|
Back to Penobscot Bay Blog
2008: SEARS ISLAND FOIA REQUEST TO FHWA 2008.
Government officials who produced these emails ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 2007 From the files of McDade, Jonathan ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: 4(f) Videoconference -Sears Island Ken, Dave, and Mark:
Commissioner Cole would like to discuss the issue of setting up a conservation easement for part of the island while still preserving the potential for port development and protecting themselves from 4(f) later on. Karen Tilburg who is facilitating this from the Governor's Office would also sit in. Given the past history, I think the State is really gun-shy about Sears Island and wants to make sure they have crossed all the i's and dotted the tee's. Peter Kleskovic, PE Assistant Division Administrator FHWA Maine Division
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ (attached to above) Section 4(f) Scenario and Questions Scenario:
There is a public entity that is interested in negotiating a 600 acre easement for recreational purposes that would take effect before the cargo port development. This easement would be adjacent to the future cargo port. Question 1. Is there any way for the DOT to provide this easement to the public entity without future risk of triggering Section 4(f) for the cargo port development? Yes, under current FHWA policy a joint development both outlining the recreational easement area and reserving the transportation facility area is appropriate. The joint development must evidence the contemporaneous establishment of the transportation reservation and recreational easement. Question 2. Would the proposed 23 CFR part 774 rulemaking in the July 27, 2006 Federal Register (when approved) allow the DOT to provide this easement for public recreation without triggering Section 4(f) when the cargo port was developed? We cannot speculate on the proposed rulemaking, however, the best approach would seem to be a joint use declaration by filing mapping, deeds, and the agreement in the appropriate land records office. Question 3. What is the best approach to successfully completing the long range plan of a cargo port on the northwest shore of the island and allowing public recreation on a large portion of the remaining part of the island without triggering 4(f)? We provide the following approaches which may be useful: 1) Provide preliminary plans, titles, and written agreements showing both the reserved recreational area and the reserved transportation area for land records recording, 2) These same land records should be kept in the project records along with the written agreements. , 3) File an affidavit in the land records (re)citing the history and documentation on this issue. 4)Obtain concurrence of all agencies with jurisdiction by law. [[Deleted: paragraph? or question 3.(1) Side notes unclear. -rh] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attachments: Section 4(f) questions for FHWA mh comments (2).doc I am available. The attached was previously provided to MaineDOT after consulting with Ken. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Hasselmann, Mark From: Gardner, David [David.Gardner@maine.gov]
To: kern.mark@epa.gov; Adams, Jeff, Anderson, Devin; andrea.quaid@mail.house.gov; Annis, Ryan; Baker, Norman; Bernhardt, David; Bostwick, Richard; Bullard, Bill; Burdick, Doug B; Charette, Russ; Clark, Michael; Clukey, Robin; Condon, Ben; Cowan, Heath; Crawford, Richard; Damon, Jessica; Devin, John; Dickson, Stephen M.; Docherty, Molly; Dority, John; Dorrell, Karen; Doughty, Dale; Doughty, Dwight; Douglass, Jerry; Dube, Norm; Duval, Margaret; Faucher, Raymond; Foley, Brad; Foster, Ben; Frankhauser Jr, Wayne; Fuller, Kathy; Gates, Judy; Glidden, Andrea; Green, Robert; Hale, Galen; Haley, Kristen J; Hallowell, Dawn; Hanscom, Ed; Hebson, Charles; Hodgman, Ryan; Jay.L.Clement@USACE.army.mil; Jeff Murphy; Jergensen, Kurt E; Johnson, Mike D; Kittredge, Joel; Kokemuller, Linda K; Lane, Meg E; Lickus, Mark; Lindsey, Judy; Mann, Chris A; Marcy Scott; Hasselmann, Mark; Michaud, Fred; Mohney, Kirk; Nadeau, Gregory; Newkirk, Peter; Nichols, Joshua; Obery, Danielle; O'Bryon, Jennifer; Pelletier, Todd; Perez, Tracy; Perry, John; Peter Butler; Poirier, Rhonda; Pottle, Paul; Price, Anna; Pulver, William; Renaud, Rebecca L; Richardson, Marybeth; Rollins, Scott; Rooney, Martin; Rowe, Laurie; Scott, Duane; Sean. McDermott@NOAA.gov; Shettleworth, Earle; Spiess, Arthur; St.Hilaire, Lisa; Stanley, Jared; Stebbins, Kathryn; Steele, Matt; Stewart, Dan; Swan, Brian; Sweeney, Ken; Taylor, Joyce; Tierney, Dan; timmermann.timothy@epa.gov; Timpano, Steve; Tischbein, Peter NAE; Trish garrigan; VanDusen, Deane; Webster, Ralph; Wende_Mahaney@fws.gov; Wentworth, Jim Subject: October 2007 agenda.doc Attachments: October 2007 agenda.doc October 2007 enda.doc (40 K) Please see the attached October 9, 2007 Interagency Meeting Agenda. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Cole, David A [mailto:David.A.Cole@maine.gov]
Subject: New 4F Rules
Jonathan,
Any idea when the new 4F rules will be finalized? The Sears Island planning process is heating up, with a fairly aggressive timetable. From my understanding of the proposed new rules from our videoconference earlier this year, they will provide somewhat of a safe harbor for a new port development in the future, based on joint use planning that anticipates a dual use of the Island.
