Technologies To Benefit Agriculture andWildlife

May 1985

NTIS order #PB85-239747

Recommended Citation:

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 85-600529

For sale by the Superintendent of DocumentsU.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402

Preface

This workshop proceeding, Technologies to Benefit Agriculture an d Wildlife,was prepared by the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) at the request of theSubcommittee on Soil and Water Conservation, Forestry, and the Environment ofthe Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. This proceedingpresents a broad range of papers on specific technologies that could benefit bothagricultural production and wildlife habitat requirements on private lands. It alsodescribes some constraints and opportunities to integrate agriculture and wildlifeconcerns and discusses policy opportunities for improved agriculture and wild-life integration.

The objectives and goals of agricultural policy and wildlife conservation pol-icy need not be mutually exclusive. Opportunities exist for U.S. agriculture to applynew or emerging technologies that could maintain or even increase productionof crops, livestock, and timber while sustaining wildlife. More, however, could bedone to promote the application of such resource-sustaining technologies.

OTA wishes to thank the authors of the workshop papers for their efforts before,during, and after the workshop. In addition, OTA is grateful for the support, assist-ance, and cooperation received during the preparation of this proceeding from thosein the agriculture and wildlife communities.

. . .Ill

Technologies to Benefit Agriculture andWildlife Workshop Participants

Norman A. BergWashington RepresentativeSoil Conservation Society of AmericaWashington, DC

Stephen BradyIllinois State BiologistSoil Conservation ServiceChampaign, IL

William CooperDepartment of ZoologyMichigan State UniversityEast Lansing, MI

Raymond EvansAgricultural LiaisonMissouri Department of ConservationJefferson City, MS

Edward FrankWisconsin Department of NaturalResourcesMadison, WI

Tim GoodgerNational Marine Fisheries ServiceOxford LaboratoryOxford, MD

Lawrence HarrisDepartment of Forest ResourcesUniversity of FloridaGainesville, FL

Larry JahnVice-PresidentWildlife Management InstituteWashington, DC

Jay LeitchDepartment of Agricultural EconomicsNorth Dakota State UniversityFargo, ND

Chris MaserBureau of Land ManagementCorvallis, OR

Thorn McEvoyCooperative Extension ServiceUniversity of VermontBurlington, VT

Robert PapendickUSDA-ARSWashington State UniversityPullman, WA

Karla PerriLegislative AssistantSenator Roger Jepsen’s OfficeU.S. Congress

Randy RodgersResearch BiologistKansas Fish and Game CommissionHays, KS

OTA StaffCatherine CarlsonWalter ParhamSusan Shen

Congressional ObserversDarla AtwoodSenator Chafee’s Office

Stacy HoffhausSenator Danforth’s Office

David JudaySenator Quayle’s Office

Alan RubyHouse Science and Technology CommitteeSubcommittee on Natural Resources,

Agriculture Research and Environment

Raymond LinderSouth Dakota Cooperative Unit Leader (retired)South Dakota State UniversityBrookings, SD

iv

OTA Workshop Staff-Technologies to BenefitAgriculture and Wildlife

Roger Herdman, Assistant Director, OTAHealth and Life Sciences Division

Walter E. Parham, Food and Renewable Resources Program Manager

Susan Shen, Project Director

Catherine Carlson, Research Assistant

Patricia Durana, Administrative Assistant

Nellie Hammond, Secretary

Carolyn Swann, Secretary

Contents

TableTable No. PageI. Potential Courses of Action for Congress with Variations Proposed

to Improve Wildlife and Fish Habitat Benefits. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

FiguresFigure No. Pagel. Use of Non-Federal Land. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112. Land Resource Regions of the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

vi

Chapter Page

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

II. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

III. TECHNOLOGIES THAT BENEFIT AGRICULTURE AND WILDLIFE. . . . . . . . . . .. 11 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11 Specific Techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 13 Integrated Management Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 15 Regional Agriculture Management. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 19 Information Transfer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 20 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 21

IV. FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION ............................................. 25 Opportunities and Constraints to Technology Development and Use ............. 25

Research ............................................................. 25 Education ............................................................ 26 Implementation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 26

Issues in Agriculture and Wildlife Integration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 27 Areas for Possible Congressional Action ..................................... 29

Integrating Farm Economic Policies With Resource Conservation Policies ... " 29 Enhancing Federal Capabilities to Develop and Implement

Innovative Technologies .............................................. 38 Improving the Effectiveness of Existing Federal Programs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 40

Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 43

REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 47

APPENDIX A. LIST OF ACRONYMS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 53

APPENDIX B. TECHNICAL PAPERS................................ ........... 54 Important Soil Conservation Techniques That Benefit Wildlife. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 55 Different Cropping Systems in the United States and Potential Benefits to Wildlife. . .. 63 Reducing Wildlife Losses to Tillage in Wheat Production Systems .................. 69 Wetlands and Agriculture. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 Rangelands, Wildlife Technology, and Human Desires. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 83 Agricultural Practices and Aquatic Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 93 Agricultural Activities and Marine Fisheries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 98 Designing Landscape Mosaics for Integrated Agricultural and Conservation Planning

in the Southeastern United States. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 102 Dodge County Interagency Project to Enhance Vv'ildlife Habitat on Farmlands ........ 112 An Educational Approach to Increase the Production of Multiple Benefits

From Private Nonindustrial Woodlands in America ............................. 116 Economics of Joint Production of Agricultural Commodities and Wildlife. . . . . . . . . . .. 121 The Impact of USDA Programs on Fisheries and Wildlife. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 129 Agricultural Policies Related to Fish and Wildlife Habitat. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 135

—. ——————. — .——

Chapter 1

Executive Summary

Chapter I

Executive Summary

Wildlife habitat management and agricul-tural production need not be mutually ex-clusive uses of the land resource. In fact, wild-life management on agricultural lands mayprovide short- and long-term benefits to agri-cultural operations. Opportunities exist todayfor landowners to adopt technologies that ben-efit agriculture and wildlife as part of their agri-cultural operation.

Technologies to benefit agriculture and wild-life on croplands, rangelands, and forest landsinclude: 1) specific technologies (e. g., the un-dercutter plow], 2) integrated management sys-tems (e.g., organic farming), 3) regional man-agement strategies (e.g., Wisconsin’s DodgeCounty Interagency Project), and 4) informa-tion transfer technologies (e.g., the CovertsProject in Vermont and Connecticut), Eachtechnology benefits agriculture by promotingsustainable agricultural production or satisfy-ing a landowner’s objectives in managing hisland; the technologies benefit wildlife by en-hancing wildlife habitat on agricultural lands.

Before proper development and implemen-tation of agriculture/wildlife technologies willoccur, some fundamental problems related toagriculture and wildlife interactions need to beovercome. The common perception that wild-life habitat conservation and agriculture pro-duction are mutually exclusive land uses needsto be addressed. Federal programs may needto be redirected to incorporate multiple objec-tives, Another issue to be addressed is the per-ceived trade-off in agricultural practices be-

tween short-term profits from the land andmaintenance of the land’s long-term produc-tivity.

Federal policies and programs that integratewildlife conservation and agriculture produc-tion could be established to overcome con-straints to technology development and adop-tion and to encourage landowners to usepractices that will maintain long-term resourceproductivity. Potential policies and programsin the 1985 Farm Bill could foster integrationof agriculture economic policies with naturalresource conservation policies and promote de-velopment and implementation of innovativetechnologies to sustain agriculture and the re-source base. Opportunities exist for improvingthe effectiveness of Federal programs by amend-ing current policies or by increasing appropria-tions for programs.

Some of the report’s proposals would requireredirection of available funding or increasedappropriations to satisfy program objectives.Others, such as a cross-compliance policy orconservation reserve, may be able to reduceFederal funding because they address dual ob-jectives of resource conservation and com-modity production control. A Federal commit-ment to encourage improved management ofthe Nation’s private land resources for privateand public benefits could provide the neces-sary leadership for successful landowner im-plementation of any available or future tech-niques.

3

— .-

.

Chapter IIIn t roduct ion

Chapter

Introduction

Throughout America’s history, agriculturalactivities on cropland, rangeland, and forestland have affected wildlife habitat in bothpositive and negative ways. The quality ofwildlife l habitat is interrelated to the qualityof the 1and base. Agricultural practices thatdiminish the land or water resource quality(e.g., tillage that increases soil erosion beyondan established tolerance level) tend to decreasewildlife and fish habitat quality as well. Con-versely, wildlife and fish habitats of many spe-cies generally are improved by agriculturalpractices that sustain land productivity, suchas soil conservation or water pollution abate-ment practices (National Academy of Sciences,1982).

Recent scientific evidence suggests that somewildlife and fish populations are either declin-ing or are in jeopardy on many agriculturallands, due primarily to the loss or extensivealteration of habitat associated with modernagricultural practices (Warner, 1984; Warner,et al., 1984; Menzel, 1983; Klimstra, 1982;Ferris and Cole, 1981; Burger, 1978). Modernagricultural practices tend to produce fieldswith one or two crops that are dependent onhigh levels of fertilizers, pesticides, and fre-quent tillage to sustain production.

Coupled with a reduction in suitable habitatis a growing public concern for maintainingor enhancing wildlife and fish resources foreconomic, recreational, and esthetic reasons.Each year, approximately 100 million Ameri-can adults spend some $40 billion on wildlife-related recreation—e.g., hunting, bird watch-ing, and photography (USDI Fish and WildlifeService, 1982),

Landowner attitude surveys indicate thatmany private landowners place a high, al-

IWildlife, for the purposes of this proceeding, will include anywild, free-ranging, nondomesticated animal, such as mammals,birds, and fish.

though unquantifiable, value on wildlife. A sur-vey of landowner attitudes toward wildlife inMinnesota found that the opportunity to ob-serve wildlife was ranked very high (Svoboda,1984). An analysis of the Fish and WildlifeService’s 1980 National Survey of Hunting,Fishing, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation in-dicated that approximately one-half of the U.S.adult population participated in activitieswhere the primary purpose was involvementwith wildlife in the vicinity of their residence(Lyons, 1982). Still another study found thatwildlife had broad appeal to many, if not most,Americans and that diverse and healthy wild-life populations seem to contribute to a highstandard and quality of life in the minds ofmany Americans (Kellert, 1980). This impres-sion supports the premise in the U.S. Depart-ment of Agriculture Policy on Fish and Wild-life (1982, p. 1), that states:

Fish and wildlife have inherent value ascomponents and indicators of healthy ecosys-tems. They often demonstrate how alteredenvironments may affect changes in the qual-ity of life for humans,

Private agricultural 1ands provide the bulkof the Nation’s food and fiber crop production.Products from agricultural lands are criticalcomponents of local, national, and interna-tional economies. Food and fiber needs fromthe Nation’s agricultural lands and the privatelandowner’s desire to maintain or improve hisway of 1ife preclude his willingness to shiftthese lands from agriculture production to ex-clusively wildlife habitats,

Agricultural production and wildlife and fishconservation interests, however, need not bemutually exclusive. Farmlands and croplandshave long been recognized as major wildlifehabitat. Crops and associated vegetation pro-vide food and cover for certain birds and mam-mals typically referred to as farm wildlife.While certain advances in farming technologyhave resulted in an overall deterioration of

7

8

wildlife habitat, others have occurred that fa-vor wildlife.

OTA was asked by the Subcommittee on Soiland Water Conservation, Forestry, and theEnvironment of the Senate Committee on Agri-culture, Nutrition, and Forestry to: 1) identifytechnologies that could be beneficial to bothagricultural production and wildlife and fishhabitats, and 2) identify opportunities and con-straints to the further development and adop-tion of these technologies by the landowner.2

~ln this proceeding, landowners include both in-title ownersof agricultural property and renters or tenants of agriculturallands.

The proceeding is the result of informationgathered from: a) 15 researchers, field special-ists, policy makers, and congressional staff ata 2-day OTA workshop, b) telephone interviewswith experts, and c) OTA staff research. Thisproceeding presents only a brief overview ofthe opportunities, constraints, and potential ofnew or emerging agricultural or wildlife tech-nologies that benefit both agricultural produc-tion and wildlife conservation.

Brief analyses of some technologies that ben-efit agriculture and wildlife, and discussion ofmajor issues involved in integrating agricultureand wildlife interests follow. The technicalpapers presented at the OTA workshop arecontained in appendix B.

TechnologiesAgriculure

Chapter III

That Benefitand Wildlife

Chapter III

Technologies That BenefitAgriculture and Wildlife

INTRODUCTION

Agriculture and wildlife professionals dis-agree as to whether sufficient information ex-ists to manage wildlife habitats in concert withagricultural operations on agricultural lands,Most wildlife biologists believe enough infor-mation is available currently to integrate wild-life habitat considerations with agriculturalproduction but are unaware of landowner con-straints to adopting techniques where the solebeneficiary is wildlife and fish. In addition,many agricultural and wildlife professionalsseem to know little about the necessary trade-offs in land management practices that wouldbe most beneficial to wildlife while sustainingagricultural productivity,

Despite the incomplete information currentlyavailable on complementary agriculture andwildlife interactions, a number of techniquesdescribed at the OTA workshop and some inthe published literature hold promise for ben-efiting both agricultural productivity and wild-life habitat. Technological categories that ben-efit agriculture and wildlife include specificpractices, integrated management systems, andmethods of information transfer. These tech-nologies in general emphasize wildlife habitatas a complementary, not a secondary land useassociated with the primary land use on crop-lands, rangelands and pastures, and forestlands. 1 Figure 1 and 2 show the acreages of

‘Croplands—Any land used primarily for the production ofadapted, cultivated, fruit or nut crops for harvest, alone or inassociation with sod crops.

Figure l.— Use of Non-Federal LandIncludes United States, Puerto Rico, and Virgin Islands

Excludes Alaska (SCS, 1981a)

Pastureland, native pasture,

2 5 % ,

non-Federal land in each of the major agricul-tural land uses and the agricultural regions ofthe country, respectively.

Rangelands—Land on which the native vegetation (climax ornatural potential) is predominantly grasses, grass-like plants,forbs or shrubs suitable for grazing or browsing use. Includeslands re-vegetated naturally or artificially that are managed likenative vegetation.

Pastures—Areas intensively managed for the production offorage, introduced or native, and harvested by grazing or mow-ing (OTA, 1982).

Forest Lands—Areas where the predominant plant commu-nity is trees and other woody vegetation, growing more or lessclosely together (SAF, 1971).

11

.

12

Figure 2.—Land Resource Regions of the United States (SCS, 1981b)

A Northwestern Forest, Forage, and Specialty Crop Region

B Northwestern Wheat and Range Region

C California Subtropical Fruit, Truck, and Specialty Crop Region

D Western Range and Irrigated Region

E Rocky Mountain Range and Forest Region

F Northern Great Plains Spring Wheat Region

G Western Great Plains Range and Irrigated Region

H Central Great Plains Winter Wheat and Range Region

1 Southwest Plateaus and Plains Range and Cotton Region

J Southwestern Prairies Cotton and Forage Region

K Northern Lake States Forest and Forage Region

L Lake States Fruit, Truck, and Dairy Region

M Central Feed Grains and Livestock Region

N East and Central Farming and Forest Region

O Mississippi Delta Cotton and Feed Grains Region

P South Atlantic and Gulf Slope Cash Crops, Forest,and Livestock Region

R Northeastern Forage and Forest Region

S Northern Atlantic Slope Diversified Farming Region

T Atlantic and Gulf Coast Lowland Forest and Crop Region

U Florida Subtropical Fruit, Truck Crop, and Range Region

V Hawaii Region

W Southern Alaska Region

X Interior Alaska Region

Y Arctic and Western Alaska Region

—

13

SPECIFIC TECHNIQUES

Undercuttor Plow

The undercutter plow is a farm implementcurrently used for weed control on many farmsin the winter wheat/fallow region of the GreatPlains States and the Intermountain West.Undercutter are large (3 to 7 feet wide) V-shaped blades or sweeps that are pulled by trac-tors through a field 3 to 6 inches under the soilsurface. Using an undercutter instead of a disccan control weeds, retain soil moisture, andsave many bird nests and flightless birds pres-ent in the stubble while providing adequateweed control. In situations where mulchtreaders are used in combination with under-cutter, however, wildlife habitat benefits arelost. Mulch treaders consist of rotating bladesdesigned to knock down and mix residue intothe soil,

Farmers in water-limited winter wheat areastry to maintain surface stubble after harvest toreduce soil erosion and to increase soil mois-ture retention for subsequent crop growth.Spring use of the undercutter can kill emerg-ing weeds in the wheat stubble while retain-ing stubble on the soil surface (Rodgers, 1984).

Some evidence exists that undercutter aremore fuel efficient than discs on a single passthrough the field (Smika, 1976). In addition, theundercutter plow reduces mortality to birdnests by 40 to 50 percent in the wheat stubblecompared to 100 percent mortality with sur-face tillage equipment, such as mulch treaders(Rodgers, 1984).

The undercutter plow has the greatest util-ity in the drier parts of the winter wheat areaswhere the abundance of stubble is low, suchas western Kansas and Nebraska and centralWashington. Farmers in the drier parts of thecentral and southern Great Plains already usethe undercutter plow for some aspect of theirtillage operations, and the number of under-cutter are becoming more prevalent in theseareas. Undercutter are not used often for ini-

tial tillage and weed control in high rainfallareas where high yields of stubble are producedafter harvest (i.e., eastern Kansas and Nebraskaand eastern Washington), because, in thesemore humid areas, the present undercutter areineffective at breaking up crop residue. In con-tinuous cropping areas, the extensive surfaceresidue retained when using undercutter alsocan harbor crop disease and may contributeto clogging of conventional drills used to plantseeds.

Root p low

Another farm implement which has poten-tial to maintain wildlife habitat and improveland productivity is the root plow. The rootplow is a heavy-shanked chisel instrumentwhich can be attached to a tractor and pulledalong field borders or windbreaks to cut rootsand reduce competition between border vege-tation and the field crops for soil moisture andnutrients, thus reducing an incentive to destroythese habitats (Kansas Fish and Game Commis-sion, undated). The root plow has receivedsome attention in Europe and its use is pro-moted in Kansas where a renewed effort ex-ists to retain windbreaks and border strips forwildlife benefits and soil erosion control.

Root plow tests in Kansas show that the plowreduces competition between field crops andosage orange or Chinese elm hedgerow trees.The plows can be borrowed by farmers free ofcharge from the Kansas Fish and Game Com-mission. However, the demand for the rootplows far exceeds the available supply in Kan-sas. Farmers are encouraged to devise theirown form of root plow using other farm equip-ment, such as a bulldozer with a ripper blade.

The root plow is most effective at reducingcompetition between shallow rooted hedgerowspecies and grain crops such as sorghum, corn,and soybeans. Deeper rooted windbreak spe-cies provide 1ess competition to adjacentshallow rooted crops,

14

ally unique to the surrounding landscape, par-ticularly in arid and semi-arid regions. Thesecorridors are important for movement of wild-life populations from one area to another. Thebenefits for the landowner would be similar tothose obtained from hedgerows, shelterbelts,and field border strips (above).

The farmer or rancher faces trade-offs inestablishing and maintaining hedgerows, fieldborders, or riparian zones. As mentionedearlier, these conservation practices createcompetition with adjacent fields for soil mois-ture and nutrients. Retention of hedgerows orwindbreaks is not consistent with the empha-sis advanced in the early 1970s to increase agri-cultural production from fence to fence. Thesetree and shrub strips also can be consideredobstructions to the growing number of agricul-tural center-pivot irrigation systems, althoughlow growing shrubs or strips of tall stiff grassmay be needed to control soil blowing on ir-rigated fields.

Terraces and Waterways

Other specific soil conservation practicesthat have some potential to improve wildlifehabitat and agricultural land productivity in-clude grassed terraces and grassed waterways(Brady, 1984; OTA, 1982). Again, these conser-vation practices have been promoted since the1930s to reduce soil erosion and provide abuffer for agricultural runoff and sedimentflowing toward local lakes and streams. Farm-ers benefit from soil stabilization for sustainedcrop production. Terraces and waterways canbe designed to benefit wildlife. For example,planting of specific grass mixtures providesfood and cover and increases available wild-life habitat types. The Soil Conservation Serv-ice Plant Materials Centers and the Agricul-tural Research Service currently are evaluatingplant species best suited for wildlife food andcover (Fryrear, 1984; USDA Soil ConservationService, 1979).

Terrace and waterway construction may notbenefit wildlife if wildlife considerations arenot included in the planning and implemen-tation of these techniques. Narrow terraces or

15

waterways that are managed with wildlife inmind can provide nesting and escape cover forlocal wildlife populations. If cool-season grassesare planted on the terrace or in the waterway,any wildlife benefits will be reduced if the areais mowed during the peak nesting season. Nestsuccess of ground nesting birds also tends tobe low in narrow strip cover that is searchedeasily by predators (Gates and Hale, 1975).

Terrace and waterway establishment tendsto be expensive and requires, in some cases,significant soil disturbance that results in highcosts to the farmer. Vegetation along terracesand waterways may require maintenance to

sustain the wildlife benefits and to control pos-sible weed outbreaks. Narrow-based terraceconstruction costs in Illinois are about $300 to$400 per acre (Brady, 1984). Even with theAgricultural Stabilization and ConservationService (ASCS) cost-sharing 60 to 75 percentof the terrace and waterway construction,many farmers find the construction cost andsoil disturbance prohibitive (Cook, 1984). Farm-ers also face an economic trade-off betweenusing an area for conservation purposes orusing it for production of cash crops. Conse-quently, these practices are not in widespreaduse.

INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS

Many of the above individual techniques arenot new. However, resource managers seemto be shifting away from using individual tech-niqueshechnologies to address specific prob-lems towards using a total land managementapproach. This approach incorporates a land-owner’s entire property into a system whichmakes the most use of the available resourcesfor agriculture productivity and resource con-servation. This approach to land managementis characterized by the Resource ManagementSystem.

A Resource Management System (RMS) is aland management technique proposed and de-veloped by the Soil Conservation Service (SCS).The RMS combines multidisciplinary input todevelop a farm management and conservationplan coupling the landowner’s goals for use ofthe resources and SCS goals of reducing ero-sion and nonpoint source pollution. SCS pro-vides technical assistance to the farmer in de-veloping such farm plans. The farmer thendecides whether to apply all or part of the planon his land. This approach to farm manage-ment links agricultural production and conser-vation with varying degrees of emphasis givento wildlife and fish concerns.

The RMS has high potential to integrate wild-life and fish considerations into farm systemmanagement. Whether or not the RMS ap-

proach proves useful in this regard still is notknown. SCS has yet to evaluate the effective-ness of the RMS approach in meeting their goalof reducing erosion or nonpoint source pollu-tion. Nor is there any information on the de-gree to which wildlife is incorporated into thefarm plans. A recent survey of farmer adop-tion of the RMS indicates that only 30 percentof the farmers with an RMS had achieved 100percent implementation of the recommenda-tions (Buhena, et al., 1984). The degree of adop-tion of the RMS recommendations seemed tobe related to the age of the plan; plans devel-oped in the last 5 years had a lower percentimplementation compared to older plans.

Potential benefits for wildlife and fish habi-tat depend entirely on the landowner’s will-ingness and ability to implement the plan.Thus, the lack of landowner compliance obli-gations might be the major obstacle to meetingthe stated goals of the landowner or SCS. Thedifferent disciplines also may have difficultycoordinating decisions on the specific prac-tices which should be adopted to meet the over-all stated objectives.

The following discussion, organized accord-ing to different land uses, describes selectedintegrated systems that also may be elementsof an RMS.

16

Croplands

Conservatioa Tillago

Conservation tillage is any cropping systemwhich leaves at least 32 percent of the mulchor stubble from crop harvest above the soil sur-face. These cropping systems, which includeno-till, mulch till, and ridge till, are being im-plemented in many regions of the country(Brady, 1984; OTA, 1982). The systems are de-signed to reduce soil erosion and to aid in soilmoisture retention while allowing sustainedyields of farm crops. (For further discussionof conservation tillage, see Brady, 1984; Papen-dick and Elliot, 1984.)

Currently, benefits to wildlife and fish fromconservation tillage are being evaluated on dif-ferent sites across the country (Best, 1984;Castrale, 1984; Duebbert, 1984; Madsen, 1984).Preliminary research results indicate thatnesting upland game birds and migratory birdsare more abundant in conservation tilled fieldswhen compared to conventionally tilled fields(Best, 1984; Madsen, 1984). A study in Iowashowed that small mammal population den-sities do not change significantly between thetwo systems, indicating that problems with in-creased rodent “pests” may not exist in con-servation tilled fields, at least in some areas ofthe country (Best, 1984). Conservation tilledfields provide food, nesting, and winter covernot associated with “clean” fields.2 The reduc-tion in tillage allows increased nest buildingand production of some nesting birds com-pared to conventional tilled fields.

The adoption of conservation tillage systemsstill faces certain obstacles. The landownermay need to replace his current farm equip-ment with new machinery designed to plantinto stubble or mulch. Further, the farmer willneed to develop new weed control strategiesthat are effective under reduced tillage. In-creases in applications of herbicides and pos-sibly fertilizers may be required to sustain cropyields; changes that require “up-front” capitalcosts for chemical purchases. The potential in-crease in chemical use could have negative ef-

ZNO surface litter or waste grain after harvest.

fects on fish populations. Perhaps the greatestobstacle to adoption of conservation tillagetechniques is the farmer’s reluctance to changefrom a “clean farming” approach to acceptinga stubble-laden field.

Today, not enough is known about the effectsof conservation tillage on wildlife and fish hab-itat to endorse this technique without reserva-tion. The increase in chemical applicationsassociated with some conservation tillage oper-ations may have significant adverse impacts onwildlife or fish populations and their habitats.The erosion-reducing capabilities of conserva-tion tillage may encourage farmers to farmmarginal lands that previously were too ero-sion-prone to cultivate using conventionalfarming techniques. Lands currently not in pro-duction, generally because of low productivecapability, are considered by wildlife biologiststo be far more valuable as wildlife habitat thanconservation tilled acres or clean acres, be-cause they usually are undisturbed (Cacek,1984).

Biological Farming

Another land management system that hasgenerated much interest in the United Statesis biological farming, also known as alterna-tive farming, organic farming, sustainable agri-culture, or regenerative farming (Papendickand Elliot, 1984). The U.S. Department of Agri-culture (USDA) defines biological farming(organic farming) as a production systemwhich avoids or largely excludes the use of syn-thetic compounds, relying instead on crop rota-tion, residues, manures, and mechanical cul-tivation to maintain soil productivity and tilth,to supply plant nutrients, and to control pests(USDA, 1980). This system is attractive becauseof its potential to reduce capital costs signifi-cantly in farm operations as well as to reducesoil erosion. Some evidence exists to show thatbiological farming techniques can cut opera-tion costs without a significant decrease in netprofit (Youngberg, et al., 1984).

The transition from conventional, chemicalintensive farming operations to biologicalfarming initially may pose a risk to farmers.

17

The risk is a decrease in profits and yields, andtemporary increases in weed and insect infesta-tions, With a greatly accelerated interest in re-ducing inputs into farming operations, particu-larly in light of high chemical and fuel costs,biological farming may be readily acceptableto farmers once the risks and problems asso-ciated with this system, particularly the tran-sition phase, are clearly identified (Papendickand Elliot, 1984). The Agricultural ResearchService (ARS) is currently developing a small-scale project on biological farming systems thatincludes evaluating the risks and problemsassociated with the transition from conven-tional farming operations to those of biologi-cal farming (Papendick, 1984).

The potential to improve wildlife and fishhabitat and net profit with biological farmingin some farming systems exists, but insufficientinformation is available at present about ben-eficial or adverse habitat impacts from this landmanagement system. Only a few studies haveattempted to evaluate the wildlife response onbiologically farmed fields compared to conven-tionally farmed fields (Dahlgren, 1983; Ducey,et al., 1980). These studies conclude that breed-ing bird densities and diversity of wildlife in-crease dramatically on biologically farmedfields. Benefits to wildlife include a reductionin chemical contaminants in the ecosystem, anincrease in habitat diversity associated withcrop rotations and the use of mulches, a de-crease in sediment runoff, and an increase inwildlife winter cover. However, for groundnesting birds, the gains in nesting habitat underbiological farming may be offset by the in-creased tillage required for weed and other pestcontrol,

RangoIands and Pastures

Federal land managing agencies (i.e., U.S.Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management)have taken an active role in trying to coordi-nate wildlife habitat needs into other agricul-tural operations on Federal lands (Maser,1984). A great deal more research has focusedon wildlife populations on rangelands andforestlands compared to croplands. This is duein part to the mandate in the National Forest

Management Act (Public Law 94-588) and theFederal Land Policy and Management Act(Public Law 94-579) to maintain “viable” wild-life populations and establish multiple use ofthe public domain, including wildlife.

Biologists and range managers disagreeamong themselves as to whether wildlife hab-itat can be maintained in areas where the pri-mary land use is livestock production. Im-provements in range quality only benefit somewildlife. Wildlife can be affected adversely bygrazing if livestock are present in a pasture dur-ing the bird nesting season or are competingwith native ungulates (i.e., deer, antelope) forfood supplies, especially in the winter. Live-stock also may destroy riparian habitats alongwatercourses, thus damaging or eliminatingimportant wildlife and fish habitat.

However, some rangeland management tech-nologies exist which improve livestock produc-tion and enhance habitat for some species offish and wildlife. In the semi-arid regions ofTexas and Montana, rest-rotation grazing sys-tems benefit both livestock and some speciesof wildlife (Egan, 1984; Bryant, et al., 1981),Rotating livestock between two or three pas-tures promotes forage growth in the “rested”area, improves overall range quality from thedispersal of intensive livestock use, helps to in-crease animal weight gain, and increases thenumber of animals that can use the same range.Ungulates, in particular deer and antelope,benefit from the improvement in range qualityand the increase in food supply. It is likely thatground nesting birds also may benefit from theincreased cover found in the rested areas.

Short Duration Grazing Systems or theSavory Grazing System (SGS) are receiving in-creased interest in the Great Plains and west-ern United States because of the potential toimprove forage production and livestock pro-duction. These systems currently are underevaluation for the potential benefits to wildlife(Drawe, 1984; Kruse, 1984).

Another grazing approach with potentialbenefits for wildlife is under research in SouthDakota (Linder, et al., 1984). Grazing or mow-ing prairie pothole wetlands during certain

18

seasons may provide additional food sourcesfor livestock and open up dense wetland vege-tation to enhance migratory bird habitat anduse in early spring. Wetland vegetation appearsto be palatable and to have some nutritive con-tent for cattle, providing an alternative to graz-ing upland areas during midsummer to latesummer. However, livestock operators mayneed to plan their livestock grazing operationto restrict use during the nesting season andpromote use later in the summer in order forwildlife benefits to be realized.

Yet another technique to provide improvedforage for livestock and benefit wildlife maybe the establishment of native warm-seasongrasses in pastures currently planted to cool-season grasses. Warm-season grasses maturelater in the spring and produce forage through-out the summer months when cool-seasongrasses generally have a lull in productivity.Warm-season grasses also are more tolerant ofmoisture stress and salt stress compared totheir cool-season counterparts, thus makingthem more adaptable to poor quality soils. Eachof these factors indicates the landowner wouldimprove his forage production using warm-season grasses or a warm-seasordcool-seasongrass mixture compared to cool-season grassesalone. Depending on local seed availability,warm-season grasses are considered to beapplicable to most regions of the country (Jung,1984).

The overall benefits of warm-season grassesover cool-season grasses for livestock currentlyare being evaluated. Because warm-seasongrasses are structurally different from cool-season grasses, the standard laboratory tech-niques for determining digestibility and nutri-tive content are inconclusive as yet (Jung,1984). The benefits to wildlife are better under-stood. Field studies suggest that warm-seasongrasses provide better winter cover for wild-life in contrast to cool-season grasses that cantolerate closer grazing. Most warm-seasongrasses should be grazed no shorter than 8 to10 inches that, as a consequence, leaves morecover for wildlife overwinter and into earlyspring than cool-season grasses. The reductionin livestock on warm-season grass pastures

during early spring when the grasses are in aslow-growth phase also eliminates some dam-age by cattle to wildlife nesting cover and food(Wooley, et al., 1982).

Today, landowners may have difficulty locat-ing sufficient native seed stocks to establishwarm-season grass pastures. Farmers/ranchersalso would face an initial capital cost in trans-forming pastures from one grass type to a mix-ture of grasses or to a different grass type.

Forest Lands

Forest management systems can benefitselected wildlife populations through habitatenhancement while maintaining timber pro-ductivity (Thomas, 1979). Different timber har-vesting schemes are under study for theirability to sustain timber production and yetenhance wildlife habitat for certain species.Wildlife response to different harvesting pat-terns varies among species and geographiclocations. Timber harvesting techniques thatretain seed producing trees or patches of for-est appear to produce more beneficial habitatfor some wildlife species than the techniqueof clearcutting large areas. However, the land-owner generally finds it cheaper in the short-term to clearcut the land compared to cuttingtrees selectively (Ursic, 1984).

Some woodland owners, particularly non-industrial woodlot owners in the Northeast, arenot managing their woodlands for lumber pro-duction. Instead, they place a high priority onwildlife habitat management (Alexander andKellert, 1984). Many biologists and resourcemanagers have focused on these areas as highpotential wildlife habitat for selected wildlifespecies. In the Northeast for example, habitatcan be enhanced by creating small openingsin the forest canopy, retaining snag trees anddead materials, and encouraging the growth ofshrubs and trees that provide wildlife foods(Gutierrez, et al., 1979). This and other treestand manipulation can help the landownermeet the objective of enhancing wildlife habi-tat while implementing management practicesthat will generate some income from the timberresources.

19

REGIONAL AGRICULTURE MANAGEMENT

The regional approach to agriculture landmanagement is a new and emerging technol-ogy. It involves the development of “landscapemosaics” to integrate conservation and wild-life considerations and agricultural productionobjectives. The approach can include match-ing a site with an appropriate land use activ-ity. Thus, the most productive soils are usedfor agriculture, shifting gradually into more in-tensive wildlife habitat management on poorersoils and sites (Harris, 1984). Habitat mosaicscould be connected with existing natural re-serves and parks, developing habitat “cor-ridors” among natural areas, along streamcourses or through productive agriculturalareas to provide passageways for wide-rang-ing species such as large, predatory wildlife(Harris, 1984).

Landscape mosaics require careful planningand landowner concurrence to make optimaluse of the available land base for both agricul-ture production and wildlife habitat. Inter-agency cooperation would be one means of co-ordinating these different activities, helping tocreate a mosaic of habitats across a particularregion.

Significant institutional obstacles exist in co-ordinating Federal, State, and local agenciesand private interests to meet mutual objectiveson a large land area. Landowner attitudestoward wildlife habitat management rangefrom complete intolerance of wildlife to en-couraging wildlife populations. The disparityin attitudes could be a major obstacle to re-gional implementation. Thus both the land-owners and the agencies involved might needto be convinced that wildlife can, in fact, coex-ist in a beneficial way with agriculture.

sInstitutions define what individuals can and cannot do, assignrights to resources, define roles and govern individual and col-lective ownerships. Institutions include, but are not limited to,agencies, professional or citizen organizations, and the courtsystem.

An example of a regional approach to landmanagement is Wisconsin’s Dodge County In-teragency Project. The Project was initiatedunder a cooperative agreement between theWisconsin Department of Natural Resources(DNR), SCS, ASCS, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serv-ice, University of Wisconsin Extension, and theWisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade,and Consumer Protection to coordinate wild-life habitat objectives with water quality en-hancement, soil erosion control, and mainte-nance of farmer income through incentivesand cost-share payments (Frank, 1984). SCS isproviding the individual farm plans, ASCS isproviding cost-sharing assistance, Extensionwill be involved in education and evaluationefforts, and DNR is coordinating the projectand providing additional cost-sharing assist-ance for wildlife habitat enhancement. TheFish and Wildlife Service is involved in wild-life management recommendations and theDodge County Land Conservation Committeesupplies local advice and support.

The landowners expect to benefit from theavailability of technical assistance and the long-range planning. Personal risk from implement-ing new land management techniques or fromreducing crop yields will be offset by the in-centive and cost-share payments borne by theFederal Government and the State. Some in-dication exists that landowners benefit fromseeing how their individual management planfits into a broader regional scope, thus provid-ing the landowner with a justification andsocial motivation to do his or her part in theoverall plan. Wildlife populations are expectedto increase from the enhancement of specifichabitats and the idled lands that will be madeavailable for food and cover.

The Dodge County Project will serve as afield evaluation of the techniques currentlyknown: 1) to enhance wildlife habitat on farm-lands, primarily ground nesting birds andwaterfowl, and 2) to control soil erosion and

20

runoff into waterbodies (Frank, 1984). The Proj- of specific techniques and incentive paymentsect, if successful, will serve as a demonstration is 1985. The Project is expected to run throughof regional management for multiple objec- 1990 when results will be available on the ef-tives. The first field season for implementation festiveness of this approach.

INFORMATION TRANSFER

To facilitate technology adoption, informa-tion on technology use, costs, and benefits mustbe made accessible to the landowner. Publiceducation programs are needed to establishcredibility for the coexistence of environ-mentally and economically sound managementon agricultural lands (Cooper, 1984). Informa-tion transfer is a key element in the eventualacceptance of different land managementpractices.

A list of the most successful techniques avail-able to transfer information to other profes-sionals, landowners, and the general public inregard to integrating agriculture and wildlifewas developed by the OTA workshop partici-pants. The list4 includes: 1) media (radio andtelevision), 2) direct contact to the landownersthrough small groups or one-on-one technicalassistance; 3) demonstration or pilot projects;4) formation of interagency committees of Fed-eral, State, and local agencies; and 5) the useof “opinion leaders” in the community to pro-vide information to their peers. These tech-niques are used frequently by the ExtensionService and the State Cooperative ExtensionService to reach landowners with a wide ar-ray of information.

Demonstration projects are one of the mosteffective techniques to disseminate informationto private citizens and other professionals. Theappealing aspect of demonstrations is theirability to show, on the ground and within acommunity, exactly how different techniquescan be applied to the resource base and thetrade-offs for that particular area.

One recent demonstration project for inte-grating wildlife and fish concerns with agri-culture occurred in Talbot County, Maryland,under a cooperative agreement with SCS, Na-

-- —-—4Not ranked, and discussion will cover only (s), (A), and (s).

tional Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), andTalbot County Government (Goodger, 1984).The demonstration was aimed at landownerswho were suffering moderate soil erosionalong Chesapeake Bay as a result of unstableshorelines. Participants were shown how touse aquatic vegetation for shoreline stabiliza-tion and made aware of certain ecological ben-efits. The traditional approach has been con-struction of retainment structures that werecostly, destroyed the native intertidal vegeta-tion, and reduced fisheries habitat along theshoreline. To date, approximately 50 projectsestablishing marsh vegetation along the shore-line have been completed throughout the county(Goodger, 1984).

The Shoreline Stabilization DemonstrationProject also provides an example of how dif-ferent agencies can pool resources to meetcommon objectives. However, cooperationamong different agencies with different objec-tives may be difficult to establish. In addition,a demonstration aimed at those participantsmost likely to benefit from the technique willrequire sophisticated technical expertise.

Another example of interagency demonstra-tion is the use of Best Management Practices(BMP) for nonpoint source pollution control.This project is in the planning stages in TalbotCounty, Maryland. The Model Farm projecthopes to pool the collective expertise of NMFS,SCS, University of Maryland, Maryland De-partment of Natural Resources, and the TalbotCounty Government (Goodger, 1984). While thespecific BMPs for runoff control have yet tobe established, the project may serve as a modelon how interagency cooperation can developa specific management system to reach thecommon goal of nonpoint source pollutionabatement.

21

Another demonstration project, the CovertsProject, is underway in Vermont and Connect-icut. This unique Project is designed to bringtogether opinion leaders in the woodlot-owningcommunities for an education series on howto manage woodlots for wildlife and personaltimber needs (McEvoy, 1984a). The opinionleaders are given a broad range of informationon managing woodlots which, in turn, they canprovide to other members of their communi-ties. Instead of presenting a specific manage-ment technique, like the Talbot County projectabove, the Coverts Project draws upon numer-ous techniques that individuals can apply totheir woodlots based on each owner’s objec-tives. Opinion leaders in Connecticut will beprovided information on management ofwoodlots for wildlife as one of several manage-ment alternatives for the property. The focusin Vermont is on management of the entireproperty for wildlife and personal benefits(McEvoy, 1984b).

Information transfer by local opinion leadershas been successful in the past to meet pre-determined objectives. In Champaign County,Illinois, for example, a local opinion leader inthe community, the Chairman of the Soil andWater Conservation District, invited all thelandowners of a particular township to a meet-ing, At the request of the SCS and the Chair-man of the District, many of the landownersagreed to set aside or manage pieces of theirprime farmland for wildlife and soil erosioncontrol (Brady, 1984). SCS believes they achieved

The technolog

a high level of success in this township becauseof the motivation from the local opinion leader.

The Coverts Project coordinators currentlyare evaluating the criteria used to identify opin-ion leaders in a community. The workshopsand demonstrations are planned for 1985. Dur-ing the life of the Project, the effectiveness ofusing opinion leaders as quasi-extension per-sonnel to reach landowners and the ability ofthe coordinators to identify opinion leaderswill be evaluated (McEvoy, 1984a). The Projectcould serve as a model among Extension per-sonnel for using local people to help others andfor increasing the number of landowners thatthe Extension Service is capable of reachingwith needed information.

The Project’s success will depend on theopinion leader’s ability to reach others with ac-curate information. Accurate character assess-ment of community opinion leaders in theCoverts Project will be useful for future effortsof this nature.

The use of opinion leaders may be most ef-fective in groups having similar interests andmotivation, such as the northeastern woodlotowners. Since landowners in many parts of thecountry hold different views of wildlife, thetask of disseminating information and provid-ing technical assistance to areas outside of NewEngland will have to be tailored to those par-ticularneeds.

landowners and their interests and

SUMMARY

factors aids thees discussed above are only of these long-term productivitya sample of those available to integrate wild- of the resource base and, hence, agriculturallife and fish habitat needs with agricultural pro- production. For example, undercutters helpduction needs. These technologies generally tie farmers reduce weeds and soil erosion and in-wildlife and fish habitat considerations with crease soil moisture while improving the sur-efforts to control erosion, improve soil mois- vival of bird nests and flightless young in wheatture content, or improve water quality. Each stubble.

