The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLog115 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Port Ludlow Marina Expansion Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Jefferson County Department of Community Development June , 2002 .. . ,,,~JL5" '" ,.><~.., I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Table of Contents Page No. FACT SHEET ..............................................................................................:.......................................................... FS-l DISTRIBUTION LIST ........................................................................................................................................... DL-l CHAPTER 1 - SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................................1-1 1.1 Proposed Action ......................................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Location of the Proposal ............................................................................................................................1-1 1.3 Purpose/Objectives of the Proposal............................................................................................................1-1 1.4 Project History..................................... ....................................................................................... ................ 1-1 1.5 Phased Review ...........................................................................................................................................1-5 1.6 Summary of Alternatives...... ......................................................................................................................1-5 1.7 Scoping Notice and Request for Comments ...............................................................................................1-8 1.8 Significant Issues for Consideration.........................................................................................................1-12 CHAPTER 2 - PROPOSED PROJECT AND ALTERNATIVES ............................................................................2-1 2.1 Description of Proposal......................... .................................. ..................... ......................... .....................2-1 2.1.1 Name of Proposal............... ... ................... ............... .................. ............ ..... ............................ ................. .2-1 2.1.2 Project Sponsor. ..... .... .... .......... ...... ....... .... .... .... ........ .......... ......... ....... ..... ........ ....... .... .... ........ ........... ......2-1 2.1.3 Project Location............ ...... ............ ............... ........ .................. ....... ........ .................... ...... .......... ........ .....2-1 2.1.4 Existing Project Features .........................................................................................................................2-1 2.2 Proposed Project and Alternatives........................................................ n.................................................... 2-2 2.3 Benefits/Disadvantages of Delaying Implementation................................................................................ 2-5 CHAPTER 3 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, MITIGATING MEASURES AND UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS ...............................................................................3-1 3.1 Earth.......................................................................................................... ................................................. 3-1 3.1.1 Affected Environment .........................................................................................................................3-1 3.1.2 Environmental Impacts......................... ..... ........................ ....................................... .......................... 3-6 3.1.3 Mitigating Measures.............. ........ ............................... ........ ................. .................. ............ ......... ..... .3-8 3.1.4 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts..........................................................................................3-8 3 .2 Water............................................................................................................ ..............................................3-9 3.2.1 Affected Environment.......................... ............................... ........................................... .... ......... ....... .3-9 3.2.2 Environmental Impacts...... ............................................. ...................... ......................... ................... 3-11 3.2.3 Mitigating Measures.......................... .......... .... .......... ................................... .......................... ......... .3-14 3.2.4 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ........................................................................................3-14 3.3 Marine Plants and Animals ......................................................................................................................3-15 3.3.1 Marine Vegetation .................................;..........................................................................................3-15 3.3.2 Threatened and Endangered and Priority Species ...............;...........................................................3-16 3.3.3 Other Fish and Invertebrates ...........................................................................................................3-24 3.3.4 Avian Species.. .... ............... ...... ................. .............. .......... ......... ............. ............. ................ ....... .... ..3-28 3.3.5 Mammals .. ......... ....... ......... ........ ......... ..... .................. ........ ......... ........ .................... .... .......... ........ .... 3-29 3.4 Land Use and Land Use Designations......................................................................................................3-31 3.4.1 Affected Environment ...... ........... ..... .............. .......... ....... ....... ............ ........... ................................ ....3-31 3.4.2 Environmental Impacts...... ... ..... ............ ....... ......... .... .... ........... ..... ....... ... ............. ........ .......... ..... ..... 3-33 3.4.3 Mitigation Measures ..... ..... ........... .......... ....... ............... .... ..... .... ............. ....... ........ ........ ..... ............. .3-38 3.4.4 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts........................................................................................3-38 3.5 Land and Shoreline Use - Relationship to Plans and Policies .................................................................3-39 3.5.1 Affected Environment ...... ........... ... ........ .... .... .... ........ ..... ......... ........ ..... ..... ................ .......... .............3-39 3.5.2 Environmental Impacts.. .......... ........ ....... ...... ............. ...... ..... ...... ........ ..... ... .... ...... ......... ..... ....... ..... ..3-43 3.5.3 Mitigating Measures..................... .................. ............ ........ ......... ........ ................................. ............3-45 Port Ludlow Marina Expansion Pre-Draft SEIS April 2002 ~ I I I 3.5.4 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ........................................................................................3-45 3.6 AestheticsN isual Quality................................... ..... ................................................................................. 3-46 3.6.1 Affected Environment ......... .... .......... ... ......... ........ ....... ....... ...... ..... ......... .... ........ .............. ................3-47 3.6.2 Environmental Impacts ............ ............. ......... ........ .... ....................................... .................. ............ ..3-51 3.6.3 Mitigation Measures ......... ................ ..... ...... ...... ............. ... ....... ........ ....... ............. ... ............... ......... .3-73 3.6.4 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ..........................................................................................................3-73 3.7 Transportation...... ..................................... ........................................ ................................ .... ................... 3-74 3.7.1 Affected Environment... ....... ................................... .......... ............. ............... ........... ..... ................... .3-74 3.7.2 Environmental Impacts....... ................. ............ ...................................... ................. ....................... ...3-78 3.7.3 Mitigating Measures... .... ... ............. ....... ....... ....... ..... ........ ........ ... .......... ....... ........ ... ..................... ....3-81 3.7.4 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ........................................................................................3-81 3.8 Public Service And Utilities .....................................................................................................................3-82 3.8.1 Fire/Emergency Services .... ....... ...... ........... ... .... ..... .......... ... ..... ... ........... .... .......... ... ............ ......... ....3-82 3.8.2 Electrical Service........................................................................................................................... ...3-84 3.8. 3 Water Service........................................................................................................................... .........3-85 3.8.4 Sanitary Sewer Service .. ... ....... .... ......... ......... ................ ........ ..... ... ... ............ .... ........... .................... .3-86 I I I I REFERENCES ..................................... ..................................................................................................................... R-l I List of Figures I Figure 1 - Vicinity Map ............................................................................................................................................ 1-2 Figure 2 - Location Map ........................................................................................................................................... 1-3 Figure 3 - Alternative 1 - Proposed Project.............................................................................................................. 1-7 Figure 4 - Alternative 2 - Deep Water...................................................................................................................... 1-9 Figure 5 - Alternative 3 - 1993 Design ..................................................................................................,............... 1-10 Figure 6 - Alternative 4 - No Action ....................................................................................................................... 1-11 Figure 7 - Alternative 1 - Proposed Project.............................................................................................................. 3-2 Figure 8 - Subsurface Cross-Sections ....................................................................................................................... 3-4 Figure 9 - Existing Land Use and Zoning............................................................................................................... 3-35 Figure 10 - Shoreline Environment....................................................................... .................................................. 3-41 Figure 11 - Key Viewpoints.................................................................................................................................... 3-52 Figure 12 - V iewsheds ............................................................................................................................................ 3-53 Figure 13 - Distance Zones ..... ................................ ............................................. ................................................... 3-54 Figure 14 - Existing and Simulated View, Alternative 1, View 1 .......................................................................... 3-56 Figure 15 - Existing and Simulated View, Alternative 1, View 2..........................................................................3-57 Figure 16 - Existing and Simulated View, Alternative 1, View 3.......................................................................... 3-58 Figure 17 - Existing and Simulated View, Alternative 2, View 1 .......................................................................... 3-61 Figure 18 - Existing and Simulated View, Alternative 2, View 2.......................................................................... 3-64 Figure 19 - Existing and Simulated View, Alternative 2, View 3.......................................................................... 3-65 Figure 20 - Existing and Simulated View, Alternative 3, View 1 .......................................................................... 3-68 Figure 21 - Existing and Simulated View, Alternative 3, View 2 ..........;............................................................... 3-71 Figure 22 - Existing and Simulated View, Alternative 3, View 3 .......................................................................... 3-72 Figure 23 - Roadway Network................................................................................................................................ 3-75 Figure 24 - Parking Management Plan ................................................................................................................... 3-79 I I I I I I I I I I Port Ludlow Marina Expansion Pre-Draft SEIS ii April 2002. ~ Table 1 - Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigating Measures .............................................................. 1-13 Table 2 - Overwater Coverage (Square foot).......................................................................................................... 3-22 Table 3 - Fish Species with Designated EFH in the Estuarine Composite (NMFS 2001)...................................... 3-25 Table 4 - Port Ludlow Marina Existing Scenic Quality Inventory and Evaluation Chart....................................... 3-48 Table 5 - Port Ludlow Marina Viewer Sensitivity Rating ...................................................................................... 3-50 Table 6 - Visual Contrast Ratings/Key Viewpoints ................................................................................................ 3-55 Table 7 - Port Ludlow Marina Visual! Aesthetic Impact ......................................................................................... 3-59 Table 8 - Weekday and Weekend Peak Hour SR-I04 Intersections - Overall Levels of Service .......................... 3-76 Table 9 - Weekday and Weekend Peak Hour Overall Levels of Service................................................................ 3-77 Table 10 - Parking Requirements for Marina at various Washington State Cities and Counties............................ 3-78 Table 11 - Oak Bay Road - Estimated Traffic Volumes ........................................................................................ 3-81 I I I I I I I I Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C I Appendix D I Appendix E Appendix F I Appendix G Appendix H Table Ust Appendix List Summary of Scoping Comments Draft Geotechnical Report Landau Associates, January 2002 Resort at Port Ludlow Bay Marina Regulations and Policies, Marina Best Management Practices and LiveAboard Authorization Pentec Environmental, Inc. Port Ludlow Marina Expansion Biological Evaluation - Revised Draft, Nov. 15,2001 Storm Flow Nitrate Trends Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, Parks and Recreation and Shoreline Goals and Policies 2001 Port Ludlow Traffic Monitoring Summary Report List of Acronyms Used ......................................................................................................................................................................................... I I I I I I I I Port Ludlow Morino Expansion Pre-Draft SEIS iii April 2002 ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I FACT SHEET Proposed Adion: The proposed action is the addition of 100 slips (plus additional side ties) and associated electrical and utility improvements to the existing 280-slip Port Ludlow Marina. The existing kayak and dinghy floats will also be replaced. The Port Ludlow Marina, builtin the late 1960s and early 1970s as part ofthe Port Ludlow development, provides moorage for residents of Port Ludlow and transient moorage service to guests. This Port Ludlow Marina Expansion Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement supplements the 1993 Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for the Port Ludlow Development Program. Location: Port Ludlow Marina is located in Port Ludlow Bay, Jefferson County, Washington. Port Ludlow Bay is located on the west shore of Admiralty Inlet at the mouth of Hood Canal (Section 16, Township 28 North, Range 01 East, W.M.). The location of the project is shown in Figures 1 and 2. Lead Agency: Jefferson County Department of Community Development 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend, W A 98368 Proied Proponent: Port Ludlow Associates 70 Breaker Lane Port Ludlow, W A 98365 Responsible Official: Al Scalf, Director, Jefferson County Department of Community Development 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend, W A 98368 Contact Person: Josh Peters, Associate Planner, Jefferson County Department of Community Development 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend, W A 98368 Jefferson County File No.: SDPOO-00014, Shoreline Primary Use Substantial Development Permit Port Ludlow Marina Expansion Pre-Draft SEtS June 2002 FS-l ~ Authors and Principal Contributors: This Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (Draft SEIS) has been prepared under the direction of the Jefferson County Department of Community Development. Research and analysis was provided by: Reid Middleton, Inc. Document Preparation and Engineering 728 134thStreet SW, Suite 200 Everett, W A 98204 (425) 741-3800 Pentec Environmental, Inc. Analysis of the Marine Environment 120 Third Avenue South, Suite 110 Edmonds, W A 98020 (425) 775-4682 Required Permits and Approvals: Jefferson County . Shoreline Primary Use Substantial Development Permit - Department of Community Development - Development Review Division . Building Permit - Department of Community Development - Building Permits/Inspections. State of Washington . 