I

J

BIOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS IN LAND USE PLANNING FOR A FEDERAL FACILITY

Jeannette E. Allen

June, 1989

Advisor: Charles Woodard

Second Reader: K. Darwin Murrell

INTRODUCTION

Through ignorance or indifference we can do massive and irreversible harm to the earthly environment on which our life and well-being depend. Conversely, through fuller knowledge and wiser action, we can achieve for ourselves and our posterity a better life in an environment more in keeping with human needs and hopes.

United Nations Conference on the Human Environment Stockholm, 1972

This document presents biological considerations of land use planning for the U.S. Department of Agriculture Beltsville Agricultural Research Center (BARC) and, subsidiarily, for three adjacent federal facilities, in order to support informed policy decisions about land management in accordance with the above statement. The paper attempts to clarify certain knowledge about the biology and the research requirements of these facilities with which the public and makers of government policy may not be familiar.

Biological considerations must be taken into account when land use decisions are made. We are biological beings; we depend for our lives and health on natural ecosystems. Development pressures on BARC are increasing dramatically as the local human population rises. This paper argues for preservation of BARC and for the environmental protection of its lands, primarily for their value as living laboratories for biological research.

The three facilities adjacent to BARC are NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC), U.S. Department of the Interior Patuxent Wildlife Research Center (PWRC), and Department of the Army Fort George G. Meade (FGGM). The first two are national research facilities and have stringent operational requirements. Preserving BARC and safeguarding its environmental health will help these facilities to continue their operations and will also preserve an important shared biological system. Fort Meade is an army installation with 3,000 acres of open space and 7 ,000 acres of forest which are managed for timber and for wildlife (Bill Harmeyer, April 3, 1989). The forest is partially contiguous with that of PWRC, thus increasing the size of the forest ecosystem. This is crucial to the value of PWRC and of BARC for research and conservation, as explained in this paper.

Biologically, the four facilities can and should be viewed as a whole. They should be planned for and managed as such. The fact that they border one another is an invaluable asset to each. Were these facilities to cooperate more closely in ensuring their common land use requirements were met, distinct advantages would ensue. A recommendation for joint planning is included at the end of this paper.

\

-2-

Section I of the paper introduces BARC as an agricultural research center. Section II deals with what makes BARC valuable for biological research. Section m discusses how BARC preserves a national heritage and how it provides both certain environmental services and open space for the surrounding region. A brief discussion of the greatest threat to BARC constitutes Section IV. Section V explains the costs of BARC's environmental degradation. Section VI presents the support of the Maryland National Capital Parks and Planning Commission for preserving important natural areas. Sections VII and Vill describe the mandates and the operational requirements of Goddard Space Flight Center and of Patuxent Wildlife Research Center. Section IX closes the paper, with recommendations for land management of BARC.

Figure 1.

Map showing Washington-Baltimore region.

The area shown in Figure 2 is marked in yellow.

. ·~1ldens

. . . . . . .

Figure 2.

Map showing Beltsville Agricultural Research Center,

Goddard Space Flight Center,

Patuxent Wildlife Research Center,

and Fort George G. Meade.

..

FORT GEORGE G. MEADE

(

\

l I . , "' ~ ll

!' I I ILe,.land ~

-/ I I. ~~·,~ I /' .:l.J'm ,· I

\

-3-

l. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE BELTSVILLE AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH CENTER (BARC).

The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Beltsville Agricultural Research Center (BARC) is among the largest and most diversified agricultural research installations in the world (U.S. Department of Agriculture, p. 5). It is the hub of a nationwide research effort by the U.S.D.A. to seek new knowledge in crop and livestock production, in agricultural engineering, and in plant and animal diseases and parasites. BARC is internationally recognized as a leading research center in the nation. Many scientists who work at BARC express a profound sense of pride in their research community. (Sasaki Associates, pp. 10-11).

BARC is located in the Coastal Plain Province on the eastern edge of the Piedmont Province, about 15 miles northeast of Washington, D.C. The Center is characterized by an undulating topography of low relief and rolling hills, with wide, flat drainage courses and dense stands of trees in undeveloped areas. BARC is rich in species of both the Coastal Plain and the Piedmont. This area is the northern limit for the range of many species and the southern limit for many others (Corrunittee of Biologists for the Protection of Natural Areas, p. 12).

BARC includes nearly 7,0CXJ acres with about 800 buildings: research laboratories, greenhouses, barns, poultry houses, shops, and offices. Driving through the Center, one sees predominantly cultivated fields. Clusters of administrative, laboratory, and service buildings are scattered throughout the property, though forests and a ten-acre lake (Beck Lake) dominate its eastern side. The Capital Beltway (Route 495) runs along the southwestern boundary of the Center, and Route 95 runs by its western edge. Route I and the Baltimore Washington Parkway run through the Center in a southwest/northeast orientation. Several two-lane roads traverse BARC, notably PowdermiJl Road, Beaver Dam Road, Sunnyside Road, and Edmonston A venue.

GSFC is adjacent to BARC on the south, and PWRC is adjacent to the Center on the northeast Where BARC is not bordered by GSFC and by PWRC, it is bordered by suburban and commercial development. Development is particularly dense along Route 1, and just north of the Beltway, a subway station is under construction. New suburban and commercial developments are planned for several locations in the vicinity.

Approximately 450 researchers carry out thousands of research projects at BARC each year in the following institutes and their laboratories:

Natural Resources Institute:

Hydrology Remote Sensing Research Systems Research Environmental Chemistry Soil Microbial Systems Pesticide Degradation Climate Stress

Product Quality and Development Institute:

Horticultural Crops Quality Plant Hormones Meat Science Research Pesticide Assessment Instrumentation and Sensing

Plant Sciences Institute:

Plant Photobiology Plant Molecular Biology Fruits . Vegetables Florist and Nursery Crops Nitrogen Fixation and Soybean Genetics Gennplasm Services National Plant Germplasm Quarantine Germplasm Quality and Enhancement Microbiology and Plant Pathology Biocontrol of Plant Diseases Nematology Insect Pathology Insect and Nematode Honnone Insect Reproduction Insect Chemical Ecology Beneficial Insects Systematic Entomology Systematic Botany and Mycology Tropical Plants Research Weed Science

Livestock and Poultry Sciences Institute:

Livestock Insects Protozoan Diseases Helminthic Diseases Biosystematic Parasitology Animal Improvement A vi an Physiology Milk Secretion and Mastitis Nonrurninant Animal Nutrition Reproduction Ruminant Nutrition Zoonotic Diseases

-4-

\

Beltsville Human Nutrition Research Center:

Carbohydrate Nutrition Lipid Nutrition Nutrient Composition Energy and Protein Nutrition Vitamin and Mineral Nutrition Family Economics Research

-5-

Researchers field test laboratory findings on approximately 3500 acres of cultivated or otherwise open land. The following list of selected subjects of field testing, under study in 1987, may help to explain what is actually done at BARC.

Gypsy moth research. Introduction of exotic plants. Honey bee diseases. Biology of ticks and biting flies. Hallucinogenic plant materials. Breeding of swine, sheep, and cattle. Pesticide movement in soils. Various tillage practises and their effects on the growth of com. Control of armyworm in corn. Disease resistance of sugarbeets. Improvement of cherries, apricots, apples, grapes, plums, pears, peaches,

persimmons, strawberries, blueberries, and blackberries. Ecology of Colorado potato beetle. Pheromone trapping of pine bugs. Leafhopper systematics and migration. Biology of parasitic wasps. Weed ecology and management

Buildings and grounds, wastewater, and ponds cover approximately 900 acres.

Most of the property not under cultivation or occupied by buildings and grounds is forest, amounting to about 2,400 acres. Most of this is hardwoods and pines in early or middle-stage second growth, less than 60 years old. The forests range from swamp forest to upland forest. They are used for research and education by visiting individuals from nearby institutions, particularly the University of Maryland. Subjects of research include forest ecology, systematics, plant pathology, plant geography, air pollution, and biological control of insect pests. Comments by researchers on their work and on its operational requirements appear below.

The cultivated acres of BARC fulfill a critical need for national agricultural research, without which our agricultural systems would be less productive over the long tenn. BARC also provides green open space, an asset to the county. As a working farm, it also provides education and entertainment

-6-

Agricultural research, open space, education, and entertainment are obvious benefits of BARC, provided largely by its cultivated areas. BARC's uncultivated areas provide less obvious benefits, chiefly for biological research. The rest of this paper discusses them.

II. WHAT MAKES BARC VALUABLE FOR BIOLOGICAL RESEARCH?

"The importance of having sufficient suitable research acreage for scientific endeavors has increased with time, not lessened, as potential sites for research have succumbed to commercial development" (U.S. Department of th~ Interior, p. 7).

A. BARC has a long history.

BARC and the adjacent Patuxent Wildlife Research Center have been the subjects of ecological study for several decades. BARC was established in 1910, and PWRC in 1939. Knowledge of the past is a tremendous asset to research; it gives enormously better understanding of scientific work by providing baseline information against which to compare present data Our perspectives on such issues as environmental pollution and endangered wildlife depend on baseline information. Historical data are particularly necessary in the study of forests, where changes take a long time to become manifest. Because of their research histories, BARC and PWRC are irreplaceable.

B. BARC contains native vegetation.

Researchers must be able to study native ecosystems in order to understand ecological processes that take place during changes in land use. BARC forests, together with those of neighboring agencies, offer probably the finest example of extensive native vegetation within close reach of metropolitan Washington. Between 20,000 and 100,000 native species are preserved at BARC. Since BARC is at the interface of the Coastal Plain and the Piedmont regions, flora and fauna of both are represented. Many species at BARC are at or near the limit of their distributional ranges (Committee of Biologists for the Protection of Natural Areas, pp. 12-15).

BARC is unusual in having so many native species. Over the centuries since the European settlement of North America, species from other parts of the world have been introduced and have flourished in many other areas. Chiefly non-native species grow in our suburban gardens. Many introduced species have been more successful in the wild than native species. Such successes usually occur in disturbed ecosystems that do not resemble indigenous communities. Starlings and English sparrows are examples of successful introduced species.

Not only does BARC support native species, but some parts of the property are · ·relatively undisturbed. Some of the soil has never been turned over by a plow. Many trees have been allowed to grow for some years: a few of the older trees are 100-150 years old.

-7-

C. BARC is large.

BARC contains 2,000 acres of forest The forest is, in part, contiguous with the forests of NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, of Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, and of Fort George G. Meade, constituting in all more than 12,450 acres. This means that there is one large forest, rather than several fragments, in which biological processes take place.

