HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991 Final Ludlow Watershed Char. & Water Quality Assess'1
v
,t
iy
r
I
�'
l
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 1
We wish to thank the many people who have helped with this report:
�f
From the Washington State Department of Ecology - Grant Manager Bill Hashim for his
support and patience; Bob Duffy for a thorough review of the initial report; Tim Determan for
information and advice.
From the Jefferson County Planning and Building Department Director Craig Ward and
Lynn Krumm for help and encouragement; Dave Young and Cindy Peyser for compiling our
watershed maps; Kan Binns for wordprocessing and good humor.
From the Jefferson County Assessor's Office - Jeff Chapman for his help with population
statistics.
From the Conservation District Al Latham for agricultural help.
From the Jefferson County Health Department - Larry Fay and Linda Atkins for
technical help.
From Harding Lawson Associates - Tom Smayda for his helpfulness and lots of water
quality data.
From Pope Resources - David Cunningham for his helpfulness.
From David Evans and Associates - Diana Denham and Lisa Vogel for their helpfulness.
From the Ludlow Watershed Management Committee - Co- Chairmen Drew Elicker and
Dave Woodruff and all the-ether members on the committe�.��-h -
r
i
1 ^V j
t 1
+asr w -.� s. =..�cr.+r .;r..„�. -r- ,.z._ :. :+ .-- a- ...:- _na'�«. :'c..'� ...- '.- ,- x- T�.i..r'r•�Y..•,. �+c =: -•= T,..v::..:a:.�"t s- �"'��,..ar',- +eR; -s► s�. 'S'= •..;�a+�..:w"p'i:- �,1�Ys_ �3�'A >+,?..y.'�:, #�'Z _
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF FIGURES
v
LIST OF TABLES
vii
1.0
INTRODUCTION
1
2.0
WATERSHED DESCRIPTION
3
2.1 Location
3
2.2 Climate
3
2.3 Topography
3
2.4 Geology
3
2.5 Soils
4
2.6 Hydrology
5
3.0
POPULATION AND ECONOMY
7
4.0
LAND USE
11
4.1 Forest Land Use
11
4.2 Agricultural Land Use
11
4.3 Urban Land Use
12 ,
4.4 Wetlands
12
4.5 Clearcut Land Use
12
5.0
BENEFICIAL USES OF WATER
13
5.1 Drinking Water /Residential and Community
13
5.2 Agriculture
16
5.3 Wildlife Habitat/Fisheries /Shellfish
16
5.3.1 Freshwater Habitat
16
5.3.2 Marine /Estuarine Habitat
17
5.3.3 Terrestrial Habitat
19
5.4 Recreation
20
5.4.1 Recreational Facilities
21
5.5 Wetlands /Water Quality /Flood Control
22
5.5.1 Wetland Classification
22
5.5.2 Wetland Functional Values
23
5.5.3 Status of Wetlands in Ludlow Watershed
24
5.6 Forestry
25
5.7 Education
26
5.8 Aesthetics
26
6.0 WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT
6.1 Water Quality Assessment Parameters
6.2 Ludlow Watershed Water Quality
x 6.2.1 Oak Bay Basin
6.2.2 Ludlow Bay Basin
6.2.3 Squamish Harbor Basin
6.2.4 Paradise Bay Basin
6.2.5 Bywater Bay Basin
7.0 NONPOINT SOURCES OF POLLUTION
7.1 Forestry
7.2 Runoff /Erosion /Stormwater
7.2.1 Residential
7.2.2 Commercial /Transportation
7.3 On- Site Septic Systems
7.4 Household Hazardous Waste
7.5 Agriculture
7.6 Boats and Marinas
7.7 Aquaculture
8.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
9.0 INFORMATION CURRENTLY LACKING
10.0 REFERENCES
APPENDIX A
APPENDIX B
27
27
34
34
38
46
48
48
49
49
51
51
52
53
54
55
56
56
59
61
63
71
77
Figure 6 -1. Map showing the streams (light lines) and roads (dark lines) of the Oak Bay Basin
(dashed lines).
Figure 6 -2. Map of Mats Mats Bay showing the seawater, creek, and shellfish stations
sampled by Smayda and Harper (1989) during the summer of 1989.
Figure 6 -3. Map of Mats Mats Bay showing seawater and stream sites sampled by Rubida
(1989) from February 1988 to January 1989.
v
.. !. "ary.'M"�- e°2':: �- .E'a�T'�- a :�'T.��_. v..�m. _�.+.:..L... -:':. . _:..6 -.3 �:�.n ..t "'wc '�-'.k%ri....yS tx..y."+{.• .y°"`_w_i.s �Mea';a St'fwY+ aFF Tyys„�,a".p "°3,i�T ✓`aF _: M!:s +.4�as`�+FR R'rw:�jm.vFn v�N+++! .rn.m.� ': ?' =� ...
LIST OF FIGURES
(Figures follow appropriate sections)
- Figure 1 -1.
Map showing Ludlow Watershed (cross - hatched area) in eastern Jefferson County.
Figure 2 -1.
Map showing the Ludlow Watershed and its five basins, which comprise the
"Action Plan" area.
Figure 2 -2.
Mean annual precipitation in inches and monthly means (inserts) for eastern
Jefferson County (Grimstad and Carson 1981).
Figure 3 -1.
Population density within census areas of Jefferson County, based on 1980 U.S.
Census Bureau data.
Figure 3 -2.
Population changes in Jefferson County shown by decade from 1950 to 1990
(Jefferson 2000 Strategic Plan, 1991).
Figure 3 -3.
Annual births (top) and deaths (bottom) in Jefferson County and Washington State
from 1950 to 1990 (Jefferson County Strategic Plan, 1991).
Figure 3 -4.
Natural increase (i.e., births minus deaths) in the populations of Jefferson County
and Washington State from 1950 to 1990 (Jefferson County Strategic Plan, 1991).
Figure 3 -5.
Net migration into Jefferson County (top) and Washington State (bottom) from
1960 to 1989 (Jefferson County Strategic Plan, 1991).
Figure 3 -6.
Jefferson County's population expressed as a percentage of the State population
from 1950 to 1990 (Jefferson County Strategic Plan, 1991).
- Figure 3 -7.
Age distribution of the Jefferson County population, based on 1980 U.S. Census
Bureau data.
Figure 5 -1.
Aquaculture and commercial fishing areas on which Ludlow Watershed borders.
Figure 5 -2.
Eelgrass locations reported for Puget Sound, including Ludlow Watershed
shorelines (Thom and Hallum 1990).
Figure 5 -3.
Map showing location of wetlands not mapped by NWI and remaining forest (not
clearcut) along the upper reaches of Shine Creek. Wetland classifications (e.g.,
PSSC) are described in NWI Classification Key in Appendix B. Previously
unmapped wetlands were classified according to guidelines described by Cowardin
et al. (1979) .
Figure 6 -1. Map showing the streams (light lines) and roads (dark lines) of the Oak Bay Basin
(dashed lines).
Figure 6 -2. Map of Mats Mats Bay showing the seawater, creek, and shellfish stations
sampled by Smayda and Harper (1989) during the summer of 1989.
Figure 6 -3. Map of Mats Mats Bay showing seawater and stream sites sampled by Rubida
(1989) from February 1988 to January 1989.
v
.. !. "ary.'M"�- e°2':: �- .E'a�T'�- a :�'T.��_. v..�m. _�.+.:..L... -:':. . _:..6 -.3 �:�.n ..t "'wc '�-'.k%ri....yS tx..y."+{.• .y°"`_w_i.s �Mea';a St'fwY+ aFF Tyys„�,a".p "°3,i�T ✓`aF _: M!:s +.4�as`�+FR R'rw:�jm.vFn v�N+++! .rn.m.� ': ?' =� ...
Figure 6 -4. Map showing the Ludlow Watershed ambient stations sampled in 1991.
Figure 6 -5. Map showing the streams (light lines) and roads (dark lines) of the Ludlow Bay
Basin (dashed lines).
Figure 6 -6. Dissolved oxygen levels in Admiralty Inlet contrasted seasonally with those of
Port Ludlow's Inner Bay (a); spatial variation of dissolved oxygen levels
measured in Ludlow Bay from May through August (b) contrasted with levels
measured from September through November (c) ( Patmont et al. 1985).
Figure 6 -7. Map showing the sites on Ludlow Creek sampled by Rubida (1989).
Figure 6 -8. Map of Port Ludlow Bay showing sites sampled by Rubida (1989).
Figure 6 -9. Comparisons of boating activity (a) to fecal coliform concentrations in the water
(b) and shellfish (c) of Port Ludlow Bay during the July 4, 1985 holiday period
(from Patmont et al. 1985).
Figure 6 -10. Map of the Ludlow Watershed showing sites sampled during 1991.
Figure 6 -11. Map showing Port Ludlow Bay Catchment and the stormwater sample stations
sampled by Smayda and Jones (1991a) during an October 4, 1990 rainstorm.
Figure 6 -12. Map of the proposed development site at Port Ludlow and drainage boundaries.
Figure 6 -13. Annual loads of total nitrogen, total phosphorus, and fecal coliform to Port r
Ludlow Bay. The principle source, exchange water from Admiralty Inlet, is not
included (from Smayda and Jones 1991b).
Figure 6 -14. Map showing the streams (light lines) and roads (dark lines) of the Squamish
Harbor Basin (dashed lines).
Figure 6 -15. Map showing the streams (light lines) and roads (dark lines) of Paradise Bay and
Bywater Bay Basins (dashed lines).
vi
LIST OF TABLES
(Tables follow appropriate sections)
Table 3 -1. Jefferson County's population and rate of change in ten year increments from
• 1940 to 1990 (U.S. Census Bureau).
Table 3 -2. Jefferson County's population, annual change, and rate of change from 1980 to
1990 (U.S. Census Bureau).
Table 4 -1. Land use /cover in the five basins of the Ludlow Watershed, based on 1988 land
use maps by Bogart, who used 1987 National Wetland Inventory maps (based on
1980 aerial photographs), 1984 aerial photographs, and his own field surveys.
Table 4 -2. Wetlands in the five basins and offshore area of the Ludlow Watershed, based
on the 1987 National Wetland Inventory (1980 aerial photographs), Bogart's 1988
land use maps (1984 aerial photographs), and 1988 aerial photographs.
Table 5 -1. Commercial harvest for 1990 of finfish and shellfish from areas on which Ludlow
Watershed borders (Figure 5 -1; Washington Department of Fisheries data).
Table 5 -2. Wetland acreage in the five basins comprising Ludlow Watershed based on 1987
National Wetland Inventory (1980 aerial photographs), Bogart's 1988 land use
maps (1984 aerial photographs) and 1988 aerial photographs.
Table 6 -1. Comparison in the relative efficiency of primary and secondary sewage treatment
plants, as determined by the reduction of biological oxygen demand, total
suspended solids, and bacteria.
i
Table 6 -2. Water quality characteristics of Mats Mats Bay sampled by Smayda and Harper
(1989) during the summer of 1989. Station locations are shown in Figure 6 -2.
T and B refer to top and bottom and I and O to inflow and outflow samples,
respectively.
Table 6 -3. Water quality characteristics of three tributary streams of Mats Mats Bay sampled
by Smayda and Harper (1989) during the summer of 1989. Station locations are
shown in Figure 6 -2.
Table 6 -4. Fecal coliform levels (organisms/ 100 ml) in samples collected in Mats Mats Bay
and three tributary streams by Rubida (1989) from February 1988 to January
1989. Sample sites are shown in Figure 6 -3.
Table 6 -5. Water quality parameters measured in three tributary streams of Mats Mats Bay
during 1991; sample sites are shown in Figure 6 -10.
Table 6 -6. Fecal coliform levels (fc/ 100 ml) in samples collected in Ludlow Creek and in
Port Ludlow Bay by Rubida (1989) from February 1988 to January 1989.
Sample sites are shown in Figure 6 -7 (Ludlow Creek) and Figure 6 -8 (Port
Ludlow Bay).
Table 6 -7. Water quality parameters -measured at three locations on Ludlow Creek during
1991; sample sites are shown in Figure 6 -10.
vii
Table 6 -8. Water, sediment, and shellfish quality criteria for Washington State.
Table 6 -9. Water quality of six freshwater sources (Figure 6 -11) sampled during an October -
4, 1990 rainstorm (from Smayda and Jones 1991x).
Table 6 -10. Comparison of runoff quality from typical residential developments in western
Washington to that from Port Ludlow. The Port Ludlow data are flow weighted
averages of the event mean concentrations from Table 6 -9 paired with the
smallests and largest values observed (from Smayda and Jones 1991a).
Table 6 -11. Estimated existing and predicted worst -case future water quality of the Inner Bay
of Port Ludlow Bay (from Smayda and Jones 1991b).
Table 6 -12. Estimated existing and predicted future water quality of Ludlow Creek following
a typical storm.
Table 6 -13. Estimated annual storm loading of fecal coliform and nutrients to Port Ludlow
_Bay (from Smayda and Jones 1991a).
Table 6 -14. Water quality parameters measured at site LD 1 on lower Shine Creek during
1991; the sample location is shown in Figure 6 -10.
viii
-,- __ . ... �,- �wr�..-aa. . �,. , >•.+- ;e.*e:�- '.- saea.;� ?rsa:� ..,.t, - �+� wa.. =-.- s ,xv .DES.- r,, -->
- 1.0 INTRODUCTION
Jefferson County completed a priority watershed ranking process using the State of Washington
- guidelines (WAC 400 -12 -310 and 320). This ranking process followed an action planning effort
for Jefferson County's "early action" or first watershed, the Quilcene /Dabob Bays Watershed.
The Watershed Ranking Committee reached consensus on the ranking of the top three
watersheds: Ludlow, Discovery Bay, and Chimacum. The criteria used for ranking the
watersheds indicated that the Ludlow Watershed should receive the first efforts in developing
Action Plans for controlling nonpoint source pollution and preserving water quality. Of the top
three ranked watersheds, Ludlow has the potential to receive the most development pressure in
the County because of its proximity to larger population centers, access via the Hood Canal
Bridge, and the projected expansion of current development.
The Ludlow Watershed is south of Port Townsend in eastern Jefferson County and includes all
lands that drain into Oak Bay, Mats Mats Bay, Ludlow Bay, and Squamish Harbor. The
drainage area of the Ludlow Watershed is approximately 23,189 acres or 2.0 percent of
Jefferson County. The unincorporated communities of Mats Mats, Port Ludlow, Swansonville,
Beaver Valley, Shine, and Bridgehaven are within the Ludlow Watershed. All drainages in this
watershed flow into either Hood Canal or Puget Sound, an "Estuary of National Significance
(Figure 1 -1).
The pressures of continuing development and urbanization with the potential increases of
associated nonpoint sources of pollution prompted the Jefferson County Planning and Building
Department to assume lead agency status for initiation of an Action Planning process for the
Ludlow Watershed. This planning effort is funded by a Centennial Clean Water Fund grant
from the Washington State Department of Ecology.
Jefferson County Planning and Building Department, through its Water Quality Program,
recruited a citizen -based Ludlow Watershed Management Committee which has the
responsibility of developing and adopting a final Ludlow Watershed Action Plan. This report,
the Final Ludlow Watershed Characterization and Water Quality Assessment, is a fundamental
part of that Action Plan.
An Initial Ludlow Watershed Action Plan and Water Quality Assessment was conducted for the
Jefferson County Planning and Building Department by David Evans and Associates, Inc.
(DEA). The Final Ludlow Watershed Characterization and Water Quality Assessment was
completed by Jefferson County Planning and Building Department staff.
The purpose of this study is to collect and assess all relevant existing data relating to water
quality, habitat, biological condition, and land use. This information will then be used by the
Ludlow Watershed Management Committee to develop and adopt a watershed management
"action plan", which identifies present and potential problems as well as strategies to correct
them.
1 ,
r
•f
-
Port Townsend
Port Angeles
..�
LUDLOW WATERSHED
JEFFERSON Seattle
COUNT. Y
�
r- • •
y
• Tacoma
Vicinity Map
SCALE:
Miles 10 20 30 C14W eAMMQAS=NUVr-
Figure 1 -1. Map showing Ludlow Watershed (cross - hatched area) in eastern Jefferson County.
2.0 WATERSHED DESCRIPTION
A watershed is defined as a geographic region that drains all surface waters into a single river,
river system, or body of water. Because all land within a watershed drains to a common outlet,
all activities within the watershed's boundary can potentially affect the water quality of the
receiving waterbody.
2.1 LOCATION
The Ludlow Watershed is located on the Olympic Peninsula in northeastern Jefferson County
and contains 23,189 acres. The area extends from the north end of Oak Bay along the Puget
Sound coast line to South Point. The western boundary forms an irregular line that follows the
ridge to the east above Chimacum Valley across the divide between Chimacum and Beaver
Valley over to the west beyond Ludlow Lake, south of Horseshoe Lake, then along the ridge
west of Shine Creek to South Point (Figure 2 -1).
2.2 CLIMATE
The climate in the Ludlow Watershed is best described as marine. Generally, summers are
cool and comparatively dry and winters are rather mild and wet. Low pressure storms
originating offshore in the Pacific Ocean during the winter season move northeastward and
encounter the Olympic Mountains, which force moisture laden clouds upward. This results in
lower temperatures and higher precipitation near the top of the windward side of the Olympics.
Higher elevations receive as much as 200 inches per year. As the clouds move eastward and
descend on the leeward side of the mountains, temperatures increase and precipitation decreases.
This results in a small area of low precipitation referred to as the "rain shadow'/ wherein lies
the Ludlow Watershed. The average annual rainfall ranges from about 35 inches' at the southern
end of the Watershed near South Point to approximately 24 inches at the north end of Oak Bay
(Grimstad and Carson 1981). Rainfall is historically highest during the winter and lowest in
summer. Averaged over a 30 year period, the highest monthly rainfall occurred in December
(4.7 inches) and lowest in July and August (1.0 inches; Figure 2 -2).
2.3 TOPOGRAPHY
The Ludlow Watershed lies within the area known as the Puget Lowland. It is characterized
by wooded, gently rolling hills, which run in a northerly direction. Valleys, formed by fluvial
and glacial erosion, have steep sides. Most of the area is drained by small, generally
intermittent streams which flow eastward into Puget Sound (Grimstad and Carson 1981).
2.4 GEOLOGY
Glaciers, both mountain and continental, have been the primary sculptors of the highlands and
lowlands of Jefferson County. The Olympic Glacier moved down the east side of the Olympic
Mountains 15,000 years ago and deposited heterogenous materials mainly along Hood Canal to
an elevation of about 200 to 300 feet. The Great Continental Glacier, 3,000 years later, moved
through this area by winding through the mountains of Western Canada. This second system
brought large quantities of outwash which consist of medium course textured gravel and stony
material. Glacial till or "hardpan" is the other type of material brought by these glacier systems
(Rubida, 1989). Till consists of unconsolidated clay, sand, gravel, and rocks which have been
compacted by the weight of the glacier -into a highly impervious concrete -like material. With
the movement of these glaciers over the land, the layers of outwash and till may overlap one
another, and even run in different directions (Grimstad and Carson 1981).
K
The geology of the northeast portion of the. County,., a part .:.oe Puget Lowlands, is somewhat
more complex. The substrata is primarily sedimentary or basaltic bedrock, but is frequently
overlain with various types of glacial deposits at differing depths. Tertiary basaltic rock
outcroppings are evident around Mats Mats and Ludlow Bays, the Shine Quarry, and various
other locations throughout the Watershed while the remainder of the Watershed is composed
primarily of glacial till and outwash of Quaternary age (Jefferson County, 1979).
The underlying geology of a watershed determines its suitability for the maintenance of
underground aquifers. Coarse textured gravel and stony outwash material below the soil surface
layers are highly permeable and allow for good drainage and aquifer recharge. Conversely,
compacted glacial till forms an impervious layer which does not allow good drainage or
recharging. Substrate composition plays an important role in the purity of groundwater, as well
as in overall stability.
The Ludlow Watershed is characterized by the presence of glacial and glaciofluvial deposits
with numerous outcrops of Tertiary volcanic and sedimentary rocks. In areas where Tertiary
sedimentary rocks make up the aquifer host rock (along Oak Bay shoreline), groundwater
availability is limited and often inadequate for even single family use. When the substrate is
composed of Tertiary volcanic rocks ( Olele Pt., Basalt Pt., and southwest end of Ludlow Bay),
the possibilities of finding water are greater, but the depth to water varies and wells are often
low yielding. The remainder of the Watershed is underlain by Quaternary sediments (composed
of advance outwash, lodgment till, recessional outwash, or postglacial sediments). A number
of aquifers may exist in these sediments because of the mode of deposition, but areas of high
yielding wells are limited to sand and gravel deposits that are close to streams (Grimstad and
Carson 1981). Therefore, the surrounding rock plays an important role in deciding where to
locate a well.
2.5 SOILS
Approximately 75 -80 percent of the Ludlow Watershed soil consists of the Alderwood - Sinclair
association and the remainder is the Olete - Hoodsport association. The general soil classification
of the Alderwood - Sinclair association is moderately well drained, dominantly strongly sloping
to steep, gravelly soils underlain by a compact, very slowly permeable glacial till at a depth of
20 to 40 inches. These soils formed in glacial till under a forest of mixed coniferous and
broad- leaved vegetation. Douglas /fir, western hemlock, western red cedar, red alder, vine
maple, big -leaf maple, salal, Oregon grape, evergreen and red huckleberry, rhododendron,
swordfern, and bracken fern cover most of the landscape. Elevations range from near sea level
to about 600 feet. Most of the land in the Alderwood- Sinclair association is used for growing
trees; the rest has been cleared and is used for development, pasture land, or garden crops
(McCreary 1975).
The general soil association of Olete - Hoodsport is confined to an area at the southwest end of
Ludlow Bay. These soils are well- drained to moderately well - drained; dominantly strongly
sloping to steep; very gravelly, and underlain by basalt or compact glacial till (very slowly
permeable) at a depth of 20 to 40 inches. These soils formed in material weathered from
basalt, glacial till, and outwash. Douglas -fir, western hemlock, western red cedar, vine maple,
big -leaf maple, red alder, dogwood, red and evergreen huckleberry, salal, Oregon grape,
rhododendron, swordfern, and bracken fern cover most of the landscape. Elevations range
from near sea level to 500 feet. Most-of the Olele - Hoodsport association is used for forestry,
wildlife habitat, and recreation (McCreary 1975).
4 -
I
The soils in the Ludlow Watershed are typical of a heavily forested Pacific Northwest area.
r The soils were formed over glacial till with sufficient rainfall to form the profiles associated
with mixed coniferous and deciduous vegetation. There are two major associations in the
watershed, the Alderwood - Sinclair class and the Olete- Hoodsport class. These general
classifications contain numerous inclusions of other soil types, such as Cassolary, Clallam,
Dabob, Everett, Indianola, Kitsap, McMurray, Mukilteo, Swantown, and Whidbey. These
inclusions allow for variations in the natural evolution of the Watershed. For example,
inclusions of McMurray and Mukilteo are areas where wetlands may form and were developed
because of excessive amounts of water which may have ponded over the more impervious
glacial deposits. Likewise, inclusions of Indianola and Clallam may have resulted in an area
more prone to erosion or steep slopes. The U.S. Soil Conservation Service (SCS) has mapped
the Ludlow Watershed and the Jefferson County Health Department verifies the soil
characteristics before a determination is made as to suitability for on -site septic drainfields.
Soils function to filter and purify thus constituting an important element in maintaining water
quality within the Watershed.
2.6 HYDROLOGY
The circular path of water from a vapor, to rainfall, to a stream (or subsurface flow), river,
lake or ocean, and once again to vapor is known as the hydrologic cycle. Sunshine, wind, and
gravity all have an active role in this cycle. When the sun warms the surface of the earth,
water vaporizes into the atmosphere from vegetation, soil, rivers, lakes, snowfields, and oceans
in a process called evapotranspiration. As water vapor rises it condenses to form clouds. The
clouds return the water to the earth as precipitation such as rain or snow. The precipitation
either flows across the ground (surface runoff) or permeates the soil (infiltration). The amount
of surface runoff versus infiltration depends on the vegetative cover, soil composition, soil
saturation, and slope.
Most surface runoff enters a stream. This stream then joins other streams and eventually
empties into a lake or ocean. Evapotranspiration may occur at any of these stages, and is
enhanced by increasing temperatures and wind. Water may also infiltrate the ground and move
both vertically and horizontally through the soil. It may eventually be released as springs or
seeps into a stream, lake, or ocean. As soils become saturated, surface runoff increases. The
more impervious the soil and the greater the slope, the greater the surface runoff will be. In
areas lacking vegetation, especially on steeper slopes, soil erosion can occur.
The Ludlow Water ed contains numerous waterbodies which are a, part of the hydrologic L ",
cycle. The principlq'marine water sources are Oak Bay, Mats Mats Bay, Ludlow Bay, Paradise
Bay, Bywater Bay, and Squamish Harbor (discussed in detail in Section 6.2). The fresh
waterbodies are small and comprised of lakes (Ludlow, Horseshoe, and Teal), streams (Ludlow,
Shine, and numerous unnamed creeks), and wetlands (See maps in Appendix B).
Ludlow Lake lies at an elevation of 450 feet and covers 18.3 acres. It is accessible by road
and is used by boaters and fishermen. The lake is stocked with rainbow trout by the
Washington Department of Wildlife (Ragon 1991). It also contains largemouth bass. No
reports on water quality for the lake were found. The Natural Heritage Information System
lists Ludlow Lake as containing a high quality, low elevation sphagnum bog and one sensitive
plant species, Carex pauciflora (WDNR letter, 1990) (see Section 5.5 for wetland discussion).
Several small intermittent creeks flow into Ludlow Lake, which is the headwaters of the west
fork of Ludlow Creek.
` 5
:.; x � �;. �,_r -.=— — �t�.,: _ -,gin .. �.� _:ra ,�:�.. >�.., � - .�•,_, .�. -,�� - x�-, -�
Horseshoe Lake lies at an elevation of 340 feet along the south tributary of the west fork of
Ludlow Creek. It covers 11.7 acres and contains a high quality, low elevation freshwater'
wetland (WDNR letter, 1990). A small creek and several intermittent ones feed the lake and
it in turn drains into the west fork of Ludlow Creek. No information was found concerning the
water quality of this lake. Recreational uses include fishing, boating, swimming, and camping.
The lake is stocked with rainbow trout by the Washington Department of Wildlife (Ragon
1991). It also contains largemouth bass.
The north fork of Ludlow Creek in Beaver Valley originates from springs and seeps.
Additional water sources that supply this fork of Ludlow Creek are surrounding wetlands along
the drainage corridor, small tributaries and intermittent creeks. The north fork combines with
the west fork and a small south fork at a point approximately 1.5 miles from Ludlow Bay.
This last 1.5 miles of the creek are presently undeveloped.
Teal Lake appears to be an isolated depression at 370 feet elevation according to USGS
topographic maps. There are no obvious creeks which drain into or out of the lake and so it is
probably fed by underground springs. The lake covers approximately 14.6 acres and contains
a high quality, low elevation sphagnum bog (WDNR letter, 1990). A primitive road exists
along the north side of the lake. No information was found regarding water quality of this
lake. It is believed to contain largemouth bass. It has no public access and therefore is not
stocked by the State (Ragon 1991).
Shine Creek originates in the Port Ludlow golf course and empties into an important fresh and
saltwater marsh at Squamish Bay (PNPTC). Numerous intermittent creeks empty into the
northeast fork which joins the northwest fork at a point approximately 2.0 miles from Squamish
Harbor. Five or more minor tributaries flow into the final mile of Shine Creek which is
primarily a high quality Palustrine forested and Estuarine intertidal wetland.
r,
';';:.:} w'.. �i. t��x--+... ��. �rvs�.. �,•, �+ a�^:. �rso++ s..-. �.... e% rs,.* �r�+ s- ��=: a-.+ �. sw. a-"' s`."`^"" '.- 3;..�°...,.a.�u�i4s•roh"asa� -s ar:.�.n _ - '+�s�. ;� r'��::�i;�?' "�. ".'
/; / . kid Q1,i .! / i % i ' ;� / , •/ ,�{
;
Oak
Ludlow Watershed t Bay
Basin
woo
Ow
Ludlow Bay Basin Para
� � , `, `� Bay ,.y /,,�•��sr� /�
-~Basin
!` Squamisn Harbor
Basin ` lgyw
Bay
5
Legend
Watershed B o u n d a r y
Basin Boundary
SaaI#: 1 1 a c b ■ 7956 feat 1/15/91
Figure 2 -1. Map showing the Ludlow Watershed and its five basins, which comprise the
"Action Plan" area. _
3.0 POPULATION AND ECONOMY
In reviewing existing demographic information for the Ludlow Watershed area, we found little
- area specific information. The Watershed contains no incorporated communities. Jefferson
County has not received complete 1990 Census Tract Map demographic analysis. However,
the Seattle Office of the Bureau of Census recorded the official 1990 census count for the entire
Jefferson County as 20,146. Based on currently available 1990 Census Tract Map information
for the areas within the Ludlow Watershed, we tallied a watershed population of 1,518 persons.
The Jefferson County Assessor's Office provided an estimation, based on appraisal records, of
1,450 single family residences within the Ludlow Watershed boundary, not including cabins,
commercial properties or condominiums. (Chapman, 1991. Pers. Comm.).
Using 1980 Census data, except where noted, county population information may be
summarized as follows:
Density - Jefferson County's total average population density is approximately 10 persons per
square mile. Based on the 1980 census, population density of the Port Ludlow area of the
Ludlow Watershed, had the fifth highest level in the County at 105 persons per square mile
(Figure 3 -1). It is noteworthy that although Jefferson County's current density is relatively
low, the County is geographically adjacent to the two most densely populated counties in the
State, King and Kitsap.
Distribution - Approximately 93 percent of the County's population lives in the eastern portion
of the county. The most concentrated areas are Port Townsend and the northern Quimper
Peninsula, Discovery Bay, Port Hadlock, Irondale, Chimacum, Marrowstone Island, Oak Bay
(Ludlow Watershed), Mats Bay (Ludlow Watershed), Port Ludlow (Ludlow Watershed), Shine
(Ludlow Watershed), Quilcene, and Brinnon.
Growth - There are no incorporated communities in the Ludlow Watershed and therefore no
exclusive census data is available. The land use within the Watershed and the presence of
urban areas along the shoreline of Hood Canal indicate that the Ludlow Watershed is probably
representative of the general trends of population distribution and densities of Jefferson County.
The Jefferson County Assessor's Office confirmed the expectation that growth will continue to
follow the development trends near the shorelines, waterfront and water view property areas
and the already established settlement areas listed above under "Distribution". The County has
experienced a fluctuating growth rate over the last 50 years. The relative stability of natural
increase, i.e. birth rate minus death rate, means that most of the changes which occur in
population numbers can generally be attributed to migration associated with social and economic
factors. Statistics are available that show County growth between 1980 and 1986 was
attributable to 22 percent natural increase and 78 percent migration. Analysis of migration
presents problems in forecasting because it is very difficult to quantify. It can affect rapid
changes in distribution and structure of the population and can be seasonal or temporary.
Interim statistics of the decade 1980 -1990 (Table 3 -1) reveal a trend which is similar to that of
the decade 1940 to 1950, or approximately 3 percent per year. Based on data from 1940 to
1990 (Table 3 -2), this 3 percent annual growth rate would seem to be a realistic rate to estimate
future growth. The Washington State Office of Financial Management estimated population
in the County for all years 1981 to 1986 and the Economic Development Council of Jefferson
County recorded a 1987 population. -These figures compared with the 1990 census show a
similar rate of growth between 1987 and 1990. Should this rate be sustained to the year 2000,
the population will be an additional 30 percent increase from the current population to 26,119.
