CRP Management Of Noxious Weeds

February 06, 2001, Farm Bill Network Listserv Discussion Summaries

EBI, Brome Fields, Managed Use of CRP, Conservation Easements for Prairie

Summarized by Murat Demirtasli and Wendy Dickie, umbsn@smumn.edu

Summary of the discussion:

In this discussion, participants expressed different views about the way the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) managed noxious weeds on private properties. However, they all agreed that one CRP practice needed improvement -- paying landowners to control their weeds. Two participants stated that the payment should be limited to a period of time, while one participant stated that paying landowners was unnecessary and redundant since landowners were already required by law to control weeds. Following are highlights from the discussion:

Tim Davis :

• We are talking about maintenance for two different objectives, one for noxious weed control and one to improve stand vigor and enhance the stand for wildlife.
• Let's continue the annual payment for weed control, but only for 5 years. Most of the noxious weed problems occur shortly after stand establishment. Notice, I said MOST. Maintenance for stand vigor and habitat improvement could be written into the CRP Plan based on need for the region, credited with points in the EBI if the producer agrees to do it, and cost-shared similar to the current stand establishment process.
• There may be a need to offer a higher percentage; ie 75% or 90% cost-share, but given the investment that the public has put into CRP rental, it would be a small price to pay to maintain high quality habitat through the term of the contract. Certain maintenance practices could be permitted for weed control and stand establishment (mowing), but based on the recommendation in the area, we may not be permitted to improve stand vigor and improve wildlife habitat.

Gary Langell :

• I would suggest limiting noxious weed control maintenance payments to the first 3 years.
• The money saved from those participants that opted not to improve stand vigor/wildlife improvement, plus the money saved over the remaining 7 to 12 years of the contracts without the $5 maintenance fee provided, should cover the cost of providing additional money for those who do "manage" their CRP acreage.

Scott (scojac@essex1.com) :

• Why should there be any payment at all for noxious weed control? It's the law that noxious weeds have to be controlled on your property. Why should we pay people for obeying the law?
• This money should be directed to something more productive and we should simply make noxious weed control (obeying the law) part of the terms of the CRP contract.