—

22

Technologies to sustain the resource base for tional techniques (i.e., Coverts Project). Eachagriculture and wildlife are receiving renewed technique can be used in some specific regioninterest among a growing number of land re- ef the country or be applied to specific agri-source managers. Old techniques are being cultural operations. The differences among re-refined to correspond to current agricultural gions, land types, and landowner attitudes pre-needs (e.g., biological farming). Innovative ap- clude across-the-board application of most ofpreaches are being developed to apply tradi- the technologies presented here.

— —.

Chapter IV

Findings and Discussion

Chapter

Findings and Discussion

The preceding section illustrates some ex-amples where agriculture production and wild-life conservation can be mutually reinforcing,if appropriate production technologies are de-veloped and used. Certain new, innovativetechnologies exist that can help maintain hab-itat and improve long-term farm profits. Theuse of some of these technologies—e. g., con-servation tillage—is increasing.

not sustain simultaneously profitable agricul-tural use and wildlife habitat integrity withthose technologies now available. Hence, theneed exists for technology innovation and foraccelerating the development and use of thesetechnologies. Expanded research, education,and implementation programs could greatlyimprove the ability to integrate agriculture andwildlife interests, particularly on croplands.

However, some farmers and ranchers per-ceive that many sites exist which simply can-

OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS TO TECHNOLOGYDEVELOPMENT AND USE

Research

Research is the basis of technology develop-ment, Research provides the information to in-crease our understanding of the structure andfunctioning of ecosystems, to solve particularproblems or design resource-use systems, andto evaluate and refine these systems. Althoughresearch is a continuous process, the OTAstudy identified three areas that could benefitfrom research in the effort to integrate agricul-ture and wildlife.

The major constraint to the development anduse of technologies that could benefit both agri-culture and wildlife is the dearth of informa-tion on agriculture and wildlife trade-offs in-volved with each of these technologies. Forinstance, riparian zones or streamside manage-ment zones have been identified as having im-portant benefits on-farm and off-farm forstream water quality, pollution control, wild-life habitat, and maintenance of the land’s nat-ural productivity. Yet little data exist that quan-tify the benefits or costs to the landowner ofmaintaining riparian zones. Because the capa-bilities of streamside zones and the trade-offsbetween maintaining these areas versus pro-

ducing crops, livestock, or timber on this landare not well documented, private landownershave little incentive to adopt this technique.Thus, new economic models and productionmodels are needed that incorporate societalbenefits and costs from nonmarket goods (e.g.,wildlife habitat) to evaluate trade-offs in vari-ous land management technologies.

Another area of great uncertainty and onethat could become a major constraint to adopt-ing emerging land management systems is thelack of basic data on the problems and per-ceived risks to farmers during the transitionfrom conventional farming to conservation till-age or biological farming. Economic and agro-nomic models have indicated potential eco-nomic loss (e. g., temporary reduction in cropyields) or other problems, but these modelshave not been field tested. Research is neededto identify the risks and opportunities associ-ated with land management practices and thecorresponding benefits for the landowner,wildlife, and society.

Research also is needed to identify individ-ual farm tools that can maintain wildlife habi-tat and yet meet the farmer’s needs, The under-

25

26

cutter plow is one example of such a farm toolthat has dual benefits. However, little if any-thing is known about the potential for modify-ing other tools to meet these dual objectives.Although much of the development of farmtools takes place in private industry little in-centive exists in private farm implement com-panies to invest in research that would bene-fit wildlife. Hence, the public sector will haveto carry the responsibility for identifying agri-cultural tools or techniques that can help in-crease wildlife, a public good on private lands.Ways to reduce mortality of ground nestingwildlife species caused by haying equipmentis an example.

Education

Developing and applying technologies thatbenefit both agriculture and wildlife requiresknowledge of several disciplines. Progress inthis area is severely constrained by the lack ofinterdisciplinary and coordinated research. Ashortage of people trained in or with under-standing of integrated land management sys-tems further constrains the use of existing tech-nologies,

Universities and research institutions are thefocus for research and training of resourcemanagement professionals. At present, profes-sional organizations concerned with accredi-tation and the Civil Service tend to promotecurricula that are narrow in focus and restrictthe opportunity for an integrated approach toeducation. Thus, a shift in curricula is neededat universities to train resource managementprofessionals who can understand integratedmanagement systems and who can work acrossdiscipline boundaries. Such a shift will taketime because only a few educators seem toperceive the need and market demands do notreflect this need for integrated resource man-agement.

The institutional arrangement to train broad-based resource professionals and to conductinterdisciplinary research already exists in theform of Land Grant University system. LandGrant schools contain a wide array of dis-ciplines providing an opportunity for students

to obtain some knowledge of various disci-plines. In addition, Land Grant schools gener-ally are associated with the State AgricultureExperiment Stations—an opportunity to con-duct interdisciplinary research and field testthe results. Land Grant schools, however, mayneed encouragement, including incentives, toconsider integrated management objectives inresearch and to broaden their public educationfunction.

Implementation

Future implementation of land managementtechnologies to benefit agriculture and wild-life depends to a large degree on the educationand information available to the private land-owner. Established tools that provide informa-tion to landowners include: 1) demonstrations,2) one-on-one technical assistance, 3) mediaand publications, 4) pilot projects, and 5) in-service training. Establishing an informationnetwork using local opinion leaders also hasexcellent potential to bring information to pri-vate landowners.

A promising tool to transfer information tothe landowner is the computer and computersoftware being developed presently by LandGrant schools, private industry, and innovativefarmers to aid in on-farm decisionmaking andmanagement. The potential exists to incor-porate wildlife management techniques or agri-culture/wildlife integrated techniques into suchsoftware for farmers’ use. However, the infor-mation and data provided must be timely andsensitive to site differences.

Institutional structures to provide technicaland educational assistance to landowners ex-ist in many cases through Extension person-nel, SCS, and other Federal or State agency rep-resentatives in the field. Extension has beenvery effective in educating farmers as to thepersonal and social benefits of clean-farmingmanagement. However, the shift to more re-source-oriented farming while minimizing in-puts will require changes in Extension so thatnew or different approaches are advocated.These changes would need to go beyond thecurrent efforts to assist landowners through

27

education programs in fish and wildlife man-agement techniques.

County administrators of ASCS programs,county and State Agricultural Stabilization andConservation (ASC) Committees, and local soiland water conservation district representativesalso could serve as information transfer pointsif they were provided direction and if land-owners perceive a need for resource-oriented

information. The local county and district net-works seem to be responsive to local pressure;pressure that is not necessarily conservationoriented in approach. Strong Federal directionto these local representatives of Federal andState government will be necessary to ensurethe conservation intent of Federal programs iscarried out.

ISSUES IN AGRICULTURE AND WILDLIFE INTEGRATION

Certain fundamental issues in the Nation’sfarm policy need to be addressed before properapplication of appropriate interdisciplinarytechniques to benefit agricultural and wildlifeproductivity will occur. One such fundamen-tal issue is the perception that agricultural pro-duction and wildlife habitat conservation aremutually exclusive land uses. Landowners areunwilling to adopt mutually beneficial tech-niques if they are led to believe that wildlifecannot coexist with agricultural operations onthe same land base. Agricultural practices ofthe last 25 years helped create this perception.Federal agencies responsible for resource man-agement also perpetuate this perception, Muchof the “wildlife” research from the ARS hasfocused on reducing “pest wildlife” popula-tions on agricultural lands. Similarly, naturalresource agencies have spent much of theirbudget on habitat preservation for wildlifeand fish, thereby precluding agricultural pro-duction.

Furthermore, existing Federal programswhich provide incentives for landowners tomanage for wildlife in conjunction with theiragricultural operations largely appear to havebeen ineffective. Other Federal programs de-signed to affect crop production and supportfarm incomes have had mixed effects on re-source conservation. While most such pro-grams do affect the natural resource base, theygenerally have not been designed to providecollateral conservation benefits.

One such Federal program which missed theopportunity to provide collateral wildlife ben-

efits was the Payment-In-Kind (PIK) commod-ity adjustment program of 1983, Under the PIKprogram, 80.6 million acres were taken out ofproduction, but only about 20 percent of thesePIK acres were considered to be good to ex-cellent wildlife nesting cover in the Midwest(Berner, 1984), In addition, the law requiredfarmers to mow fields planted to cover cropsbefore the end of the nesting season to ensurethe lands do not produce a commodity, but thispractice destroyed bird nests on the set-asideacres,

No Federal resource agency (with the excep-tion of the Forest Service and the Bureau ofLand Management) has taken the responsibilityfor or been mandated by Congress to managethe entire resource base. For example, althoughSCS’s stated mission is to conserve the re-source base, the National Conservation Pro-gram limits SCS assistance to landowners to“high priority” concerns, of which wildlife isnot one. The majority of USDA personnelbelieve wildlife is not a priority or a concernand tend to look to the Fish and Wildlife Serv-ice (FWS) for direction on agriculture and wild-life interactions. Similarly, the FWS has beenslow to develop a role in agriculture policy andprograms because “FWS are not farmers, ” de-spite their responsibility for a wide range ofhabitat issues, As a consequence, more oppor-tunities exist for interagency and interdisci-plinary coordination than are being actedupon.

Another fundamental issue is the trade-offin agriculture practices between short-term

44-883 0 - 85 - 2 : QL 3

28

profits from the land and the land’s long-termproductivity. Federal programs designed tostimulate production or control commodityprices tend to be short-term in nature and pre-clude the establishment of long-term conser-vation strategies,

For example, cash flows through federallysponsored loans and payments emphasize theshort-term return on investment instead oflong-term resource productivity. Federal in-vestment credits and other tax measures mayencourage conversion of fragile lands to crop-land to maximize yields, without concern forall aspects of the natural resource base, in-cluding wildlife,

Similarly, price supports and loans appearto reward row-crop production at the expenseof soil stability, water quality, and wildlife hab-itat. Conservation programs seem to rewardthose landowners who use resource damagingagricultural practices. For example, the Agri-cultural Conservation Program administeredby ASCS provides cost-share payments for soilconservation practices but offers no compen-sation to those people already applying soundresource conservation practices on their lands.

Thus, to maintain wildlife habitat and agri-cultural productivity effectively on the Nation’sland base, Federal agencies responsible foragricultural land management need to shifttheir emphasis from a solely production ethicto a land, water, and wildlife conservationethic. This is not a new concept, and the au-thority to adopt resource-oriented managementcurrently is available to USDA agencies. Eventhough wildlife considerations are incorporatedinto the stated goals of USDA agencies (USDAPolicy on Fish and Wildlife, 1982), it appearsthat wildlife habitat management and naturalresource conservation is a low priority in theseagricultural agencies (Berg, 1984).

However, some progress is being made bythe agencies to evaluate the on-farm environ-mental consequences of different agriculturalprograms (USDA, ASCS, 1984; Mironowski,1984) like the commodity adjustment programs.In the next few years, new information maypromote acceptance within USDA of the fea-

sibility of altering the administration of com-modity programs to incorporate soil erosionprevention, water quality maintenance, andwildlife considerations more effectively thanachieved currently.

Another issue that warrants discussion is thelack of incentive for Federal and other agen-cies to work together on management optionsthat could benefit both agriculture and wild-life. Two approaches to solving this problemare interagency coordination through: 1) coop-erative research, and 2) the establishment ofa liaison who could help bridge informationand cooperation gaps between agencies.

Interagency coordination, especially on re-search and demonstration projects, could poollimited human and financial resources andavoid duplication of effort. An example of thepotential benefits of interagency coordinationis the research and demonstration being con-ducted on warm-season grasses (or native prai-rie grasses). A number of State conservationagencies individually have evaluated the ben-efits of warm-season grasses for wildlife coverand food over the past decade. The State ofMissouri, for instance, spent funds to deter-mine beneficial aspects of warm-season grassesfor wildlife and is now conducting separate ex-periments to evaluate livestock benefits (Evans,1984b). It would seem more cost effective forboth agriculture and wildlife interests to com-bine such research projects.

To bridge the gap between Federal and Stateagencies and wildlife conservation and agri-culture agencies, the Missouri Department ofNatural Resources created an AgriculturalLiaison position. The Agricultural Liaisonhelps coordinate activities and informationamong the USDA, State agriculture agencies,and the Department of Natural Resources. Theintended goals of this position are: 1) to en-courage awareness of the positive and nega-tive impacts of existing State and Federal agri-cultural programs on natural resources, 2) toencourage research and development of totalfarming systems which have wildlife benefits,and 3) to promote the flow of information on

29

common goals between the agriculture com- FWS and USDA. These examples of existingmunity and the Department of Natural Re- and potential interagency coordination couldsources. greatly improve abilities to manage the agricul-

In addition, the FWS recently hired an Agri- tural land base for both agriculture and wild-life interests.cultural Specialist to coordinate agency activ-

ities and serve as a “point person” between the

AREAS FOR POSSIBLE CONGRESSIONAL ACTION

The uses of agricultural land are influencedby technologies, institutions, public policies,and economic trends. Constraints to and op-portunities for technology development andadoption are dictated, in part, by the institu-tions. Institutions provide the research, train-ing, and implementation alternatives for man-aging the resource base. Public policies directinstitutions in the coordination and implemen-tation of technology adoption that, in turn, af-fects uses of the resource base,

Through the course of the OTA study, work-shop participants and other experts providedpolicy suggestions for integrating agricultureand wildlife conservation concerns. These pol-icy changes are designed to correct some of thefundamental constraints and to provide oppor-tunities for improved agriculture/wildlife in-teraction, Public policies need to recognize thatagriculture and wildlife can be mutually ben-eficial as well as mutually exclusive, depend-ing on the situation (Leitch and Nelson, 1984).

Congress has two main channels to affect thedevelopment and use of technologies to bene-fit agriculture and wildlife: 1) through legisla-tion, that either establishes new programs andpolicies or changes existing ones, and 2) throughcommittee oversight on administration of ex-isting laws and programs. Since farm policiesare dictated primarily by the omnibus FarmBill [reauthorized every 4 years), a major partof the following discussion on congressionalaction to promote integration of agricultureand wildlife focuses on the Farm Bill. The nextFarm Bill is scheduled for reauthorization in1985.

Opportunities for congressional action aredivided into three main policy categories: 1) in-tegrating farm economic policies with resourceconservation policies, 2) enhancing Federal ca-pabilities to develop and implement innovativetechnologies, and 3) improving the effective-ness of existing Federal programs. Table 1 liststhe potential courses of action for Congressunder these three categories.

Integrating Farm Economic PoliciesWith Resource Conservation Policies

Potential courses of action available for con-gressional consideration that could integrateagriculture economic objectives with resourceconservation objectives follow:

A.

B.

c.

D.

E.

Proposes a clear statement of congres-sional policy with regard to an integratedresource management approach to U.S.agriculture.Offers examples of incentive or rewardprograms to increase wildlife and fishhabitat on private lands.Outlines the potential of cross-compliancebetween commodity and conservationprograms to improve wildlife and fishhabitat and other resource conservation,and discusses two variations to the sod-buster approach.Discusses the potential wildlife and fishand other resource benefits of a long-termconservation reserve, and presents fivevariations of the conservation reserve.Details three changes needed in an annualset-aside program if wildlife and fish

30

Table 1. Potential Courses of Action for Congress With Variations Proposed to ImproveWildlife and Fish Habitat Benefits

Main policy category Main policy categoryPotential course of action Refer to Potential course of action Refer to

Variation page Variation page

i. integrating farm economic policy withresource conservation policies . . . . . . . . . . . .A. A policy statement that stresses the

importance of an integrated resourcemanagement approach to U.S. agriculturecould be inserted in the preamble orintroduction of each title of theFarm Bill. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

B. ASCS could be directed, under eachcommodity title, to implement anincentive program for use of conservationpractices by landowners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

C. Legislation could be approved thatpromotes cross-compliance betweenFederal payments for commodityprograms and conservation practices . . . .1. The “sodbuster” approach could apply

to any new, high/y erodible orecologically fragile lands beingconverted from permanent cover tocommodity production. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2. Congress could deny Governmentsubsidies for a minimum of 10 years tolandowners who bring new lands intoproduction and extend the prohibitionof payments on conversion of erodibleor fragile lands—even if the /andchanges ownership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

D. Congress could authorize a multi-yearconservation reserve program under eachcommodity title to replace the annualcommodity adjustment programscurrently authorized . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1. Congress could coup/e the

2.

3.

4.

conservation reserve program with thesodbuster approach to eliminateincentives for c/earing new lands forproduction while taking other lands outof production. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Congress could prohibit mowing orgrazing of grasses until the end of theground-nesting wildlife breedingseason . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Congress could establish criteria foridentifying areas of critical wildlife andfish habitat to be included in theconservation reserve . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Congress could add a clause to theconservation reserve eligibilityregulations that allows acres devotedto conservation practices to beincorporated into the base acreagedetermination of conservation reserveeligibility. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

30

31

31

32

33

33

34

34

35

35

35

5. Congress could encourage thedevelopment and protection of riparianvegetation buffer strips forconservation practices and inclusion ofriparian borders in the conservationreserve acres, wherever appropriate . . .

E. Congress could direct USDA to establishenforceable regulations within the annualcommodity adjustment program toimprove erosion control and water qualitybenefits and optimize wildlife and fishhabitat benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1.

2.

3!

Congress could require cover cropestablishment and enforcement on allset-aside acres during the entirety ofthe time the program is in effect. . . . . .Congress could prohibit mowing,grazing, surface tillage, or chemica/control of cover crops until the end ofthe wildlife breeding season on idledlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Congress could direct that lands beidled for one full calendar year for allcommodities under the acreageadjustment program from the time theprogram is announced . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

F. The General Accounting Office could bedirected to evaluate the effect of taxpolicies on agricultural land conversion,wetlands, and other natural resources . .

ii. Enhancing Federal capabilities to developand implement innovative technologies . . .A. Congress could direct USDA and USDI

under Title XIV of the Farm Bill tocooperatively investigate and evaluatebiological farming and other alternativesto conventional U.S. farming practices . .

B. Congress could direct USDA. USDI.NM I%, and other appropriate’ Federalagencies to coordinate research andextension that have potential agronomicand wildlife and fish benefits . . . . . . . . . .

c.

D.

Congress could direct USDA and USDI toestablish interagency regional councilsdevoted to agriculture and resourceconservation integration in theirrespective research, extension, and landacquisition programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Congress could conduct oversight onUSDA administration to determine ifconservation and agricultural objectivescould be better served by a restructuringand/or realignment of USDA agencies . . .

36

36

37

37

37

38

38

38

39

39

40

31

Table 1. Potential Courses of Action for Congress With Variations Proposed to ImproveWildlife and Fish Habitat Benefits (Continued)

Main policy category Main policy categoryPotential course of action Refer to Potential course of action Refer to

Variation page Variation page

///. /reproving the effectiveness of existingFederal programs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40A.

B.

c.

Under the Conservation Programs Title of D.the Farm Bill, Congress could directUSDA to develop and administer anagricultural nonpoint source pollutionprogram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40The Renewable Resources Extension E.Program could be funded at the full $15million authorization and directed tofocus on interdisciplinary appliedresearch and public education programs . 41Congress could significantly increase thefiscal year 1985 appropriation for the

Water Bank Program in fiscal year 1986and beyond . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42Congress could direct USDA toimplement NEPA regulations forenvironmental impact assessment andpublic comment on agricultural programsadministered by USDA agencies . . . . . . . . 42Congress could conduct oversight on thesmall watershed program to determine ifSCS is achieving goals of watershedstabilization through current methods orif the focus of projects should beredirected . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

habitats are to be maintained on the re-tired acres.

F. Proposes a General Accounting Officestudy to evaluate the impact of tax policieson land use changes, particularly the po-tential loss of wildlife habitat.

Many of the proposed courses of action dis-cussed are not new and, in fact, were intro-duced and deliberated during the 98th Con-gress. 1 At the OTA workshop, participantssuggested modifications to these legislativeproposals to increase their potential resourceconservation benefits, including benefits towildlife and fish habitat. A brief analysis of sug-gested modifications, wherever applicable, fol-lows the discussion of each course of action.

A. A policy statement that stresses the impor-tance of an integrated resource manage-ment approach to U.S. agriculture could beinserted in the preamble or introduction ofeach title of the Farm Bill.

A fundamental change needed in farm pol-icy is congressional recognition of the impor-tance of managing this Nation’s resource baseon a long-term, sustainable basis. A policystatement would signal the Federal agriculturaland resource conservation agencies that wild-

IThe discussion in this section is based on the assumption thatfarm economic programs will be similar to the programs in the1981 Agriculture and Food Act.

life and fish habitat maintenance and restora-tion, soil conservation, and water quality en-hancement will be an integral part of futureagricultural policy.

A congressional policy statement alone, how-ever, may not guarantee an improvement in themanagement of natural resources on agricul-tural lands. Further steps may be required.

B. ASCS could be directed, under each com-modity title, to implement an incentive pro-gram for use of conservation practices bylandowners.

A reward and reimbursement program couldhelp landowners overcome the economic trade-off between establishing conservation-orientedfarming practices and full-scale production. Anincentive program for wildlife habitat improve-ment on agricultural lands may be an effectiveway to increase wildlife and fish populationsas well as meeting other resource conservationgoals. Incentives could be offered in the formof higher direct (e. g., deficiency) payments orcommodity price support loans; higher Agri-cultural Conservation Program cost-sharinglevels for establishing or maintaining specificpractices that improve wildlife habitat; orspecial low-interest or long-term loans for thepurpose of establishing practices such asriparian zones that improve wildlife and fishhabitat.

32

Another example of a reward or “conserva-tion bonus” program is the Shelterbelt Im-provement Act introduced in the 98th Congress(S. 1138). This program was intended to reim-burse landowners for the cost of preserving,restoring, improving, and establishing shelter-belts. It also called for reimbursing the land-owner for a portion of the lost income resultingfrom land being taken out of crop production.A broader approach to rewarding landownersfor using resource conservation practices couldbe an indirect subsidy for providing wildlifehabitats on agricultural lands; e.g., a WildlifeHabitat Incentives Program (WHIP) patternedafter the Forestry Incentives Program (FIP)which currently is administered by USDA andState forestry officials.

Incentives programs such as FIP may needto be evaluated for their ability to produce wild-life benefits prior to initiation of a new incen-tive program. In addition, an incentive orreward program would require new funds andmanpower to carry out program objectives. Ef-fective technical assistance and public educa-tion on potential benefits and shortcomings forlandowner participation in incentive programswould be critical elements of program admin-istration. Guidelines for defining the incentiverecipients and determining limitations on Fed-eral incentive payments would need to be de-veloped.

C. Approve legislation that promotes cross-compliance between Federal payments forcommodity programs and conservationpractices.

The thrust of cross-compliance is to ensurethat Federal funds are directed to those land-owners using land management practices thatsustain long-term land and water productivity.Cross-compliance policy could apply to allcommodity program participants and could re-quire soil, water, and wildlife and fish conser-vation practices on the landowner’s entireproperty. A cross-compliance policy could beimplemented at little or no cost to the Govern-ment, although more detailed analysis of thispolicy is necessary to determine actual imple-mentation costs. Program administration costs

might be offset by savings in Federal expendi-tures on lands where conservation practicesare not adopted, In addition, such action po-tentially might reduce the scope of current orfuture soil conservation and water quality pro-grams, reducing the Federal revenues neededin these programs. Cross-compliance policyalso appears to be acceptable to many land-owners. A majority of landowners surveyed inthe Midwest agreed that all farmers should berequired to follow recommended soil conser-vation practices on their farms to qualify forfarm price-support benefits (Guither, et al.,1984].

Cross-compliance may have limited effective-ness because only a small proportion of land-owners are involved in the commodity pro-grams (which receive Federal subsidies). Inaddition, a cross-compliance policy could re-duce the number of farmers participating in thecommodity programs, reducing the program’seffectiveness in price control and resource con-servation. Landowners may not participate inthe programs because of the economic hard-ship of establishing conservation practices,potentially skewing the commodity programparticipation to only those landowners withestablished conservation practices and thosecapable of compliance with the conservationrequirements. Overall, further analysis of across-compliance policy by USDA maybe nec-essary to determine the positive and negativeimpacts of the policy on resource conservationand agricultural commodity programs.

Cross-compliance could be administered asa penalty action. The penalty system woulddeny Federal funds to people engaging in agri-cultural activities that increase soil erosion,contribute to agricultural runoff and water pol-lution, or reduce wildlife habitat. A drawbackof the penalty system is that it can create a biasagainst people who farm on easily erodiblelands. For example, if the amount of Federalpayments offered is based on the number oftons of soil lost from the land each year, land-owners farming sloping land could receive lesspayments than landowners farming flat lands,even if the farmer on sloping land was apply-ing conservation practices while his neighbor

33

on the flat area was not. A cross-compliancepolicy tied to the farmer’s legitimate effort toconserve soil and not to actual soil losses wouldhelp overcome this bias. But, this approachmay not have significant benefits for the re-source base because the soil erosion rate maynot be held below the acceptable tolerancevalue (T value)2 and measuring legitimate ef-fort will be difficult, if not impossible.

An example of cross-compliance is the “sod-buster” approach. Various forms of sodbusterlegislation (H.R. 3457, H,R. 3906, S. 663) thatwould deny certain Federal payments for con-verting fragile, highly erodible lands to com-modity production were introduced, debated,but not passed in the 98th Congress. Two varia-tions of the sodbuster bills that might be incor-porated under the commodity titles of the FarmBill or presented as separate legislation follow:

1. Apply the sodbuster approach to highlyerodible or ecologically fragile lands.

2. Extend the prohibition of Federal pay-ments to landowners to at least 10 years.

Variation 1: The “sodbuster” approach couldapply to any new, highly erodible or eco-logically fragile lands being converted frompermanent cover to commodity production,

Discussions of a sodbuster provision in the98th Congress focused on highly erodiblelands. However, other fragile lands exist thatare threatened with land-use changes wherenatural vegetation is eliminated for commodityproduction. (Fragile lands are those slow to re-cover or revegetate after disruption of the top-soil and native vegetation,) Forested lands,such as bottomland hardwoods in the south-ern States, wetlands such as the prairie pot-holes, and other fragile habitats also provideimportant wildlife habitat and are being con-verted to crop production.

An expanded sodbuster provision could in-crease the habitat types, e.g., wetlands, onwhich Federal incentives for agricultural mod-ification were reduced, thereby retaining a

ZT value is considered the rough estimate of the yearly rateof “A” horizon formation on well-managed, medium-texturedcropland soils. Values are established for each soil type by SCS.

greater diversity of habitat areas with unplowedvegetation for wildlife and fish. Under the Na-tional Resources Inventories (NRI), SCS hasbeen identifying habitats not in cropland thatare threatened with change from natural vege-tation to crop production. The informationfrom the NRI could be used by ASCS to deter-mine which highly erodible areas have thegreatest potential for conversion, thus, identi-fying where a sodbuster provision could beapplied.

To locate ecologically fragile lands that couldbe included under a sodbuster provision, co-ordination with other resource inventories(e.g., the National Wetlands Inventory of FWSto identify wetlands) may be necessary. But,since the initial “sodbuster” proposal requiresconsultation between SCS and ASCS on iden-tification of highly erodible lands where Fed-eral subsidies could be denied, this variationis unlikely to create a significant increase inworkload other than the expansion and updat-ing of soil surveys by local ASC personnel.

Variation 2: Congress could deny Governmentsubsidies for a minimum of 10 years tolandowners who bring new lands into pro-duction and extend the prohibition of pay-ments to landowners who convert erodibleor fragile lands—even if land changesownership.

Both soil and water conservation and wild-life benefits from a sodbuster provision wouldbe greatest if the sodbuster provision was ineffect over a period of several years. A lo-yearprohibition against Federal payments couldcompliment the provision in the sodbuster billsin the 98th Congress that called for prohibitionof Federal funding to land plowed in the pre-vious 10 years, thereby creating a disincentiveto plow erosion-prone soils for as long as 20years.

A long-term prohibition against Federal pay-ments for plowing previously unplowed landscould decrease the incentive to bring new landsinto production because landowners would befaced with a loss of Federal dollars for a mini-mum of 10 years, instead of a season or two.The disincentive for land conversion to com-

34

modity crop production could be viewed as anincentive to retain native habitats for wildlifeand fish. If the prohibition were applied to aparticular piece of land regardless of a changeof ownership, the incentive to create “crop-land” by plowing erodible soils or fragile areascould be reduced. A multi-year program (e. g.,10 years) is likely to be easier to administer thana program of short duration and could reduceprogram overhead costs once the administra-tion was organized.

D. Congress could authorize a multi-year con-servation reserve program under each com-modity title to replace the annual com-modity adjustment programs currentlyauthorized.

Current production adjustment programstend to be yearly, limiting many farmers’ abilityto plan ahead in the kinds of crops to plant andcreating a disincentive to implement conser-vation measures on land taken out of produc-tion (Jahn and Diehl, 1984; Berner, 1984). Tosolve this problem legislation was introducedin the 98th Congress to implement a long-termconservation reserve program (Title IV of H.R.3457; Title IV of H.R. 3906).

The conservation reserve program is de-signed to take lands out of commodity produc-tion for multiple years (5 to 15 years) while re-imbursing landowners in cash or “in kind”with stored commodity crops. Long-term pro-jections on cropland diversion would be basedon USDA projections of long-term commodityneeds. The program could be designed to max-imize soil conservation and water quality ben-efits as well as crop surplus control and pricestabilization. Perennial cover crops or someform of vegetation cover used for soil conser-vation, water quality protection and, second-arily, to provide wildlife and fish habitat wouldbe required for acres under the conservationreserve.

Requisite establishment and maintenance ofperennial vegetation is essential if the programis to achieve any positive gains in soil conser-vation, water quality, and wildlife and fish hab-itat. For example, bare land could increase soilerosion in some situations and reduce the avail-

able nesting cover or food supply for wildlife.Thus, perennial cover crops that provide wild-life with food and nesting cover and are knownto be efficient soil or streambank stabilizers(e.g., perennial grasses, willows) could be in-cluded in regulations regarding the conserva-tion reserve.

A long-term conservation reserve could bean important provision in the 1985 Farm Billfor benefiting wildlife and fish. Five variationsto the conservation reserve concept that mightincrease wildlife and fish habitat benefits onfarms having reserved or idled lands were dis-cussed by OTA workshop participants. Thevariations discussed below (not listed in pri-ority order) range from inclusion of a “sod-buster” provision to prohibitions against covercrop disturbance.

1. Integrate a “sodbuster” proposal with theconservation reserve.

2. Prohibit disturbance of the cover crop onidled land during wildlife nesting season.

3. Establish criteria for identifying importantwildlife habitat areas or types under theconservation reserve.

4. Allow acres devoted to conservation prac-tices to be included in the determinationof base acreage eligibility.

5. Develop and protect riparian areas underthe conservation reserve.

Variation 1: Congress could couple conserva-tion reserve programs with the “sodbuster”approach to eliminate incentives for clear-ing new lands for production while takingother lands out of production.

The conservation reserve alone would pro-vide wildlife habitat for species that live andfeed in areas where the vegetation growthcycles are disrupted occasionally. However,wildlife benefits from land taken out of produc-tion could be offset by the development of newor previously uncropped lands if Federal in-centives to “plow-out” new lands remain.

A conservation reserve coupled with a “sod-buster” provision under each commodity titlein the Farm Bill might help maintain wildlifehabitats on the lands idled under the reserve

35

and on acres where conversion to cropland isnot supported by Federal dollars, This assumesthat the disincentive to the farmer of the “sod-buster” concept is sufficient to maintain anarea in its natural state. A combination sod-buster provision–conservation reserve could:1) maintain habitat diversity on erodible soilsthat have not been converted to commodityproduction, and 2) create habitat on previouslycultivated areas, respectively, benefiting a widearray of wildlife species.

Variation 2: Congress could prohibit mowingor grazing of grasses until the end of theground-nesting wildlife breeding season toprotect nesting bird habitat and providebreeding areas for other wildlife species.

Wildlife benefits from a conservation reservewould be increased if restrictions were placedon mowing or grazing of cover crops duringcritical nesting periods. Mowing or grazing ofcover crops on idled acres during the nestingseason (approximately May 1 to August 1 formost areas of the country) will disrupt ground-nesting birds and other breeding wildlife spe-cies. It also will negatively affect the plants andtopsoil where invertebrates live—an importantfood source for young wildlife species. The ac-tual time of the restrictions could be deter-mined by the State ASC Committees in consul-tation with the State fish and wildlife agencies,

For the farmer who hopes to gain some in-come from the cover crop by mowing or graz-ing the idled land, the delay in harvesting thecover crop could reduce his potential income.Cover crops like alfalfa, for example, have anutrient content and digestibility peak duringthe early growing season. Alfalfa harvestedpast the quality peak will bring in a lower mar-ket price for the farmer than alfalfa harvestedat the peak of forage quality. In some parts ofthe country, a farmer who delays mowing un-til August can ruin the alfalfa crop for the fol-lowing spring.

Variation 3: Congress could establish criteriafor identifying areas of critical wildlife andfish habitat to be included in the conserva-tion reserve, secondary to the primary goalsof price control and soil and water conser-

vation, using National Resources inven-tories data, and consultation with the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service and the State fishand wildlife agencies.

wildlife and fish habitat areas identified assubstantially threatened by agriculture couldbe protected through a conservation reserve.Identification criteria could be developedthrough consultation between USDA agencieswith wildlife management expertise and theFWS. For example, the FWS has identified 34counties in North Dakota having high poten-tial for waterfowl production that now are notproducing the full potential of migratory birds(Minnich, 1984), A lack of perennial vegetativecover that is undisturbed by agricultural prac-tices during the nesting season is the primaryreason these countries are not producing theirfull potential. Selecting areas like these coun-tries to be idled under the conservation reservecould increase migratory bird and other wild-life production in North Dakota. Similarly,other areas of importance to wildlife and/orfish in an agriculture landscape could be iden-tified using the available data bases of SCS, theFWS, NMFS, and the State fish and wildlifeagencies,

However, the use of identifying criteria runsthe risk of “robbing from Peter to pay Paul. ”Lands having the most essential wildlife habi-tat may not be the same lands that have thehighest soil erosion rates or lands where crop-Iand retirement would be the most useful tomeet the goals of the conservation reserveprogram.

Variation 4: Congress could add a clause tothe conservation reserve eligibility regula-tions that allows acres devoted to conser-vation practices to be incorporated intobase acreage determination of conservationreserve eligibility,

Current base acreage requirements for pro-duction adjustment program (of which the COn-

servation reserve could be one) eligibility re-quire that the acres included in the programbe planted to a commodity crop during the pre-vious 2 years. This requirement is perceivedby soil conservationists and resource managers

36

as creating an incentive for farmers to plowand plant all their lands to commodities in or-der to increase their eligibility for the Federalpayments under the program. The “plowingout” of new lands to establish base acreagesusually means marginal lands are brought intoproduction and previously unplowed wildlifehabitat is destroyed, soil erosion is increased,and water quality is reduced. In addition,farmers who have established conservationpractices are penalized under a conservationreserve program because their base acreageusually is smaller than their neighbor’s, on afarm of equal size, planted fencerow to fencerowwithout any adopted conservation measures.

A clause allowing acres with conservationpractices (i.e., terraces, hedgerows, grassywaterways, riparian strips, wetlands) or soil-conserving crop rotations to be included in thebase acreage could reduce the temptation forfarmers to plow all of their lands for com-modity production. But it would increase theacres eligible under the conservation reserve.The increase in land under retirement couldincrease the program’s cost.

However, a variable-payment scheme for theindividual farmer who includes conservationacres in his base acreage would help reducethe increased cost associated with the in-creased acreage diverted under the conserva-tion reserve. Such a scheme could offer lowerannual payments for land that was not previ-ously in commodity production in a way simi-lar to how production adjustment program pay-ments are determined based on what the landcan produce.

Variation 5: Congress could encourage the de-velopment and protection of riparian vege-tation buffer strips for conservation prac-tices and inclusion of riparian borders inthe conservation reserve acres, whereverappropriate.

Establishing and retaining riparian buffersalong streams is a way to minimize waterquality impacts from soil erosion and provideimportant wildlife and fish habitat needs. Acongressional directive to USDA to include

streamside zones in the individual conserva-tion reserve acres of the farmer could promoteimprovements in both local and downstreamwater quality. This directive would apply pri-marily to landowners who retired lands adja-cent to stream corridors.

Cost-sharing and technical assistance forestablishing and retaining riparian vegetationcould be included with other cover-crop cost-sharing provided by ASCS and SCS. Wildlife,fish, and water quality benefits from stream-side protection under a conservation reservecould be substantial. However, potential in-creases in program costs and workload may oc-cur for the same reasons as those presented inVariation 4 above.

E. Congress could direct USDA to establishenforceable regulations within the annualcommodity adjustment program to im-prove erosion control and water qualitybenefits and optimize wildlife and fish hab-itat benefits.

A long-term conservation reserve (Proposal D,p. 34) was the most preferred form of commodityadjustment program among OTA workshopparticipants to improve conservation benefitsand control commodity production. However,annual programs currently authorized undereach commodity title may continue and can bemodified and improved to increase resourceconservation benefits.

The following proposals to improve annualset-aside programs, if adopted as a package,could increase wildlife and other resource ben-efits. Any benefits gained under the annual pro-gram may be minimal compared to the re-source conservation benefits achievable undera multi-year program.

1.

2.

3.

Require cover crops on all set-aside acresprior to May 1 and maintain soil cover dur-ing the life of the program.Prohibit surface disturbance of covercrops during the nesting season.Idle lands based on land retirement needsfor all commodities for one full calendaryear.

37

Variation I: Congress could require cover cropestablishment and enforcement on all set-aside acres during the entire time the pro-gram is in effect.

Establishing and maintaining a cover crop(living plant material or residual plant matter)on idled lands could be a critical factor in thevalue of the program for wildlife habitat andother conservation goals (see Proposal D dis-cussion). If the vegetative cover is establishedprior to May 1, breeding birds in particularcould use the fields for nesting.

Enforcement of a cover crop requirementcould be the responsibility primarily of Stateand local ASC and SCS personnel. Additionalmanpower may be necessary to ensure that theprogram regulations are followed. Cost-sharingalso may be necessary to aid farmers in estab-lishing a cover crop that will control erosionand provide wildlife habitat needs.

Variation 2: Congress could prohibit mowing,grazing, surface tillage, or chemical controlof cover crops until the end of the wildlifebreeding season on idled lands. The actualdate would be determined by the State ASCCommittee in consultation with the Statefish and wildlife agency.

Establishing cover crops on idled lands haslimited wildlife benefits unless a correspondingrestriction is placed on disturbance of theseacres during certain times of the year. Idledfields planted to a grass or legume, then mowedor plowed in mid-May to late-June, becomeecological “death traps” for nesting birdscaught in the blades of cutters or mowers.Large numbers of livestock released into fieldswhere wildlife are feeding or nesting createdisturbance and may eliminate the breedingsuccess of a local wildlife population. Chemi-cal weed control on an entire field may elimi-nate important wildlife nesting and escapecover, may be harmful to wildlife directly, anddiminishes insect populations, thereby reduc-ing wildlife food sources. Chemical weed con-trol only on those small areas with identified“nuisance” plants, however, could reduceweed problems without adversely affectingwildlife habitat throughout the field.

Proponents for disturbing fields during thewildlife reproductive season do so because ofa concern for weed control on idled areas. Inaddition, farmers who mow or graze idledfields can receive an income from land thatotherwise is not producing, even though theland may be bringing in money under the com-modity adjustment program. Delayed mowingof cover crops such as alfalfa could reduce theincome available to the landowner (see discus-sion under Proposal D, #2). Thus, sufficientpayments may be necessary to offset the po-tential loss of farmer income from these idledlands.

Variation 3: Congress could direct that landsbe idled for one full calendar year for allcommodities under acreage adjustmentprograms from the time the set-aside is an-nounced, instead of the current systemwhere land is retired only for a crop year.

At present, lands idled under the feed grainprogram can be planted to winter wheat,thereby increasing the stock of winter wheatand potentially creating a surplus of one com-modity (winter wheat) while reducing surplusin another (feed grains). Moreover, potentialwildlife benefits from the idled land are lostif the acreage is transferred from one form ofintensive cuhivation to another. If the set-asidecovers the entire calendar year for all com-modities that are in surplus or that come underthe annual commodity adjustment programs,residue or cover crops would be available aswildlife habitat throughout the summer andwinter months.

An annual adjustment program covering allcommodities would require an improved levelof advanced planning and coordination ofcommodity programs within USDA than cur-rently is evident. The restriction on plantingany commodity crop on set-aside lands may re-duce the number of participants in the programif landowners perceive they could profit morewithout Federal payment. A reduction in pro-gram participation, while saving money, mayweaken realization of commodity adjustmentgoals.

38

F. The General Accounting Office could bedirected to evaluate the effect of tax pol-icies on agricultural land conversion,wetlands, and other natural resources.

Concern exists that some current tax policiesserve as an incentive for land speculation orfor altering marginal lands from non-croplandto cropland. The result for wildlife could be aloss in native habitat and an increase in waterpollution from the increased erosion caused bybringing marginal lands into production. Taxpolicies are an interwoven complexity. Therelationship of tax policy specifically to landuse or land-use changes has not been evaluatedcarefully. The General Accounting Office(GAO) is well suited to evaluate whether taxpolicies affect land use and the implicationsof that relationship,

Unfortunately, tax policies tend to havemultiple effects, Each policy of the tax codemay have impacts in local economies, localland-use patterns, land ownership patterns, aswell as regional and national impacts. The di-rect relationship between tax policies andalteration of marginal or other lands fromnative vegetative cover to crop production isnot clear, Thus, a report on the impact of taxpolicies on land use and wildlife habitat mayrequire numerous assumptions that woulddilute the accuracy of the analysis,

Enhancing Federal Capabilities toDevelop and Implement Innovative

Technologies

Technologies that benefit agriculture andother renewable natural resources exist, buttheir development and implementation to datehave not received priority attention. Hence,Congress could act to accelerate the develop-ment and use of such technologies throughFederal institutions.

This section presents potential courses of ac-tion for Congress to ensure that agencies ad-dress opportunities to integrate wildlife andfish conservation and agriculture. These pro-posed courses of action are:

A.

