Targeting Environmental Priorities in

Agriculture: Reforming Program Strategies

September 1995

OTA-ENV-640

GPO stock #052-003-01444-1
Recommended Citation: U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Targeting Environmental Priorities in Agriculture: Reforming Program Strategies,

OTA-ENV-640 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, September

1995).
iii

Foreword

udget stress, political change, and heightened global

competition are forcing a reexamination of conservation and environmental programs for U.S. agriculture.

Questions about reauthorizing the Conservation

Reserve Program typify the tradeoffs. Currently, that effort is

the major solution to environmental problems related to agriculture. But what lands truly merit long-term retirement for environmental purposes at high cost to taxpayers and export

markets? Are less expensive approaches available that save budget expense, allow continued production, and ameliorate other

priority environmental problems?

This report responds to a bipartisan request from the Senate

Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee about these

issues. The analysis identifies priority environmental targets

across the country for water quality, wildlife, and soil quality. A

tripartite set of programs designed to lower cost and achieve

more enduring solutions illustrates possible approaches to the

targets. One program strategy, the development of a new generation of technologies that retain farm profits while achieving

environmental gains, has received little emphasis but appears to

hold considerable promise.

OTA greatly appreciates the contributions of the many people

who helped make this report possible. These include the expert

environmental panel, authors of background papers, and those

who reviewed material for the report or gave valuable advice. As

with all OTA studies, the content of this report is the sole

responsibility of OTA.

ROGER C. HERDMAN

Director

B
iv

Project Staff

Clyde Behney

Assistant Director

Robert Niblock

Program Director

Environment Program

Michael J. Phillips

Project Director

David E. Ervin

Senior Analyst

Elisabeth A. Graffy

Analyst

Mark Pederson

Intern

Vivian N. Keller

Writer/editor

ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF

Kathleen Beil

Office Administrator

Kimberly Holmlund

Administrative Secretary

Nellie M. Hammond

Administrative Secretary

Babette Polzer

Secretary
v

Contents

Targeting Environmental Priorities in Agriculture:

Reforming Program Strategies 1

Executive Summary 1

Agroenvironmental Quality: Present and Future 

Directions 3

Rationales for Federal Role in Agroenvironmental 

Quality 4

State and Local Roles 8

Identifying Agroenvironmental Priorities 9

Agriculture and Surface Water Quality 11

Agriculture and Wildlife Habitat 17

Agriculture and Soil Quality 23

Environmental Priorities as Program Targets 27

Devising Strategic Programs for Agroenvironmental 

Priorities 32

Spreading Complementary Technologies 33

Shifting Management Practices through Public 

Incentives or Disincentives 38

Retiring Farm Land from Commercial Use 40

Surface Water Quality Illustration 42

Wildlife Illustration 44

Soil Quality Illustration 47

Conclusions and Policy Implications 49

Appendix A: Additional Priority Areas 

Identified by OTA 51

Rangelands 51

Water Conservation 53

Groundwater Priorities 54

Rural Landscapes 55

Wetlands and Riparian Areas 56

Plant Diversity and Insect Diversity 57
vi

Appendix B: Overlapping Priority Areas 

Identified by the Expert Panel 59

Appendix C: Environment Expert Panel, 

Reviewers and Acknowledgements 61

Environment Expert Panel 61

Reviewers 62

Acknowledgments 62

Appendix D: Characteristics of Land 

in the Priority Areas 63

References 67
| 1

Targeting

Environmental

Priorities in Agriculture:

Reforming Program

Strategies

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ubstantial evidence indicates that agricultural activity has led to major water quality, wildlife, and soil quality problems

nationwide. The damages associated with

each type of problem vary widely, depending on

how production practices affect an area’s natural

resources. In certain geographic areas, the stress

on the environment from farming or ranching is

severe. At this writing, a number of federal programs have been designed to ameliorate these

problems. However, although they single out

some general problems, such as highly erodible

lands, these programs generally miss opportunities for larger payoffs by not focusing on specific

geographical areas and issues that require special

attention.

To achieve the greatest returns on tax expenditures, federal programs must be targeted to

“priority” areas and successfully apply low-cost

approaches. More effective targeting conserves

budget resources for taxpayers, diminishes

unnecessary program burdens on farmers, and

keeps more land in production to serve consumer

and trade interests. Reserving costly land retirement programs for cases of true incompatibility

between production and environmental objectives will save expense. More emphasis on

spreading low-cost or even profitable technologies that improve environmental health will not

only save government expense but will give a

greater chance of using private incentives to

build enduring solutions. Moreover, relying on

programs that emphasize low-cost approaches

will spread scarce tax dollars over more priority

areas.

One major impediment to better targeting has

been incomplete science and national information bases. To overcome these data deficiencies,

OTA has assessed the efficacy of assembling an

expert panel that would use the most complete

scientific information available to identify priority areas. The expert panel process proved feasible and effective, identifying priority areas

within which program targets could be refined

with state and local input.

The geographic distribution of priority areas

identified for water quality, wildlife habitat, and

soil quality confirms that different regions are

vulnerable to different types and intensities of

problems. For instance, surface water pollution

from agrichemicals is more serious in the Corn

Belt and Great Lakes regions than in the Southeast. The loss of wildlife habitat is a critical concern in the Prairie Pothole region, but wind

S
2 | Targeting Environmental Priorities in Agriculture

erosion is the major difficulty in the Texas High

Plains.

A key finding of the expert panel was the considerable overlap of many priorities in several

geographic areas. Large sections of the Corn

Belt, Plains states, Lower Mississippi Valley,

and some Atlantic estuaries, emerge as areas

offering multiple potential environmental benefits if targeted by programs. For example, restoring riparian buffers along streams in the Corn

Belt would not only contribute to water quality

goals, but restore wildlife habitat as well. The

overlap of priorities also reinforces the notion

that government programs must attempt to

address entire agroenvironmental systems, rather

than focus on individual components such as soil

erosion. Federal programs must continually

reflect the fact that water quality, wildlife habitat, and soil quality are interrelated in agroecosystems.

Identifying environmental priorities for agriculture is a first step to more cost-effective programs. The next is to approach these priorities in

ways that maximize opportunities to attain environmental quality objectives, maintain profitable

production, and reduce the budget burden.

■ First, government can use education and technical assistance programs to promote the

adoption of “complementary” technologies

that simultaneously enhance environmental

quality and maintain acceptable profits.

Proven examples include integrated pest management and soil nutrient testing, a form of

precision farming. Many other technologies

are emerging that show considerable promise

of preserving profitable production and

achieving environmental objectives. Incomplete information, perceived risks, and other

factors may hamper the spread of complementary technologies without public assistance.

Education, technical assistance efforts, and

minimal one-time subsidies could overcome

these mostly management-related barriers.

■ Second, government can encourage farmers to

use other management technologies involving

cost, such as construction of livestock waste

facilities, through economic incentives or

disincentives. The choice between using an

incentive or disincentive depends on the

nature of the environmental risk, legal liability, cost burden, and ease of monitoring,

among other factors. Regardless of the

approach chosen, the goal is to keep resources

in production but in an environmentallyacceptable manner.

■ Third, program planners should bear in mind

that programs used to conserve land through

long-term retirement, such as the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), are cost effective only when agricultural production is

fundamentally incompatible with achieving

environmental objectives. Otherwise, shifts to

different technologies that permit continuing

commercial production are preferable.

These approaches bear directly on developing

and implementing conservation and environmental legislation for agriculture. As an example,

legislation could require the use of targeting procedures to maximize environmental benefits for

tax expenditures. Using such an approach, reenrollment in the CRP would not be limited to

existing contract holders, but would be open to

all owners of eligible lands based on environmental merit and cost. Further, the expert panel

process of identifying priority targets could be

used by federal agencies in program implementation. Periodic review and updating of the priorities would be necessary as science yields new

insights about environmental problems. A second layer of targeting within the priority areas

could be undertaken by state and local parties

who have more precise knowledge of agriculture

and environmental relationships in their regions.

Finally, federal agricultural research and agroenvironmental programs could be linked, so that

the development of technologies to achieve both

production and environmental objectives could

be accelerated.
Reforming Program Strategies | 3

AGROENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY: 

PRESENT AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS

In a preceding report, OTA summarized scientific evidence detailing the many interactions

between agricultural and environmental systems

(64). Based on a review of the existing literature

and consultation with national experts (table 1),

OTA concluded that certain agricultural production activities lead to detectable and sometimes

profound changes in water quality, wildlife habitat, and soil quality.1 The changes are not always

detrimental to these resources, or to the health of

humans or other living things that depend upon

them. However, sufficient evidence is available

to show that degradation of water, wildlife, and

soil resources due to agriculture is prevalent on a

1 In the report, Agriculture, Trade and Environment (91), OTA determined that knowledge of agroenvironmental quality in the U.S. is

hampered by the lack of understanding of agricultural and environmental systems and how they interact, by incomplete and unsystematic

monitoring of agroenvironmental conditions, and by the absence of science-based criteria for evaluating the implications of conditions—particularly in terms of long-term (“sustainable”) environmental or human health. The public agricultural research system has predominantly

focused funding and resources on improving production to the detriment of understanding agroenvironmental issues and discovering technologies that simultaneously achieve production and environmental health.

TABLE 1: Agriculture and Environment: What We Know and Don’t Know

We Know: We Don’t Know:

■ Current data, while incomplete, highlight important

themes. National trends in environmental quality

have not been monitored regularly, particularly

with respect to agriculture. Yet, studies by federal

and state researchers offer some mutual corroboration.

■ How to fully assess the interaction of environmental systems and agricultural systems. This is primarily due to low

investment in related scientific research.

■ The potential for technologies to enhance environmental

quality along with productivity. Private markets and public

programs provide inadequate incentives for such innovation.

■ Agriculture is the primary source of pollution in surface waters nationwide. This pollution is real,

extensive, and not yet controlled. Seasonally, in

certain regions, surface water pollution levels

exceed drinking water standards.

■ Temporal and geographical patterns in surface water

quality, due to incomplete monitoring.

■ Full implications of agricultural pollution found in surface

water on human or environmental health, because related

science is still evolving and has not been emphasized. 

■ Residues from fertilizer and pesticides are in

groundwater of almost every state. In cropland

areas, nitrate levels in groundwater exceed drinking water standards nearly three times more often

than under any other land use. Pesticide levels that

violate drinking water standards have been found

in many states in areas where these chemicals are

used heavily.

■ Temporal and geographical patterns in quality of groundwater, due to incomplete monitoring.

■ Full implications of agricultural pollution found in groundwater on human or environmental health, because related

science is still evolving and has not been emphasized.

■ Soil erosion has declined by 33 percent nationwide during the last decade. Erosion, however, is

only one aspect of soil quality. Other aspects

include organic matter, microbial activity, compaction, salinity, electrical conductivity, and contamination.

■ Key trends in soil quality, besides erosion. Related science is still evolving, and monitoring of many quality

attributes has not been systematic.

■ Full implications for environmental health. Related science

is still evolving and has not been emphasized.

■ Agricultural development is the primary cause of

diminished wildlife habitat nationwide. Loss of habitat is a chief cause of species loss. Cropland and

rangeland cover almost half of the nation. Maintaining mosaics of grass and other kinds of habitat

within farm regions can sustain regional species.

■ Full spectrum of farming/wildlife interactions. Research

and monitoring tend to focus on certain species or certain

regions. Science related to agroecological systems is

evolving.

■ Full implications of technologies on wildlife viability and

potential for technology innovations to increase compatibility between agriculture and wildlife. Private markets and

public programs offer inadequate incentives for such innovations.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1995.
4 | Targeting Environmental Priorities in Agriculture

national scale. These “agroenvironmental” problems are particularly acute in many places.

Agriculture’s role in determining environmental quality can be quite substantial, because conditions generated on individual farms tend to

spread beyond the farm gate. For example, sediment, fertilizer residues, or pesticides transported

off the farm in field runoff can make streams,

rivers, lakes, and reservoirs unsuitable for drinking, for fish habitat, or for swimming and other

recreational activities. Agroenvironmental

effects that are not contained within the individual farms where they are generated can cause

local, regional, national, and, in some rare cases,

even international changes in environmental

quality.

Even as agroenvironmental science evolves,

the evidence suggests that it is possible to

employ the best science to help identify or target

key agroenvironmental priorities. These priorities can provide insight to policymakers as they

seek to focus related policy and programs. In this

report, the “priorities” refer to areas or categories of effects where potential environmental

benefits associated with agriculture were

assessed to be greatest. The benefits can come

from ameliorating existing damages, or from

protecting against future degradation. The selection of priorities relied on expert scientific

assessment of available evidence. Leading scientists for selected environmental subjects identified the highest priorities for OTA review (see

box 1). The scientists were instructed to consider

environmental, economic, and social factors but

not restricted to a fixed set of criteria or standards because of incomplete science and data.

❚ Rationales for Federal Role in 

Agroenvironmental Quality

Public surveys reveal broad support for protection of the nation’s environmental quality,

including those resources affected by agriculture

(73). Farmers report interest in adopting practices that are profitable, protect the health of farm

families and workers, prevent land or water contamination, and avoid environmental damages

that could result in lower land values, litigation,

or regulation (26). Public attitudes and consumer

behavior favoring reduced use of farm pesticides

may be a factor driving the dramatic growth in

retail markets for natural and organic foods since

1990 (52,64). It is not surprising, therefore, that

more than 60 percent of the public favors

increased federal spending on agricultural natural resource conservation, and an additional 20

percent wants current levels maintained (97).

Ultimately, the extent and type of federal

response boils down to political decisions taken

by Congress. However, by considering the reasons for federal involvement in agroenvironmental management, it may be possible to help

identify the situations and types of problems

most amenable to national responses. Analysts

have discussed three reasons: 1) the need to manage “transboundary” problems; 2) the ability to

gain economies in research, technical assistance,

and technology development that benefit not just

one, but many states; and 3) the federally legislated responsibility to provide certain “public

goods”2

 on a national basis (52).

Transboundary Problems

Agroenvironmental problems begin locally, as

agricultural systems affect surrounding environmental resources such as water, air, soil or wildlife. These problems may, however, cross state

and national boundaries. If individual or collective state action is expensive or impossible, federal action may be required to manage such

transboundary problems effectively. Federal

responses can range from direct intervention in

issues of safeguarding public health, to facilitating collaboration among states on issues that

cannot be successfully resolved by any one state.

Perhaps the most commonly cited example of

a transboundary effect is agricultural runoff from

2 Such public goods are benefits available to all citizens in equal quantity and quality. The intended provision of healthful drinking water

to all citizens under the Safe Drinking Water Act exemplifies a national public good.
Reforming Program Strategies | 5

BOX 1: Using an Expert Panel for Environmental Targeting

OTA reached three major findings after conducting a comprehensive review of the evidence about

U.S. agroenvironmental conditions (64):

■ Agriculture exerts broad, significant effects on the nation’s water, wildlife, and soil resources.

■ Published data on agroenvironmental conditions are incomplete and not a federal priority.

■ Existing science and data suggest that agroenvironmental conditions are geographically diverse

and particularly intense in some areas.

The first finding establishes that agricultural production significantly interacts with environmental systems, resulting in “agroenvironmental” conditions. The second implies that programs that attempt to deal

with the range of agroenvironmental interactions will have to proceed without complete scientific information. A great deal of information is available, however. Policies designed to remediate or prevent damages to environmental health may have to rely on a combination of published data supplemented with

subjective expertise. The third finding suggests the need for some type of problem-based, geographical

targeting to ensure that the highest agroenvironmental priorities are addressed. Otherwise, program

efforts could miss opportunities to produce the most valuable environmental improvements. In the face of

continuing budget pressure, the rationale for targeting becomes increasingly compelling. Expected levels of funding simply will not permit blanket coverage of all agroenvironmental conditions in all regions. In

addition, to the extent that agroenvironmental improvements may pose significant costs for some farmers,

targeting can control the scope of those costs and, furthermore, permit public efforts to focus on helping

farmers in high-priority areas make needed transitions at the lowest cost.

To counteract the lack of complete science to identify agroenvironmental priorities, OTA convened a

group of leading scientists to examine 10 major environmental quality dimensions related to agriculture:

soil quality, surface water quality, groundwater quality, water conservation, wetlands, rangelands, rural

landscapes, plant diversity, insect diversity, and wildlife habitat (see appendix C). The exercise proceeded on the premise that leading scientists embody the most comprehensive information because

they can draw together the best of existing scientific data with experience and insight. They can use all

available published literature and augment those data with expert judgment of emerging evidence to

assess the relative significance of environmental conditions. Overlap in priorities associated with different

subject areas represented by the scientists, e.g., water quality and wetlands, was common (see appendix B). Indeed, the overlap of subject areas was considered desirable in light of scientific uncertainty

about the elements of agroenvironmental quality. Such overlap also emphasizes that effectively managing the dynamic interaction of components within agroenvironmental systems will require multidisciplinary

approaches.

The principal purpose of the exercise was to determine the feasibility of identifying geographicallybased priorities for each subject area represented on the panel. The panelists had a simple but challenging task: draw up a list of the 10 highest priorities that exhibit the most severe problems and potential

benefits based on the best science. The size of the geographic area was not restricted, but panelists

were asked to be as precise as possible, in keeping with the objectives of targeting. (Large areas inherently diminish targeting efficiency, unless the environmental or conservation problem in question applies

in equal measure throughout the area.)

(continued)
6 | Targeting Environmental Priorities in Agriculture

The exercise resembled a Delphi process of soliciting expert judgment, then sharing it with other

panel members and OTA staff, and then feeding it back to the panelists for possible revision. The initial

session was held in August 1994, with a second meeting in May 1995, for making refinements. Each panelist was asked to take environmental, economic, and social criteria into consideration in making the

selections, but was not required to adhere to a fixed procedure. Panelists were encouraged to consult

with peers around the country to draw together the best data from both published and unpublished

sources. A majority of panelists each contacted from 5 to 30 peer scientists to incorporate their views in

the prioritization. Thus, the panel’s priorities reflect a broad range of professional input. Further, the panelist findings received peer review.

A major project goal was to extract as much expert judgment as possible from the panel members

without imposing constraints on their decision processes, thus encouraging innovative approaches. A

potential disadvantage of this strategy is the use of different criteria, weights, and standards by each

member and the potential inconsistency of their results. However, imposing a standard decision protocol

for all panelists when faced with varying degrees of science across categories would either make the

exercise infeasible or force artificial choices. In particular, the absence of economic benefit values for

most of the environmental improvements precludes benefit-cost comparisons across subject areas.

Several findings emerged from the exercise:

■ It is possible to identify agroenvironmental priority areas/regions by using existing data augmented

by expert scientific judgment. In some instances, however, the priorities do not fall into neat geographical boundaries and are better described as categories, e.g., riparian wetlands.

■ This national-level selection of priorities should be augmented by a companion process using local

and regional expertise to define specific priority areas within the larger target areas. This refinement

is also likely to help determine which program strategies may fit best with local conditions and

incentives.

■ The geographical priorities for several subject areas overlap, suggesting the potential for overlap

among programs aimed at individual aspects of agroenvironmental quality.

■ In the process of selecting priorities, weaknesses in science and data become apparent. For

instance, the relationship between agriculture and insect diversity is little understood, despite

efforts to advance pest management technologies. Revealed weaknesses help define research

and monitoring needs.

■ Understanding the problems and their causes within these priority areas gives general guidance

about program strategies that might be employed, but broad geographical targeting is not an adequate basis for developing precise program strategies.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1995.

BOX 1: Using an Expert Panel for Environmental Targeting (Cont’d.)
Reforming Program Strategies | 7

fields into streams and rivers. Some of the pollutants contained in runoff may settle on the originating farm, but monitoring clearly shows that

waterborne pollutants travel across farm, county,

state, and even national borders. The boundaries

of agroenvironmental systems are not constrained by private property lines or political

borders—yet the power to control pollutants that

affect agroenvironmental systems largely rests

with individual farmers on the lands they manage. Unfortunately, problems occurring outside

private or political boundaries—“off-site”

effects—are normally not considered by farm

operators making routine management decisions.3

When effects arising from crop or livestock

production move off the farm but stay within

local or state jurisdiction, then local or state initiatives may be able to ameliorate any problems.

But when effects cross state borders, individual

states are not necessarily capable of resolving

them or of finding low-cost solutions. For

instance, states in the Lower Mississippi River

region affected by hundreds of thousands of tons

of fertilizer and pesticide residues from Corn

Belt runoff (23,24), are not able to directly alter

the behavior of farmers in Iowa, Illinois, Indiana,

Missouri, Ohio, and other states contributing to

the pollution. Federal programs, however, may

serve as a broker between the parties, and innovate a solution. If state cooperation proves infeasible, the federal government may have to

impose a solution.

If formal cooperation or collaboration with

foreign governments is needed to respond to

effects that cross national borders, some form of

federal participation is mandatory, because the

federal government retains authority for entering

international agreements. Again, the type of federal action can vary from empowering states to

respond individually or collectively, to fostering

international scientific dialogue on the nature of

3 Some efforts have been made to internalize transboundary effects into farm planning, largely through voluntary education, technical

assistance, and subsidy programs to implement practices that lower pollution generation and movement (91). Less often, direct regulation of

the causes of these effects has been authorized as with permits for wetlands alteration and controlling effluent from confined animal facilities

to water resources.

the problem, to promoting technology research,

development, and exchange, to signing binding

international agreements. The Montreal Protocol,

which controls the use of ozone-depleting substances by signatory countries around the world,

is an example of the last type of action.

Economies in Research, Technology 

Development, and Technical Assistance

Historically, Congress has given federal agencies

responsibility to conduct agricultural and environmental research, develop agricultural technologies, and implement technical assistance for

conservation and environmental improvement.

Evaluations of commercial benefits indicate that

the research and technology development programs have generated large rates of returns, in

the range of 20 percent (3). Because the research

and technology programs have been oriented primarily to increasing output, analyses of environmental benefits and costs generally have not

been performed.

These federal research, technology development, and technical assistance capacities, if

applied to agroenvironmental management, may

result in “spillover effects” that benefit more

than one state. They may also enjoy some economies of scale over individual state efforts if large

amounts of staff or equipment would need to be

duplicated state by state. Possible examples

include agroenvironmental monitoring (especially of transboundary effects), better understanding of how regional agroenvironmental

systems function (again, especially in cases

where effects cross state borders), insights into

the biological health implications of farming

activities affecting many regions, and technology

development that adapts to the growing need for

farmers to achieve production and environmental

objectives simultaneously. Not only can this

basic information be used freely in designing and

implementing federal, state, or local programs,
8 | Targeting Environmental Priorities in Agriculture

but federal expertise could be used to help state

and local agencies or private firms tailor

research, technology, or technical assistance to

meet specific regional concerns and goals.

Federal research, technology development,

and technical assistance have typically been generated in close partnership with states and local

governments. The federally established Land

Grant University system exemplifies a federalstate partnership approach that provides federal

funding to states. Research and technology

development related to agroenvironmental concerns has been conducted by the Agricultural

Research Service (ARS) units located in the universities and enhances these partnerships. Technical assistance programs offered by the U.S.

Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Natural

Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and the

Extension Service (ES) may also achieve cost

efficiencies that can be shared with farmers

across the country. Both efforts are run in partnership with state and local governments.

Some federal research programs are not conducted cooperatively with states but are designed

to gain cost economies in collecting and disseminating information of use to the agricultural sector. USDA’s Economic Research Service

maintains detailed records about farm characteristics, commodity prices, trends in input use,

environmental indicators, and trade statistics.

