· · · ·SECTION 106 CONSULTATION MEETING FOR

· · ARECIBO OBSERVATORY PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT

· · · · · · · · · TELECONFERENCE

The telephonic proceedings were held:

at Verbatim Reporting PR, 804 Ponce de León

Avenue, Suite 504, San Juan, Puerto Rico, on

Wednesday, July 13, 2017, at 1:12 p.m.

Reported By:· Derek L. Hoagland· · · · · · · California CSR No. 13445

APPEARANCES:

Elizabeth PentecostCaroline BlancoJoe PesceCharlene VaughnKristen HamiltonKira ZenderMadeline AlmodovarMaryNell Porter-WheatleyLori PriceFrancisco CordovaSean MarshallGloria Milagros OrtizHilda ColónQihou ZhouAndrew SeymourTom StatlerRafael CanalesGreg TosiKaren PearceBerenice SuieroJuan JanisMr. Ángel

·1· ·SAN JUAN, PUERTO RICO, THURSDAY, JULY 13, 2017

·2· · · · · · · ·P R O C E E D I N G S

·3· · · · · · ·MS. PENTECOST:· I am Elizabeth

·4· · · · Pentecost at the National Science

·5· · · · Foundation, Division of

·6· · · · Astronomical Sciences, and I am

·7· · · · supporting the EIS process for

·8· · · · Arecibo with our program officer

·9· · · · and our office of general counsel.

10· · · · · · ·And there are three other

11· · · · people from NSF in here today, and

12· · · · I will let them introduce

13· · · · themselves, and then we will

14· · · · introduce everybody that's on the

15· · · · line.

16· · · · · · ·MS. PESCE:· Hi, I am Joe Pesce.

17· · · · · · ·Derek, I will send you the

18· · · · spelling.· It is P as in "Paul," E,

19· · · · S as in "Sam," C-E.· And I am the

20· · · · Observatory program officer here in

21· · · · the Division of Astronomical

22· · · · Sciences at NSF.

23· · · · · · ·MS. HAMILTON:· Hi, this is

24· · · · Kristen Hamilton, K-r-i-s-t-e-n,

25· · · · Hamilton.· And I am an

·1· ·environmental science officer here

·2· ·at NSF.

·3· · · · MS. BLANCO:· And hi, I am

·4· ·Caroline Blanco.· I am assistant

·5· ·general counsel at NSF that

·6· ·oversees environmental matters.

·7· · · · MS. PENTECOST:· Why don't we

·8· ·start with anyone from our

·9· ·contractors, CH2M Hill.

10· · · · MS. ZENDER:· This is Kira

11· ·Zender.· We have Lori Price,

12· ·Madeline Almodovar and MaryNell

13· ·Porter-Wheatley on.

14· · · · THE REPORTER:· I am sorry.· You

15· ·are cutting out.

16· · · · (Dial tone.)

17· · · · MS. ZENDER:· This is Kira

18· ·Zender with CH2M.· We have Lori

19· ·Price, MaryNell Porter-Wheatley,

20· ·and Madeline Almodovar, and we will

21· ·send you an email.

22· · · · MS. PENTECOST:· Okay.· Do we

23· ·have anyone from the observatory on

24· ·the line?

25· · · · MR. CORDOVA:· Yes.· This is

·1· ·Francisco Cordova, director Arecibo

·2· ·Observatory, SRI International.

·3· · · · MS. PENTECOST:· Anyone else?

·4· · · · (Simultaneous speakers.)

·5· · · · MR. MARSHALL:· Sean Marshall.

·6· ·Right now I am a grad student at

·7· ·Cornell, but in a few months, I

·8· ·will be a post doc at Arecibo with

·9· ·the radar group.

10· · · · MS. PENTECOST:· Could you

11· ·repeat your name, please.

12· · · · MR. MARSHALL:· Sean Marshall.

13· · · · MS. PENTECOST:· Thank you.

14· ·Anyone from the SHPO's office?

15· · · · MS. COLÓN:· Sorry to interrupt.

16· ·This is Hilda Colón from the Ana G.

17· ·Mendez University System, UMET in

18· ·Arecibo.

19· · · · MS. ORTIZ:· This is Gloria

20· ·Milagros Ortiz from the SHPO

21· ·office.

22· · · · MS. SUEIRO:· And this is

23· ·Berenice Suiero from the SHPO

24· ·office.

25· · · · MS. PENTECOST:· Anyone else

·1· ·from the SHPO's office?

·2· · · · MS. ORTIZ:· They will be in

·3· ·shortly.

·4· · · · MS. PENTECOST:· Let me

·5· ·interrupt.· Anyone coming in,

·6· ·please make sure you send Derek

·7· ·Hoagland your email -- your name

·8· ·and affiliation so he has it for

·9· ·the record.· He is the

10· ·stenographer, the court reporter

11· ·who will be transcribing the

12· ·meeting.

13· · · · Who else is on the line?

14· · · · MS. VAUGHN:· Charlene --

15· · · · (Simultaneous speakers.)

16· · · · MS. VAUGHN:· -- from ACHP.

17· · · · (Simultaneous speakers.)

18· · · · MR. ZHOU:· Qihou Zhou from

19· ·Miami University.

20· · · · MS. PENTECOST:· A few ground

21· ·rules before we start.· One person

22· ·at a time, please, talking.· And

23· ·make sure you state your name

24· ·clearly so that Derek can get it.

25· · · · MS. BLANCO:· There was a

·1· ·gentleman --

·2· · · · MS. PENTECOST:· There was a

·3· ·gentleman that just --

·4· · · · MR. JANIS:· Hello?· Juan

·5· ·Janis (phonetic) SHPO PR.

·6· · · · MS. BLANCO:· Okay.

·7· · · · MR. ZHOU:· Qihou Zhou from

·8· ·Miami University.

·9· · · · MR. STATLER:· Hi, this is Tom

10· ·Statler NASA headquarters.

11· · · · And I apologize.· I will only

12· ·be able to stay on for half an

13· ·hour, but if it is essential to

14· ·have someone, I will be able to get

15· ·somebody to take my place.· So let

16· ·me know if it essential that a NASA

17· ·person be on this call.

18· · · · MS. PENTECOST:· Thank you, Tom.

19· · · · Who else is on the line,

20· ·please?· Anyone else who has not

21· ·stated who they are and their

22· ·affiliation?

23· · · · Okay.· Then we can start this

24· ·discussion.· Caroline?

25· · · · MS. BLANCO:· Thank you all for

·1· ·joining us.· This is the second

·2· ·call or second meeting we are

·3· ·having, the draft programatic

·4· ·agreements.· This is the way we

·5· ·address adverse effects associated

·6· ·with adverse effects on historic

·7· ·properties associated with our

·8· ·proposed action, which is proposed

·9· ·changes in operations.

10· · · · MS. PENTECOST:· Can I interrupt

11· ·for a minute?

12· · · · If you are not talking, would

13· ·you please mute your phone.

14· · · · MS. HAMILTON:· We are getting a

15· ·little bit of feedback.

16· · · · MS. PENTECOST:· Thanks so much.

17· · · · MS. BLANCO:· And so the

18· ·proposed action, proposed changes

19· ·to Arecibo operations, and the

20· ·focus of this programatic agreement

21· ·is on the preferred alternative,

22· ·and that is looking at continued

23· ·science focused operations, which

24· ·would use NSF funding.

25· · · · If it turns out that it is not

·1· ·viable to go forward with

·2· ·Alternative 1, our preferred

·3· ·alternative, then we will resume

·4· ·consultation on the remaining

·5· ·alternative.· And that is what was

·6· ·in the document.

·7· · · · Did somebody else just join us?

·8· ·If you could identify yourself,

·9· ·please.

10· · · · MR. CANALES:· Yes, I think it

11· ·is -- Rafael Canales from

12· ·Interamerican University Bayamón

13· ·Campus.· I think that I was --

14· · · · MS. BLANCO:· Could you please

15· ·email your name and affiliation to

16· ·our stenographer Derek?

17· · · · And, Liz, will you --

18· · · · MS. PENTECOST:· I will give you

19· ·his email address.· It is D as in

20· ·"David," L as in "Lima," H as in

21· ·"Henry," C as in "Charlie," S as in

22· ·"Sam," R as in "Roger," @gmail.com.

23· ·If you could email Derek your name,

24· ·full name and affiliation.

25· · · · Also joining us from NSF is

·1· ·Karen Pearce from our office of

·2· ·legislative affairs.

·3· · · · MS. PEARCE:· Hi --

·4· · · · (Discussion off the record.)

·5· · · · MS. BLANCO:· Okay.· So we

·6· ·already had met last Thursday

·7· ·night.· Thanks to all of you who

·8· ·were there and joined us.· And this

·9· ·is a meeting that we set up to

10· ·allow another opportunity for

11· ·either folks who were unable to

12· ·join us in Arecibo last Thursday

13· ·evening or folks who did join us

14· ·and wanted to continue the

15· ·discussion that we had.

16· · · · You have an agenda, I believe,

17· ·that was sent out.· There was a

18· ·direct email sent out to everybody

19· ·on this call, I believe.· And

20· ·because we finished introductions

21· ·and I have given a basic

22· ·explanation of the proposed action,

23· ·that is, continued science focused

24· ·operations at Arecibo.· And we are

25· ·now in the Section 106 process.

·1· · · · What is noteworthy, I think,

·2· ·also of explaining right now is

·3· ·that there was a solicitation early

·4· ·this calendar year for potential

·5· ·operators to take over Arecibo's

·6· ·operation.· And that the request

·7· ·for proposal has already passed,

·8· ·and the responses that we received

·9· ·are being reviewed, and that's

10· ·continuing on.

11· · · · So just to also let folks also

12· ·know about the timeline that we are

13· ·looking at, we began our

14· ·Section 106 process last summer,

15· ·and had a meeting in November and

16· ·have moved forward with some

17· ·correspondence and so forth, and

18· ·also met in -- let's see.· I am

19· ·trying to think what else -- just

20· ·last week, I think it was.

21· · · · And so we now are at a point

22· ·where we are looking at -- we have

23· ·identified adverse effects

24· ·associated with the proposed

25· ·actions.· And as I said, that we

·1· ·are focusing on just our preferred

·2· ·alternative and the adverse effects

·3· ·associated with the preferred

·4· ·alternative would be related to the

·5· ·demolition of any facilities or

·6· ·buildings that are part of the

·7· ·historic district in Arecibo.

·8· · · · And as we mentioned last week,

·9· ·we tried to explain during our

10· ·public meeting on the draft

11· ·environmental impact statement last

12· ·November, we put a number -- we

13· ·identified a number of buildings

14· ·that could be demolished under the

15· ·preferred alternative, but that was

16· ·just an estimate.· It is not

17· ·mandatory.

18· · · · So anybody that has responded

19· ·to our solicitation could decide

20· ·that they wanted to demolish those

21· ·buildings.· They could have decided

22· ·they wanted to demolish half of

23· ·those buildings, or none of those

24· ·buildings, or anywhere in between.

25· ·It is not mandatory.· We just

·1· ·wanted to emphasize that.· But what

·2· ·we wanted to do was at least set a

·3· ·ceiling so there wouldn't be under

·4· ·Alternative 1 anymore buildings

·5· ·demolished than those identified

·6· ·under Alternative 1.· And we did

·7· ·that to present a worst case

·8· ·scenario for purposes of analysis.

·9· ·And that's why we did that.

10· · · · Is there -- someone just joined

11· ·us.· If you would please identify

12· ·yourself.

13· · · · UNKNOWN SPEAKER:· Hi, this is

14· ·Ángel from the offices of

15· ·congresswoman Jenniffer González in

16· ·Washington.

17· · · · MS. BLANCO:· Great.· Thank you.

18· ·Welcome.· We will talk with you

19· ·later about sending your name and

20· ·affiliation to our stenographer

21· ·Derek, who is taking down the

22· ·transcription of this meeting.

23· · · · UNKNOWN SPEARER:· Okay.

24· · · · MS. BLANCO:· Thank you.

25· · · · So where we are at this point

·1· ·is we have drafted this draft

·2· ·programatic agreement, which is a

·3· ·legally binding instrument, once

·4· ·finalized and signed.· And it is

·5· ·designed to address adverse effects

·6· ·through avoidance, minimization

·7· ·and/or mitigation of those adverse

·8· ·effects.

·9· · · · And what we would like is

10· ·specific feedback on the draft that

11· ·we provided, if there are

12· ·provisions in there that you either

13· ·you like, do not like, or have

14· ·others to offer, we would like this

15· ·to be an interactive meeting.· We

16· ·did have some very helpful

17· ·suggestions from the last meeting,

18· ·and I can go through those, and

19· ·then we can pick up from where we

20· ·left off.

21· · · · So I just will pause for a

22· ·moment to ask if there are any

23· ·questions with this process and

24· ·where we are headed with this

25· ·meeting?· And remember, you may

·1· ·have your phone on mute.

·2· · · · Any questions?

·3· · · · MR. STATLER:· Yes.· This is Tom

·4· ·Statler, NASA Headquarters.· Just

·5· ·to make sure I understand, this is

·6· ·specifically regarding and limited

·7· ·to adverse effects with regard to

·8· ·historic preservation, correct?

·9· · · · MS. BLANCO:· Yes.· And this

10· ·meeting is pursuant to the National

11· ·Historic Preservation Act.· This is

12· ·under Section 106.

13· · · · MR. STATLER:· We are not

14· ·talking about operations and we are

15· ·not talking about public health and

16· ·safety, correct?

17· · · · MS. BLANCO:· No.· This deals

18· ·with historic properties and

19· ·addressing adverse impacts.

20· · · · MR. STATLER:· Thank you.

21· · · · So NASA really has nothing to

22· ·say about historic preservation, so

23· ·I will plan to go off the call if

24· ·there is no objection.· I will not

25· ·get somebody from NASA Headquarters

·1· ·to replace me on the call.

·2· · · · Is that all right?

·3· · · · MS. BLANCO:· That's fine.· And

·4· ·you will -- of course, NASA is a

·5· ·cooperating agency under our EIS

·6· ·process, National Environmental

·7· ·Policy Act process.· And also, NASA

·8· ·will continue to get drafts of this

·9· ·programatic agreement as it

10· ·matures.

11· · · · MR. STATLER:· Great.· Thank

12· ·you.· We will continue to review

13· ·them as they come in.· Thank you

14· ·very much.

15· · · · MS. BLANCO:· Thank you.

16· ·Appreciate it.

17· · · · So where we are at also with

18· ·the process is that we have

19· ·mentioned Thursday night that the

20· ·current operator of the observatory

21· ·is under a cooperative agreement

22· ·with NSF.· And that cooperative

23· ·agreement has been extended, and

24· ·now it expires March 31st of next

25· ·year, 2018.

·1· · · · So any new operator, if there

·2· ·is one selected, would begin on our

·3· ·April 1st of 2018.· So when we look

·4· ·at timing of trying to complete

·5· ·this process, we have to backtrack

·6· ·a little bit going from that

·7· ·March 31st, April 1st, time frame.

·8· ·And the steps that have to be

·9· ·accomplished before then is the

10· ·solicitation draft, which is

11· ·separate from the environmental

12· ·compliance draft, which includes

13· ·Section 106.

14· · · · The review has to be completed,

15· ·and the recommendations made by the

16· ·Astronomical Sciences Division, and

17· ·that needs to be reviewed by NSF

18· ·above AST's division.· And then

19· ·there will be a decision about

20· ·whether that -- there is a viable

21· ·operator to select.· That we would

22· ·expect would happen sometime around

23· ·September, mid to late September

24· ·time frame.· I am looking at Joe

25· ·and he is nodding his head.

·1· · · · And the reason why September is

·2· ·important is because it will take

·3· ·time to discuss the terms of the

·4· ·cooperative agreement, which is the

·5· ·instrument through which NSF funds,

·6· ·and that will govern how the

·7· ·operator would operate the

·8· ·facility.