The large size of this forest is of great significance. Forests of 12,450 acres are very rare in this region, particularly at the interface of the Coastal Plain and Piedmont (Maryland Natural Heritage Program, p. 18). As people have taken over more and more land for agriculture, for urbanization, and for industry, as pipeline and electric transmission corridors and massive interstate highway systems are put into place, natural areas have become fragmented. This means that they have become smaller and increasingly more isolated from each other:

Fragmentation of our forests means losses to science. Large natural areas are important scientifically for the following reasons:

1. Large areas contain entire ecological communitites.

Conserving entire ecological communities means that both ecological processes and the diversity of species are conserved.

Processes are as integral to biological systems as species. We are presently able to preserve a few species in zoological parks and botanical gardens. Ecological processes cannot be conserved by this means. Because of their complexity and the length of time it took for them to develop, ecological systems cannot be reconstructed by human beings once they are destroyed.

Conservation of ecological communities results in the conservation of the diversity of species as well (Lovejoy and Oren, p. 11). This approach to species conservation insures that previously unknown, inconspicuous, and microscopic species is conserved, as are the conspicuous vertebrates that usually get most of our attention.

Invertebrates and microscopic flora are critical to the health of the biosphere (Paul and Anne Ehrlich, pp. 90-91 ). They are the "movers and shakers" of the world. We live in a primarily invertebrate world, not a vertebrate one. If humans were to disappear tomorrow, the biological world would go on with very little change. But if the invertebrates were to disappear, human beings would probably not last longer than a few months (Wilson, p. 345).

'.

-8-

BARC is an important reservoir of wild species. Large natural areas such as BARC have a high degree of habitat heterogeneity, which is essential for the preservation of species diversity (Blake and Karr, p. 183). Each species has characteristic habitat requirements. Thus more habitat heterogeneity generally means that more different species can live in a given area.

Habitats are naturally heterogeneous over time as well as over space. All ecosystems change with time. They go through developmental changes, such as one set of species replacing another, and they experience disturbances such as fire and storms. Species have evolved to take advantage of such changes. For example, Kirtland's warbler is adapted to young pine forest ecosystems; the bird cannot live in old-growth forest (Kricher, p. 93). As a given forest ages, this species must be able to move to other young forests.

Some species require more than one kind of habitat for survival (Noss, p. 15). Some use one type during the reproductive season, for instance, and another at other times of the year. For example, the American kestrel and many owls nest in forests and hunt in fields. Birds such as grouse and bobwhite breed at forest edges and use forest interiors for cover. Some snakes hibernate in rocky areas and hunt in open ones. (Robertson, June 16, 1989). Habitat diversity is essential to these species.

Many species require forest interiors. The needs of neotropical migrant birds have been documented in particular detail (Whitcomb,~ al., pp. 125-205; Samson, p. 16).

Together with GSFC, PWRC and FGGM, BARC is large enough to contain a good mixture of developmental stages and disturbances (although fire is prevented there as much as possible). It contains a diversity of habitats: freshwater wetlands, including bogs and a ten-acre lake; upland and lowland deciduous forests; coniferous forests; meadows; hedgerows; and cultivated areas. Because of its location on the boundary of the Coastal Plain and the Piedmont, BARC has a wide range of soil types as well (Sasaki Associates, p. 11).

Certain regionally threatened species occur at BARC: black-and-white warbler, hooded warbler, ovenbird, prothonotary warbler, American brook lamprey, Americal eel, eastern mudminnow, chain pickerel (U.S. Department of Agriculture, BARC Ecology Committee, p. 6).

Preserving the earth's diversity of species is essential for the present and future well-being of mankind. This is the understanding of the United States Congress, which has passed several laws to that effect the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (revitalized in 1988), the Fishery Cornervation and Management Act of 1976, and the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (U.S. Department of State, pp. 44-5; Lande, p. 1456). Furthermore, in 1983, the Foreign Assistance Act was amended by Congress to establish the conservation of biological diversity and endangered species as a component of U.S. foreign assistance programs (Shaffer and Saterson, p. 280). In 1988, the Congress asked the National Science Foundation to devote more dollars and attention to the conservation of species (Ziegler, p. 21).

-9-

_D.S. Department of State policy, as presented in Publication 9262 (1982), is evidence of the same understanding:

... the preservation of genetic diversity is both a matter of insurance and investment, necessary to sustain and improve agriculture, forestry, and fisheries production; to keep open future options as a buffer against environmental change; and as the raw material for much scientific and industrial innovation. And it is a matter of moral principle as well." (p. 4)

The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Director of Science and Education in 1981, Dr. Anson Bertrand, agreed:

"We are keenly aware of the need for biological diversity. Without access to and use of [natural] resources, we would never have been able to reach our current food and fiber production levels. Genetic diversity has provided not only a variety off oods, but also the basis for increased productivity, increased nutritional value, greater disease resistance, ability to withstand various stresses, and other production, marketing, and consumer factors ... . the demand for genetic diversity in agriculture has increased." (U.S. Department of State, p. 28.)

Dr. Bertrand gives examples of benefits from biological diversity:

A report of the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment provides dramatic examples: a wild melon collected in India was the source of resistance to powdery mildew and prevented the destruction of California melons; a seemingly useless wheat strain from Turkey was the source of genetic resistance to stripe rust when it became a problem in the Pacific Northwest...a Korean cucumber strain provided high-yield production of hybrid cucumber seed for U.S. farmers. Even genetic engineering is not ready to match the natural wealth of biological diversity and to meet such challenges (U.S. Department of State, p. 33).

Examples of valuable chemicals newly discovered in wild species abound (Ehrenfeld, p. 39). The venoms of the cosmopolitan widow spiders (Latrodectus species), for instance, and of the also cosmopolitan garden spiders (family Araneidae) contain substances that may be developed as components of better pesticides (Quicke, pp. 38-40).

BARC has particular potential for as yet undiscovered or underutilized species. The natural areas of BARC support a diversity of insects that may help us control crop pests. Many of the insect groups at BARC prey on or parasitize other insects, many of which are pests of our crops. "We need natural enemies capable of attacking pests under a variety of conditions and a variety of natural enemies to achieve a reliable rate of effectiveness. Biological diversity is essential because the scientist in the field can never be sure exactly which organism will be a successful control agent" (U.S. Department of State, p. 31). The study of forest insects has emerged as an important part of the BARC mission (Sasaki Associates, p. 6).

-10-

Forest birds consume insects as well. When such birds disappear from areas adjacent to croplands, there is a resulting increase in insect populations and consequent insect damage to vegetation. (See Committee of Biologists for the Preservation of Natural Areas, p. 37 .)

Bacteria too can help in the control of plant diseases. Studies by soil microbiologists make it clear that BARC forests support countless bacteria and other microbes which may provide such conlrol but are still undiscovered (Whitcomb, May 25, 1989).

Further justification for preserving biological diversity is not necessary here. The interested reader is referred to The Value of Conserving Genetic Resources, by Margery Oldfield, published by the U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, in 1984 (Superintendant of Documents, No. I 29.2:028/2) and to Biodiversity, edited by E. 0. Wilson and published by the National Academy Press in 1988.

~· LarJe aremairenerall~rt lar~e populations, and large populations are less likely an s ones to me exuncl

One or more populations make up every species. Extinction can befall not only a species, but a population. As the populations of a species become extinct, that species comes closer to extinction.

Large population sizes mitigate extinctions that are due to two different factors: environmental catastrophes and genetic problems.

Environmental catastrophes include disease epidemics, fires, severe cold, heat, drought, flooding, and violent stonns. A large population is simply less likely to be completely destroyed than a small population under these circumstances (Soule, p. 730).

Large population sizes mitigate genetic problems simply because large populations are more diverse than small populations.

The presence of genetic diversity lessens two basic kinds of genetic problems:

(a) loss of a species' ability to survive environmental changes (Soule, p. 730); and (b) reduced fertility and reduced survival rates of young ("inbreeding depression") (Lande, pp 1455-6; Samson, p. 18).

(a) Species ability to survive environmental changes.

There are small genetic differences among the individuals of a species. Individuals differ slightly in their abilities to survive in different environmental conditions. For example, some individuals of a plant species may be slightly better adapted to warmer or drier areas or to saltier soils than other individuals of that species.

\

-11-

If populations are large, there is more genetic variability, simply because the~ are more individual~. ~f ~ere is an envi~onmental change, such as a wanning of chma~e, at least a few mdtv1du~s may survtve ~~ may reproduce, perpetuating the spectes. Thus a large populatton has greater ab1hty to respond to a wide variety of environmental changes. The probability of extinction of a large population because of environmental change is therefore reduced.

(b) Reduced fertility and reduced survival rates of young: inbreeding depression.

This is a purely genetic problem. Harmful genetic mutations that occur in all populations have a more dan1aging effect in small ones, because there is a greater likelihood that they will be expressed and that those individuals carrying them will dominate the population.

If a population does decline seriously, and there are no other populations of that species nearby from which individuals might immigrate, the population may shrink to zero.

Usually a combination of factors is responsible for the extinction of a species. For example, habitat destruction, competition, and predation can reduce populations to the point where environmental catastrophes can eliminate them (Samson, p. 17).

As defined by Mark Shaffer in 1981, this "minimum viable population" (mvp) for any given species in any given habitat is "the smallest isolated population having a 99% chance of remaining extant for 1000 years despite the foreseeable effects of demographic, environmental, and genetic stochasticity, and natural catastrophies" (Samson, p. 15).

If experts on the subject are forced to give an estimate of mvp, the number often given is 500 breeding individuals. This figure is a best guess in the face of great complexity and differences among species and has been proven to be insufficient for several of the species that have been studied in its light (for example, the northern spotted owl, Strix caurina occidentalis, and the red-cockaded woodpecker, Picoides borealis) (Lande, pp. 1457-1459). There are many factors which it does not take into account. including the following: (1) species differences in ratios of males to females; (2) the difficulty which breeding individuals may have in finding each other when populations are sparse; and (3) the need for group defense against predators. One must be sure to take human factors in account as well when estimating mvp. These factors include encroaching development and intensive population management of wild populations.

\

-12-

4. Large forests can serve as sources of colonists for other, smaller forests.

Fluctuations in population size are part of nature. When they decrease, populations occasionally do not recover, and the species becomes extinct When this happens, colonists from nearby habitat may repopulate the area. The likelihood of colonization depends on the size of this new population source, on its distance from the area to be repopulated, and on its ability to cross the intervening terrain.

Inter-reserve isolation is a major problem of nature reserves today. Many reserves are so small and so isolated from each other that they support many fewer individuals of each species than the larger units of the habitat they were intended to represent.

