United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Environmental Research
Laboratory
Athens GA 30605
EPA-600/3-79-047
April 1979
Research and Development
Environmental
Implications of
Trends in
Agriculture and
Silviculture
Volume III
Regional Crop
Production Trends
•> A
>, *-J.
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
:. : 'in
' •' '' .'d ; ML,d!(1S
. , .--^-cr.r,,;,t Reports /-"AR,
: ni. ' '"'' ' R' Si-arc1"! V'd Devo oi)rnent
',;(-,-; ,i siq't 'i M,-t; OL f''G!'., A . F-(r.SF AH(^H SCTI es fhissenes
'.'^r i •• 'h-> .•'«.' i; jt poll, tori v, iiurnsns pla^t and anrna! SD*-:-
'•'' d''- ' ' if'i ' •,- ,!r ,jiS'-r-3 ""-i! t r • IT- r ,'fllj- q ri fl ^Cl't tferm ,rifk,
":.i'i<' •',"!' '^; './"M^r, c ''.if't.fjor; i"'"i crttf-wav'its.oics to'"lete'-
't ^--" ; ti'i; ji-I ;t Pir et'oc^ [hi;-, WOTK nri, . rirs t''it teohnica! basis
..-t1 •• . '•'. • ",. • ridi'Sifahic 'uVO'-'r r nvmr: cr-.^di^sms T\ th3
'-,1 • ' 1 ,it i-l t,'1: :-'"v C'MMf:'!'1''-
-------
EPA-600/3-79-047
April 1979
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS OF TRENDS
IN AGRICULTURE AND SILVICULTURE
VOLUME III:
REGIONAL CROP PRODUCTION TRENDS
by
Samuel G. Unger
Development Planning and Research Associates
Manhattan, Kansas 66502
Contract No. 68-03-2451
Project Officer
George W. Bailey
Environmental Research Laboratory
Athens, Georgia 30605
ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ATHENS, GEORGIA 30605
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Environmental Research Laboratory,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Athens, GA, and approved for
publication. Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily
reflect the views and policies of the U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products con-
stitute endorsement of recommendation for use.
-------
FOREWORD
Environmental protection efforts are increasingly directed towards pre-
venting adverse health and ecological effects associated with specific com-
pounds of natural or human origin. As part of this Laboratory's research on
the occurrence, movement, transformation, impact, and control of environmental
contaminants, management or engineering tools are developed for assessing and
controlling adverse environmental effects of non-irrigated agriculture and of
silviculture.
Agricultural and silvicultural practices, already significant sources of
water and air pollution, represent areas of increasing environmental concern
as these production systems expand to meet growing population needs. This
study assesses the environmental implications and effects of short- and long-
term trends in American agriculture and silviculture and identifies research
needs and policy issues. The developed information should benefit environmen-
tal managers as they attempt to anticipate pollution problems of the future.
David W. Duttweiler
Director
Environmental Research Laboratory
Athens, Georgia
-------
PREFACE
This report, "Environmental Implications of Trends in Agriculture and
Silviculture, Volume III: Regional Crop Production Trends," is the
third and concluding study report for the Environmental Protection
Agency prepared by Development Planning and Research Associates, Inc.,
under the general title: "Assessment of the Environmental Implications
of Trends in Agriculture and Silviculture, 1976-2010" (EPA Contract
No. 68-03-2451).
The two preceding reports provide additional background and the sup-
porting rationale for this study, which assesses the major subsector
nonpoint source of pollutants within both the agriculture and silvicul-
ture sectors of the U.S. economy. These two preceding reports are
titled "Environmental Implications of Trends in Agriculture and Silvi-
culture-- 'Volume I: Trend Identification and Evaluation,1 and ' Volume
II: Environmental Effects of Trends.1"
By focusing on the crop production subsector of agriculture, the present
volume's research study more specifically and intensively evaluates the
subsector's trends and their associated individual and collective en-
vironmental effects on a regional as well as a national basis. Although
the national implications of the crop production subsector's environ-
mental effects are broadly applicable toward improved environmental
management, the development of regional trends data and their environ-
mental effects has especially significant consequences to an understand-
ing of the crop production system, i.e., the recognition and delineation
of important environmental effect variations among the regional
subsectors.
-------
ABSTRACT
This study identified and assessed, on a regional basis, the current and
emerging trends in the U.S. crop production subsector that will have the
most significant environmental implications. Beneficial and adverse environ-
mental implications were assessed under both moderate and high growth scen-
arios for the long term (2010). The study also identified the major pollu-
tants and their primary media—water, soil, and air—effects.
In a workshop setting, panels comprised of agricultural specialists repre-
senting five crop production regions—Northeastern, Southeastern, Cornbelt/
Lake States, Great Plains and Western—evaluated and rated the most signi-
ficant environmentally related trends. The important future and regional
environmental-effect differences were identified. The study further iden-
tified the crop production s'ibsector's exogenous factors, policy concerns
and research needs that have environmental implications. The assessment of
these factors indicated their important causal interrelationships.
A primary conclusion of the study was that the crop production sector can,
with achievable developments, realize projected 2010 moderate growth scen-
ario production levels while concurrently realizing enhanced environmental
effects relative to current (1977) conditions. To do so, the crop production
sector must employ improved crop production inputs and more sophisticated
management practices and residual controls. These conditions are, in turn,
dependent upon (1) improved policies to control agriculture's exogenous fac-
tors and (2) requisite research developments to assure those improved crop
production inputs, management practices, and residual controls. If these
requisite research developments and improved policies are not forthcoming
and implemented, then adverse and potentially serious environmental conse-
quences can be expected to occur from the crop production system's residual
outputs (pollutants) by 2010. (Also the adverse environmental impacts would
be expected to be greater under the high growth output levels than under the
moderate growth output levels.)
Under the production requirements of the study's 2010 high growth scenario,
the sector's projected environmental effects would be less advantageous.
Still, though, with the exceptions of increased nutrient and pesticide levels
in the Cornbelt/Lake States region and higher salt levels in the Western
region, the high growth 2010 scenario's environmental effects would be
more beneficial than those of present conditions.
This report was submitted in fulfillment of EPA Contract No. 68-03-2451 by
Development Planning and Research Associates, Inc., Manhattan, Kansas, under
the sponsorship of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Work was com-
pleted as of November, 1978.
-------
CONTENTS
FOREWORD iii
PREFACE iv
ABSTRACT v
LIST OF EXHIBITS ix
ACKNOWLEDGMENT xi
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY xiii
I. CONCLUSIONS 1
II. INTRODUCTION 7
A. Scope of Study 7
B. Research Approach 8
C. Regions 9
III. CROP PRODUCTION SYSTEM 12
A. System Definition 12
B. Regional Characteristics 14
IV. GROWTH SCENARIOS: PRESENT TO 2010 22
A. Determination of Crop Production Growth Indexes 22
B. National and Regional Growth Projections 24
C. Input Requirements 26
V. ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS: CURRENT AND PROJECTED 28
A. The Evaluation Procedure 28
B. Step 1: Pollutant Rankings Within Each Medium 30
C. Step 2: Rank of Environmental Effects Among Media 33
D. Step 3: Ranking of Aggregate Environmental Effects
by Media 35
E. Summary of Environmental Effects by Region 37
VI. CROP PRODUCTION TRENDS' ASSESSMENT: NATION AND REGIONS 44
A. National Perspective of the Crop Production
Subsector 44
B. Northeastern Crop Production Trends: Moderate
Growth Scenario 50
C. Southeastern Crop Production Trends: Moderate
Growth Scenario 53
D. Cornbelt/Lake States Crop Production Trends:
Moderate Growth Scenario 56
E. Great Plains Crop Production Trends: Moderate
Growth Scenario 58
F. Western Crop Production Trends: Moderate Growth
Scenario 61
vii
-------
G. High Growth Rate Effects on the Five Crop
Production Regions 63
VII. EXOGENOUS FACTORS 67
A. Conceptual Framework 67
B. Types of Exogenous Factors 69
C. Input-Related Exogenous Factors 71
D. Management-Related Exogenous Factors 74
E. Output-Related Exogenous Factors 76
F. System-Related Exogenous Factors 78
G. Regional Exogenous Factor Differences 80
VIII. POLICY CONCERNS 83
A. Types of Policy Concerns 83
B. Input-Related Policy Concerns 84
C. Management-Related Policy Concerns 89
D. Output-Related Policy Concerns 91
E. System-Related Policy Concerns 93
IX. RESEARCH NEEDS 97
A. Types of Research Needs 97
B. Input-Related Research Needs 98
C. Management-Related Research Needs 103
D. Output-Related Research Needs 107
E. System-Related Research Needs 109
APPENDIX A - WORKSHOP PROCEDURES 112
APPENDIX B - REGIONAL DATA AND TREND DEFINITIONS 129
APPENDIX C - REGIONAL DATA: CROP PRODUCTION SYSTEM 146
-------
LIST OF EXHIBITS
Number
1-1
II-l
II-2
II-3
III-l
III-2
III-3
III-4
III-5
III-6
III-7
IV-1
IV-2
IV-3
V-l
V-2
V-3
V-4
V-5
V-6
V-7
Summary of major exogenous factors, policy concerns and
research needs affecting the crop production systems
Regional crop production trends assessemtn workshop
participants
Designation of the regions for the assessment of environ-
mental implications of regional crop production trends
Five regional sectors utilized for analysis of environ-
mental implications of crop production trends
Schematic of the crop production system
Total land area and types of land use, by region, U.S.
Land use and crop season profiles, Region I: Northeastern
Land use and crop season profiles, Region II: Southeastern
Land use and crop season profiles
Lake States
Land use and crop season profiles, Region IV:
Land use and crop season profiles, Region V:
Region III: Cornbelt/
Great Plains
Western
Moderate growth scenario projections to 2010: population,
gross national product, per capita personal income and
agricultural output index
Crop production indexes for the U.S. and specified regions
moderate and high growth scenarios for 1985 and 2010
Moderate growth scenario projections to 2010: cropland
harvested, fertilizer, pesticides, energy and agricultural
output index
Regional crop production subsector's environmental concerns
assessment form
Rank of environmental concern by medium
Regional crop production subsectors' environmental effects
rankings of pollutant concerns by environmental media,
current and projected
Regional crop production subsectors1 environmental effects
ratings of environmental media current and projected
Regional crop production subsector's environmental concerns
Northeastern region
Regional crop production subsector's environmental concerns
Southeastern region
Regional crop production subsector's environmental concerns
Cornbelt/Lake States region
10
11
11
13
15
16
17
18
19
20
23
25
27
29
31
34
36
38
39
40
-------
Number Page
V-8 Regional crop production subsector's environmental concerns
Great Plains region 41
V-9 Regional crop production subsector's environmental concerns
Western region 42
VI-1 Summary of crop production system variables: inputs,
management practices, and outputs 46
VI-2 Estimated changes in the environment by region under
alternative growth assumptions 49
VI-3 Environmental implications of trends in regional crop
production activities by type of pollutant under alter-
native growth scenarios, present to 2010, Northeastern
region (Region I) 51
VI-4 Environmental implications of trends in regional crop
production activities by type of pollutant under alter-
native growth scenarios, present to 2010, Southeastern
Region (Region II) 54
VI-5 Environmental implications of trends in regional crop
production activities by type of pollutant under alter-
native growth scenarios, present to 2010, Cornbelt/Lake
States (Region III) 56
VI-6 Environmental implications of trends in regional crop
production activities by type of pollutant under alter-
native growth scenarios, present to 2010, Great Plains
Region (Region IV) 60
VI-7 Environmental implications of trends in regional crop
production activities by type of pollutant under alter-
native growth scenarios, present to 2010, Western Region
(Region V) 62
VII-1 Conceptual framework for external events that affect the
crop production system 68
VII-2 Summary of major exogenous factors affecting the crop
production system 70
VII-3 Ranking of exogenous issues with environmental implications
for the regional crop production sector 81
VIII-1 Summary of major policy concerns affecting the crop
production system 85
IX-1 Summary of major research needs affecting the crop
production system 99
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Many persons contributed importantly to this research study. Soecial
thanks is given to Project Officer George W. Bailey, Environmental
Research Laboratory, EPA, Athens, Georgia, for his helpful guidance
throughout the study. Thomas E. Waddell and other Laboratory personnel
also assisted with the coordination of this study's research.
Particularly instrumental in this study's research approach were the
contributions of the evaluation workshop's regional panel members.
These agricultural specialists assessed their own region's crop pro-
duction trends; environmental implications of these trends; and those
major exogenous factors, policy concerns and research needs that will
affect the future growth-environmental effects potentials of the crop
production system. These workshop participants are named below, and,
further, their professional affiliations and areas of specialization
are shown in Section II. DPRA sincerely adknowledges their contributions
Region I: Northeastern
. Richard D. Black, Chr.
. W. H. All away
. William K. Griffith
. Raymond J. Shipp
. Duane C. Wolf
Region II: Southeastern
. William L. Colville, Chr.
. Harold D. Coble
. Ralph A. Leonard
. David C. Martens
. Porter L. Russ
Region III: Cornbelt/Lake States
Earl 0.
Richard
Marshal
Terry J
David L
Leo M.
Heady, Chr.
L. Althaus
D. McGlamery
Logan
Mick
Walsh
Region IV: Great Plains
. Larry S. Murphy, Chr.
. Jack F. Carter
. William F. Powers
. Theodore G. Sherbeck
. Richard Wenberg
Region V: Western
Rov S.
Tom H.
Claude
Robert
Gerald
T. C.
Rauschkalb.
Clark
L. Fly
II. Hoffman
L. Horner
Tucker
Chr.
XI
-------
Within DPRA many professional staff members and consultants contributed
to the conduct of the workshop and in the preparation of this report.
Those who provided major support include Raymond E. Seltzer, Geneva S.
Hammaker, Gary A. Davis, S. MacCallum King, Richard L. Vanderlip, Vincent
E. Gillespie, Frances A. Moyer, Linda D. Chapman, Daniel W. Francke,
Barbara L. Lane and John P. Wagner.
Samuel G. Unger
Principal Investigator
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This study for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency determined and
assessed those current and prospective trends in five U.S. crop production
regions that will most affect the regions' primary environmental media--
water, soil and air. Both beneficial and adverse environmental implications
were projected by the study's panels of agricultural specialists who repre-
sented each of the five major crop production regions—Northeastern, South-
eastern, Cornbelt/Lake States, Great Plains, and Western.
This report contains, foremost, region-specific assessments of selected
major trends, i.e., trends in crop production input use, management prac-
tices, and residual controls, and their expected environmental effects.
Additionally, the report includes an identification and assessment of those
exogenous factors, policy concerns, and research needs that importantly af-
fect the crop production subsectors' environmental implications.
A. Conclusions
This study's primary conclusions, reached by the regional panelists, were
that—with the use of achievable developments and improvements in inputs,
management practices and residual controls, the crop production system can
meet projected moderate-level output goals in 2010 and effect beneficial en-
vironmental impacts. If high growth output levels are realized, then, com-
pared to moderate growth conditions, the projected environmental improve-
ments will be reduced. Implicit in these conclusions was the assumption
that requisite research developments and improved policies which allow at
least limited control of the crop production system's trends and exogenous
factors would be forthcoming. If these requisite research developments and
improved policies are not forthcoming and implemented, then adverse and
potentially serious environmental consequences can be expected to occur from
the crop production system's residual outputs (pollutants) by 2010. The
adverse environmental impacts would be expected to be greater under the high
growth output levels than under the moderate growth output levels.
The study's indicated trends in input use, management practices, and residual
controls that directly affect the environment may be influenced effectively
through achievable research developments and more responsive crop production
management policies. Also, an analysis of the exogenous factors, policy
concerns, and research needs identified by the regional panels indicated
that critical interrelationships exist among these factors. These relation-
ships, shown in Exhibit 1-1, indicate that more integrative policy and re-
search coordination is needed to alleviate the disruptive influence of the
cited exogenous factors.
xiii
-------
B. Introduction
The crop production subsector is the major nonpoint source of pollution
within agriculture. Its principal pollutants are sediment, nutrients,
pesticides, and salt. All the primary environmental media—water, soil,
and air--are affected by these pollutants.
This study identified and assessed the current (to 1977) and potential (to
2010) trends in the U.S. crop production subsector that are predicted to
have the greatest environmental implications. The principal objectives of
the study were:
(1) to identify and assess the major crop production subsector
regional trends in input use, management practices,and residual
controls, and their environmental implications in 1985 and 2010;,
(2) to identify and assess each region's major pollutants and
their primary media—water, soil, and air—effects;
(3) to identify, on a regional basis, those exogenous factors that
may affect some trend and, thus, have major indirect environ-
mental implications, and
(4) to identify each region's research needs and policy concerns
that are germane to the crop production subsector's environ-
mental implications.
The primary analyses in this study were made by panels of regionally-
oriented specialists in a workshop setting. Using a background summary
of regional/national data, following stated analytical procedures, and em-
ploying designed evaluation forms, the panelists assessed and modified,
where necesary, the original list of trends contained in an interim report
of this study. The panels' assessments included both an evaluation of indi-
vidual agricultural trends and their aggregate environmental implications.
The workshop and other related assessments of the crop production sub-
sector's trends were compiled on a regional basis in order to reflect the
diversity of regional climatic, topographic, soil, and other natural con-
ditions within the U.S. which determine regional crop selection and agri-
cultural trends. The five regions designated in the study are depicted
in Exhibit II-2.
C. Crop Production System
The crop production system—comprising inputs, management practices and
outputs—was initially viewed as a closed system in each of the study's
xiv
-------
five regions. All components of the system were assessed, though the focus
of analysis was on the environmental effects of the system's production
residual-output.
External events (including exogenous factors, government policies, and re-
search developments) _!/, though not directly controllable by the crop pro-
duction system, were also identified and discussed by the regions' workshop
panels. Factors such as groundwater depletion, legislative intervention,
and rates of technological advancement were evaluated. In many cases these
external events are so influential that individual analyses of their en-
vironmental implications, beyond the scope of this study, are warranted.
The crop production system's environmental effects were shown to be highly
dependent on the interrelationships of its major components. These poten-
tial interrelationships are characterized in the generalized function as
follows:
0(C,R) = F(I1,I2,...MP1,MP2,...RT1,RT2,.
EXTERNAL FACTORS)
where
0
C
R
Output
Crops
Residuals
MP1-
RTk
Inputs, i=l,2...
Management Practices, j=l,2,
Residual Treatments, k=l,2,.,
The preferred combination of inputs, management practices, and residual
treatments that will provide for acceptable levels of both crop and residual
outputs vary importantly on a regional basis as a result of climatic, top-
ographic, soil and other natural characteristics. (Moreover, even site-
specific variations in these component-combinations are usually appropriate.)
Regional differences in natural characteristics that affect the crop produc-
tion system are depicted in Exhibits III-3 to III-7.
D. Growth Scenarios: Present to 2010
Annual U.S. crop production is expected to increase substantially by 2010
to meet projected demands. Existing models were used to project this growth
potential under two sets of conditions by using alternative, specified
If When viewed more broadly, government policies and research develop-
ments are also subsets of exogenous factors. However, this study
seeks to distinguish among these external events as a basis for
improved environmental management in the crop production system.
xv
-------
values for variables such as gross national product, population, technolog-
ical developments, and international trade. The USDA-Economic Research
Service's (now the Economics, Statistics, and Cooperative Service) and the
Water Resources Council's OBERS projections were utilized as the primary
data sources.
This study required the development of specified growth scenarios, i.e.,
moderate and high growth levels, within which the trends and environmental
implications of the regional crop production subsectors could be evaluated.
For example, the national index-levels of crop production were projected
to increase to 122 in 1985 and to 171 in 2010 (1972-74 = 100) under the
moderate growth scenario, and to 143 in 1985 and to 196 in 2010 under the
high growth scenario.
Regional crop production growth indices were also constructed for this
study, and, in aggregate, they equaled the above national-level projections.
These regional output growth indices are summarized in Exhibit IV-2. No
study constraints were imposed on the panels regarding the expected levels
of inputs needed or available. Where necessary, the panels assessed what
they considered to be germane regional constraints (e.g. cropland avail-
ability) and the levels of inputs such constraints correspondingly required
in order for the crop production sector to meet the specified growth con-
ditions. The panels then assessed the environmental effects of such input
levels.
E. Environmental Concerns: Current and Projected
The regional panels assessed the potential pollutants' effects on water,
soil and air under three levels of inputs, management practices, and out-
puts: the current period (1977) level, the moderate growth scenario level
in 2010, and the high growth scenario level in 2010.
The panels' evaluation of the relative rankings for each region required a
three-step procedure. Initially, the panelists ranked the environmental
concerns for the three media under current and future growth assumptions.
Next, the relative effects of the pollutants among the three media were
determined. Finally, the panelists assessed the relative extent to which
each medium—water, soil, and air—was environmentally affected by the crop
production subsector.
The results of the first two steps highlight important regional differences
in specific pollutant problems within each environmental medium, and their
ranking among media as explained in Section V. In summary, however, the
aggregate environmental effects, as were determined in step 3, are illustr-
tive of varied regional environmental concerns. In this step each primary
medium was ranked and rated on a scale of 1-100 where 100 was assigned to
xvi
-------
the principal environmental medium affected by the region's crop production
system. These regional ratings were made for the current period and for
the 2010 period—under both moderate and high growth conditions.
Under current conditions, the crop production system's effects on the water
medium were rated first (index = 100) in four regions—Northeastern, South-
eastern, Cornbelt/Lake States, and Western. The crop production effects
on the soil medium were rated first in the Great Plains region. Under
moderate growth conditions in 2010, only one medium ranking changed, i.e.,
the Northeastern region rated the soil medium first (100) whereas water
medium concerns were rated second (90). Under high growth conditions to
2010, the Southeastern panel also increased its rating of the region's soil
medium concerns (lOO)--equal to its water medium concerns. The air medium
was judged to be of relatively minor concern for all five regions in each
of three cases.
F. Crop Production Trends' Assessment: Nation and Regions
Current and prospective regional crop production trends associated with
both the moderate and high growth scenarios were determined and evaluated
by each of the study's panels. The workshop participants' environmentally
related judgments were shaped, in part, by two principal factors: the
growth potential in each region and the time-span within which the specified
output goals were to be achieved. Moderate growth goals to 2010 were gen-
erally deemed achievable with expected environmental improvements in the
primary media. However, production increases ranging from 13 to 17 percent
higher under the high growth scenario in the same time-span would result in
additional land utilization and a reduced use of environmentally favorable
management practices. Consequently, increasingly adverse environmental
effects from the crop production system would be expected under the high
growth compared to those of the moderate growth scenario.
Specific crop production trends were determined and categorized as either
input trends, management practice trends, or output (residual treatment)
trends. The analysis included both individual-trend and composite-trends
environmental assessments. For example, in the Southeastern, Cornbelt/Lake
States, and Great Plains regions, the trend of increased land use, as an
individual trend, was expected to induce adverse environmental effects,
e.g., increased sediment loss; however, accompanying improvements in manage-
ment practice trends are also expected in these regions—resulting in a
composite beneficial sediment reduction under moderate growth conditions.
From the detailed and composite analyses shown in this report, the follow-
ing aggregate summary results were forwarded by the regional panels. The
Northeastern and Southeastern crop production regions are projected to
achieve slightly improved sediment, nutrient, and pesticide environmental
effects by 2010 under both growth scenarios. The Cornbelt/Lake States
can expect major reductions in sediment loss under moderate growth, but
xvn
-------
this pollutant effect plus nutrient and pesticide losses would be adversely
increased under high growth assumptions. The Great Plains region is pro-
jected to have beneficial changes in the crop production subsector's sed-
iment, nutrient and pesticide environmental effects in 2010 compared to
current effects under moderate growth, but relatively more adverse pesticide
effects would probably occur under high growth. The Western region is
expected to improve its crop production subsector sediment, nutrient and
pesticide environmental effects under moderate growth, but salt accumulation
in the soil and salt gains in water would increase under the high growth
scenario. The requisite trends' assessments leading to these expected
environmental implications are presented in Section VI.
G. ^Exogenous Factors
The preceding assessments focused on factors (and trends) that were in-
ternal to the crop production system; however, the system is also regularly
affected by external events which may indirectly affect the crop production
system's environmental impact. Implicitly, some external factors may also
be favorably controlled in the future and, indeed, such control is projected
for certain ones.
Three main types of external events were evaluated by the workshop partic-
ipants: exogenous factors, government policies, and research developments.
Specific events within each category were delineated and discussed by the
regional panels and by the workshop collectively. These findings are re-
ported in detail in Section VII - Exogenous Factors, Section VIII - Policy
Concerns, and Section IX - Research Needs. In each case, the events des-
cribed are those that are expected to affect the environmental implications
of the crop production subsector.
The contractor's analysis of the workshop's findings led to a further cate-
gorization of each type of external event in terms of its primary impact on
the crop production system. The resulting categories are as follows:
Input-Related
Technology development
. Aggregate resource use
, Agricultural finance
Management-Related
. Technology use restraints
Education/extension
Environmental plans
Output-Related
Economics - markets
Residuals
xvi n
-------
System-Related
Institutional
Climate/weather
The identified exogenous factors, policy concerns and research needs are
grouped within the categories even though their specific events are unique
to each of the three types of external events. The exogenous factors are
summarized here.
Input-related exogenous factors are those that affect the quantity and/or
quality of inputs supplied to the crop producer and over which he has little
direct control. The specific factors identified were the uncertain avail-
ability and questionable efficiency of selected resources; the potential
conflicts in future aggregate demands for resources such as land, water,
and energy, and the inadequacy of capital financing in the crop production
subsector.
Management-related exogenous factors primarily involve the aggregate effects
of the crop production system itself over which the individual producer has
virtually no control. Two important economic or market-related factors are
market instabilities (whether supply or demand induced) and irregular export
demands. A third output related factor is the aggregate effects of the
crop production system's residual output (vs. crop output) where the in-
dividual producer's effects are generally minor but the composite system's
effects are consequential for the environment, and, thus, of public concern.
The final, system-related category of exogenous factors denotes those fac-
tors that may affect more than one major component of the crop production
system. The panels identified three institutional factors: insufficient
government coordination of environmental actions; inadequate agricultural
representation in the development of local NPS plans; and insufficient
basic science research from an institutional perspective. Lastly, uncon-
trollable climate and weather is decidedly a major exogenous factor affect-
ing input use, management practices and the system's outputs—crops and
residuals.
Many of these exogenous factors were cited by all or several regional
panels. Regional panel emphases did in some instances vary importantly,
e.g., climate/weather is of greatest concern in the Cornbelt/Lake States
and the Great Plains. Some of these major regional differences are sum-
marized in Exhibit VII-3.
H. Policy Concerns
Government policy is a second category of external events that directly or
indirectly affect the crop production system and, thus, its environmental
implications. Government policies may effectively modify o-" control the
xix
-------
performance of the crop production system by implementing related programs
to change input use, management practices, or output levels. Furthermore,
government policies may be adopted to control or limit those exogenous
factors that affect the crop production system.
No attempt was made during or after the workshop to define specific policies
that would provide for environmental enhancements by the crop production
system. Rather, the aim of the workshop was to identify policy issues, or
simply policy concerns, which are of either present or future importance.
The policy concerns identified by the panels were, in subsequent analysis,
also categorized according to their major crop production system impacts
and by subject areas as presented in the exogenous factor summary above.
An overriding aspect throughout the panels' discussion of policy concerns
was their advocacy of policy formulation that would assure an acceptable
balance between environmental pollution controls and needed crop yield-
production levels, i.e., a balance between two national goals.
Major input-related policy concerns included the need for increased public
support for technological developments affecting plant genetics, agricul-
tural chemicals, environmentally designed equipment, and improved resource-
use efficiency. Also, growing policy concerns involve aggregate resource
use patterns, such as those for land, water and energy, that will adversely
affect crop production and its associated environmental effects.
Management-related policy concerns include the need for improving the
analysis of technology-use restraints, the need for public education/
extension support to disseminate best management practices information,
the need for improved guidelines for state and area-wide NFS planning, and
the need for including implementation incentives in subsequent environmental
programs.
Output-related policy concerns emphasized the need for two critical economic
market developments: (1) the designing of supply-demand management options
for improving market instabilities, and (2) the improving of the management
of irregular export demands. Regarding residual-outputs, improved monitor-
ing capabilities appear essential for measuring the success of and the
additional needs for environmental controls. Further, improved analyses
of residual control alternatives are needed to assure that all environmental
media effects are adequately considered.
System-related policy concerns emphasize institutional matters, including
policy actions that will: (1) improve government coordination, (2) enhance
intermedia coordination, (3) assure agriculture representation and input
in environmental planning, and (4) support environmentally related basic
science research. Policies are also needed to improve weather predictions--
short and long-term—and to support weather modification research that may
enhance environmental management.
xx
-------
I. Research Needs
The third major category of external events that affect the crop production
system is research development. In some cases, needed research may pri-
marily involve policy analysis or exogenous factor assessments. The panels'
findings, explained in detail in Section IX, were as follows.
Input-related research needs are extensive. For example, environmentally
enhancing technology developments are possible through research for the
advancement of germ plasm potentials, for the further development of biolog-
ical nitrogen fixing capabilities, for the development of environmentally
compatible agricultural chemicals, for the development of environmentally
designed equipment, and for improved resource-use efficiencies, e.g., water
and energy. In aggregate terms, improved assessments are needed of long-
term demands for basic agricultural resources, i.e., land, water, energy,
and capital, and the development of alternative plans for meeting those
demands are recommended.
Management-related research needs are also extensive and generally more com-
prehensive than has been demonstrated in the past. A certain concern was
evident in the workshop that technology-use restraints have previously been
too narrowly assessed. Consequently, two types of more comprehensive
analyses were proposed: (1) those for improved cost-benefit analyses of
proposed technology-use restraints, and, (2) those to conduct cost-benefit
analyses of alternatives to simultaneously achieving crop output and
environmental goals. In the education/extension area, research is needed
to plan for BMP implementation and to develop means for establishing site-
specific best management practices. As environmental plans, e.g., 208
plans, are forwarded by state and local agencies, even more research will
be needed to evaluate potential BMP's, to design integrated pest management
systems, to plan BMP's compatible with NPS plans, and to determine the need
for incentives.
Output-related research needs identified by the panels are especially com-
plex, but solutions are critical if the potentially disruptive environmental
effects of the crop production system are to be minimized. Foremost, the
disruptive consequences of market instabilities indicate the necessity
for three research needs: (1) to conduct analyses of policy alternatives
for improving supply/demand management, (2) to assess crop output growth
potentials under alternative environmental management strategies, and (3)
to assess alternatives for improving the management of irregular export
demands. The residual-output research needs included the design and de-
velopment of a residual monitoring system, the assessment of the transport
and fate of agricultural chemicals and sediment, and the design and eval-
uation of prospective residual control systems.
xxi
-------
Finally, the system-related research needs included the design of methods
and procedures for coordinating environmental activities among government
agencies, the design of mechanisms to assure agricultural representation
in applicable environmental planning, and the development of plans to
expand and enhance environmentally related basic science research. Weather
related research needs were limited to examining methods of obtaining and
utilizing improved weather predictions for environmental management and to
evaluating potential weather modification techniques for environmental
management.
xxn
-------
SECTION I
CONCLUSIONS
This study's conclusions are summarized below in relation to each of the
study's four principal objectives. These conclusions reflect the Con-
tractor's analysis of workshop assessments made by five regional area
panels of crop production specialists. The five study regions—North-
eastern, Southeastern, Cornbelt/Lake States, Great Plains and Western--
were shown to differ importantly in their crop production trends and in
their associated environmental effects. The relative importance of
underlying exogenous factors, policy concerns, and research needs was
also found to vary among the regions assessed.
Objective 1: Identify and assess regional crop production trends
and their environmental implications
Within the context of the study's research approach, including its nec-
cessarily subjective judgments about the future, each regional panel
determined and assessed its region's major crop production trends and
environmental effects. Although the regions differ in their dominant
trends and environmental media concerns, the individual regional panels
and the composite workshop came to the following conclusions.
Conclusions: The crop production subsector, regionally and nationally,
can, with achievable developments, realize both the specified moderate
growth output levels to 2010 and a consequent level of environmental
effects more beneficial than the current one. Such achievable develop-
ments must include improved crop production inputs and more sophisticated
management practices and residual controls.
The crop production subsector can also achieve the study's specified
high growth scenario production levels, but in doing so, its environmental
effects will be more deleterious than those of the moderate growth pro-
duction levels. Further, the Cornbelt/Lake States region's attendant
nutrient and pesticide pollutant effects and the Western region's water
and soil salt accumulation pollutant effects would be more severe than
present day effects. In other words, the predicted achievable develop-
ments in crop output potentials and in environmental management would
not adequately compensate for the environmental effects of the relatively
higher growth rates of the high growth vis-a-vis the moderate growth case.
-------
Over seventy specific crop production trends in input use (quantity and
quality), management practices, and residual controls were assessed
regionally by the workshop panels as identified and discussed in Section V]
These trends were both individually and compositely assessed. First, each
trend's extensiveness of use and intensiveness of environmental effects
(relative to conventional techniques) were evaluated. Subsequently, their
composite environmental implications were qualitatively rated.
An important facet of the composite analysis was that, although some
potentially adverse individual trends are expected (e.g., increased pes-
ticide use), there also exist compensating potentially beneficial trends
(e.g., improved pesticide products and improved pesticide application
methods). The net environmental effect can be beneficial relative to
present environmental conditions even though individual adverse trends
remain. Some such adverse trends are deemed essential so that national
crop output goals can be realized, but, also, alternative practices can
be employed to concurrently achieve environmental management goals.
In summary, each of the regional panels concluded that its region's
sediment, nutrients, pesticides, and salt pollutant effects can be en-
hanced under the moderate growth scenario. The trends in input use,
management practices, and residual controls that are projected to occur
so that such environmental enhancements will be realized are as identified
in Section VI.
Objective 2: Identify and assess, regionally, the major pollutants and
their primary media (water, soil and air) effects
This objective was accomplished by completing three distinct environmental
assessments within each region—for the current (1977) period, for the
2010 period under moderate growth, and for the 2010 period under high
growth scenario production conditions. For example, the principal pollu-
tants within each environmental medium were ranked, the same pollutants
(and medium) were then ranked across all media—water, soil and air and,
finally, each medium as a whole was ranked and rated relative to each
other.
Conclusions: The crop producing regions of the U.S.--Northeastern, South-
eastern, Cornbelt/Lake States, Great Plains and Western—have distinguish-
able and decidedly different crop production system environmental concerns.
These differences can be expressed in terms of both the regions' major
pollutants and the regions' primary media impacts—as shown specifically
in Section V.
A consequent conclusion made by the panels was that regional improvements
in environmental management will require regionally specialized programs.
Such programs should focus on the major environmental concerns of each
respective region. In particular, best management practices (BMP's) or
integrated pest management programs, for instance, are not expected to be
-------
uniformly applicable among the regions. Indeed, even within regions,
more site-specific criteria are necessary for the selection of desired
management practices.
The regions' varied environmental media/pollutant concerns are also pro-
jected to change over time. For example, the Northeastern regional panel
was most concerned presently about the water medium, especially its
nutrient gains from crop production. However, by 2010 under moderate
growth assumptions, the soil medium is projected to be of greatest con-
cern because of continued soil losses and the predicted increasing con-
centrations of heavy metals caused by sludge disposal on cropland. In
the Southeastern region, the main current-period environmental media
concern is water because of nutrient, sediment and pesticide gains, even
though soil loss (in the soil medium) is the single-most degrading en-
vironmental (pollutant) effect. Under high growth assumptions, the soil
medium would become of equal concern with water by 2010. The Corn Belt/
Lake States regional panel judged that its water medium is not the en-
vironmental medium most impacted by the crop production system, but that
the concern for the soil medium will increase in the future—especially
under the high growth case. Sediment and nutrient gains in the water
medium are dominant now, although soil loss from the soil medium will
become more critical.
The main environmental media concern in the Great Plains region, now
and in the projected future, is the soil medium, particularly because
of soil loss and, to a lesser extent, nutrient loss. Only this region
considered the soil medium to be its current major environmental media
concern, whereas the water medium was otherwise the principal regional
concern. In the Western region, the water medium was of greatest con-
cern because of both sediment and salt gains, and the salt gain pollu-
tant effect is expected to increase in importance with projected growth.
Although salt accumulation in the soil is the region's single-most
important crop production pollutant effect, both now and in the pro-
jected future, water was considered the medium of most concern be-
cause of the combination of effects.
Objective 3: Identify, regionally, the major exogenous factors that
influence the crop production system's environmental
imp!ications
In the study's workshop setting, each regional panel identified and dis-
cussed those exogenous factors outside the control of individual crop
producers that are also determinants of the crop production system's
environmental effects. Many of the panels' conclusions were nationally
as well as regionally applicable.
Conclusions: Many regional and national exogenous factors are major
determinants of the crop production system's levels of environmental
effects. In order to improve environmental management in the crop pro-
duction subsector, many could be publically, if not privately, controlled.
-------
The principal national exogenous factors are summarized in Exhibit 1-1.
Such factors, e.g., inadequate capital financing, resource-use restric-
tions, and market instabilities, are directly linked to all of the crop
production system's main components—inputs, management, and outputs.
Consequently, these same exogenous factors can indirectly affect the
system's environmental impacts. In some instances, public or private
control of the exogenous factors (through policy and/or research develop-
ments) will potentially enhance environmental quality more effectively
than direct controls within the crop production system.
These exogenous factors are also described in detail in Section VII which
includes, also, an assessment of their important regional differences. For
example, the Northeastern panel was most concerned about land uses that re-
duce the crop production system's capacity. The Southeastern regional panel
was first concerned about the adequacy of education/extension efforts needed
to develop and implement best management practices. The Cornbelt/Lake States
panel rated export-market effects as its major exogenous factor concern, arid
the Great Plains panel identified government restrictions on input uses as
a key factor affecting crop production. The Western regional panel rated
water supply and use as its primary exogenous factor concern. As shown in
the text, these same factors and others were also rated highly by several
regions.
Objective 4: Identify, regionally, those pertinent policy concerns
and research needs that can influence the crop production
system's environmental implication^
Separate regional panel evaluations were made to identify policy con-
cerns and research needs that are germane to the crop production system's
trends in input use, management practices and residual controls, and
their associated environmental implications, and to those exogenous fac-
tors which may be publically controlled.
Conclusions: Important regional differences do exist in the priorities for
specific policy concerns and research needs. Such differences should be
recognized in subsequent policy formulations and research plans that seek
to most effectively improve environmental management in the regional crop
production subsectors.
The identified policy concerns are described in Section VIII and the research
needs are presented in Section IX. They are also briefly described in
Exhibit 1-1, where their interrelationships are apparent when these concerns
and needs are categorized by crop production system component. Furthermore,
the policy concerns and research needs are frequently causally interrelated
with the system's exogenous factors as is also shown.
The policy concerns and research needs identified by the regional panels
are numerous; however, their priorities for consideration were not specifi-
cally established. Implicitly, the major environmentally related trends and
the principal exogenous factors identified are a partial basis for further
-------
Exhibit 1-1. Summary of major exogenous factors, policy concerns and research needs affecting the crop production systems
Crop Production
System Component
and Subject Area
INPUT-RELATED
Technology
development
Aggregate re-
source use
. Agricultural
finance
MANAGEMENT-RELATED
. Technology use
restraints
Exogenous Factor
. Uncertain resource
availabil i ty
. Questionable resource-
use efficiencies
Potentially inappro-
priate land use
. Potentially decl ining
water suppl ies
Unassured energy avail-
ability
Inadequate capital
f inanci ng
. Restricted pesticide use
Potential fertilizer use
constraints
Pol icy Concern
. Sustain olant genetics
improvements
. Support agricultural
chemicals improvements
. Foster equipment improve-
ments
. Support resource-use effi-
ciency improvements
. Subscribe to land uses more
protective of agriculture
Improve upon aggregate
water uses
Maintain energy supplies
and forms
. Improve agricultural credit
and financing
Improve analysis of tech-
nology use restraints
Research Needs
Advance germ plasm potentials
. Develop and extend plant biological nitrogen
fixing capabilities
. Develop effective, environmentally-compatible
agricultural chemicals
Develop environmentally-designed farm equip-
ment
Design and develop more water-efficient
irrigation systems
Improve energy-use efficiencies in crop
production
Assess prospective long-term land use demands
and design alternative land use plans
. Assess prospective long-term water demands and
design alternative water allocation plans
Assess prospective energy use demands and
design alternative energy allocation plans
Develop alternative on-farm energy sources
Design and appraise alternative methods of
agricultural financing
. Conduct improved cost-benefit analyses of pro-
posed technology-use restraints
Conduct cost-benefit analyses of alternatives
Education/
extension
Environmental
pi arts
Unassured implementation
of new management
systems
Impending requirements
for state and local
env ronmental plans
Support the pubiic dis-
semination of environ-
mental management
practices
Establish guidelines for
1ocal environmental
pianninq
Subsetbe to implementation
iricenti ve^
to simultaneously achieve crop output ana
environmental qoals
Desiqn education/extension plans for BMP
implementation
Develop means for establishing improved site-
specific best management practices
Evaluate potential best management practices
Design and assess integrated pest management
d 1 ternati ves
establish and assess pre^e'~red crop sequencing
cil ternati ves
Develop local BMP implementation plans corn-
pat ible w th NPS plans
Determirie 1 ocal needs fo-" BMP's incentives
OUTPUT-RELATED
Economics-
markets
Residuals
SYSTEM-RELATED
Institutional
Climate/
weather
Market instabi hties
Irregular export markets
Composite environmental
effects
In si.1 f f i ^ i ent government
coordination
Inadequate agricultural
representation
Insufficient basic
science ^search
Uncontrollable climate/
weathe1"
Source Developed Dy DPRA oased upon irformat ion
Advance the design of
supply/demand management
options
Subscribe to management of
irregula^ export demands
Establish monitoring
capabi!ities
Improve analyses of
residual control
dlternatives
Improve government co-
orr< i nd tioi,
Enhance inter-men la en-
vi ronnental ^oordination
Suhsc*ihe to more direc+
rer>> t? sent a 11 ur and i nput
f ron. -iqr icu ! lura11 s :s in
en1, i "'nnnipnto " i> i antn nq
Support en: i, orinento ' 1 y-
felated oasic s; lence
resedrch
Support weather preoirtion
improvements for environ-
mental mdnagement
Support weather modifica-
tion research for environ-
mental management
-fcivea r"0'
Conduct analyses o* policy alternatives for
improving supplv/demand management
Assess crop output growth potential unoer
alternative environmental management
strategies
Assess alternatives for improving tht manage-
ment of irregular export demands
Design ana develop d residuals monitoring
system
Assess the transport anc fate o+ agricultural
Chemicals in the environment
As IPS ^ the incidence of sni1 erosion, dnd the
transport and fate of associated sediment
Desiqri and evaluate prospective residual con-
trol Systems
r» [iietnods and procedures for coordinatina
ergnvernments envi^onmentd1 dctivities
n mechanisms to assure thdt agricultural
resentatinn ritnc. inpu^ are included ir:
1i(ah1e environmentdl planning
ze iriulti Medi'j interdCtions of environ-
tol controls and delineate appropriate
rdin?tion requ1rements
op plan? to expand and enhance environ-
tdliy-related basic soence research
Exami ne diet hods for ootdining and utilizing
improved weather predictions for environ-
men tal management
rv^^dte potential weather modification tech-
niques for environmenta1 management
-------
determining needed priorities. Categorically, however, there exists the
need for policy and research developments in every component of the crop
production system, i.e., input-related, management-related, output-
related, and system-related as outlined in Exhibit 1-1.
An evident aspect of the study procedures was that the above stated objectives
were sequentially addressed by the workshop in the order shown, although
clearly, the evaluations implicitly involved concurrent consideration of
most factors within each objective, e.g., trend assessments to 2010 implicitly
required conceptual policy positions and research developments supportive of
the projected trend. This became self-evident in the analysis when, in fact,
the opportunity was given to identify and discuss the associated exogenous
factors, policy concerns, and research needs. Each regional panel, during
its evaluations, informally characterized a dynamic, future scenario in
which presumed achievable developments would be made. These informal
scenarios were not recorded, per se, except in terms of expected crop pro-
duction trends in input use, management practices and residual controls.
More explicitly, those exogenous factors, policy concerns, and research
needs which are indeed of public concern have been identified as summarized
in Exhibit 1-1.
Finally, by integrating the above results and conclusions, the study showed
that the regional crop production subsectors' growth levels and environ-
mental effects can ,be effectively managed if achievable research developments
and balanced output-environmental policies are implemented. Importantly,
however, research developments and balanced output-environmental effects
policies are needed as generally described in the study.
-------
SECTION II
INTRODUCTION
The crop production subsector is the primary nonpoint source of pollution
within the agriculture sector, and it is responsible for substantial pol-
lution in the United States. Its principal pollutants are sediment,
nutrients, pesticides, and salt, and they affect the three primary media--
water, soil, and air.
