2004 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 a combination of diverted river water and pumped 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.

Local Work Group (LWG):

The Hidalgo  SWCD held a Local Work Group Meeting on December 11, 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.  Seven participants were in attendance and provided input in the initial development of the plan.  Representation at the meeting was varied and included:  Hidalgo SWCD Chairman and Supervisors, FSA CED, NMSU-CES, and Black Range RC&D. Due to the low attendance, representatives from surrounding field offices (Deming, Silver City, and Douglas, AZ), BLM, Sunset Canal, and NM State Land Office were contacted via phone to discuss plan details as well.

Priority Resource Concerns:

After reviewing the plan from 2003, he Local Work Group left the resource concerns broken down into two main priorities:  irrigated cropland and rangeland.  Animal feeding operations 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 have been no applications dealing with AFO’s, funds should be split 55% Cropland, 45% rangeland.  These funds would remain interchangeable if not obligated within their primary consideration.  The LWG also recommended a cost-share cap for any given practice in a contract at $80,000.

 Cost Docket - Please refer to the Cost Docket link for specific information.

The Hidalgo County Cost Docket was reviewed.  The Local Work Group recommended several additions or changes to the presented docket. Several components were omitted which are used pretty commonly in this county.  These included items such as mesquite grubbing and root plowing, 400 psi HDPE livestock pipeline along with common installation methods for all LS pipelines, well drilling and casing (both normal and hard rock drilling with PVC or steel casing), and a streambank and shoreline protection component.  It was recommended that these items be added back in.  Also, it was recommended that the dollar amounts be left the same as last year even though we will now use AC rather than AM.  Due to the limited number of contractors in this area, costs tend to be a little higher here, and last year’s cost list seemed to pretty accurately reflect average costs here. 

Eligible Practices - Please refer to the Eligible Practice link for specific information.

The Local Work Group reviewed the "New Mexico Approved Practice List for EQIP" and recommended using the list as is and not delete any of the practices.  

Cost Share Rate and Incentive Payments - Please refer to the link for specific information.

The Local Work Group again reviewed the approved practices, and decided to leave most cost share rates at 50%.  As with last year, LWG members wanted to recommend that brush management (314) and erosion control structures (362, 410, 395) 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.  Also, in being consistent with last year, LWG members recommended not to include any incentive payments for management practices.

One major item LWG members did not want to see changed was the cost share for beginning farmers and ranchers only being 15% higher than the standard cost share rates.  Due to the economic conditions in this area, LWG members felt that it was important to encourage new producers to establish themselves here in order to add to the economy.  Since the places most beginning producers can afford are typically the ones in need of the most work, the LWG recommended leaving the Beginning Producer cost share rate at 90%.  This would hopefully serve as an incentive for beginning producers to install practices which would make their places more efficient and would conserve resources.  It would also give them a better opportunity to succeed in establishing themselves in this area.

Ranking Criteria - Please refer to the Ranking Criteria links for specific information.

The Local Work Group reviewed the ranking criteria used in previous years.  It was the feeling of the LWG that the ranking criteria used last year worked well and addressed the needed issues, so they recommended that they remain the same for 2004.  Again, the LWG decided that it was important to provide ranking criteria for all situations that might arise, so Irrigated Cropland, Grazing Lands, and Animal Feeding Operations were all addressed.  

For Irrigated Cropland ranking, the LWG wanted to emphasize  Section 1 – Water Quantity, and decided that 60% of the points should come from this section in order to be consistent with last year.  Section 2 – Water Quality, was not thought to be a major concern in this area due to the lack of surface water or shallow ground water, and was given only 6% 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 26% 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 8% of the total points in order to match 2003’s numbers.

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.  Riparian and Grazed Forest criteria would be fine just following the guidelines provided.

Ranking criteria were prepared for Animal Feeding Operations 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.

Timelines, Evaluation Periods:

Please refer to the EQIP Application Information link.

< Back to EQIP County Documents