Emails pertaining to Gateway Pacific Project for December ...

Emails pertaining to

Gateway Pacific Project

for December 31, 2011 –

January 6, 2012

From: "Scott Boettcher" <[email protected]>To: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]: 1/2/2012 5:15 AMSubject: GPT MAP Team Weekly Update #52

Hi All.

This week's Weekly Update (#51) has now been posted tohttps://secureaccess.wa.gov/ofm/iprmt24/DesktopModules/Articles/ArticlesView.aspx?tabID=0<https://secureaccess.wa.gov/ofm/iprmt24/DesktopModules/Articles/ArticlesView.aspx?tabID=0&alias=1357&ItemID=130&mid=38796&wversion=Staging>&alias=1357&ItemID=130&mid=38796&wversion=Staging.

Highlights include:

. New Document Search Functionality Added to iPRMT GPT MAP TeamWebtool.

. iPRMT GPT MAP Team Webtool Now More Accessible for New Users.

. Follow-up to 12/08/2011 Executive Team Meeting Scheduled.

Please contact either Jane or Scott with any questions or issues.

Thanks!

Jane and Scott

_____________________________

Scott Boettcher

SBGH-Partners, LLC

219 - 20th Ave SE

Olympia, WA 98501-2924

360/480-6600

<mailto:[email protected]> [email protected]

From: Tyler SchroederTo: [email protected]; Roland MiddletonCC: Pamela BrownDate: 1/3/2012 10:26 AMSubject: Re: Request for Party of Record Status - Shoreline & SEPA notices

We will make sure that you are on the GPT contact list.

Thanks,

Tyler

Tyler R. SchroederCurrent Planning SupervisorPhone: (360) 676-6907 ext. 50202Fax: (360)738-2525Email: [email protected] Address: Whatcom County Planning and Development Services5280 Northwest Dr. Bellingham, WA 98225

>>> <[email protected]> 12/26/2011 3:21 PM >>>FIRST_NAME: Mary Ruth

LAST_NAME: Holder

ADDRESS: 109 N. 6th St.Mount Vernon, WA 98273-3304

EMAIL: [email protected]

REQUEST: Please include me as a party of record for all notices in regards the Gateway Pacific Terminal project. If you do not maintain a notice list by project please include me in the general list. I am interested in any new permit applications or revisions to any applications and in any SEPA notices.

Notice by email only is all I require.

Thank You

PAGE: http://www.communitywisebellingham.org/sepa-request/ REFERER: http://www.communitywisebellingham.org/2011/04/register-for-sepa-nepa-notices/

From: "D White" <[email protected]>To: <[email protected]>Date: 1/3/2012 10:46 AMSubject: Request for Party of Record Status - Shoreline & SEPA notices

FIRST_NAME: Dan

LAST_NAME: White

ADDRESS: 447 14th St

Bellingham, WA 98225


REQUEST: Please include me as a party of record for all notices in regardsthe Gateway Pacific Terminal project. If you do not maintain a notice listby project please include me in the general list. I am interested in anynew permit applications or revisions to any applications and in any SEPAnotices.


Thank You

PAGE: http://www.communitywisebellingham.org/sepa-request/

REFERER:http://www.communitywisebellingham.org/2011/04/register-for-sepa-nepa-notices/


We will make sure that you are added to the GPT Contact list.

Thanks,

Tyler


>>> <[email protected]> 12/30/2011 6:46 PM >>>FIRST_NAME: Dan

LAST_NAME: White

ADDRESS: 447 14th StBellingham, WA 98225




Thank You


From: "Kelly, Alice (ECY)" <[email protected]>To: "Tyler Schroeder ([email protected])" <[email protected]: 1/3/2012 11:36 AMSubject: FW: EIS MeetingAttachments: 010512 MRC Agenda.pdf

FYI

From: Amy Glasser [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Sunday, January 01, 2012 9:40 PMTo: David; Eleanor Hines; Humphrey; Jenny; Brian Mulligan; Pat S; [email protected]; Andy; brady; Trevor Corbett; [email protected]; Lois Franco; Wendy Harris; [email protected]; Janet; John; [email protected]; Jullin; Kelly, Alice (ECY); [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Deena R; suzanne ravet; Lindsay resources; [email protected]; [email protected]; Penny; Stephanie; Suzanne; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]: Fw: EIS Meeting

This may be a good meeting to attend that Tyler Schroeder will speak about (and answer questions about) the Scoping Process.Thursday 1/5 at 6:00 at 322 N Commercial St, Bellingham. See flyer attached.Thanks Suzanne for sending this my way.

---

MARINE RESOURCES COMMITTEE AGENDA

Scheduled for: January 5, 2012 Time: 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. Place: Civic Cen ter Annex, 322 N. Commercial S treet, Bellingham, Garden Level

Conference Room

Agend a

1. 6:00 Introductions and Public Comment Period

2. 6:05 November Meeting Summary Action: Review and approve as f inal

3. 6:10 New Business & January Agenda

Action: Modify and approve agenda as needed 4. 6:15 Committee Elections: 2012 O fficer Position s (Chair, Vice-Chair, NWSC Reps.)

5. 6:20 Presentation: Overview of EIS Scoping Process (Tyl er Schroeder, Whatcom County PDS) Purpose Statement: To better understand the EIS sco ping process so that the MRC or other interested community me mbers may appropriately co mment on the proposed action, alternatives, and impacts to be discusse d in the G ateway Pacif ic Terminal EIS. Action: Questions & discussio n of MRC’s int erest in providing comments for sco ping of G ateway Pacif ic Terminal EIS

6. 7:00 Discussion: Continued Chuckanut Marsh Monitoring in 2012 (Chris Fairbanks, MRC) Action: Discussion

7. 7:10 Staff Updates

Action: Questions & discussio n 8. 7:25 Committee Updates: NWSC, BBWARM, BBAT, and Salmon Recovery Team

Action: Questions and discussio n 9. 7:55 Review Action Items

10. 8:00 Adjourn

2012 MRC Meetings wil l be held at the Civic Center Building, 322 N. Commercial S treet, Garden Level Conference Room

· February 2 · March 1 · April 5 · May 3

· June 7 · July 5 · August 2 · September 6

· October 4 · November 1 · December 6

see upcoming MRC events and meetings on back sid e - Upcoming MRC Events/Meetings:

MRC Executive Subcommittee: 2 nd Thursday of the month, 4:30 pm, 1 st floor conference room, Civic Cen ter Annex

MRC Water Q uality Subcommittee: 3 rd Thursday of the month, 5:30 pm, Re Sources for Sustainable Communities library (check website for location confirmation)

Mussel W atch: January 17, 4:30 pm

Northwest Straits Co mmissi on: Friday, Jan. 27, Garden Level Conference Room, Civic Cen ter Annex

From: Melissa RobertsTo: Schroeder, TylerDate: 1/3/2012 2:49 PMSubject: MRC clarification

Tyler,

I propose adding this paragraph to the MRC's website, as well as sending it out to my original MRC agenda email distribution list. My intention would be to help clarify what the purpose of this presentation will be.

** Please note - the January 5 MRC meeting has an agenda item related to the scoping process for development of an EIS. For clarification, this presentation will be broad in nature, with an overview of the scoping process. It will not deal directly with the Gateway Pacific Terminal project's EIS. As an agenda item within the MRC's regularly scheduled business meeting, this will not be a general discussion of the Gateway Pacific Terminal project. The intended action for this agenda item is a discussion of the MRC's interest in providing comments during the scoping process. **

Does this seem like a reasonable clarification?

Thank you,Melissa

Melissa RobertsWhatcom County Public WorksPlanner I - Natural Resources322 N. Commercial St., Ste. 110Bellingham, WA 98225(360) 676-6876 ext. 50259 I am in the office Tuesday, Thursday, and Friday.

From: "Kelly, Alice (ECY)" <[email protected]>To: Jack Delay <[email protected]>CC: "Tyler Schroeder ([email protected])" <[email protected]: 1/3/2012 3:20 PMSubject: RE: contact email to get on SEPA email list

Jack, Since Ecology and Whatcom County are co-leads, we will be sharing the "interested party" list, so the County's list will suffice. Ecology will not be maintaining a separate list.

Alice KellyDepartment of Ecology Northwest Regional [email protected]

-----Original Message-----From: Jack Delay [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, January 02, 2012 3:39 PMTo: Kelly, Alice (ECY)Subject: contact email to get on SEPA email list

We currently have a form email that provides a request to Whatcom County to get on their list to receive all email notices in regards GPT including SEPA. We created this before DOE became a Co-Lead, does / will DOE have a similar list or will being on the county list cover all publicly announced DOE material as well?

If there will be a DOE notice process for interested parties to whom should a request be emailed to get on it? Thanks.

From: "Wendy Harris" <[email protected]>To: "Tyler Schroeder" <[email protected]>Date: 1/3/2012 3:43 PMSubject: Re: SEPA standards for GPT

Hi Tyler: Will review of mitigation standards for the project site be based on SMP requirements or CAO requirements? I understand that the County SEPA provisions require normal mitigation sequencing to be followed, but when I have reviewed Staff reports, they always reference SMP or CAO provisions to establish adequate mitigation.

Thanks, Wendy

----- Original Message ----- From: "Tyler Schroeder" <[email protected]>To: "Wendy Harris" <[email protected]>Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 10:39 AMSubject: Re: SEPA standards for GPT

Wendy,

I am not sure I completely understand you question. The SMA/County SMP will apply to those areas that the within Shoreline Jurisdiction (normally 200 ft from regulated body of water or associated wetlands). If there are applicable rules and mitigation standards found in the SMP that may be more appropriate for the entire project site those discussions are appropriate through the SEPA process.

Hope this helps, give me a call at 676-6907 if you want to discuss further.

Thanks,

Tyler

Tyler R. SchroederCurrent Planning SupervisorPhone: (360) 676-6907 ext. 50202Fax: (360)738-2525Email: [email protected]:Whatcom County Planning and Development Services5280 Northwest Dr.Bellingham, WA 98225

>>> "Wendy Harris" <[email protected]> 12/28/2011 1:07 AM >>>Hi Tyler. I have a question. For purposes of the SEPA process, will the applicable rules and mitigation standards be regulated under the SMA/County SMP for the entire project site?

Thanks,Wendy Harris

From: "Kelly, Alice (ECY)" <[email protected]>To: "Tyler Schroeder ([email protected])" <[email protected]: "Taylor, Nida (ECY)" <[email protected]>, "Summerhays, Jeannie (ECY)" <...Date: 1/3/2012 4:23 PMSubject: Co-Lead Conference Call

Hi Randel, Francis, Tyler, Royce, Brenden, Laura:

Are you available for a conference call this week? Options are:Jan 5 Thursday 10 to 11Jan 5 Thursday 11 to noonJan 6 Friday 10:30 to 11:30

From: Royce BuckinghamTo: Alice (ECY) Kelly; Brenden (ECY) McFarland; Francis X NWS Eugenio; La...CC: Jeannie (ECY) Summerhays; Nida (ECY) TaylorDate: 1/3/2012 4:54 PMSubject: Re: Co-Lead Conference Call

I am in other hearings. Assuming Tyler is available, go on without me. :)

Thank you,

rsb

>>> "Kelly, Alice (ECY)" <[email protected]> 1/3/2012 4:23 PM >>>Hi Randel, Francis, Tyler, Royce, Brenden, Laura:


From: Melissa RobertsTo: Melissa RobertsCC: Erika StroebelDate: 1/3/2012 5:15 PMSubject: Whatcom MRC Jan. 5 agenda clarificationAttachments: 010512 MRC Agenda.pdf

Hello everyone,

Please note the following clarification regarding agenda item #5 of the Whatcom MRC's January 5 meeting:

**This presentation will be broad in nature, with an overview of the scoping process. It will not deal directly with the Gateway Pacific Terminal project's EIS. As an agenda item within the MRC's regularly scheduled business meeting, this will not be a general discussion of the Gateway Pacific Terminal project. The intended action for this agenda item is a discussion of the MRC's interest in providing comments during the scoping process. According to PDS, the Co-Lead Agencies will be working on facilitating pre-scoping meetings, specifically for the Gateway Pacific Terminal EIS, in the near future.**

Thank you,Melissa

Melissa RobertsWhatcom County Public WorksPlanner I - Natural Resources322 N. Commercial St., Ste. 110Bellingham, WA 98225(360) 676-6876 ext. 50259 I am in the office Tuesday, Thursday, and Friday.

