DEVELOPMENT OF MODELS FOR ECOLOGICAL SITE DESCRIPTIONS: The South Texas Example

1. DEVELOPMENT OF MODELS FOR ECOLOGICAL SITE DESCRIPTIONS: The South Texas Example Wayne Hamilton and Fred Smeins Texas A&M University College Station, Texas

2. OUR WORKING PHILOSOPHY It would not be our charge or our intent to evaluate the background theory for ecological site descriptions or state and transition models. We felt our assignment was to proceed with development of the ESDs with the best available information and participation by the most knowledgeable experts we could find for the region.

3. PROJECT GOALS: • Identify and document a procedure for efficiently accomplishing the development of ecological site descriptions. • Develop the assigned components of twenty-four ecological site descriptions within South Texas MRLA 83 (Rio Grande Plains) and 150 (Coastal Prairies) using the methodology. • Prepare and deliver a report to the Texas State Conservationist within six months.

4. FUNDING NRCS funded the development of key Ecological Site Descriptions for the Coastal Prairies and Rio Grande Plains MLRA through the Center for Grazinglands and Ranch Management at Texas A&M. The grant was used to bring together the required expertise. Several meetings were held in south Texas in the fall of 2001 and early 2002. The final report was presented March 11, 2002.

5. CHRONOLOGY OF MAJOR ACTIVITIES • NRCS Texas State Office compiled soils and site data for the MLRA’s and assisted in selection of “Core Ecological Sites.” • CGRM and State Resource Conservationist developed a list of consultants and participants for use in the project. Selection was based on long-term experience in the South Texas area. Non-active NRCS personnel were paid as private consultants. • The first general meeting of the entire ESD Team was held in Kingsville, Texas at the Caesar Kleberg Wildlife Research Institute August 20-22, 2001. • The MLRA 83 Working Group met at the Welder Wildlife Foundation September 11-12, 2001. The MLRA 150 Working Group met at the same facilities on October 3, 2001.

6. CHRONOLOGY (CONT.) • The second and final general meeting of the entire ESD Team was held at Kingsville in the facilities of the Caesar Kleberg Wildlife Research Institute December 4-5. 2001. • Consultants provided their assigned core and associated site descriptions to CGRM by February 1, 2002. • All computer graphics (S/T models), tables and text entries were made for the sites at CGRM. • Final report delivered to the Temple office March 11, 2002.

7. PARTICIPANTS IN THE SOUTH TEXAS ESD PROJECT • Dr. Arturo Longoria, Pan American University, Edinburg • Dr. Lynn Drawe, Welder Wildlife Foundation, Sinton • Clifford Carter, NRCS (Retired), Victoria • Stan Reinke, NRCS, Victoria • Ken Sparks, NRCS (Retired), Uvalde • Alvaro “Sonny” Vela, NRCS, Currently in Alpine • Roel Trevino, NRCS, Edinburg • Vivian Garcia, NRCS, Corpus Christi • Dr. Fred Smeins, TAMU, College Station • Dr. Steve Archer, TAMU, College Station • Dr. Tim Fulbright, Caesar Kleberg WRI, TAMU-Kingsville • Wayne Hamilton, TAMU, College Station • Dr. Wayne Hanselka, TAMU, Corpus Christi • Homer Sanchez, NRCS, Temple • Rhett Johnson, NRCS (Retired), Granbury • Ramiro Molina, NRCS, Robstown • George Peacock, NRCS, Ft. Worth

9. The ESD project brought together experts from universities, agencies, private consultants, and private and public foundations with range, wildlife and other interest in grazinglands. Scenes from the first meeting of the ESD Team in Kingsville at the Caesar Kleberg Wildlife Research Institute, August 20-22, 2001. (Gray hair was an attribute)

10. There was a lot of “ecological soul searching and dialog.”

11. Sandy Loam Grassland Shrubland Complex NF Mid-grass dominant 5% woody (1) Short Grass dominant 5-10% woody <3 ft tall (2) Woody Cover 20-50% (4) NF Woody Cover >50% cover (5) NF Savanna (3) 5-20% Woody Cover PG, PB HG, NF PB, PG PG, BM NF, HG PG, PB S, BM NF, HG BM S Seeded State S Legend BM-Brush management HG-Heavy grazing INV-Invasion NF-No fire NM-No cultural management PB-Prescribed burning PG-Prescribed grazing S-Seeding S Introduced (8) Native (7) Crop (6) Woody Plant “Seedlings” <3 ft (9) NF HG PG PB NF HG PG PB NM

12. MLRA 83 ESD Working Group meeting at the Welder Foundation, September 11-12, 2001

13. The MLRA 150 Working Group met October 3, 2001

14. FINAL PRODUCTS OF THE PROJECT • 24 Ecological Site Descriptions that included: • Ecological dynamics of the sites • Plant communities and transitional pathways (State and transition model diagrams) • Community narrative for HCPC and annual production by plant type • Narratives for all communities in S/T model and annual production by plant type • Scientific names of all plant and animal species • Ecological site interpretations • Site photos (if available)

15. SOUTH TEXAS ECOLOGICAL SITES

16. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE ECOLOGICAL SITE DESCRIPTION ECOLOGICAL SITE CHARACTERISTICS Site Type: Rangeland Site ID: Site Name: Sandy Loam, MLRA 83 Precipitation of Climatic Zone: Phase: Original Site Description Approval: Site Date: Site Author: Dr. Steve Archer and Roel E. Trevino Site Approval: Approval Date:

17. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS • It is important to have an experienced, currently employed NRCS Soil Scientist and two or three experienced NRCS range conservationists for each MLRA working Group to interact with consultants. • Selection of sites closely associated with the core sites greatly reduces the amount of time and work required to develop each new site description. Once the S/T model is developed for a core site, associated sites take minimal work (species, production, etc.) • Allow a large time block as early as possible for all team members (consultants and NRCS employees) to participate in the development of S/T models for the core sites. Once core sites are developed, separate working groups can be assigned to each MLRA. • In the selection of consultants, use knowledge and experience in the MLRA as the most important criterion.

18. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (Cont.) • Arrange for the use of low-cost or no-cost, centrally located facilities for meetings. Take advantage of facilities at universities or foundations that have range-related programs or activities. • Solicit existing photographs from files of all participating organizations. NRCS personnel can be asked to furnish photos where none exist. Take the timing of photos with growing season into account. • It would be advisable to have a consultant on each team that has specific expertise in animal communities and hydrology functions associated with the sites.

19. FINAL REPORT The final report contained the 24 site descriptions as well as procedures used to accomplish project objectives and recommended ways to improve the process.

20. RECOGNITION AND APPRECIATION ARE EXPRESSED TO THE FOLLOWING: TEXAS GRAZING LANDS CONSERVATION INITIATIVE NRCS STATE OFFICE AND FIELD OFFICE PERSONNEL CAESAR KLEBERG WILDLIFE RESEARCH INSTITUTE TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY-KINGSVILLE ROB AND BESSIE WELDER WILDLIFE FOUNDATION ALL THE CONSULTANTS/PARTICIPANTS CENTER PERSONNEL (David and Ray)

21. The development of Ecological Site Descriptions for Texas rangelands is one of the foremost projects that the Center for Grazinglands and Ranch Management at Texas A&M would like to see accomplished. It is our goal to continue contributing to this effort whenever we can be involved.