Citation
Technologies To Benefit Agriculture and Wildlife: Workshop Proceedings

Material Information

Title:
Technologies To Benefit Agriculture and Wildlife: Workshop Proceedings
Creator:
United States. Congress. Office of Technology Assessment.
Publisher:
U.S. Congress. Office of Technology Assessment
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
vi, 137 p. ; 28 cm.

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Wildlife management ( lcsh )
development of agriculture technologies ( kwd )
Wildlife conservation ( lcsh )
productivity of agricultural lands ( kwd )
wildlife habitats ( kwd )
Genre:
federal government publication ( marcgt )

Notes

General Note:
A collection of papers prepared by the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) that "presents a broad range of papers on specific technologies that could benefit both agricultural production and wildlife habitat requirements on private lands" (p. iii).
General Note:
Original is missing pages 4-6, 9-10, 23-24, 44-46, 50-52.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of North Texas
Holding Location:
University of North Texas
Rights Management:
This item is a work of the U.S. federal government and not subject to copyright pursuant to 17 U.S.C. §105.

Aggregation Information

IUF:
University of Florida
OTA:
Office of Technology Assessment

Downloads

This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

Technologies To Benefit Agriculture and Wildlife May 1985 NTIS order #PB85-239747

PAGE 2

Recommended Citation : Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 85-60052 9 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402

PAGE 3

Preface This workshop proceeding, Technologies to Benefit Agriculture an d Wildlife, was prepared by the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) at the request of the Subcommittee on Soil and Water Conservation, Forestry, and the Environment of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. This proceeding presents a broad range of papers on specific technologies that could benefit both agricultural production and wildlife habitat requirements on private lands. It also describes some constraints and opportunities to integrate agriculture and wildlife concerns and discusses policy opportunities for improved agriculture and wildlife integration. The objectives and goals of agricultural policy and wildlife conservation policy need not be mutually exclusive. Opportunities exist for U.S. agriculture to apply new or emerging technologies that could maintain or even increase production of crops, livestock, and timber while sustaining wildlife. More, however, could be done 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, assistance, and cooperation received during the preparation of this proceeding from those in the agriculture and wildlife communities. Ill

PAGE 4

Technologies to Benefit Agriculture and Wildlife Workshop Participants Norman A. Berg Washington Representative Soil Conservation Society of America Washington, DC Stephen Brady Illinois State Biologist Soil Conservation Service Champaign, IL William Cooper Department of Zoology Michigan State University East Lansing, MI Raymond Evans Agricultural Liaison Missouri Department of Conservation Jefferson City, MS Edward Frank Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Madison, WI Tim Goodger National Marine Fisheries Service Oxford Laboratory Oxford, MD Lawrence Harris Department of Forest Resources University of Florida Gainesville, FL Larry Jahn Vice-President Wildlife Management Institute Washington, DC Jay Leitch Department of Agricultural Economics North Dakota State University Fargo, ND Chris Maser Bureau of Land Management Corvallis, OR Thorn McEvoy Cooperative Extension Service University of Vermont Burlington, VT Robert Papendick USDA-ARS Washington State University Pullman, WA Karla Perri Legislative Assistant Senator Roger Jepsens Office U.S. Congress Randy Rodgers Research Biologist Kansas Fish and Game Commission Hays, KS OTA Staff Catherine Carlson Walter Parham Susan Shen Congressional Observers Darla Atwood Senator Chafees Office Stacy Hoffhaus Senator Danforths Office David Juday Senator Quayles Office Alan Ruby House Science and Technology Committee Subcommittee on Natural Resources, Agriculture Research and Environment Raymond Linder South Dakota Cooperative Unit Leader (retired) South Dakota State University Brookings, SD iv

PAGE 5

OTA Workshop Staff-Technologies to Benefit Agriculture and Wildlife Roger Herdman, Assistant Director, OTA Health 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

PAGE 6

Contents Table Table No. Page I. Potential Courses of Action for Congress with Variations Proposed to Improve Wildlife and Fish Habitat Benefits. . . . . . . . . 30 Figures Figure No. Page l. Use of Non-Federal Land. . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 2. Land Resource Regions of the United States . . . . . . . . 12 vi

PAGE 7

. Chapter 1 Executive Summary

PAGE 8

Chapter I Executive Summary Wildlife habitat management and agricultural production need not be mutually exclusive uses of the land resource. In fact, wildlife management on agricultural lands may provide shortand long-term benefits to agricultural operations. Opportunities exist today for landowners to adopt technologies that benefit agriculture and wildlife as part of their agricultural operation. Technologies to benefit agriculture and wildlife on croplands, rangelands, and forest lands include: 1) specific technologies (e. g., the undercutter plow], 2) integrated management systems (e.g., organic farming), 3) regional management strategies (e.g., Wisconsins Dodge County Interagency Project), and 4) information transfer technologies (e.g., the Coverts Project in Vermont and Connecticut), Each technology benefits agriculture by promoting sustainable agricultural production or satisfying a landowners objectives in managing his land; the technologies benefit wildlife by enhancing wildlife habitat on agricultural lands. Before proper development and implementation of agriculture/wildlife technologies will occur, some fundamental problems related to agriculture and wildlife interactions need to be overcome. The common perception that wildlife habitat conservation and agriculture production are mutually exclusive land uses needs to be addressed. Federal programs may need to be redirected to incorporate multiple objectives, Another issue to be addressed is the perceived trade-off in agricultural practices between short-term profits from the land and maintenance of the lands long-term productivity. Federal policies and programs that integrate wildlife conservation and agriculture production could be established to overcome constraints to technology development and adoption and to encourage landowners to use practices that will maintain long-term resource productivity. Potential policies and programs in the 1985 Farm Bill could foster integration of agriculture economic policies with natural resource conservation policies and promote development and implementation of innovative technologies to sustain agriculture and the resource base. Opportunities exist for improving the effectiveness of Federal programs by amending current policies or by increasing appropriations for programs. Some of the reports proposals would require redirection of available funding or increased appropriations to satisfy program objectives. Others, such as a cross-compliance policy or conservation reserve, may be able to reduce Federal funding because they address dual objectives of resource conservation and commodity production control. A Federal commitment to encourage improved management of the Nations private land resources for private and public benefits could provide the necessary leadership for successful landowner implementation of any available or future techniques. 3

PAGE 9

.. Chapter II Introductio n

PAGE 10

Chapter Introduction Throughout Americas history, agricultural activities on cropland, rangeland, and forest land have affected wildlife habitat in both positive and negative ways. The quality of wildlife l habitat is interrelated to the quality of the 1and base. Agricultural practices that diminish the land or water resource quality (e.g., tillage that increases soil erosion beyond an established tolerance level) tend to decrease wildlife and fish habitat quality as well. Conversely, wildlife and fish habitats of many species generally are improved by agricultural practices that sustain land productivity, such as soil conservation or water pollution abatement practices (National Academy of Sciences, 1982). Recent scientific evidence suggests that some wildlife and fish populations are either declining or are in jeopardy on many agricultural lands, due primarily to the loss or extensive alteration of habitat associated with modern agricultural practices (Warner, 1984; Warner, et al., 1984; Menzel, 1983; Klimstra, 1982; Ferris and Cole, 1981; Burger, 1978). Modern agricultural practices tend to produce fields with one or two crops that are dependent on high levels of fertilizers, pesticides, and frequent tillage to sustain production. Coupled with a reduction in suitable habitat is a growing public concern for maintaining or enhancing wildlife and fish resources for economic, recreational, and esthetic reasons. Each year, approximately 100 million American adults spend some $40 billion on wildliferelated recreatione.g., hunting, bird watching, and photography (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, 1982), Landowner attitude surveys indicate that many private landowners place a high, alIWildlife, for the purposes of this proceeding, will include any wild, free-ranging, nondomesticated animal, such as mammals, birds, and fish. though unquantifiable, value on wildlife. A survey of landowner attitudes toward wildlife in Minnesota found that the opportunity to observe wildlife was ranked very high (Svoboda, 1984). An analysis of the Fish and Wildlife Services 1980 National Survey of Hunting, Fishing, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation indicated that approximately one-half of the U.S. adult population participated in activities where the primary purpose was involvement with wildlife in the vicinity of their residence (Lyons, 1982). Still another study found that wildlife had broad appeal to many, if not most, Americans and that diverse and healthy wildlife populations seem to contribute to a high standard and quality of life in the minds of many Americans (Kellert, 1980). This impression supports the premise in the U.S. Department of Agriculture Policy on Fish and Wildlife (1982, p. 1), that states: Fish and wildlife have inherent value as components and indicators of healthy ecosystems. They often demonstrate how altered environments may affect changes in the quality of life for humans, Private agricultural 1ands provide the bulk of the Nations food and fiber crop production. Products from agricultural lands are critical components of local, national, and international economies. Food and fiber needs from the Nations agricultural lands and the private landowners desire to maintain or improve his way of 1ife preclude his willingness to shift these lands from agriculture production to exclusively wildlife habitats, Agricultural production and wildlife and fish conservation interests, however, need not be mutually exclusive. Farmlands and croplands have long been recognized as major wildlife habitat. Crops and associated vegetation provide food and cover for certain birds and mammals typically referred to as farm wildlife. While certain advances in farming technology have resulted in an overall deterioration of 7

PAGE 11

8 wildlife habitat, others have occurred that favor wildlife. OTA was asked by the Subcommittee on Soil and Water Conservation, Forestry, and the Environment of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry to: 1) identify technologies that could be beneficial to both agricultural production and wildlife and fish habitats, and 2) identify opportunities and constraints to the further development and adoption of these technologies by the landowner. 2 ~ln this proceeding, landowners include both in-title owners of agricultural property and renters or tenants of agricultural lands. The proceeding is the result of information gathered from: a) 15 researchers, field specialists, policy makers, and congressional staff at a 2-day OTA workshop, b) telephone interviews with experts, and c) OTA staff research. This proceeding presents only a brief overview of the opportunities, constraints, and potential of new or emerging agricultural or wildlife technologies that benefit both agricultural production and wildlife conservation. Brief analyses of some technologies that benefit agriculture and wildlife, and discussion of major issues involved in integrating agriculture and wildlife interests follow. The technical papers presented at the OTA workshop are contained in appendix B.

PAGE 12

Technologies Agriculur e Chapter III That Benefit and Wildlife

PAGE 13

Chapter III Technologies That Benefit Agriculture and Wildlife INTRODUCTION Agriculture and wildlife professionals disagree as to whether sufficient information exists to manage wildlife habitats in concert with agricultural operations on agricultural lands, Most wildlife biologists believe enough information is available currently to integrate wildlife habitat considerations with agricultural production but are unaware of landowner constraints to adopting techniques where the sole beneficiary is wildlife and fish. In addition, many agricultural and wildlife professionals seem to know little about the necessary tradeoffs in land management practices that would be most beneficial to wildlife while sustaining agricultural productivity, Despite the incomplete information currently available on complementary agriculture and wildlife interactions, a number of techniques described at the OTA workshop and some in the published literature hold promise for benefiting both agricultural productivity and wildlife habitat. Technological categories that benefit agriculture and wildlife include specific practices, integrated management systems, and methods of information transfer. These technologies in general emphasize wildlife habitat as a complementary, not a secondary land use associated with the primary land use on croplands, rangelands and pastures, and forest lands 1 Figure 1 and 2 show the acreages of CroplandsAny land used primarily for the production of adapted, cultivated, fruit or nut crops for harvest, alone or in association with sod crops. Figure l. Use of Non-Federal Land Includes United States, Puerto Rico, and Virgin Islands Excludes Alaska (SCS, 1981a) Pastureland, native pasture, 25% non-Federal land in each of the major agricultural land uses and the agricultural regions of the country, respectively. RangelandsLand on which the native vegetation (climax or natural potential) is predominantly grasses, grass-like plants, forbs or shrubs suitable for grazing or browsing use. Includes lands re-vegetated naturally or artificially that are managed like native vegetation. PasturesAreas intensively managed for the production of forage, introduced or native, and harvested by grazing or mowing (OTA, 1982). Forest LandsAreas where the predominant plant community is trees and other woody vegetation, growing more or less closely together (SAF, 1971). 11

PAGE 14

. 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

PAGE 15

13 SPECIFIC TECHNIQUES Undercuttor Plow The undercutter plow is a farm implement currently used for weed control on many farms in the winter wheat/fallow region of the Great Plains States and the Intermountain West. Undercutter are large (3 to 7 feet wide) Vshaped blades or sweeps that are pulled by tractors through a field 3 to 6 inches under the soil surface. Using an undercutter instead of a disc can control weeds, retain soil moisture, and save many bird nests and flightless birds present in the stubble while providing adequate weed control. In situations where mulch treaders are used in combination with undercutter, however, wildlife habitat benefits are lost. Mulch treaders consist of rotating blades designed to knock down and mix residue into the soil, Farmers in water-limited winter wheat areas try to maintain surface stubble after harvest to reduce soil erosion and to increase soil moisture retention for subsequent crop growth. Spring use of the undercutter can kill emerging weeds in the wheat stubble while retaining stubble on the soil surface (Rodgers, 1984). Some evidence exists that undercutter are more fuel efficient than discs on a single pass through the field (Smika, 1976). In addition, the undercutter plow reduces mortality to bird nests by 40 to 50 percent in the wheat stubble compared to 100 percent mortality with surface tillage equipment, such as mulch treaders (Rodgers, 1984). The undercutter plow has the greatest utility in the drier parts of the winter wheat areas where the abundance of stubble is low, such as western Kansas and Nebraska and central Washington. Farmers in the drier parts of the central and southern Great Plains already use the undercutter plow for some aspect of their tillage operations, and the number of undercutter are becoming more prevalent in these areas. Undercutter are not used often for initial tillage and weed control in high rainfall areas where high yields of stubble are produced after harvest (i.e., eastern Kansas and Nebraska and eastern Washington), because, in these more humid areas, the present undercutter are ineffective at breaking up crop residue. In continuous cropping areas, the extensive surface residue retained when using undercutter also can harbor crop disease and may contribute to clogging of conventional drills used to plant seeds. Root plo w Another farm implement which has potential to maintain wildlife habitat and improve land productivity is the root plow. The root plow is a heavy-shanked chisel instrument which can be attached to a tractor and pulled along field borders or windbreaks to cut roots and reduce competition between border vegetation and the field crops for soil moisture and nutrients, thus reducing an incentive to destroy these habitats (Kansas Fish and Game Commission, undated). The root plow has received some attention in Europe and its use is promoted in Kansas where a renewed effort exists to retain windbreaks and border strips for wildlife benefits and soil erosion control. Root plow tests in Kansas show that the plow reduces competition between field crops and osage orange or Chinese elm hedgerow trees. The plows can be borrowed by farmers free of charge from the Kansas Fish and Game Commission. However, the demand for the root plows far exceeds the available supply in Kansas. Farmers are encouraged to devise their own form of root plow using other farm equipment, such as a bulldozer with a ripper blade. The root plow is most effective at reducing competition between shallow rooted hedgerow species and grain crops such as sorghum, corn, and soybeans. Deeper rooted windbreak species provide 1ess competition to adjacent shallow rooted crops,

PAGE 16

14 ally unique to the surrounding landscape, particularly in arid and semi-arid regions. These corridors are important for movement of wildlife populations from one area to another. The benefits for the landowner would be similar to those obtained from hedgerows, shelterbelts, and field border strips (above). The farmer or rancher faces trade-offs in establishing and maintaining hedgerows, field borders, or riparian zones. As mentioned earlier, these conservation practices create competition with adjacent fields for soil moisture and nutrients. Retention of hedgerows or windbreaks is not consistent with the emphasis advanced in the early 1970s to increase agricultural production from fence to fence. These tree and shrub strips also can be considered obstructions to the growing number of agricultural center-pivot irrigation systems, although low growing shrubs or strips of tall stiff grass may be needed to control soil blowing on irrigated fields. Terraces and Waterways Other specific soil conservation practices that have some potential to improve wildlife habitat and agricultural land productivity include grassed terraces and grassed waterways (Brady, 1984; OTA, 1982). Again, these conservation practices have been promoted since the 1930s to reduce soil erosion and provide a buffer for agricultural runoff and sediment flowing toward local lakes and streams. Farmers benefit from soil stabilization for sustained crop production. Terraces and waterways can be designed to benefit wildlife. For example, planting of specific grass mixtures provides food and cover and increases available wildlife habitat types. The Soil Conservation Service Plant Materials Centers and the Agricultural Research Service currently are evaluating plant species best suited for wildlife food and cover (Fryrear, 1984; USDA Soil Conservation Service, 1979). Terrace and waterway construction may not benefit wildlife if wildlife considerations are not included in the planning and implementation of these techniques. Narrow terraces or

PAGE 17

15 waterways that are managed with wildlife in mind can provide nesting and escape cover for local wildlife populations. If cool-season grasses are planted on the terrace or in the waterway, any wildlife benefits will be reduced if the area is mowed during the peak nesting season. Nest success of ground nesting birds also tends to be low in narrow strip cover that is searched easily by predators (Gates and Hale, 1975). Terrace and waterway establishment tends to be expensive and requires, in some cases, significant soil disturbance that results in high costs to the farmer. Vegetation along terraces and waterways may require maintenance to sustain the wildlife benefits and to control possible weed outbreaks. Narrow-based terrace construction costs in Illinois are about $300 to $400 per acre (Brady, 1984). Even with the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service (ASCS) cost-sharing 60 to 75 percent of the terrace and waterway construction, many farmers find the construction cost and soil disturbance prohibitive (Cook, 1984). Farmers also face an economic trade-off between using an area for conservation purposes or using it for production of cash crops. Consequently, these practices are not in widespread use. INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS Many of the above individual techniques are not new. However, resource managers seem to be shifting away from using individual techniqueshechnologies to address specific problems towards using a total land management approach. This approach incorporates a landowners entire property into a system which makes the most use of the available resources for agriculture productivity and resource conservation. This approach to land management is characterized by the Resource Management System. A Resource Management System (RMS) is a land management technique proposed and developed by the Soil Conservation Service (SCS). The RMS combines multidisciplinary input to develop a farm management and conservation plan coupling the landowners goals for use of the resources and SCS goals of reducing erosion and nonpoint source pollution. SCS provides technical assistance to the farmer in developing such farm plans. The farmer then decides whether to apply all or part of the plan on his land. This approach to farm management links agricultural production and conservation with varying degrees of emphasis given to wildlife and fish concerns. The RMS has high potential to integrate wildlife and fish considerations into farm system management. Whether or not the RMS approach proves useful in this regard still is not known. SCS has yet to evaluate the effectiveness of the RMS approach in meeting their goal of reducing erosion or nonpoint source pollution. Nor is there any information on the degree to which wildlife is incorporated into the farm plans. A recent survey of farmer adoption of the RMS indicates that only 30 percent of the farmers with an RMS had achieved 100 percent implementation of the recommendations (Buhena, et al., 1984). The degree of adoption of the RMS recommendations seemed to be related to the age of the plan; plans developed in the last 5 years had a lower percent implementation compared to older plans. Potential benefits for wildlife and fish habitat depend entirely on the landowners willingness and ability to implement the plan. Thus, the lack of landowner compliance obligations might be the major obstacle to meeting the stated goals of the landowner or SCS. The different disciplines also may have difficulty coordinating decisions on the specific practices which should be adopted to meet the overall stated objectives. The following discussion, organized according to different land uses, describes selected integrated systems that also may be elements of an RMS.

PAGE 18

16 Croplands Conservatioa Tillago Conservation tillage is any cropping system which leaves at least 32 percent of the mulch or stubble from crop harvest above the soil surface. These cropping systems, which include no-till, mulch till, and ridge till, are being implemented in many regions of the country (Brady, 1984; OTA, 1982). The systems are designed to reduce soil erosion and to aid in soil moisture retention while allowing sustained yields of farm crops. (For further discussion of conservation tillage, see Brady, 1984; Papendick and Elliot, 1984.) Currently, benefits to wildlife and fish from conservation tillage are being evaluated on different sites across the country (Best, 1984; Castrale, 1984; Duebbert, 1984; Madsen, 1984). Preliminary research results indicate that nesting upland game birds and migratory birds are more abundant in conservation tilled fields when compared to conventionally tilled fields (Best, 1984; Madsen, 1984). A study in Iowa showed that small mammal population densities do not change significantly between the two systems, indicating that problems with increased rodent pests may not exist in conservation tilled fields, at least in some areas of the country (Best, 1984). Conservation tilled fields provide food, nesting, and winter cover not associated with clean fields. 2 The reduction in tillage allows increased nest building and production of some nesting birds compared to conventional tilled fields. The adoption of conservation tillage systems still faces certain obstacles. The landowner may need to replace his current farm equipment with new machinery designed to plant into stubble or mulch. Further, the farmer will need to develop new weed control strategies that are effective under reduced tillage. Increases in applications of herbicides and possibly fertilizers may be required to sustain crop yields; changes that require up-front capital costs for chemical purchases. The potential increase in chemical use could have negative efZNO surface litter or waste grain after harvest. fects on fish populations. Perhaps the greatest obstacle to adoption of conservation tillage techniques is the farmers reluctance to change from a clean farming approach to accepting a stubble-laden field. Today, not enough is known about the effects of conservation tillage on wildlife and fish habitat to endorse this technique without reservation. The increase in chemical applications associated with some conservation tillage operations may have significant adverse impacts on wildlife or fish populations and their habitats. The erosion-reducing capabilities of conservation tillage may encourage farmers to farm marginal lands that previously were too erosion-prone to cultivate using conventional farming techniques. Lands currently not in production, generally because of low productive capability, are considered by wildlife biologists to be far more valuable as wildlife habitat than conservation tilled acres or clean acres, because they usually are undisturbed (Cacek, 1984). Biological Farming Another land management system that has generated much interest in the United States is biological farming, also known as alternative farming, organic farming, sustainable agriculture, or regenerative farming (Papendick and Elliot, 1984). The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) defines biological farming (organic farming) as a production system which avoids or largely excludes the use of synthetic compounds, relying instead on crop rotation, residues, manures, and mechanical cultivation to maintain soil productivity and tilth, to supply plant nutrients, and to control pests (USDA, 1980). This system is attractive because of its potential to reduce capital costs significantly in farm operations as well as to reduce soil erosion. Some evidence exists to show that biological farming techniques can cut operation costs without a significant decrease in net profit (Youngberg, et al., 1984). The transition from conventional, chemical intensive farming operations to biological farming initially may pose a risk to farmers.

PAGE 19

17 The risk is a decrease in profits and yields, and temporary increases in weed and insect infestations, With a greatly accelerated interest in reducing inputs into farming operations, particularly in light of high chemical and fuel costs, biological farming may be readily acceptable to farmers once the risks and problems associated with this system, particularly the transition phase, are clearly identified (Papendick and Elliot, 1984). The Agricultural Research Service (ARS) is currently developing a smallscale project on biological farming systems that includes evaluating the risks and problems associated with the transition from conventional farming operations to those of biological farming (Papendick, 1984). The potential to improve wildlife and fish habitat and net profit with biological farming in some farming systems exists, but insufficient information is available at present about beneficial or adverse habitat impacts from this land management system. Only a few studies have attempted to evaluate the wildlife response on biologically farmed fields compared to conventionally farmed fields (Dahlgren, 1983; Ducey, et al., 1980). These studies conclude that breeding bird densities and diversity of wildlife increase dramatically on biologically farmed fields. Benefits to wildlife include a reduction in chemical contaminants in the ecosystem, an increase in habitat diversity associated with crop rotations and the use of mulches, a decrease in sediment runoff, and an increase in wildlife winter cover. However, for ground nesting birds, the gains in nesting habitat under biological farming may be offset by the increased tillage required for weed and other pest control, 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 coordinate wildlife habitat needs into other agricultural operations on Federal lands (Maser, 1984). A great deal more research has focused on wildlife populations on rangelands and forestlands compared to croplands. This is due in part to the mandate in the National Forest Management Act (Public Law 94-588) and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (Public Law 94-579) to maintain viable wildlife populations and establish multiple use of the public domain, including wildlife. Biologists and range managers disagree among themselves as to whether wildlife habitat can be maintained in areas where the primary land use is livestock production. Improvements in range quality only benefit some wildlife. Wildlife can be affected adversely by grazing if livestock are present in a pasture during the bird nesting season or are competing with native ungulates (i.e., deer, antelope) for food supplies, especially in the winter. Livestock also may destroy riparian habitats along watercourses, thus damaging or eliminating important wildlife and fish habitat. However, some rangeland management technologies exist which improve livestock production and enhance habitat for some species of fish and wildlife. In the semi-arid regions of Texas and Montana, rest-rotation grazing systems benefit both livestock and some species of wildlife (Egan, 1984; Bryant, et al., 1981), Rotating livestock between two or three pastures promotes forage growth in the rested area, improves overall range quality from the dispersal of intensive livestock use, helps to increase animal weight gain, and increases the number of animals that can use the same range. Ungulates, in particular deer and antelope, benefit from the improvement in range quality and the increase in food supply. It is likely that ground nesting birds also may benefit from the increased cover found in the rested areas. Short Duration Grazing Systems or the Savory Grazing System (SGS) are receiving increased interest in the Great Plains and western United States because of the potential to improve forage production and livestock production. These systems currently are under evaluation for the potential benefits to wildlife (Drawe, 1984; Kruse, 1984). Another grazing approach with potential benefits for wildlife is under research in South Dakota (Linder, et al., 1984). Grazing or mowing prairie pothole wetlands during certain

PAGE 20

18 seasons may provide additional food sources for livestock and open up dense wetland vegetation to enhance migratory bird habitat and use in early spring. Wetland vegetation appears to be palatable and to have some nutritive content for cattle, providing an alternative to grazing upland areas during midsummer to late summer. However, livestock operators may need to plan their livestock grazing operation to restrict use during the nesting season and promote use later in the summer in order for wildlife benefits to be realized. Yet another technique to provide improved forage for livestock and benefit wildlife may be the establishment of native warm-season grasses in pastures currently planted to coolseason grasses. Warm-season grasses mature later in the spring and produce forage throughout the summer months when cool-season grasses generally have a lull in productivity. Warm-season grasses also are more tolerant of moisture stress and salt stress compared to their cool-season counterparts, thus making them more adaptable to poor quality soils. Each of these factors indicates the landowner would improve his forage production using warmseason grasses or a warm-seasordcool-season grass mixture compared to cool-season grasses alone. Depending on local seed availability, warm-season grasses are considered to be applicable to most regions of the country (Jung, 1984). The overall benefits of warm-season grasses over cool-season grasses for livestock currently are being evaluated. Because warm-season grasses are structurally different from coolseason grasses, the standard laboratory techniques for determining digestibility and nutritive content are inconclusive as yet (Jung, 1984). The benefits to wildlife are better understood. Field studies suggest that warm-season grasses provide better winter cover for wildlife in contrast to cool-season grasses that can tolerate closer grazing. Most warm-season grasses should be grazed no shorter than 8 to 10 inches that, as a consequence, leaves more cover for wildlife overwinter and into early spring than cool-season grasses. The reduction in livestock on warm-season grass pastures during early spring when the grasses are in a slow-growth phase also eliminates some damage by cattle to wildlife nesting cover and food (Wooley, et al., 1982). Today, landowners may have difficulty locating sufficient native seed stocks to establish warm-season grass pastures. Farmers/ranchers also would face an initial capital cost in transforming pastures from one grass type to a mixture of grasses or to a different grass type. Forest Lands Forest management systems can benefit selected wildlife populations through habitat enhancement while maintaining timber productivity (Thomas, 1979). Different timber harvesting schemes are under study for their ability to sustain timber production and yet enhance wildlife habitat for certain species. Wildlife response to different harvesting patterns varies among species and geographic locations. Timber harvesting techniques that retain seed producing trees or patches of forest appear to produce more beneficial habitat for some wildlife species than the technique of clearcutting large areas. However, the landowner generally finds it cheaper in the shortterm to clearcut the land compared to cutting trees selectively (Ursic, 1984). Some woodland owners, particularly nonindustrial woodlot owners in the Northeast, are not managing their woodlands for lumber production. Instead, they place a high priority on wildlife habitat management (Alexander and Kellert, 1984). Many biologists and resource managers have focused on these areas as high potential wildlife habitat for selected wildlife species. In the Northeast for example, habitat can be enhanced by creating small openings in the forest canopy, retaining snag trees and dead materials, and encouraging the growth of shrubs and trees that provide wildlife foods (Gutierrez, et al., 1979). This and other tree stand manipulation can help the landowner meet the objective of enhancing wildlife habitat while implementing management practices that will generate some income from the timber resources.

PAGE 21

19 REGIONAL AGRICULTURE MANAGEMENT The regional approach to agriculture land management is a new and emerging technology. It involves the development of landscape mosaics to integrate conservation and wildlife considerations and agricultural production objectives. The approach can include matching a site with an appropriate land use activity. Thus, the most productive soils are used for agriculture, shifting gradually into more intensive wildlife habitat management on poorer soils and sites (Harris, 1984). Habitat mosaics could be connected with existing natural reserves and parks, developing habitat corridors among natural areas, along stream courses or through productive agricultural areas to provide passageways for wide-ranging species such as large, predatory wildlife (Harris, 1984). Landscape mosaics require careful planning and landowner concurrence to make optimal use of the available land base for both agriculture production and wildlife habitat. Interagency cooperation would be one means of coordinating these different activities, helping to create a mosaic of habitats across a particular region. Significant institutional obstacles exist in coordinating Federal, State, and local agencies and private interests to meet mutual objectives on a large land area. Landowner attitudes toward wildlife habitat management range from complete intolerance of wildlife to encouraging wildlife populations. The disparity in attitudes could be a major obstacle to regional implementation. Thus both the landowners and the agencies involved might need to be convinced that wildlife can, in fact, coexist in a beneficial way with agriculture. sInstitutions define what individuals can and cannot do, assign rights to resources, define roles and govern individual and collective ownerships. Institutions include, but are not limited to, agencies, professional or citizen organizations, and the court system. An example of a regional approach to land management is Wisconsins Dodge County Interagency Project. The Project was initiated under a cooperative agreement between the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR), SCS, ASCS, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, University of Wisconsin Extension, and the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade, and Consumer Protection to coordinate wildlife habitat objectives with water quality enhancement, soil erosion control, and maintenance of farmer income through incentives and cost-share payments (Frank, 1984). SCS is providing the individual farm plans, ASCS is providing cost-sharing assistance, Extension will be involved in education and evaluation efforts, and DNR is coordinating the project and providing additional cost-sharing assistance for wildlife habitat enhancement. The Fish and Wildlife Service is involved in wildlife management recommendations and the Dodge County Land Conservation Committee supplies local advice and support. The landowners expect to benefit from the availability of technical assistance and the longrange planning. Personal risk from implementing new land management techniques or from reducing crop yields will be offset by the incentive and cost-share payments borne by the Federal Government and the State. Some indication exists that landowners benefit from seeing how their individual management plan fits into a broader regional scope, thus providing the landowner with a justification and social motivation to do his or her part in the overall plan. Wildlife populations are expected to increase from the enhancement of specific habitats and the idled lands that will be made available for food and cover. The Dodge County Project will serve as a field evaluation of the techniques currently known: 1) to enhance wildlife habitat on farmlands, primarily ground nesting birds and waterfowl, and 2) to control soil erosion and

PAGE 22

20 runoff into waterbodies (Frank, 1984). The Projof specific techniques and incentive payments ect, if successful, will serve as a demonstration is 1985. The Project is expected to run through of regional management for multiple objec1990 when results will be available on the eftives. The first field season for implementation festiveness of this approach. INFORMATION TRANSFER To facilitate technology adoption, information on technology use, costs, and benefits must be made accessible to the landowner. Public education programs are needed to establish credibility for the coexistence of environmentally and economically sound management on agricultural lands (Cooper, 1984). Information transfer is a key element in the eventual acceptance of different land management practices. A list of the most successful techniques available to transfer information to other professionals, landowners, and the general public in regard to integrating agriculture and wildlife was developed by the OTA workshop participants. The list 4 includes: 1) media (radio and television), 2) direct contact to the landowners through small groups or one-on-one technical assistance; 3) demonstration or pilot projects; 4) formation of interagency committees of Federal, State, and local agencies; and 5) the use of opinion leaders in the community to provide information to their peers. These techniques are used frequently by the Extension Service and the State Cooperative Extension Service to reach landowners with a wide array of information. Demonstration projects are one of the most effective techniques to disseminate information to private citizens and other professionals. The appealing aspect of demonstrations is their ability to show, on the ground and within a community, exactly how different techniques can be applied to the resource base and the trade-offs for that particular area. One recent demonstration project for integrating wildlife and fish concerns with agriculture 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), and Talbot County Government (Goodger, 1984). The demonstration was aimed at landowners who were suffering moderate soil erosion along Chesapeake Bay as a result of unstable shorelines. Participants were shown how to use aquatic vegetation for shoreline stabilization and made aware of certain ecological benefits. The traditional approach has been construction of retainment structures that were costly, destroyed the native intertidal vegetation, and reduced fisheries habitat along the shoreline. To date, approximately 50 projects establishing marsh vegetation along the shoreline have been completed throughout the county (Goodger, 1984). The Shoreline Stabilization Demonstration Project also provides an example of how different agencies can pool resources to meet common objectives. However, cooperation among different agencies with different objectives may be difficult to establish. In addition, a demonstration aimed at those participants most likely to benefit from the technique will require sophisticated technical expertise. Another example of interagency demonstration is the use of Best Management Practices (BMP) for nonpoint source pollution control. This project is in the planning stages in Talbot County, Maryland. The Model Farm project hopes to pool the collective expertise of NMFS, SCS, University of Maryland, Maryland Department of Natural Resources, and the Talbot County Government (Goodger, 1984). While the specific BMPs for runoff control have yet to be established, the project may serve as a model on how interagency cooperation can develop a specific management system to reach the common goal of nonpoint source pollution abatement.

PAGE 23

21 Another demonstration project, the Coverts Project, is underway in Vermont and Connecticut. This unique Project is designed to bring together opinion leaders in the woodlot-owning communities for an education series on how to manage woodlots for wildlife and personal timber needs (McEvoy, 1984a). The opinion leaders are given a broad range of information on managing woodlots which, in turn, they can provide to other members of their communities. Instead of presenting a specific management technique, like the Talbot County project above, the Coverts Project draws upon numerous techniques that individuals can apply to their woodlots based on each owners objectives. Opinion leaders in Connecticut will be provided information on management of woodlots for wildlife as one of several management alternatives for the property. The focus in Vermont is on management of the entire property for wildlife and personal benefits (McEvoy, 1984b). Information transfer by local opinion leaders has been successful in the past to meet predetermined objectives. In Champaign County, Illinois, for example, a local opinion leader in the community, the Chairman of the Soil and Water Conservation District, invited all the landowners of a particular township to a meeting, At the request of the SCS and the Chairman of the District, many of the landowners agreed to set aside or manage pieces of their prime farmland for wildlife and soil erosion control (Brady, 1984). SCS believes they achieved The technolog a high level of success in this township because of the motivation from the local opinion leader. The Coverts Project coordinators currently are evaluating the criteria used to identify opinion leaders in a community. The workshops and demonstrations are planned for 1985. During the life of the Project, the effectiveness of using opinion leaders as quasi-extension personnel to reach landowners and the ability of the coordinators to identify opinion leaders will be evaluated (McEvoy, 1984a). The Project could serve as a model among Extension personnel for using local people to help others and for increasing the number of landowners that the Extension Service is capable of reaching with needed information. The Projects success will depend on the opinion leaders ability to reach others with accurate information. Accurate character assessment of community opinion leaders in the Coverts Project will be useful for future efforts of this nature. The use of opinion leaders may be most effective in groups having similar interests and motivation, such as the northeastern woodlot owners. Since landowners in many parts of the country hold different views of wildlife, the task of disseminating information and providing technical assistance to areas outside of New England will have to be tailored to those particular needs. landowners and their interests and SUMMARY factors aids the es discussed above are only of these long-term productivity a sample of those available to integrate wildof the resource base and, hence, agricultural life and fish habitat needs with agricultural proproduction. For example, undercutters help duction needs. These technologies generally tie farmers reduce weeds and soil erosion and inwildlife and fish habitat considerations with crease soil moisture while improving the surefforts to control erosion, improve soil moisvival of bird nests and flightless young in wheat ture content, or improve water quality. Each stubble.

PAGE 24

22 Technologies to sustain the resource base for tional techniques (i.e., Coverts Project). Each agriculture and wildlife are receiving renewed technique can be used in some specific region interest among a growing number of land reef the country or be applied to specific agrisource managers. Old techniques are being cultural operations. The differences among rerefined to correspond to current agricultural gions, land types, and landowner attitudes preneeds (e.g., biological farming). Innovative apclude across-the-board application of most of preaches are being developed to apply tradithe technologies presented here.