7
Jefferson County Planning and Building Department staff have estimated population growth
projections to the year 2010 for various subareas of-Jefferson County. Two of these subareas
fall within the Ludlow Watershed. They are the Oak Bay /Ludlow Subarea and the Shine /South
Point/Paradise Subarea. The projected rates of growth based on past development rates in _
those subareas are 3 percent for the Oak Bay /Ludlow and 5 percent for the Shine /South
Point/Paradise.
The Office of Financial Management has estimated a population of 21,158 for the year 2000.
This will probably be exceeded, as was their 1990 estimate of 18,415. These percentages of
growth are lower than the State average of about 7 percent. It is important to realize that while
Jefferson County is still very sparsely populated compared to other counties in the state, the
impacts of growth may be more significant because of the rural nature and limited public
services currently in place.
The total change in a population is the result of increases from births, decreases from deaths
and additions or subtractions from net migration. Jefferson County experienced a population
increase from 11,618 in 1950 to 20,146 by 1990 (Figure 3 -2). Over the last forty years the
death rate has increased steadily (Figure 3 -3). Birth rate declined from 1950 to 1970 and then
increased until 1980. Since 1980 it has shown a slight decrease and leveling off (Figure 3-
3). Most importantly the natural increase (i.e., births minus deaths) has declined steadily over
the last forty years, and in the last two years (1988 -1990) became negative when deaths slightly
exceeded births (Figure 3 -4). During this decline to a negative natural increase within the past
decade, migration increased substantially. The approximate 2,000 migrants who entered the
County from 1985 to 1989 doubled the number who entered during the previous five years
(Figure 3 -5). This increase was still less than the tripling of migrants into the entire State
during the same period (Figure 3 -5). On a State -wide basis, the proportion of people living in
Jefferson County decreased from about 0.5 percent in 1950 to 0.3 percent in 1970, and since
then has risen to 0.4 percent (Figure 3 -6).
The age distribution, as well as absolute numbers of people, may affect the Ludlow Watershed
differently than other parts of the County. `Different age groups require different services and
make different demands on natural resources. For example, a young population may require
schools and improved transportation, while an older more affluent population may require
increases in consumer goods and medical services. The 1980 census age distribution shows an
increase in the over 60 age group, a trend which may continue and accelerate. In 1970 the
population over 65 was 13.51 percent, in 1980 it was 15.77, and in 1986 it had risen to 18.13
percent of the total County population. In the following Age Distribution chart (Figure 3 -7),
one can see that 22.6 percent of the County population was in the 60 to 75+ years bracket;
27.4 percent in the 35 to 60 years bracket; 22.8 percent in the 20 to 35 years bracket; and 27.2
percent in the 0 to 20 years bracket. The source of this information is the 1980 census.
Economy
Since there is no major industrial development or other strong economic attraction in the
Watershed, population increases are anticipated in the shoreline areas that have already
established urban development, Port Ludlow, Mats, Shine, Oak Bay, and Paradise Bay. A
combination of retired people, those purchasing or leasing vacation homes, people seeking a
less urban lifestyle are expected to provide the largest group of in- migrants.
8 _
The private sector of the economy of Jefferson County (according to the 1980 census) is based
in three areas a) professional and related, b) retail trade, and c) manufacturing. The first two
categories are service oriented, and include goods and services sold to the public. The service
oriented economy is significant because they are susceptible to fluctuations in economy, more
than other types. In difficult economic times service jobs are the first affected, i.e, the
population trends to reduce spending for all except the necessary. Likewise in healthy,
economic environments, where there is growth in recreation and resort development, the service
sector is the fastest growing. The third category, in Jefferson County, is represented by the
employment at the Port Townsend Paper Mill, still the major employer in the County. There
is a relatively wide disparity in the income levels within the County, and one of every five is
a recipient of federal assistance. There is very little information about the details of the
economy in the Ludlow Watershed. Again, census data offers gross County details, but is not
much help in dealing with smaller, unincorporated areas. The Jefferson County Assessor's
Office was contacted to review the possible relationship between income levels of the watershed
residents, the relative economic health of the watershed and property values. In their best
professional judg0ment, a summary of property values would not accurately reflect either
relative economic health or income levels as there is a wide mix of smaller, older residences
and high -value newly developed properties. Since the Ludlow Watershed is only 2 percent of
the County in area, without population surveys and more specific studies, such as house-to-
house surveys or review of property assessments and improvements, a discussion of the
economy is highly speculative. It should be noted that median household income in Jefferson
County is $15,353; this is below the state level of $18,367, and implies a small tax base on
which the County can draw. An analysis of real estate values, property taxes, and sales of
property may offer evidence of the economic level of residents. Values along shorelines, with
views and newer development generally tend to indicate a higher level of income. Economic
well being is usually directly related to population distribution, mobility, age structure, and
opportunities within the area. More detail is required to fully address the questions of economic
environment solely within the Watershed. Therefore, an important gap in available Ludlow
Watershed information is accurate demographic, housing, income and population data for its
specific area.
0
10
a3,vlf.v ♦3 �:�`nc 4. Y w _ -.� :'}i'.^F .�.. - .�y.• c.i c,,iy2.T Ta`; :i..s .. nis�.:7 "dr �$ ._-.n'��..,.!� °.. �.?ar _�3' ?.`+ -.. fit+ ,_'
ao•
W
I
i
n b
f
N l
IIa
H 1
1
I
ITI
no
G �
cr
I
r7
�O
Q I
I
I
i
I
• m
o
• d x
7 f'
N V 3 n o }
A rn x y`
muz \JI..
to 4 n .r
w z
b
� S
h
a ��s
x n
d l
2 \
r 1�
m m
n •v
1`
1 i
1.
v7
A z o •�1
P ,1
-< o r
m o K o 1
ziA
1
I .
zl l
n •�T . d\ I Ir
O .111 IC) - l•
Z
tll
r�
00 /
\ A
z
z
z
z
11
I m
0 m
m m
n Z
m O
CO m m Z
$ cG)N
n me
�Do Co
Z
� n D
zM�
m0
�
N
c'
Cl)
' r
O
fn A
Z
Fn
m
0
'Y
-CI
(q
,OI V C
• 2;
ti
., RI
op.
A
z
C
y+ '" n
d3�0 gD
_ O
Do I
P d xIi{
Inz
ro r: ... .. A L
D
N 'n
th
o) r ,.
A. •� O - roc,
Popu I at
i Dn
Change 1950 -
1990
Births,
Ceatns,
Plet Migration, and Total
Change
50-50 50-70 70 -80 80 -90
Births M Deaths
®Net PAi Brat ions_._ rota I Change
Inidal
5
Period
I Period (
5
Terminal
j Decade
4
Births I
Deatns
3
�
Poouiatior
50 -60
I 11.618
I 2.629.
z
(3.641)
�
9,639
lfl
I 9,639
I 1,615
(1,031) 438
a
1
.70 -80
rn
7
1,611
In
I 4,955
I 5,304 !
15.965
80 -90
I 15,965
!L
I (1,736)
I 3,729
CL
20.146
-z
-3
_r
50-50 50-70 70 -80 80 -90
Births M Deaths
®Net PAi Brat ions_._ rota I Change
Figure 3 -2. Population chan ges in Jefferson County shown by decade from 1950 to 1990
(Jefferson 2000 Strategic Plan, 1991).
Inidal
Period
Period
I Period (
Period I
Terminal
j Decade
I Popuiation
Births I
Deatns
I Net Mig
( Change
Poouiatior
50 -60
I 11.618
I 2.629.
(967)
(3.641)
I (1.979) I
9,639
60 -70
I 9,639
I 1,615
(1,031) 438
I 1,022 I
10.661
.70 -80
I 10.661
1,611
I (I.262)
I 4,955
I 5,304 !
15.965
80 -90
I 15,965
I 2.188
I (1,736)
I 3,729
) 4,181 I
20.146
Figure 3 -2. Population chan ges in Jefferson County shown by decade from 1950 to 1990
(Jefferson 2000 Strategic Plan, 1991).
Annua I c i rt"is
Jefferson County ana state of `Hasnington
50-5, SS-Sa au -a, a5-oo 70 -71 75 -78 a0 -a, a5-c'a
-.a- State __,_C;ounty
450
so
350
7S
70
N
S�
53
0)
O
2Sa
�=
200
.:a
Ica
N
g
s0
55
_0
+5
Annua I c i rt"is
Jefferson County ana state of `Hasnington
50-5, SS-Sa au -a, a5-oo 70 -71 75 -78 a0 -a, a5-c'a
-.a- State __,_C;ounty
450
400
350
N
C
O
2Sa
�=
200
.:a
Ica
Annual De=aths
Jefferson County and state of was`ington
40 250
35 204
° 30 ,3Q
V3 4 P / / v
' r
25 ,aa
20 50
50-5, 55-56 50 -61 55-86 70 -71 75 -7a 30 -91 35-a6
state .41 County
Figure 3 -3. Annual births (top) and deaths (bottom) in Jefferson County and Washington State
from 1950 to 1990 (Jefferson County Strategic Plan, 1991).
45
sa
35
C)
25
20
15
Natural Increase
�Ief`erson Counzy and Wasningzon Staze
a
s
F4
■
or
SQ-51 55-56 so-ii =-5-a -a 7Q -71 75 -76 84 -61 85-a6
--*— s t a L e —;,E— Co u Rz y
350
a�n
z5c
zco
L
1C0
sa
-5a
Figure 3 -4. Natural increase (i.e., births minus deaths) in the populations of Jefferson County
and Washington State from 1950 to 1990 (Jefferson County Strategic Plan, 1991).
Five -Year Nel Migration
Jefferson Counzy
S
aI
4
�I
I
198CL 4 ^974 -74 !?SC—a4 a9
ear=
CC
Ica
MEN
Years
Figure 3 -5. Net migration into Jefferson County (top) and Washington State (bottom) from
1960 to 1989 (Jefferson County Strategic Plan, 1991).
i
Perca n c- of To za I S -a c-e Poo u l at r o n
Jefferson County
0.50
0.50
0.40
v 0. 0 0 _ '----
:J
n_
O.GO
i
!-
i
i
O.OG
1a5u 1x50 1970 1aB0 1240
Figure 3 -6. Jefferson County's population expressed as a percentage of the State population
from 1950 to 1990 (Jefferson County Strategic Plan, 1991).
JEFFERSON COUNTY
+75
m 786
70-74
728
-
65 -69
1004
1084
(state 14. -O
60-64
- -.1076
-- ---------- - - - - -
55 -59
50 -54
830
I--1
45-49
734
`7.•r
c
40-44
744
(state
C
.
35 -39
992
w
30 -34
1363
�
<
25 -29
-
1294
20 -24
981
------ --------------
(state 2271
- - - - --
f5 -19
1121
10 -14
1118
5 -9
1039
2 7.:''r
0-4
1071
(_ -tat: 31.37 )
i i
t i ii Sri
7.-IDcII i
TOTAL POPULATION
Total 1':;;G
Population = 15,965
Figure 3 -7.
Age distribution of the Jefferson County population,
based on 1980 U.S. Census
Bureau data.
Table 3 -1. Jefferson County's population and rate of change in ten year increments from
1940 to 1990 (U.S. Census Bureau).
YEAR
POPULATION CHANGE
1940
8,918
- - --
1950
11,618
+30%
1960
9,639
—17%
1970
10,661
+11%
1980
15,965
+50%
1990
20,146
+26%
1984
Table 3 -2.
Jefferson County's population,
annual change, and rate of change from 1980 to
1990 (U.S. Census Bureau).
17,500
YEAR
POPULATION
CHANGE
% CHANGE
1980
15,965
- - --
- - --
1981
16,600
635
+ 4%
1982
16,900
300
+ 2%
1983
16,800
100
-0.5%
1984
17,000
200
+ 1.2%
1985
17,500
500
+ 3
1986
17,900
400
+ 2.3%
1987
18,100
200
+ 1.1%
1990
20,146
2046
+11%
4.0 LAND USE
In June of 1988 the land use in Eastern Jefferson County was mapped by L.E. Bogart using
1984 aerial photographs and field surveys. Forty-one separate categories of land use were
mapped in the Ludlow Watershed. This detailed mapping is a primary tool for forecasting
future land use changes within the Watershed. These maps were then used, for the purposes
of this Watershed Characterization and watershed planning process, to digitize large, color GIS
planning maps (not included with this text because the necessary reduction in map scale and
detail results in an unreadable product) for the five general categories of Forest, Agriculture,
Urban, Wetland, and Clearcut. Commercial areas were mapped as Urban, since they represent
a non - distinct use and are associated with populated areas. The major land use categories
within the Watershed are clearly shown and can serve as a planning tool for the Ludlow
Watershed Management Committee when analyzing the character of the Watershed. These
detailed planning maps should be used on a site -by -site basis related to future development.
Tables 4 -1 and 4 -2 (wetlands) summarize land use in the five basins of the Ludlow Watershed.
The various land use categories are discussed below:
4.1 FOREST LAND USE - The total land area currently occupied by forest (and clearcut)
land is approximately 22,367 acres or 97 percent of the entire watershed. This is by far the
most common land use. Patterns of use are indicated by clear cutting, power lines, and urban
development alterations of the forested areas. Some of the benefits associated with forest 1011
include soil and stream stabilization, wildlife habitat, recreation, timber harvest, erosion control,
and water quality purification. Some of the nonpoint pollution sources associated with forested
lands include sedimentation and runoff from clearcut and slash burn areas; the introduction of
chemicals associated with harvest activities; fertilizer, pesticide, and herbicide applications;
overuse by recreational vehicles; and high nutrient loads produced naturally through the
generation of organic debris, both in drainage and on the land, subsequent to harvest. The
Jefferson County Conservation District has monitored aerial application of forestry pesticides
in Eastern Jefferson County since 1986 and reports no violations occurred in the Ludlow
L Watershed (Marston, 1991).
The largest land owner of commercial timber in the Ludlow Watershed is Pope analbot.
Because of the large percentage of land in forest use, Best Management Practices to prevent
erosion and adverse water quality impacts should be a major focus. The prompt reforestation
and mitigation after harvesting will help to eliminate potential problems. Applications approved
for harvesting of forestland for commercial purposes fall under the Forest Practices Act which
outlines different measures that are taken. to mitigate impacts to public resources.
Forestry land conversions may become a potentially significant source of nonpoint problems.
Conversions are defined as the harvesting of trees on areas that will not be reforested but will
become residential or other urban land use. An analysis of cutting permits within the
Watershed may provide percentages of conversions to supplement land use projections. Local
government has land use authority and responsibility for controlling conversions through land
use planning. In the event local government does not take action, The Department of Natural
Resources, in order to protect public resources, can place conditions on conversions.
4.2 AGRICULTURAL LAND USE - About 2 percent or 352 acres is in agriculture, which
is mostly meadow and pasture for livestock. No commercial farming is practiced in the
watershed. However, the clearing of lands for agriculture and pasture can cause water quality
degradation through the impact of livestock on stream and creek riparian areas which is
detrimental to the overall water quality of the downstream areas (Rymer, 1991). The threat
arises from a cumulative effect of poor animal keeping practices. Since small streams provide
11
a convenient source of water, streamside property tends to attract ownership by those who want
to raise animals. Water quality is affected when soils and wastes -are picked up in runoff as -
water flows across overgrazed pastures and carries the materials to surface water. Animal
wastes may contain pathogens, nutrients, and organic matter. Best Management Practices are
a necessary part of preserving water quality and the property owners should be encouraged to
seek advice from the Conservation District.
A major nonpoint source related to agriculture is loss of wetland areas and degradation of
wetland functions, especially groundwater recharge, aquifer purification, and protection of
domestic wells. Wetlands provide important functions related to water quality and can be
damaged by livestock trampling or chemical applications.
4.3 URBAN LAND USE - Areas of urban land use in the watershed represent about one
percent of the total land area. However, this is the most rapidly growing land use and may
have the greatest overall potential impact to water quality. Nonpoint sources associated with
urban usage, if the urban usage is not appropriately planned or properly functioning, include
increased impervious surface, deforestation, increased septic drainage field areas, increase in
water consumption, degradation of shorelines, household hazardous materials introduced into
the environment, increased population pressures, and expansion of commercial areas.
Monitoring of wells and careful consideration in siting septic systems will be a challenge as
population growth necessitates new construction and expansion of urban areas. A review of
building and shorelines permit trends, along with Health Department on -site applications will
be important to assessing impacts and predicting growth patterns. Funding and time constraints
prevented initiating a comprehensive review of permits over the last decade through which to
track the changes in land use within the Ludlow Watershed boundary during that time.
Recommendation of this review in the final action plan may be indicated to address gaps in
existing information of the Ludlow Watershed.
4.4 WETLANDS - Best estimates place the total acreage of wetlands in the Ludlow
Watershed at 977 or about 4 percent of the Watershed (Table 4 -2). An additional 470 acres
of mostly estuarine wetlands exist offshore. Under the Growth Management Act, Jefferson
County is preparing new wetland maps, which are due for completion in 1992. The important
functions of wetlands in the Ludlow Watershed are aquifer recharge, water quality
improvement, and wildlife habitat. The percentage of wetland area is small compared to other
uses, but t# ff$rovi& a higher level of importance to the quality of the environment. The
interior wetlaR areas are important to final cleansing of runoff and to the aquifer and thus the
domestic water supply. The shoreline estuarine wetlands are important to the wildlife associated
with the Puget Sound system. Preservation of both types is necessary and significant to the
entire population of the Watershed. Additional wetland benefits and functional values are
discussed in Section 5.5.
4.5 CLEARCUT LAND USE - The areas of recent clear cuts (1984) were mapped in the
large planning map format (not included with this report), to show the most recent potential
nonpoint sources related to harvesting of trees. The intent is to indicate that all areas are not
contiguous and that these clear cut areas may be restored in new trees or become areas of new
urban development. In 1984, about 27 percent of the Watershed was clearcut (Table 4 -1).
12
N N r
o
p
L
N
CON n
cn 60 Lo Co
-
C
CJ
y
U
. NNm
C
T
O
O
Cl)
C
Q
N
CD
_
y
d
O
a
t —
o
t4
U
m
m
o
co
r�Noo
m
O'1
y
m
d
co CD cn
LO
H
U
Q
coNOO
m
CN
7
O
�
L
O
O
O
cn
m
H�
�toN0 -
co
O
p
��aoo�
Nm
N
d
a
O
d
m LO
o
m
E
U
CO
�.—
r-
Q
L6
COD
N
v
�
m
m
�
co
21
of
_
m
m
hMo0o
o
O
m
m
d
oho
lA Ict
O
O
m
W
cn X 0 0 0
to
O
m
M
U
Ch
y
d
D.Q
N
y
.0
O
CD
L
`
C
cm Cl)
0
O
O
N
Or, O�O
LS')
cW
C
—
y
0 NC4N
O
.�
O
O
y
O
L
>
V V
a
CD
m
y
y
—00
OC'7N
et
C
Y
d
tnd
M rt cV
CO
CD
y
m 0
Q
C
W
'C
m
C
J
N
C
m
CD
'�]
C
l
L y y
_
OU�Q�
O
�
F"
I�
F-
d
m
o
-
m
`o
c
m
0
c
r-4 4t o
y
m It
> -
Q
i0
C
O
Z
t-
O
w L C
L0 1, Co r-,
CD
Q
�
d
L, 0)
.0, U CD
Mr. ¢t CO CO M
C O
U Q
MtL)�ctIt r-
00
L
CL
t4
f6
G7
y�
y
47 0
C
. —M�OOO CA
n N CA
t6� C
N y
> m
7 O
co-
OL
J
-0 a
J
O)
O
t0 O
L
C)
La
f0—
Q
CD
O O
ni
C
nOOp p
L t6
�-
ACA
M, V
���p�� co
-0`
C
CL OQ
M [t
U)
cc
.y C
CO CV
-0 y
-
> -p
ai \
O
r OOO O ,
d �
C�
N
co
Y
co
cr)
y
y yl d
CD
-
M y
cm
O
07
yC
ca
>-m R
,
N a
mm
O
m E y '' p
O ..
.O O
C- _
y
O c4 ti y
�7 ,� . t+
H°
CL
fO -j cna- mO t—
5.0 BENEFICIAL USES OF WATER
The purpose of the Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan and the Ludlow Watershed
Action Plan is to restore and protect the biological health and diversity of Puget Sound. As the
human population grows the finite nature of water resources becomes more evident. The uses
of water within the Watershed define the benefits associated with the resource. Beneficial uses
in the Ludlow Watershed include public water supply; commercial and recreational freshwater
and marine fishing; commercial and recreational shellfishing; contact recreation; irrigation;
wildlife habitat; environmental and aesthetic values; and other uses compatible with the
enjoyment of public waters. State water quality standards (Chapter 173 -201 WAC) and the
Federal Clean Water Act (P.L. 92 -500, 1972; reauthorized as P.L.100 -4, 1987) address the
issue of beneficial uses by setting standards and goals to attain and maintain all the potential
uses of surface waters.
The Ludlow Watershed Management Committee identified a list of the beneficial uses within
the Ludlow Watershed. This section lists those identified beneficial uses and presents
discussion of the impacts of nonpoint pollution on these beneficial uses. Y
5.1 DRINKING WATER/RESIDENTIAL AND COMMUNITY
In the Ludlow Watershed the majority of public and domestic water supply comes from
groundwater. As part of the hydrologic cycle, ground and surface waters are interrelated and
so the quality of one can affect the other. Highly polluted surface water may cause the
introduction, through filtration through soil, of the pollutants to groundwater. The potential for
groundwater contamination from pollutants in surface water is dependent on a number of
variables including depth and type of soils, depth of the water table, type of pollutant, rainfall,
and timing (seasonality) and duration of pollutant loading to the surface water. Since there are
a many streams in the Watershed in close proximity to wells, the water quality of both becomes
crucial. Agricultural, residential, commercial, and forestry practices could all play a role in
potentially contaminating surface and /or groundwater.
The process of groundwater exchange includes both recharge and discharge of the aquifer.
During dry periods, surface water will be absorbed into the ground and recharge may occur if
the geomorphic conditions are suitable. As precipitation intensity increases during winter
months and the water tables are replenished, water may discharge from a site (for instance,
seeps or springs). Groundwater exchange is a site- specific phenomena, which is dependent on
soil permeability, drainage patterns, and the hydrologic regime. The amount of groundwater
present is directly related to the type of soil and rock formations, amount of precipitation, and
rate of withdrawing water from the underground aquifer (WDOE, 1981). Therefore, the
process of groundwater recharge which replenishes groundwater storage is important if the
groundwater is being relied upon to supply wells.
The County mapped the aquifer areas in 1977. Four major aquifer regions supply most of the
drinking water in the Watershed. Clusters of water wells tap into these mayor aquifers
throughout the Watershed. Many individual wells are not monitored and no water quality
information is available unless problems are reported to the Health Department.
Pope Utilities currently has four wells in operation and one older well ( #1) that is out of
service. The system is split into two parts: the North Bay side and the South Bay side. The
North Bay portion utilizes three wells, No.'s 2, 3, and 4 while the South side is supplied by
Well 13. Wells 2 and 3 yield approximately 140 gallons per minute (gpm) and 75 gpm
respectively, and are only used during the peak summer season. These two wells are the only
13
ones belonging to Pope Utilities that require treatment for excessive manganese levels. All ,
-other-water quality parameters for these wells are within the Department of Social and Health
Services (DSHS) standards for State drinking water. Well 4 is the year -round source of water
for the North Bay and pumps an average of 128 gpm (pers. comm., 1990).
Well 1 was the original well on the north side of the Bay for Port Ludlow development and
typically pumped at the rate of 30 -50 gpm. The overall water quality of the well was good
with all parameters below DSHS standards for State drinking water. Occasionally there was
a slight hydrogen sulfide smell but not enough to create problems. However, a strong tidal
influence exists in this aquifer so sea -water intrusion was a problem when the withdrawal rate
exceeded 50 gpm (pers. comm., 1990).
The South Bay area is presently supplied`b onl Well 13. It yields roughly 135 gpm and has
good water quality with all parameters below SHS standards for drinking water (Robinson,
1989). The North and South systems together supply water to 650 connections (pens. comm.,
1990).
Test well No. 12 is located about 1.3 miles straight west of Teal Lake and yields approximately
70 gpm. This shallow well is very close to the Port Ludlow golf course, however, no evidence
of fertilizers have been found in the water in either the 1972 or 1987 analyses. On the other
hand, the water is consistently acidic and corrosive and therefore undesirable as a long -term
water source (Robinson, 1989).
Test well No. 14 is about 1/4 of a mile northwest and north of Teal Lake and has the potential
to yield approximately 300 gpm. It was tested and constructed in 1988 and has good water
quality with only manganese above DSHS standards for drinking water (Robinson, 1989).
With the proposed new developments in the area it is anticipated that well No. 14 will be added
to the system in the year 1992. At the same time, the North and South systems will be
connected to make one water system (pers. comm., 1990). K
Test well No. 15 was tested in 1989. Recommendations were made to dig this well
approximately 1/3 mile north of Well 14. The tests concluded that this well could yield roughly
300 gpm (Robinson, 1989). Wells 12 through 15 all use the South Valley aquifer as their
groundwater source.
East of the Port Ludlow wells is another grouping of wells located about two miles to the
southeast. Jefferson County Water District No. 1 operates a 100 gpm well in this area which
serves roughly 170 connections in the Paradise Bay community. During preliminary testing in
1982, the well exhibited good water quality with only manganese above DSHS standards. No
special treatment was recommended at that time nor is any required at present (pens. comm.,
1991). Bacterial testing revealed fecal coliform contamination but this was remedied by
disinfecting the well prior to sealing (Shannon, 1982). Two private wells serving single families
(Perhac and Crittendon) also exist in this region and share the same aquifer but only pump
about 20 gpm per well.
About one thousand feet south of Mats Mats Bay is Well 2 which has the potential to produce
10 gpm. Tests were performed in 1958 and 1959 to determine the capacity of wells in the
area. Well 2 in addition to other so rces commended in order to supply 50 gpm for
area residents. Well has good quali water _except for high total solids, an occasional slight
sulfur odor (removed by aeration or chlorination), and a low hardness level indicating very soft
water. None of these parameters prevent the use of this water for domestic use (Roberts,
14
1959). Currently this well has about 40 connections mainly in the community of Olympus
Beach Tracts (pers. comm., 1991).
In the vicinity of Shine, Well No. 1 provides water at the rate of 170 gpm. The water quality
of this well is within DSHS standards except for high manganese levels (which may require
treatment) and a slight sulfur dioxide odor (which is minor and presents no problem)
(Krautkramer, 1981). There are only 6 hook -ups presently to this well and it is being treated
for manganese. In the future, the Jefferson County PUD #1 and Pope Resources are planning
a joint project to combine the Shine well with another well on Pope Resources land to
potentially accommodate three new developments: residential housing near Bywater Bay;
residential development (about 150 homes) on the north end of Teal Lake Road adjacent to the
Port Ludlow golf course; and a "medium sized" shopping mall on the south end of Teal Lake
Road (pers. comm., 1991). The Bywater Bay development currently is platted for 50, 5 -acre
parcels which may be sub/lividable in the future. The exact time of completion and final size
of these projects is uncertain and still in the planning stages.
At the south end of the Watershed is the community of Bridgehaven. Their water system
consists of two wells, well #2 which was drilled in 1969 and produces 140 gpm and #3 which
was just drilled in 1990 and yields 58 gpm. Only one well is generally used and #3 serves
mostly as a backup. Currently the system serves 93 connections. The water analyses indicate
that all parameters are below DSHS drinking water standards. Therefore no water treatment
is required (pers. comm, 1991).
The State has a classification procedure for public water systems based on the number of
connections served:
Class 1 water systems more than 100 permanent connections.
Class 2 water systems 10 -99 permanent connections.
Class 3 water systems are based on transitory usage of 25 or more connections (i.e.,
recreational vehicle parks or hotels).
Class 4 water systems 2 -9 permanent connections.
Currently the Ludlow Watershed has only one Class 1 system (Pope Utilities) and all the rest
are Class 2, 3, or 4 (PUD map). According to State Department of Health personnel the
regulations governing water system classifications will be changed in the near future to
designations of Group A or Group B. Group A systems will have 15 or more connections or
25 or more people /day for 60 or more - days /yr. Group B systems will have less than
15 connections and less than 25 people for 60 days or more /yr (WDOH comm., 1991).
In some cases, wells have sufficient quantity of water, but the quality is poor or undesirable
(i.e., Shine Well No. 1, Pope Resources Wells 2 and 3). Sometimes the water can have an
objectionable taste, odor, or color. In some cases these problems can be overlooked. In others
they need to be remedied by use of inexpensive chemicals or treatment. Two of the Pope
Resources wells and Shine well are treated to remedy excess amounts of manganese and iron
in the water. When these two constituents are present in excessive amounts they will create
taste, staining, and odor problems. To alleviate this aesthetic nuisance (not a health hazard)
potassium permanganate is added to the water which is subsequently passed through a green
sand filter. The potassium permanganate binds with the iron and manganese which is then
adsorbed and extracted by the sand particles to produce water with improved appearan ce and
taste. This process also helps reduce -the affects of hydrogen sulfide that is naturally present
in the groundwater in this area (pers. comm., 1990). All these constituents occur naturally in
15
the soil, but in this area the conditions are such that the chemicals readily dissolve into the
groundwater where they create a nuisance. to water :users.
In the past, reports of sea -water intrusion were encountered in scattered wells along the shores
of eastern Jefferson County (i.e., Well No. 1 Pope Resources). This condition can be created
by withdrawing water at too fast a rate or in excess of the aquifer's ability to recharge. This
results in brackish or salt water being pulled into the aquifer replacing the fresh water (Hall,
1986). The intrusion of salt would potentially make the water unsuitable for human
consumption due to the salty taste. However, since a 1960's study, no reports of deterioration
appear to be occurring from this problem (WDOE, 1981). In other cases the well is no longer
used as is true with Pope Resources Well No. 1 (pers. comm., 1991).
5.2 AGRICULTURE
In the Ludlow Watershed the main area of agriculture is in Beaver Valley along the north fork
of Ludlow Creek. Agriculture in this Watershed is very limited but does represent a minor
water use. Very little, if any, irrigation uses surface water. Most of the "agriculture" is
limited to livestock watering of horses and a few cattle, there is no commercial farming in the
Watershed. The importance of uncontaminated water for garden irrigation or livestock watering
is obvious.
5.3 WILDLIFE HABITAT /FISHERIES /SHELLFISH
Ludlow Watershed has many areas of estuarine, marine, and fresh waters that support
populations of various types of wildlife. Without clean, safe sources of water for drinking,
rearing, spawning, and harvesting, several species of land and aquatic animals would be unable
to survive. This is especially true for threatened and endangered species like the peregrine
falcon (Rymer) and bald eagle, as well as beaver, river otter, ducks, shorebirds, fish, shellfish,
and all the smaller species in the food chain. Potential threats from either point or nonpoint
sources include high toxicant levels of organics and metals (from natural or human sources);
high levels of suspended solids and high temperature (caused by sediment transport or removal
of vegetative cover); and low dissolved oxygen (caused by natural or human activities).
5.3.1 Freshwater Habitat
The Ludlow Watershed consists of three major freshwater drainage basins, with several small,
independent drainages also present (Williams 1975). These drainages are: Mats Mats Creek
(local name), Ludlow Creek, and Shine Creek (local name).
Mats Mats Creek is located at the western -most extent of Mats Mats Bay and is a relatively
small drainage with a mainstem length of 1.4 miles and a catchment area of 2.4 square miles
(Smayda 1989). Eighty -five percent -(85 percent) of this catchment area is vegetated, 10 percent
is bay surface, and 5 percent is developed (Smayda 1989). Two tributaries, each approximately
0.5 miles long, are listed by Williams (1975) as occurring above an impassible cascade located
at mile 0.75 on the mainstem of Mats Mats Creek. Rubida (1989) noted that this creek is
seasonal in nature. Coho and Chum salmon are species probable to utilize the accessible areas
of this drainage (Williams 1975). Searun cutthroat trout are listed as potentially occurring in
the accessible regions of the Mats Mats Creek system by Admiralty Audubon Society (AAS,
1990).
