2003 Environmental Quality Incentive Program

Introduction:

The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Los Lunas Field Office is located in the west-central part of New Mexico. The office is bordered by Socorro County on the south, Cibola County and Lucero uplift to the west, on the east by the Cibola National Forest and Torrance County and on the north by Bernalillo County. Los Lunas, is the county seat of Valencia County, is on the Rio Grande and is about 11 miles north of Belen. The office encompasses l.46 million acres, which includes Valencia County, portions of five other counties: Bernalillo, Cibola, Sandoval, Socorro, and Torrance.

The elevation within the field office ranges from 4,700 feet at the Rio Grande Valley to about l0, 000 feet a the crest of the Manzano Mountains. Soils vary from shallow to deep, depending on the alluvial materials.

They range in texture from sand to clay and are generally calcareous. The depth of the water table from the surface varies from a few inches to a few feet, therefore, this depth should be considered for any agricultural undertaking as well as current urbanization in the Rio Grande flood plain area.

The annual rainfall is very limited in the lower elevations, about eight inches to about l2 inches in the higher elevations. Forty percent of the rainfall comes during the months of July, August, and September.

The growing season averages l83 days. The average date of last killing frost is April 20; average date of first killing frost is October 20. Average lake evaporation is 60 inches per year.

The principal urban centers are: The Village of Bosque Farms; the Village of Los Lunas; and the City of Belen. Also included in this field office boundaries are the Isleta and Laguna American Indian Pueblos.

Local Work Group:

Membership on the EQIP Local Work Group includes SWCD supervisors, Farm Service Agency County Office Chair, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Fish & Wildlife, N.M. Game & Fish, N. M. State Engineer, Forest Service, Manzano District, N.M. Dept. of Environment, Southern Pueblo Agency, State Land Office, Valencia County Commissioner, Pueblo of Laguna, and Pueblo of Isleta.

Three meetings were held since January 2003.  These meetings were held in December 2002, January and March 2003.  A stakeholder meeting was held to receive input from the local community.  The group strongly expressed the need to continue cost-share rates at 75 percent.  Some other concerns were water and soil erosion, grazingland management, noxious weed control, and wildlife enhancements.

The local work group met to outline EQIP resource priorities, review ranking criteria worksheets, cost-share rates, eligible practices, and discuss funding allocations.

Priority Resource Concerns:

The local work group discussed and outlined the following resource concerns to be address under the EQIP 2003 program:

• Water Concerns
• Animal Feeding Operations/Confined Animal Feeding Operations
• Grazingland
• Noxious Weeds
• Salt Cedar Control
• Well Head Protection
• Wildlife

Funding Considerations:

The local work group recommended that the Field Office funding allocation should be targeted to the resource concerns as follows:

• 55% Irrigated land
• 30% Rangeland
• 10% AFO/CAFO
• 2 l/2% Dryland
• 2 l/2% Woodland

10% Tribal (from total funding percentage)

Cost Docket

After a brief discussion the Local Work Group encouraged the NRCS office to work with adjoining field offices so there are no major differences in cost share rates and cost per unit on high use practices.

Some of the high use practices are brush management, fence, irrigation land leveling, irrigation system (trickle or sprinkler), Irrigation water conveyance, Irrigation pipeline, Tree and shrub establishment, livestock water facilities (pipeline, tanks/troughs, pumping stations, wells, ponds).

Eligible Practices:

The local work group recommended adopting the entire list of conservation practices (see practice list attachment).

Cost Share Rate and Incentive Payments

The LWG recommended all high value irrigation practices (land leveling, pipeline, concrete-ditch lining, drip systems, etc.) be cost shared at 75%.  The LWG strongly believes that if these practices are kept at 50%, most of the applicants will not be able to install these practices on their own.  All other practices, includung AFO related practices, will be set at 50%.  The LWG did not set any individual practice financial assistance limit.

Ranking Criteria

The group was assigned to set rating priorities on each ranking criteria element. On the Irrigated Cropland ranking criteria the following percentages were placed on potential points:

• 35% Quantity
• 20% Quality
• 35% Conservation Practices (tie beaker)
• 10% Other Concerns

Ranking for Grazinglands

• 40% Range Conditions
• 50% Conservation Practices (tie beaker)
• 10% Other Concerns

Ranking Livestock Manure Management

• 20% Distance to Surface or Well
• 20% Depth to water table
• 20% Nitrate Contamination
• 20% Status of current manure facility
• 20% Manure Utilization

In the event two or more applications under Irrigated Cropland initially receive the same amount of points, ties will be broken by re-evaluating and comparing the potential increase in irrigation efficiency, in one percent increments.

Timelines, Evaluation Periods

Ranking, planning, and contract approval will be accomplished by July 2003.