ESSM TAMU RANGELAND CEAP FINDINGS BRIEFING TO RCA

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 Ø Ø 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 Ø Stocking rate is a key management variable Ø Forage inventories requires greater emphasis Ø New technologies to support management tools Ø Infrastructure emphasized over management • Grazing management overrides grazing systems Implications Ø Support landowner decision making • Poorly documented portion of conservation planning

ESSM TAMU Planting/Seeding Findings Ø Marginally successful; < 20%with native species Ø Two phase approach recommended • Introduced species stabilize site followed by native species Ø Precipitation strongly determines success and overrides technology Ø Effective weather forecasting is vital for success Implications Ø Carefully evaluate application given marginal success

ESSM TAMU Prescribed Burning Findings Ø Woody plant control is frequently realized, but exceptions do exist Ø Negative herbaceous plant effects disappear in 2 -3 yrs, if they occur Ø Results consistent across varied eco-regions Implications Ø Effective ecological tool for woody plant management

ESSM TAMU Brush Control Findings Ø Grass response positive 2 yrs post; peak 5 yrs post Ø Retreatment interval: 4 -12 yrs mesquite; 20 -30 yrs sagebrush; > 50 yrs creosote bush Ø Erosion not consistently reduced Ø Recommendations over-generalized across eco-regions Ø Some assumptions regarding water are unfounded

ESSM TAMU Brush Control-Water Reduced ET and increased ground water recharge Ø No effect in arid southwest Ø Support for juniper and sagebrush in northwest Ø Support for juniper and mesquite in southern plains Increased stream flow Ø Shown for only small watersheds receiving winter rain Implications Ø Refinement of science and CPS required

ESSM TAMU Invasive Plant Management Findings Ø Both CPS and science are poorly developed Ø Long-term risk of practice failure is very high Ø Restoration success 20% with introduced species, less with natives Implications Ø Science and CPS require greater emphasis

ESSM TAMU Wildlife Habitat Findings Ø Both CPS and science are poorly developed Ø Insufficient information to make generalizations for most species groups Ø Species show negative, positive or no response Ø Vegetation structure is a key habitat variable Implications Ø Science and CPS require greater emphasis

ESSM TAMU Riparian Habitat Findings Ø Livestock exclusion promotes riparian recovery Ø Reduced livestock density decreases nutrient and pathogen loads Ø Off-stream water development, supplement placement, and herding promote recovery Implications Ø Livestock number and time in habitat is critical

ESSM TAMU CEAP Recommendations Ø Incorporate findings into conservation practice standards Ø Expand practice standards to include ecosystem services Ø Engage the scientific community in this process