‘ ¥ o ; yer Bites Y A a ae aa Bomtnk try soit, | Nie qin 9r- ee tuate ty a wopar- a er REPORT OF THE WILDLIFE CONSERVATION WORK OF THE SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE (U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE) H. H. Bennett, Chief Statement Prepared by the BIOLOGY DIVISION Ernest G. Holt, Chief FOR THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE ON THE CONSERVATION OF WILDLIFE RESOURCES 381 251256—40——1 Organization of the Soil Conservation Service INDEX Soil conservation... ..5212--s25255-2-2- 3265522 eee Land retired from cultivation. .....-..--....._...-.--+- - 4 a Strip cropping._+. 254-5282. LO 533 2. 55 oe oe Contour ciltivation= 22.2225. 2 ee a ee ee Winter cover-crops 222222. 220 8. 5 ee ee eee Field borders?.2-- 4é23i4.-5 25.224 2 5 age Farm-drainage systems___ ee Springs, wells, ponds, and‘reservoirs- —_-_ =" +_ = 2_- ee Water spreading.._...--- 23-20 - e e e e Range and pasture management! 22-522 202 2-328 eee Woodland management. 2. 2.--2°22 Boe Se eos ee ee Wildlife;areas:.. 2.222252. 2235S eee a ee Special works 3 cee ogo to cane ee = — ae ee > ee Wildlife damage problems +’. “22055 SEL ye SSases 1 eee Submarginal land purchase and utilizationls—- oe] se eee ee Water facilities. ......=.-.292422 So6si8 Ss) ee eee Farm. forestryse2oct 52. acteeee se eee ee ee Flood control_2..2-5-..-.2i..- EAP Oe eee Daina ge joe 5 So ee an eee eee eee ee ee Biological problems! in’ soil ‘conservation< 2-2-2 -) see Need for additiona!lappropriations_222-t.. +2_ 2-22. eee Summary and conclusions. .2..--..62- 222s 22ee5_ eee 382 WILDLIFE CONSERVATION WORK OF THE SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE The three centuries that have passed while the American frontier moved westward have brought us finally to the necessity of a profound readjustment in our earlier thinking. During those 300 years it seemed as though the resources of this vast continent might last indefinitely and that expansion of the frontier would always serve to furnish the pioneer with new and virgin land. Today we no longer live in a territorially or agriculturally expanding nation; we know now that our future security must depend upon our ability to use wisely what we already possess. ~ This idea is not new. Nor is it new to point out that the security and well-being of any nation must depend fundamentally upon wise utilization of its land resource, that is, upon its agriculture. In fact the establishment of a permanent and balanced system of agriculture under which soil, the basic resource, and all the products of the soil are handled economically has been a goal at which agencies of govern- ment have always aimed. And, although these things have long been known, the necessity for such ideas in our national economy is only now coming to be recognized universally, Of particular importance is the growing recognition that the soil itself can easily become worn or lost under exploitive use. Dust storms, floods, and declining farm incomes can now be traced to wasteful agricultural methods, and less directly but just as certainly 7 So can depletion of timber, wildlife, and other products depending £ upon the soil. With removal of its original cover of vegetation, soil » begins to wash or blow away, and as it does so the layers left become increasingly subject to erosion by wind and water. The uppermost Sand best layers of soil go first, finally: uncovering layers that can <¥ support almost no protecting vegetation. The rapidity with which this vicious process moves has staggered soil experts no less than the } farmers upon whose lands it has operated. - But no nation can persist without a sound agriculture and to assist ! farmers in coping with the whole problem of using land without waste, an agency known as the Soil Erosion Service was set up in 1933 in the Department of the Interior. Later this agency was transferred to the Department of Agriculture and, after some changes, became known as the Soil Conservation Service. Its sole function then was . the control and prevention of soil erosion. In the fall of 1938, how- ‘ever, the Service was given additional responsibilities for the operation of physical land-use programs undertaken by the Department of Agriculture on agricultural lands. These responsibilities included arcronnen control and prevention, submarginal land purchase and de- } velopment, agricultural phases of flood control, the development of water facilities, farm forestry, and drainage and irrigation. It may , be said in fact that all of the tools essential for the development of © sound land use and safe systems of farming have been placed in the 383 --t,, AS 384 WILDLIFE CONSERVATION hands of this agency. Its present purpose is to aid in bringing about desirable physical adjustments in land use with a view to bettering human welfare, conserving natural resources, reducing the hazards of floods and siltation, and establishing a permanent and balanced agriculture. ORGANIZATION OF THE SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE The Soil Conservation Service is primarily an operations agency, and its job is to assist landowners to develop an economic system of farming that at the same time conserves the soil. This means that consideration must be given to all the problems involved in land use in order to arrive at sound plans. It may not be amiss to emphasize this point. In attacking agri- cultural problems it is obvious that soil, the basic farm resource, is the foundation for any agricultural program. Its chemistry, its biota, its physical structure, its erosibility, and its reaction to such agri- cultural operations as cultivation, fertilizing, liming, and the like must be understood first of all. Because of variations it must be mapped and classified so that treatments designed for its improve- ment and use can be applied in a sound manner. The requirements and values of the plants intended for crop production must be well known in relation to the soils upon which they are to be grown. To promote a farm unit that is economically sound a balance must be struck between animal and vegetable crops, between the needs of the land user and the degree of use safe for each soil type he uses. The smallest farm offers a rich variety of problems so closely interrelated and interdependent that there can be no satisfactory solution to one without a thorough understanding and solution of all. From the beginning the Soil Conservation Service was organized so as to bring to bear numerous technical points of view upon the land problems encountered. The combined efforts of soils men, farm managers, agronomists, engineers, range managers, foresters, and biologists went into the formulation of all plans, and no farm problem was solved by any one technician without advice and assistance of technicians in all other related fields. While administrative lines of authority ran, so to speak, in a vertical manner, technical lines ran horizontally. And, since all plans formulated by the Service were a result of integrated, cooperative effort, it has followed that each tech- nical field has been represented in every plan. This is true no less of the biological approach than of any other technical aspect. It might be remarked parenthetically that, as might be expected, the intimate coordination demanded by land problems was not easy to achieve, but over a period of years constant interchange of ideas be- tween technicians has resulted in a fuller understanding of problems, a better appreciation of each technical point of view by all techni- cians, and a continually more efficient formulation of plans and execution of work. The program was the first concerted, country- wide effort to conserve soil and soil resources, and its multiple approach has enabled it to meet and solve successfully agricultural problems long awaiting solution. A biologist was appointed to the staff of the very first of the orig- inal 10 projects approved when field operations were first started in 1933. Subsequently a few other biologists were assigned to projects WILDLIFE CONSERVATION 285 in Ohio, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Wisconsin, and Minnesota. In November 1935, however, when the Service was reorganized under the Department of Agriculture, a Section of Wild- life Management was set up coordinate with other operations sections. The Section was charged with the function of coordinating wildlife management with soil and water conservation, and since that time in all land-use plans developed by the Service, consideration has been accorded wildlife needs. As a result of gradual growth a biological staff is functioning in every part of the country in which the con- servation program is being developed. The wildlife-management work was undertaken originally because of the obvious relationship between soil and wildlife conservation. One of the most important steps in soil conservation is the mainte- nance of an adequate cover of vegetation on the soil, and a very important part of wildlife conservation is the restoration of wildlife habitats also composed of vegetation. Since the two lines of endeavor employ the same tools, it follows that with appropriate direction the objectives of both may be attained through the same operation. The close relation of wildlife management to soil conservation is