Document 2JR6yy7GRrd6oVZqLDNLJGr35

Conversation Contents DepSec response - latest edition Attachments: 19. DepSec response - latest edition/1.1 Dep Sec questions 030618_dwh.d ocx Sec response - latest edition/2.1 Dep Sec questions 030618 dwh - WG edits.docx "Houseknecht, David" <dhouse@usgs.gov> From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: "Houseknecht, David" <dhouse@usgs.gov> Tue Mar 06 2018 09:14:23 GMT-0700 (MST) Walter Guidroz <wguidroz@usgs.gov> DepSec response - latest edition Dep Sec questions or| 030618 dwh.docx I started by accepting all changes that had been made in the previous draft, and all my new material is in blue font. I think this approach does not require an additional option, but what do you think? Dave Houseknecht U.S. Geological Survey 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive MS 956 ' Reston, VA 20192 (703) 648-6466 Walter Guidroz <wguidroz@usgs.gov> From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Walter Guidroz <wguidroz@usgs.gov> Tue Mar 06 2018 09:24:24 GMT-0700 (MST) David Houseknecht <dhouse@usgs.gov> RE: DepSec response - latest edition Dep Sec questions on| 030618 dwh - WG edits.docx Dave, thanks for doing this. All looks good except for the last paragraph on Page 3 (see attached) - I wonder if there's a way to bring the critical rationale forward to the beginning of the paragraph (see my comment). Not wedded to it particularly but it might be good to drive home earlier in the discussion about why we're proposing the particular work plan. All else good. FYI, I watched Reilly's confirmation hearing just now - when asked if he would protect FSP he obviously said yes but when questioned whether he'd hold assessment results private or release them to DOI if asked, he indicated he'd do the latter... Walter From: Houseknecht, David [mailto:dhouse@usgs.gov1 Sent: Tuesday, March 6, 2018 11:14 AM To: Walter Guidroz <wguidroz@usgs.gov> Subject: DepSec response - latest edition I started by accepting all changes that had been made in the previous draft, and all my new material is in blue font. I think this approach does not require an additional option, but what do you think? Dave Houseknecht U.S. Geological Survey 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive MS 956 Reston, VA 20192 (703) 648-6466 "Houseknecht, David" <dhouse@usgs.gov> From: Sent: To: Subject: "Houseknecht, David" <dhouse@usgs.gov> Tue Mar 06 2018 09:28:27 GMT-0700 (MST) Walter Guidroz <wguidroz@usgs.gov> Re: DepSec response - latest edition Interesting - who asked Reilly that question? Dave Houseknecht U.S. Geological Survey 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive MS 956 Reston, VA 20192 (703) 648-6466 On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 11:24 AM, Walter Guidroz <wguidroz@usgs.gov> wrote: Dave, thanks for doing this. All looks good except for the last paragraph on Page 3 (see attached) - I wonder if there's a way to bring the critical rationale forward to the beginning of the paragraph (see my comment). Not wedded to it particularly but it might be good to drive home earlier in the discussion about why we're proposing the particular work plan. All else good. FYI, I watched Reilly's confirmation hearing just now - when asked if he would protect FSP he obviously said yes but when questioned whether he'd hold assessment results private or release them to DOI if asked, he indicated he'd do the latter. Walter From: Houseknecht, David rmailto:dhouse@usgs.gov1 Sent: Tuesday, March 6, 2018 11:14 AM To: Walter Guidroz <wguidroz@usgs.gov> Subject: DepSec response - latest edition I started by accepting all changes that had been made in the previous draft, and all my new material is in blue font. I think this approach does not require an additional option, but what do you think? Dave Houseknecht U.S. Geological Survey 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive MS 956 Reston, VA 20192 (703) 648-6466 Walter Guidroz <wguidroz@usgs.gov> From: Sent: To: Subject: Walter Guidroz <wguidroz@usgs.gov> Tue Mar 06 2018 09:34:49 GMT-0700 (MST) David Houseknecht <dhouse@usgs.gov> RE: DepSec response - latest edition Cantwell - ranking member from Washington state From: Houseknecht, David [mailto:dhouse@usgs.gov1 Sent: Tuesday, March 6, 2018 11:28 AM To: Walter Guidroz <wguidroz@usgs.gov> Subject: Re: DepSec response - latest edition Interesting - who asked Reilly that question? Dave Houseknecht U.S. Geological Survey 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive MS 956 Reston, VA 20192 (703) 648-6466 On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 11:24 AM, Walter Guidroz <wguidroz@usgs.gov> wrote: Dave, thanks for doing this. All looks good except for the last paragraph on Page 3 (see attached) - I wonder if there's a way to bring the critical rationale forward to the beginning of the paragraph (see my comment). Not wedded to it particularly but it might be good to drive home earlier in the discussion about why we're proposing the particular work plan. All else good. FYI, I watched Reilly's confirmation hearing just now - when asked if he would protect FSP he obviously said yes but when questioned whether he'd hold assessment results private or release them to DOI if asked, he indicated he'd do the latter... Walter From: Houseknecht, David rmailto:dhouse@usgs.gov1 Sent: Tuesday, March 6, 2018 11:14 AM To: Walter Guidroz <wguidroz@usgs.gov> Subject: DepSec response - latest edition I started by accepting all changes that had been made in the previous draft, and all my new material is in blue font. I think this approach does not require an additional option, but what do you think? Dave Houseknecht U.S. Geological Survey 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive MS 956 Reston, VA 20192 (703)648-6466 PRE-DECISIONAL DISCUSSION DRAFT USGS Responses to Questions from Deputy Secretary Bernhardt and Options for 1002 Area 1 PRE-DECISIONAL DISCUSSION DRAFT 2 PRE-DECISIONAL DISCUSSION DRAFT 3 PRE-DECISIONAL DISCUSSION DRAFT 4 PRE-DECISIONAL DISCUSSION DRAFT USGS Responses to Questions from Deputy Secretary Bernhardt and Options for 1002 Area 1 PRE-DECISIONAL DISCUSSION DRAFT 2 PRE-DECISIONAL DISCUSSION DRAFT PRE-DECISIONAL DISCUSSION DRAFT (b) (5) Conclusion (b) (5) 4