MARINE RESOURCES COMMITTEE AGENDA

Scheduled for: January 5, 2012 Time: 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. Place: Civic Cen ter Annex, 322 N. Commercial S treet, Bellingham, Garden Level

Conference Room

Agend a

1. 6:00 Introductions and Public Comment Period

2. 6:05 November Meeting Summary Action: Review and approve as f inal

3. 6:10 New Business & January Agenda

Action: Modify and approve agenda as needed 4. 6:15 Committee Elections: 2012 O fficer Position s (Chair, Vice-Chair, NWSC Reps.)

5. 6:20 Presentation: Overview of EIS Scoping Process (Tyl er Schroeder, Whatcom County PDS) Purpose Statement: To better understand the EIS sco ping process so that the MRC or other interested community me mbers may appropriately co mment on the proposed action, alternatives, and impacts to be discusse d in the G ateway Pacif ic Terminal EIS. Action: Questions & discussio n of MRC’s int erest in providing comments for sco ping of G ateway Pacif ic Terminal EIS

6. 7:00 Discussion: Continued Chuckanut Marsh Monitoring in 2012 (Chris Fairbanks, MRC) Action: Discussion

7. 7:10 Staff Updates

Action: Questions & discussio n 8. 7:25 Committee Updates: NWSC, BBWARM, BBAT, and Salmon Recovery Team

Action: Questions and discussio n 9. 7:55 Review Action Items

10. 8:00 Adjourn

2012 MRC Meetings wil l be held at the Civic Center Building, 322 N. Commercial S treet, Garden Level Conference Room

· February 2 · March 1 · April 5 · May 3

· June 7 · July 5 · August 2 · September 6

· October 4 · November 1 · December 6

see upcoming MRC events and meetings on back sid e - Upcoming MRC Events/Meetings:

MRC Executive Subcommittee: 2 nd Thursday of the month, 4:30 pm, 1 st floor conference room, Civic Cen ter Annex

MRC Water Q uality Subcommittee: 3 rd Thursday of the month, 5:30 pm, Re Sources for Sustainable Communities library (check website for location confirmation)

Mussel W atch: January 17, 4:30 pm

Northwest Straits Co mmissi on: Friday, Jan. 27, Garden Level Conference Room, Civic Cen ter Annex

From: "Eugenio, Francis X NWS" <[email protected]>To: Tyler Schroeder <[email protected]>, "Laura (ATG) Watson" <Laura...CC: "Jeannie (ECY) Summerhays" <[email protected]>, "Nida (ECY) Taylor" <nr...Date: 1/4/2012 8:17 AMSubject: RE: Co-Lead Conference Call (UNCLASSIFIED)

Classification: UNCLASSIFIEDCaveats: NONE

I can do the Thursday times but not Friday.

Francis X. EugenioAssistant District CounselSeattle District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers P.O. Box 3755 Seattle, WA98124Phone: 206.764.6079Fax: [email protected] Work Product/Attorney ClientDo Not Release Under FOIADo Not Forward

-----Original Message-----From: Tyler Schroeder [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2012 8:15 AMTo: Laura (ATG) Watson; Royce Buckingham; Alice (ECY) Kelly; Brenden (ECY)McFarland; Eugenio, Francis X NWS; Perry, Randel J NWSCc: Jeannie (ECY) Summerhays; Nida (ECY) TaylorSubject: Re: Co-Lead Conference Call

I am available for all of those times.

Thanks,

Tyler





From: Peter GillTo: Tyler SchroederDate: 1/4/2012 10:46 AMSubject: Re: Questions on Birch Bay Watershed Action Plan/GPT Interaction, Jeremy Schwartz from The Northern Light

Hi Tyler, I want to reply to Jeremy's questions. What do you think? Too much?------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The comments that you reference were submitted to the MAP team in April of 2011. They were compiled from a number of people in the department. The in-lieu-fee comments you have highlighted were based on the early information we had regarding the 100+ acres of wetland impacts that were proposed. As you know, our proposal is only for buffers so our proposal would not help GPT with their wetland impacts. The comments from Natural Resources reflect the need for "avoidance" first to reduce the area of impact (pg 3-4, bullets 1 & 5), then onsite mitigation, then offsite within the Cherry Point basin. Only then, could they look for mitigation outside of the Cherry Creek basin. Would we support mitigating impacts within the Birch Bay Watershed if they could not do it in the Cherry Point basin? Not sure... should the Nooksack basin benefit from the mitigation work instead? There may be a good case for that, but Birch Bay is a highly altered coastal basin, hydrologically connected to the impact site, with valuable nearshore and upland resources, not sure why we wouldn't want to benefit from the mitigation work if it was being done offsite anyway.

>>> Editorial <[email protected]> 1/3/2012 12:51 PM >>>Hi Peter,

I hope you had a great holiday season.

I've been sifting through a bunch of information Wendy Harris sent me regarding the alleged connection between the Birch Bay Watershed Action Plan, specifically the in-lieu of fee mitigation program, and the Gateway Pacific Terminal, and I have a question you can hopefully answer or at least provide clarification on.

Ms. Harris referenced a document titled "Gateway Pacific Terminal Preliminary Information Document Comments," in which a number of comments on the Feb. 28, 2011, GPT project information document are outlined. First off, just so I'm clear, who exactly provided these comments? Was it one county staff member, or is it a collection of comments from different county planning staff?

Ms. Harris directed my attention to the last page of this document and to a list of comments with the heading "Natural Resources Comments." Ms. Harris specifically mentioned the 13th and 14th bullet points under the "natural resources" heading. These comments seem to suggest county planning staff tacitly support the GPT proponents using some sort of in-lieu of fee program for mitigation in the Birch Bay watershed.

Could you please provide clarification on these two bullet points? What exactly was county planning staff trying to say in composing these two specific comments?

Please find the document attached for your ease of review. The bullet points in question should be highlighted in yellow.

Any reply would be greatly appreciated.

Thank You,

Jeremy [email protected] Twitter: http://twitter.com/TNLreporter

The Northern Light225 Marine Drive, Ste. 200Blaine, WA 98230Ph: (360) 332-1777 ext. 208Fx: (360) 332-2777www.thenorthernlight.com

From: Wendy Steffensen <[email protected]>To: <[email protected]>CC: Melissa Roberts <[email protected]>Date: 1/4/2012 10:53 AMSubject: response to clarification on MRC agenda

Will you be able to answer questions like this? I hope so-- these seem likequestions that are general enough in nature.Wendy

From one of our MRC members:Of interest will be questions like "how broad or narrow with the EIS be"? "how are decisions about what to include in scoping and the EIS made?" "Does the entity paying for the EIS have the major say in what isincluded?" "what roles will each of the participating agencies play, andhow are they determined?" I hope that Tyler will be ready to address suchquestions.

Checked by AVG - www.avg.comVersion: 2012.0.1901 / Virus Database: 2109/4720 - Release Date: 01/03/12

-- Wendy Steffensen, Lead ScientistNorth Sound Baykeeper TeamRE Sources for Sustainable Communities2309 Meridian St.Bellingham, WA 98225

360 733-8307 (office)360 739-5518 (cell)

From: Peter GillTo: Jeremy SchwartzDate: 1/4/2012 11:50 AMSubject: Re: Questions on Birch Bay Watershed Action Plan/GPT Interaction, Jeremy Schwartz from The Northern Light

Hi Jeremy, and Happy New Year to you too.

The comments that you reference were submitted to the Multi-agency Permitting Team in April of 2011. They were compiled from a number of people in the department. The in-lieu-fee comments you have highlighted were based on the early information we had regarding the 100+ acres of wetland impacts that were proposedby the GPT project. As you know, our Birch Bay Watershed Action Plan proposal is only for buffers so it cannot be utilized by GPT for their wetland impacts.

The comments from Natural Resources reflect the need for "avoidance" first to reduce the area of impact (pg 3-4, bullets 1 & 5), then onsite mitigation, then offsite within the Cherry Point basin. Only then, could they look for mitigation outside of the Cherry Point basin.

You ask, would we support mitigating wetland impacts within the Birch Bay Watershed with an in-lieu-fee program? Not sure... the permitting process for GPT will determine whether an in-lieu-fee is appropriate mechanism, and what watershed would benefit from the offsite mitigation work, be it Birch Bay, the Nooksack basin, or some other. There may be a good case for excluding the Birch Bay watershed as Wendy advocates, but Birch Bay is a highly altered coastal basin, hydrologically connected to the impact site, with valuable nearshore and upland resources. Kind regards,

Peter Gill

Natural Resources Division Whatcom County Planning & Development Services322 N. Commercial StreetBellingham, WA 98225360-676-6907 [email protected] >>> Editorial <[email protected]> 1/3/2012 12:51 PM >>>Hi Peter,



Ms. Harris referenced a document titled "Gateway Pacific Terminal Preliminary Information Document Comments," in which a number of comments on the Feb. 28, 2011, GPT project information document are outlined. First off, just so I'm clear, who exactly provided these comments? Was it one county staff

member, or is it a collection of comments from different county planning staff?





Thank You,

Jeremy [email protected]: http://twitter.com/TNLreporter


From: <[email protected]>To: <[email protected]>CC: <[email protected]>Date: 1/4/2012 4:57 PMSubject: Fwd: Can you give 3 hrs to fight corporate rule and coal trains in Bellingham?

____________________________________ From: [email protected]: [email protected]: 1/4/2012 4:03:37 P.M. Pacific Standard TimeSubj: Can you give 3 hrs to fight corporate rule and coal trains in Bellingham?

On Saturday, January 14, the No Coal! PAC will be distributing fliers announcing the launch of a campaign for the first ever Bellingham Community Bill of Rights.

We need feet on the ground - Your feet! We need people like you who are filled with enthusiasm about · asserting the right of our community to decide what happens here, and · protecting the community from the coal trains We will be reaching out to some of the people who will be most severely affected by the coal trains by handing out flyers to the houses near the railroad tracks. We will also let these folks know about the launch of the initiative campaign on January 26.

----------------------------

If you can help, please get in touch by January 12! You can reach us at [email protected]_ (mailto:[email protected]) or _360-389-3314_ (tel:360-389-3314) .

------------------------------

We'll go singly and in pairs. We'll go to as many houses as we have capacity to reach. Each person will choose whether just to deliver the flyer or actually to ring the doorbell and talk to the person who comes to the door. We’ll supply you with a possible script for that conversation.

Eleven people have already signed up to do this. We need at least a dozen more. With two dozen workers on the ground we can reach 1,200 front doors! We’ll gather for orientation at 9:00 at a place to be determined in downtown Bellingham or Fairhaven, and we’ll be done by noon.

