Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLog127 , . e e Omtrmts on Pre- Draft Port Ludlow Marina Expansion DSEIS CONTENT 1. Somewhere near the beginning of the document (title page, fact sheet, etc.), mention what the DSEIS supplements (i.e., the 1993 programmatic EIS). Re'lision Made - Fact Sheet, Projrt Action 2. p.FS-2, Required Permits and Approvals: .Add "Development Review Division" after "Department of Community Ikvelopment." After ''Building Permit," replace ''Building Department" with "Ikpartment of Community Ikvelopment - Building Permits/Inspections." Re7ision Made 3. location of Draft SEIS for Review: Are we going to be able to put this document- at least the text- on the web? If so, we should mention that fact and give the URL here. Re7ision Made - uewillc1f'ate three PDF cla:umnts (text, gmphi:s, and photos) jar the Jefferson OJunty uebsite. 4. Will copies be available free of charge to interested individuals? If so, that should be mentioned. If not, the price per copy and method for acquiring should be stated. Re7ision Made, FS- 2 - Copies of the DSEIS beyJnd those identified on the distribution list will be amilable jar sale, at-cost ,/ 5. p.l-l, 1.1: Substitute a descriptive phrase for the word "addressed" in the last sentence of this section- something like "... included as a projected aspect of Resort expansion at Port ludlow..." The point is that the programmatic EIS discussed or included the 100- slip expansion, but to say that it "addressed" the l00-slip expansion may be perceived by the reader that the 1993 document addressed all the environmental impacts associated with the marina expansion. Re7ision Made - see 1.1. / 6. Figure 1: To where is the arrow associated with the "Port ludlow" box pointing? It definitely is not pointing to the "Marina. Appears to be pointing to the northern limit of the Port ludlow MPR 1'eeds to be adjusted or forget the arrow and stick with only the box. Re7ision Made - see Fig;t1e 1. / 7. p.1-4, third paragraph: "Make the first sentence active. Who conducted the expansion study? Re7ision Made \ /l1 ,..""".""'.....~ ".._-,,-_..\-._~.- ...-," \'" ""1 . ..- . 'oj 5/16;()2 SDPOO-OOO 14 1 e e ClJmnmts on Pre-Draft Port btdlow Marina Expansion DSEIS 8. Fifth paragraph: "Therefore, Jefferson County will issue no building pennit... >> should be "Therefore, Jefferson County will issue no land use or building pennit...>> Replace v/ "... has been submitted to the County... >>with "... is prepared... " Recision Made ;1 1 (' I 9. The sixth paragraph, the seven bullet points that follow, and subsection 1.5 on Phased Review need to be rewritten or deleted. The bullet points appear to be culled from Jon Rose's letter to DCD included in the original application submitted in the year 2000. There is no need to repeat those arguments here. The basic reason why DCD is proceeding in the lead agency role for environmental review under SEP A for the "Marina expansion application, even though the Port Indlow MPR Ordinance clearly calls for comprehensive environmental review at one time of all the elements of the Resort expansion projected in the 1993 programmatic EIS, is to accommodate for the fact that the "Marina expansion element of the overall Resort Plan requires multi-agency review, including Federal nexus ESA compliance. The other participating agencies in the review of SDPOO-00014 are likely to be much less involved, if at all, with the other elements of the Resort Plan. Therefore, Jefferson County is serving in its role as lead agency in oroer to accommodate the review timelines of the other agencies for the review of the :Marina expansion element of the Resort Plan, at the explicit request and insistence of the applicant. Jefferson County will not issue any pennits- shoreline, land use, or building-until the Resort SEIS process is complete. While phased environmental review is appropriate under particular circumstances as defined in the RCW" and WAC, Jefferson County approval of SDPOO-00014 absent the completion of the Resort expansion SEIS process is mt. If the Port Indlow