In isolated, site-specific cases, crop production pollutants (e.g., pes-
ticide run-off) have been cited as the principal cause of detrimental
ecological effects. Generally, however, even though the subsector's
pollution levels are substantial, they have seldom been solely responsible
for major ecological damage to aquatic or terrestrial life, or ultimately,
to human health. Of greater, future concern because of the projected
growth in the crop production subsector is the increasing potential for
the subsector's detrimental ecological effects. Both the existence of
site-specific cases and the potential for high pollution levels in the
aggregate are adequate reasons for further assessing the environmental
implications of trends in the crop production subsector.
As the two preceding volumes of this report suggest, another concern
germane to the crop production subsector of the United States is that
its environmental effects differ regionally; hence, the assessment
approach of this study was designed to determine those regional dif-
ferences wherever they exist.
A. Scope of Study
This study for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency sought to identify
and assess those current and emerging trends in the U.S. crop production
subsector that will have the most significant environmental implications.
Such trends may have either beneficial or adverse implications relative
to current crop production practices. The principal objectives of the
study were:
(1) to identify and assess, on a regional basis, those major crop
production subsector trends in input use, management practices,
and residual controls and their environmental implications in
both the short-term (1985) and the long-term (2010),
-------
(2) to identify and assess, on a regional basis, the major pollu-
tants and their primary media (water, soil and air) effects,
(3) to identify, on a regional basis, those exogenous factors (be-
yond the direct control of crop production subsector) that
may affect some trends and, thus, have major indirect environ-
mental implications for the respective regional crop production
subsectors, and
(4) to identify, on a regional basis, those pertinent research
needs and policy concerns that will affect the crop produc-
tion subsector's expected environmental implications.
The study's assessment procedure included a national workshop evaluation
comprised of five region-specific panels of agricultural professionals--
Northeastern, Southeastern, Cornbelt/Lake States, Great Plains, and
Western. Further, assessments were made for two alternative growth
scenarios—moderate and high growth cases. These procedures were in-
tegral components of the study's scope of work, and they are described
further below.
B. Research Approach
The primary assessments in this study were made by panels of agricultural
professionals in a workshop setting. Based on an interim workshop report
of regional-national data, stated analytical procedures, and evaluation
forms, the workshop panels completed a series of assessments for an orig-
inal list of trends, which were modified as desired. The assessments
included both the evaluation of the individual trends' environmental
effects, and their aggregate environmental implications. Similar assess-
ments were made for each of the five regions; the specific procedures for
these assessments are as summarized in Appendix A: Workshop Procedures.
The research approach of this study was fundamentally a modified Delphi
technique in which panels of qualified experts systematically evaluated
crop production trends and their environmental implications, both cur-
rently (1977) and into the projected future, under specified, alternate
demand scenarios to 2010. Technically, the research approach could be
replicated, although the "results'1 are clearly based upon the value judg-
ments of the workshop participants. At best, value judgments are required
for this type of futures-related study, thus, highly qualified panels of
experts are critical to the determination of accurate and useful results.
The five regional panels of experts were chosen from among those recom-
mended by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Department
of Agriculture, and the Contractor's recommendations of both private and
public sector representatives. Selection criteria required that the
-------
prospective participants be knowledgeable of both the crop production
system and the environmental effects associated with it. The workshop
participants are as listed in Exhibit II-l, by region, with a brief
explanation of their professional affiliations and their areas of
specialization. These participants were primarily involved in regional
panel assessments, although they also participated in general sessions
that added broader perspectives to the workshop's discussions.
A "national" assessment was made of the regional findings — in part via
general session discussions at the workshop, and, in part, by a post-
workshop analysis of the region-specific work books submitted by the
chairman of each regional panel. DPRA resource personnel also attended
each of the panel sessions and recorded supportive data and comments.
Primarily, however, the national assessment is the composite of five
regional assessments where both similarities and differences are clearly
evident.
C. Regions
The workshop and related assessments of the crop production sector's
trends were completed on a regional basis to reflect the wide range of
regional climatic, topographic, soil, and other natural conditions within
the U.S. that dramatically influence the crops grown and the crop pro-
duction practices utilized by regional producers. These differences,
in turn, result in varying environmental effects.
Five regions, consisting of aggregations of existing USDA farm production
regions, were designated for the purposes of this study: Northeastern,
Southeastern, Cornbelt/Lake States, Great Plains, and Western. Exhibit
II-2 lists these regions, their comparable USDA farm production regions,
and the states of which they are composed. A map delineating the regions
is also presented in Exhibit II-3.
Both Alaska and Hawaii were excluded from this analysis. These states
have relatively small amounts of cropland, e.g., less than ,01 percent
of the land in Alaska is classified as cropland, and their regional var-
iations are so atypical that the areas' environmentally related assess-
ments would require special consideration.
-------
Exhibit II-l. Regional crop production trends assessment workshop participants
Name
Affi li'ation
Specialization
Region I: Northeastern
Dr. Richard D. Black, Chr.
Dr. W. H. Allaway
Dr. William K. Griffith
Dr. Raymond J. Shipp
Dr. Duane C. Wolf
Region II: Southeastern
Dr. William Colville, Chr.
Dr. Harold D. Cobel
Dr. Ralph A. Leonard
Dr. David C. Martens
Dr. Porter L. Russ
Region III: Corn Belt/Lake
States
Dr. Earl 0. Heady, Chr. „
Richard Althaus
Dr. M. D. McGlamery
Dr. Terry J. Logan
Dr. David L. Mick
Dr. L. M. Walsh
Region IV: Great Plains
Dr. Larry S. Murphy, Chr.
Dr. Jack F. Carter
Dr. William L. Powers
Mr. Ted Sherbeck
Mr. Richard Wenberg
Region V: Western
Dr. R. S. Rauschkalb, Chr.
Mr. Tom Clark
Dr. Claude L. Fly
Mr. Robert M. Hoffman
Dr. G. L. Horner
Dr. T. C. Tucker
Department of Agricultural Engineering
Cornell University
Department of Agronomy
Cornell University
National Potash S Phosphate Institute
Department of Agronomy
Pennsylvania State University
Department of Agronomy
University of Maryland
Department of Agronomy
University of Georgia
Department of Crop Science
North Carolina State University
Southern Piedmont Conservation
Research Center, USDA
Department of Agronomy
Virginia Polytechnic Institute
Agricultural Resource Development
Branch, Tennessee Valley Authority
Department of Economics
Iowa State University
Mendota, Illinois
Department of Agronomy
University of Illinois
Department of Agronomy
Ohio State University
Laverty Sprayers, Incr.
Indianola, Iowa
Department of Soil Science
University of Wisconsin
National Potash & Phosphate Institute
Manhattan, Kansas
Department of Agronomy
North Dakota State University
Kansas Water Resources Res. Institute
Kansas State University
Ansley, Nebraska
Soil Conservation Service
USDA, Ft. Worth, Texas
Agricultural Experiment Station
University of California
flarana, Arizona
Fort Collins, Colorado
Lodi , California
Department of Agricultural Economics
Davis, California
Tennessee Valley Authority
Soil and Water Resources
Engineer
Agronomist, Soil Conservation
Agronomist, Soil Fertility
Agronomist, Extension
Agrononst, Soil Biochemistry
Agronomist, Department Head
Weed Contro' Specialist
Agronomist, Soil Conservation
Agronomist, Soil Fertility
Economist, Fertilizer Specialist
Economist, Production Economics
Farmer, General Craps
Weed Control Specialist
Agronomist, Soil and Water
Pol lution
Entomologist, Pest Control
Soil Scientist, Department Chr.
Soil Fertility Specialist
Agronomist, Department Chr.
Water Resources Specialist
Farmer, Crops and Livestock
Conservation, Water Management
Engineer
Scil - Water Specialist
Farmer, Irrigated Crops
Agronomist, Soils. Conservation
Hcrticjltjralist
Economist, Natural Resources,
Soils, Soil Ferti'ity
10
-------
Exhibit II-2. Designation of the regions for the assessment of environmental
implications of regional crop production trends
Region
USDA Farm
Production
Regions
States
I Northeastern
II Southeastern
III. Cornbelt/Lake
States
(or Cornbelt)
IV Great Plains
V. Western
Northeast Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont
Rhode Island, Massachusetts
Connecticut, New York, New Jersey
Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania
Appalachian Virginia, West Virginia, Tennessee
Southeast Kentucky, North Carolina
Delta State South Carolina, Alabama, Georgia
Florida, Mississippi
Louisiana, Arkansas
Cornbelt Ohio, Indiana, Illinois
Lake States Missouri, Iowa, Wisconsin
Michigan, Minnesota
Northern Plains North Dakota, South Dakota
Southern Plains Nebraska, Kansas
Oklahoma, Texas
Mountain Nevada, Idaho, New Mexico
Pacific Arizona, Utah, Montana
Colorado, Wyoming, Washington
Oregon, California
Exhibit II-3. Five regional sectors utilized for analysis of environmental implications
of crop production trends
11
-------
SECTION III
CROP PRODUCTION SYSTEM
The crop production subsector within each of the study's five regions was
first viewed as a closed system comprised of three main components: inputs,
management practices, and outputs. The regional panels assessed trends and
developments related to these three crop production system components.
A. System Definition
The crop production system is depicted conceptually in Exhibit III-l. Inputs
such as cropland, nutrients, pesticides, and water are variable factors whose
quantities and qualities can be at least partially controlled by crop pro-
ducers. ]_/ Management practices are also controllable, and such practice
categories include: multi-season management, crop season management, and
noncrop season management. Outputs, including both crops and residuals,
constitute the third main component of the system.
Although traditional crop production system analysis makes crop output the
primary variable of concern, this study focuses on the residuals portion of
the outputs; thus, this study's regional crop outputs were essentially "given"
values on a region-nation basis, i.e., the production necessary for moder-
ate growth or high growth scenarios as projected. The study's chief output
focus was, indirectly, the residual output consequent to such crop output
requirements.
Although beyond the direct control of the crop production subsector, a
variety of exogenous factors were also discussed and assessed by the work-
shop panels. Factors such as groundwater depletion, land-use developments,
water rights legislation, and rates of technology advancement were consid-
ered. The importance of such variables should not be overlooked. Though
they at times may prove too conceptually complex or too illusive for quan-
tifiably exacting assessment, these variables may result in greater environ-
mental implications than do those included in the assessed crop production
— Uncontrollable variables, e.g., rainfall amounts and timing, solar radi-
ation, and land capability at a given location, are also important, but
they will be viewed as internal factors characterizing the overall crop
production system in each region.
12
-------
Exhibit III-l. Schematic of the crop production system
I EXTERNAL FACTORS I
' e.g., Land Use Policy '
I Water rights I
) Energy availability I
j Technological advancements j
INPUTS
Controlled
Uncontrolled
e.g., Cropland,
Nutrients,
Pesticides,
Water.
MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
^ Multi-season
% Crop-season
% Noncrop season
e.g., Land Development,
Crop Planting,
Crop Fertilization,
Soil Protection.
OUTPUTS
Crops
Residuals
JP
e.g., Food and Feed Grains,
Crop Residues,
Sediment,
Nutrients,
Pesticides.
13
-------
system's components. Although beyond the scope of this study's analysis,
in some instances such "exogenous" factors are consequential enough to
justify separate, related analysis to indicate their potential environ-
mental implications.
In summary form, the crop production system can also be characterized in
terms of a general production function:
0(C,R) = F(I1,I2,...,MP1,MP2,...,RT1,RT2,... ] EXTERNAL FACTORS)
where
0 = Output
C = Crops
R = Residuals
I-j = Inputs, i=l ,2,...
MPj = Management Practices, j=l,2,...
RT|< = Residual Treatments, k=l,2,...
In this relationship, the inputs, management practices, and residual treat-
ments are regarded as controllable production'factors that affect crop and
residual outputs. The external factors, beyond producer control, are con-
sidered in this analysis to remain constant or to vary systematically in
relation to the growth scenario projections.
B. Regional Characteristics
Each of the five study regions—Northeastern, Southeastern, Cornbelt/Lake
States, Great Plains, Western—has unique underlying climatic, topographic,
soil and other natural characteristics that can affect the environmental
implications of their respective crop production subsectors. A series of
illustrations are presented below to indicate both similarities and differ-
ences in the regions' underlying characteristics and their crop production
subsectors.
In an overview, the total land area and its uses are indicated by region in
Exhibit II1-2. First, the amount of federally owned land is shown, and the
remainder is divided into cropland and noncropland uses—including irrigated
cropland (1974 basis). This chart does not reflect the relatively small
amounts of irrigated farmland in other than the Western and Great Plains but
irrigated cropland does exist elsewhere and is becoming increasingly
important.
Further, the regional characteristics of major importance to the study are
summarized in the next five regional exhibits (Exhibits III-3 to III-7),
which show land use and crop season profiles for each study region. In
-------
Exhibit III-2 Total land area and types of land use, by region, U.S.
(1974 basis)
Mil 1 ion
acres
800 -
700 _
600 -
500 -
400 -
300 -
200 _
100 _
II
NON-CROPLAND
CROPLAND
IRRIGATED
FEDERALLY OWNED LAND
EUJ
III
IV
AK*
HA
Region
I - Northeastern
II - Southeastern
III - Cornbelt/Lake States
IV - Great Plains
V - Western
AK - Alaska
HA - Hawaii
* NOMINAL CROPLAND - excluded from study
Sources: U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, "Control of Water Pollution from Cropland," Volume
II-An Overview, June 1976.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1969,
Census of Agriculture.
15
-------
Exhibit III-3. Land use and crop season profiles, Region I: Northeastern
Q_ LLJ
£ 2 NONCROPLAND
REGION I
NORTHEASTERN
Apr 5
Oct 30
May 30
Sept 10
50
100
PRIVATE LAND - 112 MILLION ACRES
CURRENT CROPLAND - 16 MILLION ACRES
POTENTIAL CROPLAND - 3 MILLION ACRES
O NONCROP SEASON
If] CROP SEASON
(Till FROST-FREE PERIOD
ALFALFA
PEC
OATS
WINTER;
WHEAT
RYE*/
VEGETABLES
BARLEY
FLAXSEED
TOBACCO
SPRING WHEAT
OTHER
IDLE
PASTURE
V Crop season not specified
Selected Environmental Factors
50
PERCENT OF CROPLAND ACREAGE - 1974
Annual Potential Runoff ^ 3"
Growing Season Potential Runoff ^ 1.5"
Cropland on which erosion dominant limitation ^ 10%
Contribution of cropland to sediment Moderate
Rainfall crosivity - R ^ 125
Annual potential percolation > 7"
Snowfall 10-100"
Frost penetration 10-72"
Potential loss of fall applied nitrogen ^ 30%
Potential loss of spring applied nitrogen ^ 10%
Rainfall primarily during growing season
Source: Prepared by Development Planning and Research Associates, Inc.
16
-------
Exhibit III-4. Land use and crop season profiles, Region II: Southeastern
NONCROPLAND
REGION II
SOUTHEASTERN
April 30
Oct 10
PRIVATE LAND - 340 MILLION ACRES
CURRENT CROPLAND - 70 MILLION ACRES
POTENTIAL CROPLAND - 39 MILLION ACRES
Q NONCROP SEASON
£3 CROP SEASON
O FROST-FREE PERIOD
50
100
JAN-
FEB_
MAR-
APR-
MAY-
JUNE -K
JULY _::;: -V
AUG -H
SECT
OCT -
DEC
SOYBEANS
CORN
vCOTTON ...
OATS */
PEANUTS
RYE
TOBACCO
SORGHUM
SUGAR-
CANE
VEG.
ALFALFA
OTHERS
'•IDLE ••:•'.•
PASTURE
100
PERCENT OF CROPLAND ACREAGE - 1974
- Crop Season not specified
Selected Environmental Factors
Annual Potential Runoff ^ 5"
Growing Season Potential Runoff -\, 3"
Cropland on which erosion dominant limitation % 10%
Contribution of cropland to sediment Moderate
Rainfall erosivity - R % 300
Annual potential percolation > 7"
Snowfall 0-24"
Frost penetration 0-10"
Potential loss of fall-aoplied ritrogen ^ 50%
Potential loss of soring applied nitrogen ^ 10%
Rainfall ranges from primarily during growing season to evenly
distributed throughout the year
Extent of double cropping unknown
Source- Prenarod h\/ Development Planning and Research Associates, Inc.
17
-------
Exhibit III-5. Land use and crop season profiles, Region III: Cornbelt/Lake States
REGION III
CORNBELT/LAKE STATES
Mar 30
Oct 30
100
PRIVATE LAND - 287 MILLION ACRES
CURRENT CROPLAND - 137 MILLION ACRES
POTENTIAL CROPLAND - 19 MILLION ACRES
D NONCROP SEASON
13 CROP SEASON
ED FROST-FREE PERIOD
JAN
FEB-
MAR -
APR
MAY -
JUNE-
JULY -
AUG-
SEPT-
OCT-
NOV
DEC
CORN
SOYBEANS
WINTER
WHEAT
ALFALFA
SPRING WHEAT^/
OATS
RYE
SORGHUM
COTTON
OTHER
I i
50
PERCENT OF CROPLAND ACREAGE - 1974
PASTURE
100
— Crop season not specified
Selected Environmental Factors
Annual Potential Runoff
Growing Season Potential Runoff
Cropland on which erosion dominant limitation
Contribution of cropland to sediment
Rainfall erosivity - R
Annual potential percolation
Snowfall
Frost penetration
Potential loss of fall applied nitrogen
Potential loss of spring applied nitrogen
Rainfall primarily during growing season
-v 3"
•v 2"
•v 30%
High to very high
^ 150
-v 5"
12-60"
6-50"
•\. 30%
< 10%
Source: Prepared by Development Planning and Research Associates,
-------
Exhibit III-6. Land use and crop season profiles, Region IV: Great Plains
CROPLAND ° NONCROPLAND
REGION IV
GREAT PLAINS
Jan 30
Dec 20
PRIVATE LAND - 406 MILLION ACRES
CURRENT CROPLAND - 152 MILLION ACRES
POTENTIAL CROPLAND - 26 MILLION ACRES
NONCROP SEASON
CROP SEASON
FROST-FREE SEASON
JAN
SPRING
WHEAT
ALFALFA*/
OATS
OTTON
SOYBEANS
BARLEY
FLAX
RYE
10THER
'Y.'Y.-v IDLE
.:;:...: PASTURE ,:;:.::':v
100
PERCENT OF CROPLAND ACREAGE - 1974
- Crop season not specified
Selected Environm_enta_1_Factors •
Annual Potential Runoff
Growing Season Potential Runoff
Cropland on which erosion dominant limitation
Contribution of cropland to sediment
Rainfall erosivity - R
Annual Potential percolation
Snowfall
Frost penetration
Potential loss of fall applied nitrogen
Potential loss of spring applied nitrogen
Rainfall ranges from predominantly in crop season to predominantly in
noncrop season
Significant area in fallow
Source: Prepared by Development Planning and Research Associates, Inc.
% 3"
^ 2"
^. 20%
Moderate
-v 150
< 1"
0-36"
0-50"
< 105S
-------
Exhibit III-7. Land use and crop season profiles, Region V: Western
REGION V
WESTERN
c
o
C
Jan. 30
Dec. 30
5 i-
5 £ NONCROPLAND
K
j!
P
Mav 30
July 30
L.
50
100
PRIVATE LAND - 765 MILLION ACRES
CURRENT CROPLAND - 65 MILLION ACRES
POTENTIAL CROPLAND - 13 MILLION ACRES
IRRIGATED LAND - 23 MILLION ACRES
Q NONCROP SEASON
H) CROP SEASON
(Iffll FROST-FREE PERIOD
JAN-
FEB -
MAR _
APR-
MAY-
JUNE^
JULY -
AUG -
SEPT-
OCT-
NOV -
DEC '
,— "
• . ...... . -WiNTER ••'...••'••.;.;/: ••'.;':
\^ ' ''••'•': •• ' ' :- ' '
^\^^ ; • : .'.."•.•'•-.
^\ •'-"".'-.•'':'•".. '••
"^~v ' .. . '_ .. '';:'; ... . ' . .
< "'': :':;; ':>-- J-;
^^x
•:::;:;. ••,,;..;.*•;•--••.••'.
ALFALFA :"••
Imm
lit* ?;:
'INTER.;
\ : ..
\ -.-.•.;:-:;
\' ::
^
BARLEY*
i
|
*\
••••' \
••. • '-\
•' -'\
SPRING'
•JHEAT '•
t" .. :
V'-
\
\
COTTON -/
CORN
OATS
SORGHUM
VEGETABLES
SUGAR BEETS
OTHER
:•'. .-': . .-'•' ::';'::; ;P>:: •':•':-:-.": . . ':•'• :':.::'-; '•-'-. •.-.":'...
^|:-|.§:.;j.; IDLE •;i:::.S:!.r.::':''::h
A.;; ...'?..:;."".' ••]'*'' i; •; • l£v£ !';:''::
~~ - —
;;:;J:@:-Si:::::i::'x:'S.'S
'';•;; : * x •'•.•>!•. .-;•;•:
?} PASTURE ,;..:!i:;:|
lltlil-klii
.' ;-:.|:.:i:::|:::::^*:fj
•!"V:i ••:••• %. :4- :;••:•*•
•:i;::;V:p:.,:;:S:*]
^|!|"l:lrf:;::%
:':':i':::::::':'::i:,:'i'i:.":.''i'i'.":!'i*!::-'
100
PERCENT OF CROPLAND ACREAGE - 1974
*-/Crop season not specified
Selected Environmental Factors
Annual Potential Runoff
Gro'ninq Sfdson Potential Runoff
Cropland on v*hich erosion dominant 'imitation
Contribution of cropland to sediment
Rainfall erosivity - R
Annual notential percolation
Snowfa11
Frost penetration
Potential loss of fall applied nitrogen
Potential loss of snring applied nitrogen
< lOi
Low
25
0-400"
0-50"
In 1974, Jfa percent of the cronland was irrigated.
Detailed 1974 data are not available to identify completely the
percentage of each croo irrigated
Principal crops irrigated include vegetables, wheat, barley and
cotton.
Source' Prepared by Development Planning and Research Associates, Inc.
20
-------
particular, the following principal information is presented: (1) the pro-
portions of cropland, potential cropland, and noncropland, (2) the range of
the frost-free period within each region, (3) the proportions of cropland
(1974) in specific commercial crops, idle (including soil improvement),
and pasture, and (4) the crop season and the noncrop season of each major
crop.
Within each regional exhibit, the larger diagram shows the cropland-use
profile, and the crop season range for each crop is designated by the shaded
areas corresponding to the calendar year on the vertical axis. The differ-
ences in the length of the crop season are principally a function of climate
variation within the region.
Other environmentally related data such as precipitation, potential runoff,
and erosion characteristics are also summarized in each regional exhibit.
Data are not available to determine the extent of double-cropping or multiple-
cropping and the extent to which cover crops are used during the "noncrop
season" as an erosion control practice.
Additional data and more detailed descriptions of regional crop production
characteristics are presented in Appendix C.
21
-------
SECTION IV
GROWTH SCENARIOS: PRESENT TO 2010
Substantial growth in the aggregate level of U.S. agricultural output is
generally expected—particularly in the level of crop production output to
2010. Quantitative projection models have been developed for various agri-
cultural products under alternative assumptions concerning demand variables
such as population, gross national product, disposable income, technological
advancements, international trade, and other economic conditions. A tacit,
further assumption is that these projected demands can be supplied by the
U.S. agriculture sector.
A. Determination of Crop Production Growth Indexes
This study required a firm baseline growth scenario to which trends and
developments within the crop production subsector could be associated and
their environmental implications assessed. To characterize the growth
scenario crop production indexes were derived. The general approach for
deriving the indexes involved the use of crop production weights developed
by the National Economic Analysis Division, ERS, USDA I/ that convert phys-
ical units of major crops, obtained from OBERS 2/ projections, to standard
crop units. The physical production units were estimated for a moderate
demand scenario in 1985 and 2010. Indexes were developed for five major
production regions in addition to the U.S.
It should be noted that the OBERS estimates reflect key demand variables.
Such variables for the moderate growth (demand) scenario are summarized in
Exhibit IV-1.
As indicated, the U.S. population is expected to increase from the 1972
level of about 210 million to 235 million in 1985, and 281 million in 2010
(Series E. projections, U.S. Bureau of the Census). The Gross National
Product (GNP) is expected to increase to $2,890 billion by 2010 (1958 dol-
lars) based on the assumptions that output per man hour will increase 2.9
—' U. S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Agriculture
in the Third Century, 1976. (ERS is now the Economics, Statistics and
Cooperative Service.)
- U. S. Water Resources Council, OBERS, 1972 OBERS Projections Supplement,
1975.
22
-------
Exhibit IV-1. Moderate growth scenario projections to 2010: population,
gross national product, per capita personal income and
agricultural output index
400 -.
300
o
o
200
X
O)
100 4
GNP
Per capita
Personal Income
Ag Output
Population
-f-
1972-1974
1985
Year
2010
Variable
Unit
1972-74
Index (1972-74 = 100)
Population Million 210.4
Gross National Product Billion of
1958 $ 817.0
Per Capita Personal
Income 1958 $ 3,155.0
Agricultural Output
Index (with Livestock) 1967=100 110
Current 1985 2010
100 111 134
100
100
100
147 354
150 297
118 151
Sources: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service,
Agriculture in the Third Century, 1976.
U.S. Water Resources Council, OBERS, 1972 OBERS Projections
Supplement, 1975.
-------
percent annually and that total manhours worked will decrease at a rate
of 0.35 percent per year. Per capita personal income, an alternative meas-
ure of economic growth, is expected to increase to $9,370 (1958 dollars)
by 2010.
The specific methodology for developing future crop production indexes in-
volved three tasks. First, production of major crops was tabulated for the
agricultural regions and the U.S. in the years 1973, 1985 and 2010. 17 The
production levels in 1973 (baseline) were obtained from USDA; OBERS projec-
tions were used for estimated production levels in 1985 and 2010.
The second task required conversion from physical units of a crop into a
standardized crop unit. This was completed by multiplying 1967 constant
price weights for individual products by the quantity of production for a
crop in 1973, 1985 and 2010. After each crop production was standardized
by the price weights, these standardized levels of crops, e.g., corn, wheat,
soybeans, were combined to yield an aggregate crop production level for the
crop production regions and the U.W. in 1973, 1985 and 2010. The 1973
standardized production level was adjusted to reflect the relationship be-
tween the average crop production index of 1972-1974 and the 1973 crop
production index. This, in effect, provided an average 1972-1974 standard-
ized crop production level for the crop production regions and the U.S.
The final task simply involved dividing the regional and U.S. aggregate
standardized production levels for 1985 and 2010 moderate demand by the
average 1972-1974 aggregate standardized crop production. This yielded an
index for 1985 and 2010 where 1972-1974 = 100.
It should be noted that this methodology for developing crop production in-
dexes is the same as that used by the National Economic Analysis Division
of USDA in making their projection. Again, the 1967 constant price weights
for standardizing production of various crops were obtained from their files,
B. National and Regional Growth Projections
The aggregate levels of agricultural production (including livestock) under
moderate growth assumptions for 1985 (short term) and 2010 (long term) are
projected to increase from an index base of 100 in 1972-74 to 118 and 151
in 1985 and 2010, respectively. More particularly for this study, growth
estimates were made for the crop production subsector only, and these are
indicated in Exhibit IV-2. The level of crop production under moderate
growth assumptions was projected to increase from an index base of 100 in
1972-74 to 122 and 171 in 1985 and 2010, respectively. Thus, the crop
production subsector is projected to grow relatively more rapidly than the
entire agriculture sector.
— Corn, wheat, soybeans, sorghum, oats, barley, cotton, tobacco, rice.
24
-------
f — ^
0
o
r-H
00 II
E
O <3-
•i— 1 —
en i
CU CM
i- r---s
o-i
-a r-i
CD — -
•i —
±- O
•I— 1 — 1
<_> o
CU CM
O-
CO ~O
C
~ CO
o
i. •!-
0 S-
M- ro
C
CO CU
cu o
X CO
cu
T3 -E
E 4->
•r- 3
O
E i.
O CD
• i —
4-> JE
cj en
Z5 -I —
~o -E
o
i— "O
0- E
ro
Q.
0 CU
S- 4->
C_) ro
t
CM "°
1 0
> E
1—4
_i_l
M
_Q
_C
x
LU
c~
CT>
OJ X «i-
CT) CD 1C
C "O
iT3 C O
_C I-H -t-J
c_?
c •
^2 *i — ~O
o
2^
o
1— 1
o
CM
LO
CO
CT>
i — 1
--^
•-•I
X
LU
Q
^:
i — i
~^~
0
V— 1
1—
o
1
Q
0
Di
D.
CU
0
Oi
CJ
^^_
CM|
.E E
en ro
•r- E
1C CD
Q
O
1 — 1
o
CM
LO
CO
CTl
i — l
CD
4-> T3
ro E
S- ro
CU E
-o cu
0 CD.
s:
O
1-H
o
CM
LT>
CO
CTl
i — t
cu
en
ro
t_
CU
;>
i— 1
^5
p^
i — l
UD
CTl
1— 1
OO
«H^
i — 1
, — 1
|^
r-l
CM
CM
t— l
O
O
r-l
OO
UJ
1—
h-
OO
Q
LU
1—
» — 1
Z.
c?-5 c3-£ c5^J ^5 o"9
^d~ ^ oo r-^ UD
i — i i — i i — i i — i t — i
cT-9 S~5i c?^i ^S cj^
r~-. co LO o co
^H r-H i-H C\J r-H
CTl r— 1 l£) CTl rH
CTl O r-H UD CO
rH CM CM r-l r-H
r — CT) CTi ^J- < — 1
^f ro LO c\i ^3~
t — i i — i i — i i — i t — i
^}~ VD *~H ^d" {£)
r^« r^ CTI ^J~ LO
i — i i — i i — i i — t i — i
10 00 CO 00 O
CM rH OO O CM
i — 1 i — 1 ( — l t — 1 i — 1
O CD CD CD CD
O CD CD O CD
i — 1 t — l t — 1 i — 1 i — 1
E E 00 CO
S_ S- CD E
CU CD +-> T-
-r-> 4-1 -^ ro ro
CO CO +->-(-> i —
ro ro i — oo D- c
CD CD CD S-
-E -E -Q CU +-> CD
-4-J -f-J c ~*s ro 4-J
i- Z! S- ro CD CO
00 O O O — 1 S- CD
Z Z OO (_> CD 2
CD
>—4 ... .
CJ3 1— ' 1-H I-H p. >
I i I t — i ^ — i > — i
a: HH
M-
o
T3
O
'i —
£_
CU
Q_
r~
O
-f-J
O
zs
-TJ3
O
s_
Q.
01
CO
ro
-Q
-E
4-)
*X) '& OO "r—
O O r-l S
< — 1 1 — 1 t — 1
00
II II II +->
c—
LT> in i\ en
r^ ^^ r^* *r—
CTi CTi CTi CD
I—I 1-H r-H S
cu
^•^ (_)
O -r-
CD i.
i-H CL
II -t->
fz
^1" ro
r^* -M
CTi CO
i — 1 E
1 O
CM U
f-^
CT) r —
i — 1 tJD
CTi
i — l
00
CD CU
X -C
CD -l->
-o
E en
' — * E
• 1 —
E 00
O Z!
• • —
•f-> T3
o 01
Z5 4-J
T3 ro
O i —
!- ZS
Q- 0
i —
Q_ ro
O CJ
S-
C-J> CU
s_
ra
oo
CO
ZD O)
X
-l-i CD
E -a
CU E
O T-
CD
D; -M
CO
o
2:
cu
4-)
o -\
~ZL •— 1
-a
E
ro 0)
j= >
CD °
Q ro
OO t- CU O
CU r3 r-r, CU E CM
-E .^ -E ro
E "^ ^ 0
r-- O . >, CD
i— S- ,/, -Q -E CD
ro 4- +-> en
— | CO E
CU CD CU CD ro •
4-> 1 r- X 4-> .E 00
ra -Q o CD Z3 U 4->
i — ro .,_ "D -Q E
0 ^ m -r- il E O
i — ra (j 4-> ra Q-
ra > .,_ E E E
O ra O O CD O
_o -r- u T3 CM
4-J ro ^_ CJ r- -E >,
3 ZJ r^ en r~i
-0 er T3 T- -r-
CD ro 2 O S -E X
00 -(-> Q_ S- CU
z! ro a a_ c: o ~o
T3 O 4J E
CO ,/, CL-r- -r-
•r- E -j o en CD
0 0 S- CD 4-> CO
TD T- .11 U S- ro 4->
E -U > S- -r-
ro O nj T3 -C CU
Zi ;_ E U TD CD
ro t-
I ro ra U
Q co -E _E oo E
c^ rO O^ | i — ^ ,f—
LU ^ T- -C
SZ CO c _E E H- r-
CU 0 O r-
>> X .,_ CU -r- T-
-Q CD cr 4J +J -2
"O ni ro O X
-0 E £ E E CU E
CD T- -i- Z3 -0 0
CO 4-> 00 E -r-
zs i — ~o oo oo •!— cr
ra C CD ro CD
4-> E ro E S-
ra O O CD o
-E •!- • 4-> -E T- -E
4-> CnOO 4-> 4-> <_)
CD • CU O ro
O S- Z3 i — E Z5 CD
4-> -Q O "D
TD ~CJ ro O 4->
S- E E i — T3 S- 00
ra ra ro -i— CU D, cu
r- E E ro co en
•i— CD CU > ra Q Cn
E -a TJ ra .a o zs
•r- S- CO
oo CD CD CD "O CJ
4-> 4-> S- CD "O
oo ro ro CD > • i —
•r- S- S- 2 -r- 00 ZS
CU CU S- • O
CD T3 "CJ ro CU Z3 S
S- O O +-> -O
Z5 E E ro CD X
T3 -0 CD -E CD
CU "C i- S- +J T3
(J E O r— CD E
O ra <+- ra 3 E •!-
S- E -i—
< > CO OO O ^*^ "
rjj ct: -i— CD' co oo
00 X LU Cn_E CD
•i- CD CQ CD +-> cnra
JZ TD O S- C
1— E "C! ro CD
•r- «< 4-> E -E -E
<* E ro CJ +->
• r~^ CD
«3" OO 1 T- CD O E
r-^ -CM u s- 4-> T-
a-i ZD r-~ -r- zs
i — 1 CTi H— "O 4-1 OO
1 CU i— 1 tf- CD E +J
C\J > ZS CJ Z! E
r~~ o 5- co o O •'-
CTi -Q O E !- E O
rH ro M— t— i CL ro Q_
-^^^
CM|
-------
For purposes of comparison, the national growth indexes under high growth
assumptions for the crop production subsector show growth from the index
base of 100 in 1972-74 to 143 and 196 for 1985 and 2010, respectively, a
15 percent increase over the moderate growth baseline case. This addi-
tional "demand" arises primarily from the assumption that greater exports
of food and feed grains could occur.
Regional crop production indexes for the moderate and high growth scenario,
tabulated in Exhibit IV-2, vary by region. For example, under either scen-
ario, the greatest increase is projected for the Cornbelt/Lake States region,
with an index of 191 in 2010 under moderate and 216 under the high growth
scenario. With moderate growth, the indexes for the other regions in
2010 varied from 144 in the Great Plains to 176 in the Southeastern region.
Under the high growth scenario, increases of 13 to 17 percent greater than
for moderate growth are projected.
C. Input Requirements
In order to meet the projected levels of output as shown under the moderate
growth scenario, various resources (inputs) are assumed to be available in
ample quantities
-------
Exhibit IV-3. Moderate growth scenario projections to 2010: cropland
harvested, fertilizer, pesticides, energy and
agricultural output index
220
200
180 -
o 160 J
r—
01
140
120
100
Pesticides
Nitrogen Fertilizer
Agricultural Output
Potash Fertilizer
Phosphate Fertilizer
Energy
1972-1974
1985
2010
Year
Variable
Cropland Harvested
Fertilizer
Nitrogen (N)
Phosphates
Potash (k20)
Pesticides
Energy
Agricultural Output Index
Unit 1
Mill ion
acres
Million of
tons
Million of
tons
Million of
tons
Million Ibs
Billion gals
1967=100
1972-74
311
8.2
5.0
4.7
8.0
no
Index (1972-74 = 100)
Current
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
1985
102
146
no
119
166
101
118
2010
114
206
122
140
218
no
151
Sources: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service,
Agriculture in the Third Century, 1976.
U. S. Water Resources Council, OBERS, 1972 OBERS Projections
Supplement, 1975.
DPRA projections
27
-------
SECTION V
ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS: CURRENT AND PROJECTED
Each workshop panel evaluated the environmental effects of its region's
crop production subsector for three sets of conditions. In particular,
these conditions included specifications of inputs, management practices,
and outputs corresponding to: the current period (1977) level, a moderate
growth level in 2010, and a high growth level in 2010. This Section indi-
cates each panel's assessment of the potential pollutant effects of these
three sets on the primary environmental media—water, soil, and air. Sec-
tion VI presents the panels' judgements concerning the relative changes in
inputs, management practices, and outputs that will be realized in 2010
under moderate or high growth production conditions.
A. The Evaluation Procedure
To determine the regional rankings of the crop production subsector's en-
vironmental effects on soil, water, and air, each panel followed a three-
step procedure and recorded its judgments on an assessment form such as is
presented in Exhibit V-l for the Southeastern Region. To illustrate:
Step 1: Each panel ranked its region's environmental concerns for
the three media under current and future growth assumptions.
(The illustrated Southeastern panel form, for instance,
shows nutrient gain, soil loss, and pesticide drift to be
the foremost concerns in the water, soil, and air media,
respectively.)
Step 2: Each panel then determined the relative importance of the
pollutants among the three medial(The Southeastern panel
ranked soil loss the most important and nutrient gain in
water next in importance.)
Step 3: Each panel completed the procedure by determining the rela-
tive extent to which each primary environmental medium was
affected by the crop production subsector. (The Southeastern
regional panel judged water to be most affected, soil slightly
less so, and air significantly less so.
The three-step procedure, in general, showed that four of the five regional
panels--Northeastern, Southeastern, Cornbelt/Lake States, and Western--
considered the water medium to be that of greatest current environmental
28
-------
, — t
E
0
LL_
i — -
1
4J
-O
•1 —
.c:
X
1 1 1
sz
s-
QJ
4-J
CO
to
QJ
c~
4_>
Z!
O
oo
c:
O
•1 —
en
QJ
—
*~
0
Ll_
^
1 1 1
OO
oo
LU
00
OO
o
o
•i— CO
C Z5
JQ
•
1 *
4-> S-
ro « QJ
i — . l_l_
ZJ trn
r- QJ
4-J QJ
t- - E
O3 CO -i—
OJ
F
|LU
Q_ Zi — 1
^^ o
4J QJ
CO CO O
Z3 03 5=
Q CD-i-
,
•i —
O
00
\s
c
Q;
CM
U
CO
CO
o
J
CO
CO -M
0 1Z
4_)
(J
o>
fc
^-J QJ
.,—
r— S-
O =3
OO p^"
s_
QJ
E ro
Zi 3
•r—
"O
O)
s:
>-,
.Q
CO
^
5
CXJ UH
J L
sr iz
'ro 'ro
CJ3 C5
.^-J _4_j
C C
+_i
U
QJ
M—
M-
d &-U
QJ QJ
E -r-
• r— ^_
-0 4-J
QJ Zi
oo ^
0)
CJ
c:
o \
CJ) <— I
, — c
ro S-
4-J QJ
IZ U
0) C
E 0
C C_>
0
S- i —
•1 — 03
> 4-J
d tz
LU QJ
E
0 0
S-
•v^ -r—
^ >
ro e
ct: LU
CO
4J 4-J
!Z JZ
QJ QJ
E T-
•r- S_
TD 4->
0) ZJ
00 Z
i — i
^ H n
j bl L
c
o
., —
4-1
O
03
S-
4J
i — -
03
OO
H- 4-> QJ
•r- CO JZ
Q a CD
n m i "
H e
J Q L
QJ o
^ •!
"O -(-J
•i- rO
00 S_
OJ -fj
*y" ^
QJ
01 O
-o c
•r- O
U O
•r- J-
4-> 4-J QJ
CO i — -£I
QJ 03 4->
a, oo o
" i rn
00 &
J tl J
c:
•i —
03
CJ3
O)
-a >-,
•r- 4->
O •!—
•r— C S_
4-1 T- Ol
co , — ^r
OJ 03 4-J
CL_ c/3 CD
CO
OJ
-pj
'r—
O
•r- CO S_
4-J 4-J QJ
CO , — ^1
Ol ra 4->
Q_ 00 O
D
CO
e
o
u
o
CL
1 ^
U
QJ
<4-
M-
UJ
CO
CO
O
1
, —
'i—
O
00
J3
•1—
(O
C£3
4_)
c
QJ
i_
4_)
Z!
2T
C
• i—
ro
CD
1 *
C
OJ
E
T3
i~
S_
Q
C
• i —
ro
CD
QJ
-o
U
4_>
CO
QJ
D-
C
ro
CO
U
01
4-
4_
QJ
03
., —
-a
Ol
E
X
Ol O CO O i—
TU CD CTt CSJ O3
tZ i— 1 4->
1 — ' 1 —
0)
E
c
o
j
i
.r- 1— OJ
-0 -r- 4->
QJ O tO
2T OO 3
03
• r-
-^
01
s:
en
tz
o
E
03
CO
4_J
U
QJ
l^ —
Lf_
LU
S-
r- 01
O3 TD
4_3 5
C O
Ol < — 1 CM
E ^
cr tz
O ro
S_ o^
• r-
>
c
LU
14-
0
c:
03
1 1
LJ C
OJ 0)
LJ
M-
s_ s- ^ 1
OJ QJ r- T-
-^ s- 4-1 03 -a
ro T— ro 4_i QJ
3 i — QJ
•4-J •(— S- si
TO O •>—
3 00 *=t 0
-M
c: i-
O Ol
•r- >4-
> 03
c: QJ
LU S_
OJ
OJ -C
4-1
O3 ~O
Ol CU
Ol CO
S- Z>
en
en OJ
ct S-
t_
CO OJ
"O
E S-
zs 0
m *3- LO T-
"O ^
OJ C
s: 03
D;
fD
d
^
O
1— * CM OO -C~
LO
(/)
p:
^Z S-
O O)
03 4->
LU
4- 03
O S-
Ol
C O)
ro en
0)
h-
29
-------
concern. Although the soil medium was considered of greatest current con-
cern in only the Great Plains region, it was of near equal concern with
water in the Southeastern region. By 2010, the soil medium was projected
to assume greater relative concern nationally than it presently does.
A discussion of the panels' findings is presented for each of the three
assessment procedure steps in parts B to D; a summary of environmental
effects by region is presented in part E.
B. Step 1: Pollutant Rankings Within Each Medium
Each regional panel assessed the effects on water, air, and soil of five
pollutant categories—Sediments, Nutrients, Pesticides, Salts, and Others.
Their specific effects within each medium were categorized as follows:
Type of
Pollutant Water Effect Soil Effect Air Effect
Sediment Sediment gain Soil loss Dust/Particulates
Nutrients Nutrient gain Nutrient loss Gaseous
Pesticides Pesticide gain Pesticide loss Drift
Salts Salinity Salt concen- Dust-salt fraction
tration only
Other BOD/Pathogens Heavy Metals Odor
The individual medium effects, as shown above, were separately assessed and
ranked for the current and the projected periods. (For the trend analysis
portion of the study, Section VI, only the aggregate effects Of each type
of pollutant were assessed.)
A composite summary of each regional panel's assessment of its crop produc-
tion subsector's environmental effects is shown in Exhibit V-2 for the cur-
rent period and in the 2010 period, for both the moderate and high growth
cases. The changes in the detailed pollutant effects' rankings by environ-
mental media from the current period to 2010 are indicators of potentially
significant relative changes in the crop production subsector's effects
on the regional environments. Such changes in rankings are the expected
result of trend developments within the respective regional crop produc-
tion subsectors. These rankings (index ratings were not obtained) do not
indicate, however, the degree of change in each medium's aggregate envir-
onmental quality. Later, (Section VI), the panels' estimates of the aggre-
gate change in the environment by type of pollutant, sediment, nutrients,
pesticides, and salts are presented relative to the current period.
In the Northeastern region, as indicated in Exhibit V-2, nutrient gain was
the primary water medium concern, followed by sediment gain. Future BOD/
pathogen water effects are expected to increase in importance (from rank 4
to rank 3) because of anticipated greater land applications of animal and
30
-------
E
.,_
T3
CD
E
JD
p
CD
O
O
0
ro
C
CD
E
c
o
.J:
>
a>
q-
o
c:
ro
Oi
CM
1
>
jj
.,_
r-.
