Technologies To Benefit Agriculture and

Wildlife

May 1985

NTIS order #PB85-239747
Recommended Citation:

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 85-600529

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents

U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402
Preface

This workshop proceeding, Technologies to Benefit Agriculture an d Wildlife,

was prepared by the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) at the request of 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
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 Jepsen’s 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 Chafee’s Office

Stacy Hoffhaus

Senator Danforth’s Office

David Juday

Senator Quayle’s 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
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
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
—. ——————. — .——

Chapter 1

Executive Summary
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 short- and 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., Wisconsin’s 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 landowner’s 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 land’s 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 report’s 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 Nation’s private land resources for private

and public benefits could provide the necessary leadership for successful landowner implementation of any available or future techniques.

3
— .-

.

Chapter II

Introduction
Chapter

Introduction

Throughout America’s 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 recreation—e.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

Service’s 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 Nation’s food and fiber crop production.

Products from agricultural lands are critical

components of local, national, and international economies. Food and fiber needs from

the Nation’s agricultural lands and the private

landowner’s 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
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.
Technologies

Agriculure

Chapter III

That Benefit

and Wildlife
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

‘Croplands—Any 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.

Rangelands—Land 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.

Pastures—Areas intensively managed for the production of

forage, introduced or native, and harvested by grazing or mowing (OTA, 1982).

Forest Lands—Areas where the predominant plant community is trees and other woody vegetation, growing more or less

closely together (SAF, 1971).

11
.

12

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

A Northwestern Forest, Forage, and Specialty Crop Region

B Northwestern Wheat and Range Region

C California Subtropical Fruit, Truck, and Specialty Crop Region

D Western Range and Irrigated Region

E Rocky Mountain Range and Forest Region

F Northern Great Plains Spring Wheat Region

G Western Great Plains Range and Irrigated Region

H Central Great Plains Winter Wheat and Range Region

1 Southwest Plateaus and Plains Range and Cotton Region

J Southwestern Prairies Cotton and Forage Region

K Northern Lake States Forest and Forage Region

L Lake States Fruit, Truck, and Dairy Region

M Central Feed Grains and Livestock Region

N East and Central Farming and Forest Region

O Mississippi Delta Cotton and Feed Grains Region

P South Atlantic and Gulf Slope Cash Crops, Forest,

and Livestock Region

R Northeastern Forage and Forest Region

S Northern Atlantic Slope Diversified Farming Region

T Atlantic and Gulf Coast Lowland Forest and Crop Region

U Florida Subtropical Fruit, Truck Crop, and Range Region

V Hawaii Region

W Southern Alaska Region

X Interior Alaska Region

Y Arctic and Western Alaska Region
—

13

SPECIFIC TECHNIQUES

Undercuttor Plow

The undercutter plow is a farm 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 plow

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,
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
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 landowner’s 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 landowner’s 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 landowner’s 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.
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 farmer’s 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.
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
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.
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 Wisconsin’s 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
20

runoff into waterbodies (Frank, 1984). The Proj- of 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 objec- 1990 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 list4 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.
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 owner’s 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 Project’s success will depend on the

opinion leader’s 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

es discussed above are only of these factors aids the long-term productivity

a sample of those available to integrate wild- of the resource base and, hence, agricultural

life and fish habitat needs with agricultural pro- production. 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 mois- vival of bird nests and flightless young in wheat

ture content, or improve water quality. Each stubble.
—

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 re- ef 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 ap- clude across-the-board application of most of

preaches are being developed to apply tradi- the technologies presented here.
— —.