·9· · · · And just as a note, there are

10· ·two scenarios that could occur with

11· ·the new operator.· And they are

12· ·identified in our draft programatic

13· ·agreement.· One is that under one

14· ·scenario, NSF would retain

15· ·ownership of the facility and land,

16· ·and there would just be a new

17· ·operator that would move forward

18· ·with reduced NSF funding

19· ·contributions, and a phase out

20· ·eventually of funding.

21· · · · The other scenario is one in

22· ·which NSF would transfer the

23· ·property to an operator where NSF

24· ·would no longer retain federal

25· ·ownership.· And that is significant

·1· ·because for purposes of

·2· ·Section 106, because Section 106 is

·3· ·a statute that applies only to

·4· ·federal agencies.· It would not

·5· ·apply to a new operator if they

·6· ·were to take over operations and

·7· ·ownership of the facility.

·8· · · · So Section 106 is there as a

·9· ·protection for historic properties

10· ·to make sure that they are

11· ·considered.· Effects on them are

12· ·considered before federal agencies

13· ·make decisions, so I did want to

14· ·point that out to make sure that

15· ·people were aware of that.· And

16· ·that's why we divided up the

17· ·preferred alternatives in terms of

18· ·treating it in two different ways.

19· ·One, where -- again, we would

20· ·retain ownership.· And another

21· ·where ownership would be

22· ·transferred.

23· · · · So if the -- if there is a

24· ·decision on a viable operator,

25· ·which we are hopeful that we will

·1· ·eventually find one, and that there

·2· ·will be a decision on that in the

·3· ·September time frame.· And before

·4· ·we can make that decision, we have

·5· ·to actually make a decision on the

·6· ·different alternatives that we have

·7· ·been analyzing through our

·8· ·compliance process.· So if we were

·9· ·to go forward with a viable

10· ·operator, we would end up selecting

11· ·Alternative 1 in our record of

12· ·decision.

13· · · · So if we do issue a record of

14· ·decision that does select

15· ·Alternative 1, you can look at that

16· ·as a favorable sign that we think

17· ·there is a viable operator that we

18· ·could select.· It doesn't select

19· ·any particular operator.· It just

20· ·says this is a path that is viable.

21· ·And if it ends up turning out that

22· ·one of those operator is indeed

23· ·viable and selected, then that

24· ·would implement the decision

25· ·alternative that's selected.

·1· · · · Who just joined, please?

·2· · · · MR. MARSHALL:· This is Sean

·3· ·Marshall again.· Just switching to

·4· ·a different phone.

·5· · · · MS. PENTECOST:· That's quite

·6· ·all right.· Thank you.

·7· · · · MS. BLANCO:· So that's the

·8· ·track on the record of decision and

·9· ·selection, if any, of a new

10· ·operator.· What has to happen

11· ·before record of decision is we

12· ·have to issue our final

13· ·environmental impact statement, at

14· ·least 30 days before that decision

15· ·is made.· Also, we will need to

16· ·have completed this Section 106

17· ·process.· So we cannot be in any

18· ·position to select a new operator

19· ·until this process is wrapped up

20· ·and finalized.

21· · · · And I believe -- I am looking

22· ·at Kristen -- I believe we have

23· ·finished our Endangered Species Act

24· ·compliance.· Is that correct?

25· · · · MS. HAMILTON:· Yes, that's

·1· ·correct.

·2· · · · MS. BLANCO:· So that piece of

·3· ·it is completed.· We expect to

·4· ·issue our final environmental

·5· ·impact statement sometime in the --

·6· ·it is probably looking like more

·7· ·beginning of August, I think.· And

·8· ·then again, we have to count the 30

·9· ·days after publication of that

10· ·final EIS before we issue a record

11· ·of decision.· So it is looking

12· ·probably more like early September

13· ·or so when we issue the record of

14· ·decision.

15· · · · And then again it would be

16· ·followed up by selection of a new

17· ·operator, if that is something we

18· ·are able to do.· So, again, I will

19· ·pause for any questions on that

20· ·entire process.

21· · · · MS. VAUGHN:· So this is

22· ·Charlene Vaughn from the ACHP. I

23· ·just had occasion to talk to

24· ·another agency who had a final EIS,

25· ·and issued a record of decision.

·1· ·With the passage of time, a year or

·2· ·so, they changed the alternative

·3· ·that was the preferred alternative.

·4· ·And in changing that, the scope of

·5· ·the project actually changed.

·6· · · · How does NSF address that so if

·7· ·we execute the PA and we reference

·8· ·Alternative 1 as the preferred

·9· ·alternative and all the mitigation

10· ·is outlined therein, and then for

11· ·whatever reason NSF chooses to go

12· ·in another direction, are we going

13· ·to have in this PA contingencies?

14· ·Or do you have to change the scope

15· ·as this other agency -- scope

16· ·undertaking as this other agency

17· ·did and elicit more or do more

18· ·Section 106 compliance?

19· · · · MS. BLANCO:· So I believe it is

20· ·on page 3 under the second whereas

21· ·clause, and there we identify that

22· ·we are looking at focusing here on

23· ·our preferred alternative that is

24· ·Alternative 1.· If we determine

25· ·that that's not possible, it is not

·1· ·ultimately feasible, we will resume

·2· ·consultation with everybody on our

·3· ·list.

·4· · · · MS. VAUGHN:· Okay.

·5· · · · MS. BLANCO:· And focusing on

·6· ·the remaining alternatives so that

·7· ·could play out in, you know, one of

·8· ·two ways, we would not select

·9· ·Alternative 1 if by the time of the

10· ·record of decision we have

11· ·concluded that there is no viable

12· ·way that we could pursue

13· ·alternative 1.· In that case, we

14· ·would just resume consultation as

15· ·soon as we have made that

16· ·determination.· Right now, that's

17· ·not where we are at.· Right now, we

18· ·still feel that we can move forward

19· ·focusing on Alternative 1, our

20· ·preferred alternative.

21· · · · If it turned out that we

22· ·selected in our record of decision

23· ·Alternative 1 and between that time

24· ·and the time of a decision on

25· ·whether we can select a new

·1· ·operator, we determine that that's

·2· ·not going to work out, then what we

·3· ·would do is resume consultation on

·4· ·the remaining alternative.· We

·5· ·would have to amend our record of

·6· ·decision ultimately.

·7· · · · We would have to go back and do

·8· ·work on our Endangered Species Act

·9· ·consultation.· Our NEPA document,

10· ·however, has addressed all of the

11· ·five alternatives.· So we don't

12· ·believe we would need to do any

13· ·additional work under NEPA, at

14· ·least that's what we perceive at

15· ·this point.· Unless something else

16· ·changed at this point, NEPA

17· ·wouldn't have to be revisited, but

18· ·we definitely would resume

19· ·consultation on Alternatives 2

20· ·through 5 for purposes of 106.

21· · · · MS. VAUGHN:· Okay.· So my next

22· ·question is, and then I will be

23· ·quiet.· Is that the most efficient

24· ·way to do this, or is it a way that

25· ·contingencies can be written into

·1· ·the agreement?

·2· · · · MS. BLANCO:· I think the

·3· ·contingencies are written into the

·4· ·agreement.· And I think that was

·5· ·actually at your suggestion,

·6· ·Charlene, and if you have a

·7· ·different -- if we didn't address

·8· ·that in the way that you intended,

·9· ·by all means let us know how we can

10· ·clarify that.

11· · · · MS. VAUGHN:· Okay.· That's it.

12· ·Thank you.

13· · · · MS. BLANCO:· Okay.· And it is.

14· · · · MS. SUIERO:· I'm sorry.· This

15· ·is Berenice from the SHPO office.

16· ·I have a question.· I will be

17· ·honest to you, I am a little bit

18· ·confused because NEPA in

19· ·Section 106 has not been united in

20· ·this process.· And when I read the

21· ·PA, there is a lot of language from

22· ·NEPA that can be confusing in a

23· ·Section 106 process.· So I don't

24· ·know if you, your agency decided to

25· ·unite the process or not, because

·1· ·there is too much language in the

·2· ·first three pages that reflects

·3· ·NEPA, but you have consistently

·4· ·carried out meetings separately for

·5· ·NEPA and for Section 106.

·6· · · · And if we are trying to have

·7· ·the consulting parties to have a

·8· ·clear understanding of Section 106

·9· ·and the process and we start

10· ·talking about NEPA, which has

11· ·another set of rules, I think it is

12· ·confusing.

13· · · · And, Charlene, you are here and

14· ·maybe you can help in clarifying

15· ·this, because we are not an expert

16· ·in NEPA.· We are -- in fact, we

17· ·don't participate in NEPA.· We

18· ·participate in the Section 106

19· ·process.

20· · · · MS. PENTECOST:· Let me --

21· · · · MS. BLANCO:· Let me try to help

22· ·clarify that.· I believe on the

23· ·first page there is no reference to

24· ·NEPA at all.

25· · · · The second page -- and also,

·1· ·just for folks who are unfamiliar

·2· ·with Section 106 and how that can

·3· ·fit in with NEPA, there are two

·4· ·ways, you can do it.· You can do it

·5· ·completely separately or you

·6· ·could -- there are special

·7· ·procedures where you can do them

·8· ·simultaneously and where you use

·9· ·NEPA in lieu of Section 106.

10· · · · We have not chosen to pursue

11· ·the latter because we think it will

12· ·be clearer here.· But we have

13· ·handled the two processes

14· ·concurrently for efficiency's sake

15· ·so that when we -- when we try to

16· ·save money on government travel, so

17· ·we hold our Section 106 meeting at

18· ·the same time as we would hold our

19· ·draft environmental impact

20· ·statement public meeting.

21· · · · So that's why -- and a lot of

22· ·people who have been participating

23· ·in this call, probably everybody,

24· ·have been -- attended our NEPA

25· ·meetings.

·1· · · · And so our intent in putting

·2· ·some of the information under NEPA

·3· ·on page 2 in the whereas clauses,

·4· ·and I believe once more on page 3

·5· ·where we just said we identified

·6· ·Alternative 1 as the preferred

·7· ·alternative, it was just so that

·8· ·the folks who have attended both

·9· ·meetings wouldn't get confused,

10· ·because they knew about the other

11· ·meetings from NEPA.· They knew

12· ·about the federal register notices

13· ·and so forth.

14· · · · If there is confusion over this

15· ·or if there is a paragraph that you

16· ·think we should put in about, maybe

17· ·clarifying that there are two

18· ·separate processes, but that, you

19· ·know, the outreach on the proposed

20· ·action was also included in the

21· ·outreach under our NEPA process.

22· ·We could do that.· I am not sure

23· ·what would be the most helpful.

24· · · · MS. VAUGHN:· So this is

25· ·Charlene Vaughn again.· So

·1· ·Caroline, if I am hearing you,

·2· ·while there are references to NEPA,

·3· ·NSF is clear that this agreement

·4· ·document is all about NHPA, and the

·5· ·preferences to NEPA are just to

·6· ·provide context, but this is all

·7· ·about historic preservation,

·8· ·correct?

·9· · · · MS. BLANCO:· Absolutely.· And

10· ·one of the things, there is another

11· ·place where the programatic

12· ·agreement will fit in.· And that is

13· ·that under NEPA, we have to analyze

14· ·impacts on cultural resources,

15· ·historic properties and so forth.

16· ·It is not the same analysis as what

17· ·is done under Section 106, but what

18· ·we try to do in this circumstance

19· ·is to have our NEPA document

20· ·reflect the same type of ways in

21· ·which we address adverse effects

22· ·under Section 106.· So we want the

23· ·two documents to be consistent.

24· · · · Again, they are two different

25· ·statutes, different requirements

·1· ·for the analysis, but there should

·2· ·be consistent information.· And

·3· ·likewise, we have to finish our

·4· ·Section 106 consultation before we

·5· ·are legally able to issue a record

·6· ·of decision.· That record of

·7· ·decision, once issued, will reflect

·8· ·everything that we have in this

·9· ·Section 106 document.· And we will

10· ·include sensitive programatic

11· ·agreements, if finalized, as an

12· ·appendix to that record of

13· ·decision.· So you will see the

14· ·overlap there in those two ways as

15· ·well.

16· · · · Is there a section Berenice

17· ·that -- or a way in which you think

18· ·we should address that concern

19· ·differently than we have?

20· · · · MS. SUIERO:· Honestly, I am not

21· ·an expert in NEPA.· And usually the

22· ·agency that we have dealt that are

23· ·running both processes do not even

24· ·mention them in the PA, so that's

25· ·why I asked also Charlene if she

·1· ·has had a suggestion.· But I just

·2· ·wanted to be clear, because this is

·3· ·a Sub-section 106 meeting and there

·4· ·are other stakeholders on the line

·5· ·that need to understand what we are

·6· ·doing, which is Section 106

·7· ·consultation process, and what we

·8· ·are talking today is about the

·9· ·historic properties that are

10· ·included in the national register

11· ·of historic places, which is the

12· ·complete observatory.

13· · · · MS. BLANCO:· Right.· I am

14· ·wondering if maybe it might be

15· ·helpful on page 4, before the

16· ·paragraph that starts, "Now

17· ·therefore," maybe we could include

18· ·another whereas clause to make it

19· ·very clear that this document only

20· ·concerns Section 106.

21· · · · Would that be helpful?

22· · · · MS. VAUGHN:· I think that would

23· ·be helpful.

24· · · · This is Charlene again.

25· · · · I think that would be helpful,

·1· ·that while these reviews have been

·2· ·coordinated, this PA is

·3· ·specifically about NEPA would very

·4· ·helpful to everybody involved, I

·5· ·think.

·6· · · · MS. BLANCO:· Okay.· I am just

·7· ·taking notes here.

·8· · · · Any other thoughts on -- what I

·9· ·thought we would do, I will pause

10· ·for more thoughts, but just to let

11· ·you know where, I thought I would

12· ·head -- and of course, if other

13· ·folks have other ideas, by all

14· ·means chime in, but I thought for

15· ·purposes of just review and

16· ·introduction to those people who

17· ·weren't able to join us last

18· ·Thursday, I would go through the

19· ·various suggestions that were made

20· ·during last Thursday evening's

21· ·meeting.

22· · · · And just to let everybody know

23· ·so that we are all on the same page

24· ·of what is being considered for the

25· ·next --

·1· · · · MS. VAUGHN:· I endorse that. I

·2· ·think that would be very helpful to

·3· ·everybody.

·4· · · · MS. BLANCO:· Okay.· Then is

·5· ·everybody ready to move forward in

·6· ·that respect or would anybody like

·7· ·to move forward in another way

·8· ·first?· Okay.· Then I am hopeful

·9· ·everybody has the draft programatic

10· ·agreement in front of them.· It was

11· ·emailed to you.· It was attached to

12· ·the email that went to you, so

13· ·hopefully you have it.· If somebody

14· ·needs it resent, I guess speak up

15· ·now.

16· · · · MS. HAMILTON:· And you should

17· ·have -- there was a reminder email

18· ·that went out today and there was a

19· ·link to click on that.· You will

20· ·see a whole list of documents,

21· ·including the draft for programatic

22· ·agreement, so if you click on that,

23· ·you should be able to pull it up on

24· ·your web browser.

25· · · · MS. PENTECOST:· Or you could go

·1· ·to the website to.

·2· · · · MS. BLANCO:· You could go

·3· ·directly to the website.

·4· · · · And just as a clarification,

·5· ·there was a comment made by Carmen

·6· ·at the last meeting where she

·7· ·identified that there were some

·8· ·dates that were incorrect.· And I

·9· ·saw the document and they were

10· ·incorrect.· But the document that

11· ·she was looking at was actually

12· ·attached to an email.

13· · · · It was a more preliminary

14· ·version of the document that you

15· ·all have, and that I believe was

16· ·the document that was sent out to

17· ·the SHPO advisory counsel in late

18· ·April.· We would hoped to have

19· ·initial feedback from the SHPO and

20· ·the advisory counsel, and that was

21· ·the version that we sent out for

22· ·some feedback.

