Skip to content. |
Skip to navigation
Draft AWSA Input Group notes for 7-25-12 meeting.pdf
48 kB (49834 bytes)
8.13.12/THIS IS PAGE ONE OF 5 PAGES//I HAVE REVIEWED AND COMMENTED ON THE FACILITATORS SUMMARY (APPROVED BY THE AWSA INPUT GROUP (AIG) OF THE MEETING HELD IN DEMING ON 7.25.12 I HAVE FOUR PAGES THAT I WILL PUT IN THESE MESSAGES BOXES TO OCCUPY PAGES 2 THRU 5 OF 5 PAGES. I WILL ALSO SEND IT OUT VIA EMAIL IN ITS ENTIRETY, IT MIGHT LOOK DIFFERENT THAN IT DOES ON HERE, BUT THAT IS THE "NATURE OF HOW THIS MSG BOX" WORKS. THE NEXT MSG BOX WILL BE 2 OF 5 PAGES AND PAGE 1 OF MY REVIEW COMMENTS. GEALD SCHULTZ, NM RC&D ACTIVITIES
8.13.12/THIS IS PAGE 2 OF 5 PAGES OF GERALD SCHULTZ REVIEW AND COMMENT OF AIG MEETING OF 7.25.12.//REVIEW AND COMMENTS OF SUMMARY OF THIRD AWSA
INPUT GROUP MEETING HELD IN DEMING, NM ON
JUL 25, 2012
I received this summary on Fri, Aug 3 which is nine days after the meeting date. I consider this rather slow which creates a long empty space on the Time Line between these two events. The AWSA Input Group (AIG) is talking about their own individual scheduling problems relative to the overall Time Line and not a "single word" is said about the rest of us who desire/need to keep pace and abreast with the AIG so that they can utilize our comments along with their own during their meetings and deliberations.
Craig Roepke participated in the May meeting of the GSFWC by calling in from Santa Fe. He described the AIG process that would include a closed meeting of the AIG and then there would be a Public Meeting held the next day. I believe these successive dates were May 25 and 26. I asked Craig a question which was relayed by Topper Thorpe (holding the phone) to Craig. I, very clearly, asked Craig if the public could make comments or ask questions that would be equally combined with those of the AIG. He affirmed "yes" and that the AIG would take comments from anyone. I do not see that this is being done. All of the meeting summaries to date seem to only focus on what the AIG is saying and with no comment about input from other sources. I spoke rather strongly about this issue a few weeks ago, but it just seems to be "silently ignored". I guess I need to use other tactics like putting on "external pressure" to get this needed practice started and maintained.
There has been this issue regarding the USF&WS not allowing anyone to be on a Technical Committee regarding their recent "ID of Endangered Species Habitat" along certain reaches of the Gila River. These reaches are pertinent to the AWSA activities. Craig was supposed to be on this Committee and then on a "Stakeholder Sub-Committee". In the end it appears that no one relative to the AWSA activities will be allowed to be on either committee. Topper used the words (I paraphrase) during the Jul meeting of the GSFWC "that external pressure" might have to be exerted to gain representation. Previously even legal action was discussed.
This is similar to what I am discussing. I can only see that my constantly talking about making Input Comments from both the AIG and other Stakeholders INCLUSIVE & CONCURRENT is going on deaf ears and that I and anyone else who shares my views might have to do more than talking.
P1,A: “Overview and Discussion of Process and Ground Rules: "---discussion on allowing alternates to represent primary designated representatives on the AIG”. Who would represent the specific populace? If Anthony Gutierrez (rep for Grant County) was sick, who would represent me? What is the reason for a rep alternate? I would think this is a given and feel the whole discussion is redundant.
P1, A, bul 3: “---original intent of AIG to develop relationships/experiences of group working together, now and into the future.” How about a working relationship between the stakeholders (folks AIG represent) and the AIG? It appears to me that AIG is isolating itself. All of the (A) bullets appear to focus on the AIG only and no connection to stakeholders. When the AIG was
8.13.12//THIS IS PAGE 3 OF 5 PAGES OF REVIEW COMMENTS FROM GERALD SCHULTZ ON AIG MEETING OF 7.25.12. //originally established, I heard that all of the AIG meetings would be closed – no attendees or anyone else except for occasional “expert presenters”. I also heard, probably more so by implication, that the concession from the AIG, in exchange for having closed meetings, was that the folks the ‘AIG’ represented would receive reports, information, etc in a timely manner. My definition of”timely manner” is: To be both Inclusive and Concurrent. EX: I have submitted a fair amount of information and comments via various methods and have seen absolutely no mention that they were incorporated into any AIG discussions. I go back to the second paragraph in this review and comment-will it take “external pressure” to start to see this being done and described that it was done.
