HomeMy WebLinkAboutFPA2005-00017 - FPA Inspections - 3/22/2006 �a 3 q - q4l
FINDINGS OF FACT
FPA Case# 2005-00017
APPLICANT: Montana Reach
APPLICATION DATE: March 22, 2006
Mason County has reviewed the above referenced application for Class IV General Forest
Practices and finds it in conformance with all applicable County land use regulations in
effect at the time of application.
FINDINGS
The proposed FPA is compliant with the following conditions:
The proponent has paid the prescribed fees.
The proponent has filed a complete, signed application.
A map has been received that complies with the requirements of 11.05.120:
(I) Harvest boundaries and tree retention areas.
(II) The approximate location of any structures.
(III) The location of all existing and proposed streets, right-of-ways, easements, skid
roads, haul roads, and landings within the proposal.
(IV) The location of future land development including stormwater management
facilities and vegetation to be retained for site landscaping, open space, wildlife
habitat, screening, and/or buffers.
(V) Site topography at contour intervals of 40 feet.
See geo-tech report
(VI) Critical areas and critical area buffers regulated pursuant to the Critical Areas
Ordinance.
(VII) Drainage ways and culverts.
No new culverts being installed
(VIII) Site area targeted for further harvest including proposed timing.
(IX) North arrow and scale shall be shown on all site plans. The scale shall be no
smaller than one inch to 200 feet.
That this FPA is in conformance with the following Mason County ordinances:
11.05
That the proposed FPA involves 5.2 acres.
That the notifications required by 11.05.060 have been made if applicable.
1
Note: Not applicable in this case.
Mason County Resource Ordinance
_X_That at the issuance of this permit will not result in a violation of the Mason
County Resource Lands and Critical Areas Ordinance. The site was inspected by
Michael MacSems of the Mason County Planning Department and a geo-technical
report was approved Public Works --which determined that any critical area
buffer and/or steep slope issues would not be adversely affected by this
application.
Note: This application involves the destruction offish &wildlife habitat. The
project has been reviewed under Mason Environmental Permit#2006-00004, with
an approved Habitat Management Plan and a Performance and Monitoring
Bond.
Geo-Technical Report/Assessment Review
A Geo-Technical _ Assessment _X_Report(check one)was written by Hal
Parks and a second by Sub Terra (for the driveway only) and approved by Patricia
Carroll of Mason County Public Works on 10/10/05.
Washington State Department of Transportation
X_A DOT Access Permit is not required for this proposal.
A DOT Access Permit is required for this proposal.
Date Approved by DOT: N/A
Signed by Clay Wilcox 7125105.
Shoreline Master Program
That, if applicable, all lots of this short plat are in conformance with the Mason
County Shoreline Master Program and has a shore line designation of Urban.
State Environmental Policy Act
This application for FPA#2005-00106:
X Has been reviewed for SEPA compliance under case#: SE11 200�-00106.
_Is SEPA exempt.
_DNS
X MDNS
CONCLUSION
2
In conclusion, this application for Class IV General Forest Practices is consistent with the
above criteria and that the public uses and Mason County has fulfilled its statutory
obligations.
RECOMMENDATIONS
I, being the Manager of the Mason County Planning Department, hereby attest to and
certify that appropriate provisions have been made for this Class IV General Forest
Practices Application and hereby recommend approval. In addition these facts evidenced
by the contents of the file for this Forest Practice Application.
Signed,
Robert Fink, Planning Manager Date
1
/06
Michael MacSems, Subdivis n Planner Date
3
MEMO !top
To: Emmett Dobey ,nn
From: Michael MacSems
Date: 1/5/06
Re: Vermillion FPA Follow Up (danger trees)
Emmett,today I had a site meeting with Vermillions' forester, Greg Jones, and his habitat
biologist, Lee Boad. The sense I left with on how to deal with this difficult case was to
allow the forester to cut everything in the shoreline and stream buffers that he felt was
necessary(even though most are not considered"Danger Trees"under the Resource
Ordinance) in exchange for a six year restoration and monitoring plan to replant a healthy
buffer(including leaving down material on the ground). As for the woodpecker habitat
snags in the non-buffer portion of the property, the biologist has identified two leave
clusters, which are agreeable to the forester and the property owner. All this will have to
be approved through MEP process,but I would like some indication from management
that you are in general agreement with this approach. I told the forester and the biologist
that I would check with you and get back to them by the middle of next week. Can we
discuss this further? Thank you.
(yes,we have talked about this case before)
i