5. Large forests are essential for those species requiring large home ranges (Blake and Karr, p. 174; Diamond, n.d., p 32).

Some species require large home ranges. Different species have different area requirements for survival. Generally, species of large size require large territories. But it isn't only large species that have this requirement Small species presently suffering because of habitat fragmentation are the Delmarva fox squirrel, the greater prairie chicken, and the spotted owl. Certain raptors and woodpeckers have very large home ranges (Gance and Peterken, pp. 176-177). Neotropical migrant forest interior bird species, such as wonn-eating warbler, hooded warbler, and black-and-white warbler, are poorly adapted for survival in forest fragments (Whitcomb, et al, p. 189). " .. .it seems certain that large tracts of the order of hundreds or even thousands of hectares are required for maintenance of stable population levels of even small bird species in the absence of regular recolonization from outside" (Ibid., p. 169).

Songbird habitat requirements have been studied extensively in our region. Many of the songbirds that winter in the tropics are disappearing from localities where forests are becoming fragmented (Robbins, p. 1 ). " .. .it seems certain that large tracts of the order of hundreds or even thousands of hectares are required for maintenance of stable population levels of even (certain) small bird species in the absence of regular recolonization from outside" (Whitcomb,~~·· p. 169).

Another consideration beyond size of range is that some species can travel from one place to another across inhospitable areas better than other species can, making use of separate fragments of habitat and effectively expanding their ranges (Diamond, 1975, pp. 139-141).

6. Large forests have a smaller proportion of edge than small forests.

The edge of a natural area differs ecologically from the interior (Ranney, Bruner, and Levenson, p. 85). Reserves must be large enough to accomodate edge effects (Schonewald..Cox, p. 308; Whitcomb, ~~-· p. 126).

'.

-l3-

Insofar as conditions differ between forest edge and interior, species composition differs. Temperature, relative humidity, light, and exposure to wind differ between the edges and the interior (Ranney, Bruner, and Levenson, p. 69; Noss, pp. 23-24). Forest edge plant species must be more tolerant of sunlight, of dryness, of heat, and of wind than forest interior species. Beech and sugar maple, for example, succeed best in forest interiors. Certain animals (such as white-tailed deer and American woodcock) and plants (such as Japanese honeysuckle) do well in edge habitats, but other species require internal, undisturbed habitat for survival (Soule, p. 249; Schonewald-Cox, p. 316; Lynch and Whigham, p. 287).

There are other differences between forest edge and interior. At edges, predators common to the exterior habitat have greater access to forest interior species (Samson, p. 16; Ranney, Bruner, and Levenson, p. 85). For example, songbird nestling predators such as blue jays, crows, chipmunks, short-tailed weasels, and raccoons, and nestling parasites, such as brown-headed cowbirds, occur in higher densities at forest edges than interiors. The width of edge affected by this increased predation may be 200-600 hundred meters (Soule, pp. 249-250; Schonewald-Cox, p. 482).

Seeds of edge-tolerant species may be dispersed into the interior, altering the species composition there (Ranney, Bruner, and Levenson, p. 86; Johnson, et al., p. 216). Japanese honeysuckle is a serious threat to native plants in Maryland{Julie Robertson, June 15, 1989).

A fence does not stop such biological encroachment Pollution borne by air and by water moves freely across fences, as do light pollution, noise, and seismic disturbances from road traffic. Changes in the drainage of water systems outside a fence can drastically alter the ecology of the area inside (Gance and Peterken, pp. 176-177). Animals such as cats and dogs find or create breaks in fences.

People too find or create breaks in fences. Human impacts include vandalism, trampling and other destruction of vegetation, poaching, and the introduction of alien species -- such as cats, dogs, and rats -- which may upset the ecological balance (Soule, p. 729).

How much the biology of the area outside a natural reserve affects the biology of the area inside it depends, of course, on the differences between the two (Schonewald-Cox, p. 480). If there are no biological differences, there will be no impact For instance, where the forest at BARC's boundaries extends well beyond those boundaries, such as the area where BARC abuts PWRC, BARC is protected from biological impacts of the roads and of the suburban and commercial developments that lie beyond the forest And where the boundary of BARC abuts suburban development, the plants, animals, and people of suburbia encroach upon BARC property.

The shape of a reserve influences the amount of edge it has. BARC is an angular-shaped polygon with low area-to-perimeter ratios, creating a higher exposure of interior than there would be if BARC were a circular shape.

Edge effects can extend for several hundred meters. A small forest will be effectively entirely edge. If edge effects extend for only 200 meters, a 158-acre forest (0.25 sq. mi.) will be entirely edge. If edge effects extend for 600 meters, a 356-acre forest (0.5 sq. mi.) will be entirely edge. Reserves must be large enough to accornodate edge effects.

-14-

D. BARC is relatively free of environmental pollution.

A clean environment is a basic scientific necessity, essential in conducting both short-term and long-term scientific research. There are several reasons for this.

A clean environment provides baseline environmental information, serving as a yardstick against which researchers can evaluate the effects of environmental changes. Peter White, working at Great Smokey Mountains National Park, has said, "Perhaps the single most important obstacle to assessing change (in environmental systems) is that baseline data is either lacking or ambiguous" (White, p. 9).

When studying the effects of pollution, one must be have a clean environment within which to experiment. Otherwise, one cannot be sure that the observed effects are in fact the result of controlled experiment and not environmental pollution.

To understand how ecosystems operate, we must be able to study them without the interference of pollution.

Particular note has been made of air pollution, which accompanies development

"A successful research program of any kind on air pollution requires the availability of comparative environments in which air quality varies over a wide range. There is little difficulty in finding heavily polluted air in the Washington, D.C. area. However, the need for an area with minimal levels of pollution is acute, and is a further example of the urgent need to sequester a single large area within the metropolitan area minimally impacted by man" (Committee of Biologists for Preservation of Natural Areas, p. 45).

Some research must be conducted in air with pollution levels commonly found in rural areas and cannot be conducted in air with levels found in urban and suburban areas.

Radio frequency noise may be included in the category of pollution. Dr. T. J. Rosenberg, Research Professor at the Institute for Physical Science and Technology, University of Maryland, explained to me:

"We use an area on the old airport property. We develop instruments used for scientific research, and students use the data thus collected for undergraduate and graduate projects. We must have a quiet area in which to do this work. We need freedom from radio noise such as that produced by traffic, by computers, by transmitters of all kinds" (March 8, 1989).

The need for clean research areas is increasing: "Greater and more intense external pressures such as escalated pollution loadings accompanying growth in the Baltimore-Washington corridor underscore the need for greater isolation of the more vulnerable studies" (U.S. Department of the Interior, p. 7).

\

-15-

E. BARC is relatively free of human disturbance.

Jim Reveal, a taxonomist in the Department of Botany at the University of Maryland, Taxonomist, told me that as an institution, the University routinely uses BARC as a training area, to acquaint students with vegetation; it's been a teaching lab for years. Dr. Reveal feels that the strong combination of BARC, PWRC, and GSFC is vital to education, as it's the only place in the greater Washington, D.C. area with remnants of undisturbed natural areas. All local parks are too heavily impacted by people to be useful. Researchers from the University do population studies over a long period of time, for instance (Reveal, October 28, 1989).

Disturbances by people include introduction of non-native species, which alters the ecological make-up of the research area. This happens through the abandonment of unwanted pets and by the natural ability of non-native species to disperse themselves from urban and suburban areas (Levenson, p. 29).

Heavy foot traffic alone can be a serious disturbance. Regeneration can take from 50 to 1,000 years. Trampling can affect primary productivity, population dynamics, reproductive strategies, and community structure (Liddle, p. 32).

F. BARC is relatively secure from the public.

Irwin Forseth is one of four ecologists at the University of Maryland. They all have students doing research in local natural areas, and the professors all cany out research themselves. Much of it involves forest ecology.

These ecologists need research areas that are protected from the public for several reasons:

1. Their research involves expensive equipment.

2. They need personal security. One of their graduate students was killed in a Delaware forest two years ago.

3. Much of their research is long-tenn. They depend on having stable, undisturbed sites for several years, where there will be no plants trampled or vandalized in any way.

(Forseth, October 28, 1988.)

-16-

G. BARC forests help to maintain BARC's biological integrity in the face of surrounding suburban developments.

Protection is needed to prevent biological encroachment in both directions across BARC boundaries. Thus it is desirable to have as little biological influence from outside BARC as possible and to take precautions against any insecticides, herbicides, fertilizers, wind-borne dust, and odors from moving from BARC to its surroundings. (Sasaki Associates, p. 22).

From Joseph Foster, Plant Pathologist, U .S.Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), I learned that this agency is presently constructing a plant quarantine facility on 135 acres at BARC. Imported plants will be inspected and tested for foreign plant pests before the plants are distributed within the United States. The nature of this quarantine work requires a buffer of undeveloped land around the facility. A minimum of200 acres is required. "Without this buffer, there is an unacceptable potential for intrusions ... which may result in the escape of damaging foreign pests" (Foster, March 14, 1989).

The 1984 Master Plan Update for BARC notes that the total biomass of BARC's vegetation is essential for absorbing airborne pollutants emanating primarily from the surrounding highway system (Sasaki Associates, p. 12).

H. BARC is accessible to many research institutions.

Located in the Baltimore-Washington corridor, BARC is accessible to researchers from a great number of federal, state, and independent institutions. Such institutions include the National Institutes of Health, the National Arboretum, the Smithsonian Institution, Walter Reed Medical Center, and area universities. BARC's proximity to these institutions is becoming increasingly valuable as research becomes more complex (Sasaki Associates, p. 11).

Raymond J. Miller, Vice Chancellor and Dean, College of Agriculture, The University of Maryland, wrote to me, "The presence of BARC at its current facility is of great importance to the University of Maryland College Park." BARC's proximity to the University "is of the utmost value to us for a number of reasons." These reasons include the possibility of cooperative programs and the presence of a large assemblage of scientists working on important problems of mutual interest. "We have much greater opportunities to accomplish the kinds of science that we are interested in" (December 13, 1988).

Jim Reveal said, "If the University of Maryland did not have access to natural areas within easy commuting distance, a vital element of our teaching of undergraduates and graduates would come to an end" (October 28, 1988).

BAR C's proximity to federal government decision-makers is also an important advantage.

-17-

I. BARC offers long-tenn stability.

Researchers whose work is carried out over several years need to know that their research sites will be there for the projected lifetimes of their projects. If a site is lost before a project is completed, the research that has been done there is lost as well, and the effort and expense have been wasted.