further attested by the fact that both must surmount the same obstacle in the employment of their vegetative tools. The land has been laid bare through the necessity of producing crops to support an increasingly large human population. The reestablishment of vegetation on these bare soils, therefore, is not a simple matter of planting; it involves the whole question of proper land use. When the Soil Conservation Service was reorganized in the early spring of 1939, the former Section of Wildlife Management became the Biology Division, a change paralleling a similar one in the status of other technical operations sections. At the same time, and com- mensurate with the increased responsibilities of the Service, the functions of the Biology Division were enlarged. They now include the formulation of the biological policies of the Service, collaboration with other divisions on surveys, planning, and procedures; super- vision and coordination of the development, evaluation, improvement, and application of biological phases of Service programs and practices to aid in the attainment of Service objectives; approval of work plans and procedures and inspection of field operations to insure technical quality, adequacy of treatment, and adherence to policy; assembling and dissemination of operating information pertinent to the biological phases of the Service programs; encouragement of application in the field of new, improved, or promising biological measures, and the maintenance of cooperative relations with the Bureau of Biological Survey, Bureau of Fisheries, Bureau of Entomology and Plant Quarantine, and other agencies concerned with biological problems. In coordination with the rest of the Soil Conservation Service the work of the Biology Division now becomes concerned not only with the integration of wildlife-management principles with soil and water conservation, but with the operation of biological practices in develop- ing better land use and permanent systems of farming. Developments in the wildlife work of the Service have tended definitely toward the maximum production and enhancement of margins or edges where two or more types of vegetation meet. Animal species as well as individuals generally are found in greatest numbers along the line of junction between diverse types of vegetation, as for 386 WILDLIFE CONSERVATION example along the margin between fields and woods. Advantage has been taken of this fact in the wildlife program which aims at the greatest possible variety and interspersion of food and cover com- patable with the agricultural and soul-conservation practices on each tan SOIL CONSERVATION Under the 6-year-old program of soil conservation carried out by the Service major emphasis has been placed on keeping a cover on the soil as much of the time as possible. Under old farming methods, plowing and cultivating were frequently straight up and ‘down hill without particular regard for land contours, with farm machinery leaving every small channel in a position to carry ‘water downhill. Loss of water was facilitated rather than hindered. During winter, soil usually lay exposed to the elements, its cover having been burned off, plowed under, or grazed by cattle. Pastures and range land were all too commonly overgrazed. Steep lands unfit for cultivation were used for clean-tilled crops. The protection of gullies, draws, stream banks, in fact, the entire drainage system on the farm, received little atten- tion, and in these critical places erosion easily obtained a foothold. Woodlands were grazed by cattle so that reproduction was prevented and no particular thought was given to the production of wildlife. Under these old methods lands over the entire country have been serious vy eroded and wildlife has been depleted. Under soil-conserving methods major emphasis is placed on keeping the soil covered throughout the entire year. Plowing, cultivating, and all other cultural operations are carried out as nearly as possible on the contour so that each ridge resulting from work of farm machin- ery acts to prevent the run-off of rain falling on the land. ‘Terraces are used to reinforce contour cultivation wherever the soil type and gradient permit. Crops that require frequent cultivation are planted in strips which are alternated with strips of close-growing crops to prevent excessive run-off. Proper crop rotations are used on all farms. On the range livestock is reduced to the carrying capacity of the land, and deferred and rotation grazing are initiated on ranges and pastures alike. The drainage systems of farms and ranches are protected from fire, grazing, or other disturbing factors that tend to initiate erosion. Steep lands are retired to permanent protective cover, and woodlands are protected from fire and grazing so that satisfactory reproduction may take place. Under these methods land fertility is maintained, erosion is prevented, and habitable areas for wildlife are substantially increased. As of June 30, 1939, the Soil Conservation Service and its 80,047 cooperating farmers had undertaken to place a coordinated program of conservation on nearly 22,000,000 acres of land. The extent of the soil and water conservation work carried on by the Service has increased to relatively enormous proportions since 1937. Up to that time the work was confined largely to demonstra- tion projects and Civilian Conservation Corps camps. On these areas landowners were cooperating with the Service to demonstrate the techniques of soil and moisture conservation. Altogether 532 of these are in operation at the present time, but it was realized from the very beginning that so far as country-wide application of soil conservation was concerned these demonstration areas could mean relatively little. WILDLIFE CONSERVATION 387 In fact, until 1937, with a few exceptions, no landowner who lived outside a demonstration area could obtain the active cooperation of the Government in conserving his private resources. Now, however, in States where enabling legislation has been passed, soil-conservation districts can be set up by landowners, and in these districts the indi- vidual farmer or rancher and agencies of government can undertake a program of proper land use in a cooperative manner. Thus a demo- cratic procedure is provided by means of which a long-time compre- hensive program of soil and water conservation can actually be carried out over the entire country. Up to the present time soil conservation district acts have been passed in 36 States. In these States 201 districts, including a total of 113,097,684 acres of land, have been organized and 148 districts in 25 States, and involving 86,073,180 acres, are in actual operation. It is an important fact that any Federal or State agency may co- operate with these soil-conservation districts although the actual administration rests in the hands of supervisors elected by people in the district. Every possible assistance is encouraged so that combined attack on the whole problem of land use can be developed. Certain of the State conservation departments, for instance, are now beginning to cooperate with the districts in the development of wildlife conservation plans. The Soil Conservation Service lends these districts its support, including personnel. It assists the supervisors in formulating pro- grams and plans for better land use and soil conservation so that, principles and practices developed and tested on demonstration projects are given fuller and more widespread application. The wildlife management practices proven successful on demonstration projects and C. C. C. camp areas are included along with the other technical aspects. In other words, the work of the Service has moved forward from a program of demonstration to a program of application and all of its various aspects including work of the Biology Division have moved in the same way. It should be mentioned that although emphasis has been shifted i in this manner, demonstra- tion work is nevertheless continued in C. C. C. camp areas and on certain demonstration projects. LAND RETIRED FROM CULTIVATION As farms and ranches are brought under agreement it is usually found that certain types of land need to be retired from cropland to land permanently covered by vegetation, such as grassland or wood- land. Obviously, where land is well vegetated wildlife territory is substantially increased. At the present time the total planned re- tirement of land formerly cultivated amounts to 1,000,763 acres. STRIP CROPPING A very important change in farm practice that the Service is bring- ing about is strip cropping, which consists of alternating bands of clean-tilled crops with bands of close-growing crops that afford pro- tection to the soil. This practice increases substantially the inter- spersion of different food and cover types on areas that otherwise might offer little or nothing to farm wildlife. By actual measurement wildlife increases on strip-cropped fields as compared to fields planted 388 WILDLIFE CONSERVATION solidly to a single crop, have amounted to as much as 30 to 50 percent. As of June 30, 1939, strip cropping has been planned for 2,065,539 acres and is established on 954,820 acres. CONTOUR CULTIVATION - Silt that eventually might seriously impair the habitability of streams for fish is prevented from getting into drainage channels