The Wildlife Society Fish and Wildlife Response to Farm Bill Conservation Practices Technical Review 07–1 A Partnership of the Conservation Effects September 2007 Assessment Project Client: The Wildlife Society Project: Farm Bill Date: 9.18.07 Stage: PRINTFinished size: 8.5 x 11 inches Ink: 4/4 LYNN RILEY DESIGN | 410.725.1001 | [email protected] Funding provided by the U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service and Farm Service Agency through a partnership with The Wildlife Society in support of the Conservation Effects Assessment Project. This document is the second of two literature reviews focused on fish and wildlife and the Farm Bill. It is a conservation practice-oriented companion to the Farm Bill conservation program-focused literature synthesis released in 2005 (Fish and Wildlife Benefits of Farm Bill Conservation Programs: 2000-2005 Update, The Wildlife Society Technical Review 05-2). Client: The Wildlife Society Project: Farm Bill Date: 9.18.07 Stage: PRINTFinished size: 8.5 x 11 inches Ink: 4/4 LYNN RILEY DESIGN | 410.725.1001 | [email protected] The Wildlife Society Fish and Wildlife Response to Farm Bill Conservation Practices Technical Review 07-1 September 2007 Edited by Jonathan B. Haufler Ecosystem Management Research Institute Kathryn L. Boyer Amy C. Ganguli Scott S. Knight USDA NRCS West National Technology Ecosystem Management Research USDA – ARS National Sedimentation Support Center Institute Laboratory 1201 NE Lloyd Blvd., Suite 1000 PO Box 717 PO Box 1157 Portland, OR 97232 Seeley Lake, MT 59868 Oxford, MS 38655 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Stephen J. Brady Jonathan B. Haufler Andrew Manale USDA Natural Resources Ecosystem Management Research U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Conservation Service Institute National Center for Environmental Central National Technology PO Box 717 Economics Support Center 210 Borderlands Ariel Rios Building (1809T) PO Box 6567 Seeley Lake, MT 59868 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Fort Worth, TX 76115 Email: [email protected] Washington, DC 20460 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Ronald Helinski Loren W. Burger, Jr. 1230 Quaker Ridge Drive Kathleen F. Reeder Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Arnold, MD 21012 PO Box 493 Mississippi State University Email: [email protected] Roland, IA 50236 Mississippi State, MS 39762 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Douglas H. Johnson U.S.G.S. Biological Resources Discipline, Charles A. Rewa William R. Clark Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center, USDA NRCS, Resource Inventory Professor, Iowa State University, Ecology, Department of Fisheries, Wildlife, and and Assessment Division Evolution and Organismal Biology Conservation Biology 5601 Sunnyside Avenue 253 Bessey Hall University of Minnesota Beltsville, MD 20705-5410 Ames, IA 50011 St. Paul, MN 55108 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Mark R. Ryan Thomas M. Franklin D. Todd Jones-Farrand Department of Fisheries and Wildlife Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Department of Fisheries and Wildlife Sciences Partnership Sciences University of Missouri 555 Eleventh Street, NW University of Missouri Columbia, MO 65211 Washington, DC 20004 Columbia, MO 65211 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] A Partnership of the Conservation Effects The Wildlife Society Assessment Project 5410 Grosvenor Lane, Suite 200 Bethesda, MD 20814 Client: The Wildlife Society Project: Farm Bill Date: 9.18.07 Stage: PRINTFinished size: 8.5 x 11 inches Ink: 4/4 LYNN RILEY DESIGN | 410.725.1001 | [email protected] Copyediting by Kathryn Sonant and Divya Abhat Design by Lynn Riley Design Cover photos courtesy of USDA NRCS Client: The Wildlife Society Project: Farm Bill Date: 9.18.07 Stage: PRINTFinished size: 8.5 x 11 inches Ink: 4/4 LYNN RILEY DESIGN | 410.725.1001 | [email protected] Table of Contents Executive Summary 5 Jonathan B. Haufler Effects of Cropland Conservation Practices on Fish and Wildlife Habitat 9 Stephen J. Brady Grassland Establishment for Wildlife Conservation 25 D. Todd Jones-Farrand, Douglas H. Johnson, Loren W. Burger, Jr., and Mark R. Ryan Agricultural Buffers and Wildlife Conservation: A Summary About Linear Practices 45 William R. Clark and Kathleen F. Reeder Benefits of Farm Bill Grassland Conservation Practices to Wildlife 57 Jonathan B. Haufler and Amy C. Ganguli Fish and Wildlife Benefits Associated with Wetland Establishment Practices 71 Charles A. Rewa Effects of Conservation Practices on Aquatic Habitats and Fauna 83 Scott S. Knight and Kathryn L. Boyer Using Adaptive Management to Meet Conservation Goals 103 Thomas