The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutZON2015-00002 JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE TYPE I LAND USE PERMIT APPLICANT: KALA POINT OWNERS ASSOC 1760 KALA POINT DR PORT TOWNSEND WA 98368-2505 DATE ISSUED:January 12, 2015 DATE EXPIRES: January 12,2016 MLA NUMBER: MLA15-00002 PROJECT PLANNER: David Wayne Johnson PROJECT DESCRIPTION: VEGETATION REMOVAL REQUEST-TRIMMING TO RESTORE VIEW PROJECT LOCATION: Parcel Numbers 965 000 347 & 371 & 016 & 236 in Section 27, Township 30N, Range 1W, located at 1760 Kala Point Drive, Port Townsend, WA 98368 CONDITIONS: 1.) The applicant shall comply with the recommendations contained in the Arborist's Report Executive Summary dated September 26, 2014 by Richard Hefley. 2.) The project shall adhere to the Best Management Practices(BMPs)to control stormwater, erosion and sediment during construction. BMPs shall address permanent measures to stabilize soil exposed during construction, and in the design and operation of stormwater and drainage control systems. 3.) The applicants shall reduce the amount of irrigation of landscaping on the bluff-top properties to reduce the risk of erosion per the Shannon &Wilson Report dated March 2, 2012. 4.) The applicants shall monitor all stormwater tightlines and other drainage pipes on the bluff and repair or replace at the first sign of failure. FINDINGS: 1.) The Administrator finds that this application complies with applicable provisions of the Unified Development Code, all other applicable ordinances and regulations, and is consistent with the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan and Land Use map. 2.) The site plan as submitted with the Vegetation Removal Request application on January 7, 2015 has been reviewed for consistency under the UDC, and has been approved by Jefferson County Department of Community Development. Any modifications, changes, and/or additions to the stamped, approved site plan dated January 9, 2015 shall be resubmitted for review and approval by Jefferson County Department of Community Development. 3.) This approval is for Vegetation Removal Along the Shoreline Bluff as depicted on the approved site plan and as described in the Arborists Report dated September 26, 2014 by Richard Hefley only. Any future permits on this site are subject to review for consistency with applicable codes and ordinances and does not preclude review and conditions which may be placed on future permits. 4.) NOTICE: This permit does not excuse the proponent from complying with other local, state, and federal ordinances, regulations, or statutes applicable to the proposed development, but consistent with RCW 90.58. Development pursuant to this permit shall be undertaken subject to the applicable policies and performance standards of the Jefferson County Shoreline Management Master Program and the Jefferson County Unified Development Code. If during excavation or development of the site an area of potential archaeological significance is uncovered, all activity in the immediate area shall be halted, and the Administrator shall be notified at once. The Federal Endangered Species Act rules to protect threatened Chinook and Summer-run Chum salmon became effective on January 8, 2001. Bull trout have been listed as threatened since early 2000. Under the ESA, any person may bring lawsuit against any individual or agency that"takes" listed species (defined as causing harm, harassing, or damaging habitat for the listed species). In addition, the National Marine Fisheries Service can levy penalties. Some areas in Jefferson County are included as"critical habitat"for a listed species. Development of property along any marine shoreline, freshwater shoreline, or floodplains could harm habitat if protective measures are not taken. To minimize the potential to damage habitat, all property owners developing adjacent to marine shoreline, freshwater shoreline, or floodplains are advised to do the following: All development activities should avoid unstable slopes, wetlands, and forested areas near surface waters - Remove minimal vegetation for site development, especially large trees -Allow trees that have fallen into surface waters to remain there - Infiltrate stormwater from buildings and driveways onsite through drywells rather than discharging directly into surface waters or roadside ditches The Federal Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act requires landowners within 660 feet(1/8th of a mile)of an eagle nest to consult with the US Fish and Wildlife Service. This Eagle Act prohibits anyone from "taking" bald eagles. This federal law defines the term "take"and describes the possible legal consequences when a"take" occurs. Among other actions, "take" includes a disturbance of bald eagles or their habitat. Under federal law a permit may still be required for activities that impact bald eagles or their habitat. Contact the US Fish and Wildlife Service(http://www.fws.gov/pacific/eagle/)to learn more about how this law affects your project. Any individual, group, or agency can bring suit for a listed species"taking", even if you are in compliance with Jefferson County development codes. The risk of a lawsuit against you can be reduced by consulting with a professional fisheries habitat biologist, and following the recommendations for site development provided by the biologist. For more information, contact the National Marine Fisheries Service in Seattle, or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. APPEALS: Pursuant to RCW 36.70C,the applicant or any aggrieved party may appeal this final decision to Jefferson County Superior Court within twenty-one(21)calendar days of the date of issuance of this land use decision. For more information related to judical appeals see JCC 18.40.340. OPIIP 1/0-6/1- UDC Administrator MLA15-00002 \\tidemark\data\forms\F_MLT IssuePermit_U.rpt 1/9/2015 Page 2 of 2 Cm") 0 C- , C"C 011M p■i (PO ED cn ,. CD ' It ' (a) 1\.) —1 0 r--I- . = ..., ..., , cr) m --• M .., cf) re ... . . . . CD ; 4,,...17): 1 0 -11111M CD 0 (n • t 43 Cr 1 P fiji 1 - .- r4 4... P. 2 i hi a) Cr)' cn i CD • 4:k N.) c) 4:. .i. 4 ; - ! ., . . . s. "4..7-,;.: ',-4-- ...., .... --,,,-----2-1 , . . --'-41 ° Q3 a) Izt; AVM.,.., ..., c) , 1 a) _., 3/) _D. .... co ' ._.. r' It N) c) „_,,, .ita. , N) .. ..., ' IN cn CD I-" CD C) a) . co ct) r ' • -11111-Iv Ct)di c--) ....... : .. z c..... ,...., , 0 „.„....,,, ......., i—i • •_, ... . 4 r., e°4 fi''' 411/tr Zi e r os. ow' CD I•C ..,- D... ..,_ .. . , . •• -- David W. Johnson From: David W. Johnson Sent: Monday, January 12, 2015 10:03 AM To: gm_larson @kalapoint.org Cc: David W. Johnson Subject: Vegetation Removal Approval Attachments: MLA15-00002 Vegetation Removal Approval.pdf Attached. David Wayne Johnson- LEED AP- Neighborhood Development Associate Planner- Port Ludlow Lead Planner Department of Community Development Jefferson County 360.379.4465 ED A p ND Mission: To preserve and enhance the quality of life in Jefferson County by promoting a vibrant economy, sound communities and a healthy environment, SAVE PAPER - Please do not print this e-mail unless absolutely necessary All e-mail may be considered subject to the Public Records Act and as such may be disclosed to a third party requestor. Jefferson County Department of Cornmontry Development .4 Better Budding Starts ttere, 1 .8 . ro er JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ® 621 Sheridan Street•Port Townsend•Washington 98368 ,` Phone 360/379-4450• Fax 360/379-4451 TreeNegetation Supplemental Application MLA# PROJECT/APPLICANT NAME: w, 7 i.Nom' OA.J vt.e.A..A4 `f-S O . Submittal Requirements Master land use application(MLA) [ ] Stormwater calculation sheet V Application fee(05Y-base) Site plan 14 Photographs of request(two sets) •4Special report submitted(i.e.geotechnical report,arborist report) [ ] Home Owners Association request packet/CC&Rs(if applicable) Nature/reason of request: Seven owners along the northern sector of Kala Point have submitted individual requests for view restoration on the Kala Point Common Bluff. The Kala Point Bluff Management Committee has put together several detailed reports outlining the original requests by the owners, recommendations by an arborist and biologist, and references from the Shannon &Wilson Geotechnical report. The Kala Point Board of Directors has approved all requests as outlined in the reports and feels that they represent a logical approach to provide the views as requested, and keeps the bluffs integrity in tack. Keith Larson, General Manager Kala Point Owners' Association 360-385-0814 Page 1 I" Impervious surface is a hard surface that either prevents or retards the entry of water into the soil mantle as under natural conditions prior to development. A hard surface area which causes water to run off the surface in greater quantities or at an increased rate of flow from the flow present under natural conditions prior to development. Common impervious surfaces include,but are not limited to roof tops,walkways, patios,driveways, parking lots or storage areas,concrete or asphalt paving,gravel roads,packed earthen materials, and oiled,macadam or other surfaces which similarly impede the natural infiltration of stormwater. STORMWATER CALULATIONS–IMPERVIOUS SURF EXISTIN Structu s(all roof area) sq/t Structures` VII?.• area) 1.7 Sidewalks sq/ft Sidewalks . �'•', JP sq/ft 11 E Patios sq/ft Patios �� 4 , VE\.pyM 'fit Solid Decks sq/ft Solid D: s sq/ft (without infiltration b= .w) (witho I infiltration below) Driveway,parking,roads, -tc sq/ft Driv-' -y,parking,roads,etc sq/ft Other sq/ft •her sq/ft Total New sq/ft Total Existing sqi t TOTAL NEW+TOTAL EXISTING* sq/ft "This amount will be used to check total lot coverage. The following questions will help determine whether e pro••sed project is considered development or redevelopment. DEVEL•• ENT v.REDEVELOPMENT Divide the total existing impervious surface -bove by e size of the parcel and convert to a percentage: % Does the site have 35%or more of exisf impervious s -ce? Circle: Yes No FURTHER INSTRUCTIONS: If the answer'< yes, the proposal is con •.ered redevelopment and the attached Figure 2 should be used to determine the applicable Minimu r equirements. If the answer i no,the proposal is considered new development and the attached Figure 1 should be used. At th'- juncture,the applicant should re ;r to the applicable Flow Chart to determine the Minimum Requirements for stormwater managem-nt. DCD staff will help verify the class'cation of the project and the application requirements. For proponents of "small" projects ho must comply only with Minimum • -quirement #2—Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention—an additional submittal'• not required. The proponent is responsible •r employing the 12 Elements to control erosion and prevent sediment and other pollut- is from leaving the site during the constructio •hase of the project. Pick up the Construction Stormwater Pollution Preventio (SWPP) Best Management Practices(BMPs) • cket. Proponents of"medium"projects—those that must meet only Minimu Requirements #1 through #5—and for "large" prof: s—those that must meet all 10 Minimum Requirements—are required t• submit a Stormwater Site Plan. DCD has prepared a - bmittal template of a Stormwater Site Plan, principally for rural residential •rojects. Complete the template in the Stormwater Site PI- Instructions and Submittal Template or prepare a Stormwater Site P -n using the step-by-step guidance in the Stormwater Manage -nt Manual. APPLICANT SIGNATURE By signing the Sto water Calculation Worksheet, I as the applicant/owner attest that the info ation provided herein is true and correct to the bes of my knowledge. I also certify that this application is being made with the II knowledge and consent of all owners of the aff r cted property. (LANDOWNER'a-AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNATURE) (DATE) stormwater talc worksheet—REV.2/20/2008 2 F 7/2&c- S ace- EL l is r?C L' S .A n 195 u; ; 1 u h to C t 144 c�� '�i^c c S (L1 frt.-t-� -tL 1lit rcti4,0.1 4i. 1 pI t 1 J n: : ' JEFFERSON COUNTY b DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ,� 621 Sheridan Street•Port Townsend•Washington 98368 360/379-4450.360/379-4451 Fax http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/commdevelopment/ Storrnwater Calculation Worksheet MLA# PROJECT/APPLICANT NAME: 1'\4 L o(AT a.)Mk) 14 SS CC 10q, DETERMINING STORMWATER MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS:This stormwater calculation worksheet should be completed first to classify the proposal as°small,'"medium,"or"large." The size determines whether a Stormwater Site Plan is required in conjunction with a stand-alone stormwater management permit application, building permit application,or other land use approval application that involves stormwater review. The basic information will also be helpful for completing a Stormwater Site Plan,if required. PARCEL SIZE(I.E.,SITE) Size of parcel acres An acre contains 43,560 square feet. Multiply the acreage by this figure. Size of parcel in square feet sq/ft • Land-disturbing activity is any activity that results in movement of earth,or a change in the existing soil cover(both vegetative and non-vegetative) and/or the existing soil topography. Land disturbing activities include, but are not limited to clearing, grading, filling, excavation,and compaction associated with stabilization of structures and road construction. Native vegetation Is vegetation comprised on plant species,other than noxious weeds,that are indigenous to the coastal region of the Pacific Northwest and which reasonably could have been expected to naturally occur on the site. Examples include species such as Douglas fir,western hemlock,western red cedar,alder,big-leaf maple,and vine maple;shrubs such as willow,elderberry,salmoriberry, and salal;herbaceous plants such as sword fern,foam flower,and fireweed. LAND DISTURBING ACTIVITY.CONVERSION OF NATIVE VEGETATION,AND VOLUME OF CUT/FILL Calculate the total area to be cleared,graded,filled, . Answer the following two questions related to excavated,and/or compacted for proposed development conversion of native vegetation: project. Include in this calculation the area to be cleared for: Does the project convert'/,acres or more of Construction site for structures sq/ft native vegetation to lawn or landso ed areas? Drainfield,septic tank,etc. sq/ft Circle: Yes No Well,utilities,etc. sq/ft Does the project convert 2%acres or more of native vegetation to pasture? parking,roads,etc. sq/ft Circle: Yes No Lawn,landscaping,etc. sq/ft Other compacted surface,etc. sq/ft Indicate Total Volumes of Proposed: Total Land Disturbance sq/ft Cut Fill (cu/yd) [over) stormwater talc worksheet—REV.2/20/2008 - 1 *I" tJN 6 N . JEFFERSON COUNTY (�. a DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ,l` = _.. 621 Sheridan Street•Port Townsend•Washington 98368 , 360/379-4450 • 360/379-4451 Fax N w ww.co.jefferson.wa.us/commdevelopment I JAN - 7 2015 ,'J,. Master Permit Application M • "— — , c 11ICY Pro'ect Desc"ption(iindu a rate speets as ecessary t.�' LG i`�, Tax Parcel Number. 94�O 00 36 9'4 S 000 3 ti 7 Property Size: (acres/square feet) t / Site Address and/or Directions to Property: Property Owner(s)of Record: i4- Pot vt-r / ' c ' A.S SC,G i d 1.c it Telephone: 3 -o / Fax: ,� -----` C o 6 email: '– 1arsd" Q k4LP'E/►T. C r –Mu; y Mailing Address: I?6 O f tc o "T Oa Nei�-k iu .2._)1vJ ApplicantlAgent(if different from owner): Telephone: Fax: email: Mailing Address: — What kind of Permit?(Check each box that applies ❑Building ❑Critical Areas Stewardship Plan ❑ Demolition Permit ❑Variance(Minor,Major or Reasonable Economic Use) �/' ❑Single Family ❑Garage Attached/Detached 0 Conditional Use[C(a),C(d),or CI"' ` ❑ Manufactured Home ❑ Modular ❑Discretionary"D"or Unnamed Use Classification ❑ Commercial' Special Use(Essential Public Facilities)*' ❑ Change of Use ❑ Address ❑Boundary Line Adjustment 0 Road Approach ❑Short Plat" ❑Binding Site Plan D Home Business 0 Cottage Industry 0 D Propane ❑Long Plat" N 0 Sign 0 Planned Rural Residential Development(PRRD)/Amendments" ❑Allowed'Yes"Use Consistency Analysis ❑Plat Vacation/Alteration" V) U Stormwater Management U Shoreline Master Program Exemption/Permit Revisions"' ❑Site Plan Approval Advance Determination(SPAAD)' ❑Shoreline Management Substantial Development" — ❑Temporary Use ❑Shoreline Management Variance 6 D Wireless Telecommunication* 0 Comprehensive Plan/UDC/Land Use District Map Amendment ❑Forest Practices Act/Release of Six-Year Moratorium ❑Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program Amendment *May require a Pre—Application Conference )ree Vegetation Request "Requires a Pre-Application Conference Please identify any other local,state or federal permits required for this proposal,if known: ��//�� j DESIGNATION OF AGENT I hereby designate'RC.t't-/& L.4 11-S O r1 to act as my agent in matters relating to this application for permit(s). (y 4j.s..1 M&hc�'( t,/• OWNER SIGNATURE J Date: By signing this application form,the owner/agent attests that the information provided herein,and In any attachments,is true and correct to the best of his,her or its knowledge. Any material falsehood or any omission of a material fact made by the owner/agent with respect to this application packet may result in this permit being null and void. I further agree to save,indemnify and hold harmless Jefferson County against all liabilities,judgments,court costs,reasonable attorney's fees and expenses which may in any way accrue against Jefferson County as a result of or in consequence of the granting of this permit I further agree t• •r•vide access and right of en , to Jefferson County and its employees,representatives or agents for the sole purpose of application review and any -• ired la er inspections.- "s access and right of entry will be assumed unless the applicant informs the County in writing at the time of the app °=lirliF3i • s _� . �. _ '1. Signature: Date: The action or actions Applicant will undertake as a result of the issuance of this permit may negatively impact upon one or more threatened or endangered species and could lead to a potential"take"of an endangered species as those terms are defined in the federal law known as the "Endangered Species Act"or"ESA."Jefferson County makes no assurances to the applicant that the actions that will be undertaken because this permit has been issued will not violate t e ESA. Any individual,group or agency can file a lawsuit on behalf of an endangered species regarding your action(s)even;f •u are in compliance the Jefferson County development code.The Applicant acknowledges that he,she or it holds individual and non-tr-n ,dr• _ ••• . • -• ering to and complying with the ESA. The Applicant has read this disclaimer and signs and dates it below. Signature: ,-L_ ��_ —_ Date: G:\PermitCenter\###FORMS###\DRD FORMS\Master Permit Application 5-29-08.doc e e e 15 6 7 c}-- - k22g., 4" I CASE MANAGER'S CONFERENCE WORKSHEET Updated by BMAC 05-31-12 Case Manager: Mary Ann Schulte,Ron Kubec Date: 12-04-14 Sponsor Name: Patricia Farmer Case Number: 2014-6 Tree Numbers: N-14-59 through 70 L- ( .2. � 11 V IE p 11 , I �%' JANE - 7 2(115 ,'L CONFERENCE OUTLINE i �, i.s ,.0:,JiNTY r 1 6.-CC,MAJNITY DEVELOPMENT 1. What source materials have been reviewed? Kala Point Coastal Bluff Study by Shannon &Wilson, Inc. Dated March 2, 2012 Arboricultural Assessment by Richard Hefley, certified arborist,dated September 26, 2014 Habitat Management Plan by Marine Surveys Incorporated dated September 26, 2014, revised October 21, 2014 KPOA Bluff Management Plan revised 12-10-2013 2. Summarize prior actions on these trees. N-14-59 through 61 is a clump of young cedars are over the crest of the bluff and are growing into the requesters view—not previously trimmed. N-14-62 through N-14-64 is a hemlock (62) and two cedars are over the crest of the bluff and are growing into the requester's view—not previously trimmed. N-14-65 is a very small fir on the top of the bluff--not previously trimmed. This request is preventative. N-14-66 is a previously trimmed Pacific Yew. N-14-67 and N-14-68 are large cedars that have grown up into the requester's view—not previously trimmed. N-14-69 and N-14-70 are heavily vegetated areas at the upper part of the bluff. These areas have been regularly trimmed back (about every three years) and are thriving. 3. To what extent have these trees interfered with water view of requestor? There has been an extensive impact on the requester's view in the past few years. Views of the Port Townsend Bay, Indian Island, Port Townsend and Mount Baker have been obscured. 4. Is any tree a significant tree that should receive special consideration? (See definition for significant trees in the BMP,Appendix F,Glossary) No 5. Summarize geotechnical report related to these trees. This vegetation is in partially in Bluff Zone 2 and partially in a small area of Bluff Zone 3 as designated by the Shannon &Wilson Report. According to the report: "the presence of at least one old landslide scar suggests that they (landslides) have occurred in this zone.(2) The most common form of instability in Bluff Zone 2 appears to be sloughing and block fall from steep, exposed faces in the lower bluff. Locally, toe erosion along Bluff Zone 2 has eroded,or is in the process of eroding, colluviums and woody debris that has accumulated at the toe." "We observed numerous recent shallow rotational landslides in Bluff Zone 3. The landslides extend between about 40 and 80 feet above beach level. The landslides generally mobilized Qga sand deposits and extended downslope to the contact with Qgl silt and clay deposits. Below this contact, the bluff features near-vertical exposures of Qgl and Qpf that are locally obscured by colluviums and woody debris. Bluff Zone 3 exhibited greater toe erosion than other zones and greater exposure of the lower bluff." 6. Summarize arborist report related to these trees. "This request concerns an area of bluff densely growing with young evergreen trees and previously pruned ground-covering shrubs. The request seeks to reduce the crown height of eight trees and create habitat trees of two trees (N-14-67 and 68), and prune the lower vegetation to 30" above ground level. The ground-covering vegetation has been previously pruned back to this level and may be re-pruned in a similar fashion." The arborist suggests that windowing N-14-67 and 68 rather than creating habitat trees may improve bluff stability and the ecosystem. Tall trees like these have "larger and deeper stabilizing root systems, improved water management through evapotranspiration (the trees respiration of water), and additional habitat for fauna, flora (a little) and fungi that live higher above the ground. Windowing can be the first step towards eventual skirting up of the trunk as the tree has grown through the view horizon. " 7. Summarize biologist's habitat management plan. Finds that lowering the crowns of N-14-59, N-14-60, N-14-62, N 14-64, N-14-65 and N-14-66 is acceptable. The larger N-14-61 and N-14-63 may be windowed. N-14-67 and N-14-68 may be turned into wildlife trees by girdling causing a slow mortality of the trees. The pruning requested (N-14-69 and N14-70) is acceptable. Removing non-native blackberries (Himalayan Blackberries) is encouraged to improve growing conditions for native vegetation. The impact is"that there will be no net loss in habitat function or value above current baseline conditions assuming they follow the recommendations we have put forth." 8. What limitation or mitigation on requested tree action might reduce the risk to bluff stability or harm to plant,wildlife or wetlands habitat? According to Shannon & Wilson, more than 70% of the landslides have had "some human influence in their causation". Vegetation removal is one action that will "undoubtedly result in an increase of slope instability". By carefully recommending actions on the bluff, we hope to restore lost views and maintain slope stability. Shannon & Wilson recommend the monitoring of tight lines and other drainage pipes on the bluff and their replacement if they fail. They also recommend a "major reduction of irrigation of landscaping on the bluff-top properties". 9. BMAC recommendations. This area has been routinely maintained with removal of trees and trimming of vegetation over the years. The upper level of the bluff where most of these requested actions will take place is heavily vegetated and appears very healthy. Trees N-14-59 through N-14-61 are relatively young and BMAC recommends lowering the crown by no more than 25%of the total crown. N-14-62 through N-14-64 are also relatively immature trees that may have their crown lowered by 25%. N-14-65 is a very young fir at the top of the bluff directly in front of a mature fir. BMAC recommends that this fir trimmed to the level of the surrounding vegetation. N-14-66 is a previously trimmed Pacific Yew. BMAC recommends trimming back to the previously trimmed level. N-14-67 and N-14-68 are two large cedars growing from lower down on the bluff. These trees are much larger than the trees surrounding them. BMAC recommends careful windowing to achieve a partial reestablishment of lost view. The arborist report discusses the impact of these larger trees and their importance to bluff stability. Shannon & Wilson mentions the importance of the "root strength and stability"of the large Western Red Cedars and Douglas firs on the bluff. Notes on N-14-67 and 68: The biologist suggests girdling these trees which will cause them to slowly die. These will remain and block the view for years. (For an example of some illegally girdled trees on the bluff, view the dead cedars below lot number 171 on Baycliff Court.) More view would be reestablished by selective windowing. The arborist maintains the importance of healthy evergreens on the bluff for blocking the rain,wind and water runoff on the bluff during the time when the rest of the deciduous plants are dormant. These trees are above the area where previous slides have occurred. (see Shannon and Wilson Photographs C-13, C-14 and C-18) The Coastal Bluff Study states that for existing mature trees, management by windowing "is far more preferable than topping". It also refers to western red cedar and Douglas fir as"the suitable trees in terms of root strength and stability". N-14-69 is the dense vegetation on the North end of the bluff area in this request. It is at the top level of the bluff and is very dense. It contains previously trimmed willows, madronas, wild cherries, red flowering currents, salal, small seedlings, and the invasive blackberries. BMAC recommends that this area may be trimmed back to its previous level and that the blackberries be controlled. N-14-70 is an area of salal on the upper bluff at the south end of this request. BMAC recommends that the salal may be trimmed back to 30 inches at the top of the bluff. The salal has responded well to these trimmings in the past and is very lush. 10. Board Decision D. Leeds moved that the KPOA Board of Directors approve the BMAC recommendation for Case #2014-6 as amended. D. Pitts seconded. Show of hands was unanimous that the KPOA Board of Directors approve the BMAC recommendation for Case#2014-6 as amended. Res. 14-12-07 t z z z z -1 n z z z z z z z z z z -1 n z z z z z -1 n z z z z -1 I N r-+ I-• ~ D) N r-• r� r+ r N N I- ,-•+ r fl1 13 r-' r r-■ N '� n N N 1-> i-, n A A A A 0 A A A A A A A A A A r�D N A A A A A D A A A A VVI A A A A fD gu J al V7 A 00 V al A co N 1--� co to J J V V V * T N F-• O 1* * CO V Ol VI A it 3t N N N N s ..G N -, -, -, , -, rnu .G O C ' G K OO-► D D D D K O Cl rnD rnu ro .- O N 1-+ m n Q ,p -, n o a Ro Q Ro m A o A CDD fo rroo CDD '6 A a O. a, Q -p A rp rD rD r rD ' O, a, O, r O O O O O O n "" Q w in to ti W F, O 7 0 3 7 3 o 3 G T 4c 0 O rD rD "' fD rD rD Q CD rD -" - .." ". -h IN Re m Ra RO p .� rD Ws c76 -5-6711) 'tis -n z s' to m - rro C rD N a v. CA VI LA a, M. m = m " fD m m m " m m p m 7 x m G.• M. m m rfo n 3 3 3 310 q. 3 3 3 M. 3 3 a 3 q 5 a .c to 3 3 3 3 Q H• 3 3 3 3 1Z C v, O H C 3 3 3 3 '^ O O r, O c C O v o- 6 rS c r+ O O O o c (D .-r r+ .� ,•+ C 7 N co 4, , r•r r+ •-r rrD D N N o N IA CL N fD CD fp N N N O O O O Q. Q O O O Q a rt 0 0 O O rt rt r+ r•r ro r+ rt cro 3 > > 0- W W w 3 < Q < F e 3 3 3 3 n °o o° �o °o Q. 3 �_ v CD Do 0o s s s rm oa D Imo+ 3 3 D ' o 0 0 o I:* m m m m D N O CD v v c n < fD CD ro m el O m fD r<o m -{ < < < < W Ro Ra „: 17h Da rni Du Ro Ro ,-r O m ,5 ro rD m rD A. N 0 v, v, O ' .? z- rn O 7C f O 3 3 O N o_ o_ o o O O 0 7 -O v 3 y -o '06 'd N S 7' S S A N N N N 3 a 6 O" Cr EU -• obi• o5 o. ora• ID _ o5a. D1 Q- 0 r 0 0 — DO o4 0o all 0 c c c c r"1' 3 ln CA c VI U1 0.1 ro o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dpi I Oc ro eD d0 0_ -o , ,, ,t a) fD G �- Oi s 0- 0- s Gq A H 3 M ° °, °, ° c=D e+ 0 m D, Cu Cu H CD C C7 * o Q n o ? 0 N ID * MMMM c ID U) CMuuu * < 0 co •Cl N N N N N (i• O 0 m Z 0 f-1. 73 73 p z 70 z �o o z p z 7o CD 0 o rD o 0 0 0 0 o rD o 0 o ro 0 0• o O a = n n o 0 0 0 0 m m �* m iD m m m m '+ m ro m rt m iD m = m fD iD fD C. N < < < < < < < < < < g g g < 3 3 3 < < CD Ro Ro R� Ra CI F f f * f f * * ,. a, m m 3 3 3 3 r+ m m o 3 d a d a 0 G < < D, a,• N M 7 7 7 -1 .eq. .+ CD CD rD _ 3 7 D, r .-r a, o, N N ^ CU DJ• O O O 7 0 7 0 CL CL CL -0 TS •6 -0 0 3 d d d O O O O fD fD M *< * * * 3. N a, fy N G. G G 0 (D C C W W D D n o o o o o03 c, o or) co co co co n -S -+ o o r+ r D o CD 0 0 3 a• cr vrScr 0 o a63 3 CD W Do H va W rm O 3 as r14 N CO a-, N a0, H CI rD CD CD CI) 3 ro fD C O_ Q Cr a f<D f<D N N rD Q _ d d N N e.i. CL 04 lift 1, , -- I ? 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 Q Q d Q 1 'J TY i1 i!5!111 z z z z -1 A" z z z z z z z z z z z z -.l c- Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z -f.. A A A PD) N A A A A A A A A A A A A m D A A A A A A A A A A A J O1 O1 Ol 01 co O1 O1 rr d, O1 in m N U, U, UI U, U1 Ut in U1 U, . A 0 0 0 0 0 'O CO J rr, U'1 A W t'J H, 0 l0 It m 00 V 01 Ut A Co N I-> 0 CO Co N N T T n n -i ° -__.. v, < n n v 7 n n x n n n -1 0 7 x „ = rn r -, m m K F' 0, m m m 0, - m m m m m m .< N 7 e m LI m a iv m d a 00. n0 'C A v M 00 CD n_i,, m cai 3 a Q. Q 'a A Q 3 H 3 d o, 3 n o, C11 w o, m , z O_ _ .: a. -s ~ O V -s -s O 01 O O N O m O O n 3 O -< .-1.. m x- x' m m m ( O (0 (0 to to N rn m 0 j S ; n 0 0 0 0 O O O O T -I -I H -I -I --I -I H H 3 3 3 3 3 3 °+ °: 3 m ft/ m m CCD CCD fDD 'a . -o -00 . 3 3 3 3 3 r<D m r,D m m 0 ro.° 0 m m C 0 0 0 0 0 a Cr rs o- a n n n n n n n rD co y 0 0, 0, 00 00 r+ 7 (X' 6 W a d m O O 0 0 0 O O rt n n n n 'o o o 000 a E c a s s <. F F F F * o. 3 3 3 3 3 .0r+ r+ 7 a) iIIU1O O 7 O 7 3 3 7 O o O o 00 a)c.�+ D-N tmi,3 3 p m p N = 7 3 =' O a s a ym m^ a 3 Vf 0, a 0, 0, G < 03 <. N m 0 04 3 0 0 0 0 rt 0 0 °c o rp `D ° a a a a 0 C C to -(, H 1s M. , (Cf _ _ _ S LA v, X .< O 1 m !fD 5 O G (0 =a. r+ m m m m, 7 C m A CD 3 3 ,may 3 z '00 rt c '� _ N r<D m H a C 3 A- m N CL Q O m i -3 — C m (n I'D CD m (D 0 ,- y, ° W N m m �3 , m O w C n Q < o 0 1rmp r-, *CD r+�, O I o- ri 0E, Cu, 0E, 0E, a 77 77 s 77 -0 X1 A 23 73 z 70 o 77 77 77 77 7 7777777777 CD m m m m -' m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m ' V, U, N V, m V, V, N V, V, V, 7 3 3 7 (p rr .+ r+ rr < rr .-r r+ r+ rt r+ • .-t rr+ rte+ rte+ rr+ rNr r+ rte+ rr'+ r' rr r+ rt. n O O O O m O O O O O O [(D o, d w d iD FO N iD N iD rD N Fos N �+ (D N (D N CD N rD (D N iD N 7 7 7 -. c <' a a a a a -a < < < < < < < < < < < (D < < < < m 0 a) 0�, n, 0F, m O 0, w w m d rD m 5 m co tD ro rD ro co m r) F cp F F bamw omh F-, , m m (D o c, n, c E. 0 rt 5. c, u, m f -0 -o v -o v -0 O m a n n 3 A 0 0 0 0 � n d 0- o ' o o 0 0 0 o 0 Q _, . F F 7 1 F , m mm m m m * = m o > > 0 0 o 0 Q m a o n a a 5. m < F F F CO— C n C 00 00 CO CO CO 01 01 01 01 00 N 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CD N N N N N 00 00 00 Co p 33333 33333 - o a o E E E E a CD m m m ro rt a a a a a 0000 0000 n 00m m m m m m m m m ro CASE MANAGER'S CONFERENCE WORKSHEET Updated by BMAC 05-31-12 Case Manager: Bob Miles Date: 5 Dec 2014 Sponsor Name: Bill &Sue Conklin Case Number: 2014-1 Tree Numbers: N-9, N-10, N-11, N-12 CONFERENCE OUTLINE JAN _ 2015 l;-s i� t i.(,011idTY 1. What source materials have been reviewed? FT.0�COf�^,IJiUNIIY DEVELOPMENT Arboricultural Assessment—Richard Hefley Kala Point Habitat Management Plan —Marine surveys &Assessments Bluff Management Plan—Kala Point BMAC Kala Point Coastal Bluff Study, March, 2012—Shannon &Wilson 2. Summarize prior actions on these trees. Trees have been previously pruned and have re-grown with multiple leaders each. 3. To what extent have these trees interfered with water view of requestor? Partially or totally water view. 4. Is any tree a significant tree that should receive special consideration? (See definition for significant trees in the BMP,Appendix F, Glossary) No 5. Summarize geotechnical report related to these trees. Typical, measured bluff recession rates range between 1.6 to 3.5 inches per year (in/yr). A strong earthquake on this fault could induce large-scale slope failures. There is no guarantee that vegetation management will prevent or lessen slope failures; however, vegetative cover is more likely to help. Western red cedar and Douglas fir are suitable trees in terms of root strength and stability. Management by windowing of lower limbs is more preferable than topping. For site-specific species selection, S&W recommends consulting a certified arborist dedicated to vegetation and steep slopes. 