RCA Appraisal. Soil and Water Resources Conservation Act

1-1 Distribution of land uses, conterminous 48 States, 2007 ................................................................................................... 2

1-2 Distribution of land uses, by farm production region, conterminous 48 States, 2007 ........................................................ 3

1-3 Location of cropland, conterminous 48 States, 2007 ......................................................................................................... 4

1-4 Trends in acreage of cultivated and noncultivated cropland, conterminous 48 States, 1982–2007 ..................................... 5

1-5 Gains and losses of cropland, conterminous 48 States, 1982–2007 ................................................................................... 5

1-6 Location of non-Federal grazing lands, conterminous 48 States, 2007 .............................................................................. 6

1-7 Trends in acreage of non-Federal grazing lands, conterminous 48 States, 1982–2007 ........................................................ 7

1-8 Gains and losses of non-Federal rangeland, conterminous 48 States, 1982–2007 .............................................................. 7

1-9 Gains and losses of non-Federal pastureland, conterminous 48 States, 1982–2007 ........................................................... 7

1-10 Location of non-Federal forest land, conterminous 48 States, 2007 .................................................................................. 8

1-11 Gains and losses of non-Federal forest land, conterminous 48 States, 1982–2007 ............................................................. 9

1-12 U.S. private forest land, by size and ownership .................................................................................................................. 9

1-13 Trends in growth of developed land and population growth, conterminous 48 States, 1982–2007 .................................... 10

1-14 Newly developed land, conterminous 48 States, 1982–2007 ............................................................................................. 10

1-15 Trends in acreage of developed land, conterminous 48 States, 1982–2007 ........................................................................ 11

2-1 Value of agricultural sector production and farm share of gross domestic product ............................................................. 14

2-2 Farms, land in farms, and average acres per farm, 1850–2007 ........................................................................................... 14

2-3 U.S. agricultural output, input, and total factor productivity ............................................................................................ 16

2-4 Active chemical ingredients applied to corn, soybeans, cotton, wheat, and fall potatoes .................................................... 17

2-5 Conservation tillage practices ............................................................................................................................................ 17

2-6 Consumption of U.S. fertilizer nutrients ........................................................................................................................... 17

2-7 Manure use ....................................................................................................................................................................... 18

2-8 U.S. organic food sales ...................................................................................................................................................... 19

2-9 Value of farmers’ direct sales to consumers, by county ....................................................................................................... 19

2-10 New markets for agricultural lands .................................................................................................................................... 20

2-11 Agricultural commodity and conservation program payments to farm operators ............................................................... 21

2-12 Program participation by payment type and typology category, in percent, FY 2008 ......................................................... 21

3-1 Trends in cropland erosion, conterminous 48 States, 1982–2007 ...................................................................................... 26

3-2 Erosion rates on cropland, by farm production region, 1982–2007 ................................................................................... 27

3-3 Erosion exceeding the soil loss tolerance rate on cropland, conterminous 48 States, 2007 ................................................. 28

3-4 Non-highly erodible cropland & erosion relative to the tolerable erosion rate (T) ............................................................. 29

3-5 Highly erodible cropland & erosion relative to the tolerable erosion rate (T) .................................................................... 29

3-6 Total erosion on highly erodible and non-highly erodible cropland relative to the tolerable erosion rate (T) ..................... 29

3-7 Soil organic carbon stocks ................................................................................................................................................. 30

3-8 Soil carbon trends on U.S. cropland, percent of acres by status ......................................................................................... 31

3-9 Salinity-affected soils and soils at risk ................................................................................................................................ 31

3-10 Rangeland showing departure from reference conditions for all three attributes of rangeland health: Soil and site stability, hydrologic function, and biotic integrity ......................................................................................... 32

3-11 Relationship of soil loss to precipitation for a sagebrush site on a loamy soil near Elko, NV .............................................. 33

3-12 Average annual water erosion rates on western rangelands ................................................................................................. 34

3-13 Potential effects of soil and vegetative disturbance on western rangelands .......................................................................... 34

3-14 Prevalence of invasive juniper species on rangelands in the 17 western States .................................................................... 36

3-15 Acres with outbreak levels of tree mortality, 1999–2009 ................................................................................................... 37

3-16 Areas with potential risk of greater than 25 percent tree mortality due to insects and diseases ........................................... 37

3-17 Total area of wildfires, 1961–2009 .................................................................................................................................... 38

3-18 Percentage of private forest with high wildfire potential .................................................................................................... 38

3-19 Location of wetlands, conterminous 48 States, 2007 ......................................................................................................... 40

3-20 Palustrine and estuarine wetlands by Farm Production Region, 2007 ................................................................................ 41

3-21 Losses and gains in Palustrine and Estuarine wetlands, conterminous 48 States, 1992–2007 ............................................. 41 F igures and Tables iii

3-22 Distribution of federally listed threatened and endangered species .................................................................................... 43

3-23 Areas of endangerment for aquatic animal species on non-Federal land and water ............................................................. 43

3-24 Distribution of plant and animal species at risk of becoming threatened or endangered, by watershed .............................. 45

4-1 USDA conservation investments by approach ................................................................................................................... 50

4-2 USDA research locations ................................................................................................................................................... 52

4-3 USDA and Conservation District field office locations ...................................................................................................... 53

4-4 USDA conservation investments in 2002, by program type .............................................................................................. 60

4-5 USDA conservation investments in 2010, by program type .............................................................................................. 60

5-1 Agricultural sources of greenhouse gas emissions, 2005 ..................................................................................................... 63

5-2 Annual agricultural and forestry emissions and offsets for 1990 and 1998–2005 ............................................................... 63

5-3 Observed changes in average temperature, 1901–2006 ..................................................................................................... 64

5-4 Observed changes in annual precipitation, 1901–2006 ..................................................................................................... 64

5-5 IPCC A1B surface air temperature and precipitation projections ...................................................................................... 65

5-6 IPCC A1B heat waves and warm nights projections .......................................................................................................... 66

5-7 Renewable energy in the Nation’s energy supply, 2009 ...................................................................................................... 69

5-8 RFS2-mandated levels for biofuels, by type ....................................................................................................................... 70

5-9 Harvested corn acreage, by end use ................................................................................................................................... 70

5-10 Ethanol facilities relative to major aquifers, 2007 .............................................................................................................. 73

5-11 Potential rainfed feedstock crops in the United States ....................................................................................................... 73

5-12 USDA, DOE research sites focusing on biofuel feedstocks, by agency and feedstock type ................................................. 75

6-1 Distribution of Earth’s water, by source ............................................................................................................................. 80

6-2 Distribution of Earth’s water, by country ........................................................................................................................... 80

6-3 Trends in estimated water use in the United States, 1950–2005, by sector ........................................................................ 81

6-4 Indicators of water availability and the locations of irrigated land ..................................................................................... 81

6-5 Irrigation water withdrawals, by source and irrigation systems, by type, 2005 ................................................................... 82

6-6 Irrigation water applications, by region and crop, 2003 ..................................................................................................... 82

6-7 Soil leaching and soil runoff potential ............................................................................................................................... 83

6-8 Biological condition of the Nation’s wadeable streams, 2010 ............................................................................................. 84

6-9 Nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations, by predominant land use ................................................................................. 84

6-10 Effect of tile drainage on nitrogen and phosphorus losses .................................................................................................. 84

6-11 Nitrate concentrations in old and young groundwater ...................................................................................................... 85

6-12 Percentage of total nitrate load contributed by baseflow .................................................................................................... 85

6-13 Major river basins and water resource regions for the CEAP-Cropland assessment ............................................................ 87

6-14 Irrigated area and current per acre water application depth and modeled depth reduction on cultivated cropland under full conservation treatment, by basin ....................................................................................................................... 87

6-15 Potential reductions in sediment losses using additional conservation management on cultivated cropland, by conservation treatment need and basin ......................................................................................................................... 89

6-16 Proportion of potential sediment loss reduction through application of comprehensive conservation treatment on cultivated cropland, by treatment need and basin ......................................................................................................... 90

6-17 Potential average annual per-acre nitrogen loss reductions on cultivated cropland through application of comprehensive conservation treatment .............................................................................................................................. 91

6-18 Proportion of potential nitrogen loss reduction through application of comprehensive conservation treatment on cultivated cropland, by treatment need and basin ......................................................................................................... 92

6-19 Potential average annual per-acre phosphorus loss reductions on cultivated cropland through application of comprehensive conservation treatment .............................................................................................................................. 93

6-20 Proportion of potential phosphorus loss reduction through application of comprehensive conservation treatment on cultivated cropland, by treatment need and basin ......................................................................................................... 94

6-21 Conservation treatment need on cultivated cropland, by resource concern and treatment need category ........................... 95

6-22 Proportion of potential loss reduction through application of comprehensive conservation treatment on cultivated cropland, by material and treatment need category ............................................................................................................ 95

6-23 Potential reductions in sediment losses on cultivated cropland – comparison of potential benefits of treatment to “T” with comprehensive conservation treatment on all under-treated acres, by basin .................................................... 96 iv RC A Appraisal 2011 Tables

1-1 Net changes in major land cover/uses, conterminous 48 States, 1982-2007 ...................................................................... 3

2-1 Average farm size, tenure, value of production, and household income by farm typology, 2008 ........................................ 15

2-2 Government payments by farm typology, 2008 ................................................................................................................. 22

4-1 Conservation research investments .................................................................................................................................... 53

4-2 Technical assistance, education, and outreach investments ................................................................................................ 54

4-3 NRCS mandatory and discretionary technical and financial assistance .............................................................................. 55

4-4 Working lands investments ............................................................................................................................................... 56

4-5 Land retirement investments ............................................................................................................................................. 57

4-6 Land preservation conservation investments ...................................................................................................................... 58

4-7 Landscape-scale conservation investments ......................................................................................................................... 58

4-8 Emergency response investments ....................................................................................................................................... 59

4-9 Rural development conservation investments .................................................................................................................... 59

5-1 CO2 and climate change responses and management options for grazing land .................................................................. 67

5-2 USDA climate change research investment, fiscal years 2009 through 2011 ...................................................................... 68

5-3 Cost and conversion characteristics of certain feedstocks ................................................................................................... 71

5-4 Water consumed in irrigated corn production ................................................................................................................... 72

5-5 USDA bioenergy and renewable energy investment, fiscal years 2009 through 2011 ......................................................... 75

6-1 Potential average annual sediment loss reductions from cultivated cropland through application of comprehensive conservation treatment .............................................................................................................................. 90

6-2 Potential average annual nitrogen loss reductions from cultivated cropland through application of comprehensive conservation treatment .............................................................................................................................. 92

6-3 Potential average annual phosphorus loss reductions from cultivated cropland through application of comprehensive conservation treatment .............................................................................................................................. 94 F igures and Tables v Foreword T he Soil and Water Resources Conservation Act of the public, USDA conducted a series of listening sessions, (RCA) provides broad natural resource strategic focus groups, and nationwide surveys in 2009 and 2010. assessment and planning authority for the U.S. Comments and ideas about the most pressing natural resource Department of Agriculture (USDA). The RCA calls for— concerns, the workability of the existing USDA program of soil and water conservation, and new program and policy • A continuing Appraisal of the Nation’s soil, water, and needs were gathered from about 2,200 individuals—from related resources that documents the current status and farmers, ranchers, and forest landowners to interest groups, trends of soil, water, and related natural resources; the State and local agency officials, and many others. From this capability of these resources to meet current and projected diverse array of interested individuals emerged a clear picture demands; the effects of regulations, policies, and programs of priority natural resource concerns. Water resources (quality on these resources; and the cost and benefits of conservation and availability) topped the list of the most pressing natural measures applied under USDA conservation programs and resource issues facing agriculture and the environment. alternative conservation approaches. Companion concerns of soil quality, invasive species, and • A National Conservation Program to guide USDA assistance wildlife habitat were also among the highest concerns identified. to landowners for conserving soil, water, and related resources on non-Federal land. The Program evaluates the This 2011 RCA Appraisal provides an overview of land use Nation’s natural resource problems; effectiveness of current and the U.S. agricultural sector; of the status, condition, and authorities and programs; alternative methods for achieving trends of natural resources on non-Federal lands; and USDA’s conservation objectives; and costs and benefits of alternative program for soil and water resources conservation. Looking conservation practices. ahead, it examines interrelated issues that have implications for U.S. agriculture and forestry: climate change, biofuels Congress reauthorized the RCA in 2008, making targeted production, and the quality and availability of water. changes in the language, adjusting the timing of reports, and retaining the hallmark public RCA process. To obtain the views vi RC A Appraisal 2011 Executive Summary M A ost of the area of the United States griculture has been described as a “leaky” remains rural despite the accelerating trend system. That is, some tradeoffs are unavoidable toward urbanization since the early 1980s. among the competing demands that we place upon Rural land and water make up well over 90 percent of our farmers, ranchers, and foresters: To produce food, feed, the non-Federal area of the United States, and most and fiber for consumption in the United States and for export. of the rural area is agricultural or forested land. To provide habitat for wildlife. To provide scenic vistas and recreational opportunities. To do all of these things and The dynamic nature of rural land-use change was evident more with minimal impact on the natural environment. over the 25-year period 1982 to 2007 as the land shifted among agricultural and forested uses. Over the period, the net By and large, producers have responded positively acreage of non-Federal forest land remained stable, the net and well to these challenges. Since the early 1980s, total soil acreage of non-Federal rangeland declined slightly, and the net erosion on cropland has declined by more than 40 percent acreages of cropland and pastureland declined more sharply. in total and by more than 30 percent on a per-acre basis. The exception is development of rural lands for Nevertheless, soil erosion on highly erodible urban and transportation uses, which increased steadily cropland remains a concern. Fifty-two percent of throughout the period. More than 1 out of every 3 acres of all cropland erosion occurred on the 27 percent of the developed land, was developed between 1982 and 2007. cropland that was classified as highly erodible land. Nearly 80 percent of U.S. non-Federal rangeland M is in stable condition. Soil erosion by water or iddle-sized farms are losing ground to smaller wind and the presence of invasive species degrade the as well as larger size operations. The percentage of condition of the remaining 20 percent to some degree. farmers who are tenants or part-owners is increasing, as is the share of farmers’ income derived from off-farm sources. Wetland gains outpaced losses during the decade 1997 to 2007—an unprecedented occurrence. Gross annual gains Technology is improving the productivity and of 69,000 acres outpaced gross annual losses of 44,000 acres. sustainability of U.S. farms. Genetically engineered crops, improved fertilizers and pesticides, and management T innovations such as conservation tillage and improved irrigation efficiency have combined to increase farm output. he United States invests billions of dollars each year in an ongoing soil and water conservation New and expanded markets for U.S. farm goods— program. These investments and the strong partnerships both domestically and internationally—continue with State and local governments, private land owners and to challenge not only farmers’ capacity to produce managers, and many other organizations and groups have commodities but also their conservation ethic. helped to improve the state of the Nation’s natural resources. USDA uses a variety of approaches for natural resource conservation. Nine USDA agencies have some conservation responsibility. Program approaches include research, technical assistance, working lands programs, land retirement programs, land preservation programs, landscape scale programs, emergency response programs, and rural development programs. Executive Summar y vii C W limate change and biofuels development ater resources are the foundation will have growing influence on land use for meeting demands for food, feed, and patterns and natural resource conditions fiber today and in the future. Current and in the agriculture and forestry sectors. future challenges in water resource management are amplified by new demands on agricultural and forest Average temperatures are expected to climb by up to 2 landscapes and the effects of climate change. degrees Celsius from 1990 levels over much of the United States by 2030. As climate changes, agriculture and forestry will need Agriculture remains the Nation’s principal to adapt to those changes and help to curb future changes by water user. Some 57 million acres of U.S. cropland sequestering carbon and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. are irrigated; farmers use efficient pressure irrigation systems on about 40 percent of these acres. Agriculture in the American Southwest, an area already chronically short of water, could be severely challenged if Competition for water, especially in arid regions of the precipitation declines by up to the predicted 5 percent. Extreme West, is expected to increase pressure on irrigated agriculture. weather events could become more common, and the range of Many of the areas experiencing the greatest population growth weeds and insect pests could expand. Increased precipitation are those where water supplies already are facing challenges. along with warmer temperature in the East, Midwest, and Northern Plains, however, could provide a longer growing Despite progress in recent years, agriculture remains a season and a more agreeable climate for crop production. source of water quality concern. Movement of sediment, nutrients, pesticides, and pathogens into surface water supplies Agriculture and forestry sequester atmospheric and leaching of nutrients into groundwater remain concerns. carbon dioxide. From 2000 through 2005, carbon sequestration increased in cropland soils, forests, Potential exists to improve irrigation water use while urban trees, and harvested wood products. sustaining yields in every basin. Conservation applied on all irrigated cropland could provide nationwide improvement, Biofuels production is expected to grow in response while the largest potential gains are concentrated in four basins. to policy drivers that emphasize energy independence. Most biofuels are currently produced from corn, but future Conservation treatment need to minimize potential bioenergy feedstocks are expected to come from cellulosic for nutrient and sediment loss varies widely by materials, switchgrass, crop residues, wood, and other sources. material and basin. Comprehensive conservation treatment of the critically under-treated 20 percent of cultivated cropland acres could deliver 54 percent and 45 percent of potential sediment and nutrient reductions, respectively. viii RC A Appraisal 2011 Chapter 1 Land Use Chapter 1 Land Use T he United States and associated territories cover more than 2.3 billion acres of land and water (3.6 million Sources of data square miles). The conterminous 48 States comprise USDA agencies draw upon many sources for information. The principal more than 1.9 billion of these acres, about two-thirds of which source of information in chapters 1 and 3 is the National Resources are privately held working agricultural and forest lands used Inventory (NRI), a statistical survey of land use and natural resource mainly for the production of food, fiber, and energy (fig. 1-1). Most Federal lands are in the western United States. Tribal conditions and trends on non-Federal land conducted by the Natural lands, also mostly in the West, are reflected in figure 1-1 in the Resources Conservation Service. NRI data are physically and biologically respective major land uses. U.S. towns, cities, transportation based and are statistically designed to accurately represent national and corridors, and other developed areas cover about 6 percent of the State natural resource conditions and trends. Other sources include the total area of the conterminous 48 States (USDA-NRCS 2009). Census of Agriculture conducted by USDA’s National Agricultural Statistics Service and data from the Forest Service’s Forest Inventory and Analysis Figure 1-1. (FIA) National Program, as well as non-USDA data sources such as the Distribution of land uses, conterminous 48 States, 2007 Bureau of the Census and other Federal and State agencies. Differences in land use and other estimates are due mainly to differences in definitions. For example, the NRI “developed land” category differs from that used by some other data collection entities. For the NRI, the intent is to identify which lands have been permanently removed from the rural land base.Therefore, the developed land category includes (1) large tracts of urban and built-up land; (2) small tracts of built-up land of less than 10 acres; and (3) land outside of these built-up areas in roads, railroads, and associated rights of way (rural transportation lands).Another example: For the NRI, land is considered irrigated if irrigation occurs during the year of inventory, or during 2 or more of the 4 years prior to the inventory. Other entities typically consider land to be irrigated only if irrigation water is applied during the year of interest. Land uses change over time (table 1-1) and vary from region to region (fig. 1-2). Cropland makes up 52 percent NOTE: When data were gathered for the 2007 National Resources of the Corn Belt and 44 percent of the Northern Plains. Inventory (NRI), there were about 33 million acres of cropland under Forest land is the dominant land cover in the Northeast, Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) contracts; as of September 2010, Appalachian, Southeast, Delta States, and Lake States about 31.3 million acres were under CRP contracts. regions. Federal land is concentrated in the Mountain and NOTE: National Resources Inventory (NRI) data on land use for Alaska, Pacific Regions, and rangelands occur primarily in the Hawaii, and the U.S. territories are unavailable. For 2007, the USDA Mountain, Southern Plains, and Northern Plains regions. Census of Agriculture reported approximately 309,000 acres of cropland, 2.1 million acres of grazing lands, and 121,000 acres of non-Federal forest land in Alaska and Hawaii. Examining net change in land use reveals general trends but masks the real extent of land use change over time. Rural Sources: USDA-NRCS/2007 NRI; USDA-NASS/2007 Census of Agriculture; USDA-FSA. land uses frequently shift among cropland, pastureland, rangeland, and forest land. These land-use changes can affect erosion potential, contiguity of habitat, hydrologic features of the landscape, and other natural processes or functions. Conversion of rural lands for development is the exception; such conversions generally do not revert to other uses.

2 RC A Appraisal 2011 Table 1-1. Net changes in major land cover/uses, conterminous 48 States, 1982–2007 2007 land cover/uses (million acres) Developed Other land Cropland Pastureland Rangeland Forest land land cover/uses 1982 total Cropland 326 30 7 9 11 37 420 1982 land cover/uses Pastureland 19 78 5 18 7 4 131 Rangeland 7 3 392 3 5 8 418 Forest land 2 5 2 372 17 5 403 (million acres) Developed land -­ -­ -­ -­ 70 1 71 Other land cover/uses 3 3 3 4 1 481 495 2007 total 357 119 409 406 111 536 1,938 “Other land cover/uses” includes land under contract in the Conservation reserve program, other rural land, water areas, and Federal land areas. to read this table: the number at the intersection of rows and columns with the same land cover/use represents acres that were in the same land cover/use category in both 1982 and 2007. the numbers to the left or right of this number represent acres lost to another land use during the period. the numbers above or below this number represent acres gained from another land use during the period. Comparing the “1982 total” column to the “2007 total” row represents the net acres gained or lost over the 25-year period. For example, total cropland acreage declined from 420 million acres in 1982 to 357 million acres in 2007. Some 19 million acres of pastureland were converted to cropland while approximately 30 million acres of cropland were converted to pastureland over the period. Figure 1-2. Distribution of land uses, by farm production region, conterminous 48 States, 2007 Source: USDA-NRCS/2007 NRI Chapter 1 • Land Use 3 Cropland (fig. 1-4). The reduction in cropland acreage includes 33 million acres enrolled in the Conservation Reserve Program Cropland includes land in cultivated and noncultivated crops. (CRP), many of which could be cropped again in the future. Cultivated cropland is in row crops or close-grown crops and In addition, between 1982 and 2007 over 30 million acres noncultivated crops grown in rotation with cultivated crops. of cropland were converted to pastureland while 19 million Noncultivated cropland includes permanent hayland and acres were converted from pasture to cropland (fig. 1-5). horticultural crops such as fruits, nuts, and ornamental plants. The percentage of cropland that is not cultivated has increased Cropland in the United States is concentrated in the Northern since 1982. Noncultivated cropland—hayland and land in Plains, Corn Belt, and Delta States (fig. 1-3). Nationally, orchards, horticultural crops, and the like—increased from cropland acreage declined from 420 million acres in 1982 to 44 million acres in 1982 to 52 million acres, or 15 percent 357 million acres in 2007—about 15 percent over the period of cropland acreage, in 2007. Net cropland acreage declined Figure 1-3. Location of cropland, conterminous 48 States, 2007 Source: USDA-NRCS/2007 NRI

4 RC A Appraisal 2011 in each of the 10 farm production regions between 1982 and Figure 1-4. 2007. The greatest losses were in the Southern Plains (12 Trends in acreage of cultivated and noncultivated cropland, million acres), Mountain region (10 million acres), Northern conterminous 48 States, 1982–2007 Plains (7 million acres), and Southeast (7 million acres). Between 1982 and 2007, more than 11 million acres of cropland were developed for urban, suburban, and transportation use and essentially lost to agricultural use; about 18 percent of these losses were in the Corn Belt, with substantial losses also in the Appalachian, Northeast, Southeast, and Lake States regions. The smallest losses of cropland to development occurred in the Delta States and Northern Plains regions. Source: USDA-NRCS/2007 NRI Figure 1-5. Gains and losses of cropland, conterminous 48 States, 1982–2007 Source: USDA-NRCS/2007 NRI These charts show net changes in land use over the 25-year period 1982–2007. Additional shifts in land use occurred during the intervening years. See also table 1-1, page 3. Chapter 1 • Land Use 5 Non-Federal grazing lands acres of non-Federal grazing lands in the conterminous 48 States—409 million acres of rangeland, 119 million acres Grazing lands include rangeland, pastureland, and grazed of pasture, and 56 million acres of grazed forest (fig. 1-6). forest. Pastureland is used primarily for the production of introduced forage grasses for livestock grazing. Rangeland is During the 25-year period 1982 to 2007, the acreage of U.S. land on which the climax or potential plant cover is composed grazing lands declined gradually until 2002 and then stabilized of plants suitable for grazing and browsing. Grazed forest (fig. 1-7); rangeland acreage declined by about 2 percent; land includes understory plants that can be grazed without pastureland acreage, by 9 percent; and grazed forest land significantly impairing other forest values. (See the Glossary acreage, by 15 percent. Some 6.8 million acres of pastureland for more complete definitions.) There are 584 million and 5.2 million acres of rangeland were developed for urban, suburban, and transportation uses (figs. 1-8 and 1-9). Figure 1-6. Location of non-Federal grazing lands, conterminous 48 States, 2007 Source: USDA-NRCS/2007 NRI

6 RC A Appraisal 2011 Figure 1-7. Figure 1-9. Trends in acreage of non-Federal grazing lands, Gains and losses of non-Federal pastureland, conterminous 48 States, 1982–2007 conterminous 48 States, 1982–2007 Source: USDA-NRCS/2007 NRI Figure 1-8. Gains and losses of non-Federal rangeland, conterminous

48 States, 1982–2007 Source: USDA-NRCS/2007 NRI These charts show net changes in land use over the 25-year period 1982–2007. Additional shifts in land use occurred during the intervening years. See also table 1-1, page 3. Source: USDA-NRCS/2007 NRI These charts show net changes in land use over the 25-year period 1982–2007. Additional shifts in land use occurred during the intervening years. See also table 1-1, page 3. Chapter 1 • Land Use 7 Non-Federal forest land of forest land,1 but the NRI definition of forest land is used in this Appraisal for consistency with definitions of other land uses. Forest land, as defined by the National Resources Inventory (NRI), includes land parcels of at least 1 acre that support It has been estimated that in 1630 forest land covered just over single-stemmed woody species that are at least 4 meters tall at 1 billion acres—about half the total land area of what is now the maturity and whose canopy covers at least 25 percent of the conterminous United States (Smith et al. 2009). Since 1630, a surface area. The Forest Service uses a slightly different definition net of nearly 300 million acres of forest land have been converted Figure 1-10. Location of non-Federal forest land, conterminous 48 States, 2007 Source: USDA-NRCS/2007 NRI 1 the Forest Service defines forest land as land at least 120 feet wide and 1 acre in size with at least 10 percent cover (or equivalent stocking) by live trees of any size, including land that formerly had such tree cover and that will be naturally or artificially regenerated. Forest land includes transition zones, such as areas between forest and non-forest lands that have at least 10 percent cover (or equivalent stocking) with live trees and forest areas adjacent to urban and built-up lands. roadside, streamside, and shelterbelt strips of trees must have a crown width of at least 120 feet and continuous length of at least 363 feet to qualify as forest land. Unimproved roads and trails, streams, and clearings in forest areas are classified as forest if they are less than 120 feet wide or an acre in size. tree-covered areas in agricultural production settings, such as fruit orchards, or tree-covered areas in urban settings, such as city parks, are not considered forest land. this definition is consistent with the forest definition used by the United Nations Food and agriculture Organization for global forest assessment.