B.

c.

D.

Research alternatives to conventionalfarming practices.Increase development of interdisciplinaryand interagency research and extensionprograms.Develop interagency regional councils tocoordinate agriculture and resource con-servation.Conduct confessional oversight hearingsto determine -if the USDA conservationprogram objectives could be improved byrestructuring USDA.

A. Congress could direct the U.S. Departmentof Agriculture and the U.S. Department ofthe Interior under Title XIV of the FarmBill to cooperatively investigate and evaluatebiological farming and other alternativesto conventional U.S. farming practices.

The needs in U.S. agriculture most often dis-cussed by land resource professionals seem tobe: 1) minimizing agricultural operation costsin labor and inputs, and 2) establishing farm-ing practices that will maintain the long-termproductive capabilities of the land and avoiddegradation of water quality, For instance, pri-vate sector research on innovative technologiesis beginning to shift to chemicals that requireless capital cost and help minimize external re-source impacts. This shift could have signifi-cant beneficial impacts on wildlife and fishhabitats,

However, the USDA has not adopted a con-certed research effort on alternatives to con-ventional, “clean” agriculture nationwide asyet. A congressional initiative in this area, simi-lar to the direction provided on conservationtillage in the 1981 Agriculture and Food Act,could stimulate research into the benefits andcosts to the landowner and the natural resourcebase from new and innovative alternatives toconventional farming (e.g., biological farming).Another congressional initiative could be thepassing of the Agricultural Productivity Act of1983 (S. 1128) which provides for onsite re-search and demonstration of alternative agri-cultural practices to reduce farming costs andestablish the potential for other benefits to land-owners and society.

39

This option may increase costs of the USDAresearch programs or, more likely, cause aredirection of available research dollars intoa new program area, thus reducing fundinglevels on other research activities.

B. Congress could direct the U.S. Departmentof Agriculture, U.S. Department of the In-terior, National Marine Fisheries Service,and other appropriate Federal agencies tocoordinate research and extension thathave potential agronomic and wildlife andfish benefits.

The Federal Government’s role in develop-ing interdisciplinary research and extensioncoordination between agriculture and other re-source agencies (i.e., Federal and State fish andwildlife agencies) has not been extensive, al-though examples of federally initiated inter-agency and interdisciplinary coordinationexist. Interagency coordination and policyguidance could strengthen the agriculture andwildlife knowledge of various Federal manag-ing agencies as well as improve opportunitiesto develop techniques and programs to bene-fit both agriculture and wildlife.

Some vehicles for interagency coordinationalready exist. For example, some wildlife ref-uge managers (e. g., at De Soto National Wild-life Refuge, Missouri Valley, Iowa) are conduct-ing informal research and demonstration ofbiological farming practices. This activitycould be expanded to involve ARS and StateAgriculture Experiment Station scientists aswell as appropriate State agency personnel inthe evaluation of different biological farmingsystems for enhancing wildlife and agriculturalinterests, Another opportunity is coordinationof research and extension programs with theExtension Wildlife Specialists housed at theLand Grant Universities, These personnel, nowin 31 States, could provide input and directionon activities and farming practices that wouldbenefit both wildlife or fish and agriculture ob-jectives.

To coordinate activities between depart-ments and at different levels of government,creation of new positions or the shifting of ex-isting staff might be necessary in some agen-

cies to develop a coordinating office or liaisonstaff person. Program costs for each of theseoptions could be minimal and might amountto no more than two Full Time Equivalents (2person-years) per agency involved; one for in-teragency liaison and one for internal coordi-nation of activities.

C. Congress could direct USDA and USDI toestablish interagency regional councilsdevoted to agriculture and resource conser-vation integration in their respective re-search, extension, and land acquisitionprograms.

Wildlife habitat preserves and easementscould be coordinated with agricultural landsmanagement to achieve the greatest gains formany different wildlife and fish species withouta significant decrease in agricultural produc-tivity (Harris, 1984), One approach to inte-grated systems management is the establish-ment of regional interagency councils tocoordinate programs and policies for agricul-ture and wildlife and fish. The framework forthese councils already exists in the form of re-gional Associations of State Fish and WildlifeAgencies and the regional Agriculture Coun-cils comprised of USDA agency heads in eachgeographic area.

The concept of integrated land managementthrough development of “landscape ecologytheory” (Risser, Karr, and Forman, 1984) hassparked new attention among resource profes-sionals and landowners concerned with vari-ous aspects of land resource use. Additionalinformation would be necessary on ways to op-timize benefits for all resource uses and usersif regional management strategies were imple-mented using watersheds as the unit of man-agement, A regional planning system has beenfairly successful for water resource allocation(Interstate Water Compacts) but the concepthas not been adopted for land and water man-agement.

The greatest obstacle to a regional councilapproach to agency integration is the creationof a new level of bureaucracy to direct agencyactivities. Some agency representatives believethe existing multi-tiered bureaucracy of deci-

40

sionmaking and priority setting is unrulyenough. In addition, regional councils wouldhave to be given decisionmaking authority tobe effective, which would require a redistribu-tion of existing authority within the agenciesinvolved in the regional effort.

D. Congress could conduct oversight on theU.S. Department of Agriculture adminis-tration to determine if conservation andagricultural objectives could be betterserved by a restructuring and/or realign-ment of USDA agencies.

Currently, USDA agencies involved directlyor indirectly with resource conservationthrough research, extension, and program im-plementation are scattered throughout theDepartment under at least three different Assis-tant Secretaries. Such distribution of conser-vation programs throughout the Departmentmay limit the ability to coordinate objectivesand receive representation for conservationconcerns from the Secretary of Agriculture.For example, the environmental programs inASCS may have activities that are not repre-sented adequately under an Assistant Secretarywhose primary responsibility is InternationalAffairs and Commodity Programs.

To integrate conservation and agriculture ob-jectives, conservation and natural resource pro-gram administrations need to have the samerepresentation and cohesion as other agricul-tural policy areas. Agencies with responsibilityfor conservation program administration andresearch could be united under one AssistantSecretary to develop cohesive conservationplanning (Sallee, 1984). The Assistant Secretarywould be responsible for coordinating agencyobjectives and programs and be able to repre-sent conservation as a cohesive policy area tothe Secretary of Agriculture.

However, the distribution of conservationprograms throughout the Department also mayallow access to all the programs and agenciesthat ultimately impact conservation, placingthe conservation objectives closer to thesources of problems. In addition, the realign-ment of USDA conservation programs underone Assistant Secretary could lead to tem-

porary disruption of ongoing activities andcreate some confusion among agencies in theshort term. Without an improved understand-ing of the impact of a realignment withinUSDA, it is difficult to determine if the coststo the agencies and specific personnel wouldbe overcome by the gains in better conserva-tion program representation.

Improving the Effectivoness ofExisting Federal Programs

Some conservation programs and policiesalready exist. Some of them only need to be im-plemented and funded while others will needsome modification to increase their effective-ness in improving agriculture and wildlife tech-nology development and use.

The following potential courses of actionhighlight some major programs and policieswhere opportunities exist to strengthen agri-culture and wildlife interactions. Proposals Athrough D will require increased funding levelsfor existing authorizations to create new orenhance existing capabilities in nonpointsource pollution abatement programs, Renew-able Resources Extension programs, the Fed-eral Water Bank program and implementationof the National Environmental Policy Act, re-spectively. Proposal E suggests that Congressuse its oversight authority to evaluate the ef-fectiveness of the SCS’ Small Watershed pro-gram in meeting the desired objectives of wa-tershed stabilization, erosion control, andwater quality improvement.

Proposal A: Under the Conservation Pro-grams Title of the Farm Bill, Congresscould direct USDA to develop and admin-ister an agricultural nonpoint source pollution program, using county conservationpersonnel and State water quality agencyexpertise to identify and administer BestManagement Practices (BMPs) on agri-cultural lands consistent with the Envi-ronmental Protection Agency’s NonpointPolicy. In addition, cost-share payments,financial incentives, and cooperative agree-ments with farmers and operators may benecessary to implement these practices.

41

Section 208 of the Clean Water Act (FederalWater Pollution Control Act, as amended, Pub-lic Law 95-217) established a national program,administered by the U.S. Environmental Pro-tection Agency (EPA), to assist State controlof pollution generated by agricultural and ur-ban runoff, Nonpoint pollution accounts for asmuch as 50 percent of all pollutants in the Na-tion’s waters.

Agricultural runoff in the form of eroded soilby volume accounts for the greatest nonpointsource pollutant in the Midwest, Tied to soilparticles are chemicals and toxic substanceswhich adversely affect beneficial water usesand users, including wildlife and fish popu-lations.

Agricultural runoff might best be controlledby implementation of BMPs specific to eacharea of the country and general enough tocover all agricultural resources, includingwater, soil, fish and wildlife (Evans, 1984a).Federal conservation programs should have re-source objectives for all resources, not just soilerosion. Implementation of BMPs also couldtake into consideration any economic impactson the farmer. ASCS and SCS have the exper-tise to identify BMPs based on soil type andagricultural operations.

USDA’s influence on landowners throughadministration of farm programs makes it thelogical choice to coordinate agricultural run-off control associated with different operations.The institutional framework within USDA andState agencies already exists to administer anagricultural nonpoint control program with Ex-tension, SCS, ASCS, county and State ASC of-fices, and soil and water conservation districts.USDA already has the basic authorization fora nonpoint pollution program under the RuralClean Water Program (Section 319 of the CleanWater Act), and under the Soil and Water Re-sources Conservation Act of 1977 (Public Law95-192), The SCS’ Rural Clean Water programand national erosion control program (author-ized by Public Law 95-192) to date have notbeen funded, although an “experimental”Clean Water Program is under way by ASCS.

To ensure that water quality goals are ad-dressed according to State and local need, Statewater quality agencies need to be included inprogram development and implementation.The lack of State involvement could lead tooverlap or duplication of Federal and State ef-fort and could alienate a potential ally in theefforts to control nonpoint pollution. Jurisdic-tional problems between USDA, State waterquality agencies, and EPA would have to besolved. A nonpoint program within USDAwould require a budget expenditure for the De-partment and a recognition of USDA’s role innonpoint source pollution abatement.

Proposal B: The Renewable Resources Exten-sion Program could be funded at the full$15 million authorization and directed tofocus on interdisciplinary applied researchand public education programs.

The Renewable Resources Extension Act(RREA, Public Law 95-306) authorizes $15 mil-lion annually for 10 years to expand educa-tional programs in five major resource areas:forestland management, rangeland manage-ment, fish and wildlife management, outdoorrecreation, and environmental managementand public policy. Since Resource Extensionpersonnel are recognized as key educators andinformation disseminators on natural resourcesconservation within USDA, resource person-nel in Extension at the Land Grant Universitiescould play a vital role in coordinating inter-disciplinary agriculture and conservation re-search and education programs on integratedmanagement systems.

The Extension Resources Program estimatesit would need approximately $46 million an-nually to carry out approved programs basedon the State’s assessment of funds needed. Re-cent authorizations have averaged around $2million annually for the RREA. If public edu-cation on resource conservation issues isdeemed important, then an increase in annualappropriations to the RREA would be neces-sary. Any funding increases in Renewable Re-sources Extension would need to be allocatedevenly among the five program areas above to

42

ensure funding increases for fish and wildlifemanagement.

Proposal C: Congress could significantly in-crease fiscal year 1985 appropriations forthe Water Bank Program in fiscal year1986 and beyond.

The Federal Water Bank Program is one ofthe most effective programs to conserve wild-life habitat on private lands. The program hasbeen successful among landowners because itoffers adequate compensation for land not inproduction and allows flexibility to “buy out”of contracts. Unlike the FWS Wetland Ease-ment Program, the Water Bank offers lo-yearcontracts instead of longer term contracts.

The Water Bank is administered in 10 Statesand has been adopted by landowners prin-cipally in the Dakotas and Minnesota wherethe affected land is vital to waterfowl produc-tion. Current contract applicants to the pro-gram far exceed the appropriations providedto extend contracts or enter into new ones.(Some estimates suggest only one-third of ap-plicants receive funding.) Fiscal year 1985 ap-propriations for the Water Bank were approx-imately $8.8 million. In order for this programto increase its effectiveness, increased ap-propriations will be required.

Proposal D: Congress could direct USDA toimplement National Environmental PolicyAct regulations for environmental impactassessment and public comment on agri-cultural programs administered by USDAagencies.

The National Environmental Policy Act of1969 (Public Law 91-190) was enacted to en-sure Federal accountability and public inputon programs and policies which influence thehuman environment. USDA policies and pro-grams have a significant impact on the humanand natural environments but only limitedassessments disclose the degree to which thoseimpacts occur.

Currently, the Conservation and Environ-mental Program Evaluation Group of the ASCS

has undertaken the process of developing anEnvironmental Impact Statement (EIS) on theircommodity adjustment programs or set-asideprograms to fulfill agency regulations underNEPA. Concern exists that USDA does not orhas not evaluated its other programs and pol-icies adequately for their environmental im-pacts, particularly the impacts to fish and wild-life populations, as required by the NEPAguidelines.

One aspect of NEPA which seems to beunderemphasized in the development andadministration of USDA programs has been thepublic involvement criteria imposed by NEPA.programs and policies which influence privateland resource use to the extent of USDA pro-grams should be open to public scrutiny andcomment. By evaluating programs with theenvironmental assessment and public reviewprocess outlined in the NEPA regulations, theagencies will be accessible to public commentand to alternative proposals that incorporatewildlife and fish habitat considerations intoprogram administration.

Proposal E: Congress could conduct oversighton Small Watershed Program to determineif SCS is achieving goals of watershedstabilization through current methods or ifthe focus of projects should be redirected.

The Small Watershed Program is adminis-tered by SCS to develop comprehensive land-use and water resource management plans forflood control or watershed protection in water-sheds that are smaller than 250,000 acres insize. The plans include structural works, landtreatments through contractual conservationplans (RMS, see Section II), public recreationdevelopment, and agricultural, municipal andindustrial water supply management. Smallwatershed projects have potential to bring to-gether numerous landowners on comprehen-sive land and water planning.

SCS has been criticized for advocating struc-tural improvements and channelization proj-ects at the expense of wildlife and fisheries hab-itat, Nonstructural applications could serve the

43

same ends as structural projects at less cost but habitat, small watershed plans could serve aswill require greater planning and coordination. the framework for comprehensive regionalWith the incorporation of sound conservation land management.principles for land and water use and wildlife

CONCLUSION

This report finds that technologies are avail-able to private landowners and land managersto maintain wildlife and fish habitat in conjunc-tion with agricultural operations. A fundamen-tal constraint to adoption of these technologieson a large scale is the lack of Federal commit-ment to assist in managing the Nation’s privateland resources for sustained private and pub-lic benefits. To incorporate wildlife and fishhabitat effectively into agricultural land use,congressional policy will need to support ashift in farm programs towards a resource-conserving form of management. By sendinga clear mandate that all Federal agencies shallintegrate conservation and agriculture objec-tives in programs influencing agricultural landuse, Congress can help perpetuate the produc-

tive capacity of the renewable resource base,meet the objectives for clean water, and ensurethat viable populations of wildlife and fish willbe maintained into the next century.

The potential courses of action contained inthis OTA workshop proceeding reflect oppor-tunities that are available to Congress to changethe emphasis in the Nation’s agricultural andnatural resource programs. Opportunities to in-tegrate agriculture and wildlife programs arenot restricted to the 1985 Farm Bill formula-tion. Other legislative initiatives in the 99thCongress can serve as vehicles to blend thelong-term agricultural and conservation pol-icies together as well.

.——

References

References

Alexander, L., and Kellert, S. R., “Forest Land-owner’s Perspectives on Wildlife Manage-ment in New England, ” Transactions of 49thNorth American Wildlife and Natural Re-sources Conference (Washington, DC: Wild-life Management Institute 1984), pp. 164-173.

Berg, N, A., “The Impact of U, S.D.A. Programs onFisheries and Wildlife,” OTA Agriculture andWildlife Workshop Paper, 1984.

Berner, A. H., “Federal Land Retirement Pro-grams—A Land Management Albatross?”Transactions of 49th North American Wild-life and Natural Resources Conference (Wash-ington, DC: wildlife Management Institute,1984), Pp. 118-131.

Best, Louid, Department of Animal Ecology, IowaState University, personal communication,1984.

Brady, S. J,, “Important Soil Conservation Tech-niques That Benefit Wildlife, ” OTA Agricul-ture and Wildlife Workshop Paper, 1984.

Bryant, F. C., Guthery, F. S., and Webb, W. M.,“Grazing Management in Texas and Its Im-pact on Wildlife,” Proceedings of the WiZdlife-Livestock Relationships Symposium (Mos-cow, ID: University of Idaho, 1981), pp.94-112.

Burger, G, V., “Agriculture and Wildlife, ” H. P.Brokaw (cd.), WildZife and America (Washing-ton, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office,1978), pp. 89-107,

Bultena, G. L., Hoiberg, E. O., and Nowak, P. J.,“Sources of Conservation Information andParticipation in Conservation Programs: AnInterregional Analysis,” Sociology Report No.156 (Ames, IA: Iowa State University, 1984).

Cacek, Terry, Agricultural Liaison, Fish and Wild-life Service, U.S. Department of Interior, per-sonal communication, 1984.

Castrale, John, Forest—Wildlife Office, Indiana De-partment of Natural Resources, personal com-munication, 1984.

Cook, Ken, OTA Consultant, personal communica-tion, 1984.

Cooper, W., “Agricultural Practices and AquaticResource?” OTA Agriculture and WildlifeWorkshop Paper, 1984.

Dahlgren, R, B., “Wildlife Conservation Benefit, ”Proceedings of The Management Alternativesfor Biological Farming Workshop (Ames, IA:Iowa Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit,1983), pp. 37-38.

Drawe, Lynn, Rob and Bessie Welder WildlifeFoundation, Texas, personal communication,1984.

Ducey, J., Rauscher, J., Wiederspan, C., Miller, L.,Koehle, A., and Mazour, D., “A BiologicalComparison of Organic and Chemical Farm-ing” (Lincoln, NB: University of Nebraska,1980), unpublished.

Duebbert, Harold, Northern Prairie Wildlife Re-search Cente? Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S.Department of Interior, North Dakota, per-sonal communication, 1984.

Egan, J,, “Rest Rotation Grazing System, ” F. R.Henderson (cd.), Guidelines for IncreasingWiZdZife on Farms and Ranches (Manhattan,KS: Great Plains Wildlife Resources Commit-tee and Kansas State University, 1984), pp.15 B-20B.

Evans, R., “Agricultural Policies Related to Fishand Wildlife Habitat, ” OTA Agriculture andWildlife Workshop Paper, 1984a.

Evans, R., Missouri Department of Conservation,personal communication, 1984b.

Ferris, A. L., and Cole, S. H., “Strategies and Goalsfor Wildlife Habitat Restoration on Agricul-tural Land, ” Transactions of 46th NorthAmerican Wildlife and Natural ResourcesConference (Washington, DC: Wildlife Man-agement Institute, 1981), pp. 130-136.

Frank, E., “Dodge County Interagency Project toEnhance WiIdlife Habitat on Farmland,” OTAAgriculture and Wildlife Workshop Paper,1984.

Fryrear, D. W., Agricultural Research Service, U.S.Department of Agriculture, Lubbock, TX, per-sonal communication, 1984.

Gates, J. M., and Hale, J. B., “Reproduction of anEast Central Wisconsin Pheasant Population, ”Wisconsin Department of Natural ResourcesTechnical Bulletin No. 85, 1975.

Goodger, T., “Agricultural Activities and MarineFisheries, ” OTA Agriculture and WildlifeWorkshop Paper, 1984.

Guither, H. D., Jones, B. F., Martin, M. A., andSpitze, R. G. F., “U.S. Farmers’ Views on Agri-cultural and Food Policy, ” U.S. Departmentof Agriculture, Cooperative Extension Serv-ice, North Central Regional Extension Pub-lication 227/North Central Regional ResearchPublication 300, December 1984.

Gutierrez, R. J., Decker, D. J., Howard, R, A,, Jr.,and Lassoie, J. P., Managing Smal~ Woodlands

47

48

for Wildlife (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University,1979).

Harris, L. D., “Designing Landscape Mosaics forIntegrated Agricultural and ConservationPlanning in the Southeastern US.” OTA Agri-culture and Wildlife Workshop Paper, 1984.

Heady, E. O., “The Setting for Agricultural Produc-tion and Resource Use in the Future,” Pro-ceedings of the RCA Symposium: FutureAgricultural Technology and Resource Con-servation (Ames, IA: Iowa State UniversityPress, 1982), pp. 8-30.

Jahn, L. R,, and Diehl, J. L., “Conservation’s Chal-lenge: Multiple Consideration,” presented atSoil Conservation Society of America AnnualMeeting, July 29-Aug. 1, 1984.

Jung, Gerald, Regional Pasture Research Lab, U.S.Department of Agriculture, Pennsylvania, per-sonal communication, 1984.

Kansas Fish and Game Commission Circular, “RootPlowing—A Technique to Increase Row CropYields and Save Hedgerow” (Pratt, KS: KansasFish and Game Commission, undated).

Kellert, S. R., “Americans’ Attitudes and Knowl-edge of Animal,” Transactions of 4~th NorthAmerican Wildlife and Natural ResourcesConference (Washington, DC: Wildlife Man-agement Institute, 1980), pp. 111-124.

Klimstra, W. D., “Bobwhite Quail and ChangingLand Us,” F, Schitoskey, E. C. Schitoskey, andL. G. Talent (eds.), Proceedings of the SecondNational Bobwhite Quail Symposium (Still-water, OK: Oklahoma State University, 1982),pp. 1-5.

Kruse, Arnold, Northern Prairie Wildlife ResearchCenter, Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. De-partment of Interior, North Dakota, personalcommunication, 1984.

Leitch, J. A., and Nelson, W. C., “Economics ofJoint Production of Agricultural Commoditiesand Wildlife, ” OTA Agriculture and WildlifeWorkshop Paper, 1984.

Linder, R. L., Hubbard, D. E., and Nomsen, D, E,f

“Wetlands and Agriculture,” OTA Agricul-ture and Wildlife Workshop Paper, 1984.

Lyons, J. R., “Nonconsumptive Wildlife-AssociatedRecreation in the U. S,” Transactions of 47thNorth American Wildlife and Natural Re-sources Conference (Washington, DC: Wild-life Management Institute, 1982], pp. 677-685.

Madsen, C., 1983 Mid-Continent Waterfowl Man-agement Project Annual Report (Fergus Falls,MN: U.S. Department of Interior, Fish andWildlife Service, 1984).

Maser, C., “Rangelands, Wildlife Technology, andHuman Desires,” OTA Agriculture and Wild-hfe Workshop Paper, 1984.

McEvoy, T. J., “An Educational Approach to In-crease the Production of Multiple BenefitsFrom Private Non-Industrial Woodlands inAmerica, ” OTA Agriculture and WildlifeWorkshop Paper, 1984a.

McEvoy, T. J., Cooperative Extension Service,University of Vermont, personal communica-tion, 1984b.

Menzel, B. W., “Agricultural Management Prac-tices and the Integrity of Instream BiologicalHabitat,” F. W, Schaller and G. W. Bailey(eds.), Agricultural Management and WaterQuaZity (Ames, IA: Iowa State UniversityPress, 1983), pp. 305-329,

Minnich, D., presentation at the Natural ResourcesCouncil of America Briefing, Oct. 2, 1984.

Mironowski, John, Natural Resource Program, Eco-nomic Research Service, U.S. Department ofAgriculture, personal communication, 1984.

National Academy of Sciences, Impacts of Emerg-ing Agricultural Trends on Fish and WildlifeHabitat (Washington, DC: National AcademyPress, 1982),

Papendick, R. I,, Agriculture Research Service, U.S.Department of Agriculture, Pullman, WA,personal communication, 1984,

Papendick, R. 1,, and Elliot, L. F., “Different Crop-ping Systems in the U. S., and Potential Bene-fits to Wildlife,” OTA Agriculture and Wild-hfe Workshop Paper, 1984.

Risser, P. G., Karr, J. R., and Forman, R. T,, “Land-scape Ecology—Directions and Approaches,”Illinois Natural History Survey Special Pub-lication No. 2, 1984.

Rodgers, R. D., “Reducing Wildlife Losses in WheatProduction Systems,” OTA Agriculture andWildlife Workshop Paper, 1984.

Sallee, Bill, Agricultural Stabilization and Conser-vation Service (retired), U.S. Department ofAgriculture, Washington, DC, personal com-munication, 1984.

Schlosser, 1. J., and Karr, J, R., “Riparian Vegeta-tion and Channel Morphology Impact onSpatial Patterns of Water Quality in Agricul-tural Watershed,” Environmental Manage-ment 5(3):233-243, 1981.

Smika, D. E., “Summer Fallow for Dryland Win-ter Wheat in the Semiarid Great Plain, ” Jour-nal of Agronomy 62:15-17, 1976,

Society of American Foresters, F. C. Ford-Robert-son (cd.), Terminology of Forest Science,

—

49

Technology, Practice and Products (Washing-ton, DC: Society of American Foresters, 1971).

Svoboda, F. R., “Minnesota Landowner AttitudesToward Wildlife Habitat Management, ”Transactions of 49th North American Wild-life and Natural Resources Conference (Wash-ington, DC: Wildlife Management Institute,1984), pp. 154-167.

Thomas, J. W. (cd.), WiZdlife Habitats in ManagedForests—The Blue Mountains of Oregon andWashington, U.S. Department of AgricultureForest Service Agricultural Handbook No.553 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Print-ing Office, 1979).

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment,Impacts of Technology on U.S. Cropland andRangeland Productivity, OTA-F-166 (Wash-ington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office,1982).

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Report and Rec-ommendations on Organic Farming (Wash-ington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office,1980),

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Policy on Fish andWildlife, Secretary’s Memorandum 9500—3,July 20, 1982,

USDA, Agricultural Stabilization and ConservationService, “Production Adjustment Commodi-ties: Intent to Prepare Environmental ImpactStatement,” Federal Register 49(116):24580-24581, June 14, 1984,

USDA Forest Service, “Shelterbelt Influence onGreat Plains Field Environment and Crops, ”U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Serv-ice Production Research Report No. 62, 1962.

USDA Soil Conservation Service, “America’s Soiland Water: Conditions and Trend, ” U.S. De-partment of Agriculture, Soil ConservationService, 1981a,

USDA Soil Conservation Service, “Land ResourceRegions and Major Land Resource Areas ofthe United States—Map,” U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Agri-culture Handbook 296, 1981b.

USDA Soil Conservation Service, “Plant Materialsfor Conservation, ” U.S. Department of Agri-culture, Soil Conservation Service ProgramAid No. 1219, 1979.

USDA Soil Conservation Service, “Windbreaks forConservation,” U.S. Department of Agricul-ture, Soil Conservation Service AgricultureInformation Bulletin No. 339, 1974 (re-printed).

U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Serv-ice, 1980 fi’ational Survey of Fishing, Hunting,and WildZife-Associated Recreation (Washing-ton, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office,1982).

Ursic, Stan, Forest Hydrology Laboratory, ForestService, U.S. Department of Agriculture,Mississippi, personal communication, 1984.

Warner, R. E., “Effects of Changing Agriculture onRing-necked Pheasant Brood Movement in 11-linois,” Journal of WiZdZife Management 48(3):1014-1018, 1984.

Warner, R. E., Etter, S. L., Joselyn, G. B., and Ellis,J. A., “Declining Survival of Ring-neckedPheasant Chicks in Illinois Agricultural Eco-systems,” Journal of Wildlife Management48(1):82-88, 1984.

Wooley, J., George, R., Onde, B., and Rybarczyk,w., “Nesting Evaluation of Native GrassPastures and Narrow-Row Soybeans, ” Pro-ceedings of the Midwest Agricultural Inter-face With Fish and Wildlife Resources Work-shop (Ames, 1A: Iowa State University, 1982),pp. 5-6.

Youngberg, I. G., Parr, J. F,, and Papendick, R. 1.,“Potential Benefits of Organic Farming Prac-tices for Wildlife and Natural Resources, ”Transactions of 49th North American Wild-Zife and Natural Resources Conference (Wash-ington, DC: Wildlife Management Institute,1984), pp. 141-153.

Appendixes

Appendix A

Glossary of Acronyms

ARS

ASC

ASCS

BMPDNR

EISEPAFWS

GAO

— Agricultural Research Service, U.S.Department of Agriculture

— Agricultural Stabilization and Conser-vation (Committees)

— Agricultural Stabilization and Conser-vation Service, U.S. Department ofAgriculture

— Best Management Practices— Department of Natural Resources

(Wisconsin)— Environmental Impact Statement— Environmental Protection Agency— Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S.

Department of Interior– General Accounting Office, U.S.

Congress

NEPA — National Environmental Policy ActNMFS — National Marine Fisheries Service,

U.S. Department of CommerceNRI – National Resources InventoriesOTA — Office of Technology Assessment,

U.S. CongressPIK – Payment-In-KindRMS — Resource Management SystemRREA — Renewable Resources Extension ActSAF — Society of American ForestersSCS — Soil Conservation Service, U.S.

Department of AgricultureSGS — Savory Grazing SystemT-value — Soil Loss Tolerance ValueUSDA — U.S. Department of AgricultureUSDI — U.S. Department of Interior

53

Appendix B

Technical Papers

Page

“Important Soil Conservation Techniques That Benefit Wildlife,”S. J. Brady, Soil Conservation Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

“Different Cropping Systems in the United States and Potential Benefitsto Wildlife,”R. I. Papendick and L. F. Elliott, Agricultural Research Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

“Reducing Wildlife Losses to Tillage in Wheat Production Systems, ”R. D. Rodgers, Kansas Fish and Game Commission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

“Wetlands and Agriculture, ”R. L, Linder, D. E. Hubbard, and D. E. Nomsen,South Dakota Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

“Rangelands, Wildlife Technology, and Human Desires,”C. Maser, Bureau of Land Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

“Agricultural Practices and Aquatic Resources,”B. Cooper, Michigan State University . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

“Agricultural Activities and Marine Fisheries,”T. Goodger, National Marine Fisheries Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

“Designing Landscape Mosaics for Integrated Agriculturaland Conservation Planning in the Southeastern United States, ”L, D. Harris, University of Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102

“Dodge County Interagency Project to Enhance Wildlife Habitat on Farmlands,”E. Frank, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112

“An Educational Approach to Increase the Production of Multiple BenefitsFrom Private Nonindustrial Woodlands in America,”T. J. McEvoy, University of Vermont Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116

“Economics of Joint Production of Agricultural Commodities and Wildlife,”J. A. Leitch and W. C. Nelson, North Dakota Agricultural ExperimentStation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . $ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121

“The Impact of USDA Programs on Fisheries and Wildlife,”N. A, Berg, Soil Conservation Society of America . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129

“Agricultural Policies Related to Fish and Wildlife Habitat,”R. Evans, Missouri Department of Conservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135

54

55

Important soil Conservation TechniquesThat Benefit Wildlife

Stephen J. BradySoil Conservation Service

Champaign, Illinois

ABSTRACT

The relationship between increasing rowcrop production, increasing soil erosion andnonpoint sources of water pollutants, and de-creasing farmland wildlife is discussed. Theseresource concerns are not independent but col-lectively are symptoms of a degrading resourcebase. Two principal reasons for the problemsare identified: 1) intensive use and manage-ment of the land; and 2) extensive cultivationof ever-enlarging fields, which has removed

critical plant cover. Application of resourcemanagement systems will address the first rea-son while establishment of permanent vegeta-tion is required for the second. Some impor-tant soil conservation practice components ofresource management systems and their im-pact on wildlife habitat quality are discussed.National farm policy should encourage com-prehensive ecological assessment in farmplanning,

Technological advances have pushed agricul-tural production to record levels in the UnitedStates, yet soil erosion persists as a nationalmenace. Eroded soil is the greatest pollutant(by weight) in the country and is annually oneof the most expensive. Technology and exter-nal inputs of energy and materials have maskedthe soil erosion problem to such an extent thatit is, as yet, unrecognizable from the produc-tion side of the national ledger. Fifty-eight per-cent of the Nation’s non-Federal cropland isin need of soil and water conservation treat-ment (USDA, 1984). Yet this problem is onlysymptomatic of a greater problem, the degrada-tion of the total resource base (soil, water, andrelated plant and animal resources). where agiven ecosystem (such as agricultural lands) ismanaged with single resource objective it has

multiresource consequences (Risser, Karr, andForman, 1984), Policies that allow agriculturalproduction to expand at the expense of re-source degradation are ecologically, and there-fore economically, untenable in the long run.Wildlife populations in agricultural ecosystemshave declined for the same two reasons thatsoil erosion rates have increased: 1) intensiveuse and management of the land has reducedhabitat quality, and 2) extensive cultivation ofever-enlarging fields has removed criticalforms of vegetative cover. Conserving the nat-ural resource base is the first step in manag-ing all renewable resources. This discussionaddresses the relationship between soil conser-vation techniques and farmland wildlife pop-ulations.

56

The situation in Illinois is typical of the Mid-western States as well as the intensively farmedregions of the Nation. Declining harvests ofrabbits, quail, and pheasants in Illinois duringrecent decades were each significantly (P <0.001) correlated with increasing hectares ofrow crops (figure 1). The small game harvestdata represent indicator species associatedwith diverse agricultural practices and farm-land habitat. The habitat losses which pro-duced reduced harvests of small game alsohave resulted in similar drastic declines innongame wildlife. Table 1 documents the de-cline of grassland birds in northern and cen-tral Illinois during the same period. From 1963

to 1983 pheasant populations also declined ap-proximately 95 percent in this region of Illinois(Warner and Etter, 1984).

Table l.–(Graber and Graber, 1983)

Populationloss since

Species 1957—580/.

Savannah sparrow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98Bobolink. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97Dickcissel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96Grasshopper Sparrow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98Henslow’s Sparrow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94Upland Sandpiper. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92Meadowlarks (2 species) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

Figure 1 .—Estimated Harvest of Rabbits, Quail and Pheasants by Resident IllinoisHunters (Ellis, 1983), Average Farm Size and Hectares of Row Crops Harvested

(IL Cooperative Crop Reporting Service 1957-83) During the Years 1956-1982

II

I

\ Rabbits

\\

I # , 1,

56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72 74 76 78 80 82

57

DISCUSSION

The Soil and Water Resources ConservationAct (RCA) of 1977 strongly affects the Nation’sresource conservation effort. RCA provides, forthe first time, a single statutory base for thecomprehensive management of all resources,including wildlife habitat, into one set of pro-grams (Sampson, 1981). Although 74 percentof all 81,008 respondents to an RCA question-naire agreed or strongly agreed with the needto improve wildlife habitat (USDA, 1980), it didnot end up as a national priority, The NationalConservation Program (NCP) (USDA, 1982)that evolved from RCA has two national pri-orities, The first is to reduce excessive soil ero-sion on agricultural lands. The second is two-fold: to conserve water used in agriculture andto reduce flood damage in upstream areas,NCP authorizes priority assistance for im-provement of fish and wildlife habitat only inareas specifically designed for such priority byState and local authorities, wildlife and fish arerecognized by Soil Conservation Service (SCS)policy as integral components of all primaryland and water use systems (SCS, 1983). Safe-guarding the habitats of wildlife and fish andpreventing or minimizing damage to habitatfrom changes in land use or from installationof soil and water conservation measures is anobjective of SCS’s biology policy.

The SCS routinely uses an interdisciplinaryapproach in helping farmers plan conserva-tion. The objective is to apply a Resource Man-agement System (RMS) to the land. An RMSis a combination of conservation and manage-ment practices that is appropriate for the pri-mary use of the land and that will protect theresource base by limiting soil losses to accept-able levels, maintaining acceptable waterquality, and maintaining acceptable ecologicaland management levels for the selected re-source use, The most effective conservationtreatment of natural resources is achieved bythe synergistic relationship of various practicesapplied to the land. Conservation tillage, forexample, may control sheet and rill erosion, butadditional practices such as grassed waterwaysor terraces may be needed to prevent or pro-

tect against concentrated flows of water. Ad-ditional practices may be needed to filter somepollutants from runoff water, or control soilblowing, or stabilize stream banks, or providewildlife habitat or address other concerns, Thejudicious selection of land practice compo-nents can provide habitat elements importantto many species of wildlife. The use of RMSSis a practical application of the “land ethic”(Leopold, 1966) and the evolving science oflandscape ecology (Risser, Karr, and Foreman,1984) . The landowner, however, decideswhether or not to apply a complete RMS or justa single component (conservation practice) tohis land.

Generally, as soil-conserving measures in-crease, upland wildlife habitat quality also im-proves (Lines and Perry, 1978; Miranowski andBender, 1982). Some soil conservation prac-tices directly benefit habitat quality in that theyprovide one or more critical habitat elementsincidental to their erosion control function.Some of the more important soil conservationpractices to wildlife are conservation tillage,grassed terraces, field border strips, and croprotation,

Conservation Tillage

Agricultural crops and their residues providea major life requirement to many wildlife spe-cies. Conservation tillage generally has apositive impact on wildlife by leaving crop res-idue on the surface where it may provide coveror food. Conservation tillagel refers to seedbedpreparation and planting techniques that leaveprotective amounts of residue mulch (e.g.,cornstalks, wheat stubble, etc.) on the soil sur-face throughout the year. The purpose of theresidue mulch is to absorb the impact (kineticenergy) of raindrops or wind before they strike

1 I n this discussion conservation tillage means any of a vari-ety of noninversion types of tillage where a minimum of 32 peF-cent of the soil surface is covered by the previous crop’s resi-due after planting. The mere use of a “conservation tillageimplement” (such as a chisel plow or a no-till planter) does notimply that the soil conservation practice has been applied.

58

the soil surface causing soil particles to washor blow away. Conventional techniques use amoldboard plow to turn under plant residuesand the upper 10 to 20 cm (4 to 8 inches) ofthe soil to create a “clean” seedbed.

Conservation tillage systems fall into threegeneral categories: no-till, mulch tillage, andridge-till. Specially designed planters cutthrough the residue to till a narrow band or slotinto which the seed is dropped. In no-till sys-tems there is no secondary tillage at any time.My category of mulch tillage refers to systemsthat use additional tillage implements such asfield cultivators, disks, or chisel plows betweenharvest and planting times. These two catego-ries use herbicides for weed control and arebest suited to soils that are well-drained. Onthe other hand, ridge-till uses a cultivator forweed control and can be used on poorlydrained soils and on well drained soils, but islimited to continuous row crops. The cultivatorthrows up small ridges (15 to 20 cm or 6 to 8inches high) along the row. The next year theplanter removes the top 2 to 5 cm (1 to 2 in-ches) of the ridge, throws crop residues be-tween the rows and plants the seeds in a sloton top of the ridge.

In a recent study comparing no-till, ridge-till,and conventional tillage systems on 1,854 plotstotaling 9,476 hectares (23,406 acres) in theLake Erie region, the first year data suggeststhe following: 1) yields with the conservationtillage systems were competitive with yieldsproduced under conventional tillage systems,2) costs of production for conservation tillagesystems were less than or equal to those of con-ventional tillage systems, and 3) conservationtillage systems reduced phosphorus loadingsfrom the project area and did not significantlyincrease herbicide usage (USEPA and NACD,1984). Incentive payments for using conserva-tion tillage are available through the Agricul-tural Conservation Program (ACP) adminis-tered by the Agricultural Stabilization andConservation Service (ASCS). In Illinois 13 per-cent of the row crops grown in 1984 were pro-duced using conservation tillage (Dickerson,1984).

Conservation tillage benefits wildlife mainlyby leaving crop residue on the soil surface dur-ing spring and summer which may be used ascover. There was a greater abundance of in-vertebrates, birds, and mammals in no-till thanin conventionally tilled cornfields in southernIllinois (Warburton and Klimstra, 1984). Re-searchers in Iowa found a substantially greaterdiversity and density of birds nested in no-tillfields than in conventionally tilled fields andnest success was comparable to idle areas, suchas fencerows and waterways (Basore, et al.,1983). A companion study found that increasedresidue cover tended to diversify rather thanincrease populations of small mammals (Youngand Clark, 1983). The low levels of crop dam-age observed in their study may minimize somepreviously expressed concerns about rodentdamage. If weeds are controlled by herbicidesthere is minimial physical disturbance toresidue-nesting wildlife after planting time, butthere is a toxicity risk from certain of the com-monly used herbicides (Rodgers and Wooley,1983). If weeds are controlled by cultivation,as is the case in ridge-till, there is substantialchance of physical disturbance to residue-nesting wildlife.

Although conservation tillage is an importantpractice for controlling sheet and rill erosion,additional water management practices (e.g.,grassed waterways, terraces, etc.) are oftenneeded for safe water disposal. Residue fromharvested crops left undisturbed over winteroften is identified as a benefit from conserva-tion tillage but may in fact not be related. Suchpractices as chopping or shredding cornstalksafter harvest, though ensuring protection of thesoil, significantly reduce the value of the resi-due to wildlife. It is quite possible to meet the32 percent cover requirement for soil conser-vation yet contribute little food to wildlife.Multiple-pass operations commonly used forcorn, or single-pass tillage with twisted shankchiseling devices, may be as detrimental to theavailability of waste grain as the moldboardplow (Warner, Havera, and David, 1984).Undisturbed harvested crop fields receivedgreater use by wintering wildlife than did fall-tilled crop fields in Indiana (Castrale, 1983).

59

Terraces are a commonly applied erosioncontrol and water management practice. Ter-races are ridges of earth about 60 to 90 cm (2to 3 feet) high constructed across the slope ona gentle grade (about 0.6 percent) to removerunoff water from the field at a nonerosive ve-locity (see sketch in Appendix).

Terrace construction costs are variabie de-pending on soil and site conditions but aver-age costs in Illinois are about $740 to $990 perhectare ($300 to $400 per acre). ACP cost-sharing is available at about the 60 to 75 per-cent level.