MPR Ordinance did not preclude phased review and approval, it would appear to be appropriate for this case pursuant to the relevant WAC, as this section of the preliminary DSEIS explains. The applicant desired this approach to reviewing the "Marina expansion element of the Resort Plan and convinced the County of its merits. Consequently, the risks associated with acquiring approval from State and Federal agencies and later having to acquire approval for a modified proposal, if Jefferson County shoreline approval or an appeal process results in a modified proposal, reside solelywith the applicant. If the applicant desires to present an argument in the DSEIS for phased review by citing the relevant WAC, the second sentence of Section 3.902.1 of the Port Indlow MPR Ordinance should also be citied and explained in the context of this process: "Environmental review of the Resort Plan shall not be piecemealed or broken into small segments.>> Re7isions Made - 1.4 and 1.5. 1he purpose including the degyjptian from the '1on &se" 1et1erW1S to j. add1eSS a CC111J1"l?flt raised in the !X:apingprocess. Oiginally, ue retained the satp! IangJltl~ so as not to misinterpretpmiats understarx:/ings retu.ren the GJunr:; and P LA. Otr reUsion add1eSses the dijfe1ence retu.ren the MPR requi1enrntand ''phased miew" under SEP A. ~~,~--lP-_K ~._--~-_...-,"~~,._-_.. 5/16/02 SDPOO-00014 2 e e CJ:mnrnts on Pre- Draft Port ludlnw Marina Expansion DSEIS \ ,.# \ ,.;... 10. p.l-11, 1.8: Fe-name Significant Areas of Controversy to Significant Issues for Consideration. Add "and the potential for hazardous material spills" after the word "discharge" in the third bulle t. Redsions Made 11. p.l-13, Alt. lIMit. "Meas.: In the text, it is stated that there is a no discharge role for black water, but that gray water policy is being left up to DNR. Perhaps the statement in this box of the table should read, "Enforce the no black water (sewage) discharge role and provide better boater education on black and gray water discharge." Redsion Made 12. p.l-13 & 1-14, Alt. 2/Marine Plants and Animals: "Similar to proposed project." Please edit this statement, where appropriate, to indicate to the reader that the Deep Water Design will presumably have less impact on the nearshore environment (i.e., salmonid habitat) than the other two expansion alternatives. Redsion Made 13. p.1-17, Alt. l/Pub. Serv. and Util./Env. Imp./Sanit. SewerServ.: fuwexactlyis the anticipated increase in the use of the sewage pump-out facilities "incremental"? Is it because the 100 additional slips are expected to be :filled incrementally (though the applicant maintains that demand is very high) or because each additional vessel using the Marina only contributes an insignificant amount of sewage? Is there a better descriptor? Redsion Made - Fn7iramrmtd /mp:u:ts and Mitigating Measu7eS 14. p.2-2, 2.2, second sentence: ''For all alternatives..." later (p.2-5, for example) it is stated that under the N> Action Alternative, the kayak and dinghy floats will not be j replaced. If this is so, the sentence should begin, "For all expansion alternatives... " Re'lision Made 15. p.3-8, 3.2.1, Wtr. Qual. and Stormwtr., first paragraph: It seems odd to cite a 1993 source to buttress the statement that water quality since 1984 remains excellent. What is the reference, anyway? In the Feferences, there are two Jefferson County documents with the 1993 date: the programmatic EIS and the Inn at Port lndlow EIS. Is the reference to one of these? Why? ..i RedsionMade- Refrrencecanle tDeitherofthose EISs (sam! statement is in both). ID'd tixmas 1993a and b. .AddRd ref1encetDmare rr:centdata: (Berrynan & Henigar 2001). A/soadd<<i the 2001 refrrence tD the later refs tD (Berrynan & Henigar 1999). ......----1 ~]-"-_u..-"-i) ."___~~."_J__.__ 3 5/16/02 SDPOO-00014 e e OJmments an Pre-Draft Port btdlnw Marina Expansion DSEIS 16. Fourth paragraph: Is there a way to include tables and/or charts that summarize the results of the studies that allow for this conclusion: ''N> long-term upward or downward trends in constituent concentrations are evident for any of the monitoring stations"? Added reference to new Appendix E whiph (Figure-8 from Berryman & Henigar 2000 Monitoring Re~..:.