and Sierra Foothill Range Field Stations be
deferred one year. Labor usage at the Range Field Stations is considerably different from the other Stations, and additional time is needed to assure
equitable arrangements. Accordingly, the recharge policy will not be implemented at Hopland and Sierra Foothill until July 1, 1978.
139
“At this time you should proceed on the assumption that you will have at least the above amounts available in 1977-78 to help offset added costs.
>Raguse, C. A., Chair, HFS/SFRFS Research Advisory Committee, December 15, 1977.
Letter to J. B. Kendrick, Jr., re labor recharge at HFS and SFRFS, recommending “indefinite deferral”.
Seven reasons in favor of “indefinite deferral” were given. The first three follow.
1. “Large-scale livestock-forage-watershed-vegetation manipulation studies are, of necessity, multidisciplinary and inter-departmental, and in some
instances, inter-campus. Further, these studies are highly suitable for integration with other, tangential investigations that depend substantially on the
larger studies for their undertaking and value. Examples of such tangential projects would include studies on water quality, integrated pest
management, vertebrate predator control, and the interrelationships between diseases and parasites affecting both wildlife and domesticated livestock.
The arbitrariness and cumbersomeness of the dollar recharge will tend to discourage this productive interaction among disciplines, departments, and
levels of research.
2. “The research potential of both Hopland and Sierra field stations is more resource (land, range forage, water, wildlife) oriented than commodity
(crops, livestock products) oriented. This uniqueness has been effectively documented for the Hopland station in the July 1976 special issue of
California Agriculture and the quotes taken from Dr. Ben Madson’s Range Land Utilization Committee statement (p.5) are as valid today as they
were in 1950. Specific, organized ‘user’ groups exist, such as the California Cattlemen’s Association and the California Wool Growers Association;
however, the system of research support based on market orders is much less developed than for other commodities. Research results benefit the state
as a whole and support should, therefore, originate more directly from the state through Systemwide administration of the Experiment Station-Field
Station complex.
3. “Because the research appropriate to these stations is largely of an extensive and long-term nature (i.e., using large field, shrub, and woodland areas
and large numbers of livestock and wildlife), it is subject of a disproportionately high recharge as compared with short-term, intensive research. The
large-scale, long-term vegetation-type conversion-hydrologic studies of R. H. Burgy on the two Hopland watersheds constitute another example.
Moreover, year-to-year weather differences and the need to observe treatment effects cumulative over time (e.g., 3-5 years for some range and
livestock management practices, 10-15 years for watershed and woody vegetation responses), the recharge will tend to discourage commitments
adequate to research needs.”
4. “The basic resource of the two Stations consists of range, which is significantly augmented at Sierra by irrigated pastures. Due to the drought,
forage and water (both for irrigation and for stock water) availability have been severely reduced, necessitating a reduction in both research and
livestock number. The costs of reestablishing normal research capability are significant and should be taken into consideration.
5. “A major argument in favor of the recharge policy has been that it would “force” departments and individual investigators to improve research
quality, or at least, eliminate research of trivial value. This may be true; however, the recharge system, with its administrative costs, appears to be an
expensive way of accomplishing that goal. Moreover, “quality” may become synonymous with “low hour” research, and the other companion
projects referred to in 1 above would suffer for lack of an adequate perspective. Effective departmental review procedures and a diligent Research
Advisory Committee appear to remain a more desirable means.
6. “The actual origin of the recharge policy was in a commodity-marketing order disparity, a situation not likely to be found at either Hopland or
Sierra.
7. “Present and future research of Station Superintendents will be jeopardized by this mechanism, since sponsoring departments may have neither the
funds not the inclination to underwrite these additional research costs.”
>Schoonover, W., Chair, Field Stations Advisory Committee. April 18, 1978.
Minutes of the meeting, held on the Berkeley Campus.
Attending were: Robert Soost, Ivan Thomason, Charles Coggins, Jr., Charles Raguse, Don Nielsen, Oscar Bacon, Oscar Lorenz, Gene Speck, Dave
Schlegel, Wesley Hackett, Warren Schoonover.
One agenda item was “Review of the $1.00 per hour recharge”
From the minutes:
“The dollar-per-hour recharge was reviewed and discussed at length. While it is apparent that there is increased clerical work on behalf of Field
Station staff, there has not yet been sufficient experience with the system to permit effective evaluation. It was decided that, at a minimum, another
six months’ experience should be obtained, after which evaluation should be made. Criteria for evaluation need to be established.
“The request from the Research Advisory Committee for the Range Field Stations to continue the exemption of those Stations from the recharge
procedures was reviewed and discussed. With the exception of the Chair of the Research Advisory Committee for the Range Field Stations (emphasis
mine), there was general consensus that the Range Field Stations should be subject to the same recharge policy as all other stations.”
Raguse, C.A., Chair, HFS-SFRFS RAC. April 19, 1978.
Letter to Dr. James B. Kendrick, Vice President, Agriculture and University Services.
“As Chairman of the Hopland and Sierra Foothill Range Field Stations RAC, and as a member of the Field Stations Advisory Committee (FSAC), I
wish by this letter to appeal a decision of the FSAC, chaired by Warren Schoonover and meeting in Berkeley on April 18, 1978. “The decision was to
not extend the deferral of the dollar per hour recharge for the Hopland and Sierra Field Stations for an additional year (July 1, 1978 to June 30, 1979)
“The present appeal is based on the rationale advanced in my letter of December 15,1978 from the RAC (copy attached). The substance of this letter
was presented to the FSAC on April 18. I will briefly re-summarize the salient points below:
“1. The problem that the dollar recharge was instituted to alleviate had its origin in a marketing order support situation for an annual commodity.
These problems have not occurred at Hopland and Sierra and are not expected.
“2. The two Stations presently have neither excessive project hour allocation demands nor existence of irrelevant research. Moreover, the RAC
believes it can satisfactorily handle the potential of either, should they occur in the future.
“3. The research programs at the two Stations are strongly multi-disciplinary and inter-campus (see point 1. of the December 15 letter).
“4. The research programs are resource, rather than commodity, based.
“5. The research programs are extensive in nature and often long-term.
“In addition, some members of the FSAC (on April 18) considered that the dollar recharge should be continued at least long enough to evaluate it
adequately, whether or not it was eventually retained as a permanent device. It was further reasoned by some (in opposition to points 3, 4, and 5
above) that the two Stations are in fact more similar than dissimilar to the other Field Stations in the system. If so, the value of this trial evaluation
period should be enhanced by permitting a portion of the system to operate without the recharge in force.
140
“Representing both the RAC and Project Leaders for these Stations, I respectfully ask your consideration of this appeal I believe that the soundness
and cogency of the December 15 request merits this review.”
cc: H.F. Heady, Assistant Vice President, Agriculture & University Services
>Heady, Harold F., Assistant Vice President, Agriculture & University Services. May 3, 1978.
Letter to Director Warren Schoonover re exemption of the HFS and the SFRFS from the dollar per hour recharge for one year.
“I concur in your recommendation for exempting the two range Field Stations … until June 30, 1979. Objective evaluation of the program with
agreed upon criteria should be completed by that time when a permanent solution should be found.
>Schoonover, W., Dir. of Admin. Services, Office of the Vice President, Agric. & University Services. May 5, 1978.
Letter to Charles Raguse re temporary exemption of HFS/SFRFS from the dollar-per-hour recharge.
“In response to your request to have the Range Field Stations exempted from the dollar-per-hour recharge, Assistant Vice President Heady has
approved the request with the understanding that the exemption will apply only through June 30, 1979. After that date, we will move to bring the two
Range Field Stations into conformity with the recharge system in effect at the other Field Stations.”
>Schoonover, Warren E., Director of Administrative Services. May 11,1978.
Letter to MEMBERS OF THE FIELD STATIONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE, attaching “notes from our meeting on April 18,1978.
Relaying decision on exemption of the “Range Field Stations” cc: H. F. Heady
“Attached are notes from our meeting on April 18, 1978. Please let me know if you find anything that needs to be corrected. Subsequent to our
meeting, the recommendation on the exemption of the Range Field Stations from the dollar per hour recharge was taken forward to Vice President
Kendrick. After discussion, it was decided that the current exemption would be continued through June 30, 1979, with the understanding that as of
that date the Range Field Stations would be brought into conformity with the other Field Stations as regards to recharge policies and procedures. It
should be understood that we will move forward with a review and evaluation of the recharge activities and perhaps there will be general
changes prior to that date.
>Raguse, C.A.. Chair, HFS/SFRFS RAC. June 14, 1979.
Letter to H.F. Heady, Associate Director, Agricultural Experiment Station, Berkeley Campus.
“I am writing to inquire about the status of the general review of the Agricultural Field Stations dollar-per-hour labor recharge.
“Previous administrative action, summarized in letters of May 3, 5, and 11, 1978 (copies attached) implied 1) There would be a general,
comprehensive review of the recharge, 2) The review would be conducted with ‘agreed-upon criteria’ for ‘objective evaluation’ of the recharge
policy , and 3) The Hopland and Sierra Foothill Range Field Stations would, on July 1, 1979, ‘be brought into conformity with the other Field
Stations …’. I have assumed that part of this process would be a review before the Field Stations Advisory Committee.
“I am especially concerned about point 3) because for purposes of responsible research-program planning by both Project Leaders and their
departments, ample lead time is needed. While rumors abound, from my vantage points as chairman of this committee and as a Project
Leader, nothing formally-stated has yet appeared.
“It is particularly important that the aspect of re-circulation of part of the recharge fee through the Dean’s Office be sorted out and,if preserved, be put
on a more visible and orderly basis than is presently the case.
“I plan to call a summer meeting of the HFS/SFRFS RAC, following firm resolution of the recharge policy.”
cc: J.L. Myler, J.M. Lyons, R.L. Baldwin, C.O. Qualset
>Heady, H. F., Assistant Vice President, Agriculture & University Services, UC Systemwide Admin. June 28, 1979.
Letter to Associate Directors re review of labor recharge.
Letter sent to W. M. Dugger, Jr., C. E. Hess, D. E. Schlegel, and J. B. Siebert.
“Over the last six months, we have reviewed the effectiveness of the present recharge system for labor used by your departments at the Agricultural
Field Stations. After discussing it at COSAD and COD, it was determined that we should make a change so that the recharge would be only 50 cents
an hour rather than the current $1.00 an hour. This change will be effective July 1, 1979. Along with the change in the recharge rate will be a
change in the procedure so that the entire proceeds of the 50 cent an hour recharge will remain with each field station to be used in supporting labor
provided at the station.
“In addition to the change in the hourly rate, it has been determined that this new rate will be applicable at all nine Field Stations and the initiation of
this system at the Hopland and Sierra Foothill Range Field Stations will become effective January 1, 1980.”
>Heady, Harold F., Assistant Vice President, Agriculture & University Services. July 3, 1979.
Letter to “PROFESSOR CHARLES A. RAGUSE, Dear Charley:”
“By the time this arrives, you should have copies of the action on the $1.00, now 50 cents, recharge, with changes in the distributions.
Secondly, I’m appointing Bill Longhurst to your Research Advisory Committee. Bill was pleased to be a member.
>Myler, J. L. Director, Agricultural Field Stations, November 8, 1979.
Letter to Paul Rowell and Al Murphy, Supts. Of the HFS and SFRFS re labor recharge. cc: C.A. Raguse
Subject: Notification of Department Chairs and Project Leaders of 50 cent recharge per project hour effective January 1, 1980.
“Dr. Raguse and I discussed this matter this morning. We decided it would be advisable to remind Department Chairmen and Project Leaders of the
recharge policy to be effective January 1, 1980 and secure the recharge account number for active projects.
“Time is too short to expect new “Requests for Land, Labor and Facilities” forms to be submitted by January 1, 1980 for the projects now subject to
review and updating. Dr. Raguse plans to call for these resubmissions by March 1 or 15, 1980. So far as this office is concerned we would not
really need the account numbers before the April 15, 1980 date since recharges are made quarterly, and for your stations this would not be before
submission of the 3rd quarter LL&F report (then only to those projects that have used 200 hours or more between January 1 and March 31, 1980 since
our minimum billing is $100 except for the fourth quarter).
“The important thing is that Department Chairmen and Project Leaders be aware that they must reserve funds for their expected labor usage during
January 1, 1980 to June 30, 1980. (For the 1980-81 year the recharges will apply to the full-year labor usage.)
141
“To make this as simple as possible for each of you, you might send each Project Leader a copy of his 1979-80 “Project Leaders Plans for Next
Report Period”. In this he has requested labor by month for his project. He could then verify if his January 1, 1980 through June 1, 1981 request was
still valid in view of the recharge policy and give you the account numbers as set out in the signature sheet on the “Request for Land, Labor and
Facilities” form.
Murphy, Al, Superintendent, Hopland Field Station.
November 19, 1979
Letter to all Project Leaders at Hopland re the 50-cent per hour recharge to begin January 1, 1980.
“Starting January 1, 1980, all research projects will be assessed $0.50 per hour for labor use; Mr. Myler has asked me to contact each Project Leader
for a review of his labor expectation for the period January 1, 1980 to June 30, 1980 (sic). Attached is a copy of the Project Leader’s plans as
submitted June 15, 1979. Would you kindly review your labor requests and determine if any changes should be made, and then let me know your
revised estimate. Overages of labor are charged at $6.00/hour, therefore, be sure your estimates are adequate enough to cover the expected labor
needs. We will need your Project’s recharge number to process the labor charge (see attached signature sheet).
>Raguse, C. A., Chair, HFS/SFRFS Research Advisory Committee. March 4, 1983.
Letter to H. Myers re labor recharges. See also Myers, Harold of March 7, 1983, in reply.
“It has come to my attention that three different versions of forms dealing with labor recharges are about, i.e., the ‘old’ version, with which most
project leaders and department chairs are now familiar, an interim version, which includes the critical wording ‘…if needed…’, and a third version, in
the revised Communication 15 (Revision No. 6, February 1, 1983), which has two separate places for listing ‘Name and Number of Account to be
Charged’, and does not contain the construction ‘…if needed…’.
It is my interpretation that dollar amounts listed are not available except a) for unforeseen special costs, or b) for labor above that assigned and after
all Station labor hours have been exhausted.
“My request is for a written statement from AFS Administration clarifying the matter. I would like to receive it in time to distribute it to the RAC
well before the March 18 meeting, so that we do not need to take time away from other business in order to state the ground rules on this point.
cc: D. W. Rains
R. W. Touchberry
RAC
Myers, Harold, Director, AFS 7 Mar 1983.
Letter to C.A. Raguse (as Chair of the HFS-SFRFS RAC); Subject: Project Labor Recharges (Reply to my 4 Mar 1983 letter to Myers)
“Your interpretation is correct. There has not been a change in policy regarding project recharging. The policy has been and continues to be as
follows:
1. Research services including labor used beyond that assigned shall be recharged to the Project Leader at rates approved by the Director of
Administrative Services for Agriculture and University Services. Guidelines defining project labor are available from the Field Station
Superintendents.
2. “Labor hours used to obtain yield data are chargeable to the project. This shall include either Field Station labor or contract labor.
3. “Recharges for special use of equipment, water, supplies, energy, or special services may be made by agreement between the Project Leader (with
approval of the Head of the Administrative Unit authorizing the funding source) and the Station Superintendent.
4. “Labor Guidelines shall be followed by each Station Superintendent in charging labor to projects. Such agreements for recharge would normally
be worked out prior to review of the project by the Research Advisory Committee.
5. “The Project Station Identification Number (30 through 99) shall be used by the Superintendent and his work force in recording labor supplied to
the project. Employee daily time sheets are maintained at each Station and are the source of all labor records.
“Labor costs over and above that assigned to a specific project will not be charged to that project unless all of the labor hours assigned to the Field
Station for research and approved for recommendation by the RAC have been exhausted. Then, overage hours will be charged to all Project Leaders
at a rate of $7.35/hour, or at an established rate agreed upon by an arrangement between the Superintendent and the Project Leader, then only the
actual cost will be charged. If Field Station Labor is used, then the $7.35 rate will be used.
“If you have any further questions, please feel free to call me.”
>Raguse, C. A., Chair, HFS/SFRFS Research Advisory Committee. May 31, 1983.
Letter to Harold Myers re use of new computer for research labor hour records.
“Historically, one of the problems in dealing with new or revised project proposals has been arriving at a reasonably-accurate estimate of labor
needed. Often this has been little more than a good guess.
“As the Station is shifting from development of facilities (road building, clearing, fence-building, water development), to a larger proportion of
research-allocated labor it would be most helpful if some good records of labor required for specific tasks could be kept, and made available to
prospective researchers. For example, weighing of cattle, plot area preparation and fencing, plot monitoring for gopher control, feeding of
supplements, and other routine tasks. Also, it would be of interest to know the time required to irrigate specific areas, such as in the Haworth and
Campbell Fields. And, the time needed to conduct standard hay-making operations of cutting, raking, and baling, as is now being done in the
Campbell Field. The value of the latter is that it relates to conduct of such an operation on difficult terrain – not a typical valley situation.
“The computer could alleviate the tedium required to compile such data where the operation is carried out by more than one person over a period of
more than one day. A side benefit of this approach would be development of good Station data on labor requirements for research, maintenance, and
travel. As a small example, the afternoon of Friday, May 27 would show for a particular employee 0.5 hour (or whatever) travel from Headquarters
to Campbell Field, 0.5 hour travel return, 1 hour raking, and the remainder to whatever other work the time was devoted to.
“Properly coded, this should pose little difficulty in logging in – the computer does the compiling and sorting as requested. As research labor needs
and requests will continue to increase, it would be most appropriate to embark on a systematic accounting of time allocation, which will accrue to the
benefit of both Station maintenance and service of research projects in an efficient manner.
cc: R. E. Delmas
D. N. Springsteen
RAC members
142
>Raguse, C. A., Chair, HFS/SFRFS Research Advisory Committee, November 7, 1983.
Letter to Mike Connor, Supt. SFRFS, and Al Murphy, Supt., HFS re “research hours expended and the basis for charging overage”
“It should come as no surprise to any of us ‘old-timers’ who participated in the famous ‘Dollar-per Hour Recharge’ plan of some years ago
that arriving at a sound and universally agreed upon basis for charging overage will take some time, with adequate opportunity for
discussion.