6. Summarize arborist report related to these trees. Trees have been previously pruned and may be re-pruned in a similar fashion with little or no adverse affect 7. Summarize biologist's habitat management plan. The ecological function and values provided by the flora in this area will have a minimal impact as long as plants are not removed completely. Case 2014-1 proposes to trim the top of trees that have been previously trimmed.. Theses trees are dense and this method has been used before. 8. What limitation or mitigation on requested tree action might reduce the risk to bluff stability or harm to plant,wildlife or wetlands habitat? Request should have minimal impact on bluff stability, or harm plant, wildlife or wetland habitat. 9. BMAC recommendations. The BMAC recommends approval of request to prune four (4) western red cedar trees. Arborist, biologist, and geotechnical reports indicate minimal impact. 10. Board Decision D. Leeds moved that the KPOA Board of Directors approve the BMAC recommendation for Case#2014-1 as amended. T.Andritsch seconded. Show of hands was unanimous that the KPOA Board of Directors approve the BMAC recommendation for Case#2014-1, as amended. Res. 14-12-02 ry CASE MANAGER'S CONFERENCE WORKSHEET Updated by BMAC 05-31-12 Case Manager: Michael Machette Date: Dec. 10, 2014 Sponsor Name: Garry and Gail Eisenberger Case Number: 20 ECEFIIVE - Tree Numbers: Copses N14-05, N14-06, N14-07, and N14-08 7 CONFERENCE OUTLINE " JAd - 015 LL, 1. What source materials have been reviewed? 1 '` aA;CAUNTY T.0 r COMiviUNITY DEVELOPMENT Shannon and Wilson report, JMAP Landslide maps, JMAP property maps, Arborist Report, Habitat Management Plan, prior BMAC case for this property (#2010-9), visual inspections on three occasions. 2. Summarize prior actions on these trees. Prey topped in 2010. See Case No. 2010-9 3. To what extent have these trees interfered with water view of requestor? This collection of trees (4 copses, 8-10 separate trees) was trimmed back in 2010 to a position below the salal, which provided the maximum water view possible. In the intervening 4 years, these trees have grown 10-12 ft. in height and are now about 3-5 feet above the salal. 4. Is any tree a significant tree that should receive special consideration? No 5. Summarize geotechnical report related to these trees. The Shannon and Wilson report (2012) , with reference to their Zone 1 (northern 350 ft. of KPOA bluff), summarize the bluff vegetation as: Moderate to dense cover on bluff face. Moderate cover of low shrubs at bluff top. Light tree cover at bluff top. Alder, conifers, blackberry, salmonberry, and fern. and Wilson summarize the bluff instability and erosion as: Few areas of near-vertical Shannon y f soil exposures of Qgl and Qpf. One approximately 200-foot-wide arcuate-shaped area that may represent old sl i de observed d from beach. Recent slide activity reported at top o f bluff where there is a 10-foot-tall near-vertical head scarp that defines an (approximately 50 feet wide) arcuate-shaped area. Local toe erosion of colluvium. The 10-ft-tall head scarp that they mention (p. 18) may be a possible shallow rotational landslide that extends across the properties of Downing (on the North), Eisenberger, and Harper (on the South). 6. Summarize arborist report related to these trees. The 2014 Arborist report (p. 13) states: These trees can be pruned back to appropriate sized lateral branches with little or no discernible negative impacts to the trees health or functioning. In keeping with the Jefferson County Shoreline Management Plan (SMP), the tops removed should be no larger than 3" at the point of the cut. 7. Summarize biologist's habitat management plan. The 2014 Habitat Management plan (p. 5) states: Case # 2014-2 (Figure 3) proposes to trim or remove copses of mixed deciduous species (alder, willow and aspen). These trees should not be removed as they are the primary species on this portion of the slope and there is a history of slope instability here. As they are all species that readily re-sprout, trimming would be a good choice for vegetation management, but not to the ground. 8. What limitation or mitigation on requested tree action might reduce the risk to bluff stability or harm to plant,wildlife or wetlands habitat? Two issues are key to preventing increased instability of the bluff adjacent to the Eisenberger (as well as Downing and Harper property): Vegetation cover and viability, and water management. 1) Allow no tree trimming that might result in decreased vigor of the existing tree cover at and below the crest of the bluff. An example of this is the dozen or so dead alders that were topped without leaving adequate foliage for continued growth. 2) Encourage the owners to inspect and maintain their tight lines and to allow minimal irrigation on the bluff side of their property. Our inspection of the existing hard-pipe tight line only extended from the bluff to about 20 ft downslope. 9. BMAC recommendations. BMAC concurs with the arborist and biologist's reports that suggest they should be trimmed only to the extent that there will be little or no discernible negative impacts to the trees health or functioning. The tops removed should be no larger than 3" at the point of the cut. The homeowners should be vigilant about the stability of the upper portion of the bluff, which is excessively over-steepened owing to recent land sliding (i.e. 10 ft.tall head scarp). 10. Board Decision D. Leeds moved that the KPOA Board of Directors approve the BMAC recommendation for Case#2014-2 as amended. B. Hempstead seconded. Show of hands was unanimous that the KPOA Board of Directors approve the BMAC recommendation for Case#2014-2 as amended. Res. 14-12-03 r Map of the Eisenberger site Old Fort Townsend Downing \ Headwall (lot 173) 6 o� \ .. r�� \ � ••Trees ,,,�' N0 1\ Residence \• \ Tightline KPOA Eisenberger common area (lot 172) (bluff) '4� Harper (lot 171)OC s'fir s Photo of trees proposed for trimming e Photograph (panorama),view to the NE by M. ( Machette,chet to April 1, 2014 Y p CASE MANAGER'S CONFERENCE WORKSHEET Case Manager: Mary Ann Schulte Date: December 5,2014 Sponsor Name: Gentry Case Number: 2014-3 Tree Numbers: N-14-74,75,76, 77 and 78 0 LE ,:c.2 ,FOVE f II , JAN - 7 2015 ILL CONFERENCE OUTLIN ' : _ i .1',; )0 COUNTY +;''='L!CF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1. What source materials have been reviewed? Geotechnical Report by Shannon & Wilson, Inc. Dated March 2, 2012 Arborist Report by Richard Hefley, certified arborist, dated September 26, 2014 Habitat Management Plan by Marine Surveys Incorporated dated September 26, 2014, revised October 21,2014 KPOA Bluff Management Plan revised 12-10-2013 2. Summarize prior actions on these trees. These trees appear to have been previously trimmed by removal of some lower limbs. 3. To what extent have these trees interfered with water view of requestor? Over the years, portions of the view of Port Townsend Bay and Indian Island have been significantly lost. 4. Is any tree a significant tree that should receive special consideration? (See definition for significant trees in the BMP,Appendix F, and Glossary) No 5. Summarize geotechnical report related to these trees. These trees are in the area designated as "Bluff Zone 3" by the Shannon and Wilson report. According to the report: "We observed numerous recent shallow rotational landslides in Bluff Zone 3. The landslides extend between about 40 and 80 feet above beach level. The landslides generally mobilized Qga sand deposits and extended downslope to the contact with Qgl silt and clay deposits. Below this contact, the bluff features near-vertical exposures of Qgl and Qpf that are locally obscured by colluviums and woody debris. Bluff Zone 3 exhibited greater toe erosion than other zones and greater exposure of the lower bluff." To enhance slope stability Shannon and Wilson recommends water control and vegetation management. Water control would include a major reduction of irrigation on bluff properties and periodic inspection and maintenance of tight lines. As for vegetation, the managing of existing trees would best be done by windowing of the lower limbs. Dense native vegetation rather than grasses is preferable. 6. Summarize arborist report related to these trees. The four trees requested are mature firs on the upper part of the bluff. Removal of the lower branches as requested will have no measurable adverse impact. However, these mature trees should have no more than 20% of the total canopy removed. "Mature trees are slightly less resilient than young, actively growing trees." Retaining some of the larger lower limbs will benefit the ecosystem. 7. Summarize biologist's habitat management plan. For the 4 trees (N-14-74 through -77) " a combination of limbing, skirting and interlimbing (windowing) would be acceptable, but not to exceed 40% of the crown." (Note: the parameters of the SMP allow for only 25%of the crown to be removed.) N-14-78 contains mostly salal, other native vegetation and some invasive species including Himalayan Blackberry. It is recommended that the invasive plants be removed and the salal be lightly pruned. 8. What limitation or mitigation on requested tree action might reduce the risk to bluff stability or harm to plant,wildlife or wetlands habitat? Leaving the mature trees is most important to our bluff. The diverse evergreen vegetation, groundcover, shrubs, and trees in this upper bluff area helps with slope stability in this sensitive area. 9. BMAC recommendations. For the four trees on this request, BMAC recommends a combination of skirting and windowing to achieve a restoration of the marine view. As allowed by the SMP, up to 25% of the existing vegetation should be removed. BMAC recommends windowing of trees# N-14-74, N-14-75 and N-14-77 to achieve a better view. The dead branches should be removed on N-14-74 before windowing up to 25% of the crown. Skirting these trees up (even by the 25% in the SMP's parameters) would not get close to the lines drawn on the trees by the requesters. Much better view restoration may be achieved by selective windowing. Fir trees normally will not regrow vegetation where windowed and small birds and mammals will make use of the lower limbs. Tree# N-14-76 can be skirted up to 25%and achieve the view restoration. The trimming requested on the upper area of the bluff (#N-14-78) is acceptable. Removal of the invasive Himalayan Blackberry Is recommended. Lightly trimming of the salal and other native species is recommended. 10. Board Decision D. Leeds moved that the KPOA Board of Directors approve the BMAC recommendation for Case#2014-3 as amended. R. Kubec seconded. Show of hands was 7/1 (in favor of: C. McNulty,T.Andritsch, D. Leeds, D. Eppley, B. Hempstead, R. Kubec and D. Pitts, against: K. Goldstein)that the KPOA Board of Directors approve the BMAC recommendation for Case#2014-3 as amended. Res. 14-12-04 I. l CASE MANAGER'S CONFERENCE WORKSHEET Case Manager: Richard Oiseth Date: 12/5/14 Sponsor Name: Diane Solvik Case Number: 2014-4 Tree Numbers: N14-29 through N14-37 CONFERENCE OUTLINE r—�' (� 7 (I v 1. What source materials have been reviewed? .' Kala Point Coastal Bluff Study 3/02/2012 ,JAS; - 7 2015 i}�� Kala Point Habitat Management Plan 10/21/2014 I Arboricultultural Assessment 9/26/2014! ----J } �uViJTY 'T (Gi■flia(NITY DEVELOPMENT 2. Summarize prior actions on these trees. Madrona N14-31 was trimmed previously. The Madrona & Firs in tree groups N14-35, N14-36, and N14-37 have been regularly trimmed for many years. 3. To what extent have these trees interfered with the water view of the requestor? The water view of the requestor has been eliminated by the growth of these trees. None of the requested trees was present in the original photographs of the q P p 9 p water view. 4. Is any tree a significant tree that should receive special consideration? No. 5. Summarize geotechnical report related to these trees. The Kala Point Coastal Bluff Study (March 2, 2012) provides the following Vegetation Cover description for Zone 2 (extends for a distance of about 900 feet south of Bluff Zone 1): "Moderate to dense cover of alder, conifers, Madrona, and ferns" on bluff face and bluff top. The Kala Point Coastal Bluff Study "did not observe evidence of recent landslides but one old landslide scar suggests that they have occurred in this zone." 6. Summarize arborist report related to these trees. The Arboricultural Assessment (9/26/2014) says, "The area in question is densely populated with seedlings, young conifers and evergreen trees and shrubs, making it unlikely for the pruning requested to have any notable adverse impact on water or wind erosion." The arborist recommended that the two Douglas Firs (N14-32&33) and the Western Red Cedar (N14-29) is windowed rather than removed. 7. Summarize biologist's habitat management plan. The Kala Point Habitat Management Plan (9/26/2014) said that trimming seedlings, saplings, and deciduous trees that had been trimmed in the past was acceptable. The report recommended that the two Douglas Firs (N14-32&33) be windowed or "limbed "instead of removed. The Kala Point Habitat Management Plan: "Removing the Western Red Cedar (N14-29) would be a good r management choice as there is a clump of three trees close together. Thinning here could be beneficial. 8.What limitation or mitigation on requested tree action might reduce the risk bluff stability or harm plant,wildlife, or wetlands habitat? The Kala Point Habitat Management Plan concludes "...there will be no net loss in habitat function or value above current baseline conditions assuming that they follow the recommendations we have put forward." 9. BMAC Recommendations: The biologist and the arborist disagreed about removing the Western Red Cedar (N14-29). The arborist recommended "windowing" the Western Red Cedar while the biologist stated that "removing the Western Red Cedar would be a good management choice as there is a clump of three trees close together." Further inspection indicates that N14-29 is actually a "leader" growing from a previously trimmed Cedar, not an individual tree. Therefore, the BMAC recommends H14- 29 be trimmed back to the previous cut Tree N14-30 is a group of small Fir, Cherry, and Madrona seedlings, which have been regularly trimmed over the years. Both the arborist and biologist agreed they could be trimmed without harm. BMAC recommends that the seedlings be trimmed to a maximum height of three feet above the ground. Tree N14-31 is a Madrona, which has been trimmed in the past and can be re- trimmed to the previous cut without harm according to the biologist and arborist. The BMAC recommends that the Madrona be re-trimmed to the previous cut. Trees N14-32 and N14-33 are Douglas Firs, which the biologist and arborist say, can be windowed. The biologist also states that the two Firs can be limbed if desired. The BMAC recommends that both Firs be windowed. Tree N14-34 is a group of small Fir, Cherry, and Madrona seedlings, which have been regularly trimmed over the years. Both the arborist and biologist agreed they could be trimmed without harm. The BMAC recommends that the seedlings be trimmed to a maximum height of three feet above the ground. Tree N14-35 is a Madrona, which has been regularly trimmed over the years. The biologist and arborist agreed that it could re-trim without harm. The BMAC recommends that the Madrona be re-trimmed below the marine view line. Tree groups N14-36 and N14-37 consist of Madrona, Fir, and Cedar seedlings, which have been regularly trimmed over the years. Both the biologist and arborist agreed they could be safely re-trimmed without harm. The BMAC recommends that the seedlings be re-trimmed to a maximum height of three feet. (N14-36 and N14-37 are located on private property and do not fall within the Bluff Zone anyway.) 10. Board Decision: D. Leeds moved that the KPOA Board of Directors approve the BMAC recommendation for Case#2014-4, as amended. D. Pitts seconded. Show of hands was unanimous that the KPOA Board of Directors approve the BMAC recommendation for Case#2014-4 as amended. Res. 14-12-05 CASE MANAGER'S CONFERENCE WORKSHEET Case Manager: Richard Oiseth Date: 12/05/2014 Sponsor Name: Lida Graham Case Number: 2014-5 Tree Numbers: N14-44 through N14-58 CONFERENCE OUTLINE 1. What source materials have been reviewed? Kala Point Coastal Bluff Study 3/02/2012 Kala Point Habitat Management Plan 9/26/2014 Arboricultural Assessment 9/26/2014 2. Summarize prior actions on these trees. The Pacific Yew (N14-49), Western Hemlock (N14-50), Douglas Fir (N14-51), and Madrona (N14-52) have been previously trimmed. The Cherry (N14-47) and Madrona (N14-48) have been trimmed in the past. 3. To what extent have these trees interfered with the water view of the requestor? The water view of the requestor has been eliminated by the growth of these trees. None of the requested trees were present in the original photographs of the water view. 4. Is any tree a significant tree that should receive special consideration? No. 5. Summarize geotechnical report related to these trees. The Kala Point Coastal Bluff Study (March 2, 2012) provides the following Vegetation Cover description for Zone 2 (extends for a distance of about 900 feet south of Bluff Zone 1): "Moderate to dense cover of alder, conifers, Madrona, and ferns" on bluff face and bluff top. The Kala Point Coastal Bluff Study "did not observe evidence of recent landslides but one old landslide scar suggests that they have occurred in this zone." 6. Summarize arborist report related to these trees. The Arboricultural Assessment (9/26/2014) observes that most of the trees requested have been previously pruned and may be pruned back to their original height without harm. The report also states that the numerous saplings may pruned with no adverse impacts. The arborist recommended that three of the Douglas Fir trees (N14-46, N14-55, N14-58) be windowed rather than having the crowns lowered. The arborist also recommended that three Western Hemlocks (N14-50, N14-54, and N14-56) be retained as "Habitat Trees". 7. Summarize biologist's habitat management plan. The Kala Point Habitat Management Plan (9/26/2014) says that the saplings (N14-44 & N14-45) are small diameter and may be trimmed to a hedge. The report states that trees that have been previously topped (N14-49, N14-50, N14-51, N14-52) can be trimmed back to the original "top". The Douglas Fir (N14-46) should be windowed rather than removed. The report states that the Western Hemlock (N14-54), Douglas Fir trees (N14-55), Western Hemlock (N14-56), Madrona (N14-57), and Douglas Fir (N14-58) can have crowns lowered because of the small diameter of the trees and the dense vegetation in the area. 8. What limitation or mitigation on requested tree action might reduce the risk bluff stability or harm plant, wildlife, or wetlands habitat? The Kala Point Habitat Management Plan concludes "...there will be no net loss in habitat function or value above current baseline conditions assuming that they follow the recommendations we have put forward." 9. BMAC recommendations: The biologist and the arborist state that the small Madrona and Fir saplings on the bluff (N14-44 & N14-45) can be trimmed without harm. The BMAC recommends that the seedlings be trimmed to a maximum height of three feet above the ground. Tree N14-46 is Douglas Fir, which the biologist and arborist recommend, be windowed. The BMAC recommends windowing the Fir tree. Trees N14-47 and N14-48 are Cherry and Madrona trees, which have been previously trimmed and can be trimmed again according to the biologist and arborist reports. The BMAC recommends trimming below the marine view line. Tree N14-49 is a Pacific Yew, which has been trimmed in the past and can be trimmed again according to the biologist and arborist reports. The BMAC recommends re- trimming to the previous cut below the marine view line. Tree N14-50 is a Hemlock, which has been trimmed in the past. The biologist recommends trimming to the previous cut while the arborist recommends a habitat tree. The BMAC recommends trimming to the previous cut below the marine view line. Tree N14-51 is a Douglas Fir which has been trimmed in the past and can be re-trimmed according to the biologist and arborist reports. The BMAC recommends trimming to the previous cut below the marine view line. Tree N14-52 is a Madrona, which has been trimmed in the past and can be re-trimmed according to the biologist and arborist reports. The BMAC recommends trimming to the previous cut below the marine view line. Trees N14-54 and N14-56 are small diameter Western Hemlocks which the biologist says could have crowns lowered while the arborist states that they should become habitat trees. The BMAC recommends converting both Hemlocks to habitat trees trimmed below the marine view line. Trees N14-55 is two small diameter Douglas Firs that the biologist states could have their crowns lowered while the arborist recommends windowing both trees according to the reports. The BMAC recommends trimming both Firs below the marine view line. Tree N14-57 is a small diameter Madrona which the biologist and arborist agree can be trimmed according to their reports. The BMAC recommends trimming the Madrona below the marine view line. Tree N14-58 is small diameter Douglas Fir which the biologist recommends for crown lowering while the arborist proposes windowing according to their reports. The BMAC recommends windowing. 10. Board Decision: D. Leeds moved that the KPOA Board of Directors approve the BMAC recommendation for Case#2014-5 as amended. D. Eppley seconded. Show of hands was unanimous that the KPOA Board of Directors approve the BMAC recommendation for Case#2014-5 as amended. Res. 14-12-06 r CASE MANAGER'S CONFERENCE WORKSHEET Case Manager: Douglas Leeds Date: 12/05/2014 Sponsor Name: John Downing Case Number:2014-7 Tree Numbers: N14-01 through N14-04 CONFERENCE OUTLINE E 1. What source materials have been reviewed? Kala Point Coastal Bluff Study 3/2/2012 J t, - / lr, Kala Point Habitat Mgmt. Plan 9/26/2014 i /LJ Arboricultural Assessment 9/26/2014 UidTY DF`!ELOPMENT 2. Summarize prior actions on these trees. Western Red Cedars, N14-01 and N14-02 were previously severely pruned. N14-03&04, Douglas firs, had no previous actions. 3. To what extent have these trees interfered with water view of requestor? As noted N14-01 & 02 were severely pruned in the past and are now sending up multiple leaders that are now and will continue to be a significant impact on view. N14-03 &04 are Douglas firs and are significantly impacting view and property value. 4. Is any tree a significant tree that should receive special consideration? No! (See definition for significant trees in the BMP,Appendix F,Glossary 5. Summarize geotechnical report related to these trees. "The Shannon and Wilson report (2012), with reference to their Zone 1 (northern 350 ft. of KPOA bluff), summarize the bluff vegetation as: Moderate to dense cover on bluff face. Moderate cover of low shrubs at bluff top. Light tree cover at bluff top. Alder, conifers, blackberry, salmonberry, and fern. Shannon and Wilson summarize the bluff instability and erosion as: Few areas of near-vertical soil exposures of Qgl and Qpf. One approximately 200-foot-wide arcuate-shaped area that may represent old slide observed from beach. Recent(circa 1942-1957)slide activity reported at top of bluff, where there is a 10-foot-tall near-vertical head scarp that defines an (approximately 50 feet wide) arcuate-shaped area. Local toe erosion of colluvium. The 10-ft-tall head scarp that they mention (p. 18) may be a possible shallow rotational landslide that extends across the properties of Downing (on the North), Eisenberger, and Harper(on the South)." * r *Attribution to Michael Machette's analysis of Shannon Wilson Report 2012. 6. Summarize arborist report related to these trees. The two Red Cedars may be pruned again with no measurable impacts to tree health or bluff erosion. While he does not support removal of N-03 & N-04 he does propose an alternate plan. For these trees, he recommends creating habitat trees (see exhibit 1, below). Wherein the canopy would be reduced with the top sculptured to appear to be a natural snag. Another factor mentioned by the Arborist, "is the possible degree of difficulty a climber would have attempting to window the very top portion of this very tall tree. There may well be an unacceptable degree of risk involved in this operation". 7. Summarize biologist's habitat management plan This area of the slope has very dense vegetation and cutting the trees back to marine view level,while leaving a living portion to maintain slope stability would be acceptable. 8. What limitation or mitigation on requested tree action might reduce the risk to bluff stability or harm to plant,wildlife or wetlands habitat? The Biologist concludes "...there will be no net loss in habitat function or value above current baseline conditions assuming they follow the recommendations we have put forth." 9. BMAC recommendations. N14-01 and 02 are little more than prolific stumps and trimming will do no harm and should be permitted. The biologist opines creating habitat tree of both N-03 and N-04 would be acceptable and sees no net loss in habitat function. The arborist suggests, rather than removal or windowing, creating habit trees is a better option.The remaining portion should be sculptured to appear to be a natural snag. Because this area of the slope is very densely vegetated, creating habitat trees of these two firs should have little impact on the slope and will do little harm to the slope since the root systems would continue to offer support for many years. During which time increased sun exposure would encourage growth of a more prolific understory and even add to the slope's stability long before the root structure has completely decomposed. The BMAC recommends that the two Red Cedars be trimmed and N-03 and N-04 be sculpted into habitat trees to a height below the marine view line as seen from the home owner's deck. 10. Board Decision Directors approve the D. Leeds moved that the KPOA Board of ecto s app o e t BMAC recommendation for Case#2014-7 as amended. ri R. Kubec seconded. Show of hands was 7/1 (in favor of: in favor of: C. McNulty,T. Andritsch, D. Leeds, D. Eppley, B. Hempstead, R. Kubec and D. Pitts, against: K. Goldstein)that the KPOA Board of Directors approve the BMAC recommendation for Case#2014-7 as amended. Res. 14-12-08 Exhibit 1 Notes on Habitat Trees- I often recommend that some trees slated for removal be retained as"Habitat Trees". These are essentially standing snags from 3' up to however high is deemed safe given the location of the tree. Snags are critical components of our ecosystem and provide food and shelter for wildlife and beneficial fungi. It should be assumed that the standing snag will eventually rot at the base and fall over after many years, so care should be taken to locate these `habitat trees' in a location unlikely to be frequented by people or damaging to property. If possible it is best to leave a jagged break where the tree trunk is cut. Not only does this look more natural, like a tree that has been snapped in high winds, but the jagged layers of wood provide increased habitat for beneficial organisms. Leaving logs remaining on the ground, especially alder logs is another practice that is immensely beneficial to the native ecosystem. These trees are habitat and shelter for beneficial fungi, insects, grubs, birds and 4' mammals. Some arborists now argue that a failing tree serves more and greater ecological functions than an actively growing tree. Nothing can duplicate the art of nature for creating Habitat Trees,whether a "Snag",the dead tree on the right, or the "Living Habitat Tree"on the left with only the too dead. Y I it III Tula Point Habitat Management Plan Ocotber 21, 2014 • For: Kata Point Owners Association 1760 Kala Point Drive Port Townswnd, WA 98368 7---------E S jt k cP a' G 7 ss SSM ,�� MARINE SURVEYS Et ASSESSMENTS 521 Snagstead Way Port Townsend WA 98368 (360) 385-4073 marine.surveys.inc®gmail.com Table of Contents Project information 3 Proposal and Purpose 3 Site Description 4 Conclusion 4 Recommendations 5 Determination of Impact 5 Figures 6-19 MS&A Kale Point—North Section Habitat Management Plan..2 Project Information This Habitat Management Plan(HMP)has been prepared for the residents on the North Section of Kala Point at the following addresses: Case#2014-1: Conklin,210 Kala Heights Drive;Case#2014-2:Eisenberger,240 Kala Heights Drive; Case#2014-3: Gentry, 10 Baycliff Place;Case#2014-4: Solvik, 110 Kala Heights Drive;Case# 2014-5:Graham, 11-1 Seaview Court;Case#2014-6:Farmer,21-2 Seaview Court;and Case#2014-7:Downing, 260 Kala Heights Drive. On August 12,2014 a site visit was conducted with MaryAnn Schulte,Keith Larson and Bob Miles,members of the Bluff Management Advisory Committee(BMAC).All of the properties were visited and a description for each proposal was explained.The report is submitted to comply with the request of Jefferson County Community Development in accordance with the requirements of the UDC 18.22.440.The extent of the proposal is tree removal,topping,windowing,skirting,and pruning of shrub species for view restoration.As part of this request an arborist report and a geotech report will be submitted.As such,this HMP is limited in scope to solely identify Washington State Priority Species and Habitats and any impacts that may occur to either the species listed or their habitats of concern,in reference to the nature and density of the proposed land use change.(Figure 1 -Vicinity Map and Project Location) Proposal and Purpose The overall proposal is for view maintenance by vegetation removal,and/or limbing of trees on the upper bluff,on seven parcels.Case#2014-1 proposes to trim to top of bluff,four Western Red Cedar(Thuja plicata).These trees have all been previously trimmed. See N14-9 through N14-12 in Figure 2. Case#2014-2 proposes to trim or remove mixed growth of Red Alder(Alnlus rubra)and willow species(Salix sp.).See copses N14-05 through N14-08 in Figure 3.Copse N14-05 is on steep bank and the rest are at the top edge of bluff.These have been trimmed in the past on a schedule of every four years.Case#2014-3 proposes to skirt or window four Douglas Fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii)on the steep slope and to remove invasive weeds and trim low growing vegetation at the top of bluff.N14-74 through N14-78 can be seen in Figure 4.Case#2014-4 proposes to trim seedlings and saplings that consist of Douglas Fir(Pseudotsuga menziesii),Western Red Cedar(Thuja plicata),Bitter Cherry (Prunus emarginata)and Pacific Madrone(Arbutus menziesii). In addition to pruning saplings,three trees are targeted for removal. One Western Red Cedar(Thuja plicata)and two Douglas Fir(Pseudotsuga menziesii).N14- 29 through N14-37 can be seen on Figure 5.N14-35 through N14-37 are inside of a drainage ditch that is located a distance behind the edge of the bluff.All other trees and saplings are at the top of the bluff or below.Most of these trees have been trimmed in the past.Case#2014-5 proposes to trim or top saplings of Pacific Madrone(Arbutus menziesii),Douglas Fir(Pseudotsuga menziesii),Bitter Cherry(Prunus emarginata),Pacific Yew(Taxus brevifolia)and Western Hemlock(Tsuga heterophylla).One Douglas Fir(Pseudotsuga menziesii)is marked for removal.N14-44 through N14-52 and N14-54 through N14-58 can be seen in Figure 6.Most of these trees have been previously trimmed.Case#2014-6 proposes to lower the crown of eight trees that include Western Red Cedar(Thuja plicata),Western Hemlock(Tsuga heterophylla),Douglas Fir(Pseudotsuga menziesii)and Pacific Yew(Taxus brevifolia). Two additional trees,Western Red Cedar(Thuja plicata),are marked for the creation of wildlife trees.Vegetation to be trimmed at the top of bluff includes a mix of Willows(Salix sp.),Bitter Cherry (Prunus emarginata),Pacific Madrone(Arbutus menziesii),Red Flowering Currant(Ribes sanguineum),Ocean Spray(Holodiscus discolor),Rose(Rosa sp.), Salal(Gualtheria shallon)and Blackberries.This has all been trimmed in the past.NI 4-59 through N14-70 can be seen in Figure 7.Case#2014-7 proposes to trim the regrowth of two Western Red Cedar(Thuja plicata)and to remove two Douglas Fir(Pseudotsuga menziesii).N14-01 through N14-04 can be seen in Figure 8. MS&A Kala Point—North Section Habitat Management Plan-.3 Site Description Kala Point is one of two planned residential communities close to Port Townsend in Jefferson County.Most of the properties are single-family residences; however there are condominium units and time-share condos as well.Kala Point is located about four miles south of Port Townsend on Port Townsend Bay.It faces to the East and is adjacent to Fort Townsend State Park,a 367-acre,heavily wooded,marine camping park featuring 3,960 feet of saltwater shoreline. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife(WDFW)Priority Habitat and Species(PHS)database indicates that three bald eagle nests(Haliacetus leucocephalus)exist to the north in the Fort Townsend State Park vicinity. Kala Point is a highly developed community lying behind the natural bluffs of Kala Point and to the south of the State Park,and although there are several large trees,no species or habitats of concern were found on the WDFW PHS list with in the terrestrial portion of the Kala Point development.In the aquatic portion of the development, the database indicates that the estuarine intertidal area is priority aquatic habitat for Dungeness Crab(Cancer magister), Pacific geoduck(Panopea abrupta), Pacific herring(Clupea pallasi),Pacific Sand Lance(Ammodytes hexapterus),Surf Smelt(Hypomesus pretiosus),and Subtidal Hardshell Clams. Conclusions WDFW identifies priority habitats as a habitat type with unique or significant attributes to many species and WDFW defines priority species as wildlife species requiring protective measures as described in the WDFW management guidelines 1991.These lists were established to help protect future development in these special areas.Research has shown that eagles need a dominant tree within a complex canopy of mixed age to provide a site for nesting.They are also found to breed where there is a minimum of human interaction.No terrestrial habitat or species are identified by the WDFW PHS database in the immediate project area.Kala Point is a populated community,a habitat not conducive to Bald eagle nesting,and it is adjacent to a state park,a much preferred habitat type for nesting eagles.The PHS database does indicate an aquatic habitat with multiple species within the Kala Point development.As stated in the WDFW document(Protecting Nearshore Habitat and Functions in Puget Sound-October 2007,revised June 2010): Activities that alter the composition and distribution of shoreline substrates or their contributing physical processes can adversely affect the productivity of spawning habitats for beach spawning forage fish (pacific herring,sand lance,and surf smelt).These species are fundamental components of the marine food web supporting a number of highly valued species,including salmon,rockfish,flatfish,seabirds,and marine mammals.Cumulative impacts from continued modification of the shoreline and resultant alternation of bluff erosion and beach formation are difficult to quantify.However,they are likely to be exacerbated over time because beaches and bluffs are so closely connected. Some direct/indirect impacts include: "Loss of near shore vegetation and shading,reduced bluff and beach stabilization,and increased erosion due to vegetation removal. Cumulative impacts include: "Loss of connection between aquatic and upland environment which impacts drainage, wildlife corridors,and loss of unique transitional areas across Puget Sound."Regulatory and design considerations include:"If tree removal is unavoidable,leave felled trees or create snags for wildlife habitat. Require replacement of all native riparian or aquatic vegetation that is directly or indirectly lost through shoreline activities." MS&A Kale Point—North Section Habitat Management Plan•4 Recommendations As the proposed vegetation management plan lies within the buffer for the shoreline critical area on Port Townsend Bay,and slope stability is an issue,the recommendation would be to remove as little as possible.Pruning,limbing, windowing and skirting should be considered above removal. In densely vegetated areas thinning may be an option and could promote healthier growth to surrounding vegetation.If the recommendations are followed,it is unlikely that there will be a loss of near shore vegetation,shading,or bluff stability.The ecological function and values provided by the flora in this area should be minimally impacted,as long as plants are not removed completely in areas that are not densely vegetated.Case#2014-1 (Figure 2)proposes to trim the tops of trees that have been previously trimmed. In this case the trees are dense and this method has been used before.Case#2014-2(Figure 3) proposes to trim or remove copses of mixed deciduous species(alder and willow).These trees should not be removed as they are the primary species on this portion of the slope and there is a history of slope instability here. As they are all species that readily re-sprout,trimming would be a good choice for vegetation management,but not to the ground.Case#2014-3 (Figure 4)proposes to window and/or skirt four Douglas Fir trees.A combination of windowing,skirting and interlimbing would be acceptable,but not more that 40%of the original crown should be taken in order to maintain tree health and vigor.It is also proposed to remove invasive species(Himalayan Blackberry)and to prune salal.Invasive removal is highly encouraged and light pruning of salal is acceptable.Case #2014-4(Figure 5)proposes to remove two Douglas Fir and one Western Red Cedar.In addition to the removal it is proposed to trim seedlings and saplings that have been trimmed in the past.Remove N14-29 would be a good management choice as there is a clump of three trees close together.Thinning here could be beneficial.A better choice for N14-33 and N14-32 would be to limb and/or window to maintain the species diversity on this portion of the slope.The trimming and pruning of the deciduous species is acceptable and these trees have been pruned in the past.Case 2014-5(Figure 6)proposes to do a combination of trimming,pruning and removal.NI4-44 and N14-45 (trim seedlings and saplings at bluff edge).These are small diameter and dense-trimming to a hedge is acceptable here.The Madrona,Yew and Cherry have all been trimmed in the past.Trimming again is acceptable and is a much better option than removing all together.N14-46 should be limbed to window.N14-50 and N14-51 can be trimmed back to the original top.N14-54 to N14-58 topping these trees would be acceptable as they are small in diameter and the area is densely vegetated.Case#2014-6(Figure 7)proposes to lower the crown of five Western Red Cedar,one Douglas Fir and one Hemlock.Lowering the crowns of N14-59,N14-60,N14-62,N14-64,N14-65 and N14-66 is acceptable here as the spacing is tight.Lowering the crown is a better choice than thinning in order to maintain a live root system for slope stability.N14-61 and N14-63 are larger trees and would be maintained best by windowing. It is proposed to turn N14-67 and N14-68 into wildlife trees.Creating wildlife trees by girdling and causing slow mortality can be beneficial in terms of generating wildlife habitat and allowing a slow die off of roots that are beneficial to slope stabilization.The vegetation is dense and other species will eventually replace the trees. The pruning of shrubs and saplings(N14-69 and N14-70)at the top of slope and in front of the deck are acceptable and these areas have been pruned in the past.The proposed removal of non-native blackberry is encouraged and will improve the growing conditions for existing native species.Case 2014-7(Figure 8)proposes to trim the regrowth of two previously cut trees and to remove two trees. As the vegetation is dense on this portion of the slope cutting the trees back to water level(view)and leaving a living portion to maintain slope stability would be acceptable. Determination of Imnact Based on our review of the Kala Point Owners Association vegetation management proposal and the existing conditions on site,we conclude that there will be no net loss in habitat function or value above current baseline conditions assuming they follow the recommendations we have put forth. MS&A Kala Point—North Section Habitat Management Plan..5 Figure 1. Vicinity and parcel map of project location. Figure 1. Vicinity and Project Location ' .....\ 2014-2 `` N a 2tr14-1 , , egg \\/\ / V 1C, r / O *.. 2014-4 / x - ''.'n M •.+ 20146 * „/ \‹d'. 404 \\ 1 , // ,7 1 ` 2014-5 • v% lir \la� i trs 5 r x \/ /N $r 1 ,,, y • l`\ ,. ._ 2414-3 !' •° f 'l r i 0 100 200 400 600 800 1,000 i Feet MS&A Kala Point—North Section Habitat Management Plan •6 Figure 2 N14:-1 N14-9 N14-11 N14-14 i TRINIABOvE TREES' LEVEL OF BLUFF ,w *. U. . * y x'14.a V a .4� 1 - •4�* k ��. ins . MS&A Kala Point—North Section Habitat Management Plan •7 Figure 3. Case 2014-2 Clusters ( Copses) of Willow & Alder keato be zf Copse Copse N14-05 Copse Copse N14-08 N614-O N14-07 • MS&A Kala Point—North Section Habitat Management Plan•8 Figure 4. . .. . • 0' ., w- • -0- .... '," ' N 1 4-78 ::. .• 1.1:•.,-- . "- 43 ( .. ;,,,-,. '. lb.', • ' ,,.,- •' 7 , ... . .4, M--„, %Tr , -.e. . - ''‘.. ' I.'it.:,- ..',..,`,-.'4-.J':*,'-',,*" - • - - -* "...;A ',. ,i ' '1' -,-N-4,..,, ,,- - ,7, • - ,,,. .11 -, ipi,:,!.,, ,-,,, 4 ,#- •glle -0',,r ' "- 1111 ■;4 ..... • "- ' • - , •* ,4„4,- 4i4t: . r,,,, '"-", • ..„44- - .,..'.,fte,'**„.- . -t ' , 4' *•••7/4"`, -'• **, 34.;";;,414t 1-•?.^.-1. ' $ ‘ott--"•*. .- '''' • t , = Ittok- ' 4t4,1 ',. , A --,,00130144,,,,* *, Zhgg g, '•I'l'*` '''' k 40.41121 -1 - •,, . • `•• • , ..... - •40#1 1,444,:a .• - 41, 0, ' * cco‘*6 ,o 47: 4-#4 ' : k , = .- ,for ' •044115-, -,-., -•.•,- .1,4-4,. Ef _ A * ,, ,,,,. 1,4*,,,,. e, git• • II, stet „4 • ,,,,, .1 „ - -- ..,0,:lx,r,„, ,"'", • P * . . , .. '''',,''''',.'•' , ''-' '' ' ' ' : '..'' , 7,40:1,'-' ' ,' 4‘ ' '''',-" -$.1'' A ' * $44.' . , te, , .. 0 Or*, 41 # ,,,,.4• - ; 4 *- tg 4. , - * ` ' .,, . .. ,, . .4 10 4 a 4 4 ,,, • it -,* MS&A Kala Point—North Section Habitat Management Plan .9 Figure 4—Cont. , , . .„ ilt. -. .„,,,,, iit:'.%, 4 arnit - , g .. ' sob . sr ,44 ,.. , . tt _ _° a * r.. '" 5 21'7 5 _ I * 4 „ ti MS&A Kala Point—North Section Habitat Management Plan • 10 Figure 5. t !, 4.i , yj 4 4 } a. • • N14-32 . ' N1433 Ar - ;� N14-.31 N14 29 •_ k • N14-30 N14-30 Ni4 30 " n y T . - $ .,p .• x'i w. ,4 `� }, a rm - C�4� * , ,a f ,;(440‘''•‘,. it: '''''' 1111 . 1 %. Ot 4 4 41(4t' ,.' N14-35 x ' 4 114 , _ ,..z,, °� e 1 N 14 36 '••. ` ^ w. S w wa, 1y, :} ;¢ t.:1 « x .-7-wk. T ♦♦yy - - "e a 1"+p ' 'f '{, ,x•1—� ' a y • y . .ii jr. Y R ' f "t t ip ` s a if �a�r y* 1W' f14' MS&A Kala Point—North Section Habitat Management Plan-. 11 Figure 6 N14-54 i N14-58 N14-48 N14 55 , \ ' I / di, ,.° ' - —A ,- .4 wits w a 'giro.. ' " N 14- - . s srG: . L& N14-48 Y... 1 Ye 40,x' i+ ,. ,... 1 » t` it, 4' *4( s if N:y' , y irw .+_ . .. � , _„ . N14.49 r° i.,14 54.5' _ N1451' i k 141Pe4*% ' --. _ ,. • * I r "fir, ' x `sue MS&A Kala Point—North Section Habitat Management Plan • 12 Figure 6 -Cont. N14-46 N14-48 \ 4 lit ,:ittek . .�.. -. A " t. lt, , .,,, . " ti .A. N14-45 N14-47 . > 4 se N14-46 ' \ N14-55 N14-56 r NI, , N14-47 N14- . tl W � zi{ N14-45 a a 4 4--- N 14-44 ').° N14-58 MS&A Kala Point—North Section Habitat Management Plan• 13 Figure 7 a g r'-3 5a taa4� `. lilt A v�r�. i „.. . ..,. .._. ...,:, ,,44;*'r -... .: -. 1 -14,„ 4* '..- ' , , y x lial y T * + P yi Atek C 44.444114'. . : ii:• e �' . PA m i`4; .; � _ .I ,.,. ' e .1. it •: „. .„...,•• • .,. ., _ , .., MS&A Kala Point—North Section Habitat Management Plan • 14 Figure 7—Cont. z . . . . . . 41 isip : F * f , ‘. ,.„ .-,i.,1„, , it,-.- ,. . ...., ..: ..., ... ,, ,.t, „ . . ,. !r, ..„ ... z . v - - x zone fr - y L. s �. 'X .xw ro Y4i y^T�`°t�� tt * �'K 1.7" f .rye. � r 4 ,, ,t-rie.,. >" `"'"i ;47.41.... ..„..„, ..,, .., ..,:got- .:411.,. ...,,,.. -' 4* . , . :,..e. 14 ., „ ., , -- +t x .� . y, 4' s, MS&A Kala Point—North Section Habitat Management Plan.. 15 Figure 7—Cont. • ! 11 at A .'''''. ;' * ii: .. 1 �''' V• ( 4,0,:\ l• ,s. 7 • r `f amR _r u {� .e' d a" ." ,� �,� er ,� k k ... C� ''* ,., ".. ..v. v `' . f @ t-At ,i, 1. 25' .,p •Iir �3'a„ t`Y_± i. .,.. cwt 44. ' � ,' 8'. ._• w4 Y, , ''yy{'4^.iit, ♦ i! N k l �„+r . t . xe `' .Y s'1 Ike.. `' "iv,fit " i "-•: s ` ., ,„.4. 'a ,�,e, .`Er ..r +l It � y' 'w ,,_1 ,14,5, * ,. _i `' 5• .} .{ _ 4 y! Y .. r .N ..r s , M Ai b s t�l4- e ,fir ;� . . 4 f v MS&A Kala Point—North Section Habitat Management Plan • 16 Figure 7—Cont. ' • Air IN 00 • 1 . 14-6'9 ty 4I4'4516': MS&A Kala Point—North Section Habitat Management Plan• 17 it Figure 7—Cont. fit , * • • tolimnoive N14-70 3.. • MS&A Kala Point—North Section Habitat Management Plan 18 Figure 8 Photo A (3-31-2014) 3 ,:. �' '1t F Stfi ,Si "$ • s 1 . a° t 1 4 •• ',' P i. ".,'4r ' ,rte .. s t 't ',. i § y py - i i , + ' ♦ ' ' i9i, '' "�F p�, y '^. tF♦j• x,�,y,'c"fit .` e` r''''.4,'.,;•' 4!:'L.. 1 ,., ',(,,,,nf 4 ': * ;;1''r i :Fit`'. ,l!a •:.:'`.' t- ��• Photo B (3-31-2014) 3 y . ai s.. F •ilk, - s 4 ION t �`y _-ORS f, s ry' If- a* r .'`r{h#u 1:.4: .. *5 S,. J , ! / ■:' •,fe 'S rl Y'..�, ' 'i MS&A Kala Point—North Section Habitat Management Plan•• 19 Parcel Details Page 1 of 2 ' 1' ie erson ,,,ae County ,, --_ .at6,4 ,i ar, ,, 04 [as a iobts 13!-9- rca-m, ,, Home County Info Departments Search Parcel Number: 965000236 SEARCH ct 5 341- -1 le 5 •60O-5/ I y 9 01. 0 Parcel Number: 965000236 Printer Friendly Owner Mailing Address: KALA POINT OWNERS ASSOC 1760 KALA POINT DR PORT TOWNSEND WA98368-2505 tLA15 - 412_ Site Address: Section: 27 School District: Port Townsend (50) Qtr Section: NE1/4 Fire Dist: Chimacum (1) Township: 30N Tax Status: CA Range: 1W Tax Code: 0111 Planning area:Tri-Area (4) Sub Division: 9650 - KALA POINT 3-8 Assessor's Land Use Code: 7600 - Community Areas - Green Bits - Parks Property Description: COMMON AREA TRACT A INFORMATION ONLY No Permit Data Tax, A/V. Sales, Photos, and Bldg Data Map Parcel Plats &Surveys Available .q Jefferson County,c„` . HOME I COUNTY INFO I DEPARTMENTS I SEARCH Bost viewed with Microsoft Internet Explorer 6.0 or later Windows- Mac Parcel Details Page 1 of 2 s ...:- 4:1i4,00,04 a# e erson _ : : W. x * Home County Info Departments , Search Parcel Number: 965000347 • SEARCH Parcel Number: 965000347 Printer Friendly Owner Mailing Address: KALA POINT OWNERS ASSOC 1760 KALA POINT DR PORT TOWNSEND WA98368-2505 Site Address: Section: 27 School District: Port Townsend (50) Qtr Section: NE1/4 Fire Dist:Chimacum (1) Township: 30N Tax Status: CA Range: 1W Tax Code: 0111 Planning area:Tri-Area (4) Sub Division: 9650 - KALA POINT 3-8 Assessor's Land Use Code: 7600 - Community Areas - Green Blts - Parks Property Description: KALA POINT #9 TRACT A COMMON AREA No Permit Data Tax,A/V, Sales, Photos, and Bldg Data Mao Parcel Plats&Surveys Available _` Jefferson punt HOME I COUNTY INFO I DEPARTMENTS I SEARCH Best viewed with Microsoft Internet Explorer 6.0 or later Windows- Mac http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/assessors/parcel/parceldetail.asp 1/7/2015 Parcel Details Page 1 of 2 Orr r ieffarson County \ ,k:gtg Home County Info Departments Search Parcel Number: 965000371 SEARCH Parcel Number: 965000371 Printer Friendly Owner Mailing Address: KALA POINT OWNERS ASSOC 1760 KALA POINT DR PORT TOWNSEND WA98368-2505 Site Address: Section: 27 School District: Port Townsend (50) Qtr Section: NE1/4 Fire Dist: Chimacum (1) Township: 30N Tax Status: CA Range: 1W Tax Code: 0111 Planning area:Tri-Area (4) Sub Division: 9650 - KALA POINT 3-8 Assessor's Land Use Code: 7600 - Community Areas - Green Blts - Parks Property Description: KALA POINT #10 TRACT A (COMMON AREA) Tax, A/V, Sales, Photos, and Permit Data Bldg Data Map Parcel Plats&Surveys. Septic Monitoring Info Jefferson County HOME I COUNTY INFO I DEPARTMENTS I SEARCH s! Best viewed with Microsoft Internet Explorer 6.0 or later Windows- Mac http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/assessors/parcel/parceldetail.asp 1/7/2015 Parcel Details Page 1 of 2 Jefferson e o Co nty � Home County Info Departments Search Parcel Number: 965800016 SEARCH Parcel Number: 965800016 Printer Friendly Owner Mailing Address: KALA POINT OWNERS ASSOC 1760 KALA POINT DR PORT TOWNSEND WA98368-2505 Site Address: Section: 27 School District: Port Townsend (50) Qtr Section: NE1/4 Fire Dist: Chimacum (1) Township: 30N Tax Status: CA Range: 1W Tax Code: 0111 Planning area:Tri-Area (4) Sub Division: 9658 - KALA HEIGHTS PUD A&B Assessor's Land Use Code: 7600 - Community Areas - Green Bits - Parks Property Description: KALA HEIGHTS PUD PHASE B TRACT B Tax, A/V, Sales, Photos, and Permit Data Bldg Data Map Parcel Plats&Surveys Septic Monitoring Info Jefferson County HOME I COUNTY INFO i DEPARTMENTS i SEARCH Best viewed with Microsoft Internet Explorer 6.0 or later Windows- Mac 1/7/2015 http://www.co.j efferson.wa.us/assessors/parcel/parceldetail.asp r ' Arb o ri cultural Assessment „ , • Kala Point Homeowners Association Port Townsend WA Richard Hefley—Consulting Arborist VE ` 15 i;.=CU1ti".I�iUPlIZY�E�ELOPMENT 2 Kala Point Vegetation Management Requests 2014 Client: Kala Point Homeowners Association Keith Larson,General Manager Author: Richard R Hefley Consulting Arborist ISA#PN-0784A Site Visit Date :08/22/2014 Report Date : 09/26/2014 BACKGROUND I was contacted by the Kala Point Homeowners Association in June of 2014 and asked to provide a bid for creating a report addressing the vegetation management requests for 2014. I met with General Manager Keith Larson, Bob Miles and MaryAnn Schulte on 08/23/2014. We toured each of the seven sites where vegetation management was requested. I received an e-mail from MaryAnn Schulte at a later date in which changes were made in two of the case requests.These changes are noted in this report. 3 CONTENTS: 01-Cover Page 02-Title Page 03-Contents 04-Executive Summary—Cases 2014-1, 2014-2,2014-3 05-Continued, Cases 2014-4,2014-5, 2014-6 06-Continued, Cases 2014-6, 2014-7 07-Aerial Photo,Observations 08-Case Requests, Updated Copy 09-Continued 10-Case 2014-1 Photos and Discussion 11-2014-1 Photos 12-2014-1 Discussion 13-Case 2014-2 Photos and Discussion 14-Case 2014-3 Photos and Discussion 15-2014-3 Discussion 16-Case 2014-4 Photos 17-2014-4 Discussion 18-Case 2014-5 Photos 19-2014-5 Photos 20-2014-5 Discussion 21-2015-5 Discussion continued 22-Case 2014-6 Photos 23-2014-6 Photos 24-2014-6 Photos 25-2014-5 Photos 26-2014-6 Photos 27-2014-6 Photos 28-2014-6 Discussion 29-Case 2014-7 Photo and Discussion 30-Notes on Bluff Vegetation Management 31-Notes on Pruning 32-Pruning Definitions 33-Tree Pruning Guide 34-Continued 35-Notes on Habitat Trees 36-Waiver of Liability, Contact Information 37- 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY I met with General Manager Keith Larson, MaryAnn Schulte and Bob Miles on 08/23/2014. At this time we toured the case sites for the vegetation management requests. Ms.Schulte subsequently e-mailed me an updated list of requests,which are addressed in this report. My observations and recommendations are based on the following broad principles; 1. There is no financially effective way to prevent all bluff erosion. 2. Erosion can be mitigated by managing stormwater runoff, rainfall and scouring winds through the retention of diverse vegetation in bluff areas. 3. Existing view corridors can account for up to 50%of the value of a property, and the loss of such will result in the devaluation of property. 4. Through compromise, it is possible to maintain the bulk of a view corridor and preserve existing diverse vegetation. Notes: 'SMP' refers to the Jefferson County Shoreline Management Plan. Case 2014-1 This request has been amended from 20 trees to four trees. The original request listed 20 trees, but a closer examination of the ground on the bluff- face revealed this consisted of four trees that were previously pruned and have re- grown with twenty multiple leaders. It is my view that these may all be re-pruned in a similar fashion with no measurable adverse effects to tree health or bluff stability and erosion mitigation. Case 2014-2 This is a request to prune deciduous trees,willows and alders, in a dense copse to restore the previously existing views. Several trees appear to have been previously pruned. All may be re-pruned or have their crowns reduced with no measurable adverse effects. In accordance with the SMP, no more than 25%of the canopy should be removed and the pruning cut should not exceed 3" in diameter. Case 2014-3 Note—In the ensuing photos,the Madrone (N14-71)and trees#N14-01,02 and 03 are no longer a part of this pruning request. For the remainder of the trees,this is a request to remove the lower branches of mature conifers,a simple pruning action with no measurable adverse impacts. Because of the age of these trees, I recommend no more than 20%of the total canopy be removed. 5 I also recommend the requestor consider retaining some of the larger lower limbs that have no impact on views,simply for the benefit of the ecosystem that utilizes this space (squirrels, small birds etc). Case 2014-4 This is a request to remove 3 trees and prune numerous seedlings and low shrubs that have been previously pruned,back to their original heights. The area in question is densely populated with seedlings and young conifers and evergreen trees and shrubs, making it unlikely for the pruning requested to have any notable adverse impact on water or wind erosion. However, I recommend the requestor consider"windowing"the two Douglas Firs slated for removal (N14-32 and 33),and possibly the Western Red Cedar(N14-29). In the long term,they would serve as more beneficial to the bluff ecosystem and stability as mature trees,and do little to obstruct existing views.They are nearing the border of the view horizon,and within a few years will have grown above the water and mountain vista. Case 2014-5 This request covers approximately the same area as 2014-4. It seeks to trim numerous saplings, prune back previously pruned trees to their original height, remove one tree and prune the tops from five trees. I observed that most of these trees have been previously pruned and may be re-pruned to their original height. The many saplings may be pruned in a similar manner with no adverse impacts. I do recommend that three of the firs recommended for removal and/or pruning(N-14- 46, 55 [the larger of the two-the smaller may be removed of reduced in height],and 58) instead be retained and windowed. I believe they would be more beneficial to the bluff stability and ecosystem as mature trees,and do little to obstruct existing views.They are nearing the border of the view horizon, and within a few years will have grown above the water and mountain vista. Three small hemlocks(N14-50,54 and 56)could better serve as Habitat Trees (a non- selective heading cut as opposed to the selective heading cut requested).The benefits of Habitat Trees,trees with both decay and living tissue present,are discussed elsewhere in this report. The remainder of the trees may be pruned as requested, pursuant to the parameters set by the SMP of not removing more than 25%of the canopy of making selective heading cuts greater than 3" in diameter. Case 2014-6 This request concerns an area of bluff densely growing with young evergreen trees and previously pruned ground-covering shrubs. The request seeks to reduce the crown height of eight trees and create habitat trees of two trees, and prune the lower vegetation to 30"above ground level. The ground-covering vegetation has been previously pruned back to this level and may be re-pruned in a similar fashion. 6 Given the density of vegetation in this area,the crown heights of the eight trees may be reduced pursuant to the parameters of the SMP (no more than 25%of the canopy and pruning cuts no greater than 3" in diameter). Two cedars(N14-67 and 68)are requested to be made into habitat trees. While this can be done with no measurable impacts to the bluff stability, I'd ask the requestor to consider windowing these two trees instead. They have grown through the view horizon,and the bluff stability and ecosystems may be improved by the presence of additional tall trees. Case 2014-7 The request seeks to prune two Western Red Cedar trees that have been previously pruned (N14-01 and 02), and remove two Douglas firs(N14-03-04). The Cedars have been previously pruned and may be done so again with no measurable impacts to tree health or bluff erosion. The removal of the two Douglas firs,however,would expose a portion of the power bluff to erosion and decreased soil stability as the existing root systems decompose. I recommend the requestor consider making a habitat tree of the smaller Fir(N14-04), and windowing the larger, N14-03.Tree N14-03 has grown above the view horizon, and is a good candidate for windowing. This would allow the bluff face to remain covered by the canopie§and retain the root systems of these mature conifers. 7 6�a!a He;gr is Cdr Port Town send AA 98368 01 4 cS ii 1490 - The aerial photo shows approximate areas considered for pruning OBSERVATIONS Case Requests: The following is the updated form of Case Requests for Vegetation Management. It differs slightly in a couple of places from the original Vegetation Management Requests which are listed and discussed in the Observations section of this report.All differences are clearly noted in the Discussion of that particular Case. The changes are in Case 2014-1. In this case,the original Request listed 20 trees, but a ground examination of the bluff revealed these were twenty leaders emanating from four trees. The other change is Case 2014-3 where Trees#N14-1,2 and 3 have been removed from the request list. 8 Case#2014-1 Conklin Tree# Type of Requested Action Objective Comments Tree N14-9 Cedar Trim to top level of Restore&maintain prior water Bluff is near bluff view vertical/previously trimmed N14-10 Cedar Trim to top level of Restore&maintain prior water Bluff is near bluff view vertical/previously trimmed N14-11 Cedar Trim to top level of Restore&maintain prior water Bluff is near bluff view vertical/previously trimmed N14-12 Cedar Trim to top level of Restore&maintain prior water Bluff is near bluff view vertical/previously trimmed Case#2014-3 014-2 Eisenberger Tree# Type of Requested Action Objective Comments Tree N14-05 Alders/Willows Trim or remove mixed growth of restore mountain and water view alders and willows N14-06 Alders/Willows Trim or remove mixed growth of restore mountain and water view alders and willows N14-07 Alders/Willows Trim or remove mixed growth of restore mountain and water view alders and willows N14-08 Alders/Willows Trim or remove mixed growth of restore mountain and water view alders and willows CASE#2014-3 Gentry Tree# Type of Requested Action Objective Comments Tree N-14-74 Grand Fir Skirt below line on photo Restore water and island view N-14-75 Fir Shirt below line on photo Restore water view N-14-76 Fir Skirt below line on photo Restore water view N-14-77 Fir Skirt below line on photo Restore water view N-14-78 V Remove invasive weeds and trim Retain near water view low growing vegetation Case#2014-4 Soivik Tree# Type of Requested Action Objective Comments Tree N14-29 Cedar Remove Restore view On bluff edge N14-30 Fir&Cherry Trim seedlings& Restore view On bluff edge saplings N14-31 Madrone Trim to previous Restore view 6'to 8'from bluff edge "top" N14-32 Fir Remove Restore view 8'to 10'from bluff edge N14-33 Fir Remove Restore view On bluff edge N14-34 Fir& Trim seedlings& Restore view On bluff edge Madrone saplings N14-35 Madrone Retrim to 3'height Restore view On bluff edge N14-36 Madrone& Retrim to 3'height Restore view On bluff Fir N14-37 Madrone& Retrim to 3'height Restore view On bluff Cedar N14-38 Spare Case#2014-5 Graham Tree# Type of Requested Action Objective Comments Tree N14-44 Madrone& Trim seedlings&saplings Restore view At bluff edge Fir N14-45 Madrone& Trim seedlings&saplings Restore view At bluff edge Fir N14-46 Fir Remove(under 3"in diameter) Restore view 3'from bluff edge N14-47 Cherry Trim saplings Restore view 3'from bluff edge • 9 N14-48 Madrone Trim saplings(2) Restore view 8'to 10'from bluff edge N14-49 Pacific Yew Trim back to original"top" Restore view 6'to 8'from bluff edge N14-50 Hemlock Trim back to original"top" Restore view 6'to 8'from bluff edge N14-51 Fir Trim back to original"top" Restore view 6'to 8'from bluff edge N14-52 Madrone Trim back to original"top" Restore view 6'to 8'from bluff edge N14-53 Spare N14-54 Hemlock Top or trim Restore view 8'to 12'from bluff edge N14-55 Firs(2) Top or trim Restore view 8'to 12'from bluff edge N14-56 Hemlock Top or trim Restore view 8'to 12'from bluff edge N14-57 Madrone Top or trim Restore view 8'to 12'from bluff edge N14-58 Fir Top or trim Restore view 8'to 12'from bluff edge CASE#2014-6 Farmer Tree# Type of Requested Action Objective Comments Tree N14-59 Cedar lower crown Restore partial Port Townsend view N14-60 Cedar lower crown Restore partial Port Townsend view N14-61 Cedar lower crown Restore partial Port Townsend view N14-62 Hemlock(?) lower crown Restore partial Port Townsend view N14-63 Cedar lower crown Restore partial Port Townsend view N14-64 Cedar lower crown Restore partial Port Townsend view N14-65 Fir lower crown Preventive view maintenance N14-66 Pacific Yew trim--previously trimmed—lower 12 Restore water and Port feet Townsend view N14-67 Cedar create habitat tree Restore water and Indian Island view N14-68 Cedar create habitat tree--beginning to Restore water and island view block Mt Baker view N14-69 vegetation Trim to 30 inches restore previous Restore water view trimmed on upper part of bluff-includes tree seedlings,willows,madrones, cherries,blackberries,red flowering currents and salal N-4-70 Salal Trim to 30 inches--previously Restore water view trimmed on upper part of bluff Case#2014-7 Downing Tree# Type of Requested Action Objective Comments Tree N14-01 Cedar Trim regrowth from previously Maintain view removed tree N14-02 Cedar Trim regrowth from previously Maintain view removed tree N14-03 Fir Remove Maintain view N14-04 Fir Remove Maintain view 10 Observations, specific: Case#2014-1 is for the Conklin residence located at 210 Kala Heights Drive. It is important to note that the homeowners have indicated twenty trees,though on closer examination, these many separate tree-tops (leaders) emanate from approximately four trees growing below the crown of the bluff. These trees have all been previously pruned, and may be re-pruned in a similar fashion with little or no adverse effects. N14-12 N14-13 N14-14 N14-16 N14-11 N14-10 F N14-15 iat kj Y. M'� • TRIM ABOVE TREEST0 LE'4`EL OF BLUFF .# mow K . A#r, s fir` ,k;'` .4( '""1: ss * :4*-444r;;;*4,44.44:, 14;:' m c -C 11 wm N14-24 '' `l ;. N14-28 N14- N1427 .. 2g N1,-26. . i N a yy.4' '^ Ft 5 #* w+' y dr. kik' t . "Nli... r It "`e " « r I 1414-21 N1,;,.2 N14-17 ' N11-1 N14-20 N14-18 �t. .» , s >;f y 6 ' elk 12 CASE#2014-1 (Conklin) Tree+Y Label Type of Tree Requested Action Objective Comment N14-9 N14-9 Cedar Trim to top level of bluff Restore and maintain prior water view Bluff is near vertical N14-10 N14-10 Cedar Trim to top level of bluff Restore and maintain prior water view Bluff is near vertical N14-11 N14-11 Cedar Trim to top level of bluff Restore and maintain prior water view Bluff is near vertical N14-12 N14-12 Cedar Trim to top level of bluff Restore and maintain prior water view Bluff is near vertical N14-13 N14-13 Cedar Trim to top level of bluff Restore and maintain prior water view Bluff is near vertical N14-14 N14-14 Cedar Trim to top level of bluff Restore and maintain prior water view Bluff is near vertical N14-15 N14-15 Cedar Trim to top level of bluff Restore and maintain prior water view Bluff is near vertical N14-16 N14-16 Cedar Trim to top level of bluff Restore and maintain prior water view Bluff is near vertical N14-17 N14-17 Cedar Trim to top level of bluff Restore and maintain prior water view Bluff is near vertical N14-18 N14-18 Cedar Trim to top level of bluff Restore and maintain prior water view Bluff is near vertical N14-19 N14-19 Cedar Trim to top level of bluff Restore and maintain prior water view Bluff is near vertical N14-20 N14-20 Cedar Trim to top level of bluff Restore and maintain prior water view Bluff is near vertical N14-21 N14-21 Cedar Trim to top level of bluff Restore and maintain prior water view Bluff is near vertical N14-22 N14-22 Cedar Trim to top level of bluff Restore and maintain prior water view Bluff is near vertical N14-23 N14-23 Cedar Trim to top level of bluff Restore and maintain prior water view Bluff is near vertical N14-24 N14-24 Cedar Trim to top level of bluff Restore and maintain prior water view Bluff is near vertical N14-25 N14-25 Cedar Trim to top level of bluff Restore and maintain prior water view Bluff is near vertical N14-26 N14-26 Cedar Trim to top level of bluff Restore and maintain prior water view Bluff is near vertical N14-27 N14-27 Cedar Trim to top level of bluff Restore and maintain prior water view Bluff is near vertical N14-28 N14-28 Cedar Trim to top level of bluff Restore and maintain prior water view Bluff is near vertical Discussion: There are approximately four trees in this case that have been repeatedly pruned over a span of years, resulting in many new branches infringing into the view. Re-pruning these branches to a suitable lateral branch is unlikely to have a measurable effect on the health or function of these trees. 