Thanks for the follow-up and I will work with PDS on some of your suggestions for the GPT website.

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Thanks for the follow-up and I will work with PDS on some of your suggestions for the GPT website."

Marcia Barber
6 years ago
Views:

1 From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Attachments: Tyler Schroeder Sandra Robson Barbara Brenner; Barry Buchanan; Carl Weimer; Ken Mann; Satpal Sidhu; Todd Donovan; Rud Browne; Council; Jack Louws; Sam (Jeanne) Ryan; Mark Personius RE: 2016 GPT correspondence and documents posted on the County website Tuesday, August 09, :49:33 PM image001.png image002.png Sandy, Thanks for the follow-up and I will work with PDS on some of your suggestions for the GPT website. Tyler R. Schroeder Whatcom County Deputy Executive Whatcom County Executive s Office 311 Grand Avenue, Suite 108 Bellingham, WA Ph Disclaimer: Public documents and records are available to the public as required under the Washington State Public Records Act (RCW 42.56). The information contained in all correspondence with a government entity may be disclosable to third party requesters under the Public Records Act. From: Sandra Robson [mailto:sjrer2@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 09, :47 AM To: Tyler Schroeder Cc: Barbara Brenner; Barry Buchanan; Carl Weimer; Ken Mann; Satpal Sidhu; Todd Donovan; Rud Browne; Council; Jack Louws; Sam (Jeanne) Ryan; Mark Personius Subject: Re: 2016 GPT correspondence and documents posted on the County website Tyler, Thank you for your response below to my August 5, I have forwarded below my I sent this morning to Denise Massey-Smith regarding the recent update made to the County's GPT webpage. While I appreciate that an update was made by the County, I think that the date of the update should be noted as such next to, or above, or under, the updated information so the public is aware of that timing. For example, I know that online news publications do that so the public is aware of the fact that the information had been updated and when the update occurred. I have forwarded below my I sent today to Ms. Massey-Smith. In my , I pointed out a couple things about the newly updated text information under the "Project Update" header. The newly updated information confirms for me that there are still 2016 GPT documents and correspondence which are not posted on the County's GPT webpage. I respectfully request that the County post those 2016 GPT documents/correspondence I referenced and any other 2016 GPT documents or correspondence not yet posted on the

2 County's GPT webpage. I believe it is critical that the public be thoroughly and properly informed by the County's GPT webpage as the proposed GPT project is a matter of great public interest. Thank you. Sandy Robson Begin forwarded message: From: Sandra Robson <sjrer2@yahoo.com> Date: August 9, 2016 at 8:58:46 AM PDT To: dmsmith@whatcomcounty.us Subject: Information posted on the County's Gateway Pacific Terminal webpage Denise, I believe it is you whom I spoke with last Thursday about the County's Gateway Pacific Terminal webpage and the lack of 2016 GPT documents and correspondence posted there by the County. In fact, when I spoke with you, there were only 2 GPT documents posted for 2016, and there was no correspondence posted for I noticed the next day, there was 1 additional 2016 document, and some 2016 correspondence that the County posted subsequent to our phone conversation and s I, and others, sent to the County requesting that the 2016 GPT documents and correspondence be posted on the County's GPT webpage immediately. I noticed last evening that on the County's "Gateway Pacific Terminal Proposed Project" webpage, there is now added text information under the "Project Update" header. That information, except for the reference to the April 1, day suspension of the EIS, was not posted on that webpage until yesterday. I attached a screenshot photo of the updated "Project Update" information now displayed on the County's GPT webpage. Can you please confirm for me when did you, or any County staff, update that text information "Project Update" header? In the newly updated information, referenced is a May 26, correspondence from Whatcom County in response to PIT's May 10, 2016 request for a 180-day extension of the suspension of the EIS for GPT. Two important things about that; 1) the length of suspension requested was longer than 180 days extension as PIT had requested an additional automatic 180-day extension of the suspension on top of those 180 days "if the issues have not been resolved by that time," and 2) that May 26, correspondence is not posted under the 2016 GPT documents or correspondence tabs on the County's

3 GPT webpage. Also, the July 22, correspondence from Whatcom County that is referenced in the newly updated text under the "Project Update" header, is not posted under the 2016 GPT documents or correspondence tabs on the County's GPT webpage. As I requested above, can you please confirm for me when did you, or any County staff, update that text information under the "Project Update" header? Thank you very much. Sandy Robson On Aug 9, 2016, at 9:02 AM, Tyler Schroeder <Tschroed@co.whatcom.wa.us> wrote: Ms. Robson, Please see the update to the County GPT website, that includes the most recent project update; Project Update: Consistent with the Department of Ecology and Whatcom County's co-lead agreement, any decisions about the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Review will be made jointly by the SEPA co-leads. The SEPA co-leads (Whatcom County and Department of Ecology) have discussed with Pacific International Terminals (PIT) their interest in whether or not to continue the SEPA environmental review process. Whatcom County's Major Project Permit code, requires a project to "be consistent with applicable laws and regulations." The Army Corp of Engineer's decision may affect the future permit decision by Whatcom County. There are unique policy and legal issues related to the Gateway Pacific Terminal Project, so the co-leads will be in close communication with one another and legal counsel to determine the most appropriate path given the evolving situation.