•r—
^
X
UJ
;
i
O
00
3;
s:
CJ
:"i
'"'I
c:
i-
CD
-*->
CO
ro
CD
-d
•^
0
^
31
E:
rj
---- - ^^CMCOCO
i— CM ro ^f i i— rsi >3- CO I •— ro CM «*• i
i — CMCO«3-| i — CM«^-CO 1 i — COCM^j-l
i — CMCOII i — CMOOI 1 i — -COCMII
, — CMCOII , — CMCOI 1 i— COCMII
i — CMCOtl < — CMCOl I t — COCMII
i — OJCOII i — CMCOI 1 CMCOi — II
CM, — COII t — CMCOI 1 CM CO, — II
CMi — COII , — CMCOI 1 CMCO, — II
CM, — «3-|CO , — CO^3-| OJ CO, — CMII
CM , — <^J- 1 CO , — CO *^3~ 1 CM CO > — CM 1 1
CM, — COI^~ , — CMCOI *^T 1 <~^ CM | 1
CD
CO
o
c c: "o c
CD o CD CO '—^ o
rj -^ o CD o> -^
-a +-> c +J -o +->
C •!- ro O ro T- o
!
CC-r-CO COCOS^O < — OrC
M- -i— ro C CO CU •!-> 13 -i- S-
rororjiCD OS-C, — O-t-'M-
Cn CD CT> , — CD-*->
+->-l->T3>i-'Z w+->-OC OC-i-OE--- ro<-T ro
CDCLlo-'-ro , — (DOO -P O-3 CO
E T- ••- C 0. •!-••- >, ro ^^ O -!-> CD
•!— C 4J 'r— \ r— c 4_) 4_] > ^ -| ^ CU 4— -| * NX
S- "04-lcn, — Q *f-4-Jcn, — (T34-> LOCA'i— LCO
aj ai_3OiroO i — osairacy a'nQ"3^
ro *~ o ••-
3 00 =1
o
t—t
en o
CM
X3 O
C C <-i
ro -^ O
CXI
-a ••-> c
o 3 T-
^H -I- 0
S- S- -C
CO CD Cn-r->
E a- S
S- (DO
O •(-> +-> S-
U- C ro en
CD S-
E s- CD -c
o S- T3 en
i- Zi O 'i"
<+- o E -c
T3 CO CO CO
OJ CD O) O)
j < i t | ^ | ^
ro O O O
r— C C C
3 CD CD CD
o "O "O T3
ro
(— 0 2: 31
^ ^
r-HJ CM [
31
-------
municipal wastes. Also the expected increase in municipal (including indus-
trial) waste disposal on cropland will increase the heavy metal concentra-
tions in the soil medium, and under both moderate and high growth assumptions
this pollutant's rank will shift from 4 to 2. Soil loss, however, re ins
the primary soil medium concern throughout the period under consideration.
No changes in ranking of the two major concerns occurred within the air medium
where gaseous nutrients and pesticide drift were the principal environmental
effects.
In the Southeastern region, no changes occurred in the water medium rankings--
(1) nutrient gains,(2) sediment gains, (3) pesticide gains—from the current
period to 2010 under moderate growth assumptions. However, under the high
growth scenario, sediment gain was ranked first and nutrient gain, second.
No changes in rankings were made in either the soil medium--(l) soil loss,
(2) nutrient loss, (3) pesticide gain or the air medium--(l) pesticide drift,
(2) dust and particulates, (3) gaseous matter—pollutant concerns under either
growth assumptions.
In the Cornbelt/Lake States region, the pollutant effects rankings within
the three primary media remained constant under the current and projected
conditions of the study as presented. The major pollutant rankings indi-
cate that sediment gain in water, soil loss from the soil medium, and dust/
particulates in air are the primary concerns in the respective media under
moderate and high growth conditions.
In the Great Plains region, the rankings of pollutant effects within each
environmental medium also remained constant over time under both growth
scenarios. Sediment gain in water, soil loss from the soil, and dust/partic-
ulates in air were the top ranked concerns for the media. Salinity is a con-
cern in this region. Salinity is ranked fourth in the water medium, salt
accumulation is ranked third in the soil medium, and dust-salt fraction
is ranked fourth in the air medium.
In the Western region, "salts" both in the soil and in the water are of
paramount environmental concern now and for the projected future. In the
current period, the level of sediment gain in the water medium was ranked
first and salinity was ranked second. However, in the future, under either
moderate or high growth conditions, these rankings change so that salinity
becomes the main water medium concern. In the soil medium, salt concentra-
tion is the primary concern both now and to 2010. Over time, heavy metal
accumulations in the soil were seen as increasing in importance, with a cur-
rent rank of 5 and a change by 2010 to a rank of 4, as indicated. Air med-
ium concerns were primarily dust (rank 1) and pesticide drift (rank 2) and
these are unchanged over time; however nutrient-related gases are expected
to increase (from rank 4 to rank 3) in importance over time, whereas smoke
will decrease in importance (from rank 3 to rank 5).
32
-------
C. Step 2: Rank of Environmental Effects Among Media
The second step involved ranking the effects of the top five pollutants and
their associated media under current crop production conditions and under
moderate and high projected growth conditions to 2010.
The major environmental pollutant concerns by media for each region, as
shown in Exhibit V-3, are discussed below.
The Northeastern panel was concerned about the water and soil media. Cur-
rently, nutrient gain (rank 1), sediment gain (rank 3) and pesticide gain
(rank 4) were judged the most significant water pollutants. Soil loss (rank
2) and nutrient loss (rank 5) were judged the most significant concerns in
the soil medium. By 2010, the two top concerns, nutrient gain in water and
soil loss from soil, remain unchanged, and sediment gain in water will rank
4. Significant changes, however, are expected under either of the two growth
scenarios. In particular, heavy metals in soil (rank 3) and BOD/pathogens
in water (rank 5) are anticipated because of the increased land disposal of
municipal sludge.
The Southeastern panel ranked soil loss from the soil as the number one con-
cern under present crop production conditions. Three pollutants affected
the water medium—nutrient gain (rank 2), sediment gain (rank 3), and pesti-
cide gain (rank 5). Pesticide drift (rank 4) was the only air medium con-
cern. Under moderate growth, no change in ranking is projected to 2010.
In 2010 under high growth, a shift in ranking is projected: water medium -
sediment gain (rank 2) will then be ranked ahead of water medium - nutrient
gain (rank 3); all other rankings will remain the same.
The Cornbelt/Lake State region concluded that three of the current top pollu-
tants effect water: sediment gain (rank 1), nutrient gain (rank 2) and pesti-
cide gain (rank 4). Soil loss (rank 3) is the principal current soil medium
concern, and dust (rank 5) is the most important air medium concern. In
2010, soil loss increases in importance from its current rank of 3 to 2
under moderate growth, and to a rank of 1 under high growth assumptions.
The generally increasing concern for soil loss (and hence, the loss of soil
productivity) is caused by the expected full utilization of the Class I to III
soils by 2010 under moderate growth, the consequent increase in the use of
marginal land, and the more intensive crop production on all lands under the
high growth case.
The Great Plains panel ranked soil and water as the two media of greatest
environmental concern at the present time and in 2010. Currently the rank-
ings in descending order are: soil loss from soil, sediment gain in water,
nutrient loss from soil, nutrient gain in water,and dust in air. Under
either growth scenario to 2010, the only change in rank reflects the growing
concern for the soil medium, as nutrient loss from soil moves up to rank 2
from 3 and sediment gain in water drops from rank 2 to 3.
-------
Exhibit V-3. Regional crop production subsectors1 environmental
effects rankings of pollutant concerns by environmental
media, current and projected I/
Environmental Medium-
Pol
Water
Soil
Water
Water
Soil
Soil
Water
Soil
Water
Water
Air -
Water
Water
Water
Soil
Water
Air -
Soil
Water
Soil
Water
Air -
Soil
Water
Water
Soil
Soil
lutant Concern
- Nutrient gain
- Soil loss
- Sediment gain
- Pesticide gain
- Nutrient loss
- Heavy Metals
- BOD/Pathogens
- Soil loss
- Nutrient gain
- Sediment gain
Pesticide dr>ift
- Pesticide gain
- Sediment gain
- Nutrient gain
- Soil loss
- Pesticide gain
Dust
- Soil loss
- Sediment gain
- Nutrient loss
- Nutrient gain
Dust
- Salt gain
- Sediment gain
- Salt gain
- Nutrient loss
- Soil loss
Current
1
2
3
4
5
-
-
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
2010
Moderate
I. Northeastern
1
2
4
-
-
3
5
II. Southeastern
1
2
3
4
5
III. Cornbelt/Lake States
1
3
2
4
5
IV. Great Plains
1
3
2
4
5
V. Western
1
3
2
5
4
High
1
2
4
-
-
3
5
1
3
2
4
5
2
3
1
4
5
1
3
2
4
5
1
3
2
5
4
I/ Tabulated from Forms 1, 6 and 9
2/ Alternative futures to 2010, i.e., moderate growth and high growth
scenarios as defined.
-------
The Western region panel considered salt gain in the soil medium to be the
primary environmental concern currently and under both growth scenarios.
Two other soil related effects were ranked currently as: nutrient loss
(rank 4) and soil loss (rank 5). Two main water medium current concerns
were sediment gain (rank 2) and salt gain (rank 3). With growth, the salt
gain in water concern is predicted to intensify, relative to sediment gain
in water, and by 2010, is expected to rank second, with sediment gain in
water moving to number three. Also by 2010 soil loss from soil is expected
to increase to rank 4. Over the entire assessment period, however, the
principal environmental concern continued to be salt gain in soil.
D. Step 3: Ranking of Aggregate Environmental Effects by Media
Finally the aggregate environmental effects of each medium were ranked and
their relative environmental importance was rated on an index scale of 0-100
where 100 indicated the medium of greatest environmental concern.
Exhibit V-4 summarizes the regional panels' assessments of the environmental
effects of the crop production system on the three primary media—water, soil,
and air--for the current period and for both the moderate and high growth
scenarios in 2010. The projected levels of the effects reflect the assumed
trend changes in inputs, management practices, and residual treatments which
will occur under both growth scenario assumptions. The reasons for these
rankings (and ratings) vary, importantly, by region as is explained in Sec-
tion V-B above. For example, while sediment, nutrient, salt and pesticide
gains in the water medium are all ranked as major concerns in one or more
regions, their order of importance differs among regions.
Under projected conditions to 2010, whether under moderate growth or high
growth assumptions, the main environmental media rankings (and ratings) show
important changes within regions. Water was the current major environmental
concern in all regions except the Great Plains, but in general with growth
over time, the soil medium becomes of relatively greater concern. Under
moderate growth assumptions, the soil medium became the main concern (index =
100) of the Northeastern region panel and water, the second (index = 90).
The soil index rating increased from 70 to 80 in the Cornbelt/Lake States
under moderate growth and even further to 95 under high growth assumptions.
Under moderate growth conditions, the Western region expected to realize an
improvement in soil medium concerns, relative to water, with a soil rating
index decrease from 90 to 75; however, under high growth, the index increased
to 95 in 2010. Soil remained the medium of greatest concern in the Grea;t
Plains under both growth scenarios. In the Southeastern region under high
growth assumptions, soil and water were of equal importance.
Hence, although the water medium remained the major environmental concern
of the crop production subsectors in three of the five regions in 2010 under
moderate growth, there was generally a relative increase in the importance
of these subsectors1 activities on the soil medium and its associated pro-
ductivity. In fact, under high growth assumptions, the soil medium was
35
-------
Exhibit V-4. Regional crop production subsectors1 environmental
effects ratings of environmental media
current and projected I/
Environmental
Medium
Water
Soil
Air
Water
Soil
Air
Water
Soil
Air
Water
Soil
Air
Water
Soil
Air
Current
100 3/
65
10
100
98
20
100
70
25
70
100
10
100
90
10
2010 2/
Moderate
I. Northeastern
90
100
5
II. Southeastern
100
99
10
III. Cornbelt/Lake States
100
80
20
IV. Great Plains
70
100
10
V. Western
100
75
5
High
100
100
5
100
100
10
100
95
20
75
100
10
100
95
5
- Tabulated from Form 9.
?/
- Alternative futures to 2010, i.e., moderate growth and high growth
scenarios as defined.
- An index of 100 indicates the medium having the greatest relative
environmental importance.
36
-------
ranked first or tied for first in three of the five regions, and the other
two regions gave soil an index rating of 95. Thus, both water and soil
are of major concern in the future.
The air medium effects of the crop production subsectors1 activities were
consistently ranked a distant third in all regions—both currently and in
the future. The index ratings ranged throughout the analysis from only 5
to 25--with some improvement, or a constant relative impact, expected in
all regions. Some specific air pollutants were identified; however, in the
aggregate, air medium concerns were generally minor compared to those for
the water and soil media.
E. Summary of Environmental Effects by Region
The results of the three step analysis procedure are probably best depicted
by the completed forms of each of the regional panels, reproduced here as
Exhibits V-5 through V-9. Although no interpanel quantitative comparison
would be valid as each of the five panels worked independently and their
ranking scales were not identical, the qualitative assessment reveals that
the environmental impacts resulting from crop production activities on water
and soil media nationwide are of much greater concern than their impact on
the air medium.
As shown in Exhibit V-5, the Northeastern regional panel rated the water
medium as its current principal crop production environmental effect be-
cause of the associated nutrient, sediment, and pesticide gains. The soil
medium was the next most impacted medium because of soil and nutrient losses
which were the 2nd and 5th ranked pollutant effects across all media. Over
time, and under the moderate growth scenario conditions, the soil medium
environmental effects are expected to become of greater concern, particularly
because heavy metal concentrations are projected to increase in the region
from greater applications of municipal and industrial waste treatment sludge
on cropland. Under the high growth scenario assumptions, no changes in
pollutant rankings across media were forecast, although the soil medium
(100) was then considered to be of concern equal to the water medium (100)
while the air medium crop production environmental effects remain relatively
minor (5) in comparison.
The main current-period environmental concern in the Southeastern region
caused by the crop production subsector was its effects on the water medium
(100), i.e., its nutrient, sediment and pesticide effects in water as shown
in Exhibit V-6. However, soil loss (and its consequent effects on soil
productivity) was the single most important environmental effect among all
media and the soil medium (98) was of high relative concern. Under either
moderate or high growth cases of this study, the soil medium is projected
to increase in environmental importance, equalling the water medium by 2010
under the high growth scenario. Air medium concerns were relatively low
(10) in importance in the projected futures.
37
-------
J='
C1
= ! '
i
i'
i '
it!
0)
co !
.c
"•jf
1 !
,_i i
Ji .i
-^ ;
o
O ''
0 I
z:
^
z:
o .
,__, i •
•>
2^ '
^
t
a; ' '
5 2
ID
L/"1
2T
O !
^ i i
o ;
o o
C_ 1- '
OJ
3£ U i
0 E
— i ) —
z:
O
*~^ 'i
UJ •'
a:
-~
I i
^>
*~" |
s
^
M
t~
T_-
^
a.
"7"" ]
C i j
c ;
o •
cn
0)
o
j|' «
i %
o u
d
cj 5
^' H ^ n n n n n n ^ r~ n n n ~! n °
"°! j^jj ,_,! i -r] j ,-v-J ^j lev-* ',—. j jj l^j L-,1 !,_,( 1CJ | ^
•*->j ' ' ' ' ' XT
Xi cn
OJ -r-
(L.I a:
^l
_c'
cji
'£'
,
GI1
.13,
Gl -C
-M; ^_ o
gicvij j (u
( [ 1 j 4_>
4-J, 5 i-
t3i i— D
>- U- "O
3-' O
O(
K;
dj
a:
Q
""^ ' 1
-i:1^ o
= 5l£ .^ c
— ' O ' ' 1 ' ' ' ' ' i i i i 1 ! ' ' ^ ' 1 ' ' i 1 "° ^
-^ Jz1' — r .j , — u 'r'^i ' i LT \\ — it sCv. iT"1'! ! 1 ! '^ci , j ,i — ij |c\j i 1 i 2: u
X L'C ,!!'' ' ' ' ; , ' ' i ! ' < ' 1 1 1 3
s-i s- c
"^ "'t^- C
"" ON" «
C irt
L. 4->
ll O
L; : fl)
(_j (U ' i — i i 'r— LiJ
3 d! §
•T! 41 C ~ ' E C ra
*- •£' o 5^i = o «->
c — — S ! ^ f- c
1 ~c^ — ^^2^ £ -" Ja §
3 ,_^i3 ! v1 C — > . < — ^ t- O
^ ,*,'^~: — ° ~ S ^ i ^aJ "" .*"
c 1 1 -S ^ !r £-^c=:^ 5- ^ I
X' U _' r- _]
<->
^
4~
1, j
E
«
Z
fc
-o
o
c
DC
C
•H
a3
bC
•i-5
c
•H
-P
3
E5
V,
CD
-p
ai
13
•H
tic
c
CD
t
-P
~f
fe
^
CD
-P
1
a
• H
ai
h£
-P
a
rd
aj
CO
j^
CD
-p
ai
G
•H
ai
b(
-p
CD
6
•H
•d
CD
CO
^
CD
-p
ai
a
•H
ai
cu
'd
•H
O
•H
•P
cn
cu
PH
CD
-P
ai
""
G
CD
hD
O
rG
ai
P^
1
Q
C
ffl
^_,
CD
4-'
ai
IS
a
CD
he
O
-p
aj
1
Q
O
m
t-,
CD
-p
a)
cn
cn
O
H
-p
a
cu
•H
in
-p
a
S
H
•H
0
CO
m
o
s_
c:
o
1/1
.C
o
CT
C71
'£
-M
Q
C3
OJ
ft)
o>
-a
E
t/i
4->
U
H-
4-
LjJ
i
fti
*-•
O)
E
C
o
•r- C
> OJ
C S-
U-J t.
cu o
ra
O)
CD
Cn
Ol
-w
•r—
"S
s:
^
UJ
o
c
ee.
>-*
^
X
cu
c
E
•^
•o
^
S-
-a
E
•^'
"Ci
z
>c
TI3
c:
i— «
e
"O
E
,._
^
"c
ro
tx.
O
o
I— t
H
•H
o
CQ
8
r-H
, }
•H
0
m
o
o
H
f-,
cu
-P
aj
t-H
O
o
H
^
CD
j 1
ai
>
O
o\
^
CD
| T
cti
o
a\
i
LT\
H
^ -
ir\
VD
H
•H
O
CM
LT\
t.
•H
LO
£_
5
o
H
[_
<
n
-------
IH] pjj H H j I
M
.S1
Si
Oj C
o o
uj o
tn CM
CO
o
£_
t£) I
SBBID
^il!
ID
a -a
§ .2
o
5
i
>
4^
x
(H
c!
"S
BBS
B
n
CD i
M
u, -c -
— t- 4->
*j !
o
ml
oj ai
-I H
U
!
_j O
•— 5U
i-ln
o,
-------
.c
a-
T~
O
s_
ns
O>
O
_c
"^
o
s-
uo
C£
LU
"Z-
0
^
_J
h-
LU
s:
|
LU
OO
o:
0
h- O
LU O
00 CVJ
CQ
ID
CO
-^
o
1—
ID
Q -D
O O
Of -r-
OJ
0- Q_
O
0 £
eT '~~*
^
0
Tn
LU
Of
i
-P
• H
^
ro
ra
UJ
ClJ
-p
(D
a
Q
o
c:
o
CD
ct
^
^
o;
o
1_
r<3
C
GO
J^
o
CD
-C
o
3C
O
si
c
OJ
(J
CO
4-)
B0B QBB BBS |
cr
c
03
o:
-C
o
CU
2
•S
s:
jz:
to' ^*
o
I ggg ggg ggg *
o £
**- -o
- — o
-M
O
QJ
4-
4-
LU
E
•^
-a
QJ
^
TT
Q>
4-
LJJ
E
•i—
-o
jy
•— •
"c
r5
13
"O C
QJ QJ
•Si s-
s_
J"> o
1— (
E JJ
| B0B B00 000 ^ 1
O CTi CJ
*- c
4— O
l/»
C on
o o
u aj
c: 4-
O ra 4-
O -t- LU
C
•— Q •—
C rO c
4_)
U
OJ
J_
LU
^
E
C CC-r- V) (/! QJ- C
o *i-" •(— ra i/> o «~~ CT> o
i- ro fO CD O j O t-
•f- CJ O _J -i- Q) •,-
> Q) in QJ -P i>
C -4->-4->-O t/l-M-O l_ •- CS-
LU C C -i— O C i- rain LUQJ
QJOJO — iOJO O-I3 -O
-^ QJ QJ 3QJ , — O^QJ 3 "3 1- -^£ JX
c 4->on;zQ. -r-ui^Q- s_|QtDCD c c
> Q)
c i-
LU t.
OJ <-J
fO
(D
aj
O
1
H
• H
O
O
-p
tf
•H
cn
QJ
1_
CD
cn
1/1
E
-^
><
QJ
-Q
c:
o
o
H
O
t—
U~\
OJ
£
1
"Q
CU
-P
1
H
•H
O
ra
•H
-a
o
LU
-------
JC
CT
•*—
^
O
03
CU
u
oo
_c
•*->
3
o
oo
z:
o:
UJ
o
o
t
i—
ZT
•^_
•ZL
0
C£.
>•
•ZL
\ 1 1
(-O
g 0
UJ O
1/1 C\J
CO
1/1
-^
o
p
0
o -a
o o
Q- t-
CU
0
O£ CU
0 E
— 1 h-
pS
0
"s
UJ
a:
CO
1
-p
•H
•^
*c*
a
•H
cd
H
(X|
-P
i 3
C
t.
* — O
s:
. — .
E t) •*->
° nnnnn nnnnn nnnnn "^ s
: HHH00 0HH00 HH0H0 * i
O cn cj
i- c
4- 0
h— • E
fO
•r- tO -r- C.
4-> 4_) QJ
c ui ic t/i * cj E
•r— -p— nj i/i o -•-> i— cn C o
Ctl 1/1 CU O -*-> -M >
4-> -(-1 -Q >» t/1 4-* "O C t- •" r— C
C C •»— 4-> OC-r-Q fOV) J*:
fO O •-- t3
3| to|
u
OJ
+-
UJ
E
"O
•H
-p
s
H
•H
0
CO
CO
to
o
H
_p
£
QJ
Nutri
H
•H
O
W
C
•H
Cti
UO
_p
d
a.
•H
0)
CO
CD
-p
03
3
r\j
a
•H
03
bt
-p
a
t/i
o
s-
to
cn
:n
+-*
1
CJ
O)
-M
fQ
OJ
o
V7
+J
U
^
+~
J-l
fQ
+->
C
1 ^
c: i_
UJ I—
OJ CJ
^a
CD
CD
CD
J"
E
p_
"O
CU
rO
UJ
4-
O
C
QC
| *
i— t
X
a> CD
-CT O
C i— t
*~*
E
"O rH
4> -H
s o
-------
ni
bC
H
ctf
CO
ra
M
O
tn
w
O
E:
o
S
<
K
-ta
I) QJ
r
L^)O ••- CO
O,
col
1-dO
T-
<|
^i
5U
1
o|
-------
The Corn Belt/Lake States regional panel rated the water medium as the most
impacted environmental media, both currently and in the projected future.
Sediment, nutrient and pesticide gains contributed most to this rating as
shown in Exhibit V-7. The soil medium was ranked second in overall im-
portance, but it was also projected to become of increasing concern, pri-
marily because of soil loss which would be the single most important pollu-
tant effect in the high growth case. Dust particulates are the main air
medium pollutant effect, although the medium as a whole is rated relatively
low (20) compared to either water (100) or soil (80) in the 2010 moderate
growth case.
As indicated in Exhibit V-8, the Great Plains panel rated the soil medium
as their primary environmental concern because of the region's consequen-
tial soil loss and nutrient loss effects of crop production. The water
medium was rated second, both presently and in the projected futures, with
sediment and nutrient gains of primary concern. The sediment gain effect
in the water medium is expected to become relatively less of a concern
than nutrient loss from the soil medium in the future in this region as
shown in step II of the exhibit. Air medium effects were judged to be gen-
erally controllable in the future, especially dust particulates, and, thus,
this medium was rated low (10) relative to soil (100) and water (70) in
the 2010 moderate growth case.
The Western region's primary crop production affected environmental media
concern, both presently and in the future, is the water medium. Sediment
and salt gains are the principal water medium pollutant effects, and the
salinity effect is projected to increase in relative importance, i.e., sed-
iment gains can be reduced in the future. Salt gains in the soil medium
are the region's main single pollutant effect; the soil medium is also af-
fected adversely because of both nutrient and soil losses associated with
crop production. Projected air medium effects of crop production are gen-
erally minor (5) compared to either the water (100) or the soil (75) media
effects in the 2010 moderate growth case.
The basic hypothesis of the study is supported by the findings in this por-
tion of the analysis. First, the current labor pollutants by media indi-
cate that important regional differences do exist. Second, the projected
major pollutants, whether under moderate or high growth assumptions, are
expected to differ in rank in 2010.
-------
SECTION VI
CROP PRODUCTION TRENDS' ASSESSMENT:
NATION AND REGIONS
Input, management practice, and residual control trends in crop production
were evaluated under present conditions and under those of the 2010 moderate
and high growth scenarios. Environmental effects of these trends were dis-
tinguished regionally for each growth scenario.
Based upon the judgments of the workshop's participants, two factors of
major influence on the affected environmental media were the growth poten-
tial of a particular region and the time frame within which specified
growth must be achieved. Under the moderate growth scenario, the panelists
projected that the output requirements could be met and, at the same time.,
environmental enhancements could result from the anticipated trends in
input use, management practices and residual control. The postulated in-
creases in production for the regional high growth scenarios were between
13 and 17 percent higher than those for the moderate growth scenarios.
As a result, the panelist's generally expected that the crop production
subsector would substantially increase land utilization, including the use
of more environmentally fragile land. In doing so, the use of needed more
comprehensive crop management practices may not be adequately adopted
because of uncertain economic returns.
A. National Perspective of the Crop
Production Subsector
Although each of the regional panels assessed only its own region's crop
production trends and their associated environmental effects, a composite
analysis of the regions' findings shows major influences of the crop pro-
duction subsector on national environmental concerns. This composite
analysis, while based on the individual trend effects in each region, was
completed on an aggregated-trends level. That is, the crop production
system was first divided into three major components—inputs, management
practices, and outputs. These components were further subdivided into
trend groupings as follows:
Inputs
. Quantity
Quality
44
-------
Management Practices
. Multi-Season Management
Crop Season Management
Non-crop Season Management
Outputs
Crops (specified in each scenario)
Residuals Control
The sets of trends assessed in each region within this pre-specified frame-
work are summarized in Exhibit VI-1.
A national perspective is more reaidly obtained by considering first the
similarities and differences of the five regions at the major component-
subcomponent levels. Thereafter, the individual trend assessments are
more appropriately and accurately understood, e.g., although individual
subcomponent trends may have adverse environmental impacts, other system-
related individual trends may produce relatively beneficial effects. Hence,
the expected net environmental implications are actually a composite of
the individual trends. Still, however, the component-subcomponent aggrega-
tions are useful subtotal effects in distinguishing among the regions.
Under either the moderate or high growth scenario assumptions, several
component-level statements are applicable. First, the quantities of
inputs used will increase. In general, in order to meet the crop output
projections for 2010, additional land, most often that which will require
higher levels of environmental management, will have to be cultivated.
Such marginal lands will also typically require increased rates (per unit
of output) of nutrients and pesticides with consequent adverse environmental
implications. Exceptions exist in two regions. The Northeastern region
still has substantial acreages of good quality land (Classes I to III) in
outlying areas that will be cultivated, and some poorer lands will be taken
out of production. The Western region does not expect significantly more
land to come into production, but the more intensive use of existing land
resources may result in a slight degradation of land quality by 2010. This
quality change has environmental implications similar to that of having
relatively more marginal land in production.
Management practice trends are expected in all regions that will contribute
to the achievment of both the environmental and crop output goals. Three
groupings of these practices were defined to indicate their time-related
characteristics: multi-season--those practices that affect more than a
single cropping season, e.g., land development; crop season—those practices
that are applied when the crop is present (including planting), e.g., pest
control; and, non-crop season—those practices that are applied when the
crop is not present, e.g., soil protection (see Exhibit VI-1).
In general, the regional panels determined that land development practices
such as terraces and other land forming practices, crop planting practices
such as no-till planting and narrow rows, and soil protection practices
45
-------
Exhibit VI- 1. Summary of crop production system variables:
inputs, management practices, and outputs
I. INPUTS
A. Quantity
1. Land (cropland acres)
2. Nutrients
3. Pesticides
4. Water for irrigation
5. Seeds and plants
6. Other (e.g., equipment)
1. Land
a) composition of acres cultivated
b) dryland vs. irrigated
2. Nutrients
a) alternative sources
b) alternative formulations
3. Pesticides
a) alternative formulations
b) biological controls
c) integrated controls
4. Water for irrigation
a) groundwater
b) surface water
c) saline water
5. Seeds and plants
a) yield potential
b) pest resistance
c) drought resistance
d) salt tolerance
e) alternative crops
II. MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
A. Multi-Season Management
1. Land Development Practices
a) terraces
b) waterways
c) land forming
d) irrigation structures
e) windbreaks
2. Crop Sequence Practices
a) mono-crop
b) no-meadow rotation
c) sod-based rotation
d) double cropping
e) relay cropping
B. Crop Season Management
1. Crop Planting Practices
a) no-till planting
b) narrow row planting
c) contour planting
d) strip-cropping (and barrier row)
2. Crop and Field Monitoring Practices
a) surface scouting
b) remote-sensing scouting
c) soil-plant analysis
II. MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (continued)
3. Crop Fertilization Practices
a) surface applied
b) aerial applied
c) foliar applied
d) multiple applications
4. Pest Control Practices
a) surface applied - spray and broadcast
b) surface applied - banded
c) aerial applied
d) simultaneous fertilizer/pesticide
applied
e) integrated pest control
5. Water Application Practices
a) furrow basins (and borders)
b) sprinklers
c) water conserving (trickle, other)
d) recycling tailwater
C. Non-crop Season Management
1. Crop Residue Control Practices
a) fall incorporation
b) spring incorporation
c) residue removal
d) residue burning
2. Soil Protection Practices
a) reduced tillage
b) cover crops
c) contour tillage
d) chemical erosion control
3. Moisture Control Practices
a) fallow cropping
b) chemical tillage
c) chemical evapotranspiration control
4. Pre-plant Fertilization Practices
a) fall applied
b) seed-bed applied
5. Pre-plant Pest Control Practices
a) non-crop season
b) pre-emergent
III. OUTPUTS
A. Crops (as specified)
B. Residuals Control
1. Pollutant Treatment
a) barrier strips
b) retention ponds
c) diversion dikes
d) chemical/mechanical
2. Other Treatments
a) land-use restrictions
b) cropping restrictions
46
-------
such as reduced tillage and cover crops had favorable environment impacts--
moderate to major effects on sediments, and minor to moderate impacts on
nutrients and pesticides. However, in the Cornbelt/Lake States and Western
regions, crop planting practices had a minor adverse environmental effect
on pesticide levels.
In most regions, the projected crop sequencing practices, e.g., mono-
cropping, and the projected crop residue control practices are expected to
have minor adverse environmental effects, i.e., sediment, nutrient, and
pesticide effects. However, in all regions these adverse implications
are more than offset by the counter balancing beneficial implications of
other improved management practices.
Irrigated crop production is expected to increase throughout the nation,
especially so, relatively, in the Cornbelt/Lake States and the Southeastern
regions. This general trend will have adverse environmental direct impacts--
particularly on nutrient and pesticide losses in the Cornbelt/Lake States,
and on soil and pesticide losses in the Southeastern regions. The other
three regions do not anticipate significantly changed environmental effects
from their trends in irrigation.
Regarding residual outputs, the regional panels did not expect residual
control practices to be used substantially by 2010. Although prospective
residual treatment methods, e.g., barrier strips and retention ponds, and
land use restrictions, e.g., zoning, were recognized as potentially bene-
ficial to the environment, it was believed that these practices would not
be widely adopted voluntarily; publically supported programs would generally
be necessary to achieve these types of residual control (preferably pre-
ventive practices vs. "treatment" alternatives would accomplish environ-
mental objectives while also meeting crop output goals).
1. Aggregate Environmental Effects Ratings--
Moderate Growth Scenario
The composite effects of all input, management practice, and residual con-
trol trends were assessed for the four principal pollutant concerns of the
crop production subsector: sediment, nutrients, pesticides, and salt.
(All primary media—water, soil, and air--effects were included in the
assessment.) The assessment procedure, as explained in Appendix A, re-
quired that a series of rating aggregations be made from individual trends
to related trend-groups (see Exhibits VI-3 to VI-7, below) and then across
all major components of the crop production system. This assessment pro-
cedure was repeated for each of the study's specified growth scenarios
to 2010; thus, comparative results were obtained for expected changes from
1977 to 2010 in relative terms as explained further below.
Under the moderate growth scenario, all regional panels projected improved
environmental effects in 2010 compared to the current (1977) situation when
the aggregate environmental effects of the anitcipated changes in the crop
production system's inputs, management practices and residual controls were
-------
evaluated. On a scale of 1 = minor to 5 = major (and where + denotes bene-
ficial and - adverse) I/, each of the five regions predicted either positive
changes or no changes in sediment, nutrient, pesticide, salts and other
environmental concerns as indicated in Exhibit VI-2. These environmental
improvements were judgmentally derived as a result of all projected quali-
tative and quantitative trend changes in the use of inputs, management
practices, and residual treatments.
The Northeastern region anticipates that minor improvements will be achieved
in sediment control (+1) and pesticide control (+1) but that no effective
change will occur in its nutrient effects resulting from crop production
activities. The Southeastern region expected to achieve some improvement.
in both sediment (+2) and pesticide residual control (+2), and achieve
minor improvement in nutrient (+1) environmental effects.
The Cornbelt/Lake States region projects major improvements in sediment
(+5) control to 2010 under moderate growth and some improvement in both
environmental effects of nutrients (+2) and pesticides (+2). The Great
Plains region expects to achieve moderate improvements in its crop pro-
duction subsector's sediment (+3) and nutrient effects, while achieving
substantial improvements in its pesticide (+4) environmental effects.
Under moderate growth assumptions, the Western region's crop production
subsector is expected to show environmental effect improvements in sediment
(+3), nutrients (+2), pesticides (+2) and salts (+1) by 2010.
A generally recognized problem with this type of rating procedure, where
the current situation is rated as "0" for each effect, is that even a
relatively moderate improvement, e.g., "+3", in one effect may still
represent an environmental management concern. That is, the absolute
levels of pollutants in the environment are known in neither the current
("0") nor the future ("+3") rated situations. This condition was recognized
in the study procedures, but no definitive data base is available to
adequately characterize, regionally, the current environmental status.
Only relative, subjectively determined ratings were, therefore, possible
in this analysis.
2. Aggregate Environmental Effects Ratings--
High Growth Scenario
As is also shown in Exhibit VI-2, the regional panels estimated relative
1977 to 2010 changes in sediment, nutrient, pesticide and salt (and other)
environmental effects resulting from all trends in inputs, management
practices and residual controls under the high growth scenario assumptions.
These ratings are directly comparable to those of the moderate growth case
since the study procedures were replicated for the high vs. the moderate
growth assumptions (see Appendix A).
_!/ The rating scale is described, in part, as follows: 1 = minor, 2 = some,
~ 3 = moderate, 4 = substantial, and 5 = major. Actual ratings are as
presented in the following exhibits and in Appendix B.
48
-------
Exhibit VI-2. Estimated changes in the environment by region
under alternative growth assumptions I/
Region/Scenario
Sediment
Nutrient
Pesticide
Salts/
Other
Northeastern
Moderate Growth +1 "
High Growth +1
Southeastern
Moderate Growth +2
High Growth +1
Cornbelt/Lake States
Moderate Growth +5
High Growth +2
Great Plains
Moderate Growth +3.1
High Growth +2.8
Western
Moderate Growth +3
High Growth +2
0
0
+1
+1
+2
-2
+3.4
+2.9
+2
+1
+1
+1
+2
+1
+2
-1
+3.9
+3.7
+2
+1
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
+ .6
+ .4
+1
-1
- Tabulated from Forms 5 and 8.
2 /
— Scale: 1 (minor) to 5 (major)
+ denotes beneficial
- denotes adverse
NA - not assessed
Assuming the high growth scenario to 2010, the regional panels were less
optimistic that the projected improvements in inputs, management practices,
and residual controls would offset increased environmental consequences
of the crop production system. However, in all but two regions, the
aggregate environmental effect ratings were still equal to or better than
current environmental conditions, though they were most often less than the
moderate growth case.
Both the Cornbelt/Lake States and the Western regions projected that certain
environmental effects would worsen from their current status by 2010 under
high growth assumptions. In particular, the Cornbelt/Lake States panel
anticipated that its region's nutrient (-2) and pesticide (-1) effects would
become more problematic. The Western panel projected minor adverse salt-
related (-1) environmental effects compared to either the current (0) or
the 2010 moderate growth (+1) salt-related conditions. The other environ-
mental effects, e.g., sediment, in these regions were less favorable, but
still positive under high growth as compared to current effects.
-------
The Southeastern panel predicted slightly less favorable environmental
changes in the sediment (+1) and pesticide (+1) effects at the high growth
rate when compared to +2 ratings for the same effects at the moderate growth
level. The nutrient environmental effect remained the same for both growth
scenarios for this region. Under high growth assumptions, both the North-
eastern and Great Plains regions remained at the same effect levels as
those predicted at the moderate growth level with one exception—salts and
other environmental effects dropped from +1 to 0 in the Great Plains region.
(As shown in Exhibit VI-2, the Great Plains panel did show very minor less-
favorable effects using unrounded rating scores.)
These aggregate ratings of expected environmental effects for sediment,
nutrients, pesticides, and salt—in all media—were derived by the panels
by utilizing Forms 5 and 8, Appendix A. Further, Forms 2, 3 and 4 pro-
vided requisite trend evaluation inputs—see Appendix B. Next, a summary
of major trend assessment results, by region, is presented. Such findings
both preceded and were critical to the systematic development of the
aggregate ratings shown in this section.
B. Northeastern Crop Production Trends:
Moderate" Growth Scenario 17
The aggregate environmental effect from the crop production subsector
activities in 2010, though not substantially differing from the current
effects in the Northeastern Region will result in a minor improvement in
sediment and pesticide loss and no overall change in nutrients. Although
no appreciable change in these concerns is expected, new environmental con-
cerns are predicted to emerge, e.g., the recent interest in the application
of municipal wastes to cropland will probably create an accumulation of
heavy metals in the soil and a biological oxygen demand/pathogenic problem
in Northeastern streams and lakes.
1. Inputs
Environmentally important input use trends in the Northeastern region are
the projected increases in land use, nutrient use, and improved seeds and
plants (Exhibit VI-3). Additional and replacement land use will bring
higher grades of land into production that will lessen the relative
nutrient and pesticide effects. Previously, land of poorer quality
(Class IV - VIII) that is closer to urban markets was utilized for crop
production even though higher quality land (Class I - III) is available
in outlying areas of the region. Crop producers have now started to shift
production to the better land which is less subject to runoff and erosion
problems. The Census of Agriculture confirms this potential, i.e., in
1974, 16.1 million acres were in cropland while 39.8 million acres of
Class I - III land were available in the region.
I/ The detailed trend assessments of each trend's extensiveness of use
and intensiveness of environmental effects is presented, for all regions,
in Appendix B: Regional Data and Trend Definitions.
50
-------
Exhibit VI-3. Environmental implications of trends in regional crop production activities by type of pollutant
under alternative growth scenarios, present to 2010, Northeastern region (Region I)
Moderate Growth
Crop Production
Variable
Sedi-
ments
Nutri-
ents
Pesti-
cides
High Growth
Sedi-
ments
Nutri-
ents
Pesti-
cides
Sedi-
ments
Change I/
Nutri-
ents
Pesti-
cides
INPUTS
A. Quantity Utilized
1. Land 1
2. Nutrients 1
3. Pesticides 0
4. Water for irrigation 0
5. Seeds and plants 0
6. Other (e.g. equipment) 0
B. Quality
1. Land 1
2. Nutrients 1
3. Pesticides 0
4. Water for irrigation 0
5. Seeds and plants 0
6. Other 0
MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
A. Multi-season management
1. Land development 2
2. Crop sequencing -1
B. Crop-season management
1. Crop planting practices 3
2. Crop and field monitoring 0
3. Crop fertilization practices 0
4. Pest control practices 0
5. Water application practices 0
C. Non-crop season management
1. Crop residue control
practices -1
2. Soil protection practices 3
3. Moisture control practices 0
4. Pre-plant fertilizer
practices 0
5. Pre-plant pest control
practices 0
OUTPUTS-RESIDUALS
A. Residuals control
1. Pollutant treatments 1
2. Other treatments 1
AGGREGATE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES ^/ 1
1
-1
0
0
0
0
1
-1
-1
0.5
-0.5
0.5
0.5
0
0.5
2
0
0
0
0
-1
0.5
0.5
2
-2
1
0
-2
0
0
0
0
1
-1
0
0.5
2
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
-1
0
-1
-1
0
0
0
0
0
0.5
0
0.5
0
-0.5
-0.5
0
-0.5
-0.5
0
—
2/
—
— '
Change in difference between the high growth ratings and the moderate growth ratings.
Region's workshop panel rating of each activity's composite primary media (water, soil, air) environmental effects in
2010 relative to the present period (scale = 0), by type of pollutant, and for alternative (moderate and high) growth
scenario. Ratings range from +(benef icial ) or -(adverse) (1 to 5) where 1 = minor and 5 = major.
Aggregate environmental changes are the estimated total effects changes by type of pollutant for each growth scenario.
Rating scale is also from +_ (1 to 5) but it is applied to the aggregate effects.
Tabulated from Forms 5 and 8
Increased nutrient use will have a minor beneficial sediment effect, but
a minor adverse nutrient effect on streams and lakes. The sediment or
soil loss improvement will result from the nutrient-stimulation of plant
growth to protect and hold the soil, whereas the projected increase in
nutrient use will result in minor increases in nutrient gains in the water
medium.
Both an increased use and an improved quality of seeds and plants are
expected in the Northeastern region. These trends will include improve-
ments in the yield potential and in more pest resistant crops. Increased
yields and the anticipated shift from corn to soybeans will reduce nutrient
-------
concerns and will partially offset the adverse effects of increased nutrient
use. Pesticide trends are predicted to be environmentally beneficial
because anticipated pest-resistant crops are expected to require fewer
pesticide applications and/or lower rates per application.
2. Management Practices
Management practices are expected to be more important in their environmen-
tal impacts than are changes in input trends. The minor improvement in
sediment loss will be affected most by crop planting practices, soil pro-
tection practices, and land development activities, and pesticide improve-
ments will occur mostly through crop and field monitoring practices.
Minor to moderate improvements in sediment concerns were projected to result
from improved crop planting practices such as no-till and narrow row plant-
ing, and from soil protection practices such as reduced tillage and cover
crops that are expected to be utilized to a greater extent. Where used,
no-till practices, reduced tillage, and cover crops reduce sediment effects
substantially and narrow row planting, compared to conventional row widths,
reduces sediment effects to a minor extent. Their combined sediment effects
were estimated to produce a moderate, positive shift from the current levels
under moderate growth assumptions.
Land development practices such as terraces and grass waterways that have
a moderate effect on sediment are expected to be utilized only to a minor
extent and, therefore, such practices will beneficially affect sediment
to a lesser degree.
The pesticide effects of crop production are predicted to show minor im-
provement in the Northeastern region during the next 30 years. The major
beneficial trends which result in pesticide improvement are crop arid
field monitoring and pest control practices. Producers are expected to
increase their surveillance of fields (surface scouting) and to utilize
integrated pest controls. Both practices, though they are currently not
extensively utilized, will be utilized moderately by 2010. These approaches
will lessen the widespread use of preventive pesticides and will foster the
tailoring of pesticide controls to specific problems when they occur.
Moderating the overall impact of these beneficial trends are crop sequencing
and pre-plant pest control practices that result in greater pesticide use.
Nutrient trends are expected to be improved most by soil-plant analysis--
a crop and field monitoring technique which is currently used at a moderate
level and will gradually increase in use to a substantial level. Two gen-
erally adverse management practice trend groupings in the region are its
crop sequencing and crop residue control practices that will produce
negative sediment, nutrient and pesticide effects. However, such adverse
effects are expected to be more than counter balanced by the beneficial
effects of other trends and, therefore, result in minor beneficial (or no
change) aggregate environmental effects under the moderate growth scenario.
52
-------
3. Residual Controls
Regulated or voluntary practices such as barrier strips, diversion dikes, and
land-use restrictions could offer the Northeastern region major beneficial
environmental effects. However, the projected minor utilization of such
practices results in a minimal expected reduction of sediment, nutrient, or
pesticide effects by 2010.
C. Southeastern Crop Production Trends:
Moderate Growth Scenario
The overall environmental effects of crop production activities in the South-
eastern region are predicted by the regional panel to improve in 2010 in the
moderate growth case. Some improvement in sediment and pesticide concerns
and a minor improvement in nutrient concerns are anticipated. Environmental
enhancement was expected in spite of increased production and associated in-
put uses. The primary concerns in the Southeastern region will continue to
be soil loss from the soil medium and nutrient gains in the water medium.