401 Water Quality Certification - Department of Ecology . Coastal Zone Management Consistency Determination . Hydraulic Project Approval- Department ofFish and Wildlife Federal Government . U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Section 10 Permit - Docks and Pilings Date of issue of Draft SEIS: June _, 2002 Date Comments are Due: July -' 2002 Location of Draft SEIS for Review: Copies of this Draft SEIS are available at the following locations for review: Jefferson County Department of Community Development 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend, W A 98368 Port Ludlow Marina Expansion Pre-Draft SEIS June 2002 FS-2 ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I The Bay Club At Port Ludlow 120 Spinaker Place Port Ludlow, W A 98365 Port Ludlow Beach Club 121 Marine Drive Port Ludlow, W A 98365 Port Hadlock Branch, Jefferson County Public Library Port Hadlock, W A 98339 Technical reports, background data, and other relevant information are available at the Jefferson County Department of Community Development. Copies of this DSEIS are also available for sal Community Development. Electronic copies of this DSEIS are available to download an website. The URL for this site is htt ://www.co..effern.a.us/xxx/xxx on County e Jefferson County Department of Port Ludlow Marina Expansion Pre-Draft SEIS ~ June 2002 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DISTRIBUTION LIST Apphcant Port Ludlow Associates LLC Jefferson County Departments Jefferson County Public Works Jefferson County Natrual Resources Federal Government Agencies us Army corps of Engineers - Susan Glenn National Marine Fisheries Service - Shandra O'Haleck U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service - Lou Ellyn Jones State of Washington Agencies Department of Ecology - SEP A Review Department of Ecology - Shore1ands, SW Region Department of Natural Resources - SEPA Review Department of Natural Resources - Jeff Shreck Department ofFish & Wildlife - SEPA Review Department ofFish & Wildlife - Anne Shaffer Tribal Government Port Gamble S , Klallam Tribe. Jamestown S 'Klallam Tribe Port Ludlow Roster LMC Governmental Affairs Com Port Ludlow Village Council Utilities and Services Jefferson County Fire District 3 Olympic Water and Sewer Company News Media Port Townsend Leader Peninsula Daily News Local Organizations Port of Port Townsend Olympic Environmental Council The Bay Club at Port Ludlow Port Ludlow Beach Club Jefferson County Public Library, Port Hadlock Branch Adiacent Property Owners Paul Taylor Smith Nancy Taylor Smith Grant Colby Lori Colby D. A. Routt Sandy Routt Peter A. Joseph Jeanne M. Joseph Fred P. Delmissier Darlene J. Delmissier Donald S. Clark Anita J. Clark Janet L. Kennedy McCarry Family Trust Alton K. Lanterman Timothy J. Howard Kazuko M. Howard George C. Hill, Trustee Barbara F. Hill, Trustee Bernie J. Brown William O. Master, Jr. Judith L. Master Colleen J. Ferris Burke F. Gibson Dolores Gibson Port Ludlow Marina Expansion Pre-Draft SEIS DL-l June 2002 ... I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~ter 1 · Summary 1.1 Proposed Action The proposed action is the addition of 100 slips (plus additional side ties) and associated electrical and utility improvements to the existing 280'-slip Port Ludlow Marina. The existing kayak float will also be replaced and enlarged, and the existing dinghy float will be replaced with three smaller floats. The Port Ludlow Marina was built in the late 1960s and early 1970s as part of the 1,200-acre Port Ludlow development and provides moorage for residents of Port Ludlow, residents of other area boating groups, and transient moorage service to guests. The 100-slip expansion was included asa projected aspect ofthe Port Ludlow development in the 1993 programmatic EIS, Port Ludlow Development Program EIS. 1.2 Location of the Proposal Port Ludlow Marina is located in Port Ludlow Bay, Jefferson County, Washington. Port Ludlow Bay is located on the west shore of Admiralty Inlet at the mouth of Hood Canal. The Bay is a 2.2 square mile, J-shaped tidal basin, which extends from the mouth of Ludlow Creek 3.5 miles to Admiralty Inlet (Section 16, Township 28 North, Range 01 East, W.M.). The location of the project is shown in Figures 1 and 2. 1.3 PurposejObiectives of the Proposal The objectives of the Port Ludlow Marina expansion are: · To accommodate the increasing market demand for boat slips. · To respond to market trends for an increased diversity of berth sizes. · To sustain the growth of the Port Ludlow community. · To improve customer satisfaction with the condition of the facility. · To upgrade and enhance services and amenities provided on moorage docks. · To minimize potential environmental impacts. · To comply with Jefferson County development regulations. 1.4 Proiect History The Port Ludlow Marina was developed by Pope and Talbot in the late 1960s and early 1970s as part of the Resort at Ludlow Bay development. It was expanded in the late 1970s and has undergone subsequent minor modifications. The Marina serves guests, boating groups, and Port Ludlow area residents. Visitors to the Resort at Ludlow Bay and Heron Beach Inn also utilize the facilities. Port Ludlow Marina Expansion Pre-Draft SEIS 1-1 June 2002 ~ Reid iddleton Figure 1 ort\vicinity.dwg 't\eis\DEISrep i:\ \24\99\014\perml I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~ NORTI.f N.T.S. ~ I I I I ) -_J- I I I I I ..I LI!6!!NO -- - - ,.OfItT L.l.JD~ MA5~ !'"LAN GOMMJNIT'I" 1!!5OlJNDAft'f Reid iddleton LoeA TION MAP Figure 2 PORT LUDLOW MARINA EXPANSION DSElS i:\ \24\99\014\permit\eis\4914Iocation The Marina was transferred to Pope Resources (along with other real properties in Port Ludlow) in 1985 and was managed by a Pope Resources subsidiary company, Olympic Real Estate Management, Inc. until August 2001. The Marina is currently owned and managed by Port Ludlow Associates. Property below Ordinary High Water (OHW) is leased from the Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR). Peratrovich, Nottingham, and Drage conducted a marina expansion study in 1992. In 1993, the resort area and surrounding residential development underwent a permitting process for redevelopment. The redevelopment included the addition of the 36-room Heron Beach Inn, 53 residential townhomes, 5 single family lots, an 800 square foot marina building, and a 100-slip expansion of the Port Ludlow Marina. Two EIS documents were prepared. The programmatic EIS for the Port Ludlow Development Program included the 100-slip expansion for the Marina together with the proposed buildout of the residential and commercial components of a Port Ludlow master plan. The project EIS for the Inn at Port Ludlow included impacts from the expansion for the upland Marina facilities (office, etc.) as described above. In August of 1998, Jefferson County adopted a new comprehensive land use plan that designated the Port Ludlow community as a Master Planned Resort (MPR). Subsequent to the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, Jefferson County adopted Development Regulations for Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort under Ordinance Number 08-1004-99. The adoption date for the Code was October 1999. Under Section 3.902.1 of Ordinance No. 08-1004-99, a project level SEIS "analyzing the resort plan is required prior to issuance of building permits for any new resort development." Section 3.902.6 similarly provides, "Actual resort development may be undertaken in phases, but only following completion of review and approval of a full resort buildout plan through the SEIS process." A key element of the SEIS is to compare the change in cumulative development impact between the permitted plan of Ludlow Bay Village to proposed changes for any new resort components. Jefferson County will issue a land use or building permit for the Marina expansion only after a project level SEIS for the Resort at Ludlow Bay is complete. That SEIS must address the cumulative impacts of both the Resort and Marina Expansion. For a variety ofreasons, the applicant (PLA) has formally requested that Jefferson County allow the preparation of an SEIS for the Marina separate from an SEIS for the Resort. The elements of the two reports would then be combined into one overall project SEIS to meet the conditions of Section 3.902 as described above. The reasons for the request follow: · The Marina expansion EIS requires multi-agency review with the DNR, Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife (WDFW), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE), National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) all having some level of jurisdiction over the expansion proposal. These agencies have little if no review authority over the upland Resort development plans. Port Ludlow Marina Expansion Pre-Draft SEIS 1-4 June 2002 ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I · Although the Marina expansion project is part of the Resort plan, it is not an interdependent part ofthe Resort plan and does not depend on the Resort plan as its justification or for its implementation (see WAC 197-11-060(3)(b)(ii)). There are two separate issued related to a "phased" review of this project. On the one hand, Section 3.902 ofthe MPR ordinance provides, "Environmental review of the Resort Plan shall not be piecemealed or broken into small segments." Based upon this language, the County is authorized to require only a single review of the project, however, the State Environmental Policy Act clearly authorizes the phased review ofland use approvals. This process is described in Section 1.5 below. Jefferson County has agreed to allow the applicant to proceed with separate review of the Marina and the Resort with the clear understanding that no land use permits or building permits will be issued for the Marina Project until a Resort SEIS process (including cumulative impacts) is complete. 1.5 Phased Review Jefferson County is using phased review, as authorized by SEP A (WAC 197 -11-060( 5)(b)) in its review of development projects in Port Ludlow. As noted above, a programmatic, non-project environmental impact statement was issued in 1993 for the Port Ludlow Development Program. The 100-slip expansion of the Marina was one element of the proposed development program identified in that document. This Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (Draft SEIS) assesses site-specific impacts and specific mitigation related to the Marina expansion. Using "Phased Review" under SEP A, the sequence of environmental review can take two forms. The review can be from a non-project document (the 1993 FEIS for the Port Ludlow Development Plan) to a document of narrower scope (a site specific analysis regarding the environmental impacts of the Marina expansion project (see WAC 197-11-060(5)(c)(i)). Alternatively, the environmental review can take an environmental document on a specific proposal at an early stage to a subsequent environmental document at a later stage (see WAC 197-11-060(5)(c)(ii)). Phased review does not divide a larger system into exempted fragments or avoid discussion of cumulative impacts (see WAC 197-11-060(5)(d)(ii)). Phased review does not segment and avoid present consideration of proposals and their impacts that are required by SEP A to be evaluated in a single environmental document (see WAC 197 -11-060( 5)( d)(iii)). The applicant is pursuing phased review as authorized by SEP A but modified by the Port Ludlow MPR Ordinance that will restrict the issuance of any permits until the cumulative Resort SEIS process is complete. 1.6 Summary of Alternatives The proposed project and three alternatives are evaluated in this Draft Supplemental EIS. The alternatives include: Port Ludlow Marina Expansion Pre-Draft SEIS 1-5 June 2002 ~ Alternative 1: Proposed Projed The Proposed Project adds 100 slips to the Marina in a westward and waterward direction. The existing D-Dock and E-Dock will be extended (12 and 48 new slips respectively), and a new F-Dock (40 slips) will be constructed. A major trend in the marina industry is towards larger boats (Statewide Recreational Boating Study - Recreational Moorage Analysis and Boating Sewage Disposal F aGility Analysis, BST Associates, October 2001); thus, all the new slips will be 36 feet and larger, up to 60 feet in length. The existing kayak float and a dinghy float will also be replaced and/or upgraded. The proposed project is shown in Figure 3. Port Ludlow Marina Expansion Pre-Draft SEIS 1-6 June 2002 ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ------------------- ;;.- N .j>. /" to to /" S .j>. /" 0 f'Tl (J) Ci z /" -u f'Tl ;u s:: =< /" f'Tl Vi /" .j>. ~ .j>. I S \ -u c: ;u "tJ 0 -u r 0 > :::< Z C> 0 'V o :u -t r- C C r- o == aI > -< , \ \ ~~i o Vi -0 -I o - (J) Z fTl G1 o (J) (J) C r -0 =0 (J) (J) )::.. r- ~ :Jj ~ :::! ~ ~ ~ -... ---t r-- ~ ~ r-- a 0 ~ iJ ~ 0 ::0 en ;E ):i; ~ ~ ~ ~ ti5 ~ 0 ffl ~ !:!! C) CI) -t - -- .............-........................... OO.....tO.....UlN o O""""--..JO)CXl rTJ (J)'-"''-''''-'' -10 ~(J) 0 Ul ~ VI (J)C .0UlO) ~ ::JID (J) . . . 0 r Z 1; r (J) (J) (J) )> G10 =0 C C C '-l (/) (J)ID CfTl -o:;u (J)fTl s::: ~ fTl o "'U (/) " Ci) C ::D m c.u I I i ! I \ t> I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Alternative 2: Deep Water Expansion Alternative 2 provides for a 100-slip expansion primarily waterward, rather than laterally to the west. An additional 19 slips will be added waterward and on the east side ofE-Dock. A new F-Dock (35 slips) and new G-Dock (14 slips) will be constructed waterward ofE-Dock; and A-Dock will be extended waterward to provide an additional 32 slips. A new floatwill also be constructed to connect B-Dockand C-Dock, and the existing kayak float will be repositioned to the new waterward extension of A-Dock. Alternative 2 is shown in Figure 4. Alternative 3: 1993 Design Alternative 3 will include a 100 slip expansion and improvements as conceptually proposed in the 1993 Port Ludlow Development Program Final Environmental Impact Statement. The 100 new slips will be accommodated by: a new dock with 14 slips along the eastern shore of the Marina (i.e., east of the fuel float); an extension of A-Dock approximately 150 feet waterward to accommodate a new T -shaped dock; a new L-shaped dock approximately 150 feet waterward of E-Dock; and extension ofC-, D-, and E-Docks to the west. Dredging will occur in a slightly less than one acre area near the eastern shore of the Marina (along Burner Point) in order to increase water depths and improve access to the new inner dock. Alternative 3 is shown in Figure 5. Alternative 4: No Action This alternative will result in maintenance ofthe existing Marina facilities, but no expansion of slips or upgrade of amenities such as the dinghy float or kayak float, at this time. Alternative 4 is shown in Figure 6. 1.7 Scoping Notice and Request for Comments The scoping period for this Draft SEIS was from October 3 to November 2,2001. Notice of the scoping period was published in The Port Townsend and Jefferson County Leader on October 3,2001. A public scoping meeting was held at the Port Ludlow Bay Club on October 12, 2001. Both written and oral comments were received. A summary of the scoping comments is contained in Appendix A. A full copy of the scoping comments is on file with the Jefferson County Department of Community Development. Port Ludlow Marina Expansion Pre-Draft SEIS 1-8 June 2002 ~ ------------------- ~~i\ o Vi "U -l o - III Z 1"1 G'> o III III C , "U =0 III III \\\ -------\ ~\ _______ \ in \ \ \ ,\ \ \ \ I \ \ \ \ \ \ II \ \ , II \ \ \ \\ '\' I ~ \ \ i " \ I \ ~ 0\ \ \," ~\\ \\0)\ \ I '\ ",\ \ , \\..(,\ \ \ \ I \ \ \ ,\_, \ '\ \\0\ \ \\~, \ \ \\0 \ \ \\ \\ \\ \\ \ \ \ \\ \'\ \ \1 \ ~} \\ \\ \ \ \\ \~\ !\ \\ \ \ '0\\ \i 0\ '\ ~, f \ '\ I \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \ \\\ \\ \\ \ \ \\ \ \\ \\ \ \\ \ 1\ \ \' \ \ I C "V r- > Z o /" '" .j>. /" to to /" ~ .j>. /" 0 [T1 .- (j) 0 Ci 0 z /" -l I"1l1l "U 0 XC [T1 > -OJ ::0 lIl1 ;:: , :::l-l =i Z Zo /" 1"1 G'>-l [T1 :E -l> Vi 0' /" III .j>. , OJ to =0 ~ 1"1 ~ III I ;0 0 1"1 '" ;::: 0 0 "U < ::E 1"1 -i 0 ::0 0 ::E C) .. \ \ "U 0 ::tI - -t Ol ........- r- Ol c: q C r- III 0 , ~ =0 III OJ > -< ::b r- rri ::0 ~ ~ ~ :::! ~ h=i a ~ I\) ~ ::0 ~ tJ ~ m ~ ""tJ 53 ~ ~ ~ rri ~ ::0 , \ ~ \ ,~:-~~ l \ i ~~\''''",,: !r~~~\ \ ' 11\\11 \~\ \ '\ '~\I?\') 11\17\,",'.\ t."",.", I I Vioj,'!i} I lift/ I Ii / /fl ! ,1/ h It , ,I J // !/ ' f j ~ f' f 71 If! , ,I' ,I , , 14 ~ '7 I :Jo I .,' '"I '- ,-..j,,, ! C "V r- > Z o !"~l- ~~'~~~~ ~,)-J 1,/'; I I' ',j ~~-'~""" '1* , ....;-....:,". i ( / II l ( ! "'f,l \ \t);/ ( ! /;>....! , [ ,~ !\~'.C/1~'iL;' '7 J;~'" I ( '-' "1 'il /, !,/ 'il / I Ij II 'i /1 ,/} f " Ci) C :0 m ~ ~ " " ------------------- :;.- '" .p. /' <D <D /' o .j>. /' o fT1 (j) C) Z /' '0 11l 3 ::;- fT1 (f) /' .j>. <D .j>. I o '-" <D '-" o Q. :l: o D a:: LL: OLJ :::0:::0 r'lO OLJ ~~ ~ ~ Ul j;~~ :~u~ : I !HUL II .j 2( ~ ~ ~ > ... !:' ~ 8 ii ~ ~I!il r- , . rM ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ :Jj ~ S; ~ ....... ~ r- ::! ~- ~ 0 rii ~ -"::!l' " r- 0, a J~g'9. ~ ~ C'I1 ~ l'I\l ::'lli~:> ~ S l;l f" !.. .'i ' 2 1.'J!j; "i c8 - ::0 .. to 0 ~ ~~. i~ 0 ::r CO .....~ 0 ::b: ~: ~cl&~ ~ ~ _2 c: (0 I;f.l B!:< i CE ~ ~. ~ 0 .!lli" i' ~ 0 '~ M;; 3' <:) rn ' .' :c: . ~: llo ~ C - iil !:!J Ci) ID CI) <: ~ 5" ,.~_ f p "!!', ......~............~.:z.'!"'r- ..... />_~ -:.-.,,~ 11 Ci) C ::0 m c:.n - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - ;;- I'.) ~ / <0 <0 / ~ / o f'Tl (/) C5 z / -u f'Tl ;0 s::: :::j / f'Tl Vi / ~ <0 ~ I o ~ f'Tl X Vi --l ~ r- ~ ~ ~ ::j ~ .e::.. '"lJ ~ I ~ ~ 5 Ci) ~ ;:! ~ ~ ~ ):;;: <= ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ () ~ -.I -. ~ t:::J 0 ffi <= (I) -n - G> C :0 m 0) 'tII o ::D -i r- c o r- o ~ lD > -< " v ( ~.." o ~ G) ~ '6 b " "' "'.. ~ bl 0 ....,J ~ ~ ~ ~ a ,,~ \ " \ J "i T~l~ ~~,\ o D~ "\:J. \ ~) ru 1:' ~t\ -p~ ~t' t: ~t~ ~ r1\ - ~ ~ === '\ !~ ~ .-~ r::;Jp ........ ~ 1..1=== I...... I... !:==== ;,...:'" .po '(; N....J I JJ ~ I I olp v "'"'PO ~ ~ ( } \ QdD.~ ~ =~ )c::::= ~I= (I f ~ ( ~;o;; \ \\ ( ~ ~ l Q }=F= = ::0 =1=:: I \ ~ '( I ,~~ )~~ ~= ~ ~~~ :::: .~ o 01 -= ~ = I({ J cd , r/ D 6 o "I D ~~ ~.:::- / A' ) -YO ' 0 -' 'j , _ , -r. /--:. '-LJ ~ ~.; ( 5) J),/ ~lf' 4'( t' j ::=-- ~ ~ 'IJ n 1rJ) 1/ if'j, ,(; -- ~ / ~ -"P:!AI Vw~ III 'iii '/~\\ ~t ~ ~ [0U" rrM Pili (~~ /, ~ f ~ ~ r./ II) h Cf ""'- /.1-...[1) ~ 1./ I. J . - 'i ,\ ~.-'. } A 0 t/7 11 /J~ \ri'(j J ~ ~::..- ~...,- --... 0 I( 'U (I. ~--.,.. ,; ( )Ii ~ / ~ 6 :Jj;~'_~ 1/ r:;~ fl!l;J ':' i I~: ~ ~~~~~ ~~~v ~ ! ~~~ ~~~t8~~p ~l};; F~ ~:Jl II'fl fi II ~ ~,~~~o~ ~ (/~HlllfI I; ~ """ ~/ IJ ~~~~ ~ //"~. IT' t ( -~ ~~'1 'I \ ~~ ~ jJ \- ~~,~ ~~ ~ ~~ - ~.w 11/ ~ I I I 17~ ~ ~\ (( ~ ~I\ (~~ ~ I 1-4.L~ ~\~ t(~ - L 'N i-/J. wJ! y Iff' · ~ . J /, 1li1..~. . L'rJ: 'I "'_ ~o. '~~~u "F] A__ }l/Il", ~ ~ r -Z'..rH' ~ '" ~ :\ ':, \ \ '0 o ~ \\~ ,\~ , ?~\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ . \ ~ o . < a I'> I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1.8 Significant Issues for Consideration Major issues identified during the scoping process relate to: the configuration of the proposed expansion with respect to adjacent residential properties; potential impacts to marine resources, especially Endangered Species Act (ESA) listed species; and potential water quality impacts. These issues are summarized below. · Impacts of the expansion on views from adjacent properties, adjacent property values, and ingress and egress to the adjacent dock: Three waterfront residential homes, a vacant waterfront residential lot and their associated private four-slip dock are located directly west of the Marina. The proposed Marina expansion will extend to the west, potentially affecting the views currently enjoyed by these residents and potentially limiting ingress and egress to their dock. · Impacts of the proposed project on shoreline resources, wildlife habitat, and ESA listed speCies: Listed ESA salmonid species, (i.e., chinook salmon and Hood Canal summer- run chum salmon) are known to use this area. The proposed expansion could have adverse impacts to food sources, habitat, and water quality. · Impacts of the expansion on water quality: Expansion of the Marina and the increase in Marina usage could potentially result in an increase in gray and black water discharge and the potential for hazardous material spills. The proposed action could potentially result in adverse impacts to water quality. Port Ludlow Marina Expansion Pre-Draft SEtS 1-12 June 2002 ~ C") CD .~ - a I: ... CD fA - ~C( ::>> fA a CP :e .; - .~ - :e -a c c:c fA - U ;. E a - c CP E c o ... ;: c ..... - o ~ a E E ::>> '" . - CP :ii a .... '1:1" CD .~ - a I: ... CD - C( I: .!! - w CI: o :z I: c:n .W; CD Q ... CD - a == c. CD CD Q - w CD .0' ... D.. -a CD '" o c. o ... D.. .c .... a.. = ~ .9 .l!l >. iU o.c 0 <Ii ~g....~e;; e ~ 0 !3.t: ";; ~ ~ A ~ Z.9~;;;e 00"; e iU 'So ~ "OiU ~ t> ~ C;S o iU >-e o ~ o iU o > or) 0 ~~ o ... ... .- Q.,::l Q.,O" <( ~ '0 iU 'e- Q., "0 iU ell 8. o ... Q., .9 ... '" ] c-;j >. .c Q., '" ... 00 o Q., .9 .9 ell '0 '" Q., .5 o Z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - .s :::: ~ ~ :::: ~ ';;: ~ Port Ludlow Marina Expansion Pre-Draft SEIS I: c:n .W; CD Q C") 0- 0- - N CD ~ - a I: ... CD - C( - CD .~ - a I: ... CD - C( - I: CD E CD tw '0 iU 'e- Q., "0 iU" ell o Q., 8 Q., .9 ... '" ] c-;j "':iU o~ iU_ .=- 0'- c.~ "0 ~ iU::: ~ Q., Q.,= 0\0 "'M Q.,... .9 ~ . ..._"0 d - ~ - Q.,.