------------------------------

If you can help, please get in touch by January 12! You can reach us at [email protected]_ (mailto:[email protected]) or _360-389-3314_ (tel:360-389-3314) . ------------------------------ Coal-Free Bellingham is now onFacebook – check out the invitation to the launch on our Facebook page and Sign up there if you intend to come to the launch!Also Check us out on the web at _www.coal-free-bellingham.org_ (http://www.coal-free-bellingham.org/) . The website is being added to daily, so keep coming back!

------------------------------ To summarize: Date: Saturday, January 14Time: 9:00 AM – noonPlace: To be determinedRSVP by Jan. 12: [email protected]_ (mailto:[email protected]) , or

_360-389-3314_ (tel:360-389-3314)

From: "Dewell, Jane (ORA)" <[email protected]>To: "Lumsden, Faith (GOV)" <[email protected]>, "Walker, Muffy" <mich...CC: "Hultman, Shelby (GOV)" <[email protected]>, "Boettcher, Scott" ...Date: 1/5/2012 10:13 AMSubject: RE: GPT NEPA/SEPA and applicants meetingAttachments: Agenda PM 010912 fin.pdf

We are attaching the meeting agenda for Monday, 1/9. The meeting location in Marysville is: Marysville Fire District, Station 62, 10701 Shoultes Road, Marysville, WA 98271

Later today, we will be sending handouts that shows schedule and tasks to help guide our discussion on Monday.

Please let Faith or me know if you have any questions. Thanks, Jane

**********************************Jane Dewell, Regional LeadGovernor's Office of Regulatory Assistance3190 160th Ave SEBellevue, WA 98008-5452(425) 649-7124 or (425) 577-8445

-----Original Appointment-----From: Lumsden, Faith (GOV)Sent: Friday, December 16, 2011 9:06 AMTo: Lumsden, Faith (GOV); Walker, Muffy; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Summerhays, Jeannie (ECY); Kelly, Alice (ECY); McFarland, Brenden (ECY); [email protected]; Mark Knudsen; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Dewell, Jane (ORA); [email protected]: Kalb, F E Skip; Perry, Randel J NWS; Walker, Michelle NWSSubject: GPT NEPA/SEPA and applicants meetingWhen: Monday, January 09, 2012 1:00 PM-3:00 PM (GMT-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada).Where: Marysville Fire District, Station 62, 10701 Shoultes Road, Marysville, WA 98271Importance: High

*Update to meeting location.

Agenda will be forthcoming: but main topics include schedule, communication, accountability and decision making.

www.ora.wa.gov 360 -407-7037 800-917-0043 [email protected] 1

Agenda

Gateway Pacific Terminal, Mult i -agency Permit (MAP) Team Project Management Team Meet ing

Monday, January 9, 1:00 – 3:00 p.m.

Meet ing Locat ion

Marysville Fire District , Station 62

10701 Shoultes Road, Marysville WA 98271

Meet ing Purpose

1. Affirm expectations and commitments for schedule, communication , project management, and accountability .

2. Work out details of project management for consultant selection and beginning of scoping process .

Attendance ORA, Applicants , and NEPA/SEPA Agencies

Time Topic Discussion Notes

1:00 – 1:15 Welcome.

Review of meeting purpose.

Time for a reset on project management, schedule , commitments , and review.

1:15 – 1:45

Consultant Selection Process

Share known dates or time periods.

Define needed actions, submittals, deliverables and time periods.

Applicant and agency needs.

Commitments to moving forward.

Resolving any questions re: process.

Transparency and concerns from the public.

1:45 – 2:15

Scoping



Pre-scoping activities .

Community meetings to clarify scoping process.

2:15 – 2:45 Project Management and Accountability

Confirm roles and responsibilities .

Establish communication and reporting schedule .

Holding ourselves accountable.

What if the schedule slips?

Project needs outside of the initial NEPA/SEPA process.

2:45 – 3:00 Action Items and Wrap Up Review project management set-up when consultant is onboard

From: "Perry, Randel J NWS" <[email protected]>To: "Dewell, Jane (ORA)" <[email protected]>CC: "Kelly, Alice (ECY)" <[email protected]>, Tyler Schroeder <[email protected]: 1/5/2012 12:26 PMSubject: RE: One Revision to Attachment 1 (UNCLASSIFIED)


A bit belayed, but that's acceptable to me.

Randel PerryArmy Corps of EngineersRegulatory Branch, NW Field Office360-734-3156 (Office)360-393-2867 (Cell)

-----Original Message-----From: Dewell, Jane (ORA) [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2011 4:40 PMTo: Perry, Randel J NWSCc: Kelly, Alice (ECY); Tyler SchroederSubject: One Revision to Attachment 1

Randel,

Oliver Grah (Nooksack) had a phrase to add to one of the questions. Is thefollowing OK?

a. Will late comments be accepted, and if so, how will these beincorporated?

All scoping comments will be due by the end-of-comment period. Federalentities, such as the Environmental Protection Agency and Tribes, may submitcomments outside of the formal public comment period. (new bit in yellow)

I'm hoping to finish up tomorrow morning and Scott plans to post notes aroundNoon 12/23.

Thanks & hope you enjoy the holidays. Jane

**********************************

Jane Dewell, Regional Lead

Governor's Office of Regulatory Assistance

3190 160th Ave SE

Bellevue, WA 98008-5452

(425) 649-7124 or (425) 577-8445


From: "Dewell, Jane (ORA)" <[email protected]>To: "Kelly, Alice (ECY)" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <...Date: 1/5/2012 12:49 PMSubject: RE: RFP

Thanks Alice. I will wait for OK before I put anything on the GPT MAP site, but would like to have a link or something since people go to that site for project information and this is a major milestone.

Tyler - shall I call the Purchasing Office to get a copy of the RFP?

Thanks, Jane

From: Kelly, Alice (ECY)Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2012 12:33 PMTo: Dewell, Jane (ORA)Subject: RFP

http://www.co.whatcom.wa.us/as/finance/purchasing/current_bids/index.jsp

it's under the Finance Division, current bid opportunities. Just the notice, not the actual documents (so far)

Alice KellyDepartment of EcologyNorthwest Regional [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>

From: "Wendy Harris" <[email protected]>To: "Tyler Schroeder" <[email protected]>Date: 1/5/2012 1:36 PMSubject: Re: SEPA standards for GPT

Hi Tyler, I know that you are very busy. Just a reminder that I am still waiting to here back.Thanks,Wendy

----- Original Message ----- From: "Wendy Harris" <[email protected]>To: "Tyler Schroeder" <[email protected]>Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 3:43 PMSubject: Re: SEPA standards for GPT

> Hi Tyler: Will review of mitigation standards for the project site be > based on SMP requirements or CAO requirements? I understand that the > County SEPA provisions require normal mitigation sequencing to be > followed, but when I have reviewed Staff reports, they always reference > SMP or CAO provisions to establish adequate mitigation.>> Thanks, Wendy>> ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Tyler Schroeder" <[email protected]>> To: "Wendy Harris" <[email protected]>> Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 10:39 AM> Subject: Re: SEPA standards for GPT>>> Wendy,>> I am not sure I completely understand you question. The SMA/County SMP > will apply to those areas that the within Shoreline Jurisdiction (normally > 200 ft from regulated body of water or associated wetlands). If there are > applicable rules and mitigation standards found in the SMP that may be > more appropriate for the entire project site those discussions are > appropriate through the SEPA process.>> Hope this helps, give me a call at 676-6907 if you want to discuss > further.>> Thanks,>> Tyler>> Tyler R. Schroeder> Current Planning Supervisor> Phone: (360) 676-6907 ext. 50202> Fax: (360)738-2525> Email: [email protected]> Address:> Whatcom County Planning and Development Services> 5280 Northwest Dr.

> Bellingham, WA 98225>>>>>> "Wendy Harris" <[email protected]> 12/28/2011 1:07 AM >>>> Hi Tyler. I have a question. For purposes of the SEPA process, will the > applicable rules and mitigation standards be regulated under the > SMA/County SMP for the entire project site?>> Thanks,> Wendy Harris>>

From: "Dewell, Jane (ORA)" <[email protected]>To: "Lumsden, Faith (GOV)" <[email protected]>, "Walker, Muffy" <mich...CC: "Hultman, Shelby (GOV)" <[email protected]>, "Boettcher, Scott" ...Date: 1/5/2012 6:34 PMSubject: RE: GPT NEPA/SEPA and applicants meetingAttachments: Agenda PM 010912 fin rev1.pdf; GPT PM Task Details ver1.docx; GPT PM Tracki

ng ver 3.xlsx

All - after some additional feedback, we revised the meeting agenda. I am attaching the revised version.

I am also attaching handouts for Monday. These are drafts that are intended to help us work on the schedule, communication, project management and accountability regarding the GPT project. The Excel sheet is an overview; the Word document contains details for critical path tasks. All of this is open to discussion and refinement on Monday.

See you on Monday. Thanks. Jane

_____________________________________________From: Dewell, Jane (ORA)Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2012 10:13 AMTo: Lumsden, Faith (GOV); Walker, Muffy; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Summerhays, Jeannie (ECY); Kelly, Alice (ECY); McFarland, Brenden (ECY); [email protected]; Mark Knudsen; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]: Hultman, Shelby (GOV); 'Scott Boettcher'Subject: RE: GPT NEPA/SEPA and applicants meeting

We are attaching the meeting agenda for Monday, 1/9. The meeting location in Marysville is: Marysville Fire District, Station 62, 10701 Shoultes Road, Marysville, WA 98271 << File: Agenda PM 010912 fin.pdf >>Later today, we will be sending handouts that shows schedule and tasks to help guide our discussion on Monday.

Please let Faith or me know if you have any questions. Thanks, Jane

**********************************Jane Dewell, Regional LeadGovernor's Office of Regulatory Assistance3190 160th Ave SEBellevue, WA 98008-5452(425) 649-7124 or (425) 577-8445

-----Original Appointment-----From: Lumsden, Faith (GOV)Sent: Friday, December 16, 2011 9:06 AMTo: Lumsden, Faith (GOV); Walker, Muffy; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Summerhays, Jeannie (ECY); Kelly, Alice (ECY); McFarland, Brenden (ECY); [email protected]; Mark Knudsen; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Dewell, Jane (ORA); [email protected]: Kalb, F E Skip; Perry, Randel J NWS; Walker, Michelle NWSSubject: GPT NEPA/SEPA and applicants meetingWhen: Monday, January 09, 2012 1:00 PM-3:00 PM (GMT-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada).

Where: Marysville Fire District, Station 62, 10701 Shoultes Road, Marysville, WA 98271Importance: High

*Update to meeting location.

Agenda will be forthcoming: but main topics include schedule, communication, accountability and decision making.

www.ora.wa.gov 360 -407-7037 800-917-0043 [email protected] 1

Agenda

Gateway Pacific Terminal, Mult i -agency Permit (MAP) Team Project Management Team Meet ing

Monday, January 9, 1:00 – 3:00 p.m.

Meet ing Locat ion

Marysville Fire District , Station 62

10701 Shoultes Road, Marysville WA 98271

Meet ing Purpose

1. Affirm expectations and commitments for schedule, communication , project management, and accountability .

2. Work out details of project management for critical path tasks .

Attendance ORA, Applicants , and NEPA/SEPA Agencies

Time Topic Discussion Notes

1:00 – 1:15 Welcome.

Review of meeting purpose.

Time for a reset on project management, schedule , commitments , and review.

1:15 – 2:00 Project Management andAccountability

Review tasks and information needs.

Confirm roles and responsibilities .

Establish communication and reporting schedule.

Commitments to moving forward.

Holding ourselves accountable.

What if the schedule slips?

Project needs beyond the initial NEPA/SEPA process.

2:00 – 2:45

Near-term Critical Path Tasks

- Consultant Selection Process

- Complete Applications

- Scoping



Resolving any questions re: process.