8 RC A Appraisal 2011 to other uses—mainly agricultural. Nearly two-thirds of the net Figure 1-12. conversion to other uses occurred in the eastern United States in U.S. private forest land, by size and ownership the last half of the 19th century, when 13 square miles of forest were cleared every day on average (MacCleery 2002). Percent 70 The last 100 years have seen relative stability in the Nation’s forest acreage. Stability, however, should not be interpreted as 60 Area “no change”—there is 50 percent more forest in the Northeast Owners now than there was in 1900, slightly less along the southern 50 and western coasts, and more in the interior West. This is the result of social and economic pressures as well as natural 40 events. Urban development, fires and fire suppression, timber production, improved farming practices, natural disasters, 30 and major Federal assistance programs have all influenced the size, location, and contiguity of today’s forests. 20 According to the NRI, non-Federal forest land covered 10 about 406 million acres of the conterminous 48 States in 2007—a slight increase from 403 million acres in 1982 0 (USDA-NRCS 2009). About 84 percent of all non-Federal 1-9 10-19 20-49 50-99 100- 200- 500- 1,000- 5,000- 10,000+ forest land is in the eastern United States (fig. 1-10). 199 499 999 4,999 9,999 Although during the 25-year period 1982 to 2007 more Size of forest holdings (ac) newly developed land came from forest land than from any Source: USDA-Forest Service other single land use, conversions of cropland, pastureland, or rangeland to forest land more than kept pace (fig. 1-11). Nearly 11 million forest owners hold private forest land in the United States (Butler 2008, Smith et al. 2009). About 67 percent of private forest land is in parcels of 100 acres or more, and forested parcels of 10,000 or more acres account for 22 percent of the private forest land (Butler 2008) (fig. 1-12). Figure 1-11. Gains and losses of non-Federal forest land, conterminous 48 States, 1982–2007 Source: USDA-NRCS/2007 NRI These charts show net changes in land use over the 25-year period 1982–2007. Additional shifts in land use occurred during the intervening years. See also table 1-1, page 3. Chapter 1 • Land Use 9 Developed land Figure 1-13. Trends in growth of developed land and population growth, Developed land includes not only large urban and built-up conterminous 48 States, 1982–2007 areas of 10 acres or more but also small built-up areas and Developed land U.S. population Developed acres per capita transportation corridors. Land in residential, industrial, Developed land / US population (millions) Per capita developed land (acres) commercial, and institutional uses, including such uses as 400 0.4 cemeteries, golf courses, small parks, landfills, railroads, and highways, is considered to be developed. Areas of less than 10 acres that are completely surrounded by urban and 300 0.3 built-up land are also considered to be developed land. As America’s cities grow in population, they grow in area as well. It is not uncommon for a large city’s commuting area to 200 0.2 stretch many miles into the countryside. Nor is it rare to see tightly clustered and large-lot developments many miles from the city center. These developments—including the roads and 100 0.1 service facilities that support them—take up many acres of land and increase farmland conversion pressures. Figure 1-13 shows that the developed area of the United States has grown 0 0 1982 1987 1992 1997 2002 2007 faster than the population. Figure 1-14 shows the change in Sources: USDA-NRCS/2007 NRI, Census population estimates areas of urban and built up land between 1982 and 2007. In program, 2009 rapidly urbanizing areas such as greater Atlanta, GA, these Figure 1-14. Newly developed land, conterminous 48 States, 1982–2007 Source: USDA-NRCS/2007 NRI

10 RC A Appraisal 2011 areas show up as rings around the existing inner city. The areas. Another 18 percent occurs in nonmetropolitan green areas on the map show that many rural areas, especially counties adjacent to metropolitan areas. Between 1982 in the East, are also experiencing development pressure. and 2002, nonmetropolitan areas lost a higher percentage of their farms (7 percent) than did metropolitan areas U.S. urban lands remain a fraction of the Nation’s total land but a smaller percentage of farmland (5 percent). area, but the total acreage of developed land in the conterminous

48 States increased by more than 56 percent between 1982 and Figure 1-15. 2007—from 71 million acres to 111 million acres. Although the rate of development slowed toward the end of the period, Trends in acreage of developed land, conterminous 48 more than one-third of all land ever developed in the United States, 1982–2007 States, was developed between 1982 and 2007 (fig. 1-15). About 41 percent of all land that was developed during the period 1982 to 2007 was forest land, 27 percent was cropland, 17 percent was rangeland, 13 percent was pasture, and the rest was other rural land. These percentages held fairly constant throughout the period. Some 14 million acres of prime farmland—about 4 percent of the best current and potential farmland in the United States—were developed between 1982 and 2007; the acreage of prime farmland converted for development was almost equal to the area of West Virginia. The Corn Belt lost more than 2 million acres of prime farmland during this period, and the Appalachian, Southern Plains, Northeast, and Southeast regions each lost between 1.3 and 1.9 million acres of prime farmland. The smallest losses of prime farmland occurred in the Northern Plains and Delta States. Source: USDA-NRCS/2007 NRI Nearly 40 percent of the value of U.S. agricultural production occurs on farms within the boundaries of metropolitan Chapter 1 • Land Use 11 Conclusion References Despite an increasingly urban population, most of the United Butler, B.J. 2008. Family Forest Owners of the United States, States remains rural. Rural land and water make up well 2006. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, over 90 percent of the non-Federal area of the United States, Northern Research Station. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-27. and most of the rural area is agricultural or forested land. Available at: www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/15758 The dynamic nature of rural land-use change was evident MacCleery, D.W. 2002. American Forests: A over the 25-year period 1982 to 2007. Over this period, the History of Resiliency and Recovery. Forest net acreage of non-Federal forest land remained stable, the History Society, Durham, NC, 58 pp. net acreage of non-Federal rangeland declined slightly, and the net acreages of cropland and pastureland declined more Smith, W.B., tech. coordinator; P.D. Miles, data sharply. However, rural land uses frequently shift among coordinator; C.H. Perry, map coordinator; and S.A. cropland, pastureland, rangeland, and forest land. These Pugh, data CD coordinator. 2009. Forest Resources land-use changes can affect erosion potential, contiguity of the United States, 2007. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-78. of habitat, hydrologic features of the landscape, and other Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, natural processes or functions. The area of developed Forest Service, Washington Office. 336 pp. Available land increased steadily throughout the period, and such at: http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/17334 conversions generally do not revert to other land uses. United States Department of Agriculture, National Development pressure is only one of many factors that affect Agricultural Statistics Service. 2009. 2007 Census of land use. The changing structure of agriculture in the United Agriculture: United States Summary and State Data. States, the global economy, technological innovation, and Volume 1, Geographic Area Series, Part 51, AC-07-A-51. other factors combined with individual decisions made by Issued February 2009, updated December 2009. land owners and operators will shape tomorrow’s landscapes. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources See chapter 2 for an overview of trends in U.S. agriculture. Conservation Service. 2009. Summary Report: 2007 National Resources Inventory. Natural Resources Conservation Service, Washington, DC, and Center for Survey Statistics and Methodology, Iowa State University, Ames, IA. 123 pages. http://www.nrcs.usda. gov/technical/NRI/2007/2007_NRI_Summary.pdf

12 RC A Appraisal 2011 Chapter 2 An Overview of Agriculture in the United States Chapter 2 An Overview of Agriculture in the United States A The structure of agriculture griculture provides abundant food and fiber for American consumers and for export markets. Because agricultural land uses1 occupy most of the area of the Until recently, the value of U.S. agricultural sales was split United States, their impact on the environment—both positive almost evenly between crops and livestock. In 2009, however, and negative—can be profound. This section provides an the share of farm cash receipts from crop sales increased to 59 overview of the economic factors and public policies that affect percent, up from 48 percent in 2005. This growth was driven agriculture. by increasing sales of feed grain and oil crops, due both to increased global demand and to their increasing use in biofuels The extent of land and labor in production agriculture has production. As feed prices rose, production of meat animals and declined slowly but steadily over the past 30 years. The amount dairy products declined. These shifts in production can impact of food and fiber produced on this land, however, increased natural resources by changing the use of inputs, including substantially over that time due to the combined influences water for irrigation, and by changing conservation practices. of technological advances, more efficient management, and increased use of chemicals and machinery. Because the value of agricultural production has been outpaced by increases in Farm size, farm income, and landownership the prices of nonfarm goods and services, the contribution After peaking at 6.8 million in 1935, the number of U.S. of agricultural production to the Nation’s gross domestic farms fell sharply until 1978 before stabilizing at about 2.2 product fell gradually from roughly 2 percent in 1980 to less million (fig. 2-2). Although the total number of farms has than 1 percent in 2008 (fig. 2-1). Farming provided over 2.6 changed little over the past 30 years, the numbers of very million jobs in 2008, or about 1.5 percent of all U.S. jobs small and very large farms have increased while the number (down from 3.3 percent in 1980). Still, agricultural exports of mid-sized farms has declined. Farm operations with annual consistently exceed agricultural imports; since 1990, agriculture sales of $1 million or more (in constant 2007 dollars) more has accounted for 6 to 10 percent of the annual value of U.S. than doubled between 1982 and 2007 and accounted for exports. 59 percent of total farm sales. In 2008, over 90 percent of the total value of U.S. agricultural production occurred on just 17 percent (378,172) of all farms (table 2-1). Figure 2-1. Value of agricultural sector production and farm share of Figure 2-2. gross domestic product Farms, land in farms, and average acres per farm, 1850–2007 Title Figure 2−2. Farms, land in farms, and average acres per farm, 1850?2007 Million / billion acres / hundred acres 8 Farms (million) 6 Average farm size (hundred acres) 4

2 Land in farms (billion acres) Source: Economic Research Service, USDA and National Economic 0 Accounts, Bureau of Economic Analysis. Constant dollar figures are 1850 1900 1935 1959 1982 2007 based on the GDP chain-type price index with 2005 as the base year. Source: Census of Agriculture, NASS, USDA. Source: Census of Agriculture, NASS, USDA. 1 In this context, agricultural lands include Federal and non-Federal cropland, rangeland, and pastureland.

14 RC A Appraisal 2011 Table 2-1. Average farm size, tenure, value of production, and household income by farm typology, 2008 Farm typology grouping Farming- Farming- Limited Residential/ Category Retirement occupation/ occupation/ Large Very large Nonfamily All resources lifestyle lower sales higher-sales Farms, number 231,561 320,144 872,748 389,220 106,412 93,832 115,952 61,976 2,191,844 Farms, percent of U.S. total 10.6 14.6 39.8 17.8 4.9 4.3 5.3 2.8 100.0 Value of production, million dollars 2,999 4,191 12,314 10,736 21,196 39,026 173,546 46,399 310,407 Value of production, percent of U.S. total 1.0 1.4 4.0 3.5 6.8 12.6 55.9 14.9 100.0 Average farm size, acres 185 169 163 315 970 1,210 1,980 1,392 408 Land operated, percent of U.S. total 4.8 6.0 15.9 13.7 11.5 12.7 25.7 9.7 100.0 Farms by tenure, percent Full owner 73.2 85.0 70.7 65.9 33.3 21.7 23.0 68.1 65.7 Part owner 20.7 13.2 24.4 28.0 56.7 66.5 63.7 19.9 28.3 Tenant 6.0 *1.8 4.9 6.1 10.0 11.8 13.3 12.0 6.0 Acres by tenure, percent Full owner 49.2 74.9 55.4 51.7 24.9 15.1 10.5 39.0 34.0 Part owner 43.3 20.4 37.7 40.8 64.4 75.0 74.8 43.6 55.3 Tenant *7.4 *4.7 6.9 7.5 10.7 9.9 14.7 *17.4 10.7 Mean household income 6,478 66,975 90,491 52,144 68,313 99,409 250,359 NA 78,803 On-farm earnings1 -9,458 *-1,505 -8,448 *-5,137 23,920 58,045 196,045 NA 8,770 Off-farm income 15,936 68,480 98,939 57,282 44,393 41,364 54,314 NA 70,032 Households with: Negative farm earnings, percent 79.6 66.0 80.1 62.7 28.6 21.9 20.7 NA 66.4 Negative total household income, percent 24.1 3.0 1.8 8.1 15.5 14.2 14.5 NA 7.5 Source: 2008 USDA Agricultural Resource Management Survey. 1 Farm earnings are based on cash items only, with the exception of a deduction for depreciation. Farm earnings also exclude the share of net income generated by the farm paid to other households, such as those of partners. See box below for definitions of terms used in this table. Farm typology Retirement farms. Small farms whose operators report that they are retired, although they continue to farm on a small scale. USDA defines a farm as any place that produced and sold—or normally would Residential/lifestyle farms. Small farms whose operators report a major have produced and sold—at least $1,000 of agricultural products during a occupation other than farming. given year. USDA uses acres of crops and head of livestock to determine if a farm or ranch with sales of less than $1,000 could normally produce and sell Farming-occupation farms. Small farms whose operators report farming that amount. as their major occupation. Small family farms (sales less than $250,000) Lower-sales. Gross sales less than $100,000. Limited resource farms. Low income in both the current and previous Higher-sales. Gross sales between $100,000 and $249,999. year (less than the poverty level for a family of four with two children, or Large family farms. Farms with gross sales between $250,000 and $499,999. less than half the county median household income); and low sales in both Very large family farms. Farms with gross sales of $500,000 or more. the current and previous year (less than $100,000 in 2003 and indexed thereafter). Nonfamily farms. Any farm where the operator and persons related to the operator do not own a majority of the business. Chapter 2 • An Over vie w of Agriculture in the United States 15 In 1980 the average farm household received roughly 23 North Carolina experienced a large increase in hog production percent of its total income from farming, with the other 77 during the 1980s (Key and McBride 2007), and poultry percent coming from nonfarm sources. By 2008, the average production increased in the South (MacDonald 2008). farm household received only 11 percent of its income from farming (Economic Research Service 2010a). However, these Commodity production shifts into new areas can impact local averages mask the striking distinctions in farm income by and regional natural resource conditions as well as policies operation type. The typical very large family farm (see farm affecting the use of those resources. For example, in 1997, typology box on page 15) received 78 percent of its income following rapid growth in its hog industry, North Carolina from farming in 2008. The 1.8 million smaller farms—limited imposed a moratorium on confined hog operations with 250 resource, retirement, residential/lifestyle, and family farms or more animals in response to concerns about odor and with annual gross sales under $100,000—on average received impacts on water quality. Since each crop has its own input almost all of their income from off-farm sources (table 2-1). requirements, changing production patterns can have positive or negative impacts or natural resources. As farmers responded This diversity of farm types suggests a range of production to shifting price signals over the last decade by growing more and conservation motivations among owners and operators. corn and less cotton, application of both fertilizer and pesticides Conservation programs that appeal to large producers may declined in affected areas, reducing stress on water resources. not be attractive to these smaller producers, who control As corn production increased outside the Corn Belt into more than 40 percent of farm and ranch lands. Some small areas that previously grew wheat, so too did the amount of acreage farmers may conclude that the paperwork burden fertilizer being applied to fields, along with associated nutrient outweighs the potential gains of applying for financial run-off and leaching problems (Malcolm et al. 2009). assistance. The prevalence of off-farm employment suggests that smaller operators may have less time to devote to labor-intensive conservation practices, and small farm The impact of technology sizes and sales may limit their opportunity to invest in Agricultural output can increase in a number of ways—through, capital-intensive practices. To the extent that many of these for example, heavier use of agricultural inputs such as fertilizer, operators are new farmers who have limited experience the adoption of new technologies such as genetically modified with USDA and with conservation (as was often stated crops, better animal husbandry, refinements in irrigation in public listening sessions and focus groups conducted technology, or improvements in machinery and chemicals. to inform this Appraisal), this trend implies an increasing Between 1978 and 2008, total factor productivity—a measure demand for education, outreach, and technical assistance. of the effect of technology changes and improved use of inputs—grew 78 percent. As a result, even as the amount of Farms operated by part owners (those who both own and land and labor used in farming declined, total farm output grew rent land) and tenants (those who rent all their land) were by nearly 50 percent (fig. 2-3). Technological developments larger, on average, than similar operations of 30 years ago, have often increased the economies of scale enjoyed by and on average are larger than those operated by full owners. larger farms, so productivity trends and the concentration of In 2007, part owners operated 915 acres on average (up 17 production on fewer, larger farms have reinforced each other. percent since 1978) while tenants operated 582 acres (up 52 percent). In addition, constant dollar sales per farm grew for both tenure classes—doubling for part owners and tripling Figure 2-3. for tenants between 1978 and 2008. This trend away from U.S. agricultural output, input, and total factor productivity Title Figure 2−3. U.S. agricultural output, input, and total factor productivity full ownership could have implications for conservation Indices, 1978=1 to the extent that operators have less control over the 2 land and less incentive to conserve natural resources. Productivity 1.6 Location of production Output Production patterns emerge and evolve as producers learn which 1.2 climates and soil types are best suited to specific products. The Northeast and Lake States had long been known for dairy 0.8 Input production; the Corn Belt, for corn and hogs; the Northern Plains, as a major source of wheat; and the Pacific Coast, for 0.4 fruits and vegetables. Over the period 1982 to 2007, historic production patterns changed. For example, corn production outside the Corn Belt increased, wheat production shifted 0 1978 1981 1984 1987 1990 1993 1996 1999 2002 2005 2008 northward, and cotton production shifted eastward. Dairy Source: Economic Research Service, USDA. production has shifted westward (MacDonald et al. 2007), Source: Economic Research Service, USDA.

16 RC A Appraisal 2011 Genetically engineered crops practiced on an increasing share of the major crops grown in the United States (fig. 2-5). Conservation tillage adoption U.S. farmers have widely adopted genetically engineered is highest for soybeans because soybeans have a very little crops since their introduction in 1996. USDA survey data low yield risk under conservation tillage when compared show that herbicide-tolerant crops accounted for 93 percent to either corn or wheat production. Conservation tillage, of U.S. soybean acreage, 78 percent of cotton acreage, and 70 especially for no-till soybeans, is a simple technology system percent of corn acreage in 2010 (Economic Research Service compared to the more complicated management system 2010b). Insect-resistant crops containing the gene from the soil for no-till corn or wheat production. Additionally, pest bacterium Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) have been available for corn pressures (weeds, insects, and diseases) are more prevalent and cotton since 1996. Bt produces a protein that is toxic to in conservation tillage corn and wheat than in soybeans. specific insects. Plantings of Bt crops accounted for 73 percent of U.S. cotton acreage and 63 percent of corn acreage in 2010. Figure 2-5. Pesticide use Conservation Title tillage practices Figure 2−5. Conservation tillage practices During the period 1990 to 2007, total use of herbicides, Percent of acres using conservation tillage fungicides, and other chemicals on five major crops—corn, 75 soybeans, cotton, wheat, and fall potatoes—increased modestly, while use of insecticides declined (fig. 2-4). Changes in 60 Soybeans herbicide application rates in corn, soybeans, and cotton were due to the increased use of herbicide-tolerant seed varieties. The 45 Corn shift toward herbicide-tolerant crops has been accompanied by Wheat increased use of the herbicide glyphosate and a shift away from 30 more toxic herbicides (National Research Council 2010). The adoption of Bt resulted in reductions of insecticides applied to 15 corn and cotton. Figure 2-4. 0 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2004 2005 2006 Active chemical ingredients applied to corn, soybeans, Source: Agricultural Resource Management Survey, ERS/NASS, USDA. Source: Agricultural Resource Management Survey, ERS/NASS, USDA. cotton, Title wheat, Figure 2−4. Active andingredients chemical fall potatoes applied to corn, soybeans, cotton, wheat, and fall potatoes Millions of pounds of active ingredient Nutrient application 600

500 U.S. consumption of nitrogen has trended upward since 1982, Other while consumption of potash and phosphate has remained chemicals 400 Fungicides steady (fig. 2-6). Based on total fertilizer costs per acre, corn, Insecticides sugarbeet, rice, peanut, and cotton crops receive the most 300 Herbicides fertilizer. Corn receives the most nitrogen, and the recent trend 200 Figure 2-6. 100 Consumption of U.S. fertilizer nutrients Title Figure 2−6. Consumption of U.S. fertilizer nutrients

0 Short tons (millions) 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 15 Source: Agricultural Chemical Usage: Field Crop Summaries, NASS, USDA, supplemented with data from Source: Aspelin Agricultural (2003) and Chemical Usage: Field Crop Summaries, NASS, USDA, Padgitt et al. (2000). Nitrogen supplemented with data from Aspelin (2003) and Padgitt et al. (2000). 12 9 Reduced tillage Conservation tillage typically reduces runoff, which in turn 6 Potash reduces soil erosion, sedimentation, and surface losses of nutrients and pesticides. The soil water-holding capacity Phosphate 3 increases, soil organic-matter content and populations of beneficial organisms are maintained or enhanced, and soil stability improves. Stimulated by the prospects of higher 0 1982 1985 1988 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 economic returns and by public policies and programs Source: Source: Economic Economic Research Research Service, USDA Service, USDA using data using data from Association from Plant of American Association Food promoting its conservation benefits, conservation tillage is Control Officials and The Fertilizer Institute. of American Plant Food Control Officials and The Fertilizer Institute. Chapter 2 • An Over vie w of Agriculture in the United States 17 of using corn as an ethanol feedstock has pulled more land into corn production and increased application of nitrogen. Markets for agricultural products Manure can also be used as a source of nutrients. Nearly Farmers and ranchers respond to short- and long-term twice as much manure was added to about the same number changes in markets and shifts in demand in the United of crop and pasture acres in 2008 as in 1996 (fig. 2-7). Due States and internationally. Changing times require not only to corn’s high nutrient demand and use efficiency relative to different production and marketing directions but also other major crops, corn producers apply roughly 60 percent different approaches to protecting the natural resource base. of all manure and at higher rates than most other users. Figure 2-7. International trade U.S. agricultural exports have exceeded imports since 1960. Manure use Title Figure 2−7. Manure use Export values and the agricultural trade surplus reached Tons/acre Percent record highs in 2008 but declined in 2009 as the worldwide 12 12 recession dampened international trade. Historically, bulk Application rate (tons per acre) commodities—wheat, rice, coarse grains, oilseeds, cotton, 10 10 and tobacco—accounted for most U.S. agricultural exports. Acreage with manure (%) Since 1991, however, exports of high-value products— 8 8 meats, poultry, live animals, oilseed meals, vegetable oils, 6 6 fruits, vegetables, and beverages—have exceeded bulk commodities in value. Still, because of favorable land 4 4 resources and capital-intensive production, the United States is comparatively better at producing bulk commodity crops 2 2 than are most other countries. The adoption of biotechnology and consolidation of farm operations have further boosted 0 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 0 productivity in bulk commodities and the livestock sector. Source: Source: Agricultural Agricultural Resource Resource Management Management Survey, Survey, ERS/NASS, USDA. ERS/NASS, USDA. Emerging trends Consumption. The U.S. population is growing at just under 1 USDA assists producers in developing and implementing percent per year, requiring more food and fiber to be produced nutrient management plans that reduce the loss of applied on agricultural lands. In addition, the average American eats nutrients through leaching and runoff. Careful planning and more food every year—1,911 pounds per person in 2008 attention to the management of nutrient rate or amount, compared to 1,689 pounds per person in 1980 (Wells and the form of the product, the timing of application, and the Buzby 2008). During this period, per capita consumption of proper placement of the material improve the use efficiency poultry, milk products such as cheese, vegetables, vegetable of added nutrient materials and reduce the over-application fats and oils, corn sweeteners, and flour and cereal products of nutrients. Nutrient management plans can evolve with increased while consumption of red meat, animal fats, fruit, and time and experience into specific adaptive adjustments that other sugars and sweeteners, particularly refined sugar, declined. successfully produce food, forage, fiber, and fuel products Some of these changes are in response to relative price trends, while applying less nutrients and reducing the quantity and others are the result of longer run changes in population of material that escapes from the production system. age and demographics. Finally, some of these changes reflect emerging shifts in consumer food preferences. Examples include growing demands for organic foods, prepared foods for home Irrigation consumption, and ready-to-eat convenience food products. Farms with irrigated crops produced 40 percent of the value of agricultural products sold in 2007. Farms with at least Vertical integration. A growing share of U.S. farm output some irrigation were larger than the average farm and had is produced and sold under agricultural contracts as food annual sales more than four times higher than their dryland processors and distributors attempt to gain greater control counterparts. Traditionally, most of the Nation’s irrigated over their products and ensure market outlets. In 2005, land has been concentrated in the Mountain, Pacific, and contracts covered 41 percent of the total value of agricultural Plains States. While these regions still account for nearly 75 production, up from 11 percent in 1969 (MacDonald and percent of the U.S. irrigated acreage, irrigation has grown Korb 2008). By reducing price risk, rewarding contract farmers in the East—particularly in the Delta States, Corn Belt, and for increasing production efficiency, and in many cases, Northern Plains—over the past 25 years. As a result, Nebraska becoming more specialized, contract sales have encouraged now has more irrigated farmland than does California. large farmers to increase capital investments and further consolidate production. This geographic concentration of

18 RC A Appraisal 2011 production can indirectly increase pressure on specific natural and vegetables. While the supply of organic food has grown resources if it concentrates the use of particular inputs. to meet demand, certified U.S. organic crops still accounted for less than 1 percent of total crop acreage in 2008 (Greene et Contracts may also encourage the adoption of certain farming al. 2009). Organic farms tend to be smaller than farms using practices (for example, by requiring more stringent food conventional practices, but a much higher proportion of organic safety practices), and discourage or prohibit the adoption of farm operators consider farming to be their primary occupation. other practices, including some conservation practices. For example, the Resource Conservation District of Monterey Local food systems. Locally marketed foods account for County surveyed 600 irrigated row-crop growers throughout a small but growing share of total U.S. food sales. Direct­ the Central Coast region of California in 2007, and reported to-consumer sales by agricultural producers increased from that growers were under significant pressure from buyers to $551 million in 1997 to $1.2 billion in 2007, according to remove filter strips and other wildlife and water conservation the Census of Agriculture. The number of farmers’ markets practices (Beretti and Stuart 2008). Fifteen percent of growers has nearly doubled over the last 10 years, and the number in that study reported having removed or discontinued of other forms of local marketing, such as farm-to-school conservation practices in response to suggestions made by programs and community-supported agricultural organizations, food safety auditors or buyers, and more than half reported has increased as well. Local food markets can increase using bare-ground field buffers rather than vegetated buffers. the financial viability of farm operations located close to Fear that wildlife may contribute to e-coli contamination urban centers. Farmers near urbanized areas, particularly primarily affects growers of leafy greens and other vegetables, in the Northeast and on the West Coast, had the highest but fear of the spread of contagious diseases may also lead levels of direct-to-consumer sales in 2007 (fig. 2-9). livestock producers to avoid adopting practices that could bring wildlife into contact with domesticated animals. Figure 2-9. USDA is taking a co-management approach to resolve conflicts Value of farmers’ direct sales to consumers, by county Value of Direct-to-Consumers Sales by County, 2007 between food safety and conservation practices by evaluating food safety risks associated with conservation practices. Information about pathogen vectors (including irrigation water, amendments, domestic animals, and wildlife) and the potential interaction with commonly used conservation practices has been provided to conservation planners, farmers, and food safety auditors in an effort to improve the science-based risk-evaluation of farm management alternatives. Organic agriculture. The demand for and supply of organic food has grown rapidly over the past decade (fig. 2-8). By 2009, organic products accounted for more than 3.5 percent of food Legend sold for at-home consumption. Organic sales account for much Median sales or less higher percentages of specific commodities, particularly fruits $123,000 up to $1 million $1 million up to $2.5 million $2.5 million or more Not available/disclosure issues Figure 2-8. Source: USDA/NASS, 2007 Census of Agriculture. U.S. Title organic food sales Figure 2−8. U.S. organic food sales $ billion

25 Recreational use of agricultural land. Much like Condiments changing consumer preferences for food, changing preferences

20 Meat, fish, poultry for recreation can influence agricultural land-use decisions. Snack foods Roughly 2.5 percent of farms reported income from farm-based

15 Breads and recreation in 2004 —such as fees for hunting, fishing, petting grains zoos, and horseback riding (Brown and Reeder 2007). Farmers Packaged/ 10 prepared foods located in the South accounted for more than half of all U.S. Beverages farmers reporting recreational income in 2004, and farms 5 Dairy located in areas with broad-based recreational economies Fruits and were more likely to provide recreational opportunities. vegetables 0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Bioenergy markets. Ethanol grew from just over 1 percent of Source: Nutrition the U.S. gasoline supply in 2000 to 7 percent in 2008 (Westcott Source: Nutrition BusinessBusiness Journal. Journal. 2009). In the process, corn used to produce ethanol rose from 6 Chapter 2 • An Over vie w of Agriculture in the United States 19 percent of the U.S. corn supply to roughly 25 percent over this nutrients and pesticides than other major crops, the increase in 7-year period. Federal policy incentives have helped generate biofuels feedstock production also increases the likelihood of soil the market for biofuels (and increased the demand for corn erosion and runoff of nutrients and chemicals (Malcolm et al. production), most recently including the Energy Policy Act 2009). It may also increase water withdrawals if accompanied of 2005 and the Energy Independence and Security Act of by increased installation or use of irrigation systems. 2007. This trend has not only increased the amount of land planted to corn, including lands that were formerly used for Environmental markets. There are potential opportunities grazing or were idle, but also reduced the acreage planted to for farmers to market ecosystem services (fig. 2-10). For other crops. Because corn typically receives higher inputs of example, water quality credit trading programs allow farmers Figure 2-10. New markets for agricultural lands Environmental Markets Environmental markets are emerging in the United States in response to government regulation and growing demand for environmental improvement. Farmers, ranchers, and forest landowners that improve water quality, restore wetlands, reduce atmospheric carbon, or protect endangered species may be able to sell these ecosystem benefits in the form of tradeable credits, supplementing traditional revenues from food and fiber products. Farms and forests serve as nature’s storehouse of atmospheric carbon Trees, shrubs, and grasses filter pollutants dioxide and are central to climate and shade water, improving water quality change mitigation. Conservation for aquatic species and downstream tillage practices, perennial grass users. Landowners that reduce plantings, tree plantings, and sediment loads, nutrient runoff, or forest and rangeland restoration stream temperatures by planting cover activities can sequester additional carbon crops, creating or enhancing wetlands, dioxide from the atmosphere. Landowners establishing riparian buffers and grassed that increase carbon sequestration on their land waterways, and implementing other conservation may generate carbon offsets that can be sold to activities may generate water quality credits. greenhouse gas emitters in anticipation of future federal These credits can be sold to water utilities and industrial climate regulation or to carbon conscious consumers in polluters regulated by the Clean Water Act. a voluntary marketplace. Wildlife habitat and species protected Wetlands improve water quality, recharge under federal and state regulation are groundwater supplies, control shoreline often found on or near working lands. erosion, mitigate floods and other Landowners that set aside and manage natural hazards, and provide fish areas for species habitat and protection and wildlife habitat in addition to a can establish a conservation bank and host of other benefits. Landowners sell endangered species or habitat credits to land that undertake wetland restoration and developers and other entities that must comply with the protection activities under a formal agreement with the Endangered Species Act. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers can generate wetland mitigation credits that can be sold to developers and other entities permitted to impact a wetland under the Clean Water Act. USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