- '::1 iU ::l coO" .- X iU CI) iU ... iU ell '" ... ~ B 0 iU .S e ~..... .!'!! '" 0 "0 ... ell ~ 8. ~ <Ii Ne::iU d'Bii:a Mee..... -.- ~ cO I'::: E g ~ g,.g :::..:"'O~ 0:::;.9 e ~ ~~ .g ] :.a B ~ oa:e ~ S1:iEll ~ B = ::l ~ en._ ~ >- .c Q., e 00 o Q., o E-< ell e;; .t: iU ... '" ::E iU o ~ ... ::l ell ~ ::l CI) "0 e '" ~ '0 CI) -ci iU ... 'S 0" iU ... iU e o Z o iU O[ Q., "0 iU ell o Q., o ... Q., .9 ... '" ] c-;j ~ :... :: ~ ~ b<l :::: '- - ~ '- ~ o iU 'e- Q., "0 iU ell o Q., o ... Q., .9 ... '" ] c-;j .9"g "0 0 iU'" .-:: >- e1:i :.::~ iU:'= ~... .9 g ell iU .~ ;; :~ g o e "'e;; e ell o e "':: Q.) o.c .E ~ ell ell 8.~ ~ '0 CI) ..; e iU ell ~ Q., iU ~ .9 -- ell ~ 2 l:!::l C ';'.9 8t> .tj .E e ~ ~ 0 _ 0 ii ~ e.t: ~.g ~"O '" ~ 2 0 ~} l:!::l iU 1-13 o e "'Coe ~ ~ c::.g . "'::lello~ Q., 0" e 2'- E ... 0': ...,.-=: 0- 8:; ~.:: o '" ell 0 '0 Z ~ ~ 0 '" iU "0 .g>~ ;e;; Q.) -= ...... "0 ........ "'0 U').- iU"O::l <U=~ ell e <.;; .. "0 .9 ~ o .- - ~ e ... Q.,.c::: ell iU '" 0 0.<;::~~Q.,~:.a C.~ellt)~iUC iU a.S .S'; g"g .;:iUell>-eoiU o~~:::",oo -iU"'~>-C::l ~...O",,<;::iU~ :;; ~ . 8.:9 e ... c '0' ~ e of :a a c-;jc.~BE~~ '0 iU 08' Q., "0 iU ell o Q., o ... Q., .9 ... '" ] c-;j ell ].~ ~ ii ~ ~ <Ii o u;~ g e Q., - '-.- 0 ~ .g E -g .~ '" 0 0 c:l ~ ~...c.e>-e oQ., _iU .S e B:a g ....~ ~;::f 8 o~zc :~ ~ ~ "0 iUe ti 8. ~ ~ 0_ c:l.... c.:.= "0 eoo3~ .g ~ ~ .9 "0 ~~ I iU.g ~ c:l 0 ~ e ~~;:~g, o ....... 0 ell U c.9 o.S ;;; ~ ~ ~ t ~ ....~ =- ~ .s :::: ~ ~ :::: ~ ';;: ~ .q e;; ::l CI ... iU ... c:l ~ e;; e en.S! r.ri t).-= Q.. ~:g:.= ec:l~ .- e ... o 0 ~ z':::~ ..; o iU 'e- Q., "0 iU ell o Q., o ... Q., .9 ... (\l ] i:i.i '0 iU '0' ... Q., "0 iU ell o Q., o ... Q., .9 ... (\l ] i:i.i iU .E!J e:C .- "0 iU e ell '" (\l ~ o .5 c5' 00 ... c:l .c c; ~ =:.0 iU ... e iU U ~;;eo g ~ (\l .- .:.: "5 _ u.~ .~ ~ "'0 C ..e ... B ~B ~ ~ ~ June 2002 ~ I e;; e en.9 . U'-= tn c:l "0 .9- Q., "0 - e(\l~ .- e .l!l o 0 ~ Z':::~ I I o iU 08' Q., "0 iU ell o Q., o ... Q., o ... ... (\l ] i:i.i I I I o iU .~ Q., "0 iU ell o Q., 8 Q., .9 ... (\l ] i:i.i I I I I ell ::l o "0 ... c:l N (\l .c .5 iU ell c:l ~ o .:: .!i ...- c.9'~ :!c; ... .- ii ~ ... ... ~ E I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I C'I) GJ .~ - a c: .. GJ "" - ~CC ::a "" a fa) :e .~ - 8: oS :e -a c < "" - WI B- E a - c fa) E c o ... .S; c ..... - o ~ a E E ::a '" . - fa) :a a .... -.:t' ~ - a c: .. GJ - cc C'4 GJ .~ - a c: .. GJ - cc - GJ .~ - a c: .. GJ - cc - c: GJ E GJ 'W:i c: o :: ... CC o Z c: = .- 1ft GJ Q C'I) 0- 0- - c: .!i!" 1ft GJ Q .. GJ - a == c. GJ GJ Q - ... GJ .0 .. A. -a GJ 1ft o C. o .. A. ~ lo... ~ ti ~ 0() .5 "- ~ 0- ~ -0 e 'S c::r e GJ c o Z t) GJ .e' Q., "0 GJ '" 8. e Q., .E ... .;! 'S Ci5 "0 ...!! S cO '" e .5 '" GJ eo ~ .5 o eo - "0 '" GJ 8~ C"O ; g Ci5 lQ ..: (,) GJ 'e' Q., "0 GJ '" o Q., e Q., .E ... '" ] Ci5 ..: (,) GJ 'e' Q., "0 GJ '" o Q., e Q., .E ... '" ] Ci5 u ~ '" GJ ~ .E '" eo ~ '6., ~ GJ Z ~ '" '" '" GJ (,) GJ C e GJ .c ~ "0 ...!! S '" .5 GJ ~ o - '" GJ g ~ - - Ci5 >- .-::: C; =' 0' ... GJ - '" ~ Port Ludlow Marina Expansion Pre-Draft SEIS ..: (,) GJ 'e' Q., "0 GJ '" o Q., e Q., .E ... '" ] C:i3 t) GJ 'e' Q., "0 GJ '" o e.. o ... Q., .E ... '" ] C:i3 ~ o ~ =' Q., GJ eo ~ GJ '" ...!!-o .0 GJ t!:s o > Q.,O C;~ C GJ .9 ~ .-::: 0 "0- "00 "'.- u:':: C (,) OoE:! ..: (,) GJ 'e' Q., "0 GJ '" o Q., e Q., .E ... '" ] C:i3 ..: (,) GJ 'e' Q., "0 GJ '" o Q., o ... Q., .E ... '" ] Ci5 cad 0':: os.. C '" ~""; 8. 'c GJ <;; E ~ "0 GJ '" <;; g g"E "E ~ ~~ .E'o '" '" ... - GJ (,) - '" l3 6' C:!:l._ ..: (,) GJ "e' Q., "0 GJ '" o Q., e Q., .E ... '" ] C:i3 t) GJ 'e' Q., "0 GJ '" 8. ~ .E ... '" ] C:i3 ... GJ <;; o -~ ... ~~~ ~ ~ ~ GJ~>- ~4.1 ~ ... "0 50 ~.:;: "0 '" 0 c ~ ~ '" ~"O~ ];] ~GJ.o g"2 6 '" GJ C a.i GJ f!l.9 f!l (,) '" - '" ..s-ee-e C '" =' '" l.Ll:.a"E:.a 1-14 ell - ClS E 0= < "C = ClS ell - = ClS == ~ = 0- - ClS ~ <Ii t) '" Q., E - o Z t) GJ 'e' e.. "0 GJ '" o e.. o ... Q., o - ... '" ] C:i3 S :0 ~ <Ii GJ ... ~ 6 ~ 0';: .c-'" '" 0 E lQ ~ ~ GJ__ C C '" C '" C ;: oS .~ ~ ~ ; Q.,GJe.. .5:;~ .... o '" '" . o ~ ....:I::: oQ., .~ ~ '" GJ _ C (,).... GJ 0 '0' C ... 0 ~.= - '" '" (,) - 0 c- GJ_ '" '" GJ_ ... '" Q.,- "':0 '" '" e.c eo(,) 1):.2 GJ_ o C z~ ~ '-l r:::s ~ ..... - .s lO:: ~ E lO:: ~ '- ;:.. ~ C .9 - '" - GJ eo GJ > GJ C .;:: '" ::g "0 Cl) '"' Cl) Ol) ;j Ui "0 Cl) C::._ ~ (,) "0 Cl) ;j~ "00 Cl).t:: c:: 0 'sot:: ~p.. .E"O E-t ;j <Ii t) '" 6' - o Z ..: (,) GJ .~ Q., "0 GJ '" o go ... e.. o - ... '" ] C:i3 <;; - :0 ~ <Ii GJ ... ~ .... QJ.- ]oS<;; '" 0 E lQ ~ ~ GJ__ C C '" C '" C ~. .z: .~ ~ ~ ; Q.,GJQ., .5:;~ GJ .... 1Q "Oc:>" o e ",:Eo 1Q'og .....:0 ~ en ~ Go).2.! '" 3 -= 1Q ~.; :SlQ~e~~ ~"O-g~"O '" C C.- :>.. C >- '" GJ >- .... '" $!oeo$!OC l::'- ~ l:: <;; 0 en:'9 0 u ;,"-e "0 -e"O eo.S =' 'S .a ~ ~ ... -g O.c->GJ'" EeoSlo'::Q., -.- en U <<l >. ~.c:.a"'ce ...!! "E "0 ~.9 Q., 'S ~ 8 ~ <;; 8 ~"'='GJ"O=' ::s(,)"O>e"O .....geOQ.,e '" GJ 'u GJ Q., tIJ "0 'S o E C; tIJ June 2002 ... <Ii t) '" 6' - o Z t) GJ 08' Q., "0 GJ '" o Q., e Q., o - ... '" ] C:i3 ..: (,) GJ oe' Q., "0 GJ '" o Q., o ... Q., .E ... '" ] C:i3 eo C oen '" ... ..a .... o C .9 - Q., 2 '" :.a ?:- e o 6' ~ ~ ~ 'E .:;: GJ '" o~ l:l..~ '" GJ 00 '" l.Ll "0 C; C:!:l C") CD .~ - a = .. CD '" - fee ::>> '" 1::1 CP :e = .5 - .; - :e "a c CI: '" - .., 8- E a - c CP E c o ... .:; c ..... - o ~ a E E =>> '" . - CP :a ~ ~ CD .~ - a = .. CD - ee N CD .~ - a = .. CD - ee - CD .~ - a = .. CD - ee - = CD E CD ii:i = .S! - w CI: o Z <Ii o o:l e- - o Z Port Ludlow Marina Expansion Pre-Draft SEIS = I:>> .tit CD Q C") 0- 0- - .... Co) IIJ .~ 0.. "0 IIJ '" o 0.. o ... 0.. .E ... o:l ] tii = I:>> .-;:;; CD Q .. CD - a == a.. CD CD Q o IIJ '0' ... 0.. "0 IIJ '" o 0.. o ... 0.. .E ... .!:! 's tii - w CD .0 .. A. -a CD '" o a.. o .. A. ...i- ~:.= 0..'- .5~ "0 .; IIJ > N o:l :.::>. o:l IIJ Co) ... o 0.. ::;"0 C C o:l o:l ~.9 o:l > ... o:l O.c o..lIJ E..&:l ~ gp ~.bo ... o:l c ... ~.E o 0 ""... '" u ] ::I ::E "l:l IIJ :e o:l ::E <Ii o o:l e- - o Z <Ii o <':I 0.. E - o Z -ci ~ <':I 0.. :~ c <':I o o:l .~ o Z ...; Co) IIJ 'e- 0.. "l:l IIJ '" o 0.. e 0.. o .... ... <':I ] tii -ci IIJ '; 0.. :~ c o:l o o:l .~ o Z ... S :E ~ en IIJ ... IIJ ... IIJ.:: ,g..s,; ~ 0 E 3 ~ ~ =~cu c c c o J:! .9 .... .... ell ~ ~ ;; o..lIJo.. .5~~ -ci IIJ '; 0.. :~ c <':I o <':I .~ o Z .... ~...~ e B 0,) <':I<':I"'''l:l o~~;; gp's. ~ t: IIJ .- ... 0 ell ~ ~ 0.. IIJ .5 C; :S:9~~0 <,::;o~.ct ..... > Co) "'.::: o <':I C"l:l t: c >.- IIJ o ~ . ~.5 i- 0'::: t:: 8 Q) en 2' -5l'~ t ~:~ '" t;: ~.5 3 g :.a"l:lt:]t"l:l ~;;~<':I~e e:s8~...o.. 0._ ell <':I g.~ 0.. > C ....-.c E J:!'c ~ E c ~ ] -5 8.5] ~ o ~ <':I IIJ CI) ... .!! ] CI) '" ~ e 1l t: IIJ ~ - "l:l C <':I .c '" ii: ... IIJ oS o <Ii .... Co) <':I 0.. E - o Z o IIJ 'e- 0.. "l:l IIJ '" o 0.. e 0.. .E ... <':I ] CI) o IIJ 08' 0.. "l:l IIJ '" o 0.. o ... 0.. .E ... <':I ] tii ....."l:l o ... 5:E .- ::: ell Q..'- c 2'= 'C .~ ~.g "l:l~<':I IIJ >. ~ "l:l o:l o:l ::I E .... c:; Co) C "0 .IIJ .:; ;; e- o ... 0.. 2..9 eo E >.5 .- J:!:9 C ~] ~.g e eo <':I Co) 8..5 ~ 2 E ~'u t; IIJ ... IIJ C e-..E ~8 ell IIJ 'u IIJ 0.. CI) C <':I 'S; -< <Ii o <':I 0.. E - o Z o IIJ '0' ... 0.. "0 IIJ '" o 0.. o ... 0.. .E ... "" ] tii o IIJ 'e- 0.. "0 IIJ '" o 0.. o ... 0.. .E ... .!:! 's tii o ell IIJ C '0"- ... ell o..e :9.E O"l:l > C . ""<':1"0 >':::~ <':I 0 0.. E'~ 2 .. Co) '" v. ;:S'- .!:! t: "l:l Co) '" IIJ IIJC..&:l 0..0..... '" Co) ~ cell~ .!':! c t: C;'C :s E ::1._ E "l:l ~ ",,"".c ,",=,~IIJ '-:;""..&:l '" 1 "" ::E 1-15 <Ii o "" ! o Z o IIJ 'e- 0.. "l:l IIJ '" o 0.. o ... 0.. .E ... <':I ] tii ~ lo.. ~ !:.oJ I:::! ~ ~ '- .... I:::! .~ .... ~ <Ii U "" e- - o Z U IIJ 'e- 0.. "l:l IIJ '" o 0.. o ... 0.. .E ... "" ] tii U IIJ 'e- 0.. "0 IIJ '" o 0.. e 0.. .E ... "" ] tii U IIJ oe' 0.. "l:l IIJ '" o 0.. o ... 0.. .E ... <':I ] i:ii -ci IIJ ell o 0.. e 0.. .~ .E ~ IIJ "0 ::I u fIi .5.!:! ==~ .~ :E <':I '; g- o Co) C IIJ .loo:> "".- >.~ ~'e :1; ~ Z~ c .9 '; .::!l .~ o :z C .9 '; U ell IIJ > IIJ C 'C "" ::E "l:l C "" "l:l IIJ ... IIJ ell C "" "l:l C ~ "l:l '. C ~ <':1.- "l:l Co) IIJ IIJ C 0.. IIJCI) ..so <':1'- IIJ ... ~~ <Ii .... Co) <':I e- - o :z ...; Co) IIJ .~ 0.. "l:l IIJ ell o 0.. o ... 0.. o .... ... <':I ] tii U IIJ 'e- 0.. "l:l IIJ ell o 0.. o ... 0.. .E ... <':I ] tii .E ~ IIJ "l:l ::l U en :~ .~ :E <':I '; 0.. o "" C ~ .loo: > <':I .- >.~ ~'e :1; ~ IIJ <':I Zt: ell IIJ '; ... ..&:l IIJ t: IIJ > C - "l:l C <':I .c ell ii: ... IIJ -S o I <Ii U <':I 0.. E - I <Ii o "" e- - o Z I o :z U IIJ 'e- 0.. "0 IIJ '" o 0.. o ... 0.. o .... ... <':I ] tii U IIJ 'e- 0.. "l:l IIJ '" o 0.. e 0.. o ... ... "" ] tii I I I ...; Co) IIJ 'e- 0.. "l:l IIJ ell o 0.. e 0.. .E ... <':I ] tii U IIJ 'e- 0.. "l:l IIJ '" o 0.. o ... 0.. .E ... "" ] tii I I I I -ci IIJ '" o 0.. e 0.. .~ I -ci IIJ '" o 0.. e 0.. .~ I c .9 .... <':I .::!l .~ o :z c .9 '; .::!l .~ o :z I I I '" IIJ 'u IIJ 0.. CI) C <':I 'S; -< I 1 <':I ::E I I June 2002 ... I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 'e_ - :e -a c oCI: '" - ~ a .5 a - c CP E c o ... e;: C ..... - o ... a E E :I '" . - CP ::a a ..... ~ CD I: .2: 0 ..;:: gee .. 0 .:!z Ci! C"") ~ .- - a I: .. CD - Ci! I: &::n .;:;; CD ClI C"") 0- 0- - s:: .9 U E '" rn s::_ 8 ~ oS' Z ._ u u '= e Q., "0 U '" o Q., e Q., o - ... CQ ] ti3 u u 'e- Q., "0 U '" o Q., o ... Q., g ... CQ ] ti3 ... CQ "3 U :.a u s:: > .- "0 .= s:: =' CQ '" ~ u u ... '" 0'- _ 0 '" s:: ,!:! .5 - .- u > '" "';:: d c.i ~~S s:: g CQ 0'- t: ',0 ~ u uCQco ;::l ... ... .t: 0 CQ la Q.,..e 05"0 Uus:: - CQ ~ o <IJ I::l ~ ~ -c:::: ~ .S! ....:l ~ ~ s::: ~ .;:: ~ Port Ludlow Marina Expansion Pre-Draft SEIS eN CD .2: - a c: .. CD - Ci! I: &::n .;:;; CD ClI .. CD - a == A. CD CD ClI - -e CD .0' .. A. -a CD "" o A. o .. A. CD .2: - a c: .. CD - Ci! - c: CD E CD 'U:i -d .5 C ",' ~ s::"O U .- o~ 5S::g. .- CQ Q.,.9 U laQ., 0-'" CQ .- ~ - CQ U Q.,..g ~ ~ ~ s:: ~;~.g~~ ...: u U 'e- Q., "0 U '" o Q., e Q., o - ... CQ ] ti3 ...: u U .= e Q., "0 U '" o e- Q., o - ... CQ ] ti3 ~ s::~ o~ ~"O ~ ; U s:: .... CQ .s::- -~ .~ U > . .....- en s:: '" s:: U s:: 0 ... Q)-- .~ ..c: C;3 la ~ s:: o Q...~ u E '" s:: 0 U oU"O .- U la~'" CQ s:: =' Q.,='"O >: 0 s:: ~U~ ,u U 'e- Q., "0 U '" o Q., e Q., g ... CQ ] ti3 ...: u U 'e- Q., "0 U '" 8. o ... Q., g ... CQ ] ti3 I 5 CQ~ 0", 9.>. 00 CQ g] "0 t: ~ ~ '5 ~ :.:: CQ u:-2 ..e - o 0 --9 s:: s:: o 0 ''::: c: ui us>' E Q.,-E '" 0 a 69.CQ UooCll ~ lo... ;::s c.>:l I::l ~ ~ '- ..... I::l .~ ~ ...: u u 'e- Q., "0 u '" o Q., o ... Q., o - ... CQ ] ti3 ...: u u 'e- Q., "0 U '" 8. o ... Q., o - ... CQ ] ti3 en ~ CQ 'f "0 u u Q., 6 0 .- ... .-::: c.. "'- o CQ c....:: u s:: ..e u "0 0'- - '" - ~ [l 5 [.g 'S U 0"- u:09 ~~ CQ 0 s:: Q., o '" ".:: cu CQ ... Cii~ 1-16 ...: u II) 'e- 0. "0 u '" o Q., e Q., g ... CQ ~ US u II) 'e- Q., "0 II) '" o 0. o ... Q., g ... CQ ~ ti3 u u 'e- Q., "0 Cl) '" o 0. e 0. o - ... CQ ~ ti3 u Cl) 'e- 0. "0 II) '" o 0. o ... Q., g ... CQ ~ US -0 Cl) s:: .; = .~ >. ;:: Cl) 0. e 0. Cl) ..e g '" .. Cl) e e - < co s:: 'S Cl) ~ ..s .~ "0 Cl) '" '" II) .. c.. c.. =' '" Cl) ..ern _ Cl) ::: =' ~ .sr ;;] =' u O~ u Cl) '0' ... 0. "0 Cl) CIl o 0. o .. c.. g .. CQ ~ US u Cl) 'e- 0. "0 Cl) '" o 0. o .. c.. g .. CQ ~ US Cl) u =' "0 ~ .~ = Cl) 5 c.. 'S 0" Cl) = Cl) 'u S rn Cl) s:: ~.~ .. '" g l~ ~ II) -c = = fI'l = = ~ .c .... .~ ~ CJ = <IJ .... fI'l fI'l <IJ ..... ..... fI'l CJ = .... e- u~ u CQ .~ o Z ...: u II) 'e- c.. "0 ~ o c.. e 0. o - .. CQ ~ ti3 ...: u Cl) 'e- c.. "0 u '" o 0. e c.. o - ... CQ ] US ~ s:: =' o U ..s .~ t1 ~ I::l ~ ..... - .s s::: ~ ~ s::: ~ .;:: ~ u CQ .~ o Z ...: u Cl) 'e- c.. "0 Cl) '" o 0. o .. 0. o - ... CQ ~ ti3 u u 'e- c.. "0 u '" o c.. o .. c.. g ... CQ ~ US - s:: Cl) - '" .;;; s:: o . u s:: '" CQ 0;: ~ u u II) > "e'or;; c..S:: Cl) "O.s:: II) u '" ... 8.S' e 0 ~U e .s~ ..se .- ~ ~ .. - Cl) 5th - CQ .:a ~ la- o c :;: e .- Cl) - OJ) u CQ .~ C o CQ P..~ "0 Cl) ~:E o Cl) 8'6 ....s:: ~CIl s:: CQ ii:: u > .;;; s:: u ] S' o U € =' o U ...' ~ '" CQ ~ - c e II) OJ) CQ C CQ ~ U ~ ~ o .s:: CIl 5 CQ ~ e ~ June 2002 ... CW') CD .~ - a c ... CD '" - ~Ci ::t '" I:J CD :E .~ - .~ - :e -a c <C '" - '" 8- E I:J - C CP E c o ... .- > c ..... - o ~ a E E ::t "" . - CD :a a .... ~ CD .~ - a c ... CD - Ci c-..l CD .~ - a c ... CD - Ci - CD .~ - a c ... CD - Ci - c CD E CD i:i:i c o .'6 CC o Z ti co J o Z C I:n .- '" CD Q CW') 0- 0- - >- co l!:l o~ - co 'UO ae e 0 0- cl:: e ~ =' 0 ;a'S; o eo ::;E c ~ o"5i . 0'- "0 ....:l~~ C I:n .-;;; CD Q ... CD - ~ D. CD CD Q gp-ci .- ~ 'in >- .- co ~l!:l o~ - co tiO co e Q.o .5 <l:: ~~ ._ 0 X 'S; - u CD .- o ... A. -a CD '" o D. o ... A. ~ co o e o <l:: ~ o 'S; eo ..5 en .>( o o - ti co e-ci .- ~ ~ >- o co ....:ll!:l E - ~ = 01 ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~~ CIl _ ~~ CIl ~ .~ E:: "S ::: -= ~ tl .;:: <~ Port Ludlow Marina Expansion Pre-Draft SEIS eo. ct: 0.0 ::s .~ 8 Ot o 0 - u tiC'/) co e ee .- .... ~~ ._ 0 X 'S; ~ o 'S; eo oS en .>( . ot: g 5 _u ~t Q.O e u ._ C'/) ~ e o 0 ....:l<l:: t o u C'/) e o <l:: ~ o 'S; eo o.a en .>( Q) g ti co Q. e :d~ .~ 5 xu eo- c .... ':' ~ en .- '" l< en o 0 o t; - c: . - >- U E " ao~ e <l:: ~ .- '" 0 ~ ~- 0.2 -g ....:l>-l eot: .S 0 'in~ .- en l< en o 0 o t; - c: . - >- U e c: ao~ e <l:: ~ .- en 0 ~ ~- 0.2 -g ....:l>....:l en en e U co e o <l:: en ~ o 's; eo '.a en .>( . o ~ o~ ::: ~ U 0 co_ Q.-o e ~ .- ....:l ~t: o 0 ....:l~ -ci o ... 'S 0" o ... o c o Z -ci o en o go ... Q. o C o Z -ci o en o Q. o ... Q. o C o Z o~ ,J:)... o 0 -~ .c u - 0 eoo C I "s:!O c,- .- 0 0"0 100 C '- Q) o _ ~ ~ o ~ U Q) ~.;: .S g ~-o C':l Q) 0'- . ,J:)~~ Q) U 0"0 0 Z'fii 0 ~ lo... ;:: <-:l ~ ~ ~ ::: '- .... ~ '- .... ~ 1-17 .S o en <':l Q) ... U . .S S o C':l ZJ:: ti o '0' ... Q. -0 o en o Q. o ... Q. g ... <':l ] Cii ti o 08' Q. "0 o en o Q. o ... Q. g ... ~ 'S Cii -.--, coC'/) .80 -o....:l C""" <':l 0 U Jj 'E ~ 0 .~ en .c'- Q) 0 >- C 0 .- > Q) ,.S:! -ci l(l~.g ~c.~ g 0 U '-"0 l< _C':lO ~:i] o,J:) _ E . 0 ~S.: u~:= .5 J:: ~ = o .- .. co:: .. a.. ~ CIl = co:: a.. E-4 ~ ~ ~ ~ ...... - S ::: ~ E:: ::: ~ .;:: ~ ~ '- :h "0 0 C Go) ....._ l(l<S ~ ~ -0 <:I ucc.. .S E ~ o 0 ~ Z-o'in ..: U o '8' Q. "0 o en o Q. o ... Q. o - ... co ] Cii ..: U o "0' ... Q. "0 o en o Q. o ... Q. g ... C':l ] Cii o :c ~ 'c; > co eo C :s C':l Q. ~ o J:: en ~ o o - co =' 0" Q) "0 < -ci ~ 'S 0" Q) ... o C o Z ..: U Q) '8' c.. "0 o en o Q. o ... Q. g ... co ] Cii ti o 08' Q. "0 Q) en o Q. o ... Q. .s ... C':l ] Cii "0 ~ 'S 0" o ... o C o Z ~ ;:: ~ ~ ~ ::: '- .... ~ '- .... ~ June 2002 ... I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I fit G) .. ::) fit a G) ::e c -- - a &:I) -- - :e -cI c ct fit - W a .5 a - c G) E c o .. -s: c .... - o .. a E E ::) '" - G) ::a ~ "It' CD .~ - a I: - CD - < CW') .~ - a I: - CD - < N CD .~ - a I: - CD - < - CD .~ - a E CD - < - I: CD E CD tu I: .!! - WI CC o Z I: ." e;; CD Q CW') ~ ~ - I: ." ..;; CD Q - CD - a == D. CD CD Q - WI CD .- o - A. -a CD '" o D. o - A. ell ~ .- - = .- - ~ ~ = = ell ~ U 'f ~ 00 u .- :c = ~ .S II) ... ~.,ES ~ "0 m ,,; g 1; .~.~ 0- e :>::E Oil)\'" 0- Z"O~:; ~ u II) '8' Q.. "0 II) m o Q.. e Q.. o - ... o:l ] Cii ti II) -[ Q.. "0 II) m o Q.. e Q.. B ... o:l ] Cii ~ e t.;:~ ... m .,E~ "0 c:: c:: 0 e .~ II) ~ "OQ.. .S go ~ II) m C':I m II) 0 ~~r.::: 13 "0 ~ .S g, 2:! C;'- .... cl:l....,E ";"0 e II) II) e .~ 05 UC:O" c:: II) II) _ m ... ~ ~ t:s ~ ..... - ~ l::: ~ t: l::: ~ 's: ~ m II) u 'E II) C'-l >. u c:: II) e.o e ~ ... ~ Port Ludlow Marina Expansion Pre-Draft SEIS ~ u II) '0' ... Q.. "0 II) m o Q.. e Q.. B ... o:l ] Cii ~ u II) 08' Q.. "0 II) m 8- e Q.. B ... o:l ] Cii "0 c:: o:l ~ U o "0 ~-d 2:! .~ c:: =' o 0" -~ ~ ~ .- II) ~ E ~.,E o:l m U c:: .- o:l ~t: II) II) -U::2 ~~ II) c:: Z..!:! II) u 'E II) C'-l e; u 'E u II) tii ~ u II) '8' Q.. "0 II) m o Q.. o ... Q.. B ... o:l ] Cii ti II) '8' Q.. "0 II) m o Q.. o ... Q.. B ... o:l ] Cii ... ~ '" ~ ~ o :a =' .....l t: o l:l... e; '0 ~-d ._ II) II)C;; m c.. "'.- e.~ s:!c .= '" '#.~ r-- o:l ci ~ II) U 'E II) C'-l ... II) - o:l ~ ti II) '8' Q.. "0 II) m o Q.. e Q.. o - ... '" ] Cii ti II) 08' Q.. "0 II) m o Q.. o ... Q.. B ... '" ] Cii ... .,E "0 c:: ~ ,,; "0 :_J:l_ .S II)'C:; ~~ II) _ .~ 2 e;e .~ a t: ~. o ca go~ ~ ~ II) U 'E II) C'-l ... ~ II) C'-l ~ :I '8 '" C'-l -d II) ... 'S 0" ~ II) c:: o Z ~ u II) '8' Q.. "0 II) m o Q.. e Q.. B ... '" ] Cii ti II) '8' Q.. "0 II) m o Q.. o ... Q.. B ... '" ] Cii II) .J:l B m m II) U U '" >. u c:: II) e.o e II) "0 c:: o:l m C ~-d >.11) ..c::::2 ~ ~ .- ... ~Q.. ~ '" ~ ~ ~ ~ '- .... t:s .~ .... ~ m II) u 'E II) C'-l >. g II) e.o e ~ ~ 1-18 ti II) 08' Q.. "0 II) m o Q.. o ... Q.. B ... '" ] C'-l ~ u II) '8' Q.. "0 II) m o Q.. o ... Q.. B ... '" ] Cii II) .J:l >. B ~ e~ II) '" ti ~ >.- m o:l c:: t: o c:: .- II) ~ U II) II) 6..-5 go~ m U . 1I)0J,l ~Ou II)U.g .S c:: ~ - 0 II) ~"O c:: "0 11)_ ~~e; 1I):g"O Z._ 1; ~ u II) .8' Q.. "0 II) m o Q.. e Q.. o - ... '" ] Cii ~ u II) '8' Q.. "0 II) m o Q.. o ... Q.. B ... '" ] C'-l I II) ~ "0 II) 1;~ -U>' c:: g c:: II) o OIl m ... ... II) II) e ~II),,; c:: c:: II) .-'- .... !ii~.g t:: c:: II) ... .g U .,E .;;; e II) Q.. OIl... OIl .S "0 c:: .S ;::g "'0 OIl ~~t.;: ti II) O[ Q.. "0 II) m o Q.. o ... Q.. B ... '" ] Cii ti II) 00' ... Q.. "0 II) m o Q.. o ... Q.. B ... '" ] Cii ~ II) c:: c:: o "0 ~;>.. e; '" 'gj~ 0;:; c; .J:l ~ Be; m t: II) c:: ><: II) o U .J:l "0 _ c:: e; '" uJ,l ~ U ~.g ~ u II) '8' Q.. "0 II) m o go ... Q.. B ... '" ] Cii ti II) '8' Q.. "0 II) m o Q.. o ... Q.. B ... '" ] Cii dl c:: II) II) ! II) .J:l c:: .9 ti II) c:: c:: . o~ u g ~o II) I c::U -"0 U c:: E: o:l m~ c:: U o 0 UO ti II) oe Q.. "0 II) m o Q.. o ... Q.. B ... .!: 'E C'-l ti II) oe' Q.. "0 II) m o Q.. o ... Q.. B ... .!: 'E C'-l "0 II) ;:; > c:: 0'- 1:"0 II) II) ~:;cn -OU;c o c:: II) _0- e e E o~ ~ II) =' ~;; ~ m >. ... C;~II) o~ :3-g ':::ot::U ]~i) II) - Q.. ~ II) . u ~.,::: Oil)=' 01:] ..:::a 8 II) u 'E II) C'-l e; U 'E u II) tii II) u oE II) C'-l ... II) c;; ::: June 2002 ~ I ~ c>> c: I .:: .!! - - D '" c: 4 ... 0 c>> - z: I :a: tj ...; - 0 0 0 0 0 I .~ 'e' 'e' CO') c: Cl. Cl. Cl. c>> en "0 "0 "0 .:: .;:;; 0 0 0 c>> '" '" '" - 0 0 0 D Q Cl. Cl. Cl. I c: C"') 0 0 0 ... ... ... ... c>> 0- Cl. Cl. Cl. '" - 0- 0 .9 .9 ~ :a: - - ... ... ... ... ::a <IS <IS <IS '" ] ] ] I lei ~ U5 U5 Ci.i :e ~ tj ...; - . 0 0 I - c: 0 0 0 ~ en "0' '8"' '0' .-;:;; ... ... . N Cl. Cl. Cl. - c>> "0 "0 "0 . - c>> Q :e .:: 0 0 0 ... '" '" '" - c>> 0 0 0 I -a D - Cl. Cl. Cl. C c: D e 0 0 ... :: ... ... c:z: c>> Cl. Cl. Cl. - .9 .9 .9 '" :a: c::a. - c>> ... ... ... w c>> 8- <IS <IS <IS I Q ] ] ] E U5 U5 Ci.i lei - ... c I c c.9 ~ ~ 0 E c E <IS <IS CQ 0 c p. c 0 0 0_ '.c l:: <IS ... ,5 0 ..."0 .- .5 > '" o 0 I - "0 '" ::: ~ ~ c '" 0 "0 Y.I - c>> CQ ... - c>> .0 Cl. f;c.9 '" 0 0 .:: ... :~ '" 0 ~8 cti a.. :;:0 ~ - "D C .5 <IS C D o <IS 02 g.t:: I c: c>> <IS ~~ lei ... tit C 1}l "0 E c>> 0 E - c::a. 0 ~ ~ 0 :a: 'Vi ::: <IS E 0 Cl.0 o Ol)..c:: ... c ::a a.. as 0.J:J ;a O{i; c: '" - 0 ::: 0 0 >( 0 .J:J_ ....:1"0 I . 0- <IS _ '" c '" t: ::: Cl.>- t: <IS 0 - .- '" 0 0 o ~ 'Vi Vi ... Cl.' ~ _ c ~ I 0 o ~ o C <IS ::a 0- o <IS ~ ::: e:<lSCl. - >( lei ..... ~ E-<Cl. Cl.o I .... 0 I 0 - 'E c: 0 c>> CIl I E ... c>> 0 ii:i ~ 0 CIl >- ... I .5 '2 <IS CIl I Port Ludlow Marina Expansion June 2002 I Pre-Draft SEIS 1-19 ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~ter 2 - Proposed Proiect and Alternatives 2.1 Description of Proposal 2.1.1 Name of Proposal "Port Ludlow Marina Expansion" 2.1.2 Proied Sponsor Port Ludlow Associates, LLC 70 Breaker Lane Port Ludlow, W A 98365 2.1.3 Proied Location The Port Ludlow Marina is located in Port Ludlow Bay, Jefferson County, Washington. The Marina is located on the north shore of the Bay, inside Burner Point. Port Ludlow Bay is located on the west shore of Admiralty Inlet at the mouth of Hood Canal. (Section 16, Township 28 North, Range 01 East, W.M.) The location of the project is shown in Figures 1 and 2. 