From: "David Rogers" To: "Tara Sundin" ; "Steve Sundin" Subject: Fwd: FW: Costco project Individual Permit info (UNCLASSIFIED) Date: Wednesday, March 28, 2012 11:42 AM This is the response we got from the Corps regarding our attempt to discuss the Bakerview Road site. Any input or suggestions? Thanks, David. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Ed Sewall Date: Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 11:00 AM Subject: FW: Costco project Individual Permit info (UNCLASSIFIED) To: Stephen Bullock Cc: David Rogers ** Steve and David. I had a discussion with Randel this morning about meeting with him to discuss Bakerview. He said all he could do was to let us know the main issues we will have to deal with on our submittal. They wont commit to any guarantee of approval or anything at this point. Ed Sewall -----Original Message----- *From:* Perry, Randel J NWS [mailto:Randel.J.Perry@usace.army.mil] *Sent:* Tuesday, March 27, 2012 10:24 AM *To:* esewall@sewallwc.com *Subject:* Costco project Individual Permit info (UNCLASSIFIED) Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: NONE Ed: Per our phone conversation, here is the relevant information I can provide on the Corps’ Individual Permit (IP) process. As we discussed, I recommend having the project site wetland delineation done and submitted to the Corps for a jurisdictional determination before submitting an application. Crucial to our IP process, will have to conduct an analysis of the project in compliance with NEPA and Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines. This starts with defining the basic and overall project purpose. For both analyses we will conduct an alternatives analysis. Under 404(b)(1) Guidelines, for non-water dependent projects, there is an assumption that an upland alternative exists. We will need the following information: 1) Site selection criteria – elements that the site must have to achieve the project purpose (size, etc.). 2) Alternative sites considered in the study area 3) Rationale for site selection and elimination of other sites. 4) Rationale for site design and why impacts could not be further avoided or reduced. 5) Other options for achieving the project purpose that were considered. Our analysis must conclude that the proposed project site and design represents the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative. Therefore, development of the project should address these matters. For mitigation, any plan proposed must provide suitable information regarding mitigation sequencing – avoidance, minimization, etc. – to justify compensatory mitigation. In general, the compensatory mitigation plan must address our goal of no net loss of wetland acreage and functions. Please note that certain ditches may fall under Section 404 jurisdiction if they have a direct connection to downstream waters of the U. S. Mitigation should be provided for all impacts to jurisdictional tributaries. For mitigation site selection, there are no mitigation banks or in-lieu fee programs available to you at this time. Our next preference is a watershed based mitigation approach. You will need to determine whether there are any State, local government, tribal, or restoration group projects in the vicinity that are being undertaken as the result of a watershed plan and whether the applicant can develop mitigation in partnership with the plan. If not, we can look at on-site and nearby offsite mitigation. Another issue for projects in the proposed area is historic, archeological, and tribal cultural resources. Please note that based on previous permit actions in the area, an archeological survey may be required. ESA does not appear to be an issue for the proposed site, but I will have to make a final determination once I have received project details. Please feel free to contact me if you have additional questions. Randel Perry Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Branch, NW Field Office 360-734-3156 (Office) 360-393-2867 (Cell) Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: NONE -- *David H Rogers* Director of Real Estate Development Costco Wholesale (425) 427-7554