20 RC A Appraisal 2011 to sell credits for nutrient and sediment reductions. These the larger farms (table 2-2 and fig. 2-12). While these data credits can then be sold to industries that are subject to do not reflect the number of farmers receiving technical pollution abatement regulations. Similar markets exist for assistance in the absence of financial assistance, they do the preservation of wetlands and are being considered for indicate that considerable outreach opportunities exist greenhouse gas mitigation. When coupled with voluntary to attract more producers to conservation programs. markets for ecosystem services and with labeling standards, such as USDA’s organic label, these markets could Figure 2-11. compensate landowners for undertaking environmen­ tally friendly farming practices (Ribaudo et al 2008). Agricultural commodity and conservation program payments to farm operators Institutional and policy developments Government policies and programs at all levels can have a significant impact on agricultural land use decisions, either directly through property rights legislation and land-use regulations, or indirectly through government programs that affect input and output markets and, consequently, land-use decisions. Historically, the Federal Government’s farm program payments were geared toward supporting farm prices and income for key agricultural commodities. Payments tied to program crop production had the effect Source: Economic Research Service, USDA and National Economic of locking cropland in specific uses. Coupled with rising Accounts, Bureau of Economic Analysis. Constant dollar figures are productivity, the result was surpluses of many program based on the GDP chain-type price index with 2005 as the base year. Commodity payments include fixed payments, ad hoc emergency crops, which required supply controls to keep farm prices assistance, and transition payments in addition to payments tied to the and incomes from falling (Dimitri et al. 2005). As a result, production of specific commodities. millions of acres of agricultural land were left fallow to satisfy acreage reduction requirements through the early 1980s. Until passage of the Food Security Act of 1985, few payments Figure 2-12. were made to farm operators to encourage conservation. That Program participation by payment type and typology Act’s creation of the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) category, in percent, FY 2008 changed the agri-economic landscape by providing payments conservation conservation and commodity to landowners to retire some 30 million acres of environmen­ commodity no program tally sensitive cropland from production. This helped reduce crop surpluses, and supply controls were subsequently phased Percent 80 out in the 1990s. Annual conservation program payments to farm operators began routinely exceeding $2 billion. With 70 passage of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, additional conservation funds were targeted at working lands, 60 principally through the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), further increasing inflation-adjusted 50 annual conservation program payments to farm operators to 40 about $3 billion. Even so, conservation payments typically account for 25 percent or less of the total amount of farm 30 program payments reported by farm operators (fig. 2-11). 20 In 2008, about 17 percent of farms received conservation payments, with an average value of over $2,900 per 10 operation, and 29 percent received commodity-related 0 payments with an average value of over $6,300 (table l re imit so ed ur ce ge ge am 2-2). Of the smaller 1.8 million farms, 15 percent received re s re tir sid en em t en t lar lar ily lif ial / es ty le ry nf conservation payments, compared to about 26 percent of lo we rs ale ve no hi gh er sa s les Source: 2008 USDA Agricultural Resource Management Survey (ARMS) Chapter 2 • An Over vie w of Agriculture in the United States 21 Table 2-2. Government payments by farm typology, 2008 Farm typology grouping1 Farming- Farming- Limited Residential/ Category Retirement occupation/ occupation/ Large Very large Nonfamily All resources lifestyle lower sales higher-sales Farms, number 231,561 320,144 872,748 389,220 106,412 93,832 115,952 61,976 2,191,844 Farms receiving govt. payments 73,544 122,746 233,577 147,266 76,281 74,195 86,628 30,187 844,424 Farms receiving: Percent No government payments 68.2 61.7 73.2 62.2 28.3 20.9 25.3 51.3 61.5 Conservation payments only2 10.1 19.8 8.3 8.2 2.7 1.9 3.3 13.1 9.4 Both conservation and commodity 2.7 5.4 4.4 5.3 18.9 23.8 26.9 11.9 7.5 Commodity payments only 18.9 13.2 14.1 24.4 50.1 53.4 44.4 23.8 21.6 Average government payments Dollars Conservation 1,722 3,973 2,266 2,130 2,501 2,617 5,397 5,327 2,926 Commodity-related 939 857 1,221 1,878 7,101 13,452 31,420 11,735 6,338 Percent of U.S. total Share of govt. payments 2.5 7.2 10.5 8.3 9.8 15.5 40.0 6.2 100.0 Conservation 5.1 19.7 21.4 12.7 7.7 7.9 18.9 6.5 100.0 Commodity-related 1.5 2.7 6.7 6.7 10.5 18.3 47.4 6.1 100.0 Source: 2008 USDA Agricultural Resource Management Survey (ARMS) 1 See farm typology box on page 15 for definitions used in this table. 2 Conservation payments are including for the following programs only: Conservation reserve program, Conservation reserve enhancement program, Wetlands reserve program, environmental Quality Incentives program, and Conservation Security program; the arMS survey does not report data for participation in other conservation programs, including Conservation technical assistance. There is evidence that even payments that have been “de-coupled” from production levels or commodity prices Environmental regulations continue to influence the land-use decisions of individual Regulatory policies that can affect agriculture include those farmers. By reducing the risk of income fluctuations, these promulgated under the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, payments, along with other commodity payments and the Endangered Species Act, and the Federal Insecticide, federally subsidized crop insurance coverage, continue to Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, among others. Under encourage farmers to plant eligible crops (O’Donoghue and these Acts, agricultural producers may be required to obtain Whitaker 2010; Lubowski et al. 2006). On the other hand, permission before undertaking regulated activities (such because eligibility for commodity program payments on as draining wetlands) and the regulations may affect the environmentally sensitive land has been tied to conservation availability of agricultural inputs. In addition, as livestock compliance since 1985, these payments also limit, to operations have grown in size, concentrated animal feeding some extent, planting decisions on highly erodible soil operations (CAFOs) have come under closer scrutiny by the and wetlands. ERS estimates that up to 25 percent of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as potential 1.2-billion-ton reduction in annual cropland soil erosion sources of water pollution. CAFOs meeting certain conditions between 1982 and 1997 might be attributed to conservation must now implement nutrient management plans for animal compliance requirements (Claassen et al. 2004). manure applied to land. As of September 2010, EPA had issued 8,295 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits, covering 43 percent of the estimated CAFOs

22 RC A Appraisal 2011 (Environmental Protection Agency 2011). This requirement can restrict farmers’ options for using manure and in some References areas can increase the cost of manure disposal. Under the Beretti, M., and D. Stuart. 2008. Food safety and Clean Water Act, EPA and States are required to establish environmental quality impose conflicting demands total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) for water bodies that do on Central Coast growers. California Agriculture, not meet water quality standards. TMDLs establish pollutant Vol. 62, No. 2 (April-June): 68-73. loadings for listed water bodies in order to meet water quality standards. Along with other sources, agricultural nonpoint Brown, D., and R. Reeder. 2007. Farm-Based Recreation: A sources can be assigned a load allocation under a TMDL that Statistical Profile. ERR-53, Economic Research Service, U.S. establishes upper limits on allowable discharges. While TMDLs Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC, December may identify sources of water pollution and help States and 2007. communities develop comprehensive plans for improving http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/err53/ERR53.pdf water bodies, they do not provide a direct enforcement mechanism for regulating agricultural nonpoint sources. Claassen R., V. Breneman, S. Bucholtz, A. Cattaneo, R. Johansson, and M. Morehart. 2004. Environmental Compliance in Agricultural Policy: Past Performance and Conclusion Future Potential. Agricultural Economic Report 832, June 2004. http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/AER832/ Through a range of production inputs and intensive physical use of soils, agriculture has many direct and indirect impacts Dimitri, C., A. Effland, and N. Conklin. 2005. The on natural resources. With so much land in agricultural uses, 20th Century Transformation of U.S. Agriculture and it is important to understand the stewards of these lands and Farm Policy. EIB-3. Economic Research Service, U.S. the factors affecting their land-use decisions. A number of Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC, June gradual changes are occurring within the agricultural sector. The 2005. http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/EIB3/ overall number of farms is stable, but there are fewer mid-sized farms, more large farms, and more small farms. These small Economic Research Service. 2010a. Farm Household farms, on average, derive almost all of their household income and Economics Well-Being Briefing Room, available from off-farm sources. Full ownership of farms is trending at: www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/WellBeing/ down, and part owner and tenant operations are increasing. A growing share of production is occurring under agricultural Economic Research Service. 2010b. Adoption of contracts with processors and distributors. Conservation Genetically Engineered Crops in the U.S. ERS policy needs to be diverse to address the range of motivations Data Product last updated July 2010, available within the landowner and land operator communities. at: www.ers.usda.gov/Data/BiotechCrops/ The factors driving land use and production decisions continue Environmental Protection Agency. 2011. National to evolve. Technology advances are affecting which crops can Pollutant Discharge Elimination System CAFO Rule compete successfully in different regions. Climate change is Implementation Status – National Summary, Third expected to further alter the mix of crops and livestock in Quarter 2010, available at: http://www.epa.gov/npdes/ different regions (see chapter 5). Consumer preferences are pubs/cafo_implementationstatus_9302010.pdf shifting, and new markets are emerging within the agricultural Greene, C., C. Dimitri, B.H. Lin, W. McBride, L. Oberholtzer, sector. In particular, the growing demand for biofuels has already and T. Smith. 2009. Emerging Issues in the U.S. Organic shifted the balance between livestock and crop production and Industry. EIB-55. Economic Research Service, U.S. strengthened the market for corn production. Finally, Federal Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC, June 2009. conservation policies, such as the growth of land retirement http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/eib55/EIB55.pdf and working lands programs, affect production and land-use decisions on vulnerable soils across the nation. This chapter Key, N., and W. McBride. 2007. The Changing Economics discussed agricultural decisionmakers and the factors influencing of U.S. Hog Production. ERR-52. Economic Research their land management decisions. Chapter 3 focuses on assessing Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC, the current conditions of natural resources on non-Federal lands. December 2007. www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/ERR52/ Chapter 2 • An Over vie w of Agriculture in the United States 23 Lubowski, R.N., S. Bucholtz, R. Claassen, M.J. Roberts, National Research Council. 2010. Impact of Genetically J.C. Cooper, A. Gueorguieva, and R. Johansson. 2006. Engineered Crops on Farm Sustainability in the United Environmental Effects of Agricultural Land-Use Change: The States. National Academies Press, Washington, DC, April Roles of Economics and Policy. ERR-25. Economic Research 2010. www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12804 Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC, August 2006. www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/ERR25/ O’Donoghue, E.J., and J.B. Whitaker. 2010. Do direct payments distort producers’ decisions? An MacDonald, J.M. 2008. The Economic Organization of examination of the Farm Security and Rural Investment U.S. Poultry Production. EIB-38. Economic Research Act of 2002. Applied Economic Perspectives and Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, Policy, 32, no. 1 (Spring 2010):170-193. DC, June 2008. www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/EIB38/ Ribaudo M., L. Hansen, D. Hellerstein, and C. Greene. MacDonald, J.M., E.J. O’Donoghue, W.D. McBride, 2008. The Use of Markets to Increase Private R.F. Nehring, C.L. Sandretto, and R. Mosheim. 2007. Investment in Environmental Stewardship. ERR-64. Profits, Costs, and the Changing Structure of Dairy Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Farming. ERR-47. Economic Research Service, U.S. Agriculture, Washington, DC, September 2008. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC, September http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/ERR64/ 2007. www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/ERR47/ Wells, H.F., and J.C. Buzby. 2008. Dietary Assessment MacDonald, J., and P. Korb. 2008. Agricultural Contracting of Major Trends in U.S. Food Consumption, Update, 2005. EIB-37. Economic Research Service, 1970-2005. EIB-33. Economic Research Service, U.S. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC, Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC, March April 2008. www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/EIB35/ 2008. www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/EIB33/ Malcolm, S.A., M. Aillery, and M. Weinberg. 2009. Westcott, P.C. 2009. Full throttle U.S. ethanol expansion faces Ethanol and a Changing Agricultural Landscape. challenges down the road. Amber Waves, Vol. 7, No. 3 ERR-86. Economic Research Service, U.S. Department (September 2009): 28-35. www.ers.usda.gov/AmberWaves/ of Agriculture, Washington, DC, November 2009. September09/Features/EthanolExpansion.htm 2009 www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/ERR86

24 RC A Appraisal 2011 Chapter 3 The State of the Land Chapter 3 The State of the Land A griculture has been described as a “leaky” system. Figure 3-1. That is, some tradeoffs are unavoidable among the Trends in cropland erosion, conterminous 48 States, competing demands that we place upon our farmers, 1982–2007 ranchers, and forest landowners: To produce food, feed, fiber, and fuel for consumption in the United States and for export; to provide habitat for wildlife; to provide scenic vistas and recreational opportunities; and to do all of these things and more with minimal environmental impact. More than two-thirds of the land in the conterminous 48 States is in private farms, ranches, and forests. The stewardship of these lands is closely linked to the quality of our environment. Farmers, ranchers, and forest landowners have made great strides in protecting the Nation’s natural resource base, but maintaining these gains requires a continuing commitment to assessing and addressing important natural resource issues and concerns. This chapter provides an overview of the natural resource conditions and trends on U.S. agricultural and forest lands. Soil health Healthy land begins with healthy soils. Metrics for soil Source: 2007 National Resources Inventory, Natural Resources health include soil erosion, soil salinity, and soil carbon, Conservation Service, USDA which are affected by natural soil and site conditions, and by management. Healthy soils support— in the decade following implementation of the Conservation • Clean water by transforming harmful substances and Reserve Program (CRP), conservation compliance, and other chemicals to nontoxic forms, cycling nutrients, and provisions of the Food Security Act of 1985. As a result of this partitioning rainfall to keep sediment, nutrients, and Act, farmers retired much of the most highly erodible cropland pesticides out of lakes and streams; and applied additional conservation practices on vulnerable • Clean air by keeping dust particles out of the air and cropland. Although the rate of decrease in soil erosion has storing carbon from the atmosphere; and slowed since 1997, the general downward trend in sheet and rill erosion and wind erosion continued through 2007. • Healthy plant growth by storing nutrients and water and providing structural support through a receptive rooting Soil erosion on cropland is concentrated geographically because medium. of the combined effects of climate, soil characteristics, landscape features, and cropping and land management practices (fig. Soil erosion on cropland 3-2). Fifty-four percent of total sheet and rill erosion occurs Farmers reduced total cropland erosion by 43 percent between in two of the 10 farm production regions—the Corn Belt and 1982 and 2007 (USDA-NRCS 2009) (fig. 3-1). Total sheet and the Northern Plains—where crop production is most intense. rill erosion on cropland declined from 1.68 billion tons per year Most of the wind erosion occurs in regions where the soils to 960 million tons per year, and erosion due to wind declined are typically dry, vegetation is sparse, and winds are strong. from 1.38 billion tons per year to 765 million tons per year. Natural soil formation processes replace a certain amount On a per-acre basis over the 25-year period 1982 to 2007, of soil lost through erosion. Excessive erosion is that average annual sheet and rill erosion rates on cropland share of erosion above the soil loss tolerance level (T), the declined more than 30 percent, from 4.0 tons per acre per maximum rate of annual soil erosion that will permit crop year in 1982 to 2.7 tons per acre per year in 2007. Wind productivity to be sustained economically and indefinitely. erosion rates dropped from 3.3 to 2.1 tons per acre per year Excessively eroding cropland soils are concentrated primarily during the same period. The bulk of the reductions occurred

26 RC A Appraisal 2011 Figure 3-2. Erosion rates on cropland, by farm production region, 1982–2007 Source: 2007 National Resources Inventory, Natural Resources Conservation Service, USDA The many forms of soil erosion Soil erosion is a natural geologic process that involves the breakdown, are not filled in with material from adjacent land, a condition known as detachment, transport, and redistribution of soil particles by water, wind, classic gully erosion develops. or gravity. Water erosion occurs when the combined power of rainfall energy Another form of concentrated-flow erosion is streambank erosion, which and overland flow overcome the resistance of soil particles to detachment. often stems from unchecked sheet and rill or gully erosion in uplands and the Although some soil erosion supports natural ecologic functions, excessive absence of streamside vegetation. erosion can reduce the productive capacity of the land, impair the quality of water and air, and cause other onsite and offsite problems. Irrigation-induced erosion results from sprinkler or surface irrigation for agricultural production. It can take the form of sheet and rill or concentrated- Sheet and rill erosion occurs when rainfall and water runoff initially flow erosion. remove a fairly uniform layer, or sheet, of soil from the surface of the land. Eventually, small channels, or rills, form as rainwater collects and flows over Wind erosion also removes soil and in extreme cases can generate dust an unprotected soil surface. storms that cause significant health and property damage, reduce visibility, and close highways. Concentrated-flow erosion can follow sheet and rill erosion. Rills can enlarge and deepen into small channels that, when filled with sediment from adjacent Water erosion data from the National Resources Inventory include only sheet land, are called ephemeral gullies. If the channels continue to enlarge and and rill erosion and do not consider concentrated flow erosion or streambank erosion. Chapter 3 • T he State of the Land 27 in the Great Plains, the Corn Belt, the Lake States, and percent in 1982 to 55 percent in 2007. Additionally, the the Palouse area of Washington State (fig. 3-3). acreage of highly erodible cropland decreased by 22 percent, from 125 million acres in 1982 to 98 million acres in 2007, Figures 3-4, 3-5, and 3-6 show that throughout as these lands were enrolled in CRP or converted to other the period 1982 to 2007 most excessive cropland land uses. erosion occurred on highly erodible cropland. • Figure 3-6 shows that although total erosion on highly • Figure 3-4 shows that the proportion of non-highly erodible erodible and non-highly erodible cropland had declined by cropland acres eroding above T decreased gradually from 2007, the bulk of the erosion still occurred on the highly 29 percent in 1982 to 18 percent in 2007. There were about erodible cropland. Highly erodible cropland made up 30 294 million acres of non-highly erodible cropland in 1982, percent of all U.S. cropland in 1982 but contributed 57 compared to 259 million acres in 2007—a decrease of 12 percent of total cropland erosion; 76 percent of total erosion percent over the period. on highly erodible cropland was above T. In 2007, highly erodible cropland contributed 52 percent of total cropland • Figure 3-5 shows that the proportion of highly erodible erosion on only 27 percent of the cropland; 66 percent of cropland acres eroding above T also decreased, from 67 total erosion on highly erodible cropland was above T. Figure 3-3. Erosion exceeding the soil loss tolerance rate on cropland, conterminous 48 States, 2007 Source: 2007 National Resources Inventory, Natural Resources Conservation Service, USDA

28 RC A Appraisal 2011 Figure 3-4. Figure 3-5. Non-highly erodible cropland & erosion relative to the Highly erodible cropland & erosion relative to the tolerable tolerable erosion rate (T) erosion rate (T) Source: 2007 National Resources Inventory, Natural Resources Source: 2007 National Resources Inventory, Natural Resources Conservation Service, USDA Conservation Service, USDA Figure 3-6. Total erosion on highly erodible and non-highly erodible cropland relative to the tolerable erosion rate (T) Source: 2007 National Resources Inventory, Natural Resources Conservation Service, USDA Chapter 3 • T he State of the Land 29 Soil carbon sequestration The level of organic carbon in the soil is an important Determining soil organic carbon content measure of soil health. Soil organic matter provides a receptive Soil organic carbon values are based on soil properties estimated from medium for plant roots, promotes the infiltration of water, laboratory data from more than 25,000 sites analyzed for the National and supplies nutrients to plants. Soil organic carbon also is Cooperative Soil Survey. Although the data set is large, it represents a the largest terrestrial carbon reservoir. Estimates of organic limited number of the soils in the United States, and land cover and carbon content in the top 40 inches of soil range from— agricultural management were not considered in site selection. Thus, • 16 to 67 tons per acre in cropland soils, estimates of soil organic carbon stocks for specific soil and land cover • 21 to 73 tons per acre in forested soils, combinations have considerable uncertainty. The Rapid Assessment of • 19 to 65 tons per acre in rangeland soils, and U.S. Soil Carbon for Climate Change and Conservation Planning currently underway will help reduce this uncertainty. This one-time inventory, • 14 to 182 tons per acre in soils in other land uses (fig. 3-7). however, is addressing only broad soil and land cover groups and is not Through photosynthesis, plants combine carbon dioxide designed to address rates of change in soil organic carbon stocks. with water and with the aid of light energy form sugars that make up plant matter. Soil organic carbon content increases when plants leave carbon in the soil as decomposing organic settlement because cropping, erosion, grazing, and other matter. Although deep, undisturbed rangeland and forested factors depleted those stocks to some extent. Although soils have the highest levels of soil carbon near the soil surface, conventional tillage speeds up organic matter decomposition in many areas these soils are shallow or rocky and have less and lowers soil carbon stocks, most cropland soils today volume available for organic carbon storage than do the are farmed using some form of conservation tillage that deep, rock-free soils typically used for crop production. In involves less soil disturbance and leaves more surface the United States, cropland soils have higher average levels residue. Conservation tillage can, over time, conserve or of soil organic carbon stocks than do the other land uses. enhance soil organic carbon, and its continued use could increase current levels of soil carbon stocks by 15 percent. The current soil organic carbon stocks for forest land and grasslands are likely lower than they were before European Figure 3-7. Soil organic carbon stocks Soil organic carbon stocks are highest in the upper Midwest, an area dominated by cropland on deep soils, and in the heavily forested Pacific Northwest and Northeast. Source: USDA-NRCS

30 RC A Appraisal 2011 Figure 3-8 shows that nearly three-fourths of U.S. cropland is maintaining or increasing soil organic carbon levels. Soil salinity Soil salinity reduces crop yields and leads producers to adopt “Maintaining” means that a loss or gain in soil organic carbon more salt-tolerant crops. Where salinization is severe, crop over 20 years cannot be detected with routine soil sampling. production may be abandoned. Soil salinity can be attributed to— Figure 3-8. Soil carbon trends on U.S. cropland, percent of acres 1. Salt accumulations in arid areas from past geologic and by status climatic conditions; 2. Salt enrichment from saline high water table wicking and saline irrigation water; 3. Salts weathering into the soil from soil minerals in semiarid and subhumid areas; and Gaining 4. Sea water influence in low-lying coastal areas. 25% In addition to these natural factors, inefficient irrigation and Maintaining drainage can cause or accelerate soil salinization through 48% leaching and evapotranspiration. Losing Saline soils occupy approximately 5.4 million acres of cropland 27% in the conterminous 48 States. Another 76.2 million acres are at risk of becoming saline. The San Joaquin Valley, for example, which makes up the southern portion of California’s Central Valley, is among the most productive farming areas in the United States. However, irrigation-induced salt buildup in the Source: Preliminary data, CEAP Cropland Assessment, conterminous soils and groundwater is threatening continued productivity

48 States and sustainability (Schoups et al. 2005) (fig. 3-9). As climate changes, areas in the southwestern United States are at greatest risk of increasing salinity levels. Figure 3-9. Salinity-affected soils and soils at risk The soil salinity data used in this report are from various vintages of soil survey projects over several decades and represent less than optimal laboratory data and observations. The Soil Survey Program of USDA NRCS is updating information for soil surveys. Source: NRCS SSURGO Chapter 3 • T he State of the Land 31 Rangeland health 17 different rangeland health indicators (Pyke et al. 2002) on the degree of departure (none-to-slight, slight-to-moderate, A longstanding challenge for rangeland policy and management moderate, moderate-to-extreme, and extreme-to-total) from has been how to determine optimal conditions in the variety of expected levels in the ecological site description (Pellant et al. types of ecosystems found in rangelands. A new rangeland health 2005). Rangeland health at each location was determined by the inventory system uses local knowledge to establish reference median rating for soil and site stability, hydrologic function, and points, or reference conditions, for particular types of land, biotic integrity. Nearly 80 percent of the Nation’s 409 million which allows assessment of site conditions at a specific time. acres of non-Federal rangeland are relatively healthy. However, the remaining 20 percent (about 82 million acres) depart at least To determine range health at NRI sample locations, experts with moderately from the reference condition for one or more of the knowledge of soil, hydrology, and plant relationships evaluated three attributes of rangeland health described below (fig. 3-10). Figure 3-10. Rangeland showing departure from reference conditions for all three attributes of rangeland health: Soil and site stability, hydrologic function, and biotic integrity Source: USDA-NRCS/NRI Rangeland Resource Assessment

32 RC A Appraisal 2011 At least 9 percent of rangeland acres have at least moderate Figure 3-11. departure from reference condition for all three attributes: Relationship of soil loss to precipitation for a sagebrush 1. Soil and site stability is the capacity of a site to limit site on a loamy soil near Elko, NV wind and water erosion. Less than 12 percent of U.S. Soil loss (tons/acre) 1.6 rangeland has at least moderate departure from expected site conditions for soil and site stability. Precipitation events 1.4 2. Hydrologic function characterizes the capacity of the site to capture, store, and safely release water from rainfall, 1.2 run-on, and snowmelt and to resist or recover from degradation. About 14 percent of U.S. rangeland has at 1.0 least moderate departure from expected site conditions for hydrologic function. 0.8 3. Biotic integrity is the capacity of a site to support 0.6 characteristic functional and structural plant communities in the context of normal variability, and to resist or recover 0.4 from disturbances. About 18 percent of U.S. rangeland has at least moderate departure from expected site conditions for 0.2 biotic integrity. 0 1 year 2 year 10 year 25 year 50 year 100 year Soil erosion on rangeland event (0.2 event (0.4 event (0.7 event (1 event (1.2 event (1.5 inch/hour) inch/hour) inch/hour) inch/hour) inch/hour) inch/hour) Tolerable soil loss rates on arid rangeland soils are typically lower than those on Midwestern cropland soils; many arid Source: USDA Agricultural Research Service rangeland soils are shallower, have slower rates of soil formation in the dry climates typical of rangeland, and support vegetation that grows more slowly and provides less ground cover. annual soil loss; these most vulnerable acres are predominantly Water erosion is less than 1 ton per acre per year on more in the central and southern Great Plains (fig. 3-12) although than two-thirds of U.S. rangeland, between 1 and 2 tons on vulnerable acres can be identified in each State. Soil disturbance about one-sixth, and exceeds 2 tons on about one-sixth. and lack of vegetative and ground cover are the most important factors that contribute to erosion on rangeland (Wilcox et al. Average annual erosion rates on rangeland, however, do not 2003, Pierson et al. 2009, Bartley et al. 2010a, Bartley et al. tell the whole story. Most soil loss occurs during intense 2010b, Urgeghe et al. 2010). Areas with low to moderate soil storms that generate large amounts of runoff, but such erosion rates can be treated and erosion controlled through storms are rare. Consequently, while soil erosion is much minor changes in management such as moving the locations less than average during most years, once-in-a-century of salt or supplemental feeding areas to redistribute livestock. storms can generate greater than 100 times average annual soil loss in less than a day. In Elko, NV, for example, In the arid and semi-arid parts of the country where historic data indicate that rainfall intensity has exceeded 1 rangelands dominate, wind erosion can generate dust inch per hour only four times per century (fig. 3-11). storms that cause significant health and property damage, and can even result in highway closures or accidents due Erosion is not distributed uniformly across non-Federal to low visibility. Rangeland vegetation limits dust emission rangelands (fig. 3-12). Twenty percent of the area of non-Federal to extremely low levels. If rangelands, including much of rangeland produces more than 65 percent of total soil the land currently protected by CRP in the Great Plains, erosion (USDA-NRCS 2010). More than 31 percent of U.S. are cultivated, the potential for wind erosion increases non-Federal rangeland is vulnerable to unsustainable average dramatically. Potential effects vary regionally (fig. 3-13). Chapter 3 • T he State of the Land 33 Figure 3-12. Average annual water erosion rates on western rangelands Over the course of a century, the average annual water erosion rates are highest in the Central Plains from central Texas to South Dakota because the annual precipitation is higher there than in the intermountain States Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, and Utah. Source: USDA-Agricultural Research Service Figure 3-13. Potential effects of soil and vegetative disturbance on western rangelands Dust production from rangelands is minimal when soils are vegetated and not intensively disturbed, which is typical for rangeland soils (left). Vegetation removal combined with intense disturbance, such as overgrazing, intensive off-highway vehicle use, or cultivation, dramatically increases potential wind erosion. Areas with soils more susceptible to wind erosion and soils having higher concentrations of fine particles (silt and clay) are at greater risk of high dust emission if intensively disturbed. Source: USDA-Agricultural Research Service

34 RC A Appraisal 2011 Brush Management on the ARS Walnut Gulch Experimental Watershed in southern Arizona The Automated Geospatial Watershed Assessment tool was used to estimate the benefits of brush management to reduce the invasive species creosotebush and the benefits of reseeding practices to restore the watershed to native desert grassland. Benefits were found to be enhanced soil moisture and forage production, and significantly reduced surface runoff and soil erosion from water. Change in peak flow (mm/hr) after removing the brush and restoring to desert grassland in southern Arizona Change in sediment yield (kg/ha) after removing the brush and restoring to desert grassland in southern Arizona Source: USDA Agricultural Research Service Chapter 3 • T he State of the Land 35 Invasive plant species on rangeland important non-native invasive plants include medusahead and Centaurea and Cirsium species (USDA-NRCS 2010). Non-native plant species occur on nearly 50 percent of non-Federal rangelands, and account for at least 50 percent Some native woody shrubs such as juniper and mesquite can of the land cover on more than 5 percent of these lands. invade areas replacing native grasses and forbs. Dense stands Most non-native plant species cause no problems and in reduce habitat and forage for domestic animals and wildlife some cases are considered beneficial. Crested wheatgrass, and can increase the potential for soil erosion. Deep root for example, is an introduced species that is relatively systems of woody species may reduce water availability to easy to establish and commonly recommended for forage both plants and animals. Invasive juniper species, including production and soil stabilization in arid regions (USDA-NRCS eastern redcedar, are widespread, but are especially prevalent 2010). Under some conditions, however, some non-native in the Great Plains from the Canadian border to the Gulf species have become invasive. Once established, these Coast. Juniper species often invade areas that have historically species have been difficult to eradicate. Where they replace been disturbed, for example, in some areas where overgrazing significant proportions of native plant communities, was common during early settlement years (fig. 3-14). they can modify vegetation structure, the fire regime, soil erosion rates, and forage production. These changes in turn can have significant effects on wildlife populations. Forest health Some non-native invasive herbaceous species can outcompete Forests provide a vast array of public goods and services, native species and reduce forage availability for wildlife such as clean water, timber, wildlife habitat, and recreational and livestock. The annual bromes, which are the most opportunities. Forest insect pests and diseases and forest fires are widespread of the invasive plants, are highly invasive in many intrinsic components of naturally functioning forest ecosystems, shrub communities including sagebrush and piñon and but they also can have detrimental effects (USDA Forest Service juniper savannas. Communities of annual bromes can be 2009). Native and exotic pests have killed trees on millions of highly flammable from late spring through early fall. Other acres of U.S. forests. Similarly, wildfires have severely damaged forests and the waters and wildlife that depend upon them. Figure 3-14. Prevalence of invasive juniper species on rangelands in the 17 western States Areas of rangeland where invasive juniper species are present (left), and areas where invasive juniper species make up at least 50 percent of the land cover (right) Source: USDA-NRCS/NRI Rangeland Resource Assessment

36 RC A Appraisal 2011 Forest insect pests and diseases can reach outbreak levels Figure 3-15. when susceptible forest conditions are combined with Acres with outbreak levels of tree mortality, 1999–2009 weather stress. Periods of below-normal precipitation and above-normal temperatures can stress trees and reduce their Million Acres 14 resistance to insects and pathogens. The Forest Service’s Forest Health Monitoring (FHM) Program determined 12 that a large increase in tree mortality from 2002 through 2009 was largely due to increased bark beetle activity in 10 the West following severe regional drought (fig. 3-15). A national risk assessment, completed in 2006 under the 8 FHM program, identified areas where more than 25 percent of the trees greater than 1 inch in diameter are expected to die 6 within 15 years due to insects and disease (Krist et al. 2007) (fig. 3-16). More than 27 million acres of non-Federal forest 4 lands—an area about the size of Louisiana—were deemed to be at risk of mortality due to insect pests and diseases. 2 0 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Year Source: USDA Forest Service Figure 3-16. Areas with potential risk of greater than 25 percent tree mortality due to insects and diseases Source: USDA Forest Service Chapter 3 • T he State of the Land 37 Fire is a major disturbance in many forests of the United Figure 3-17. States. The annual amount of area burned varies depending on Total area of wildfires, 1961–2009 weather conditions, fuel loading, and forest stand conditions. Million Acres Much of the recent increase in area burned is due to increased 12 fuel loads and recent changes in weather, especially in the western United States. The total forested area burned in 2006 10 was the largest fire-affected acreage during the period 1960 to

2009 (fig. 3-17). The Forest Service’s Fire Modeling Institute has developed the Wildland Fire Potential Model to identify 8 areas across the country with the greatest risk of forest damage due to wildfire under extreme conditions (Menakis 2008). 6 Watersheds where private forests have the highest wildland fire potential are concentrated heavily in the Western and 4 Southeastern United States (Stein et al. 2009) (fig. 3-18). 2 0 61 65 69 73 77 81 85 89 93 97 01 05 09 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 20 20 20 Year Source: USDA Forest Service Figure 3-18. Percentage of private forest with high wildfire potential Source: USDA Forest Service

