Laserfiche WebLink
11. Applicable agencies, adjacent property owners and interested parties were given the opportunity to review <br />the proposal. The following agencies and individuals provided comments: <br />11.1 W.WhingtoMpArtmeAtOF h rind Wildlife # . >. <br />11.1.1 In a comment letter. dated.July. 2016, 2017, WDFW makes reference to its comments on <br />Draft EIS related to the original proposal in a letter dated April 2'' 201 0,and provides <br />additional commenton the revised proposal. In the original comment letter, WDFW <br />identified several concerns. These included: <br />11.1.1.1 The number of lots was excessive considering the terrain. <br />11.1.1.2 Elimination of mountain goat habitat. <br />11.1.1.3 .Habitat connectivity. <br />11.1.1.4 Impacts to Silver Creek, a fish bearing stream. <br />11.1.1.5 Habitat impacts on the steep slopes to the east of the development. <br />11.1.1.6 Alluvial fans and debris flow hazards. <br />11.1.1.7 Firefighting issues. <br />The comment letter identified Alternative 5 of the DEIS as the least harmful alternative. <br />In its comment letter on the revised proposal, WDFW provides additional concerns. These include: <br />11.1.1.8 Wildlife connectivity and use; <br />11.1.1.9 Alterations_ to streams; <br />11.1.1.10 Increased fire risk; <br />11.1.1.11 General habitat impacts related to development; <br />11.1.2 WDFW Recommendations <br />In the two comment letters; the following mitigation measures are recommended: <br />11.1.2.1 Adoption of the least harmful alternative,.Alternative 5 in the DEIS. <br />11.1.2.2 Exclusion of proposed parcels on the steeper, eastern portion of the site. <br />11.1.2.3 Dedication of the entire area east of the transmission lines as open space <br />with an easement, and development of a management plan for the open <br />space easement. <br />4 <br />