-~_",______--------_. 17. p.3-9, first paragraph: Has Port Indlow Nhrina considered being proactive in terms of establishing and enforcing a strong gray water dischatge policy (rather than simply-wait for the State)? Recision Made ~ ~'>tL<;/r(aA?.[1' ; l rW i! ,:7 , Q .. / 5 d rl,<::"1JJt'.?/y" 18. p.3-9, third paragraph: "... and that live-aboard tenants submit to inspection of their vessels plumbing and mechanical systems to verify compliance with state and local public health and safety laws." What is the frequency of these inspections? Who does J them? Are the records kept at the Nhrina? Re1ision Made - Mitigating Measures \ 19. p.3-10, Port Ind. Bay Flush. Char., last sentence of first paragraph: To which of the 1993 Jefferson County sources does the reference refer? Recision Made - Re[erencecan k tDeitherorboth afthose EISs. (st:rm? sta1enWtis in both) ID'd themas 1993 a and b. / 20. p.3-12, Long-Term Effects, Exp. Alt., second paragraph: Absent a policy from the State on gray water discharge, V\here is the projt-'Ction of incTeases in gray water discharge because of the additional ve&."lels using the Marina and that analysis of whether those projected increases will or will not have an in1pact? Re1ision Made v 21. p.3-16, 3.3.2.1, first paragraph: In regard to the last two sentences, it is our understanding that current WDFW policy is that there is no historical record of a viable population of Chinook in the Big Q.til, but it is likely that Chinook from other Hood Canal rivers would utilize the project action are or,~aring and feeding. Worth checking with them? \, Recision Made - text and nje1f7lCe ~~.3-21, Table 1 (hasn't there already been a Table 1? OK, you must mean the first table ~f Chapter 3): This table seems incomplete. Are the question maoo indicating something other than the fact that the table is incomplete? 5/16/02 SDPOO-OOO 14 ._'~-".-. ~------ _~~__.__.L~_ 4 e e OJmrrmts on Pre-Draft Port btdlaw Marina Expansion DSEIS Table FeUsed V' re ~ ,{7TfY>'\6t1-- /' --------- 23. p.3-22, second parngrnph: The reader may not know what a "take" is under ESA .Add an explanatory phrnse or sentence, pemaps even a prelude to the parngrnph that indicates that the parngrnph contains a surmnary of the BE fmdings (which seems to be the case, since it is filled with ESA terminology). Would be useful to briefly explain what "may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect" means in teons of fmdings and Federnl review process. FootJwtes Addal/ .-/ ./..-\ (~;;;)p.3-23, 3.3.2.3: The dock floats will not include any surface with light transmissive ~ ~apabilities? Was this not discussed with Anne Shaffer and the Army Corps representative during the initial pre-application on-site meeting? It may be appropriate to cite obselVance of the construction wOlk windows in relation to fish species as a rmttgatmg measure. ~ Redsion Made - note that the new dock flmts will not conta in any /ig}Jt tmnsmissire caftlbilities, but aU JinI:p f/mts are under 8 frt in mith. Frrxna stmdural awl perfinrmrKe stl~. '.. . it is. no ta gxxi idea tv haw breaks in a flmt; eSJXria/ly in the atter flmting breakr.mter. '5 -fa k -I-Ut I'e; I ;1 ) iXb,} S 7 25. p.3-26, 3.3.3.3: See note above regarding light transmissive capabilities of new dock ' .. floats. So the new dock floats will be completely solid? And what length and width? Will the floats meet WDFW specs? See #22, alxne. Also, it is ourunderstanding that WVFW wzera/ly prefers tv see /ig}Jt transmission in any f1mts or docks mer 8 fiet. uiIe in shallawwai?r. c/ 26. p.3-29, 3.4.1, last parngrnph: Remove "land Use" from "Comprehensive Plan." Though the Comp Plan may deal principally (though not exclusively) with land use, there is no document entitled Chmprehensire land Ue Plan. Substitute the word "established" for "adopted" in the last sentence. Re7ision Made / ~/,." \ 271\\ p.3-30, land Use Desig., Zoning, first parngrnph: Third sentence should read, "These . ". . j development regulations are applied to development proposals within the Port Indlow MPR, while the Jefferson County Unified Development Code (UDq contains the . development..re... gnlations for tho e rest o.f tho e..; c. ounty. . /../'..';~~"..'