23· · · · And then we later had a

24· ·discussion and we revamped, revised

25· ·the preliminary draft and what you

·1· ·have is the correct, current draft

·2· ·programatic agreement and it

·3· ·doesn't have an accurate date.· It

·4· ·is all accurate, I believe.· Yes,

·5· ·it is all accurate.

·6· · · · Then, moving forward on the

·7· ·first page, there is a fifth

·8· ·paragraph, the 3rd from the bottom,

·9· ·and this is a paragraph that is a

10· ·whereas clause that addresses the

11· ·various scientific reviews that

12· ·were conducted, wherein there were

13· ·recommendations to divest, for NSF

14· ·to divest from Arecibo Observatory.

15· · · · Did somebody just join us?

16· ·Maybe somebody got cut off and is

17· ·resigning.

18· · · · MR. TOSI:· No.· This is Greg

19· ·Tosi from González's office.· I was

20· ·just picking up on the call now.

21· · · · MS. BLANCO:· Great.· Could you

22· ·please restate your name.

23· · · · MR. TOSI:· Sure.· Greg, last

24· ·name is T-o-s-i.

25· · · · MS. BLANCO:· Thank you.· The

·1· ·reason I ask also is because we

·2· ·have a stenographer, Derek, who is

·3· ·transcribing.

·4· · · · MR. TOSI:· Really?

·5· · · · MS. BLANCO:· Yes.· We will take

·6· ·one quick moment to repeat the

·7· ·email address for Derek, so anybody

·8· ·that hasn't sent him your name and

·9· ·affiliation, if you could, make

10· ·sure you have done it.

11· · · · MS. PENTECOST:· His email is D

12· ·as in "David," L as in "lima," H as

13· ·in "Henry," C as in "Charlie," S as

14· ·in "Sam," R as in "Roger," @gmail.com.

15· ·So anyone who has joined us please

16· ·send Derek your name and

17· ·affiliation for the record.

18· · · · MS. BLANCO:· Thank you so much.

19· · · · Moving back to this comment on

20· ·the first page of the draft

21· ·programatic agreement on the third

22· ·whereas clause from the bottom,

23· ·dealing with the recommendations

24· ·for divestment from Arecibo

25· ·Observatory, the request was made

·1· ·to put in references to the

·2· ·document where those

·3· ·recommendations occurred.· And we

·4· ·will do that in the next draft.

·5· ·And that was all we heard on

·6· ·page 1.

·7· · · · On page 2, we didn't receive

·8· ·any comments.· And not to say you

·9· ·can't add to them, but, again, just

10· ·going through what we heard on

11· ·Thursday night.

12· · · · MS. VAUGHN:· I'm sorry to

13· ·interrupt.· However, can you -- I

14· ·am looking at the whereas clause

15· ·where it says NSF is in a funding

16· ·constrained environment and needs

17· ·to maintain a balance, and then

18· ·cutting edge research portfolio.

19· ·At the meeting I am sure you saw

20· ·it, because we were sitting and

21· ·looking at the same vantage point.

22· · · · People kind of guessed at the

23· ·"cutting edge" comment.· Is there

24· ·any way we could change that

25· ·concept, because what I heard was

·1· ·that there is cutting edge

·2· ·research.· It may not be at a level

·3· ·that peer review endorses it, but I

·4· ·felt bad for the people because

·5· ·they believe that the work they do

·6· ·is relevant and is important.· And

·7· ·I think the word "cutting edge"

·8· ·inadvertently demeans, so if you

·9· ·could replace that concept with

10· ·some other language.· And I am not

11· ·a scientist, so I don't have a

12· ·recommendation, but I am sure we

13· ·could say it in a different way

14· ·that doesn't offend.

15· · · · MS. BLANCO:· What about if we

16· ·just eliminated the "cutting edge"

17· ·to "maintain a researched portfolio

18· ·with a larger scientific return for

19· ·the taxpayer dollar."

20· · · · MS. SUIERO:· Excuse me for a

21· ·second.· We got lost here.· Where

22· ·is that whereas?· Which page?

23· · · · MS. BLANCO:· It is on the one

24· ·right above the big paragraph that

25· ·we were discussing before.

·1· · · · MS. SUIERO:· Okay.

·2· · · · MS. BLANCO:· The sentence, "NSF

·3· ·is in a funding strained

·4· ·environment," midway in the page.

·5· · · · Did you find it Berenice?

·6· · · · MS. SUIERO:· Juan and I are

·7· ·here trying to find it.

·8· · · · MS. PENTECOST:· It is the fifth

·9· ·whereas.

10· · · · MS. BLANCO:· Yeah, it is the

11· ·fifth whereas on the page.

12· · · · MS. SUIERO:· Okay.· Got it.

13· ·Thank you.· Sorry.

14· · · · MS. PENTECOST:· No problem.

15· · · · MS. BLANCO:· And so my

16· ·suggestion was just in response to

17· ·Charlene's comment that we just

18· ·delete "and cutting edge."

19· · · · Does that help?

20· · · · MS. VAUGHN:· That works for me.

21· ·Anybody else have any thoughts

22· ·about that?

23· · · · MR. TOSI:· I think that works.

24· ·That was a good catch the rationale

25· ·behind the funding, I think, on

·1· ·behalf of NSF is that we want to,

·2· ·quote, "invest in newer

·3· ·facilities," so it shouldn't -- it

·4· ·has nothing to do with the quality

·5· ·of the science.

·6· · · · MS. BLANCO:· Right.· And we

·7· ·agree.

·8· · · · MS. PENTECOST:· Who just made

·9· ·that comment, please?

10· · · · MR. CORDOVA:· This is

11· ·Francisco.

12· · · · MS. BLANCO:· Hi, Francisco.

13· · · · MR. CORDOVA:· Hi, how is it

14· ·going?

15· · · · MS. BLANCO:· If you haven't

16· ·spoken already, please repeat your

17· ·name so that the stenographer knows

18· ·who is speaking.· That would be

19· ·really great.

20· · · · MR. CORDOVA:· Sure.

21· · · · MS. BLANCO:· Thanks so much and

22· ·hi.

23· · · · Any other comments?

24· · · · I guess we can go page by page

25· ·and I can tell you what was, that

·1· ·may be a more efficient way, what

·2· ·was suggested Thursday night.· And

·3· ·so Charlene offered up that new

·4· ·comment.· Are there any others on

·5· ·that first page?

·6· · · · MR. SEYMOUR:· Hi, this is

·7· ·Andrew Seymour from Arecibo. I

·8· ·just got disconnected, but I wanted

·9· ·to go back and talk about most of

10· ·the taxpayer dollars.· If you look

11· ·at the number of papers for the

12· ·facility versus the dollars spent,

13· ·I don't think there is a more

14· ·efficient facility than Arecibo, so

15· ·that statement if investigated may

16· ·be false.

17· · · · MS. BLANCO:· Well, again,

18· ·remember that for this particular

19· ·meeting, we are focusing on effects

20· ·on historic properties, but that

21· ·particular language that you are

22· ·referring to doesn't speak to

23· ·Arecibo or any particular facility.

24· ·That provision just refers to NSF

25· ·and its portfolio in general.· So

·1· ·is that objectionable?

·2· · · · MR. SEYMOUR:· I don't think it

·3· ·can speak to the logic of why you

·4· ·are doing what you are doing. I

·5· ·think a more concise viewpoint

·6· ·needs to be listed there.

·7· · · · MS. BLANCO:· Well, that

·8· ·wasn't -- it is just a basic

·9· ·premise, the basic premise is that

10· ·it is true NSF is in a funding

11· ·strained environment and that we

12· ·have to balance our research

13· ·portfolio with the larger

14· ·scientific return for the taxpayer

15· ·dollar.· It, again, does not speak

16· ·to Arecibo itself.

17· · · · MR. SEYMOUR:· But that line of

18· ·logic contradicts what you are

19· ·trying to do here.· It is a logic

20· ·fallacy.· I don't -- because per

21· ·dollar, you can't get the quality

22· ·or the number of science that's

23· ·happening.· So either come up with

24· ·a different reason.· I understand

25· ·you are in a financial crunch, but

·1· ·if someone looks back at that,

·2· ·that's not a true statement.

·3· · · · MS. BLANCO:· Well, from NSF's

·4· ·standpoint, we think it is a true

·5· ·statement.· We certainly don't

·6· ·imply anything disparaging about.

·7· · · · MR. SEYMOUR:· Could you list --

·8· ·have any lists been done for that?

·9· ·Has there ever been a study to

10· ·determine which facilities are the

11· ·best?

12· · · · MS. BLANCO:· Yes, there has

13· ·been -- the reviews have all been

14· ·there.· But I really want to be

15· ·sure about this discussion about

16· ·the scientific merit about Arecibo

17· ·isn't the focus of this meeting.

18· · · · Last meeting, we spent about

19· ·two-thirds of the meeting talking

20· ·about the scientific importance of

21· ·Arecibo.· I think everybody in the

22· ·room, including NSF, acknowledges

23· ·the scientific importance of

24· ·Arecibo, but this particular

25· ·process is to discuss adverse

·1· ·effects on historic properties and

·2· ·it is not to discuss the merits

·3· ·of --

·4· · · · MR. SEYMOUR:· Right.· I agree.

·5· ·And I don't want to take more time

·6· ·on this.· But the fact is that it

·7· ·has to be truthful.· And the fact

·8· ·is NSF has to explain their logic

·9· ·and I have yet to see a logic where

10· ·that puts us where we are sitting

11· ·today.

12· · · · MS. BLANCO:· Well, I think when

13· ·it refers to NSF in general -- and

14· ·we are not even necessarily talking

15· ·about astronomy in that sentence,

16· ·it is talking -- I mean, NSF truly

17· ·is in a funding constrained

18· ·environment.

19· · · · MR. SEYMOUR:· Agreed.

20· · · · MS. BLANCO:· Right.· Okay.· So

21· ·we are good there.· NSF does have

22· ·to have a balanced research

23· ·portfolio.· I think we are okay

24· ·there?

25· · · · MR. SEYMOUR:· Yes, agreed.

·1· · · · MS. BLANCO:· And what we do

·2· ·need to do is spend our taxpayer

·3· ·dollars wisely.· So we need to get

·4· ·as much of the scientific benefit

·5· ·using the dollars that we have.

·6· · · · MR. SEYMOUR:· And Arecibo falls

·7· ·directly into that.

·8· · · · MS. BLANCO:· Again, this does

·9· ·not apply to Arecibo specifically.

10· ·It applies to NSF mission.

11· · · · MR. SEYMOUR:· Right.· And NSF's

12· ·mission -- we are getting into the

13· ·weeds here.· But I think that

14· ·statement alone is not true, that

15· ·very last statement, and I would

16· ·like to have that stricken because

17· ·Arecibo is a multi-disciplined

18· ·facility, that other telescopes

19· ·aren't doing (inaudible) astronomy,

20· ·but also planetary science and

21· ·atmospheric science.

22· · · · I think for NSF's dollar,

23· ·Arecibo and the taxpayer dollar, is

24· ·highly efficient for that, and that

25· ·statement is blatantly false, and

·1· ·that's my comment on that line.

·2· · · · MS. BLANCO:· I think what I am

·3· ·hearing from you is that you are

·4· ·saying that -- correct me if I am

·5· ·wrong -- but I think what I am

·6· ·hearing is that you are saying is

·7· ·that Arecibo is giving a large

·8· ·scientific return for the taxpayer

·9· ·dollar.

10· · · · MR. SEYMOUR:· Absolutely.

11· ·Absolutely.· If you look at the

12· ·total number of papers that are

13· ·published using Arecibo and its

14· ·data, either from fast radio

15· ·bursts, nanograph science, these

16· ·are all cutting-edge fundamental

17· ·questions that go into other

18· ·divisions of NSF as well.

19· · · · If you look at the total number

20· ·of papers versus the dollars spent

21· ·at Arecibo it is one of the most

22· ·efficient facilities for the

23· ·taxpayer dollars.

24· · · · MS. BLANCO:· What I think maybe

25· ·we might do is -- I will throw this

·1· ·idea out there -- is that maybe

·2· ·approach this in a little bit

·3· ·different of a way, because I do

·4· ·think that that sentence is

·5· ·absolutely true for NSF, but if

·6· ·what we are trying to do is make

·7· ·sure that it is acknowledged that

·8· ·the science coming out of Arecibo

·9· ·is important, I think maybe what we

10· ·can do is put in a whereas clause

11· ·or maybe supplement one of the

12· ·existing ones that does talk about

13· ·the scientific strengths of

14· ·Arecibo.

15· · · · MR. TOSI:· This is Greg from

16· ·González's office.· Is it possible

17· ·to say in that whereas clause it is

18· ·NSF's mission to have a balanced

19· ·portfolio?· This is the fifth one

20· ·right?· Okay.· That's just a

21· ·suggestion.· You know, it is the

22· ·NSF's mission.· I put it out there.

23· · · · MS. BLANCO:· That's okay.

24· · · · MS. VAUGHN:· I think focusing

25· ·on the portfolio is better than

·1· ·opining on cutting edge science and

·2· ·return for taxpayer dollar. I

·3· ·think it doesn't offend anyone and

·4· ·it is a statement of fact that you

·5· ·all have to have a balanced

·6· ·portfolio that spends the money

·7· ·that you have wisely.· And of

·8· ·course, I wouldn't say "used

·9· ·widely," but that's the and gist of

10· ·what I felt this was.· And yes we

11· ·spent a lot of time having these

12· ·discussions last week about the

13· ·science and the merit of the

14· ·facility.· I think we all agreed

15· ·that there was value in the

16· ·operation of Arecibo.· NSF didn't

17· ·debate us on that fact.· It is just

18· ·a matter of how we capture it.

19· · · · MS. BLANCO:· Charlene, how

20· ·would you propose -- I guess

21· ·maybe -- I am struggling trying to

22· ·find a difference between what you

23· ·said and what is written.· I am

24· ·must be missing something.

25· · · · MS. VAUGHN:· I think it is

·1· ·there when you take out the

·2· ·"cutting edge research."

·3· · · · MS. BLANCO:· Okay.

·4· · · · MS. VAUGHN:· I think it

·5· ·basically says it, but "the larger

·6· ·scientific return for the taxpayer

·7· ·dollar," that to me seems

·8· ·subjective and an opinion.· You

·9· ·know what I mean?· That seems to be

10· ·more subject.· And so if we can --

11· · · · MS. BLANCO:· Yes.

12· · · · MS. VAUGHN:· -- eliminate any

13· ·things that appear subjective and

14· ·just state that facts.· You all

15· ·have to have a balanced portfolio

16· ·for doing your work.· And I think

17· ·that is one of the reasons that we

18· ·are in this situation that we are

19· ·in, because you are trying to

20· ·balance the portfolio.

21· · · · MS. BLANCO:· Right.· Right.

22· · · · MS. SUIERO:· I have a comment

23· ·that it is a little bit earlier

24· ·than the fifth whereas.· I think in

25· ·the fourth whereas you also need a

·1· ·correction that can clarify the

·2· ·fifth one, which is when you

·3· ·mention that, "The Arecibo

·4· ·Observatory holds significant

·5· ·cultural importance to the people

·6· ·of Puerto Rico as a source of

·7· ·inspiration and pride," even on the

·8· ·second one, you have to remember

·9· ·that Arecibo is included in the

10· ·register under national,

11· ·significant.· And the nomination

12· ·has comparison with other

13· ·observatories and facilities

14· ·similar to Arecibo.· And the

15· ·nomination established its

16· ·uniqueness.· That's one.

17· · · · And secondly, not only

18· ·nationwide, and this was also

19· ·discussed in the meeting that we

20· ·had, is that a lot of scientists

21· ·from all over the world do research

22· ·in this facility.· So Arecibo has a

23· ·much broader impact worldwide than

24· ·what is being put into the initial

25· ·whereas.· And that might help

·1· ·clarify since the beginning what we

·2· ·are doing here.