PAGE 25

Chapter IV Findings and Discussion

PAGE 26

Chapter Findings and Discussion The preceding section illustrates some examples where agriculture production and wildlife conservation can be mutually reinforcing, if appropriate production technologies are developed and used. Certain new, innovative technologies exist that can help maintain habitat and improve long-term farm profits. The use of some of these technologiese. g., conservation tillageis increasing. not sustain simultaneously profitable agricultural use and wildlife habitat integrity with those technologies now available. Hence, the need exists for technology innovation and for accelerating the development and use of these technologies. Expanded research, education, and implementation programs could greatly improve the ability to integrate agriculture and wildlife interests, particularly on croplands. However, some farmers and ranchers perceive that many sites exist which simply canOPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS TO TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT AND USE Research Research is the basis of technology development, Research provides the information to increase our understanding of the structure and functioning of ecosystems, to solve particular problems or design resource-use systems, and to evaluate and refine these systems. Although research is a continuous process, the OTA study identified three areas that could benefit from research in the effort to integrate agriculture and wildlife. The major constraint to the development and use of technologies that could benefit both agriculture and wildlife is the dearth of information on agriculture and wildlife trade-offs involved with each of these technologies. For instance, riparian zones or streamside management zones have been identified as having important benefits on-farm and off-farm for stream water quality, pollution control, wildlife habitat, and maintenance of the lands natural productivity. Yet little data exist that quantify the benefits or costs to the landowner of maintaining riparian zones. Because the capabilities of streamside zones and the trade-offs between maintaining these areas versus producing crops, livestock, or timber on this land are not well documented, private landowners have little incentive to adopt this technique. Thus, new economic models and production models are needed that incorporate societal benefits and costs from nonmarket goods (e.g., wildlife habitat) to evaluate trade-offs in various land management technologies. Another area of great uncertainty and one that could become a major constraint to adopting emerging land management systems is the lack of basic data on the problems and perceived risks to farmers during the transition from conventional farming to conservation tillage or biological farming. Economic and agronomic models have indicated potential economic loss (e. g., temporary reduction in crop yields) or other problems, but these models have not been field tested. Research is needed to identify the risks and opportunities associated with land management practices and the corresponding benefits for the landowner, wildlife, and society. Research also is needed to identify individual farm tools that can maintain wildlife habitat and yet meet the farmers needs, The under25

PAGE 27

26 cutter plow is one example of such a farm tool that has dual benefits. However, little if anything is known about the potential for modifying other tools to meet these dual objectives. Although much of the development of farm tools takes place in private industry little incentive exists in private farm implement companies to invest in research that would benefit wildlife. Hence, the public sector will have to carry the responsibility for identifying agricultural tools or techniques that can help increase wildlife, a public good on private lands. Ways to reduce mortality of ground nesting wildlife species caused by haying equipment is an example. Education Developing and applying technologies that benefit both agriculture and wildlife requires knowledge of several disciplines. Progress in this area is severely constrained by the lack of interdisciplinary and coordinated research. A shortage of people trained in or with understanding of integrated land management systems further constrains the use of existing technologies, Universities and research institutions are the focus for research and training of resource management professionals. At present, professional organizations concerned with accreditation and the Civil Service tend to promote curricula that are narrow in focus and restrict the opportunity for an integrated approach to education. Thus, a shift in curricula is needed at universities to train resource management professionals who can understand integrated management systems and who can work across discipline boundaries. Such a shift will take time because only a few educators seem to perceive the need and market demands do not reflect this need for integrated resource management. The institutional arrangement to train broadbased resource professionals and to conduct interdisciplinary research already exists in the form of Land Grant University system. Land Grant schools contain a wide array of disciplines providing an opportunity for students to obtain some knowledge of various disciplines. In addition, Land Grant schools generally are associated with the State Agriculture Experiment Stationsan opportunity to conduct interdisciplinary research and field test the results. Land Grant schools, however, may need encouragement, including incentives, to consider integrated management objectives in research and to broaden their public education function. Implementation Future implementation of land management technologies to benefit agriculture and wildlife depends to a large degree on the education and information available to the private landowner. Established tools that provide information to landowners include: 1) demonstrations, 2) one-on-one technical assistance, 3) media and publications, 4) pilot projects, and 5) inservice training. Establishing an information network using local opinion leaders also has excellent potential to bring information to private landowners. A promising tool to transfer information to the landowner is the computer and computer software being developed presently by Land Grant schools, private industry, and innovative farmers to aid in on-farm decisionmaking and management. The potential exists to incorporate wildlife management techniques or agriculture/wildlife integrated techniques into such software for farmers use. However, the information and data provided must be timely and sensitive to site differences. Institutional structures to provide technical and educational assistance to landowners exist in many cases through Extension personnel, SCS, and other Federal or State agency representatives in the field. Extension has been very effective in educating farmers as to the personal and social benefits of clean-farming management. However, the shift to more resource-oriented farming while minimizing inputs will require changes in Extension so that new or different approaches are advocated. These changes would need to go beyond the current efforts to assist landowners through

PAGE 28

27 education programs in fish and wildlife management techniques. County administrators of ASCS programs, county and State Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation (ASC) Committees, and local soil and water conservation district representatives also could serve as information transfer points if they were provided direction and if landowners perceive a need for resource-oriented information. The local county and district networks seem to be responsive to local pressure; pressure that is not necessarily conservation oriented in approach. Strong Federal direction to these local representatives of Federal and State government will be necessary to ensure the conservation intent of Federal programs is carried out. ISSUES IN AGRICULTURE AND WILDLIFE INTEGRATION Certain fundamental issues in the Nations farm policy need to be addressed before proper application of appropriate interdisciplinary techniques to benefit agricultural and wildlife productivity will occur. One such fundamental issue is the perception that agricultural production and wildlife habitat conservation are mutually exclusive land uses. Landowners are unwilling to adopt mutually beneficial techniques if they are led to believe that wildlife cannot coexist with agricultural operations on the same land base. Agricultural practices of the last 25 years helped create this perception. Federal agencies responsible for resource management also perpetuate this perception, Much of the wildlife research from the ARS has focused on reducing pest wildlife populations on agricultural lands. Similarly, natural resource agencies have spent much of their budget on habitat preservation for wildlife and fish, thereby precluding agricultural production. Furthermore, existing Federal programs which provide incentives for landowners to manage for wildlife in conjunction with their agricultural operations largely appear to have been ineffective. Other Federal programs designed to affect crop production and support farm incomes have had mixed effects on resource conservation. While most such programs do affect the natural resource base, they generally have not been designed to provide collateral conservation benefits. One such Federal program which missed the opportunity to provide collateral wildlife benefits was the Payment-In-Kind (PIK) commodity adjustment program of 1983, Under the PIK program, 80.6 million acres were taken out of production, but only about 20 percent of these PIK acres were considered to be good to excellent wildlife nesting cover in the Midwest (Berner, 1984), In addition, the law required farmers to mow fields planted to cover crops before the end of the nesting season to ensure the lands do not produce a commodity, but this practice destroyed bird nests on the set-aside acres, No Federal resource agency (with the exception of the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management) has taken the responsibility for or been mandated by Congress to manage the entire resource base. For example, although SCSs stated mission is to conserve the resource base, the National Conservation Program limits SCS assistance to landowners to high priority concerns, of which wildlife is not one. The majority of USDA personnel believe wildlife is not a priority or a concern and tend to look to the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) for direction on agriculture and wildlife interactions. Similarly, the FWS has been slow to develop a role in agriculture policy and programs because FWS are not farmers, despite their responsibility for a wide range of habitat issues, As a consequence, more opportunities exist for interagency and interdisciplinary coordination than are being acted upon. Another fundamental issue is the trade-off in agriculture practices between short-term 44-883 0 85 2 : QL 3

PAGE 29

28 profits from the land and the lands long-term productivity. Federal programs designed to stimulate production or control commodity prices tend to be short-term in nature and preclude the establishment of long-term conservation strategies, For example, cash flows through federally sponsored loans and payments emphasize the short-term return on investment instead of long-term resource productivity. Federal investment credits and other tax measures may encourage conversion of fragile lands to cropland to maximize yields, without concern for all aspects of the natural resource base, including wildlife, Similarly, price supports and loans appear to reward row-crop production at the expense of soil stability, water quality, and wildlife habitat. Conservation programs seem to reward those landowners who use resource damaging agricultural practices. For example, the Agricultural Conservation Program administered by ASCS provides cost-share payments for soil conservation practices but offers no compensation to those people already applying sound resource conservation practices on their lands. Thus, to maintain wildlife habitat and agricultural productivity effectively on the Nations land base, Federal agencies responsible for agricultural land management need to shift their emphasis from a solely production ethic to a land, water, and wildlife conservation ethic. This is not a new concept, and the authority to adopt resource-oriented management currently is available to USDA agencies. Even though wildlife considerations are incorporated into the stated goals of USDA agencies (USDA Policy on Fish and Wildlife, 1982), it appears that wildlife habitat management and natural resource conservation is a low priority in these agricultural agencies (Berg, 1984). However, some progress is being made by the agencies to evaluate the on-farm environmental consequences of different agricultural programs (USDA, ASCS, 1984; Mironowski, 1984) like the commodity adjustment programs. In the next few years, new information may promote acceptance within USDA of the feasibility of altering the administration of commodity programs to incorporate soil erosion prevention, water quality maintenance, and wildlife considerations more effectively than achieved currently. Another issue that warrants discussion is the lack of incentive for Federal and other agencies to work together on management options that could benefit both agriculture and wildlife. Two approaches to solving this problem are interagency coordination through: 1) cooperative research, and 2) the establishment of a liaison who could help bridge information and cooperation gaps between agencies. Interagency coordination, especially on research and demonstration projects, could pool limited human and financial resources and avoid duplication of effort. An example of the potential benefits of interagency coordination is the research and demonstration being conducted on warm-season grasses (or native prairie grasses). A number of State conservation agencies individually have evaluated the benefits of warm-season grasses for wildlife cover and food over the past decade. The State of Missouri, for instance, spent funds to determine beneficial aspects of warm-season grasses for wildlife and is now conducting separate experiments to evaluate livestock benefits (Evans, 1984b). It would seem more cost effective for both agriculture and wildlife interests to combine such research projects. To bridge the gap between Federal and State agencies and wildlife conservation and agriculture agencies, the Missouri Department of Natural Resources created an Agricultural Liaison position. The Agricultural Liaison helps coordinate activities and information among the USDA, State agriculture agencies, and the Department of Natural Resources. The intended goals of this position are: 1) to encourage awareness of the positive and negative impacts of existing State and Federal agricultural programs on natural resources, 2) t o encourage research and development of total farming systems which have wildlife benefits, and 3) to promote the flow of information on

PAGE 30

29 common goals between the agriculture comFWS and USDA. These examples of existing munity and the Department of Natural Reand potential interagency coordination could sources. greatly improve abilities to manage the agriculIn addition, the FWS recently hired an Agritural land base for both agriculture and wildlife interests. cultural Specialist to coordinate agency activities and serve as a point person between the AREAS FOR POSSIBLE CONGRESSIONAL ACTION The uses of agricultural land are influenced by technologies, institutions, public policies, and economic trends. Constraints to and opportunities for technology development and adoption are dictated, in part, by the institutions. Institutions provide the research, training, and implementation alternatives for managing the resource base. Public policies direct institutions in the coordination and implementation of technology adoption that, in turn, affects uses of the resource base, Through the course of the OTA study, workshop participants and other experts provided policy suggestions for integrating agriculture and wildlife conservation concerns. These policy changes are designed to correct some of the fundamental constraints and to provide opportunities for improved agriculture/wildlife interaction, Public policies need to recognize that agriculture and wildlife can be mutually beneficial as well as mutually exclusive, depending on the situation (Leitch and Nelson, 1984). Congress has two main channels to affect the development and use of technologies to benefit agriculture and wildlife: 1) through legislation, that either establishes new programs and policies or changes existing ones, and 2) through committee oversight on administration of existing laws and programs. Since farm policies are dictated primarily by the omnibus Farm Bill [reauthorized every 4 years), a major part of the following discussion on congressional action to promote integration of agriculture and wildlife focuses on the Farm Bill. The next Farm Bill is scheduled for reauthorization in 1985. Opportunities for congressional action are divided into three main policy categories: 1) integrating farm economic policies with resource conservation policies, 2) enhancing Federal capabilities to develop and implement innovative technologies, and 3) improving the effectiveness of existing Federal programs. Table 1 lists the potential courses of action for Congress under these three categories. Integrating Farm Economic Policies With Resource Conservation Policies Potential courses of action available for congressional consideration that could integrate agriculture economic objectives with resource conservation objectives follow: A. B. c. D. E. Proposes a clear statement of congressional policy with regard to an integrated resource management approach to U.S. agriculture. Offers examples of incentive or reward programs to increase wildlife and fish habitat on private lands. Outlines the potential of cross-compliance between commodity and conservation programs to improve wildlife and fish habitat and other resource conservation, and discusses two variations to the sodbuster approach. Discusses the potential wildlife and fish and other resource benefits of a long-term conservation reserve, and presents five variations of the conservation reserve. Details three changes needed in an annual set-aside program if wildlife and fish

PAGE 31

30 Table 1. Potential Courses of Action for Congress With Variations Proposed to Improve Wildlife and Fish Habitat Benefits Main policy category Main policy category Potential course of action Refer to Potential course of action Refer to Variation page Variation page i. integrating farm economic policy with resource conservation policies . . . A. A policy statement that stresses the importance of an integrated resource management approach to U.S. agriculture could be inserted in the preamble or introduction of each title of the Farm Bill. . . . . . . . B. ASCS could be directed, under each commodity title, to implement an incentive program for use of conservation practices by landowners . . . C. Legislation could be approved that promotes cross-compliance between Federal payments for commodity programs and conservation practices . 1. The sodbuster approach could apply to any new, high/y erodible or ecologically fragile lands being converted from permanent cover to commodity production. . . . 2. Congress could deny Government subsidies for a minimum of 10 years to landowners who bring new lands into production and extend the prohibition of payments on conversion of erodible or fragile landseven if the /and changes ownership . . . . D. Congress could authorize a multi-year conservation reserve program under each commodity title to replace the annual commodity adjustment programs currently authorized . . . . 1. Congress could coup/e the 2. 3. 4. conservation reserve program with the sodbuster approach to eliminate incentives for c/earing new lands for production while taking other lands out of production. . . . . . Congress could prohibit mowing or grazing of grasses until the end of the ground-nesting wildlife breeding season . . . . . . . Congress could establish criteria for identifying areas of critical wildlife and fish habitat to be included in the conservation reserve . . . . Congress could add a clause to the conservation reserve eligibility regulations that allows acres devoted to conservation practices to be incorporated into the base acreage determination of conservation reserve eligibility. . . . . . . 30 31 31 32 33 33 34 34 35 35 35 5. Congress could encourage the development and protection of riparian vegetation buffer strips for conservation practices and inclusion of riparian borders in the conservation reserve acres, wherever appropriate E. Congress could direct USDA to establish enforceable regulations within the annual commodity adjustment program to improve erosion control and water quality benefits and optimize wildlife and fish habitat benefits . . . . . 1. 2. 3! Congress could require cover crop establishment and enforcement on all set-aside acres during the entirety of the time the program is in effect. . Congress could prohibit mowing, grazing, surface tillage, or chemica/ control of cover crops until the end of the wildlife breeding season on idled lands . . . . . . . Congress could direct that lands be idled for one full calendar year for all commodities under the acreage adjustment program from the time the program is announced . . . F. The General Accounting Office could be directed to evaluate the effect of tax policies on agricultural land conversion, wetlands, and other natural resources ii. Enhancing Federal capabilities to develop and implement innovative technologies A. Congress could direct USDA and USDI under Title XIV of the Farm Bill to cooperatively investigate and evaluate biological farming and other alternatives to conventional U.S. farming practices B. Congress could direct USDA. USDI. NM I%, and other appropriate Federal agencies to coordinate research and extension that have potential agronomic and wildlife and fish benefits . . c. D. Congress could direct USDA and USDI to establish interagency regional councils devoted to agriculture and resource conservation integration in their respective research, extension, and land acquisition programs . . . . Congress could conduct oversight on USDA administration to determine if conservation and agricultural objectives could be better served by a restructuring and/or realignment of USDA agencies 36 36 37 37 37 38 38 38 39 39 40

PAGE 32

31 Table 1. Potential Courses of Action for Congress With Variations Proposed to Improve Wildlife and Fish Habitat Benefits (Continued) Main policy category Main policy category Potential course of action Refer to Potential course of action Refer to Variation page Variation page ///. /reproving the effectiveness of existing Federal programs. . . . . . 40 A. B. c. Under the Conservation Programs Title of D. the Farm Bill, Congress could direct USDA to develop and administer an agricultural nonpoint source pollution program . . . . . . . 40 The Renewable Resources Extension E. Program could be funded at the full $15 million authorization and directed to focus on interdisciplinary applied research and public education programs 41 Congress could significantly increase the fiscal year 1985 appropriation for the Water Bank Program in fiscal year 1986 and beyond . . . . . . 42 Congress could direct USDA to implement NEPA regulations for environmental impact assessment and public comment on agricultural programs administered by USDA agencies . . 42 Congress could conduct oversight on the small watershed program to determine if SCS is achieving goals of watershed stabilization through current methods or if the focus of projects should be redirected . . . . . . . 42 habitats are to be maintained on the retired acres. F. Proposes a General Accounting Office study to evaluate the impact of tax policies on land use changes, particularly the potential loss of wildlife habitat. Many of the proposed courses of action discussed are not new and, in fact, were introduced and deliberated during the 98th Congress 1 At the OTA workshop, participants suggested modifications to these legislative proposals to increase their potential resource conservation benefits, including benefits to wildlife and fish habitat. A brief analysis of suggested modifications, wherever applicable, follows the discussion of each course of action. A. A policy statement that stresses the importance of an integrated resource management approach to U.S. agriculture could be inserted in the preamble or introduction of each title of the Farm Bill. A fundamental change needed in farm policy is congressional recognition of the importance of managing this Nations resource base on a long-term, sustainable basis. A policy statement would signal the Federal agricultural and resource conservation agencies that wildIThe discussion in this section is based on the assumption that farm economic programs will be similar to the programs in the 1981 Agriculture and Food Act. life and fish habitat maintenance and restoration, soil conservation, and water quality enhancement will be an integral part of future agricultural policy. A congressional policy statement alone, however, may not guarantee an improvement in the management of natural resources on agricultural lands. Further steps may be required. B. ASCS could be directed, under each commodity title, to implement an incentive program for use of conservation practices by landowners. A reward and reimbursement program could help landowners overcome the economic tradeoff between establishing conservation-oriented farming practices and full-scale production. An incentive program for wildlife habitat improvement on agricultural lands may be an effective way to increase wildlife and fish populations as well as meeting other resource conservation goals. Incentives could be offered in the form of higher direct (e. g., deficiency) payments or commodity price support loans; higher Agricultural Conservation Program cost-sharing levels for establishing or maintaining specific practices that improve wildlife habitat; or special low-interest or long-term loans for the purpose of establishing practices such as riparian zones that improve wildlife and fish habitat.

PAGE 33

32 Another example of a reward or conservation bonus program is the Shelterbelt Improvement Act introduced in the 98th Congress (S. 1138). This program was intended to reimburse landowners for the cost of preserving, restoring, improving, and establishing shelterbelts. It also called for reimbursing the landowner for a portion of the lost income resulting from land being taken out of crop production. A broader approach to rewarding landowners for using resource conservation practices could be an indirect subsidy for providing wildlife habitats on agricultural lands; e.g., a Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP) patterned after the Forestry Incentives Program (FIP) which currently is administered by USDA and State forestry officials. Incentives programs such as FIP may need to be evaluated for their ability to produce wildlife benefits prior to initiation of a new incentive program. In addition, an incentive or reward program would require new funds and manpower to carry out program objectives. Effective technical assistance and public education on potential benefits and shortcomings for landowner participation in incentive programs would be critical elements of program administration. Guidelines for defining the incentive recipients and determining limitations on Federal incentive payments would need to be developed. C. Approve legislation that promotes crosscompliance between Federal payments for commodity programs and conservation practices. The thrust of cross-compliance is to ensure that Federal funds are directed to those landowners using land management practices that sustain long-term land and water productivity. Cross-compliance policy could apply to all commodity program participants and could require soil, water, and wildlife and fish conservation practices on the landowners entire property. A cross-compliance policy could be implemented at little or no cost to the Government, although more detailed analysis of this policy is necessary to determine actual implementation costs. Program administration costs might be offset by savings in Federal expenditures on lands where conservation practices are not adopted, In addition, such action potentially might reduce the scope of current or future soil conservation and water quality programs, reducing the Federal revenues needed in these programs. Cross-compliance policy also appears to be acceptable to many landowners. A majority of landowners surveyed in the Midwest agreed that all farmers should be required to follow recommended soil conservation practices on their farms to qualify for farm price-support benefits (Guither, et al., 1984]. Cross-compliance may have limited effectiveness because only a small proportion of landowners are involved in the commodity programs (which receive Federal subsidies). In addition, a cross-compliance policy could reduce the number of farmers participating in the commodity programs, reducing the programs effectiveness in price control and resource conservation. Landowners may not participate in the programs because of the economic hardship of establishing conservation practices, potentially skewing the commodity program participation to only those landowners with established conservation practices and those capable of compliance with the conservation requirements. Overall, further analysis of a cross-compliance policy by USDA maybe necessary to determine the positive and negative impacts of the policy on resource conservation and agricultural commodity programs. Cross-compliance could be administered as a penalty action. The penalty system would deny Federal funds to people engaging in agricultural activities that increase soil erosion, contribute to agricultural runoff and water pollution, or reduce wildlife habitat. A drawback of the penalty system is that it can create a bias against people who farm on easily erodible lands. For example, if the amount of Federal payments offered is based on the number of tons of soil lost from the land each year, landowners farming sloping land could receive less payments than landowners farming flat lands, even if the farmer on sloping land was applying conservation practices while his neighbor

PAGE 34

33 on the flat area was not. A cross-compliance policy tied to the farmers legitimate effort to conserve soil and not to actual soil losses would help overcome this bias. But, this approach may not have significant benefits for the resource base because the soil erosion rate may not be held below the acceptable tolerance value (T value) 2 and measuring legitimate effort will be difficult, if not impossible. An example of cross-compliance is the sodbuster approach. Various forms of sodbuster legislation (H.R. 3457, H,R. 3906, S. 663) that would deny certain Federal payments for converting fragile, highly erodible lands to commodity production were introduced, debated, but not passed in the 98th Congress. Two variations of the sodbuster bills that might be incorporated under the commodity titles of the Farm Bill or presented as separate legislation follow: 1. Apply the sodbuster approach to highly erodible or ecologically fragile lands. 2. Extend the prohibition of Federal payments to landowners to at least 10 years. Variation 1: The sodbuster approach could apply to any new, highly erodible or ecologically fragile lands being converted from permanent cover to commodity production, Discussions of a sodbuster provision in the 98th Congress focused on highly erodible lands. However, other fragile lands exist that are threatened with land-use changes where natural vegetation is eliminated for commodity production. (Fragile lands are those slow to recover or revegetate after disruption of the topsoil and native vegetation,) Forested lands, such as bottomland hardwoods in the southern States, wetlands such as the prairie potholes, and other fragile habitats also provide important wildlife habitat and are being converted to crop production. An expanded sodbuster provision could increase the habitat types, e.g., wetlands, on which Federal incentives for agricultural modification were reduced, thereby retaining a ZT value is considered the rough estimate of the yearly rate of A horizon formation on well-managed, medium-textured cropland soils. Values are established for each soil type by SCS. greater diversity of habitat areas with unplowed vegetation for wildlife and fish. Under the National Resources Inventories (NRI), SCS has been identifying habitats not in cropland that are threatened with change from natural vegetation to crop production. The information from the NRI could be used by ASCS to determine which highly erodible areas have the greatest potential for conversion, thus, identifying where a sodbuster provision could be applied. To locate ecologically fragile lands that could be included under a sodbuster provision, coordination with other resource inventories (e.g., the National Wetlands Inventory of FWS to identify wetlands) may be necessary. But, since the initial sodbuster proposal requires consultation between SCS and ASCS on identification of highly erodible lands where Federal subsidies could be denied, this variation is unlikely to create a significant increase in workload other than the expansion and updating of soil surveys by local ASC personnel. Variation 2: Congress could deny Government subsidies for a minimum of 10 years to landowners who bring new lands into production and extend the prohibition of payments to landowners who convert erodible or fragile landseven if land changes ownership. Both soil and water conservation and wildlife benefits from a sodbuster provision would be greatest if the sodbuster provision was in effect over a period of several years. A lo-year prohibition against Federal payments could compliment the provision in the sodbuster bills in the 98th Congress that called for prohibition of Federal funding to land plowed in the previous 10 years, thereby creating a disincentive to plow erosion-prone soils for as long as 20 years. A long-term prohibition against Federal payments for plowing previously unplowed lands could decrease the incentive to bring new lands into production because landowners would be faced with a loss of Federal dollars for a minimum of 10 years, instead of a season or two. The disincentive for land conversion to com-

PAGE 35

34 modity crop production could be viewed as an incentive to retain native habitats for wildlife and fish. If the prohibition were applied to a particular piece of land regardless of a change of ownership, the incentive to create cropland by plowing erodible soils or fragile areas could be reduced. A multi-year program (e. g., 10 years) is likely to be easier to administer than a program of short duration and could reduce program overhead costs once the administration was organized. D. Congress could authorize a multi-year conservation reserve program under each commodity title to replace the annual commodity adjustment programs currently authorized. Current production adjustment programs tend to be yearly, limiting many farmers ability to plan ahead in the kinds of crops to plant and creating a disincentive to implement conservation measures on land taken out of production (Jahn and Diehl, 1984; Berner, 1984). To solve this problem legislation was introduced in the 98th Congress to implement a long-term conservation reserve program (Title IV of H.R. 3457; Title IV of H.R. 3906). The conservation reserve program is designed to take lands out of commodity production for multiple years (5 to 15 years) while reimbursing landowners in cash or in kind with stored commodity crops. Long-term projections on cropland diversion would be based on USDA projections of long-term commodity needs. The program could be designed to maximize soil conservation and water quality benefits as well as crop surplus control and price stabilization. Perennial cover crops or some form of vegetation cover used for soil conservation, water quality protection and, secondarily, to provide wildlife and fish habitat would be required for acres under the conservation reserve. Requisite establishment and maintenance of perennial vegetation is essential if the program is to achieve any positive gains in soil conservation, water quality, and wildlife and fish habitat. For example, bare land could increase soil erosion in some situations and reduce the available nesting cover or food supply for wildlife. Thus, perennial cover crops that provide wildlife with food and nesting cover and are known to be efficient soil or streambank stabilizers (e.g., perennial grasses, willows) could be included in regulations regarding the conservation reserve. A long-term conservation reserve could be an important provision in the 1985 Farm Bill for benefiting wildlife and fish. Five variations to the conservation reserve concept that might increase wildlife and fish habitat benefits on farms having reserved or idled lands were discussed by OTA workshop participants. The variations discussed below (not listed in priority order) range from inclusion of a sodbuster provision to prohibitions against cover crop disturbance. 1. Integrate a sodbuster proposal with the conservation reserve. 2. Prohibit disturbance of the cover crop on idled land during wildlife nesting season. 3. Establish criteria for identifying important wildlife habitat areas or types under the conservation reserve. 4. Allow acres devoted to conservation practices to be included in the determination of base acreage eligibility. 5. Develop and protect riparian areas under the conservation reserve. Variation 1: Congress could couple conservation reserve programs with the sodbuster approach to eliminate incentives for clearing new lands for production while taking other lands out of production. The conservation reserve alone would provide wildlife habitat for species that live and feed in areas where the vegetation growth cycles are disrupted occasionally. However, wildlife benefits from land taken out of production could be offset by the development of new or previously uncropped lands if Federal incentives to plow-out new lands remain. A conservation reserve coupled with a sodbuster provision under each commodity title in the Farm Bill might help maintain wildlife habitats on the lands idled under the reserve

PAGE 36

35 and on acres where conversion to cropland is not supported by Federal dollars, This assumes that the disincentive to the farmer of the sodbuster concept is sufficient to maintain an area in its natural state. A combination sodbuster provisionconservation reserve could: 1) maintain habitat diversity on erodible soils that have not been converted to commodity production, and 2) create habitat on previously cultivated areas, respectively, benefiting a wide array of wildlife species. Variation 2: Congress could prohibit mowing or grazing of grasses until the end of the ground-nesting wildlife breeding season to protect nesting bird habitat and provide breeding areas for other wildlife species. Wildlife benefits from a conservation reserve would be increased if restrictions were placed on mowing or grazing of cover crops during critical nesting periods. Mowing or grazing of cover crops on idled acres during the nesting season (approximately May 1 to August 1 for most areas of the country) will disrupt groundnesting birds and other breeding wildlife species. It also will negatively affect the plants and topsoil where invertebrates livean important food source for young wildlife species. The actual time of the restrictions could be determined by the State ASC Committees in consultation with the State fish and wildlife agencies, For the farmer who hopes to gain some income from the cover crop by mowing or grazing the idled land, the delay in harvesting the cover crop could reduce his potential income. Cover crops like alfalfa, for example, have a nutrient content and digestibility peak during the early growing season. Alfalfa harvested past the quality peak will bring in a lower market price for the farmer than alfalfa harvested at the peak of forage quality. In some parts of the country, a farmer who delays mowing until August can ruin the alfalfa crop for the following spring. Variation 3: Congress could establish criteria for identifying areas of critical wildlife and fish habitat to be included in the conservation reserve, secondary to the primary goals of price control and soil and water conservation, using National Resources inventories data, and consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the State fish and wildlife agencies. wildlife and fish habitat areas identified as substantially threatened by agriculture could be protected through a conservation reserve. Identification criteria could be developed through consultation between USDA agencies with wildlife management expertise and the FWS. For example, the FWS has identified 34 counties in North Dakota having high potential for waterfowl production that now are not producing the full potential of migratory birds (Minnich, 1984), A lack of perennial vegetative cover that is undisturbed by agricultural practices during the nesting season is the primary reason these countries are not producing their full potential. Selecting areas like these countries to be idled under the conservation reserve could increase migratory bird and other wildlife production in North Dakota. Similarly, other areas of importance to wildlife and/or fish in an agriculture landscape could be identified using the available data bases of SCS, the FWS, NMFS, and the State fish and wildlife agencies, However, the use of identifying criteria runs the risk of robbing from Peter to pay Paul. Lands having the most essential wildlife habitat may not be the same lands that have the highest soil erosion rates or lands where cropIand retirement would be the most useful to meet the goals of the conservation reserve program. Variation 4: Congress could add a clause to the conservation reserve eligibility regulations that allows acres devoted to conservation practices to be incorporated into base acreage determination of conservation reserve eligibility, Current base acreage requirements for production adjustment program (of which the COnservation reserve could be one) eligibility require that the acres included in the program be planted to a commodity crop during the previous 2 years. This requirement is perceived by soil conservationists and resource managers

PAGE 37

36 as creating an incentive for farmers to plow and plant all their lands to commodities in order to increase their eligibility for the Federal payments under the program. The plowing out of new lands to establish base acreages usually means marginal lands are brought into production and previously unplowed wildlife habitat is destroyed, soil erosion is increased, and water quality is reduced. In addition, farmers who have established conservation practices are penalized under a conservation reserve program because their base acreage usually is smaller than their neighbors, on a farm of equal size, planted fencerow to fencerow without any adopted conservation measures. A clause allowing acres with conservation practices (i.e., terraces, hedgerows, grassy waterways, riparian strips, wetlands) or soilconserving crop rotations to be included in the base acreage could reduce the temptation for farmers to plow all of their lands for commodity production. But it would increase the acres eligible under the conservation reserve. The increase in land under retirement could increase the programs cost. However, a variable-payment scheme for the individual farmer who includes conservation acres in his base acreage would help reduce the increased cost associated with the increased acreage diverted under the conservation reserve. Such a scheme could offer lower annual payments for land that was not previously in commodity production in a way similar to how production adjustment program payments are determined based on what the land can produce. Variation 5: Congress could encourage the development and protection of riparian vegetation buffer strips for conservation practices and inclusion of riparian borders in the conservation reserve acres, wherever appropriate. Establishing and retaining riparian buffers along streams is a way to minimize water quality impacts from soil erosion and provide important wildlife and fish habitat needs. A congressional directive to USDA to include streamside zones in the individual conservation reserve acres of the farmer could promote improvements in both local and downstream water quality. This directive would apply primarily to landowners who retired lands adjacent to stream corridors. Cost-sharing and technical assistance for establishing and retaining riparian vegetation could be included with other cover-crop costsharing provided by ASCS and SCS. Wildlife, fish, and water quality benefits from streamside protection under a conservation reserve could be substantial. However, potential increases in program costs and workload may occur for the same reasons as those presented in Variation 4 above. E. Congress could direct USDA to establish enforceable regulations within the annual commodity adjustment program to improve erosion control and water quality benefits and optimize wildlife and fish habitat benefits. A long-term conservation reserve (Proposal D, p. 34) was the most preferred form of commodity adjustment program among OTA workshop participants to improve conservation benefits and control commodity production. However, annual programs currently authorized under each commodity title may continue and can be modified and improved to increase resource conservation benefits. The following proposals to improve annual set-aside programs, if adopted as a package, could increase wildlife and other resource benefits. Any benefits gained under the annual program may be minimal compared to the resource conservation benefits achievable under a multi-year program. 1. 2. 3. Require cover crops on all set-aside acres prior to May 1 and maintain soil cover during the life of the program. Prohibit surface disturbance of cover crops during the nesting season. Idle lands based on land retirement needs for all commodities for one full calendar year.

PAGE 38

37 Variation I : Congress could require cover crop establishment and enforcement on all setaside acres during the entire time the program 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 the value of the program for wildlife habitat and other conservation goals (see Proposal D discussion). If the vegetative cover is established prior to May 1, breeding birds in particular could use the fields for nesting. Enforcement of a cover crop requirement could be the responsibility primarily of State and local ASC and SCS personnel. Additional manpower may be necessary to ensure that the program regulations are followed. Cost-sharing also may be necessary to aid farmers in establishing a cover crop that will control erosion and provide wildlife habitat needs. Variation 2: Congress could prohibit mowing, grazing, surface tillage, or chemical control of cover crops until the end of the wildlife breeding season on idled lands. The actual date would be determined by the State ASC Committee in consultation with the State fish and wildlife agency. Establishing cover crops on idled lands has limited wildlife benefits unless a corresponding restriction is placed on disturbance of these acres during certain times of the year. Idled fields planted to a grass or legume, then mowed or plowed in mid-May to late-June, become ecological death traps for nesting birds caught in the blades of cutters or mowers. Large numbers of livestock released into fields where wildlife are feeding or nesting create disturbance and may eliminate the breeding success of a local wildlife population. Chemical weed control on an entire field may eliminate important wildlife nesting and escape cover, may be harmful to wildlife directly, and diminishes insect populations, thereby reducing wildlife food sources. Chemical weed control only on those small areas with identified nuisance plants, however, could reduce weed problems without adversely affecting wildlife habitat throughout the field. Proponents for disturbing fields during the wildlife reproductive season do so because of a concern for weed control on idled areas. In addition, farmers who mow or graze idled fields can receive an income from land that otherwise is not producing, even though the land may be bringing in money under the commodity adjustment program. Delayed mowing of cover crops such as alfalfa could reduce the income available to the landowner (see discussion under Proposal D, #2). Thus, sufficient payments may be necessary to offset the potential loss of farmer income from these idled lands. Variation 3: Congress could direct that lands be idled for one full calendar year for all commodities under acreage adjustment programs from the time the set-aside is announced, instead of the current system where land is retired only for a crop year. At present, lands idled under the feed grain program can be planted to winter wheat, thereby increasing the stock of winter wheat and potentially creating a surplus of one commodity (winter wheat) while reducing surplus in another (feed grains). Moreover, potential wildlife benefits from the idled land are lost if the acreage is transferred from one form of intensive cuhivation to another. If the set-aside covers the entire calendar year for all commodities that are in surplus or that come under the annual commodity adjustment programs, residue or cover crops would be available as wildlife habitat throughout the summer and winter months. An annual adjustment program covering all commodities would require an improved level of advanced planning and coordination of commodity programs within USDA than currently is evident. The restriction on planting any commodity crop on set-aside lands may reduce the number of participants in the program if landowners perceive they could profit more without Federal payment. A reduction in program participation, while saving money, may weaken realization of commodity adjustment goals.