.-.. ) ~_~zon~ l- ruvfY- -~ ~ptwt1- f€ fH7Ge,bres - ~ 28. p.3-34, second parngrnph: Is there another source for the industry standard fairway width besides Tobiasson? Does the Army Corps or DNR. have anything to say about navigability issues related to the faiIwaywidth at marinas? 5/16~2 SDPOO-OOO 14 "."..~"-.. -~. Q. '~'"~--;:t: .- . . .. . en; l~.., e e OJrnnmts on Pre-Draft Port Iudlaw Marina Expansion DSEIS Redsion Made / Note: There are a variety of published guidelines for marina design but there are no codes related to marina layout since each site and each area of the country has its unique conditions including waves, winds, currents, users, etc.. Other references include: ASCE Manual 50, Planning and Design Guidelines for Small Craft Harbors, 1994. Recommend a 1.5 to 1.75 fairway width There are some old Navy and Corps of Engineers manuals (1988 and 1974, respectively) that recommend a minimum of2.0 times the fairway. Thisfairway width has not traditionally been used in Puget Sound expect for areas of high wind, waves, or currents. The DNR or any other WA state agency does not issue marina design guidelines that we are aware of The Oregon State Marine Board and California Department of Boating and Waterways do issue guidelines but they are not relevant here. 29. p.3-36, 3.5.1, Jeff. Co. Comp. Plan: ING 25.0 was amended by Ordinance ~. 08-1224- 01. It now reads: Maintain the viability of Port Ludlow as Jefferson County's only existing Master Planned Resort (MPR) authorized under RCW 36.70A362. Re'lision Made/ 30. Figure 10 Shoreline Environment Designations: The map is missing the Nltural designation for ~.. two inner Bay islands. Redsion Made V 31. p.3-41, first paragraph: "The expansion is consistent with local and state guidelines regarding marina development." Provide additional infonnation/explanation. What are those guidelines? Can written documents be cited and included in the appendices? Where is the analysis demonstrating that the guidelines have been met? Who puts out those guidelines, the Anny Corps and WDFW or DNR? "The expanded marina will expand public access to the water." fbw? Will all members of the public, including those who are no customers of the Jvfarina, be able to use the facilities for walking, fishing, etc., or are there restrictions on members of the public who are not Jvfarina customers? If so, please explain and condition the preceding statement. Redsians Made vi. 32. Fourth paragraph: Explain Best Available Science. Gte the applicable WAC or other source. ",,-,"-J.B-~_ 6 -J1__ J~ 5/16AJ2 SDPOO-00014 e It Carmrmts an Pre-Draft Port btdlaw Marina Expansion DSEIS ReWion Made - WA C refe1erre included. / 33. p.3-42, 3.5.3: The process also requires consistency with the Port lndlow MPR Ordinance and oth~r applicable ordinances, such as the Gitical Areas Ordinance. ReWion Made v/ 34. p.3-44, second paragraph: What is the date of the Visual Resource Mgmt. "Manual? Is the ~i~tion found in~f~rences? \ Re'USlOn Made (~_j dOt) { ,/ 35. p.3-56, Alt. 2 Deep Wtr. Des., View #1: "This alternative has a strong contrast rating for View #1." According to Table 5 on p.3-52, Alt. 2 appears to have Mlderate, Moderate-Strong, and Weak-Moderate for the Left, :Middle, and Right views, respectively, that compose View # 1. How does a flat "strong" come out of that combination? . ReWians Made / (\ .3-62, sunnnary: Substituting the won! "high" for the terms previously explained and ~mployed (i.e., Weak, Moderate, Strong) may not be the best approach in attempting to summarize. For example, the results as presented in Table 5 are clearly not identical for Alternative l/View #2 (Strong) and Alternative 2Niew #1 (Weak-Moderate through Moderate-Strong forthe'..~.I.ree.. angles w.