Subject: RE: Further Strategic Planning - Environmental
From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 05:56:36 -0700 (PDT)

See my notes/comments below.

-----Original Message-----
From: Shafer, John [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, September 21, 2001 9:14 AM
To: Patti, Scott; Campbell, Larry; Schmidt, Jon
Cc: Gadd, Eric; Hyatt, Kevin; Kilmer III, Robert; Cebryk, Doug
Subject: Further Strategic Planning - Environmental

Jon Schmidt,
As one of the first steps in preparing for our early meeting with the
FERC Staff, I believe we need to take the State and Federal Agency list
that Scott Patti has developed and select the key land managing agencies
(State, US Forest Service, BLM, etc.) that will be impacted by the
proposed right of way.  After the agencies are selected, a meeting
should be scheduled with those key agencies with the purpose of
obtaining their commitment to participate in the early collaboration
with the FERC on the Sun Devil Pipeline Project.  Your thoughts?---We should
definitely meet with the federal land managing agencies as well as the
Native Americans.  Better to meet with them individually at this point to
assess their interest and willingness to work in an informal collaborative
process and ID major issues with the route.  We should also meet with the
COE, FWS and major state agencies to assess the same information.

I also would like your input into the composition of the "team" that
requests those meetings and participates.  I view the make-up of the
team players for this task as very important to get this project
off-the-ground with the right momentum.  (Caveat: I am thinking that you
and I (both) should play a dual lead role in these early meetings with
Larry Campbell and/or Scott Patti setting them up for us - your
thoughts?) Then we can speak first hand to the FERC Staff about the
commitment to collaborate.  Don't you believe we need to obtain their
commitment prior to meeting with the FERC to discuss being considered
for the expedited processing?---Yes, FERC requires knowing if the agencies
will be willing to participate in this process.  As for team makeup,
Environmental, Business Development, and Engineering/Design should attend
these meetings to discuss FERC process and SunDevil's envi. approach to the
project, need for the project, and routing/design process that will be
undertaken to make the project safe.  You and I don't both have to be at
each meeting, but since there will be multiple meetings, we could staff
dependent upon schedules and availability.

By the way, as "food for thought" I have received a note from Doug Lake
(NRG) and he stands ready to do the Third Party contractor work on the
EIS (if we can get the FERC to agree to let NRG do it without bidding
the job out).  In fact, since NRG has completed their work on the Kern
River loop project - Doug said that he has a team that could be placed
on this project about the time we will need them.  That may work out
good for everyone, since the NRG team is familiar with the expedited
process, located in the western United States, and familiar with the
agencies and contacts in the area of our project.  

--NRG would have to convince not only FERC, but Enron they have the
resources to complete the work in your aggressive schedule.  This is fairly
critical as you want a consultant who can "keep up" in this process and not
put a lot of road blocks up.  On Gulfstream, NRGs monitors (representing
FERC) are bringing up issues and trying to make issues with things that the
FERC PM doesn't even think is worth doing---so we don't want someone doing
things that is right in their own eyes and not looking out for Enron's best
interests.

John Shafer

-----Original Message-----
From: Patti, Scott [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2001 4:49 PM
To: Shafer, John; Hyatt, Kevin; Gadd, Eric
Cc: Schmidt, Jon; Taylor, Gina; Cebryk, Doug
Subject: RE: Confidentiality of Sun Devil???

We have already been in contact primarily with most of the state and
Federal
level agencies that exist in both AZ and NM as well as the Navajo
agencies.
I could get you a complete list of agencies we've contacted if you'd
like,
but almost every agency that would or could issue a permit in both
states
has been contacted.  

Scott J. Patti
Senior Project Manager
ENSR International
1601 Prospect Parkway
Fort Collins, CO  80525
Phone: (970) 493-8878
Fax:     (970) 493-0213
Email:  [email-masked]

-----Original Message-----
From: Shafer, John [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2001 2:49 PM
To: Hyatt, Kevin; Gadd, Eric
Cc: Patti, Scott; Schmidt, Jon; Taylor, Gina; Cebryk, Doug
Subject: RE: Confidentiality of Sun Devil???

Scott,
Please furnish a list of who you will be talking with.  (Caveat: Scott,
you certainly realize that you must provide the FERC with summary notes
of meetings with groups, agencies, etc. when we make the FERC filing -
so keep good notes).  John

-----Original Message-----
From: Hyatt, Kevin 
Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2001 1:44 PM
To: Shafer, John; Gadd, Eric
Cc: [email-masked]'; [email-masked]'; Taylor, Gina; Cebryk, Doug
Subject: RE: Confidentiality of Sun Devil???

I spoke with Eric this afternoon.  We'd like a list of who ENSR is
talking with.  We recognize the need to be as open as we can with
stakeholders and consultees and concur with John's comment below.  We're
comfortable with Scott being able to show regulators a map of the
preliminary route.

thanks
kh

-----Original Message-----
From: Shafer, John 
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2001 4:41 PM
To: Hyatt, Kevin; Gadd, Eric
Cc: [email-masked]'; [email-masked]'; Taylor, Gina; Cebryk, Doug
Subject: FW: Confidentiality of Sun Devil???

Kevin and Eric,
Please read Scott's question below.  I have no problem with being a
little more open with the regulators.  I would not publish anything in
the paper (as yet) showing a route, etc., etc. as that will only get the
landowners stirred up before we are ready.  What are your thoughts?  Are
you comfortable with Scott being able to show the regulators a map of a
preliminary route?  John

-----Original Message-----
From: Patti, Scott [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2001 4:30 PM
To: Cebryk, Doug; Shafer, John; Campbell, Larry
Cc: Kendrick, William; Hyatt, Kevin; Schmidt, Jon; Alstad, Jon; Wade,
Alisa
Subject: Confidentiality of Sun Devil???

In discussions with several agency personnel, it "appears" as though
they
are somewhat aware of Sun Devil.  Is it still to be treated as
confidential,
or can we discuss it more freely?  The main benefit I see, if we can
discuss
it more freely, is that many of the regulators have said things like "I
would need to see a route to be able to answer your question better."
Let
me know.  Thanks,  Scott

Scott J. Patti
Senior Project Manager
ENSR International
1601 Prospect Parkway
Fort Collins, CO  80525
Phone: (970) 493-8878
Fax:     (970) 493-0213
Email:  [email-masked]

**********************************************************************
The information contained in this communication is confidential and 
privileged proprietary information intended only for the individual 
or entity to whom it is addressed.  Any unauthorized use, distribution,
copying or disclosure of this communication is prohibited.  
If you have received this communication in error, please contact the 
sender immediately.

It is our policy that e-mails are intended for and should be used for 
business purposes only.

This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by 
MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses.

ENSR
www.ensr.com
[email-masked]
**********************************************************************

**********************************************************************
This e-mail is the property of Enron Corp. and/or its relevant affiliate
and
may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the
intended recipient (s). Any review, use, distribution or disclosure by
others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient (or
authorized to receive for the recipient), please contact the sender or
reply
to Enron Corp. at [email-masked] and delete
all
copies of the message. This e-mail (and any attachments hereto) are not
intended to be an offer (or an acceptance) and do not create or evidence
a
binding and enforceable contract between Enron Corp. (or any of its
affiliates) and the intended recipient or any other party, and may not
be
relied on by anyone as the basis of a contract by estoppel or otherwise.
Thank you. 
**********************************************************************