CFE agenda 091117 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Photo: www.nj.nrcs.gov the USDA Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) which pays farmers an annual rental rate for retiring land from crop production and planting it for wild- life cover (USDA 2010). According to the Conser- vation Effects Assessment Project (CEAP), CRP land is vital part of grassland bird conservation, and also provides important wildlife benefits for reptiles, amphibians, and pollinators (USDA 2010). Unfor- tunately, almost 60% of the current active acreage in CRP will see contracts expire by the end of 2013 (USDA 2010). If rental rates are far lower than the potential profit from growing biofuels, landown- ers may abandon their enrollment in CRP at the end of their contract. A loss of land that is feder- ally contracted to prohibit disturbance during the breeding season and encourage other wildlife uses could significantly impact the conservation of grass- land species. If land that is currently being used to grow corn were instead used to produce other types of biomass for fuel, there may be a net environmental benefit, as fewer agrochemical inputs and less water may be needed. For example, switchgrass requires less nitrogen and phosphorous input than corn (Pimen- tel and Patzek 2005, Schmer et al. 2008). A reduc- tion in these inputs could reduce aquatic blooms and downstream hypoxia that negatively impacts fish and their associated habitats. In addition, growing bioen- ergy crops where irrigation is not required could result in a net environmental benefit, particularly for water quality (Kline and Dale 2008). However, the likelihood of landowners converting corn acreage to other fuel crops given the high prices and demand for corn ethanol is still an open question. Although the threat of habitat loss due to agricul- tural conversion and loss of CRP lands is widely acknowledged as an impact from biofuel expansion, the potential of increased risk to native habitats by introduced species has received less attention (IUCN 2009). Many of the plant species that are currently being considered for biofuels, such as ligno- ceullu- losic feedstocks and inedible plant oils, are potential- ly invasive and may impact native habitats (IUCN 2009). Although these risks are most pronounced in areas where other impacts, such as drought or fragmentation, are already apparent (e.g. east and southern Africa, IUCN 2009) it will be important for natural resource agencies to consider the invasive properties of plants that are candidates for biofuel production. The IUCN (2009) provides specific guidelines on how to assess invasive potential, includ- ing five key recommendations for reducing the risks of biological invasions as a result of biofuel produc- tion (Box 4 -4). A sustainable and economically responsible biofuel industry will require forethought and careful plan- ning to balance diverse demands for land (Kline and Dale 2008). The Council on Sustainable Biomass Production (CSBP) has developed comprehensive voluntary standards for the production of biomass and its conversion to bioenergy (CSBP 2010). These standards provide criteria for biological diversity, soil, water, and business practices, in an effort to create a third -party certification program. Growers participating in the effort are required to adhere to production and management guidelines that contribute to the conservation or enhancement of biological diversity, in particular native plants and wildlife (CSBP 2010). These efforts provide a valu- able template for evaluating the various tradeoffs and