PAGE 39

38 F. The General Accounting Office could be directed to evaluate the effect of tax policies on agricultural land conversion, wetlands, and other natural resources. Concern exists that some current tax policies serve as an incentive for land speculation or for altering marginal lands from non-cropland to cropland. The result for wildlife could be a loss in native habitat and an increase in water pollution from the increased erosion caused by bringing marginal lands into production. Tax policies are an interwoven complexity. The relationship of tax policy specifically to land use or land-use changes has not been evaluated carefully. The General Accounting Office (GAO) is well suited to evaluate whether tax policies affect land use and the implications of that relationship, Unfortunately, tax policies tend to have multiple effects, Each policy of the tax code may have impacts in local economies, local land-use patterns, land ownership patterns, as well as regional and national impacts. The direct relationship between tax policies and alteration of marginal or other lands from native vegetative cover to crop production is not clear, Thus, a report on the impact of tax policies on land use and wildlife habitat may require numerous assumptions that would dilute the accuracy of the analysis, Enhancing Federal Capabilities to Develop and Implement Innovative Technologies Technologies that benefit agriculture and other renewable natural resources exist, but their development and implementation to date have not received priority attention. Hence, Congress could act to accelerate the development and use of such technologies through Federal institutions. This section presents potential courses of action for Congress to ensure that agencies address opportunities to integrate wildlife and fish conservation and agriculture. These proposed courses of action are: A. B. c. D. Research alternatives to conventional farming practices. Increase development of interdisciplinary and interagency research and extension programs. Develop interagency regional councils to coordinate agriculture and resource conservation. Conduct confessional oversight hearings to determine if the USDA conservation program objectives could be improved by restructuring USDA. A. Congress could direct the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Department of the Interior under Title XIV of the Farm Bill to cooperatively investigate and evaluate biological farming and other alternatives to conventional U.S. farming practices. The needs in U.S. agriculture most often discussed by land resource professionals seem to be: 1) minimizing agricultural operation costs in labor and inputs, and 2) establishing farming practices that will maintain the long-term productive capabilities of the land and avoid degradation of water quality, For instance, private sector research on innovative technologies is beginning to shift to chemicals that require less capital cost and help minimize external resource impacts. This shift could have significant beneficial impacts on wildlife and fish habitats, However, the USDA has not adopted a concerted research effort on alternatives to conventional, clean agriculture nationwide as yet. A congressional initiative in this area, similar to the direction provided on conservation tillage in the 1981 Agriculture and Food Act, could stimulate research into the benefits and costs to the landowner and the natural resource base from new and innovative alternatives to conventional farming (e.g., biological farming). Another congressional initiative could be the passing of the Agricultural Productivity Act of 1983 (S. 1128) which provides for onsite research and demonstration of alternative agricultural practices to reduce farming costs and establish the potential for other benefits to landowners and society.

PAGE 40

39 This option may increase costs of the USDA research programs or, more likely, cause a redirection of available research dollars into a new program area, thus reducing funding levels on other research activities. B. Congress could direct the U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Department of the Interior, National Marine Fisheries Service, and other appropriate Federal agencies to coordinate research and extension that have potential agronomic and wildlife and fish benefits. The Federal Governments role in developing interdisciplinary research and extension coordination between agriculture and other resource agencies (i.e., Federal and State fish and wildlife agencies) has not been extensive, although examples of federally initiated interagency and interdisciplinary coordination exist. Interagency coordination and policy guidance could strengthen the agriculture and wildlife knowledge of various Federal managing agencies as well as improve opportunities to develop techniques and programs to benefit both agriculture and wildlife. Some vehicles for interagency coordination already exist. For example, some wildlife refuge managers (e. g., at De Soto National Wildlife Refuge, Missouri Valley, Iowa) are conducting informal research and demonstration of biological farming practices. This activity could be expanded to involve ARS and State Agriculture Experiment Station scientists as well as appropriate State agency personnel in the evaluation of different biological farming systems for enhancing wildlife and agricultural interests, Another opportunity is coordination of research and extension programs with the Extension Wildlife Specialists housed at the Land Grant Universities, These personnel, now in 31 States, could provide input and direction on activities and farming practices that would benefit both wildlife or fish and agriculture objectives. To coordinate activities between departments and at different levels of government, creation of new positions or the shifting of existing staff might be necessary in some agencies to develop a coordinating office or liaison staff person. Program costs for each of these options could be minimal and might amount to no more than two Full Time Equivalents (2 person-years) per agency involved; one for interagency liaison and one for internal coordination of activities. C. Congress could direct USDA and USDI to establish interagency regional councils devoted to agriculture and resource conservation integration in their respective research, extension, and land acquisition programs. Wildlife habitat preserves and easements could be coordinated with agricultural lands management to achieve the greatest gains for many different wildlife and fish species without a significant decrease in agricultural productivity (Harris, 1984), One approach to integrated systems management is the establishment of regional interagency councils t o coordinate programs and policies for agriculture and wildlife and fish. The framework for these councils already exists in the form of regional Associations of State Fish and Wildlife Agencies and the regional Agriculture Councils comprised of USDA agency heads in each geographic area. The concept of integrated land management through development of landscape ecology theory (Risser, Karr, and Forman, 1984) ha s sparked new attention among resource professionals and landowners concerned with various aspects of land resource use. Additional information would be necessary on ways to optimize benefits for all resource uses and users if regional management strategies were implemented using watersheds as the unit of management, A regional planning system has been fairly successful for water resource allocation (Interstate Water Compacts) but the concept has not been adopted for land and water management. The greatest obstacle to a regional council approach to agency integration is the creation of a new level of bureaucracy to direct agency activities. Some agency representatives believe the existing multi-tiered bureaucracy of deci-

PAGE 41

40 sionmaking and priority setting is unruly enough. In addition, regional councils would have to be given decisionmaking authority to be effective, which would require a redistribution of existing authority within the agencies involved in the regional effort. D. Congress could conduct oversight on the U.S. Department of Agriculture administration to determine if conservation and agricultural objectives could be better served by a restructuring and/or realignment of USDA agencies. Currently, USDA agencies involved directly or indirectly with resource conservation through research, extension, and program implementation are scattered throughout the Department under at least three different Assistant Secretaries. Such distribution of conservation programs throughout the Department may limit the ability to coordinate objectives and receive representation for conservation concerns from the Secretary of Agriculture. For example, the environmental programs in ASCS may have activities that are not represented adequately under an Assistant Secretary whose primary responsibility is International Affairs and Commodity Programs. To integrate conservation and agriculture objectives, conservation and natural resource program administrations need to have the same representation and cohesion as other agricultural policy areas. Agencies with responsibility for conservation program administration and research could be united under one Assistant Secretary to develop cohesive conservation planning (Sallee, 1984). The Assistant Secretary would be responsible for coordinating agency objectives and programs and be able to represent conservation as a cohesive policy area to the Secretary of Agriculture. However, the distribution of conservation programs throughout the Department also may allow access to all the programs and agencies that ultimately impact conservation, placing the conservation objectives closer to the sources of problems. In addition, the realignment of USDA conservation programs under one Assistant Secretary could lead to temporary disruption of ongoing activities and create some confusion among agencies in the short term. Without an improved understanding of the impact of a realignment within USDA, it is difficult to determine if the costs to the agencies and specific personnel would be overcome by the gains in better conservation program representation. Improving the Effectivoness of Existing Federal Programs Some conservation programs and policies already exist. Some of them only need to be implemented and funded while others will need some modification to increase their effectiveness in improving agriculture and wildlife technology development and use. The following potential courses of action highlight some major programs and policies where opportunities exist to strengthen agriculture and wildlife interactions. Proposals A through D will require increased funding levels for existing authorizations to create new or enhance existing capabilities in nonpoint source pollution abatement programs, Renewable Resources Extension programs, the Federal Water Bank program and implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act, respectively. Proposal E suggests that Congress use its oversight authority to evaluate the effectiveness of the SCS Small Watershed program in meeting the desired objectives of watershed stabilization, erosion control, and water quality improvement. Proposal A: Under the Conservation Programs Title of the Farm Bill, Congress could direct USDA to develop and administer an agricultural nonpoint source pol lution program, using county conservation personnel and State water quality agency expertise to identify and administer Best Management Practices (BMPs) on agricultural lands consistent with the Environmental Protection Agencys Nonpoint Policy. In addition, cost-share payments, financial incentives, and cooperative agreements with farmers and operators may be necessary to implement these practices.

PAGE 42

41 Section 208 of the Clean Water Act (Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, Public Law 95-217) established a national program, administered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), to assist State control of pollution generated by agricultural and urban runoff, Nonpoint pollution accounts for as much as 50 percent of all pollutants in the Nations waters. Agricultural runoff in the form of eroded soil by volume accounts for the greatest nonpoint source pollutant in the Midwest, Tied to soil particles are chemicals and toxic substances which adversely affect beneficial water uses and users, including wildlife and fish populations. Agricultural runoff might best be controlled by implementation of BMPs specific to each area of the country and general enough to cover all agricultural resources, including water, soil, fish and wildlife (Evans, 1984a). Federal conservation programs should have resource objectives for all resources, not just soil erosion. Implementation of BMPs also could take into consideration any economic impacts on the farmer. ASCS and SCS have the expertise to identify BMPs based on soil type and agricultural operations. USDAs influence on landowners through administration of farm programs makes it the logical choice to coordinate agricultural runoff control associated with different operations. The institutional framework within USDA and State agencies already exists to administer an agricultural nonpoint control program with Extension, SCS, ASCS, county and State ASC offices, and soil and water conservation districts. USDA already has the basic authorization for a nonpoint pollution program under the Rural Clean Water Program (Section 319 of the Clean Water Act), and under the Soil and Water Resources Conservation Act of 1977 (Public Law 95-192), The SCS Rural Clean Water program and national erosion control program (authorized by Public Law 95-192) to date have not been funded, although an experimental Clean Water Program is under way by ASCS. To ensure that water quality goals are addressed according to State and local need, State water quality agencies need to be included in program development and implementation. The lack of State involvement could lead to overlap or duplication of Federal and State effort and could alienate a potential ally in the efforts to control nonpoint pollution. Jurisdictional problems between USDA, State water quality agencies, and EPA would have to be solved. A nonpoint program within USDA would require a budget expenditure for the Department and a recognition of USDAs role in nonpoint source pollution abatement. Proposal B: The Renewable Resources Extension Program could be funded at the full $15 million authorization and directed to focus on interdisciplinary applied research and public education programs. The Renewable Resources Extension Act (RREA, Public Law 95-306) authorizes $15 million annually for 10 years to expand educational programs in five major resource areas: forestland management, rangeland management, fish and wildlife management, outdoor recreation, and environmental management and public policy. Since Resource Extension personnel are recognized as key educators and information disseminators on natural resources conservation within USDA, resource personnel in Extension at the Land Grant Universities could play a vital role in coordinating interdisciplinary agriculture and conservation research and education programs on integrated management systems. The Extension Resources Program estimates it would need approximately $46 million annually to carry out approved programs based on the States assessment of funds needed. Recent authorizations have averaged around $2 million annually for the RREA. If public education on resource conservation issues is deemed important, then an increase in annual appropriations to the RREA would be necessary. Any funding increases in Renewable Resources Extension would need to be allocated evenly among the five program areas above to

PAGE 43

42 ensure funding increases for fish and wildlife management. Proposal C: Congress could significantly increase fiscal year 1985 appropriations for the Water Bank Program in fiscal year 1986 and beyond. The Federal Water Bank Program is one of the most effective programs to conserve wildlife habitat on private lands. The program has been successful among landowners because it offers adequate compensation for land not in production and allows flexibility to buy out of contracts. Unlike the FWS Wetland Easement Program, the Water Bank offers lo-year contracts instead of longer term contracts. The Water Bank is administered in 10 States and has been adopted by landowners principally in the Dakotas and Minnesota where the affected land is vital to waterfowl production. Current contract applicants to the program far exceed the appropriations provided to extend contracts or enter into new ones. (Some estimates suggest only one-third of applicants receive funding.) Fiscal year 1985 appropriations for the Water Bank were approximately $8.8 million. In order for this program to increase its effectiveness, increased appropriations will be required. Proposal D: Congress could direct USDA to implement National Environmental Policy Act regulations for environmental impact assessment and public comment on agricultural programs administered by USDA agencies. The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (Public Law 91-190) was enacted to ensure Federal accountability and public input on programs and policies which influence the human environment. USDA policies and programs have a significant impact on the human and natural environments but only limited assessments disclose the degree to which those impacts occur. Currently, the Conservation and Environmental Program Evaluation Group of the ASCS has undertaken the process of developing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on their commodity adjustment programs or set-aside programs to fulfill agency regulations under NEPA. Concern exists that USDA does not or has not evaluated its other programs and policies adequately for their environmental impacts, particularly the impacts to fish and wildlife populations, as required by the NEPA guidelines. One aspect of NEPA which seems to be underemphasized in the development and administration of USDA programs has been the public involvement criteria imposed by NEPA. programs and policies which influence private land resource use to the extent of USDA programs should be open to public scrutiny and comment. By evaluating programs with the environmental assessment and public review process outlined in the NEPA regulations, the agencies will be accessible to public comment and to alternative proposals that incorporate wildlife and fish habitat considerations into program administration. Proposal E: Congress could conduct oversight on Small Watershed Program to determine if SCS is achieving goals of watershed stabilization through current methods or if the focus of projects should be redirected. The Small Watershed Program is administered by SCS to develop comprehensive landuse and water resource management plans for flood control or watershed protection in watersheds that are smaller than 250,000 acres in size. The plans include structural works, land treatments through contractual conservation plans (RMS, see Section II), public recreation development, and agricultural, municipal and industrial water supply management. Small watershed projects have potential to bring together numerous landowners on comprehensive land and water planning. SCS has been criticized for advocating structural improvements and channelization projects at the expense of wildlife and fisheries habitat, Nonstructural applications could serve the

PAGE 44

43 same ends as structural projects at less cost but habitat, small watershed plans could serve as will require greater planning and coordination. the framework for comprehensive regional With the incorporation of sound conservation land management. principles for land and water use and wildlife CONCLUSION This report finds that technologies are available to private landowners and land managers to maintain wildlife and fish habitat in conjunction with agricultural operations. A fundamental constraint to adoption of these technologies on a large scale is the lack of Federal commitment to assist in managing the Nations private land resources for sustained private and public benefits. To incorporate wildlife and fish habitat effectively into agricultural land use, congressional policy will need to support a shift in farm programs towards a resourceconserving form of management. By sending a clear mandate that all Federal agencies shall integrate conservation and agriculture objectives in programs influencing agricultural land use, Congress can help perpetuate the productive capacity of the renewable resource base, meet the objectives for clean water, and ensure that viable populations of wildlife and fish will be maintained into the next century. The potential courses of action contained in this OTA workshop proceeding reflect opportunities that are available to Congress to change the emphasis in the Nations agricultural and natural resource programs. Opportunities to integrate agriculture and wildlife programs are not restricted to the 1985 Farm Bill formulation. Other legislative initiatives in the 99th Congress can serve as vehicles to blend the long-term agricultural and conservation policies together as well.

PAGE 45

. References

PAGE 46

References Alexander, L., and Kellert, S. R., Forest Landowners Perspectives on Wildlife Management in New England, Transactions of 49th North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference (Washington, DC: Wildlife Management Institute 1984), pp. 164-173. Berg, N, A., The Impact of U, S.D.A. Programs on Fisheries and Wildlife, OTA Agriculture and Wildlife Workshop Paper, 1984. Berner, A. H., Federal Land Retirement ProgramsA Land Management Albatross? Transactions of 49th North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference (Washington, DC: wildlife Management Institute, 1984), Pp. 118-131. Best, Louid, Department of Animal Ecology, Iowa State University, personal communication, 1984. Brady, S. J,, Important Soil Conservation Techniques That Benefit Wildlife, OTA Agriculture and Wildlife Workshop Paper, 1984. Bryant, F. C., Guthery, F. S., and Webb, W. M., Grazing Management in Texas and Its Impact on Wildlife, Proceedings of the WiZdlifeLivestock Relationships Symposium (Moscow, ID: University of Idaho, 1981), pp. 94-112. Burger, G, V., Agriculture and Wildlife, H. P. Brokaw (cd.), WildZife and America (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1978), pp. 89-107, Bultena, G. L., Hoiberg, E. O., and Nowak, P. J., Sources of Conservation Information and Participation in Conservation Programs: An Interregional Analysis, Sociology Report No. 156 (Ames, IA: Iowa State University, 1984). Cacek, Terry, Agricultural Liaison, Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of Interior, personal communication, 1984. Castrale, John, ForestWildlife Office, Indiana Department of Natural Resources, personal communication, 1984. Cook, Ken, OTA Consultant, personal communication, 1984. Cooper, W., Agricultural Practices and Aquatic Resource? OTA Agriculture and Wildlife Workshop Paper, 1984. Dahlgren, R, B., Wildlife Conservation Benefit, Proceedings of The Management Alternatives for Biological Farming Workshop (Ames, IA: Iowa Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit, 1983), pp. 37-38. Drawe, Lynn, Rob and Bessie Welder Wildlife Foundation, Texas, personal communication, 1984. Ducey, J., Rauscher, J., Wiederspan, C., Miller, L., Koehle, A., and Mazour, D., A Biological Comparison of Organic and Chemical Farming (Lincoln, NB: University of Nebraska, 1980), unpublished. Duebbert, Harold, Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Cente? Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of Interior, North Dakota, personal communication, 1984. Egan, J,, Rest Rotation Grazing System, F. R. Henderson (cd.), Guidelines for Increasing WiZdZife on Farms and Ranches (Manhattan, KS: Great Plains Wildlife Resources Committee and Kansas State University, 1984), pp. 15 B-20B. Evans, R., Agricultural Policies Related to Fish and Wildlife Habitat, OTA Agriculture and Wildlife Workshop Paper, 1984a. Evans, R., Missouri Department of Conservation, personal communication, 1984b. Ferris, A. L., and Cole, S. H., Strategies and Goals for Wildlife Habitat Restoration on Agricultural Land, Transactions of 46th North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference (Washington, DC: Wildlife Management Institute, 1981), pp. 130-136. Frank, E., Dodge County Interagency Project to Enhance WiIdlife Habitat on Farmland, OTA Agriculture and Wildlife Workshop Paper, 1984. Fryrear, D. W., Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Lubbock, TX, personal communication, 1984. Gates, J. M., and Hale, J. B., Reproduction of an East Central Wisconsin Pheasant Population, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Technical Bulletin No. 85, 1975. Goodger, T., Agricultural Activities and Marine Fisheries, OTA Agriculture and Wildlife Workshop Paper, 1984. Guither, H. D., Jones, B. F., Martin, M. A., and Spitze, R. G. F., U.S. Farmers Views on Agricultural and Food Policy, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Cooperative Extension Service, North Central Regional Extension Publication 227/North Central Regional Research Publication 300, December 1984. Gutierrez, R. J., Decker, D. J., Howard, R, A,, Jr., and Lassoie, J. P., Managing Smal~ Woodlands 47

PAGE 47

48 for Wildlife (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, 1979). Harris, L. D., Designing Landscape Mosaics for Integrated Agricultural and Conservation Planning in the Southeastern US. OTA Agriculture and Wildlife Workshop Paper, 1984. Heady, E. O., The Setting for Agricultural Production and Resource Use in the Future, Proceedings of the RCA Symposium: Future Agricultural Technology and Resource Conservation (Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press, 1982), pp. 8-30. Jahn, L. R,, and Diehl, J. L., Conservations Challenge: Multiple Consideration, presented at Soil Conservation Society of America Annual Meeting, July 29-Aug. 1, 1984. Jung, Gerald, Regional Pasture Research Lab, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Pennsylvania, personal communication, 1984. Kansas Fish and Game Commission Circular, Root PlowingA Technique to Increase Row Crop Yields and Save Hedgerow (Pratt, KS: Kansas Fish and Game Commission, undated). Kellert, S. R., Americans Attitudes and Knowledge of Animal, Transactions of 4~th North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference (Washington, DC: Wildlife Management Institute, 1980), pp. 111-124. Klimstra, W. D., Bobwhite Quail and Changing Land Us, F, Schitoskey, E. C. Schitoskey, and L. G. Talent (eds.), Proceedings of the Second National Bobwhite Quail Symposium (Stillwater, OK: Oklahoma State University, 1982), pp. 1-5. Kruse, Arnold, Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center, Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of Interior, North Dakota, personal communication, 1984. Leitch, J. A., and Nelson, W. C., Economics of Joint Production of Agricultural Commodities and Wildlife, OTA Agriculture and Wildlife Workshop Paper, 1984. Linder, R. L., Hubbard, D. E., and Nomsen, D, E, f Wetlands and Agriculture, OTA Agriculture and Wildlife Workshop Paper, 1984. Lyons, J. R., Nonconsumptive Wildlife-Associated Recreation in the U. S, Transactions of 47th North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference (Washington, DC: Wildlife Management Institute, 1982], pp. 677-685. Madsen, C., 1983 Mid-Continent Waterfowl Management Project Annual Report (Fergus Falls, MN: U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, 1984). Maser, C., Rangelands, Wildlife Technology, and Human Desires, OTA Agriculture and Wildhfe Workshop Paper, 1984. McEvoy, T. J., An Educational Approach to Increase the Production of Multiple Benefits From Private Non-Industrial Woodlands in America, OTA Agriculture and Wildlife Workshop Paper, 1984a. McEvoy, T. J., Cooperative Extension Service, University of Vermont, personal communication, 1984b. Menzel, B. W., Agricultural Management Practices and the Integrity of Instream Biological Habitat, F. W, Schaller and G. W. Bailey (eds.), Agricultural Management and Water QuaZity (Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press, 1983), pp. 305-329, Minnich, D., presentation at the Natural Resources Council of America Briefing, Oct. 2, 1984. Mironowski, John, Natural Resource Program, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, personal communication, 1984. National Academy of Sciences, Impacts of Emerging Agricultural Trends on Fish and Wildlife Habitat (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 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 Cropping Systems in the U. S., and Potential Benefits to Wildlife, OTA Agriculture and Wildhfe Workshop Paper, 1984. Risser, P. G., Karr, J. R., and Forman, R. T,, Landscape EcologyDirections and Approaches, Illinois Natural History Survey Special Publication No. 2, 1984. Rodgers, R. D., Reducing Wildlife Losses in Wheat Production Systems, OTA Agriculture and Wildlife Workshop Paper, 1984. Sallee, Bill, Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service (retired), U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC, personal communication, 1984. Schlosser, 1. J., and Karr, J, R., Riparian Vegetation and Channel Morphology Impact on Spatial Patterns of Water Quality in Agricultural Watershed, Environmental Management 5(3):233-243, 1981. Smika, D. E., Summer Fallow for Dryland Winter Wheat in the Semiarid Great Plain, Journal of Agronomy 62:15-17, 1976, Society of American Foresters, F. C. Ford-Robertson (cd.), Terminology of Forest Science,

PAGE 48

49 Technology, Practice and Products (Washington, DC: Society of American Foresters, 1971). Svoboda, F. R., Minnesota Landowner Attitudes Toward Wildlife Habitat Management, Transactions of 49th North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference (Washington, DC: Wildlife Management Institute, 1984), pp. 154-167. Thomas, J. W. (cd.), WiZdlife Habitats in Managed ForestsThe Blue Mountains of Oregon and Washington, U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service Agricultural Handbook No. 553 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1979). U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Impacts of Technology on U.S. Cropland and Rangeland Productivity, OTA-F-166 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1982). U.S. Department of Agriculture, Report and Recommendations on Organic Farming (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1980), U.S. Department of Agriculture, Policy on Fish and Wildlife, Secretarys Memorandum 9500, July 20, 1982, USDA, Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service, Production Adjustment Commodities: Intent to Prepare Environmental Impact Statement, Federal Register 49(116):2458024581, June 14, 1984, USDA Forest Service, Shelterbelt Influence on Great Plains Field Environment and Crops, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Production Research Report No. 62, 1962. USDA Soil Conservation Service, Americas Soil and Water: Conditions and Trend, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, 1981a, USDA Soil Conservation Service, Land Resource Regions and Major Land Resource Areas of the United StatesMap, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Agriculture Handbook 296, 1981b. USDA Soil Conservation Service, Plant Materials for Conservation, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service Program Aid No. 1219, 1979. USDA Soil Conservation Service, Windbreaks for Conservation, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service Agriculture Information Bulletin No. 339, 1974 (reprinted). U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, 1980 fiational Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and WildZife-Associated Recreation (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1982). Ursic, Stan, Forest Hydrology Laboratory, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Mississippi, personal communication, 1984. Warner, R. E., Effects of Changing Agriculture on Ring-necked Pheasant Brood Movement in 11linois, 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-necked Pheasant Chicks in Illinois Agricultural Ecosystems, Journal of Wildlife Management 48(1):82-88, 1984. Wooley, J., George, R., Onde, B., and Rybarczyk, w., Nesting Evaluation of Native Grass Pastures and Narrow-Row Soybeans, Proceedings of the Midwest Agricultural Interface With Fish and Wildlife Resources Workshop (Ames, 1A: Iowa State University, 1982), pp. 5-6. Youngberg, I. G., Parr, J. F,, and Papendick, R. 1., Potential Benefits of Organic Farming Practices for Wildlife and Natural Resources, Transactions of 49th North American WildZife and Natural Resources Conference (Washington, DC: Wildlife Management Institute, 1984), pp. 141-153.

PAGE 50

Appendix A Glossary of Acronyms ARS ASC ASCS BMP DNR EIS EPA FWS GAO Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation (Committees) Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture 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 Act NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Department of Commerce NRI National Resources Inventories OTA Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Congress PIK Payment-In-Kind RMS Resource Management System RREA Renewable Resources Extension Act SAF Society of American Foresters SCS Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture SGS Savory Grazing System T-value Soil Loss Tolerance Value USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture USDI U.S. Department of Interior 53

PAGE 51

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 Benefits to 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 Agricultural and 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 Benefits From 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 Experiment Station . . . . . ... $ . . . . . . . . 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

PAGE 52

55 Important soil Conservation Techniques That Benefit Wildlife Stephen J. Brady Soil Conservation Service Champaign, Illinois ABSTRACT The relationship between increasing row crop production, increasing soil erosion and nonpoint sources of water pollutants, and decreasing farmland wildlife is discussed. These resource concerns are not independent but collectively are symptoms of a degrading resource base. Two principal reasons for the problems are identified: 1) intensive use and management of the land; and 2) extensive cultivation of ever-enlarging fields, which has removed critical plant cover. Application of resource management systems will address the first reason while establishment of permanent vegetation is required for the second. Some important soil conservation practice components of resource management systems and their impact on wildlife habitat quality are discussed. National farm policy should encourage comprehensive ecological assessment in farm planning, Technological advances have pushed agricultural production to record levels in the United States, yet soil erosion persists as a national menace. Eroded soil is the greatest pollutant (by weight) in the country and is annually one of the most expensive. Technology and external inputs of energy and materials have masked the soil erosion problem to such an extent that it is, as yet, unrecognizable from the production side of the national ledger. Fifty-eight percent of the Nations non-Federal cropland is in need of soil and water conservation treatment (USDA, 1984). Yet this problem is only symptomatic of a greater problem, the degradation of the total resource base (soil, water, and related plant and animal resources). where a given ecosystem (such as agricultural lands) is managed with single resource objective it has multiresource consequences (Risser, Karr, and Forman, 1984), Policies that allow agricultural production to expand at the expense of resource degradation are ecologically, and therefore economically, untenable in the long run. Wildlife populations in agricultural ecosystems have declined for the same two reasons that soil erosion rates have increased: 1) intensive use and management of the land has reduced habitat quality, and 2) extensive cultivation of ever-enlarging fields has removed critical forms of vegetative cover. Conserving the natural resource base is the first step in managing all renewable resources. This discussion addresses the relationship between soil conservation techniques and farmland wildlife populations.

PAGE 53

56 The situation in Illinois is typical of the Midwestern States as well as the intensively farmed regions of the Nation. Declining harvests of rabbits, quail, and pheasants in Illinois during recent decades were each significantly (P < 0.001) correlated with increasing hectares of row crops (figure 1). The small game harvest data represent indicator species associated with diverse agricultural practices and farmland habitat. The habitat losses which produced reduced harvests of small game also have resulted in similar drastic declines in nongame wildlife. Table 1 documents the decline of grassland birds in northern and central Illinois during the same period. From 1963 to 1983 pheasant populations also declined approximately 95 percent in this region of Illinois (Warner and Etter, 1984). Table l.(Graber and Graber, 1983) Population loss since Species 1957/. Savannah sparrow . . . . . . 98 Bobolink. . . . . . . . . 97 Dickcissel . . . . . . . 96 Grasshopper Sparrow . . . . . 98 Henslows Sparrow . . . . . 94 Upland Sandpiper. . . . . . . 92 Meadowlarks (2 species) . . . . 84 Figure 1 .Estimated Harvest of Rabbits, Quail and Pheasants by Resident Illinois Hunters (Ellis, 1983), Average Farm Size and Hectares of Row Crops Harvested (IL Cooperative Crop Reporting Service 1957-83) During the Years 1956-1982 I I I \ Rabbits \ \ I # 1 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72 74 76 78 80 82

PAGE 54

57 DISCUSSION The Soil and Water Resources Conservation Act (RCA) of 1977 strongly affects the Nations resource conservation effort. RCA provides, for the first time, a single statutory base for the comprehensive management of all resources, including wildlife habitat, into one set of programs (Sampson, 1981). Although 74 percent of all 81,008 respondents to an RCA questionnaire agreed or strongly agreed with the need to improve wildlife habitat (USDA, 1980), it did not end up as a national priority, The National Conservation Program (NCP) (USDA, 1982) that evolved from RCA has two national priorities, The first is to reduce excessive soil erosion on agricultural lands. The second is twofold: to conserve water used in agriculture and to reduce flood damage in upstream areas, NCP authorizes priority assistance for improvement of fish and wildlife habitat only in areas specifically designed for such priority by State and local authorities, wildlife and fish are recognized by Soil Conservation Service (SCS) policy as integral components of all primary land and water use systems (SCS, 1983). Safeguarding the habitats of wildlife and fish and preventing or minimizing damage to habitat from changes in land use or from installation of soil and water conservation measures is an objective of SCSs biology policy. The SCS routinely uses an interdisciplinary approach in helping farmers plan conservation. The objective is to apply a Resource Management System (RMS) to the land. An RMS is a combination of conservation and management practices that is appropriate for the primary use of the land and that will protect the resource base by limiting soil losses to acceptable levels, maintaining acceptable water quality, and maintaining acceptable ecological and management levels for the selected resource use, The most effective conservation treatment of natural resources is achieved by the synergistic relationship of various practices applied to the land. Conservation tillage, for example, may control sheet and rill erosion, but additional practices such as grassed waterways or terraces may be needed to prevent or protect against concentrated flows of water. Additional practices may be needed to filter some pollutants from runoff water, or control soil blowing, or stabilize stream banks, or provide wildlife habitat or address other concerns, The judicious selection of land practice components can provide habitat elements important to many species of wildlife. The use of RMSS is a practical application of the land ethic (Leopold, 1966) and the evolving science of landscape ecology (Risser, Karr, and Foreman, 1984). The landowner, however, decide s whether or not to apply a complete RMS or just a single component (conservation practice) to his land. Generally, as soil-conserving measures increase, upland wildlife habitat quality also improves (Lines and Perry, 1978; Miranowski and Bender, 1982). Some soil conservation practices directly benefit habitat quality in that they provide one or more critical habitat elements incidental to their erosion control function. Some of the more important soil conservation practices to wildlife are conservation tillage, grassed terraces, field border strips, and crop rotation, Conservation Tillage Agricultural crops and their residues provide a major life requirement to many wildlife species. Conservation tillage generally has a positive impact on wildlife by leaving crop residue on the surface where it may provide cover or food. Conservation tillage l refers to seedbed preparation and planting techniques that leave protective amounts of residue mulch (e.g., cornstalks, wheat stubble, etc.) on the soil surface throughout the year. The purpose of the residue mulch is to absorb the impact (kinetic energy) of raindrops or wind before they strike 1 I n this discussion conservation tillage means any of a variety of noninversion types of tillage where a minimum of 32 peFcent of the soil surface is covered by the previous crops residue after planting. The mere use of a conservation tillage implement (such as a chisel plow or a no-till planter) does not imply that the soil conservation practice has been applied.

PAGE 55

58 the soil surface causing soil particles to wash or blow away. Conventional techniques use a moldboard plow to turn under plant residues and the upper 10 to 20 cm (4 to 8 inches) of the soil to create a clean seedbed. Conservation tillage systems fall into three general categories: no-till, mulch tillage, and ridge-till. Specially designed planters cut through the residue to till a narrow band or slot into which the seed is dropped. In no-till systems there is no secondary tillage at any time. My category of mulch tillage refers to systems that use additional tillage implements such as field cultivators, disks, or chisel plows between harvest and planting times. These two categories use herbicides for weed control and are best suited to soils that are well-drained. On the other hand, ridge-till uses a cultivator for weed control and can be used on poorly drained soils and on well drained soils, but is limited to continuous row crops. The cultivator throws up small ridges (15 to 20 cm or 6 to 8 inches high) along the row. The next year the planter removes the top 2 to 5 cm (1 to 2 inches) of the ridge, throws crop residues between the rows and plants the seeds in a slot on top of the ridge. In a recent study comparing no-till, ridge-till, and conventional tillage systems on 1,854 plots totaling 9,476 hectares (23,406 acres) in the Lake Erie region, the first year data suggests the following: 1) yields with the conservation tillage systems were competitive with yields produced under conventional tillage systems, 2) costs of production for conservation tillage systems were less than or equal to those of conventional tillage systems, and 3) conservation tillage systems reduced phosphorus loadings from the project area and did not significantly increase herbicide usage (USEPA and NACD, 1984). Incentive payments for using conservation tillage are available through the Agricultural Conservation Program (ACP) administered by the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service (ASCS). In Illinois 13 percent of the row crops grown in 1984 were produced using conservation tillage (Dickerson, 1984). Conservation tillage benefits wildlife mainly by leaving crop residue on the soil surface during spring and summer which may be used as cover. There was a greater abundance of invertebrates, birds, and mammals in no-till than in conventionally tilled cornfields in southern Illinois (Warburton and Klimstra, 1984). Researchers in Iowa found a substantially greater diversity and density of birds nested in no-till fields than in conventionally tilled fields and nest success was comparable to idle areas, such as fencerows and waterways (Basore, et al., 1983). A companion study found that increased residue cover tended to diversify rather than increase populations of small mammals (Young and Clark, 1983). The low levels of crop damage observed in their study may minimize some previously expressed concerns about rodent damage. If weeds are controlled by herbicides there is minimial physical disturbance to residue-nesting wildlife after planting time, but there is a toxicity risk from certain of the commonly used herbicides (Rodgers and Wooley, 1983). If weeds are controlled by cultivation, as is the case in ridge-till, there is substantial chance of physical disturbance to residuenesting wildlife. Although conservation tillage is an important practice for controlling sheet and rill erosion, additional water management practices (e.g., grassed waterways, terraces, etc.) are often needed for safe water disposal. Residue from harvested crops left undisturbed over winter often is identified as a benefit from conservation tillage but may in fact not be related. Such practices as chopping or shredding cornstalks after harvest, though ensuring protection of the soil, significantly reduce the value of the residue to wildlife. It is quite possible to meet the 32 percent cover requirement for soil conservation yet contribute little food to wildlife. Multiple-pass operations commonly used for corn, or single-pass tillage with twisted shank chiseling devices, may be as detrimental to the availability of waste grain as the moldboard plow (Warner, Havera, and David, 1984). Undisturbed harvested crop fields received greater use by wintering wildlife than did falltilled crop fields in Indiana (Castrale, 1983).