2.1.4 Existing Proiect Features The Port Ludlow Marina currently provides 280 slips, additional side tie areas for 20 to 40 boats, as well as a boat sewage pumpout, dinghy float, fuel float, kayak float, and public access to the water. Water, fire protection, and electrical service are available at the docks. Upland facilities include a store, rest rooms and showers, parking areas, and waterfront trails. In December 2001, the moorage distribution was 225 permanent residents, seven permanent non-residents, and 48 slips available for guests. Water depths at the Marina vary from shallow intertidal (approximately -10 feet Mean Lower Low Water - MLLW) around the perimeter of the Marina to depths of -38 feet MLLW. The Marina is configured with five dock systems and one fuel float. The fuel float, as well as the A- and B- Docks, are located at the east end of the Marina, just inside Burner Point, and extend from shore in a north-south direction. A floating breakwater is located at the end of A-Dock. Two 55- foot gangways provide access toA- and B-Docks, the fuel float, and the kayak float from the upland facilities. The C-, D-, and E-Docks are connected by one central walkway and are located to the west, in a general east-west configuration. These docks are accessed from the upland facilities by a third gangway. The existing 1,600 square foot wood and foam kayak float accommodates 40 kayaks in racks and is located on the west side ofB-Dock. The existing 680 square foot wood dinghy float is located at C-Dock, at the junction ofthe main walkway and the lateral. This dinghy float completely covers the area between the walkway and the first finger to the south. Port Ludlow Marina Expansion Pre-Draft SflS 2-1 June 2002 ~ The boat sewage pump-out station is located on the fuel float. The fuel float also accommodates a small structure for fueling accessories and the cash register. The fuel float is also used occasionally by seaplanes for docking. The current mix of slips at the Port Ludlow Marina ranges from 24-foot slips up to side tie areas for boats in the 80-foot range. The recent trend in boat design is toward boats that are longer, have wider beams, and include amenities such as "swim steps." 2.2 Proposed Proiect and Alternatives The proposed project is an addition of dock systems at the Port Ludlow Marina to provide an additional 100 slips. For all expansion alternatives, the existing kayak and dinghy floats will be replaced. The new Marina floats will be constructed of concrete sections with structural wood wales and an encapsulated foam floatation core. The new floats will generally be 5 feet to 8 feet in width and will be held in place by new steel piling. Floats for the outer dock will be 12 feet in width. These outer floats serve as a floating breakwater to protect the Marina from waves and wakes. The wider width is necessary to provide this protection. The only upland actions associated with this project are new utility tie-ins that will be required in an area of approximately 50 feet upland ofOHW. Alternative 1: Proposed Project The proposed project (i.e., the Marina expansion as proposed by the project sponsor) is shown as Alternative 1. The proposed project adds 100 slips to the Marina by expanding the existing float system both westward and waterward. The proposed configuration ofthe new floats/slips is as follows: · D-Dock will be extended 120 feet to the west to accommodate an additional twelve 36-foot slips. · E-Dock will be extended 400 feet to the west to accommodate an additional 42 slips (seven 50-foot, nine 60-foot, and twenty-six 45-foot slips). · The east side ofE-Dock will be reconfigured to accommodate sixteen slips (eight 36-foot slips and eight 40-foot slips, to replace 10 existing slips). · A new F-Dock will be constructed waterward ofE-Dock. The new F-Dock will extend 700 westerly and 250 feet easterly of the central walkway. The new F-Dock will accommodate 40 new slips (thirty 45-foot slips and ten 50-foot slips). F-Dock will serve as a floating breakwater to protect the Marina. The existing 1,600-sq. ft. timber kayak float will be replaced in the same location with a 2,850-sq. ft. float with light transmission capabilities. The new kayak float will be constructed using plastic pontoons for floatation and timber for the connection system. The float cross Port Ludlow Marina Expansion Pre-Draft SflS 2-2 June 2002 ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I section will consist of three pontoons. A space will be left open between each of the pontoons in the cross section. The new float design will incorporate light-transmission panels. The two gaps between the three pontoons will be spanned by grating or sandblasted plexiglass (versus timber decking), which will allow light to penetrate beneath the float. The existing 680-sq. ft. dinghy float on C-Dock will also be replaced with three new floats totaling 1,086 sq. ft. The floats will be 6 feet wide and attached to the sides of the main walkway and the C-Dock lateral, the E-Dock lateral, and the F-Dock lateral. The new dinghy floats at E-and F-Docks will be located at water depths of greater than 20 feet (MLLW=O Datum). The new dinghy float at the junction of the main walkway and the C-Dock lateral will open up a now covered side space between the dinghy dock and the first finger. The proposed project is shown in Figure 3. Alternative 1 will result in an additional 33,745 sq. ft. of overwater structure. Of this total, 966 sq. ft. of new overwater structure will be located in water depths ofless than 20 feet (MLLW=O). The remaining 32,779 sq. ft. will be located at water depths of20 feet or greater. Approximately 100-130 new steel piles will be required. All but one of the piles will be located in water greater than 20 feet in depth. Pile-driving equipment will be barge-mounted and will be either a diesel-powered hammer or vibratory driver. Pile-driving equipment will be sized according to the geotechnical characteristics of the substrate. The barge will be sized to accommodate the equipment used during the pile driving. The one piling to be installed in shallow water (18 to 20 feet deep) will be shorter than those to be installed in deeper water, requiring less energy to install than the pilings in deeper water. Installing the one piling in shallow water will take less than 1 day, minimizing the time of potential disturbance of any salmonids that may be present in the nearshore area. The remaining piles will be installed at water depths of greater than 34 feet. The barge will be maintained at sufficient depth to ensure that it will not ground. All pile driving will be done outside the closed work window for listed species. Ahernative 2: Deep Water Expansion Alternative 2 provides for a 100-slip expansion primarily waterward, rather than laterally to the west. The existing dinghy dock will remain in place. The proposed configuration of the new floats/slips is as follows: · Thirteen 45-slips will be added to the waterward side ofE-Dock, west of the central walkway. · The east side ofE-Dock will be reconfigured to accommodate sixteen slips (eight 45-foot slips and eight 50-foot slips, replacing 10 existing slips). · New F- and G-Docks will be constructed waterward ofE-Dock. The new F-Dock will extend 250 westerly and 180 feet easterly of the central walkway, and will accommodate 35 slips (twenty-one 45-slips, eight 50-foot slips, and six 60-foot slips. The new G-Dock will extend 170 feet westerly and 180 feet easterly ofthe central walkway, and will Port Ludlow Marina Expansion Pre-Draft SEIS 2-3 June 2002 ~ accommodate 14 slips (eight 45-foot slips and six 60-foot slips). This will serve as a floating breakwater. · A-Dock will be extended 270 feet waterward and will accommodate an additional thirty- two 45-foot slips. This will serve as a floating breakwater. · A new float will provide a connection between B-Dock and C-Dock,and the existing kayak float will be repositioned to the new extension on the A-Dock. Alternative 2 will result in an additional 37,865 sq. ft. of overwater structure. All of the 37,865 sq. ft. of additional overwater coverage will be located at water depths of20 feet or greater. Approximately 100-130 new steel or concrete piles will be required. None of the piles will be located in water less than 20 feet in depth (MLL W=O Datum). Alternative 2 is shown in Figure 4. Alternative 3: 1993 Design Alternative 3 will include a 100 slip expansion and improvements with the configuration proposed in the 1993 "Port Ludlow Development Program Final Environmental Impact Statement." The proposed configuration of the new floats/slips is as follows: · C-Dock will be expanded 60-feet to the west to accommodate 120 feet of side ties. · D-Dock will be extended 240 feet to the west to accommodate an additional fourteen 40-foot slips and twelve 48-foot slips. · E-Dock will be extended 200 feet to the west to accommodate an additional ten 48-foot slips, and seven new 50-foot slips will be added to the east side ofE-Dock. · A new L-shaped dock will be constructed approximately 150 feet waterward ofE-Dock to provide additional side-ties. · A-Dock will be extended 150 feet waterward and will accommodate an additional thirty- four 40-foot slips. · A new dock will be constructed between the fuel float and Burner Point. This new dock will accommodate fourteen 40~ foot slips and will be located in water less than 20 feet in depth. · Approximately 500 cubic yards of dredging will be required at slightly less than a I-acre area along Burner Point in order to increase water depths and improve access to this new inner dock. Alternative 3 will result in an additional 31,164 sq. ft. of overwater structure. Of this total, 23,208 sq. ft. of new overwater structure will be located in water depths ofless than 20 feet. The remaining 7,956 sq. ft. will be located in water depths of20 feet or greater. Approximately Port Ludlow Marina Expansion Pre-Draft SEIS 2-4 June 2002 ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 100-130 new steel piles will be required. Approximately two-third of these piles will be located in water greater than 20 feet in depth. Alternative 3 is shown in Figure 5. Alternative 4: No Action This alternative will result in maintenance of the existing Marina facilities, but no expansion of docks or slips, and no upgrade of amenities such as the dinghy float or kayak float, at this time. Alternative 4 is shown in Figure 6. 2.3 Benefits/Disadvantages of Delaying Implementation The SEP A Guidelines encourage permitting agencies to view each generation as a trustee for succeeding generations. With this perspective, environmental review is encouraged to consider whether approving/implementing a proposal at this time will preclude future options (WAC 197- 11-440(5)(c)(vii). The benefits of delaying expansion of the Marina relate to delaying the associated impacts to the natural and built environments. No expansion of the Marina at this time will result in no immediate construction or additional operational impacts to the marine environment or impacts to views from adjacent residential properties and the traveling public. The Port Ludlow Marina is now at full capacity, and there is an increased demand for both more boating facilities and larger slips to accommodate larger boats. The Marina now turns away approximately 30 vessels each month between Memorial Day and Labor Day. It is unknown whether delaying implementation will result in potential Marina customers constructing their own docks in Port Ludlow Bay, additional boats anchoring in the Bay, and/or increased use of alternate marina locations. The disadvantage of delaying the expansion relates to delaying provision of planned facilities and services for local and traveling boaters. As stated above, if the expansion is not permitted at this time, the demand for boating facilities in and around Port Ludlow Bay will continue to increase. Also, merely delaying implementation to a later point in time will not minimize identified impacts. Port Ludlow Marina Expansion Pre-Draft SEIS 2-5 June 2002 ... I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Chapter 3 -Affected Environment, Environmental Impacts, Mitigating Measures and Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 3.1 Earth 3.1.1 Affecte.d Environment Topography Port Ludlow Marina is located in Port Ludlow Bay, on the west shore of Admiralty Inlet at the mouth of Hood Canal. The bay is a 2.2 square mile, J-shaped tidal basin, which extends from the mouth of Ludlow Creek 3.5 miles to Admiralty Inlet. The location of the project is shown in Figures 1 and 2. The eastern approach to the bay is characterized by a submerged sill which forms a submerged basin open to the north. The average depth at the mouth of the bay is 78 feet (MLLW). From this point, the bottom of the basin slopes upward for a distance of 0.5 mile to a depth of 48 to 54 feet. From here, the depth of the bay remains fairly uniform throughout most of its length to within 0.5 mile of Ludlow Creek. The innermost 0.5 mile of the bay has a maximum depth of 40 to 42 feet. The Port Ludlow Marina was constructed in the late 1970s along the north shore of the inner portion of the bay. The upland topography in the vicinity of the Marina consists of a quarry spall and small riprap sloped beach, and a generally level upland area at approximately + 15 to 17 feet mean sea level (MSL). Burner Point wraps around the east side of the Marina. West of the Marina, the slope of the beach steepens and the 15- to 40-foot bank is covered with vegetation. During the Scoping process, property owners in this area stated they have experienced problems with sloughing and erosion. Within the Marina, subsurface elevations range from -0 feet (MLL W) adjacent to the beach, to -38 feet under the outermost docks (i.e., E-Dock and the end of A-Dock). Existing slips are located at depths of -10 to -38 feet. Underwater slopes adjacent to the beach average 9 to 11 percent. Further waterward, in the vicinity ofE-Dock, the bottom flattens, with slopes ranging from 2 to 4 percent. Subsurface Conditions Explorations of the Marina subsurface were conducted by Landau Associates from December 7-10, 2001. Seven borings were drilled to depths ranging from about 32 feet to 50 feet below the mudline. The location of these borings is shown in Figure 7. The laboratory soil testing was accomplished on representative soil samples obtained from the borings. Testing was done to classify the type of subsurface material. A full copy of the Draft Report is contained in Appendix B of this Draft SEIS and is summarized below. Port Ludlow Marina Expansion Pre-Draft SEIS June 2002 3.1 ~ J...... c ' CD to CD . ..J . :l; ... z Reid iddleton SUBSURFACE BORING LOCA TlONS rXl Landau ~ Associates PORT LUDLOW MARINA EXPANSION DSEIS FIGURE 7 1:\24\99\ 14\DESIGN\PERMIT\EIS\4914Fig7 <t: ex: I I I I I I 01 I I I I I I I I I I I I I e: .2 ~ o ..J e: o ts Q) me: ~g ~ 13 e I1l 0 0 ue: 0 0 0.2> 0 "0 '5 gj ~ 3l ~o 'tl :5. Q)"O 'x e C)lij w a. o o ~ Qj Q) u. g .5 N Q) ~ m o I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Based on the conditions encountered in the borings, the area in the vicinity ofthe proposed expansion is generally underlain by an upper unit of very soft, recent marine sediment over a lower unit of medium dense/stiff, older marine sediment. Underlying the marine sediment is an upper unit of medium stiff glacial deposits and a lower unit of dense/hard glacial deposits. The upper marine sediment is typically a very soft silt with clay and variable amounts of sand and shell fragments. The upper marine sediment extends to a depth of about 4 feet in the boring closest to shore (i.e., B-1) to about 25 feet in boring B-5. In general, the thickness of the soft sediment increases with distance from the shoreline. The upper marine sediment also contains a variable amount of soft, woody material and other organics as observed in borings B-2 and B-6. Below the very soft, upper marine deposit is a denser unit of older marine sediments ranging in composition from silty, fine to medium sand with gravel to fine sandy silts. The density of this lower marine sediment ranges from loose to dense and from stiff to very stiff. This unit also contains shell fragments and some woody debris. The lower marine unit was observed in borings, B-2, B-3, and B-4 and was encountered as shallow as 8.5 feet in boring B-2 and as deep as 29 feet below the mudline in boring B-4. Two different glacial deposits were encountered. The upper glacial unit was primarily soft to stiff, clayey silt with sand and fine gravel. The upper glacial unit was encountered in borings B-3, B-4, and B-5 and was encountered between depths of 27 feet and 42 feet below the mudline. A denser, lower glacial unit was encountered underlying the softer upper glacial unit in borings B-3, B-4, and B-5, and directly below the marine sediments in borings R-l, B-2, B-6, and B-7. The lower glacial unit had a variable composition including silty gravelly sand, sand with silt and gravel, and clayey silt with sand and gravel. The lower unit includes soil consistent with consolidated glacial outwash, glaciomarine drift, and glacial till, and was medium dense to very dense/hard. The top of the lower glacial unit generally increases in depth with distance from the shore ranging from about 7 feet below the mudline in boring B-1 to about 29 feet in boring B-4. Cross-sections of the subsurface profile are shown in Figure 8. The subsurface conditions present at this site preclude the shallow anchoring of new floats (i.e., with chains). Anchors with chains would drag in the soft sediment. Chains with stub piles are also not feasible due to the length of the finger docks and the need for structural support at the end of each finger. Port Ludlow Marina Expansion Pre-Draft SflS 3-3 June 2002 ... 1M"" 'U) """'118I3 .<: 0 ~ ~ 0 Ii! ~ 0 ~ lil C(~ 0 .., .,. I I I I I I I I I I lil J J. J I I I I I I .., .. Ud- I I-B-g~l~ I !li1::",1fI J I~HIll l~ I I h~ I ~jii ~1;1~ t ./ ~~U I~H~! I I H=> tiU~~1 I I .5l~~HI I I j~~:1 I 1 I I I t I I I J 1/1 ! I / I Y "j I j I / I / I / i i i I / .5lln!~Hl I / Ii ~n" .~~~r~j t I ji~t_jl_~ I- 2'" l I / I I / II / i/\ ~IH i~~! h. Note H~ i .<: 2 eelS I I I I I I I I I I Z 0 0 ~ ~ 0 Ii! lil l\! lil lil .., 1M"" 'U) UOJl'^"I3 Reid iddleton SUBSURFACE CROSS-SECTION A-A rxllandau I(QI Associates PORT LUDLOW MARINA EXPANSION DSEIS 1:\24\99\ 14\DESIGN\PERMIT\EIS\4914Fig8A I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I FIGURE 8A I o o N o o ..... x ..,. II C -0 <I)., Q) co u..... c~ .- 0) ~~ flw C/)- fl 'E Q) > o ~... co Q) EO. lil'X ~ tie.... .s a.~ c g.~ 8 Q) ~ -... .- '0.E 5- C/)~~ ui Q) lil 0) -5 .- '2 ~ 15 ocoo. ~-g~ 'g co .!!! Q)lil-5 _ 0)_ ~'2 0 lilOXaj .- ..0 Q) is ~Q);o 5-5-5 a ~cc= Q) Q).- 0 lil Q) ~ lil co~Q)Q) ~.8~= .- ~ lil 0 ~Q)~O) ~ -a. c o co .- ....Oc~ ~e-,g fij '-Q)(U- ~:SE~ ~~$:!-g I-co.E:::I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I . .. CD .. \II I 1 1 ,1\ 1\ I \ I \ 1 \ 1 ~ I \ I \ I \ I \ f 1\ I \ I \ I \ I I t \ I 4 I I I ~ I I 1 I I \ : \ I I ~ ~ I ~hl!1 I H r;~ I 1 ifH~~+ 'iHii, ph \ I.. ~ I ~h! I s~~~ I I I ~u; i I I ' I 1 ' I i z ....! tal I !:. l~ ~fii ~!U h" J 1ft ~... tal e !:. 0 0 N X ~ II C -0 Gl;l If!'!! 0 Gl COI 0 .- 01 ..... ..9!~ ~w C/J- ~ 'E Gl > 0 I 1 I I 1 !lill~UI I j~!!iP~~ I H~~~IL6 J I \ I <Ii .... -Gl lOo. .5 2 (flXo. '02.... .l!l o..g !i: ~ 'tl ~ Gl l!! '5 S05 (/)!~ iii Gl (fl 01= - 02 l!! 5 OlOo. ..o'tlGl =C~ 5l lO._ Q)rn5 l) g'o 1J'"a >< . .!!! ..0 Gl ~ 'tlGl"Q;o a == 5. 'tlCC= .,Glo_O -Gl'tl(fl ~~GlGl ..oQ)C= (fl..oGl_ "-'tl(fl0 ..9!Q)l!!0I q::-c.c o lO .- ....OC'tl ~e-,g 16 'g ~ ~ "e! .