13 Case 2014- 2 Clusters (Copses) of Willow&Apsen it, ± 4,a 11,Krz Copse Copse N14-05 Copse Copse N14-08 N614-0 N14-07 CASE#2014-2 Eisenberger,Gary&Gay Tree# Label Type of Tree Requested Action N14-05 Copse of Alders/Willows Trim or remove mixed growth of apens and willows N14-06 Copse of Alders/Willows Trim or remove mixed growth of apens and willows N14-07 Copse of Alders/Willows Trim or remove mixed growth of apens and willows N14-08 Copse of Alders/Willows Trim or remove mixed growth of apens and willows Discussion: The area to be pruned consists of multiple deciduous trees, Red Alders and Western Willows, several of which appear to have been previously cut, either pruned or broken by natural forces such as high winds or large birds. These trees can be pruned back to appropriate sized lateral branches with little or no discernible negative impacts to the trees health or functioning. In keeping with the Jefferson County Shoreline Management Plan (SMP),the tops removed should be no larger than 3" at the point of the cut. 14 Case 2014-3 concerns the Gentry residence located at 10 Baycliff Place. Note—N14-71 is no longer listed in the request. CASE#2014-3 Tree# Label Type of Tree Requested Action Objective N-14-71 1 Madrone Remove one limb Restore Port Townsend view N-14-72 2 Cedar Window below line on photo Restore Port Townsend view N-14-73 3 Fir Window below line on photo Restore Port Townsend and water view N-14-74 A Fir Window below line on photo Restore water and island view N-14-75 8 Fir Window below line on photo Restore water view N-14-76 C Fir Window below line on photo Restore water view N-14-77 D Fir Window below line on photo Restore water view N-14-78 V V Remove invasive weeds and trim low growing vegetation Retain near water view GENTRY: Studio Center Ron & Caryl Gentry • 10 Baycliff Place • (best way to reach us by email) gentry @olympus.net • caryl @bryerpatch.com, Phones: March—May: 270-444-8040 • After June 1 360-385-2568 Cells: (only used when we are traveling) 360-301-6900 • 270-559-8559 ., 3 1 .. " i # '� . fi . _ fie�" B" � "'` - - ' N 4 a ' w ` fi -4 a 4 1, , :4.4 ' It%._ +rr A 7 _; .g f " A r W *� , ,.- . rte, + - ' r + i l r, 1. , ilk 15 y � t 1 e4 t. w�e 1.44111 y d n � • a • Discussion; This is a request to raise the crown and window trees that have been previously pruned.As such, it will have no adverse effects on the health and viability of these trees. I do recommend that no more than 20%of the existing foliage be removed. Mature trees are slightly less resilient than young, actively growing trees. I also suggest retaining lower branches that have no impact on view.These lower limbs do benefit many parts of the ecosystem that exists at that level,such as a perching place for small birds and mammals,among many other things. NOTE-Tree N14-71 is no longer listed on the request. 16 Case 2014-4 . � ■ ♦ • f 11 ` . .14 . +ry * L,. N14-32 ,r N14-31 "� N14-2 N1430 N14-30 N14-30 Y S ? 1 4i: : . •. . i . - - ' 4. ,.._,_ .it, .....1; ! . ,......4.,...-.„.;,,.. ., . _, .„,„ ..:,..,;„. . . .,: .,-. .....r. , - -- ,,..,!.: —,'4.. ,.--," „ .,r,-.' -,..Alie ...;......- ,""kf ' '''''' ....''''''-' ,fia,;..- .*6;4,0 4,-,,..''',., ,, ....„.• Ai 1,.., _ .4,1 . f.,- .9,_ ,1 ., ,.4,_ : ,,,,,,. . 1"--,. ',,;,,‘-',- , - ., , ' ,,.- ',-, - ' -r 4.- .•—•_ - . A £L '", {'. 411-3 E'; „- IM tvyxz.. rt iC ti& zap, TS aaYti 17 Case 2014-4 Table 1 t 1 Tree Number Label Tree Type i Requested Action Objective Comments N14-29 N14-29 Cedar Re^ove Restore view On bluff edge N14-30 N14-30 Fir&Cherry Trim seedlings&saplings Restore view On bluff edge N14-31 N 14-31 Madrona Trim to previous"top" Restore view 8'-8'from bluff edge N14-32 N14-32 Fir Remove Restore view 8'-10'from bluff edge N14-33 N14-33 Fir Remove Restore view On bluff edge N14-34 N14-34 Fir&Madrona Trim seedlings&saplings Restore view On bluff edge N14-35 N14-35 Madrona Trim to 3'height (again) Restore view On bluff edge N14-36 N14-36 Madrona&fir Trim to 3'height (again) Restore view On bluff N14.37 N14-37 Madrona& Trim to 3'height (again) Restore view On bluff Cedar N14-38 N14-38 —Spare — —Spare— —Spare— —Spare— Discussion; This area is a very dense section of evergreen trees and shrubs. This request primarily seeks to re-prune a number of seedlings and young trees that have been previously pruned back to their original height. There is a request to remove two Douglas Firs, N14-32 and 33, as well as 1 Western Red Cedar N14-29. While this area is covered densely enough to mitigate the effects of water and wind erosion, I would encourage retaining the two Douglas Firs and "windowing"them rather than removal. Douglas Firs retain their"windows", and,as can be noted in the photo,these two trees are already growing through the view horizon (the view horizon of space occupied by water and mountains)and, in a few years,will be excellent candidates for crown raising. Having more tall trees above the view horizon allows for more and larger roots to help anchor the soils on the bluff, provides for more evapotranspiration,and provides more habitat at a different level of the ecosystem (perches for eagles and ospreys et al). The same actions could be taken for the Cedar(N14-29),though young and actively growing cedars do tend to re-grow into their pruned "windows" quickly, so there will not be the same amount of benefit to the view corridor as the pruned firs. Remaining trees and shrubs may all be pruned back to their original level. 18 Case 2014-5 s N14-54 1 ! M N14-58 N14-48 N14-55 N ,\ / ' "-I:40k *--: ,w ... N14- --, 56J ;fir rt ..z.... . . .,,,i,„ .. N14-48 . i ii - it* o.... * '4 } R. f ^ Y s .. ✓��,..j N14-4.9 '� N14-52 : ., r41.1.-5,r, pi,4-s7 , �1 s." ;rte .� 4 + � r ' � +r i ' --,el% "-.-^.. ow ' ‘-,..., ir 19 N 14-46 N 14'48 fir- _ p N14-45 N14-47 ;- • ipak 'ti 1 a/ x -46 N14-5€ N14-47 N14- N14-45 N14-44 N14-58 20 Case 2014-5 Table I _ Tree Number Tree Label Tree Type Requested Acton Objective Comments .N14-44 N14-44 Madrona&Fir Trim seedlings&saplings ',Restore view At bluff ecge N14-45 N14-45 Madrona&Fir Trim seedlings&saplings Restore view At bluff ecge N14-46 N14.46 Fr Remove(under 3"diameter) Restore view 3 from bluff ecge N14-47 N14.47 Cherry Trim saplings -Restore view 3 from bluff edge N14-48 N14-48 Madrona Trim saplings(2) Restore view 8'-10'from bluff cage N14-49 N14-49 Pacific Yew Trim back to original`top" Restore view 6'-8'from bluff edge N14-50 N14.50 Hemlock Trim back to original"top" Restore view 6'-8'from bluff edge N14-51 N14-51 Fir Trim back to original lop" Restore view 6'-8'from bluff edge N14-52 N14.52 Madrona Trim back to original"tap" Restore view '6'-8'from bluff edge N14-53 N14-53 —Spare — —Spare— —Spare— —Spare— N14-54 N14-54 Hemlock Top or trim Restore view 8'-12'from bluff edge N14-55 N14.55 Firs(2) Top or trim Restore view 8'-12'from bluff ecge N14-56 N14-56 Hemlock Top or trim Restore view 8'-12'from bluff edge N14.57 N14-57 Madrona Top or trim Restore view 8'-12'from bluff edge N14-58 N14-58 F-- Top or trim Restore view 8'-12'from bluff edge Discussion; This is the same general area as was discussed in Case 2014-4, a very dense section of evergreens, many of which have been previously pruned. All trees previously pruned,whether by"man" or"nature", may be re-pruned to the original point with little or no adverse impacts on the tree. While this area is covered densely enough to mitigate the effects of water and wind erosion, I would encourage retaining the three Douglas Firs(N14-46, 55 and 58)and "windowing" rather than removing them. Douglas Firs retain their"windows", and,as noted in the photo,these three trees are already growing through the view horizon (the view horizon of space occupied by water and mountains) and, in a few years,will be excellent candidates for removal of the lower branches (crown raising). Having more tall trees above the view horizon allows for more and larger roots to help anchor the soils on the bluff, provides for more effective water management(evapotranspiration),and provides more habitat at a different level of the ecosystem (perches for eagles and ospreys et al). Young Madrones and seedlings may have their crowns reduced (cutting back to an appropriately sized lateral branch, not to exceed 3" in diameter),with only a slight likelihood of adverse impacts to the tree. Mature Madrones are more problematic to prune and tend to be impacted by various pathogens. Other opportunistic trees such as Western Willows and Cherries,and low growing conifers like the Western Yew, may have their crowns reduced with little or no adverse environmental impacts. This applies to trees N14 44,45,47,48,49, 51,52 and 57. Two Hemlocks, N54 and 56,would be good candidates for young"Habitat Trees".This consists of making a non-selective heading cut with the intention of inducing decay into the trunk of the tree while allowing lower branches to continue to grow. Please refer to the section in this report on Habitat Trees for a brief view of the benefits to a Habitat Tree. Due to the density of evergreen growth in this section, I recommend the remaining seedlings referred to as N14-44 and 45, be pruned back as requested. 22 Case 2014-6 k I" t x; x ' s. R t k s -., ',-„-.. . -,.,' Air . / - * --..,,,... , .,. 1,- ,., - 7,0, --, . '-: , 01111". ;71; 41 ''' 1°1'3 i .° ` ' . - �`. °tom ,� � 23 47 . , ,_,.: ...,,, . .... ,_, , :,, ,., ,, ''104:16:41,,7.'‘,* ! $, it, g �a t M ,,ate�61 y /F, V a V '414‘44.', r r. Oiiiiiiiiiro:l'r' r r r w ''r ir*, .V.r .0.'r.'''' r'.4r'.,,,e..-*N. 4 r;-,..•--,-',...4?•,::: '"--,-•$k- 144'-r,t4,,.. .--- '4,:r. ...,:'141,/,...';1!.t.ii,ii#,'• r.„•.: . ..i''''''-',- ' • 44411111.0. s ‘ y . ,41 ''' 0 s s••licio. ,,•••,, r rirt4r .., , ''\,.:;;,•,: ',vi--,i_,,'-'4,1.,, :: _ .,.",:. ' -..;;;; -. .,''' . , - :--.-.. . "4--',,,-,. -...i., f i s + .rti lRF 'w e ••1, -.+A o- 4 tir fr `• ,} :t • 24 I ;y. x•f t N. 4* N 4 bxW 3 +gyp T. r , r T r Y '"�" . •fi % ' 6 ... erg f 4 # ♦, ,£ # f i # t,.` , $ j ,. ,.. • -; ,,,,,,,,,,,-,!..1, .,...- io , ,'.. -....;,,......... . . , ,: ' . , , ,. A.,IIP, a .�" +�� < " a. 25 1 , . s t I "YM rA It 4' 1 t — f 7 , I j� s • " -tom IF tot e&.. 1k: ,* ^' . i ,. ..;,. , j .:1:74411111r,. 7 , ,, 26 sk 4 , , •' ..", ..., ' -. 4 * k- 4 , .----_ -- 4 it it 41‘1 Ili. 't. ',. t4i,:t, '''' .2: , -:,, ,:i'irro; t -.. tok—t Ar ,81'' • '-' .,T* 'k '', ' .• • 1* Ir i 4' *-:- * fk-4... ,. '-.".'-ii 47, •,':t.,, 017:17. . , ' 4 dr ..,.. 'Aik 1,'* 4 414; * t , . 1 27 .411114..° . '.-4:::l'':.•'''''''.-,g.,19:'-':::::' . i r : e a . { ry ' t434'V9 tt4• �r ,K w't . up' c, i fU1v7t3 e—- 28 I CASE#2014-6 Tree# Label Type of Tree Requested Action Objective N14.59 is Cedar lower crown Restore partial Port Townsend view N14.60 lb Cedar lower crown Restore partial Port Townsend view N14-61 is Cedar lower crown Restore partial Port Townsend view N14-62 2a Hemlock(7) lower crown Restore partial Port Townsend view N14-63 2b Cedar lower crown Restore partial Port Townsend view N14-64 2c Cedar lower crown Restore partial Port Townsend view N14-65 3 Fir lower crown Preventive view maintenance N14-66 4 Pacific Yew trim—previously trimmed—lower 12 feet Restore water and Port Townsend view N14-67 5 Cedar create habitat tree Restore water and Indian Island view N14-68 6 Cedar create habitat tree—beginning to block Mt Baker view Restore water and island view N14-69 7 vegetation Trim to 30 inches restore previous trimmed on upper Restore water view part of bluff—includes tree seedlings,willows,madrones, cherries,blackberries,red flowering currents and salai N-4-70 8 Salal Trim to 30 inches—previously trimmed on upper part of Restore water view bluff Discussion; This request seeks to reduce the crown size of eight conifers,create two habitat trees,and re- prune low shrubs and seedlings that have been previously pruned,to a height of 30". Given the density of the evergreen vegetation in this area,all of these actions would have little or no measurable adverse impacts on bluff stability or health of the trees. ever, I would ask the requestor to consider windowing the two Western Red Cedars that are being requested to be made into Habitat Trees. Both trees are nearing or through the top of the view horizon(especially N14-68). Having tall trees in the ecosystem provides many ecological benefits,among the most important being larger and deeper stabilizing root systems, improved water management through evapotranspiration(the trees respiration of water),and additional habitat for fauna,flora(a little)and fungi that live higher above the ground. Windowing can be the first step towards eventual skirting up of the trunk as the tree has grown through the view horizon. Case 2014-7 Photo B(3-31-2014) 9 ii ' ,ii; i ;44 5 tf :.4. !. 29 Case 2014-7 CASE#2014-7 Tree# Label Type of Tree Requested Action Objective N14-01 CEDAR TRIM-Regrowth from peviously removed tree Maintain View N14-02 CEDAR TRIM-Regrowth from peviously removed tree Maintain View N14-03 FIR REMOVE Maintain View N14-04 FIR REMOVE Maintain View Discussion; This request seeks to prune two cedars that have been previously pruned and are currently re- growing into the view corridor,and remove two Douglas Firs that are in the corridor. I recommend the two cedars be pruned as requested,pursuant to the parameters set in the SMP of removing no more than 25%of the canopy or making cuts larger than 3" in diameter. I am reluctant to recommend the removal of the two Douglas Firs. It is my opinion that their removal would expose a large section of lower bluff area to erosion through water and wind forces. I recommend the requestor consider windowing the larger of the two Douglas firs(N14-03),and creating a habitat tree of the smaller(N14-04). 30 Methods for Vegetation Management on Puget Sound Bluffs: With an erosion rate of approximately twelve inches per year, retaining healthy vegetation on our bluffs is critical for water quality and the preservation of property. While there is no financially feasible method to prevent bluff erosion in the long term, methods may be enacted to slow or even temporarily reverse the trend. These methods run the gamut from shore armoring on beaches to low impact development practices on the crowns of the bluffs,and retaining existing beneficial vegetation on the face of the bluffs. While there are commonsense exceptions to every rule,the overarching goal of preserving the vegetation is to limit the amount of rainfall,wind,and water runoff on the bluff face. The best method to achieve this is to retain sufficient evergreen vegetation;groundcovers, shrubs and trees.Evergreens are preferable because the bulk of our damaging storms occur in months when plants are dormant. A diverse variety of plants will provide deep root stabilization of soils,ground cover to limit runoff erosion,and foliage to limit the damage done by scouring winds. These many ecological benefits must be balanced with the value of existing view corridors. Many properties derive up to 50%of their value from existing views of water and mountains. As vegetation grows and changes over the years, landowners may lose a significant portion of their property value as existing views are lost. It is my belief that by making careful adjustments to the stewardship of native plant areas; through the methods of pruning,replanting,the creation of habitat trees and removals,it is possible to retain an area's ecological functions as well as retain the majority of the original view corridor. 31 Notes on Pruning- Pruning Methods for Maintaining View Corridors: Planning,selective pruning,removals and replanting are the most effective way to maintain a view corridor.Views in this case are defined as portions of water, mountains and other scenic vistas located within this horizon visible from a residence. First,a long-range plan needs to be in place. When a property with a view is acquired,it is very important to record this view from different angles and different seasons.The most important is the view from the living area or areas.Some local government organizations currently require proof of the extent of previous views,other governments may adopt these at a later date and will probably require more strict environmental requirements.Homeowners can be hard-pressed to prove what views they enjoyed 10,20,or even a few years prior. Digital photos are the best.Another useful tool can be found on the program Google- Earth.This computer program has aerial photographs of most residential areas. With luck a homeowner may be able to pinpoint individual trees that grow on their property. With an aerial photograph,a person can superimpose lines on the photograph that designates the boundaries of their view corridor. After determining the primary trees that lie within a view corridor,it is important to determine what these trees are (their genus and species),their age,and their general health.These are the factors that determine the amount of pruning a tree can withstand. The general rule of thumb is that no more than 25%of the canopy of a tree should be removed at any one time.That maximum amount would apply to a young and vigorous growing tree which is a rot resistant species.A good example would be a young Douglas Fir or Western Red Cedar. A mature tree,generally trees fifty years old or older which have reached their average final size,needs less pruning to retain their health and vigor.Some species can withstand less than others,such as Pacific Madrone which often reacts to pruning poorly. There are four primary methods of pruning used to maintain view corridors; crown raising,crown reduction,windowing and thinning. Crown Raising is the most effective,but is most effective once the top of the tree has grown above and beyond the view.This consists of removing the lower branches of trees from the ground on up.This is the most effective because it is rare for new branches to re-grow back into the view.This is limited in that a maximum of 25%of the live limbs of a tree should remain.The easiest example is to imagine a Douglas Fir at 100'high should have at least the top 25 feet(25%) remain untouched.Trees require foliage to produce food to sustain them.Trees with less than 15-20%of canopy remaining in live branches are typically considered as hazardous. • 32 Crown Reduction is most effectively used with trees with broad crowns such as deciduous trees or conifers that have already lost their conical shape due to natural factors such as age or damage by wind or wildlife.This consists of removing the desired limbs of a tree back to the trunk or else back to another limb no less that 1/4 the size of the limb that is removed.For example,if a branch to be removed measures 4"in diameter,it should be removed near a limb that measures at least 1" in diameter or larger(no less than 1/4 the size of the limb to be removed).The reason for this is that pruning back to smaller limbs often results in continued dieback from the point of the pruning. Like all pruning,the maximum amount of canopy to be removed should never exceed 25%of the living branches.This number is adjusted,usually downwards, depending on the age,health and species of a tree. Thinning will provide a diffuse view through the branches of a tree.This procedure involves removing alternate branches throughout the crown of a tree interfering with the view corridor.Again,thinning should remove no more than 25%of the tree with adjustments depending on other factors. Windowing can be a very effective tool.This comprises removing a'block'of branches on one side of a tree,usually to be balanced by a block(or blocks) on the other side to balance the tree,though this balance is often for aesthetic reasons.This provides a frame of tree branches through which the view can now be seen.The amount of foliage to be windowed has the same restrictions of others, 25% maximum depending on other factors. It is important to note the tree species since wi than others.Western Red Cedar(Thuja some respond much better to windowing t (Th plicata) branches tend to grow up and down to quickly fill windows. Windowing is as much an art as a skill.The final product should look as natural as possible. Mother Nature does an excellent job of windowing trees,especially Douglas Firs,as can be especially seen in older trees growing near the water. As new conifers grow into View Corridors over time,windowing will provide a limited view access for a number of years until the tree has grown up and through the view corridor.At that time,the process of Crown raising can begin,removing the lower branches of the tree until only the trunk will remain within the view corridor. Another good reason to favor windowing is that it preserves lower branches for a longer period of time.These lower branches serve as shelter for wildlife such as ground and song birds,and are more effective at shading the ground which can often reduce stressed on ground cover vegetation. I . it . 33 Tree Pruning Guide Click to view this downloadable PowerPoint presentation for information on tree owning. Pruning • Limit at planting time to removing broken,crossing,rubbing branches,alleviating structure problem • Remove basal sprouts • Encourage a central leader • Leave lower branches on the tree to stimulate root and trunk diameter growth leader ft' ie- ..**‘*■'''''. •••••• 7 6rarch tea& Rnol ridge Cart p: bratKlh calla' it ..1 br - ` i ' branch . bark t 4 '9 bark N . rdpa s, , ° /r 90 . ,+ flits '' '''''.:1''' dryad . ,,,! °f& ✓r,'' living branch °:' ` ,° 'Litt i branch z �� Il l s cut / I f I,ilt, ,, l branch cotter 1 @ trero\\cmGoiter Targetting the cut . f t" 2 cut foal 7. f >la N.y. r a 14 t. ' , 1St 't .t f< I 61131 z e cut Cutting a small branch Cutting a larger branch 34 Common Pruning Mistakes • Do not thin the tree to compensate for root loss • Do not raise lower limbs,these will help add girth to trunk and root growth • Pruning paints and sealers do not prevent decay or promote rapid closure,not recommended • Pruning Flush cutting branch back to trunk is incorrect,it wounds the trunk and causes decay. • Make the cut along branch collar. Coned Il �l ti Chancli J culla! • rnlat I. Correct correct: asigiii i%I":tn osd at Id Wad hi mixtt is t lttt_�.•::i1 tnnl rul in mark.imt r.ixt atargi branch cotter idilNrt*iit.t.IA!. Marred k 111 Rr a t:h Esimtli 15 .I ,:iJISi rnilt I hi wring: Wrwq, Inn nil wit r luh tx tuft a11t^.r letat rut t.inn cicsn tit+A ud. r.}r?M Notes on Pruning: Pruning should be done in conformation to ANSI A300 Standards. When pruning trees, I recommend the woody debris be ground into chips or broken down into the smallest pieces possible,and distributed throughout the area beneath the remaining trees' canopies.This debris will break down and provide future nutrients for the remaining trees,as well as build up the soil layers and aid the mycchorizal organisms that live in the soil and are a critical part of water and nutrient uptake(yes,the soil is,literally,alive). Light pruning(10%or less of the live canopy)can be done any time of year. Heavy pruning is best left for winter months when trees are in their maximum state of dormancy. If pruning for safety reasons then the season should be discounted and pruning take place as soon as practical. It is best to have all safety pruning completed before the end of October, which generally is the commencement of our wind-storm season. • . 35 Notes on Habitat Trees- I often recommend that some trees slated for removal be retained as"Habitat Trees". These are essentially standing snags from 3'up to however high is deemed safe given the location of the tree. Snags are critical components of our ecosystem and provide food and shelter for wildlife and beneficial fungi.It should be assumed that the standing snag will eventually rot at the base and fall over after many years,so care should be taken to locate these'habitat trees'in a location unlikely to be frequented by people or damaging to property. If possible it is best to leave a jagged break where the tree trunk is cut.Not only does this look more natural,like a tree that has been snapped in high winds, but the jagged layers of wood provide increased habitat for beneficial organisms. Leaving logs remaining on the ground,especially alder logs, is another practice that is immensely beneficial to the native ecosystem. Nothing can duplicate the art of nature for creating Habitat Trees,whether a"Snag",the dead tree on the right,or the "Living Habitat Tree"on the left with only the top dead. 6n, These trees are habitat and shelter for beneficial fungi, insects,grubs,birds and mammals. Some arborists now argue that a failing tree serves more and greater ecological functions than an actively growing tree. 4 • s 36 Waiver of liability: The property owner is responsible for scheduling future examinations andjor recommended maintenance. The property owner is responsible for obtaining required permits from all concerned governing bodies from federal to state,county,city, and home owner associations. The property owner is responsible for obtaining and providing all applicable codes, covenants and restrictions(CC&Rs)that apply. The client shall hold the evaluator harmless for injuries or damages incurred if recommendations are not heeded or for acts of nature beyond reasonable expectations such as severe winds,excessive rain, heavy snow loads, ice,earthquakes etc. This report and all attachments,enclosures and references are confidential and intended for the use of the client referenced above.They may not be reproduced, used in any way or disseminated in any form without the consent of the client and Richard Hefley—Consulting Arborist. Richard R. Hefley Consulting Arborist ISA#PN-0784A 360-385-2921 rkheflev@olvpen.com PO Box 177 101 Reinier Road Nordland WA 98358 Kala Point Coastal Bluff Study Kala Point Owners' Association Port Townsend,Washington • March 2, 2012 I p , �[ ,. \\.Iii `I _v , L , UNTY r,,j=COiONIUNITY DE'JELOPMENT • Submitted To: Mr. Keith Larson, General Manager Kala Point Owners'Association _ 1760 Kala Point Drive Port Townsend,Washington 98368 By: Shannon&Wilson, Inc. 400 N 34th Street, Suite 100 Seattle,Washington 98103 And: Coastal Geologic Services 1711 Ellis Street, Suite 103 Bellingham,Washington 98225 • 21-1-21634-001 NON O .INC. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Kala Point Owners' Association(KPOA) is interested in developing a basis for managing the bluff and adjacent properties that considers both the stability of the bluff and the desire of residents to maintain views by cutting or trimming vegetation. The purpose of our services was to provide KPOA with baseline information about current bluff and vegetation conditions, an evaluation of processes that affect bluff stability, and to provide recommendations for management that could help limit future instability. Our scope of services included performing a site reconnaissance to document site conditions and photograph and survey the bluff, analyzing the history of landsliding along the bluff using historic aerial photographs, and evaluating factors contributing to slope instability. The study site at Kala Point is an approximately 1-mile segment of shoreline and sea bluff that borders the eastern side of the Kala Point residential development. The bluff is steep,ranging from near-vertical locally to about 50 percent. The elevation of the bluff crest gradually lowers from 190 feet at the northern end to about 90 feet at the southern end. Bluff stratigraphy at Kala Point consists of the following geologic units, listed from uppermost to lowermost: Quaternary lodgment till (Qgt), Quaternary advance outwash (Qga), Quaternary • glaciolacustrine deposits (Qgl), and Quaternary pre-Vashon fluvial deposits(Qpf). Qga, composed principally of stratified sand, forms the thickest unit observed along the bluff. Seepage from the bluff face typically occurs at the contact between Qga and the underlying silt and clay(Qgl) deposit. Several potential sources of earthquakes that could produce ground motion at Kala Point include the Cascadia Subduction zone, deep intraslab earthquakes, and shallow crustal earthquakes. The nearest known active fault to Kala Point is the Southern Whidbey Island Fault Zone, a shallow crustal fault, which is approximately 4.5 miles northeast of the site. Coastal processes that likely contribute to slope instability at Kala Point include (a) a divergent shore-drift configuration that typically causes shoreline erosion and mass wasting, and (b)wave- induced erosion of the toe of the bluff. Vegetation cover on and along the top of the bluff ranges from non-existent to dense. At the top of the bluff, vegetation cover consists principally of grass, landscape plants, low shrubs, and scattered trees. The bluff itself is either devoid of vegetation(where recent landslides have occurred) or densely covered by conifers, deciduous trees, fern,blackberry, and salmonberry. 21-1-21634-OOI-Rlf.docx/wp/lkn 21-1-21634-001 • 1 NON&WILSON,I • Historic aerial photograph analysis shows that the Kala Point bluff has experienced landsliding both before and after development. Four areas in particular have experience a high density of landslide activity since 1942: (a)the northern 400 feet of the property, (b) a zone 800 to 1,300 feet south of the north property line, (c)a small area approximately 350 feet north of the greenbelt north of Windship Drive, and(d) a larger area between 100 and 400 feet south of the greenbelt north of Windship Drive. Types of mass wasting and erosion observed along the Kala Point bluff include shallow rotational landsliding, blockfall from exposed silt and clay deposits,erosion and shallow sloughing of exposed soil faces, and soil creep. Shallow rotational sliding is the most prominent form of mass wasting at Kala Point. The landslides generally initiate in the Qga deposit, and bottom out either at the contact between Qga and Qgl. We identify five bluff zones along the Kala Point bluff with unique sets of characteristics. The characteristics that distinguish the bluff zones include: bluff profile, geology, seepage, vegetation cover, slope inclination,uphill land use, field observed instability and erosion, and failure modes. In our opinion,the primary factors controlling slope stability at Kala Point include: (a) seepage • at the contact between Qga and Qgl, (d)wave attack at the base of the slope undermining the slope toe, (c) increased infiltration of water into the ground caused by removal of the natural canopy to allow more rainfall to reach the ground surface, septic system infiltration,potential water system leakage, landscape irrigation, and storm drainage delivery, (e)potential point sources of leaking water or sewer utilities, and(f) geologic conditions on the upland that locally promote infiltration. Slope instability on the steep, eastern slopes of Kala Point is a natural process; however, in our opinion,this instability has been exacerbated by development of residences and infrastructure. Slope regression cannot be eliminated at Kala Point with reasonable methods and expense; however, certain practices could be employed to reduce the impact of human development on the stability of the bluff at Kala Point. These include: (a)reducing or eliminating irrigation on bluff-top properties, (b) periodically evaluating the condition of sewer pipes and water lines to check for leaks, (c) establishing dense vegetation between the bluff crest and residences with careful consideration of species type to optimize interception and promote stability, and (d)carefully evaluating options for tree removal or limbing on a case-by-case basis. • 21-1-21634-001-Rlf.docxwp/Ikn 21-1-21634-001 11 NON asWi s ,1 • TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 2.0 DATA COLLECTION AND FIELD METHODS 1 2.1 Public Documents 2 2.2 Kala Point Owners' Association (KPOA)-provided Documents 2 2.3 Site Reconnaissance 3 2.4 Global Positioning System(GPS) Survey of Top of Bluff 3 2.5 Offshore Photography 3 3.0 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION 4 3.1 Topography 4 3.2 Residential Development 4 4.0 GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS 6 4.1 General Geology 6 4.2 Bluff Stratigraphy 7 4.3 Potential Earthquake Sources 8 4.4 Coastal Processes 9 4.4.1 Net Shore-drift and Drift Cells 9 • 4.4.2 Shoretypes and Feeder Bluffs at Kala Point Owners' Association (KPOA) 10 4.4.3 Fetch and Wave-induced Erosion 11 4.4.4 Toe Erosion at Kala Point Owners' Association (KPOA) I 1 4.5 Groundwater/Seepage 12 4.6 Vegetation 12 5.0 HISTORIC AND CURRENT SLOPE INSTABILITY 13 5.1 Existing Maps and Reports that Address Bluff Instability 13 5.2 Historic Instability from Aerial Photo Analysis 14 5.2.1 Methods of Analysis 14 5.2.2 Development Chronology 15 5.2.3 Historic Landslide Mapping 15 5.3 Recent Instability from Reconnaissance Observations 15 5.3.1 Shallow Rotational Landslides 16 5.3.2 Block Fall 16 5.3.3 Erosion and Shallow Sloughing of Exposed Soil Faces 17 5.3.4 Soil Creep 17 5.4 Bluff Zones at Kala Point 17 2 1-1-2 1634-001-Rlf.docx/wp/Ikn 21-1-21634-001 • 111 NON WILSON.l • TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.) Page 5.4.1 Bluff Zone 1 17 5.4.2 Bluff Zone 2 18 5.4.3 Bluff Zone 3 18 5.4.4 Bluff Zone 4 19 5.4.5 Bluff Zone 5 19 6.0 FACTORS CONTROLLING SLOPE STABILITY AT KALA POINT 19 7.0 CONCLUSIONS REGARDING SLOPE STABILITY AT KALA POINT 21 8.0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR REDUCING SLOPE INSTABILITY 23 9.0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR EXISTING VEGETATION 24 10.0 LIMITATIONS 25 9.0 REFERENCES 27 TABLES • 1 Characteristics of Bluff Zones at Kala Point 2 Summary of Aerial Photographs and Observed Changes in Development and Landslides FIGURES 1 Vicinity Map 2 Site Plan 3 LiDAR Topographic Map 4 LiDAR Landslide map 5 Offshore Photo Mosaic 6 2002 Oblique Aerial Photographs 7 2006 Oblique Aerial Photographs 8 1856 T-sheet Map#0581 and Landslide Interpretation 9 Aerial Photo Montage 10 Geologic Map 11 Schematic Stratigraphic Column 12 Coastal Processes Map • 21-I-21634-001-Rlf.docx wp/lkn 21-1-21634-001 1V S NONEMILSOKINC TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.) • APPENDICES A Bluff Crest Global Positioning System Points B Offshore Photo Global Positioning System Points C Illustrative Photographs D Important Information About Your Geotechnical/Environmental Report • 21-1-21634-OO I-R 1 f.docx/wp/Ikn 21-1-21634-001 S NON WI •14,I N • KALA POINT COASTAL BLUFF STUDY KALA POINT OWNERS'ASSOCIATION PORT TOWNSEND,WASHINGTON 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of our geotechnical studies of the coastal bluff along the Kala Point development in Jefferson County, Washington(Figures 1 and 2). The Kala Point Owners' Association (KPOA) is interested in developing a basis for managing the bluff and adjacent properties that considers both the stability of the bluff and the desire of residents to maintain views by cutting or trimming vegetation. The purpose of our services was to provide KPOA with baseline information about current bluff and vegetation conditions, an evaluation of physical and biological processes that affect bluff stability, and to provide recommendations for management that could help limit future instability. Our scope of services included the following: • Develop project base maps using available LiDAR data. • Perform a site reconnaissance to inventory geotechnical and other site conditions. 