“Because the basis for assessing overage can be little better than the basis for allocating hour to begin with, it seems that we must all contribute to
sounder means of doing the latter than we have been able to do in the past.
“I would suggest that each of you work with your Project Leaders to determine qualitative categories for assigning labor usage. Two examples (from
my Forbes Hill fertilizer study) are: 1) Total hours required to gather cattle, weight them, and return them to the respective fields. Since this is partly
a function of numbers handled, that needs to be taken into account; and 2) Total hours spent in constructing fence for a plot area of defined size and
fencing requirements. Ideally, you should be able to qualitatively account for 90% of the yearly total.
“It will only be after Project Leaders have been provided a better basis for estimating their annual labor needs that they can provide an estimate with
reasonable margins of uncertainty. With the advent of the new computers and the fact that each Station employee daily assigns his/her hours to one or
more Projects, it should only be a matter of a year or two until a creditable system can be worked out.”
Prescription Land Clearing, Control Burns & Woodcutting
Raguse, C. A., Chair, HFS/SFRFS Research Advisory Committee, February 4, 1976.
Letter forming a committee to generate criteria for site classification to be used for VTC under PROP-AUG.
Essence of the letter:
“The procedure is as follows:
Generate criteria for site classification and site management. As a point of departure, I submit the recommendations of D. Cornett. In addition, I
recommend that the triangle of land in H-7 marked “WHS” on the map be fenced out as a wildlife-habitat and study preserve. Further, in H-9,
Ceanothus stand reduction to useful browse levels can be accomplished by topping rather than by complete clearing. Submit criteria directly to P. L.
Rowell (I would appreciate an information copy).
On the basis of our February 2 meeting and additional criteria developed as a result of No. 1 above, P. L. Rowell and R. E. Delmas will mark, on site,
sample areas of sufficient size to indicate how H-7 and H-9 will be handled.
The inspection committee,
G. E. Bradford
G. L. Huntington
W. M. Longhurst
P. L. Rowell
C. B. Wilson
The work will then proceed, leaving to AFS to determine whether a contract woodcutter is to be employed, or whether all work can be done by the
Station crew.
cc: J. M. Lyons
J. L. Myler
>Harvey, W.A., W.H. Johnson, and F.L. Bell. IN: Down to Earth, Summer 1959.
Control of oak trees on California Foothill Range.
A 4-page report on the use of 2,4-D amine and2,4-D-2,4, 5-T to kill blue oak, black oak and interior live oak on foothill land suitable for livestock
grazing. Two methods were used: Stump and cut-surface treatment and results given for tests in Glenn and Placer counties. The use of 2, 4-D amine
was recommended as both effective and economical. The concluding statement reads: “It is estimated that some 6,000,000 acres of our California
woodland-grass foothill range could profit from such improvement.” Four of the nine references cite list Oliver A. Leonard as the sole or primary
author along with W.A. Harvey. Leonard was a research scientist and Harvey was a CE specialist. Both were located in the Botany Department on
the Davis Campus, as this was where weed science and weed control work was centered. Walt Johnson was Farm Advisor, located at Auburn in
Placer County, and “Monte” Bell was Farm Advisor located at Orland in Glenn County. All listed here were highly-regarded and productive workers
in the State Experiment Station and University of California activities of those times. I knew Bill Harvey, Walt Johnson and Monte (from “Fremont”)
Bell personally and my comments here are based on my experiences as well as many others of their peers.
>University of California and Charles Sellers. 1976.
Contract between UC and Charles Sellers for the latter to purchase oak trees on SFRFS land UC for the purpose of making firewood
AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is entered into between The Regents of the University of California (hereinafter called “University”) and Mr. Charles Sellers
(hereinafter called “Contractor”.
IT IS AGREED AS FOLLOWS:
UNIVERSITY AGREES:
1. To sell trees for firewood from parts of Haworth pasture of the SFRFS to Contractor at a cost of $ per cord.
Certain designated trees will be marked University personnel not to be cut.
CONTRACTOR, on behalf of himself, his employees, agents, and assigns, agrees:
2. To buy from University, trees in Haworth pasture of the SFRFS at $ per cord except for trees marked not to be cut.
Additional trees not to be cut may be marked at any time.
3. That cords of wood will be counted and marked by University and Contractor once each week at a time agreeable to
Contractor. If University agrees, longer periods between counting will be acceptable providing no wood is removed
prior to marking.
143
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
To pay for wood prior to removal from Haworth pasture. Payment to be made by check or money order made
payable to The Regents of the University of California. Checks or money orders to be delivered or mailed to the
SFRFS, P.O. Box 28, Scott-Forbes Road, Browns Valley, CA 95918, Attention Dr. P. L. Rowell.
To cut stumps as low as possible and treat cut stumps with 2,4-D material.
To put limbs and brush in small piles.
To refrain from use of trucks, heavy equipment on land when it is too wet and would cause erosion or damage the
soil. Dr. P. L. Rowell, superintendent of the SFRFS, shall determine when the soil is too wet and shall notify
Contractor when, because of soil conditions, wood removal will not be allowed.
To be careful of fire and caution all of Contractor’s employees and/or agents to be careful of fire. Contractor
further agrees to have two backpack water pump extinguishers available at all times when any chainsaw is in use.
To be careful of gates and fences, and to caution Contractor’s employees of same. If a gate is closed, close it after
entering. If a gate is open, leave it open.
To disturb livestock in the fields as little as possible.
To keep the premises clean and to caution Contractor’s employees and/or agents not to scatter trash, cans, papers,
etc., in the area.
To indemnify, hold harmless, protect and defend University, its employees, and/or agents from and against any and
all claims, costs of liabilities in any manner arising from the performance of this Agreement, save and except injury
or damage caused by the sole negligence of University.
To carry the following minimum general liability insurance and through his insurance agent supply evidence to
University of this coverage. The insurance carrier is to give University ten days written notice prior to cancellation
or termination of insurance coverage.

Bodily Injury
$100,000 per individual
$300,000 per occurrence

Property Damage
$100,000
To carry Workmen’s Compensation on his employees and agents in an unlimited amount as required by the laws of
the State of California.
To obtain, prior to beginning performance under this Agreement, a Timber Operator Permit from the California
Division of Forestry that is valid during time of wood cutting.
GENERAL TERMS:
16. This Agreement is effective upon signing by Contractor and by _____________________________ on behalf of
the University and will be in effect from the date of signature in ______________ 1976 until December 1976. The
Agreement may be extended beyond December 1976 by mutual written consent of both parties to the Agreement so
long as the extension is worked out prior to the above specified date.
17. The Agreement may be terminated by Contractor on 60 days written notice that University agrees that it has
received complete payment for all wood cut at the time of such termination.
18. University shall have the right to terminate this Agreement upon 90 days written notice to Contractor, or at any time
during the period of the Agreement if Contractor fails to make proper payment for wood before its removal from the
premises, fails to maintain liability insurance as specified in the Agreement, or fails to abide by any of the terms of
the Agreement.
2.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement this ________ day of _______________1976.
THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
By ______________________________________________
W. E. Schoonover
Director of Administrative Services
MR. CHARLES SELLERS
(Contractor)
By________________________________________________
>Cornett, Duane, M.S. student in Range Management, UC Davis. January 1976.
Unpublished paper, Management considerations for Haworth Fields H-7 and H-9; related to PROP-AUG.
This was done as a part of my (CAR) efforts to develop a set of guidelines to be applied in vegetation-type conversion (VTC) of foothill rangelands.
Duane Cornett was my student and he conducted other site analysis work at SFRFS.
The brief paper (two pages) is divided into three sections, as follows:
I. Preliminary determination or productive potential.
II. Suggested techniques.
III. Summary (Summary points follow)
A. Consider strip clearing of 50% of the total area, with attention to important browse species, riparian habitat, soil characteristics, and slope
categories.
B. Preserve a mosaic of habitats, aimed toward multiple-species animal use
C. Design a manipulation program for comparative values, considering the Forbes and Porter areas.
D. Exercise particular care with management of Ceanothus species.
144
E. Consider potential future value of shrubs as a major protein source for wild and domestic herbivores managed in a multiple-use program.
>Litton, R. Burton, Jr. July 1974.
Visual vulnerability of forest landscapes. J. of Forestry 72(7): (no pagination given on reprint) This paper was one of the formative influences for
generating VTC criteria.
ABSTRACT – Management decisions in land use planning, and in preparation of environmental impact statements, should be made with the
recognition that their physical results will alter the visual landscape. Certain characteristics can help predict the landscape’s vulnerability or
resistance to such man-made visual impacts as roads or timber harvest. The planner must recognize (a) landscape compositional types, (b) sensitive
parts and locations, and (c) outside influences and inherent effects, such as orientation, climate, seasons, slope, and soil and vegetation surfaces.
(emphases mine)
Concluding paragraph:
“For purposes of this paper, my thesis is this: Before you consider the impact of any alterations, first consider the landscape as a resource in its own
right and analyze its visual vulnerabilities. With this background of understanding, it should be easier to design alterations that will lie easily upon the
landscape.”
In the implementation of land clearing at the SFRFS under the “Proposal for Augmentation…”, a concerted effort was made to abide by these
principles.
>Raguse, C. A., Chair, HFS/SFRFS Research Advisory Committee, February 4, 1976.
1.
Letter forming a committee to generate criteria for site classification to be used for VTC under PROP-AUG.
Essence of the letter:
“The procedure is as follows:
1. Generate criteria for site classification and site management. As a point of departure, I submit the recommendations of D. Cornett. In addition, I
recommend that the triangle of land in H-7 marked “WHS” on the map be fenced out as a wildlife-habitat and study preserve. Further, in H-9,
Ceanothus stand reduction to useful browse levels can be accomplished by topping rather than by complete clearing. Submit criteria directly to P. L.
Rowell (I would appreciate an information copy).
2. On the basis of our February 2 meeting and additional criteria developed as a result of No. 1 above, P. L. Rowell and R. E. Delmas will mark, on
site, sample areas of sufficient size to indicate how H-7 and H-9 will be handled.
The inspection committee,
G. E. Bradford
G. L. Huntington
W. M. Longhurst
P. L. Rowell
C. B. Wilson
Check this out
2.
The work will then proceed, leaving to AFS to determine whether a contract woodcutter is to be employed, or whether all work can be done by the
Station crew.
cc: J. M. Lyons
J. L. Myler
>Rowell, Paul, Supt., SFRFS. March 2, 1976.
Letter to C. A. Raguse, re tree marking in H-7
“Rick Delmas, Don Springsteen and myself have marked oak trees not to be cut and areas not to be cleared in Field H-7 per your instructions at the
February 2nd HFS-SFRFS RAC meeting, and your letter of February 4th.
“I feel the H-7 is now ready for the Inspection Committee to look at.”
>Raguse, C. A., Chair, HFS/SFRFS Research Advisory Committee, October 18, 1983.
Letter to Harold Myers re woodcutter contract at SFRFS for clearing in the Shubert Watershed.
“As a result of discussion at the RAC meeting at the SFRFS on October 13, 1983, work will begin this season to do a model project of selective
clearing, as previously scheduled, on parts of the Shubert Watershed. A local woodcutter, Charlie Sellers, has contracted with UC for most of the
clearing work done under the Kellogg-McDonald program. A prescription for doing this was worked out by a subcommittee of the RAC in 1976,
using Haworth H-7 as a model. Subsequently, Sellers worked under the direction of Station Superintendent Rowell and Don Springsteen, doing a
creditable job and showing exemplary willingness to conform to the dictates of this Station plan.
“Sellers also collaborated with Dr. James Bartolome’s student, Mitchell McClaren, in work with their blue oak stand age study. McClaren’s letter to
Supt. Connor attested to Seller’s competence and cooperative spirit.
“This letter is to specifically request that Mr. Sellers be retained for the remaining clearing work on the Station. It is important to the integrity of
research conducted and to maintain the prescription approach to clearing that a dependable and cooperative person be retained, and Mr. Sellers has
earned that trust.”
cc:J. M. Connor
M. J. Singer
>Raguse, C. A., Chair, HFS/SFRFS Research Advisory Committee, October 19, 1983.
Letter to Mike Connor, Supt. SFRFS re criteria for clearing work in the Shubert watershed.
“It is assumed that no work will be done in the 1983-84 season that will contribute sediment in the area of the main gauging station. This is to allow
the new access road cut- and fill-banks to stabilize. As discussed at the October 13 RAC meeting, the woodcutter should be employed on the ‘small
watershed’ area first, possibly moving above Road 2 when winter rains no longer form an erosion hazard contributing sediment to the main gauging
station area.
“The Haworth H-7 and Scott 14 Fields should serve as models for manipulation in the Shubert, selectively removing trees and brush to form a mosaic
pattern dictated by the following criteria:
145
1. Leave all woody vegetation in all natural draws, drainage ways and gullies. Where noticeable gulley erosion already exists, it would be
appropriate to place fine limbs and brush from the tree cutting so as to reduce the problem.
2. Leave all woody vegetation on rocky outcrops, since virtually no increase in forage production can be attained there anyway.
3. Leave scattered groups of trees (including all age classes) for aesthetic, shade, and small mammal and bird considerations.
4. Confine clearing to areas of < 30% slope.
5. Completely clear the areas most suitable for improved forage production.
6. Where access permits, drill seedings should made of a rose clover-sub clover mixture, plus single superphosphate. Mel George can advise.
7. Where sufficient white ash spots occur from subsequent burning of brush piles, the seedings should include Perlagrass. This is appropriate only on
deeper soils and on northerly- and easterly-facing slope aspects.
8. Overall, the approach should be designed to enhance quail populations. Thus, brush piles are to be left unburned for several years.
9. Accurate counts of trees in several dbh classes should be made, along with estimates of canopy cover of brush removed.
10. A log should be kept of clearing activity through the season, so major rainfall events can be related to the manipulation sites on a before-and-after
basis.
As Chair of the RAC, I will publicize the work among potentially-interested Davis and Berkeley Campus departments, asking for any interest in
conduct of related studies. (This was a concept I always tried to promote – the incredible opportunities, continually presented as the Station
developed, of nested, multi-disciplinary, contributing studies made possible by Station development per se, but also within large-scale, livestockbased range and pasture experiments. How much better this approach is, than tethering an animal on a plot. But in fact, during most of the quartercentury I worked there, the Station was being developed.)
cc: M. J. Singer
R. H. Burgy
J. W. Menke
>Raguse, C. A., Chair, HFS/SFRFS Research Advisory Committee, November 15, 1983.
Letter to J. G. Morris, Dept. of Animal Science, re his request (Station ID 84) for additional clearing in the Koch & Lewis.
“In response to your letter of October 17, 1983 and your recent note of November 10, 1983:
“ By copy of this letter to Mike Connor, Supt., and K. K. Tanji, Chair of the newly-formed SFRFS RAC (emphasis mine), I am recommending that
this request be actively considered for approval and labor allocation at that Committee’s first meeting.
“By that time, any interest from other departments in vegetation assessment in relation to clearing should have surfaced, in response to my letter of
November 8. So far I have heard from no one.
“As for the long-range policy and planning for presently non-cleared areas on the Station, Mel George has not demonstrated any follow-up interest in
this since his comments at the March 18 RAC meeting. By recommendation would be to identify and preserve areas that would be suitable for a
continuation of needed research on the inter-relationships of oaks to herbaceous vegetation, in terms both of what happens production-wise before and
after clearing and also in terms of changes in botanical composition. For example, Dr. Henricus Jansen of Chico State is applying for an NSF grant to
enable continuation of his present study, based on the accumulated efforts to this point of Duncan, Holland, Kay, Murphy, and others. To do this
would require the emergence of a leader, some careful planning, commitment, and a reasonable amount of financial support. To accomplish all of
this will take time, and the potential to do the work should not be eliminated by removal of all possible sites to do the work.
“However, your stated objectives of 1) allowing better livestock handling and surveillance, and 2) providing grazeable forage on areas now choked
with brush are not in conflict with the above. As long as the type conversion work in the Shubert Watershed is not compromised and clearing in the
Campbell Field (in relation to the potential for work with EBA) is also given high priority, I see no reason why your Project No. 84 should not be
approved, so that work can be scheduled to implement it.
cc: K. K. Tanji
Mike Connor
Mel George
John Menke
The Heady Report
>Heady, H. F. September 15, 1980.
A Review of the Agricultural Field Stations – Programs and Facilities. Unpublished report, 25p.
A very comprehensive and scholarly study. One that will never lose its value.
From “Assignment”:
“The last review of AFS was the Grumbly Report in 1974. It emphasized the political situations of Field Stations, cost of doing research, other nonscientific aspects of the Field Station operation, and briefly looked at research programs. This report briefly (emphasis mine) deals with politics and
costs. It gives main emphasis to the research programs by AES and CE personnel at each Station, how the programs have changed, and the outlook
for Field Station programs and facilities. …
“My purpose was to present a document that identifies strengths and weaknesses which will serve as background for planning the future Field Station
programs.”
From “Principle Conclusions and Recommendations”, p.5:
“ 1. The nine Agricultural Field Stations are the sites of a part of agricultural field research in California. Some UC departments have their own
stations, campus sites are outside Field Station administration, leasing and gratis arrangements are made between UC and private landowners for sites
to do field studies, State of California agencies other than UC do agricultural field research, several federal agencies have field research in California,
and many private agricultural organizations do their own field testing. Neither the place of the Field Stations, also all of UC for that matter, in this
complex of agricultural field studies, nor trends and relationships among the sectors, were subjects of this review. However, enough was learned for
me to recommend that the Division review this whole California situation in agricultural field research as background material for planning its own
research program. UC as well as other agencies look at problems in forestry, fisheries, range management, watersheds, wildlife, recreation, and other
uses of wildlands. The review should not be limited to crop and animal agriculture, but cover the whole of the Division’s interests.”
146
From “Field Station Administration”, p. 25:
“At least three situations facing the Field Stations during the next decade require that the Director of AES become more actively involved in Field
Station administration. One is the gradual tightening of appropriations and a possible change from a posture of status quo for Field Station support to
one of retrenchment.(emphasis mine) …
“Second, the trend toward more CE and less AES use of land on Field Stations is accompanied with possible changes in budgeting, administrative
responsibilities, record-keeping, split appointments, etc., between the two organizations.