Chapter IV

Findings and Discussion
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 technologies—e. g., conservation tillage—is 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 land’s 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 farmer’s needs, The under25
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 Stations—an 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
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 Nation’s

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

SCS’s 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
28

profits from the land and the land’s 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 Nation’s

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) to

encourage research and development of total

farming systems which have wildlife benefits,

and 3) to promote the flow of information on
29

common goals between the agriculture com- FWS and USDA. These examples of existing

munity and the Department of Natural Re- and potential interagency coordination could

sources. greatly improve abilities to manage the agriculIn addition, the FWS recently hired an Agri- tural 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
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 lands—even 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
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 Nation’s 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.
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 landowner’s 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 program’s

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
33

on the flat area was not. A cross-compliance

policy tied to the farmer’s 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 lands—even 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-
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
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 provision–conservation 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 live—an 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
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 neighbor’s, 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 program’s 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.
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.
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 determineif 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.
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 Government’s 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 to

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) has

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-
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 Agency’s Nonpoint

Policy. In addition, cost-share payments,

financial incentives, and cooperative agreements with farmers and operators may be

necessary to implement these practices.
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 Nation’s 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.

USDA’s 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 USDA’s 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 State’s 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
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
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 Nation’s 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 Nation’s 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.
.——

References
References

Alexander, L., and Kellert, S. R., “Forest Landowner’s 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 Programs—A 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, Forest—Wildlife 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
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., “Conservation’s 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

Plowing—A 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 Ecology—Directions 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,
—

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

Forests—The 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, Secretary’s Memorandum 9500—3,

July 20, 1982,

USDA, Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation

Service, “Production Adjustment Commodities: Intent to Prepare Environmental Impact

Statement,” Federal Register 49(116):24580-

24581, 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, “America’s 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 States—Map,” 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 fi’ational 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 11-

linois,” Journal of WiZdZife Management 48(3):

1014-1018, 1984.

Warner, R. E., Etter, S. L., Joselyn, G. B., and Ellis,

J. A., “Declining Survival of Ring-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.

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
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
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 Nation’s 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.
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—580/.

Savannah sparrow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

Bobolink. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

Dickcissel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

Grasshopper Sparrow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

Henslow’s 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
57

DISCUSSION

The Soil and Water Resources Conservation

Act (RCA) of 1977 strongly affects the Nation’s

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 SCS’s 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, decides

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 tillagel 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 crop’s 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.
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).
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
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 Conservation’s 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 Nation’s 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 Nation’s agricultural policy should be to optimize production

within the long-term capacity of the re- 4.

source base to sustain that production.

This requires recognition that excessive

soil erosion, nonpoint sources of water

pollutants, and dwindling farmland wild- 5.

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 Nation’s resource problems than is the use of

individual conservation practices.

The Universal Soil Loss Equation and

SCS’s 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;
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 Depart- Hamilton, 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, I1-

linois Agricultural Statistics, Annual Summaries, Illinois Department of Agriculture

and U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1957-

1983.

Jahn, L. R., and Diehl, J. L., “Conservation’s 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:
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

Public’s 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,
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 Nation’s 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
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 large- seeding, 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.
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-
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
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 Nation’s 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
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 nitro- agement.

REFERENCES

Brady, S. J., “Important Soil Conservation Tech- Koehler, A., and Mazour, D., “A Biological

niques That Benefit Wildlife,” OTA paper for Comparison of Organic and Chemical Farmworkshop on Technologies to Benefit Agricul- ing” (Lincoln: University of Nebraska, 1980),

ture and Wildlife, 1984. unpublished.

Dahlgren, R. B., “Wildlife Conservation Benefits,” Gremaud, G. K., and Dahlgren, R. B., “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 Re- and 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.
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 de- fer fallow weed control. Agronomic benefits

stroys some of the wildlife present and severely of undercutting result from excellent surface

diminishes the field’s habitat value. This prob- residue 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.
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 hen’s 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 (Ammodramus 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
77

Table1

.-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

hen’s annual reproductive effort since renesting after brood loss is rare (Dumke and Pils,

1979).

Numerous deer mice (Peromyscus maniculatus) and grasshopper mice (Onychomys

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).
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 and

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 wheat

(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-
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 main- plied 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-
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. 20:906-

910, 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 2,4,5-

trichlorphenoxyacetic 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. 21:138-

141, 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 producer’s 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.
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 State’s 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 year’s 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 farmer’s 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-
76

7

ing warm-season grasses should be promoted for use on waterways and terraces.