·3· · · · It is a historic property

·4· ·because of its sciences' importance

·5· ·because of its technological and

·6· ·construction method, which we

·7· ·cannot separate science and methods

·8· ·of construction and engineering,

·9· ·from science, from the historic

10· ·property.

11· · · · MS. BLANCO:· If you look at the

12· ·second whereas clauses, I think it

13· ·is the second whereas clause that

14· ·does address it.· "It is on the

15· ·national register because of its

16· ·contribution to science and

17· ·engineering."· Is that different

18· ·than what you are saying?

19· · · · MS. SUIERO:· What I am trying

20· ·to say is Arecibo is at a national

21· ·level in the register.· It is not

22· ·only for Puerto Rico, which is

23· ·important.

24· · · · MS. BLANCO:· It does say that

25· ·though.· Maybe what we can add to

·1· ·that second whereas clause.· We do

·2· ·say it was listed in the national

·3· ·register of historic places.· "It

·4· ·is a national astronomy and

·5· ·ionospheric center, historic

·6· ·district under criterion A."· Maybe

·7· ·we can say "because of its

·8· ·contribution" --

·9· · · · MS. PENTECOST:· "Nationally."

10· · · · MS. BLANCO:· Yeah, I was going

11· ·to say, "its national contribution

12· ·to the history of science and

13· ·ionosphere studies."

14· · · · And we do say, "and the

15· ·development of radio and radar

16· ·astronomy in the United States." I

17· ·guess I am just trying to figure

18· ·out how to capture that idea when I

19· ·thought we had already referred to

20· ·it as being national.· But I am

21· ·happy to put in other words if you

22· ·think --

23· · · · MS. SUIERO:· Caroline, the only

24· ·reason why I make the comment, and

25· ·I don't want to go back into all

·1· ·the things we talked in our July 6

·2· ·meeting, but for the benefit of the

·3· ·new consulting parties in the line

·4· ·is that you cannot separate science

·5· ·or engineering from Arecibo's

·6· ·historic importance in this

·7· ·particular case.· It goes together.

·8· · · · MS. BLANCO:· Right.· And I

·9· ·can --

10· · · · Go ahead.

11· · · · MS. COLÓN:· Sorry.· Can I

12· ·participate?· I don't know if this

13· ·helps or not, but maybe, maybe, if

14· ·we acknowledge in whereas No. 4 NSF

15· ·acknowledges that there is cultural

16· ·importance to the people of Puerto

17· ·Rico and internationally as a

18· ·source of inspiration and pride, in

19· ·addition to the cultural and

20· ·scientifically iconic.· I guess

21· ·that would get probably, with some

22· ·help, solve this, the state that we

23· ·are now in.

24· · · · MS. BLANCO:· As an

25· ·internationally -- the suggested

·1· ·change, "international source of

·2· ·inspiration and pride."

·3· · · · MS. COLÓN:· And "Puerto Rico

·4· ·and international source of

·5· ·inspiration and pride."· And I

·6· ·guess that holds on the

·7· ·significance of what Berenice was

·8· ·just saying.· That really science

·9· ·is part of the culture -- science

10· ·doesn't exist by itself.· It is a

11· ·human creation to try to understand

12· ·nature.· So it is part of the

13· ·culture.· So you cannot separate it

14· ·from culture and historic

15· ·performance.· I guess we are trying

16· ·to get to the point where we are

17· ·trying to solve this as quickly as

18· ·possible.

19· · · · MS. BLANCO:· Right.· Okay.· So

20· ·just to be sure I have got this

21· ·right, the suggestion is in the

22· ·fourth whereas clause.· It will

23· ·say, "Whereas NSF acknowledges that

24· ·the Arecibo Observatory holds

25· ·significant cultural importance to

·1· ·the people of Puerto Rico and is an

·2· ·international source of inspiration

·3· ·and pride.· In addition, it is

·4· ·considered to be culturally and

·5· ·scientifically iconic."

·6· · · · MS. COLÓN:· That's right.

·7· ·Because iconic is Puerto Rico.

·8· · · · MS. VAUGHN:· I like that.

·9· · · · MS. BLANCO:· Okay.· That's

10· ·good.

11· · · · MS. COLÓN:· Thank you,

12· ·Charlene.

13· · · · MS. SUIERO:· Thank you, Hilda.

14· · · · MS. BLANCO:· Yes, thank you.

15· · · · And then the fifth whereas

16· ·clause, it was suggested that we

17· ·add the words, "It is NSF's

18· ·mission," so I think what it would

19· ·read is, and with deleting "and

20· ·cutting edge," perhaps this might

21· ·help to address the other comments.

22· · · · "Whereas NSF is in a funding

23· ·constrained environment, and it is

24· ·NSF's mission to maintain a

25· ·balanced research portfolio with

·1· ·the larger scientific returns for

·2· ·the taxpayer dollar."

·3· · · · MR. SEYMOUR:· But Arecibo is

·4· ·the largest return that you can get

·5· ·with the taxpayer dollar, end of

·6· ·story.· You are not helping your

·7· ·cause by going down this road by

·8· ·including that.

·9· · · · MS. BLANCO:· Well, how does

10· ·everybody else feel?

11· · · · MS. VAUGHN:· Could you repeat

12· ·what you just said Berenice -- I'm

13· ·sorry -- Caroline?

14· · · · MS. BLANCO:· Sure.· We already

15· ·deleted "and cutting edge," and we

16· ·could go one of two ways that are

17· ·being suggested.· One is what

18· ·remains, and that is, "NSF is in a

19· ·funding constrained environment and

20· ·needs to maintain a balanced

21· ·research portfolio with the largest

22· ·scientific return for the taxpayer

23· ·dollar."· Or there is the

24· ·suggestion to say, "Whereas, NSF is

25· ·in a funding constrained

·1· ·environment, and it is NSF's

·2· ·mission to maintain a balanced

·3· ·research portfolio with the largest

·4· ·scientific return for the taxpayer

·5· ·dollar."

·6· · · · By inserting the word

·7· ·"mission," the commenter there

·8· ·suggested that it might help to

·9· ·focus it on the mission and not

10· ·imply that Arecibo is not

11· ·significant.

12· · · · MS. COLÓN:· This is Hilda

13· ·again.· I am looking now at the NSF

14· ·statutory mission and division.· It

15· ·doesn't say that.

16· · · · MS. BLANCO:· I know it doesn't.

17· ·But trying to say --

18· · · · MS. COLÓN:· It would be

19· ·difficult for me to say something

20· ·that I am basing on the mission if

21· ·the mission doesn't spell it that

22· ·way.

23· · · · MS. BLANCO:· How about this --

24· ·Kristen just had a good idea -- and

25· ·say and it is consistent with NSF's

·1· ·mission.

·2· · · · MS. COLÓN:· Oh, that's

·3· ·different.· Yeah.

·4· · · · MS. PENTECOST:· We would have

·5· ·to wordsmith that a little bit.· It

·6· ·still implies the mission to

·7· ·maintain the portfolio.

·8· · · · MS. BLANCO:· But I guess maybe

·9· ·the question is a broader question,

10· ·does it help to mention the

11· ·mission?· How do people feel about

12· ·that?

13· · · · MS. COLÓN:· No.

14· · · · MS. BLANCO:· You don't think it

15· ·does?

16· · · · MS. VAUGHN:· If it is not

17· ·accurate and it can't be truth

18· ·tested, I would say don't put it in

19· ·because people wordsmith and parse

20· ·things, and I don't want this to

21· ·include any information that's not

22· ·factually correct.

23· · · · MS. BLANCO:· Okay.· So if other

24· ·than -- I certainly heard the one

25· ·objection.· How do people feel

·1· ·about having the whereas clause

·2· ·remain the same with the exception

·3· ·of the deletion of "and cutting

·4· ·edge"?

·5· · · · MS. VAUGHN:· So I am looking at

·6· ·--

·7· · · · MS. COLÓN:· It doesn't say it

·8· ·but --

·9· · · · MS. BLANCO:· Pardon me.

10· · · · MS. COLÓN:· This is Hilda. I

11· ·would prefer that you could omit,

12· ·it is true, NSF is in a funding

13· ·constrained environment and needs

14· ·to maintain a balanced research

15· ·portfolio, period.

16· · · · MS. VAUGHN:· And I would leave

17· ·it right there.

18· · · · MR. SEYMOUR:· I agree.

19· · · · MS. BLANCO:· I agree.

20· · · · MS. VAUGHN:· I agree with

21· ·Hilda.

22· · · · MS. BLANCO:· Okay.· That's

23· ·fine.

24· · · · MS. VAUGHN:· I agree.· Thank

25· ·you.

·1· · · · MS. BLANCO:· Okay.· Then we

·2· ·have already mentioned that sixth

·3· ·whereas clause that is one, two,

·4· ·three, four, five, six, yeah, where

·5· ·we will put it in references to the

·6· ·document.

·7· · · · Anything else on the first

·8· ·page?

·9· · · · MR. MARSHALL:· Hello, this is

10· ·Sean Marshall.· Again, I would just

11· ·like to point out that the sixth

12· ·clause, if you mention, "handles

13· ·that divestment in NSF," it does

14· ·not mention any of the strong votes

15· ·in favor of maintaining the

16· ·Arecibo, like, commission for

17· ·planetary sciences 2015,

18· ·unanimously voted basically to keep

19· ·Arecibo funded.

20· · · · MR. PESCE:· These are our

21· ·advisory panels.· We have

22· ·referenced we have the one from

23· ·2016 in there?

24· · · · MS. BLANCO:· No.· Part of

25· ·the --

·1· · · · MR. PESCE:· No, the NSF.

·2· · · · THE REPORTER:· I'm sorry.· This

·3· ·is the court reporter.· I do not

·4· ·know who the two speakers are.

·5· · · · MS. BLANCO:· Sean, the first

·6· ·one was Sean.· Sean was the first

·7· ·one, and then Joe was the looking

·8· ·as to whether or not --

·9· · · · Did you say 2016?

10· · · · MR. PESCE:· Yeah the most

11· ·recent one.· It is not there the

12· ·national academy of science.

13· · · · MS. BLANCO:· Oh, but it is not

14· ·the 2016 number is not there?

15· · · · MR. PESCE:· No, and that's the

16· ·most recent one from August.

17· · · · MS. BLANCO:· Oh, okay.

18· · · · So in that second sentence,

19· ·"The portfolio review committee,"

20· ·is that where that starts?

21· · · · MR. PESCE:· Yeah.

22· · · · MS. SUIERO:· Can I interrupt

23· ·for a minute?

24· · · · MS. BLANCO:· Yes.

25· · · · MS. SUIERO:· You mentioned

·1· ·something -- you got interrupted

·2· ·and we are not sure here what is

·3· ·the recommendation or what should

·4· ·be changed.

·5· · · · Can you clarify?

·6· · · · MS. BLANCO:· What I think --

·7· ·and Sean correct me if I am not

·8· ·conveying this accurately -- but I

·9· ·think the concern was that there

10· ·were other recommendations that

11· ·other reviews that had said that

12· ·Arecibo should continue to be

13· ·funded, and then Joe Pesce had

14· ·commented that all of the ones that

15· ·are formal reviews that were

16· ·conducted, all of them were cited

17· ·here and they all had the same

18· ·recommendation.· Joe is that

19· ·accurate?

20· · · · MR. PESCE:· Yeah.· DHS review

21· ·in there as well.

22· · · · MS. BLANCO:· I don't think --

23· ·we are looking to say AGS is not in

24· ·there.· We should add AGS.· Maybe

25· ·we will just update that.

·1· · · · MR. PESCE:· Yeah, we can update

·2· ·that.

·3· · · · MS. PENTECOST:· This is Liz

·4· ·Pentecost.

·5· · · · I think there that there were

·6· ·other reviews outside of NSF that

·7· ·recommended Arecibo to be funded.

·8· ·Is that -- am I correct, Sean?

·9· · · · MR. TOSI:· Yes, again, the one

10· ·that comes to mind for me, which is

11· ·not a formal review panel but the

12· ·decision for planetary science in

13· ·2015, in that meeting I remember

14· ·they unanimously voted that Arecibo

15· ·is important, so we need to

16· ·maintain funding for that.

17· · · · MR. PESCE:· Yeah so we take on

18· ·board community input such as that,

19· ·but these review committees are --

20· · · · MS. BLANCO:· Community based.

21· · · · MR. PESCE:· -- what drive us.

22· · · · MS. BLANCO:· They are the

23· ·formal way of making those

24· ·decisions.

25· · · · MR. CORDOVA:· Hey, Joe, quick

·1· ·question, wasn't one of those

·2· ·commendations, at least in radio

·3· ·astronomy whether or not to divest

·4· ·in Arecibo later in the decade?

·5· · · · MR. PESCE:· Yeah, for Derek,

·6· ·that was Francisco.· And then this

·7· ·is Joe Pesce responding.

·8· · · · Yes.· And that was done last

·9· ·year, both in May and August with

10· ·the triple AC review and -- or

11· ·reports, and the National Academy

12· ·midterm review that came out in

13· ·August 2016.

14· · · · MR. CORDOVA:· Okay.

15· · · · MR. PESCE:· Thank you.

16· · · · MS. BLANCO:· Okay.· So we will

17· ·reference the documents in that

18· ·whereas clause.· We will update it

19· ·with the AGS division --

20· · · · UNKNOWN SPEAKER:· Hello?

21· · · · MS. BLANCO:· -- review and the

22· ·2016 triple AC review.· Is that

23· ·right Joe?

24· · · · MR. SEYMOUR:· Hello, this is

25· ·Andrew Seymour in those documents,

·1· ·they list other facilities were

·2· ·divestment and Arecibo under

·3· ·review.· Could NSF write a line in

·4· ·here explaining their logic in how

·5· ·Arecibo came to the forefront of

·6· ·all this?

·7· · · · MS. BLANCO:· I think one of the

·8· ·thoughts -- maybe I can clarify

·9· ·this.

10· · · · Arecibo is one of several.· It

11· ·is not the only one.· We are

12· ·undergoing environmental reviews

13· ·for Sacramento Peak and Green Bank

14· ·observatory, as well.

15· · · · MR. SEYMOUR:· We are further

16· ·along than those two, which were

17· ·listed for divestments before

18· ·Arecibo, so the logic, though,

19· ·again, has broken down for me to

20· ·understand why we were in forefront

21· ·and further along than those two

22· ·are.

23· · · · MS. BLANCO:· Well, we could

24· ·have a side discussion about that,

25· ·but I think it is important to move

·1· ·forward on this.· I don't mean to

·2· ·come across insensitive to your

·3· ·concern.· But I think if we are

·4· ·to -- we are already an hour and 15

·5· ·minutes into the call.· We are on

·6· ·page 1 and we have 45 minutes left.

·7· · · · MR. SEYMOUR:· Right.· But this

·8· ·was done completely -- and if the

·9· ·logic was there, we wouldn't have

10· ·to take so much time.· So the logic

11· ·breaks down.· I would like any of

12· ·that discussion to be done in

13· ·writing.

14· · · · MS. BLANCO:· I am confused by

15· ·your request.

16· · · · MR. SEYMOUR:· Your request was

17· ·to have this discussion later. I

18· ·said if we are going to have said

19· ·request, I would like to have it in

20· ·writing so I can have it submitted

21· ·in the record.

22· · · · MS. BLANCO:· Well, I think at

23· ·this point what we will need to do

24· ·is focus on the remainder of the

25· ·document, this, because the focus

·1· ·really of this meeting is not on

·2· ·the merits of NSF's proposed action

·3· ·itself.· Those comments, if you

·4· ·made them, certainly, will be

·5· ·considered and factored into the

·6· ·final EIS and also the ultimate

·7· ·record of decision.

·8· · · · So if you commented during the

·9· ·comments.

10· · · · MR. SEYMOUR:· What's the point

11· ·of having the conversation later if

12· ·that can't be submitted for the

13· ·record?· I would like to move

14· ·forward, but we keep on getting

15· ·bogged down in the fact that we --

16· ·you know, just trying to get

17· ·through this logic flow.