PAGE 56

59 Terraces are a commonly applied erosion control and water management practice. Terraces are ridges of earth about 60 to 90 cm (2 to 3 feet) high constructed across the slope on a gentle grade (about 0.6 percent) to remove runoff water from the field at a nonerosive velocity (see sketch in Appendix). Terrace construction costs are variabie depending on soil and site conditions but average costs in Illinois are about $740 to $990 per hectare ($300 to $400 per acre). ACP costsharing is available at about the 60 to 75 percent level. Terraces are best suited to deep soils on long gentle slopes and are poorly suited to soils that are shallow (to bedrock) or that occur on short, choppy slopes where contour farming is difficult. They may be broad-based and farmed or they may be narrow-based with grassed ridges or grassed backslopes. Grassed terraces are less expensive to build than are broad-based terraces, but the grass requires additional maintenance to keep it from being taken over by less desirable vegetation. Broad-based terraces have no direct benefit to wildlife, but the grassed terraces increase the diversity and interspersion of vegetative types in cropland settings. Thirtyfive species of vertebrates were found using grassed backslope terraces in Iowa (Beck, 1982). In addition, pheasant nest success was 22.5 percent, or one successful nest per 5 hectares (12.5 acres) of grass. It should be recognized that terrace construction also can result in the loss of habitat if waterways are replaced with underground tile outlets or if new field alignments remove old, grown-up fencerows and odd areas. Field Border Strips Field border strips are much underused though they can benefit the resource base significantly. Field border strips consist of permanent vegetation (usually grasses and legumes) in a strip around the perimeter of the field about 5 meters (1 rod) wide. Crop yields are reduced where fields border tall woody cover, or where end rows run up and down steep slopes or are used as machinery lanes. They reduce erosion in end rows, reduce crop planting costs adjacent to woodlands, provide an element of safety for machinery operating next to drainage ditches, and improve water quality. The concern over nonpoint sources of pollutants (Section 208 of Public Law 92-500, Federal Water Pollution Control Act) could be greatly minimized if we would establish field border strips along riparian areas of 6 to 30 meters (20 to 100 feet) in width (Schlosser and Karr, 1980; Karr and Schlosser, 1980). Although riparian green belts do not provide direct economic benefits to the farmer, the benefits to society would be great. Crop Rotations Intensive row cropping without small grains or meadow in the rotation increases soil erosion and adversely affects many forms of wildlife. The survival of Illinois pheasant chicks to 5 or 6 weeks of age has declined from 78 to 54 percent during the last 30 years (Warner, 1979). This decline is a result of fewer hectares of forage crops, small grains, and idle areas where broods forage for insects and has resulted in nearly a threefold increase in the size of the area ranged by broods (Warner, 1984; Warner, Etter, Joselyn, and Ellis, 1984). RMSS that include rotations of small grains and meadow and contour strip-cropping would significantly reduce erosion losses and enhance wildlife habitat. Reducing row crop intensity by including small grains or meadow in the rotation may, in some but not all cases, reduce farm income. The wildlife values of these practices are synergistic. It is the combination of the various conservation practices into resource management systems that will control soil erosion, improve water quality, provide wildlife habitat, and indeed protect the resource base. It is recognized that while many species will prosper from improved management of agricultural lands there are others that will not be so affected. Species requiring the large tracts of habitat with little disturbance will not be benefited 44-883 0 85 3 : QL 3

PAGE 57

60 by mosaics of habitat in agricultural ecosystems (Karr, 1981). The loss of critical vegetative cover because of extensive cultivation of everenlarging fields requires additional land management beyond the scope of the preceding discussion. There are additional temporal and spacial aspects of agricultural land use affecting the use by wildlife of otherwise quality habitat (Warner and Etter, 1984) that are often controlled by the agricultural producers. The following example illustrates how one group is trying to address this issue. Dwindling wildlife habitat is one of the five resource concerns of the Champaign County, Illinois, Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD). After identifying a township where intensive row cropping dominated agriculture and where landowners had a history of good soil conservation work, in March 1984 the SWCD invited all of the landowners and operators in the township to a meeting about soil conservation and wildlife management opportunities. The idea was that if the farms could each contribute some habitat elements critical to wildlife in the area, collectively they maybe able to meet all of the life requisites for some wildlife species. A key element in tying these islands of habitat together is the Illinois Department of Conservations Roadsides for Wildlife Program, which not only seeds roadsides but also grassed terraces, drainage ditch banks, field border strips, and odd areas. It is too early to assess results but clearly the farmers are interested. The application of the known technology can preserve the long-term productivity of our Nations soil for agriculture while benefiting farmland wildlife. Bringing soil losses down to tolerable (T value) levels will result in fewer hectares of cropland. Fifty-one percent of Illinois non-Federal cropland is in need of soil and water conservation treatment (USDA, 1984). About 10 percent of Illinois 10 million hectares of cropland should be cropped less intensively, while 3.8 percent should be converted to permanent vegetation. we cannot afford to sell off the capital wealth of our soil to subsidize short-term agricultural production. RECOMMENDATION$ I am acquainted with the agricultural recommendations for the 1985 Farm Bill put forth by Berry man (1984), Jahn and Diehl (1984), and 2. Berner (1984) and am in support of those recommendations. The general call is for the four rather basic inclusions: 1) a sodbuster provision, 2) a long-term conservation reserve program, 3) a cropland base protection provision, and 4)a cross-compliance provision. Specifically, I recommend that: 3. 1. The heart of our Nations agricultural policy should be to optimize production within the long-term capacity of the re4. source base to sustain that production. This requires recognition that excessive soil erosion, nonpoint sources of water pollutants, and dwindling farmland wild5. life are not independent problems but collectively are symptoms of a degrading resource base. The solution is an integrated ecological approach to production with protection. Since the relationship between intensive row cropping, increasing soil erosion, nonpoint sources of water pollutants, and declining farmland wildlife is so strong, it is appropriate for the national agricultural policy to recognize and share some of the responsibility. The use of resource management systems is a more effective way to treat our Nations resource problems than is the use of individual conservation practices. The Universal Soil Loss Equation and SCSs system of Land Capability Classification would be useful in the event that sodbuster-type provisions are enacted. All future cropland retirement programs include: a. vegetative protection selected for agronomic and wildlife values;

PAGE 58

61 b. c. d. provisions to establish field border This paper reflects my observations as a field strips 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. In 16.2-hectare field or a rod wide strip closing, therefore, let me stress that agricultural around a 40-acre field); policies and programs must be sensitive to the provision to establish field borders as economic well being of our Nation and the infilter strips along riparian areas; and dividual farmer as well as wildlife habitat, prohibitions against mowing retired lands before the wildlife nesting season is complete (about August 1). ACKNOWLEDGMENT I wish to thank L, M. David, Illinois DepartHamilton, R. J. Herman, D. Moffit, G. Root and ment of Conservation; R. E, Warner, Illinois M, Gunn, Soil Conservation Service; for reNatural History Survey; C. H. Thomas, R. viewing a draft of the manuscript. REFERENCES Basore, N. S., Best, L. B., Wooley, J. B., Jr., and Rybarcz, W. B., Impact of No-till Farming on Nesting Birds, abstract of paper presented at the 45th Midwest Fish and Wildlife Conference, 1983. By Permission. Beck, D. W, Wildlife Use of Grassed Backslope Terraces, abstract of paper presented at the 44th Midwest Fish and Wildlife Conference, 1982, By Permission, Berner, A. 0., Federal Land Retirement Program-A Land Management Albatross? Trans. 49th North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference (Washington, DC: Wildlife Management Institute, 1984), pp. 118-131. Berryman, J. A., The Agriculture, Food, and Natural Resource Management Act of 1985: Challenges and Options, Agricultural Task Force, Natural Resources Council of America, 1984, Castrale, J. S., Fall Agricultural Tillage Practices and Field Use by Wintering Wildlife in Southeastern Indiana, abstract of paper presented at the 45th Midwest Fish and Wildlife Conference, 1983. By Permission. Dickerson, R. L., Illinois Soil Conservation Service State Agronomist, personal communication, 1984. Ellis, J. A., Hunter Harvest Surveys, Illinois Department of Conservation, 1983. By Permission. Graber, R., and Graber, J., The Declining Grassland Birds, Illinois Natural History Survey Reports, No. 227, Champaign, Illinois, 1983. Illinois Cooperative Crop Reporting Service, I1linois Agricultural Statistics, Annual Summaries, Illinois Department of Agriculture and U.S. Department of Agriculture, 19571983. Jahn, L. R., and Diehl, J. L., Conservations Challenge: Multiple Considerations, Soil Conservation Society of American Annual Meeting, 1984. Karr, J., R., An Integrated Approach to Management of Land Resources, Wildlife Management 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: More Extensive BMP Justification, personal communication from J. R. Karr, 1980. Leopold, A., A Sand County Ahnanac With Essays on Conservation From Round River (New York: Oxford University Press, 1966). Lines, I. L., and Perry, C. J., A Numerical Wildlife Habitat Evaluation Procedure. In: Trans. 43rd North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference (Washington, DC:

PAGE 59

62 Wildlife Management Institute, 1978), pp. 284-301. Miranowski, J. A., and Bender, R, L,, Impact of Erosion Control Policies on Wildlife Habitat on Private Lands, J. SoiZ and Water Conservation 37(5):288-291, 1982. Risser, P, G., Karr, J. R., and Forman, R. T, T., Landscape Ecology, Directions and Appreaches, Illinois Natural History Survey Special Publication No. 2., Champaign, IL, 1984. Rodgers, R. D., and Wooley, J. B., Conservation Tillage Impacts on Wildlife, J. Soil and Water Conservation 38(3):212-213, 1983. Sampson, R. N., FarmZand or Wasteland (PA: Rodale Press, 1981). Schlosser, I. J., and Karr, J. R,, Determinants of Water Quality in Agricultural Watersheds, Water Resources Center Research Report No, 147 (Urbana, IL: University of Illinois, 1980). Soil Conservation Service, NationaZ BioZogy ManU.s, Us. Us. Us. ua], 1983. Department of Agriculture, Basic Statistics, 1982 National Resources Inventory, preliminary data, 1984. Department of Agriculture, A National Program for Soil and Water Conservation, Final Program Report and Environmental Impact Statement, 1982. Department of Agriculture, Summary of the Publics Comments on RCA, January-March 1980. Environmental Protection Agency and National Association of Conservation Districts, Evaluating Impacts of Conservation Tillage, Lake Erie Demonstration Projects, 1984. Warburton, D. B., and Klimstra, W, D., Wildlife Use of No-till and Conventionally Tilled Corn Fields, J. Soil and Water Conservation 39(5):327-330, 1984. Warner, R, E,, Effects of Changing Agriculture on Ring-Necked Pheasant Brood Movements in Illinois, Journal of Wildlife Management 48(3):1014-1018, 1984. Warner, R. E., Use of Cover by Pheasant Broods in East Central Illinois, JournaZ of WiZdlife Management 43(2):334-346, 1979. Warner, R. E., and Etter, S. L., Farm Conservation Measures to Benefit Wildlife, Especially Pheasant Populations (in preparation), 1985. Warner, R. E,, Etter, S. L,, Joselyn, G. B., and Ellis, J, A,, Declining Surviving of Ring-necked Pheasant Chicks in Illinois Agricultural Ecosystems, Journal of Wildlife Management 48(1):82-88, 1984. Warner, R. E., Havera, H. P., and David, L, M., Effects of Fall Tillage Systems on Corn and Soybean Harvest Residues in Illinois, Journal of Wildlife Management, Pending Publication, 1985. Young, R, E., and Clark, W. R., Rodent Populations and Crop Damage In Minimum Tillage Cornfields, abstract of paper presented at the 45th Midwest Fish and Wildlife Conference, 1983. By Permission,

PAGE 60

63 Different Cropping and Systems in the United States Potential Benefits to Wildlife R. L Papendick and k. F. Elliott USDA-Agricultural Research Service Washington State University Pullman, WA CROPPING SYSTEMS AND WILDLIFE Cropping systems presently in use in the United States have in most instances evolved over the years as a result of a number of factors such as demand for the crop, technological development, crop adaptability, foreign export policies, and national policies controlling the production of major crops. For the most part, gradually over the past four decades or so, there has been a major shift by American farmers to monocultural cropping systems, particularly of cash grains, along with heavy reliance on fossil fuel-based production inputs, especially synthetic pesticides and fertilizers, Much of the driving force behind the trend to these systems has been plentiful supplies of cheap energy, In the heart of the Nations croplands, the Cornbelt (sometimes referred to as the breadbasket of the country), there also has been a marked shift to rowcropping, i.e., continuous corn or corn-soybean rotations, away from a more diversified corn-legume-small grain cropping of the pre-world War II era. For example, during the 1960s and 1970s, it was not uncommon for farmers in some areas to plant corn continuously for 8 to 10 years. Moreover, each year of continuous corn cropping the corn stover would be turned under by fall plowing in preparation for the next spring planting, leaving the land bare overwinter. In recent years, there have been a number of production problems encountered with continuous corn, and many farmers have begun rotating corn more frequently with soybeans. Also, there has been increased use of conservation tillage systems, a part of which by some definitions includes leaving the corn stover undisturbed overwinter except possibly for a shredding operation, and followed by a minimum tillage seedbed preparation or no-till planting in the spring. Very recently, there has been increased interest, particularly in the more southern areas, in planting a cover crop in the fall, such as winter vetch, on rowcrop land for erosion control and nitrogen fixation. In the wheat growing areas of the West, the major cropping system is wheat-fallow in the drier areas and increasing intensity of small grain and/or rowcropping in the higher precipitation areas. The conventional practice with wheat-fallow is to leave the crop stubble following harvest undisturbed overwinter and begin tillage for weed control and seedbed preparation in mid-March to early April of the following spring. The first tillage is usually accomplished with sweep cultivators if the stubble is relatively light (e.g., <3,000 kg/ha] and if wind erosion is a hazard. These undercutting tools preserve maximum amounts of crop residues on the surface and leave some of the stubble in an upright position for added protection of soil against blowing. In areas where the stubble is heavier, the more common implement for initial tillage is a double disk which cuts and buries a relatively high percentage of the stubble. Following the initial tillage with either the sweep or disking, the fields are rodweeded three to five times during the remainder of the spring and summer for weed control until fall planting in September and October. By this

PAGE 61

64 time, much of the crop residues have visibly disappeared by decomposition and mixing with the soil. With annual cropping, the stubble is often plowed or disked soon after harvest and either planted to a fall crop in September or October or, in the case of a spring crop, left bare overwinter with seedbed preparation and planting carried out the following April. The main point about these conventional cropping systems pertinent to wildlife is that, with intensive tillage and small diversity in crops grown, there are often relatively long periods when there is little or no vegetative cover on the land. In addition, with rowcropping in particular, field operations of various types (cultivation, spraying, replanting, etc.) may occur frequently and well into the growing season which can be extremely disruptive to wildlife. Even with closegrown small grain cropping there is not a pattern of continuous ground cover provided throughout all seasons. It is widely accepted that these large-scale, energy-intensive production technologies subfood and fiber produced in this Nation. However, some adverse effects of conventional agricultural practices are becoming of increasing concern to American society. Most have to do with increased soil erosion rates and impairment of water quality from pollution by sediments and pesticides that are directly associated with conventional farming practices. There also is concern about biological toxicity of these pesticides to nontarget organisms. In the united States the loss of potential capacity by soil erosion is regarded as one of the foremost threats to agriculture. Moreover, eroded soil is the major pollutant of stream and waterways in the Nation. As Brady (1984) points out, conventional type agriculture also has adversely impacted wildlife for two reasons: 1) intensive use and management of the land has reduced habitat quality, and 2) extensive cultivation of ever enlarging fields and road-to-road farming has removed critical forms of vegetative cover. He shows from research in Illinois that with increased trends in rowcropping, there is a concomitant decrease in harvest of small game. stantially account for the abundant supplies of Two major changes are occurring in largeseeding, which results in retention of surface scale agricultural production systems today, both of which can have favorable impacts on wildlife. These are: 1) marked increase in conservation tillage systems including minimum tillage and no-till, and 2) increased intensity in cropping including multicropping practices and reduced summer fallow. These are not independent because, for example, minimum tillage is to a large extent making multicropping and reduced-fallow possible in many areas. Conservation Tillaga Conservation tillage usually consists of direct seeding and fertilizing into the previous crop stubble (no-till) or minimum tillage prior to residue-s. Both systems significantly reduce erosion compared with conventional clean tillage and appear to benefit wildlife from the crop residue left on the surface where it may provide both cover and feed. Minimum tillage cropping systems are used for both fall and spring seeded crops. If a spring crop is sown, usually the stubble is chiseled or disked in the fall so that the soil surface is rough and most of the residues remain on the soil surface. For a fall sown crop, such as winter wheat, the soil will be chiseled and then disked once or twice to form a seedbed, then the crop is seeded. With these tillages, most of the residues, while flattened, still remain on or near the soil surface.

PAGE 62

65 The cropping system that now appears to hold greatest promise for the future is no-till cropping. with no-till, the seed and fertilizer are placed into the soil below the crop residues. The only tillage that occurs is from a one-pass operation in placing the seed and fertilizer. Weeds and insect pests are controlled by spraying pesticides. This system offers maximum erosion protection and leaves standing stubble for wildlife cover and snow catchment. Snow catchment is important for uniform snow distribution. No-till seeding causes minimum soil disturbance so that previous crop seeds remain on the soil surface for wildlife feed and offers the potential for increasing soil organic matter near the soil surface. Most of the concerns about conservation tillage tend to center on increased use of pesticides, mainly herbicides, and possible undesirable ecological effects that may result. With reduction or elimination of tillage, farmers have on the average increased the use of broad spectrum herbicides such as glyphosate and paraquat for preplant application. use of other herbicides has probably changed less because most conventional tillage systems also rely on herbicides to control weeds in the crop. Insecticide use also may increase because certain insect pests can be harbored in the crop residues. with herbicides, wildlife biologists and ecologists are usually more concerned with destruction of the wildlife food base rather than any direct toxic effect on animals. with insecticides, however, mortality can result from direct toxic effects on birds and animals, or after they have ingested poisoned invertebrates. For example, parathion usually sprayed from the air for insect control is lethal in small dosages to virtually all animals and birds. Another concern is that the chemicals that are applied in conservation tillage systems are more likely to remain at the soil surface rather than being incorporated in the soil, which raises questions about potential runoff loss of chemicals in the environment. However, although arguments are made both ways, the situation is not always clear as to effects of conservation tillage systems and changes in cropping systems on leaching, decomposition, retention, volatilization, and runoff of pesticides and fertilizers. A strong consensus exists among most agricultural leaders that there is an urgent need to learn more about possible harmful side effects of conservation tillage resulting from more intensive use of pesticides. Researchers appear to be unanimous in their view that few of the ecological effects are well understood and that current research programs are insufficient to provide the needed answers. The increase in the organic matter content of the soil near the surface with no-till cropping systems will greatly change the activity of this zone in regard to pesticides. We think the results will be beneficial, but data are lacking. Along with minimum tillage and no-till, there also are changes occurring in cropping systems. These changes are being accelerated, not only by the changes in the tillage methods, but also by the economics of crop production. Double-cropping systems such as soybeans following wheat generally have been quite successful in the Southern and Southeast States and are made possible by direct seeding of soybeans into wheat stubble immediately after harvest. In the dryland wheat regions, no-till is reducing or eliminating the need for fallow or making it possible to grow two crops in 3 years in many of the transitional areas situated between true summer fallow and annual crop zones. Aside of the unknowns with pesticides, there changes in cropping systems in combination with reduced tillage should, for the most part, favorably impact wildlife by providing a greater supply, variety, and stability of food base and cover. Organic Farming and Potontial Benefits for Wildlife Organic farming as an alternative agricultural production system offers a possibility for improving the compatibility between crop and animal production practices and wildlife conservation. This method of farming differs considerably in certain respects from widely practiced conventional agriculture, mainly with respect to tillage and cropping methods, live-

PAGE 63

66 stock management, and in the way that crop nutrients are supplied and pests are controlled. Organic farmers generally follow a holistic approach to farming which involves a strong interdependency among crops, animals, and management practices that provide for a highly complex production system that is stable, sustainable, resource-efficient, and economically and environmentally sound. Compared with conventional agriculture, organic methods tend to employ less inversion tillage, greater crop diversification, and include livestock production as an integral part of the farm operation. Another major difference between organic farming and conventional agriculture that may be of importance to wildlife is that organic farmers avoid or restrict the use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides in their operations. practices employed by organic farmers can result in conservation benefits to fish and wildlife by reducing soil erosion, which in turn would minimize the movement of sediment, nutrients, and pesticides from cropland into surface waters. Cropping and tillage practices.Organic farmers make more extensive use of meadow and small grain crops and, therefore grow less row crops than conventional farmers. On many farms, either a legume or grass, or mixtures thereof, may involve 30 to 50 percent of the rotation. Monoculture cropping, such as continuous corn or long-term rotations of corn and soybeans without intervening sod or closegrowing crops, is generally avoided. In addition to less rowcropping, organic farmers generally make greater use of green manure and cover crops during the interim between the major crops than do most conventional farmers. The forage produced on organic farms is usually fed to animals, which encourages a mixed grain crop and meadow (sod crops) in the rotation. Most organic farmers use tillage implements much like those used in conservation tillage systems to maintain crop residues at or near the soil surface. Because they avoid the use of chemical pesticides and fertilizers, organic farmers are likely to cultivate more frequently for weed control than farmers employing conservation tillage practices. No-till farming generally is not acceptable to organic farmers because of the heavy dependence of this practice on pesticides to control weeds and insects with present technology. Organic farmers question the sustainability of any agricultural system that depends on pesticides because of perceived harmful effects to soil, water, and biological components of the environment. Nutrient supply and management.Organic systems rely heavily on legumes in the rotation to supply nitrogen and, to some extent, on offfarm sources of nitrogen-containing organic wastes such as animal manures and compost. Most farmers strive to recycle nitrogen as efficiently as possible by recycling crop residues and on-farm manures and other wastes or byproducts of the farm operation. phosphorus and potassium are supplied either by importation of low water-solubility materials such as rock phosphate or greensand, or through the release of these nutrients from soil. They generally avoid the use of high-analysis inorganic fertilizers such as anhydrous ammonia, urea, and concentrated forms of phosphorus and potassium. A strong consensus is that concentrated fertilizers are generally harmful to the soil biota and can ultimately lead to nutrient imbalances, reduced earthworm activity, impaired soil physical properties, compaction, and pollution of surface and groundwaters. Pest control.Organic farmers rely almost entirely on a combination of nonchemical methods for crop protection. Pest control is achieved primarily through crop rotations, with crop sequences within the rotation adjusted so as to maximize effectiveness in disrupting pest cycles. Supplemental weed control is achieved by mechanical cultivation, mowing, adjustments in planting date, and certain biological methods such as crop competition and animal grazing. Organic farmers also place considerable emphasis on preventive methods. For example, weed sanitation techniques are used to prevent the establishment of unwanted vegetation that might harbor weed

PAGE 64

67 seeds and insect pests. when absolutely necessary, some organic farmers use registered herbicides selectively and sparingly to support cultural and mechanical practices. They also may use organic insecticides and biological agents for controlling particularly persistent insect pests in the production of fruits and vegetables. Benefits to wildlife.The potential benefits of organic farming to wildlife would be associated with the diversity of crops grown and the increased amounts of cover and habitat areas, control of erosion and sedimentation, and minimal use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides (Dahlgren, 1983), Several studies suggest that populations of breeding birds are higher on organic farms as compared with conventional farms as a result of the greater diversity of crops and use of meadow on the organic farms. Ducey, et al. (1980), found that an organic farm in eastern Nebraska had eight times more bird territories than adjacent conventional farms. Similar results were reported by Gremaud and Dahlgren (1982) for breeding bird populations on organic compared with conventional farms in Iowa. Dahlgren (1983) concluded that the amount of crop-litter, FUTURE Alternative production technologies seed abundance, and crop cover affected the use of the field by birds, but reported no effects from the use of chemicals. Decreased soil erosion associated with organic farming practices would reduce the level of water pollution from sediment and chemicals compared with that from many conventional farms. It would appear that the greatest benefit to be derived from erosion control would be the improvement in water quality of fish and wetland habitats. Most of the insecticides and herbicides in use today are short-lived chemicals that persist in the environment for hours or days. when applied at field application rates most of the herbicides now used would appear to be relatively nontoxic to birds and animals. Nevertheless, currently used chemicals have been implicated as the cause for decline in bird and animal populations; however, there is considerable controversy as to how acute and widespread the effect may be. Again, some adaptation of organic farming methods could restore habitat areas and greatly reduce the likelihood and severity of adverse effects of such chemicals on wildlife in the future. RESEARCH NEEDS are needed to reduce soil erosion and nutrient losses from this Nations cropland and potential hazards from certain pesticides, which in turn could significantly decrease the pollution of surface waters by sediment and agricultural chemicals, and improve the quality of fish and 3. wildlife habitats. To achieve this goal, future research should focus on the following areas: 1. 2. Conduct research to improve present methods used by organic farmers, e.g., 4. conservation tillage, biological methods of pest control, crop rotation sequences, and nutrient supply and cycling, Investigate how biological pest control, nutrient cycling, crop rotations, mechanical cultivation, and other cultural methods used in organic farming systems can reduce heavy dependence on chemical pesticides and fertilizers in presently developing minimum tillage and no-till cropping systems, Investigate how organic and conventional farming concepts can be integrated so as to incorporate the best features of each into productive, economically viable, and environmentally sound management systems. Determine factors responsible for low crop yields during the transition from conventional to organic farming or other lowenergy intensive methods, and how these relate to changes in soil properties, nutrient availability, and pest and soil microbial

PAGE 65

68 5. ecology. Also, determine the effect of transition from conventional to organic farming on changes in the numbers and species of wildlife, i.e., birds and animals, and how these relate to changes in the food base, type or cover, and habitat development. Develop improved crop rotation for congen fixation, soil tilth, crop health, and pest control. 6. Develop models to predict and verify responses of wildlife to changes in their food base and habitat as affected by soil and crop management practices, particularly conservation tillage, crop rotation, monoculture systems, and integrated pest manservation tillage systems to enhance nitroagement. REFERENCES Brady, S. J., Important Soil Conservation TechKoehler, A., and Mazour, D., A Biological niques That Benefit Wildlife, OTA paper for Comparison of Organic and Chemical Farmworkshop on Technologies to Benefit Agriculing (Lincoln: University of Nebraska, 1980), ture and Wildlife, 1984. unpublished. Dahlgren, R. B., Wildlife Conservation Benefits, Gremaud, G. K., and Dahlgren, R. B., Biological Workshop on Management Alternatives for Farming: Impacts on Wildlife, Workshop on Biological Farming, R. B. Dahlgren (cd.) Midwest Agricultural Interfaces with Fish (Ames, IA: Iowa Cooperative Wildlife Reand Wildlife Resources, R. B. Dahlgren (cd.) search Unit, 1983), pp. 37-38. (Ames, IA: Iowa Cooperative Wildlife ReDucey, J., Rauscher, J., Wiederspan, C., Miller, L., search Unit, 1982), pp. 38-39.

PAGE 66

69 Reducing Wildlife Losses to Tillage in Wheat Production Systems Randy D. Rodgors Kansas Fish and Game Commission Hays, KS ABSTRACT In wheat producing systems, surface tillage treaders instead of surface tillage implements of the stubble that remains after harvest defer fallow weed control. Agronomic benefits stroys some of the wildlife present and severely of undercutting result from excellent surface diminishes the fields habitat value. This probresidue retention and include improved erolem is most acute in the wheat-fallow system sion control, lower operating costs, and inwhen surface tillage is used for spring weed creased soil moisture and grain yields. weed control in stubble. Losses include all nests, control with safe chemicals also may reduce flightless young birds, and many incubating wildlife destruction and enhance agronomic adults. benefits. This study demonstrated that a substantial Opportunities exist to encourage such pracportion of the wildlife in wheat stubble can be tices through applied farm policy in standard saved by using undercutter without mulch set-aside and other acreage reduction programs. INTRODUCTION Fallowing for wheat is a common cropping practice in the semiarid regions of the United States. The wheat-fallow rotation is used on about 16 million hectares (39 million acres) in 17 States (Greb, 1979). Wheat is planted in alternate years and fields are idled through a complete growing season. The objective of fallowing is to accumulate soil moisture, thereby reducing the danger of crop failure, increasing yields, and improving efficiency (Smika, 1970). Wheat stubble often is left standing through the winter following harvest. This stubble sharply decreases soil erosion by both wind and water (Homer, 1960; McCalla and Army, 1961). It catches and holds snow on the fields which contributes substantial moisture for wheat production (Smika and whitfield, 1966). Many wildlife species use wheat stubble, including ring-necked pheasants (Phasiazzus colchicus), which are highly dependent on it in portions of the Great Plains. However, stubble can become an ecological trap in spring since weed growth must be controlled to conserve soil moisture. Initial control is frequently accomplished with surface tillage implements or by subsurface tillage using an undercutter in conjunction with surface attachments called mulch treaders. The final spring tillage typically occurs after many birds have established nests. Higgins (1975, l977) found sharp-tailed grouse (Pediocetes phasianellus), five species of shorebirds (Scolopacidae, Charadriidae), and four species of ducks (Arias spp.) nesting in standing stubble in North Dakota. Surface tillage with discs, plows, or treaders destroys these nests and may kill or injure incubating adults. In contrast, the large V-shaped blades (sweeps) of an undercutter pass under the surface to cut and dislodge roots leaving the stubble generally erect. Objectives of this study were to: 1) determine if tillage with undercutter without mulch treaders would permit successful completion of nests in stubble, and 2) evaluate the effect of undercutting on non-nesting wildlife.

PAGE 67

70 The study was conducted on two farms in northwest Kansas. A total of 330 hectares (816 acres) of stubble were undercut during the springs of 1980 and 1981. An ADflex undercutter with five 1.52 m (5 ft) blades was used on 96 percent of this land. The balance was tilled with a Tri-Flex undercutter with three 1.83 m (6 ft) blades. Both were pulled at speeds ranging from 7 to 10 km/h (5 to 7 mph) by tractors equipped with dual rear tires. Blade depth was 12 to 15 cm (5 to 6 in). Although a few nests were located on foot, most were seen from the tractor by watching for adults flushed during the undercutting operation. This precluded finding unattended nests and many nests of small birds or tightsitting hens. Some effort to steer machinery was made to avoid destroying natural nests but all nests were undercut at full speed. Immediately after undercutting, each nest was examined for disruption. A nest was considered intact if no eggs were broken, buried, or separated greater than RESULTS AND Twenty-two (39 percent) of the 57 artificial nests placed in the stubble fields remained intact after undercutting. This level of nest survival corresponds closely with the proportion of free zone of the ADflex undercutter. The free zone is the soil surface not impacted by tires or blade supports. The relative percentage of free zone and, therefore, potential nest survival, increases with the size of the undercutter and the width of the blades. Greater nest survival with large undercutter in large fields could compensate partially for wildlife losses due to poor nest interspersion and extensive clearing of habitat associated with large fields. the estimated reach of the adult from the nest bowl. If nestlings were present, the nest was considered intact if none were injured. Nests were left in the configuration resulting from the tillage. Intact nests were revisited the day after undercutting and at 3 to 5 day intervals. Nest success was defined as hatching of precocial young or fledging of altricial young. Predation or abandonment was assumed to occur midway between visits. To provide nest survival estimates where no steering effort was made, 57 artificial nests composed of five to eight bantom hens eggs were placed randomly in the stubble prior to tillage. Physical disruption of these nests was determined with the same criteria used for natural nests. The direct effect of undercutting on incubating adults, young flightless birds, and small mammals was observed during tillage. DISCUSSION Natural Nests Sixty-eight nests of seven species were located of which 36 (53 percent) were intact following undercutting (table 1). The higher survival of natural over artificial nests reflects the potential for steering machinery, when possible, to avoid nest destruction. A northern harrier [Circus cyaneus) nest is not included in analysis since nest fate was not determined and a bobwhite (Colinus virginianus) nest was destroyed by a predator before it was revisited. Only one of four grasshopper sparrow (Am modramus savannarum) nests and O of 2 horned lark (Eremophila alpestris) nests passed through the free zone. If a nest passed through the free zone, eggs were jostled, but rarely damaged. Egg retention in the nest varied from

PAGE 68

77 Table 1 .-Fate of Nests After Undercutting Wheat Stubble Nests renesting than residual cover (Dumke and PiIs, 1979). Some nests, particularly mourning dove nests may be initiated after undercutting, leaving them vulnerable if subsequent surface tillage is performed. Other Wildlife Effecfs Although the coulters could be lethal, no injury of incubating adults was observed. Late flushing adults which survived passage of the undercutter would have been killed during disc tillage. Many, flightless young ring-necked pheasants, meadowlarks, and grasshopper sparrows also passed safely through the undercutter. In contrast, discing destroys broods and, in pheasants, results in total loss of the hens annual reproductive effort since renesting after brood loss is rare (Dumke and Pils, 1979). Numerous deer mice (Peromyscus maniculatus) and grasshopper mice (Onychomy s leucogaster) passed unharmed through the undercutter. Other vertebrates observed in wheat stubble during tillage included 13-lined ground squirrels (Spermoplnlus tridecemlineatus), ord kangaroo rats (Dipidomys ordi) horned lizards (Phrynosozna spp.), and unidentified lizards, Agronomic Aspects Standing stubble left by undercutting protects the soil from wind erosion better than flattened stubble (Fenster and wicks, 1977) and it effectively controls water erosion (Homer, 1960).

PAGE 69

72 Stubble improves soil moisture storage most during spring and early summer when rains are frequent and high evaporative loss can occur (Greb, et al., 1967). Standing stubble helps moisture intake by reducing runoff (Homer, 1960) and by maintaining soil surface porosity which facilitates percolation (McCalla and Army, 1961; Greb, 1979). The reduced soil disturbance during undercutting improves water conservation since subsequent weed germination is retarded and less subsurface soil is exposed. Shade from stubble also lowers soil temperatures (McCalla and Duley, 1946), further reducing evaporation and weed regrowth. Grain yields improve a mean of about 10 percent with stubble mulching compared to bare fallow in the semiarid Great Plains (Johnson and Davis, 1972; Smika, 1976) and increase directly with increases in straw mulch. Undercutter retain about 90 percent of the surface residue after one operation compared to only 30 to 70 percent with a one-way disc (McCalla and Army, 1961). Fewer weed control operations are needed with stubble mulching than in conventional bare fallow (Greb, 1979) and power needs are lower with undercutters compared to discs on a single pass (Smika, 1976). This saves fuel, equipment costs, and time. Loss of soil organic matter and nitrogen is reduced under stubble mulching (Johnson and Davis, 1972; Bauer and Black, 1981). Undercutting does hold some potential or perceived problems. The warm, sunny days common to semiarid regions should be selected for undercutting since weed kill may not be adequate under cool, wet conditions (McCalla and Army, 1961; Smika, 1976). Although desirable for seedling emergence (McCalla and Army, 1961), surface residue can clog conventional grain drills. Modern high clearance drills with widely spaced, staggered standards effectively seed into mulches and minimize this problem. If desired, surface tillage can be used for winter wheat seedbed preparation in August. Insect and disease problems are no greater with stubble mulching than with conventional fallow (Johnson and Davis, 1972; Greb, 1979). Related Agronomic Treatments Though designed for seedbed preparation, some farmers attach mulch treaders to undercutter for weed control tillage. However, negative aspects of this practice outweigh benefits. Aasheim (1949) recommended that treaders not be used because they pulverize the soil and create conditions which favor soil drifting. The combination of blade an d treaders will bury 50 percent of the residue compared to only 10 percent with an undercutter alone (McCalla and Army, 1961) Treaders also flatten stubble which increases evaporation and erosion. Treader-induced soil disturbance can improve conditions for germination and growth of new weeds. Agronomic and wildlife problems indicate that mulch treaders should not be used for spring weed control in wheat stubble. Tillage between harvest and spring is of little agronomic value and is often detrimental. The stubble incorporation caused by postharvest discing in wheat-fallow increases erosion, reduces snow catchment, and results in decreased moisture conservation (Black and Power, 1965) and lower grain yields. Postharvest undercutting is of little value in conserving soil moisture for spring whea t (Aasheim, 1949). A single undercutting can conserve moisture through the fall in winter wheat-fallow, but usually has no total fallow advantage since untilled stubble compensates with greater efficiency in retaining snow (Greb, et al., 1967) and in storing rain the next spring (Wiese and Army, 1958). Bond, et al. (1961), recommended delayed subtillage (untilled until spring) since it resulted in no yield loss, reduced loss of organics and nitrogen, superior erosion control, and fuel savings. Undercutting twice after harvest can improve total soil water storage (Smika, 1976), but added expenses make this economically marginal. Erosion control, yield advantages (Fenster and Peterson, 1979), and improving reliability have increased herbicide use in fallow weed control. Chemical fallow usually involves applying long-lived (10 to 12 months) preemer-

PAGE 70

73 gence herbicides after harvest or short-lived (2 new problems for wildlife. The commonly used to 3 months) preemergence herbicides the next contact herbicide-paraquat-causes mortality spring. Contact herbicides also can be used. and growth impairment of embryos when apChemical fallowing holds potential for mainplied to eggs at typical field application rates taining undisturbed stubble through most of (Hoffman and Eastin, 1982). Applying herthe nesting season and may be superior to bicides 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 their wheat base into an Acreage Conservation Reserve (ACR). They are required to control weeds, yet maintain surface residue on the ACR. These goals cannot be jointly accomplished with surface tillage. However, both can be attained by using either an undercutter or chemical weed control while producing added wildlife benefit. To encourage erosion and wildlife benefits, farmers: 1) should not be permitted to use any form of tillage (including undercutting) on ACR between harvest and spring, and 2) should not be permitted to use any form of surface tillage (including mulch treaders) until August 1. Thereafter, surface tillage could be permitted for winter wheat seedbed preparation. These provisions would allow the use of undercutter without treaders after spring or chemical control at any point. Violation of these provisions on ACR should require forfeiture of at least 10 cents per bushel of the deficiency payment. Better enforcement by the ASCS than has been previously evident would be needed. Late announcement of auxiliary reduction in acreage programs (RAP) such as occurred with the Payment-In-Kind (PIK) program result in a need for farmers to destroy wheat to qualify for the RAP. Most wheat destruction is accomplished by discing or mowing during spring, both of which result in wholesale destruction of wildlife in these fields. Such situations could be made very positive for wildlife and erosion control if farmers were permitted to allow wheat to mature and stand through August 1. weed control thereafter could be accomplished only by undercutting or with chemicals, thus permitting the ASCS to verify that the crop was not harvested. weed control with surface tillage would make such verification difficult. If wheat destruction in the spring is necessitated by a RAP, wildlife losses can be minimized by requiring that surface tillage or mowing could not be used. This would encourage undercutting or chemical wheat destruction and the residue would provide excellent erosion control, good weed suppression, improved moisture storage, and wildlife habitat. Financial penalties would, again, be of value in encouraging these practices. (See Appendix 1 for additional 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 Tillage Quality 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-

PAGE 71

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 and Water Conservation 16:163-165, 1961. Fenster, C. R., and Peterson, G. A., Effects of No Tillage Fallow as Compared to Conventional Tillage in a Wheat-fallow System, Univ. Neb. Agric. Exp. Sta. Res. Bull, 289, 1979. Fenster, C. R., and Wicks, G. A., Minimum Tillage Fallow Systems for Reducing Wind Erosion, Trans. Am, Soc. Agric. Engin. 20:906910, 1977, Greb, B. W., Reducing Drought Effects on CropIand 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., Effects of Straw Mulch Rates on Soil Water Storage During Summer Fallow in the Great Plains, Soil Sci, Soc, Am. Proc. 31:556-559, 1967. Higgins, K. F,, Shorebird and Game Bird Nests in North Dakota Croplands, Wild]. Soc. BuZZ. 3:176-179, 1975. Higgins, K. F., Duck Nesting in Intensively Farmed Areas of North Dakota, J. WildZ. Management 41:232-242, 1977. Hoffman, D, J., and Eastin, W. C., Jr., Effects of Lindane, Paraquat, Toxaphene, and 2,4,5trichlorphenoxyacetic Acid on Mallard Embryo Development, Arch, Environ. Contain. Toxico]. 11:79-86, 1982 Homer, G. M., Effect of Cropping Systems on Runoff, Erosion, and Wheat Yields, Agronomy Journal 52:342-344, 1960. Johnson, W. C,, and Davis, R. G., Research on Stubble-mulch Farming of Winter Wheat, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agriculture Research Service, Conserv. Res. Rep. 16, 1972. May field, H., Nesting Success Calculated From Exposure, Wi]son Bulletin 73:255-261, 1961. McCalla, T. M,, and Army, T. J., Stubble Mulch Farming, Adv. in Agron. 13:125-196, 1961. McCalla, T. M., and Duley, F. L., Effect of Crop Residues on Soil Temperature, J. Amer. Soc. Agron. 38:75-89, 1946. Smika, D. E,, Summer Fallow for Dryland Winter Wheat in the Semiarid Great Plains, Agronomy Journal 62:15-17, 1970. Smika, D. E., Mechanical Tillage for Conservation Fallow in the Semiarid Central Great Plains, Proc. Conserv. TiZZage Workshop, Great Plains Agric. Council 77:78-92, 1976. Smika, D. E., and Whitfield, C. J,, Effect of Standing Wheat Stubble on Storage of Winter Precipitation, J. Soil and Water Conserv. 21:138141, 1966. Wiese, A. F., and Army, T. J., Effect of Tillage and Chemical Weed Control Practices on Soil Moisture Storage and Losses, Agron. J. 50:465-468, 1958. APPENDIX 1 Additional Agrkukre Policy Recommendations 1. Problem.Knowledge of impacts of new agricultural technologies on wildlife is extremely limited in many areas. Solution.Incorporate wildlife researchers into the agricultural experiment station system. As few as 10 to 20 positions placed at agricultural experiment stations around the country could do tremendous good for as little as $1 million to $2 million annually, Benefits. -These individuals would have access to experiment station lands where wildlife testing could be accomplished under relatively controlled conditions. Much current wildlife-agricultural research is being done on private lands where the study may be at the mercy of the producers whims. By having these people inside the system, they will be able to study new agricultural technologies as they develop, thus permitting possible modification of the technologies for wildlife benefit before the technologies go into general use. Currently, modifications for wildlife are difficult to obtain because new technologies are already entrenched in agricultural practice before their wildlife impacts are known. 2. Problem.Current set-aside guidelines permit participation in the wheat program without participation in the feed grains program.

