1990 Farm Bill Forum 



Proceedings 



Our agency has not been involved to any great 

 extent with the Farm Debt Restructure and 

 Conservation Easement Provisions of the 1985 

 Farm Bill. We think that these provisions do, 

 however, offer some potential for fish and 

 wildlife. 



In conjunction with the passage of the 1985 

 Farm Bill, our department initiated a compli- 

 mentary program to help private landowners 

 develop wildlife habitat on their lands. Our 

 efforts basically consisted of providing free 

 trees and shrubs to landowners in return for 

 planting permanent cover on their CRP lands. 

 We felt that was more conducive to good 

 wildlife populations. Over the past three years, 

 we have provided about $120,000 to $130,000 

 worth of trees and shrubs to landowners. 



In 1989, the Montana legislature enacted 

 legislation that we are excited about. It directs 

 us to implement an Upland Gamebird Habitat 

 Enhancement Program and will provide about 

 $500,000 a year for habitat enhancement and 

 improvement primarily on private agricultural 

 lands. We hope that portions of this program 

 can be implemented in conjunction with CRP 

 and with some of the other, older farm pro- 

 grams that are now available. 



Generally speaking, we are satisfied with the 

 basic content of the conservation provisions as 

 they now exist in the Farm Bill. However, there 

 are a number of areas in which we feel modifi- 

 cations, additions, or perhaps strengthening of 

 the conservation provisions would be useful. 



Before I get into the conservation provisions, I'd 

 like to mention one other aspect that could 

 become a conser\ation provision. The current 

 Farm Commodity Programs contain set-aside 

 requirements that are subject to annual change 

 or modification. Sur\'eys have shown that on 

 these annual set-aside lands, up to 60 percent of 

 them are left unseeded or summer fallowed and 

 nesting cover for wildlife and non-game is 

 either absent or only in poor or fair condition 

 on 80 percent of those lands. A provision 

 should be added to the new farm program, 

 requiring a part of the annual set-aside acreage 

 to be committed to multi-year set-asides. Cost- 

 sharing for the establishment of vegetation on 

 these set-asides should be available. 



Now more specifically, the basic CRP program 

 should be considered as is with a few additions. 

 First, field windbreaks and shclterbelts should 

 qualify for CRP without regard to the soil's 

 erosion susceptibility. This would add an 

 important new dimension for wildlife habitat 

 planning and would also aid us in our abilities 

 to implement and make some good use out of 

 our new piece of state legislation, our Upland 

 Game Bird Habitat Enhancement Program. 



Second, restored wetlands should qualify for 

 CRP. This would aid in achieving the goals of 

 the North American Waterfowl Plan, which is 

 an international effort to stabilize continental 

 waterfowl populations. 



Third, we should provide provisions to allow 

 landowners to extend their existing CRP 

 contracts for an additional five years. 



Fourth, provisions that allow for haying and 

 grazing on CRP lands during drought condi- 

 tions should either be tightened or eliminated. 

 These provisions could be shifted to the multi- 

 year set-aside lands that I referred to previ- 

 ously, if that aspect of the farm bill is enacted. 

 These multi-year set-aside lands could then be 

 used to create a strategic forage reserve which 

 would be used spxxifically for cattle forage 

 during emergency drought situations. 



The swampbuster provision should be strength- 

 ened and could, perhaps, provide the basis for 

 the formulation for the national wetlands 

 policy. This policy should recognize that 

 wetlands are a unique component of our 

 landscape. Along v\ith this policy, the creation 

 of a national wetlands reserve would be an 

 appropriate national goal. This reserve could or 

 should be the component of the North Ameri- 

 can Waterfowl Plan. 



In closing I'd just like to stress that the Farm Bill 

 has had significant beneficial impact on our 

 wildlife and fishery resources. It is our hope 

 that we can continue on a similar path with the 

 1990 Farm Program by incorporating a number 

 of the revisions that we have suggested here. 

 We feel these suggestions will improve upon 

 the firm conservation foundation that has 

 already been established. 



MoDUna Chapter, 8oI and Water Conservation Society 



August 28, 1988 