18· · · · MS. BLANCO:· Well, this is the

19· ·history of what NSF did.· So that

20· ·is how NSF reached this proposed

21· ·action.· And the purpose of the

22· ·whereas clauses is simply to

23· ·provide background and context for

24· ·how NSF reached this.· It may very

25· ·well be that you disagree with how

·1· ·NSF reached that, but --

·2· · · · MR. SEYMOUR:· That's fine.· But

·3· ·we still need to paint a full

·4· ·picture where we don't have the

·5· ·other documents as well.· I would

·6· ·like to move forward.· And if we

·7· ·have to have the conversation

·8· ·offline, I would like to have it in

·9· ·writing.· I think that's simple and

10· ·we can submit it to the record.

11· · · · MS. BLANCO:· I will tell you,

12· ·we won't have a debate about, you

13· ·know, how NSF reached its decision

14· ·on choosing a proposed action,

15· ·because that's outside of the

16· ·processes that we are undergoing

17· ·right now.

18· · · · MR. SEYMOUR:· That's fine.· But

19· ·anything you have that makes NSF

20· ·come to this logic flow, I would

21· ·like to see it.· That's all.

22· · · · MS. BLANCO:· That's a very

23· ·broad request and I am not sure

24· ·that we will be able to meet that,

25· ·but --

·1· · · · MR. SEYMOUR:· When you are

·2· ·referring to documents that state

·3· ·A, B, and C need to be divested

·4· ·from, and this one needs to be

·5· ·reevaluated, and when it comes to

·6· ·the point that the one needs to be

·7· ·reevaluated is first, it questions

·8· ·the process.· And I would just like

·9· ·to understand it further.

10· · · · MS. BLANCO:· Well, it just so

11· ·happens we started with this one

12· ·first, and, you know, the thing is,

13· ·this just reflects what we did.

14· ·And it doesn't talk about whether

15· ·it was right or wrong.· It just is

16· ·what we put it down as being.· This

17· ·is what happened, truthfully.· And

18· ·as I said, maybe you would have

19· ·recommended --

20· · · · MR. SEYMOUR:· That's fine. I

21· ·would like to have it in writing.

22· ·Thank you.

23· · · · MS. BLANCO:· Okay.· Moving on

24· ·to the other provisions on page 1.

25· ·Is there anything else there

·1· ·anybody would like to comment on?

·2· · · · Okay.· Page 2.· There were no

·3· ·comments on page 2 from the July 6

·4· ·meeting that I noted.

·5· · · · Okay.· I do have some comments

·6· ·on page 3.

·7· · · · MS. SUIERO:· I have a question

·8· ·regarding -- let me tell you

·9· ·what -- of the (inaudible) that you

10· ·initiated Section 106 from July

11· ·2016 -- no, you initiated the

12· ·(inaudible.)· You didn't initiate

13· ·Section 106.· That's on page 2, the

14· ·second whereas, July 6, 2016.

15· · · · MS. HAMILTON:· Thanks,

16· ·Berenice.

17· · · · This is Kristen.· We will go

18· ·back and just make sure that that's

19· ·accurate.· We will have to go back

20· ·into that letter.

21· · · · MS. BLANCO:· I think -- yeah,

22· ·we will go back and look at that.

23· ·I think what happened was you may

24· ·recall, Berenice, we met with you

25· ·in early June.

·1· · · · MS. SUIERO:· Yeah, but that was

·2· ·informal.· The official letter came

·3· ·in October, and that's only us.

·4· ·And you have to consult with other

·5· ·parties, and that's misleading.

·6· · · · MS. BLANCO:· We will go back

·7· ·and look and make sure it is

·8· ·accurate.

·9· · · · All right.· I thought that

10· ·letter was in response to a request

11· ·by your office that we send a

12· ·letter initiating it.· And I

13· ·thought that's what it was.· But,

14· ·again, we will go back and look.

15· ·Anything else on that page?

16· · · · As I mentioned I do have some

17· ·comments that I can share that were

18· ·raised at the July 6 meeting.· And

19· ·there was some -- Charlene, I think

20· ·these referred -- these were some

21· ·of your comments.

22· · · · MS. VAUGHN:· Okay.· I am here.

23· ·Uh-huh.

24· · · · MS. BLANCO:· Great.· Thank you.

25· ·You had made the comment that you

·1· ·wanted us to explain why we are

·2· ·divesting the preferred

·3· ·alternatives to continue operation.

·4· ·So we suggest maybe we will put in

·5· ·some type of whereas clause

·6· ·explains that.

·7· · · · Also, NSF recognizes that

·8· ·members of the public and the

·9· ·consulting parties want Arecibo

10· ·Observatory to continue operation

11· ·and NSF's preferred alternative is

12· ·to continue operation, if

13· ·consistent with that position.

14· · · · MS. VAUGHN:· So I like that.

15· ·But I would probably word it a

16· ·little differently, and I would

17· ·say:· "Whereas the consulting --

18· ·the majority of consulting parties

19· ·and the community have indicated

20· ·the importance of Arecibo to the

21· ·region and Puerto Rico and have

22· ·emphasized the need for its

23· ·continued operation."

24· · · · I think the words mean

25· ·everything with that.· You could

·1· ·play with it, but that's really the

·2· ·gist of it, because I think that

·3· ·somewhere in here, you need to

·4· ·acknowledge that the vast majority

·5· ·of people just don't understand why

·6· ·it wouldn't continue.

·7· · · · MS. BLANCO:· Right.· And maybe

·8· ·this is the place, Sean, to get

·9· ·back to your comment.· Maybe there

10· ·is something -- some language you

11· ·might want to suggest that also

12· ·fits in there, because maybe the

13· ·concern is that, you know, while

14· ·NSF went through the process that

15· ·it did in reaching the decision to

16· ·pursue a proposed action, your

17· ·perspective could be captured in a

18· ·whereas clause.

19· · · · So if you have language, we are

20· ·still asking for people to submit

21· ·comments on this draft.· It is the

22· ·July 24th, I think.· So if you have

23· ·an idea of some language, by all

24· ·means please email us.

25· · · · MR. MARSHALL:· All right. I

·1· ·will.· Thank you.

·2· · · · MS. BLANCO:· Sure.· So we

·3· ·will --

·4· · · · MS. SUIERO:· Just to make a

·5· ·comment on page 2, the last

·6· ·whereas.

·7· · · · MS. VAUGHN:· Okay.

·8· · · · MS. SUIERO:· The proposed

·9· ·undertaking does not include five

10· ·possible action alternatives.· It

11· ·only includes one, it is one with

12· ·two possibilities.

13· · · · MS. BLANCO:· Okay.· Could you

14· ·explain that for the rest of the

15· ·group, just to be sure?

16· · · · MS. SUIERO:· Yeah, you are

17· ·saying on the third page that the

18· ·preferred alternative is one.· The

19· ·former PA had five alternatives,

20· ·but not this one.

21· · · · MS. BLANCO:· Okay.

22· · · · MS. SUIERO:· I am just not sure

23· ·but I think this PA only has really

24· ·not five alternatives.· It is

25· ·really only two.· It is not one

·1· ·comes out of -- the two

·2· ·alternatives come out of number

·3· ·one, but you don't have five

·4· ·alternatives being discussed in

·5· ·this PA.

·6· · · · MS. BLANCO:· Right.· I think it

·7· ·is --

·8· · · · MS. SUIERO:· Should we

·9· ·eliminate that whereas?

10· · · · MS. BLANCO:· I think we need to

11· ·have something in there because if

12· ·you jump down to the second whereas

13· ·clause on page 3, that's where we

14· ·talk about if Alternative 1 is

15· ·ultimately not feasible.· We will

16· ·review in consultation alternative

17· ·2 through 5.· If we clarify that

18· ·those five alternatives are the

19· ·undertaking.

20· · · · But instead those were five

21· ·alternatives that NSF was

22· ·evaluating in its, you know,

23· ·environmental compliance process.

24· ·And for purposes of this, the

25· ·undertaking is to pursue

·1· ·Alternative 1 of those, but in two

·2· ·ways, one, to retain ownership,

·3· ·another to transfer.

·4· · · · MS. SUIERO:· Yeah, but you

·5· ·cannot say the proposed

·6· ·undertaking.· You can say something

·7· ·else.

·8· · · · Or, Charlene, maybe you have an

·9· ·option there?

10· · · · MS. BLANCO:· Right.· We will

11· ·take that out, Berenice.· We will

12· ·play with that.· I think we

13· ·understand what you are saying.

14· · · · Just to clarify, you are saying

15· ·that the proposed undertaking is

16· ·really -- it is a continuation of

17· ·science focused operation under two

18· ·scenarios.· One being NSF retains

19· ·ownership, and the other is NSF

20· ·transfers ownership.

21· · · · MS. VAUGHN:· Right.· I think

22· ·that's what Berenice and I have

23· ·concluded.

24· · · · MS. SUIERO:· Yeah.

25· · · · MS. BLANCO:· Okay.· We will

·1· ·work on that.· Thank you.

·2· · · · Another one was Charlene, this

·3· ·was also one that I had noted that

·4· ·you had mentioned, and that is to

·5· ·explain the adverse effects.· And I

·6· ·think we had done that, maybe not

·7· ·as much as you would like, but I

·8· ·mean, I know it is a lengthy

·9· ·document.· And I am not sure if it

10· ·got hidden in here.

11· · · · But let's see, where was --

12· ·yes.· The whereas clause, I am on

13· ·the third page, and it is the one,

14· ·two, three, four, five -- the

15· ·adverse effects were identified in

16· ·that whereas clause.

17· · · · MS. VAUGHN:· Uh-huh, I am

18· ·reading it now.

19· · · · MS. BLANCO:· Sure, go ahead.

20· · · · MS. VAUGHN:· Oh, yeah, NSF has

21· ·consulted with the SHPO and

22· ·determined that adverse effects

23· ·would result in contributing

24· ·resources --

25· · · · MS. SUIERO:· But it is not only

·1· ·us.· It is the advisory counsel.

·2· · · · MS. VAUGHN:· No, it would be

·3· ·the ACHP, you would have to add

·4· ·into that.

·5· · · · MS. BLANCO:· Okay.

·6· · · · MS. VAUGHN:· And I think the

·7· ·rest of it is fine, I just think

·8· ·you have to include ACHP, because

·9· ·we were part of that as well.

10· · · · MS. BLANCO:· Absolutely.· It is

11· ·in there.

12· · · · MS. VAUGHN:· Great.

13· · · · MS. BLANCO:· Thank you.

14· · · · The last comment from July 6

15· ·that I have from this page is that

16· ·there was a gentleman who spoke

17· ·about -- I would call them creative

18· ·ways to get the word out in terms

19· ·of outreach.· He had mentioned and

20· ·he offered to assist in this,

21· ·driving around in the local

22· ·communities in the town of Arecibo

23· ·with a megaphone, announcing this

24· ·process.

25· · · · And also he mentioned he might

·1· ·have -- he might appear on a radio

·2· ·show and he would mention this as

·3· ·well there.· And what I had asked

·4· ·him was if, either him or anybody

·5· ·else, if there have been some

·6· ·efforts that people have -- that

·7· ·people undertake to get the word

·8· ·out.· We certainly can add all of

·9· ·those into this clause.· And he

10· ·said he would let us know.· So

11· ·that's the only notation I have.

12· · · · So, again, to anybody else

13· ·that's on this call who didn't join

14· ·us last Thursday, if there are some

15· ·creative ways, we are practically

16· ·constrained -- as a practical

17· ·matter we are constrained as an

18· ·agency here from doing some of

19· ·these extra efforts that could be

20· ·effective in terms of trying to

21· ·drive around with a megaphone,

22· ·meeting with people door to door,

23· ·those types of things.

24· · · · If anybody else has ideas, we

25· ·certainly will do whatever we can.

·1· ·But if others want to take it on

·2· ·themselves, we would welcome that

·3· ·and they can talk to us.· We can do

·4· ·what we can to assist those

·5· ·efforts.

·6· · · · MS. SUIERO:· Can I ask a

·7· ·question?· I am confused.· Which

·8· ·library?· And which -- you know,

·9· ·you put hard copy in the following

10· ·libraries.· Which libraries?

11· · · · MS. BLANCO:· It is the same

12· ·ones that we put the --

13· · · · MS. HAMILTON:· I think it is in

14· ·the email.

15· · · · MS. BLANCO:· Yeah, it might be

16· ·in the email Kristen is saying.

17· ·She is checking.

18· · · · MS. SUIERO:· And on the other

19· ·hand, you circulated the PA with a

20· ·comment on something that had not

21· ·occurred.

22· · · · MS. BLANCO:· There was a

23· ·description that we would -- well,

24· ·there was one, actually, notation

25· ·about brackets that was a

·1· ·placeholder.· We could put that as

·2· ·a placeholder as well.· This

·3· ·actually -- that paragraph or that

·4· ·whereas clause is true.· We did

·5· ·hold a meeting, but those were

·6· ·scheduled, Berenice, and that's why

·7· ·we put that in there.

·8· · · · MS. SUIERO:· No, but don't get

·9· ·me wrong.· I am trying to clarify

10· ·this.· When you are circulating

11· ·this PA on June 23rd, the meeting

12· ·had not occurred.

13· · · · MS. BLANCO:· Yes, I know that.

14· ·The thing is what we were trying to

15· ·do is be prospective in having text

16· ·in here that people would review to

17· ·note what it would look like, much

18· ·like we have a signature page in

19· ·there.· Obviously nobody signed

20· ·this yet, but it is to let people

21· ·know what this would include.· We

22· ·are not suggesting that that

23· ·happened, because anything that was

24· ·later in time to occur from the

25· ·date we sent it out couldn't have

·1· ·happened yet.· But it is just to

·2· ·show people what we would put in

·3· ·there.

·4· · · · And maybe what I should have

·5· ·done is what we did on the next

·6· ·page at the top.· We put in

·7· ·brackets in capital letters as

·8· ·placeholders, and maybe that would

·9· ·clarify.· That's an oversight on my

10· ·part.· We could have done that.

11· · · · MS. SUIERO:· Okay.· I see.· And

12· ·you have somewhere else the names

13· ·of the libraries, right?

14· · · · MS. HAMILTON:· Yes, we did

15· ·include that in the email about

16· ·this meeting.· And it is one

17· ·library in Arecibo and one library

18· ·in San Juan.· The one in San Juan

19· ·is on Avenida Juan Ponce de León.

20· ·That library.

21· · · · MS. SUIERO:· That's the

22· ·Carnegie.

23· · · · MS. HAMILTON:· Okay.

24· · · · MS. BLANCO:· And the Arecibo

25· ·one.

·1· · · · MS. HAMILTON:· And the other

·2· ·one is on Calle Santiago Iglesias.

·3· · · · MS. BLANCO:· And it is dated,

·4· ·that email?

·5· · · · MS. HAMILTON:· It is dated -- I

·6· ·believe it would have been

·7· ·June 23rd.· Let's see.· This is

·8· ·actually the email about the

·9· ·follow-up teleconference and we

10· ·sent that on July 7th.

11· · · · MS. BLANCO:· If you want,

12· ·Berenice, we can resend that to

13· ·you.

14· · · · MS. HAMILTON:· Yeah,

15· ·absolutely.

16· · · · MS. SUIERO:· No, it is okay. I

17· ·just think it is kind of weird to

18· ·have a clause of something that has

19· ·yet to occur, you know what I mean?

20· ·So it is confusing.

21· · · · And then by the way, if it is

22· ·the Carnegie in San Juan, you

23· ·really need to think about that

24· ·because I don't know if that

25· ·library is really used that much.

·1· ·You have the general library in

·2· ·Puerto Rico in Puerto de Tierra.

·3· ·You have the library in UPR that's

·4· ·in Río Piedras.· You have the

·5· ·library in Mayagüez.· You have the

·6· ·library in the university in

·7· ·Arecibo.· I mean, you have other

·8· ·options for those than just, you

·9· ·know --

10· · · · MS. HAMILTON:· I'm sorry.