Benefits.—Warm-season grasses begin

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 a n 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.
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 valu- lands 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 wet- as one such region.
—

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-
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.
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 giant

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 devel- -

oped 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
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 Modifi”ed 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
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. 51:1661-

1668, 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—1983, ” U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service, Aberdeen Wetland Acquisition Office, Aberdeen, SD (typewritten),

1984,
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 Nation’s 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 manager’s 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

species—not 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 area—in 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

Rangelands—The Great Basin of Southeastern

Oregon (1983 ).1

IC. Maser and J. W. Thomas, Wildlife Habitats in A4anaged

Rangelands–the Great Basin of Southeastern Oregon. USDA

Forest Service General Technical Rep. PNW-160, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Portland, OR, 1983.
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
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 Need

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 Commoner’s (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 choices—too 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
—— ————.———— --

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

● affects many acre s

● is -relatively well financed

● dramatically affects wildlife habita t

● has great impact on wildlif e

whereas

management for wildlife habitat

affects relatively few acres (however,

the acres affected are generally in

“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 do

much more with better financing)
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 management—management 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

● ▼ ✜

Singly simultaneously
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 managed—that is, the vegetational composition and structure are controlled—through 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
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 Oregona

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

Interior–Bureau 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.
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 rancher’s 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

goal—devalue it—if 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

we—as individuals—view 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
91

trap, again, is that without need being raised

to strong desire, technology is not likely to be

applied. Desire cannot be legislated—it 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 people’s 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 Rangelands—The 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
—.——

92

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

5, 1975.

Thomas, J. W., “Fee-hunting on the Public’s

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 Facts—Oregon 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.
93

Agricultural Practices and Aquatic Resources

Bill Coope r

Department of Zoology

Michigan State University

Lansing, Michigan

ABSTRACT

Streams, lakes, and marine estauries are ex- strips 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.
94

AQUATIC RESOURCE CONSTRAINTS

There are many environmental and ecologi- munities. 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 con- trees 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 bio- list of ecosystem interactions is very long and

logical stability of aquatic systems are deter- biogeochemically very diverse illustrating the

mined by water quality, water quantity, habi- absolute 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 control

programs.
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 700O 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 USDA’s 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 proc- This is also an area where there have been

ess involving many trade-offs between eco- historical 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 con- can be worked as early in the spring as possistitutes an important component of the man- ble. Natural streams often do not have suffiagement plan. cient discharge capacity to handle the excess
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 scattered

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
97

mandate and the resources to transfer to agro- Land 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):798-

812, 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).
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
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 adjacent

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 concerned—farmers,

fishermen, and the public—to keep sediments

and chemicals out of our Nation’s 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 Service’s 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
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 NOAA’s Sea Grant

and USDA’s 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 fin- and 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)
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 not

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.
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 around

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.
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 re- silvicultural crops, Numerous studies report a

quire less capital investment maybe used less positive relationship between wildlife growth

intensively and generate smaller returns. It fol- and 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 soil

w

. -

- 0

c.

!

J

,

1

-1
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

$.’-
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 26-

fold 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. Statutes

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-
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 and

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
107

National Forests, and National Wildlife Refuges 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

turkey’s 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
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 America’s 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:

●

●

●

●

●

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

10

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 farmer’s 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, Bachman’s 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
109
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

public’s 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
111

agriculturalists are facing unprecedented com- tensive 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 in- ican 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.
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

Wisconsin’s 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 agenciesl 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-
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.
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-
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 3- to 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 3- to 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 Natgram—A Land Management Albatross?” ural Resources, 1984), pp. 169-172.

Trans. 49th North American Wildlife and Nat- Gates, 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 Manage- Linder, R. L,, Hubbard, D. E., and Nomsen, D. E.,

ment in the Midwest: A Commentary, ” Per- “Wetlands and Agriculture,” OTA Agriculdix III: Gray Partridge and Ring-Necked ture and Wildlife Workshop Paper, 1984.