- ~ Q) Q)GlO'tl GlI .c: .... t: C _ I-lO_:J o Z rEI: :t Reid iddleton SUBSURFACE CROSS-SECTION B-B FIGURE 88 IAl landau IfQI Associates PORT LUDLOW MARINA EXPANSION DSEIS 1:\24\99\ 14\DESIGN\PERMIT\EIS\4914Fig88 Sediment Quality Port Ludlow Bay and its watershed have been monitored since 1984 in order to evaluate water quality. A non-point monitoring program has been in place since 1989; the results of this monitoring have been documented in a series of reports. Sediment sampling was conducted in 1987, 1991, 1993, and 1995 (in conjunction with proposed dredging near the western end of C-Dock), 1997 and 1999. The sampling program has been adjusted over time to reflect issues of concern. A full copy of the "Port Ludlow Non-Point Monitoring Program, 1999 Report" prepared by Berryman & Henigar (the most recent report with sediment sampling) is on file with the Jefferson County Department of Community Development and is summarized below. Sediment samples were collected from five permanent monitoring stations in the bay and subsequently analyzed for metals, in order to evaluate metals accumulation. The primary source of metals is urban runoff within the watershed. Sediment samples were collected from the bay at locations where stormwater discharge is known to occur. Metals tested for include: arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, iron, lead, mercury, nickel, and zinc. Samples in 1995 were also analyzed for the content of organic carbon, fats/oils/grease (FOG) and pH. Results of the sediment quality monitoring demonstrate that sediments in Port Ludlow Bay contain low concentrations of heavy metals. The 1999 Report concluded "...sediment quality is comparable to other non-urban Puget Sound bays, metal concentrations are generally much lower than in urban bays of Puget Sound, and sediment quality is not declining. " 3.1.2 Environmental Impacts S60rt- Term Impacts Temporary, short-term impacts will result from construction activities. For all expansion alternatives, construction work will occur in or over water. Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 reflect alternate dock configurations for the 100-slip expansion. The alternate dock configurations include different lengths of docks, located in different depths of water. The size and number of pilings required for each expansion alternative is determined by the depth from the new dock to bearing soil (i.e., the depth required to penetrate below the upper silt layer) and the depth of embedment required to support the lateral loads generated by the new docks. For structural reasons, typical marina construction occurs in -10 to -20 feet of water. At these depths, there is good structural capacity for the loads imposed by wind and waves. As the water depth increases, the greater distance from bearing soil to the point where the dock "loads" the piling (known as the "moment arm") decreases the capacities of the individual pilings. At Port Ludlow, installing a piling in --40 feet of water requires a minimum 70-80 foot piling due to the presence of a 20 foot layer of soft sediment, and 10 feet of tidal change (i.e., to accommodate high tide). Pilings of this length must be larger in diameter and installed in a greater number to support the proposed docks. Port Ludlow Marina Expansion Pre-Draft SflS June 2002 ... 3-6 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Because of the quality of the existing sediments in Port Ludlow Bay, re-suspension and movement of contaminated sediments is not considered a significant impact. Upland earthwork will be associated with utility connections. Pipe will run from the docks to connect to landside utilities. Alternative 1: Proposed Projed Construction of the proposed project will require installation of approximately 100-130 new 24-inch steel piles at bottom depths of approximately -18 feet to -40 feet. The depth from the bottom to bearing soils varies from 4 feet closest to shore, to approximately 16 feet along the western side of the new F-Dock, and to approximately 18'll feet along the eastern side of F-Dock. Installation of the new piles will result in a temporary increase in localized turbidity. A more detailed discussion of turbidity is included in Section 3.2, Water. No dredging will be required to construct this alternative. Alternative 2: Deep Water Design Alternative 2 will require installation of approximately 100 to 130 new 24 to 30-inch steel piles at bottom depths ranging from approximately -36 feet and -40 to -42 feet for the new slips on E-, F-, and G-Docks, to -22 feet and -40 to -42 feet for the extension of A-Dock. The depth from the bottom to bearing soils varies from approximately 8Y2 feet along E-Dock to 25Y2 feet along the new G-Dock and at the end of the expanded A-Dock. The greater number and/or size of pilings is due to the greater depth to bearing soils (i.e., on the outside of the new F-Dock, the new G-Dock, and at the end of the expanded A-Dock). Installation of the piles will result in a temporary increase in localized turbidity. A more detailed discussion of turbidity is included in Section 3.2, Water. No dredging will be required to construct this alternative. Alternative 3: 1993 Design Alternative 3 will require dredging approximately 500 (:t 100) cubic yards of material along the eastern shore of the Marina (i.e., on the inside of Burner Point) in order to increase water depths and to increase access to the new inner dock. The silty nature of the marine sediments will result in a significant, but localized, temporary increase in turbidity. Dredging will also temporarily displace substrate for marine plants and animals. Dredged materials will be disposed at an approved in-water disposal site. A more detailed discussion of turbidity is included in Section 3.2, Water. Alternative 3 will also require installation of 100-130 new 24-inch steel piles at various bottom depths ranging from -10 feet on the inside of Burner Point, to -6 feet along the western end of C-Dock, and -40 feet at the extensions ofE- and A-Docks. Alternative 4: No Adion No expansion of the Marina will result in no earth-related impacts. Long- Term Impacts Alternatives 1, 2, and 4 Alternatives 1, 2, and 4 will not affect geologic conditions at the Marina. Minor maintenance dredging may be required at the northwest corner ofthe existing C-Dock at some point in the Port Ludlow Morina Expansion Pre-Draft SEIS June 2002 ~ 3-7 future, but the timing is not known. This maintenance dredging will be required for all alternatives. Expansion of the Marina to the west (Alternatives 1 and 3) will increase boat activity in the vicinity of properties that have experienced previous problems with bank erosion. Residents of these properties have expressed concern regarding the potential for further erosion from additional boat wakes. It is unclear whether past erosion problems were the result of boat wakes and/or storms and upland runoff. The docks will reduce wave impact on shoreline behind the floats. Increased boat use of the fuel float as a result of the expansion could potentially increase scour within the areas adjacent to the fuel float. However, the water depth in this area is deep enough that further scour is unlikely. Erosion of the Burner Point shoreline is also unlikely due to the 40-120 foot distance between the fuel float and the shoreline. Alternative 3: 1993 Design Construction of Alternative 3 may result in the need for periodic maintenance dredging along the eastern edge of the Marina, on the inside of Burner Point, in order to maintain water depths. Increased scour within the areas adjacent to the fuel float is unlikely. The dredging associated with Alternative 3 will increase water depths, and propeller wash is not likely to result in scouring. Erosion along the east shoreline is also unlikely because the new dock will be positioned between the maneuvering area and the shoreline. 3.1.3 Mitigating Measures Proposed: . Construction activities will be limited to the period between July 16 and February 16, in order to minimize potential impacts to juvenile Puget Sound chinook salmon, Hood Canal summer-run chum salmon, and bull trout. . Best Management Practices will be employed during construction including silt fences, spill control measures, floating booms, etc. 3.1.4 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts No significant unavoidable adverse impacts to topography, soils, or subsurface conditions are anticipated. Port Ludlow Marina Expansion Pre-Draft SEIS June 2002 ~ 3-8 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 3.2 WATER 3.2.1 Affeded Environment Water Quality and Stormwater The Washington State Department of Ecology has classified all waters of Port Ludlowas Class AA. Water Quality monitoring of Port Ludlow Bay since 1984 has demonstrated that overall water quality in Port Ludlow Bay is excellent, consistent with its Class AA designation (Jefferson County 1993a, b; Berryman & Henigar 2001). A National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) point-source monitoring program for the Port Ludlow Wastewater Treatment Plant was conducted from 1989 through 1997. This monitoring program documented water quality in Port Ludlow Bay during the environmentally critical months of May through October. The results ofthe point-source monitoring demonstrated continued excellent water quality in Port Ludlow Bay. The point-source monitoring program in no longer required by the Department of Ecology and was discontinued in 1998 (Berryman & Henigar 1999, 2001). A program to monitor non-point sources of pollutants to Port Ludlow Bay was initiated by Pope Resources, developers of Port Ludlow Marina. Monitoring has continued since 1989, with the objectives of (1) establishing baseline water quality conditions, (2) evaluating the impacts of development activities and related nonpoint sources, (3) evaluating the effectiveness of non point source controls such as stormwater management systems, and (4) monitoring long-term trends of bay water quality. Pope Resources conducted its most recent nonpoint monitoring in 1998. This nonpoint-source monitoring program was designed to assess long-term trends in water quality during base flow and storm flow conditions in the major tributaries to Port Ludlow Bay. Baseflow conditions are generally measured May through October, while storm flow water quality was measured during December. Stations were monitored for flow, fecal coliform, conductivity, dissolved oxygen, pH, turbidity, and temperature. During some years, some stations were monitored for metals and pesticides. No long-term upward or downward trends in constituent concentrations are evident for any of the monitoring stations. A graphic showing the long-term trends of the storm water monitoring results for nitrates is contained in Appendix E. Constituent concentrations, for the most part, have not been increasing along with the increased population density of the watershed. Concentrationsofmost constituents (e.g., fecal coliform) have been higher during storm events than during baseflows, which is consistent with the findings of other watershed studies (Berryman & Henigar 1999,2001). Gray and Black Water Discharge The potential for the discharge of gray (galley, bath and shower water) and black water (sewage containing human body wastes and the waste from toilet and other receptacles intended to receive or retain body waste) exists within all marinas. Discharge of black water is illegal and prohibited within the Port Ludlow Marina (please refer to Appendix C and Section 3.8.4 Sanitary Sewer Service for a more detailed discussion of the Marina's policies for controlling discharge of sewage and gray water within the Marina). The State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Port Ludlow Marina Expansion Pre-Draft SEIS June 2002 ~ 3-' is now studying the issue of gray water discharge for the state as a whole. Such discharge is currently "discouraged" at the Port Ludlow Marina. At such time as DNR promulgates new rules for gray water discharge, the Port Ludlow Marina will address the rules, as will all other mannas. Of particular concern is the discharge of sewage black water. The Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) has established water quality standards for fecal coliform bacteria (Chapter 173-201 WAC). For Class AA marine waters, including Port Ludlow Bay, the fecal coliform standard is a geometric mean of 14 organisms per 100 milliliters (ml) of water. This standard applies to waters where edible shellfish are present. The U.S. EPA has established water quality criteria for fecal coliform and enterococcus bacteria based on health risk to swimmers at both freshwater and saltwater beaches. These criteria are geometric means of200 and 35 organisms/1 00 ml, respectively. Current Port Ludlow Marina regulations require that all live-aboard tenant vessels must be equipped with a Coast Guard-approved holding tank and that live-aboard tenants can be required to submit to inspection of their vessels' plumbing and mechanical systems to verify compliance with state and local public health and safety laws. The U.S. Coast Guard Auxiliary-Port Ludlow Chapter provides voluntary vessel inspections (whether tenants or guests) to insure compliance with Coast Guard regulations - safe boating and mechanical systems. The Vessel Safety Check (VeS) form includes marine sanitation devices as an item to be checked. The Marina now provides one sewage pump-out station at the fuel dock and one portable pump- out facility. A monthly log of the pump-outs, completed by Marina staff and boat owners, is kept at the Marina office. Shore-side restroom facilities are also available for Marina patrons. As stated above, water quality monitoring data for Port Ludlow Bay indicates no long-term upward or downward trends in constituent concentrations for any of the monitoring stations. Bilge Water Another potential source of pollution in marinas comes from the discharge of bilge water, which may contain a variety of chemical constituents, but predominantly petroleum hydrocarbons. Port Ludlow Marina's BMPs (Appendix C) expressly forbids the discharge of bilge water within the Marina. The BMPs state: . The discharge of contaminated bilge water is illegal. Do not discharge bilge water that is contaminated with oil, detergents, or bilge cleaners. Thejinefor discharging oilfrom your bilge can be as high as $20,000 per daylper violation. Use oil absorbent bilge pads or pillows in your vessel's bilge to soak up oil and fuel. . Prevent oil contamination of bilge water. Do not drain oil into bilge. Fit a tray underneath the engine to collect drips. Put a couple of pads in the pan to make cleanup easier. Keep bilge area as dry as possible. Fix all fuel and oil leaks in a timely fashion. . Disposal of oil soaked adsorbents, as a household hazardous waste is possible. Otherwise, wrap in newspaper; place in a plastic bag, and place into the garbage. Port Ludlow Marina Expansion Pre-Drah SEIS June 2002 ~ 3-10 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Water QuaHty - Shellfish Harvesting In areas with recreational and commercial shellfish harvesting, water quality issues are extremely important. Sewage and chemical discharges to shellfish-bearing waters can act as sources of contamination for shellfish, creating health risks to human and animal consumers alike. The nearest recorded shellfish beds to the Port Ludlow project area are geoduck beds located along the beach between Mats Mats Bay and Port Ludlow (PSWQA and DNR 1992). Recreational shellfish beds are located in the North Hood Canal area south of Port Ludlow with recorded populations of native littlenecks, manila littlenecks, butter clams, eastern softshell clams, Macoma clams, geoducks, horse clams, and oysters (WDFW 2002). There are no recorded shellfish beds (i.e., softshell clams, geoducks, and other bivalve mollusks) within the project area or within the inner bay of Port Ludlow Bay (PSWQA and DNR 1992), nor are there any records of recreational shellfish harvesting within Port Ludlow Bay in the past decade (WDFW 2002; Strom, A. WDFW shellfish biologist, personal communication, February 28, 2002). The Washington State Department of Health has closed the inner bay of Port Ludlow Bay to shellfish harvesting due to the presence of a municipal sewage outfall (D. Christensen, Jefferson County Department of Natural Resources, personal communication, March 1,2002). Port Ludlow Bay Flushing Characteristics The location, geometry, and orientation of Port Ludlow Bay is such that the strong offshore ebb-and-flood tidal currents in Admiralty Inlet create a large eddy in the outer portion of Port Ludlow Bay that appears to reverse direction with each tidal stage. Waters from Admiralty Inlet are drawn into the bay under a wide variety of tidal conditions. Current measurements, drogue observations, and salt balance calculations made in 1984 and 1986 indicated that the outer bay eddy is accompanied by a complex pattern of currents that exert influence into the central portion of the bay. Significantly more water is circulated into and out of the bay due to eddies and currents than would be the case if only a simple ebb-and-flood pattern existed. As a consequence, the bay may be better mixed and better flushed than many bays within Puget Sound. Mixing is further enhanced by vertical currents and upwelling at the entrance and head of Port Ludlow Bay (Jefferson County 1993a, b). Flushing of the bay is caused by tidal currents, fresh water from streams and rainfall, wind-mixing ofthe surface water, and local vertical mixing. Salt balance calculations indicated that the volume of water exchanged daily between Port Ludlow and Admiralty Inlet averages 39 percent per day and varies from 20 to 50 percent of the total volume of the bay, dependent upon the time of year and prevailing tidal range. The time to exchange the water volume ofthe bay, including the innermost reaches, was estimated to be between 2 to 5 days. Localized portions of the bay may have longer or shorter flushing rates. The flushing time for the outer bay has been estimated to be 9 hours on average (Jefferson County 1993a, b). 