11· ·Berenice, but it is in the Arecibo

12· ·General, the San Juan one.

13· · · · MS. SUIERO:· The Arecibo

14· ·General de Puerto Rico is more

15· ·visited than the Carnegie.· The

16· ·University of Puerto Rico has

17· ·several different libraries in

18· ·Río Piedras, in Mayagüez, in Utuado

19· ·and in Arecibo.· Those are better

20· ·options than the Carnegie.

21· · · · MS. BLANCO:· If you could,

22· ·Berenice, for future outreach, if

23· ·you could maybe send us an email

24· ·with those suggestions, we will try

25· ·to work that into any other

·1· ·notifications that we have, but we

·2· ·will fill in the information here,

·3· ·since this has occurred at this

·4· ·stage.

·5· · · · MS. SUIERO:· And, in fact, you

·6· ·have right now consultant parties

·7· ·that we sent to private

·8· ·universities that have libraries.

·9· ·That's much better than libraries

10· ·that no one goes to.

11· · · · MS. BLANCO:· If you could,

12· ·Berenice, we just ask you --

13· · · · MS. SUIERO:· No, I don't have

14· ·the whole list of the consulting

15· ·parties and the different

16· ·universities.· You have

17· ·universities at the Arecibo

18· ·Observatory UMET, your university.

19· · · · MS. COLÓN:· I thank you for

20· ·that recommendation.· I was about

21· ·to say that we will send you our

22· ·information and ask you to please

23· ·add us into that list.

24· · · · MS. HAMILTON:· We are happy to

25· ·do that.· This is Kristen.· We try

·1· ·to provide hard copies of documents

·2· ·to libraries for the sake of people

·3· ·who do not have access to computers

·4· ·and the Internet and such like

·5· ·that.· That's the only reason why

·6· ·we don't typically send it to

·7· ·university libraries.

·8· · · · MS. SUIERO:· I appreciate that,

·9· ·Kristen, but we are happy to add

10· ·that to future notifications.

11· · · · MS. BLANCO:· And that was all

12· ·we had for page 3.

13· · · · MR. SEYMOUR:· Hello, this is

14· ·Andrew Seymour again.· We were

15· ·talking about making the meetings

16· ·more approachable.· My concern is

17· ·that a lot of these meetings are

18· ·being held at private venues.· I am

19· ·just concerned why government

20· ·meetings for the public are being

21· ·held at private venues instead of

22· ·public offices, like a courthouse.

23· · · · MS. BLANCO:· Just because of

24· ·space, that's all.· We looked at

25· ·adequate space.· Usually in

·1· ·courthouses, there are not spaces

·2· ·for a hundred people to

·3· ·participate.· That's why.

·4· · · · MR. SEYMOUR:· Is there not

·5· ·public space in Arecibo or San Juan

·6· ·where these meetings have been

·7· ·held?· Because I think that's a

·8· ·barrier as well for people to come

·9· ·on to private property, especially

10· ·if you have it held in a hotel. I

11· ·don't think someone who may be

12· ·homeless who has a good idea will

13· ·feel comfortable entering there or

14· ·be allowed to.

15· · · · MS. BLANCO:· Are you aware of

16· ·people who have been uncomfortable?

17· ·I have not heard that before.

18· · · · MR. SEYMOUR:· I am not aware of

19· ·it, but it is clearly a scenario

20· ·that could be happening, right? I

21· ·think the government's job is to

22· ·make it as approachable as

23· ·possible.

24· · · · MS. HAMILTON:· This is Kristen.

25· ·We're always very concerned with

·1· ·making sure that it is acceptable,

·2· ·that people are able to transport

·3· ·to the facility and able to enter

·4· ·the facility.· That's usually our

·5· ·concern, and I think all the venues

·6· ·we have had have been accessible in

·7· ·that way.

·8· · · · MS. BLANCO:· And able to

·9· ·accommodate a group and --

10· · · · MR. SEYMOUR:· But if people

11· ·aren't directly invited to come on

12· ·to private property, they may hear

13· ·of the meetings but don't feel like

14· ·they are invited to come, versus a

15· ·courthouse or a public hall.· So I

16· ·am just saying a venue would be --

17· ·a change of venue may do some good.

18· · · · MS. COLÓN:· Let me just say for

19· ·the purposes of discussion today

20· ·that on previous occasions we

21· ·thought we could hold these

22· ·meetings even at our own facilities

23· ·or the University of Puerto Rico.

24· · · · At some point then we were told

25· ·that the arrangements were already

·1· ·done.· That was at the beginning.

·2· ·And we dealt all of this

·3· ·specifically, originally with

·4· ·Dr. Ralph Gaume, but we offered our

·5· ·own facilities, which are

·6· ·university facilities in several

·7· ·places close to Arecibo and in

·8· ·San Juan, where we were told that

·9· ·this was not adequate.· Maybe we

10· ·can reconsider for the future, and

11· ·open it a little bit more.

12· · · · MS. BLANCO:· Sure.· We

13· ·certainly can.· And, Hilda, we had

14· ·not heard that the university had

15· ·made that offer.

16· · · · MS. COLÓN:· It was at the

17· ·beginning.· And we also have our

18· ·own facilities and because we have

19· ·facilities in Arecibo and in many

20· ·places around us that are very

21· ·comfortable, very comfortable and

22· ·have the adequate space for this.

23· ·But Ralph told us that that could

24· ·be seen as a conflict of interest

25· ·originally, and that he would

·1· ·rather place originally.· I think

·2· ·the first meetings he participated

·3· ·directly in them.

·4· · · · MS. BLANCO:· Yes, he did.

·5· · · · MS. COLÓN:· That was one of the

·6· ·reasons.· We thought about several

·7· ·other places like the Puerto Rico

·8· ·Science and Technology Trust, which

·9· ·is also private.

10· · · · I'm sorry, Andrew, but this is

11· ·also private, but it is a little

12· ·bit more geared to scientific

13· ·purposes or even spaces in the

14· ·University of Puerto Rico, because

15· ·we do have many, many colleagues

16· ·there.

17· · · · So and maybe for the future we

18· ·can consider that.

19· · · · MR. SEYMOUR:· There is also a

20· ·telescope facility that can house

21· ·several hundred people, and why it

22· ·is not being held there at NSF

23· ·property is concerning.

24· · · · MS. BLANCO:· We thought of

25· ·that, but it is difficult for some

·1· ·of them to access.

·2· · · · MS. COLÓN:· Yes, we thought

·3· ·about it and it was also not

·4· ·accepted.

·5· · · · MS. BLANCO:· But in any event,

·6· ·these are good suggestions.· We

·7· ·thought we were, as Kristen

·8· ·mentioned, trying to find places

·9· ·that were easy to get to and

10· ·acceptable and could hold a number

11· ·of people.· But I don't think we

12· ·have any other public meetings

13· ·in-person public meetings scheduled

14· ·for this proposed action, but we do

15· ·take that information and

16· ·appreciate it.· So if NSF does have

17· ·future meetings in Puerto Rico, we

18· ·will definitely consider that.

19· · · · MS. COLÓN:· Thank you.

20· · · · MS. BLANCO:· Thank you.

21· · · · On page 4, we have -- as I

22· ·mentioned we were going to put that

23· ·additional whereas clause that

24· ·clarifies that this programatic

25· ·agreement is only for purposes of

·1· ·Section 106.

·2· · · · MS. COLÓN:· Okay.

·3· · · · MS. BLANCO:· The other thing is

·4· ·there were comments about local

·5· ·training as being the wave -- I am

·6· ·moving now to under Alternative 1

·7· ·NSF retains ownership of NSF

·8· ·observatory.· There is, under

·9· ·paragraph B, like "boy," there is

10· ·that particular provision talks

11· ·about -- these are no longer

12· ·whereas clauses, by the way these

13· ·are actual stipulations,

14· ·requirements.

15· · · · So NSF under this one is to

16· ·ensure that there is historic

17· ·preservation awareness training to

18· ·encourage awareness of the

19· ·historical and cultural

20· ·significance of the observatory and

21· ·to minimize the potential for

22· ·adverse effects to historic

23· ·properties.

24· · · · And we put a timed deadline of

25· ·180 days from the beginning of the

·1· ·operation by a new collaborator,

·2· ·and the suggestion was that there

·3· ·be local training.· Just to

·4· ·clarify, NSF wasn't suggesting that

·5· ·it conduct it.· We are certainly

·6· ·open to any suggestions.· And what

·7· ·I recall hearing last Thursday was

·8· ·that someone had suggested the SHPO

·9· ·to conduct the training, which we

10· ·would love to have happen.

11· · · · And the SHPO, Berenice, I

12· ·believe your office said that it

13· ·needed some sort of either under

14· ·preservation covenant or some sort

15· ·of legal authority to conduct that

16· ·training.

17· · · · So did I understand that

18· ·correctly?

19· · · · MS. SUIERO:· Let me clarify.

20· ·It is not that we cannot do the

21· ·training.· It is just that I don't

22· ·think the way it is written it is

23· ·going to resolve it, because in a

24· ·training, your new collaborators

25· ·are not going to learn about

·1· ·historic preservation.· They want

·2· ·training.· What we are trying to

·3· ·convey is the SHPO role is to

·4· ·educate one of the roles.

·5· · · · And I am pretty sure the

·6· ·officer is more than willing to

·7· ·educate any collaborator, but not

·8· ·with one training they are going to

·9· ·learn.· So that's why I mentioned a

10· ·preservation covenant is needed

11· ·that will establish a long term

12· ·document that would guide the

13· ·collaborator in how to use and

14· ·maintain the facility.· It is two

15· ·different things.· One thing is the

16· ·preservation covenant and one thing

17· ·is training, two different total --

18· · · · MS. BLANCO:· Would you --

19· ·right.· But would the training be

20· ·part of that preservation covenant

21· ·or do you not think training is

22· ·something we should have, and

23· ·instead have guidance?

24· · · · MS. SUIERO:· It could --

25· ·training and guidance could be part

·1· ·of that document.

·2· · · · MS. BLANCO:· So this may be a

·3· ·good time to talk about that

·4· ·covenant concept.· What I am

·5· ·wondering about is whether there

·6· ·needs to be a separate covenant or

·7· ·whether we could put the terms of

·8· ·what that covenant would include in

·9· ·this document.

10· · · · MS. SUIERO:· Let me back up a

11· ·little bit and tell you something.

12· ·You cannot have a preservation

13· ·covenant without a management plan.

14· ·You need a plan for the facility.

15· · · · MS. BLANCO:· But I guess what I

16· ·am wondering about is if we talk

17· ·about, and this is on a conceptual

18· ·level, not the actual provisions,

19· ·if -- and the structure of this

20· ·document, the structure of how we

21· ·address adverse effects, if we have

22· ·an operations plan or a covenant,

23· ·there would be, of course,

24· ·components of those instruments.

25· · · · And what I am wondering about

·1· ·is whether we can include the same

·2· ·concepts and components in this

·3· ·document, as opposed to developing

·4· ·a plan down the line or a covenant,

·5· ·separate documents.· And it is not

·6· ·that we are opposed to a plan or a

·7· ·covenant, but we are just trying to

·8· ·understand the difference between

·9· ·putting those same provisions that

10· ·would otherwise be in a plan or a

11· ·covenant in this document, which is

12· ·also legally binding.

13· · · · MS. VAUGHN:· So I like that

14· ·idea.· And I am thinking about the

15· ·base closures, when the Department

16· ·of Defense closed installations.

17· ·And those -- they had incorporated

18· ·in several of the agreements the

19· ·fact that a redevelopment authority

20· ·that was created under the

21· ·legislation would help develop

22· ·those covenants and work with a

23· ·group of local people on the long

24· ·term management and operations of

25· ·properties that were to be conveyed

·1· ·to a third party.

·2· · · · So I think what I recall as

·3· ·talking about at the meeting is

·4· ·that if we could agree in theory to

·5· ·some concepts, that would include

·6· ·development of a long term plan,

·7· ·development of training,

·8· ·development of guidance to help the

·9· ·collaborators in dealing with

10· ·historic preservation issues.· If

11· ·we just were able to develop some

12· ·bullets that provided a framework

13· ·for things that had to be taken

14· ·into account when developing a

15· ·plan, I think that would be good.

16· · · · Until and unless we know who

17· ·the collaborator is, it is going to

18· ·be very difficult to pin them down.

19· ·And I don't think NSF wants to put

20· ·anything in place that would deter

21· ·people from taking over the

22· ·operations.

23· · · · But I think if it was a

24· ·framework that we agree to and it

25· ·had bullets about things that had

·1· ·to be taken into account or

·2· ·considered, I think you're giving

·3· ·people flexibility, but you are

·4· ·still making them know it is a

·5· ·preservation resource and to the

·6· ·extent they can, they need to be

·7· ·guided by the following.

·8· · · · MS. BLANCO:· Okay.· I think

·9· ·there may be just a practical issue

10· ·to just be aware of and not to say

11· ·that what you described is

12· ·unworkable, but something we need

13· ·to be cognizant of and figure out

14· ·how to navigate through it.· And

15· ·that is, if we, let's say

16· ·hypothetically, we end up finding a

17· ·collaborator and selecting one in

18· ·September.· I think we need to have

19· ·enough specificity -- you know, not

20· ·too much, we obviously want some

21· ·flexibility as we said and we don't

22· ·want to put anything in that would

23· ·deter someone from wanting to take

24· ·it over, but at least there is a

25· ·expectation of what would be

·1· ·involved.· Because there would

·2· ·be -- and Joe, you are the one here

·3· ·who will be involved in discussing

·4· ·any terms of a cooperative

·5· ·agreement.

·6· · · · If there is one to be had.· And

·7· ·that may be helpful to just take a

·8· ·second to explain that that is the

·9· ·instrument that NSF uses when

10· ·working with a collaborator.· It is

11· ·done under a cooperative agreement.

12· ·And there are terms in that

13· ·cooperative agreement.· There may

14· ·be terms of NSF funding.· There may

15· ·be terms that discuss a transfer, a

16· ·whole host of different items that

17· ·go along with that relationship.

18· · · · And we could put things into

19· ·that document, but we just want to

20· ·be sure that there is enough time

21· ·to do that before somebody could

22· ·take it over on April 1st.· That's

23· ·the only -- you know, as I see it,

24· ·a potential issue with timing and

25· ·being able to navigate.

·1· · · · MR. PESCE:· Well, we can always

·2· ·modify agreements of the file

·3· ·supplement.

·4· · · · MS. BLANCO:· Right, if we don't

·5· ·transfer the property.· Right.

·6· · · · So do you think -- Berenice and

·7· ·Charlene seem to be the most

·8· ·knowledgeable about these types of

·9· ·instruments, covenants.· Is this

10· ·something that -- in this document

11· ·which you see because one of the

12· ·other comments was that there would

13· ·be a committee set up of

14· ·scientists, locals, and the SHPO.

15· ·And there would be a time frame

16· ·established and so forth, that

17· ·there would have components in

18· ·there that would explain how.· And

19· ·I would imagine NSF would have to

20· ·have a seat at that table as well,

21· ·to talk about the different

22· ·components.· We haven't said what

23· ·the components are but work them

24· ·out.

25· · · · MS. VAUGHN:· Yes, I just found

·1· ·on our website a document we

·2· ·developed I think two years ago on

·3· ·guidance on the use of real

·4· ·property restrictions covenant. I

·5· ·am going to send that to you,

·6· ·Caroline.

·7· · · · MS. BLANCO:· Okay.· Thank you.

·8· · · · MS. VAUGHN:· But the problem

·9· ·with this is it is intended to

10· ·avoid adverse effects, so you need

11· ·to look at this.· But I think it

12· ·will show you the guidance that the

13· ·ACHP developed in this regard.

14· · · · MS. BLANCO:· Okay.· That would

15· ·be helpful.· As we start to look at

16· ·that document and some of the other

17· ·materials that Berenice referred

18· ·to, could we just -- you mentioned

19· ·several things, Charlene just a

20· ·moment ago about basic components

21· ·of what might be in this plan.

