Rangeland CEAP Writing Teams. Academic Coordinator and Editor

Transcription

1 RANGELAND CEAP: THE NEXT GENERATION OF CONSERVATION PRACTICE STANDARDS Rangeland CEAP Writing Teams David D. Briske, Texas A&M University Academic Coordinator and Editor

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

3 Organizational Approach Purported benefits of conservation practices treated as testable questions. Conducted a quantitative, evidence-based search of peer reviewed experimental data. Describe trade-offs, risks, and limits of both experimental evidence and conservation practices. Recommend modifications to current practices. Identify knowledge gaps requiring further research. Conclusions thoroughly vetted by external reviewers.

4 Example: Prescribed Grazing Manage vegetation harvest with animals - to maintain or improve the following benefits: Desired species composition and plant vigor Forage quantity and quality for herbivores Surface and subsurface water quality and quantity Soil condition and conservation Quantity and quality of wildlife habitat

5 Prescribed Grazing Findings Stocking rate is a major determinant of vegetation and animal production. Add????? Effective management appears more critical than specific system of grazing. g Wildlife responses to rotational grazing is often neutral or negative compared to continuous grazing. Soil organic carbon largely unaffected by stocking rate.

6 Strength of Experimental Data Grazing system experiments = 45 Attributes of most effective studies: Duration: 10 studies > 10 yrs Pasture size: 5 studies > 100 ha Pasture number: 9 studies > 8 Strong ecological inferences, but adaptive management removed.

7 Grazing Recommendations NRCS procedures valid, but reprioritization of investments would be beneficial. Balance investments in infrastructure with those of effective adaptive management Stocking rate requires greater emphasis Drought planning, forage inventory Rotational grazing requires reevaluation Ecological benefits unsupported Adaptive management undocumented

8 Grazing Knowledge Gaps Assessment of ecosystem services biodiversity, C sequestration, ecotourism. Contribution of adaptive management human decisions, goals and values Restoration and conservation strategies season and length of deferment Larger scale responses watersheds, landscapes, entire ranches

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

10 Major CEAP Conclusions Broadly supports the purposes p of conservation programs, but it was not possible to determine magnitude of benefits. Conservation practices have not been sufficiently monitored to effectively assess environmental outcomes. Partnerships among managers, policy makers and scientist will provide the most relevant information. Synthesis provides a foundation for development of the next generation of rangeland conservation practices.

11 Major CEAP Recommendations Promote conservation-science science linkages to guide next generation of conservation programs. Implement monitoring to document benefits and increase cost effectiveness. Enhance adaptive management following program adoption to optimize conservation benefits. Expand program delivery to address both ecosystem goods and services and diverse stakeholder interests.

12 Conservation-Science Partnerships Natural resource conservation and science are distinct endeavors with unique cultures, approaches and goals History of limited exchange has weakened both endeavors CEAP is first major initiative to promote a formal exchange between conservation management and science Tremendous opportunity exists to build upon these management-science partnerships

13 Monitor Conservation Outcomes Close the feedback loop between conservation implementation and goal-based outcomes. Support both the accountability and efficiency of conservation programs. Effectively integrate conservation programs with other assessment protocols that exist in NRCS. National Soil Survey Ecological Site Descriptions Support with small percentage of total conservation funding justified as cost-effectiveness.

14 Promote Adaptive Management Benefits of conservation programs are strongly gy influenced by management following adoption Limited emphasis on follow-up management seriously jeopardizes success of conservation outcomes Information, tools, and incentives are needed to support effective management after program adoption

15 Expand Program Delivery Conditions influencing i adoption and goals of conservation practices have changed Ecosystem services beyond agricultural goods Life style considerations Aging land owners; generational transfer Involvement of more diverse stakeholder groups Varied goals and values More complex messaging

16 Anticipated CEAP Benefits Greater program accountability, efficacy and cost-effectiveness Enhanced assessment of environmental quality and ecosystem services Focus conservation priorities at specific landscape positions

17 Second Phase of CEAP? Formalize management-science partnerships Engage conservation planners and policy makers Increase information transfer among USDA programs Opportunities to incorporate CEAP information Soil & Water Resource Conservation Act (RCA) Inform future Farm Bills Enhance inventory and monitoring (NRI)

18 Priority Conservation Practices Prescribed Grazing (528) Prescribed Burning (338) Brush Management (314) Rangeland Seeding (550) Pasture and Hayland Planting (512) Stream Habitat Improvement and Management (395) Upland Wildlife Habitat Management (645)

19 Information Distribution Distribution in both a paper and electronic format. Electronic format will target multiple audiences Policy makers (e.g., executive summary) Practitioners and students (e.g., general synthesis) Researchers and modelers (e.g., data bases) Refereed journal publications will archive most important data and conclusions. Action to implement recommendations into USDA procedures