Jay Julius’ presentation at the National Congress of American Indians / Facebook post, Noisy Waters Northwest shared Freddy Lane’s post

jay-julius-video-native-american-congress

October 16, 2016  Dena Jensen

In case you can’t access the video, or you just want to consider the enlightening words at your own pace, here’s a transcript of most of [Lummi Indian Business Council member] Jay Julius’ presentation (shown in this video posted by Freddy Lane) at the National Congress of American Indians this last week: Continue reading

GPT EIS contract Q & A between County Administration and Whatcom County Council; and the $313,000 EIS consultant claimed it’s owed by GPT applicant

091316-finance-mtg-graphic

Click on the graphic to view a transcript of Q&A between county executive officials and county council members on the GPT EIS preparation contract at the September 13, 2016 Whatcom County Council Finance and Administrative Services committee meeting

October 12, 2016  Sandy Robson

During the September 13, 2016 Whatcom County Council Finance and Administrative Services Committee meeting, County Deputy Executive Tyler Schroeder, gave a presentation to Council about proposed contract Amendment 5.1 to the June 2012 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) preparation contract for the Gateway Pacific Terminal (GPT) and interrelated Custer Spur Modification projects.  Continue reading

Cherry Point Amendments Alternative #1 does not meet criteria in SEPA Handbook / Letter to Whatcom County Planning and Development Services, Dena Jensen

October 16, 2016  Dena Jensen

Dear Whatcom County Planning and Development Services Director Ryan, Assistant Director Personious [sic], and Senior Planner Aamot:

I am writing regarding the information presented on your 2016 Docket, Cherry Point Amendments (PLN2016-00012) webpage at this link:  http://wa-whatcomcounty.civicplus.com/1612/2016-Docket.  I notice that one of the alternatives that is identified, Alternative # 1 – Council Member Alternative (proposed by an individual Council Member), does not meet the criteria listed in the SEPA handbook under 3.3.2 Identifying Alternativeswhich is, as follows: Continue reading