by the practice of contour cultivation. This practice has been planned on 4,333,418 acres and is in operation on 2,713,794 acres. It has resulted in reductions of silt losses that are about proportional to the percentage of watershed treated, according to results available. Needless to say when streams flow clear, fish are able to return, a fact which has been demonstrated on streams flowing out of certain of the Service’s projects. WINTER COVER CROPS Additional food and cover are present for wildlife in any region where winter cover crops and crop residues are used to protect soil otherwise bare. On soil-conservation areas, 2,402,116 acres have been planned for such treatment. FIELD BORDERS When the Service work was new, considerable emphasis was placed upon the use of woody vegetation, but as the biologist has studied farm problems more closely, he has encouraged the mcreased use of herbaceous vegetation. One of the places where it has been found profitable to use herbaceous vegetation is along the borders of fields, especially those adjoining woodlands. Along these field borders profitable crop production is usually prevented because of forest-tree competition with crop plants for plant nutrients. Consequently, these unproductive strips increase in width as adjacent trees increase in height. They are protected by relatively little vegetation and on them farm machinery is usually turned. With little cover and because of perennial disturbance the field border usually begins to erode, sometimes seriously. On these eroding field borders strips of erosion-controlling plants, chosen with special regard for their use as wildlife food and cover, are placed. Woody plants are prevented from encroaching on the strip by mowing or cutting, the erosion hazard is thus eliminated, and another “edge’’ is enhanced in value to wildlife. This solution to a very old problem has been widely introduced and enthusiastically adopted by farmers, especially in the South. Where applicable it is also being used in the Northeast. Along these edges rabbits, song- birds, and especially quail are found to be using the food and cover provided. FARM-DRAINAGE SYSTEMS A total of 117,133 miles of drainage structures such as terraces, diversion ditches, and outlet channels have been constructed. Per- manent vegetation is required on many of these for their protection, and wherever this is true, plant species are used that provide the maximum amount of food and cover for birds and other farm wildlife. Outlet channels are usually vegetated, as are most diversion ditches; WILDLIFE CONSERVATION 389 broad-base terraces are commonly cultivated along with the rest of the cropland. As far as- possible stream banks are protected by fences combined in some instances with planting. Needless to say, well-vegetated _ stream banks protected from burning, grazing, and. brushing, form ideal habitats for many kinds of wildlife. Something over 2,500 miles of stream banks have been so treated. As a part of the policy of protection applied to farm-drainage systems, actively eroding gullies are given protection by means of | fencing, diversion of inflowing water, and planting. Draws and low areas that might in time be eroded are given protection as far as is practicable from livestock and always from burning. Obviously, such gullies and draws provide additional habitats for wildlife. SPRINGS, WELLS, PONDS, AND RESERVOIRS Even before the passage of the Water Facilities Act in 1937 the Soil Conservation Service had been assisting farmers in the development of stock-watering facilities as a part of its regular program. This work, while Nation-wide, was confined largely to the western two-thirds of the country and was developed especially in the arid and semiarid portions. In some areas large reservoirs were developed as water- conserving structures and in others comparatively small ponds were developed in the process of damming active gullies a short distance below cutting heads. Wherever practicable, and this means in most instances, springs and ponds are protected from livestock by fencing. The water is either piped outside the protected portions to watering- troughs or the pond areas are fenced in such a manner that livestock are able to drink at the end where the water is deepest. To prevent ponds from filling up too rapidly with silt the upper, shallower portions are often planted so that incoming water may be slowed down and made to drop its silt load before it flows into deeper portions. To prevent erosion by wave action around the shores plantings may also be made at the water line. Plants used for this purpose are chosen that are of maximum benefit to wildlife as food and cover. In these areas wildlife quickly takes up residence and increases rapidly for some time. As of June 30, 1939, 1,879 springs and wells, and 4,837 water-storing reservoirs have been developed. The reservoirs impound a total of 114,581 acre-feet of water. Actually the water-impoundment figure means relatively little in terms of wildlife production since here, as elsewhere, the important item is the development of margin. In other words the relation between the number of ponds and their size and shape is of greater importance frem a wildlife standpoint. Pro- viding drought is not too serious a factor, a number of small ponds with proportionately greater length of shore line may be of more total value to wildlife than a few large ponds storing an equal quantity of water but with much less total length of shore line. It may be said that wildlife returns on such areas as these are usually immediate and spectacular. WATER SPREADING In arid regions where every available drop of moisture is required for production of an oftentimes sparse vegetative cover, diversion of water concentrated in draws or other drainage channels and spread- 390 WILDLIFE CONSERVATION ing it out upon adjacent lands result in development of more luxuri- ant vegetation. To date, 621,716 acres of land have thus been made more productive, and hence more acceptable to wildlife, especially since grazing is properly managed on the same land. An aditional 626,062 acres have been contour-furrowed; such land is more useful to wildlife than formerly. RANGE AND PASTURE MANAGEMENT Uncontrolled grazing on the western range has resulted in wide- spread removal of vegetative cover and consequent loss of soil. On these areas livestock is reduced to the carrying capacity of the land and controlled grazing is initiated which permits the maximum devel- opment of cover while assuring sufficient forage for livestock. In computing the carrying capacity of the western range it is customary to make definite provision for wildlife needs. Cover is of considerable direct benefit to wildlife in range areas even though wildlife requires much less cover there than it does in the eastern part of the United States. Controlled grazing has been introduced on 10,864,651 acres, this figure including range lands of the West as well as the pastures of the East. Where deferred and rotation grazing is prescribed, slight modification of dates for turning livestock on an area is made to permit successful nesting of certain birds. Pasture management recommendations also include leaving brushy cover in draws and on steep or rough places. WOODLAND MANAGEMENT It is a customary practice of the Service and its cooperating farmers to retire from active cultivation lands too steep to be safely used under any other than a permanent protective cover of vegetation. The steeper portions of such land are planted to woodland, and up to the present time 339,654 acres of land retired from some other use have been planted to 440,363,000 woody plants and protected from erazing, fire, or other disturbance. In addition nearly 2,000,000 acres of established woodland have likewise been fenced so as to permit reproduction of the woods and protection of the soil by an adequate understory of young trees and shrubs. In new woodland plantations borders of small trees, shrubs, and vines of particular value in food production for wildlife are planted around the main body of the woodland. This border varies somewhat in width but at least two rows, and usually more, are planted around every new woodland established. In management plans for estab- lished woodland maximum protection may be required for the existing border or the border may be managed primarily for the benefit of wildlife. This again places emphasis on the development of edges where wildlife is ordinarily found in greatest number and variety. In all operations designed to improve timber stands the forester and biologist cooperate in planning the work so that wildlife needs may be given due attention. The correlation of biological and silvicultural practice has been one of the easiest tomake. As of June 30, 1939, such plans have been consummated on 152,743 acres of woodland. A very considerable number of the woody plants used have been planted along barren stream banks or galled spots and in gullies, particularly where eroded areas are too large to reshape for crop WILDLIFE CONSERVATION 391 production. Water formerly discharging into gullies is diverted and, of course, watersheds above the gullies are given full protection through applicable soil-conservation measures. Land apparently ruined by erosion is thus put to production of