I. Introduction

The Seattle Municipal Code (SMC), Chapter 25.05 (Seattle SEPA Ordinance) states in Section 25.05.420 that "preparation of the EIS (Environmental Impact Statement) is the responsibility of the lead agency, by or under the direction of its responsible official, as specified by the lead agency's procedures." This Director's Rule specifies the procedure by which an environmental consultant is chosen to prepare an EIS, the relationship between the Department of Construction and Land Use (DPD) and the consultant, and the project proponent's responsibilities. The goal of this procedure is to obtain high quality environmental impact statements in a timely manner at a reasonable cost. The quality of EISs is based on a satisfactory information base, comprehensive analysis of significant adverse impacts, identification of appropriate alternatives, and effective mitigation. DPD may elect to prepare Supplemental EISs or EIS Addenda without engaging this consultant selection procedure, and may require the project proponent to provide information contributing to the preparation of an EIS, Supplemental EIS, or EIS Addendum.

II. Summary

In order to select consultants best able to conduct environmental analysis on proposed projects, DPD has compiled a roster of consultants qualified to prepare EISs. The roster contains information on the consultants' areas of expertise and education, qualifications concerning the firms' ability to act as a primary consultant and subconsultant, and is organized by area of specialization.

When a Declaration of Significance (DS) is issued or is likely to be issued, the project proponent will select a primary consultant from the roster. The choice of consultant will be based on which firm has the expertise and experience best matched to the areas of the environment expected to be affected by the proposed project. DPD may challenge the selection if the consultant has acted as an advocate for the proponent in seeking to demonstrate to DPD that the project does not require an EIS, or if the consultant does not have the appropriate expertise or experience for assessing the project's particular impacts. In the event of such a challenge, the project proponent will select another consultant from the roster.

A Statement of Understanding and Agreement will be signed by DPD, the project proponent and the consultant prior to the completion of EIS scoping. The purpose of the Agreement is to ensure: 1) consultants are considered agents for the Department in achieving an adequate EIS; 2) the consultant does not act as an advocate for a project proponent; 3) preliminary drafts are not be reviewed by the project proponent in advance of DPD's review; 4) DPD will direct and supervise the EIS preparation process and has sole authority to approve documents for publication and distribution, and 5) DPD may employ, at the project proponent’s expense, a second roster-qualified consultant to review the preliminary draft and preliminary final EIS.

Periodic reports from the consultant on the progress of the document will be required. DPD will monitor the timelines and progress reports. DPD will work with the project proponent and consultant to promote smooth processing, timely resolution of disputes, sharing of information, and production of high quality EISs. After the EIS is completed, DPD and the proponent will evaluate the consultant on the basis of responsiveness, timeliness, and quality of work.

III. Detailed Procedure

A. EIS Consultant Roster Update

1. The EIS Consultant Roster shall be maintained by DPD and shall be updated annually throughout the term of the roster. At each updating juncture, a request for statement of qualifications (RFSQ) will be issued. At that time, firms not already on the roster will be given an opportunity for placement on the roster. Except for the provisions stated below, a consultant already on the roster need not reapply or respond to the RFSQ.

2. Consultants on the roster agree to provide written notice to the City when substantive changes take place within their firms that materially affect the ability to provide EIS services.

3. Consultants on the roster agree to ensure that all information provided to DPD regarding their firms are maintained in current status.

4. Request for Statement of Qualifications (RFSQ) - EIS Consultant Roster

a. DPD shall publish an RFSQ, which includes an explanation of the purpose of the EIS Consultant Roster Program, lists submittal requirements, and sets a response deadline.

b. Special effort shall be made to solicit responses from WMBE firms.

c. Submittal requirements in response to the RFSQ shall include:

i. Experience;

ii. Letters of recommendation and/or referrals;

iii. Classification as a primary consultant or subconsultant; and

iv. Examples of EIS work prepared by the consultant.

d. Anyone who has submitted a response to the RFSQ, but whom DPD determines is not appropriately qualified at this time to be placed on the roster, shall be notified in writing with the reasons for denial of placement. A written request for reconsideration may be submitted to the Department Director within two (2) weeks of the mailing date of the letter denying placement on the roster. The Director has the final authority for roster decisions and shall respond to the request for reconsideration within two (2) weeks of receipt of the request.

 

B. EIS Roster Organization

1. Consultant firms shall be organized on the roster in accordance with area of expertise in the following categories:

a. Earth;

b. Air;

c. Water;

d. Plants and Animals;

e. Energy;

f. Environmental Health;

g. Land/Shoreline Use;

h. Transportation; and

i. Public Services.