The federally funded Appropriate Technology

Transfer for Rural Areas4 center (ATTRA),

serves as a clearinghouse for conservation and

production information that may interest farmers

in many states.

Whether existing programs or new programs

achieve cost efficiencies in providing agroenvironmental services that are not attainable by state

and local efforts depends on the situation. Each

case must be evaluated individually. However,

federal research, technology development, and

technical assistance efforts may serve some

unique functions in collaborating with state and

local governments.

4 ATTRA is operated by the National Center for Appropriate Technology and funded by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department

of the Interior.

Federally Designated Environmental 

Public Goods

Through legislation, Congress has defined precedents for federal responsibility in providing certain national public goods related to

environmental quality. The passage of national

legislation in the early 1930s that established

federal programs and agencies to stem soil erosion, and their continuing reauthorization, exemplifies such a public good designation. The Safe

Drinking Water Act, the Clean Water Act, the

Endangered Species Act, the Great Lakes water

quality and national estuary restoration programs

are only a few of the more recent actions that

raise certain public environmental quality goals

to the level of federal law.

Agriculture, along with other industries, is

required to meet environmental standards in concert with these laws. Although the specific kinds

of public goods protected by federal law may

change over time, Congress has repeatedly

reserved the management of a set of environmental quality issues for federal responsibility and

leadership. Any change in the issues requiring

public good protection remains with Congress.

❚ State and Local Roles

The cases delineated above outline rationales for

federal agroenvironmental programs. Nonetheless, they do not define the relative roles of federal, state, or local governments in implementing

the programs. The appropriate balance of leadership and funding in identifying and responding to

environmental problems is ultimately a political

question. The answer depends on issues beyond

the scope of this report.

In a dialogue about agricultural management

and the environment, a group of farmers, scientists, environmental interest groups, government

agency staff, and agribusiness shared the view

that a shift away from federal programs and

toward state efforts was preferable for managing

agroenvironmental issues (35). When prefer-
Reforming Program Strategies | 9

ences favoring a shift in agroevironmental leadership to the states are considered against trends

in public surveys that favor continued, and even

increased, federal funding for agroenvironmental

management, some tension becomes evident.

Clearly, when federal leadership is exercised in

identifying potential national agroenvironmental

priorities, the eventual program targets must be

selected with meaningful state and local involvement. Moreover, even if Congress indicates that

federal programs are needed to address some priority issues (such as transboundary effects),

state, local, and private initiatives may be

encouraged within those programs to develop

cost-effective, enduring solutions to specific

problems.

The initial targeting of priority areas described

in the following section is intended to improve

the cost effectiveness of whatever federal programs Congress deems necessary. It does not

imply that federal responses are appropriate in all

cases, nor that federal programs should be the

exclusive or major approach. Delegating responsibility and funding to state and local governments could be the principal program strategy in

resolving an identified priority.

IDENTIFYING AGROENVIRONMENTAL 

PRIORITIES

Available evidence underscores the importance

of three factors in determining the scope and

severity of agriculture’s effects on environmental

quality in the United States. First, agricultural

production covers about half the nation’s lands

leading to the possibility of widespread effects,

but concentrates environmental pressure in certain areas. Second, the quality of environmental

resources varies across the country—not only in

terms of their productive capacity, but also in

their ability to assimilate pollution and adapt to

changes brought about by agricultural practices.

The degree or intensity of agriculture’s effects on

environmental resource quality will likely correspond to these differences in adaptability. Third,

agricultural production technologies have been

developed and applied without systematic consideration of their environmental implications,

and frequently without being tailored to match

regional or local agroevironmental vulnerabilities. Consequently, agriculture’s effects on the

quality of environmental resources can be prevalent and, in susceptible pockets, particularly

intense. Places where the effects are intense are

logical priority areas.

Several efforts have been made to identify

particularly susceptible areas over the past 20

years. USDA is charged with carrying out an

assessment every 10 years of natural resource

conditions on nonfederal lands under the

Resource Conservation Act (98). The RCA analysis models physical, biological, and economic

systems to forecast possible natural resource

conditions over the next 50 years. These forecasts can highlight areas expected to be under

high stress. A second national study has estimated the geographical distribution of agroenvironmental conditions and susceptibilities using

existing databases, physical and biological models of agroenvironmental relationships, and limited economic data (27). The resulting database

helps identify how agriculture’s environmental

performance might change under alternative programs, including targeting schemes. Other studies have focused on particular environmental

subjects, such as regional vulnerability to

groundwater contamination (32). Although these

studies add important information to the policy

dialogue, their model analyses are limited by

incomplete agroenvironmental data.

To ameliorate the problem of data deficiencies, OTA worked with a panel of leading scientists to identify agroenvironmental priority areas

as noted above (see box 1). A central finding

emerged from the exercise: It is possible to use

an expert panel to identify agroenvironmental

priority areas and especially relevant when

existing science and databases are incomplete.

The conclusions of the expert panel, combined

with analysis performed by OTA, indicate that

agriculture’s effects on the environment can be

divided into three general categories: water quality, wildlife habitat, and soil quality. These three

categories provide an umbrella for considering
10 | Targeting Environmental Priorities in Agriculture

the many aspects of dynamic agroenvironmental

systems. For instance, a full assessment of water

quality related to agriculture would encompass

surface water, groundwater, wetlands, atmospheric moisture, water conservation, and their

interactions. Habitat quality could incorporate

plants, insects, and wildlife dimensions as well

as dynamic issues such as biodiversity. Soil quality might encompass erosion, chemical and physical attributes of soils, soil as a habitat for

microbial life forms, and soil as a buffer for

water quality. Regrettably, the available science

is not sufficiently developed to fully consider all

of these dimensions and their systemic relationships.

This report consequently focuses on the subjects for which scientific evidence about the connection between agriculture and environmental

quality is most complete:

■ surface water quality;

■ wildlife habitat; and

■ soil quality.

In OTA’s judgment, this trio of categories

covers the major set of agroenvironmental priorities. Also, they overlap with or incorporate some

of the priorities from the seven other subject categories covered by the expert panel: range (grazing) lands, wetland and riparian areas, water

conservation, groundwater quality, plant diversity, insect diversity, and rural landscapes. These

overlaps suggest interrelationships among the

categories that emphasize the importance of

managing entire agroenvironmental systems—a

major theme of this report.

However, the priorities for the three categories

should not be interpreted as covering all environmental dimensions related to agriculture, only

those for which OTA judged the information to

be sufficiently complete at this point. The priorities for the seven other categories presented in

appendix A provide additional, albeit incomplete, information that should be incorporated

into a full assessment of agriculture’s environmental performance. For example, the priorities

for range (grazing) lands, water conservation,

and groundwater add agroenvironmental dimensions relevant to the western U.S. that are only

minimally captured by the three selected categories. OTA recommends continued development

of the subject areas covered in appendix A and

their full inclusion in further targeting processes.

Finally, air quality should also be added as a

separate environmental category in future assessments. The major traditional air quality problem

associated with agriculture, wind erosion causing

dust storms, was covered under soil quality.

However, more recent air quality concerns

related to agriculture, including odors emanating

from large confined animal facilities, carbon

sequestration and pollution damages to crops,

need to be systematically incorporated. Although

some of these types of problems may be dealt

with at the local or state level, others can become

extensive enough to require the involvement of

several states and the federal government.

The common themes that emanate from analyzing priority problems for the three categories,

and, indeed, the expert panel process as a whole,

offer numerous lessons for identifying environmental priorities in agriculture. An overarching

insight from the process is that the agroenvironmental effects interact in systems: a change in

soil quality, for instance, likely has implications

for water and wildlife habitat as well. Therefore,

in targeting agroenvironmental priorities, it is

important to identify the causes of the problems

and not focus on observed symptoms.

Whether the priorities identified here—or,

indeed, whether any agroenvironmental priorities—warrant public action is a political, not a

scientific, decision. Scientists can alert policymakers to agricultural activities or conditions

that may pose real environmental risks and the

systematic relationships that tie them to their

sources. But policymakers must weigh those

risks and decide how best to expend public

resources. Processes that join science and policymaking are currently immature, and yet the need

for closer links between them is likely to increase

as population and production pressures place

more stress on environmental resources. Assuming agriculture’s contribution to chronic national

environmental problems persists, as it has in the
Reforming Program Strategies | 11

case of nonpoint surface water pollution,5

 costeffective programs are unlikely to be developed

without applying much more sophisticated environmental and social science.

❚ Agriculture and Surface Water Quality

Common production practices on many farms

can and do induce changes in water quality.

These changes may manifest themselves directly

in surface water quality or quantity, with indirect

effects spreading throughout the hydrologic

system. Agricultural pollutants—particularly

sediment, nutrients, pathogens, insecticides, and

herbicides—are commonly found in surface

waters around the country (15,23,25,67,79,96,

101). Aggregate data indicate that agriculture is

the primary cause of surface water quality

impairment nationwide (67,101). Evidence

shows that although concentrations of common

agricultural pollutants in surface water may have

declined since the 1980s, 71 percent of U.S.

cropland remains in watersheds where at least

one agricultural pollutant exceeds standards for

recreation or ecological health (80).

Findings

Working with the expert panel, OTA identified

eight geographic areas and two general categories in which surface water quality is severely

degraded or in need of special protection (figure

1 and table 2). These priorities were selected

according to two basic criteria: that agriculture is

a major source of large documented pollution

(implying significant potential benefits), and that

the agricultural industry will necessarily be

involved in reversing degradation or ensuring

future protection (77). Considering these criteria,

the expert panel and OTA gave preference to

sites that have high commercial or ecological

value. Overall, the priorities highlight opportunities to remedy significant damages to drinking

water supplies caused by agriculture; to target

links between poor surface water quality and

5 For example, diffuse agricultural runoff has been a nettlesome aspect of nonpoint water pollution control for 20 years, and now stands

as the primary impediment to achieving national water quality goals (38).

degraded wildlife habitat; and to protect commercial and other regional economic services

provided by surface waters.

Impairment of surface water is of particular

concern in the Corn Belt, where fertilizer and

pesticide residues are widespread and highly

concentrated in many streams, rivers, and lakes.

Of all cropland in the upper Midwest, 87 percent

is located in basins that violate criteria for

acceptable water quality (81). Concentrations of

nitrate in some streams exceed EPA drinking

water standards. Excessive nitrate in drinking

water has been linked to methemoglobulemia

(“blue baby syndrome”) (29) and, clinically, to

cancer-causing compounds in humans (48). High

phosphorus levels create favorable conditions for

eutrophication, a condition of excessive algae

growth that impairs recreational uses and

degrades fish habitat (79). In many basins, concentrations of bacteria from livestock waste are

very high (79). Finally, herbicides, particularly

atrazine, have been detected at levels that exceed

EPA drinking water standards in many streams

during spring and summer months (24).

Pollutants from Corn Belt agriculture have

significant impacts elsewhere in the Mississippi

drainage basin as well. Sediment and chemicals

that originate in the Corn Belt converge in the

Mississippi River and flow southward. Both

drinking water and aquatic habitat quality are

compromised all the way down the Mississippi

River, with hundreds of thousands of tons of

waterborne agricultural contaminants ending up

in Louisiana’s Gulf Coast estuaries (24). The

impact of these contaminants on aquatic life and

the function of the Gulf’s estuarine ecosystems is

not well documented at this time. However, the

known detrimental effects of agricultural pollution on other estuaries, combined with the high

commercial and ecological value of estuaries,

provide a basis for concern. The Mississippi

River and drainage area was also identified as a

priority for wetlands and riparian areas (40). 
12 | Targeting Environmental Priorities in Agriculture
 Reforming Program Strategies | 13

TABLE 2: Surface Water Quality Priorities

Priorities and Justification Links to AgricultureArea 1: Corn Belt/Mississippi Drainage Basin ✧●♠✶Prevalence of agricultural fertilizer and pesticide residues in regional streams degrades regional sources of drinking water. Also, these pollutants migrate through the Mississippi River to Gulf Coast estuaries.

Chemical use in the watershed that drains to the basin and proximity of fields and livestock operations to streams are chief agricultural links. Movement of runoff may be facilitated by drainage structures. 

Area 2: Chesapeake Bay Drainage Basin ●♠✶♥Degradation of the nation’s largest estuary causes declines in wildlife and losses to commercial fishing operations. Nutrients from agriculture have historically been a primary cause of eutrophication damages.

Fertilizer use and dairy farming in the watershed that drains to the basin are the primary agricultural sources of nutrients that promote eutrophication. 

Area 3: South Florida/Everglades Drainage Basin

✶

The Everglades and Florida Bay are adversely affected by nutrient inflows and by inadequate water flow to maintain diverse wetland function.

Nutrient residues in runoff from sugar plantations and dairy farms promote eutrophication. Drainage and flood control that benefits agriculture changes water flow. 

Area 4: Central Valley, California ♦✶♠High levels of pesticide and fertilizer residues degrade aquatic habitat in the San Joaquin River, Sacramento River, and Suisan Bay.

Chemical use is the primary link. Irrigation drainage flows facilitate the movement of runoff through the watershed.

Area 5: Lake Erie Drainage Basin ✧●✶♠Eutrophication of Lake Erie degrades aquatic habitat. Lake Erie gets the largest loadings of agricultural nutrients of all Great Lakes

Fertilizer use on regional farmlands is associated with extremely large loadings (total amounts) of phosphorus entering the lake in runoff.

Area 6: Lake Michigan Drainage Basin ✶✧♠The long residence time of water in Lake Michigan (about 100 years) increases susceptibility to degradation by accumulated pollutants. Municipal water supplies to Green Bay and Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and the role of Lake Michigan in wildlife habitat are key concerns.

Runoff containing fertilizer and pesticide residues from croplands, nutrients and bacteria from livestock operations, and sediment have been linked to agriculture.

Area 7: Catskills Watershed

✶

Efforts to protect the New York City water supply from pollutants includes “whole farm planning” for the watershed. A test case for watershed management.

Runoff related to dairy and other farms is at issue. The manner in which conflicts over land use are resolved and the degree of success reached in water quality protection may make this case a model for other regions.

Area 8: Albemarle/Pamlico Sounds Drainage Basin

●

Runoff of agricultural chemicals substantially impairs the quality of aquatic habitat.

Polluted runoff, linked to chemical use, degrades water quality.

Area 9: Slow-recharging Midwestern ReservoirsReservoirs contain high levels of herbicides, phosphorus and nitrate, which degrade aquatic habitat and human drinking water supplies.

Fertilizer and pesticide residue runoff can converge in reservoirs. Herbicides can accumulate to levels that exceed drinking water standards year-round.

Area 10: Irrigation drainage areasIrrigation flushes heavy metals and salts held in arid soils into waterways that influence aquatic and wetland habitats.

Irrigation may be incompatible with high surface water quality here. Water diversions for agriculture may make problems worse by reducing surface flows that could dilute toxins.

♣ overlaps with surface water quality priorities♦ overlaps with water conservation priorities● overlaps with soil quality priorities✶ overlaps with wetland and riparian priorities

✧ overlaps with wildlife habitat priorities♠ overlaps with groundwater priorities♥ overlaps with rangeland quality priorities
14 | Targeting Environmental Priorities in Agriculture

The Chesapeake Bay, which supports many

commercial fishing activities, recreational uses,

and ecological functions, is significantly

impaired by eutrophication caused in part by the

drainage of agricultural nutrients (residues from

fertilizer and livestock manure).6

 Indeed, livestock waste problems make this drainage basin

both a surface water quality and rangeland/pasture priority area (74). In the Chesapeake Bay,

the largest estuary in the United States and one of

the largest in the world, 30 years of declining

fish, oyster, and to a lesser extent, shellfish populations have been linked to agriculture. The chief

link is the annual influx of millions of pounds of

nutrients that, through eutrophication, reduce the

dissolved oxygen that is crucial to the propagation of many aquatic species (4,34). These ecological damages translate into direct economic

losses to commercial and sport fishing of as

much as $16 million per year (30). The value of

non-commercial environmental losses has not

been calculated.

The National Oceanographic and Atmospheric

Administration estimates that of all U.S. estuaries, the Albemarle-Pamlico Sounds receive the

largest loadings of hazardous agricultural chemicals (62). Nutrient residues, primarily from agriculture, are also among the highest in the nation

(53). As already mentioned, excessive nutrients

in estuaries dramatically reduce the quality of

aquatic habitat and productivity. The Sounds

comprise the second-largest estuary in the country.

Accumulation of agricultural nutrients that

promote eutrophication is also a problem in Lake

Erie, and has implications for aquatic habitat and

recreational activities. The total amount of nutrient residues reaching the Great Lakes coastal

zone is the second—highest in the nation,

exceeded only by loadings reaching the Gulf of

Mexico. However, when considered in terms of

per unit drainage area, the Great Lakes area leads

6 Eurtrophication is a process in which fertilizer residues such as phosphorus and nitrate, entering water bodies in agricultural runoff,

enhance the growth of aquatic algae. This excessive growth creates “blooms” of vegetation that use up dissolved oxygen on which fish and

other organisms depend. Sediment accumulation, also connected with runoff, may simultaneously cloud water, elevate water temperature,

impede gill function, and smother hatching sites.

the nation in the amount of nitrate, phosphorus,

and sediment reaching its coastal zone. Lake Erie

receives the greatest amount of phosphorus runoff of all five Great Lakes (79). Even though not

all of these pollutants are due to agricultural

activity, water quality targets set jointly between

the United States and Canada will not be met

without effective phosphorus control from agricultural producers (6).

Eutrophication is also a concern, but not the

only concern, relating agriculture to the quality

of water in southern Lake Michigan. Accumulation of numerous agrichemicals, ranging from

phosphorus to DDT, places the drinking water

and aquatic services of Lake Michigan at risk.

Because it takes nearly a century for water in

Lake Michigan to be replaced naturally (54), the

lake is particularly susceptible to contamination

by pollutants that persist in water and accumulate

over time. Even though annual amounts are small

compared with those in Lake Erie, a chronic

inflow of agricultural pollutants can add up to

significant problems because the lake is used as a

primary drinking water source by millions of

people and supports multimillion-dollar commercial and sport fishing industries. Some problems associated with water quality in Lake

Michigan, such as contaminated fish, can be

dealt with only by issuing fish consumption advisories in Great Lakes states. Drinking water supplies for the cities of Green Bay and Milwaukee,

Wisconsin, may be at particular risk from agricultural pollution of Lake Michigan because conventional water treatment processes can not

remove all agricultural pollutants (47).

Midwestern reservoirs, such as Perry Lake,

Kansas, are also prone to accumulated herbicide

runoff because they recharge very slowly: previous seasons of herbicide runoff have not been

flushed out before a new season of runoff enters

the reservoir. Thus, low-concentration, chronic

influxes of pesticides to these water bodies can
Reforming Program Strategies | 15

accumulate to amounts that exceed EPA drinking

water standards year round (table 3). Because

midwestern reservoirs are key sources of drinking water, recreational swimming, and fishing,

accumulated agrichemicals can pose a significant

risk to human health as well as wildlife.

Protection of the Croton and Catskills-Delaware watersheds that supply New York City’s

drinking water is emerging as an important

example of the relationship between agriculture

and surface water quality. Daily, these two

watersheds produce 1.2 billion gallons of water

of such high quality that, historically, no filtration has been needed. Progressive development

of lands in the watershed has prompted regional

EPA officials to explore the need for a filtration

system to ensure safe drinking water. New York

City officials prefer to prevent pollution through

watershed management, which includes a program of “whole farming planning.” Two aspects

of this case make it an important test for watershed management as a means of enhancing compatibility between agriculture and water quality.

First, will watershed management, without water

treatment, adequately protect drinking water

quality? Second, can the interests of local, rural

farmers and of urban drinking water users be reconciled through a watershed management

approach?

A combination of water quantity and quality

dimensions is at issue in the degradation of the

Everglades, making it both a surface water and

wetlands priority (40,77). Residues of fertilizers

used in the sugar fields of south-central Florida

and pollutants from dairy livestock waste have

TABLE 3: Atrazine Concentrations in Water Samples

From Selected Midwestern Reservoirs During Winter Months, 1990–92

Reservoir Sample date

Atrazine concentration*

(μg/l)

Illinois

Carlyle Lake outflow 1-3-92 2.3

Lake Decatur outflow 1-8-92 .2

Rend Lake spillway 1-2-92 .6

Lake Shelbyville outflow 1-8-92 1.1

Lake Springfield at Sugar Creek 1-30-92 2.5

Lake Springfield at Spaulding Dam 1-30-92 4.0 *

Iowa

Coralville Lake 2-21-92 .2

Corydon Reservoir winter, 1992 10.0 *

Rathbun Reservoir —12-90 3.7 *

Rathbun Reservoir 2-20-92 2.8 

Red Rock Reservoir 2-12-92 .2

Saylorville Lake 2-12-92 .1

Kansas

Perry Lake 2-3-91 3.9 *

Missouri

Long Branch Reservoir —12-90 2.0

Smithville Reservoir —12-90 3.6 *

* Exceeds EPA drinking water standards for atrazine of 3μg/l, where μg/l,= micrograms per liter.

* NOTES: Atrazine concentration determined by GC (gas chromatography) or ELISA (immunoassay); —, no data;

SOURCE: D.A. Goolsby, et al. “Persistence of Herbicides in Selected Reservoirs in the Midwestern United States: Some Preliminary Results”,

Goolsby, D.A., L.L. Boyer and G.E. Mallard, eds., in Selected Papers on Agricultural Chemical in Water Resource of the Mid Continental United

States, U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 93-418 Denver, Colorado, 1993.
16 | Targeting Environmental Priorities in Agriculture

been implicated in the eutrophication of the

Everglades. Eutrophication has led to the decline

of numerous plant and animal species native to

the Everglades ecosystem. An additional concern

is the presence of mercury in the water, at concentrations that have prompted fish consumption

advisories. The source of the mercury is believed

to be dried peat in drained agricultural soils.

Finally, competition for available water in the

Everglades persists among agricultural, municipal, flood control and ecological uses. This competition reduces water flows to the Everglades

and can increase the concentration of pollutants

draining into the Everglades. Agriculture is not

the only source of problems with surface water

and associated natural habitat, but its role is

nonetheless significant. Agricultural activity

affects the viability of this internationally unique

ecosystem, and the industry is likely to be a necessary partner in any solution.

The California Central Valley and Gunnison/

Uncompahgre irrigation districts further illustrate how convergence between water quantity

and quality dimensions can exacerbate environmental sensitivity, causing surface water and

wetlands problems (40,77). Irrigation can flush

naturally occurring toxins out of arid soils and

into drainage flows that move downstream. From

drainage flows, metals and soil salts are washed

into streams, rivers, and wetlands, where they

risk harming or killing7

 aquatic life and migratory waterfowl, as well as other life forms in the

food chain. Testing of fish and waterfowl in

some of these irrigated areas reveals high levels

of boron, cadmium, selenium, copper, mercury,

and zinc (11). The toxic metal selenium, the

accumulation of which was implicated in the

now-infamous demise of the Kesterson National

Wildlife Refuge, a waterfowl nesting area in California, would have remained sequestered in soil

without irrigation.

7 Lethal risks connote increased mortality (death); nonlethal risks may include behavioral or developmental problems and reproductive

failure.