Terraces are best suited to deep soils on longgentle slopes and are poorly suited to soils thatare shallow (to bedrock) or that occur on short,choppy slopes where contour farming is diffi-cult. They may be broad-based and farmed orthey may be narrow-based with grassed ridgesor grassed backslopes. Grassed terraces are lessexpensive to build than are broad-based ter-races, but the grass requires additional main-tenance to keep it from being taken over by lessdesirable vegetation. Broad-based terraces haveno direct benefit to wildlife, but the grassed ter-races increase the diversity and interspersionof vegetative types in cropland settings. Thirty-five species of vertebrates were found usinggrassed backslope terraces in Iowa (Beck,1982). In addition, pheasant nest success was22.5 percent, or one successful nest per 5 hec-tares (12.5 acres) of grass. It should be recog-nized that terrace construction also can resultin the loss of habitat if waterways are replacedwith underground tile outlets or if new fieldalignments remove old, grown-up fencerowsand odd areas.

Field Border Strips

Field border strips are much underusedthough they can benefit the resource base sig-nificantly. Field border strips consist of per-manent vegetation (usually grasses and leg-umes) in a strip around the perimeter of thefield about 5 meters (1 rod) wide. Crop yieldsare reduced where fields border tall woody

cover, or where end rows run up and downsteep slopes or are used as machinery lanes.They reduce erosion in end rows, reduce cropplanting costs adjacent to woodlands, providean element of safety for machinery operatingnext to drainage ditches, and improve waterquality. The concern over nonpoint sources ofpollutants (Section 208 of Public Law 92-500,Federal Water Pollution Control Act) could begreatly minimized if we would establish fieldborder strips along riparian areas of 6 to 30meters (20 to 100 feet) in width (Schlosser andKarr, 1980; Karr and Schlosser, 1980). Althoughriparian green belts do not provide direct eco-nomic benefits to the farmer, the benefits tosociety would be great.

Crop Rotations

Intensive row cropping without small grainsor meadow in the rotation increases soil ero-sion and adversely affects many forms of wild-life. The survival of Illinois pheasant chicks to5 or 6 weeks of age has declined from 78 to 54percent during the last 30 years (Warner, 1979).This decline is a result of fewer hectares of for-age crops, small grains, and idle areas wherebroods forage for insects and has resulted innearly a threefold increase in the size of thearea ranged by broods (Warner, 1984; Warner,Etter, Joselyn, and Ellis, 1984). RMSS that in-clude rotations of small grains and meadowand contour strip-cropping would significantlyreduce erosion losses and enhance wildlifehabitat. Reducing row crop intensity by in-cluding small grains or meadow in the rotationmay, in some but not all cases, reduce farmincome.

The wildlife values of these practices aresynergistic. It is the combination of the vari-ous conservation practices into resource man-agement systems that will control soil erosion,improve water quality, provide wildlife habi-tat, and indeed protect the resource base. It isrecognized that while many species will pros-per from improved management of agriculturallands there are others that will not be so af-fected. Species requiring the large tracts of hab-itat with little disturbance will not be benefited

44-883 0 - 85 - 3 : QL 3

60

by mosaics of habitat in agricultural ecosys-tems (Karr, 1981). The loss of critical vegetativecover because of extensive cultivation of ever-enlarging fields requires additional land man-agement beyond the scope of the precedingdiscussion. There are additional temporal andspacial aspects of agricultural land use affect-ing the use by wildlife of otherwise quality hab-itat (Warner and Etter, 1984) that are often con-trolled by the agricultural producers. Thefollowing example illustrates how one groupis trying to address this issue.

Dwindling wildlife habitat is one of the fiveresource concerns of the Champaign County,Illinois, Soil and Water Conservation District(SWCD). After identifying a township whereintensive row cropping dominated agricultureand where landowners had a history of goodsoil conservation work, in March 1984 theSWCD invited all of the landowners and oper-ators in the township to a meeting about soilconservation and wildlife management oppor-tunities. The idea was that if the farms couldeach contribute some habitat elements critical

to wildlife in the area, collectively they maybeable to meet all of the life requisites for somewildlife species. A key element in tying theseislands of habitat together is the Illinois Depart-ment of Conservation’s Roadsides for WildlifeProgram, which not only seeds roadsides butalso grassed terraces, drainage ditch banks,field border strips, and odd areas. It is too earlyto assess results but clearly the farmers are in-terested.

The application of the known technology canpreserve the long-term productivity of our Na-tion’s soil for agriculture while benefitingfarmland wildlife. Bringing soil losses downto tolerable (“T” value) levels will result infewer hectares of cropland. Fifty-one percentof Illinois’ non-Federal cropland is in need ofsoil and water conservation treatment (USDA,1984). About 10 percent of Illinois’ 10 millionhectares of cropland should be cropped less in-tensively, while 3.8 percent should be con-verted to permanent vegetation. we cannot af-ford to sell off the capital wealth of our soil tosubsidize short-term agricultural production.

RECOMMENDATION$

I am acquainted with the agricultural recom-mendations for the 1985 Farm Bill put forth byBerry man (1984), Jahn and Diehl (1984), and 2.Berner (1984) and am in support of those rec-ommendations. The general call is for the fourrather basic inclusions: 1) a “sodbuster” pro-vision, 2) a long-term conservation reserve pro-gram, 3) a cropland base protection provision,and 4)a cross-compliance provision. Specifi-cally, I recommend that: 3.

1. The heart of our Nation’s agricultural pol-icy should be to optimize productionwithin the long-term capacity of the re- 4.source base to sustain that production.This requires recognition that excessivesoil erosion, nonpoint sources of waterpollutants, and dwindling farmland wild- 5.life are not independent problems but col-lectively are symptoms of a degrading re-source base. The solution is an integrated

ecological approach to “production withprotection.”Since the relationship between intensiverow cropping, increasing soil erosion, non-point sources of water pollutants, anddeclining farmland wildlife is so strong,it is appropriate for the national agricul-tural policy to recognize and share someof the responsibility.The use of resource management systemsis a more effective way to treat our Na-tion’s resource problems than is the use ofindividual conservation practices.The Universal Soil Loss Equation andSCS’s system of Land Capability Classifi-cation would be useful in the event thatsodbuster-type provisions are enacted.All future cropland retirement programsinclude:a. vegetative protection selected for agro-

nomic and wildlife values;

61

b.

c.

d.

provisions to establish field border This paper reflects my observations as a fieldstrips of 5 percent of the cropland base biologist and may not fully account for vari-(equivalent to a 5 meter strip around a ous national and economic implications. In16.2-hectare field or a rod wide strip closing, therefore, let me stress that agriculturalaround a 40-acre field); policies and programs must be sensitive to theprovision to establish field borders as economic well being of our Nation and the in-filter strips along riparian areas; and dividual farmer as well as wildlife habitat,

prohibitions against mowing retiredlands before the wildlife nesting seasonis complete (about August 1).

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

I wish to thank L, M. David, Illinois Depart- Hamilton, R. J. Herman, D. Moffit, G. Root andment of Conservation; R. E, Warner, Illinois M, Gunn, Soil Conservation Service; for re-Natural History Survey; C. H. Thomas, R. viewing a draft of the manuscript.

REFERENCES

Basore, N. S., Best, L. B., Wooley, J. B., Jr., andRybarcz, W. B., “Impact of No-till Farming onNesting Birds,” abstract of paper presentedat the 45th Midwest Fish and Wildlife Con-ference, 1983. By Permission.

Beck, D. W, “Wildlife Use of Grassed BackslopeTerraces, ” abstract of paper presented at the44th Midwest Fish and Wildlife Conference,1982, By Permission,

Berner, A. 0., “Federal Land Retirement Program--A Land Management Albatross?” Trans. 49thNorth American Wildlife and Natural Re-sources Conference (Washington, DC: Wild-life Management Institute, 1984), pp. 118-131.

Berryman, J. A., “The Agriculture, Food, and Nat-ural Resource Management Act of 1985: Chal-lenges and Options,” Agricultural Task Force,Natural Resources Council of America, 1984,

Castrale, J. S., “Fall Agricultural Tillage Practicesand Field Use by Wintering Wildlife in South-eastern Indiana, ” abstract of paper presentedat the 45th Midwest Fish and Wildlife Con-ference, 1983. By Permission.

Dickerson, R. L., Illinois Soil Conservation ServiceState Agronomist, personal communication,1984.

Ellis, J. A., Hunter Harvest Surveys, Illinois Depart-ment of Conservation, 1983. By Permission.

Graber, R., and Graber, J., “The Declining Grass-land Birds,” Illinois Natural History SurveyReports, No. 227, Champaign, Illinois, 1983.

Illinois Cooperative Crop Reporting Service, I1-linois Agricultural Statistics, Annual Sum-maries, Illinois Department of Agricultureand U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1957-1983.

Jahn, L. R., and Diehl, J. L., “Conservation’s Chal-lenge: Multiple Considerations, ” Soil Conser-vation Society of American Annual Meeting,1984.

Karr, J., R., “An Integrated Approach to Manage-ment of Land Resources, ” Wildlife Manage-ment on Private Lands, R. T. Dumke, G. V.Burger, and J, R, March (eds.) (Madison, WI:Wisconsin Chapter of The Wildlife Society,1981).

Karr, J. R., and Schlosser, I. J., “Greenbelts: MoreExtensive BMP Justification, ” personal com-munication from J. R. Karr, 1980.

Leopold, A., A Sand County Ahnanac With Essayson Conservation From Round River (NewYork: Oxford University Press, 1966).

Lines, I. L., and Perry, C. J., “A Numerical Wild-life Habitat Evaluation Procedure.” In: Trans.43rd North American Wildlife and NaturalResources Conference (Washington, DC:

62

Wildlife Management Institute, 1978), pp.284-301.

Miranowski, J. A., and Bender, R, L,, “Impact ofErosion Control Policies on Wildlife Habitaton Private Lands, ” J. SoiZ and Water Conser-vation 37(5):288-291, 1982.

Risser, P, G., Karr, J. R., and Forman, R. T, T.,“Landscape Ecology, Directions and Ap-preaches, ” Illinois Natural History SurveySpecial Publication No. 2., Champaign, IL,1984.

Rodgers, R. D., and Wooley, J. B., “ConservationTillage Impacts on Wildlife,” J. Soil and WaterConservation 38(3):212-213, 1983.

Sampson, R. N., FarmZand or Wasteland (PA:Rodale Press, 1981).

Schlosser, I. J., and Karr, J. R,, “Determinants ofWater Quality in Agricultural Watersheds, ”Water Resources Center Research Report No,147 (Urbana, IL: University of Illinois, 1980).

Soil Conservation Service, NationaZ BioZogy Man-

U.s,

Us.

Us.

Us.

ua], 1983.Department of Agriculture, Basic Statistics,1982 National Resources Inventory, prelimi-nary data, 1984.Department of Agriculture, “A National Pro-gram for Soil and Water Conservation,” FinalProgram Report and Environmental ImpactStatement, 1982.Department of Agriculture, “Summary of thePublic’s Comments on RCA,” January-March1980.Environmental Protection Agency and Na-tional Association of Conservation Districts,

“Evaluating Impacts of Conservation Tillage,”Lake Erie Demonstration Projects, 1984.

Warburton, D. B., and Klimstra, W, D., “WildlifeUse of No-till and Conventionally Tilled CornFields,” J. Soil and Water Conservation39(5):327-330, 1984.

Warner, R, E,, “Effects of Changing Agriculture onRing-Necked Pheasant Brood Movements inIllinois,” Journal of Wildlife Management48(3):1014-1018, 1984.

Warner, R. E., “Use of Cover by Pheasant Broodsin East Central Illinois, ” JournaZ of WiZdlifeManagement 43(2):334-346, 1979.

Warner, R. E., and Etter, S. L., “Farm Conserva-tion Measures to Benefit Wildlife, EspeciallyPheasant Populations” (in preparation), 1985.

Warner, R. E,, Etter, S. L,, Joselyn, G. B., and Ellis,J, A,, “Declining Surviving of Ring-neckedPheasant Chicks in Illinois Agricultural Eco-systems,” Journal of Wildlife Management48(1):82-88, 1984.

Warner, R. E., Havera, H. P., and David, L, M., “Ef-fects of Fall Tillage Systems on Corn and Soy-bean Harvest Residues in Illinois,” Journal ofWildlife Management, Pending Publication,1985.

Young, R, E., and Clark, W. R., “Rodent Popula-tions and Crop Damage In Minimum TillageCornfields,” abstract of paper presented at the45th Midwest Fish and Wildlife Conference,1983. By Permission,

63

Different Croppingand

Systems in the United StatesPotential Benefits to Wildlife

R. L Papendick and k. F. ElliottUSDA-Agricultural Research Service

Washington State UniversityPullman, WA

CROPPING SYSTEMS AND WILDLIFE

Cropping systems presently in use in theUnited States have in most instances evolvedover the years as a result of a number of fac-tors such as demand for the crop, technologi-cal development, crop adaptability, foreign ex-port policies, and national policies controllingthe production of major crops. For the mostpart, gradually over the past four decades orso, there has been a major shift by Americanfarmers to monocultural cropping systems,particularly of cash grains, along with heavyreliance on fossil fuel-based production inputs,especially synthetic pesticides and fertilizers,Much of the driving force behind the trend tothese systems has been plentiful supplies ofcheap energy,

In the heart of the Nation’s croplands, theCornbelt (sometimes referred to as the bread-basket of the country), there also has been amarked shift to rowcropping, i.e., continuouscorn or corn-soybean rotations, away from amore diversified corn-legume-small grain crop-ping of the pre-world War II era. For exam-ple, during the 1960s and 1970s, it was not un-common for farmers in some areas to plantcorn continuously for 8 to 10 years. Moreover,each year of continuous corn cropping the cornstover would be turned under by fall plowingin preparation for the next spring planting,leaving the land bare overwinter. In recentyears, there have been a number of productionproblems encountered with continuous corn,and many farmers have begun rotating cornmore frequently with soybeans. Also, there hasbeen increased use of conservation tillage sys-tems, a part of which by some definitions in-

cludes leaving the corn stover undisturbedoverwinter except possibly for a shreddingoperation, and followed by a minimum tillageseedbed preparation or no-till planting in thespring. Very recently, there has been increasedinterest, particularly in the more southernareas, in planting a cover crop in the fall, suchas winter vetch, on rowcrop land for erosioncontrol and nitrogen fixation.

In the wheat growing areas of the West, themajor cropping system is wheat-fallow in thedrier areas and increasing intensity of smallgrain and/or rowcropping in the higher precip-itation areas. The conventional practice withwheat-fallow is to leave the crop stubble fol-lowing harvest undisturbed overwinter andbegin tillage for weed control and seedbedpreparation in mid-March to early April of thefollowing spring. The first tillage is usually ac-complished with sweep cultivators if the stub-ble is relatively light (e.g., <3,000 kg/ha] andif wind erosion is a hazard. These undercut-ting tools preserve maximum amounts of cropresidues on the surface and leave some of thestubble in an upright position for added pro-tection of soil against blowing. In areas wherethe stubble is heavier, the more common im-plement for initial tillage is a double disk whichcuts and buries a relatively high percentage ofthe stubble.

Following the initial tillage with either thesweep or disking, the fields are rodweededthree to five times during the remainder of thespring and summer for weed control until fallplanting in September and October. By this

64

time, much of the crop residues have visiblydisappeared by decomposition and mixingwith the soil.

With annual cropping, the stubble is oftenplowed or disked soon after harvest and eitherplanted to a fall crop in September or Octoberor, in the case of a spring crop, left bare over-winter with seedbed preparation and plantingcarried out the following April.

The main point about these conventionalcropping systems pertinent to wildlife is that,with intensive tillage and small diversity incrops grown, there are often relatively longperiods when there is little or no vegetativecover on the land. In addition, with rowcrop-ping in particular, field operations of varioustypes (cultivation, spraying, replanting, etc.)may occur frequently and well into the grow-ing season which can be extremely disruptiveto wildlife. Even with closegrown small graincropping there is not a pattern of continuousground cover provided throughout all seasons.

It is widely accepted that these large-scale,energy-intensive production technologies sub-

food and fiber produced in this Nation. How-ever, some adverse effects of conventional agri-cultural practices are becoming of increasingconcern to American society. Most have to dowith increased soil erosion rates and impair-ment of water quality from pollution by sedi-ments and pesticides that are directly associ-ated with conventional farming practices.There also is concern about biological toxicityof these pesticides to nontarget organisms.

In the united States the loss of potential ca-pacity by soil erosion is regarded as one of theforemost threats to agriculture. Moreover,eroded soil is the major pollutant of stream andwaterways in the Nation. As Brady (1984)points out, conventional type agriculture alsohas adversely impacted wildlife for two rea-sons: 1) intensive use and management of theland has reduced habitat quality, and 2) exten-sive cultivation of ever enlarging fields androad-to-road farming has removed criticalforms of vegetative cover. He shows from re-search in Illinois that with increased trends inrowcropping, there is a concomitant decreasein harvest of small game.

stantially account for the abundant supplies of

Two major changes are occurring in large- seeding, which results in retention of surfacescale agricultural production systems today,both of which can have favorable impacts onwildlife. These are: 1) marked increase in con-servation tillage systems including minimumtillage and no-till, and 2) increased intensity incropping including multicropping practicesand reduced summer fallow. These are not in-dependent because, for example, minimum till-age is to a large extent making multicroppingand reduced-fallow possible in many areas.

Conservation Tillaga

Conservation tillage usually consists of directseeding and fertilizing into the previous cropstubble (no-till) or minimum tillage prior to

residue-s. Both systems significantly reduce ero-sion compared with conventional clean tillageand appear to benefit wildlife from the cropresidue left on the surface where it may pro-vide both cover and feed.

Minimum tillage cropping systems are usedfor both fall and spring seeded crops. If aspring crop is sown, usually the stubble is chis-eled or disked in the fall so that the soil sur-face is rough and most of the residues remainon the soil surface. For a fall sown crop, suchas winter wheat, the soil will be chiseled andthen disked once or twice to form a seedbed,then the crop is seeded. With these tillages,most of the residues, while flattened, still re-main on or near the soil surface.

65

The cropping system that now appears tohold greatest promise for the future is no-tillcropping. with no-till, the seed and fertilizerare placed into the soil below the crop residues.The only tillage that occurs is from a one-passoperation in placing the seed and fertilizer.Weeds and insect pests are controlled by spray-ing pesticides. This system offers maximumerosion protection and leaves standing stubblefor wildlife cover and snow catchment. Snowcatchment is important for uniform snow dis-tribution. No-till seeding causes minimum soildisturbance so that previous crop seeds remainon the soil surface for wildlife feed and offersthe potential for increasing soil organic mat-ter near the soil surface.

Most of the concerns about conservation till-age tend to center on increased use of pesti-cides, mainly herbicides, and possible undesir-able ecological effects that may result. Withreduction or elimination of tillage, farmershave on the average increased the use of broadspectrum herbicides such as glyphosate andparaquat for preplant application. use of otherherbicides has probably changed less becausemost conventional tillage systems also rely onherbicides to control weeds in the crop. Insec-ticide use also may increase because certaininsect pests can be harbored in the crop resi-dues. with herbicides, wildlife biologists andecologists are usually more concerned with de-struction of the wildlife food base rather thanany direct toxic effect on animals. with insec-ticides, however, mortality can result from di-rect toxic effects on birds and animals, or afterthey have ingested poisoned invertebrates. Forexample, parathion usually sprayed from theair for insect control is lethal in small dosagesto virtually all animals and birds.

Another concern is that the chemicals thatare applied in conservation tillage systems aremore likely to remain at the soil surface ratherthan being incorporated in the soil, whichraises questions about potential runoff loss ofchemicals in the environment. However, al-though arguments are made both ways, thesituation is not always clear as to effects of con-servation tillage systems and changes in crop-ping systems on leaching, decomposition,

retention, volatilization, and runoff of pesti-cides and fertilizers.

A strong consensus exists among most agri-cultural leaders that there is an urgent need tolearn more about possible harmful side effectsof conservation tillage resulting from more in-tensive use of pesticides. Researchers appearto be unanimous in their view that few of theecological effects are well understood and thatcurrent research programs are insufficient toprovide the needed answers. The increase inthe organic matter content of the soil near thesurface with no-till cropping systems willgreatly change the activity of this zone in re-gard to pesticides. We think the results will bebeneficial, but data are lacking.

Along with minimum tillage and no-till, therealso are changes occurring in cropping sys-tems. These changes are being accelerated, notonly by the changes in the tillage methods, butalso by the economics of crop production.Double-cropping systems such as soybeans fol-lowing wheat generally have been quite suc-cessful in the Southern and Southeast Statesand are made possible by direct seeding of soy-beans into wheat stubble immediately afterharvest. In the dryland wheat regions, no-tillis reducing or eliminating the need for fallowor making it possible to grow two crops in 3years in many of the transitional areas situatedbetween true summer fallow and annual cropzones. Aside of the unknowns with pesticides,there changes in cropping systems in combina-tion with reduced tillage should, for the mostpart, favorably impact wildlife by providing agreater supply, variety, and stability of foodbase and cover.

Organic Farming and PotontialBenefits for Wildlife

Organic farming as an alternative agricul-tural production system offers a possibility forimproving the compatibility between crop andanimal production practices and wildlife con-servation. This method of farming differs con-siderably in certain respects from widely prac-ticed conventional agriculture, mainly withrespect to tillage and cropping methods, live-

66

stock management, and in the way that cropnutrients are supplied and pests are controlled.Organic farmers generally follow a holistic ap-proach to farming which involves a strong in-terdependency among crops, animals, andmanagement practices that provide for a highlycomplex production system that is stable, sus-tainable, resource-efficient, and economicallyand environmentally sound. Compared withconventional agriculture, organic methodstend to employ less inversion tillage, greatercrop diversification, and include livestock pro-duction as an integral part of the farm opera-tion. Another major difference between or-ganic farming and conventional agriculturethat may be of importance to wildlife is thatorganic farmers avoid or restrict the use ofchemical fertilizers and pesticides in their oper-ations. practices employed by organic farmerscan result in conservation benefits to fish andwildlife by reducing soil erosion, which in turnwould minimize the movement of sediment,nutrients, and pesticides from cropland intosurface waters.

Cropping and tillage practices.—Organicfarmers make more extensive use of meadowand small grain crops and, therefore grow lessrow crops than conventional farmers. On manyfarms, either a legume or grass, or mixturesthereof, may involve 30 to 50 percent of therotation. Monoculture cropping, such as con-tinuous corn or long-term rotations of corn andsoybeans without intervening sod or close-growing crops, is generally avoided. In addi-tion to less rowcropping, organic farmers gen-erally make greater use of green manure andcover crops during the interim between the ma-jor crops than do most conventional farmers.The forage produced on organic farms is usu-ally fed to animals, which encourages a mixedgrain crop and meadow (sod crops) in therotation.

Most organic farmers use tillage implementsmuch like those used in conservation tillagesystems to maintain crop residues at or nearthe soil surface. Because they avoid the use ofchemical pesticides and fertilizers, organicfarmers are likely to cultivate more frequently

for weed control than farmers employing con-servation tillage practices.

No-till farming generally is not acceptable toorganic farmers because of the heavy depend-ence of this practice on pesticides to controlweeds and insects with present technology.Organic farmers question the sustainability ofany agricultural system that depends on pes-ticides because of perceived harmful effects tosoil, water, and biological components of theenvironment.

Nutrient supply and management.—Organicsystems rely heavily on legumes in the rotationto supply nitrogen and, to some extent, on off-farm sources of nitrogen-containing organicwastes such as animal manures and compost.Most farmers strive to recycle nitrogen as effi-ciently as possible by recycling crop residuesand on-farm manures and other wastes or by-products of the farm operation. phosphorusand potassium are supplied either by impor-tation of low water-solubility materials such asrock phosphate or greensand, or through therelease of these nutrients from soil. They gen-erally avoid the use of high-analysis inorganicfertilizers such as anhydrous ammonia, urea,and concentrated forms of phosphorus andpotassium. A strong consensus is that concen-trated fertilizers are generally harmful to thesoil biota and can ultimately lead to nutrientimbalances, reduced earthworm activity, im-paired soil physical properties, compaction,and pollution of surface and groundwaters.

Pest control.—Organic farmers rely almostentirely on a combination of nonchemicalmethods for crop protection. Pest control isachieved primarily through crop rotations,with crop sequences within the rotation ad-justed so as to maximize effectiveness in dis-rupting pest cycles. Supplemental weed con-trol is achieved by mechanical cultivation,mowing, adjustments in planting date, and cer-tain biological methods such as crop competi-tion and animal grazing. Organic farmers alsoplace considerable emphasis on preventivemethods. For example, weed sanitation tech-niques are used to prevent the establishmentof unwanted vegetation that might harbor weed

67

seeds and insect pests. when absolutely nec-essary, some organic farmers use registeredherbicides selectively and sparingly to supportcultural and mechanical practices. They alsomay use organic insecticides and biologicalagents for controlling particularly persistentinsect pests in the production of fruits andvegetables.

Benefits to wildlife.—The potential benefitsof organic farming to wildlife would be asso-ciated with the diversity of crops grown andthe increased amounts of cover and habitatareas, control of erosion and sedimentation,and minimal use of chemical fertilizers andpesticides (Dahlgren, 1983), Several studies sug-gest that populations of breeding birds arehigher on organic farms as compared with con-ventional farms as a result of the greater diver-sity of crops and use of meadow on the organicfarms. Ducey, et al. (1980), found that anorganic farm in eastern Nebraska had eighttimes more bird territories than adjacent con-ventional farms. Similar results were reportedby Gremaud and Dahlgren (1982) for breedingbird populations on organic compared withconventional farms in Iowa. Dahlgren (1983)concluded that the amount of crop-litter,

FUTURE

Alternative production technologies

seed

abundance, and crop cover affected the use ofthe field by birds, but reported no effects fromthe use of chemicals.

Decreased soil erosion associated with or-ganic farming practices would reduce the levelof water pollution from sediment and chemi-cals compared with that from many conven-tional farms. It would appear that the greatestbenefit to be derived from erosion controlwould be the improvement in water quality offish and wetland habitats.

Most of the insecticides and herbicides in usetoday are short-lived chemicals that persist inthe environment for hours or days. when ap-plied at field application rates most of the her-bicides now used would appear to be relativelynontoxic to birds and animals. Nevertheless,currently used chemicals have been implicatedas the cause for decline in bird and animal pop-ulations; however, there is considerable con-troversy as to how acute and widespread theeffect may be. Again, some adaptation oforganic farming methods could restore habi-tat areas and greatly reduce the likelihood andseverity of adverse effects of such chemicalson wildlife in the future.

RESEARCH NEEDS

areneeded to reduce soil erosion and nutrientlosses from this Nation’s cropland and poten-tial hazards from certain pesticides, which inturn could significantly decrease the pollutionof surface waters by sediment and agriculturalchemicals, and improve the quality of fish and 3.wildlife habitats.

To achieve this goal, future research shouldfocus on the following areas:

1.

2.

Conduct research to improve presentmethods used by organic farmers, e.g., 4.conservation tillage, biological methods ofpest control, crop rotation sequences, andnutrient supply and cycling,Investigate how biological pest control, nu-trient cycling, crop rotations, mechanical

cultivation, and other cultural methodsused in organic farming systems canreduce heavy dependence on chemicalpesticides and fertilizers in presently de-veloping minimum tillage and no-till crop-ping systems,Investigate how organic and conventionalfarming concepts can be integrated so asto incorporate the best features of eachinto productive, economically viable,and environmentally sound managementsystems.Determine factors responsible for low cropyields during the transition from conven-tional to organic farming or other low-energy intensive methods, and how theserelate to changes in soil properties, nutri-ent availability, and pest and soil microbial

68

5.

ecology. Also, determine the effect of tran-sition from conventional to organic farm-ing on changes in the numbers and spe-cies of wildlife, i.e., birds and animals, andhow these relate to changes in the foodbase, type or cover, and habitat devel-opment.Develop improved crop rotation for con-

gen fixation, soil tilth, crop health, andpest control.

6. Develop models to predict and verify re-sponses of wildlife to changes in their foodbase and habitat as affected by soil andcrop management practices, particularlyconservation tillage, crop rotation, mono-culture systems, and integrated pest man-

servation tillage systems to enhance nitro- agement.

REFERENCES

Brady, S. J., “Important Soil Conservation Tech- Koehler, A., and Mazour, D., “A Biologicalniques That Benefit Wildlife,” OTA paper for Comparison of Organic and Chemical Farm-workshop on Technologies to Benefit Agricul- ing” (Lincoln: University of Nebraska, 1980),ture and Wildlife, 1984. unpublished.

Dahlgren, R. B., “Wildlife Conservation Benefits,” Gremaud, G. K., and Dahlgren, R. B., “BiologicalWorkshop on Management Alternatives for Farming: Impacts on Wildlife,” Workshop onBiological Farming, R. B. Dahlgren (cd.) Midwest Agricultural Interfaces with Fish(Ames, IA: Iowa Cooperative Wildlife Re- and Wildlife Resources, R. B. Dahlgren (cd.)search Unit, 1983), pp. 37-38. (Ames, IA: Iowa Cooperative Wildlife Re-

Ducey, J., Rauscher, J., Wiederspan, C., Miller, L., search Unit, 1982), pp. 38-39.

69

Reducing Wildlife Losses to Tillagein Wheat Production Systems

Randy D. RodgorsKansas Fish and Game Commission

Hays, KS

ABSTRACT

In wheat producing systems, surface tillage treaders instead of surface tillage implementsof the stubble that remains after harvest de- fer fallow weed control. Agronomic benefitsstroys some of the wildlife present and severely of undercutting result from excellent surfacediminishes the field’s habitat value. This prob- residue retention and include improved ero-lem is most acute in the wheat-fallow system sion control, lower operating costs, and in-when surface tillage is used for spring weed creased soil moisture and grain yields. weedcontrol in stubble. Losses include all nests, control with safe chemicals also may reduceflightless young birds, and many incubating wildlife destruction and enhance agronomicadults. benefits.

This study demonstrated that a substantial Opportunities exist to encourage such prac-portion of the wildlife in wheat stubble can be tices through applied farm policy in standardsaved by using undercutter without mulch set-aside and other acreage reduction programs.

INTRODUCTION

Fallowing for wheat is a common croppingpractice in the semiarid regions of the UnitedStates. The wheat-fallow rotation is used onabout 16 million hectares (39 million acres) in17 States (Greb, 1979). Wheat is planted in alter-nate years and fields are idled through a com-plete growing season. The objective of fallow-ing is to accumulate soil moisture, therebyreducing the danger of crop failure, increas-ing yields, and improving efficiency (Smika,1970).

Wheat stubble often is left standing throughthe winter following harvest. This stubblesharply decreases soil erosion by both windand water (Homer, 1960; McCalla and Army,1961). It catches and holds snow on the fieldswhich contributes substantial moisture forwheat production (Smika and whitfield, 1966).

Many wildlife species use wheat stubble, in-cluding ring-necked pheasants (Phasiazzus col-chicus), which are highly dependent on it inportions of the Great Plains. However, stubblecan become an “ecological trap” in spring

since weed growth must be controlled to con-serve soil moisture. Initial control is frequentlyaccomplished with surface tillage implementsor by subsurface tillage using an undercutterin conjunction with surface attachments calledmulch treaders. The final spring tillage typi-cally occurs after many birds have establishednests. Higgins (1975, l977) found sharp-tailedgrouse (Pediocetes phasianellus), five speciesof shorebirds (Scolopacidae, Charadriidae), andfour species of ducks (Arias spp.) nesting instanding stubble in North Dakota. Surface till-age with discs, plows, or treaders destroysthese nests and may kill or injure incubatingadults. In contrast, the large V-shaped blades(sweeps) of an undercutter pass under the sur-face to cut and dislodge roots leaving the stub-ble generally erect.

Objectives of this study were to: 1) determineif tillage with undercutter without mulchtreaders would permit successful completionof nests in stubble, and 2) evaluate the effectof undercutting on non-nesting wildlife.

70

The study was conducted on two farms innorthwest Kansas. A total of 330 hectares (816acres) of stubble were undercut during thesprings of 1980 and 1981. An ADflex under-cutter with five 1.52 m (5 ft) blades was usedon 96 percent of this land. The balance wastilled with a Tri-Flex undercutter with three1.83 m (6 ft) blades. Both were pulled at speedsranging from 7 to 10 km/h (5 to 7 mph) by trac-tors equipped with dual rear tires. Blade depthwas 12 to 15 cm (5 to 6 in).

Although a few nests were located on foot,most were seen from the tractor by watchingfor adults flushed during the undercuttingoperation. This precluded finding unattendednests and many nests of small birds or tight-sitting hens.

Some effort to steer machinery was made toavoid destroying natural nests but all nestswere undercut at full speed. Immediately afterundercutting, each nest was examined for dis-ruption. A nest was considered intact if no eggswere broken, buried, or separated greater than

RESULTS AND

Twenty-two (39 percent) of the 57 artificialnests placed in the stubble fields remained in-tact after undercutting. This level of nest sur-vival corresponds closely with the proportionof free zone of the ADflex undercutter. The freezone is the soil surface not impacted by tiresor blade supports.

The relative percentage of free zone and,therefore, potential nest survival, increaseswith the size of the undercutter and the widthof the blades. Greater nest survival with largeundercutter in large fields could compensatepartially for wildlife losses due to poor nest in-terspersion and extensive clearing of habitatassociated with large fields.

the estimated reach of the adult from the nestbowl. If nestlings were present, the nest wasconsidered intact if none were injured. Nestswere left in the configuration resulting fromthe tillage.

Intact nests were revisited the day afterundercutting and at 3 to 5 day intervals. Nestsuccess was defined as hatching of precocialyoung or fledging of altricial young. Predationor abandonment was assumed to occur mid-way between visits.

To provide nest survival estimates where nosteering effort was made, 57 artificial nestscomposed of five to eight bantom hen’s eggswere placed randomly in the stubble prior totillage. Physical disruption of these nests wasdetermined with the same criteria used for nat-ural nests.

The direct effect of undercutting on incu-bating adults, young flightless birds, and smallmammals was observed during tillage.

DISCUSSION

Natural Nests

Sixty-eight nests of seven species were lo-cated of which 36 (53 percent) were intact fol-lowing undercutting (table 1). The higher sur-vival of natural over artificial nests reflects thepotential for steering machinery, when possi-ble, to avoid nest destruction. A northern har-rier [Circus cyaneus) nest is not included inanalysis since nest fate was not determined anda bobwhite (Colinus virginianus) nest was de-stroyed by a predator before it was revisited.Only one of four grasshopper sparrow (Am-modramus savannarum) nests and O of 2horned lark (Eremophila alpestris) nests passedthrough the free zone. If a nest passed throughthe free zone, eggs were jostled, but rarelydamaged. Egg retention in the nest varied from

77

Table 1 .-Fate of Nests After Undercutting Wheat Stubble

Nests

renesting than residual cover (Dumke and PiIs,1979). Some nests, particularly mourning dovenests may be initiated after undercutting, leav-ing them vulnerable if subsequent surface till-age is performed.

Other Wildlife Effecfs

Although the coulters could be lethal, no in-jury of incubating adults was observed. Lateflushing adults which survived passage of theundercutter would have been killed during disctillage. Many, flightless young ring-neckedpheasants, meadowlarks, and grasshoppersparrows also passed safely through the under-cutter. In contrast, discing destroys broodsand, in pheasants, results in total loss of thehen’s annual reproductive effort since renest-ing after brood loss is rare (Dumke and Pils,1979).

Numerous deer mice (Peromyscus manicu-latus) and grasshopper mice (Onychomysleucogaster) passed unharmed through theundercutter. Other vertebrates observed inwheat stubble during tillage included 13-linedground squirrels (Spermoplnlus tridecemlinea-tus), ord kangaroo rats (Dipidomys ordi),horned lizards (Phrynosozna spp.), and uniden-tified lizards,

Agronomic Aspects

Standing stubble left by undercutting pro-tects the soil from wind erosion better than flat-tened stubble (Fenster and wicks, 1977) and iteffectively controls water erosion (Homer,1960).

72

Stubble improves soil moisture storage mostduring spring and early summer when rainsare frequent and high evaporative loss can oc-cur (Greb, et al., 1967). Standing stubble helpsmoisture intake by reducing runoff (Homer,1960) and by maintaining soil surface porositywhich facilitates percolation (McCalla andArmy, 1961; Greb, 1979). The reduced soildisturbance during undercutting improveswater conservation since subsequent weed ger-mination is retarded and less subsurface soilis exposed. Shade from stubble also lowers soiltemperatures (McCalla and Duley, 1946), fur-ther reducing evaporation and weed regrowth.

Grain yields improve a mean of about 10 per-cent with stubble mulching compared to barefallow in the semiarid Great Plains (Johnsonand Davis, 1972; Smika, 1976) and increasedirectly with increases in straw mulch. Under-cutter retain about 90 percent of the surfaceresidue after one operation compared to only30 to 70 percent with a one-way disc (McCallaand Army, 1961). Fewer weed control opera-tions are needed with stubble mulching thanin conventional bare fallow (Greb, 1979) andpower needs are lower with undercutters—compared to discs on a single pass (Smika,1976). This saves fuel, equipment costs, andtime. Loss of soil organic matter and nitrogenis reduced under stubble mulching (Johnsonand Davis, 1972; Bauer and Black, 1981).

Undercutting does hold some potential orperceived problems. The warm, sunny dayscommon to semiarid regions should be selectedfor undercutting since weed kill may not beadequate under cool, wet conditions (McCallaand Army, 1961; Smika, 1976). Although desir-able for seedling emergence (McCalla andArmy, 1961), surface residue can clog conven-tional grain drills. Modern high clearance drillswith widely spaced, staggered standards effec-tively seed into mulches and minimize thisproblem. If desired, surface tillage can be usedfor winter wheat seedbed preparation inAugust. Insect and disease problems are nogreater with stubble mulching than with con-ventional fallow (Johnson and Davis, 1972;Greb, 1979).

Related Agronomic Treatments

Though designed for seedbed preparation,some farmers attach mulch treaders to under-cutter for weed control tillage. However,negative aspects of this practice outweighbenefits. Aasheim (1949) recommended thattreaders not be used because they “pulverizethe soil and create conditions which favor soildrifting.” The combination of blade andtreaders will bury 50 percent of the residuecompared to only 10 percent with an under-cutter alone (McCalla and Army, 1961) .Treaders also flatten stubble which increasesevaporation and erosion. Treader-induced soildisturbance can improve conditions for ger-mination and growth of new weeds. Agro-nomic and wildlife problems indicate thatmulch treaders should not be used for springweed control in wheat stubble.

Tillage between harvest and spring is of lit-tle agronomic value and is often detrimental.The stubble incorporation caused by post-harvest discing in wheat-fallow increases ero-sion, reduces snow catchment, and results indecreased moisture conservation (Black andPower, 1965) and lower grain yields. Post-harvest undercutting is of little value in con-serv ing so i l mois ture for spr ing wheat(Aasheim, 1949). A single undercutting canconserve moisture through the fall in winterwheat-fallow, but usually has no total fallowadvantage since untilled stubble compensateswith greater efficiency in retaining snow (Greb,et al., 1967) and in storing rain the next spring(Wiese and Army, 1958). Bond, et al. (1961), rec-ommended delayed subtillage (untilled untilspring) since it resulted in no yield loss, re-duced loss of organics and nitrogen, superiorerosion control, and fuel savings. Undercuttingtwice after harvest can improve total soil waterstorage (Smika, 1976), but added expensesmake this economically marginal.

Erosion control, yield advantages (Fensterand Peterson, 1979), and improving reliabilityhave increased herbicide use in fallow weedcontrol. Chemical fallow usually involves ap-plying long-lived (10 to 12 months) preemer-

73

gence herbicides after harvest or short-lived (2 new problems for wildlife. The commonly usedto 3 months) preemergence herbicides the next contact herbicide-paraquat-causes mortalityspring. Contact herbicides also can be used. and growth impairment of embryos when ap-

Chemical fallowing holds potential for main-plied to eggs at typical field application rates

taining undisturbed stubble through most of (Hoffman and Eastin, 1982). Applying her-

the nesting season and may be superior tobicides after harvest also controls weeds which

undercutting in reducing nest destruction by ,would, otherwise, improve habitat.

tillage. However, chemical fallow may create

OPPORTUNITIES FOR APPLICATION IN FARM POLICY

To qualify for regular deficiency payments,farmers must set-aside a percentage of theirwheat base into an Acreage Conservation Re-serve (ACR). They are required to controlweeds, yet maintain surface residue on theACR. These goals cannot be jointly accom-plished with surface tillage. However, both canbe attained by using either an undercutter orchemical weed control while producing addedwildlife benefit.

To encourage erosion and wildlife benefits,farmers: 1) should not be permitted to use anyform of tillage (including undercutting) on ACRbetween harvest and spring, and 2) should notbe permitted to use any form of surface tillage(including mulch treaders) until August 1.Thereafter, surface tillage could be permittedfor winter wheat seedbed preparation. Theseprovisions would allow the use of undercutterwithout treaders after spring or chemical con-trol at any point. Violation of these provisionson ACR should require forfeiture of at least 10cents per bushel of the deficiency payment.Better enforcement by the ASCS than has beenpreviously evident would be needed.

Late announcement of auxiliary reduction inacreage programs (RAP) such as occurred with

the Payment-In-Kind (PIK) program result ina need for farmers to destroy wheat to qualifyfor the RAP. Most wheat destruction is accom-plished by discing or mowing during spring,both of which result in wholesale destructionof wildlife in these fields. Such situations couldbe made very positive for wildlife and erosioncontrol if farmers were permitted to allowwheat to mature and stand through August 1.weed control thereafter could be accomplishedonly by undercutting or with chemicals, thuspermitting the ASCS to verify that the crop wasnot harvested. weed control with surface till-age would make such verification difficult. Ifwheat destruction in the spring is necessitatedby a RAP, wildlife losses can be minimized byrequiring that surface tillage or mowing couldnot be used. This would encourage undercut-ting or chemical wheat destruction and the res-idue would provide excellent erosion control,good weed suppression, improved moisturestorage, and wildlife habitat. Financial pen-alties would, again, be of value in encourag-ing these practices. (See Appendix 1 for addi-tional agriculture policy recommendations.)

REFERENCES

Aasheim, T. S., “The Effect of Tillage Method on Bauer, A., and Black, A. L., “Soil Carbon, Nitrogen,Soil Moisture Conservation and on Yield and and Bulk Density in Two Cropland TillageQuality of Spring Wheat in the Plains Area of Systems After 25 Years in Virgin Grassland,”Northern Montana, ” Mont. Agric. Exp. Sta. soil %i, Soc. Am. J. 45:1166-1170, 1961.Bull, 468, 1949. Black, A. L., and Power, J. F., “Effect of Mechani-

74

cal Fallow Methods on Moisture Storage,Wheat Yields, and Soil Erodibility,” Soil Sci.Soc. Am. Proc. 29:465-468, 1965.