M. Franklin, Ronald Helinski, and Andrew Manale Client: The Wildlife Society Project: Farm Bill Date: 9.18.07 Stage: PRINTFinished size: 8.5 x 11 inches Ink: 4/4 LYNN RILEY DESIGN | 410.725.1001 | [email protected] Executive Summary Jonathan B. Haufler, Ecosystem Management Research Institute PO Box 717 210 Borderlands Seeley Lake, MT 59868 Email: [email protected] onservation benefits of the Farm Bill are are designed to address primary practices and their allocated through the various conserva- fish and wildlife benefits associated with croplands, C tion programs including the Conservation established grasslands, linear conservation practices, Reserve Program (CRP), Environmental Quality native grasslands, wetlands, and aquatic ecosystems. Incentives Program (EQIP), Wildlife Habitat Incen- In addition, a final chapter discusses the importance tives Program (WHIP), and other related programs. and need for use of adaptive management. Each program has its stated purpose and operational Brady (this volume) discussed the responses of fish guidelines. However, conservation incentives are and wildlife to the primary conservation practices actually accomplished through use of specific prac- used in croplands. He noted that agriculture has had tices that are identified independently of the pro- the greatest effects on wildlife habitat of any anthro- grams. Most of these practices can be utilized in more pogenic cause. Many cropland conservation prac- than one conservation program. For example, range tices are targeted at reducing soil erosion. Reducing planting is a practice that can be used in a project sediment delivery and run-off of agricultural pollut- administered through CRP, EQIP, WHIP, or other ants will have positive effects on aquatic systems and conservation programs. While it is important to un- species. He noted that such practices may also benefit derstand benefits to fish and wildlife accrued though wildlife populations when properly planned, but may use of conservation programs, it is also important to have little or no benefits without this planning. He understand the benefits that have been documented noted the importance of considering the landscape for specific practices. This volume addresses conser- context in agricultural settings and the importance of vation practices that can be used to provide fish and providing appropriate plant communities and habitat wildlife benefits through the Farm Bill. It does not elements within agricultural landscapes if wildlife specifically focus on investigations of actual Farm benefits are to be provided. Bill funded projects, but rather summarizes inves- Jones-Farrand et al. (this volume) discussed the tigations that have addressed various benefits or wildlife benefits associated with the establishment of impacts to fish and wildlife resources associated with grasslands, focusing primarily on practices that apply the primary practices utilized for fish and wildlife to the Conservation Reserve Program, but that could objectives within Farm Bill programs. The chapters equally apply to application of such practices in other in this volume do not attempt to provide a complete programs. They reported substantial benefits to wild- review of all literature pertaining to these practices, life that have been produced through establishment but rather to provide documentation of fish and of grasslands, especially in comparisons to wildlife wildlife responses reported in the literature. Chapters benefits from row crop agriculture. This was espe- Fish and Wildlife Response to Farm Bill Conservation Practices 5 cially true for bird populations that have received the of “native” grasslands for comparative purposes. most investigation. They noted a lack of research that Other grassland practices were reviewed by Haufler has focused on responses to many other taxa. They and Ganguli (this volume) including fencing, pest also noted variability in wildlife responses and the management, brush management, and tree plant- need for additional investigations that included land- ing and shelterbelts. These practices were found to scape analyses. Because of the complexities caused have both positive and negative effects on wildlife. by differences in sites, size, and shape of established Birds were the taxon most studied, with relatively few grasslands, surrounding landscape parameters, investigations of other taxa. More information on all temporal factors, and other considerations, specific species is needed, especially in terms of factoring in benefits to wildlife of grassland establishment will be site effects, surrounding landscape conditions, and species- and site-specific. cumulative assessments. Clark and Reeder (this volume) discussed the