HomeMy WebLinkAbout011Michelle Farfan
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Here is the Prescriptive Vegetation Management Plan.
-Karen
Swenson, Karen < kswenson@eaest.com >
Monday, January 27,20L4 9:26 AM
David W, Johnson
RE: Technical Report Adequacy
Appendix G-Prescriptive Vegetation Management Plan_lstCoReviewDraft_7 20 09.pdt
From: David W. Johnson Imailto:djohnson@co.jefferson,wa.us]
Sent: Monday, January 27, 20t4 B:23 AM
To: Swenson, Karen; peckassoc@comcast. net
Cc: David W, Johnson; Stacie Hoskins
Subject: RE: Technical Report Adequacy
Attached is my list of Technical Reports for discussion this morning.
From: Swenson, Karen [mailto:kswenson@eaest.com]
Sent: Friday, January 24,2074 9:23 AM
To: David W. Johnson
Cc: Schipanski, Rich; Carl Smith; Stacie Hoskins; peckassoc@comcast.net
Subject: RE: Technical Report Adequacy
David - ln order to complete this task, we will need access to/copies of the draft reports upon which these comments
were based. The reports we have been provided thus far for the SEIS are dated after 2009 (the County comments are
dated from July-Sept 2009).
We do not have the following reports mentioned in the 2009 County comments:
7. Forestry Report, Resource Management Group - the date is not mentioned in the comments. We do have a
Forestry Report that says 'County Review Copy 8.19.09, Post Review Edits'. lt's unclear whether this report was
completed before or after the County comments.
2. Prescriptive Vegetation Management Plan, Resource Management Group - the date is not mentioned in the
comments. [We do have a more recent Prescriptive Vegetation Management Plan dated 4-19-12.]
3. Water Supply and Groundwater lmpact Analysis - November 20, 2008. [We do have a Groundwater lmpact
Addendum dated February 9,2012 by Bender (Tab 9), but not the original report or a revised version of the
original report if one exists.l The comments on this report are minor.
4. Cultural Resource Assessment by Chambers, Schumacher, Gill & Hartmann -the date is not mentioned in the
comments. [We do have a Proposed Plan for Archeological Monitoring and lnadvertent Discovery Protocol,
March 27,2072, Cultural Resource Consultants, lnc., but not the original Cultural Resource Assessment.]
5. The Economic Benefit of Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort - the date is not mentioned in the comments.
[We do have a more recent report entitled Economic lmpact of Developing the Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf
Resort, dated April 2012, by M. Evans (Tab 15), but not this original report mentioned in the comments.l The
comments on this are minor and the data has been updated in subsequent reports.
1
6. Grading and Drainage Report - September 4, 2008. [We do have the updated Grading and Engineering Report by
Craig Peck dated tvtay t6,2OLZ (Tab 1)1.
7. Golf Course Development, GeoEngineers - August 18, 2008. [We do have an updated Golf Course Development
and Management Operation Best Management Practices Plan dated January 6,20L2 by GeoEngineers (Tab 12)
but not their original reportl.
8. Wastewater Reclamation, Rick Esvelt - the date is not mentioned in the comments. [We do have an updated
Water Reclamation, Plant & Pump Stations Engineering Report, July 2011 by H.R. Esvelt (Tab 7), but not this
original report.] The comments on this report are minor.
9. Water Quality Monitoring Plan, Subsurface Group - August 18, 2008. [We do have an updated draft Water
Quality Monitoring Plan, February LO,2072, but not the original plan.l
10. Wetland and Wetland Buffer Mitigation Plan - August 21,2008. [We do have an updated Wetland and Wetland
Buffer Mitigation Plan Report dated January 26,2012.1
11. HabitatManagementPlan-August22,2008.[WedohaveanupdatedHabitatManagementPlandatedJanuary
27,2012.)