22· ·Could we just take a second to talk

23· ·about what those might be, again,

24· ·just as a starting place?

25· · · · MS. VAUGHN:· I definitely like,

·1· ·and I think many of the people in

·2· ·the audience endorse the working

·3· ·group, to ensure that local

·4· ·scientists and people in the

·5· ·community had a role in this.· So I

·6· ·think creation of a working

·7· ·group --

·8· · · · MS. BLANCO:· Okay.· I think --

·9· · · · MS. VAUGHN:· Oh, go ahead.

10· · · · MS. BLANCO:· No, no, just keep

11· ·going.

12· · · · MS. VAUGHN:· I think the other

13· ·one was a plan, an operations or

14· ·management plan on how to maintain

15· ·and use the resources.

16· · · · MS. BLANCO:· I guess tailored

17· ·toward maintaining the historic

18· ·integrity of the facility.

19· · · · MS. VAUGHN:· Yeah, I think so.

20· · · · MS. BLANCO:· Provided it

21· ·doesn't interfere with scientific

22· ·operations.

23· · · · MS. VAUGHN:· Yeah, and that's

24· ·the whole thing.· You have to

25· ·encourage people to keep as much as

·1· ·they can, but they can't feel that

·2· ·they can't tear down a building

·3· ·that doesn't meet their operations.

·4· ·So it has to have a provision to

·5· ·preserve as many properties as

·6· ·possible, and also the process for

·7· ·consulting with the SHPO on

·8· ·altering any of the spaces.· And

·9· ·then we talked about training.

10· · · · MS. BLANCO:· Okay.· I am just

11· ·writing this down.

12· · · · MS. VAUGHN:· Right.· And I

13· ·think periodic visits by the SHPO,

14· ·like annual site visits by the SHPO

15· ·so they could see how everything is

16· ·going.· It could be every year or

17· ·biannually just to have some

18· ·organized visit to make sure the

19· ·resource is protected.· And then

20· ·the other thing we talked about

21· ·that we haven't really expanded a

22· ·lot, and that's to update the

23· ·nomination as appropriate.

24· ·Remember, we said that was done

25· ·several years back and that might

·1· ·need to be updated.

·2· · · · MS. BLANCO:· Right.

·3· · · · MS. VAUGHN:· And you were

·4· ·saying there was information in

·5· ·that regard, so either completing

·6· ·that or validating what your

·7· ·consultants did, because that's

·8· ·baseline information, I think.

·9· · · · MS. BLANCO:· I think we might

10· ·have to have a little more guidance

11· ·on what the update would include.

12· ·Are there things with the SHPO --

13· · · · Folks on the line, were there

14· ·specific things you thought were

15· ·not up to date?· Because I remember

16· ·a meeting we had where we talked

17· ·about it, and I thought that there

18· ·hadn't been changes since the

19· ·nomination, but maybe there is

20· ·things.

21· · · · MS. SUIERO:· We are putting a

22· ·letter in writing regarding general

23· ·comments regarding this PA that

24· ·will be sent to you.· The

25· ·cultural -- the survey needs to be

·1· ·updated, because what it mentions

·2· ·is the contributing and the

·3· ·noncontributing properties.· But

·4· ·the properties built in 2008 and

·5· ·2017 need to be evaluated.· They

·6· ·are not included in your survey.

·7· ·They are included but they have not

·8· ·been evaluated.

·9· · · · And the reason why, and it has

10· ·been put in writing that we didn't

11· ·comment that, we were looking at a

12· ·broader document, which is the PA

13· ·and the five alternatives.· And at

14· ·that time, we mentioned it was an

15· ·adverse effect, and that you needed

16· ·to consult with the advisory

17· ·counsel.· So that's the reason why

18· ·we didn't go into that detail.

19· · · · So it needs an update, the

20· ·survey.· Once you update the

21· ·survey, then you can update the

22· ·nomination.· And that will be -- we

23· ·will send that letter with all our

24· ·general comments of the PA to you

25· ·either this week or the beginning

·1· ·of the other week.

·2· · · · MS. BLANCO:· Okay.

·3· · · · MS. SUIERO:· And I think we

·4· ·need to go in our letter detail by

·5· ·detail, because you are actually --

·6· ·you have someone that is taking

·7· ·notes of everything that is being

·8· ·discussed.· Is that correct?

·9· · · · MS. HAMILTON:· Yes.

10· · · · MS. BLANCO:· Yes.

11· · · · MS. SUIERO:· And we don't have

12· ·to put everything we have said in

13· ·the prior meeting or this meeting,

14· ·but that will be considered, right?

15· · · · MS. BLANCO:· Right.

16· · · · MS. SUIERO:· Right.· We will

17· ·review Santiago's comments, Juan's

18· ·comments, and my comments to make

19· ·sure that the transcriber has the

20· ·correct name of the person or

21· ·what's the correct name of the

22· ·person?

23· · · · MS. BLANCO:· The stenographer's

24· ·name is Derek Hoagland.

25· · · · MS. SUIERO:· So you actually

·1· ·have a lot of comments from our

·2· ·office that you need to consider in

·3· ·this document.

·4· · · · MS. VAUGHN:· And so another

·5· ·thing I would add, Caroline, that I

·6· ·think is sometimes better than

·7· ·guidance, and that's an FAQ about

·8· ·how to manage the -- you know, a

·9· ·frequently asked questions

10· ·document.

11· · · · MS. BLANCO:· Yeah, we prepared

12· ·one and sent it along to you all on

13· ·June 23rd.· Maybe it.

14· · · · MS. VAUGHN:· I mean, to operate

15· ·the facility with the collaborator.

16· · · · MS. HAMILTON:· So, Charlene,

17· ·this is Kristen.· Do you mean

18· ·instead of an operations plan, you

19· ·have an FAQ?

20· · · · MS. VAUGHN:· I think that you

21· ·have the operations plan, which

22· ·incorporates FAQs for any manager

23· ·of the facility to refer very

24· ·quickly to the document, if a

25· ·question comes up about how to

·1· ·manage things from a preservation

·2· ·perspective.· I think that's what I

·3· ·am saying, if I were a collaborator

·4· ·and I need no preservation

·5· ·expertise having a document like

·6· ·that accessible would have very

·7· ·helpful.

·8· · · · And they also just published a

·9· ·new secretary of interior

10· ·standards, Caroline.· You probably

11· ·got a copy.· That's hot off the

12· ·press, with recommended and

13· ·non-recommended activities.

14· ·Something like that.

15· · · · MS. BLANCO:· Okay.

16· · · · MS. SUIERO:· If you have not

17· ·received it, it is also on the

18· ·NPS's website.· And it is

19· ·beautiful.

20· · · · MS. BLANCO:· I have a question

21· ·about updating the national

22· ·register's nomination.· Presumably,

23· ·if NSF retains ownership, there

24· ·will still be 106, and we -- and we

25· ·can put this in the document as

·1· ·well.· Joe mentioned this last

·2· ·Thursday.· If an operator is going

·3· ·to do something to a building, they

·4· ·can't just go ahead and do that

·5· ·without NSF's authorization.· So

·6· ·with that, if there was a proposed,

·7· ·you know, demolition of a building

·8· ·or something, unless we address it

·9· ·in this plan, NSF would have to

10· ·authorize that.· Section 106 would

11· ·then come into play.· So I am

12· ·wondering if --

13· · · · MS. SUIERO:· Wait for a second.

14· ·Can you repeat that again?· I got

15· ·confused.· I'm sorry.

16· · · · MS. BLANCO:· In the scenario

17· ·where NSF retains ownership, NSF

18· ·would have a continuing role with a

19· ·new collaborator.· Again, I

20· ·mentioned earlier that there would

21· ·be a cooperative agreement that

22· ·would specify the terms of that

23· ·relationship so that if an operator

24· ·wanted to take down some buildings,

25· ·they would need to get NSF's

·1· ·authorization first.

·2· · · · So that would -- NSF's

·3· ·decision-making in that scenario

·4· ·triggers Section 106 requirements.

·5· ·And unless we make provisions in

·6· ·this document for how we would

·7· ·handle a scenario where demolition

·8· ·of a building would be -- would

·9· ·occur, we would have a separate

10· ·subsequent Section 106 process down

11· ·the line for that scenario.

12· · · · So I am just wondering, do we

13· ·think we need to update the

14· ·national register listing,

15· ·actually?· Because it is already

16· ·listed.· Do we need to do that

17· ·before there is a transfer?· Or

18· ·only in the event of a transfer?

19· ·Or only in the event of demolition?

20· · · · MS. VAUGHN:· So Section 110

21· ·applies, and that requires federal

22· ·agencies who own and manage

23· ·property to comply with the

24· ·requirements of Section 110.

25· ·That's where 110(b) comes from of

·1· ·recording properties or whatever.

·2· · · · So if it were to stay under

·3· ·NSF's ownership, you would have in

·4· ·whatever cooperative agreement or

·5· ·whatever protocols of complying

·6· ·with Protocols 106 and 110, which

·7· ·would probably have the

·8· ·collaborator advising you before

·9· ·they did anything so that you could

10· ·validate that it was okay.

11· · · · MS. BLANCO:· Right.· Right.

12· · · · MS. SUIERO:· But let me add to

13· ·that.· In fact, you are supposed to

14· ·consult with the advisory counsel,

15· ·even if it was not included in the

16· ·register.· You are supposed to do

17· ·Section 106 every time you are

18· ·spending -- that you have funds

19· ·like this permeate, et cetera, et

20· ·cetera, et cetera.

21· · · · So updating the nomination, it

22· ·is really something that would help

23· ·everybody understand better your

24· ·facility.· But you are supposed to

25· ·comply with Section 106 all the

·1· ·time.

·2· · · · MS. BLANCO:· Right.· And we

·3· ·understand their obligation.· 110

·4· ·also talks about nominating

·5· ·buildings to the national register,

·6· ·and so that's being done, the

·7· ·entire place.· There would be

·8· ·nothing more to nominate.· But what

·9· ·I was wondering is whether the work

10· ·and effort to be done would take

11· ·place under any scenario from your

12· ·perspective, or only in the event

13· ·of a transfer?

14· · · · MS. VAUGHN:· So I think that it

15· ·would -- if it is transferred out

16· ·of federal ownership, the

17· ·nonfederal party would be guided by

18· ·a covenant or conditions.· However,

19· ·if it is a cooperative agreement

20· ·and NSF is still part of the

21· ·ownership, that still makes the

22· ·property subject to 110.

23· · · · MS. BLANCO:· Right.· Right.

24· · · · MS. VAUGHN:· And under 110, you

25· ·have to just comply with those

·1· ·requirements or have the

·2· ·collaborator comply with them to do

·3· ·any of the work, because 106 would

·4· ·apply as Berenice said.

·5· · · · MS. HAMILTON:· So this is

·6· ·Kristen.· I am trying to

·7· ·understand -- I guess we are trying

·8· ·to understand, under the scenario

·9· ·of NSF retaining ownership, what is

10· ·the adverse effect that this update

11· ·is trying to address?

12· · · · MS. VAUGHN:· So I don't think

13· ·it is resolving an adverse effect

14· ·or addressing an adverse effect.

15· ·It is more a management tool.· When

16· ·I look at 110, it talks about the

17· ·management of a property.· And

18· ·that's all we are saying.

19· · · · The update will help with the

20· ·management of the property.· If so,

21· ·it wouldn't be a priority like you

22· ·had to do it right away.· But it

23· ·would inform how you engage the

24· ·collaborator as a third party to

25· ·help you implement -- fulfill your

·1· ·requirements under 110.

·2· · · · MS. BLANCO:· Okay.· I see where

·3· ·you are coming from.

·4· · · · MS. HAMILTON:· Thank you.

·5· · · · MS. VAUGHN:· So it changes the

·6· ·dynamic a little for sure.

·7· · · · MS. BLANCO:· Yeah.· Okay. I

·8· ·wonder.· I know it is 3:00, but

·9· ·aside from boilerplate provisions

10· ·in the document, which really start

11· ·on page 7.· And go to the end,

12· ·which are pretty much in every type

13· ·of programatic agreement or

14· ·memorandum of agreement.

15· · · · And I asked folks on the phone

16· ·to take a look at those and see if

17· ·there is anything there that's

18· ·problematic.· But basically the

19· ·remaining provision of this

20· ·document, and separate out again

21· ·NSF retaining ownership versus NSF

22· ·transferring it.· There is a

23· ·documentation component of this.

24· · · · Half their documentation is

25· ·very a in-depth set of

·1· ·documentation that would be

·2· ·prepared.· It is very specific.· It

·3· ·would end up being stored in the

·4· ·Library of Congress.· And, you

·5· ·know, there is a whole specified

·6· ·regulatory plan for how that would

·7· ·be accomplished.

·8· · · · And just speaking structurally

·9· ·about this document, what we have

10· ·said was under the scenario where

11· ·NSF retains ownership, that NSF

12· ·would conduct -- would prepare --

13· ·have their documentation in the

14· ·event the new collaborator would

15· ·want to demolish any facility.· And

16· ·as just a reminder, we don't know

17· ·if they want to, if there is a new

18· ·collaborator, whether they would

19· ·want to demolish zero buildings or

20· ·everything that we have analyzed

21· ·under Alternative 1 in NEPA.

22· · · · But in the event that anything

23· ·would be demolished, we would

24· ·suggest and we put in here that we

25· ·would do that very detailed

·1· ·HABS-HAER documentation before

·2· ·anything would be demolished.· Is

·3· ·that something people would want to

·4· ·have done?· And maybe could be

·5· ·included in this operations plan

·6· ·for contributing buildings?

·7· · · · MS. VAUGHN:· So, Berenice, you

·8· ·want to speak first and then I will

·9· ·speak?

10· · · · MS. SUIERO:· I am confused to

11· ·be quite honest, because if NSF

12· ·retains the property and you are

13· ·going to demolish, you need to

14· ·consult.· And if it is a

15· ·preservation covenant, the new

16· ·collaborator would consult and have

17· ·guidance.

18· · · · The other thing that I am

19· ·confused, to be quite honest, is

20· ·right now the observatory uses all

21· ·their buildings to do their

22· ·different scientific missions,

23· ·either the planetarium or the high

24· ·frequency with the buildings built

25· ·in 2011.· Why are you thinking

·1· ·someone new, the collaborator needs

·2· ·to demolish the building if the

·3· ·mission of the observatory is clear

·4· ·from the mission?· I am confused.

·5· ·Why would you think someone --

·6· · · · We haven't seen the document

·7· ·that you circulated for a new

·8· ·collaborator.· What is my

·9· ·understanding, the facility, even

10· ·the educational part, they need the

11· ·exhibition area.· They need the

12· ·labs.· They need everything. I

13· ·mean, why would someone with a

14· ·mission to do science in different

15· ·levels and options would want to

16· ·demolish something?· Maybe we don't

17· ·know what their new mission would

18· ·be or what -- you know.· So I don't

19· ·understand why if there was a

20· ·mission at the observatory the new

21· ·collaborator needs to demolish.

22· · · · MS. BLANCO:· Berenice, we have

23· ·said many times, we don't know if

24· ·they would want to or not and what

25· ·their reasons would be.· It could

·1· ·be very possible that they would

·2· ·demolish nothing, they would not

·3· ·want to.· So we aren't mandating

·4· ·that anything be demolished.· We

·5· ·are not even saying that it is

·6· ·absolutely possible, that we are

·7· ·very confident that they would want

·8· ·to demolish that.

·9· · · · So in terms of getting into the

10· ·reasoning of why something would be

11· ·demolished or not, that's something

12· ·that is a total unknown now,

13· ·because we don't know first off if

14· ·we will have a new collaborator,

15· ·and, secondly, if we do, what that

16· ·new collaborator would want to

17· ·retain.

