Michelle Havens of U.S. Fish & Wildlife to Martin Wahl of Whole Energy Fuels:
Hi Martin: Specifically, what is your project? I have been assigned to a couple of projects in that area, but I'm not sure if I have been assigned to yours. Please give me some information on what the project involves and I can help you or direct you to whomever the project has been assigned to. Thanks!
Michelle Havens
Fish and Wildlife Biologist
Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
2800 Cottage Way Room W-2605
Sacramento, CA 95825
(916) 414-6496 [email protected]
Martin to Michelle:
Hi Michelle: Whole Energy was granted a CDP (E-07-011) to construct a used cooking oil recycling plant within the existing developed operational and fenced enclosure of the City of Pacifica's Calera Creek Water Recycling Plant. We also have a building permit from the City of Pacifica to construct the recycling plant on an existing slab in a paved area. The project will involve no grading or weed removal. I have attached the project description from the Coastal Development Permit application which includes recommendations made by Lucy Triffleman of USFWS and Suzanne Deleon of CA F&G during their April 2008 site visit to ensure we would not disturb Federal or State Wetlands. The Coastal Commission has asked us to check with your agency and others to see if further approvals are necessary. Please let me know if you have any concerns or questions. Thank you.
OK, Lance is confused (not a stretch for Lance). What are the dates of this enthralling exchange? Mr. Wahl states that he has his building permit for the refinery. Is that correct?
And what does it all mean?
Simple minds inquire.
Posted by: Lance Fernork | March 08, 2009 at 12:29 PM
I'm glad to see this posted. Whole Energy Fuels (WEF) needs to get some kind of U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) determination "on official USFWS letterhead" as one of the 18 conditions of approval for WEF's Coastal Development Permit.
There were accusatory rumors going around this week that an opponent of the project had brought USFWS down on the project, when it was really WEF that had done so.
Like the Coastal Commission, USFWS isn't in the business of saying no but of saying how. But the letter from USFWS dated 2/2/09 that has been posted on Riptide sounds like USFWS is more concerned with the city's impact on the creek and ponds than with the WEF refinery.
Posted by: todd bray | March 08, 2009 at 05:42 AM