HomeMy WebLinkAboutLog158
e
e
ctl- ---
12
\\\\S\OL-
"
Comments on October 2002 Draft Port Ludlow Marina Expansion FSEIS
/
/ p.FS-3, last sentence. Adjust fee from $40 to appropriate fee based on reproducibility.
/ssumption is that the fee will be less than that charged for the DSEIS ($40).
p.3-13, Table 6, View #3 column, #5 - Response row: Why is this N/ A? Perhaps this is
yxplained elsewhere.
/
./ Figure 24: There isn't a way to represent this view that demonstrates the difference more
clearly between Alternative 5 and Alternative 1 (Figure 15 in the DSEIS)? Is it that the
camera used for the Existing View photograph was unable to capture a wider perspective?
Can a wider perspective be attained with a different lens? Or perhaps a notation that just a
portion of the view is represented would suffice (similar to second to last paragraph on p.3-
23).
~17, Table 7, Across the Bay column, #5 - Response row: Is the L result related to the
L corresponding N / A in Table 6?
~~s onse to WDFW comments
esponse 1: Cite the forage fish study referenced.
~sponse 6: Adjust as discussed on the telephone November 1.
~ponse to William Funke comments
Response 1, third paragraph: What project files? According to Port Ludlow Lead Planner
Jerry Smith, there was no graphic representation of a Marina expansion proposal in the 1993
programmatic DEIS or FEIS or anywhere else in the Jefferson County files. Please clarify if
you intend to mean current project files. The first exposure of the subject drawing to
Jefferson County staff, to our knowledge, was at the scoping meeting for this application
(SD POO-00014).
CONTENT
Response 3:
...- &e<ponse to Scott Gibson comments
In~t response qfter response to Peter Joseph comments, since those are cited.
...--"R:esponse to Peter Joseph comments
Response 6: Clarify meaning of last sentence. Discharge of bilge water can occur at the
docks now, but not if the Marina BMPs are adopted? They aren't adopted yet? What
docks?
R~onse to Grant Colby comments
/
Response 5: Should this more appropriately reference Response 1 to Bill Master, since
Response 1 to Peter Joseph simply references that response?
READABILITY & GRAMMATICAL CONSISTENCY
p.1-17, Alternative 5 column: Across from Stellar Sea Lions, add period to phrase, "No
/ impact anticipated." Do the same for the last item in the Alternative 1 and Alternative 5
columns on p.1-20.
~2~5, Alternative 5, second to last paragraph, second sentence: Add a space between sq. and
ft., like in the first sentence of that paragraph and elsewhere.
\5q,
1
11/4/02
SDPOO-00014
rY
e
.
Comments on October 2002 Drcift Port Ludlow Marina Expansion FSEIS
I
p)-5~'last paragraph, fourth/fifth sentences: Something is grammatically incorrect here. The
/second sentence/phrase begins with a word that is not capitalized. Please review these
sente~es for meaning and rewrite.
<",./
~"':17, Impact Assessment, first paragraph: "None of the alternatives have this level of
impact" should read, "None of the alternatives has this level of impact."
p.~;2t~ternative 1, View #1: Consider adding an explanation of why "the speed at which
....-the Marina is viewed" is a factor. For example, "... the speed at which the Marina is viewed
from moving vehicles..." may help. Perhaps this is explained elsewhere. Same comment
for View #1 under Alternative 2 at the bottom of the page. "... tend to see the Bay..."
Why?
p.3:.:23, View #2b: Remove # in Alternative 5 and Alternative 1 to match how Alternatives 1
/' thro~h 3 are represented above.
...Response to WD F\X7 letter:
/' /'
l}espo!lSe 1: Substitute DSEIS for SDEIS (two times).
/R:esp~nse to William Funke comments
/
Response 3: Change "Courts" to "Court."
[END]
\ V)~'M_-"
""-'~~,~,)i,_~2-.
2
11/4/02
SDPOO-00014