Lloyd Skinner from ESA sent an email dated September 21, 2009 to which he attached his comments to the reports #3, 6
, 8 and 9 above in "track changes". ln addition he made comments/edits to the 2008 Geotechnical Report by Subsurface
Group LLC (we have this report) and Geothermal Heating and Cooling (we do not have this report, which did not include
a date reference or author). We will need to see these review comments on these reports that were provided by ESA in
track changes as well.
lf by chance the original author has the revised reports in track changes mode (showing where changes were made in
response to the County comments), that would be very helpful. As soon as we have these original reports, we can move
forward in comparing the comments to the original reports and the revised reports.
We also want to confirm that the attached comments (the set you forwarded to me last Friday, L-77-t4l are the full set
of comments that we will use for comparison to the revised reports.
Thank you,
Kare*wSrtvl*'r,tow
E[t
Karen Swenson, AICP
Senior Planner
2200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 707 | Seattle, WA 98121
206.452.5350 x 17'16
kswenson@eaest.com
From: David W. Johnson Imailto:djohnson@co.jefferson.wa.us]
Sent: Wednesday, January 22,2014 11:18 AM
To: Swenson, Karen
Cc: Schipanski, Rich; Carl Smith; Stacie Hoskins; peckassoc@comcast.neU David W. Johnson
Subject: RE: Technical Report Adequacy
2
Ka re n,
l'm certain there was never a second round of peer review. ln fact, we agreed to Task 1.4 in lieu of a second round, and
agreed not to have the draft SEIS peer reviewed per Garth's objections. We do need this task completed for ALL the
technical reports to ensure accuracy and validity of the technical reports, which is the basis for the SEIS. I suggest we
have a conference call with Stacie once she is back in the office (out sick today).
Tha nks !
From: Swenson, Karen [mailto:kswenson@eaest.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 21,20L4 2:26 PM
To: David W. Johnson
Cc: Schipanski, Rich
Subject: RE: Technical Report Adequacy
ln looking back in my notes for November 5,2072, we discussed on a conference call (between Stacie, you, Rich and me)
that this particular task would be limited to determining if the 2012 Wetlands Report addressed the County's comments,
as all other reports had received a second round of peer review. ln hindsight, we should have formalized this
determination in writing.
To fulfill Task 1.4, this week we will review GeoEngineer's January 2010 memo in response to the County comments by
Donna Frostholm (Aug 2009) and draft a memo to address the adequacy of the revisions in the 2012 Wetlands report.
To complete this task, could you forward me the drafts of the reports (Habitat Management Plan and Wetlands Report,
dates unknown but prior to Aug 2009) upon which these comments were based? lf you don't have these in your records,
perhaps GeoEngineers could provide them from their archives.
Thanks,
Koren, Svv**tto'er,
4t
Karen Swenson, AICP
Senior Planner
2200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 707 | Seattle, WA 98121
206.452.5350 x 1716
kswenson@eaest.com
From: David W. Johnson [mailto:djohnson@co.jefferson.wa.us]
Sent: Tuesday, January 2t,2014 10:44 AM
To: Swenson, Karen; Deckassoc@comcast.net
Cc: David W. Johnson
Subject: Technical Report Adequacy
See attached Scope of Services -Attachment A - Schedule - Phase 1.4 - "Compare final round of peer review/county
comments on technical studies to final draft of all technical studies. Draft memo to County regarding adequacy of
revisions."
This is where I understood that Blumen would compare and confirm that all peer review comments would be addressed
in the final technical reports. lf this has not been done, then it needs to be.
3
Thanks !
David Wayne Johnson - LEED Green Associate
Associate Planner - Port Ludlow Lead Planner
Department of Community Development
Jefferson County
360.379.4465
Mission: To preserve and enhonce the quality of lfe in Jffirson County by promoting a vibrant economy,
sound communities and a healthy environment.
fi SOVE PAPER - Pleose do not print this e-moil unless obsolutely necessory
All e-mail may be considered subject to the Public Records Act and as such may be disclosed to a third-party requestor.