38 RC A Appraisal 2011 Invasive plant and animal species Use of some invasive species as biofuel feedstocks, and potential hazards and concerns are presently being discussed. An estimated 50,000 non-native plant and animal species For example, under a Conservation Innovation Grant from have been introduced into what is now the United States NRCS, Montana State University is developing innovative since European settlement. Many of these plants and animals ideas for managing invasive plants in the upper Missouri are beneficial; introduced plants such as rice, corn, and River watershed. More than 1 million acres within the wheat and introduced cattle and poultry species are the watershed are infested with Russian olive and saltcedar, which underpinning of the U.S. agricultural economy, providing are potential sources of biomass for energy production. more than 98 percent of U.S. food production valued at about $800 billion annually (Pimentel et al. 2005). The challenge of feral swine Some of the deliberate and unintentional introductions Pigs are thought to have been introduced into the United States by the of plants, animals, and pathogens, however, are invasive. early European explorers. Over time, many pigs were released or escaped Biological invasions by non-native species impose an into the wild, especially in the southeastern United States. Despite ongoing enormous cost on agriculture, forestry, fisheries, and human efforts to control their spread, wild pigs have increased both their range and food security and health. Many introduced species compete population size (West et al. 2009). Estimates of the feral swine population with or prey upon native species, hybridize with them, and range as high as 5 million (Pimentel 2007) in as many as 39 U.S. States carry diseases to them. Invaders can change ecosystems by (West et al. 2009). altering hydrology, nutrient cycling, water use, and other Feral pigs are considered pests because they feed by rooting and grazing, ecosystem processes. Invasive weeds cause agricultural which destroys crops and causes ecological damage in the form of reduced production losses and degrade water catchments, estuarine water quality, increased soil erosion, damage to trees and other native systems, and fisheries and clog rivers and irrigation systems. plants, and transmission of disease. Damage and control costs have been Current environmental, economic, and health costs of estimated to be around $1.5 billion annually (Pimentel 2007). invasive species are estimated to exceed $138 billion per These animals have few natural predators in the United States, although year—an estimate that some consider conservative (Pimentel in some locations alligators, bears, and large cats prey on them. Wild pigs et al. 2005). Examples of invasive species include— are hunted in many areas, but hunting alone is unlikely to control them especially where habitat conditions are favorable. Because the pigs quickly • The West Nile virus, which kills or sickens mainly birds but learn to avoid single-control techniques, the best control mechanism also mammals; appears to be a combination of techniques. • The whirling disease parasite, which kills wild as well as farm-raised fish; • The sudden oak death fungus, which kills oaks and other trees and shrubs, and the white nose syndrome fungus, PLANTS Database which is decimating bat populations; The USDA PLANTS Database (http://plants.usda.gov/ index.html) provides standardized information about • Plants such as kudzu, water hyacinth, leafy spurge, saltcedar, the vascular plants, mosses, liverworts, hornworts, and Russian olive, and knapweed, which displace native plants lichens of the United States and its territories, including or choke waterways; invasive species. The map below shows the U.S. States • Invertebrates such as fire ants, which kill poultry chicks and and Canadian provinces where the yellow starthistle has livestock, and invasive mollusks, which outcompete native spread. This invasive plant was introduced to the United species and damage municipal water facilities; States in contaminated seed from its native Eurasia in the 1800s. It crowds out native species and is toxic to horses. • Vertebrates such as introduced rat species, which destroy stored grains and spread diseases, and feral swine, which damage crops and wildlands and also transmit disease. Invasive species are “plants, animals, and other organisms whose introduction causes, or is likely to cause, economic or environmental harm, or harm to human health” (Executive Order 13112, February 3, 1999). The invaders spread by way of several pathways, and since many of these species infest areas not also inhabited by their natural biological controls, their spread is unrestricted and their impacts often costly. Only a small fraction of introduced non-native species become established, and only about 10 percent become invasive and harmful. Chapter 3 • T he State of the Land 39 Wetlands Wetlands cover about 111 million acres of non-Federal land and water in the conterminous United States (fig. 3-19), Wetlands are a condition of the land found across land uses. which is about half the acreage of wetlands that existed at They are protected at the Federal, State, and local levels because the time of European settlement. The two principal wetland of the valuable ecological services they provide. Wetlands types are Estuarine and Palustrine. Estuarine wetlands occur filter nutrients, trap sediments and associated pollutants, in the tidal zones of coastal states where freshwater streams improve water quality, provide fish and wildlife habitat, reduce enter the ocean or where wetland emergent vegetation floodwater runoff peaks, recharge aquifers, buffer shorelines occurs in tidal waters partially diluted by fresh water. About from storm impacts, and produce food and fiber for human 57 percent of U.S. wetlands occur in the Lake States, consumption and use. Wetlands conservation is supported Southeast, and Delta States; wetlands are least abundant in by a growing awareness of their values by Federal, State, and the Pacific, Corn Belt, and Mountain States (fig. 3-20). local programs and the efforts of private organizations. Figure 3-19. Location of wetlands, conterminous 48 States, 2007 Source: 2007 National Resources Inventory, Natural Resources Conservation Service, USDA

40 RC A Appraisal 2011 The decade 1997 to 2007 was the first in which wetland gains Figure 3-21. outpaced losses. During this period, there was a modest net gain Losses and gains in Palustrine and Estuarine wetlands, in wetland area of about 250,000 acres—a gross gain of some conterminous 48 States, 1992–2007 690,000 acres less a gross loss of 440,000 acres (fig. 3-21). Sixty percent of gross wetland losses during the period 1997 to 2007 were due to urban and industrial development and about 15 percent to agriculture. Conversion of wetlands to agricultural uses during this period averaged over 6,500 acres per year, or about one-fourth the rate of conversion during the early 1990s. Conversely, more than 59 percent of wetland gains occurred on agricultural lands. Net gains were recorded in the Corn Belt and Northern Plains, a net loss was reported in the Southeast, and total wetland acreage remained stable in the other regions. Source: 2007 National Resources Inventory, Natural Resources Conservation Service, USDA Figure 3-20. Palustrine and estuarine wetlands by Farm Production Region, 2007 Source: 2007 National Resources Inventory, Natural Resources Conservation Service, USDA Chapter 3 • T he State of the Land 41 Wetland conservation practices in the Wildlife habitat While a variety of productive wildlife habitat types are found Prairie Pothole Region in agroecosystems, much of the original grassland and wetlands As part of the Conservation Effects Assessment Project (CEAP), the U.S. in the Corn Belt, northern prairies, and California’s Central Geological Survey (USGS) conducted a comprehensive, stratified survey of Valley; the original bottomland hardwood forested wetlands wetlands and catchments in the Prairie Pothole Region of the Upper Midwest of the Southeast; and the sagebrush habitats of western and northern Great Plains—204 wetlands in 1997 and 270 catchments in rangelands have been converted to agricultural use (Noss et 2004.These areas represented a subset of about 5 million acres of wetland al. 1995, Tewksbury et al. 2002). Although the United States and grassland systems established on Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) harbors significant biodiversity, approximately one third of all species are at-risk or of conservation concern (Stein et al. and Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) lands. The purpose of the survey was 2000). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service lists 578 animal to gather data for estimating a variety of ecosystem services provided by species as threatened or endangered in the United States under prairie pothole wetlands and catchments. the Federal Endangered Species Act (fig. 3-22). Moreover, Principal findings include the following: thousands of additional species are at risk of becoming threatened or endangered (fig. 3-23). Agriculture is listed as a • Restoration practices improved the distribution and species richness of source of endangerment for 45 percent of listed or proposed the native plant community, but not to the point of full site potential. fishes and 64 percent of mussels; water pollution from all sources has been identified as a source of endangerment for • Catchments with a history of cultivation had less soil organic carbon in 55 percent of fishes and 97 percent of mussels (Wilcove et the upper soil profile than did native prairie catchments. al. 1998). Figure 3-24 shows the concentrations of plant and animal species considered at risk but not listed as threatened or • Wetlands on program lands have significant potential to intercept and endangered, largely in the mountainous areas in the East and store precipitation that otherwise might contribute to downstream the West, in Florida, parts of the Gulf Coast, and Hawaii. flooding; conservatively estimated, wetland catchments on program lands could capture and store an average of 1.1 acre-feet of water per More than one third of the listed animal species are fishes (140) or clams (70), highlighting the disproportionate number of acre of cropland. aquatic listed species and the importance of aquatic habitats for • Conversion of cultivated cropland to herbaceous perennial cover their survival and recovery. Nearly 70 percent of the nation’s through CRP and WRP enrollments reduced total soil loss from uplands freshwater mussels, more than half of the crayfish species, and by an average of almost 2 million tons per year, potentially resulting more than one-third of freshwater fishes are at risk (Stein et al. 2000). Thirty-nine percent of all known North American in the delivery of less sediment and associated nutrients to sensitive freshwater fish and diadromous fish (those that migrate offsite ecosystems such as lakes, streams, and rivers. between salt and fresh water) are imperiled—more than • Restored catchments provide at least some necessary resources for double the proportion imperiled in 1989 (Jelks et al. 2008). a diversity of bird species that cropland catchments do not; CRP and Bird populations are useful indicators of the status of other WRP enrollments led to increases in the number of grassland areas wildlife species that inhabit the same environments. There that exceeded published nesting area requirements for the five are more than 800 bird species in North America. Of bird area-sensitive grassland bird species evaluated in the study. groups in general, those experiencing the greatest population declines in recent decades include Hawaiian birds, seabirds and coastal shorebirds, grassland birds, and arid-land birds (North American Bird Conservation Initiative, U.S. Committee 2009). Threats to sagebrush habitats pose risks to greater sage-grouse and other sage-steppe dependent species (Knick et al. 2003). Although the human footprint has caused significant changes to original ecosystems, productive fish and wildlife habitats do remain in agricultural landscapes, and USDA conservation programs are contributing significantly to collaborative efforts to conserve and restore important habitat functions (Haufler 2005). Grassland habitats can be restored or enhanced through conservation practices and programs on agricultural lands.

42 RC A Appraisal 2011 Figure 3-22. Distribution of federally listed threatened and endangered species Each dot on the map represents a known occurrence of threat or endangerment. The patterns are most dense where water is present, reflecting the vulnerability of aquatic species. Source: State Natural Heritage Data Centers (1996), cited in Stein et al. 2000. Figure 3-23. Areas of endangerment for aquatic animal species on non-Federal land and water Source: NatureServe Chapter 3 • T he State of the Land 43 For example, recent stabilization of long-term declines in Henslow’s sparrow populations has been attributed to the Establishment of field buffers promotes wildlife habitat presence of grassland habitats provided by Conservation Reserve The Habitat Buffers for Upland Birds practice (Practice Code CP33) is the Program (CRP) enrollments in Midwestern states (Herkert first Federal conservation practice to target species-specific population 2007). Likewise, CRP grasslands are contributing to meeting population goals of priority grassland birds in the Great Plains recovery goals of a national wildlife conservation initiative (the Northern (McLachlan et al. 2007, McLachlan and Carter 2009). Bobwhite Conservation Initiative). This practice offers incentives to landowners for establishment of a diverse native herbaceous community In response to recent population declines, coordinated efforts along crop field edges to provide habitat for northern bobwhite and other have been made to set population goals, habitat objectives, upland birds. and conservation strategies for northern bobwhites (Dimmick et al. 2002), greater sage-grouse (Connelly et al. 2004), The USDA Farm Service Agency (FSA) administers the Continuous prairie grouse (Vodehnal and Haufler 2007), and other Conservation Reserve Program (CCRP), under which the CP33 practice is priority birds through various bird habitat joint ventures. supported. FSA allocated 250,000 CP33 acres to 35 states within the bobwhite range for establishment of 30- to 120-foot upland habitat buffers under 10-year contracts. More than 209,000 CP33 acres were USDA Sage-Grouse Initiative preserves vital habitat enrolled between 2004 and the end of 2009. The greater sage-grouse, a ground-dwelling bird inhabiting the sagebrush The results? A Conservation Effects Assessment Project (CEAP) wildlife steppe ecosystem of the American West, has experienced a significant study found that over a 14-State area, breeding bobwhite densities were decline in population and habitat over several decades. The USDA Natural 70 to 75 percent greater and fall bobwhite covey densities were 50 to 110 Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Sage-Grouse Initiative (SGI) is percent greater around CP33 fields than around unbuffered crop fields. accelerating implementation of conservation practices that would protect This positive response to CP33 increased each subsequent year of the the birds and improve their habitat. NRCS and the Fish and Wildlife Service study. Several upland songbirds, such as dickcissel and field sparrow, also (FWS) of the United States Department of the Interior are collaborating to responded strongly to CP33 in the landscape. Area-sensitive grassland address potential Endangered Species Act (ESA) issues before they become birds such as the grasshopper sparrow, however, exhibited little response. intractable problems. These findings show that conservation buffers supported by CP33 and The SGI includes monitoring and evaluation to measure the biological through conservation programs such as the Environmental Quality response of sage-grouse populations to the initiative. Range-wide Incentives Program (EQIP) and Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program (WHIP) sage-grouse core areas have been mapped to gauge practice effectiveness, entail relatively small changes to primary land use yet can provide adaptively improve program delivery, and ensure that practices benefit essential wildlife habitat in productive working agricultural landscapes. the largest number of birds. Initiative-sponsored research is underway in Broader application of this effective conservation practice can be used to Montana, Wyoming, and Oregon to assess benefits of grazing systems and accomplish regional recovery of bobwhite populations. encroached conifer removal. At least 525 ranches are participating in the initiative. The Initiative employs the “conferencing” section of ESA to secure from FWS reasonable certainty for cooperators who voluntarily implement NRCS-sponsored conservation practices. NRCS cooperators will be in compliance regarding sage-grouse under ESA if the sage-grouse species is listed as threatened or endangered.

44 RC A Appraisal 2011 Figure 3-24. Distribution of plant and animal species at risk of becoming threatened or endangered, by watershed Source: NatureServe Conclusion ranches, and forests. For the first time, wetland gains from agriculture are outpacing wetland losses to agriculture. Because farms, ranches, and forests make up more than 85 percent of the non-Federal area of the conterminous Despite these gains, many conservation issues remain to

48 States, the quality of the environment is linked with be addressed. Erosion will always be a concern where crops stewardship of those lands. Sound stewardship requires are grown and livestock are grazed. Non-native, invasive a continuing commitment to assessing and addressing plants and animals are growing concerns on rangeland and important natural resource issues and concerns. cropland and in postharvest storage facilities. Expected changes in climate patterns will require adaptations in In general, natural resource trends on agricultural and forest farm and forest management. Through the Conservation lands are headed in the right direction. Soil erosion on Effects Assessment Project (CEAP), USDA seeks to provide cropland is down, and the bulk of the Nation’s grasslands and quantitative measurements of conservation benefits and non-Federal forest lands are in good condition. Soil carbon more precisely identify conservation treatment needs. stocks are stable or increasing in most places. Although agriculture is a source of endangerment for many wildlife USDA conservation programs strive to maintain a balance species, productive habitats remain in the Nation’s farms, between food security and a healthy environment. Chapter 4 outlines USDA’s current suite of conservation approaches. Chapter 3 • T he State of the Land 45 References McLachlan, M., M. Carter, and C. Rustay. 2007. Effects of the Conservation Reserve Program on priority mixed-grass prairie Bartley, R., J.P. Corfield, B.N. Abbott, A.A. Hawdon, birds: a Conservation Effects Assessment Project report. S.N. Wilkinson, and B. Nelson. 2010a. Impacts of Playa Lakes Joint Venture, Grand Island, Nebraska, USA. improved grazing land management on sediment yields, Part 1: Channel response. Journal of McLachlan, M., and M. Carter. 2009. Effects of the Hydrology, doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2010.06.014. Conservation Reserve Program on priority shortgrass prairie birds: a Conservation Effects Assessment Project report. Bartley, R., J.P. Corfield, B.N. Abbott, A.A. Hawdon, Playa Lakes Joint Venture, Stillwater, Oklahoma, USA. S.N. Wilkinson, and B. Nelson. 2010a. Impacts of improved grazing land management on sediment Menakis, J. P. 2008. Mapping Wildland Fire Potential for the yields, Part 2: Channel response. Journal of Conterminous United States. Presented at USDA Forest Hydrology, doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2010.06.014. Service Twelfth Biennial Remote Sensing Conference, RS-2008, Salt Lake City, Utah. Available at: http:// Bergman, D.L., M.D. Chandler, and A. Locklear. 2000. The svinetfc4.fs.fed.us/RS2008/j_menakis/index.htm Economic Impact of Invasive Species to Wildlife Services’ Cooperators. University of Nebraska-Lincoln. USDA North American Bird Conservation Initiative, U.S. National Wildlife Research Center Symposia—Human Committee. 2009. The State of the Birds. U.S. Conflicts with Wildlife: Economic Considerations. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC, USA. Connelly, J.W., S.T. Knick, M.A. Schroeder, and S.J. Stiver. Noss, R., E.T. LaRoe, and J.M. Scott. 1995. Endangered 2004. Conservation Assessment of Greater Sage-Grouse ecosystems of the United States: a preliminary and Sagebrush Habitats. Western Association of Fish and assessment of loss and degradation. Report Wildlife Agencies. Unpublished report. Cheyenne, WY. 0611-R-01, U.S. Department of Interior, National Biological Service, Washington, D.C., USA. Dimmick, R.W., M.J. Gudlin, and D.F. McKenzie. 2002. The Northern Bobwhite Conservation Initiative. Pellant, M., P. Shaver, D.A. Pyke, and J.E. Herrick. 2005. Miscellaneous publication of the Southeastern Association Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health, Version of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, South Carolina. 4. Technical Reference 1734-6. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Mangement, National Haufler, J.B., editor. 2005. Fish and Wildlife Benefits of Farm Science and Technology Center, Denver, CO. BLM/ Bill Conservation Programs: 2000–2005 update. The WO/ST-00/001+1734/REV05. 122pp. Wildlife Society Technical Review 05-2. Bethesda, MD. Pierson Jr., F.B., C.A. Moffet, C.J. Williams, S.P. Hardegree, Herkert, J.R. 2007. Conservation Reserve Program benefits and P. Clark. 2009. Prescribed-fire effects on rill and interrill on Henslow’s sparrows within the United States. runoff and erosion in a mountainous sagebrush landscape. Journal of Wildlife Management 71:2749–2751. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms. 34:193-203. Jelks, H.L., S.J. Walsch, N. Burkhead, S. Contreras-Balderas, Pimentel, D., R. Zuniga, and D. Morrison. 2005. Update E. Diaz-Pardo, D. Hendrickson, J. Lyons, N. Mandrak, on environmental and economic costs associated F. McCormick, J. Nelson, S. Platania, B. Porter, C. with alien-invasive species in the United States. Renaud, J. Schmitter-Soto, E. Taylor, and M. Warren. Ecological Economics 52 (2005) 273–288. 2008. Conservation status of imperiled North American freshwater and diadromous fishes. Fisheries 33:372-386. Pimentel, D. 2007. Environmental and economic costs of vertebrate species invasions into the United States. Pages 2–8 Knick, S.T., D.D. Dobkin, J.Rotenberry, M.A. Schroeder, W.M. in G. W. Witmer, W. C. Pitt, and K. A. Fagerstone, editors. Vander Haegen, and C. van Ripper, III. 2003. Teetering on Managing vertebrate invasive species: Proceedings of an the edge of too late? Conservation and research issues for international symposium. USDA APHIS Wildlife Services, avifauna of sage brush habitats. Condor 1-5: 611-634. National Wildlife Research Center, Fort Collins, CO. Krist, F. J. et al. 2007. Mapping Risk from Forest Insects and Pyke, D.A., J. E. Herrick, P. Shaver, and M. Pellant. 2002. Diseases, 2006. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Rangeland health attributes and indicators for qualitative Service, Forest Health Protection, Forest Health Technology assessment. Journal of Range Management. 55, 584-597. Enterprise Team. FHTET 2007-06. Available at: http:// www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/technology/nidrm.shtml

46 RC A Appraisal 2011 Schoups G, J.W. Hopmans, C.A. Young, J.A. Vrugt, W.W. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Wallender, K.K. Tanji, and S. Panday S. 2005. Sustainability Conservation Service. 2010. National Resources inventory of irrigated agriculture in the San Joaquin Valley, Rangeland Resource Assessment. Washington, DC. http:// California. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/nri/rangeland/index.html of the United States of America 102(43), 15352-15356. Urgeghe, A.M., D.D. Breshears, S.N. Martens, and Stein, B.A., L.S. Kutner, and J.S. Adams, eds. 2000. Peter C. Beeson. 2010. Redistribution of Runoff Precious Heritage: The Status of Biodiversity in the Among Vegetation Patch Types: On Ecohydrologi­ United States. New York: Oxford University Press. cal Optimality of Herbaceous Capture of Run-On. Rangeland Ecology & Management 63:5, 497-504. Stein, S.M. et al. 2009. Private Forests, Public Benefits: Increased Housing Density and Other Pressures Vodehnal, W.L., and J.B. Haufler. 2007. A Grassland on Private Forest Contributions. U.S. Department Conservation Plan for Prairie Grouse. North of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest American Grouse Partnership, Fruita, CO. Research Station. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-795. West, B.C., A.L. Cooper, and J.B. Armstrong. Tewksbury, J.J., A.E. Black, N. Nur, V.A. Saab, B.D. 2009. Managing Wild Pigs: A Technical Guide. Logan, and D.S. Bodkin. 2002. Effects of anthropogenic Human-Wildlife Interactions Monograph 1:1–55. fragmentation and livestock grazing on western riparian bird communities. In Studies in Avian Biology 25: 158–202. Wilcove, D.S., D. Rothstein, J. Dubow, A. Phillips, and E. Losos. 1998. Quantifying threats to imperiled species United States Department of Agriculture, National in the United States: Assessing the relative importance Agricultural Statistics Service. 2004. 2002 of habitat destruction, alien species, pollution, overex­ Census of Agriculture. Database. ploitation, and disease. Bioscience 48(8): 607-615. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2009. Wilcox, B.P., D.D. Breshears, and H.J. Turin. America’s Forests: 2009 Health Update. AIB-804. U. S. 2003. Hydraulic conductivity in a piñon-juniper Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington, woodland: influence of vegetation. Soil Science DC. 17p.p. Available at: http://www.fs.fed.us/ Society of America Journal 67:1243–1249. foresthealth/publications/foresthealthupdate2009.pdf United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2009. Summary Report: 2007 National Resources Inventory. Natural Resources Conservation Service, Washington, DC, and Center for Survey Statistics and Methodology, Iowa State University, Ames, IA. 123 pages. http://www.nrcs.usda. gov/technical/nri/2007/2007_NRI_Summary.pdf Chapter 3 • T he State of the Land 47

48 RC A Appraisal 2011 Chapter 4 Conservation Approaches Chapter 4 Conservation Approaches U SDA’s soil and water conservation mission uses a foundation of the Nation’s supply of food, feed, and fiber— variety of approaches, from research to outreach, account for about two-thirds of the Nation’s land base. education, extension, and on-the-ground technical assistance. USDA carries out its conservation mission This chapter describes the approaches USDA uses to carry through nine agencies (see box on p. 51), working with a out its conservation mission. It also provides data on the wide array of conservation partners, such as colleges and investment in USDA’s soil and water resources conservation universities, conservation districts, Resource Conservation program.1 Funding for USDA’s conservation mission and Development councils, State and Federal agencies, increased by about 25 percent between fiscal years (FY) State foresters, non-governmental organizations, 20022 and 2010, in constant 2009 dollars3 (fig 4-1). and farmers, ranchers, and forest landowners. In 1985, conservation efforts began to shift from focusing 1 Figures in excess of one million dollars are rounded to the on supply controls and productivity to other environmental nearest million in the investment tables in this chapter. issues. From 1985 until the end of the 20th century, 2 Data were not available for 2000 and 2001 for some Federal conservation policy focused on agricultural land research efforts; therefore only data from FY 2002 through retirement. The environmental benefits of land retirement 2010 are used for the total funding comparison. are significant, but less than 2 percent of the Nation’s land 3 throughout this chapter, nominal dollars are converted area is now protected through land retirement programs. to constant dollars using the Gross National product Working lands—those used most intensively and the Index as a deflator, with 2009 as the base year. Figure 4-1. USDA conservation investments by approach, million dollars (constant FY2009) Million Dollars 8,000 7,000 Rural Development Emergency Response 6,000 Landscape Scale 5,000 Land Preservation 4,000 Land Retirement Working Lands 3,000 Technical Assistance, Education, Outreach 2,000 Research 1,000 0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 (est.) Source: USDA Budget crosscut

50 RC A Appraisal 2011 USDA Conservation-related Agencies Agricultural Research Service (ARS) is the intramural research arm of USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA)’s unique mission is that works to ensure that Americans have reliable, adequate supplies of to advance knowledge for agriculture, the environment, human health high-quality food and other agricultural products. ARS accomplishes its goals and well-being, and communities by supporting research, education, and through scientific discoveries that help solve problems in crop and livestock extension programs in the Land-Grant University System and other partner production and protection, human nutrition, and the interaction of agriculture organizations. NIFA provides grants to land-grant universities and competitive and the environment. grants to researchers in land-grant and other universities, institutions, and to individuals, and helps States identify and meet research, extension, and Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) protects the health education priorities affecting agricultural producers, small business owners, of livestock, poultry, and crops from foreign diseases and pests, and helps youth and families, and others. defend the environment from invasive species, promote animal welfare, regulate the movement and environmental release of certain genetically Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) works with private engineered organisms, limit agricultural damage caused by wildlife, and landowners to help them conserve, maintain, and improve their natural protect natural resources while contributing to efforts to ensure public health resources. The Agency emphasizes voluntary, science-based conservation; and safety. technical assistance; partnerships; incentive-based programs; and cooperative problem solving at the community level. NRCS works with Economic Research Service (ERS) provides economic research and landowners through conservation planning and financial assistance designed information to inform public and private decisionmaking on economic to benefit the soil, water, air, plants, and animals that result in productive and policy issues related to agriculture, food, natural resources, and rural lands and healthy ecosystems. America. Through a broad range of products, ERS research provides data and expert economic analysis of many critical issues facing farmers, agribusiness, Risk Management Agency (RMA) administers the Federal crop insurance consumers, and policymakers. program, offering crop insurance products through a network of private insurance company partners; oversees the creation of new products and Farm Service Agency (FSA) administers farm commodity, credit, seeks enhancements in existing products; and offers risk management conservation, and emergency assistance programs for farmers and ranchers. education and outreach programs to producers and communities. At the local level, FSA works with farmer and rancher county committees to help determine which programs are implemented countywide, and to make Rural Development (RD)’s role is to increase rural residents’ economic appropriate payments. opportunities and improve their quality of life. RD forges partnerships with rural communities, funding projects that bring housing, community facilities, Forest Service (FS) administers programs for applying sound conservation utilities, and other services. RD also provides technical assistance and and utilization practices to natural resources of the national forests and financial backing for rural businesses and cooperatives to create quality jobs national grasslands, for promoting these practices on all forest lands in rural areas. RD promotes the nation’s energy security by engaging the en­ through cooperation with States and private landowners, and for carrying out trepreneurial spirit of rural America in the development of renewable energy extensive forest and range research. The mission of the FS is to sustain the and energy efficiency improvements. health, diversity, and productivity of the Nation’s forests and grasslands to meet the needs of present and future generations. Chapter 4 • Conser vation Approaches 51 Conservation approaches Science supports field-level decisionmaking Research ARS collaborated with the Department of Energy and university partners to USDA research generates science, technology, and information develop a user-friendly “Residue Management Tool” that can be used to that help producers and managers conserve and protect assess the potential impact of corn stover removal on six environmental the Nation’s soil, water and related natural resources. indicators – soil organic carbon, wind and water erosion, plant nutrient Intramural research is conducted by USDA scientists at balance, soil water and temperature dynamics, soil compaction, and over 100 research sites across the country (fig. 4-2), and offsite environmental variables.The tool accounts for complex interactions additional research is funded through grants to institutions between crop residues and the environmental indicators over time and was and the private sector. This work involves developing and compared with results from field experiments at multiple locations across improving technologies, and breeding or identifying new the country. It allows a producer considering corn stover harvest for sale as varieties of plants to address specific conservation problems, such as reducing erosion on particular soil types, improving a bioenergy feedstock to evaluate how much residue should remain on the the efficiency of inputs, enhancing adaptability to climate fields to maintain soil quality and productivity. These calculations should change and extreme environments, increasing carbon be part of an overall conservation plan. sequestration, and improving bioenergy feedstocks. Figure 4-2. USDA research locations Source: USDA

52 RC A Appraisal 2011 USDA conservation research investment rose slightly in nominal dollars between FY 2002 and 2010. However, when Technical assistance, education, and outreach USDA staffs and partners located in approximately 3,300 field measured in constant 2009 dollars, USDA’s investment in offices across the country provide science-based knowledge, conservation-related research declined by about 20 percent technology, and tools to help producers, landowners, from 2004 through 2007 (table 4-1). After leveling off for Tribes, State and local governments, and others to conserve, a few years, investment dropped another 10 percent as ARS maintain, and improve the Nation’s natural resources (fig. research was reoriented to support USDA’s new strategic goal 4-3). Many of these offices include co-located staffs from of assisting rural communities to create prosperity so they are multiple agencies, including NRCS, FSA, RD, RC&D self-sustaining, repopulating, and economically thriving. Table 4-1. Conservation research investments Fiscal year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Agency Constant 2009 dollars, in millions ARS * * 255 256 255 243 235 223 225 226 203 ERS 8 8 7 7 7 7 5 5 5 5 5 FS 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.7 0.9 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.9 NIFA 85 80 75 82 73 60 57 47 44 38 39 NRCS 13 13 20 30 46 37 33 31 30 31 29 Total 106 103 358 376 382 348 331 307 305 301 278 * Data were not available for these years. Figure 4-3. USDA and Conservation District field office locations Source: USDA Office Information Profile, February 2011 Chapter 4 • Conser vation Approaches 53 Councils, and Conservation Districts. In all, there were an estimated 32,700 technical specialists available in 2011 to Technical assistance at the field level help producers and landowners solve conservation problems. Landowners annually apply conservation practices on almost 25 Additionally, USDA has certified almost 1,500 technical million acres of farm, ranch, and forest land with technical assistance service providers (individuals, private businesses, nonprofit organizations, or public agencies that help agricultural provided through the Conservation Technical Assistance program. This producers and owners of agricultural lands apply conservation accomplishment is possible because USDA technical specialists, partners, practices) to complement this conservation workforce. and landowners and managers utilize technical assistance tools, such as soil surveys; field-scale models (e.g., revised uniform soil loss equation); Outreach and education help landowners and operators to and assessments, handbooks, manuals, and technical guides that provide balance natural resource conservation with agricultural and the foundation for assessing conservation needs and designing workable forest production, and to learn about the USDA programs conservation systems. These conservation practices improve water quality, that are available to help them achieve their objectives. irrigation efficiency, soil condition, grazing land health and productivity, Technical assistance includes scientific expertise, tools, and forest condition, and wildlife habitat. data needed to develop conservation plans and implement conservation practices that conserve and enhance natural resources from field and operation to landscape and regional scales. Finally, through outreach and technical assistance USDA investments in technical assistance, education, planning, producers are eligible to enroll in a number of and outreach rose in nominal dollars between FY 2000 programs that provide financial assistance to offset a portion of and 2005 and then remained fairly steady through 2009, the cost to install or maintain environmental improvements. but have declined over the FY 2002 through 2010 time period when measured in constant dollars (table 4-2). Table 4-2. Technical assistance, education, and outreach investments1 Fiscal Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Agency Constant 2009 dollars, in millions APHIS 9 9 26 34 45 39 42 38 42 59 69 FSA - - - 1 3 4 4 4 4 5 5 FS 157 155 147 146 147 168 127 130 116 116 121 NRCS 930 1,079 1,059 1,009 1,018 940 871 773 843 842 868 Total 1,097 1,243 1,232 1,190 1,213 1,151 1,045 945 1,005 1,022 1,063 1 the investments presented here do not include technical assistance funding associated with Farm Bill conservation programs. those resources are included under the applicable conservation approaches elsewhere in this chapter.