~~~ View #1.). I I." ReWians Made S11\;1 uSe l ~ 'gx) , - cY,Q de DI~ \lJ a\tltlr~ 37. Summary, second paragraph: Substitute "particular" for "proposed" in the second sentence, so that the reader does not associate the statement with only the Proposed Project. ReWion Made tI 38. p.3-72, Parking: Remove reference to the UDe as it does not apply to PIA projects within the Port lndlow MPR According to Qualified Lead Planner Jerry Smith (see Port lndlow MPR Ordinance section 1.50 and Port lndlow Development Agreement section 4.15), in certain circumstances when the Port lndlow MPR Ordinance is silent on a particular zoning issue, other ordinances that were in effect at the time of adoption of the Port lndlow MPR Ordinance that are not silent on the particular issue provide guidance. In this case, the Jefferson County Zoning Ordinance (as Amended for Implementation of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan by Section 1.60.2 of the Emergency Interim Control Ordinance) lists in Table 5 on p.55 0.50 spaces per boat slip for marinas, which is equivalent to the Gty of Des Mlines requirement of 1 space for 2 slips. Use this figure for the calculations and related text analysis. 5/16AJ2 SDPOO-OOO 14 --_-16.1--15:. ~_~____J _ 7 '11.. ,/'1S \if7i(} e e Cnmnmts an Pre-Draft Port l.14dlow Marina Expansian DSEIS ReUsian Made / 39. p.3-80, 3.8.3.1, third paragraph: Is there a need for additional upland restrooms, showers, and laundry facilities to serve the 100 additional slips? If not, please state so explicitly and provide the analysis, according to the Uniform Building Code and other applicable provisions. Re'lisian Made / 40. p.3-81, 3.8.4.1, second paragraph: update this section when the DSEIS is released, as the release date will likely be in or after May 2002. ReUsian Made v 41. p.3-82, paragraph after italicized section: Is it appropriate to add "... per existing State and Federal laws" to the end of the sentence ending with "... Port lndlow to do so"? OtheIWise, the lay reader may wonder why. ReUsian Made / 42. p.R-3: Replace the X with an 8 for the date of the mR "Jefferson County}998. Comprehensive Pia , as a ReUsian Made V 43. Appendix A Summary of Scoping Comments: Where is the summary? 7he summary is nawattached. v/ /4J Appendix B Draft Geotechnical Report: Why is the report sti.11 in draft form? When LJ will it no longer be a draft- in time for the FSEIS? Typically, the [ff!Otechni:a1 report is not finalized until ue are further a/nng an the pile design. Appendix C Port lndlow Marina policies: Same comment regarding draft status for the Regulations and Policies (!.....' the Port btdlow Marina has a process fOr reUsing and adopting new regulations and pdiks wJih includes miew by the Marina Ad'lisory C1Jmmittee. the GmmitJee has reUew:ri the ament draft and . requested minorcharlg!S. It is antiip:tted the miewand adoption process will not Ix! ccmplete prior to . release of the DEIS, butwill Ix!ccmplete prior to the FEIS. Appendix D BE: Please list tbe-awendiees-~~the BE on the Appendix D title page to prevent confusion. ~ ~ ~J ~! r~. '?>'t!<..... Re .. Made "--- ~ ! In {11. L(~ '. wtOnS ------.:. ~. --.---.--............. Appendix F Traffic Monitoring Summary Report, p.3: Why the question maIk in the right margin of Table 1? 5/16AJ2 ....o._.L:?::1".."........_.__. ....t;.._"....' ~ ~ +:"~'".~~"... 8 SDPOO-00014 e e Omnrnts on Pre-Draft Port btdlaw Marina Expansion DSEIS Qtestion mark remmed. /~ READABILITY & GRAMMATICAL CONSISTENCY All misions made. /' p.FS-1, location: Extra period after parentheses ending legal description. p.1-1, 1.1: Remove comma after "Port Ludlow development" in third sentence. p.1-1, 1.2, second sentence: When referring to Port Ludlow Bay by only the woro ''Bay," it should be capitalized. When referring to the woro "bay" in general, it is not. This is not a major issue, obviously, but capitalization of the woro "bay" is inconsistent in the document. Pick one style and stick with it. Add a period after the parentheses ending with W.M, or conversely, add the period to the end of Inlet. In either case, make the phrasing/punctuation identical