Lessons for Targeting Water Quality

Three lessons from these findings can guide federal, state, and local efforts in identifying water

quality targets. The weight of scientific evidence

shows the crucial importance of managing plant

cover on and around fields; pesticides and fertilizer; and livestock manure (either as a fertilizer

added to crops or as a waste product of livestock

operations). In general, the following three

aspects of agricultural production are critical to

determining what effect agriculture has on surface water quality.

Some common agricultural pollutants resist

degradation once they enter water bodies. Scientists do not know how long it takes for certain

commonly used pesticides to degrade once they

enter surface water. Evidence shows that atrazine, for example, can remain in large lakes and

reservoirs for the months or even years it may

take for water volume to be replaced naturally.

Consequently, it is important to detect risks to

drinking water and aquatic habitat early, when

correction and prevention are most feasible. It is

also wise to seek technologies that prevent pollution from getting into water in the first place. For

instance, as already noted, removing herbicides

from drinking water is beyond the capability of

most water-treatment technologies.

Agricultural pollutants have a tendency to

travel once they are waterborne. Therefore,

assessing the vulnerability or actual degradation

of water quality associated with agriculture may

entail inspecting fairly extensive drainage systems. For example, pollution concentrations near

a single farm may be too low to trigger concern,

but pollutants transported through streams and

rivers from many farms can accumulate to significant amounts at some terminal drainage points.

The most dramatic example of this phenomenon

occurs in the Mississippi Drainage Basin as

noted above, where a “soup” of herbicides,

insecticides, nitrate, and sediment builds up to
Reforming Program Strategies | 17

hundreds of thousands of tons by the time it

reaches the Gulf Coast estuaries of Louisiana.

Surface water, groundwater, wetlands, and

water conservation conditions are interrelated.

The movements of pesticides between groundwater and surface water are well documented

(105). In Colorado, fertilizer residues flushing

out of groundwater enter the South Platte River

(49). The excessive concentration of salts in

western irrigation drainage, which ultimately

degrades aquatic habitat, is partly caused by the

reduced surface water flows that result when

groundwater and rivers are tapped to supply irrigation water (20). In the Northern High Plains,

the relative lack of surface water flows, combined with the flushing action of irrigation and

intensive chemical use, makes infiltration of pollutants to groundwater much more prevalent

(42). These examples reinforce the theme of

seeking the sources of water quality problems,

not simply targeting symptoms.

❚ Agriculture and Wildlife Habitat

Grasslands or wetlands that are retained within

agricultural regions can provide ideal habitat for

numerous species of wildlife. In the past four

decades, however, changes in agriculture have

resulted in the conversion of grasslands and wetlands to crop production, tillage of larger fields,

less crop diversity, fewer rotations among crops,

and greater dependence on fertilizers and pesticides. The degree to which these broadly characterized trends occur in agriculturally dominated

regions varies, of course, and the role of agriculture in affecting the quality and distribution of

wildlife habitat is much more significant in some

regions than in others.

The changes brought about by crop cultivation

and grazing have enhanced habitat for some species but diminished habitat for others. However,

the overall patterns and trends showed population declines, even in ring-necked pheasants, cottontail rabbits, bobwhite quail, ground-nesting

birds, and other species that are well adapted to

agricultural land uses (17,28,72,84). Species that

depend on grassland habitat experienced more

precipitous declines due to isolation and fragmentation of pockets of grassland remaining

(37,75).8

 Losses in the diversity and quality of

aquatic habitats and the elevated presence of

agrichemicals in aquatic ecosystems are also

related to these trends (63,76).9

Recently, populations of pheasant and other

wildlife species have increased significantly as a

direct result of long-term land set-asides, principally under the CRP. However, it should be

noted that this conservation approach did not

increase the long-term compatibility between

commercial agricultural and protection of wildlife. The increase in habitat and wildlife populations afforded by CRP lands can be ensured only

by continuing rental payments or long-term easements.

Findings

As in the case of water quality, OTA targeted

10 priority areas where agriculture has major

effects on the quality and distribution of wildlife

habitat (figure 2 and table 4). Four of the selections (items 2, 4, 6, and 9) represent general cate8 The conversion of 30 percent of short-grass prairie and 99.9 percent of native tallgrass prairie in the Great Plains states, much of this to

intensive crop production, has resulted in declines of many wildlife species. At least 55 grassland wildlife species in the U.S. are listed as

threatened or endangered as a direct result of this habitat loss, and 728 are candidates for listing. Several species whose habitat needs include

large tracts of native grasses have already become extinct (75). 9 For instance, sediment accumulation and chemical exposure may degrade habitat close to farmed lands. EPA estimated that in the

1980s, one to two million birds died every year through exposure to the pesticide carbofuran, and FWS determined that nearly 20 percent of

endangered or threatened species in 1988 were listed, in part, because of pesticides (100). Nutrients, sediment and herbicides carried in runoff

to surface waters promote changes in water quality and surface flows that reduce dissolved oxygen, impair gills, smother hatching sites or

diminish the food supply for aquatic herbivores, and chronic, low-level concentrations of pesticides have been linked to reproductive failure

and developmental abnormalities in fish and other aquatic organisms (12,55,86). Bioaccumulative pesticides which concentrate along the

food chain have led to documented developmental, behavioral, immunological and reproductive impairments, particularly in sensitive species of fish, birds and mammals (12).
Environmental Priorities in Agriculture
 Reforming Program Strategies | 19

TABLE 4: Wildlife Habitat Priorities

Priorities and Justification Links to AgricultureArea 1: Corn Belt ♣●✶♠Common species (including ducks, pheasants, and songbirds) in severe decline have been restored by CRP, but are vulnerable to resumed production on set-aside lands.

Polluted runoff impairs water habitat. Cropping practices disturb nesting sites during breeding and fledging seasons. Field patterns eliminate stream buffers and longterm cover needed for nesting and protection from predators.

Area 2: Endangered Species/HabitatsSpecies viability is at risk where grassland and aquatic habitats are diminished.

AS ABOVE. Some species are particularly sensitive to changes brought about by 

agriculture.

Area 3: Prairie Potholes ♣●✶♥

A key breeding ground and migration site for many animals, waterfowl and grassland birds are vulnerable to habitat modification if production resumes on set-aside lands.

Grassland and wetland habitats are converted to fields. Resulting land use practices leave bare ground in winter, disturb nesting sites during breeding and fledging seasons, and eliminate long-term cover.

Area 4: National GrasslandsThe layout of prairie preserves does not fully support declining nongame birds and other grassland species they are intended to protect.

Preserves are fragmented by agricultural activities within their perimeters. Most prairie wildlife requires large, unbroken tracts of habitat.

Area 5: Southern Plains ♦●♥Restoration of declining wildlife in the Plains, as a result of CRP, is vulnerable to a resumption of production on set-aside lands.

Cultivated agricultural production may be incompatible with wildlife gains made through CRP.

Area 6: State and Federal Wildlife Management AreasNesting success and survival of managed species would improve if habitat areas were larger and buffered from agricultural activity around them.

Existing refuges are hemmed in by intensive agriculture around their perimeters.

Area 7: Lower Mississippi Valley ●✶A chief winter habitat for waterfowl, shore birds, and nongame birds. Habitat quality affects reproductive success in the spring. Loss of 80 percent of bottomland hardwood habitat and degraded water quality diminishes habitat quantity and quality.

Extensive conversion of forest and wetland areas to cropland, straightening of natural streams, and migration of pesticides, fertilizer and sediment from the Corn Belt combine to diminish wildlife habitat in this region.

Area 8: Platte River Headwaters ♦●✶♠♥An important remnant of short-grass prairie, habitat losses continue to cause declines in both population and diversity of birds, mammals and fish.

Conversion of grasslands to cropland, eradication of prairie dogs (a “keystone” species which supports other species), and fragmentation of residual grassland areas diminish availability of habitat.

Area 9: Riparian AreasStreams, rivers, wetlands that receive farm runoff (sediment, fertilizer residues, pesticide residues, bacteria from livestock waste) are degraded.

Fields are cultivated too close to streams, which makes it easy for field runoff to enter streams and , ultimately, be transported through watersheds. Improperly managed livestock manure also enters streams.

Area 10: Great Lakes basin ♣✶Agricultural pollutants carried in runoff pervade tributaries and lakes from which millions of people consume drinking water and fish. Loss of aquatic habitat reduces spawning stock and diversity of fish preferred for sport and commercial catches.

AS ABOVE. Some species are particularly sensitive to changes brought about by 

agriculture.

♣ overlaps with surface water quality priorities♦ overlaps with water conservation priorities● overlaps with soil quality priorities✶ overlaps with wetland and riparian priorities

✧ overlaps with wildlife habitat priorities♠ overlaps with groundwater priorities♥ overlaps with rangeland quality priorities
20 | Targeting Environmental Priorities in Agriculture

gories that include multiple locations. Overall,

the choices of wildlife priority areas were based

on several criteria: areas where agriculture is

associated with the loss of unique habitats for

declining species; where the ability of habitats to

sustain viable populations of common species is

a concern; where protecting wildlife habitats is

integrally related to local or regional economic

viability; and where beneficial policies and land

uses already in place could be strengthened (2).

The main emphasis in selecting wildlife priority

areas was on enabling ecologically viable communities to co-exist with agricultural land uses.

Although priorities were generally keyed to relatively large geographic regions, the problems or

potentials observed are not uniform or equivalent

across the entire selected region. More precise

identification of priority sites (for instance, counties or drainage basins) can best be provided by

state or federal biologists familiar with unique

regional issues and priorities.

Admittedly, geographic regions that were not

included in the 10 priority areas are of concern

because they provide important wildlife habitat.

California’s Central Valley, for example, contains critical wintering habitat for migratory

birds and declining species. However, residential/industrial development in this region means

that agricultural changes will not necessarily

enhance habitat substantially. Declining stocks

of salmon in the Pacific Northwest are also an

issue of national importance. However, agriculture is only one of many factors impinging upon

salmon habitat (others include logging; dams on

major rivers and tributaries; commercial, subsistence, and recreational fishing; and urban and

industrial development). Further, the science

defining the relative roles of these factors is

incomplete. 

The Corn Belt is the most intensively farmed

region in the country. A shift to large fields with

minimal diversity among crops has caused a

regionwide loss of habitat diversity. Greater

dependence on synthetic fertilizers to maintain

high crop yields, and on herbicides and insecticides to control pests, has increased contamination of surface waters and reduced the supply of

plants and insects that many birds eat. Removal

of fencerows, shelterbelts, wetland, and vegetated riparian zones has eliminated permanent,

year-to-year cover that is critical to game and

nongame species. The net effects of these

changes in land use—fewer kinds of wildlife

species and a decreasing ability of the landscape

to support common wildlife species—may

appear insignificant at the farm level, but are

striking in a large, intensively cultivated region.

Major impacts on river systems and riparian

areas occur in the Great Lakes drainage basin

due to channelization (that is, the straightening of

streams) and agrichemical contamination of tributary surface waters. Drastic reductions in

aquatic habitats and fisheries have been observed

in Great Lakes ecosystems. Coastal wetlands and

marshes have been lost or severely degraded.

Channelization and agrichemical- and sedimentladen runoff from agricultural fields have

degraded the quality of aquatic habitats, resulting

in loss of spawning habitats and numerous

changes in water characteristics that affect fish

populations in tributaries as well as the Great

Lakes themselves.

The Lower Mississippi Valley is the major

winter and migratory area for many of North

America’s waterfowl and shorebird populations.

The region suffered major losses of habitat in

recent decades due to conversion of wetlands and

bottomland forest to agricultural production, and

remaining wetland quality has been reduced by

runoff of agricultural pesticides, fertilizers, and

sediment. The quality of habitat within this

region affects the physiological fitness of wintering birds and their reproductive success during

the following breeding season. Sedimentation

and agricultural chemical runoff reduce the quality of coastal wetland ecosystems and estuarine

habitats, which are essential for reproduction in

coastal fisheries. The Lower Mississippi was also

identified as a wetland and riparian priority on

the basis of diking, drainage, cutting of bottomland woodlands, and channelization (40).

Nationwide, implications for improvement in

surface water quality and habitat are associated

with riparian areas of stream and river systems,
Reforming Program Strategies | 21

as noted by three expert panelists (2,40,77).

Extensive channelization of river systems has

eliminated or severely degraded riparian habitats.

Quality, availability, and productivity of aquatic

habitats has been reduced by as much as 90 percent in some midwestern river systems.

Improved riparian vegetation and buffer strips

can reduce sediment and nutrient concentration

in agricultural runoff by more than 90 percent

(21), providing benefits to aquatic and wetland

associated wildlife. Enhancement of riparian

habitats could benefit migratory birds, freshwater

and anadromous fisheries (fish that spawn in

fresh waters but travel to salt water, for instance,

salmon), and game species. More vegetated

riparian areas also improve upstream flood storage capacity.

The Prairie Pothole region is a critical breeding and migratory area for all kinds of migratory

birds and waterfowl. Approximately 50 percent

of North America’s duck population is bred in

the Pothole region (31). Most of the region’s

temporary wetlands, important to shorebirds and

pairing of waterfowl, have been converted to

farmland. But wetlands alone cannot produce

ducks, and retention of relatively large blocks of

grasslands adjacent to or near wetlands is essential to maintaining populations of waterfowl and

upland bird species.

The eastern portion of the Prairie Pothole area

contains highly erodible croplands that are now

enrolled in the CRP. Shifting from crop production to grazing could provide a commercially

viable alternative that also maintains the permanent groundcover needed for wildlife (74). Wildlife habitat in the western fringe of the Prairie

Pothole region is being diminished by the spread

of leafy spurge, a noxious nonindigenous weed

that is dominating native grassland/rangeland

plants. This change in plant mix can severely

reduce the availability of forage for many native

wildlife species (74).

Reduction of native short-grass prairies in

western states is associated with the decline of

many species. In the Platte River headwaters,

despite the retention of an important remnant of

short-grass prairie, populations of mountain plover, lark bunting, swift fox, prairie dogs, and several kinds of fish have declined drastically (2).

Moreover, the loss of “keystone species” such as

the prairie dog, which have largely been exterminated because they have conflicted with agricultural operations, has direct ramifications for the

viability of other species, including the burrowing owl, mountain plover, and numerous species

of raptors, including wintering bald eagles

(2,75).

Because so much habitat has been lost due to

agriculture in the Plains, and because much of

that lost habitat was grasslands, wildlife habitat

restored by CRP-protected grasslands in the

Southern Plains is considered a high agroenvironmental priority. Increases in populations of

pheasants and other small game have had positive effects on rural economies in this area. The

same phenomenon pertains to other grassland

areas. Pheasant hunting is worth $70 million

annually in South Dakota alone (70), but the

region where pheasant hunting is popular

stretches from North Dakota to the Texas Panhandle, and from Eastern Colorado to Iowa.

Although the status of game species does not

indicate the availability of habitat for all species,

and particularly not for land animals that require

large expanses of prairie or forest, the status of

pheasants is a barometer for the availability of

habitat for game and nongame species that thrive

in the fragmented, “edge-rich” environment

carved out by the interspersion of crop cultivation and grassland.

National Grasslands (special areas designated

for management purposes) provide habitat for

declining game and non-game species that

require large tracts of grassland not edge habitats. The majority of these protected grasslands

are fragmented by farmed lands within their

boundaries, however, and so their effectiveness

is limited. Even though grazing can complement

many habitat/wildlife management objectives,

introducing non-native grasses on grazed lands

within National Grassland boundaries has negative effects on wildlife associated with grassland

habitats.
22 | Targeting Environmental Priorities in Agriculture

Improving habitat associated with state managed wildlife and recreation areas is a priority

because most state areas are heavily used by the

public and isolated within intensively farmed

regions. Efforts to increase the size and critical

mass of these sites in producing wildlife, by providing suitable vegetative cover on cropland

adjacent to these management areas, would

enhance populations of game and nongame wildlife and also benefit land for public use. Lands

adjacent to management areas need not be open

to the public to provide environmental and recreational benefits. Areas managed by the state are a

higher priority than areas managed by the federal

government, because they are distributed more

extensively across the nation.

Although increasing emphasis is being placed

on protecting habitats for communities of species

rather than individual species, protecting specific

endangered species has a long history. Science

indicates that protecting endangered species goes

hand-in-hand with protecting their habitats. The

causes of habitat decline for endangered species

varies across the nation, but loss of grassland

cover, greater dependence upon agrichemicals,

loss of wetland and riparian areas, competition

for water that flows in streams and rivers, and

land conversion are key among them.

Lessons for Targeting Wildlife Habitat

Is it possible to maintain a highly productive

agricultural system in a way that sustains viable

wildlife habitat in rural areas? Lessons for identifying priority targets related to agriculture and

wildlife reflect extensive scientific evidence that

specific kinds of farming technologies and land

use patterns, not all, are detrimental to habitat

protection.

Preserving wildlife means preserving and

restoring long-term grassland, wetland, and

aquatic habitats. Since the 1950s, farmers have

moved more toward maintaining larger, contiguous fields. This trend fragments and minimizes

natural habitats. But studies show that adequate

long-term cover is the critical factor in enabling

wildlife to breed successfully. By comparison,

seasonal cover created by annual set-aside programs is ineffective (8). Indeed, field studies

show that the availability of adequate cover is

even more important than food or water in determining habitat quality in many areas dominated

by agriculture.

It is estimated that about 4 to 6 percent of the

land in agricultural regions, if established in

long-term grassland cover of sufficient quality,

could support abundant and diverse wildlife (2).

Establishing long-term plant cover on approximately 2 million acres of riparian zones10 that

are currently unprotected in agricultural areas

could make a significant contribution to the quality of riparian, aquatic, and wetland habitat (44).

The configuration of habitats determines

which kinds of species benefit. The way cover is

arranged across a landscape determines how productive wildlife will be and which species will

benefit most. For example, a combination of

grassed waterways, riparian buffers, and small

parcels of grassland would provide good habitat

for ring-necked pheasants in the Corn Belt, but

would not support upland nesting waterfowl in

the Great Plains. Upland birds like the Baird’s

sparrow, blue-winged teal, and prairie chicken

require larger expanses of unbroken grassland

cover.

In planning to protect habitat, the use of

“barometer” species that can represent the habitat needs of communities of species to be protected may help to more clearly define the

objectives of habitat protection. Tracking the

success of barometer species over several years

can also help evaluate the success of habitat protection programs.

Water quality is critical in determining the

quality of wildlife habitat. The quality of the

water that animals live in, drink, or draw food

from can affect their immediate health, their ability to reproduce, and even their species’ longterm viability. The health of many species in the

food chain, particularly top predators, may be

10 This amount is equivalent to one-half of one percent of existing cropland and about 5 percent of the acreage now enrolled in CRP.
Reforming Program Strategies | 23

severely affected by the progressive diminution

or contamination of plant and animal populations

upon which they depend for food.

Preventing runoff of agricultural pollutants

into waterways can help to maintain high water

quality, which in turn affects wildlife food

chains. As already stated above, management of

plant cover, of pesticides and fertilizer, and of

livestock manure on farms are three aspects that

are critical to the interaction between agriculture

and surface water quality. Retaining riparian

zones and floodplain areas rather than converting

them to cropland serves not only water, wetlands

and wildlife priorities, but reduces flood damages as well.

❚ Agriculture and Soil Quality

Agriculture’s role in determining soil quality is,

in some ways, more difficult to describe than its

role in water quality and wildlife habitat. Given

the complexity and spatial variability of soils,

scientists are still looking for a way to describe

soil quality more completely. At this writing, the

term “soil quality” encompasses many quantitative attributes such as microbial density, organic

content, electrical conductivity, acidity, soil

structure, chemical contamination, and infiltration rate in addition to qualitative aspects such as

smell, color, and texture (55). Soil quality can

also be assessed in terms of its capacity to perform productive and environmental roles, such as

the capacity to promote the growth of plants; to

regulate the infiltration and surface movement of

water within a watershed; and to act as a buffer

for water and air quality by sequestering and

degrading carbon, agricultural chemicals, and

organic wastes.

How agricultural production affects these

attributes or capacities can be described, but not

accurately measured. Heavy machinery or animal stocking rates can make soil more compact,

in contrast to the loosely aggregated soil structure that is most conducive to water infiltration

and healthy root growth. Irrigation can increase

soil salinization, because irrigation water contains salts that are then deposited on the soil surface. Because many agrichemicals adhere to soil

particles, intensive use of pesticides and fertilizers can contaminate soils. Changes in tillage

practices, in the use of agrichemicals, or in the

mix of crops grown can change the microbial and

organic content of soils, leading to changes in

productive and ecological capacities. Aside from

these relatively well-known effects, it has been

more difficult to document comprehensively

how agriculture changes soil quality.

Findings

Soil’s vulnerability to erosion and to changes in

other aspects of quality (such as salinity, compaction, acidification) in response to agriculture

varies across the country (33), depending upon

innate soil characteristics and management practices. Because there are only incomplete data on

these variables, the severity of erosion-related

problems served as the primary criterion for

selecting soil quality priorities (41). OTA also

considered other forms of environmental degradation related to erosion, including offsite problems such as damage from sedimentation in

surface waters, wind erosion, and groundwater

leaching of nitrates and pesticides. Figure 3

shows the geographical distribution of the priority areas and table 5 briefly describes each one.

The geographical configuration of the Northern Mississippi Valley Loess and Southwest

Wisconsin Sandy Outwash area contributes to

problems with erosion and water quality. The

southern section of this area, for instance, is

made up of a thin mantle of rich soil over fractured limestone. Steep slopes and deeply incised

stream channels lead to severe water erosion and

surface water degradation. The innate tendency

toward erosion is exacerbated by the fact that

about 60 percent of the area is covered by cropland, much of it dedicated to corn. In the northern part of the area, intensive vegetable

production predominates, and farmers make liberal use of nitrogen fertilizers, pesticides, and

manure. Deep and coarsely textured soils on gently rolling landscapes are highly susceptible to

leaching, and so agrichemicals are rapidly transported to groundwater. The topography and soils

are also conducive to severe wind erosion, and

airborne dust is common in sandy areas.
24 | Targeting Environmental Priorities in Agriculture
 Reforming Program Strategies

| 25

TABLE 5: Soil Quality Priorities

Priority Areas and Justification Links to AgricultureArea 1: Northern Mississippi Valley Loess and Sandy Outwash ♣✶✧♠Severe water and wind erosion degrade soil. Agrichemical leaching to groundwater is a significant concern.

Steep slopes, permeable soils, poor manure management, and intensive use of agrichemicals and irrigation raise the chance of groundwater degradation.

Area 2: Southern Piedmont ♣Water erosion and soil compaction reduce productivity. Agrichemical leaching to shallow groundwater occurs.

Steep slopes, concentration of row crops that do not protect soil, and cropping on marginal soils induce erosion and water quality problems.

Area 3: Palouse and Columbia Plateau ✶♠♥Wind erosion creates fugitive dust in the air. Water erosion is associated with impaired surface water. Groundwater is also a concern.

Steep slopes, intensive chemical (fertilizer) use, a fallow cropping sequence that removes ground cover, and cultivation on marginal soils are factors.

Area 4: Iowa and Missouri Deep Loess ♣✧Water erosion leads to build up of sediment off-site. Poor surface and groundwater quality are also concerns.

Steep slopes, silty soil, concentration of row crops, and intensive chemical inputs are primary causes of quality conditions.