wood products and wildlife. In the planting of windbreaks and shelter belts in the arid plains region, low-growing shrubs that contribute cover and food to wildlife are used in the outer rows. Where necessary to protect the young trees from soil blow, pending their firm establishment, rows of sorghum, Sudan grass, sunflowers, or corn are planted between tree rows and on either side of the windbreak. While protecting the young trees these plants furnish an abundance of food for wildlife. These wind- breaks and shelter belts are of particular value in a region where cover is at a premium. WILDLIFE AREAS On most farms there are to be found areas that are apparently not producing anything and that are usually classed as idle or waste land. Very commonly these areas are not used because they present a high erosion hazard or because they have already deteriorated so far that production of a crop is apparently impossible or they are too rough and rugged for the passage of agricultural machinery. These areas are usually grazed by livestock even though the forage they produce may be poor in quality and small in quantity. As of June 30, 1939, 30,625 acres of this kind of land have been retired solely for the use of wildlife. Retirement of these odd and rough spots may involve no more . than protection from grazing animals, which happens to be a practice of great importance to wildlife, or parts or the whole of such areas may be planted to keep them from eroding and to furnish habitats for wildlife. Oftentimes cooperators look upon these areas as wildlife headquarters on their farms. They may be recognized as refuges and in the regions where winters are severe, emergency feeding operations may be carried on within their borders. SPECIAL WORK For the conservation of water as well as silt storage in watersheds remote from croplands, the Service has continued its work of trans- planting beaver which may be causing trouble in irrigation ditches to eae along streams and uplands where the dams may be of maximum enefit. Specifications for feeding stations and food patches for winter feeding are given to interested cooperators and through the activities of Civilian Conservation Corps boys winter feeding is carried on in many parts of the northern United States where severe winters are a critical factor in wildlife survival. WILDLIFE DAMAGE PROBLEMS The Biology Division is responsible not only for the betterment of conditions for desired forms of wildlife but is also charged with seeing that wildlife does not obstruct the operation of soil and water con- servation plans. The forms which have so far given the Service most trouble are in order of importance, burrowing rodents, grasshoppers, rabbits, and deer. 392 WILDLIFE CONSERVATION Since July 1, 1937 the responsibility for keeping rodents out of terraces, dikes, and other earth structures on private lands has been placed on the cooperating farmer but this still leaves the Service with the obligation to supply technical advice to the cooperator when needed. This is done by the biological staff cooperating with agents of: the Bureau of Biological Survey. On Federal lands such rodent control as may be necessary to protect Service structures and plant- ings is carried out by the Service under the terms of a memorandum of understanding with the Biological Survey. Grasshopper outbreaks have at times seriously reduced or nullified the effectiveness of vegetative erosion-control measures on the Great Plains. While insect control, like rodent control, is not considered a normal Service function, the Biology Division is called upon to bring about such cooperation with other agencies as may be necessary to meet the emergency. Rabbit problems have been met by promoting shooting by individual cooperators or drives in which whole communities may take part. In some vlaces both flesh and pelt have been found to have a sale value which helps to defray the cost. The use of poisons is discour- aged. In addition, considerable attention is paid to selecting plants unpalatable to rabbits for use in Service operations. In certain parts of the West heavy populations of deer and elk, which may have adequate summer range at high altitudes, present a knotty problem when winter forces them down on eroding ranges already overloaded with domestic livestock. The proper solution may be plain but under such circumstances both cattlemen and sports- men are usually obdurate and it is necessary for the biologist to obtain ne cooperation of both groups in order that these problems may be solved. SUBMARGINAL LAND PURCHASE AND UTILIZATION In October 1938, the Land Acquisition, Development, and Project Organization Divisions of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics were transferred to the Soil Conservation Service. These divisions were originally created to administer the provisions of Title III of the Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenancy Act of 1937, and their objective was to correct social and economic maladjustments i in rural areas by changing the pattern of occupancy and consequent use of land. The activity involved in this new aspect of the soil-conservation program includes purchase of submarginal land or land unsuited to cultivation, and the development and improvement of purchased areas for sustained use. Some purchased areas may be transferred to ap- propriate Federal, State, or local agencies for administration, others may be managed by the Service under uses to which they are adapted, oftentimes in cooperation with local groups of farmers and public agencies in furthering programs of land use, water conservation, and the like. As of June 30, 1939, the Soil Conservation Service had 105 land- utilization projects involving 7,460,395 acres of federally owned land and a gross acreage of 26,735,390 acres. Before this figure was com- piled a number of projects had been transferred to various Federal and State agencies, and since June 30 other transfers have been made, so that the status of the land acquired may be said to be changing to some extent almost monthly. WILDLIFE CONSERVATION 393 Submarginal land purchased under this program can ordinarily be put to few uses during its period of recovery. Grazing, forestry, and wildlife management may often be the only safe uses for such land. Certainly, lands too poor for agricultural production or for production of much natural vegetation cannot be expected to produce as much wildlife as more fertile areas. The fact cannot be overlooked that wildlife possibilities are a function of land fertility as expressed in variety and luxuriance of vegetation; consequently dedication of sub- marginal land to wildlife cannot be expected to result per se in abun- dant wildlife. Some improvements must be made that depend in part upon the extent to which the land is used for other purposes, the expected returns from wildlife production as balanced against cost of management, and the general adaptability of the land for wildlife. Originally this program was administered by the Federal Emergency Relief Administration, then by the Resettlement Administration, later by the Farm Security Administration, and before the Soil Conserva- tion Service acquired it, by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics. Under these various administrations considerable areas were developed for wildlife, and a full report of such activities was published in the hearings of the Select Committee on Conservation of Wildlife Re- sources, House of Representatives, Seventy-fifth Congress, third ses- sion. Reference to that report will show substantial wildlife work to have been done, including food and cover planting, lake and pond development, stream improvement, fencing of wildlife refuges, bio- logical reconnaissance and the like. The period elapsing since this program was transferred to the Service has been primarily a period of adjustment during which work already under way was brought to completion and policies were gradually developed to coordinate land purchase and utilization with other phases of the Service program. As yet no detailed report is available but under Service adminis- tration plans for development of land-utilization projects are con- sidered by biologists as well as other technicians in the same coordi- nated manner of approach as with all other phases of the Service’s broad program. Wildlife practices initiated must be of a dependable character, and must have demonstrated their usefulness for wildlife on other types of projects developed. WATER FACILITIES Under the Water Facilities Act of 1937 the Soil Conservation Service is held responsible for the operation phases of a program aimed at improving and developing farm and ranch water supplies in arid and semiarid areas. This work is carried on cooperatively with the Farm Security Administration, the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, and other agencies through the Water Facilities Board, and is limited to the 17 Western States. In accordance with general plans formulated by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, the Soil Conservation Service undertakes detailed planning and installation of facilities. Water supplies are developed with a view to promoting better land use. This involves assistance to landowners in constructing and installing