January 31-February 2, 2007
Welcome and Opening Comment
David Achterberg, P.E.—Director, Bureau of Reclamation, Security, Safety and Law Enforcement Office (SSLE)
SSLE Program Reviews
David Achterberg—SSLE Overview
Review of policies, procedures, and budget and program management
Discussion of current issues in SSLE and in regional and area offices
Don Taussig—Security Program
Vincent Parolisi—Law Enforcement Program
Kathy Norris—Emergency Management Program
May 2-4, 2007
Executive Overview-SSLE
Larry Parkinson—Deputy Assistant Secretary, Law Enforcement, Security, and Emergency Management, Department of Interior
Risk Assessment Overview
David Achterberg—Dam Safety Risk Assessment Methodology
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 114
Appendix B
Briefings to the Committee and
Discussions
OPEN COMMITTEE MEETINgS
January 31-February 2, 2007
Welcome and Opening Comment
David Achterberg, P.E.—Director, Bureau of Reclamation, Security, Safety
and Law Enforcement Office (SSLE)
SSLE Program Reviews
David Achterberg—SSLE Overview
• Review of policies, procedures, and budget and program management
• Discussion of current issues in SSLE and in regional and area offices
Don Taussig—Security Program
Vincent Parolisi—Law Enforcement Program
kathy Norris—Emergency Management Program
May 2-4, 2007
Executive Overview-SSLE
Larry Parkinson—Deputy Assistant Secretary, Law Enforcement, Security,
and Emergency Management, Department of Interior
Risk Assessment Overview
David Achterberg—Dam Safety Risk Assessment Methodology
OCR for page 114
APPENDIX B
David Hinchliff, kim Duran, and Rusty Schuster—Security Risk
Assessments Program
Don Taussig—Other Security Risk Components
September 19-20, 2007
Organizations Addressing Similar Security, Law Enforcement, and Emergency
Management Issues
Col. James Braxton—U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Enrique Matheu—Department of Homeland Security
Doug Bellomo—Federal Emergency Management Agency
Bureau of Reclamation Headquarters Perspective
Larry Todd—Deputy Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation
COMMITTEE DISCuSSIONS AND SITE VISITS AT
RECLAMATION REgIONS
The committee organized itself into two- or three-member teams, with
one team assigned to visit each of the five regions comprising the Bureau
of Reclamation. The visits took place between June 3 and August 5, 2007.
They included meetings with staff at the regional and area offices to
include those with security, law enforcement, and emergency manage-
ment functions. Also included was the operations staff at specific dam
sites. The meetings addressed questions (listed below) developed by the
committee. However, the committee informed each site in advance that
formal responses to the questions were not required. The purpose of the
questions was to provide each region with a deeper understanding of the
overall issues being addressed by the study effort. The committee also
encouraged each region to approach its site visit discussions informally,
emphasizing that formal PowerPoint presentations were not required.
Nonetheless each region was given broad latitude in how it communi-
cated information to the team.
Meetings were conducted with the following Reclamation offices:
Great Plains Area Office—Casper, Wyoming
Lower Colorado Regional Office—Boulder City, Nevada
Mid-Pacific Regional Headquarters and Construction Offices—Sacramento,
California
Pacific Northwest Snake River Area Office—Boise, Idaho
Upper Colorado Regional Office—Salt Lake City, Utah
OCR for page 114
ASSESSMENT OF THE BUREAU OF RECLAMATION’S SECURITY PROGRAM
Site visits were conducted at the following locations:
Anderson Ranch Dam
Arrowrock Dam
Davis Dam
Deer Creek Dam
Flaming Gorge Dam
Folsom Dam
Fremont Canyon Power Plant
Glen Canyon Dam
Grand Coulee Dam
Hoover Dam
Jordanelle Dam
keswick Dam
Parker Dam
Pathfinder Dam
Seminoe Dam and Power Plant
Shasta Dam
DISCuSSION QuESTIONS
Current Picture
From your point of view, what are the key security-related issues for BOR
now and in the next 5-10 years? What challenges will SSLE, as presently
organized and resourced, face in meeting these issues?
Approximately how many staff positions are devoted to security and law
enforcement in your regional office? your area offices? What functions are
they responsible for?