PAGE 72

75 This results in farmers reducing their wheat production, but increasing their feed grains production by planting feed grains on the very same ground (ACR) which was to be idled in the wheat program. This is selfdefeating since the wheat program essentially contributes to over-production of feed grains, contrary to the purpose of the feed grains program. This is a waste of tax monies and constitutes outright welfare payments to farmers. Solution.Farmers need not elect to participate in both programs, however, the Acreage Conservation Reserve (ACR) lands should be idled for one full calendar year from the time that the set-aside is announced (not the crop year). Benefits.Wildlife would benefit from the cover left on the ACR (be it residue, weeds, or other) and erosion control as well as other agronomic benefits would result. Such a requirement would cost less tax dollars and would result in more effective reduction of feed grain surpluses. 3. Problem.Conservation agencies currently have little or no input into the application of farm commodity policy at the State level. Solution.State ASC committees should include members from the States conservation department (fish and wildlife agency) and/or from the SCS. Benefits.The State committee could more effectively develop guidelines which would accomplish the joint goals of cutting production and encouraging conservation. Currently, the application of production cutting programs often contradicts and defeats conservation, 4. Problem.Even if long-term land retirement programs are adopted and perennial herbaceous vegetation is established on these lands, much of the wildlife benefit will be lost and, indeed, some such areas could become detrimental to wildlife if grazing or, particularly, haying is permitted on a regular basis. Solution.Landowners could maintain the right to graze or hay these lands, but would forfeit 30 to 50 percent of that years payments on the lands so used. Emergency graz5. 6. ing or haying could be permitted after July 1, assuming stringent definitions of emergency conditions are applied. Benefits.The potential danger of creating ecological death traps by attracting nesting birds to cover which is to be mowed would be avoided and great wildlife benefit would be realized from these lands. Emergency conditions, (drought usually) do not typically become apparent until at least July and nesting is primarily, though not totally, complete by that time. Consequently, emergency grazing or haying after July 1 would assist in reducing the forage shortage while still permitting much wildlife benefit. Problem.Loose definitions or application of definitions of emergency conditions by the ASCS often permit blatant abuse of soil conservation principles on Acreage Conservation Reserve (ACR) lands associated with set-aside programs. For example, certain counties in Kansas have issued essentially blanket permits for early plow down on ACR lands. In other words the ASCS in these counties has placed virtually no emphasis on erosion control, but is unreasonably sympathetic to farmers often unjustified requests to destroy weeds and residue on ACR. This ASCS bias is verified by their comparatively frequent issuance of penalties for weeds on ACR, but extremely rare issuance of erosion penalties. Solution.Tighten definitions and application of emergency situations as used by the ASCS so that early plow downs and their resultant residue elimination are permitted only for control of weeds defined as noxious by the State. Other weed control means should be used in all other situations. Benefits.Soil conservation would be greatly enhanced and wildlife habitat would be maintained on these ACR lands. Problem.The Soil Conservation Service often seeds cool-season grasses on waterways and terraces. These grasses are subsequently hayed by farmers during the nesting season of many birds. This results in widespread nest destruction and the death or injury of incubating adults. Solution.The use of quality forage produc-

PAGE 73

76 7 ing warm-season grasses should be promoted for use on waterways and terraces. Benefits.Warm-season grasses begi n growth later in the spring than do coolseason grasses and maintain growth during the summer when cool-season grasses are semi-dormant. As a result of the growth period of warm-season grasses, the optimal time for haying is about 1 month later than with cool-season grasses. This later haying date would permit much nest completion. Further, the later haying date better fits into farmers schedules, as early-summer is typically less busy than mid or late spring. Forage quality of certain warm-season grasses equals or exceeds that of most cool-season grasses and the improved scheduling of warm-season haying permits cutting at a time when the forage quality is highest. The often-necessary delays in haying cool-season grasses result in over maturity of the forage and, consequently, poor quality. Warmseason grasses also provide structurally superior wildlife habitat. Problem.If language in the so-called Sodbuster legislation denies government subsidies only to the landowner who breaks out highly erodible lands, this will do little to minimize sodbusting by speculators who intend to sell the land soon after they have harvested a single crop from the broken out lands. Solution.Language in sodbuster legislation should deny government subsidies to the landowner who breaks out the land an d 8. should deny subsidies on the broken out lands for a minimum of 10 years even if land ownership is transferred. Benefits.This would minimize benefits which could be gained from sodbusting by speculators. It would also decrease the disparity between rangeland and these cropland prices and, consequently, decrease the temptation to break out grasslands by all landowners. Problem.Urban residents often have little concept of rural needs and vice versa. This has resulted in numerous urban-rural conflicts, particularly at times of high urban demands on private lands such as the opening of certain hunting seasons. The ultimate result has, in some cases, been the destruction of wildlife habitat so it will not attract hunters (especially urban hunters) onto private lands. Solution.Funds should be allocated so State extension services could educate both urban and farm groups on the needs of the other. For example, farm tours and seminars which include urban-dwelling hunters could permit an exchange which would educate the urban hunters on the farmers needs for privacy, leaving livestock and unharvested crops undisturbed, etc. Farmers might gain a better understanding of urban needs for contact with nature and the land. Benefits.Better urban rural relations and a greater joint commitment to resource conservation.

PAGE 74

77 Evidence is strong that all prairie wetlands provide services to society through runoff and sediment retention, nutrient assimilation, ground water recharge, wildlife production, and recreation opportunities. The state of our knowledge of these services is, however, still in a theoretical stage. Until science can clarify the magnitude of these benefits, economists cannot estimate the value of prairie wetlands. Wetlands also are highly productive systems with regard to natural vegetation and are being used by many farm operators for forage. However, little is known about management practices for wetland forage. The compatibility of wetland forage utilization and wildlife production also is poorly understood. Research is needed to quantify values of wetlands to society and to develop technology that increases their economic value to the landowner without destroying the wetland. IU. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, South Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and Parks, South Dakota State University and The Wildlife Management Institute cooperating, We are studying the use of cattle to graze wetland vegetation to open some of the densely vegetated prairie wetlands. We also are measuring effects of mowing on invertebrate populations and the energy budget of four of the most common shallow marsh plants used for forage in our area, Our aim is to determine the effects of grazing and mowing on prairie wetland vegetation and to measure the value of wetland forage to the farmer. Much more research must be done, but our results may help to form an information base for wetlands in other parts of North America. Our recommendations are: 1) to authorize a Wetland Research subtitle in Title XIV of the Farm Bill in order to measure values of wetlands to society and to identify wetland management techniques compatible between wildlife management and agricultural practices, 2) to incorporate methods in Title XV that deter wetland drainage, and 3) to increase incentives in Title XV so that economic return to the landowner is comparable between an undrained or restored wetland and a drained one. INTRODUCTION Wetlands are a resource that provide valulands by Larson and Groman (1984) included able services to society. These services include assessing wetland functions on a regional basis fish and wildlife production, ground water and developing wetland protection policies recharge, pollution abatement, and flood water based on those assessments rather than ascribretention. Larson and Groman (1984) stated ing all wetland functions to every type of that scientific research indicates wetlands can wetland. They identified the Prairie Potholes function differently in different regions of the of the North Central Plains of North America country. Recommendations regarding wetas one such region.

PAGE 75

78 Prairie wetlands have been extensively drained since settlement of the Plains. Originally covering 7 million acres of North Dakota and South Dakota, the prairie wetlands that remain today encompass half of the area (Tiner, 1984). Primary reasons for wetland drainage are to increase agricultural production acreage and reduce their nuisance factor to farming operations (Leitch and Danielson, 1979). During the past few years, we have attempted to measure some of the values of prairie wetlands. We also have initiated studies on management techniques that would help save prairie wetlands from drainage without affecting their values for wildlife. wildlife Numerous wildlife species are dependent on wetlands in the Prairie Pothole Region. In North Dakota, on 116 hectares of wetlands, Duebbert (1981) found 35 bird species dependent on wetlands habitat and 35 species nesting in the associated uplands. Brady (1983) found that 38 bird species, other than waterfowl, nested on seven South Dakota public wetlands in 1981 to 1982. Eleven small mammal species were trapped on the same wetlands (Pendleton, 1984). Hubbard (1982) found 12 species of birds nesting on a dry wetland in 1981. Wetlands in South Dakota are extremely important to pheasants (Schitoskey and Linder, 1979) and white-tailed deer (Sparrowe, 1966), especially when the wetlands are frozen or dry. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service classified prairie wetlands as being Number 1 priority for waterfowl in the U.S (Tiner, 1984). Water Retention Ludden, et al. (1983), demonstrated that small wetlands in the Devils Lake watershed of North Dakota were capable of retaining 72 percent of the total volume from a 2-year frequency runoff and about 41 percent of the total volume from a 100-year frequency runoff. Wetlands in the Prairie Pothole Region have long been recognized as important to wildlife. More recently, a number of other functions and values of potholes have been identified (Linder and Hubbard, 1982). However, most of their value is accrued by society instead of by the landowner who controls the drainage. VALUES In South Dakota, we measured the water volume of 213 small wetlands on 648 hectares (1,600 acres) in Grant and Roberts Counties after spring runoff. Although these wetlands were not filled to capacity at time of measurement, they accounted for 50 percent of the water surface area on the land tract. They averaged 0.27 hectares (0.67 acres) in size and 0.44 meter (1.4 feet) in maximum depth. Seven large wetlands made up the remaining water surface area. An estimated 19.6 hectare-meter (159 acrefeet) or over 50 million gallons of water were contained within those small ponds. If those wetlands had been artificially drained, that volume of water would have contributed to flooding problems at lower elevations in the watershed. For illustrative purposes, an area 16 x 16 kilometers (10 x 10 miles) under similar conditions would retain 789 hectare-meter (6,400 acre-feet) of water in a proportional number of small wetlands. That is enough water to make a difference in the downstream flow regime. Ground Water Recharge In contrast to statements made in other reports that most wetlands do not recharge ground water (Carter, et al., 1978; OTA, 1984) ample evidence exists suggesting that prairie wetlands are important sites for ground water recharge (Hubbard, 1981; Linder and Hubbard, 1982). On our study area in Grant and Roberts Counties, there were 19.6 hectare-meter (159 acre-feet) of water retained in the small depres-

PAGE 76

79 sions. Based on other studies, an estimate of 12 percent water loss from these wetlands to ground water would be conservative (Allred, et al., 1971; Millar, 1971), If only 12 percent of the standing water (2.4 hectare-meter or 19 acre-feet) had entered the saturated zone, this would have supplied an irrigator with a 3.6 centimeter (1.4 inch) application of water to 65 hectares (160 acres) or, at 37.9 liters (10 gallons) of water per day per cow, enough water to supply 1,696 head of cattle for 1 year. Recreation Although recreational values of prairie wetlands have not been adequately measured, the total value must be substantial. Results of a survey of six South Dakota wetlands in 1981 to 1982 showed that 10,000 people made 5,000 trips to those wetlands and spent 63,000 hours there for recreational purposes during 1 year (Thompson, 1983). The majority (89 percent) of the visits were for hunting, but 30 other activities, such as photography and bird watching, were enjoyed. We also sent questionnaires to 1 percent of the South Dakota residents who purchased hunting and fishing licenses (Johnson, 1984). An estimated 116,890 hunters (South Dakota population is 700,000) used wetlands at least once in 1982. They averaged 24 days per hunter generating about 2.75 million man-days of wetland-related hunting activity. When consumer surplus for resident hunting value was discounted at 7.875 percent, it yielded a value of $813 per wetland hectare ($325 per acre) as a recreational resource for resident hunters alone. Water Quality One problem in the Prairie Pothole Region is the degradation of lakes and streams (Linder and Hubbard, 1982). Nutrients entering the systems may be from agriculture and a number of other sources, Tabatchnik (1980) stated that wetlands function as pollution treatment plants at no cost to man and that plants may decrease concentrations of both manmade and natural pollutants. Davis, et al. (1981), have concluded that prairie marshes may be most effective at removing inorganic nitrogen, particularly nitrate, from runoff waters. Considerably more research is needed concerning the role of wetlands in maintaining water quality in the prairie. Forage Forage on prairie wetlands is a valuable resource to the landowner, An average of 50 percent or more of all wetlands can be hayed after August 15 in North Dakota (Higgins, et al., 1984). Land-use data collected in the spring of 1983 (reflecting 1982 conditions) (Wittmier, 1984) on three watersheds comprising about one-third of the east half of South Dakota, revealed that about 22 percent of the natural temporary, seasonal, and semipermanent wetland area was used for forage (either grazed or hayed). Estimates of above ground standing crops in prairie wetlands show that these systems are capable of high yields of dry matter (see review by Linder and Hubbard, 1982), but adequate data on the nutritional composition and the response of marsh vegetation to mowing or grazing has not been measured for most marsh plant species. Impacts of grazing and mowing on wildlife associated with a wetland also have not been measured. $ummary of Values Linder and Hubbard (1982) stated that a great diversity of kinds of basins is highly desirable and the number existing is needed to maintain wildlife associated with them. They felt that there are monetary values for landowners such as trapping, hunting, and forage production, but that techniques should be developed for managing wetlands so that the dollar return to the landowner can be increased. However, the true value of prairie wetlands to society must be determined and programs developed to compensate landowners according to those values. Consicierable effort will need to be exerted to measure economic wetland values. The aesthetic value of wetlands for the general public cannot be measured (Reimold and Hardisky, 1979) nor can their value to the scientific and academic communities. Wetlands serve as classrooms for school children of all ages and offer natural laboratories for us to study the functions of an ecosystem.

PAGE 77

80 CURRENT RESEARCH EFFORT Although forage in prairie wetlands is used, little information is available on proper management schemes for wetland forage production. Of the several hundred plant species that occur 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 extent where some management recommendations for forage use can be made. We are currently investigating the seasonal nutritional composition and energy status (total nonstructural carbohydrates) of whitetop, slough sedge, smartweed (Polygonum coccinemn), and gian t burreed (Sparganimn eurycarpum), but many other species need to be studied. At present, wetland forage is being used without adequate knowledge of the impacts on wildlife resources. Some wetlands mowed late in the season lose their value as winter cover. Mowing also may decrease the invertebrate food base for waterfowl because of decreased litter accumulation. Our current studies include measuring the effects of mowing on invertebrate populations. Grazing of uplands and its effect on wildlife species has been the subject of numerous investigations (Kirsch, et al., 1978); however, the grazing of wetlands and the subsequent effect on wildlife has received very little attention. It would seem that use of wetlands for grazing may be more compatible with wildlife values than mowing, especially with regard to resident wildlife species. Except under overgrazed conditions, some vegetation is usually left standing after grazing. If enough vegetation remains, then the wetland may still afford winter cover. It would seem that moderate grazing of wetland vegetation would be compatible with waterfowl resources, but studies have not been conducted to assess this compatibility. We are investigating the use of grazing as a prescribed management tool for those wetlands that, while still containing water, are too choked with dense cattail to be used by waterfowl. Cattail, especially the hybrid variety, is an aggressive plant and given ideal conditions will take over a marsh and eliminate all openings. The low point in the energy reserves of cattail occurs about mid-June in South Dakota. Grazing during that time should lead to a reduction in stand vigor and perhaps result in opening the stand. Hubbard, et al. (in preparation), have found that prior to the energy reserve low point in cattail, the plants nutritive value to cattle is adequate. We have experimentally grazed two cattail stands in June of 1984, and are monitoring the plant and animal response to the grazing treatments, However, the project will not be completed for another 2 years. Wetlands provide a large range of values to society. With some exceptions, individual landowners have not been adequately compensated for preserving or restoring their wetland acreages. The following recommendations are to aid in the preservation of wetlands: 1. Authorize a Wetland Research subtitle in Title XIV of the Farm Bill. Studies should be made to determine the role of wetlands in the hydrology and ecology of an area. In the Prairie Pothole Region, economic wetland values for society should be quantified and management techniques for the landowner developed. Techniques that are compatible with wildlife should be developed to use forage production from prairie wetlands. 2. A multi-year set-aside program (minimum 3 to 5 years) can benefit wetlands, wildlife, and agriculture. Upland set-aside acres adjacent to or surrounding existing

PAGE 78

81 3. 4. or restored wetlands can increase wildlife 5. production, reduce erosion, and protect water quality. A study is recommended to determine effects of existing Federal programs on wetlands. All USDA agencies should have annual reporting requirements on any projects relating to wetlands. Measures 6. should be taken to eliminate any negative impacts on wetlands. The Water Bank Program should be continued with an increase in funding. The 7. Program should be strengthened by including technical assistance for wildlife management on Water Bank lands with additional compensation to the landowner for incorporating wildlife techniques. A freeze should be placed on the breaking of any new lands. This should include the draining or filling of any wetlands. Any wetlands that are drained for agricultural production after the initiation of this Program should not be included in base acreages. Existing or restored wetland acreages should be allowed to be designated as setaside acreage in any Conservation Reserve that is included in the 1985 Farm Bill. Since wetlands have a tremendous value to society, monetary incentives should be developed to reimburse landowners for protecting and restoring wetlands. These incentives may be in the form of a Federal income tax credit or direct cash payment. REFERENCES Allred, E. R., Manson, P, W., Schwartz, G. W., Golany, P,, and Reinke, J, W., Continuation of Studies on Hydrology of Ponds and Small Lakes, University of Minnesota Agri, Exp. Sta, Tech. Bull. 274, 1971. Brady, E. N,, Birds on Modified Wetlands in South Dakota, M.S. Thesis (Brookings, SD: South Dakota State University, 1983). Carter, V., Bedinger, M. S., Novitzki, R. P,, and Wilen, W, O., Water Resources and Wetlands (theme Paper). In: Wetkmd Functions and Values: 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 Frequency of Harvests on Productivity and Chemical Composition of Fertilized and Unfertilized Awned Sedge, Can, J. Plant Sci. 54:493-498, 1974. Davis, C. B., Bake, S. L., van der Valk, A. B., and Beer, C. E., Prairie Pothole Marshes as Traps for Nitrogen and Phosphorus in Agricultural Runoff, Selected Proceedings of the Midwest Conference of Wetland Values and Management, B. Richardson (cd.), Minnesota Water Planning Board, 1981, pp. 153-163. Duebbert, H. F., Breeding Birds on Waterfowl Production Areas in Northeastern North Dakota, Prairie Naturalist 13:19-22, 1981. Hawley, A. W. L., Peden, D. G., and Stricklin, W. R., Bison and Hereford Steer Digestion of Sedge 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 Potholes: A Selected Annotated Bibliography, South Dakota Coop. Wildl. Res. Unit Tech. Bull. No. 1, 1981. Hubbard, D. E., Breeding Birds in Two Dry Wetlands in Eastern South Dakota, Prairie Naturalist 14:6-8, 1982. Johnson, C. W., An Economic Vahzation of South Dakota Wetlands as a Recreation Resource for Resident 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 of Upland Nesting Birds, Transactions 43rd North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference (Washington, DC: Wildlife Management Institute, 1978), pp. 486-497. Larson, J. S., and Groman, H., A National Program for Regional Wetland Assessment, National Wetland Newsletter, The Environmental Law Institute 6(5):2-3, 1984, Leitch, J. A., and Danielson, L. E., Social, Economic, and Institutional Incentives to Drain or Preserve Prairie Wetlands, University of

PAGE 79

82 Minnesota Dept. Agr. Appl. Econ., Econ. Rep. ER79-6, 1979. Linde, A. F., Janisch, T., and Smith, D., CattailThe Significance of Its Growth, Phenology, and Carbohydrate Storage to Its Control and Management, Wisconsin Dept. Natur. Resour. Tech. Bull. No, 94, 1976. Linder, R. L., and Hubbard D. E., Wetlands Values in the Prairie Pothole Region of North America, Proceedings of the Great Plains Agricultural Council (North Platte, NB: 1982], pp. 27-39. Ludden, A. P., Frink, D. L., and Johnson, D. H., Water Storage Capacity of Natural Wetland Depressions in the Devils Lake Basin of North Dakota, J. Soil and Water Conserv. 38:45-48, 1983. Millar, J. B., Shoreline-area Ratio as a Factor in Rate of Waterless From Small Sloughs, J. Hydrology 14:259-284, 1971. Pendleton, G, W., Small Mammals in Prairie WetZands: Habitat Use and the Effects of WetZand Modification, M.S. Thesis (Brookings, SD: South Dakota State University, 1984). Reimold, R. J., and Hardesky, M. A., Non-consumptive Use Values of Wetlands, Wetland Functions and Values: 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, 1979, pp. 558-564. Schitoskey, F., Jr., and Linder, R. L., Use of Wetlands by Upland Wildlife, Wetland Functions and Values: The State of Our Understanding, 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. 51:16611668, 1973a. Smith, A. L., Production and Nutrient Status of Whitetop, J. Range Management 26:117-120, 1973b. Sparrowe, R. D,, Population Distribution and Mobility of Deer in Eastern South Dakota, M,S. Thesis (Brookings, SD: South Dakota State University, 1966). Tabatchnik, J., Protection of Inland Wetlands, The Association of New Jersey Environmental Commissions, Mendham, NJ, 1980. Thompson, T. A,, Recreational Use of Six Prairie Wetlands in Eastern South Dakota, M.S. Thesis (Brookings, SD: South Dakota State University, 1983), Tiner, R. W,, Jr., Wetlands of the United States: Current Status and Recent Trends, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1984). U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Wetlands: Their Use and Regulation, OTA-O206 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1984), Wittmier, H., Wetland Status Survey of Minnesota, Big Sioux, and Vermilion River Watersheds, South Dakota, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Aberdeen Wetland Acquisition Office, Aberdeen, SD (typewritten), 1984,

PAGE 80

83 Rangelands, Wildlife Technology, and Human Desires Chris Maser U.S. Depatment of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Corvallis, Oregon ABSTRACT Although we probably will never have enough knowledge to make a perfect analysis of the impacts of rangeland management action on wildlife habitat, more information is available than is used. To be useful, however, it must be organized to make sense biologically and in terms of livestock management. While additional research is needed, a lack of technical knowledge is not the real problem we face in resolving conflicts between various land uses. What then remains? Why are we not doing a better job of resolving conflicts? In my view, the real problem is insensitivity to the crucial importance of the human dimension. Thus I believe that the most effective tool for achieving land management goals is sensitive leadership that recognizes and builds on human desires. INTRODUCTION Much of the Nations vast rangelands have changed dramatically in the last 200 years. They can no longer be considered wild because they are now managed to produce multiple benefits, dominated by livestock production but including wildlife. Until a few years ago, a rangeland managers only concern with wildlife was with predators and big game. The law neither recognized nor required an accountability for wildlife. Now rangeland managers are under increasing pressure to account for wildlife in management activities, particularly land-use planning, And wildlife means all speciesnot just species that are hunted, or are esthetically pleasing, or are classified as threatened or endangered. See figure 1 for list of laws that specify or intimate that wildlife shall be a product of Federal lands and that wildlife shall be considered in every management decision. Livestock management and wildlife habitat management are compatible on public rangelands, but only if the needs of wildlife are recognized and accounted for along with the needs of livestock. A series of 15 publications exist which provide information on ways managed rangelands and wildlife interrelate. This series of publications has three purposes: 1) to develop a common understanding of wildlife habitats on managed rangelands, 2) to provide a system for predicting the impacts of range management practices on wildlife, and 3) to show how the system can be applied to a specific areain this case, the Great Basin in southeastern Oregon. With the information provided, resource specialists can work together to assure the continued existence of most, if not all, wildlife habitats in managed rangelands. The following discussion of range-wildlife management system is taken from the Introduction section of the series of publications which deal with Wildlife Habitats in Managed RangelandsThe Great Basin of Southeastern Oregon (1983 ).1 IC. Maser and J. W. Thomas, Wildlife Habitats in A4anaged Rangelandsthe Great Basin of Southeastern Oregon. USDA Forest Service General Technical Rep. PNW-160, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Portland, OR, 1983.

PAGE 81

84 Figure I.Some Major Federal Laws and Pianning Requirements That influence Wildlife Habitat Management on Public Lands (adapted from Thomas, 1979) Public Law No I Fish 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

PAGE 82

85 RANGE-WILDLIFE TECHNOLOGY A Basic Assumption A basic assumption about wildlife habitat in rangelands managed for multiple use is that wildlife and livestock management must be coordinated. On public rangelands in the Great Basin of southeastern Oregon, as in many other parts of North America, livestock production is the dominant land use. Large-scale alterations of wildlife habitat usually result from the manipulation of vegetation primarily to enhance livestock production. Management for livestock production, therefore, is de facto wildlife management. The degree to which it is good wildlife management depends on how well habitat is manipulated to achieve wildlife goals. Interrelationships are shown in figure 2. The Nee d How is a public rangeland manager to balance demands for rangelands, including wildlife, and still maintain a sustained yield of livestock forage? How can managers account for the needs of all wildlife? In seeking answers to these questions, the wisdom of two of Commoners (1971) laws of ecology becomes apparent everything is connected to everything else, and there is no such thing as a free lunch. Any action that alters vegetation has an influence on wildlife habitat and, in turn, on wildlife. If wildlife is of concern, goals for wildlife must be established and all management actions must be judged against those goals. Rangeland managers must take a more holistic view. The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (Public Law 94-579) requires that detailed and holistic plans be prepared for the management of public rangelands. Further, the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (Public Law 91-190) requires the environmental impacts and consequences of planned actions involving Federal funds be examined and revealed. One of the weakest aspects of such planning has been the inability of managers to predict the effects of management alternatives on wildlife populations. Frequently, this has resulted in criticism of land-use plans and environmental impact statements by the public, other agencies, and the courts. Better techniques to predict the consequences of management on wildlife, whether good or bad, are needed: Managers need a conceptual framework that will enable them to: 1) account for habitat needs of all vertebrate wildlife, 2) emphasize management of particular wildlife species, and 3) identify habitats that require special attention. The greatest challenge is to integrate existing information so it can be readily used in resource planning. Development of a process to consider the impacts of management on wildlife is needed. Land-use planning continues at full speed; large-scale conversions of sagebrush-dominated rangelands to crested wheatgrass and other species are being contemplated and implemented; and the demand for increased forage production from public lands is incessant. Some say it is too soon to undertake such a task, that there is too little hard data. But there are really only two choicestoo soon or too late. The first is preferable. With intensified management of rangelands, impacts on wildlife are magnified. We need to get on with the job. Managers need more flexibility in applying technical information to local situations. The information should be presented as a system to predict the consequences of management alternatives on wildlife, rather than as specific guidelines. A manager then has the ability to respond to particular situations while being fully accountable for the impacts of such decisions on wildlife habitat. Managers can survey alternatives, make trade-offs, and account for those decisions. Rangeland Wildlife Management Systems Wildlife management is the scientifically based art of skillfully controlling habitat t o enhance conditions for a selected species or

PAGE 83

-86 Figure 2.Large-Scale Management of Wildlife Habitat Must Be Mainly Accomplished Through Rangeland Management (adapted from Thomas, 1979) Large-scale wildlife goals mus t be accomplished through rangeland management because management for enhanced livestock production l affects many acre s l is -relatively well finance d l dramatically affects wildlife habita t l has great impact on wildlif e whereas management for wildlife habita t affects relatively few acres (however the acres affected are generally i n key areas) has relatively little financin g has relatively small influenc e on wildlife habitat (but does influenc e key habitat components in localized areas ) has relatively smal l impact on wildlife (but could d o much more with better financing)

PAGE 84

87 of manipulating animal populations to achieve other desired ends (figure 3). The term wildlife management implies the ability and managerial flexibility to control habitat factors, or animal populations, or both (Giles, 1971; Leopold, 1933; Trippensee, 1948). There are two general production goals in wildlife managementmanagement for species richness (Evans, 1974; Siderits, 1975; USDA Forest Service, 1973 and 1975) and management for featured species (Holbrook, 1974; USDA Forest Service, 1971; Zeedyk and Hazel, 1974) (figure 4). The goal of management for species richness is to ensure that most resident wildlife species are maintained in viable numbers in the managed area (King, 1966). Hence, all species are important. Management for species richness can be achieved by providing a broad spectrum of habitat conditions. It is necessary, therefore, to have information on the habitat needs of each species, This must be incorporated into guides to protect the integrity, stability, and diversity of the rangeland ecosystem. The result should be a relatively stable and varied wildlife population. For featured species, the goal is to produce selected species in desired numbers in specific locations. This can be achieved by manipulating vegetation so the limiting factors for food, cover, and water are made less limiting for the desired species, These may be game species, threatened or endangered species, or species that have particular esthetic value. Management for featured species has also been called key-species management or 1 f r 1 l t < Singly simultaneously

PAGE 85

88 Figure 4.Production Goals in Wiidlife Management (adapted from Thomas, 1979) goal 1 Management for featured species indicator-species management if the species are many possible combinations of the four preselected represents the habitat needs of several species. If the species to be featured are carefully selected and their habitat needs vary widely, then management for featured species also will ensure habitat diversity. The result can be similar to management for species richness. Rangelands are managedthat is, the vegetational composition and structure are controlledthrough one or a combination of the following: 1) shrubs are controlled by mechanical means, herbicides, or fire; 2) controlled areas are frequently seeded with grasses, forbs, and shrubs palatable and nutritious for livestock; and 3) grazing management, defined as 66 manipulation of livestock grazing to accomplish a desired result (Kothmann, 1974, p. 36). Grazing management may include deferred grazing or use of a grazing system that is defined as a specialization of grazing management which defines a systematically recurring period of grazing and deferment for two or more pastures or management units (Kothmann, 1974, p. 36). Kothmann (1974) said there mary factors involved in any grazing system (number of pastures, number of herds, length of grazing periods, length of rest periods); but other factors, such as season of use, species of livestock, and class of livestock, also must be taken into account. In addition, such management involves livestock density and distribution of grazing within pastures or management units, which can be influenced by fencing, location of drinking water, or herding. There are many options available to achieve the desired compositional and structural state of vegetation under the constraints of what the site can support, the availability of resources, and limitations of law, regulation, or custom. That the goals and objectives be clearly set and the progress toward those goals be periodically evaluated is of overriding importance. The goals and objectives must encompass both livestock production and wildlife habitat. It is essential that these goals and objectives be developed in conjunction with and cooperation between user groups and resource specialists and be stated in terms of vegetative condition

PAGE 86

89 first and numbers of outputs, such as animal unit months (AUM) of grazing or animal units (AU), second. The Setting The Great Basin of southeastern Oregon includes portions of Malheur and Harney Counties. The landscape is mostly rolling plateau at 1,066 meters (3,500 feet) in elevation, but there are mountains, cliffs, and canyons. Annual precipitation ranges from 18 to 30 centimeters (7 to 12 inches) (Heady and Bartolome, 1977). The Great Basin rangelands in southeastern Oregon support 28 plant communities dominated by grasses, shrubs, or trees. Trees vary from conifers to deciduous and evergreen hardwoods. Big sagebrush communities predominate, whereas tree-dominated and true grassland communities constitute the least common types. True grasslands occur as relict meadows, relict stands of valley-bottom bunchgrass, and relict subalpine bunchgrass types (Dealy, et al., 1981; Maser and Strickler, 1978). The diversity of topography and plant communities made the Great Basin of southeastern Oregon an ideal place to develop and test the range-wildlife management system. The land ownership in the Great Basin of southeastern Oregon is shown in table 1. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) controls the majority of the land (66 percent); 29 percent is in private ownership. Agriculture and grazing of domestic livestock are the activities that dominate management of private land. Grazing of domestic livestock is the dominant use of BLM-administered lands. In 1980, 373 permitters ran 116,806 head of cattle and Table 1 .Land Ownership in the Great Basin of Southeastern Oregon a Ownership Hectares Acres Percent Bureau of Land Management 3,025,792 7,476,881 66 Other Federal 62,506 154,456 1 State ... 174,944 432,296 4 Private 1,302,875 3,219,467 29 Total 4,566,117 11,283,100 100 aFr~~ IJSD1. Bureau of Land Management, 1981 horses and 5,945 sheep composing of 618,608 AUM on BLM lands (U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 1981). Livestock management was facilitated on BLM lands in the Vale and Burns Districts from 1934 through 1981 by the following actions: vegetation was manipulated on 140,770 hectares (347,702 acres); crested wheatgrass was seeded on 211,682 hectares (522,856 acres); 7,192 kilometers (4,469 miles) of fence was constructed; 477 cattle guards were installed; 1,611 kilometers (1,000 miles) of road were constructed to move livestock; 1,286 kilometers (799 miles) of water pipe was laid; 927 water storage tanks were built; 2,119 reservoirs were constructed; 749 springs were developed; and 121 wells were drilled (U.S. Department of the InteriorBureau of Land Management, 1981). Livestock grazing has been relatively constant since the 1870s (Maser and Strickler, 1978). The livestock industry of the area is strongly dependent on public rangelands, and it seems likely that there will be increasing pressure on the public rangelands of southeastern Oregon to provide red meat to sustain the local economy. At the same time, these rangelands are being used increasingly for recreation. The number of people hunting and fishing has continued to grow. This results in more pressure to produce and sustain large numbers of game animals. The number of rock hounds also has increased. Such special use allocation will heighten pressure from industry and the public on managers of public rangelands to produce more red meat on fewer hectares (acres) at less cost to the livestock industry. Extensive public ownership increases pressure from local governments for more intensive livestock management that, in turn, increases employment. Increasing demands for more red meat, wildlife, fish, recreation, wilderness, and water from a finite land area inevitably lead to conflicts. Careful, farsighted management is necessary to obtain the desired wildlife and wildlife-related recreational experiences from such heavily managed rangelands.

