2005 Environmental Quality Incentive Program

Local Work Group Summary for Estancia

Introduction

The Estancia Field office (FO) is located in the town of Estancia, approximately 50 miles mostly east and south of Albuquerque, New Mexcio. Torrance County makes up the majority of Estancia FO service area, along with a small northeast portion of Bernalillo County, and the southern part of Santa Fe County on its northern boundary. The Manzano Mountains border the west boundary and slope east into the Estancia Basin. To the north is South Mountain, to the South Chupadera Mesa, and to the east are gently rolling uplands. The basin contains a significant but limited underground water supply furnishing flood, sprinkler, and small-scale drip irrigation. The majority of crops grown in this area are mainly alfalfa hay, corn silage, oats, and some winter wheat for winter grazing. Other crops such as beans, pumpkins, sweet corn, and other vegetable crops are also grown but on a smaller scale. Along with agriculture there has been an expanding suburban (2 to 40 acre size) type development in the NW corner of the service area that continues to expand. The remaining land base is not suitable for cultivation and is used mainly as grazed range and timberland.

Local Work Group:

The official 2005 Local Work Group (LWG) meeting was held on October 15, 2005. Those present were East Torrance and Edgewood Soil and Water Conservation Districts, USFS (Mountainair Ranger District), State Land Office, and local NRCS staff. The previous year’s proposal was reviewed along with ranking criteria, cost document, and cost share rates. Recommendations were noted and will be included for this year’s proposal.

The 2004 Local Work Group (LWG) meeting was held on January 6th, 2004. Invitations were sent to those indicated on NM Bulletin No. 30-3-09. Those who chose to be involved with the LWG were representatives from the Edgewood and East Torrance Soil and Water Conservation Districts, a representative from the Farm Service Agency (Torrance County Executive Director), and local NRCS representative. The area represented is comprised of southern Santa Fe County, The northeast corner of Bernalillo County, and the majority of Torrance County. Membership is mainly made up of the local conservation districts, FSA County committee members, FSA CED, and local NRCS personnel. Other government agencies are invited and welcome to participate.

Priority Resource Concerns:

The resource concerns were reviewed on October 15, 2004 and it was decided that there were no needed changes. The concerns as listed below have not changed over the past 7 years.

• Watershed Health
• Brush/Forest Management/Fuels Reduction
• Water Conservation
• Water Availability/ Sustainability/Quality
• Noxious Weed Management
• Information/Education (to support above concerns)

 EQIP can financially assist in conservation practices that benefit watershed health both on irrigated cropland and range/woodlands.

Funding Considerations:

The following was accepted to distribute funds based on resource concerns:

• Irrigated Cropland-45%
• Rangeland-45%
• Woodland-5%
• AFO/CAFO-5%

These percentages are established as a “general rule” and not hard lines. Funds will be moved between these priorities based on number of applications in each category and the integrity of applications addressing the resource concerns. The ranking criteria will establish order of funding and degree of environmental benefits.

 A recommendation was made at the October 15, 2004 LWG meeting to look at using  percentages of funding by the number of landowners and the types of land use (i.e. rangeland, farmland, etc.). Currently the percentage breakup is working effectively and is funding equitably to landowners and addressing key resource concerns. Information will be researched on number of landowners compared to land use and will be considered next year to distribute funds.

Cost Document:

After review of the Torrance County component cost list by the Estancia Field Office, Santa Fe Field Office, Mountainair Field Office, and Local Work Group all component items have been accepted with the exception of those that have been modified on the 2005 component list.

The second recommendation was to add a water facility component (plastic with concrete and float). Purpose of this addition is use a water facility that will conserve water more effectively from wind and sun exposure, float box is built into water facility, and has shown to be very durable in other states where NRCS uses this type of tank. Some component costs have increased or decreased but have been noted on 2005 Torrance County component cost list for review and acceptance.

 Please refer to the links for the cost docket and eligible practices to view the final approved practices, cost share rates and component costs.

Eligible Practices:

All practices were determined eligible by the LWG. 

 Please refer to the links for the cost docket and eligible practices to view the final approved practices, cost share rates and component costs.

Cost Share Rates, Incentive Payments and Caps:

The LWG recommended all practices be cost shared at a 50% rate, except for the following, which are identified as high priority practices, are to be at a cost share rate of 75%:

• Range Planting (550)
• Diversion (362)
• Pest Management (595A)
• Grade Stabilization Structure (410)
• Critical Area Planting (342)
• Windbreak/Shelterbelt (380)

The purpose for the increase of Diversion, Grade Stabilization Structure, Range Planting, and Critical Area Planting to 75% is for the main reason of erosion control. These practices serve as a long-term erosion control measures. Currently, many landowners see the need for erosion structures but are reluctant to install them because the lack of equipment and the cost of hiring or renting does not match our cost document. We have submitted a revised cost for this component and believe that increasing the cost share rate would encourage more people to put in erosion control structures. The Range Planting and Critical Area planting fall along the same lines of erosion control. Our area still has many old bean fields that are still eroding. The Cost of the seed was decreased and a request to increase items that help to establish seeding was requested. The LWG felt that seeding critical range areas would be a long lasting conservation practice whose benefits would be long lived.

The LWG also determined that Windbreak/shelterbelts cost share also be at 75%. The reason for the increase is to promote a practice that has multiple benefits on soil, water, air, plants, and animals. The intent is that the higher cost share rate would inspire those that are thinking about putting them in.

Pest Management should be 75% due to the Class A and B weeds that are located in our area. This is a high priority concern that needs the additional cost share to motivate landowners to spray weeds. The weeds may exceed the cost to control them. If they are not handled as soon as possible their rates will increase exponentially if not handled at that time of planning.

Some recommended changes by the LWG to the existing cost document were to cost share on temporary fencing. The purpose of the temporary fencing would be to help facilitate plantings like windbreaks until they were established.

Cost share rates for those applicants who self-certify they meet the Beginning Farmer (BF)/Beginning Rancher (BR) criteria will be given fifteen percent higher than the cost share rate established for non-BF/BR applicants for each practice within the Field Office/LWG area. Those who self certify as Limited Resource Farmers will receive 90 percent cost share on all conservation practices. Both will are eligible to receive the higher rates up to the first $30,000 of financial assistance. After $30,000 is earned at the higher rates, the rates will revert to the normal approved rates for the F.O.

A $50,000 financial assistance cap has been established for all practices.  Setting a cap will ensure the best distribution of funds to a variety of resource concerns.

Please refer to the links for the cost docket and eligible practices to view the final approved practices, cost share rates and component costs.

Ranking Criteria:

Ranking criteria worksheets for irrigated cropland and grazing lands have been reviewed and have remained unchanged to meet the needs of the priority resource concerns identified for each land use type.

The average depth to ground water, in the majority of the irrigated agriculture area ranges between 100 to 200 feet in mostly loamy soil which does lend itself for any leaching readily to the ground water table. There however concerns with direct deposition of fertilizer and pesticides from well back flow. This is addressed already in our proposed ranking under Section 2b and 3 using chemigation valves and back flow valves to prevent backflow from entering ground water.

All other ranking sheets were accepted with no changes by the Local Work Group.

Please refer to the links for ranking criteria to view the final approved criteria.

Timelines and Evaluation Periods:

• January 28, 2005     APPLICATION CUT OFF DATE  (including supporting      documents)
• February 11, 2005   All applications entered into Protracts
• March 11, 2005       Applications Ranked and recorded in Protracts
• May 27, 2005          Area Conservationist Approves Contracts

< Back to EQIP County Documents