Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout014Michelle Farfan From: David W. Johnson <dwjohnson@cojefferson.wa.us> Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2012 3:27 PM To: Garth Mann; Craig Peck; don Cc: Stacie Hoskins Subject: FW: report submission Attachments: Air Quality report.pdf Garth, Here is the email I sent to you last month regarding the Air Quality report still pending. Please forward this to your consultants who will be preparing the "carbon credit" report as you mentioned in our recent meeting. Please respond to this email to ensure you have received it. Thanks! From: David W. Johnson Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2012 11:34 AM To: 'Don Coleman'; 'Garth Mann' Cc: peckassoc@comcast.net; diane@pleasantharbormarina.com; David W. Johnson Subject: RE: report submission Attached is a list we received from Garth outlining how air quality would be addressed. Our understanding was that Richard Steffel with Environ would author the report, but when I talked to him last he said he was not and wasn't sure who was. I had assumed someone else would replace him. It appears this issue may have been side-stepped by the issue of Green House Gas emissions, but Air Quality in general must be addressed in the SEIS through a technical report authored by a qualified scientist. GHGs may be part of that report or separate, but must be addressed, not necessarily by an Air scientist as we discussed. From: Don Coleman [mailto:don@pleasantharbormarina.com] Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2012 10:29 AM To: 'Garth Mann'; David W. Johnson Cc: peckassoc@comcast.net; diane@pleasantharbormarina.com Subject: RE: report submission Garth, I'm copying this to David so he can clarify what is required for this report. I've re -read the draft we presented in November 2011 and the response describing the deficiencies. Perhaps David will reply with detail of exactly what we need to address to meet the county condition 63:cc and if what we are calling the GHG report is the same as the "Air Quality Report" that has been discussed before. Ordinance 01-0128-08 condition 63.cc PR 15 "Statesman corporation shall collaborate with the Climate Action Committee (CAC) to calculate greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) associated with the MPR, and identify techniques to mitigate such emissions through sequestration and/or other acceptable methods". If I read the condition literally perhaps our draft with edits to address the comments in the memo from ESA (Jeff Caton) will be acceptable. We need to know if an "air quality professional" needs to author this report or if it is acceptable for us to continue to try to write the report on our own. don Don Coleman Pleasant Harbor Marina don@pleasantharbormarina.com Cell: 206-714-1482 From: Garth Mann [mailto:GarthM@statesmancorporation.com] Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2012 8:47 AM To: 'Don Coleman' Cc: peckassoc@comcast.net; diane@pleasantharbormarina.com; 'Scott Bender' Subject: RE: report submission Hello Don.- Air on: Air Quality Report / I assume you are talking about the reductions in GHG emissions as a result of the technology we are deploying? I have talked to a number of so-called experts on Carbon Credits as it relates to GHG emissions. It is a compartive of factoring the GHG emissions using traditional technology versus the amount of GHG that have been sequestered from the atmosphere due to utilization of electric carts, geothermal , CHP, etc. It is not an exact science by any means. M. Garth Mann President & C.E.0 P: 403-256-4151 M:403-899-9222 F: 403-256-6100 7370 Sierra Morena Blvd. S.W. Calgary, Alberta T3H 4H9 www.statesmangroup ca From: Don Coleman [mailto:don@pleasantharbormarina.com] Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2012 9:38 AM To: Garth Mann Cc: peckassoc@comcast.net; diane@pleasantharbormarina.com; 'Scott Bender' Subject: RE: report submission Hi Garth, I do not have any contact info for the air quality report, who is responsible for this one? Craig has been communicating with Joel, Vinnie, and Brian. We are making progress. I have not heard from Scott but according to his e-mails in December he is on other priority projects and will have his report done as soon as possible, I have not ETA yet from Scott. don Don Coleman Pleasant Harbor Marina don@pleasantharbormarina.com Cell: 206-714-1482 Garth Mann, Statesman Corporation - 2 - January 14, 2011 Construction: ENVIRON will provide a qualitative review of potential air quality impacts related to construction and a discussion of commonly used methods to reduce potential emissions and related air quality impacts. For example, dust from short-term construction activities such as excavation, grading, sloping and filling would contribute to ambient concentrations of suspended particulate matter. Construction contractor(s) would have to comply with local air quality regulations requiring that reasonable precautions betaken to minimize fugitive dust emissions. For this project, ENVIRON assumes no air quality dispersion modeling will be necessary for construction emissions under SEPA review. • On-site Mining and Concrete Production: ENVIRON will assess the potential for the proposed on-site mining of sand and gravel and portable concrete batch plant to reduce off-site construction traffic. We assume that no air quality dispersion modeling will be necessary under SEPA review for this element of the proposal. CHP Cogeneration: ENVIRON will calculate the emissions related to the Combined Heat and Power Cogeneration facilities, Air quality permits will likely be required for these facilities, which will limit the potential for off-site impacts. Therefore, ENVIRON will provide a qualitative review of the potential for off-site impacts. We assume that no air quality dispersion modeling will be necessary under SEPA review for this element of the proposal. • ENVIRON assumes that although the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) will review the SEIS, the level of effort required for this analysis would not • trigger the need for an Air Quality Discipline Report to be reviewed and approved by WSDOT. To trigger a WSDOT discipline report, the proposed project would have to in someway alter intersections on U.S. Highway 101 to the point where intersection performance would deteriorate to a poor level of service. ENVIRON is aware that the intersection of Black Point Road/US Highway 101 will likely be modified by the project proponent, but ENVIRON assumes the level of service will not degrade to LOS D or worse. If LOS is predicted to degrade to LOS D or worse, a WSDOT-level review would require additional effort and budget. ENVIRON assumes that the pending potential reclassification of a portion of western Washington that includes the project vicinity to an ozone nonattainment area will have no bearing on this air quality analysis. • ENVIRON assumes that no on-site suitability assessment is requested by the client. An on-site suitability assessmentwould include a review of potential impacts to on-site locations from both on-site and off-site sources, such as traffic -related air quality impacts from a nearby congested highway or potential impacts from on-site mining activities. This level of analysis is not included in this scope of work. GREENHOUSEGAS EMISSIONS ANALYSIS In early 2010, Ecology issued a comprehensive preliminary draft guidance to address projected impacts and potential mitigation measures for project -level review. Ecology issued a significantly modified draft document on greenhouse gas emissions and SEPA in response to comments received on its prior draft in mid-October 2010. This document is no longer called guidance, but rather is a "Working Paper" that will be updated as new information becomes available. The . newest update is now scheduled for sometime in mid-January 2011.