Pre-scoping activities.

Community meetings to clarify scoping process.

Transparency and concerns from the public.

2:45 – 3:00 Action Items and Wrap Up Review project management set-up when consultant is onboard

1

**DRAFT** GPT MAP TeamProject Mgmt – Critical Path Task Details

Date Parties Responsible Tasks – Detailed Status

CONSULTANT SELECTION

1/04/2012 NEPA/SEPA Co‐leads (Randel, Tyler, Alice)

Issue RFP for Potential NEPA/SEPA 3rd party contractors. Posted (1/04/2012) – County

1/13/2012 Consultants – various Optional submittal of questions.


Optional pre‐proposal conference.


Issuance of addendum.

2/7/2012 Consultants – various Proposals due.

NEPA/SEPA Co‐leads (Randel, Tyler, Alice)

Review, rate and evaluate proposals.


Select and invite for interviews.


Conduct interviews.


Announce “Apparent Successful Contractor” and send notification via fax or e‐mail to unsuccessful proposers.


Hold debriefing conferences (if requested).


3rd Party Consultant (3PC)

Negotiate and finalize contract.


File contract.

2


3PC

Begin contract work.

COMPLETE APPLICATIONS

3/19/2012 PIT (Ari) Submit New Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (SSDP) application to the County.

Due date based on County extension deadline.

3/19/2012 PIT (Ari) Submit Major Development Permit (MDP).outstanding information items to the County (as originally identified in 6/23/2011 County letter).

County (Tyler) Review SSDP and MDP.

County (Tyler) Issue determination of completeness for processing for SSDP.

County (Tyler) Issue determination of completeness for processing for MDP.

PIT (Ari)

BNSF (Skip K)

Submit project information, including technical reports, BA/BE, ESA/EFH, NHPA, etc.

Determine whether critical path.

SCOPING

2/?/2012 NEPA/SEPA Co‐leads (Randel, Tyler, Alice)

Distribute Pre‐scoping materials or other info?

2/?/2012 NEPA/SEPA Co‐leads (Randel, Tyler, Alice)

Pre‐scoping meeting?

3PC Consultant familiarizes team with project.

3PC w/ NEPA/SEPA Co‐leads (Randel, Tyler, Alice)

Develop public participation plan (PPP), communication plan, scoping approach (schedule, logistics).


Review and approve PPP, communication plan, scoping approach (schedule, logistics).

USACE (Randel) Issue Notice of Intent (NOI) for NEPA and local “Special Public Notice”.

USACE (Randel) Tribal notifications.

USACE (Randel) Publish Notice in Federal Register (FR).

County (Tyler) Issue Determination of Significance (DS) for SEPA.

3

County (Tyler) Issue public notice per WCC 16.08.130.

Ecology (Alice) Post DS in SEPA Register.

3PC Arrange for scoping events.


Public Scoping Period (60 days).


Distribute scoping info, materials.


First scoping event.


Second scoping event.


Third scoping event.


Agency scoping event.


Close of scoping period.


Compile and review comments.


Establish scope of analysis for EIS.


Draft, review, and release scoping summary report.

Updated: Thursday, January 05, 2012

4

Source: GPT MAP Team website: https://secureaccess.wa.gov/ofm/iprmt24/site/alias__1357/22844/welcome.aspx

**DRAFT** GPT MAP TeamProject Mgmt - Overview

PHASE → PHASE I ‐ PRE‐APP PHASE II ‐ Scoping

MONTH (2012)→ Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept

CRITICAL PATH → Consultant Selection: RFP (NEPA/SEPA Co‐leads).

Consultant Selection: Proposals due (NEPA/SEPA Co‐leads).

Complete Applications: County permits (PIT). Consultant Selection: File contract (NEPA/SEPA Co‐leads).

Scoping: DS (County). NOI (USACE).

Scoping: Public Scoping Events (NEPA/SEPA Co‐leads).

DATES → 1/4/2012 2/7/2012 3/19/2012 (permits)

PARTIES↓ TASKS ↘APPLICANTS

PIT Submit new SSDP, revised MDP.

Provide project information (technical reports, BA/BE, ESA/EFH, NHPA, etc.)

BNSF JARPA (401). Provide project information (technical reports, BA/BE, ESA/EFH, NHPA, etc.)

AGENCIES

NEPA/SEPA CO‐LEADS

Issue RFP. Pre‐proposal conference. Questions. Addendum.

Proposals due. Evaluate. Interviews. Negotiate & finalize contract.

Public participation plan (PPP), communication plan, scoping approach.

Public Scoping (60‐day). Events.

Public Scoping (60‐day). Events.

Compile comments. Complete scoping.

3rd PARTY CONSULTANT (3PC)

Begin work. Develop PPP, communication plan, & scoping approach.

Assist with scoping events. Assist with scoping events. Assist with comments and complete scoping.

USACE NOI for EIS. Special public notice. FR publish. Tribal notification. Review applicant project info.

Agency scope meet.

COUNTY Conduct pre‐scoping meeting.

Review and determination of completeness for SSDP, MDP. DS for EIS. Public notice. Review applicant project info.

Agency scope meet.

ECOLOGY Conduct pre‐scoping meeting. Review BNSF JARPA (401) for completeness.

DS in SEPA register. Review applicant project info.

Agency scope meet.

WDFW Review applicant project info. Agency scope meet.

WDNR Review applicant project info. Agency scope meet.

NWCAA Review applicant project info. Agency scope meet.

ORA (MAP Team) Track progress. Track progress. Track progress. Review applicant project info. Plan agency meetings. Facilitate agency meetings.

Cooperating Agencies

Review applicant project info. Agency scope meet.

Updated: Thursday, January 05, 2012

Source: GPT MAP Team website: https://secureaccess.wa.gov/ofm/iprmt24/site/alias__1357/22844/welcome.aspx

From: Jean Melious <[email protected]>To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>Date: 1/5/2012 11:47 PMSubject: GPT: RFP and application

Hi Tyler,

I see that the RFP has been issued, but I couldn't find the GPT applications. Am I looking in the wrong place, or haven't they been posted yet?

Happy New Year, and thanks,Jean

From: "Tom Ehrlichman" <[email protected]>To: <[email protected]>CC: "Royce Buckingham" <[email protected]>, <[email protected]: 1/6/2012 8:33 AMSubject: Request for Information on Cherry Point Process

Dear Tyler,

Hope you had a good holiday. No doubt upon return this week you had a fewthings on your desk!

I am hoping that you might be able to respond to my emails requesting noticeof the process for public comment on the proposed comprehensive planamendment regarding interlocal agreements with service providers, sent to meby you in response to a request for any amendments related to the CherryPoint UGA. Hopefully without sounding preachy, I would like to state theobvious: GMA requires the County to ensure robust public participation foramendments to comprehensive plans and development regulations.

But in keeping with that, I again urge you to post notice on your GatewayPacific Terminal site of any proposed amendments to the comprehensive planor development regulations affecting the Cherry Point UGA. I would also askthat you post this email and your response on the website containing theGateway Pacific email collection.

Just want to make sure the public isn't aren't missing any opportunities forpublic comment or hearing. Peter Gill is keeping us informed of theamendments regarding development regulations in the Birch Bay/Cherry Pointarea.

Just to stay current, please inform me if there are any other amendments inprocess, other than the Birch Bay stormwater amendments and theinterlocal/service provider comp plan amendment.

Many thanks,

Tom Ehrlichman

From: "Perry, Randel J NWS" <[email protected]>To: Tyler Schroeder <[email protected]>, "Kelly, Alice (ECY)" <AKEL4...Date: 1/6/2012 8:55 AMSubject: PIT/GPT long term schedule (UNCLASSIFIED)Attachments: EIS NEPA-SEPA SCHEDULE.DOCX


Alice and Tyler:

I took a crack at setting up a long term schedule for the EIS process. Iwould appreciate your review and input.

Please note that this is a very rough draft and needs a lot of additionaldetails. The dates are all flexible.


<<EIS NEPA-SEPA SCHEDULE.DOCX>>


PHASE

NEPA/SEPA Process(12/06/2011)

Goal or Date Completed NEPA (USACE) SEPA (Whatcom County) SEPA (Ecology)

1

PHASE I ‐ APPLICATION

Project Application(s)

6/13/2011 for Corps.

6/23/2011 for Co.

TBD for Co.

TBD for Co.

Determine JARPA is sufficiently “complete” to start the process.

Issue determination of incompleteness and requirement to obtain a new Shoreline Substantial Development Permit.

Issue determination of completeness for Shoreline Substantial Development Permit.

Issue determination of completeness for Major Project Permit (MPP).

????

Determination of Project Need for EIS

6/13/2011 for Corps

12/11 for Corps

Determination of significance and District Engineer’s Memorandum of Determination of Project Need for an EIS.

Identify Cooperating Agencies and Tribes.

Issue Determination of Significance (see below).

????

MOU between Co‐Lead Agencies

7/15/2011

10/17/2011

Whatcom County and Ecology become formal co‐leads for SEPA.

MOU between USACE, County and Ecology signed.

PHASE



2

PHASE II SCOPING

Selection of 3rd Party EIS Contractor

January ‘12

February ‘12

Issue RFP for Potential NEPA/SEPA 3rd party contractors.

Select 3rd party EIS contractor.

Joint NOI/DS/Special Public Notice

March ‘12

March ‘12

March ‘12

Issue Notice of Intent (NEPA) as well as local “Special Public Notice”.

Publish Notice & Federal Register.

Tribal Notification.

Determination of Significance (SEPA).

Post in SEPA Register and issue public notice per WCC 16.08.130 .

o

Public Scoping

April/May ‘12

April/May ‘12

Public Scoping Period (60 days).

Public Scoping Meetings.

Establishment of Scope of Analysis

May/June ‘12 Compilation of comments and establishment of scope of analysis for EIS.

PHASE



3

PHASE III

DEIS

Begin Draft EIS

July ‘12

DEIS Review (co‐lead and cooperating agencies)

4th Quarter ‘12

.

Publish DEIS

2nd Quarter ‘13 Distribution of DEIS

Public Comment Period for DEIS

3rd Quarter ‘13

3rd Quarter ‘13

4th Quarter ‘13

Public Comment Period (60 days).

Public Hearing.

Compilation of comments and responses

PHASE



4

PHASE IV

FEIS

Begin Final EIS

4th Quarter ‘13 Revise EIS as necessary

FEIS Review (co‐lead and cooperating agencies)

2nd Quarter ‘14

.

Publish FEIS

TBD Notice of availability of the final EIS (Federal Register)

PHASE



5

PHASE V Permit Decision

Permit Decision

Record of Decision based on 404(b)(1) & NEPA (minimum 30 days after FEIS notice)

.

Permit Issuance/Denial

Permit issuance or denial

Applicant Appeal

From: Jean Melious <[email protected]>To: Tyler Schroeder <[email protected]>Date: 1/6/2012 10:08 AMSubject: Re: GPT: RFP and application

Thank you, Tyler!

Jean

________________________________ From: Tyler Schroeder <[email protected]>To: Jean Melious <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, January 6, 2012 8:53 AMSubject: Re: GPT: RFP and application Jean,

The updated MDP and new shoreline application have not been submitted at this point. The Co-lead agencies have decided to start the RFP process to hire the consultant that will help facilitate the EIS process. The County can not issue a Determination of Significance until such time as the company submits the updated and new applications.