Ludlow Creek is located at the head of Ludlow Bay and is the largest of the three drainages,
with a mainstem length of 4.45 miles (Williams 1975) and a catchment area of 13.5 square
16
miles (Rubida 1989). Ludlow Bay totals 2.2 square miles of this catchment area (Patmont et
al. 1985). Several major tributaries are mapped within the Ludlow Creek system, totaling
approximately 8.25 miles. All tributaries are mapped as occurring above impassable cascades
located at mile 0.5 on the mainstem of Ludlow Creek. Ludlow Creek flows through second
growth timber with dense deciduous growth. Stream gradient is generally shallow, resulting
in limited usable spawning gravel. Some usable spawning gravel is listed as being present in
small areas. Favorable rearing habitat is present in brushy and swampy areas of Ludlow
Creek. Williams (1975) listed the tributaries of Ludlow Creek as being subject to no salmon
use, with unknown use in the accessible portion of the mainstem. Small numbers of steelhead
trout, searun cutthroat trout, and limited numbers of Coho and Chum Salmon were listed by
Rubida (1989), citing Coccoli (1988), as utilizing accessible areas of Ludlow Creek and Ludlow
Bay.. Searun cutthroat trout, steelhead trout, and salmon are listed as utilizing a small, unnamed
drainage that empties into Ludlow Bay at a marsh near the south shore (AAS, 1990).
Shine Creek is located at the head of Squamish Harbor, and is the only major drainage in the
Ludlow Watershed to have unobstructed access (i.e., no cascades). The mainstem is 2.0 miles
in length with one 0.75 mile long tributary branching southward at approximately mile 0.25
(Williams 1975). Unlike Ludlow Creek, this drainage has a moderate gradient, providing
usable sand gravel substrate for spawning. A swamp and small lagoon is located at the mouth
of Shine Creek. Coho and Chum salmon are listed as probable species to utilize available
habitat in Shine Creek (Williams 1975). The AAS (1990) believed Shine Creek could support
an anadromous salmonid fishery.
A Washington State Department of Fisheries Biologist has participated on part of the stream
reconnaissance survey and noted that habitat throughout most of section 29 appeared suitable
for Coho salmon. Salmonids, believed to be juvenile Coho salmon, were observed in Shine
Creek upstream of Highway 104. Spawning habitat, pools, and large woody debris were
plentiful. The area appeared to contain excellent habitat for coho summer rearing and
overwintering. Fish passage may be hindered by one or more of the beaver dams (Johnson
1991).
Several lakes are within the Ludlow Watershed (discussed in Section 2.6).
5.3.2 Marine /Estuarian Habitat
Fourteen species of marine mammals, 31 species of waterfowl, and 57 species of shorebirds
and marine birds are noted by PSWQA (1988) as being dependent on the marine habitats of
Puget Sound. Major waterfowl habitat is present at the head of Oak Bay, south Ludlow Bay
marsh, Squamish Harbor marsh, Mats Mats Bay, and Bywater Bay ( PSQWA 1988, AAS 1990).
Waterfowl are noted to use the Olele Point area (AAS, 1990). River otter are present at south
Ludlow Bay marsh and Bywater Bay (AAS, 1990) and at the South Point Road culverts of
Shine Creek (McLaughlin, 1991). Great blue herons are noted by AAS (1990) to use the
Ludlow Bay area. Mats Mats Bay is an important area of wintering seabirds (AAS, 1990).
More than 200 species of fishes are noted as utilizing the marine habitats of the Puget Sound
Region ( PSWQA 1988). Several kinds of marine habitat are found within and near the
geographic region of the Ludlow Watershed. Open water of Mats Mats Bay, Ludlow Bay, and
Squamish Harbor, along with coastal waters from Oak Bay to south of Squamish Harbor, are
utilized for spawning and /or rearing by baitfishes, salmomds, and groundfish. Important cod
spawning grounds are located at the offshore area north of Olele Point (AAS, 1990).
17
The Washington State Department of Fisheries does not have extensive data on the Ludlow
Watershed area's sports fisheries. However, they can provide an estimate of the 1990
commercial catch in pounds and dollars for the various commercial species within the
management and reporting areas adjacent to the Ludlow Watershed. That estimate includes .
Tribal fisheries. Table 5 -1 summarizes this information. A brief review of this table very
effectively illustrates the economic importance of the various commercial species within the
management and reporting areas adjacent to the Ludlow Watershed. The map in Figure 5 -1
indicates the boundaries of the various commercial fisheries management and reporting areas
used by the Washington State Department of Fisheries to calculate the 1990 catch estimates.
Estuarian habitats located within Mats Mats Bay, Ludlow Bay, Squamish Harbor, are very
productive and important areas for spawning and rearing of many economically important fish
species. A 10 acre salt marsh is present west of Olele Point. A 3.4 acre salt marsh community
is present at the south shore of Ludlow Bay. A six acre salt marsh is located southwest of Tala
Point. A salt marsh in the Bywater Bay area has a total acreage of six acres, including 0.9
acres of low sandy marsh, 4.4 acres of immature high marsh, and a mature high marsh of 0.7
acre. According to Natural Heritage Information System the Bywater Lagoon is a high quality,
high salinity coastal lagoon (WDNRG, 1990).
Eelgrass (Zostera marina) meadows are well documented as one of the most productive of all
ecosystems (Phillips and Watson 1984, Hamburg and Homann 1986). Functional values of
eelgrass meadows are diverse, with primary importance focusing on high net productivity, food
production, shelter, habitat stabilization, and nutrient cycling (Phillips and Watson 1984 ,
Backman 1984 , Orth 1977 , Murray and Wetzal 1982 , Keller and Harris 1966). In the
Pacific northwest, eelgrass �abitat provides critical rearing habitat for economically important
juvenile salmonids and juvenile rockfishes. In addition, sediments associated with eelgrass
meadows provide important habitat for infaunal bivalves, including geoduck clams. Waterfowl
species such as black brant utilize the leaves of eelgrass as food, and have been dependent on
this food item for up to 85 percent of their total seasonal food intake (Phillips and Watson
1984). Nearshore construction and dredging, resulting in eelgrass meadow impact, are
correlated to the decline in numbers of black brant and other economically important waterfowl
(Phillips and Watson 1984), as well as eagles and falcons (Rymer, 1991).
Thom and Hallum (1990) made a map of eelgrass beds reported in surveys conducted by
themselves and other investigators (Figure 5 -2). This map shows eelgrass beds as occupying
much of the coastal area of the Ludlow Watershed, excluding the Paradise Bay bight. The
following eelgrass /algal communities have been identified and described by the Admiralty
Audubon Society (AAS, 1990). An eelgrass community is located at Olele Point, extending 3
acres northwest and 5 acres southeast. A diverse algal community is located along the shoreline
of Oak Bay, extending an estimated 50 acres. Two eelgrass /algal communities totaling 50 acres
are located in the south Ludlow Bay area. An eelgrass /algal community is found along the
entire shoreline of Tala Point. An algal community is at Bywater Bay. Eelgrass beds are at
the edges of the Bywater Bay salt marsh and around the southern tip of Hood Head, as well as,
off the southern shore of Shine Creek. An algal community extends an estimated 25 acres
along the shore of the Bywater Bay salt marsh.
A herring bait holding facility located on the eastern edge of Mats Mats Bay produces 2.7
million packaged herring annually (Smayda 1989, Rubida 1989). Major areas utilized by
commercial fish species are mapped by PSWQA (1988). These species (and areas) include
Pacific Herring spawning (Portage Canal and _Oak Bay), Surf smelt spawning (head of Oak
Bay); groundfish resource areas (north Oak Bay, Paradise Bay, outside Squamish Harbor).
18
Commercial shellfish are of enormous economic importance to the State of Washington. The
industry statewide grosses over 25 million dollars annually, and this is expected. to iac _rease,as. ,
east coast growers are further restricted by pollution and disease (WDOE, 1990). In addition
to economic value, commercial shellfish fisheries provide historical, economical, and cultural
value. Shellfish aquaculture was begun in Washington in 1851 with the production of clams
and oysters. In the period following 1970, scallops and mussels were added to the aquaculture
list (Stalheim, 1986).
Today, several species of mollusks are cultivated commercially within the Ludlow Watershed;
these include: geoducks, clams, and Pacific oyster (pers. comm, 1990.). Subtidal geoduck
tracts are mapped at and slightly south of Squamish Harbor, outside Mats Mats Bay, near
Paradise Bay, off Point Hannon, and at the north shore of Oak Bay (Stalheim, 1986 , PSWQA;
1988). The Washington State Department of Fisheries considers geoduck populations to be of
"State Significance ". Any impacts to mapped geoduck beds requires authorization from the
State.
Sub -tidal clam tracts are mapped at Tala Point, and mid - Squamish Harbor (Stalheim, 1986).
Oysters are noted as being cultivated at the north end of Mats Mats Bay (Stalheim, 1986,
Smayda, 1989, AAS 1990). Intertidal commercial clam and oyster beds are mapped by
PSWQA (1988) at the area north of Point Hannon in Paradise Bay. The Washington
Department of Health Third Annual Inventory of Commercial and Recreational Shellfish Areas
in Puget Sound (WDOH, 1990) lists one commercial oyster operation at the north shore of
Mats Mats Bay, four commercial clam operations in Oak Bay, and one commercial clam
operation near the north shore at the mouth of Squamish Harbor. Fifteen acres of Mats Mats
Bay are classified as "approved" for shellfish by the WDH, with 367 acres approved in Oak
Bay, and 82 acres approved in Squamish Harbor. Dungeness crabs are mapped as utilizing
habitat in Squamish Harbor, the Point Hannon area, and Oak Bay (PSWQA, 1988).
The State classification of "approved" signifies that the State Department of Health's sanitary
survey and bacteriological water quality data indicates that fecal material, pathogenic
microorganisms, marine biotoxins, and poisonous or deleterious substances are not present in
dangerous concentrations.
5.3.3 Terrestrial Habitat
Animals that primarily reside on the land require clean water as a source for food supply and /or
drinking water. If surface waters are polluted the animals that ingest the water, vegetation, or
other animals therein could become sick or diseased and possibly perish unnecessarily.
Therefore, water of reasonable quality is vital for all types of animal life.
Black bear, cougar, bobcat, coyote, and otter have been recorded throughout the Ludlow
Watershed (Rymer 1991; McLaughlin 1991; AAS 1990). No resident elk herds are known to
exist within the study area, identified as Game Management Unit (GMU) 624 by the
Washington Department of Wildlife (WDW). Migrant elk have been observed passing through
the GMU (pers. comm., 1990). A substantial deer herd exists within the GMU. In 1989,
approximately 2,276 deer hunters spent 9,583 hunter days afield, harvesting 412 bucks and 89
does (WDW, 1990).
A current listing of the Natural Heritage Data System, Nongame Program (dated November 29,
1990), noted that there are six active bald eagle "element occurrences, evidence of breeding, ",X —�
Also listed are five element occurrences of- ospreys and one element occurrence of great blue
heron. Element occurrences for large species such as eagles, ospreys, and great blue herons
19
are generally defined as nest sites (pers. comm., 1990). Two bald eagle nest sites are located ,
near the south -shore--of Squamish Harbor, two near Tala Point, one near the west shore -at the -�.
head of Oak Bay, and one at Mats Mats Bay. One osprey nest site is isolated near the north
shore of Port Ludlow, one at the south shore of Port Ludlow, one south of Teal Lake, and two
are located near Bywater Bay. A nesting colony of great blue herons is located near the south
end of Paradise Bay. Bald eagles are both federally and state threatened, while ospreys and
great blue heron are considered "natural features of particular interest."
(See Wetlands Section 5.5 for discussion of other important terrestrial habitats in Ludlow
Watershed.)
5.4 RECREATION
The Clean Water Act (1972) addresses "swimmable and fishable" goals for waters of the U.S.
These goals attempt to insure water that is safe for swimming and does not threaten the health
of fish, shellfish, or wildlife (WDOE, 1988).
The State DOE categorizes all the waters in the Ludlow Watershed as Class AA which
stipulates that beneficial uses, including recreational uses of the water must be protected.
Recreational uses include boating, contact sports, aesthetic enjoyment, and fishing which all
require that certain water quality standards be meta Boating requires water that is free of large
debris and solids. This is necessary to prevent damage to outboard motors as well as to
preserve aesthetic values. For contact sports, such as swimming, scuba diving, and snorkeling,
it is essential to have low levels of fecal coliform and associated pathogens, which can cause
disease or sickness in people or animals that contact the water. Other adverse impacts to
recreational uses of water may result from excessive loading of nutrients, such as those found
in chemical fertilizers. Excess nutrients can cause algal blooms which clog the water with
plants and create low oxygen levels. This situation in turn results in physical impediments,
poor visibility, and possibly unpleasant odors if the problem continues.
If the recreation associated with fish and shellfish resources is to be maintained then water
quality and the natural habitat needs to be maintained in order to make the recreational activity
rewarding and to maintain aquatic populations to ensure future generations of aquatic organisms.
Healthy fish require a healthy environment in which to grow and reproduce. Fish and shellfish
cannot tolerate high levels of pollution. Shellfish are especially susceptible to bacterial
contamination which is then transmitted to humans who ingest them. Excessive amounts of
solids can bury spawning areas, clog fish gills and bivalves, transport bacteria and toxicants,
and decrease visibility. Defvegetation of streamsides can elevate the temperature of the water
in the stream. Extreme changes in temperature and oxygen levels can impact various stages of
the life processes of fish and shellfish. Point sources and nonpoint sources of pollution must
be controlled and monitored to insure that recreation in the Watershed can continue.
Sport angling for salmon is usually concentrated at specific geographic areas, such as points,
sandbars, and bays (Williams, 1975). One major salmon harvesting area is mapped by PSWQA
(1988) near the northern shore of the mouth of Oak Bay. Major groundfish resource areas are
mapped by PSWQA (1988) at Oak Bay, Paradise Bay, the mouth of Squamish Harbor, and
generally within the greater portion of Hood Canal and Admiralty Inlet.
Recreational shellfish harvest is an important activity to the economy and livelihood of
Washington residents. Recreational clam harvest alone is worth more than 10 million dollars
annually to the State, with recreational oyster harvest bringing $250,000 annually to the State
(WDOE, 1990). Major bivalve species harvested include geoduck, manila, native littleneck,
20
and butter clams (pers. comm., 1990). Recreational clam and crab harvesting areas are mapped
by the-Washington State Department of Fisheries (WDF, 1988) at Oak Bay, Bywater - Bay, and
Squamish Harbor. Wolfe Property State Park, Case Shoal, Colvos Rocks, and Hicks County
Park also support recreational shellfishing. This same source maps recreational oyster
harvesting areas at Bywater Bay and Squamish Harbor. Oak Bay is listed by AAS (1990) as
being important habitat for rock oysters.
5.4.1 Recreational Facilities
Parks are an essential part of any community. It is desirable to establish and maintain quality
parks for the enjoyment of the public and wildlife. While some community parks occur in
highly developed or disturbed environments, many of Jefferson County's parks seek to provide
a relatively undisturbed environment where various types of recreational orast- time ',activities
can be conducted.
In 1974 a County -wide park and recreation survey was conducted to assess the local citizens'
opiniorl about existing and future recreational facilities. The results of the survey provided the
County with a prioritized list of community goals, popular activities, and desirable park and
recreation needs. The majority of the activities that people regularly participate in are related
to trails (walking, bicycling, horseback riding, nature walks, hiking, and backpacking) or water
oriented sports. Therefore, most of the planning areas, including Ludlow Watershed, requested
the construction of a unified trail system and improved salt water access (Jefferson County,
1978)
Currently there are several parks within Ludlow Watershed that are primarily associated with
waterbodies and water activities. They include:
Oak Bay Park - a County park on the north end of Oak Bay with saltwater beach,
camping, and picnicking.
Bywater Bay State Park - a County park on the west side of Bywater Bay with salt water
beach and public boat launch.
Mats Mats Bay - day -use park associated with the public boat launch and moorage.
Squamish Harbor - day -use park in Hicks.
Within the Ludlow Watershed there is only one marina providing services to recreational
boaters. Port Ludlow Marina is located on the north side of Ludlow Bay along with the
Ludlow Village development. The marina consists of a private boat launch and moorage for
300 slips and several live - aboards. Associated facilities include, fuel dock, hotel, grocery store,
marine supply store, restaurant, and public restrooms with showers (pers. comm., 1990).
The--- majwity -cif the recreational focus within the Ludlow Watershed is, on water related
activities and facilities. Other facilities include:
Public boat launch - at Ludlow Lake in the western portion of the Watershed.
Tennis Courts - private courts at the Ludlow Village development.
Golf course - 18 -hole course open to the public which is part of the Ludlow Village
development located on the south side of Ludlow Bay.
21
Natural Biological Support. Wetlands occupy a transition between terrestrial and aquatic _
environments, and thus provide important habitat for a wide variety of aquatic and wildlife
species. Biological habitat support refers to a wetland's nesting, breeding, rearing, and feeding
habitat. Performance of this function depends on a wetland's size, plant species diversity, and
plant form diversity.
5.5.3 Status of Wetlands in Ludlow Watershed
The entire Ludlow Watershed contains approximately 978 acres of wetlands according to the
NWI maps, which are based on 1980 aerial photographs. The area of wetlands within each
basin is shown in Table 5 -2.
The National Wetlands inventory has mapped two wetlands associated with Shine Creek just
north of State Highway 104 (Figure 5 -3). Both wetlands combined measure approximately
2,000 feet in length and cover an area of about 10.1 acres. The lower wetland is classified as
Palustrine Scrub /Shrub - Seasonally Flooded and the upper wetland is ccl3ssified as Palustrine
u £(�penwater /Emergenti P Fmanently Flooded. Our fieldf m surve}�s`, in 1991 -f-�eld-- fi uthed
these two wetlands and found an additional 6.9 acres of wetlands immediately upstream that
�! were not mapped by NWI. The lower unmapped wetland is a 2.7 acre palustrine oper�vater
type wetland with an average width of 105 feet. It has been recently formed by flooding due
to beaver dams and has a high density of dead standing timber in the southern part (June 1990
aerial photos show a live canopy). Stands of dead timber play a crucial role in wetland
ecology. During fieldwork there have been many sightings of cavity nesting birds including:
hairy woodpeckers, common flickers, wood ducks, and pileated woodpeckers - a candidate
sensitive wildlife species (WDOW 1991). Immediately above this system is 4.2 acres of braided
forested wetland habitat along Shine Creek with an average width of 184 feet. The NWI map
shows both of these as riparian systems, a pencil thickness in width on the map. The discovery
of these new wetlands points out the limitation of relying on NWI maps for an accurate
representation of current conditions.
Our field work uncovered some wetland degradation on Redtail Creek, a tributary to Shine
Creek (Figure 5 -3). In clearcutting the area, loggers left a buffer strip satisfying the Forest
Practices requirements, but destroyed vegetation in a portion of wetland in the headwaters of
the creek. We estimated that 1.6 acres of the 3.6 acres were damaged by skid roads, log
dumps, and equipment parking. Investigation showed that. the logging company complied with
the boundaries established by State and Tribal government. Apparently the size of the wetland
was initially underestimated, and as a consequence, a portion of valuable wetland was lost.
These observations of wetland degradation on Redtail Creek serve to illustrate how easily
wetlands can be lost, especially those that are not properly recorded.
As development and changes in land use continue to occur in shoreline areas, both marine and
freshwater wetlands are at risk. And their functional values of providing water quality
improvement, flood control, groundwater discharge and recharge, and wildlife habitat is
jeopardized. To prevent this from happening, the Growth Management Act directs Jefferson
County to adopt regulations that will preclude uses or development that are inappropriate in
critical areas such as wetlands. This is an interim measure intended to protect and preserve
critical areas while the County Comprehensive Plan is being revised over the next two years
(Pearson 1991).
The Natural Heritage Information System is a. cooperative effort between the Department of
Natural Resource Washington Natural Heritage Program and the Department of Wildlife
Nongame Program. They have identified four high quality native wetlands and one state
24
The Estuarine S stem E consists of deepwater tidal habitats and adjacent tidal wetlands that
.--,,are usually _sem' enclosed by land but have open, partly obstructed,-or-sporadic. access to the
« open ocean. Ocean water is at least occasionally diluted by freshwater runoff from the land or
increased above that of the open ocean by evaporation. The Estuarine System (E) includes
both estuaries and lagoons. It is more strongly influenced by its association with land than is
the Marine System. In terms of wave action, estuaries are generally considered to be low
energy systems (Cowardin et al. 1979).
The Riverine Svstem (R) includes all wetlands and deepwater habitats contained within a
channel which is defined as "an open conduit either naturally or artificially created which
periodically or continuously contains moving water, or which forms a connecting link between
two bodies of standing water". Water is usually, but not always, flowing in these wetlands.
Palustrine wetlands and upland islands may occur in the channel, but they are not included in
the Riverine System (R) (Cowardin et al. 1979),
The Lacustrine System (L) includes permanently flooded lakes and reservoirs, intermittent
lakes, and tidal lakes with ocean- derived salinities below 0.5 percent. These systems usually
contain extensive areas of deep water and there is considerable wave action (Cowardin et al.
1979).
5.5.2 Wetland Functional Values
Wetland habitat -and their functional values are numerous and vaned and have been described
by several wetland investigators (WDOE 1988, Adamus 1987, Reppert 1979, Mitsch and
Gosselink 1986). Functional (or public utility) values include: water quality improvement,
stormwater and floodwater storage, groundwater discharge and recharge, biological habitat
support, and hydrologic support. Wetland values can be assessed by the degree to which they
support these functions which are described below.
Water Quality Improvement. Wetlands -e function to naturally purify water by removing
organic and mineral particulate matter through a variety of chemical, physical, and biological
processes. For example, particles settle out of slowed water flow and adhere to dense wetland
vegetation. Dense vegetation also enhances the algal and bacterial activity necessary for organic
degradation and biochemical uptake of particulates. Wetland conditions may also promote ion
exchange which alters chemical pollutants, and precipitates chemicals out of the water ( Reppert
1979). Wetlands also help filter nutrients, waste, and sediment from flood water (EPA, 1988).
These processes are affected by a wetland's size, vegetative cover, and proximity to pollution
sources.
Storm and Flood Water Storage. Many wetlands are important for storage and flood
retardation during storms and periods of floodwater discharge. These wetlands retain water and
release it more gradually over a period of time. Stormwater and floodwater storage capability
vanes with a wetland's size, vegetative cover and proximity to developed areas.
Groundwater Exchange. Wetlands may be sustained by groundwater which approaches the
ground surface during some part of the year. In this case they are groundwater discharge
areas. Other wetlands, sustained by precipitation or flooding, are recharge areas. Wetlands
may also vary seasonally from being discharge areas to being recharge areas.
23
�3 '^.. _- '�:F - _. _.' °•. �. f_k _v.. ._, �.i- < "N. -��; -. x �`r` _ ,. - - �xr-w Oyu...: �:e�:. r -a-".
Natural Biological Support. Wetlands occupy a transition between terrestrial and aquatic
environments, and thus provide important habitat for a wide variety of aquatic and wildlife
species. Biological habitat support refers to a wetland's nesting, breeding, rearing, and feeding
habitat. Performance of this function depends on a wetland's size, plant species diversity, and
plant form diversity.
5.5.3 Status of Wetlands in Ludlow Watershed
The entire Ludlow Watershed contains approximately 978 acres of wetlands according to the
NWI maps, which are based on 1980 aerial photographs. The area of wetlands within each
basin is shown in Table 5 -2.
The National Wetlands inventory has mapped two wetlands associated with Shine Creek just
north of State Highway 104 (Figure 5 -3). Both wetlands combined measure approximately
2,000 feet in length and cover an area of about 10.1 acres. The lower wetland is classified as
Palustrine Scrub /Shrub - Seasonally Flooded and the upper wetland is classified as Palustrine
Openwater /Emergent Permanently Flooded. Our field /stream surveys in 1991 field truthed
these two wetlands and found an additional 6.9 acres of wetlands immediately upstream that
were not mapped by NWI. The lower unmapped wetland is a 2.7 acre palustrine openwater
type wetland with an -average width of 105 feet. It has been recently formed by flooding due
to beaver dams and has a high density of dead standing timber in the southern part (June 1990
aerial photos show a live canopy). Stands of dead timber play a crucial role in wetland
ecology. During fieldwork there have been many sightings of cavity nesting birds including:
hairy woodpeckers, common flickers, wood ducks, and pileated woodpeckers - a candidate
sensitive wildlife species (WDOW 1991). Immediately above this system is 4.2 acres of braided
forested wetland habitat along Shine Creek with an average width of 184 feet. The NWI map
shows both of these as riparian systems, a pencil thickness in width on the map. The discovery
of these new wetlands points out the limitation of relying on NWI maps for an accurate
representation of current conditions.
Our field work uncovered some wetland degradation on Redtail Creek, a tributary to Shine
Creek (Figure 5 -3). In clearcutting the area, loggers left a buffer strip satisfying the Forest
Practices requirements, but destroyed vegetation in a portion of wetland in the headwaters of
the creek. We estimated that 1.6 acres of the 3.6 acres were damaged by skid roads, log
dumps, and equipment parking. Investigation showed that the logging company complied with
the boundaries established by State and Tribal government. Apparently the size of the wetland
was initially underestimated, and as a consequence, a portion of valuable wetland was lost.
These observations of wetland degradation on Redtail Creek serve to illustrate how easily
wetlands can be lost, especially those that are not properly recorded.
As development and changes in land use continue to occur in shoreline areas, both marine and
freshwater wetlands are at risk. And their functional values of providing water quality
improvement, flood control, groundwater discharge and recharge, and wildlife habitat is
jeopardized. To prevent this from happening, the Growth Management Act directs Jefferson
County to adopt regulations that will preclude uses or development that are inappropriate in
critical areas such as wetlands. This is an interim measure intended to protect and preserve
critical areas while the County Comprehensive Plan is being revised over the next two years
(Pearson 1991).
The Natural Heritage Information System is a cooperative effort between the Department of
Natural Resource Washington Natural Heritage Program and the Department of Wildlife
Nongame Program. They have identified four high quality native wetlands and one state
24 -
sensitive plant within the Ludlow Watershed. The high quality wetlands are: Teal Bog (low
elevation sphagnum bog), Bywater Lagoonjhigh salinity coastal lagoon), Horseshoe Lake (low
elevation freshwater wetland), and Ludlow Lake (low elevation sphagnum bog). The rare
plant, Carex pauciflora, (few - flowered sedge) is found in the vicinity of Ludlow Lake (WDNR
letter, 1990).
Bogs are one of the most unique and unusual kinds of wetlands. They are found in cold
temperate climates, mostly in the northern hemisphere, where an abundance of precipitation and
high humidity cause excessive moisture to accumulate. Bogs are peat deposits, generally with
a high water table yet no significant inflow or outflow streams, that support acid - loving
(acidophilic) vegetation, particularly mosses (Mitsch, 1986). They usually form in old glacial
lakes or shallow depressions with impervious subsoil which will allow standing water to collect.
Because of their highly acidic environment, bogs support a limited number of tree and plant
species that are hardy and adapted to this extremely acidic, nutrient -poor environment (i.e.,
sphagnum mosses, black spruce, Labrador tea, bog laurel, and sundews) (Neiring, 1988).
5.6 FORESTRY
Ludlow Watershed's vast forests are dependent upon water for their survival and growth. Not
only is water essential in its own right (75 to 90 percent of the living cell is water), but water
is necessary to transport dissolved minerals and nutrients from the soil to the leaves. And it
is required for photosynthesis in the production of glucose.
About 97 percent of the Watershed is forested and much of it is in silviculture. Pope and
Talbot own large holdings of commercial forests, but private landowners also harvest their
forests. Douglas fir is the principal tree of commercial value in the Watershed. It is found on
a variety of soils, but makes its best growth on deep, rich, well - drained, porous loams where
there is an abundance of both soil and atmospheric moisture. It requires much sunlight to grow
and young trees will not do well if shaded by taller associates. This makes clearcutting the
silvicultural method of choice.
Besides Douglas fir, other species which grow in the Watershed are western red cedar, western
hemlock, Pacific silver fir, bigleaf maple, willow, and red alder. Forests at different stages of
succession create habitat for wildlife. Especially important is the "edge" which is created
where an older forest borders a meadow or clearcut.
The benefit which the trees of the forest derive from the water infiltrating the soil is returned
to the users of the forest. The trees break the fall of the rain and prevent the soil from washing
into the stream. Thus, the spawning gravel of salmon and trout is protected from siltation.
Likewise, stoneflies, caddisflies, mayflies and other insects which live in the crevices of the
rocks are not suffocated. Stream clarity is maintained and the sight - feeding salmonids are
better able to feed and grow on the insects swept along in the current.
By protecting the soil, the trees are preventing the wetlands from filling in so rapidly, thus
prolonging their life, along with all the wetland's benefits. Even the shellfish down in the bay
benefit by not being suffocated with upland soil. Consumers of the shellfish benefit too because
fewer of the hitchhiking pollutants such as heav���metpls� �fec�al coliforpm, and their associated
pathogens are carried downstream to contamin to �theii; 'Forests help revert flooding too.
Forests are benefitted by water, and properly managed, produce many benefits for fish, wildlife,
and us.
25
5.7 EDUCATION
The Ludlow Watershed Management Committee agreed that a healthy watershed system with
limited point and nonpoint pollution problems presents a significant example of a natural
ecosystem functioning in balance. Hence, the Ludlow Watershed, with its current water quality
designation of Class AA, its current level of biological productivity, diversity and habitat,
presents an increasingly rare and valuable "classroom" for the study of the functions of an, as
yet, relatively undegraded watershed.
5.8 AESTHETICS
The Ludlow Watershed Management Committe cited the physical beauty of the Ludlow
Watershed as directly related to its biological integrity. The natural beauty of the area is seen
as an extremely important value and beneficial use enjoyed by all residents of the Ludlow
Watershed and, in a larger sense, by all residents of Puget Sound.
26
7.1
a) E m
e0 v
M L
C <
co
0
E L
--j m 0
C.
L 0)
U
L 1�
0 c cJ
C'4
4J
C L
r 0
co
it
U')
Lij
E
LLJ
LO
LL
LL
O
z
LLI
c
ui
LO
Z
Z
Lli
C.
0
Lo
-C
Ul
to L)
C 0 W
CO L
<
in -W
.-) c CO
LL 0) c
d41
J
4)
bl) L
0
.0 -) ca
L C
vi
O
O
rn
L.
cz
u
O
E
—Z
cz
cz
1-:
CA
;,Lo
48 °00
47O5
1221-IC' 122
d 0 -72.
D -82 y
p 85 0 -68
0 -83
4
0 -69
0 -84
0 -6 0 -06
l..
cQ}QQj{ c^ .0-88 0 -87
Y
L
1~
7 °55'
.7 °50
0 -97
0 5, m
Gale
122 °a5' t22 °a0' 122 °35' 122 °30'
SYMBOLS USED FOR Fr.1.CRASS R£CCROS
. Phillips 1962 -63
„ + lams=. Was
Ceolosical Survey 1886
°poop Coaasal Zone Aua Iinelu6inS suppiapm form Held .saws
some Washsnsim Oepaamenl of Fshesses 1975.1919
..e... HydMIMOhse sueveys 1851.1899
rill ^som 1971 -1989
Source: Thom, Ronald. June 1990
Figure 5 -2. Eelgrass locations reported for Puget Sound, including Ludlow Watershed
shorelines (Thom and Hallum 1990). _
I .S} r z:.- �- • �+ Vii,-- ' l /,
:�:� =� l ' it :::.�:..
:' a :. .
PFD ,..��• �;;
God I r
/ ,
r"Y ' • ' %.: "_ "PFD %)
*Z . . .........