Study of the red-shouldered hawk population at PWRC provides an example of the value of being able to repeat long-tenn studies under standardized conditions. This population was studied initially in 1951. The study was repeated 20 years later, and it was determined that the hawk population was unchanged within the PWRC bottomland forest. Without the study of 1951, we would have had no baseline infonnation on the bird and could not have known whether its popula~on was stable, declining, or increasing.

A committment of 20-30 years is necessary for BARC research programs related to the genetics and breeding of shade trees for landscaping (Sasaki Associates, p. 15).

Allan Teramura, at the University of Maryland Department of Botany, uses BARC lands extensively for these long-tenn projects:

( 1) With EPA funding for the last eight years, he has been studying the effects of increased solar ultraviolet on plants due to ozone depletion.

(2) He have an ongoing project also with federal support (Mcintyre-Stennis Funds) to examine native vs. introduced vines. For instance, he studies why kudzu is weedy and therefore a problem, out of control, while other vines are not weedy and do not cause problems.

(3) He recently submitted a proposal to the U.S.D.A. for $1.7 million over three years to study impacts of ozone depletion on plants.

(November 1, 1988.)

A strong demand exists for basic, long-term, large-scale ecological investigations. We need to learn how to apply ecological theory to areas such as forestry, integrated pest management, fisheries biology, and agroecology (Barrett, p. 427). Protection of ecological study sites is essential (Mack, et al., p. 34).

-18-

Ill. WHATOTIIER SERVICES ARE PROVIDED BY BARC?

A. BARC preserves a national heritage.

The colonists arrived at the Maryland Coastal Plain and Piedmont to find six million acres of virgin forest. The region supported wolves, mountain lions, moose, elk, passenger pigeons, ivory-billed woodpeckers, and other animals which have since become locally extinct. Widespread forest destruction began about 300 years ago. What remains today is a tiny fragment of that six million acres.

BARC and the natural areas of adjacent federal facilities are a unique remnant of that original forest. If this re~ant is destroyed, the nation's capital is destined to lie in a vast region with no natural preserve whatsoever. As preservers of this heritage, existing parks in Washington, D.C. metropolitan area are disaster areas, because of excessive human use (Committee of Biologists for the Protection of Natural Areas, p. 6).

The State of Maryland Natural Heritage Program recognizes the biological significance of BARC. It has designated several BARC sites as worthy of protection as Geographical Areas of Particular Concern. The state thus recognizes these sites as essential elements of Maryland's natural heritage, critical to the state's biological and ecological integrity. Boundaries for their protection will be recommended (Robertson, January 12, 1989, May 11, 1989, and June 15, 1989).

The sites thus recognized are the Beltsville Airport Bog, two seasonal ponds, and three forests designated by BARC as "Research Forests": one upland deciduous forest; one bottomland deciduous forest, known as "Beltsville Bottomland Forest;" and one coniferous forest known as "Beck Woods." Beck Woods includes a high quality wetland which is feeding and breeding habitat for amphibians, migratory songbirds, and waterfowl (Maryland Natural Heritage Program, p. 14). This area "provides suitable isolation for a number of wetland species, including wood ducks, geese and rails ... .lts relative inaccessibility is perhaps its greatest natural advantage," necessary for the reproductive success of shy species. It "provides one of the few islands of refuge for rare species of plants and animals in the basin and should be preserved" (Committee of Biologists for Preservation of Natural Areas, pp. 10-11). Seven plants species recognized as rare or endangered live at BARC, and there are historic records of many more (Robertson, June 15, 1989).

BARC also has good potential for yielding important fossils. Some of the best Cretaceous fossils in the world have come from geological formations in Maryland similar to those on which BARC is located. (The Cretaceous was early in the period of the dinosaurs.) Some of the very earliest records of primitive flowering plants have come from the Beltsville area. Indian relics such as arrowheads routinely tum up during fann operations (Whitcomb, May 25, 1989).

-19-

B. BARC provides environmental services for the county.

The environmental services that BARC provides for the surrounding community are easily taken for granted. If they were to be degraded, however, so would be the quality of our lives. If these services were tenninated, we could not live. The 2,000 acres of BARC forest do the following:

1. Help to preserve water quality (lnt.emational Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), 2.6; Lowrence, et al., pp. 374, 376; Paul and Anne Ehrlich, pp. 90-93).

BARC is located in the recharge area for fresh water for a significant portion of Prince Georges County. Industrial waste products that find their way into this environment can be degraded and decomposed. Among these are soaps, detergents, pesticides, spilled oil, phenols, acids, alkalis, heavy metals, and plastics (Hays, p. 7; Paul and Anne Ehrlich, pp. 90, 93). Trees filter nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorous that would otherwise drain into groundwater supplies or seep into rivers and streams and cause problems. Excess nitrogen, for example, can lead to clogging of waterways with weed growth and algae blooms.

Wetlands such as those found within the Beck Woods area of BARC "are increasingly valued for their role in maintaining the quality of the rivers they feed and, ultimately, the Chesapeake Bay" (Maryland Natural Heritage Program, p. 14).

BARC forests also protect areas downstream from excessive floods and from other harmful fluctuations in streamflow (IUCN, 2.6.; Paul and Anne Ehrlich, pp. 90-91). By catching rainfall and causing it to fall at an even rate on the soil, trees allow the soil more time to absorb the rain. More water is absorbed, and flooding is diminished.

2. Help to maintain the quality of the atmosphere. Forests help to maintain the balance of gases such as oxygen, nitrogen, carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, and methane (Hays, p.7; Paul and Anne Ehrlich, pp. 86-87). They also help to keep the air clean of dust.

3. Cycle nutrients, such as carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium, through the ecosystem (Paul and Anne Ehrlich, pp. 80-81, 92-93; Hays, p.7). Nutrient cycling is an essential process, as it makes nutrients available to plants and animals, including human beings, that consume them.

4. Fix solar energy by photosynthesis (Hays, p. 7). Nearly all of life on earth depends on this process.

5. Protect soil by anchoring it in place (Paul and Anne Ehrlich, p. 88). Soil that is held together by tree roots does not wash away readily.

6. Ameliorate local rnicroclimates, i.e. make them milder (Ehrlich, 1982, p. 331; IUCN, 2.6). Evaporation of water from the surfaces of leaves has a significant cooling effect Trees are true air conditioners.

-20-

7. Mitigate global warming by the "greenhouse effect"

BARC is a small area from the perspective of the country, the continent, or the globe. One might make the argument that any actions taken here will have little imp:ict worldwide. I am of the opinion that preserving areas on the scale of BARC will have a significant impact, precisely because it bas been actions on this relatively small scale that have created our environmental problems. Small tracts of forested land here and there are razed for housing developments one by one. We need to take responsible action to counteract the negative effects of development

There is general agreement in the scientific community that the possiblity of global warming resulting from the "greenhouse effect" deserves serious examination and preventative action (Hay~, pp. 1110-1111; Lande, p. 1455; Paul and Anne Ehrlich, pp. 89-90). (For a brief explanation of the greenhouse effect, see the last paragraph of this section B.) At a recent conference, "Consequences of the Greenhouse Effect for Biological Diversity," October 4-6, 1988, in Washington, D.C., the consensus was, in fact, that significant global warming is inevitable and that the question is only how fast it will occur. Estimates ranged from 0.5 degree C to 1.0 degree C per decade.

The higher of these estimates, 1.0 degree C per decade, is the equivalent of moving 60- l 00 miles south each decade. The significance of this temperature change is illuminated when oneJeams that at the peak of the last glacial period 20,000 to 16,000 years ago, the earth was only about 5 degrees Centigrade colder (Hays, p. 11 ). Thus global warming from the greenhouse effect has the potential for startling impacts on the distributions of organisms and therefore upon both agricultural and natural biological systems.

Because forests store carbon, foremost among measures to mitigate the greenhouse effect is cessation of deforestation, the planting of new forests, and the preservation of existing forests.

A 25% increase in the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere over the last century is responsible for half of this excessive global warming (Poste~ 1986, p. 9). (Increasing amounts of trace gases, such as methane, nitrous oxide, and chlorofluorocarbons, are responsible for the other half.) One hectare of temperate woodland stores on the order of 40-45 more tons of carbon than a hectare of cultivated cropland (Postel and Heise, p. 47).

The cause of the global increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide is primarily the consumption of fossil fuels and the destruction of forests. When trees are cleared or harvested, the carbon they contain (as well as some of the carbon in the underlying soil), is oxidized and released to the air, adding to the atmospheric store of carbon dioxide (Paul and Anne Ehrlich, p. 89). Today, deforestation is estimated to cause a net release of between 0.6 billion tons and 2.6 billion tons of carbon each year, or between 12 and 50 percent of that released each year from fossil fuel combustion (Postel, 1986, p. 8).

Thus preserving the forests of BARC would be a contribution to counteracting the greenhouse effect The 12,450 acres of forest at BARC, Goddard Space Flight Center, Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, and Fort Meade store approximately 25 million tons of

. carbon. It is certainly less costly to preserve a forest than to replant it.

-21 -

In explanation of the greenhouse effect, each day, the earth receives an enormous amount of radiant energy from the sun. The earth reflects some of that energy back into the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere traps the infrared radiation reflected from the earth. Thus the carbon dioxide itself becomes warmer. It sends some of that warmth back to the earth. The earth is wanner than it would be without any carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. In fact, the more carbon dioxide there is in the atmosphere, the warmer the earth becomes.

C. BARC provides open space.

Preservation of this land as forest is in concert with long-range regional land use objectives and provides Cl!1 irreplaceable open space resource not only for the Washington Metropolitan Area, but also for the Baltimore-Washington Region as a whole (U.S. Department of the Interior, p. 5).

Open space provides a sense of relief for the human spirit, an aesthetic and psychological change from urban and suburban landscapes. This is evidenced by the fact that open space enhances land values. Property prices, zoning, and land purchases are influenced by their association with a protected and aesthetic habitat (Schonewald-Cox, pp. 309-310).

IV. Threat to BARC.

The greatest threat to BARC is environmental degradation that is occurring in small increments.

It is the cumulative impact of relatively small land use decisions for the surrounding environment and for BARC itself that is presently the most serious problem. Air and water pollution, the granting of rights-of-way across parts of BARC property; vandalism, and the construction, widening, and maintenance of nearby roads adversely affect the environmental quality of BARC and reducing researchers' ability to work there effectively.

Because few of these changes by themselves cause apparently serious problems, decision-makers may not be well aware of the potential impacts their decisions may have. Thus the threat becomes insidious.

The same problems threaten the abilities of researchers at GSFC and at PWRC to carry out the mandates of their institutions. At PWRC, for example, sediment and run-off from the Sandy Hill landfill is bringing toxicity to the Center, and sediment from the Montpelier Woods development is filling essential wetlands (Holly Obrecht, March 31, 1989).

