Farm Bureau Policies 2022 practices of the ranchers who have owned and operated these lands and are committed to the continued health of these land- scapes. Grazing plays an important role in managing healthy ecosystems. Grazing management should continue to adapt to and utilize scientific research and industry-testedmanagement practices. Grazing is often the most practical, economic and environmentally acceptable way to prevent the accumulation of excessive fuel loads and thereby reduce the damage caused
We support legislative efforts to require that all public agencies complywith theCaliforniaEnvironmentalQualityAct (CEQA) and theNational Environmental PolicyAct (NEPA)whenacquiringany interest inagricultural resources.NativeAmerican tribes shouldbe required to complywithCEQA andNEPAon any project, whether or not the land isheld in trust status by theBureauof IndianAffairs. Customary plant and animal husbandry practices are not subject to CEQA review. We oppose any changes in CEQA that would add regulatory burdens on agricultural activities, includ- ing farming in greenhouses. We also support legislation which would exempt commercial timber growing and harvesting from theCEQAbecause the Forest PracticeAct adequately protects the environment. (99/Rev. 2006) No. 415 California Coastal Commission The authority of the California Coastal Commission relative to agriculture andagricultural practices shoulddefer to local govern- ment agencies through approvals of Local Coastal Plans (LCPs) and delegated permitting authority thereunder; protecting and promoting a viable coastal agricultural industry shouldbe integral to any LCP. The Coastal Commission should support production agriculturewithin the coastal zone through categorical exclusions of on-going agricultural practices from any coastal development permitting requirements. Intensificationof landuse, as defined in theCoastal Act, should not include rotation of crops, changes or conversions to or from permanent crops, changes in irrigation water uses, field prepara- tionandgrading, spraying, or other cultural practices, or necessary infrastructure to support ongoing crop cultivation and grazing operations currentlypermittedunder applicable local ordinances. The long-term sustainability of coastal agriculture should allow for flexibility to respond to market conditions and improvement or changes tomanagement practices. Consideration should be given to include long-term fallowing as agricultural best management practice; replanting of a crop after a fallowperiod shouldbe exempt froma coastal development permit. (86/Rev. 2018) No. 416 Threatened and Endangered Species Recognizing the failure of the current system of regulation to recover species and its inherent disincentives for farmers and ranchers to conserve habitat, our goals for the amendment and reauthorizationof theESAshould focusonthe followingprinciples: (1) Agricultural producers should not be held liable for any “take” that occurs, accidental or incidental, during normal agri- cultural operation; (2) The ESA should be an incentive-based law; (3) Landowners shall be treated fairly; (4) The ability to produce food, fiber and all other agricultural products is not abridged; (5) Landowners shall be fairly compensated for losses when their property is convertedor restricted inuse tobenefit thepublic; (6) A thorough scientific review of listing and delisting peti- tions, biological opinions and recovery plans is required. All ESA actions must be science-based, practical and economically fea- sible. Creation of recovery plans for every listed species should be the highest priority for the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service and responsible federal agenciesandshouldbecompletedasquicklyas possible. Designation of recovery habitat should occur only upon completionof the appropriate recoveryplan, and shouldbebased upon the planwhile setting a realistic goal for delisting a species; (7) Terrestrial andaquatic rear-and-releaseprograms shouldbe encouraged.Offspringof thosecapturedand releasedshall becon- sideredwhenevaluating the recovery of a listed species, andwhen assessing the viabilityof anentirepopulation inorder todetermine listing or delisting of the species under the ESA; (8) Apeer reviewof data shouldbe requiredprior to listing; and (9) Any conservation efforts on public lands that affect the uses andprivate rightsheldbypublic landpermittees andusers shall be subject to compensationat fairmarket value for the takingof these limited property rights. (Rev. 2006) No. 417 Bighorn/Domestic Sheep Compatibility The SierraNevadaBighornSheep (SNBS) is listedas endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act, and lives primarily on federal lands in Inyo, Mono, and Fresno Counties. We believe the SNBS should not be listed as a subspecies, but rather as part of the largerBighornSheeppopulation.Absentscientificevidenceofdisease transmission,domesticlivestockgrazingshouldnotberestricteddue toSNBSpresenceor critical habitat designation.We support: (1) Scientific research that clearly defines the influence of do- mestic sheep, including potential disease transmission, on the population sustainability of Bighorn Sheep;
(2) Research to determine themany causes of premature death anddisease inBighornSheep, suchas range conditions, transplant policy, nutrition,mineral deficiency, lack of genetic diversity, pre- dation, adverse winter conditions, observed density-dependent decrease and others; (3) Agency efforts to restore the population that focus on the key factors affecting the species, such as predator control, lack of genetic diversity, and transplant practices; (4) Theuseof domestic sheepgrazingpractices tominimize the risk of contact between domestic sheep and Bighorn Sheep, until completion of scientific research on the potential risk of disease transmission; and (5)Theresponsibleactionofpubliclandsagenciestoprovidealter- nativeallotmentallocationsforinstanceswheresheepproducers’graz- inghasbeenrevokeddue toBighornSheephealthconcerns. (2011) No. 418 Habitat Conservation Plans and Natural Community Conservation Plans Habitat conservation plans (HCPs) and Natural Community Conservation Plans (NCCPs) should remain voluntary, incentive- basedmeasures. Privatepropertymust not beconsidered for inclu- sion in an HCP and/or NCCP reserve area without: prior written notice to each affected property owner; andwritten permission of theaffectedlandowners.Biological surveysshouldnotbeconducted onprivate landswithout writtenpermission fromthe landowner. Any buffers necessary for protection of adjacent landowners shall be the responsibility of the entity proposing the HCP and/ or NCCP and not that of the adjacent landowners. Landowners adjacent toHCPand/orNCCPpreservesmust be eligible toobtain indemnification if species protectedunder