Thanks,

Tyler


>>> Jean Melious <[email protected]> 1/5/2012 11:43 PM >>>Hi Tyler,




Tyler, A couple people have asked whether PIT is paying for County staff time. I had a vague recollection that there was an agreement. Is that correct, and if so, can you steer me to it? Thanks again,Jean



Thanks,

Tyler






(Apologies for the serial e-mails.) Also wondering why the County decided to move forward on an RFP when it doesn't have an application. For all practical purposes, this starts the SEPA process, doesn't it? That's why I assumed that the application must have arrived, or must be imminent. And thanks again,Jean



Thanks,

Tyler





From: Tyler SchroederTo: [email protected]: Pamela BrownDate: 1/6/2012 3:16 PMSubject: Re: Request for Party of Record Status - Shoreline & SEPA notices

We will add you to the contact list.

Thanks,

Tyler


>>> <[email protected]> 12/19/2011 9:49 AM >>>FIRST_NAME: Diana

LAST_NAME: McKinney

ADDRESS: 813 W Pacificview DrBellingham, WA 98229




Thank You


From: Chris MohnkernTo: Stephanie DrakeCC: Tyler SchroederDate: 1/6/2012 3:58 PMSubject: RFP - holders listAttachments: 12-08 Mailing List.doc

see attached - page 2 is the emails from page 1 in preparation to send out add any additional info

Mailing ListRFP 12-08

Gateway EIS

STATISTICAL RESEARCH [email protected]

ICF [email protected]@icfi.com

ANCHOR [email protected]

ECOLOGY & ENV [email protected]

HART [email protected]

BERGER [email protected]

EES [email protected]

SSA [email protected]

EA [email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

HERRERA [email protected]

CH2M [email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

RESOURCE [email protected]

GEO [email protected]

NORTON [email protected]

JBR ENVIRONMENTAL

[email protected]

FREESTONE ENVIRO [email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

OFFICE OF REGULATORY [email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

SALISH [email protected]

SWCA [email protected]

[email protected]

ENVIRON [email protected]

FEHR & [email protected]

[email protected]@[email protected]@[email protected]@[email protected]@[email protected]@[email protected]@[email protected]@[email protected]@[email protected]@[email protected]@[email protected]@[email protected]@[email protected]@[email protected]@[email protected]@[email protected]@fehrandpeers.com

From: Wayne FitchTo: [email protected]: 1/6/2012 4:39 PMSubject: Re: Fwd: RFP - holders list (Vacation)

I will be out of the office January 9 to January 17, 2012. If you need assistance during this time please contact Tyler Schroeder @ [email protected] or leave a message and I will return your email on January 17, 2012.

From: Everybody's Store <[email protected]>To: Ross Macfarlane <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>...CC: Frank James <[email protected]>, Bob Ferris <[email protected]>, M...Date: 1/6/2012 5:52 PMSubject: Re: [COAL-EXPORT-FORUM] FW: Whatcom Co RFP 12-08Attachments: Tongue River.pdf; legal victory tongue river.doc; Part.002

The Tongue River White Paper for the Montana Environmental Quality Council

Issue: On October the Surface Transportation Board's Section of Environmental Analysis published the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (Final SEIS) for the Board's Tongue River proceeding (STB Docket # FD 30186-3). A decision from the Board is imminent. If the decision approves plans for construction of this portion of the Tongue River W o a d , the "Western Alignment," it will set in motion a chain of events allowing the Tongue River Railroad Company to construction of the entire a project that will have a serious environmental impact on tens of thousands of acres of productive ranchland and the entire Tongue River watershed, as well as grave economic and social consequences on the ranchers who depend on this land for livelihoods, and on the State of Montana as a whole.

Recommendation: The EQC should appoint a special subcommittee or group to study the Tongue River Railroad and to hold hearings on the project. The study needs to be conducted during the 2007-08 interim, while the State has m aximum opportunity to impact the outcome of the project. As part of its study, the EQC should consider legislation prohibiting the use of eminent domain to obtain land for the project.

Background: The Tongue River W o a d Company is attempting to build a rail line from City to Decker, the purpose of which is to provide for the transport of coal from existing and future mines in the Powder River Basin and Tongue River to markets in the midwestern and northeastern states. Information on the TRRC and other stakeholders and interested parties is included at Appendix A, Tongue River Railroad - Interested Parties.

The Tongue River W o a d Company (TRCC) project has been previously considered by the Surface Transportation Board (the Board) in two separate proceedings known as Tongue I and Tongue River In Tongue River I, application fled in 1983, TRRC sought approval from the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC), the Board's predecessor agency, to

and operate 89 miles of rail line between Miles City, Montana and two located near Montana. In a decision served May 9, 1986, the ICC approved Tongue River I. TRRC

fled another application in 1991 for Tongue River seeking approval to extend the line from to Decker. Two build alternatives were considered in that case: preferred route and

the Four Mile Creek Alternative. The Board approved Tongue River authorizing construction of 41 of rail line via the Four Mile Creek Alternative, in a decision served on November 8,1996.

Tongue River I is complete. Although the Tongue I decision was served over 20 years ago, the TRCC has never undertaken any construction or construction-related activities.

Tongue River is pending judicial review in the 9' Circuit Court of Appeals (Northern Plains Resource Council, Inc. v. STB, Nos. 97-70037 et al., filed Jan. 7, 1997). The court proceeding is being held in abeyance pending the completion of Tongue River Background information on Petitioner Northern Plains Resource Council as well as the United Transportation Union and Native Action, Inc., who have intervened in the 9' Circuit action on behalf of the Petitioner, are included at Appendix A.

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY SEPTEMBER 14,2007

On April 27, 1998 the TRCC applied to the Board for authorization to construct and operate 17.3 miles of rail line known as the proposed Western also referred to as Tongue River A Final SEIS for Tongue River was published on October 5,2006 and a decision from the Board is imminent.

Actual construction of the lines approved in Tongue River I and Tongue River has not yet begun. However, has conducted various preconstruction activities on both lines, including test

to obtain more geotechnical information.

Analysis: The Tongue River Railroad project, which will have a permanent, irreversible impact on tens of thousands of acres of the most pristine land in Montana, is in clear violation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Rather than having the impact of the entire project evaluated as a whole by a single Environmental Impact Statement, the project has been segmenting into three separate proceedings before the Surface Transportation Board over the past 24 years (one of the bases of the current The fact that no construction ever took place in the two decades following approval of Tongue River I is proof that the Tongue River Railway is in fact a single project, that Tongue River I has no practical value without Tongue River and

The bulk of the is covered by the EIS for Tongue River I, which was completed in 1983 and relies on research going back to the 1970's. Most of the current Final SEIS for Tongue River relies on the data in the EIS was published in 1992, with most of the data coming from the

There have been numerous changes throughout the entire Tongue River Valley over the past 30 years, and the Surface Transportation Board errs in assuming that the data are still

The recently released F inal SEIS the cumulative impacts of a variety of key environmental issues including coal bed methane. The cumulative air quality effects of the combined with the impacts of a number of power plants and other facilities have also not been fully considered. In addition, most of the on the impacts on wildlife are well out of date.

The Montana S tate government has never studied the project to evaluate its environmental impact or alleged economic justification to support the Railroad. The Tongue River Railroad was discussed during a review of eminent domain statutes during Governor Radcot7s administration in late 1999 and early 2000, when the Montana Legislature's Environmental Council and Law,

and Indian Interim Subcommittee held on eminent domain. But these hearings focused exclusively on possible adjustments to eminent domain laws, and addressed neither the merits of the nor its apparent violation of NEPA.

Tongue River Interested Parties

A. Stakeholders and Potential Investors

1. The Tongue River Company: Mission is to provide "new transportation to an estimated tons of coal reserves in southeastern Montana and a mine spur to the Otter Creek

2. Wesco Resources: A consortium developing plans for a m ine, an electrical generation plant, and the railroad at Otter Creek. Wesco consists of Madison Resources LLC (see item 3 below), and the Tongue River Company.

3, LLC: Created specifically to seek the leases to the southeast Montana coal, to acquire and develop coal reserves in the and Otter Creek areas. Consists of Madison Resource Management and

4. Otter Creek Energy Project. A consortium of companies "working together to conduct feasibility studies to address the elements necessary to sponsor new phased coal-fired electrical generation in southeastern Montana." The first phase would include a 750-megawatt coal-fired generator, a mile power line to tie in to the existing transmission grid, and a 3-million-ton-per-year coal mine for the power plant, with the electricity being sold in Montana and the Pacific Northwest. An estimated completion date is 2008-10. Consists of Wesco Resources, Bechtel, Kennecot Energy, and BNSF (affiliated in an advisory capacity).

5. BNSF Railway: The Tongue River Railway is intended to interconnect to the existing BNSF system at both the north and south ends.

6. Great Northern Properties (GNP): The single largest private owner of coal in the United S tates with 20 billion tons in reserve. GNP Owns those Otter Creek which do not belong to the state of Montana.

7. Great Northern Power Development. Chuck President of Houston-based Great Northern Properties, is also the CEO Great Northern Power Development, which is planning a coal-fired generating plant west of Circle, Montana.

B. Circuit Plaintiffs

1. Northern Plains Resource Council a grassroots conservation and family group that organizes Montana citizens to protect water quality, family farms and ranches, and their unique quality of life. NPRC objects to the Tongue River based on the fact that the string of dating back to 1983 do not consider the as a whole and do not consider the cumulative effects of the railroad with coal bed methane extraction.

1 . 530M tons of Federal coal ownership was transferred to the State of Montana by - the transfer was completed in 2002.

Madison Resources includes Mike Gustafson (President of Wesco); Pat Davison, and Doug Day

2. Native Action: a non-profit community empowerment located on the Northern Indian Reservation in southeastern Montana. Founded in 1984 by members of the

Northern Cheyenne Indian Tribe, Native Action calls itself a "leading model for citizen empowerment on Indian Reservations." Its missions include addressing major environmental and social justice issues in Montana, including coal mining and gasification.

3. United Transportation Union: opposes the new rail link because it believes railroad jobs would be lost on the existing BNSF line which serves the area.

C. Parties to Docket # FD 30186 -3 River

1. Marilyn Fortune* T Triangle Ranch HC 32

City, MT 59301

2. Steven Kelley Northern Tribe PO Box 128 Lame MT 59043

3. Nellie Israel PO Box 76

MT 59041

4. David H. &Johnson

1330 Connecticut Ave Washington, DC 20036 -1 795

5. General Chairman, RS GO-245 8250 W. Ave

CO 80005

6. Lonnie J. Wright* Diamond Cross Ranch LLC PO Box 70 Big Horn, 82833 -0070

7. William R. Musgrave* Musgrave Ranch PO Box 32 Decker, MT 59025

8. Kathryn M. Chief, Regulatory Branch - US ACE 215 North Street

Omaha, NE 681 02

9. William P. Carrel* Ranch

7 Red Bluff Loop MT 59012

10. Mr. Mrs. Richard J . Anderson* Tongue River HC 32 Miles City, MT 59301

11. Jeanie Alderson* Bones Brothers Ranch PO Box 505

MT 59012

12. Patrick Landers HC 32 Box 4731 Miles City, MT 59301

13. Representative Norma PO Box 1165 Lame Deer, MT 59043

14. Gary Ryder PO Box 72

MT 59038

15. Art Hayes Brown Cattle Co PO Box 51 7

MT 59012

16. Nancy Owens PO Box 38 Basin, MT 59631 -0038

17. Sarah BNSF Railway PO Box 961039 Fort Worth, 761-2828

18. Peter A. Pfohl Slover Luftus 1224 Seventeenth Street, Washmgton, DC 20036-3003

19. J.W. Route 2, Box 3015 Miles City, MT 59301

20. Ted Hirsch HC 32 Box 4741 Miles City, MT 59301

Bimey, MT 59012

25. Les Hirsch HC 32 Box 431 1 Miles City, MT 59301

26. Joe Rodriguez P O Box 820 Lame Deer, MT 59301

27. Jack R. Tuholske PO Box 7548

MT 59807

28. Gordon P. Macdougall 1025 Connecticut Avenue, Suite 91 9 Washington, DC 20036

21. South Air Quality Management District 29. Mark Fix 21 865 East Drive HC 32 Box 4196 Diamond Bar, CA 91 765 Miles City, MT 59301

22. John Cedar Hills Angus Ranch HC 32 Box 4356

City, MT 59301

23. Stephen Valentine III* Hill House PO Box 547

MT 59012

30. Jake Mt Farm Bureau Federation 502 South Bozeman, MT 597 18

31. T L Utu-Wyoming State Legislative Board 1 659 Highland Avenue Sheridan, 82801

24. IN Alderson* 32. Beth Bones Brothers Ranch 669 Stonegate Drive PO Box 505 Bozeman, MT 597 15 *Landowner Opposed to Construction

D. Non-Party Opponents to the Tongue River Railroad

1. Senator Greg

2. Senator Robert Hawks

3. Jerry Decker Montana (Landowner)

4. Ray Miles City Montana (Landowner)

5. Alice Bimey Montana (Landowner)

6. Phil and Denise Wood, Montana (Diamond Cross Ranch Managers)

7. American Prairie Foundation: mission is to "create and manage a prairie-based wildlife reserve that, when combined with public lands already devoted to wildlife, protect a unique natural habitat, provide lasting economic benefits, and improve public access to and enjoyment of the prairie landscape."