A polluted environment means degradation of scientific researchers' ability to carry out their work, as discussed earlier in this paper. The impacts of roads include habitat fragmentation and the creation of edge, both of which were also discussed earlier.

-22-

With regard to the issue of habitat fragmentation, it is critical to understand that a road creates a barrier to wildlife movement, and a wider road means a greater barrier. A 1981 study sponsored by the U.S. Department of Transportation found that large roads inhibit the movement of some small mammal, amphibian, and reptile species, particularly during spring and fall migration and dispersal periods (U.S. Department of Transportation, FHW NRD-81/067). Many animals also must move from one area to another in the course of a 24-hour day.

A 1978 study also sponsored by the U.S.D.T. included the following as barriers to species' movement: the paved surface of the highway itself, appurtenant fences, and the noise barrier of the operational highway. "Such barriers can affect both short-term migration and long-term migrations of animal populations, depending on their individual requirements for food, water, salt licks, shelter, nesting and other reproductive habitat" (U.S. Department of Tr~sportation, FHWA-RWE/OEP-78-2, p.41).

Other phenomena associated with roads cause concern for scientists working at BARC, PWRC, and GSFC.

1. The impact of the volume of vehicular traffic and the associated air pollutants.

2. Application of paints, preservatives, herbicides, and other pesticides along roadways.

3. Increased possibility of spillage of toxic materials from passing vehicles.

4. Leaching of chemicals from landfills into the groundwater.

5. Snow removal activities (sanding and/or salting).

6. Increased possibility of fire.

7. Noise and seismic disturbance from construction.

8. Changes in water level caused by construction.

9. Siltation of ponds and lakes.

10. Increased populations of domestic animals which may be injurious to wildlife.

11. Disposal oflitter.

(U.S. Department of Transportation, FHWA-RWFJOEP-78-2, pp. 43-44, 51).

It is difficult if not impossible to quantify these impacts. For example, the precise effects of air pollution on the health of plants are difficult to establish. However, air pollution at levels commonly found in urban areas has been found to cause plant damage, and experimental studies are raising the possibility that air pollution stress is now causing potentially significant declines in net primary productivity or energy flow in forest and

· field ecosystems (Bonnan, p. 438).

-23-

V. WHAT ARE THE COSTS OF THE ENVIRONMENT AL DEGRADATION OF BARC?

The values and services of BARC enumerated above are external to the conventional economic framework. They are not priced by a market system; there are no markets to which one can turn for needed price information. There is a tendancy for them to be ignored in the decision-making process. Conventional cost benefit analyses do not consider them. Dollar figures are attached to them in the minds of very few people concerned.

The dollar costs are there, however. Where natural areas do not exist to provide such values and services, we have to pay to have them provided.

When the benefits to the county of new roads and road improvements and of other suburban or industrial developments of adjacent and nearby properties are considered, the true costs should include the loss of these values and services. For any environmental damage caused by development, the cost of restoring the environment or of creating environmental benefits elsewhere should be figured in.

It is interesting to note that some financial estimates of the value of natural areas have been made. Margery Oldfield, in The Value of Conserving Genetic Resources, notes that

[a] study of wetlands in Massachusetts estimated the capitalized value (at 5.375 percent) of one hectare at $147,900 ($59,850/acre) for wetlands with a high capacity for provision of water supply, flood control, wildlife, and recreational and esthetic venefits, while a single hectare with only a low capacity for wildlife and recreational and visual benefits was estimated at $1,728/ha ($700/acre) (p. 270).

The study concluded that roughly 90 percent of the remaining wetlands in the state of Massachusetts were better left in a preserved state for the benefit of society than developed for the benefit of a few (p. 270).

In another study, waste treatment provided by a Georgia tidal marsh was estimated to provide $123,500/ha ($50,000/acre) worth of benefits (pp. 270-271).

Oldfield notes, "If appropriate analyses were conducted for each species, it is very likely that we would decide that we would not wish to extingujsh most of them on the basis of purely economic grounds" (p. 268).

We know that pollution affects house prices. We know that clean air is valued by the U.S. population. Environmental economists have estimated that improving the visibility in the Grand Canyon area by cutting down air pollution could be worth as much as $7 billion per year. The figure was estimated by asking people what they were willing to pay for better visibility. These benefits compare with the costs of reducing pollution of some $3 billion per year, making cleanup more than worthwhile (Pearce, p. 38).

What are the costs of the loss of results from research that wouldn't be done? And what are the costs of the loss of knowledge from a currently unknown microbe that might have helped us to prevent a common disease? lf we are to preserve such species, we must take ·into account that preserving entire ecological communities is a much more cost-effective way to preserve species than doing so on a species-by-species basis (U.S. Department of

-24-

State, p. 74; Lande, p. 1455-1456; Noss, p. 177). Annual expenditures for preserving the endangered whooping crane at Patuxent Wildlife Research Center amount to $600,000 -700,000 (Coon, June 14, 1989).

It is important to realize that little further public expense is needed to preserve what we have at BARC. It is also important to realize that managing many small reserves is more difficult and costly than managing one large reserve (Gance and Peterken, pp. 176-177).

Preserving BARC has clear financial benefits and is in the public interest, even though there are no guidelines for economic and legal justification. While it is difficult to organize and represent the diffuse interests of the general public, it is relatively easy for a few people or business interests who are sponsoring a development project to organize and economically promote their investment alternative.

VI. SUPPORT OF THE MARYLAND NATIONAL CAPITAL PARKS AND PLANNING COMMISSION.

At least in principle, the Maryland National Capital Parks and Planning Commission supports the protection of our environment and of BARC in particular. This support is expressed in the documents, Preliminary Master Plan, Subregion 1, Planning Areas 60, 61, & 62 and Preliminary Master Plan, Planrung Areas 65, 66, & 67, published in January, 1988.

Under the section, "Background and Basic Issues," in the Plans for both Areas 60, 61, & 62, and Areas 65, 66, & 67, it is stated that today, "our environment is recognized as a finite and fragile detenninant of human existence. The degree to which man interacts with and cares for or abuses the environment will detennine the quality and duration of human existence."

The Plan designates BARC and PWRC as areas of critical County concern. "Great care should be exercised to ensure the integrity of these highly valued resources." The Plan recognizes that BARC is used by other federal agencies and area universities for biological and ecological studies, also that it has great significance for planning, constituting a major open space feature in the northern portion of the county.

The Plan notes that woodlands "reduce runoff, induce aquifer recharge, prevent erosion, shelter wildlife, reduce the effects of air pollution and reduce noise intensity. They are a valuable resource which should be protected from indiscriminate cutting" (Plan for Areas 65, 66, and 67).

-25-

VII. NASA GODDARD SPACE FLIGHT CENTER

Mission Statement:

"To make possible the expansion of human knowledge of the Earth and its environment, the solar system, and the universe through the development and use of near-Earth space systems" (NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Facilities Master Plan, Vol. l, 1988).

Mandate:

"The Center has the responsibility for unmanned Earth-orbit scientific missions associated with the study of near-Earth space, the Sun and oilier solar-terrestrial related phenomena, as well as activities in the areas of applications technology and space communications" (NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Real Property Survey of the Goddard Space Right Center, October 27, 1987).

NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) is one of eight NASA field stations and is the most diverse in capabilities. It is one of the few installations in the world with sufficiently diverse capabilities to conduct a full range space science experimentation program, and it is NASA's only such installation. This range of capabilities includes the following:

Conceptualization of the experiment; Design, development, fabrication, and testing of the required scientific instruments and spacecraft; Launching of spacecraft; Communications to and from spacecraft; Acquisition, processing, and analysis of the resulting data.

This full-range capability and the financial investment it represents makes GSFC a critically important NASA installation. NASA has invested over one billion dollars in this property.

The length of time for which GSFC has been canying out research makes continued operations here more valuable to NASA. The facility came into existence in 1959, 30 years ago.

GSFC covers a total of 1270.5 acres. 1120.9 of these are titled to GSFC, and 149.6 of them are under revocable permit from U.S.Department of Agriculture. The Center is a complex of large buildings and roads, separated by some open spaces of moderate size. PersoMel at the facility number 8,600. The main entrance to GSFC is on its southern side, at Grel!nbelt Road. Some acres of forest remain around the eastern and western edges of the Center, and it abuts the fields and forests of BARC to the north. There are four GSFC facilities that lie outside the main campus, within the bounderies of BARC, nearby.

As for BARC, it is the cumulative effects of small land use changes that concerns GS~C.

Roles and Responsibilities:

o Research:

Space Science and Earth Science Research Space Applications Research Space Technology Research Aeronautics Technology Research

o Management

Management of spaceflight projects

-26-

Management and operation of NASA communications Management of suborbital rocket, science balloon, and the Delta launch vehicle

programs. Management of the ·worldwide Space Tracking and Data Network. Management of the Tracking and Data Relay Satellite System.

o Operations:

Operation and tracking of near-Earth orbiting satellites and satellite instruments. Processing and analysis of data received from satellites and outlying instruments. Operation of the Tracking and Data Relay Satellite System. Operation of the worldwide laser tracking network associated with Lageos satellites

and with the Crustal Dynamics program. Design, fabrication, and testing of satellites, instruments, and payloads. Range operations and mobile mission support. Program support for aircraft missions. Design, construction, maintenance, and operation of support facilities and the

institutional base necessary to accomplish Goddard's complex mission.

Current roles and responsibilities of GSFC are expected to assume new directions and to increase substantially through the 1990's. "Land use planning for Greenbelt must allow for expansion of existing activities associated with scientific research, spacecraft development, spacecraft testing and integration, and advanced technology development" (p. 1). Near-future projects will include an Earth Observing System, the Hubble Space Telescope, the Gamma Ray Observatory, and Advanced X-Ray Astronomy Facility.

Yet no one can predict exactly what future research will be and what operational requirements GSFC will have for this research. That is the nature of science. Therefore the GSFC Master Plan objectives emphasize the conservation of land, and GSFC is extremely reluctant to pennit encroachment of the larger testing areas by the widening of roads or by commercial development, or to sell any land now serving as buff er for its operations.

Sites:

The facility consists of the main site and four outlying sites:

Magnetic Test Facility Propulsion Research Site Antenna Performance Measuring Range Optical Tracking and Ground Plane Test Site

-27-

Functions of the outlying sites are the following:

Magnetic Test Facility: used to detennine the magnetic field of spacecraft and of spacecraft subsystems prior to launch.

Propulsion Research Site: used to develop and test small propellant systems and materials.

Antenna Performance Measuring Range: utilized to devise, improve, and modify necessary transmitting and receiving antenna systems utilized throughout the worldwide tracking network.