Bond, J. J., Van Doren, C. E., and Army, T. J.,“Fallowing for Wheat Production,” J. SoiZ andWater Conservation 16:163-165, 1961.

Fenster, C. R., and Peterson, G. A., “Effects of NoTillage Fallow as Compared to ConventionalTillage in a Wheat-fallow System,” Univ. Neb.Agric. Exp. Sta. Res. Bull, 289, 1979.

Fenster, C. R., and Wicks, G. A., “Minimum Till-age Fallow Systems for Reducing Wind Ero-sion,” Trans. Am, Soc. Agric. Engin. 20:906-910, 1977,

Greb, B. W., “Reducing Drought Effects on Crop-Iand in the West-central Great Plains,” U.S.Department of Agriculture, Sci. and Educ.Admin., Agric. Infer. Bull. 420, 1979.

Greb, B. W., Smika, D. E., and Black, A. L., “Ef-fects of Straw Mulch Rates on Soil Water Stor-age During Summer Fallow in the GreatPlains,” Soil Sci, Soc, Am. Proc. 31:556-559,1967.

Higgins, K. F,, “Shorebird and Game Bird Nests inNorth Dakota Croplands,” Wild]. Soc. BuZZ.3:176-179, 1975.

Higgins, K. F., “Duck Nesting in IntensivelyFarmed Areas of North Dakota,” J. WildZ.Management 41:232-242, 1977.

Hoffman, D, J., and Eastin, W. C., Jr., “Effects ofLindane, Paraquat, Toxaphene, and 2,4,5-trichlorphenoxyacetic Acid on Mallard Em-

bryo Development,” Arch, Environ. Contain.Toxico]. 11:79-86, 1982 .

Homer, G. M., “Effect of Cropping Systems onRunoff, Erosion, and Wheat Yields,” Agro-nomy Journal 52:342-344, 1960.

Johnson, W. C,, and Davis, R. G., “Research onStubble-mulch Farming of Winter Wheat,”U.S. Department of Agriculture, AgricultureResearch Service, Conserv. Res. Rep. 16, 1972.

May field, H., “Nesting Success Calculated FromExposure, ” Wi]son Bulletin 73:255-261, 1961.

McCalla, T. M,, and Army, T. J., “Stubble MulchFarming,” Adv. in Agron. 13:125-196, 1961.

McCalla, T. M., and Duley, F. L., “Effect of CropResidues on Soil Temperature,” J. Amer. Soc.Agron. 38:75-89, 1946.

Smika, D. E,, “Summer Fallow for Dryland Win-ter Wheat in the Semiarid Great Plains,”Agronomy Journal 62:15-17, 1970.

Smika, D. E., “Mechanical Tillage for ConservationFallow in the Semiarid Central Great Plains, ”Proc. Conserv. TiZZage Workshop, Great PlainsAgric. Council 77:78-92, 1976.

Smika, D. E., and Whitfield, C. J,, “Effect of Stand-ing Wheat Stubble on Storage of Winter Pre-cipitation,” J. Soil and Water Conserv. 21:138-141, 1966.

Wiese, A. F., and Army, T. J., “Effect of Tillage andChemical Weed Control Practices on SoilMoisture Storage and Losses, ” Agron. J.50:465-468, 1958.

APPENDIX 1

Additional Agrkukre PolicyRecommendations

1. Problem.—Knowledge of impacts of newagricultural technologies on wildlife is ex-tremely limited in many areas.Solution.—Incorporate wildlife researchersinto the agricultural experiment station sys-tem. As few as 10 to 20 positions placed atagricultural experiment stations around thecountry could do tremendous good for as lit-tle as $1 million to $2 million annually,Benefits. -These individuals would have ac-cess to experiment station lands where wild-life testing could be accomplished underrelatively controlled conditions. Much cur-

rent wildlife-agricultural research is beingdone on private lands where the study maybe at the mercy of the producer’s whims.

By having these people inside the system,they will be able to study new agriculturaltechnologies as they develop, thus permit-ting possible modification of the technol-ogies for wildlife benefit before the tech-nologies go into general use. Currently,modifications for wildlife are difficult to ob-tain because new technologies are alreadyentrenched in agricultural practice beforetheir wildlife impacts are known.

2. Problem.—Current set-aside guidelines per-mit participation in the wheat program with-out participation in the feed grains program.

75

This results in farmers reducing their wheatproduction, but increasing their feed grainsproduction by planting feed grains on thevery same ground (ACR) which was to beidled in the wheat program. This is self-defeating since the wheat program essen-tially contributes to over-production of feedgrains, contrary to the purpose of the feedgrains program. This is a waste of taxmonies and constitutes outright welfare pay-ments to farmers.Solution.—Farmers need not elect to partici-pate in both programs, however, the Acre-age Conservation Reserve (ACR) landsshould be idled for one full calendar yearfrom the time that the set-aside is announced(not the crop year).Benefits.—Wildlife would benefit from thecover left on the ACR (be it residue, weeds,or other) and erosion control as well as otheragronomic benefits would result.

Such a requirement would cost less taxdollars and would result in more effectivereduction of feed grain surpluses.

3. Problem.—Conservation agencies currentlyhave little or no input into the applicationof farm commodity policy at the State level.Solution.—State ASC committees should in-clude members from the State’s conservationdepartment (fish and wildlife agency) and/orfrom the SCS.Benefits.—The State committee could moreeffectively develop guidelines which wouldaccomplish the joint goals of cutting produc-tion and encouraging conservation. Cur-rently, the application of production cuttingprograms often contradicts and defeats con-servation,

4. Problem.—Even if long-term land retirementprograms are adopted and perennial her-baceous vegetation is established on theselands, much of the wildlife benefit will belost and, indeed, some such areas could be-come detrimental to wildlife if grazing or,particularly, haying is permitted on a regularbasis.Solution.—Landowners could maintain theright to graze or hay these lands, but wouldforfeit 30 to 50 percent of that year’s pay-ments on the lands so used. Emergency graz-

5.

6.

ing or haying could be permitted after July1, assuming stringent definitions of “emer-gency conditions” are applied.Benefits.—The potential danger of creating“ecological death traps” by attracting nest-ing birds to cover which is to be mowedwould be avoided and great wildlife benefitwould be realized from these lands. Emer-gency conditions, (drought usually) do nottypically become apparent until at least Julyand nesting is primarily, though not totally,complete by that time. Consequently, emer-gency grazing or haying after July 1 wouldassist in reducing the forage shortage whilestill permitting much wildlife benefit.Problem.—Loose definitions or applicationof definitions of “emergency” conditions bythe ASCS often permit blatant abuse of soilconservation principles on Acreage Conser-vation Reserve (ACR) lands associated withset-aside programs. For example, certaincounties in Kansas have issued essentially“blanket” permits for early plow down onACR lands. In other words the ASCS in thesecounties has placed virtually no emphasis onerosion control, but is unreasonably sym-pathetic to farmer’s often unjustified re-quests to destroy weeds and residue on ACR.This ASCS bias is verified by their compara-tively frequent issuance of penalties forweeds on ACR, but extremely rare issuanceof erosion penalties.Solution.—Tighten definitions and applica-tion of “emergency” situations as used bythe ASCS so that early plow downs and theirresultant residue elimination are permittedonly for control of weeds defined as “nox-ious” by the State. Other weed control meansshould be used in all other situations.Benefits.—Soil conservation would begreatly enhanced and wildlife habitat wouldbe maintained on these ACR lands.Problem.—The Soil Conservation Serviceoften seeds cool-season grasses on water-ways and terraces. These grasses are subse-quently hayed by farmers during the nestingseason of many birds. This results in wide-spread nest destruction and the death or in-jury of incubating adults.Solution.—The use of quality forage produc-

76

7

ing warm-season grasses should be pro-moted for use on waterways and terraces.Benef i t s .—Warm-season grasses beg ingrowth later in the spring than do cool-season grasses and maintain growth duringthe summer when cool-season grasses aresemi-dormant. As a result of the growthperiod of warm-season grasses, the optimaltime for haying is about 1 month later thanwith cool-season grasses. This later hayingdate would permit much nest completion.Further, the later haying date better fits intofarmers schedules, as early-summer is typi-cally less busy than mid or late spring. For-age quality of certain warm-season grassesequals or exceeds that of most cool-seasongrasses and the improved scheduling ofwarm-season haying permits cutting at atime when the forage quality is highest. Theoften-necessary delays in haying cool-seasongrasses result in over maturity of the forageand, consequently, poor quality. Warm-season grasses also provide structurallysuperior wildlife habitat.Problem.–If language in the so-called “Sod-buster” legislation denies government sub-sidies only to the landowner who breaks outhighly erodible lands, this will do little tominimize sodbusting by speculators who in-tend to sell the land soon after they haveharvested a single crop from the broken outlands.Solution.—Language in sodbuster legislationshould deny government subsidies to thelandowner who breaks out the land a n d

8.

should deny subsidies on the broken outlands for a minimum of 10 years even if landownership is transferred.Benefits.—This would minimize benefitswhich could be gained from sodbusting byspeculators. It would also decrease thedisparity between rangeland and these“cropland” prices and, consequently, de-crease the temptation to break out grasslandsby all landowners.Problem.—Urban residents often have littleconcept of rural needs and vice versa. Thishas resulted in numerous urban-rural con-flicts, particularly at times of high urbandemands on private lands such as the open-ing of certain hunting seasons. The ultimateresult has, in some cases, been the destruc-tion of wildlife habitat so it will not attracthunters (especially urban hunters) onto pri-vate lands.

Solution.—Funds should be allocated soState extension services could educate bothurban and farm groups on the needs of theother. For example, farm tours and seminarswhich include urban-dwelling hunters couldpermit an exchange which would educatethe urban hunters on the farmers needs forprivacy, leaving livestock and unharvestedcrops undisturbed, etc. Farmers might gaina better understanding of urban needs forcontact with nature and the land.Benefits.—Better urban rural relations anda greater joint commitment to resource con-servation.

77

Evidence is strong that all prairie wetlandsprovide services to society through runoff andsediment retention, nutrient assimilation,ground water recharge, wildlife production,and recreation opportunities. The state of ourknowledge of these services is, however, stillin a theoretical stage. Until science can clarifythe magnitude of these benefits, economistscannot estimate the value of prairie wetlands.Wetlands also are highly productive systemswith regard to natural vegetation and are be-ing used by many farm operators for forage.However, little is known about managementpractices for wetland forage. The compatibilityof wetland forage utilization and wildlife pro-duction also is poorly understood. Research isneeded to quantify values of wetlands to so-ciety and to develop technology that increasestheir economic value to the landowner with-out destroying the wetland.

IU. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, South Dakota Department ofGame, Fish, and Parks, South Dakota State University and TheWildlife Management Institute cooperating,

We are studying the use of cattle to grazewetland vegetation to open some of the denselyvegetated prairie wetlands. We also are meas-uring effects of mowing on invertebrate pop-ulations and the energy budget of four of themost common shallow marsh plants used forforage in our area, Our aim is to determine theeffects of grazing and mowing on prairiewetland vegetation and to measure the valueof wetland forage to the farmer. Much moreresearch must be done, but our results mayhelp to form an information base for wetlandsin other parts of North America.

Our recommendations are: 1) to authorize aWetland Research subtitle in Title XIV of theFarm Bill in order to measure values of wet-lands to society and to identify wetland man-agement techniques compatible between wild-life management and agricultural practices, 2)to incorporate methods in Title XV that deterwetland drainage, and 3) to increase incentivesin Title XV so that economic return to the land-owner is comparable between an undrained orrestored wetland and a drained one.

INTRODUCTION

Wetlands are a resource that provide valu- lands by Larson and Groman (1984) includedable services to society. These services include assessing wetland functions on a regional basisfish and wildlife production, ground water and developing wetland protection policiesrecharge, pollution abatement, and flood water based on those assessments rather than ascrib-retention. Larson and Groman (1984) stated ing all wetland functions to every type ofthat scientific research indicates wetlands can wetland. They identified the Prairie Potholesfunction differently in different regions of the of the North Central Plains of North Americacountry. Recommendations regarding wet- as one such region.

—

78

Prairie wetlands have been extensivelydrained since settlement of the Plains. Ori-ginally covering 7 mill ion acres of NorthDakota and South Dakota, the prairie wetlandsthat remain today encompass half of the area(Tiner, 1984). Primary reasons for wetlanddrainage are to increase agricultural produc-tion acreage and reduce their nuisance factorto farming operations (Leitch and Danielson,1979).

During the past few years, we have attemptedto measure some of the values of prairie wet-lands. We also have initiated studies on man-agement techniques that would help save prai-rie wetlands from drainage without affectingtheir values for wildlife.

wildlife

Numerous wildlife species are dependent onwetlands in the Prairie Pothole Region. InNorth Dakota, on 116 hectares of wetlands,Duebbert (1981) found 35 bird species depen-dent on wetlands habitat and 35 species nestingin the associated uplands. Brady (1983) foundthat 38 bird species, other than waterfowl,nested on seven South Dakota public wetlandsin 1981 to 1982. Eleven small mammal specieswere trapped on the same wetlands (Pendleton,1984). Hubbard (1982) found 12 species of birdsnesting on a dry wetland in 1981. Wetlands inSouth Dakota are extremely important topheasants (Schitoskey and Linder, 1979) andwhite-tailed deer (Sparrowe, 1966), especiallywhen the wetlands are frozen or dry. TheUnited States Fish and Wildlife Service clas-sified prairie wetlands as being Number 1priority for waterfowl in the U.S (Tiner, 1984).

Water Retention

Ludden, et al. (1983), demonstrated that smallwetlands in the Devils Lake watershed of NorthDakota were capable of retaining 72 percentof the total volume from a 2-year frequencyrunoff and about 41 percent of the total volumefrom a 100-year frequency runoff.

Wetlands in the Prairie Pothole Region havelong been recognized as important to wildlife.More recently, a number of other functions andvalues of potholes have been identified (Linderand Hubbard, 1982). However, most of theirvalue is accrued by society instead of by thelandowner who controls the drainage.

VALUES

In South Dakota, we measured the water vol-ume of 213 small wetlands on 648 hectares(1,600 acres) in Grant and Roberts Countiesafter spring runoff. Although these wetlandswere not filled to capacity at time of measure-ment, they accounted for 50 percent of thewater surface area on the land tract. They aver-aged 0.27 hectares (0.67 acres) in size and 0.44meter (1.4 feet) in maximum depth. Seven largewetlands made up the remaining water surfacearea.

An estimated 19.6 hectare-meter (159 acre-feet) or over 50 million gallons of water werecontained within those small ponds. If thosewetlands had been artificially drained, that vol-ume of water would have contributed to flood-ing problems at lower elevations in the water-shed. For illustrative purposes, an area 16 x16 kilometers (10 x 10 miles) under similarconditions would retain 789 hectare-meter(6,400 acre-feet) of water in a proportionalnumber of small wetlands. That is enoughwater to make a difference in the downstreamflow regime.

Ground Water Recharge

In contrast to statements made in otherreports that most wetlands do not rechargeground water (Carter, et al., 1978; OTA, 1984)ample evidence exists suggesting that prairiewetlands are important sites for ground waterrecharge (Hubbard, 1981; Linder and Hubbard,1982). On our study area in Grant and RobertsCounties, there were 19.6 hectare-meter (159acre-feet) of water retained in the small depres-

79

sions. Based on other studies, an estimate of12 percent water loss from these wetlands toground water would be conservative (Allred,et al., 1971; Millar, 1971), If only 12 percent ofthe standing water (2.4 hectare-meter or 19acre-feet) had entered the saturated zone, thiswould have supplied an irrigator with a 3.6centimeter (1.4 inch) application of water to 65hectares (160 acres) or, at 37.9 liters (10 gallons)of water per day per cow, enough water tosupply 1,696 head of cattle for 1 year.

Recreation

Although recreational values of prairie wet-lands have not been adequately measured, thetotal value must be substantial. Results of a sur-vey of six South Dakota wetlands in 1981 to1982 showed that 10,000 people made 5,000trips to those wetlands and spent 63,000 hoursthere for recreational purposes during 1 year(Thompson, 1983). The majority (89 percent)of the visits were for hunting, but 30 otheractivities, such as photography and bird watch-ing, were enjoyed. We also sent questionnairesto 1 percent of the South Dakota residents whopurchased hunting and fishing licenses (John-son, 1984). An estimated 116,890 hunters(South Dakota population is 700,000) usedwetlands at least once in 1982. They averaged24 days per hunter generating about 2.75 mil-lion man-days of wetland-related hunting activ-ity. When consumer surplus for resident hunt-ing value was discounted at 7.875 percent, ityielded a value of $813 per wetland hectare($325 per acre) as a recreational resource forresident hunters alone.

Water Quality

One problem in the Prairie Pothole Regionis the degradation of lakes and streams (Linderand Hubbard, 1982). Nutrients entering the sys-tems may be from agriculture and a numberof other sources, Tabatchnik (1980) stated thatwetlands function as “pollution treatmentplants” at no cost to man and that plants maydecrease concentrations of both manmade andnatural pollutants. Davis, et al. (1981), have con-cluded that prairie marshes may be most effec-tive at removing inorganic nitrogen, particu-larly nitrate, from runoff waters. Considerably

more research is needed concerning the roleof wetlands in maintaining water quality in theprairie.

Forage

Forage on prairie wetlands is a valuable re-source to the landowner, An average of 50 per-cent or more of all wetlands can be hayed afterAugust 15 in North Dakota (Higgins, et al.,1984). Land-use data collected in the spring of1983 (reflecting 1982 conditions) (Wittmier,1984) on three watersheds comprising aboutone-third of the east half of South Dakota, re-vealed that about 22 percent of the natural tem-porary, seasonal, and semipermanent wetlandarea was used for forage (either grazed orhayed). Estimates of above ground standingcrops in prairie wetlands show that these sys-tems are capable of high yields of dry matter(see review by Linder and Hubbard, 1982), butadequate data on the nutritional compositionand the response of marsh vegetation to mow-ing or grazing has not been measured for mostmarsh plant species. Impacts of grazing andmowing on wildlife associated with a wetlandalso have not been measured.

$ummary of Values

Linder and Hubbard (1982) stated that “agreat diversity of kinds of basins is highlydesirable and the number existing is neededto maintain wildlife associated with them. ”They felt that there are monetary values forlandowners such as trapping, hunting, and for-age production, but that techniques should bedeveloped for managing wetlands so that thedollar return to the landowner can be in-creased. However, the true value of prairiewetlands to society must be determined andprograms developed to compensate land-owners according to those values. Consicier-able effort will need to be exerted to measureeconomic wetland values. The aesthetic valueof wetlands for the general public cannot bemeasured (Reimold and Hardisky, 1979) norcan their value to the scientific and academiccommunities. Wetlands serve as classrooms forschool children of all ages and offer natural lab-oratories for us to study the functions of an eco-system.

80

CURRENT RESEARCH EFFORT

Although forage in prairie wetlands is used,little information is available on proper man-agement schemes for wetland forage produc-tion. Of the several hundred plant species thatoccur in prairie wetlands, only whitetop(Scolochloa festucacea) (Smith, 1973a and b),slough sedge (Carex atherodes) (Corns, 1974;Hawley, et al., 1981), and hybrid cattail (Typha“glauca”) (Linde, et al., 1976; Hubbard, et al.,in prep.) have been investigated to an extentwhere some management recommendationsfor forage use can be made. We are currentlyinvestigating the seasonal nutritional composi-tion and energy status (total nonstructural car-bohydrates) of whitetop, slough sedge, smart-weed (Polygonum coccinemn), and giantburreed (Sparganimn eurycarpum), but manyother species need to be studied.

At present, wetland forage is being usedwithout adequate knowledge of the impacts onwildlife resources. Some wetlands mowed latein the season lose their value as winter cover.Mowing also may decrease the invertebratefood base for waterfowl because of decreasedlitter accumulation. Our current studies in-clude measuring the effects of mowing on in-vertebrate populations.

Grazing of uplands and its effect on wildlifespecies has been the subject of numerous in-vestigations (Kirsch, et al., 1978); however, thegrazing of wetlands and the subsequent effecton wildlife has received very little attention.

It would seem that use of wetlands for graz-ing may be more compatible with wildlifevalues than mowing, especially with regard toresident wildlife species. Except under over-grazed conditions, some vegetation is usuallyleft standing after grazing. If enough vegeta-tion remains, then the wetland may still affordwinter cover. It would seem that moderategrazing of wetland vegetation would be com-patible with waterfowl resources, but studieshave not been conducted to assess this com-patibility.

We are investigating the use of grazing as aprescribed management tool for those wetlandsthat, while still containing water, are toochoked with dense cattail to be used by water-fowl. Cattail, especially the hybrid variety, isan aggressive plant and given ideal conditionswill take over a marsh and eliminate all open-ings. The low point in the energy reserves ofcattail occurs about mid-June in South Dakota.Grazing during that time should lead to a re-duction in stand vigor and perhaps result inopening the stand. Hubbard, et al. (in prepara-tion), have found that prior to the energy re-serve low point in cattail, the plants nutritivevalue to cattle is adequate. We have experimen-tally grazed two cattail stands in June of 1984,and are monitoring the plant and animal re-sponse to the grazing treatments, However, theproject will not be completed for another 2years.

Wetlands provide a large range of values tosociety. With some exceptions, individual land-owners have not been adequately compensatedfor preserving or restoring their wetlandacreages. The following recommendations areto aid in the preservation of wetlands:

1. Authorize a Wetland Research subtitle inTitle XIV of the Farm Bill. Studies shouldbe made to determine the role of wetlandsin the hydrology and ecology of an area.

In the Prairie Pothole Region, economicwetland values for society should be quan-tified and management techniques for thelandowner developed. Techniques that arecompatible with wildlife should be devel- -oped to use forage production from prai-rie wetlands.

2. A multi-year set-aside program (minimum3 to 5 years) can benefit wetlands, wild-life, and agriculture. Upland set-asideacres adjacent to or surrounding existing

81

3.

4.

or restored wetlands can increase wildlife 5.production, reduce erosion, and protectwater quality.A study is recommended to determine ef-fects of existing Federal programs onwetlands. All USDA agencies should haveannual reporting requirements on anyprojects relating to wetlands. Measures 6.should be taken to eliminate any negativeimpacts on wetlands.The Water Bank Program should be con-tinued with an increase in funding. The 7.Program should be strengthened by in-cluding technical assistance for wildlifemanagement on Water Bank lands withadditional compensation to the landownerfor incorporating wildlife techniques.

A “freeze” should be placed on the break-ing of any new lands. This should includethe draining or filling of any wetlands.Any wetlands that are drained for agricul-tural production after the initiation of thisProgram should not be included in baseacreages.Existing or restored wetland acreagesshould be allowed to be designated as set-aside acreage in any Conservation Reservethat is included in the 1985 Farm Bill.Since wetlands have a tremendous valueto society, monetary incentives should bedeveloped to reimburse landowners forprotecting and restoring wetlands. Theseincentives may be in the form of a Federalincome tax credit or direct cash payment.

REFERENCES

Allred, E. R., Manson, P, W., Schwartz, G. W.,Golany, P,, and Reinke, J, W., “Continuationof Studies on Hydrology of Ponds and SmallLakes, ” University of Minnesota Agri, Exp.Sta, Tech. Bull. 274, 1971.

Brady, E. N,, Birds on Modifi”ed Wetlands in SouthDakota, M.S. Thesis (Brookings, SD: SouthDakota State University, 1983).

Carter, V., Bedinger, M. S., Novitzki, R. P,, andWilen, W, O., “Water Resources and Wetlands(theme Paper).” In: Wetkmd Functions andValues: the State of Our Understanding, Proc.of the National Symposium on Wetlands, P,E. Greeson, J. R. Clark, and J. E. Clark (eds.),Am. Water Resour. Assoc. Tech, Publ, Ser.No. TPS 79-2, 1978, pp. 344-376,

Corns, W, G., “Influence of Time and Frequencyof Harvests on Productivity and ChemicalComposition of Fertilized and UnfertilizedAwned Sedge,” Can, J. Plant Sci. 54:493-498,1974.

Davis, C. B., Bake, S. L., van der Valk, A. B., andBeer, C. E., “Prairie Pothole Marshes as Trapsfor Nitrogen and Phosphorus in AgriculturalRunoff,” Selected Proceedings of the MidwestConference of Wetland Values and Manage-ment, B. Richardson (cd.), Minnesota WaterPlanning Board, 1981, pp. 153-163.

Duebbert, H. F., “Breeding Birds on Waterfowl Pro-duction Areas in Northeastern North Da-kota,” Prairie Naturalist 13:19-22, 1981.

Hawley, A. W. L., Peden, D. G., and Stricklin, W.R., “Bison and Hereford Steer Digestion ofSedge Hay,” Can, J, Anim. Sci. 61:165-174,1981.

Higgins, K. F., Fuhon, G, W., and Barker, W. T.,“Wetlands and Forage, ” South Dakota Agric.Exp. Sta., Brookings, Fact Sheet FS 826, 1984.

Hubbard, D. E., “The Hydrology of Prairie Pot-holes: A Selected Annotated Bibliography,”South Dakota Coop. Wildl. Res. Unit Tech.Bull. No. 1, 1981.

Hubbard, D. E., “Breeding Birds in Two DryWetlands in Eastern South Dakota, ” PrairieNaturalist 14:6-8, 1982.

Johnson, C. W., An Economic Vahzation of SouthDakota Wetlands as a Recreation Resource forResident Hunters, M.S. Thesis, (Brookings,SD: South Dakota State University, 1984).

Kirsch, L. M., Duebbert, H. F., and Kruse, A. D.,“Grazing and Haying Effects on Habitats ofUpland Nesting Birds,” Transactions 43rdNorth American Wildlife and Natural Re-sources Conference (Washington, DC: Wild-life Management Institute, 1978), pp. 486-497.

Larson, J. S., and Groman, H., “A National Programfor Regional Wetland Assessment,” NationalWetland Newsletter, The Environmental LawInstitute 6(5):2-3, 1984,

Leitch, J. A., and Danielson, L. E., “Social, Eco-nomic, and Institutional Incentives to Drainor Preserve Prairie Wetlands, ” University of

82

Minnesota Dept. Agr. Appl. Econ., Econ. Rep.ER79-6, 1979.

Linde, A. F., Janisch, T., and Smith, D., “Cattail-The Significance of Its Growth, Phenology,and Carbohydrate Storage to Its Control andManagement, ” Wisconsin Dept. Natur.Resour. Tech. Bull. No, 94, 1976.

Linder, R. L., and Hubbard D. E., “Wetlands Valuesin the Prairie Pothole Region of North Amer-ica,” Proceedings of the Great Plains Agricul-tural Council (North Platte, NB: 1982], pp.27-39.

Ludden, A. P., Frink, D. L., and Johnson, D. H.,“Water Storage Capacity of Natural WetlandDepressions in the Devils Lake Basin of NorthDakota, ” J. Soil and Water Conserv. 38:45-48,1983.

Millar, J. B., “Shoreline-area Ratio as a Factor inRate of Waterless From Small Sloughs,” J. Hy-drology 14:259-284, 1971.

Pendleton, G, W., Small Mammals in Prairie Wet-Zands: Habitat Use and the Effects of WetZandModification, M.S. Thesis (Brookings, SD:South Dakota State University, 1984).

Reimold, R. J., and Hardesky, M. A., “Non-con-sumptive Use Values of Wetlands, ” WetlandFunctions and Values: The State of Our Un-derstanding, Proc. of the National Symposiumon Wetlands, P. E. Greeson, J. R, Clark, andJ. E. Clark (eds.), Am, Water Resour. Assoc.Tech, Publ, Ser. No. TPS 79-2, 1979, pp.558-564.

Schitoskey, F., Jr., and Linder, R. L., “Use ofWetlands by Upland Wildlife,” Wetland Func-tions and Values: The State of Our Under-standing, Proc. of the National Symposium of

Wetlands, P. E, Greeson, J. R. Clark, and J. E.Clark (eds.), Amer. Water Resour. Assoc.Tech. Publ. Ser. No. TPS 79-2, 1979, pp.307-311.

Smith, A. L., “Life Cycle of the Marsh Grass,Scolochloa festucacea, ” Can. J. Bet. 51:1661-1668, 1973a.

Smith, A. L., “Production and Nutrient Status ofWhitetop,” J. Range Management 26:117-120,1973b.

Sparrowe, R. D,, Population Distribution andMobility of Deer in Eastern South Dakota,M,S. Thesis (Brookings, SD: South DakotaState University, 1966).

Tabatchnik, J., “Protection of Inland Wetlands, ”The Association of New Jersey EnvironmentalCommissions, Mendham, NJ, 1980.

Thompson, T. A,, Recreational Use of Six PrairieWetlands in Eastern South Dakota, M.S.Thesis (Brookings, SD: South Dakota StateUniversity, 1983),

Tiner, R. W,, Jr., Wetlands of the United States: Cur-rent Status and Recent Trends, U.S. Fish andWildlife Service (Washington, DC: U.S. Gov-ernment Printing Office, 1984).

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment,Wetlands: Their Use and Regulation, OTA-O-206 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Print-ing Office, 1984),

Wittmier, H., “Wetland Status Survey of Min-nesota, Big Sioux, and Vermilion RiverWatersheds, South Dakota—1983, ” U.S. Fishand Wildlife Service, Aberdeen Wetland Ac-quisition Office, Aberdeen, SD (typewritten),1984,

83

Rangelands, Wildlife Technology,and Human Desires

Chris MaserU.S. Depatment of the Interior

Bureau of Land ManagementCorvallis, Oregon

ABSTRACT

Although we probably will never haveenough knowledge to make a perfect analysisof the impacts of rangeland management ac-tion on wildlife habitat, more information isavailable than is used. To be useful, however,it must be organized to make sense biologicallyand in terms of livestock management. Whileadditional research is needed, a lack of tech-nical knowledge is not the real problem we face

in resolving conflicts between various landuses. What then remains? Why are we not do-ing a better job of resolving conflicts? In myview, the real problem is insensitivity to thecrucial importance of the human dimension.Thus I believe that the most effective tool forachieving land management goals is sensitiveleadership that recognizes and builds onhuman desires.

INTRODUCTION

Much of the Nation’s vast rangelands havechanged dramatically in the last 200 years.They can no longer be considered wild becausethey are now managed to produce multiplebenefits, dominated by livestock productionbut including wildlife. Until a few years ago,a rangeland manager’s only concern with wild-life was with “predators” and “big game.” Thelaw neither recognized nor required an ac-countability for wildlife. Now rangeland man-agers are under increasing pressure to accountfor wildlife in management activities, particu-larly land-use planning, And wildlife means allspecies—not just species that are hunted, or areesthetically pleasing, or are classified as threat-ened or endangered. See figure 1 for list of lawsthat specify or intimate that wildlife shall bea product of Federal lands and that wildlifeshall be considered in every managementdecision.

Livestock management and wildlife habitatmanagement are compatible on public range-lands, but only if the needs of wildlife are rec-ognized and accounted for along with the

needs of livestock. A series of 15 publicationsexist which provide information on ways man-aged rangelands and wildlife interrelate. Thisseries of publications has three purposes: 1) todevelop a common understanding of wildlifehabitats on managed rangelands, 2) to providea system for predicting the impacts of rangemanagement practices on wildlife, and 3) toshow how the system can be applied to a spe-cific area—in this case, the Great Basin insoutheastern Oregon. With the informationprovided, resource specialists can work togeth-er to assure the continued existence of most,if not all, wildlife habitats in managed range-lands. The following discussion of range-wild-life management system is taken from the “In-troduction” section of the series of publicationswhich deal with Wildlife Habitats in ManagedRangelands—The Great Basin of SoutheasternOregon (1983 ).1

IC. Maser and J. W. Thomas, Wildlife Habitats in A4anagedRangelands–the Great Basin of Southeastern Oregon. USDAForest Service General Technical Rep. PNW-160, Pacific North-west Forest and Range Experiment Station, Portland, OR, 1983.

84

Figure I.—Some Major Federal Laws and Pianning Requirements That influence Wildlife Habitat Managementon Public Lands (adapted from Thomas, 1979)

Public Law No

IFish and Wildlife Coodination Act 85-624

Multiple Use Sustained yield Act 86-517

I

I Endangered Spectes Conservation Act of 1969 91-135 1

94-579

85

RANGE-WILDLIFE TECHNOLOGY

A Basic Assumption

A basic assumption about wildlife habitat inrangelands managed for multiple use is thatwildlife and livestock management must be co-ordinated. On public rangelands in the GreatBasin of southeastern Oregon, as in many otherparts of North America, livestock productionis the dominant land use. Large-scale altera-tions of wildlife habitat usually result from themanipulation of vegetation primarily to en-hance livestock production. Management forlivestock production, therefore, is de factowildlife management. The degree to which itis good wildlife management depends on howwell habitat is manipulated to achieve wildlifegoals. Interrelationships are shown in figure 2.

The Need

How is a public rangeland manager to bal-ance demands for rangelands, including wild-life, and still maintain a sustained yield of live-stock forage? How can managers account forthe needs of all wildlife? In seeking answersto these questions, the wisdom of two of Com-moner’s (1971) “laws” of ecology becomesapparent—” everything is connected to every-thing else, ” and “there is no such thing as afree lunch. ” Any action that alters vegetationhas an influence on wildlife habitat and, inturn, on wildlife. If wildlife is of concern, goalsfor wildlife must be established and all man-agement actions must be judged against thosegoals. Rangeland managers must take a moreholistic view.

The Federal Land Policy and ManagementAct of 1976 (Public Law 94-579) requires thatdetailed and holistic plans be prepared for themanagement of public rangelands. Further, theNational Environmental Policy Act of 1969(Public Law 91-190) requires the environmentalimpacts and consequences of planned actionsinvolving Federal funds be examined and re-vealed. One of the weakest aspects of suchplanning has been the inability of managers topredict the effects of management alternativeson wildlife populations. Frequently, this has re-

sulted in criticism of land-use plans and envi-ronmental impact statements by the public,other agencies, and the courts.

Better techniques to predict the conse-quences of management on wildlife, whethergood or bad, are needed: Managers need a con-ceptual framework that will enable them to: 1)account for habitat needs of all vertebrate wild-life, 2) emphasize management of particularwildlife species, and 3) identify habitats thatrequire special attention. The greatest chal-lenge is to integrate existing information so itcan be readily used in resource planning.

Development of a process to consider the im-pacts of management on wildlife is needed.Land-use planning continues at full speed;large-scale conversions of sagebrush-domi-nated rangelands to crested wheatgrass andother species are being contemplated and im-plemented; and the demand for increased for-age production from public lands is incessant.Some say it is too soon to undertake such atask, that there is too little “hard” data. Butthere are really only two choices—too soon ortoo late. The first is preferable. With inten-sified management of rangelands, impacts onwildlife are magnified. We need to get on withthe job.

Managers need more flexibility in applyingtechnical information to local situations. Theinformation should be presented as a systemto predict the consequences of managementalternatives on wildlife, rather than as specificguidelines. A manager then has the ability torespond to particular situations while beingfully accountable for the impacts of such deci-sions on wildlife habitat. Managers can surveyalternatives, make trade-offs, and account forthose decisions.

Rangeland Wildlife ManagementSystems

Wildlife management is the scientificallybased art of skillfully controlling habitat t oenhance conditions for a selected species or

—— ————.———— --

86

Figure 2.—Large-Scale Management of WildlifeHabitat Must Be Mainly Accomplished Through

Rangeland Management (adapted from Thomas, 1979)

Large-sca le wi ld l i f e goa l s mustbe accomplished throughrangeland management

because

management for enhanced l ivestockproduction

● af fec t s many acres

● i s - re la t ive ly we l l f inanced

● d r a m a t i c a l l y a f f e c t s w i l d l i f e h a b i t a t

● h a s g r e a t i m p a c t o n w i l d l i f e

whereas

management for wildlife habitat

a f fec t s re la t ive ly f ew acres (however ,t h e a c r e s a f f e c t e d a r e g e n e r a l l y i n“key areas)

h a s r e l a t i v e l y l i t t l e f i n a n c i n g

h a s r e l a t i v e l y s m a l l i n f l u e n c eon wi ld l i f e hab i ta t (but does in f luencekey hab i ta t components in loca l ized areas )

h a s r e l a t i v e l y s m a l limpact on wildlife (but could domuch more with better f inancing)

87

of manipulating animal populations to achieveother desired ends (figure 3). The term “wild-life management” implies the ability andmanagerial flexibility to control habitat factors,or animal populations, or both (Giles, 1971;Leopold, 1933; Trippensee, 1948).

There are two general production goals inwildlife management—management for spe-cies richness (Evans, 1974; Siderits, 1975;USDA Forest Service, 1973 and 1975) and man-agement for featured species (Holbrook, 1974;USDA Forest Service, 1971; Zeedyk and Hazel,1974) (figure 4).

The goal of management for species richnessis to ensure that most resident wildlife speciesare maintained in viable numbers in the man-aged area (King, 1966). Hence, all species areimportant. Management for species richness

can be achieved by providing a broad spectrumof habitat conditions. It is necessary, therefore,to have information on the habitat needs ofeach species, This must be incorporated intoguides to protect the integrity, stability, anddiversity of the rangeland ecosystem. The re-sult should be a relatively stable and variedwildlife population.

For featured species, the goal is to produceselected species in desired numbers in specificlocations. This can be achieved by manipulat-ing vegetation so the limiting factors for food,cover, and water are made less limiting for thedesired species, These may be game species,threatened or endangered species, or speciesthat have particular esthetic value.

Management for featured species has alsobeen called “key-species management” or

1

fr

1

● ▼ ✜

Singly simultaneously

88

Figure 4.–Production Goals in Wiidlife Management (adapted from Thomas, 1979) ‘

goal

1

Management for featuredspecies

“indicator-species management” if the species are many possible combinations of the four pre-selected represents the habitat needs of severalspecies. If the species to be featured are care-fully selected and their habitat needs varywidely, then management for featured speciesalso will ensure habitat diversity. The resultcan be similar to management for speciesrichness.

Rangelands are managed—that is, the vegeta-tional composition and structure are con-trolled—through one or a combination of thefollowing: 1) shrubs are controlled by mechan-ical means, herbicides, or fire; 2) controlledareas are frequently seeded with grasses, forbs,and shrubs palatable and nutritious for live-stock; and 3) grazing management, defined as66 . . . manipulation of livestock grazing to ac-complish a desired result” (Kothmann, 1974,p. 36). Grazing management may include de-ferred grazing or use of a grazing system thatis defined as “a specialization of grazing man-agement which defines a systematically recur-ring period of grazing and deferment for twoor more pastures or management units” (Koth-mann, 1974, p. 36). Kothmann (1974) said there

mary factors involved in any grazing system(number of pastures, number of herds, lengthof grazing periods, length of rest periods); butother factors, such as season of use, species oflivestock, and class of livestock, also must betaken into account. In addition, such manage-ment involves livestock density and distribu-tion of grazing within pastures or managementunits, which can be influenced by fencing,location of drinking water, or herding.

There are many options available to achievethe desired compositional and structural stateof vegetation under the constraints of what thesite can support, the availability of resources,and limitations of law, regulation, or custom.That the goals and objectives be clearly set andthe progress toward those goals be periodicallyevaluated is of overriding importance. Thegoals and objectives must encompass both live-stock production and wildlife habitat. It isessential that these goals and objectives be de-veloped in conjunction with and cooperationbetween user groups and resource specialistsand be stated in terms of vegetative condition

89

first and numbers of outputs, such as animalunit months (AUM) of grazing or animal units(AU), second.

The Setting

The Great Basin of southeastern Oregon in-cludes portions of Malheur and Harney Coun-ties. The landscape is mostly rolling plateau at1,066 meters (3,500 feet) in elevation, but thereare mountains, cliffs, and canyons. Annual pre-cipitation ranges from 18 to 30 centimeters (7to 12 inches) (Heady and Bartolome, 1977).

The Great Basin rangelands in southeasternOregon support 28 plant communities domi-nated by grasses, shrubs, or trees. Trees varyfrom conifers to deciduous and evergreenhardwoods. Big sagebrush communities pre-dominate, whereas tree-dominated and truegrassland communities constitute the leastcommon types. True grasslands occur as relictmeadows, relict stands of valley-bottom bunch-grass, and relict subalpine bunchgrass types(Dealy, et al., 1981; Maser and Strickler, 1978).The diversity of topography and plant commu-nities made the Great Basin of southeasternOregon an ideal place to develop and test therange-wildlife management system.

The land ownership in the Great Basin ofsoutheastern Oregon is shown in table 1. TheBureau of Land Management (BLM) controlsthe majority of the land (66 percent); 29 per-cent is in private ownership. Agriculture andgrazing of domestic livestock are the activitiesthat dominate management of private land.Grazing of domestic livestock is the dominantuse of BLM-administered lands. In 1980, 373permitters ran 116,806 head of cattle and

Table 1 .—Land Ownership in the Great Basin ofSoutheastern Oregona

Ownership Hectares Acres Percent

Bureau of Land Management 3,025,792 7,476,881 66Other Federal 62,506 154,456 1State ... 174,944 432,296 4Private 1,302,875 3,219,467 29

Total 4,566,117 11,283,100 100aFr~~ IJSD1. Bureau of Land Management, 1981

horses and 5,945 sheep composing of 618,608AUM on BLM lands (U.S. Department of theInterior, Bureau of Land Management, 1981).

Livestock management was facilitated onBLM lands in the Vale and Burns Districtsfrom 1934 through 1981 by the following ac-tions: vegetation was manipulated on 140,770hectares (347,702 acres); crested wheatgrasswas seeded on 211,682 hectares (522,856 acres);7,192 kilometers (4,469 miles) of fence was con-structed; 477 cattle guards were installed; 1,611kilometers (1,000 miles) of road were con-structed to move livestock; 1,286 kilometers(799 miles) of water pipe was laid; 927 waterstorage tanks were built; 2,119 reservoirs wereconstructed; 749 springs were developed; and121 wells were drilled (U.S. Department of theInterior–Bureau of Land Management, 1981).