411 • Photograph the bluff at low tide and assemble the photographs into a composite panorama to facilitate tracking future changes to the bluff. • Complete a survey of the bluff crest. • Obtain historic aerial photographs of the site for analysis of past landsliding. • Evaluate factors contributing to slope instability. • Evaluate hydrologic effects on bluff. • Prepare this report. The work was performed in general accordance with our revised proposal dated October 11, 2011. This project was authorized by Mr. Richard Schulte on October 17,2011. 2.0 DATA COLLECTION AND FIELD METHODS The following sections describe the sources and types of existing information used for this study, and the field techniques used to accomplish the site reconnaissance, collection of baseline bluff crest data, and offshore photography of the bluff • 21-I-21634-001-Rlf.docxwpNcn 21-1-21634-001 1 • 2.1 Public Documents Public documents that we used for our study include: • Geologic maps and reports produced by the U.S. Geological Survey, Washington State Department of Natural Resources Division of Geology and Earth Resources, and the Washington State Department of Ecology(WDOE). • U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey historic topographic map. • Puget Sound nearshore mapping and studies by Puget Sound Nearshore Ecosystem Restoration Project(PSNERP). • The Washington State Shoreline Management Act of 1971. • The Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program. • Aerial photographs. • Oblique aerial photographs taken by the WDOE. 2.2 Kala Point Owners' Association (KPOA)-provided Documents KPOA provided Shannon& Wilson and Coastal Geologic Services, Inc. (CGS)with the following documents to assist in our study: • • A 1981 report by Neil H. Twelker&Associates, Inc., evaluating bluff retreat along a 1,000-foot stretch of the northern portion of the bluff at Kala Point. • A 2006 report by Shannon & Wilson, Inc., evaluating slope stability of a portion of the bluff east of Cedar View Drive (report also held in house at Shannon& Wilson). • A 2006 report by Stratum Group, providing recommendations concerning proposed tree removal at 21 Seaview Court#2. • A 2010 report by Landau Associates, providing observations from a slope reconnaissance in the northern portion of the Kala Point development. • A 1994 beach survey report prepared by John Downing of 260 Kala Heights Drive. • The 2005 Kala Point Owners' Association Bluff Management Report. • The 2009 Kala Point Owners' Association Bluff Management Plan. • The 2011 Kala Point Owners' Association Draft Bluff Management Plan. • Logs of four wells drilled in 1974 and 1977 in the southern end of the Kala Point development and near Sailview Drive. Locations of the wells are shown in the Site Plan (Figure 2). 21-1-21634-001-Rlfdocx/wp/lkn 21-1-21634-001 • 2 *.. • MAKSON.iNC 4110 • Map showing locations of community drain fields and water supply wells(Eric Thomas). • Aerial photographs. • Historic photographs. 2.3 Site Reconnaissance Shannon&Wilson, Inc. and CGS performed a reconnaissance at the site from November 30 through December 2, 2011. We met with KPOA representatives on the morning of November 30, 2011,to tour the top of the bluff and discuss their observations. The purpose of the reconnaissance was to document geologic conditions and vegetation cover, evaluate areas of slope instability and erosion along the bluff, and take photographs from land and by boat. We used a handheld Global Positioning System (GPS) unit and contour and hillshade base maps generated from Light Detection and Ranging(LiDAR) data to help locate and record features on the ground(Figures 3 and 4). Observations from the reconnaissance are discussed in Sections 4.0, 5.0, and 6.0, below. 2.4 Global Positioning System (GPS) Survey of Top of Bluff • The current location of the bluff crest was documented by collecting a series of GPS points along the full length of the Kala Point development. The purpose of this effort was to provide baseline data that could be used for comparison with future GPS surveys of the bluff crest as a way to monitor bluff retreat. A detailed discussion of the methods used to collect and post-process the data is included in Appendix A, along with a table presenting the GPS coordinates for individual GPS points(Table A-1). A line drawn from bluff-crest GPS points is shown in the LiDAR Landslide Map(Figure 4). Note that the digitized bluff crest does not match the bluff crest in the LiDAR imagery. A discussion of the possible reasons for this mismatch is in Appendix A. 2.5 Offshore Photography A series of offshore photographs were taken and compiled into panorama views for the full length of the bluff face of the KPOA study area. These panorama sets provide a current sea level view of the bluff face along the study area. Three tracks were run along the study area from three distances offshore from a small boat. Track 1 was taken from approximately 500 feet offshore and extended from south to north. Track 2 was taken from approximately 800 feet offshore and extended from north to south. Track 3 was taken from approximately 1,000 feet offshore and extended from south to north. The track locations were recorded using a handheld GPS unit. Figure B-1 in Appendix B shows the locations of the three tracks. Photos were taken • 21-141634-001-Rlfdocxwp/1kn 21-1-21634-001 3 I • slightly overlapping so they could be matched and then"stitched"together in the Adobe Photoshop program. The offshore photo mosaic generated from Track 3 is shown in Figure 5. Because the panorama photographs are best viewed digitally,photo mosaics of all three tracks are provided as digital files on a CD in Appendix B. For comparison with the offshore photomosaics, and for a slightly different view of the bluff,we have included photomosaics of oblique photographs taken of the bluff in 2002 and 2006 by WDOE (Figures 6 and 7). 3.0 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3.1 Topography The study site at Kala Point is an approximately 1-mile segment of shoreline and sea bluff that borders the eastern side of the Kala Point residential development(Figure 2). The bluff is steep, ranging from near-vertical locally to about 50 percent,with local benches that are relatively level (Figure 3). Along much of this shoreline,the lower 20 to 30 vertical feet range from vertical to 100 percent. The bluff is highest at the northern end,where it stands at elevation 190 feet. The height of the bluff crest gradually falls to the southern end of the bluff, where it is at about elevation 90 feet. • The bluff is imprinted with the scallop-shaped or amphitheater features of landslides of many vintages (Figure 4). The bluff is also interrupted with the scars of past fluvial erosion; however, these features appear to have formed millennia ago, likely at the time of wasting of the last glacial ice. One is located near the southern end of Kala Heights Drive and the other is north of the northern end of Windship Drive. Both are hanging valleys(perched; not graded to the beach) and do not have active drainage channels. These topographic features are depicted in the 1856 topographic map, as shown in Figure 8. The upland above and to the west of the bluff crest rises gently up to the west at inclinations ranging from 10 to 30 percent. Single-family residences and condominiums are located on this upland plateau. 3.2 Residential Development In the 1856 map(Figure 8), the word"Densely" likely refers to dense vegetation that covered the area. The first photographic indication of residential development at this site is the pioneering of the main roads at Kala Point in the 1976 aerial photograph (Figure 9). They comprised what is 21-1-21634-001-Rlf.docx/wp/lkn 21-1-21634-001 • 4 144 ' NON6WILSON.M • now known as Windship Drive and Kala Point Drive. In the following 16 years, all of the present roads were built and many single-family residences and condominiums were constructed. Since 1993,the development has slowly continued to fill in. Photographs showing several residences and yards along the bluff crest taken during our site reconnaissance(at the locations shown in Figure C-1 in Appendix C)are shown in Photographs C-2 and C-3. Drinking water was supplied by deep wells at the southern end of the development,the approximate locations of which are shown in Figure 2, during the early years of the development. Water well no. 1 was drilled and developed in 1974 with a screen from 115 to 125 feet below ground surface(bgs). Water well no. 2 was drilled and developed in 1976 with a screen from about 172 to 182 feet bgs. Both of these screens are below mean sea level (MSL). We understand that these two wells are used for emergency backup now;they do not presently provide water to residents. Two wells, designated well nos. 3 and 4,were drilled and developed in 1978 and 1979, respectively. Both wells, which supply Kala Point residents with drinking water, are located near the intersection of Pinecrest Drive and Fairbreeze Drive. Well nos. 3 and 4 have their screens at 458 to 468 feet bgs and 476 to 491 bgs, 200 feet or more below MSL. • Storm drainage is handled by ditches and culverts. Owing to the relatively pervious nature of the soils on the upland,relatively low annual rainfall at the site(18.7 inches at Port Townsend (Western Regional Climate Center,2012)), and the typically low intensity of rainfall events, residents report that very little water runs in the ditches and culverts. Only an isolated area near Seaview Court is reported to have any stormwater running in a pipe over the bluff from water collected in the storm water system. Several bluff top property owners have installed 4-inch- diameter corrugated plastic pipes from their residents on the upland down to the beach. Two of the pipes of similar purpose are high density polyethylene(HDPE). One of these withstood a landslide in the past few years. We understand that there are two types of septic systems: individual and community. As shown in Figure 3, most of the bluff-top properties along Kala Heights Drive pump wastewater to a community drainfield to the west of the road. The properties surrounding Seaview Court send wastewater to a community drainfield along the edge of the bluff. In the condominium area near Sailview Drive,there are several small community drainfields in between the living units. All of the other properties in the Kala Point development have individual septic drainfields. • 21-1-21634-001-Rif.docxwp/ikn 21-1-21634-001 5 NON N,I • 4.0 GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS Our understanding of the site geology comes from existing geologic maps(Pessl and others, 1989; Schasse and Slaughter, 2005) and a site reconnaissance performed as part of this project. Soil exposures along the bluff provided partial views of soil stratigraphy from the beach. Because these views did not typically extend for the entire height of the bluff, our interpretation of soil stratigraphy is based on both the geologic maps and these partial views. Elevations of contacts between soil units should be considered approximate, particularly for higher portions of the bluff General characteristics of the strata that underlie the bluff exposures are described below. 4.1 General Geology Kala Point is located in the central portion of the Puget Lowland, which is an elongated,north- south depression situated between the Olympic Mountains and the Cascade Range. The Puget Lowland was subjected to six or more major glacial advances over the past several million years. The glaciations left an array of deposits that includes clay-, silt-, sand-, and/or gravel-size material. The ice sheets and their meltwater eroded and redeposited sediment deposited by previous glaciations and scoured the north-south-oriented troughs now occupied by Puget Sound. Alluvial, lake, and marine deposits accumulated during interglacial periods. Some of those 1111 deposits were also modified by subsequent glaciations. The most recent glaciation of the Puget Lowland, termed Vashon,took place between about 18,000 and 14,000 years ago. Deposits left by that glaciation include lacustrine, outwash, and till deposits. Till covers much of the upland on the Quimper Peninsula. The landscape continued to evolve after retreat of the ice approximately 14,000 years ago. The land rebounded and the waters of Puget Sound rose about 300 feet to their current position. Rising sea levels contributed to shoreline retreat(bluff erosion)and the formation of beaches and sand spits. Bluff retreat continues today. Bluff retreat is driven in large part by wave erosion at the bluff toe, leading to oversteepening and undercutting of the bluff face, and ultimately to failure of the bluff face as it returns to a more stable configuration (WDOE, 1994). The Geologic Map of the Port Townsend South and Part of the Port Townsend 7.5-minute Quadrangles (Schasse and Slaughter, 2005) indicates that the Kala Point development is underlain by Vashon till (Qgt)over Vashon advance outwash (Qga) (Figure 10). Holocene beach (Qb)deposits are mapped along the shoreline at the southern end of the development and 21-1-21634-001-Rlf.docx/wp/lkn 21-1-21634-001 • 6 S NON ONE 1 . • on the spit that forms Kala Point. Localized modified land(Qml), dune(Qd), and marsh(Qm) deposits are also mapped in the vicinity of Kala Point. In addition to the geologic units mentioned above, an area of Holocene landslide deposits(Qls) is mapped on a portion of the bluff just south of Kala Heights Drive. The mapped area appears to coincide with a prominent bench carved out of the bluff that extends for a distance of about 800 feet along the bluff at an elevation of approximately 150 feet(see Figure 3). While this bench may represent an ancient, deep-seated landslide scar, in our opinion, it is just as likely to be an erosional remnant from deglaciation. We did not observe areas of recent landslides of the scale required to generate such a large scar. However, shaking from a significant earthquake could have produced a much larger landslide than those we observed at the site. Potential earthquake sources are discussed further in Section 4.3. 4.2 Bluff Stratigraphy In this report,we adopt the geologic unit designations of Schasse and Slaughter(2005)described above, and include two additional units to encompass deposits observed in lower portions of the bluff face. The additional units are Vashon glaciolacustrine (Qgl) and pre-Vashon fluvial deposits (Qpf). 1111 Based on the geologic map of Schasse and Slaughter(2005) and our own observations during the site reconnaissance,the bluff stratigraphy at Kala Point consists of the following geologic units, listed from uppermost to lowermost: Qgt, Qga, Qgl, and Qpf(Figure 11). Characteristics of the four geologic units that comprise the bluff stratigraphy, and their distribution along the bluff, are described below. Photographs C-4 through C-7 in Appendix C show typical exposures of bluff stratigraphy at Kala Point. Quaternary lodgment till (Vashon stade) (Qgt)—Qgt represents lodgment till laid down at the base of glacial ice. While we were not able to observe Qgt deposits up close during our site reconnaissance (except in the bluffs of Fort Townsend State Park), the deposits typically consist of very dense, silty sand with variable amounts of gravel and scattered cobbles and boulders. The mapped bottom elevation of Qgt along the bluff ranges between 100 and 200 feet (Figure 10). Till typically has a very low permeability and may be overlain by a few feet of weathered till that has a slightly higher permeability. Quaternary advance outwash deposits(Vashon stade) (Qga)—Qga represents sediment deposited by streams emanating from glacial ice as it advanced through the Puget Lowland. Like the Qgt deposits, we were unable to observe Qga deposits closely during the site reconnaissance because IP 21-1-21634-001-Rlfdocx/wp/1kn 21-1-21634-001 7 S NON Y 11111 they were typically exposed 30 or more feet above the beach. However, from our observations from a distance and from our own experience, Qga deposits consist of dense to very dense stratified sand with variable amounts of silt and gravel. The mapped contact between Qga and overlying Qgt generally follows the bluff crest, except along Windship Drive. According to the geologic map of Schasse and Slaughter(2005), Qga underlies Windship Drive itself, and even extends slightly westward of the road. Quaternary glaciolacustrine deposits(Vashon stade)(Qgl)—Qgl represents deposits of fine- grained sediment that accumulated in a proglacial lake that occupied much of the Puget Lowland. In the bluff at Kala Point,the deposits appear as a layer of bedded, very stiff to hard silt and clay that underlies Qga. Locally,the layer is iron-oxide-stained. The layer appears to drop in elevation along the bluff;the bottom of the unit ranges from about elevation 30 feet at the north end of Kala Point to about 5 to 10 feet near the south end. The layer is typically 10 to 20 feet thick along the bluff. Quaternary pre-Vashon fluvial deposits(Qpf)—Qpf represents glacial or nonglacial fluvial deposits. At Kala Point,the deposits primarily consist of stratified, clean sand. The deposits underlie Qgl deposits and are observed at beach level along the bluff. The top elevation of the unit ranges from about 30 feet at the north end of Kala Point to about 5 to 10 feet near the south 1111 end. 4.3 Potential Earthquake Sources There are at least three potential sources of earthquakes that could result in significant ground motion at Kala Point that might trigger slope failures. These include the Cascadia Subduction Zone (CSZ), deep intraslab earthquakes, and shallow crustal earthquakes. The CSZ, which is the result of the active subduction of the Juan De Fuca Plate beneath the North American Plate, is believed to be capable of producing large mega-thrust(greater than magnitude 9.0) earthquakes. Deep intraslab earthquakes, which originate within the subducting Juan de Fuca Plate, have been the source of the largest historic earthquakes to affect the Puget Sound area. As the plate subducts beneath the North American Plate, stress and physical changes in the subducting plate produce high-angle normal faulting and earthquakes such as the 1949 Olympia, 1965 Seattle- Tacoma, and 2001 Nisqually events. These relatively deep (greater than 30 kilometers) events produced earthquakes between 6.5 and 7.1 in magnitude (Noson and others, 1988). 21-1-21634-OO1-Rlf.docx/wp/lkn 21-1-21634-001 • 8 S i. . IN • The nearest known potential source of shallow crustal earthquakes at Kala Point is the Southern Whidbey Island fault zone(SWIFZ), located approximately 4.5 miles northeast of the site. The SWIFZ is thought to have produced earthquakes on the order of magnitude 7.0 during the Holocene Epoch (Johnson and others,2004). 4.4 Coastal Processes Coastal processes in the vicinity of KPOA may contribute to slope instability and are discussed below. Providing a background understanding of the underlying principles at work alongshore will assist understanding physical processes and will aid in development of appropriate management strategies for KPOA. 4.4.1 Net Shore-drift and Drift Cells Shore drift is the combined effect of(a)longshore drift,the sediment transported along a coast in the nearshore waters, and(b)beach drift,the wave-induced motion of sediment on the beachface in an alongshore direction. While shore drift may vary in direction seasonally, net shore-drift is the long-term,net effect of shore drift occurring over a period of time along a particular coastal sector(Jacobsen and Schwartz, 1981). Drift cells are the discrete sediment • transport sectors from source to terminus along the shore expressing the net shore-drift direction. A drift cell is defined as consisting of three components: a site (erosional feature or river mouth) that serves as the sediment source and origin of a drift cell; a zone of primarily transport, where wave energy moves drift material alongshore; and an area of deposition that is the terminus of a drift cell. Deposition of sediment occurs where wave energy is no longer sufficient to transport the sediment in the drift cell. A typical model for this in the Puget Sound region is an eroding bluff as the source with an accretion beach or spit at the terminus. Net shore-drift was mapped in this region by Keuler(1988) for the U.S. Geological Survey. This mapping was later compiled and made available online by the WDOE at https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/coastalatlas2001/viewer.htm. A Puget Sound shoreline can contain several drift cells with different net shore-drift directions depending on the shore orientation, exposure, and prevailing and predominant winds. Drift cells with different net shore-drift directions can be separated by a divergence zone, or converge at a cuspate foreland, spit, or other similar geomorphic feature. The KPOA shore exhibits southeasterly drift from the state park bluffs north of KPOA extending southeast and terminating on the south side of Kala Point at the mouth of the lagoon. This is drift cell JEF-21, as mapped by Keuler(1988) (Figure 12). A relatively long divergence zone is present at the • 21-I-21634-001-Rlfdocx/wp/Ikn 21-1-21634-001 9 S NON WILSON,I • origins of drift cells JEF-22/JEF-21. The midsection of the divergence zone,which was taken as the origin or drift cell JEF-21, is just north of the northern KPOA boundary. Divergence zones are characteristically more erosive and subjected to mass wasting than other parts of the drift cell as they are typically more exposed to direct wave attack. It should be noted that original mapping by Keuler(1988)of net shore-drift included a"convergence zone"that was centered on Kala Point. This data was modified by CGS such that drift cell JEF-21 extended around to the south beach of Kala Point to the tide channel,where it meets the terminus of the short drift cell JEF-20,rather than ending at the(northern)base of Kala Point. This alteration makes the data consistent with other mapping around the Puget Sound region. 4.4.2 Shoretypes and Feeder Bluffs at Kala Point Owners' Association (KPOA) Coastal landforms have been characterized throughout the Puget Sound region for the PSNERP through development of a shore typology(Shipman, 2008). Puget Sound-wide mapping of these characterized landforms was conducted in a more recent study for PSNERP known as the Historical Change of Puget Sound Shorelines, or the"Change Analysis" (Simenstad and others, 2011).According to this mapping, bluff-backed beaches,barrier beaches, and barrier lagoons are all present along the KPOA community shoreline (Figure 11). Coastal bluffs are mapped as"bluff-backed beaches,"defined as a beach backed by a steep bank or slope • rising from the shoreline, generally formed by erosion of relatively poorly consolidated material (as compared to bedrock) such as glacially overridden sediments. Beach areas away from bluffs have been termed"barrier beaches in this typology. A typical barrier beach consists of a gently sloping zone of unconsolidated sediment in the absence of a coastal bluff and transported by waves,wind, and tidal currents. Barrier beach was mapped from the south end of Windship Drive and also along the entire shore of Kala Point(also called Kuhn Spit) (Figure 12 and Photographs C-8 and C-9, in Appendix C). The shallow,tidal body of water and salt marsh in the interior of Kala Point was mapped as a"barrier lagoon." The bluffs present along the KPOA shoreline are prone to erosion. These bluffs are an essential component of the sediment transport system which supplies sediment to down-drift beaches, spits, and other barrier beaches/accretion shoreforms. Bluff sediment input,primarily glacially-deposited units, is the primary source of beach sediment in Puget Sound and the Northern Straits (Downing, 1983;Johannessen and MacLennan, 2007). Named for their role providing sediment down-drift,these"feeder bluffs"provide sediment that forms and maintains ecologically diverse and important nearshore habitats. When the supply of sediment from feeder bluffs is cut off by installation of shore armor or other structures,these habitats can be negatively impacted (Johannessen, 2010; Simenstad and others,2011). 21-1-21634-001-RIf.docx/wp/lkn 21-1-21634-001 • 10 �- MMLSON,INC • 4.4.3 Fetch and Wave-induced Erosion Fetch is the distance over which wind-generated waves are produced and can determine the relative impacts of wave-induced erosion that affects coastal bluffs throughout the Puget Sound region. The greater the fetch,the more likely the bluff toe is affected by wave-induced erosion. The greatest fetch from the southerly quadrant, which is the direction of both the prevailing(most common)and predominant(highest velocity)winds, is an important indicator of the wave energy at the site. The longest southerly quadrant fetch for the study area is approximately 2.7 miles from the southeast, from the southern shore of Indian Island. The study area is not exposed to wind-generated waves from the south or southwest, as the spit shelters the bluff shore from waves from these directions. The greatest fetch distance affecting the study site is approximately 9 miles from the northeast, across Admiralty Inlet. However,northeast winds of high velocity are uncommon in the eastern Jefferson County region. These fetch distances generally place the study area in the lower end of the"moderate"wave energy environment in terms of a general Puget Sound characterization. 4.4.4 Toe Erosion at Kala Point Owners' Association (KPOA) Coastal bluffs are subjected to wave attack at the toe of the of the bluff,which contributes • to intermittent bluff retreat through mass wasting events, such as landslides, slumps, and/or debris avalanches. Landslides are also initiated by hydrologic processes and land use/development changes, as noted in later sections of this report. However, it must be noted that wave attack is a persistent, long-term driving force in coastal bluff failures,which may be exacerbated with projected sea level rise. The degree of toe erosion of the bluff is dependent upon exposure, or fetch (see above Section,4.4.3). Intermittent bluff failure occurs as the bluff becomes undercut or oversteepened. Bluff toe erosion was observed intermittently throughout the bluff-backed beach portions of the KPOA shoreline study area(see Figure 12), and was also evident in the state park bluffs farther north. Toe erosion diminished upon approaching the barrier beach and south toward Kala Point. Identifying characteristics of wave-induced toe erosion include obvious, straightforward signs such as undercuts of a few inches to up to a foot at the base of the bluff(Photograph C-5 in Appendix C). More subtle signs of toe erosion included areas scoured out behind tree root lattices(Photograph C-10 in Appendix C) and stripping of low hanging vegetation from overhanging shrubs and trees in a 1-to 2-foot-high band at the base of the bluff (Photograph C-11, in Appendix C). In some areas, colluvium and vegetation acted as a buffer to • 21-1-21634001-RlfdocxwpAkn 21-1-21634-001 11 s �I • erosion of the actual intact bluff formations and, in other areas,recent erosion of colluvium (and bluff failures) shows the result of this process. 4.5 Groundwater/Seepage We observed localized areas of seepage from the bluff face during the site reconnaissance. Stratigraphically,the seepage consistently emanates from the bluff at the contact between Qga (sand unit)and the underlying Qgl (silt and clay unit) (Figure 11). Seepage appeared as water dripping down the exposed face of the Qgl (Photographs C-6 and C-12, in Appendix C), or simply as patches of exposed face that appeared more damp than the surrounding soil. Seepage was primarily observed in the lower 30 to 40 feet of the bluff face. 4.6 Vegetation Vegetation cover on the bluff ranges from nonexistent to dense. Areas with little to no vegetation occur where recent landsliding or bluff toe erosion has stripped vegetation or where slopes are simply too steep to permit or maintain substantial growth. Patches of water-loving vegetation (such as colts foot and cow parsnip)have grown on some of the exposed faces in areas of seepage. These areas are most common north of the southern end of Windship Drive. Vegetated areas of the bluff are covered by varying concentrations of conifers(such as western • red cedar and Douglas fir), deciduous trees(alder, madrona, and bigleaf maple), fern, Himalayan blackberry, and salmonberry. Vegetation density and type along the top of the bluff are highly variable. Table 1 presents vegetation cover descriptions for the five bluff zones discussed in Section 5.4 below. Areas with the least vegetation are adjacent to Windship Drive and Kala Heights Drive. These residential backyard areas typically are landscaped or grassy with a variable width buffer of low, shrub vegetation (such as salal) immediately adjacent to the bluff, and scattered conifers and madrona. Other areas along the top of the bluff have moderate densities of mature conifers and madrona, with underbrush consisting primarily of blackberry and salal. In summary, our observation is that the near-bluff upland area can be divided into thirds: (a) grass-covered, (b) landscaped with plants and containing sprinkler pipes, and (c)wild or native vegetation. Tree removal,topping, and/or windowing have been practiced to some degree in most areas along the Kala Point bluff since development began. 21-1-21634-001-Rlfdocx/wp/Ikn 21-1-21634-001 11110 12 • 5.0 HISTORIC AND CURRENT SLOPE INSTABILITY The following sections discuss what is currently known about bluff instability at Kala Point from existing maps and reports, aerial photographs, and from our observations during the site reconnaissance. 