wells, ponds, reservoirs, dams, pumps, springs, stock water tanks, water-spreading systems for utilizing run-off, and the like. 294 _ WILDLIFE CONSERVATION In the development of this special program, complete conservation plans are drawn up for farms or groups of farms on which the water facilities are constructed. Hence, the same practices already in operaton on soil-conservation- demonstration projects are set in oper- ation on water-facilities projects. Important among these, of course, is the fencing of ponds or reservoirs in such a manner as to protect the shallower portions, and the piping of water for livestock through the dam into watering troughs outside the fence. Some are as may require the use of aquatic and even of woody plants for desilting inflowing waters. These are selected with a view to the production of the best possible food and cover for wildlife. Wildlife returns in similar areas already developed by the Service are rapid an sometimes amazing. Such reservoirs act not only as resting and breeding grounds for waterfowl, but they provide places in which landowners commonly plant fish. Muskrats which popu- late the larger ponds may provide economic return in fur. At the present time 52 water facilities areas have been set up with a gross area of 31,662,720 acres. Operations are gong forward on 209,348 acres under 345 plans. FARM FORESTRY While farm forestry has not yet been put into effect on the land, it is anticipated that about 40 projects will be in operation before the end of the present fiscal year. The program is designed to foster the practice of farm forestry in agriculture. The Department of Agri- culture in cooperation with appropriate State agencies is responsible for the administration of the program. Some projects will be placed on land mostly forested, and the Department’s responsibilities with respect to these forest- farming projects will be carried out under the guidance of the Forest Service. Projects known as farm-forestry projects will be set up on land primarily agricultural, and on these the Soil Conservation Service will assume the Department’s responsi- bilities. On the basis of information available from State agencies it is estimated that about 70 percent of the work will be farm forestry rather than forest farming. Under farm forestry it is planned to establish demonstrations to show the effect of farm woodland management on farm economy. The best methods of managing different types of farm woods will be deter- mined and applied on the projects to show that proper silviculture can be a profitable farm activity. Complete conservation plans involving all farm land use, and similar to plans developed on soil-conservation projects, will be drawn up for farm-forestry cooperators, insofar as possible. In some instances landowners may not wish to accept a complete farm plan, but preference will be given to those who do. The plans drawn up will contain pertinent modifications for wildlife benefit. Here, as with other phases of Service work, review of plans by all technical divisions to insure a unified approach i is anticipated. Established woodlands will be protected from fire and grazing so that the understory of young trees and shrubs will grow up to re- place the barren floor of the all too usual woods-pasture. In new woodland plantings, borders of shrubs chosen for their value to wildlife as food will be planted to protect wocdlands from the effects of dessi- cating winds. Due attention will be paid to encouraging a variety of WILDLIFE CONSERVATION 395 trees, uneven-aged stands, preservation of occasional hollow ‘“‘den”’ trees, and other practices that are not only good silvicultural measures but that encourage wildlife. . In'summary it may be pointed out that one of the objectives aimed at on each farm-forestry project will be the demonstration by appli- cable wildlife-management practices of the development of useful wildlife populations as an important integral part of farm woodlands. FLOOD CONTROL Under the Flood Control Act of 1936 and supplemental legislation, the Service conducts surveys to determine what run-off and waterflow retardation and soil erosion prevention measures are technically and economically justified in the interest of flood control. These surveys are made in cooperation with the Bureau of Agricultural Economics and the Forest Service. By the end of the fiscal year 23 detailed surveys covering approximately 86,000 square miles will have been completed, as well as preliminary examinations on approximately 967,000 square miles. Some additional detailed surveys will be under way but will not be completed this year. So far the flood-control program has been confined to surveys. When actual operations on the land are undertaken, they will be in accord with plans approved by the Congress. Some watersheds may require the application of relatively few conservation measures because of their physical nature; thus precipitous, rocky areas immediately above urban centers are scarcely adapted to measures designed to conserve soil. Others may be wholly agricultural and on these watersheds conservation operations applied to land will be of the same general type as those undertaken on Service projects and camp areas. In all cases, the areas selected for treatment will be chosen in an order dependent upon urgency and in coordination with down- stream flood-control work of the Corps of Engineers. In a few instances it has been found advisable to make a wildlife survey in conjunction with the flood-control survey so that it may be possible eventually to ascertain the effect of flood-control activities upon wildlife populations. Aside from this, relatively little wildlife work has so far been umdertaken in this field. When operations begin biological as well as other technical phases will be given due attention under the Service policy as outlined in the earlier sections of this statement. DRAINAGE In 10 Eastern States a total of 40 Civilian Conservation Corps camps are engaged in drainage work under the guidance of the Soil Conservation Service. The work is largely of a rehabilitation charac- ter, and consists primarily of cleaning out old drainage ditches. Care- ful consideration is given to keeping the maximum amount of vegeta- tive cover on ditch banks compatible with the drainage require- ments. This cover serves a useful purpose in protecting the banks and supplying habitats for wildlife. BIOLOGICAL PROBLEMS IN SOIL CONSERVATION The Biology Division is constantly required to render decisions concerning biological implications of all Soil Conservation Service operations. Such decisions result in the actual modification or devel- 396 WILDLIFE CONSERVATION opment of conservation practices which in turn involve expenditure of public funds and influence the performance of the entire Service program. In assuming its responsibilities the Biology Division con- sults many Federal agencies for data useful in formulating its deci- sions. Results of research conducted, for instance by the Bureau of Biological Survey are widely used wherever they can be applied to Service operations on the land. The Division likewise calls upon the Bureau of Fisheries for assistance with fish problems, the Bureau of Entomology and Plant Quarantine for scientific facts relating to insect pests and their relation to conservation measures, and the Bureau of Plant Industry and the National Herbarium for basic data regarding plant species used in conservation plantings. Notwithstanding the technical assistance available through govern- mental agencies whose function it is to provide research data, the Service is confronted with numerous biological problems for which answers are not available. It will suffice to cite three of these. THE RODENT PROBLEM Burrowing rodents in the South, Southwest, and California are believed to compete with cattle for forage on range lands and to damage such conservation structures as terraces and earth fills. In- tensive rodent research to date, however, has related largely to control of rodent populations by poisoning and the refinement of poisoning techniques. Poisoning 1s expensive and often uneconomical. It likewise ignores the possible beneficial effects of rodents upon the land, for example their influence on natural cultivation and soil fer- tility. Since several species of rodents are involved, we need to know more about life histories of rodent species and rodent population phenomena, especially in their relation to unspoiled range land. There is need for a knowledge of rodents which will permit the devel- opment of sound range management practices and engineering struc- tures compatible with ecologically controlled animal populations. A few universities have started research along these lines and ecological control, that is, environmental control, of at least one rodent, the cotton rat, has been perfected by Mr. Herbert L. Stoddard, an inde- pendent game manager in Georgia. Such control is economical and not violent in its effect upon the biotic balance of a given area. It is questionable whether sound soil- and water-conservation measures can ever be developed on our semiarid lands until the rodent problem is properly understood. THE COASTAL PLAIN PINELANDS PROBLEM It is now recognized by ecologists that the climax vegetation of the Atlantic Coastal Plain is a mixed