2. Consultants may appear on the roster in more than one category consistent with qualifications and area(s) of expertise.

C. Deletion from the EIS Roster. A consultant shall be deleted from the EIS Consultant Roster under any of the following circumstances:

1. The consultant requests deletion. The deletion shall take effect ten (10) business days after written notice to the City;

2. The consultant has made a material misrepresentation in his/her response to a solicitation (i.e., a misrepresentation is material if the consultant's rating in the roster placement evaluation scores would probably have been reduced if the facts were fully known); or

3 The consultant receives a poor evaluation based on unsatisfactory performance on an EIS consultant contract.

4. The consultant discontinues business within the Puget Sound region of Western Washington; or

5. The consultant changes his/her organization or operations so that the firm's response to the City's solicitation, although correct when made, is no longer descriptive of its current status, and the changes made the consultant less qualified or otherwise less suitable for EIS contracting work.

D. Selection Process. When selection of a consultant for preparation of an EIS is required, the following procedure shall be used:

1. The consultant will be selected by the project proponent from the EIS Consultant Roster.

2. The project proponent shall notify DPD, in writing, of the consultant selection. The EIS project manager shall be identified, as shall every consultant staff person assigned to a specific element of the environmental analysis, including subconsultants, if any.

3. The selected primary consultant must have demonstrated in her/his Statement of Qualifications that the firm has the expertise and experience to perform the impact assessments for the project's particular environmental elements or the primary consultant must select subconsultants with the necessary expertise and experience from the Roster.

4. Subconsultants shall be selected by primary consultants from the EIS Consultant Roster. If there is no firm on the roster which has the necessary qualifications, then the primary consultant may select subconsultants who have not previously responded to an RFSQ, subject to approval by both the project proponent and DPD.

5. Subconsultants may include consultants previously retained by the project proponent for project work, provided they are on the roster.

6. DPD may challenge the project proponent's selection of an EIS consultant for the following reasons:

a. The consultant has acted as an advocate for the proponent in seeking to demonstrate to DPD that the project does not require an EIS.

b. The consultant's Statement of Qualifications and subsequent updates in response to DPD Roster RFSQ indicates a lack of expertise or experience for assessing the projects particular impacts.

7. If DPD challenges the project proponent's selection of an EIS Consultant, the project proponent shall select another consultant from the Roster.

E. Disclaimer

Placement on the EIS Consultant Roster makes a consultant eligible for consideration to provide EIS services to DPD, as described in the Department's solicitation. Placement on the roster does not guarantee selection for services. Moreover, DPD will not reimburse respondents to an RFSQ solicitation for any costs incurred in the preparation and submittal of Statements of Qualifications or proposals.

F. Statement of Understanding and Agreement

Section 25.05.420 - Preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) states:

"The draft and final EIS shall be prepared by the responsible official or his designee, by a private applicant or by a consultant."

EISs are to be prepared in a responsible manner and with appropriate methodologies; they are to be objective and unbiased; they are to be done in a timely and economical manner; and must avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest.

Persons who participate in preparation of a DPD-directed EIS, are considered agents for the Department in achieving an adequate document. When adequacy of an EIS is challenged, persons who have participated in EIS preparation shall continue in their capacity as an agent for DPD. It is inappropriate for an EIS consultant to act as an advocate for a project proponent in any circumstances, including SEPA appeals.

Preliminary drafts of the EIS or sections of the EIS prepared by consultants shall be submitted directly to DPD for review. A concurrent submittal may be made to the project proponent.

The EIS must be approved by the Department prior to public distribution. Prior to distribution the Department shall be satisfied that it complies with accepted methodology, does not contain any biased statements, and meets the Seattle SEPA Ordinance and RCW 43.21C. The Department shall publish the draft or final EIS when it has determined that the document adequately meets these criteria. At the project proponent's expense, DPD may employ a second, roster-qualified consultant to review and comment upon the preliminary draft and preliminary final EIS as per Section G.8(d) of the Rule.

To ensure that these objectives are achieved, the EIS consultant, the project proponent, and DPD shall sign a statement of understanding and agreement prior to beginning work on EIS preparation.

G. EIS Development

1. On or before selection of a consultant to do an EIS, but prior to beginning work, the project proponent shall provide, at a minimum, the following information to the consultant and the Department:

a. Project description;

b. Legal description of the property;

c. Site plan;

d. Any available site studies, such as but not limited to, soil analysis, traffic studies, or hazardous waste analysis; and

e. Statement of objectives.