LEE$
SHHHN
A$5SCI&T6
4
Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort
Prescriptive Vegetation Management Plan
1.0 Purpose
The Pleasant Harbor Nlaster Planned Resort (MPR) proposal was the subject of
programmatic environmental review associated with a Jefferson County action to
amend their Comprehensive Plan to designate the Pleasant Harbor and Black Point
areas, south of the town of Brinnon, as a l\Iaster Planned Resort. The Jefferson County
Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) imposed 30 conditions of approval on the
Comprehensive Plan amendment, as set forth in Ordinance No.01-0128-08. The
current project-level environmental review effort requires demonstrating compliance with
these 30 conditions, five of which relate to preparation of the Forestry Report. These
conditions address general and specific forestry issues as they pertain to the existing
forest health and the impact of the proposed development. The Forestry Report
(Technical Appendix A) attached to this Prescriptive Vegetation Management Plan
describes the current condition of the forest on the property.
Our goal here is to present a prescription for a complete and comprehensive forest
Vegetation l/anagement Plan as it relates to current and future forest health and to the
continued safety of those involved during development and future use of this site.
2.0 Introduction
Vegetation in the form of trees and their surrounding eco-systems is a prime
environmental feature in many recreational sites. Like all organisms, trees develop
weakness resulting from pathological and non-pathological influences. These natural
and human-caused conditions may lead to varying degrees of structural failure. Often,
these failures are responsible for personal injury, substantial damage to forest
vegetation, and damage to man-made physical improvements. Failure, or potential to
fail, which may lead to property damage as well as physical injury to people, is a hazard
that must be addressed. Disease and insect damages are of equal if not greater
concern than physical damage, especially when hidden from sight. Human exposure to
tree hazards further magnifies the risk.
At Pleasant Harbor there is an amalgamation of various forested areas that have
already been severely impacted. Within these impacted areas, smaller pockets of trees
and vegetation have remained relatively unaffected by site history and development.
The purpose of this report is to make available a template for development of a Tree
Hazard Control Program that relies on historical methodology, combined with science-
based research and literature, to support tree hazard identification and assessment.
DRAFT 4/9/2012 3:55 PM
The program design would enable evaluation (grading) of the degree of risk and
recommend mitigation treatments for individual circumstances.
A Tree Hazard Control Plan would be designed to facilitate compliance with Jefferson
County Board of County Commissioners Condition 'g" to "retain evergreen trees and
understory in a condition as undisturbed as possible" (to the extent that this is prudent
and safe).
3.0 Tree Hazard Evaluation
3.7 Definition of a Hazard Tree
A tree can be considered potentially hazardous if it is situated in an area frequented by
people or is located adjacent to valuable facilities. A tree becomes more dangerous if it
has defects in its roots, bole (trunk), or branches that may cause or accelerate failure
resulting in property damage, personal injury or death.l Remember also that a tree
without any identifiable defect may, by simple proximity, be dangerous in natural
situations such as a severe wind event. The degree of hazard varies with size of the
tree and type and location of the defect. Site managers must be aware of these issues,
know how to recognize and evaluate them, and be diligent in correcting or mitigating
potential damage. Conscientious assessment and abatement would make the site safer
and more enjoyable.2
The Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program definition of a hazard tree reads as
follows:
"Hazard tree means anv tree with a hiqh probabilitv of fallina due to a
debilitatino disease. a structural defect. a root ball more than fifty percent
exposed. or havina been exposed to wind throw within the past ten years. To be
considered hazardous. there must be a structure within a tree lenath of the
base of the trunk. Where not immediatelv apparent to the Administrator. the
hazard tree determination shall be made after review of a report prepared by an
It is important to note that other regulatory jurisdictions sometimes vary in their
requirement for maximum distance between tree base and structure. ln particular, in
individual cases on steep hills and in high wind exposure areas, it may be prudent to
increase the setback distance from tree base to target to assure adequate protection
1 G.W. Wallis, D. J. Mmrison, D. W. Ross, Iree Hazards In Recreartonal Sites In British Columbia, Management
Guidelines, (B.C. Ministry of Environment and Parks, Canadian Forest Service, Joint Report No. 13, 1987), p6.