“Third, CE and AES employ different systems for recording the person-years and dollars of effort in each project. Therefore, the Division’s total
research and extension effort in any phase of agriculture is difficult to determine. This contributes to the University’s image of poor accountability in
agriculture. This is a Systemwide problem and hence should be tackled at the Director’s level.”
>Heady, H. F. September 15, 1980.
A Review of the Agricultural Field Stations – Programs and Facilities. Unpublished report, 25p.
A very comprehensive and scholarly study. One that will never lose its value.
From “Assignment”:
“The last review of AFS was the Grumbly Report in 1974. It emphasized the political situations of Field Stations, cost of doing research, other nonscientific aspects of the Field Station operation, and briefly looked at research programs. This report briefly (emphasis mine) deals with politics and
costs. It gives main emphasis to the research programs by AES and CE personnel at each Station, how the programs have changed, and the outlook
for Field Station programs and facilities. …
“My purpose was to present a document that identifies strengths and weaknesses which will serve as background for planning the future Field Station
programs.”
From “Principle Conclusions and Recommendations”, p.5:
“ 1. The nine Agricultural Field Stations are the sites of a part of agricultural field research in California. Some UC departments have their own
stations, campus sites are outside Field Station administration, leasing and gratis arrangements are made between UC and private landowners for sites
to do field studies, State of California agencies other than UC do agricultural field research, several federal agencies have field research in California,
and many private agricultural organizations do their own field testing. Neither the place of the Field Stations, also all of UC for that matter, in this
complex of agricultural field studies, nor trends and relationships among the sectors, were subjects of this review. However, enough was learned for
me to recommend that the Division review this whole California situation in agricultural field research as background material for planning its own
research program. UC as well as other agencies look at problems in forestry, fisheries, range management, watersheds, wildlife, recreation, and other
uses of wildlands. The review should not be limited to crop and animal agriculture, but cover the whole of the Division’s interests.”
From “Field Station Administration”, p. 25:
“At least three situations facing the Field Stations during the next decade require that the Director of AES become more actively involved in Field
Station administration. One is the gradual tightening of appropriations and a possible change from a posture of status quo for Field Station support to
one of retrenchment.(emphasis mine) …
“Second, the trend toward more CE and less AES use of land on Field Stations is accompanied with possible changes in budgeting, administrative
responsibilities, record-keeping, split appointments, etc., between the two organizations.
“Third, CE and AES employ different systems for recording the person-years and dollars of effort in each project. Therefore, the Division’s total
research and extension effort in any phase of agriculture is difficult to determine. This contributes to the University’s image of poor accountability in
agriculture. This is a Systemwide problem and hence should be tackled at the Director’s level.”
The “Chapman File”
>Chapman Forestry Foundation. November 9, 1977.
A Request for Land, Labor and Facilities at the SFRFS, submitted by Mr. Dale Chapman for agroforestry work.
Some excerpts from the form:
“This concept is not entirely new – a number of U. S. foresters and agriculturalists have considered these potentials for some time, but it remained for
New Zealand, a little country of 3 million people, and some 40 million sheep and cattle, and a shortage of good timber, to spend adequate research
money, time, and effort to first develop the necessary techniques and practices to make this a sound financial and environmental benefit.
“There are two objectives:
A. To determine if the financial return to the pasture-land owner can be increased by the integration of forest crops with livestock grazing.
B. To determine the feasibility of establishing and using irrigated pasture, following renovation, in the interval between tree establishment (grazing
tolerance) and dense shading.”
Attached to the L, L, & F form is a table, “CONSIGNMENT NOTE AND SEED CERTIFICATE” issued by the CSIRO, Division of Forest Research,
which accompanied a shipment of Eucalyptus seeds to Mr. Chapman, as follows:
1. Eucalyptus viminalis
2. Euc oblique
3. Euc sideroxylon
4. Euc brockwayi
5. Euc fraseri
6. Euc gomphocephela
7. Euc camaldulensis
8. Euc regnans
9. Euc delegatensis
An additional sheet lists a number of seedlings and clones Mr. Chapman acquired from California sources, as follows:
1. Coast redwood, California Division of Forestry (CDF), seedlings
2. Coast redwood, G. Schneider, clones
3. Coast redwood, Dr. W. J. Libby, UC Berkeley, clones
4. Sierra redwood, CDF, seedlings
147
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
Pinus radiata, Dr. W. J. Libby, UC Berkeley, clones
Pinus radiata CDF, seedlings
Eucalyptus Johnstonii , seedlings
E. fraseri, seedlings
E. delegatansis, seedlings
E. winigera, seedlings
E. dalry?, seedlings
E. regnans, Dr. W. J. Libby, UC Berkeley, new clones
Poplars, Dr. H. C. Kohl, UC Davis, clones
>Chapman, Dale. Chapman Forestry Foundation. April 25, 1980.
Field Day Tour of Chapman’s plots, a printed “handout”
“Introduction
During the past 2 1/3 years, 3 test plots have been established here to help determine what tree species and cultural methods are best to use on these
typical marginal sites, used now only for range pasture.
“The main objective is to supply the interested rancher/farmer with information on what trees to plant for ‘profit and pleasure’, and what difficulties
to expect in his planting program.
“The supply of wood for fuel and pulp chips and lumber is declining yearly, and prices for them have trebled in the past 3-4 years. It appears that
interested land owners could enhance their income and property values by a carefully planned and managed program.
“Present Situation
“In this typical Sierra Foothill country at elevations up to 2500 feet, oaks and Digger pine predominate. The oaks grow slowly, and owing to the
heavy deer population, are not regenerating well. The Digger pine has not been considered seriously for forestry because of generally poor form,
although many good trees have been cut and sold on the market with Ponderosa pine. Much of the land over the years has been cleared for native and
irrigated pasture, the net returns on which have been meager.
“The question is: Can the net income be increased by planting trees in these pasture lands? In New Zealand, among other places, much of the sheep
pasture is being planted to Monterey pine, and the success of their program promises to make this little country not only self-sufficient in their timber
requirements, but augment their income.
“There is considerably more summer rain in New Zealand than in California, and the need for irrigation for at least two years to establish the crop is
far more compelling here. Also, water costs are rising, and will limit its use for irrigated pasture as well. The ideal arrangement is probably a treepasture combination which provides both wood and forage under widely varying supplies and prices for water.
“The Present Test Plots
“The U. C. Sierra Foothill Station made available 3 irrigable plots on typical sites – one with an 8-foot deer fence—the “Tea Garden” (CAR Note:
Yes, an Agronomist from UC Davis had an experiment with selections of tea; historically, tea plants were widely grown in the local foothill area), and
the others with cattle fencing, and provided irrigation when needed. In December 1977 a few candidate trees were planted – mainly Eucalyptus
camaldulensis and coast redwood. All plots have heavy clay soils, and many spots are very rocky and difficult to work. The survival rates of the
various species tried over the past two years have usually been very low, and new and different species are being tried, to improve both the survival
and growth rates.
“The ‘Lower Plot’, near the Yuba River, shows a fair survival of Monterey pine clones furnished by U. C. Berkeley, but all hardwoods were ruined by
the deer. The new ‘North Plot’ – only one year old – is flood-irrigated and on a north-facing slope, and is also subject to deer-browsing damage.
“Brief Summary and Present Outlook
“While it is much too soon to form recommendations for tree-pasture combinations, some of the promising indications are:
Certain pines, including Monterey (radiata), brutia, and possibly Digger pine of superior form, appear to be promising candidates.
Where protection from deer can be obtained, several hardwoods, including a few frost-tolerant Eucalyptus, and certain poplars, offer promising
growth rates on these sites.
Black walnut appears so far to be free of damage by deer-browsing, and there may be other nut trees that offer possibilities for both valuable wood as
well as edible nuts and fruit.”
>Kohl, Harry C. Professor, UCD Dep. of Environ. Horticulture. September 21, 1977.
Letter to Paul Rowell, Supt., SFRFS re a request for an agroforestry project submitted by Mr. Dale Chapman.
“The opportunity has presented itself for testing the usefulness of several tree species, primarily Eucalyptus, for bee fodder (Note by CAR: Dr. Kohl
had a project in effect on observation of range and Wildland plants for their value as bee fodder), and, indeed, multiple use, in irrigated pasture
situations at your Station. What will be needed is 3-4 fenced off acres. The experimental plot would be part of the bee project and would be
additional to our present requirements.
“Mr. Dale Chapman, a cooperator on the project, will be seeing you to work out details of place and cost, supposing, of course, that the project can be
accommodated.”
>Kohl, Harry C. Professor, UCD Dep. of Environ. Horticulture. October 20, 1977.
Letter to SFRFS Supt. and C. Raguse re Chapman proposal.
Excerpts from the letter:
“The project idea is to grow trees in, essentially, an irrigated pasture, in rows that are to be circa 20 feet apart. Mr. Chapman has an article indicating
success of such a venture in New Zealand. (CAR note: Mr. Chapman, a man of some means, had traveled to New Zealand to see this at first hand. He
gave to me an assortment of literature documenting the success of this practice in suitable environments.) For the first 2 or 3 years, animals should be
kept out of the pastures, but the pasture should be maintained in good condition by haying or greenchopping the forage. (emphasis mine; New
Zealand pasture managers are experts, and do not cut corners like many of our own) After 2-3 years, sheep can be used in the pasture. Large animals
should not be introduced until the trees are large enough to withstand them. Using appropriate flowering trees, particularly Eucalyptus, and
appropriately flowering forbs such as alsike clover in the pasture mix gives the added dimension of bee forage to the project. The project could be
sponsored through a range-improvement project as readily as through a bee forage project and I have no objections to such an approach if it is deemed
148
more appropriate. It may be that it would also fit a project of Hackett and Sachs (also members of Kohl’s Department) on “Plants as a Primary
Energy Source”. However, that project is not yet fully developed.
“Growth data will be taken yearly on the trees by Mr. Chapman, who will also select and prune them. Beginning density will be 400 trees per acre in
circa 20-foot rows. Final density will be 100 trees per acre, still in 20-foot rows. A copy of all of Mr. Chapman’s data will be given to me (if this
continues to be sponsored through the bee project) and will definitely be public property. While there is no question that this is not a rigorous
experiment, but rather a demonstration, the data obtained should indicate the relative adaptability of tree species and, if the Field Station measures the
forage produced, an overall measure of productivity and economic potential can be made. Likewise, catastrophic problems such as frost injury,
grasshoppers, gophers, deer, etc. can be identified...”
Note to the Chapman File folder: Included with the primary documents is a section of the SFRFS map showing the location of
Chapman’s Yuba River site. It might be useful as an example of all of the little “nooks and crannies” where small experiments or
observational plots have “found a home”.
Cattle Herd Ownership
>Myers, Harold, Director, Agric. Field Stations. October 17, 1983.
Letter replying to R. W. Touchberry re latter’s charge of ‘stacking’ RAC membership, and issue of AFS ownership of cattle at the SFRFS.
Two relevant excerpts:
“In answer to your memo of October 14, let me assure you that there was no thought given to stacking any committee. I assume that by the tenor of
your memo that you are quite unhappy about our recent actions of restructuring this particular committee. It is however, my responsibility to
recommend to the Director of the Agricultural Experiment Station any actions which I feel would aid in the promotion and maximum utilization of
our Field Stations.
(Myers then lists the past and (then) current constituency of the RACs, and defends these memberships)
“I do wish however, to apologize for not informing you of our intent on cattle ownership. Unfortunately I had visited with several members of the
Advisory Committee on certain aspects of the feasibility of AFS supplying certain cattle needs for specific projects. I thought the conversations were
to be held in confidence by apparently they were not. I was waiting until after I spoke with the Director of the Experiment Station before I was to
visit with you. My visit with him was this past Friday but unfortunately rumors beat me to you. I will, in the very near future, ask for a meeting with
you in order to discuss several items of concern which we have.
“If this explanation is not satisfactory to you, please call me at your earliest convenience. I feel that personal visits are much more conducive to
problem solving and I look forward to meeting with you.
Cc :D. W. Rains
C. E. Hess
L. N. Lewis
>Myers, Harold, Director, Agric. Field Stations. February 13, 1984.
Letter to Department Chairs, Program Directors, County Directors. Subject: Research cattle needs at SFRFS
“AFS has been given the opportunity to purchase cattle for research at the SFRFS if there is a need that presently cannot be fulfilled by the Animal
Science Department. Let me encourage you to contact your research staff and request that they submit a LLF form to be submitted to my office. If
your staff have no immediate plans but perceive a need for animals in the very near future, please ask them to let me know by letter of their needs.
“Information which I will need to know is preference of breed, whether cows or stocker cattle, size of animals, number of animals, time and duration
of study, if there is to be a treatment or biological treatment of animal which would affect reuse of the animal for other research purposes and if the
animals are to dry-lotted, irrigated pasture or range.”
Judging by date, this would have been a follow-up to R. W. Touchberry’s letter of Feb. 2, 1984.
>Touchberry, R. W., Chair, Dept. of Animal Sci., UC Davis. October 14, 1983.
Letter to Harold Myers questioning membership of the HFS SFRFS RAC and cattle ownership at the SFRFS.
“In a letter of October 10, 1983, to Prof. G. E. Bradford, Director Lowell Lewis gives as the reasons for forming two advisory committees the
following: (emphasis mine)
Greater encouragement might be given to all researchers to better utilize the stations for their research.
The geographical role of each station might be served more effectively by two committees.
“Both of these reasons seem rather arbitrary and tenuous since both stations are range stations and most of the research at each station is concerned
with range management and productivity including a substantial component of research on wildlife.
“To me it doesn’t really matter that we have two committees, but the structure of those committees is very important. I would like to know the
composition of the two Research Advisory Committees. If the majority of members of each committee does not represent faculty of Agronomy &
Range Science and Animal Science, or Extension Specialists associated with these two departments or related subject matter areas, I for one would
like a logical and scientifically sound justification for the composition. This would be analogous to stacking the Imperial Valley RAC with animal
scientists and social scientists and a minority of plant scientists. (The age-old conundrum: do you have knowledgeable foxes in charge of the
henhouse, or completely objective ninnies? Is the RAC a court with zero prejudice, or a ‘Good ‘ol Boys’ club to run the Station for the benefit of the
Department?)
“One other item that should be put on the table is the ownership of the cattle at the SFRFS. (emphasis mine) It has come to me from a number of
sources that Agricultural Field Stations would like to own the cattle at the Sierra Station. To date I have received no communication from you,
written or oral, that this is being considered. If this is ‘rumor’, let’s declare it as such and let it die. If it is something that is being discussed and
considered I should be one of the first rather than one of the last to know.
Cc :D.W. Rains
C. E. Hess
L. N. Lewis
>Touchberry, R. W., Chair, Dept. of Animal Sci., UC Davis February 2, 1984.
Letter to Dr. Harold R. Myers, Director of Field Stations re beef herd ownership at the Sierra Field Station.
149
First, understand that at the Hopland Field Station (devoted mainly to research with sheep), the Station owned the sheep, while at the Sierra Field
Station (devoted mainly to research with cattle), the UC Davis Dept. of Animal Science owned the cattle.
The letter begins:
1. “It has been brought to my attention by a number of individuals that the Field Stations would like to have ownership of the herd at the Sierra Field
Station. You nor no one in the Experiment Station organization has discussed this matter with me, nor has any member of the field station staff
indicated why the present arrangement of the Department of Animal Science owning the herd at the field station is unsatisfactory. Various reasons for
the alleged desire of the Field Stations to own the cattle have been presented to me, and these fall into roughly three categories as follows:
2. The Department of Animal Science makes a large amount of money by having the herd at the Field Station and that income should come to the
Field Station.
3. The Department does not use the income from the cattle to support the purchase of equipment, supplies and other things needed to conduct
research at the Field Station.
3. Researchers have not been able to get cattle for experimental purposes.”
Need to sort this out
On page 3 of the letter:
1. “It appears to me that what is needed is that the Department of Animal Science and the Field Station both keep records on what is taken
off the Field Station and what is put into the Field Station in regards to the operation of the beef herd for the various experiments on which
cattle are placed, whether they be cows, calves or stocker animals, and that the Department and the Field Stations split the profit or loss
50/50 that accrues from the beef operation at the Field Station.”
The letter concludes:
2. “It is my opinion that the Research Advisory Committee for the Sierra Field Station, along with the Director and the Department, should
assess the validity and the objectives of the Field Station owning cattle and ascertain how that ownership would better serve the purposes of
the Station.
3. “The Director of the field station should be reminded that one of the most important parts of the field station is the group of faculty who
conduct research at these stations, and the departments that provide much staff and other support and encourage that research. These
individuals and units should not be treated as ‘plow boys’ in establishing and maintaining sound and productive research programs. You
need us, and we need you, so let’s work on the same team.”
lzt Research Advisory Committee Discontinuance
>Raguse, C. A., Chair, HFS/SFRFS Research Advisory Committee. October 11, 1982.
Letter to the RAC about my visit with H. Myers on the issue of RAC discontinuance. It’s the end of this series.
“On September 28, 1982 I talked with Director Harold Myers about the status of the RAC discontinuance issue. He gave me a pretty comprehensive
and extensive outline of expected changes. I had a summary of this information typed as a draft and sent a copy to him for review, any necessary
editing, and approval. He returned the draft to me with a written request that I not send the letter to our RAC, since ‘It is likely that the proposal
concerning the projected role of the committee will be through a series of revisions before it is approved by Dr. Lewis…’ He further stated that our
committee will be notified of the proposed alterations when final approval is obtained. Also, he stated in his letter that ‘If any member would like to
contact me in regard to the RAC status, I welcome them to do so’.
See Myers, September 30, 1982
“A number of significant changes in the mission, management and review of the Field Stations are proposed, and it seems clear that while RACs will
probably not be disbanded, they will serve in a strictly advisory capacity to Director Myers.
“Finally, a Systemwide COD meeting will be held next week; these matters are on the agenda for that meeting.”
>Myers, Harold, Director, Agric. Field Stations. September 30, 1982.