18· · · · So the logic behind these

19· ·provisions was simply to say if it

20· ·was deemed to be a historically

21· ·significant building, and that

22· ·would be a contributing building,

23· ·then we would handle documentation

24· ·in a certain way.· And this would

25· ·be the consultation to address that

·1· ·need.· In other words, this is the

·2· ·pathway that we are saying that we

·3· ·would follow.· So if, you know,

·4· ·again, if the contributing building

·5· ·would be demolished, then we go

·6· ·through the HABS-HAER

·7· ·documentation, and that was the

·8· ·approach that we were proposing.

·9· · · · MS. SUIERO:· Yeah, but you are

10· ·talking about contributing

11· ·buildings.· We have buildings right

12· ·now at Arecibo that are not in the

13· ·list of the contributing and are

14· ·very important, like the high

15· ·frequency building that we --

16· · · · MS. HAMILTON:· Yeah, this is

17· ·Kristen --

18· · · · MS. SUIERO:· So whatever you

19· ·want to demolish, I think -- and

20· ·Charlene correct me -- that's why

21· ·we would have a management and

22· ·operations plan.· And that should

23· ·be included in that preservation

24· ·covenant or in the guide, because

25· ·it is very premature to have

·1· ·HABS-HAER when you don't even know

·2· ·if you are going to demolish.

·3· · · · MS. HAMILTON:· Berenice, this

·4· ·is Kristen.· I don't know if this

·5· ·helps, this is a very limited list

·6· ·of buildings that we are

·7· ·contemplating for this, and it is

·8· ·an attachment Q and A.· And I think

·9· ·it got lost in the shuffle.· It is

10· ·buildings and structures that may

11· ·be retained or demolished based on

12· ·the needs of any collaborator.· And

13· ·there is a list of facilities

14· ·there.

15· · · · There is only three that are

16· ·contributing.· They are two

17· ·trailers that are associated with

18· ·the operations building and then

19· ·there is an administration

20· ·building, and a warehouse and

21· ·business building.

22· · · · MS. SUIERO:· I don't have the

23· ·time, and I really don't think it

24· ·is that we have the need to discuss

25· ·every building, but there are too

·1· ·many unknowns.· So I would propose

·2· ·-- and Charlene you can correct me

·3· ·and my boss is here so she can

·4· ·correct me too -- the best thing to

·5· ·do with all the unknowns is to put

·6· ·it in the operations and

·7· ·maintenance plan and the

·8· ·preservation covenant, because we

·9· ·don't know what are -- what is

10· ·going to be the plan.· We don't

11· ·know who the collaborator is going

12· ·to be.· There are too many

13· ·questions that don't have an

14· ·answer.

15· · · · MS. BLANCO:· And we understand

16· ·that.· I think the big concern that

17· ·we have if you sense any

18· ·resistance, it is just that we want

19· ·to be sure if there is a new

20· ·collaborator that business

21· ·continues on in a way that is

22· ·manageable for that new

23· ·collaborator, and they don't become

24· ·paralyzed because there has to be a

25· ·(inaudible) and a discussion, and,

·1· ·you know, a protracted 106 process

·2· ·that is different or that would be

·3· ·something we could handle right now

·4· ·in terms of how would we handle

·5· ·this category of buildings, how

·6· ·would we handle this category of

·7· ·buildings.

·8· · · · MS. SUIERO:· That's why you

·9· ·need to revisit the survey.· And

10· ·that's why you need to revisit the

11· ·nomination.· And that's what we are

12· ·proposing a management operations

13· ·plan in a covenant because there

14· ·are too many unknowns.

15· · · · MS. BLANCO:· Right.· And,

16· ·Berenice, I just want to put out

17· ·there that we really need to, all

18· ·of us, if we really want this

19· ·facility to continue operation, we

20· ·have to make sure that we are not

21· ·paralyzing the new collaborator,

22· ·that we are going to make it, do as

23· ·much as we can upfront here to make

24· ·it a smooth transition for a new

25· ·collaborator to carry out what they

·1· ·need to do.

·2· · · · MS. SUIERO:· Let me compare it

·3· ·to the historic preservation

·4· ·community, which is many of the

·5· ·people that are on the line, and

·6· ·us.· We don't have a guardian or we

·7· ·don't have a designated person

·8· ·going out to the agencies checking

·9· ·if you comply or not.· You have

10· ·built -- your actual operator has

11· ·built things at the observatory and

12· ·we have mentioned nothing.· And

13· ·that doesn't -- they have not come

14· ·to us for review under Section 106.

15· · · · So I think it is fair enough to

16· ·say we could put that in the plan,

17· ·in the management and operations

18· ·plan so we have a better future

19· ·ahead.· We are not going to go

20· ·behind anyone saying you can do

21· ·this or you cannot do direct.

22· · · · In fact, the dish that is

23· ·included in the register has been

24· ·modified since it was constructed

25· ·in the 60s, because we are looking

·1· ·at a major concept, which is the

·2· ·science that they do there, which

·3· ·is more important than the material

·4· ·the dish is made of.· The antenna

·5· ·has been changed, and it was

·6· ·included.· The observatory was

·7· ·included without the age because of

·8· ·the importance -- because of the

·9· ·science that is done there.

10· · · · MS. BLANCO:· Right.· We don't

11· ·disagree.· It is just I am trying

12· ·to see if there is something we can

13· ·do now in this document that paves

14· ·a very clear path for how we would

15· ·handle things in the future so that

16· ·if a new collaborator takes over,

17· ·it would be pretty clear about what

18· ·has to be done.· We have an

19· ·understanding.· We don't have to

20· ·start from scratch if we are

21· ·confronted with a scenario.· That's

22· ·all I am trying to suggest.

23· · · · We are very committed to

24· ·compliance and we would continue to

25· ·do so, be so, but we do want to

·1· ·basically, for want of a better

·2· ·term, we just don't want to have to

·3· ·kick the can down the road.· We

·4· ·want to address whatever we can

·5· ·now.· And not just say we will have

·6· ·a plan to make a plan.· That's my

·7· ·concern.· We just want to be sure

·8· ·we have specificity, at least

·9· ·sufficiently to allow things to go

10· ·forward in a responsible historic

11· ·preservation minded way.

12· · · · We are just about 15 minutes

13· ·over, just for the sake of the

14· ·other folks who were not here, I

15· ·just wanted to mention three quick

16· ·comments that were made last

17· ·Thursday.

18· · · · One is on page 5 under 2A.

19· ·There is a -- and Charlene this was

20· ·your comment to -- there was

21· ·language that "prior to demolition

22· ·NSF or its designee shall" -- and

23· ·then there is more language.· And

24· ·the suggestion that we stop on that

25· ·because it sounded a little too

·1· ·harsh with the comments.· So maybe

·2· ·we would use the language in the

·3· ·act of alter or demolish.· We would

·4· ·have to take a look at ways to

·5· ·address that.

·6· · · · The other thing was there were

·7· ·two things under Alternative 1, if

·8· ·there is a transfer of ownership,

·9· ·one was that NSF had offered to

10· ·fund an exhibition that recognizes

11· ·the cultural importance and

12· ·historical importance of Arecibo

13· ·Observatory.

14· · · · And we actually took a vote

15· ·last week and the majority had

16· ·voted against that.· So that's

17· ·where we stood there.· There also

18· ·was a provision -- it would be on

19· ·page -- it is on page, the last

20· ·one, D3.· And that one provides

21· ·that if the dish and the support

22· ·towers are demolished or destroyed,

23· ·the new owner -- again, this would

24· ·be in the NSF where NSF transfers

25· ·ownership -- would commission a

·1· ·Puerto Rican artist to create

·2· ·artwork that conveys the cultural

·3· ·importance of the observatory to

·4· ·the Puerto Rican people.· That one

·5· ·was also suggested to be removed.

·6· · · · One of the concerns was raised

·7· ·by a member of the SHPO staff that

·8· ·what often happens is that that

·9· ·type of artwork or that type of

10· ·exhibit ends up in the hands of the

11· ·SHPO, and unable to have enough

12· ·space or ability to manage that in

13· ·the long term.· And so the

14· ·suggestion was that those two

15· ·provisions be struck from this

16· ·document.

17· · · · And in its place, one of the

18· ·provisions that was suggested was

19· ·that NSF use that same money to

20· ·help provide access to the blind

21· ·and deaf at the visitors center so

22· ·they could appreciate the

23· ·scientific importance that would be

24· ·appropriate for blind and deaf

25· ·people.· And that seems to be a

·1· ·very favorably received suggestion.

·2· · · · MS. COLÓN:· Can I ask a

·3· ·question, Caroline?

·4· · · · MS. BLANCO:· Of course.

·5· · · · MS. COLÓN:· I am still

·6· ·concerned about the Spanish version

·7· ·of all of this that we have been

·8· ·discussing.· I know that the

·9· ·majority of the people will be

10· ·reading this are going to be

11· ·reading it in English, but still,

12· ·there was some mistake in some

13· ·areas in the Spanish version that

14· ·needed corrections.· And I am

15· ·wondering whether we should expect

16· ·to see a correction of the Spanish

17· ·version due at some point?

18· · · · MS. BLANCO:· Yes, absolutely.

19· ·And I think we took down some of

20· ·the information.· I am not fluent

21· ·in Spanish.

22· · · · MS. COLÓN:· I know.· No, no, in

23· ·the first page every whereas has

24· ·been wrongly translated.· So from

25· ·there on, it needed whole

·1· ·revisions.· And I was wondering

·2· ·because basically we want to

·3· ·disseminate this information,

·4· ·especially through libraries and

·5· ·several of the many places we could

·6· ·think of creatively.

·7· · · · People are going to try to read

·8· ·it in Spanish.· And that's a

·9· ·reality.· I know that for the

10· ·record it has been in English.· It

11· ·has to be the same or -- basically,

12· ·the same document, and I was

13· ·worried about that.· I am just

14· ·raising this now.· I don't need an

15· ·answer now.· I am just raising it

16· ·for the record so we can discuss

17· ·it, even at a later date.

18· · · · MS. BLANCO:· Sure.· Would it be

19· ·okay for you to send us either a

20· ·marked up copy or whatever you

21· ·think are mistakes that need to be

22· ·corrected?· We would certainly

23· ·correct them and send it out.

24· · · · MS. COLÓN:· I will try to do

25· ·it.· I just don't promise it will

·1· ·be within the next two weeks.· My

·2· ·system closes operations tomorrow

·3· ·and we will be returning on

·4· ·July 31st, so it is after that that

·5· ·I can return that document to you.

·6· · · · MS. BLANCO:· Okay.· Well, we

·7· ·will -- maybe if that's the time

·8· ·frame, we will be generating a new

·9· ·draft, so I think we might hold off

10· ·on that.· We will correct -- we did

11· ·write down the whereas comment.

12· ·And I think we may have had one or

13· ·two.· Do you remember, Karen --

14· · · · MS. COLÓN:· Just do the

15· ·revisions so a person who is fluent

16· ·in Spanish can review it, this

17· ·person will certainly check on the

18· ·things that don't follow the

19· ·English language.

20· · · · MS. BLANCO:· Okay.· We will

21· ·take another look at that, Hilda,

22· ·thank you.

23· · · · MS. COLÓN:· Thank you.

24· ·Appreciate that.

25· · · · MS. BLANCO:· Okay.· We will

·1· ·take all of these comments under

·2· ·consideration.· Try to make an

·3· ·effort to generate a new draft

·4· ·based on these comments, and any

·5· ·others we received between now and

·6· ·the 24th so that we can produce

·7· ·another one to circulate.

·8· · · · If there are any other

·9· ·comments, I would ask that you

10· ·please send them on to us, on or

11· ·before the 24th, earlier is better

12· ·so that we have more time to make

13· ·adjustments.

14· · · · And we will look forward to,

15· ·Charlene, you sending us --

16· · · · MS. VAUGHN:· I sent it to you

17· ·and Liz.· I already sent it.

18· · · · MS. BLANCO:· Wonderful.· Thank

19· ·you.

20· · · · MS. VAUGHN:· I sent it to

21· ·Berenice as well, so all of you

22· ·will have that.

23· · · · MS. BLANCO:· Okay.· Thank you

24· ·very much.

25· · · · MS. VAUGHN:· You are welcome.

·1· · · · MS. BLANCO:· We will take a

·2· ·look at that and if there are any

·3· ·other components -- I guess I am

·4· ·turning to the SHPO folks, if there

·5· ·are any other comments that -- or

·6· ·comments on components that should

·7· ·be included in an operation plan,

·8· ·that will be really helpful.

·9· · · · Thank you.· Any last minute

10· ·questions?· I know we are 20

11· ·minutes over, but we can take one

12· ·minute or so, two minutes for a

13· ·quick question.

14· · · · UNKNOWN SPEAKER:· Ángel from

15· ·the office of Congresswoman

16· ·González.· I just want to make sure

17· ·that the new draft PA is sent to us

18· ·as well.

19· · · · MS. BLANCO:· Absolutely.

20· · · · Karen, you have --

21· · · · MS. PEARCE:· I will write that

22· ·down.

23· · · · MS. BLANCO:· We will make sure

24· ·you are on the list.

25· · · · UNKNOWN SPEAKER:· Thank you.

·1· · · · MS. BLANCO:· Thanks for joining

·2· ·us.· Anybody else?· I just will

·3· ·remind people one more time about

·4· ·the email for Derek.· If you have

·5· ·not already done so, please submit

·6· ·your name and affiliation.· Liz

·7· ·will read out the email address one

·8· ·last time.

·9· · · · MS. PENTECOST:· It is D as in

10· ·"David," L as in "lima," H as in

11· ·"Henry," C as in "Charlie," S as in

12· ·"Sam," R as in "Roger," @gmail.com.

13· · · · MS. BLANCO:· Thank you.· And

14· ·Derek do you have a sense of when

15· ·the transcription will be ready?

16· · · · THE REPORTER:· My regular

17· ·turnaround is approximately two

18· ·weeks at maximum.

19· · · · MS. BLANCO:· And for the rest

20· ·of the folks, as soon as we do have

21· ·it, we will post it along with the

22· ·transcription from the July 6th

23· ·meeting on to the AST website.· It

24· ·will be English though.

25· · · · MS. PENTECOST:· And we will

·1· ·send out an email to everybody on

·2· ·the stakeholder list pointing them

·3· ·in the right direction.

·4· · · · MS. SUIERO:· All right.

·5· · · · MS. BLANCO:· Thank you all very

·6· ·much.· And we appreciate your

·7· ·staying with us for an extra 22

·8· ·minutes or so.

·9· · · · And, again, please submit any

10· ·comments you may have on this draft

11· ·on or before July 24th so that we

12· ·can start to incorporate them into

13· ·a new draft.· And just as a

14· ·reminder, we have set aside

15· ·August 14th to work through the

16· ·next draft.· I don't know that we

17· ·set a time yet.· We haven't, but we

18· ·will provide you with notice when

19· ·we send out the next draft.· And

20· ·our hope is that that will be

21· ·pretty close to reflecting what

22· ·people have expressed an interest

23· ·in seeing reflected so that we can

24· ·work toward finalization to make

25· ·this happen, if at all possible.

·1· ·And by this, I mean a new

·2· ·collaborator to keep Arecibo up and

·3· ·running.· So your help with that

·4· ·would be most appreciated.· I think

·5· ·we all share that same goal of

·6· ·having a new collaborator to take

·7· ·it over and keep it up and running.

·8· · · · Thank you all very much.

·9· · · · (The proceeding concluded

10· · · · at 3:25 a.m.

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

·1· · · · · · · · ·REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE

·2

·3· · · · ·I, DEREK L. HOAGLAND, Certified Shorthand

·4· ·Reporter #13445, State of California, do hereby

·5· ·certify that the foregoing is a true and correct

·6· ·transcript of the proceedings on the date

·7· ·hereinbefore set forth; and I do further certify

·8· ·that the foregoing transcript has been prepared

·9· ·under my direction.

10

11

12

13· · · · ·___________________________· · · · · · · · ·DEREK L. HOAGLAND14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25