54 RC A Appraisal 2011 Natural Resources Conservation Service The tables in this chapter provide data on USDA’s investments in various through mandatory programs (often referred to as Farm Bill programs), conservation approaches, aggregated across the many agencies that such as the Environmental Quality Incentives Program and the Wetlands contribute to USDA’s comprehensive conservation program. For NRCS, these Reserve Program, whose budget authorities are provided in laws other data include investments in both the technical assistance provided by NRCS than appropriation acts. Table 4-3 shows NRCS technical assistance and personnel, and the financial assistance payments (cost-share payments, financial assistance investments made through mandatory and discretionary easement payments, rental payments, etc.) that help producers and conservation programs, in constant dollars. (Note: these data are aggregated landowners afford to implement new conservation measures. Some of these across the conservation approach tables provided throughout this chapter, investments are made through discretionary programs, such as Conservation and are not meant to represent additional investments. The investments Operations and Watershed Operations, with resources provided through the described in those tables include both technical and financial assistance, congressional appropriations process. Additional investments are funded and can be funded through both mandatory and discretionary programs.) Table 4-3. NRCS mandatory and discretionary technical and financial assistance Fiscal Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 1 2010 1 Constant 2009 dollars, in millions Technical Assistance Mandatory 116 122 152 453 423 412 449 450 463 473 549 Discretionary 1,104 1,263 1,238 1,192 1,180 1,112 1,025 910 958 991 1,023 Total 1,220 1,385 1,390 1,645 1,603 1,524 1,474 1,360 1,421 1,464 1,572 Financial Assistance Mandatory 432 483 915 1,187 1,454 1,596 1,404 1,370 1,556 1,701 2,325 Discretionary 179 265 200 176 132 431 308 192 183 355 405 Total 611 748 1,115 1,363 1,586 2,027 1,712 1,562 1,739 2,056 2,730 1 2009 and 2010 include discretionary technical and financial assistance provided through the american recovery and reinvestment act of 2009. The data reveal that while discretionary technical assistance declined over much of the last decade before rising the past 2 years, mandatory technical assistance increased significantly starting with the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002. By FY 2010, NRCS’s combined technical assistance approached $1.6 billion, representing a 13-percent increase over FY 2002. Financial assistance investments have grown as well, rising by 145 percent over this same time period. Chapter 4 • Conser vation Approaches 55 Working lands install and maintain the vegetative, structural, and management practices that provide a variety of environmental benefits to the USDA administers a variety of programs to address specific producer (e.g., improved soil quality) and to the wider public resource issues on agricultural and forest lands in active (e.g., improved water quality). Investments in working lands production. These programs are designed to keep working lands programs have risen substantially in nominal and constant productive while limiting negative impacts such as soil erosion, dollar terms over the FY 2000-2010 time period (table 4-4). sedimentation, and nutrient runoff. Program participants receive Federal financial payments to help defray their costs to Table 4-4. Working lands investments1 Fiscal year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Agency Constant 2009 dollars, in millions NRCS 262 326 601 923 1,260 1,409 1,434 1,389 1,655 1,495 1,930 Total 262 326 601 923 1,260 1,409 1,434 1,389 1,655 1,495 1,930 1 Data include both technical and financial assistance. The Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), as established by the 4. Reduction in soil erosion and sedimentation from unacceptable levels Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996, promotes long-term on agricultural land; and stewardship of the Nation’s private working lands and natural resources by 5. Promotion of at-risk species habitat conservation. providing financial and technical assistance to implement conservation practices and systems on working agricultural and forest lands. EQIP offers In FY 2010, with EQIP technical and financial assistance, conservation plans assistance on cropland, pastureland, rangeland, and forest land. At least 60 were developed to assist producers in— percent of EQIP funds must be directed to livestock production conservation • Reducing sediment and nutrient loadings from 14.5 million acres of practices or systems. Based on extensive public-input NRCS established five agricultural lands; national priorities, each with energy conservation dimensions: • Improving irrigation efficiency on almost 1 million acres of irrigated 1. Reduction of nonpoint source pollution (nutrients, sediment, pesticides, land; or excess salinity) in impaired watersheds consistent with Total Maximum • Improving soil quality on 4.8 million acres of cropland; Daily Loads as well as the reduction of groundwater contamination and • Protecting and improving the resource base on 16.7 million acres of reduction of point sources such as contamination from confined animal grazing land; feeding operations; • Protecting and improving vegetative condition on 800,000 acres of 2. Conservation of ground and surface water resources; forest land; and 3. Reduction in emissions of particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, volatile • Improving fish and wildlife habitat quality on 1.9 million acres of organic compounds, and ozone precursors and depleters that contribute non-Federal land. to air quality impairment violations of National Ambient Air Quality Standards;

56 RC A Appraisal 2011 Land retirement original condition, such as wetlands. This approach reduces soil erosion, sedimentation, and nutrient and pesticide runoff Land retirement programs provide landowners with financial and creates valuable wildlife habitat and sequesters carbon. incentives to voluntarily remove environmentally sensitive land Land retirement investment peaked in FY 2002 and has since from agricultural production. The goal is to place the most gradually lessened in constant dollar terms (table 4-5). environmentally vulnerable agricultural lands in resource- conserving vegetative covers, or to convert them back to their Table 4-5. Land retirement investments1 Fiscal year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Agency Constant 2009 dollars, in millions FSA 2,094 2,254 2,364 2,226 2,113 1,994 1,944 1,881 1,949 1,860 1,810 NRCS 47 32 32 69 73 77 81 80 61 56 59 Total 2,141 2,286 2,396 2,295 2,186 2,071 2,026 1,961 2,009 1,916 1,868 1 Data include both technical and financial assistance. The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) was established by the Food • Targeting lands and practices to enhance carbon sequestration by Security Act of 1985. CRP protects soil productivity, enhances water quality, providing increased EBI points for practices that increase sequestration. creates wildlife habitat, and sequesters carbon. Participants remove environ­ mentally sensitive land from agricultural production by entering into 10- to These changes are reflected in CRP conservation practice data provided in 15-year contracts to establish and maintain resource-conserving vegetative the table below. As the program grew and evolved, wildlife habitat, wetland covers. In return, participants receive annual rental payments, 50-percent restoration, and conservation buffers became increasingly emphasized, cost-share payments, and in some cases additional incentive payments. accounting for a combined 22 percent of the enrolled acres in 2007. Grass Under the CRP General Signup, landowners and operators with eligible land plantings accounted for over 90 percent of enrolled acres in the early years of compete nationally during specified enrollment periods. the program, but have steadily declined since. Total acreage peaked in 2007 at 36.9 million acres, but in response to the 32-million-acre cap established Since 1985, a number of changes have been made to provide greater by the Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008, declined to 31.3 million environmental benefits, including— acres by August 2010. Most of the land coming out of CRP was in grass plantings (down 20 percent from 2007 acreage), and to a lesser extent tree • Developing and using an environmental benefits index (EBI) to encourage plantings (down 10 percent). Wetlands and wildlife mixes remained steady, landowners to select beneficial vegetative covers and to target land more while conservation buffers increased slightly. likely to provide benefits; • Instituting continuous signups to increase adoption of highly beneficial Practice 1987 1997 2007 2010 conservation practices by accepting eligible land into the CRP without (million acres) requiring participation in the competitive signup; Grass Plantings 13.9 28.6 25.8 20.7 • Providing additional incentives to increase wetland restoration, buffer Tree Plantings 0.9 2.3 2.3 2.0 establishment, wildlife habitat, and other environmentally beneficial practices; Wildlife Mixes 0.5 1.3 4.1 3.9 • The Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP), which creates Buffers 0.0 0.1 1.9 2.0 Federal-State partnerships to address specific state and national Wetland 0.0 0.4 2.1 2.0 conservation concerns through targeted CRP enrollments. Signup is held Other 0.0 0.1 0.7 0.6 on a continuous basis, and additional financial incentives are generally Total 15.3 32.8 36.8 31.3 provided; and Chapter 4 • Conser vation Approaches 57 Land preservation Landscape-scale conservation Land preservation programs help leverage the purchase of Landscape-scale programs work with multiple landowners and development rights and keep productive farm, ranch, and land managers across public and private ownership boundaries forest lands from being converted to other uses. Landowners to address landscape-scale natural resource issues. USDA retain the rights to use the land for production agriculture and watershed programs partner with local sponsors (other Federal, forestry. These programs have been used to protect prime soils, State, and local agencies, Tribal governments, and non-govern­ ranchlands, and non-Federal forests from conversion; to protect mental groups) to develop watershed conservation plans, and habitat for threatened and endangered species; to limit urban provide technical and financial resources to install structural and sprawl and landscape fragmentation; and to safeguard lives and nonstructural conservation measures to protect and improve property by protecting and restoring land in flood plains. water quality, develop and maintain municipal water supplies, prevent flood damages, and provide recreational opportunities. Preserving forests and benefitting wildlife To combat development pressure and other threats, the Forest Service Landscape-scale efforts for watershed improvement used Forest Legacy Program funds in partnership with State agencies Through the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI), NRCS is targeting and other organizations to protect nearly 8,000 acres in Montana’s Swan $34 million in funding in priority watersheds to address nonpoint source Valley. Forest and land fragmentation threatened to cut off migration pollution control, wildlife habitat restoration, terrestrial invasive species routes for bears and other animals, diminish habitat for endangered bull control, and conservation easements for floodplain protection and trout, and impede management to maintain healthy forests capable of purchase of development rights. GLRI partners include soil and water supplying products and services. conservation districts; Resource Conservation and Development councils; State associations of soil and water conservation districts; State, county, and city governments; universities and extension agencies; State wildlife Land preservation investments nearly doubled between FY 2000 and 2004 in constant dollars, declined almost as much by FY conservancies; and environmental organizations. States will use common 2008, and then nearly tripled over the past 2 years (table 4-6). performance indicators, processes, tracking methods, and outcomes assessment tools for consistency and transparency. Investment in landscape-scale conservation programs declined in both nominal and constant dollars over much of the FY 2000–08 time period, and then rose with the influx of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 funds (table 4-7). Table 4-6. Land preservation conservation investments1 Fiscal year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Agency Constant 2009 dollars, in millions FS 42 83 87 86 76 64 63 61 60 57 75 NRCS 287 309 455 535 512 500 318 335 285 707 981 Total 329 392 541 620 588 564 381 396 346 764 1,056 1 Data include both technical and financial assistance. Table 4-7. Landscape-scale conservation investments1 Fiscal year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Agency Constant 2009 dollars, in millions NRCS 142 170 181 203 166 128 147 77 58 116 207 Total 142 170 181 203 166 128 147 77 58 116 207 1 Data include both technical and financial assistance.

58 RC A Appraisal 2011 Emergency response Emergency response programs help repair damages Measuring success caused by natural disasters, including floods, droughts, USDA conservation approaches are not independent of each wildfires, hurricanes, and severe-weather events. These other; all contribute to effective management of natural emergency programs provide technical and financial resources. For example, research and assessment help increase resources to local sponsors and individuals to implement the benefits of investments in working lands, land retirement, emergency measures to stabilize streambanks and repair and land preservation programs by identifying conservation other flood damages; rehabilitate farmland and forest land treatment needs and helping technical specialists understand damaged by natural disasters; and carry out emergency which conservation practices will be most effective in particular water conservation measures. These programs are funded locations or situations. Outreach efforts can help USDA on an as-needed basis. For example, funding spiked in connect to underserved populations, as well as increase program 2005 in response to Hurricane Katrina (table 4-8). participation in areas with the most critical conservation needs. It is difficult to quantify the environmental benefits of any Rural development single conservation program or approach, but critical to Rural development efforts accelerate the conservation, understand how well conservation efforts are working and development, and use of natural resources; improve the general what further improvements are needed. USDA is conducting level of economic activity; and enhance the environment and an interagency research project to scientifically measure standard of living in rural areas. Some programs are targeted to the impacts of conservation practices—the Conservation specific issues, providing grants for energy audits and renewable Effects Assessment Project (CEAP).4 CEAP assessments are energy development assistance; funds to agricultural producers being developed for cropland, grazing lands, wetlands, and and rural small businesses to purchase and install renewable wildlife. Preliminary CEAP results from the national cropland energy systems and make energy efficiency improvements; loans, assessment show that conservation measures are having grants, and loan guarantees for drinking water, sanitary sewer, an impact. About 51 percent of cropland acres are under solid waste, and storm drainage facilities; and grants to nonprofit adequate conservation treatment. The practices put in place organizations to provide technical assistance and training to on these acres reduce potential losses of nitrogen, phosphorus, assist rural communities with their water, wastewater, and and sediment to water resources. However, the study also solid waste problems. USDA rural development conservation points to significant conservation needs and opportunities to investments have increased since FY 2003 with the increase in improve conservation on cultivated cropland (see chapter 6). rural renewable energy and energy efficiency projects (table 4-9). 4 Information on research estimation methodology, other physical effects, and additional Ceap reports can be found in greater detail at http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/NrI/ceap/index.html. Table 4-8. Emergency response investments1 Fiscal year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Agency Constant 2009 dollars, in millions FSA 92 52 43 59 27 63 93 72 28 71 75 FS 39 87 85 90 155 96 73 69 71 78 89 NRCS 98 145 97 79 52 405 247 185 177 222 179 Total 229 285 225 228 234 564 413 327 276 371 343 1 Data include both technical and financial assistance. Table 4-9. Rural development conservation investments1 Fiscal year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Agency Constant 2009 dollars, in millions NRCS 62 69 67 63 63 58 54 52 50 51 50 RD - - - 27 27 36 48 76 50 112 94 Total 62 69 67 90 89 94 102 128 101 163 144 1 Data include both technical and financial assistance. Chapter 4 • Conser vation Approaches 59 Conclusion and financial assistance have both increased since FY 2000, the ratio of technical to financial assistance has declined. This Nation has invested billions of dollars in an evolving soil and water conservation program. Since passage of the 2002 These investments and the strong partnerships with State Farm Security and Rural Investment Act, USDA’s conservation and local governments, private land owners and managers, investment increased by 25 percent through FY 2010. Much and many other organizations and groups have made major of that increase occurred in the last 2 years, reflecting the contributions to the condition of the Nation’s natural resource impacts of the Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008 base (see chapter 3). Research and analysis efforts are not and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. only assessing current resource conditions and conservation Working lands programs, for which funding more than tripled achievements but also identifying where future conservation from FY 2002 to FY 2010, have grown from 11 percent of the investments may have the greatest impact. The challenge conservation budget in FY 2002 to 28 percent in FY 2010. Land ahead is to find opportunities to tailor these programs and preservation program investments have grown from 9 percent policies to support strong agricultural and forest sectors in rural to 15 percent. Over this same time period, land retirement economies while protecting and enhancing natural resources. programs declined from 43 percent of the conservation budget As will be discussed in the next two chapters, this challenge is to 28 percent, and research investments fell from 6.5 percent heightened by climate change and other emerging trends in the to 4 percent (figs. 4-4 and 4-5). While technical assistance agricultural and forest sectors, such as biofuels production. Figure 4-4. Figure 4-5. USDA conservation investments in 2002, by program type USDA conservation investments in 2010, by program type Rural Development 1% Research 6% Rural Development 2% Research 4% Emergency Response 4% Emergency Response 5% Landscape Scale 3% Landscape Scale 3% Land Preservation 9% Land Preservation 15% Technical Assistance, Technical Education, Assistance, Outreach Education, 15% Outreach 22% Land Retirement Working Lands Land Retirement Working Lands 43% 11% 28% 28% Total Funding = $5.6 billion Total Funding = $6.9 billion Source: USDA Budget crosscut Source: USDA Budget crosscut

60 RC A Appraisal 2011 Chapter 5 Climate Change and Biofuels Development Chapter 5 Climate Change and Biofuels Development M Climate change and U.S. any forces shape U.S. agriculture and forestry. Two of these forces, climate change and biofuels development, deserve special examination because of their growing influence on land-use patterns and natural agriculture and forestry resource conditions in the agriculture and forestry sectors. Agriculture and forestry in the United States are largely defined by climate. Nationally, regionally, and locally, small The effects of climate change are already being felt across changes in average temperature or precipitation or increases in the United States and are projected to grow in the decades the frequency or intensity of extreme weather events such as ahead (USGCRP 2009; ICCATF 2010). Increased heat, droughts, floods, hail, and fire can alter both the mix and the pests, water stress, diseases, and weather extremes will pose distribution of commodity production. Changes in climate challenges for crop and livestock production (USGCRP patterns can alter the geographic distribution of diseases and 2009). Effects on forests are likely to include changes in pests, increase the need for irrigation, and force farmers and forest health and productivity and changes in the geographic forest landowners to adopt new technologies and production distribution of North American forests, including the practices. range of regionally important tree species (IPCC 2007).1 Although agriculture and forestry offer potential for As climate variability increases, agriculture and forestry will need mitigating climate change through carbon sequestration and to incorporate adaptation measures and take mitigation actions. emissions reduction, a pressing concern is their capacity to Operations will have to adapt to new temperature, precipitation, adapt to new climate-related conditions as they develop. pest, extreme event, and related conditions. Agriculture and forestry are generally recognized as sectors that can sequester Renewable energy accounts for about 8 percent of the U.S. carbon and reduce greenhouse gas emissions at relatively energy supply and is largely used in generating electricity and low cost. To realize these mitigation opportunities, farmers, biopower. Biofuels account for 20 percent of the renewable ranchers, and forest landowners will need to be able to convert supply but are expected to grow in response to policy levers emissions reductions and sequestered carbon into income. emphasizing energy independence (EISA 2007). Agriculture and forestry will have a major role in the effort to expand the Nation’s biofuel capacity through the production of Greenhouse gas emissions and opportunities for mitigation conventional and alternative feedstocks. Large-scale production Agriculture accounts for about 7 percent of gross U.S. of new cellulosic feedstocks carries a considerable degree greenhouse gas emissions. Three greenhouse gases associated of uncertainty related to potential environmental, resource with crop and livestock production are nitrous oxide, conservation, and invasive species impacts (GAO 2009). methane, and carbon dioxide. Nationally, agricultural sources account for 73 percent of all U.S. nitrous oxide emissions The following pages examine the potential impacts of and 36 percent of all U.S. methane emissions (fig. 5-1). increasing climate variability and biofuels development on agriculture and forestry, and their implications for Agricultural greenhouse gas emissions, excluding those resulting landscape changes and natural resource conservation. from energy use, have been mostly stable since 1990. However, from 1990 to 2000, emissions from livestock production, crop production, and energy use grew, while those from grasslands shrank. From 2000 to 2005, energy use emissions continued to grow and grassland emissions increased back to 1990 levels; emissions from livestock and crop production shrank, although they were still above 1990 levels. Agricultural and forestry practices also mitigate greenhouse 1 For more information on climate change and U.S. forests, see the U.S. Forest Service assessment conducted under the gas emissions by removing carbon dioxide from the Forest and rangeland renewable resources planning act (rpa). atmosphere and storing the carbon in soils and plant biomass. http://www.fs.fed.us/research/rpa/what.shtml#2010rpa Total carbon sequestration in agriculture and forest sinks

62 RC A Appraisal 2011 currently exceeds 800 million metric tons of carbon dioxide Overall carbon sequestration in agriculture and forestry equivalent, which offsets about 11 percent of gross U.S. remained level from 1990 to 2000, with carbon sequestration greenhouse gas emissions. In 2005, forests and harvested increasing in cropland soils, forests, and urban trees, but wood products sequestered 699 million tons of carbon declining in harvested wood products. From 2000 to 2005, dioxide equivalent, about 17 percent more than in 1990. carbon sequestration increased in all four areas (fig. 5-2). Figure 5-1. Agricultural sources of greenhouse gas emissions in 2005 (Tg CO2 eq.) Rice cropping and residue burning (CH4, N2O) 2% Greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture in order of magnitude, include: (1) nitrous oxide associated with managing cropland soils Managed livestock waste (CH4, N2O) 10% (primarily the use of nitrogen fertilizers), (2) methane related to enteric fermentation in livestock, (3) methane and nitrous oxide Energy use (CO2) from managed grazing lands, (4) carbon dioxide from energy use, 13% (5) methane and nitrous oxide from managed livestock waste, Cropland soils (N2O) 35% and (6) methane and nitrous oxide from rice cropping and residue burning. Grazed lands (CH4, N2O) 18% Enteric fermentation (CH4) 22% Source: USDA 2008 Figure 5-2. Annual agricultural and forestry emissions and offsets for 1990 and 1998–2005 Tg CO2 eq. 600 Sources CHG Rice/Residue Burning (CH4, N2O) 400 Managed Waste (N2O, CH4) 200 Grazed Lands (CH4, N2O)

0 Enteric Fermentation (CH4) Cropland Soils (N2O) (200) Sinks CHG (400) Agricultural Soils (CO2) Urban Trees (CO2) (600) Harvested Wood (CO2) (800) Forests (CO2) (1000) Note: Parenthesis indicate a 1990 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 net sequestration. Source: USDA 2008 Chapter 5 • Climate Change and Biofuels De velopment 63 Climate change implications for agriculture and forestry generally warmer while parts of the South are cooler. Most areas in the East now receive more precipitation, while the Historical data on U.S. temperature and precipitation levels Southwest receives less (USCCSP 2008). These trends are likely show that the country has become, on average, warmer and to continue for at least the next 20 years (USGCRP 2009). wetter over the past 100 years (figs. 5-3 and 5-4). However, these changes have varied by region. Northern regions are Figure 5-3. Observed changes in average temperature, 1901 - 2006 Source: Courtesy of NOAA’S National Climate Data Center and the U.S. Geological Survey, USCCSP 2008. Figure 5-4. Observed changes in annual precipitation, 1901 - 2006 Source: Courtesy of NOAA’S National Climate Data Center and the U.S. Geological Survey, USCCSP 2008.

64 RC A Appraisal 2011 To illustrate potential effects of climate change on agricultural Figure 5-5. and forest landscapes, this appraisal uses the Intergovern­ IPCC A1B Surface Air Temperature and Precipitation mental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) A1B emissions Projections scenario, which assumes a future of technological change that is achieved across a balance of fossil- and non-fossil energy resources. This scenario is not an RCA projection of future conditions, but is being used to portray potential effects to which agriculture and forestry may need to respond in the coming decades. The following summarizes key projections: • Changes in surface air temperatures and precipitation are projected across the western hemisphere (fig. 5-5). By 2030, average surface air temperatures could increase by 1.5 to 2 degrees Celsius (2.7 to 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) over much of the United States. Precipitation in much of the western and southwestern United States could decline by 1 to 5 percent relative to 1990. In contrast, most of the northern and NCAR/DOE Climate Change Prediction Group: www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/ccp southeastern United States will see precipitation increase by 1 to 5 percent (IPCC 2007). Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Scenarios The IPCC developed nine scenarios to illustrate how temperature and into four scenario families (A1, A2, B1, and B2) that explore alternative precipitation patterns may evolve over the next few decades under specific development paths. The A1 group assumes a world of very rapid economic atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations. The scenarios are grouped growth, a global population that peaks in mid-century, and rapid introduction of new and more efficient technologies.A1 is divided into three subsets based on alternative directions of technological change: fossil energy intensive (A1FI), non-fossil energy resources (A1T), and a balance across all sources (A1B). Scenario A1B, which is being used in this RCA Appraisal for illustrative purposes, assumes that atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases will reach 700 parts per million by 2100, or about twice that of the pre- industrialization level. Major underlying themes are economic and cultural convergence and capacity building, with a substantial reduction in regional differences in per capita income. This graph depicts six of the scenarios and their projected GHG emissions in the absence of additional climate policies. AIB is shown in green. The gray shading depicts the 80th percentile range of scenarios published since the special report on estimation scenarios (SRES). Source: IPCC 2007 Chapter 5 • Climate Change and Biofuels De velopment 65 • Increases in mean temperature and precipitation levels Livestock also can suffer; heat waves with a lack of nighttime will affect the length of the growing season and alter the relief led to losses of as many as 5,000 head of cattle in geographic ranges where many plants and animals can live. individual states in 1995 and 1999 (Hatfield et al. 2008). By 2030, the number of frost days could decrease by 10 to 20 days across much of the United States, especially in the Ecological changes West, while growing seasons would be 10 to more than 20 Extreme events. Climate change is expected to increase days longer in much of the country (IPCC 2007). the magnitude and frequency of extreme weather events. • Increases in temperature will also increase the occurrence Such change could threaten domestic and native plant and of extreme events. By 2030 much of the central and animal species that have relatively narrow climate tolerances. southwestern United States could experience 14 to more Extreme heat or cold, severe windstorms, greater amounts of than 21 additional heat wave days2 each year, and most of rain or snow, and longer periods of extreme temperatures or the Nation will have 10 or more additional warm nights3 precipitation could damage or destroy crops and livestock. each year (fig. 5-6) (IPCC 2007). Forest fires already have become much more prevalent throughout the western United States; the area burned In some areas, changes in climate patterns may leave some plant in Alaska, for example, has doubled in recent decades as and animal species vulnerable, especially those that cannot adapt a result of higher air temperatures, reduced availability of to the new environmental conditions. Of particular concern moisture, and insect infestations (USGCRP 2009). is the potential for climate change to increase the spread of non-native and invasive plant species. Higher temperatures Weeds. Climate change may extend the range of many weeds and lower precipitation can leave forests vulnerable to other farther north. Possible responses to increasing carbon dioxide stresses; for example, drought and high temperatures have led levels include faster growth and reproduction rates and more to serious insect infestations in piñon pines in the Southwest. resistance to control measures. In natural ecosystems, invasive weeds will likely threaten to crowd out many native plants. For 2 heat wave days exhibit maximum temperatures that are higher example, the invasive weed kudzu infests more than 2.5 million by at least 5°C (with respect to the climatological norm). acres in the southeastern United States and is currently spreading 3 Warm nights are when minimum temperature is above the northward. This weed carries soybean rust, a fungal disease 90th percentile of the climatological distribution for that day. that has threatened soybean production (USGCRP 2009). Invasive and non-native species in forests can dramatically change species composition and increase vulnerability to fires. Figure 5-6. IPCC A1B Heat Waves and Warm Nights Projections Insects and plant pathogens. Changing climate conditions will alter agriculture’s relationship with many insects (beneficial and harmful), invasive species, microbes, and other organisms. Higher temperatures and warmer winters will likely increase populations of insect species that now marginally overwinter at high latitudes, such as the flea beetle, which acts as a vector for Stewart’s wilt, a significant corn pathogen. Insect pests also have stressed forests throughout the United States, for example, mountain pine beetle infestations on 1.5 million acres in Colorado, and spruce bark beetle infestations on 2.5 million acres in Alaska and western Canada. Plant pathogens also will respond to changes in humidity and rainfall. Diseases from leaf and root pathogens may increase where humidity and frequency of heavy rainfall events increase. On the other hand, increases in short- and medium-term NCAR/DOE Climate Change Prediction Group: www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/ccp drought will tend to decrease the duration of leaf wetness, thus reducing some forms of pathogen attacks on leaves.

