HomeMy WebLinkAbout019Donna Frostholm
From:
David W. Johnson
Sent:
Monday, March 10, 2014 9:32 AM
To:
Donna Frostholm
Cc:
Stacie Hoskins; David W. Johnson
Subject:
RE: Secondary Peer Review
No, ESA staff has not reviewed the updated 2012 report. We agreed to forgo a second round of peer review with ESA in
lieu of EA Blumen completing task 1.4 as outlined in their memo. According to them, your comments on the wetland
and habitat plans have been addressed. If this is not the case you will have the opportunity to comment on the SEIS.
From: Donna Frostholm
Sent: Monday, March 10, 2014 9:20 AM
To: David W. Johnson; Stacie Hoskins
Subject: RE: Secondary Peer Review
David
According to this, the applicants submitted updated wetland and habitat management plan reports in January 2012.
have not seen them. Do you know if someone with wetland experience (such as ESA staff) has reviewed them?
Donna
From: David W. Johnson
Sent: Monday, March 03, 2014 8:40 AM
To: Stacie Hoskins; Donna Frostholm
Cc: David W. Johnson
Subject: FW: Secondary Peer Review
Donna,
Per your concerns regarding peer review comments.
From: Swenson, Karen fmailto;kswensonC@eaest.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2014 3:06 PM
To: David W. Johnson
Cc: Craig Peck ( eckassoc comcast.net)
Subject: Secondary Peer Review
Here is the Secondary Peer Review Memo and associated matrices for the County's review to fulfill Task 4 of Phase 1 of
our scope: "Compare final round of peer review/county comments on technical studies to final draft of all technical
studies. Draft memo to County regarding adequacy of revisions."
As noted in the attached memo, we reviewed the comments from the County or peer review consultants in relation to
the original reports, noted how the technical consultant/author responded to these comments, and compared these to
the final report to be included in the SEIS. Finally, we evaluated if any of the responses, or lack thereof, affected the
adequacy of the Draft SEIS. We prepared a comment matrix for each of the reports (attached) to indicate where
comments were only partially addressed or not addressed in the final report —these comments are noted in yellow and
blue, respectively.
We have also attached the original comments from County staff and the peer review consultants, including the
embedded comments by Brown & Caldwell in three of the reports (noted as BP review in the file name, for the reviewer
Bill Piersch).
We have not attached the original reports to this e-mail due to size constraints. The County delivered these original
reports to EA via a DVD the last week of January. We can post these to our FTP site if desired. Similarly, the County also
provided us with the responses to the comments from the original authors/consultants on that DVD. These responses
are included in the response column within each of the attached matrices. These written comment responses (generally
in memo or e-mail format) can be posted to our FTP site as well.
Let me know if you have any questions.
Thanks,
KO,r-e'V SwewyQw
Karen Swenson, AICP
Senior Planner
2200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 707 1 Seattle, WA 98121
206.452.5350 x 1716
kswenson@eaest.com
`j