Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />3 <br /> <br />In its comment letter on the revised proposal, WDFW provides additional concerns (Index # 71). These <br />include: <br /> <br />1) Wildlife connectivity and use <br />2) Alterations to streams <br />3) Increased fire risk <br />4) General habitat impacts related to development <br /> <br />WDFW Recommendations <br /> <br /> In the two comment letters, the following mitigation measures are recommended: <br /> <br />1) Adoption of the least harmful alternative, Alternative 5 in the DEIS <br />2) Exclusion of proposed parcels on the steeper, eastern portion of the site. <br />3) Dedication of the entire area east of the transmission lines as open space with an easement, <br />and development of a management plan for the open space easement. <br />4) Avoidance of fencing that blocks animal movement. <br />5) Establishment of travel corridors <br />6) Reassessment of streams during high spring flows in order determine appropriate setbacks. <br />7) Implementation of a Fire Management Plan. <br />8) Use of lighting that reduces glare and outward light <br />9) Landscaping with native plants <br />10) Limitations on the amount of clearing and grading to the minimum necessary <br />11) Employing speed limits to reduce wildlife collisions <br />12) Restrictions on leaving food sources and other attractants outside of homes. <br /> <br />County Response <br /> <br />As described in the SEPA Addendum (Index...) , the reduced density to the east of the development, along <br />with the corridor in the revised proposal, will provide sufficient open space. The following are <br />recommended as conditions of approval. <br /> <br />1) Reassessment of a non-fish stream mapped at the southern portion of the site during high <br />spring flows to determine necessary setbacks under KCC 17A.07 to be incorporated into a <br />stormwater management plan. (See Condition # 4) <br />2) A fire management plan shall be prepared and implemented, with building covenants to <br />ensure that homes are built with fire prevention measures. (See Condition # 5) <br />3) Use of lighting that reduces glare and outward light that may affect nocturnal wildlife such as <br />migrating birds. (See Condition # 6) <br />4) Landscaping with native plants to reduce overall habitat loss. (See Condition # 7) <br />5) Limit amount of clearing and grading to only the amount needed for a footprint, existing <br />habitat structures such as shrubs, logs and snags can and do provide immense wildlife benefit <br />even in developed settings. (See Condition # 8) <br />6) Employing speed limits to reduce wildlife collisions on roads. (See Condition # 9) <br />7) Restricting residents from leaving food sources and other attractants outside of homes that <br />will encourage large wildlife (such as bears) near homes where human/wildlife conflict can <br />arise. (See Condition # 10) <br /> <br /> Washington Department of Transportation (WSDOT) <br />In a comment letter dated July 31, 2017, the WSDOT identified a concern related to the proposal (Index # <br />74). The agency identified the proposal as incompatible with its Airport Land Use Compatibility program,