66 RC A Appraisal 2011 Shifts in agricultural and forest land use carbon dioxide levels could benefit some crops, particularly soybeans in the Midwest and South and cotton in the South. Crops. Warmer temperatures and increased humidity could Overall, however, corn, beans, and sorghum will likely suffer. lengthen the growing season for many crops. However, for crops that may be sensitive to extremes or that now grow in areas that Livestock and grazing lands. Higher average temperatures may experience significantly higher temperatures or precipitation and extreme weather events can stress livestock and reduce levels, the effects could be detrimental. Temperatures that their growth rates, weight gains, and productivity (that consistently rise above the optimal levels for plant growth, seed is, meat, milk, or egg production). Additionally, increases production and pollination, fruit or grain production, and in environmental stresses can limit animals’ ability to harvest point can cause the plants to grow more slowly or stop cope with infection or illness. In confined operations, growing sooner; produce fewer or no seeds, grains, or fruit; there are more management options to address impacts or produce smaller yields. For example, studies suggest that from climate change but implementing these options an increase of 1.2 degrees Celsius (2.2 degrees Fahrenheit) in will likely increase production costs. Livestock on grazing the South could lead to a 12-percent decrease in rice yield, a lands will be more directly affected by climate variability 5.7-percent decrease in cotton yield, and a 5.4-percent decrease because these animals are exposed to the elements. in peanut yield. The same temperature increase in the Midwest could lead to a 2.5-percent increase in soybean yield. In addition Climate change will also affect livestock through its impact to variation by crop and location, a non-linear relationship on grazing land ecosystems. Changes in temperature, may exist between productivity changes and temperature. precipitation, and atmospheric carbon dioxide conditions will Productivity decreases more rapidly once the optimal alter the composition and range of plant species on grazing temperature level is exceeded than it increases as temperatures lands. Of particular concern is the possible crowding out approach the optimal level (Schlenker and Roberts 2008). of desirable grass species by less nutritious weeds. Another concern is the potential for rangeland fires to become larger Water availability will play a key role in the success of crops or occur more frequently in areas that become hotter and under changing climatic conditions. During periods of higher drier. Where this occurs, the quality and quantity of forage temperatures, plants use more water to keep cool, so lower could be significantly affected. These impacts will likely precipitation levels could exacerbate the effects of higher be positive and negative, and will largely depend on the temperatures. Areas that grow warmer may experience fewer availability of water and soil nitrogen. Table 5-1 lists some negative effects on crop production if precipitation increases selected factors and management options that grazing land or adequate irrigation water is available. In addition, rising managers may consider to adapt to changing conditions. Table 5-1. CO2 and climate change responses and management options for grazing land Factor Response Management options Primary Rising CO 2: Increase or little change in primary productivity in most systems, Adjust forage harvesting (stocking rates; production: especially water-limited rangelands. N may limit CO 2 response in some grazing systems). systems. Use adapted forage species. Rising temperature: Increases in primary productivity in most temperate and Enterprise change (e.g., movement to wet systems. Decreases in primary productivity in arid and semi-arid systems more or less intensive management that experience significantly enhanced evapotranspiration and drought. practices). Variable responses with precipitation: Increases in production in regions where water is limiting, but tempered by increasing temperatures and more intense precipitation events. Forage quality Increasing CO 2 will alter forage quality. In N-limited native rangeland Interseed legumes where N is limiting and systems, CO 2-induced reduction in N and increased fiber may lower quality. feasible. Alter supplemental feeding practices. Animal Increased temperature, warm regions: Reduced feed intake, feed efficiency, Select animal breeds from adapted to performance animal gain, milk production, and reproduction. Increased disease new climate. susceptibility and death. Alter management (e.g., timing of Increased temperature, cold regions: Enhanced animal performance, lowered breeding, calving, weaning). energy costs. Enterprise change (above). Source: Modified from USCCSP 2008, p.74 Chapter 5 • Climate Change and Biofuels De velopment 67 Forestry. Observed increases in precipitation in the Midwest carried out through a variety of programs in the Agricultural and Lake States, nitrogen deposition, and temperature Research Service (ARS), Economic Research Service (ERS), (which lengthens the growing season in the northern Forest Service (FS), National Institute of Food and Agriculture United States), as well as the changing age structure of (NIFA), and Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). forests and management practices, have contributed to This investment more than doubled in FY 2010 (table 5-2). increases in forest growth. Rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide can increase forest productivity and carbon USDA research programs facilitate the development storage if sufficient water and nutrients are available. of new technologies, production and conservation practices, and varieties of crops, trees, and livestock Climate variability also affects the frequency and intensity of suited to changing climate and related conditions. forest disturbances such as fire, insect and disease outbreaks, Highlights of current research foci include: ice storms, and windstorms, which can have important consequences for timber production, water yield, carbon • The Greenhouse gas Reduction through Agricultural storage, species composition, invasive species, and public Carbon Enhancement network (GRACEnet) is a perception of forest management. Forest management coordinated effort by ARS scientists to provide information can help conserve carbon stocks gained through increased on the soil carbon and greenhouse gas emissions of current productivity by reducing plant debris that can fuel fires, and newly developed agricultural management practices. reducing risks of insect and disease infestation, and moving • Forest Service research studies how climate change will wood into forest products and biobased energy and other impact forest, range, and urban ecosystems in order to products. Forest management can also maintain a flow develop tools for land managers and policymakers to aid of ecosystem services, including watershed protection, in decisions to further ecosystem resilience. Forest Service improved air and water quality, streamflow regulation, carbon cycle research provides tools and information to reduced erosion, carbon storage, biodiversity conservation, support carbon sequestration management actions. and recreational opportunities, and can provide raw material • ERS assesses economic, environmental, and land use for paper and wood products and energy production. implications of alternative climate and energy policies and scenarios that inform decisionmaking at multiple scales. USDA greenhouse gas mitigation and climate • The Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI) Climate Change Program administered by NIFA uses change research a systems approach to integrate social sciences and Agriculture and forestry are generally recognized as sectors economics in investigating the impacts of climate change that can achieve relatively low-cost greenhouse gas mitigation on agroecosystems, human interventions for adapting by reducing greenhouse gas emissions and increasing carbon to and mitigating these impacts, and implementation sequestration. Mitigation research has become more important of management strategies to maximize agricultural as concerns about climate change have grown and the success productivity and greenhouse gas mitigation under a of programs in reducing emissions and increasing carbon changing climate. sequestration has been documented. In fiscal year 2009, USDA’s climate change research investment was more than $52 million • The Rapid Assessment of U.S. Soil Carbon and Conservation Planning, led by NRCS, is evaluating Table 5-2. USDA climate change research investment, fiscal years 2009 through 2011 (est.) Agency FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 (est.) Millions of dollars Agricultural Research Service (ARS) 19.8 24.2 24.2 Economic Research Service (ERS) 0.7 2.6 2.6 Forest Service (FS) 26.9 31.9 31.3 National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) 0 0.8 0 National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) 4.6 56.0 56.0 Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) 0.5 0.4 0.5 Office of the Chief Economist 0 2.9 2.4 Total 52.5 118.7 116.9 Source: President’s Budget; data are rounded to the nearest $100,000.

68 RC A Appraisal 2011 differences in soil carbon associated with soil properties, agricultural management systems, ecosystems, and land Biofuels and U.S. agriculture and uses. The results will be used to inform decision support tools, for example the Carbon Management Evaluation Tool forestry – Voluntary Reporting of greenhouse gases (COMET-VR) Renewable energy has been a policy priority since the energy and to develop a statistically valid baseline inventory of soil crises of the late 1970s. In the 1980s, States began to put in carbon stocks for the United States. place policies requiring utilities to produce a portion of energy from renewable sources (Wiser et al. 2007). Renewable energy USDA research efforts help to improve the scientific accounts for 8 percent of the Nation’s energy supply; biomass, understanding of climate change and the economic including agricultural and forestry residues, dedicated energy implications of alternative response strategies to enable crops, municipal solid wastes, and industrial wastes, makes up farmers, ranchers, forest landowners, policymakers, and others about one-half of the renewable supply (fig. 5-7). In addition to assess when, where, and how climate change will impact to generating electricity and power, biomass resources are agriculture and forestry. USDA’s extension, conservation, used to produce liquid fuels, such as ethanol and biodiesel. and renewable energy programs offer a vehicle for promoting Biofuels currently account for less than 2 percent of the total the adoption of these new technologies and practices. U.S. energy supply, but are expected to grow in response to new policy drivers emphasizing energy independence. Figure 5-7. Renewable energy in the Nation’s energy supply, 2009 Total = 94.578 Quadrillion Btu Total = 7.744 Quadrillion Btu Solar 1% Renewable energy Geothermal 5% consumption increased Biomass waste 6% by about 8 percent Wind 9% Petroleum between 2008 and 2009, 37% Biofuels 20% contributing about 8 percent of the Nation’s total energy demand. (USEIA 2009b) Renewable energy Natural gas 8% Wood 24% 25% Nuclear electric power Coal 9% 21% Hydropower 35% Note: Sum of components may not equal 100% due to independent rounding Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Review, 2009, Table 1.3, Primary Energy Consumption by Energy Source, 1949 – 2009 (August 2010) Chapter 5 • Climate Change and Biofuels De velopment 69 The Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) of 2007 79.5 million acres in 2000, peaking at 93.5 million in 2007, established a Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS2) that mandates and fluctuating between 86 and 88 million acres over the past that increasing volumes of renewable fuels be used in the 3 years (USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service data in United States, reaching 36 billion gallons per year by 2022 GAO 2009). Acreage planted to corn is expected to remain at (fig. 5-8). This is roughly 26 percent of the projected annual about 89.5 million acres through 2019, with the share used for U.S. motor gasoline consumption of about 140 billion ethanol production increasing slightly (fig. 5-9) (WAOB 2010a). gallons (USEIA 2009a). Beginning in 2015, EISA places The increase in ethanol production also resulted in cultivation a 15-billion-gallon limit on conventional biofuels’ (ethanol of some land that was formerly idled or in grazing uses and derived from corn starch) annual contribution to the mandate and calls for increasing use of advanced biofuels to reach 21 Figure 5-9. billion gallons per year by 2022. Advanced biofuels include Harvested corn acreage, by end use ethanol derived from cellulosic biomass, animal waste, and Status from 2000 – 2009 and Projection from 2010 - 2019 food and yard waste, or from non-corn sugar or starches; biodiesel; biogas (including landfill gas and sewage waste Corn for Grain Corn for Ethanol treatment gas); butanol or other alcohols from renewable Percent biomass; or other fuels derived from cellulosic biomass. 100 Materials from Federal land are excluded as a source of renewable biomass to meet EISA renewable fuels mandates. 75 Feedstocks Ethanol from corn grain dominates the current U.S. biofuels market, accounting for 10.75 billion gallons in 2009, with 50 production capacity up to 14.5 billion gallons4 (RFA 2010). About 98 percent of domestic ethanol is made from corn grown in the Midwest. 25 The share of U.S. corn production used for ethanol rose from 6 percent in 2000 to almost one-third in 2009. Increased ethanol production has raised demand for corn, contributed to higher 0 corn prices, and increased acres planted to corn—rising from 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2019 4 Includes under-construction capacity Source: WAOB 2010a Figure 5-8. RFS2-mandated levels for biofuels, by type Billion Gallons 40

35 Advanced Biofuel - Unspecified 30 Advanced Biofuel - Biodiesel 25 Advanced Biofuel -

20 Cellulosic 15 Conventional Biofuel 10 5 0 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Projected Source: Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007

70 RC A Appraisal 2011 reduced acres planted to other crops (GAO 2009). Cotton acres Significant uncertainties associated with meeting the RFS2 fell from 15.77 million in 2001 to 9.15 million in 2009. Wheat mandates include feedstock production systems and practices, went down slightly, from 59.6 to 59.1 million acres (USDA harvest and transport infrastructure, conversion technologies, National Agricultural Statistics Service data in WAOB 2010b). and biofuels market development. Plants with high biomass productivity and yields such as fast-growing perennials (e.g., Cellulosic feedstocks are expected to provide at least 16 billion tall grasses and poplar trees) are likely to set the standard for gallons of advanced biofuels under the RFS2. The volumes alternate production systems for bioenergy feedstocks. Table of biomass necessary for cellulosic biofuels production will 5.3 presents the cost and conversion rates for some feedstocks. come from a variety of sources, including dedicated energy crops such as switchgrass, purpose-grown wood, crop residues such as corn stover or cereal straws, non-Federal timber and Potential impacts of biofuels production on natural forest residues, and municipal solid waste. Assuming existing resources conversion technologies of 60 to 70 gallons of ethanol per dry Increased domestic biofuels production will place new demands ton of cellulosic biomass, the production of 16 billion gallons on forestry and agricultural production capacities and natural of ethanol would require approximately 230 to 265 million dry resource assets. While much is known about the natural tons of cellulosic biomass. At a conversion rate of 70 gallons of resource requirements of current feedstocks such as corn and ethanol per dry ton, USDA (2010) estimates that it is possible soybeans, substantial increases in bioenergy production are to meet the mandate for advanced biofuels using perennial expected to come from other feedstocks such as wood, perennial grasses, energy cane, biomass sorghum, and oilseeds grown grasses, and possibly algae. The effects will depend greatly on 23 million acres of cropland and cropland used as pasture. on the feedstocks produced, and on where and how they are This does not include the potential use of agricultural and produced, harvested, and converted into fuels. These impacts forest residues that could account for up to 7 billion gallons will also vary by field, landscape, and watershed scales and the of ethanol without requiring additional cultivated acreage. measures used to conserve soil, water, and related resources. Table 5-3. Cost and conversion characteristics of certain feedstocks (BRDI 2008)5 Total feedstock production costs (including harvest Harvesting and cost) Yield Total output collection costs Fuel yield Feedstock $/acre Tons/ac/yr Mil. tons/yr $/planted acre Gal/ac First-generation feedstocks Corn 417 4.2 355.2 101 388-418 Grain sorghum 261 1.8 12.4 89 168-181 Barley 272 1.5 5.7 78 138-161 Sugarcane n/a 32.7 30.1 n/a 638 Sugarbeets 986 23.8 31.2 n/a 590 Soybeans 278 1.3 92 65 64 Second-generation feedstocks Corn stover n/a 3 254 7-11 240-270 Wheat straw n/a 1 58 17 80-90 Switchgrass 133-329 4.2-10.3 n/a 33-129 393 First-generation feedstocks are those currently being used to produce biofuels for commercial sale. Second-generation feedstocks are those with the potential to produce biofuels for commercial sale. The data shown for noncommercial feedstocks are from test plots, field studies, and research conducted by both the public and private sector. Production and harvest costs depend on fuel prices, which may have changed since those estimates were produced. Except for residues, feedstock production costs include land charges, which vary by region. Land charges represent an opportunity cost for landowners who manage their own land. Source: Biomass Research and Development Board (BRDI) 2008 5 the values presented in this table are drawn from many different studies and sources. For a full description of the research and sources behind these values, see BrDI (2008), p. 14. Chapter 5 • Climate Change and Biofuels De velopment 71 Because corn is a resource-intensive crop, increasing in 2008 irrigated corn production in Nebraska required corn-ethanol levels to 15 billion gallons could have impacts over 500 gallons of irrigation water per gallon of ethanol on natural resources. Some projections estimate that U.S. corn produced (down from over 750 gallons in 2003) and Kansas production will increase by 3.3 to 3.7 million acres, in part required almost 800 gallons of water per gallon of ethanol. through an increase in continuous corn production (BRDI 2008; Malcolm et al. 2009). Some of the largest corn acreage With increased corn production there will likely be increases are projected for the Northern Plains (1.1 million additional fertilizers and pesticide inputs that may acres), which relies heavily on irrigation from the Ogallala and have a risk of loss to adjacent water bodies (NAS adjacent aquifers. Irrigation water use varies significantly among 2008). Increased corn production modeled in one study the major corn-producing regions because of different climate resulted in a 2.8-percent increase in nitrogen losses to zones and soil types. When averaged across all corn production groundwater, with the largest increases occurring in the in the region (rainfed and irrigated), about 7.1 gallons of Great Lakes and Southeast states (Malcolm et al. 2009). irrigation water are consumed6 per gallon of ethanol produced Cellulosic feedstocks, and perennials in particular, typically in the Corn Belt, reflecting that the majority of corn production require fewer inputs such as irrigation water, tillage, nutrients, is rain-fed. Comparatively, nearly 321 gallons of irrigation water or pesticides, than do row crops (GAO 2009). Perennial energy are consumed per gallon of ethanol in the Northern Plains crops, such as switchgrass or trees, require minimal tillage after where most corn production is irrigated (table 5-4).7 While planting and can help stabilize soils, reduce soil erosion potential these averages provide a general comparison of irrigation water (Nelson et al. 2006), and increase soil carbon (McLaughlin needs, they mask actual water consumption on any given and Kszos 2005; Clifton-Brown et al. 2007; Blanco-Canqui irrigated acre, which vary by year and location. For example, et al. 2004). Nitrogen fertilizer requirements for switchgrass should be less than half that for corn (Mitchell et al. 2010). Delaying harvest of perennial grasses such as switchgrass until 6 Since liquid fuel industries typically use a volume-based product after the first frost may further reduce the need for fertilizer metric, results are expressed as gal of water consumed per inputs by taking advantage of switchgrass’ ability to translocate gal of fuel produced (not total water use). Consumed water is nitrogen post-frost into roots, rhizomes, and stem bases for that withdrawn from its source and has evaporated, transpired, been incorporated into products and crops, or otherwise remobilization the following spring (Simpson et al. 2008; Beale removed from water resources and unavailable for use. and Long 1997; Beaty et al. 1978). Perennial polycultures that 7 the Corn Belt, Great Lakes, and Northern plains constituted are genetically diverse may be more resistant to disease and 89 percent of the corn production and 95 percent of pests, further reducing the need for pesticides by supporting ethanol production in the United States in 2007. natural pest suppression (by beneficial birds and insects). Table 5-4. Water consumed in irrigated corn production Northern Plains (North Corn Belt (Iowa, Indiana, Great Lakes (Michigan, Dakota, South Dakota, Illinois, Ohio, Missouri) Minnesota, Wisconsin) Nebraska, Kansas) percent Share of US ethanol production capacity 51 17 27 Share of US corn production 53 17 19 gallons Corn irrigation, groundwater 6.7 10.7 281.2 Corn irrigation, surface water 0.4 3.2 39.4 Total irrigation water use 7.1 13.9 320.6 Source: Wu et al. 2009, p.29

72 RC A Appraisal 2011 Many cellulosic feedstocks are likely to do well under Water in ethanol conversion rainfed conditions (fig. 5-11) and some, such as perennial grasses and many trees, are drought tolerant. However some The fermentation-based processes for producing corn-based fuel ethanol feedstocks have greater water requirements, such as certain (or butanol) require approximately 3 gallons of water per gallon of ethanol fast-growing woody biomass or algae. Algae cultivation can produced. Due to water recycling efforts and cooling improvements, this have particularly high water requirements, ranging from is significantly less than the estimated 5.8 gallons required for conversion 333 to 2,000 gallons of water per gallon of fuel produced in 1998. from relatively expensive closed systems to open-air ponds that experience substantial evaporation losses (USEPA The potential in cellulosic feedstock conversion will depend on the process 2009b). These energy crops may have potential to use used and technological advancements achieved. Water consumed in the saline or contaminated water sources, however. Algae-based biochemical conversion process for cellulosic feedstock using advanced energy farms may also provide some degree of “wastewater technology is estimated at 5.9 gallons of water per gallon of ethanol, while treatment” by removing nutrients, metals, and other thermochemical gasification processes for cellulosic feedstock may only contaminants and oxygenating the water (Rittman 2008). require 1.9 gallons of water per gallon of ethanol or other fuel (Wu et al. Desirable traits in cellulosic energy crops (e.g., easily 2009). propagated, fast growing, high yield) also are exhibited by Nevertheless, siting of some ethanol facilities is occurring where water invasive plants. According to one study, monocultures of cellulosic feedstocks could be invasive and pose concerns resources are already under duress (NAS 2008). For example, many for biodiversity, habitats, and other ecosystem services in existing and planned ethanol facilities that require 0.1 to 1.0 million certain regions (Barney and DiTomaso 2008). Potential may gallons of water per day are located on the High Plains aquifer, which is exist for genetically modified energy crops, such as algae already suffering from significant water level decline (fig. 5-10). grown in open-air ponds, to be spread to native systems. While agricultural and forest residues are attractive as available by-products from existing enterprises, their overharvest could Figure 5-10. compromise soil stability and fertility and pose a potential Ethanol facilities relative to major aquifers, 2007 water quality risk if soil erosion increases as a result of residue Existing and planned ethanol facilities (2007) and their estimated total water use mapped with the principal bedrock aquifers of the Figure 5-11. United States and total water use in year 2000. Potential rainfed feedstock crops in the United States Source: USGS 2008 Source: Dale et al. 2010 Chapter 5 • Climate Change and Biofuels De velopment 73 removal (USEPA 2009a). Studies indicate that harvesting corn stover for bioenergy production can increase sediment Lifecycle analysis of biofuels production Lifecycle analysis of greenhouse gas emissions of biofuels is loads to surface waters, but that the impact is highly variable, complicated by lack of agreement on standardized lifecycle depending on the proportion of stover harvested and on assessment methods and information gaps (e.g., feedstock soil type, slope, and field management (Kim and Dale yields, domestic and international land-use data, and data on 2005). The effects of residue removal on subsequent crop above-ground biomass and soil carbon for a variety of land yields are highly variable, depending on soil type, climate, cover crops worldwide) (GAO 2009). While biofuels may lower topography and tillage, and other factors (Blanco-Canqui net greenhouse gas emissions by replacing fossil fuels, they also and Lal 2009). While some studies have shown that the produce emissions in feedstock production and conversion, growth of woody plants and yields are decreased by soil and may have direct and indirect effects on land use. Energy compaction from residue collection equipment, results vary is used directly and indirectly in crop production. Increased by site type (USEPA 2009b, Powers et al. 2005). Research nitrogen fertilizer use can increase nitrous oxide emissions, evaluating sustainable residue removal rates is underway. while precision application and conservation tillage can reduce While the RFS2 limits the types of biomass and types of land energy consumption. Deep-rooted perennial cellulosic energy from which the biomass can be harvested, 8 potential exists crops, including trees, can sequester carbon in the soil while to drive land-use change as activities previously undertaken cultivation of idle land releases stored carbon. Of the 12 studies on lands converted to biomass production are abandoned evaluated by GAO (2009), net greenhouse gas emissions or are shifted onto other lands. If marginal and highly associated with corn ethanol ranged from a reduction of 59 erodible lands (much of which are currently enrolled in the percent to an increase of 93 percent; for cellulosic ethanol Conservation Reserve Program [CRP]) are brought into the range was from a reduction of 113 percent to an increase production, previously achieved soil quality benefits from of 50 percent. The method used for accounting for indirect long-term conserving cover may be lost as a result of tillage, land-use changes had substantial impacts on the results, and as well as challenge other ecosystem benefits. In the Midwest many have questioned the assumptions used in these studies. and Great Plains, CRP has helped certain bird species recover; converting CRP land to bioenergy feedstock production may USDA investment in biofuels development reverse that trend. However, using these lands for perennial Biofuels development remains an important focus for the public crop or wood production for bioenergy could mitigate losses, and private sectors. Cost, which will be a critical factor in and concerns may be alleviated further if perennial grasses continuing progress, will be affected by advances in conversion were harvested so as to avoid interfering with bird nesting and technologies (particularly cellulosic), abundance of feedstock brood rearing seasons. Relative to monocultures, polycultures supplies (available and not dedicated to other uses), and may do a better job of supporting biodiversity (Dale et al. capacity of infrastructure (for production and delivery). 2010) and other ecosystem services. The maintenance of landscape-level biodiversity, including noncultivated areas USDA plays an important role in biofuel development and nearby, will depend on the spatial arrangement of reserves commercialization. In 2009, USDA investment in renewable promoting connectivity and population persistence, local energy was more than $282 million and more than doubled management practices, and on the potential for biofuel crops in 2010 (table 5-5). Advancement and commercialization of and their pests to spread beyond managed boundaries. advanced biofuels is supported by the Biorefinery Assistance Program, the Bioenergy Program for Advanced Biofuels, and the Biomass Crop Assistance Program. All of these programs are geared toward the propagation of advanced biofuels 8 the rFS2 limits the types of biomass and types of land from which that are expected to reduce pressures on natural resources. the biomass may be harvested to: (a) existing agricultural land (planted crops and crop residue from agricultural land cleared prior to The Biorefinery Assistance Program, administered by Rural December 19, 2007, and actively managed or fallow on that date), (b) Development, provides loan guarantees for the materializa­ planted trees and tree residue from tree plantations cleared prior to tion of commercial-scale biorefineries. Rural Development December 19, 2007, and actively managed on that date, (c) animal will also provide payments for the production of advanced waste material and byproducts, (d) slash and pre-commercial thinning biofuels through the Bioenergy Program for Advanced from non-Federal forest lands that are neither old-growth nor listed as critically imperiled or rare by a State Natural heritage program, (e) Biofuels. The Farm Service Agency’s Biomass Crop Assistance biomass cleared from the vicinity of buildings and other areas at risk Program provides support for the establishment of biomass of wildfire, (f) algae, and (g) separated yard waste and food waste. crops and the delivery of the biomass to conversion facilities.

74 RC A Appraisal 2011 Research and development investment is essential for and Economics mission area (including ARS, NASS, NIFA, accelerating biofuels production in ways that do not deplete and ERS), the Forest Service and Rural Development are also the natural resource base. The joint USDA and Department of instrumental in research and development activities. Com­ Energy (DOE) Biomass Research and Development Initiative mercialization, another emphasis area, accounts for almost 57 promotes development and demonstration of biofuels and percent of USDA’s bioenergy and renewable energy investment. biobased products (fig. 5-12).9 USDA’s Research, Education, This is expected to increase with the implementation of the Biomass Crop Assistance Program in fiscal year 2010. 9 BrDI provided up to $25, $33 and $30 million from 2009 to 2011 for research. Table 5-5. USDA bioenergy and renewable energy investment, fiscal years 2009 through 2011 (est.) Agency FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 (est.) Millions of dollars Agricultural Research Service (ARS) 33.1 84.3 84.3 Departmental Management (DM) 3.0 3.0 3.0 Economic Research Service (ERS) 2.0 2.0 2.0 Farm Service Agency (FSA) 0 248.2 199.0 Forest Service (FS) 20.6 32.3 34.0 National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) 0 1.8 1.8 National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) 56.0 102.8 104.8 Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) 6.2 9.5 9.9 Office of the Chief Economist (OCE) 2.0 2.5 2.5 Rural Development (RD) 159.5 158.6 219.1 Total 282.3 644.9 660.4 Source: President’s Budget; data are rounded to the nearest $100,000. Figure 5-12. USDA, DOE research sites focusing on biofuel feedstocks, by agency and feedstock type Source: USDA and DOE, 2008. Source: USDA and DOE, 2008. Chapter 5 • Climate Change and Biofuels De velopment 75 Conclusion management. Changing precipitation patterns (spatially and temporally) will pose challenges for agriculture and natural Climate change and biofuels development have important ecosystems. Where water is sufficient, some of the stresses implications for the condition and distribution of agricultural that increased temperatures could have on crop growth could and forest landscapes. New decision support tools, technologies, be minimized. In arid areas that are likely to experience and conservation and management strategies will be declining precipitation trends, increased water stresses may critical in assisting agriculture and forest managers as they be anticipated. Increasing biofuels production also may address the challenge of climate variability and maximize exacerbate water stresses in water-challenged environments. the potential opportunity of a growing biofuels market. Climate change effects already are being observed across the References United States. Average temperature has risen more than 2 Barney, J.N., and J. M. DiTomaso. 2008. Non-native degrees Fahrenheit in the past 50 years (USGCRP 2009). Over species and bioenergy: Are we cultivating the next the past century, much of the United States has experienced invader? Bioscience 58(1): 64-70 (2008). higher precipitation and streamflow, while the West and Southwest have experienced increased drought conditions Bates, B.C., Z.W. Kundzewicz, S. Wu and J.P. Palutikof, (Bates et al. 2008). While temperature and rainfall shifts may Eds. 2008: Climate Change and Water. Technical drive near-term productivity increases for some agricultural Paper of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate and forest systems, long-term projections suggest decreases in Change, IPCC Secretariat, Geneva, 210 pp. productivity and the need for significant management changes to adapt to new conditions (USCCSP 2008). Conservation and Beale, C.V., and S.P. Long. 1997. Seasonal dynamics of management measures can help operators adapt to increasing nutrient accumulation and particioning in the perennial climate variability, for example, through improving irrigation C-4 grasses Miscanthus X giganteus and Spartina efficiencies, increasing soil moisture storage, and incorporating cynosuroides. Biomass and Bioenergy 12(6): 419-428. more tolerant species (plants and animals) into their production Beaty, E.R., J.L. Engel, and J.D. Powell. 1978. Tiller mix. Many of these same conservation practices also serve development and growth in switchgrass. Journal to sequester carbon and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. of Range Management 31(5): 361-365. Biofuels currently account for 20 percent of the Nation’s Biomass Research and Development Board renewable energy supply and are expected to increase in response (BRDI). 2008. Increasing Feedstock Production to incentives for energy independence. Achieving the 36 billion­ for Biofuels, December 2008. gallon-per-year expectation of the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) would more than triple current production Blanco-Canqui, H., C.J. Gantzer, S.H. Anderson, E.E. levels, with the greatest growth occurring in cellulosic, biodiesel, Alberts, and A.L. Thompson. 2004. Grass barrier and other advanced biofuels. Overall, the effects of increased and vegetative filter strip effectiveness in reducing biofuels production on the landscape will depend greatly on runoff, sediment, nitrogen and phosphorus loss. Soil what crops are produced; where and how they are produced, Science of America Journal 68(5): 1670-1678. harvested, and converted into biofuels; and what measures are used to conserve soil, water, and related resources. Conservation Blanco-Canqui, H., and R. Lal. 2009. Crop residue removal practices such as conservation tillage, crop rotation, cover crops, impacts on soil productivity and environmental quality. riparian buffers, or biochar applications can increase carbon Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences 28(3): 139-163. retention; reduce sediment, nutrient and pesticide runoff; and retain moisture and nutrients in the soil. Conservation Clifton-Brown, J.C., J. Breuer, and M.B. Jones. 2007. tillage, where the crop residue is left on the soil surface, has Carbon mitigation by the energy crop Miscanthus. been shown to reduce soil erosion by 75 percent relative to Global Change Biology 13(11): 2296-2307. conventional tillage (Mitchell et al. 2010). Crop rotations Dale, V.H., K.L. Kline, J. Wiens, and J. Fargione. and conservation buffers can help reduce disease, pests, and 2010. Biofuels: Implications for Land Use and persistent weeds and support beneficial insects and wildlife Biodiversity. Biofuels and Sustainability Reports, that can help operators manage their input needs strategically. Ecological Society of America (January 2010). Water supply limitations have the potential to be an issue in Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA). 2007. every region, although the nature of the impacts on ecosystems P.L. 110-140, 42 USC 17001, Dec. 19, 2007, http:// and existing uses of the land varies. Precipitation, generally, frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_ is likely to occur in heavier events that punctuate longer dry cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ140.110.pdf periods, and this variability will be very important for water