PAGE 87

w HUMAN The assignment given to me was to discuss techniques for assuring successful co-existence of livestock and wildlife on rangelands. As is shown in the foregoing section, the basic technology exists. Thus, while additional research is needed, a lack of technical knowledge is not the real problem we face in resolving conflicts. What then remains? Why are we not doing a better job resolving conflicts? In my view, the real problem is insensitivity to the crucial importance of the human dimension. Why and how technology is applied in land management is a function of human desire, which may be expressed as laws, policies, and regulations. So, How can human desires be fostered to get the best possible land management? One example of the problem. might be as follows. A solution to recovery of a severely grazed riparian zone is to remove livestock from the area for 5 years. The biological need for this action may be evident, but if no one really cares whether the area recovers there can be no desire to take action. Thus, nothing is done because the biological need has not become a personal desire. The task, therefore, is to raise the value of a perceived need sufficiently that a land owner can see the need as a desirable goal. A good example of a solution to the problem, raising the perceived need to the level of desire, is the idea of fee-hunting proposed by Thomas (1984). He saw fee-hunting as a means of raising the tangible value of certain species of wildlife sufficiently that they can compete economically with cash crops. If game animals, fur bearers, or other species of wildlife were to become a substantial cash crop for a rancher, then habitat manipulation and/or protection for that species would become desirable. At that point, technical information would be applied: 1) to meet a desired goal, 2) to achieve the goal within a specified time, and 3) to reach the goal as economically as possible. In this case, the why, when, and how of technology applied to land management have been determined by a ranchers desire to achieve a parDESIRES ticular goal. When this happens, livestock and wildlife can co-exist with some degree of equality on rangelands. An understanding of desire as a motivating force may help explain how and why goals are set or not set, achieved or not achieved. Commitment to a goal is determined by the emotional strength of desire. To set a firm goal is to clearly define something to be achieved that, in turn, determines a course of action to be taken. The goal mtist remain firm, but the course of action may change if the one originally selected does not work. A common human tendency, however, is to change the goaldevalue itif the goal cannot be reached in the chosen way. It is much easier, for example, to devalue a goal than it is to change a whole 5-year plan that would not achieve the goal as originally perceived. If the desire is not sufficiently strong, then somewhere along the way we may decide the price is too high and our desire is really only a wish. Commitment wanes, then disappears. Every action has one or more trade-offs. How weas individualsview and analyze the cost of achieving a desired end depends very much on how strong our desire is. If a desire is strong enough, we simply determine to pay the price. To minimize trade-offs, we develop technology and techniques to accomplish an end. But just knowing how to do something and possessing the necessary technology means nothing until we also desire to apply what we know. The most tedious part of ranching, for example, is applying what we know about shortterm, intermediate, and long-term planning to achieve particular goals. Those who discipline themselves to plan know where they are going and have an array of options available to reach their goals. They can respond positively to upcoming situations, rather than simply react to them. In an age of rapidly increasing technology, the land manager too often relies on the promise of new techniques to solve problems. The

PAGE 88

91 trap, again, is that without need being raised to strong desire, technology is not likely to be applied. Desire cannot be legislatedit is the product of sensitive leadership. Leadership deals intimately with human values because one must lead by example. A leader must have a moral conviction, usually expressed as justified enthusiasm, that causes people to want to follow in action. Essentially, a leader can so motivate people by sensitive negotiation that perceived need is raised to strong desire. Negotiation is a cooperative process (Nierenberg, 1981). In a successful negotiation everyone wins something, so negotiation can be thought of as one means of defining the strength of human desires. Since human desires direct the course of land use, we need to learn and practice the art of negotiation. There are as many points of view as there are people, and everyone, from his or her own point of view, is right. There can be no solution to problems when each person is committed to defending a narrow interest, Sensitive leadership is therefore critical in any negotiation. We like to think we manage vegetation, animals, land, water, etc., but we really only manipulate these components of the ecosystem. What we manage is peoples attitudes and desires. This leads me to believe that the most effective tool for achieving land management goals is sensitive leadership that recognizes and builds on human desire. ACKNOWLEDGMENT I am grateful to Betty Bell, Ginny Bissell, drafts of this paper. Each added their insights Zane 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 Importance to Wildlife. In: Wildlife Habitats in Managed RangelandsThe Great Basin of Southeastern Oregon, USDA Forest Service Gen, Tech. Rep, PNW-120, 1981, Evans, R, D., Wildlife Habitat Management Program: A Concept of Diversity for the Public Forests of Missouri, In: Tirnber-WildZife Management 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 (Public Law 94-579, Oct. 21, 1976), 43 U.S,C. 1701 [note], 1976. Giles, R. H., Jr. (cd.), WiZdlife Management Techniques, 3d edition (Washington, DC: The Wildlife Society, 1971]. Heady, H. F., and Bartolome, J,, The Val e Rangeland Rehabilitation Program: The Desert Repaired in Southeastern Oregon, USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. PNW-70, 1977. Holbrook, H. L., A System for Wildlife Habitat Management of Southern National Forests, Wildl. Soc. Bull. 2:119-123, 1974. King, R. T., Wildlife and Man, N. Y, State Conserv. 20:8-11, 1966. Kothmann, M. M, (cd.), A Glossary of Terms Used in 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 Subalpine Sheep Fescue, Festuca ovina, Communities on Steens Mountain--an Observation and Interpretation, Northvv. Sci. 52(3):276-284, 1978. National Environmental Policy Act (Public Law 91-190, Jan. 1, 1970), United States Statutes at Large, vol. 83, pp. 852-856. Nierenberg, G. I., The Art of Negotiating (New York: Pocket Books, 1981). Siderits, K., Forest Diversity: An Approach to For44-883 0 85 4 : QL 3

PAGE 89

. 92 est Wildlife Management, For. Chron. 51:15, 1975. Thomas, J. W., Fee-hunting on the Publics Lands?An Appraisal, Transactions 4gth North American Natural Resources Conference (Washington, DC: Wildlife Mananagement Inst., 1984), in press. Thomas, J. W. (tech. cd.), Wildlife Habitats in Managed Forests: the Blue Mountains of Oregon and Washington, U. S. D.A., Agric. Handb. 553 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1979), Trippensee, R, E., Wildlife Management: Upland Game and General Principles, vol. 1 (New York: 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., FSH 2609.23R, 1971. U.S. Department of Agriculture-Forest Service, Wildlife Habitat Management for the National 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 Management Handbook, Ottawa, Hiawatha, and HuronManistee National Forests, Michigan, U. S.D.A. For. Serv. FSH 2609.23-R9, 1975. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, BLM FactsOregon and Washington (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1981). Zeedyk, W. D., and Hazel, R. B., The Southeastern Featured Species Plan. In: TimberWildlife Management Symposium, J. P. Slusher and T. M. Hinckley (eds.), Mo. Acad. Sci. Occas. Pap. 3, 1974, pp. 58-62.

PAGE 90

93 Agricultural Practices and Aquatic Resources Bill Coope r Department of Zoology Michigan State University Lansing, Michigan ABSTRACT Streams, lakes, and marine estauries are exstrips should be maintained and encouraged tensions of the terrestrial watersheds that surround them. The quality of these aquatic resources are determined by the nutrient inputs, the ambient temperatures, the riparian vegetation, and the sediment loadings. Agricultural practices have a dominant influence on these critical constraints, Standards for organic and inorganic compounds transported by sediments should be adopted. Riparian vegetation by agricultural policy and practices. Stream channelization should be required to augment aquatic resources as well as provide necessary discharge capacity. Land Grant Universities should be directed to facilitate demonstration projects and technology transfer that encourage integrated ecological and agricultural conservation practices. INTRODUCTION In preparation for this workshop, I read a number of policy papers previously developed by Federal and State agencies, environmental organizations, and sportsmen groups. From these varied documents, a pattern rapidly became evident. A majority of the policy recommendations were restatements of the traditional soil and water conservation practices employed by our grandparents prior to the 1940s. Some new concerns arose associated with synthetic organic chemicals, acidification of watersheds and more intensified uses of irrigation water; but the majority of concerns were restatements of old problems. To merely reiterate these issues is necessary but not a sufficient exercise for this workshop. It is essential that we also address explicitly the economic, technological, and political factors that forced us to abandon environmentally sound conservation activities. These changes usually were not motivated by a desire to reduce stocks of aquatic organisms or to destroy critical aquatic habitats, Rather, they resulted from the common practice of our economic and planning institutions to focus on short time horizons and small spatial dimensions. The 1978 International Joint Commission Agreement between Canada and the United States mandates an ecosystem management perspective for the Great Lakes, A similar orientation should be mandated for our agricultural ecosystems. Unfortunately, this is easier said than done. While most people would agree in concept with ecosystem management, most people and the majority of institutions at all levels have no idea how to implement this holistic view. Submissions of broader concerns to temporal and spatial externalities is the rule, not the exception.

PAGE 91

94 AQUATIC RESOURCE CONSTRAINTS There are many environmental and ecologimunities. Management of aquatic resources is cal factors that interact to produce a given absolutely dependent on the management of quantity and quality of aquatic resource (Reid, the associated watershed. Leaf inputs from 1961). Different aquatic systems are contrees constitute the primary energy flows for strained by differing dominant factors. Lakes woodland streams. Riparian vegetation proand ponds are usually phosphorus limited. vides shades which is critical for temperature Marine estuaries are more often nitrogen control and constitutes a buffer system that limited, and high order streams are substrate modulates sediment and nutrient inputs. The limited. In general, the social utility and biolist of ecosystem interactions is very long and logical stability of aquatic systems are deterbiogeochemically very diverse illustrating the mined by water quality, water quantity, habiabsolute necessity of integrating agricultural tat diversity, and type of biological community. and ecological management. These characteristics are directly affected by the dynamics of the adjacent terrestrial comNONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTANTS Pisano (1976) estimates that total amount of nonpoint source pollution at least equals, if not exceeds, the total pollutant loadings contributed by all point sources. Agriculture and silviculture occupy 64 percent of the total land area in the United States, 55 percent in Canada, and 73 percent in Mexico. The magnitude of nonpoint source inputs will be roughly proportional to the total area involved in these production processes (McElroy, 1975; Canada Yearbook, 1975; wilkie, 1976). The U.S. Commission on Water Quality estimated future stream loading as follows: Of the total point and nonpoint source loadings of 150 million pounds per day of suspended solids, nonpoint source loads will account for 145 million pounds or 92 percent. Of the total daily nitrogen loading of 35.7 million pounds nonpoint sources will contribute 28.3 million pounds, or 79 percent. Of the 3.63 million pounds per day of phosphorus, nonpoint sources will provide 1.93 million pounds, or 53 percent. For both fecal and total coliform counts, nonpoint sources will account for over 98 percent 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 phosphoric compounds are bound up in particulate material. The major nonpoint transport mechanism for these materials from the terrestrial to the aquatic systems is by sediment transport. In addition to the pollutants it holds, sedimentation is a major cause of aquatic habitat destruction. This is particularly true for rocky substrates that represent niches for aquatic insects and spawning areas for fish, The water quality standards designed to fulfill the commitment of the 1977 U.S. Clean Water Act to protect aquatic resources do not address the problem of sediment transported toxicants and nutrients, Nor do criteria for sediment loading reflect potential impacts on aquatic habitats. Regulation of the transport process would affect a whole suite of water quality issues simultaneously, Recommendation. The U.S. Department of Agriculture should develop and implement nonpoint source discharge standards for organic and inorganic compounds transported by sediments in their pollution contro l programs.

PAGE 92

95 MANAGEMENT OF RIPARIAN VEGETATION Many scientific studies exist that demonstrate the importance of riparian vegetation as a buffer zone between terrestrial and aquatic systems (Cummins, 1979). These buffers include streamside and lakeside terrestrial plant communities as well as wetland habitats such as Spartina salt marshes, mangrove communities, floodplains, and cattail marshes (Merritt and Lawson, 1978; ValieLa, et al., 1978). Water quality parameters are modulated by nutrient uptake, denitrification, and chemical partitioning to the soil or sediment components, Many experiments and operating treatment facilities have applied secondary treated effluent to estuaries, wetlands, and marshes to take advantage of these biological processes (Sloey, et al., 1978). Riparian vegetation also contributes a significant proportion of the energy budget through organic material inputs for many types of aquatic systems. This is of particular importance in low order streams (Cummins, 1974), marine estuaries, and vernal ponds (Teal, 1962), These inputs have a direct effect on the secondary productivity of aquatic populations of fish, shellfish, crabs, and insects. Riparian vegetation also is essential to maintain low-temperature regimes and acceptable habitats for many desirable stream fishes. This is particularly true for cold-water species which desire summer temperatures between 500 and 700 O F, For small streams, low shrubs and grasses can provide a protective overstory from predation. For streams over 30 feet wide, trees for about 40 percent of the stream length on both sides should be present (Soil Conservation Service, 1971), There is no generic policy nor systematic process of implementation in current agricultural regulations to develop and protect riparian vegetation buffers. Attempts have been made, however, to protect buffer strips along waterways from sources of destruction of riparian vegetation such as animal grazing and crop production. The largest to date is the new Chesapeake Bay Program costing some $48 million and involving two proposed projects. One is to implement phosphorus removal from secondary municipal treatment facilities, and the other is to obtain a vegetation buffer strip all around the Bay. One current approach which appears feasible is to use the USDAs set-aside program to develop buffer strips but two modifications to the existing program will be necessary. One requires the maintenance of the same acreage for a long period of time free from grazing and plowing. The other is an incentive system that provides rewards for selecting riparian acreages for the set-aside. This could be achieved by using an increasing scale for riparian acres when calculating credits for the set-aside. Recommendation.The USDA should modify the set-aside program to encourage the development and protection of riparian vegetation buffer strips. STREAM CHANNELIZATION Watershed management is a complex procThis is also an area where there have been ess involving many trade-offs between ecohistorical controversies between agricultural nomic, social, and environmental issues. The and environmental interest groups. Farmers management of water through impoundments, need to till and drain low areas so that soils channelization, and nonstructural storage concan be worked as early in the spring as possistitutes an important component of the manble. Natural streams often do not have suffiagement plan. cient discharge capacity to handle the excess

PAGE 93

96 runoff in a timely fashion. Streams are, therefore, declared agricultural drains and engineered to increase capacity. Often this increases flooding and sedimentation problems downstream where many of our urban centers are located on floodplains. Until recently, the evaluation of alternative designs and mitigation programs through the environmental impact statement process has focused only on the portion of the watershed that was to be altered. This was justified by the fact that the costs of the studies was borne by only those riparian owners that benefited from the stream improvements; but this practice has been successfully challenged in many States. Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) are increasingly taking a watershed perspective. Water quality, sedimentation rates, diversity of fish habitats and esthetic aspects of stream improvements are being compared to the benefits of rapid discharge (wildlife Society, American Fisheries Society, 1983; Soil Conservation Service, 1971). The new Palmiter method in particular emphasizes subsurface structures that allow both diverse aquatic habitats and increased surface flows. The other main issue here involves structural versus nonstructural impoundments for the storage of water to prevent downstream flooding. Wetlands and vernal ponds represent a distributive storage component scattere d throughout the watershed. If these are drained for agricultural purposes, society must then invest large amounts of money for downstream structural impoundments. These structures also impound sediments, increase water temperatures, impede fish migrations, and affect downstream water quality. Since the destruction of the natural storage capacity is scattered in space and distributed over time and since the riparian-owner populations are distinctly different groups, a systems analysis of cost and benefits of the alternatives for the total watershed is hardly ever available for decision makers. Recommendation.The USDA should implement a generic EIS that evaluates the total costs, benefits, and risks of nonstructural controls for water management in agricultural watersheds. EDUCATION AND DEMONSTRATION PROGRAMS Many of the management practices that are being considered for the enhancement of aquatic resources are well-known soil conservation practices from the early 1900s. The environmental constraints have not changed in the last 50 years, but the social and economic conditions are considerably different. There is a real need to implement a network of education and demonstration programs that build credibility for the fact that good environmental management also is good economic planning. The general perception that agricultural production processes are inescapably in conflict with good ecology is incorrect and counterproductive. watershed demonstration projects accompanied by material mass balances and complete economic cost/benefit analysis are the best way to establish credibility with the farm community, This is similar to programs recommended in the 1981 Agriculture and Food Act, Title XV: Resource Conservation (Johnson, et al., 1982). The Land Grant Universities of this country are institutions whose original charters mandate education and demonstration programs to facilitate technology transfer to the agricultural community. Land Grant Universities have become infatuated with intensive, big-scale agricultural production technologies in the last 40 years. These same institutions have the relevant array of academic disciplines (economics, soil science, fish and wildlife programs) to initiate and document these demonstration projects. The Land Grant Universities have the

PAGE 94

97 mandate and the resources to transfer to agroLand Grant Universities to develop watershed ecosystem management. All they need is the management demonstration projects which inwill, tegrate ecological and agricultural conservaRecommendation.The 1985 Farm Bill tion practices. should include under Title IX a directive to the REFERENCES American Fisheries Society Policy Statements, Environmental Concerns Committee (Bethesda, MD: American Fisheries Society, 1983). Canada Yearbook, Annual Review of Economic and Political Development, Ministry of Industry and Trade and Commerce, Ottawa, Canada, 1975, p. 430. Cummins, K. W,, Structure and Function of Stream Ecosystems, Bio Science 24:631-641, 1974. Cummins, K, W., The Multiple Linkages of Forests to Streams, Fresh Perspectives From Ecosystem Analysis (Corvallis, OR: Oregon University Press, 1979), pp. 191-198. Johnson, J. D., Rizzi, R. W., Short, S, D., and Fulton, R. T,, Provisions of the Agriculture and Food Act of 1981 (Washington, DC: USDA Economic Research Service, 1982), p. 23. McElroy, A. D., et al., Water Pollution From Nonpoint Sources, Water Research 9(7):675-681, 1975. Merritt, R. W., and Lawson, D. L., Leaf Litter Processing in Floodplain and Stream Communities, Strategies for Protection and Management of Floodplain Wetlands and Other Riparian 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. Soil Water 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 for Nutrient Assimilation, Freshwater WetZands: Ecological Processes and Management Potential (New York: Academic Press, 1978), pp. 357-364. Teal, J, M., Energy Flow in the Saltmash Ecosystem of Georgia, Ecology 43:614-641, 1962. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Planning and Design of Open Channels, Tech. Release No. 25, 1971. Valiela, I,, Teal, J. M., Volkman, S., Shater, D,, and Carpenter, E. T., Nutrient and Particulate Fluxes in a Saltmarsh Ecosystem: Tidal Exchanges and Inputs by Precipitation and Ground Water, Limuol. Oceanogr. 23(4):798812, 1978. The Wildlife Society, The American Fisheries Society, Stream Obstruction Removal Guidelines, by Stream Renovation Guidelines Committee, 1983. Wilkie, J. (cd.), Statistical Abstract of Latin America, UCLA Latin America Center, Publ. 17 (Los Angeles: University of California, 1976).

PAGE 95

98 Agricultural Activities and Marine Fisheries Tim Goodger National Marine Fisheries Service Northeast Region Oxford, Maryland Approximately 7.7 billion pounds of fish and shellfish were landed commercially by U.S. fishermen in territorial waters or the Fishery Conservation Zone in 1983 with a value of more than $2.7 billion (National Marine Fisheries Service, 1983). when ancillary industries, such as processing, distribution, and marketing, are considered, the value is significantly higher. To illustrate the importance of the value of ancillary industries to fisheries economics, a variety of multipliers have been developed to determine this additional value. Using a multiplier of 7.4, developed by NMFS economists (National Marine Fisheries Service, 1975), would increase the total value of the 1983 commercial fisheries to $19.7 billion. Additionally, although the marine recreational harvest has not been estimated since 1980, it was then determined to be approximately 700 million pounds with a total economic impact valued at $7.5 billion (National Marine Fisheries Service, 1983). The total economic impact of recreational fisheries includes associated expenditures such as tackle, boat purchases or rentals, transportation, and lodging, and restaurant accommodations associated with fishing trips. The continued economic viability of the American fishing industry is dependent on maintaining biologically productive stocks, which, in turn, is dependent on competent management and ensuring that adequate habitat is available for reproduction and development. Significant numbers of species, even those caught in the ocean, depend on the estuaries for the survival of one or more stages in their life cycles. Between 11 and 98 percent by weight of the U.S. commercial harvest is considered estuarine-dependent; approximately 97 percent of the Chesapeake Bay harvest is estuarine-dependent (McHugh, 1976). However, many estuaries including Chesapeake Bay are environmentally stressed and degraded as a result of a myriad of human activities. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES Many agricultural practices can contribute significantly to habitat degradation in some areas. The withdrawal, impoundment, and/or diversion of freshwater from streams and rivers can change the salinity gradient downstream and result in displacement of spawning and nursery grounds. Patterns of estuarine circulation necessary for larval and plankton transport could be modified. Such changes can expand the range of estuarine diseases and predators associated with higher salinities that affect commercial shellfish, Channelization results in increased sediment loading, both during and following construction. Stream banks denuded of vegetation and destabilized during construction are readily eroded; increased stream velocities resulting from channelization also accelerate erosion. Eroded sediments laden with nutrients and

PAGE 96

99 other contaminants are transported downstream where they can degrade water quality, foul fish spawning habitat, and smother shellfish beds, Additionally, channelization often results in the destruction of substantial acreage of wetlands that serve as natural buffers and filters by slowing the velocity of upland runoff, trapping sediments, and assimilating nutrients. Farming in river basin drainage areas can produce changes in water chemistry adjacent to and downstream from agricultural areas, Biostimulants, such as fertilizers and animal wastes, entering streams as nonpoint source pollutants may promote the overproduction of algal species, which results in high biological oxidation demand and an increased abundance of undesirable species, Animal wastes also degrade water quality and pose a potential health hazard that can result in closure of shellfish beds to harvest. Biocides used for weed control may inhibit the growth of important submerged aquatic vegetation. Runoff from farm fields into adjacen t streams and major tributaries transports sediments into anadromous fish streams, where spawning areas are affected. Sediments transported to estuaries decrease the transparency and increase the turbidity of the water, thereby limiting the penetration of light and decreasing photosynthesis. Heavy metals and other compounds from terrigenous sources are adsorbed to these sediment particles and become distributed throughout the water column and in bottom sediments, Eroded sediments can blanket the bottom and destroy oyster bar communities and other epifaunal populations. As little as 1 to 2 millimeters of silt on oyster cultch can render this substrate unsuitable for the attachment of spat (Galtsoff, 1964). TECHNOLOGIES THAT WILL BENEFIT BOTH FISH AND AGRICULTURE The washing of soils, together with the pesticides and fertilizers applied to them, represent an economic loss to farmers as well as a degrading influence on aquatic ecosystems. It is to the best interest of all concernedfarmers, fishermen, and the publicto keep sediments and chemicals out of our Nations waterways, The benefits and costs to estuarine fisheries resulting from the alteration of agricultural practices have not been fully assessed in previous farm policies. An opportunity to improve this situation now exists as the USDA and others take a serious look at conservation measures appropriate to the impending 1985 Farm Bill. The reauthorization of the Farm Bill could provide incentives to encourage use of Best Management Practices (BMPs) such as fencing off rivers and streams to livestock and establishing vegetated buffer strips along waterways that would provide riparian habitat and reduce erosion; all to the mutual benefit of landowners and fish and wildlife resources. Cooperative activities between agencies also could jointly aid farmers and fish and wildlife habitat. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is providing the Economic Research Service of USDA with information on the impacts of agricultural practices on estuarine fisheries. The National Ocean Service of NOAA has developed a county/commodity data base for the East and Gulf Coasts that can estimate agricultural pollutant loadings under different scenarios of cultivation. NMFS is beginning a research program to quantify the value of estuarine habitat for fisheries production. NMFS also has responded to the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Services request for information on the environmental impacts of production adjustment programs. NMFS intends to combine our efforts of quantifying pollutant loading by hydrological basin and assessing the effects of such loading on fish

PAGE 97

100 resources. The program should assist USDA to develop policies that will reduce adverse effects on living aquatic resources. There are areas of cooperation where future progress can be made. For example, it maybe worthwhile to explore how NOAAs Sea Grant and USDAs Extension programs can cooperate in implementing joint research projects or monitoring programs and in getting the resultant information to the farmer. NOAA also would appreciate the opportunity to pursue with USDA and other agencies, as appropriate, potential mechanisms to reduce off-farm impact on fish and wildlife by ensuring that BMPs are considered in Coastal Zone Management, Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including exemptions, nationwide and individual permits), and other pertinent Federal programs. Additionally, educational programs and demonstration projects that encourage conservation of land and aquatic resources should be promoted. Previous projects and programs clearly illustrate the mutual benefits to agricultural and fish and wildlife interests. Interagency Domonstration Projects Shoreline Stabilizatiom With Wetland Vogetation Erosion of varying degrees of severity exists along many shorelines throughout Talbot County, Maryland, resulting in the loss of valuable properties, estimated to exceed over 30 acres per year. Much of the land bordering Talbot County waters is agricultural. Traditionally, erosion abatement has been accomplished by structural means (i.e., stone revetments, bulkheads, etc.). These physical structures are expensive, and they often require the destruction of intertidal or shallow water areas that provide nursery and feeding habitat for many valuable species of marine life. Such structures may be the only solution along exposed (high energy) shorelines; however, for many rivers and protected coves, alternative nonstructural techniques to control erosion are available. A proven method of nonstructural shoreline stabilization is by planting marsh plants. Along the mesohaline shores of Chesapeake Bay, smooth cord grass (Spartina alterniflora) i s typically planted in areas regularly flooded by tides, and saltmeadow cord grass (S. patens) is commonly used in areas subject to intermittent tidal flooding. Both species are often used in conjunction to simulate natural marsh zonation and to afford greater protection. Establishment of fringe marshes along these shorelines can abate erosion at a cost of 10 to 50 percent of that for conventional physical structures. Such savings are significant, particularly on large agricultural tracts where the expense of conventional methods may be costprohibitive. Although occasional maintenance may be required, and annual fertilization of the marsh grasses is recommended, the costs are inconsequential when compared with the repair or replacement of traditional structures, such as bulkheading. At the same time, fringe marshes enhance the ecological values of treated areas by providing spawning, nursery, and feeding habitat for an abundance and variety of lower trophic organisms that serve as forage for commercially and recreationally important species of finand shellfish. Additionally, fringe marshes act as buffer strips that filter pollutants from upland runoff entering aquatic ecosystems. In consideration of these potential benefits, NMFS in cooperation with the Talbot County Soil Conservation District, the Soil Conservation Service (SCS), and the Talbot County Planning Department worked cooperatively to identify reaches of County shoreline where landscaping alternatives could abate erosion. Under contract to NMFS, an expert in the field of vegetative stabilization developed a series of maps to identify shore reaches where landscaping stabilization methods were feasible. These maps were coded to indicate the estimated cost for the landscaping treatment. Approximately 296 miles of the 490 miles of assessed shoreline in Talbot County were found suitable for stabilization with wetland vegetation. The remaining shoreline (194 miles)

PAGE 98

107 was either stable because of extensive natural marsh systems (152 miles) or unsuitable for vegetative stabilization because of severe energy regimes (42 miles). Property owners identified in the study were sent letters by the Talbot County Council inviting them to a workshop held in April 1983 by the project cooperators. The advantages of vegetative stabilization, both ecological and economic, were explained to the workshop attendants, Additionally, the Corps of Engineers and the Maryland Water Resources Administration agreed to develop administrative procedures to expedite the processing of permits for these projects as further incentive. Following the workshop, local interest appeared relatively strong. Between the spring of 1983 and fall of 1984 (approximately 18 months), the Talbot County SCS office received more than 50 inquiries about the technique from property owners who attended the presentation. The contractor who performed the shoreline survey has completed approximately 50 projects involving shoreline stabilization with marsh vegetation throughout the county, Demonstration Farm (Best Management Practices) A demonstration farm proposal is currently being planned as a cooperative effort between the University of Maryland, Maryland Department of Natural Resources, SCS, and NMFS. The purpose of the project is to identify, implement, and evaluate the BMPs on a sitespecific basis The BMPs, although no t thoroughly detailed at present, will include such methodologies as vegetated buffer strips, sediment ponds, reverse drainage grading, directional furrowing, water control structures, and other techniques designed to retard flows and reduce velocities to minimize nonpoint source discharges to natural waterways. Although the project is site-specific, rather than generic, successful technologies could be applied to other sites with similar conditions. Additionally, the methodologies developed to assess the effectiveness of various experimental techniques could have broad application. Pest Control (Open Marsh Water Management*) In Maryland, the State Department of Agriculture (DOA) is responsible for mosquito control as well as the management of other pest organisms. Much of this work is conducted in tidal wetlands. Because of the potential adverse impacts of mosquito control work in sensitive tidal habitats, cooperative efforts between the DOA and the State and Federal regulatory and resource agencies began as early as 1975. Working with a concept formulated in New Jersey, Open Marsh Water Management, techniques were developed that controlled mosquitoes biologically, rather than chemically, resulting in minimal physical impacts to the treated marshes, and enhancing other elements of the estuarine food web. Although this program may be the most specialized of those described, it does contain elements that may be applicable to agricultural 1ands, For example, silled ditches used to minimize lateral drainage in mosquito-controlled marshes, may be used in channelization projects. Such ditches allow the removal of surface waters without desiccating wetlands. Also ponds with radial ditches and no outlets could be used to direct surface flows into sediment basins, thereby preventing contaminants from running off into natural waterways. REFERENCES Galtsoff, Paul S., The American Oyster, Fishery U.S Bulletin of the Fish and Wildlife Service, vol. 64, 1964, McHugh, J. L,, Estaurine Fisheries: Are They Doomed? In: Estaurine Processes, M. Wiley U.S (cd,), vol. I. (New York: Academic Press, 1976), pp. 15-27, Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service, Fisheries of the United States (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1983). Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service, Marine Fisheries Review 37(10):28, 1975.

PAGE 99

102 Designing Landscape Mosaics for Integrated Agricultural and Conservation Planning in the Southeastern United States Larry D. Harris DoparQment of Wildlifo and Range Sciences University of Florida Gainesville, Florida To allow sustained growth and ensure resource availability Sunbelt States must integrate conservation planning with development planning, A generalized model that relates wildlife type and abundance to land capability and land use intensity is presented. High density, tolerant, opportunistic species are seen to occupy areas of high intensity land use. Medium densities of tolerant but larger and wider ranging species occupy areas of lower land use intensity. Very low densities of large, wide-ranging wilderness species demand wide expanses of low intensity land use or else an integrated system of conservation areas such as refuges and national forests. Economic incentives can be sufficient to ensure wildlife conservation on large private or industrial ownerships. A Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP) administered through USDA/ ASCS is suggested to motivate wildlife conservation on small nonindustrial private land, A Federal interagency coordinating council is suggested as a means to guide development of regional systems of national forests, parks, refuges, etc., as an alternative to land use restrictions on agricultural lands. Nearly 50 years ago the Soil Conservation Service developed a simple classification scheme to aid interpretation and proper use of soil and land types (Hockensmith and Steele, 1949). The system consists of classes ranging from I to VIII with the best soils that have greatest capability being assigned to class I and the worst soils with great limitation being assigned to class VIII. The classes are described as follows: I. Few limitations. Wide latitude for each use. Very good land from every standpoint. II. Moderate limitations or risks of damage. Good land from all aroun d standpoint. III. Severe limitations or risks of damage. Regular cultivation possible if limitations are observed. IV. Very severe limitations. Suited for occasional cultivation or for some kind of limited cultivation. v. Not suited for cultivation because of wetness, stones, overflows, etc. Few limitations for grazing or forestry use. VI. Too steep, stony, arid, wet, etc., for cultivation. Moderate limitations for grazing or forestry. VII. Very steep, rough, arid, wet, etc. Severe limitations for grazing or forestry. VIII. Extremely rough, arid, swampy, etc. Not suited for cultivation, grazing, or forestry. Suited for wildlife, watersheds, or recreation.