Could you check with Washington to see where this stands? Thanks!
David
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: McDade, Jonathan
Subject: FW: New 4F Rules
Mark,
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Hasselmann, Mark
Subject: FW: New 4F Rules
Would you please provide a status update on the new 4(f) regulation? This is what I called about. thanks in advance. r/s
Hasselmann, Mark
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Gamble, Dave
Subject: RE: New 4F Rules
Mark, did you ever hear back from Lamar or Marlys on this? If they did, they never copied me. What did you find out?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2008
FEBRUARY 2008
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original Message
From: Gardner, David [mailto:David.Gardner@maine.gov]
To: kern.mark@epa.gov; Adams, Jeff; Anderson, Devin; andrea.quaid@mail.house.gov; Annis, Ryan; Baker, Norman; Bernhardt, David; Bostwick, Richard; Bullard, Bill; Burdick, Doug B; Cerveny, Mimi; Chamberlain, Kristen; Charette, Russ; Clark, Michael; Clukey, Robin; Condon, Ben; Coughlan, Peter; Cowan, Heath; Crawford, Richard; Damon, Jessica; Devin, John; Dickson, Stephen M.; Docherty, Molly; Dority, John; Dorrell, Karen; Doughty, Dale; Doughty, Dwight; Douglass, Jerry; Dube, Norm; Duval, Margaret; Faucher, Raymond; Foley, Brad; Foster, Ben; Frankhauser Jr, Wayne; Fuller, Kat; Gates, Judy; Glidden, Andrea; Green, Robert; Hale, Galen; Hallowell, Dawn; Hanscom, Ed; Hebson, Charles; Hodgman, Ryan; Howard, Nathan; Clement, Jay L NAE; Jeff Murphy; Jergensen, Kurt E; Johnson, Mike D; Kittredge, Joel; Kokemuller, Linda K; Lane, Meg E; Lickus, Mark; Lindsey, Judy; Mann, Chris A; Marcy Scott; Mark.Hasselmann@fhwa.dot.gov; Michaud, Fred; Mohney, Kirk; Nadeau, Gregory; Newkirk, Peter; Nichols, Joshua; Obery, Danielle; O'Bryon, Jennifer; Pelletier, Todd; Perez, Tracy; Perry, John; Peter Butler; Poirier, Rhonda; Pottle, Paul; Price, Anna; Pulver, William; Renaud, Rebecca L; Richardson, Marybeth; Rollins, Scott; Rooney, Martin; Rowe, Laurie; Scott, Duane; Sean.McDermott@NOAA.gov; Shettleworth, Earle; Spiess, Arthur; St.Hilaire, Lisa; Stancampiano, Robin; Stanley, Jared; Stebbins, Kathryn; Steele, Matt; Stewart, Dan; Swan, Brian; Sweeney, Ken; Taylor, Joyce; Tierney, Dan; timmermann.timothy@epa.gov; Timpano, Steve; Tischbein, Peter NAE; Trish garrigan; VanDusen, Deane; Webster, Ralph; Wende–Mahaney@fws.gov; Wentworth,
Subject: February meeting
The February 12th Interagency meeting has been canceled. The next meeting is scheduled for March llth.
David E. Gardner
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hasselmann, Mark
From: Clement, Jay L NAE [Jay.L.Clement@usace.army.mil]
Subject RE: February meeting
In March perhaps Judy and Deane could talk about the Department's idea for a Sears Island Mitigation Bank?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ron Huber (mailto:coastwatch@gmail.com]
Subject: JUPC Meeting - Be careful about 4(f)
On Feb 6, 2008 4:45 PM, Scott, Duane Draft Meeting Summary for JUPC Meeting January 25 attached.
From draft meeting summary:
I would urge conservationists on the JUPC panel to oppose any effort to waive 4(f) at this time.
Maine DOT will probably seek to get a "de minimus" or minimal-impact finding from US DOT. That may let the state avoid having to consider
alternatives when building an industrial port on Sears Island. In
other words, if 4(f) is waived, then, unlike the Sears Island cargo port proposal of the King administration, there would be no environmental impact study required to build the Baldacci port.