76 RC A Appraisal 2011 Government Accountability Office (GAO). 2009. Renewable Fuels Association (RFA). 2010. Climate of Biofuels: Potential Effects and Challenges of Required Opportunity: 2010 Ethanol Industry Outlook. February Increases in Production and Use. August 2009. 2010, 36pp. http://ethanolrfa.org/page/-/objects/ pdf/outlook/RFAoutlook2010_fin.pdf?nocdn=1 Hatfield, J., K. Boote, P. Fay, L. Hahn, C. Izaurralde, B.A. Kimball, T. Mader, J. Morgan, D. Ort, W. Polley, A. Rittmann, B.E. 2008. Opportunities for renewable Thomson, and D. Wolfe. 2008. Agriculture. In: The bioenergy using microorganisms. Biotechnology Effects of Climate Change on Agriculture, Land Resources, and Bioengineering 100: 203-212. Water Resources, and Biodiversity in the United States. A Report by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program Schlenker, W., and M.J. Roberts. 2008. Estimating and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research. U.S. the Impact of Climate Change on Crop Yields: Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC., USA, 362 pp. The Importance of Nonlinear Temperature Effects. National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) Interagency Climate Change Adaptation Task Force Working Paper No. 13799, February 2008. (ICCATF). 2010. Progress Report of the Interagency Climate Change Adaptation Task Force. March 2010. Simpson, T.W., A.N. Sharpley, R.W. Howarth, H.W. Pearl, http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ and K.R. Mankin. 2008. The new gold rush: Fueling ceq/20100315-interagency-adaptation-progress-report.pdf ethanol production while protecting water quality. Journal of Environmental Quality 37(2): 318-324. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007. Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Contribution U.S. Climate Change Science Program (USCCSP). 2008. The of Working Groups I, II, and III to the Fourth Assess­ Effects of Climate Change on Agriculture, Land Resources, mentReport of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Water Resources, and Biodiversity in the United States. Change [Core Writing Team, Pachauri, R.K., and A. A Report by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program Reisinger (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, 104 pp. and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research. P. Backlund, A. Janetos, D. Schimel, J. Hatfield, K. Boote, Kim, S., and F.E. Dale. 2005. Life cycle assessment of various P. Fay, L. Hahn, C. Izaurralde, B.A. Kimball, T. Mader, cropping systems utilized for producing biofuels: Bioethanol J. Morgan, D. Ort, W. Polley, A. Thomson, D. Wolfe, and biodiesel. Biomass and Bioenergy 29(6): 426-439. M.G. Ryan, S.R. Archer, R. Birdsey, C. Dahm, L. Heath, J. Hicke, D. Hollinger, T. Huxman, G. Okin, R. Oren, Malcolm, S.A., M. Aillery, and M. Weinberg. 2009. Ethanol J. Randerson, W. Schlesinger, D. Lettenmaier, D. Major, and a Changing Agricultural Landscape. Economic Research L. Poff, S. Running, L. Hansen, D. Inouye, B.P. Kelly, L. Report 86, USDA Economic Research Service, Nov. 2009. Meyerson, B. Peterson, and R. Shaw. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC., USA, 362 pp. McLaughlin, S.B., and L.A. Kszos. 2005. Development of switchgrass as a bioenergy feedstock in the United U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Global Change States. Biomass and Bioenergy 19(4): 515-535. Program Office, Office of the Chief Economist. 2008. U.S. Agriculture and Forestry Greenhouse Gas Mitchell, R.B., L.L. Wallace, W. Wilhelm, G. Varvel, Inventory: 1990-2005. Technical Bulletin No. 1921. and B. Wienhold. 2010. Grasslands, Rangelands, 161 pp. August, 2008. http://www.usda.gov/oce/ and Agricultural Systems. Biofuels and Sustainability global_change/AFGGInventory1990_2005.htm Reports, Ecological Society of America. 2010. U.S. Energy Information Administration (USEIA). National Academy of Sciences (NAS). 2008. Water 2009a. Petroleum Statistics: http://www.eia.doe.gov/ Implications of Biofuels Production in the United energyexplained/index.cfm?page=oil_home#tab2 States. The National Academies Press, p. 3. U.S. Energy Information Administration (USEIA). Nelson R.G., J.C. Ascough II, and M.R. Langemeier. 2006. 2009b. Annual Energy Review. Table 1.3. August 2010. Environmental and economic analysis of switchgrass http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/overview.html production for water quality improvement in northeast Kansas. Journal of Environmental Management.79:336–347. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009a. Regulatory Impact Analysis: Changes to Renewable Fuel Powers, R.F., D.A.Scott, F.G. Sanchez, R.A.Voldseth, Standard Program. EPA-420-D-09-001, May 2009. http:// D.Page-Dumroese, and J.D. Elioff. 2005. The North www.epa.gov/otaq/renewablefuels/420d09001.pdf American Long Term Soil Productivity Experiment. Findings from the first decade of research. Forest Ecology and Management. 220: 31-50. Chapter 5 • Climate Change and Biofuels De velopment 77 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009b. National World Agricultural Outlook Board (WAOB). 2010a. Water Quality Inventory: Report to Congress (2004 USDA Agricultural Projections to 2019, Long-term Reporting Cycle), EPA/841-R-08-001. January 2009. Projections Report, OCE-2010-1, February 2010. http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/guidance/cwa/305b/upload /2009_01_22_305b_2004report_2004_305Breport.pdf World Agricultural Outlook Board (WAOB). 2010b.World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates (WASDE) U.S. Geological Survey. 2008. Water Implications of reports. http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/MannUsda/view­ Biofuels Production in the United States. Analysis DocumentInfo.do?documentID=1194 (July 9, 2010). for the National Academy of Sciences. Wu, M., M. Mintz, M. Wang, and S. Arora. 2009. U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP). Consumptive Water Use in the Production of 2009. Global Climate Change Impacts in the Ethanol and Petroleum Gasoline. Center for United States. T.R. Karl, J.M. Melillo, and T.C. Transportation Research, Energy Systems Division, Peterson (eds.). Cambridge University Press. Argonne National Laboratory. January 2009. Wiser, R., C.Namovicz, M.Gielecki, and R.Smith. 2007. Renewables Portfolio Standards: A Factual Introduction to Experience from the United States. LBNL-62569, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Energy Information Administration, Environmental Energy, Technologies Division. April 2007.

78 RC A Appraisal 2011 Chapter 6 Water Resources in the 21st Century – Conservation Opportunities Chapter 6 Water Resources in the 21st Century – Conservation Opportunities A stable, safe, and secure water supply is essential to United States has abundant supplies of freshwater, but our welfare. The public outreach conducted for sometimes that water is not where it is needed, available this RCA Appraisal underscores that water is on when it is needed, or sufficient for its intended use. The the minds of farmers, ranchers, forest landowners, and availability of plentiful water in one hydrologic basin rarely other land managers, as well as their urban and suburban addresses the problem of water scarcity in another. counterparts. Water quality and availability were the highest priority natural resource concerns identified by the Water supply over 2,200 individuals who participated in RCA listening The water we depend on is a renewable flow that moves sessions, focus groups, and surveys. Climate variability and through the phases of the hydrologic cycle and its reservoirs— expected shifts in the spatial and temporal availability of snowpack, ice and glaciers, groundwater, atmospheric and soil water increase the importance of managing these resources moisture, and manmade reservoirs. The interaction between to meet current and future demands (see chapter 5). the flow resource (precipitation, runoff, and streamflow) and reservoirs is the focus of much of the discussion about This section discusses pressing water quantity and quality water resources. The majority of food and fiber production issues identified by stakeholders in the outreach process. is rainfed (flow resource), but irrigated agriculture and most It is followed by a discussion of conservation treatment other water uses depend on withdrawals from reservoirs, needs for water quality and water conservation that presents be they ground or surface, natural or manmade. preliminary data from USDA’s Conservation Effects Assessment Project (CEAP) cropland assessment. These estimates will Agricultural uses dominated water withdrawals until the be refined in future years and followed with conservation mid-1960s when thermoelectric power uses became the treatment needs for other priority resource concerns. largest user (fig. 6-3). According to the U.S. Geological Survey, about 410 billion gallons of water were withdrawn Water resources per day for use in the United States during 2005 (Kenny et al. 2009). In 2005, agriculture accounted for about Liquid freshwater, which we depend on for drinking, one-third of total withdrawals, and irrigation made up food, habitat, and recreation, makes up less than 1 more than 90 percent of total agricultural withdrawals. percent of all water on Earth (figs. 6-1 and 6-2). The Figure 6-1. Figure 6-2. Distribution of Earth’s water, by source Distribution of Earth’s water, by country Freshwater 3% Other 0.9% Rivers 2% Surface water 0.3% Wetlands 11% Ground- water 30.1% Saline Lakes 97% 87% Icecaps and glaciers 68.7 Source: United Nations Environment Programme 2002 Source: adapted from USGS Water Science, http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/earthwherewater.html

80 RC A Appraisal 2011 Figure 6-3. Trends in estimated water use in the United States, 1950–2005, by sector Agriculture Thermoelectric power Industry & Mining Public & Rural Domestic Billion Gallons per Day 250 200 150 100 50 0 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 Source: Kenny et al. 2009 States and other institutions regulate the quantity of water Figure 6-4. extracted from a water source by issuing withdrawal permits Indicators of water availability and the locations of according to State laws. If permits for withdrawals exceed irrigated land availability of water, unsatisfied demands result when water Irrigated acreage is shown in green dots (1 dot equals 10,000 supplies decline. In addition to the extractive uses of water, acres). The yellow color ramp indicates where potential instream or inplace water uses provide valuable benefits evapotranspiration (PET) exceeds annual average precipitation. such as environmental flow, aquatic and riparian habitat, The blue color ramp indicates where annual average precipitation recreation, hydroelectric power generation, and navigation, exceeds PET. Snowpack runoff from high elevations (blue areas among others. At times, and in many places, the competing in the intermountain region) is generally the source of surface- extractive and in-place uses for water come into conflict. supplied irrigation water in western locations. Areas of aquifer Consumptive use, the portion of water withdrawals that is decline are denoted by cross-hatching. evaporated, transpired, or otherwise lost to the immediate basin, is an important hydrologic measure of water because it reduces the potential outflow of water from that basin. Estimates from 1995 and earlier indicate that irrigation consumes more than 80 percent of water withdrawn in the United States, which reflects the losses through evapo­ transpiration that are essential to crop growth. Irrigation. Irrigation in the United States expanded from 7.8 million acres in 1900 to 56.6 million acres in 2007.1 About 42 million acres of irrigated land (75 percent of the Nation’s total) are in the 17 western States, including almost 17 million acres (31 percent) in the semiarid Great Plains from North Dakota to Texas. The remaining 14 million acres of irrigated land (25 percent of the total) are in the humid East (fig. 6-4). While irrigation began in the Source: U.S. Geological Survey; 2007 National Resources Inventory, Natural 1 While some 61 million acres have irrigation capacity in place, the Resources Conservation Service, USDA; PRISM, Oregon State University number of acres irrigated in any given year is below that level. Chapter 6 • Water Resources in the 21 st Centur y – Conser vation Oppor tunities 81 arid parts of the country, the East is experiencing faster streams in riparian rights states (generally in the East). When growth than any other region, increasing irrigated acreage other sectors are seeking additional water resources, many times by almost 190,000 acres annually from 1997 to 2007. they will buy water, land with associated water rights, or water rights alone from agricultural entities. Continued pressure on Surface water is used more intensively than groundwater for agricultural water supplies from competing demands is likely irrigation, accounting for 58 percent of water withdrawals in because of the volume of water controlled by agriculture.

2005 (fig. 6-5). On average, acres irrigated with groundwater receive less water per acre than do surface water-supplied acres. Figure 6-5. Most surface water irrigation occurs in the arid West, while groundwater irrigation occurs nationwide but is dominant in Irrigation water withdrawals, by source and irrigation the humid East. systems, by type, 2005 Irrigation is not needed for crop production in most of the Total withdrawals – Irrigation systems in place – United States, and only about 18 percent of the Nation’s 128 billion gallons per day 61 million acres harvested cropland is irrigated. Irrigation water use is greatest and water scarcity is more common in the West (fig. 6-6). Across the West, there was a substantial shift from gravity irrigation to pressure irrigation systems between 1984 and 2008. By 2008, pressure irrigation systems—many designed to apply less water Surface water Ground water Flood Sprinkler through drip, low-pressure sprinkler, or low-energy precision 58% 42% 44% 49% application systems—were in use on more than 40 percent of the irrigated acres in the West. The use of these technologies allows improved and more productive water management. Agriculture often has senior2 withdrawal rights in appropriative Microirrigation 7% rights states (generally in the West) and controls land access to Source: Kenny et al 2009 2 the use of water in many of the western states is based on the doctrine of prior appropriation and the maxim “first in time, first in right.” the first person to use water is the “senior appropriator” who also acquires the right to its future use, while subsequent users are “junior appropriators.” Figure 6-6. Irrigation water applications, by region and by crop, 2003 The average depth of irrigation water applied is shown by the bar height. Applications are generally higher in the more arid West, and vary by crop. Source: NRCS analysis of Census of Agriculture data.

82 RC A Appraisal 2011 Water quality as priority natural resource concerns. These materials can run off fields, leach into groundwater, or be deposited from Water quality is affected by many sources and activities, the atmosphere. Controlling their movement depends including agriculture. The quality of the Nation’s water strongly on management. Inherent soil and topographic resources is a longstanding concern and despite evidence of factors such as soil type, organic matter content, and slope progress in some areas, challenges remain. Public outreach affect the potential for leaching and runoff (fig. 6-7). conducted for this Appraisal identified nutrients and sediment Figure 6-7. Soil leaching and soil runoff potential The red and orange shades in these maps identify soils with high and moderately high vulnerabilities for runoff (top) or leaching (bottom) based on soil factors. Management measures, such as conservation buffers and nutrient management, can mitigate these inherent vulnerabilities and prevent movement of nutrients and pesticides to surface and subsurface water resources. Source: USDA-NRCS Chapter 6 • Water Resources in the 21 st Centur y – Conser vation Oppor tunities 83 A recent assessment of the biological condition of the Nation’s Figure 6-9. wadeable streams found that slightly over 50 percent were in Nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations, by predominant fair or good condition (fig. 6-8) but also that nearly 42 percent land use were in poor condition. The assessment used benthic macro- invertebrates (e.g., aquatic larval stages of insects, crustaceans, Concentrations of total nitrogen were highest in agricultural streams, worms, and mollusks) as the indicator for biological condition with a median concentration of about 4 milligrams per liter (about because of their capacity to integrate the effects of stressors, six times greater than background levels), whereas concentrations in combination and over time. The most common stressors of total phosphorus were similar in agricultural and urban streams, were elevated levels of nitrogen and phosphorus, riparian with a median concentration of about 0.25 milligram per liter disturbance, and streambed sediments (USEPA 2006). (about six times greater than background levels). An assessment of the Nation’s lakes generated similar results. Fifty-six percent of the Nation’s lakes are in good biological condition, with natural lakes having a higher proportion in good condition than manmade lakes. The most pressing challenges identified were poor lakeshore habitat condition and excess nutrient levels that contribute to algae bloom, weed growth, reduced water clarity, among other problems (USEPA 2010). In another study, USGS found elevated nutrient (nitrogen and phosphorus) levels in more than 90 percent of 190 streams draining urban and agricultural lands in the Northeast, Midwest, and Northwest. Concentrations of nitrogen were higher in the agricultural watersheds, while concentrations of phosphorus were similar for agricultural and urban- dominated watersheds (fig. 6-9). The level of nutrients reaching streams varies greatly depending on sources, amounts applied, agricultural production practices, conservation measures, soils, geology, and hydrology (fig. 6-10). Water that moves below the root zone can carry water-soluble materials to the groundwater. USGS found median nitrate concentrations exceeding the background levels in 64 percent of the shallow aquifers (those less than 100 feet deep) studied. The median nitrate levels are higher in young groundwater (groundwater recharged in the last 10 years) than in old groundwater (fig. 6-11). Figure 6-8. Source: Dubrovsky et al. 2010 Biological condition of the Nation’s wadeable streams, 2010 Figure 6-10. Effect of tile drainage on nitrogen and phosphorus losses Tile drains installed to manage soils that hold too much water create a pathway for nutrient movement Source: USEPA 2006 Source: Dubrovsky et al. 2010

84 RC A Appraisal 2011 Figure 6-11. Figure 6-12. Nitrate concentrations in old and young groundwater Percentage of total nitrate load contributed by baseflow Nitrate concentrations were significantly higher in young groundwater than in old groundwater. Elevated concentrations of nitrate (greater than 10 milligrams per liter) rarely occurred in groundwater that entered the groundwater system prior to 1953. Source: Dubrovsky et al. 2010 Nutrient leaching: A critical conservation concern Nitrogen and phosphorus are essential inputs to profitable crop production. Farmers apply these nutrients to the land as commercial fertilizers and in manure to promote plant growth and increase crop yields. Some of the nutrients applied to the land are lost to the environment and, when Source: Dubrovsky et al. 2010 combined with naturally occurring levels of these elements, can create human health risks and other offsite environmental problems. Almost all (98 percent) of the self-supplied domestic A recent CEAP study on the effects of conservation practices on cropland water serving 43 million people is drawn from shallow, in the Upper Mississippi River Basin (UMRB) used computer modeling young groundwater resources. USGS found that about 7 to quantify the movement of sediment and nutrients to water supplies. percent of all domestic wells and 20 percent of the wells According to the draft report, farmers’ use of conservation practices has in agricultural areas had concentrations above the EPA reduced total losses of sediment from farm fields by 69 percent, total losses threshold for nitrate concentration levels (Dubrovsky et al. of phosphorus by 47 percent, and total losses of nitrogen by 18 percent, 2010). About one-third of larger water supply systems, those serving at least 25 people, also draw from groundwater, but compared to losses that likely would have occurred if no conservation generally from deeper aquifers with old groundwater. practices had been implemented. Just as groundwater provides a reservoir for water supplies, it can A closer look, however, reveals that nitrogen loss is down by 46 percent also be a storage reservoir for nutrients that may discharge into in surface runoff but only by 5 percent in subsurface flow. Why is this? surface water systems. The lag time between the application of Some technologies that reduce surface runoff and erosion from cropland conservation practices and detectable reductions in groundwater fields may not control the movement of soluble nitrogen into subsurface nitrate concentration generally makes it difficult to measure flow pathways. A comprehensive conservation plan designed to meet the the effectiveness of practices in the short run, although lag time site-specific characteristics of the operation and the field will combine depends on hydrology and site-specific factors. For example, erosion control practices (e.g., conservation tillage, buffers, cover crops) and in areas of karst topography, shallow or perched aquifers, nutrient management (e.g., form, rate, timing, and placement of nutrients) or sandy soils, response to conservation treatment may be to address multiple loss pathways. Assistance to plan and implement the observed more quickly than in settings where materials move needed conservation practices is available through a variety of Federal, more slowly. Groundwater discharge along with irrigation State, and local programs. return flow and other stable flow sources accounted for more than 37 percent of the total annual nitrate load in about two-thirds of the streams studied by USGS (fig. 6-12). Chapter 6 • Water Resources in the 21 st Centur y – Conser vation Oppor tunities 85 Implications for meeting current Since 1982, the National Resources Inventory (NRI), which followed the CNIs, has provided scientifically and future demand defensible trend data on natural resources on non-Federal lands. USDA’s Conservation Effects Assessment Project Water resources are the foundation for meeting the demand for (CEAP) builds on the strength of the NRI to develop food, feed, and fiber today and in the future. Current challenges nationally consistent information on the effects of in water resource management are being amplified by new conservation practices applied on U.S. agricultural lands. demands on agricultural and forest landscapes and the effects of climate change. For this RCA Appraisal, the most recent The following discussion presents CEAP estimates of the effects set of USDA World Agricultural Outlook Board (WAOB) of current cropland conservation on water conservation and projections formed the basis for identifying future demands on the transport and fate of sediment, nitrogen, and phosphorus. the resource base (WAOB 2010). Key assumptions included: Irrigation water applications as well as potential for sediment and nutrient losses vary according to a number of natural and • Population. While population growth continues to slow management factors, such as soil, slope, rainfall intensity, and worldwide, developing countries will account for 84 percent crops grown, among others. Across the nine basins presented of global population by 2019. here (fig. 6-13), there is substantial variation in the potential for • Energy. Expansion of the U.S. ethanol industry will slow irrigation water conservation and reductions in material losses. from prior years, reflecting moderate growth in U.S. gas consumption and limited potential for further penetration Irrigation water conservation in ethanol markets. Corn will remain the primary feedstock Irrigation water conservation is complex because water used for U.S. ethanol, accounting for about 35 percent of corn for irrigation is mobile, is supplied from alternative sources, use. includes return flow linkages, and is governed by alternative • Economic growth. U.S. and global economies will achieve laws and institutions. “Water conservation” is a broad term moderate, steady growth supporting longer term gains in that represents a range of actions to use less water— world food demand, global agricultural trade, and U.S. • In absolute terms (water-use reduction); agricultural exports. • To achieve the goal (water efficiency); and • The dollar. The U.S. dollar will depreciate slightly as part • Per unit of output (water productivity). of the global adjustment of trade and financial markets, driving gains in U.S. agricultural exports, which in turn will Reducing consumptive water use on irrigated agricultural land increase farm cash receipts. (water use reduction) usually involves a decline in irrigated area • Crops. Production will increase, mainly due to small but or production. In contrast, improving “water productivity” steady gains in productivity and increasing exports for most through better irrigation technology (irrigation water crops. Acreage planted to the eight major crops will decline management, conveyance improvements, and application system slightly although cropland use will remain high. improvements, singularly or in combination) increases output with the same or reduced levels of water application. Improving • Livestock. Production will increase gradually as the global water productivity rarely increases downstream water availability. economy strengthens and the sector continues to adjust to In fact, there may be a reduction in downstream flow because higher prices for inputs. of increased consumptive use associated with higher yields. These agricultural sector projections portray a near-term However, improving water productivity is a significant future that includes increasing crop and livestock accomplishment, given the domestic and international production and expanding biofuels production, along with demand for the products from irrigated agriculture. increasing population and economic growth, all of which Irrigated acres (2007 Census of Agriculture) and irrigation are likely to increase the demand on water resources. water applications (USDA 2008) are displayed in figure 6-14. Almost one fourth of the Nation’s irrigated acreage is in the Soil and water conservation Missouri River Basin. Almost two-thirds of the irrigated land in the Nation is located in three major basins (Missouri, treatment needs Western, and Arkansas-White-Red/Texas Gulf Basins). While irrigation occurs at some level in all major basins, it is Understanding soil and water conservation treatment needs is concentrated where it is required or where supplemental water essential for designing an efficient soil and water conservation is profitable. The Lower Mississippi and Missouri had the program. Soil and Water Conservation Needs Inventories greatest gain in irrigated acres over the period 2002 to 2007, (CNIs) conducted by USDA in 1945, 1958, and 1967 helped continuing to increase the concentration of irrigated acres. to determine the locations and severity of natural resource problems and concerns on non-Federal lands. This information Water applied for irrigated crop production averaged less in turn shaped USDA’s program of soil and water conservation. than 20 inches per acre in basins where irrigation is used

86 RC A Appraisal 2011 Figure 6-13. Major river basins and water resource regions for the CEAP-Cropland assessment Figure 6-14. Irrigated acres (2007) and current per acre water application depth and modeled depth reduction on cultivated cropland under full conservation treatment, by basin Current average Irrigated acres 2007 Reduction with full Application with full water application conservation treatment conservation treatment Inches Acres (1,000s) 40 16,000 35 14,000 30 12,000 25 10,000 20 8,000 15 6,000 10 4,000 5 2,000 0 0 Western Pacific Missouri Arkansas- Great Lakes/ Upper Lower Ohio/ New England/ South Northwest White-Red/ Souris-Red- Mississippi Mississippi Tennessee Mid-Atlantic Atlantic- Texas Gulf Rainy Gulf Note: Estimated per acre application and reduction are calculated using CEAP estimates of percentage improvement by basin and actual current water application data from the Farm and Ranch Irrigation Survey, 2008. Estimated improvements do not reflect additional water needed for salinity control or frost prevention. Source: USDA, Preliminary data, CEAP Cropland Assessment; and NASS, Census of Agriculture 2007; Farm and Ranch Irrigation Survey 2008 Chapter 6 • Water Resources in the 21 st Centur y – Conser vation Oppor tunities 87 to supplement natural rainfall. In the more arid Western such as transition from gravity and hand-move systems to center basins the amount was greater, averaging about 35 inches pivot or linear-move, low-pressure spray systems. Improvements per acre and ranging from 22 to 62 inches per acre across in irrigation water management also have the potential to its sub-basins, reflecting water needed for irrigation and reduce water applications, and improved management is usually salinity management in regions with less precipitation. required to capture the potential in the improved technology. Potential exists to reduce water application while sustaining Opportunities to improve water management exist across the yields through implementation of improved technologies and Nation, but vary substantially by basin. The western and Lower practices that increase water efficiency and productivity. A Mississippi basins show the largest potential improvements, at comparison of current irrigation practices on cultivated cropland about 30 percent of current average water application. These with alternative practices in a “full treatment” scenario shows estimates reflect improving irrigation practices on all irrigated that the potential water application reductions vary significantly cultivated cropland in the basins and do not demonstrate by basin (fig. 6-14). The simulated reductions in irrigation potential efficiencies gained by focusing on those acres most water application reflect a focus on technological improvements in need of conservation treatment. The focus is at the field The Conservation Effects Assessment Project The Conservation Effects Assessment Project (CEAP) is a USDA effort to conservation treatment in place. Field-level losses exceed acceptable quantify the effects of conservation practices on U.S. agricultural lands. CEAP levels by some amount. investigations are organized into four assessment components – cropland, • High conservation treatment need – These acres have highest level of grazing lands, wetlands, and wildlife. Major phases of the research effort imbalance between the inherent site vulnerability and the conservation include— treatment in place. • Developing bibliographies and literature reviews to establish and The resulting estimates of additional conservation benefits are based on document what is known and not known regarding the national implementation of comprehensive conservation treatment designed to add assessment components. practices to complete a conservation system that would reduce edge-of-field • Conducting small watershed assessment studies to enhance the sediment and nutrient losses to acceptable levels, which are used as a guide understanding of the measurable effects of conservation at watershed to estimate the acres needing additional treatment. Acceptable levels were scales and to serve as verification points for the national assessment derived by scientists through a series of professional and research forums and component. narrowed to the values used in this study by further examination of Agricultural • Conducting a statistically reliable survey of farmers to gather data on the Policy Environmental Extender (APEX) model output for all agricultural types and extent of conservation measures in place on the landscape. regions. The levels selected were shown to be feasible in all agricultural • Using state–of-the-art models to estimate the physical impacts of regions and fell within the range provided by the scientists. These acceptable conservation measures on soil, water, and related natural resources. levels were not used in this study as “tolerable thresholds” for field-level losses, and therefore are not intended to provide adequate protection of The CEAP cropland assessment is nearly complete, and reports from several water quality, although for some environmental settings they may be suitable regions are now or soon will be available (fig. 6-13). The assessment uses for that purpose. Evaluation of how much additional conservation treatment computer models to estimate the effects of current conservation measures is needed to meet Federal, State, and/or local water quality goals in the on reducing delivery of sediment, nitrogen, and phosphorus to waterways.The region is beyond the scope of this study. models also enable projections of additional conservation gains that could be made by treating additional cropland acreage within the basins. Acres Existing conservation treatment was modified with additional practices to 1) are placed in one of three categories based on the relationship between the apply nutrient management (form, rate, timing, and method) on all crops in inherent site vulnerability and the level of conservation treatment in place. If the rotation, 2) control overland flow, and 3) trap materials leaving the field a field’s level of vulnerability exceeds the level of conservation treatment in with edge-of-field mitigation. Comprehensive conservation treatment consists place, then that field is identified as having a conservation need. of well-established agricultural conservation practices and is intended to maintain capacity to produce food, feed, and fiber in the region. • Low conservation treatment need – These acres have conservation practices in place to manage field-level sediment and nutrient losses, as While these results present only part of the overall conservation needs appropriate to the level of inherent site vulnerability. picture, they represent the next generation of tools for shaping a national soil and water conservation program. As USDA’s CEAP effort continues to mature, • Moderate conservation treatment need – These acres have moderate these preliminary estimates will be followed with similar information for water levels of imbalance between the inherent site vulnerability and the quantity, grazing lands, wetlands, and wildlife habitat.