Livestock grazing has been relatively con-stant since the 1870s (Maser and Strickler,1978). The livestock industry of the area isstrongly dependent on public rangelands, andit seems likely that there will be increasingpressure on the public rangelands of southeast-ern Oregon to provide red meat to sustain thelocal economy.

At the same time, these rangelands are be-ing used increasingly for recreation. The num-ber of people hunting and fishing has con-tinued to grow. This results in more pressureto produce and sustain large numbers of gameanimals. The number of “rock hounds” alsohas increased. Such special use allocation willheighten pressure from industry and the pub-lic on managers of public rangelands to pro-duce more red meat on fewer hectares (acres)at less cost to the livestock industry.

Extensive public ownership increases pres-sure from local governments for more inten-sive livestock management that, in turn, in-creases employment. Increasing demands formore red meat, wildlife, fish, recreation, wil-derness, and water from a finite land areainevitably lead to conflicts. Careful, farsightedmanagement is necessary to obtain the desiredwildlife and wildlife-related recreational expe-riences from such heavily managed rangelands.

w

HUMAN

The assignment given to me was to discusstechniques for assuring successful co-existenceof livestock and wildlife on rangelands. As isshown in the foregoing section, the basic tech-nology exists. Thus, while additional researchis needed, a lack of technical knowledge is notthe real problem we face in resolving conflicts.

What then remains? Why are we not doinga better job resolving conflicts? In my view, thereal problem is insensitivity to the crucial im-portance of the human dimension. Why andhow technology is applied in land managementis a function of human desire, which may beexpressed as laws, policies, and regulations. So,“How can human desires be fostered to get thebest possible land management?”

One example of the problem. might be as fol-lows. A solution to recovery of a severelygrazed riparian zone is to remove livestockfrom the area for 5 years. The biological needfor this action may be evident, but if no onereally cares whether the area recovers therecan be no desire to take action. Thus, nothingis done because the biological need has not be-come a personal desire. The task, therefore, isto raise the value of a perceived need suffi-ciently that a land owner can see the need asa desirable goal.

A good example of a solution to the problem,raising the perceived need to the level of de-sire, is the idea of “fee-hunting” proposed byThomas (1984). He saw fee-hunting as a meansof raising the tangible value of certain speciesof wildlife sufficiently that they can competeeconomically with cash crops. If game animals,fur bearers, or other species of wildlife wereto become a substantial cash crop for a ran-cher, then habitat manipulation and/or protec-tion for that species would become desirable.At that point, technical information would beapplied: 1) to meet a desired goal, 2) to achievethe goal within a specified time, and 3) to reachthe goal as economically as possible. In thiscase, the why, when, and how of technologyapplied to land management have been deter-mined by a rancher’s desire to achieve a par-

DESIRES

ticular goal. When this happens, livestock andwildlife can co-exist with some degree ofequality on rangelands.

An understanding of desire as a motivatingforce may help explain how and why goals areset or not set, achieved or not achieved. Com-mitment to a goal is determined by the emo-tional strength of desire. To set a firm goal isto clearly define something to be achieved that,in turn, determines a course of action to betaken. The goal mtist remain firm, but thecourse of action may change if the one ori-ginally selected does not work. A commonhuman tendency, however, is to change thegoal—devalue it—if the goal cannot be reachedin the chosen way. It is much easier, for ex-ample, to devalue a goal than it is to changea whole 5-year plan that would not achieve thegoal as originally perceived.

If the desire is not sufficiently strong, thensomewhere along the way we may decide theprice is too high and our desire is really onlya wish. Commitment wanes, then disappears.Every action has one or more trade-offs. Howwe—as individuals—view and analyze the costof achieving a desired end depends very muchon how strong our desire is. If a desire is strongenough, we simply determine to pay the price.

To minimize trade-offs, we develop technol-ogy and techniques to accomplish an end. Butjust knowing how to do something and possess-ing the necessary technology means nothinguntil we also desire to apply what we know.The most tedious part of ranching, for exam-ple, is applying what we know about short-term, intermediate, and long-term planning toachieve particular goals. Those who disciplinethemselves to plan know where they are goingand have an array of options available to reachtheir goals. They can respond positively to up-coming situations, rather than simply react tothem.

In an age of rapidly increasing technology,the land manager too often relies on the prom-ise of new techniques to solve problems. The

91

trap, again, is that without need being raisedto strong desire, technology is not likely to beapplied. Desire cannot be legislated—it is theproduct of sensitive leadership.

Leadership deals intimately with humanvalues because one must lead by example. Aleader must have a moral conviction, usuallyexpressed as justified enthusiasm, that causespeople to want to follow in action. Essentially,a leader can so motivate people by sensitive ne-gotiation that perceived need is raised to strongdesire.

Negotiation is a cooperative process (Nieren-berg, 1981). In a successful negotiation every-one wins something, so negotiation can bethought of as one means of defining thestrength of human desires. Since human de-

sires direct the course of land use, we need tolearn and practice the art of negotiation. Thereare as many points of view as there are peo-ple, and everyone, from his or her own pointof view, is right. There can be no solution toproblems when each person is committed todefending a narrow interest, Sensitive leader-ship is therefore critical in any negotiation.

We like to think we manage vegetation, ani-mals, land, water, etc., but we really onlymanipulate these components of the ecosys-tem. What we manage is people’s attitudes anddesires. This leads me to believe that the mosteffective tool for achieving land managementgoals is sensitive leadership that recognizesand builds on human desire.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

I am grateful to Betty Bell, Ginny Bissell, drafts of this paper. Each added their insightsZane Maser, Logan Norris, Dave Perry, Robert and helped to clarify my thinking.Tarrant, and James Trappe for reading various

REFERENCES

Commoner, B., The Closing Circle: Nature, Man,and Technology (New York: Alfred A, Knopf,1971).

Dealy, J. E,, Leckenby, D. A., and Concannon, D,M,, “Plant Communities and Their Impor-tance to Wildlife. ” In: Wildlife Habitats inManaged Rangelands—The Great Basin ofSoutheastern Oregon, USDA Forest ServiceGen, Tech. Rep, PNW-120, 1981,

Evans, R, D., “Wildlife Habitat Management Pro-gram: A Concept of Diversity for the PublicForests of Missouri, ” In: Tirnber-WildZifeManagement Symposium, J. P, Slusher and T.M. Hinckley (eds.), Missouri Acad. Sci, Occas.pap, 3, 1974, pp. 73-83,

“Federal Land Policy and Management Act” (Pub-lic Law 94-579, Oct. 21, 1976), 43 U.S,C. 1701[note], 1976.

Giles, R. H., Jr. (cd.), WiZdlife Management Tech-niques, 3d edition (Washington, DC: TheWildlife Society, 1971].

Heady, H. F., a n d Bartolome, J,, “ T h e V a l eRangeland Rehabilitation Program: The Des-

ert Repaired in Southeastern Oregon, ” USDAForest Service Resour. Bull. PNW-70, 1977.

Holbrook, H. L., “A System for Wildlife HabitatManagement of Southern National Forests, ”Wildl. Soc. Bull. 2:119-123, 1974.

King, R. T., “Wildlife and Man, ” N. Y, State Con-serv. 20:8-11, 1966.

Kothmann, M. M, (cd.), A Glossary of Terms Usedin Range Management, 2d edition [Denver,CO: Soc, Range Management, 1974).

Leopold, A., Game Management (New York:Charles Scribner Sons, 1933).

Maser, C., and Strickler, G. S., “The Sage Vole,Lagurus curtatus as Inhabitant of SubalpineSheep Fescue, Festuca ovina, Communities onSteens Mountain--an Observation and Inter-pretation,” Northvv. Sci. 52(3):276-284, 1978.

“National Environmental Policy Act” (Public Law91-190, Jan. 1, 1970), United States Statutes atLarge, vol. 83, pp. 852-856.

Nierenberg, G. I., The Art of Negotiating (NewYork: Pocket Books, 1981).

Siderits, K., “Forest Diversity: An Approach to For-

44-883 0 - 85 - 4 : QL 3

—.——

92

est Wildlife Management, ” For. Chron. 51:1-5, 1975.

Thomas, J. W., “Fee-hunting on the Public’sLands?—An Appraisal,” Transactions 4gthNorth American Natural Resources Confer-ence (Washington, DC: Wildlife Mananage-ment Inst., 1984), in press.

Thomas, J. W. (tech. cd.), Wildlife Habitats inManaged Forests: the Blue Mountains ofOregon and Washington, U. S. D.A., Agric.Handb. 553 (Washington, DC: U.S. Govern-ment Printing Office, 1979),

Trippensee, R, E., Wildlife Management: UplandGame and General Principles, vol. 1 (NewYork: McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., 1948).

U.S. Department of Agriculture-Forest Service,“Wildlife Habitat Management Handbook, ”Southern Region, U. S.D.A. For. Serv., FSH2609.23R, 1971.

U.S. Department of Agriculture-Forest Service,“Wildlife Habitat Management for the Na-tional Forests in Missouri,” Mark Twain Natl.For., Rolla, Mo. [In cooperation with the Mo.Dep. Conserv.], 1973.

U.S. Department of Agriculture-Forest Service,“Fisheries and Wildlife Habitat ManagementHandbook,” Ottawa, Hiawatha, and Huron-Manistee National Forests, Michigan,U. S.D.A. For. Serv. FSH 2609.23-R9, 1975.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of LandManagement, “BLM Facts—Oregon andWashington” (Washington, DC: U.S. Govern-ment Printing Office, 1981).

Zeedyk, W. D., and Hazel, R. B., “The Southeast-ern Featured Species Plan. ” In: Timber-Wildlife Management Symposium, J. P.Slusher and T. M. Hinckley (eds.), Mo. Acad.Sci. Occas. Pap. 3, 1974, pp. 58-62.

93

Agricultural Practices and Aquatic Resources

Bill CooperDepartment of Zoology

Michigan State UniversityLansing, Michigan

ABSTRACT

Streams, lakes, and marine estauries are ex- strips should be maintained and encouragedtensions of the terrestrial watersheds that sur-round them. The quality of these aquatic re-sources are determined by the nutrient inputs,the ambient temperatures, the riparian vegeta-tion, and the sediment loadings. Agriculturalpractices have a dominant influence on thesecritical constraints, Standards for organic andinorganic compounds transported by sedi-ments should be adopted. Riparian vegetation

by agricultural policy and practices. Streamchannelization should be required to augmentaquatic resources as well as provide necessarydischarge capacity. Land Grant Universitiesshould be directed to facilitate demonstrationprojects and technology transfer that encour-age integrated ecological and agricultural con-servation practices.

INTRODUCTION

In preparation for this workshop, I read anumber of policy papers previously developedby Federal and State agencies, environmentalorganizations, and sportsmen groups. Fromthese varied documents, a pattern rapidly be-came evident. A majority of the policy recom-mendations were restatements of the tradi-tional soil and water conservation practicesemployed by our grandparents prior to the1940s. Some new concerns arose associatedwith synthetic organic chemicals, acidificationof watersheds and more intensified uses of ir-rigation water; but the majority of concernswere restatements of old problems.

To merely reiterate these issues is necessarybut not a sufficient exercise for this workshop.It is essential that we also address explicitlythe economic, technological, and political fac-tors that forced us to abandon environmentallysound conservation activities.

These changes usually were not motivatedby a desire to reduce stocks of aquatic orga-nisms or to destroy critical aquatic habitats,Rather, they resulted from the common prac-tice of our economic and planning institutionsto focus on short time horizons and smallspatial dimensions. The 1978 InternationalJoint Commission Agreement between Canadaand the United States mandates an “ecosystemmanagement” perspective for the Great Lakes,A similar orientation should be mandated forour agricultural ecosystems.

Unfortunately, this is easier said than done.While most people would agree in concept withecosystem management, most people and themajority of institutions at all levels have no ideahow to implement this holistic view. Submis-sions of broader concerns to temporal andspatial externalities is the rule, not the ex-ception.

94

AQUATIC RESOURCE CONSTRAINTS

There are many environmental and ecologi- munities. Management of aquatic resources iscal factors that interact to produce a given absolutely dependent on the management ofquantity and quality of aquatic resource (Reid, the associated watershed. Leaf inputs from1961). Different aquatic systems are con- trees constitute the primary energy flows forstrained by differing dominant factors. Lakes woodland streams. Riparian vegetation pro-and ponds are usually phosphorus limited. vides shades which is critical for temperatureMarine estuaries are more often nitrogen control and constitutes a buffer system thatlimited, and high order streams are substrate modulates sediment and nutrient inputs. Thelimited. In general, the social utility and bio- list of ecosystem interactions is very long andlogical stability of aquatic systems are deter- biogeochemically very diverse illustrating themined by water quality, water quantity, habi- absolute necessity of integrating agriculturaltat diversity, and type of biological community. and ecological management.

These characteristics are directly affected bythe dynamics of the adjacent terrestrial com-

NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTANTS

Pisano (1976) estimates that total amount ofnonpoint source pollution at least equals, if notexceeds, the total pollutant loadings contrib-uted by all point sources. Agriculture andsilviculture occupy 64 percent of the total landarea in the United States, 55 percent in Can-ada, and 73 percent in Mexico. The magnitudeof nonpoint source inputs will be roughly pro-portional to the total area involved in these pro-duction processes (McElroy, 1975; CanadaYearbook, 1975; wilkie, 1976). The U.S. Com-mission on Water Quality estimated futurestream loading as follows:

Of the total point and nonpoint sourceloadings of 150 million pounds per day ofsuspended solids, nonpoint source loads willaccount for 145 million pounds or 92 percent.

Of the total daily nitrogen loading of 35.7million pounds nonpoint sources will contrib-ute 28.3 million pounds, or 79 percent.

Of the 3.63 million pounds per day of phos-phorus, nonpoint sources will provide 1.93million pounds, or 53 percent.

For both fecal and total coliform counts,nonpoint sources will account for over 98 per-cent of the remaining national loading.

Of the 119,000 pounds per day of zinc,51,000 pounds or 43 percent will derive from

nonpoint sources. (AFS Policy Statements,1983),

Many forms of nitrogenous and phosphoriccompounds are bound up in particulate mate-rial. The major nonpoint transport mechanismfor these materials from the terrestrial to theaquatic systems is by sediment transport.

In addition to the pollutants it holds, sedi-mentation is a major cause of aquatic habitatdestruction. This is particularly true for rockysubstrates that represent niches for aquatic in-sects and spawning areas for fish,

The water quality standards designed tofulfill the commitment of the 1977 U.S. CleanWater Act to protect aquatic resources do notaddress the problem of sediment transportedtoxicants and nutrients, Nor do criteria forsediment loading reflect potential impacts onaquatic habitats. Regulation of the transportprocess would affect a whole suite of waterquality issues simultaneously,

Recommendation.— The U.S. Department ofAgriculture should develop and implementnonpoint source discharge standards for or-ganic and inorganic compounds transportedby sediments in the i r po l lu t ion contro lprograms.

95

MANAGEMENT OF RIPARIAN VEGETATION

Many scientific studies exist that demon-strate the importance of riparian vegetation asa buffer zone between terrestrial and aquaticsystems (Cummins, 1979). These buffers in-clude streamside and lakeside terrestrial plantcommunities as well as wetland habitats suchas Spartina salt marshes, mangrove communi-ties, floodplains, and cattail marshes (Merrittand Lawson, 1978; ValieLa, et al., 1978). Waterquality parameters are modulated by nutrientuptake, denitrification, and chemical partition-ing to the soil or sediment components, Manyexperiments and operating treatment facilitieshave applied secondary treated effluent toestuaries, wetlands, and marshes to take advan-tage of these biological processes (Sloey, et al.,1978).

Riparian vegetation also contributes a signif-icant proportion of the energy budget throughorganic material inputs for many types ofaquatic systems. This is of particular impor-tance in low order streams (Cummins, 1974),marine estuaries, and vernal ponds (Teal,1962), These inputs have a direct effect on thesecondary productivity of aquatic populationsof fish, shellfish, crabs, and insects.

Riparian vegetation also is essential to main-tain low-temperature regimes and acceptablehabitats for many desirable stream fishes. Thisis particularly true for cold-water specieswhich desire summer temperatures between500 and 700O F, For small streams, low shrubsand grasses can provide a protective overstoryfrom predation. For streams over 30 feet wide,

trees for about 40 percent of the stream lengthon both sides should be present (Soil Conser-vation Service, 1971),

There is no generic policy nor systematicprocess of implementation in current agricul-tural regulations to develop and protect ripar-ian vegetation buffers. Attempts have beenmade, however, to protect buffer strips alongwaterways from sources of destruction ofriparian vegetation such as animal grazing andcrop production. The largest to date is the newChesapeake Bay Program costing some $48million and involving two proposed projects.One is to implement phosphorus removal fromsecondary municipal treatment facilities, andthe other is to obtain a vegetation buffer stripall around the Bay.

One current approach which appears feasi-ble is to use the USDA’s set-aside program todevelop buffer strips but two modifications tothe existing program will be necessary. One re-quires the maintenance of the same acreage fora long period of time free from grazing andplowing. The other is an incentive system thatprovides rewards for selecting riparian acre-ages for the set-aside. This could be achievedby using an increasing scale for riparian acreswhen calculating credits for the set-aside.

Recommendation.—The USDA should mod-ify the set-aside program to encourage the de-velopment and protection of riparian vegeta-tion buffer strips.

STREAM CHANNELIZATION

Watershed management is a complex proc- This is also an area where there have beeness involving many trade-offs between eco- historical controversies between agriculturalnomic, social, and environmental issues. The and environmental interest groups. Farmersmanagement of water through impoundments, need to till and drain low areas so that soilschannelization, and nonstructural storage con- can be worked as early in the spring as possi-stitutes an important component of the man- ble. Natural streams often do not have suffi-agement plan. cient discharge capacity to handle the excess

96

runoff in a timely fashion. Streams are, there-fore, declared agricultural drains and engi-neered to increase capacity. Often this in-creases flooding and sedimentation problemsdownstream where many of our urban centersare located on floodplains.

Until recently, the evaluation of alternativedesigns and mitigation programs through theenvironmental impact statement process hasfocused only on the portion of the watershedthat was to be altered. This was justified by thefact that the costs of the studies was borne byonly those riparian owners that benefited fromthe stream improvements; but this practice hasbeen successfully challenged in many States.Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) are in-creasingly taking a watershed perspective.Water quality, sedimentation rates, diversity offish habitats and esthetic aspects of “stream im-provements” are being compared to the bene-fits of rapid discharge (wildlife Society, Amer-ican Fisheries Society, 1983; Soil ConservationService, 1971). The new Palmiter method inparticular emphasizes subsurface structuresthat allow both diverse aquatic habitats and in-creased surface flows.

The other main issue here involves structuralversus nonstructural impoundments for thestorage of water to prevent downstream flood-ing. Wetlands and vernal ponds represent adistributive storage component scatteredthroughout the watershed. If these are drainedfor agricultural purposes, society must then in-vest large amounts of money for downstreamstructural impoundments. These structuresalso impound sediments, increase water tem-peratures, impede fish migrations, and affectdownstream water quality. Since the destruc-tion of the natural storage capacity is scatteredin space and distributed over time and sincethe riparian-owner populations are distinctlydifferent groups, a systems analysis of cost andbenefits of the alternatives for the total water-shed is hardly ever available for decisionmakers.

Recommendation.—The USDA should im-plement a generic EIS that evaluates the totalcosts, benefits, and risks of nonstructural con-trols for water management in agriculturalwatersheds.

EDUCATION AND DEMONSTRATION PROGRAMS

Many of the management practices that arebeing considered for the enhancement ofaquatic resources are well-known soil conser-vation practices from the early 1900s. The envi-ronmental constraints have not changed in thelast 50 years, but the social and economic con-ditions are considerably different. There is areal need to implement a network of educationand demonstration programs that build credi-bility for the fact that good environmental man-agement also is good economic planning. Thegeneral perception that agricultural productionprocesses are inescapably in conflict with goodecology is incorrect and counterproductive.

watershed demonstration projects accom-panied by material mass balances and com-plete economic cost/benefit analysis are the

best way to establish credibility with the farmcommunity, This is similar to programs recom-mended in the 1981 Agriculture and Food Act,Title XV: Resource Conservation (Johnson, etal., 1982).

The Land Grant Universities of this countryare institutions whose original charters man-date education and demonstration programsto facilitate technology transfer to the agricul-tural community. Land Grant Universities havebecome infatuated with intensive, big-scaleagricultural production technologies in the last40 years. These same institutions have the rele-vant array of academic disciplines (economics,soil science, fish and wildlife programs) to ini-tiate and document these demonstration proj-ects. The Land Grant Universities have the

97

mandate and the resources to transfer to agro- Land Grant Universities to develop watershedecosystem management. All they need is the management demonstration projects which in-will, tegrate ecological and agricultural conserva-

Recommendation.–The 1985 Farm Billtion practices.

should include under Title IX a directive to the

REFERENCES

American Fisheries Society Policy Statements,Environmental Concerns Committee (Be-thesda, MD: American Fisheries Society,1983).

Canada Yearbook, “Annual Review of Economicand Political Development, ” Ministry of In-dustry and Trade and Commerce, Ottawa,Canada, 1975, p. 430.

Cummins, K . W,, “Structure and Function ofStream Ecosystems, ” Bio Science 24:631-641,1974.

Cummins, K, W., “The Multiple Linkages of Foreststo Streams,” Fresh Perspectives From Ecosys-tem Analysis (Corvallis, OR: Oregon Univer-sity Press, 1979), pp. 191-198.

Johnson, J. D., Rizzi, R. W., Short, S, D., and Fulton,R. T,, “Provisions of the Agriculture and FoodAct of 1981” (Washington, DC: USDA Eco-nomic Research Service, 1982), p. 23.

McElroy, A. D., et al., “Water Pollution From Non-point Sources,” Water Research 9(7):675-681,1975.

Merritt, R. W., and Lawson, D. L., “Leaf Litter Proc-essing in Floodplain and Stream Communi-ties, ” Strategies for Protection and Manage-ment of Floodplain Wetlands and OtherRiparian Ecosystems, USDA-Forest Service,GA. Gen, Tech. Rep. WO-12, 1978, pp. 93-105.

Pisano, M,, “Nonpoint Pollution: An EPA View of

Areawide Water Quality Management,” J. SoilWater Conservation 31(3):94-100, 1976.

Reid, G, K., Ecology of Inland Waters and Estuaries(New York: D. Van Nostrand Co., 1961).

Sloey, W. E., Spangler, F. L., and Fetter, C. W.,“Management of Freshwater Wetlands forNutrient Assimilation,” Freshwater WetZands:Ecological Processes and Management Poten-tial (New York: Academic Press, 1978), pp.357-364.

Teal, J, M., “Energy Flow in the Saltmash Ecosys-tem of Georgia, ” Ecology 43:614-641, 1962.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil ConservationService, “Planning and Design of Open Chan-nels, ” Tech. Release No. 25, 1971.

Valiela, I,, Teal, J. M., Volkman, S., Shater, D,, andCarpenter, E. T., “Nutrient and ParticulateFluxes in a Saltmarsh Ecosystem: Tidal Ex-changes and Inputs by Precipitation andGround Water,” Limuol. Oceanogr. 23(4):798-812, 1978.

The Wildlife Society, The American FisheriesSociety, “Stream Obstruction Removal Guide-lines,” by Stream Renovation Guidelines Com-mittee, 1983.

Wilkie, J. (cd.), “Statistical Abstract of Latin Amer-ica, ” UCLA Latin America Center, Publ. 17(Los Angeles: University of California, 1976).

98

Agricultural Activities and Marine Fisheries

Tim GoodgerNational Marine Fisheries Service

Northeast RegionOxford, Maryland

Approximately 7.7 billion pounds of fish andshellfish were landed commercially by U.S.fishermen in territorial waters or the FisheryConservation Zone in 1983 with a value ofmore than $2.7 billion (National Marine Fish-eries Service, 1983). when ancillary industries,such as processing, distribution, and market-ing, are considered, the value is significantlyhigher. To illustrate the importance of the valueof ancillary industries to fisheries economics,a variety of multipliers have been developedto determine this additional value. Using amultiplier of 7.4, developed by NMFS econo-mists (National Marine Fisheries Service,1975), would increase the total value of the1983 commercial fisheries to $19.7 billion. Ad-ditionally, although the marine recreationalharvest has not been estimated since 1980, itwas then determined to be approximately 700million pounds with a total economic impactvalued at $7.5 billion (National Marine Fish-eries Service, 1983). The total economic impactof recreational fisheries includes associated ex-

penditures such as tackle, boat purchases orrentals, transportation, and lodging, and res-taurant accommodations associated with fish-ing trips.

The continued economic viability of theAmerican fishing industry is dependent onmaintaining biologically productive stocks,which, in turn, is dependent on competentmanagement and ensuring that adequate hab-itat is available for reproduction and develop-ment. Significant numbers of species, eventhose caught in the ocean, depend on theestuaries for the survival of one or more stagesin their life cycles. Between 11 and 98 percentby weight of the U.S. commercial harvest isconsidered estuarine-dependent; approx-imately 97 percent of the Chesapeake Bayharvest is estuarine-dependent (McHugh,1976). However, many estuaries includingChesapeake Bay are environmentally stressedand degraded as a result of a myriad of humanactivities.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITHAGRICULTURAL PRACTICES

Many agricultural practices can contributesignificantly to habitat degradation in someareas. The withdrawal, impoundment, and/ordiversion of freshwater from streams andrivers can change the salinity gradient down-stream and result in displacement of spawn-ing and nursery grounds. Patterns of estuarinecirculation necessary for larval and planktontransport could be modified. Such changes canexpand the range of estuarine diseases and

predators associated with higher salinities thataffect commercial shellfish,

Channelization results in increased sedimentloading, both during and following construc-tion. Stream banks denuded of vegetation anddestabilized during construction are readilyeroded; increased stream velocities resultingfrom channelization also accelerate erosion.Eroded sediments laden with nutrients and

99

other contaminants are transported down-stream where they can degrade water quality,foul fish spawning habitat, and smother shell-fish beds,

Additionally, channelization often results inthe destruction of substantial acreage of wet-lands that serve as natural buffers and filtersby slowing the velocity of upland runoff, trap-ping sediments, and assimilating nutrients.

Farming in river basin drainage areas canproduce changes in water chemistry adjacentto and downstream from agricultural areas,Biostimulants, such as fertilizers and animalwastes, entering streams as nonpoint sourcepollutants may promote the overproduction ofalgal species, which results in high biologicaloxidation demand and an increased abundanceof undesirable species, Animal wastes alsodegrade water quality and pose a potentialhealth hazard that can result in closure of

shellfish beds to harvest. Biocides used forweed control may inhibit the growth of impor-tant submerged aquatic vegetation.

Runoff from farm fields into adjacentstreams and major tributaries transports sedi-ments into anadromous fish streams, wherespawning areas are affected. Sediments trans-ported to estuaries decrease the transparencyand increase the turbidity of the water, therebylimiting the penetration of light and decreas-ing photosynthesis. Heavy metals and othercompounds from terrigenous sources are ad-sorbed to these sediment particles and becomedistributed throughout the water column andin bottom sediments, Eroded sediments canblanket the bottom and destroy oyster bar com-munities and other epifaunal populations. Aslittle as 1 to 2 millimeters of silt on oyster cultchcan render this substrate unsuitable for the at-tachment of spat (Galtsoff, 1964).

TECHNOLOGIES THAT WILL BENEFIT BOTHFISH AND AGRICULTURE

The washing of soils, together with the pes-ticides and fertilizers applied to them, repre-sent an economic loss to farmers as well as adegrading influence on aquatic ecosystems. Itis to the best interest of all concerned—farmers,fishermen, and the public—to keep sedimentsand chemicals out of our Nation’s waterways,The benefits and costs to estuarine fisheries re-sulting from the alteration of agricultural prac-tices have not been fully assessed in previousfarm policies. An opportunity to improve thissituation now exists as the USDA and otherstake a serious look at conservation measuresappropriate to the impending 1985 Farm Bill.The reauthorization of the Farm Bill could pro-vide incentives to encourage use of Best Man-agement Practices (BMPs) such as fencing offrivers and streams to livestock and establish-ing vegetated buffer strips along waterwaysthat would provide riparian habitat and reduceerosion; all to the mutual benefit of landownersand fish and wildlife resources.

Cooperative activities between agencies alsocould jointly aid farmers and fish and wildlifehabitat. The National Marine Fisheries Serv-ice (NMFS) of the National Oceanographic andAtmospheric Administration (NOAA) is pro-viding the Economic Research Service ofUSDA with information on the impacts of agri-cultural practices on estuarine fisheries. TheNational Ocean Service of NOAA has devel-oped a county/commodity data base for theEast and Gulf Coasts that can estimate agricul-tural pollutant loadings under different sce-narios of cultivation. NMFS is beginning aresearch program to quantify the value ofestuarine habitat for fisheries production.NMFS also has responded to the AgriculturalStabilization and Conservation Service’s re-quest for information on the environmental im-pacts of production adjustment programs.NMFS intends to combine our efforts of quan-tifying pollutant loading by hydrological basinand assessing the effects of such loading on fish

100

resources. The program should assist USDAto develop policies that will reduce adverse ef-fects on living aquatic resources.

There are areas of cooperation where futureprogress can be made. For example, it maybeworthwhile to explore how NOAA’s Sea Grantand USDA’s Extension programs can cooper-ate in implementing joint research projects ormonitoring programs and in getting the resul-tant information to the farmer. NOAA alsowould appreciate the opportunity to pursuewith USDA and other agencies, as appropri-ate, potential mechanisms to reduce off-farmimpact on fish and wildlife by ensuring thatBMPs are considered in Coastal Zone Manage-ment, Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (in-cluding exemptions, nationwide and individ-ual permits), and other pertinent Federalprograms.

Additionally, educational programs anddemonstration projects that encourage conser-vation of land and aquatic resources should bepromoted. Previous projects and programsclearly illustrate the mutual benefits to agricul-tural and fish and wildlife interests.

Interagency Domonstration Projects

Shoreline Stabilizatiom With WetlandVogetation

Erosion of varying degrees of severity existsalong many shorelines throughout TalbotCounty, Maryland, resulting in the loss of val-uable properties, estimated to exceed over 30acres per year. Much of the land borderingTalbot County waters is agricultural. Tradi-tionally, erosion abatement has been accom-plished by structural means (i.e., stone revet-ments, bulkheads, etc.) . These physicalstructures are expensive, and they often requirethe destruction of intertidal or shallow waterareas that provide nursery and feeding habi-tat for many valuable species of marine life.Such structures may be the only solution alongexposed (high energy) shorelines; however, formany rivers and protected coves, alternativenonstructural techniques to control erosion areavailable.

A proven method of nonstructural shorelinestabilization is by planting marsh plants. Alongthe mesohaline shores of Chesapeake Bay,smooth cord grass (Spartina alterniflora) i stypically planted in areas regularly flooded bytides, and saltmeadow cord grass (S. patens)is commonly used in areas subject to intermit-tent tidal flooding. Both species are often usedin conjunction to simulate natural marsh zona-tion and to afford greater protection.

Establishment of fringe marshes along theseshorelines can abate erosion at a cost of 10 to50 percent of that for conventional physicalstructures. Such savings are significant, par-ticularly on large agricultural tracts where theexpense of conventional methods may be cost-prohibitive. Although occasional maintenancemay be required, and annual fertilization of themarsh grasses is recommended, the costs areinconsequential when compared with the re-pair or replacement of traditional structures,such as bulkheading. At the same time, fringemarshes enhance the ecological values oftreated areas by providing spawning, nursery,and feeding habitat for an abundance and va-riety of lower trophic organisms that serve asforage for commercially and recreationally im-portant species of fin- and shellfish. Addi-tionally, fringe marshes act as buffer strips thatfilter pollutants from upland runoff enteringaquatic ecosystems.

In consideration of these potential benefits,NMFS in cooperation with the Talbot CountySoil Conservation District, the Soil Conserva-tion Service (SCS), and the Talbot CountyPlanning Department worked cooperatively toidentify reaches of County shoreline wherelandscaping alternatives could abate erosion.

Under contract to NMFS, an expert in thefield of vegetative stabilization developed aseries of maps to identify shore reaches wherelandscaping stabilization methods were feasi-ble. These maps were coded to indicate the esti-mated cost for the landscaping treatment.

Approximately 296 miles of the 490 miles ofassessed shoreline in Talbot County werefound suitable for stabilization with wetlandvegetation. The remaining shoreline (194 miles)

107

was either stable because of extensive naturalmarsh systems (152 miles) or unsuitable forvegetative stabilization because of severeenergy regimes (42 miles).

Property owners identified in the study weresent letters by the Talbot County Council in-viting them to a workshop held in April 1983by the project cooperators. The advantages ofvegetative stabilization, both ecological andeconomic, were explained to the workshop at-tendants, Additionally, the Corps of Engineersand the Maryland Water Resources Adminis-tration agreed to develop administrative pro-cedures to expedite the processing of permitsfor these projects as further incentive. Follow-ing the workshop, local interest appeared rela-tively strong. Between the spring of 1983 andfall of 1984 (approximately 18 months), theTalbot County SCS office received more than50 inquiries about the technique from propertyowners who attended the presentation. Thecontractor who performed the shoreline sur-vey has completed approximately 50 projectsinvolving shoreline stabilization with marshvegetation throughout the county,

Demonstration Farm (Best ManagementPractices)

A demonstration farm proposal is currentlybeing planned as a cooperative effort betweenthe University of Maryland, Maryland Depart-ment of Natural Resources, SCS, and NMFS.The purpose of the project is to identify, im-plement, and evaluate the BMPs on a site-specif ic basis . The BMPs , a l though notthoroughly detailed at present, will includesuch methodologies as vegetated buffer strips,sediment ponds, reverse drainage grading,directional furrowing, water control structures,

and other techniques designed to retard flowsand reduce velocities to minimize nonpointsource discharges to natural waterways. Al-though the project is site-specific, rather thangeneric, successful technologies could be ap-plied to other sites with similar conditions. Ad-ditionally, the methodologies developed toassess the effectiveness of various experimentaltechniques could have broad application.

Pest Control (Open Marsh WaterManagement*)

In Maryland, the State Department of Agri-culture (DOA) is responsible for mosquito con-trol as well as the management of other pestorganisms. Much of this work is conducted intidal wetlands. Because of the potential adverseimpacts of mosquito control work in sensitivetidal habitats, cooperative efforts between theDOA and the State and Federal regulatory andresource agencies began as early as 1975.Working with a concept formulated in NewJersey, Open Marsh Water Management, tech-niques were developed that controlled mos-quitoes biologically, rather than chemically, re-sulting in minimal physical impacts to thetreated marshes, and enhancing other elementsof the estuarine food web. Although this pro-gram may be the most specialized of those de-scribed, it does contain elements that may beapplicable to agricultural 1ands, For example,silled ditches used to minimize lateral drain-age in mosquito-controlled marshes, may beused in channelization projects. Such ditchesallow the removal of surface waters withoutdesiccating wetlands. Also ponds with radialditches and no outlets could be used to directsurface flows into sediment basins, therebypreventing contaminants from running off intonatural waterways.

REFERENCES

Galtsoff, Paul S., “The American Oyster,” Fishery U.SBulletin of the Fish and Wildlife Service, vol.64, 1964,

McHugh, J. L,, “Estaurine Fisheries: Are TheyDoomed?” In: Estaurine Processes, M. Wiley U.S(cd,), vol. I. (New York: Academic Press,1976), pp. 15-27,

Department of Commerce, National MarineFisheries Service, Fisheries of the UnitedStates (Washington, DC: U.S. GovernmentPrinting Office, 1983).Department of Commerce, National MarineFisheries Service, Marine Fisheries Review37(10):28, 1975.

102

Designing Landscape Mosaics for IntegratedAgricultural and Conservation Planning in the

Southeastern United StatesLarry D. Harris

DoparQment of Wildlifo and Range SciencesUniversity of Florida

Gainesville, Florida

To allow sustained growth and ensure re-source availability Sunbelt States must inte-grate conservation planning with developmentplanning, A generalized model that relateswildlife type and abundance to land capabil-ity and land use intensity is presented. Highdensity, tolerant, opportunistic species are seento occupy areas of high intensity land use.Medium densities of tolerant but larger andwider ranging species occupy areas of lowerland use intensity. Very low densities of large,wide-ranging wilderness species demand wideexpanses of low intensity land use or else an

integrated system of conservation areas suchas refuges and national forests. Economic in-centives can be sufficient to ensure wildlifeconservation on large private or industrialownerships. A Wildlife Habitat Incentives Pro-gram (WHIP) administered through USDA/ASCS is suggested to motivate wildlife conser-vation on small nonindustrial private land, AFederal interagency coordinating council issuggested as a means to guide development ofregional systems of national forests, parks,refuges, etc., as an alternative to land userestrictions on agricultural lands.

Nearly 50 years ago the Soil ConservationService developed a simple classificationscheme to aid interpretation and proper use ofsoil and land types (Hockensmith and Steele,1949). The system consists of classes rangingfrom I to VIII with the best soils that have great-est capability being assigned to class I and theworst soils with great limitation being assignedto class VIII. The classes are described asfollows:

I. Few limitations. Wide latitude foreach use. Very good land from everystandpoint.

II. Moderate limitations or risks of dam-age . Good land f rom a l l a roundstandpoint.

III. Severe limitations or risks of damage.

Regular cultivation possible if limita-tions are observed.

IV. Very severe limitations. Suited for oc-casional cultivation or for some kind oflimited cultivation.

v. Not suited for cultivation because ofwetness, stones, overflows, etc. Fewlimitations for grazing or forestry use.

VI. Too steep, stony, arid, wet, etc., forcultivation. Moderate limitations forgrazing or forestry.

VII. Very steep, rough, arid, wet, etc. Severelimitations for grazing or forestry.

VIII. Extremely rough, arid, swampy, etc.Not suited for cultivation, grazing, orforestry. Suited for wildlife, water-sheds, or recreation.

103

Lands of high capability are expensive and Wildlife populations are as responsive to soilrequire intensive use to offset the high capital richness and capability as are agricultural orinvestment, Lands of lower capability that re- silvicultural crops, Numerous studies report aquire less capital investment maybe used less positive relationship between wildlife growthintensively and generate smaller returns. It fol- and abundance and soil richness. But wildlifelows almost directly that land use intensity will is also very responsive to land use and thus itbe proportional to capability and thus inverse is the combination of land capability and landto numerical rank (figure 1). use which dictates the composition, disposi-

Fiaure 1 .—A Soil Conservation Service Land Capability Classification Portraying the Land Use Intensity Appropriate

L a n d -

copab i I it y

c l a s s

1

I I

to Each Class (from Hockensmith and Steele 1949)— I

I n c r e a s e d r e m o v a l o f c o v e r o r d i s t u r b a n c e o f s o i l

w. -

- 0

c.!

J

,1

-1

104

tion, and abundance of the wildlife com-munity. 1

A slight modification and rearrangement ofthe capability class and land use chart givenin figure 1 allows the addition of these four gen-eral classes of wildlife (figure 2). It seems rea-sonable that wilderness species are not only

IThe American Game Policy (Leopold, et al., 1930), developedin IWO identified four classes of “game” consisting of farmgame, forest and range game, wilderness game, and migratorygame. For the purposes of this paper, migratory game will beexcluded and a new category called pest wildlife is added be-cause of increasing levels of wildlife depredation on agriculturalcrops.

defined by, but largely restricted to the low in-tensity land use areas which tend to be of lowcapability class. It goes without saying that for-est and range wildlife largely corresponds toforest and range lands of classes V throughVIII, but the intensive mechanized forestrypractices in the Southeast is more restricted toclasses IV through VII. Farm wildlife (e.g.,quail, rabbits, doves, and squirrels) do wellunder low intensity agricultural conditionsgenerally associated with small farmsteads andboth this land use and these species will occuron the higher capability class lands. Finally,class I lands, those which are very expensive

Figure 2.—Generalized Model Illustrating the Relation Between Land Capability Class, Appropriate Land UseIntensity and the Expected Type and Relative Abundance of Wildlife Occurring on the Land

$.’-

105

and which must be used very intensively in or-der to justify the capital expense, can only beused for urban, residential, or intensive agri-cultural development. Under these circum-stances, almost any wildlife species may bedeemed a pest (figure 2). In summary, we nowhave a scheme that not only relates land useintensity to land capability class, it predicts thegeneral type of wildlife that is likely to occurin various land use types. Florida panthers,large alligators, or bears will not be toleratedin urban, suburban, industrial, or intensivelyused agricultural areas. These species and theirfuture will depend on conservation and man-agement either in a wilderness context or inan integrated system of preserves. Turkeys,ruffed grouse, and feral hogs will generally findacceptable habitat in and simultaneously belimited to forest and range conditions. Speciessuch as white-tailed deer that aggressively in-vade farmland situations frequently will not becompatible with crop production systems andthus they too may be restricted to forest andrange circumstances. Quail, doves, squirrels,rabbits, and “small game” in general will notonly profit from, but also will be toleratedamongst agricultural fields and farmlots.

A second, somewhat surprising, pattern thatemerges from this scheme portrays the ex-pected density of wildlife under various landuse conditions. By nature, wilderness wildlifetends to be rare and densities of 1 per 1,000acres are reasonable for this type of species.

Other wilderness species may be as dense as1 per 100 acres or more, but higher densitiesshould generally not be expected. The densityof forest and range wildlife tends to be higherthan that of wilderness species and densitiesof 10 per 100 acres or 1 per 10 acres is a rea-sonable expectation for most species of thisclass. Farm game species generally occur at yethigher densities and 1 per acre or 100 per 100acres is a reasonable expectation. A littleknown fact, however, is that urban wildlife,especially birds, tend to be the most abundantof all. For example, Emlen (1974) found a 26-fold increase in bird numbers along a gradientfrom the desert to the urban environment ofTucson, Arizona. The bird density of Tucsonwas reported at 600 pairs per 100 acres.

In total, I believe this scheme fairly repre-sents the probable correspondence betweenland capability and its use intensity while iden-tifying both the general type and relative abun-dance of wildlife that can be expected undervarious circumstances. It does not assert thatfarm, forest, or even wilderness wildlife can-not or does not occur under very intensive landuse conditions, but if it does occur there it willalmost certainly be considered a pest. It doesnot assert that some species such as white-tailed deer can not occur in all of the catego-ries, but that if they do, then the managementobjectives and approaches probably will bequite different.