deciduous forest. Fire and other disturbance by Indians long before the white man arrived kept the Coastal Plain in stands of pine. Experimental work tends to show that if the Coastal Plain is to be retained in desirable species of pine, such as longleaf, while less desirable pines and broadleaf trees are to be excluded, some type of ecological management, involving careful burning and control of grazing is necessary. For optimum multiple land use burning must be of such a nature that it will not harm soil and wildlife. The complex interrelated factors involved in ecological control of Coastal Plain vegetation in order to preserve the soil re- WILDLIFE CONSERVATION 397 source, produce a sustained yield of valuable timber, and maintain a surplus crop of quail and associated wildlife, must be better under- stood before much of our southeastern land can be properly managed. INSECT PROBLEM It has been stated that conservation operations on the land in some instances tend to increase populations of injurious insects. For exam- ple, it is maintained that strip cropping may permit the development of insect pests, such as grasshoppers, in strips of grasses or legumes from which they can readily spread to adjacent strips of cultivated crops. There is a distinct need for studies to determine the actual populations of insects on strip-cropped and comparable nonstripped agricultural land. In addition methods of ecological or ‘‘naturalistic”’ control of insects need further consideration. Attention should be given to the value of the soil conserved as opposed to any possible insect damage due to soil conservation measures employed. The im- portant niche occupied by insectivorous birds, encouraged by conser- vation measures, must also be considered in evaluating the factors involved in this problem. NEED FOR ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATIONS Sound land use cannot be attained without a knowledge of the biological and ecological consequences of conservation programs ap- plied to the land. Such knowledge, as exemplified in the three problems stated above, its quite inadequate. The Soil Conservation Service is more interested in many of these problems than other agencies because of the decisions the Service is daily forced to make in actually accomplishing conservation on the land. To wisely achieve this practical purpose more research is needed. Research agencies of the Federal Government have shown an interest in conducting such research, but their available funds are already strained to meet previous demands upon them. In this connection it should be pointed out, as acknowledged in the memorandum of understanding between the Soil Conservation Service and the Bureau of Biological Survey, that the “Soil Conservation Service is the recognized bureau of the Federal Government directly charged with the responsibility for conducting research relating to soil erosion.’”’ To date the Service has not conducted research relating to soil erosion as a result of or with respect to biological influences. Recently the Service has been asked to cooperate with the Bureau of Biological Survey in conducting such studies. Without biological personnel in the Service divisions of research such cooperation is distinctly handicapped. Therefore, in order to cooperate efficiently with other agencies and independently to investigate biological problems of imminent concern to the technical operations divisions and the whole action program of the Soil Con- servation Service, the need for additional appropriations becomes apparent. In order to establish a minimum unit equipped to begin work on certain phases of the three problems mentioned, it is esti- mated that a fund of $60,000 is needed. With such a fund available, effective cooperation in research with other agencies could become a reality and a start could be made toward directing research in regard ee owes effects upon soil erosion along the lines it should properly follow. 251256—40——2 398 WILDLIFE CONSERVATION SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Eighty-five percent of the land of the United States is used for agricultural purposes, including grazing. Eighty-five percent of all hunting takes place on agricultural land, and on it 70 percent of the wild fur crop is caught by farm boys. Obviously, the pattern of use developed on agricultural land is of paramount importance to wildlife, and it is clear that unless plans for wildlife are developed as part of the plans for agriculture, most wildlife produced in the country will be largely accidental. Consideration of the biological aspects of the Soil Conservation Service program will show that there is no class of agricultural land upon which at least some wildlife development cannot be successfully undertaken. Productive wildlife measures have been applied to intensively used truck cropland as well as to semiwild land on south- western ranges. Extremely valuable land supporting highly specialized crops has been found capable of producing a wildlife crop, as have apparently worthless gullies on run-down submarginal farms. In other words, wildlife is a crop capable of production over and above other crops occupying the same land, provided attention is paid to the required slight modification of agricultural practice. Possible wildlife developments have not found expression in accom- plishment unless properly trained technicians have been available to assume responsibility for the work. Many of the practices employed by the Service would improve conditions incidentally for wildlife, but major Service accomplishments in wildlife conservation are un- questionably due to a corps of biologists guiding the work. Techniques of a strictly agricultural nature have been modified for wildlife benefit, and wildlife conservation techniques have been modified for the benefit of agriculture as well as of the land itself. It has taken 6 years of testing to prove this, although it is apparent that wildlife aspects of land-use planning are by no means crystallized. But it is likewise apparent that as agricultural planning moves forward, wildlife planning can be expected to move with it. A summary of the plans and acreage involved in the work of the Soil Conservation Service is subjoined. It shows nearly 50,000,000 acres of land on which the Service program is being carried out accord- ing to the specifications of 81,938 plans in 841 different work areas in 46 of the 48 States and in Puerto Rico. Summary of plans prepared by Soil Conservation Service technicians as of June 30, 1939 Demonstration proj- | Western watershed | Land-utilization proj- Type of plan ects | projects ects Number Acres Number Acres Number Acres Individual farm and ranch_-_---_--- 25,099 | 3, 738, 412 1,039 |" 5, 588, 105 |= 252 See eee Soil Conservation Service-Exten- sion demonstration farms_--_____- 2, 044 1, 242, 378 18 144, 160! | 2.2) ee eee Farm Security Administration farms 253 344, 452 6 201; 835" | 2 a2 ae | eee Roadside erosion control_._____-_-_- LOO} | Ste ee ees 6 |:o. ieee ct |e es Water facilifies. 2st tae 337 206, 436 2,912 | 2.2 22 Indian reservation [fos see see | ee eee eee eee 21°) 17, 149; 653: |22 2 2 ee eee Natlonaliforest si2te 0 eareg oe See = 2 Bhs Beg ee Ss 13 147,203 |e ce eae oF Ee Other publicdand +: 22 2220s) 2a Siege St eee ee ee 22 456, 097 105 7, 460, 394 Other types 2242 t> sd. eee eee 331 56, 227i | eeek aC. ore Los | Totaly. 22) 52s eee 28,164 | 5, 587, 905 1, 133 | 23, 690, 055 105 7, 460, 395 1 On or out from project. WILDLIFE CONSERVATION Summary of plans prepared by 399 Soil Conservation Service technicians as of June 80 1989—Continued Civilian Conservation| Soil-conservation Type of plan Corpserosion camps? districts Total Number Acres Number Acres Number Acres Individual farm and ranch ________- 45, 237 | 8, 950, 792 6,916 | 1,845,958 | 78,291 | 20, 123, 267 Soil Conservation Service-Exten- PE IeEHOUS TATION Grins see | ee | oe ee een |e eee ceed 2, 062 1, 386, 538 MannUseciiiny Administration farms). 2... 9 |_so2-22.2.-}-.s-se0-celoe tance ccuue 259 546, 287 Roadside erosion control_-_--______-- SOQ Poe aes el eee ee eet 2 ae 466 «| eee een OO Se) CSET IS Se oe a ay (Re cee ec |e eee 345 209, 348 Indian/reservation=........-.-.._._- 1 207000) Meese eee ta women oe 22 | 17, 269, 653 INetOnasOrestmec =o. --.-....2--.-. 3 OS oil | ene eee ee eee a ee 16 154, 875 Gramnwdisthiets- s-.....-.-.-.-.--- 5 55, Ost dla tare Nee ie oa: 5 55, 037 Otpermithuc tand.---._-.-..2-222.. 