Managing for Excellence - Submit a Comment

U.S. Department of the Interior | Reclamation Internet

Search Reclamation

Reclamation Home

Managing for Excellence

Submit Comment

U.S. Department
of the Interior

Back To Comments Home
Comment	Submit Date
Comments on Team 12 Materials For the Public Workshop Albuquerque, New Mexico November 7, 2007 Comments Due November 16, 2007 Introduction and General Comments In comparison to the September 2007 draft, this version is much clearer and generally presents more workable and clearer processes on the new business model and collaboration with customers. Team 12 should be commended for their efforts to seriously consider comments from the public and from Reclamation employees in this M4E process. For this reviewer, Alternative 2 is still the preferable approach. Specific comments below are limited to those comments made in the September review that continue to prompt questions or present issues still to be resolved. Specific Comments 1. P. 9, flow chart on Collaboration Policies, flag ‘C’ denotes that collaboration would be designed on a case-by-case basis. Where this flag references environmental compliance, it should be noted that the design of collaboration and/or public involvement must be consistent with existing statutes, regulations and policies. For example, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance, where the documentation will consist of an Environmental Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement, has to include specific compliance for public involvement, such as public scoping periods, public meetings, and public review and comment periods. 2. P. 9, paragraph entitled ‘Collaboration on New Project Construction,’ second line, we recommend modifying this sentence to read “…capital construction costs, environmental compliance costs and administrative costs of a new project, pursuant to the Contributed Funds Act of 1921 (43 USC §395).” 3. P. 12, paragraph entitled ‘Collaboration on Non-Construction Activities,’ we recommend modifying the last sentence to read ‘…on a case-by-case basis consistent with DOI and Reclamation regulations and policies.’ 4. P. 16, the clarification of COG composition and duties is helpful in comparison to the September draft. Still, thoughtful planning and implementation will be necessary to ensure that this group can execute its duties without undue burden on either the COG members or program offices. 5. P. 27, Attachment 2, Draft Reclamation Manual Policy on Collaboration: The ‘Authority’ section is presently blank. This section needs to include appropriate DOI regulations and policies, including 516 DM 1 and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), and should cross reference other applicable Federal requirements for collaboration and public involvement. 6. P. 29, Attachment 3, Draft Reclamation Manual Directive and Standard on Collaboration with Customers: The Authority section should be expanded to include FACA and the Contributed Funds Act of 1921 (43 USC §395). This D&S also needs to cross reference other applicable Interior/Federal requirements for collaboration and public involvement, including 516 DM 1. 7. PP 32-35, the makeup of the Customer Collaboration Teams, and Decision Making Processes, as written would appear to constitute an advisory committee pursuant to FACA. In particular, the decision making processes provide for situations where a course of action might be in conflict with Reclamation authority. Item D on p. 34 provides for an appeal process. We are concerned that such a formal level of public collaboration, and instituting an appeal process, will not result in a better customer collaboration process but would instead lead to more serious conflict and significant program or project delays. As described in this draft D&S, the process seems to have the potential for the CCT to make a recommendation that would require months, even years for Reclamation to review, to determine whether it has the authority to pursue the recommendation. We recommend instead that a process that is clearly not subject to FACA be designed. We would recommend the Flaming Gorge Working Group as a possible model, in which there is significant public interaction with Reclamation actively seeking public input, but making clear that the final decision on Flaming Gorge Dam operations is solely Reclamation’s. This group has provided valuable input and insight to Reclamation over the 15 or so years of its existence, and has also gained a better understanding (generating more trust) of Reclamation’s mission and duties.	11/15/2007

Back To Comments Home

Comment

Submit Date

Comments on Team 12 Materials
For the Public Workshop
Albuquerque, New Mexico
November 7, 2007
Comments Due November 16, 2007

Introduction and General Comments

In comparison to the September 2007 draft, this version is much clearer and generally presents more workable and clearer processes on the new business model and collaboration with customers. Team 12 should be commended for their efforts to seriously consider comments from the public and from Reclamation employees in this M4E process.

For this reviewer, Alternative 2 is still the preferable approach. Specific comments below are limited to those comments made in the September review that continue to prompt questions or present issues still to be resolved.

Specific Comments

1. P. 9, flow chart on Collaboration Policies, flag ‘C’ denotes that collaboration would be designed on a case-by-case basis. Where this flag references environmental compliance, it should be noted that the design of collaboration and/or public involvement must be consistent with existing statutes, regulations and policies. For example, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance, where the documentation will consist of an Environmental Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement, has to include specific compliance for public involvement, such as public scoping periods, public meetings, and public review and comment periods.

2. P. 9, paragraph entitled ‘Collaboration on New Project Construction,’ second line, we recommend modifying this sentence to read “…capital construction costs, environmental compliance costs and administrative costs of a new project, pursuant to the Contributed Funds Act of 1921 (43 USC §395).”

3. P. 12, paragraph entitled ‘Collaboration on Non-Construction Activities,’ we recommend modifying the last sentence to read ‘…on a case-by-case basis consistent with DOI and Reclamation regulations and policies.’

4. P. 16, the clarification of COG composition and duties is helpful in comparison to the September draft. Still, thoughtful planning and implementation will be necessary to ensure that this group can execute its duties without undue burden on either the COG members or program offices.

5. P. 27, Attachment 2, Draft Reclamation Manual Policy on Collaboration: The ‘Authority’ section is presently blank. This section needs to include appropriate DOI regulations and policies, including 516 DM 1 and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), and should cross reference other applicable Federal requirements for collaboration and public involvement.

6. P. 29, Attachment 3, Draft Reclamation Manual Directive and Standard on Collaboration with Customers: The Authority section should be expanded to include FACA and the Contributed Funds Act of 1921 (43 USC §395). This D&S also needs to cross reference other applicable Interior/Federal requirements for collaboration and public involvement, including 516 DM 1.

7. PP 32-35, the makeup of the Customer Collaboration Teams, and Decision Making Processes, as written would appear to constitute an advisory committee pursuant to FACA. In particular, the decision making processes provide for situations where a course of action might be in conflict with Reclamation authority. Item D on p. 34 provides for an appeal process. We are concerned that such a formal level of public collaboration, and instituting an appeal process, will not result in a better customer collaboration process but would instead lead to more serious conflict and significant program or project delays. As described in this draft D&S, the process seems to have the potential for the CCT to make a recommendation that would require months, even years for Reclamation to review, to determine whether it has the authority to pursue the recommendation. We recommend instead that a process that is clearly not subject to FACA be designed. We would recommend the Flaming Gorge Working Group as a possible model, in which there is significant public interaction with Reclamation actively seeking public input, but making clear that the final decision on Flaming Gorge Dam operations is solely Reclamation’s. This group has provided valuable input and insight to Reclamation over the 15 or so years of its existence, and has also gained a better understanding (generating more trust) of Reclamation’s mission and duties.

11/15/2007