Area 5: Southern Mississippi Valley Silty Uplands ✶✧Water erosion leads to build-up of off-site sediment. Steep slopes, silty soils, and concentration of row crops influence conditions.Area 6: Iowa and Missouri Heavy Till Plains; Cherokee Prairie ♣✶✧Soil productivity is degraded by water erosion and soil compaction. Sloping soils and concentration of row crops increase water erosion.Area 7: Northern and Central Glaciated Plains ♥✶✧Wind erosion and off-site dust degrade air quality. Conservation of water in soils is a concern.

Cereal-fallow cropping rotations expose soil to wind. Depletion of organic matter and cropping on marginal soils exacerbate quality problems.

Area 8: Hawaii ♠Extreme water erosion results in surface degradation. Agrichemical leachingis also observed.

Intensive cropping on steep slopes, including heavy tillage and harvesting equipment and intensive agrichemical use, created conditions of soil and water degradation. Heavy rainfall typical of the area exacerbates erosion.

Area 9: High Plains ♠✧♦♥Conservation of water in soils is a concern. Dust from wind erosion degrades air quality.

Lack of adequate crop residues, in part due to inclusion of a fallow rotation, exposes soil to erosion. Cropping on marginal soils and extensive cotton production in southern high plains increases soil degradation.

Area 10: S. Indiana and IllinoisThin Loess ♣✧Soil productivity is reduced by water erosion and soil compaction. Surface and groundwater quality are also concerns.

Concentration of row crops is the primary cause of soil quality problems.

♣ overlaps with surface water quality priorities♦ overlaps with water conservation priorities● overlaps with soil quality priorities✶ overlaps with wetland and riparian priorities

✧ overlaps with wildlife habitat priorities♠ overlaps with groundwater priorities♥ overlaps with rangeland quality priorities
26 | Targeting Environmental Priorities in Agriculture

Much of the Southern Piedmont consists of

small farms and some woodlands, although

urban encroachment is increasing. Soil compaction and water erosion are major problems in

areas where soybeans, corn, cereals and cotton

are grown. Soil compaction reduces root growth

and impedes infiltration of surface water. Contamination of surface and shallow groundwater

with agrichemicals also occurs. Poultry waste

management makes some areas in the Piedmont

a rangeland/pasture priority as well (74).

Steep slopes and medium-textured soils

planted with cereal crops make the Palouse and

Nez Perce Prairies extremely vulnerable to erosion. Wind and water erosion occurs on both

medium- and coarser-textured soils; water erosion occurs primarily during spring thaws, from

melting snow. Surface and groundwater quality

are impaired by the combination of shallow soils

and heavy application of nitrogen fertilizers.

Riparian grazing in this area creates rangeland

conditions that are also a high agroenvironmental

priority linked to water quality.

Deep loess soils and steep slopes make the

Iowa and Missouri Deep Loess Hills extremely

prone to erosion. Although corn and soybeans

are grown intensively on these soils, the favorable natural productivity conditions of the deep

loess can result in only moderate productivity

losses from erosion if nutrient levels are maintained with fertilizers. However, erosion transport to offsite waters causes severe

sedimentation problems and delivers agrichemicals that migrate and accumulate in downstream

rivers, wetlands, and estuaries.

Steep slopes and water erosion also cause

major environmental problems in the Southern

Mississippi Valley Silty Uplands, which border

the Mississippi River, and in the Southern Illinois and Indiana Thin Loess and Till Plains area.

Erosion of the thin layer of soil that is typically

found in these areas brings significant economic

problems, in the form of lost productivity, as

well.

In the High Plains, cotton is grown on sandy

soil in the south. It leaves little residue to protect

the soil from erosion in the off-season. Other

major crops in the region include winter wheat,

grain sorghum, and corn. Wind erosion is often

severe, leading to soil damage and dust in the air.

Projections are that as many as 30 “dusty” days

may occur each year. Currently, a sizable portion

of this land is in the CRP and is classified as

“highly erodible land” (HEL) by USDA. The

high erodibility of High Plains soils is exacerbated by the types of crops planted and the manner in which they are grown. Using this area as

rangeland may provide a commercially viable

and environmentally preferable alternative; it

would both maintain ground cover and prevent

erosion (74). Given the limited rainfall in this

area, retention of soil moisture and efficient

water use also affect soil quality. The chief

source of water in the High Plains is the Ogallala

aquifer, and withdrawals from the aquifer for

irrigation of local crops (for instance, cotton) are

the primary cause of falling water tables (20).

More than half of the Northern/Central Dark

Brown Glaciated Plains is used for dryland crop

production, mostly cereals. Some of the drier

parts of the area are allowed to lie fallow. Soils

are deep and medium-textured. Wind erosion is a

major problem, and there is occasional water erosion. Saline seeps are common because water

moving through the soil accumulates salt, then

reappears on the surface of the lower slopes.

Effective storage of water in the soil during the

fallow period is of utmost importance. Currently,

a considerable amount of land in this priority

area is enrolled in the CRP. The most highly

erodible lands in this area were also designated a

priority for rangeland conservation (74).

In the corn, soybean, sorghum, and cereals

region of the Cherokee Prairies and Iowa and

Missouri Plains, soils are subject to water erosion

that is sufficiently severe to create gullies. This

runoff carries sediment and agrichemicals to surface waters. Drinking water wells in this area

have also been polluted by agricultural pollutants. The soils are relatively unsuitable for agricultural production, and erosion promotes further

loss of soil productivity.

Portions of Hawaii are rapidly becoming

urbanized, but some farmland—dedicated to
Reforming Program Strategies | 27

sugar cane and pineapple—still exists. Farms on

low mountain slopes and coastal plains are

extremely susceptible to water erosion, however,

which creates off-site sedimentation. These tropical soils are deep and permeable, which facilitates transport of agrichemicals to shallow

groundwater.

Lessons for Targeting Soil Quality

The relationship between soil erosion and water

quality is very direct, especially near steep

slopes. Sediment washed from farm fields into

rivers, streams, or wetlands reduces water quality

by increasing “turbidity” (cloudiness) and by

transporting fertilizer and pesticide residues into

water bodies. Farming on steep slopes where erosion control is extremely difficult emerged as a

serious issue relating soil and water quality. Sedimentation of waterways from erosion can make

water unsuitable for drinking, recreation, and

aquatic habitat, and can make flood control more

difficult. Notably, six of the 10 priorities were

chosen in part because of steep slopes and surface water quality concerns.

Despite dramatic national improvements in

controlling soil erosion, it is still a priority in

certain areas. Trends show that significant

improvements in controlling soil erosion have

occurred on a national scale since the 1930s.

Nonetheless, soil erosion remains a conservation

issue. Wind erosion in the western Plains is still a

problem, and about 120 million acres of the

nation’s cropland are vulnerable to soil losses

that exceed rates of soil creation (91). Those levels are considered unacceptable by USDA.

Existing data on soil conditions do not permit

targeting based on soil quality. Soil data collected by federal agencies, most notably by the

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS,

formerly the Soil Conservation Service or SCS)

pertain almost exclusively to soil erosion. Indicators for soil quality and for the various production, ecosystemic, and environmental capacities

that stem from soil quality have not been developed. However, research shows that soil quality

is important for producing agricultural crops and

forage as well as for unique environmental functions such as cycling carbon and nutrients, partitioning water on the land surface, and buffering

air and water from the effects of land uses. In this

context, soil degradation means that the soil’s

capacity to perform any of its productive, ecosystemic, or environmental roles is reduced. Developing and maintaining soil quality that supports

these functions will require more than simply

minimizing erosion.

A shift in emphasis from preventing soil erosion to protecting soil quality, an idea gaining

support within the scientific community, could

lead to some fundamental changes in research,

technology development, and programs. For

instance, research on managing soil quality

would focus heavily on how to regenerate or

enhance soil functions (such as the ability to

absorb and filter water; the capacity to hold

nutrients and sequester carbon; and the ability to

support biological activity by plants, earthworms, insects, and microbial life). Determining

the eligibility of soil quality priorities for various

agroenvironmental program responses would not

be triggered simply by erodibility measures, but

by a more complete assessment of present and

potential characteristics of soils. For instance, in

particular areas, some cropland may be so marginal in productivity that it might be more costeffective to devote attention and resources to

richer, more productive soils.

ENVIRONMENTAL PRIORITIES AS 

PROGRAM TARGETS

OTA’s findings strongly illustrate that agroenvironmental priorities seldom involve just one

dimension of environmental quality (see appendix B). Rather, it is very common for soil erosion

to be systematically connected to water quality,

habitat or both. Water quality is virtually always

connected to some habitat or human health consideration, and also typically reflects the condition of soils (55). Figure 4 shows how closely the

priorities overlap in many cases. The darkest

areas are those with the greatest number of overlapping priorities. When surface water, soil and

wildlife habitat are considered jointly, large areas
28 Targeting Environmental Priorities in Agriculture
Reforming Program Strategies | 29

of the Corn Belt, Atlantic estuaries, Lower Mississippi Valley and the Great Plains contain the

most priorities. The overlapping of priorities suggests possible patterns and interconnections

among many agroenvironmental conditions.

The darkest areas may well be the highest-priority areas in agriculture, and thus the highestpriority targets for agroenvironmental programs.

The types of land, water, and biological

resources in the priority areas help portray the

character of agriculture and potential environmental problems. A detailed analysis of the areas

was not feasible given the length of the project.

Box 2 and appendix D describe some land types

in the priority areas. Approximately one-third of

U.S. cropland, pasture, and rangeland is in areas

with two or more overlapping priorities. These

areas are dominated by the Corn Belt and large

BOX 2: What’s in the Priority Areas?

Agroenvironmental conditions in the priority areas reflect the scale and intensity of agricultural production and the character of environmental resources. A detailed analysis of the production and environmental bases was not possible given time constraints. OTA recommends such an analysis be conducted to

more fully understand the priority areas and their agroenvironmental systems. As a preliminary step, the

amounts of some major types of lands in the surface water quality, wildlife, and soil quality priority areas

are given in appendix D. 

Cropland, pasture, and rangeland uses total nearly 525 million acres in counties wholly or partially

covered by all priorities. The figure represents nearly 50 percent of the U.S. total, which confirms that

important agroenvironmental problems are broadly spread across the nation. Not surprisingly, the majority resides in the Corn Belt and Plains states. It is imperative to bear in mind that not all, or even a majority,

of the croplands, pasture, and rangeland in the priority areas are linked to serious environmental problems. Indeed, only a very small portion, such as 5 to 10 percent, may be critical to improved management.

Over 23 million acres of forested and non-forested wetlands occurred in counties wholly or partially

covered by all priority areas, about 25 percent of the total in the lower 48 states. Dominant areas of wetlands fall in the Lower Mississippi Valley, Northern Plains, Corn Belt, and southern Florida.

In a separate study, about 2 milllion acres of riparian buffers were identified for priority attention to

remedy nonpoint water quality problems related to agriculture (44). Counties in the OTA priority areas

encompass two thirds of those potential riparian buffers. They are spread throughout the country, but

concentrated in the Corn Belt and Northern and Southern Plains regions.

Counties in the priority areas also hold just over 27 million acres of lands enrolled in the Conservation

Reserve Program, or about 75 percent of the total. No inference can be made as to the location of

present CRP enrollment lands vis a vis lands key to solving citical environmental problems in the priority

areas. The existing CRP regional distribution indicates agriculture has already set aside sizeable capacity to address the environmental problems via long-term set aside if targeted appropriately.

When multiple overlaps of priorities are considered, the relevant land use and environmental scales

shrink as portrayed in figure 4. For areas where two and three priority criteria are satisfied, total cropland,

pasture, and rangeland fall to about 350 million and 40 million respectively. The Corn Belt and Plains

states retain their dominant positions. Wetlands in priority counties decline to about 5.3 million and

300,000 acres. The Great Lake states, Lower Mississippi Valley, and Northern Plains account for large

parts of the totals. Finally, priority areas identified for two of three environmental dimensions accounted

for nearly 725,000 acres of riparian wetlands, mostly in the Corn Belt and Southern Plains, and the three

overlap region captured about 153,000 acres, virtually all in the Corn Belt.

SOURCE: “Land Use, CRP Contarcts, and Riparian Buffers by Geographic Region: A GIS Approach,” by John G. Lee and

Stephen B. Lovejoy, L&L and Associates, West Lafayette, Indiana, July 1995.
30 | Targeting Environmental Priorities in Agriculture

areas of the Great Plains, presumably reflecting

the heavy concentration of agricultural production in those regions. Other important areas

include watersheds and river basins flowing into

two Atlantic estuaries and the Lower Mississippi

region. The priority designations do not imply

that all farmlands in the area are generating or

incurring environmental damage and need program attention. Indeed, only small amounts of

farmland may require intensive treatment.

For example, the areas with more than one priority designation contain only about 724,000

acres of riparian buffer acres needed to protect

streams and rivers from water pollution

(43,44)11. Most of those acres are in the Corn

Belt and Southern Plains regions. Similarly, only

about 5.4 million acres of forested and unforested wetlands are in areas with more than one

priority designation. The areas with two or more

priorities currently include 16 million acres of

CRP lands. This amount of land represents ample

capacity to protect the riparian buffers and wetlands if reenrollment is reconfigured to those

types of priority lands where production and

environmental protection are incompatible.

Without intimate knowledge of the dynamics

among soil, water, and wildlife dimensions of an

agroenvironmental priority, it is difficult to

design programs that protect or restore agroenvironmental health. In response to growing awareness of the importance of system dynamics,

concepts such as “whole-farm management” and

“ecosystem management” have begun to generate interest among scientists as well as among

policymakers (88). Yet, despite some philosophical movement toward a more holistic view of

agriculture and its relationships with the environment, most policies and programs still focus

on discrete components of agroenvironmental

systems rather than the systems themselves. For

example, most conservation programs for agriculture deal exclusively with soil erosion.

Although other programs deal with water quality

issues, and even habitat, virtually none offer

11 All areas selected as surface water quality, wildlife habitat, or soil quality priorities contain over two thirds of the 2 million acres of the

identified riparian buffers but contain just about one half of the nation's farmland.

farmers support for managing whole farming

systems.

One way of shifting the focus of conservation

toward entire systems is to target policy and programs to “agroecosystems” instead of to individual system components. The concept of an

agroecosystem (figure 5) shifts the emphasis

more clearly toward acknowledging that farms,

beyond supporting cultivated vegetation and

domesticated animals, also affect nutrient

cycling, hydrologic flows, soil and water quality,

and wildlife habitat. An agroecosystem covers

the area most directly sustaining the environmental and productive functions of farms. Conversely, it includes the area in which most

environmental side-effects of production—such

as sediment deposition, modification of wildlife

habitat, or changes in water quality—are likely to

be detected. Thus the concept is important to

guide of research and monitoring agroenvironmental conditions. When agroecosystems are the

focus for programs and policies, on-farm conservation and productivity concerns, as well as offfarm environmental conditions, are addressed in

the same effort.

To guide program implementation and evaluation, it is important to identify measurable

attributes of agroecosystems. Unfortunately,

there a lack of agreement among scientists on

those attributes and the underlying relationships

that tie them together. Thus program strategies

designed and implemented separately will likely

miss opportunities for gaining complementary

environmental objectives or avoiding possible

conflicts. An objective of future program design

should be to create effective mechanisms to

ensure that individual programs take into account

natural environmental interactions of agroecosystems. The “special area management”

approach implemented under the Coastal Zone

Management Act offers one model that has

achieved some success in drawing together

diverse program efforts (10).
Reforming Program Strategies I 31

The term “agroecosystem” indicates that farms do more than produce cultivated vegetation and domesticated animals. Farms also affect nutrient

cycling, hydrologic flows, soil and water quality, and wildlife habitat. The term also refers to the area that most directly supports the environmental

and productive functions of farms and, conversely, in which most environmental effects of production--such as sediment deposition, modification

of wildlife habitat, or changes in water quality-are likely to be detected.

SOURCE: Adapted from EPA Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Prcgram (EMAP), 1992 Agroecosystem Pilot Project Plan

(EPA/620/R-93/O10), January 1993.
32 | Targeting Environmental Priorities in Agriculture

DEVISING STRATEGIC PROGRAMS FOR 

AGROENVIRONMENTAL PRIORITIES

The structure of current federal conservation and

environmental programs affecting agriculture

makes it difficult to address the priorities identified above. The programs do not sufficiently target programs to the full spectrum of priorities;

they rely predominantly on subsidies in a time of

shrinking budgets, and they do not adequately

emphasize research and technology development

specifically designed to ameliorate significant

agroenvironmental problems and maintain longterm profitable production.

Programs still direct the majority of their

funding to controlling soil erosion, although the

latest science reveals that serious water quality,

wildlife, and soil quality problems are all environmental priorities. Current programs address

general classes of problems, such as all highly

erodible lands, while science shows that the

severity of problems varies considerably across

the class and the country. Furthermore, even

though priority problems often involve multiple

environmental components, existing programs

generally do not systematically account for agroecosystem interactions. Advances in targeting,

including the expert panel process, make it possible to focus programs more tightly on agroenvironmental priorities and systems.

A large number of programs rely heavily on

federal subsidies, in the form of cost-sharing for

new conservation practices or rental payments

for land retirement. Moreover, the many different programs pose high administrative and transaction costs for farmers trying to determine

whether they are eligible for the programs and

how to comply with program requirements. Continued heavy reliance on subsidies runs counter

to current and projected budget cutbacks. Asidefrom being unsustainable in the current fiscal climate, over-reliance on subsidies does not lead to

the effective use of public funds, particularly

when private incentives exist to adopt beneficial

practices.

Historically, only about 10 percent of federal

agricultural research funds are committed to natural resource topics, even though agroenvironmental issues have become much more important

to the American public over the past three

decades. Perhaps as a result of inadequate funding, traditional research and development programs have not led to technological innovations

that provide remedies for environmental problems while simultaneously maintaining farm

competitiveness. Moreover, decisions about public agricultural research are generally made without systematic input from conservation and

environmental programs. Given growing international competition enhanced by liberalized trade,

as well as strong public preferences for environmental quality, the development of such technologies is becoming vital to the agriculture

industry’s long-term health.

Bridging the gaps between current programs

and new realities will involve more refined targeting plus, in response to calls for streamlining

programs to reduce burdens on farmers, a simplified set of approaches that take maximum advantage of private incentives (and rely less on

subsidies). These approaches could include:12

1. Promoting the adoption of “readily available”

technologies that improve environmental conditions and maintain profit (complementary

technologies13).

2. Encouraging through incentives or disincentives a move toward management technologies that achieve environmental objectives and

keep land in commercial production.

3. Voluntarily retiring farmland for long periods

when foreseeable agricultural production and

12 This categorization of strategies pertains directly to actions on private lands, and not the installation or maintenance of public works,

such as flood control structures. 13 OTA has previously outlined the concept of complementary technologies as those that enable farmers to improve environmental quality while maintaining acceptable profits (91).
Reforming Program Strategies | 33

desired environmental performance are

incompatible.

The first and second approaches should be

backed up by a vigorous public/private technology research and development program aimed at

addressing agroenvironmental priorities while

continuing profitable production (91). The

remainder of this report describes each approach

in general and then illustrates its application to

selected surface water quality, wildlife, and soil

quality priorities. Other analysts have used similar classes to characterize the different categories

of practice (technology) profitability (46).

All of the strategies could be implemented

under the guidance of whole farm natural

resource management plans. Such plans would

incorporate considerations of soil quality, water

quality, and wildlife habitat into the farm’s production system on an integrated basis using the

best science. The construction and implementation of the plans would draw heavily on the

farmer’s expertise to capitalize on his/her intimate knowledge of the farm’s natural resources

(52). Public agencies could assist in a variety of

roles, providing information on applicable environmental objectives, the functioning of agroenvironmental systems, and the economic and

environmental performance of technologies. The

efficacy of the plans would be limited by incomplete understanding of the dynamic aspects of

production-environment interactions. The fusion

of private and public resources gives the best

chance of achieving coordinated environmental

objectives, private conservation goals, and sustaining a competitive farm operation. The composition of the plans would depend on specific

on-farm and off-farm environmental objectives,

coupled with the farmer’s personal and production goals, and so would vary by farm and by

region.

❚ Spreading Complementary 

Technologies

The term “technology” covers the various

inputs—labor, information, machinery, water,

chemicals, soil, plants, animals, insects and other

biological resources—used to produce food,

fiber, and other agricultural products. Implicitly,

it includes the management scheme whereby

those inputs are combined into practices comprising the overall production system. The rapid

growth of U.S. agricultural productivity during

this century has been fueled by a series of technological advances, from the advent of mechanical cultivation, to synthetic fertilizer, to hybrid

seed, to chemical pest controls. These technologies have propelled unprecedented growth in

crop and livestock production, yielding large

returns to crop and livestock producers and consumers. But the application of these technologies

has also resulted in environmental degradation.

Prominent examples include wind erosion and

wildlife habitat destruction from cultivating

grasslands, sediment runoff clogging roadside

ditches, streams and rivers, and fertilizer and

pesticide residues flowing into water resources.

Unlike traditional technologies stimulated by

yield-enhancing or cost-savings rewards from

the market, “complementary technologies”

would by design enable farmers to enhance environmental quality while maintaining farm productivity and profitability.

Just as the emphasis on producing abundant

food spawned technologies that promoted intensive production and economies of scale, the

shift toward a emphasis on both abundant food

and environmental quality signals the need for

new technologies that prevent pollution and

maintain profitability from the outset (91,

p.100).

Shifting to institutions that stimulate the

development of technologies guided both by production and environmental objectives will

require changes from the status quo research and

agroenvironmental management approaches. The

private sector now has few incentives to develop

and promote complementary technologies in

agriculture. Market forces have “induced” agricultural technology innovation that reduces the

need for relatively expensive purchased inputs,

such as land and labor. The private market costs

of these inputs are effective signals to conserve

expenditures by substituting less expensive
34 | Targeting Environmental Priorities in Agriculture

inputs. However, the costs of many agoenvironmental problems—such as degraded water quality or diminished wildlife habitat—are not

generally or fully reflected in market prices or

costs when the damages affect resources off the

farm. Similarly, when agricultural practices benefit off-farm environmental resources, farmers

may not be able to collect those benefits, as for

habitat benefiting migratory wildlife. Consequently, there is little impetus for technological

innovation that ameliorates these environmental

costs, or enhances off-site benefits.

One function of public policy is to provide

signals that help attain social goals that are not

expressed clearly in the marketplace. However,

public policy has not addressed the barriers to

developing and adopting complementary technologies. Although public cost-share subsidies

may encourage farmers to adopt some technologies to reduce pollution, subsidies do not generally provide incentives to integrate production

and environmental goals into a unified technological approach from the outset. Efficient regulation may expand the market for complementary

technology, insofar as the regulatory restrictions

translate into market incentives for cost-effective, environmentally sound alternatives (65).

However, environmental regulation has not been

widely used in agriculture, compared with other

industries (91). In some cases, it may not be the

most desirable approach for stimulating development and use of complementary technologies.

Federal research funds have generally not

been directed to environmentally related topics

nor to targeting innovations that enhance the

compatibility between production and environment. Since the 1970s, about 10 percent of the

work done by federal and state research institutions has been dedicated to natural resource topics, compared with more than 60 percent related

specifically to production of crops and animals

(94). How much of the 10 percent of research

monies devoted to natural resource issues concerned complementary technologies is unknown.