Letter to C. A. Raguse, Dep. of Agronomy and Range Science, UC Davis re RAC discontinuance
.Note that the letter was addressed to me as a member of the A & R S Department, not as Chair of the HFS/SFRFS Research Advisory Committee
“It is likely the proposal concerning the projected role of the committee will go through a series of revisions before it is approved by Dr. Lewis, and
for this reason I feel it is premature to send your draft to committee members at this time.
“If you feel that the members of our committee need to be apprised of the proposed alterations in this document, then perhaps a memo should be sent
to them. Of course they should be made aware that as soon as the document has final approval they will be notified.
“If any member would like to contact me in regard to the RAC status, I welcome then to do so. Thanks for your interest and helpful suggestions.”
It turns out that I had had a visit with Harold Myers on September 28 about this issue. See my letter to the HFS/SFRFS of October 11, 1982 for a bit
(but not much) more on this.
>Raguse, C. A., Chair, HFS/SFRFS Research Advisory Committee. September 13,1982.
Letter to Harold R. Myers, Director, AFS re his proposal of July 20 for discontinuance of Research Advisory Committees.
Entire text of letter:
“What follows is an abbreviated synthesis of responses to your proposal. Where appropriate, I have indicated direct quotes. This file consists of a
total of 11 typed letters or handwritten notes, from six RAC members, three CE personnel (two of whom are RAC members), one of the Station
Superintendents, a faculty member who is conducting research at one of the stations, a department chair, and two current Associate Deans (Berkeley
and Davis campuses). In sum, the responses represent a broad range of research disciplines, professional orientation, and administrative level. All
are familiar with the administrative system in which Agricultural Field Stations operates, the nature and attributes of the two Stations (HFS &
SFRFS), and the kinds of research being conducted there.
“General response to your letter of July 20, 1982:
“ The HFS/SFRFS Research Advisory Committee, because of:
1. The uniqueness of these two Field Stations, and
2. The organization and administration of the California State Experiment Station and its research departments and faculty,
performs an essential and useful role in executing its responsibilities as outlined in Communication 15.
150
“A major portion of its contribution cannot be adequately preserved by the system proposed in your letter. Whether as a combined committee or as
two separate committees with adequate assurance of cross-communication, the committee should be maintained, with minimal abrogation of its
responsibilities.
“Specific comments (from the correspondence file):
1. Two persons supported the concept of RAC discontinuance. Both explicitly stated a corollary assumption of establishing a higher-level, broaderfocus ‘advisory’ or ‘research’ committee to ‘provide guidance’, or to ‘…deal with the larger question of research directions, priorities, and
cooperation…’ at the Systemwide level. (emphasis mine) While an attractive concept, in our view the last decade or more of experiments to
implement this concept in the UC system has not supported its feasibility for the present objective.
2. It is not apparent how the proposed new system will maintain or improve the quality of research and the collective compatibility of research
programs. Since both the HFS and the SFRFS represent entire agricultural/wildlands ecosystems, the latter is particularly important.
3. Despite apparent assumptions to the contrary, we submit that Department Chairs may not have the comprehensive depth of knowledge nor the time
to critically review all project proposals initiated in their departments, especially where the proposed research is cross-departmental and multidisciplinary in nature. Certainly, they would be hard-pressed to review fit within the overall station program. It is likely that Department Chairs
typically welcome the RAC review rather than consider it a usurpation of their authority.
4. A number of RAC members (many of whom also conduct research at a station) commented on the value of the RAC as a forum for exchange of
new information and interpretive perspective, and for providing opportunities for interfacing of disciplines to solve common problems in productive
utilization of marginal lands. Similarly, many placed special emphasis on the RAC’s role in enhancement of communication between research faculty
and Cooperative Extension. This latter benefit is directly translated to both local and general publics through more-effective Field Days, tours, and
CE research and demonstration programs (e.g., see letter of August 3, 1982, by William Brooks III, Mendocino County Farm Advisor and County
Director).
5. The RACs have served well in policy matters relating to station development, public relations, and orientation of station research programs. For
example, the following are cited:
a) Marysville and Parks Bar Dam proposals by the U. S. Army Corp of Engineers, and their impacts on the SFRFS.
b) Public hunting and wildlife research relationships at the HFS.
c) Augmentation of the beef cattle research capability for the SFRFS (Kellogg-McDonald program).
d) Recognition of 25 years of research and public service at the HFS.
6. Because of the uniqueness of both the HFS and the SFRFS, and the size and complexity of administrative organization of the University of
California and the California State Experiment Station, the HFS/SFRFS Research Advisory Committee plays a vital communications role, a role that,
admittedly, may not be as crucial for some of the smaller stations.
7. Given the responsibilities of the RAC, as defined in Communication 15 and its Appendix I, ‘…the logical course is to rejuvenate those committees
that are ‘defunct or nearly nonfunctional’, (one respondent’s comment), rather than to ‘disband all committees’.
8. From experience in this committee over the past 10 or more years, and from the responses generated by your current proposal, it is clear that
Agricultural Field Stations can provide substantial support to the research and public service missions of Cooperative Extension. Similarly,
opportunities exist for both HFS and SFRFS to be more responsive to the needs and problems of the various publics in the geographic regions
that these stations serve and are representative of. The RAC can assist in creating facilities that can serve as area communications, research, and
demonstration centers. (emphasis mine)
“Finally, while I believe the above represents a fair and objective consensus of opinion, I take sole responsibility for organizing this letter and,
therefore, for any inconsistencies in interpretation that it may contain. Given the short time available to us in which to respond, I have taken the
liberty of assembling and editing written responses and replying to you with reasonable haste.
cc: L. N. Lewis
J. M. Lyons
C. O. Qualset
D. W. Rains
HFS/SFRFS Research Advisory Committee
>Anderson, John R., Assoc. Dean for Research, College of Natural Resources, UC Berkeley. September 6, 1982.
Letter to Harold Meyers, Dir., AFS, re RAC discontinuance.
Entire text of letter:
“RE: Your 20 July, 1982 Memorandum to Chairs of Agricultural Field Stations Research Advisory Committees stating your intent to terminate the
use of AFS Research Advisory Committees for all Stations.
“You may recall that I objected to this proposal at our last COD/COSAD meeting when you and Lowell Lewis outlined it. Since no one was then
present to represent the Dean’s Office at UC Davis I am surprised to see this proposal formally proposed in a memo to all Field Stations. After
reading it I still harbor my original reservations, so I will put some of them into writing. I suspect you will receive many more from UCD
representatives.
“My primary concern is with the diversity of our field stations and the possible pitfalls associated with treating them all alike. The SFRFS and HFS
are large, complex stations supporting research projects in many disciplines. They are, in fact, quite different from a small station like Tule Lake that
is used for research on potatoes and a grain crop, or some other stations that may be used only for one field or orchard crop. In the case of research
proposed for the smaller stations, the Department Chair, Superintendent and yourself may be competent to evaluate whether appropriate experimental
designs, time frames, etc. have been proposed, and to thus ensure that the field station (and university) resources are not wasted on a poorly-designed
project. In my experience on the HFS/SFRFS Advisory Committee, however, I have found this not to be the case.
“In my experience on the HFS/SFRFS Advisory Committee, Department Chairs or other administrative advisors in many cases have signed off on
projects forwarded without making a detailed scientific review and evaluation of experimental designs, statistical methods, etc. Actually, Department
Chairs may not have the time, nor training, to undertake such an evaluation, and most (all?) Superintendents have not had the training in statistics and
experimental design to critically judge the above. It may interest you to know that the HFS/SFRFS Advisory Committee has returned a number of
project proposals for revision because they were not properly designed. Conducting the research as proposed would have been a waste of time, tying
up land for one to several years and needlessly using the time of station personnel and field station facilities. The latest project to be returned for
revision (twice) would have tied up about half of the sheep and pastures at the HFS, plus costs of yearly labor and fencing, without yielding
meaningful data.
“I don’t know if you have the kind of statistical background necessary to make the above types of judgments, but before you make a blanket decision
about RACs it might be advisable to attend the meetings of at least some of the Committees to learn how thy function. Sometimes it is a good idea to
151
get to know the players and the system before undertaking certain changes. I believe the RACs evolved as a result of the experience and thinking of
several previous U. C. administrators with considerable experience in dealing with the diverse nature of our field stations and the types of research
done on them. As you pointed out in your 20 July memo, research proposals also come from Cooperative Extension and USDA personnel, and in
general these are not as well reviewed before they reach the advisory committee than proposals originating in Experiment Station Departments.
“I will keep this brief by concluding with only two more points – first, service on an advisory committee like that for HFS/SFRFS is a way to provide
a breadth of experience for the members that cannot be obtained in any other manner. Experiment Station and Cooperative Extension staff in
agronomy, range science, animal science, forestry, wildlife, watershed management, soils, entomology, parasitology, etc. are given a firsthand
opportunity of seeing how interdisciplinary projects function and what kinds of problems are associated with such field station research. Because of
the diversity of the HFS/SFRFS Advisory Committee we also can advise researchers of how they might fuse two or more projects, or modify their
project(s), to obtain data they never could obtain otherwise. It is a type of administrative (and scientific) experience that I believe has been very
valuable to me as a member of the Experiment Station. In addition to reviewing specifically-proposed projects, we discuss and argue among
ourselves about how the stations can be best used, how we should try to influence and plan for future uses, etc. I have learned much by listening to
and considering the points of view represented by the different disciplines represented on the HFS/SFRFS Committee. I would not like to have it
eliminated until you have had an opportunity to observe it function.
cc: L. N. Lewis
C. Raguse
>Bradford, G. E., Dept. of Animal Science, U.C. Davis. September 2, 1982.
Letter to Harold Meyers, Dir., AFS, conveying opposition to Meyers proposed discontinuance of the RACs.
“I have recently returned from meetings and vacation to find the copy of your July 20 letter about AFS Research Advisory Committees, which
Charles Raguse has sent me as a member of the Hopland/Sierra Committee.
“The Hopland/Sierra RAC has in my experience been an effective one, and I question whether the proposed review process can perform as effectively
the functions this committee has carried out. A substantial part of its success in recent years has been due to Charles Raguse’s conscientious job as
chairman, but the majority of the committee members have taken the responsibility seriously. Also, the committee has scrutinized projects carefully
and provided constructive suggestions for many years; I remember well presenting my first proposal for research at Hopland to the Committee in
1958, and answering the rather penetrating questions of people like Merton Love and Starker Leopold.
“Admittedly, committees use substantial numbers of hours of people’s time, and may not rate high on tangible output per unit of time invested.
Nevertheless this committee has provided an important communications function, among Agronomist, Animal Scientist, Wildlife Biologists, etc.;
between Davis and Berkeley scientists; and between Faculty and Extension. This function is in my view valuable to the research role of the Station,
and the quality of the work there would suffer from its loss. On those occasions, fortunately fairly rare, when there has been potential dispute over
use of facilities, this has tended to be worked out within the committee or a subcommittee, I believe more effectively than if it were submitted through
the arbitration process outlined in the new proposal. More importantly, I believe a committee of Station users can evaluate research more
knowledgeably, on the average, than Department Chairs and other administrators, and I say that having served as both Associate Dean and
Department Chairman. The breadth of relevant scientific expertise and knowledge of the Stations is simply greater on the RAC.
“Agricultural Field Stations are a valuable resource to the University in providing the opportunity for a variety of kinds of area-specific research and
for interfacing between research and extension. They also serve an increasingly important teaching function. One of their most important roles is to
permit long-term research projects, which produce data and concepts not obtainable from any number of short-term studies. Two examples from the
Hopland Station are Harold Heady’s long-term studies of annual grassland vegetation, and our own long-term work on effects of selection for growth
and reproduction in sheep. The ungrazed (sheep-free) areas at Hopland I think will also one day provide controlled information of great value in
developing rangeland use policies. Whatever the particular administrative structure chosen, I hope the future use policies for the Stations will
continue to provide the opportunity for such activities.
cc: R. W. Touchberry
C. A. Raguse
>Raguse, C. A., Chair, HFS/SFRFS Research Advisory Committee, August 18, 1982.
Letter to R. W. Touchberry re his letter of Aug. 12.
“I want to comment only on the final paragraph of your letter. In a letter dated February 18, 1976 (copy attached) Vice President J. B. Kendrick
established a ‘Field Stations Advisory Committee’, which was constituted of RAC chairs and representatives of the Experiment Station Associate
Directors office for the Berkeley, Davis, and Riverside campuses. (emphasis mine; this committee was a quite extraordinary experiment by the Vice
President’s office, and it fell of its own weight) If memory serves, I believe I attended all of its meetings. It has not met for several years now and I
believe one of the reasons for its failure to provide a functional role was that it was too large, in terms of what it represented geographically, in crops
and agricultural systems, scientific disciplines, local administrative problems, user groups, etc. Therefore, I am hesitant about the true potential for
the single ‘…effective’ ‘advisory’ or ‘research’ committee…’ which your closing statement seems to imply.” (That closing statement was: “It is my
opinion that your proposal supplemented with an effective ‘advisory’ or ‘research’ committee would be a good and sound plan.”) (emphasis mine)
Unfortunately, in my (C. A. Raguse) opinion, the clarity of Dr. Touchberry’s writing leaves a lot to be desired. It could be easily misinterpreted.
>Phillips, Donald A., Professor, UC Davis. August 13, 1982.
Letter to Harold Meyers, Dir., AFS, conveying opposition to Meyers’ proposed RAC discontinuance.
“I am extremely concerned over your recent decision to abolish the Agricultural Field Station RACs. My own experience with a project at the
Hopland Field Station suggests that the RAC fulfills its important role as described in Communication 15. If you perceive that other RACs ‘are now
defunct or are nearly nonfunctional’, then the logical course is for you to attempt to rejuvenate those committees rather than to disband all
committees.
“In our system the RAC is a vital organ for communication among diverse user groups and provides an assembly of informed and committed workers
who can maintain the scientific integrity of research activities. I am particularly disturbed at the assumption underlying your last paragraph on page
5. The University of California is a community of scholars, and as such, the scientific integrity of any research is the responsibility of both the
individual investigator and the entire scientific community. For you to suggest that such concerns are ‘rightfully the prerogative of the Department
Chairman and/or the Associate Dean’ runs counter to the spirit guiding this University.
“I look forward to a suspension of the October 1, 1982, date for your unilateral modification of Communication 15. I hope that by working together
with all concerned parties, you will be able to develop acceptable solutions to the problems that you perceive.”
152
cc: C. O. Qualset
D. W. Rains
A. W. Murphy
C. A. Raguse
>Touchberry, R. W., Chair, Dept. of Animal Sci., UC Davis. August 12, 1982.
Letter to Harold R. Meyers, Dir., AFS, re Meyers proposal to discontinue Research Advisory Committees.
“As a ‘newcomer’ to UC Davis, I can see in your suggested alternatives some gain in efficiency of expediting the paper work and logistics of
obtaining and making decisions on project proposals. On the other hand, it isn’t obvious to me just how your alternative will maintain or improve the
quality of research at all stations and the compatibility of research projects to be conducted at a given station. More specifically my comments are:
1. Page 1, You indicated that the system has worked quite well in the past but you don’t indicate how your alternatives will improve the system other
than reduce the demand on the time of RAC members. I assume that service on these committees is optional. If something is working ‘quite well’
why ‘fix it’, unless your alternative is correcting some unstated problems.
2. Page 4, item 4. It seems to me that an advisory committee could be of much help to the Director of Field Stations in assessing research proposals
relative to criteria a, b, and c. Maybe a committee for each field station isn’t necessary, but I think that an objective advisory group of some sort
could be most helpful and constructive at this point. Both NSF and NIH and most other granting agencies seek the advice of review panels or study
groups at this stage. The philosophy being that no one individual has the essential knowledge and wisdom to effectively make such decisions in a
well-informed way
“In General:
“It appears to me that an advisory group could also be useful in helping to generate ideas and in suggesting directions. Without some guidance by an
advisory group a whole ‘potpourri’ of proposals could result, many of which would be inappropriate for field stations in general, or for a given field
station.
cc: Chairpersons of Field Station Advisory Committees.
>Murphy, A. H., Superintendent, UC Hopland Field Station. August 11, 1982.
Letter to C. A. Raguse, Chair, HFS/SFRFS RAC “Comments on proposed changes in Research Advisory Committees.
“I feel any move to discontinue the Hopland Research Advisory Committee should be approached with caution. Values I see for maintenance of the
RAC are:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
They encourage new and diverse projects.
They conduct public relations functions.
They evaluate research programs.
They determine land and labor requirements.
They act as a coordinating group to encourage needed research in areas where several research disciplines are required to solve problems.
They provide a direct link for Superintendents to research groups, for resolving problems related to technical aspects of research.
They provide a place for exchanging ideas and encouraging input on proposed projects. Past experience has shown that project goals are
usually better developed when the RAC has an opportunity to discuss the research.
8. They provide a place to discuss policy matters and exchange ideas for action on various mutual problems.
“I have some ideas that might be implemented to improve the RAC functions:
1. Have membership consist mostly of those researchers with active work at the Station.
2. Have one Committee for each Station rather than a joint Committee as it now stands.
3. Have a direct link to V. P. – Agriculture office by having the Director of the Agricultural Experiment Station attend at least one RAC meeting
annually.”
>George, M. R. Cooperative Extension Agronomist. August 11, 1982.
Letter to Harold Meyers, Director, Agricultural Field Stations re RAC discontinuance.
“I believe your idea to dissolve the field station advisory committees is not a good one where the Hopland and Sierra Range Field Stations are
involved. (emphasis mine) Research at these field stations involves individuals and groups from Cooperative Extension and the Experiment Station
and from Animal Science, Wildlife, Forestry and Wildlife at the U. C. D. and U. C. B. campuses. The current committee functions very well in
managing the research that is conducted at these two field stations. It is unthinkable that the Field Station Administration and the Field Station
superintendents could make decisions about which research could be conducted. Currently, the superintendents of these two stations are perfectly
capable of making decisions about the availability of resources on the station to support current and planned research projects. These decisions need
to be made down at the level where the work is being conducted and not taken out of the hands of the field station and researchers. I have research
projects at both stations and have serious reservations about any move to dissolve the Range Field Station Advisory Committees.