PAGE 100

103 Lands of high capability are expensive and Wildlife populations are as responsive to soil require intensive use to offset the high capital richness and capability as are agricultural or investment, Lands of lower capability that resilvicultural crops, Numerous studies report a quire less capital investment maybe used less positive relationship between wildlife growth intensively and generate smaller returns. It foland abundance and soil richness. But wildlife lows almost directly that land use intensity will is also very responsive to land use and thus it be proportional to capability and thus inverse is the combination of land capability and land to numerical rank (figure 1). use which dictates the composition, disposiFiaure 1 .A Soil Conservation Service Land Capability Classification Portraying the Land Use Intensity Appropriate Land copab i I it y clas s 1 I I to Each Class (from Hockensmith and Steele 1949) I Increased removal of cover or disturbance of soi l w 0 c. J 1 -1

PAGE 101

104 tion, and abundance of the wildlife community. 1 A slight modification and rearrangement of the capability class and land use chart given in figure 1 allows the addition of these four general classes of wildlife (figure 2). It seems reasonable that wilderness species are not only IThe American Game Policy (Leopold, et al., 1930), developed in IWO identified four classes of game consisting of farm game, forest and range game, wilderness game, and migratory game. For the purposes of this paper, migratory game will be excluded and a new category called pest wildlife is added because of increasing levels of wildlife depredation on agricultural crops. defined by, but largely restricted to the low intensity land use areas which tend to be of low capability class. It goes without saying that forest and range wildlife largely corresponds to forest and range lands of classes V through VIII, but the intensive mechanized forestry practices in the Southeast is more restricted to classes IV through VII. Farm wildlife (e.g., quail, rabbits, doves, and squirrels) do well under low intensity agricultural conditions generally associated with small farmsteads and both this land use and these species will occur on 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 Use Intensity and the Expected Type and Relative Abundance of Wildlife Occurring on the Land $.-

PAGE 102

105 and which must be used very intensively in order to justify the capital expense, can only be used for urban, residential, or intensive agricultural development. Under these circumstances, almost any wildlife species may be deemed a pest (figure 2). In summary, we now have a scheme that not only relates land use intensity to land capability class, it predicts the general type of wildlife that is likely to occur in various land use types. Florida panthers, large alligators, or bears will not be tolerated in urban, suburban, industrial, or intensively used agricultural areas. These species and their future will depend on conservation and management either in a wilderness context or in an integrated system of preserves. Turkeys, ruffed grouse, and feral hogs will generally find acceptable habitat in and simultaneously be limited to forest and range conditions. Species such as white-tailed deer that aggressively invade farmland situations frequently will not be compatible with crop production systems and thus they too may be restricted to forest and range circumstances. Quail, doves, squirrels, rabbits, and small game in general will not only profit from, but also will be tolerated amongst agricultural fields and farmlots. A second, somewhat surprising, pattern that emerges from this scheme portrays the expected density of wildlife under various land use conditions. By nature, wilderness wildlife tends to be rare and densities of 1 per 1,000 acres are reasonable for this type of species. Other wilderness species may be as dense as 1 per 100 acres or more, but higher densities should generally not be expected. The density of forest and range wildlife tends to be higher than that of wilderness species and densities of 10 per 100 acres or 1 per 10 acres is a reasonable expectation for most species of this class. Farm game species generally occur at yet higher densities and 1 per acre or 100 per 100 acres is a reasonable expectation. A little known fact, however, is that urban wildlife, especially birds, tend to be the most abundant of all. For example, Emlen (1974) found a 26fold increase in bird numbers along a gradient from the desert to the urban environment of Tucson, Arizona. The bird density of Tucson was reported at 600 pairs per 100 acres. In total, I believe this scheme fairly represents the probable correspondence between land capability and its use intensity while identifying both the general type and relative abundance of wildlife that can be expected under various circumstances. It does not assert that farm, forest, or even wilderness wildlife cannot or does not occur under very intensive land use conditions, but if it does occur there it will almost certainly be considered a pest. It does not assert that some species such as whitetailed deer can not occur in all of the categories, but that if they do, then the management objectives and approaches probably will be quite different. MODEL IMPLICATIONS FOR MANAGEMENT In previous decades a predominantly speciesby-species and situation-by-situation approach has characterized wildlife management in the United States. More recently, comprehensive planning has emerged as the predominant theme in both Federal and State legislation, Thus the Resources Planning Act, the National Forest Management Act, and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act all rely on an integrated, multiple use planning approach. The majority of States have now implemented nonQame programs in an attempt to focus attention on the large array of species that are neither game species nor rare and endangered species. Florida, for example, considers that some 1,200 vertebrate species residing in the State require an integrated approach to the management and conservation of all native fish, wildlife, and plants (Fla. Statute s 372.992). This can only be achieved if the plan is acceptable to: 1) those who approve it, 2) those who pay for it, and 3) the landowners where it is carried out (McConnell, 1981). The plan certainly must encompass the greatly dif-

PAGE 103

106 ferent types of wildlife and land use and consequent management opportunities that exist. The model presented above attempts to do just that. The additional premise incorporated here relies on a multi-faceted approach based on: 1) development of economic incentive when possible, 2) provision of free technical assistance and habitat plantings to encourage voluntary participation, 3) feasibility of land purchase and reservation, and 4) regulation of species and land use when necessary (McConnell, 1981). Land and soil types generally follow a recurrent pattern of distribution with predictable sequences and location. Plants are usually adapted to specific site conditions as are certain vertebrate species. As a general principle, resident animal species with very local movement patterns are closely tied to specific site conditions while resident species that range widely show less linkage to specific sites. This means that the concept of habitat management is very well developed and useful for most species of farm and woodlot wildlife, but the concept becomes less useful as we progress toward the wilderness species. Large carnivores and species such as bears range over many soil, vegetation, and land use types daily and the concept of habitat management becomes virtually useless, It follows from this that a localized habitat management approach can be very successful for small game species such as quail, rabbit, and squirrel on farms of only a few hundred acres, Several hundred if not thousands of acres are necessary to successfully manage for forest and range species such as deer, feral hogs, and turkey. Landscapes of tens and thousands of acres are necessary for the successful management of bears an d bobcats. Although this material is not new, it should serve to emphasize that opportunities for economic incentive and self-initiative are not tied to either small or large landholders. Small landholders are most limited in the species they can manage for, but landscapes consisting of numerous small landholdings can provide excellent habitat for resident species. This is especially true if natural habitat features such as outcrops, drains, and odd areas are maintained as other features such as fencerows, windbreaks, shelterbelts, and buffer strips are created. It is the landscape mosaic and the heterogeneity existing between and among fields that creates this habitat value. County, State, and Federal agencies, planning councils, and the public must provide the mix of incentives, rewards, and regulations to achieve these smaller scale habitat qualities. The trend toward larger farm size and industrial ownership is not in and of itself bad for wildlife. In fact, it greatly increases the opportunity for economic development of the wildlife resource because a greater number of species can be managed for. Far and away the greatest economic returns from wildlife in the Southeast derive from large private and industrial ownerships. Certain corporations derive more than $1/acre/yr from hunting leases on million-acre ownerships while other private owners derive over $3/acre/yr from hunting leases on l00,000-acre ownerships. Prime wildlife habitat such as bottomland hardwoods may lease for $10/acre/yr. Although there is no obvious economic incentive for managing private lands for nongame species, most owners would happily do so on a voluntary basis if habitat improvements such as food and cover plantings and nest boxes were free and if technical assistance were readily available (McConnell, 1981), Social reinforcement such as good citizen awards, direct compensation for conservation planning, and tax credits for approved management plans are incentive mechanisms that will complement and enhance game lease receipts, Having briefly considered farm and forest wildlife, I now turn to the many species that either have such specific habitat requirements or which range over such vast areas that the private sector cannot be expected to manage them. It is these species that require integrated State and Federal regulations and/or land reservation. Strategic purchase and placement of State and National Parks and Preserves, State and

PAGE 104

107 National Forests, and National Wildlife Ref uges is critical to the regional conservation of these species, Habitat specialists that occur only locally (e.g., red-cockaded woodpecker) are vulnerable to the effects of inbreeding and genetic drift unless genetic interchange between the subpopulations is ensured, Conversely, the very rare, but wide-ranging species usually cannot be contained within any single park or refuge and therefore require some sort of travel corridor system that attempts to link one habitat island with another (Harris, 1984a). Although the prospect of providing continuous physical connections between the habitat islands may initially seem remote, the range of opportunities is great. Both natural and anthropogenic connectors can be drawn upon. Conservation easements may serve as well as actual ownership. Candidate corridors will include streams and streamside buffer strips, rivers and riparian strips, State and national recreations trials, scenic roadsides, high voltage power lines, drainage canals, windbreaks, shelterbelts, greenbelts, and dispersal corridor designation (Forman, 1983; Harris, 1984a), The important point to all of this is that economic incentives and the free enterprise system can be made to work toward wildlife conservation on large private and corporate ownerships, but that it falls short on both ends of the scale. Farms and landholdings too small to support hunting leases will provide habitat for resident species with small ranges, but this is only if a heterogeneous mosaic derives between and among field arrangements. Similarly, wide-ranging species that require entire landscapes will depend on the strategic layout of sanctuaries or habitat islands interconnected as much as possible by dispersal corridors. Tax incentives, planning guidelines, the provision of technical assistance, and perhaps even regulation will be required at the small scale while multiagency coordination guidelines from the level of the U.S. Congress will be required to ensure integration and cooperation at the regional level. APPLICATIONS IN THE SOUTHEASTERN UNITED STATES The Southeastern Coastal Plain is characterized by low topographic relief, numerous alluvial bottomlands generally flooded during late winter, and expansive flatwoods where the water table is generally near the surface. Because of the low latitude, winter daylength is about 30 percent greater than that of 50 N latitude. Hurricanes and tropical depressions frequently cause summer flooding throughout the lowlands. Hardwood tree species diversity is high. Whereas a single species of oak occurs in the forests of Maine, 25 species and 4 recognized subspecies occur in Florida. Broadleaved evergreen trees, bushes, and shrubs dominate the bottomland forests and many species such as the hollies (Ilex spp. ) either bear their fruit during or hold it through the winter. This combination of abundant acorns, winter fruits, evergreen foliage, warm temperatures, and long day lengths make the bottomland hardwoods ideal winter habitat (Harris, 1984b). Open pinelands characterize flatwoods and most upland sites. Frequent lightning strikes and subsequent fire suppressed and/or eliminated the woody, fruit-bearing midstory and understory and created expansive, open foraging areas interspersed with hardwood and cypress bottomlands that were generally too wet to burn. Wild turkey and black bear are two examples of species that depend on the heterogeneous mosaic of bottomlands and uplands. Wild turkeys require open areas where the broods of young poults can easily forage for a diet that is almost 100 percent arthropods. Adults and large chicks require the fruits, seeds, and nuts from flowering plants during winter and have a strong preference for roosting in trees over water during all seasons. Black bears range widely and tend to acquire their omnivorous diet from upland habitats during summer and fall but from bottomland hardwoods during

PAGE 105

108 winter and spring. They frequently rely on shallow water areas to extinguish their scent trail as they flee from pursuit of hunters using tracking dogs. The Southeastern United States supports fewer species of birds and mammals but very many species of reptiles and amphibians (figure 3). For example, the greatest concentration of salamander species anywhere in the world occurs in the Southeast and the 25 species of turtles in Florida are five times as great as what occurs in all of Europe (Gibbons, 1983). The interspersion of flooded bottomlands with dry land areas is critical for these 175 species of lower vertebrates, especially the very large carnivorous forms such as alligator and alligator snapping turtle. While the number of breeding bird species is quite low, the overwintering population of birds in the bottomlands is very high (figure 3). It is estimated that 90 percent of all of eastern North Americas bird species use the Southeastern bottomlands as habitat during the 5 to 7 winter months or as stopover feeding areas during their spring and fall migrations. Taken in total, these characteristics emerge: l l l l l Overwintering populations of North American birds exceed breeding season populations. Reptile and amphibian species and abundance exceed breeding bird and mammal species and abundance. Nongame species and populations exceed game species and populations nearly 10 to 1 0 The number of rare and endangered species is greater than elsewhere in North America. The importance of bottomlands, marshes, and estuaries is exceedingly great to the abundant semi-aquatic species of forbearers, wading birds, reptiles, and amphibians. Until now land use intensity and development has been sufficiently low to preserve most of the natural landscape diversity and intersection of bottomlands. Drainage and conversion to agriculture has been particularly severe in the lower Mississippi Valley, however, and during the last 40 years bottomland hardwood forest acreage decreased by 6.6 million acres in this valley while agricultural lands increased by 5 million acres (MacDonald, et al., 1979). Conservative Southern farmers are generally not gamblers or risk takers and would not invest in bottomland conversion unless there were only a small likelihood of loss. Numerous Federal Government programs have been aimed directly at reducing the risk associated with farming in the bottomlands (Shabman, 1980: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Public works projects of the Soil Conservation Service and the Corps of Engineers are aimed at reducing and/or preventing risk from flooding. Several aspects of income tax law provide for shifting a farmers investment in drainage and land conversion over to the general public. Deficiency payments supported by the Commodity Credit Corporation virtually eliminate risk due to market fluctuations. Farmers Home Administration and the Agricultural Conservation Program of the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service make direct payments to farmers who convert bottomland hardwoods. Disaster assistance compensation for losses due to natural flooding patterns further reduces or eliminates risk of monetary loss. River diversion, land drainage, and hardwood conversion have the immediate effect of changing former class VIII lands to class I lands. Planting soybeans immediately transforms a low intensity land use into a very high intensity land use. These two changes immediately eliminate native species such as ivorybilled woodpeckers, Carolina parakeets, red wolves, Bachmans warbler, and others while forcing other species such as white-tailed deer and bear into hostage or fugitive situations. They become pest species. Rocommendations In addition to the fish and wildlife habitat that would be conserved if its destruction were

PAGE 106

109

PAGE 107

110 not subsidized, new programs aimed at recreating and conserving the natural vegetation mosaic and riparian forests are needed. Massive acreages were abandoned after the reconstruction era and logged over forestlands were never replanted. The outlawing of native burning early in this century and the general publics negative sentiment about prescribed burning to this day has dramatically changed the upland forest environment. In many cases it has led to a hodgepodge of lands that are poorly stocked with low-quality invader species that represent neither good forestry nor good wildlife habitat. A Wildlife Habitat incentives Program (WHIP) similar to the Forestry Incentives Program is called for. Congress should authorize a cost-sharing program that encourages: 1) forest nurseries to propagate, stock, and distribute native tree and bush species of known wildlife value; 2 ) at a cost comparable to that of current plantation species (e.g., $50/1,000); and 3) encourages the development of agency approved habitat reclamation plans on private lands. This should be aimed especially at the small, private, nonindustrial landowner. Like the Forestry Incentives Program, this could be administered through the ASCS but the plans should be approved by certified wildlife biologists in wildlife extension or in a relevant State agency. The plans should be aimed at creating meaningful landscape mosaics consisting of habitat islands and abundant travel and dispersal corridors as mentioned early in this paper. A Federal Interagency coordinating council empowered to guide regional land acquisition, disposition, and management is necessary to have life saving impact on dozens of endangered species. The purpose and role of the council would be to look at the big picture and work toward establishment of functional regional systems of preserves, parks, forests, refuges, wild and scenic rivers, recreational trails, and related interconnecting corridors. An example of a situation analysis from the Southeastern Coastal Plain involves the presently uncoordinated and sometimes competitive efforts of numerous State and Federal agencies. The 400,000-acre Okefenokee Swamp in Georgia formerly extended south into what is now the 150,000-acre Osceola National Forest of Florida. The Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) managed by USDI/Fish and Wildlife Service does not, however, abut with the Osceola National Forest managed by the USDA/Forest Service. Linkage seems not only logical but may ultimately be essential in order to maintain a viable population of black bears. It is also the most likely release site for Florida panther should the south Florida population be recovered to a level that will support transfer or should captive-reared individuals become available. The Suwannee River is the major outflow from the Okefenokee that drains to the Gulf Coast. It was seriously considered as a Wild and Scenic River, but it now seems unlikely to gain this status. Nonetheless, interagency endorsement and coordination could virtually ensure its purchase as a Florida Area of Critical State Concern. If and when designated, it can connect the northern two areas (Okefenokee NWR and Osceola NF) with the new 57,000-acre Lower Suwannee River NWR. This refuge, in turn connects with the 5,000-acre Cedar Keys Scrub State Preserve which connects with the small Cedar Keys NWR in the Gulf of Mexico. Coordinated planning and effort can link these to the 31,000-acre Waccasassa Bay State Preserve, Lake Rousseau State Recreation Area (3,600 acres), Crystal River NWR, St. Martins Marsh Aquatic Preserve (20,000 acres), Chassahowitzka NWR (30,000 acres), and perhaps even Withlacoochie State Forest (113,000 acres). The purpose here is not to suggest a shopping list for State and Federal acquisition but only to suggest that a complex system of parks, preserves, and refuges already exists and many uncoordinated and probably inefficient efforts are already underway. Many lands zoned as agricultural are affected and the southern rural character of tens of thousands more would be maintained if such conservation planning were coordinated. Streamside buffers, riparian forests, and swamps are the single best way to mitigate nonpoint source pollution from agricultural lands. Moreover, in the face of unrivaled human population growth, sunbelt

PAGE 108

111 agriculturalists are facing unprecedented comtensive agriculture into a large-scale mosaic of petition for their land. Conservation easements conservation preserves is the only alternative should not be considered as competition when to low intensity land use if the wide-ranging in fact they frequently against the competitive represent safeguards wilderness species are to survive in the Amerforce. Integrating inican Southeast. Emlen, J. T., An Urban Bird Community in Tucson, Arizona: Derivation, Structure, Regulation, Condor 76:184-197, 1974. Forman, R. T. T., Corridors in a Landscape: Their Ecological Structure and Function, EkoZogia 2:375-387, 1983, Gibbons, W., Their Blood Runs CoZd (Birmingham, AL: The University of Alabama Press, 1983). Harris, L. D., The Fragmented Forests: Applications of Island Biogeography Theory to the Preservation of Biotic Diversity (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1984a). Harris, L. D., Bottomland Hardwoods: Valuable, Vanishing, Vulnerable, Florida Agricultural Extension Service Spec. Publ. 26, Gainesville, FL, 1984b. Hockensmith, R., and Steele, J., Recent Trends in the 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., Documentation, Chronology and Future Projections of Bottomland Hardwoods Habitat Loss in the Lower Mississippi Alluvial Plain, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Vicksburg, MS, 1979, McConnell, C. A,, Common Threads in Successful Programs Benefiting Wildlife on Private Lands, WiZdZife Management on Private Lands, R. T, Dumke, G. V. Burger, and J. R. March (eds.) (Madison, WI: Wisconsin Chapter of The Wildlife Society, 1981). Shabman, L., Economic Incentives for Bottomland Conversion: The Role of Public Policy and Programs, Trans. 45th North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference (Washington, DC: Wildlife Management Institute, 1980), pp. 402-412.

PAGE 109

112 Dodge County Interagency Project to Enhance Wildlife Habitat on Farmlands Edward Frank Department of Natural Resources Madison, Wisconsin The Dodge County Interagency Project was designed to improve wildlife habitat while reducing soil erosion and runoff into water bodies by motivating farmers to apply practicable wildlife habitat management and soil conservation measures on privately owned farmlands in western Dodge County, Wisconsin. The emphasis of the project is on reducing agricultural crop production costs and using cost-sharing and incentive payments to achieve multiple natural resource conservation objectives. This area traditionally had some of Wisconsins best pheasant populations and prairie waterfowl production. Increases in critical habitat types for pheasants and prairie waterfowl production will be accomplished by modifying crop production practices, by diverting somewhat poorly drained or erosible croplands from crop production to wildlife habitat (wetland or grassland), and by protecting and improving the quality of existing noncropland habitat types. There is no technology in this project where short-term increases in crop yields are anticipated. * In response to a steep downward trend in pheasant populations and prairie waterfowl production in Wisconsin, the Federal, State, and county level agricultural and natural resource agencies l established an interagency project to motivate farmers to apply practicable wildlife habitat management and soil conservation measures on privately owned farmlands Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, USDA Soil Conservation Service, USDA Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service, University of Wisconsin Extension, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection. in selected areas of Dodge County, Wisconsin. The primary goals of the Dodge County Project are to fulfill the habitat requirements of pheasants and prairie waterfowl and to protect long-term soil productivity (by reducing soil erosion) while maintaining reasonable farm profits or income for individual producers. The focus is on reducing production costs and using cost-sharing or incentive payments to achieve natural resource conservation objectives. The Dodge County Project began in 1984 and will end in 1990. Field application of habitat development and soil conservation measures will be emphasized from 1985 through 1987. Wildlife habitat enhancement is directed primarily at pheasant populations and prairie waterfowl production with anticipated indirect benefits to other species such as cottontail rabbits and grassland nesting birds such as upland plovers, dickcissels, and bobolinks. The Dodge County Project will assess changes in the pheasant population and in waterfowl production that are attributable to the net gain in critical habitat types on treatment areas versus controls, It also will document gains in soil conservation, accumulate data on costs incurred by all agencies for benefiticost analysis, and assess any changes in landowner attitudes toward government agencies, the acceptance of conservation practices, and toward wildlife. Previous research conducted by Gates (1970) in Wisconsin indicated that pheasants typically nest within 2 miles of traditional wintering sites. Therefore, minimal population management units can be circular units with a 2-mile radius centered on critical winter habitat types currently used by pheasants. Additional guide-

PAGE 110

113 lines developed by Gates (1970) indicate that at least 5 percent of the land in each population management unit should be in high-quality nest cover that is not disturbed during the peak nesting period. Less than 1 percent of the management unit needs to have adequate winter food and cover for pheasants (usually shrub and tall emergent wetland vegetation in Wisconsin). For prairie waterfowl a guideline adopted from the Water Bank Program in Wisconsin provides about 4 hectares (10 acres) of high-quality upland nest cover for each hectare (2.5 acres) of permanent or semipermanent wetland capable of rearing broods. Limited information on differences in nest densities and success rates for specific cover types is currently available for Wisconsin. Critical habitat (food or cover) types to be established or enhanced for pheasants include grassy-herbaceous nest cover secure from mechanical disturbance during the nesting peak (April thru July), winter cover to aid in the escape from predators and to minimize the effects of severe weather, and high energy grains available above the snow adjacent to the winter cover. The undisturbed grassy-herbaceous cover also is the preferred habitat type for nesting prairie waterfowl from April to July and thus can be used by ducks as well as pheasants. Seeding of no-till winter wheat in small grain stubble is being empirically tested in cooperation with landowners. This method is new and relatively untested in Wisconsin in terms of effects on crop yields and nesting pheasants or waterfowl. No-till or reduced tillage for row crops will be encouraged as a soil conservation measure but, due to persistent snow cover on the ground, it cannot be relied on (in Wisconsin) to provide winter food for pheasants. Food patches or strips of corn will be left unharvested to provide winter food. Short duration grazing systems and converting parts of cool-season grass pastures to warm-season grasses for grazing in July and August will be attempted. These practices are also untested in Wisconsin, although Missouri and Iowa have been cost-sharing warm-season grass pasture establishment since about 1980. Incentive payments for no-till wheat, warm-season pastures, and unharvested corn strips will be offered. Establishment of grassed waterways for soil erosion control combined with incentive payments to delay or otherwise modify mowing practices on these waterways will be attempted. Agreements will be sought to harvest selected hayfields in late June. Certain hayfields, due to their location and plant composition, are likely to have a disproportionate number of nesting pheasants and waterfowl. Landowners will be encouraged to divert established, eligible hayfields for soil erosion control and wildlife nesting under the 1985 USDA Acreage Reduction Program (ARP). Some also will be encouraged to plant winter food patches for pheasants on diverted ARP croplands. Some wetland restoration on poorly drained croplands or impounding of surface water runoff in upland basins is being proposed. Conversion of some erodible upland row crop fields to perennial grassy-herbaceous vegetation (either with no harvest or with mowing and grazing limitations) also is being proposed. Whenever cropland is converted to a noncrop habitat type, annual compensation will be provided through 1990 by agreement with the Department of Natural Resources. Cost-sharing for conservation practice installation may be supplied by the Water Bank Program, by the Agricultural Conservation Program (ACP) or by agreement with the Department of Natural Resources. Finally, an attempt will be made to enhance critical habitat types on selected noncropland sites. This will include altering emergent vegetation patterns in semipermanent wetlands, changing traditional roadside mowing practices to improve residual nesting cover, changing destructive grazing or burning of wetlands, and selectively removing trees to minimize raptor predation at wintering sites. The Department of Natural Resources will offer all landowners an optional lease for public hunting by permission for a payment expected to average about $1.00 per acre annually for the entire farm.

PAGE 111

114 Cropland modification practices may result in slightly lower yields or quality of forage. Sometimes lower crop production costs offset yield reductions but, if not, incentive payments are designed to compensate the landower for the reductions. Agency cost-sharing will be used to reduce landowner costs for the application of conservation practices not related to crop production. Cropland enrolled in the Water Bank Program or converted to a noncrop habitat type will not be used to produce agricultural crops; its role is to provide critical noncrop habitat for wildlife. The Dodge County Project planning efforts to date indicate that there is some potential benefit to wildlife in modifying the physiognomy of crops, the degree of tillage, and the timing or method of harvest. Project planning does not project short-term increases in crop yields from these practices compared to other agronomic alternatives available to the producer. The habitat benefits per hectare from crop modification also appear to be less than noncrop cover devoted to wildlife habitat as a primary objective. While it maybe possible and certainly desirable to improve technologies to modify crop physiognomy or the timing of tillage or harvesting to meet the critical habitat needs of target wildlife species in the future, current wisdom indicates that not all cropland now in production is needed to meet the domestic and export food and fiber needs of the Nation. The greatest wildlife habitat benefits at the least cost are still likely to be obtained by enhancing habitat quality on existing noncropland sites. In many locations, however, the habitat type (terrestrial or aquatic plant community) cannot be easily or inexpensively altered to meet critical habitat needs of important species in short or declining supply. Cropland diversion under an expanded Water Bank Program or multi-year cropland diversion under ARP (with undisturbed grassy-herbaceous cover required) would appear to meet the critical habitat needs of farmland wildlife better than currently available technology to modify crop production. Agricultural producers appear to be most strongly motivated by economic self-interest. Considerably more Federal tax dollars are spent on price support loans and deficiency payments than on conservation programs (ACP). Most agricultural producers do not benefit financially from wildlife or wildlife habitat and they sometimes suffer crop depredations or increased costs for animal damage control or abatement. Thus, wildlife does not compete economically with the alternative of growing agricultural crops, especially on the better soils. Wildlife has been and continues to be primarily a byproduct of farmland use. To increase or restore wildlife abundance habitat management technologies must either produce very great increases in survival or recruitment on relatively small areas, + 4,000 hectares (10,000 acres), or they must produce smaller percentage increases over a very large area (thousands of square kilometers). The Dodge County Project seeks big increases in survival or recruitment of pheasants and ducks over small areas through relatively intensive management, affecting a variety of habitat types and their juxtaposition. The Water Bank is a program administered by USDA that could be broadened and expanded to apply Dodge County technologies directly. The Water Bank Program is relatively expensive but intensive wildlife habitat management affecting very small units of range also has many other indirect public benefits attributable to wetlands (Linder, et al., 1984). Applying Dodge County Project technologies to very large areas of range would result in greater dispersion of critical habitat types (less intensive management) and, therefore, would produce smaller increases in wildlife population survival and recruitment per unit of area. However, USDA multi-year cropland diversion programs have the potential for increasing farm wildlife populations substantially over very large areas, including those where erosion rates generally are less than twice the soil rebuilding value (T). One basic goal of the 1985 Farm Bill should be to achieve long-term soil conservation ben-

PAGE 112

115 efits and reduce crop surpluses with wildlife habitat enhancement included as a primary or secondary objective. Multi-year diversion of croplands seeded to perennial grasses and legumes that are not harvested or grazed would be fundamental. Provisions to allow wildlife food patches on diverted croplands where soil erosion risks are low also should be provided. Ideally for wildlife, grass-legume fields would not be disturbed for 3to 5-year periods. Assuming that the United States can afford to set aside 13.8 million hectares (34 million acres) annually, which it has done for the past 25 years (Berner, 1984), at least some percentage of that should be diverted annually (for 3 to 5 years on a given acreage) until feed grain and wheat production when added to reasonable reserves reaches the desired level. Farmers would benefit because it would tend to stabilize prices and enable longer range planning. Taxpayers would benefit if only because soil conservation and wildlife benefits would be markedly greater than those realized under annual programs that ranged from nothing in setaside to 32.6 million hectares (80.6 million acres) under the 1983 PIK program. Farmland wildlife does not require that the same fields be kept undisturbed more than 3 to 5 years as long as replacement fields come on line with residual nest cover before the original diverted fields are brought back into crop production. In fact nesting cover quality and production by ground-nesting game birds may benefit from shifting dedicated nesting cover sites at least every 5 years (Frank, 1984). Agribusiness also may prefer to have 5 percent of cropland set aside annually until it reaches 15 to 20 percent of all cropland over a 3to 4-year period so they can adjust gradually to a reduction in sales of seeds, fertilizer, and pesticides. Broadening the Water Bank Program concept to keep critical noncropland habitat types from being converted to cropland and diverting larger acreages of adjacent cropland to provide other critical habitat types could maximize wildlife benefits while accomplishing acreage reduction as a fringe benefit. It would also be possible to target cropland diversion to the fields with the greatest soil erosion potential on each farm and to select perennial plant materials that provide habitat types in short supply for important species of wildlife present in the vicinity. REFERENCES Berner, A. H., Federal Land Retirement Pro(Madison, WI: Wisconsin Department of NatgramA Land Management Albatross? ural Resources, 1984), pp. 169-172. Trans. 49th North American Wildlife and NatGates, J. M., Recommendations for a Scattered uraZ Resources Conference (Washington, DC: Wetlands Program of Pheasant Habitat PresWildlife Management Institute, 1984), in ervation in Southeast Wisconsin, Wisconsin press. Dep. Natur. Resourc. Res. Rep. 63, 1984. Frank, E. J., The Art of Residue Cover ManageLinder, R. L,, Hubbard, D. E., and Nomsen, D. E., ment in the Midwest: A Commentary, PerWetlands and Agriculture, OTA Agriculdix III: Gray Partridge and Ring-Necked ture and Wildlife Workshop Paper, 1984. Pheasant Workshop, R. T. Dumke, et al. (eds.)

PAGE 113

116 An Educational Approach to Increase the Production The greatest opportunities to improve forest management on private nonindustrial woodlands are through programs which address the goals and objectives of those who own the land, not through policy mandates to increase timber production. Many recent studies have shown that people own woodlands for a number of different reasons, most of which are not oriented toward the production of timber (Weiseman, 1983; Kingsley, 1977). Tree Many woodland owners have been led to believe that forest management means, exclusively, timber management. Indeed, our public agencies, with a mandate to provide forest management services and information to woodland owners, must use tangible production unitsthousands of board feet, cords, and tonsas a measure of program accomplishment. Yet if one asks woodland owners why they own land, a probable response is distinctly different from what one might expect. They own land as an investment, or for recreational purpose, or simply because it is part of their residence; some reason which is completely other than that for which we offer publicly supported assistance programsto increase timber production. The number of private nonindustrial woodland owners and the share of land in America which they control is staggering. Fifty-eight percent of the Nations 487 million acres of profarmers, owners of large wooded tracts, and others who harvest timber periodically, almost always have ulterior motives which compel them to manage their lands. In Vermont, woodland owners who have been asked to evaluate our Extension forestry programs say that, even though enhancing timber values is an important objective, wildlife habitat values rank high as well. WHAT DOES IT MEAN? ductive forestlands (as defined by capability to grow wood products) is owned by nearly 7.8 million landowners. Together, nonindustrial private owners account for 47 percent of the timber harvested in the country. This timber helps support an industry that employs 1.8 million workers who collect an annual payroll of $22.9 billion. Total value added by U.S. forest products industries is estimated to be $52.5 billion (Extension Council on Policy, 1984; office of Technology Assessment, 1983). Yet, according to the same sources, wood production from private nonindustrial woodlands is less than half of the potential. Possibly this is a result of a misconception on the part of millions of private owners, that harvesting timber for the sake of wood production is not compatible with their interest in other forest values, such as wildlife habitat, personal recreation, and esthetics. This, coupled with the fact that most woodland owners do not de-

PAGE 114

117 penal on their forests as a principal source of income, underscores the need for a more holistic, objective-oriented approach to forest management. Foresters, both public and private, have oversold the need for timber production and as a result may be missing opportunities to manage forestland. Virtually all management objectives except to hold land undisturbedas a natural area will result in the production of timber. Whether or not timber production is a primary use of forestland is unimportant; and objective-oriented approach to forest mangement, coupled with the economic realities of forest ownership (carrying charges for the landprimarily taxes) will result in the production of timber. There is good evidence, however, for a shift away from timber production as a high-priority benefit from private woodlands. Although wildlife populations have been increasing in recent years, there are indications they have not been rising as rapidly as demand (USDA Forest Service, 1984a). The number of small game animals and upland game birds bagged per hunter has been declining throughout the country. Furthermore, recent data have shown existing supplies of timber to be more plentiful than was predicted to be the case (Crowell, 1984). Secretary Crowell states further that people have come to realize that if there is a timber supply problem it is partly one of oversupply. In spite of this, Federal forecasters still predict a shortfall of timber supply within the next 50 years (USDA Forest Service, 1984 b). A near deemphasis of timber for the sake of other forest values, particularly wildlife habitat, may improve the posture of private woodlands to produce timber in the future. Despite adequate timber supplies in most regions of the country, and oversupply in some areas, foresters still have a compulsion to convince woodland owners of the importance of one objective over anotherusually income production from immediate timber sales. Should we impose our view of what forest management is on woodland owners? A major premise of this paper is that we should not. Forest management is something more than timber management; what it is, or should be is something defined by the owner. Education of private nonindustrial woodland owners, as to the range of potential forest management opportunities, and the consequences, may be the most cost-effective catalyst to increase forest productivityfor timber, wildlife, and other important natural resources. Furthermore, an educational process which recognizes the value of peer groups for diffusion of innovations may be the most socially viable (Rodgers, 1983). COVERTS PROJECT: AN EDUCATIONAL APPROACH TO FOREST MANAGEMENT The Extension Services at the University of Vermont and University of Connecticut are involved in a special 3-year educational effort, which is supported through a grant from the Ruffed Grouse Society, called the Coverts Project. The main purpose of the project is to encourage woodland owners to manage their forests. Philosophically, the project is founded on the premise that forest management decisions should be based on two things: first, the owners goals and objectives for the land; and second, the ability of the land to provide a mix of benefits which are in proportion to the owners objectives. Since wildlife interests are high in New England, we are focusing on multiple-purpose management that includes wildlife; particularly grouse, woodcock, turkey, and deer, as well as other game and nongame species. The principal objectives of the project are to establish four demonstration sites in each State which can be used to show good forest management practices for wildlife, timber, and

PAGE 115

118 other resources; and secondly, to provide intensive training to a corps of woodland owners who will, in turn, become sources of information in their communities. In the Coverts Project, demonstration sites will be the fabric of our approach to teach woodland management practices. It is significant to note, however, that the sites will demonstrate a manifestation of the cooperators objectives, rather than a range of different kinds of practices that may be applicable to a situation. We do not intend to argue the virtues of one practice over another; each will be prescribed in accordance with the owners objectives and the capability of the land to meet those objectives. Unfortunately, our level of funding and time commitment to the project is such that we will not be able to measure and document site response. We are hoping that the millions of dollars and thousands of scientistyears, devoted to testing the merits of one practice over another have given us a reliable enough base from which to make prescriptions. The innovation of the Coverts Project is its approach to education, not research of forest management practices. Some of the practices that we will emphasize on the demonstration sites include: strip clearcutting to regenerate spruce and fir in deer yards, small patch cutting to regenerate decadent aspen clones in mature northern hardwood stands, clearcutting to create structural diversity to aspen stands, timber stand improvement for high-value timber production, single-tree and group selection for timber and mast, shelterwood regeneration of oak-hickory and northern hardwoods, day-lighting of forest access roads, open field maintenance and forest edge softening, and other practices. The most important aspect of these practices is that we anticipate only a minimal timber production trade-off in stands for which the primary objective is wildlife. The key issue, though, is that the overall gain in timber productivity for a tract of land will probably far exceed the trade-offs for wildlife. A case in point would be the owner who avoided management altogether because he or she believed that the only forest management opportunity was for timber. By advocating forest management for values other than timber, we can anticipate long-term gains in forest productivity (capability of the land to supply multiple benefitsnot just wood products), especially since the tangible values of managementprices paid for standing timberare expected to increase as well (USDA Forest Service, 1984b). Although I want to avoid the cliche that nearly every forester leaves college with, that good forestry is good wildlife managemerit, if we want to increase timber production we should promote the inverse of it good wildlife management is good forestry. It is equally arguable and indefensible, but most Americans would agree. Public opinion polls commissioned in recent years by the American Forest Institute consistently showed that Americans rank wildlife as one of the most important users of our forests (Yankelovich, Skelly, & White Inc., 1982). The technique of training Extension clients who, in turn, provide information to others is not new (Fletcher, et al., 1984). This approach is the main theme of the Coverts Project. Although we do not expect to make experts of our students in 3 days, we do hope that they will be able to respond to requests for information more than half of the time. Furthermore, through careful selection of our students, we hope to identify individuals who are opinion leaders among their peers; people other woodland owners can look to for advice and assistance. We believe that a local source of information from a peer group member is more likely to be acted upon by the client. our quasiExtension agents presumably will not have professional or agency instilled biases that most natural resource managers either overtly or subliminally communicate to their clients. We are now in the process of developing the selection criteria for our students. A graduate student in the Natural Resource Planning Program at the University of Vermont (UVM) is exploring methods to choose opinion leaders. He is reviewing literature on psychology and sociology in an attempt to define the charac-

PAGE 116

719 teristics of the kind of opinion leader were looking for. Interestingly, well-defined peer groups, like doctors and farmers, act more readily on information from their peers than from expert sources. Possibly, woodland owners are more likely to try practices that their neighbors advocate, practices which they can see on their neighbors land as opposed to those which a specialist might propose. What kinds of people are we looking for? They must have an interest in forest management and be willing to implement habitat and timber management practices on their lands. They also must have the time to share information with others in their community. Above all, they must be good, effective communicatorspeople who can inspire and encourage others to manage their land. Were asking these people to actively share their experiences with others, to demonstrate that forest management is a means of achieving their ownership objectives. Will it work? The success of our project hinges mostly on our ability to accurately evaluate candidates. We are looking for people who are or have the potential to be opinion leaders. They must be committed to helping others manage their woodlands. we dont expect them to go home and wait for the phone to ring, nor do we expect them to start a crusade. We do, however, intend to let people know they exist and will encourage woodland owners to contact them. We also are hoping that our leaders will become familiar with the local media and be inspired to write an occasional article. Ultimately, were hoping that our quasi-Extension agents will become a unique part of the web of public and private human resources available to woodland owners. A second graduate student at UVM will study the relationships that develop between our leaders and others in the community. Were most interested in discovering the ways in which our leaders provide information, whether or not people act on the information, and how they are perceived by others, particularly natural resource managers and users (loggers). Furthermore, we want to evaluate our ability to select opinion leaders. This will allow us to refine the process in the future, and may tell us a great deal about how to target Extension programs and improve our efficiency. Although education is considered to be a cost-effective means of providing public assistance to private nonindustrial woodland owners, we do not fully understand the impacts of education and the extent to which woodland owners use new information for management decisions. It will be increasingly difficult to justify a program because we know it is good, when we cannot say why; public education programs, like Extension, need to critically evaluate their effectiveness. An analysis of education versus other approaches to public assistance for woodland owners, such as costsharing and technical assistance, is in order. The efficiency and effectiveness of education programs may be substantially increase d through the training and use of private woodland owners who serve as local sources of information for other members of their peer group. Many private woodland owners are at or near retirement age. Serving as an advocate of forest management in their communities is likely to appeal to many of them. At a time when public program cost efficiencies are carefully scrutinized, a public-private partnership approach to forest management educational assistance may be more politically viable. Woodland owners, who have not previously managed their lands, may be avoiding management because of a misconceptionwhich resource managers may be responsible for fosteringthat forest management means timber management. Furthermore, they may incorrectly view management alternatives, such as for wildlife or recreation, as inherently incompatible with timber. Public assistance programs

PAGE 117

120 should use an objective-oriented approach to management which considers an informed landowners goals as the first and foremost determinant of how his or her forests will be managed. Public agencies that provide forest management assistance to woodland owners need to develop meaningful accomplishment criteria to recognize efforts that create nontangible benefits from private forest lands. Finally, the Renewable Resources Extension Act (RREA) (Public Law 95-306), a 10-year authorization allowing Congress to allocate up to $15 million annually for expanded Extension natural resources programs, has been funded only three times at a level of $2 million since 1979 (fiscal years 1982, 1983, and 1984the fiscal year 1985 request is for $2.5 million). The Act encompasses an objective-oriented educational approach to multiple-use management on private nonindustrial forests and rangelands. The 1985 Farm Bill should extend the sunset clause of the Act. It should also reauthorize funding to the original $15 million level or more. Full funding of the program can be reached in annual increments of $2.5million e.g., $5.0 million in fiscal year 1986, $7.5 mil1ion in fiscal year 1987, $10.0 million in fiscal year 1988, $12.5 million in fiscal year 1989, and full funding in fiscal year 1990, maintaining at least this level thereafter. REFERENGE$ Crowell, J. B., Can Timber Growing Investments Be Profitable? JournaZ of Forestry 82(9):536538, 1984. Extension Council on Policy, Non-industrial Forest Landowner Task Force Report, U.S. Department of Agriculture Extension Service, 1984 (to be published), Fletcher, R., Barsotti, M., and Carr, D., Master Woodland Manager Project, Oregon State University Extension Service, Spec, Pub., 1984. Kingsley, N. P,, The Forest Land Owners of New Hampshire and Vermont, U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Resource Bulletin NE-51, 1977. Rodgers, E. M., Diffusion of Innovations, 3d edition, The Free Press (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co,, Inc., 1983). U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Wood Use: U.S. Competitiveness and TechU.s, Us. noZogy, OTA-ITE-21O (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1983). Department of Agriculture-Forest Service, Americas Renewable Resources: A Supplement to the 1979 Assessment of the Forest and Range Land in the United States, FS-386, 1984a. Department of Agriculture-Forest Service, Y&r Nations Ti-mberProblems and Opportunities, Forest Service Misc. Pub. No. 1440, 1984b. Weiseman, G. L., Forest Management as the Landowner Sees It: An Approach to Increasing Effectiveness of Forestry Programs, American Forest Institute-Forestry Communications Council Meeting Report, 1983. Yankelovich, Skelly, & White, Inc., Public Policy Pressures on the Forest Products Industry, American Forest Institute Special Report, 1981 and 1982.