4 On April 1, 2016 the applicants requested the co-leads suspend Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) preparation for the proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal Project. On May 10, 2016 the applicants requested Whatcom County to extend the current contracts an additional 180 days to allow time for PIT to review and pursue alternative actions. On May 26, 2016, in response to PIT's request, Whatcom County via agreed to a 60 day extension to the contract and provided two contract options: 1) move forward and complete the preparation of the SEPA draft EIS or 2) Sign a not to exceed 180-day contract extension to finalize the current contracted work. On July 22, 2016 Whatcom County provided written verification via extending the contract(s) through August 31, 2016 to allow time for PIT to finalize their decision as it relates to the contracted services associated with the EIS preparation. Once a decision has been made by PIT on their interest in moving forward or not with the SEPA EIS process, Whatcom County will make a permit decision as appropriate. Also, please see below for answers to your specific questions. Tyler R. Schroeder Whatcom County Deputy Executive <image006.png>whatcom County Executive s Office 311 Grand Avenue, Suite 108 Bellingham, WA Ph Disclaimer: Public documents and records are available to the public as required under the Washington State Public Records Act (RCW 42.56). The information contained in all correspondence with a government entity may be disclosable to third party requesters under the Public Records Act. From: Sandra Robson [mailto:sjrer2@yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, August 05, :08 PM To: Barbara Brenner; Barry Buchanan; Carl Weimer; Ken Mann; Satpal Sidhu; Todd Donovan; Rud Browne; Council Cc: Jack Louws; Tyler Schroeder; Sam (Jeanne) Ryan; Mark Personius Subject: Fwd: 2016 GPT correspondence and documents posted on the County website Dear Whatcom County Council members: I sent this (forwarded below) this afternoon to County Executive Louws, Deputy Executive Schroeder, PDS Director Sam Ryan, and PDS Assistant Director Mark Personius, and realized I had forgotten to copy you all on it. Sandy Robson Begin forwarded message:

5 From: Sandra Robson Date: August 5, 2016 at 5:34:46 PM PDT To: Jack Louws Tyler Schroeder Sam Ryan Mark Personius Subject: 2016 GPT correspondence and documents posted on the County website Dear County Executive Louws, Deputy Executive Schroeder, PDS Director Ryan, and PDS Assistant Director Personius: I noticed today that there is an additional document (before there were only two documents) posted on the County's webpage for the Gateway Pacific Terminal (GPT) project, under the "2016 GPT Documents" Tab. That document would be the July 20, 2016 letter from CH2M, which I have attached. In that letter, CH2M VP David Sturtevant, said he was following up on two phone calls he and Craig Lenhart, also with CH2M Hill, had with Whatcom County Deputy Executive Tyler Schroeder on July 13, 2016 and July 20, Mr. Sturtevant said that those telephone conversations highlighted the need to understand the GPT Applicant's program plans and to define any contract actions before the contract ends in July. Mr. Sturtevant requested a contract extension between CH2M Hill and the County while the GPT Applicant continues to consider their options for going forward because CH2M Hill's current contract period of performance ends on July 25, Mr. Sturtevant told Mr. Schroeder that CH2M Hill recommend a sixmonth no-cost extension to January 25, Mr. Sturtevant said that as directed, CH2M Hill and their subcontractors have stopped all technical work since the notification to suspend work on the EIS on April 1, ) Was there a response from the County to Mr. Sturtevant's July 20th letter? I do not see that posted on the County's GPT webpage. Yes, the CH2M contract has been extended through August 31, 2016 so the expiration date is consistent with the PIT

6 contract, which is a reimbursement of cost and fees contract. 2) If there was a response, what was the County's response, and can that please be posted on the County's GPT webpage? The project update section above includes reference to the s and correspondence on this subject. The correspondence includes contractual information and will be posted to the Whatcom County website once a decision has been made by PIT to move forward or not with a contract amendment. In the correspondence on the County's GPT correspondence webpage, there is a June 1, from Tyler Schroeder to Floyd McKay. I have attached a screenshot photo of that. In that Mr. Schroeder informs Mr. McKay that Whatcom County PIT, BNSF, and CH2M mutually agreed to a 60 day extension to allow for the necessary time for PIT and their board to meet and decide what steps PIT wants to take on the permitting process for the GPT project. Mr. Schroeder also said that once the County gets that decision the county and the other parties will need some time to work through the details relating to the contract and to the permitting process. Since Mr. Schroeder stated in his June 1, to Mr. McKay that the County, BNSF, PIT, and CH2M, mutually agreed to a 60 day extension, I assume there is written correspondence and or s regarding that. I do not see anything in writing from the County to either CH2M, PIT, or BNSF confirming that 60 day extension and the beginning and ending dates of that extension. 3) If there is any written documentation from the County about that 60-day extension confirming that, which was sent to the other parties can you please post those communications on the County's GPT webpage as soon as possible? Please see the answer to #2 and the project update above that includes a timeline and recap of the correspondence related to the contract extension. I am very upset that these decisions made by, and actions taken by, the County have not been made public until I, and others, asked this week that the 2016 GPT project correspondence and documents be made available to the public on the County's GPT webpage. Prior to today, only two letters were posted on the County's GPT webpage under "2016 GPT Documents" Tab, and there was not one