Input use in this region was expected to increase substantially under
moderate growth; thus land, nutrients and pesticides will adversely impact
the environment if no adjustments in input quality, management practices, or
residual controls are made. However, sufficient changes are projected in all
the components of the Southeastern crop production system such that a net im-
provement in the environment will result, as shown in Exhibit VI-4.
1. Inputs
Important input use changes in the crop production subsector are expected
under the moderate growth scenario. The increased use of land, nutrients,
pesticides and water for irrigation were recognized as causing adverse
environmental changes. The adverse effects caused by increased land use
reflects the increased acreages of land requiring higher levels of manage-
ment. The effects of increased uses of nutrients and pesticides, however,
are expected to be partially offset by improvements in the quality of
agricultural chemicals (such as improved slow release formulations and a
shift from inorganic to organic nutrients) and by the development of
effective environmentally compatible pesticides. Increased irrigation
with its attendant erosion is anticipated to increase sediment and pesticide
concerns.
The increased use of quality-improved seeds and plants is projected to have
beneficial effects on sediment, nutrients and pesticides since the varieties
utilized are projected to be higher yielding and pest and drought resistant.
As a result of the offsetting effects of use levels and quality changes, the
aggregate environmental impact of input changes (only) in the Southeastern
region is projected to be slightly adverse on sediments, nutrients, and
pesticides.
CO
0-j
-------
Exhibit VI-4. Environmental implications of trends in regional crop production activities by type of pollutant
under alternative growth scenarios, present to 2010, Southeastern Region (Region II)
Moderate Growth
Crop Production
Variable
Sedi-
ments
Nutri-
ents
Pesti-
cides
Sedi-
ments
High Growth
Nutri-
ents
Pesti-
cides
Sedi-
ments
Change I/ __
Nutri- Pesti-
ents cides
Rating of composite environmental effects —/
INPUTS
3/
A. Quantity utilized -'
1 . Land I/
2 Nutrients
3. Pesticides
4. Water for irrigation
5. Seeds and plants
6. Other (e.g , equipment)
-2
Quality
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Land
Nutrients
Pesticides
Water for irrigation
Seeds and plants
Other
MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
A. Multi-season management
1. Land development
2. Crop sequencing
B. Crop-season management
1. Crop planting practices
2- Crop and field monitoring
3- Crop fertilization practices
4. Pest control practices
5 Water application practices
C Non-crop season management
1. Crop residue control
practices
2. Soil protection practices
3 Moisture control»practices
4. Pre-plant fertilizer
practices
5. Pre-plant pest control
practices
OUTPUTS-RESIDUALS
A. Residuals control
1. Pollutant treatments
2. Other treatments
5/
1
1
1
1
-1
0
AGGREGATE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES -'
-' Change in difference between the high growth ratings and the moderate growth ratings.
— Region's workshop panel rating of each activity's composite primary media (water, soil, air) environmental effects in
2010 relative to the present period (scale = 0), by type of pollutant, and for alternative (moderate and high) growth
scenario Ratings range from +(benef icial ) or -(adverse) (1 to 5) where 1 = minor and 5 = major.
— Trend category ratings only were estimated by the Southeastern panel
The type of pollutant effects for individual trends were not reported, although their individual extensiveness of
use and intensi veness of effect ratings are presented in Exhibit B-2 (Appendix B) Hence, the general importance
of each trend is documented.
— Aggregate environmental changes are the estimated total effects changes by type of pollutant for each growth
scenario. Rating scale is also from ^ (1 to 5) but it is applied to the aggregate effects.
Tabulated from Forms 5 and 8
2. Management Practices
Management practices were divided into multi-season, crop season and non-
crop season practices. The multi-season and crop season practices are pre-
dicted to be environmentally beneficial; non-crop season practices tend to
have slightly adverse nutrient and pesticide effects on the environment.
The crop season management practices involving crop planting and crop and
field monitoring are expected to be more environmentally beneficial. No-
till planting and the use of narrow rows are predicted to be more exten-
sively used than at present and to be more beneficial to sediment control
than to nutrient and pesticide control (see Appendix B). The use of crop
and field monitoring practices, including surface scouting and soil and
54
-------
plant analysis, are predicted to increase, resulting in beneficial pesti-
cide and nutrient effects.
Multi-season management practices should improve sediment and nutrient
effects in the Southeastern region. Terraces, grass waterways, and land
forming were identified as having moderate environmental effects where
applied. However, drainage practices that are expected to develop with
increased irrigation would increase sediment, nutrient, and pesticide
runoff. Crop sequencing practices can be divided into those with positive
or negative environmental effects. Mono-cropping and no-meadow rotation
have negative effects, and the latter is currently used substantially in
the Southeastern region and is not expected to decrease in the next 30
years. Relatively beneficial environmental effects result from double
cropping, a trend which decreases sediment, nutrient, and pesticide
problems on a per unit of output basis; however, other management practices
are essential for reducing absolute pollutant effects.
Non-crop season management practices applicable to the Southeastern region
are crop residue control practices, soil protection practices, and pre-
plant fertilization and pest control practices. Of these, only soil
protection methods, which include reduced tillage, cover crops, and contour
tillage, are expected to beneficially affect the sediment and nutrient
concerns. Reduced tillage was expected to increase from moderate to
major use levels; contour tillage was not predicted to change from its
current level of use.
3. Residual Controls
Residual control treatments are expected to have a beneficial effect on
the environment. These treatments are about equally as beneficial as
are multi-season crop practices. All of the residual control treatments
are utilized to a minor degree currently and are anticipated to increase
by 2010. The most beneficial treatments identified, if utilized exten-
sively, would be land-use restrictions, retention ponds, and cropping
practices. Because of the expected low utilization, however, residual
controls will have only a slight positive environmental effect.
D. Cornbelt/Lake States Crop Production Trends:
Moderate Growth Scenario
The aggregate environmental effects of crop production in the Cornbelt/Lake
States region are expected to be beneficial under moderate growth assump-
tions. Sediment environmental effects are predicted to improve to a major
degree; nutrient and pesticide effects to a moderate degree (Exhibit VI-5).
Quantities of inputs—land, nutrients, and pesticides—will be increased;
however, the availability of land may be limited as early as 1985. Changes
in the form or quality of nutrients, pesticides, and seeds and plants are
anticipated to modify the effect of increased input use. Management
practices will make the most important contribution to environmental en-
55
-------
hancement, but residual control practices, such as land use restrictions
will also affect pollution levels, particularly the region's sediment
effects.
Exhibit VI-5. Environmental implications of trends in regional crop production activities by type of pollutant
under alternative growth scenarios, present to 2010, Cornbelt/Lake States (Region III)
Crop Production
Variable
Moderate Growth
Sedi- Nutri-
ments ents
Pesti-
cides
High Growth
Sedi-
ments
Nutri-
ents
Pesti-
cides
Sedi-
ments
Change I/
Nutri- Pesti-
ents cides
Rating of composite environmental effects U
INPUTS
A. Quantity utilized
1. Land
2. Nutrients
3. Pesticides
4. Water for irrigation
5. Seeds and plants
6. Other (e.g., equipment)
B. Quality
1. Land
2. Nutrients
3. Pesticides
4. Water for irrigation
5 Seeds and plants
6. Other
MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
A. Multi-season management
1. Land development
2. Crop sequencing
B. Crop-season management
5
-2
1. Crop planting practices 5
2. Crop and field monitoring 2
3. Crop fertilization practices 0
4. Pest control practices 0
5. Water application practices 0
C. Non-crop season management
1. Crop residues control
practices -4
2. Soil protection practices 5
3. Moisture control practices 0
4. Pre-plant fertilizer
practices 0
5. Pre-plant pest control
practices 0
OUTPUTS-RESIDUALS
A. Residuals control
1. Pollutant treatments 4
2. Other treatments 4
AGGREGATE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES ^/ 5
-3
-3
0
-3
-2
3
0
-3
4
-2
Q
5
-1
4
-4
-5
0
-3
-3
3
0
-4
3
3
-2
1
4
1
-1
-1
-2
2
0
-4
-2
-1
-3
-1
-2
0
0
-1
0
0
-1
-1
0
-1
-2
0
0
0
0
0
-1
0
-1
-1
-4
-1
0
-2
0
-1
_3
— Change in difference between the high growth ratings and the moderate growth ratings.
- Region's workshop panel rating of each activity's composite primary media (water, soil, air) environmental effects in
2010 relative to the present period (scale = 0), by type of pollutant, and for alternative (moderate and high) growth
3/
scenario. Ratings range from -(-(beneficial) or -(adverse) (1 to 5) where 1 = minor and 5 = major.
—' Aggregate environmental changes are the estimated total effects changes by type of pollutant for each growth scenario.
Rating scale is also from + (1 to 5) but it is applied to the aggregate effects.
Tabulated from Forms 5 and 8.
56
-------
1. Inputs
In the Cornbelt/Lake States region, major and increased quantities of land,
nutrients, and pesticides will be used in the crop production subsector
by 2010. Use of these inputs at higher levels is expected to be environ-
mentally degrading, i.e., substantial additional land use will increase the
region's sediment, nutrient, and pesticide effects. Increased nutrient use
will also cause increased nutrient concerns and additional pesticide use
will heighten pesticide concerns.
The environmentally adverse effects of the increased quantities of inputs
are expected to be partially offset by beneficial input quality changes.
Increased sediment effects due to increased land use will be nearly offset
if satisfactory production equipment and improved seeds and plants are
used. Crop varieties with increased yields aiid drought resistance would
directly and indirectly reduce sediment effects. Changes in nutrients--
increased use of sludge, manure, and formulations with retarded chemical
release—are expected to partially offset the adverse impact of increased
nutrient use. In addition, the selection of environmentally preferred
pesticide chemicals is anticipated to essentially offset aggregate in-
creases in pesticide usage.
2. Management Practices
The importance of year-round management practices for sediment control was
emphasized by this regional panel. One practice from each group of prac-
tices (see Appendix B) was selected as having a major beneficial effect
on sediment. Land development as a multi-season practice was expected
to result in major beneficial sediment effects and moderate beneficial
effects on nutrients and pesticides. The proper selection of crop planting
practices will result in a major sediment improvement and a minor adverse
pesticide, i.e., no-till planting typically requires more pesticide use,
effect. Soil protection practices would enhance sediment effects during
the non-crop season.
Beneficial land development practices were identified primarily as the use
of terraces and grass waterways. The latter will be widely used by 2010,
but terraces, which are more beneficial individually, will be utilized only
moderately. Subsurface drainage will be used extensively and will reduce
sediment effects, but it will result in minor increases in nutrient losses.
Land forming will be substantially practiced and it is expected to have
minor adverse effects on sediment, nutrients, and oesticides in the
environment.
No-till planting was the major beneficial crop planting practice identified.
Although no-till planting substantially decreases sediment effects, it also
requires the additional use of pesticides. This practice would have a
moderate use level by 2010. Strip cropping was expected to be nearly as
beneficial for reducing sediment effects as no-till planting, but it will
be used on only a minor and decreasing proportion of the crop acres. Narrow
57
-------
row planting is expected to increase in use from a moderate to a major
level. This practice, however, will have only slight positive environ-
mental effects in this region.
The use of such non-crop season practices as reduced tillage, contour
tillage, and cover crops will increase. Reduced or conservation tillage
is predicted to increase from its current use level to become a major
crop production technique by 2010. Contour tillage will increase almost
as much. Both of these tillage practices will provide moderate levels
of sediment improvement. Use of cover crops, although considered to be
essentially as effective environmentally as contour tillage, will increase
in extent of use by only a minor amount, and thus, its overall environ-
mental effect will be minor.
Crop and field monitoring practices are expected to moderately improve the
nutrient effects and offer major improvements for pesticide concerns. The
crop and field monitoring practices reviewed by the regional panelists
are surface scouting, remote-sensing, soil-plant analysis, and environ-
mental monitoring. Soil-plant analysis, predicted to be an important
monitoring practice, would increase from the current moderate-use level
to a major use level and would primarily affect nutrient losses as
nutrients would be applied at the optimum time for maximum uptake by the
plants. Environmental monitoring, e.g., soil moisture, and remote sensing,
e.g., diseases, p.ests, and soil moisture stress, are expected to be used
extensively to improve the timing and/or rates of application of manage-
ment practices, and, consequently, sediment, nutrient, and pesticide
effects are expected to improve. Surface scouting will be used at a
moderate level and will primarily affect pesticide usage and, thus, reduce
its environmental impact.
3. Residual Controls
Residual controls are most effective in reducing sediment concerns; how-
ever, the extent of use of these controls will depend upon legislation and
public funds. Land-use restrictions of environmentally fragile soils are
expected to be moderately used by 2010 and would be primarily important in
sediment control. Diversion dikes, retention ponds, and chemical/mechanical
treatment are residual control practices available to the crop production
subsector; however, these three controls were considered of less importance
than barrier strips or crop restriction. Overall residual controls are
expected to substantially improve sediment effects and to improve somewhat
nutrient and pesticide effects in the Cornbelt/Lake States region.
E. Great Plains Crop Production Trends:
Moderate Growth Scenario
Enhanced environmental effects from crop production is predicted in the
Great Plains region during the next 30 years under the moderate growth
scenario. A moderate level of improvement is expected for aggregate
58
-------
sediment and nutrient concerns and a substantial improvement is anticipated
in pesticide concerns (Exhibit VI-6). These favorable aggregate effects
are not expected to change the major environmental concerns of the region's
crop production subsector, however. Soil and nutrient losses (and, thus,
also, the sediment and nutrient gains in water) are still predicted to be
the dominant concerns in the Great Plains region to 2010.
1. Inputs
Increased land use by the Great Plains crop production subsector is ex-
pected to adversely affect the environment through added sediment, nutrient,
and pesticide losses. The quantity of additional land utilized for crop-
land will be relatively minor, however, and only moderate adverse impacts
are expected. Other input changes in use or form are expected to affect
the environment only slightly. New pesticide formulations and biological
controls are predicted by 2010, which will result in a limited level of
enhancement. With expected improved seeds and plants, a moderate degree
of imporvement in the pesticide concern will result.
2. Management Practices
The major environmental improvements resulting from management practice
trends by 2010 are projected to result from land developments (a multi-
season practice), and from crop planting and crop and field monitoring
(crop-season practices).
Sediment effects are anticipated to be reduced substantially by these
management practices, and moderately by non-crop season management
practices, e.g., soil protection. Land development such as terraces
and grass waterways are considered to be extremely effective, but the
extent of their use will reach only moderate levels by 2010 (see Appendix B),
No-till planting and narrow row planting are considered to be the most en-
vironmentally enhancing crop planting practices. No-till planting has
substantial effects on sediment and nutrient loss and will be used to a
moderate extent in this region by 2010. Narrow row planting will be used
extensively, but its use will have only minor environmental effects. Soil
protection practices, in particular reduced tillage and contour tillage,
are predicted to have some beneficial sediment effects. Reduced tillage
is the only soil protection practice that is projected to have a substan-
tial impact on the Great Plains crop production system.
The most significant land development techniques that will result in
moderately improved nutrient effects by 2010 are terraces and grass water-
ways. The crop planting practices predicted to similarily benefit the
environment are no-till planting, strip cropping, and soil-plant analysis.
Use of soil-plant analysis is projected to have widespread use levels by
2010, but the intensiveness of its environmental effect is minor.
59
-------
OOQOO
CM LO
OOOOO
OO OOOOO OOO O O Ol O
i— LO
,— 0000 I
OOOOO
CDO OOOOO
OOO O O
QJ QJ i —
LO LO LO
OOOOO
OOOOO
CJO OOOOO
OOO O O
LTD LT)
OQOOO
OO OOOOO
OOO O O
Ot O
4-J O
O r-
(O Cn
CMII — i i —
OllOO
OiCMiroi
LnOr-LOino OOO
(O O
4-1 -i-
C i,
OJ 03
O Q-
Q. 4->
CMi — 1 i — i —
r-- LT>
O O* I I r-
t — 1 C\J
fO i — lOi —
OOlli— 1
mo
oocMin
LO U") LO
OOO
" ra
QJ QJ
4_> 4_)
ra 03
- 4~> 4~> Q.
3 S-
(O O
""-£.
OJ
>>••-
03 rO
E c
r- S..
£- QJ
Q.4-J
QJ ra
•i- S..
•i- 3
i— O
a. i-
CM i— 1 O i —
LO LO
o o
i — 1 OO
CD O ro O
C r->
r- CO " (O
M - 4-J E
ra >> C
•r- 03
LU QJ
i- QJ QJ -i-
C
o
S-
S-
i- M-
0
EX 3
4-J
c
QJ
..1
c a~
03 QJ
Q. .
1^
vi s_
c
o
4-J
S-
S-
4-> T3 O
CT -^ 4-
QJ CJ
r- -t- 1_
J Jri! 3
V,
C
rO
a.
c
rO
V) S-
C/10
4J
C 4-J
QJ C
£ -U QJ
Cn — " QJ 3 E
I— c > a~
O O OJ (U C
a: ro v>
fe -A .3 0 f1
UJ
(J
V) i- CJ
QJ 1- ro
0 O S-
•r- 4-> 0-
4-> r-
u c c
2|°
TD ra
en. — N
£££
fO T3 —
000
C1J
CJ
4-J
CJ
ra
!L
Q_
O -r
C C
i
tx-
c
QJ
E
QJ
CD
(O
c^
E
- 0
1 (0
o
4-J
0
u
QJ
to CD O
S_ •!- D-
4-J
O 03 r-
QJ
N
- 4-J
S-
C QJ
O 4-
QJ E
3 i —
4-> Q.
•r- QJ
E: a.
o
s_
4J
C
O
u
4->
co
QJ
CL
QJ C QJ
40 Q.4-J
03 OJ ro
C
QJ
o &- E
S- 4-> 4->
4-> ro
_l O C S-
=> 4-J
uo 03 c— .ir
Q^ "O D_ O
OJ C CX CO
C3E:.— CMCJi— CMOO^LO
r— CMCO^f
1_ O -C
'QJ -—
Q- QJ QJ i—
01 QJ
QJ J- S-
DiQ.O
60
-------
Crop and field monitoring practices are anticipated to substantially im-
prove the region's pesticide effects, as these practices (including surface
scouting, remote-sensing, and soil-plant analysis) are expected to reduce
and/or improve the efficiency of pesticide usage. Specifically, surface
scouting is predicted to increase from a minor to a moderate use level.
Remote-sensing, considered almost a non-existent practice currently, is
anticipated to be used by a major proportion of the crop production sub-
sector by 2010. Soil-plant analysis is also expected to be used by a
major proportion of the Great Plains producers. Although the intensive-
ness of their individual effects is minor, the overall improvement in
pesticides is major.
Crop and field monitoring practices are also predicted to have a moderately
beneficial effect on salt accumulation problems in the Great Plains.
3. Residual Controls
Residual control practices are expected to have relatively minor sed-
iment, nutrient, and pesticide effects under the moderate growth scenario.
Barrier strips and retention ponds are anticipated to be used to only a
minor degree although the techniques are considered to be beneficial.
F. Western Crop Production Trends:
Moderate Growth Scenario
The Western regional panel predicted that its crop production subsector,
under moderate growth assumptions, would achieve aggregate environmental
effects more beneficial in 2010 than currently (see Exhibit VI-7). A
moderate level of sediment improvement, some improvement in nutrients and
pesticides, and a minor improvement in salinity effects are expected.
The salinity of soil, sediment gains in water, and salt levels in water
are predicted to be the primary environmental concerns in the Western
region by 2010.
The additional use of water for irrigation is expected to adversely affect
the salinity concerns. However, land development and crop and field mon-
itoring practices are anticipated to result in major environmental improve-
ments in the West.
1. Inputs
Increasing levels of crop production input uses in the Western region,
particularly irrigation water, are predicted to create potentially
adverse sediment, nutrient, pesticide, and salt accumulation effects.
However, beneficial changes in input form or quality are expected to help
offset these adverse effects, except in the area of salt accumulations.
61
-------
4->
C
fO
+J
3
O
CL
4-
°
OJ
CL
>,
40
_C?
OJ >•
40 C
•r- O
> '!-
•r- 01
4-> QJ
uo^
fO-
c c
O 0
4-> Ol
CJ QJ
3 CC
-a
o c
S- S-
CL at
4->
CL 10
O QJ
S- 3
CJ
r— O
S5
O OO
o> o
QJ 4->
4->
C C
•r- 0)
I/I
10 at
"O S-
c Q.
QJ
S- "
4-> l/l
O
4- T-
o s-
(O
C Oi
O (J
4->
rO J£
U 4J
•r- 3
r— O
a. s-
E cr>
^ QJ
r- >
3£
C ro
§S-
QJ
O 4->
t- r—
•r- rO
>
C S-
UJ QJ
•a
c
r-I ^
4-*
J3
-C
X
UJ
--
*~'
QJ
o
c
O
s_
C3
QJ
4->
«
O>
•a
O
E
CO S-
+J QJ
r— J=
ra 4->
C/l O
••- l/l
4-> QJ
10 "O
QJ -r-
Q- CJ
•r- 10
1_ 4_>
4J C
3 QJ
z
i to
"O C
rjj QJ
CO E
10 i-
4-3 QJ
i — _C
(O 4->
CO O
•r- 10
+J QJ
10 -O
O> -r-
O- U
•i- I/)
1- 4O
4-> C
3 QJ
z
•r- 4->
•o c
QJ QJ
co E
CO S-
4^ QJ
^ J=
(T3 4->
t/1 O
•r- 10
10 T3
QJ T-
0- CJ
• i- 10
S- 4->
4-> C
3 OJ
•z.
\ 10
•a c
co E
E
O
CJ OJ
3 r-~
-a .a
O ro
0
%~
o
LO i-* ro oo co *3~ ^3- i£> oo in
CM O O O O O O O O OO O O OO OOOOO OOO O O Of— INI
II 111 II 1 II
in in in tn ro i— CM^D «3- in
c
c co
o
J_ 00000000 r— 0 <3- O r- 1 r- r— O LO t— ,— O OOO O .— Oi— r—
>
c
OJ
QJ
4-> ro
CO i— i— i — OOOO COOOOOOI i — i— i — Uli — Oi— Or— •— ,— f— f— i— i —
O 1 1 t 1 1 1 1
Q-
u
in
4-
o oooooooOr— cxjOOf^oji m f— ooroi — Oi — CDOOI — • o o i— ro M
1 1 1 1 1 1
Ol
c
•1-
S
moromro OO^J-^TOUD usco LO
OOOi — Oi — i — r- OOr— 1 OdO OrOOOO OOO O O OCO i —
1 1 1 1 II
com mcocTi co-J «3-OLniJ3«a- COu-> co roo
0 O r— r— O 0 00*3-00 1 OO O un O O O OOO O 0 Or— CNJ
mLnm roro 01 co oio«3-i^- ^COLOOO I^-LO
OOi— r— OO «— CD O O r— I , — O OLOOOO CD. — O O O OCNJ OO
1111 1
inuno ocor^-io LOCO CO^OCNJ r^i — co co
OOfOf— Oi — r— OOOi — 1 COO i — OOOOr— i — OOr— O O r— CO m
CJ 10 --..
CTi-r— 10 qj ro I
C 4-> QJ U
• IO •!— O CJ 'r— CO
4J QJl-fOiO+J'r— 4Ji — UJ
c cjoi-aJc+Jcjo o
cai c '^4->CLcj ajr-cj-r— i— EOtOS-.QJ4J 4->cq;
•r-Q. f- C 4->cjcc*-» QJS-S-CLNC C 31
4J-r- 4-> QJ CroOOO Ol 4-> Q- T- O QJ O
(OCO3 roio E4-> QJS-E'^fO rOC r— r— O EC/>
O14->CT O14J QJCCT>ECL40I_ COCO'r- 4J4->_J
•r-CQJ -r-C CT>QJCOl-OraCL fOC;i=C
•O S-fO J-fO -fOE-'-Ol O>f— N E -r- 4-> S- ifl i — QJQJh-
QJ S- r— * i-r— J^CO-U (OCQJ'r-r— QJ 4JCQJ OJ OS-EZ
N -i- Q. • -r~CL LurOOC CT-'r-r—O C3 CJOM- Q. S-4J4-J LU
•r- 10 01 ui (J E ' — QJrO4->H-T^5_ O "O QJ U 4->-OOC f~:c>Cr rOTJS-C (OtOO'OO'Ca*ca> _JOCS- O
4-> C -r- 4- ra C-r-4-ro yoOJQJ Cr— CQJO QJOJUS-S_rOL>fO!J <;cjfa4J CC
3 QJO O)U S U) -O Ml OQ-rOH-O ioS--r-D-3r— -r-i— -r- ^D 4-> i— i
••-•r-t_trtl_ -r-'r-S^lOt. g^(O ^ 1- 4-J 4JC.+JCL4-> Q Ml 3 S- >
4-'C4->io4JOtJ= >!C4->i04->QJ-C: ioCO QJOOOio^ OOrO-i--i-QJfaQJrO C/lfOi — -SZ UJ
C r— UJ 4-> O- 1 1 -i- r—
(O fO Ei — O C COlOet
t— err— cvtro^J-coco O"r— ooro^j-cnus CJEI' — oo tj •— OJ ro -=3- en zii — coro-«3- co IDO^I — oo LU
ZD .a ro
r~ - — - CJ
40 4- wi
ra
•— E o>
cu o c
i- S- ••-
4- 4-1
O fO
r— QJ D:
O Oi
CNJ C
C S- C
10 S-
re
4J C C
cj -r- a>
QJ 40 (_'
4- ro wi
0) -C
•— • 3
ra o o
4-> -r- i.
C S- CT
3J fO
EC -C'
CO) U
O U 11
L. 10 Q)
> JZ t.
C 4-> C)
OJ 3 4-
^—. £ 4-)
s~ o^ c;
Jo^— 4-'
,c ;j
" CT> i —
• -r- _C O
in o CX
OT in -O
C C 4-
•r- •• tO O
4J t-
rO QJ QJ CJ
!- 4-> 4-> £L
rO tO "*»
j= S fc- +->
4J ^ flj
5 T: :>-)
O ro O -£3
i?) -5 *— • 11
QJ C1J
i; E cu tji
-i-J > C
0 >)••- (0
t- S- 4-> -!=
U rO ro (J
-3 EC
E J- OJ H->
Q.4-1 U
QJ r— lU
.C QJ rO 4- •
-O 10 O U
C 0 4- r- 01
ro CL US 4-
E -a • •-* 4-
lO O C 1- O QJ
en u to O ~>
C -r-7 QJ
r— l/l " fO "O 4J
4-> «- 4J E QJ (O
ra >i c -u 01
S- 4J rO II -O O)
•<- 40 E t.
c > 3 in T— 01
3 40 i — -Q 10 ra
O CJ O C QJ
CTl QJ -C
-C 4- I- c 40
JZ CJ O O *-*
Ol ra C O
r— QJ QJ -r— QJ 4O
j= O- E s-
4- >, ra "O
QJ O 40 11 Ol
J^ 10 r-
4-> Ol >ir— QJ r—
C ^2 CD CL
c -r- aj c CL
QJ 4-J " S- ra ra
rjj rO -— . QJ JZ
3 i. O -C cj 10
4 3 -
Ot r— II
p cL) . — - T-
QJ ra r— C
IJ CL ra O QJ 4-J
C U 4J E =3
QJ Q. 10 E -Q
S- O •— "— O
QJ J= -— • i- • — -
t ^"o— "> ^
• r- S- -r- O) CO
-a o s- wi QJ 40
3 QJ !-
•r- L/l > 4J - — •
•*-* "O ra
QJ E C ro Ol 4-
CT) O QJ - — QJ
C -r- t/l 1 S- £=
-C QJ S- S- Ol L.
CJ Q:Q.O e£ 4-
r^-| C\T| 01|
62
-------
Improvements in the qualities of pesticides and pesticide use rates,
lower the pesticide effects. Changes in the quality of seeds and plants
are also expected to benefit the environment somewhat.
2. Management Practices
Under moderate growth assumptions, land development is expected to sub-
stantially improve sediment effects and have some positive effects on
salt accumulation. Crop and field monitoring, including such practices
as surface scouting and soil-plant analysis, are predicted to effect
major environmental improvements by reducing nutrient and pesticide
effects, but have only moderately beneficial salt and sediment effects
(see Appendix B). Soil protection practices, primarily reduced tillage,
will cause minor beneficial sediment, nutrient, pesticide, and salt
accumulation effects.
The land development practices that are anticipated to be utilized in the
Western region are land forming, irrigation structures and soil profile
modification (in other regions the principal land development practices
utilized were terraces and grass waterways). These practices will pro-
vide moderate sediment and salt accumulation improvements and limited
nutrient and pesticide effects.
3. Residual Controls
Land use and cropping restrictions are expected to be generally effec-
tive environmental management practices in the Western crop production
subsector by 2010. These practices are projected to substantially reduce
sediment and salt effects, to moderately reduce nutrient effects, and
to slightly reduce pesticide concerns. Other residual control practices,
such as barrier strips, retention ponds, and chemical controls are not
expected to be of significant value for reducing adverse environmental
effects, but their potential is recognized.
G. High Growth Rate Effects on the Five
Crop Production Regions
The aggregate environmental impacts of the regional crop production sub-
sectors in the future will be greatly influenced not only by the level
of crop output produced annually, but also by its timing, i.e., how
rapidly a specified, higher output level must be reached. Each of the
regions was projected to reach output levels from 13 to 17 percent higher
by 2010 under the high growth scenario compared with each region's moderate
growth scenario output level. Thus, not only are the regional output
levels higher, but they are to be achieved within the same time frame.
Such growth places additional demands on those beneficial environmental
management practices and trends if the necessarily adverse environmental
implications of growth are to be counter balanced.
63
-------
The high growth scenario projections and assumptions (see Section IV) were
presented to the regional panels so that they could determine and assess
those environmentally related trends that would most likely be affected
by this growth situation. In contrast to the moderate growth scenario
that specified an increasing crop production index from 100 (1972-1974)
to 171 (2010), the high growth scenario depicted a crop production index
increase from 100 to 196 (2010). The production indices in the inter-
mediate years for the high growth scenario showed the greatest rate of
growth occurring before 1985. The production indices used by the panelsits
are shown in Exhibit IV-2 for the U.S. and the study's five crop production
regions.
The index values indicate the level of growth that each region is to attain.
The panelists projected the environmental impacts of the activities re-
quired of the crop production subsectors to meet these goals. _!/
1. Northeastern Region
Production increases under the high growth scenario were 14 percent greater
than the production requirements of the moderate growth scenario. This
additional production is expected to be partially met through shifting to
the use of better land by 2010. This trend, currently underway, of
shifting land use—from Class IV-VIII to available Class I-III land—is
an option not generally available in other regions.
Under the high growth scenario, the aggregate environmental impacts of
crop production activities in the Northeastern region are identical to
those under the moderate growth scenario: a minor improvement in sed-
iments, no change in nutrients and a minor improvement in pesticides
compared to the current situation (see Exhibit VI-3).
There were, however, some variations in the environmental effects of vari-
ous components under the two scenarios. For example, the increased use
of nutrients that could result in a minor nutrient-effect degradation was
essentially offset by non-crop season management practices—soil protec-
tion measures and pre-plant fertilizer practices.
2. Southeastern Region
Under the high growth scenario, the aggregate production level of the
Southeastern region must increase 14 percent above the level required
under the moderate growth scenario.
V The study's evaluation procedures, as explained in Appendix A, were
partially modified by bypassing Form 7 which would have documented
with rating values each trend's change in its projected extensiveness
of use by 2010. Because of time constraints, these changes were only
implicitly evaluated by directly assessing the trend-grouping environ-
mental effects in 2010 relative to current (1977) conditions.
-------
The resulting aggregate environmental impact of the required crop pro-
duction activities is anticipated to be slightly less favorable than under
the moderate growth scenario, but the sediment, nutrient and pesticide
effects still show minor improvement over the current situation (see
Exhibit VI-4). Although the overall environmental impact of nutrients did
not change under the two scenarios, the input quantity and quality impacts
were adverse. This was offset by further improvements in management
practices. Aggregate pesticide changes were less favorable because of
increased quantities of pesticides and reduced residual controls and
this resulted in fewer beneficial impacts that were not completely
counterbalanced by the improvements resulting from crop season manage-
ment practices. Sediment effects were projected to improve by only a
minor extent because of minor (compared to some) improvements in multi-
season management practices. Even though the composite environmental
effects are not as favorable as under the moderate growth scenario, the
panelists nevertheless projected minor beneficial impacts when compared
to the present time.
3. Cornbelt/Lake States Region
The high growth scenario requires a 13 percent increase in production
over that for the moderate growth scenario in this region.
The environmental impacts of producing the increased quantities results
generally in an environmental degradation, compared to the impacts of the
moderate growth scenario (see Exhibit VI-5). Nevertheless, compared to
present conditions, the environmental effects of sediment are projected
to show some improvement, although some environmental degradation from
nutrient effects and minor degradation from pesticide effects are antic-
ipated.
In much the same manner as for the moderate growth scenario, adverse
sediment effects result from the increased use of lower class land, crop
sequencing and crop residue control practices. The beneficial sediment
effects result primarily from improved land development, crop planting,
and soil protection practices. Residual controls were slightly less
beneficial under the high growth case than under the moderate one. The
aggregate sediment impact was that there would be some improvement as was
also anticipated under moderate growth.
By contrast, compared to current conditions, adverse nutrient and pesti-
cide aggregate effects are projected. The increased use of improved inputs
and management practices inadequately compensate for these input-related
effects.
4. Great Plains Region
The high growth scenario requires a 17 percent increase in the Great Plains
region's crop production over that for moderate growth in 2010. Even so,
the environmental concerns associated with crop production activities are
-------
expected to be only marginally affected relative to the moderate growth
case. Sediment, nutrient and pesticide effects continue to be moderately
improved and salt effects will be slightly improved over present conditions.
These high growth effects are only slightly less beneficial relative to
the present than is anticipated with moderate growth (see Exhibit Vl-6).
In order to meet production levels, large quantities of inputs are re-
quired, but the environmental effects of these are more than countered
by improvements in the quality of inputs and in environmental management
practices.
5. Western Region
Crop production under the high growth scenario will increase 16 percent
above that for moderate growth in the Western region. Compared to present
conditions, this increased production is expected to cause minor adverse
salt effects (-1), whereas, under the moderate growth case, minor bene-
ficial salt effects (+1) were anticipated. Continuing beneficial aggregate
sediment (+2), nutrient (+1), and pesticide (+1) effects are expected in
2010 compared to present conditions under high growth, but these ratings
are less beneficial than the moderate growth case, i.e., each effect was
rated one point lower.
The adverse salt effect, primarily, results from increased land use, lower
quality water for irrigation, and less effective residual controls. How-
ever, these inputs' adverse sediment, nutrient and pesticide effects are
offset by crop and field monitoring, land development, and residual con-
trol practices.
The composite environmental effects under high growth are worse than under
moderate growth with the largest difference being the salt effect. How-
ever, only the salt impacts are expected to be more adverse than present
conditions.
66
-------
SECTION VII
EXOGENOUS FACTORS
The crop production system has many internal factors that affect its out-
puts and their attendant environmental effects—such as trends in input use,
management practices and residual treatments as presented in the preceding
section. Additionally, the crop production system is affected by external
events that affect its main components and, thus, its environmental
implications.
Three main types of external events that are regularly of concern to the
regional crop production subsectors are exogenous factors, governmental
policies and research developments. This section focuses on the major exo-
genous factors identified by the region's panels ; policy concerns and
research needs are discussed in Sections VIII and IX.
A. Conceptual Framework
As depicted in Exhibit VII-1, exogenous factors, government policies, and
research developments may each directly affect the crop production system
during a given time period. In addition, these external conditions are also
interrelated and can partially affect one another. Various exogenous factors
may be at least partially controlled by government policies that alter the
impacts of these exogenous factors (e.g., price supports and import quotas
may be protective policies affecting a strategic commodity faced with ir-
regular foreign competition). In many other cases, research programs can
be initiated in conjunction with government policies, or, inversely, policy
analysis research can be conducted to help establish policy positions or
formulate policy implementation plans. Ultimately, however, during a given
period, these three types of external events do, both individually and
collectively, affect the crop production system and, consequently, its
environmental impacts.
Additionally, as depicted in Exhibit VII-1, feedback to these external
events from the crop production system occurs over time. In general,
the lagged crop production system performance characteristics may be
considered, also, as external events. This lagged feedback relationship
is not unlike an "exogenous factor" in a dynamic systems analysis frame-
work. Although often this type of exogenous feedback readily results in
policy and research implications, it is instructive to first view feed-
back as an exogenous factor.
67
-------
Exhibit VII-1. Conceptual framework for external events
that affect the crop production system
o
et
CO
POLICIES
RESEARCH
CROP PRODUCTION
SYSTEM
EXOGENOUS
FACTORS
I
(Lagged)
68
-------
This analysis of the environmental implications of the crop production
system's exogenous factors utilized the above conceptual framework for the
assessment that follows. Such a framework was needed in order to more ef-
fectively assess each of the five regional workshop panel's separate and
composite statements of their principal exogenous factors, policy concerns,
and research needs.
B. Types of Exogenous Factors
Numerous specific exogenous factors were identified by the workshop panels,
and they were subsequently categorized—by their main effect on the crop pro-
duction system and by their major subject areas—as follows:
Input-Related
. Technology development
. Aggregate resource use
. Agricultural finance
Management-Related
Technology use restraints
Education/extension
Environmental plans
Output-Related
. Economics-markets
Residuals
System-Related
Institutional
Climate/weather
One or more specific exogenous factors were identified within each subject
area as summarized in Exhibit VII-2 and as discussed in detail below. These
subject area categories are indicative further of the associative relation-
ships that exist among the crop production system's exogenous factors, govern-
ment policies, and research needs. In most instances, the exogenous factors
(including the lagged responses of the crop production system) are the causal
agents for both policy concerns and research needs.
When the workshop panels' assessments were further analyzed, they indicated
that although the panels were relatively optimistic about the crop oroduction
system's ability to realize the 2010 moderate growth levels, they were less
confident in the achievability of the 2010 high growth levels. The panels,
also, anticipated that the latter scenario growth levels would be accompanied
by relatively adverse environmental effects compared to the moderate levels.
It is important to note, also, that the nature of the panels' tasks resulted
in their concentration upon those exogenous factors whose influence would
negatively effect environmental concerns. To be sure, not all exogenous
factors will be potentially harmful; however, the purpose of the present
study is to examine more closely those that are.
69
-------
Exhibit VII-2. Summary of major exogenous factors
affecting the crop production system
Crop Production System Component
and Subject-Area
Exogenous Factor
INPUT-RELATED
. Technology development
. Aggregate resource use
. Agricultural finance
MANAGEMENT-RELATED
. Technology use restraints
. Education/extension
. Environmental plans
OUTPUT-RELATED
. Economics-markets
. Residuals
SYSTEM-RELATED
. Institutional
. Climate/weather
Uncertain resource availability
Questionable resource-use
efficiencies
Potentially inappropriate land
use
Potentially declining water
supplies
Unassured energy availability
Inadequate capital financing
Restricted pesticide use
Potential fertilizer use con-
straints
Unassured implementation of new
management systems
Impending requirements for state
and local environmental plans
Market instabilities
Irregular export markets
Composite environmental effects
Insufficient government co-
ordination
Inadequate agricultural repre-
sentation
Insufficient basic science
research
Uncontrollable climate/weather
Source: Compiled by Development Planning and Research Associates from
information received from the regional panels.
70
-------
C. Input-Related Exogenous Factors
The regional panels identified a number of input-related exogenous factors
that are of increasing concern for sustaining crop production growth in
the future. These factors, although largely uncontrollable by the crop
producers themselves, will be fundamentally affecting the quantity and
quality of the system's production inputs, partially determine the sys-
tem's ability to achieve its desired 2010 production levels.
1. Technology Development Factors
This category of exogenous factors particularizes those that partially de-
termine the potential yields and environmental effects of individual pro-
ducers. More specifically, the panels recognized that individual producers
will be dependent upon both the technological quality and quantity of such
resource inputs as chemicals, water, and equipment. Of major concern will
be (a) the uncertainty of such resource availability and (b) the questionable
efficiency of these resources.
a. Uncertain resource availability. Recently, producers have been affected
by real or potential resource-input shortages (i.e., fertilizers in 1973-74,
seasonal-use agricultural chemicals, and farm equipment). Such shortages,
beyond individual producer control, obviously can curtail production, and
indeed, merely potential shortages can result in production losses by the
untimely or imbalanced distribution of eventual resource stocks. Such an
exogenous factor can be addressed by more adequate planning and by recognizing
its importance. For instance, the fact that natural gas supplies are
critical to the production of nitrogen fertilizer should be realized and
those supplies allocated on a priority basis to assure the continuance of
agricultural production supplies and a forestalling of production cutbacks.
Too, while the quantity of available inputs may be critical, their quality is
potentially of even greater significance for the environmental effects of the
crop production system. Seed and plant genetic improvements can provide in-
creased yields with the same resource base; improved pest and disease re-
sistant strains can reduce the present pesticide levels; improved chemical
formulations will affect per acre rates of use; and especially designed
planting and tillage equipment will alleviate equipment-related environ-
mental effects.
Exogenous factors do exist, then, that can affect both the quantities and
qualities of input resources available to the individual producer and over
which he can exert little or no control. The study's panel could only ex-
press their concern for the uncertainties that surround the availability
of such resources.
b. Questionable resource-use efficiencies. The long-term output capability
of the crop production subsector is partially dependent upon continuing
resource-use efficiency improvements and these, in turn, are largely deter-
mined by off-farm sources—both public and private. Two resources are of
major concern—water and energy.
71
-------
Especially in the Hestern region, where irrigation water supplies are
critical, improved crop irrigation water-use efficiencies achievable by
individual producers will become increasingly more important for meeting
crop output projections. New methods of irrigation--drip, trickle and
spray—should be developed that are more efficient than the major current
methods of furrow and basin. Continuing resource-use efficiency develop-
ments are regarded as essential by many toward meeting future production
projections.
Energy use efficiency improvements are also desirable in crop production
management—both directly and indirectly. Crop production is not regarded
as especially energy intensive with respect to direct energy use, but re-
duced tillage methods can be developed that will lessen direct energy uses.
Indirectly, through resources such as fertilizers, other agricultural chem-
icals, equipment, and irrigation water delivery, the crop production system
utilizes significant supplies of energy and technological developments in
these areas can result in greater energy conservation. Potentially, then,
greater direct and indirect energy use efficiency is possible.
2. Aggregate Resource Use
This category of exogenous factors identifies those that affect regional or
national crop production yields and environmental effects as opposed to those
that are more site specific. The panels identified three factors of chief
concern: (a) potentially inappropriate land use, (b) potentially declining
water supplies, and (c) unassured energy availability.
a. Potentially inappropriate land use. In particular regions throughout, the
nation, 2010 moderate and high growth levels may become more difficult to
achieve as a result of land use changes. Particularly, increasing amounts of
prime farmland (Classes I, II, and III) are being diverted from agricultural
production and into such concerns as urban-area expansion, transportation
networks, and land purchases for non-production purposes (public and private).
These exogenous uses are causing the loss of agricultural land resources in
the aggregate and oftentimes these land uses are effectively irreversible.
As discussed earlier in this report, the national crop production subsector
currently uses about 350 million acres of land (27% of the private land in
the U.S.). The projected need in 2010 for farmland is approximately 450
million acres. USDA has estimated, in 1975, that approximately 111 million
acres of potential cropland remain (Classes I-III), but no assessment was
made of potential cropland losses. In the Cornbelt/Lake States region, the
study's panel projected that cropland will be fully utilized before 2010 even
under moderate growth assumptions. Hence, aggregate land use patterns are of
growing concern.
b. Potentially declining water supplies. In much of the Western region
and in portions of the Great Plains and other regions, irrigation water
supplies are either currently or potentially limited. Though both surface
water and groundwater resources are currently utilized in crop production,
municipal and industrial users are usually given priority if allocations
are necessary.
72
-------
Even though some groundwater aquifers are effectively depleted and their
wells abandoned and even though, also, some surface water sources are fully
utilized under present demand, the aggregate, national use of irrigation
water has been steadily increasing through the utilization of other water
supplies. The panels were concerned, however, that increasing demands
will eventually exceed those supplies that are economically available.
The exact dates and locations of projected groundwater depletions and sur-
face water shortages are not fully known, yet, at best, there is an inde-
finite outlook for the continued growth of irrigated crop production to 2010.
Expansions should continue in the Great Plains and the Southeastern regions
in the near-term, but the Western region (except the Northwest) will ex-
perience increasing water shortages for agricultural production.
c. Unassured energy availability. The national crop production subsector
essentially has no captive fossil-fuel energy sources. Hence, like other
energy users, crop producers are dependent on external sources for energy.
