**STATE TECHNICAL COMMITTEE MEETING**

**February 19, 2004**

**1:30pm -- 2:30pm**

**MINUTES**

**[Attendees]{.underline}**

Rosendo Treviño, NRCS

John Gleim, NRCS

Ken Leiting, NRCS

Donna Randall (Recorder), NRCS

Ken Walker, NRCS

Cliff Sanchez, NRCS

Hollis Fuchs, NRCS

Van Kozak, NRCS/EPA

Maureen Murphy, US Fish & Wildlife

Service

Terrell "Red" Baker, NMSU

Christopher Rustay, Playa Lakes Joint

Venture

Bob Alexander, Bureau of Land Mgmt.

Richard Becker, NM Riparian Council

Mark Bentley, Farm Service Agency

Marty Sweetser, Farm Service Agency

Dale Jones, The Wildlife Society and

Valencia Soil & Water Conservation

District

Nancy Derey, US Fish & Wildlife Service

Terry Riley, Wildlife Mgmt. Inst.

James Bostwick, Farm Service Agency

Ted Boersma, Dairy Producers of NM

Robyn Tierney, NM Dept. of Game & Fish

Barbara Johnson, The Quivira Coalition

John Gleim, NRCS, Assistant State Conservationist for Programs, started
the meeting at 1:30pm stating that it was an informal session regarding
an update of the NRCS programs.

**[Environmental Quality Incentive Program (EQIP)]{.underline}**

\- EQIP information was sent to the NRCS New Mexico field offices.

\- The batching period ended February 13, 2004.

\- Ranking of the applications is now being worked on.

\- The East Area received over 600 applications, but we do not have a
statewide count yet.

\- The funding formula used last year will be used again this year with
possible minor changes.

\- Concern with the local work groups (LWG) was expressed by one of the
State Technical Committee members. There is a need for people to show up
at the meetings. When only a few people show up, decisions are not a
good representation of the local work groups.

\- Mr. Gleim explained how local work groups operate. NRCS takes
recommendations seriously from the advisory committees.

**[Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP)]{.underline}**

\- A State Technical Committee member asked if the ranking criteria was
changed to reduce points for applicants who had also applied for
depredation assistance. John replied that at this time a change had not
been made due to concerns about identifying specific tracts of land on
which depredation requests had been made.

\- Mr. Gleim said that Species of Concern were addressed in Ranking
Criteria.

\- State Technical Committee members stated that they can't attend all
LWG meetings to provide input. Are there any thoughts on participation
in offering views and opinions? NRCS will recommend holding LWG meetings
earlier in the program year and spread them out.

\- A State Technical Committee member asked what type of wildlife
habitats are being improved. Cliff Sanchez, Area Conservationist, said
that there is a balance, but majority is big game. In FY 2003, 68
applications were received and 14 were funded.

\- Mr. Gleim stated that WHIP doubled in funding this fiscal year.
Application cut off date is Friday April 2, 2004.

**[FY 2004 Funding presented by Rosendo Trevi]{.underline}ñ[o, NRCS,
State Conservationist]{.underline}**

\- EQIP - \$21,119,100

EQIP/Ground & Surface Water -- \$1,046,600

WHIP - \$415,000 (\$189,600 earmarked for Pecos/Rio Grande riparian)

GRP - \$1,450,000

FRPP - \$572,000

**[Grassland Reserve Program (GRP)]{.underline}**

\- Mr. Gleim stated there is no sign-up batching period set yet for this
fiscal year. Easement applications that were submitted by the states had
very high costs. At the national level, they may be recommending that
lower priority be given to potential conversion to urban/suburban and
higher emphasis on potential of conversion to cropland.

\- Rental component is administered by Farm Service Agency (FSA).
Ranking criteria may need to emphasize the rental component more.

**[Farm and Ranch Lands Protection Program (FRPP)]{.underline}**

\- 50% funded by FRPP / 50% funding by local entity.

\- All applications are reviewed at State level and Ranked.

\- The Request for Proposals (RFP) comes out of National Headquarters.

**[Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plan (CNMP) by Ken Leiting, State
Resource Conservationist]{.underline}**

The State Technical Committee was informed of the process New Mexico has
used in implementing the CNMP. CNMPs are required where an Animal
Feeding Operation receives an EQIP contract.