“It has been suggested on occasion that there be an advisory committee for each of the two range stations. I have no qualms about this idea but I also
feel that in this case the old adage ‘if it works, don’t fix it’, is quite appropriate. The current advisory committee meets about two times a year and
this is not a major burden in time or travel to any of the individuals on the committee.”
>Brooks, William H., III. Cooperative Extension, Mendocino Co. August 3, 1982.
Letter to C. A. Raguse, Chair, HFS-SFRFS RAC , in support of maintaining Research Advisory Committees
“As an Extension representative on a field station advisory committee I am very certain the time I spent was well worthwhile. It provided an effective
link between research and Extension that gave me exposure to research projects and researchers I would never have experienced in any other way. I
have actively participated in research, field days, publicity for the field station, and development of field station facilities and capabilities only
because I was a member of an active research advisory committee.
“As chairman of the Hopland-Sierra Foothill Range Field Station Advisory Committee I hope you will be able to pass some of my reactions along to
Director Meyers. It is my conviction that your advisory committee has provided many positive benefits to our field station program.”
Flowery, and not very well written. It is of interest because it carries a hint of the RACs being a facilitator in bringing Cooperative Extension along to
a closer level with campus research faculty.
153
>Menke, John W. July 23, 1982.
A member of the RAC responds in favor of Dir. Meyers move to discontinue the RACs.
“Basically, I concur with Director Meyers’ suggestion for discontinuance of the RACs for the reasons he states. As far as Field Stations per se are
concerned, the Superintendents could receive adequate review of proposals on an ad hoc basis, by request, to appropriate faculty. I think all the
“appropriate review faculty” are now known by the Superintendents, and all would continue to be willing to act as reviewers when called upon.
“I think it should be up to the range, animal science, wildlife, and soils and water faculty to form another group that takes a Systemwide view of
resource-oriented research programs (not just Field Stations research), and begins to deal with the larger question of research directions, priorities,
and cooperation. To some degree this group has never formed because the Hopland/Sierra RAC played this role on a limited-scope basis. We need
this larger group effort in U. C., and if the discontinuance of the RAC for the range field stations would foster such a group to form, I am supportive
of discontinuance.”
>Raguse, C. A., Chair, HFS/SFRFS Research Advisory Committee, July 22, 1982.
Letter to the Committee conveying a copy of Harold Meyers proposal to discontinue Research Advisory Committees.
“Enclosed is a copy of the proposal as received from Director Meyers. In view of the earliness of the date specified (October 1, 1982) for
discontinuance of the present system and institution of the new one it is appropriate that we consider the issue with some seriousness this summer.
Also, we do not have a meeting of the RAC scheduled until late November or early December.
“I will write Director Meyers to acknowledge receipt of his letter and to indicate that I have sent it to the RAC for review and comment.”
>Myers, Harold R., Director of Agricultural Field Stations, Davis Campus. July 20, 1982.
Letter sent to seven Davis Campus Department Chairs announcing his intent to discontinue RACs.
Full text of the cover letter:
Sent to:
Richard W. Harris, Chairman
Environmental Horticulture
Charles Raguse
Agronomy & Range Sciences
Robert K. Soost, Chairman
Plant Sciences
Noel Sommer, Chairman
Pomology
Charles W. Coggins, Jr., Chairman
Plant Sciences
Oscar G. Bacon, Chairman
Entomology
Jack F. Hills
Agronomy & Range Sciences
"Several of the Agricultural Field Station Research Advisory Committees are now defunct or are nearly nonfunctional due to either a lack of interest
or are a low priority item on committee-members’ agenda. There are, however, several committees that are very functional and are very involved in
an advisory capacity of the research station.
“In order to give the Superintendents direction for their assigned research programs, a new system will be put into effect, which shall place the
responsibility of decision-making into the office of the Director of Field Stations and other administrators whose staff are directly associated.
“Please read the accompanying paper and if you or your committee are strongly opposed to such a plan, please reply at your earliest convenience,
stating your concerns and reasons for opposition. The new system will be initiated by October 1, 1982, at which time the Research Advisory
Committees will be discontinued". (emphasis mine)
In order for this cover letter, or Dr. Myers attachment to be more fully understood, “Communication No. 15, Policy and Procedures for Use of
Agricultural Field Stations”, which emanates from the Office of the Vice President, Agricultural & University Services, must also be read for its Part
4. “Action by the Research Advisory Committee”, which is given below, with the understanding that the reader realizes that it has been taken out of
its necessary context.
“4. Action by the Research Advisory Committee: Research Advisory Committees shall review proposals to determine:
a. Relation of proposal to research goals of the Division of Agricultural Sciences,
b. Appropriateness of the proposal to its Field Station,
c. Scientific integrity of the proposed research,
d. Availability and adequacy of resources,
e. Priority
>Raguse, C. A., Chair, HFS/SFRFS Research Advisory Committee, July 13, 1982.
Letter to the Committee re possible elimination of the RACs by action of AFS Director Dr. Harold Meyers.
“Last week I had the opportunity of meeting the new Director of Agricultural Field Stations, Dr. Harold Meyers.
“ He said that he would soon be sending to RAC Chairs a letter suggesting the elimination of RACs. If done, project approval (L, L & Fs) would be
handled by Director Meyers, with assistance from the appropriate Station Superintendent. If problems arose, Director Meyers would seek arbitration
through the Associate Director’s office (e. g., Associate Deans Calvin Qualset (Plants Sciences) or Warren Evans (Animal Science) on the Davis
Campus), together with the originating Department’s Chair. The above-described sequence is only as I recall it from our conversation and so could
possibly be somewhat in error.
“When I receive the letter from Director Meyers, I will route a copy to the RAC, asking for comments. It is Director Meyers’ intent that RACs that
effectively justify their role will be permitted to continue, although whether in the same functional manner is not clear.
“Meanwhile, I would appreciate it if you would re-read Communication 15 (October 1978 revision) and its Appendix I (Operational and Policy Guide
for Agricultural Field Stations Research Advisory Committees) and begin to formulate your own opinions as to the role(s) of the RACs and whether
the AFS system might function better without them.”
154
Research for Cooperative Extension
No text entered
“Long-term Management Units”(LTMU): A Failed Proposal
>Raguse, C.A., Chair, HFS-SFRFS RAC. 2 Nov 1989.
Proposal: Formation of Long-term Management Units (LTMU) at the SFRFS. A preliminary appraisal.
An eight-page outline, based on Rev. No. 7 of the Station’s Research Project Areas map, showing individual units proposed for Headquarters, Scott,
Porter, Forbes Hill-Haworth, Campbell, Shubert, “Livestock-free Area” (LFA-1), Forbes “Wildland Area”, Lewis, and Koch fields. LFA-2, 109
acres, is embedded in the Koch Field as K1-21. This proposal could have led to consideration of an “Institute” approach to administration and
management, instead of the “Cafeteria-style” system that evolved subsequent to the area’s acquisition after University of California’s cooperative
research program at the U.S. Forest Service’s San Joaquin Experimental Range failed in the late-1950s.
A 7-page informal proposal describing nine management units, based on groups of specific field/subfield combinations, including individual maps
sectioned from the current SFRFS map. These were:
I. Headquarters ……………………………………….. 132 acres
II. Scott ……………………………………………….. 403 acres
III. Porter ……………………………………………... 426 acres
IV. Forbes Hill – Haworth ……………………………1,320 acres
A. Forbes F1-11 – F1-44 …
520 acres
B. Forbes F1 51 & 61……...
692 acres
C. Haworth H1 …………….
24 acres
D. Haworth H2, 3, 4, 5, 11-11…
87 acres
V. Campbell…………………………………………… 490 acres
VI. Shubert…………………………………………….. 550 acres
VII. Forbes Wildland Area ……………………………. 660 acres
VIII. Lewis ……………………………………………. 628 acres
IX. Koch ………………………………………………. 1,250 acres
A. K1-11, K3, K5 …………
1,140 acres
B. K1-21 …………………..
109 acres
C. K6 ………………………
4 acres
Written descriptions were given for all nine units. Where appropriate, previous and current uses were given.
This was discussed at a Research Advisory Committee meeting, but not supported.
“Northern California Research and Extension Network”: NC-REN: A Failed Proposal
>Raguse, C. A. August 24, 1989.
Letter to Kenneth R. Farrell, Vice President, Division of Agricultural & Natural Resources, proposing a Northern California Research/Extension
Network (NC-REN) Entire text of letter:
“I am writing to draw attention again to the forthcoming (April 1990) observation of the SFRFS 30 th anniversary. I hope that a reasonable level of
funding will be allocated from Systemwide resources to support costs of this significant event (including page charges for a section of the concurrent
issue of California Agriculture). Also, that you will agree to write and appropriate editorial page for that issue.
“In addition to the above requests, I have some comments on the particular role of AFS in achieving Systemwide goals as we collectively proceed
with integration, reorientation, and formulation of a viable and vital strategic plan for the Division.
In your address of January 18, 1989 to the newly-established Division Planning Groups you stressed the benefits of integrating AES research and the
CE network. Later in the text of this address (p. 7) you also stated the need for “…development of research-extension centers…” (Emphasis mine)
and experimentation “…with new communication techniques and teaching aids…”. During the remainder of this letter I will describe some
opportunities I envision.
“I have conducted research in pasture and rangeland forage-livestock systems at the AFS SFRFS for more than 20 years. During that time I have
regularly participated in Station Field Days, and either contributed to or conducted CE Farm Advisor meetings and workshops. I count a considerable
number of CE Specialists and Farm Advisors as colleagues, and have conducted and published research where CE Specialists or Farm Advisors were
included as co-authors. I have also served the Division by chairing Research Advisory Committees (RACs), including the years when the Hopland
Field Station (HFS) and SFRFS were jointly served by one RAC. As a result of these and other, related, experiences I have a perspective that may
differ from that of persons who have functioned primarily at one or the other end of this spectrum.
“I submit that a useful means of refining the integration process and facilitating a bi-directional flow of information between our various clientele and
research/extension personnel would be the development of a northern California research and extension network (NC-REN), which would be based
on: Research faculty and CE Specialist activities at the Davis and Berkeley campuses, Research and demonstration functions at the Sierra Foothill,
Hopland, and Tulelake Field Stations, and, An enhanced structure for information transfer
and delivery.
“This concept is diagrammed in Fig. 1, which shows major linkages between three
Agricultural
Field Stations and two UC
campuses.
Similarities in resource use, climate,
and activities
of interested Farm Advisors extend
the network
into the upper San Joaquin Valley.
No
counterpart for the Tulelake Station
exists for
northwestern California.
155
“The usual line of communication between results of new Field Stations research, and delivery of applied interpretations of that research to end-users
is shown in Fig. 2.
Figure 2. A typical pathway between research conducted at an Agricultural Field Station and the eventual delivery of application information from it
to the end user. Other pathways may occur.
“Rates of flow of new information can be sporadic and often less than complete for steps 1, 2, and 3 in the Fig. 2 diagram. This compromises the
effectiveness of step 4. Research=wise, a typical pattern is for an AES research faculty member (or team) to secure an annual, renewable assignment
of land, labor hours, and needed facilities. The research is then conducted, and the researcher(s) move on to other objectives. Quite often (for
obvious reasons) the completed research is published (as rapidly as is feasible) in appropriate technical, peer-review scientific journals. At this point,
the research is presented in terms as close to basic science as possible. It is in the realm of disciplinary-based peers, rather than Cooperative
Extension and end-user networks.
“Fig. 3 illustrates the fact that the structural elements for improving the
situation
just referred to are already in place. What is needed is refinement of the
functions of
information gathering, interpretation at different levels and for different
audiences,
“packaging”. Bi-directional flow of information is equally important, since
it may
significantly influence what kind of research is done additionally, or next.
Figure 3. A simplified conceptual model of an AFS-AES-CE network for
northern
California. The constellation of participants and documentation media
would also
exist around the Hopland and Tulelake Stations.. Other horizontal linkages
exist, as
well as those added by inclusion of the Berkeley campus and involvement
by various
administrators and committees (e.g., Regional Director and Research
Advisory
Committee, respectively), which influence programmatic and resource
allocation
decisions.
Figure 3.
“I see three basic requirements:
First: some minimal, but critical, augmentation of staff at the respective Field Stations, and programmatic dedication of Station Superintendent and
Staff time and intellectual effort to this more organized, but now more time-demanding enterprise.
Second: a re-ordering of Station resource management to reflect an increased level of goal-programming influence on the research being conducted.
I do not suggest creation of an “institute” approach, where the director, as in the case of a campus Department Head, unilaterally establishes and
directs program goals and research objectives. However, the present, almost “cafeteria-style” basis for determining AFS research programs can be
improved upon.
Third: a more direct, and directed, implementation of Division and Station goals by RACs and Regional Directors would be helpful. In some cases, a
much tighter procedure for new project submission, review, and subsequent research program monitoring will be necessary.
“Over the years, the role of the RAC in implementing Communication 15 has been discussed and debated many times. If new levels of relevance and
efficiency of this overall process are to be achieved, the collective foundation, consisting of Agricultural Field Stations administration,
Communication 15, Research Advisory Committees, and now, a new mechanism embodied in the Regional Directors, should be re-evaluated.
“May I close by simply repeating that most of the resources needed for the kind of re-ordering I have suggested are already in place. However,
virtually every element and level in DANR is either directly or tangentially involved. A number of iterations of discussion and planning will be
required. Communication of progress through these iterations must be complete.”
cc: Lowell N. Lewis
>Farrell, Kenneth R., Vice President, DANR, Oakland, CA. September 5, 1989.
Letter to C. A. Raguse, Dept. A&RS, UC-Davis, to acknowledge receipt of NC-REN Proposal.
“Thank you for your informative and interesting August 24, 1989 letter in which you propose several models to improve communication and
information transfer among the UC campuses, agricultural field stations (sic), Cooperative Extension, and the general public
“Several of the models are potentially quite useful. Accordingly, I have taken the liberty of referring your letter and its attachment to Al Donner,
Director of our Office of External Relations, and to Taka Izumi, Director of our Office of Program Information and Analysis, for their review and
comments. When I have their comments, I will again be in contact with you.
“Thank you for taking this initiative.
c: Al Donner (w/ enc.)
Taka Izumi (w/ enc.)
>Raguse, C. A. September 15, 1989.
Letter to Harry Carlson, Supt., Tulelake FS, Mike Connor, Supt., SFRFS, and Robert Timm, Supt., HFS asking for comments on NC-REN – Foragelivestock systems emphasis. Entire text of letter.
“Enclosed is a copy of a letter sent to Dr. Kenneth Farrell, Vice President – Agriculture and Natural Resources, on August 24, 1989, and a copy of his
initial response.
“Field research, and especially grazing lands research conducted at the SFRFS, has been a major part of my professional life blood for 25 years.
From my research, extension, teaching, and administrative (chair of the Hopland-Sierra stations’ RAC for a number of years) experience I see the
potential for some rewarding new frontiers in research accomplishments, as well as in service to our various clientele.
“I have begun to form a reasonably exact and specific analysis of how some of these goals may be achieved. The ideas expressed in my letter to V. P.
Farrell are only a beginning. I would appreciate any comments that you may have, and especially those that point out gaps or inaccuracies in my
reasoning.
cc: John Anderson, Chair, Sierra Station RAC
Milt Jones, Chair, Hopland Station RAC
Terry Salmon, Regional Director, Northern Area
>Farrell, Kenneth R., Vice President, DANR, Oakland, CA September 18, 1989.
Letter to C. A. Raguse, Dept. A&RS, UC-Davis re SFRFS 30TH anniversary and referral of NC-REN. Entire text of letter.
156
“As I mentioned in my September 5 letter, I referred your August 24 letter to Taka Izumi, Director of our Office of Program Information and
Analysis, and to Al Donner, Director of our Office of External Relations, for their review and comments. Regarding the Sierra Foothills Field
Station’s 30th anniversary, Al Donner advises me that he has been in touch with you about options for possible coverage of this event in California
Agriculture and his staff is working with you on this.
“I agree it is critical for the Division to address the issue of more effective use of field stations and mechanisms for getting research results to users
through Extension. Through the reorganization, the Division is moving in the direction of an improved system for achieving an effective researchextension continuum.
“One major component contributing to this has been the development of a coordinated, Division-wide planning system involving both AES and CE
staff ( Division Planning Groups),workgroups, Council of Associate Deans and Directors (CADAD), and the Council of Deans and Directors
(CODAD) ). While this system is still evolving, it offers the collaborative structure that will facilitate the flow of information and interaction
between clientele, research, and extension personnel. An area that will need development is the integration of the field stations into the Divisionwide program priority-setting and planning process. (Emphasis mine)
“Other components also will contribute to an effective research-extension continuum. One is the placement of CE specialists in departments to
create more effective linkages between research and extension. (emphasis mine) Another is the development of improved mechanisms for
monitoring research results and Extension programs to ensure that researchers work toward, and make known, the immediate and potential
applications of their research, and that specialists and advisors take such results and develop them into effective educational programs.
“You have raised some excellent points to consider as we proceed with the development and implementation of mechanisms to enhance the
Division’s ability to produce to users the timely delivery of research-based information through the research-extension continuum. Thank you for
your thoughtful suggestions.
cc: Associate Vice President Lewis
Director Donner
Director Izumi
>Raguse, C. A. September 19, 1989.
Letter to Farm Advisors Monte Bell, Don Lancaster, David Pratt, William Van Riet, and Charles Wilson, re NC-REN
“Enclosed are:
Copy of a letter sent to Dr. Kenneth Farrell, Vice President, ANR, on August 24, 1989.
Copy of Dr. Farrell’s reply, dated September 5, 1989.
Copy of a letter sent to the Superintendents and RAC Chairs of the three Northern California Agricultural Field Stations on September 5, 1989.
“This letter, initially being sent to five Farm Advisors with whom I have had a long-standing and (I hope) mutually beneficial relationship over many
years, seeks an additional level of response to the original idea.
“The longer I think about this and the more people I talk with, the more I am convinced that such a system is feasible, and that it can operate to our
mutual benefit. One of the most compelling reasons why this is so is the present interest in, and need for research in, “alternative (sustainable)
agriculture”. (emphasis mine) What better location than at Agricultural Field Stations! Choice of system, system description, management (i.e.,
treatment) comparisons to be made, and the monitoring-evaluation process will take some time to work out, but the eventual rewards can be
substantial.