Do you REALLY think an EIS shouldn't be necessary? More about 4(f) from the Dept of the Interior point of view Click here
Please use extreme caution in considering the 4(f) question before acquiescing to a 4(f) "de minimus" finding. Or just be safe and say no de minimus, apply 4(f). While invoking 4(f) would also require consideration of alternatives for the conservation portion of the island, those would be few and simply achieved.
Ron Huber
----------------------------------------------------------------
From: Scott, Duane [mailto:Duane.Scott@maine.gov]
Subject: RE: JUPC Meeting - Be careful about 4(f)
Mr. Huber,
Thank you for your input below regarding Section 4(f). This topic and your response were discussed at the February 8th JUPC Meeting. I wanted to share with you the clarification that came out of that discussion.
The very name of the Joint Use Planning Committee and therefore its "joint use" planning 10
approach is to lay a foundation for Section 4(f) compliance. We reminded ourselves that the "triggers" for Section 4(f) are a USDOT federal action and/or funding. During this current effort, even though there is no USDOT action or funding, but perhaps the potential for such, we are pursuing a joint use dialog to be in compliance, whether required or not.
It was stressed that there is no waiver, nor will there be a waiver.
The reference to the term "de minimus" is usually used in the context of US Army Corps of Engineers dredge permitting and dredge spoils disposal, but again it was stressed that any Section 4(f) compliance efforts would seek the proper level of finding from the appropriate USDOT agency.
Regarding the consideration of alternatives, not only does Section 4(f) require this, but also the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), triggered by any federal action and/or funding, and numerous other Federal, State and Local laws. Further, the requirement for an environmental impact study is not driven by Section 4(f), but is specifically determined by compliance with NEPA.
When and if there is such a federal action or funding, the appropriate level of NEPA documentation, e.g., Environmental Impact Study, Environmental Assessment, and/or Categorical Exclusion, will be determined in consultation and coordination with the appropriate federal agency.
I hope this information is helpful and reinforces the commitment of the Joint Use Planning Committee to be in full compliance with all applicable Federal, State and Local laws.
Duane A. Scott
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MARCH 2008
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original Message
From: Gardner, David [mailto:David.Gardner@maine.gov]
The Interagency Meeting Agenda for March 11, 2008 is attached. I have also attached the Draft Maine DOT federal Mitigation Bank Prospectus.
25
From: Gardner, David [mailto:David.Gardner@maine.gov]
To: kern.mark@epa.gov; Adams, Jeff; Anderson, Devin; andrea.quaid@mail.house.gov; Annis, Ryan; Baker, Norman; Bernhardt, David; Bostwick, Richard; Bullard, Bill; Burdick, Doug B; Cerveny, Mimi; Chamberlain, Kristen; Charette, Russ; Clark, Michael; Clukey, Robin; Condon, Ben; Coughlan, Peter; Cowan, Heath; Crawford, Richard; Damon, Jessica; Devin, John; Dickson, Stephen M.; Docherty, Molly; Dority, John; Dorrell, Karen; Doughty, Dale; Doughty, Dwight; Douglass, Jerry; Dube, Norm; Duval, Margaret; Faucher, Raymond; Foley, Brad; Foster, Ben; Frankhauser Jr, Wayne; Fuller, Kat; Gates, Judy; Glidden, Andrea; Green, Robert; Hale, Galen; Hallowell, Dawn; Hanscom, Ed; Hebson, Charles; Hodgman, Ryan; Howard, Nathan; Jay.L.Clement@USACE.army.mil; Jeff Murphy; Jergensen, Kurt E; Johnson, Mike D; Kittredge, Joel; Kokemuller, Linda K; Lane, Meg E; Lickus, Mark; Lindsey, Judy; Mann, Chris A; Marcy Scott; Hasselmann, Mark; Michaud, Fred; Mohney, Kirk; Nadeau, Gregory; Newkirk, Peter; Nichols, Joshua; Obery, Danielle; O'Bryon, Jennifer; Pelletier, Todd; Perez, Tracy; Perry, John; Peter Butler; Poirier, Rhonda; Pottle, Paul; Price, Anna; Pulver, William; Renaud, Rebecca L; Richardson, Marybeth; Rollins, Scott; Rooney, Martin; Rowe, Laurie; Scott, Duane; Sean.McDermott@NOAA.gov; Shettleworth, Earle; Spiess, Arthur; St.Hilaire, Lisa; Stancampiano, Robin; Stanley, Jared; Stebbins, Kathryn; Steele, Matt; Stewart, Dan; Swan, Brian; Sweeney, Ken; Taylor, Joyce; Tierney, Dan; timmermann.timothy@epa.gov; Timpano, Steve; Tischbein, Peter NAE; Trish garrigan; VanDusen, Deane; Webster, Ralph; Wende_Mahaney@fws.gov; Wentworth, Jim
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: March Interagency Meeting
The Interagency Meeting Agenda for March 11, 2008 is attached. I have also attached the Draft Maine DOT federal Mitigation Bank Prospectus.