2Ibid, p6
3 Jefferson County SMP Update, Planning Commission Revised Draft SMP Update, June 3, 2009, Article 2 -
Definitions, Chapter H, Section 4. p2.19
DRAFT 419/2012 3:55 PM
from falling trees. ln areas heavily used by people, it may also be prudent to evaluate
hazard exposure levels, irrespective of the presence or lack of structures.
3.2 Hozard Trees and Associqted Liabilities
Any tree could present some degree of hazard no matter how sound it might appear.
Prudence should rule when public safety is potentially at risk. Wind, weather, gravity,
time, disease, insects; all these threats are continuous in their attack on sound and
secure trees. Another adversary of sound tree structure and safety is the natural
process of maturation that all trees go through, some species being more long lived
than others. These influences all interact to increase the likelihood of failure. The
extent of liability depends in large part on the preventative actions of the management
team. Negligent acts or omission are simply not acceptable. [vlanagers must be
proactive and responsible to actively minimize hazard and reduce danger.
3.3 Human Safetv Hazards
ln recreation resource management all standing trees present some level of hazard.
This hazard increases with increasing defect, running from very low to high. Failure by
itself does not constitute a hazard. The hazard exists when a tree is within striking
distance of any object or structure. Hazard is most primary when individuals are subject
to direct threat of injury or death from potential tree failure. Risk assessment addresses
these types of consequences.
3.4 Rotina the Hazard: Potentialfor Failure Quontified
The objective of a hazard rating system is to provide elevated levels of safety while
retaining aesthetically pleasing surroundings. By careful inspection of developed
areas, it should be possible to detect most hazards and rate the likelihood of tree failure
during normal site usage and weather conditions. Al! aspects of forest evaluation are
needed to determine if defects are present. As reported, specific areas within the
Pleasant Harbor MPR project area have been identified as containing diseases and
mechanical damage to the forest (see Forestry Report, Technical Appendix A). The
Pleasant Harbor MPR area is, at times, the subject of more extreme weather events as
well. Depending on the footprint of the final development, specific site assessments are
recommended to identify and prescribe the necessary appropriate treatment.
A rating system would be used for the assessment of. Tree failure potentialo Tree failure impact.
Using common forestry standards lor hazard tree rating found in U.S. Forest Service
(USFS) publications, a scale of 1 to 4 can be used to identify the degree of hazard.
Likewise, a scale of 1 to 4 may be used to evaluate the impacts or consequences
arising from such a failure. The hazard rating for any particular tree is then derived by
DRArr 4/912012 3:55 PM
adding the value obtained for failure potential to the value for failure impact. This
information would be documented on a site inspection record.
Following are tables displaying the various value ratings and their criteria
Table 1. Tree Failure Potential Ratine Svstem4
Table 2. Tree Failure lmpact Ratine Svstems
o Robert D Harvey, Jr. and Paul F. Hessburg, Sr., Long Range Planning for Developed Sites in the Pacffic
Northwest, The Context of HazardTree Management, (USDA. Forest Service FMP-TP039-92, 1992), p 17-18t Iutd, p tz-ta
Value 1 Verv low failure potentia!sound trees not likely exposed to
weather extremes
Value !!g failure potential minor defects may be present
weather sheltered or unsheltered but
sound
Value 3 Medium failure potential ' moderate defects. shallow soil. high water tabler exposure to weather extremes
Valu e 4 Hioh failure potential . serious defects. limited root anchorage
' dead trees or root disease. multiple defects
Valu e 1 $ damage . only small tree parts involved. no chance failed parts will cause damage on
impact
Value 2 Minor damage . only small tree parts failo indirect impact in occupied areas, or failure
will occur when area is unoccupiedo if damage occurs target is low value
Value 3 Medium damage o small trees or tree parts sufficient to cause
moderate damageo moderate target valueo target likely to sustain only moderate damage
Value {Extensive damage o medium to large trees or tree parts. high target value including high value property
and damage likely to be severeo potential to injure or kill people
DRAFT 4/9/2012 3:55 PM
RISK CLASS TREATMENT PRIORITY
8 Very high
7 Hiqh
6 Moderate
2-5 Low
3.5 Goal
The end goal of hazard tree evaluation and hazard management is to strike an
appropriate balance between various priorities.