In part, because of recent energy shortages, there exists a concern about
the availability of sufficient energy to attain the projected production
levels as specified in this study's growth scenarios.
Although the aggregate direct energy requirements for production, harvesting,
and assembly are lower than the system's indirect energy requirements for
fertilizers, other chemicals, equipment manufacturing, and transportation,
both energy requirements are essential. Doubtless, the panels' concerns
that the exogenous factor of energy availability will be a determinant of
both future yields and the system's modes of production and their consequent
environmental effects will be a general concern in the future.
3. Agricultural Finance
This category of exogenous factors, though not specifically agricultural in
nature, may well be a most consequent determinant of future production and
its resulting environmental effects. Both the aggregate financial require-
ments of the crop production sector and those of individual producers will
increase in the future and will compete with frequently more advantageous
sectors of the economy for national, regional, and local financial resources.
Inadequate capital financing. The capital requirements for crop production
activities are now typically high per farm, especially for new operators
who invest in land, tractors, tillage machinery, combines, trucks, and per-
haps, irrigation systems. Furthermore, working capital (or production credit)
is often required to purchase fertilizers, pesticides, and off-farm labor.
Commercial credit sources—banks and some public-based institutions, e.g.,
the Federal Land Bank and the Production Credit Association—are major cur-
rent lenders. However, often times they are inadequate to meet the in-
creasingly larger loan requirements and acceptable repayment provisions.
The latter factor which stems from the inability of crop producers to gen-
erate cash flows for loan repayments during either adverse growing periods or
-------
during periods of low economic returns due to depressed market prices is
of especially frequent concern. In general, improved sources and terms
of credit are desired and until they are, their potential or real inaces-
sibility will be a significantly limiting exogenous factor, e.g., a limit
to the proper implementation of BMP's.
D. Management-Related Exogenous Factors
Some of the exogenous-factor concerns expressed by the workshop panels
would primarily affect crop producers' management capabilities. Three gen-
eral types of factors discussed were technology use constraints, education
and extension needs, and environmental plans affecting the crop production
system.
1. Technology Use Constraints
Technology-constraining exogenous factors were considered of potentially
high significance in the crop production system's attempts to achieve 2010
crop output levels. Although the panels were cognizant of the future need
to guard against inadvertent environmental damage, they were concerned that
policies related to agricultural fertilizer, pesticide and other chemicals
usage become not counterproductive to the overall concerns of crop produc-
tion system management. Two specific areas of concern were frequently cited:
(a) restricted pesticide use and (b) potential fertilizer-use constraints.
a. Restricted pesticide use. The presumed advances in agricultural chern-
ical technological developments are now regularly questioned by the En-
vironmental Protection Agency because of the chemicals1 toxicity, per-
sistence, lack of target-species specificity, and other potentially
hazardous characteristics, including apparent carcinogenic effects of
some on humans who may be exposed to such materials. Various agricultural
chemicals have been either banned or restricted-in-use (e.g., DDT, chlor-
dane, heptachlor). Most of these restricted materials are insecticides
because their higher potency requirements, in exceeding those of herbicides
and others, pose greater immediate threats to man and other biological
species.
A major concern of crop producers is that effective chemical alternatives
are not available for various restricted materials with the resultant loss
of production. Furthermore, integrated pest management practices—which
potentially combine chemical, biological, and mechanical practices — have
not yet been adequately developed and proven. Hence, there is simply a
growing concern among crop producers that continued pesticide restrictions
despite the lack of viable alternative controls, may prevent the attain-
ment of the projected output levels and create other environmental impacts
through land-based output options.
b. Potential fertilizer use constraints. Although no fertilizer use re-
strictions have yet been imposed by EPA, there has been speculation re-
garding such constraints as a means of controlling nutrient losses and,
74
-------
thus, water nutrient gains. To most crop production specialists, the im-
plicit reasoning is counter-productive and would not accomplish the desired
water quality goals while inhibiting the realization of the crop output
goals.
Basically, an optimum nutrient supply exists that will produce healthy
plants with both a vibrant root system and a desirable canopy—properties
that significantly help reduce soil erosion and nutrient losses and in-
crease output. Other management practices such as the timing and method
of fertilizer applications or the improving of fertilizer forms are much
more germane alternatives to achieving environmental-effects control while
also achieving the output goals. Furthermore, the probable impact of
fertilizer constraints would be to worsen aggregate environmental effects
since more marginal land would be cropped and result in a greater total
loss of soil nutrients and pesticides.
2. Education/Extension
The panels considered this management-related exogenous factor one of
potential significance because of its implicit relationship to all others.
The success of technological improvements in agriculture is importantly
dependent upon the crop producers knowledge of and access to such improve-
ments and their application. The role of education in promulgating such
knowledge is fundamental.
Unassured implementation of new management systems. The panelists ex-
pressed concern that a satisfactory education-extension effort be main-
tained to assure that as environmentally improved management practices
are developed, they be effectively promulgated throughout the nation.
Because many crop producers exist—over one million--a vital link in the
adoption of improved management practices is simply providing for the
effective dissemination of pertinent information. The Federal and State
Extension Services and selected state educational institutions have an
implied role in this process, but neither their role nor their specific
responsibilities toward assuring implementation of new environmentally
related management practices are adequately known.
3. Environmental Plans
Impending environmental plans are, collectively, a management-related exo-
genous factor that is directly related to the crop production sector's
environmental (and output) effects. The panels cited as specifically
consequential the as-yet unknown results of the application by state and
local planning agencies of the requirements of federally mandated water
quality control legislation.
Impending requirements for state and local environmental plans. The agri-
culture sector generally and crop producers particularly are anticipating
an increasing degree of environmental control. The main anticipated near-
term type of activity involves state and area-wide planning for nonpoint
source (NFS) water quality improvement as mandated under Section 208 of
75
-------
PL 92-500 and PL 95-217, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (as
amended)--or 208-NPS plans, for brevity. (Additionally, PL 95-217, the
Clean Water Act of 1977 contains provisions for NPS planning, e.g., com-
pletion of 208 plans by the states within three years.)
The environmental planning required by this legislation is still in the
early stages of development; thus, its effects on the crop production sub-
sector are not known. Based on anticipated developments, a major thrust
of subsequent programs will be toward the implementation of best management
practices (BMP's) by producers. However, such BMP's are yet neither
adequately defined nor their cost effectiveness assessed. The degree of
their acceptability and expected level of implementation cannot, conse-
quently, be determined.
A further concern by many of the workshop participants was that the 208-
NPS planning process often did not obtain adequate input from agricul-
tural representatives. Hence, a latent concern exists that the resultant
planning recommendations will lack an adequate data base from the perspec-
tive of crop producers.
E. Output-Related Exogenous Factors
Some of the exogenous factors presented and assessed by the workshop were
primarily output-related. In particular, the aggregate output of the crop
production system is itself an exogenous, partially uncontrollable, factor
that has macroeconomic effects. Such effects influence producers' sub-
sequent behavior, including their environmental management decisions.
1. Economics-Markets
The panels considered as an exogenous factor the crop production system's
annual crop output. Less a paradox than it seems at first glance, the
considering of the sector's own production as an exogenous factor is but
a recognition that the instability of both crop supply and demand becomes
a determinant of planting practices and, hence, of their resultant environ-
mental effects. The crop producers, in responding to short-run market con-
ditions, may adopt temporary practices that, in the aggregate, are detri-
mental to a regional or the national environment. The panels were con-
cerned, then, that domestic and export market instabilities will result in
crop producer behavior that is inimical to best long-term management
practices.
a. Market instabilities. The aggregate, annual crop output is, itself, a
type of exogenous factor, i.e., the total supply cannot be strictly con-
trolled due to varied plantings and yields. Additionally, the demands for
specific crops may vary from period-to-period. Both the supply and demand
variations are reflected in market prices, which in turn affect subsequent
producer behavior, i.e., a lagged crop production system response.
76
-------
Various types of market instabilities are inherent in the U.S. market sys-
tem and, though self-correcting, these instabilities are disruptive. For
example, an abnormally low supply, with consequent high prices, may induce
abnormally high plantings of a new crop and lead to a later over supply.
In other instances demand-induced instabilities have occurred, such as a
short-term increase in foreign demands and resulting high prices. The sub-
sequent production increases followed by reduced demands results in an over
supply with lower prices.
Despite the apparent need for improving supply-management and/or demand
management in the aggregate, there remains an intense desire to provide
open choices for crop producers in crop selection and management. Farm
legislation provides for various types of checks and balances, but new
supply-demand factors have continued to regularly occur.
In summary, market instability is a major exogenous factor for many crops.
The sources of instability are varied, and attempts to control either supply
or demand components create other problems or concerns. Future alternatives
to improve market instabilities are unclear, although the belief exists that
more effective environmental management could be expected with improved mar-
ket stability.
b. Irregular export markets. In recent years, export sales for selected
U.S. crops have varied substantially, causing both price fluctuations and
changes in crop production patterns. Since the price changes affect the
entire U.S. crop sales not simply the export markets, the associated changes
in crop production patterns can be extensive and can result in environ-
mentally disruptive management practices.
The short-term gains due to increased, but irregular, exports are quickly
offset by depressed markets following declines in export demands. False ex-
pectations are generally not recognized until various commitments have been
made by crop producers which result in additional, on-farm adjustment re-
quirements.
Thus, irregular export markets are a serious exogenous factor. In the long-
term, the regularity and the level of export demands may well become critical
2. Residuals
This category of exogenous factors recognizes that crop production residuals
are, collectively, a major source of environmental pollution. However, be-
cause the collective, aggregate environmental effect of the individual crop
production pollutants is realistically outside the control of individual
producers, these aggregate residuals may be realistically viewed as an exo-
genous factor subject to public as well as private analysis and control.
77
-------
Composite environmental effects. Crop production residuals are those non-
harvested byproducts of production that may become pollutants in the soil,
water and air media. Individual producer's residual-pollution effects are
seldom significant; however, they may become consequential when they are
combined with all other sources of pollution, e.g., both point and non-
point sources, including natural pollutants, in water receptors.
Because the individual producer's pollutant effects are usually minor, the
composite of all sources' environmental effects should be viewed as an exo-
genous factor. Within the context of this study that viewpoint is generally
acceptable, since, also, the trends assessments and environmental concerns
assessments are considered in aggregate terms. Eventually, however, the
individual producer's must make appropriate adjustments in the use of inputs,
management practices and residual treatment as a contribution to the control
of the externality-effects of all composite pollutants in environmental media.
F. System-Related Exogenous Factors
Because exogenous factors identified by the panelists could potentially af-
fect the crop production system in more than one catetory (i.e., input,
management practices and output), they are included here under the more gen-
eral system-related category. The panels identified two major exogenous
factors of chief concern here: (a) institutional, and (b) climate/weather.
Institutional concerns primarily involve the effects of federal, state and
local governments. Climate/weather concerns involve the natural effects of
climate and weather on crop production and man's attempts to compensate for
or to capitalize on these effects.
1. Institutional
This category of exogenous factors is concerned primarily with three pre-
vailing conditions that affect the environmental effects of the crop pro-
duction system rather directly. The panels, in the first instance, pointed
to the uncertainties that exist in the present and future administration
of local, regional, and national regulations governing environmental
quality standards and in the potentially conflicting interests and atti-
tudes that may determine those requirements. In the second instance, the
panels felt that too frequently environmental standards and the means of
achieving these standards have been determined without proper considera-
tion being given to the needs of agriculture, per se. Thirdly, the panels
identified as an influential exogenous factor the present decreased atten-
tion on basic agriculture research.
a. Insufficient government coordination. One of the main system-related exo-
genous factor concerns identified was the seeming confusion over the respective
roles of federal, state and local governments in environmental quality manage-
ment. The basic assumption that state and local governments may adopt spec-
ific environmental legislation so long as it meets minimum federal require-
ments becomes problematic at the local level because (1) the minimum federal
standards are often unknown, e.g., 208-NPS plans and (2) the state or local
78
-------
governments can adopt even more stringent controls. So long as such con-
fusion prevails, individual producers will be unable to adopt long-term, de-
pendable management practices that may require extensive capital investments.
The confusion is further emphasized when the interrelationships among soil,
water, and air quality effects are recognized, relationships so pronounced
that measures taken to address one environmental problem may well adversely
affect others. Additionally, governmental regulating bodies must eventually
recognize their responsibility to secondary ecosystem effects. For example,
the dispersement of municipal sludges on agricultural lands may result in
heavy metal concentrations in the soil and in water receptors that may ad-
versely affect various ecosystems.
b. Inadequate agricultural representation. The panelists generally be-
lieved that there has been insufficient agricultural representation in the
environmental planning that affects crop production. More direct represen-
tation and input are desired in order to more fully assess the effects of
proposed environmental actions. Such effects would include production out-
put considerations as well as the crop production system's environmental
effects and the expected directions that producer behavior would take, given
specific proposed programs. Furthermore, the agriculturists should be asked
to identify potential alternative actions that, when evaluated, may produce
a more nearly optimal output/environmental effect balance.
c. Insufficient basic science research. U.S. agriculture has had a long
history of institutionally supported (public and private) basic plant and
animal science research. Such research (including soil science, also) has
produced a capital stock of genetic and other technological developments
that have been tested, refined, and implemented to help create the U.S.
agriculture sector as we know it today. However, agricultural scientists
believe that this past capital stock of basic science development is being
eroded without an adequate effort toward replenishment and growth; con-
sequently, in a time of even greater expected need than currently—this
apparent inadequacy of basic science research is considered a significant
adverse exogenous factor.
Basic science research is, then, regarded as an exogenous factor by the crop
production subsector, in part because its findings are not directly applied
by producers, and, in part, also, because of the declining influence of
agriculture in the political processes that previously provided for rela-
tively greater support of basic science research.
2. Climate/Heather
An obviously significant exogenous factor for the crop production sector is
that of the influence of uncontrollable climate and weather. Many of the
potential and on-line technological advancements and management-related
practices of beneficial environmental effects will be most significantly
affected by prevailing climate and weather conditions. To the extent that
such conditions can be controlled or compensated for they will, themselves,
contribute to agriculture's environmental effects.
79
-------
Uncontrollable climate/weather. The crop production system is dependent on
natural climate and weather patterns for its crop outputs. Basically,
weather and climate are uncontrolled exogenous factors; some regions are
more dependent than others for natural precipitation, solar radiation, and
crop-season soil and air temperatures.
Attempts are being made to establish some control over weather phenomena,
yet, in the foreseeable future, the crop production system as a whole ex-
pects to operate with climate and weather as exogenous factors. Importantly,
though, simply the improvement in weather prediction may be among the most
important factors toward improved environmental quality management. The
timing of such management practices as pesticide applications or changes in
the method of performing operations can be beneficially controlled with im-
proved weather predictions.
G. Regional Exogenous Factor Differences
Regional differences in the exogenous factors identified by the panelists
were readily apparent. Although taken as a whole, the regional exogenous
factors, e.g., land use, technology developments and market instabilities
were similar, the specific factors of concern varied in kind and in im-
portance by region. The exogenous factors and their relationships to the
crop production system are shown in Exhibit VI1-3, where the number indi-
cates the rank in importance of that factor to the region.
1. Input Related Factors
Factors related to technological developments were cited as major concerns
by three regions. The Great Plains panel ranked potential governmental
restrictions on use of technology, especially agricultural chemical, as its
principal concern. Possible effects indicate reduced production levels,
increased runoff resulting from restricted plant growth, and a lessening
development of new agricultural chemicals because of regulatory policies.
The Northeastern region ranked biological nitrogen fixation capability as
its second most important exogenous factor because of its potential to re-
duce soil and nitrogen losses. The Cornbelt/Lake States identified as
its third most important factor, yield and quality improvements—inputs
that allow more product to be produced with less land and energy and that
result in effectively increasing land supply and making possible the use
of less intensive production methods.
Aggregate resource use exogenous factors were identified as of primary con-
cern by three panels. In the relatively densely populated Northeastern
region, land use, in particular urban encroachment, was cited; however,
population pressure on price and unique land resources can and is being
countered by legislative action to remove agricultural land from the de-
velopment market. An associated factor—food production near population
centers—was ranked third because of its potential to take advantage of
prime land near cities and simultaneously reduce energy costs. In the
CO
-------
(/)
£1
O
•r—
4->
rd
O
^_
Q_
E
, —
fd
4->
E
CU
E i-
E O
0 4->
S- 0
•r- CU
> to
c
CU E
O
.E -r-
-P -P
•r- O
5^<
— '
-a
10 o
cu s-
3 Q,
to
to Q_
••- O
to o
3
O r—
E rd
CU E
cn O
O T-
X cn
CU CU
£_
l+_
o cu
CD-P
E
•r- S-
^ 0
E t(—
rd
r\s
Q-
CO
t— 1
1 — 1
:>
+->
•r*
_O
JE
X
LLJ
E
^_
CU
4_J
to
cu
to
•P E
rd T-
CU ro
S- i—
CD o.
to
-^ cu
-P -P
i— ra
CU -P
J3 00
E
s- cu
o -*:
O re
—1
E
CU
1 ^
to
re
cu
-E
-P
Z3
O
oo
E
S_
CU
•p
10
rd
CU
x:
•4^
S-
o
•z.
<— 1 CO CM.
i— 1
CO
CO i— 1
CM r- 1 CO
T3
CU
_(_)
-P CU rd
E to i—
CU ID CU
E E Di E to
a. o cu to o E
O -i— O CU CU -i— re
r— -P 1- -1- O to i—
CU rd 13 -P T- E CL
> X to O -i- -P CU
,E-P CUrO D_~-^E
•PCnCUOCUtOCU ECU
re O Cn-r- -P 3 E >> -P O E
i — i — OS-rd S-CD E-r-E
O) O S- -P CnTD TD CU S- CU -P O
DiE-PcoCUEE-PCU ErdS-
IX:-i— CUS-rdrordE CUO-r-
-p u ^: ct: cn_j _j -3. LU cn ^ >
r3 CU Cn ro TD E
Q.1— < E LiJ UJ
E rd
1-1 s:
CM CO
i— 1 CM
CM
to
<1>
•r—
-P
•i —
tO i —
-P •!-
CU JD S-
^L rd CU
S- -P -E
TD rd to TD -P
CU E E CU ro
4J I .r- -P CU
rd to to id 2
I— 0 -P -P I— -v.
ai •!- s_ cu cu cu
C*L E 0 -^ Ci 4-1
1 O Q. S- 1 rd
4-> E X rd E E
Z5 O LU 2! CU •!-
Q- O 4-> •—
4-J LU (O C_3
3 >^
O OO
-a
a>
>
cu
o
0)
S-
d
o
"r~"
4-3
ft3
E
O
H—
C
i
E
O
S-
ii
T^
C/3
O)
-1 •>
•f~*
fO
u
o
to
t/1
—
fT-t
*O
cu
l/l
cu
QX
-a
fO
cn
f—
^>_
•r~
E
E
rd
Q_
4-*
E
CU •
E to
Q-r—
O O)
i — C
CU rd
> C_
CU
Q i—
rd
>> C
-Q 0
•r—
TD CD
OJ CU
i — S-
'o- E
E 0
0 S-
<-J <4-
a>
o
3
o
oo
81
-------
Western region, water supply (i.e., its allocation among competing use
categories, its cost as related to cropping patterns, its conjunctive
use, and its interbasin transfers) was of utmost concern.
Total energy requirements, costs, and availability were ranked third in
two regions - the Southeastern and the Western.
2. Management Practice Related Factors
Exogenous factors related to management practices were identified by two
panels as concerns. The Southeastern panel ranked mission-oriented basic
research first. Such research includes that concerned with improving
nitrogen fixation, photosynthesis, and genetic research and its application
to best management practices.
The Western region ranked Section 208 plans including the identification
and definition of best management practices and implementation procedures
as their second ranked exogenous issue.
3. Output-Related Factors
Economic and market related factors were ranked as major concerns by three
panels. The Cornbelt/Lake States cited high export demand market as its
primary concern. Jhe panel emphasized the potential results of high com-
modity prices and "decreasing restrictions over resource use. The panel
pointed out that these conditions could encourage the "plow-up" of environ-
mentally fragile land and increase fertilizer and pesticide use in a region
which, could be expected to supply a large portion of the exported food arid
feed grains.
Two regions, the Southeastern and Great Plains, ranked economic or market
instabilities as their second most important exogenous issue. Cost-price
relationships, particularly in regards to farm size and the prices of
production inputs such as land and fertilizer were specifically mentioned.
4. System-Related Factors
Two regions mentioned the climatic effects on agriculture. In ranking this
factor second, the Cornbelt/Lake States panel concluded that there is a
need to develop better short and long run predictions of weather so that
improved strategies in environmental protection can be developed, including
the timing of field operations, irrigation and chemical applications. In
addition, adverse climate cycles and such drastic changes in climatic pat-
terns as extreme drought were specifically mentioned by the Great Plains
panelists in ranking climate cycles as its third ranked concern.
Inherent in all the above mentioned factors identified by the regional
paneli- are associated policy concerns and/or research needs.
02
-------
SECTION VIII
POLICY CONCERNS
The performance of the crop production system is regularly affected by govern-
ment policies that seek to modify or control the system and its related con-
cerns in publically beneficial ways. Such policies reflect a concern not
only with the crop production system's past output performance, but, also,
they attempt to consider those exogenous factors that may affect the system's
future performance characteristics as well. And, as was described above in
Section VII-A: Conceptual Framework, government policy is one of the three
main types of external events—policy concerns, exogenous factors, and re-
search developments—that affect crop production.
This section focuses on those policy related concerns that were identified
by the workshop participants. These policy concerns reflect some of the
crop production subsectors' on-going or recent public issues, and perhaps
more importantly for improving environmental management, these policy con-
cerns reflect, also, anticipated future issues.
The specific policy concerns are identified basically with either (1) exo-
genous factors that often have indirect environmental effects or (2) inter-
nal crop production system factors that generally have direct environmental
effects. In the first instance, government policies may primarily affect
the exogenous factors themselves as a means of controlling their influence
on the U.S. crop production system, e.g., international trade policies pro-
tective of domestic production. In the second instance, government policies
may seek to affect behavior of producers directly.
A. Types of Policy Concerns
The regional panels of the workshop identified a broad range of policy con-
cerns which each panel considered most germane to its region's crop produc-
tion subsectors. These concerns were, by major subject-area, analyzed and
then categorized from a national perspective according to their main effect
on the crop production system as follows:
Input-Related
. Technology development
. Aggregate resource use
. Agricultural finance
oo
OO
-------
Management-Related
. Technology use restraints
Education/extension
. Environmental plans
Output-Related
Economics-Markets
Residuals
System-Related
. Institutional
Climate/weather
One or more specific policy concerns were identified within each of these
categories as shown in Exhibit VIII-1. Each of these specific policy con-
cerns is discussed below; however, the subject-area categorization shown
above provides the main structural framework that links many of the exogenous
factors, policy concerns and research needs of the crop production system
(see Section VII-A, Conceptual Framework, for a further discussion of the
prospective linkages among these system-related variables).
B. Input-Related Policy Concerns
The U.S. crop production system has a long history of increased productivity
which has enabled it to sustain growth on a relatively constant cropland
base. Under the projected growth scenarios of this study, crop output in-
dexes are expected to rise to 171 and 196 (where 1972-74 = 100) by 2010
under the moderate and high growth scenarios, respectively. Such growth
is only feasible with continued productivity gains for the potential crop-
land increases are generally limited (especially in the Cornbelt/Lake States
region where cropland will be limited by 2010, and in the Western region
where water supplies are limited).
The following policy concerns emphasize some of the major input-related issues
which will need to be addressed effectively if needed growth is to be achieved.
1. Technology Development
In considering those policies that should be forwarded to meet the projected
2010 crop yield levels and to lessen the potential environmental effects of
such production, the panels emphasized the importance of four policy goals:
(a) the achievement of plant genetic improvements, (b) the development of
improved agricultural chemicals, (c) the fostering of improved equipment de-
sign, and (d) the supporting of resource-use efficiencies. In each instance,
the panels recognized the dual importance of achieving production goals and
of enhancing the environmental effects of the crop production sector.
a. Sustain plant genetics improvements. Plant genetic research is a signi-
ficant means of developing those plant attributes necessary to production
increases and environmental enhancement. An expressed belief among plant
84
-------
Exhibit VIII-1. Summary of major policy concerns affecting
the crop production system
Crop Production System
Component and Subject Area
Policy Concern
INPUT-RELATED
[echnology development
. Sustain plant genetics improvements
. Support agricultural chemicals
improvements
. Foster equipment improvements
. Support resource-use efficiency
improvements
. Subscribe to land uses more protec-
tive of agriculture
. Improve upon aggregate water uses
. Maintain energy supplies and forms
. Improve agricultural credit and
financing
. Improve analysis of technology use
restraints
. Support the public dissemination of
environmental management practices
. Establish guidelines for local
environmental planning
. Subscribe to implementation incen-
tives
. Advance the design of supply/demand
management options
. Subscribe to management of irregular
export demands
. Establish monitoring capabilities
. Improve analyses of residual control
alternatives
. Improve government coordination
. Enhance inter-media environmental
coordination
, Subscribe to more direct representa-
tion and input from agricultural-
ists in environmental planning
. Support environmentally-related basic
science research
. Support weather prediction improve-
ments for environmental management
. Support weather modification research
for environmental management.
Source: Compiled by Development Planning and Research Associates from
information received from the regional panels.
. Aggregate resource use
. Agricultural Finance
MANAGEMENT-RELATED
. Technology use restraints
. Education/Extension
. Environmental plans
OUTPUT-RELATED
. Economics-Markets
. Residuals
SYSTEM RELATED
. Institutional
. Climate/weather
85
-------
geneticists is that plant genetic research could provide an average annual
rate of 1 percent increase in crop yields from the present to 2010—if this
were a policy goal. In other words, a major portion of the needed growth
could be achieved through continued germ plasm technology-plant genetics
improvements.
Forwarding such a yield-increasing improvement is also an indirect environ-
mental enhancing policy since the achievement of the output goals would other-
wise require a more extensive cropping system with its attendant environ-
mental effects. Additionally, plant genetic improvements directly offer
significant environmental-enhancement potentials. The development of seeds
and plants that are more pest and disease resistant and salt tolerant would
directly aid producers in environmental management for the less frequent or
lowered rates of agricultural chemical applications that they would allow
would reduce the potential for adverse environmental effects.
Overall, then, the panels emphasized that policy goals should seek to sustain
plant genetics-technology development and to establish more specific achieve-
ment goals for this input-related component of the crop production system.
b. Support agricultural chemicals improvements. A wide range of agricultural
chemicals are used by crop producers—fertilizers, herbicides, insecticides,
fungicides, nematicides, rodenticides, and others. Many of these chem-
icals are under review or have been restricted in their use for crop produc-
tion for environmental impact reasons. Sometimes these restrictions have led
to associated crop output losses, and have caused agriculturalists to ques-
tion the benefit assessments underlying the EPA decisions. Additionally,
the increasingly high research and development costs, extensive registration
requirements for chemicals and the potential restrictive actions by EPA have
inhibited prospective suppliers, lowered the rate of alternative chemicals
produced, and caused higher costs of production for both the manufacturer
and the crop producer.
In light of these conditions, the panels believed that specific policies
should be instituted to support the improvement of agricultural chemicals.
Such policies should provide incentives for development and production of
effective, environmentally acceptable chemical components and formulations
and should compensate for the present inhibiting policies that influence
chemical research and production.
c. Foster equipment improvements. Equipment designed to be environmentally
beneficial could significantly improve the environmental effects of farm
tillage operations. At present, reduced-tillage systems are being utilized
to a limited degree in most regions; however, until design improvements are
made in planters and other equipment, such systems will not be fully utilized.
Improvements are also needed in land development equipment, in application
equipment, in tillage equipment, and in harvesting equipment to cope with
varied soil types, topographical conditions, and other cultural situations.
Much of the emphasis toward large-scale operations has not led to improved
environmental designs. Policies should be fostered that encourage the
design and use of such equipment.
86
-------
d. Support resource-use efficiency improvements. Like plant genetic im-
provements, resource-use efficiency improvements that lessen aggregate re-
source use can effectively maintain the productive capacity of the crop pro-
duction system while improving its environmental effects. Obviously, too,
such efficiencies can result in higher crop yields without an otherwise cor-
responding increase in resource use.
Although resource-use efficiencies are possible generally, the workshop
panels were concerned most about two basic resources that are increasingly
scarce in agriculture: water and energy. Particularly in the Western
region, where agricultural water supplies are declining, a special need
exists to improve irrigation water use efficiency. Improvements are being
sought through new methods of water application, through changes in the
timing and amounts of water application, through the recycling of irriga-
tion run-off water, and through other management practices. A further
emphasis is needed to improve water use efficiency in irrigated agricul-
ture generally. Water will become increasingly critical in the future,
and the growth potential of the crop production subsector is importantly
limited by the capacity of the irrigated portion of that subsector.
Policy concerns should seek also to intensify the energy efficiency of the
crop production subsector1s production, harvest, and assembly functions.
Furthermore, indirectly, via its major inputs — fertilizer, agricultural chem-
icals, irrigation water—additional energy efficiency improvements are pos-
sible for the crop production system. In both situations, however, the crop
production subsector relies basically upon external sources to provide the
technology developments which the subsector utilizes as inputs. There is a
need, then, for policy directives and actions that can act as catalysts for
such potential resource-use efficiency improvements.
2. Aggregate Resource Use
The panels were emphatic in their belief that policy concerns should be
focused upon the necessity to maintain adequate production resources in the
face of both dwindling supplies and competition for those from competing
sectors of the nation's economy. Of paramount concern should be policies
that address the supply of agricultural land, water, energy, and finances.
The reasons for the concern are implicit in the dynamics of the crop pro-
duction sector: if greater yields are required to meet the 2010 levels,
then either additional resources must be allocated or the anticipated re-
source base must be more intensively managed. Such concerns and their im-
plicit policy needs are recognized below.
a. Subscribe to land uses more protective of agriculture. An obvious
policy issue should be one that assures an adequate supply of arable crop-
land for the needs of 2010. The workshop participants anticipate an ade-
quate land base to meet their regions' 2010 moderate growth scenario pro-
jections; however they believe that land would be a major limiting factor
in some regions, especially in the Cornbelt/Lake States. Much of the ex-
pansion in cropland use is expected in the Southeastern, Great Plains and
northwest portions of the Western regions. Also the Northeastern region
87
-------
has growth potential, but less so for the feed and food grain crops antici-
pated to be needed by 2010. Furthermore, although the Cornbelt/Lake States
can expand significantly to meet moderate growth projections, the region can
realize 2010 growth production levels only by using environmentally fragile
land.
An obvious concern then should be to assure that land will not become limiting
in the foreseeable future. Adding to the problem, too, is that prime farm-
land is being regularly diverted into non-agricultural uses, oftentimes ir-
reversibly, so that even further pressure on the cropland base can be ex-
pected. Compositely, then, there is a policy concern regarding this re-
source: Land use policies must be more protective of agriculture. Appro-
priate policies can only be forwarded in the short-term future, for by 2010
additional prime farmland losses will be effectively irreversible.
b. Improve upon aggregate water uses. The Great Plains and the Western
regions of this study are highly dependent on irrigation water for commer-
cial crop production and in much of the Western region, irrigation water--
either surface water or groundwater--is essential. In fact, these regions
are limited more by their water resource availability than by their arable
land base.
The Western region, in particular, is fully cognizant of its aggregate water
supply ( and its variability) and, therefore, also, of the attendant limits
it places on growth in crop production. The Great Plains region primarily
utilizes groundwater sources, but it, too, realizes that supplies are limited.
Groundwater depletions are now partially offsetting the continuing expansion
of irrigation systems into new areas.
As was discussed above, irrigation water-use efficiency improvements are one
important type of development for policy action. Further, however, critical
public decisions will soon be needed to allocate aggregate water supplies,
surface and groundwater, in the U.S. The production potential of the crop
production system is heavily tied to the water resource base.
c. Maintain energy supplies and forms. During 1973-74, all sectors of the
economy became aware of their vulnerability to critical energy shortages.
The crop production subsector was no exception. The role of energy in pro-
ducing the nation's necessary food supply is self-evident, but equally cri-
tical is energy's role in food processing, transportation, and the supplying
of farm inputs. Up to the point of harvest, perhaps, the most critical energy
supplies and forms for crop production would be: the energy used for pro-
ducing and transporting key inputs (seeds, fertilizer, agricultural chemicals),
direct energy (mobile, fossil fuel) for farm equipment and transport, and
the energy for irrigation systems (diesel, natural gas, electric). This
listing could easily be expanded to most other sectors (e.g., replacement
equipment, steel production, finance).
From the standpoint of the crop production system only and to the extent
that it is a critical subsector, policies should be determined that would
assure the maintenance of energy supplies and forms to the system and to
88
-------
its key related segments of the economy. In the absence of sucn policies,
the growth needed to achieve the crop yields projected for 2010 may not be
possible.
3. Agricultural Finance
The credit and financing needs of crop producers have expanded greatly in
recent years as the size of operations have increased and their input-related
costs have grown. New approaches are needed to assure that adequate agri-
cultural credit and financing can be obtained, especially during short-
term adverse periods by viable agricultural producers.
Improve agricultural credit and financing. Crop producers may be faced, at
times, with either adverse weather or depressed markets, conditions which
reduce their short-term cash flow and loan repayment capacity. All too fre-
quently, however, producers cannot depend upon present institutions, either
private or public, to provide financing terms that do not require prohibitive
or re-financing at high-risk rates. Under such conditions, the terms of
financing become additional factors leading to poor financial situations
beyond the producer's control.
Programs are needed then, to improve agricultural credit and financing terms
for crop producers (and other segments of agriculture) to assure the main-
tenance of viable enterprises. Such policy related actions should especially
insure the availability of working capital during short-term adverse periods
caused by external factors. Obviously the anticipated greater financing
requirements of agriculture in 2010 make such programs increasingly necessary.
C. Management-Related Policy Concerns
The second main type of policy concerns involve those prospective develop-
ments or actions that will affect crop producers' management practices. The
following specific management-related policy concerns are those identified
by the workshop participants.
1. Technology Use Restraints
This category of policy issues reflects the frequent concern that in their
responsible management of environmental controls, local, regional, or national
regulatory bodies that affect agriculture's resource use may not always
adequately recognize the necessary balance of interests between needed pro-
duction-yield levels and extensive environmental controls. Of immediate
importance is the necessity to establish policies that will assure the
achieving of this balance of interests.
Improve analysis of technology use restraints. The crop production system's
attempts to achieve the 2010 production levels will doubtless involve the
use of sophisticated technologies that, in many cases, especially those in-
volving agricultural fertilizers, herbicides, and insecticides, will not be
free of negative environmental effects. To be sure, their unrestricted use
will not be in the public's best interest, but the panels were concerned
89
-------
that in cases where conflicts between necessary yield levels and the con-
trolling of environmental effects are noticeable, a thorough analysis of
both the benefits and disadvantages of technology use restraints be man-
dated by applicable policies.
Crop producers have been faced with numerous restrictions or bans on the use
of agricultural chemicals (mostly pesticides). Perhaps such restrictions
have been indeed, warranted, but where acceptable alternatives are not avail-
able, doubts exist that adequate trade-off analyses have been performed and
that the risks of using the restricted technology do outweigh the benefits
of resource use, i.e., increased quantity and quality of product. (Often-
times the risks are predominantly taken by those directly handling or using
the compounds, not the final consumers. Hence, policy concerns should re-
quire public analyses of technology-use restraints to carefully determine
that the public will be benefited rather than adversely affected by govern-
ment actions rescinding the use of technology.
2. Education-Extension
As the crop production system utilizes increasingly more sophisticated tech-
niques and equipment, measures should be taken to assure their proper and
most effective use. Unless those measures include steps to educate pro-
ducers adequately, the effects of such techniques and equipment will not be
fully realized. Such educational activities should be encouraged by public
policy.
Support the public dissemination of environmental management practices. A
fundamental need toward the achievement of environmental goals in agriculture
is an effective extension program to disseminate information and to educate
producers in the use of improved techniques and management practices. Local
community efforts, designed in part by agriculturalists themselves., are ex-
pected to be required in order to prepare site-specific recommendations of
the best practices for individual producers.
A needed policy concern will involve the degree of support that will be re-
quired to provide an effective public dissemination of EPA's subsequent best
management practices (BMP's) programs and related environmental guidelines
for nonpoint sources of pollution. Much of this effort is related to the
208-NPS planning process, yet the agriculturists' felt their input into such
plans has, thus far, oftentimes been meager.
3. Environmental Plans
This category of policy issues is reflective of the crop production system's
increasing responsiveness to those concerns involving the environmental ef-
fects of agricultural production. The panels recognized that this respon-
siveness, as it becomes more marked, must be, in part, shaped by policies
that recognize the need for local area planning input and individual pro-
ducer requirements. Such local inputs should be more formally obtained.
90
-------
a. Establish guidelines for local environmental planning. Like most major
legislative mandates, environmental quality improvements will involve an
iterative series of steps toward the achievement of the goals and objectives
originally sought. Agricultural, nonpoint source pollution control will be
particularly difficult to accomplish rapidly because of the sources innately
dispersed, varied, and fugitive characteristics. Conceivably, the first-
round efforts to establish state and area wide 208-NPS plans for federal
review will involve numerous and, perhaps, unique environmental control
plans that reflect the needs of local areas.
The panels considered as appropriate to such planning procedures a policy
concern that would help establish guidelines for local environmental planning
efforts that would reflect local concerns and be shaped, in part, by local
crop producers and agricultural representatives.
b. Subscribe to implementation incentives. A concern of the panelists was
that some environmental management options will entail significant costs to
private producers without yielding equivalent benefits. In a net present
value economic framework, some environmental options, however publically
beneficial, may simply not be feasible for the private producer in the short
term.
In those cases where the private costs of a needed environmental action are
expected to exceed short term producer benefits, an implementation program
with incentives would preferably be subscribed to as a policy by EPA. Under
such terms, which are in the public's and the private operator's interests,
then environmental management of NPS pollution is expected to progress
favorably.
D. Output-Related Policy Concerns
The aggregate outputs of the crop production system often create external
effects—in relation to existing supply-demand conditions—that may lead
to needed policy actions. The following policy concerns reflect the major
areas where improved output-related policies are most likely to be required.
1. Economics - Markets
This category of output-related policy concerns emphasizes the role that ir-
regular product demand and supply play in the crop production system's effect
upon the environment. Ideally, the system's environmental effects would be
best addressed if the demands made upon the system and the supply responses
were regular and dependable, for such would allow producers to realize the
best economic balance between costs and benefits. To that end, the panels
emphasized that policy issues should forward (a) the design of supply and
demand management options and (b) the management of irregular export demands.
a. Advance the design of supply/demand management options. Improved en-
vironmental management will usually involve at least short-term cost increases
91
-------
for crop producers. Such costs, even though perhaps beneficial to the pro-
ducer in the long-term, have often been avoided in the past simply because
market instabilities and the uncertainty of the timely recovery of pollu-
tion control costs have created unacceptable capital risks.
Despite any efforts to compensate producers for improved environmental
management, market instabilities will continue as a disruptive influence
over management planning. Both supply-induced or demand-induced market dis-
ruptions will, categorically, produce associated and disruptive environmental
effects because producers can less capably (economically) maintain environ-
mental management practices. Therefore, while on the one hand, a policy
concern germane to EPA would be to support the design of supply and demand
management options that forward market stability, the agency's own concern
with environmental quality control policies should recognize and seek to
compensate for the detrimental influences that stem from such market insta-
bilities as they affect individual producers.
b. Subscribe to management of irregular export demands. Under this study's
high growth scenario projections, crop outputs will increase regionally
from 13 to 20 percent over the moderate growth case. At these high levels,
the environmental parameters assessed were generally predicted to fall from
those predicted for the moderate growth levels. The principal reason for
the potential additional growth was increased foreign demand.
A factor discussed and agreed to by the workshop participants was that such
increased demand could be supplied better—economically and environmentally--
if the increases were predictable, regular, and had a stable growth rate.
If export demands are irregular and varied, then the effects of such demands
are environmentally disruptive since, again, producers do not expect to bene-
fit economically from environmental practices in the short-term.
For these reasons then, EPA does have a bonafide interest in the improved
management of irregular export demands to the extent that it contributes to
the agency's ability to affect improved environmental controls.
2. Residuals
The ultimate focus of this study is on improving the environmental effects
of the crop production system. Residual pollutant controls are one method
for accomplishing this goal. Crop production residual outputs can be managed
and controlled; in fact, several control approaches are usually available to
the individual producer.
In the process of achieving the desired pollution control, there are two
main policy concerns related to residuals control that the study's panels
emphasized: (1) establish monitoring capabilities and (2) improve analyses
of residual control system alternatives.
a. Establish monitoring capabilities. Much uncertainty exists currently
regarding the magnitude and the severity of the pollutants from the crop
production system, per se, and their environmental consequences relative
to the composite of pollutants from all sources that affect environmental
92
-------
receptors. These pollutant conditions often vary significantly by seasons
within the year and from year-to-year. Environmental monitoring programs
are needed to determine such conditions and the extent of pollution-level
variabilities.
A concerted policy aimed at furthering such monitoring capabilities and pro-
grams could establish or verify the significance of the environmental effects
contributed by the subsector. Also, and importantly, the degree of success
of subsequent crop production environmental management practices could be
appropriately monitored. Such monitoring data would further provide neces-
sary input for determining any needed improvements in environmental manage-
ment programs.
b. Improve analyses of residual control alternatives. Within the crop pro-
duction system, several residual control options usually exist, and these
options may often be site-specific. For example, in a hypothetical but
realistic case, the control of pesticide run-off may be improved by: (1)
reducing the rate of use, (2) improving the quality of the input, (3) using
an integrated pest management option, (4) changing management practices
(land development, tillage, time of application, method of application), and
(5) adopting residual treatment practices (run-off retention, maintain bar-
rier strips). The determination of the best practice or combination of
practices to be adopted is potentially complex and specific to an individual
producer due to varied soil, topographic, and other conditions. Thus, in
effect, generalized analyses should only be used as guidelines for recom-
mending residual control practices.
Because of the innate complexity of assessing and comparing various residual
control options, certain policy guidelines are also appropriate to assure
that adequate analyses will be performed before any prospective pollution
controls were mandated. This policy concern is consistent with the panels'
opinions that additional agricultural representation and input are desired
in environmental planning.
E. System-Related Policy Concerns
This final set of policy concerns includes items that may affect more than
one main component of the crop production system. In particular, the insti-
tutional-related concerns were regarded as highly important for environ-
mental improvement. These concerns and prospective policy issues are,
like many of the preceding concerns, related to underlying exogenous
factors which characterize the need for the types of policies described
here.
1. Institutional
In general, those policy concerns that the panels considered to be "insti-
tutional" rather directly point toward feasible policy issues that would
affect the manner by which environmental quality controls are determined
-------
by local, state, and national agencies. The panels felt that too frequently
such agencies are not cognizant of the goals of other responsible bodies or
of the contributions that can be made by agricultural specialists and agri-
cultural research toward the setting of these goals. The panels felt, in
general, that policies should be ennunciated that would enable the crop
production system to realize the benefits in potentially reduced environ-
mental effects that such policy concerns would offer.
a. Improve government coordination. A sense of confusion currently exists
concerning the respective roles of federal, state and local governments in
environmental quality management. Eventually, compatible environmental
management decisions will be necessary at all government levels if effective
implementation actions can be realistically expected. Under present condi-
tions, any level of government could supplement, by making more stringent,,
the controls instituted by other agencies. Improvement of the quality of
government coordination is needed, and policy actions may be required to
accomplish such improvement. Policies should be sought that encourage
interagency cooperation and coordination in the defining of problems and
the determination of feasible solutions to them.
b. Enhance inter-media environmental coordination. A growing concern within
the crop production subsector that is tangentially related to the previous
one involves multi-media environmental interactions. For example, environ-
mental agencies frequently consider the soil medium as a final receptor for
various municipal, industrial, and agricultural wastes. However, when these
wastes are so disposed of, their residuals can affect the soil (e.g., heavy
metals), water (e.g., pathogens), and the air (e.g., odors). Hence further
environmental management coordination policies are needed which recognize
the interrelationships which exist among the primary media.
c. Subscribe to more direct representation and input from agriculturalists
in environmental planning. During the initial stages of 208-NPS and other
environmental planning efforts, little direct involvement of and input from
agricultural representatives was obtained. Although some exemplary 208-NPS
plans have been developed, including some stemming from agriculturists' in-
puts, these planning processes have often incorporated too little agri-
cultural input that recognizes the important tradeoff relationships among
private vs. public benefits and private vs. public costs associated with NPS
and other agricultural-related environmental management.
Ultimately, the crop production subsector expects to become a major partici-
pant in improved environmental management efforts because this subsector is
the dominant agricultural-related source of pollution. At some stage in the
planning process, a definite commitment should be made to solicit and obtain
pertinent input from the crop production subsector's representatives. A
policy subscribing to such representation and input is desired.
d. Support environmentally related basic science research. Within the in-
stitutional structure of the U.S., a fundamental policy concern should be
the nation's general commitment to basic science research—its programs,
its long-range plans, and its appropriations. Some specific technology
development-input needs, plant genetics improvements, were previously
-------
stressed because of their direct applicability in crop production. However,
other and perhaps equally germane advances in production and in environmental
management could be made through basic science developments. For example,
advances in biological nitrogen fixation sources have been made, yet
these advances and their full implications are not adequately assessable.
Another major promising basic science research area involves modifying the
photosynthesis properties of plants to improve the plants' solar radiation
use efficiency. Such advances could result in major increased crop produc-
tion potentials.
The workshop participants generally agreed that a strong and full institu-
tional commitment to basic science research is vital to the nation's long-
term growth of agriculture and, especially, the crop production subsector.
An added opinion was that a greater mission-orientation in some basic science
research efforts would be desirable.
2. Climate and Heather
The panels, though recognizing the inherent difficulties in agriculture's
attempts to control its natural resources in all forms, did believe that
policies should be implemented that would seek to alleviate the chief diffi-
culties that so consequential a resource as climate and weather can pose.
Of primary concern among those feasible policies are those that involve
weather prediction and weather modification research.
a. Support weather prediction improvements for environmental management.
Many of the crop producers management practices are directly related to
weather or anticipated weather conditions. The timing of pesticide applica-
tions for instance, is an especially critical concern because a run-off pro-
ducing storm immedidately following the application will result in sub-
stantially more pesticide loss (and water receptor gain) than would a similar
storm that occurred a few days later.
Improved weather predictions themselves (both short and long range) would then
contribute to lessening the negative environmental effects of crop production.
Such weather forecasts would be particularly beneficial to crop producers in
the Cornbelt/Lake States and in the Great Plains where major storms are
seasonally present during the crop growing periods.
Thus, as applicable, the workshop recommends that EPA consider policies
toward the improvement of weather predictions that will be environmentally
beneficial within the crop production system.
b. Support weather modification research for environmental management. Aside
from improved weather prediction, per^ se, various research programs are in
progress to induce weather modifications. In some instances, for example,
severe storms may be reduced in their intensity. Such modifications are
potentially desirable because of their consequent reduced environmental
effects, e.g., less run-off and attendant soil, nutrient and pesticide losses.
95
-------
Thus, again, where applicable, EPA should forward policies that support
weather modification research that would be environmentally beneficial.
Such programs are outside the control of the crop production subsector
itself, yet the potential environmental advantage of weather modification
developments are of considerable importance to that system's attempts to
lessen its environmental effects.
-------
SECTION IX
RESEARCH NEEDS
The third major type of external event that regularly affects the crop pro-
duction system is research development. Research developments can affect
the system's inputs, management practices, and outputs—both the quantity
and quality of the crop, and its residual outputs. Furthermore, research
developments may be germane either to related exogenous factors that af-
fect the crop production system or to related government policy analyses.
Thus, indirectly, research developments importantly affect the crop pro-
duction system.
In the preceding two sections, Sections VII and VII I,some of the main
exogenous factors and policy concerns related to crop production were
presented and analyzed according to their crop production system rela-
tionships. The focus of this section is on the system's principal re-
search needs and their relationships to the system itself.
A. Types of Research Needs I]
Each regional panel enumerated and discussed those environmentally related
research needs that the panel considered were most important to its
region's crop production system. These needs were subsequently assessed
and then categorized from a national perspective according to their main
effect, by subject-area, on the crop production system as follows:
Input-Related Output-Related
. Technology development . Economics-markets
Aggregate resource use . Residuals
. Agricultural finance
Management-Related System-Related
. Technology use restraints . Institutional
Education/extension . Climate/weather
Environmental plans
\l These research needs are partially incorporated in existant federal
legislation, e.g., PL 92-500, PL 95-217, and others. A further
assessment is needed to determine the adequacy of such legislation.
-------
One or more specific research needs were identified within each of these
categories as summarized in Exhibit IX-1. Each of the research needs is
described below by the subject-area categorization shown above. Furthermore,
this categorization provides the structural framework that links many of
the exogenous factors, policy concerns and research needs of the crop pro-
duction system. (For a further discussion of the prospective linkages
among these system-related variables, see Section VII-A, Conceptual Framework.)
B. Input-Related Research Needs
The regional panels identified a broad range of research needs involving
the improvement of crop production inputs and the assessment of long term
resource use patterns that will affect the regional crop production sub-
sectors. The crop production system's ability to meet its projected 2010
production levels is highly dependent upon both improving the quality of
its inputs and having an adequate resource base of land, water, energy and
other fundamental resources. Through research, these needs can be met.
1. Technology Development
An obvious category of research needs concerns those that directly affect the
resources used by individual producers and upon which the crop production sys-
tem depends. The panels emphasized that research on seed and plant genetics,
on new and improved chemical formulations for fertilizers and pesticides, on
planting and tillage equipment, and on efficient soil, water, and energy use
must be directed toward the realization of two goals—achieving higher yields
at more efficient resource use rates and achieving practices that will de-
crease the potentially severe environmental effects of such increased produc-
tion yields. The panels considered the following research needs to be the
most significant and promising.
a. Advance germ plasm potentials. Continued research is needed to increase
the yield potentials of seeds and plants while maintaining the nutritional
value of the crops. Such improvements are important to attain the projected
levels of output; they are additionally important, however, because of their
contribution to environmental maintenance by lessening the need to crop addi-
tional, more environmentally fragile land.
Further research is needed, also, to improve the "growth properties" of
seeds and plants by making them more salt tolerant and insect, disease, and
drought resistant. Other stress-related properties could be developed.
Such improvements will increase crop production levels and lessen the need for
aggregate chemical applications with their consequent environmental effects.
Both insect resistant and disease resistant developments would directly assist
in environmental quality management by lowering the reliance on and the ex-
pected use of agricultural chemicals. More drought resistant crops might
permit the annual cropping of much currently used fallow-cropped land and
98
-------
Exhibit IX-1. Summary of major research needs affecting the crop production system
Crop Production System
Component and Subject Area
Research Needs
INPUT-RELATED
. Technology development
. Aggregate resource use
. Agricultural finance
MANAGEMENT-RELATED
. Technology use restraints
Education/extension
Environmental plans
OUTPUT-RELATED
. Economics-markets
. Residuals
SYSTEM-RELATED
. Institutional
. Climate/weather
Advance germ plasm potentials
Develop and extend plant biological nitrogen fixing
capabilities
Develop effective, environmentally-compatible agricultural
chemicals
Develop environmentally-designed farm equipment
Design and develop more water efficient irrigation systems
Improve energy-use efficiencies in crop production
Assess prospective long-term land use demands and design
alternative land use plans
Assess prospective long-term water demands and design
alternative water allocation plans
Assess prospective energy use demands and design
alternative energy allocation plans
Develop alternative on-farm energy sources
Design and appraise alternative methods of agricultural
financing
Conduct improved cost-benefit analyses of proposed
technology-use restraints
Conduct cost-benefit analyses of alternatives to simul-
taneously achieve crop output and environmental goals
Design education/extension plans for BMP implementation
Develop means for establishing improved site-specific best
management practices
Evaluate potential best management practices
Design and assess integrated pest management alternatives
Establish and assess preferred crop sequencing alternatives
Develop local BMP implementation plans compatible with NPS
plans
Determine local needs for BMP's incentives
Conduct analyses of policy alternatives for improving supply/
demand management
Assess crop output growth potential under alternative
environmental management strategies
Assess alternatives for improving the management of irregular
export demands
Design and develop a residuals monitoring system
Assess the transport and fate of agricultural chemicals in
the environment
Assess the incidence of soil erosion, and the transport and
fate of associated sediment
Design and evaluate prospective residual control systems
Design methods and procedures for coordinating inter-
governments environmental activities
Design mechanisms to assure that agricultural representation
and input are included in applicable environmental planning
Analyze multi-media interactions of environmental controls
and delineate appropriate coordination requirements
Develop plans to expand and enhance environmentally-related
basic science research
Examine methods for obtaining and utilizing improved weather
predictions for environmental management
Evaluate potential weather modification techniques for
environmental management
Source: Compiled by Development Planning and Research Associates from information received by
the regional panels.
99
-------
open up environmentally preferred, high-quality land in semi-arid regions.
Improved salt tolerant plants will aid both in increasing yields and in im-
proving the soil-water management options in arid environments, especially
in the Western region.
b. Develop and extend plant biological nitrogen fixing capabilities. Recent
research developments have shown that biological nitrogen fixation in non-
legumes is technologically feasible. Further research is needed, however, to
develop commercially feasible capabilities and to extend such biological nit-
rogen fixation to other various and potential crops.
Such a development is potentially a highly significant environmental quality
management option. To the extent that plants are nitrogen self-sufficient,
they will require less direct nitrogen application and their environmentally
sensitive nitrogen sources could be effectively reduced.
c. Develop effective, environmentally compatible agricultural chemicals.
Even though a major emphasis on integrated pest management systems must
continue, i.e., the development of mechanical, biological and chemical alter-
natives, a continuing research need exists to develop improved agricultural
chemicals. In many cases, such chemicals may still be required for adequate
pest and other problem management though perhaps, at reduced rates or through
fewer applications.
The focus of continuing agricultural chemicals research is clearly already
on the development of environmentally compatible compounds. A companion
goal, however, must be that these materials be effective in crop management.
Both of these goals complicate the research task; however, the research com-
munity must intensify research efforts both in public institutions and in the
private sector. (Similar research needs exist for improving fertilizer formu-
lations, although these basic elements are naturally occurring and generally
more environmentally compatible.)
d. Develop environmentally designed farm equipment. Some of the proposed
best management practices for crop production depend significantly on im-
proved farm equipment, e.g., no-till planters, before such practices are
practicable. Hence, a clear and important research need is to design and
develop such equipment.
Additionally, the past design objectives for much farm equipment used in
production, harvest, or assembly functions did not focus on environmental
factors; therefore, numerous environmentally related equipment improvements
could be expected through such an increased research emphasis. The panelists
particuarly expressed the need to tailor equipment design for various soil,
topographic, and farm-type conditions.
Reduced-tillage cropping systems, including no-till, have, in general, been
favorably accepted, but their consequent problems—unmanageable crop residue
and an increase in insects, rodents, other pests and weeds—have inhibited
some producers who have been reluctant to continue this type of tillage.
100
-------
Such problems may be adequately managed with a comprehensive development of
equipment designed to control those attendant problems. Thus far, these
equipment needs have not been adequately researched.
e. Design and develop more water efficient irrigation systems. Continued
growth in crop production will be highly dependent on irrigation water sup-
pi ies--the most limiting input—in some regions, especially the Western.
Where such limits exist, the foremost research need to achieve growth is
to design and develop more water efficient irrigation systems. Improvements
have been made in such efficiencies through spray, drip and trickle irrigation
systems. However, further improvements are needed and are critical to the
achievement of the production goals that were deemed feasible by the study's
regional panels.
f. Improve energy-use efficiencies in crop production. Although the crop
production system's present use of energy is but a mino~ part of the nation"s
overall use, the panels recognized that under 2010 conditions, the assuring
of sufficient energy supplies for crop production growth can become critical.
Thus, additional research is warranted to improve energy-use efficiencies in
crop production.
Irrigation pumping and delivery systems and tractor-implement synchroniza-
tion energy use improvements need to be assessed. Furthermore, such changes
in management practices as from conventional tillage to reduced-tillage could
significantly conserve energy use in crop production.
2. Aggregate Resource Use
The crop production system's regional panels recognized that under this study's
projected growth scenarios for 2010, the aggregate resource needs for adequate
crop production will be jeopardized by the competing demands of other sectors
of the nation's expanding economy. Supplies of land, water, and energy can
be sufficient only if adequate research is carried out to determine resource
requirements, to establish national resource use priorities, and to efficiently
employ the economically available resources. Encompassing research for the
use of land, water, and energy as cited below was considered feasible by the
panels.
a. Assess prospective long-term land use demands and design alternative
land use plans. Previous sections of this study showed that the 111 million
acres of Class I-III soils available in 1975 for conversion to cropland are
theoretically adequate for the projected 2010 production levels. Two con-
ditions affect this adequacy, however: (1) other national economic sectors
will also compete for the use of this land and (2) part of the 111 million
acres will be used to compensate for the presently utilized acreage that
is being taken out of production by other land use programs. In effect,
then, the potential cropland acreage will be less than the estimated 111
mill ion acres.
101
-------
An important research need, then, is to comprehensively assess current land
use and prospective land use demands by all sectors of the economy. Too,
further research is needed to design alternative land use plans that can
illustrate how such alternatives would affect the economy in general and
the crop production subsectors in particular. Such research will need to
show the consequent potential environmental effects of such alternative land
uses.
b. Assess prospective long-term water demands and design alternative water
allocation plans. Economically available surface and ground water supplies
of suitable quality for crop production are considered limited in the long-
term by most agriculturists. Without alternate water sources, the growth
level of irrigated crop production will also become limited (even with pros-
pective irrigation water-use efficiency improvements).
While much optimism is shown for increasing irrigated crop output, research
must assess and project all sources of water demand as a guide to prospective
conflicts and additional water requirements. Additionally, for planning pur-
poses, alternative water allocation plans should be designed and reviewed.
Such research should seek to indicate (1) all alternative water supply con-
straints over the germane sectors of the nation's economy, (2) such constraints
over the crop production subsectors' use patterns, and (3) the environmental
effects resulting from each alternative use pattern.
c. Assess prospective energy use demands and design alternative energy use
plans. Energy supplies are, of course, vital to the crop production system.
Additional research is needed, however, to characterize and quantify pro-
jected energy requirements. Furthermore, in the presumed case of limited
energy supplies, alternative energy use plans should be designed to assess
their consequent production and environmental effects.
d. Develop alternative on-farm energy sources. The maintenance arid growth
of the crop production system could be partially enhanced through the pro-
duction of on-farm energy sources. For example, on a regional or sub-
regional basis, the potential exists for the development of solar, wind,
and biomass energy sources. Additional research is needed to design, eval-
uate, and develop those alternative energy sources that are applicable for
individual (or group) producer(s).
The potential for biomass energy sources has special implications for the
crop production subsectors and the environment. If additional cropland
is required to provide the resources for biomass energy, then this study's
basic crop output projections and their environmental implications would
need to be reassessed as a separate research need.
3. Agricultural Finance
In their consideration of input-related research needs, the panels were
acutely aware of the potential severity of agricultural financing and of
the incremental costs that may be associated with the crop production
1Q2
-------
system's attempts to meet the production levels of 2010 while minimizing
their environmental effects. Inadequate or unattractive financing methods
may affect the system by inhibiting its growth over time or by preventing
individual producers' from using marginally available financing to continue
environmentally beneficial practices during periods of short-term production
and marketing instabilities. The panels, consequently, recommended that re-
search be devoted to assessing the disadvantages of present financing methods
and to designing of preferred alternatives.
Design and appraise alternative methods of agricultural financing. Both the
long-term capital requirements (for land, equipment, farm structures) and
the production credit needs (for seed, fertilizer, pesticides, labor") of the
crop production system and its representative operations have increased
markedly. Environmental management practices will further intensify these
agricultural financing needs and problems already being experienced by
many producers.
Associated research needs are, first, to assess the adequacy of existing
financial sources and their terms of credit, and, second, to design and
appraise alternative methods of agricultural financing. Particularly
important to the latter research need is the consideration of repayment
provisions during short-term adverse periods, e.g., poor crop-yield years
and depressed market periods. At such times, while the long-term viability
of crop production enterprises may be good, they may well be jeopordized
by short-term loan repayment demands. Improved methods of financing are
generally already needed; environmental management requirements should
therefore consider, also, the attendant financing needs to be faced by
crop producers.
C. Management-Related Research Needs
The second type of research concerns involves those that consider improved
or alternative crop production system management practices. Those discussed
below were the chief research needs that the panels felt bear directly upon
the design and implementation of improved management practices.
1. Technology Use Restraints
The panels, though appreciating the complexity of and demands made upon tech-
nology use restraint decisions, were concerned that such decisions have not
always reflected the various individual problems that are consequent to the
decisions. Generally speaking, the panels felt that research is needed to
assure more rigorous cost-benefit analyses in technology restraint decisions
and to determine the full range of alternative management practices that
could be adopted to lessen the imposition of restraints over crop production
system technologies.
a. Conduct improved cost-benefit analyses of proposed technology-use
restraints. More comprehensively designed and carefully conducted cost-
benefit analyses of proposed technology-use restraints in crop production
103
-------
were recommended by the study's panels. In some instances, e.g., the ban-
ning of selected agricultural chemicals, oast government actions prevent-
ing the use of technology are not questioned as having perhaps adversely
affected the public and the producers rather than having benefited either,,
More rigorous and thorough assessments of both (1) the expected public and
private benefits and (2) the expected public and private costs are appro-
priate for making such technology-use restraint decisions. A second research
need should be the designing of a systematic methodology for determining the
principles and standards that should govern the setting of environmental
control restraints over technology use. Necessarily, early decisions
determining such restraints were limited in nature as they addressed par-
ticular environmental problems; however, perhaps sufficient experience has
now been gained to allow the development of holistic, integrative standards
for such studies.
A third research need reflected the panels' feeling that because of the pub-
lic interest and involvement in decisions regarding the determination and
implementation of environmental quality controls, research should evaluate
the methods and procedures utilized to promote such public involvement into
such a technically complex and sophisticated area of concern.
b. Conduct cost-benefit analyses of alternatives to simultaneously achieve
crop output and environmental goals. The preceding research need expressed
a concern for better assessing the cost-benefit relationships pertaining to
a specific component of technology, e.g., a particular pesticide. A broader
type of cost-benefit analysis is implicitly required, also, in order to in-
sure that the cumulative effect of such specific technology use restraints
does not threaten the achievement potential of macro-level goals (e.g.,
both desired output levels and desired environmental quality). Because
a risk exists that desired crop output levels cannot be achieved in the
face of severe technology restraints, research should establish the
feasibility of achieving the environmental goals through alternative
management practices that would less disrupt crop production goals.
Expressed as a research need, appropriate macro-level studies should be con-
ducted that establish as their goal the delineation and assessment of alter-
native means of simultaneously achieving crop output and environmental tar-
gets. Further, these assessments should include a comprehensive cost-benefit
analysis for each alternative. Such analyses should show both the private
and public crop production system's costs and benefits to help in selecting
an optimum environmental strategy for the subsector.
2. Education/Extension
The specific regional concerns of each panel made obvious the belief that
great care must be exercised to assure that management practices be adapted
in a manner that allows their successful implementation. To the extent
that such management practices will require informed producers for their
acceptance and effective use, they must be adequately promulgated. Such
practices, again to be affectively implemented, must be tailored to meet
specific area and producer requirements.
-------
a. Design education/extension plans for BMP implementation. The effective
implementation of proposed best management practices in agriculture will re-
quire the adoption of educational and extension programs. Appropriate plan-
ning and explicit coordination among government agencies is needed if such
programs are to be optimally effective.
Research should establish a comprehensive education and extension plan for
the implementation of environmental best management practices. This plan
should recognize the need for coordination among EPA, USDA and other govern-
ment agencies at federal, state, and local government levels. Furthermore,
the need for public funding of such programs should be recognized.
b. Develop means for establishing improved site-specific best management
practices. A tendency in the early stages of agricultural-related environ-
mental planning was to assume the general and widespread applicability
of some management practices without an adequate regional-local data base.
As a result, some concepts could be imposed in areas where they were
untested. Further research into and for local adaptation refinements
could result in more effective management practices.
For example, among the regional panels, the concept of reduced tillage crop-
ping systems now has many varied meanings. Each region and areas within
regions have had to experiment with variations in tillage, planting, and
crop residue management practices to determine the best "reduced tillage
systems" for the cropping conditions of their environments. The lesson
learned is that many "best management practices" are not--in their details--
universally applicable.
Hence, an important research need is to develop the means for establishing
improved site-specific best management practices. Unless such capability
exists for tailoring BMP's to local conditions, an unfavorable reception of
proposed programs may occur even though the favorable concepts inherent.
in BMP's are more broadly valid.
3. Environmental Plans
This category of management related needs stems from the panels' concern
that the implementation of environmental quality control standards and pro-
grams recognize the significantly varied needs among all regions and the
areas within each. Local areas differ considerably in their cropping pat-
terns and practices and programs seeking to institute environmentally bene-
ficial BMP and NPS plans cannot be optimally effective unless they recog-
nize such area differences as determinants of producer management behavior
and response to needed programs.
a. Evaluate potential best management practices. In addition to developing
the means discussed above-to determine site-specific best management prac-
tices, a prior need is to more comprehensively evaluate those potential best
management practices that can be regionally applicable. This type of re-
search would help identify those critical regional factors that affect the
environmental and economic viability of such practices.
105
-------
Secondly, because many management practices can be alternative procedures
for producers, improved research is needed to assess their varied and re-
lated cost-effectiveness. The research should assess their relative
applicability among regions to assist producer's to make management
decisions and to provide EPA with information basic to determining re-
gional implementation and program needs.
b. Design and assess integrated pest management alternatives. Integrated
pest management (IPM) designs combine chemical, mechanical and biological
pest controls to effectively control pests and to maintain or enhance en-
vironmental quality. This design concept is widely accepted though its
proven options are limited; thus, implementation of IPM systems will
likely be delayed.
In this instance, research is needed to not only test options that are
currently proposed, but to design and assess alternative IPM's. Such
assessments should, again, include both environmental and economic (out-
put) impacts.
c. Establish and assess preferred crop sequencing alternatives. Among
the management practices options for pollution control over multiple crop
seasons is the sequencing of crops. This practice can often be imple-
mented readily. However, research is needed to establish and assess the
preferred sequencing alternatives. Although the alternatives assessed
would primarily be those that are environmentally preferred, such assess-
ments should include analyses of the economic implications of each
alternative.
d. Develop local BMP implementation plans compatible with NPS plans. An
emphasis on the implementation of best management practices (BMP's) is antic-
ipated by the crop production subsectors. If this emphasis develops, then
local BMP implementation plans are desirable to assure that location-specific
and site-specific environmental factors can be and are incorporated into
planning efforts. Furthermore, such BMP plans should be compatible with
the areas' 208-NPS plans. Any prospective conflicts between the proposed
208-NPS plans and the crop production BMP plans could be better resolved
if research is forwarded that identifies those conflicts and seeks an en-
vironmentally beneficial compromise among them.
Planning assistance and financial aid are generally needed to accomplish
such planning efforts. Volunteer efforts are supportive, but additional
public commitments are important for the developing of viable plans on a
timely basis, e.g., public interagency participation should be supported
vs. voluntary.
e. Determine local needs for BMP incentives. The implementation of those
best management practices may require private investments and operating
costs in excess of private producer benefits, though the social (public
and private) benefits resulting from the practices exceed their costs.
In such cases, incentives to assure the adoption of the BMP's are reasonable.
106
-------
Extensive research is needed in BMP planning to determine local needs for
BMP incentives. Just as location-specific factors can significantly alter
the details of a BMP plan, so too, can the costs of BMP implementation vary
as do benefits, at the local level. The requisite incentives should
consider these variable factors.
D. Output-Related Research Needs
Research needs identified by the panels that primarily involve crop produc-
tion outputs—crops and residuals--are described next. The crops-related
research needs are principally those involving aggregate market effects,
whereas the residuals-related research needs primarily involve local area
concerns.
1. Economics-Markets
Obviously, crop producers, operating as they must within an economic frame-
work, are responsive to the market characteristics of agricultural demand.
Irregular demand and market instabilities often preclude a producer's will-
ingness to assume increased production costs for environmentally beneficial
practices because the benefits of such cost increases may be postponed
for an unacceptable period of time. Too, in time of favorable demand,
producer's may be encouraged to unwisely abandon beneficial practices
in order to take advantage of short-term high demand markets. Research
is needed that will offer alternatives, e.g., including environmental
restraints, to such producer behavior.
a. Conduct analyses of policy alternatives for improving supply/demand
management. Irregular fluctuations in the levels of either the supplies
of or the demands for crops are major determinants of market instabilities.
Such instabilities unfavorably affect producers' environmental management
decisions. Rapid changes in the supply-output levels are, also, environ-
mentally disruptive. The attainment of more consistently balanced supply-
demand growth would effectively contribute to improved environmental
management.
Research is needed, then, to investigate, in a policy analysis framework,
prospective policy alternatives for improving supply and demand management.
Research capabilities for conducting such policy analyses are being advanced,
and the environmental implications of policy choices related to supply-
demand management are particuarly important.
b. Assess crop output growth potential under alternative environmental
management strategies. Just as alternative growth strategies within the
crop production subsector would imply differential environmental effects,
similarly, also, alternative environmental management strategies will im-
ply differential crop output effects. Research is needed to assess EPA's
proposed strategies in terms of their potential output effects.
107
-------
Ideally, research will be conducted on various, alternative environmental
management strategies so that improved choices between both environmental
quality levels and output levels may be realized. Such research, i.e., im-
proved cost-benefit analyses, was previously described as a management-
related research need.
c. Assess alternatives for improving the management of irregular export
demands. A subset of the general need to assess supply/demand management
alternatives is the more specific research need to design and assess alter-
natives for export demand management. Typically export demands have fluc-
tuated irregularly, and both the level and the uncertainty of the timing
of these demands affect, oftentimes adversely, the environmental impacts
of the crop production system.
2. Residuals
Although the panels felt that significant environmental impact research has
been done, they were concerned that such has often been rather general and
theoretical. As a consequence, the panels felt that more specific research
is required to determine the real term effects of the crop production system's
residuals on soil, water, and air. The research should be designed to ex-
amine the composition, transport, and fate of such residuals in order to
facilitate the development of holistic residual treatment and crop production
practices systems. The specific research needs are those desribed below.
a. Design and develop a residuals monitoring system. Although environ-
mental monitoring systems and programs exist generally, the workshop par-
ticipants anticipate an expanded need to design and develop a residuals
monitoring system in major crop producing areas. Without an effective
residuals monitoring system in such locations, there exists neither the
capability to assess the specific environmental effects of crop production
residuals nor the capability to measure the degree of improvement associ-
ated with environmental management practices. Monitoring capabilities
are important, and further design and development efforts are needed,
e.g., as partially included in PL 95-217.
b. Assess the transport and fate of agricultural chemicals in the environ-
ment. The crop production panels emphatically expressed the research need
to monitor the transport by media of agricultural chemical and to assess
the environmental consequences of that transport environment. Their emphasis
stems from two main concerns. First, the adverse effects of agricultural
chemicals are often assumed rather than empirically demonstrated. Second,
data documenting the transport mechanisms and indicating the fate of agri-
cultural chemicals in all environmental media are needed for a full under-
standing of their control.
The transport and fate of specific agricultural chemicals are affected by
factors such as soils, topography, climate/weather, and cultural (management)
practices. Allowances for such refinements in agricultural chemical re-
straints could potentially increase output without consequent environmental
effects.
108
-------
c. Assess the incidence of soil erosion and the transport and fate of
associated sedimeirtT Mifch research has been done to develop models to
predict the rates of soil erosion and associated sediment delivery to
water streams and other receptors under specific soil, topographic, rain-
fall, and cropping conditions. Further research is needed to monitor and
measure the incidence of soil erosion in local environmental planning
areas. Additionally, research is needed to better assess the transport
and fate of sediment in such areas, e.g., as partially included in NPS-208
programs and in PL 95-217 legislation.
Composite aggregate soil movement-erosion research is critical in assessing
soil quality and the effect of productivity on the soil medium. Sediment
gains in water and the actual transport and fate of sediment are critical
in assessing water quality and associated ecosystem impacts on the water
medium. Improved monitoring and assessment of both concerns are desired.
d. Design and evaluate prospective residual control systems. Many of the
preceding research needs involving direct pollution control methods were to
be focused on the effects of individual BMP's and specific input quality
improvements. A further research need is to design and assess combinations
of individual practices and techniques. In other words, prospective resi-
dual control systems need to be designed and evaluated.
The composite pollution control effects of several low-cost environmental
practices may be as effective as some higher cost individual practices, or
several practices may be required to meet desired environmental quality
management objectives. In such cases, a more aggregative research approach
is needed.
E. System-Related Research Needs
This final set of research needs reflects those concerns that could
affect more than one of the major crop production system components.
Two broad areas of research needs are institutional and climate/weather.
1. Institutional
The four major research need categories described below were those that
the panels believed were essential to the development of adequate environ-
mental enhancement programs. Two are concerned with the designing of
adequate coordination procedure to assure a proper integration of diverse
programs and to allow for adequate agricultural specialist inputs. Two
are concerned with the development of sufficient basic research to allow
such integration.
a: Design methods and procedures for coordinating intergovernment en-
vironmental activities. An increasingly evident policy-related research
need is to better coordinate federal, state, and local government agen-
cies' environmental activities.
109
-------
Under present government environmental procedures, agencies of any one level
of government can provide supplemental, more-stringent, environmental con-
trols. Such controls could result in redundant crop producer actions in
environmental management. Hence, effective government coordination must pre-
cede the adoption of specific pollution control plans if responsive imple-
mentation is expected.
b. Design mechanisms to assure that agricultural representation and input.
are included in applicable environmental planning. Another policy-related
research need is to design mechanisms that will assure the utilization of
both the crop production system's representatives and their applicable
data input in environmental planning processes affecting the crop produc-
tion system. A fear exists that pollution control requirements will! in-
adequately reflect the producers' perspectives and expertise in developing
cropland management programs, e.g., again public supported vs. voluntary
agricultural representation is proposed.
These various management alternatives may be individually or collectively
utilized to efficiently attain not only the environmental, but, also, the
output goals that are sought.
c. Analyze multi-media interactions of environmental controls and delineate
appropriate coordination requirements. Environmental pollution controls are
being institutionally mandated for all primary environmental media—water,
soil and air. In some cases the pollution controls on one medium utilize
another medium as the "final" receptor for captured residuals—presumably in
an acceptable environmental manner. However, first, the "receptor" medium
is necessarily affected, and second, additional media-interactions will occur
naturally. Some of the media-interations resulting from existing pollution
controls have affected the crop production system and further pollution con-
trol interactions are anticipated, e.g., land disposal of municipal sewage sludge.
Associated research needs should analyze the multi-media interactions of all
environmental controls, and, further, delineate appropriate actions and co-
ordination requirements to resolve potential environmental control conflicts.
The environmental benefits to one primary medium should not result in off-
setting environmental costs in another.
d. Develop plans to expand and enhance environmentally related basic science
research. Among the top research needs expressed by the study's workshop
was that renewed, major institutional support be given to basic science re-
search. A common belief of the scientists was that many plant (and animal)
improvements are possible and achievable within the study's planning period.
Many of these possible and prospective plant-related improvements would be
environmentally enhancing, directly or indirectly. Among them are the de-
velopment of improved insect and disease resistant plants, higher yielding
plants, extended biological nitrogen fixing capabilities, and improved photo-
synthesis properties. Therefore, and in support of environmental pollution
control, a key policy-related research need is to develop plans to expand and
enhance environmentally related basic science research.
110
-------
2. Weather-Climate
Although the panels recognized that weather prediction and control techniques
are still relatively primitive, they believed that the overall advantages of
such techniques in minimizing the environmental effects of crop production
are so promising that research in such areas should be pursued. Most sus-
ceptible to research are those techniques for short term forecasting and
area-specific weather control.
a. Examine methods for obtaining and utilizing improved weather predictions
for environmental management. Crop producers could enhance their production
system's environmental effects through the use of improved short and long
range weather predictions. Such environmental enhancements would result, for
example, from producers' improved time of the applications of agricultural
chemicals to reduce potential run-off, and from producers' improved scheduling
efforts for tillage and other management practices to minimize soil erosion and
compaction.
Because of these favorable types of environmental implications, an EPA
examination of prospective methods for obtaining and utilizing improved
weather predictions in the crop production sector is encouraged. In the ag-
gregate, such weather prediction improvements represent a potential environ-
mental pollution control option.
b. Evaluate potential weather modification techniques for environmental
management. Although weather is basically uncontrolled, on-going research
suggests that some weather phenomena may be modifiable in the future. For
example, some severe storms (including hail storms) may be reduced in their
intensity through developing techniques. This type of weather modification
would be beneficial to the crop producer and to the environment.
Because of its favorable environmental aspects, there is a rationale for
EPA to also evaluate potential weather modification techniques and de-
termine the merit of fostering such techniques in their environmental
control programs. Because weather modification research is in an early
stage of development, this evaluation task might require a continuing
review.
Ill
-------
APPENDIX A
WORKSHOP PROCEDURES
The evaluation workshop's panels determined, judgemental!./, the environ-
mental implications of regional crop production trends. Their assessments
primarily involved regional-panel analyses, though general workshop dis-
cussions were conducted to ascertain similarities and differences among the
studies five regions—Northeastern, Southeastern, Cornbelt/Lake States,
Great Plains, and Western.
A flow chart of the workshop procedures is presented in Exhibit A-l. A
series of twelve tasks were completed in the sequence shown, and work forms
were provided to guide and structure the analysis. Also, an agenda for the
workshop, as shown in Exhibit A-2, was prepared so that the work elements
would be completed in the time available.
The work forms that were provided were structured, yet the panels were free
to delete, modify or add trends and environmental parameters. The panels
were asked to complete their assessments as they felt appropriate for their
own regions.
The designated chairman of each regional panel was responsible for recording
the panel's assessment results and for presenting its findings at the general
workshop proceedings.
Brief instructions for completing the work forms and sample work forms
follow.
Instructions—Workshop Evaluation Forms
Form 1 -- Geographical differences in crop production activities and their
resulting environmental implications are expected to occur during
the next thirty years. Each panel will establish a regional
ranking of environmental concerns according to the respective
media at the current time period.
Form 2 -- Extensiveness of use rating from 1977-2010, will indicate the
relative changes in the utilization of crop production activi-
ties over time. Ratings are to range from +1 (minor) to +5
(major).
112
-------
1) C ^
E s_ 1
- c .a c:
-a E cn-M
c c c ^
O O i~ •—
•• S. i_ *J^-
^ft— •- ra o
E O) 3 m
S- C71^ 37
1U9UJSS9SSV
(0102-8Z6I)
n:
-------
Exhibit A-2
Assessment of the Environmental Implications
of Regional Crop Production Trends
WORKSHOP AGENDA I/
Date/Session
TUESDAY, FEB. 28
Registration
WEDNESDAY, MAR. 1
General Session I
Panel Session I
General Session II
General Session III
Panel Session II
Panel Session III
Panel Session IV
THURSDAY, MAR. 2
General Session IV
Panel Session V
General Session V
Panel Session VI
Panel Session VII
FRIDAY, MAR. 3
General Session VI
Panel Session VIII
General Session VII
Time
8:00 p.m.
7:15 a.m.
8:00 a.m.
8:30 a.m.
10:00 a.m.
10:20 a.m.
11:20 a.m.
12:00 p.m.
1:00 p.m.
1:20 p.m.
3:00 p.m.
3:20 p.m.
5:00 p.m.
6:00 p.m.
7:00 p.m.
9:00 p.m.
7:15 a.m.
8:30 a.m.
10:00 a.m.
10:20 a.m.
12:00 p.m.
1:00 p.m.
2:00 p.m.
3:00 p.m.
3:20 p.m.
4:00 p.m.
5:00 p.m.
6:30 p.m.
9:30 p.m.
7:15 a.m.
8:30 a.m.
8:45 a.m.
10:00 a.m.
10:20 a.m.
11:15 a.m.
11:30 a.m.
11:45 a.m.
12:00 p.m.
1:00 p.m.
Arrive from Atlanta (Charter Bus)
Light buffet on arrival
Registration and informal discussion
Group breakfast (designated dining area)
Registration (late arrivals)
Opening, George Bailey, EPA
Introduction of Participants, Ray Seltzer, DPRA
Welcome, Henry Garrens, Dean of Ag., U.of Ga.
Workshop Setting/Purpose, Sam Unger, DPRA
Crop Production System, Geneva Hammaker, DPFtA
Workshop Procedures, Gary Davis, DPRA
Break
Current Environmental Concerns (Form 1)
Chairmen summarize region's assessment and
discussion
Group lunch (designated dining area)
Moderate growth scenario and panel instructions
Begin region's evaluations (Forms 2-5)
Break
Continue panel evaluations (Forms 2-5)
Adjourn panel sessions
Group dinner (designated area)
Complete panel evaluations (Forms 2-5)
Reassess environmental concerns (Form 6)
Adjourn/Social Hour
Group breakfast
Chairmen summarize moderate-growth assessments
High growth scenario and instructions
Break
Complete high growth assessment (Forms 7-9)
Group lunch
Chairmen summarize high-growth assessment
Exogenous factors and instructions
Assess exogenous factors (Form 10)
Break
Complete exogenous factors assessment (Form 10)
Chairmen summarize regional assessments of
exogenous factors
Adjourn
Dinner/Banquet (Bus Transport)
Return to Center
Group breakfast
Final instructions/schedule
Identify regional research needs (Form 11)
Identify policy concerns (Form 12)
Break
Chairmen summarize regional research needs
and policy concerns
Discussion
Workshop Wrap-Up
George Bailey, EPA
Ray Seltzer, DPRA
Adjourn
Buffet lunch
Air transport bus arrives for loading
Bus leaves for Atlanta (Estimated arrival
at 3:00 p.m.)
— Held at the University of Georgia Center for Continuing Education, Athens, Georgia.
Sponsored by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Research Lab-
oratory, Athens, Georgia, March 1-3, 1978. Under Contract by Development Planning
and Research Associates, Inc., Manhattan, Kansas.
-------
Form 3 -- Intensiveness of effect ratings indicate the relative environ-
mental impact of each crop production input, management media,
and output treatment activity. Ratings will provide an indica-
tion of the relative sediment, nutrient, pesticide, and other
effects of these cropping activities. The ratings will range from
-5 to +5, with (-) indicating an adverse effect and (+) indicating
a beneficial effect.
Form 4 -- Environmental implications of crop production system trends will
be established by subjectively weighing the extensiveness and in-
tensive factors from forms 2 and 3. A rating (-5 to +5) will be
assigned to the relative importance of the trend's sediment,
nutrient, pesticide, and other effects. The primary purpose of
this form is to aggregate the effects of several specific but re-
lated crop production activities.
Form 5 -- Environmental implications of the aggregate crop production acti-
vities changes will be assessed after considering the combined ef-
fects of inputs, management practices, and output-residual treat-
ments upon sediment, nutrients, pesticides, and others (e.g.,
salinity). Ratings from Form 4 will be carried forward to Form 5
to provide a summary of the various crop production environmental
effects. A final rating will indicate the net-aggregate regional
environmental change expected between 1977 and 2010 (see Exhibit
A-l).
Form 6 -- Ranking of environmental concerns to determine the importance of
environmental trends in 2010. The ratings from Form 5 are to be
converted into the same format as Form 1, and then establish any
shifts in the importance of regional environmental concerns.
Form 7 -- Modification of moderate growth ratings by extensiveness of use
and aggregate ratings. This form was designed to allow the modi-
fication of the moderate growth scenario at the crop production
group level. (Note—this form was not used by the panelists due
to time constraints.)
Form 8 -- High Growth: Regional ratings for the four environmental concerns
should reflect changes from 1977 to 2010 under the high growth
scenario.
Form 9 -- This form is essentially a repeat of Form 6 -- except the ratings
are for the high (vs. moderate) growth scenario.
Form 10-- Exogenous issues are defined as items beyond or outside the control
of the crop production subsector which may have an important effect
upon the environmental implications of the crop production subsec-
tor. Resource members should attempt to eliminate disagreements
on the importance of exogenous issues by assisting panel members
in clarifying whether they are discussing the probability of the
event occurring or the effect of the event. It is believed that the
joint consideration of these two factors determines an important
exogenous issue.
115
-------
Form 11 - Research Needs -- Time will probably be a critical factor at this
point; discussion should be kept within time constraints to assure
a list of research needs.
Form 12 - Policy Concerns -- Again, time will dictate the amount of discussion;
the list of regional policy concerns is important.
116
-------
1 — 1
E
O
u.
00
2:
LU
O
z:
CD
<—>
i .
r
UJ
s:
CD
C£
> — t
^»
i^
UJ
OO
—
rv
CD
t—
CJ
00
CQ
ID
00
"*ZL
o
). — 1
h-
D
rD
Q
O
ce
o_
^
CD
01
(_J
J
eC
2^
O
CD
UJ
cv
40
C
0>
S-
rj
o
• •
X)
o
*T~
i.
Ol
C Q-
O
•i- O)
O^ E
It,
4_J (D 4- 4->
f—
to
4-J
rs
,
o
o.
-Q
c
ft)
(/)
i —
• T—
O
00
C
to
C£
annn an «
"\ O> OJ
°/\s
*•* S y'
CO . &/ /
CO CO x or /
CO 0 \4f /
0 _J ^/
CO OJ (_>
CO 4-1 "O C
O C -i- O
CJ
O)
4-
4-
JJ
1 O) U O
•t- -1- 1-
i — S- 4-> 4-> Ol
•r— 4-J CO r— _C
O =3 Ol 03 4->
c/0 2: Q- OO O
>
f
/
/ /
' J/
\/
4- to
LU .,-
OJ
E
^ x
/ \ Ol CD i —
\ \ T3 CD 03
> > C i— I 4->
y / i — ' C
/ O)
/ E
/ c:
o
S-
>r^
x'"\ >
• ' cz
/ - / -,
-Q
CO
C
C
03
pi
n n n n n n ^ "' ^ •'•- ^
L LI ^ •:-'> 5 s
' '' XN 0) 0)
• X > 4- CO
• .-' - 4- OJ
Ex 1 •' UJ E S-
C
C C -I—
ro to C3
CO CO
Ol
4-J 4-3 ~o >-)
C C -r- -1J
4_>
O
Ol
JJ^
=4-
UJ
OJ O> CJ ••-
E -^ -^- c S-
~o 4-J co f — _c:
OJ Z3 O)
s: . • / / c s: o
O3 / Jl 4°
-o • ^ 'cb' s-
OJ - > ,x§ OJ
s: , - ,' i. 4->
_ ^ .^- if_
CT^ \ ' > ro
c v ' c . .. If//
CO fO^ X/ TD
S- 4J pi > I 1 Oi
Ol O (U 1 J 1 co
u a) S. y 3
O ^- 4- CD O)
CJ l-H
i— C
ro S-
40 O)
C O
0) C
E 0
o
•.- (O
> 4-)
c c
UJ 01
E
4- C
O O
j_
_V T—
C >
O3 C
or LU
UJ ct S-
S_ 1-03
CO
CO Ol
4-J 4-J X>
C C •!-
Ol 0) (J
E •>- -i- co i_
•i- i- 4-> 4-> O)
XI 4-> CO i— -C
Ol 13 O) 03 4->
OO ^ Q_ OO CD
. — Ol CO Ol
03 -O - TD C
4-J !_ £ S- 2
co rs o o
Ol i — ICXJOO^j-LOT— i — ICNJOO r-
E -^ xi -^ co
c: c oi c:
o to El to co
s- o; ce E
••- -c s_
> o OJ
c: to 4->
UJ Ul
r—
4- 4-03
O O S_
O)
-^ ^^ C
c: CO)
rt3 O3 O}
a: a:
O)
_c:
1—
»— 4 t — t ~- —
-, ^H|
117
-------
S-
o
o>
cn
LU
oo
O
oo
LU
LU
X
LU
OO
OO
LU
OO
OO
QJ
O
00
O 4-^
•r- 2
cn O
-------
ro i—i
E OJ
s_ cn
o ro
LLJ
to
O
to
to
to
UJ
to
to
+J
c
ro
C
o
ro
CO
ro
E
CD
o;
o
CO
+J
c:
E
O
CO S_
+J O)
to o
1
•i— CO
+-> O)
co -a
QJ *r—
0- U
1
•(— CO
S- +->
+-> c
3 OJ
1
•t— 4-1
"O c
a> ai
to E
10
cnto
c~ r^»
r- CTl
u » i
ra
o;
119
-------
3- I— 1
E QJ
s- en
O ro i/} o
LU- D- rg -r—
-^ i_
i—. ro
cr ai
ce <->
co
— i
h- -<->
z. 5
LU O
^- CD
0
ct
2:
LU
.-^
, ^
LU
I—
O
<;
CO
Q
LU
C£
I—
0
o S
5 ^
Q
o
n
-a
d_ 0
cj QJ
a_
1 1
O fl>
E
z in
o I—
i — -
CD
1 1 i
CD
1
-^r
f—.
t ,
CD
LU
C
o
en
QJ
^^
* 1
cr
c
ro
c
QJ
1—
OJ
>
O
CO
en
c
+j
ro
+J
0
QJ
4-
LU
4-
O
CO
CO
QJ
I
l/l
f~
QJ
C
1 — 1
oB
CO QJ
ro o
co
CO
QJ
i -a
QJ O
Q- •!-
4J
c
QJ
s-
~^_
c
QJ
CO
(/) i-
+-> QJ
,— -C
ro +->
coo
i
r- CO
co -a
QJ -r-
0- U
1
•£ £j
+J c:
13 QJ
z:
i
•r— 4->
T3 C
oo E
t/1 '"-*
en O
OJ ' — I
CO
O) C\J
> " — *
•1 —
l/l C7>
C C
a> -•—
+-1 4->
X ^ d
4_J O
CO -i- ••-
1— 4-> 4->
ID C -r-
o_ ro TD
~^r ^ -^1
i — i O' "31
t— t <£ r— 1
DDDDD D
DDDDD D
DDDDD D
<^ \
WDDDD D
4-
c c
O QJ C
"-EC
+-> a. c
ro E
en 3 c
•>- to cr c
i_ 4-> QJ
s- c c
•r— ro • "•
co i — en
to QJ s- o. o
4-> -O O QJ -O C
C -r- 4- OS —- >JCC
QJ o 4-> ro n
•r- -1- S- l/> i- -I- . -C
S- 4-> OJ T3 QJ i — O-l
-!-> CO 4J QJ JZ TO O
3 aj ro QJ +-> 3 s-
z: Q- 3 CO O CTCJa
CNJ CO *^" LO IX) CO r-H
D D
D D
D D
D D
/
/ /•^
" /
/^\
/ //
* 1 ( 'I
/ L \^''1' t
/ / s< •' ''' '
-/ ^ x
V*^ j" -.
X \
/ r\ \
1 / / J
A 1 \/
/Nil
/ / 1 1
I V^/ 1
V ,/
N> '
CO
"O QJ V) t/)
c (j cr c
3 ro t- o o
Z5 *f~ -r~
~ "O O 4-^ 4-*
~> c co ro ra
- ro ^— • ^^
•> . — -a QJ 3 3
>> c > E E
o s- ro -i- i. s_
D -a i— 4-> o o
1 to D- ro 4- 4~
E QJ C O C
3 !_ QJ S- S_ r— r—
j cj aj cj QJ ro ro
ro 3 4J o u
: 4-> -a i — T- •!-
- T3 QJ QJ ro E E
c: -a 4-> QJ en 4-> o o "o o
: D- M- -t- C -r-
3O-1-S- QJQJ 5 OS
:s_-cs_ •!- QJ -r-aj
juco-^ s-rs C4->c
4-> to
=3 . . QJ .
3 .a z ro -o a. ro
c\j m
i
S-
0
f
.
0
ro
E
^ ^
LO
0
I/) 4_)
—
o ^-~.
s- s-
4J 0
C c
O T-
<-> E
, —
ro r-
o
•i— . .
en w
o en
"o .^
"^" 1 ^
-Q ro
.
-D -~.
•K
120
-------
Form 5
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS OF CROP PRODUCTION ACTIVITIES
Region:
Time Period
2010
Growth Scenario: Moderate
Cropland Variable
Inputs
A. Quantity Utilized
1. Land (cropland acres)
2. Nutrients
3. Pesticides
4. Water for irrigation
5. Seeds and plants
6. Other (e.g. equipment)
B. Quality
1. Land
2. Nutrients
3. Pesticides
4. Water for irrigation
5. Seeds and plants
6. Other
Management
A. Multi-season Management
1. Land development
2. Crop Sequencing
Ratings of Environmental Concerns
Salts &
Sediment Nutrients Pesticides Other
B. Crop Season Management
1. Crop planting practices \ x'o
Crop and field monitoring practices"
Crop fertilization pr^tic^es
Pest control practices*\\ Xx
Water application practices^\
\ < "^
Non-crop Season M^ft^aement \\
1. Crop residue/electro 1 practrces
Soil protect'^frprsctices
Moisture control ~mMQtices
Pre-plant fertilization practices
Pre-plant fertilization practices
Outputs - Residuals
A"!Residuals Control
1. Pollutant treatments
2. Other treatments
Aggregate environmental change (net)
121
-------
DDDDD DDDDD DDDDD
o
ZD "O
Q O
O -I-
DDDDD DDDD^ffl.DQD
OJ
01
•«-•!- C
8-1-0
O) OJ
-t-j k/i
51
•!— -t->i/)i —
.— en
£
-------
e
o
a>
en
to
Q-
O
o:
a:
i—*
LU
1C
Q
CO
CZ1
CJJ
Qi
CD
O
Q-
O
a:
_
LU
o;
C3
•a:
cr
1C
o
s-
tO
c
QJ
O
CO
-C
o
s-
CD
o
T-H
0
OJ
-a
o
•r-
i.
O)
OJ
E
p
. .
c
o
en
QJ
Qi
* 1
CO
en
CZ
03
ct-
-o
c
O
1
-0 QJ
QJ >
., >r_
4- co
•r- C
-0 QJ
O 4->
"SI X
LU
CO
CD
c__
03
•^3
C
QJ
t_
h-
03
S-
QJ
0
CO
1 CO
c cu
QJ £Z
4-> QJ
X >
1 1 1 .,_
CO
CO S-
4-J O)
— -C
03 +->
10 O
CO
QJ
i -o
CO -i—
01 O
D- •<—
4-J
C
QJ
si
4_>
C
QJ
-a
a>
CO
CD
C
4-J
03 CD
ry i — t
CD
co OJ
CO
QJ
C
CO S-
i — -C
CO CD
1
•i— CO
4-J QJ
co -a
QJ •,-
O (_}
1
•r- CO
S- 4-J
4-J C
3 QJ
^
-o c
ai QJ
CD
C 0
•i— i — i
4-> CD
03 OJ
CO
DC
i DC
to
*y£
S-
0
I DC
4-J
03
S-
i /j&r
&\/ /
^^* ./^
^V ^r
>/
/
/
/
/ /
\/
DC
: DC
S-
o
1 1
1 DC
DC
f ^
CM
E E
O S-
S- 0
-^~
~o
c
03
"CL
O
S-
C_)
^-
o
-a 4-
0}
M T3
•r- C
i — 03
+J '
* r—
to c/>
^1 C 4-J
4-> o e
CO -r- -r- OJ
h— 4J 4-J T-
=3 C -r- S-
d. O3 T3 4->
•^ ^ -O =3
i— i CD-
/
/ /
' /
/
/
c
c
c
c
CO
OJ
T3
,f—
u
4-J
CO
ai
CL.
ro
C
c
c
c
X.
\
te
XT
C
D
D
c
o
4-J
03
cn
-r—
S-
• r-
S-
o
<4—
i_
O)
4_J
03
3
^
1C
c
c
c
/
l^
- L
c
c
D
cn
4-J
(—
03
( —
Q.
03
CO
-o
QJ
QJ
CO
CO
D D
D D
D D
'\
D ->n
x' - -1' "*«
/x 'X '*
/ / '•'' ' /( ^\
(&'',$
\ / /
N/ / ,
/ <^
D DA>
\^ jS
v^
D D
XI
4- C
o to
c -o
o c
-— -r- 03
C •!- ">
QJ CO s_
E o -a
O- CL CO
•r- E QJ C
-3 O S- OJ
CT U U QJ
ai to 3
•r- -O CD
CD tz _a
O) 03
cu -a en, — 4-)
^^ >J C C CL 4-
4-J 03 03 O -r-
S- -r- r- -£= S- -C
QJ i — CL U U CO
-c to o
CD CD- i_> ro .a
CD CO i— 1
D
D
D
[]
c
. D
y
,*-.
^[}
s^~~~*\.
JJR)
(- 'LJ. 1.
K ./"
^ — ^
CO
QJ W
cj c:
S- O
O 4-J
CO O3
1 —
-O QJ 3
^ c > E
03 T- l_
r— 4-J O
CL 03 4-
O C
S- S- •—
U O) 03
+-> O
CD O3 E
4-J QJ
to co 4- -tz
cn 4-J o u
•r— f~
S- QJ d) S
S- -r- CO d)
•1- S- Zl C
3
OJ
O
+
i-
o
CO
o
to
ct:
* I
123
-------
Form 8
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS OF CROP PRODUCTION ACTIVITIES
Region:
Time Period
2010
Growth Scenario: High
Ratings of Environmental Concerns
Cropland Variable
Inputs
A. Quantity Utilized
1. Land (cropland acres)
2. Nutrients
3. Pesticides
4. Water for irrigation
5. Seeds and plants
6. Other (e.g. equipment)
B. Quality
1. Land
2. Nutrients
3. Pesticides
4. Water for irrigation
5. Seeds and plants
6. Other
Management
A. Multi-season Management
1. Land development
2. Crop Sequencing
B. Crop Season Management
1. Crop planting practices
2. Crop and field monitoring
3. Crop fertilization practices\ \.
4. Pest control practices \
5. Water application
C. Non-crop Season Managed
1. Crop residue contr
2. Soil protection practit
3. Moisture control practi
4. Pre-plant fertilization practices
5. Pre-plant fertilization practices
Outputs -Residuals
A.Residuals Control
1. Pollutant treatments
2. Other treatments
Aggregate environmental change (net)
Sediment Nutrients Pesticides
Salts &
Other
124
-------
QDQ MEQQ DD
^x/ <.'
O
3
DDDDD
£ £
U -i-
125
-------
s:
_j
<:
126
-------
127
-------
128
-------
APPENDIX B
REGIONAL DATA AMD TREND DEFINITIONS
This appendix contains the workshop panels' detailed trend assessments of
the extensiveness of use (E) ratings(from work form 2) and the intensive-
ness of effect (I) ratings (from work form 3). Five exhibits (B-l to B-5)
are included, one for each region, as follows:
I - Northeastern
II - Southeastern
III - Cornbelt/Lake States
IV - Great Plains
V - Western
These data were developed and utilized by the regional panels themselves as
intermediate information for the assessments as were presented in Section VI:
Crop Production Trends' Assessment-Nation and Regions of the text. In gen-
eral, a multiplicative score was calculated as follows: (E) x (I) = Rating
of trend, for each period and for each environmental effect. As shown in the
text, these ratings were then converted to (+) or (-) 1 (minor) to 5 (major)
overall trend effects.
The trends assessed in this study are generally known to crop production
specialists and, therefore, detailed definitions of these trends were not
required, per se. However, more explicit definitions are available both
in this study's Volume I: Trend Identification and Evaluation, and in the
report: Control of Hater Pollution from Cropland. I/ Additionally, brief
definitions of the crop production subsector's trends, as delineated in
the following exhibits, are presented next in relation to their crop pro-
duction system component, i.e., inputs, management practices, and outputs
(residual controls).
Input Use Trends
Trends in input use were further classified as either trends in the
quantity utilized or trends in input quality. This distinction is critical
because increases in the quantity of inputs used will normally result in
lj U.S. Department of Agriculture (ARS) and U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (ORD), Control of Hater Pollution from Cropland (2 Volumes),
June, 1976.
129
-------
adverse environmental effects, whereas improved qualities of inputs may
effect beneficial environmental changes. Without the considering of the
quantity versus quality aspects of input use, the potential net environ-
mental implications of input use trends may not have been discernible in
this analysis.
The basic crop production system inputs assessed—both quantity and
quality trends—were cropland acreages, nutrients, pesticides, seeds
and plants, irrigation water, and equipment. Other inputs were added
by the separate regional panels as they believed necessary, i.e., those
input uses which are expected to have consequential environmental im-
plications.
Various trends in input qualities potentially exist because of alternative
quality attributes which may be controllable in the future. Cropland
quality may be varied in the aggregate because of the relative composition
of land classes under cultivation, and, also, the shifting of land from
dryland to irrigated farming which changes the environmental implications.
Nutrient input qualities and their associated environmental implications
can vary by source, e.g., inorganic or organic, and by chemical formula-
tion, e.g., slow release compounds.
Trends in pesticide quality include the introduction of new chemicals,
plus the development of biological controls which may at least partially
control pests in integrated pest management systems. The quality of
water used in crop irrigation may have significant environmental implica-
tions, partially as related to its source—ground or surface, or as
related to the potential use of more saline water sources in the future.
Various potential advances appear plausible in the development of seeds
and plants, including higher yielding varieties, more pest and drought
resistant plants, and more salt tolerant plants. Additionally, alterna-
tive crops may be introduced or expanded in use over time within a region.
The regional panels assessed each of these basic input use (quantity and
quality) trends in their regions for the current period and for the
moderate and high growth 2010 periods. The specific extensiveness of use
and intensiveness of effects ratings for the moderate growth case are as
presented in the exhibits below for each region.
Management Practice Trends
Three classes of management practices were specified in this study: (1)
multi-season management, (2) crop season management, (3) noncrop season
management. These distinctions are useful for recognizing that the
environmental effects of crop production occur throughout the year—
with or without a growing crop. Also, some management practices, such
as land development practices, result in a relatively permanent (multi-
season) change in the crop production capabilities and the associated
environmental implications of cropping regardless of the crop produced.
130
-------
Multi-Season Management
Multi-season management refers to those crop producer activities which
have production and environmental implications for more than a single
crop season—usually several years. Two types of multi-season management
are: (1) land development practices, and (2) crop sequence practices.
Land development practices fundamentally involve structural changes of the
land features to enhance crop production and, at times, to improve the
environmental effects of crop production. In general, such structural
changes have long-term consequences. This grouping of practices includes:
(a) terraces, (b) grass waterways, (c) land forming, (d) irrigation
structures, and (e) windbreaks. Trend projections of their use-levels
and of their environmental implications were assessed during the workshop.
Crop sequence practices are primarily crop rotation decisions which have
multi-season" (long-term) implications. Such decisions may alter the
environmental effects of crop production at individual farm sites and
throughout a production area or region. This group of practices includes:
(a) mono-crop rotation, (b) no-meadow rotation, (c) sod-based rotation,
(d) double cropping, and (e) relay cropping.
Crop Season Management
Management during the crop season refers to all crop production activities
from the planting to the harvest of crops and is limited to those which
will cause no major stress on the crop, per se. The types of crop season
management include: (1) crop planting practices, (2) crop and field mon-
itoring practices, (3) crop fertilization practices, (4) pest control
practices, and (5) water application practices.
Various crop planting practices are employed by crop producers and each
practice has both crop output and residuals output effects; consequently,
each crop season management practice has environmental as well as crop
output implications. However, after a crop is planted, the producer's
concern is to provide the proper nutrients, pest controls, and moisture
(if controllable) to produce a profitable crop. Environmental concerns
are often secondary in importance; indeed, they may not be regarded as
being controllable by the producer. Despite the apparent conflict between
crop output and residuals control, important improvements in the method
of agricultural chemicals applications, in the assessment of a given crop's
needs (nutrients, pest control, diseases, water, etc.), and in the timing
of treatments can lead to both beneficial production results and bene-
ficial environmental effects.
Crop planting practices are those related to the placement of seeds or
plants and to the associated tillage operations. Planting practices may
have distinguishable environmental effects throughout the growing season
(and possibly longer). The specific planting practices included in this
analysis are: (a) no-till planting, (b) narrow row planting, (c) contour
planting, and (d) strip cropping, including barrier rows. Other practices
131
-------
are used, e.g., straight-row planting, but these will be considered as
"conventional" practices which are the basis for estimating changes in the
intensiveness of effects for trend projections.
Crop and field monitoring practices are various means of determining the
status of crop growing conditions, including the monitoring of pests,
diseases, moisture levels, plant growth and soil fertility. As monitor-
ing capabilities are improved and applied, the potential exists for the
better matching of input use-levels and plant growth needs. For example,
some insecticides may typically be applied as a preventive measure without
sufficient evidence of significant insect infestation. Since with improved
monitoring (scouting), the extent of the rate of insecticide use may be
reduced, this practice has obvious environmental implications. Three
monitoring practices included for the workshop assessment are: (a) sur-
face scouting, (b) remote-sensing scouting, and (c) soil-plant anslysis.
Crop fertilization practices involve both the methods for and the timing
of fertilizer applications. Fertilizers of different forms (granules,
liquid, gaseous) may be applied on the soil surface (with or without in-
corporation) through various placement options (broadcast, side-banded,
row-banded, side-dress). Further, varied equipment may be utilized (bulk
spreaders—truck, floater, tractor/wagon; drill; liquid-spray, irrigation;
aerial). Some applications of fertilizer are foliar rather than soil-
surface applied. In addition, one or several fertilizer applications may
be made during the growing season. Obviously, then, many combinations of
fertilization techniques are possible. For purposes of this study, how-
ever, the focus is on the following general practices: (a) surface appli-
cation (broadcast and banded), (b) aerial application, (c) foliar applica-
tion, and (d) multiple application. The latter practice incorporates the
time variable, that is, the fertilizer is applied at different times
throughout the growing season to accomodate plant growth nutrient require-
ments.
Pest control practices include those practices which utilize agricultural
chemicals (primarily, herbicides, insecticides, fungicides, and nernati-
cides) to control pests in crop production. Like fertilizer application
practices, pest control practices involve various methods of application,
Alternative product forms and alternative application techniques also
exist. Again, only a limited set of general practices will be assessed
in this study: (a) surface applied-broadcast, (b) surface applied-banded,
(c) aerial applied, and (d) dual fertilizer/pesticide applied.
The distinction between broadcast and banded surface application is pri-
marily one that isolates the rate per acre of pesticide use. Banded
rates are generally lower; however, some type of supplemental practice
may be required for some pests, e.g., banded herbicide treatment of a row
crop may require supplemental cultivation, a form of integrated pest con-
trol. The dual application of fertilizer and pesticides represents a
practice that is economically efficient.
132
-------
Water application practices involve alternative methods of crop irrigation
during the crop season. Some specified practices also involve irrigation
water-use efficiency. The specific water application practices identified
for this study's assessment are: (a) furrow basins, (b) sprinklers, (c)
water conserving-trickle, subirrigation, other, (d) recycling tailwater.
These practices are expected to have distinguishable environmental implica-
tions, and the extent of use of each differs within and among regions.
Noncrop Season Management
Management in the noncrop season refers to all management practices appli-
cable to cropland after the harvesting of one crop and before the planting
of the next. During the noncrop season, the crop producer can more
readily till the soil and perform crop-related, but usually not crop-
constrained, management practices.
Several such practices are those related to: (1) crop residue control,
(2) soil protection, (3) moisture control, (4) pre-plant fertilization,
and (5) pre-plant pest control practices.
Within these groupings of practices, many varied management practices are
being utilized by producers. In each case, there is a noncrop season
environmental effect and, frequently, a carry-forward crop season environ-
mental effect. For example, many reduced tillage practices which lessen
runoff and erosion and conserve moisture in the noncrop season will also
have similar effects during the crop season. Thus, noncrop season manage-
ment practices may be particularly important in the overall development
of improved environmental pollution controls.
In some crop production locations, because of the climate and weather,
the major environmental effects may occur in the noncrop season. In such
cases, the noncrop season management practices will likely be regarded as
more environmentally important than those in the crop season.
Crop residue control practices are those alternative methods and the
timing of them used to control the organic crop residues after harvest.
Crop residues may or may not be a "problem" depending on the type of crop,
the subsequent crop planting practice, and/or the annual variability in
the magnitude of the crop residue. Specific crop residue control prac-
tices included are: (a) fall incorporation, (b) spring incorporation,
(c) residue removal, and (d) residue burning.
Soil protection practices include those that are principally designed to
provide a soil stabilizing effect during the noncrop season. Other desir-
able environmental effects may be associated with these practices, e.g.,
reduced runoff and erosion, and improved water conservation. The specific
management practices included are: (a) reduced tillage, (b) cover crops,
(c) contour tillage, and (d) chemical erosion control.
is:
-------
Moisture control practices during the noncrop season are primarily in-
tended as a means of conserving moisture in the soil for subsequent crops,
especially in semi-arid production areas where natural moisture is limited.
The practices included in this cluster grouping are: (a) fallow cropping.,
(b) chemical tillage, e.g. weed control to conserve soil moisture, and
(c) chemical evapotranspiration control.
Pre-plant fertilization practices refer to all methods and times of fer-
tilizer application during the noncrop season. Such applications may be
made without direct interference with the growing crop and may be readily
incorporated in the soil. Obviously, however, no crop is immediately
available to utilize the nutrients applied. Only two general practices
are specified herein as follows: (a) fall applied, and (b) seed-bed
applied, i.e., just prior to planting.
Pre-plant pest control practices refer to all noncrop season pest control
measures which will enhance the production of the subsequent crop. These
practices may be applicable for pests either during the noncrop season or
they may be applied during the noncrop season as a preventive measure for
the subsequent crop. Two general management practices under this grouping
are: (a) noncrop season pesticide use, and (b) pre-emergent pesticide
use.
This outline of management practices within the crop production system
was extended by the workshop as applicable for the study's regions. How-
ever, only additional practices which have important environmental impli-
cations were of specific concern for this study.
Output (Residual Control) Trends
Residuals from crop production systems include sediment, nutrients, pes-
ticides, salts, organics, pathogens, odors and airborne particulate
matter. These residuals affect all primary environmental media, in-
cluding:
. surface water (quality and supply),
. ground water (quality and supply),
. air (quality), and
soil (composition and productivity).
The presence of many of the crop production system residuals does riot
necessarily represent an environmental hazard, since many ecosystems
utilize natural or other sources of residuals (e.g., sediment, nutrients).
In other words, many food chains are actually dependent upon residuals in
the environmental media. However, if excessive quantities of residuals
(including toxic substances) are discharged into an environmental medium,,
then the life-supporting ecosystems or other uses of that environmental
media may be detrimentally affected.
134
-------
Many of the preceding input use and management practice trends will
effectively prevent or reduce the generation of selected crop production
system residuals. Hence, such residuals may be adequately controlled
via those trends. However, a remaining potential alternative is to more
directly treat crop output residuals after they have been generated.
Two types of residual control trends were designated for the workshop's
assessment: (1) pollutant treatment, and (2) other treatment. Specific
controls within each category were assessed.
Pollutant treatments for nonpoint source crop output residuals are quite
different than traditional point source types of controls. In this case,
the pollutants are typically dispersed and fugitive; residual controls
generally rquire extensive rather than intensive treatment concepts.
The specific pollutant treatment options assessed by the panels were:
(a) barrier strips, (b) retention ponds, (c) diversion dikes, and (d)
chemical/mechanical treatments. Most characteristically, some farmland
is required for these residual controls, which implies a cost in terms of
foregone income from any cropland losses. Another general characteristic
of these trends is that, while they prevent pollutant "gains" into one
environmental medium, they still have not controlled the "losses" from
the originating medium, i.e., the soil.
Other treatments considered to achieve residual control were (a) land-use
restrictions, and (b) cropping restrictions. These restrictions are
effectively preventive practices, but they fall outside of the categories
of crop management practices previously described. In some instances,
e.g., the farming of environmentally fragile lands, the potential environ-
mental damages from crop production, even with best management practices,
may simply exceed both the private and public crop output benefits. In
such cases, more restrictive actions may be necessary to achieve environ-
mental management goals. Concurrently, however, crop output goals may
be affected.
The regional panels' assessments of these specific trends, and their
selected additions or deletions, follow in Exhibits B-l through B-5.
The extensiveness of use ratings refer to the study's moderate growth
scenario.
135
-------
Exhibit B-1 . Trend assessment ratings by crop production region, 1977 to 2010,
moderate growth scenario, Northeastern Region (Region I)
Crop Production
Variable (Trend)
Extensiveness of
Use Rating _!_/
1977 1985 2010
Intensiveness of Effect
Rating 2/
Sedi-
ment
Nut-
rients
Pest-
icides
I. INPUTS
A. Quantity Utilized
1. Additional land for crops
2. Nutrients
3. Pesticides
4. Water for irrigation
5. Seeds & plants
6. Equipment
7. Lime
B. Quality
1. Cropland
a. change in composition of
cropland acres
b. shift between dryland &
irrigated cropland
2. Nutrients
a. use of alternative sources
b. new chemical formulations
3. Pesticides
a. new chemicals
b. biological controls
4. Water for irrigation
a. use of ground water
b. use of surface water
c. use of saline water
5. Seeds and Plants
a. with increased yield potential
b. with oest resistance
c. with drought resistance
d. with salt tolerance
e. shift to alternative crop
f. symbiotic nitrogen fixation
II. MANAGEMENT
A. Multi-Season Management
1. Land development practices
a. terraces
b. grass waterways
c. land forming
d. irrigation structures
e. windbreaks
2. Crop sequence practices
a. mono-crop
b. no-meadow rotation
c. sod-based rotations
d. double crooping
e. relay cropping
4.5
2.5
3.0
0.5
3.0
3.0
2.0
1.5
na
2.0
1.0
2.5
1.0
.25
.25
0
3.5
4.0
1.0
0
1.0
na
1.0
2.0
0
0
na
2.0
3.0
2.0
na
na
4.5
3.5
3.0
0.5
3.0
4.0
2.5
1.5
na
2.5
2.0
3.0
1.0
0.5
.25
0
3.5
4.0
1.0
0
2.0
na
1.5
2.0
0.5
0
na
2.5
3.0
2.0
na
na
5,0
4.0
4.0
1.0
4.0
5.0
3.0
2.5
na
3.5
2.5
4.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
.25
4.5
5.0
2.0
1.0
3.0
na
2.0
3.0
1.0
0.5
na
3.0
3.0
2.0
na
na
+2
na
+2
0
0
0
0
0
0
+1
0
0
na
-1
na
+4
+3
na
na
na
-2
-1
+1
na
na
+1
na
-1
+1
0
0
+1
0
0
na
+1
na
+1
+1
na
na
na
-1
-1
0
na
na
+1
0
+1
+2
0
0
0
0
+1
0
na
+1
na
+2
+2
na
na
na
-2
-1
0
na
na
Continued
I/ Extensiveness of use ratings are positive values ranging from 1 (minor) to 5 (major) which,
in a series for 1977, 1985 and 2010, indicate the exoected "trend" in each crop production
variable, na = not assessed
2J Intensiveness of effect ratings are either positive (beneficial) or negative (adverse)
values ranging from 1 (minor) to 5 (major) for each of the principal crop production-
related environmental concerns -- sediment, nutrients, pesticides, salts/other (if
applicable). These ratings indicate the expected environmental-effects change from using
this practice vs. conventional practices.
136
-------
Exhibit B-1 (Continued)
Extensiveness of
Use Ratinq I/
Crop Production
Variable (Trend)
B. Crop Season Management
1. Crop planning practices
a. no-till planting
b. narrow row planting
c. contour planting
d. strip cropping
2. Crop & field monitoring practice
a. surface scouting
b. remote sensing scouting
c. soil-plant analysis
3. Crop fertilization practices
a. surface application
b. aerial application
c. foliar application
d. multiple application
4. Pest control practices
a. surface applied
b. surface applied (banded)
c. aerial applied
d. dual fertilizer/pest.
e. integrated pest control
5. Water application practices
a. furrow basins
b. sprinklers
c. water conserving
d. recycling tailwater
C. Non-Crop Season Management
1. Crop residue control practices
a. fall incorporation
b. spring incorporation
c. residue removal
d. residue burning
2. Soil protection practices
a. reduced tillage
b. cover crops
c. contour tillaae
d. chemical erosion control
3. Moisture control practices
a. fallow cropping
b. chemical tillage
c. chemical evapotranspiration
control
4. Pre-plant fertilization practices
a. fall applied
b. seed-bed applied
5. Pre-plant oest control
a. non-crop season
b. pre-emergent-oesticides
III. OUTPUT
A. Residual Control
1. Pollutant treatment
a. barrier strips
b. retention ponds
c. diversion dikes
d. chemical/mechanical
2. Other treatments
a. land-use restrictions
b. cropping restrictions
1977
2.0
3.0
2.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
3.0
3.0
1.0
0
3.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
na
1.0
0
na
2.0
3.0
1.0
na
3.0
1.0
2.0
na
na
na
na
2.0
3.0
na
3.0
1.0
0
1.0
na
0.5
0
1985
3.0
4.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.0
3.0
3.0
1.0
0.5
3.0
3.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
na
1.0
0.5
na
2.0
3.0
1.0
na
4.0
1.0
2.0
na
na
na
na
2.0
3.0
na
3.0
1.0
0
1.0
na
0.5
0
2010
4.0
4.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
2.0
4.0
4.0
2.0
1.0
4.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
na
2.0
1.0
na
2.0
3.0
1.0
na
5.0
2.0
3.0
na
na
na
na
1.0
2.0
na
4.0
2.0
1.0
2.0
na
1.0
1.0
Intensiveness of Effect
Rating 2/
Sedi-
ment
+4
+1
+2
+3
0
na
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
na
0
0
na
-3
-1
na
na
+3
+3
+3
na
na
na
na
0
0
na
0
+3
+4
+3
+5
+4
+4
Nut-
rients
-1
0
0
0
0
na
+3
-1
-1
+1
+1
0
0
0
0
0
na
-1
0
na
-3
-1
na
na
0
+2
0
na
na
na
na
-3
-1
na
0
+1
0
+1
+ 5
+4
+4
Pest-
icides
+2
0
+1
+2
+3
na
0
0
0
0
0
-1
0
-2
0
+5
na
0
0
na
0
0
na
na
0
0
0
na
na
na
na
0
0
na
-1
+1
0
+ 1
+ 5
+4
+4
137
-------
Exhibit B-2 . Trend assessment ratings by croo production region, 1977 to 2010,
moderate growth scenario, Southeastern Region (Region II)
Crop Production
Variable (Trend)
Extensiveness of
Use Rating \J
1977
1985
2010
Intensiveness of Effect
Rating 2/
Sedi-
ment
Nut-
rients
Pest-
icides
I. INPUTS
A. Quantity Util ized
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Additional land for crops
Nutrients
Pesticides
Water for irrigation
Seeds & plants
Equipment
2
2
4
1
1
3
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
3
3
5
2
2
4
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
4
5
4
4
3
4
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
-2
+1
+ 1
-1
fl
+1
-2
-2
+1
+1
+1
+1
-1
na
-2
-1
+ 1
+1
B. Quality
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Cropland
a. change in composition of
cropland acres
b. shift between dryland &
irrigated cropland
Nutrients
a. use of alternative sources
b. new chemical formulations
Pesticides
a. new chemicals
b. biological controls
Water far irrigation
a. use of ground water
b. use of surface water
c. use of sal ine water
Seeds and Plants
a. with increased yield potential
b. with pest resistance
c. with drought resistance
d. with salt tolerance
e. shift to alternative croo
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
4
2
2
2
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
na
.0
,0
.0
na
.0
3
2
1
2
3
1
2
1
4
2
2
3
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
na
.0
.0
.0
na
.0
5
4
2
3
5
2
4
3
5
3
3
d.
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
na
.0
.0
.0
na
.0
-2
-1
0
0
0
0
-1
-1
na
+2
+1
+2
na
-2
-2
+ 1
+2
+2
0
0
+ 1
+1
na
+3
H-l
+2
na
-1
-1
-1
0
0
+2
+3
-1
-1
na
+1
+4
+1
na
-2
II. MANAGEMENT
A. Multi -Season Management
1.
2.
Land development practices
a. terraces
b. grass waterways
c. land forming
d. irrigation structures
e. windbreaks
f. drainage
Crop sequence practices
a. mono-crop
b. no-meadow rotation
c. sod-based rotations
d. double cropping
e. relay cropping
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
4
1
2
1
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
4
1
3
1
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
2
3
3
3
1
3
2
4
1
4
2
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
+4
+4
+4
+1
+2
-1
-2
-1
+2
+2
+2
+4
+4
+4
+1
+ 1
-1
-2
-1
+2
+1
+ 1
+3
+3
+3
+ 1
+ 1
-1
-2
-1
+1
+1
+1
Continued . .
\j Extensiveness of use ratings are positive values ranging from 1 (minor) to 5 (major) which,
in a series for 1977, 1985 and 2010, indicate the expected "trend" in each croo production
variable.
2J Intensiveness of effect ratings are either positive (beneficial) or negative (adverse)
~~ values ranging from 1 (minor) to 5 (major) for each of the principal crop production-
related environmental concerns -- sediment, nutrients, pesticides, salts/other (if
applicable). These ratings indicate the expected environmental-effects change from
using this practice vs. conventional practices.
138
-------
Exhibit B- 2 (Continued)
Crop Production
Variable (Trend)
B. Crop Season Management
1. Croo planting practices
a. no-till planting
b. narrow row planting
c. contour planting
d. strip cropping
e. reduced tillage
2. Crop & field monitoring practice
a. surface scouting
b. remote sensing scouting
c. soil-plant analysis
3. Crop fertilization practices
a. surface application
b. aerial application
c. foliar application
d. multiple application
e. irrigation water
f. fertigation
4. Pest control practices
a. surface applied
b. surface appl ied (banded)
c. aerial applied
d. dual fertilizer/pest.
e. integrated pest control
f. irrigation applied
5. Water application practices
a. furrow basins
b. sprinklers
c. water conserving
d. recycling tailwater
C. Non-Crop Season Management
1. Crop residue control practices
a. fall incorporation
b. spring incorporation
c. residue removal
d. residue burning
2. Soil protection practices
a. reduced tillage
b. cover crops
c. contour tillage
d. chemical erosion control
3. Moisture control practices
a. fallow cropping
b. chemical tillage
c. chemical evaootranspiration
control
4. Pre-plant fertilization practices
a. fall applied
b. seed-bed applied
5. Pre-plant pest control
a. non-crop season
b. pre-emergent pesticides
III. OUTPUT
A. Residuals Control
1. Pollutant treatment
a. barrier strips
b. retention ponds
c. diversion dikes
d. chemical/mechanical
2. Other treatments
a. land-use restrictions
b. cropping restrictions
Extensiveness of
Use Rating I/
1977
2.0
2.0
3.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
1.0
3.0
4.0
1.0
1.0
3.0
1.0
na
3.0
2.0
3.0
2.0
2.0
1.0
na
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
1.0
3.0
1.0
na
na
1.0
1.0
4.0
1.0
5.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
na
1.0
1.0
1985
2.0
3.0
3.0
1.0
2.0
4.0
1.0
4.0
4.0
1.0
1.0
3.0
2.0
na
3.0
2.0
4.0
2.0
3.0
2.0
na
2.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
4.0
2.0
3.0
1.0
na
na
1.0
1.0
4.0
1.0
5.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
na
1.0
1.0
2010
3.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
3.0
5.0
2.0
5.0
4.0
1.0
2.0
4.0
3.0
na
3.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
5.0
3.0
na
4.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
2.0
2.0
1.0
5.0
2.0
3.0
1.0
na
na
1.0
2.0
4.0
2.0
4.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
na
2.0
2.0
Intensiveness of Effect
Rating 2/
Sedi-
ment
+4
+3
+2
+3
+1
+ 1
+1
+ 1
0
0
0
+1
na
+1
0
0
0
0
0
0
na
-1
+1
+1
-1
+1
-1
-1
+3
+3
+2
na
na
na
na
-1
0
-1
0
+2
+3
+2
na
+3
+2
Nut-
rients
-1
+2
+2
+3
+1
+ 1
+1
+3
-2
-1
+ 1
+2
na
+2
0
0
0
0
0
0
na
+1
+2
+2
-1
+ 1
-1
-1
+2
+3
+1
na
na
na
na
-3
0
-1
0
+ 1
+2
+1
na
+3
+2
Pest-
icides
-2
+2
+1
+2
-1
+4
+1
+1
0
0
0
0
na
0
-2
-1
-3
-1
+4
+ 1
na
-1
0
+1
+1
0
0
+ 1
-1
0
0
na
na
na
na
0
0
+1
-2
+1
+2
+ 1
na
+3
+2
139
-------
Exhibit B-3 . Trend assessment ratings by crop production region, 1977 to 2010,
moderate growth scenario, Cornbelt/Lake States Region (Region III)
Crop Production
Variable (Trend)
Extensiveness of
Use Rating I/
1977 1985 2010
Intensiveness of Effect
Rating 2J
Sedi-
ment
Nut-
rients
Pest-
icides
I. INPUTS
A. Quantity Utilized
1. Additional land for crops
2. Nutrients
3. Pesticides
4. Water for irrigation
5. Seeds & plants
6. Equipment
B. Quality
1. Cropland
a. change in composition of
crooland acres
b. shift between dryland &
irrigated cropland
2. Nutrients
a. use of alternative sources
b. new chemical formulations
3. Pesticides
a. new chemicals
b. biological controls
4. Water for irrigation
a. use of ground water
b. use of surface water
c. use of saline water
5. Seeds and Plants
a. with increased yield potential
b. with pest resistance
c. with drought resistance
d. with salt tolerance
e. shift to alternative crop
f. non-symbiotic nitrogen fixation
II. MANAGEMENT
A. Multi-Season Management
1. Land development practices
a. terraces
b. grass waterways
c. land forming
d. irrigation structures
e. windbreaks
f. drainage
2. Crop sequence practices
a. mono-croo
b. no-meadow rotation
c. sod-based rotations
d. double cropping
e. relay cropping
4.0
3.0
4.0
1.0
na
1.5
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
na
4.0
4.0
4.0
na
1.0
1.0
1.0
3.0
2.0
na
1.5
3.0
2.0
4.0
1.5
1.0
1.0
5.0
4.0
4.5
2.0
na
2.5
1.5
1.0
2.0
2.5
4.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
na
5.0
5.0
5.0
na
1.0
1.0
2.0
4.0
3.0
na
1.0
4.0
1.5
4.0
1.5
1.5
1.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
3.5
na
3.5
2.0
1.0
3.0
3.0
5.0
3.0
3.5
1.0
na
5.0
5.0
5.0
na
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.5
4.0
na
1.0
4.5
1.0
4.5
1.0
2.0
1.5
-3
1
0
0
0
0
0
na
+1
0
+1
na
0
0
+4
+2
-1
na
+1
+2
-2
-3
+3
+ 1
+ 1
-2
-2
2
2
0
0
-3
-3
na
1
0
+1
na
0
4
+3
+2
-1
na
0
-1
-2
-1
+3
+1
+1
Continued
-3
-1
0
0
2
4
-1
-1
na
0
+3
0
na
0
0
+3
+2
-1
na
0
0
-2
-1
+2
-1
-1
I/ Extensiveness of use ratings are positive values ranging from 1 (minor) to 5 (major) which,
in a series for 1977, 1985 and 2010, indicate the expected "trend" in each crop production
variable.
21 Intensiveness of effect ratings are either positive (beneficial) or negative (adverse)
values ranging from 1 (minor) to 5 (major) for each of the principal croo production-
related environmental concerns -- sediment, nutrients, pesticides, salts/other (if
applicable). These ratings indicate the expected environmental-effects change from
using this practice vs. conventional practices.
140
-------
Exhibit B-3 (Continued)
Crop Production
Variable (Trend)
Extensiveness of
Use Rating I/
1977 1985 2010
Intensiveness of Effect
Rating 2/
NuTT
ment
rients
Pest-
icides
B. Crop Season Management
1. Crop planting practices
a. no-till planting
b. narrow row planting
c. contour planting
d. strip cropping
2. Crop & field monitoring practice
a. surface scouting
b. remote sensing scouting
c. soil-plant analysis
d. environmental monitoring
3. Crop fertilization practices
a. surface application
b. aerial application
c. foliar application
d. multiple application
4. Pest control practices
a. surface applied
- herbicides
- insecticides
b. surface applied (banded)
- herbicides
- insecticides
c. aerial applied
d. dual fertilizer/pest.
e. integrated pest control
f. disease control
5. Water application practices
a. furrow basins
b. sprinklers
c. water conserving
d. recycling tailwater
C. Non-Croo Season Management
1. Crop residue control practices
a. fall incorporation
b. spring incorporation
c. residue removal
d. residue burning
2. Soil protection practices
a. reduced tillage
b. cover crops
c. contour tillage
d. chemical erosion control
3. Moisture control practices
a. fal low cropping
b. chemical tillage
c. chemical evapotranspiration
control
4. Pre-plant fertilization practices
a. fall applied
b.
5. Pre-plant pest control
a. non-croo season
b. pre-emergent pesticides
III. OUTPUT
A. Residuals Control
1. Pollutant treatment
a. barrier strips
b. retention oonds
c. diversion dikes
d. chemical/mechanical
2. Other treatments
a. land-use restrictions
b, crop restrictions
1.0
3.0
2.0
1.5
1.0
1.0
3.0
1.0
5.0
1.0
1.0
3.0
4.0
1.0
2.0
4.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
1.0
na
5.0
1.0
1.0
4.0
3.0
1.0
na
2.0
1.0
2.0
na
na
na
1.0
2.5
5.0
2.0
na
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
4.0
2.0
1.5
3.0
2.0
4.0
3.0
5.0
1.5
1.0
3.0
5.0
2.0
1.5
4.0
4.0
4.0
3.5
2.0
na
5.0
1.0
1.0
3.5
3.0
2.0
na
4.0
2.0
3.0
na
na
na
1.0
3.0
4.5
2.0
na
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.5
3.0
1.5
3.0
5.0
1.5
1.0
4.0
3.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
5.0
2.5
1.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
3.0
na
4.5
1.5
1.5
3.5
2.0
2.5
na
4.5
2.0
4.0
na
na
na
1.5
3.5
4.5
2.0
na
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.5
4.0
2.0
+5
+1
+2
+4
0
0
0
+2
0
+ .5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
na
0
0
0
-3
-2
-2
na
+3
+2
+2
na
na
na
0
0
0
0
na
+3
+3
+2
+ 1
+3
+3
+1.5
+ .5
+1
+2
0
0
+3
+ 1
0
0
0
+ 1
0
0
0
0
0
-1
0
0
na
-2
0
+ 1
-1.5
-1
-1
na
+1.5
+2
+1
na
na
na
0
-3
-1
0
na
+1.5
+1
+1
+ 1
+1
+3
-1
-.5
+ .5
+ 1
+2
+ 1
+ 1
+ 1
0
0
0
0
-1
-1
+1
+1
-1.5
-1
+3
-1
na
-1
0
+ 1
0
0
0
na
-1
0
+ .5
na
na
na
0
0
0
-1
na
+ 1.5
+1
+1
+1
+ 1
+ 3
-------
Exhibit B-4. Trend assessment ratings by crop production region, 1977 to 2010,
moderate growth scenario, Great Plains Region (Region IV)
Crop Production
Variable (Trend)
Extensiveness
Use Rating !_/
1977
1935
of
2010
Intensiveness of Effect
Rating 2/
Sedi-
ment
Nut-
rients
Pest-
icides
Salts/
Other
I. INPUTS
A. Quantity Utilized
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Additional land for crops
Nutrients
Pesticides
Water for irrigation
Seeds and plants
4
3
3
0
4
.0
.0
.6
.5
.0
4
3
4
0
4
.1
.5
.2
.5
.5
4.
4.
4.
0.
4.
6
2
8
7
8
-3
+1
0
0
+1
-2
-1
0
-0.1
+1
-1
0
0.5
0
+0.5
0
0
0
-0.2
0
B. Quality
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Crooland (quantity)
a. change in composition of
cropland acres
b. shift between dryland and
irrigated cropland
Nutrients
a. use of alternative sources
b. new chemical formulations
c. new physical formulations
Pesticides
a. new chemicals
b. biological controls
Water for ^irrigation
a. use of ground water
b. use of surface water
c. use of saline water
Seeds and plants
a. with increased yield potential
b. with pest resistance
c. with drought resistance
d. with salt tolerance
e. shift to alternative crop
2
1
4
3
1
1
3
(0
0
0
0
0
0
.0
.0
0
0
0
.0
.5
.0
.0
.0
0
-0
0
3
1
4
4
1
1
4
.1
.1
0
0
0
.7
.0
.0
0
0
0
.1
.0
.0
.0
.0
0.
-0.
0.
2.
4.
2.
0.
4.
4.
2.
1.
5.
6)
2
2
0
0
2
0
0
2
0
0
8
8
0
2
0
-3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
+0.2
-2
-0.1
0
0
0.5
0
0
-0.1
-0.1
-0.1
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
+0.2
-1
0
0
0
0
0.1
+2
0
0
0
0.5
2
0
0
+0.2
0
-0.2
0
0
0
0
0
-0.2
-0.2
-1
0
0
0
0.5
0
II. MANAGEMENT
A. Multi -Season Management
1.
2.
Land development practices
a. terraces
b. grass waterways
c. land forming
d. irrigation structures
e. windbreaks
Croo sequence practices
a. mono-crop
- row
- drilled
b. no-meadow rotation
c. sod-based rotations
d. double crooping
e. relay cropping
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
4
1
0
0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.1
.1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
4
1
0
0
.0
.0
.0
.5
.5
.0
.0
.0
.0
.1
.1
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
4.
1.
0.
0.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
+4
4
1
1
2
-2
2
-1
1
2
2
4
4
1
1
2
-2
2
-1
1
2
2
4
4
1
1
2
-2
2
-1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Continued
I/ Extensiveness of use ratings are positive values ranging from 1 (minor) to 5 (major) which,
in a series for 1977, 1985 and 2010, indicate the expected "trend" in each crop production
variable.
2_/ Intensiveness of effect ratings are either positive (beneficial) or negative (adverse)
values ranging from 1 (minor) to 5 (major) for each of the principal crop production-
related environmental concerns -- sediment, nutrients, pesticides, salts/other (if
applicable). These ratings indicate the expected environmental-effects change from
using this practice vs. conventional practices.
142
-------
Exhibit B- 4 (Continued)
Crop Production
Variable (Trend)
Extensiveness of
Use Rating I/
1977 1985 2010
Intensiveness of Effect
Rating 21
Sedi-
ment
Nut-
rients
Pest-
icides
Salts/
Other
B. Crop Season Management
1. Crop planting practices
a. no-till planting
b. narrow row planting
c. contour planting
d. strip cropping
2. Crop & field monitoring pract.
a. surface scouting
b. remote sensing scouting
c. soil-plant analysis
3. Crop fertilization practices
a. surface application
b. aerial application
c. foliar application
d. multiple application
e. fertigation
4. Pest control practices
a. surface applied
b. surface aoplied (banded)
c. aerial appllied
d. dual fertilizer/pest.
e. integrated pest control
f. post-emergence pesticide
g. pre-emergence pesticide
5. Water application practice
a. furrow basins
b. sprinklers
c. water conserving
d. recycling tailwater
C. Non-Crop Season Management
1. Crop residue control practices
a. post-crop incorporation
b. pre-crop incorporation
c. residue removal
d. residue burning
2. Soil protection practices
a. reduced tillage
b. cover crops
c. contour tillage
d. chemical erosion control
3. Moisture control practices
a. fallow cropping
b. chemical tillage
c. chemical evapotranspiration
control
4. Pre-plant fertilization practices
a. post-crop applied
b. pre-crop aoplied
5. Pre plant pest control
a. non-crop season
b. pre-emergent-pesticide
III. OUTPUT
A. Residuals Control
1. Pollutant treatment
a. barrier strips
b. retention pounds
c. diversion dikes
d. chemical/mechanical
2. Other treatment
1.0
3.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.5
3.0
4.5
1.0
0.1
1.0
1.0
4.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
4.0
2.0
4.0
4.0
1.0
0
2.0
0.1
4.5
1.0
0
2.0
0
1.0
0
2.0
0.1
0
1.5
3.5
0.5
4.0
1.0
0.1
0.1
0
0
2.0
4.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
4.5
1.0
0.1
1.0
2.0
4.0
1.0
4.0
4.0
4.5
3.0
3.0
4.0
1.0
0
3.0
0.1
4.5
1.0
0
3.0
0
1.0
0
2.0
1.0
0
2.0
3.0
0.5
3.0
1.2
0.2
0.1
0
0
3.0
5.0
1.5
1.0
3.0
5.0
5.0
4.8
2.0
0.2
1.0
2.5
5.0
1.0
4.0
4.0
5.0
4.0
2.0
3.0
2.0
0.1
2.0
0.1
4.5
1.0
0
4.0
0
1.5
0
1.5
2.0
0.1
2.5
2.5
1.0
2.0
1.5
0.5
0.2
0
0
4
1
1
2
0.5
0.5
0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-2
3
4
0
1
-1
0
2
1
-2
3
1
0
0
0
0
2
2
1
0
0
4
1
1
2
0.5
0.5
2
0
0
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-1
2
4
0
1
-1
0
2
1
-2
3
1
0
0
0
0
2
1
1
0
0
1
0
1
2
2
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
-1
0
2
3
0
0
-1
1
4
0
0
-1
0
-1
1
+1
-0.5
1
0
0
0
0
2
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
143
-------
Exhibit B- 5. Trend assessment ratings by crop production region, 1977 to 2010,
moderate growth scenario, Western Region (Region V)
Extensiveness of
Use Rating !_/
Crop Production
Variable (Trend)
1977
1985
2010
Intensiveness of Effect
Rating 2/
Sedi-
ment
Nut- Pest- Salts/
rients icides Other
I. INPUTS
A. Quantity Utilized
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Additional land for crops
Nutrients
Pesticides
Water for irrigation
Seeds and olants
Other
4
4
3
3
5
1
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
4.
4.
4.
3.
5.
1.
0
5
0
5
0
5
4
4
4
4
5
2
.0
.5
.5
.5
.0
.0
-3
+1
+2
-1
+1
-1
-3
-1
+1
-1
+1
0
-2
0
-1
-1
0
0
-3
0
0
-]
0
-]
B. Quality
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Cropland
a. change in composition of
cropland acres
b. shift between dryland and
irrigated cropland
Nutrients
a. use of alternative sources
b. new chemical formulations
Pesticides
a. new chemicals
b. biological controls
Water for Irrigation
a. use of ground water
b. use of surface water
c. use of saline water
Seeds and plants
a. with increased yield potential
b. with pest resistance
c. with drought resistance
d. with salt tolerance
e. shift to alternative crop
f. cold tolerance
1
1
1
1
3
1
3
4
0
2
1
1
2
1
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.5
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
0
1.
1.
1.
1.
4.
1.
3.
4.
0.
2.
1.
1.
2.
1.
0.
5
5
0
0
0
5
0
5
5
5
5
0
5
0
5
2
2
2
1
5
2
2
5
1
4
3
1
4
2
1
.5
.0
.0
.5
.0
.5
.5
.0
.0
.0
.0
.5
.0
.0
.0
-2
+1
+1
0
0
0
+1
+1
0
+2
+2
+3
0
-1
+ 1
-1
-1
-1
+1
0
0
+1
+1
0
+3
+2
+3
0
-1
+1
0
-L
0
0
+2
+3
0
0
0
0
+3
+1
0
-1
0
-1
-L
-3
0
0
0
4-1
+1
0
0
0
+1
+4
-1
0
II. MANAGEMENT
A. Multi -Season Management
1.
2.
Land development practices
a. terraces
b. grass waterways
c. land forming
d. irrigation structures
e. windbreaks
f. soil profile modification
Crop sequence practices
a. mono-crop
b. no-meadow rotation
c. sod-based rotations
d. double cropping
e. relay cropping
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
4
1
2
2
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
1.
1.
2.
2.
1.
1.
2.
4.
1.
2.
2.
0
0
5
5
0
5
0
0
0
5
5
2
1
4
4
1
2
2
4
1
3
3
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.5
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
+4
+4
+4
+3
+2
+2
-2
-1
+2
-2
-2
+2
+1
+2
+1
0
+1
0
0
+1
0
0
+ 1
-n
41
41
0
0
-2
0
+1
-1
-1
continued
0
0
+ 3
42
0
+2
0
0
0
-1
-1
V Extensiveness of use ratings are positive values ranging from 1 (minor) to 5 (major) which,
in a series for 1977, 1985 and 2010, indicate the expected "trend" in each crop production
variable.
2/ Intensiveness of effect ratings are either positive (beneficial) or negative (adverse)
values ranging from 1 (minor) to 5 (major) for each of the principal crop production-
related environmental concerns -- sediment, nutrients, pesticides, salts/other (if
applicable). These ratings indicate the expected environmental-effects change from using
this practice vs. conventional practices.
144
-------
Exhibit B-5 (Continued)
Crop Production
Variable (Trend)
B. Crop Season Management
1. Crop planting practices
a. no-till planting
b. narrow row planting
c. contour planting
d. strip crooping
2. Crop and field monitoring pract.
a. surface scouting
b. remote sensing scouting
c. soil-plant analysis
3. Crop fertilization practices
a. surface application
- broadcast
- banded
b. aerial application
c. foliar application
d. multiple application
e. irrigation water application
4. Pest control practices
a. surface applied
b. surface applied (banded)
c. aerial applied
d. dual fertilizer/pest.
e. integrated pest control
5. Water application practice
a. basins
b. sprinklers
c. water conserving
d. recycling tail water
e. furrow
C. Non-Crop Season Management
1. Crop residue control practices
a. fall incorporation
b. spring incorporation
c. residue removal
d. residue burning
2. Soil protection practices
a. reduced tillage
b. cover crops
c. contour tillage
d. chemical erosion control
3. Moisture control practices
a. fallow cropping
b. chemical evapotranspiration
control
c. water harvesting
4. Pre-plant fertilization practices
a. fall applied
b. seed-bed applied
5. Pre-plant pest control
a. non-crop season
b. pre-emergent-pesticides
III. OUTPUT
A. Residuals Control
1. Pollutant treatment
a. barrier strips
b. retention ponds
c. chemical/mechanical
2. Other treatments
a. land-use restrictions
b. cropping restrictions
Extensiveness of
Use Rating ]_/
1977
1.
3.
0.
2.
2.
1.
3.
4.
2.
1.
1.
3.
1.
1.
1.
3.
1.
2.
0.
2.
0.
2.
4.
3.
2.
1.
1.
2.
1.
0.
2.
0.
0.
4.
1.
1.
0.
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Q
5
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
5
5
5
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
1985
1.
4.
0.
2.
3.
1.
4.
3.
3.
1.
1.
3.
1.
1.
1.
4.
1.
4.
0.
2.
0.
3.
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
5
0
0
0
5
0
5
5
5
0
4.0
3.
2.
1.
1.
3.
1.
0.
2.
1.
0.
4.
1.
0.
2.
1.
0.
0.
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
5
5
0
5
5
0
0
5
5
2010
2,
5,
1.
2,
5.
2.
5.
2.
4,
1.
2,
4,
2
2.
2
4.
3.
5,
1
3,
1,
2,
3.
3
2
1.
0,
4,
1,
1.
0
2,
1.
2.
5
2,
1.
1
1
2
1
.0
.0
.0
.0
,0
.0
.0
.0
.0
,0
.0
,0
.0
,0
.0
.0
,0
.0
.0
,0
.0
.0
5
.0
.0
,5
.5
.0
.0
.0
.5
.0
.0
.0
0
.0
0
.5
.0
.0
.5
.0
.0
Intensiveness of Effect
Rating 2]
Sedi-
ment
+4
+1
+2
+2
+2
+1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
+3
+3
+5
+4
-2
-1
+ 1
-2
-3
+3
+3
+3
+2
-2
+1
+2
0
0
0
-1
+3
+4
0
H
+2
Nut-
rients
+1
+1
+1
+1
+2
+1
+4
-1
+1
-1
+1
+3
-1
0
0
0
0
0
+ 1
+2
+3
+2
-1
+1
+1
-2
-2
+2
+3
+2
+ 1
0
+ 1
+1
-3
+1
0
+1
+2
+2
+1
+2
+ 1
Pest-
icides
-2
0
+ 1
0
+4
+2
+1
0
0
0
0
0
0
-1
-1
-2
-1
+3
+1
0
+ 1
+ 1
-1
+ 1
+ 1
-1
-1
+1
+ 1
+1
+1
0
0
+1
0
0
0
+1
+1
+1
+1
+1
+2
Salts/
Other
0
-1
+1
0
+1
+2
+2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
+2
+1
+1
0
0
0
0
0
0
+1
0
+1
0
0
+1
+1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
+3
+1
-------
APPENDIX C
REGIONAL DATA: CROP PRODUCTION SYSTEM
The assessment of environmental implications of regional crop production
trends requires a knowledge and understanding of both natural factors (e.g.,
climate, soils, geographical features) and the crop production systems
utilized in each region. Selected materials and information are summarized
below which characterize each of the study's five regions: Northeastern,
Southeastern, Cornbelt/Lake States, Great Plains, and Western, as illustrated
by the map shown in Exhibit C-l.
First, data and information that are best presented on a national/regional
basis are shown. Both similarities and differences among the regions are
readily perceived from the national perspective. Second, region-specific
data are presented for each region.
A. National/Regional Information
Maps showing various natural factors important for crop production are pre-
sented to provide an overall view of climatic and geographic factors in the
U.S. and to show interregional and intraregional relationships (Exhibits C-2
to C-12).
1. Climate
. Mean Annual Precipitation
. Mean Annual Freeze-free Period
. Mean Annual Wind Speed
2. Soil
. General Pattern of Great Soil Groups
3. Geography
. Principal Rivers and Drainage Basins
4. Management Practices
. Contour Farming
Stripcropping and Terraces
. Tillage Methods by Region
. Tillage Method by Crop and Region
5. Output
Location of Cropland for Corn, Soybeans,
Cotton and Wheat
. Relative Potential Sediment Contribution
to Watershed
146
-------
ill
147
-------
-------
"O
o
a;
Q.
QJ
cu
I
OJ
N
a>
a)
s-
c
c
to
d)
ro
i
•4-J
_Q
•^^Vc^ ''^'':'"'• '//''/'"^ • /• '/-''//•' -
^iUpwS"^' &
W^K^'^^'^/r, ^
o
I^x
CTi
s-
O)
OJ
4->
s_
«3
Q.
OJ
Q
00
res
o
•p—
en
O
'o
0)
03
l/l
a>
40
"3
4->
oo
•a
0)
O
re
13
c
o
"3
-------
o
r~-
CTl
o
•I—
s_
CL
Ol
-o
CD
X
•r—
£
_C
cn
^
O
-o
OJ
a;
Q.
I/I
13
C
(t!
a>
X
UJ
;v*::*SW£:
+ +i+ *- * *.A-.••.-••.•
^JS@S^
:^iV
>>*
-:+>+
O)
Q.
OJ
O
>
3
oo
"3
O
•i—
CD
O
'o
O)
CD
0)
+J
(O
-M
CO
-o
OJ
4->
c
!^
O)
JC
+-)
<4-
O
IO
fO
4J
•=c
c:
O
(O
:^
O)
o
5-
o
oo
150
-------
S_
o>
s-
o>
-O
c
n3
-O
-o
T3
c
o
S- E
cn o
et -C
151
-------
CO
- i
.S O
ol -a
c
ro
O
-(->
(T3
E
(_
O
lf-
c
S-
O)
tu
LO
O
S-
OJ
ai
cu
S-
OJ
D1
r-.
ai
"4-- r-H
o
01 o
i- QJ
+J C
n3 OJ
3 <->
CU
O
S-
I- A C.I F 1
152
-------
CO
Z3
CO
c
OJ
03
QJ
5-
c:
o
ro
i-
-*->
O
U
O
o
s_
ID
O
tJ
OJ
-I-J
i-
rt]
Q_
O)
O)
U
s_
153
-------
Exhibit C-8. Erosion control systems, 1969
Stripcropping Systems to Control Erosion, 1969
(Class 1-5 farms)
Cropland and Pastureland Having Terraces, 1969
(Class 1-5 farms)
Source: 1969 Census of Agriculture
154
-------
r-..
cn
i— i
r£
cn
i— i
»>
c
o
cn
CU
S-
>-
J3
•o
o
.c
a;
E
CU
cn
•r-
1—
cn
i
o
•M
.0
"P
x
LjJ
i — •
ro
c.
O 0)
•i- cn
CU r—
> -r-
c t—
o
(_J
CU
cn
ra
r—
1 —
•r-
r~
E
E
•r—
c
•r—
CU
cn
ra
P
O
"ZZ,
"^
-*s.
CTt
1 — 1
t^Q
r*-v
cr»
i— H
r^
pv*
CTi
r-H
vO
p*^
cn
r— i
j^
f^^
cn
r— 1
UD
cn
i— i
c
o
CD
CU
fy'
o
oo
in
**
un
i — i
oo
LO
LD
CM
^-^ oo
I/) ^O
CU "
t *""*
o
rD
o
^5 r*^
0 CO
«\
•— I
oo
CM
00
LO
cn
i\
c
O)
4->
(/I
ro
CU
-C
•4-3
t-
1 — 1
r^
oo
t — (
«*
i— i
oo
rv
CO
o
*^
1 — 1
oo
oo
LO
r-^
r*
ID
00
OO
oo
r,
UD
^.
CM
OO
n
CM
i — l
LO
r-H
n
CM
c
i-
OJ
4-^
ra
CU
_d
•i—1
^3
O
oo
i
t— H
t— H
ID
OO
t — •
•^
OO
^
cn
CM
t— »
»»
LO
r^^
r--
00
O
*
CM
CM
r-<
LD
cn
«
00
cn
oo
cn
rt
00
LO
^~
r^*
n
oo
vi
4.3 4_)
r- rO
CU 4->
ca oo
c ai
O fO
O _J
1
|Z|
i — i
cn
O
LO
"
LO
CO
o
CM
O
*>
LO
CO
^.
p^..
^±
*•>
CO
I— 1
LO
cn
LO
*\
i
oo
CM
rx.
CM
cn
LO
i/i
£=
•r-
ro
ol
•4-*
ra
CO
i.
0
1
t — I
CM
LO
oo
ft
oo
CM
CM
CM
o
ft
LO
CM
1 —
CO
n
CTi
^j-
CM
00ft
Is-
O
LO
1— 1
LO
^-
rH
C
S-
CU
-t-J
t/)
CU
1
•
r-.
i —
cn
,— i
jT
o
i.
ra
s:
„
^_
CU
E
i.
u.
,
•1 —
1
o
. ,
QJ
o
S-
o
oo
155
-------
r— CO
c
0
1
V)
E
3
rj
5-
O
C
13
S-
V)
C
ro
OJ
O
on
c
o
•LJ
C
O OJ
C i—
0) j—
o
E
c:
•E
o
entionaT
llage
0
,—
U
c
o
(0
O QJ
•i- cn
4J ra
0) ^
c +->
o
r-
-M
C
1
0
ra
c
O O)
r- cn
-»-> fa
O) r—
> T-
O
,_
1
c
o
c
o
Cn
OJ
o:
,-H LO
CO
O
VO I-H
^H —' OJ
ro ro
o o"
156
-------
to
CD
o
o
to
c
tO
O)
s-
o
o
O
o
c:
ro
a.
o
o
to
(_>
o
x
O)
157
-------
c
o
o
QL
(D
•o
QJ
10
O)
.C
l/>
s_
QJ
4->
<0
O
-a
c
(O
CL
O
S_
O
o
C
o
3
_Q
O
o
(O
4J
C
O)
-4->
o
Q.
01
>
4->
ro
a>
i
o
0)
•o
O
-C
o>
fO
o
S-
o s-
o cu
O >
C O
O) ^
CD
«=c *
+->
C E
O
O)
Q)
O O
O) r—
+-> O)
O >
S-
E -a
C •!-
O 3
S- CD
S_ 3
3 C
4-> (C
•— E
3
o
C «
O) -O
E c
-(-> fO
S_ i—
-------
B. Region Specific Information
Summary data I/ are presented below for each of the study's five regions
as follows:
1. Region I: Northeastern
2. Region II: Southeastern
3. Region III: Cornbelt/Lake States
4. Region IV: Great Plains
5. Region V: Western
The basic types of data, for selected (available) periods, are shown
according to the following format:
a. General geography
. Principal Rivers
. Land Resource Regions
. Landform
b. Climate
c. Land Use
d. Land Capability Classes
e. Potential and Current Cropland
f. Crops Grown
g. Conservation Practices
h. Moisture Control
. Irrigation
. Artificially Drained Land
i. Fertilizers Applied
j. Pesticides Applied
1. Region I—Northeastern
The Northeastern region is comprised of 11 states as follows:
New England States: Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Rhode Island,
Massachusetts, Connecticut
Mid Atlantic States: New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland,
Pennsylvania
a. General geography
Principal Rivers and Drainage Basins: New England, Delaware-Hudson, upper
Chesapeake, Eastern Great Lakes - St. Lawrence.
V Unless indicated otherwise, data were obtained from various U.S. Depart-
ment of Agriculture publications.
159
-------
Land_R_esqurce_Reqion^: Northeastern Forage and Forest region, A portion
bT the N~ortTiern Atlantic Slope Truck, Fruit and Poultry Region. A portion
of the East and Central General Farming and Forest Region. A portion of
Lake States Fruit, Truck and Dairy Region.
Landform: Consists primarily of plains in the Coastal Region but variations
include the Appalachian ridges and plateaus and plains and the Catskill
Mountains.
b. Climate
Climatic region: Continental moist, humid region, vulnerable chiefly to
short droughts.
Mean annual sunshine: 2,200 - 2,600 hours,
Mean annual precipitation: 40-48 inches
Mean annual freeze-free period: Range from 120-180 days with 90 days in
isolated northern areas.
Average annual wind speed through mixing depth: 8-10 m/sec throughout
major portion of region, with average 10 m/sec in northermost region of
Maine and 6-8 m/sec in Central and Western Pennsylvania.
Mean annual pan evaporation: (81.3 cm) in Northern New England 32-48 inches
(81.3 - 121.9 cm) in remainder of region.
c. Land use I/
1969 1974 £/
(1,000 acres) (1,000 acriesj
Farm land
for crops 12,204 11,934
soil improvement or idle 1,980 1,082
pasture only 3,669 3,106
Total cropland (17,853) (16,112)
Other farmland
open permanent pasture 2,398
forest and woodland pasture 2,028
forest and woodland - not pasture 5,613
other 1,270
Total in farms 29,162
I/ U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Statistics, 1976.
2/ Complete 1974 data are not available.
160
-------
c. (continued) 1969
(1,000 acres)
Land not in farms
Pasture, range 974
Woodland - not grazed 63,390
Other (including urban) 18,603
Total land area 112,129
Land in special use
Urban area 7,282
Rural transportation 2,037
Rural parks 3,795
Wildlife refuge 1,618
National defense and industrial
areas 475
State institutional and miscel-
laneous areas 214
Farmsteads, farm roads and lanes 386
Total 15,807
d. Land Capability Classes (1975) ]_/
% (1,000 acres)
Class I-III 39.8 39,750
Class IV 9.9 9,908
Class V-VIII 50.3 50,334
e. Potential and current cropland - 1975 ]_/
Soil^ Class High Potential Medium Potential Current
15QOO acres
I-III 1,658 890 14,067
IV 298 157 2,027
V-VIII 181 330 1,248
Total 2,137 1,377 17,342
I/ U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, "Potential
Cropland Study," July 1976.
161
-------
f. Crops Grown (1974) I/
Row
Small grain
Rice
Sugarcane
Vegetables
Primary Crops
Corn
Alfalfa
Oats
Wheat
Soybeans
Rye
Vegetables
Barley
Tobacco
g. Conservation Practices - 1969
(approximated from Ag Census Maps)
On contour (Grain and Row Crops)
Stripcropping
Terraces
h. Moisture Control
(1,000 acres)
4,913
2.512
Irrigation - 1969
1.2% of cropland
0.7% of total land in farms
Irrigated acres
Irrigated acres - crop harvested
Irrigation by Type (1969)
Furrows or ditches
Sprinklers
Flooding
Subirrigation
Artificially drained land
394
3,827
1,909
896
833
648
420
394
363
43
(1,000 acres)
430
249
80
(1,000 acres)
217.8
219.6
5.0
169.8
5.9
2.0
1,316
I/ Tabulated from USDA, Ag Statistics, 1976.
162
-------
i. Fertilizers Applied (1974)
(minion tons)
Commercial 3.6
Natural ]_/
Milk cows 3.3
Chicken (3 months or older) .3
Broilers .6
Hogs and pigs .2
Total 4.4
k. Pesticides Applied (active ingredient) 2J
1971
(1,000 Ibs)
Fungicides 9,616
Herbicides 11,880
Insecticides 7,871
Miscellaneous 238
Total 29,606
]_/ Source: Manure to animal ratios (from USDA and EPA Control of Water
Pollution from Cropland, Vol. 1) applied to 1974 number of animals
from Agricultural Statistics.
2/ Excludes summer fallow, nursery and greenhouse crops.
163
-------
2. Region I I—Southeastern
The Southeastern Region is comprised of 12 states: Virginia, West Virginia,
Tennessee, Kentucky, North Carolina, South Carolina, Alabama, Georgia,
Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas.
a. General Geography:
Principal Rivers and Drainage Basins: Tennessee River, Cumberland River,
Southern Ohio River, South Atlantic, Lower Mississippi River, Eastern Gulf,
Red-White River and Lower Arkansas River.
Land Resource Regions: Contains all or part of the following - Atlantic and
Gulf Coast Lowland Forest and Truck Crop Region; South Atlantic and Gulf
Slope Cash Crop, Forest and Livestock Region; Mississippi Delta Cotton and
Feed Grains Region; East and Central General Farming and Forest Region;
Florida Subtropical Fruit, Truck Crop and Range Regions.
Landform: Consists of smooth flat coastal plains, open hills and low moun-
tains in the Ozark and the Southern Appalachian Regions.
b. Climate:
Climatic region: subtropical moist; vulnerable chiefly to short droughts.
Mean annual sunshine: 2,200 - 2,400 hours in Central Appalachian Region;
2,400 - 2,800 hours in the Southern Delta States, Eastern and Western
Appalachian States; 2,800 - 3,000 hours in most of Southeast area and Upper
Delta States.
Mean annual precipitation: 40 - 48 inches in Appalachian area (except
Tennessee) Georgia and South Carolina; 48 - 56 inches in Delta States,
Western and Southern Southeast area, Tennessee.
Freeze-free period: 300 - 360 days in Southern Florida; 240 - 300 days in
Southern areas up to mid-Southeast area; 180 - 240 days in Northern S.E.
and Delta States, Western and Eastern Appalachian; 120 - 180 days in Cen-
tral Appalachian.
Average Annual wind speed: 4-6 m/sec. in Eastern Louisiana, Mississippi,
Alabama, North and West Florida; 6 - 8 in East Florida-Georgia, Northern
Alabama and Mississippi, Western Louisiana, Arkansas and Western Appala-
chian Region; 8-10 m/sec. in Northeastern portion of area.
Mean annual pan evaporation: 32 - 48 inches of Northern and Central Appala-
chian Region; 48 - 64 inches in all of remainder (South Florida and Louis-
iana); 64 - 80 inches in Southwest Florida and South and West Louisiana.
164
-------
c. Land Use I/
Farm land
1969
1974^
(1,000 acres) (1,000 acres)
for crops
soil improvement or idle
pasture only
Total cropland
Other farmland
open permanent pasture
forest and pasture
woodland - not pasture
other
Total in farms
Land not in farms
Pasture, range
Woodland - not grazed
Other
Total land area
Land in special use
Urban area
Rural transportation areas
Rural parks
Wildlife refuge
National defense and industrial areas
State institutional and miscellaneous
users
Farmsteads, farm roads and lanes
Total
d. Land Capability Classes (1975) 3/
Class I-III
Class IV
Class V-VIII
46.9
16.2
36.9
42,230
9,636
24,746
(76,612)
21,761
19,311
28,350
4,721
150,755
27,962
130,635
30,416
339,768
8,286
5,609
2,631
2,523
2,836
825
1,959
24,669
(1,000 acres)
143,040
49,423
112,720
41,050
5,357
23,643
(70,050)
]_/ U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Statistics, 1976.
2/ Complete 1974 data were not available.
3/ U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, "Potential
Cropland Study," July 1976.
165
-------
e. Potential and current cropland - 1975 ]_/
Soil Class High Potential Medium Potential Current
15QOO acres
I-III 24,058 9,291 49,523
IV 2,510 3,611 4,727
V-VIII 656 916 2,817
Total 27,224 13,818 57,067
f. Crops Grown (1974)
(1,000 acres)
Row 39,817
Grain 5,293
Rice 1,505
Sugarcane 604
Primary Crops
Soybeans 17,202
Corn 8,730
Cotton 5,680
Wheat 2,863
Rice 1,505
Oats 1,169
Peanuts 1,082
Rye 925
Tobacco 889
Sorghum 701
Sugarcane 604
Vegetables 556
Barley 336
g. Conservation Practices (1969)
(approximated from Ag Census Maps) (1,000 acres)
On contour (Grain and Row Crops) 2,186
Stripcropping 100
Terraces 810
h. Moisture Control
Irrigation
2.1% of total land in farms
4.4% of cropland
]_/ U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, "Potential
Cropland Study," July 1976.
166
-------
h. (Continued) (1,000 acres)
Irrigated acres 3,411.0
Irrigated acres - crops harvested 3,038.9
Irrigation by Type (1969 Census)
Furrows or ditches 964.0
Sprinklers 744.3
Flooding 1,492.9
Subirrigation 244.6
Artificially drained land 12,050
i. Fertilizer (1974)
(1,000 tons)
Commercial 13,373
Natural V
Manure (dry weight)
Cattle fattened
Milk cows 2,564
Hogs and pigs 1,749
Chickens (3 months or older) 790
Broilers 2.790
Total 7,893
j. Pesticides (active ingredients) 21
1971
(1,000 Ibs)
Fungicide 68,881
Herbicide 51,024
Insecticide 104,633
Miscellaneous 17,531
Total 242,069
]_/ Source: Manure to animal ratios (from USDA and EPA Control of Hater
Pollution from Cropland, Vol. 1) applied to 1974 number of animals
from Agricultural Statistics.
2/ Excludes summer fallow, nursery and greenhouse crops.
167
-------
3. Region III - Cornbelt/Lake States
The Cornbelt/Lake States region is comprised of eight states: Missouri,
Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Michigan.
a. General Geography:
Principal Rivers and Drainage Basins: Lower Missouri, Northern Ohio, Upper-
Mississippi, Western Great Lakes.
Land Resource Regions: Central Feed Grains and Livestock Region. A portion
of the East and Central General Farming and Forest Region in southern
Missouri, extreme southern Indiana and southeast Ohio. Northern Lake
States, Forest and Forage Region.
Landform: Primarily, smooth plains with high hills in Ozarks, open hills
in southeastern Ohio and swamps and lakes in the north.
b. Climate:
Climatic region: Continental moist; humid region, vulnerable chiefly to
short droughts.
Mean annual sunshinej 2,200 hours in north, increasing to 2,400 to south and
east and increasing to 2,800 in western portion.
Mean annual precipitation: 32 inches in north increasing to 48 inches in
south.
Mean annual freeze-free period: Varies from 60 - 120 days in the Lake
States, 120 days in southern Illinois and Missouri, to 150 - 180 days
throughout most of the remainder of the region.
Average annual wind speed through mixing depth: 8 meters per second in
eastern portion increasing to 10 meters per second in the western portion.
Mean annual pan evaporation: 16 inches in northern Lake States, 32 inches
in the east increasing to 48 inches in Missouri and the western half of Iowa.
168
-------
c. Land Use I/
Farm Land
for crops
soil improvement or idle
pasture only
Total cropland
Other farmland
open permanent pasture
forest and pasture
woodland - not pasture
other
Total in farms
Land - not in farms
Pasture, range
Woodland - not grazed
Other (includes urban)
Total Laird Area
Land in special use
Urban area
Rural transportation
Rural parks
Wildlife refuge
National defense and industrial
areas
State institutional and miscel-
laneous uses
Farmsteads, farm roads and lanes
Total
d. Land Capability Classes 3/ (1975)
1969
1974 2/
(1,000 acres) (1,000 acres)
Class I-III
Class IV
Class V-VIII
67.8
13.9
18.3
102,225
21,897
22,179
(146,301)
12,978
12,393
10,489
7,281
189,442
11,462
56,374
29,651
286,929
8,634
6,735
2,125
2.234
489
185
3,075
23,477
(1,000 acres)
175,700
36,021
47,589
110,836
6,358
19,780
(136,974)
!_/ U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Statistics, 1976.
2/ Complete 1974 data were not available.
3_/ U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, "Potential
Cropland Study," July 1976.
169
-------
e. Potential and current cropland - 1975 I/
Soil Class High Potential
I-III 13,806
IV 1,640
V-VIII 93
Total 15,549
Crops Grown
Row
Grain
Rice
Primary Crops
Corn
Soybeans
Wheat
Alfalfa
Oats
Barley
Vegetable
Sorghum
Rye
Cotton
Sugarbeets
Flaxseed
Tobacco
Rice
Conservation Practices - 1969
(approximated from Ag Census maps)
On contour (Grain and Row Crops)
Stripcropping
Terraces
Medium Potential
3,230
650
1,454
5,334
1969
(1,000 acres)
84,247
19,092
15
49,060
32,320
10,219
10,025
7,385
907
903
705
571
371
305
280
30
15
(1,000 acres)
4,728
373
1,972
Current
119,286
8,4ob
3,152
130,923
h. Moisture Control
Irrigation
0.3% of cropland
0.2% of land in farms
V/ U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, "Potential
Cropland Study," July 1976.
170
-------
h. (Continued) 1969
(1,000 acres)
Irrigation - by Type (1969 Census)
Furrows or ditches 76.7
Sprinklers 309.3
Flooding 75.4
Subirrigation 9.4
Artificially drained land 36,153
i. Fertilizer (1974)
(1,000 tons)
Commercial 16,030
Natural ]_/
Manure (dry weight)
Cattle (feedlot 3,573
Milk cows 7,068
Hogs and pigs 7,173
Chicken (3 months and older) 629
Total 18,443
j. Pesticides (active ingredient) 2/
1971
(1,000 Ibs)
Fungicides 7,766
Herbicides 118,323
Insecticides 25,173
Miscellaneous 501
Total 151,763
]_/ Source: Manure to animal ratios (from USDA and EPA Control of Hater
Pollution from Cropland, Vol. 1) applied to 1974 number of animals
from Agricultural Statistics.
2/ Excludes summer fallow, nursery and greenhouse crops.
171
-------
4. Region IV--Great Plains
The Great Plains regions is comprised of six states: Kansas, Nebraska,
North Dakota, South Dakota, Texas, and Oklahoma
a. General Geography:
Principal Rivers and Drainage Basins: Hudson Bay, Upper Missouri, Upper
Arkansas - Red, Western Gulf.
Land Resource Regions: The eastern portions of Northern Great Plains Spring
Wheat Region; Western Great Plains Range and Irrigated Region. Essentially
all of: Central Great Plains Winter Wheat and Range Region; Southwestern
Plateau and Plains Range and Cotton Region; Southwestern Prairies Cotton
and Forage Region; The western portions of Atlantic and Gulf Lowland Forest
and Truck Crop Region; South Atlantic and Gulf Slope Cash Crop; Forest and
Livestock Region.
Landforms: Smooth to irregular plains interspersed with open hills, and
with mountains in South Dakota.
b. Climate:
Climatic region: Continental moist in eastern portion and Continental Steppe
in Western portion.
Mean annual sunshine: 2,800 hours on Texas Gulf Coast, decreasing to 2,600
inland, increasing again to 2,800 in central Texas, increasing to 3,000
hours throughout most of region, decreasing to 2,800 in South Dakota and to
2,600 in North Dakota.
Mean annual precipitation: Decreases from east to west - 40 inches in
eastern Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas, decreases rather uniformly to 20 inches
in central portion to 16 at western edge of region with further decrease in
southwest Texas and western North and South Dakota.
Mean annual freeze-free period: Range; 90 days in northernmost North Dakota
to over 300 in south Texas.
Average annual wind speed through mixing depth: Changes from 8 - 10 in south
Texas, decreasing to 6 - 8 m/sec in central Texas increasing to 8 - 10 m/sec
throughout remainder of region except for eastern Nebraska and the major por-
tion of Kansas where speed averages over 10 m/sec.
Mean annual pan evaporation: Tremendous variation within region; 112 inches
in southwest Texas decreasing to 96 inches further north, 80 inches in cen-
tral Texas, western Oklahoma and Kansas, 64 inches in eastern Texas, Oklahoma,
Kansas and central and western Nebraska, 48 inches in northern Nebraska, most
of South Dakota and western North Dakota, with 32 inches in remainder of
region.
172
-------
c. Land Use I/
Farm Land
1969
1974 27
(1,000 acres) (1,000 acres)
for crops 122,220
soil improvement or idle 12,954
pasture only 28,106
Total cropland (163,280)
Other farmland
open permanent pasture 180,200
forest and pasture 11,271
woodland - not pasture 2,196
other 5,554
Total in farms 362,501
Land - not in farms
Pasture, range 21,517
Woodland - not. grazed 6,591
Other 15,420
Total Land Area 406,029
Land in special use
Urban area 4,121
Rural transportation 5,800
Rural areas 1,659
Wildlife refuge 1,408
National defense and industrial areas 1,153
State institutional and miscellaneous
areas 368
Farmsteads, farm roads and lanes 1,902
Total 16,411
d. Land Capability Classes (1975) 3/
Class I-III
Class IV
Class V-VIII
51.7
11.0
37.3
(1,000 acres)
198,360
42,403
143,060
98,246
25,352
28,140
(151,738)
!_/ U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Statistics, 1976.
2_/ Complete 1974 data were not available.
3/ U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, "Potential
Cropland Study," July 1976.
173
-------
e. Potential and current cropland - 1975 I/
f.
Soil Class High Potential
I-III 18,191
IV 2,507
V-VIII 1,176
Total 21,874
Crops Grown
Row
Grain
Rice
Sugarcane
Primary Crops
Wheat
Sorghum
Corn
Spring wheat
Alfalfa
Oats
Cotton
Soybeans
Barley
Flaxseed
Rye
Rice
Peanuts
Sugar beets
Vegetables
Sugarcane
Conservation Practices - 1969
(approximated from Ag Census Maps)
On contour
Stripcropping
Terraces
Medium Potential
1M 0 O 3 f* Y*C\ C
4,247
851
1,636
6,734
1974
(1,000 acres)
44,089
52,680
565
29
41,355
15,085
14,417
12,630
7,630
7,220
5,770
3,337
3,000
1,456
1,105
565
430
284
194
29
(1,000 acres)
6,500
6,124
13,148
Current
113,712
12,408
5,705
131,825
]_/ U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, "Potential
Cropland Study," July 1976.
174
-------
h. Moisture Control
(1,000 acres)
Irrigation (1969 Census)
7.3% of cropland
3.3% of total farmland
Irrigated acres 11,910.6
Irrigated acres - crops harvested 11,034.2
Irrigation - by Type
Furrows or ditches 8,116.8
Sprinklers 2,177.0
Flooding 1,618.7
Subirrigation 47.0
Artificially drained land 5,312
i. Fertilizer (1974)
(1,000 tons)
Commercial 7,584
Natural ]_/
Manure (dry weight)
Cattle (feedlot) 30% 6,008
Milk cows 1,600
Hogs and pigs 1,614
Chickens (3 months and older) 176
Broilers, etc. 285
Total 9,683
j. Pesticides (active ingredients) 2]
~~ 1971
(1,000 Ibs)
Fungicides 8,289
Herbicides 75,746
Insecticides 26,055
Miscellaneous 8,815
Total 118,905
]_/ Source: Manure to animal ratios (from USDA and EPA Control of Water
Pollution from Cropland, Vol. 1) applied to 1974 number of animals
from Agricultural Statistics.
2_/ Excludes summer fallow, nursery and greenhouse crops.
175
-------
5. Region V--Western
The Western Region is comprised of eleven states: Nevada, Idaho, New Mexico,
Arizona, Utah, Montana, Colorado, Wyoming, Washington, Oregon, and California.
a. General Geography:
Principal Rivers and Drainage Basins: Pacific Northwest, Great Basin, South
Pacific, Colorado and the western portions of the Upper Missouri, Upper
Arkansas - Red, and Western Gulf.
Land Resource Regions: Northwestern Forest, Forage and Specialty Crop Region;
Northwestern Wheat and Range Region; California Subtropical Fruit, Truck and
Specialty Crop Region; Western Range and Irrigated Region; Rocky Mountain
Range and Forest Region and the western portion of Northern Great Spring
Wheat Region; Western Great Plains Range and Irrigated Region.
Landform: The sharpest contrast of any region. Flat plains in the Sacramento
and San Joaquin River Valley to plains with low mountains and high rugged
Rocky Mountains.
b. Climate:
Climatic region: Marine temperate, subtropical dry, desert, continental
steppe.
Mean annual sunshine: 4,000 hours in the southeastern tip of California
and the southwestern decreasing to 1,800 hours in northwest Washington.
Mean annual precipitation: Varies from 0-8 inches in desert areas to 128
inches in coastal areas of Washington. Major portion of region 16 inches
or less.
Mean annual freeze-free period: Varies from over 300 days to less than 90
days in mountains and northern areas.
Average annual wind speed through mixing depth: Under 4 m/sec on coast of
southern Oregon and northern California, increasing up to 6 m/sec further
inland, increasing to 8 m/sec throughout central portion of region, increas-
ing up to 10 m/sec in eastern central and northeast portion of region.
Mean annual pan evaporation: Varies from a high of 144 inches in desert
region to 16 inches on Washington Coast.
176
-------
c. Land Use I/
Farm Land
1969 1974 2/
(1,000 acres) (1,000 acres)
for crops
soil improvement and idle
pasture only
Total Cropland
Other farmland
open permanent pasture
forest and pasture
woodland - not pasture
other
Total in farms
Land not in farms
Pasture and range
Woodland - not grazed
Other
Total land area
Lamj jn_ special use
Urban area
Rural transportation
Rural parks
Wildlife refuge
National defense and industrial areas
State institutional and miscellaneous
uses
Farmsteads, farm roads and lanes
Total
d. Land Capability Classes (1975) 37
Class I-III
Class IV
Class V-VIII
20.2
10.8
69.0
54,075
4,441
9,517
(68,033)
232,692
17,408
2,920
8,826
329,879
225,565
99,904
100,865
756,213
6,067
5,524
31,062
4,334
17,935
300
1,073
66,295
(1,000 acres)
77,283
41,358
264,564
40,775
15,978
8,028
(63,781)
J7 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Statistics, 1976.
2/ Complete 1974 data were not available.
37 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, "Potential
Cropland Study," July 1976.
177
-------
e. Potential and current cropland - 1975 I/
Soil Class
High Potential
Medium Potential
Current
I-III 7,652
IV 1,421
V-VIII 2,288
Total 11,361
Crops Grown (1974)
Row
Grain
Rice
Sugarcane
Primary Crops
Wheat
Alfalfa
Barley
Spring wheat
Cotton
Corn
Oats
Sorghum
Vegetables
Sugar beets
Rice
Rye
Sugarcane
Flaxseed
Peanuts
Conservation Practices - 1969
(approximated from Ag Census Maps)
On contour
Stripcropping
Terraces
Moisture Control
.--i nnn arvoc-— __-_-.
2,039
1,765
1,528
5,332
(1 ,000 acres)
10,981
21,938
470
101
16,084
6,569
4,388
3,527
1,795
1,753
1,297
1,185
1,271
662
470
169
101
23
8
(1,000 acres)
728
5,601
425
47,112
12,110
3,337
62,559
Irrigation - 1969 Census
32.4% of cropland
6.7% of total land in farms
I/ U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, "Potential
Cropland Study," July 1976.
178
-------
h. (Continued) (1,000 acres)
Irrigated acres 22,042.1
Irrigated acres - crop harvested 18,167.0
Irrigation - by Type
Furrows or ditches 9,820.9
Sprinklers 3,731.7
Flooding 8,665.2
Subirrigation 290.0
Artificially drained land 4,678
i. Fertilizer (1974)
1974
(million tons)
Commercial 7.4
Natural I/
Manure (dry weight)
Cattle (feedlot) 3.42
Milk cows 2.28
Hogs and pigs -23
Chickens (3 months or older) .40
Broilers -19
Total 6.52
j. Pesticides (active ingredient) 2_/
1971
(1,000 Ibs)
Fungicides 60,096
Herbicides 111,440
Insecticides 51,245
Miscellaneous 19.187
Total 238,968
]_/ Source: Manure to animal ratios (from USDA and EPA Control of Water
Pollution from Cropland, Vol. 1) applied to 1974 number of animals
from Agricultural Statistics.
2J Excludes summer fallow, nursery and greenhouse crops.
179
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(f 'lease read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1 REPORT NO. 2. |3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
EPA-600/3-79-047
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Environmental Implications of Trends in Agriculture and
Silviculture. Volume III: Regional Crop Production
Trends
7 AUTHOR(S)
Samuel G. Unger
9 PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Development Planning and Research Associates
200 Research Drive
Manhattan, Kan. 66502
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Environmental Research Laboratory— Athens, GA
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Athens, Ga. 30605
5. REPORT DATE
Apri 1 1979 issuing date
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
1BB770
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-03-2451
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/01
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
Volume I: Trend Identification and Evaluation (EPA-600/3-77-121 )
Volume II: Environmental Effects of Trends (EPA-600/3-78-102)
16. ABSTRACT
This study identified and assessed, on a regional basis, the current and emerging
trends in the U.S. crop production subsector that will have the most significant
environmental implications. Panels of agricultural specialists evaluated and rated
the most significant environmentally related trends. A primary conclusion of the
study was that the crop production sector can, with achievable developments, realize
projected 2010 moderate growth scenario production levels while concurrently
realizing enhanced environmental effects relative to current (1977) conditions.
To do so, the crop production sector must employ improved crop production inputs
and more sophisticated management practices and residual controls. These conditions
are, in turn, dependent upon (1) improved policies to control agriculture's
exogenous factors and (2) requisite research developments to assure those improved
crop production inputs, management practices, and residual controls. If these
requisite research developments and improved policies are not forthcoming and
implemented, then adverse and potentially serious environmental consequences can
be expected to occur from the crop production system's residual outputs (pollutants)
by 2010.
17. KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
a DESCRIPTORS
Agriculture
13. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
RELEASE TO PUBLIC
b. IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
Silviculture
Environmental effects
Environmental quality
management
19 SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
UNCLASSIFIED
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
UNCLASSIFIED
c. COS AT I Field/Group
48D
68D
91 A
98C
21. NO. OF PAGES
202
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
180
U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1979 — 657-060/5:
------- |