5.1 Existing Maps and Reports that Address Bluff Instability Miller and others(1985)mapped the stability of slopes in the Port Townsend 30'x 60' quadrangle, including the slopes that comprise the bluff at Kala Point(Figure 2). They assigned classifications to the slopes based on slope steepness, soil type, and instability type. Most of the bluff along the Kala Point development is designated as Class 2,which includes coarse granular deposits, slopes that range from 15 to 30 percent but locally greater, and the potential for failures resulting from wave erosion or the introduction of water from above due to development(such as from septic systems and drainage outfalls). The northernmost portion of the KPOA bluff is designated as Class 3,which includes slopes greater than 15 percent(locally exceeding 40 percent), fine-grained soil (including sand, silt, and clay), and the potential for natural failure of permeable (sandy) units that are overlain by impermeable units(e.g., silt and clay). • Slope stability of the bluffs at Kala Point is also mapped in the Coastal Zone Atlas of Washington for Jefferson County(WDOE, 1978). This map shows that the bluff along the entire length of the Kala Point development is considered unstable. Areas of recent landsliding (1978 and earlier, at the time the map was produced)were mapped on the slope below Kala Heights Drive, and locally between Seaview Court and Windship Drive. Jefferson County provides online maps of critical areas that include a map showing landslide hazards (Jefferson County critical areas map, accessed January 30, 2012). The map for the bluff adjacent to the Kala Point development shows that slight to high landslide hazards are present for nearly the entire length of the bluff. Areas with high landslide hazards on the bluff are mapped at the north end of Kala Heights Drive and between Seaview Court and the south end of Windship Drive. Several geotechnical reports have discussed stability along specific portions of the bluff(Neil H. Twelker&Associates, Inc. [Twelker],1981; Shannon& Wilson, Inc., 2006; Stratum Group, 2006; and Landau, 2010). While the reports differ in scope,there is general agreement that portions of the bluff are unstable and that landslides and bluff retreat can be expected to continue in the future. Collectively,the reports suggest that factors contributing to slope instability at Kala Point include oversteepening due to toe erosion,hydrology, and stratigraphy. 21-1-21634-001-Rlsaocx/,pilx» 21-1-21634-001 13 S NON 6W1 • 5.2 Historic Instability from Aerial Photo Analysis 5.2.1 Methods of Analysis Aerial photos were acquired from KPOA and CGS files;the aerial photos used for purposes of this report are listed below in Table 1. Historic aerial photos from 1942, 1957, 1976, 1985, 1993, and 1997 were georeferenced in geographic information systems to inventory and assess changes in development in the vicinity of KPOA and the relative slope stability of different areas of the bluff(Figure 9). Current orthorectified aerial photos from 2005, 2006, and 2009 from Jefferson County were also assessed and it was determined that the 2005 photo offered the highest resolution and did not appear to vary in terms of bluff conditions from the 2009 image. Therefore, the 2005 photo was used to show current conditions for this analysis. Historic aerial photos were georeferenced in ArcGIS, using the Jefferson County orthorectified aerial photo base from 2005. At least seven control points were used in a step- wise georeferencing process. The root mean square was kept below 5. It should be noted that historic aerial photographs were georeferenced rigorously to the bluff crest study area. However, the georeferenced aerial photographs are not as accurate as desired for the lower bluff and beach area due to: (a)the relatively low resolution at the • 1:24,000 scale of the historic photos received from KPOA, (b)the lack of stable control points at beach level in earlier aerial photos, (c)the distortion of the images from the uplands to the beach (caused by the fact that they are not taken truly vertically), and(d)radial lens distortion. These images are very useful for assessing the relative frequency of bluff failures, but spatial accuracy may not be consistently reliable. Landslides from each historic aerial photo and the 2005 aerial photo were digitized to assess frequency of bluff failures throughout the study area. The very early T-sheet(#0581) from 1856 had symbology that resembled landslides(Figure 8). These apparent landslides were also digitized, except for the southernmost feature (along present-day central Windship Drive), which appeared to resemble a drainage feature. Typically,the symbols for"eroded bank"would be used to identify bluff instability mapped from the T-sheet;however, T-sheet#0581 was so old that federal mapping methods were not standardized at the time(methods and maps from the 1870s onwards were more consistent). 21-1-21634-001-Rlf.docx/wp/Ikn 21-1-21634-001 14 NON 6WI o N.I • 5.2.2 Development Chronology Several successive changes were made throughout the residential development of Kala Point. The aerial photographs in Table 2 were chosen based on a time interval of 10 to 20 years that is sufficient to build a chronology of development and landslide history along the Kala Point bluff.These changes,based on observations from selected aerial photos are summarized in Table 2 below. The photographs are presented in Figure 9. 5.2.3 Historic Landslide Mapping Landslides were mapped for the 1856 T-sheet, each of the selected historic aerial photos, and the current 2005 aerial photo to assess relative landslide frequency along the Kala Point bluff (Figure 4). Historic landslides were most common in the northernmost reach (north end of Kala Heights Drive)and several areas in the north-central bluff area, including on both sides of the remnant ravine located just north of Windship Drive. Historic landslides were not observed just southeast of the southern end of the large mid-slope bench or along several portions of Windship Drive from these data sources. It should be noted that a long time period did not have data (between 1856-1942). The 1957-1976 period was the longest interval between the historical photographs. Vegetation could have obscured landslides that occurred soon after the aerial 4111 photos were taken, prior to the next available image. According to historic aerial photos, four specific areas with a high density of landslide activity(mostly since 1942)were present along the subject study bluff. They were(a)the northern 400 feet of the property, (b) a zone 800 to 1,300 feet south of the north property line, (c) in a small area approximately 350 feet north of the remnant ravine, and (d) a larger area between 100 and 400 feet south of the remnant ravine(Figure 4). Much of the mapped historic landslides appeared to be limited to the lower portion of the bluff face, with some extending to near the bluff crest. 5.3 Recent Instability from Reconnaissance Observations We observed several different types of mass wasting and erosion of bluff soils along the Kala Point development during our field reconnaissance. Mass wasting involves the downslope movement of soil due to gravitational forces, and encompasses both large-scale movement such as shallow rotational landslides and small-scale movement such as soil creep or fall. At Kala Point, these processes appear to arise primarily from toe erosion of the base of the bluff, leading to oversteepening of the lower bluff face. The factors causing slope instability and mass wasting • 21-1-21634-001-Rlf.docxwp/lkn 21-1-21634-001 15 S NON&WILSON,INC • at Kala Point are discussed in greater detail in Section 7.0. In this section, we describe the types of instability that we observed along the bluff. 5.3.1 Shallow Rotational Landslides The most prominent form of mass wasting along the bluff at Kala Point is shallow rotational landsliding(see Photographs C-13 through C-16 in Appendix C). The unstable slopes range in height from 40 to 100 feet above beach level, and range in width from a few tens of feet to nearly 100 feet. While the steepness of the bluff prohibited direct measurement of landslide depths,they appear to range in depth between 5 to 10 feet. The landslides appear mostly to initiate in, and incorporate, advance outwash sand(Qga). They bottom out either at the contact between Qga and Qgl, or slightly below. The bluff below the base of the landslides,which includes exposures of Qgl and Qpf, is commonly near vertical, except where it is concealed by colluvium and/or landslide debris. The lack of colluvium and/or landslide debris at the base of many actively unstable areas along the bluff reflects, at least in part,the active nature of toe erosion and its ability to outpace deposition at the bluff toe. Several generations of landsliding were apparent during our beach reconnaissance, which is consistent with our findings from the aerial photo analysis. Particularly in the central portion • of the bluff in the vicinity of Windship Drive and the greenbelt north of Windship Dive(remnant ravine),we observed landslides that looked recent due to the fresh appearance of exposed soil and accumulation of soil and woody debris at the toe that had yet to be removed by wave action. In other areas,we observed landslides that looked slightly older because vegetation had begun to reestablish on the faces of exposed soil, and the mass of soil deposited on the beach as a result of sliding had been removed by wave action. In still other areas,we observed fairly well-vegetated, arcuate-shaped areas of the hillside that probably represent older landslides. 5.3.2 Block Fall We observed block fall in numerous areas along the toe of the bluff, either in the form of accumulations of blocks at the bluff toe or portions of the bluff that appeared to have blocks of soil missing from exposed faces (Photograph C-4, in Appendix C). While this form of mass wasting at Kala Point is relatively small scale compared to the shallow rotational landslides, over time it contributes to bluff toe retreat, promotes slope undercutting, and may lead to landsliding of the upper slope. Block fall at the site is limited to the Qgl (silt and clay) deposit. This deposit lends itself to block fall because it consists of hard, laminated, cohesive layers that behave similarly to a brittle,relatively soft rock, such as shale. 21-1-21634-001-Rlf docx/wpilkn 21-1-21634-001 • 16 S •_.. bWILSON.11C • 5.3.3 Erosion and Shallow Sloughing of Exposed Soil Faces During our reconnaissance,we observed active small-scale erosion of soil on exposed bluff faces and existing rills indicative of recent surface erosion. The cause of active erosion observed during our visit was water seeping out of the faces(typically at the Qga/Qgl contact), flowing down the bluff face, and entraining and transporting soil particles downslope. Similar erosion of exposed portions of the bluff face may occur as a result of rainstorms. Erosion of exposed bluff faces probably contributes to long-term bluff retreat, albeit on a small scale compared to landslide events. We also observed shallow sloughing of sand exposures. Such sloughing was most apparent in vertical exposures of Qpf, which are most common at the north end of the Kala Point development where the deposits rise to nearly 30 feet above beach level. Where this sand is exposed to wave attack at beach level, it is easily eroded. Removal of this soil can result in undermining of the overlying clay and block falls of this fine-grained layer. 5.3.4 Soil Creep We observed evidence of soil creep on the steep, vegetated portions of the bluff in the form of pistol-butted (or bowed)trees. Soil creep involves the slow, downward translation of • surficial soils on steep slopes under the influence of gravity. 5.4 Bluff Zones at Kala Point We divided the bluff along the Kala Point development into five separate bluff zones, each of which has a unique set of characteristics. The locations of Bluff Zones 1 through 5, numbered from north to south, are shown in the Site Plan (Figure 2). The characteristics used to distinguish the bluff zones include: bluff profile, geology, seepage,vegetation cover, slope inclination, uphill land use, field observed instability and erosion, and failure modes. Detailed descriptions of the characteristics of each of the bluff zones are included in Table 1 —Characteristics of Bluff Zones at Kala Point. Generalized summaries of instability and erosion observed within the five bluff zones are presented below. 5.4.1 Bluff Zone 1 Bluff Zone 1 is the northernmost of the five bluff zones. It is approximately 350 feet long and extends southward from the boundary of Fort Townsend State Park with Kala Point. The zone includes the bluff along the northern portion of Kala Heights Drive. Recent instability within this bluff zone is characterized by relatively light sloughing of Qpf sand. We observed at . 2 1-1-2 1 634-001-R l fdocx/wp/lkn 21-1-21634-001 17 it L a • least one area that may represent an old slide. While we did not observe evidence of recent landsliding in this zone,neighbors reported recent down-dropping of a portion of the top of the bluff. Currently,there is an approximately 10-foot-high, 50-foot-wide,near-vertical scarp at the top of the slope that may represent the top of a shallow rotational landslide. Current erosion in Bluff Zone 1 is relatively minor, possibly due to the presence of a natural armor of colluvium and large woody debris at the bluff toe and the slightly lower exposure to waves from the north,relative to other zones. We observed several corrugated polyvinyl chloride(PVC)pipes extending down the bluff face in Bluff Zone 1 (Photograph C-17 in Appendix C). 5.4.2 Bluff Zone 2 Bluff Zone 2 extends for a distance of about 900 feet south of Bluff Zone 1. The zone is downslope of the southern portion of Kala Heights Drive. Similar to Bluff Zone 1, we did not observe evidence of recent landslides; however,the presence of at least one old landslide scar suggests that they have occurred in this zone. The most common form of instability in Bluff Zone 2 appears to be sloughing and block fall from steep, exposed faces in the lower bluff. Locally, toe erosion along Bluff Zone 2 has eroded, or is in the process of eroding, colluvium • and woody debris that has accumulated at the toe. We observed corrugated PVC and HDPE pipes extending down the bluff face at the northern end of Bluff Zone 2 (Photograph C-18, in Appendix C). 5.4.3 Bluff Zone 3 Bluff Zone 3 extends for a distance of about 1,300 feet south of Bluff Zone 2 and includes the area downslope of Kala Point Drive between about Seaview Court and the greenbelt (remnant ravine)north of Windship Drive. We observed numerous recent shallow rotational landslides in Bluff Zone 3. The landslides extend between about 40 and 80 feet above beach level. The landslides generally mobilized Qga sand deposits and extended downslope to the contact with Qgl silt and clay deposits. Below this contact, the bluff features near-vertical exposures of Qgl and Qpf that are locally obscured by colluvium and woody debris. Bluff Zone 3 exhibited greater toe erosion than other zones and greater exposure of the lower bluff. 21-1-21634-OO1-Rlf docx/wp/Ikn 21-1-21634-001 18 LON,INC. • 5.4.4 Bluff Zone 4 Bluff Zone 4 extends for a distance of about 700 feet south of Bluff Zone 3 and includes the area downslope of the northern part of Windship Drive. Bluff Zone 4 appears to be the most unstable of the five zones; recent landslides extend between about 50 to 100 feet above beach level along nearly the entire length of this zone. The landslides extend nearly to the top of the bluff in places along this zone. We observed recent block fall from the Qgl layer, sloughing of sand units, as well as active erosion of exposed sand in the toe of the bluff face. Toe erosion is prevalent in Bluff Zone 4. 5.4.5 Bluff Zone 5 Bluff Zone 5 includes the area south of Bluff Zone 4 to the southern limit of the Kala Point development. Aside from minor sloughing of exposed faces at the far northern portion of Bluff Zone 5, we did not observe evidence of recent instability in this zone. The zone is mostly a barrier beach and encompasses the backshore coastal wetland and the spit at Kala Point. Dunegrass and small and large drift logs are present along this section of shoreline. Only very minor toe erosion was observed in the north end of Zone 5 as it nears the more active Zone 4. • 6.0 FACTORS CONTROLLING SLOPE STABILITY AT KALA POINT Coastal bluffs of the Puget Lowland are in various states of instability owing to four primary factors that have been ongoing since the disappearance of glacial ice about 14,000 years ago and subsequent sea level rise to its present level about 4,500 to 5,000 years ago. • At the end of the Vashon stade, slopes were left in a steep and unstable condition when the ice buttressing the uplands melted. • The glacial sediments deposited prior to and during the last glacial episode contained interbedded layers of high and low permeability,resulting in the perching of groundwater and its delivery to steep slopes. • Climatic conditions result in a pronounced five-month winter wet season from November through March. • Shorelines are attacked by waves, causing erosion at the toe of steep slopes. In addition to the natural factors of slope destabilization,the imprint of human development has had an impact on the frequency of landsliding in the Puget Lowland. Two studies (Tubbs, 1974; Shannon &Wilson, 2000) found that more than 70 percent of reported landslides had some human influence in their causation. Those causes may be direct and obvious, such as road • 21-1-21634-001-Rlf.docxwpflkn 21-1-21634-001 19 S NON&WILSON,I • sidecast failures, or indirect and difficult to discern, such as the removal of vegetation from adjacent property. Nevertheless,when looking at the big picture,revisions of the natural landscape by drainage rearrangement, grading, and vegetation removal undoubtedly result in an increase of slope instability. In our site-specific study at Kala Point,we have identified several factors that appear to control the stability of the shoreline bluff along the eastern side of the residential development. These are listed below, in our professional opinion, in order of relative importance. (1) Seepage at the contact between the silt/clay layer and overlying sand is one of the main factors for slope instability at Kala Point. As discussed above, seepage was observed to be widespread at this contact;more heavily at the slope to the east of Windship Drive. In some cases,the instability appears to have been a large event extending from the bottom to far up the slope; however, for the most part, the failures are progressive,that is, in small pieces,typically advancing upslope intermittently. (2) Wave attack at the base of the slope undermines the toe of the slope. The fetch for most of the storms that hit the Kala Point shoreline is limited, as it is protected from the south, southwest, and west by the Quimper Peninsula and Kala Point. The fetch from the southeast is limited by Indian Island. Despite the limited amount of long fetch,there is plenty of field evidence that slope toe erosion is occurring here. The • toe of the slope consists of a 10-to 20-foot-thick layer of clay and silt overlying a 2-to 30-foot-thick layer of sand. Because the sand is relatively clean,that is, it contains little silt or clay binder, it is easily eroded by waves. When the sand is removed, the overlying hard silt and clay stratum is then undermined. Because the silt/clay is jointed, it fails as blocks onto the beach. This has the effect of reducing support for the overlying sand. (3) Increased infiltration of water into the ground is likely another factor contributing to slope instability. Sources of such water at Kala Point could be increased rainfall infiltration from the removal of natural canopy on the upland(reduction of interception and evapotranspiration), septic system infiltration,potential water system leakage, landscape irrigation, and storm drainage delivery. Natural slope instability is common in the vicinity where similar geologic conditions occur. For instance, in the still-densely forested Fort Townsend State Park. However,the sources listed above can increase the delivery of water to the sand aquifer on the bluff above the natural background level. (4) Geologic conditions on the upland appear to exacerbate the instability of the slopes in certain regions. As shown in the geologic map (Figure 10), much of the upland is underlain at a shallow depth by till,a relatively impermeable deposit. Although much of the water from rain and other sources is likely to perch on the till, some 21-1-21634-001-R1£docx/wp/Ikn 21-1-21634-001 • 20 . NMANILSOKIPC S may infiltrate into the underlying aquifer through windows or cracks in the till. The till surface is very likely inclined to the east and delivers water perched on it toward the bluff. Figure 10 also shows that the till cap stops at the edge of the bluff in the northern half of Kala Point. This geologic condition would deliver perched water into the soils on the steep slope. In the case of Windship Drive and southward along the bluff,the till cap terminates a few hundred feet to the west of the bluff crest. This provides another opportunity for entry of surface water to enter the aquifer on the upland surface. (5) Although no point sources of leaking water or sewer utilities have been identified, it is common for such occurrences to be present in a utility system. These also add water to the aquifer. 7.0 CONCLUSIONS REGARDING SLOPE STABILITY AT KALA POINT Slope instability on the steep, eastern slopes of Kala Point is a natural process;however, in our opinion,this instability has been exacerbated by development of residences and infrastructure. Causative destabilizing factors involve the toe of the slope at the shoreline,the steep slope, and the upland. The destabilizing factors at the shoreline,namely wave attack and the geologic conditions, are not candidates for remediation, in our opinion, owing to the expense of remediation, its lack of effectiveness in completely solving the problem, and difficulty in maintaining the shore protection. In other words, stabilizing the toe of the slope will only prevent erosion of the toe,not the instability of the upper sand slope. Additionally, installation of shore protection would be highly problematic in terms of local, state, and potentially federal permitting. There is a plethora of woody debris on the beach now due to previous landslides. This wood presently provides some level of protection to the toe of the slope locally,but will eventually degrade and/or float away. In our opinion,the water supply wells at Kala Point have no impact, either positively or negatively, on slope instability. Well nos. 1 and 2 are not located in an area where slope instability has been active, and they have not been active for more than 40 years. Well nos. 3 and 4 are drawing water from about 200 or more feet below sea level;not the aquifer that is contributing to slope instability at Kala Point. Slope regression cannot be eliminated at Kala Point with reasonable methods and expense, in our opinion. This was taken into account by the original developer of the site in recommendations by Neil H.Twelker&Associates(Twelker, 1981). Twelker recommended that a"zone of jeopardy"of 30 feet be applied for purposes of"relatively uniform retreat of the sea cliff." He II/ 21-1-21634-001-Rlfdocx/wp/lkn 21-1-21634-001 21 S NON N,N • also cautioned that"seismically induced slope failure could conceivably extend 50 to as much as 100 feet onto the upland surface." Typical, measured bluff recession rates for similar sites in the Port Townsend and northern Oak Bay area range between 1.6 to 3.5 inches per year(in/yr) (Keuler 1988). Measured erosion rates for bluff sites with similar wave fetches around north Puget Sound(through work by CGS) generally range between 1.5 and 3 in/yr, or as much as 2.5 feet in a decade. On-site bluff recession rates could not be determined due to the presence of overhanging vegetation and shading on the bluff face and toe at the site. Bluff toe erosion is not constant, but instead is episodic, although not to the degree that bluff failures are episodic. These rates are not high erosion rates, compared to some other regions of the Puget Sound, but do add up over time. As the landslide mapping and field reconnaissance revealed, bluff instability has been primarily on the lower and middle elevations of the bluff face in recent decades.This has resulted in an over-steepened bluff profile and the slope of the bluff will not likely become much steeper without bluff failures becoming more common on the upper bluff and at the bluff crest. Therefore, it is possible that the upper bluff will be somewhat more active in the coming few decades. Based on our experience and state of geologic knowledge 30 years later, we concur with Twelker's conclusions. In 1997, a large deep-seated landslide at Woodway,just south of • Edmonds, failed catastrophically into Puget Sound, resulting in a 50-to 75-foot retreat of the bluff. Other such similar scars of ancient landslides are observed along Puget Sound shorelines. In addition to such groundwater-driven slope failures,the U.S. Geological Survey has made us aware of the presence of the SWIFZ, a strand of which is only about 4.5 miles from Kala Point. A strong earthquake on this fault could induce large-scale slope failures, similar to Twelker's estimate. In our opinion,the removal of vegetation to create the upland residential development is likely to have increased the frequency of landsliding. The degree of increase is impossible to deduce, as the amount of groundwater rise and the direction of movement of groundwater cannot be known without a long-term study, based on a large array of groundwater monitoring wells. Such a study would be expensive and, in the end, could be inconclusive. We recognize that widespread planting of large trees and undergrowth is not likely,because one of the prized amenities of residing at Kala Point is the easterly marine and mountain view. There are some vegetation remedial measures that can be implemented to reduce the amount of water that infiltrates;they are presented below. One benefit that vegetation is not likely to provide is 21-1-21634-OO1-R1Edocx/wp/Ikn 21-1-21634-001 • 22 e NON&WILSON,I • root reinforcement to prevent shallow landsliding. Shallow slope failures do not appear to be a common mode of instability, so using vegetation for that purpose would be effort ill spent. With regard to direct water infiltration due to infrastructure,there are few opportunities to reduce impacts to the steep slopes;however, some suggestions are offered below to increase interception of rainfall and evapotranspiration. 8.0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR REDUCING SLOPE INSTABILITY Several strategies may reduce the impact of human development on the stability of the bluff at Kala Point. None of them singularly or in combination is going to stop the recession of the top of the bluff; however, they may reduce the frequency of landsliding and the rate of recession. The two categories of mitigation are water control and vegetation management. Water control could include: • Discontinuation or a major reduction of irrigation of landscaping on the bluff-top properties. This would involve a change in plantings (discussed below) and removal of irrigation lines. The plantings should be consistent with the recommendations discussed below and capable of surviving without continued watering. It may be 11111 necessary to provide drip irrigation or hand watering initially,but this should be discontinued as soon as the plants are healthy. Existing irrigation lines should be capped and decommissioned so accidents do not result in an accidental release of water near the bluff top. Other areas within the first few residential tiers of the bluff should also consider a lower usage of outdoor irrigation. Specific targets for these water reduction measures are the four areas identified in Section 5.2.3 of this report. • Other targets for reduction of water infiltration would include periodic evaluation of sewer pipes and water lines. Periodic inspection or testing should be performed. If breaks or leaks are found, they should be repaired as soon as possible. It has been our experience that common corrugated plastic drain pipes that carry residential storm water are frequently damaged or destroyed, causing release of water on the steep slope. We recommend that these be replaced as they become dysfunctional with HDPE pipes that have a good track record on steep and unstable slopes. • Other measures discussed in the 2011 Draft Management Plan (KPOA, 2011). There is no guarantee that vegetation management will prevent or lessen slope failures; however, vegetative cover is more likely to help if the following principles are implemented. i21-1-21634-001-Rlf.docx/wp/lkn 21-1-21634-001 I, 23 • 9.0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR EXISTING VEGETATION • Dense vegetation should be established between the bluff crest and residences. Considering the annual rainfall regime, vegetation types, and wind conditions, forest cover is more effective in intercepting rain and preventing infiltration than grass cover(Bauer and Mastin, 1997; Beyeriein, 1999; Hinman, 2005). Therefore,we recommend that grass lawns be reduced on the first row of residences along the bluff crest; no larger than several hundred square feet per property. Vegetation should be dense and structurally diversified,consisting of small trees of varied species, shrubs, and ground cover. Native species typically survive better than others and do not require irrigation. • It is unlikely that residents will want to incorporate many large trees, such as Douglas fir, western red cedar, or western hemlock, which would block scenic views. Additionally,their presence near the edge of the bluff could eventually contribute to the loss of 10 to 20 feet of upland when they become mature and fall. If larger species are selected on or near the steep slopes,western red cedar and Douglas fir are the suitable trees in terms of root strength and stability. Hemlock and grand/white fir are not as desirable. • For existing trees, and for new trees when they have matured, management by windowing of the lower limbs is far more preferable than topping. For site-specific species selection, we recommend that the KPOA consult a certified arborist and/or • publications of the WDOE that are dedicated to vegetation and steep slopes (WDOE, 1993a and 1993b). • Shrubs and small trees should also be planted in areas of opportunity on the steep slope below the bluff crest. Such vegetation may move along with the underlying soil if future landsliding occurs, but its rainfall interception capability may be beneficial to the slope. Fibrous-rooted, native species of shrubs can provide a dense root network that will survive in these challenging conditions and can help stabilize surficial soils. Madronas may be particularly suitable for the sand that is ubiquitous on these steep slopes;however,they may partially block views, so they should be planted where they will not block those views. Consideration must be given to the safety of workers on the slope during planting. On slopes steeper than 70 to 80 percent, it may be dangerous to work even with safety ropes, and vegetation is unlikely to take hold where the slopes are presently bare and slopes exceed these inclinations. • We do not recommend remedial vegetative measures on the lower slopes, as their stability is a function of deeper groundwater emergence at the clay/sand contact and undermining of the slope by wave action. • In areas where large trees are currently at the edge of the steep slope and instability is undermining their foundations (such as when the trees show evidence of lift of the landward-side roots),we recommend that the tree be cut and its stump and rootwad 21-1-21634-001-Rlf.docx/wp/lkn 21-1-21634-001 • 24 S LscN,INC • be left in place. This is likely to prevent the loss of the upland surface for up to about a decade, as the roots knit the soil together. In conjunction with such action, it is imperative that a revegetation plan be implemented to replace the interception and transpiration qualities of the cut tree. Although bluff crest recession can be monitored to some degree by CPS points (post- processing is required to achieve suitable accuracy), it may also be helpful to establish monitoring points with stakes. Distances to the edge of bluff can be hand measured once a year, or after a landslide event,to create a record. Those areas that are good candidates for monitoring include Windship Drive, Kala Heights Drive, Seaview Court, and Nantucket Place. 