**[Cost Share Rates presented by Rosendo Trevi]{.underline}ñ[o, State
Conservationist (STC)]{.underline}**

Concerns have been expressed that the increased funding in EQIP is not
resulting in as large of an increase in the number of contracts and
conservation on the ground as desired. One approach that has been
recommended is to reduce the cost share rates that are being paid on
conservation practices. Mr. Treviño has made the decision to set maximum
cost share rates for each practice and allow the LWG to set their local
rates up to, but not to exceed those rates. Three of the practices will
have rates up to 75%. Sixteen practices will have rates up to 65%. The
remaining practices will be cost shared at no more than 50%.

**[Technical Service Providers (TSP) presented by Ken Leiting, State
Resource Conservationist]{.underline}**

\- We are moving ahead using TSPs through the use of contribution
agreements and direct contracting.

\- The contribution agreement has resulted in twenty-six individuals
providing direct assistance to producers on farm bill programs. The
focus of these individuals is to assist with the application and ranking
process, development of conservation plans, and processing of payments.
Some of the positions are technical and some are primarily
administrative. The administrative positions should free up some of the
NRCS technical staff time to provide more help to producers in the
field.

Meeting adjourned at 2:30pm

/s/ /s/

Donna Randall Rosendo Treviño III

Recorder State Conservationist

**Attachment to State Technical Committee Meeting held on 2/19/04**

**COST SHARE RATE CHANGES FOR 2004**

The process for approving cost-share rates for use in EQIP begins with
recommendations from the local work groups, a review and approval by the
State Conservationist, and a final review and approval by the Regional
Conservationist for all practices with cost-share rates of greater than
50%. In this process, some of the cost-share rates recommended by local
work groups have been lowered.

RATIONAL FOR CHANGES

Congress has expressed concern that even though EQIP is being funded
with more dollars, there has not been a corresponding increase in the
number of contracts or practices installed. For example, in New Mexico,
between 1999 and 2001, our average annual funding was 4.3 million
dollars and we wrote an average of 379 contracts per year. In 2002 and
2003 we received an average annual funding of 12.6 million dollars and
wrote an average of 439 contracts per year. Similar results are being
seen at the national level.

One of the recommendations from the national level to help with this
trend is to reduce cost-share rates. The State Conservationist, with
input from the Area Conservationists and Leadership Team, decided to
identify the highest priority practices recommended by the Local Work
Groups, recommend cost share rates at greater than 50% for those
practices, and set the remaining practices with a cost-share rate of no
more than 50%. These recommendations were approved by the Regional
Conservationist on

February 23, 2004.

APPROVED COST-SHARE RATES

Three practices have cost share rates up to 75%. They are Brush
Management (314), Forest Stand Improvement (666), and Irrigation System,
Micro-irrigation (441). The cost of implementing these practices are
very high relative to the benefits to the producers and are important
practices at meeting the highest resource concerns in New Mexico,
watershed health and water conservation.

Sixteen practices have cost-share rates of up to 65%: Diversion (362,
362A, and 362B), Irrigation Water Conveyance, Pipeline (430DD, 430EE,
430FF, 430HH, 430II, and 430JJ), Irrigation Water Conveyance, Ditch and
Canal Lining (428A), Irrigation Land Leveling (464), Structure for Water
Control (587, 587G, and 587R), Terrace (600), and Windbreak/Shelterbelt
Establishment (380).

The remaining practices are set with a maximum cost-share rate of 50%.
The cost share rates recommended by the local work groups and the field
offices have been respected, within the limits set by the regionally
approved caps. Thus, if an office requested only 65% cost share for
Brush Management, then the rate has been set at 65%.

LIMITED RESOURCE and BEGINNING FARMERS AND RANCHERS

Cost-share rates for Limited Resource Farmers and Ranchers are set at
90% for the first \$30,000 of cost-share in the contract. Any cost share
amounts in excess of \$30,000 will be paid at the regular cost-share
rate for the practice.

Cost-share rates for Beginning Farmers and Ranchers are set at 15% above
the regular rate for the practice for the first \$30,000 of cost-share
in the contract. Any cost-share amounts in excess of \$30,000 will be
paid at the regular cost-share rate for the practice.