As long as agricultural technologies are

designed specifically for one purpose—and that

purpose is typically yield enhancement—agricultural production and environmental quality are

independent goals that may, at times, actually

compete with each other. Indeed, productionrelated technologies that are not explicitly

designed to achieve environmental goals will at

best accidentally improve environmental quality,

and at worst cause significant degradation. Most

likely, the present disconnect between production and environmental technology development

produces both improvements and degradation,

but in an unpredictable fashion. For instance,

given a situation in which water quality goals

require a reduction in nitrogen applications but

nitrogen-dependent crop varieties dominate

cropping patterns, an inherent conflict between

production and environmental goals emerges.

This conflict may in fact increase on-farm costs

associated with conservation management, and

so slow the adoption of conservation practices.

During the past three decades, a few agricultural technologies have emerged with the power

to increase profit yet reduce environmental damage caused by farming in some situations. Integrated pest management (IPM) and conservation

tillage (CT) may be among the most recognizable examples currently in use. IPM uses scouting and other management information to better

target a range of chemical and non-chemical

treatments to control pest problems in an economically and ecologically sound manner (see

box 3). IPM often lowers pesticide applications

and associated costs (13).

Conservation tillage is defined as any tillage

and planting system that (a) leaves at least 30

percent of the planted soil surface covered by

crop residue to reduce soil erosion by water, or

(b) leaves at least 1,000 pounds of residue per

acre during critical periods when soil erosion by

wind is a primary concern. On the heels of the

1970s energy crisis, the CT revolution reduced

labor, fuel, and machinery costs, and maintained

or increased yields in many areas. It also significantly reduced erosion and polluted runoff. The

effects of CT on groundwater and wildlife are

not fully understood.

These two production practices or systems

generally satisfy the criterion for complementary
Reforming Program Strategies | 35

technologies of maintaining profit while improving environmental performance. However, each

technology involves different degrees of profitability and different levels and types of environmental effects, depending on the farm and

natural resource area in question. Crop and livestock enterprises, machinery, management experience, soil type, climate, and many other factors

determine whether, and to what extent, certain

technologies benefit both agricultural producers

and the environment.

As noted above, environmental regulation,

which can stimulate the search for and adoption

of such technologies, has not been widely

applied to agriculture. Pesticide registration is

the major exception, so the development and

adoption of IPM may have been affected. However, U.S. pesticide regulation may have stymied

BOX 3: Integrated Pest Management as a Complementary Technology

Integrated Pest Management (IPM) uses enhanced information and multiple tactics, drawn from a variety of production methods, to manage pest populations in an “economically efficient and ecologically

sound manner” (60). Some of the strategies used as part of an IPM approach to pest control are scouting

and monitoring for insects, development of crop varieties with resistance to specific pests, pheromone

traps which lure insects to traps, changes in tillage and crop mix, use of sterile insects or release of natural predators and biologically based pesticides.

IPM programs are typically tailored to specific crops and, correspondingly, to specific kinds of pests.

Very few IPM programs have been developed for livestock, but many have been designed for crops. Cotton and its most severe pest, the boll weevil, have been the primary target for IPM innovations. Other

crops, including soybeans, tobacco, fruits, corn and flowers are among the 30 or more agricultural crops

that have been managed using IPM concepts.

Economic Performance: Review of 61 farm-level evaluations of the economic performance of IPM

(13,60) showed that this approach generally leads to increased profitability over conventional

approaches. Lower pesticide use, lower production costs, lower risk, and higher profits to producers

were commonly observed. While surveys indicate that over half of the nation’s fruit, nut, vegetable and

major field crops are managed with IPM, barriers to wider adoption persist; for example, “inadequate

knowledge of available IPM alternatives, too few crop consultants to deliver IPM services, and the higher

managerial input necessary for IPM implementation” may slow adoption in certain regions or for certain

crops (102).

Environmental Performance: There are many practices that can feasibly be included in an IPM system, but surveys indicate that the bulk of IPM users rely predominantly on conventional pesticides (102).

Although IPM-users manage pesticides more strategically than non-IPM users, it should be noted that

more strategic or efficient use of pesticides does not necessarily mean a reduction in the total amount of

pesticides applied. Rather, it means that pesticides use is tailored to monitored pest levels. Therefore,

environmental benefits from reduced pesticide use should not be assumed in all IPM systems.

The diversity of methods used by IPM practitioners, and the absence of complete research about the

effects of these practices on water quality, soil quality or wildlife makes general conclusions very difficult.

The use of pesticides and other pest control methods on IPM-grown crops can be subjected to the same

scrutiny applied to their use in any production regime: what inputs are being used, where are they being

applied, when, and how? In addition, some consideration might be given to the ecological effects of introducing predatory or other pest control organisms into agroecosystems. The actual environmental effects

of these introductions may never be fully anticipated a priori.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1995. 
36 | Targeting Environmental Priorities in Agriculture

the development of more environmentally

benign pest controls (54). Conservation compliance, a form of quasi-regulation that requires

agricultural program participants to implement

conservation practices on highly erodible lands,

has accelerated the adoption of CT (96). But it is

doubtful that the narrow focus of conservation

compliance on erosion control fully exploited the

possible environmental gains from conservation

tillage technology. Thus the full potential of CT

and IPM to simultaneously achieve production

and environmental objectives simultaneously

likely has not been realized and will not be

achieved under current programs.

Future Program Needs

Complementary technologies hold considerable

promise in agriculture, but only if research and

agroenvironmental management programs are

redirected to encourage their development and

application. Despite inadequate incentives, several classes14 or families of technologies with

great potential to meet agricultural and environmental goals simultaneously are gaining attention. In addition to IPM and CT, other possible

candidates include precision farming which covers soil nutrient testing (see box 4), managementintensive or rotational grazing, biotechnology,

and organic farming, among others.

The success of these technologies depends on

sufficient management expertise. For example,

research on IPM indicates that successful application depends on improved knowledge of pest

populations and a wide range of cost-effective

control methods (59). But that finding largely

covers management for production objectives

only. Adding environmental considerations

would raise the level of management required to

yet another degree. Similar considerations apply

to implementing CT in diverse farm and resource

settings to ensure full environmental benefits are

14 IPM, CT, and many other classes of agricultural technologies actually cover multiple specific technologies that apply to different types

of farms and natural resource situations. For example, CT includes no-till, ridge-till, mulch-till, and many other variants of reduced tillage.

Similarly, IPM covers a variety of approaches to particular crops, pests, and regions. The same diversity will emerge for new technologies to

best adapt to farm-specific and resource-specific requirements. This observed diversity supports program approaches that permit flexibility in

designing and implementing agroenvironmental practices and systems, rather than specifying generic best management practices.

achieved. These two cases illustrate that achieving production and environmental objectives are

not automatic outcomes of using the technology.

Rather, they depend on proper application, and

that successful application depends heavily on

management training and expertise.

How could program reforms be made to hasten the full development and adoption of such

complementary technologies? A first step would

be a joint public-private review of such technologies by crop or livestock enterprise and by

region. All parties would simply be informed

about what is available or about to be developed.

Table 6 lists some preliminary and elementary

considerations in conducting such reviews.

The unique combination of production and

environmental conditions comprising agroecosystems requires that the reviews be conducted

on a state and local basis, to take advantage of

regional and local knowledge of farming systems

and environmental responses. Experience with

IPM and CT, for example, suggests that neither

of these technologies is likely to be a “silver bullet” for all farming and environmental situations.

Indeed, indiscriminate general endorsement and

application may worsen either environmental or

profit conditions. A second, longer-term step

would reorient public agricultural research funding and incentives to support the development of

technologies simultaneously serving production,

profit, and environmental objectives (91).

Once complementary technologies are identified and developed, they could be adopted in a

cost-effective manner through voluntary education and technical assistance programs to build

needed management expertise. In the past, funding for federal agroenvironmental programs has

been allocated primarily to retiring land and

implementing structural solutions, such as building terraces. In order to increase management
Reforming Program Strategies | 37

BOX 4: Precision Farming as a Complementary Technology

Precision farming (also called "site-specific," "variable rate" or "prescription" farming) refers to a set of

technologies designed to enable farmers to adjust fertilizer and pesticide use to variations in soil properties from point to point across their fields. Different parts of a single field may contain very different levels

of nutrients and degrees of pest problems, and site-specific technologies allow farmers to discern these

differences. So far, the approach has primarily been used to manage fertilizer application more efficiently. 

Variable rate technologies are presently available in a range of applications, including soil testing

devices, yield monitors, and tractors outfitted with receptors for retrieval of satellite information. All variable rate technologies depend on data, typically from censuses or soil probes or surveys, and effective

information-management practices are critical to successful implementation. Information management

can, in some cases, mean that as a farmer becomes more aware of field characteristics, gradual adaptations can occur in farm planning. In some applications of variable rate farming, soil data is integrated with

satellite-supported global positioning systems (GPS) and computer-supported "expert systems" software

to produce rigorous, computer-driven input applications at every point in a field. The latter is the application most commonly dubbed "precision farming" but the term is really broader.

Economic Performance: Variable rate farming is designed to maximize profits by increasing the efficiency of input use. The balance between production costs and revenues is the key to profitability, not

increasing yield. In other words, the goal of this approach is not to grow more, but to grow smarter. The

profitability of variable rate farming has not yet been documented thoroughly. USDA analysts note that

"[g]iven the newness and limited application of precision farming, analyses of the costs and benefits are

only beginning to become available." (95).

Farmers in Pennsylvania reduced their fertilizer applications on corn by about one-third when using

pre-sidedress soil nitrogen testing and achieved a modest increase in profit of $3.70 to $13.50 per acre

(51,78). The findings corroborate those for a similar analysis of Iowa farmers (5). These concrete economic gains have encouraged gradual adoption of soil testing in some states. 

Precision farming systems may be most advantageous in the production of crops that require a lot of

fertilizer, herbicide, or insecticide because it is on these crops that rigorous efficiency could allow farmers

to pare down their use of purchased inputs. Reduced use means budget savings. Yet, in its fullest application, precision farming could require an investment of up to $250,000 in equipment and support services (95), and it is not yet clear whether these costs will be sufficiently offset by the benefits of precision

technology (i.e., reduced input expenditures or increased yields) to make it widely profitable. 

Environmental Performance: Increased input efficiency could reduce the total amount of agrichemicals used on farms, and this could reduce the total amount of pollutants available for contamination of

soil or for leaching into groundwater and runoff into streams. However, increased efficiency does not necessarily mean a reduction in the overall amount of inputs applied. Rather, increased efficiency means that

doses are calculated to minimize inaccurate application at individual sites. When these individual doses

are summed, the total amount applied may or may not be less than the amount applied without variable

rate technologies. 

Even when total amounts do decline under precision farming regimes, actual environmental effects

depend not only on how much is used but also on what compound(s) are used and where, when, and

how they are applied (71). Scientific research suggests that predicting environmental effects based

solely on input levels may not be possible. For instance, if application of pesticides or fertilizer is concentrated near stream banks (riparian areas) or on very porous soils that filter chemicals swiftly into groundwater, then environmental effects may change very little even though total chemical usage might have

declined. In short, the mechanisms by which inputs applied with precision methods interact with environmental quality must be taken into account to determine the actual effects caused; total amounts applied

are not adequate information. 

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1995.
38 | Targeting Environmental Priorities in Agriculture

expertise (knowledge of natural resource systems, technology application skills, and so forth),

these programs will likely have to be reoriented

significantly. Some short-run costs, mostly for

management training, will likely be incurred as

production technologies change. Ultimately, the

economic benefits stemming from these technologies should provide farmers with natural incentives to use them.

The “on-farm” research emphasis of the Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education

(SARE) program may serve as a model for helping farmers and ranchers evaluate and adapt

complementary technologies to their local

agroenvironmental systems (90). Bringing farmers and ranchers into the research process

ensures that the findings will be relevant to their

particular situations, and that scarce research

program resources are used efficiently. To overcome farmers’ and ranchers’ fears about yield

loss or offset some expenses for new equipment,

some subsidies may be required initially. But

many of these technologies primarily require

new forms of management, so equipment subsidies should not constitute a major expense.

❚ Shifting Management Practices through 

Public Incentives or Disincentives

Complementary technologies may not be available for some agroenvironmental problems, and

therefore some cost must come from public or

private budgets. In such cases, a form of public

incentive (such as subsidy payments or cost sharing for practices, property tax or income tax

breaks, or preferential terms on federal credit) or

some type of disincentive (such as regulations,

taxes, or conditional eligibility for agricultural

program payments) is required to induce farmers

and ranchers to change their land or water management practices. However, unlike land retirement, the goal remains to continue commercial

production while achieving the environmental

objectives.

The decision to use incentives or disincentives

is political. Technical or economic analysis can

make the choices clearer by providing estimates

of the type and degree of risk, the extent and

TABLE 6: Reviewing Agricultural Technologies for Complementarity

General Considerations Specific Considerations

What is the technology? Which management skills and equipment does it use? Are 

they readily available from the private sector or public 

programs? Is the technology targeted toward a particular 

kind of farm?

What is it designed to enable farmers to do? What can farmers do better with this technology? What 

evidence exists to confirm its promise in particular 

settings?

What do we know about the profitability of this 

technology (compared with the most likely alternative)?

Compared with the profitability of the most likely alternative 

technology, what are costs, benefits, and risks of adopting 

the technology in different farming regions, for different 

kinds of agricultural enterprises? What kinds of transition 

costs can be expected from shifting to the technology?

What do we know about the environmental implications 

of this technology (compared with the most likely 

alternative)?

What effect does use of the technology have on water 

quality, soil quality, air quality, and wildlife habitat quality? 

Can these effects be compared with those associated with 

the most likely alternative technology used in that region, 

on that crop, under similar environmental conditions?

Given these findings, will this technology support local, 

state, and federal production and environmental 

objectives?

Have specific economic and environmental performance 

objectives been articulated for the sector? How will the 

technology enhance or detract from agriculture’s capacity 

to achieve its dual performance goals?

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1995.
Reforming Program Strategies | 39

duration of damages, which groups are most

affected, and other consequences. For example,

if an environmental problem threatens human

health significantly, regulation could be the most

effective way to minimize exposure and ensure

public health. In situations where the risks are

less significant or scientifically uncertain, or

where the practices lead to environmental benefits not required by law, incentives may be preferred. Eventually, policy makers must decide

whether farmers require incentives (compensation) to achieve the environmental objectives, or

whether they must attain certain levels of performance without public assistance. Most federal

agroenvironmental programs aimed at altering

agroenvironmental management practices rely

on incentives rather than disincentives.

Changes in management practice can take the

form of a shift in production inputs, such as

reduced irrigation water use; a change in the

cropping enterprises, such as increased crop rotations to reduce pesticide applications; or some

combination of changes in input and enterprise.

An extreme change might be a switch from cultivated crop production to continuous hay or grass

production—in effect a CRP-like conversion that

allows commercial forage use. In some cases,

these changes could be viewed as short-term

approaches to resolving environmental conflicts

that also trigger public and private efforts to

develop complementary technologies. However,

whenever human or environmental health is

strongly threatened, continuing disincentives

(such as registration of pesticides) may be necessary to guard against excessive risk.

One of the greatest challenges in this strategy

is to convert a wide array of existing incentive

programs into a streamlined, consolidated effort

that targets national priorities. More than 60

years of programs to treat specific problems has

resulted in a pastiche of unintegrated efforts.

Such a piecemeal approach not only reduces the

feasibility of focusing program resources on

high-priority problems, but also likely confuses

farmers seeking public assistance about which

program best fits their needs, and raises their

costs in finding an appropriate program for their

needs. Those higher costs discourage not only

participation, but the adoption of new practices.

If agriculture’s minimum environmental performance guidelines within each agroenvironmental priority area were clarified, it would be

easier to determine when incentives or disincentives should be used. At least one state, Vermont,

is attempting to implement uniform general

codes of agricultural practice expected of all producers—in effect a form of required minimum

standards (104). Beyond that minimum standard,

the public is obligated to provide financial assistance (cost sharing) if further environmental

improvements are desired. Applying the uniform

minimum standards approach implies that farms

in the entire state are required to satisfy the minimum codes of practice which may appear to run

counter to the notion of targeting. Conceivably,

some minimum level of effort by all farms may

be considered necessary if, for example, surface

waters statewide are considered a priority target.

Determining minimum requirements for agriculture, whether in a priority area or statewide,

would also reduce uncertainty for farmers and

public agencies in implementing land management practice programs through incentives or

disincentives.

A new approach to reducing uncertainty is to

allow farmers to satisfy all applicable regulatory

requirements by implementing and maintaining a

certified total farm resource plan. Termed “environmental compliance,” the approach helps

farmers to avoid existing and potential agroenvironmental regulatory burdens by constructing

and implementing individualized farm plans that

suit their particular operations and meet public

environmental responsibilities (52). Many unanswered questions remain—how to achieve multiagency agreement on the criteria and standards

for the plan, whether plans should come from

public agencies or the private sector or both, who

shall do the monitoring of environmental performance under the plan, and resolving potential

conflicts with existing environmental statutes.

The environmental compliance plan could be a

substitute for incentive programs providing costsharing, or a supplement. The Vermont program
40 | Targeting Environmental Priorities in Agriculture

referred to above, for instance, operates in tandem with a subsidy program to defray some costs

for practices beyond the minimum levels.

❚ Retiring Farm Land from 

Commercial Use

The last program strategy is to encourage voluntary retirement of environmentally sensitive land

from commercial production for long periods (10

years or more). Such a strategy essentially

acknowledges that in certain cases, normal crop

or livestock activities and acceptable environmental quality cannot coexist. Given large

annual rental costs averaging $50 or more per

acre, this strategy should be reserved for priority

cases of greatest environmental value and where

enrollment ensures long-term environmental protection. Preserving critical wetlands that could

yield water quality, wildlife, and flood control

benefits may be one example.

The federal government has implemented two

major farm land retirement programs during this

century: the Soil Bank (SB) from 1958-1972 and

the CRP from 1986 to the present day (91). More

than 28 million acres have been covered by the

SB and more than 36 million acres by the CRP—

nearly 10 percent of the nation’s cropland. The

SB was aimed primarily at supply management;

the CRP combined supply control with erosion

control objectives. Thus neither was or has been

driven primarily by environmental considerations. Both programs solicited voluntary enrollments of eligible lands through annual rental

payments paid over mostly 10-year contracts and

cost sharing for conservation practice establishment.

A third land retirement effort, the Wetland

Reserve Program (WRP), was initiated by the

1990 farm bill. Its enrollment target is 975,000

acres by 2000. The WRP was established to provide landowners with an opportunity to voluntarily return converted or farmed wetlands to

wetland condition. Landowners must sign a permanent or long-term easement that restricts agricultural use of the land but permits compatible

hunting, fishing, or recreational uses. Enrollees

receive easement payments and cost-sharing for

restoration expenses. Less than 100,000 acres

have been enrolled to date despite offers from

landowners to enroll nearly 600,000 acres during

the bidding process.

Important lessons have emerged from these

program experiences to inform future land retirement initiatives. Of principal relevance to this

analysis, several studies have determined that

CRP enrollments could have produced significantly higher environmental benefits by more

effective targeting of environmental priorities

(61,68). Better environmental performance is not

inconsequential to considerations of program

extension or renewal. Although the CRP has produced sizable environmental benefits, a recent

comprehensive assessment of CRP evaluations

concludes that “it is unlikely from a social welfare standpoint that the CRP produced benefits

sufficient to cover its costs” (14). Moreover, with

the exception of wildlife benefits, most assessments have not used ground-level monitoring to

definitively determine whether environmental

improvements, such as water quality, have actually taken place.

Any renewal or new version of a land retirement program should begin with all eligible

lands, previously enrolled or not, equally competing for enrollment on the basis of environmental priorities and cost. CRP enrollment

procedures after the 1990 farm bill guided by an

environmental benefit index indicate rudimentary targeting information substantially improved

potential environmental performance (61). However, this targeting procedure only applied to

about 3.5 million acres, and not the 33 million

enrolled prior to the 1990 farm bill. Regional

analyses demonstrate that both higher environmental performance (see box 5) and lower rental

costs may be reasonably expected. Thus, a simple renewal of existing CRP enrollments would

fall substantially short of maximizing the environmental cost-effectiveness of long-term land

retirement.

SB experience and surveys of CRP participant

intentions indicate the majority of enrolled lands

(probably two-thirds or more) will return to pro-
Reforming Program Strategies | 41

duction after their contracts expire (96). The 10-

year contracts with annual rental payments convey the notion of temporary set-aside. Only lands

planted to trees can likely be considered under

protection beyond contract expiration (1). In

some cases, the return to crop production may

not induce significant environmental damages if

production developments have created opportunities for complementary technologies. Advancements in conservation tillage, for example, likely

offer the potential for many CRP acres to return

to production without risk of significant erosion

and related damages. However, for enrolled

lands on which continuing erosion or wildlife

habitat protection is desired, either renewable

contracts or easements are required. As noted

above, the WRP largely avoids the risk of reconversion to cropland by using voluntary permanent or long-term easements where commercial

production and wetland protection are deemed

incompatible. These instruments can avoid some

costs of multiple retirement episodes for such

lands, including administration, practice establishment, and farm enterprise transition

expenses.

Federal land retirement programs can cost

less and still significantly contribute to long-term

environmental protection. Effective mechanisms

to ensure that rental payments do not exceed

comparable market values, as used for post-1990

CRP enrollments, are already in place. Contracts

that permit limited uses offering some commercial returns, such as haying or grazing that do not

disturb nesting periods, offer the potential to

BOX 5: Targeting CRP in the Prairie Pothole Region

The Prairie Pothole region, about one-fourth of which dips down from Canada into the Dakotas, was

identified in the expert panel exercise as an environmental priority for agriculture. On the North American

continent, no region produces more ducks than the Prairie Potholes of the Northern Great Plains. Indeed,

more than 50 percent of the ducks living in the U.S. and Canada were born in the Prairie Potholes (31).

Ducks, deer, mink, and fox are among the wildlife that depend on this combination of wetland and grassland habitat. 

Fields of wheat lie in close proximity to these wetlands, and many sporadic wetlands have been converted to farm fields over the course of this century. Approximately 6.2 million acres in the Prairie Pothole

region are presently enrolled in the Conservation Reserve Program (2), which pays farmers to take land

out of production for up to 10 years. These acres were enrolled primarily to control soil erosion, not to

benefit wildlife. Yet, unexpectedly wildlife benefits have occurred. 

If acres in the Prairie Pothole region are enrolled in a renewed CRP, is it possible to target the acres

that most strongly protect native waterfowl (or other wildlife) habitat? Researchers working in the Prairie

Pothole region demonstrated that waterfowl productivity can be enhanced and land rental expense lowered (69). Scientists integrated GIS with a variety of wetland and wildlife data developed by the federal

Fish and Wildlife Service and National Biological Service as well as some presented in published literature. While their work is in progress, current results show that even a downsized Conservation Reserve

Program, if retargeted, could reap substantial benefits to five duck species (mallard, northern pintail,

gadwall, blue-winged teal, and northern shoveler) and to the North American Waterfowl Management

Plan.

The approach, moreover, can be applied to other wildlife objectives. The targeting exercise could also

be framed to integrate soil and water quality priorities with wildlife objectives. Savings in land rental

expense may or may not occur in other cases. The targeting exercise could also be framed to integrate

soil and water quality priorities with wildlife objectives. 

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1995.
42 | Targeting Environmental Priorities in Agriculture

lower rental payments by the amount of the commercial return. Other possible commercial

opportunities include industrial crops and selling

hunting privileges or other recreational services.

However, the commercial uses must conform to

environmental performance guidelines. Again,

the WRP permits compatible uses such as hunting and fishing. Finally, provisions to allow

states to contribute matching funds for land

retirement that would have large state and local

benefits could extend the influence of limited

federal funds.