3.2.2 Environmental Impacts Construction Impacts Port Ludlow Marina Expansion Pre-Draft SflS June 2002 ~ 3-11 During construction, potential discharges to surface water include leakage of petroleum products from construction equipment. These substances can enter marine water directly or in stormwater runoff. Few, if any, juvenile salmonids are expected in the action area during construction activities; also, few adult chinook salmon or bull trout are expected in the project area during construction. Short-term and localized decreases in dissolved oxygen or increases in turbidity due to project construction may result in avoidance of immediate work areas. Should this avoidance occur, it would have only insignificant and unmeasurable effects on salmonids. Alternatives 1 and 2: Expansion Alternatives Alternatives 1 and 2 may result in temporary and localized impacts to water quality due to pile driving. Elevated turbidity plumes are likely to occur in the immediate vicinity of the pile driving. However, the majority of the pile-driving activities will occur at water depths of35 to 40 feet, away from intertidal areas that are used predominantly by juvenile salmonids. Because of the depth of the water where pilings will be installed, it is highly unlikely that any increased turbidity due to pile driving will affect areas frequented by juvenile salmonids. Pile-driving activities are not expected to appreciably affect dissolved oxygen concentrations in the project area. Juvenile salmon have been shown to avoid areas of unacceptably high turbidities (e.g., Servizi 1988), although they may seek out areas of moderate turbidity (10 to 80 NTU), presumably as cover against predation (Cyrus and Blaber 1987a,b). Feeding efficiency of juveniles is also impaired by turbidities in excess of70 NTU, well below sublethal stress levels (Bisson and Bilby 1982). Reduced preference by adult salmon homing to spawning areas has been demonstrated where turbidities exceed 30 NTU (20 mgll suspended sediments). However, chinook salmon exposed to 650 mgll of suspended volcanic ash were still able to find their natal water (Whitman et al. 1982). Based on these data, it is highly unlikely that the locally elevated turbidities generated by the proposed action will directly affect juvenile or adult salmonids that may be present. The installation of 100-130 steel pilings in the project area at water depths of 18 to 40 feet will result in the destruction of benthic habitat (i.e., habitat for organisms living in or at the bottom of the Bay) within the footprint of each piling. Assuming that each piling is approximately 2 feet in diameter, the area covered by the foot of each piling is about 3.14 sq. ft., or 314 sq. ft. for 100 pilings. Benthic habitat within the footprint of each piling will be permanently destroyed. However, the pilings will provide a substantially greater new surface area for colonization by marine plants and animals. Colonization by marine algae will, in turn, provide additional habitat for juvenile fish and invertebrates. Furthermore, adjacent benthic habitat will continue to provide ample foraging habitat for juvenile salmonids that may occur in the project area. In general, juvenile salmonids are not expected to be foraging on benthos in water depths greater than about -10ft MLL W. Sediment chemistry data from the Marina indicate that sediments beneath the Marina do not contain elevated concentrations of any organic chemicals or metals. Pile driving, therefore, will not compromise water quality by the resuspension of contaminants in the water column. Port Ludlow Marina Expansion Pre-Draft SEIS 3-12 June 2002 ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Alternative 3: 1993 Design In addition to impacts from pile driving, the required dredging and dewatering associated with Alternative 3 may cause additional temporary and localized impacts to water quality in the vicinity of active equipment. Elevated turbidity plumes and reductions in dissolved oxygen could occur in localized areas near active dredging, Juvenile salmon are not expected to be present at the time when dredging will occur, however. It is anticipated that any dredging associated with Alternative 3 would be accomplished with a barge-mounted clamshell dredge. Due to the characteristics of clamshell buckets, it is generally accepted that they do not have the potential to entrain pelagic fish such as salmonids. Specifically, the clamshell bucket descends to the substrate in an open position. The force generated by the descent drives the jaws of the bucket into the substrate, which "bite" the sediment upon retrieval. During the descent, the bucket cannot trap or contain a mobile organism because it is totally open. Based on the operation of the clamshell dredge bucket, it is concluded that the proposed project would not entrain juvenile, subadult, or adult salmonids, although some entrainment of demersal fish and epibenthic invertebrates (e.g., crab) may occur. Dredging will produce long-term changes in the depth and slope in the area to be dredged. It will also sequentially eliminate nonmobile benthos over approximately one acre of bottom area, resulting in a temporary reduction in abundance and diversity of benthic macroinvertebrates. However, the benthic habitat disturbed during dredging is expected to be quickly recolonized by infauna and epifauna (McCauley et al. 1977, Richardsonet al. 1977, Romberg et al. 1995, Wilson and Romberg 1995). Diversity and health of the benthic assemblage recolonizing the areas to be dredged are expected to quickly equal those of the benthic community now present. Alternative 4: No Action No impacts to water quality from construction activities would occur. Long-Term Effects Alternatives 1, 2, and 3: Expansion Alternatives No long-term direct or indirect effects to water quality are anticipated for any of the construction activities proposed in the project area. Further, although expansion of the Marina will result in increased boat activity, the proposed alternatives are not expected to significantly degrade water quality or impact any populations of shellfish that may be present in the vicinity ofthe project area. Increasing marina capacity by one third would be expected to increase the present rates of releases of bilge wastewater, petroleum products, and gray water by about 33% (assuming no new regulations and no improvement in boat owner compliance with Port Ludlow BMPs). Past monitoring data have not identified a specific problem associated with existing rates of discharges ofthese pollutants at Port Ludlow. Specific pollutants associated with these vessel discharges (nutrients, fecal coliform, and petroleum hydrocarbons) also enter the bay from upland sources and the relative contributions (loadings) from upland and vessel sources are unknown and likely vary seasonally. Port Ludlow Marina Expansion Pre-Draft SEIS 3-13 June 2002 ~ Some long-term incremental increase in ambient levels of these pollutants in Port Ludlow may result from the proposed action. These increases may be offset, in part, by continuing the existing trend of reductions in non-point source loadings of the same pollutants (e.g., Berryman & Henigar 2001). Alternative 4: No Action No impacts to water quality are anticipated. 3.2.3 Mitigating Measures Proposed: . A hazardous material spill clean-up kit will be available on the fuel float and on one of the expanded docks and crews will be trained in the use of this kit. . The Port Ludlow Marina will continue to educate users of the Marina regarding Best Management Practices (BMPs). . Port Ludlow Associates is committed to ongoing enforcement. BMPs will be enforced via fines and/or revocation of Marina use. . Port Ludlow Associates will educate marina users regardingthe effects of discharging gray water and strongly discourage such discharge. . Two portable boat sewage pump-outs will be installed providing further ability to pump out sewage from vessels. 3.2.4 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts No significant adverse impacts to water quality are anticipated. Port Ludlow Marina Expansion Pre-Draft SEIS June 2002 --- 3-14 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 3.3 Marine Plants and Animals The following information is taken from the "Port Ludlow Marina Expansion Biological Evaluation" (Pentec, 2001), the "Port Ludlow Marina Expansion - Eelgrass Survey, Revised" (Pentec, 2001), previous studies and field surveys undertaken for Port Ludlow, and a review of current literature, including Priority Species and Habitats data from the WDFW. The "Port Ludlow Marina Expansion Biological Evaluation" (2001) was prepared by Pentec Environmental (the BE) and submitted to the COE for their review as required under the COE Section 10 (Docks and Pilings) permit procedure. This report will be reviewed and evaluated by the COE, the NMFS and the USFWS prior to issuance of any Section 10 Permit. The WDFW will also review all environmental reports prepared for this project in conjunction with their consideration ofthe request for a Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA). A full copy of the Biological Evaluation is contained in Appendix D ofthis DSEIS. Proied Area Port Ludlow Bay, located at the mouth of Hood Canal, provides a variety of habitats for marine fauna and flora. The shoreline in the Bay includes marine and estuarine intertidal mudflats, sand flats, mixed gravel and sand, and rocky shoreline. Rock riprap occurs on the upper shorelines within the Marina. 3.3.1 Marine Vegetation 3.3.1.1 AHectetl Environment Marine vegetation provides both food and cover for fish and primary production that is essential to all levels of the food web. Within Puget Sound, the primary focus is eelgrass and macroalgae. Eelgrass beds are recognized as habitats of statewide significance due to their high production rates of prey for salmonids and other fishes, for the structural diversity they provide, and as a site for herring spawning (e.g., Simenstad et aI. 1988). Macroalgae (i.e., green algae, brown algae, kelp, etc.) are also recognized as contributors to habitat complexity and primary productivity. In contrast to eelgrass, macroalgae readily colonizes all appropriate rocky, cobble, or artificial substrates. Particular macroalgal beds (e.g., kelp forests) have more specific habitat needs. Aquatic vegetation in Port Ludlow Bay is primarily attached to intertidal cobbles, docks, and pilings. No subtidal eelgrass or kelp beds have been found within the project area (Echelon Engineering 2000, Pentec 2001), but macroalgae and eelgrass are both found on existing floats within the Marina. Ulva spp, (sea lettuce) and Mastocarpus sp. (red algae) were identified along the lower intertidal. shoreline immediately north of the Marina during visits on December 10, 1999, and February 9,2000. Shoreline vegetation observed along the upper intertidal area north of the Marina included pickleweed (Salicornia virginica), seaside plantain (Plantago maritima), gumweed (Grindelia integrifolia), fleshy jaumea (Jaumea carnosa), and saltweed (Atriplex patula). Port LucRow Marina Expansion Pre-Draft SflS June 2002 ~ 3-15 Pentec conducted an eelgrass survey for the proposed Marina expansion on September 12,2001 (Appendix D). The survey conformed to the WDFW preliminary protocols for conducting such surveys. The survey was confined to the fuel-dock and D-dock areas. Areas under the proposed offshore docks were not surveyed, because the depth of the water (e.g., deeper than -25 ft MLLW) will not support.eelgrass. No eelgrass was found in the project area during the September 2001 survey. Isolated plants of Laminaria saccharina (kelp) and VIva Iactuca (sea lettuce) were the only macrophytes reported during the survey; however, the abundance of these species was low. 3.3.1.2 Environmental Impacts Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 - Expansion Alternatives None of the proposed alternatives will adversely impact eelgrass, as no eelgrass is present within the project area. Furthermore, no adverse impacts to other marine macrophytes are expected from any of the proposed alternatives. Of the three alternatives, Alternatives 1 and 2 would be the least likely to impact marine vegetation as in each of these alternatives the majority of new overwater structure would be placed in water greater than -20 ft. MLLW. Eelgrass and other macrophytes would likely occur in water depths ofless than -20 ft MLLW. Under Alternative 3, all new overwater structure would be placed in water less than -20 ft. MLLW, reducing light transmission to the substrate in the shallow nearshore environment that would provide the best habitat for marine macrophytes. The new (additional) pilings will displace benthic habitat at the location of the pilings. The installation of 100-130 steel pilings in the project area at water depths of 18 to 40 feet will result in the destruction of benthic habitat for macrovegetation within the footprint of each piling. Assuming that each piling is approximately 2 feet in diameter, the area covered by the foot of each piling is about 3.14 sq. ft., or 314 to 408.2 sq. ft. for 100 to 130 pilings. Benthic habitat within the footprint of each piling will be permanently destroyed. However, the pilings will provide a much greater new surface area for colonization by marine plants and animals. Colonization by marine algae will, in turn, provide additional habitat for juvenile fish and invertebrates. Alternative 4 - No Adion There are no anticipated environmental impacts to marine vegetation from this alternative. 3.3.1.3 Mitigating Measures No mitigation is required. 3.3.1.4 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts No significant unavoidable adverse impacts to marine vegetation are anticipated. 3.3.2 Threatened and Endangered and Priority Species Port Ludlow Marina Expansion Pre-Draft SEIS June 2002 ~ 3-16 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 3.3.2.1 Affected Environment A number of salmonid species listed under the ESA may use Port Ludlow Bay. These species include the Hood Canal summer-run chum salmon (threatened), the Puget Sound chinook salmon (threatened), and bull trout (threatened). Coho salmon, a candidate species under the ESA, may also occur in Port Ludlow Bay. It is assumed that these salmonids originate from one or more of the river systems in the northern part of Hood Canal. The river basin closest to Port Ludlow that contains both Puget Sound chinook salmon and Hood Canal summer-run chum salmon is the Quilcene River system, located roughly 38 miles south of Port Ludlow, draining to Quilcene Bay on Hood Canal (Williams et al. 1975). The Quilcene River contains runs of fall chinook, coho, and summer-run chum salmon, although these runs are dependent in part on hatchery production. For purposes ofthis assessment, the Quilcene River system is considered to be a representative source of chinook salmon, summer-run chum salmon, and coho salmon but it is recognized that fish originating in other Hood Canal or Puget Sound streams may also be found in the action area. The lower section of Ludlow Creek was used historically by coho and chum salmon as spawning and rearing habitat, but is no longer believed to support native salmon runs. Hood Canal also supports populations of bull trout/Dolly Varden, which are listed as "Threatened" under the ESA. Surveys conducted in the Big Quilcene River indicate that there is not a distinct bull trout/Dolly Varden stock in the river (WDFW 1998a). Thus, any bull trout that may occur in Port Ludlow Bay originate in rivers other than the Quilcene River system. In addition to the salmonids species discussed above, other ESA-listed species that may use Port Ludlow Bay include the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus), and Steller sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus). Steller sea lions have not been recorded in Port Ludlow, but could potentially occur. Chinook Salmon. Chinook salmon prefer to spawn and rear in the mainstem of rivers and larger streams (Williams et al. 1975, Healey 1991). In the Quilcene River system, the Big Quilcene River is the only system containing sufficient flows during the late summer-early fall spawning migration period to accommodate a sustained run of fall chinook. In general, juvenile chinook salmon would be expected to be in and around the Port Ludlow Marina along the shoreline between February and July of each year and adult salmon can be found further offshore from Spring through Fall (Williams et al. 1975). As ofl992, the stock status ofthe Hood Canal chinook salmon stock was rated as healthy (WDFW and WWTIT 1994). Critical Habitat. In Puget Sound, designated critical habitat for chinook salmon includes all marine, estuarine, and river reaches accessible to the listed species. Thus, all ofthe waters within the project area are designated as critical habitat for chinook salmon. Coho Salmon. All accessible streams and tributaries draining the upper Hood Canal-Straits basin are used by coho salmon. Spawning occurs in almost every stream area where suitable spawning habitat and conditions permit. Port Ludlow Marina Expansion Pre-Drah SflS 3-17 June 2002 ~ Juvenile coho would be expected to occur in the project area from approximately March through July, and mature coho from August through the end of December (Williams et al. 1975). Ludlow Creek is the largest subbasin within the Port Ludlow Bay watershed and contributes the greatest discharge of fresh water (FishPro 1993). Waterfalls that occur approximately 1,800 feet upstream of the mouth ofthe creek serve as a migration barrier to anadromous salmonids. Fish usage of this lower section of Ludlow Creek is documented for coho and chum salmon as spawning and rearing habitat. Field surveys by Washington State Department of Fisheries (WDF; now WDFW) biologists were conducted in the lower 0.5 mile of Ludlow Creek during 1974, 1975, and 1984. Surveys indicated that both coho and chum salmon spawn in this section of the creek, although natural propagation of these species is limited by the short length of stream available (FishPro 1993). Data from 1974 indicated that the highest numbers of salmon spawning recorded were 23 coho and 14 chum (FishPro 1993). No salmonids were observed in Ludlow Creek during surveys conducted in 1984 and 1986 by WDF (Egan, R., WDFW, pers. comm.,2000). Currently it is believed that no native runs occur in the creek (Egan, R., WDFW, pers. comm., 2000). The status of the Hood Canal-Quilcene/Dabob Bays coho stock was considered depressed as of 1992 (WDFW and WWTIT 1994). Critical Habitat. No critical habitat has been proposed for Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia coho salmon. Chum Salmon. Chum salmon usually spawn in coastal areas, and juveniles outmigrate to salt water almost immediately after emerging from the gravel (Johnson et al. 1997). It is believed that survival and growth in juvenile chum salmon depend less on freshwater conditions than on favorable estuarine conditions (Johnson et al. 1997). Juvenile summer-run chum salmon could occur in and around the Port Ludlow Marina between the middle of January through the middle of June, and mature chum from September through December (Williams et al. 1975). Chum and ocean-type chinook salmon usually have longer residence times in estuaries than do other anadromous salmonids. The period of estuarine residence appears to the most critical phase in the life history of chum salmon and appears to playa major role in determining the size of the subsequent adult run back to fresh water (Johnson et al. 1997). Surveys conducted by WDF in 1974 reported 14 chum salmon spawning in the lower reach of Ludlow Creek below the waterfalls (FishPro 1993). However, no chum salmon were reported in surveys conducted by WDF in 1984 and 1986 (Egan, R., WDFW, pers. comm., 2000). In the past, private citizens have attempted enhancement projects for chum salmon in the lower section of Ludlow Creek, but have had minimal success (FishPro 1993). Currently, it is believed that the creek does not support native chum salmon runs (Egan, R., WDFW, pers. comm., 2000). Stock status for the entire Hood Canal summer-run chum salmon stock was assessed. As of 1992, this stock was classified as critical (WDFW and WWTIT 1994). Port Ludlow Marina Expansion Pre-Draft SEIS June 2002 ~ 3-18 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Critical Habitat. Designated critical habitat for Hood Canal summer-run chum salmon includes all river reaches accessible to listed chum salmon (including estuarine areas and tributaries) draining into Hood Canal as well as Olympic Peninsula rivers between and including Hood Canal and Dungeness Bay. Also included are estuarine/marine areas of Hood Canal, Admiralty Inlet, and the Strait of Juan de Fucato the international boundary and as far west as a straight line extending north from Dungeness Bay (50 CFRPart 226). This designation includes the project area. Bull Trout (Native Char). Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) exhibit four life history patterns: resident, fluvial, adfluvial, and anadromous (Brown 1994). Anadromous bull trout in Puget Sound typically spend the first two years rearing in freshwater before migrating to marine waters (WDFW 1998b). It is highly unlikely that bull trout occur in Port Ludlow, as Ludlow Creek likely does not provide suitable spawning habitat for this species, nor are there any river basins in close proximity to Port Ludlow that are known to support bull trout. The status and occurrence of anadromous populations of bull trout in Puget Sound are subject to some scientific debate; separation of anadromous bull trout from the closely related anadromous Dolly Varden char (S. malma) is very difficult. Until further resolution is possible, WDFW has made a decision to manage all Puget Sound stocks as if they were a single bull troutIDolly Varden (native char) complex (Washington Department of Wildlife [WDW; now WDFW] 1993). Critical Habitat. The USFWS does not have sufficient information to conduct analyses required to determine critical habitat for bull trout (native char) in Puget Sound. As a result, the service has not yet proposed or designated critical habitat (Chan, J., USFWS, pers. comm., March 22, 2000; USFWS 1999b). Bald Eagles. The bald eagle's habitat includes estuaries, large lakes, rivers, and coastal areas. In Washington, resident bald eagle populations occur primarily near large bodies of water west of the Cascade Mountains (Rodrick and Milner 1991). The nearest recorded bald eagle nesting area to the Port Ludlow Marina is located approximately 4,900 feet west of the Marina (Guggenmos, L., WDFW, pers. comm., 2000). In July 1999, the USFWS proposed to remove the bald eagle from the list of threatened and endangered species. A final decision on delisting is pending. Critical Habitat. No critical habitat has been designated for bald eagles in Puget Sound. Marbled Murrelet. The marbled murrelet, a small seabird that nests in the coastal, old-growth forests inhabits the Pacific coast of North America. Murrelets do not form dense colonies, and may fly 70 km or more inland to nest. They are more commonly found inland during the summer breeding season, but make daily trips to the ocean to gather food, and have been detected in forests throughout the year. When not nesting, the birds live at sea, spending their days feeding and then moving several kilometers offshore at night (SEI 1999). Portludlow Marina Expansion Pre-Draft SEIS 3-19 June 2002 ... In recent decades the murrelet population in Alaska and British Columbia has suffered a marked decline. Trends in Washington, Oregon, and California are also down, but the extent ofthe decrease in unknown. The most serious limiting factor for marbled murre lets is the loss of habitat through the removal of old-growth forests and fragmentation of forests. Marbled murrelets forage in nearshore waters where recreational boats are most often found. Disturbance by boats may cause them to abandon the best feeding areas (Environment Canada 1999). Winter and summer aerial surveys were conducted by WDFW throughout Puget Sound to assess marbled murrelet densities. Summer surveys, conducted from 1992 through 1999, and winter surveys, conducted from 1993 through 2000, indicated marbled murre let densities in the outer bay of Port Ludlow Bay to be 0.5 to 1 animal per square kilometer, with no animals reported in the inner bay in the vicinity of the proposed action (Nysewander, D., WDFW wildlife biologist, personal communication March 21, 2002). Critical Habitat. No critical habitat has been designated for the marbled murrelet in Puget Sound. Steller Sea Lion. Steller sea lions are rare in the project area. There are currently no breeding colonies in Washington State (NMFS 1992), although four major haul-out areas (none of which are located in Puget Sound) do exist. (NMFS 1992). The majority of Steller sea lions are found in Alaska. Critical Habitat. No critical habitat for Steller sea lions has been designated in Puget Sound. 