2004 Environmental Quality Incentive Program

Local Work Group Summary for Albuquerque

Introduction:

The Albuquerque Field office is located at 6200 Jefferson NE, Room 125, in Albuquerque, New Mexico.  More than 1,260,000 acres make up the land area that is included within the field office boundaries, which is split between two Soil & Water Conservation Districts (SWCDs).  

 Coronado SWCD is in southern Sandoval County and includes land owned by five Pueblos; Cochiti, Santo Domingo, San Felipe, Santa Ana, and Sandia, interspaced with a number of small agricultural communities; Pena Blanca, Algodones, Placitas, and Bernalillo.   The Ciudad SWCD is much more urbanized and serves land in the Albuquerque metropolitan area, Rio Rancho and the developing west Mesa, as well as the West face of the Sandia mountains. 

 The field office works with close to 300 cooperators that irrigate approximately 23,000 acres of cropland, hayland, and orchards.  A number of small mountain communities use acequia systems to water the crops, while the balance of the irrigated acreage is serviced by the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District, which diverts river water for agricultural uses.  Average farm size is 5-10 acres, with the majority of water users irrigating 1-2 acre pastures.    Another 50 to 75 cooperators make up the ranching industry in the area, which varies from less than a section of land and very small herd sizes, to a few large ranches that have not yet been subdivided or developed. 

Local Work Group

A Local Work Group (LWG) meeting was held December 10, 2003, in Bernalillo.  Historically, both Districts work together to convene the meeting as the natural resource concerns are very similar and USDA programs are administered by the same field office, and this year Coronado SWCD served as host.  In attendance were representatives from local acequia groups and land grants, as well as USDA personnel from the Farm Services Agency (FSA), HUB Resource Conservation and Development (RC&D), and the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS).  Both Soil and Water Conservation Districts were also well represented.  Prior meetings were held in April and December, 2002, and then again on March 13, 2003 for the '03 program year.

Priority Resource Concerns:

The LWG reviewed resource concerns that were identified at prior meetings.  Following is a list of those concerns, categorized by District.

Coronado SWCD –

1. Range land improvement, productivity and sustainability.  Practices could include noxious weed control, wildlife habitat improvement, water development, and fencing.          
2. Protect, manage and sustain agricultural land production, with concerns specific to water rights, irrigation water, salt content, weeds, and high water table.  Tied with:  Restore Bosque riparian and wetlands for wildlife, control salt cedar and river bank pollution including solid waste. 
3. Water quality and availability for irrigation and drinking.   

Ciudad SWCD -

1. Improvement & enhancement of riparian vegetation and preservation and restoration of wildlife habitat.
2. Storm water management to reduce flooding & erosion by designating adequate drainage.  Tied with:   Amount of water available for all uses.
3. Establish and improve existing ground cover and conduct inventories to monitor and control weeds on grazing lands.

Other concerns that were raised at the recent LWG meeting included the prioritizing of irrigation improvements as water becomes less available in times of drought, the associated management needed by the farmer when installing improvements, a state water banking program, and incentives for the consideration of planting low water use crops.  Comments pertaining to rangeland concerns included wind erosion, lack of precipitation when totally dependent on rainfall, and the need for improved methods of water harvesting.  Quality of life, referring to the beautiful Rio Grande valley and its rich agricultural culture, was discussed as being a major concern that is difficult to quantify, yet must be preserved.

Funding Considerations:

The goal is to distribute available funds at the following percentages on non-tribal land:

68% Irrigated Cropland
25% Rangeland
7% Animal Feed Operations

On tribal land, in the absence of any large feeding operations, the split will be 60% to cropland, 40% to rangeland.  Flexibility will be needed based on applications received.

Tribal applications will not compete separately; however, a certain percentage of funds (a minimum) will be earmarked for tribal lands.  That percentage will be determined by the NRCS state office.  Once those funds are allocated, the remaining tribal applications will be left to compete for the balance of the field office budget.

Cost Docket: Please refer to the Cost Docket link. 

Eligible Practices: Please refer to the Eligible Practices link.

Cost Share Rates and Incentive Payments: 

Cost share rates for practices that address priority resource concerns were established at 75% in for the 2003 program year.  Economic justification still exists today.  As the drought enters a third year, range condition is worsened and feed costs are high.  Farmers lost at least one cutting of hay at the end of last year’s irrigation season and some lost crops entirely.  Decreases in yields result in lower cash flow for the producer to invest in improvements to the farm or ranch.

The concept of providing incentive payments for management was well received by the Local Work Group and will be utilized for both Irrigation Water Management (IWM) and Prescribed Grazing.  It was determined that conservation structures alone do not solve resource concerns, but facilitate to improve the potential for improved management.

Given that justification, a flat $100 per farm (or farm contract) will be the incentive for the practice of Irrigation Water Management.  An IWM plan will be developed specific to the crop, soil, and irrigation system on the farm.  The farmer will be required to attend an NRCS sponsored IWM workshop, measure soil moisture before and after irrigation, and document flow and duration for each irrigation.  Records will be provided at the end of the season, at which time the payment would be processed.

For rangeland management, the key to improving range condition is deferment during the growing season.  Prescribed Grazing will be a  component of the conservation plan and will be developed specific to the range sites, condition, and landowner objectives.  Deferment at 33-70% of the growing season will earn $2.00/acre, while deferment at greater than 70% will earn $4.00/acre.  Producer will establish photo points, document grazing duration and intensity, and a site visit by NRCS will be conducted to monitor grazing system.

Please refer the to the appropriate links for specific information.

Ranking Criteria:

In order to determine which applications provided the greatest environmental benefits,  ranking criteria  were reviewed by the local work group and it was determined that the range of points per evaluation section remain the same as 2003.  The templates provided by the state office will be utilized, with a change to the grazing “Plants Section”, which deviates from the use of the Similarity Index and has been adopted by the  NW Area  Also, if no change occurs in Section I, then ranking is complete and the total is zero.  This will assist in eliminating those applications that will make no improvements to natural resource conditions.  In the event that ties exist (same total points), then the tie breaker would be the application with the greatest number of points in section 3 for irrigated cropland, and section 2 for rangeland.

Timelines, Evaluation Periods: 

Please refer to the EQIP Application Information link.

< Back to EQIP County Documents