Optical Tracking and Ground Plane Test Site: four separate facilities:

l. Optical Research facility 2. Astronomical Research Observatory 3. Solar Physics Observatory 4. Ground Plane Test Facility.

(These facilities include telescopes, optical trackers, laser ranging system equipment, test pads, and a solar observatory used for laser ranging systems and other systems.)

Notes on Individual Sites:

Main Site:

Electro-magnetic interference can affect GSFC Earth Station facilities, specifically the down-link receivers. These receivers are an integral part of both the Space Transportation System and the Tracking and Data Relay Satellite System, located near the intersection of Greenbelt Road and Soil Conservation Road.

At the Propagation Test Facility, numerous 1µ1tennae and radar testing projects are conducted. High radio frequency levels and physical objects occurring as a result of development nearby could be very detrimental to operations at this facility.

Magnetic Test Site

The Magnetic Test Site has been recognized as a National Historic Monument because of its critical role in the man-in-space program. The unique facilities located on this site are used for evaluation and testing of critical spacecraft components. Facilities are provided for the calibration of precision magnetometers, instruments, and spacecraft All facilities in the vicinity of the actual test areas are built entirely of non-magnetic materials.

-28-

From the GSFC Facilities Master Plan, Vol. 2, 2.4:

"Any large development creating significant traffic would be most detrimental. The ferrous materials used in typical construction would complicate magnetic testing. Traffic, particularly large trucks, which have a large ferrous content, would have a major impact on testing operations due to their erratic movement. Development of facilities on adjacent properties which generate any form of electrical power must be restricted due to the electromagnetic interferences which would result."

The most serious problems would be caused by the proximity of elevators, heavy warehousing operations, and/or operation of heavy construction equipment and heavy trucking operations.

Substantial traffic increases on Good Luck Road and commercial development adjacent to the site would have a serious detrimental impact on the magnetic environment.

Propulsion Test Facility

This facility is used for development and testing of small spacecraft propulsion systems, testing of cryogenic coolers used in spacecraft, and testing of certain hazardous substances (solid methane, solid ammonia, liquid hydrogen, and others).

A significant buffer zone is required to protect surrounding areas from potential explosion hazards. The facility requires remoteness to prevent access by the general

\ population to areas which are unsafe due to storage and use of explosive materials.

Antenna Performance Measuring Range

This facility is used for measurement of spacecraft and satellite antenna characteristics (radiating pattern and impedance characteristics).

A radio reflectance buffer is required around this property: operations here are impeded by radio reflections from large moving objects. It is noted in particular that because the required buffer passes through Beaverdam Road, it is essential that traffic on this road be maintained at the current low levels.

Optical Research Facility

This facility is used for general astronomical research, faint object astronomical observations, laser satellite tracking research, laser communications, advanced optical instrument development, and measurement of the Earth's tectonic plate movements.

The land around the site must be carefully protected to ensure that the capabilities of the facility are not impacted by development of adjacent properties. Buffer zones must protect the general public from eye injury by laser equipment. The site itself must be protected from exhaust fumes, excessive dust, and other particulates, and from seismic

·disturbance, as these will cause deterioration of optical images.

-29-

Operational Requirements of GSFC:

Work at GSFC uses extremely sensitive instrumentation and requires careful control of external stimuli. As for BARC, it is cumulative effects of small land use changes that concerns GSFC. Development of nearby and adjacent properties clearly diminishes the usefulness of GSFC as a testing and research facility. With increasing development comes the unwelcome addition of the following:

Noise Night light Heat Seismic disturbance Electro-magnetic interference Radio interference Air pollution, including both chemical substances and particulate matter Water pollution -- from insecticides, fertilirers, and chemicals from roads and parking

areas Forest removal, changing micro-climatic conditions

Addition of these elements diminishes the quality of the work environment at GSFC. The GSFC Master Plan refers specifically to the proposed Intercounty Connector between Bowie/Route 50 and Laurel/Route 1 as having potential for adversely impacting the facility's activities. "Its routing could be very critical to the Optical Research Facility and Antenna Test Range. Expansion of the Sandy Point Landfill presents another potential problem for the Magnetic Research Site and the Optical Research Facility" (p. 2.2).

An increased population around GSFC brings an increase in the difficulty of maintaining security for all facilities. Public exposure leads to vandalism of property.

Safety Z.Ones:

A NASA document, "Real Property Survey of the Goddard Space Flight Center," explains: "No [nearby] property can be disposed of without programmatic and/or operational impacts." "Buffer zones are operational necessities. Current necessary buffer zones extend beyond the property under GSFC administrative control"

\

-30-

Vlll. PA TUXENT WILDIFE RESEARCH CENTER

Patuxent Wildlife Research Center (PWRC) was conceived as the principal ecological and experimental wildJife research station of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in the eastern United States (U.S. Department of the Interior, p. 4). As set forth in Chapter I, Subchapter D, Part 60 of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 50 (October 1, 1978), the primary purpose of the PWRC is "to provide an outdoor laboratory and other facilities for conducting investigations, tests, and experiments on wildlife diseases, populations, and habitat as a means of providing a sound basis for the administration and management of wildlife resources."

Significance:

PWRC was established in 1936 with the purpose of providing a facility where wildJife could be studied in its native environment over long periods of time without the disruptive effects of environmental changes. It was intentionally established between two other government holdings (BARC and Fort Meade) in order to assure a minimum of disturbance to the ecology of the area in future years (Robbins, PWRC Memorandum, June 8, 1971).

Research has been carried out at PWRC for nearly 50 years. Having such a long history makes the Center extremely valuable as a research site. Bird population studies were begun in 1941 and have been in progress ever since. Wildlife that has disappeared elsewhere in our region survives at PWRC. Nesting populations of almost all species typical of the habitats are found there (PWRC Memorandum, January, 1986).

Field research on the PWRC holdings has been intensive. There is no other study area in undisturbed flood plain forest in North America that has received such intensive or continuous study.

The total land area of PWRC is approximately 4,700 acres. It is a relatively long and narrow property, lying in a northwest/southeast direction along the course of the Patuxent River. A two-lane road, Route 197, runs in a similar direction and bisects the Center. Most of PWRC lies to the north of this road and to the south of the river. A tall chain-link fence surrounds the property.

The terrain of PWRC is gently sloping and predominantly wooded. Terrace woodlands, a relatively rare habitat type, are found along the old Pleistocene flood plain along the margin of the current flood plain. There is a system of manmade freshwater wetlands and remnant natural bogs, as well as a managed scrub community underneath a powerline right-of-way (PWRC Memorandum, January, 1986).

Suburban developments are close to PWRC on the east and on the west.

-31-

Roles and Responsibilities:

PWRC is responsible for the following:

1. Evaluation of the effects of environmental contaminants on wildlife and the environment.

2. Endangered species research and propagation, which seeks to preserve vanishing species of wildlife.

3. Migratory bird research.

4. Research by outside investigators.

Explanations of these areas of responsibility:

l. Environmental contaminant research:

PWRC is asked to identify the kinds of contaminants to which wildlife species are exposed and the significance of these exposures.

To carry out this responsibility, workers must have a clean, disturbance-free environment. In the course of the research, wildlife populations are exposed to a variety of contaminants. Other populations of the same species must be kept as controls, under conditions identical to those of the exposed populations but free of contaminants. Without these control populations, it would be impossible to know if the effects of contaminant exposure were attributable to the contaminant alone.

2. Endangered species research and propagation:

PWRC holds more than 17,000 captive animals, including 3,000 individuals of five species of endangered birds.

"Scientific efforts to breed captive populations of endangered species could be jeopardized, even invalidated, if the Center's environment is not adequately protected from contaminants known to cause problems in research activities elsewhere" (U.S. Department of the Interior, p. 7).

3. Migratory Bird Research:

PWRC must develop comprehensive knowledge of migratory bird populations. This includes understanding their distribution, abundance, recruiunent, suivival, and habitat. The species that are most extensively studied are those known to be declining in population.

-32-

4. Outside Research:

PWRC serves as a laboratory for qualified investigators from other federal agencies and from area universities. These institutions include the following:

Smithsonian Institution Unifonned Services University U.S. Department of Agriculture U.S. Forest Service U.S. Environmental Protection Agency U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Ecology Research Center Maryland Department of Agriculture Cornell University University of Delaware University of Maryland

A tenant at PWRC, the Migratory Bird Management Office, is responsible for migratory bird management and for providing the facts needed to regulate the harvest of migratory game birds. The United States has entered into treaties with Canada, Mexico, Japan, and the Soviet Union concerning migratory birds and the management of their habitats. Jn order to meet treaty obligations and to effectively manage migratory birds, the Migratory Bird Management The Office collects infonnation on their numbers, distributions, and productivity. This information is collected by aerial and ground surveys, banding programs, and national hunter harvest surveys. Bird-banding records are maintained at PWRC.

Operational Requirements:

Research at PWRC requires a stable, clean environment and an unfragmented reserve. Threats to PWRC are the same as those to BARC: habitat fragmentation and environmental degradation in small increments: air, water, and noise pollution; nighttime light; poaching and trespassing; alien animals. The upgrading of Route I CJ! to four or six lanes and the Intercounty Connector are specific threats.

Fragmentation of PWRC forest would bring the disappearance of such birds as the great homed owl and the red-tailed hawk, as well as a dozen or so of the typical migrant breeding songbird species. These birds require forest interior conditions and/or large territories.

The importance of compatible land use adjacent to and nearby PWRC is clear. From the PWRC Master Plan, June, 1980:

"The maintenance of environmental quality, and especially water quality, is of critical importance to the PWRC. Land uses located outside the Center's property boundaries but within its watershed, therefore, play an important role in maintaining an environment suitable for ongoing research activities" (p. 16).

One example of a possible impact arising outside PWRC boundaries is that of scavenging sea gulls attracted to a landfill on the southeastern boundary of PWRC. After feeding at the landfill, they often rest on ponds within PWRC. The presence of large numbers of gulls may bring contamination to the ponds and introduce diseases to the Center's bird population.

-33-

IX. CLOSING STATEMENT.

The scientific research value of the U.S.D.A. Beltsville Agricultural Research Center's undeveloped property argues for its preservation. That the property preserves a national heritage and open space and that it provides the county with invaluable environmental services argue the same.

Biologically, BARC is part of a larger forested ecosystem that includes NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, and Fort George G. Meade, all federal facilities.

When future land use plans are made, it would be advisable to consider this larger parcel as one whole. Biologicalfy, there is value in maintaining its integrity, as there is scientific research and conservation value in its large size. Because of their operational requirements, these four federal facilities have certain land use needs in common as well, for a clean, healthy environment, for long-tenn stability, and for protection from unlimited access by the public.