3.3.2.2 Environmental Impacts Threatened and Endangered and Priority Species Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 - Expansion Alternatives Salm on ids. Listed salmonids that may occur within the project area may potentially be impacted by construction and operation of the expanded Marina. These include the Hood Canal summer- run chum salmon, Puget Sound chinook salmon, and bull trout. Short term Construction Impacts Approximately 100-130 steel pilings will be installed as part of the Marina expansion. Piles will be installed using a barge-mounted pile driver. Feist et al. (1996) investigated the impacts of pile driving on juvenile pink and chum salmon behavior and distribution in Everett Harbor, Washington. The authors reported that there may be changes in general behavior and school size, and that fish appeared to be driven toward the acoustically isolated side of the site during pile driving. However, the prevalence of fish schools did not change significantly with and without pile driving, and schools were often observed about the pile-driving rigs themselves. No impacts on feeding were reported. The study concluded that any effects of pile-driving noise on juvenile salmonid fitness would be very difficult to measure quantitatively. Once the pilings are in place, pre-constructed sections of walkways and finger piers will be floated into place and assembled. No significant noise or disturbance will be generated by these actions. Because the Port Ludlow Marina Expansion Pre-Draft SEIS 3-20 June 2002 ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I proposed inwater construction would occur outside of time periods when significant numbers of juvenile salmonids are expected to be present, no significant effect or take is expected from project construction activities. Grette(1985) enumerated the rates of adult salmon (chinook, sockeye, and coho) movement through the fish ladders at the Ballard Locks during periods when steel sheet-piles were being driven immediately downstream of the locks and during periods of no pile driving. He reported a strongly diurnal pattern of movement through the locks with little movement at night. However, he reported that pile driving did not influence the rate of movement of adult salmon through the locks. Thus, it is unlikely that project pile driving would significantly influence migrations of adult salmon that may be present in the action area during work periods. Juvenile salmon have been shown to avoid areas of unacceptably high turbidities (e.g., Servizi 1988). Feeding efficiency of juveniles is impaired by turbidities in excess of70 NTU, well below sublethal stress levels (Bisson and Bilby 1982) and reduced preference by adult salmon homing to spawning areas has been demonstrated where turbidities exceed 30 NTU (20 mg/l suspended sediments). However, chinook salmon exposed to 650 mg/l of suspended volcanic ash were still able to find their natal water (Whitman et al. 1982) and juvenile salmon may seek out areas of moderate turbidity (10 to 80 NTU), presumably as cover against predation (Cyrus and Blaber 1987a,b). Based on these data, it is highly unlikely that the locally elevated turbidity generated by the proposed action will directly affect juvenile or adult salmonids that may be present. Few, if any, juvenile salmon ids are expected in the action area during construction activities; also, few adult chinook salmon or bull trout are expected in the project area during construction. Short-term and localized decreases in dissolved oxygen or increases in turbidity due to project construction may result in avoidance of immediate work areas. Should this avoidance occur, it would have only insignificant and immeasurable effects on salmonids. Studies by Pentec (1997), Salo et al. (1980), and Ratte and Salo (1985) have shown evidence that migrating juvenile salmonids use overwater structures as cover when they are disturbed by overhead activities. These studies also found no evidence that overwater structures in Puget Sound concentrate predators on juvenile salmonids. The margins of new floating structures will support growth of a productive epibiota that will add to the overall biological production ofthe project area. Long Term Impacts Increase in overwater coverage by floats will impact marine habitat and may alter movements of juvenile salmonids within the marina. Table 2 below illustrates the overwater coverage for each alternative: Port Ludlow Marina Expansion Pre-Draft SEIS June 2002 ~ 3.21 Table 2 Overwater Coverage (Square foot) Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Proposed Deep Water 1993 Design No Action Pro.iect /.-.'-..... Total increase ~~~) from existing, 966 -o- N/A <-20 ft. MLLW Total increase from existing, 32,779 37,865 23,208 N/A >-20 ft. MLLW Total increase in overwater 33,745 37,865 31,164 N/A coverage Simenstad et al. (1999) examined three issues regarding the impacts of overwater structures on juvenile salmon. These include alteration in migratory behavior, reduction in prey production and availability, and increased predation. An assessment of over 60 direct sources of information found evidence that juvenile salmon react to shadows and other artifacts in the shoreline environment created by shoreline structures. While changes in light have been shown to affect salmon migration behavior and thus potentially place them at increased mortality risk, the authors reported that they found no quantitative information on the significance of these behavioral responses to juvenile salmon survival. Juvenile salmon also encounter limited prey resources under shoreline structures when important habitats such as eelgrass (Zostera marina) are disturbed. Simenstad et al. (1999) also conducted short-term underwater diving and video surveys at five ferry terminals in Puget Sound (Clinton, Kingston, Port Townsend, Seattle, Vashon) during the major period of juvenile salmon migration to gather preliminary information on the relationships among variations in overwater structures, fish occurrence and relative abundance, light conditions, biological communities, and potential predators. Juvenile salmon were observed migrating under several structures. Existing information indicates that the effects of shoreline structures on migrating juvenile salmon may vary, depending on the design and orientation of the shoreline structure, extent of alteration of the underwater light field, and presence of artificial light. The surveys indicated that summer light intensities were above the critical 10-4 foot candles threshold level required for maintenance of juvenile salmon feeding and schooling, even under the darkest portion of the terminal, at four of the five terminals investigated. However, according to the authors, the significance of short-term delays in the salmons' migration and cumulative or synergistic effects is insufficient to provide the quantitative relationships that would be necessary as the basis for developing retrofitting or design modifications to overwater structures. In ongoing studies in the Everett Marina, Pentec (2002 unpublished data) has noted a wide dispersion and apparently undisturbed feeding of juvenile salmonids around floats within about 100 feet of the shoreline. Lesser numbers of juvenile salmonids were seen around floats farther from shore. Expansion ofthe Port Ludlow Marina will not impact fish access, fish Port Ludlow Marina Expansion Pre-Draft SEIS 3-22 June 2002 ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I refugia, substrate, shoreline, riparian conditions, flow and hydrology, current patterns, or saltwater-freshwater mixing patterns, nor will it result in other habitat disturbances. Increased overwater coverage, except under Alternative 3, will occur in waters generally deeper than -20 ft MLL W where there is little existing benthic primary productivity. Primary productivity on the sides of floats and pilings will more than offset the slight reduction in deepwater primary. productivity thatmay occur. The Port Ludlow Marina expansion project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, juvenile chinook salmon, Hood Canal summer-run chum salmon, coho salmon, or bull trout (native char). While the conclusion is focused on chinook salmon and chum salmon, it is applicable to coho salmon and bull trout (native char) as well; however, because oftheir presumed lesser dependence on nearshore habitat, these species will be less affected by both the negative and positive aspects of each project component. The proposed action will result in no adverse modification or destruction of designated chinook or Hood Canal summer-run chum critical habitat. No measurable effects and no take! of salmonids are expected. Bald Eagles. Short Term Construction Impacts Ambient noise levels will increase during pile-driving activities and may temporarily disrupt foraging behavior of bald eagles in the vicinity of the project area. The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) has conducted two monitoring studies to determine the potential impacts on wintering eagles associated with wood and steel pile-driving activities. According to the authors, between 0.25 and 0.5 mile from the construction site and beyond, construction noises were similar in level to background noise. The nearest recorded bald eagle nesting area to the Port Ludlow Marina is located approximately 4,900 feet west of the Marina (Guggenmos, L., WDFW, pers. comm., 2000). It is likely that residential development within the Port Ludlow area produces background noise levels typical of other communities of similar population and size. The proposed construction noise thus may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, bald eagles or their critical habitat. 2 I Section 3 of the ESA defines take as "to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, trap, capture, collect, or attempt to engage in any such conduct." The USFWS further defines "harm" as, "significant habitat modification or degradation that results in death or injury to listed species by significantly impairing behavior patterns such as breeding, feeding, or sheltering," and "harass" as, "actions that create the likelihood of injury to listed species to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavior patterns which include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding, or sheltering." This section of the DSEIS summarizes the conclusions of the project biological evaluation (BE). 2 NMFS/USFWS guidelines for the preparation of biological assessments state that a conclusion of "may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect" is the". ..appropriate conclusion when the effects on the species or critical habitat are expected to be beneficial, discountable, or insignificant. Beneficial effects have contemporaneous positive effects without any adverse effects...." Insignificant effects, in the NMFS/USFWS definition, ".. .relate to the size of the impacts and should never reach the size where take occurs...[One would not expect to]...be able to meaningfully measure, detect, or evaluate insignificant effects." Port Ludlow Marina Expansion Pre-Draft SEIS 3-23 June 2002 ~ Marbled Murrelets. Short Term Construction Impacts Proposed project activities will be confined to limited intertidal and subtidal areas and will not significantly affect murrelet foraging areas or prey. Any marbled murrelets that may forage in the Bay during times of active construction may be disturbed by construction-related noise, thus avoiding the area during these times. However, any such disturbances to foraging behavior of marbled murrelets is expected to be localized and of short-term duration. Thus, the proposed action may affect, but is not likely to directly or indirectly adversely affect, marbled murre lets that may occur in the project vicinity. Steller Sea Lions Steller sea lions are rare in the action area. Because of the innate escape responses of marine mammals and the pelagic habitats they use, there is virtually no risk of a direct take or injury that could result from project-related activities. Although Port Ludlow could potentially be used as a haul-out area for Steller sea lions, it would be unusual (Jefferies, S., WDFW, pers. comm., 2000). The conclusion of the BE is that the project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, Steller sea lions. Alternative 4 - No Action No environmental impacts are anticipated from this alternative. 3.3.2.3 Mitigating Measures Proposed: The new kayak float will include features to provide light transmission through a portion of the decking. All new pilings and floats will be steel or concrete. All inwater work will be conducted during periods allowed for those activities in this area. This will minimize the potential for construction disturbance impacts to important resources, especially juvenile salmonids. 3.3.2.4 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts No unavoidable adverse impacts to biota are anticipated as a result of the proposed expansion. 3.3.3 Other Fish and Invertebrates 3.3.3.1 Affected Environment Port Ludlow May provides a variety of habitats that are used by migratory and resident fish and invertebrate species. Among the fish species that may occur in Port Ludlow Bay are groundfish and salmonid fish species that have designated Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), as amended by the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-267). These species are listed in Table 3. Port Ludlow Marina Expansion Pre-Draft SEIS 3-24 June 2002 ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Table 3 - Fish Species with Designated EFH in the Estuarine Composite (NMFS 2001) Groundfish Species spiny dogfish, Squalus acanthias California skate, R. inornata spotted raffish, Hydro/agus colliei lingcod, Ophiodon e/ongatus cabezon, Scorpaenichthys marmoratus kelp greenling, Hexagrammos decagrammus Pacific cod, Gadus macrocephalus Pacific whiting (hake), Merluccius productus sablefish, Anoplopoma fimbria bocaccio, S. paucispinis brown rockfish, S. auriculatus copper rockfish, S. caurinus quillback rockfish, S. maliger English sole, Pleuronectes vetulus Pacific sanddab, Citharichthys sordidus rex sole, Errex zachirus starry flounder, Platichthys stellatus Pacific Salmonid Species chinook salmon, Oncorhynchus tshawytscha coho salmon, O. kisutch pink salmon, O. gorbuscha Forage Fish. Larval, juvenile, and adult Pacific herring (Clupea pallasi), surf smelt (Hypomesus pretiosus), and Pacific sand lance (Ammodytes hexapterus) are important forage fish for juvenile, subadult, and adult salmonids (Healey 1991). These species also constitute the basis for baitfish fisheries in Puget Sound and are among the species WDFW is charged with protecting, along with other habitats, in the Hydraulic Code (WAC 220-110). Alteration of spawning habitat for these species may directly affect the abundance of forage for a range of age groups of chinook salmon. Surf smelt and sand lance spawn within Port Ludlow however, there are no data indicating that spawning occurs within the project area (Bargmann, G., WDFW, pers. comm.,2000). A very large school of juvenile herring (e.g., 100 to 150 mm) was seen foraging in the west-central portion of the Marina during a site visit on December 10, 1999. Epibenthic Zooplankton. Epibenthic zooplankton, primarily crustaceans, and terrestrial insects occur in Port Ludlow Bay and are important prey for juvenile chinook salmon in estuaries (Simenstad et al. 1988, Healey 1991). Pelagic Zooplankton. Calanoid copepods are often abundant in the diet of juvenile chinook salmon in urban estuaries (Weitkamp and Schadt 1982). Production of calanoids and other potential pelagic prey of salmonids is largely dependent on water-column processes in outer Port Ludlow and adjacent marine waters. Pelagic zooplankton productivity is dependent on the presence of adequate light and nutrients to stimulate phytoplankton and is not influenced greatly by conditions along shorelines or in deeper water in the vicinity of the Port Ludlow Marina. Port Ludlow Marina Expansion Pre-Draft SEIS 3-25 June 2002 ... Bivalve Mollusks. Mussels and barnacles were observed within Port Ludlow Marina during a site visit on December 10, 1999. The nearest recorded shellfish beds to the project area are geoduck beds located along the beach between Mats Mats Bay and Port Ludlow (PSWQA and DNR 1992, Sizemore and Ulrich 2001). Recreational shellfish beds are located in the North Hood Canal area south of Port Ludlow with recorded populations of native littlenecks, manila littlenecks, butter clams, eastern softshell clams, Macoma clams, geoducks,horse clams, and oysters (WDFW 2002). There are no recorded shellfish beds (i.e., softshell clams, geoducks, and other bivalve mollusks) within the project area or within the inner bay of Port Ludlow Bay (PSWQA and DNR 1992), nor are there any records of recreational shellfish harvesting within Port Ludlow Bay in the past decade (WDFW 2002; Strom, A. WDFW shellfish biologist, personal communication, February 28,2002). However, it is likely that at least some of these species occur within Port Ludlow Bay. 3.3.3.2 Environmental Impacts Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 - Expansion Alternatives Construction Impacts/Short-Term Effects Short-term effects to fish from construction associated with the Port Ludlow Marina expansion may include disruption of foraging behavior or avoidance of the project area during active construction. Pile driving may produce temporary and localized impacts to water quality, causing elevated turbidity plumes in the immediate vicinity of the pile driving. However, such impacts will be temporary and localized and will not persist beyond the active construction phase. Long-Term Effects Expansion of the Port Ludlow Marina will result in an increase in the area of overwater structure within the project area, which will in turn result in increased shading of predominantly deep (>35 feet) subtidal habitats beneath the structures. Under existing conditions, the project area does not provide substantial habitat for aquatic vegetation except on Marina floats and on intertidal hard structures. Increased shading of underlying substrates may result in minor decreases in microalgae and benthic productivity in the area directly beneath the new floats; however, the floats will also provide substantial additional surface area for colonization by aquatic vegetation and invertebrates. The Washington State Department of Fisheries conducted a study of Skyline Marina in north Puget Sound in which fish, zooplankton, and water quality characteristics were compared to the Marina's source water in monthly surveys conducted from March to October 1978 (Cardwell et al. 1980). The study concluded that the Marina's fish populations were numerically larger, more diverse, and richer in species than those in the Bay. Predation on baitfish and salmon juveniles in the Marina was judged to be low due to an apparent scarcity of potential bird and fish predators during the period of maximum juvenile fish abundance (May to September) (Cardwell et al. 1980). Surface zooplankton in the Marina were less dense and rich in species than those in the Bay, and several holoplanktonic species (e.g., siphonophores and tunicates) were either absent or present in reduced densities. Calanoid copepods, the primary prey of chum and pink salmon, surf smelt, Port Ludlow Marina Expansion Pre-Draft Sf IS 3-26 June 2002 ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I and Pacific herring, were most abundant in the Bay. Conversely, the principal prey of chinook and coho salmon, brachyuran and teleost larvae, were most abundant in the Marina (Cardwell et al. 1980). The expanded Marina may allow increased use by forage fish such as the large school of herring that was observed in the Marina in December 1999. Illumination of the Port Ludlow Marina at night with artificial lighting is not expected to adversely impact salmonids that may use the Marina area. Salo et al. (1977, as cited in Parametrix 1993b) and Prins low et al. (1979) studied the effects of artificial lighting along the edges of a pier apron on Hood Canal. However, this study considered only the effects of lights at night. Young salmon, as well as other fish, were attracted to the lighted areas at the edge of the aprons. These light levels also attracted young herring and sand lance. Light levels of 19 to 37 ft.