{Editor's Note: This is part 3 of a multi-article series on the NM CAP Entity meeting of April 3, 2018)

By Mary Alice Murphy

A third item in New Business for the April 3, 2018 meeting of the New Mexico Central Arizona Project Entity addressed a scope of work, 1801P, for OCCAM Engineers Inc. to continue with an analysis of preliminary design and consultation needed for the components of the proposed action to support the NEPA process.

Chairwoman Darr Shannon asked about the number of the scope, which, in the draft, is called 1801L. Engineer David Maxwell confirmed it should be 1801P.

NM CAP Entity Executive Director Anthony Gutierrez said the scope of work would make sure that what is needed through NEPA and through final design is done. "I did review the scope of work. I think there are things that we may or may not do dependent on the NEPA analysis and dependent on what changes may be made, as a result of NEPA. For each scope of work approved so far the board has requested task orders to me for what we need in the immediate time frame. This one is larger. But the board will request the task orders for what needs to be done in the short term, and each task order will need to be approved."

Maxwell said: "In arriving at this scope of work, we tried to anticipate the project and how it might evolve. The proposed action now is completely different from the AECOM final report. As Mr. Gutierrez mentioned, some tasks listed here we may or may not do. We will perform them on a times and expenses basis. And as each task is authorized by the CAP executive."

He said his approach may be different. "We do a lot of field work, talking to people who may be operating and maintaining the facilities. Some tasks are absolutely necessary. Otherwise it depends on how the projects evolve."

Howard Hutchinson, representing the San Francisco Soil and Water Conservation District, said the scope follows the start of the San Francisco project. He noted, under conveyance tasks, the scope shows a 54-inch pipe for high flows and 24-inch for low flows. "I think what we looked at originally was a 48-inch pipe to deliver to the conveyance to the Weedy Canyon storage."

Maxwell said he had gotten the size out of the AECOM report. "In discussing the project with you and Bucky (Van Allred, representing Catron County) we thought you wanted to consider open conveyance except for across Pueblo Creek."

Hutchinson said there are two diversions that will use the Spurgeon diversion structure. The one on the west side will likely be the 24-inch conveyance to the existing east side, which doesn't require pipe, but just the conveyance. The 54-inch pipe may have been contemplated for the 75 cfs (cubic feet per second) capacity, and "I think we are now thinking about a 50 cfs capacity. Where it crosses Pueblo Creek, it would need to be armored. I would hope that we make sure it is our understanding that the 48-inch pipeline would extend from Spurgeon. It would take about 1½ miles of pipe to deliver water to the head of the open ditch."

Maxwell agreed, saying the portion to Weedy would be open, replacing what in the AECOM report was pipe. "We have in the scope to look at the capacity of the existing channel and what may be needed."

Hutchinson referred to the following agenda item, which is a request from Catron County to get approval for two possible on-farm pond storage locations to be reviewed by OCCAM Engineers. "Does the board want to take up the next agenda item before we approve this item?"

Shannon said the board needs to discuss the option and then when it approves the scope of work, it would need to be added.

Allred said: "There was a lot of discussion on where the water was going to go from the Weedy diversion. Some time ago, Mr. Gutierrez and I looked at potential storage location, the WS diversion, about a two-acre spot of private property that could be turned into storage and then on the east side of the river off Pleasanton where the owner has a 10-acre fallow piece of land that he would like to turn into storage. I didn't know what we needed to do to have them be discussed, so I contacted you and asked them to be added to the agenda."

Aaron Sera, representing the city of Deming, asked how they will affect the 30-percent design for NEPA, "and how do we get it incorporated into there?"

"They would have to be evaluated in NEPA, including cultural resources and biological, everything.," Maxwell said. "They would be an addition to the proposed action."

Sera asked how the board could do it through the ISC contract. "Are we adding two more locations? I don't think it's part of the AECOM scope."

Gutierrez said: "We have similar project components that have been addressed in the proposed action with OCCAM. We did look at the RFP and the contract given to OCCAM Engineers, and these do fit the criteria. This is only the preliminary estimation of the what the potential ponds would hold. It's not unlike any of the other ponds we have done. The caveat is that we do have a proposed action. We're hoping to, extremely soon, have a notice of intent. I’m not sure how a potential evaluation of that area would fit into the timeline. An amendment to the proposed action is not on the agenda. That would have to come. Or it could be a potential alternative added to the NEPA process. Amendments can be proposed at any time to be added to the NEPA process, so we don't add any lag time to the notice of intent."

"I'll shoulder the responsibility," Allred said.

Hutchinson said: "As we go through the NEPA process, other alternatives can be proposed. The secretary can offer to users in New Mexico the opportunity to contract for the AWSA water. Owners can, say during the NEPA process, apply to be contractors for the use of the water. I don't think having this added to the scope of work defeats any of this. Adding it to the scope of work benefits the evaluation. The same with items on the Gila and at Virden."

Joe Runyan, representing the Gila Farm Irrigation Association said the document allows for changes. "This scope is going to have the opportunity for these to be explored and allows for innovation. These on-farm ponds offer the chance for wetlands. Who triggers the authority to do the scope?"

Attorney Pete Domenici Jr. said he thinks it is the decision of the board to have the analysis done. "Once that's done, there's a variety of ways it can proceed. It can come from the board, from the landowners, possibly from the ditch or county. It's one reason we want to get the notice of intent out and NEPA kicked off. But we can continue to explore comments by interested parties."

Runyan said: "I like what has happened. It's not a huge project, but as it starts to develop, the interest will grow. Ideas are starting to form. I like that it's comprehensive and other ideas can pop up."

Gutierrez said Runyan asked about the overall scope of work and who has the authority to approve the tasks. "To this point, I have been the one to authorize the tasks once I get the budgeted amount, I approve it. We get invoiced, and I send it to the fiscal agent."

Sera said, in the past, the board approves the large scope of work and "we let Anthony approve the task. I think we should continue that. When the task order gets to me, I review it in pretty good detail to make sure it's part of the RFP (request for proposal), so it doesn't reflect back on Deming. Anthony and I spend hours on the phone making sure we are in compliance with the RFP and what the board asked for."

Vance Lee, representing Hidalgo County, asked if the board needed to approve the two on-farm storage ponds before going back to the scope.

Shannon said: "We can approve the scope with the two additional on-farm storage ponds."

The scope was approved, with the addition of two on-farm storage ponds.

The next article will address clarification of items from the past two NM CAP Entity meetings and then go into the executive director report and the roundtable discussion among NM CAP Entity members.