What training programs are in place or being used? How are security and
law enforcement integrated in the training? What improvements would
you suggest?
Security
Is SSLE moving in the right direction, from the region’s perspective?
How does SSLE’s approach to managing security risks compare to how
such activities have been implemented by the regions?
OCR for page 114
APPENDIX B
What does the on-site physical security look like for each SCADA system
or component?
Is there a concern for the physical destruction of any SCADA component?
Are you satisfied with the security, authentication, deployment, and oper-
ation of existing SCADA networks?
Do the on-site infrastructures use specialized protocols and proprietary
interfaces?
Do security/physical plant managers believe that the SCADA networks
are secure because they are “air-gapped” (i.e., not connected to the
Internet)? How are you trying to instill a security mind-set among your
staff and stakeholders? What problems arise in an environment that his-
torically has encouraged openness and stakeholder involvement?
What issues arise in communicating with constituent groups when sensi-
tive information is involved?
Who is involved with security at the dam/facility?
Do you have security guards on contract? How many? What is their work
schedule? What is their role?
Have you thought about terrorist acts, such as where and how they would
occur?
Describe the nature of the threats as you envision them.
What will you do about the threats? Who has the authority/responsibility
for dealing with threats?
Have you engaged in target hardening (barricades, surveillance cameras,
checking identification regularly, use of technology)?
Do you have a continuity of operations plan (COOP) in case something
does occur?
Law Enforcement
Given that SSLE does not have its own employees for law enforcement,
how is this task accomplished at your site?
OCR for page 114
ASSESSMENT OF THE BUREAU OF RECLAMATION’S SECURITY PROGRAM
How do you work with local law enforcement?
Are any joint exercises conducted? If so, how is this coordinated and
executed?
How do you address the collection of incident information that could
serve as intelligence for further analysis/review?
Describe any data- or incident-sharing activities that you have in place
with the local law enforcement agencies.
Emergency Management
How is planning for emergency exercise programs conducted? Describe
your emergency notification system. Who provides emergency assistance
for casualties?
Are there actions the BOR/SSLE can take in tandem with the regions to
improve downstream consequences?
Are there ways that BOR could be more effective in working with the
regions in today’s emergency management environment?
Is the emergency management program appropriately staffed and funded?
Does SSLE have the right interfaces with the appropriate stakeholders?
Processes, Function, Expertise
What is the expertise profile of your staff? Do any expertise deficits exist?
If such deficits do exist, how is that impacting your ability to meet your
mission objectives?
How is threat/incident information made available to you? What are
the sources of that information? How would you assess the availability
of threat information? Who determines what actions should be taken?
How do you communicate threats/necessary actions to local municipal
officials/staff?
Working Relationships
How can SSLE communicate with constituent groups/stakeholders within
your region without compromising sensitive information?
OCR for page 114
APPENDIX B
Describe the relationships with SSLE’s Denver office, Washington office,
and the Department of the Interior.
Which other law enforcement agencies do you interact with (e.g., Bureau of
Land Management, National Park Service)? Describe how this interaction
takes place.
Who are your key stakeholders? Describe how you communicate/work
with these groups.
What is the role of local/state law enforcement (sheriff’s office, state
police, county police, or municipal police) in handling routine crime and
disorder problems? That is, do they respond to calls for service at the
dam/facility? Do they provide statistics, crime reports, and other infor-
mation to you on a regular basis?
Does local law enforcement engage in preventive patrol activities around
the facility? Or do they only appear when called upon?
Does the regional office have a contract or memorandum of understand-
ing with local law enforcement at those facilities where a working rela-
tionship exists?
How would you characterize your relationship with local/state law
enforcement? Is it cordial, friendly, and helpful? Or does there appear to
be a strain in the relationship?
What is the role of local law enforcement with respect to terrorism or
natural disasters? Do you have a formal, written plan for handling these
types of concerns? If a terrorist act or natural disaster took place, do you
have a strategy for dealing with it (an incident command system, policies,
procedures, etc.)?
Do you work with the Joint Terrorism Task Force or other task forces?
How often do they meet? Do you share information? Is the NCI recog-
nized as a potential target?