The Section 7 Process: Roles of The Wild & Scenic Study Committee and the National Park Service in VT Agency of Transportation Projects

Jamie Fosburgh, National Park Service (NPS), outlined the Section 7 process as it relates to a designated Wild and Scenic River.  He passed out a list of bridge projects the park service has dealt with on designated Wild and Scenic rivers.  Based on the input from the Study Committee, he anticipates that the covered bridges within the study area would be identified as an outstandingly remarkable value (ORV) and gave examples of the types of issues that have come up on other designated rivers.  He noted that the authority to review under Section 7 exists during the study period, not just once or if the river is designated. 

Prior to the meeting, Shana spoke with Ed Lausier, MassDOT, who has just received an award for the work they did on the McNerney Bridge in the designated Westfield River watershed.  He said that it resulted in a “better project” in the end because of Section 7 review of the project which made it more aesthetically pleasing and allowed for fish passage upstream.  He encouraged folks to get the NPS and Wild and Scenic Advisory Committee involved early to avoid and delay or cost issues.  He felt that Jim MacCartney from the NPS was “excellent” to work with.  Shana also talked with Bob Bennett from MassDOT.  He was working on a bridge replacement project on the designated Taunton River.  The project was going to close the river to canoeing for up to a year.  The W&S committee and NPS had concerns because this stretch was very important for canoeing.  The Advisory Committee and NPS were able to resolve the issue and limit the amount of time canoeing was disrupted during construction.  The Advisory Committee and NPS also worked with the contractor and DOT on developing an appropriate planting plan and maintaining access to the river.  Bob felt the process/involvement of the NPS and Wild and Scenic Advisory Committee “went well.” 

Jamie noted that the NPS operates within the normal timeframe of the project’s review process and does not excessively delay the project.  “We operate within the normal review process so that we don’t add a time delay.”  Jacques said that towns know they need to be prepared to take the time to go through the permit process for a big project.  Jacques notes that it’s not a fast process, and he doesn’t think Wild and Scenic designation would change anything about the process other than the NPS and local Advisory Committee’s involvement.  Jacques feels the permit process for the new bridge in Westfield, though long, was a “good experience, almost pleasant.”  Staci noted that these structures last 50-100+ years, and that the up-front time is worth it to be sure there is a good project outcome.  She doesn’t feel it makes sense to skimp on the details to save a few months. 

Jamie was asked if the NPS was involved during FEMA disaster response after Irene, which it was not.  Jamie felt that whatever is needed to protect public safety during a disaster is what happens.  The NPS has had MOUs with FEMA when working on long-term repairs but their involvement would not impede disaster response.   Timing for NPS and Wild and Scenic involvement is dictated by FEMA involvement; Wild and Scenic is brought in when projects are approved in order to coordinate.  In general, it was noted by Jamie that it’s important to talk early with the NPS and the local Advisory Committee about what groups have in mind for projects which would fall under their purview so that they can be sure there is no additional time delays or costs.  There may even be cost savings due to the resources the NPS can bring to bear, and the annual Wild and Scenic funds.  Funds/early coordination may provide the opportunity to end up with better projects.

Dianne Laplante mentioned that the culvert currently on the Taft Brook used to have a covered bridge. She asked if W&S funding could assist with recreating a covered bridge.  Jamie noted that it could, but doubted that those funds alone would be enough.  Jacque noted that the town is looking to install a bridge there but had not considered a covered bridge.  Richard Tetreault recommended applying for enhancement funding for that type of project.

Mark Higley asked that the committee be kept up to date on the National Park Service’s involvement with the review process.  He brought up the requirements at the Chase hydro site for a public viewing and canoe portage.  Jamie said that the Chases’ were supportive of having those elements included in the plan.  Ken Secor said that he did not recall those items being specifically discussed on the site visit.   Shana noted that she was part of the discussion at the site visit.  Jamie noted that the NPS (Department of Interior) sent a letter to the State supporting these elements in the recreation plan for the site.  One small wrinkle that has come up after the fact is that the Chases do not own all the land that includes the portage trail. 

Shana will look at the process of submitting comments and draft how these types of projects will be reviewed by the Study Committee.  Jamie clarified that this Study Committee does not currently have the mandate to formally review projects.  The NPS is bound to comment on projects during the study period, not the Study Committee.   The Study Committee may elect to comment on project if they wish.  If designation occurs, an Advisory Committee would be formed much in the same way that the Study Committee was formed.  This post-designation Advisory Committee would be responsible for the formal review and comment on projects which fall under Section 7 Review.  Letters from official review are posted on the resources section of our website.