Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Hr. Clifford I. Barrett <br />October 14, 1988 <br />Page Three <br /> <br />2. The category 7 activities should be deleted. Identifying <br />Department of the Interior actions on the recommendations contained in <br />the Executive Review Committee Report is premature. Those activities, <br />as appropriate, will be enumerated by the Department of the Interior <br />in consultation with the States representatives during the category 6 <br />activities. If any further activities are conducted, those would be <br />undertaken outside Phase II of the GeES. <br /> <br />Based on its review of the GeES Program document and attendance <br />at both the Las Vegas and Flagstaff Constituent Group meetings and <br />other meetings, the Commission and the States representatives suggest <br />that the attached. "GeES Phase II Oi."ganization Chart" (refer to Attach- <br />ment 2) represents the desired organizational structure for Phase II <br />of the GeES. This organization chart should be included in the GCES <br />Program document to assist the reader in understanding the organiza- <br />tional structure for Phase II of the GCES. <br /> <br />The following are specific comments regarding the discussion of <br />certain categories contained in the GeES Program document: <br /> <br />Category 2 -- This section needs rewriting to adequately describe <br />what is actually being proposed. A chart of the organizational <br />structure for GeES should be included and briefly described; membership <br />on both of the study teams and the integration team should be clearly <br />defined; and the membership, purpose and activities of the Focus and <br />Constituent Groups should be described. The National Academy of <br />Sciences should be included on the organization chart as indicated in <br />Attachment 2. To achieve the desired level of State input, a States <br />Advisory Group must be established. The States Advisory Group will <br />provide input on technical issues, while the States representatives <br />will be consulted when policy-level decisions are made. A member of <br />the Commission staff may provide both technical and policy-level input <br />from the Upper Division States. <br /> <br />Thi~ ~9cticn ~l~c needg.a ~iscussio~ of the develoDment of the <br />study plan(s), as indicated in the heading for this cat~ory. It is <br />not clear from the present discussion what draft plans of study will be <br />prepared. <br /> <br />The Commission and the States representatives suggest that all <br />activities associated with the development of the draft plans of study <br />be scheduled as category 2 activities. Then in category 3, the plans <br />of study would be reviewed by the appropriate entities and finalized <br />after review by the Executive Review Committee in consultation with the <br />States representatives. <br /> <br />Category 3 -- This section as written is not clear and is con- <br />fusing. It should be rewritten to clearly describe what is intended. <br />For example, in the middle of page 3 it states that "The study plan <br />will focus on three primary areas. . . ." It is not clear which plan <br />