MODEL IMPLICATIONS FOR MANAGEMENT

In previous decades a predominantly species-by-species and situation-by-situation approachhas characterized wildlife management in theUnited States. More recently, comprehensiveplanning has emerged as the predominanttheme in both Federal and State legislation,Thus the Resources Planning Act, the NationalForest Management Act, and the Federal LandPolicy and Management Act all rely on an in-tegrated, multiple use planning approach. Themajority of States have now implemented non-Qame programs in an attempt to focus atten-

tion on the large array of species that are nei-ther game species nor rare and endangeredspecies. Florida, for example, considers thatsome 1,200 vertebrate species residing in theState require “an integrated approach to themanagement and conservation of all nativefish, wildlife , and plants” (Fla. Statutes372.992). This can only be achieved if the planis acceptable to: 1) those who approve it, 2)those who pay for it, and 3) the landownerswhere it is carried out (McConnell, 1981). Theplan certainly must encompass the greatly dif-

106

ferent types of wildlife and land use and con-sequent management opportunities that exist.The model presented above attempts to do justthat. The additional premise incorporated hererelies on a multi-faceted approach based on:1) development of economic incentive whenpossible, 2) provision of free technical assist-ance and habitat plantings to encourage volun-tary participation, 3) feasibility of land pur-chase and reservation, and 4) regulation ofspecies and land use when necessary (McCon-nell, 1981).

Land and soil types generally follow a recur-rent pattern of distribution with predictablesequences and location. Plants are usuallyadapted to specific site conditions as are cer-tain vertebrate species. As a general principle,resident animal species with very local move-ment patterns are closely tied to specific siteconditions while resident species that rangewidely show less linkage to specific sites. Thismeans that the concept of habitat managementis very well developed and useful for most spe-cies of farm and woodlot wildlife, but the con-cept becomes less useful as we progress towardthe wilderness species. Large carnivores andspecies such as bears range over many soil,vegetation, and land use types daily and theconcept of habitat management becomes vir-tually useless, It follows from this that alocalized habitat management approach can bevery successful for small game species such asquail, rabbit, and squirrel on farms of only afew hundred acres, Several hundred if notthousands of acres are necessary to success-fully manage for forest and range species suchas deer, feral hogs, and turkey. Landscapes oftens and thousands of acres are necessary forthe successful management of bears andbobcats.

Although this material is not new, it shouldserve to emphasize that opportunities for eco-nomic incentive and self-initiative are not tiedto either small or large landholders. Small land-holders are most limited in the species they canmanage for, but landscapes consisting of nu-merous small landholdings can provide ex-cellent habitat for resident species. This is espe-cially true if natural habitat features such as

outcrops, drains, and odd areas are maintainedas other features such as fencerows, wind-breaks, shelterbelts, and buffer strips are cre-ated. It is the landscape mosaic and the hetero-geneity existing between and among fields thatcreates this habitat value. County, State, andFederal agencies, planning councils, and thepublic must provide the mix of incentives,rewards, and regulations to achieve thesesmaller scale habitat qualities.

The trend toward larger farm size and indus-trial ownership is not in and of itself bad forwildlife. In fact, it greatly increases the oppor-tunity for economic development of the wild-life resource because a greater number of spe-cies can be managed for. Far and away thegreatest economic returns from wildlife in theSoutheast derive from large private and indus-trial ownerships. Certain corporations derivemore than $1/acre/yr from hunting leases onmillion-acre ownerships while other privateowners derive over $3/acre/yr from huntingleases on l00,000-acre ownerships. Prime wild-life habitat such as bottomland hardwoods maylease for $10/acre/yr.

Although there is no obvious economic in-centive for managing private lands for non-game species, most owners would happily doso on a voluntary basis if habitat improvementssuch as food and cover plantings and nestboxes were free and if technical assistancewere readily available (McConnell, 1981),Social reinforcement such as good citizenawards, direct compensation for conservationplanning, and tax credits for approved man-agement plans are incentive mechanisms thatwill complement and enhance game leasereceipts,

Having briefly considered farm and forestwildlife, I now turn to the many species thateither have such specific habitat requirementsor which range over such vast areas that theprivate sector cannot be expected to managethem. It is these species that require integratedState and Federal regulations and/or land res-ervation.

Strategic purchase and placement of Stateand National Parks and Preserves, State and

107

National Forests, and National Wildlife Ref-uges is critical to the regional conservation ofthese species, Habitat specialists that occuronly locally (e.g., red-cockaded woodpecker)are vulnerable to the effects of inbreeding andgenetic drift unless genetic interchange be-tween the subpopulations is ensured, Con-versely, the very rare, but wide-ranging speciesusually cannot be “contained” within anysingle park or refuge and therefore requiresome sort of travel corridor system that at-tempts to link one habitat island with another(Harris, 1984a). Although the prospect of pro-viding continuous physical connections be-tween the habitat islands may initially seemremote, the range of opportunities is great.Both natural and anthropogenic connectorscan be drawn upon. Conservation easementsmay serve as well as actual ownership. Candi-date corridors will include streams and stream-side buffer strips, rivers and riparian strips,State and national recreations trials, scenicroadsides, high voltage power lines, drainagecanals, windbreaks, shelterbelts, greenbelts,

and dispersal corridor designation (Forman,1983; Harris, 1984a),

The important point to all of this is that eco-nomic incentives and the free enterprise sys-tem can be made to work toward wildlifeconservation on large private and corporateownerships, but that it falls short on both endsof the scale. Farms and landholdings too smallto support hunting leases will provide habitatfor resident species with small ranges, but thisis only if a heterogeneous mosaic derives be-tween and among field arrangements. Simi-larly, wide-ranging species that require entirelandscapes will depend on the strategic layoutof sanctuaries or habitat islands interconnectedas much as possible by dispersal corridors.

Tax incentives, planning guidelines, the pro-vision of technical assistance, and perhapseven regulation will be required at the smallscale while multiagency coordination guide-lines from the level of the U.S. Congress willbe required to ensure integration and cooper-ation at the regional level.

APPLICATIONS IN THE SOUTHEASTERN UNITED STATES

The Southeastern Coastal Plain is character-ized by low topographic relief, numerousalluvial bottomlands generally flooded duringlate winter, and expansive flatwoods where thewater table is generally near the surface. Be-cause of the low latitude, winter daylength isabout 30 percent greater than that of 50 Nlatitude. Hurricanes and tropical depressionsfrequently cause summer flooding throughoutthe lowlands. Hardwood tree species diversityis high. Whereas a single species of oak occursin the forests of Maine, 25 species and 4 rec-ognized subspecies occur in Florida. Broad-leaved evergreen trees, bushes, and shrubsdominate the bottomland forests and many spe-cies such as the hollies (Ilex spp. ) either beartheir fruit during or hold it through the win-ter. This combination of abundant acorns,winter fruits, evergreen foliage, warm temper-atures, and long day lengths make the bottom-land hardwoods ideal winter habitat (Harris,1984b).

Open pinelands characterize flatwoods andmost upland sites. Frequent lightning strikesand subsequent fire suppressed and/or elimi-nated the woody, fruit-bearing midstory andunderstory and created expansive, open forag-ing areas interspersed with hardwood and cy-press bottomlands that were generally too wetto burn.

Wild turkey and black bear are two examplesof species that depend on the heterogeneousmosaic of bottomlands and uplands. Wildturkey’s require open areas where the broodsof young poults can easily forage for a diet thatis almost 100 percent arthropods. Adults andlarge chicks require the fruits, seeds, and nutsfrom flowering plants during winter and havea strong preference for roosting in trees overwater during all seasons. Black bears rangewidely and tend to acquire their omnivorousdiet from upland habitats during summer andfall but from bottomland hardwoods during

108

winter and spring. They frequently rely onshallow water areas to extinguish their scenttrail as they flee from pursuit of hunters usingtracking dogs.

The Southeastern United States supportsfewer species of birds and mammals but verymany species of reptiles and amphibians (fig-ure 3). For example, the greatest concentrationof salamander species anywhere in the worldoccurs in the Southeast and the 25 species ofturtles in Florida are five times as great as whatoccurs in all of Europe (Gibbons, 1983). Theinterspersion of flooded bottomlands with dryland areas is critical for these 175 species oflower vertebrates, especially the very large car-nivorous forms such as alligator and alligatorsnapping turtle. While the number of breedingbird species is quite low, the overwinteringpopulation of birds in the bottomlands is veryhigh (figure 3). It is estimated that 90 percentof all of eastern North America’s bird speciesuse the Southeastern bottomlands as habitatduring the 5 to 7 winter months or as stopoverfeeding areas during their spring and fallmigrations. Taken in total, these characteris-tics emerge:

●

●

●

●

●

Overwintering populations of NorthAmerican birds exceed breeding seasonpopulations.Reptile and amphibian species and abun-dance exceed breeding bird and mammalspecies and abundance.Nongame species and populations exceedgame species and populations nearly 10 to10

The number of rare and endangered spe-cies is greater than elsewhere in NorthAmerica.The importance of bottomlands, marshes,and estuaries is exceedingly great to theabundant semi-aquatic species of for-bearers, wading birds, reptiles, and am-phibians.

Until now land use intensity and develop-ment has been sufficiently low to preserve mostof the natural landscape diversity and inter-section of bottomlands. Drainage and conver-sion to agriculture has been particularly severein the lower Mississippi Valley, however, and

during the last 40 years bottomland hardwoodforest acreage decreased by 6.6 million acresin this valley while agricultural lands increasedby 5 million acres (MacDonald, et al., 1979).Conservative Southern farmers are generallynot gamblers or risk takers and would not in-vest in bottomland conversion unless therewere only a small likelihood of loss. Numer-ous Federal Government programs have beenaimed directly at reducing the risk associatedwith farming in the bottomlands (Shabman,1980:

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Public works projects of the Soil Conser-vation Service and the Corps of Engineersare aimed at reducing and/or preventingrisk from flooding.Several aspects of income tax law providefor shifting a farmer’s investment in drain-age and land conversion over to the gen-eral public.“Deficiency” payments supported by theCommodity Credit Corporation virtuallyeliminate risk due to market fluctuations.Farmers Home Administration and theAgricultural Conservation Program of theAgricultural Stabilization and ConservationService make direct payments to farmerswho convert bottomland hardwoods.Disaster assistance compensation forlosses due to natural flooding patterns fur-ther reduces or eliminates risk of monetaryloss.

River diversion, land drainage, and hard-wood conversion have the immediate effect ofchanging former class VIII lands to class Ilands. Planting soybeans immediately trans-forms a low intensity land use into a very highintensity land use. These two changes imme-diately eliminate native species such as ivory-billed woodpeckers, Carolina parakeets, redwolves, Bachman’s warbler, and others whileforcing other species such as white-tailed deerand bear into hostage or fugitive situations.They become pest species.

Rocommendations

In addition to the fish and wildlife habitatthat would be conserved if its destruction were

109

Superior NatbKJI Forest

1.34.,06 ha /

/ /

/ /

/ /

/ /

/

"­"­

/ /

/

"­"­

/ /

"­"-

Osceola National Forest

0,06 x J06 ha

" " "

Figure 3.-Breeding Species of Vertebrates

35 _

301

25-1

1 I AmphIbians 20 a Reptiles

0 ...c. .......... 15 (/)

""0 .... -CD 10

5

o

~ ,I I' .1

':'1 " . .. I '::, '::, ': :, ,. :, ,: :1 ,: :1 " .,

:' : \ " \ . \ " \

'. \ ,'. .. \.,' :,

\ ' \ : .-:\ Northern

·'·\Hard woods '. ~ ,",: ~ .. ~ . .:..-' ~. ~ . -:-..

;'

;'

;'

:,­(

/.

M J J AS 0 NO J F M A'M

110

not subsidized, new programs aimed at re-creating and conserving the natural vegetationmosaic and riparian forests are needed.

Massive acreages were abandoned after thereconstruction era and logged over forestlandswere never replanted. The outlawing of nativeburning early in this century and the generalpublic’s negative sentiment about prescribedburning to this day has dramatically changedthe upland forest environment. In many casesit has led to a hodgepodge of lands that arepoorly stocked with low-quality invader spe-cies that represent neither good forestry norgood wildlife habitat. A Wildlife Habitat incen-tives Program (WHIP) similar to the ForestryIncentives Program is called for. Congressshould authorize a cost-sharing program thatencourages: 1) forest nurseries to propagate,stock, and distribute native tree and bush spe-cies of known wildlife value; 2) at a cost com-parable to that of current plantation species(e.g., $50/1,000); and 3) encourages the devel-opment of agency approved habitat reclama-tion plans on private lands. This should beaimed especially at the small, private, nonin-dustrial landowner. Like the Forestry Incen-tives Program, this could be administeredthrough the ASCS but the plans should be ap-proved by certified wildlife biologists in wild-life extension or in a relevant State agency. Theplans should be aimed at creating meaningfullandscape mosaics consisting of habitat islandsand abundant travel and dispersal corridors asmentioned early in this paper.

A Federal Interagency coordinating councilempowered to guide regional land acquisition,disposition, and management is necessary tohave life saving impact on dozens of en-dangered species. The purpose and role of thecouncil would be to look at “the big picture”and work toward establishment of functionalregional systems of preserves, parks, forests,refuges, wild and scenic rivers, recreationaltrails, and related interconnecting corridors.An example of a situation analysis from theSoutheastern Coastal Plain involves the pres-ently uncoordinated and sometimes competi-tive efforts of numerous State and Federalagencies. The 400,000-acre” Okefenokee Swamp

in Georgia formerly extended south into whatis now the 150,000-acre Osceola National For-est of Florida. The Okefenokee National Wild-life Refuge (NWR) managed by USDI/Fish andWildlife Service does not, however, abut withthe Osceola National Forest managed by theUSDA/Forest Service. Linkage seems not onlylogical but may ultimately be essential in or-der to maintain a viable population of blackbears. It is also the most likely release site forFlorida panther should the south Florida pop-ulation be recovered to a level that will sup-port transfer or should captive-reared individ-uals become available. The Suwannee River isthe major outflow from the Okefenokee thatdrains to the Gulf Coast. It was seriously con-sidered as a Wild and Scenic River, but it nowseems unlikely to gain this status. Nonetheless,interagency endorsement and coordinationcould virtually ensure its purchase as a FloridaArea of Critical State Concern. If and whendesignated, it can connect the northern twoareas (Okefenokee NWR and Osceola NF) withthe new 57,000-acre Lower Suwannee RiverNWR. This refuge, in turn connects with the5,000-acre Cedar Keys Scrub State Preservewhich connects with the small Cedar KeysNWR in the Gulf of Mexico. Coordinated plan-ning and effort can link these to the 31,000-acreWaccasassa Bay State Preserve, Lake RousseauState Recreation Area (3,600 acres), CrystalRiver NWR, St. Martins Marsh Aquatic Pre-serve (20,000 acres), Chassahowitzka NWR(30,000 acres), and perhaps even WithlacoochieState Forest (113,000 acres).

The purpose here is not to suggest a shop-ping list for State and Federal acquisition butonly to suggest that a complex system of parks,preserves, and refuges already exists and manyuncoordinated and probably inefficient effortsare already underway. Many lands zoned as“agricultural” are affected and the southern ru-ral character of tens of thousands more wouldbe maintained if such conservation planningwere coordinated. Streamside buffers, riparianforests, and swamps are the single best way tomitigate nonpoint source pollution from agri-cultural lands. Moreover, in the face ofunrivaled human population growth, sunbelt

111

agriculturalists are facing unprecedented com- tensive agriculture into a large-scale mosaic ofpetition for their land. Conservation easements conservation preserves is the only alternativeshould not be considered as competition when to low intensity land use if the wide-rangingin fact they frequentlyagainst the competitive

represent safeguards wilderness species are to survive in the Amer-force. Integrating in- ican Southeast.

Emlen, J. T., “An Urban Bird Community in Tuc-son, Arizona: Derivation, Structure, Regula-tion,” Condor 76:184-197, 1974.

Forman, R. T. T., “Corridors in a Landscape: TheirEcological Structure and Function,” EkoZogia2:375-387, 1983,

Gibbons, W., Their Blood Runs CoZd (Birmingham,AL: The University of Alabama Press, 1983).

Harris, L. D., The Fragmented Forests: Applica-tions of Island Biogeography Theory to thePreservation of Biotic Diversity (Chicago, IL:University of Chicago Press, 1984a).

Harris, L. D., “Bottomland Hardwoods: Valuable,Vanishing, Vulnerable,” Florida AgriculturalExtension Service Spec. Publ. 26, Gainesville,FL, 1984b.

Hockensmith, R., and Steele, J., “Recent Trends inthe Use of the Land Capability Classification, ”Soil Sci. Soc. Proceed. 14:383-388, 1949.

Leopold, A., et al., “Report to the American Game

Conference on an American Game Policy, ”Trans. Amer. Game Conf. 7:285-308, 1930.

MacDonald, P., Frayer, W., and Clauser, J., Docu-mentation, Chronology and Future Projec-tions of Bottomland Hardwoods Habitat Lossin the Lower Mississippi Alluvial Plain, U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service, Vicksburg, MS,1979,

McConnell, C. A,, “Common Threads in SuccessfulPrograms Benefiting Wildlife on PrivateLands,” WiZdZife Management on PrivateLands, R. T, Dumke, G. V. Burger, and J. R.March (eds.) (Madison, WI: WisconsinChapter of The Wildlife Society, 1981).

Shabman, L., “Economic Incentives for BottomlandConversion: The Role of Public Policy andPrograms,” Trans. 45th North AmericanWildlife and Natural Resources Conference(Washington, DC: Wildlife Management Insti-tute, 1980), pp. 402-412.

112

Dodge County Interagency Project to EnhanceWildlife Habitat on Farmlands

Edward FrankDepartment of Natural Resources

Madison, Wisconsin

The Dodge County Interagency Project wasdesigned to improve wildlife habitat while re-ducing soil erosion and runoff into waterbodies by motivating farmers to apply prac-ticable wildlife habitat management and soilconservation measures on privately ownedfarmlands in western Dodge County, Wiscon-sin. The emphasis of the project is on reduc-ing agricultural crop production costs andusing cost-sharing and incentive payments toachieve multiple natural resource conservationobjectives. This area traditionally had some ofWisconsin’s best pheasant populations andprairie waterfowl production. Increases in crit-ical habitat types for pheasants and prairiewaterfowl production will be accomplished bymodifying crop production practices, by diver-ting somewhat poorly drained or erosible crop-lands from crop production to wildlife habitat(wetland or grassland), and by protecting andimproving the quality of existing noncroplandhabitat types. There is no technology in thisproject where short-term increases in cropyields are anticipated.

* * * *

In response to a steep downward trend inpheasant populations and prairie waterfowlproduction in Wisconsin, the Federal, State,and county level agricultural and natural re-source agencies l established an interagencyproject to motivate farmers to apply practicablewildlife habitat management and soil conser-vation measures on privately owned farmlands

‘Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, USDA Soil Con-servation Service, USDA Agricultural Stabilization and Conser-vation Service, University of Wisconsin Extension, USDI Fishand Wildlife Service, Wisconsin Department of Agriculture,Trade and Consumer Protection.

in selected areas of Dodge County, Wisconsin.The primary goals of the Dodge County Proj-ect are to fulfill the habitat requirements ofpheasants and prairie waterfowl and to protectlong-term soil productivity (by reducing soilerosion) while maintaining reasonable farmprofits or income for individual producers. Thefocus is on reducing production costs andusing cost-sharing or incentive payments toachieve natural resource conservation ob-jectives.

The Dodge County Project began in 1984 andwill end in 1990. Field application of habitatdevelopment and soil conservation measureswill be emphasized from 1985 through 1987.Wildlife habitat enhancement is directed pri-marily at pheasant populations and prairiewaterfowl production with anticipated indirectbenefits to other species such as cottontail rab-bits and grassland nesting birds such as uplandplovers, dickcissels, and bobolinks. The DodgeCounty Project will assess changes in thepheasant population and in waterfowl produc-tion that are attributable to the net gain in crit-ical habitat types on treatment areas versuscontrols, It also will document gains in soilconservation, accumulate data on costs incur-red by all agencies for benefiticost analysis, andassess any changes in landowner attitudestoward government agencies, the acceptanceof conservation practices, and toward wildlife.

Previous research conducted by Gates (1970)in Wisconsin indicated that pheasants typicallynest within 2 miles of traditional winteringsites. Therefore, minimal population manage-ment units can be circular units with a 2-mileradius centered on critical winter habitat typescurrently used by pheasants. Additional guide-

113

lines developed by Gates (1970) indicate thatat least 5 percent of the land in each popula-tion management unit should be in high-qualitynest cover that is not disturbed during the peaknesting period. Less than 1 percent of the man-agement unit needs to have adequate winterfood and cover for pheasants (usually shruband tall emergent wetland vegetation in Wis-consin). For prairie waterfowl a guidelineadopted from the Water Bank Program in Wis-consin provides about 4 hectares (10 acres) ofhigh-quality upland nest cover for each hectare(2.5 acres) of permanent or semipermanentwetland capable of rearing broods. Limited in-formation on differences in nest densities andsuccess rates for specific cover types is cur-rently available for Wisconsin.

Critical habitat (food or cover) types to beestablished or enhanced for pheasants includegrassy-herbaceous nest cover secure from me-chanical disturbance during the nesting peak(April thru July), winter cover to aid in theescape from predators and to minimize the ef-fects of severe weather, and high energy grainsavailable above the snow adjacent to the win-ter cover. The undisturbed grassy-herbaceouscover also is the preferred habitat type fornesting prairie waterfowl from April to Julyand thus can be used by ducks as well aspheasants.

Seeding of no-till winter wheat in small grainstubble is being empirically tested in coopera-tion with landowners. This method is new andrelatively untested in Wisconsin in terms of ef-fects on crop yields and nesting pheasants orwaterfowl. No-till or reduced tillage for rowcrops will be encouraged as a soil conserva-tion measure but, due to persistent snow coveron the ground, it cannot be relied on (in Wis-consin) to provide winter food for pheasants.Food patches or strips of corn will be leftunharvested to provide winter food. Shortduration grazing systems and converting partsof cool-season grass pastures to warm-seasongrasses for grazing in July and August will beattempted. These practices are also untestedin Wisconsin, although Missouri and Iowahave been cost-sharing warm-season grass pas-ture establishment since about 1980. Incentive

payments for no-till wheat, warm-season pas-tures, and unharvested corn strips will beoffered.

Establishment of grassed waterways for soilerosion control combined with incentive pay-ments to delay or otherwise modify mowingpractices on these waterways will be at-tempted. Agreements will be sought to harvestselected hayfields in late June. Certain hay-fields, due to their location and plant composi-tion, are likely to have a disproportionatenumber of nesting pheasants and waterfowl.Landowners will be encouraged to divert estab-lished, eligible hayfields for soil erosion con-trol and wildlife nesting under the 1985 USDAAcreage Reduction Program (ARP). Some alsowill be encouraged to plant winter food patchesfor pheasants on diverted ARP croplands.

Some wetland restoration on poorly drainedcroplands or impounding of surface water run-off in upland basins is being proposed. Con-version of some erodible upland row cropfields to perennial grassy-herbaceous vegeta-tion (either with no harvest or with mowingand grazing limitations) also is being proposed.Whenever cropland is converted to a noncrophabitat type, annual compensation will be pro-vided through 1990 by agreement with the De-partment of Natural Resources. Cost-sharingfor conservation practice installation may besupplied by the Water Bank Program, by theAgricultural Conservation Program (ACP) orby agreement with the Department of NaturalResources.

Finally, an attempt will be made to enhancecritical habitat types on selected noncroplandsites. This will include altering emergentvegetation patterns in semipermanent wet-lands, changing traditional roadside mowingpractices to improve residual nesting cover,changing destructive grazing or burning ofwetlands, and selectively removing trees tominimize raptor predation at wintering sites.The Department of Natural Resources will of-fer all landowners an optional lease for publichunting by permission for a payment expectedto average about $1.00 per acre annually forthe entire farm.

114

Cropland modification practices may resultin slightly lower yields or quality of forage.Sometimes lower crop production costs offsetyield reductions but, if not, incentive paymentsare designed to compensate the landower forthe reductions. Agency cost-sharing will beused to reduce landowner costs for the applica-tion of conservation practices not related tocrop production. Cropland enrolled in theWater Bank Program or converted to a non-crop habitat type will not be used to produceagricultural crops; its role is to provide criti-cal noncrop habitat for wildlife.

The Dodge County Project planning effortsto date indicate that there is some potentialbenefit to wildlife in modifying the physiog-nomy of crops, the degree of tillage, and thetiming or method of harvest. Project planningdoes not project short-term increases in cropyields from these practices compared to otheragronomic alternatives available to the pro-ducer. The habitat benefits per hectare fromcrop modification also appear to be less thannoncrop cover devoted to wildlife habitat asa primary objective.

While it maybe possible and certainly desir-able to improve technologies to modify cropphysiognomy or the timing of tillage or har-vesting to meet the critical habitat needs of tar-get wildlife species in the future, currentwisdom indicates that not all cropland now inproduction is needed to meet the domestic andexport food and fiber needs of the Nation.

The greatest wildlife habitat benefits at theleast cost are still likely to be obtained byenhancing habitat quality on existing non-cropland sites. In many locations, however, thehabitat type (terrestrial or aquatic plant com-munity) cannot be easily or inexpensivelyaltered to meet critical habitat needs of impor-tant species in short or declining supply.Cropland diversion under an expanded WaterBank Program or multi-year cropland diversionunder ARP (with undisturbed grassy-herba-ceous cover required) would appear to meet thecritical habitat needs of farmland wildlife bet-ter than currently available technology to mod-ify crop production.

Agricultural producers appear to be moststrongly motivated by economic self-interest.Considerably more Federal tax dollars arespent on price support loans and deficiencypayments than on conservation programs(ACP). Most agricultural producers do not ben-efit financially from wildlife or wildlife habi-tat and they sometimes suffer crop depreda-tions or increased costs for animal damagecontrol or abatement. Thus, wildlife does notcompete economically with the alternative ofgrowing agricultural crops, especially on thebetter soils. Wildlife has been and continuesto be primarily a byproduct of farmland use.To increase or restore wildlife abundance hab-itat management technologies must either pro-duce very great increases in survival or recruit-ment on relatively small areas, + * 4,000hectares (10,000 acres), or they must producesmaller percentage increases over a very largearea (thousands of square kilometers).

The Dodge County Project seeks big in-creases in survival or recruitment of pheasantsand ducks over small areas through relativelyintensive management, affecting a variety ofhabitat types and their juxtaposition. TheWater Bank is a program administered byUSDA that could be broadened and expandedto apply Dodge County technologies directly.The Water Bank Program is relatively expen-sive but intensive wildlife habitat managementaffecting very small units of range also hasmany other indirect public benefits attributableto wetlands (Linder, et al., 1984).

Applying Dodge County Project technologiesto very large areas of range would result ingreater dispersion of critical habitat types (lessintensive management) and, therefore, wouldproduce smaller increases in wildlife popula-tion survival and recruitment per unit of area.However, USDA multi-year cropland diversionprograms have the potential for increasingfarm wildlife populations substantially oververy large areas, including those where erosionrates generally are less than twice the soilrebuilding value (T).

One basic goal of the 1985 Farm Bill shouldbe to achieve long-term soil conservation ben-

115

efits and reduce crop surpluses with wildlifehabitat enhancement included as a primary orsecondary objective. Multi-year diversion ofcroplands seeded to perennial grasses andlegumes that are not harvested or grazed wouldbe fundamental. Provisions to allow wildlifefood patches on diverted croplands where soilerosion risks are low also should be provided.Ideally for wildlife, grass-legume fields wouldnot be disturbed for 3- to 5-year periods.

Assuming that the United States can affordto set aside 13.8 million hectares (34 millionacres) annually, which it has done for the past25 years (Berner, 1984), at least some percent-age of that should be diverted annually (for 3to 5 years on a given acreage) until feed grainand wheat production when added to reason-able reserves reaches the desired level. Farmerswould benefit because it would tend to stabilizeprices and enable longer range planning. Tax-payers would benefit if only because soil con-servation and wildlife benefits would bemarkedly greater than those realized under an-nual programs that ranged from nothing in set-aside to 32.6 million hectares (80.6 millionacres) under the 1983 PIK program. Farmlandwildlife does not require that the same fields

be kept undisturbed more than 3 to 5 years aslong as replacement fields come on line withresidual nest cover before the original divertedfields are brought back into crop production.In fact nesting cover quality and productionby ground-nesting game birds may benefit fromshifting dedicated nesting cover sites at leastevery 5 years (Frank, 1984). Agribusiness alsomay prefer to have 5 percent of cropland setaside annually until it reaches 15 to 20 percentof all cropland over a 3- to 4-year period so theycan adjust gradually to a reduction in sales ofseeds, fertilizer, and pesticides.

Broadening the Water Bank Program con-cept to keep critical noncropland habitat typesfrom being converted to cropland and diver-ting larger acreages of adjacent cropland toprovide other critical habitat types could max-imize wildlife benefits while accomplishingacreage reduction as a fringe benefit. It wouldalso be possible to target cropland diversion tothe fields with the greatest soil erosion poten-tial on each farm and to select perennial plantmaterials that provide habitat types in shortsupply for important species of wildlife presentin the vicinity.

REFERENCES

Berner, A. H., “Federal Land Retirement Pro- (Madison, WI: Wisconsin Department of Nat-gram—A Land Management Albatross?” ural Resources, 1984), pp. 169-172.Trans. 49th North American Wildlife and Nat- Gates, J. M., “Recommendations for a ScattereduraZ Resources Conference (Washington, DC: Wetlands Program of Pheasant Habitat Pres-Wildlife Management Institute, 1984), in ervation in Southeast Wisconsin, ” Wisconsinpress. Dep. Natur. Resourc. Res. Rep. 63, 1984.

Frank, E. J., “The Art of Residue Cover Manage- Linder, R. L,, Hubbard, D. E., and Nomsen, D. E.,ment in the Midwest: A Commentary, ” Per- “Wetlands and Agriculture,” OTA Agricul-dix III: Gray Partridge and Ring-Necked ture and Wildlife Workshop Paper, 1984.Pheasant Workshop, R. T. Dumke, et al. (eds.)

116

An Educational Approach to Increase the Production

The greatest opportunities to improve forestmanagement on private nonindustrial wood-lands are through programs which address thegoals and objectives of those who own the land,not through policy mandates to increase timberproduction. Many recent studies have shownthat people own woodlands for a number ofdifferent reasons, most of which are notoriented toward the production of timber(Weiseman, 1983; Kingsley, 1977). Tree

Many woodland owners have been led tobelieve that forest management means, ex-clusively, timber management. Indeed, ourpublic agencies, with a mandate to provide for-est management services and information towoodland owners, must use tangible produc-tion units—thousands of board feet, cords, andtons—as a measure of program accomplish-ment. Yet if one asks woodland owners whythey own land, a probable response is distinctlydifferent from what one might expect. Theyown land as an investment, or for recreationalpurpose, or simply because it is part of theirresidence; some reason which is completelyother than that for which we offer publicly sup-ported assistance programs—to increase timberproduction.

The number of private nonindustrial wood-land owners and the share of land in Americawhich they control is staggering. Fifty-eightpercent of the Nation’s 487 million acres of pro-

farmers, owners of large wooded tracts, andothers who harvest timber periodically, almostalways have ulterior motives which compelthem to manage their lands. In Vermont, wood-land owners who have been asked to evaluateour Extension forestry programs say that, eventhough enhancing timber values is an impor-tant objective, wildlife habitat values rank highas well.

WHAT DOES IT MEAN?

ductive forestlands (as defined by capability togrow wood products) is owned by nearly 7.8million landowners. Together, nonindustrialprivate owners account for 47 percent of thetimber harvested in the country. This timberhelps support an industry that employs 1.8 mil-lion workers who collect an annual payroll of$22.9 billion. Total value added by U.S. forestproducts industries is estimated to be $52.5 bil-lion (Extension Council on Policy, 1984; officeof Technology Assessment, 1983).

Yet, according to the same sources, woodproduction from private nonindustrial wood-lands is less than half of the potential. Possi-bly this is a result of a misconception on thepart of millions of private owners, that har-vesting timber for the sake of wood productionis not compatible with their interest in otherforest values, such as wildlife habitat, personalrecreation, and esthetics. This, coupled withthe fact that most woodland owners do not de-

117

penal on their forests as a principal source ofincome, underscores the need for a moreholistic, objective-oriented approach to forestmanagement. Foresters, both public and pri-vate, have oversold the need for timber produc-tion and as a result may be missing oppor-tunities to manage forestland.

Virtually all management objectives exceptto hold land undisturbed—as a natural area—will result in the production of timber. Whetheror not timber production is a primary use offorestland is unimportant; and objective-ori-ented approach to forest mangement, coupledwith the economic realities of forest ownership(carrying charges for the land–primarily taxes)will result in the production of timber.

There is good evidence, however, for a shiftaway from timber production as a high-prioritybenefit from private woodlands. Althoughwildlife populations have been increasing inrecent years, there are indications they havenot been rising as rapidly as demand (USDAForest Service, 1984a). The number of smallgame animals and upland game birds baggedper hunter has been declining throughout thecountry. Furthermore, recent data have shownexisting supplies of timber to be more plentifulthan was predicted to be the case (Crowell,1984). Secretary Crowell states further that" . . . people have come to realize that if thereis a timber supply problem it is partly one of

oversupply. ” In spite of this, Federal fore-casters still predict a shortfall of timber supplywithin the next 50 years (USDA Forest Serv-ice, 1984 b). A near deemphasis of timber forthe sake of other forest values, particularlywildlife habitat, may improve the posture ofprivate woodlands to produce timber in thefuture.

Despite adequate timber supplies in most re-gions of the country, and oversupply in someareas, foresters still have a compulsion to con-vince woodland owners of the importance ofone objective over another—usually incomeproduction from immediate timber sales.Should we impose our view of what forestmanagement is on woodland owners? A ma-jor premise of this paper is that we should not.Forest management is something more thantimber management; what it is, or should beis something defined by the owner. Educationof private nonindustrial woodland owners, asto the range of potential forest management op-portunities, and the consequences, may be themost cost-effective catalyst to increase forestproductivity—for timber, wildlife, and otherimportant natural resources. Furthermore, aneducational process which recognizes thevalue of peer groups for diffusion of innova-tions may be the most socially viable (Rodgers,1983).

COVERTS PROJECT: AN EDUCATIONAL APPROACHTO FOREST MANAGEMENT

The Extension Services at the University ofVermont and University of Connecticut are in-volved in a special 3-year educational effort,which is supported through a grant from theRuffed Grouse Society, called the Coverts Pro-ject. The main purpose of the project is to en-courage woodland owners to manage theirforests. Philosophically, the project is foundedon the premise that forest management deci-sions should be based on two things: first, theowner’s goals and objectives for the land; andsecond, the ability of the land to provide a mix

of benefits which are in proportion to theowner’s objectives. Since wildlife interests arehigh in New England, we are focusing onmultiple-purpose management that includeswildlife; particularly grouse, woodcock, turkey,and deer, as well as other game and nongamespecies.

The principal objectives of the project are toestablish four demonstration sites in each Statewhich can be used to show good forest man-agement practices for wildlife, timber, and

118

other resources; and secondly, to provide in-tensive training to a corps of woodland ownerswho will, in turn, become sources of informa-tion in their communities.

In the Coverts Project, demonstration siteswill be the fabric of our approach to teachwoodland management practices. It is signifi-cant to note, however, that the sites will dem-onstrate a manifestation of the cooperators’ ob-jectives, rather than a range of different kindsof practices that may be applicable to a situa-tion. We do not intend to argue the virtues ofone practice over another; each will be pre-scribed in accordance with the owner’s objec-tives and the capability of the land to meetthose objectives. Unfortunately, our level offunding and time commitment to the projectis such that we will not be able to measure anddocument site response. We are hoping that themillions of dollars and thousands of scientist-years, devoted to testing the merits of one prac-tice over another have given us a reliableenough base from which to make prescriptions.The innovation of the Coverts Project is its ap-proach to education, not research of forestmanagement practices.

Some of the practices that we will emphasizeon the demonstration sites include: strip clear-cutting to regenerate spruce and fir in deeryards, small patch cutting to regenerate deca-dent aspen clones in mature northern hard-wood stands, clearcutting to create structuraldiversity to aspen stands, timber stand im-provement for high-value timber production,single-tree and group selection for timber andmast, shelterwood regeneration of oak-hickoryand northern hardwoods, day-lighting of for-est access roads, open field maintenance andforest edge softening, and other practices. Themost important aspect of these practices is thatwe anticipate only a minimal timber produc-tion trade-off in stands for which the primaryobjective is wildlife.

The key issue, though, is that the overall gainin timber productivity for a tract of land willprobably far exceed the trade-offs for wildlife.A case in point would be the owner whoavoided management altogether because he or

she believed that the only forest managementopportunity was for timber. By advocating for-est management for values other than timber,we can anticipate long-term gains in forestproductivity (capability of the land to supplymultiple benefits—not just wood products),especially since the tangible values of manage-ment—prices paid for standing timber—are ex-pected to increase as well (USDA Forest Serv-ice, 1984b). Although I want to avoid the clichethat nearly every forester leaves college with,that “good forestry is good wildlife manage-merit, ” if we want to increase timber produc-tion we should promote the inverse of it—“good wildlife management is good forestry. ”It is equally arguable and indefensible, but mostAmericans would agree. Public opinion pollscommissioned in recent years by the Ameri-can Forest Institute consistently showed thatAmericans rank wildlife as one of the mostimportant users of our forests (Yankelovich,Skelly, & White Inc., 1982).

The technique of training Extension clientswho, in turn, provide information to others isnot new (Fletcher, et al., 1984). This approachis the main theme of the Coverts Project. Al-though we do not expect to make experts of ourstudents in 3 days, we do hope that they willbe able to respond to requests for informationmore than half of the time. Furthermore,through careful selection of our students, wehope to identify individuals who are opinionleaders among their peers; people other wood-land owners can look to for advice and assist-ance. We believe that a local source of infor-mation from a peer group member is morelikely to be acted upon by the client. our quasi-Extension agents presumably will not have pro-fessional or agency instilled biases that mostnatural resource managers either overtly orsubliminally communicate to their clients.

We are now in the process of developing theselection criteria for our students. A graduatestudent in the Natural Resource Planning Pro-gram at the University of Vermont (UVM) isexploring methods to choose opinion leaders.He is reviewing literature on psychology andsociology in an attempt to define the charac-

719

teristics of the kind of opinion leader we’relooking for. Interestingly, well-defined peergroups, like doctors and farmers, act morereadily on information from their peers thanfrom expert sources. Possibly, woodlandowners are more likely to try practices thattheir neighbors advocate, practices which theycan see on their neighbor’s land as opposed tothose which a specialist might propose.

What kinds of people are we looking for?They must have an interest in forest manage-ment and be willing to implement habitat andtimber management practices on their lands.They also must have the time to share infor-mation with others in their community. Aboveall, they must be good, effective communica-tors—people who can inspire and encourageothers to manage their land. We’re asking thesepeople to actively share their experiences withothers, to demonstrate that forest managementis a means of achieving their ownership ob-jectives.

Will it work? The success of our projecthinges mostly on our ability to accuratelyevaluate candidates. We are looking for peo-ple who are or have the potential to be opin-

ion leaders. They must be committed to help-ing others manage their woodlands. we don’texpect them to go home and wait for the phoneto ring, nor do we expect them to start acrusade. We do, however, intend to let peopleknow they exist and will encourage woodlandowners to contact them. We also are hopingthat our leaders will become familiar with thelocal media and be inspired to write an occa-sional article. Ultimately, we’re hoping that ourquasi-Extension agents will become a uniquepart of the web of public and private humanresources available to woodland owners.

A second graduate student at UVM willstudy the relationships that develop betweenour leaders and others in the community.We’re most interested in discovering the waysin which our leaders provide information,whether or not people act on the information,and how they are perceived by others, particu-larly natural resource managers and users (log-gers). Furthermore, we want to evaluate ourability to select opinion leaders. This will allowus to refine the process in the future, and maytell us a great deal about how to target Exten-sion programs and improve our efficiency.

Although education is considered to be acost-effective means of providing public as-sistance to private nonindustrial woodlandowners, we do not fully understand the impactsof education and the extent to which woodlandowners use new information for managementdecisions. It will be increasingly difficult tojustify a program because we know it is good,when we cannot say why; public educationprograms, like Extension, need to criticallyevaluate their effectiveness. An analysis of edu-cation versus other approaches to public assist-ance for woodland owners, such as cost-sharing and technical assistance, is in order.

The efficiency and effectiveness of educationprograms may be substantial ly increasedthrough the training and use of private wood-land owners who serve as local sources of in-

formation for other members of their peergroup. Many private woodland owners are ator near retirement age. Serving as an advocateof forest management in their communities islikely to appeal to many of them. At a timewhen public program cost efficiencies arecarefully scrutinized, a public-private partner-ship approach to forest management educa-tional assistance may be more politically viable.

Woodland owners, who have not previouslymanaged their lands, may be avoiding manage-ment because of a misconception—which re-source managers may be responsible for fos-tering—that forest management means timbermanagement. Furthermore, they may incor-rectly view management alternatives, such asfor wildlife or recreation, as inherently incom-patible with timber. Public assistance programs

120

should use an objective-oriented approach tomanagement which considers an informedlandowner’s goals as the first and foremostdeterminant of how his or her forests will bemanaged.

Public agencies that provide forest manage-ment assistance to woodland owners need todevelop meaningful accomplishment criteriato recognize efforts that create nontangiblebenefits from private forest lands.

Finally, the Renewable Resources ExtensionAct (RREA) (Public Law 95-306), a 10-year au-thorization allowing Congress to allocate up to$15 million annually for expanded Extensionnatural resources programs, has been funded

only three times at a level of $2 million since1979 (fiscal years 1982, 1983, and 1984—thefiscal year 1985 request is for $2.5 million). TheAct encompasses an objective-oriented educa-tional approach to multiple-use managementon private nonindustrial forests and range-lands. The 1985 Farm Bill should extend thesunset clause of the Act. It should also reau-thorize funding to the original $15 million levelor more. Full funding of the program can bereached in annual increments of $2.5million—e.g., $5.0 million in fiscal year 1986, $7.5 mil-1ion in fiscal year 1987, $10.0 million in fiscalyear 1988, $12.5 million in fiscal year 1989, andfull funding in fiscal year 1990, maintaining atleast this level thereafter.

