Troubled Waters

[Enter your text here.]

Troubled Waters - Waterfowl Experts Say Duck Hunting Is On Last Line Of Defense

This is a "SWANCC listserve" message from the National Wildlife Federation. The Times-Picayune (New Orleans), February 12, 2003 Bob Marshall; Outdoors editor

As duck hunting ended two weeks ago, many waterfowlers complained the season was one of their worst. A warm winter disrupted the migration. The birds seemed especially wary. Limits were hard to come by. But the nation's top waterfowl managers have some sobering news for the nation's 3 million duck hunters and the $1 billion industry that relies on them: Even leaner days may be ahead, including shorter seasons -- or no seasons at all.

"What they experienced this year could seem like a picnic compared to what might be coming," said Ron Reynolds, waterfowl habitat specialist for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. "We're not talking about slow seasons. We're talking about no seasons. I'm not sure hunters appreciate the seriousness of what's happened."

Reynolds is referring to a chain of events started two years ago when a Supreme Court decision stripped federal protection from the continent's most critical duck-breeding habitat, a loss the Bush administration last month decided not to remedy.

That has left protection of key duck-breeding grounds resting with a provision of the Farm Bill called the "Swampbuster," an effective but voluntary program that encourages farmers not to drain wetlands.

"It means the future of duck hunting is down to its last line of defense," Reynolds said. "I'm not sure people know what's at stake here. If there is any break in protection now, we could lose 50 percent of the potholes we have left. Then we wouldn't be talking about slow seasons, we'd be talking about closed seasons. We're very concerned about recent events."

Those events started in January 2001. Until that time, the federal Clean Water Act prohibited landowners from draining most types of wetlands. That prohibition included the small, isolated and often-temporary wetlands on the northern American prairies, so-called prairie potholes, that are the most critical breeding ground for most major duck species. The interpretation of the Clean Water Act for that purpose by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers was so specific it was referred to as the "migratory bird rule." Waterfowl managers say that has been the salvation of waterfowl populations large enough to support public hunting, even when drought cycles have hit the prairies. Those small, ephemeral wetlands created mainly by snow melt and spring rains are the most important to nesting waterfowl. That's because when shallow water covers ground vegetation and is then heated by the spring sun, a profusion of insects and other invertebrates blooms, providing the major food source for ducks returning to the breeding grounds after long migrations from thesouth.

"There are about 3 million wetlands in North and South Dakota in the prairie pothole region, and of those probably 80 percent are less than an acre in size, not connected to each other or to any navigable water and are temporary," Reynolds said. "But those are the most productive wetlands for waterfowl production. They are probably responsible for 70 percent of our waterfowl production in the pothole region.

"When you drive through the prairies in the spring, you'll see two or three nesting pairs of ducks on a pothole less than an acre in size. It might not seem important, but when you multiply that by millions of wetlands that size, then you understand where ducks come from. The small, temporary wetlands out-produce the larger ponds -- the permanent wetlands -- at least three to one.

"That's why they're important, not just to waterfowl but to a whole lot of other birds, wildlife -- as well as to water quality."

But the Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County, a Chicago landfill operation, argued that Congress never intended the Clean Water Act to protect isolated, intrastate, non-navigable wetlands solely for the purpose of migratory birds. The Supreme Court agreed in January 2001, and the migratory bird rule was dead. Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.) introduced the Clean Water Authority

Restoration Act of 2002, stating specifically that such wetlands should be protected for the benefit of migratory birds. But without support from the Bush administration, it died in committee. Last month the Bush administration further raised anxiety among waterfowl advocates and other environmentalists when it issued a call for a new definition of what wetlands are covered by the Clean Water Act based on the court's reasoning in the SWANCC decision.

"The danger now is that this could be an opening which could affect every wetland in the United States, something developers have been after for 30 years," said Julie Sibbing, wetland policy specialist for the National Wildlife Federation. "We already know what it could mean for ducks." Waterfowl managers say it means bad news for duck hunters.

"It means Swampbuster is all we have left for the potholes," said Reynolds. "And that's very scary." Swampbuster, a provision of every Farm Bill since 1986, requires farmers who receive federal subsidies or loans to refrain from draining wetlands.

Although not a regulation but a "disincentive," it has been extremely successful because most farming operations depend on subsidies to protect their bottom line. Swampbuster has been instrumental in slowing wetlands loss on the prairies, on which 50 percent of the potholes were drained over the past 50 years. The U.S. Department of Agriculture reported last year that failure to reauthorize Swampbuster in the 2002 bill could have lead to the loss of 5.8 to 12 million acres of wetlands on farms.