2. The proponent is also encouraged to provide any alternatives which s/he may wish to have considered.

3. Additional information may be requested of the proponent as the EIS is written, if determined by DPD to be needed.

4. The proponent shall be responsible for executing a contract with the selected consultant to preform all work associated with the EIS.

5. The consultant shall be responsible for notifying the Department of any information which could result in a change in the scope of work, and may not proceed on any additional analysis until so authorized by the Department. During preparation of the EIS, the proponent shall notify the Department in writing of any project revisions.

6. At the Department's discretion, communication between the proponent and consultant may take place without the presence of a Department representative for purposes of sharing the project description or clarifying factual information. However, the consultant shall not discuss or distribute the preliminary environmental analysis or conclusions without prior written DPD authorization.

7. The project proponent may:

a. Review and comment on the pre-publication draft EIS analysis concurrently with the Department's review, provided that, in no case shall the consultant submit this information to the proponent before submittal to the Department; and

b. Discuss issues of fact, such as a project description which has been revised, with the Department, and consultant after pre-publication review. The proponent is encouraged to use the environmental analysis at this stage to consider changes to improve the project by incorporating mitigation.

8. The consultant shall inform the Department of any contacts with the project proponent at which the Department is not present.

9. DPD shall have the following responsibilities:

a. May initiate pre-publication meetings with DPD, the project proponent, and the consultant to discuss concerns and comments resulting from review of the pre-publication draft DEIS and FEIS;

b. Approval of the EIS for distribution; and

c. Publication of the draft or final EIS which the Department has approved for distribution.

d. May initiate "peer review" by a second consultant, when special expertise is necessary. The second consultant shall be selected by DPD from the EIS Consultant Roster. The second consultant may be asked to review the pre-publication DEIS or FEIS and comment to DPD. DPD shall execute a contract with the consultant and shall stipulate the section(s) or pages to be reviewed.

1. Use of a second consultant for "peer review" is limited to one review and comment opportunity, prior to publication of the DEIS and one review and comment opportunity prior to publication of the FEIS.

2. Selection of and contracting with the second consultant for "peer review" shall occur sufficiently in advance to assure the second consultant's availability to perform the review without unduly delaying the EIS preparation process. DPD shall secure in the contract that the second consultant will perform the EIS review and comment to DPD within two weeks of receipt of the document.

 

Attachment A

Statement of Understanding and Agreement for Preparing Environmental Impact Statements

We understand:

1. WAC 197-11-420 and Seattle Municipal Code 25.05.420 stipulate that preparation of Draft and Final EISs and SEISs is the responsibility of the lead agency (DPD), by or under the direction of its responsible official.

2. DPD will assure that the EIS is prepared in a professional manner and with appropriate interdisciplinary methodology.

3. DPD will direct the areas of research and examination to be undertaken as a result of the scoping process, as well as determine the organization of the resulting document.

4. DPD will supervise the EIS preparation process and will approve the document for publication only when the Department is satisfied it complies with the spirit of RCW 43.21C, the SEPA Rules (WAC 197-11), and the Seattle SEPA Ordinance (SMC 25.05). DPD may employ a second consultant, selected from the EIS Consultant Roster, to review, and make comments to DPD on the preliminary draft EIS and preliminary final EIS.

We agree:

1. To participate in the preparation of the EIS under the direction of DPD. Preliminary drafts of the EIS or sections of the EIS prepared by the consultant will be submitted directly to DPD for review and not to the project proponent or the proponent's representatives for preliminary review. Concurrent submission to the project proponent or the proponent's representatives may occur.

2. It is inappropriate for the consultant to act as an advocate for a project proponent during the EIS preparation process and in SEPA appeals to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest.

3. The consultant will testify at any appeal, legislative or judicial hearing concerning the EIS, if requested by DPD, provided that such testimony and any preparations for the testimony shall be paid for by the project proponent.

4. The consultant's participation in EIS preparation will be as objective and unbiased as possible in order to achieve a legally adequate document. When necessary, the consultant will participate with DPD in demonstrating EIS adequacy if the EIS is challenged.

5. If DPD chooses to contract with a second consultant, selected from the EIS Consultant Roster, to review and critique the preliminary draft and preliminary final EIS, the project proponent will be responsible for payment to DPD for the costs of the second consultant.

This Understanding and Agreement pertains to work associated with the EIS for

______________, known as _________________ located at ____________________

project number project name project address

consultant ______________________

date __________________________

affiliation _______________________

project proponent______________________ date________________

 

DPD ______________________________ date________________