_ , X1,5 ��" •� '�' j � :�:�:.::::r=:❖��'•.t:.:
L, `_ �. \ • ; H/� , /�O ;�.' . '1 ' ` \� •'fit:~ :c .....:x
t :.....
I< <
FOS
:...... ... :.......
....7 --
_ - •����•' I � J KEY �
;�••S. ... �C • �� •� / \,/ / ® WETLPn105 N wI '1 I
MAPPED 8r N I
''•��t.• �;• :1. 104 _�' •• i \• IN. = APPKdK. 1J0C'6 Fr.
Figure 5 -3. Map showing location of wetlands not mapped by NWI and remaining forest (not
clearcut) along the upper reaches of Shine Creek. Wetland classifications (e.g.,
PSSC) are described in NWI Classification Key in Appendix B. Previously
unmapped wetlands were classified according to guidelines described by Cowardin
et al. (1979).
Table 5 -1. Commercial harvest for 1990 of finfish and shellfish from areas on which Ludlow
Watershed borders (Figure 5 -1; Washington Department of Fisheries data).
- FISHERY
VALUE
- -CATCH AREA
WEIGHT
(pounds)
(dollars)
Aquaculture/
42F
4,760
8,119
Finfish &
Shellfish except
Oysters
Aquaculture /
42F, 42H
6,714
23,329
Oysters
Shellfish
25B, 25C, 42F
1,254,384
870,776
(Shrimp, Crab)
Groundfish
9, 25B, 25C
952,148
362,526
Salmon
9
80,541
101,442
Table 5 -2. Wetland acreage in the five basins comprising Ludlow
Watershed as taken from 1980 National Wetland Inventory aerial
photographs.
Basin Wetlands
(acres)
Oak Bay
84
Ludlow Bay
601
Squamish Harbor
202
Paradise Bay
44
Bywater Bay
47
All basins combined
978
6.0 WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT
6.1 WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT PARAMETERS
Water quality is defined by the chemical, physical, and biological parameters that indicate the
condition of the water for use by humans and /or animals. In order to assess the adequacy of
water for its intended use, methodology and protocols have been established to properly collect
water samples, preserve them, analyze for the parameter of interest, and interpret the results.
Common parameters that are monitored to aid in this assessment are dissolved oxygen,
temperature, fecal coliform, chlorine residual, nutrients, pH, biochemical oxygen demand, total
suspended solids, and turbidity. These parameters are briefly described below. Those marked
with an asterisk ( *) are parameters tested by Jefferson County Water Quality Program, a
division of Jefferson County Planning and Building Department.
* Dissolved oxygen (DO) is the amount of available oxygen in the water. Oxygen is consumed
by organisms to decompose organic material in nature and to sustain life. There must be
sufficient amounts present in the water to keep organisms (bacteria, fish, etc.) alive and healthy.
If there is a lack of oxygen, organisms will die and anaerobic (oxygen deprived) conditions will
prevail. Aerobic,; or oxygen-rich/ conditions mean that organisms live and reproduce only in
an environment containing oxygen. Anaerobic environments lack oxygen and organisms must
obtain oxygen from the breakdown of chemical compounds. Decay of large amounts of organic
material in the stream can cause anaerobic conditions and their associated undesirable odors.
*Temperature of water affects life's processes. Higher temperatures cause biological processes
to proceed faster. The higher the temperature, the less oxygen will remain dissolved in the
water. This is due to several processes one of which is accelerated loss of oxygen to the
atmosphere and the fact that organisms use oxygen faster to break down the organic material
because of increased metabolic rate. This is most critical in receiving waters of rivers and
streams during the summer. There is less stream flow for dilution of the water warmed by the
sun, therefore, less oxygen is available because of elevated temperatures. The rate of bacterial
oxygen use is accelerated at high temperatures and thus available oxygen for fish is reduced.
Many species of fish cannot tolerate extreme changes of temperature which makes monitoring
of this parameter especially important. Elimination of trees shading the stream corridor,
collapse of stream bank by unrestricted animal access to streams resulting in a shallower and
wider stream are some of the causes of high temperature.
* Fecal coliform are bacteria that are found in the intestines of warm blooded animals.
Although not considered harmful themselves, they are associated with other microbial pathogens
which are detrimental to human health. Because of this association and the fact they are easily
identified and enumerated, they serve as indicators. Fecal coliform and associated microbes
can originate from both human sewage and animal wastes. Thus, contamination results from
animal access to water bodies, improper management of animal wastes, failing septic tanks, and
failing sewage treatment plants. Fecal coliform survive to some degree in water, soil, and
shellfish.
Chlorine is used for disinfection (destruction of pathogenic organisms) and odor control in the
sewage treatment process (discussed below) before a waste is discharged to the receiving water.
Chlorine is also used to disinfect drinking water systems. This disinfection minimizes health
risks by destroying pathogens in the water, which could be ingested. And it results in a lower
concentration of pathogens in filter - feeding shellfish, whose consumption pose another health
risk to humans.
27
It is necessary to measure the chlorine residual to determine if an adequate amount of chlorine
is being addecLto be> effective. However, it can be detrimental to living organisms in- the
receiving water if too much chlorine is added. The chlorine residual is closely related to the
fecal coliform concentration. The proper amount of chlorine needs to be added to the waste
in order to kill enough bacteria to reduce the coliform count to acceptable levels without adding
too much to kill beneficial living organisms in the receiving water. Chlorine has been selected
as an acceptable chemical additive because it disinfects very effectively and is available at a
reasonable cost. Pathogens are also destroyed in the treatment process by physical removal
through sedimentation and filtration, and by natural die -off due to unfavorable environmental
conditions.
Chlorine can also be used to control odors such as hydrogen sulfide which smells like "rotten
eggs "�, Hydrogen sulfide not only smells offensively, but also can explode, paralyze the
respiratory system, and corrode metal and concrete (WCCOE 1974).
Nutrients are organic and inorganic substances (i.e., calcium, iron, nitrogen, phosphorus, and
carbon) that are required to support living plants and organisms. Increased nutrients (namely,
nitrogen and phosphorus) stimulate algal growth and in turn the growth of organisms which
feed on them. Up to a point this is acceptable, but if the process goes too far it could deplete
the oxygen enough to cause anaerobic conditions and the resultant extensive die -off of aquatic
organisms and the build -up of decaying organic matter. Thus, excessive nutrients speed up the
aging process or eutrophication of a water body. A classic example of excessive nutrients
causing eutrophication occurred in Lake Erie, where massive amounts of fish and other aquatic
organisms died. Fortunately, the installation of tertiary sewage treatment plants, which remove
the problem- causing nutrients, combined with the reduction of phosphates in detergents have
slowed eutrophication in Lake Erie to a more normal rate. Eutrophication is a natural aging
process in all lakes, but the rate is faster in shallower, warmer lakes, especially those receiving
excessive nutrients. This is equally true in salt water. Lagoons and shallow bays, especially
those not receiving much flushing, can have accelerated eutrophication. And again, as with
freshwater systems, an overabundance of nutrients is a large contributing factor.
As mentioned, eutrophication is a natural process, but can be accelerated by human activities.
What are some possible causes of eutrophication? The improper application of fertilizers is
certainly one. Applied properly, most of the fertilizers are taken up by the grasses, plants, or
trees for which they are intended. Problems result when excessive amounts of fertilizer are
applied. What fertilizer is not taken up by vegetation, precipitation causes to enter the ground
water, where it eventually is transported to a waterbody.
Timing can also be important. The spreading of fertilizers, either organic or inorganic, on
agricultural land is best done when the soil is not saturated or frozen. Precipitation, under
either of these conditions, can flush nutrients into a waterbody. On farms where this is a
problem, manure can be held in storage lagoons until soil conditions are suitable for spreading
it. The same principal of optimum timing applies for lawns, gardens, golf courses, and forest
lands.
Farm animals, which have access to a waterbody, are another source of nutrient pollution.
Barnyards or other areas where animals are concentrated near a waterbody are of particular
concern. Fencing the animals from the waterbody is one way of reducing nutrients as well as
fecal coliform. Another way is by draining barn roofs in a manner which avoids flushing
wastes into the waterbody. A third way is by establishing grass buffer strips between the
28
animals and the waterbody. The grass traps particulate matter and thereby reduces the amount
of animal wastes which enter a waterbody. The gentler the slope, the more effective buffer
strips are.
Human sewage is another source of nutrients. Most sewage treatment plants have primary or
secondary treatment. Neither removes nutrients from the effluent. Tertiary plants do remove
nutrients, but are more expensive to build. When nutrients are not removed, dispersion and
dilution of the effluent is about the only partial solution to the problem. A eutrophication
problem could result if the nutrients remain in relatively confined areas, such as bays.
Undoubtedly, nutrients from treatment plants contribute to the algae blooms, both red and
green, in Puget Sound, especially where nutrients combine with warmer temperatures in the
shallower,, confined bays. Blooms of "red tide" can result in paralytic shellfish poisoning when- fi j
humanf consume oysters, clams, or mussels which have filter -fed on the toxic plankton.
Septic systems are another nutrient source. In septic fields having soils which are not
excessively permeable, phosphates tend to bind with soils. Whereas, nitrates tend to migrate
with the ground water. In freshwater systems, phosphorus is generally the limiting factor to
phytoplankton production, but in marine systems it is usually nitrogen that is limiting. Thus,
marine environments may be more affected by nutrient leaching from septic fields than
freshwater environments are.
Aquaculture is another source of nutrients. Fish reared in net pens produce wastes which,
depending upon dispersion and dilution, can accelerate eutrophication in local areas. An
excretion product of fish is ammonia, which can be directly taken up by plants or converted to
nitrates and then taken up. Unconsumed fish food is an additional source of nutrients.
_ Finally, some detergents are a source of phosphate pollution. They can enter waterbodies in
the effluent of a sewage treatment plant. Septic systems are less of a problem because of the
phosphate's affinity to bind with soils. A failing septic system whose effluent runs directly into
a waterbody is an exception. Laws restricting phosphates in detergent may be one answer to
this problem. Public education would be another.
In assessing nutrient pollution, we should keep in mind that the discharge of nutrients may not
be necessarily harmful. Some nutrients may be beneficial, resulting in increased yields of fish.
The Alaska Department of Fish and Game has been financing the aerial fertilization of lakes
in order to increase sockeye salmon production.
The primary nutrients associated with human activities are phosphorus and nitrogen.
Phosphorus is a primary nutrient for algae and plankton growth. Phosphorus is present in
phosphate fertilizers and some detergents. It is also present in animal wastes and human wastes
(i.e., septic systems and sewers). Nitrogen is also a primary nutrient for algae and plankton
growth. It is present in wastewater effluent in the form of nitrate - nitrogen. This is the final
form of nitrogen in the bacterial oxidation of the organic nitrogen compounds, ammonia and
urea. Nitrogen is often the limiting element in biological systems, especially for bacteria. If
the bacteria do not have enough nitrogen, tken -ythey cannot grow and stabilize the waste.
Nitrogen can also be fixed from the atmosphere by bacteria and some plants including the
legumes (e.g., clover, peas, soybeans) and alder trees. Most plants, however, take up nitrogen
in the nitrate form. The nitrogen cycle is completed when the plants die and decay or else are
eaten by animals which die and decay. The decomposition of the plants and animals returns
the nitrogen to the ammonia form. --
29
Another form of nitrogen is ammonia which is produced by the reaction of gaseous nitrogen
and hydrogen. - In- nature ammonia is one of the by- products of protein decomposition of plants -
and animals (Keenan, 1980). Ammonia is also produced from the decay of organic material
in the sewage treatment process. If an excess of ammonia is producer it can create a problem
because ammonia has an affinity for chlorine and will react with it tolorm chloramines. This
process ties up the chlorine before it can react with the bacteria in order to kill them (WCCOE,
1974). The ammonia concentration of a particular waste determines the correct amount of
chlorine to be added.
* pH is often referred to and measured in biological processes because most organisms live and
function best in near neutral solutions. pH is a measure of the hydrogen ion (H +)
concentration and describes how acidic or alkaline the sample is. Neutral pH is 7 (as in milk)
on a scale of 0 to 14 pH units. Acidic conditions are less than 7 (as in lemon juice, pH 2);
whereas alkaline or basic conditions exist above 7 (as in household ammonia, pH 12) (Keenan
1980). pH is measured on a logarithmic scale. Thus, pH 6 is ten times more acidic than pH
7 and pH 5 is 100 times more acidic.
Besides affecting aquatic organisms directly, pH affects growth and survival indirectly by
controlling the equilibrium of other life - threatening reactions. For instance, the unionized
form of ammonia (NH,) is toxic to fish. At pH 7 and below, less than one percent of the
ammonia present will be in this toxic form compared to 75 percent at pH 10. Another toxic
gas, hydrogen sulfide (H2S), is influenced in the opposite way. At pH 5, 99 percent of this
compound is in the toxic form, compared to only one percent at pH 9 (Boyd 1979).
pH is also a controlling factor in the toxicity of heavy metals such as copper, lead, cadmium
and mercury. At higher pH's, metals tend to bind with sediment partic� es which r 4gr them
nontoxic. However, as the water becomes more acidic (lower pH), t jiieccime dissolved in
solution. In this state they can be toxic to fish and other organisms. This is one reason acid
rain is a problem. Precipitation in the watershed results in aluminum being leached out of the
soil and carried into the waterbody, where it damages the fish's gills, thereby causing its
suffocation. Not only fish, but other aquatic organisms are affected.
Lowering the pH of ground water or of the waterbody itself can cause human health risks if
heavy metals are present. Metals, such as mercury and cadmium, can be taken up by aquatic
organisms when they are in dissolved forms. Then, as one organism consumes another, they
become more concentrated. Thus humans, at the top of the food chain, are at risk. Certain
heavy metals, including cadmium and mercury, can cause cancer and birth defects. Shellfish,
although not high on the food chain, are susceptible to concentrating toxic pollutants because
of their filter - feeding nature.
Biochemical oxygen demand (BODI indicates the amount of oxygen required. to stabilize
(convert to a form that resists change) the organic material in the sample. BOD is usually used
to determine whether a wastewater is organically strong or weak. It measures how effective
a biological sewage treatment process is in stabilizing the wastewater and thus is a measure
of its effect on the receiving water. A high BOD value indicates that the waste contains an
excess of organic material which requires decomposition. Decomposition is an aerobic
processes in which unstable materials are converted into more stable ones by chemical or
biological action. In this process, bacteria and other organisms convert wastes into gases and
other inert substances (WCCOE 1974). Because oxygen is required to stabilize the waste, a
large quantity of waste requires a proportionally large volume of oxygen to stabilize it. Any
unstabilized material remaining in the effluent will deplete the environment of oxygen at the
point of discharge. Thus, fish, shellfish, and other invertebrates which require oxygen for
30
respiration are impacted. Aerobic decomposer bacteria are also affected, and as a result the
natural decomposition of dead plants and animals is inhibited.
* Total suspended solids (TSS) is a measurement of the amount of solids suspended in solution.
Suspended solids eventually settle out of the water column and end up as sedimentation.
Sedimentation is one of the most common causes of the loss of spawning areas to salmon and
trout, which require a clean gravel substrate for their redds. Sedimentation can also inhibit fish
growth by depressing the bottom dwelling invertebrates on which these fishes feed.
Furthermore, sedimentation can be detrimental to shellfish including oysters, clams, and
mussels.
Toxic chemicals, such as heavy metals, often bind with the suspended solids and accumulate
with them in the sediment. Thus bound, they are relatively inert. But as discussed previously
(under "pH "), they may be released from the sediment as a water becomes more acidic, and
become toxic to fish and invertebrates.
Where suspended solid levels are constantly high, photosynthesis can be depressed and the
primary production of plants, both plankton and rooted, can be inhibited. This can disrupt the
entire food chain.
If the suspended solids contain much organic matter, the sedimentation of this material can
cause an oxygen depletion to the extent that bottom dwelling fish and invertebrates could not
survive (discussed in the previous section). A faulty sewage treatment plant could be a source
of such conditions.
Any land use practice which exposes soil to precipitation is a source of sedimentation. The
greater the slope and the longer the time exposed to precipitation, the greater will be its effects
on the aquatic environment. It is noteworthy that a hard downpour of short duration is more
damaging than many light rains. Clearcut logging, and especially the associated logging roads,
are major sources of sedimentation in the Northwest. Highway construction is another source.
Plowed agricultural lands, which remain fallow during the rainy season, are another. Housing
construction, or any kind of construction which exposes the soil to precipitation, is a source of
sedimentation.
* Turbidity is a measurement of the suspended solids in water. Whereas suspended solids are
measured directly by weight, turbidity is a measure of back scattering, as light, passing through
a column of water, is scattered by the suspended particles in the water. The two parameters
are not correlated because fine particles yield high turbidity values but have low weights.
However, both are measurements of suspended matter, which is a cause of sedimentation.
Thus, the discussion on sedimentation in the previous section applies here as well.
Water Quality Criteri a have been established by the State of Washington to protect our surface
waters for our health and enjoyment, as well as for the propagation and protection of fish,
shellfish, and wildlife. A classification system ranks surface waters as Class AA
(extraordinary), A (excellent), B (good), C (fair), and Lake. All surface waters in the Ludlow
Watershed are classed as Class AA (extraordinary). Under this classification, Water quality
. . shall markedly and uniformly exceed the requirements for all or substantially all uses"
(WDOE 1980). r
Class AA criteria for surface water are -as follows:= r J
31
Fecal Coliform
Freshwater - shall not exceed a geometric mean value of 50 organisms/ 100 ml
of sample, with not more than 10 percent of samples exceeding 100
organisms /100 ml.
Marine water - shall not exceed a geometric mean value of 14 organisms / 100 ml
of sample, with not more than 10 percent of samples exceeding 43 organisms / 100
MI.
Dissolved Oxygen (DO)
Freshwater - shall exceed 9.5 mg /l (milligrams per liter or parts per million).
Marine water shall exceed 7.0 mg /l.
When natural conditions, such as upwelling, occur, causing the dissolved oxygen
to be depressed near or below 7.0 mg /L, natural dissolved oxygen levels can be
degraded by up to 0.2 mg /L by human- caused activities.
Temperature
Freshwater - shall not exceed 16.0 °C due to human activities.
Marine water - shall not exceed 13.0 °C due to human activities.
Temperature shall not exceed 16.0 °C (freshwater) or 13.0 °C (marine water) due
to human activities. Temperature increases shall not, at any time, exceed t-
23/(T +5) (freshwater) or t- 8/(T -4) (marine water). Y
When natural conditions exceed 16.0 °C (freshwater) and 13.0 °C (marine water),
no temperature increase will be allowed which will raise the receiving water
temperature by greater than 0.3 °C.
For purposes hereof, "t represents the maximum permissible temperature
increase measured at a dilution zone boundary; and "T" represents the
background temperature as measured at a point or points unaffected by the
discharge and representative of the highest ambient water temperature in the
vicinity of the discharge.
Provided th4 temperature increase resulting from nonpoint source activities shall
not exceed 2.8 ° C, and the maximum water temperature shall not exceed 16.3 ° C
(freshwater).
pH
u:
Freshwater shall be within the range of 6.5 to 8.5.
Marine water shall be within the range of 7.0 to 8.5.
pH shall be within the range of 6.5 to 8.5 (freshwater) or 7.0 to 8.5
(marine water) with a human- caused variation within- a range of less than
0.2 units.
32
Turbidity
Shall not exceed 5 NTU over background turbidity when the background
turbidity is 50 NTU of less, or more than a 10 percent increase in
turbidity when the background is more than 50 NTU.
Toxic, radioactive, or deleterious material
Concentrations shall be below those which have the potential either singly or
cumulatively to adversely affect characteristic water uses, cause acute or chronic
conditions to the most sensitive biota dependent upon those waters, or adversely
affect public health.
Aesthetic Values
Shall not be impaired by the presence of materials or their effects, excluding
those of natural origin, which offend the senses of sight smell, touch, or taste.
VA Sewage treatment processes were developed in response to the need to protect the public health
and welfare and to create a nuisance -free environment (WCCOE 1974). The objective of the
process is to decompose and stabilize human sewage to a level where it is not a health risk to
humans, animals, or the environment. The most basic type of treatment is referred to as
"primary sewage treatment" This mechanical /physical process consists of a tank or tanks
which allow substances in tfie wastewater to settle or float and be removed from the water. If
biological system are incorporated into the treatment process, it is labelled as "secondary
sewage treatmen - ". This additional level of treatment converts dissolved and suspended
materials into forms more readily separated from the water (WCCOE 1974).
The treatment process can be evaluated by analyzing the wastewater as it enters the treatment
plant, at various points throughout the process, and as it exits the plant. Efficiency and success
can be determined by a comparison of these measurements. Over the years, plant operators
have determined that a typical primary treatment plant should produce a certain level of waste
stabilization, whereas a secondary plant should produce a greater degree of stabilization as
illustrated in Table 6 -1.
As Table 6 -1 shows, secondary treatment results in an effluent having considerably lower BOD,
TSS, and bacteria. Thus, the impact on the receiving water is greatly reduced. In 1989 the
Port Ludlow sewage treatment plant expanded and upgraded its secondary treatment plant. The
plant has a permitted treatment capacity of 320 thousand gallons per day but currently averages
100 thousand gallons per 'day. - Measurements from January 1991 to May 1991 show a
reduction of 92 percent for the BOD and 93 percent for TSS. Fecal coliform values have been
at 3 to 4 Fc per 100 ml of water (Smith 1991).
Wastewater solids are separated from most of the water and biologically stabilized in the plant's
digestors. The solids are then concentrated to a sludge, and this sludge must be disposed of.
In the Northwest sludge is often used as a soil conditioner and fertilizer in silviculture to
increase tree growth. However, it must first be determined not to contain excessive amounts
of fecal coliform or other toxicants such as heavy metals. Care must be taken that it is not
applied where it would enter aquifers or surface waters.
Currently, three permitted sludge applications are active in eastern Jefferson County: 1)
Ludlow Utilities Company in Port Ludlow; 2) City of Winslow; 3) City of Sequim (Jefferson
County Health Department). Although the sludge application sites are in the Thorndyke
Watershed, the sites are near the Ludlow Watershed boundary. Soils in this general area are
highly permeable, and thus some potential exists for groundwater contamination.
33
Sludge application permits are submitted to and reviewed by the Jefferson County Health
Department,.- Requirements for application include, but are not limited to: -geohydxoiic analysis
of the proposed site, permeability rate, laboratory analysis of sludge, rainfall data, and seasonal
applications rates. A contingency plan for an alternative disposal site must be approved as part
of the permit process. This ensures proper disposal if the primary site cannot be used.
Additionally, operators must submit monthly and quarterly reports on sludge composition.
6.2 LUDLOW WATERSHED WATER QUALITY
The Ludlow Watershed is composed of numerous lakes, streams, bays, and wetlands. The
Watershed can be divided into five basins or drainage areas with distinct river systems (Figure
2 -1). For this study, basins are designated as Oak Bay, Ludlow Bay, Squamish Harbor,
Paradise Bay, and Bywater Bay. In the following sections these basins are described and their
water quality assessed.
6.2.1 Oak Bay Basin
The narrow Oak Bay Basin contains 4,664 acres of gently sloping forests ` transected by
numerous unnamed tributaries which all flow east into Oak Bay (Figure 6 -1). The whole
western shore of the Bay is lined by residential development. The major hydrologic feature of
the basin is Mats Mats Bay, which covers 133 acres and is drained by a watershed of about 2.4
square miles. Mats Mats Bay is fed by three small streams. The largest stream, which is
seasonal, enters the bay at the northwest corner. The two smaller year -round streams enter the
bay along the southwest shore. Land use in the Mats Mats Bay area is primarily single family
residential. Very little agriculture exists along the bay or its tributaries except for some small
pastures with horses along the west shore. The Jefferson County Conservation District reports
there are nine head of livestock in this basin (Latham 1991).
Design plans are currently being prepared for future development of the peninsula where Mats
Mats Rock Quarry currently exists. In approximately seven to ten years, depending on rate of
rock excavation, the entire quarry will be transformed into a community consisting of single
family residences, apartments, condominiums, a hotel, and a marina. The preliminary plans
propose that existing water sources be used to supply the development and that the sewage be
piped to the Ludlow wastewater treatment plant (pers. comm., 1991). This proposal is
currently outside the permitted area for sewage collection and not part of Pope Resources
comprehensive sewage plan (Larry Smith, 1991)-. Additionally, the County has not received
a proposal or application for the above development as of October 1991 (Jerry Smith, 1991).
If this development does materialize, then potential water quality impacts to Mats Mats
Bay would be increased.
The east side of the Bay on Basalt Point is currently occupied by the Mats Mats Rock Quarry,
which produces approximately 300,000 tons of crushed rock per year. The Bay itself contains
a public boat launch and moorage. On the eastern edge of the bay is a herring bait facility.
Floating net pens are used for holding live herring for ten to fourteen days prior to packing
This facility packages approximately 2.7 million herring annually (Jerry's Bait 1991).
Water Quality Assessment/Extent of Impairment
Water quality data for the Oak Bay Basin is limited to the following sources: 1) Jefferson
County's data collected in 1991; 2) Jefferson County's fecal coliform data collected by Rubida
(1989); 3) data from Smayda's and Harper's study (1989). All three investigations pertain
only to the Mats Mats Bay portion of the basin.
34
Mats Mats Bay is connected to Admiralty Inlet by a 3,300 foot channel. The bay water and
inlet water are exchanged via this channel about 1.3. times per day. As the tide changes
between mean high and mean low water, 65 percent of the bay water is discharged. Thus,
considerable water exchange occurs (Smayda and Harper 1989). The exchange rate is an
important characteristic because it determines how incoming waters and their associated
components (such as dissolved oxygen; see below) are mixed and distributed.
Dissolved Oxygen
In a study conducted by Smayda and Harper (1989) from June to October 1989, DO was above
the 7.0 mg /1 State standard for Class AA waters in 26 out of the 28 samples taken (Figure 6-
2; Table 6 -2). However, on October 5, the last sampling date, DO was measured at 5.1 and
6.3 mg /l at two different locations in the bay. On this same date, DO was also depressed in
samples taken one mile offshore in Admiralty Inlet; oxygen levels in these offshore samples
were 5.8 mg /1 at depth and 7.0 mg /1 near the surface. Collias et al. (1974) reported that
Admiralty Inlet is an area of active upwelling, especially in the fall, and that deep, oxygen
deficient water is entrained into the surface water. Because offshore water is the source of
water for Mats Mats Bay, Smayda and Harper (1989) concluded that the upwelling is partly
responsible for the low DO levels. Similar DO depressions, caused by low DO in Admiralty
Inlet water, were reported for Ludlow Bay (Patmont et al. 1985; see discussion in Section
6.2.2). When natural conditions, such as this upwelling, cause DO to be depressed near or
below 7.0 mg /1, State standards allow man- caused activities to further degrade DO by 0.2 mg /1.
However, in Mats Mats Bay the DO was as much as 1.9 mg /l below the background level.
Besides the oxygen deficiency in Mats Mats Bay's water source during part of the year, other
possible causes of oxygen depletion are agricultural runoff, failing septic systems, waste
discharge by boaters, and the herring tenet pen operation.. Smayda and Harper (1989) calculated
that oxygen consumed by the herring represented only 0.1 percent of the incoming DO, and
they did not perceive it to be a problem
Nutrients
Smayda and Harper (1989) measured nitrogen and phosphorus compounds in the three
tributaries of Mats Mats Bay (Table 6 -3), in the incoming tidal water, and in the bay itself
(Table 6 -2). Total nitrogen levels averaged about the same in the tributaries (472 µgNA) as in
the incoming water (480 µgN/1), whereas total phosphorus was somewhat higher in the
tributaries (141 µgP /1) than in the inflowing water (89 µgP /1). However, because the tidal
inflow was about 1900 times greater than that from the three tributaries, the contribution from
the tributaries was considered negligible.
Compared to a flow weighted average for 44 streams in the Seattle -King County region,
nitrogen in the Mats Mats tributaries was only about one -third as much, whereas phosphorus
was 2.4 times greater in the Mats Mats tributaries.
Other possible sources of nitrogen and phosphorus that could contribute to the nutrient load of
the Bay are sediment release, ground water and septage input, boater wastes, and the herring
net pens.
Nitrogen or phosphorus could potentially limit phytoplankton growth. The ratio of N:P in
marine phytoplankton is generally about 10:1. When a ratio less than this exists, nitrogen is
said to be limiting. Ratios of N:P in Mats Mats Bay were about 5:1, the same ratio which
occurred in samples taken one mile offshore in Admiralty Inlet. Despite the low ratio,
35
indicating nitrogen to be relatively scarce, absolute values of dissolved inorganic nitrogen
(DIN), the form readily taken up by phytoplankton, remained high (Table 6 -2). Even during
August when peak phytoplankton concentrations occurred, DIN was three times greater than the
15 1.4gN /1 level deemed necessary for maximum phytoplankton growth (Eppley et al 1969).
Light, rather than nutrients, control the rate of phytoplankton growth for much of the year in
Puget Sound (Winter et al. 1975).
Chlorophyll
Chlorophyll a (chl a) is frequently used as an indicator of phytoplankton abundance. Although
w` there is no established standard for chl a, concentrations above 10 Ag /1 are considered to
constitute an aesthetic nuisance and to possibly cause oxygen depletion. Mats Mats Bay
samples were usually less than this level, but did exceed it in 4 of 28 samples. The highest of
these was 14.97 µg /1, and none of the values was considered alarmingly high. Higher levels
were noted in nearby Port Ludlow Bay at the same time (HLA 1989).
Fecal Coliform
Fecal coliform counts in Mats Mats Bay have been within the state standard of < 14
organisms /100 ml. Thirteen samples c- Jected from May to July 1987 had a GMV of 4
organisms /100 ml (Harper -Owes 1988). Smayda and Harper (1989) reported that 19 of 28
1 9 samples collected from June to October t9�P_ contained less than the detectable limit of 2
organisms /100 ml, and that the maximum detected concentration was 11 organisms /100 ml
(Table 6 -2). In Rubida's study (1989), GMV's were 2 or less at the four stations sampled from
March 1988 to January 1989 (Table 6 -4, Figure 6 -3).
In contrast to the marine samples, freshwater samples from each of the three tributary streams
flowing into Mats Mats Bay (Figure 6 -3) exceeded the State standard of <50 organisms /100
MIL ml. In sampling conducted from February to January 1989, this limit was exceeded for all
r three tributaries on some dates (Table 6 -4). However, GMV's for all 6 months sampled were
39, 44, and 23 (39 at a site farther downstream) fc/ 100 ml for the three streams, and thus did
not exceed the State standard (Rubida 1989). Fecal coliform levels were much higher in
Smayda's and Harper's study (1989) conducted from July to October 1989. Fecal coliform
counts exceeded the standard in 7 out of 9 samples; the highest count, 920 organisms / 100 ml,
came from an October sample (Table 6 -3). The flow weighted GMV for all tributaries on all
dates was 230 organisms/ 100 ml. Our data, collected during February, August, and September
1991 shows that the standard was exceeded 5 out of 7 times (Table 6 -5; Figure 6 -4). The
GMVs for sites LD6 and LD7 were 96 and 45 fc /100 ml respectively. Thus, the State standard
of 50 fc/ 100 ml was exceeded at site LD6.