14 DOL; O00 s seee eee eee eae are eo 141 8, 468, 442 SON SE. ne ee A I SS [eRe eB Satie ates ee eg (eek ve I ne cn ae 331 56, 227 NTI 22k SA 45, 620 9, 685, 361 6, 916 1, 845, 958 81, 938 48, 259, 674 2 Civilian Conservation Corps erosion camps have worked on an additional 2,144,768 acres located in demonstration projects, watershed projects, and soil-conservation districts. These acreages are included in the totals shown for demonstration projects, watershed projects, and soil-conservation districts. Plans in demonstration and watershed projects, Civilian Conservation Corps erosion camps, and soil- conservation districts are cooperative agreements. Plans in land-utilization projects are in the form of detailed operation plans. Plans on public lands are considered as working agreements. Plans for Extension-Soil Conservation Service demonstration farms are individual farm plans prepared in cooperation with State agricultural extension services. Other types of plans include State and county institution farms. OLE LOVDAVAAS LONELY (YR devav yy ocr denspda Tovey aipeeve Bi rion se éa PAG Gla Th foci rol) —OR8 ¢ _ + ad Goose = ie es Bn — a’ uF - i oF ‘ é — ; ma eects tie ri! eh Orada nil] AO nee if > Was hy vats Np lero rie.) ; » ¥f . . { LA re if ‘ ae a ave Ayu 4 ‘i Ruder ib | rem # fag ict r A /arege ¥ " ae y > . a a ae oy ; ps i - . AGRA ad Fy i 7 n pee ' a War hg fry ? a o Pubs } wb tt vies j ay ‘ 's F: a - t a7 a) diel *ji ; an iy ; Lai Me io Kev ey er " . ner a ow — . ee 4 = 2 hyo sie pty Sdmin o/at egies Rats SD ae a ’ ; ; ; ira dem spel ries Pear URE Ld 2D Poni ie We tg Gottes r zy 1 i olwduter bet crak ‘ ye Plies vy . r sere Tey HIN wisi MieaiewF Vidy Wh) ame > ele ' out 1 Ter Pol h eee Ie oF One er ath iota ¢ tapes Leow ithe alg any ate ; a? eae 7 is . ) 9 +k rr sf , a { _ it : z he ‘y a ; H t 1 | cree ] x ° 7 * =| & it ’ 7 i , ’ = : o, at *y a4 2 1) ae ‘ ¢ ~ “re REPORT OF THE CIVILIAN CONSERVATION CORPS on Its Wildlife Activities Prepared by J. J. McENTEE, Director = 109 ee REPORT OF THE CIVILIAN CONSERVATION CORPS The Civilian Conservation Corps has been in operation since April 5, 1933, a period of almost 7 years. During this time, more than 4,000 individual Civilian Conservation Corps camps have been in operation and something more than 2,400,000 young men, war veterans, Indians and residents of Hawaii, the Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, and Alaska have worked under the competent supervision of the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture on a wide variety of conservation projects. A tremendous amount of work has been completed in such fields as forest fire protection, forest improvement, stream improvement, erosion control—which includes the planting of trees and shrubs and the building of hundreds of thousands of check dams—the clearing out of drainage ditches on agricultural lands, the improvement of parks, the development of fish hatcheries, the development of wildlife refuges, the improvement of grazing conditions, the conservation of water, flood control, and reforestation of wastelands through tree planting. While only a comparatively small number of Civilian Conservation Corps camps have been assigned to strictly wildlife projects, virtually all the work done by the corps has contributed to the welfare, better- ment, and management of our wildlife resources. Civilian Con- servation Corps work has increased cover for game, improved food conditions, protected from fire areas inhabited by wildlife, improved fishing conditions by developing hatcheries and by stream-develop- ment work and developed refuges. All Civilian Conservation Corps conservation work, including wild- life activities, is carried on under the supervision of and according to . plans recommended by the Department of the Interior, the Depart- ment of Agriculture, and State Conservation organizations. As a result, all wildlife activities of the Civilian Conservation Corps have been carefully coordinated with wildlife programs of other Federal and State Governments. Inasmuch as the work of the Civilian Conservation Corps has been supervised by Federal conservation agencies, it will not be necessary, in my opinion, for this office to review in detail all the work which the Corps has done under the supervision of the Bureau of Biological Survey and other Federal services. I assume that you will receive reports from each of these agencies which will include the results at- tained through the use of Civilian Conservation Corps labor and funds. There have been certain tasks for which Civilian Conservation Corps enrollees have proved themselves ideally suited. Before outlining these tasks, however, emphasis should be given to the accomplish- ments of one group of camps in particular. These camps working under the immediate direction of the Bureau of Biological Survey, formerly of the Department of Agriculture and now in the Depart- ment of the Interior, have dealt exclusively with wildlife conservation. With their aid, there has been developed a system of migratory water- fowl refuges located along the major migratory routes. Civilian Con- servation Corps workers ‘directed by the Bureau of Biological Survey experts have been occupied in both phases of this program facilitat- 403 404 WILDLIFE CONSERVATION ing the administration of the areas by construction of trails, boundary markers, administration buildings, fire lookout towers, and other im- pr ovements; and increasing the attractiveness of the areas to wildfowl through the planting of vegetation for food and cover, the construction of impounding dams for the spreading of water levels, construction of nesting islands, and other work of this nature. In addition, there have been Civilian Conservation Corps camps in operation under the same Bureau’s direction busy on the improvement and extension of big-game preserves and ranges. Camps located on national forests and parks, and on State-owned forest areas have cooperated with wildlife technicians in investigating wildlife populations and other problems dealing with wildlife manage- ment on public forest areas. Enrollees of the camps have proved valuable in conducting deer and other big-game counts and in gather- ing other information necessary to the formulation and application of wildlife conservation plans on public lands. A highly important although indirect contribution to wildlife con- servation has been the efforts of the Corps in preventing and control of forest fires. The Corps has become the first line of defense through- out many million acres of public and private forest land and park areas. ‘The control of forest fire is, of course, essential to the main- tenance of proper habitat for wildlife of all kinds. Likewise, forest conservation work conducted by the Corps has been of great value to wildlife. The Civilian Conservation Corps’ reforestation program— the largest-scale tree-planting program yet attempted—naturally extends the areas of land capable of harboring wildlife, and the timber stand improvement work being done for the benefit of future forest values is being carried out with the benefit of wildlife in mind. Other Civilian Conservation Corps using agencies as well have showed a practical desire to cooperate in coordinating a valuable Civilian Conservation Corps wildlife conservation program. In the case of the erosion control demonstration work being carried out in hundreds of areas throughout the agricultural sections of the country, the conservation practices put into effect by Civilian Conservation Corps workers under direction of the Soil Conservation Service have directly benefited wildlife, especially birds, inhabiting such areas. In laying plans for this type of work to be done by Civilian Conservation Corps, wildlife values are considered and interwoven to the extent that research data on this problem becomes available. There is another phase of Civilian Conservation Corps work in relation to wildlife conservation that bears emphasis: some two million young men have gone through the camps of the Civilian Conservation Corps; a vast majority of these young men, in the course of their Civilian Conservation Corps work, come in contact with some phase of wildlife conservation. This means the spreading of an attitude among young men which will tend more and more to supplant an older viewpoint which assumed the inexhaustibility of America’s wildlife. These young men will automatically think of the nation’s wildlife resources in terms of conservation and restora- tion, instead of depredation and misuse. The use of the Civilian Conservation Corps on conservation projects where the work has been planned and supervised by the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture has been pro- ductive of fine results in all fields of conservation. It has worked WILDLIFE CONSERVATION 405 out extremely well for wildlife. But while our wildlife resources are in far better shape than they were 7 years ago, much work of this character remains to be done. This work could be done advan- tageously by the Civilian Conservation Corps, working in cooperation with the regular conservation agencies. Enclosed is a tabulation of the work of the Civilian Conservation Corps, which has contributed to an important degree to conservation and protection of wildlife values in the United States, together with a copy of a pamphlet entitled ‘““The CCC and Wildlife.” Notr.—Copy of the pamphlet entitled ‘The CCC and Wildlife’? may be obtained by addressing either the Director of the Civilian Conservation Corps, or Chief of the Biological Survey, Washington, D. C., or by writing your Senator or Congressman. Total work completed during the period April 1933 through Sept. 30, 1989—continental United States and outlying possessions ad Type of job or project classification Unit New work Say STRUCTURAL IMPROVEMENTS (100 SERIES) Bridges: 101 O@UIAIE, BOTSO® oe ye eee ee ee, Number-...-- 6, 820. 1 710.0 104 DieuIClawe eto n eaert ence SA Number... ---- 36, 434, 3 7, 978.0 Buildings other than Civilian Conservation Corps camp: 105 iraiky cael, ESE Ses i eee Number_----- 994.0 503. 0 107 ahNS TOVOrUIeny See ak es Number--.--_- 1, 515.0 162.0 108 Combination buildings__.27 "i... .