10.0 LIMITATIONS The interpretations, analyses, and conclusions contained in this report are based on site conditions as they existed during our site visits, our interpretation of site geology, information provided to us by the KPOA,personal interviews, documents reviewed, and our experience in the Puget Lowland. We further assume that soil exposures are representative of the subsurface conditions throughout the site. If there is a substantial lapse of time between the submission of this report and the start of work at the site, or if conditions have changed because of natural forces or construction operations at or adjacent to the site,we recommend that this report be • reviewed to determine the applicability of the conclusions and recommendations, considering the changed conditions and time lapse. The conceptual recommendations given in this report are intended to suggest measures that might be undertaken to address areas of slope movement along the eastern edge of the Kala Point residential development. Damage caused by slope instability is a risk that owners must be prepared to accept,particularly those along the bluff. In addition to natural factors(heavy precipitation, steep topography, seismic shaking, and soil and groundwater conditions), other risks include water leaks, pipe breaks, improper or inappropriately redirected drainage, lack of maintenance for drains or vegetative cover, filling or saturation at the top of the slope, record rain or snow falls, or other actions, events, or unknown conditions that could cause slope instability. Our scope of services did not include any environmental assessment or evaluation regarding the presence or absence of wetlands or hazardous or toxic material in the soil, surface water, groundwater, or air on or below or around the site. This report was prepared for the exclusive use of KPOA for the planning and design of mitigation of slope stability issues along the coastal bluff. It should be made available to • 21-1-21634-001-R1f.docx/wp/Ikn 21-1-21634-001 25 t-4•IANI.N.1 ' '-`-- !' - - planning agencies, other designers and engineers, prospective contractors, and/or the Contractor for information based on factual data only, and not as a warranty of subsurface conditions, such as those interpreted from observations of the ground surface that are presented in this report. Shannon&Wilson, Inc. has prepared Appendix D,"Important Information About Your Geotechnical Report,"to assist you and others in understanding the use and limitations of our reports. SHANNON& WILSON,INC. .,, v...e Wasb40 --Wa$ '- oi . 0(Was ''1.-- at. ....qt.?. ' . .,...110.i.7*."41, ',. kit.414 11 3 •j',N,i .1%.1 ..4111.1111111r ' i VW, . ■ ' / '31:4;// 2— r th....41 It*peering Geolotst \ 111 ,F,-;'."/ ) Engineering A ,, * O 353 ,--S' S. "I ----°‘.0 — 7s ; -0, , ,- ---..., ---, —........„:-,---- 'S'eti_m_Ge:: _,,,,- William Thomas Laprade i , f ,.. 1 James W.Johannessen William T. Laprade, L.E.G. James Johannessen, L.E.G. III Shannon&Wilson, Inc. Coastal Geologic Services Senior Vice President President PHZ:WTL: JJ:SW/phz This report is a joint effort of Shannon&Wilson, Inc.and Coastal Geologic Services,Inc. The fieldwork was shared by both companies. Offshore photographs and the bluff-top GPS points were accomplished by CGS. Beach geologic reconnaissance was performed by S&W. The aerial photographic retrieval and analysis was accomplished by CGS. The report was prepared by S&W and reviewed by CGS. 2 1-I-2163 1-00;-Rlf doe\ p lkn 21-1-21634-001 III 26 • 9.0 REFERENCES Bauer,H.H., and Mastin, M.C., 1997,Recharge from precipitation in three small glacial-till- mantled catchments in the Puget Sound Lowland, Washington: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigation Report 96-4219, 119 p. Beyerlein, D.C., 1999, Why standard stormwater mitigation doesn't work: in Proceedings: Watershed Management to Protect Declining Species,American Water Resources Association, Middleburg,VA,presented at the American Water Resources Association Annual Water Resource Conference, Seattle, Wash., p.477-479. Downing,J., 1983,The coast of Puget Sound: Its processes and development,University of Washington Press, Seattle,126 p. Hinman, C., 2005, Low Impact Development–Technical Guidance Manual for Puget Sound: Olympia, Washington, Puget Sound Action Team Publication No.PSAT 05-03, 246 p. Jacobsen, E.E.,and M.L. Schwartz, 1981,The use of geomorphic indicators to determine the direction of net shore-drift: Shore and Beach,v. 49, p. 38-42. Jefferson County Critical Areas Maps, 2012, http://maps.co.jefferson.wa.us/Website/mspub/viewer.htm?mapset=esa. • Johannessen, J., and MacLennan,A.,2007, Beaches and bluffs of the Puget Sound and the northern straights, Puget Sound Nearshore Partnership. Johannessen, J., 2010,Assessing littoral sediment supply(feeder bluffs)and beach condition in King and Southern Snohomish Counties, Puget Sound, Washington, In: Shipman, H., Dethier,M.N., Gelfenbaum, G., Fresh,K.L., and Dinicola, R.S., eds., 2010, Puget Sound shorelines and the impacts of armoring—proceedings of a state of the science workshop, May 2009: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2010-5254, 262 p. http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2010/5254/ Johnson, S.Y., Blakely,R.J., Brocher, T.M., Sherrod, B.L., Kelsey, H.M., and Lidke, D.J., compilers, 2004, Fault number 572, Southern Whidbey Island fault zone, in Quaternary fault and fold database of the United States: U.S. Geological Survey website, http://earthquakes.usgs.gov/regional/qfaults, accessed 01/20/2012 04:54 PM. Keuler, R.F., 1988, Map showing coastal erosion sediment supply, and longshore transport in the Port Townsend 30-by 60-Minute quadrangle, Puget Sound region, Washington: U.S. Geological Survey Quadrangle Map I-1198-E, Scale: 1:100,000. KPOA, 2011, Draft Bluff Management Plan. • 21-]-21634-001-Rlfdocx/wp/]kn 21-1-21634-001 27 `. • Landau Associates, 2010, Geologic reconnaissance letter report, Kala Point bluff(northern sector),Port Townsend, Washington: Report prepared by Landau Associates for Cedarview Group, September 1. Miller,R.D., Safioles, S.A., and Pessl,F.,Jr., 1985,Map showing relative slope stability in the Port Townsend 30'x 60'quadrangle, Puget Sound region, Washington: U.S. Geological Survey Quadrangle Map I-1198-C, Scale: 1:100,000. Miller, R.D. and Pessl, F. Jr., 1986, Map showing unconsolidated deposits grouped on the basis of texture, Port Townsend 30'x 60'quadrangle, Puget Sound region, Washington: U.S. Geological Survey Map I-1198-D, Scale 1:100,000. Neil H.Twelker&Associates, Inc., 1981, Retreat of sea cliff, vicinity of Kala Point, Jefferson County,Washington, for Kala Point Development Company. Noson, L.L., Qamar,A.I., and Thorsen, G.W., 1988, Washington State earthquake hazards: Washington Division of Geology and Earth Resources Information Circular 85. Pessl, F., Jr.,Dethier, D.P.,Booth, D.B., and Minard,J.P., 1989, Surficial geologic map of the Port Townsend 30-by 60-minute quadrangle, Puget Sound region, Washington: U.S. Geologic Survey Map I-1198-F, Scale: 1:100,000. Puget Sound LiDAR Consortium. Jefferson County, 2002, • http://pugetsoundlidar.ess.washington.edu/. (2011) Schasse H.W. and Slaughter, S.L., 2005, Geologic map of the Port Townsend South and part of the Port Townsend 7.5-minute quadrangles,Jefferson County, Washington: Washington Division of Geology and Earth Resources Geologic Map GM-57, Scale: 1:24,000. Shannon&Wilson, Inc., 1997, Review of Magnolia Boulevard vegetation management plan, for Seattle Department of Parks and Recreation, Seattle, WA Shannon &Wilson, Inc., 2000, Seattle landslide study, for Seattle Public Utilities, 164 p. Shannon &Wilson, Inc., 2006, Geologic evaluation of slope stability of waterfront common area east of Cedar View Drive and proposed tree removal, Kala Point, Washington: Report prepared by Shannon & Wilson, Inc., Seattle, Wash., 21-1-20602-001, for Pete Juliano and Ron Tacker, July 27. Shipman, H., 2008,A geomorphic classification of Puget Sound nearshore landforms. Puget Sound Nearshore Partnership Report No. 2008-01. Published by Seattle District, U.S.Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle, Washington. http://www.pugetsoundnearshore.org 21-]-21634-001-Rlfdocx/wp/Ikn 21-1-21634-001 • 28 S NON WILSON,i i Simenstad, C.,Ramirez,M., Burke,J.,Logsdon, M., Shipman,H., and others,2011,Historical change and impairment of Puget Sound shorelines: Atlas and interpretation of Puget Sound nearshore ecosystem project change analysis. Puget Sound Nearshore Report No.2011-01. published by Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington, and U.S.Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle, Washington.http://www.pugetsoundnearshore.org Stratum Group, 2006, Geology evaluation,tree removal at Kala Point: Report prepared by Stratum Group, Bellingham,Wash., for Patricia Farmer, October 3. Tubbs, D.W., 1974, Landslides in Seattle: Olympia, WA, Washington Department of Natural Resources Information Circular 52, 15 p. Washington Department of Ecology, 1978, Coastal zone atlas of Washington;volume 11, Jefferson County: Washington Department of Ecology, 1 v.,maps, scale 1:24,000. Washington State Department of Ecology, 1993a, Slope stabilization and erosion control using vegetation, a manual of practice for coastal property owners,Publication No. 93-30. Washington State Department of Ecology, 1993b,Vegetation management: a guide for Puget Sound bluff property owners, Publication No. 93-31. Washington State Department of Ecology, 1994,Engineering and geotechnical techniques for • shoreline erosion management in Puget Sound, Publication No. 94-77. Western Regional Climate Center,2012, Port Townsend, Washington, Period of Record Monthly Climate Summary: 10/1/1891 to 1/31/2010: Available: http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi- bin/c1iMAIN.pl?wa6678. U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey, 1856,Topographic Sheet T-581 Port Townsend,Admiralty Inlet (part of), Washington Territory, 1:10,000. 21-1-21634-001-Rlf.docxwp/Ikn 21-1-21634-001 29 _o'°a d d °n o. • 3 u > e c Sf g v fi 3'3 e l v gi 3 'r7 ?a g A74= .1-6 . q fq �� d ga«° ��la oti> o 5 mn �as� g y A r Ath > I3 - m y g $ °m°5 3 8 a g a !fllH° i o• w c , .Z° . d y 1 o o_d'm> S a,o s'��7 a°°? °„� m �`n�°r�'a 3 i3 �'Q � a 5 o-1 `�a N > 83 m o m 'o'a s pp 44 eo ind▪`ov a P. GdsdE`ov N C5. a.G a°i a G h• 3 ii. o v ° 10 • a w 114 � tiE4V4'.9:115, ; gill" , ,1 °o v o d ,g -T - „4 � w s o 0 w c c c 11 -L-1 § ,8,1-' 1-' °7 a g w v „ o' °a v a 0 " ° c;r a 3 IA o c =aco 5'ao 5a � $w = duo H ` IQ '0'1 ° �4 `dyg Nogf, s d da a,� °ca a la -o `� '_^ ' v Zda`d o Z °a Z ° v . .3 o v v v g v eo g..00., 0 0 - v m$n .g `d H §o sa c c-= .o _ a s "°' c a 0 0 v 3 u o 5 [o u w . E a c 3 2T o c �� c m > c'`e-b°m g w°m.o v oA o-° a 8 `� ° c$ l O c =• $a m U q v `°x u 41 a v nog o ei w a�' a 'i ="5E—r,'77, 6 2 2 w+ y t.-,°8 C-c ■ �-. E 3 1 ;en$CC W 5 m .-.a . c c 'S n e o G E E a G- " +U 'O- t ±E H e! O y a>3 i' g 9 'O g C .g z ;,g1,1-a.177' 0412 :, 2 0 0-_v0 a s Z o Z o .. w o k :: Z ?: H O rn g c rZ. a as hi s 5 �° -a as c OZTgl 4g N a 9 • O a ` _ o ..° . y _ e a 3 H Fc° :> ° F ° ° Fa F Fan ao cc F>'nn c V1 "` r� o z 3 it- , 3,42 L v c g � o a° ' n n E F-;`=".. u $ " o cv m a a U o E N } o .. c a ` m 6 m 5 vw p a m 't... c °▪s_a g `' l '.74'-! S o I H •- _c a w• "o 0 a a m o m o a EI c n c _ °_ v d V 0 'a' H 5 -.9-15 '-2 ?...2. g s o o m v a g a =U 8c yao > 5,1 0 1g"q aa a o a° 3 o _ ° g aa a w O w o a O °4 z.82 o `o ° ° E .g d f o a = m 5 - H c w m �▪ N_ c v aa 5-Vt ° °fd aV3 a.ad,Vasa asnl'5; a-w aaw v . o g▪ d $v g o v=N °> c' d a > m d'� ga.„ m 1 .Q' :6. 080,. 8.V3 .21 - 8 a` W° a s m o a v s A aE a d 0.. v• o 1n `°s u co a u en'..l g v u So ' ' = --. ;1'., a d raa D ° = $o€av a r,'"';.,"'-°-7..= 'ts a r E° a as s o " E u ' c g y 2 ° G ° 3 3- y c' -'61 '' -.2 0 5u-C7', 2 z 5` H 5 s E_ 5 v w- A O “ TP 0 a g y- ,t= d ffs s g y c” u0 ° . o a . . 22 c c g ° g y _ > uc ° eo o a v g ,5a o " °_ v s ' a o . V "an " o° a "E a c °-v o c V n m u o M v, o w5 " U,s. H ! o`v� ° - - o a v' > 1 o m a W o 2 v'a w D e - g_ v N ? c• _ 2 � Cw °: 3=v ,E72151 l5 a g i ry E v g (3 v: E 2 u v 1 /II ko o Gtr ^' Sc c S -Sg I 8E °r g "c_G c 9 u n So l A °c SS° ° re U 8 °° ° °a ° S ° S - ° N • y (u)uoile^eI3 (y)uogena�3 (y)uoilena�3 N OA uo�lenal3 1131 uoilena13 1- s t� L In o o o N M z N z NON ,I S TABLE 2 SUMMARY OF AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS AND OBSERVED CHANGES IN DEVELOPMENT AND LANDSLIDES. Year *twenty - Souree ©it ry e Very few roads developed in the vicinity of the current KPOA area. A forested National landscape over the entire KPOA area. Forested cover in this area was only 1942 9-(EIS-6) Archives/ removed for the platted roads near Kala Point and farther north near the Fort U.S.War Dept.Townsend State Park site. One landslide is apparent on this photograph at the north boundary of the current KPOA area. Logging operations have taken place in the vicinity of the current KPOA area, Unknown from just north of present-day Windship Drive to the end of Kala Heights Drive. 1957 EBQ-3R-143 private More roads and skidder trails were established in addition to roads observed in contractor the 1942 photo,possibly in association with logging practices. Large landslides are present along the north ends of current Kala Heights Drive and Windship Drive. Most of major roads of KPOA were laid out along the bluff top,including U.S.Army Windship Drive,Seaview Court,and Kala Heights Drive,with some clearing of 1976 576035-11-4 Corps of lots along Windship Drive. The house at the north end of Windship Drive is the Engineers only house built at this time. A few landslides were visible at the north end of Windship Drive,just north of the remnant ravine,and at the north end of Kala Heights Drive. All roads along the bluff top of the current KPOA area have been built and lots cleared on the north end along Kala Heights Drive,but only one house has been U.S.Army built along this section. The Windship Drive bluff top is about half developed. 1985 585048-11-4 Corps of The rest of KPOA bluff crest area is not well developed. Landslide activity was • Engineers apparent at north end of Windship Drive,north of the remnant ravine,and at the north end of Kala Heights Drive with larger landslides to north of the KPOA boundary in Fort Townsend State Park. Major residential development occurred since 1985,with all major roads of the U.S.Army KPOA area built. Most lots were developed along the bluff top with few 1993 593003-11-4 Corps of remaining undeveloped lots. The same landslide scars were apparent again at the Engineers northern end of Windship Drive,at the north end of the remnant ravine,and along central Kala Heights Drive. 1997 14-95-274 WA DNR Similar level of development as observed in the 1993 aerial photo. The landslide scars noted in the 1993 aerial photo were still visible. KPOA was very well developed and all buildable lots along the bluff top were developed except for one on central Windship Drive,which has since been Jefferson developed(by 2011). Landslides were apparent along central and north 2005 -- County Windship Drive and north of the remnant ravine. Lower bluff failures along the north end of Kala Heights Drive were likely similar to those observed during the field visit,but these were not clearly visible in the 2005 aerial photo due to shadows. Notes: KPOA=Kala Point Owners'Association WA DNR=Washington State Department of Natural Resources • 2 I-1-21634-001-R I f-T2.docx/wp/Ikn 21-1-21634-001 Strait of Juan de Fuca d • Project Location eattle N lit.• f 0 Washington y . ..? .., A Port To'wnsQI�� :i� Viah Port Townsend � € PROJECT Bay v x LOCATION i , Discovery Bay '°moo z _' Marrowstone ° Island z 't7r#�iJock ' •••• :. .......„„..., .. .. ...... ...„,,.. ../ -.: ..,„,k,...--•:•..(iirl..0.,...,,,,, :.: .. ...... , :„,. N..,., , ..: ......., ,. c, ,,, „-,,,.,,..„,„- • .,, .. ..: . „, ill• . \ (,.7 .„, :. . , , .. ., ,,, , ..._, . m Oak , i. Bay b;. �{ -� a i` i p t. ., N .., N CV N .. air`, ,, p 0. c rn 11 O 0 10,000 20,000 Coastal Bluff Study N I � Kala Point yApproximate Scale in Feet Port Townsend, Washington b 0 st NOTE VICINITY MAP -6 Map adapted from aerial imagery provided by III Google Earth Pro, reproduced by permission March 2012 21-1-21634-001 granted by Google Earth TM Mapping Service. iii SHANNON&WILSON, INC. FIG. 1 Geotechnical and Environmental consultants Filename:T:MajeA121-tt 21634_Kela_POfn11AV_mxdlSRa_Plen.mxd Data:3/612612 bd �'AF. CFO ' r 0 . .' KP OA NORTH SECTOR $ PM'FCgESr RSA �� F ..yy� � „�%'” 9" 3° F4 rr4,e O.0 ND�}�. fi r&�ass KPOA C6NiftAL SECTOR O 'p • � 3*3 a • �y t ,?yam .0 • . 1!,. , ' , ,, 4'46', ' �y^:, a. fit, xp =�: .:� �, tit.6:' � g ,, d°ti 44 i '• �' 7 s�x �� ,. �'" 0 KPOASOUTN SECTOR T 3 e s � ear , ° w ., '.,`^�tp a 2 m,� A 4$Jj 2 E O 'd / Googte z :,,,,,,,,,,, I , ' ..'1'!'1 ,,,.',..i&ti,:r a 0 2012 Google t n Coastal Bluff Study Bluff Zone 1 Slope Stability Classes of N Kala Point • © Miller and Others(1985) Port Townsend,Washington Bluff Zone 2 W��, Class 2 �6 © Bluff Zone 3 Class 3 Bluff Zone 4 S NOTE: 0 300 600 SITE PLAN © Bluff Zone 5 Aehal photography from Google Earth TM mapping service. 2.Approximate locations of slope stabitiry classes Feet March 2012 21-1-21634001 Approximate Well of Miller and others(7985)are shown only for Location&Designation he blu�s within the KPOA developmen SHANNON bVt/IL ,), INC FIG.2 �� :•: --,7-',,:,:.:7.71F,,_'Filename:TlProjec021-1121634 Kala PoiM1AV mxtl1LIDAR TopoMap.mx Date:31512012 bd J tl� �)�%f�f 4 te +r ' � CIIC,nrt4oi sans,afn'a ii(ii;i)ii, , III { 14.iiii)1()1,1,,,,Iii,Hi ,4,,,,,,;'‘,;:,,a.,...,,,,:ii,,,,,::!!:„..,,;.;;Lk,,:(4,,„,-i•-:;‘,',„-. . .,: ',-1 ... . .. , ,011,, 14 v),,,,otoo4p1.40.1401.AYAAWAII-A47,f,.-',.V,".,' :-.-:', e � I lI I1.1111114j l li!';',,:'.;i ;:!:-.,"' ; ',;.1:41,;,7,,, tti:;,',,',,,,,:„!! ' , ° , \ °I 1\1 'f 7 Itil� q y i " 'FP"- ' 7,;;y, ( iril z,f,‘,,I!g:gt‘lp;.,st,,..,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,s::,,;,,T, .,. .. ,',L,..4 4,4,110, . tk ,,,,, ::*011.t2:11::"::::::i:;:1),., --.2.iii;-.4,, i,. .:::,:::,,,i,,,., . 1) \ \,, , , k .,01:111-.,;;?,:..filtfi,i,ii;KI.,,.::‘;,:::::,'.,,,,„:,,,,,i; ,!,,,..,,Eilfi,:l � E\\ ) Cnnel` Remnant ha o 11. t .) .' ) r (/ 4'/'\ \‘ / ,f_zi 1' .\\'t' I :,;.1. ' .' '',,,"-1''''z'%' ,',;:0;,,;:',.'"O'1‘;=':4',1:\,k4-1,.'.V.'.4" '\,,,1'\ I , ,.-.-' . -.,g,.,z*,..: -.'!::-,..#, ID .,\ t \ ). 1 : ,,,--, , - . , . ‘i,„. ,,,,,,,,,,, .:, ,,,,,,..,,,,,,, :.x,‘„,:,::,,,,,,....;,„e,,,zo: , ,, ,,, ,t,::.,„;, ,,,,„,;,,,,v',,:,;:4,:spflualf,''N'i '' ° I) ' , , '\ (, ,,--1-' 0 –,,z7— ,(, � `)i)J .'4,1‘,' / 2�'�( a°. Cpl 1\ , \\1't,;s ,y". ,v o c Mid-Slope t a c Bench �\ I� r tom; , \ l� \111\, � ,.., i \kN ,, ii ,-.......-d \i'\\\ \ ,,,, ' ‘,.,..44 ) \ ,, "..4", ,..,.,t,:(\,F-----,';.-c `,%,,,\,,,,\\.,,,,,\\\ k'‘,„; ''',,i,.st,,,...,,„?.,,,,,,-,..,,' ,.,,,:4,?,::', ' e '''') /5 //i' ' '-'-')- , A,'-:',,,I. ) ,,,,- -/'' 4"---,\' \ ‘2'\e„,, -\. s . )) ( , . ,-, -4..,: , r , I.(\,\ \,1,,\slA,,\ ''''''i',,t:i.,,,-,i!6,,,r;.,,,,:,,i,„--,:::::,-,,,,,a-:,,, 1 Ai Coastal Bluff Study • PP N N Kala Point III Port Townsend,Washington Contour-20 Foot Drain Field Location 4nl Contour-5 Foot A roximate Community S LIDAR TOPOGRAPHIC MAP Elevation contours are in NAVD88 datum(feet)and were generated 0 100 200 March 2012 21-1-21634-001 from Puget Sound LiDAR Consortium 2001-2002 bare-earth digital 1 -1.11 elevation model data of Island and Jefferson Counties. Feet SHANNONbVVILSON,INC. FIG.3 •^ ^• �• Sheet 1 0(3 Filename:TAProject121-1 t21630.Kela PointWV_mxdtLIDAR TopoMap.mxd Date:3/52012 bd 7 PkI1I1IP1(`lir 0 p-.„....,........::.::..... „, . ..., .. 1 o n 0 I Zlgi.::t;iigoig..,;:.. . ..: ,..„'..:.:::.: ' i, ''''....- k(1 k,\A, LailL1111,:11ANP I Fp1,E;:::' ,‘.ii:1674.114..ii,...:.:::::::::i..,!:,:!:::.,.:1:.1.:!,1717 ..:' N 1\\,,\,,,,,;(,\ !tipitiA ligaligamiligitiggl:::::::,.:::.i::::: . ---------r\), ,.\,.,,,v,,.,,,,,,i,\))1 Atiotro 111.,wmo:,...0111::::05111:111,t4,...,:, ....::. 0 I.' reimegoic!,,--3Latii:::.,:lagig , - . ii,(,A 11,miiiiimill,:: Itiws‘,..o............. \„,,,,,,,..„,...j rt://1 irf .441 i'.?:,‘",:lig L Remnant Ravine � II \ '� .:... ,. ......:.. \ ,,f,\',,ilill 11,1'11 ,,!..i:,,,i,:,:,f:m,:::,!,,,,:ii:1:,.1:i.,1:1:.,1:Iirtf, -° d .....:„:„...„:::,,,,...,-.,,,,'.:,:;'• .i. ( z. '',.,:. ( (/ 1 ,,.. '1■, ipie.:(F'':,:,,,,„ ( ,—/cj /' ,...,,,-- .:,‘: C z it ' \ I ....„,,,...„.„, • zi".::,:::::,:::.::" ,:,) ,, , 7 , .,_, „::., j ' ,!i c_)e, \ 1 H,-,i,i'',— <, \v- f /I ( , }14,.,,q.,......„ .., cl— /. k -? ' I i ' , )-/ i)iirit,..4,fr- o i r-) ( f - ; /;�: 1 /,Jc// -, i ' f j/ � ! ' / (1 ....,.. .,- '' j.,:frr ) 7 yr, , ,,,..,,,,,,„„ ......, . .:, ,.... ,:..... . . // (..„„,,,..„,„„ , .„ i ..., , ( 3 I -,,:z.:,--f ,,zi , , ,,,,„3),,,„_) ,„. ,... i:,:-.-:,------...../...,„ .::. :::''' i TI 1/ --L.; - '‘ I 'l i 0, ' :::!/,-;:,,,:: . : -/j :' .....:7":"" ' -:::,.:, : l/l ' i '. k\ l'" / , .., ...:„, ..„,) - ; _, „ ,,,/ ..,,-, \\■\\,\ v Coastal Bluff Study • � Kala Point Port Townsend,Washington Contour-5 Foot Approximate Community 1? Contour-20 Foot ;4 Drain Field Location "�V F r' LIDAR TOPOGRAPHIC MAP Elevation contours are in NAVD88 datum(feet)and were generated 0 100 200 March 2012 21-1-21634-001 from Puget Sound LiDAR Consortium 2001-2002 bare-earth digital • elevation model data of Island and Jefferson Counties. Feet SHANNONbWILSON.INC. FIG.3 ^ • Sheet 2 of 3 Filename:T:1Prgea02 1-11218 31 Kala Point1AV_mxd1LIDAR JapoMap.mxd Date:3/5/2012 bd � -arms^ raasr — ., // :.. ti iottfrli, • 'k'''..'' ',:.::;::;::.41,'.., Ii:,:i..,.i..„,.:... ..:-. :.:00 ''' 'I )!!de'!f #.41-•i;.. 4111111 gdoer it s 0 J ; Amin 1;111164"141*44441*'.4r. ..:eel J � 1 H f41411 k7;:iiik*.„40: 11110°,71400.010.0FW Tr 4401;;;;;;4?4,,,,,,:::: ......:..‘.„..... :0? Ilk. :44, '''.:.„.. . ".... r 00000400 ,f. ...... i„,„„:, . .....a,,.. .. 0 As;`,4.40110‘ . - ..7 :;':! f i e� v y; itossoliiro 1 � a ,li �J 0 1 s' �� , � 0 i):J 1,,,:\''',"i,,,,,',,;,,,,,,,,';",,,,,,,,::*<.,',:g',-:,,,,',,„,;::::, ' •:".:.:„„, -'i -'--,-'''' /i/-/' / 74u, / '::... 1 ,-/- "(/' ) ,,,,,,'',::,,,,.:-„,„1.-5? f'' , ' 5// .::::) ::,, i'cl .,,,,,of"" t ''':,-•‘,. 7i' if //-...„-:::::.:::::: i ( 4:'' ; (1 \',,) 1;'"/A'.'.;`;',; ,r'''''.... ''... /I .....::":::.*:*".. (- '66Y -''''''':".) ' '...,,, . . i ,-- .f.z/i,i..) (\::::.:::::::-• s, ________, _./, i ,.., ..., ..., ... ,,, ,......, ,.„ , 1\\ \ ,,,, , , „:: ,, fi„ ._,_ _____,_______„__,.„,_ f ,,,,, :_;,..._,--- _ „„,_______, , _..,- , .„.„. 0, . c.,,,, „,:.,„::::./7/ ,—,..,..., / KALA POINT ii k A to/ii f? y N..a� _ Coastal Bluff Study Kala Point • 4 Port Townsend,Washington Contour-5 Foot Approximate Community , •Contour-20 Foot Drain Field Location 4�i s •�"� LIDAR TOPOGRAPHIC MAP �l Elevation contours are in NAVD88 datum(feet)and were generated 0 100 200 March 2012 21-1-21634-001 a from Puget Sound LiDAR Consortium 2001-2002 bare-earth digital elevation model data of Island and Jefferson Counties. 1!! "Feet SHANNONbWILSON 5 FIG.3 INCI Sheet 3 of 3 Filenam ro1ec021-1121634_Kate Poin6AV rratftenddide_Map.mxd Date:3/412012 b4 SHEET INDEX a ,l',-.• Sheet 1., 4, • •' t S . Sheet 2 ... 6,, \\ - Sheet 3 ;:x:.•:;...;.„ Y" '- ' - 01,- . . a { -i 'Y n 11 , » q. f, ,; .,,,, ;,e. .1 ml11 n1 i 11 1nn,l 1 , / e+r � 0„.„ b mom, .X+' 1 r . p d cF -t - - s 13 '33 ti { .. y I I 1 41111 - t Y N f . I i� SAVtK' I : ate pr Irrn�h I » - { .. t 1 ='i, 'r +?' f spy ,, 1 g9 y6 1 o ' 4 /` �,+ u NakT-uck \' ' - •$ ftpi, ■ ,, Coastal Bluff Study –––• Bluff Crest Mapped Landslides by Year N Kala Point 0 1856 1993 W> Port Townsend,Washington Areas with High Density — 1957 1997 \/A/! of Historical Landslide Activity S s ------ 1976 2005 LIDAR LANDSLIDE MAP -• 1957a Examples Of Features Observed Mapped NOTE p peed landslitles interpreted o(I. March interrtd fro 0 100 200 March 2012 21-1-21634-001 w In HistoricAerial Photographs. aerial pnotograpns Bluff crest field mapped See Figure 9 For Equivalent Labels. using resource grade GPS on November 30 e31.lANNONbWiLSON.ING FIG.4 and December 1,2011. Feet , .. .. ... Sheet 1 of 3 Filename'T'Nrolect121-1121834_Kala_Poim1AV_mxd1Landstida_Map.mxd Date:3/412012 brl ` - SHEET INDEX ' . kY' ` a »ra. t • Sheet 1 v a�,r y ''r+,,'"''''' 1 ' ' tla* a, i. .'II' ' ...* '.,4t,',4- ,,1 44,t,-; a Sheet 2 .. > .¢ :tea: t . Sheet 3 4 •• 1 a. X? '.,;1• f:" H-mnant Rauh,-•. rt . '� �. .:tit . .r D1,6RIDGE P4 .a:,.:s:, 1 1 i+ i / tg.n _ .... t .. -. , rap.m.AU AR 11& - t is...1,.4:.s 0 r .FOXFIELA PR - i 1 -r� . . l�l aC/yGYDN£ A • { III QR Q QLEN lip ' *.4.. Fi AL -14 D woon PL '4'10' F L :it: i''4 .. 'O V ■ - ,.w. . 11 w. yj OLDFFC N a t �° 'l 1 1' o , 0 1 S o� m 1t q/(� y c+: ar coastal Bluff Study --–' Bluff Crest Mapped Landslides by Year Kala Point III� 1856 '- --• 1993 ; 4 Port Townsend,Washington Areas with High Density — 1957 1997 of Historical Landslide Activity ,p -- 1976 '-- 2005 LIDAR LANDSLIDE MAP ti NOTE (1ss7a Examples Of Features Observed Mapped landslides are interpreted from 0 100 200 u CO In HistoricAerial Photographs. aerial photographs.Bluff crest field mapped March 2012 21-1-21634-001 See Figure 9 For Equivalent Labels. using resource grade Gas on November 30 SHANNONf4WILSON,INC, FIG.4 and December 1,2011. Feel ,.. .. .. . •• Sheet 2 of 3 Fdenama:TAPrajecl 121-1121634_Kala_Pointi.AV_mxralandslide Maw.aad Date:3/4/2012 Od s •� --'F3iL" SHEET INDEX • Sheet 1 . ` %:i^ A Sheet2 " r � tr Sheet 3 s ? ' � '$ 44,° I _ if W . " : < 1 yk'.4t t^' RBOR�'sr ,. 1 • UI7. - - j ' �,--`) d ' 1 ' ' rr -s .. . . .4w' pP Q .i,- • �� r ' _ ,,ti N, P� c5$ ...,;N:',:',..',' :-.-;.#,--‘ .::. ,ham. .-- ...,x ts'' - i BBIBIEBMIM ■ Coastal Bluff Study –––• Bluff Crest Mapped Landslides by 97 r �� Kale Point • 2 Port Townsend,Washington Areas with High Density /�' of Historical Landslide Activit r y .n o' ------ 1976 — 2005 LIDAR m,1 LANDSLIDE MAP G7 NOTE 957a W a Examples Of Features Observed Mapped landslides are interpreted horn 0 100 200 In HistoricAerial Photographs. aerial photographs.Bluff crest field mapped 1I ' March 2012 21-1-21634-001 g resource grade using GPS on November 30 See Figure 9 For Equivalent Labels. g SHANNONWAIILSON,INQ FIG.4 and December 1,2011. Feet Sheet 3 of 3 . s, ° ' 1 P A Q . ...••;-.;..,•:4•ME:t . -.- 1141,ki.s:i.. . • ''''. '.--.4 R•_ oa ;-_'co ,3I .._. .. ,:4.4.,..v.v• • ...„....,• • �, t^ c N LLy.4,,,41.1 .'f'. ..:",-,:7i1. -'" • • •'''.2..efili,'4,'"fA': e..-. ,,..g 0 Y . {' �£X« S p Y r ., 1I 1 > >d C x Ui Z2• -g. # y. •.'s;Las: t~ U ito O u- . zi h x C MIS r a N YM. n T � ;: • ..:ors, <A,._., ••-•.• ., : I.. 4 .3 .':� i 4 y M1 3 1. '' d ..,...„. 4 .. ...3:. ...t , 4.. 2 4.44 4 tu r 11tt�. : w•`i--0.:- I .r P, �t �,.r �» `esa. ,••� t�.. o— Ir.. �"`."wa< ^al?.. -1 ^ ,, ATM .: �"�w's.:':. 1f`�-y '`rJ t., :' .r. A.,-..:...r. .. _ .'#__.,.: ..K w.:.ways ', fii:L_:e,...: •'' .` `'41 I C .� 1. ,1>.i •ti....s m w E;'—'4 g't.''••g c•, s ' E°— t° r: t :*,..4.1•::.i �'"£�F 1` et:"' ;.i st 7,-./.. ..:.••.:•::..., , •••••,...... ;v4 i. ..„••:„.m E.1^ A.. �y. m`om mm• + srEi 4`t� .=t f .•n%sz<:i i»' a '• o ° o g ...R.a 1. €f 3' •�'`y 3 tr,l � w w Q. N Minos oes u•6o1 Z4O4-ZO-EO_.MCI 6.p-solo4d aJO4s40 LO0-4E9LZ-L-LZ\L00-bC91.Z\L 4641-.....Pd 0 . ., E c M ci m m C g 2 x. 1.`.. m ' „�jJ , ,Yc W O 4 - cx !"' 'fir' m ; Q'~ t,� .: O 3 m y. i ,,.„r LL r a O a 0 :-...1., -4:4*-• .4.. "1/4*‘14:•',. - ::.. :. q. iw: r�.<. BEY-• . 4:.::...p'...-,c...;.,.4,...:.!:::-•��y., :. Y+`<' � O 0 ...1...._,.i !�iyy�^ s. t0 C .<.f:f: Ali fl:4 .r N tt r 4' 1s a •` 4, `•� \ 4: 7 ' zc , "1 < t , � -• Ci <,I. i.'-;t.-4,./.14-:« •q 7 l .: '' 'Y .-g E O O O m °0,°o sx ., ..k. i g ts ".,fiTaxi � ? rn o m f2 ii,tg 1,5W),3_-°.'n r . rr.'.-.a . O von o n �` ' �.v.L, . :. s,r.. :.r _, ..X `. .., .. 'x aia 3;E'°m'- .y 4 t �'. o c o <o E aJ u • <. l H+ < . Hi! LZ m m' r...`.,E'4�y K` nl• K; �[,;,O-i riK�.: 4�7pCV',_ 'ia: L «tA n x 'r'" <4rz.. ;.- oes O6o1 ZLOZ-Z0-£0:a 1ea 13mp'so1O4d m4,44O LOO-6£9LZ-L-1.Z11.00-PC9lZlt LZl:r:.....Pi ■ m $ a ;V E -,f,O N N co •G (V if:03; 0 C9 3 6 00 a. yYc G m F°4ya7gW U N o Z 6. L _co m a • '. Hl2JON ■ MI - N— 0 L �" ,. 8 per, LL • t.'04. 10 '',4'A ''. ' 1 Y 4 N { ti a F a�o4i sll s, Z-t-°EBm tZ' co1Zo acd4 i0 0a o r- O Z E ig `$Lu T4 s m o0 y �, 1".'5'T4 O 15o 8- c, _ -• N g v E0 d. rx •: , as tcw ndg - � Ei c N g 8 d L §-4i, c z, b�LU_, apj N ., .� 6E91Z\lZ\f'aweu1'\ s 0 OPV9Z4d, P aupyoJeW ZOZ-ZO-£0 oeu60I. awyoleW . ' i u llaie '.a �- W,r a a 2"y iiri rr` nk:, cog W 0 • k ,. ✓"' m c g- z € „E a c z O l E� N L z al X • g o .]i i'? :E+ • V, E' iK '1:'''' ' E • :41441JV ,7 Ns 40:::40::,.... ......:. ..4 ..::, ...,. .ivc. . Iii • .".:,.::.4.:. .......... A A. ' •;; A. . � N `+may �x ..� ' .. •:'��r �%..:: o ) W:„min . y....•:.•£. ! 3 ; `. s ^ ;) :. . ° , S - P3• ;4'41'4 te)• y� J ''. .� ,.�� -.41�:•'M`� "•' - .1 N: 311.'✓"' .•0 ..-4 y ?,4• Y� }ff yaw * t fi lik ,,... .a r!r :•�$r.-. '.t45.7: d .v £ ..gp .` +,r ,o to }. .k, ' .fay R ^.L`r`47.e.e,,, ,�� .`'w of ,, ''++' »' . {'4wn `.t > �xt n fly. :; S:• %r t � r f' "x.: rte !,11:„ ;} ; Kw,i' ; .. : �. rtilt:;':i '4117:: :^;,....:. • .. **'' ,1‘4,;71---,f-.:,,.. - ,..T.,;:-.', .....4", .,:,,„...,.1 , •0•,•••.r:-: . :, .....t„Aia. ,` 4. c: k.,: _ yiF.LDI3 Mkt 'a •. .: W Nn.�. 6 a ( .. �.y1�:.1 y1'J M•a�'y. a�+aeF'' C )._, ,:j... y. . I s < F•».«Y:� 'tip. -t', :*;, ea ', :1 v 4d w. ° z E 0 •,.:,;,4E - .• . �� may.: +� 7 EI•_.�y. -� e4,'..•••••••••i�'` 6 a9g � Y »s.. •x ♦ r.MO"!:11- tmA� oes-ui6ol ZLOZ-ZO-LO-amp 6,up so)ogd anbggp ZOOZ LOO PE9LZ-L-LZ\L00-6E9LZ1l LZ\f aweuapd ' T . s .r •., o V Li i° O a N II 4.‘:, - 4.. f.. lik . .::.? lill ,s W z m c o 0# x c 0 OZ •• !:` <w'3i:: xf.tc a X d O o OE °mss: r '.'"..;:.(.)::::i.;.. '.7 x ate`� �. i _ s ;a+..'^ 'slMr.. •..•. 'i� ',��i. • ,:.1,;.:.: See r� A ' yes.5 1,4-444,4 ,,_4,%. 4...,,.1. �y .„, ...1s1:4,...,,,,, .....z,.......,:4„,41.... , ,.". A C..:: " At.. pia- `•R.. .. ` ",�.,: Kra g$y' .1�I•. . ..,` :.E' F r.e, if P:.., a, o f - 7. i, a ll •..::: ' eht; t S YYY::::::ilia 3.'w Z 0� ... .5. 7r, . . ..,.. Iii:111:::'•:1:.!.•::i w S: 411,x,11 : ' ',, � µ ..:, ti.�:. 4 "afai:0 1 „s O• •4....1; , 'E 3R Yt t y O S "Ii'w. A '„x .j t�' P PI a_ e ...„ . ... •.......,...,,:,,N„..„ .... ....:. .....,, . .s.601 Z OZ-ZO-€O-al.a 6•vq-soloLld ao6'IV0900Z LOP4E 9LZ-L-L Z\LDO-4E9LZ\L L Z\r-aweuaIid g«' g S t % >4` z � � � ° � i �o+t wi�ge tale t d � ' Interpreted �� As A Landli 7.:.;.—.,.''\.'''.,,,,,,L.,.*4.,-,,-,,,'e,\,-.,.,ks'..` + ,`. Interpreted,:1,400,0 As A Landslide i Interpreted ` /As Landslides 'Os \' \ �� Interpreted ° As Landslides k NIL y I, Interpreted '', *--'''''''''*'''"-j''..--t ,,,,,,,;)'�- ,, AsA Landslide 4 ti. Interpreted As A € Drainage Or Gully i L g ° ,, - ,'' tea ....—'Z 4 ' <, / i - ;_ Approximate Mean q, t 4", , -„', 3 er Low Water Line € M »t i ,, ,,\,4+ # 1,,,,..,:-' :.;.. -*".,,...4.,,,y.' 410 -,_ ) I , �a if/ )i� z i `§ va ,a s 7k p y , arm roS ` I t y M ."' c k f `�N . . 1,..,,.. ,1 I g =is wn.� u " Ili a ,r a X n . ° ; 'M w >ae Vi&T JAMES BC a , .3k4ARDV R A� ` " i •o N a i`1. .< E CAuClaC E as > 11. ,� Ao4 3 �_ .� r''-`� �� N Coastal Bluff Study ° �, Kala Point W. '!\'I,E Port Townsend, Washington y., Present Day Roads s 1856 T-SHEET MAP #0581 AND III LANDSLIDE INTERPRETATION NOTE 0 500 1,000 • 1856 T-Sheet Map from U.S. Coast March 2012 21-1-21634-001 • and Geodetic Survey (1856) Scale in Feet SHANNON&WILSON,INC. FIG.8 ;� GEO.ECKN�C,L.Ho E� 3RO�ME�.,�o� �,.,�,s W id a o H n u-i o c z O N il E.O •• m m D a W a Q= 2" U r Q aD. re w P.- c In N co s es 2 a• a.. art,. C W • —•••••••• r'y ' 4'4 � (, `. .. m a F ,,,, •,,,,,,„„,,:i**°'''..•,,,. ,,,,,,'''..'.....‘.••••:,.,•::•- ......,:„....,.. ......'..... •. ' , .,...,„,, pZ . „ , g 0 W£ 4 6 .�, 3. Y• { .f F # �` ➢I �` , e w gg ` , < � 1-`"-0 m • t ': , s" { "gym 70 co Q W Z o d 11_) W awl • Ja WPW O O 2 any J V Q Q R'W W N a , . jF ,, "s r ', ,. . �a . 'yea . • % 77' 1,9 ZIOZ/blE al*Q Pxw.6.7.0IAI o{oVd leuev\Pxw AvIluiod eleN bE9LZ\l-L Z\Pafoid\1-aweua�tj '0)- .,. o Li s W o 0 m C� T C Z C- ' N C 3 411, `1— ° s 3 a Y a ti 0m�Y .e:w� c �o g_.1 t y NQ it co CD rote Q U a 3 w m � w c � ;. P � A .>. `. ey. N'7 V r aYL � 8 :7 - m uwq '.::,,,l';',..',''' '''' iFff ic T,L°>,. ,.,--'1.. r �F ' ,' 9 x a� G , r x ,}Mt =` re, ._ ,,,...,,:,,,.z.;-.,.., ,,,,,, ,,,. .ii,,,,,,, ,,,.--,..!.°:''=1...,4"ei... :. -, '.;,..,-> a nos t p o r e z 0 N v m • mda W c a= Vr 51 E _°'0 W m %LL ) J a w 3 rn aw r x , ±. � '' .�........:. .... N- °' ' ‘ .1 ' ' h. • a � �� P1 ZLOZIV/£ale0 Pxw'a6e'uOJ oto4d leuay\Pxw Atl\Nlud ala4 4£9LZ\L-LZ\O d\:l'aweuapj c . w s W a L Q N 0 • N Q X3'8 x ° 3 Q^,° I- ° a W N . Q L i Ca O • „ .'''''')` '.0111114 hei1.4, — O �I O c H m uS re 4 a pia - °o � "4. ha. }.$'{ lei 1 4 �. man �. _..........r...,s•tr'it:*:'. *.,4,;,-)`'‘'16.8;''''' ,..'1,,,‘.**.:**7 ,,,.:(1.i. 4ft4 .' tflt„^.'' , '-, ''t',''Al''''''', ' ' z W d • W a J i O F- O aW QU J t W= T , ' ,,,!44-4'''°' 4 i,,, .i.' re,,,, .0,4 ''''' , ;;:- - - .o----...,;-c. ----',, it 0„,_ .,,,,* , 4* ',.,,,, 9 . - ' - ti '''''' --''' ' '.-.t___- PI ZLOZ/Olf:eted Pw-a6etuoyy oto4d IeuaylPww flV\l Od I)I Of9tZ1l-LZ\Pafoid\1:aweuaI J 0 w < LA o co to $ffi o �O.r N LL 5i C Z h o 0 C C 6� �� ma°O i � O Y C Nn w C II Q N` ° .., ' . ry z- ��.vJ T4 r5 Y L._ C "'> j 3 C � t„: 0 cril o ' t `� ' >�3 " . `� as 3l a e o .,c-.,a d ea yy �, 4 fr v&d 64 ' t9 - , 9- " m�d'�'u-. fill.$-��✓ £' • Z V N J w 2 OF J Z sT, ce Q� N w t a Q W . > x` 1 3' P xA x u" � l a€ 1.9 Z LOZ/Y/£:a2e0 pxw'a6etu001'o1ogd lepay\Pxw AtlUulod eleM 1,E9 L Z\I.I.ZlPafoid\'y'aweuapj U a, C O 1 O g— 0 t N 6_ a 0 c O s.of c= c 0 «� pCo 8' q m' N LL La co • O W L A . t ry C V . 