The following phenomena seriously compromise research at GSFC: radio interference, electro-magnetic interference, air and water pollution, lights at night, and seismic disturbance such as that from heavy trucks. At PWRC and at BARC, problems are created by water, air, and noise pollution (particularly water pollution); poaching and vandalism; and the encroachment of alien animals, such as dogs and cats, and of alien plants, such as honeysuckle. Of great concern also is fragmentation of the forest by new road construction and by the widening of existing roads.

Given increasing development of properties adjacent to the facilities and the environmental degradation that accompanies development, there would be advantages in working together for protection of common interests.

For the three research facilities, the future holds unknown operational requirements. Protection of the research environment for the future is critical. With regard to GSFC, "[t]he requirement to perform special testing of ever increasing sophistication is an integral part of Goddard's mission. Advances in technology will likely result in even more stringent testing criteria. .. The protection of the Center's current and anticipated capabilities is essential .... " (GSFC Real Property Management Report, Appendix 2B, p. I).

A particular complication arises for research institutions when their abilities to carry out their mandates are compromised to any significant degree: the departure of research personnel. "The best people will go somewhere else, where they have the opportunity to do more exciting worlc. This loss of excellence in personnel is hard to quantify, but terribly important" (Mitch Brown, GSFC, Facilities Engineering Division, personal communication, October 19, 1988).

-34-

It is difficult if not impossible to quantify the value of BARC, given the research it makes possible, the buffering it offers GSFC and PWRC, and the environmental services it provides. It might be helpful to know the impacts of further suburban development with greater certainty and precision before decisions are made to curtail development However, we must act on our best judgment, with the knowledge we now have available, rather than postpone decision-making until more research is done. It is common in land use planning to make decisions based on the best of one's knowledge at the time, with full awareness that more information might be desirable.

It is unrealistic to claim that more research is needed before we have absolute certainty and action is taken. Even in the field of economics itself, there is no certainty. Economists who deal with enormously complex systems have only their best-informed judgments. They must draw on circumstantial evidence and their world views of economics in order to make enormously important economic decisions. Biologists, who deal with even more complex systems, must work in the same way.

In contemplating contemporary land use, one can easily see a pattern of development projects obliterating research sites and open space. Pollution is increasing; forests are disappearing. Our land no longer seems to be a limitless resource. We must plan carefully for the management of the natural areas that remain to us. This challenges our values. Most often in land use planning, short-term economic benefits have been favored over long-term ones, even if there are unacceptable costs over the long term. The health of our environment and the quality of our lives are at stake.

-35-

Recommendations for land management of BARC.

1. That a liaison group for managing BARC, GSFC, PWRC, and FGGM land be established. This group should do the following:

a. Clearly fonnulate and express the desired condition of natural lands of the four facilities.

b. Establish and maintain an educational program for the surrounding community and for the county, regarding the operations and operational requirements of these facilities.

c. Involve itself in planning for construction of any new property developments, particularly of new roads or highways, supporting measures to mitigate harmful effects to the biological integrity of the four facilities.

d. Consider proposal of a National Research Park to preserve the research capabilities of the four facilities over the long tenn.

2. That future land use decisions regarding these properties incorporate protection of habitats and essential buffer habitats for rare and endangered native species.

3. That future land use decisions regarding these properties take principles of responsible reserve design into account. These principles include the following:

a. That the aggregate forest systems of the combined holdings be accorded great importance and priority.

b. That fragmentation of the forests be avoided;

c. That edge effects be minimized, buildings being clustered wherever possible and road widening and construction avoided;

d. That corridors connecting the forests in the four institutions be forested and at least 100 meters wide in order to ensure that wildlife will use them.

e. That fencerows and hedgerows be established and maintained around all cultivated fields.

4. That the Biosphere Reserve be used as a model for land use planning of this area.

The Biosphere Reserve, a model created by the Man and the Biosphere Program of the National Park Service (Office of Science and Technology), is a multiple-use reserve. At the center is a completely protected, unused core, surrounded by a safety zone, experimental reserves, and a fringe area. Management of a Biosphere Reserve is integrated with adjacent lands and communities.

-36-

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Barrett, Gary W. 1985. "A Problem-Solving Approach to Resource Management." Pp. 423-427 in BioScience, Vol 35, No. 7, July/August.

Blake, John D. and Karr, James R. 1984. "Species Composition of Bird Communities and the Conservation Benefit of Large vs. Small Forests." Pp. 173-187 in Biological Conservation, Vol. 30.

Bonnann, F. H. 1985. "Air Pollution and Forests: An Ecosystem Perspective." Pp. 434-441 in BioScience, Vol 35, No. 7, July/August.

Brussard, Peter F. 1982." "The Role of Field Stations in the Preservation of Biological Diversity." Pp. 327-330 in Bioscience, Vol. 32, No. 5.

Burgess, Robert L. and Sharpe, David M. 1981. Forest Island Dynamics in Man-Dominated Landscapes. (Springer-Verlag)

Burgman, Mark A., Akcakaya, H. Resit, and Loew, Sabine S. 1988. "The Use of Extinction Models for Species Conservation." Pp. 9-25 in Biological Conservation, Vol. 43.

Bums, George W. 1980. The Science of Genetics. (Macmillan Publishing Co., lnc.)

Bushman, Ellen S. and Glenn D. Therres. 1988. Habitat Management Guidelines for Forest Interior Breeding Birds of Coastal Maryland. Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Forest, Park and Wildlife Service, Wildlife Technical Publication 88-1.

Clarke, Robin, ed. 1986. The Handbook ofEcological Monitoring. (Oxford Scientific Publications)

Committee of Biologists for Preservation of Natural Areas. 1976. Beltsville Federal Masterplan Area: Biological and Research Values and Recommendations for Land Use Master Planning. Preliminary copy.

Coon, Nancy. Technical Services Branch, U.S. Department of the Interior Patuxent Wildlife Research Center. Personal communication, June 14, 1989.

Diamond, Jared M. n.d. "Critical Areas for Maintaining Viable Populations of Secies." Pp. 27-40 in M.W. Holdgate and MJ. Woodman, The Breakdown and Restoration of Ecosystems. Published in coordination with NATO Sc1enufic Affairsl51v1s1on. (Plenum Press)

Diamond, Jared M. 1975. "The Island Dilemma: Lessons of Modem Biogeographic Studies for the Design of Nature Reserves." Pp. 129- 146 in Biological Conservation. Vol. 7.

Ehrenfeld, David. 1986. "Thirty million cheers for diversity." Pp. 38-43 in New Scientist, 12 June 1986.

-37-

Forseth, lrwin. University of Maryland, College Park. Personal communication, October 28, 1988.

Foster, Joseph. U.S. Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. Personal communication, March 14, 1989.

Frankel, 0. H. and Soule, Michael E. 1981. Conservation and Evolution. (Cambridge University Press)

Gilpin, Michael E. and Diamond, Jared M. 1980. "Subdivision of nature reserves and the maintenance of species diversity." Pp. 567-568 in Nature, Vol. 285.

Harris, Larry D. 1984. The Fragmented Forest. (The University of Chicago Press)

Hayes, Denis. 1979. Pollution: The Neglected Dimensions. Worldwatch Paper 27. (Worldwatch Institute, Washington D.C.)

Higgs, AJ. and Usher, M.B. 1980. "Should nature reserves be large or small?" Pp. 568-569 in Nature, Vol. 285.

Janzen, Daniel H. 1983. "No park is an island: increase in interference from outside as park size decreases." Pp. 402-410 in Oikos, Vol. 41, No. 3.

Johnson, W. Carter, David M. Sharpe, Donald L. DeAngelis, David E. Fields, and Richard J. Olson. 1981. "Modeling Seed Dispersal and Forest Island Dynamics." Pp. 215-240 in Burgess, Robert L. and Sharpe, David M. Forest Island Dynamics in Man-Dominated Landscapes. (Springer-Verlag)

International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources. 1980. World Conservation Strategy. (IUCN, Morges, Switzerland)

Keicher, John C. 1988. A Field Guide to Eastern Forests. (Houghton Mifflin Co.)

Lande, Russell. 1988. "Genetics and Demography in Biological Conservation." Pp. 1455-1460 in Science, 16 September, 1988.

Levenson, James B. 1981. "Woodlots as Biogeographic Islands in Southeastern Wisconsin." Pp. 13-40 in Burgess, Robert L. and Sharpe, David M. Forest Island Dynamics in Man-Dominated Landscapes. (Springer-Verlag)

Liddle, MJ. 1975. "A selective review of the ecological effects of human trampling on natural ecosystems." Pp. 17-34 in Biological Conservation, Vol 7.

Lovejoy, T .E., et al. 1986. "Edge and Other Effects of Isolation on Amazon Forest Fragments." ?p.237-285 in Soule, Michael, ed. Conservation Biology. (Sinauer Associates, Inc.)

·.

-38-

Lovejoy, Thomas E. and Oren, David C. 1981. "The Minimum Critical Size of Ecosystems." Pp. 7-12 in Burgess, Robert L. and Sharpe, David M. Forest Island Dynamics in Man-Dominated Landscapes. (Springer-Verlag)

Lowrance, Richard, Robert Todd, Joseph Fail, Jr., Ole Hendrickson, Jr., Ralph Leonard, and Loris Asmussen. 1984. "Riparian Forests as Nutrient Filters in Agricultural Watersheds." Pp. 374-377 in Bioscience, Vot 34, No. 6.

Lynch, James F. and Whigham, Dennis F. 1984. "Effects of Forest Fragmentation on Breeding Bird Communities in Maryland, USA." Pp. 287-324 in Biological Conservation, Vol. 28.

MacArthur, Robert H. aJ!d Wilson, Edward 0. 1967. The Theory of Island Biogeography. (Princeton University Press)

MacClintock, Lucy, Whitcomb, R.F. and Whitcomb, B.L. 1977. "Island biogeography and habitat islands of eastern forest II. Evidence for the value of corridors and minimisation of isolation in preservation of biotic diversity." Pp. 6-16 in American Birds, Vol. 31.

Mack, Alison, William P. Gregg, Jr., Susan P. Bratton, and Peter S. White. 1983. "A Survey of Ecological Inventory, Monitoring, and Research in U.S. National Park Service Biosphere Reserves. Pp 35-45 in Biological Conservation, Vol. 26.

MacKenzie, James J. and El-Ashry, Mohamed T. September, 1988. Ill Winds: Airborne Pollution's Toll on Trees and Crops. (World Resources Institute)

Margules, L. and Usher, M. B. 1981. "Criteria Used in Assessing Wildlife Conservation Potential: A Review." Pp. 79-109 in Biological Conservation, Vol. 21.