7 correspondence/ posted under the "2016 GPT Correspondence" Tab. Instead, those decisions by the County regarding the EIS suspension requests appear to have been made behind the scenes with a lack of transparency, resulting in the public having been left in the dark about a matter of serious concern to the majority of County residents. Had information about the status of the EIS extension requests and responses to those requests been made available to the public, that may have also influenced citizens, groups, and American Indian Tribes and Nations relating to their actions in commenting and proposing amendments regarding the ongoing 2016 County Comprehensive Plan Update. I consider the County's failure to inform the public on this matter of serious concern to be egregious. I also consider these actions by the County Administration to be contrary to the interests of the public and to reflect at the very least, poor ethics on the part of the County Executive, Jack Louws, who is ultimately in charge of the Whatcom County PDS, a co-lead agency on the EIS for the GPT project. I sent a July 28, to Mark Personius, Assistant Director PDS. I asked him a number of questions, one of which was this: "Has PIH/PIT or its affiliates, requested a 'longer pause,' an extended suspension beyond its 45 days (stipulated as allowable in its contract with Whatcom County) for the EIS for the GPT project? " Mr. Personius' response in his July 29, was: "My understanding is the applicant has requested an EIS contract amendment time extension, not to exceed 180 days, to work on closing out the consultant(s) work on the EIS." Now, since the County has posted some, likely not all, of the 2016 GPT correspondence and documents, I can see that Mr. Personius either is uninformed on that subject, or was not at all clear or accurate in his response to my question. The information Mr. Personius gave me in his July 29 does not align with the information in the May 10, 2016 letter from PIT, asking the County to execute an addendum that extends the GPT project EIS suspension to 180 days with another automatic

8 180-day suspension. Mr. Personius' response also does not align with the information in Mr. Schroeder's June 1, to Mr. McKay informing him that the County, BNSF, PIT, and CH2M had mutually agreed to a 60 day extension. Now, today, that the County finally posted "2016 GPT Project Correspondence" on its GPT webpage, I see that there was a May 9, letter from Matthew Bennett, Section Chief of the USACE Regulatory Branch, sent to Whatcom County Deputy Executive Tyler Schroeder, and Josh Baldi of the DOE. In his , Mr. Bennett reiterated the fact that the Army Corps determined that day (on May 9th), that the proposed GPT project would have more than a de minimis impact on Lummi Indian Nation treaty rights, and in light of that fact, the Corps denied PIT/PIH's request for a Department of the Army permit. I've attached a screenshot photo of that letter. Mr. Bennet also informed the recipients of the that the Corps was suspending all work on development of the NEPA EIS for the GPT project, and that the Corps' determination to deny the permit request constituted a withdrawal from the Memorandum of Understanding between the agencies implemented in September 2014 for development of the EIS. That information about the Corps officially having suspended all work on development of the NEPA EIS for the GPT project, and the Corps' belief that it's determination to deny the permit request constituted a withdrawal from the Memorandum of Understanding between the agencies was important information for the public to know. I request that every single 2016 GPT document and correspondence piece the County has in its possession be posted onto the website as soon as possible. I further request that County Executive Jack Louws or Deputy Executive Tyler Schroeder give a "State of the GPT project" presentation to the public at the next County Council meeting on August 9th, to inform the public on the exact status of the EIS extension situation and any other pertinent information relating to the GPT process. Even if there are some decisions about the EIS extensions requested by the Applicants and/or CH2M that are still pending, it is important to inform the public what the current status is and what decisions are still being contemplated. I would not have to make such a request had the County

9 Administration been posting 2016 GPT project information documents and correspondence on its County GPT webpage as a means to inform the public as it had done in previous years. I would appreciate responses to my three questions I asked in this letter. Thank you. Sandy Robson <image003.jpg> <image004.jpg> <image005.jpg>

Subject: RE: FW: Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan - Comments on Chapter 8 Resource La...

Subject: RE: FW: Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan - Comments on Chapter 8 Resource La... From: To: Subject: Date: Attachments: Dan Cox Council FW: FW: Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan - Comments on Chapter 8 Resource La... Thursday, March 31, 2016 11:15:50 AM image001.png I am forwarding