Download Rangeland CEAP Findings.

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 Framework
Natural Resource Topics
CONSERVATION PRACTICE
Animals
Soil Plants Animals wild domestic Water
Prescribed Grazing
Prescribed Burning
Brush Management
Rangeland planting
Riparian herbaceous cover
Upland Wildlife Habitat Management
Pest Management (plants, insects)
Air
Economic and
Social (Ecosystem
Landscape
Services)
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