Margulis, C., A.J. Higgs, and R.W. Rafe. 1982. "Modem Biogeographic Theory: Are There Any Lessons for Nature Reserve Design?" Pp. 115-128 in Biological Conservation, Vol. 24.

Maryland National Capital Parks and Planning Commission. January, 1988. Preliminary Master Plan, Subregion 1, Planning Areas 60, 61, & 62.

Maryland National Capital Parks and Planning Commission. March, 1988. Preliminary Master Plan, Planning Areas 65, 66, & 67.

Maryland National Capital Parks and Planning Commission. October, 1987. Summary Anal sis of the Im act on Public Facilities Resultin from the Private Redevelo ment of t operties.

Maryland Natural Heritage Program, Forest, Park and Wildlife Service, Department of Natural Resources, State of Maryland. 1988. Management Plans for Significant Plant and Wildlife Habitat Areas of Maryland's Western Shore: Anne Arundel County. Final Report.

-39-

Maryland Natural Heritage Program, Forest, Park and Wildlife Service, Department of Natural Resources, State of Maryland. 1988. Management Plans for Significant Plant and Wildlife Habitat Areas of Maryland's Western Shore: Prince Georges COunty. Final Report.

McCoy, Earl D. 1983. "The Application of Island-Biogeography Theory to Patches of Habitat: How Much Land is Enough?" Pp. 53-61 in Biological Conservation, Vol. 25.

Middleton, John and Merriam, Gray. 1985. "The Rationale for Conservation: Problems from a Virgin Forest." Pp. 133-145 in Biological Conservation, Vol. 33.

Miller, Raymond J. College of Agriculture, University of Maryland. Personal communication, Decemb~r 13, 1988.

National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Goddard Space Flight Center. 1988. Facilities Master Plan. Volumes I & IL

National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Goddard Space Flight Center, Facilities Engineering Division. 1975. Impact of Proposed Airport on GSFC Facilities and Missions.

National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Goddard Space Flight Center. 1987. Real Property Management Report. Appendix 2B, "Landuse Plans for Greenbelt Site - -Summary."

National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Goddard Space Flight Center. 1987. Real Property Survey of the Goddard Space Hight Center. -

Noss, Reed. 1987. "From Plant Communities to Landscapes in Conservation Inventories: A Look at the Nature Conservancy (USA)." Pp. 11-37 in Biological Conservation, Vol. 41.

Noss, Reed F. 1987. "Saving Species by Saving Ecosystems." Pp. 175-177 in Conservation Biolog~. Vol. I, No. 2.

Obrecht, Holly. Patuxent Wildlife Research Center. Personal communication, March 31, 1989.

Oldfield, Margery L. 1984. The Value of Conserving Genetic Resources. (U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service.)

Oxley, DJ., M.B. Fenton, and G.R. Carmody. "The effects of roads on populations of small mammals." Pp. 51-59 in Journal of Applied Ecology 11(1).

Palmer, Mary E. 1987. "A Critical Look at Rare Plant Monitoring in the United States." Pp. 113-127 in Biological Conservation, Vol. 39.

Pearce, David. 1988. "Economists befriend the Earth." Pp. 34-39 in New Scientist, 19 November 1988.

-40-

Postel, Sandra. March, 1984. Air Pollution, Acid Rain, and the Future of Forests. Worldwatch Paper 58. (Worldwatch Institute, Washington, D.Cl

Postel, Sandra. July, 1986. Altering lhe Earth's ~hemis : Assessing the Risks. Worldwatch Paper 71. (Worldwatch Institute, Washington, . .

Postel, Sandra and Heise, Lori. April, 1988. Reforesting the Earth. Worldwatch Paper 83. (Worldwatch Institute, Washington, D.C.)

Quicke, Donald. 1988. "Spiders bite their way towards safer insecticides." Pp. 38-40 in New Scientist, 26 November 1988.

Raloff, Janet. 1988. "Unraveling lhe Economics of Deforestation." Pp. 366-7 in Science News, Vol. 133. · - -

Ranney, J. W., Bruner, M. C., and Levenson, J.B. l98 l. "The Importance of Edge in the Structure and Dynamics ofForest Islands." Pp. 67-96 in Burgess, Robert L. and Sharpe, David M. Forest Island Dynamics in Man-Dominated Landscapes. (Springer-Verlag)

Reed, Timothy. 1983. "The Role of Species-Area Relationships in Reserve Choice: A British Example." Pp. 263-271 in Biological Conservation, Vol. 25.

Reveal, James. Department of Botany, University of Maryland. Personal communication, October 28, 1988.

Rey, Jorge R. 1984. "Experimental Tests of Island Biogeographic Theory." Pp. 101-112 in Strong, Donald R., Daniel Simberloff, Lawrence G. Abele, and Anne B. Thistle, editors, Ecological Communities: Conceptual Issues and the Evidence. (Princeton University Press)

Robbins, Chandler S. 1979. "Effect of Forest Fragmentation on Bird Populations." From Workshop Proceedings: Management of North Central and Northeastern Forests for ~ongFf!!rds. United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service General Technical

eport - I.

Robertson, Judith. State of Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Natural Heritage Program. Personal communications, January 12, 1989, June 15, 1989, and June 16, 1989.

Rosenberg, T. J. Institute for Physical Science and Technology, University of Maryland. Personal communication, March 8, 1989.

Samson, Fred B. 1983. "Minimum Viable Populations -- A Review." Pp. 15-23 in Natural Areas Journal, Vol. 3, Number 3. - -

Schonewald-Cox, Christine M. 1988. "Boundaries in lhe Protection of Nature Reserves." Pp. 480-486 in BioScience, Vol. 38 No. 7, July/August 1988.

-41 -

Schonewald-Cox, Christine M. and Bayless, Jonathan W. 1986. "The Boundary Model: A Geographical Analysis of Design and Conservation of Nature Reserves." Pp. 305-322 in Biological Conservation, Vol. 38.

Schonewald-Cox, Christine M., Steven M. Chambers, Bruce MacBryde, and W. Lawrence Thomas, Editors. 1983. Genetics and Conservation. (Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Company, Inc.)

Shaffer, Mark A. 1981. "Minimum Population Sizes for Species Conservation." Pp. 131-134 in Bioscience, Vol. 31, No. 2.

Shaffer, Mark A. and Saterson, Kathryn A. 1987. "The Biological Diversity Program of the U.S. Agency for International Development." Pp. 280-283 in Conservation Biology, Vol. I, No. 4, December, 1987.

Siegfried, W.R. and Davies, B.R. Conservation of Ecosystems: Theory and Practise. South African National Programs Report 61. (Council for Scientific and Industrial Research)

Simberloff, Daniel and Gotelli, Nicholas. 1984. "Effects of Jnsularization on Plant Species Richness in the Prairie-Forest Ecotone." Pp. 27-46 in Biological Conservation, Vol. 29.

Smith, W. "Forest Quality and Air Quality." Pp. 82-92 in Journal ofForestry, Vol 83, No. 2.

Soule, Michael. 1985. "What is Conservation Biology?" Pp. 727-734 in Bio.Science, Vol. 35, No. 11.

Soule, Michael and Simberloff, Daniel. 1986. "What do Genetics and Ecology Tell Us About the Design of Nature Reserves?" Pp. 19-40 in Biological Conservation, Vol. 35.

Tangley, Laura. 1985. "A national biological survey." Pp. 686-690 in BioScience, Vol 35, No. l I, December, 1985.

United States Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. March, 1987. Technolo~ies to Maintain Biological Diversity, OTA-F-330 (Washington, D.C., U.S. Government Printing Office.)

United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service. November, 1987. The Beltsville Agricultural Research Center. Program Aid Number 1389.

United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service. 1984. Master Plan Updatei for U.S.D.A. Beltsville Agricultural Research Center. Prepared by Sasaki Associates, nc., Watertown, Massachusetts.

United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, BARC Ecology Committee. March, 1983. BARC Forest Tracts.

United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. June, 1980. Master Plan: Patuxent Wildlife Research Center; Laurel, Maryland. Prepared by Sasaki -­Associates, Inc., Watertown, Massachusetts.

-42-

United States Department of State, Bureau of International Organization Affairs. l982. Proceedings of the U.S. Strateg~ Conference on Biological Diversity, November 16-18, 1981. Department of State Pubhcation No. 9261, International Organization and COnference Series 300.

United States Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. November 1981. Effects of Highways on Wildlife. Report No. FHW NRD-81/067.

United States Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. March 1978. !:!ighwabs and Ecology: Impact Assessment and Mitigation. Report No. RHWA-RWEJ EP-78-2.

Whitcomb, Robert F. U.S. Department of Agriculture Beltsville Agricultural Research Center. Personal Communication, May 25, 1989.

Whitcomb, R.F., Lynch, J.F., Klimkiewicz, M.K., Robbins, C.S., Whitcomb, B.L., and Bystrak, D. 1981. "Effects of Forest Fragmentation on A vi fauna of the Eastern Decisuous Forest." Pp. 125-205 in Burgess, Robert L. and Sharpe, David M. Forest Island Dynamics in Man-Dominated Landscapes. (Springer-Verlag)

White, Peter S. 1981. "How Do We Insure Our Natural Area Parks Function to Preserve Species and Natural Systems?" Pp. 9-10 in Journal of the Natural Areas Association, Vol. 1, Number 2.

Whitman, Debra. U.S. Department of Agriculture Beltsville Agricultural Research Center. Personal communication, February 2, 1989.

Wilcove, David S., Charles H. McLellan and Andrew P. Dobson. 1986. "Habitat Fragmentation in the Temperate Zone." Pp. 237-256 in Soule, Michael, editor. Conservation Biology. (Sinauer Associates, Inc.)

Wilson, Edward 0., Editor. 1988. Biodiversity. (National Academy Press)

Wilson, Edward 0. December, 1985. "The Biological Diversity Crisis." Pp. 700-706 in BioScience, Vol. 35 No. 11.

Wilson, Edward 0. December, 1987. "The Little Things that Run the World." Pp. 344-346 in Conservation Biology, Vol. I, No. 4.

Witt, Steven C. 1985. Biotechnology and Biodiversity. (California Agricultural Lands Project)

Woodwell, George M. 1988. "Rich Nations and Poor Nations on a Warmer Earth." Presentation at the International institute for Environment and Development, International Environmental Forum, November 18, 1988, Brookings Institution, Washington, D.C.

Ziegler, Jan. 1988. "Congress seeks action to save species." P. 21 in New Scientist, 26 November, 1988.