o Protect public safetyo Maintain sustainability of the forest and recreation resourceo Comply with BoCC objective "u" to "retain evergreen trees and understory
in a condition as undisturbed as possible"
o Protect public and private property
o Minimize cost.
All hazard tree evaluation and treatment surveys and action strategies should be
incorporated into the Vegetation lvlanagement Plan.
4.0 Assessing the Desired Future Conditi.on, I-ong-Range Planning
The Vegetation N/lanagement Plan would serve as a roadmap for achieving and
maintaining a desired future condition. The current condition as presented in the
Forestry Report (Technical Appendix A) provides the necessary information including
the state of the current vegetation on the Pleasant Harbor MPR site. When current
condition maps are overlain with the footprint of the proposed lt/PR development, site
managers can begin work to craft the Vegetation Management Plan. Goals and
objectives would be established following guidelines presented by the BoCC, and
utilizing methods and treatments most appropriate to the site. The vegetation
management team would vary in its makeup from time to time, depending on the
planning and specific development activity best suited at each juncture of the project
planning sequence. Appropriate professionals from such disciplines as Forestry,
Arboriculture, Horticulture, and Landscape Architecture would be consulted as needed.
6 Op. cit., Harvey, pl7-18
DRAFI 419/2012 3:55 PM
5.0 Analysis Phase
5.7 Tvpes of Foilure
ln establishing a base line for a Vegetation [\Ianagement Plan, analysis of the types of
failures that are currently observed would help define the overall condition as well as the
past history of the site.
The generalized context of tree structure can be described as:
Roots: Area of the tree found below ground level and/or root crown
Butt (base): Stump area between root and stem at 8 feet above ground
Stem (bole): Main tree stem or trunk from butt to tree top
Crown (top): Uppermost portion of the stem including foliage and limbs
Failure potential from various root and butt defects accounts for a major portion of
hazard trees present in recreation areas.
N/ost stem failure from breakage is caused by heart rot or large fungus or cankers.
Tops and branches on large conifers frequently break and fall.
Deciduous species, because of their open, wide-spreading branch pattern, are more
likely to have branch failure than conifers. Disease as well as snow and wind frequently
contribute to this type of failure.
5.2 Couses of Foilure oatholoaical and Non-Patholooicdl
Many defects of a pathological nature cause failure potential. Detection of these tree
defects requires careful examination, not only to identify the external clues some
diseases exhibit, but internal as well. A number of these have been identified in the
attached Forestry Report (Technical Appendix A).
Following is a brief list of non-pathologica! causes of tree failure:
o Tree form and specieso Lightning and frost crackso Forked stems. Wounds from mechanical damage. Leaning trees. Undermined roots. Snow and wind.
DRAFT 41912012 3:55 PM
6.0 Documentation Phuse
Based on information received during the analysis phase, a specific management plan
document can be created. Hazard tree evaluation results and recommendations would
be part of the Vegetation Management Plan as they relate to the Site Development
Plan, the Transportation Plan, and other resource management plans and criteria as
established by Jefferson County.
Vegetation Management Prescriptions become a key component of the plan. They
would address with not only the overstory (i.e., tree canopy), but the understory and its
assorted vegetation as well.