--... bse Number. _----_- 327.0 130.0 111 Equipment and supplies storage houses-__-_--_--- Number_.-_--- 2, 622. 0 707.0 112 (CEE 12 UES een ene os = 5 te Neen eee Ore are Number_-_-.._- 2, 102.0 3, 376. 0 115 IBOOROGANOISCS. Number. .--_- 1, 062. 4 726.5 116 IOOROULILOW COIS. -welase ee 1. Number---.-- 2, 733. 5 1, 443.0 119 (SITES, o.oo, sae Ba Sg tg BOT eae py ee ae Number-_----- 1, 952.0 362.0 120 Ophernglcings. wets eek Number. -._- 23, 782. 5 13, 701. 5 Iie Onbpbing, Incuiding fillings ss | 2 2 3--__- Cubic yard__-_ 424, 085. 0 22, 453. 0 122 | Impounding and large diversion dams_____________- Number-_.---- 5, 734. 2 2, 454. 0 131 (CSS. i NS CS ee, es oni ee ge Rod sees 18, 245, 682. 9 5, 308, 916. 0 133 | Levees, dikes, jetties, and groins______.......-.---- Cubic yard___| 13, 565,058.2 | 2,799, 982.0 igs An ines, water-spreading-_-.U_..-.) -....-...2-.----- Linear foot___- 26; 684.0). eee oe, fue tncIne na orsee sf 9 2 sea Number_.-.-_- 522.0 78.0 139 | Sewage- and waste-disposal systems___.___________- Number-.---_-- 2, 845.0 716.0 Palma elOpNONG LINOS ss. S scene Mile2. =. sis 75, 151. 2 209, 657. 1 Water-supply systems: 141 Weantains}. drinking _ aes Fe Number_---_-- 1, 351.0 50. 0 142 pen aitches!._- eebee ee Fos Linear foot._._} 1, 285, 162.0 277, 584.0 143 Pipeoriiile lines: Sebel i ce 13, 357. 5 57, 992. 4 EROSION CONTROL (300 SERIES) 301 | Stream and lake-bank protection_.__..-._..-------- Square yard___|152, 263, 200.0 | 12, 438, 489.0 Treatment of gullies: 1 302 PCTS ESOT Cee ea ae ER RR A ae is ES ape ie ae A CROs aa 4, 300, 773. 5 157, 620. 6 303 IEHIRARIODING 3oee eet ee Se ae eee Square yard___/336, 417, 132.0 | 3,529, 014.0 304 @heckidams, permanent. o-- --- osc sane sece sess Number------ 293, 655. 8 23, 712.0 305 Whack Cams, temporary --..--_..cc-eoceeeuesews Numbers... 4, 793, 509. 3 144, 994. 0 306 Becdinpand sOGding ess... 2 2 lk, eee aces ne Square yard-.-/415, 589, 327.0 | 15, 631, 544.0 See footnotes at end of table. 406 WILDLIFE CONSERVATION Total work completed during the period April 1933 through Sept. 30, 1939—continental United States and outlying possessions—Continued Class : : + : Mainte- No. Type of job or project classification Unit New work Hatten EROSION CONTROL (300 SERIES)—continued Treatment or gullies—C ontinued. 307 ‘Tree planting; gully. :c.t oes 4 ep *. 23s. eo Square ia aaal 392, 549, 935.0 |112, 013, 413.0 308 Ditches, diversione ----- 2 eee Linear foot-- 57, 172, 214. 7 6, 880, 377. 0 309"! Terracing -2)){.22.1.9 2. Ae ete FP Saet 2 Mile ij28 32k 24, 374.5 9, 445.1 Terrace outletting: 313 Planting, seeding, or sodding__._-_____________- Square yard___| 97,931, 764.0 | 18, 720, 659.0 1313A Planting for bank proteetion_--___-_---_---_-__ Linear foot.___| 6, 780, 500.0 22, 016. 0 314} . Sheet-erosign DIAMUING> 0. ee oe eee eee Acta! 2 eee 549, 705. 1 30, 595. 6 323 | Water spreaders (rock, brush, wire)----.----------- Linear foot-._-| 5, 527, 471.0 201, 271.0 324 | Water spreaders (terrace-type)-_---..._------------_- Linear foot._._| 3,791, 746.0 517, 752.0 FLOOD CONTROL, IRRIGATION, AND DRAINAGE (400 SERIES) Clearing and cleaning: 401 Channelgiand levees: oases ee eee eee Square yard___| 60, 887, 394. 0. |361, 087, 287.0 402 Reservoir, pond, and lake sites_--_.___-_---_-_- Acres 24 ee 175, 511.3 5, 488. 9 1402A Olan 25 eee 8 ee ee ae Linear yard___ 494, 027.8 2, 000. 0 409) Lining of waterways. s:.-)._ 421-2 St Square yard___| 1, 242, 277.0 5, 409. 0 Excavating channels, canals, and ditches: 404 Marth: 44 3. 2 2 ee Se eee Cubic yard___| 19, 739, 297.0 | 57, 153, 741.0 405 Rock 4s fee on BL aoe eee Cubic yard__- 702, 499. 0 76, 980. 0 406 | Pipe lines, tile lines, and conduits_______-_-_--_---- Linear foot..._} 1,859,915.0 | 1,579, 814.0 Riprap or paving: 407 RoGk or ‘contiete... Fete so Fe een eee ee ece Square yard___| 2,720, 076.0 81, 578.0 408 Brosh or willows's- ae eet Square yard___ 766, 606. 0 175, 552. 0 411 | Water-control structures other than Gams 25 2ev a Number__-__-_- 24, 023. 0 4, 287.0 412 | Concrete core walls other than dams_---.-.--------- Cubic yard __- 9, 614. 0 11.0 414 | Leveling‘of spoil banks2See4es) 2 een ee-e =. Cubic yard__- 913, 022.0 | 8, 314, 443.0 FOREST CULTURE (500 SERIES) 501 | Field planting or seeding (trees)_....__-.-..--.--__- BCLOL Se tA ee 1, 698, 069. 5 160, 110. 0 502 | Forest-stand improvement__-.-_....---.----------- ACTOR an cao 3, 451, 298, 3 16, 755. 0 BOS} Nurseities 4 | 2-52 5 oc ee | ee eee Man-day-_-__- 4, 178, 617. 2 405, 914.0 Tree-seed collection: 504 CGmilers. (CONS) 2 ee ne ee eee Bushell. ose 624, 068. 7 505 Hardwoods. 43.. ese. Sas See Pound 22.0225 11, 904, 133.0 506 | Collection of tree seedlings__._.___.._-_._..__-__-___ Number. ___-- 9, 722, 839. 0 FOREST PROTECTION (600 SERIES) 600" |* Fighting forest fires.ooeeeeee soe eee ene ae nee Man-day__.__- 5, 38874200) 2it 2 Rees 602: | -Rinrebresks: 4 5. $23: 8 Se ek ee eee DMbi le ete pales 62, 944. 1 48, 656. 0 Fire-hazard reduction: 603 Road and trailsides tle. eee eee ee eee Milel_. a 71, 967.5 6, 645. 3 605 Otherto eee re a ee Acte-] pales: 1, 955, 549. 8 6, 631. 7 606")| | Fire*presuppression=— se. eens te ee Man-day_-.__- 4, 179, 324.0 12, 922.0 607" Fite prevention sis. Soe) Tee 8 eee Man-day ____-_ 626, 363. 0 1, 412.0 608 | Tree- and plant-disease control___.___________-_____ PN eee ae” if 536, 087. 5 717, 298. 7 609 | Tree-insect-pest control. 2.20122.2-2.-- eee ask Mere 2029225 26 11, 339, 642. 2 157, 244.8 LANDSCAPE AND RECREATION (700 SERIES) 701.| Beathimprovement see eee ek ee FACRO oso seee 3, 022. 2 182.0 703) ‘Genéraleléan-up >...) ae eee ‘Aeron fgets 346, 567. 7 39, 482. 7 705 | Landscaping, undifferentiated ____________- rleActe es 2S 205, 095. 9 11, 584, 2 706 | Moving and planting trees and shrubs--_--- _| Number_-___--] 31, 998, 726.0 | 4, 457, 331.0 711 | Public camp ground development___________--- : | PACT seen 44, 348.6 22, 051.3 1711A | Other public camp ground facilities______-.__-____- Number__--_-- 46, 683. 8 5, 194. 5 712 | Public picnic ground development___________--____ ACA see . Ses 7,018.9 3, 577.6 713 | Razing undesired structures and obliterations-____- Man-day---__- 1, 255, 270. 0 2, 065. 0 714 | Seed collection, other than tree.___.__._______---___ Pound’) 2, 647, 416.0 Sees eee 715 || Seeding or sodding-= os. 255 2a eee pee iN CrOMe Ae 52 42, 726.8 29, 710.0 RANGE (800 SERIES) 801 | Elimination of predatory animals___________-_____-- Number_-____- 321, '979:0;'| 22 2 Sa 802)|\sRange reyeretation< = See ue. Je bees ae 8 ACTOS <2 2 are 473, 317.1 15, 987. 6 $04. Pasture: sodding 2 22) ee Acre Lette see 125, 660. 2 11, 345.9 805") Pasture.and range terracing=. esr ee see een eee ACreg sess 2, 696. 1 789.9 1 No longer reported under this heading or work discontinued on this type of project. WILDLIFE CONSERVATION 407 Total work completed during the period April 1933 through Sept. 30, 1939—continental United States and outlying possessions—Continued 1009 11009A 1010 1011 11011A '1011B 11013 1014 1015 1017 1023 1025 1026 1027 1029 1030 Type of job or project classification WILDLIFE (900 SERIES) WISHSrOOUIN eC DONUSas oo eee. oS ca. aden ee Food and cover planting and seeding_______________ Lake and pond development____-________-_._------ RAC OSH Meco ee Se eee eA Stream development (wildlife)...._.....______-____- Winerawaciiie activities. ©. 2. 22 s-s.6 eo. aCe ROeUING) = =. eee we 1 Se 2 Wintaustesshiol terse. acer js eects fh BS bone OTHER ACTIVITIES (1000 SERIES) Eradication of poisonous weeds or exotic plants____- Meeperimental plorsec. = 320. see ent ee ee PriseriOost COntLrOlos...0 2 we ee ee ee ee ee “Llp vapyzaata i asteys (2) Ce eee nee eee Sa a ee ee MLOdeland Tollef MANS» 2..-- 2.2 sees ee eee Se iManking boundaries 22.227) 522 ie oe eid I SOTILO CON LEO awettee ata kn) oho ee Mosquito control, ditching: 22. 222-2. = 822 IMiGsguitoicontro!, staking 2%. - 2-922. Railroads, narrow gage Reconnaissance and investigation: ENT) RREXO) COS 9 CEN UE ag gto pETEOMLOSenVallonee as sss se sha cee Foe cee Equipment, repair or construction____._____.-____- BiyienuucyresOarCl)-.-. 9-92: - once a ben sece see oe Technical service camp buildings__-_-_______-_-___ Central Repair Shop labor-.#¢._ -2 2-2 =- =-2_ =. Unit ACEO wetter eee Man-day._-___- Linear yard. _- Linear yard__- Man-day______ Man-day______ Man-day-_-_.. New work 4, 373.4 75, 327.5 732, 704. 0 787, 728, 569. 0 6, 611.0 885, 470. 0 89, 238. 0 93, 593. 0 747, 665.9 52, 677.6 5, 260, 214. 9 439, 303. 0 32, 510.0 28, 379. 5 222, 839. 5 2, 096, 799. 0 1, 461, 670. 0 2, 838. 0 144, 478.0 301, 544.0 34, 727, 386. 9 485, 863. 0 314, 151.0 846, 818. 0 115, 933. 0 33. 6 22, 613. 0 1No longer reported under this heading or work discontinued on this type of project. 97, 843.5 1, 206, 141.0 ¢ 4 iA eae gs WG g rh ¥? Die ©. | eERy A bepo’, tye aL! ere fy sniiides »] sa seh» Bia sate < ¥ ae witerKy Toafer sia no losusttigneedty vr iW 10 gartideheng J A Ne arene 5 hg onal wea THAD wander _- esinaeemtnir = | : tors } cctiaeetagags mins ba a . — —_ a : iene Titers eee FT ATA, .* bs ——— ! , Pape te ous atk wedi Ye bo Bo. nok) aa Peg ine yi ae tehatelt ae Jota fe & ro bes =. gabe = * tic) Mil. 74 A ANidbe) I pelr cel’ ae Se: Pieealhe ve eg eel qi -t bor pres = eayged Wary aay «we _. wnat seatinilechishas econ : nt Sn F wvol : bs J el ait ; ¥ nee 4 } ba tpt = wn why, | 7 as J