But while they acknowledge Swampbuster has been invaluable to ducks, waterfowl managers who work on the prairies say that line of defense is tenuous. The program has never been popular with most of the farming community, which would prefer to have its subsidies without strings attached.

"The age-old debate on the prairies between farmers and conservationists is, how do you describe something that may be small and wet for only a few weeks or months a year?" said Kurt Forman, a USFWS wildlife biologist in South Dakota.

"Is it an ecological treasure? Or is it just a wet spot that is difficult to farm around and through?"

I know this: Of the 900,000-plus wetlands in eastern South Dakota, 90 percent are temporary or seasonal, and the medium size is less than four-tenths of an acre. To a farmer, those are just small obstacles that make their jobs tougher. But to a duck hunter they are absolutely critical, because that is where most of the ducks are produced. "That makes Swampbuster even more important now, but you couldn't say this is a popular program with farm groups." Experience has shown wetlands managers that Swampbuster protection can end suddenly, with serious consequences.

In May 1999, the South Dakota representative of the Natural Resource Conservation Service, the federal agency that can set wetlands guidelines in each state, decided that the definition of wetlands would not include temporary wetlands on the sides of sloping farmlands. Several conservation groups took the issue to court and won a reversal in January 2000. But by then, many farmers had drained valuable temporary wetlands. They did not lose their subsidies because they were following the current ruling. Waterfowl managers fear any break in Swampbuster could result in a lightning loss of those critical small wetlands.

"There is tremendous pent-up demand to clear wetlands," said Reynolds. "They have perfected a method of draining here on the prairies called tiling. A big machine comes along and digs a ditch through the middle of the wetland, at the same time laying a line of plastic pipe -- called tile -- usually with perforations on the top. Then it's covered up. "This is a permanent drainage system. It can be done in a few hours, and that wetland is gone forever. Water just won't stay there any more."

If there is a break in Swampbuster for just a few months -- if some local federal regulator decides to change the definition or if the provision expires in Congress for a even a few months -- it could look like the Oklahoma land rush out here. They'll be tiling from western Minnesota to Montana. "That's because people want it both ways. They could go out, drain that pesky wetland while protection is down, and even if protection comes back, they'll still qualify for the subsidies. It's a no-lose deal."

There is a third program to protect waterfowl wetlands. The Small Wetlands Acquisition Program uses duck-stamp money paid by waterfowl hunters to provide permanent protection by purchasing land or obtaining conservation easements, usually in the prairie pothole region. Harvey Wittmier, USFWS chief of the Division of Realty, said the nation has protected about 2.86 million acres at a cost of $327 million since 1958.

But that figure is far from adequate to save enough habitat to ensure hunting, biologists said. "We estimate about 28 percent of the duck-breeding population is protected by these easements and purchased under that program," said Reynolds. "That's important, but it is also voluntary, and there's not nearly enough money to protect what we need to continue duck hunting as we know it." What American sportsmen have known recently are hunting seasons governed by adaptive harvest management, which determines season length by the numbers of ponds and breeding ducks on the prairies each spring. The higher the numbers, the more liberal the seasons.

There has never been a closed season, but veteran waterfowl biologists say that could change if the potholes lose protection.

"We ran an analysis of what the impact would be on the potholes ifCongress doesn't do anything to bring back protection under the Clean Water Act and if Swampbuster ends," Reynolds said. "If we lost all the temporary wetlands now protected by Swampbuster, we would be looking at a 50-percent loss of production. If you plug the losses of wetlands and ducks into adaptive harvest management, then we would be looking at restrictive regulations more frequently than we ever have in the past -- and we'd be looking at closed seasons for the first time ever."

Reynolds and others said they are not pressing the panic button.

"Swampbuster is our salvation, and it's good at least for another five years," he said. "But what should worry every hunter out there is that, if that goes for any reason, we'd be looking at a rapid loss of the habitat that guarantees hunting.

"We're worried because it's our last line of defense -- and it's a voluntary program. And we've never been this vulnerable before."

Bob Marshall can be reached at rmarshall@timespicayune.com or (504)826-3539. Julie M. Sibbing Wetlands Policy Specialist National Wildlife Federation 1400 16th St. N.W., Suite 501 Washington, DC 20036 (202) 797-6832 fax (202) 797-6646 Swancc@lists.nationalwildlife.org