Pheasant Workshop, R. T. Dumke, et al. (eds.)
116

An Educational Approach to Increase the Production

The greatest opportunities to improve 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 units—thousands of board feet, cords, and

tons—as 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 programs—to 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 Nation’s 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-
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 undisturbed—as 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 land–primarily 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 another—usually 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

productivity—for 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

owner’s 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

owner’s 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
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 owner’s 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 benefits—not just wood products),

especially since the tangible values of management—prices paid for standing timber—are 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-
719

teristics of the kind of opinion leader we’re

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 neighbor’s 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 communicators—people who can inspire and encourage

others to manage their land. We’re 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 don’t

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, we’re 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.

We’re 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 increased

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 misconception—which resource managers may be responsible for fostering—that 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
120

should use an objective-oriented approach to

management which considers an informed

landowner’s 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 1984—the

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):536-

538, 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,

“America’s 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 Nation’s Ti-mber—Problems 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.
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, comple- duction 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 im- plementation 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 con- wetland 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 con- tor for them to employ agricultural practices

servation, wildlife habitat maintenance, and that erode land resources” (Cotner and Hal-
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 Xl

. However, at

the other extreme (point X2

) 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, X3

, 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.
123

Figure 2.— Production Possibilities Functions for Selected

50 i 1

Conservation

c.

Crops

Small Grains

Supplementar y

Corn Grain
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).

Incentives—monetary, moral, or legal—to 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

Xl figure 1). However, if a return to amenity

production approximating the return to crop

production were present, the optimum combination would be at point X3

. 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 landowner’s perspective.
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 20,000-

acre watershed used this farming system

(Nelson, et al., 1984),

A computer simulation model, based on a 1-

hectare (2.5-acre) cell and using the 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.
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 public

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.
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

Policy—A 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.,
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 Profi”t 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. ”
129

The Impact of USDA Programs

on Fisheries and Wildlifel

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 II—Soil, 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 Nation’s

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, USDA’s

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-
— —

130

Figure 1 .—The Effects of Different Management Levels on the Successional Stages

nated much of the good habitat that was cre- large impacts on habitat. The report 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 ● 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, wa- and water programs. The broad purpose is to: tershed groups, Federal and State agencies, and

● improve and conserve soil and water re- other cooperators. SCS activities that can imsource quantity and quality, pact fish and wildlife include:
131

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x x x

x x x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x x

x x

x x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

m

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

m

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x
132

Landowner assistance on 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 Nation’s 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 plans—and in the more sensitive projects—has 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
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 states—Minnesota, 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 change—diversified

farming to clean cultivated, row crop monoculture—has, based on intensive wildlife research, 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 r e -

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 Confer- ●

ence” in March of 1984, a check list of oppor- ●

tunities to help retain, restore, and maintain ●

fish and wildlife habitat was presented. Items

for action include: ●

protect prime agricultural lands,

encourage practices that retain vegetation,

support targeting resources to erosive

lands,

encourage alternative farming methods,
134

● obtain cross-compliance policy,

Ž assure that set-asides benefit wildlife,

● increase incentives to land users,

● expand Federal and State programs, and

● identify critical habitat areas for action.

There are several groups at work to 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 short- and

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, “1980 Appraisal

Part I Soil, Water, and Related Resources in

United States: Status, Condition, and Trends,”

March 1981,

Department of Agriculture, “1980 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.
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 value—value 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 wild- that 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 today’s 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-
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. Consequently, 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 of

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 professions—wildlife and agriculture—could benefit

from course work in each other’s fields.

Achievement of this cross-fertilization could

best be accomplished working through the

universities and the professional societies.

Agricultural policies frequently have more

impact—usually negative with some exceptions

such as soil bank or water bank—than 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-
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 tomorrow’s 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 public’s 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.