❚ Surface Water Quality Illustration

The Corn Belt was chosen as one of the top 10

surface water quality priority areas. The primary

challenge facing the region is to decrease the fertilizer, pesticide, and animal waste pollution

entering streams and rivers. This pollution not

only contaminates drinking waters downstream

as far as the Lower Mississippi but degrades

wildlife habitat as well. It stems from various

agricultural practices, including fertilizer and

pesticide application rates, tillage management,

crop selection, and fragile lands management.

Given the complex relationships between agricultural practices and water quality, any solution

to the problem will likely involve applying all

three of the strategies described above. Potential

program responses set out here are only illustrations of possible applications, however. Area and

site-specific analyses of the agroecosystems,

watersheds and farms are necessary to formulate

appropriate management strategies. For example,

researchers in Indiana and Wisconsin have demonstrated the potential of geographical information systems technology to improve targeting of

the sources of key water quality problems to

guide cost-effective programs (see box 6).

Complementary Technologies

The high potential of using soil nutrient testing to

decrease nitrogen fertilizer applications has been

mentioned in box 4. IPM also offers the potential

to reduce pesticide applications, thereby decreasing runoff and leaching problems while saving

money. The CT family of technologies have a

sound track record of increasing profits and

reducing erosion and surface water runoff. These

approaches are excellent examples of potential

complementary technologies that should receive

vigorous education/technical assistance (ETA),

and perhaps be eligible for minimal cost-sharing

to overcome initial adoption barriers.

Before broad ETA initiatives can be launched,

however, programs of applied research and systematic evaluation to enhance their complementary potential are probably necessary. For

example, evidence about CT’s effects on water

quality are extensive, but the results are not as

uniform as the evidence on soil quality. A large

body of evidence shows that, in many parts of

the country, CT improves surface water quality

because it reduces erosion runoff of sediment

and agrichemicals to streams (96). However, in

other cases, the benefits of reduced surface runoff under some forms of CT have been offset by

increased groundwater contamination (7). The

principal message from these differing results is

that CT’s environmental performance is site- and

farm-specific. It depends upon how the changes

in tillage affect the buffering and assimilative

capacities of the soil, in combination with shifts

in the amount and type of agrichemicals used and

how they are applied, and the hydrological characteristics of the field and farm in question.

The profit and environmental performance of

these technologies will vary by specific farm and

resource conditions, and therefore local expertise is required to judge applicability. For example, if increased infiltration under CT occurs

where extensive drainage tiling systems empty

easily into surface waters, negative effects on

surface water quality will likely ensue. Although

the current forms of these technologies can alleviate sources of surface water pollution, their full

potential requires further research and development explicitly incorporating environmental

quality objectives.

Other Management Practice Shifts

Although complementary technologies may alleviate a significant portion of the water pollution
Reforming Program Strategies | 43

sources from agriculture, some dimensions of the

problem will likely require changes in management practices that are currently not profitable.

For example, continuous corn-soybean rotations

may not produce enough crop residue to retard

runoff effectively with profitable CT technologies. Under current commodity programs, participants risk losing program payments if they

use less corn in their rotations and more grass or

legumes. Increased flexibility in commodity program plantings through commodity program

reform may induce more crop diversity, including hay and forages that provide erosion control

and wildlife benefits (18). Moreover, it lowers

government commodity cost exposure and gives

producers more flexibility in responding to global food markets.

BOX 6: Targeting System Management Within a Watershed

The importance of managing whole systems emerged as a key lesson in the exercise for identifying

water quality priorities. Although conceptualizing systems remains a challenge, one approach to system

management gaining interest in many parts of this country is “watershed management.” Watershed management often begins with the objective of protecting water quality in local or even regional drainage

areas, but the interrelationships between water quality and wildlife health are generally acknowledged,

too, as are links between soil erosion and water quality. By integrating an awareness of these and other

aspects of environmental quality, watershed management is indeed an example of system management.

Yet, is it feasible to manage entire watersheds or indeed any “whole” systems? Can these managment

efforts be implemented strategically and cost-effectively?

One way of increasing the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of watershed management is by targeting

program efforts more carefully to sources of key problems. University researchers in Wisconsin and Indiana have demonstrated that Geographical Information Systems (GIS) and other modeling tools can help

environmental managers visualize how water systems behave and, furthermore, enable them to target

crucial links between agricultural land uses and water quality (45,66,103). These experiments have

shown that it is possible to link different land use options (for example, different crop rotations or tillage

practices) to the amount of soil that will enter nearby streams and, moreover, to the implications of that

runoff for water quality (103).

Scientific evidence is quite clear that what happens to small streams that receive drainage from farm

fields can directly affect the quality of a whole watershed. While some of these streams may not even run

during some seasons of the year, and while many small streams and drainage flows may seem insignificant to larger watershed quality, pollutants from them merge and accumulate in rivers, lakes and wetlands. Riparian buffers, 50 to 100 foot widths of grass or other vegetation planted between farm fields and

streams, have been proposed as a kind of land use change that may significantly improve watershed

quality. Research demonstrates that such buffers do indeed trap soil particles and fertilizer residues making their way from cropland and grazing land.

The Conservation Reserve Program has made riparian buffers (also called “filter strips”) eligible for

enrollment to promote erosion control (1985) and water quality improvement (1990). Voluntary adoption

has not ensured that riparian buffers are placed in watersheds where they will do the most for water quality. Experiments in Wisconsin and Indiana suggest that information technologies could almost certainly

help target riparian buffers more strategically for water quality improvement. Whether GIS approaches to

targeting these approaches are the most cost-effective way to manage watersheds or other environmental systems in all cases is not clear. The cost of data collection, the challenge of making GIS more accessible to users, and the difficulty inherent in attributing the environmental benefits associated with its use

are barriers that have not yet been fully overcome.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1995.
44 | Targeting Environmental Priorities in Agriculture

A second management practice likely requiring public incentives or disincentives is the

establishment of grassed waterways or other

structures on steeply sloping lands that result in

excessive erosion and runoff despite CT practices. Although the grassed waterways are

installed voluntarily by some others may need

some incentives to cover part of the expense of

construction and seeding. If the cost-sharing is

restricted to only high-priority watersheds within

the Corn Belt, the cost exposure could be limited.

The practices also provide erosion productivity

savings (thus giving some incentives for sharing

costs by the owners) and wildlife benefits from

permanent grass cover.

Intensive agricultural livestock operations

often generate large amounts of waste per unit

area, and have the potential to contaminate surface waters through precipitation runoff and

excessive discharge. Although low-cost or even

profitable grazing systems offer some hope of

ameliorating these problems in certain areas (see

box 7), the common approach has been to build

manure management structures. Capital-intensive structures, such as lagoons for holding

wastes, are often used to shift application patterns to seasons with less chance of runoff and

contamination, but they involve significant capital costs. Agricultural conservation programs historically have shared some of the costs of

constructing these types of structures, much as

public funding was used to match local waste

water treatment plant construction. In surface

water quality priorities around the Great Lakes

and the Corn Belt, public incentive programs

could help ameliorate surface water quality damages from livestock wastes. Waste effluents from

some confined animal feeding operations, generally exceeding certain size limits, are already

regulated as point sources under the Clean Water

Act and require technology and discharge standards. However, a review of the evidence indicates that enforcement varies widely by state,

and some states provide cost-sharing incentives

to complement the regulations (91).

Long-Term Land Retirement

Scientific assessments indicate that riparian

buffer strips can effectively filter most of the

sediment, fertilizers, and pesticides carried in

runoff from crop fields and livestock sources

(21,55). These filterstrips must be maintained in

a suitable cover for extended periods to provide

continuing water quality protection. If, as often is

the case, they involve removing land from crop

production for riparian area restoration, owners

will not likely voluntarily convert the areas and

will likely resist regulation to establish them.

Virtually all of the surface water quality priorities identified by OTA, including the Corn Belt,

involve excessive cropland runoff carrying sediment and agrichemicals into streams, rivers, reservoirs, and lakes. They are therefore candidates

for buffer strips and long-term protection. In

addition to water quality benefits, most of these

riparian areas provide flood protection by

increasing upstream storage capacity and

increased wildlife habitat for terrestrial and

aquatic species.

Most of the native grasslands of the Corn Belt

have been converted into cultivated crop production or improved pasture. In steep cropland areas,

or where the concentration of row crop production is particularly intense and could lead to

excessive erosion and chemical water pollution,

damage can be reduced by establishing large

contiguous blocks of grasslands. The CRP established these types of grasslands, but not in patterns to maximize the potential for reducing

water pollution or promoting the most valuable

wildlife habitat. Cropland retirement secured by

long-term contracts or easements on selected priority lands offers multiple environmental benefits.

❚ Wildlife Illustration

The Corn Belt and several areas in the Great

Plains were selected as wildlife priorities largely

because they suffer from progressive destruction

of their grass cover. Whether these areas are hay

fields in diversified farming operations, perma-
Reforming Program Strategies | 45

nent riparian areas along streams, grass strips in

erosive portions of fields, or fencerows or windbreaks, they can provide critical wildlife habitat

for food, nesting, and security from predation. In

some areas, they will also trap water runoff that

carries pesticides, fertilizer, and sediment to rivers and streams and destroys aquatic habitat. The

program challenge is to develop private and public incentives that will restore natural grassland

habitats, and that will withstand economic pressures for conversion back to cropland when crop

prices jump abnormally high for short periods.

BOX 7: Management Intensive Grazing as a Complementary Technology

Management Intensive Grazing (MIG) (also known widely as “rotational grazing” or “intensive rotational grazing”) refers to livestock systems that replace dependence upon animal confinement and

mechanically harvested and handled or purchased feed with an emphasis on allowing livestock (usually

cows) to graze on a series of enclosed pastures. The central feature of these systems is careful management of the interaction between herds and pasture quality. When the vegetation remaining in one area of

pasture (paddock) can no longer support the herd, it is fenced off and allowed to recover over a 2–4

week period while the animals are rotated to a new paddock. The number and size of paddocks and the

length of the rest period between grazings vary depending on the number of animals and the type of pasture vegetation.

Economic Performance: Case studies, primarily of dairy farms, indicate that management intensive

grazing technologies are profitable. The USDA SARE program reports that $3.75 in benefits can be

returned for each $1 invested by dairy farmers (99). On both large and small dairy operations, profitability

can increase after switching to an intensive grazing system (50,59), due largely to a significant reduction

in operating costs. Profits can average $120–150 per cow (19). Although a thorough analysis of the economic performance of management intensive grazing is lacking, available evidence indicates that good

management is the single most important factor is establishing a profitable grazing system.

Environmental Performance: It should be noted at the outset that while substantial research has

been conducted on many aspects of rotational grazing, no comprehensive attempt has been made to

compare the environmental effects of pasture-based and confined feeding livestock operations. Some

considerations of the effects of MIG on soil, water, and wildlife quality may be made, nevertheless.

Conversion of cropland to pasture can reduce localized demand for pesticides and fertilizers. Corresponding risks of soil or water degradation may, by inference, decline correspondingly. Well-managed

pastures may experience little soil compaction since animals are moved regularly, and a successfully

managed rotation ensures continuous, perennial plant cover that can reduce soil erosion. MIG systems

are not without risks to soil quality, however, especially during spring when soils are muddy.

Water quality problems can stem from sediment, manure and pathogens introduced by livestock trampling stream banks and wading in waterways. By providing a water source in each paddock to alleviate

these concerns (50), graziers may need to consider whether stationary water sources encourage soil

compaction and overgrazing around the water source. Manure management, especially during winter, is

also a consideration. Rigorous comparison between MIG and confined systems regarding nitrate leaching to groundwater and other aspects of water quality is lacking.

MIG may be more compatible with protection of wildlife habitat than confined systems, primarily

because pasture offers a more complex habitat for insect, birds and mammals than does a field planted

to one or two crops. The actual mix of vegetation maintained on grazing lands will have a significant

impact on wildlife, however. If the majority of grasses planted as forage are not native to the area, their

value to local wildlife may be reduced and/or they may overrun and outcompete native plants (74). The

amount of land dedicated to grazing would also affect the quality of habitat.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1995.
46 | Targeting Environmental Priorities in Agriculture

Complementary Technologies

Because more grass or natural habitat is crucial

to better wildlife health, complementary technologies for wildlife are difficult to find. Generally,

switches from cultivated crop enterprises to hay

or natural grasses mean lost profits. Some analyses suggest, however, that increased crop diversity, including forages, could lead to steady or

increased profits while improving environmental performance (18). Validating these modeling

estimates on the ground is not feasible under current commodity program and technology conditions.

Another possibility of joint production-environment advantage is management-intensive

(rotational) grazing as explained in box 7. This

shift in enterprises essentially adds more grass or

hay cover in the crop rotation. In some areas,

research shows the change to this practice preserves or increases profits while reducing water

pollution and enhancing wildlife cover (36).

Extensive research on its applicability in wildlife

priority areas has not been conducted.

Other Management Practice Shifts

Two of the top 10 wildlife priorities—riparian

buffer strips and the Great Lakes—involve establishing grass buffer strips along rivers, intermittent streams, and drainage ditches, with special

emphasis on grassed waterways in the upper

reaches of drainages. These buffers also likely

provide improved water quality and water storage for potential floods. Although maintaining

some of the buffers may require land rental or

easement acquisition, some types such as the

grassed waterways in upper drainages and field

buffers have been traditional venues for cost

sharing.

Another possibility is to establish conservation headlands, a practice that ensures the outer

edges of fields are not sprayed with pesticides, to

promote greater plant diversity, cover, and food

sources. Preliminary research in Europe has

shown that establishing these headlands in a 20

foot border around arable crop fields increases

the abundance of forbs (herbs other than grass)

and insects, leading to improved reproduction of

ground nesting birds (83). Some incentive would

likely be necessary to induce farmers to adopt the

practice. If the headland practice is coupled with

integrated pest management, there may be a

potential, in some situations, for improving wildlife habitat value while maintaining or increasing

profits. In those cases, the practice becomes a

complementary technology. The Great Plains

and Corn Belt may be good trial areas. However,

the overall applicability to U.S. farming systems

or environmental performance in the selected

priority areas has not been widely investigated.

The construction of holding ponds to catch

sediment and agrichemical runoff is another

practice traditionally receiving cost-sharing

incentives. Such holding ponds and other controlled drainage practices improve aquatic habitat by decreasing the amount of pollutants

entering rivers and streams. They may have some

use in areas where complementary technologies

are not available and inadequate funds exist for

long-term set-asides. However, the structures

require year-round maintenance (58) and

removal of sediment to maintain their interception of pollution flows. Research has demonstrated that controlled drainage utilizes water

more efficiently, and, in some areas, this

increases crop yields by 10 percent (22); this provides substantial private incentive for implementation.

Long-Term Land Retirement

As explained previously, agricultural practices

have diminished significant amounts of natural

habitat over time, and, until the CRP, wildlife

species that depend on agricultural habitat were

declining substantially across the country. Broad

scientific evidence indicates that long-term cover

is the key to recovering and maintaining many

wildlife species native to regions that are dominated by agriculture (2).

All wildlife priorities identified by OTA

require the establishment of long-term grass,

tree, or wetland cover. Examples include the

establishment of native grasses on highly erodible Corn Belt croplands, of wetland protection

in the Prairie Potholes, of large contiguous
Reforming Program Strategies | 47

blocks of grasslands in the Plains states for game

and nongame species, of bottomland hardwood

plantings along the Lower Mississippi Valley,

and of riparian buffer strips in the Great Lakes

region. The creation of long-term natural cover

often leads to erosion control, water quality, or

other environmental benefits, as noted in the

overlapping designations on the wildlife priority

table.

❚ Soil Quality Illustration

Soil quality priorities, as noted earlier, overlap

with many water quality priority selections and

other subject areas. Accordingly, they are good

cases to search for program solutions that

emphasize system approaches that integrate multiple environmental dimensions.

Complementary Technologies

With the exception of priority 8 (Hawaii), the

first potential solution for the soil quality priorities involves improved tillage practices, reflecting the fact that there is further potential to

expand CT in those areas. Although CT technology was introduced in the early 1980s, some

operators may still benefit from learning about

its economic and environmental consequences

for their farms. This approach might be especially appropriate for treating soil erosion problems on farms that have not been subject to

conservation compliance requirements and therefore have not implemented a conservation plan.

The wider application of CT technologies should

be screened for increased groundwater quality

risk due to greater water and agrichemical infiltration. Further research and development may

yield new CT technologies that better meet surface water and groundwater quality objectives.

Organic farming systems offer another possible complementary technology approach for

improving soil quality (see box 8). Although

commercial applications of these systems cover

small acreages in the U.S., research has documented that they can yield economic returns

comparable to conventional systems. Their environmental performance is not extensively documented as the box text explains.

Other Management Practice Shifts

Several opportunities are available for incentive

programs to improve soil quality. In four of the

top 10 priority areas (1, 4, 5, and 6), OTA identified short-term set-asides with companion technology development as a potential solution.

Those set-asides would likely be accomplished

with incentives in the form of land rental payments. Commercial use could be permitted on

these set-aside lands that satisfies environmental

requirements. Also, treating soil erosion problems often requires the construction of costly

grassed waterways, windbreaks, and other structural measures. Federal and state incentive programs have provided funding to operators to

defray part of such costs since the 1930s. These

measures would likely be eligible for cost sharing under an incentives package for soil quality

in the priority areas. An alternative to incentive

approaches would be to require minimum practices to retain eligibility for agricultural program

payments (compliance mechanisms).

Long-Term Land Retirement

Considerable advances in the family of CT technologies over the past decade will likely allow

many CRP lands to return to profitable production and meet environmental objectives. However, resumed production on some CRP lands

will cause continuing, significant on-site productivity losses and off-site damages under cultivation. OTA identified areas in the Southern

Piedmont (2), the Palouse and Columbia Plateau

(3), the Iowa and Missouri Heavy Till plain (6),

the Northern/Central Plains (7), and the Southern

and Central High Plains and Tablelands ( 9) as

priorities where long-term set-asides were likely

necessary for those marginal croplands. Longterm set-asides of the most vulnerable lands also

provide other significant environmental benefits

including better water quality, wildlife habitat,

and water conservation in the Plains states.
48 | Targeting Environmental Priorities in Agriculture

BOX 8: Organic Farming as a Complementary Technology

Organic farming systems are characterized by technological methods that rely on crop rotations, crop

residues, composted animal manure, legumes, green manure, mineral-bearing rocks, mechanical cultivation and biologically-based pest controls. These methods avoid the use of synthetic fertilizer, pesticides or growth regulators. Organic technologies are designed to “maintain soil productivity and tilth, to

supply plant nutrients, and to control insects, weeds, and other pests (93).” In the 1990 Farm Bill, the

intent to develop federal standards for the marketing of organically-grown products was codified in the

Organic Foods Production Act (“OFPA”) of 1990 (87). Although standards have not yet been established,

the OFPA stipulates that certification will only apply to products grown on land managed in accordance

with accepted organic methods for 3 years or more. In the current absence of federal standards,

accepted organic practices are defined and certified by state and/or “third-party” independent associations.

Economic Performance: Preliminary studies showed that yields per acre were generally equivalent

to or slightly less than yields on conventional farms, and that production costs averaged 12 percent lower

than those associated with conventional methods (92). A recent review of economic research on the subject indicates that the profitability of organic production methods competes favorably with conventional

methods in many regions of the country (9). Broader adoption of organic technologies might face barriers similar to those described in the case of IPM: inadequate knowledge of alternatives, lack of adequate

technical assistance, and the costs of management. The absence of programmatic incentives for adoption might also be a factor. Finally, attitudes that organic methods are old-fashioned and out-of-date, or

that organic farming is a philosophy rather than a set of technologies may also pose barriers to adoption.

Environmental Performance: Environmental benefits related to organic production are commonly

inferred from the fact that synthetic pesticides and fertilizers are avoided while naturally-derived inputs

are typically used. As has been discussed elsewhere in this report, the environmental effects of agriculture can not be determined simply from the amount of one or a few inputs used. When considering the

environmental performance of organic technologies, consideration should be given not only to what

inputs and practices are avoided, but also to what inputs and practices are implemented. In short, environmental effects are mediated through processes that involve what inputs are used, how they are used,

and where and when they are used. Among the issues that may be considered are effects on soil quality,

water quality, and compatibility with wildlife habitat.

While yield comparisons are numerous, adequate comparisons of the environmental effects of organic

and conventional production technologies have not been made. For example, a recent GAO study indicates that improperly stored livestock waste is a significant source of surface water impairment caused

by agriculture (89). Do management methods on organic and conventional farms differ in the tendency to

leach nitrate into groundwater and allow nutrient runoff to enter streams? Comparisons could also be

made between the environmental effects of organic and other pest control methods. A preliminary

attempt to compare integrated pest management, conventional and organic pest control methods on

apples in New York state indicated that organic methods exert the most detrimental environmental effects

because of the frequent use of sulfur (39). This study has met with both interest and criticism (85). The

absence of additional studies makes it difficult to evaluate the results.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1995.
Reforming Program Strategies | 49

CONCLUSIONS AND POLICY 

IMPLICATIONS

Better targeting of strategic federal program

approaches to agroenvironmental priorities could

yield more benefits and preserve budget

resources. Current conservation and environmental programs for agriculture do not focus on priorities as a rule. As a result, they cannot

selectively apply program strategies—profitable

complementary technologies, public incentives

or disincentives for other management practices,

or long-term retirement—based on a target problem.

Improved targeting of priorities and application of strategic programs also implies the opposite approach to implementing uniform programs

across the country. More precise application of

programs helps lower unnecessary costs to agriculture, reduces program burdens on farmers,

and helps sustain the essential elements of

agroenvironmental health. Focusing programs on

priority targets would likely keep more land in

production to serve consumer and trade interests.

The expert panel approach developed by OTA

proved feasible and effective in identifying

agroenvironmental priority areas in cases where

existing databases are incomplete. If the

approach is adopted, it could be repeated periodically to ensure that the most current science and

data are used to monitor changes in environmental conditions and other factors influencing priorities. The national expert panel exercise needs to

be augmented with regional, state, and local

input to further refine the priority areas within

the national selections.

The findings have direct implications for

developing and implementing conservation and

environmental programs in agriculture. First,

legislation could direct the use of targeting procedures to maximize environmental benefits for

tax expenditures. For example, opening the reenrollment of the Conservation Reserve Program

to all lands based on environmental merit and

cost enables taxpayer funds to achieve the greatest net benefits. Restricting re-enrollment to

existing contract holders likely locks in what

appears to be a socially unprofitable program for

another 10 years.

Second, the expert panel process of developing priority areas could be incorporated into

program implementation. Drawing on leading

scientists to inform the priority selections is crucial to the success of the process. Further, the priority area guidelines developed in this

assessment can be revised periodically as science

advances and as regional, state and local expertise is consulted.

Finally, to accelerate the development and

adoption of technologies that will sustain privately profitable production and achieve environmental objectives, agricultural research

programs must be solidly interlinked with

agroenvironmental programs. Existing research

and conservation programs are largely disjoint.

To induce effective collaboration, program

incentives must reward research and technology

achievements that contribute to production and

environmental objectives using whole farm system approaches. More involvement of the private

sector will be necessary to attain the full potential of complementary technologies, not only due

to limited government budgets, but also because

private involvement will help guide and adapt

technology innovations.
| 51

A

Appendix A:

Additional

Priority Areas

Identified by

OTA

n addition to the surface water quality, wildlife, and soil quality priorities discussed in

the main text of this report, scientists prepared reports on seven other categories of

environmental priorities related to agriculture.