What would one predict regarding the contamination of shellfish in Mats Mats Bay based on
these relatively high fecal coliform levels in the freshwater sources and the essentially
undetectable levels in the incoming tidal water? Considering that bay water is exchanged with
ocean water 1.3 times each day, that 87.5 percent of the bay water is replaced with ocean
water each day, and that the volume of the incoming tidal water is 1900 times greater than the
freshwater sources (Smayda and Harper 1989), one might reasonably conclude that the fecal
coliform entering the bay from the streams would be so greatly diluted as to make them
inconsequential. Even recognizing that there are probably other fecal coliform sources within
the bay, one might still conclude, based on the undetectable levels in marine water samples,
that these sources also are of no consequence._
36
y
As logical as all this may sound, the shellfish tell a different story. One oyster collected on the
southwestern shore near the mouth of the two streams had a tissue concentration of 673.
organisms /100 gm (Figure 6 -2, Smayda and Harper 1989). One collected on the northwestern
shore near the stream mouth had a concentration of 452 organisms/ 100 gm. And
concentrations in four samples from Joseph Daniel's property on the northern shore ranged
from 220 to 315 organisms / 100 gm. The GMV of these six samples collected from July to
October 1989 was 333 organisms /100 gm, considerably higher than the 230 organisms /100 gm
guideline promulgated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration regulating commercial
shellfish sales. Oysters collected near the stream mouths displayed greater concentrations
(GMV 552 organisms /100 gm) than did samples collected from a more distant point (GMV 259
organisms /100 gm). Prior data cited in this study include a shellfish sample from June 1985
with 20 organisms / 100 gm and three from 1.987 having concentrations of 20, 78, and 1300
organisms /100 gm (Jefferson County Department of Health).
What then is the explanation for the high fecal coliform levels in the oysters compared to the
low levels in the marine water? First of all, oysters as well as other shellfish, filter
tremendous volumes of water each day. In doing this, they concentrate fecal coliform, as well
as other bacteria, algae and pathogenic microorganisms. Thus one would expect fecal coliform
to be more concentrated in the tissue of an oyster than in the surrounding water. However,
this explanation alone is not satisfactory. If it were, all the oysters in Puget Sound would be
similarly contaminated, and this is not the case. What all this shows is that low levels of fecal
coliform in the water column do not assure that shellfish inhabiting such water will not be
contaminated.
How do the shellfish become contaminated then? One possible explanation is that the fecal
coliform in the immediate habitat of the shellfish (i.e., microhabitat) is much more concentrated
than in the general surrounding water column. Smayda and Harper (1989) stated that
freshwater inflows typically represent a large source of fecal coliform contamination to marine
systems, and that because freshwater tends to float, the highest contamination levels often exist
in surface water. Because oysters inhabit the intertidal zone, they are highly exposed to surface
water. They concluded that the three tributary streams were a likely cause of contamination
to the oysters of Mats Mats Bay.
The affinity of fecal coliform to adhere to sediment provides another clue to the cause of
contamination of shellfish microhabitat. Fecal coliform are known to inhabit the sediment in
streams (Determan et al. 1985). During a rain event, especially a heavy one, sediment from
the stream bottom along with sediment in the surface runoff becomes suspended in the water
column and is carried downstream. Some are deposited in eddies and are re- suspended in
subsequent rain events. Some continue to the stream mouth and are deposited in the Bay.
Once in the Bay, winds and tides continue to distribute them. One might expect the intertidal
zone to receive most of the deposition and the greatest of this to be closest to the stream
mouth. Although shellfish samples from Mats Mats Bay were few, the most contaminated
oysters were collected closest to the tributary mouths. Thus, the affinity of fecal coliform to
adhere to sediment may help explain how shellfish can be highly contaminated while inhabiting
a bay in which few organisms are detected in the water column.
Mats Mats Rock Quarry
Mats Mats Rock Quarry is a potential source of pollution. Any deep excavation provides
access for contaminated surface water -to pollute the surrounding groundwater (Hall 1986).
Petroleum products, including gasoline, diesel fuel, and oil are possible pollutants. A diesel
fuel spill reportedly contaminated two nearby wells in the past (Flicker letter, 1991).
37
6.2.2 Ludlow Bay Basin
The Ludlow Bay Basin is the largest basin in the Ludlow Watershed. It encompasses 11,085
acres of mostly forested lands along with dense residential development around Ludlow Bay,
and agricultural operations along Ludlow Creek in Beaver Valley (Figure 6 -5). The main
hydrologic features of the basin are Ludlow Bay and its; princie''fresh water source, Ludlow
Creek.:1 �-
Ludlow Bay covers 2.2 square miles and is primarily encircled by residential and resort
development. This area has the highest population density in the Watershed. Pope Resources
currently has plans to expand its development over the next 10 years (Smayda and Jones
1991b). The proposed development consists of thirty -one discrete development areas which
range in size from 1 to 275 acres. The total project area is about 1,200 acres and upon full
buildout will support an additional 700 residential units. These units include single family,
duplex, and multifamily residences; 37.5 acres will have commercial development; and a nine-
hole golf course is planned. A community center, security center, and 20 vehicle RV park will
also be part of the development.
The Bay supports the Port Ludlow marina which currently has 300 slips with approximately
seven live - aboards. Additional facilities associated with the marina include: fuel dock, hotel,
restaurant, grocery store, marina supply store, golf course, and public restrooms with showers
(pers. comm., 1990). The Pope & Talbot log dump and storage operation is at the north end
of the Inner Bay. This storage site typically contains 10 -12 million board feet of predominantly
Douglas fir and red alder (Patmont et al. 1985).
The Ludlow Wastewater Treatment Plant (WTP) is at the north end of the development. This
is the only point source currently permitted in the Ludlow Watershed. The plant was built in
the late 1960's by Pope and Talbot Development, Inc. as a small secondary treatment plant.
It was designed to treat the wastewater from residential and resort development for flows up
to approximately 0.06 MGD (million gallons per day). Over the years the flows increased to
well beyond the "design capacity of the plant because of the increased population. This
caused the efficiency of the treatment process to be reduced and State standards for the effluent
often were not met. Therefore, it was necessary to upgrade and expand the capacity of the
treatment plant.
In 1984 Washington Department of Ecology issued an order to Pope and Talbot to conduct a
detailed water quality study of the Bay to assess existing and possible impacts of the WTP on
Ludlow Bay. A private consultant was contracted to conduct the water quality investigation in
1984 to determine where the new outfall should be placed (Ludlow Utilities 1985). During this
period several interim improvements were made in the existing treatment plant to improve
effluent quality. Reducing infiltration and inflow to the system, extending chlorine contact
time, and improving the operation of the plant all contributed to improving the treatment
process until a decision could be made on the kind of treatment plant which would be
compatible with the needs of the Port Ludlow community and the environment of Ludlow Bay
(Patmont et al. 1985).
38
In -1-989 the expanded secondary sewage treatment plant was completed. - -- The outfall consists
of a 12 inch pipe that extends 3,000 feet northeast from the plant and terminates in
w approximately 50 feet of water in the Outer Bay. This secondary sewage treatment plant
currently discharges about 0.1 MGD of treated effluent. It has a design capacity of 0.38
MGD.
In conjunction with the operation of the expanded plant, Pope Resources has been required to
develop a monitoring program as part of their NPDES (National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System) discharge permit. This monitoring program focuses on water quality
impacts associated with the "point" source from the plant outfall. Other monitoring programs
conducted in the past (Rubida 1989; Smayda and Jones 1991a) and currently being conducted
by Jefferson County are measuring the impacts from "nonpoint sources of pollution.
Ludlow Creek is the primary source of fresh water to Ludlow Bay. The creek drains an area
of 8,640 acres and the mainstem is 4.5 miles long. The total miles of Ludlow Creek including
all intermittent tributaries is 38 miles. Agricultural activities occur only at the headwaters of
the North Fork. The remainder of the creek is bordered by forest and scattered residential
holdings. The lower 1.5 miles of creek contains little development or related human activities
(Rubida 1989). The West Fork of Ludlow Creek originates at Ludlow Lake and subsequently
flows through other small lakes, as well as several wetland systems, before joining the North
Fork.
Water Quality Assessment /Extent of Impairment
Several water quality studies of Ludlow Bay have been completed since 1984 in conjunction
with the proposal to expand the Ludlow WTP. Since the 1989 WTP expansion, routine
monitoring of the area immediately surrounding the outfall and selected points in the Bay is
required by WDOE under the NPDES permit. Pope Resources is currently conducting
_ additional monitoring studies to determine the affects of nonpoint sources of pollution on water
quality in Ludlow Bay. This monitoring will include annual stormwater sampling at six sites,
annual surficial sediment sampling at four sites, and six occasions of water column sampling
adjacent to the log boom (Pope Res. 1990). The County has developed a routine sampling
program at four stations along Ludlow Creek.
LUDLOW BAY
The overall water exchange rate of Ludlow Bay is 39 percent per day. This is considered
"well flushed" since the entire volume is replaced every 2.5 days (Ludlow Utilities 1985).
Nonetheless, there are a few persistent occurrences of water quality violations in the Bay.
These are associated with log dump /rafting operations and pleasure boaters. According to
several different studies, it appears that point as well as nonpoint sources of contamination are
occasionally a problem in the Bay (discussed below).
Dissolved Oxygen
During the fall months the DO is depressed in Ludlow Bay ( Patmont et al. 1985; HLA 1990).
The causes for the DO depression were intensively studied by Patmont et al. (1985) in
relationship to the upgrading of the wastewater treatment plant on Ludlow Bay. In general, DO
in the Bay was depressed because the source water from Admiralty Inlet surface water began
decreasing from about 9.0 mg /1 to a low of about 6.4 mg 11 in October (Figure 6 -6). Mean DO
levels measured from May to August ranged between 8.0 and 8.5 mg /l, but those taken from
39
September to November were between 6.5 and 7.1 mg /l (Figure 6 -6). The State standard is
mg /l. Interestingly, DO levels increased as samples z were °taken °closer and closer to shore.
This was attributed to an increase in aeration as the water became shallower and to an increase
in photosynthesis.
Besides this general decline in DO resulting from oxygen depression in the source water, site
specific DO "sags" occurred in the Inner Bay. DO periodically fell to 6.0 mg 11 from July
through November. A worst -case level was estimated to be 4.5 to 5.0 mg /1. After
investigating several possibilities for these "sags ", Patmont et al. determined that the
decomposition of logs in the log storage area was the principal cause. In this decomposition
process, bacteria consume large quantities of oxygen. In fact, it was estimated that the bacteria
could produce a theoretical "sag of 33 mg /1. In actuality, the "sag" varied from 0.7 to 4.0
mg /l and averaged 2.0 mg /1, or only 6 percent of the theoretical value. This was attributed to
the oxygen produced by re- aeration and by photosynthesis, which helped balance oxygen
consumed by the bacteria.
Fecal Coliform
Fecal coliform levels in. Port Ludlow Bay have generally not exceeded the 14 fc /100 ml State
standard. In 1984, GMVs ranged from <3 to 8 fc /100 ml at 11 sites in the Bay (Patmont et
al. 1985). The highest GMVs occurred near the WTP discharge (4 fc /100 ml) and at the
marina (8 fc /100 ml). In monthly sampling conducted by Rubida (1989) from March 1988 to
January 1989 at four sites in the Inner Bay, 4 of 40 samples contained 14 or more fc/ 100 ml
(Table 6 -6). In a different study, conducted in 1989 from June to October, 38 of the 50
samples collected at five sites contained less than the detectable limit (2 fc /100 ml), and the
remainder had less than 6 fc/ 100 ml (HLA 1990).
The upgrading of the WTP in 1989 resulted in/ substantial decrease in the fecal coliform
concentration of the effluent. In 1984 the fecal coliform GMV was 77 fc/ 100 ml (Patmont et
al. 1985); in 1989 the GMV was 11 fc/ 100 ml, one - seventh the 1984 concentration (HLA
1990). Smayda and Jones (1991a) calculated that the upgraded WTP contributes less than one
percent of the annual loading to Port Ludlow Bay, even after excluding the contribution from
the principal source, Admiralty Inlet.
. < Several studies have indicated that boaters are a cause of elevated fecal coliform levels in Port
Ludlow Bay. Patmont et al. (1985) reported that of the 11 sites sampled throughout Port
Ludlow Bay from March to November 1984, the highest fecal coliform GMV (8 fc /100 ml)
occurred in samples from the site closest to the marina. Furthermore, the GMV for the marina
`. site was about 13 times higher during the period from May 28 to September 4, when 105 to
`� ` 107 boats were moored in the Bay (51 fc/ 100 ml), than it was from March 16 to April 10,, KIA
' when less than three boats were in moorage (4 fc /100 ml). In 1984, 15 percent of the s ip es
collected during the summer weekend periods exceeded the FDA guidelines (230 organisms/ 100
gm).
In a separate study conducted in 1985, Patmont et al. (1985) compared fecal coliform levels in
the water column and in butter clams to the number of boats moored in the Bay during the
Fourth of July holiday period. They found that fecal coliform levels in both the water and
clams increased and decreased in a manner corresponding to an increase and decrease in the
number of moored boats (Figure 6 -9). Fecal coliform GMVs exceeded the State standards for
marine water on four of the eight days sampled. About 20 percent of the clams sampled
exceeded the FDA guidelines.
40
Rubida (1989) also reported that high fecal coliform concentrations in the Inner Bay were
associated with increased boating activity during the Fourth of July weekend in 1988. The
GMV for the eight sites sampled was 9 fc /100 ml; the three highest measurements were 37, 75,
and 171 fc /100 ml. Faust (1982) reported that fecal coliform in shallow bays increased from
3 to 28 fc/ 100 ml after the arrival of boaters on the Labor Day weekend, and decreased soon
after they departed.
Recreational boating has already been implicated in the degradation of Puget Sound water
quality. Violations of water quality limits for fecal coliform bacteria have been attributed to
pleasure craft in Port Ludlow and Eagle Harbor, as well as at Jarrell Cove, Penrose Point, and
Squaxin Island State Park. Also, some commercial shellfish beds near marinas or boating lanes
have been decertified or conditionally closed due to an increase or threat of an increase in fecal
coliform contamination from boats (WDOH 1989).
It would appear to be unwise to encourage boater use of the Bay without simultaneously
ensuring that marine discharge laws are obeyed. In 1981 the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency and Coast Guard published regulations that require the use of permanently installed
marine sanitation devices on boats equipped with marine toilets. These systems are designed
either to treat the sewage prior to overboard discharge or to hold sewage on board for land
based disposal (WDOH 1989).
Ammonia and Chlorine
The presence of the Ludlow WTP introduces a potential discharge and accumulation of
toxicants in the water and sediments surrounding the outfall. Two reported toxicants of greatest
concern for water quality criterion are un0ionized ammonia and total residual chlorine. The
EPA water quality criterion for unlionized ammonia is 20 µg /l NH3 N (EPA Quality Criteria
for Water, 1976). If an excess amount of ammonia is present in the wastewater it can tie -up
the chlorine and make it unavailable to disinfect. There currently is no evidence of an
environmental impact from ammonia. For total residual chlorine the EPA water quality
criterion is 10 µg /l for nonlsalmonid and 2 jcg /l for salmonid waters (EPA Quality Criteria for
Water, 1976). Since chlorine is used as a disinfectant at the WTP�it is sometimes found to be
out of acceptable concentrations in the area immediately surrounding the outfall. Similarly,
elevated turbidity levels are occasionally found only in the vicinity of the plant outfall caused
by high concentrations of suspended solids in the effluent (Patmont et al. 1985). However,
most of these problems have been corrected and have not occurred since the plant expansion
and upgrade.
LUDLOW BAY TRIBUTARIES
Fecal Coliform, Nutrients, Metals
Ludlow Creek contributes to the fecal coliform loading of Port Ludlow Bay. However, fecal
coliform levels in Ludlow Creek samples have generally been below the <50 fc/ 100 ml State
standard. In the 1985 study (Patmont et al.), the fecal coliform GMV was 22 fc /100 ml.
Based on a dilution factor of 120:1 with Inner Bay water, Ludlow Creek could have elevated
the fecal coliform levels in the Inner Bay water by no more than 0.2 fc /100 ml. This would
contribute less than 15 percent to the levels observed in the Inner Bay and even less if the
Outer Bay is included.
41
Rubida (1989) sampled Ludlow Creek seven times from February 1988 to January 1989 (Table
6 -6). Fecal coliform GMV's, based on the entire - sampling period, were 20 fc /100 ml ° at the
creek mouth, 27 fc/ 100 ml about 0.5 miles upstream, and 37 fc/ 100 ml about 1.5 miles
upstream from the mouth (Figure 6 -7). Smayda and Jones (1991a) summarized fecal coliform
data collected on eight dates in 1984 and 1989 during baseflow conditions; levels ranged from
14 to 80 fc/ 100 ml with a GMV of 28 fc/ 100 ml. In this study in which samples were
collected in February, August, and September 1991, fecal coliform GMVs were 35 fc /100 ml
at the creek mouth, 39 fc /100 ml about 0.5 miles upstream, and 172 fc /100 ml about 1.5 miles
upstream (Table 6 -7; Figure 6 -10). The State standard was exceeded at the upstream site
(LD4). The highest of nine measurements (1,900 fc /100 ml) occurred at this upstream site in
September.
During three storm events in March 1984, concentrations were 23, 43, and 3 fc /100 ml; no
flow measurements were taken; turbidity ranged from 1.8 to 2.3 NTU. In an October 4, 1990
storm event, the fecal coliform concentration was estimated to be 1,400 fe /100 ml; the flow
was 22.4 cfs and turbidity 6.9 NTU. Also exhibiting high values during the storm event were
dissolved nitrogen as nitrate and nitrite (1,930 1.4gN /1) and total nitrogen (1,714 µgN /1).
Moderately high were dissolved phosphorus (200 µgP /1) and total phosphorus (260 µgP /1).
Pesticides, herbicides and PCBs were not detected. Iron occurred at the concentration of 1,660
µg /1. Iron normally occurs at relatively high concentrations in soils and stream sediment. It
is not considered a hazardous metal either to human health or to aquatic life; thus there is no
State standard for this metal. The only other metal detected was lead (1.3 µg /1), which was
below the State standard for Class AA water (Table 6 -8).
In addition to sampling Ludlow Creek during the October 4 storm event, Smayda and Jones
(1991a) sampled five other freshwater sources (Table 6 -9; Figure 6 -11). Samples from two of
these sources, the marina stormwater outfall and the WTP outfall, were combined because of
the similarity in the two catchments. Of the six freshwater sources sampled, fecal coliform was
highest in the combined sample for these two sources (4,500 fc /100 ml). Total suspended
solids was relatively low (17 mg /1). Pesticides, herbicides, and PCBs were not detected. The
metals detected were chromium, copper, iron, lead, nickel, and zinc. Of these, lead (9.5 µg /1)
exceeded the chronic State standard (Table 6 -8). This is not to say the standard was violated
because the chronic standard requires a comparison to a four- -day *average. Smayda's and
Jones' total metal data were collected during a storm event when turbidity reached a peak, and
thus are more representative of acute conditions than chronic conditions. Acute conditions are
based on a one- hourdaverage. Acute standards are usually considerably higher than chronic
standards. Lead was well within the 82 µg /1 acute standard.
Salt Marsh Creek had the second highest level of fecal coliform (2,600 fc /100 ml). Total
suspended solids were also high, averaging 315 mg /l during the rainstorm. Pesticides,
herbicides, and PCBs were not detected. Copper (22.9 1Ag 11) exceeded chronic and acute State i
standards. Lead (8 µg /1) was above the chronic standard (3.2µg /1) but below the acute standard
(82 µg /1). Chromium, iron, nickel, and zinc were also detected 'and were below State
standards.
The storm pond outfall collects runoff from a 138 -acre area catchment, which is about half
forested and half housing development. Drainage collects in a relatively large two -cell pond,
and outflow passes through a gravel filter. Fecal coliform averaged 670 fc/ 100 ml during the
storm event. Total suspended solids averaged 40 mg /1. No pesticides, herbicides, or PCBs
were detected. Lead was measured -at- 3.3 µg /l, which was slightly above the State chronic
standard. Chromium, copper, iron, nickel, and zinc were detected, but were below State
standards.
42
Golf Course Creek-originates .in.. the golf course and has a drainage area of about 566 acres, _
of which about half is forested and half golf course. Few homes exist in the drainage. Fecal
coliform averaged 600 fc/ 100 ml during the rainstorm. Total suspended solids averaged 58.7
mg /1. No pesticides, herbicides, or PCBs were detected. Copper and lead levels excee SState
chronic standards but were below the acute standards. Chromium , iron, nickel, and zinc were
detected, but were below State standards.
Sources of Metals
Stormwater transports suspended solids composed mostly of soil particles. Soil consists of
weathered rock, minerals, and organic materials and can contain nutrients metals, and bacteria.
The fact that iron, a common metal in soil, was highly correlated (r =0.99) to total suspended
solids indicates that soil particles dominated the solids in storm flows (Smayda and Jones
1991a). Soils with a common parent material have fixed ratios of iron to other metals. Thus,
if metals such as copper, lead, and zinc co -vary directly with iron, then their abundance can
be attributed solely to their natural presence in the soil.
Based on this reasoning, Smayda and Jones (1991a) concluded that Ludlow Creek and the
manna and WTP outfalls had been enriched with copper, lead, and zinc with respect to iron.
They attributed this enrichment to street runoff, a known source of enrichment of these
particular metals in urban environments (Horner 1986; Mar et al. 1982).
Golf Course Creek exhibited apparent enrichment in total copper. A potential source of this
metal is the herbicide copper sulfate, which has been used periodically in the golf course ponds
to control algae (Smayda and Jones 1991a).
The storm pond outfall showed elevated levels of copper and zinc with respect to iron. Their
presence was attributed to the washout of fine soil particles from the gravel filter pack. The
fine soil was believed to have been brought in with the gravel, and that once the particles were
flushed from the system, copper and zinc levels would decrease (Smayda and Jones 1991a).
Table 6 -10 contrasts the water quality of the October 4 runoff at Port Ludlow to the water
quality in runoffs from other residential developments in western Washington. Comparing
average figures, Port Ludlow's runoff was 1.75 times higher in fecal coliform, 1.5 times higher
in suspended solids, and 10 times higher in soluble nitrogen and phosphorus. Of the metals
analyzed, cadmium, chromium, and nickel were at about the same levels; arsenickd copper
were about one -third less for the Port Ludlow runoff; zinc was one - twentieth less; add lead was
one - ninety-fifth less. One should keep in mind that the Port Ludlow data used in this
comparison represents only a single rain event. Whether this event represents average
conditions is not known. Smayda and Jones are conducting more storm event sampling in the
fall of 1991.
A land use change along the upper reaches of Ludlow Creek was noted in map and aerial
photography review of the Watershed. By comparing the National Wetland Inventory (NWI)
mapping based on 1980 aerial photos and Jefferson County land use mapping based on 1984
aerial photos, it appears that much of the wetland system that was mapped in the past along the
headwaters of Ludlow Creek may have been converted to agricultural and pasture uses. This
has reduced the vegetative buffer along the waterway which results in loss of entrapment and
filtering capabilities for removing pollutants from the water.
43
On -the south, -of Ludlow Bay is an 18 -hole golf course covering approximately 330, acres ,-which
is part of the Port Ludlow Development. An unnamed creek (called Golf Course Creek in this
report) flows through the golf course into Ludlow Bay. The potential exists for fertilizers and
other lawn chemicals to migrate into the creek (Ralph letter, 1988). Much of the natural
vegetation along the creek has been removed resulting in loss of vegetative buffer. The lack
of adequate buffer can increase the negative water quality impacts. When precipitation occurs
or excessive amounts of water are applied to the golf course by the sprinkler systems,
pollutants can more readily enter the groundwater. Excessive watering can also leach mineral
salts and metals from the soil into the groundwater (Hall & Assoc, 1986). An additional 9
hole golf course (approximately 270 acres) is currently being built to the west of the existing
18 -hole course (NBBJ 1987).
Future Development
Stormwater runoff from the proposed 1,200 -acre development is recognized as a potential
source of pollutants. Smayda and Jones (1991a) estimated that about 19 percent of the rainfall
on the Port Ludlow Bay catchment runs off. After development, this is expected to increase
to 35 percent (Smayda and Jones 1991b). Smayda and Jones (1991b) determined that 78
percent of the stormwater runoff would enter the Inner Bay of Port Ludlow Bay and the
remainder would flow into Shine Creek and eventually to Squamish Harbor (Figure 6 -12).
Approximately 17 percent of the total runoff from the proposed development would enter the
Inner Bay by way of Ludlow Creek.
Smayda and Jones (1991b) projected water quality of the Inner Bay during and following
development in relationship to aiO 0.54 :inch storm event (Table 6 -11). During a rain of this
magnitude, fecal coliform was expected to increase from the pre- development level of 2 fc/ 100
ml to 8 fc/ 100 ml during the construction period, and then decrease to 6 fc/ 100 ml after
construction. These estimates are below the State standard of 14 fc /100 ml. Nutrient levels
were not expected to change substantially, and therefore chl a levels should not be impacted. _
Of the three metals examined, lead and zinc were expected to have little change. Copper was
expected to double from 0.05 gg /1 before construction to 0.10 1Ag 11 during construction, and
then decline to 0.08 µg /1 after construction. These levels are all below the 2.6 µg /1 State
standard for copper.
Water quality projections were also made for Ludlow Creek (Table 6 -12). Little change was
expected for suspended solids, fecal coliform, nutrients, or heavy metals. It should be noted
that these projections are based on the effectiveness of instituted control measures, such as
having many small drainageSvs. few large ones; vegetated strips, swales, and detention ponds;
avoiding excavation during the wet season or taking extra precautions to trap suspended solids
in the runoff; hydroseeding exposed soil; using fertilizer in small quantities over an extended
period; and minimizing impervious surfaces by clusteffig houses, shortening driveways, and
using porous pavement.
The Point No Point Treaty Council has expressed concern over this anticipated increase in
stormwater flow resulting from the increased impervious surface area of the proposed
development. The Council is concerned with the expected increased load of contaminants in
the runoff water and their effect on fish and wildlife, including salmon and bald eagles (Ralph
letter, 1988).
44
Drainage Chance
In the initial Ludlow Watershed Characterization (Evans 1991), reference is made to high fecal
coliform levels in Ludlow Creek's headwaters, an agricultural area where there is cattle
grazing. This is based on data from Rubida's study (1989) and specifically his "Ludlow 4
sampling site. The U.S. Geological Survey map shows this portion of creek as part of Ludlow
Creek. We walked this portion of stream and found that it was actually a part of the
Chimacum drainage. A long -term resident recalled that the stream course was redirected to
East Chimacum Creek in the 1950's. He has seen salmon as high up this stream as Beaver
Valley Road.
We sampled this same site (LD5 in our study) in 1991, but have not included the data in this
report for the reason mentioned. An upper replacement site (LD9) was sampled once on
November 25, 1991, and had a concentration of 17 fc /100 ml. Thus, we do not know if fecal
coliform- levels are high in upper Ludlow Creek. Upper Ludlow Creek does originate in an
agricultural area, but currently does not drain as much of this agricultural land as it apparently
did at one time.
Pollutant Loadings
Smayda and Jones (1991a) calculated that tidal exchange from Admiralty Inlet annually
contributed 99 percent of the total nitrogen and total phosphorus and 67 percent of the fecal
coliform to Port Ludlow Bay. They also calculated the relative contributions from other
sources (Figure 6 -13) after excluding the large contribution from Admiralty Inlet. Thus,
although these "other sources" graphically total 100 percent, they actually represent only one
percent of the annual loading for nitrogen and phosphorus and 33 percent for fecal coliform.
Of the "other sources ", the WTP contributed 60 percent of the total nitrogen; Ludlow Creek
stormflow contributed 29 percent; and Ludlow Creek baseflow, stormwater (other than Ludlow
Creek), boater discharge, and direct precipitation contributed the remaining 11 percent.
For total phosphorus, the WTP represented 87 percent; Ludlow Creek stormfl6w 7 percent; and
the rest of the sources 6 percent.
For fecal coliform, Ludlow Creek stormflow represented 59 percent; boater discharge 26
percent; stormwater 13 percent; Ludlow Creek baseflow 1.5 percent; and WTP 0.5 percent.
Remember, however, that these sources contribute 33 percent of the annual loading and that
Admiralty Inlet contributes 67 percent.
But now let's look at it from another point of view, from that of a shellfish. To a shellfish,
the vast majority of fecal coliform bacteria distributed throughout the Bay are unavailable.
What is most relevant to a shellfish is the density of fecal coliform within reach of its siphon
or what is in its microhabitat. With this in mind, the contributions from Ludlow Creek and the
other smaller creeks as well as from boater discharge take on greater significance. Remember
that the three small tributaries in Mats Mats Bay were implicated in the contamination of
shellfish even though the tidal exchange from Admiralty Inlet was 1,900 times greater than
their combined flows.
Again, to emphasize the importance of-the "other source!, consider the association between
moored boats and fecal coliform contamination (Figure 6 -9). In only a few days of increased
boating activity, fecal coliform levels increased in both the marine water and shellfish samples;
45
20 percent of the shellfish samples exceeded the FDA guideline. Yet boater discharge
accounted for only about 9 percent of the annual loading of Port Ludlow Bay, including the
exchange from Admiralty Inlet. Considering that stormflows would not be contributing much
during the summer boating season, we recalculated the relative contributions of the "other .
sources ' after excluding stormflow contributions. Now boater discharge contributes 93 percent;
Ludlow Creek baseflow 5 percent; and WTP 2 percent. Including Admiralty Inlet exchange
water, boater discharge represents 31 percent of the fecal coliform contribution to Ludlow Bay.
We have also recalculated the data after excluding boater discharge to emphasize the
contribution of stream stormflows during the fall /winter stormflow season. In this manner,
Ludlow Creek stormflow would contribute 80 percent and other stormflows 17 percent for a
total contribution of 97 percent for all stormflows. Including Admiralty Inlet exchange water,
all stormflows would contribute 32 percent of the fecal coliform during the stormflow season.
But considering that fecal coliform has an affinity for sediment, and that stormflows contribute
large amounts of sediment to the microhabitat of the shellfish, we suspect that the 32 percent
figure substantially underestimates the actual contribution of the stormflows to shellfish
contamination.
Smayda and Jones (1991a) calculated annual loadings of fecal coliform and nutrients for all the
freshwater sources sampled (Table 6 -13; Figure 6 -11). Ludlow Creek had the highest annual
storm loading of goal coliform and most of the nutrients. Its much larger drainage area is
probably a princi e factor for this. Fecal coliform loading from Salt Marsh was next highest.
Its loading was calculated to be about one - seventh that of Ludlow Creek even though Ludlow
Creek's drainage area was about 100 times larger. Nutrients were also high in Salt Marsh
Creek. Third highest in fecal coliform and also high in nutrients was Golf Course Creek; its
annual load of fecal coliform was estimated to be about one - fiftieth of Ludlow Creek's load.
The remaining three sampled sources combined (storm Wnd discharge, marina outfall, and
WTP outfall) contributed only about ono ne—hundredtM the fecal coliform load of Ludlow
Creek. These latter three sources were also low in nutrients.
Thus, stream stormflows, particularly from Ludlow Creek, contribute substantial quantities of
fecal coliform bacteria to Ludlow Bay and to the microhabitat of shellfish during the fall /winter
stormflow season. Boater discharge contributes substantially during periods of peak boating
activity, typically from Memorial Day weekend at the end of May to Labor Day weekend in
early September.
6.2.3 Squamish Harbor Basin
The Squamish Harbor basin drains 5,182 acres of gently to steeply sloping forested lands with
residential development confined primarily to the shores of the Harbor in the communities of
Shine and Bridgehaven (Figure 6 -14). This Basin is bisected by 8.7 miles of State Highway
104. Approximately three miles to the west of the Hood Canal Bridge is the site of the Shine
Rock Quarry which produces approximately 72,000 tons of basalt rock annually (pers. comm.,
1990). The main hydrologic feature of the basin is Shine Creek which consists of 17.2 miles
of stream including the mainstem and all the tributaries that empty into it.
The proposed development by Pope Resources (discussed in Section 6.2.2) will also affect the
Squamish Harbor Basin. About 22 percent of the development site's surface runoff will flow
south, and eventually enter Shine Creek (Figure 6 -12; Smayda and Jones 1991b), Runoff from
roughly 220 acres of the proposed development representing 155 units will enter Shine Creek.
