Page 66 - MFB State Annual Meeting 2018 -- RESOLUTIONS BOOK

CRP contract holders an economic advantage over other
producers;
3.13. Haying and grazing of CRP acres be permitted at the discretion of
the state FSA office in weather-related or other emergency
situations, impaired watersheds, or as a maintenance
management tool in a timely manner;
3.14. That the basic businesses of licensed hunting preserves be
allowed to continue to operate on CRP ground;
3.15. At the end of 3 years of the second 10-year CRP forestry program,
the secretary of agriculture should allow producers to thin the trees
at their discretion without forgoing CRP payments;
3.16. Mandatory control of noxious weeds by local and site-specific
measures on CRP and CREP lands;
3.17. Contract holders being required, without cost-share, to mow, spray
or burn all CRP plantings prior to the pollination of noxious weeds,
including Palmer amaranth, as needed to control their spread;
3.18. Making changes to the accepted management practices that are
allowed on filter strips or CREP. This would include allowing the strips to be cut and harvested in a timely manner to prevent an adverse effect to run-off waters;
3.19. A fire protection plan appropriate for each state be included in all present and future CRP contracts;
3.20. If CRP payments are reduced or delayed for more than 60 days, the producer would have the option to withdraw from the contract without penalty and program crop bases would be restored to their prior level;
3.21. The payment of interest if CRP payments to participants are more than 30 days past due;
3.22. Landowners being given six months’ notice by FSA before official termination of their contract, with payments being made through the termination date;
3.23. The annual controlled burning of CRP land under best management practices (BMP). The landowner and tenant should not be penalized for such burns;
3.24. Allowing CRP buffer strips to be used for drainage ditch maintenance soil redeposition with subsequent revegetation;
3.25. Altering the qualifications of CRP so that erosion risk profile and water quality benefits, not wildlife habitat, would constitute the primary reason a piece of ground would be selected to participate in CRP;
3.26. Reviewing the water quality benefits of CRP using credible data;
3.27. Requiring that seed for program acres be free of invasive species
of weed seed, such as Palmer amaranth; and
3.28. All drains being eligible for filter strips.
4. We believe existing contract holders should have the option to rebid into the program when their contracts expire. Calculation of CRP rental rates should be re-examined to ensure they mirror, but do not exceed, the rental rates of comparable land in the immediate area. Rates should be based on the agricultural production value of the land.
5. Contracts for new and re-enrolled acres should reflect the following principles:
5.1. Class 1 & 2 land would not be eligible for the general sign-up for CRP, and rent should reflect fair market rental rates of the county;
5.2. Highly erodible farmland, including both wind and water erosion; 5.3. An expansion of the continuous signup CRP to include:
5.3.1. Filter strips along waterways;
5.3.2. Greater widths of waterways, filter strips, field borders and
riparian buffers;
5.3.3. Setbacks at road intersections;
5.3.4. Crop protection product setbacks around tile inlet structures;
5.3.5. Up to one-acre filter strips around standpipes and other
intakes where surface water enters directly into subsurface
water;
5.3.6. Grassed terraces;
5.3.7. Buffers around villages, timbered areas, irrigation reservoirs, ponds and stormwater retention basins;
5.3.8. Expanding the statewide allocations on field borders and upland restoration projects; and
AFBF Policies – Page 10