< -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Hasselmann, Mark
Subject: FW: March Interagency Meeting
fyi on the draft mitigation bank proposal (Sears Island).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Hasselmann, Mark
Subject: FW: March Interagency Meeting
Any input of this very DRAFT bank proposal besides it would need to be set up using EPA/COE banking guidance? I do not think it has been shared with the public/committee yet. mh
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: McDade, Jonathan
Subject: RE: March Interagency Meeting
Mark,
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Hasselmann, Mark
Subject: RE: March Interagency Meeting
I will share with Ken Dymond as he had some input on last year on island use. We are also waiting on the new 4(f) regs.
Only feedback so far is Maine Division appears to be correct regarding the maintenance issue, there may be a policy update in the near future (six months?).
mh
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hasselmann, Mark
From: Kleskovic, Peter
I wonder if a State DOT chooses to develop a wetland bank without FHWA money can they work out the agreement with the CORPS without us having to sign on.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hasselmann, Mark
From: Smith, Brian
Subject: RE: March Interagency Meeting
It seems to me that the DOT has realized that a port facility on Sears Island will not be built without an up front commitment to preserve much of the existing habitat. I do not see much explanation on crediting and debiting procedures. Crediting preservation is very, very, very inconsistent. MaineDOT should propose a credit ratio or procedure for preservation credit or get a "not less than" (10%, 20%, ?) figure established before final approval. My math finds different acreages numbers in Section 2.1 (I get 912 acres) and Section 2.2 (941 acres). The DOT may be overly optimistic about the amount of credits that will be granted. See the statement in Section 3.3, "MaineDOT's federal mitigation bank is expected to provide benefits parallel to the in lieu fee program by enhancing its efforts to restore, enhance, replace, and preserve resources based on state-wide priorities established by the workgroup." Where does preserving Sears Island habitat rank among other statewide priorities? Is this documented by the interagency workgroup? Such documentation should be attached.
Creating 2-4 acres of forested wetland seems like a waste of time and a compliance nightmare. Will parking for the Center be constructed on the buffer easement? Some trails and roads will be needed in the buffer easement for management activities.
Paul, it looks like MaineDOT prepared the document.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original Message
From: Garrett, Paul
Subject: RE: March Interagency Meeting Importance: High
Mark, et al: I have a few problems with the document. I think a discussion would be appropriate. I am primarily concerned with a commitment by the Corps/EPA, as well as other participants, to live by and with a port facility under reasonable terms. See my notes and comments.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Garrett, Paul
Subject: RE: March Interagency Meeting
Mark, et al: I have a few problems with the document. I think a discussion would be appropriate. I am primarily concerned with a commitment by the Corps/EPA, as well as other participants, to live by and with a port facility under reasonable terms. See my notes and comments.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hasselmann, Mark
From: Hasselmann, Mark
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Hasselmann, Mark
fyi, two links for more info. 1st is planning initiative, 2nd for current guidance on ratios. currently there are no federal-aid funds in this. We required a payback a few years ago. no dog in this fight if no FHWA $.
http://maine.gov/doc/initiatives/Searsisland/Searslsland.shtml
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Garrett, Paul
Agreed. If no fed funds, we don't care and don't have a say in what they do – as an agency. On top of that, even if other fed funds are involved, if they aren't federal highway funds we're still out of the loop.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Hasselmann, Mark
To: Smith, Brian; Yanchik, Brian; Moody, Kevin; Garrett, Paul Subject: Sears Island Planning
fyi, two links for more info. 1 st is planning initiative, 2nd for current guidance on ratios. currently there are no federal-aid funds in this. We required a payback a few years ago. no dog in this fight if no FHWA $.
http://maine.qov/doc/initiatives/Searslsland/Searslsland.shtml ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hasselmann, Mark
From: Smith, Brian
Subject: RE: Sears Island Planning
The 1985 Sierra v. Marsh case was only the tip of the iceberg. They did not get very far into the proving process then. This project will get national exposure and the Corps and EPA will be under tremendous pressure.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hasselmann, Mark email file
From: Moody, Kevin
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2008 1:42 PM
Subject: RE: Sears Island Planning
My recommendation is that ME DOT remove the causeway and dedicate the mainland shoreline to preservation. Go for the momma of all credits with no future liabilities.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Hasselmann, Mark
Great idea. exactly what this latest group started with - the no build.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|