The portion of the site which drains to Shine Creek is located on flat ground, but on relatively
46
-_ -.� A" .� s a . ,.y _ - -... ..-_ � s . .'+#: °. 3i.A '3' _ — _ x3 t � _—. -- ]?;`: '£i . •'t..3, ?3�
slow draining Belfast series soils. Due to the topography, a substantial portion of rai fall is
expected to percolate to the shallow perched - ground water layer, rather than directly run, off into
Shine Creek.
Water Quality. Assessment /Extent of Impairment
Shine Creek
Data in the Squamish Harbor Basin is limited to that which we collected in 1991 at one site in
lower Shine Creek (Table 6 -14). Fecal coliform concentrations were 16, 24, and 5 fc /100 ml
for February, August, and September respectively. Smayda and Jones (1991b) expected that
the proposed development would have minimal changes on the water quality of Shine Creek
and Squamish Harbor.
Some concerns were expressed by Timber, Fish, and Wildlife (TFW) representatives, PNPTC
members, and the Forest Practices Board concerning the water quality of Shine Creek and its
tributaries. According to a recent telephone conversation and several letters from the last two
years it appears that concerns about water quality impacts to the creek are not a new issue. A
PNPTC biologist found within the last year that increased sediments in Shine Creek originating
from logging unstable soils had smothered a large area of salmon spawning habitat (survey,
1990) .
It was recently discovered that Shine Creek originates in Port Ludlow golf course, as does
Ludlow Creek. There is concern that fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides, if sprayed too close
to the stream, will contaminate the stream and degrade water quality (pers. comma, 1990).
Thus acceptable pest control and vegetation management should be practiced by Pope
Resources. Likewise, a water quality project is needed to protect the upper reaches of the
stream from both clearing and spraying activities (survey, 1990).
Another concern is a possible salmon blockage on lower Shine Creek at the site of an old
easement road. The abutment rocks of the bridge were creating the blockage. Finally, there
is a concern that sedimentation is degrading water quality and fish habitat (Hirschi letter,
1989). A stream enhancement project is proposed to protect fish habitat as well as water
quality of the stream (Hirschi letter, 1989). Also a sediment monitoring program is proposed
to begin soon on Shine Creek (pers. comm., 1990).
One routine and two runoff -event sampling stations are currently being monitored by Jefferson
County personnel. Monitoring will continue to at least mid -1992. The routine station is at the
mouth of Shine Creek and the runoff event stations are located at Bridgehaven and at the mouth
of an unnamed creek on the north shore of the Squamish Harbor.
Squamish Harbor
In 1990 the State Department of Health, Shellfish Program, conducted a sanitary survey of
Squamish Harbor. Out of 79 sites surveyed, none had sewage effluent draining to the ground;
eight sites had sewage disposal systems located in adverse location (i.e., near bank or
bulkhead); and six sites had adverse soil conditions. Observations and recommendations from
the report were: there are many old drainfields which are too close to the harbor; the privy at
Hicks County Park is too close to the bank and stream; the privy should be checked for
seepage or moved farther away from the stream; there is much refuse on the slopes all around
47
the County Park; septic systems on the sand bar should be monitored frequently. Based on
the survey and despite these adverse conditions; Squamish Harbor was approved as a shellfish -
growing area (Guichard 1991).
No water quality problems have been reported in relation to the Shine Rock Quarry. However, i
as mentioned previously, creating depressions in the ground can provide an access point for
contaminated surface water to reach and contaminate the groundwater.
6.2.4 Paradise Bay Basin
The small drainage area bordering Paradise Bay covers 1,306 acres of steeply sloping forested
lands with residential development (Paradise Bay community) concentrated along the central
shoreline (Figure 6 -15). The remainder of the basin contains scattered houses and numerous
unnamed drainages which all flow east into the Bay.
Water Quality Assessment /Extent of Impairment
No reports of water quality monitoring were found for the Paradise Bay Basin during this
current project. In the futurega runoff -event sampling station at an unnamed creek will be
located in the central portion of the shoreline.
6.2.5 Bywater Bay Basin
The Bywater Bay Basin includes 957 acres of gently sloping forested lands with scattered
residential dwellings (Figure 6 -15). The southern portion of the Basin is crossed by State
Highway 104 with access to the Hood Canal Bridge. To the north of the Bridge is Bywater
Bay State Park, which is located along a salt water beach and has a public boat launch. The
main hydrological feature of the Basin is Bywater Bay, which covers approximately 150 acres.
Water Quality Assessment /Extent of Impairment
Similarly, no reports of water quality monitoring were discovered for Bywater Bay Basin
during this current project. There is no proposal at this time to locate a sampling station in this
basin.
48
v
UQ
C
H
(D
EA
a 0
4�
N
IA
�
a
rn '.
UC
(D
N 1
CL
H
0
fy
rn
2288 leel
1/15/9)
Scala. jInch =
•1
r.
r
' .. 1
,r
�
by i+ �
Al
�:l
Lb� � � •:.. { 3 ,,..�' .y ^...b �.
r` r
.
�
� ;41.x' ih +•5 ✓v � 1 '
O z
IL
ono
o
1 a.
� w w z
o w cc z
v� v� o •d o
Q
tp vi
ul
'. : � 9 \'iSa u, ✓J� I:.i1�J i 4. ', 1' ' � ✓' r4.�i 3 .0
tk bI
:�ytlrG JU r
to
CD
Cd
cd
U . �,'• A .� V)
IL
. •c
►V.,
W)
i
e
i
B
1
MATS
MATS MATS
QUARRY
Figure 6 -3. Map of Mats Mats Bay showing seawater and stream sites sampled by Rubida
(1989) from February 1988 to January 1989.
r
Lu D LOW' WA7F —RASH E�
_ AMBtF --IT S7A7 rOKIS
LD 41
j s
t ^� � i tip• � • `( (— � T
LD5
J } l ( \LD
BAY
FJPAP(04e BAY
� o ��� l � � •i -f' rI
LD
:�;.L T4,-�
I- a � y/'� —r+� \, 117 � .J •I- 1 — `� ��`�(,• `a,� / -1 `� ( j/��
Figure, 6-4. Map showing the Ludlow Watershed ambient stations sampled in 1991.
_ N
ca
,I.
� Y:• Ivry t }'� I
1
i
A
cp
l7
�
a
son
OT
O
,
�
rir so" `
O
~
_
CO-
op
�R
1
n 0
`
`' 1
,
5
saw
%gap
saw
wo
.r ...�
:3r,
♦
o
wft
ca
,I.
� Y:• Ivry t }'� I
1
i
cp
son
OT
1
n 0
`
`' 1
,
5
saw
%gap
saw
wo
:3r,
CL
CL
(p
G
ce
ca
,I.
� Y:• Ivry t }'� I
1
i
i
0 N N
N N
0 . «.
X3
4-3
00
3 oo
rn
ro
"t7
b
rU
>
p N
ul
.L,
.O
I Z1 to
r-
rcf
'N
L
S
d
d
0w
.N O
.
4-3
>
b
�el E
QN ,
L
-0
CD
C)
cu
•
Oi
i
p�
+- �
cU
¢
i-)
CD
C
q)
C
fd Q
G iN u • v�`
�
(i
cn r
E
E v
fn
' J�--
.+ �� bA D
CL
C CT
C v
N
c Z
1-y >
0
��'S�
Pk cil
v b
-o
U
f
d
U1 E
N E
O
-a -C;, 00
N
p N
'- a
w "
c, f(
`r
rn vi
v, c
ul �
,n
,n
� '
ty >, N
Pq cd
fu
D i
I
r
N
.0
O
E
> H
~,3L
4-3
—
..�
E �
v�
r
N
N
b Cr
v
O
000• w
TE,
1 r o
E
- 0
3
3
N
d
d
Eo
EE
O
Q QI G F
'
ro
a
+j
co
0
co
.16
Co
co UD 00 ko
r-/
—4
.�
(L /6w) u96XXO panlosSLO
f
(L /6uu) ua6Sxp panlossld
u,
LAND -USCZ
O RESIDENTIAL
�--� AGRICULTURE
�5, 0 2000 4coo
SEE
C.t l�, .a �(eia �JirtC
M1
i
via <c—.
tc —
ni to \ Mats 2
i Mats 1:
r r
Ludlow 4
�Reap ',�.•.. C'1d.T:�a
`,. Cfce.K G:R li R.dGb WG ?C
t c•�en M1o'ur -svr rtvi- -5w.*►s�s.Y.y.
�_, � austiai or anricui}vrai � • • .
tared uha ad�ac.:nT �
Ludlow
3 La
l.uGlow •� „� •�
O '
Ludlow 2�..� Ludlow 1
Figure 14.
iv7ats %sacs and Lud1Cw watershed s'l-=wirg
£'.
residential, agrictttur acd station cv
Figure 6 -7. Map showing the sites on Ludlow Creek sampled by Rubida (1989).
" a BOAT SURVEY
Figure 6 -8. Map of Port Ludlow Bay showing sites sampled by Rubida (1989).
0
N
CJ R
C
�J
N
i
� c
•� o
oc
� Z
v E
-00
200
100
0
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
LEGEND
10,000 C. Shellfish (Butter Clams) Stations A, E, F, and G
geometric mean y std. dev.
FDA Guideline
1 C2 Tal_a Pt. (Station C)
L ,000
° L 230/100 gms —Z —�—,
v °0 100 —�
\
10 j C3
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
'July 1985
Figure 6 -9. Comparisons of boating activity (a) to fecal coliform concentrations in the water
(b) and shellfish (c) of Port Ludlow Bay during the July 4, 1985 holiday period
(from Patmont et al. 1985).
LEGEND
1,000
b. Bay Water
�
Stations 8 -0 and 9 -0
dev.
geometric mean = std.
WDOE Standards
❑
Station 6 -0
100
x3/100 ml
—
IU
14/100 ml —
T
6
13
M
8
1
❑ ❑
1
1
0
0.1
i
2 3 4
5 6
7
8 9
LEGEND
10,000 C. Shellfish (Butter Clams) Stations A, E, F, and G
geometric mean y std. dev.
FDA Guideline
1 C2 Tal_a Pt. (Station C)
L ,000
° L 230/100 gms —Z —�—,
v °0 100 —�
\
10 j C3
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
'July 1985
Figure 6 -9. Comparisons of boating activity (a) to fecal coliform concentrations in the water
(b) and shellfish (c) of Port Ludlow Bay during the July 4, 1985 holiday period
(from Patmont et al. 1985).
Lu 0 LOW WATF—zkSH:
AXEA
1 J , �'t�{ �' � ~� � .�, AI'•;LzI�LI+ S l �Or�IS
LD ,
LD, 14
_ j a
nj
JWY
�� — • � •J 1 i I / `��,11 1 �� ^.-- � ,'� . \� i 1 •� (- T'2d.71�JL� oO+,`f
f t iti[
LD
I
t a �` •
Figure 6 -10. Map of the Ludlow Watershed showing sites sampled during 1991.
Ludlow Creek Zasatiow(187
Eoater Discharge(SZ)
TOTAL NITROGEN
(kg /yr)
(31,881 kg /yr)
Ludlow Creek Stormllow (9203)
rect Precicitaticn(66)
Storm water(14-45)
mV-1P E(ltuent l 192001
Ludlow Creek Stormtlow(6 -7)
Direct Precipitation (9)
Ludlow Creek Saseflow (362) ---�,. �Storm water (92)
Boater Discnarge (41)
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
(kg /yr)
(8811 kg /yr)
Boater Discharge (15.7)
wwTP Ellluent (76501
MNTP Ellluent (0.3)
'r Storm water (7.6)
Ludlow Creek 8asellow (0.9)
FECAL COLIFORM
(triilion /yr)
(59.8 x 1012 /yr)
Ludlow Creek StormllOw (35.4)
Figure 6 -13. Annual loads of total nitrogen, total phosphorus, and fecal coliform to Port
Ludlow Bay. The principle source, exchange water from Admiralty Inlet, is not
included (from Smayda and Jones 1991b).
Qq
5
co
rn
r
O"
h r:
�.�.{ 0
W
�•eQ
N
r
y H
v�
r
(IQ
EA
(D
Cl
0
a.
Vf
(1.
F•1
N 1
Mi
Eon
CD
N
1
i+ f ,; �Par:di�
t'. i Bay,, r
Ir
0 1
' 1 '
1
1� S uamish Har r
Basin l �`
1
- w, Shine C�uarry ' t
.4
-W 00 ` , SR
o S f
Hicks Co.
Park
o
l � ,
1 `
1 �
' Harbor
NWO @M/
Bridgehaven i
South Pt. /
Scats: 1 inch = 2288 feet
I
i
4
N
b
mod.
�CrQ
W
CL
� R
CD
y
a
O
A.
Scale: 1 inch 1900 feel
1/15/91 '
' 0
0
' Tala . Pt.
a
a
•
Scale: 1 inch 1900 feel
1/15/91 '
' 0
' Tala . Pt.
�Par-i:is
RC-1-Y,,:
e r
o\f
pt.'. Hannon
Hood
i
Head
ter, /;'
1
/
1
/
1 i
Q)
J 1
�.
�
Basin
,;.;•
Scale: 1 inch 1900 feel
1/15/91 '
nnA CPrr)nrInry CPWA4P. treatment nlants.
Parameter Percent reduction
Primary Secondary
treatment treatment
Biological oxygen demand (BOD) 20 -40 80 -95
Total suspended solids (TSS) 40 -70 70 -95
Bacteria 25 -70 90 -98
Table 6 -2. Water quality characteristics of Mats Mats Bay sampled by Smayda and Harper
(1989) during the summer of 1989. Station locations are - shown -in _Figure 6 -2.
T and B refer to top and bottom and I and O to inflow and outflow samples,
respectively.
117-RA-161. TOTAL TOTAL SOLUBLE
SECCRI DISSOLYED + VELDAHL NOS- PH09- FECAL PvAEO --
DATE SSA DE?TH aE'9 SALINITY O:YG -%j AXKOFIA MIT Tr HIT'..DGe ( FE-CRUS PHOSUS =LIFO9.M C2L a P1-'rN
a deg.0 PPt ag/L ug F/L ug M/L at F/L u= P/L ug P/L >(FNIIC0a1 ug /L ug /L
11- Jun -89 1; 4.3 13.0 29.10 10.4 52 95 467 76 < 2 8.20 1.50
IB 11.8 30.00 8.4 58 143 208 75 < 2 2.30 0.40
10- Jul -89 21 > 3.2 10.8 30.43 10.2 28 159 256 61 44 < 2 7.00 < 0.10
20 > 3.8 13.0 30.38 11.9 69 67 346 53 40 1 2 3.90 O.ZO
3T 2.2 14.2 30.34 12.6 50 63 < 100 58 38 11 5.50 1.30
3B 11.8 30.43 T.2 123 51 175 66 47 < 2 3.60 0.80
4 0.7 13.7 30.29 12.8 23 TO 211 61 40 < 2 13.40 3.19
'
5.8 11.9 29.82 1 < 2 3.50 < 0.10
I 7 6
.1 55 140 < 100 63 < 2 1.70 < 0.10
IB 11. 29.89 6.6 58 168 < 100 73
07- Aug -89 2I > 4.7 I2.2 31.30 12 174 354 87 5T < Z 5.05 < 0.10
20 > 4.8 12.3 31.70 8.4 11 174 462 84 59 < 2 3.19 0.32
3T 3.0 15.3 31.12 11.6 < 10 47 286 74 32 < 2 11.87 0.59
S8 13.0 31.23 10.0 < 10 71 502 81 69 2 14.97 < 0.10
4 > 1.6 15.5 31.52 12.6 12 59 585 80 40 < Z 10.06 0.50
IT 8.8 14.5' 30.69 9.9 46 160 584 78 49 4 6.30 < 0.10
1B 31.41 6.9 29 211 327 91 66 < 2 3.00 < 0.10
06- Sep-89 2I > 4.9 12.9 30.98 7.5 20 163 329 79 75 :< 2 5.48 < 0.10
20 > 48 15.8 30.69 9.8 23 194 < 100 79 78 < 2 4.11 < 0.10
3T 3..7 14.9 30.65 9.0 13 168 256 81 72 5 7.40 < 0.10
3B 14.5 30.98 7.5 23 168 < 100 88 72 < 2 5.86 < 0.10
4 > 2.8 13.6 30.32 7.6 26 164 199 86 71 < 2 6.51 < 0.10
1T 7.6 17.0 31.23 T.5 25 154 < 100 83 79 < 2 6.00 < 0.10
IB 13.0 31.16 6.0 35 183 < 100 83 84 < 2 5.00 < 0.10
07- Sep-89 211 > 4.8 13.0 30.54 9.5 23 195 284 81 77 < 2 4.04 0.57
222 > 5.0 13.0 30.29 9.9 24 194 < 100 82 75 < 2 7.25 < 0.10 -
201 > 4.7 13.2 30.87 9.5 17 214 148 81 146 < 2 2.95 < 0.10
202 > 4.7 13.8 30.32 10.1 27 201 < 100 79 78 < 2 2.65 0.60
29- Sep-89 2I1 3.7 12.5 30.11 9.5 45 228 272 93 57 < 2 1.74 < 0.10
2I2 > 5.1 12.5 30.93 9.3 70 506 216 145 57 < 2 2.00 0.10
201 > 5.1 12.3 31.49 9.7 88 132 445 77 53 6 2.19 0.11
202 > 3.5 1Z.6 30.50 11.0 71 119 173 93 56 4 3.24 < 0.10
05- Oct -89 2I 5.1 12.0 30.49 9.2 63 223 246 86 53 4 < 0.10 2.29
ZO > 5.0 11.T 30.42 8.5 100 231 490 91 57 < 2 0.45 < 0.10
3T 4.3 12.5 30.49 8.0 99 209 325 90 47 2' 0. {3 0.17
3g 12.4 30.28 5.1 77 192 390 91 57 < 7 2.34 < 0.10
4 > 1.9 12.2 30.45 6.3 103 206 205 93 53
IT 7.9 12.5 29.82 7.0 67 178 557 77 55 < 2 0.80 0.30
IB 12.0 30.56 5.8 63 225 557 92 67 Z < 0.10 < 0.10
30.63 8.1 36 230 257 89 62 2 4.08 0.45
AYE3AGi 21 4.6 12.4
20 4.8 13.0 30.85 9.6 50 214 288 87 62 2 6.30 0.54
3T 3.3 14.2 30.65 10.3 43 122 242 T6 47 2
38 1Z.9 30.73 7.5 58 121 292 82 51 2 6.20 0.99
4 1.8 13.8 30.65 9.8 41 125 300 75 4H 2 4.15 0.15
IT 7.5 14.0 30.39 8.6 48 158 335 0.10
1B 9.2 30.76 6.3 46 197 271 85 54 2 2.45
14 < 10
MUMARDS > 2 > 7.0-
or > (bk.C-0.2) _
Z?
�
c
m
cm
CU
�
>a
v
y
00
N
-�
O
v
�.^ O
O
O
t0 N tD
N N
".
t'7
N
rr to
O N
U
\
G
O
O
�+
N
r.
U
�
OD
^p p
a0
CD
L- m
N i7 (D
K]
oo
cd
O
cd U
C77
..Z
O
O m C•7
r♦ N C�
Q N tD
qr,
a t o
\
N
cDOC,
tnmm
vas
r- .-+
C
O O
O
O
W
E 0-
D
W
a
N
O r-1 O
Q to C!
CD =
�
m as Ca
Q c�
N Q4 o
=
¢ G O
N
Q
N C7 r~
m
C7 N N
w 00
p Gad E
Co
p Q�
E-
y
LC Z
cl
FE
a
m
vtnti
mCOt+]
OOO
m + C
2
.-. c- LO
-4 m LM
r~ Cm to
E
E E
_ _
Z Z
P
c�3
H
�,
�-.
a
e
oor•
000
tn.ro
N
•�
aA
Co
U
v
v v v
CT CO m
N co Cv
N N •--�
ti 00
d
O�..�
O O O
CN � O
C>7 }+
�p
H
rm-.,
•y
W
�
U
m
Q t•7 to
aT rl sr
m m �
U N
U
O
•a-
o C, =
to C) tT
to o m
♦-+ 4
U
eT
N r-1
4 N r-1
►w-�
O
CO
U
.�
cm
z
=,cC.0
d
U
vQM
NqrO
O tom
CO.
.--� ..r O
C7 tG N
O
p
10
yCIS
Cf
CD C12
e- Q rr
m .r <'
r .>
_
m
CO m O
N
N N
CD CD
t —4 N
r, O O
M OO
�
tnr
U
000
OOO
CD CD
CD
kr
r-4 N C-9
.-+ N C•7
r-/ N C S
r i N en
.)
E
U U U
U U U
U U U
U U U
M
CSC
E--+
C!
C4
Cf
C7
m
C77
m
m
w
�
�
9:6
y
c
U
A
►�
<
I
I
O -
O
O
O
�
c
m
cm
CU
N
v
y
00
N
-�
O
v
Z
s
O
r~
tz+
-C•
U
G
O
c�
p
N
r.
m
OD
a0
CT7
of
C1
-a-
N
to
C1
N
C7
O
W w
F�
O ►•,• W
w z '¢
Ln
G tq
OL NNNNNNNC)NN
•' V V V V V V^ V V
m
m
m
M H
> NNNNf-mNNNN
}y
� g
vv — V N V
E o
m
a�
L
H fh
N
m ' N N N N N N N N N N
+, g VVVV V VV
a�
a�
L
N
N
C NNC,4mmNNNNN
m
vv--vv
m
m
N
m
CN _
i�
C co
'p
C7
U CD
O L
7
U�
N
N LL
N
N i Lt) i i i i i i i C7
o O
E
m
c
(A
L
O
C O
m
a� 'm
co co r• 00 C _ �
L
OO
!
i i NLpLA i d d
cm
y h
CC•
m
•�
H H
C to
CO CO CO m
�• E
of d]
W J
� C•) CO � M
H
d co
>
ua G
acs
G L
N O
L m
a�
a R
m
V n
m
�_
EN
_ O
00
co ui C
O� m
C�
U- 0 00
NN�N y
CO CO N N E
C 'a
NN c' ~ L00
d N d� U
O C
Gm
CO m
c
� N r LCj CO «+ O >..+
msNCyNN v� E m E
vn
M
.a
r
S) m c0 C— C3 > C
C.i ..
m
�- LL
fE�
V /•C
a J co
�A O /fCD
LL Q 7 Q V/ Z -i V
N
E
,
C5 �
7 O
C
N CD
CO
O
y
O CD
m
U
r- r-
2
r- 00 CV) O
U-
It LO co M
C
m
co
R
CU
CL
Eo
^
^�
N
y
cc
C`•i CD LA t�
p
C6 ^ Cn c•i
E
J
R
y
cm
r
vi
-
y
�Z
O 04 It
cV
.O
c�6
CD
•— N Lo
m
C6 L6
to
J
r'
R
00
N
+y+
C6 i i
-
R
C
-J
O
.R. C2 O co
r-
O
C
'
C
R
d
to
p
n CD
R
O
�
O
R
0
In
C
r-
R 00
J
co
�
M
0 O w
00 OO
CD N
R
dC
C
N
co
ddC
G
R
R
>
7
T
Ld
f
cm
C
R
C%4
y
E w
CD C.
Co =y
O
Z
LO
MCyNNNNNNtNN
J
VVVVV —VV
m
m
Q
N N N N NN N N— N
J
VVV VVV MV
7
J
O
CL
n
J�
Vm ^t
C14v
—'N
NNMMNNNMNCV
Ji
^ V V V V
d'
D
J
M CO CV r
N i Lf) i LO M
r
Y
CD
d
Rt
O
j C4
—1 -j -j
00 N 00 1� CO O r
i Cl) i N i r N
C9
j
C3
jy
N
N
Jam.
COO
CONCH N N
H
+
L
O
41
Cn
co _
Q
00 r-
N
00 U)
o,
CA NN�-N
N
CONGO
C
"O
LNG
et N N N a `(D
C
Q
m NC4NIy R E
CL
E
=
.=CLL TC>CiQ> CO
ai m
LL (nz - a
?
�ON(M
-_
•U
�
O O
Or-t��
c
U
- O
CDN07to
r-
M CO N
-
CO
r-r-NN
O
d
00 C) N
LL
I- CO N CN
C
a
CD a,
ce)
cowrCV)
O
E
ui4ty
Du
rr
Q
Ncomm
y
J
r� LC) C7 N
y
O O M
C
J
N t m C"')
m
a,
N
cn
th GG N
F=
N t'')
o�
h Z
tz
0
LCD .— LO
C
J
C`7 I C 7 N
O
N CO CO 00
d
O
aa) rnJ
^NN
CL-0 co
�
ON N
J
0
F- v1
O
0
N CO CO CO
LA
J
r�: -: C6
C
O
to
U
It
D
d OO
0
(D
E
r-
s
«••
E o
C O
ch
p
CO O �t
ce) I LO M
eo
LL U
Q
CO O
E
H
CD
E
i
Ca
fh
E
U
0
aT+
lL
J
i
7
Cr
N
-
a0+
0
J
ce)
Cl)
rncc �
II
O O
C
vi C-4 �
U
CO
C+
CL
a
.n
E «±
� � O) a
O a)
m
ca
Li 2 Q to
y
J
- u
y > O
u P
J v
w U
O K
U
0 0� r r r r r r O r• r O r r r r r� r
M O O
O
L'1 U
N
r r r
r r r
V
^
C��.yyi
Gut
<
y
I
M O P O^ t!'� O
M M .r •- .- n• r
M P
3
M
M N ^ N
O O O
l.7
O O O
l.r
c
uu
t
I•�
•�
I`
^�
N
O
v+
P N Y� O Q
O O C
O
N M N N C•O
M y
C.1
Q ^ Q °
N•r N r11
°
^
^
^
y
y
V I
O r �'
O r •-• O N N N O O
r
`O r `O P M r•
M
VI
u
-t1
C - -
y<
Y
•'�
Q
t\A
v
w
y
L-
Ln
C w
O •-
G L =
y U
G
C
)..�
w O• C - L
C
V C C
X
O L
C v w
r- C. U
u.. G 6
•- 6 6 V U U J s C N
y
... =< �.
�
�
L
Table 6 -9.
Water quality of six freshwater sources (Figure 6 -11) sampled during an October
4, 1990 rainstorm (from Smayda and Jones 1991a).
S::a saEE 3]:T A:C:S r
_
:3a SE ::,Etc
S1Ci -AaSA C3EEC
> v¢ CurFA
l'.
aW
f a
:7C .r.7C7C
:7C
_7C
VC
t..
VC
S:G ::Z (cq /C1
tac sl Ssoorcr_ Satic-°
_... ._•3
-_.. ....
... ...
GJ
tl :3.:
:ctat .aiiit,, tae c.r,.
...„ t -1_ 173 _.
_ -3 < ..•
373 1 53
vu it (EVtZ
•7.23
•397
Satt.ale te.e:f.a > -e sonarva ? :1i
O.SG9
_
+7.C3
•]
.m•en . tcrca<
n(
c :1 C 3.:1
a .2
:
: :7 ]i
•3
]
]
t : :t
•.
..
.acattt� Gant ve Cr age
.. .. ...2: ... _.
_.. �.
_3 E9
� „Sa
2. �.. .. :7+
.. .22
.1.:52 ...•
._:]
..: 52 _._
..933
•t
9t SSJ:v &] +E:ACS 9/t 7^
L3
c._
3A C
< 1..
.7
7. •
C .7 1.: C
1 C
.3
-
'Cfll `E :1GS (641:1
7E S:tG:_ES /YEEStC::ES /vC3a
fW/U
atana•i +<
].3G C
¢.:: C
C.:::
3.CG •.
-
iec a•i +C
].Ct
3. C
1.C4
C
Ce1.u•ta<
7.:6 G
1. ^.! C
'7. CS :
3.C6 l
1. :6 '•
amw. •3 +C :G tnaanel
R.Ct C
].CG C
R.:: C
3.3: C
..
aeC taeetar
R.CC l
3.C:
J.C: C
¢•Ct
-
Atar
• +eat24C14r 1=..Ce
S.RG C
3.C: C
R.CG
-
f.- .Uttan 1
3.:6 C
'1 G
St<,Cr,n
3.C5 C
1.C3 C
S.CS C -
¢..RCS C
3.:5 I.
.
t :••nCF
J.CS C
3.73 C
J.:3 C
LCS :
J.CS C
-
E.•+mwatan
t,:•••J00
¢.CS C
¢.:1 C
•7.:3 C
1.C3 :
•1. CS
raanaaYantaf
¢•:a C.
0.:6 C
C.'S C
¢•:3 :
3. :b C
Erer/ L<cCnr
7.12 C
7.
7.!2
¢.
R.
atpt.n CCM-C.-
¢.'/! G
].38 l
J. 6
1.Ce G
:6 l
1.26
toaaoterr
i.¢ C
5.3 C
!.1 C
a.0 t -
!.1
Ar-t ar•12G 2l1O16
Araeu ar -1214
Armncer•I 2:4
¢_S '
C.3 C
¢.1
Arec�t er -1250
3.3 t
¢.3 C
3.3
S.S t
1.3
sit..,
¢.tJ G
a. u : •
-
¢.t7 :
a. s �
'7.17 :
2.G.2•r
¢.:S G
¢.:S t
¢.15 :
J. t7 C
1.t5 C
3.15 l
¢.15 t
i.G•0
¢.::
1.7
3.3 C
a.7 G
2. G•¢a
:.R C
2.3 C
2.3 C
Z.R G
3.a•oa.
E+C • t.•+•t +• .n Cara rncrattan•a
toG • Turptal tY Ieaa Cane.nvaueraa
OC Cermtty ay ataa
Cone aneratiana
a a.<ataa an wec.w t.0 .acv
G Owe<.a a .acv less
enan en• imteacm Gteetim time
-
-
Table 6 -10. Comparison of runoff quality from typical residential developments in western
Washington to that from Port
Ludlow.
The Port Ludlow data are flow weighted
averages of the
event mean
concentrations
from
Table 6 -9 paired with the
smallests and largest values observed
(from Smayda
and Jones 1991a).
Typical
Urcan
Cc:acer 4 ;990 -
' 2s:er t
as-ir,c cn
?or, Luclau
Runcr=
Coal :Y
?ura = Cuati:y t
Avc Hin.
xax. I
;vc. Xin. Hax.
Suscercec So( ics
°.3 17 390
7.9
? -0
�TOnia as 4
r,.c /L I
0.06
0 i.7
0.02 0 C._5 i
Vi.rg:_ - `licr,ce as .L
rclC f
0.2
2.10 ..O2 2.__ i
i
Saivale Phcscncrus as
? rc /L
0.02
0 0.1-9
0.20 0.01 0.27
local choscncrus as P
cc /L
0.13
0.02 0.74
0.24 0.07 0.49
Fecal Caiicarm
arc /100m1
Sc0
1 66000
1400 <10 4500
TacaL Ancisany
ug /L
<3
<2 <3 `
<40
TacaL nrsam c
uC /L I
;Q
3 37
<3
TacaL SerylLk=
uS /L
<Q.3
<0.3 <t] .3
'
TacaL Cac-iium
ug /L
0.6
<10.. 1.3
<2
TacaL C�%ramiun
uc/L
7
2 i9
7 c -3
Tacal Ccccer
uc /L
s
4 �6
5 23
TacaL Leas
uc /L
190
60 4500
2 i iQ
TacaL yercury
uc /L
<1
<0.2 <t
TacaL nickel
uc /L
ii
<3 32
4 66
Tocal Seteniu-m
ug /L
<2
<2 <2
TacaL -Silver
uc /t.
<1
<0.2 <1
TacaL Thallium
ug /L
<1
<1 <1
-
TacaL Zinc
uc /L
100
25 240
<�
IV
>0
rJ
�u
m o
Of
113
0
J
A •
ef
v
• t--Y'n'±t
M -10
OT] j
A.
G?