PAGE 118

121 Economics of Joint Production of Agricultural Commodities and Wildlife ABSTRACT Allocation of a fixed resource (land) between practices also can increase farm revenues. Polcompeting uses is discussed from a production icies for affecting changes in agricultural proeconomics perspective. Competitive, compleduction practices to accommodate amenity rementary, supplementary, and joint production sources include market processes, regulation, possibilities functions are developed relative social pressure, and government provision. Imto amenity and agricultural outputs. An implementation of appropriate technologies and pirical example of conservation tillage in North policies (institutional change) can promote proDakota shows that certain soil conservation duction of amenity resources on private lands. Few agricultural management schemes are and amenity designed with any intention to maintain a source, land habitat for wildlife. In most cases the components of a wildlife habitat occur by accident in areas that are difficult to till, that are too wet, or whose inclusion in fields devoted to row crops could not be achieved efficiently (National Research Council, 1982]. A more is better philosophy predominates the production of agricultural commodities and natural amenities, yet the resources to produce these goods are limited. Exacerbating the problem is the competition between agricultural goods for the same primary reThe purpose of this paper is to briefly discuss the fixed resource allocation problem, review policy instruments to ameliorate resource allocation controversies, and present an empirical example of a complementary relationship among soil conservation and agricultural production. 1 IAlt, et al. (1981), provide an excellent discussion of the effect of potential conservation measures of the 1981 Farm Bill on agricultural production. A free market economy oriented toward conwetland preservation accrue to society. Only version of resources into commodities provides the most altruistic landowner will produce little 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 attitudes returns to agricultural production accrue to toward profitmaking, a strong motivating faclandowners, while most benefits of soil contor for them to employ agricultural practices servation, wildlife habitat maintenance, and that erode land resources (Cotner and Hal-

PAGE 119

122 crow, 1982). Even though social values of soil conservation, wildlife habitat maintenance, and wetland preservation are well-documented (OTA, 1984), there is only so much an individual is willing to sacrifice for society. . Men will not cooperate indefinitely (provide public goods) when the incentives are limited to social rewards. Human beings do not feel willing to provide for those who do not do their share in production unless they receive material rewards rather than moral ones (Dailey, 1984). Several questions need to be answered to successfully integrate amenity and agricultural commodity production on private lands. What is the technical relationship between production of agricultural commodities and amenity resources? What technical and economic tradeoffs are involved? Do appropriate technologies exist? How could institutions better accommodate implementation? The contemporary constraint is as much institutional as technological (Ciriacy-Wantrup, 1971). Some technologies exist to integrate agricultural and wildlife production (e.g., Nason, 1982; Bryant, 1982; Hanway, 1982; Stormer and Guthery, 1982). A production economics paradigm illustrates the issues and helps to suggest answers to these questions. Theoretical principles of the optimum combination of two (or more) competitive uses of a fixed resource (e.g., land) are well developed. The case of recreation and agriculture has been discussed by Pearse (1969). A generalized production possibilities curve depicts usage of a fixed input among two outputs (figure 1). Starting with 200 bushels of corn and zero pheasants, 40 units of pheasant production can be accommodated with little reduction, 10 bushels, in corn production, point X l However, at the other extreme (point X 2 ) a larger amount of corn production (20 bushels) is given up for only a small gain in pheasant production (10 units). In the central area, X 3 there is approximately a l-to-l trade-off. At least four different production possibilities scenarios can be developed relative to production of agricultural and amenity resources: l)competitive, 2) complementary, 3) suppleFigure l. The Production Possibilities of Two Products Using One Acre of Land and 4) joint products. A competitive is typified by wetland preservation and row-crop production. A l-hectare increase in land used to produce row crops results in a l-hectare decrease in wetlands and vice versa, represented by a linear production possibilities function (figure 2a). This relationship may not be a precise l-to-l trade-off, since one hectare of wetland may reduce crop production by more than 1 hectare due to equipment logistics or perimeter salinity. A subtle difference may occur in the tradeoff between wildlife and row-crop production from the previous example (figure 2b). While competitive, a l-hectare increase in crop production may not reduce wildlife production by one full increment because crop production will provide some food for wildlife to partially offset the reduction in habitat. A complementary relationship is illustrated in figure 2c. In this example, the two segments of the curve labeled c represent the situation where both products can be increased simultaneously. An example of this relationship is honey (bees) and sunflower, where sunflower will increase honey production and bees will increase sunflower production. Another example is deer and timber. The new growth after logging can increase deer carrying capacities per acre with little effect on forest regrowth.

PAGE 120

123 Figure 2. Production Possibilities Functions for Selected 50 i 1 Conservation c. Crops Small Grains Supplementar y Corn Grain

PAGE 121

124 An example of a supplementary relationship is soil conservation and crop production (figure 2d). If one starts at the lower, right-hand segment d, soil conservation (reduced soil loss) can be increased through improved production systems without reducing agricultural production or profit (figure 2d). Empirical evidence of this will be presented later. The final set of relationships between two products can be illustrated by corn production, where grain and corn stalks are produced as a set. Products are produced jointly (figure 2e); however, only one may have value to society or to the individual property owner. Each of these production situations calls for different policy solutions to achieve production of amenity goods. Competitive production is the strongest argument for public transfer payments to private landowners since a socially optimal number of wetlands, for example, will be greater than that determined by market forces (Krutilla and Fisher, 1975). Complementary production requires economic incentive only after the complementary effects are exhausted. Joint products require only education, since uses do not compete for resources. Supplementary products require education to achieve low levels of amenity resource, technology for higher levels, and financial incentives for even higher levels. Soil conservation, for example, has been demonstrated to add only marginally to net private income, yet substantially to net social income (Swanson, 1978). Incentivesmonetary, moral, or legalto increase amenity output on private lands would change the relative quantity of amenity and agricultural production (figures 1 and 2). When there are no private returns to production of amenity resources, such as pheasants, on land capable of producing crops, the private owner would produce at the point of maximum crop output. with a low monetary return to production of amenity resources (pheasants), say a fifty-cent per hectare property tax credit, the trade-off shifts slightly toward pheasants (point X l figure 1). However, if a return to amenity production approximating the return to crop production were present, the optimum combination would be at point X 3 These value combinations can be thought of as trade-off lines which identify the optimal mix of outputs that maximize return to the landowner. Line ab (figure 3) shows a positive corn price and a zero amenity price and that the owner would maximize his private return if all of the input (land) is used to produce corn. Line cd (figure 3) shows a balance in value of corn and amenities and that 160 bushels of corn production and 140 pheasants would maximize private return to the land resource. Line ef indicates that producing 10 bushels of corn and 190 pheasants would maximize private return. The tradeCorn bu/ac 200 160 10 Figure 3. Economic Trade-Offs and Production Possibilities b o 140 off lines reflect the economic returns and personal satisfaction to the landowner under different assumptions regarding his alternatives. The significance of the situations presented in figures 1, 2, and 3 is that technology determines the shape and location of the production possibilities frontier, while institutions determine prices and therefore the slope of the trade-off line. Both technology and institutions are thus significant in influencing optimal uses of land from a private landowners perspective.

PAGE 122

125 SOIL CONSERVATION: Traditional farming in western North Dakota is a fallow-durum rotation with conventional cultivation tillage to maintain a barren surface during nearly 20 months between durum crops. This system is based on cultivation as a means of weed control and fallow to gain additional soil moisture to stabilize durum yields. Twenty-one of twenty-two farmers in a 20,000acre watershed used this farming system (Nelson, et al., 1984), A computer simulation model, based on a 1hectare (2.5-acre) cell and using the Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE), was used to estimate the impact of alternative farm production systems on soil erosion and farm income. The conventional fallow-durum rotation yielded annual revenue above cash costs of $67.93 per hectare ($27.49 per acre) and an average soil loss of 24.21 metric tons per hectare (10.8 tons per acre) (table 1). The threshold level above which long-term productivity effects are negative is 11.21 metric tons per hectare (5 tons per acre). Several alternative systems resulted in higher profit levels and lower levels of soil erosion than the traditional system. The long-term impact would be even more beneficial from environmental and economic viewpoints. This is AN EMPIRICAL SEST similar to the complementary relationship between two products illustrated in figure 2c. Both products, revenue, and soil conservation, are increased simultaneously. There was a more dramatic impact on Class VI (highly erosive) land. The traditional system annually yielded 71.73 metric tons (32 tons) of soil loss and a net revenue of $0.52 per hectare ( -$0.21 per acre). Transfer of this land to pasture increased expected net revenue to $15.69 per hectare ($6.35 per acre) and reduced soil loss to 5.94 metric tons per hectare (2.65 tons per acre). A comparison of this value $15.69 ($6.35) to the negative revenues of cropping Class VI land identifies a potential solution: converting all Class VI land back to rangeland. However, conversion to rangeland is often not feasible because much of the Class VI land is in small areas, intermingled with other cropland. These areas have no water supply and would involve a high cost per hectare to construct fences. It would appear feasible to convert cropland to pasture only in those areas where it adjoins existing rangeland or when there is a sufficiently large area of Class VI land to justify the cost. An alternative for small, isolated areas of Class VI land is conversion to wildlife habitat.

PAGE 123

126 The North Dakota Game and Fish Department has an upland game habitat program to lease small areas for nesting cover and winter protection for wildlife. The upland game habitat program is limited to 8.1 hectares (20 acres) per section and requires cropland to be seeded to an alfalfa-grass mixture and not to be used for livestock grazing or hay. The contract is for 6 years with annual payments varying from $52 per hectare ($21 per acre) for Class II and III land to $17 per hectare ($7 per acre) for Class V, VI, and VII land. Also, it must be open to the public for hunting. Cost-sharing through the ASCS and the North Dakota Game and Fish Department has generally been available to reduce farmer costs of conversion to grassland. This use of Class VI land could be an effective way to reduce soil loss while maintaining a profitable use of the land. Technology is providing a solution to the soil loss-revenue trade-offs for average land in the watershed. New crops and tillage equipment have shifted and changed the shape of the production possibilities curve. The public sector needs to be involved in continued research and in education to promote adoption. For highly erodible land, Class VI, technology needs an assist from the public sector to change the trade-off line between soil conservation and revenue. A transfer payment is needed to stimulate change, POLICY INSTRUMENTS Several policy measures have been suggested that would achieve higher levels of amenity resources concomitant with agricultural production. There are four general types of public policy instruments: 1) market processes, 2) regulation, 3) social pressure, and 4) government provision (table 2) (Baumol and Oates, 1979), Environmental policy is long on good intentions, and short on consistent, workable, reasonable regulations (Libby, 1979). Implementation and subsequent success of publi c policies hinge on a number of related factors. Table 2.Policy Instruments Type Examples Market processes . Payments to producers Taxes on nonproducers Tax structure accommodation Regulation . . Prohibition Control by permit Social pressure . Public information campaigns Understanding attitudes Government provision. Research and technology change Market incentives or subsidies work when funds are available to provide incentives (e.g., Duck Stamp Program, Water Bank) and when property rights (to the inputs required for amenity production) are held privately. Sidle (1983) has shown support and enforcement are sometimes needed to ensure compliance after payment of incentives. Taxes and charges work when enforcement and measurement are feasible. Miranowski (1978) found a soil loss tax to be the least costly method for achieving soil loss reductions. Stromstad (1983) argues property tax exemptions and credits could be successfully used to maintain prairie wetlands. Income tax provisions can work well when land management changes are significant and when landowners have other than minimal tax obligations. Government regulation works when property rights are held de facto by society and enforcement is feasible, Social pressure (moral suasion) works in time of crisis (e. g., brown outs, water shortages) or where the issue is merely one of information shortages or technology adoption that can be ameliorated by education.

PAGE 124

127 PAST PR0GRAMS Public programs to preserve, conserve, or enhance production of amenity resources on private lands historically run the gamut from strict prohibition to monetary payments. Federal programs to conserve soil, preserve wetlands, maintain wildlife habitat, and preserve endangered species habitats have relied on CURRENT Sodbuster-type legislation that forces consistency with public conservation goals is currently receiving considerable attention. Much concern has been expressed about the role of governmental agricultural commodity proeconomic incentives, regulations, and social pressure. The history of wetlands preservation typified the changing public role in regulating amenity resources. Several excellent policy and program references are available (Kusler, 1983; OTA, 1984). EMPHASIS grams in contributing to soil erosion (USDA, forthcoming), Recent studies have questioned cross-compliance for soil erosion control on both equity and efficiency grounds (Ervin, et al., 1984; USDA, forthcoming). IMPLICATIONS FOR POLICYMAKERS Since the problem of integrating amenity resources and agriculture is both institutional and technological, policy makers should concern themselves with institutional constraints and technological change which can significantly affect choices available to the private decisionmaker, Each policy measure can potentially work for specific resource issues; none works for all. The most serious policy constraint will be tying the appropriate policy instruments to specific resource management objectives. Technological change can be brought about through both public and private research and development programs. But, since the results are typically public goods (knowledge) with implementation leading to increased production of amenity resources, little can be expected from private sector innovations in this area. The major responsibility for research leading to technological change favorable to amenity resources will continue to be the Federal Government. REFERENCES Alt, K., et al., Implications of Land, Water and Energy Resource Policies on Agricultural Production ESS Staff Report No AGESS810513, NRED, ESS, USDA, Washington, DC, 1981. Baumol, W. J., and Oates, W, E., Economics, Environmental Policy, and the Quality of Life (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1979). Bryant, F, C., Grazing Systems and Wildlife, Proceedings of Great Plains Agricultural Council, North Platte, NE, 1982, pp. 15-23. Ciriacy-Wantrup, S. V., Economics of Environmental Policy, Land Economics 47(1):36-45, 1971. Cotner, M., and Halcrow, H. G., Conservation PolicyA Response From the Research Community, Policy Research Notes (USDA) 14:15-24, 1982. Dailey, M. T., In Search of the Common Good: Utopian Experiment Past and Future (book review), Agriculture and Human Values 1(2): 31, 1984. Ervin, D. E., Heffernan, W. E., and Green, G. P.,

PAGE 125

128 Cross-Compliance for Erosion Control: Anticipating Efficiency and Distributive Impacts, American Journal of Agricultural Economics 66(3):273-278, 1984. Great Plains Agricultural Council, Proceedings of Great Plains Agricultural Council, North Platte, NB, 1982. Hanway, D. G., Enroute to Conservation Production Farming Systems, Proceedings of Great PZains Agricultural CounciZ, North Platte, NE, June 7-9, 1982, pp. 49-52. Krutilla, J. V., and Fisher, A. C., The Economics of Natural Environments: Studies in the Valuation of Commodity and Amenity Resources (Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins Press for Resources for the Future, 1983). Kusler, J. A., Our National Wetland Heritage: A Protection Guidebook (Washington, DC: Environmental Law Institute, 1983), Libby, L. W., Current Rules Affecting Natural Resource Use, Proceedings of a Seminar on Natural Resource Use and Environmental Policy, North Central Regional Center for Rural Development (Ames, IA: Iowa State University, 1979), pp. 1-24. Nason, G. W., Ecofallow and Wildlife in Nebraska, Proceedings of Great Plains Agricultural Council, North Platte, NE, 1982, pp. 13-14. National Research Council, Impacts of Emerging Agricultural Trends on Fish and Wildlife Habitat (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1982), Nelson, W, C,, Ali, M, B., Johnson, R, G., and Diebert, E. J,, Farming for Profit and Conservation: A Study of the Muskrat Lake Watershed, Mountrail County, North Dakota, Agricultural Economics Staff Paper AE84002, North Dakota Agricultural Experiment Station (Fargo, ND: North Dakota State University, 1984). Noonan, P. R., and Zagata, M. D,, Wildlife in the Market Place: Using the Profit Motive to Maintain Habitat, Wildlife Society Bulletin 10(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 Tillage in Fallow Wheat Fields, WiZdlife Society Bulletin 11(1):31-38. Sidle, J. G., Patrolling Prairie Potholes, North Dakota Outdoors 45(11):2-6, 1983. Stormer, F. A., and Guthery, F. S., Irrigation and Wildlife in the Southern and Central Great Plains, Proceedings of Great Plains AgricuZtura] Council, North Platte, NE, 1982, pp. 41-48. Stromstad, R. A., A Wetland Program That Would Work, North Dakota Outdoors 456(8):10-13, 1983. Swanson, E. R., Economic Evaluation of Soil EroU.s, Us. sion: Productivity Losses and Off-Site Damages, The Economic Impact of Section 208 Planning on Agriculture, Proceedings of a Seminar, Great Plains Agricultural Council Publication No. 86, Department of Agricultural Economics (Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska, 1978), pp. 53-74. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Wetlands: Their Use and Regulation, OTA-O206 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1984). Department of Agriculture, (forthcoming monographs), The Impacts of Farm Policies on Soil Erosion: A Problem Definition Paper. Relationships Among Farm Program Participation and Soil Erosion: A Report on the Problem Definition Phase of the USDA Program Consistency Study.

PAGE 126

129 The Impact of USDA Programs on Fisheries and Wildlife l son ABSTRACT Conservation Norman A. Berg Society of America Washington, D.C. This paper is a brief analysis of major USDA programs that impact fish and wildlife habitat. If fish and wildlife are to benefit from Farm Programs and USDA policy, commodity and IThis paper relies heavily on the most available data and studies done related to agriculture and wildlife concerns: 1980 Appraisal Part I and IISoil, Water, and Related Resources in the United States: Analysis of Resources Trends and Impacts of Emerging Agricultural Trends on Fish and Wildlife Habitat. conservation programs need to be more closely and effectively linked. Traditional conservation programs of research, extension, financing, and technical assistance have not been able to offset the continued decline of fish and wildlife habitat on the farms, ranches, and forests of the Nation. The 1985 Farm Bill offers a timely opportunity to improve conservation and fish and wildlife objectives. Fish and wildlife are very important economic, esthetic, ecological, recreational, and scientific resources. Unusual changes in the numbers of fish and wildlife are often indicators of the general health of the environment and the quality of life for people. The Nations 520 + million hectares (1.3 billion acres) of nonFederal cropland, rangeland, and forested land provide needed habitat for about 3,000 species of birds, fishes, reptiles, and amphibians. All land has the capability or potential to produce and sustain wildlife, subject to a variety of factors both natural and manmade. These factors include climate, soil characteristics, and the use of the land itself, which in turn affect other factors such as plant communities, their stage of succession, and the proximity of one plant community to another. This is depicted in figure 1 the effects of different management levels on the successional stages of an ecosystem. Climate and soil characteristics are natural limiting factors that cannot be altered greatly, but can be affected to a degree by the actions of people, For example, construction of dams and reservoirs can provide water where none existed before and thus can benefit fish and wildlife. Also, irrigation can cause substantial changes in the habitat. However, these manmade changes require maintenance to prevent reversion to the former conditions. Some land uses, such as urban development, are mostly incompatible with wildlife habitat, whereas others including agriculture can be complementary. Although wildlife may benefit from land used for agriculture, the primary land use (agriculture) will determine the lands effectiveness for the secondary use (wildlife habitat). Historically, U.S. agricultural policy has been both beneficial and destructive to the fish and wildlife resource. In the conservation-minded 1930s and 1940s, incentives for establishing shelterbelts, windbreaks, and contoured strips enlarged wildlife habitat. In the 1950s, USDAs Soil Bank Program established excellent cover for wild living resources on about 8 million hectares (20 million acres) of the cultivated cropland not needed for wheat and corn at that time. However, in the 1970s the Federal Governments push for farm production led to fencerow to fencerow cropping that elimi-

PAGE 127

130 Figure 1 .The Effects of Different Management Levels on the Successional Stages nated much of the good habitat that was crelarge impacts on habitat. The report concluded ated through conservation, land set-asides, and reserve commodity programs. Too often in recent years farm policy for commodities and for conservation have run on separate tracks and at times have even run in opposite directions. Fish and wildlife habitat has not been a high priority in the formulation of farm policy. The 1982 National Academy of Sciences report found that agricultural practices have that fish and wildlife values must be considered along with the value of productive agriculture. It recommended that these values can be brought into better balance through improved planning, consistent policy, and appropriate incentives to landowners. Now that we know what problems have impacted fish and wildlife, their impact also should be analyzed as to the effect on habitat. Table 1 shows the USDA Soil and Water l improve agriculture, and Conservation Programs and their authorizing legislation. Under the Soil Conservation and reduce damage caused by floods and sediDomestic Allotment Act (Public Law 74-46), the mentation. Soil Conservation Service (SCS] was established to provide national leadership for soil SCS provides technology transfer through local entities to landowners, communities, waand water programs. The broad purpose is to: tershed groups, Federal and State agencies, and l improve and conserve soil and water reother cooperators. SCS activities that can imsource quantity and quality, pact fish and wildlife include:

PAGE 128

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

PAGE 129

132 Landowner assistance on conservation practices to adequately protect between 16 million and 20 million hectares (40 million to 50 million acres) of non-Federal land. Inventories and monitoring to provide soil, water, and related resource data for a wide variety of uses, including a periodic report on resource conditions. Soil surveys to inventory the Nations basic soil resources and to determine land capabilities and conservation treatment needs. Snow survey and water forecasting from winter high mountain snow pack data to provide estimates of annual water availability for summer stream flow in the Western States and Alaska. Operation of Plant Material Centers to assemble, test, and encourage increased use of plant species which show promise for use in the treatment of conservation problem areas, including potential wildlife habitat improvement. The Great Plains Conservation Program (Public Law 84-1021, as amended). The objective of this act is to help bring about a long-term solution to problems resulting from drought and cultivation of land unsuited for sustained crop production in the 10 Great Plains States. The Resource Conservation and Development Program (Public Law 87-703). This Act provides authority to assist local sponsors of projects to conduct programs of land conservation, especially to add economic and rural development opportunities to the people in the area designated for acceleration of present conservation activities. Many of the nearly 200 projects have active fish and wildlife committees to enhance the habitat for wild living resources in that region of the Nation. Small Watershed Projects One of the more controversial programs over the past three decades has been the watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Operations (Public Law 83-566, as amended) administered by SCS. The Works of Improvement planned by USDA (SCS) and approved by Congress to reduce erosion, floodwater, and sediment damage can benefit fish and wildlife. However, channel construction and stream rehabilitation proposals have led to the potential for increased drainage of adjacent lands. This in turn has caused several years of delay in the implementation of the plansand in the more sensitive projectshas caused considerable modification of the original plans to satisfy the need for fish and wildlife improvements. Projects have been improved. The Forestry Incentives Program (Public Law 95-313) encourages the development, management, and protection on nonindustrial forestlands. The technical assistance and cost-sharing provided through a longterm agreement with private landowners can have a favorable impact of fish and wildlife habitat. Water Bank Program An indication of concern for wetland values by USDA was the successful enactment and funding of the Water Bank Program (WBP), administered by the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service (ASCS). This action (Public Law 91-599) resulted from intense pressure on USDA to be in a position to offer the landowner an alternative to draining, filling, or burning the important fish and wildlife habitat on their farms and ranches. USDA offers to lease those areas from qualified landowners in designated counties. These can be both wetlands and adjacent (or associated) upland habitat, Leases run for 10 years with the option to renew (or terminate). Payments are made annually. In 1980, Congress amended the original WBP. The amended law directed the Secretary to adjust contract payments every 5 years, and to adjust the contract rates for contracts that had been in effect for 5 years or more in 1980. This followed from a recommendation made by the General Accounting Office (GAO) in 1979 to adjust WBP rates to counter the high rate of terminations that seem to be caused by inflationary pressures. The Act also was expanded in scope by adding wetland types 7 and 8 to the program (the original law included types 1 through 5 only). The intent

PAGE 130

133 was to extend WBP to the shrub and wooded swamps of the Delta to protect winter habitat for waterfowl. The amended Act could include such other wetland types as the Secretary may designate. One hundred fifty-six counties (156) in ten States were participating in the 1983 program. Three statesMinnesota, North Dakota, and South Dakota accounted for 72 percent of the WBP agreements entered into between 1972 and 1981, as well as 72 percent of the acreage and 78 percent of the annual payments. The program has been funded at an annual rate of $20 million. This despite the fact that the law authorized $30 million in the 1980 amendments. ASCS should now have an evaluation system to try to quantify the benefits or lack of value, paid for by the WBP. The SCS assists in evaluating the proposed acreage as to vulnerability to drainage and the value as wildlife habitat. It has been good for conservation. Coupled with the Water Bank Program, USDA incentives for drainage of wetlands have been curtailed drastically in the past decade, Language in the Agricultural Conservation Program annual appropriations obviates costsharing for drainage of most types of wetlands, However, the draining and clearing of wetlands have proceeded in the past in the absence of any government incentives, and may well continue in the future. There are some incentives in the Federal income tax code for wetlands conversion expenses. It is clear that there are serious conflicts in present national policies that affect wetlands and impact wildlife habitat. Other USDA Conservation Activities Many activities of the USDA agencies involved in research, extension, credit, costsharing, and technical assistance are dedicated to improving the condition of pasture, range and forested lands. The total Federal budget each year for traditional USDA conservation actions is nearly $1 billion. However, the impacts of past agricultural changediversified farming to clean cultivated, row crop monoculturehas, based on intensive wildlife re search, drastically reduced farm wildlife populations. That situation apparently persists today over the majority of the intensively used U.S. cropland. A National Conservation Tillage Conference just completed in early October 1984, examined the value of reduced tillage for soil erosion benefits, energy saving, yield improvement, and the impact on fish and wildlife. Conservation tillage results in less disturbance of the soil and, as a consequence, seems to promise some positive benefits to and for environmental quality. Conservation tillage, in its various forms, relies heavily on chemicals for weed and other pest control. At this point more research is needed to determine the impact of these chemicals on wild living re sources. Answers are needed. Above all, the USDA, as it carries out the Farm Policy of the Nation, has a most profound effect on the way land is used, especially the acres in crop. The estimated 170 million hectares (420 million acres) of land that produces basic commodities such as wheat, corn, soybeans, cotton, and the feed for livestock has a potential for favorable fish and wildlife habitat or an adverse impact of severe proportions for wild living resources, That option is in the hands of the farmer. FUTURE POLICIES At the North American Resources Conferl ence in March of 1984, a check list of opporl tunities to help retain, restore, and maintain l fish and wildlife habitat was presented. Items for action include: l protect prime agricultural lands, encourage practices that retain vegetation, support targeting resources to erosive lands, encourage alternative farming methods,

PAGE 131

134 l obtain cross-compliance policy, assure that set-asides benefit wildlife, l increase incentives to land users, l expand Federal and State programs, and l identify critical habitat areas for action. There are several groups at work to develop specific ways in which commodity and conservation objectives and results can and should be more closely linked. The Farm Bill of 1985 could provide USDA with programs and policies to impact fish and wildlife in a more favorable manner than at any time in the last 50 years. The challenge to the conservationists will be to understand what a Farm Bill is, and how it has been drafted, debated, and enacted in the past. The 1981 Farm Bill should be examined in detail with the objective of incorporating into most of the 18 titles the type of language that would serve. to link the commodity, and other policies, with the issues that relate to those identified by the fish and wildlife, water quality, soil erosion, pasture, range, and forestry interests. Some of these issues were addressed in the 1981 Farm Bill and also debated in the last few years by Congress. However, the 99th Congress begins in January 1985 with a clean slate. The major thrust should be to help enact a four-year Farm Program that will work, is fiscally responsible, and meets the shortand long-range goals of those many constituents served by both elected and appointed public officials. The timing for this new generation of farm policy that will mesh the new objectives of soil conservation, water quality, and the survival of wild and living organisms with the established commodity price and farmer income objectives has never seemed more opportune. A band aid approach will not solve the problems. However, improvements in the USDA programs that can impact fisheries and wildlife habitat in a positive manner and also aid both present and developing technologies to serve more than one interest can produce an environment with higher quality. The Nation and its wild living resources deserves that effort. The next decade and century are within the time horizon of those concerned about the renewable natural resources of the United States. REFERENCES Agriculture and Food Act of 1981; Public Law U.S. 97-98. National Academy of Sciences, Impacts of EmergSoil Soil U.s ing Agricultural Trends on F;sh and Wildli~e Habitat (Washington, DC: National Academy U,S, Press, 1982), Conservation Society of America, Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, several issues have examined Conservation and the 1985 U.S. Farm Bill, May-June 1984, Conservation Service, Early American Soil Conservationists, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Misc. Pub. No. 449, October 1941. Us. Department of Agriculture, Appraisal Part I Soil, Water, and Related Resources in United States: Status, Condition, and Trends, March 1981, Department of Agriculture, Appraisal Part II Soil, Water, and Related Resources in the United States: Status, Condition, and Trends, August 1981. Department of Agriculture, A National Program for Soil and Water Conservation, Final Report and Environmental Impact Statement, Issued September 1982, Department of Agriculture, Background for 1985 Farm Legislation, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture Information Bulletins in the 400 series. Department of Agriculture, Conservation Tillage-Strategies for the Future, Executive Summaries, Nashville, TN, Oct. 3-5, 1984.

PAGE 132

135 Agricultural Policies Related to Fish and Wildlife Habitat Ray Evans Agricultural Liaison Missouri Department of Conservation Jefferson City, Missouri INTRODUCTION Fish and wildlife are products of the land value as harvest game. In addition, they have and as such may be considered as agricultural amenity valuevalue associated with experiproducts or outputs. They have commodity encing (seeing, hearing) them. Both the tools used in agricultural practices and the policies I Fish are one form of aquatic wildlife, therefore when wildthat govern agriculture impact on wildlife life is used in this discussion it includes fish and other aquatic forms of wildlife. positively and negatively. AGRICULTURAL TOOLS All of the tools or techniques used in the production of crops have more impact (both positive and negative) on wildlife habitat than do the tools used in wildlife management. Wildlife specialists tend to agree that the application of todays agricultural tools have had a most deleterious effect on many species of wildlife, especially those species associated with mixed farming such as bobwhite quail, cottontail rabbits, and ring-necked pheasants. Agricultural tools such as the axe (timber harvesting), the plow (turning over the soil), the match (controlled burning), and the cow (grazing) all affect wildlife habitat in generally the same way, by keeping vegetation in a younger stage of development rather than letting it mature. The axe (or chainsaw) is the principal management tool of the forest wildlife manager. Its use depends on the wildlife species under consideration. Recognizing the impact of such a tool on wildlife habitat needs to be more clearly defined in U.S. Forest Service legislation as well as administrative regulation. A recent GAO report (RCED-84-96) criticizes the U.S. Forest Service for below-cost timber sales and implies that timber sales are for the single purpose of adding funds to the Treasury. This approach totally ignores the wildlife management potential (positive and negative) of all timber sales and the multiple-use mandate of the U.S. Forest Service to manage wildlife as well as for timber production. No single tool has a greater cumulative impact (good and bad) on wildlife habitat than the plow or similar cultivating equipment. The plow followed the axe in the settlement of America and produced food not only for settlers but also for wildlife. The match and the cow (along with mowing and fertilization) are principle management tools used in pasture and native grassland management. Prescribed fire is a technique for maintaining productivity of native grasslands, emulating the natural fires under which these grasslands were developed. Prescribed fire also is a management tool in the management of some forest types, again emulating the ecological conditions under which these forest types developed, Certain wildlife forms were developed in association with different vegetative types. Wildlife species associated with grasslands (e.g., prairie chickens and upland sand-

PAGE 133

136 pipers) depend on a mixture of fire and grazing animals (along with mowing and fertilization) to maintain their habitat. Unfortunately some of these ecological processes are not clearly defined in the education of wildlife or agricultural professionals. Con sequently, many professional biologists recognize only the negative impacts of the axe, the plow, the match, and the cow. Equally lacking is the ecological consideration of impacts on wildlife from these tools in the education o f agricultural professionals, It is paradoxical that agricultural professionals may well have the greatest ecological impact on the wild living resources of the Nation and never had the benefit of one course in ecology, Both professionswildlife and agriculturecould benefit from course work in each others fields Achievement of this cross-fertilization could best be accomplished working through the universities and the professional societies. Agricultural policies frequently have more impactusually negative with some exceptions such as soil bank or water bankthan do wildlife policies. Annual acreage set-asides for the past two decades have averaged approximately 20 percent of the total cropland base, Had this program been established on a long-term basis and required seeding of the set-aside lands to protective cover such as grass or trees, we would have enjoyed 20 years of exceptional wildlife habitat and erosion control. For example, the Payment-in-Kind Program of 1983 idled 43,333,319 acres in 12 Midwestern States, but only 14 percent were considered valuable wildlife cover in a survey made by the 12 State fish and wildlife agencies. Future programs should require vegetative cover for erosion control and wildlife benefits and should be for multiple years instead of per annum. If a 20 percent setaside was established on a long-term basis requiring vegetative cover for erosion control and wildlife habitat it would provide benefits equal to the old Soil Bank Program. Tax Policies For the reasons noted above, any legislation that affects agriculture also affects wildlife. Tax policies that provide preferential treatment of capital gains encourage the movement of nonfarm capital into farming for speculative tax reasons. This is the main reason that fragile grasslands are being plowed under for farms and are then eroding away, Treatment of income gained when the land is sold as regular income rather than as capital gains would remove the incentive to destroy wildlife habitat to increase wheat production for an already depressed market, which eventually erodes the soil. If this economic incentive (capital gains) did not exist, there probably would be no reason even to consider sodbuster legislation. In fact, it is not clear that passage of sodbuster or similar legislation would stem the flow of capital into this type of farming activity. Denial of Federal price support and similar activities may not be a sufficient disincentive to override the incentive of capital gains treatment and other incentives in existing income tax regulations. This movement of nonfarm capital into farming ventures adversely effects wildlife habitat on the land involved and indirectly adversely effects wildlife habitat on land of legitimate farmers who are caught in the cost/price squeeze by the competition with crops produced by nonfarm investors. The legitimate farmer intensifies his own farm operation t o improve his financial situation, thus clearing and plowing land that for reasons of erodibility should be maintained in trees and grasses thereby eliminating additional wildlife habitat. Additional tax provisions that tend to have the same negative effect on agriculture and wildlife by attracting nonfarming investors include: Cash Accounting, Expense Methods of Depreciation, Accelerated Depreciation Al-

PAGE 134

137 lowance, Investment Credits, Leasing, and Single Purpose Agriculture Structures. It also should be noted that these factors having a negative impact on the fish, forest, and wildlife resources of the Nation generally tend to have a negative impact on the soil. Soil erosion not only negatively impacts wildlife through sedimentation but literally eliminates the basic structure (the soil) on which tomorrows agriculture, food production, and wildlife must depend. Small Watershed Proiects The Public Law 566 program (Small Watershed Projects) of the Soil Conservation Service seeks to improve or maintain water quality and to prevent downstream damages within watersheds. In some cases, these projects have been structure-oriented and detrimental to wildlife habitat; e.g., stream channel modification. Thus more emphasis should be placed on land treatment measures and nonstructural approaches to lands in the watershed as well as nonstructural emphasis on stream channel problems, Land treatments that should be encouraged for application in upland watersheds include contour farming, strip cropping, grass or tree establishment, conservation tillage, and lastly, terraces and grassed waterways. Stream channel problems could be treated in a nonstructural fashion by minimum snag removal and establishment of a riparian corridor. Treating the uplands and lowlands in this fashion would achieve a long-term goal of balancing upland and lowland hydrologic factors. This goal could be further pursued through the ASCS Acreage Conservation Program, applying different cost-share rates to structural or nonstructural practices and land treatment. Nonpoint Source Pollution Section 208 of the Clean Water Act deals with nonpoint sources of water pollution. Nonpoint sources are those which cannot be traced to a particular source such as sewer outfall. Agricultural activities are a major contributor to nonpoint sources of water pollution. In the Midwest, soil (by volume) is the major water pollutant and these sediments along with their associated phosphates and nitrates have a serious negative impact on fish and other forms of aquatic life. Successfully dealing with the intent of Section 208 would have positive benefits to agriculture by preserving the soil base, to terrestrial wildlife by providing food and cover, and to aquatic wildlife by protecting our streams, lakes, and wetlands from sedimentation and eutrophication. The most satisfactory approach to the nonpoint sources of water pollution is land treatment using BMPs (Best Management Practices) in the uplands and stabilization of the lowlands by the protection of the riparian corridor. NEPA Finally, it is paradoxical tht the National Environment Policy Act (Public Law 91-190), promulgated to protect the publics environmental interest in the face of Federal action, has never called for an environmental assessment or impact statement on the most impactive of Federal actions; the laws, policies, rules and regulations governing agriculture.


xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID EHZIK4HQF_GZSHRB INGEST_TIME 2017-05-22T20:28:04Z PACKAGE AA00055312_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES