Why Landowners Restore Wetlands:
A National Survey
by Dr. James L. Pease, Merry L. Rankin,
Joel Verdon, and Russell Reisz
Iowa State University Extension
Dept. of Animal Ecology
Ames, Iowa
EDC-107
-------
jCPA 10* ft-
Why Landowners Restore Wetlands:
A National Survey
by Dr. James L. Pease, Merry L. Rankin,
Joel Verdon, and Russell Reisz
Iowa State University Extension
Department of Animal Ecology
Ames, Iowa
^02-
EPA 904-R-97-***-.
reprinted by:
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 4, Water Division, Wetlands Section
61 Forsyth street, S. W.
Atlanta, Georgia, U. S. A. 30303-3415
(404) 562-9900 voice
(404) 562-8339 TTY/TDD
(800) 241-1754 voice
WEB site: http://www.epa.gov/docs/Region4Wet/wetlands.html
e-mail: burnett.thomas@epamail.epa.gov
Acknowledgments
Funding for this research came from the National Wetlands Conservation Alliance with
assistance from the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U. S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Office of Extension Programs, Cooperative Agreement #14-48-0009-95-1252. Spe-
cial thanks to Gene Whitaker of the NWCA and Duncan McDonald of the U. S. Fish and
Wildlife Service for their enthusiastic support of this project. This research was conducted
through the Department of Animal Ecology at Iowa State University and Iowa State Uni-
versity Extension. Thanks also to Dr. Bruce Menzel and Dr. James Dinsmore for text review.
Artwork in this publication by Mark Miiller, Oxford, LA.
EDC 107, January 1997
-------
Introduction
In the mid 1700s, the land now called the "Lower 48" United States was estimated to
contain some 221 million acres of wetlands (Dahl, 1990). The Federal Swamp Land Acts of
1849,1850, and 1860 ceded to 15 states all "swamp and overflow lands" and authorized
their citizens to drain some 65 million acres and convert them to agricultural and other uses
"for the public good." This was the national policy on wetlands until 1977 when President
Carter's Executive Order #11990 formally changed national policy on wetlands. Until that
time, wetlands were generally considered "wastelands" which needed to be "improved".
One avid Iowa waterfowler and farmer expressed the opinion of many in a 1991 survey:
"The only good wetland is either drained for productive cropland or deepened to make a
duck pond. Anything in-between is worthless." (Pease, 1992).
Though some regulatory authority over wetlands was instituted in the 1972 Federal
Water Pollution Control Act, wetland conversion remained federally sanctioned. Until the
President's 1977 Order ended direct federal assistance for wetland conversion, few besides
wildlife and wetland ecologists understood the values of wetlands. Our national behavior
reveals this ignorance: since 1849, we have drained, filled, or converted to other uses some
54% of the 221 million acres of wetlands in the lower 48 states (Tiner, 1984). Even since the
1950s, some 10.7 million acres of palustrine wetlands have been converted to other uses,
including 87% for agricultural vises (Tiner, 1984). From the 1960s through the mid-1970s,
some 300,000 acres of wetlands per year were converted to other uses in the U.S. The rate
was reduced to about 100,000 acres per year until the mid-1980s and now has fallen to
about 30,000 acres per year (Colacicco, 1993).
Of the wetlands remaining, some 75% are estimated to be owned privately (EPA, 1993).
This presents a policy challenge for public resource agencies: while wetland ownership is
largely private, the benefits of keeping wetlands on the landscape are largely public. The
functions of wetlands—the maintenance of surface and groundwater quality, flood control,
nutrient and pesticide filtering, and wildlife habitat—are all values accrued to the public at
large. Recreational benefits may accrue to both private and public entities. The problem
for government remains one of finding the right combination of public subsidies to private
landowners and regulatory restrictions which allow both public values and private rights
to be maintained and the wetlands to remain on the landscape. It is in that combination
that much of the current argument is engaged.
The series of Farm Bills that typify and dominate U.S. agricultural policy began with the
1933 Agriculture Adjustment Act. That act was passed to prevent the total collapse of the
U.S. agricultural sector. Like almost all of its successor Farm Bills, enacted approximately
every 5 years since, it was written primarily by people closely associated with agriculture.
As the percentage of the population engaged in agriculture has shrunk, so too has
agriculture's representation and influence in Congress. With only about 2% of the popula-
tion involved in agriculture, the 1985 Farm Bill was written and passed with a coalition of
agricultural, consumer, and environmental interests. Although some previous Farm Bills
contained significant conservation provisions, the 1985 Food Security Act was the first
Farm Bill to be passed by such a broad coalition of supporting groups.
9
-------
With President Carter's 1977 Executive Order, wetland protection was established as
official U.S. Government policy, ending direct Federal assistance for wetland conversion for
the first time since 1849. The 1985 Farm Bill was the first farm legislation to recognize the
importance of wetlands and their many functions. Reactions to many of the provisions of
that bill were mixed. It fundamentally changed the relationship between farmers and the
federal government: instead of offering only the "carrots" of deficiency payments, disaster
payments, and other subsidies to encourage farmers to comply with desired conservation
practices, for the first time the government used the "stick" of threats to cut off all farm
program benefits if farmers violated certain provisions, including draining additional
wetlands. While many farmers complied with the complicated provisions, others strongly
objected and sought legal actions to change them.
With the passage of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation and Trade Act of 1990 (the 1990
Farm Bill), another "carrot" was added: the Wetland Reserve Program (WRP). This pro-
gram authorized the voluntary restoration and protection of wetlands by agricultural
landowners through the governmental purchase of permanent or long-term conservation
easements of wetland acres and some surrounding uplands. The law required, however,
that permanent easements receive top priority for funding. While some saw the permanent
easement as a hindrance to enrollment, others felt it to be a reflection of emerging public
policy to pay for conservation practices only once. Finally implemented as a pilot in 1992,
the first sign-up defied the predictions of many pundits. The goal of the first sign-up was
to enroll up to 50,000 total acres in nine pilot states. Initial interest sign-ups revealed farm-
ers were willing to enroll up to nearly 10 times that many acres! Subsequent sign-ups have
had similar interest, despite the permanency of the easement rules.
The spring and summer of 1993 brought severe flooding to riparian areas in 20 states.
To provide relief to landowners who lost crops, livestock, and other property in those
record floods, Congress created the Emergency Wetland Reserve Program (EWRP) to pur-
chase permanent easements and create wildlife habitat in the stricken areas. Not restricted
to farmed wetlands like the WRP, EWRP has brought protection to many thousands of
acres of riparian wetland in those 20 states. Together the WRP and EWRP have enrolled
nearly 400,000 acres of land nationally since 1992. In exchange for granting a conservation
easement, landowners are compensated at the rate of fair market value of the rights con-
veyed in the easement.
One other extant wetland restoration program is the Private Lands Program of the U. S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). This program is available to landowners, regardless of
whether or not they farm, and provides both technical and financial assistance in restoring
wetlands and other essential habitats for migratory birds and endangered species. Unlike
the WRP and EWRP, the Private Lands Program usually involves a 10-year sign-up and can
provide up to 100% of the cost of restoration, but does not make any payment for land
rights. In the last ten years in USFWS Region 3 (essentially the upper Midwest), this pro-
gram has completed projects on over 62,300 acres of wetlands in addition to many upland
and riparian area projects (J. Munson, USFWS, pers. comm., Sept. 1996.) Nationally, the
program has helped some 15,000 landowners restore about 450,000 acres of wetlands and
associated uplands.
3
-------
All three programs are voluntary enrollment efforts and have proven to be extremely
popular, with the WRP surviving even the budget cutting ax of a conservative Congress in
the 1996 Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act (the 1996 Farm Bill.) What has
made the programs so popular? Why do landowners, especially farmers who depend on
the productivity of the land to produce salable crops, enroll their land in a program that
obligates both them and future owners of that land to take it permanently out of produc-
tion? What have we learned from implementation of these programs that will help us
shape future programs? How can we best reach landowners who might wish to restore
wetlands? In short, what motivates private landowners to restore wetlands?
Some understanding of farmer reaction to the WRP was gained through a study con-
ducted by the Soil and Water Conservation Society of America (Schnepf, 1994). Based on
nineteen focus groups in seven of the original nine WRP pilot states, the study elicited
farmer views on wetlands and wetland issues generally, and determined farmer reactions
to the WRP specifically. Schnepf reached several conclusions:
• Farmers are generally aware of at least some of the values of wetlands, though
they disagree on the definition of "wetland".
• Farmers are aware of some of the various wetland programs, especially WRP and
Swampbuster. They are also aware of some other programs but have difficulty
distinguishing between different agencies' programs, whether state or federal.
• Farmers obtain their information about wetlands from many sources—both public
and private—and their trust in the quality of that information generally depends
upon the specific individual from whom they obtain it. There is a general cyni-
cism about the reliability of information from "government".
• There is inconsistency between and within states as to how farmers were made
aware of the program. Though a national brochure was made available to all
states, many farmers were not aware of the program. In some states, ASCS and
SCS personnel made personal contacts with farmer, while in others public media
were the primary mode of information distribution.
• Many farmers are concerned about the permanency of the easement arrangements
and about the financial and tax implications of such easements. There is also
concern that many SCS and ASCS employees could not give adequate answers to
questions about such concerns.
• While some farmers indicate they would probably restore wetlands anyway, most
indicate that a WRP with no easement payments or significantly lower rates of
remuneration for easements would be unacceptable.
• Stated reasons for enrollment among farmers successful in selling an easement
vary widely. They include land isolation, economics, wildlife, preventing wildlife
damage to crops, recreational use, and risk reduction. Schnepf suggested: "These
multiple motivations should not be lost on those with responsibilities for promot-
ing the program."
Still, the focus group study did not give quantifiable data on how best to focus future
wetland education programs, especially those promoting enrollment of land in wetland
conservation programs. Human motivation is complex at best and difficult to quantify.
While one might speculate that the nature of modern agriculture dictates that economic
4
-------
factors are the basis of enrollment decisions, some economists have recognized that eco-
nomics alone do not explain such behavior; rather, attitudinal and other variables must
contribute to our models of conservation behavior (Lyrine et al. 1988).
A study of 245 landowners on one Ohio watershed attempted to discern the difference
between those who were and were not willing to participate in wetland mitigation projects
in the region. The study found that landowners most likely to participate were part-time
farmers who already owned some wetlands, had larger farms, were slightly less well-
educated than the average area landowner, and valued wetlands and the watershed
(Napier et al. 1995).
The Oregon Wetlands Conservation Alliance surveyed 17 landowners who had restored
wetlands on their property. Fifteen of those landowners cited "to provide wildlife habitat"
and "natural beauty" as the most important reasons for their wetland restoration (M.
Wealey, EPA, pers. comm.) Similar results were found in a New York survey: 11 of 17
landowners reported that "preservation of natural habitat" was the most important reason
for their wetland restorations (Chan et al. 1996.)
A study of Corn Belt farmers' willingness to participate in the USDA's Water Quality
Incentive Program (WQIP) found that five factors helped predict their willingness to par-
ticipate. Those farmers who had positive attitudes about governmental wetland regula-
tions, who had more education, who tended to rent rather than own their land, who had
had more contact with conservation professionals, and who had a larger percentage of their
gross farm income from specialty crops were more likely to want to participate in WQIP.
The authors found about 45% of respondents were potentially interested in the program
(Kraft et al. 1996).
One study in Iowa has shown a strong interest in wildlife and habitat restoration among
landowners who expressed interest in WRP (Mooney, 1996). Similarly, a pilot "Adopt a
Wetland" program has helped link conservation groups with these landowners (Pate, 1996).
The study reported on in this paper sought to quantify some of these explanations with
a larger sample group, using a phone survey of wetland landowners in 20 states. It in-
cludes responses from landowners who have enrolled or attempted to enroll land in the
WRP, EWRP, and the USFWS Private Lands Program. This report is based on the responses
to that survey.
I Wetlands
Reserve
Program
5
-------
Survey Methods
Names addresses and phone numbers of participants in the WRP, EWRP, and Private
Lands Programs wore solicited from appropriate agencies in each of the 20 participating
states. Despite all assurances, it was difficult to obtain names from all programs in all
states. Some agency personnel had some legal concerns over privacy that could not be
overcome. The names of some 2500 landowner participants in the states were obtained, of
which over 900 had phone numbers. Individuals within states were randomly selected,
generating a list of «UX) landowners to call. They included individuals from programs in
each of the following states: Arkansas, California, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisi-
ana, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New York, North Carolina, Oregon,
South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin. (NOTE: No calls
were completed to either North Carolina or Washington due to the apparent low enroll-
ment in those states. Thus, the final sample included individuals from 18 states.)
Four telephone interviewers were trained in conducting a 30-question interview. (See
Appendix for a copv of the interview questionnaire.) Landowners were contacted three
times by mail prior to the interview, once explaining the reasons for the survey, soliciting
their cooperation and asking for an appropriate time to call, once to confirm the interview
date and time, and once to remind them of the call. Up to 3 call-backs were allowed for
those not answering at the appointed time. All interviewees were also sent a thank-you
card following the phone call.
Of the original 400 landowners contacted, 305 phone interviews were eventually com-
pleted. Of those 305 landowners, 177 (58%) self-identified as participating in the USFWS
Private Lands Program, 94 (31%) in the Wetland Reserve Program, and 3 (1%) in the Emer-
gency Wetland Reserve Program. Another 31 (10%) identified the program as "other" or
"unknown."
The interview consisted of 29 scripted questions which allowed for quick answers
selected from several categories. Two questions were more open-ended, one soliciting their
suggestions for making it easier for other people wanting to restore wetlands on their
property, and the other seeking additional comments about wetlands or restoration pro-
grams. Pre-testine indicated that interviews would last approximately 15 minutes. Most
were completed within that time, but some lasted as long as 35 minutes.
Though designed on experience with previous survey research (Pease, 1992; Rankin,
1993), the results are presented here in summary form without effort to fit them into any
"model" of human behavior. Other researchers have noted the difficulty in interpretation
of such models, particularly when less than 25% of the statistical variance is commonly
"explained" by the data (Lockeretz, 1990). Rather, the summary data from this survey must
stand alone and are used to provide recommendations for agency personnel and others
interested in conserving and restoring wetlands in the United States.
6
-------
Demographics of Surveyed Landowners
Landowners in this survey own farms in the small- to medium-sized category. They
report owning a mean of 724.4 acres (range: 4-60,000 acres). However, if the two landown-
ers with the most land are excluded, the mean drops to 444 acres per landowner. More
importantly, 64% of the landowners in this survey own 300 acres or less and only 4% own
over 2,000 acres (Table 1). This is consistent with another survey (Pease, 1992) which indi-
cates that most wildlife habitat is put on the land by farmers on small- and medium-sized
farms. They also tend to be mid- to long-term owners of the land, having owned it for a
mean of over 20 years. However, 40% have owned their land for 10 years or less (Table 2).
Table 1. Total acres of land owned by landowners restoring wetlands (N = 305).
Range of acres Number of landowners Percent of total
0-100
106
35%
101-300
89
29
301-500
39
13
501-1,000
35
11
1,001-2,000
18
6
>2,000
13
4
N.A.
5
2
Table 2. Years of ownership of land by landowners restoring wetlands (N = 305).
Range of years
of ownership Number of landowners Percent of total
1-10
123
40%
11-20
68
22
21-30
47
15
31-40
26
9
41-50
13
4
51-60
5
2
61-70
7
2
71-80
3
1
81+
4
1
N.A.
8
3
7
-------
Landowners in this survey do not, as a rule, rent additional land for farming, a practice
which is common among farmers across the Midwest. About 75% of the respondents
reported renting no additional land for farming. Among the 63 (21%) that reported renting
additional land, a range of 7 to 20,000 rented acres (mean = 805 acres) was reported. Ex-
cluding the single individual who reported renting 20,000 acres, the mean number of acres
rented drops to 495 acres.
This is consistent with the fact that the majority of landowners in this survey are not full-
time farmers.. In fact, 63% of the interviewees reported receiving from 0-20% of their in-
come from farming. Only 11% self-reported themselves in the 81-100% range of household
income from farming (Table 3). While participants in the WRP program had to demon-
strate that the wetlands restored had a cropping history, landowners in the EWRP and
Private Lands programs did not. These results reflect those requirements. As might be
expected, 60% of those interviewed reported working off the farm in another job and 47%
reported that their spouses also did.
Table 3. Percent of total household income derived from farming among landowners
restoring wetlands (N = 305).
Percent of income
attributable to farming
Number of landowners
Percent of total
0 - 20%
193
63%
21 - 40%
23
8
41 - 60%
22
7
61 - 80%
15
5
81 -100%
35
11
N.A.
17
6
Overall, this group is a highly educated group of landowners. Approximately 77% of
the landowners reported having completed at least some college. Sixty-five (21%) reported
having a graduate degree (Table 4). These percentages are much higher than those of the
general populace in the states interviewed. This educational level may be indicative of a
greater interest in wildlife as reported in previous research (Pease, 1992) and is contrary to
the findings of the Ohio study (Napier, et al., 1995).
Table 4. Educational levels of landowners restoring wetlands (N = 305).
Highest level of
education completed Number of landowners Percent of total
<8th grade 5 2%
-------
"Ffras rel™
that argument. About 72% of those enrolled were aged 50 or otoa! fte taotaT*
ment; no mchvidual was in the under-30 years old category (Rankin, 1993). That is not true
however, of landowners m general who restore wetlands. Nearly three-quarters of the
individuals surveyed rn this research were in the prime income-iming years of 20-60
years of age and only about 25% were above 60 years of age (Table 5.) Wetland restorers
appear to cut across all ages.
Table 5. Age ranges of landowners restoring wetlands (N = 305).
Age range Number of land own prs Percent of total
20-30 yrs.
2
1%
31-40
54
18
41-50
93
30
51-60
70
23
61-70
53
17
71-80
24
8
80+
1
<1
N.A.
8
3
-------
Characteristics of Wetlands Restored or Enhanced
Landowners in this survey reported a mean of 71.3 acres of wetland restored on their
property (range 0.25 to 2,000 acres). Most restorations, however, are relatively small with
forty percent in the 0.25 - 5 acre range and only 20% above 50 acres. Just as important from
a wildlife standpoint, however, are the upland acres restored adjacent to the wetland for
nesting and other cover needs. Forty-four percent of landowners reported that no adjacent
upland was being restored or enhanced (Table 6.) Most of the restorations are taking place
on agricultural land, with over one-half of the landowners reporting that the wetland was
formerly producing row-crops (Table 7.) Seventy percent of landowners have restored
shallow-water wetlands (marshes, potholes, etc.) with the remaining landowners restoring
riparian wetlands. Accordingly, 52% reported emergent vegetation as the dominant veg-
etative cover on their wetlands, while another 28% reported "open water", and 10% re-
ported "trees".
Table 6. Size range of wetlands and uplands restored by landowners in a national survey
(N = 305).
Size range in Number of wetland Number of upland
acres
owners
(percent)
owners
(percent)
0
2
(<1)
134
(44)
0.25 - 5
123
(40)
37
(12)
>5-15
67
(22)
54
(18)
>15 - 25
22
(7)
16
(5)
>25 - 50
33
(11)
23
(8)
>50 -100
20
(7)
14
(5)
>100 - 500
23
(8)
9
(3)
>500
8
(3)
5
(2)
Unknown*
7
(2)
13
(4)
*Some wetlands and uplands had not yet been restored.
Table 7. Former uses of land on which wetlands were restored (N=305).
Use prior to
restoration
Number of landowners*
Percent of total
row-crop production
166
54%
pasture area
52
17
woodland area
23
8
set-aside acres
20
7
hay production
18
6
other
52
17
*Numbers add to more than 305 because some land had more than one use.
10
-------
Reasons for Restoring Wetlands
Wildlife play a very important role in attracting landowners to restore wetlands. Some
84% listed "to provide habitat for wildlife" as being "extremely important" in their decision
to restore a wetland. In fact, the top four reasons were all altruistic, having to do with
wildlife, future generations, or natural beauty (Table 8). When asked to describe changes
since restoration that they viewed as positive, over 70% volunteered that various wildlife
were now present (or present in greater numbers) that had not been present prior to resto-
ration of the wetland. Twenty-seven percent of the landowners gave no answer to this
question. When asked to describe changes since restoration that they viewed as negative,
11% described various wildlife problems while 75% said "none".
Table 8. Relative importance of landowners'
reasons for restoring wetlands (N = 305).
Number reporting
"not important"
Reason
Number reporting
"somewhat
important"
Number reporting
"extremely
important"
"to provide habitat for wildlife"
4
43
257
"provide habitat for game species
of wildlife"
36
61
205
"wanted to leave something wild
for future generations"
37
62
201
"natural beauty"
39
80
184
"financial help was available to do it"
58
96
149
"to restore some of the functions of
wetlands, like to clean run-off water"
97
100
106
"concern over loss of wetlands in
this region"
114
92
97
"land wasn't usable for crops anyway"
141
70
92
"educational purposes"
143
93
67
"good public relations for me"
177
81
43
"financially profitable"
216
54
32
On the other hand, while financial assistance was extremely important to about half the
landowners, only 10% reported financial profitability of the restoration as being extremely
important in their decision to proceed with the restoration (Table 8). While nearly 90% of
the landowners reported receiving financial assistance for their restoration, the importance
of this was highly variable. In fact, when asked whether they would have restored the
wetland had no financial assistance been available, they split evenly. Many of those who
said "yes" to this question also added, "I just would have done it more slowly." That is not
11
-------
to say they did not use the available tax-supported assistance: 53% reported that all of the
cost of the restoration was paid from public, tax-supported sources. Only 5% reported
getting no financial assistance (Table 9). When asked whether the financial value of their
land had been enhanced by the restoration, surveyed landowners once again split evenly
on the issue. Many hedged with "it depends on who the buyer is" or said "to me, yes; to
others, probably not."
Table.9. Proportion of restoration costs paid from public sources as reported by
landowners restoring wetlands (N - 305).
Percent of restoration cost
reported paid by public (tax) programs Number of landowners
None
14
1 -10%
5
11 - 25%
5
26-50%
29
51 - 75%
36
76 - 99%
20
100%
161
N.A.
35
Problems Encountered
Satisfaction with the process and with the agencies doing the restoration was generally
quite high. When asked about the kinds of obstacles or problems encountered during the
project, 42% of the interviewed landowners said "none." While 21% listed some technical
problems (leaks, etc.), most problems listed were minimal (Table 10). In fact, most com-
plaints were what might be termed misunderstandings: "the water isn't as deep as I'd
like" or "it only has water in it in the spring and early summer." Many wanted agency
personnel to come back periodically to check on the results of their work. Landowners in
this survey appear to have a good deal of pride in their wetland and want to let agency
people know about this satisfaction and to be able to ask them some questions about spe-
cies of plants and animals seen, management of the wetland, or other concerns. And,
despite any problems encountered, 93% of interviewed landowners said they would or
have recommended a similar restoration project to their neighbors. Only 3% said they
would not.
12
-------
Table 10. Problems reported by landowners during the process of wetland restoration
(N = 305).
prohlpm encountered
Number (percent) of landowners reporting*
none
technical problems
paperwork hassles
neighbor's objections
state or federal permit requirements
financial problems
local land use regulations
other
130 (42)
64 (21)
35 (11)
18 (6)
17 (6)
13 (4)
10 (3)
74 (24)
•Numbers add to more than 100% because landowners may have encountered more than one problem.
Because only landowners who had successfully restored wetlands were interviewed,
their opinions as to why other landowners do not get involved in wetland restoration were
of interest. A professed "dislike of government programs" was the most often-stated
reason these landowners had heard, similar to the findings of Kraft et al. (1996). Fifty-two
percent of them believed that there was a perception by other landowners that they could
not afford to sacrifice the farmground, and 50% believed that many other landowners were
not aware of the programs. Schnepf (1994) found similar results in the focus groups he
conducted with WRP farmers: many felt that other non-participating fanners simply were
not aware of the programs. In fact, when asked how they found out about the restoration
program, only 15% of the landowners in this study reported reading about it in the news-
paper, and another 15% picked up a brochure about it at a county office. Publicity does
appear to be a barrier to participation. The functioning of the programs themselves does
not appear to these landowners to be a serious impediment: fewer than one-third men-
tioned such barriers as paperwork, local agency helpfulness, or time to complete enroll-
ment (Table 11).
Beliefs About Why Others Do NOT Restore Wetlands
13
-------
Table 11. Beliefs of landowners about why other landowners do not restore wetlands
(N = 305).
In fact, when asked to provide open-ended comments regarding these wetland restora-
tion programs, most of comments received were highly positive. Twenty percent of the
interviewees volunteered that more programs like this were needed, that there was a need
to get more people involved with better publicity and more education. Only 17 comments
deemed negative toward these programs were heard, mostly involving "anti-government"
types of comments. Agency personnel—Fish and Wildlife Service and NRCS, in particu-
lar—often received high praise from these landowners for their professionalism and hard
work.
The importance of the work of local conservation professionals cannot be over-empha-
sized: 30% of the landowners reported hearing about the wetland restoration program
from a local conservation official. One-to-one contact was the single most important
method of gaining knowledge about the program.
Stated reason
"dislike government programs"
"can't afford to sacrifice the farmground"
"just not interested in wetlands"
"unaware of these programs"
"too many restrictions on the use of the ground'
"not wildlife oriented"
Number (percent) of landowners saying
they've heard this from other landowners*
'not provided with enough information to make decisions'
'potential payments not enough"
'no wetland areas to restore"
'dislike tax liability"
'paperwork too complex"
'local agencies not helpful"
'not enough time to complete enrollment"
179 (58)
159 (52)
155 (51)
154 (50)
125 (41)
113 (37)
102 (33)
99 (32)
88 (29)
71 (24)
88 (29)
52 (17)
21 (7)
14
-------
Youth Experiences of Landowners With Wildlife and Wetlands
Other research has indicated the correlation of youthful outdoor activities with adult
attitudes and behaviors that are positive toward wildlife (Pease, 1992). Accordingly, the
interviewees were asked about the outdoor activities in which they had participated as
young people. As in previous research, these landowners participated heavily in outdoor
activities as youth. Fishing, hunting, having a "wild place", and reading outdoor-related
books and stories were favorite youthful activities of over 71% of these landowners. De-
spite an apparent lack of encouragement for such activities by their teachers, these activities
were likely formative in attitudes and behaviors that produced adults who restore wet-
lands and value wildlife and wild places (Table 12). Though all now live on farms or in
rural areas, only 57% of these landowners reported growing up in such areas. In fact, 25%
reported growing up in towns or cities of more than 2,500 citizens. They still found oppor-
tunities to participate in many of these outdoor activities.
Table 12. Youthful outdoor activities of landowners restoring wetlands (N = 305).
Number (percent) of landowners
Activity reporting participating as a child
"fished in a local pond, stream, or river"
246
(81)
"enjoyed reading nature/outdoor-related books and stories"
243
(80)
"had a favorite 'wild place' where I would go to be alone"
220
(72)
"hunted with family and/or friends"
218
(71)
"helped with farm work with livestock"
193
(63)
"went canoeing and boating"
188
(62)
"had a wetland on or near our property that I visited regularly"
161
(53)
"put out food for wild animals"
138
(45)
"went horseback riding"
135
(44)
"belonged to Scouts"
134
(44)
"belonged to 4H, FFA, or some other agriculture-related club"
133
(44)
"attended a camp or workshop to learn about nature and conservation
106
(35)
"had teachers who encouraged interest in the outdoors"
61
(20)
15
-------
Conclusions/Recommendations
These interviews with 305 landowners participating in wetland restoration programs of
the past 10 years have provided much insight into the strengths and weaknesses of these
programs. The landowners were overwhelmingly positive—some effusively so—about
these programs. While some had complaints about a wetland that was not quite what they
wanted or a contractor who misread the blueprints, it was quite surprising how few such
complaints there were. Many landowners indicated that the interviewers should "let
Congress know" not to cut such programs but, rather, to put more money into them.
That is not to say the programs cannot be improved. Given the results of these inter-
views, several recommendations to enhance the quality of and participation in these wet-
land restoration programs follow. It is hoped these recommendations will serve to improve
and expand the availability of already good programs—to "tweak" their functioning rather
than to encourage a paradigm shift.
1. Education. Many of the complaints result from misunderstanding by the landowner
of what they were getting. Most often, "wetland" apparently meant "pond". An
often-heard comment was "I only wish it were deeper." Agency personnel have a
responsibility to use clear, jargon-free speech when working with landowners,
making certain that the landowner understands exactly what is being proposed.
Doing so ensures a satisfied customer who will not only continue to cooperate but
will spread the good word about the agency. Biologists have a "teachable moment"
to communicate to landowners the value of shallow-water, even temporary, wet-
lands to migratory birds and other wildlife. Materials and inservice training that
will help agency personnel to better communicate these ideas should be developed.
2. Personal contact. While some of the interviewed landowners indicated they had
heard about the program through brochures or newspaper articles, the dominant
form of information came from direct contact with conservation personnel. The
investment of time of conservation professionals in personal contact with the public
must be recognized as an important and, in fact, critical part of being an effective
biologist. Today, biologists spend much more time managing people than managing
other natural resources. Though this may be an "Information Age", people still
prefer personal contact with other human beings for receiving information. Several
studies have shown that personal contact with conservation professionals is critical
to obtaining and maintaining positive wildlife practices on private land. Ironically,
this is the part of the job for which most conservation professionals receive the least
amount of training. Materials and both inservice and pre-service training should be
developed to assist conservation professionals in learning the skills of public rela-
tions and human resource management.
3. Follow-up. Another often-heard complaint from landowners was the lack of follow-
up by agency personnel once the wetland restoration was done. These people are
interested in wetlands and have questions they want answered. Some, in fact, pep-
pered the interviewers with questions about beaver and muskrat management, for
example, and with queries about bird and plant identification. There is a public
16
-------
interested and supportive of wildlife; failure to serve that public would be a disser-
vice both to them and to the future of wetland resources. The more education they
have regarding their wetland, the less chance it will be torn up and put back into
cropland. Resource agency personnel are, however, fully employed, frequently
committed to other restorations, and are unable to find the time to do such follow-
up. Therefore, it is recommended that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Natu-
ral Resource Conservation Service develop ways to partner with other resource
agencies (county conservation boards, forest preserve districts, Extension, etc.) and
non-governmental organizations (local wildlife groups, conservation education
associations, etc.) to provide annual follow-up with cooperating landowners.
Memoranda of understanding should be developed and, where possible, funds pro-
vided to implement such follow-up programs.
4. Advertising. In addition to the recommendation for personal contact above, many
landowners may be contacted by other means. A national brochure for the WRP
program was prepared in 1992 and 1994 and was the dominant means by which the
program was advertised. This study indicates, however, that many rural landown-
ers interested in restoring wetlands are not traditional farmers: while 57% of them
grew up on farms or in rural areas, 43% did not. Only a third of the landowners in
this study obtain more than 80% of their household income from farming. It is less
likely, therefore, that a large number of these landowners ever enter the NRCS office
or the Extension office to obtain the brochure. These programs must be publicized
in ways that will reach these people and capitalize on their interests in wildlife. It is
recommended that publicity monies be set aside to seek innovative ways to contact
rural landowners that may have an interest in restoring wetlands but who are not
traditional farmers. Articles might be written, packets developed, and ads pur-
chased in the magazines of state conservation agencies (DNR, etc.), in "Country
Home" or other magazines that rural, non-farmer landowners read and from which
they can become familiar with wetland restoration programs of county, state, and
federal agencies.
5. Investment in youth. This study and many others indicate that the values of adults
are shaped in their youth. If we are to have wild places like wetlands, woodlands,
and prairies tomorrow, today's youth must experience those places first-hand. It is
in the best interest of resource agencies and like-minded NGOs to invest in youth
programs, to involve agency personnel in the environmental education of youth,
and to make certain that they have positive, first-hand experiences with natural
resources. That investment today pays off in wetlands and other wild places tomor-
row. It is recommended that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, NRCS, and other
natural resource agencies continue to expand their investment in the environmental
education of today's youth. A commitment of personnel, facilities, and funds as
part of a comprehensive plan of environmental education would recognize the
importance of education to the continued existence of the resources the agencies
manage.
17
-------
Selected Quotes from Interviewees
"If the public wants to restore the land, they have to be willing to pay for it."
"I'm really mad at government, but if the government gets out of it, it will be less
efficient."
"This wetland is going to enhance my whole farm."
"I am afraid that a wetland will trap my chemicals on my land."
"One agency [restoring wetlands] would probably be more efficient."
"We saw immediate results! It's one of the most rewarding things we've done."
"There are a lot of people behind clean air and clean water. I just hope Congress doesn't cut
it all out."
"The process of getting accepted was incredibly slow."
"It's an excellent learning experience for our urban students.1'
"I hope Congress shuts it down. It's not a pro-farm program."
"I never should have cleared the land in the first place. This [wetland] is what it was meant
to do."
"People thought I was nuts flooding land that developers were paying top dollar for!"
"While my neighbors are farming everything they have, I am trying to give something back
to wildlife."
"We've got to leave something for the kids."
"I feel good about it. This restoration makes me feel like I'm part of a larger scheme."
"Where there is water, there is wealth."
"Returning land to its original state is the purest form of stewardship."
"I don't normally support government programs, but if we are going to spend it, this is the
way to do it."
"Profit is so small in farming anyway, a guy may as well put land into these programs."
18
-------
Literature Cited
Colacicco, D. 1993. 1992 Wetlands Reserve Program—Report to Congress. U.S. Dept. of
Agriculture, Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service, Washington, D.C. 23
pp.
Dahl, T. E. 1990. Wetlands losses in the United States, 1780's to 1980's. U. S. Dept. of the
Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D. C. 13 pp.
Chan, L., M. Chandler, D. Giordano, G. Proakis, L. Roop, A. Suginaka, and K. Werries. 1996.
Marketing the Wetland Reserve Program: a comprehensive outreach strategy for the
New York State Natural Resources Conservation Service. N.Y. NRCS. 73 pp.
Kraft, S. E., C. Lant, and K. Gillman. 1996. WQIP: An assessment of its chances for accep-
tance by farmers. J. Soil and Water Cons. 51(6):494-498.
Lockeretz, W. 1990. What have we learned about who conserves soil? J. Soil and Water
Cons. 45(5):517-523.
Lynne, G. D., J. S. Shonkwiler, and L. R. Rola. 1988. Attitudes and farmer conservation
behavior. Amer. J. Ag. Econ. 70:12-19.
Mooney, R. J. 1996. Landowner interest in establishing more than a dozen wetlands en-
hancement practices: statewide survey results. (Abstract). J. Soil and Water Cons.
51(4):354
Napier, T. L., S. E. McCarter, and J. R. McCarter. 1995. Willingness of Ohio land owner-
operators to participate in a wetlands trading system. J. Soil and Water Cons. 50(6):648-
656.
Pate, D. J. 1996. Iowa SWCS chapter leadership in an "Adopt a Wetland" program. (Ab-
stract) J. Soil and Water Cons. 51(4):354.
Pease, J. L. 1992. Attitudes and behaviors of Iowa farmers toward wildlife. Ph.D. thesis.
Iowa State University. Dissertation Abstracts International - B 53/03, p. 1132.
Rankin, M. 1993. Analysis of Wetland Reserve Program participation. Unpublished report
on WRP internship. Iowa State University, Ames, IA. 14 pp.
Schnepf, M. 1994. Farmer perspectives on the Wetlands Reserve Program. Soil and Water
Conservation Society. Ankeny, IA. 58 pp.
Tiner, R. W. 1984. Wetlands of the United States: current status and recent trends. U. S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 59 pp.
19
-------
Appendix
Phone Questionnaire
Date Completed:
Thanks Card sent:.
Interviewer:
Interviewee (to be deleted from record):
Code #:
"I want to thank you for being willing to talk with me about your wetland restoration. I want to assure you,
once again, that all of the information you give me is confidential and will never in any way be associated
with you by name. Your name will be deleted from our file. Our interest here is only in helping us under-
stand why people restore wetlands and how we can improve future programs. If you feel uncomfortable
with a question at any time or don't understand it, please let me know that you wish to have it explained or
to skip the question."
"First, I need to ask you some questions about your wetland."
1. What program have you been participating in to restore wetlands on your land?
EWRP (Emergency Wetland Reserve Program)
WRP (Wetland Reserve Program)
Private Lands Program of Fish and Wildlife Service
Other (detail):
2. How did you find out about the restoration program?
neighbor told me about it
local conservation official told me about it
read about it in the newspaper
picked up a brochure about it at a county office
heard about it on the radio
saw it on TV
attended a meeting where it was discussed
other (detail):
3. What type of wetland(s) are/have you restored (check all that apply):
marsh/emergent plant/pothole/shallow-water type wetland
riparian/riverine/bottomland area/riveredge
brackish water/marine-edge
other (detail):
4. What former use(s) has this wetland served, say, within the five years prior to restoration (check all that
apply):
row-crop production
pasture area
woodland area
set-aside acres
hay production
other:
20
-------
5. About how many acres of wetland/riparian area have been/will be restored? acres
6. [skip 6 and 7 if riparian area] About how many acres of adjacent upland have also been/will be restored
in association with the wetland? acres
7. What is/will be the average width of the upland vegetation buffer around the wetland?
no buffer <50 feet 50-100 feet >100 feet
8. When was the restoration done? 0-2 years ago 2-4 years ago >4 years ago.
9. What is/will be the dominant vegetation cover of the wetland or riparian area:
open water
emergents (cattails, bulrushes, grasses, sedges, etc.)
scrub-shrub (woody vegetation mostly under 15 feet tall)
trees (woody vegetation >15 feet tall)
[Skip next two questions if restoration is not yet done.]
10. Since restoration (if applicable) what changes have occurred that you view as positive changes?
11. Since restoration (if applicable) what changes have occurred that you view as negative changes?
12. People have many different reasons for restoring wetlands. Please tell the importance of each of the
following reasons, whether it was not important (1), somewhat important (2), or extremely important (3) to
you in your decision to restore this wetland:
to provide habitat for wildlife
concern over loss of wetlands in this region
financially profitable
land wasn't usable for crops anyway
financial help was available to do it
educational purposes
to restore some of the functions of wetlands, like to clean run-off water
provide habitat for game species of wildlife
natural beauty
good public relations for me
wanted to leave something wild for future generations
other (detail):
13. Did/will you receive financial assistance for the restoration work? Yes No
14. About what percent of the total cost of restoring the wetland or riparian area on your property came from
public (tax supported) sources? %
15. About what percent of the total cost of restoration did/will you pay for from your own pocket? %
21
-------
16. Would you have restored the wetland or riparian area if no financial assistance had been available?
Yes No
17. Do you believe that the financial value of your land has been increased by restoring the wetland or
riparian area? Yes No
18. What kinds of obstacles or problems did you run in to during the project? (Check all that apply)
technical problems
paperwork hassles
neighbor's objections
state or federal permit requirements
local land use regulations
financial problems
other (detail):
none
19. What suggestions do you have that would make it easier for others wanting to restore wetlands on their
property?
20. Would you/have you recommended a similar restoration project to your neighbors? Yes No
21. "Many people like you are restoring parts of their land to wetlands. Many others are not. We're inter-
ested in your opinions as to why farmers you know have not done restorations. I'm going to read you a list
of possible reasons. Let me know if that is a reason you have heard" (check all that apply):
no wetland areas to restore
the paperwork too complex
just not interested in wetlands
dislike government programs
not wildlife oriented
unaware of these programs
not provided with enough information to make decisions
potential payments not enough
local agencies not helpful
can't afford to sacrifice the farmground
too many restrictions on the use of the ground
not enough time to complete enrollment
dislike tax liability
other (detail):
22
-------
«Wfe are interested in childhood activities that may influence adult interests. So I have a couple of questions
about your childhood."
22. Which best describes the surroundings in which you spent the majority of your childhood:
farm or rural area
small town of 2,500 or fewer citizens
town or city of greater than 2,500 citizens
23. Which of Ihe following activities did you often participate in as a child (check all that apply):
fighpd in a local pond, stream or river
hunted with family and/or friends
put out food for wildlife
' enjoyed reading nature/outdoor-related books and stories
went canoeing and boating
had a favorite "wild place" where you would go to be alone
had teachers who encouraged interest in the outdoors
helped with livestock
belonged to 4H, FFA or some other agriculture-related club
belonged to Scouts
went horseback riding
attended a camp or workshop to leam about nature and conservation
had a wetland on your property that you visited regularly
-Finally, I need to ask some information about you and your farm."
24. What is the total number of acres of land you own: acres
25. About how long have you owned this land (years): years
26. What is the total number of additional acres of land you rent for farming: acres
27. About what percent of your total household income is from farming (circle 1):
0-20% 21-40% 41-60% 61-80% 81-100%
28. Do you or your spouse work in another job off the farm as well?
Operator: Yes No
Spouse: Yes No Is no spouse
29. What is the highest level of education you completed(circle 1):
28th grade
-------
...and justice for all
Programs and policies of Iowa State University Extension are
consistent with pertinent federal and state laws and regulations
on nondiscrimination regarding race, color, national origin,
religion, sex, age & handicap
24
------- |