8. Trout Unlimited: mission is to "conserve, protect and restore North America's coldwater fisheries and their watersheds."

9. World Wildlife Fund: mission is "the conservation of nature . . . the best available knowledge and advancing that knowledge . . . to preserve the diversity and abundance of life on Earth and the health of systems.

E. Other Relevant State. Federal. and Tribal Entities

1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

2. U.S. Fish and Wildlife

3. Montana Fish, Wildlife, Parks

4. Crow Tribe

5. Northern Cheyenne Tribe

http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/07/13/38100.htm

Judges Seem Skeptical About Coal Train By NICK McCANN

Court House News Service

July 13, 2011

PORTLAND, Ore. (CN) - A 9th Circuit panel seemed skeptical that the Surface Transportation Board had properly studied the environmental impacts of a railroad project in Montana's Tongue River Valley. The 9th Circuit heard arguments in Portland on Monday on the Surface Transportation Board's denial of a request to stop construction of 130-mile project. The Tongue River III project would help transport coal from Montana to Midwestern power plants. In July 2010, the conservation group Northern Plains Resource Center and rancher Mark Fix petitioned the STB, a federal agency, to stop construction, claiming there had not been sufficient studies on the environmental impacts of coal trains. In his testimony, Fix said the railroad "would turn the Tongue River Valley into an industrial zone." The STB denied the request, saying the Northern Plains Resource Center (NPRC) and Fix did not prove that further environmental studies were necessary. Arguing for the NPRC, attorney Gordon MacDougall said that "public convenience and necessity" was the most important statutory issue. There is no single test to determine that issue, MacDougall said, but the STB imposed a three-part test to approve the Tongue River Railroad project. "And that's new," MacDougall said. "They declined to issue any specific criteria. ... It was the [STB's] environmental staff that came up with this cockeyed scheme. ... "They informally decided, 'We know engineering better." MacDougall asked the three-judge panel to send the decision back to the STB, with directions to use the old criteria or explain the three-part criteria. Environmental law professor Jack Tuholske also argued for the petitioners. He said the railroad threatened ranches and farms with condemnation, and that the environmental analysis by the STB was deficient. Judge Milan Smith asked Tuholske what his best environmental point was. Tuholske said the agencies that deserve the most deference from the court are the Montana Department Fish, Wildlife and Parks, the Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which had said there was not enough data to make a reasonable decision. "They know about fish; the Transportation Board knows about trains," Tuholske said. Rather than conducting tests, Tuholske said the agencies "put it off as mitigation" to study after the railroad had been built, which he called

"backwards." "You have to look before you leap, and they haven't looked here." Tuholske also outlined concerns about the "cumulative impacts of coal bed methane development." He said a 2002 environmental impact statement by the Bureau of Land Management found it was "reasonably foreseeable" that construction of new coal bed methane natural gas wells in the Tongue River Valley would have an impact on the environment, but the STB refused to perform any more analysis. "The agencies, time and time again, when faced with the opportunity to address the environmental impacts ... looked the other way," Tuholske said.Arguing for the Surface Transportation Board, attorney Virginia Strasser said the board did an extensive environmental review of each application for a railroad permit. Judge Smith questioned the data that was collected. "I know the [STB] has real expertise in terms of railroads, but I don't know who did this environmental stuff," the judge said. "It seems like in almost every instance the Board says, 'We don't have the information now, but we're going to get it later.'" The judge asked Strasser to prove him wrong, and appeared skeptical that the STB had done extensive studies on fish and wildlife in the Tongue River Valley. Strasser said the agency did the studies required by the National Environmental Policy Act, and went beyond it. "A habitat study can serve as a proxy for a population count," Strasser said. The agency, she said, put its findings of impacts into mitigation.Strasser said the STB repeatedly asked federal agencies for input on the proposed railroad, and that the STB deferred to the agencies' expertise in finding that the railroad was in the public interest. "Transporting coal by trucking is not a good option. From an environmental point of view it is certainly preferable to transport coal by rail," Strasser said. Attorney David Coburn then argued for the Tongue River Railroad Co., saying the STB had "ample data" about the environment gathered from ground and aerial surveys, as well as "a wealth of literature." Noting that the railroad was a long-term project, Judge Smith grilled Coburn about the 5-year period the studies encompassed. "If somebody wants to trim a forest, you look at what the long-term impact will be. And in this case you go for five years and then you say, 'We're not looking beyond that.' Does that really comply with our case law?" Judge Smith asked. Coburn said there was no indication that the area's environment would change after 5 years. "Let's say coal dust blows out of the bins, or something like that, and it has a deleterious effect on the river or the neighbor's cattle," Judge Smith said. "That could occur for 10 years, or 10 years, I don't know. ... It seems like the STB didn't analyze that." Smith said he found the "arbitrary" 5-year baseline "troublesome." During rebuttal, Tuholske said there was nothing in the record that shows the ranchers were asked by the railroad about environmental surveys. He said the STB's argument that "rough topography" prevented ground surveys was "ludicrous." "We just see excuse after excuse, and this circuit's case law requires site-specific information," Tuholske said. "The Tongue River Railroad Company is concerned that the sort of studies sought by the Fish, Wildlife and Parks agency could significantly delay its construction schedule. So rather than get the data, they said 'Well, we're going to collect it as mitigation.' "Of course construction hasn't even commenced, and if they would have taken the time to do it, we may not be here

today," Tuholske said.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubscribe from the COAL-EXPORT-FORUM list, send any message to: [email protected] Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp Sign up to receive Sierra Club Insider, the flagship e-newsletter. Sent out twice a month, it features the Club's latest news and activities. Subscribe and view recent editions at http://www.sierraclub.org/insider/

It concerns me that the RFP refers strictly to Custer Spur rail and the table of contents does not refer to regional rail issues. My understanding from listening to both Pete Kremen and Tyler Schroeder was that regional issues were clearly on the table. Correct me if I am wrong that we are inviting a narrow rather than regional view.Thank you,Jeff Margolis,Co-ChairSafeguard the South ForkOn Jan 6, 2012, at 3:48 PM, Ross Macfarlane wrote:

> FYI, attached is the RFP for EIS consultants related to the Gateway Pacific Project. > > Ross Macfarlane> Phone: (206) 443-9570 x26> Cell: (206) 913-9800> [email protected] > > > > > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -> To unsubscribe from the COAL-EXPORT-FORUM list, send any message to:> [email protected]> > Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information:> http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp> > Sign up to receive Sierra Club Insider, the flagship> e-newsletter. Sent out twice a month, it features the Club's> latest news and activities. Subscribe and view recent> editions at http://www.sierraclub.org/insider/> > > > > > > > <12-08 Gateway Pacific EIS RFP.pdf><12-08.pdf>


We will make sure that you are on the GPT contact list.

Thanks,

Tyler


>>> <[email protected]> 12/26/2011 3:21 PM >>>FIRST_NAME: Mary Ruth

LAST_NAME: Holder

ADDRESS: 109 N. 6th St.Mount Vernon, WA 98273-3304




Thank You


From: Tyler SchroederTo: Mary Ruth HolderDate: 1/3/2012 10:26 AMSubject: Re: request to be party of record - Gateway Pacific Terminal

We will add you to the GPT contact list.

Thanks,

Tyler


>>> Mary Ruth Holder <[email protected]> 12/27/2011 9:22 AM >>>Please add me as a party of record for the Gateway Pacific Terminalproject. I wish to receive all notices for public participation. Notification via e-mail will be fine but I have included my mailingaddress in case state law requires you to send some notices this way. Thankyou.

Mary Ruth Holder109 N. 6th St.Mount Vernon, WA [email protected]

From: Tyler SchroederTo: Wendy HarrisDate: 1/3/2012 10:39 AMSubject: Re: SEPA standards for GPT

Wendy,

I am not sure I completely understand you question. The SMA/County SMP will apply to those areas that the within Shoreline Jurisdiction (normally 200 ft from regulated body of water or associated wetlands). If there are applicable rules and mitigation standards found in the SMP that may be more appropriate for the entire project site those discussions are appropriate through the SEPA process.

Hope this helps, give me a call at 676-6907 if you want to discuss further.

Thanks,

Tyler


>>> "Wendy Harris" <[email protected]> 12/28/2011 1:07 AM >>>Hi Tyler. I have a question. For purposes of the SEPA process, will the applicable rules and mitigation standards be regulated under the SMA/County SMP for the entire project site?

Thanks,Wendy Harris

From: Tyler SchroederTo: Stephanie DrakeDate: 1/3/2012 11:02 AMSubject: Fwd: Pre-scoping process for Gateway PacicifAttachments: Pre-scoping process for Gateway Pacicif

Could you put this onto the website as correspondence.

Thanks,

Tyler


From: "Freudenberger's" <[email protected]>To: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]: <[email protected]>Date: 12/29/2011 8:44 AMSubject: Pre-scoping process for Gateway PacicifAttachments: Dec2011scopingletter.rtf

Attached is a letter from the League of Women Voters of Bellingham/Whatcom County with our concerns about the prescoping process and an invitation to co-host a public meeting in Bellingham in early January to inform the public of the ways they can participate in the scoping process.

Thank you for your attention to our concerns and we hope to hear from you soon concerning a possible meeting date.

Jayne

Jayne Freudenberger [email protected] www.LWVbellinghamwhatcom.org

Join us in making democracy work

Officers

Co-Presidents Jayne Freudenberger

Kay Ingram

1st Vice-PresidentAngela Murray

2ndVice-PresidentMargaret Woll

SecretaryIsabel Vanderslice

TreasurerElsie Heinrick

Directors

Tanya Baumgart

Kathy Gablehouse

Annette Holcomb

Lorene Lewis

Deborah Middaugh

Martha Mills

P.O. Box 4041, Bellingham, WA 98225Phone & Fax: (360) 734-2366

Website: www.LWVbellinghamwhatcom.orgEmail: [email protected]

December 28, 2011

To the Scoping Agencies for Gateway Pacific

The League of Women Voters of Bellingham/Whatcom County is concerned about the pre-scoping document concerning the Gateway Pacific project.