theHCPand/orNCCP migrateonto theirproperties. Such indemnificationfor landowners must be for the same term as easements or other means used to acquire and/or create habitat lands. Government agencies must meet strict deadlines in the de- velopment of recovery plans, HCPs, NCCPs and the designation of critical habitat. Throughout this process, affected farmers and ranchers should be consulted. No changes should be made to an HCP and/or NCCP without approval by all parties subject to the HCP and/or NCCP. Scientific justification is needed to show that species are pres- ent in the area included in the HCP and/or NCCP or immediately adjacent to the area included in the HCP and/or NCCP before species are included. When government lands are used for HCP and/or NCCP pur- poses, the goals of theHCP and/or NCCPmust be consistent with traditional multiple use activities. The development and implementationof HCPs and/or NCCPs must not interfere with the protection of private property, public health or safety. (Rev. 2009) No. 419 Management of Habitat and Conservation Lands We are concernedwith the impact on farming operationswhen the agricultural operation is next to propertymanaged for habitat and conservation purposes. Any chemical spray buffer or other requiredbuffer shouldbeon thepropertymanaged for habitat and conservation purposes. The owner of the property managed for habitat and conserva- tionpurposes shall control all rodents, pests andnoxiousweeds on their property. If the owner does not do so, theymust compensate the neighboring farmer for any losses that he or shemay incur as a result of rodent, pest or noxiousweedproblems resulting fromthe adjacenthabitat or conservationproperty.However, compensation should not be a planned substitute for control. If damage attributed towildlifebecomes aneconomic problem on adjacent agricultural properties due to the habitat and conser- vationproperty, appropriatemeasuresmust be taken tocontrol the wildlife, for example deer fencing, or the farmer or rancher must be compensated for his or her losses. If landmanaged forhabitat andconservationpurposes includes levees, those leveesmust bemaintained toprotect the current uses from flood losses. Landmanagers must be responsible for posting and patrolling such property to keep trespassers from entering and/or crossing adjacent private property. If threatened or endangered species become established on landsmanaged for habitat and conservationpurposes, agricultur- al producers should be given “hold harmless” liability protection and “incidental take” protection by the agencies so that farming and ranching practices on their operations are not impaired. The owners of propertymanaged for habitat conservation pur- posesmustmeetperiodicallywithadjacent agricultural landowners todiscuss issues formaintainingagricultural operations in thearea. We support the use of grazing animals as an important compo- nent intheeffectivemanagementofhabitat andconservationlands.
by wildfires in California rangelands. Benefits of livestock grazing include: • lowered fire hazard by reducing fuel loads; • improved control of invasive species; • improvedwater quality, biodiversity, wildlife habitat, and plant communities; and •maintenance of open space. We support efforts to educate both the general public and gov- ernment agencies as to the scientific research and resulting data regarding the effects of well-managed livestock grazing. We sup- port incentives and monetary compensation for environmental benefits providedby producers.We support controlled grazing on qualifiedConservationReserveProgram(CRP) land, andstateand federallymanaged land. Grazing on California’s rangelands is often the most profitable use and the use that provides the greatest environmental benefits. Rangelands should be recognized at a level equivalent to that of other agricultural lands. Private rangelands areoften located inCalifornia’s fastest grow- ing counties and are at significant risk of conversion to develop- ment and other uses. These rangelands are a critical foundation of the economic and social fabric of California’s ranching industry and rural communities; and they will only continue to provide this important working landscape for California’s plants, fish, and wildlife if private rangelands remain in ranching. (2009) No. 411 Government or Public Utility Purchases of Land in Fee or Easement by Eminent Domain Governmental agencies and utilities should not purchase ex- cess lands with the intent of reselling them. Any land acquired by government or utility that is in excess of statedneed shouldnot be leased or sold to another party or agency before offering it back to the original owner for the price acquired or appraised value, whichever is less, or to the current owner of the parcel fromwhich it was created at the appraised value. Any landabandonedor not put to intendedusewithin five years of its acquisitionmust be offered to its previous owner at the pur- chase price or appraised value, whichever is less. Stateand federal agencies shouldbeprohibited fromusingemi- nent domain for acquiring agricultural land for thepurposeof fish, wildlife, andusingeminent domain forhabitat protectionor public recreation. (Rev. 2001) No. 412 Antiquities Act Congress should have sole authority in creating any new na- tionalmonument. Anyproposal tocreatesuchamonument should first be approved by themember(s) of Congress, landowners and counties affected by this decision. (2001) No. 413 Protection of Archeological Sites Land improvement andmanagement projects on government lands or fundedwithpublicmoney areoftenneedlesslydelayedor deferred due to statutory and regulatory requirements to protect archeological (cultural) resources. A simple, cost-effective system is needed to ensure that these necessary, valuableprojects canmove forward ina timelymanner, while still providing for protectionof these cultural resources. The level of protection shouldbe commensuratewith the potential for disturbance fromtheproject and the relative valueof theprotected resources. (2004) No. 414 Environmental Review Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) should rec- ognize that adverse impacts on agricultural resources significantly affect the environment. Agricultural resources include agricultural land, its watershed, and surface and groundwater resources used for agricultural production as well as other natural and economic components necessary to produce agricultural commodities in an efficient and profitable manner. Local government should be required to establish a threshold at which the conversion or loss of agricultural resources tonon-agriculturalusesbecomesasignificant environmental impact, along with economic viability. Any subse- quentCEQAreviewshouldbeatboththeplanningandproject level.
January 26, 2022 Ag Alert 31
Powered by FlippingBook