REFERENGE$

Crowell, J. B., “Can Timber Growing InvestmentsBe Profitable?” JournaZ of Forestry 82(9):536-538, 1984.

Extension Council on Policy, “Non-industrial For-est Landowner Task Force Report, ” U.S. De-partment of Agriculture Extension Service,1984 (to be published),

Fletcher, R., Barsotti, M., and Carr, D., “MasterWoodland Manager Project,” Oregon StateUniversity Extension Service, Spec, Pub.,1984.

Kingsley, N. P,, “The Forest Land Owners of NewHampshire and Vermont,” U.S. Departmentof Agriculture Forest Service, Resource Bul-letin NE-51, 1977.

Rodgers, E. M., Diffusion of Innovations, 3d edi-tion, The Free Press (New York: MacmillanPublishing Co,, Inc., 1983).

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment,Wood Use: U.S. Competitiveness and Tech-

U.s,

Us.

noZogy, OTA-ITE-21O (Washington, DC: U.S.Government Printing Office, 1983).Department of Agriculture-Forest Service,“America’s Renewable Resources: A Supple-ment to the 1979 Assessment of the Forest andRange Land in the United States, ” FS-386,1984a.Department of Agriculture-Forest Service,“Y&r Nation’s Ti-mber—Problems and Op-portunities,” Forest Service Misc. Pub. No.1440, 1984b.

Weiseman, G. L., “Forest Management as the Land-owner Sees It: An Approach to Increasing Ef-fectiveness of Forestry Programs,” AmericanForest Institute-Forestry CommunicationsCouncil Meeting Report, 1983.

Yankelovich, Skelly, & White, Inc., “Public PolicyPressures on the Forest Products Industry, ”American Forest Institute Special Report,1981 and 1982.

121

Economics of Joint Production of AgriculturalCommodities and Wildlife

ABSTRACT

Allocation of a fixed resource (land) between practices also can increase farm revenues. Pol-competing uses is discussed from a production icies for affecting changes in agricultural pro-economics perspective. Competitive, comple- duction practices to accommodate amenity re-mentary, supplementary, and joint production sources include market processes, regulation,possibilities functions are developed relative social pressure, and government provision. Im-to amenity and agricultural outputs. An im- plementation of appropriate technologies andpirical example of conservation tillage in North policies (institutional change) can promote pro-Dakota shows that certain soil conservation duction of amenity resources on private lands.

Few agricultural management schemes are and amenitydesigned with any intention to maintain a source, landhabitat for wildlife. In most cases the compo-nents of a wildlife habitat occur by accidentin areas that are difficult to till, that are toowet, or whose inclusion in fields devoted torow crops could not be achieved efficiently(National Research Council, 1982].

A “more is better” philosophy predominatesthe production of agricultural commodities andnatural amenities, yet the resources to producethese goods are limited. Exacerbating the prob-lem is the competition between agricultural

goods for the same primary re-The purpose of this paper is to

briefly discuss the fixed resource - allocationproblem, review policy instruments to amelio-rate resource allocation controversies, and pre-sent an empirical example of a complementaryrelationship among soil conservation and agri-cultural production.1

IAlt, et al. (1981), provide an excellent discussion of the ef-fect of potential conservation measures of the 1981 Farm Billon agricultural production.

A free market economy oriented toward con- wetland preservation accrue to society. Onlyversion of resources into commodities provides the most altruistic landowner will producelittle incentive to the landowner to produce or public benefits at the expense of personal gain.protect wildlife and amenity resources. Private “Farmers tend to hold very positive attitudesreturns to agricultural production accrue to toward profitmaking, a strong motivating fac-landowners, while most benefits of soil con- tor for them to employ agricultural practicesservation, wildlife habitat maintenance, and that erode land resources” (Cotner and Hal-

122

crow, 1982). Even though social values of soilconservation, wildlife habitat maintenance,and wetland preservation are well-documented(OTA, 1984), there is only so much an individ-ual is willing to sacrifice for society. “. . . Menwill not cooperate indefinitely (provide publicgoods) when the incentives are limited to socialrewards. . . . Human beings do not feel willingto provide for those who do not do their sharein production unless they receive materialrewards rather than moral ones” (Dailey, 1984).

Several questions need to be answered to suc-cessfully integrate amenity and agriculturalcommodity production on private lands. Whatis the technical relationship between produc-tion of agricultural commodities and amenityresources? What technical and economic trade-offs are involved? Do appropriate technologiesexist? How could institutions better accom-modate implementation? The contemporaryconstraint is as much institutional as techno-logical (Ciriacy-Wantrup, 1971). Some technol-ogies exist to integrate agricultural and wild-life production (e.g., Nason, 1982; Bryant, 1982;Hanway, 1982; Stormer and Guthery, 1982). Aproduction economics paradigm illustrates theissues and helps to suggest answers to thesequestions.

Theoretical principles of the optimum com-bination of two (or more) competitive uses ofa fixed resource (e.g., land) are well developed.The case of recreation and agriculture has beendiscussed by Pearse (1969). A generalized pro-duction possibilities curve depicts usage of afixed input among two outputs (figure 1). Start-ing with 200 bushels of corn and zero pheas-ants, 40 units of pheasant production can beaccommodated with little reduction, 10 bush-els, in corn production, point Xl. However, atthe other extreme (point X2) a larger amountof corn production (20 bushels) is given up foronly a small gain in pheasant production (10units). In the central area, X3, there is approx-imately a l-to-l trade-off.

At least four different production possibil-ities scenarios can be developed relative to pro-duction of agricultural and amenity resources:l)competitive, 2) complementary, 3) supple-

Figure l.—The Production Possibilities ofTwo Products Using One Acre of Land

and 4) joint products. A competitiveis typified by wetland preservation

and row-crop- production. A l-hectare increasein land used to produce row crops results ina l-hectare decrease in wetlands and viceversa, represented by a linear production pos-sibilities function (figure 2a). This relationshipmay not be a precise l-to-l trade-off, since onehectare of wetland may reduce crop produc-tion by more than 1 hectare due to equipmentlogistics or perimeter salinity.

A subtle difference may occur in the trade-off between wildlife and row-crop productionfrom the previous example (figure 2b). Whilecompetitive, a l-hectare increase in crop pro-duction may not reduce wildlife production byone full increment because crop productionwill provide some food for wildlife to partiallyoffset the reduction in habitat.

A complementary relationship is illustratedin figure 2c. In this example, the two segmentsof the curve labeled “c” represent the situationwhere both products can be increased simul-taneously. An example of this relationship ishoney (bees) and sunflower, where sunflowerwill increase honey production and bees willincrease sunflower production. Another exam-ple is deer and timber. The new growth afterlogging can increase deer carrying capacitiesper acre with little effect on forest regrowth.

123

Figure 2.— Production Possibilities Functions for Selected

50 i 1Conservation

c.

Crops

Small Grains

S u p p l e m e n t a r y

Corn Grain

124

An example of a supplementary relationshipis soil conservation and crop production (fig-ure 2d). If one starts at the lower, right-handsegment “d,” soil conservation (reduced soilloss) can be increased through improved pro-duction systems without reducing agriculturalproduction or profit (figure 2d). Empirical evi-dence of this will be presented later.

The final set of relationships between twoproducts can be illustrated by corn production,where grain and corn stalks are produced asa set. Products are produced jointly (figure 2e);however, only one may have value to societyor to the individual property owner.

Each of these production situations calls fordifferent policy solutions to achieve production

of amenity goods. Competitive production isthe strongest argument for public transfer pay-ments to private landowners since a sociallyoptimal number of wetlands, for example, willbe greater than that determined by marketforces (Krutilla and Fisher, 1975). Complemen-tary production requires economic incentiveonly after the complementary effects are ex-hausted. Joint products require only education,since uses do not compete for resources. Sup-plementary products require education toachieve low levels of amenity resource, tech-nology for higher levels, and financial incen-tives for even higher levels. Soil conservation,for example, has been demonstrated to addonly marginally to net private income, yet sub-stantially to net social income (Swanson, 1978).

Incentives—monetary, moral, or legal—to in-crease amenity output on private lands wouldchange the relative quantity of amenity andagricultural production (figures 1 and 2). Whenthere are no private returns to production ofamenity resources, such as pheasants, on landcapable of producing crops, the private ownerwould produce at the point of maximum cropoutput. with a low monetary return to produc-tion of amenity resources (pheasants), say afifty-cent per hectare property tax credit, thetrade-off shifts slightly toward pheasants (pointX l figure 1). However, if a return to amenityproduction approximating the return to cropproduction were present, the optimum com-bination would be at point X 3. These valuecombinations can be thought of as trade-offlines which identify the optimal mix of outputsthat maximize return to the landowner. Lineab (figure 3) shows a positive corn price anda zero amenity price and that the owner wouldmaximize his private return if all of the input(land) is used to produce corn. Line cd (figure3) shows a balance in value of corn and amen-ities and that 160 bushels of corn productionand 140 pheasants would maximize private re-turn to the land resource. Line ef indicates thatproducing 10 bushels of corn and 190 pheas-ants would maximize private return. The trade-

Cornbu/ac

200

160

10

Figure 3.— Economic Trade-Offs andProduction Possibilities

b

o 140

off lines reflect the economic returns and per-sonal satisfaction to the landowner under dif-ferent assumptions regarding his alternatives.

The significance of the situations presentedin figures 1, 2, and 3 is that technology deter-mines the shape and location of the productionpossibilities frontier, while institutions deter-mine prices and therefore the slope of thetrade-off line. Both technology and institutionsare thus significant in influencing optimal usesof land from a private landowner’s perspective.

125

SOIL CONSERVATION:

Traditional farming in western North Dakotais a fallow-durum rotation with conventionalcultivation tillage to maintain a barren surfaceduring nearly 20 months between durumcrops. This system is based on cultivation asa means of weed control and fallow to gain ad-ditional soil moisture to stabilize durum yields.Twenty-one of twenty-two farmers in a 20,000-acre watershed used this farming system(Nelson, et al., 1984),

A computer simulation model, based on a 1-hectare (2.5-acre) cell and using the UniversalSoil Loss Equation (USLE), was used to esti-mate the impact of alternative farm productionsystems on soil erosion and farm income. Theconventional fallow-durum rotation yielded an-nual revenue above cash costs of $67.93 perhectare ($27.49 per acre) and an average soilloss of 24.21 metric tons per hectare (10.8 tonsper acre) (table 1). The threshold level abovewhich long-term productivity effects are neg-ative is 11.21 metric tons per hectare (5 tonsper acre).

Several alternative systems resulted in higherprofit levels and lower levels of soil erosionthan the traditional system. The long-term im-pact would be even more beneficial from envi-ronmental and economic viewpoints. This is

AN EMPIRICAL SEST

similar to the complementary relationship be-tween two products illustrated in figure 2c.Both products, revenue, and soil conservation,are increased simultaneously.

There was a more dramatic impact on ClassVI (highly erosive) land. The traditional systemannually yielded 71.73 metric tons (32 tons) ofsoil loss and a net revenue of – $0.52 per hec-tare ( -$0.21 per acre). Transfer of this land topasture increased expected net revenue to$15.69 per hectare ($6.35 per acre) and reducedsoil loss to 5.94 metric tons per hectare (2.65tons per acre). A comparison of this value$15.69 ($6.35) to the negative revenues of crop-ping Class VI land identifies a potential solu-tion: converting all Class VI land back to range-land. However, conversion to rangeland isoften not feasible because much of the ClassVI land is in small areas, intermingled withother cropland. These areas have no watersupply and would involve a high cost per hec-tare to construct fences. It would appear fea-sible to convert cropland to pasture only inthose areas where it adjoins existing rangelandor when there is a sufficiently large area ofClass VI land to justify the cost.

An alternative for small, isolated areas ofClass VI land is conversion to wildlife habitat.

126

The North Dakota Game and Fish Departmenthas an upland game habitat program to leasesmall areas for nesting cover and winter pro-tection for wildlife. The upland game habitatprogram is limited to 8.1 hectares (20 acres) persection and requires cropland to be seeded toan alfalfa-grass mixture and not to be used forlivestock grazing or hay. The contract is for 6years with annual payments varying from $52per hectare ($21 per acre) for Class II and IIIland to $17 per hectare ($7 per acre) for ClassV, VI, and VII land. Also, it must be open tothe public for hunting. Cost-sharing throughthe ASCS and the North Dakota Game and FishDepartment has generally been available to re-duce farmer costs of conversion to grassland.

This use of Class VI land could be an effectiveway to reduce soil loss while maintaining a pro-fitable use of the land.

Technology is providing a solution to the soilloss-revenue trade-offs for average land in thewatershed. New crops and tillage equipmenthave shifted and changed the shape of the pro-duction possibilities curve. The public sectorneeds to be involved in continued research andin education to promote adoption. For highlyerodible land, Class VI, technology needs anassist from the public sector to change thetrade-off line between soil conservation andrevenue. A transfer payment is needed to stim-ulate change,

POLICY INSTRUMENTS

Several policy measures have been suggestedthat would achieve higher levels of amenityresources concomitant with agricultural pro-duction. There are four general types of pub-lic policy instruments: 1) market processes, 2)regulation, 3) social pressure, and 4) govern-ment provision (table 2) (Baumol and Oates,1979),

“Environmental policy is long on good inten-tions, and short on consistent, workable, rea-sonable regulations” (Libby, 1979). Implemen-tation and subsequent success of publicpolicies hinge on a number of related factors.

Table 2.—Policy Instruments

Type Examples

Market processes , . . . . Payments to producersTaxes on nonproducersTax structure accommodation

Regulation . . . . . . . . . . . ProhibitionControl by permit

Social pressure . . . . . . . Public information campaignsUnderstanding attitudes

Government provision. . Research and technology change

Market incentives or subsidies work whenfunds are available to provide incentives (e.g.,Duck Stamp Program, Water Bank) and whenproperty rights (to the inputs required foramenity production) are held privately. Sidle(1983) has shown support and enforcement aresometimes needed to ensure compliance afterpayment of incentives. Taxes and charges workwhen enforcement and measurement are fea-sible. Miranowski (1978) found a soil loss taxto be the least costly method for achieving soilloss reductions. Stromstad (1983) argues prop-erty tax exemptions and credits could be suc-cessfully used to maintain prairie wetlands. In-come tax provisions can work well when landmanagement changes are significant and whenlandowners have other than minimal tax obli-gations. Government regulation works whenproperty rights are held de facto by society andenforcement is feasible, Social pressure (moralsuasion) works in time of crisis (e. g., brownouts, water shortages) or where the issue ismerely one of information shortages or tech-nology adoption that can be ameliorated byeducation.

127

PAST PR0GRAMS

Public programs to preserve, conserve, orenhance production of amenity resources onprivate lands historically run the gamut fromstrict prohibition to monetary payments. Fed-eral programs to conserve soil, preserve wet-lands, maintain wildlife habitat, and preserveendangered species’ habitats have relied on

CURRENT

Sodbuster-type legislation that forces con-sistency with public conservation goals is cur-rently receiving considerable attention. Muchconcern has been expressed about the role ofgovernmental agricultural commodity pro-

economic incentives, regulations, and socialpressure. The history of wetlands preservationtypified the changing public role in regulatingamenity resources. Several excellent policy andprogram references are available (Kusler, 1983;OTA, 1984).

EMPHASIS

grams in contributing to soil erosion (USDA,forthcoming), Recent studies have questionedcross-compliance for soil erosion control onboth equity and efficiency grounds (Ervin, etal., 1984; USDA, forthcoming).

IMPLICATIONS FOR POLICYMAKERS

Since the problem of integrating amenity re-sources and agriculture is both institutionaland technological, policy makers should con-cern themselves with institutional constraintsand technological change which can signifi-cantly affect choices available to the privatedecisionmaker, Each policy measure can po-tentially work for specific resource issues; noneworks for all. The most serious policy con-straint will be tying the appropriate policy in-struments to specific resource management ob-

jectives. Technological change can be broughtabout through both public and private researchand development programs. But, since the re-sults are typically public goods (knowledge)with implementation leading to increased pro-duction of amenity resources, little can be ex-pected from private sector innovations in thisarea. The major responsibility for researchleading to technological change favorable toamenity resources will continue to be the Fed-eral Government.

REFERENCES

Alt, K., et al., “Implications of Land, Water andEnergy Resource Policies on AgriculturalProduct ion , ESS S ta f f Repor t No .AGESS810513, NRED, ESS, USDA, Washing-ton, DC, 1981.

Baumol, W. J., and Oates, W, E., Economics, Envi-ronmental Policy, and the Quality of Life(Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.,1979).

Bryant, F, C., “Grazing Systems and Wildlife,” Pro-ceedings of Great Plains Agricultural Coun-cil, North Platte, NE, 1982, pp. 15-23.

Ciriacy-Wantrup, S. V., “Economics of Environ-mental Policy, ” Land Economics 47(1):36-45,1971.

Cotner, M., and Halcrow, H. G., “ConservationPolicy—A Response From the Research Com-munity,” Policy Research Notes (USDA)14:15-24, 1982.

Dailey, M. T., “In Search of the Common Good:Utopian Experiment Past and Future” (bookreview), Agriculture and Human Values 1(2):31, 1984.

Ervin, D. E., Heffernan, W. E., and Green, G. P.,

128

“Cross-Compliance for Erosion Control: An-ticipating Efficiency and Distributive Im-pacts,” American Journal of Agricultural Eco-nomics 66(3):273-278, 1984.

Great Plains Agricultural Council, Proceedings ofGreat Plains Agricultural Council, NorthPlatte, NB, 1982.

Hanway, D. G., “Enroute to Conservation Produc-tion Farming Systems, ” Proceedings of GreatPZains Agricultural CounciZ, North Platte, NE,June 7-9, 1982, pp. 49-52.

Krutilla, J. V., and Fisher, A. C., The Economics ofNatural Environments: Studies in the Valua-tion of Commodity and Amenity Resources(Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins Press forResources for the Future, 1983).

Kusler, J. A., Our National Wetland Heritage: AProtection Guidebook (Washington, DC: Envi-ronmental Law Institute, 1983),

Libby, L. W., “Current Rules Affecting Natural Re-source Use,” Proceedings of a Seminar onNatural Resource Use and Environmental Pol-icy, North Central Regional Center for RuralDevelopment (Ames, IA: Iowa State Univer-sity, 1979), pp. 1-24.

Nason, G. W., “Ecofallow and Wildlife inNebraska, ” Proceedings of Great Plains Agri-cultural Council, North Platte, NE, 1982, pp.13-14.

National Research Council, Impacts of EmergingAgricultural Trends on Fish and Wildlife Hab-itat (Washington, DC: National AcademyPress, 1982),

Nelson, W, C,, Ali, M, B., Johnson, R, G., andDiebert, E. J,, Farming for Profi”t and Conser-vation: A Study of the Muskrat Lake Water-shed, Mountrail County, North Dakota, Agri-cultural Economics Staff Paper AE84002,North Dakota Agricultural Experiment Sta-tion (Fargo, ND: North Dakota State Univer-sity, 1984).

Noonan, P. R., and Zagata, M. D,, “Wildlife in theMarket Place: Using the Profit Motive toMaintain Habitat,” Wildlife Society Bulletin10(1] :46-52, 1982.

Pearse, P, H., “Toward a Theory of Multiple Use:The Case of Recreation Versus Agriculture,”Natural Resources Journal 9:561-575, 1969,

Rodgers, R. D., “Reducing Wildlife Losses to Till-age in Fallow Wheat Fields, ” WiZdlife SocietyBulletin 11(1):31-38.

Sidle, J. G., “Patrolling Prairie Potholes,” NorthDakota Outdoors 45(11):2-6, 1983.

Stormer, F. A., and Guthery, F. S., “Irrigation andWildlife in the Southern and Central GreatPlains, ” Proceedings of Great Plains AgricuZ-tura] Council, North Platte, NE, 1982, pp.41-48.

Stromstad, R. A., “A Wetland Program That WouldWork,” North Dakota Outdoors 456(8):10-13,1983.

Swanson, E. R., “Economic Evaluation of Soil Ero-

U.s,

Us.

sion: Productivity Losses and Off-Site Dam-ages,” The Economic Impact of Section 208Planning on Agriculture, Proceedings of aSeminar, Great Plains Agricultural CouncilPublication No. 86, Department of Agricul-tural Economics (Lincoln, NE: University ofNebraska, 1978), pp. 53-74.Congress, Office of Technology Assessment,Wetlands: Their Use and Regulation, OTA-O-206 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Print-ing Office, 1984).Department of Agriculture, (forthcoming

monographs),

“The Impacts of Farm Policies on Soil Ero-sion: A Problem Definition Paper. ”“Relationships Among Farm Program Partici-pation and Soil Erosion: A Report on the Prob-lem Definition Phase of the USDA ProgramConsistency Study. ”

129

The Impact of USDA Programson Fisheries and Wildlifel

son

ABSTRACT

ConservationNorman A. Berg

Society of AmericaWashington, D.C.

This paper is a brief analysis of major USDAprograms that impact fish and wildlife habitat.If fish and wildlife are to benefit from “FarmPrograms” and USDA policy, commodity and

IThis paper relies heavily on the most available data andstudies done related to agriculture and wildlife concerns: 1980Appraisal Part I and II—Soil, Water, and Related Resources inthe United States: Analysis of Resources Trends and Impactsof Emerging Agricultural Trends on Fish and Wildlife Habitat.

conservation programs need to be more closelyand effectively linked. Traditional conservationprograms of research, extension, financing,and technical assistance have not been able tooffset the continued decline of fish and wild-life habitat on the farms, ranches, and forestsof the Nation. The 1985 Farm Bill offers atimely opportunity to improve conservationand fish and wildlife objectives.

Fish and wildlife are very important eco-nomic, esthetic, ecological, recreational, andscientific resources. Unusual changes in thenumbers of fish and wildlife are often indica-tors of the general health of the environmentand the quality of life for people. The Nation’s520 + million hectares (1.3 billion acres) of non-Federal cropland, rangeland, and forested landprovide needed habitat for about 3,000 speciesof birds, fishes, reptiles, and amphibians.

All land has the capability or potential to pro-duce and sustain wildlife, subject to a varietyof factors both natural and manmade. Thesefactors include climate, soil characteristics,and the use of the land itself, which in turn af-fect other factors such as plant communities,their stage of succession, and the proximity ofone plant community to another. This is de-picted in figure 1 —the effects of different man-agement levels on the successional stages of anecosystem. Climate and soil characteristics arenatural limiting factors that cannot be alteredgreatly, but can be affected to a degree by theactions of people, For example, constructionof dams and reservoirs can provide waterwhere none existed before and thus can bene-

fit fish and wildlife. Also, irrigation can causesubstantial changes in the habitat. However,these manmade changes require maintenanceto prevent reversion to the former conditions.

Some land uses, such as urban development,are mostly incompatible with wildlife habitat,whereas others including agriculture can becomplementary. Although wildlife may bene-fit from land used for agriculture, the primaryland use (agriculture) will determine the landseffectiveness for the secondary use (wildlifehabitat).

Historically, U.S. agricultural policy has beenboth beneficial and destructive to the fish andwildlife resource. In the conservation-minded1930s and 1940s, incentives for establishingshelterbelts, windbreaks, and contoured stripsenlarged wildlife habitat. In the 1950s, USDA’sSoil Bank Program established excellent coverfor “wild living resources” on about 8 millionhectares (20 million acres) of the cultivatedcropland not needed for wheat and corn at thattime. However, in the 1970s the Federal Gov-ernments’ push for farm production led to“fencerow to fencerow” cropping that elimi-

— —

130

Figure 1 .—The Effects of Different Management Levels on the Successional Stages

nated much of the good habitat that was cre- large impacts on habitat. The report concludedated through conservation, land set-asides, andreserve commodity programs. Too often in re-cent years farm policy for commodities and forconservation have run on separate tracks andat times have even run in opposite directions.Fish and wildlife habitat has not been a highpriority in the formulation of farm policy.

The 1982 National Academy of Sciences re-port found that agricultural practices have

that fish and wildlife values must be consid-ered along with the value of productive agri-culture. It recommended that these values canbe brought into better balance through im-proved planning, consistent policy, and appro-priate incentives to landowners. Now that weknow what problems have impacted fish andwildlife, their impact also should be analyzedas to the effect on habitat.

Table 1 shows the USDA Soil and Water ● improve agriculture, andConservation Programs and their authorizinglegislation. Under the Soil Conservation and

. reduce damage caused by floods and sedi-

Domestic Allotment Act (Public Law 74-46), thementation.

Soil Conservation Service (SCS] was estab-lished to provide national leadership for soil SCS provides technology transfer through

local entities to landowners, communities, wa-and water programs. The broad purpose is to: tershed groups, Federal and State agencies, and● improve and conserve soil and water re- other cooperators. SCS activities that can im-

source quantity and quality, pact fish and wildlife include:

131

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x x x

x x x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x x

x x

x x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

m

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

m

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

132

Landowner assistance on conservationpractices to adequately protect between 16million and 20 million hectares (40 millionto 50 million acres) of non-Federal land.Inventories and monitoring to provide soil,water, and related resource data for a widevariety of uses, including a periodic reporton resource conditions.Soil surveys to inventory the Nation’s basicsoil resources and to determine land ca-pabilities and conservation treatmentneeds.Snow survey and water forecasting fromwinter high mountain snow pack data toprovide estimates of annual water avail-ability for summer stream flow in theWestern States and Alaska.Operation of Plant Material Centers toassemble, test, and encourage increaseduse of plant species which show promisefor use in the treatment of conservationproblem areas, including potential wildlifehabitat improvement.The Great Plains Conservation Program(Public Law 84-1021, as amended). The ob-jective of this act is to help bring about along-term solution to problems resultingfrom drought and cultivation of land un-suited for sustained crop production in the10 Great Plains States.The Resource Conservation and Develop-ment Program (Public Law 87-703). ThisAct provides authority to assist local spon-sors of projects to conduct programs ofland conservation, especially to add eco-nomic and rural development opportuni-ties to the people in the area designatedfor acceleration of present conservationactivities. Many of the nearly 200 projectshave active fish and wildlife committeesto enhance the habitat for wild living re-sources in that region of the Nation.

Small Watershed Projects

One of the more controversial programs” overthe past three decades has been the watershedProtection and Flood Prevention Operations(Public Law 83-566, as amended) administeredby SCS. The “Works of Improvement” planned

by USDA (SCS) and approved by Congress toreduce erosion, floodwater, and sediment dam-age can benefit fish and wildlife. However,channel construction and stream rehabilitationproposals have led to the potential for in-creased drainage of adjacent lands. This in turnhas caused several years of delay in the imple-mentation of the plans—and in the more sen-sitive projects—has caused considerable modi-fication of the original plans to satisfy the needfor fish and wildlife improvements. Projectshave been improved. The Forestry IncentivesProgram (Public Law 95-313) encourages thedevelopment, management, and protection onnonindustrial forestlands. The technical assist-ance and cost-sharing provided through a long-term agreement with private landowners canhave a favorable impact of fish and wildlifehabitat.

Water Bank Program

An indication of concern for wetland valuesby USDA was the successful enactment andfunding of the Water Bank Program (WBP),administered by the Agricultural Stabilizationand Conservation Service (ASCS). This action(Public Law 91-599) resulted from intense pres-sure on USDA to be in a position to offer thelandowner an alternative to draining, filling,or burning the important fish and wildlife hab-itat on their farms and ranches. USDA offersto lease those areas from qualified landownersin designated counties. These can be bothwetlands and adjacent (or associated) uplandhabitat, Leases run for 10 years with the op-tion to renew (or terminate). Payments aremade annually. In 1980, Congress amended theoriginal WBP. The amended law directed theSecretary to adjust contract payments every 5years, and to adjust the contract rates for con-tracts that had been in effect for 5 years ormore in 1980. This followed from a recommen-dation made by the General Accounting Office(GAO) in 1979 to adjust WBP rates “to counterthe high rate of terminations that seem to becaused by inflationary pressures. ” The Act alsowas expanded in scope by adding wetlandtypes 7 and 8 to the program (the original lawincluded types 1 through 5 only). The intent

133

was to extend WBP to the shrub and woodedswamps of the Delta to protect winter habitatfor waterfowl. The amended Act could include“such other wetland types as the Secretary maydesignate. ”

One hundred fifty-six counties (156) in tenStates were participating in the 1983 program.Three states—Minnesota, North Dakota, andSouth Dakota— accounted for 72 percent of theWBP agreements entered into between 1972and 1981, as well as 72 percent of the acreageand 78 percent of the annual payments. Theprogram has been funded at an annual rate of$20 million. This despite the fact that the lawauthorized $30 million in the 1980 amend-ments. ASCS should now have an evaluationsystem to try to quantify the benefits or lackof value, paid for by the WBP. The SCS assistsin evaluating the proposed acreage as to vul-nerability to drainage and the value as wild-life habitat. It has been good for conservation.

Coupled with the Water Bank Program,USDA incentives for drainage of wetlands havebeen curtailed drastically in the past decade,Language in the Agricultural Conservation Pro-gram annual appropriations obviates cost-sharing for drainage of most types of wetlands,However, the draining and clearing of wet-lands have proceeded in the past in the absenceof any government incentives, and may wellcontinue in the future. There are some incen-tives in the Federal income tax code for wet-lands conversion expenses. It is clear that thereare serious conflicts in present national pol-icies that affect wetlands and impact wildlifehabitat.

Other USDA Conservation Activities

Many activities of the USDA agencies in-volved in research, extension, credit, cost-

sharing, and technical assistance are dedicatedto improving the condition of pasture, rangeand forested lands. The total Federal budgeteach year for traditional USDA conservationactions is nearly $1 billion. However, the im-pacts of past agricultural change—diversifiedfarming to clean cultivated, row crop mono-culture—has, based on intensive wildlife re-search, drastically reduced farm wildlife pop-ulations. That situation apparently persiststoday over the majority of the intensively usedU.S. cropland. A National Conservation Till-age Conference just completed in early October1984, examined the value of reduced tillage forsoil erosion benefits, energy saving, yield im-provement, and the impact on fish and wild-life. Conservation tillage results in less distur-bance of the soil and, as a consequence, seemsto promise some positive benefits to and forenvironmental quality. Conservation tillage, inits various forms, relies heavily on chemicalsfor weed and other pest control. At this pointmore research is needed to determine the im-pact of these chemicals on wild living r e -sources. Answers are needed.

Above all, the USDA, as it carries out the“Farm Policy” of the Nation, has a most pro-found effect on the way land is used, especiallythe acres in crop. The estimated 170 millionhectares (420 million acres) of land that pro-duces basic commodities such as wheat, corn,soybeans, cotton, and the feed for livestock hasa potential for favorable fish and wildlife hab-itat or an adverse impact of severe proportionsfor wild living resources, That option is in thehands of the farmer.

FUTURE POLICIES

At the “North American Resources Confer- ●

ence” in March of 1984, a check list of oppor- ●

tunities to help retain, restore, and maintain ●

fish and wildlife habitat was presented. Itemsfor action include: ●

protect prime agricultural lands,encourage practices that retain vegetation,support targeting resources to erosivelands,encourage alternative farming methods,

134

● obtain cross-compliance policy,Ž assure that set-asides benefit wildlife,● increase incentives to land users,● expand Federal and State programs, and● identify critical habitat areas for action.

There are several groups at work to developspecific ways in which commodity and con-servation objectives and results can and shouldbe more closely linked. The Farm Bill of 1985could provide USDA with programs and pol-icies to impact fish and wildlife in a morefavorable manner than at any time in the last50 years. The challenge to the conservationistswill be to understand what a Farm Bill is, andhow it has been drafted, debated, and enactedin the past. The 1981 Farm Bill should be ex-amined in detail with the objective of incor-porating into most of the 18 titles the type oflanguage that would serve. to link the com-modity, and other policies, with the issues thatrelate to those identified by the fish and wild-life, water quality, soil erosion, pasture, range,and forestry interests. Some of these issueswere addressed in the 1981 Farm Bill and alsodebated in the last few years by Congress.

However, the 99th Congress begins in January1985 with a clean slate.

The major thrust should be to help enact afour-year “Farm Program” that will work, isfiscally responsible, and meets the short- andlong-range goals of those many constituentsserved by both elected and appointed publicofficials. The timing for this new generationof “farm policy” that will mesh the new objec-tives of “soil conservation, water quality, andthe survival of wild and living organisms” withthe established “commodity price and farmerincome” objectives has never seemed more op-portune. A “band aid” approach will not solvethe problems. However, improvements in theUSDA programs that can impact fisheries andwildlife habitat in a positive manner and alsoaid both present and developing technologiesto serve more than one interest can producean environment with higher quality. The Na-tion and its “wild living resources” deservesthat effort. The next decade and century arewithin the time horizon of those concernedabout the renewable natural resources of theUnited States.

REFERENCES

Agriculture and Food Act of 1981; Public Law U.S.97-98.

National Academy of Sciences, Impacts of Emerg-

Soil

Soil

U.s

ing Agricultural Trends on F;sh and Wildli~eHabitat (Washington, DC: National Academy U,S,Press, 1982),

Conservation Society of America, Journal ofSoil and Water Conservation, several issueshave examined Conservation and the 1985 U.S.Farm Bill, May-June 1984,

Conservation Service, “Early American SoilConservationists,” U.S. Department of Agri-culture, Misc. Pub. No. 449, October 1941. Us.Department of Agriculture, “1980 AppraisalPart I Soil, Water, and Related Resources inUnited States: Status, Condition, and Trends,”March 1981,

Department of Agriculture, “1980 AppraisalPart II Soil, Water, and Related Resources inthe United States: Status, Condition, andTrends,” August 1981.Department of Agriculture, “A National Pro-gram for Soil and Water Conservation,” FinalReport and Environmental Impact Statement,Issued September 1982,Department of Agriculture, “Background for1985 Farm Legislation,” Economic ResearchService, U.S. Department of Agriculture In-formation Bulletins in the 400 series.Department of Agriculture, “ConservationTillage-Strategies for the Future, ” ExecutiveSummaries, Nashville, TN, Oct. 3-5, 1984.

135

Agricultural Policies Related toFish and Wildlife Habitat

Ray EvansAgricultural Liaison

Missouri Department of ConservationJefferson City, Missouri

INTRODUCTION

Fish and wildlife’ are products of the land value as harvest game. In addition, they haveand as such may be considered as agricultural amenity value—value associated with experi-products or outputs. They have commodity encing (seeing, hearing) them. Both the tools

used in agricultural practices and the policiesI Fish are one form of aquatic wildlife, therefore when wild- that govern agriculture impact on wildlife

life is used in this discussion it includes fish and other aquaticforms of wildlife.

positively and negatively.

AGRICULTURAL TOOLS

All of the tools or techniques used in the pro-duction of crops have more impact (bothpositive and negative) on wildlife habitat thando the tools used in wildlife management.Wildlife specialists tend to agree that the ap-plication of today’s agricultural tools have hada most deleterious effect on many species ofwildlife, especially those species associatedwith mixed farming such as bobwhite quail,cottontail rabbits, and ring-necked pheasants.Agricultural tools such as the axe (timberharvesting), the plow (turning over the soil), thematch (controlled burning), and the cow (graz-ing) all affect wildlife habitat in generally thesame way, by keeping vegetation in a youngerstage of development rather than letting itmature.

The axe (or chainsaw) is the principal man-agement tool of the forest wildlife manager. Itsuse depends on the wildlife species under con-sideration. Recognizing the impact of such atool on wildlife habitat needs to be more clearlydefined in U.S. Forest Service legislation aswell as administrative regulation. A recentGAO report (RCED-84-96) criticizes the U.S.Forest Service for below-cost timber sales andimplies that timber sales are for the single pur-

pose of adding funds to the Treasury. This ap-proach totally ignores the wildlife managementpotential (positive and negative) of all timbersales and the multiple-use mandate of the U.S.Forest Service to manage wildlife as well as fortimber production.

No single tool has a greater cumulative im-pact (good and bad) on wildlife habitat than theplow or similar cultivating equipment. Theplow followed the axe in the settlement ofAmerica and produced food not only for set-tlers but also for wildlife.

The match and the cow (along with mowingand fertilization) are principle managementtools used in pasture and native grassland man-agement. Prescribed fire is a technique formaintaining productivity of native grasslands,emulating the natural fires under which thesegrasslands were developed. Prescribed fire alsois a management tool in the management ofsome forest types, again emulating the ecolog-ical conditions under which these forest typesdeveloped, Certain wildlife forms were devel-oped in association with different vegetativetypes. Wildlife species associated with grass-lands (e.g., prairie chickens and upland sand-

136

pipers) depend on a mixture of fire and grazinganimals (along with mowing and fertilization)to maintain their habitat.

Unfortunately some of these ecological proc-esses are not clearly defined in the educationof wildlife or agricultural professionals. Con-sequently, many professional biologists recog-nize only the negative impacts of the axe, theplow, the match, and the cow. Equally lackingis the ecological consideration of impacts onwildlife from these tools in the education of

agricultural professionals, It is paradoxical thatagricultural professionals may well have thegreatest ecological impact on the wild livingresources of the Nation and never had the ben-efit of one course in ecology, Both profes-sions—wildlife and agriculture—could benefitfrom course work in each other’s f ields.Achievement of this cross-fertilization couldbest be accomplished working through theuniversities and the professional societies.

Agricultural policies frequently have moreimpact—usually negative with some exceptionssuch as soil bank or water bank—than do wild-life policies. Annual acreage set-asides for thepast two decades have averaged approximately20 percent of the total cropland base, Had thisprogram been established on a long-term basisand required seeding of the set-aside lands toprotective cover such as grass or trees, wewould have enjoyed 20 years of exceptionalwildlife habitat and erosion control. For exam-ple, the Payment-in-Kind Program of 1983 idled43,333,319 acres in 12 Midwestern States, butonly 14 percent were considered valuable wild-life cover in a survey made by the 12 State fishand wildlife agencies. Future programs shouldrequire vegetative cover for erosion control andwildlife benefits and should be for multipleyears instead of per annum. If a 20 percent set-aside was established on a long-term basis re-quiring vegetative cover for erosion control andwildlife habitat it would provide benefits equalto the old Soil Bank Program.

Tax Policies

For the reasons noted above, any legislationthat affects agriculture also affects wildlife. Taxpolicies that provide preferential treatment ofcapital gains encourage the movement of non-farm capital into farming for speculative taxreasons. This is the main reason that fragilegrasslands are being plowed under for farmsand are then eroding away, Treatment of in-

come gained when the land is sold as regularincome rather than as capital gains wouldremove the incentive to destroy wildlife habi-tat to increase wheat production for an alreadydepressed market, which eventually erodes thesoil. If this economic incentive (capital gains)did not exist, there probably would be no rea-son even to consider “sodbuster” legislation.In fact, it is not clear that passage of “sod-buster” or similar legislation would stem theflow of capital into this type of farming activ-ity. Denial of Federal price support and simi-lar activities may not be a sufficient disincen-tive to override the incentive of capital gainstreatment and other incentives in existing in-come tax regulations.

This movement of nonfarm capital into farm-ing ventures adversely effects wildlife habitaton the land involved and indirectly adverselyeffects wildlife habitat on land of legitimatefarmers who are caught in the cost/pricesqueeze by the competition with crops pro-duced by nonfarm investors. The legitimatefarmer intensifies his own farm operation t oimprove his financial situation, thus clearingand plowing land that for reasons of erodibilityshould be maintained in trees and grasses,thereby eliminating additional wildlife habitat.

Additional tax provisions that tend to havethe same negative effect on agriculture andwildlife by attracting nonfarming investors in-clude: Cash Accounting, Expense Methods ofDepreciation, Accelerated Depreciation Al-

137

lowance, Investment Credits, Leasing, andSingle Purpose Agriculture Structures. It alsoshould be noted that these factors having a neg-ative impact on the fish, forest, and wildlife re-sources of the Nation generally tend to havea negative impact on the soil. Soil erosion notonly negatively impacts wildlife through sedi-mentation but literally eliminates the basicstructure (the soil) on which tomorrow’s agri-culture, food production, and wildlife mustdepend.

Small Watershed Proiects

The Public Law 566 program (Small Water-shed Projects) of the Soil Conservation Serv-ice seeks to improve or maintain water qualityand to prevent downstream damages withinwatersheds. In some cases, these projects havebeen structure-oriented and detrimental towildlife habitat; e.g., stream channel modifica-tion. Thus more emphasis should be placed onland treatment measures and nonstructural ap-proaches to lands in the watershed as well asnonstructural emphasis on stream channelproblems, Land treatments that should be en-couraged for application in upland watershedsinclude contour farming, strip cropping, grassor tree establishment, conservation tillage, andlastly, terraces and grassed waterways. Streamchannel problems could be treated in a non-structural fashion by minimum snag removaland establishment of a riparian corridor.Treating the uplands and lowlands in this fash-ion would achieve a long-term goal of balanc-ing upland and lowland hydrologic factors.This goal could be further pursued through theASCS’ Acreage Conservation Program, apply-

ing different cost-share rates to structural ornonstructural practices and land treatment.

Nonpoint Source Pollution

Section 208 of the Clean Water Act dealswith “nonpoint” sources of water pollution.Nonpoint sources are those which cannot betraced to a particular source such as sewer out-fall. Agricultural activities are a major contrib-utor to nonpoint sources of water pollution. Inthe Midwest, soil (by volume) is the majorwater pollutant and these sediments along withtheir associated phosphates and nitrates havea serious negative impact on fish and otherforms of aquatic life. Successfully dealing withthe intent of Section 208 would have positivebenefits to agriculture by preserving the soilbase, to terrestrial wildlife by providing foodand cover, and to aquatic wildlife by protect-ing our streams, lakes, and wetlands from sedi-mentation and eutrophication. The most satis-factory approach to the nonpoint sources ofwater pollution is land treatment using BMPs(Best Management Practices) in the uplandsand stabilization of the lowlands by the pro-tection of the riparian corridor.

NEPA

Finally, it is paradoxical tht the NationalEnvironment Policy Act (Public Law 91-190),promulgated to protect the public’s environ-mental interest in the face of Federal action,has never called for an environmental assess-ment or impact statement on the most impac-tive of Federal actions; the laws, policies, rulesand regulations governing agriculture.