1. N y „ N 3 ,N°o W cn c 0 U d if ; ~ > w w �+a m`in � o z O .. o I n 0 . O Z °a . ® m WYc OJ O CO c 0 2 a a o $ d 8 '2l-°" ° m 3 W — s O $ c O1 > °m Z o t t�A U 3 0 D 2 0 m 2 - - a m=zaci m a N O2 0 p y N Z 0 0 0 o a a a b t C C h W Q �i.a et l0 = 14 D C A i''''^', ...N bs 1 l':".':'7:::::!:-• ' j NNEN 0 ; {:./rv' -R•• off : 0 ,,. °" ,, a � 1,- r' '- �' ` , / /7-,„-------- ,...4, ."•17/•f'.3 t';'. kl.e. I ,- t __- ,; � i " . " ,--' " i t ! \ , 1i ' ' I ..,. .'""."''.0 '� � 1 f ice; } Vet ° rte" - " 1 _ 1' ,- ,- ■� � .,..� � ' ;� �' 1. c`r f �} i•j 9 f • -A-1 k �^ f f '' (1 ' . { ', ,--_ 0 .,...---+ j{1f/ � i!'• ---.,,ra`.NIL ii :�./ r ra �°., 3 l i 04 tip. -�..- ri i. .:1'' r tt -.£ '„`. q . �°ro i i`:.: e ', des se3o1 ZIOZ"ZO-EO:ale° Begs den S6oieso 1.00-P£91 Z-1-1.0/1.00 009 lZ1l LZ\-f-awesapj • 200 Qgt (Quaternary Lodgement Till[Vashon Stade]) Silty sand with gravel and scattered cobbles and boulders 150 U) tL c Qga (Quaternary Advance Outwash[Vashon Stade]) w Stratified sand with variable amounts of silt and gravel cu 100 c 0 U N is E 'X 2 • 0 Seepage Typical at 50 Qga/Qgl Contact QgI N (Quaternary Glaciolacustrine[Vashon Stade]) Bedded silt and clay 0 0 J N Q pf 0 e1) (Quaternary Pre-Vashon Fluvial) 0 Stratified clean sand a 0 -0. a 0 rn 0 in 0 O A Coastal Bluff Study Kala Point NOTE Port Townsend, Washington crsi o Elevations of contacts vary across the site. M Approximate contact elevations shown on this SCHEMATIC STRATIGRAPHIC figure are from the north end of the Kala Point • bluff. The elevation of the contact between Qgt COLUMN and Qga is taken from the geologic map of Schasse and Slaughter(2005). March 2012 21-1-21634-001 E SHANNON&WILSON, INC. FIG. 11 ° Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants LL T>x 1 % I Shoretypes Net Shore-drift • Bluff Backed Beach �- Divergence Zone ♦ <31.• ♦ t Barrier Beach —►JEF-21 Drift Direction Ts " ,. ♦♦ aa��o • Barrier Lagoon --�JEF-20 Drift Direction• .-.14)"C_, ^ im•.•f " t • V� • os ♦S • to ,•'w':, n ., 4"W4 x DE�ft Cell :e r • ,_,y... :.` ,� :.j✓k, t` d ,.�- °'m � -t•t R I T !^ � ^` '+, 0 "+�xs '0- ! ` t c 7i " y % yp' ^ - g •.I I j,' �ti° { ,Y 10 �.. 'j, ;V „� . ':! • , r—.4 -i■) ii 4.s 1 a 9r a e • t „ -�,F ":rtti:. .R: ? - G <. t.�7� , arc p O K ”,pis m • kiii6 'r t<s - • � of ,...,.,,s,f �-. -r Q :t :. _yx1a' titit afs4 r 4:. . ��,.■i'��x "tea "`°�e. .a" - ,v y" a tau 1 2 7 �W.M.:......:k Y t1. , > i.r. F YJ- .. ` ¢y'.1y,^`J ' //y''^�►el 1 r±d co ✓ A. .:.. ;li}' V:" z4'k °- pj- � T a - �: f $ . fir.../N.,•—• ` ' Divergence Zone E g �■�' GL` }i1�3Google' 'y .;. . ,n :la JEF-191 JEF 20 i. ittaisl: a� Costal Bluff Study Kala Point �, N Port Townsend, Washington ,��, w*(4 �-E oo z7, vv �'�1. ts s COASTAL PROCESSES MAP III Aerial photography from 0 500 1,000 • Google Earth TM mapping service. March 2012 21-1-21634-001 C Scale in Feet SHANNONF�WILSONsINC FIG. 12 GcoiEC ruICPL nwo[HV:nount s_N n:.cox uLin ruis LSON,INC, ' i APPENDIX A BLUFF CREST GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM POINTS • • 21-1-21634-001 • MC. • APPENDIX A BLUFF CREST GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM POINTS TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE A-1 Bluff Crest Points and Associated Notes • 21-1-21634-001-Rlf-AA.docx/wp/Ikn 21-1-21634-001 • A-i NON&WILSON.M. • APPENDIX A BLUFF CREST GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM POINTS The current bluff crest was mapped in the field on November 30 and December 1, 2011. The bluff crest was very apparent while mapping in the field and mapping this feature was conducted using a handheld Trimble GeoXH 2008 Global Positioning System(GPS)unit in the UTM NAD83 coordinate system. The GPS unit was a wide-area augmentation system enabled, and generally had accuracy of+1- 1.5 feet after post-processing. A series of points and polylines were recorded with the GPS unit to ensure the highest quality mapping possible. Field notes and photos from the bluff mapping were recorded in a field book and associated station numbers in the GPS (Table A-1). The GPS data were downloaded for processing using Pathfinder Office(Trimble Corporation). In Pathfinder,the data were post-processed using reference station CHCM from Washington State Reference Network(http://www.wsrn.orgn. Post-processed data were then exported into ESRI shapefile format. The shapefile was renamed and assigned the appropriate projection that they were collected in (UTM NAD83), and then ready for use in ArcMap 9.2. • The bluff crest was digitized within ArcMap at a minimum scale of 1:500 using the points, polylines, and related field notes. A collection of 60 points and 47 polylines were collected in the field. Points were regarded as the most accurate data collected by the GPS and also used to note photo locations. Polylines recorded all or most of the track along the bluff crest. For the bluff crest, mapping offsets of 3 to 10 feet from the bluff crest were frequently used due to dense vegetation or hazardous conditions along the bluff crest. These noted offsets were strictly followed and applied during digitizing of the bluff crest in geographic information systems. Aside from the bluff crest mapping and photo documentation, it was noted that few slides reached the bluff crest, although indicators of soil creep near the bluff crest such as pistol grip tree trunks and leaning trees were observed in the field. It has been noted that the digitized bluff crest does not match the bluff crest in the LiDAR imagery provided by the Puget Sound LiDAR Consortium(PSLC), showing differences in some areas of up to 20 to 30 feet. Multiple sources of error can be accounted for in the LiDAR data. Jefferson County was one of the first areas mapped using LiDAR in the Puget Sound, completed in 2001-2002. While the data are up to 10 years old at the time of the field mapping, it does not appear that major changes to the bluff crest have occurred during that interval. Metadata obtained from PSLC indicate horizontal and vertical accuracies of 30 centimeters in clear, open • 21-1-21634-001-Rlf-AA.docx/wp/lkn 21-1-21634-001 A-1 S NON ,i • terrain, although no formal data report was available. Much of the bluff crest at Kala Point is moderately to heavily vegetated,which tends to adversely affect positional accuracy. Additionally,the bare-earth LiDAR used in this study was post-processed to remove tree cover, buildings,and other aboveground objects. These processes tend to decrease accuracy especially along steep gradients such as bluff crests through smoothing of the bluff crest. This was likely the largest source of the discrepancies as the LiDAR bluff crest(as observed in the hillshade) appears to be landward of the field-mapped bluff crest. Due to tree cover and variable conditions with development and landscaping throughout the historic air photo record,the bluff crest was often not clearly apparent in historic air photos. A comparison of bluff crests among the historic air photo record to obtain a bluff crest recession analysis was not able to be reconstructed with accuracy. • 21-I-21634-001-R1f-AA.docx/wpan 21-1-21634-001 A-2 SHANNON&WILSON, INC. TABLE A-1 • BLUFF CREST POINTS AND ASSOCIATED NOTES pt 1,at bluff crest 11/30/2011 396059.951 1163069.706, pt 2,3-6 ft offset 11/30/2011 395950.251 1163101.32 pipe,corrugated black 11/30/2011 395949.572 1163099.63, pipe,corrugated black 11/30/2011 395926.747 1163120.695 pt 3,at bluff crest 11/30/2011 395877.13 1163165.675 pt 4 11/30/2011 395791.3 1163210.182 pt 5 11/30/2011 395750.669 1163231.783 pt 6 11/30/2011 395668.515 1163237.187 pt 7-clump of topped cedars 11/30/2011 395642.68 1163239.945 water main,blue lid 11/30/2011 395626.807 1163128.036' pt 8,very landscaped yard 11/30/2011 395626.67 1163311.305 pt 9 11/30/2011 395550.075 1163303.849 pt 10,septic drains? 11/30/2011 395337.022 1163325.169 pt 11,bluff crest drainfield 11/30/2011 395457.908 1163416.49 pt 12,at bluff crest 11/30/2011 395308.365 1163517.319 pt 13,at bluff crest 11/30/2011 395268.473 1163538.634 pt 14,at bluff crest 11/30/2011 395118.452 1163641.695, pt 15-slopes gently to crest 11/30/2011 395083.334 1163677.868 pt 17,at bluff crest 12/1/2011 394993.079 1163675.518 pt 18 12/1/2011 394765.45 1163776.314 pt 19 12/1/2011 394612.239 1163897.853 pt 21,at bluff crest 12/1/2011 394602.453 1163953.349 pt 22,6 ft offset 12/1/2011 394579.953 1163962.461 pt 23-patio of 3rd stop 12/1/2011 394543.024 1164077.143 pt 24-at headscarp? 12/1/2011 394563.162 1164159.666 pt 25,very landscaped/modified 12/1/2011 394550.399 1164165.473 pt 26 12/1/2011 394352.786 1164347.109 pt 29-at headscarp? 12/1/2011 394319.126 1164427.376 • pt 30,at bluff crest 12/1/2011 394291.764 1164463.729 pt 31-edge of forest with trail 12/1/2011 394260.27 1164508.817 pt 32-stop 4 12/1/2011 394026.293 1164703.704 pt 33,6 ft maximum offset 12/1/2011 394005.401 1164767.742. pt 34-massive undercut 12/1/2011 393863.057 1164896.836 pt 35 12/1/2011 393778.217 1164998.803+ pt 36-benchmark 12/1/2011 393839.772 1164910.506. pt 37-J-trunk trees 12/1/2011 393760.631 1165014.179 pt 38,at bluff crest 12/1/2011 393730.373 1165044.464 pt 39,connect to last pt 12/1/2011 393706.025 1165062.345 pt 40 12/1/2011 393575.081 1165152.271 pt 41 12/1/2011 393447.969 1165247.192 pt 42,at bluff crest 12/1/2011 393319.485 1165300.159! pt 43,gently sloping to crest 12/1/2011 393241.888 1165298.435 pt 44 12/1/2011 393182.107 1165290.641 pt 45,at bluff crest 12/1/2011 392799.033 1165327.215 pt 46-ravine or gully 12/1/2011 392741.263 1165340.286 pt 47 12/1/2011 392704.966 1165383.122 pt 48,scallop to connect to 47 12/1/2011 392622.624 1165451.401 pt 49-heavily modified to south 12/1/2011 392582.025 1165470.088 pt 50 12/1/2011 392404.429 1165735.214 pt 51 12/1/2011 392304.459 1165906.1 pt 52,landscaped,modified 12/1/2011 392211.883 1166036.008 pt 53 12/1/2011 392078.912 1166173.317 pt 54-on access trail 12/1/2011 392263.61 1166117.472 pt 55 12/1/2011 392301.018 1166065.98 pt 56,at bluff crest,trail 12/1/2011 392327.719 1166003.423 pt 57,at bluff crest trail 12/1/2011 392397.765 1165833.415 pt 58 12/1/2011 392415.36 1165794.804 pt 60 12/1/2011 392382.386 1166167.632 Note: GPS=Global Positioning System • 21-I 21634-001-RIf-TA-I.xlsx 21-1-21634-001 NON ON,INC • APPENDIX B OFFSHORE PHOTO GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM POINTS • • 21-1-21634-001 NON&WILSON, • APPENDIX B OFFSHORE PHOTO GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM POINTS TABLE OF CONTENTS FIGURE B-1 Boat Tracks 1,2, and 3 for Offshore Photographs CD 1. Offshore Photomosaics for Tracks 1, 2, and 3 2. Geographic Information System (GIS) Shapefiles with Boat Track Location Information • • 2 1-1-2 1 634-001-Rlf-AB.doex/wp/Ikn 21-1-21634-001 B-1 • -. • ,,,e, ........w.,,?;,..,,„..1"... ,.,,,....,......,..,.,..: ..... • :• \,:'....... „..,::::::...:..::::.........,.. , ... .....1..t...!..„.:......:........:,. ........:. H.,:-..v.:..‘,...Fisii • :•- • .. - kik a x t` w'` 47 x. 0 r. r2. wL. "7 ,;r tia 4 I .• -x 4 t. ":r-- ,, •" ~ ; 4 p � /.3 • • tra'' M ;s '.. ,(C!••••�:'r"X 'Y- -K •••••••N _ .i •n N -r 7- s 1 N ... .: r.11 "'?`;',7,,...."99 .=`i --_.'•-- ». r• 0 '-moo •y n r J :.sr t ' '1 ,E: >i: ri 't x...• 1 ... -- r.1e"""r ' A '%" T'fi il. .«r.�!*ri '. sa .::•o ffVVooleT,, g g . a Google ?, ,K,:" ,r a� N Coastal Bluff Study m Kala Point � ,�/� E Port Townsend, Washington W .`'J. S BOAT TRACKS 1, 2, AND 3 N FOR OFF-SHORE PHOTOGRAPHS • Aerial photography from 0 500 1,000 Google Earth TM mapping service. March 2012 21-1-21634-001 ° Scale in Feet SHANNON F�WILSON,INC FIG. B-1 iL °EO.E rN, .!AND ENVIRONMENTAL o i�,.A�,s INC • APPENDIX C ILLUSTRATIVE PHOTOGRAPHS • • 21-1-21634-001 NCROWILSON • APPENDIX C ILLUSTRATIVE PHOTOGRAPHS TABLE OF CONTENTS FIGURE C-1 Approximate Locations of Appendix C Photographs PHOTOGRAPHS C-2 Looking south along top of bluff at the northern end of Windship Drive. C-3 Looking south along top of bluff in southern end of Kala Point development. C-4 Geologic units Qga and Qgl exposed in recent failure of bluff face. Note accumulation of colluvium at bluff toe composed of sand derived from Qga and silt and clay blocks derived from Qgl. Note seepage emanating from contact between Qga and Qgl. C-5 Geologic units Qga, Qgl, and Qpf exposed in deep-seated landslide below III Windship Drive. Recent toe erosion is evident in sandy colluvium. Water-loving vegetation has grown at the contact between Qga and Qgl where seepage was observed in many places during field reconnaissance. C-6 Contact between Qgl (silt and clay)and underlying Qpf(sand). Note wet face of Qgl from seepage emanating from above. C-7 Qpf exposed at northern end of Kala Point development. C-8 Looking north from barrier beach in Bluff Zone 5. C-9 North end of coastal wetland protected by barrier beach in Bluff Zone 5. C-10 Minor toe erosion under slumped vegetation in Bluff Zone 2. C-11 Minor toe erosion at the north end of Bluff Zone 5. C-12 Seepage flowing down face of exposed Qgl deposits. Note erosion of colluvium in foreground. C-13 Top of shallow rotational landslide in Bluff Zone 3. C-14 Bottom of shallow rotational landslide in Bluff Zone 3. C-15 Bottom of shallow rotational landslide downslope of Windship Drive(Bluff Zone 4). C-16 Bottom of shallow rotational landslide downslope of Windship Drive (Bluff Zone 4). Note recent toe erosion of colluvium C-17 Corrugated PVC pipe extending down bluff face in Bluff Zone 1. C-18 HDPE pipe extending down bluff face at northern end of Bluff Zone 2. 21-1-21634-001-Rlf-AC.docx/wp/lkn 21-1-21634-001 II C-1 1 Flenams:T:Wrajed12/-11216 3 4_Kde.'oim1AV mzdWppen�x G1mxd Dste:3!5/2012 bd 0 I . j O C-7 ,,,e O C-17 S,^ 1 Goo O C-18 ap= d',p � T10 F o _ ., --). ' i ' y fi 4 C C 13 o 4 o C- 14 y ,i O C 2 5 C-16 OC ,OOD4AND i y OC6 C- ,i K O C-11'5 ,e 1 r • GCS fl v ,i; gPgA .. ViNDSD(r l=N. �., k ;.: OC 8 sa ar€ y om: .1+.;h � � ...° X90 F + "* k �' ' • ' . :' g ' i ' ...'44 . C ' '1414".'''''' 9a W�sCAND a� �, � w g �� Ezo10 °t �a �. � z�c�1" � '� � O O 5^ aF Coastal Bluff Study • N risen Point w>I� Port Townsend,Washington Appendix C i,E Photograph Location S APPROXIMATE LOCATIONS OF Approximate Well 0 300 s00 APPENDIX C PHOTOGRAPHS Location&Designation Aerial photography from Feet March 2012 21-1-21634-001 Google Eart h Te mapping service. SHAMNONF+WIL-.riON.INC. FIG.C-1 i - a #f » • g � . ,' 4 ?: W .3 ds . g a , ., x �, `^ Photograph G 2. Looking south along top of bluff at the northern end of Windship Drive. b Xr . • rr fir; F t 1 9 n *fl 4 , Photograph C-3 ' Looking south along top of bluff in southern end of Kala Point development. III 21-1-21634-001 • er t'- i '„ --r ,.;.%'.^`,.. ..... ....#.. .a . '- .,t : is ` � :IF'hut �;, � � .. { � .«� ,�,, ,:; ;, .-: i a . ... i . . 0."i't , r: .-. N „.: "; „ M • .,,, k ,..» ::„,. ,:µr � , ,a p. ' » 04,` 4 w N�,- t?- ,.,, i ;:. , # a ”" r• E 0 „-... ,.= t 9 a'. t `tom•s. 460e . , ,,,,-;,,y4 ; ' p .ti. . __ y]� - `' - - .y, -;'R. -.$ -14;',,R�a .� 11 . r k x y,�id -f •,.".'(,, r i*..- , . r..,r tr4k ,,X �i .• # t ayw '`", r '- yin:. '"X...a: . .1- Photograph C-4. Geologic units Qga and Qgl exposed in recent failure of bluff face. Note accumulation of colluvium at bluff toe composed of sand derived from Qga and silt and clay blocks derived from Qgl. Note seepage emanating from contact between Qga and Qgl. • 21-1-21634-001 0 p ivy" / r�':'• { •u. 'a •<�s. Pik.." s: _i I ":, - M • e 5 lac—N. t n �� . ./1,:,i•t 3 vi; m i I 7 :L N. 1• . ! .. a , i. s !a y t ' »It,1.'"nt",t . fl Vr ,,'a: -'Mff° •.jR y -;,. 15as, 4r. .A . • M .. , „„: ,,„,.::' '....z,...k.,:,,, ,,,,,,--,,-...3..., „, -,--:,,,,,-, ,,, , ., „ -,....,,,,:r , ..,—A1,12.fi-"4- yt SEY '�».�i ter..�i, 0 Ja y < t CPI! i'-' zz`x-r ._ .I, } Y �� i i .. . N " ,,r;'•fir' 3 z ''i,''p 4As-t: ', "< ! .Wlii wy - i .. £ '' A 11' _, �t '' "ink _,.-4: t•,-1 , �., ,rte,.•k " ', $ %- - . _ 1,- -yet. Toe Erosion` . '-,.,' 4 4...t4'4'>4.-, '-,C/-p f 7+;::'1*.'...41*4-1 - - k.. Photograph C-5. Geologic units Qga,Qgl,and Qpf exposed in deep-seated landslide below Windship Drive. Recent toe erosion is evident in sandy colluvium. Water-loving vegetation has grown at the contact between Qga and Qgl where seepage was observed in many places during field reconnaissance. III 21-1-21634-001 :. .. . • I * ' ---sv...* mot , 4 0."'"F .. 4* gArs; l.y -,, w•X :s t$ -, ,0,1.,,pe. ;440 ,` ' x t kl waF1x, J« £ y r r yy ��ai� L x« r�: a s n .,. Vsf 4 '. tQ py . $4 j•: � Photograph C-6. Contact between Qgl(silt and clay)and underlying Qpf(sand). Note wet face of Qgl from seepage emanating from above. : t�V ,q�,»a . . f J C"t � � l Y. 11/4(.': ,:o , 1 �� 1 ' .ii;y .fir � ! ,, 3 . '`tom.,s t Photograph C-7. Qpf exposed at northern end of Kala Point development. • 21-1-21634-001 • s Photograph C-8. Looking north from barrier beach in Bluff Zone 5. a 06. s9s sM � ? k +figg s � e ,� r� � A xgiN h � `w � xfl t � Photograph C-9. North end of coastal wetland protected by barrier beach in Bluff Zone 5. • 21-1-21634-001 t o-0 ----- p ,', ; ' y : i [�� i 1, ., •S• . . r`i . Ji y .« _ ,,,, .._,,, :,;:i.e,,,,„,, . _._,,,„ ,.1t... . ,! i W es.,. ..: .,.. 1 1 ., , : F u " !I ',U.,:,,„ ` '9 y�1, X, ' u . ) ? j o wi .' .' D a41.,-W ,ft 'r emr 1i `, y� f 3 to, . r`s S! '-, r _`^ 11. tFt.'" r`.w Zi,l 1`,,.. 'p;A 4 f 1 � �'�k j 174f. r.xu rte..,; !; i'4'4:, �° >� y* ill ..♦ "dry / .w , _..ar i:.° Photograph C-10. Minor toe erosion under slumped vegetation in Bluff Zone 2. ` dam, 0 }, l. K.= ,*(-7f-, ,s . Li s 6 a. yr 0, ,a wy fq ltd'=. Y Sr i' 1 ,*41 `i 41,r r .41,,..--,,,:',.!"--'`; . , 5 '�,,� t ^i } * s ,f ,F" ;. Y 1� ,S'� htr{1,-•lo r ,�, pNy.t Stu .�".x .. 4 � a J>'''',':-.,,F41,1,;•,,,‘ ,�°":i.1,-,,r7;.",,,,,,� y�"� ,. w $ ,y fy, ,.434,�I .r, . �F ."0:' .,.:, Ste-°- .6- �. i —":" nt '( i ~ . iy''� '1464# +'''''''T a' 'ice ': ,` .,r-` ,,, ;.:?-•44:----'" hair+' L t». r : », '¢ ' **/'- LL �a 4". 1 Photograph C-11. Minor toe erosion at the north end of Bluff Zone 5. • 21-1-21634-001 0 n, s.,;.v. L. j♦ .r 3� �■ ..L 3'• t"a• .'Y'.• % ':.ice .. .. i`.r3.' a, � it � 1{ ^5, r ° mI " �'s r „f' v .,, p 'e i '� ` s w ,, 4. a ' },r�i ms a. ; .. - ..' , i,, .` ms m � - F ski y.r r'r r b - Aj : fit F ♦` x a " 'C 'h "I r "'. r t» , - '-e.,.-„.' i. _ t'. .41,, •;',,r 4 n y y f. t %�jf4 p�fd.�. � ri r .. .'�'s i I� �.. • P° .'q ,. ', "'S. J.t.�!}F :+fit• s 'r ""i 1 . f '''''** V ,,,‘,.. arw ''.4:0,tiziiiiilk,„ .4.1, ..."‘"--. _ 11,.,,,,, %. —-,..p,,,n, , '" -'' ,"----, 0 ' �: y, r>-';',.." T : "N . . ,," .�' y «,s x * r r,S, r sit • 7:1/4 r 1 Photograph C-12. Seepage flowing down face of exposed QgI deposits. Note erosion of colluvium in foreground. III 21-1-21634-001 r a , s w 0 ire" Photograph C-13 . Top of shallow rotational landslide in Bluff Zone 3. • aye a � e'-%� � m 4 # f g dg �L { Cs F Photograph C 14. Bottom of shallow rotational landslide in Bluff Zone 3. ill 21_1-2--1 634-001 • m a f f M f .fir 1, Gam, s a Photograph C-15. Bottom of shallow rotational landslide downslope of Windship Drive (Bluff Zone 4). • >�J ,w; N vie r' < N. Photograph C-16. Bottom of shallow rotational landslide downslope of Windship Drive(Bluff Zone 4). Note recent toe erosion of colluvium 11110 21-1-21634-001 • �' .'. P' �' 1..I., e .4;,' • y .3" 7Y,�', t o .�` �' •. �.�� .. �. � .art a, - �sY • x } T, atti ' ' . ' rdif '‘'litt7 • ' ' .'11 Slit ‘ '' v.''''',3,'*;;eilil Photograph C-17. Corrugated PVC pipe extending down bluff face in Bluff Zone 1. • r r+ .� 4tK^: - ;ice: 1. � ... j V• w" � ` : P.1 .: lVi.„�.4 -t s_ s l ;, a t . , ...„_ .. Bel .t 4 " w ,, ...... ;fir i'i 'i :. : S ,t..----+ *-. --- ' W- "1 '''.0- ,,,,,I:,:-. ..-e . f ' 5:',1%'1',;,;'*j; ''' -:---'-‘-rt ,,, '';',-T ,,,::, - 5: l'. .105--t'n+.1'''''`'' - Y i i■ . ,,,,y x r �". 1, t• � i �+;u�4� -' -".A. i .$`.''�` r. ..Ki.s�x¢u .. wrn , r y„ A a^. ... 4 6'' y Yi Vilki :3yt;+illM FIVi nx d Photograph C-18. HDPE pipe extending down bluff face at northern end of Bluff Zone 2. • 21-1-21634-001 NON N.I • II APPENDIX D IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR GEOTECHNICAL/ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT • • 21-1-21634-001 SHANNON &WILSON, INC. Attachment to and part of Report 21-1-21634-001 • - Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants Date: March 2,2012 =Iv II To: Mr.Keith Larson,General Manager Kala Point Owners'Association IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR GEOTECHNICAL/ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT CONSULTING SERVICES ARE PERFORMED FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSES AND FOR SPECIFIC CLIENTS. Consultants prepare reports to meet the specific needs of specific individuals. A report prepared for a civil engineer may not be adequate for a construction contractor or even another civil engineer. Unless indicated otherwise,your consultant prepared your report expressly for you and expressly for the purposes you indicated. No one other than you should apply this report for its intended purpose without first conferring with the consultant. No party should apply this report for any purpose other than that originally contemplated without first conferring with the consultant. THE CONSULTANTS REPORT IS BASED ON PROJECT-SPECIFIC FACTORS. A geotechnical/environmental report is based on a subsurface exploration plan designed to consider a unique set of project-specific factors. Depending on the project, these may include: the general nature of the structure and property involved; its size and configuration; its historical use and practice; the location of the structure on the site and its orientation; other improvements such as access roads, parking lots, and underground utilities; and the additional risk created by scope-of-service limitations imposed by the client. To help avoid costly problems,ask the consultant to evaluate how any factors that change subsequent to the date of the report 40 may affect the recommendations. Unless your consultant indicates otherwise,your report should not be used: (1)when the nature of the proposed project is changed (for example, if an office building will be erected instead of a parking garage, or if a refrigerated warehouse will be built instead of an unrefrigerated one,or chemicals are discovered on or near the site);(2)when the size,elevation, or configuration of the proposed project is altered; (3)when the location or orientation of the proposed project is modified; (4)when there is a change of ownership; or(5)for application to an adjacent site. Consultants cannot accept responsibility for problems that may occur if they are not consulted after factors which were considered in the development of the report have changed. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS CAN CHANGE. Subsurface conditions may be affected as a result of natural processes or human activity. Because a geotechnical/environmental report is based on conditions that existed at the time of subsurface exploration,construction decisions should not be based on a report whose adequacy may have been affected by time. Ask the consultant to advise if additional tests are desirable before construction starts;for example,groundwater conditions commonly vary seasonally. Construction operations at or adjacent to the site and natural events such as floods,earthquakes,or groundwater fluctuations may also affect subsurface conditions and,thus,the continuing adequacy of a geotechnical/environmental report. The consultant should be kept apprised of any such events,and should be consulted to determine if additional tests are necessary. MOST RECOMMENDATIONS ARE PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENTS. Site exploration and testing identifies actual surface and subsurface conditions only at those points where samples are taken. The data were extrapolated by your consultant,who then applied judgment to render an opinion about overall subsurface conditions. The actual interface between materials may be far more gradual or abrupt than your report indicates. Actual conditions in areas not sampled may differ from those predicted in your report. While nothing can be done to prevent such situations,you and your consultant can work together to help reduce their impacts. Retaining your consultant to observe subsurface construction operations can be particularly beneficial in this respect. III Page 1 of 2 1/2012 A REPORTS CONCLUSIONS ARE PRELIMINARY. 0. The conclusions contained in your consultant's report are preliminary because they must be based on the assumption that conditions revealed through selective exploratory sampling are indicative of actual conditions throughout a site. Actual subsurface conditions can be discerned only during earthwork; therefore, you should retain your consultant to observe actual conditions and to provide conclusions. Only the consultant who prepared the report is fully familiar with the background information needed to determine whether or not the report's recommendations based on those conclusions are valid and whether or not the contractor is abiding by applicable recommendations. The consultant who developed your report cannot assume responsibility or liability for the adequacy of the report's recommendations if another party is retained to observe construction. THE CONSULTANT'S REPORT IS SUBJECT TO MISINTERPRETATION. Costly problems can occur when other design professionals develop their plans based on misinterpretation of a geotechnical/environmental report. To help avoid these problems,the consultant should be retained to work with other project design professionals to explain relevant geotechnical,geological,hydrogeological,and environmental findings,and to review the adequacy of their plans and specifications relative to these issues. BORING LOGS AND/OR MONITORING WELL DATA SHOULD NOT BE SEPARATED FROM THE REPORT. Final boring logs developed by the consultant are based upon interpretation of field logs (assembled by site personnel), field test results, and laboratory and/or office evaluation of field samples and data. Only final boring logs and data are customarily included in geotechnical/environmental reports. These final logs should not,under any circumstances,be redrawn for inclusion in architectural or other design drawings,because drafters may commit errors or omissions in the transfer process. To reduce the likelihood of boring log or monitoring well misinterpretation,contractors should be given ready access to the complete geotechnical engineering/environmental report prepared or authorized for their use. If access is provided only to the report prepared for you, you should advise contractors of the report's limitations, assuming that a contractor was not one of the specific persons for whom the report was prepared,and that developing construction cost estimates was not one of the specific purposes for which it was prepared. While a contractor may gain important knowledge from a report prepared for another party, the contractor should discuss the report with your consultant and perform the additional or alternative work believed necessary to obtain the data specifically appropriate for construction cost estimating purposes. Some clients hold the mistaken impression that simply disclaiming responsibility for the accuracy of subsurface information always insulates them from attendant liability. Providing the best available information to contractors helps prevent costly construction problems and the adversarial attitudes that aggravate them to a disproportionate scale. READ RESPONSIBILITY CLAUSES CLOSELY. Because geotechnical/environmental engineering is based extensively on judgment and opinion, it is far less exact than other design disciplines.This situation has resulted in wholly unwarranted claims being lodged against consultants. To help prevent this problem, consultants have developed a number of clauses for use in their contracts,reports and other documents. These responsibility clauses are not exculpatory clauses designed to transfer the consultant's liabilities to other parties; rather, they are definitive clauses that identify where the consultant's responsibilities begin and end. Their use helps all parties involved recognize their individual responsibilities and take appropriate action. Some of these definitive clauses are likely to appear in your report, and you are encouraged to read them closely. Your consultant will be pleased to give full and frank answers to your questions. The preceding paragraphs are based on information provided by the ASFE/Association of Engineering Firms Practicing in the Geosciences,Silver Spring,Maryland 411° Page 2 of 2 1/2012 Up Front Parcel Review Parcel 965000236 Printed: January 9, 2015 KALA POINT OWNERS ASSOC Site Addressles): 1760 KALA POINT DR KALA POINT DR PORT TOWNSEND, WA 98368 PORT TOWNSEND, WA 98368-2505 Parcel Number: 965000236 S-T-R: 27-30N-1W Total Acreage 2 Legal Description COMMON AREA TRACT A INFORMATION ONLY Land Use: 7600 Flood District: Fire District: 1 Planning Area: 4 Flood Map(FIRM)Panel No: School District 50 Zoning: COMP PLAN DESIGNATION: COMMUNITY PLAN: UGA: UGA Trans [ ] Plot plan states "property line" [ ] Assessor's Map (Property lines on submitted plot plan must match the property lines as identified on the Assessor's 1/4 map) [ ] Legal Access to Property YES NO [ ] Parcel Tags or Scanned Documents YES NO [ ] ESA's: Special Reports Nearby YES NO [ ] Designated Ag YES NO [ ] Shoreline Designation: YES NO [ ] Shoreline Slope Stability: YES NO Stream Type:YES NO FWHCA: YES NO Wetlands: YES NO r- Rare Plants:YES NO A �1 Seismic: YES NO t/ I" W Landslide: YES NO k' Flood: YES NO A 1!� Erosion: YES NO Aquifer Recharge Area:YES NO SIPZ: none At Risk High Risk Coastal CMZ: none High Risk Moderate RiskDisconnected CMZ Stormwater site plan submitted: YesNo [ ] Forest Lands: YES NO Adjoining Forest Lands: Commercial/ Rural/ Inholding [ ] Mineral Lands: YES NO [ ] Agricultural Lands: YES NO [ ] Archaeology: YES NO [ ] No Shooting Zone: YES NO [ ] Stormwater: New Impervious Surface Land Disturbing Activity ESA's Stormwater Req's:Min Req#2 Min Req#1 thru#5 Min Req#1 thru#10 Engineering [ ] Notice Provisions/Disclosure:Airport YES NO MRL YES NO Forest Lands YES NO [ ] Landscaping Required: Yes No [ ] Parking Spaces Required NO 2 Other f 1 Building Height: 35' UBC Standard [ ] Impervious Surface coverage percentage: Resource Lands&Public: 10% Rural Residential: 25% Rural Industrial: Per UDC Sec 6.7 Rural Commercial: 60% Area of Building Coverage:60%in Rural Industrial Lands only [ ] Total Building (s) Size: RVC:20,000 SF CC: 5,000 SF NC:7,500 SF GC: 10,000 SF All others:subject to septic&water constraints/None specified [ ] Setbacks: Front: Left Side: Right Side: Rear: Shoreline Setback: LSHA Setback: [ ] Road Classification: Road Approach: EXISTING NOT REQ'D RAP [ ] SEPA Required: YES EXEMPT [ ] Flood Certificate: [ ] Existing Case(s)&Condition(s): Violations: Yes No [ ] Recorded Date of Subdivision: AFN Over 5yrs=UDC Plat Conditions: <5yrs=Plat Conditions on plat or Old Ordinance [ ] Lots/Require Declaration of Restrictive Covenant YES NO, submitted: YES NO [ ] UGA No Protest Agreement YES NO, submitted: YES NO [ ] Site Visit conducted YES NO [ ] Require Final Zoning Approval YES NO [ ] ADMIN: Setbacks entered in Permit Plan case N/A YES New Parcel Tags entered in Permit Plan N/A YES Special Reports Scanned N/A YES Title Notes Updated Parcel tags found for parcel 965000236 1.) Custom Warning Flag ZON07-00085 Arborist report submitted. See Laserfiche 07/30/2008 or case file MLA07-00586 for full report. Parcel tags found for parcel 965000236 2.) Geotechnical Report ZON07-00085 Geotechnical report submitted. See 07/30/2008 Laserfiche or case file MLA07-00586 for full report. Cases Associated with APN 965000236 Review Cases Name Type Status Planner M LA07-00586 ZON07-00085 MLA07-00586 KALA POINT OWNERS ASSOC I E Michelle Farfan Application Received: 10/18/2007 Permit Issued/Case closed: 5/9/2008 Case Finaled: Tree Removal Request M LA11-00013 ZON11-00002 MLA11-00013 KALA POINT OWNERS ASSOC I F Michelle Farfan Application Received: 1/24/2011 Permit Issued/Case closed: 12/1/2011 Case Finaled: 1/22/2014 TREE REMOVAL AND l KIMMING REQUEST M LA15-00002 ZON15-00002 MLA15-00002 KALA POINT OWNERS ASSOC I P David Wayne Johnson Application Received: 1/7/2015 Permit Issued/Case closed: Case Finaled: TREENEGATATION . - RIMMING TO RESTORE VIEW \\tidemark\data\forms\R_Parcel_CRMLA.rpt 1/9/2015 Page 2 of 2 Kale Point Owners'Association 269 Jefferson County Dept. of Comm. Dev. 12/11/2014 2050 • Reimbursable Deposits:2050.3 • B Bluff Common Area Vegetation Permit Fee 228.00 VE0 2..D /Col\) / - eece -c9B -°c) Union Bank Checking Land Use Permit Fee 228.00 w ilssockakion Rypiztort c�,t� of n4- o rtcrs C,1/4 4 c# L ' Son 3 0804 - 3e"_ ((Arson@ kaLpb;14 . o Ir f i C-har 3L90 - 3eS-)9 �-I (L�t.EFU Y @ 6 '/PEN . tom ,, n Rk �C� oin�' 1-1q 4cei- McderiecfreAt rn a.r i ne Sus 'V ncSeSS hhe,i - ' t 521 S seed W . T. T. wA 3 -3gS- yo-3-3 c-mctip - i ie . Soar! S .111C .(off T T �! �O ITV 0 'per �.� COD 0 V1 0 � o� O > 0 C IV vz N N 0 a O tJ7 Z O 0 O KALA POINT OWNERS ASSOCIATION 1760 KALA PT. DR. ZON 15-00002 MLA15-00002