2005 Environmental Quality Incentive Program

Local Work Group Summary for Truth or Consequences

Introduction:

The Truth or Consequences Field Office is located in Sierra County and also covers portions of Northern Dona Ana, Northeastern Luna, and Southern Socorro Counties in southwest New Mexico.The office includes SD-2, WP-3, and WP-2 Major Land Resource Areas.  It is bordered on the south by the Las Cruces and the Deming Field Offices, on the north by the Socorro and Datil Field Offices, on the east by White Sands Missile Range, and on the west by the Silver City Field Office.

Agriculture in the District consists primarily of ranching and irrigated crop production.  The ranches are primarily cow-calf operations and chile, corn silage, alfalfa, cotton, onions, wheat, pecans, and other vegetables are the predominant crops.  The primary sources of water are surface diversion from the Rio Grande through Elephant Butte Irrigation District, groundwater from the Nutt-Hockett underground water basins, and surface diversions controlled by acequia groups along tributaries of the Rio Grande. The Rio Grande Basin is currently in an extended period of drought and surface irrigation water has been greatly reduced.

Local Work Group:

The Local Work Group (LWG) that was invited to advise the Field Office staff included representatives from:

• USDA-Farm Service Agency (FSA)
• FSA County Committee
• NM Department of Game and Fish,
• Cooperative Extension Service
• Bureau of Land Management
• Sierra Soil & Water Conservation District
• Caballo Soil and Water Conservation District
• USDA Forest Service
• FSA State Committee                                                
• US Fish and Wildlife Service
• Sierra County Manager
• NM State Engineer Office
• NMDA
• NM Environment Department
• NM State Land Office

The meeting of the LWG was held on November 3, 2004 with many of the invited designated agency representatives in attendance.

Priority Resource Concerns:

Water Quantity was the priority resource concern concurred upon by the LWG members.

Funding Considerations:

It was the LWG’s recommendation that EQIP funds received for use in the Field Office be divided 45% for grazing land concerns, 40% for irrigated cropland concerns, 10% for animal feeding operations, and 5% for woodland concerns since this was approximately the division used at the state level in allocating funds.  This was done with the understanding that the LWG could recommend reallocation of funds if it appeared the applications received did not warrant the amounts originally allocated.  Wildlife habitat concerns will be addressed within each of the previously listed concerns if desired by the producer.

The LWG further recommended subdividing the irrigated cropland allocation according to the percent of irrigated acreage in three areas; Nutt Hockett 27.2%, Rio Grande below Caballo Dam 54.8%, and Sierra County above Caballo Dam 18%. 

Cost Docket:

The LWG recommended that the cost docket be adjusted as follows:

441 Micro Irrigation

The LWG felt that filter systems needed to be added back into the cost docket as in 2003 and prior years to allow for producers in different hydrologic units, farming operations, and that do not have contiguous fields to place drip systems on different fields, in different years, and account for actual cost at time of installation. This will allow those producers to install drip systems according to their crop rotation and field size/location.

382 Fence

This practice was left out of the 2004 T or C cost docket, and is needed due to the varied topography of the area.

533 Pumping Plant

Prices for solar pumping plants are based on wattage and gallons per minute, therefore our cost docket needs to reflect what is available to producers based on design.

Recommended cost changes:

These changes are documented on the attached 2005 Sierra Summary Component Cost Worksheet.

The LWG recommended that the FO staff go through the cost docket and look for any possible omissions and or corrections to be submitted through the proper channels for approval.

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

Eligible Practices:

The list of eligible practices recommended by the LWG is attached with proposed cost share rates.

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

Cost Share Rates, Incentive Payments and Caps:

Refer to the Eligible Practice List for cost share and incentive payment rates recommended by the LWG.  It was noted that limited resource producers were set at 90% and beginning farmer/rancher would be 15% above regular cost share rate.

A $95,000 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 practice component costs.

Ranking Criteria:

The LWG recommended using the same Ranking Criteria Worksheets as last year. The Ranking Criteria Worksheets are attached. As well as adopting the ranking criteria for Woodlands from the Mora Field Office.

The following is the methodology developed for resolving tied scores on ranking:

Irrigated Cropland

• highest change in efficiency
• distance to surface water
• depth to ground water
• greatest difference in soil condition index

Grazing Land

• percent change in similarity index

Animal Feeding Operations

• exact distance from surface water
• depth to ground water

Woodlands

• percent of need to be installed (all applications will vary) 

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

Timelines, Evaluation Periods:

The LWG reviewed the Proposed Calendar of the EQIP Process for 2005 as received from the SO and agreed that it would be good to try and adhere to this timeline if possible.

All applications and any supporting documentation must be submitted by January 28, 2005.

< Back to EQIP