“I would appreciate any comments that you may have. I think you all know me well enough to believe me when I say “…especially those that expose
flaws in my reasoning and important points I have missed.”
Cc: Mel George
Jim Clawson
Ted Adams
Terry Salmon
>Raguse, C. A. September 26, 1989.
Letter to William N. Garrett, Chair, Animal Science, Andre E. Lauchli, Chair, Land, Air and Water Resources, and Donald R. Nielsen, Chair,
Agronomy & Range Science re NC-REN – Forage-Livestock Systems Emphasis. (Entire text)
“Attached is a set of copies of correspondence, arranged in chronological order, which began with my August 24, 1989 letter to Vice President
Farrell. The motivation for that letter arose from some ideas I had on “…development of a northern California research and information network…”
based heavily on a strategic integration of Agricultural Field Station facilities with the research and extension activities of Experiment Station
research faculty and Cooperative Extension Specialists and Farm Advisors.
“It seemed to me that actions and statements emanating from Systemwide administration, and the strong current interest in developing agro-ecological
analogs to the NSF Long-Term Ecological Research (LTER) program, provided opportunities for development of an integrated research-information
system that could effectively serve our various clientele well into the 21st century.
“Realization of this goal can be aided by employing certain augmentation and adjustment actions, none of which need to be costly or disruptive. I
have stated three on page 2 of the August 24 letter. Others certainly are possible.
“I would appreciate your reactions to this effort. The three departments considered here have long been major users of the Hopland and Sierra
Stations.”
Station facilities with the research and extension activities of Experiment Station research faculty and Cooperative Extension Specialists and Farm
Advisors.
“It seemed to me that actions and statements emanating from Systemwide administration, and the strong current interest in developing agro-ecological
analogs to the NSF Long-Term Ecological Research (LTER) program, provided opportunities for development of an integrated research-information
system that could effectively serve our various clientele well into the 21 st century.
“Realization of this goal can be aided by employing certain augmentation and adjustment actions, none of which need to be costly or disruptive. I
have stated three on page 2 of the August 24 letter. Others certainly are possible.
“I would appreciate your reactions to this effort. The three departments considered here have long been major users of the Hopland and Sierra
Stations.”
>Timm, Robert M., Supt., Hopland Field Station and CE Wildlife Specialist. September 26, 1989.
Letter to C. A. Raguse re NC-REN proposal to V. P. Farrell. Entire text of letter
157
“I appreciate receiving a copy of your letter of August 24 to Vice President Farrell, in which you propose goals for improving information transfer of
research conducted at field stations. I, too, am excited about the possibility that the Division’s reorganization brings new opportunities for closer
coordination between research and extension personnel.
“Your enclosed Figure 2a, describing a ‘typical pathway’ between station research and the end-user, is not necessarily typical of what has been
happening during my two years as Superintendent at Hopland. A significant number of leaders of the 38 active projects at this station are Cooperative
Extension Specialists (11 projects), or county Farm Advisors (8 projects). Thus 50% of current research under way at Hopland is being conducted by
persons other than typical UC campus-based faculty. I believe the situation is similar at the Sierra Foothill and Tulelake stations. It has been my
observation that there is considerable interaction already occurring between faculty and end-users, CE Specialists and end-users, and even between
other Field Station personnel and end-users; the implication of your Figures 2a and 2b is that these pathways are insignificant and need strengthening.
“This is not to say that improvements in getting research results to the public, or in providing opportunity for end-users to input information on
specific research needs, cannot be improved. In an era of limited monetary resources, we need to find ways to assure that funds are expended on
research and extension projects that are significant in solving needs recognized by Californians. Yet, if the Stations’ RACs or other groups are asked
to evaluate proposed projects primarily on the basis of their relevance to current problems in agriculture or natural resources management, we run the
risk of favoring applied research at the expense of more basic investigations.
“If more funding were to be made available to Stations, as well as to the UC personnel desiring to conduct research at such locations, I think we could
do both. I strongly support your recommendation for ‘critical augmentation of staff’ at Field Stations, so that we can make a more concerted
effort toward truly becoming ‘research-extension centers’. (Emphasis mine) The lack of interest by campus departments in stationing researchers
or extension specialists at the Field Stations is of concern to me, as I think it is a unique and powerful opportunity.
“Yet, we need not rely on new research in order to make an impact in our region. For example, it has recently come to my attention that the local
public-access cable-TV channel is willing and anxious to utilize educational programs produced locally. Certainly the Hopland station has a wealth
of research-based information in areas such as animal science, range management, public health, and wildlife that has been developed in its 38 years
of existence. If we had a staff member here to film educational videos, utilizing our existing knowledge base, these could be distributed to publicaccess channels all over Northern California (as well as making VHS copies available at county extension offices for Farm Advisors to utilize or loan
to the public). This could make a tremendous impact! Yet, we presently have no video equipment at the field station – not even a VCR and television
monitor to play back educational programs available from elsewhere. I should point out that if we had a communications specialist at Hopland, both
video cameras and editing equipment are available for loan at not charge from the Ukiah community access cable channel.
“I appreciate your interest in seeing the Field Stations fulfill their great potential. Let me know if there are additional ways I can help to facilitate
such progress.
cc: Harry Carlson
Mike Connor
John Anderson
Howard Ferris
Rick Standiford
Harold Myers
Terry Salmon
Kenneth Farrell
>Raguse, C. A. September 27, 1989.
Letter to V. P. Kendrick re his September 18 letter to C. A. Raguse re the August 24 proposal of a NC-REN. Entire text of letter.
“Thank you for your 18 September response to my letter of 24 August, 1989. I would, in turn, like to respond to three points arising from your letter.
“First, you referred to ‘…the development of a Division wide planning system … which will facilitate the flow of information and interaction
between clientele, research, and extension personnel.” In my experience, the people ‘in the trenches’, so to speak, like myself, get virtually no
information about the workings of CODAD, CADAD, and the DPGs and IPGs. To achieve a functionally useful level of communication in a system
as diverse and complex as ours is extremely difficult. My plea is that some attention be given to ensuring that the rest of us have an opportunity to
access agendas, concerns voiced, issues debated, and recommendations made by these groups. The ‘town meeting’ is no longer a viable option, but in
this highly sophisticated age of technology some alternative can be found. I would specifically like to suggest that the ‘ANR Report’ be expanded
and published with a frequency that would permit timely and regular updates on the workings of at least CODAD, CADAD, and the DPGs and IPGs.
Surely most of this is not ‘privileged’ information and any obviously sensitive information can be excluded. I am certain this would provide more
incentive and a better basis for the participatory involvement in the planning process as requested by Assoc. Vice President Lewis in his July 10, 1989
letter to ‘All DANR Faculty and Staff’.
“Second, I would like to receive a current organizational flow chart for Division wide Administration, as I am confused about who does what. My
original letter of August 24, 1989 was copied to Lowell Lewis because I assumed he would be the next logical person to contact. At the same time, I
have a very poor understanding of how the Office of External Relations and the Office of Program Information and Analysis relate to the
programmatic administration of the Agricultural Field Stations. In fact, I was surprised that in your September 18 letter there was no mention of the
Regional Directors, Communication 15, and the Research Advisory Committees.
“Third, I would like to be appraised of any comments made by Directors Donner and Izumi to my August 24 letter. Unless there are sensitive
passages in them, simple photocopies of their memos to you will suffice.
“Again, thank you for your timely and thoughtful response. I will continue to participate in the ongoing evolution of Division-wide reorganization.”
>Riet, William J. van. October 4, 1989.
Letter to C. A. Raguse re NC-REN. Entire text of letter.
“Thanks for sharing your thoughts and actions with me regarding field station, research, and Extension relationships.
“I agree that you are on the right track. It appears that you’re offering an organizational relationship that will both tie CE folks in closer with field
station research, and improve the knowledge dissemination from that research.
“I guess, because of my distance from the field stations, the way I learn of what occurs at Sierra or Hopland is to read the proceeding of station field
days or an occasional California Agriculture article. Once in a while you or other station researchers are offered a spot on range and livestock farm
advisor training programs.
“It appears that you’re suggesting a much closer tie-in with direct communication and involvement of CE personnel in station research to effect input
into the type of research conducted and in dissemination of knowledge.
158
“I guess I have one concern or question of your Figure 2b. It appears that both CE farm advisors and specialists could be involved in field station
research, but I only see one line, from UC Davis faculty, to peer journal publication. I presume, Charlie, knowing you, that this is unintentional, and
you agree that joint authorship would further the research-extension relationships.
“I’ve just been told by my County Director that if I’m ever to expect another salary increase I must have peer-reviewed, preferably refereed
publications on my resume’. It is difficult for county-based livestock-range advisors to conduct the level of research needed for publication, because
of the difficulty in obtaining the necessary controls in experiments done on cooperating ranches. Therefore, the opportunity for specialists and
advisors to join research faculty on work that can lead to publications will be helpful, at least to those who are close enough to collaborate.
“Again, I’ve always appreciated your research emphases and your great willingness to share with us in Cooperative Extension as well as our ultimate
producer clients. Thanks for the opportunity to comment.
>Raguse, C. A. October 9, 1989.
Working draft for a Northern California Research/Extension Network (NC-REN). Entire text.
OBJECTIVE:
To develop a Northern California Research/Extension Network (NC-REN), to be based initially on forage-livestock grazing systems, but eventually
expanded to include other cropping systems suited to local climatic, edaphic, and physiographic conditions, and coordinated from the Sierra, Hopland,
and Tulelake Agricultural Experiment Stations (AFS).
IMPLEMENTATION:
1. Re-examine and appropriately re-define the identity, roles, resources, and management of the key Field Stations, and their linkages with campusbased research, extension, and teaching functions. Part of this process should be directed toward an emphasis on stability and sustainability of the
agro ecosystems represented.
2. Re-define the policies and procedures by which research and demonstration projects at these AFS are solicited, their suitability (relevance, fit,
value, methodology) are evaluated, resources assigned, and progress monitored. This process is substantially directed toward the roles and
responsibilities of the Regional Directors and AFS Research Advisory Committees (RAC) AS specified in a re-defined Communication 15.
3. Following appropriate review, establish well-planned long-term management units (LTMU) based on the model of the National Science
Foundation’ Long-term Ecological Research Program. These long-term land, facility, and labor assignments would not displace research projects
proposed through use of the usual procedures, but would ensure their contribution to inter- and intra-season continuity and to a balance between
meeting both research and long-term monitoring objectives. Careful attention must be given to the concurrent development of a multi-disciplinary
research and management advisory function.
4. Review adequacy of AFS facilities and equipment, and plan for systematic up-grading and additions when and where needed. Availability of
funding sources other than the UC system should be explored.
5. Review adequacy of AFS staffing. This would include the Field Stations themselves, Cooperative Extension (CE), and campus research
department assignments. Specific examples include a) addition of a communications specialist (as suggested by Robert Timm, Superintendent of the
Hopland Field Station), b) discipline-based training programs as appropriate for AFS employees, and c) augmentation of campus research
department-based Staff Research Associate support at AFS.
6. Implement an interactive (between the AFS and campus locations) multi-media, multi-audience-directed information storage-retrievalcommunications system at each Field Station. Much, if not most, of this capability already exists (but with notable exceptions, e.g., video modules),
but cam benefit from expansion, integration, and coordination. Additional budgetary support from Division-wide sources directed to individual AFS
could serve as a catalyst. Example might include: a) use of “real-time” research findings releases, and b) development of a “self-guided” visitor
center patterned after successful models in the State Parks system. With respect to a), the “Oaks ‘n Folks” newsletter of the Integrated Hardwood
Range Management Program (Robert H. Schmidt, Ed.) is an excellent model.
7. Enhance the teaching function of AFS through upgrading of existing on-site internship programs and class visitations. Example include a)
formalizing opportunities for undergraduate and Master of Science-level graduate research, and b) making increased use of “hands-on” participatory
activities as part of class field trip visits.
8. Enhance existing ties and bi-directional flow of information between Agricultural Experiment Station personnel with various “outside” state and
federal agencies, and with neighboring states, especially Oregon and Nevada.
9. Encourage ethnic diversity and inner-city contacts within the general program of service to a broadly-distributed clientele of diverse interests.
10. Coordinate the development and monitoring of these activities through the Division wide Vice President’s office, the Council of Deans and
Directors (CODAD), the Council of Associate Deans and Directors (CADAD), Division Planning Groups (DPGs), Regional Directors of
Cooperative Extension, and Chairs of campus-based research and extension departments.
>Raguse, C. A. October 10, 1989.
Letter to Kenneth R. Farrell, submitting a draft of the proposed NC-REN.
“I have previously written (August 24, 1989) concerning the concept of a “Northern California Research and Extension Network”. Enclosed is a first
working draft of a proposal describing how this goal can be attained. It is the result of over three months of research and discussion, and incorporates
the reactions and advice of a sampling of involved and interested persons who represent administrative, research, and extension components of the
Agricultural Experiment Station and Agricultural Field Stations systems.
“While only a beginning, I believe these ideas have sufficient merit to warrant serious review. As before, I solicit comments and criticisms of this
plan.
“This is a particularly formative time in our history. Because it is also a time of scarce resources, it is axiomatic that we use the resources we have in
the most productive and responsible manner possible.
cc: Terry Salmon, Regional Director, North area
John Anderson, Chair, Sierra Field Station RAC
Howard Ferris, Chair, Tulelake Field Station RAC
Milton Jones, Chair, Hopland Field Station RAC
Harry Carlson, Supt., Tulelake Field Station
Mike Connor, Supt., Sierra Field Station
Robert Timm, Supt., Hopland Field Station
William Garrett, Chair, Animal Science Dept., UC Davis
Andre Lauchli, Chair, Land, Air & Water Resources Dept., UC Davis
159
Donald Nielsen, Chair, Agronomy & Range Science Dept., UC Davis
Melvin George, Coop. Extn. Spec., Agronomy & Range Science Dept., UC Davis
Jim Clawson, Coop. Extn. Spec., Agronomy & Range Science Dept., UC Davis
Ted Adams, Coop. Extn. Spec., Agronomy & Range Science Dept., UC Davis
Monte Bell, Coop. Extn. Farm Advisor, Glenn County
Donald Lancaster, Coop. Extn. Farm Advisor, Modoc County
David Pratt, Coop. Extn. Farm Advisor, Solano County
William Van Reit, Coop. Extn. Farm Advisor, Stanislaus County
Charles Wilson, Coop. Extn. Farm Advisor, Yuba/Sutter Counties
>Phillips, Donald A., Professor, UC Davis. October 10, 1989.
Personal communication to C. A. Raguse re NC-REN proposal as submitted to V. P. Kenneth Farrell.
Hand-written on a sheet of yellow lined-paper:
“Charlie—A far-reaching proposal that will take a strong effort at the Division and 3-campus level. From my view, your goal is absolutely in the
right direction. Don”
Wildlife Impacts and Hunting Rights
>Cornett, Duane, M.S. student in Range Management, UC Davis. December 21, 1983.
Unpublished paper; Deer use of Forbes Hill H1-11 to H1-44 pastures at the SFRFS during winter 1983.
Excerpts from the paper:
“Methods
Deer were observed by driving the perimeter road around the Forbes Hill pastures during morning and evening foraging periods. Deer groups were
recorded by location and activity during these transects. Also, the pastures were surveyed by walking to determine the amount of deer trailing and
concentrations of defecation as an index to pasture utilization. Fecal pellet group counts are a reasonably accurate means of estimating deer numbers
on wildlands, and have been used in other areas of the Station for this purpose. In this study, pellet groups were counted in late winter, before the
onset of rapid herbaceous plant growth, which could rapidly obscure them.
“Results and discussion
“Deer were observed on three occasions during February and March in 1983. On February 17 I met with Field Station personnel to discuss their
observations and develop a study plan. Rick Delmas and Don Springsteen were most helpful in this regard. It was noted that routine Station
vehicular traffic during winter took place mainly on the eastern perimeter, with minimal disturbance of deer on the western side.
“Don Springsteen reported seeing deer, but mainly below the perimeter road. It was his belief that some deer had used the pastures above the road
frequently until cattle were placed on the fields in December. Following that, deer sightings declined.
“In addition, Mr. Springsteen noted that a local flock of wild sheep, about 15, was seen on occasion in the Forbes Hill pastures. However, the wild
sheep seemed to prefer the south-facing bluffs above the Yuba River about ¼-mile south of the perimeter road, an area they share with deer and some
wild goats. If these reports of sheep and goats are true, they are potentially important to the results of pellet counts, since the fecal pellet groups of the
three species are indistinguishable by sight.
“Observations were conducted on the morning and evening of February 21 and the morning of March 26. Some deer were seen in each period, but
the majority were below the perimeter road. In most cases, when deer seen in or near a Forbes pasture, they quickly retreated from view by running to
forest of brush cover, either below the perimeter road or into the Shubert pasture.
“An attempt was made to quantify deer use by pellet counting. On February 17, fifty milacre plots were surveyed along a transect 30 yards above the
road in F1-11. No deer pellet groups were found, but evidence of the presence of livestock was obvious. Because of these discouraging results,
transect sampling was abandoned in favor of reconnaissance surveys. The intent was that after key deer use areas were located, further intensive
sampling could be used to more accurately estimate numbers.
“Unfortunately, few pellet groups were observed in the areas surveyed, and their occurrence was decidedly clumped together in rather small locations.
Because pellet counting methodology requires random sampling for statistical purposes, unless pellet groups are widespread and numerous to be
found in plots, an inordinate amount of survey work is required for accurate population estimates. In other words, transect establishment to achieve
more-quantitative results would be a waste of time. Even though a few deer moved up into parts of the Forbes Hill pastures, they did not stay there
long enough to create measurable utilization of the pasture forage.
“Reconnaissance surveying also was done in brush areas south of the perimeter road near pasture F1-14, and in the Schubert Field. Although many
of these pellet groups were more than a year old, many were also deposited during the 1982-83 winter. In sum, most of the deer activity took place in
areas with brush and tree cover. It is important to note that many deer were observed in areas that had been partially cleared below the perimeter road,
where many of the trees had been removed as part of the original clearing and control burning of Forbes Hill in 19……. . The resulting vegetation
has a high interspersion of brush, grassland, and forest in patches. By far the largest numbers of deer were seen on south-facing slopes, apparently
favoring the warmest exposures during winter.