for the legal descriptions on p.FS-1 and p.1-1. p.1-1,1.3. "The objectives for the Port Ludlow... " should be "The objectives of the Port Ludlow... " Add the woro "the" between "of" and "Port" in the third bullet. Remove the capital letters in ''Development Regulations" in the last bullet. The capitalization may confuse the reader, as there is no document with that tide. p.1-1, 1.4: When referring to the Port Ludlow :Marina as just "the marina," the M should be capitalized (similar to referring to Port Ludlow Bay as the Bay). When referring to marinas in general, the m is not capitalized (e.g., p.1-S, 1.6, third sentence under Alternative 1: Proposed Project). Again, this is a minor issue, but use of the woro marina as a stand-alone term to identify the Port Ludlow :Marina is inconsistent throughout the documen~ as it is sometimes capitalized and sometimes not. Choose a style and stick with it. p.1-1, 1.8: First sentence: has ESA been spelled out yet? If no~ spell it out the first time. (ESA is spelled out in the second bullet.) It would be very helpful to have in the appendix or elsewhere a list of acronyms used in the document, as well as a glossary of technical terms and abbreviations. List of acronyms and glossary included as Appendix H / Remove the comma between "salmon" and "and" in the parenthetical phrase in the second bulle t. p.1-12, 1.9 table, Earth/Alt. lIMit. ~as.: Spell out B:tv1Ps the first time it's used. Alt. 4 colunm: End phrases with periods (or don\ but be consistent throughout the table). See also Alt. 1 and Alt. 4 columns on p.l-13, etc. p.l-13, Alt. l/Marine Plants and Animals/Env. Impacts/Marine Veg.: "Benthic" is one of the tenns that should be in the glossary of technical terms, abbreviations, and acronyms. 5/16AJ2 SDPOO-00014 ._.,.~62~ ~-,.-<-1~__. '" .,-.,.LJ....._>~ 9 e e ClJmm?nts an Pre-Draft Port btdlnw Marina Expansion DSEIS p.l-1St Alt. 3/ .Aesth./Vis. Q.1al.lEnv. Imp.: The word "Moderatett in the statement regarding Oak Bay Road should be followed by the closing quotation mark. Alt. lITrans.lEnv. Imp.: IDS should be spelled out the first time ies used (and included in the glossary). p.2-1t 2.1.4t second paragrapht first sentence: Spell out MlLW the first time ies used. p.2-3t second paragraph: Square feet is usedt as well as sq. ft. and later in the document ft2 (e.g.t p.3-11). See also inconsistency in fourth paragraph. Suggestion: use "square feettt the first time with "(sq. ft.)" direcdy aftert then use "sq. ft." from then on. p.3-1t 3.1.1t TopographYt third paragraph: Spell out MSL the first time ies used; include in glossary of tenns. Fifth paragraph: Should it read "0" instead of "-o"? p.3-St Sed. Q.1al.t last sentence: Position period inside closing quotation mark. 3.1.2t Short- Term Imp.t third paragraph: Remove conum after parenthetical expression ending in "moment arm" and after "-40 feet of water" in the next sentence. Eliminate spaces between "70t" "_/t and "80t" so that "70-80" is expressed in the same fonnat as "100- 130" on the next page. p.3-8t 3.2.1t Wtr. Q.1al and Stonnwtr.t fourth paragraph: .Add a conum after "e.g." p.3-9t second paragraph: "mL" is used here and "ml" used in later sections (e.g.t p.3-11). Pick one style. p.3-9t third paragraph: "... and that live-aboard tenants submit to inspection of their vessels plumbing and mechanical systems..." Make the word "vessels" possessive (i.e.t "vesselst plumbing and mechanical systems"). p.3-10t first paragraph: Remove the additional closing parentheses and conum after "(PSWAQ and DNR 1992)/t Port Ind. Bay Flush. Cbar.t second sentence on second paragraph: Verb conjugation should be "averagestt and "varies.tt (Subject noun = "volume.") p.3-11: Spell out NIU first time and place in glossary. p.3-14t 3.3t second paragraph: .Add "was" between "(2001t and "prepared" in the first sentence. Project Areat first paragraph: .Add an "s" to the letter "a" between "mollusks such" and "geoduck" in the third sentence. p.3-1St third paragraph: The acronym ''DFWt, was used previously (p.3-14) to indicate WDFW. Pick one and stick with it. 3.3.1.2t first paragraph: The phrase "where eelgrass and other macrophytes would most likely occur" presumably is intended to describe the character of areas in water shallower (or less) than -20 ft. MlLW. The construction of this sentencet howevert leaves the lay reader confused. Re-phrase such that the intention is clear. p.3-18t Bull Trou~ first paragraph: Remove extra period after "(WDFW 1998b)." Third paragrapht Gitical Htbitat: Hts USFWS been spelled out yet? .Add to glossary. Bald Eagles: Include the closing parentheses after "(Rodrick and Milner 1991)." .." ..".""