The priorities identified for rangelands, water

conservation, groundwater quality, rural landscapes, wetlands and riparian areas, plant diversity and insect diversity are described in this

appendix. In appendix B, the overlaps among all

priority areas identified by the expert panel are

presented in tabular form.

RANGELANDS

About half the nation's land is classified as grazing land, with most of that being rangeland.

Many rangelands, two-thirds of which are privately owned, are not suitable for crop cultivation, but are very productive for supporting

livestock and a host of unique plants. There are

millions of acres of rangeland on which environmental problems exist, most of these related to

soil erosion and loss of indigenous plant diversity.

The criteria used to assess the rangeland priorities included: 1) the likelihood that current conditions would have long-term negative effects on

the ability of rangelands to provide ecological or

commercial services; 2) observed conditions fail

one or more of the standards for quality suggested by the National Research Council (NRC)

study on rangeland health (56), and; 3) current or

predicted conditions may lead to negative offsite

problems. Many of the conditions reflected in

identified priorities have resulted from poor

management: harvesting plants inappropriately,

grazing the “wrong kind of animal,” poor distribution of grazing animals across a landscape, and

inappropriate control of fire (including fire prevention, in some cases).

The 10 highest priorities related to rangelands

include (see figure A-1):

1. Introduced (i.e, nonindigenous) perennial

noxious weeds—Large areas in the western

U.S. have been invaded by non-indigenous,

herbaceous plants such as leafy spurge,

knotted knapweed and St. Johnswort which

are out competing native plants. These invasions have been compared to spread of “wild

fire.” The result is reduced biodiversity and

reduced forage for wild animals and livestock. In Montana, Wyoming, and the Dakotas, about 1 million acres have been invaded

by leafy spurge.

2. Introduced annual noxious weeds—Overgrazing and inappropriate use of fire have

I
52 Targeting Environmental Priorities in Agriculture
Appendix A: Additional Priority Areas Identified by OTA | 53

facilitated a conversion from native sagebrush and grasses to weeds such as cheatgrass in parts of Idaho, Utah, Nevada, and

Oregon. Cheatgrass is well-adapted to growing in disturbed settings, so poor range management aids its establishment; but

cheatgrass provides poor forage for wildlife

and livestock compared to a mixed grass,

shrub and forb community.

3. and 4. Shrub-dominated threshold ecosystem—Poor grazing management in parts of

Utah and Wyoming has enhanced the dominance of sagebrush. Cattle avoid sagebrush

and have reduced native grasses by overgrazing. The conversion to sagebrush dominance is very difficult to reverse, and an

imbalance between sagebrush and grasses

reduces the function of these grasslands for

livestock and wild animals.

5. Low-growing, tree-dominated threshold

ecosystem with high erosion—Extensive

areas of west Texas have become dominated

by mesquite, a long-lived and resilient tree.

Rangelands dominated by mesquite provide

less forage and are more prone to erosion

because plants affording ground cover can

not compete with mesquite.

6. Low-growing, fire-tolerant, tree-dominated

threshold ecosystems—Juniper and pinyon

pine have become dominant on many acres

of rangeland in parts of Colorado, New

Mexico, and Arizona, thereby reducing their

function as grazing land for livestock and

wild animals. These low-growing trees,

which can reach several hundred years of

age, were historically constrained to rocky

outcrops by periodic natural fires on grassland. Grazing has diminished grasses to the

point that they can not carry fire, and this has

permitted juniper and pinyon pine to spread,

relatively unchecked.

7. through 9. Riparian ecosystems—Riparian

ecosystems are landscapes adjacent to

streams that gain their distinctive characteristics from periodic flooding and the proximity of groundwater. Well-managed riparian

areas provide flood control and habitat, and

trap sediment before it enters waterways.

Grazing management that permits destruction of riparian areas reduces their water

quality and habitat properties.

10. Highly erodible lands in CRP—Lands from

the Texas panhandle to eastern Montana

have historically experienced several periods

of severe erosion, brought about by extensive plowing of soils that are inherently fragile. Restoration of these highly erodible

lands to permanent grass cover, most

recently through the Conservation Reserve

Program, can be compatible with grazing

uses.

An eleventh category where poultry and other

animal wastes are routinely spread on pasture

lands was defined for parts of Arkansas, Alabama, Georgia, and the DelMarVa peninsula.

WATER CONSERVATION

Water conservation priorities relate to the protection of quantities of water, primarily in streams,

rivers, and aquifers. Water conservation in agricultural areas can also be related to management

of water held in soil.

Priorities selected reflect geographic areas in

which emergent competition is occurring

between agricultural and environmental (and

perhaps also municipal or commercial) uses. In

all priorities, water quantities are insufficient to

meet existing or future water needs. Accordingly, priorities reflect cases where greater complementarity in usage may be possible, or where

an existing constituency may have already

formed to deal with issues related to competition

for water. All except one of the priorities pertain

to western water (see figure A-2):

1. California Delta—Issues of concern include

water quality (salinity and pesticides),

endangered species, and conflicting state

and federal political jurisdictions. Increased

water flow is considered essential to maintain the Delta aquatic ecosystem, including

the endangered Delta smelt. This will almost

certainly entail reducing water supplies to

agriculture.
54 Targeting Environmental Priorities in Agriculture
Appendix A: Additional Priority Areas Identified by OTA | 55

2. Texas High Plains—Falling water tables and

nitrate pollution affect this southern reach of

the Ogallala aquifer; the Ogallala is a primary water source to this geographic area of

west-central Texas.

3. Ogallala—Falling water tables and nitrate

pollution affect this western Nebraska region

that also depends on the Ogallala aquifer.

Areas 2 and 3 are related and show that a

single water conservation concern can

involve more than one state.

4. West Florida—Competing demands

between agriculture and municipal uses of

water also have implications for the condition of south Florida wetlands.

5. Nevada (Humboldt-Tonopah)—This area

contains the Stillwater Wildlife Refuge

which is vulnerable to changes in water

quantity or quality caused by agriculture.

Residential development of the Sierras creates conflicting demands between municipal

and agricultural uses of water and engenders

jurisdictional competition between agencies.

6. Imperial Valley, Southern CA—Heavy competing demands between irrigation districts

in Coachilla and Imperial Valleys and the

metropolitan water district in Los Angeles

have implications for water conservation by

agriculture, for salinity concerns in surface

water, and for endangered fish species.

7. Willamette Valley, OR—Competing demands

between agricultural and other uses, and

competing agency jurisdictions over water

use are at issue.

8. Front Range and South Platte, CO—Competing demands for water, nitrate leaching to

groundwater, and pockets of salinity are

concerns.

9. San Joaquin–Tulare, CA—Competing

demands and jurisdictions over water use are

compounded by groundwater and surface

water concerns; these include salinity from

irrigation return flows and nitrate leaching

from an increasing number of dairies. Furthermore, water conservation measures may

change underground flow in unanticipated

ways.

10. Snake River, ID—Competing demands,

competing jurisdictions over water use and

pockets of salinity are emergent issues. This

case provides an opportunity to do longrange planning to avert future crises.

GROUNDWATER PRIORITIES

Although science and data to identify and fully

characterize groundwater quality conditions

related to agriculture are incomplete, existing

data analyzed by the U.S. Geological Survey

(USGS) show that certain regions are relatively

more vulnerable to contamination from nutrient

residues from fertilizer and livestock manure and

from pesticides. Regions of greatest vulnerability

include parts of the Northeast, Midwest, and

West Coast. The well-drained soils typical of

these regions have little capacity to hold water or

chemicals, and these soils also receive some of

the highest applications of agrichemicals in the

nation. This combination of characteristics sets

the stage for potential leaching to groundwater.

Four criteria were used in assessing the comparative severity of groundwater concerns across

the country: 1) vulnerability to leaching, based

on soil/water system properties and drainage patterns; 2) rate and amount of chemical use; 3)

importance of regional water resource for drinking water; and 4) evidence of groundwater pollution from agriculture. In some cases, priorities

were selected because contamination has already

occurred, while in others, the likelihood of contamination together with potential human health

exposure formed the rationale for selection. For

example, a case where the risk of leaching to an

aquifer is determined to be high, and millions of

people utilize that aquifer for drinking water may

be identified as a priority. This precautionary

approach was taken because aquifers are difficult

or impossible to clean up once they are contaminated with agricultural chemicals, and waiting

for slow natural replacement of water in aquifers

may be an unrealistic option.
56 | Targeting Environmental Priorities in Agriculture

Nine priorities were identified:

1. Central Valley, CA—Documented pesticide

and nitrate pollution pose high drinking

water risks.

2. Willamette Valley, OR—High vulnerability

for agrichemical pollution poses a medium

drinking water risk.

3. Palouse/Columbia irrigation plateau, WA—

Documented pesticide and nitrate pollution,

with greater concentrations in areas of

coarse, alluvial sand, pose a medium drinking water risk.

4. Snake River, ID—Supplemental irrigation

flushes pesticides and nitrate into aquifers,

and this poses a medium risk to drinking

water uses.

5. Northern High Plains—Substantial evidence of nutrient and pesticide pollution

exists in areas of glacial deposits overlaying

fractured sedimentary rock. This poses

medium to high drinking water risk.

6. Corn Belt—Elevated concentrations of

nutrients and pesticides are detectable under

sandy soils which are vulnerable to leaching.

Tile drainage may reduce groundwater pollution in some areas by diverting drainage to

surface water. Drinking water risks associated with these conditions are medium to

high.

7. Long Island/New Jersey Coastal Plain—

Groundwater contamination from potato and

other intensive vegetable production poses a

high drinking water risk.

8. Mid-Atlantic Coastal Plain—High nitrogen

fertilizer and pesticide use takes place in

areas with vulnerable soil/water properties,

and there is the potential for large population

exposure.

9. Hawaii—Soil and water properties are especially susceptible to contamination from

leaching of pesticides and fertilizers.

RURAL LANDSCAPES

Some agricultural landscapes have great historical, aesthetic and ecological—“heritage”—

value. They can provide links to the past, lifestyle or psychic rewards in the present, and preservation of environmental resources needed for

the future. While no landscape is “better” than

another, some are more complex (that is,

diverse), and complexity may be perceived as

more valuable. The inherent value of a diverse

mix of landscapes across the nation was an

implicit criterion in the selection of priorities.

Some additional characteristics considered in

evaluating landscape priorities related to agriculture pertained to the relative vulnerability of

landscapes, on a national basis and within specific regions, to function and remain aesthetically

pleasing while rapid changes occur in the technologies and structure of agriculture. Certain

landscapes may be prone to rapid loss of unique

character and complexity due to agricultural

change, and such losses may impose significant

social or economic costs.

While the risk of losing “heritage” value is not

a common measure of environmental quality and

may not alone provide a rationale for special protection, the coincidence of heritage characteristics with environmental sensitivity may help

identify priority targets.

Priorities identified include:

1. Lancaster County, PA—Pennsylvania German old-world agriculture has high aesthetic

and tourism value.

2. Blue Grass Region, KY—Settlements are

known for tobacco and horse cultures.

3. Shenandoah Valley, VA—This premier

colonial frontier zone also holds mixed agricultural uses.

4. Lower Mississippi River, (Louisiana, Mississippi, Arkansas)—Old South plantation

and cotton cultures are reflected here.

5. Taos-Santa Fe, NM—Traditional Native

American and Spanish rural cultures are

found here.

6. Upper Mississippi Driftless Region, (Wisconsin, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota)—Scenic,

traditional dairy farms and vestiges of early

trading, mining, trapping, missionary and

lumbering activities shape the character of

this landscape.
Appendix A: Additional Priority Areas Identified by OTA | 57

7. Connecticut Valley, (Connecticut, Massachusetts)—The fertile New England farm

zone captures early settlement character.

8. Central Valley, CA—Rural landscapes here

display the most highly developed form of

western agricultural specialty farming

reflecting the corporate, irrigation model of

organization.

9. Southern Palouse District, (Washington,

Oregon, Idaho)—Large-scale agriculture in

distinctive small grain landscapes with western features characterizes this landscape.

10. Willamette Valley, OR—Distinctive rural

landscapes showing conjunction of forest

and field economies are also marked by a

New England imprint.

WETLANDS AND RIPARIAN AREAS

The functions of wetland and riparian areas generally depend on configuration, soils, vegetation,

hydrology, and landscape context. These critical

parameters determine the physical, biological,

and economic functions and values that may be

affected by agriculture.

Conflicts between wetlands and agriculture

occur nationwide, but primarily where wetlands

are preeminent in the landscape and agriculture

is a dominant land use. Historically, agriculture

has been the cause of most wetlands conversion

(or destruction). During the last decade, the CRP

and the WRP have restored sizable amounts of

wetlands in agricultural regions.

The primary function of a given wetland helps

define its vulnerability to agricultural activities.

For example, wetlands with a primary flood control function may not be as vulnerable to damages from cropping or other agricultural

activities as are wetland and riparian areas that

provide unique habitat.

The kind of agricultural activity under consideration also determines the potential effects on

wetlands and riparian areas. For instance, all

wetlands can be seriously damaged by drainage,

channelization, and uncontrolled grazing on

riparian (streambank) areas. But not all will be

damaged by periodic cropping or controlled

grazing.

It is possible both to identify categorical concerns related to wetlands and agriculture (eg.,

destruction of buffers), and to identify specific

geographical areas where conflicts between wetlands and agriculture have been or are particularly severe (e.g., the Everglades). To the extent

that targeting may benefit from identifying specific areas, the necessity of understanding wetland function, values, uniqueness, and interaction

with farming activities across the country

increases. The importance of combining national

and local targeting to identify the most suitable

wetland priorities related to agriculture is thus

emphasized.

Wetlands priorities selected illustrate both

geographic areas and categorical concerns.

Almost all priorities overlap with those for other

environmental categories. The rationales for their

selection are briefly stated below:

1. Florida Everglades—Water diversions from

groundwater and surface water deplete water

flows that are critical for maintaining the

unique character of the Everglades ecosystem. Nutrient residues in agricultural runoff

reach the Everglades and promote “eutrophication,” a process that degrades the wetland.

2. North Carolina Agriculture Forestry Conversions—Cutting, drainage, and construction

of access roads fragment and diminish wetlands and riparian ecosystems.

3. Lower Mississippi Valley—Cutting and

drainage for soybean production degrades

wetland/riparian systems. Diking alters

water flow in the drainage basin.

4. Upper Mississippi–Lower Mississippi—

Diking, channelization, drainage, and cutting alter water flow patterns and water quality; this affects the ability of riparian areas

and wetlands to regulate water flow and provide a variety of habitats.

5. Prairie Potholes—Drainage and cutting for

agricultural uses diminish wetlands in the

area, which is a primary breeding ground for

North American waterfowl.
58 | Targeting Environmental Priorities in Agriculture

6. Sand Hills, NE—Groundwater withdrawals

for irrigation reduce the water table and this

decreases the water available to wetland

areas.

7. Degradation of wetlands from agricultural

drainage—Drainage from cropland can carry

a variety of pollutants that may accumulate

in wetlands. Irrigation drainage flows can

carry high concentrations of salts and metals

that degrade wetland habitats. One of the

most notable cases of this problem occurred

at Kesterson National Wildlife Refuge in

California.

8. Water competition from agriculture—Diversion of water to agricultural uses can reduce

instream flows required to maintain stream

habitats, riparian habitats and wetland habitats. An example is the case of the Truckee

River in Nebraska.

9. Riparian zone and wetlands destruction by

grazing—If grazing animals, usually cattle,

are permitted to trample and graze on

streambanks, severe soil erosion can occur

and streambank vegetation may be depleted.

This directly degrades or destroys riparian

ecosystems and degrades stream and

wetland habitats as well. An example is the

case of the Platte River.

10. Riparian zone destruction by channelization,

dikes, and dams—As already described,

“improvement” of streams to facilitate irrigation or drainage on agricultural lands generally results in the straightening of

waterways (which reduces the miles of water

habitat), removal of trees and grasses from

streambanks (which degrades riparian habitat) and alters instream water flows (which

can affect both water quality and quantity).

Southern California provides relevant examples.

PLANT DIVERSITY AND INSECT 

DIVERSITY

Two further dimensions were dealt with by the

expert panel but for which specific geographical

targets proved extremely difficult to identify

because of immature science. The dilemma

between protecting what is left intact and restoring what is gone, and the lack of knowledge

about the base inventory of plants and insects

dominated both discussions. However, the process of trying to identify these priority targets

served to deepen and embellish the overarching

concept of agroecosystems as dynamic and comprised of many elements of environmental quality contributing to biological health.
| 59

B

Appendix B:

Overlapping

Priority Areas

Identified by the

Expert Panel

Overlaps with Surface Water 

Priorities Overlaps with Wildlife Priorities Overlaps with Soil Priorities

Surface Water Priorities

Area 1 Corn Belt/Mississipi

basin

Area 5 Lake Erie basin

Area 6 Lake Michigan basin

Surface Water Priorities

Area 1 Corn Belt/Mississippi basin

Area 2 Chesapeake Bay basin

Area 5 Lake Erie basin

Area 8 Albemarle/Pamlico basin

Wildlife Priorities

Area 1 Corn Belt

Area 3 Prairie Potholes

Area 10 Great Lakes basin

Wildlife Priorities

Area 1 Corn Belt

Area 3 Prairie Potholes

Area 5 S. Plains

Area 7 Lower Mississippi Valley

Area 8 Platte River Headwaters

Soil Priorities

Area 1 N. Mississippi Valley

Area 2 S. Piedmont

Area 4 Deep Loess

Area 6 Heavy Till Plains

Area 10 Thin Loess

Soil Priorities

Area 1 N. Mississippi Valley

Area 4 Deep Loess

Area 5 S. Mississippi Valley

Area 6 Heavy Till Plains

Area 7 N. Glaciated Plains

Area 9 High Plains

Area 10 Thin Loess

Rangelands Priorities

Area 11 Animal waste areas

Rangelands Priorities

Area 6 Ecosystem conversion

Area 10 Highly erodible land in CRP

Rangelands Priorities

Area 7–9 Grazed riparian zones

Area 10 Highly erodible land in CRP
60 | Targeting Environmental Priorities in Agriculture

Overlaps with Surface Water 

Priorities Overlaps with Wildlife Priorities Overlaps with Soil Priorities

Water Conservation Priorities

Area 1 CA Delta

Area 9 CA San Joaquin-Tulare

Water Conservation Priorities

Area 2 TX High Plains

Area 3 NE Ogallala

Area 8 CO Front Range, 

Platte R.

Water Conservation Priorities

Area 2 TX High Plains

Area 3 NE Ogallala

Area 8 CO Front Range, Platte R.

Groundwater Priorities

Area 1 CA Central Valley

Area 6 Corn Belt

Area 7 LI/NJ Coastal Plain

Area 8 Mid-Atlantic Coastal Plain

Groundwater Priorities

Area 6 Corn Belt

Groundwater Priorities

Area 3 Palouse/Columbia plateau

Area 5 Northern High Plains

Area 9 Hawaii

Wetlands Priorities

Area 1 Florida Everglades

Area 3 Lower Mississippi 

Valley

Area 4 Upper/Lower Mississippi

Area 7 Irrigation drainage 

areas

Wetlands Priorities

Area 3 Lower Mississippi Valley

Area 4 Upper/Lower Mississippi

Area 5 Prairie Potholes

Area 9 Platte River riparian zone

Wetlands Priorities

Area 3 Lower Mississippi Valley

Area 5 Prairie Potholes

Area 9 Platte River riparian zone

Rural Landscapes Priorities

Area 1 Lancaster County, PA

Area 3 Shenandoah Valley, VA

Area 4 Lower Mississippi River

Area 6 Driftless Region

Area 8 Central Valley, CA

Rural Landscapes Priorities

Area 4 Lower Mississippi River

Area 6 Driftless Region

Rural Landscapes Priorities

Area 4 Lower Mississippi River

Area 6 Driftless Region
| 61

C

Appendix C:

Environment

Expert Panel,

Reviewers and

Acknowledgements

ENVIRONMENT EXPERT PANEL

Soil Quality—William Larson, Professor Emeritus, Department of Soil Science, University of

Minnesota, St. Paul, MN.

Surface Water Quality—Gregory Schwarz, Economist, Systems Analysis, Water Resources,

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA.

Ground Water Quality—Patrick Leahy, Deputy Assistant Chief, and William Wilber, Acting

Chief, National Water Quality Assessment Program, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA.

Water Conservation—Wilford Gardner, Dean and Professor Emeritus, College of Natural

Resources, U. of California–Berkeley, Logan, UT.

Wetlands—Jon Kusler, Executive Director, Association of Wetland Managers, Berne, NY.

Rangelands—George Ruyle, Associate Research Scientist and Range Management Specialist,

School of Renewable and Natural Resources, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ; and Frank

“Fee” Busby, Senior Grazing Lands Ecologist, USDA/Natural Resources Conservation Service, Little Rock, AR.

Rural Landscapes—Michael Conzen, Professor, Committee on Geographical Studies, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL.

Plant Diversity—Brien Meilleur, President, Center for Plant Conservation, Missouri Botanical Garden, St. Louis, MO; and Joan Canfield/Gordon Brown, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

Arlington, VA.

Insect Diversity—Quentin Wheeler, Professor, Department of Entomology, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.

Wildlife—Arthur Allen, Wildlife Biologist, National Biological Service, Ft. Collins, CO.