“It was apparent that deer also moved up across the perimeter road into the Forbes Hill pastures. Numerous breaches in the fencing along the
roadway were found where deer had crossed (Fig. 4). It was obvious that the lower hogwire fence along the roadway was an effective barrier, since
crossings were nearly always at points where shallow ravines allowed them to crawl under. Although deer were observed to leap over the fences with
ease while retreating from disturbance, evidently they normally prefer to crawl through/under.
“Summary, Conclusions, and Suggestions for Further Work
“Large numbers of deer inhabit areas around the edges of the Forbes Hill pastures (outside of the double-fenced perimeter road), where there is a
partial or complete cover of native brush and forest. They do cross over into the pastures occasionally; a small number of bedding sites were found in
various locations, as well as limited amount of trailing and pellet groups. However, it is apparent that the total amount of deer use in the pastures was
small. Pasture forage consumption was probably less than one percent of that due to livestock foraging, even in areas most heavily used by deer. In
all cases where deer were observed while traveling on the perimeter road, they were close to the edges of the pastures, thus permitting a rapid retreat
when appropriate.
“There is good potential for further, and more definitive, work. Of primary importance is more intensive observation. Groups of deer should be
classified into age and sex classes to determine ratios of bucks, does, and fawns. Observations should be made on at least a weekly basis throughout
160
the key winter season (November 15 to April 15), and sporadically during the rest of the year. A variety of observation methods should be used, in
order to counteract bias associated with any one. Pedestrian, horseback, or even aerial modes of access could complement vehicular travel. One or
more observation towers, suitably camouflaged, and located with a wide angle of view, would permit more consistent and systematic collection of
data.
“Estimation of actual numbers will require much more labor-intensive effort. The most accurate method is by pellet counts on permanent plots
cleared annually. While forest and brush habitats support enough deer use to allow population measurement by this method with relatively small
sample sizes, it is unlikely that such sampling could be justified on the Forbes Hill pastures.
“Pellet counts on uncleared plots could also be useful, provided the observer has training for age determination of feces, and, weather conditions are
favorable. Again, it is unlikely that the large number of randomly-placed plots required in the Forbes Hill pastures could be justified. However, in
the partially cleared areas adjacent to the pastures, accurate estimations of winter deer densities could be made.
“Pellet counting should be done in early spring (February 15 to April 1). This allows about three months of deer use prior to sampling, but is still
early enough that herbaceous plant growth does not introduce bias. In normal years, there should be adequate breaks in rainfall events so as to allow
this approach. It is best if pellet groups are reasonably dry for accurate aging, so a couple of days of sunshine prior to sampling is desirable. In the
winter of this study (1982-83) the practically nonstop inclement weather severely hindered and limited data collection. Nonetheless, enough useful
information was gathered to serve as an excellent point of departure for future choices of research methodology and study objectives.”
>Raguse, C. A., Chair, HFS/SFRFS Research Advisory Committee, July 6, 1976.
Letter to VP J. B. Kendrick: “Position paper on wildlife research at the Hopland Field Station”
“RAC consideration stems from the HFS deer hunt issue (letters of Hall and Lease, Sept. 23, 1975, and J. B. Kendrick, Oct. 10, 1975), the cessation
of the wildlife research program previously conducted by Dr. W. M. Longhurst and others, and the general charge to the RAC stated by
Communication 15, App. I, sections 2.a., 2.b., and 2.c.” …
“There is need to convene a UCB-UCD conference, called at the level of Vice President Kendrick and Associate Directors, to review the respective
roles and complementarities of the two campuses in wildlife research, extension, and teaching, and the support thereto. …
“The HFS could serve as a vital and effective resource in conduct of CE activities, including its use as a sabbatical leave location. It could also serve
well as a site for off-campus teaching, especially through Work-Learn 192, graduate research in residence and University Extension courses.
Administration should consider the merit of Extension courses related to wildlife-habitat-livestock interactions and management; a good model is the
effective use of this vehicle by Dr. H. H. Biswell in his fire ecology courses.”
>SFRFS Employees. March 20, 1979.


Letter to C.A. Raguse, Chair, Research Advisor Committee. Subject: “Hunting and Fishing at the Sierra Foothill Range Field Station.
From the letter:
“We feel that the hunting and fishing programs at SFRFS and Hopland Field Stations are each unique and should be considered separately.
“The authority to allow or disallow hunting, fishing and picnics, etc. should be left up to the individual field station’s policies which are set by the
superintendent.
“The biggest abuses of the hunting, fishing and picnicking privileges have been from the public and UC employees from Davis and other campuses,
NOT from the field station employees.
“The idea of special privileges has been put forth in the review as one of the major reasons for closing hunting and fishing at the field stations. We
propose that there is a lack of equality and special privileges which are given throughout the entire UC system and within our free enterprise system
itself.
(several examples are stated)
“We the employees at the SFRFS can understand the reasoning and rational behind eliminating hunting and fishing by the public and UC employees
at Davis and other campus locations. However, we think that if the station employees do not abuse the fishing, hunting and picnicking privileges, they
should be allowed to continue to fish, hunt and picnic.”
(several reasons are given)
The letter was individually signed by eleven Station employees.
In my recollection, a prickly issue at best.
Riparian Management & Conservation
>Raguse, C. A. September 16, 1991.
A Statement submitted to the SFRFS RAC after I was no longer a member
1. Identify and catalog all areas of riparian nature, by virtue of vegetation characteristic of wetlands, standing water or saturated soil profiles, or
ephemeral and/or yearlong surface flow (including that occurring as a result of irrigation and/or irrigation ditch leakage.
2. Any project leader submitting a Land, Labor and Facilities Request for land assignment that include such areas must identify any possible or
probable impact(s) of project management on vegetation, soil conditions including erosion, and watershed hydrologic characteristics. It is understood
that impacts on vegetation may also influence wildlife, esthetic values and possibly other considerations. This impact analysis shall be reviewed by
the RAC as part of the overall project approval process. Any substantive changes in project protocol during the assigned time period that additionally
impact riparian areas shall also be reviewed and approved, subject to revision deemed appropriate by the RAC.
3. Any Center-initiated alteration of such areas, including but not necessarily limited to vegetation removal and/or alteration, land-forming and/or
drainage practices, or any other alteration influencing hydrologic characteristics, soil stability, or vegetation characteristics of the area shall be review
by the RAC and the proposed action be subject to RAC approval.
4. Riparian areas in general constitute an extremely important component of the landscape and are directly linked to stability of the watershed,
surface and ground water quality, vegetation, wildlife, and esthetic values. The SFRFS can become an important research and demonstration area for
riparian-related studies, and a “showcase” for demonstrating wise and effective riparian area management. This may well become one of the key
factors in preserving and increasing the viability of the Center’s research and education program.
Respectfully submitted,
Charles A. Raguse
161
PART VIII. MEETING THE PUBLICS
No text entered
PART IX. WHITHER GOEST THOU NOW?
>Meyer, James H. Chancellor Emeritus, UC Davis. Transforming the Land Grant College of Agriculture for the
Twenty-first Century. 30 pgs. June 1995.
A quote from the Preface: “After a great deal of thought, I have come to the conclusion that the need for the Land Grant college concept and its
philosophy is even greater now than when it was conceived in 1862. The quality of life and even survival depend on the availability of food an the
quality of the environment. That is, an essential mission of this college should be to promote a harmonic equilibrium between producing food for an
ever-increasing population and maintaining resilient ecosystems.”
Chancellor Meyer, in his Executive Summary, gives seven “Suggestions for Revitalization”. One of them is “The timetable for change is a long one.
Desired outcomes will take time to achieve, possibly five to six years for institutional learning and another five or six years to revitalize the college.
This is why continuous leadership is essential to succeed.” His “Conclusion” is simply-stated: “Few colleges and universities have changed unless
they felt threatened from outside the organization. There is no clear blueprint for changing the direction of academic units. The challenge is to see if
this or an improved process can be accomplished.”
PART X. APPENDIXES
Bits ‘n’ Pieces
>Sharp. Paul F., Director, AES
7 Mar 1955
MEMO TO: RANGE-LAND UTILIZATION COMMITTEE:
R.M. Love, (Ch.), F. S. Baker, H.H. Biswell, H.H. Cole, D.E. Jasper, John J. McElroy, T.I. Storer, R.M. Hagan, Frank J. Veihmeyer, George H. Hart,
Ben A. Madsen, V.I. Cheadle, R.B. Bressler, J.L. Myler (Secy)
“Because of the retirement of Madsen, Hart, and Veihmeyer, it was thought advisable to make certain adjustments in membership of the Range-Land
Utilization Committee. In their position as emeritus members of this committee, I would like to have Professors Madsen, Hart and Veihmeyer
continue to receive announcements of committee meetings so that advantage can be taken of their background of knowledge and judgment in
connection with the deliberations and actions of this committee.
PFS:b
(Signed)
Paul F. Sharp
(In this simple memo, on a thin white piece of carbon paper, perfectly preserved in Merton Love’s RLUC 2-hole-punch files, Director Sharp
conveys a deep appreciation for strong and thoughtful men who have served the University well, and wishes that they might continue to
share their “knowledge and judgment”.
I had a name for this, long decades ago, “organic memory”. In any situation where long-standing committees, or other groups of people,
legislative bodies for example, make decisions and direct implementation of those decisions over time, it proves a steadying force.
On this fragile piece of paper (checked by recipient R.M. Love’s name), Director Sharp signed, with a blue-inked pen, a bold but muted
capital S, slanted to the right, and ending with the tiniest of flourishes. It is an authentic bit of history, mine through the courtesy of the man
who regarded me well enough to hire me, ……R. Merton Love.
Yuba County History
>Yuba Heritage: Newsletter of the Yuba Historical Society. 330 9 th Street, Marysville, CA 95901. (530) 741-0509.
Below, a few excerpts from the Fall 2004 issue of the newsletter, written by Daniel Barth.
“The California Gold Rush established Marysville as the principal commercial center supporting the numerous mining towns of the northern Sierra.
Dreams of quick fortunes attracted immigrants from throughout the world and Chinese added to the exotic mix of newcomers. They called
Marysville ‘Sam Fow’ or ‘Third City’ since Marysville was the third city passed on the journey to ‘Gold Mountain’, the first and second being San
Francisco and Sacramento. …
“The first Colgate Power House, fed by water from Bullards Bar Reservoir, began transmitting high voltage electricity on 5 Sep 1899, its first use
being tor running Sacramento’s streetcars. By the spring of 1901, electric lines from this 16-megawatt power plant stretched 140 miles to Oakland.
The electric lines to both Sacramento and Oakland set successive records for being longer and higher in voltage than any other transmission line in the
world. …
162
“Between 1835 and 1883 over 400,000 acre-feet of hydraulic mining debris filled the river’s channel to over 80 feet at Smartsville and 15 feet at
Marysville, causing a series of disastrous floods for Marysville and surrounding communities. Despite the ban on hydraulic mining in 1884, the
ruinous effects of mud and rock from the mountains still plagued downstream residents well into the 20 th Century. In 1910 the 20-foot high Daguerra
Point Dam was built by the Army Corps of Engineers to halt the progress of debris and to slow the river’s current.”
Jonas Spect is thought to be the first finder of gold in Yuba County, on the date, June 2, 1848, at a bend in the Yuba River later known as “Rose’s
Bar”. Less well known is the “almost simultaneous” discovery on Dry Creek, near its junction with the Yuba. Later in the same year, John Rose and
William J. Reynolds opened a store, bringing goods from Sacramento and fresh beef, fruits and vegetables from their farm south of Marysville.
Perhaps quite unexpectedly, Rose’s Bar proved to become one of the richest placer gold sites on the river. It then became so crowded that the miners
themselves decreed that a man should have a claim no larger than 100 feet square. In fact, it was estimated that by 1850 something like 2,000 miners
were at work at this bar alone. Rose’s Bar morphed into Gatesville or “Sucker Flat” as the 1850 floods drove the miners to higher ground in what was
merely an extension of the original deposits. Gatesville then became an established town, and thrived until the area’s river bars became depleted. It
fell, oddly enough when one looks at the river’s configuration, to Park’s Bar, several miles downstream from Rose’s Bar and at the other open end of
Timbuctoo’s horseshoe bend, to become acclaimed as the “richest of the Yuba River bars”, although I have not encountered statistics that would
support that conclusion. In an event similar to that for Rose’s Bar, Park’s Bar took its name from David Parks, a married man with children, who had
the temerity to bring his entire family along on this risky venture. The miners, taken by this unusual event, and perhaps reminded of the homes and
families they had left, promptly named the mining camp in their honor. Park’s Bar was busy by 1849, but continued to attract newcomers; by 1852 its
population matched that of Marysville itself. But by 1855 the easiest pickings in the shallow river bars had been depleted, and, one by one, the river
bar towns, along with their inhabitants, vanished. In a sense, they were but “company towns”, with the “company” being a lustrous, highly valuable
noble metal, its appeal multiplied by the feverish imagination of easy-fortune seekers.
When the company had been depleted, its workers left their camps with their meager belongings, and returned the land and river to time’s healing
restoration.
That ending, however, was not to be the case with the next stage, hydraulic mining, which left huge open gashes on the landscape, filled the river beds
with debris, and caused enough damage to the distant Valley’s agriculture that, in 1884, hydraulic mining was legislated to a standstill, save for the
remaining, and necessarily furtive, nighttime operations. These ceased their activities well before dawn, to allow river waters time to clear, thereby
leaving their clandestine operations undetected.
One of the anecdotal stories (and there are many) that survived from that glorious (or inglorious, depending upon one’s point of view) period of
California’s history, is that a man by the name of “Major” Brown arrived at the Natchez camp (so named for a homesick miner from an eastern town
of that name) in 1850, traded with local Indians to hire labor, and established a productive claim. A curious miner approached “Major” Brown one
day to inquire about the size of his claim. Brown took up a Sharps rifle, pointed it first upstream, then downstream. He then laid the rifle down and
remarked with a dry, John Wayne drawl, “As far upstream as the bullet from that rifle will carry, and as far downstream as well.” History however,
also dryly states that the gold town of Natchez thrived. Since there was no further mention of “Major” Brown, it is likely that he was assimilated by
the tumultuous throng of eager (and less fearful) new miners.
Ecology of Grazed Plant Communities
>Cronin, E.H., Phil Ogden, James A. Young, and William Laycock. September 1978.
The Ecological Niches of Poisonous Plants in Range Communities. IN: J of Range Management 31(5):328-334.
“Many authors have attempted.to formulate a definition of a poisonous plant. The following elements are basic to all definitions: (a) a poisonous
plant contains some specific substance, which (b) when consumed by herbivores under specific circumstances (c) causes injury to susceptible
animals. … Relatively simple successional changes on rangelands, such as the replacement of downy brome Bromus tectorum) by medusahead have
not been explained by any single factor even with intensive research during roughly the time of the change. … The focus of the authors derives from
study of range communities at their locations: Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, and Utah, with a secondary interest in the coevolution of poisonous plants
and large herbivores during Pleistocene times.
Yuba River Access
>Austin, Nathan W., Attorney, Porter, Scott, Weiberg & Delephant. February 28, 2006.
Mr. Austin requested information from me regarding the lawsuit “Yuba County Superior Court Case No. 050000475”, which brought the matter of
Rogers/Vertrees v. Regents to the Court’s attention. a. The Yuba County Water Agency’s project calls for the building of an afterbay dam around
the riverbend below Rose’s Bar on the west side of the river. For this latter project they have proposed construction of a public road through
Station lands, to the powerhouse site, and the construction of a public picnic-ground nearby. The latter has not been approved by the University.
At present, plans for the Yuba County Water Agency’s project have fallen through, but resumption of some phases of the project are expected.”
(Source: Minutes, SFRFS RAC, 14 Jan 1965. See also Yuba River Access in Vol. 1b for related information.)
Wildfires: Adjacent & On-Station
No text entered here
Security, Liabilities, and Boundary Control
No text entered here
163
PART XI. MISCELLANY
Land Attributes Initially Defined for the Station, January 1958
At a meeting of the Range Land Utilization Committee (R.M. Love, Chair) held on the Davis Campus on January 8, 1958,
Dr. Love stated that the reason for the meeting was for a discussion of the need on the part of the University Research Staff for a Range Research
Station in the Sierra Nevada foothills, and that Dr. Wellman wished the counsel of this committee on this matter.
H.H. Cole moved that a Sierra Foothill Range be obtained. H.H. Biswell seconded the motion, which was passed by a unanimous vote.
Dr. Sharp suggested that since the committee felt that such a range acquisition was essential that they should attempt to set up specifications and
criteria for its selection. In the following discussion numerous points were listed that should be considered in selection of the range. Among the
points discussed were:
1. The site should be representative of a comparatively large segment of the State’s range area.
2. It should be of a different type than the granitic soil as represented on the SJER.
3. It should have varied elevations, perhaps going from 1,000 to 1,500 feet in elevation up to 3,500 to 4,000 feet elevation.
4. It should contain representative types, including good grass land, woodland-grass and brush, and perhaps extend up to border-line timber sites.
5. In area covered, it should be a minimum of 9,000, and perhaps up to 15,000 acres.
6. It would be desirable to have the Range within a 100-mile radius of the Davis Campus, for the travel convenience of the research staff.
7. Preferably, it should be near a town that offers possibilities of rental housing for staff and workers in order to obviate the need for extensive
University housing.
8. It should contain one or more complete watershed units for hydrological studies.
9. It should support opportunities for a wide range of wildland problems, as does the Hopland Field Station.
10. It should not contain large areas of serpentine soils, soils of the Henecke type, and should not contain steep shale areas.
11. Since needs were widely varied, it may be necessary to consider acquisition of a base area with separate areas located in the same general area, in
order to secure the necessary cover types.
12. An acquisition budget was suggested to be at a level of $1,000,000.
A subcommittee was appointed to develop a formal proposal.