~._J1J_....._.."...,,,".,__~~.. 1 0 .__.LQ_.__ ._-J..5- 5/16/02 SDPOO-00014 jV\{l,J\' \ '1 Q\);\ . I AJ . . e e ClJmnmrs on Pre-Draft Part btdlaw Marina Expansion DSEIS p.3-20, second paragraph: "...locallyelevated turbidity... " instead? p.3-23, top of page: :as BE been defined and explained? Include in glossaI)'". 3.3.2.3: ..Add period to end of sentence. p.3-25, fourth paragraph: Spell out "ft-c" first time and include in glossaI)'". p.3-30, Project Area, last paragraph: Re-phrase the last sentence. It is unclear what "as well as rafting and anchoring" is intended to modify. Uses? land Use Des., Jeff. Co. Comp. Plan: If you're looking for the exact title, it's the Jeffirsm Glunty ComprehensilE Plan: Jeffirsan Cnunty, Washingtm. Zoning, first paragraph: Add the closing quotation rnaIk to "MPR Development Regulations. " p.3-31, 3.4.2, second paragraph: Spell out or otherwise explain I..eq. ..Add to glossaI)'". Thiro paragraph: ..Add "is" between "it" and "anticipated" in the third sentence. p.3-41, third paragraph: DFW or WDFW? USFW or USFWS? Alt. 4: N:> Action, S:MP: Use either SMMP or S:MP as the consistent acronym. Does not rnatterwhich one, though the 1989 document is entitled, the Shoreline Management Master Program = SMMP. p.3-43, 3.6, first paragraph: ..Add corruna after "Reid :Middleton." p.3-45, second paragraph, last sentence: Does "And" have to be capitalized in "Visual Interest And Sense and Utility Ratings"? p.3-56, Alt. 1: Beginning on this page, the figures that demonstrate the actual and simulated views for the various alternatives are cited in the text using labels such as figure Al, Figure V # 3, and Figure .A2V2. Please use a consistent approach for this section that begins with actiil re number (i.e., Figure 14A). vel of Setv., first paragraph: Replace the second sentence with this: "Traditionally, fi ~~ 7(, ratings for roadways have been based on an A through F quantitative scale measuring roadway capacity, as defined in the Hghway Capacity Manual." (What Hghway Glpacity Manual? :as the Manual been cited previously and does it appear in References?) tV() Second paragraph: PM is used here, while p.m. has been used elsewhere. Pick one style~ p.3-73, fourth paragraph: There is an unnecessaI)'" space between "0" and "f" in the woro "of" between "north" and "Areas Band C" p.3-77, 3.8.1.1, first paragraph: Substitute a colon for the corruna after "fire stations" in the second sentence. Remove the corruna between ''May'' and "2002" later in the paragraph. p.R-1, References: The References appear in varying fonts. Please adjust. Why do Jefferson County and Pentec documents appear at the end of the list and not in alphabetical oroer? \ \RMI\ V0I2\D0C\24Wf\99\014Pordudlow\PLA WORK\SEP A \DEIS\Final Draft\JeffCo comments DSEIS.doc :1 it.." 5/16AJ2 .,.".,._.,,-,~.,-l~J_.,.__.___~ ~,,___lJ__.J~ 11 SDPOO-OOO 14 e Applicant Port Ludlow Associates LLC Mark R. Dorsey, P.E. 70 Breaker Lane Port Ludlow, W A 98365 Jefferson (ounty Departments Jefferson County Public Works PO Box 2070 Port Townsend, W A 98368 Jefferson County Natural Resources 615 Sheridan Street Port Townsend, W A 98368 Federal Government Agencies US Army corps of Engineers Seattle Regulatory Branch Attn: Susan Glenn PO Box 3755 Seattle, WA 98124 National Marine Fisheries Service Attn: Shandra O'Haleck 510 Desmond Drive SE Suite 102 Lacey, W A 98503 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Attn: Lou Ellyn Jones 510 Desmond Drive SE Suite 102 Lacey, W A 98503 State of