I, personally, am staying from the AIG meeting as was deemed by the organizers and handlers of it; but will reserve the right to attend as one means of exerting this “external pressure”. I may be escorted from the meetings by uniformed personnel, but will just resort to other acceptable means of demonstrating “external pressure”.
P1, A, bul 4:”Can a ground rule be changed ---?” This is usually not the case.
A, bul 5: “Allow two alternates to be in meetings.” This is very strange-it appears like the CORE AIG is even isolating itself from its “own group”.
A, bul 8: “---allow AIG to properly review documents.” I request that stakeholders be allowed to see AIG meeting agendas and documents to be able to submit comments to Pre-AIG meetings, not Post-AIG meetings.
A, bul 9: If meeting for a full day, then there should be enough time for stakeholder comments to be an INTEGRAL part of a meeting.
“Receive comments from AIG prior to 8.1.12”: I did not get the 7.25 summary until 8.3 and I still struggle trying to catch up. THIS IS ALSO NOT RIGHT AND SHOULD BE CHANGED!
“Some cannot participate.” Some of us WANT to participate and are not allowed to participate.
P1, B1: “BOR’s BODR report/appraisal level is 30% design level.” This is confusing, need further explanation. Usually appraisals stand by themselves & put together by available data, but enough to determine next level which is feasibility. Feasibility Design Level is not always the final design level since it is still done by Planning Offices. If feasibility level passes, then the Definite Plan Report is usually the final one that is the basis for construction. WHERE DOES THE 30% COME FROM?
P2, B, (AIG Input), bulls 3 & 4: Define any new terminology.
B, (AIG Input), bul 5: I think the AIG should have ZERO say for who goes to any BOR Stakeholder meetings with the assumption they are public meetings.
B, (AIG Input), bul 6: The ISC & AIG might allow input from Stakeholders; but the timing of it is miserable. I doubt they even get enough input considering that they give no indication that they even read or use it. (I see nothing in this summary that refers to the fact that “Gerald Schultz
8.13.12//THIS IS PAGE 4 OF 5 PAGES OF REVIEW COMMENTS FROM GERALD SCHULTZ ON SUMMARY OF AIG MEETING OF 7.25.12. //submitted information for discussion purposes during the Jul 25 AIG meeting. And that it was incorporated into final decisions.)
B, (AIG Input), bul 7: Define these terms for the public who do not know.
B, (AIG Input), bul 8: Define “intent” in the context; use a more appropriate word like “purpose”.
B, (AIG Input), bul 11: Define for the public “- - - the ‘end users” input and/or contributions (AS)”. Too many loose words that should be kept within the AIG or define or more appropriate words used.
B, (AIG Input), bul 12: Complications are always worse when more than one evaluation source is considered at the same time. If the economic analysis is contracted, then the BOR, the ISC, and any other source should stay out of it. The public entities and the public then will review the results. There are differences between private and public economic analyses-reasons for complications. Also define for the contractor what the analysis should accomplish-DOES HELP. (Of Course, There are those standard items that all analyses will/should include.)
B, (AIG Input), bul 16: Same discussion as bul 12.
B,(AIG Input), bul 17: I agree-A project should define specific uses, not general ones. More reasons for confusion and complication.
P3, B, 3: “Gila Baseline Reference Conditions”. These are not fixed conditions-they would have a range within the seasons-Winter should be different from summer. These extreme high temperatures we are presently experiencing (during early 8.12) also have an impact.
B, 3, (AIG Input), bul 2: “Impact of skimming flood flows”. These floods will vary from “minimum peak allowed” to rare floods. How will the “skimming” be measured during the skimming process?
B, 3, (AIG Input), bul 3: “Integrate survey results”. What all is included in the surveying?
B, 4: “Quantify Hydrological Budget”. Define “hyporheic exchange for the public”. “Bank interflow and “hydrostatic pressure”are also terms connected with this flow. “Seepage studies” are activities used to measure these flows.
“Not accounted for human activity”. Does this include any interference from non-human activity, i.e., floods that map deposit sediment causing disruption; herds of non-tame animals frequenting wet lands as waterholes; large flocks of waterfowl on open areas of wetlands; dense seasonal growth, that can vary, from year to year; and impacts of very high temperatures.
B,5,(AIG Input), bul 1: “Develop flow ecology”. I assume this is over the entire range of flows (0 through historic floods).
8.13.12//THIS IS PAGE 5 OF 5 PAGES OF REVIEW COMMENTS FROM GERALD SCHULTZ ON SUMMARY OF AIG MEETING OF 7.25.12//B,5,(AIG Input), bul 2: From my experience, contractors, bid according to the specifications listed in the SOW’s; this serves to limit only those who can perform as such; then they bid their price. So what kinds of decisions are being talked about here?