1VIt I
LA
stage
r
(n fit
CD
EA
----------
0
cr :E
C/)Uq
D -d
INN 0
0
bj
"DC)
(rQ
0
0
cor
C)
tA
" EA
0
0
=3
(A
to
p in
rs
Ul
to
(A [0 -
F, 0' .
a 0
it
R: R3 '.2
7
a.^
p in
rs
Ul
to
N
4)
O
bil
cd
't1
b
CG
3
0
r,
v
0
P-4
t
Cd
N
E
a
0
au
a�
b
N
0
a
a�
.c
4.4
0
N
.—a
,D
N
F,
OA
w
[ I
Table 6 -11. Estimated existing and predicted worst -case future water quality of the Inner Bay
of Port Ludlow Bay (from Smayda and Jones 1991b).
Class AA
Existing Construction Past- Marine Water
Cans tituent Condition Phase Deyelccnent Criteria
Fecal Cali form (No. /100 ml) 2.0 8.2 6.3 14;43
NUTRIENTS (ug /L)
Total Phosckrorus 70 7' 7i
Arrraoni a
24 24 24 760
Nitrate + Nitrite 147 141 139
Total Nitrogen 368 369 365 '-
CHLOROPHYLL a(ug /L) 10 10 10
TOTAL METALS (ug /L)
caooer 0.05 0.10 0.08. 2.5
Lead 0.50 0.53 0.53 5.6
Zinc 5.00 5.12 5.10 86
1. Existing fecal coliform and nutrient data is based on 1990 data from station S.
2. Metals data from Puget Sound Water Quality Authority (1988).
3. Fecal coliform criteria: Geometric mean = 14 with not more than 10%
exceeding 43.
4. Aa=nia chronic criterion is based on a PH of 8.25 and a terrparature
of 15 degrees C.
5. Predictions following a typical (0.54 in.) storm.
6. Modeled for periods of minimal (1:500 days) tidal exchange.
M
Vii:........:
Table 6 -12. Estimated existing and predicted future water quality of Ludlow Creek following
a typical storm = r ,�, Sm w�l�� = ;,� 1 �� "t> I `"9I b ),
Class AA
Existing Construction Post- Fresh Water
Constituent Condition Phase Development Criteria
Total Suspended Solids (mg /L) 21 23 21 --
Fecal Colirorm (No. /100 mL) 1400 1400 1387 50
NUTRIENTS (ug /L)
Total Phosphorus 260 259 258 --
Amnon ia 11 11 11 1800
Nitrate + Nitrite 1930 1835 1821 --
Total Nitrogen 3600 3500 3473 --
TOTAL METALS (ug /L)
Copper 3.0 3.3 3.1 12
Lead 1.3 1.5 1.4 3.2
Zinc 3.0 3.7 3.6 110
1. Existing fecal coLiform and nutrient data is based on 1990 stormuater data.
2. Metal concentrations are maxima corresponding with the peak turbidity samples.
a
N N M
L1 dJNV c-
0 C,
N N
^ dN MN.p
M M 0 0 0 0 M
000. -OCC O
d N M O P �' M
C. O O N
�•occco _
O N O O C C N
O ^ 0 0 0 0 0 O
C O O C O C O O
J V
O
n
J
J
Q
N v
C '
P
L
O :1
C O
V
.1
J
^J :1
L
- u
1 N h V
• C y
a L
-
J
N �
C1
r - -
Y V VY --+• C
V T
T V --
V L L
C O L R G y < v
C
u
E u
O y V >
4
ca
OPNNrvO r'�
R
3 L •-
d d h P N O P
-
�
1
r
L
_
>-
d - - 'a O N
L
}
v
�
-
•-
"'
O V
N
N
O a C-
v
C. N P P O M^
>"
y
N
y
..v
u
�
a
O
`
O C,3
C fC
C
O O d P
C
clC%%
I
ry
.
N
_
y
L
'Ln pct
\
}
}
Y
V C7 CI V
N
x
G R S
W
U y
1
Gi C
N N M
L1 dJNV c-
0 C,
N N
^ dN MN.p
M M 0 0 0 0 M
000. -OCC O
d N M O P �' M
C. O O N
�•occco _
O N O O C C N
O ^ 0 0 0 0 0 O
C O O C O C O O
J V
O
n
J
J
Q
N v
C '
P
L
O :1
C O
V
.1
J
^J :1
L
- u
1 N h V
• C y
a L
-
J
N �
C1
r - -
Y V VY --+• C
V T
T V --
V L L
C O L R G y < v
C
u
E u
O y V >
4
O
O
cooItrI,-
MOOLo N
C
?
O
U
d
L
7
a°
E V
C-) c) �
co ca cfl 't
1—
Un ao .-
LZ
c
a� viJ
'-ON-
H
N�
F' 1011
�O
O
'@!t-
i NLo
u O V
LL V
O�
lL U
N
�
_R
O
M
OI
C7
^
O
C
L
en
E�
�L�a
m
cn
m y
U_ Q fn
7.0 NONPOINT SOURCES OF POLLUTION
In general terms, nonpoint sources of pollution are numerous and considered to be pollution
sources not readily identifiable with a single discharge point (i.e., point sources). Since
nonpoint pollution does not originate from a single location, the sources are difficult to pinpoint
and ultimately control (PSWQA, 1989). These pollution sources originate from the activities
of many different people, places, and animals but their impacts can combine in unpredictable
ways to degrade and alter the environment.
Nonpoint pollution consists of sediment, nutrients, toxic chemicals, and pathogens that are
discharged into the environment where they are easily incorporated into runoff waters and
transported to streams and ultimately into Puget Sound. Runoff waters include drainage from
roads, parking lots, forest activities, farm wastes, marinas, lawns, golf courses, and failing
septic systems.
The Ludlow Watershed Management Committee identified a list of the potential sources of
nonpoint pollution within the Ludlow Watershed. This section presents a discussion of those
nonpoint sources of pollution.
7.1 FORESTRY
Since the late 1800's Port Ludlow has always been an important lumbering place (Davidson,
1889). Today throughout the entire Ludlow Watershed there are approximately 22,367 acres
of forested lands or 97 percent of the total Watershed. In this report, the term "forested lands"
includes private, commercial, and government owned lands that contain trees or have been
recently cleared of trees. The area of tree - covered lands versus the portion that is clear -cut for
each basin of the watershed is listed below:
Oak Bay Basin ........... 2,651 acres; clear -cut 1,948 acres
Ludlow Bay Basin ........ 8,693 acres; clear -cut 1,808 acres
Squamish Harbor Basin ... 3,177 acres; clear -cut 1,850 acres
Paradise Bay Basin ........ 739 acres; clear -cut 567 acres
Bywater Bay Basin ......... 868 acres; clear -cut 66 acres
In general, activities (related to growing, harvesting, or processing timber) occurring on
forested lands that potentially can have an adverse affect on water quality are logging and
ciearcutting practices, road building and maintenance, reforestation, slash burning, fertilizer and
herbicide /pesticide application, and removal of streamside vegetation. Water quality problems
that can arise from these activities are 1) excessive erosion of sediments due to increased runoff
and resultant accumulation of sediments in the receiving water, 2) accumulation and
decomposition of excess log debris in the water, 3) elevated stream temperatures because of
loss of vegetative cover, and 4) introduction of toxic chemicals and /or nutrients into the water
caused by excessive application and runoff of fertilizers, herbicides, and /or pesticides (PSWQA,
1989).
Clearcut logging exposes large areas of land to precipitation and erosion. Logging roads,
especially those on steep slopes, are extremely susceptible to erosion. The reduction in
evapotranspiration leaves the soil more moist and more susceptible to landslides.
The inflow of masses of sediment into -a river can cause the channel to erode laterally and
undermine steep slopes that are incipient -landslides. Thus channel instability is worsened
(Dunne 1978).
49
Increased streambed deposition in the lowlands of the Discovery Bay Watershed has been
associated with clearcut logging; the-resultant flooding of agricultural lands containing animal
wastes presents a threat to shellfish farmers in Discovery Bay (Rubida 1989).
Methods of controlling sources of nonpoint pollution are labelled as Best Management Practices
(BMPs). BMPs are designed to prevent pollution and alter the activity causing it. BMPs and
other management tools serve to control sources of pollution and to protect water resources
(WQ Program, 1988).
Since forest lands are the largest percentage of land utilization in the Watershed, they
potentially can contribute the greatest impacts to water quality via nonpoint pollution sources.
BMPs relating to forestry activities that should be implemented are: limit the miles of logging
roads; avoid steep slopes for roads and clearing; control water runoff and ultimately soil
erosion; maintain vegetated buffers along all waterbodies; minimize amount of time that log
rafts are stored in the water; apply fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides cautiously and at a safe
distance away from waterbodies (PSWQA, 1989).
In addition to the use of conventional chemical fertilizers it is possible to use treated sewage
sludge to increase tree growth. This practice is occurring on Pope Resources property south
of Highway 104 and the Ludlow Watershed in the Thorndyke Creek drainage. Sludge from
Port Ludlow wastewater treatment plant, and the City of Winslow, is collected, transported,
and sprayed on these forested lands (Beck, 1990). In the future this method of disposing and
utilizing sludge may be proposed in the Ludlow Watershed. Extreme caution should be
exercised to protect the water quality of nearby surface waters and groundwater aquifers.
Factors to be considered are quantity of sludge applied, quality of the sludge, proximity to
surface waters, soil permeability, slope, season of the year (runoff), abundance and type of
surrounding vegetation, and amount of uptake of chemical constituents by soil and vegetation
on the site.
Presently, 1991 Jefferson County field studies have found forestry related erosion taking place
in the Shine Creek Drainage. Much of this drainage has been clearcut, some during the past
year (Figure 5 -3). The drainage's moderate slopes exacerbate the amount the amount of soil -
laden runoff entering the creek.
The impacts of soil erosion can be far - reaching, from the headwaters of a creek all the way
to the bay. In our field surveys of Shine Creek, we observed extensive siltation of the
streambed. Salmonids (we observed cutthroat trout and /or coho salmon) are impacted by
siltation in three ways. First, silt covers the gravel where trout and and salmon build their
redds and lay their eggs. Thus, the water which supplies the eggs with oxygen as it passes
through the gravel is prevented from doing so and the eggs suffocate. Second, siltation of the
stream bottom degrades the habitat of stoneflies, mayflies, and other organisms which make
their homes in the spaces between the rocks. Third, turbidity decreases the salmonid's
visibility. Both of these last two impacts can result in decreased fish growth.
Another impact of erosion is the acceleration of the rate at which Shine Creek's associated
wetlands are being filled in (Figure 5 -3). As this occurs, their usefulness in controlling floods
and improving water quality is lessened.
The impacts from erosion in the upper watershed can eventually be felt in Squamish Harbor.
Thus shellfish and other invertebrate habitat can be degraded. The same suffocating effects of
siltation occurring in Shine Creek can occur in the marine habitat of Squamish Harbor. Thus
shellfish and other invertebrate habitat can be degraded.
50
Additionally, an increase in the load of suspended solids increases the potential for pollutants
such as heavy metals; -fecal coliform and pathogens to enter Squamish Harbor and contaminate
the shellfish. Thus the risk to human health is increased.
Redtail Creek, a tributary of Shine Creek, is also -experiencing the impacts from erosion due
to clearcutting within the past year. Our field crew observed severe siltation in its streambed.
One juvenile salmonid was observed in upper Redtail Creek.
Logging debris left in the stream channel is another negative impact of forestry. Some debris
is beneficial in diversifying habitat, but too much can create blockages to migrating salmonids.
The upper portion of Redtail Creek has been so littered with logging debris that the stream
channel is unrecognizable. Our field crew reported two places in Shine Creek choked with
debris which could be impeding fish passage.
Increased temperature can result from clearcutting because of the increased sunlight penetration
to the stream channel. The temperature of Shine Creek was 16.0 °C on August 13, 1991. This
is the maximum temperature allowed by the State standards for Class AA waters.
Strea ed— siltation, turbidity, and excessive debris in the stream channel have an aesthetic
impact A clear running stream, in which one can observe the fish and other aquatic life, has
more appeal than one laden with silt and choked with debris.
7.2 RUNOFF /EROSION /STORMWATER
7.2.1 Residential
In the entire Ludlow Watershed there are approximately 187 acres of residential lands (based
on 1988 Jefferson County land use maps). "Residential lands" are defined as areas of
concentrated housing development and /or areas that are not forest or agricultural lands. The
amount of residential lands in each basin .pr, as follows:
Oak Bay Basin ............. 1.7 acres; < 1 % of total acreage
Ludlow Bay Basin ........ 127 acres; 1% of total acreage
Squamish Harbor Basin .... 57 acres; 1 % of total acreage
Paradise Bay Basin ........ 0 acres; 0% of total acreage
Bywater Bay Basin ......... 0 acres; 0 % of total acreage
(These figures appear incomplete; for instance, the Paradise Bay community has been there for
years. The 1988 land use maps do not show this and other residential developments and
scattered residences.)
For the most part the majority of the residential development exists along the 138 miles of
shoreline in the Watershed. It is estimated that 45 -50 percent of the shoreline is used for
residential development. Therefore any impacts from nonpoint pollution sources go directly
into the adjacent waterbody with minimal land filtration. In addition to actual construction and
land conversion, the two most common sources of nonpoint pollution from residences are on-
site septic systems and household hazardous wastes.
The expansion of the Port Ludlow has the potential of increasing pollution in the Ludlow Bay
Basin and to a lesser extent in Squamish Harbor Basin. Erosion during the construction phase
is of particular concern. Potential water quality impacts have been extensively discussed in
Section 6.2.2.
51
The Office of the Jefferson County Assessor estimated from appraisal records that out of 1450
single family residences within the Ludlow Watershed boundary:
ON PRIVATE WELLS: 520 residences
ON COMMUNITY WATER SYSTEMS: 930 residences
In addition there are 35 cabins with just electrical hookups. The number of residences do not
include major commercial properties such as Port Ludlow Commercial Village or Port Ludlow
R.V. Park, or condominiums. Most of those properties would be on the Port Ludlow water
and sewer system.
7.2.2 Commercial /Transportation
Within Ludlow Watershed the amount of land occupied by commercial and transportation
corridors is less than one percent of the total land area. Sixteen commercial hook -ups currently
are connected to the Ludlow WTP from Ludlow Village, including shops, restaurant, gas
station, golf course, marina, laundromat, and some offices. In the Squamish Harbor Basin the
only commercial properties are the Shine Rock Quarry and a Real Estate office. The Oak Bay
Basin contains only Mats Mats Rock Quarry and a public boat launch and moorage. In the
entire Ludlow Watershed there are approximately 105 miles of roads (paved and unpaved).
Commercial and transportation activities create impervious surfaces that cause additional surface
water to runoff rather than being absorbed into the ground. Roadways tend to accumulate oil
and gasoline residues which get carried away in stormwater runoff. In the process of clearing
and constructing the sites, soils are disturbed and can result in increased sedimentation to
nearby receiving waters. Depending on the type of commercial facility there is a potential for
improper storage and disposal of hazardous wastes and chemicals. The increased runoff
produces a greater opportunity for these substances to be carried into neighboring waterbodies.
The log storage area in Port Ludlow Bay is known to cause oxygen depressions which could
effect the non%mobile aquatic organisms in that localized area. Pope Resources' consultant is
monitoring this site.
The WTP does not appear to be a problem since it has been upgraded. However, it is a
potential source of fecal coliform pollution. As the planned development occurs and the
volume of treated waste increases, the potential of fecal coliform contamination increases.
The Port Ludlow golf course is located on the hydrologic apex of two basins, and has the
potential of polluting both Ludlow and Shine Creeks. Potential contaminants include pesticides,
herbicides, and fertilizers. Slightly elevated levels of copper have been reported in Ludlow
Creek, and it has been suggested that the periodic use of copper sulfate to control algae in the
golf course ponds may be the source. Copper can be lethal to fish, shellfish, and other aquatic
invertebrates.
On July 2, 1991, our survey crew noted a rapid increase in the stream flow of Shine Creek.
Within one minute the water level rose 4 to 6 inches, changing from clear to extremely turbid.
Stream temperature rose from 13.3 °C to 15.6 °C. One hour later, when the field crew left, the
silt -laden flow continued. Six days later, the crew returned and observed that new areas of
streambank erosion and silt deposition had occurred at sites which had been surveyed previous
to this incident. The impacts of this siltation on aquatic life and possibly human health (due
52
to increased coliform loading in Ludlow Bay) have been discussed in Section 7.1. Streambank
erosion- from such a discharge would be more severe than the erosion_ incurred in most storm
events in the Ludlow Watershed.
However, there are enough impervious road surfaces to warrant concern for contamination.
In order to prevent water pollution problems from commercial and transportation activities there
are several structural and nonstructural BMPs that can and are usually employed:
Detention /retention ponds - holding basins for stormwater runoff that gradually
release the water to receiving waters or back into the ground water. Require
maintenance.
Oil /water separators - installed in parking lots to separate oil and grease from the
stormwater runoff. Require maintenance.
Biofiltration - utilizes grassy swales or grass -lined channels to carry stormwater
runoff so the vegetation can absorb or adsorb contaminants present in the water.
They tend to accumulate sediments and associated pollutants and so require
removal and maintenance.
Infiltration devices - dry wells that catch the water runoff and allow it to return
to the groundwater. Require maintenance.
Vegetated buffers - retain natural vegetated buffer strips along roadways, around
parking lots, and around buildings whenever possible. These buffers filter
sediment from the runoff thereby keeping it out of adjacent waterbodies.
Seeding and mulching - once construction activities are completed; bare soils
should be immediately seeded and mulched with fast growing grasses.
Straw bales /filter fences during construction these barriers should be used to
retain soils and prevent their movement. Straw bales have the advantage of also
being able to retard water movement and absorb potential water -borne pollutants
(PSWQA, 1989). Require maintenance.
Some of these BMPs have been used on Teal Lake Road of Ludlow Basin. In spite of
detention ponds and straw bales, severe erosion has occurred during November 1991 rains.
7.3 ON -SITE SEPTIC SYSTEMS
One of the major water pollution problems associated with residential lands in which the houses
are rural and scattered is on -site septic systems. These septic systems can fail due to age, soil
condition, lack of maintenance, lack of education on proper use, improper location and
installation, and inadequate design. When systems fail they can introduce pathogens, nitrates,
phosphates, and toxic organics into the environment. Once these contaminants are introduced
into the environment they can enter the groundwater and /or surface water. In some Puget
Sound embayments failed on -site septic systems have caused shellfish closures (PSWQA, 1988).
Poorly drained soils with primarily clay and /or a hardpan layer are particularly suspect in
adding to this problem.
53
Based on the Office of the Jefferson County Assessor's appraisal records, of the 1450 single
family residences:
ON SEPTIC TANKS: 1025 residences
ON PORT LUDLOW SEWER: 425 residences
Again, the number of residences do not include 35 cabins, commercial properties or
condominiums.
In 1970 throughout Jefferson County, including Ludlow Watershed, a permit system was started
for new conventional and alternative septic systems. Currently there are no inspections of
older, pre- existing conventional septic systems in the County. However, PUD and County
personnel do monitor old and new alternative septic systems (i.e., mound or sand filter with
mound systems) (pers. comm., 1990). The County is attempting to monitor for failing systems
but time and money are unavailable to carry out routine inspections which would be most
beneficial. This type of inspection program may be necessary in the future to prevent nonpoint
pollution caused by failing septic systems.
In order to alleviate water quality degradation due to septic systems the following measures
should continue to be encouraged: 1) the permit system for all newly installed septic systems
should be used as a database and monitoring tool, 2) routine inspections should be carved out
especially on older existing systems, 3) education of the public on maintenance and use of
septic systems should be high priority (i.e., systems should be pumped every five years), and
4) alternative systems should be researched and installed whenever possible.
Pathogens, indicated by the presence of fecal coliform, are the main contaminant from septic
systems. These would impact filter- feeding shellfish such as oysters, clams, and mussels,
which concentrate contaminants in their tissues. The real impact is not on the shellfish, but on
the human consumer. Other human health impacts which can be incurred are drinking water
contamination and recreation sports in which bodily contact with the water occurs.
We did not pinpoint any particular failing septic systems. Some of the tributary streams
entering Mats Mats Bay and Ludlow Bay had fecal coliform levels that were high enough to
warrant further investigation. These include the three unnamed tributaries entering Mats Mats
1 Ban, and Ludlow Creek, Salt Marsh Creek, and Golf Course Creek -which flow into Ludlow
Bay.
7.4 HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE
For all residential development whether it be rural or urban there is a potential for pollution
from household hazardous wastes. These solid, liquid, or gaseous substances include, but are
not limited to, the following types of products: cleaning agents, motor oil, gasoline, antifreeze,
paint, solvents, glues, batteries, fertilizer, and pesticides. These common household substances
can be introduced into the environment through improper usage and incorrect disposal including
sinks, toilets, storm drains, landfills, and backyard trash burning. All of these pathways in turn
lead to possible contamination of one or more of the following: groundwater, soils, wastewater
treatment plants (i.e. effluent and sludge), surface waters, and /or the atmosphere (PSWQA,
1989).
54
As a potential source of nonpoint pollution, household hazardous wastes are often difficult to
control because they are inconspicuous and usually_ exist ..in_ small quantities yet they are
prevalent throughout the population. No evidence has been found in the Ludlow Watershed of
this type of pollution to date. The County program of education, recycling, and disposal sites
should be continued and expanded.
All these issues and possible alternative solutions are discussed in great detail in the "Jefferson
County Hazardous Waste Management Pl ';, which was approved in April 1991. This plan
will be implemented by local government as soon as practical.
7.5 AGRICULTURE
The Ludlow Watershed contains approximately 352 acres or 1.5 percent of the total acreage of
cleared agricultural /pasture lands that have been used at one time or another for this activity.
The majority of this land is cultivated in grass, silage, or hay crops which are used for animal
feed. For this study, "agricultural lands" are defined as large tracts of land (1 or more acres)
devoted to crop growing and /or livestock grazing either currently or in the past. The largest
concentration of agricultural lands lie in the Ludlow Bay Basin, primarily along the headwaters
of the northern tributary of Ludlow Creek (Beaver Valley) and around the community of
Swansonville. A small percentage of agricultural land use also exists along the west side of
Mats Mats Bay.
Approximately 155 head of livestock reside in the Watershed (Latham, 1991). Of these,
roughly, ~'14 -third to' 'half are horses. The largest single holding on one farming operation is
9 head of livestock which are enclosed by 1,509 feet of fencing. Otherwise, most of Ludlow
Creek is unfenced and not many other BMPs have been installed (pers. comm., 1990). The
typical problems associated with agricultural activities in close proximity to waterbodies is
improper handling of animal waste, access to streams by livestock, poor pasture practices (i.e.,
overgrazing), soil erosion, and excessive chemical applications to the land. The impacts of
these activities to a receiving waterbody are possible increases of fecal coliform, nutrients,
sediments, and pathogens.
Currently, the agricultural community in the Ludlow Watershed does a fairly good job of grass
and pasture management (pers. comm., 1990). Even though most of the creeks are unfenced
there appears to be minimal use of the creeks by livestock. The muck -like soils (associated
with NWI- designated wetlands along the north tributary of Ludlow Creek) seem to keep the
animals away because they fear getting stuck (Perkins, 1990).
For the most part, there appears to be little or no use of fertilizers or pesticides in agricultural
operations. This farming community appears to be conservative in their use of chemicals of
any kind even when it is recommended to increase crop production. According to two different
water quality studies (Patmont et al. 1985 and Rubida 1989) high fecal coliform counts were
detected in Ludlow Creek. During this time period these high counts were thought to be due
to agricultural practices. In our 1991 study, we also found high fecal coliform levels in Ludlow
Creek. The highest levels occurred in the upper North Fork closest to the agricultural lands
(Table 6 -7; Figure 6 -10). Beneficial uses impacted by fecal coliform are water- contact
recreational sports, drinking water, and shellfish.
Farmers should be encouraged to use Best Management Practices (BMPs). Funds available
through the Conservation District should continue to be provided for BMPs. Important BMPs
to initially implement to protect water resources are:
55
Stream Corridor Management—, limit access of animals to all waterbodies by using
natural barriers or fences. Avoid loss of vegetation along edge of the waterbody by
leaving filter strips. .
Waste Management - collect and compost as much of the animal waste as possible to
create fertilizer for crops and pastures.
Runoff Control - divert runoff which has passed through feed lots, barn yards, and
compost piles away from streams another waterbodies. Use gutters and downspouts
on barns and buildings to collects n'water> runoff.
Pasture Management - set up a system for pasture rotation to avoid overgrazing. Apply
fertilizers (also pesticides or herbicides) properly and do not overuse nor apply close to
waterbodies (PSWQA, 1989).
7.6 BOATS AND MARINAS
Boating is a popular sport throughout Puget Sound. Ludlow Bay, and to a lesser extent Mats
Mats Bay, provide popular safe harbors where boaters can anchor. This is especially the case
on summer weekends when these bays receive the majority of their visitors. Boater discharge
can contribute to the fecal coliform contamination of water and shellfish. There have been
recorded instances when the fecal coliform counts far exceed the Class AA standards. These
pollutants in turn make shellfish unfit for human consumption and can close waters for
swimming and other water- related activities. Other substances from boats find their way into
marine waters, such as, garbage, fuel, motor oil, cleaning products, and chemicals (PSWQA,
1988 & 1989). Boater discharge has been shown to contribute to the high fecal coliform levels
in water and shellfish in Ludlow Bay.
Marinas have similar problems plus other nonpoint sources of pollution. In the process of
repairing and maintaining boats there is the potential to introduce contaminants into the water.
Detergents and paints from cleaning and scraping boat hulls, solvents, chemicals, gasoline, and
diesel fuel can all possibly be spilled or runoff into the water.
Boaters Task Force was created in 1987 to address nonpoint pollution created by the boating
community. This interagency task force is working on boater educational programs, installing
pumpout facilities at marinas, and enforcing their use particularly in environmentally sensitive
embayments (PSWQA, 1988). This task force could be used to improve the water quality of
Mats Mats and Ludlow Bays.
7.7 AQUACULTURE
According to the Washington State Department of Fisheries' Final Programmatic Environmental
Impact Statement; Fish Culture in Floating Net Pens, January, 1990, the leading causes of
water quality impairment in the State's waters are bacteria, organic enrichment, and low
dissolved oxygen. The primary sources of bacteria problems are from agricultural runoff,
failed on -site wastewater disposal systems (septic tanks), municipal wastewater (sewage)
treatment plants, and stormwater. Other sources of water quality impairment include erosion
from forest practices and streambank alteration and loss of water quality functions due to
degradation and destruction of wetlands. __ _
56
The Environmental - Impact Statement (EIS) reports that natural factors such as phytoplankton _
blooms and the upwelling of bottom waters are the primary source of organic enrichment and
dissolved oxygen problems in Puget Sound. Toxic metals and organic chemicals from urban
and industrial sources are a serious problem in certain portions of Puget Sound.
The EIS cites studies which indicate the potential water quality concerns for the operation of
fish farms arej exacerbation of organic enrichment and dissolved oxygen. Dissolved oxygen
consumption by fish, and by microbial decomposition of fish wastes and excess food, could
significantly reduce dissolved oxygen concentration within and near the fish farm. The
presence of more than one fish farm in an embayment may cause greater reduction of dissolved `
oxygen.jklso the EIS cites that increases in dissolved nitrogen (including ammonia) are typically
seen with ` salmon farms.
Fecal coliform are not produced in fish. However, fecal coliform levels could indirectly
increase near farms from increased marine bird and- mammal activity.
8.0 RECONaVIENDATIONS
The following recommendation were made in the initial Watershed Characterization by our
consultants, David Evans and Associates.
Priority 1 Recommendations:
1) Implement the newly developed watershed water quality monitoring program
immediately. Establish permanent monitoring stations and add additional routine random
field monitoring areas. A permanent database should be established to track each
monitoring station to detect minor changes of each parameter.
2) Inventory wetlands and other sensitive areas by field reconnaissance and mapping.
Existing land use and NWI maps are inadequate and contradictory. Special emphasis
should be devoted to estuarine wetlands (See Estuary Management Plan in PSWQA 1991
WQ Plan).
3) Conduct stream corridor studies and habitat identification mapping. Immediate priority
should be given to the Ludlow and Shine basins, those areas most likely to receive rapid
development. Analysis should include riparian and open water cover estimates, potential
nonpoint areas, wildlife observations, and random W.Q. sampling.
Priority 2 Recommendations:
1) Permit analysis should be undertaken to provide information on location, quantity, rates
of development, septic tank and well failures, and conversions of land use. Data should
be entered into a database for computer analysis. Suggested documents for review are:
Conditional use permits, timber cutting permits, shorelines development permits, septic
systems applications, well and septic failure reports, building and grading permits.
2) Groundwater monitoring should be established throughout the watershed. Private
drinking water wells can be used for this purpose and collections can be made by owners
willing to participate in the program. Monitoring should include both quality and
quantity.
3) The age, percent of cover, and vegetation types should be mapped for all forested areas,
especially along riparian corridors. Assistance from property owners and government
agencies should be solicited coupled with field verification and reconnaissance. Timber
harvesting activities should be carefully monitored and BMP's should be mandated.
Timber, Fish and Wildlife sponsors can provide technical assistance for stream
monitoring, fisheries protection, water quality information on stream ecology, and
methods of curtailing nonpoint pollution sources.
4) All shoreline areas bordered by current or potential development should be examined at
low tide by a water quality specialist and environmental health specialist. Potential
septic system failures are a mayor concern in sensitive shoreline environments. This
procedure not only provides an opportunity to visually detect illegal discharges directly
to the beach, but also allows sampling to verify suspected discharges. This procedure
should become part of the normal routine monitoring program.
Priority 3 Recommendations:
1) Encourage the Conservation District to inspect all agricultural land within the watershed.
Close attention should be given to the large wetland system in Beaver Valley where
agricultural activities are affecting the quality and functions of this major system.
2) Using 1990 census data when it becomes available, undertake an economic and
population study in the Watershed. Changes in population structure and economic
conditions should be analyzed to more fully understand the dynamics of the area in
order to make sound planning decisions.
3) 'Public Involvement: Educational activities for all ages of the population should be
encouraged and implemented. Use of volunteer programs and participatory events will
increase the public involvement and understanding of environmental issues. By
educating the public before an issue becomes politically sensitive or a major problem,
the County can prevent potential degradation of the environment and make individuals
feel responsible for the well -being of the Watershed.
Sources of ideas and projects that are currently active and successful can be found in
PSWQA, Public Involvement and Education (PIE) Model Projects Fund. Citizen
participation is encouraged in such diverse fields as Waste Management, Habitat and
Resource Protection, and Government Decisionmaking.
Adopt A- Stream and Adopt -A- Wetland are programs specifically designed for citizen
involvement. These projects are sponsored by the Adopt -A- Stream Foundation in
Snohomish County and have been used successfully in that area since 1988. They
provide technical information, worksheets and workshops. These programs will -work
very well with the Adopt -A- Watershed and Stream Monitoring Volunteer Programs
already underway or proposed in the County.
4) Develop a countywide emergency response program to report violators, to respond to
water quality emergencies, track spills, and report violations.
60
9.0 INFORMATION CURRENTLY LACKING
Additional areas of information that would be desirable but are currently unavailable or
incomplete are:
1) Indian Island hazardous waste releases
2) Overdevelopment of the shoreline areas
3) Uncontrolled growth
4) Indiscriminate conditional use permits
5) Overloaded septic systems
6) Unsound timber harvest practices and loss of important forest resources and habitats
7) Contamination of groundwater and salt water intrusion
8) Diminished water supply
- 10.0 REFERENCES
Adamus, P.R., E.J. Clairain, Jr. R.D. Smith, and R.E. Young. 1987. Wetland Evaluation
Technique (WET); Volume II. Methodology. Operational Draft Technical Report Y-
87. US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Adamus, P.R. and L.T. Stockwell. 1983. A Method for Wetland Functional Assessment.
Volumes I and II, Report Number FHWA- 1P -82 -23 and 24.,,. United States Department
of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration.
