ESSM

TAMU RANGELAND CEAP FINDINGS

BRIEFING TO RCA

RANGELAND CEAP WRITING TEAM LEADERS

David Briske, Prescribed Grazing

Stuart Hardegree, Planting/Seeding

Sam Fuhlendorf, Prescribed Burning

Steve Archer, Brush Management

Roger Sheley, Invasive Plant Management

Paul Krausman, Wildlife Habitat Management

Mel George, Riparian Habitat Management

Leonard Jolley, CEAP Administrator

David D. Briske, Academic Coordinator

ESSM

TAMU Rangeland CEAP FrameworkRangeland CEAP Framework

   Natural Resource TopicsNatural Resource Topics

CONSERVATION PRACTICECONSERVATION PRACTICE

SoilSoil PlantsPlantsAnimals Animals

wildwildAnimals Animals domesticdomestic WaterWater AirAir LandscapeLandscape

Economic and Economic and Social (Ecosystem Social (Ecosystem

Services)Services)Prescribed Grazing Prescribed Grazing                     

Prescribed BurningPrescribed Burning                     

Brush ManagementBrush Management                        

Rangeland plantingRangeland planting                        

Riparian herbaceous coverRiparian herbaceous cover                        

Upland Wildlife Habitat ManagementUpland Wildlife Habitat Management                        

Pest Management (plants, insects)Pest Management (plants, insects)                        

ESSM

TAMU Context for Rangeland CEAP

Science incomplete and provides partial solutions Effectiveness of management decisions unknown Research findings not readily incorporated in CPSs Research community willing to constructively engage

in conservation planning and assessment• Awareness that change is required in rangeland profession• Appreciation for the necessity of CEAP• Recognition that NRCS is an important vehicle to change

ESSM

TAMU Prescribed Grazing

Findings Stocking rate is a key management variable Forage inventories requires greater emphasis New technologies to support management tools Infrastructure emphasized over management

• Grazing management overrides grazing systems

Implications Support landowner decision making

• Poorly documented portion of conservation planning

ESSM

TAMU Planting/Seeding

Findings Marginally successful; < 20%with native species Two phase approach recommended

• Introduced species stabilize site followed by native species

Precipitation strongly determines success and overrides technology

Effective weather forecasting is vital for success

Implications Carefully evaluate application given marginal success

ESSM

TAMU Prescribed Burning

Findings Woody plant control is frequently realized, but

exceptions do exist Negative herbaceous plant effects disappear in 2-3

yrs, if they occur Results consistent across varied eco-regions

Implications Effective ecological tool for woody plant management

ESSM

TAMU Brush Control

Findings Grass response positive 2 yrs post; peak 5 yrs post Retreatment interval: 4-12 yrs mesquite; 20-30 yrs

sagebrush; > 50 yrs creosote bush Erosion not consistently reduced Recommendations over-generalized across eco-regions Some assumptions regarding water are unfounded

ESSM

TAMU Brush Control-Water

Reduced ET and increased ground water recharge No effect in arid southwest Support for juniper and sagebrush in northwest Support for juniper and mesquite in southern plains

Increased stream flow Shown for only small watersheds receiving winter rain

Implications Refinement of science and CPS required

ESSM

TAMU Invasive Plant Management

Findings Both CPS and science are poorly developed Long-term risk of practice failure is very high Restoration success 20% with introduced species,

less with natives

Implications Science and CPS require greater emphasis

ESSM

TAMU Wildlife Habitat

Findings Both CPS and science are poorly developed Insufficient information to make generalizations for

most species groups Species show negative, positive or no response Vegetation structure is a key habitat variable

Implications Science and CPS require greater emphasis

ESSM

TAMU Riparian Habitat

Findings Livestock exclusion promotes riparian recovery Reduced livestock density decreases nutrient and

pathogen loads Off-stream water development, supplement

placement, and herding promote recovery

Implications Livestock number and time in habitat is critical

ESSM

TAMU CEAP Recommendations

Incorporate findings into conservation practice standards

Expand practice standards to include ecosystem services

Engage the scientific community in this process