Record keeping and identification of specific danger or hazard in individual trees is vital
to the plan. Trees in the higher risk categories would be marked and/or mapped for
revisit for periodic monitoring. Evaluation intervals would depend on the "Risk Class
Allocation" for an individual tree (see Table 3). The repetitious nature of the
assessment phase would form a key part of the foundation for management of the site
and its resources.
7.0 I m plem entotio n Pho se
Assemble the project plan to verify that all aspects and phases of development fully
reflect the desired direction and goals of the project. The Vegetation Management Plan
at this stage would identify specific tasks. The plan would lay out suitable timing and
schedules, responsible team members and the appropriate communication loop.
Accountability for the Vegetation Management Plan and its success would be evaluated
periodically and at the completion of each major task. Progress would be documented.
8.0 Hazard Tree Treotment
With the Vegetation [/anagement Plan in place, the hazardous tree mitigation
components of the plan would become proactive as compared to reactive. ln these
situations, creativity is important in treating hazardous trees and selecting the treatment
options from those available. Removal of danger trees is the least desirable option,
particularly under Jefferson County stipulations. Although some values of a standing
tree are difficult or impossible to retain when treatment to reduce hazard is necessary, it
may be possible to retain some of the component value of a standing tree by the use of
alternative treatments.
Live tree height may be reduced to decrease potential striking distance and
prevent identified high risk hazard trees from hitting valuable targets.
Although challenging to accomplish without adverse effect on visual
o
DRAFr 4/912012 3:55 PM
characteristics, it may be possible to reduce a hazard rating while retaining a
portion of a tree's previous appearance by use of creative pruning techniques.
Dead tree height may be reduced to a safe height outside of target striking
range. This treatment would enable retention of the remaining stem portion
for wildlife habitat.
Limbs may be removed to reduce damage potential and to reduce wind
loading potential. Using acceptable pruning strategies to remove a
percentage of the limbs throughout the height of the tree opens the tree
crown and results in less resistance to wind and reduced chance of blow-
down.
Tree crowns may be selectively pruned to reduce overall height and weight.
This can serve to bring the center of gravity of the tree to a more acceptable
location providing more stability over its anchoring root mass.
Tree structure weakness may be amended with the use of artificial bracing
such as cables and other types of support. This treatment may allow for
retention of certain trees with higher than normal visual value.
These methods and many others may prevent tree-caused damage and postpone
hazard tree removal. At the same time, allowing young trees planted during site
development, and trees planted or naturally seeded in years following, the time they
need to grow and assume stature as potential replacements for trees lost due to failure.
Potential to mitigate tree removal perceptions may be found in treatments that enhance
the visual appearance of remaining vegetation. This may be done through carefully
executed removal of selected trees. New openings in the timber canopy at the upper
level increase sunlight penetration to the forest floor. This provides for increased shrub
and herbaceous species growth as well as additional tree grovuth in previously shaded
areas.' ln some areas of the Pleasant Harbor tt/PR project, where preservation of the
natural appearance of the site is a high priority, lower level visual screening would be of
particular help to accomplish that objective. lncreased vigor and height in the growth of
forest shrubs in the understory would be an effective visual screening option and can be
provided by a delicate overstory thinning (for hazard removal) that allows additional light
to penetrate to existing plants like Evergreen Huckleberry (Vaccinium ovatum) and Salal
(Gaultheria shallon). An additional option available to enhance the density and vigor of
understory shrubs would be timely pruning using supervised "brush pickers". Although
plant material would be removed with this method for sale to the wholesale brush
market, the remaining parent plants would be healthy and encouraged by the pruning
activity to respond with additional vigorous growth in the same way that nursery plants
respond to pruning.
a
a
o
a
7 Op. cit., Harvey, p3
DRAFI 4/912012 3:55 PM
An important part of the Vegetation Management Plan would be ongoing monitoring of
known hazard trees and their defects. Since a tree's resistance to failure is in many
cases related to the amount of sound wood remaining in the butt and stem, many trees
with defects do not require immediate treatment but instead can be monitored while
retained pending later removal if the hazard were to increase beyond acceptable levels.