Admiralty Audubon Society (AAS). 1990. Jefferson County Significant Natural Areas.
Volume I, East Jefferson 1990
Andrews, L.M. and C.L.C. Kautsky. September 1989. Local Government Water Quality
Finance Guidebook. Apogee Research, Inc. Seattle, Washington. Submitted to Puget
Sound Water Quality Authority.
Backman, T.W.C. 1984. Phenotypic expressions of Zostera marina L. ecotypes in Puget
Sound, Washington. Doctoral dissertation, University of Washington. ,
Barclay, George W. 1958. Techniques of Population Analysis. John Wiley and Sons, Inc.,
New York, New York.
Beck, R.W. and Associates. October 1990: Jefferson County Comprehensive Solid Waste
Management Plan. Prepared for Jefferson County Public Works Departments
Birch, P.B. June 1990. Stormwater Management Manual For the Puget Sound Basin.
Washington State Department of Ecology. Olympia, Washington.
Bogart, Lowell E. June 1988. Final Report - Watershed Database Mapping Eastern Jefferson
County, Washington. Prepared for Jefferson county Planning and Building Department i , ._._
Broadhurst, Ginny. June, 1989. A Study of Port Townsend Bay Water Quality for EPA's Near
Coastal Waters Initiative. Institute for Marine Studies, University of Washington.
Chapman, Jeff. June, 1991. Office of the Jefferson County Assessor. Port Townsend,
Washington 98368. Pers. Comm.
Collias, E.E., N.M. McGary, and C.A. Barnes. 1974. Atlas of physical and chemical
properties of Puget Sound and its approaches. University of Washington Press.
Washington Sea Grant Publication, 235pp.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and
Deepwater Habitats of the United States. Office of Biological Services, Fish and
Wildlife Service, U.S. Dept. of the Interior, FWS /OBS- 79/31.
Cunningham, D. June 1979. Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, A Policy Guide For
Growth and Development. Jefferson County Planning Department.
63
Davidson, George. 1889. Coast Pilot of California, Oregon, and Washington. U. S. Coast
and Geodetic Survey, Pacific Coast.
Determan, T., B. Carey, W. Chamberlain, and D. Norton. 1985. Sources affecting the
sanitary conditions of water and shellfish in Minter Bay and Burley Lagoon.
Washington State Department of Ecology Report Number 84 -10, 185pp.
Economic and Engineering Services, Inc. June, 1988. Jefferson County Septage Treatment and
Disposal Study. An Addendum to the Port Townsend Engineering Report on the
Proposed Secondary Wastewater Treatment Plant. Olympia, Washington.
Elicker, D. 1991. Chairman, Ludlow Watershed Management Committee, letter.
Eppley, R.W., J.N. Rodgers, and J.J. McCarthy. 1969. Half saturation constants for uptake
of nitrate and ammonium by marine phytoplankton. Liminol. Oceanogr. 14:912 -920.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) U.S. 1976. Quality Criteria for Water. USEPA,
Washington, D.C. 501 pp.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1988. America's Wetlands: Our Vital Link Between
Land and Water. Office of Wetland Protection, Office of Water, Washington D.C.
OPA -87 -016
Faust, M. 1982. Contribution of pleasure boats to fecal coliform concentration in The River
Estuary, Maryland, USA. The Science of the Total Environment 25:255 -262.
Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation. 1989. Federal Manual for Identifying
and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and USDA Soil
Conservation Service, Washington, D.C. Cooperative technique publication.
Frost, J.R. February 1990. Wetlands Preservation An Information & Action Guide.
Washington State Department of Ecology.
Gordon, D.G. June 1989. Managing Nonpoint Pollution: An Action Plan Handbook for Puget
Sound Watersheds. Puget Sound Water Quality Authority. Seattle, Washington.
Grimstad, P. and R.J. Carson. April 1981. Geology and Ground -Water Resources of Eastern
Jefferson County, Washington. In Cooperation with Washington Department of Natural
Resources Division of Geology and Earth Resources and Jefferson County Public Utility
District No. 1.
Guichard, Martanne. January 16, 1991. Letter to Jefferson County Health Department,
Washington. Sanitary Shoreline Survey of Squamish Harbor, Draft. From State
Department of Health, shellfish program, Olympia, Washington 98504.
Hall & Associates, Ruth Dight, and ' Applied Geotechnology, Inc. December, 1986.
Groundwater Resource Protection. A Handbook for Local Planners and Decision
Makers in Washington State. Prepared by King County Resource Planning in
cooperation with Washington State Department of Ecology.
64
• Hamburg, S.P., and P.S. Homann. 1986. Utilization of growth, parameters of eelgrass,
Zostera marina, for productivity estimation under laboratory and in situ conditions.
Marine Biology 93:299 -303.
Harding Lawson Associates /Harper -Owes (HLA). March, 1990. 1989 Water Quality
Conditions of Port Ludlow Bay. Prepared for State of Washington Department of
Ecology, Olympia, Washington.
Hitchcock, C.L. and A. Cronquist. 1973. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. Seattle, Washington.
Holtrop, Joe E. December 1988. Final Report: The Small Farms Program. Prepared for the
Washington State Conservation Commission by King County Conservation District.
Jefferson County, Board of County Commissioners. February 1982. Brinnon Community
Development Plan. Port Townsend, Washington.
Jefferson County Board of Commissioners and Jefferson County Planning and Building
Department. October 1984. Jefferson County Implementing Ordinance: State
Environmental Policy Act. Jefferson County, Washington.
Jefferson County letter. 1990. Monitoring /Stream Survey Work Plan and Quality Assurance
Management Plan. Prepared for Ludlow Watershed Management Plan.
Jefferson County Planning Commissions. July 1982. Tri-Area Community Development Plan.
Port Townsend, Washington.
• Jefferson County Planning Department. 1978. Jefferson County Park, Recreation and Open
Space Plan. Jefferson County.
Jefferson County Planning Department. September
Ordinance. Jefferson County, Washington.
Jefferson County Planning and Building Department.
Watershed Action Plan, Jefferson County. Lea
and Implementation.
1979. Jefferson County Subdivision
August 1989. >> Quilcene/Dabob Bays
d Action Plan Development
Jefferson County Planning and Building Department. December, 1990. Draft Stormwater
Management Plan.
Jefferson County and Port Townsend. 1988. Shoreline Management Master Program.
Jefferson County, Port of Port Townsend, City of Port Townsend. May 1990. Draft Jefferson
County Comprehensive Parks Plan.
Keenan, C.W., D.C. Kleinfelter, and J.H. Wood. 1980. General College Chemistry. 6th
Edition.
Keller, M., and S.W. Harris. 1966. The growth of eelgrass in relation to tidal depth. Journal
of Wildlife Management, 30:280 -285.
Kitsap County. April 1987. Open Space Plan. Kitsap County, Washington.
65
Krautkramer, Michael F. October, 1981. Report on Shine, Test Hole Number 1, Jefferson Co:
P. U.D. Robinson & Noble, Inc. Tacoma, Washington.
Latham, A. 1991. Jefferson County Conservation District. Pers. Comm.
Ludlow Utilities Company. August 1985. Port Ludlow Water Quality Study Summary
Overview. Port Ludlow, Washington b
Ludlow Utilities Company. June, 1986. Engineering Report, Wastewater Treatment Facilities.
Port Ludlow, Washington.
Lynch, James A., Edward S. Corbett and Keith Mussalle 1985. "BMP for Controlling
Nonpoint- Source Pollution on Forested Watershedk' . Journal of Soil and Water
Conservation, Vol. 40, No. 1, pp. 164 -167.. Jan-Feb; 1985.
Mar, B.W., J.F. Ferguson, and E.B. Welch. 1982. Summary Washington State highway
runoff water quality study. Report Number 16 prepared for State Department of
Transportation. University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.
Marston, Bruce. August, 1991. Jefferson County Conservation District Office Manager. Port
Townsend, WA 98368. Pers. Comm.
McCreary, F.R. August 1975. Soil Survey of Jefferson County, Washington. United States
Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. Prepared in cooperation with
Washington Agricultural Experiment Station.
Mitsch, W.J. and J.G. Gosselink. 1986. Wetlands. Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, Inc.
Murray, L., and R.L. Wetzel. 1982. Preliminary observations on nutrient enrichment and
light reduction effects on Zostera marina epiphytic growth. Virginia Institute of Marine
Science, Gloucester Point, Virginia.
National Wetlands Inventory Maps (NWI). U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife
Service, 1987. Nordland, Port Townsend South, Center, Port Ludlow, and Lofall
Quadrangles.
Natural Heritage Data System. Washington State Department of Natural Resources and
Department of Wildlife - Nongame Program. Correspondence dated November 29,
1990.
NBBJ Group. December, 1987. Port Ludlow Development Plan.
Niering, W.A. 1988. Wetlands. The Audubon Society Nature Guides.
Orth, R.J. 1977. Effect of nutrient enrichment on growth of the eelgrass Zostera marina in
the Chesapeake Bay, Virginia, USA. Marine Biology 44:187 -194.
Overcash, M.R., S.C. Bingham and P.W. Westerman. 1981. "Predicting Runoff Pollution
a Reduction in Buffer Zones Adjacent to Land Treatment Site " Transactions of the
u American Society of Agricultural Engineers (ASAE), pp. 430 -435. 1981.
..
Patmont, C.R., G.J. Pelletier, and Dr. M.E. Harper. August 1985. Water Quality Investigation
of Port Ludlow. Harper -Owes. Seattle, Washington.
Patmont, C.R., M.E. Harper, C.C. Ebbesmeyer, and J.W. Murray. June 1986. Final Report
Port Ludlow Circulation Studies. Seattle, Washington.
Pearson, J. 1991. Jefferson County Shoreline Planner. Port, Townsend WA 98368. Pers.
Comm.
Perkins, K. 1990. District Conservationist. Port Angeles, Washington.
Personal Communications. October 1990 - January 1991.
Chris Anderson - WDOE, Water Resources
Dean Anderson - Bridgehaven Community Water Supply
John Armstrong - USEPA, Water Programs
Linda Atkins Jefferson Co. Environmental Health Dept.
Teresa Barron - Jefferson Co. Planning and Building Dept.
Debra Bouchard - Jefferson Co. Planning and Building Dept.
Sandy Bretlinger - WDOH, Environmental Health Program
David Cunningham - Pope Resources
Tim Determan - WDOH, Shellfish Protection
Paul_ Farley - Battelle Laboratories
_Mary Ann Gashard `r DSHS, Shellfish Section
Lynn Goodwin - Wa. St. Dept of Fisheries
Judy Halseth - WDNR, Photo and Map Sales
Ron Hirschi - Point No Point Treaty Council, 1989.
Ron Hirschi - Port Gamble Klallam Fisheries, 1990.
Carol Jantzen - WDOE, Ambient Water Quality Program
Lawrence Trucking and Excavation - Shine Rock Quarry
Bob Leach - Jefferson Co., PUD #1
Anita Macmillan - Wa. St. Dept. of Wildlife
Michael McClure - Jefferson Co., PUD #1
Don Miller - WDNR, Port Townsend District Office
Dale Norton - WDOE, Environmental Investigations
Bill Obert - WDOE, Division of Water and Shorelands
Thomas Owens - Wa. St. Dept. of Wildlife
Keri Perkins - Conservation District, Port Angeles
Hank Pingbom - US Naval Base, Public Affairs
Port Ludlow Marina
Steve Ralph - Point No Point Treaty Council, 1988.
Steve Ralph - University of Wa., Center for Streamside Studies
Michael Reed - Point No Point Treaty Council
Shawn Russell - Pope Utilities
Tom Sherman - General Construction
John Shumway - WDNR, Soil Surveys
Tom Smayda - Harper Owes
Larry Smith - Pope Resources
Bob Thurston - Pope Resources
Dick Wallace - WDOE, Water Quality Program
Charles Warsinske - David Evans & Assoc., Inc.
John Waters - Pope Resources
Bill Whitson - US Coast Guard
67
Phillips, R.C:, and J.F. Watson. 1984. The ecology of eelgrass meadows in the Pacific
northwest: a community profile. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Biological
Services, Washington D.C. FWS /OBS- 84/24. 85 pp.
Pope Resources. July, 1990. Water Quality Monitoring Program Port Ludlow Bay (Nonpoint
Sources). Proposed monitoring program as outlined to the Jefferson County
Commissioners.
Puget Sound Finance Committee. August 1989. Funding the Cleanup and Protection of Puget
Sound. Seattle, Washington.
Puget Sound Water Quality Authority. May 1988. State of the Sound 1988 Report. Seattle,
Washington.
Puget Sound Water Quality Authority. March 1990. The Prevention of Nonpoint Source
Pollution in Puget Sound. A Report on Local Government's NP -9 Water Quality
Evaluations.
Puget Sound Water Quality Authority. November, 1990. Public Involvement and Education
Model Projects Fund. 47 success stories from Puget Sound.
Puget Sound Water Quality Authority. November, 1990. 1991 Puget Sound Water Quality
Management Plan.
Reed, Jr., P.B. 1988. National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands 1988 Northwest
(Region 9). Biological Report 88 (26.9). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Inland
Freshwater Ecology Section. St. Petersburg, Florida. [pp.86].
Reppert, R.T., W. Sigleo, E. Stakhiv, L. Messman, and C. Myers. 1979. Wetland Values
Concepts and Methods for Wetlands Evaluation. Research Report 79 -R1, U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, Institute for Water Resources, Fort Belvoir, Virginia.
Roberts, Fred B. September 1959. Report on Well Number .2 at Mats Mats Bay. For
Jefferson County Public Utility District Number 1. Robinson & Robert. Tacoma,
Washington.
Robinson, John W. April 1958. Report on Availability of a Ground water Supply for a
Proposed Local Utility District in the Vicinity of Mats Mats Bay, Jefferson County.
Robinson & Roberts. Tacoma, Washington.
Robinson & Noble, Inc. January, 1989. Water Resource Evaluation for Ludlow Utilities and
Construction of Well 14. Tacoma, Washington.
Rymer, Tim. June, 1990. Washington State Department of Wildlife Biologist. Port Angeles,
Washington 98362. Pers. Comm.
Rubida, P. April 1989. Final Report Jefferson County Ambient Water Quality Report. In
Cooperation with Jefferson County Planning and Building Department. Port Townsend,
Washington. ---
68
Running, P..S.. & Associates. June 1990. Draft Final Jefferson County Hazardous Waste
Management Plan. Seattle, Washington.
Sather, J.H. & P.J.R. Stuber. 1984. Proceedings of the National Wetlands Values Assessment
Workshop. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Western Energy and Land Use Team.
FWS /OBS -84/ 12.
Sather, J.H. and R.D. Smith. 1984. An Overview of Major Wetland Functional Values. U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service. FWS /OBS- 84/18.
Sequim Bay Watershed Management Committee. January 1989. Sequim Bay Watershed
Management Plan, A Community -Based Resource Management Plan (CRMP). Lead
agency, Clallam County Department of Community Development, Port Angeles,
Washington.
Shannon & Wilson, Inc. May, 1982.. Letter to Hammond, Collier & Wade - Livingstone
Assoc., Inc. Well site recommendations for Jefferson County Water District Number
1, Jefferson County, Washington. Appendix C from Hydrogeology Report by Shannon
& Wilson, Inc.
Sequim, City of. June 19, 1991. Application to Jefferson County Health Department. Sludge
Utilization Application. Port Townsend, Washington 98368.
Smayda, T.J. and M.E. Harper. December 1989. Circulation and Water Quality of Mats Mats
Bay. HLA /Harper -Owes. Seattle, Washington.
Smayda, T.J. and C. Jones. 1991a. Water quality investigation in Port Ludlow Bay, 1990
nonpoint source study. Harding Lawson Associates. Seattle, Washington.
Smayda, T.J. and C. Jones. 199 lb. Port Ludlow site development plan 1991 - water quality
assessment. Harding Lawson Associates. Seattle, Washington.
Smith, J. 1991 Jefferson County Land Use Planner. Port Townsend, WA 98368. Pers.
Comm.
Stalheim, D. 1986. Jefferson County Aquaculture .Policy Study. Mud Bay Consulting
Services. Port Townsend, Washington.
Thom, Ronald M. and LoAnn Hallum. June, 1990. Long -Term Changes in the Areal Extent
of Tidal Marshes, Eelgrass Meadows and Kelp Forests of Puget Sound. Final Report
to Office of Puget Sound, Region 10, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA
910/9 -91 -005.
Washington Coordinating Council for Occupational Education (WCCOE). 1974. Waste Water
Plant Operators Manual. Third Edition. State of Washington, Olympia. 'November,
1974.
Washington State Board of Health. November, 1989. On -site Sewage System Regulations.
Rules and Regulations of the Washington State Board of Health.
69
Washington State Department of Ecology. July, 1988. Draft Nonpoint Source Pollution
Management Program. Prepared by Water Quality Program of WDOE.
Washington State Department of Ecology. 1988. Wetlands Regulation Guidebook. Publication
No. 88 -5.
Washington State Department of Ecology. Local Planning and Management of Nonpoint Source
Pollution. Chapter 400 -12 WAC and Addendum.
Washington State Department of Ecology (WDOE). 1990. Focus. Shellfish Protection. One
page information report.
Washington State Department of Ecology and Jefferson County. September 1986. Final
Environmental Impact Statement. Port Ludlow Wastewater Treatment System Expansion.
Olympia, Washington.
Washington State Department of Fisheries (WDF). June 1988. Puget Sound Public Shelffish
Sites. Puget Sound Public Shellfish Sites. Prepared in Cooperation with the
Departments of Natural Resources, Ecology, Fisheries, and Social and Health Services
and the Parks and Recreation Commission. Olympia, Washington.
Washington State Department of Health Shellfish Section. October 1989. The Effect of Sewage
Discharges from Pleasure Craft on Puget Sound Waters. PSWQA Task MB -6. Funded
in part by the U.S. EPA.
Washington State Department of Health (WDOH). June 1990. Third Annual Inventory of
Commercial & Recreational Sheltflsh Areas In Puget Sound.
Washington State Department of Natural Resources (WDNR). Natural Heritage Information
System. Correspondence dated December 21, 1990.
Washington State Department of Wildlife (WDW). June 1990. 1989 -90 Big Game Harvest
Report. Wildlife Management Division.
Washington State Forest Practices Board. November, 1988. Washington Forest Practices
Rules and Regulations.
Water Quality in Washington, Washington State Department of Ecology. October, 1988. A
Summary of the 1988 Statewide Water Quality Assessment.
Williams, R.W., R.N. Laramie, and J.J. Ames. 1975. A catalog of Washington streams and
salmon utilization: Volume 1, Puget Sound Region. Washington State Department of
Fisheries (WDF).
Winter, D.F., K. Banse, and G.C. Anderson. 1975. The dynamics of phytoplankton blooms
in Puget Sound, a fjord in northwestern United States. Mar. Biol. 29:139 -176.
Yates, Steve. 1988. Adopting A Stream, A Northwest Handbook. An Adopt -A -Stream
Foundation Publication.
Yates, Steve. 1989. Adopting A Wetland, A Northwest Guide. Published by Snohomish
County Planning and Community Development.
70
APPENDIX A
Algae: Aquatic, nonflowering plants that lack roots and use light energy to convert
carbon dioxide and inorganic nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus into organic matter by
photosynthesis. Common algae include dinoflagellates, diatoms, seaweed, and kelp. An algal
bloom can occur when excessive nutrient levels and other physical and chemical conditions
enable the algae to reproduce rapidly.
Aquifer: The underground layer of rock or soil in which groundwater resides. Aquifers
are replenished or recharged by surface water percolating through soil. Wells are drilled into
aquifers to extract water for human use.
Base Flow: The flow contribution to a creek by groundwater. During day periods, base flow
constitutes the majority of stream flow.
Best Management Practices (BMP): A method, activity, maintenance procedure,
or other management practice for reducing the amount of pollution entering a water body. The
term originated from the rules and regulation developed pursuant to Section 208 of the Federal
Clean Water Act (40 CFR Part 130).
Bioaccumulation: The process by which a contaminant accumulates in the tissues of an
organism. For example, certain chemicals in food eaten by a fish tend to accumulate in its
liver and other tissues.
Biochemical Oxygen Demand: The quantity of oxygen- demanding materials present in a
sample as measured by a specific test. A major objective of wastewater treatment is to reduce
biochemical oxygen demand so that the oxygen content of the waterbody will not be
significantly reduced. Although BOD is not a specific compound, it is defined as a
conventional pollutant under the Federal Clean Water Act.
Biomagnification: The process by which concentrations of contaminants increase (magnify)
as they pass up the food web such that each animal in the food web has higher tissue
concentrations that did its food. For example, concentrations of certain contaminants can
increase as they are passed from plankton to herring to salmon to seals.
Chemical Oxygen Demand: The quantity of oxygen - demanding materials present in a sample
as measured by a specific test. The COD test is used to measure the concentration of a waste
of unknown chemical composition.
Coliform Bacteria: A type of bacteria which includes many species. Fecal coliform bacteria
are those coliform bacteria which are found in the intestinal tracts of warm - blooded animals.
The presence of high numbers of fecal coliform bacteria in a waterbody can indicate the release
of untreated wastewater, and /or the presence of animals, and may indicate the presence of
pathogens.
71
Dissolved Oxyaen• Oxygen that is present (dissolved) -in water and therefore available for fish
and other aquatic animals to use. If the amount of dissolved oxygen in the water is too low,
then aquatic animals may die. Wastewater and naturally occurring organic matter containing
oxygen- demanding substances that consume dissolved oxygen.
EIS: Environmental Impact Statement; a document that discusses the likely significant impacts
of a proposal, methods to lessen the impacts, and alternatives to the proposal. They are
required by the national and state environmental policy acts.
Erosion: Wearing away of rock or soil by the gradual detachment of soil or rock fragments
by water, wind, ice, and other mechanical and chemical forces.
Eutrophication: Description of the process by which a waterbody builds up excess
nutrients so that excess plant growth occurs. As a result, large amounts of plant material decay
and consume dissolved oxygen while doing so. Thus, less dissolved oxygen is available to
aquatic life.
Fecal Coliform: (see coliform bacteria)
GMV: geometric mean value; see geometric mean.
Geometric Mean: An arithmetic average of the logarithmic values; obtained by combining
all data points, computing the logarithm (the power to which a number is raised), taking the
average (mean), and transferring it back to an arithmetic number.
Groundwater: Underground water supplies, also called aquifers. AgtO?o,;in re created
by rain which soaks into the ground and flows down until it is collected at where th e
ground is not permeable. Groundwater then usually flows laterally toward a or lake or
the ocean. Wells tap the groundwater for human use.
Ha itat: The specific area or environment in which a particular type of plant or animal
lives. An organism's habitat must provide all of the basic requirements for life and should be
free of harmful contaminants. Puget Sound habitats include beaches, marshes, rocky shores,
the bottom sediments, mudflats, the water itself, etc.
Herbicide: A substance used to destroy or inhibit growth of vegetation.
Impervious: A surface that cannot be easily penetrated; for instance, rain does not readily
penetrate asphalt or concrete surfaces.
Inflow and Infiltration (I &I):Excess water that enters a sewer system. Since a sewer system
can only handle a certain amount of wastewater at one time, excess flows can trigger overflows
of raw wastewater. Inflow refers to water that unnecessarily flows into the system; for
example, from household roof drains. Infiltration is water that seeps into the system through
cracks and gaps in the pipes. Typically, inflow and infiltration are clean water not needing
treatment.
Insecticide: A substance, usually a chemical, that is used to kill insects.
Land se: The way land is developed and used in terms of the types of activities allowed
(agriculture, residences, industries, etc.) and the size of buildings and structures permitted.
Certain types of pollution problems are often associated with particular land use practices, such
as sedimentation from construction activities.
Loadin : The total amount of material entering a system from all sources.
Metals: Metals are elements found in rocks and minerals that are naturally released to the
environment by erosion, as well as generated by human activities. Certain metals, such as
mercury, lead, nickel, zinc, and cadmium, are of environmental concern because they are
released to the environment in excessive amounts by human activity. They are generally toxic
to life at certain concentrations. Since metals are elements, they do not break down in the
environment over time and can be incorporated into plant and animal tissue.
Monitor: To systematically and repeatedly measure conditions in order to track changes.
For example, dissolved oxygen in a bay might be monitored over a period of several years in
order to identify any trends in its concentration.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): NPDES is a part of the
Federal Clean Water Act, which requires nonpoint source dischargers to obtain permits. These
permits are referred to as NPDES permits, and are administered by the Washington State
Department of Ecology.
Nonpoint Source Pollution: Pollution that enters water from dispersed and uncontrolled sources
(such as surface runoff) rather than through pipes. Nonpoint sources (e.g., forest practices,
agricultural practices, on -site sewage disposal, and recreational boats) may contribute pathogens,
suspended solids, and toxicants. While individual sources may seem insignificant, the
cumulative effects of nonpoint source pollution can be significant.
Nonpoint Sources (NPS): Diffuse sources from which contaminants originate to accumulate
in surface or groundwater. Generally, individual sites are insignificant, but can add to a
cumulative problem with serious health or environmental consequences.
Nutrients: Essential chemicals needed by plants or animals for growth. If other physical
and chemical conditions are optimal, excessive amounts of nutrients can lead to degradation of
water quality by promoting excessive growth, accumulation, and subsequent decay of plants,
especially algae. Some nutrients can be toxic to animals at high concentrations.
One -Year Storm Event: Over a long time period, there will be a storm equal to or greater
than a "one -year storm even ", an average of once a year.
Organics: A broad term that includes numerous compounds which are derived (naturally or
by man-made processes) from animal or vegetation sources or from petroleum.
1 73
Parameter: A quantifiable or measurable characteristic. For example, height, weight, sex,
and hair color are all parameters that can be determined for humans. Water quality parameters
include temperature, pH, salinity, dissolved oxygen concentration, and many others.
Pathogen: An agent such as a virus, bacteria, or fungus that can cause diseases in humans.
Pathogens can be present in municipal, industrial, and nonpoint source discharges to the Sound.
Percolate: To pass through a permeable substance. For instance, septic effluent percolates
through soil.
Permeable Surfaces: Surfaces, such as dirt, that allow some percolation or infiltration of water
into the ground and ultimately the groundwater system. This is in contrast to impermeable
surfaces, such as concrete, that allow& water to run off without any infiltration.
Pesticide: A general term to describe chemical substances used to destroy or control
organisms. Pesticides include herbicides, insecticides, algicides, fungicides, and others. Many
of these substances are manufactured and are not naturally found in the environment. Others,
such as pyrethrum, are natural toxins which are extracted from plants and animals.
pH: The degree of alkalinity or acidity of a solution. A pH of 7.O indicates neutral water
while a pH of 5.5 is acid. A reading of 8.5 is alkaline or basic. The pH of water influences
many of the types of chemical reactions that will occur in it. For instance, a slight decrease
in pH may greatly increase the toxicity of substances such as cyanides, sulfides, and most
metals. A slight increase may greatly increase the toxicity of pollutants such as ammonia.
Point Sources: A source of pollutants from a single point of conveyance such as a pipe. _
For example, the discharge pipe from a sewage treatment plant or a factory is a point source.
Pollutant: A contaminant that adversely alters the physical, chemical, or biological
properties of the environment. The term includes pathogens, toxic metals, carcinogens,
oxygen- demanding materials, and all other harmful substances. With reference to nonpoint
sources, the term is sometimes used to apply to contaminants released in low concentrations
from many activities which collectively degrade water quality. As defined in the Federal Clean
Water Act, pollutant means dredged soil, solid waste, incinerator residue, sewage, garbage,
sewage sludge,_ munitions, chemical wastes, biological. materials, radioactive materials, heat,
wrecked or discarded equipment, rock, sand, . cellar. dirt, and industrial, municipal, and
agricultural waste discharged into water.
Primary- treated Sewage: Sewage that has undergone primary treatment.
Primary Treatment: A wastewater treatment method that uses settling, skimming, and (usually)
chlorination to remove solids, floating materials, and pathogens from wastewater. Primary
treatment removes about 35% of BOD and less than half of the metals and toxic organic
substances.
Puget Sound Water Quality Authority (PSWQA): The State agency which is
responsible for development and oversight of the Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan.
74
Riparian: Pertaining to the banks of streams, lakes, or tidewater.
Salmonid: A fish of the family Salmoniidae (as distinct from a salmonoid which is merely
a fish that resembles a salmon). Fish in this family include salmon and trout. Many Puget
Sound salmonids are anadromous.
Secondary Treatment: A wastewater treatment method that usually involves the addition of
biological treatment to the settling, skimming, and disinfection provided by primary treatment.
Secondary treatment may remove up to 90% of BOD and significantly more metals and toxic
organics than primary treatment.
Sediment: Material suspended in or settling to the bottom of a liquid, such as the sand and
mud that make up much of the shorelines and bottom of Puget Sound. Sediment input to Puget
Sound comes from natural sources, such as erosion and weathering of rock; or anthropogenic
sources, such as forest or agricultural practices, or construction activities. Certain contaminants
tend to collect on and adhere to sediment particles. The sediments of several areas around
Puget Sound contain elevated of toxic contaminants.
Shellfish: An aquatic animal, such as a mollusc (clams and snails) or crustacean (crabs and
shrimp), having a shell or shell -like exoskeleton.
Siltation: The process by which a river, lake, or other waterbody becomes clogged with
sediment. Silt can clog gravel beds and prevent successful salmon spawning.
Storm Drain: A system of gutters, pipes, or ditches used to carry stormwater from
surrounding lands to streams, lakes, or Puget Sound, and in practice, carrying a variety of
substances such as oil and antifreeze, which enter the system through runoff, deliberate
dumping, or spills. This term also refers to the end of the pipe where the stormwater is
discharged.
Stormwater: Water that is generated by rainfall and is often routed into drain systems in order
to prevent flooding.
Suspended Solids: Organic or inorganic particles that are suspended in and carried by the
water. The term includes sand, mud, and clay particles as well as solids in wastewater.
Swale: A broad, shallow, vegetated channel.
Total Suspended Solids: The weight of particles that are suspended in water. Suspended
solids in water reduce light penetration in the water column, can clog the gills of fish and
invertebrates, and are often associated with toxic contaminants because organics and metals
tend to bind to particles.
Toxic: Poisonous, carcinogenic, or otherwise directly harmful to life.
Tributary: A stream that flows into another.
75
Turbidity: A measure of the amount of material suspended in the water. Increasing the
turbidity of the water decreases the amount of light that penetrates the water column. High
levels of turbidity are harmful to aquatic life. Y
Urban Runoff: A substance, such as rain, that runs off of surfaces in a watershed in
excess of the amount absorbed by the surfaces (usually the ground). Urban runoff can contain
sediments and contaminants (nonpoint source pollution) that can add to water quality
degradation in the watershed. Increases in impervious surface usually result in increased urban
runoff.
Water Column: The water in a lake, estuary, or ocean which extends from the bottom
sediments to the water surface. The water column contains dissolved and particulate matter,
and is the habitat for plankton, fish, and marine mammals.
Watershed: The geographic region from which water drains into a particular river or body
of water. A watershed includes hills, lowlands, and the body of water into which the land
drains. Watershed boundaries are defined by the ridges of separating watersheds.
Wetlands: Wetlands are lands transitional between terrestrial and aquatic systems where the
water table is usually at or near the surface or the land is covered by shallow water. Wetlands
have one or more of the, following three attributes: 1) at least periodically, the land supports
predominantl}hydrophytes 2) the substrate is predominantly undrained hydric soil; and 3)
the substrate is nonsoils and is saturated with water or covered by shallow water at some time
during the growing seasons each year.
r
yl
76
APPEIS -DLX B
(,N•Iap Pocket)
1. NWI map - Center, Washington.
2. NWI map Lofall, Washington.
3. NWI map - Nordland, Washington.
4. NWI map - Center, Washington.
5. NWI interpretation key.
6. Waterways and waterbodies, Ludlow Watershed.
77