88 RC A Appraisal 2011 level and the potential to increase productivity; this does not reductions in sediment loss for the major river basins and necessarily translate into increased basin-wide productivity. water resource regions in the conterminous United States. These estimates do not include irrigated non-cultivated cropland (hayland, orchards) or irrigated pasture. Additional Nationwide, with respect to sediment loss— information is needed to determine the other uses of irrigation • The greatest potential total reductions in sediment loss from water (salinity control, frost prevention) and to estimate the high-treatment-need acres are in the Lower Mississippi effect of improved practices on the hydrologic cycle, including (35.4 million tons), Ohio-Tennessee (24.1 million tons), and on water availability for other needs within the basin. Upper Mississippi (23.1 million tons). • Applying comprehensive conservation treatment4 on the Sediment high-treatment-need acres in the Lower Mississippi, Ohio- Controlling soil erosion has been a main objective of USDA Tennessee, New England-Mid Atlantic, Missouri, Upper conservation efforts since the 1930s. The average annual Mississippi, and Pacific Northwest regions could reduce wind and water erosion rate on cropland has dropped from sediment losses by 2.5 tons per acre per year or more. Total 7.3 tons per acre in 1982 to 4.8 tons per acre in 2007 sediment loss reductions would be less in the Missouri, New (USDA-NRCS 2009). The rate of decline began to level England-Mid Atlantic, and Pacific Northwest regions than off in the late 1990s, and currently about 20 percent of in the other regions because of the relatively low number of the non-highly erodible cropland and 67 percent of the high-treatment-need acres in those regions. highly erodible cropland continues to erode excessively.3 • Applying a comprehensive suite of conservation practices Sediment loss. Erosive forces can move soil particles beyond on the high-treatment-need acres in the Lower Mississippi, the edge of the farm field. For the purposes of this assessment, South Atlantic-Gulf, New England-Mid Atlantic, and adequate levels of sediment loss were assumed to average Ohio-Tennessee regions would achieve 60 percent or more 2 tons per acre per year. The comprehensive conservation of total potential reductions in sediment losses in these four treatment scenario goes beyond soil loss tolerance (T), using basins. Applying comprehensive conservation to all of the numeric criteria for minimizing field level losses as the planning high and moderate treatment need acres in those basins and target. Table 6-1 and figures 6-15 and 6-16 show potential the Pacific Northwest would achieve 90 percent or more of total potential reduction in sediment losses in those basins. 3 excessive erosion reflects soil loss at greater than the soil loss tolerance rate (t), which is the maximum rate 4 Comprehensive conservation treatment includes all needed of annual soil loss that will permit crop productivity to be conservation practices to complete a conservation system that sustained economically and indefinitely on a given soil. would reduce sediment and nutrient losses at the edge of field. Figure 6-15. Potential reductions in sediment losses using additional conservation management on cultivated cropland, by conservation treatment need and basin High Moderate Low Tons per acre per year 5 4 3 2 1 0 National Pacific Missouri Arkansas- Great Lakes/ Upper Lower Ohio- New England- South average* Northwest White-Red/ Souris-Red- Mississippi Mississippi Tennessee Mid-Atlantic Atlantic Texas Gulf Rainy Gulf * Does not include estimates for the Western Basins, which are currently not available. SOURCE: USDA, Preliminary data, CEAP Cropland Assessment Chapter 6 • Water Resources in the 21 st Centur y – Conser vation Oppor tunities 89 Table 6-1. Potential average annual sediment loss reductions from cultivated cropland through application of comprehensive conservation treatment Application of comprehensive conservation treatment to— All High treatment need acres Moderate treatment need acres cultivated River Basin/ cropland Water Resource Region Area Average annual reduction Area Average annual reduction in region Million acres Million tons Tons/acre Million acres Million tons Tons/acre Million acres Western -­ -­ -­ -­ -­ -­ -­ Pacific Northwest 0.4 1.0 2.5 8.2 23.7 2.9 11.6 Missouri 1.1 3.3 2.9 14.2 4.8 0.3 83.6 Arkansas-White-Red/Texas Gulf 12.2 3.6 0.3 12.7 2.6 0.2 48.8 Great Lakes/Souris-Red-Rainy 2.8 2.8 1.0 9.4 3.5 0.4 32.4 Upper Mississippi 9.0 23.1 2.6 26.2 16.5 0.6 58.2 Lower Mississippi 8.9 35.4 4.0 8.2 13.7 1.7 18.8 Ohio-Tennessee 6.0 24.1 4.0 11.5 8.9 0.8 25.0 New England-Mid Atlantic 1.9 6.3 3.3 2.9 2.7 1.0 6.0 South Atlantic-Gulf 6.7 8.3 1.2 4.1 2.5 0.6 13.2 ALL REGIONS -­ -­ -­ -­ -­ -­ -­ * Does not include estimates for the Western Basins, which are currently not available. Source: USDA, Preliminary data, CEAP Cropland Assessment Figure 6-16. Proportion of potential sediment loss reduction through application of comprehensive conservation treatment on cultivated cropland, by treatment need and basin Each bar in this chart shows the percentage of reduction in total sediment loss that could be achieved through comprehensive conservation treatment of the critically under-treated acres (blue), all remaining under-treated acres (tan), and all other acres of cultivated cropland (green). Low Moderate High National estimates Basin level estimates Percent of total 100 80 60 40 20 0 Cropland Total Pacific Missouri Arkansas- Great Lakes/ Upper Lower Ohio/ New England/ South acres* reduction* Northwest White-Red/ Souris-Red- Mississippi Mississippi Tennessee Mid-Atlantic Atlantic Texas Gulf Rainy River basin River basin Gulf region * Does not include estimates for the Western Basins, which are currently not available. Source: USDA, Preliminary data, CEAP Cropland Assessment

90 RC A Appraisal 2011 Nitrogen and phosphorus criteria for minimizing field level losses as the planning target. Table 6-2 and figures 6-17 and 6-18 show potential Reducing nitrogen and phosphorus losses from farm fields reductions in nitrogen loss for the major river basins and to waterways is a high-priority conservation goal. While water resource regions in the conterminous United States. erosion-control practices reduce the loss of nutrients through surface runoff, they also can promote the infiltration of soluble Nationwide, with respect to nitrogen loss— nutrients, which may then move through subsurface pathways to rivers and streams. Where tile drains are common, they may • The greatest potential total reductions in nitrogen loss from intercept subsurface flow and route it directly to surface flows. high-treatment-need acres are in the Lower Mississippi (325 million pounds), Upper Mississippi (316 million pounds), Nitrogen losses. Nitrogen can move beyond the edge South Atlantic-Gulf (274 million pounds), and Arkansas- of the field in overland flow in soluble form or attached White-Red/Texas Gulf (253 million pounds) basins. to soil particles, or in soluble form through subsurface • Applying comprehensive conservation treatment on the pathways. For the purposes of this assessment, adequate high treatment need acres in the Pacific Northwest, New levels of nitrogen loss were assumed to average 40 pounds England/Mid-Atlantic, and South Atlantic-Gulf regions per acre per year. The comprehensive conservation treatment could reduce nitrogen losses by more than 40 pounds per scenario goes beyond soil loss tolerance (T), using numeric acre per year. Figure 6-17. Potential average annual per-acre nitrogen loss reductions on cultivated cropland through application of comprehensive conservation treatment High Moderate Low Pounds per acre per year 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 National Pacific Missouri Arkansas­ Great Lakes/ Upper Lower Ohio- New England- South average* Northwest White-Red/ Souris-Red- Mississippi Mississippi Tennessee Mid-Atlantic Atlantic Texas Gulf Rainy Gulf * Does not include estimates for the Western Basins, which are currently not available. Source: USDA, Preliminary data, CEAP Cropland Assessment Chapter 6 • Water Resources in the 21 st Centur y – Conser vation Oppor tunities 91 Table 6-2. Potential average annual nitrogen loss reductions from cultivated cropland through application of comprehensive conservation treatment Application of comprehensive conservation treatment to— All High treatment need acres Moderate treatment need acres cultivated River Basin/ cropland Water Resource Region Area Average annual reduction Area Average annual reduction in region Million Pounds Million Pounds/ Million acres pounds /acre Million acres pounds acre Million acres Western -­ -­ -­ -­ -­ -­ -­ Pacific Northwest 0.4 31.3 80.7 8.2 161.6 19.7 11.6 Missouri 1.1 35.4 31.4 14.2 173.2 12.2 83.6 Arkansas-White-Red/Texas Gulf 12.2 252.8 20.8 12.7 156.5 12.3 48.8 Great Lakes/Souris-Red-Rainy 2.8 106.2 37.4 9.4 154.5 16.5 32.4 Upper Mississippi 9.0 315.6 35.1 26.2 627.4 23.9 58.2 Lower Mississippi 8.9 324.5 36.6 8.2 143.0 17.5 18.8 Ohio-Tennessee 6.0 200.7 33.4 11.5 221.6 19.3 25.0 New England-Mid Atlantic 1.9 95.6 49.7 2.9 74.4 26.0 6.0 South Atlantic-Gulf 6.7 274.1 40.8 4.1 43.7 10.6 13.2 ALL REGIONS -­ -­ -­ -­ -­ -­ -­ * Does not include estimates for the Western Basins, which are currently not available. Source: USDA, Preliminary data, CEAP Cropland Assessment Figure 6-18. Proportion of potential nitrogen loss reduction through application of comprehensive conservation treatment on cultivated cropland, by treatment need and basin Each bar in this chart shows the percentage of reduction in total nitrogen loss that could be achieved through comprehensive conservation treatment of the high treatment need acres (blue), moderate treatment need acres (tan), and all other acres of cultivated cropland (green). Low Moderate High National estimates Basin level estimates Percent of total 100 80 60 40 20 0 Cropland Total Pacific Missouri Arkansas- Great Lakes/ Upper Lower Ohio/ New England/ South acres* reduction* Northwest White-Red/ Souris-Red- Mississippi Mississippi Tennessee Mid-Atlantic Atlantic Texas Gulf Rainy River basin River basin Gulf region * Does not include estimates for the Western Basins, which are currently not available. Source: USDA, Preliminary data, CEAP Cropland Assessment

92 RC A Appraisal 2011 Phosphorus losses. Phosphorus can move beyond the (48.8 million pounds), Ohio-Tennessee (35.7 million edge of the field in overland flow either in soluble form or pounds), Upper Mississippi (35.6 million pounds), and attached to soil particles, or in soluble form through subsurface Arkansas-White-Red (34.8 million pounds) basins. pathways. For the purposes of this assessment, adequate levels • Applying comprehensive conservation treatment on the of phosphorus loss were estimated to average 4 pounds per high-treatment-need acres in the New England-Mid acre per year. The comprehensive conservation treatment Atlantic, Ohio-Tennessee, Lower Mississippi, Pacific scenario goes beyond soil loss tolerance (T), using numeric Northwest, Missouri, and Upper Mississippi regions could criteria for minimizing field level losses as the planning reduce phosphorus losses by more than 4 pounds per acre target. Table 6-3 and figures 6-19 and 6-20 show potential per year. reductions in phosphorus losses for the major river basins and • In three regions—Lower Mississippi, South Atlantic-Gulf water resource regions in the conterminous United States. and New England/Mid-Atlantic—applying conservation treatment to the high–treatment-need acres would achieve Nationwide, with respect to phosphorus loss— more than 60 percent of the total potential phosphorus loss • The greatest potential total reductions in phosphorus loss reductions. from high-treatment-need acres are in the Lower Mississippi Figure 6-19. Potential average annual per-acre phosphorus loss reductions on cultivated cropland through application of comprehensive conservation treatment High Moderate Low Pounds per acre per year 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 National Pacific Missouri Arkansas- Great Lakes/ Upper Lower Ohio- New England- South average* Northwest White-Red/ Souris-Red- Mississippi Mississippi Tennessee Mid-Atlantic Atlantic Texas Gulf Rainy Gulf * Does not include estimates for the Western Basins, which are currently not available. Source: USDA, Preliminary data, CEAP Cropland Assessment Chapter 6 • Water Resources in the 21 st Centur y – Conser vation Oppor tunities 93 Table 6-3. Potential average annual phosphorus loss reductions from cultivated cropland through application of comprehensive conservation treatment Application of comprehensive conservation treatment to— All High treatment need acres Moderate treatment need acres cultivated River Basin/ cropland Water Resource Region Area Average annual reduction Area Average annual reduction in region Million Pounds Million Pounds/ Million acres pounds /acre Million acres pounds acre Million acres Western -­ -­ -­ -­ -­ -­ -­ Pacific Northwest 0.4 1.9 4.9 8.2 22.2 2.7 11.6 Missouri 1.1 5.5 4.9 14.2 19.8 1.4 83.6 Arkansas-White-Red/Texas Gulf 12.2 34.8 2.9 12.7 14.5 1.1 48.8 Great Lakes/Souris-Red-Rainy 2.8 7.9 2.8 9.4 15.6 1.7 32.4 Upper Mississippi 9.0 35.6 4.0 26.2 46.7 1.8 58.2 Lower Mississippi 8.9 48.8 5.5 8.2 15.1 1.9 18.8 Ohio-Tennessee 6.0 35.7 5.9 11.5 34.7 3.0 25.0 New England-Mid Atlantic 1.9 11.4 5.9 2.9 5.5 1.9 6.0 South Atlantic-Gulf 6.7 21.6 3.2 4.1 8.0 1.9 13.2 ALL REGIONS -­ -­ -­ -­ -­ -­ * Does not include estimates for the Western Basins, which are currently not available. Source: USDA, Preliminary data, CEAP Cropland Assessment Figure 6-20. Proportion of potential phosphorus loss reduction through application of comprehensive conservation treatment on cultivated cropland, by treatment need and basin Each bar in this chart shows the percentage of reduction in total sediment loss that could be achieved through comprehensive conservation treatment of the high treatment need acres (blue), moderate treatment need acres (tan), and all other acres of cultivated cropland (green). Low Moderate High National estimates Basin level estimates Percent of total 100 80 60 40 20 0 Cropland Total Pacific MissouriArkansas- Great Lakes/ Upper Lower Ohio/ New England/ South acres* reduction* Northwest White-Red/ Souris-Red- Mississippi Mississippi Tennessee Mid-Atlantic Atlantic Texas Gulf Rainy River basin River basin Gulf region * Does not include estimates for the Western Basins, which are currently not available. Source: USDA, Preliminary data, CEAP Cropland Assessment

94 RC A Appraisal 2011 Conclusion Figure 6-22. Proportion of potential loss reduction through application Nationwide, about 51 percent of cropland acres (151 million) of comprehensive conservation management on cultivated have conservation treatment in place for controlling the loss cropland, by material and treatment need category of sediment and nutrients to acceptable levels, and another 33 percent (97 million acres) have moderate conservation treatment Low Moderate High needs. Only 16 percent of all cultivated cropland acreage is Percent of total identified as having high need of conservation treatment to 100 reduce potential material losses from farm fields (fig. 6-21). 80 Conservation practices have the greatest effect on the more vulnerable acres, such as highly erodible land and soils prone 60 to leaching. Across all basins, focusing on high-treatment­ need acres generates a proportionally larger benefit relative 40 to treating every acre (fig. 6-22). High-treatment-need acres account for about 16 percent of cultivated cropland, but with 20 the application of comprehensive conservation treatment could deliver nearly 50 percent of the total potential sediment 0 Acres Sediment Nitrogen Phosphorus reductions, and about 40 percent of the potential nitrogen * Does not include estimates for the Western Basins, which are and phosphorus reductions. The comprehensive conservation currently not available. treatment scenario is not indicative of the treatment required Source: USDA, Preliminary data, CEAP Cropland Assessment Figure 6-21. Conservation treatment need on cultivated cropland, by resource concern and treatment need category * Does not include estimates for the Western Basins, which are currently not available. Source: USDA, Preliminary data, CEAP Cropland Assessment Chapter 6 • Water Resources in the 21 st Centur y – Conser vation Oppor tunities 95 to protect water quality, although for some environments it gains in conservation benefits that result under comprehensive may be suitable for this purpose. While conservation gains conservation treatment relative to the current “T” threshold. also may be achieved on low-treatment-need acres, the more Using sediment loss as an example, figure 6-23 shows the significant gains are made on the under-treated acres. benefits from implementing comprehensive conservation treatment versus the implementation of practices to achieve T. Focusing on high-treatment-need acres may be efficient, but there are also good reasons to consider wider Nearly every basin has opportunity for potential reductions in conservation treatment to address locally important water irrigation water application. In this preliminary assessment, resource concerns. Applying comprehensive conservation comprehensive conservation treatment on all irrigated treatment to all under-treated acres could achieve over cropland acres could provide an estimated 26-percent 80 percent of the potential sediment delivery reductions improvement in water use that could be used to increase (or 187 million tons per year), and about 79 and 78 water productivity or other aspects of water conservation. percent of potential nitrogen and phosphorus reductions Continuing work is needed to evaluate more completely the (3,400 and 385 million pounds), respectively. potential benefits of improving irrigation water application. The results presented here indicate that agricultural conservation Research will be critical to advancing the next generation of efforts on cultivated cropland have significant potential conservation technologies, including tools and methods to for reducing sediment and nutrient losses to surface and identify priority conservation needs, improve assessment of groundwater. The estimates are attainable field loss reductions conservation impacts and benefits (e.g., assessment of bio­ using well-established agricultural and conservation technologies availability of nutrients), or support potential nutrient credit consisting of nutrient management and soil erosion control. trading programs. Assessments of conservation needs can be The low-treatment-need scenario is used as a threshold to used at multiple scales to focus efforts where they can generate distinguish acreage needing conservation treatment. The substantial benefits for agriculture, communities, and the comprehensive conservation treatment scenario goes beyond environment. However, assessments are not a substitute for local soil loss tolerance (T), using numeric criteria for minimizing knowledge on conservation needs and outreach to individuals field level losses as the planning target. While planning to T has and communities. The longstanding Federal-State-local generated significant environmental benefits (see chapter 3), it conservation partnership creates this critical link between local may not address the broader range of potential material losses and national priorities in order to improve natural resources. from farming operations. Correspondingly, there are significant Figure 6-23. Potential reductions in sediment losses on cultivated cropland - comparison of potential benefits of treatment to “T” with comprehensive conservation treatment on all under-treated acres, by basin Treat acres to "T" Comprehensive conservation treatment on under-treated acres Million Tons 50 40 30 20 10 0 Pacific Missouri Arkansas- Great Lakes/ Upper Lower Ohio- New England/ South Atlantic Northwest White-Red/ Souris-Red- Mississippi Mississippi Tennessee Mid-Atlantic Gulf Texas Gulf Rainy River River River River * Does not include estimates for the Western Basins, which are currently not available. Source: USDA, Preliminary data, CEAP Cropland Assessment

96 RC A Appraisal 2011 Focusing conservation programs on local, State, and regional natural resource priorities Conservation programs are directed toward the most pressing issues at local, State, and regional levels in a variety of ways, from national program priorities and allocation formulas that reflect natural resource uses and concerns among other factors to State- and local-level technical advice and program ranking criteria designed to direct funds toward the priority resource concerns. The Conservation Effects Assessment Project (CEAP) studies on cultivated cropland show that agricultural conservation efforts are addressing identified resource concerns, but that opportunity exists to accelerate progress by focusing on suites of conservation practices and the most vulnerable acres (USDA 2010). USDA is incorporating these lessons through a variety of strategic initiatives, such as the Mississippi River Basin Healthy Watersheds Initiative (MRBI). From its headwaters in Minnesota to its outlet into the Gulf of Mexico, the Mississippi River travels through 10 States and over 2,300 miles. The Mississippi River Basin covers more than 1.2 million square miles and drains all or parts of 31 States. About 58 percent of the basin is in cropland, and the central part of the basin produces the majority of the Nation’s corn, soybean, wheat, cattle, swine, and chickens (Goolsby and Battaglin 2000). Nutrient loading contributes to water quality problems at the local level and in the Gulf of Mexico. While agriculture has accomplished much through conservation measures, more opportunities exist to improve the health of the Mississippi River Basin. The CEAP cropland assessment of the Upper Mississippi River basin shows that conservation practices in place during the period 2003 to 2006 reduced phosphorus losses by 49 percent, nitrogen losses by 18 percent, and sediment losses by 69 percent as compared to conditions expected if conservation practices were not in use (USDA 2010). The MRBI emphasizes a “systems approach,” as highlighted in the CEAP Yet, substantial gains could be made through improved nutrient management findings, which recognizes that suites of practices are needed to compre­ on the under-treated acres in the watershed. hensively address water quality resource concerns. Twenty-seven core and The MRBI, established in 2010, will build on the past efforts of producers, 43 supporting conservation practices are identified, which are recognized USDA, partners, and other State and Federal agencies in a 13-State area. methods for avoiding, trapping and controlling material losses from farm The effort focuses on 43 priority watersheds (8-digit hydrologic unit code fields. A cornerstone of this approach is screening and ranking applicants [HUC]), ranging from 250,000 to 1,250,000 acres in size. In selecting priority to select the most critical acres and the suites of core and supporting watersheds, States used a consistent evaluation process that included conservation practices that will most effectively address agricultural nitrogen information from the CEAP assessment; the USGS Spatially Referenced and phosphorous losses. Efforts to reduce nitrogen and sediment loadings Regression on Watershed (SPARROW) attributes; State-level nutrient reduction are complemented by voluntary efforts to improve wildlife habitat and restore strategies and priorities; State-level water quality data; and monitoring and wetlands. modeling of nitrogen and phosphorous management in the watershed. A three-tiered monitoring and evaluation approach is designed to assess Existing conservation programs are being used to implement the MRBI, environmental outcomes at the edge-of-field, instream, and 12-digit HUC including partnership programs that leverage non-Federal resources to levels.The resulting information will be an important element in documenting accelerate addressing conservation objectives in one or more 12-digit HUC the progress made through strategic delivery of conservation assistance. subwatersheds within the designated priority watershed focus areas. Partners Looking ahead, an additional focus will be on competitive opportunities also have a crucial role in encouraging and supporting producer participation. for matching funds to implement innovative projects related to nutrient This includes providing education and outreach activities; providing technical management, drainage water management, bio-filters, market-based and educational assistance; targeting their own programs toward the priority approaches to conservation on a watershed scale, and other high-priority watersheds; and assisting with monitoring, evaluation, and assessment. interest areas where field trials and demonstrations are needed. Chapter 6 • Water Resources in the 21 st Centur y – Conser vation Oppor tunities 97 References U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2009. Summary Report: 2007 Dubrovsky, N.M., K.R. Burow, G.M. Clark, J.M. Gronberg, National Resources Inventory. Natural Resources P.A. Hamilton, K.J. Hitt, D.K. Mueller, M.D. Munn, Conservation Service, Washington, DC, and Center B.T. Nolan, L,J, Puckett, M.G. Rupert, T.M. Short, for Survey Statistics and Methodology, Iowa State N.E. Spahr, L.A. Sprague, and W.G. Wilber. 2010. University, Ames, IA. 123 pages. http://www.nrcs.usda. The Quality of Our Nation’s Waters—Nutrients in the gov/technical/NRI/2007/2007_NRI_Summary.pdf Nation’s Streams and Groundwater, 1992–2004: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1350, 174 pp. Additional U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources information about this study is available at: http:// Conservation Service. 2010. Assessment of the Effects water.usgs.gov/nawqa/nutrients/pubs/circ1350 of Conservation Practices on Cultivated Cropland in the Upper Mississippi River Basin. Draft, June 2010. http:// Goolsby, Donald A. and William Battaglin. 2000. Nitrogen www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/NRI/ceap/umrb/index.html in the Mississippi Basin: Estimating Sources and Predicting Flux to the Gulf of Mexico. United States Geological U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2006. Survey, USGS Fact Sheet 135-00, December 2000. http:// Wadeable Streams Assessment: A Collaborative ks.water.usgs.gov/pubs/fact-sheets/fs.135-00.html Survey of the Nation’s Streams. EPA 841-B-06-002 December 2006. http://water.epa.gov/type/ Kenny, J.F., N.L. Barber, S.S. Hutson, K.S. Linsey, rsl/monitoring/streamsurvey/index.cfm J.K. Lovelace, and M.A. Maupin. 2009, Estimated Use of Water in the United States in 2005. U.S. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Geological Survey Circular 1344, 52 pp. 2010. National Lakes Assessment, A Collaborative Survey of the Nation’s Lakes. EPA 841-R-09-001, United Nations Environment Programme. 2002. April 2010. http://water.epa.gov/type/lakes/ Availability of Freshwater in 2000 (graphic). http:// upload/nla_exec_summary_key_findings.pdf www.unep.org/dewa/assessments/ecosystems/ water/vitalwater/13-freshwater-availabil.htm World Agricultural Outlook Board (WAOB). 2010. USDA Agricultural Projections to 2019, Long-term U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), National Projections Report, OCE-2010-1, February 2010. Agricultural Statistics Service. 2008. Farm and Ranch Irrigation Survey. Volume 3, Special Studies, Part 1, AC-07-SS-1, Updated July 2010.

98 RC A Appraisal 2011 Glossary of Terms and Acronyms Terms used in this report Agricultural land. Cropland, pastureland, and rangeland. 1979). Estuarine wetlands are tidal wetlands that are usually semienclosed by land but have open, partly obstructed or Baseflow. Groundwater seepage into a stream channel. sporadic access to the open ocean, and in which ocean water is at least occasionally diluted by freshwater runoff from Comprehensive conservation treatment. A level of the land. The most common example is where a river flows treatment that includes all needed conservation practices into the ocean. (Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, to complete a conservation system that would reduce E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deepwater sediment and nutrient losses at the edge of field to established habitats of the United States. FWS/OBS-79/31. U.S. acceptable levels of (1) sediment loss of no more than 2 Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service.) tons per acre per year, (2) nitrogen runoff of no more than 15 pounds per acre per year, (3) nitrogen leaching of no Federal land. A land ownership category designating land more than 25 pounds per acre per year, and (4) phosphorus that is owned by the Federal Government. It does not include, runoff of no more than 4 pounds per acre per year. for example, trust lands administered by the Bureau of Indian Affairs or Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) land. For the NRI, Conservation practice. A specific treatment, such no data are collected for any year that land is in this ownership. as a structural or vegetative measure or management technique commonly used to meet specific needs Forest land. A National Resources Inventory (NRI) Land in planning and conservation, for which standards cover/use category that is at least 10 percent stocked by and specifications have been developed. single-stemmed woody species of any size that will be at least 4 meters (13 feet) tall at maturity. Also included is land bearing Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). The CRP provides evidence of natural regeneration of tree cover (cut over forest or technical and financial assistance to eligible farmers and abandoned farmland) and not currently developed for nonforest ranchers to address soil, water, and related natural resource use. Ten percent stocked, when viewed from a vertical direction, concerns on their lands in an environmentally beneficial and equates to an areal canopy cover of leaves and branches of 25 cost-effective manner. The program is administered by the percent or greater. The minimum area for classification as forest Farm Service Agency, with the Natural Resources Conservation land is 1 acre, and the area must be at least 100 feet wide. Service providing technical land eligibility determinations, conservation planning and practice implementation. Grazing lands. See “Pastureland” and “Rangeland.” Cultivated cropland. A National Resources Inventory Irrigated land. Land that shows evidence of being irrigated (NRI) Land cover/use category of land in row crops during the year of the inventory or of having been irrigated or close-grown crops and other cultivated cropland, during 2 or more of the last 4 years. Water is supplied to for example, hayland or pastureland that is in a crops by ditches, pipes, or other conduits. For the purposes rotation with row crops or close-grown crops. of the NRI, water spreading is not considered irrigation. Erosion. The wearing away of the land surface by running National Resources Inventory (NRI). The National water, waves, or moving ice and wind, or by such processes Resources Inventory (NRI) is a statistical survey of natural as mass wasting and corrosion (solution and other chemical resource conditions and trends on non-Federal land in the processes). The term “geologic erosion” refers to natural United States. It is conducted by USDA’s Natural Resources erosion processes occurring over long (geologic) time spans. Conservation Service in cooperation with Iowa State “Accelerated erosion” generically refers to erosion that exceeds University’s Center for Survey Statistics and Methodology. what is presumed or estimated to be naturally occurring levels, and which is a direct result of human activities (e.g., Noncultivated cropland. A National Resources Inventory cultivation and logging). See also “Sheet and rill erosion.” (NRI) Land cover/use category that includes permanent hayland and horticultural cropland. Hayland is land that Estuarine wetlands. Wetlands occurring in the Estuarine is managed for the production of forage crops that are System, one of five systems in the classification of wetlands machine harvested. The crop may be grasses, legumes, and deepwater habitats (see Wetlands, Cowardin et al. or a combination of both. Hayland also includes land Glossar y of Terms and Acronyms 99 in setaside or other short-term agricultural programs. are used, with little or no chemicals or fertilizer being applied. Horticultural cropland is land that is used for growing fruit, Grasslands, savannas, many wetlands, some deserts, and tundra nut, berry, vineyard, and other bush fruit and similar crops. are considered to be rangeland. Certain communities of low Nurseries and other ornamental plantings are included. forbs and shrubs, such as mesquite, chaparral, mountain shrub, and pinyon-juniper, are also included as rangeland. Palustrine wetlands. Wetlands occurring in the Palustrine System, one of five systems in the classification of wetlands Sheet and rill erosion. The removal of layers of soil and deepwater habitats (see Wetlands, Cowardin et al. 1979). from the land surface by the action of rainfall and runoff. Palustrine wetlands include all nontidal wetlands dominated It is the first stage in water erosion. See also “Erosion.” by trees, shrubs, persistent emergent plants, or emergent mosses or lichens, as well as small, shallow open water ponds Soil loss tolerance factor (T factor). The maximum or potholes. Palustrine wetlands are often called swamps, rate of annual soil loss that will permit crop productivity to marshes, potholes, bogs, or fens. (Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, be sustained economically and indefinitely on a given soil. F.C. Golet, E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and T factor. See “Soil loss tolerance factor.” deepwater habitats of the United States. FWS/OBS-79/31. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service.) Wetlands. Lands transitional between terrestrial and aquatic systems where the water table is usually at or near the surface Pastureland. A National Resources Inventory (NRI) or the land is covered by shallow water. For purposes of this Land cover/use category of land managed primarily for classification wetlands must have one or more of the following the production of introduced forage plants for livestock three attributes: (1) at least periodically, the land supports grazing. Pastureland cover may consist of a single species predominantly hydrophytes; (2) the substrate is predominantly in a pure stand, a grass mixture, or a grass-legume mixture. undrained hydric soil; and (3) the substrate is nonsoil and is Management usually consists of cultural treatments: saturated with water or covered by shallow water at some time fertilization, weed control, reseeding or renovation, and during the growing season of each year. (Cowardin, L.M., V. control of grazing. For the NRI, includes land that has a Carter, F.C. Golet, E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands vegetative cover of grasses, legumes, and/or forbs, regardless and deepwater habitats of the United States. FWS/OBS-79/31. of whether or not it is being grazed by livestock. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service.) Prime farmland. Land that has the best combination of Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP). The WRP is a physical and chemical characteristics for producing food, feed, voluntary program offering landowners the opportunity to forage, fiber, and oilseed crops and is also available for these uses. protect, restore, and enhance wetlands on their property. Rangeland. A National Resources Inventory (NRI) Land The USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) cover/use category on which the climax or potential plant cover provides technical and financial support to help landowners is composed principally of native grasses, grasslike plants, forbs with their wetland restoration efforts. The NRCS goal is to or shrubs suitable for grazing and browsing, and introduced achieve the greatest wetland functions and values, along with forage species that are managed like rangeland. This would optimum wildlife habitat, on every acre enrolled in the program. include areas where introduced hardy and persistent grasses, Wind erosion. The process of detachment, transport, such as crested wheatgrass, are planted and such practices as and deposition of soil by wind. See also “Erosion.” deferred grazing, burning, chaining, and rotational grazing

100 RC A Appraisal 2011 Acronyms and abbreviations used in this report AFRI Agriculture and Food Research Initiative IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ARS Agricultural Research Service, an agency MLRA Major Land Resource Area of the U.S. Department of Agriculture NASS National Agricultural Statistics Service, an Bt Bacillus thuringiensis agency of the U.S. Department of Agriculture CAFO Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation NIFA National Institute of Food and Agriculture, an agency of the U.S. CEAP Conservation Effects Assessment Project Department of Agriculture CCRP Continuous Conservation Reserve Program NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service, an agency of the U.S. Department of Agriculture CCSP Climate Change Science Program NRI National Resources Inventory COMET-VR Carbon Management Evaluation Tool – Voluntary Reporting of Greenhouse Gases PET Potential Evapotranspiration CNI Conservation Needs Inventory RCA Soil and Water Resources Conservation Act of 1977 CRP Conservation Reserve Program RC&D Resource Conservation and Development DOE U.S. Department of Energy RD Rural Development, an agency of the EIA U.S. Energy Information Administration U.S. Department of Agriculture EISA Energy Independence and Security Act RPA Forest and Rangeland Renewable EQIP Environmental Quality Incentives Program Resources Planning Act ERS Economic Research Service, an agency UMRB Upper Mississippi River Basin of the U.S. Department of Agriculture USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture ESA Endangered Species Act USDI U.S. Department of the Interior FHM Forest Health Monitoring program USEPA (or EPA) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FSA Farm Service Agency, an agency of the USFS U.S. Forest Service, an agency of the U.S. Department of Agriculture U.S. Department of Agriculture FWS Fish and Wildlife Service, an agency of USGCRP United States Global Change the U.S. Department of the Interior Research Program GAO Government Accountability Office USGS U.S. Geological Survey, an agency of GLRI Great Lakes Regional Initiative the U.S. Department of the Interior GRACEnet Greenhouse Gas Reduction through WAOB World Agricultural Outlook Board Agricultural Carbon Enhancement Network WHIP Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program ICCATF Interagency Climate Change WRP Wetlands Reserve Program Adaptation Task Force