As mentioned elsewhere, as land was secured, and the Station was built, from “scratch” as they say, and its character in terms of research conducted
was a product of its times. Its “role models” were the USFS San Joaquin Experimental Range (in Madera County) from which it had sprung, and the
Hopland Field Station, an already established Station in Mendocino County. While climate and soils differed among the three locations, the main
difference between Sierra and Hopland was Sierra’s commitment to work with beef cattle, beginning with the University’s purebred Hereford cow
herd that Ken Wagnon had brought up from the SJER, and the commitment of Hopland to continue work with sheep and the clearing of two major
watersheds for work with water runoff. Experiment Station Director Paul F. Sharp was reputed to have said when the deal was closed for the
Forbes Ranch, “Now, you can go and clear brush and trees to your heart’s content.” Obviously, I can’t vouch for that comment, but it does make a
good story.
Minutes, SFRFS RAC, January 14 1965.
Location: Room 253A, Hunt Hall, Davis Campus
Members Present: H.H. Biswell, F.F. Harradine, W.M. Longhurst, R.M. Love (Chairman), and Ex Officio K.A. Wagnon (Secretary)
Others Present: F.D. Carroll, B. Crampton, K. Gowans. J.P. Guild, B.L. Kay, W.R. Powell, C.A. Raguse, E.P. Speck, and W.A Williams
Minutes of the previous meeting were read and accepted. “Love commented further on some reasons for streamlining Communication 15. The
present method of presenting requests to do new research, or modify research underway is cumbersome. Speck reported that this subject was to be
considered by the Field Station Superintendents at their next annual meeting.
“C. Raguse, replacing Dean M.L. Peterson on the staff in the Agronomy Department, and J.P. Guild, Superintendent of the SFRFS, were
introduced.
164
“Speck reported on progress in Station development:
1. “Under the Minor Capital fund of $50,000 that became available 2-1/2 years ago, the following has been done:
a. Construction of 5-1/4 miles of boundary fence.
b. Construction of 1-1/10 miles of drift fence in Koch and Lewis Field.
c. Construction of 1.7 miles of road in the Porter Field.
d. Construction of the road, in the Forbes Field, 1.0 miles, that runs from the county road to Shubert’s Divide, and from there to connect
about midway on the road to Englebright Dam. 0.6 mile has been mostly completed.
e. Developed 15 springs, of which 9 are in the Forbes Field and 6 in the Koch and Lewis Field.
f. Assisted in the tree poisoning on the 900-acre site being developed for the Agronomic-livestock study, and poisoned trees in areas in
the Porter Field, and in Campbell Gulch that are to be developed into irrigated pasture.
g. A survey is underway to locate the boundary lines between Station property and that of Carl Selby.
2. “About $436,000 is available for major capital improvements and acquisition of the Marty property. Condemnation proceedings for this property
are supposed to come before the court in March. Step 1 preliminary plans for the buildings, utilities and improvement of the headquarters site have
been completed and approved but further progress depends upon acquisition of the Marty property. Some field development may be continued , and
committee approval for such was requested.
3. “There are two proposed developments on the Yuba River that will have effects on the Station;
a. The Yuba County Water Agency’s project calls for the building of an afterbay dam around the riverbend below Rose’s Bar on
the west side of the river. For this latter project they have proposed construction of a public road through Station lands, to
the
powerhouse site, and the construction of a public picnic-ground nearby. The latter has not been approved by the University. At present,
plans for the Yuba County Water Agency’s project have fallen through, but resumption of some phases of the project are expected.
b. When the Marysville Dam, sponsored by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, has been constructed the Yuba River and Dry Creek will
become arms of a lake that will surround the west, south and east sides of the lower half of the Station. The Station will lose about
200 acres to
the proposed reservoir. Another, longer, road into the Station will have to be constructed and some impact from
recreationists using the
lake is to be expected.
“Biswell raised the question as to whether the present Station area would be suitable for a range research area, after construction of the dam, because
of recreational pressure in areas adjacent to the lake. This should be considered before the University spends too much in developing the Station.
Wagnon was of the opinion, regarding cattle research, that the proposed Agronomic-livestock research in the Forbes Field would not be too adversely
affected by recreationists. However, the present Station area was a poor site for the study on cattle reproduction difficulties and adverse effects could
be expected from recreationists. Williams reported that Kay had found so much variation in soils that it was difficult to locate small plots. Longhurst
stated that if the University held the present site a long time and then made a change it would curtail research. Regarding expenditures to date on
fencing, road construction and spring develop the consensus was that these would be a small problem if it was decided to dispose of the property.
“Osborne pointed out that there was no assurance that the dam will be constructed and the need for the dam will diminish greatly upon completion of
the Oroville, Bullard’s Bar and Auburn Dams. He also brought up the need for research in the recreational field by pointing our some of the problems
the Brown Valley Irrigation District was having at the Virginia Ranch Dam. It was his opinion that the Station had an excellent potential in recreation
research aimed at utilization of the Sierran Foothills.
“Love expressed the opinion that the Station should be used for recreation research and that if the Committee were agreeable he would make contacts
with various departments and agencies to determine what might be developed in this area. The Committee wholeheartedly supported his request.
“After considerable discussion concerning the suitability of the present site the general consensus of the Committee was that the Station should
continue to be developed according to the approved program.
“Gowans reported that the soils-vegetation survey was completed in 1962. Because of the complexity of the two major soil types (Auburn and
Argonaut) the survey made was 4 times as detailed as the usual soil survey. The soils-vegetation map prepared was considered self-explanatory and
that an accompanying text was not necessary.
“Powell reported that he worked with Gowans on some aspects of the soils-vegetation survey and that a check of plant composition from 27 selected
sites, involving both major soils showed identical plant composition on both. Fertility tests showed both soils to be definitely deficient in phosphorus
and nitrogen, and to a lesser extent, sulfur. There was a tremendous variability in soils because of effects from present and former old oak canopies.
“Guild reported that the present working force at the Station consisted of a Superintendent of Cultivations, 2 Herdsmen, 4 Cultivationists and Heavy
Equipment Operator.
“A tentative date of April 9, 1965 was wet for the next meeting to be held at the Sierra Station . Invitations are to be extended to the Range Land
Utilization Committee, and others interested in wildlands and recreation, to meet with us.
Respectfully submitted, Kenneth A. Wagnon, Secretary
Minutes, HFS/SFRFS RAC, January 4, 1983.
Location: Conference Room B, MU II, Davis Campus
Present: John R. Anderson, G. Eric Bradford, John W. Menke, James G. Morris, Alfred H. Murphy, Harold R. Myers, Charles A. Raguse (Chair,
HFS/SFRFS RAC), and Paul L. Rowell, Station Superintendent.
Absent: W. James Clawson, Reginald H. Barrett (on sabbatical leave), William A. Brooks, III (on sabbatical leave), Dale R. McCullough, and
Michael J. Singer.
Guests: Martin Dally, Richard E. Delmas, Montague Demment, Melvin R. George, Roy Hull, Milton B. Jones, D.W. Rains, Chair, Agronomy &
Range Science Department (A&RS), and Robert W. Touchberry, Chair, Animal Science Department (AS)
Minutes of the previous meeting (May 19, 1982) were approved as distributed.
Raguse: “Admitted that we are only part of the way along in the process of a “three-year project review” – will go as far as we can today, and expect
to complete at a continuation of this meeting early in the future.
165
“Noted the significance of this meeting in that Dr. Harold R. Myers, Director of Agricultural Field Stations (AFS) is meeting with us for the first time.
Also, the Chairs of the two departments that are the largest users of the two Field Stations are present.
“Wish to make a few “reflective” comments at this point in time:
1. “Considering the current budgetary problems the State is experiencing, future restrictions in travel, or increased costs of both travel and Station
labor may become an increasing factor in research conducted at Ag Field Stations.
2. “There is a more prominent role of Systemwide Administration now; need to be aware of problems of effective communication.
3. “Communication No. 15 (COM 15) is the basic document that governs Field Stations administration and the process for initiation, submission,
review, and approval of projects. Its current revision should be carefully observed.
4. “A number of administrative issues have occurred in the past few years, notably: The Grumbly report, the establishment of a Systemwide-level
‘Field Stations Advisory Committee’ (which lapsed after a few years), the institution, and subsequent revocation, of a $1 per hour labor recharge, and
the Heady report (filed in 1980) which, among other things, drew attention to the role of UC Cooperative Extension (CE) in the AFS system.
5. “Current thinking and administrative changes provide for an expanded role of CE in AFS.
6. “Current thinking, and at least interim versions of revised COM 15, place a greater emphasis on the role of the Department Chair, particularly in
the areas of initiation, justification, and subsequent review of Projects.
7. “The larger role of the computer as an integral part of AFS facilities could provide an important assist to the conduct of ecosystem-level research.
8. “We should consider the Hopland and the Sierra Foothill Range Field Stations to be unique in the AFS system. Both represent complex grazing
ecosystems and encourage multi-disciplinary, multi-departmental kinds of research. Both have institute potential.
9. “Collectively, as AFS administration, RAC, and campus research departments, we should work toward attaining a higher degree of integration than
we presently have. This is of importance in at least two major areas:
A. Herd and flock health, and related problems, which directly affect the quality of research and limit the nature
of research that can be done.
B. Yearlong management and monitoring of the forage base at both Stations, and, of the irrigation system, and
water-use efficiency at the SFRFS.
10. “Regarding the RACs, a group such as this should be maintained, since it is in the best interests of both AFS and the departments.
“Will turn the meeting over to Dr. Harold Myers, for comments on proposed changes in AFS administration and revision of COM 15.
Myers: “COM 15 and the Research Advisory Committees were slated for elimination by Experiment Station Director Lowell Lewis. Ensuing
reaction to this proposal has led to a revision of COM 15, with numerous operational changes, but retention of the RACs.
“The RAC is an advisory board for the implementation of land, labor, and facilities, and for determining as to the academic credibility of research
proposed. Dr. Lewis feels strongly that the RACs are only advisory – they can send a new request back to the department chair who signed it, not to
the individual. Ultimately, the researcher has the right of appeal to the Director of the Experiment Station, who in turn would probably pass it along
to the Assistant Director or Dean. But in terms of how the RACs will work in the future, you will probably not recognize any difference from present
operation.
“One big change in COM 15 (there will be continuation of discussion on this in the Council of Directors (COD) on January 7) is the forthcoming
opportunity for CE personnel to obtain Agricultural Experiment Station (AES) Project numbers. Farm Advisors (and certain other non-University
persons) will not report back to a department chair for approval. It is more appropriate to have Statewide Program Director Approval since he is more
likely to be aware of what is going on.
“Another problem, which we are working to solve, is ‘piggy-backing’, e.g., of some outside concern on CE personnel, who in turn, ‘piggy-back’ on
an AES research-faculty member.
“Regarding recharges: We have beautiful facilities, fair equipment, but few dollars. When we contract out to faculty members anything over and
above assigned hours will be recharged (current rate: $7.35 per hour). For example, if a Project Leader is assigned 500 hours and uses 600, we will
recharge that 100 hours because we don’t have the extra labor.
“A special grant of $40,000 from AES Director Lewis will enable installation of computers at all Stations (February delivery expected) except at the
Deciduous Fruit Station. A larger computer at Davis and telephone modem hookups will enable electronic mail transfer, word processing,
management systems, and (at night only) a certain amount of statistical work. These facilities will be accessible to research personnel resident on the
Stations through special arrangement with the Station Superintendent only
GENERAL DISCUSSION
George: Will we be able to use the computers to pass information? Myers: Yes, but they are primarily for AFS use. Menke: Agree with chosen
computer brand; is compatible with computers in A&RS and AS departments, an optimal choice to get started. Hull: Comment on Minor Capital
Improvement Program (MCI)? Speck: For 83-84, the Haworth improvement (SFRFS) is no.3 or 4 on the statewide list. However, it is doubtful if it
will be funded. Also, the Kellogg-McDonald fund will be used up this year. Dally: Does the new ruling system mean that an SRA (Staff Research
Associate) like me cannot be a Project Leader? Myers: Correct.
Bradford: What will the new routing be when a Farm Advisor seeks to obtain a Project? Myers: It goes from Farm Advisor to County Director to
Statewide Program Director (credibility assessment) to Regional Program Director. It WILL be routed to the RAC. Anderson: I have seen this
process from all perspectives, and consider the RAC to be the most important link. I’m concerned with insuring quality of the research done.
George: What is Administration’s view of doing CE demonstrations on the Stations? Myers: An absolute necessity, I am in favor of it 100 percent.
Touchberry: I can’t see the logic of allowing an AES Project No. to a Farm Advisor and not to an SRA. Menke The US Forest Service did permit
this, and found problems – SRAs sometimes put their own work ahead of that of their Project Leader’s. Anderson: Also, SRAs can’t report work
through the CRIS report system, and much AFS work is done on Hatch Projects. Myers: Keep in mind that all of this is only proposed at this time.
Raguse: Another element: New Station Superintendents will be fractionally appointed in CE. There is a potential impact of this new role on the local
Farm Advisor through accelerated CE work directly on the Station. Also, in the current version of COM 15 there is no language dealing with the
research activities of the Station Superintendent. Myers: The Superintendent answers 100-percent to the Director of AFS. It is Lowell Lewis’ belief
166
that his research fits much better with CE, e.g., the CE Program Director has a better basis for evaluating his research than a Department Chair would.
Present Superintendents still have a choice – they can work wither with CE or with a Department. After 1983, new Superintendents will all be hired
as 15-20% CE. Myers: Have got to remember that the primary reason for hiring a Superintendent is as a manager. He answers totally to the Director
of AFS, and his research will be evaluated by the Statewide Program Director.
Bradford: Raised the question of who appoints members to the RAC. Myers: They are appointed by the Director of AES. I consult with Department
Chairs for recommendations, acting as his agent
Some general discussion followed, revolving around problems of communication resulting from the broadness of range as a working area, the
geographical distances involved (in particular for CE personnel located in outlying counties), and the sometimes lack of adequate communication
between CE and Departments in some subject matter areas.
BREAK FOR LUNCH
Raguse: We will first review the Station Project Summary sheets as prepared by Al Murphy and Paul Rowell, then go to the Land, Labor & Facilities
(LL&Fs) requests, as far as they are completed, today. Many of these are simply up-dates of existing projects, resulting from the “three-year review”
done last summer. Note that, at both Stations, four to six Projects account for 80% or more of the labor hours.
“Harold emphasized the AFS desire to go to a calendar-year-accounting basis for labor hour allocation – what about the exactness of cutoff for labor
recharge purposes? There has to be a degree of uncertainty in estimating a project’s needs and one reason for drawing this out is that perhaps every
Project should have a funding source and some dollar amount specified, since it is possible that any Project could exceed its allocated hours.
“(Some discussion ensued on how a value for .available research hours’ is arrived at. Murphy mentioned the problem of ‘non-project research’ time,
i.e., hours spent with experimental flocks or fields that are not, strictly speaking, research per se and are not charged to the Project.) Rowell: If there
is help available and the Station can accommodate it, perhaps the Project should not be charged the $6 overage fee. Myers: As long as you have extra
hours left, no, but there are Stations where hours requested far exceed those available on that Station and the Superintendent has to go out and hire it.
We have to look at the Station that has surplus labor hours and say that in times of financial exigency we need part of that support staff at some other
Station. Hull: What flexibility does the Superintendent have to make labor adjustments before a Project gets into trouble? Myers: He’s going to talk
to you, on a quarterly basis. Bradford: Al, at Hopland, could you accept a labor budget of, say, 10,000 hours? Murphy: It’s flexible; we have 1,000 to
2,000 hours now where animals belong to several Projects, at variable percentages, and this non-project animal-care labor could easily be charged to
Projects. Myers: We earlier determined that if labor is applied to more than one Project (e.g., fencing), it becomes a non-Project item. Rowell: We
assign it to Projects – it looks better there! Bradford: Just to be sure, if a Project runs over and there isn’t a bind … Myers: As long as those hours are
assigned on that Station there won’t be a recharge.
Raguse: There has to be some kind of feedback loop in this process. If a new proposal comes along that asks for 1500 hours, and the Station has only
1200, someone needs to relay that information back to the prospective Project Leader. Speck: What happens is this: The new Project Leader and his
Department put in a request for a certain number of hours. It then goes to the RAC, which maybe says we only have a fraction of that amount of labor
available. Then it goes back to the PL and his Department who have a chance to modify or withdraw it. Raguse: The RAC doesn’t have that kind of
wisdom, at least not today! Myers: They do have at all the other Stations! Speck: That’s why we have to have an annual meeting and plan the year in
advance -- to develop a year’s program. When that program is set and there are only so many hours available, then we can’t take on additional
Projects unless money is provided to support then. We want to be able to say to each Station ‘You will have so many thousand total hours available
this year; how many will you need to support the Station?’ That determines how many hours will be left over for that year for research Projects.
Murphy: Mentioned the difficulty of expecting a PL to know so far in advance what he will be doing. Myers: I suspect if you took the labor used by a
Project over the last 5 or 6 years, it wouldn’t vary by more than 10%
Anderson: There may be a way around this. Having the RAC assign all labor through December doesn’t prevent a new Project from coming on board
in July to get started. It can then compete for support in the available labor pool next January. Speck: We don’t have to review every Project every
year. If we take on a Project for 5 years we don’t review it for the first three. Myers: But we renew requests each year for labor. Anderson: Agreed,
can’t commit a labor level for 5 years. Hull: Many of our experiments must replicate in time; you’re saying you could approve a Project for 5 years,
then pull out the rug. Anderson: Could allocate on a percentage basis, i.e., no more than a certain percent. Also, in January, the RAC could allocate,
say, 90% of the total hours, leaving 10% for discretion of the Superintendent.
Rowell: Does this mean a trend toward less permanent staff at a Station and a higher proportion of General Assistance (GA)? Speck Yes, we did that
this year at Hopland; removed a position and replaced it with seasonal funds,
167
PART XII. MAPS, GRAPHS, & TABLES
168
The Maps on this and the previous page were scanned from a larger Bureau of Land Management (BLM) regional map.
I know of no other map that displays the Sierra Field Station, in a solid color. Superimposed on a USGS topographic map.
And, for good measure, throws in the Yuba Gold Fields and Beale Air Force Base to boot!
169