The scoping documents must include environmental and economic impacts beyond the site of the terminal. We believe that the EIS should include these impacts and that this is according to state law reflected in SEPA as follows:

1. (A)…lead agency shall not limit its consideration of a proposal's impacts to those aspects within its jurisdiction, including local and state boundaries.”SEPA WAC 197-11-060 (4) (b)

2. : large proposal involving actions in vastly different locations, such as material being mined at one site, then transposed to and processed at another, is another example of defining the entire proposal. Appropriate environmental review would look at the impacts of all the related activities.”SEPA Handbook, section 2.3.1.

The League hopes the county and state agencies share the League's goal to make the entire permitting process transparent and unbiased.

There is currently significant confusion about the scoping process. This is only exacerbated by the expensive public relations campaign by the project proponent, including a series of presentations to Rotary Club, while at the same time they are urging people to wait for the EIS results before making up their minds whether to support or reject the project. The pre-scoping announcement in the Seattle Daily Journal of Commerce didn't even mention the economic and regional impacts the State has promised to address. This only furthered suspicion about the process.

We ask the Department of Ecology to conduct a pre-scoping meeting in Bellingham sometime in the first two weeks of January to clarify the procedural road map to the EIS process. This meeting should include an explanation of the respective roles of each lead agency. The League will be more than happy to co-host this public meeting. It can be clearly defined as NOT part of the scoping process itself, but as a meeting to clarify how the process will work.

Meanwhile, the League would like to request several agreements be in writing concerning the application process:

THE LEAGUEOF WOMEN VOTERSOf Bellingham-Whatcom County

Page 2 <time>

League of Women Voters of Bellingham/Whatcom County


We will make sure that you are added to the GPT Contact list.

Thanks,

Tyler


>>> <[email protected]> 12/30/2011 6:46 PM >>>FIRST_NAME: Dan

LAST_NAME: White

ADDRESS: 447 14th StBellingham, WA 98225




Thank You


From: Tyler SchroederTo: Alice (ECY) Kelly; Brenden (ECY) McFarland; Francis X NWS Eugenio; La...CC: Jeannie (ECY) Summerhays; Nida (ECY) TaylorDate: 1/4/2012 8:15 AMSubject: Re: Co-Lead Conference Call

I am available for all of those times.

Thanks,

Tyler




From: Tyler SchroederTo: Peter GillDate: 1/4/2012 11:15 AMSubject: Re: Questions on Birch Bay Watershed Action Plan/GPT Interaction, Jeremy Schwartz from The Northern Light

see below...I'll call right now too.


>>> Peter Gill 1/4/2012 10:46 AM >>>Hi Tyler, I want to reply to Jeremy's questions. What do you think? Too much?------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The comments that you reference were submitted to the MAP team in April of 2011. They were compiled from a number of people in the department. The in-lieu-fee comments you have highlighted were based on the early information we had regarding the 100+ acres of wetland impacts that were proposed by the GPT project. As you know, our Birch Bay Watershed Action Plan proposal is only for buffers so our the Action Plan proposal would not help can not be utilized by GPT with for their wetland impacts. The comments from Natural Resources reflect the need for "avoidance" first to reduce the area of impact (pg 3-4, bullets 1 & 5), then onsite mitigation, then offsite within the Cherry Point basin. Only then, could they look for mitigation outside of the Cherry Creek basin. Would we support mitigating impacts within the Birch Bay Watershed if they could not do it in the Cherry Point basin? Not sure... should the Nooksack basin benefit from the mitigation work instead? There may be a good case for that, but Birch Bay is a highly altered coastal basin, hydrologically connected to the impact site, with valuable nearshore and upland resources, not sure why we wouldn't want to benefit from the mitigation work if it was being done offsite anyway.

>>> Editorial <[email protected]> 1/3/2012 12:51 PM >>>Hi Peter,



Ms. Harris referenced a document titled "Gateway Pacific Terminal Preliminary Information Document Comments," in which a number of comments on the Feb. 28, 2011, GPT project information document are outlined. First off, just so I'm clear, who exactly provided these comments? Was it one county staff member, or is it a collection of comments from different county planning staff?





Thank You,

Jeremy [email protected] Twitter: http://twitter.com/TNLreporter


From: Tyler SchroederTo: Stephanie DrakeDate: 1/4/2012 12:03 PMSubject: compare documents Attachments: Disclusure Statement 010512.docx

Could you compare the attached document with the one found in this link.http://efw.bpa.gov/environmental_services/Document_Library/Big_Eddy-Knight/pdf/BEK_FEIS_Volume2_Appendix_H_Disclosure_Forms.pdf

Thanks,

Tyler


NEPA Financial Disclosure Statement for Preparation of the Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal and BNSF Custer Spur Modifications Project NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact

Statement Development

CEQ regulations at 40 CRF 1506.5(c), which have been adopted by DOE (10 CFR 1021), require contractors which will prepare an EIS to execute a disclosure specifying that they have no financial or other interest in the outcome of the project. The term “financial interest or other interest in the outcome of the project,” for the purposes for this disclosure, is defined in the March 23, 1981 guidance “Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning CEQ’s National Environmental Policy Act Regulations,” 46 FR 18026-18038 at Question 17a and b.

Financial or other interest in the outcome of the project ‘includes’ any financial benefit such as a promise of future construction or design work in the project, as well as indirect benefits the contractor is aware of (e.g., if the project would aid proposals sponsored by the firm’s other clients).” 46 FR 18026 – 18038 at 18031.

In accordance with these requirements, the offeror and any proposed subcontractors hereby certify as follows: [check either (a) or (b) to assure consideration of your proposal]

(a)___________ Offeror and any proposed subcontractor have no financial interest in the outcome of the project.

(b)___________ Offeror and any proposed subcontractor have the following financial or other interest in the outcome of the project and hereby agree to divest themselves of such interest prior to award of this contract.

Financial or Other Interests:

1.

2.

3.

Certified by:

Signature

Name

From: Tyler SchroederTo: Alice (ECY) Kelly; Jane (ORA) DewellDate: 1/5/2012 12:58 PMSubject: RE: RFP

Jane,

Yes, contact Chris Mohnkern at the Finance office to obtain a copy. Her number is 360.676.6734 ext. 50191

Thanks,

Tyler


>>> "Dewell, Jane (ORA)" <[email protected]> 1/5/2012 12:49 PM >>>Thanks Alice. I will wait for OK before I put anything on the GPT MAP site, but would like to have a link or something since people go to that site for project information and this is a major milestone.

Tyler - shall I call the Purchasing Office to get a copy of the RFP?

Thanks, Jane

From: Kelly, Alice (ECY)Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2012 12:33 PMTo: Dewell, Jane (ORA)Subject: RFP

http://www.co.whatcom.wa.us/as/finance/purchasing/current_bids/index.jsp

it's under the Finance Division, current bid opportunities. Just the notice, not the actual documents (so far)

Alice KellyDepartment of EcologyNorthwest Regional [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>

From: Tyler SchroederTo: Jean MeliousDate: 1/6/2012 8:53 AMSubject: Re: GPT: RFP and application

Jean,


Thanks,

Tyler





From: Tyler SchroederTo: Wendy HarrisDate: 1/6/2012 9:18 AMSubject: Re: SEPA standards for GPT

Wendy,

The mitigation standards will be based on both the SMP and CAO requirements. Those areas of the project that is within Shoreline Jurisdiction will be reviewed for compliance with the SMP and those areas outside of Shoreline Jurisdiction will be reviewed for CAO compliance. It is also my understanding that there are some sections of the SMP that refer to the CAO for direction on protection of natural features (See WCC 23.90.03).

Hope this helps,

Tyler


>>> "Wendy Harris" <[email protected]> 1/5/2012 1:36 PM >>>Hi Tyler, I know that you are very busy. Just a reminder that I am still waiting to here back.Thanks,Wendy

----- Original Message ----- From: "Wendy Harris" <[email protected]>To: "Tyler Schroeder" <[email protected]>Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 3:43 PMSubject: Re: SEPA standards for GPT

> Hi Tyler: Will review of mitigation standards for the project site be > based on SMP requirements or CAO requirements? I understand that the > County SEPA provisions require normal mitigation sequencing to be > followed, but when I have reviewed Staff reports, they always reference > SMP or CAO provisions to establish adequate mitigation.>> Thanks, Wendy>> ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Tyler Schroeder" <[email protected]>> To: "Wendy Harris" <[email protected]>> Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 10:39 AM

> Subject: Re: SEPA standards for GPT>>> Wendy,>> I am not sure I completely understand you question. The SMA/County SMP > will apply to those areas that the within Shoreline Jurisdiction (normally > 200 ft from regulated body of water or associated wetlands). If there are > applicable rules and mitigation standards found in the SMP that may be > more appropriate for the entire project site those discussions are > appropriate through the SEPA process.>> Hope this helps, give me a call at 676-6907 if you want to discuss > further.>> Thanks,>> Tyler>> Tyler R. Schroeder> Current Planning Supervisor> Phone: (360) 676-6907 ext. 50202> Fax: (360)738-2525> Email: [email protected] > Address:> Whatcom County Planning and Development Services> 5280 Northwest Dr.> Bellingham, WA 98225>>>>>> "Wendy Harris" <[email protected]> 12/28/2011 1:07 AM >>>> Hi Tyler. I have a question. For purposes of the SEPA process, will the > applicable rules and mitigation standards be regulated under the > SMA/County SMP for the entire project site?>> Thanks,> Wendy Harris>>

From: Tyler SchroederTo: Peter Gill; [email protected]: 'Barbara Dykes'; Karen Frakes; Matt Aamot; Royce BuckinghamDate: 1/6/2012 9:51 AMSubject: Re: Cherry Point amendments?

Tom,

I will have staff add Salish Land Policy Solutions as a party of record for the Comp plan amendment discussing interlocal agreements within unincorporated UGA's. Please let me know if this is the correct contact;

Tom EhrlichmanSalish Land Policy Solutions909 Harris Avenue, Suite 201(h)Bellingham, WA [email protected]

This Comp plan amendment will be going through the docketing process in 2012. It is anticipated that the docketing process will be going through Council at one of the February council meetings. I encourage you to keep involved in the docketing process to review this years docketing items.

I acknowledge your request for placing this interlocal agreements within the Unicorporated UGAs comp plan amendment onto the GPT website. I will take this request into consideration.

Please let me know if you need additional follow-up.

Thanks,

Tyler


>>> "Tom Ehrlichman" <[email protected]> 12/28/2011 8:44 AM >>>Dear Peter and Tyler,

Hope you had a good holiday. I'm writing on two issues today, related to the Gateway Pacific Terminal.

First, would you please make me and Salish Land Policy Solutions parties of record for the comprehensive plan amendment you sent to us (submitted to the County in late November, relaxing the current policy requiring interlocal agreements with service providers within unincorporated UGAs)? Previously, I requested information from you as to the timing of the review process for this amendment, including any anticipated SEPA review and planning commission review, but have not yet heard back, no doubt due to

the holiday. I would appreciate any information you have on the schedule and process for this review.

Second, I am writing to request a copy of the latest set of amendments proposed by PDS to the planning commission for the Birch Bay stormwater ordinance. I just want to make sure I've got the latest version.

Also, I saw in the paper the commission may be holding a workshop on Jan. 26 on this, but I have not received any notice. I believe you put me on the list of interested parties for this matter. Can you please send me a copy of any commission notice/agenda for this? If I have additional comments, I'll submit them by Jan. 12.

Finally, is it PDS' position that its proposed exclusion for "industrial uses" would exclude the proposed coal export facility (as currently proposed in the June applications)? Would it exclude rail line improvements? I'm a little confused over whether the code use definition that is cited would exclude these uses.

