2005 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 November 5, 2004 at 9:00 AM, at the USDA Service Center in Lordsburg, New Mexico.  Invitations were sent out to federal, state, and local agencies.  Four participants were in attendance and provided input in the initial development of the plan.  Representation at the meeting was varied and included:  Hidalgo SWCD, FSA CED, FSA COC, and NRCS. 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 2004, 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. 

Cost Docket:

The Hidalgo County Cost Docket was reviewed.  The Local Work Group recommended several additions or changes to the presented docket. The main concerns raised by the members present dealt with the sharp rise in costs for steel and plastic items.   It was recommended that the dollar amounts be adjusted to reflect these higher costs where possible, and to use the AM calculation method when possible.  Contractors and installers will be contacted to get more information on current and expected costs on these items where possible.  If specific quotes are not available, an estimate will be made based on the average cost rise of similar items.

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:

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. 

 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 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) be cost shared at 75%.  It was recommended that erosion control structures (362, etc.) be cost shared at the maximum rate of 65%.   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 decided not to include any incentive payments for management practices.

Cost share rates for Limited Resource and Beginning Farmers and Ranchers were discussed.  After reviewing the justification provided by the State Office, it was agreed upon to accept the rates as presented.  Limited Resource producers will be eligible for 90% cost share for the first $30,000 in cost share dollars, then will revert to the rates listed in the cost docket.   Beginning farmers/ranchers will be eligible for rates 15% higher than those listed in the cost docket for the first $30,000 in cost share dollars, then will revert to the rates listed in the cost docket.  This will prevent abuse of the system, and will still provide an incentive for Limited Resource or Beginning producers to apply for EQIP.

An $80,000 financial assistance cap has been established for all practices.

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:

The Local Work Group reviewed the ranking criteria used in previous years, and the proposed ranking criteria attached to NM Bulletin 300-5-04.  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 2005, with the exception of replacing Section 1 of the Rangeland Criteria with one of the proposed alternates.  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.  See the attached files for the detailed ranking criteria. 

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 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 9% of the total points in order to match 2004’s numbers.

For Grazing Lands, the LWG wanted to emphasize the practices that they wanted to be a priority.  For this year, Similarity Index in Section 1 was replaced with the management based criteria used by the Northwest Area last year.  Even with this change, Section 1 – Plants, was deemed to still 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:

The LWG reviewed and accepted the proposed timeline included in NM Bulletin 300-5-04.  Applications are taken on a continuous basis.  The batching period for this FY 2005 program will end January 28, 2005.  If funds remain after contracts are funded, the Local Work Group would recommend another short announcement with a cutoff of no later than July 15.  Applications from this period could then be funded before September 1.  This second cutoff would be subject to time restrictions after the initial batching period was complete.  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