B,5,(AIG Input), bul 3: “Peer review, outside ‘expert’ input handled? Also how is Stakeholder input handled or is it even considered? I have been persistent asking this and still get no response. The use of these Federal funds from the Lower Colorado River Basin Development Fund for AWSA projects mandates (from the definition of public involvement related to the use of federal funds for public or private projects) that there be public involvement. This includes, but not limited to, noting and recording each and every public member’s communications and providing a satisfactory response to these communications. The entire activity is usually part of appendices to any final report for the defined project. This has been rather lax during the AWSA projects because no one has pushed it. I am about to apply pressure to this effect because I have not been satisfied with how or if my inputs are responded to.
B,5,(AIG Input), bul 5: The pipeline should probably be kept from the ISC SOW, but I say it should be kept if the project(s) proponent(s) can secure “other funding” for it. The pipeline, by itself, is no project, but part of an already identified project.
P4, “Recommendations and Assignments”, bul 3: “ - - -keep AIG up-to-date on developments.” I request ALSO that Stakeholders be kept up-to-date on things instead of quarterly meetings and sometimes “delayed” web site releases. I feel very strongly that the Stakeholders should be informed and responded to in the same manner-both in time and substance.
I also “persistently” stress the need for a 24/7 open message box that also enables the Stakeholders to start new sentences. The way it is now only enables the one submitting the input to run continuous line of words which makes it difficult to be read. I will submit this review and comments via email and the message box. I am unable to submit it all in one message box and will probably use 4 of them. I cannot input it just the way it appears in an email, but just a continuous run of words that I have to carefully ID.
Written and Submitted By:
NM RC&D Activities
8.13.12/////NOTE NOTE NOTE:: THESE MSG BOXES ARE RATHER TRICKY TO USE IF ONE IS NOT TOTALLY FAMILIAR WITH IT. I JUST LEARNED TODAY THAT IT IS POSSIBLE TO COPY AND PASTE PAGES TO IT. IT IS NECESSARY TO TEACH THIS TO MYSELF FROM TRIAL AND ERROR, FRUSTRATION, ETC. WHATEVER WORKS-DO IT!! GERALD SCHULTZ, NM RC&D ACTIVITIES
I NEED TO USE THIS MSG BOX AS GENERAL INPUT FOR THE AIG TO DISCUSS AT THEIR NEXT MEETING. CRAIG SAYS FOR STAKEHOLDERS TO SUBMIT THEIR VIEW COMMENTS TO THE WEB SITE VIA THESE MSG BOXES. THERE ARE NO GENERAL ONES TO BE FOUND ANYPLACE THAT I AM ABLE TO SEARCH IN THIS WEB PAGE, SO AM FORCED TO USE ANY ONE THAT IS AVAILABLE. THEREFORE, TWO ESSENTIAL COMPONENTS REGARDING MESSAGES ARE NECESSARY: (1) SUBMIT IT. (2) PRAY IT GOES WHERE IT IS SUPPOSED TO. //THIS IS ALMOST LIKE DROPPING A MESSAGE INTO AN INFINITELY LONG VERTICAL PIPE COMING OUT OF THE GROUND; YOU DROP YOUR MESSAGE INTO IT AND PRAY IT FALLS TO THE RIGHT "POINT IN THE PIPE WHERE IT WILL BE USED". I HAVE TO EXERCISE BLIND FAITH IT WILL GET TO THE AIG MEETINGS. ANYWAY, I REQUEST THAT THE FOLLOWING BE DISCUSSED AT THE NEXT AIG MEEETING: (1) DO A VULNERABILITY STUDY FOR THE AWSA REGION TO DETERMINE WHO IS AT THE GREATEST RISK OF "SUFFERING" DURING A PROLONGED DROUGHT. I ASSUME THAT SUCH PROCEDURES ARE READILY AVAILABLE SINCE I HEAR OF SUCH STUDIES ALL THE TIME. ALSO, (2) DO A CARRYING-CAPACITY STUDY TO DETERMINE HOW MANY FOLKS THE AWSA REGION CAN SUSTAIN IN A PROLONGED DROUGHT CONSIDERING ALL THE NATURAL RESOURCES AVAILABLE. I DO NOT KNOW IF ANY TOOLS ARE AVAILABLE FOR THIS KIND OF STUDY SINCE I HAVE NOT HEARD OF ANY. THE CARRYING CAPACITY MIGHT BE DIFFERENT FOR THE MOST VULNERABLE AS COMPARED FOR THOSE WHO HAVE MUCH MORE SUSTAINING ABILITY. I FEEL BOTH OF THESE STUDIES SHOULD GO A LONG WAYS IN DETERMINING THE HANDLING OF THE AWSA'S REGIONS NATURAL RESOURCES. /////GERALD SCHULTZ, NM RC&D ACTIVITIES
On the Portal:
only in current section
New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission
P.O. Box 25102
Santa Fe, New Mexico 87504-5102
Telephone: (505) 827-6160 | Fax: (505) 827-6188
Email: NM Interstate Stream Commission (email@example.com)