Removal would be the last option. Hazards may often be mitigated in some other
manner besides simply removing the tree while at the same time, minimizing the effect
on other values such as visual landscape, impression of age, or maintaining the
forested nature of a site.
9.0 Site Specific Actions by Area
9.1 MARINA VITLAGE
Site-specific development in the Marina Village area of the MPR project will deal with
three unique portions within the total Marina Village acreage. The Vegetation
lt/anagement Plan must speak to specific functions, values, and risks associated with
each of these portions:
Shoreline Buffer
Maritime Commercial and Maritime Residential development
Highway 101 Buffer
Each portion would require specific treatments prior to construction and development to
enable preservation of as much vegetation as possible. Each of these areas would be
evaluated prior to construction and development to identify specific treatment options
and recommend protection methods that would maintain and enhance the existing
forested character.
9.2 BLACK PO!NT GOIF RESORT
Site-specific Vegetation Management Plan provisions for the Black Point Golf Resort
area of the MPR must deal with Black Point's unique character as a golf resort and its
unique location above the shoreline of Hood Canal. Areas dedicated to specific
development will have different requirements, treatments, and maintenance than those
retained to assume a designated role as a preservation area and/or buffer along and
between golf course fairways.
The Vegetation Management Plan must address unique function, value and risks
associated with each of the following Black Point development components:
Golf Course support areas, and other facilities
Golf Course and associated buffers and natural areas
Shoreline Conservation area
DRArr 41912012 3:55 PM
Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners Condition "s" requires that the
Pleasant Harbor tvlPR developer record a conservation easement to permanently
protect a 200-foot riparian buffer along the steep bluff of the south Hood Canal
Shoreline. The proposal includes executing a lt/emorandum of Understanding with the
Skokomish Tribe for management of this conservancy area.
The above listed areas each will have distinct contrasts in levels and amounts of human
activity. Appropriate assessment would need to address these differences.
7O.O SUMMARY
A Vegetation Management Plan unique to the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort
development site would help to enable achievement of Jefferson County Board of
County Commissioners conditions of approval as set forth in Ordinance No. 01-0128-
08, five of which relate to issues addressed in the Forestry Report (Technical Appendix
A). These conditions address general and specific forestry issues as they pertain to the
existing forest health and the impact of the proposed development. Accurate site
evaluation of the existing or current conditions in conjunction with the proposed
development would create viable plans, including lhe Vegetation Management Planlhal
would provide for safe and functional use of this Jefferson County environment.
77.0 REFERENCES
Allen, E. A., D. J. Morrison, G. W. Wallis, L996. Common Tree Diseoses of British Columbia, Natural Resources
Canada, Canadian Forest Service, Catalog No. Fo42-257/L996E
Harvey, Jr., Robert D. and Paul F. Hessburg, Sr., 1992. Long Ronge Plonning for Developed Sites in the Pocific
Northwest, The Contert of Hozord Tree Manogement, (USDA, Forest Service FMP-TP039-92, L9921, p 17-18
Jefferson County SMP Update, Planning Commission Revised Draft SMP Update, June 3, 2009, Article 2
Definitions, Chapter H, Section 4. p2.19
Thies, Walter G. and Rona N. Sturrock 1995. Lominoted Root Rot in Western North Americo, USDA, Forest Service,
Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, Oregon, General Technical Report, PNW-GTR-349
Wallis, G. W., D. J. Morrison, D. W. Ross, L987. Tree Hozards in Recreational Sites in British Columbio,
Monagement Guidelines,1987. B.C. Ministry of Environment and Parks, Canadian Forest Service, Joint
Report No. 13, p 6.
USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Forest Pest Management, Forest Diseose Monogement Notes
DRAFI 41912012 3:55 PM