2003 Environmental Quality Incentive Program

Local Work Group Summary for Lordsburg

Introduction:

The Lordsburg Field Office is located in the town of Lordsburg, county seat of Hidalgo County, in the southwestern corner of New Mexico. The field office provides assistance to the Hidalgo Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) with a total of about 2.4 million acres. Approximately 55% is state and private lands and 45% federal lands. There is a variety of landscapes ranging from 4,000 feet up to 8,500 feet in elevation. Annual precipitation ranges from 8 to 12 inches throughout most of the county, but the southwestern part of the county averages up to 16 inches. Soils are extremely variable and complex with over 80 mapped soils occurring. They include sandy to gravelly clay or silt clay loams which make up nearly two thirds of the mapped area, deep loamy soils in the Gila River valley, alkaline playas, and rough and broken rock land with very shallow soils. Vegetation includes blue and black grama, tobosa, dropseeds, bush muhly, creosote bush, yucca, Mormon tea, mesquite, and juniper. The only known native population of buffalo grass west of the continental divide is also found in Hidalgo County. Approximately 98% of the land in Hidalgo County is native rangeland with about 2% in cropland or other uses. Ranching operations are primarily cow/calf producers, with cattle grazed on a year-round basis. The primary crop grown on irrigated land is chile, with some corn, alfalfa, milo, cotton and permanent pasture also grown. Cropland is mainly located south of Interstate 10, with the majority being in the area of Cotton City, Animas, and Playas. Pumped groundwater is the only source of irrigation in these areas. The exception to this is the Virden Valley, along the Gila River in the northwest part of the county, which uses mainly diverted river water to irrigate. The population of Hidalgo County is 5,600 with over 27 percent of the population falling below the poverty level. The present economy of the area is based on agriculture with less emphasis on mining or related operations than in the past.

The Hidalgo SWCD held two Local Work Group Meetings. The first was held January 16, 2003 at 9:00 AM, following the regularly scheduled SWCD meeting at the USDA Service Center in Lordsburg, New Mexico. Invitations were sent out to federal, state, and local agencies. Fourteen participants were in attendance and provided input in the initial development of the plan. A second LWG Meeting was held on March 20, 2003, again following the regularly scheduled Hidalgo SWCD meeting. There were twelve attendees at this meeting, and they worked to finalize details of the 2003 Environmental Quality Incentive Program (EQIP) plan. Representation at both meetings was varied and included: Hidalgo SWCD Chairman and Supervisors, Farm Service Agency CED, NM State University-CES, Bureau of Land Management, NM State Land Office, Sunset Canal, and representatives from NRCS Offices in Lordsburg, Deming, Silver City, and Douglas, AZ. The NRCS team leader for the Southwest Team was also in attendance.

The Local Work Group broke down their resource concerns into two priorities: irrigated cropland and rangeland. Animal feeding operations (livestock manure management) were also considered due to some recent local interest, but due to the fact no applications had been received, they were not given specific attention at this time.

The primary resource concern for irrigated cropland was water quantity. Since the majority of the cropland in Hidalgo County is irrigated with pumped groundwater, the LWG wanted to focus on practices which would conserve water. It was recommended that no individual system be favored, but that total water savings or irrigation efficiency should be the main focus. Due to the high efficiency, though, the LWG decided to give some emphasis to drip irrigation systems and sprinklers over conventional flood irrigation systems.

On rangeland, the LWG focused on water quantity, plant suitability, and soil erosion. The LWG wanted to prioritize practices dealing with water distribution, fencing, brush control, erosion control, and range planting. It was the consensus of the group that by focusing on these priority practices, the resource concerns could be addressed. The LWG does not intend to limit landowners from addressing other resource concerns utilizing the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP).

Funding Considerations:

The Local Work Group decided to allocate monies received using a 50/40/10 split. Cropland projects would receive 50% of the funding allocated to the county, rangeland projects would receive 40%, and 10% would be allocated to animal feeding operations. Since there were no applications dealing with Animal Feeding Operations (AFO) by the cutoff date, funds will be split 55% Cropland, 45% rangeland. These funds would remain interchangeable if not obligated within their primary consideration. The LWG also decided to cap financial assistance for any given practice in a contract at $80,000.

The Local Work Group recommended several additions or changes to the presented docket. LWG members wanted to add pivot sprinklers and solid set sprinklers (both 442) to the docket due to their higher efficiencies versus flood irrigation. Arizona has had these systems on the cost docket for several years, and some of the producers in Hidalgo County also farm in Arizona. There have been many questions regarding the difference between AZ and NM over the past several years, and LWG members felt it was important to adopt these practices to be more similar, while also providing options to increase irrigation efficiency. LWG members also wanted to insure that drip irrigation systems (441) were also still included in the cost docket. It was the consensus of the group that both sprinkler and drip irrigation systems should be cost shared on a "complete system" basis (cost per acre) rather than by individual components. Another addition recommended was a "post and wire" type streambank stabilization structure (580). 

The Local Work Group decided to leave most cost share rates at 50%.  LWG members did decide to recommend that brush management (314) and erosion control structures (362, 410, 580) be cost shared at 75%. These practices are generally fairly expensive to carry out, and have very little monetary payback. The increased cost share on these items might also serve as encouragement for producers to use them more. After much deliberation, the LWG decided not to include any incentive payments for management practices. The consensus was, that while the incentive payments could increase the level of management on contracted acres, it would be difficult to monitor and would provide too much control over the operations on private land.

The Local Work Group reviewed the ranking criteria used in previous years, and the draft ranking criteria. The LWG decided that it was important to provide ranking criteria for all situations that might arise, so Irrigated Cropland, Grazing Lands, and Livestock Manure Management were all addressed. 

For Irrigated Cropland ranking, the LWG wanted to emphasize Section 1 – Water Quantity, and decided that around 70% of the points should come from this section. Section 2 – Water Quality, was not thought to be a major concern in this area and was given only 5% of the points. Section 3 – Selected Practices, was used to encourage the installation of more efficient irrigation systems by giving them more points. Several practices were also encouraged by receiving points under multiple resource concerns. This section was weighted at 25% of the possible points. Section 4 – Other Considerations was not a priority of the LWG since most concerns would not apply most of the time. This section was given <5% of the total points.

For Grazing Lands, the LWG wanted to emphasize the practices that they wanted to be a priority. Section 1 – Plants, was deemed to be too subjective and was only given 25% of the total points. Section 2 – Selected Practices, was given 65% of the total points with the priority practices receiving higher points than other practices. Section 3 – Other Considerations, was given 10% of the total points.

Ranking criteria were prepared for Livestock Manure Management in order to have them available if needed at a later date. The basic guidelines were followed to allocate points between sections, and the criteria will be re-evaluated at a later date.

Contracts are to be signed by July 3, 2003. Applications are taken on a continuous basis. The evaluation period for this FY 2003 program ended March 14, 2003. If funds remain after contracts are funded in July, the Local Work Group would recommend another short announcement with a cutoff of no later than August 1. Applications from this period could then be funded before the September 30 cutoff date. This second cutoff would be subject to time restrictions after the July 3 funding date. If there was not enough time for adequate evaluation of applications, the second sign-up period would not be recommended.

< Back to EQIP County Documents