To conduct the geographical analysis of the environmental priorities, Ralph Heimlich, Geographic Information Systems Coordinator of the USDA's Economic Research Service, Washington, DC, served as facilitator for geographic information systems.
62 | Targeting Environmental Priorities in Agriculture

REVIEWERS

Sandra S. Batie

Michigan State University

Steve Borgelt

University of Missouri-Columbia

Craig Cox

U.S. Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry 

Committee

Michael Duffy

Iowa State University

Tracy Irwin Hewitt

Henry A. Wallace Institute for Alternative 

Agriculture

Greenbelt, MD

Maureen K. Hinckle

National Audubon Society

Washington, DC

Rick Klemme

University of Wisconsin-Madison

Jim Lukens

Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural 

Areas

Fayetteville, AR

Katherine R. Smith

Henry A. Wallace Institute for Alternative 

Agriculture

Greenbelt, MD

David Swaim

Crawfordsville, IN

Jeffrey A. Zinn

Congressional Research Service

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Jack Barbash

U.S. Geological Survey

Menlo Park, CA

Elizabeth Chornesky

Office of Technology Assessment

Stephen Ford

The Pennsylvania State University

Robert Gilliom

U.S. Geological Survey

Sacramento, CA

George Hallberg

Hygienic Laboratory

Iowa City, IA

Ralph Heimlich

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Washington, DC

Teresa Maurer

Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural 

Areas

Fayetteville, AR

James Tette

Cornell University

Ithaca, NY
| 63

D

Appendix D:

Characteristics

of Land in the

Priority Areas
64

|TargetingEnvironmentalPrioritiesinAgriculture

TABLE 1: Types of Lands in Counties Wholly or Partially Contained in at Least One Environmental Priority Area

for Surface Water Quality, Wildlife, or Soil Quality

Region

Cropland and pasture 

(acres)

Rangeland

(acres)

Forested Wetland 

(acres)

Non-forested Wetland 

(acres)

Riparian Areas

(acres)

CRP Enrollment

(acres)

Atlantic 29,629,360 121,540 1,735,652 332,753 104,417 512,614California 6,899,132 6,771,910 11,611 131,916 27,064 41,223Columbia Plateau 11,915,874 11,088,067 30,879 56,570 39,316 1,566,883Corn Belt 134,000,000 4,023,176 449,353 203,802 438,756 6,163,244Florida 1,146,726 548,166 1,079,533 1,951,559 5,931 0Great Lakes 45,343,363 67,193 5,310,958 1,355,222 149,179 1,477,218Lower Miss. Valley 36,315,303 128,210 3,935,726 2,407,581 140,051 1,503,001No. Plains 83,757,705 40,293,766 1,152,161 2,145,480 233,751 7,626,025So. Plains 76,437,133 91,554,059 375,984 448,612 209,830 8,232,849Total 425,444,596 154,596,086 14,081,856 9,033,495 1,348,295 27,123,057

TABLE 2: Types of Lands in Counties Wholly or Partially Contained in at Least Two Overlapping Priority Areas 

for Surface Water Quality, Wildlife, or Soil Quality

Region

Cropland and pasture 

(acres)

Rangeland

(acres)

Forested Wetland 

(acres)

Non-forested Wetland 

(acres)

Riparian Areas

(acres)

CRP Enrollment 

(acres)

Atlantic 5,265,998 15,563 208,990 6,917 17,407 91,098Corn Belt 105,000,000 30,632 377,219 139,574 352,980 4,974,818Great Lakes 19,670,974 4,200 1,572,611 550,883 62,041 915,330Lower Miss. Valley 17,440,021 91,402 1,165,501 81,522 62,214 971,169No. Plains 36,770,584 13,189,080 133,151 551,624 97,904 3,336,475So. Plains 51,171,113 55,323,488 251,974 320,649 131,400 6,345,947Total 235,318,690 68,654,365 3,709,445 1,651,167 723,946 16,634,838
Appendix D: Characteristics of Land in the Priority Areas

| 65

SOURCE: “Land Use, CRP Contracts, and Riparian Buffers by Geographic Region: A GIS Approach,” John G. Lee and Stephen B. Lovejoy, L&L and Associates, West Lafayette, Indiana, July 1995.

TABLE 3: Types of Lands in Counties Wholly or Partially Contained in Priority Areas Identified 

for Surface Water Quality, Wildlife, and Soil Quality

Region

Cropland and pasture 

(acres)

Rangeland

(acres)

Forested Wetland 

(acres)

Non-forested Wetland 

(acres)

Riparian areas 

(acres)

CRP Enrollment 

(acres)

Corn Belt 33,898,088 8,893 95,602 24,950 131,023 2,490,433Great Lakes 1,285,559 0 17,539 2,223 3,166 83,887Lower Miss. Valley 705,773 1,976 25,444 247 2,156 94,750No. Plains 2,069,641 247 34,091 103,507 7,603 114,873So. Plains 2,403,135 0 4,694 1,730 8,632 117,816Total 40,362,196 11,117 177,370 132,657 152,580 2,901,770
| 67

References

1. Alig, R., “Most Soil Bank Plantings in the

South Have Been Retained: Some Need Follow-up Treatment,” Southern Journal of

Applied Forestry 4(1):60–64, 1980.

2. Allen, A., “Wildlife Habitat Report,” unpublished paper prepared for the panel on

Agroenvironmental Priorities, Office of

Technology Assessment, U.S. Congress,

Washington, DC, August 1994 and May

1995.

3. Alston, J.M. and Pardey, P.G. Making Science Pay: The Economics of Agricultural

R&D Policy (Washington, DC: AEI Press,

forthcoming 1995).

4. Anderson, E., “Economic Benefits of Habitat Restoration: Seagrass and the Virginia

Hard-shell Blue Crab Fishery,” North American Journal of Fisheries Management

9:140–149, 1989.

5. Babcock, B.A., and Blackmer, A.M., “The

Value of Reducing Temporal Input Nonuniformities,” Journal of Agriculture and

Resource Economics 17:335–347, 1992.

6. Baker, D.B., “The Lake Erie Agroecosystems Program: Water Quality Assessments,”

Agriculture, Ecosystems, and Environment

46:197–215, 1993.

7. Barbash, J.E. and Resek, E.R. Pesticides in

Groundwater: Distribution, Trends, and

Governing Factors (Ann Arbor, MI: Ann

Arbor Press, in press); also forthcoming as

an Open-File Report, Water Resources Division, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston VA.

8. Berner, A. H. “Wildlife and Federal Cropland Retirement Programs,” When Conservation Reserve Program Contracts Expire:

The Policy Options, Soil and Water Conservation Society, Ankeny, IA, 1994.

9. Bird, E., Bultena, G., and Gardner, J. Planting the Future (Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press, 1995).

10. Brower, David J. and Carol, Daniel S., eds.

Managing Land Use Conflicts: Case Studies

in Special Area Management (Durham:

Duke University Press, 1987).

11. Butler, D.L., et al. Reconnaissance Investigation of Water Quality, Bottom Sediment,

and Biota Associated with Irrigation Drainage in the Gunnison and Uncompahgre

River Basins and at Sweitzer Lake, WestCentral Colorado, 1988–89. U.S. Geological

Survey, Water-Resources Investigations

Report 91–4103 (Washington, DC: U.S.

Government Printing Office, 1991).

12. Canadian Department of Fisheries and

Oceans, Toxic Chemical in the Great Lakes

and Associated Effects, Synopsis (Ottawa,

ONT, Canada, March 1991).

13. Carlson, G., and Wetzstein, M., “Pesticides

and Pest Management,” Agricultural and

Environmental Resource Economics, G.A.

Carlson, D. Zilberman, and J.A. Miranowski, eds. (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1993).

14. Council for Agricultural Science and Technology. The Conservation Reserve: A Survey

of Research and Interest Groups. J. S.

Hughes, D.L. Hoag, and T.E. Nipp, authors.

Special publication N.19. Ames, IA. July,

1995.

15. Crutchfield, S., “Controlling Farm Pollution

in Coastal Waters,” Agricultural Outlook

AO–136:24–25, November 1987.
68 | Targeting Environmental Priorities in Agriculture

16. Doran, J.W., et al., Defining Soil Quality for

a Sustainable Environment (Madison, WI:

Soil Science Society of America, Inc.,

1994).

17. Edwards, W.R., et al. (eds.), Proceedings of

the World Lagomorph Conference, Guelph,

Ontario, 1979, pp. 761–789.

18. Faeth, P., Growing Green: Enhancing the

Economic and Environmental Performance

of U.S. Agriculture (Washington, DC: World

Resources Institute, 1995).

19. Ford, S. and Hanson, G., “Intensive Rotational Grazing for Pennsylvania Dairy

Farms,” Farm Economics Series, May 1994.

20. Gardner, W., “Water Conservation Report,”

unpublished paper prepared for the panel on

Agroenvironmental Priorities, Office of

Technology Assessment, U.S. Congress,

Washington, DC, August 1994 and May

1995.

21. Gilliam, J.W. “Riparian Wetlands and Water

Quality,” Journal of Environmental Quality,

23:896-900, 1994.

22. Gilliam, J.W., Professor, Department of Soil

Science, North Carolina State University,

Raleigh, NC, personal communication,

August 24, 1995.

23. Goolsby, D.A., and Battaglin, W.A.,

“Occurrence, Distribution and Transport of

Agricultural Chemicals in Surface Waters of

the Midwestern United States,” Selected

Papers on Agricultural Chemicals in Water

Resources of the Midcontinental United

States, D.A. Goolsby, et al. (eds.), U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 93–418:1–

24 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government

Printing Office, 1993).

24. Goolsby, D.A., Battaglin, W.A., and Thurman, E.M., Occurrence and Transport of

Agricultural Chemicals in the Mississippi

River Basin, July through August, 1993,

USGS Circular 1120-C, (Washington, DC:

U.S. Government Printing Office, 1993).

25. Goolsby, D., et al., “Temporal and Geographic Distribution of Herbicides in Precipitation in the Midwest and Northeast United

States, 1990–1991,” New Directions in Pesticide Research, Development, Management

and Policy: Proceedings of the Fourth

National Conference on Pesticides, D.L.

Weigmann (ed.) (Blacksburg, VA: Virginia

Water Resources Research Center, Virginia

Polytechnic Institute and State University,

1994).

26. Guither, H., U.S. Farmers’ Preferences for

Agricultural and Food Policy After 1995

(Urbana, IL: University of Illinois, November 1994).

27. Heimlich, R.E., “Targeting Green Support

Payments: The Geographic Interface

between Agriculture and the Environment,”

Designing Green Support Programs, S.

Lynch, ed. (Greenbelt, MD: Henry A. Wallace Institute for Alternative Agriculture,

1994).

28. Herkert, J.R., “Prairie Birds of Illinois: Population Response to Two Centuries of Habitat Change,” Our Living Heritage: The

Biological Resources of Illinois, L.M. Page

and M.R. Jeffords (eds.) (Carbondale, IL:

Illinois Natural History Survey, 1990).

29. Johnson, C.J., and Kross, B.C., “Continuing

Importance of Nitrate Contamination of

Groundwater and Wells in Rural Areas,”

American Journal of Ind. Medicine 18:449–

456, 1990.

30. Kahn, J.R., and Kemp, W.M., “Economic

Losses Associated with the Degradation of

an Ecosystem: The Case of Submerged Vegetation in the Chesapeake Bay,” Journal of

Environmental Economics and Management 12:246–263, 1985.

31. Kantrud, H.A., “Duck Nest Success on Conservation Reserve Program Land in the Prairie Pothole Region,” Journal of Soil and

Water Conservation 48(3):238–242, 1993.

32. Kellogg, R., Maisel, M., and Goss, D.,

Assessing The Vulnerability of Soils to Pesticide Leaching (Washington, DC: USDA

Economic Research Service and Soil Conservation Service and Center for Resource

Innovations, 1993).

33. Kellogg, R.L., TeSelle, G., and Goebel, J.J.,

“Highlights from the 1992 National
References | 69

Resource Inventory,” Journal of Soil and

Water Conservation 49(4):521–527, 1994.

34. Kemp, W.M., et al., “Influences of Submerged Vascular Plants on Ecological Processes in the Upper Chesapeake Bay,” The

Estuary As A Filter, V.S. Kennedy (ed.)

(Orlando, FL: Academy Press, 1984).

35. Keystone Center, The. The Keystone

National Policy Dialogue on Agricultural

Management Systems and the Environment,

Final report. Keystone, Colorado. May 1995.

36. Klemme, R., Director, Center for Integrated

Agricultural Systems, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, personal communication,

July 9, 1995.

37. Knopf, F., “Avian Assemblages on Altered

Grasslands,” Studies in Avian Biology

15:247–257, 1994.

38. Knopman, D.S., and Smith, R., “20 Years of

the Clean Water Act: Has U.S. Water Quality Improved?” Environment, January/February: 17–41, 1993.

39. Kovach, J., Petzholdt, C., Degni, J. and

Tette, J., “A Method to Measure the Environmental Impact of Pesticides,” New York’s

Food and Life Sciences Bulletin, N.139,

1992.

40. Kusler, J., “Wetlands Report,” unpublished

paper prepared for the panel on Agroenvironmental Priorities, Office of Technology

Assessment, U.S. Congress, Washington,

DC, August 1994 and May 1995.

41. Larson, W., “Soil Quality Report,” unpublished paper prepared for the panel on

Agroenvironmental Priorities, Office of

Technology Assessment, U.S. Congress,

Washington, DC, August 1994 and May

1995.

42. Leahy, P. and Wilber, W., “Groundwater

Quality Report,” unpublished paper prepared for the panel on Agroenvironmental

Priorities, Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Congress, Washington, DC,

August 1994 and May 1995.

43. Lee, John G. and Stephen B. Lovejoy. “Land

Use, CRP Contracts, and Riparian Buffers:

A GIS Approach.” Contractor Report, Office

of Technology Assessment, July, 1995.

44. Lee, John G. and Stephen G. Lovejoy. Land

Area Available and Characteristics for

Riparian Buffers to Control Agricultural

Non-Point Source Pollution: A GIS

Approach. Report to U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Cooperative Agreement

No. CR818760-01 (subcontract 3-350-

5726). December, 1994.

45. Lovejoy, S.B., Lee, J.G., and Beasley, D.B.

“Muddy Water and American Agriculture:

How to Best Control Sedimentation From

Agricultural Land?” Water Resources

Research 21(8):1065–1068, August 1985.

46. Lynch, S. and Smith, K.R., “Lean, Mean,

and Green...Designing Farm Support Programs in a New Era,” Policy Studies Program Report No. 3 (Greenbelt, MD: Henry

A. Wallace Institute for Alternative Agriculture, December 1994).

47. Miltner, R.J., et al., “Treatment of Seasonal

Pesticides in Surface Waters,” American

Waterworks Journal 81(1):43–52, 1989.

48. Mirvish, S.S., et al., “N-Nitrosoproline

Excretion by Rural Nebraska’s Drinking

Water of Varied Nitrate Content,” Cancer

Epidemiological Biomark Prev 1:455–461,

1992.

49. Mueller, D.K., et al., “Nutrients in Ground

Water and Surface Water of the United

States—An Analysis of Data through 1992,”

U.S. Geological Survey, Water–Resources

Investigations Report 95–4031 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office,

1995).

50. Murphy, W. Greener Pastures on Your Side

of the Fence (Colchester, VT: Arriba Publishing, 1994).

51. Musser, W.N., Shortle, J.S., Kreahling, K.,

Roach, B., Huanf, W-C., Beagle, D.B. and

Fox, R.H. “An Economic Analysis of the

Pre-Sidedress Nitrogen Test for Pennsylvania Corn Production.” Review of Agricultural Economics 17:25–35, 1995.

52. National Center for Food and Agricultural

Policy and Hubert H. Humphrey Institute for
70 | Targeting Environmental Priorities in Agriculture

Public Affairs, “Land Use, Conservation,

and Environment,” 1995 Farm Bill Working

Group Paper Series (Washington, DC: May

1995).

53. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Susceptibility of East Coast Estuaries to Nutrient Discharges: Albemarle/Pamlico Sound to Biscayne Bay (Rockville, MD:

NOAA, 1989).

54. National Research Council, Board on Agriculture, Regulating Pesticides in Food: The

Delaney Paradox (Washington, DC:

National Academy Press, 1987).

55. National Research Council, Board on Agriculture, Soil and Water Quality: An Agenda

for Agriculture (Washington, DC: National

Academy Press, 1993).

56. National Research Council, Board of Agriculture, Rangeland Health: New Methods to

Classify, Inventory, and Monitor Rangelands (Washington, DC: National Academy

Press, 1994).

57. New Hope Communications, Natural Foods

Merchandiser, Annual Market Overview

1993, Boulder, CO, June 1994.

58. North Carolina State University, Cooperative Extension Service, Controlled Drainage: Management Guidelines for Improving

Drainage Water Quality, Publication Number AG-443, Raleigh, NC.

59. New Farm, “Grass Farming Beats Corn,”

September/October: 10–13, 1990.

60. Norton, G.W. and Mullen, J. Economic

Evaluation of Integrated Pest Management

Programs: A Literature Review, Publication

448–120 (Blacksburg, VA: Virginia Cooperative Extension, 1994).

61. Osborn, C., “The Conservation Reserve Program: Status, Future, and Policy Options,”

Journal of Soil and Water Conservation

48(4):271–278, 1993.

62. Pait, A.S., De Souza, A.E., and Farrow,

D.R.G., Agricultural Pesticide Use in

Coastal Areas: A National Summary (Rockville, MD: Strategic Environmental Assessment Division, National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration, 1992).

63. Paragamian, V.L., “Fish Populations of Iowa

Rivers and Streams,” Iowa Department of

Natural Resources Technical Bulletin No. 3

(Des Moines, IA: 1990).

64. Parkwood Research Associates, “Shopping

for Organic: Food Shopper’ Views on

Organically Grown Produce” (Emmaus, PA:

Rodale Press, Inc.), March 1994.

65. Porter, M.E., and van der Linde, C.,

“Towards a New Conception of the

Environment–Competitiveness Relationship,” unpublished working paper, Harvard

Business School, Cambridge, MA, November 1993.

66. Pritchard, T.W., Lee, J.G. and Engel, B.A.

“Reducing Agricultural Sediment: An Economic Analysis of Filter Strips versus

Micro-Targeting,” Water Science and Technology, 3(5):567–568, 1993.

67. Puckett, L.J., Nonpoint and Point Sources of

Nitrogen in Major Watersheds of the United

States, U.S. Geological Survey, Water–

Resources Investigations Report 94–4001

(Washington, DC: USGS, 1994).

68. Reichelderfer, K., and Boggess, W., “Government Decision Making and Program Performance: The Case of The Conservation

Reserve Program,” American Journal of

Agricultural Economics 70(1):1–11, 1988.

69. Reynolds, R., Project Leader, Habitat and

Population Evaluation Team, U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, Bismarck, ND, personal

communication, August 24, 1995.

70. Riley, S.P. Economic Impacts of Pheasant

Hunting for South Dakota: 1985–1994, A

Cursory View (Sioux Falls, SD: South

Dakota Fish and Parks Department, 1995).

71. Robert, P., Director, Precision Farming Center, University of Minnesota, personal communication, July, 1995.

72. Robinson, A.Y., “Sustainable Agriculture:

The Wildlife Connection,” American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 6(4):161–

167, 1991.
References | 71

73. Roper-Starch Worldwide, Inc. Roper

Reports 95(3), New York, NY, May 1995.

74. Ruyle, G., and Busby, F., “Rangelands

Report,” unpublished paper prepared for the

panel on Agroenvironmental Priorities,

Office of Technology Assessment, U.S.

Congress, Washington, DC, August 1994

and May 1995.

75. Samson, F., and Knopf, F., “Prairie Conservation in North America,” BioScience 44(6):

418–421, 1994.

76. Schottler, S.P., and Eisenreich, S., “Herbicides in the Great Lakes,” Environmental

Science and Technology 28:2228–2232,

1994.

77. Schwarz, G., “Surface Water Quality

Report,” unpublished paper prepared for the

panel on Agroenvironmental Priorities,

Office of Technology Assessment, U.S.

Congress, Washington, DC, August 1994

and May 1995.

78. Shortle, J.S., et al., “Economic and Environmental Potential of Pre-Sidedressing Soil

Nitrate Test,” Contract Report prepared for

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

(CR–817370–01–0) Washington, DC, January 1993.

79. Smith, R.A., Alexander, R.B., and Lanfear,

K.J., “Stream Water Quality in the Conterminous United States: Status and Trends of

Selected Indictors During the 1980’s,”

National Water Summary 1990–1991:

Hydrologic Events and Stream Water Quality, U.S. Geological Society Water Supply

Paper 2400 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1993).

80. Smith, R.A., Schwarz, G.E., and Alexander,

R.B., “Regional Estimates of the Amount of

U.S. Agricultural Land Located in Watersheds with Poor Water Quality,” U.S. Geological Survey, Open–File Report 94–399

(Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1994).

81. Smith, R.A., Schwarz, G.E., and Alexander,

R.B., “Transboundary Transport of Agricultural Pollutants and Regional Estimates of

the Amount of U.S. Agricultural Land

Located in Watersheds with Poor Water

Quality,” U.S. Geological Survey (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office,

forthcoming).

82. Soil and Water Conservation Society, Agriculture and the Environment: Listening to

the Grassroots, a report based on a series of

regional forums and urban focus groups,

(Ankeny IA: SWCS, January 1995).

83. Sotherton, N.W., and Robertson, P.A., “Indirect Impacts of Pesticides on the production

of Wild Gamebirds in Britain,” Gray Partridge and Ring-Necked Pheasant Workshop, Proceedings of the Perdix V

Symposium, K. Church, R. Warner, and S.

Brady (eds.) (Mankato, MN: University of

Minnesota, 1990).

84. Taylor, M.W., Wolfe, E.W., and Baxter,

W.L., “Land Use Change and Ring-Necked

Pheasants in Nebraska,” Wildlife Society

Bulletin 6(4):226–230.

85. Tette, J., Director, IPM Program, New York

State Agricultural Experiment Station,

Geneva, NY, personal communication,

August 2, 1995.

86. Trotter, D., “Aquatic Fate and Effect of Carbofuran,” Critical Reviews in Environmental

Control 21(2):137–176, 1991.

87. U.S. Congress, Food, Agriculture, Conservation and Trade Act of 1990, Public Law

101-624, 7 USC 1421.

88. U.S. Congress, Congressional Research Service, Ecosystem Management: Status and

Potential (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, December 1994).

89. U.S. Congress, General Accounting Office.

Animal Agriculture: Information on Waste

Management and Water Quality Issues.

GAO/RCED-95-200BR (Washington, D.C:

U.S. Government Printing Office, June

1995).

90. U.S. Congress, General Accounting Office,

“Sustainable Agriculture: Program Management, Accomplishments and Opportunities,”

GAO/RCED-92-233 (Washington, DC: U.S.

Government Printing Office, September

1992).
72 | Targeting Environmental Priorities in Agriculture

91. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology

Assessment, Agriculture, Trade, and Environment: Achieving Complementary Policies, OTA–ENV–617 (Washington, DC:

U.S. Government Printing Office, May

1995).

92. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology

Assessment, Technology, Public Policy,

and the Changing Structure of American

Agriculture, OTA-F-285 (Washington, DC:

U.S. Government Printing Office, March

1986).

93. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Report and

Recommendations on Organic Farming

(Washington, DC: USDA, July 1980).

94. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Cooperative State Research Service, Current

Research Information System, Inventory of

Agricultural Research, 1992 (Washington,

D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office,

1993).

95. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic

Research Service. Agricultural Outlook,

May 1995.

96. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic

Research Service, Agricultural Resources

and Environmental Indicators. Agricultural

Handbook 705 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, December, 1994).

97. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural

Resources Conservation Service, “National

Survey of Attitudes Towards Agricultural

Natural Resource Conservation,” unpublished report of public survey findings

conducted by The Gallup Organization, February 1995.

98. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural

Resources Conservation Service. “A Report

on the Third RCA Appraisal.” Washington,

D.C. May, 1995.

99. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education

Program, “Boost Pasture Profits,” Northeast

Region Project LNE88-02, Program Highlights, 1994.

100.U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and

Wildlife Service, Endangered Species

Technical Bulletin, XIV(January/February):

1, 1989.

101.U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

National Water Quality Inventory: 1992

Report to Congress, EPA–841–R–94–001

(Washington, DC: EPA, March 1994).

102.Vandeman, A., Fernandez-Cornejo, Jans,

S., and Lin, B.-H. “Adoption of Integrated

Pest Management in U.S. Agriculture,”

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic

Research Service, Agricultural Information

Bulletin 707, September 1994.

103.Ventura, S.J., Buchan, L.A., Niemann Jr.,

B.J. and Thum, P.G., “Evaluating Alternative Land Management Policies from a

Water Quality Perspective,” URISA Journal

5(2): 44–54, 1993.

104.Vermont Department of Agriculture, Food

and Markets, Proposed Accepted Agricultural Practice Rules (Montpelier, VT: Vermont Department of Agriculture, December

1994).

105.Wang, W., and Squillace, P., “Herbicide

Interchange between a Stream and the

Adjacent Alluvial Aquifer,” Environmental

Science and Technology 28:2336–2344,

1994.