Washington Agencies Department of Ecology SEP A Review PO Box 47703 Olympia, W A 98504-7703 Department of Ecology Shorelands SW Region Jeffree Stewart PO Box 47775 Olympia, WA 98504-7775 Port Ludlow Marina Expansion Pre-Draft SEIS DISTRIBUTION LIST e Department of Natural Resources SEP A Review Dave Deitzman PO Box 47015 Olympia, WA 98504-7015 Department of Natural Resources Jeff Schreck 411 Tillicum Lane Forks, W A 98331 Department ofFish & Wildlife SEP A Review 1111 Washington Street SE Olympia, W A 98504-3135 Department ofFish & Wildlife Anne Shaffer 332 East 5th Street Port Angeles, W A 98362 Tribal Government Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe 31974 Little Boston Road Kingston, W A 98346 Jamestown S 'Klallam Tribe 1033 Old Blyn Highway Sequim, WA 98382 Port Ludlow Roster LMC Governmental Affairs Com Richard Smith PO Box 65060 Port Ludlow, W A 98365 Port Ludlow Village Council PO Box 65012 Port Ludlow, W A 98365 (2 Copies) -. ..__L2.. 'l__..__~ L "') ...."....1$:. L.. ;i,':"'; -".--~~ ~~- -, --".~ ,": - - - - ""......- DL-l June 2002 --- e Utilities and Services Jefferson County Fire District 3 7650 Oak Bay Road Port Ludlow, W A 98365 Olympic Water and Sewer Company 70 Breaker Lane Port Ludlow, W A 98365 News Media Port Townsend Leader Copy Editor - Hearing PO Box 552 Port Townsend, W A 98368 Peninsula Daily News 922 Washington Street Port Townsend, W A 98368 Local Organizations Port of Port Townsend PO Box 1180 Port Townsend, W A 98368 Olympic Environmental Council PO Box 1180 Port Townsend, W A 98368 The Bay Club at Port Ludlow 120 Spinaker Place Port Ludlow, W A 98365 Port Ludlow Beach Club 121 Marine Drive Port Ludlow, W A 98365 Port Hadlock Branch, Jefferson County Public Library Port Hadlock, W A 98339 Adjacent Property Owners Paul Taylor Smith Nancy Taylor Smith 63 Scott Court Port Ludlow, W A 98365 Grant Colby Lori Colby PMB 526, 2442 NW Market Street Seattle, W A 98107-413 7 Port Ludlow Marina Expansion Pre-Draft SEIS e D. A. & Sandy Routt 87 Scott Court Port Ludlow, W A 98365 Peter A. Joseph Jeanne M. Joseph 6 Heron Road Port Ludlow, W A 98365-9300 Fred P. Delmissier Darlene J. Delmissier 9514 NE 13th Street Bellevue, W A 98004-3445 Donald S. Clark Anita J. Clark 8915 SE 56th Street Mercer Island, W A 98040 Janet L. Kennedy 26 Heron Road Port Ludlow, W A 98365-9300 McCarry Family Trust 2 Heron Road Port Ludlow, W A 98365 Alton K. Lanterman 221 First Avenue W, Suite 108 Seattle, W A 98194 Timothy J. Howard Kazuko M. Howard 13129 Muir Drive NW Gig Harbor, W A 98332-8897 George C. Hill, Trustee Barbara F. Hill, Trustee G&B Hill Trust 8-18-75 22 Heron Road Port Ludlow, W A 98365-9300 Bernie J. Brown 20730 Bond Road NE Poulsbo, WA 98370 William O. Master, Jr. Judith L. Master 10 Heron Road Port Ludlow, W A 98365-9300 DL-2 .....--L~ ---t;- ., '""2 r,l" I ...--L..2___".;" '--""""..-<,.,,~,......._, June 2002 --- e e Adjacent Property Owners - Continued Colleen J. Ferris 1619 Windermere Drive E Seattle, W A 98112-3737 Burke F. Gibson Dolores Gibson 89 Cascade Ky Bellevue, W A 98006-1023 .......=. 1 J -, ~~... 4....il __ I '-I cirl-C:' ==--~=L -" - _ '_ ,_~, Port Ludlow Marina Expansion Pre-Draft SEIS DL-3 June 2002 --- e e ~ 728134th Street sw, Suite 200 .. .... Everett, W A 98204 42Sn41.3800 (Fax 42Sn41-3900) TRANSMITTAL MEMO Date: June 10,2002 From: Lyn Keenan To: Josh Peters Jefferson Co. Dept. of Community Development 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend, W A 98368 cc: Project: Port Ludlow Marina Expansion '~\~~~N~ :~ ~ ~RSONN\T~ODU~lloPMENi OEPT. Ot- COMMU File No. 24-99-014-001- Enclosures: No. of Co ies Descri tion 1 1 Draft SEIS Jefferson Co. Comments with res onses Action Requested: DNone D For your Records D For your Signature [8] For your Review and Return D Other: Date Required: Remarks: Attached is the revised DSEIS, including a revised Distribution List. We need to talk about any additional edits you have, dates, how the DEIS gets on your website, number of copies to print etc. Thanks. Lyn 1.2.. (..<.~<,.."~..,~,....- .,,~...._- -1:-'._..,.6:.-.. ~......~~"~,..