Thank you for your attention to these requests.

Tom EhrlichmanSalish Land Policy Solutions

From: Peter Gill [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2011 4:40 PMTo: Tom EhrlichmanSubject: RE: Cherry Point amendments?

Here is the proposal from PDS that will be distributed tonight.

I will add you to the Birch Bay mailing list.

Regards,

Peter Gill

Natural Resources Division

_____

Whatcom County Planning & Development Services

322 N. Commercial Street

Bellingham, WA 98225

360-676-6907 x50263

<mailto:[email protected]> [email protected]

_____

>>> Tom Ehrlichman <[email protected]> 12/8/2011 2:28 PM >>>Any new language on birch bay you can share prior to the hearing tonight? Please put us on the birch bay and stormwater lists you mentioned. Thank you Tom

T-Mobile. America's First Nationwide 4G Network

Peter Gill <[email protected]> wrote:

>Hi Tom,> >Please find the attached memo from PDS on the Cherry Point UGA issue. >I have also included a link to the SEPA determination per your email>requests:>http://www.co.whatcom.wa.us/pds/plan/sepa/pdf/sep2011-00035-sepa-packet-20110513.pdf >> >I cannot respond to (I just don't know) whether there are code changes>that affect the Cherry Point UGA beyond the Birch Bay Watershed Action>Plan. I suggest reviewing the annual Docket found here for 2011:>http://www.co.whatcom.wa.us/council/2011/res/res2011-009.pdf > >Kind regards,> > >Peter Gill>Natural Resources Division >Whatcom County Planning & Development Services>322 N. Commercial Street>Bellingham, WA 98225>360-676-6907 x50263>[email protected] >>>>>> "Tom Ehrlichman" <[email protected]> 12/2/2011 12:52 PM>>>>>>Do you have a new memo on this issue? I haven't seen it.>12:52 p.m. Friday>Tom> >>From:Peter Gill [mailto:[email protected]] >Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2011 3:17 PM>To: [email protected] >Cc: Tyler Schroeder; 'Faith Lumsden'; 'Barbara Dykes'

>Subject: Re:Cherry Point amendments?>> >>Dear Tom,>> >>1) The Birch Bay Watershed Action Plan came out of the 2007 Watershed>Characterization and Planning Pilot Study and earlier plans (BBay>Community Plan - 2004, BBay Stormwater Plan - 2006) that asked for Low>Impact Development and watershed based management of critical areas. >This is the second hearing on the proposal, the first being May 15,>2011.>> >>One provision of this proposal includes the use of the Habitat>Mitigation Fund for buffer impacts within the Birch Bay watershed and>the Cherry Point Industrial Urban Growth Area. Use of the Fund does not>preclude the requirement to provide buffers for critical areas, only>that impacts to buffers can be mitigated through alternative means. >> >>2) I have attached the draft code. The section of code that applies to>the area you are interested in is the use of the Habitat Mitigation Fund>(WCC 16.16.920.E). More information on the program is available here:>http://www.co.whatcom.wa.us/pds/naturalresources/specialprojects/actionplan_downloads.jsp >>> >>3) There is a second public hearing on the Birch Bay Watershed Action>Plan scheduled for Dec. 8, at 6:30 in the County Courthouse. See the>attached notice.>> >>4) Would you like to be added to the Birch Bay Watershed Action Plan>email distribution list?>> >>5) Send with name and suggested changes, noting code sections to>[email protected] or [email protected] >> >>Kind regards,>> >

> >>Peter Gill>>Natural Resources Division>>Whatcom County Planning & Development Services>>322 N. Commercial Street>>Bellingham, WA 98225>>360-676-6907 x50263>>[email protected] >>>>>>> "Tom Ehrlichman" <[email protected]> 11/29/2011 9:13 AM>>>>>>Dear Tyler and Peter,> >As you know, we represent a group of property and business owners in>Whatcom County concerned about the process involved in the review of the>proposed Cherry Point coal export facility ("Gateway Pacific").> >It has recently come to our attention that there may be a planning>commission review on December 8 concerning changes to some regulations>that could affect development within the Cherry Point industrial UGA. >We have a couple of questions for you and would appreciated your soonest>possible reply so that we can prepare for the meeting if necessary:> >1. Can you please confirm whether any department or body of County>government is currently considering proposed amendments of any kind to>development regulations, zoning map amendments, comprehensive plan text>or map amendments, or amendments to shoreline management master program>goals, policies or regulations applicable to the Cherry Point UGA>("amendments")?> >2. If any amendments are being considered, can you please email us a>copy of all documents describing the current version of the proposed>amendments?> >3. If any public hearing>s or meetings are scheduled concerning any>amendments, could you please provide us with a copy of the notice of the>hearing, including the time and date?> >4. Would you please permanently place me, my partner Barbara Dykes,>and our firm - Salish Land Policy Solutions - on any mailing lists,>email lists, lists of parties of record, lists of interested persons or>any other lists that receive notice and/or copies of materials related

>to amendments affecting the Cherry Point UGA, on an ongoing basis if>possible? > >Perhaps we were mistaken, but it was our understanding that the County>was already set up to send us and others concerned about the Gateway>Pacific facility notices for any public process affecting the outcome of>the proposal. We consider amendments to regulations or policies that>would apply to the proposal to fall within that scope. In the event>there are any amendments affecting the project under consideration, we>respectfully request that you provide notice on your public website for>the project and by email to those on your list of interested parties, at>your earliest possible convenience.> >As always, we appreciate your concern for public disclosure and an open>and transparent process.> >Sincerely,> >Tom Ehrlichman>Barbara Dykes>Salish Land Policy Solutions>909 Harris Avenue, Suite 202A>Bellingham, WA 98225>(425) 268-5553>(360) 224-8664

From: Tyler SchroederTo: Alice (ECY) Kelly; [email protected]: 1/6/2012 2:59 PMSubject: Fwd: Options for Presentation

Alice,

Here are the spots for a pre-scoping meetings. I would have preference for the Bellingham High School.

Thoughts?

Thanks,

Tyler>>> Stephanie Drake 1/6/2012 2:38 PM >>>Tyler,

Option 1 - Bellingham High School - capacity seated about 250, adding standing room can be up to 1000 total. They are available Thursday, 2/9. They provide microphone/speakers and podium. Cost is $20/hour - we'd need to set up our own chairs, so we would need it from 5-9 - Total of $80

Option 2 - County Council Chambers - capacity seated about 225. They are available Wed. 2/8 and Thursday, 2/9. They have the microphone/speakers as usual. Cost is $25/hour - without needed to setup chairs, I'd say we could get away with 5:30-8:30 - Total of $75

Option 3 - Bellingham Cruise Terminal - capacity seated about 175/200 - not much room for standing in addition. They are available Wed. 2/8 and Thursday, 2/9. They provide microphone/speakers and podium. Cost is $45/hour - we'd need to set up our own chairs, so we would need it from 5-9 - Total of $190

S

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Stephanie DrakeWhatcom County Planning & Development [email protected] (360) 676-6907 Ext. 50201


From: Tyler SchroederTo: [email protected]: Pamela BrownDate: 1/6/2012 3:16 PMSubject: Re: Request for Party of Record Status - Shoreline & SEPA notices

We will add you to the contact list.

Thanks,

Tyler


>>> <[email protected]> 12/19/2011 9:49 AM >>>FIRST_NAME: Diana

LAST_NAME: McKinney

ADDRESS: 813 W Pacificview DrBellingham, WA 98229




Thank You


From: Tyler SchroederTo: Alice (ECY) Kelly; Randel J NWS PerryDate: 1/6/2012 4:14 PMSubject: Re: PIT/GPT long term schedule (UNCLASSIFIED)

Randel,

I have attached a couple of edits. I put an extra month at the end to give a little more wiggle room.

Thanks,

Tyler


>>> "Perry, Randel J NWS" <[email protected]> 1/6/2012 8:55 AM >>>Classification: UNCLASSIFIEDCaveats: NONE

Alice and Tyler:

I took a crack at setting up a long term schedule for the EIS process. Iwould appreciate your review and input.

Please note that this is a very rough draft and needs a lot of additionaldetails. The dates are all flexible.


<<EIS NEPA-SEPA SCHEDULE.DOCX>>


From: Tyler SchroederTo: Chad Yunge; Wayne FitchDate: 1/6/2012 4:19 PMSubject: Fwd: RFP - holders listAttachments: 12-08 Mailing List.doc

FYI


>>> Chris Mohnkern 1/6/2012 3:58 PM >>>see attached - page 2 is the emails from page 1 in preparation to send out add any additional info


Gateway EIS










[email protected]

[email protected]



[email protected]

[email protected]




JBR ENVIRONMENTAL

[email protected]


[email protected]

[email protected]


[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]



[email protected]




From: Tyler SchroederTo: Alice (ECY) Kelly; [email protected]: 1/6/2012 4:20 PMSubject: Fwd: RFP - holders listAttachments: 12-08 Mailing List.doc

FYI, the first round of consultants that the RFP was sent out to.

Thanks,

Tyler


>>> Chris Mohnkern 1/6/2012 3:58 PM >>>see attached - page 2 is the emails from page 1 in preparation to send out add any additional info


Gateway EIS










[email protected]

[email protected]



[email protected]

[email protected]




JBR ENVIRONMENTAL

[email protected]


[email protected]

[email protected]


[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]



[email protected]




From: Tyler SchroederTo: Jean MeliousDate: 1/6/2012 4:40 PMSubject: Re: GPT: RFP and application

Jean,

An additional agreement for fees has not been entered into. There was discussion of an agreement but that has not been accomplished due to the County's UFS being per application and EIS (not hourly, just a base fee). The company paid for the application and EIS fees with the permit submittal in the summer.

Thanks,

Tyler


>>> Jean Melious <[email protected]> 1/6/2012 11:47 AM >>>Tyler, A couple people have asked whether PIT is paying for County staff time. I had a vague recollection that there was an agreement. Is that correct, and if so, can you steer me to it? Thanks again,Jean



Thanks,

Tyler





From: Tyler SchroederTo: Jean MeliousDate: 1/6/2012 4:58 PMSubject: Re: GPT: RFP and application

Jean,

There are a couple of reason the County decided to move forward with the RFP. First, to try and get a consultant selected and hired so they would be in place to help facilitate the Notice of Application/Determination of Significance/Scoping document which will happen within the required timeframes of the application submittal.

Second, since this is a Co-Lead scenario (USACE, DOE, and County) all three agencies decided that this was an appropriate time to move forward with the RFP. This will help coordinate all of the notices that are legally required from the agencies and facilitate that process. Also, the applicant has submitted a JARPA to the USACE and in the submitted materials for the MDP application the applicant recognized that the EIS process will start without the submittal of an Environmental Checklist (as allowed by SEPA rules).

From the County's standpoint, it will be helpful for County staff and resources to have the Consultant in place to help facilitate the review as soon as possible.

In your opinion, is there a downside or negative aspect of having a Consultant on board to help facilitate this process sooner rather than later?

Thanks,

Tyler


>>> Jean Melious <[email protected]> 1/6/2012 11:55 AM >>>(Apologies for the serial e-mails.) Also wondering why the County decided to move forward on an RFP when it doesn't have an application. For all practical purposes, this starts the SEPA process, doesn't it? That's why I assumed that the application must have arrived, or must be imminent. And thanks again,Jean

________________________________ From: Tyler Schroeder <[email protected]>To: Jean Melious <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, January 6, 2012 8:53 AM

Subject: Re: GPT: RFP and application Jean,


Thanks,

Tyler





Date post:	21-Jan-2022
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times

Emails pertaining to Gateway Pacific Project for December ...

Documents