-c attracted substantial numbers of chum salmon and other fish. These attractions of young fish were to areas adjacent to the piers rather than under the aprons. Ratte and Salo (1985, as cited in Parametrix 1993b) studied the effects of artificial lighting under a Port of Tacoma pier apron. Generally they obtained higher catches in traps with the lights off than with the lights on. These results suggest that young salmon tended to avoid the artificially lighted area to some degree. The Washington State Department of Health has closed the inner bay of Port Ludlow Bay to shellfish harvesting due to the presence of a municipal sewage outfall (D. Christensen, Jefferson County Department of Natural Resources, personal communication, March 1, 2002). The proposed alternatives are not expected to degrade water quality or impact any populations of shellfish that may be present in the vicinity of the project area. No adverse long-term, indirect effects to fish or invertebrates are expected to result from the proposed action. Net Effects The expansion of the Port Ludlow Marina will result in biota in the project area generally being maintained in their current condition, but will increase the substrate available for colonization by plants and animals. Floats and upper portions of pilings may support production of some epibenthic zooplankton preferred as prey by juvenile salmonids (e.g., Kozloff 1987). Alternative 4 - No Action No environmental impacts are anticipated from this alternative. 3.3.3.3 Mitigation Measures Proposed: . The new kayak float will include light transmissive capabilities. 3.3.3.4 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts No unavoidable adverse impacts to other fish and invertebrates are anticipated as a result of the proposed expansion. Port Ludlow Marina Expansion Pre-Draft SflS 3-27 June 2002 ~ 3.3.4 Avian Species 3.3.4.1 AHectetl Environment A biological inventory was conducted in March and May of 1992 to describe animal communities within the project area. Seventy-six bird species are expected to use the open-water and shoreline areas of the Marina and Port Ludlow Bay (Raedeke Associates 1992). Of these, 18 species were reported during the inventory. Nine species of waterfowl were observed near the Marina and within Port Ludlow Bay. Nineteen species were reported or expected to use the area. American wigeon (Anas Americana) and scoter (Oidema nigra, Malanina deglandi, M perspicillara) were the most abundant ducks observed during the inventory (Raedeke Associates 1992). Common loon (Gavia immer), a state sensitive species, were observed feeding near the Marina. Arctic (G. arctica) and red-throated (G. stellata) loon are expected to use the area during the winter (Raedeke Associates 1992). Horned grebe (Podiceps aurius) were observed within 20 feet of the Marina docks. Red-necked (P. grisegena), eared (P. caspicus), and western (Aechmophorus oCcidentalis) have also been reported or are expected to use Port Ludlow Bay (Raedeke Associates 1992). Other common birds observed in Port Ludlow Bay include double-crested cormorant (Phalacrocorax auritus) and pigeon guillemot (Cepphus columba). Brandt's (P. penicillatus) and pelagic (P. pelagicus) cormorant are also expected to use the Bay. Killdeer (Charadrius vociferous), glaucous-winged gull (Larus glaucescens), herring gull (L. argentatus), belted kingfisher (Megaceryle alcyon), bufflehead (Bucephala albeola), mallard (Anas platyrhynchus), pintail (Anas acuta), lesser scaup (Aythya affinis), great blue heron (Ardea herodias), common merganser (Mergus merganser), hooded merganser (Lophodytes cucullarus), and Barrow's goldeneye (Bucephala islandica) have also been observed in Port Ludlow Bay (Raedeke Associates 1992). Residents of Port Ludlow have reported osprey (Pandion haliaetus) and black-crowned night heron (Nycticorax nyticorax) and merlin (Falco columbianus) are expected to use the Bay during certain times of the year (Raedeke Associates 1992). Passerine and upland birds observed near the Marina include the song sparrow (Melospiza melodia), violet-green swallow (Tachycineta thalassina), American robin (Turdus migratorius), rufous-sided towhee (Pipilo erythrophthalmus), violet-green swallow (Tachycineta thalassina), European starling (Sturn us vulgaris), purple finch (Carpodacus purpureus), and American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos) (Raedeke Associates 1992). 3.3.4.2 Environmental Impacts Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 - Expansion Alternatives Construction Impacts/Short-Term Effects Port Ludlow Marina Expansion Pre-Draft SEIS 3-28 June 2002 ... I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Short-term effects to avian species resulting from construction associated with the Port Ludlow Marina expansion may include disruption of foraging behavior or avoidance of the project area during active construction. Pile driving will likely result in a temporary exceedance of background noise levels during active construction. However, such impacts will be temporary and localized and will not persist beyond the active construction phase. Long- Term Effects None of the three expansion alternatives are expected to result in long-term effects to avian species using Port Ludlow Bay. Alternative 4 - No Action No environmental impacts are anticipated from this alternative. 3.3.4.3 Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are proposed. 3.3.4.4 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts No significant unavoidable adverse impacts to avian species are anticipated as a result of the proposed expansion. 3.3.5 Mammals 3.3.5.1 Affected Environment River otter (Lutra Canadensis), gray whale (Eschrichus glaucus), DaB's porpoise (Phocoenoides dalli), and harbor seal (Phoca vitulina) are reported to use Port Ludlow Bay (Raedeke Associates 1992). 3.3.5.2 Environmental Impacts Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 - Expansion Alternatives Construction Impacts/Short-Term Effects Short-term effects to mammalian species resulting from construction associated with the Port Ludlow Marina expansion may include disruption of foraging behavior or avoidance of the project area during active construction. Pile driving will likely result in a temporary exceedance of background noise levels during active construction. However, such impacts will be temporary and localized and will not persist beyond the active construction phase. Long- Term Effects None of the three expansion alternatives are expected to result in long-term effects to mammalian species using Port Ludlow Bay. Alternative 4 - No Action No environmental impacts are anticipated from this alternative. Pori Ludlow Marina Expansion Pre-Draft SEIS 3-29 June 2002 ~ 3.3.5.3 Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are proposed. 3.3.5.4 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts No unavoidable adverse impacts to mammals are anticipated as a result of the proposed expansion. Port Ludlow Marina Expansion Pre-Draft SEIS 3-30 June 2002 ... I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 3.4 land Use and land Use Designations 3.4.1 Affeded Environment Project History Port Ludlow, located in eastern Jefferson County on the western shoreline ofPuget Sound, was originally settled in the mid-1800s as a shipbuilding, logging, and sawmill community. By the 1880s, Port Ludlow encompassed a sawmill, log dump, numerous homes, a hotel, and other facilities. The sawmill was permanently closed in 1935 and subsequently dismantled. The existing homes were moved to Port Gamble. Development of the current Port Ludlow Resort and residential community was initiated in the late 1960s. As approved by Jefferson County, the original Port Ludlow development includes approximately 2,250 dwelling units (1,800 of which have been developed to date), a 21 acre Resort complex, a 27-hole golf course, a small retail center, parks, and open space. The 280-slip Marina was constructed in the 1970s as part of the Port Ludlow Resort. Property below Ordinary High Water (OHW) is leased from the State of Washington Department of Natural Resources. The Marina serves guests, boating groups, and Port Ludlow area residents. Other central Puget Sound yacht clubs have requested to use slips at Port Ludlow as a "satellite facility," but the number of available slips has limited this function. The Marina is now full. In 1993, the Resort area and residential development underwent a permitting process for redevelopment for the following 10 year period. The proposed redevelopment program included 700 additional residential units, 47,500 sq. ft. of additional commercial space, a 36-room inn, a 100-slip expansion of the Marina, construction of a new club house at the golf course, approximately 815 acres of open space and recreation areas, and supporting infrastructure including roads and utilities. The EISfor the Port Ludlow Development Program (April, 1993) was issued to address the impacts of the redevelopment at a programmatic level. A second, project-level EIS (EIS for the Inn at Port Ludlow, 1993) was also prepared at that time. The second EIS was a project-specific EIS which analyzed the site-specific impacts of a 36-room Inn, 72 residential units, 2,500 sq. ft. of commercial space, renovation of upland Marina support facilities, expansion of the "Mill Pond" (a man-made pond), additional parking, landscaping with sand dunes, shoreline public access provisions, riprap rock installation, and replacement of underground fuel tanks with above-ground tanks. In August of 1998, Jefferson County adopted a new Comprehensive Plan that designated the Port Ludlow community as a Master Planned Resort (MPR). Jefferson County Ordinance Number 08-1004-99 was subsequently adopted in October 1999. This ordinance established new development regulations consistent with the new Comprehensive Plan designation. Port Ludlow Morina Expansion Pre-Draft SEIS 3-31 Me 2002 ~ PrDjed Area Port Ludlow is located in a generally rural portion of Jefferson County, approximately six miles north ofSR-104. The 1800:!: acre MPR is centered on the inner portion of Port Ludlow Bay and extends both north and south of this inner portion of the Bay. Within the MPR, the Resort area is located on the northern shore ofthe Bay, inthe area of Burner Point. The Marina is located on the inside of Burner Point, and is bounded by Resort uses on the north and east. The upland resort uses include the Harbormaster Restaurant, parking areas, Marina support facilities, four undeveloped single-family lots, "Mill Pond" (a man-made pond), the Heron Beach Inn, town homes, and open space, including a viewing area at Burner Point. West of the resort area, MPR properties around the inner portion of the Bay are occupied by single-family homes and condominiums. The majority of the Resort area is separated from surrounding single-family development by Oak Bay Road. Properties immediately west of the Marina lie within a designated "SingJe.:..Family" area and are occupied by one undeveloped single-family lot and three single-family dwellings. These properties access Oak Bay Road via Scott Court, and for purposes of this discussion are referred to as the "Scott Court Properties." A four-slip dock serving these residential lots was constructed in the mid to late 1990s. This dock, known as the "Scott Dock," is located approximately 150 feet from shore, approximately 300 feet west of the Port Ludlow Marina C- and D-Docks. Within.the inner portion of the Bay, the number of existing private docks is small; these docks are generally located on the southwestern shore of the Bay. The Meydenbauer Bay Yacht Club uses four dock slips at the west end of Port Ludlow Bay, as well as rafting boats together and anchoring boats in the Bay, as a satellite club facility. Land Use DesignatiDns Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan The 1998 Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan: Jefferson County, Washington designates Port Ludlow a Master Planned Resort (MPR). The Marina and adjacent upland properties are designated as "Resort Complex/Community Facilities." Single-family residential properties to the west are designated "Single Family Residentia1." Zoning Jefferson County has adopted specific regulations to address development within the Port Ludlow MPR. These regulations are contained in the Phased Development Agreement, recorded on August 4, 2000. These development regulations are applied to development proposals within the Port Ludlow MPR while the Jefferson County Unified Development Code (UDC) contains the development regulations for the rest ofthe County. These Development Regulations (the "MPR Development Regulations") are found in Appendix B of the Jefferson County UDC adopted as Ordinance 08-1004-99. Port Ludlow Marina Expansion Pre-Draft SEIS 3-32 June 2002 ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I The Marina lies within the "Resort Complex/Community Facilities" zone (MPR-RC/CF) established in the MPR Development Regulations. The purpose of this zone is to provide amenities and services associated with a resort and the surrounding community, and to support existing residential uses. Uses allowed in this zone "...recognize the recreational nature of the resort and include the existing and planned resort complex, as well as limitedpermanent residential uses, and non-resort community facilities including a beach club and Kehele Park. " The Marina is a permitted use within this zone. Section 3.901 "Resort Plan" of the development regulations addresses the plan for future development of the Resort. Section 3.901 includes a 100-slip expansion of the Marina. The Scott Court single-family development immediately west of the Marina is zoned Single Family (MPR - Single Family). The purpose of this zone is to recognize, maintain, and promote single family residential areas within the MPR, and provide opportunities for reasonably priced housing. MPR land use designations are shown in Figure 9. 3.4.2 Environmental Impacts Short-term (Construction) Impacts Alternatives 1,2, and 3: Expansion Alternatives For all expansion alternatives, construction activities will result in short-term impacts to the adjacent resort and single-family residential development. Construction activities will temporarily increase noise levels, and barge and vehicular traffic; fumes from construction equipment may also be noticeable. Construction noise will be generated primarily by pile driving, but will also come from the use of generators, other small engines, and hand tools. Data from the Shilshole Bay Marina Dock Replacement/Moorage Expansion Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (Port of Seattle, 2000) indicates that, from a noise standpoint, the "worst case" pile driving scenario is a diesel-powered hammer driving steel piles into a very hard subsurface soil layer, with no noise abatement shrouding. In this scenario, the Leq measured 100 feet from the diesel hammer was 95.9 dBA. At 180 feet, the Leq will be 90.8 dBA, and at 300 feet, 86.4 dBA. For the Port Ludlow Marina expansion, noise from pile driving will be heard from the Resort area and the Scott Court properties to the west. The noise level will be determined largely by the number of piles to be driven and the depth to which they are driven. Given the subsurface conditions at the Marina, it is anticipated that both a vibratory hammer and a drop hammer and/or diesel hammer will be used. The pile driving will occur over an approximate 45-day period. Because sound travels well over water, construction noise will likely be heard around the entire Bay, but will not be as significant. Jefferson County regulates noise impacts per Section 6.19 ("Noise") ofthe Unified Development Code. Resolution Number 67-85, Establishment of Environmental Designation (EDNA) for Port LucDow Morino Exponsion Pre-Droft SEIS 3-33 June 2002 ~ Noise Abatement Areas for Jefferson County, adopted WAC 173-60 in its entirety to establish maximum permissible noise levels for various environments or classes of use. Port Ludlow Marina Expansion Pre-Draft SEIS 3-34 June 2002 ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Figure 9 - Existing Land Use and Zoning Port Ludlow Marina Expansion Pre-Draft SEIS c~ ~~ 3-35 June 2002 ~ Port Ludlow Marina Expansion Pre-Draft SEIS 3-36 June 2002 ... I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I WAC 173-60 states that noise emitted by any commercial or industry activity shall not exceed those levels established by the Washington State Department of Ecology. WAC 173-60.030 classifies residential sites and parks and recreational sites as Class A EDNA. The maximum noise exposure levels for noise emitted in Class A EDNA that is received by Class A EDNA is 55 dBA (WAC 173-60-040). WAC 173-60-050 lists activities that are exempt from the maximum noise level requirements of WAC 173-60-040. Section 3-a exempts sounds originating from temporary construction sites as a result of construction activity with the exception that these sounds are not allowed between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. in Class A EDNA receptors. Construction noise associated with the Marina expansion is a temporary impact. Construction hours will be limited to non-holiday weekdays and Saturdays from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Impacts from increased construction vehicle and barge traffic will be concentrated within the Marina area, although the pile-driving barge will also be located in the vicinity of the Scott Dock. The barge will not block access to that dock. Fumes from the construction activities are not anticipated to be significant. Alternative 4: No Action Alternative 4 would result in no short-term construction impacts to adjacent properties. Long Term Impacts Alternative 1: Proposed Project Alternative 1 will add a maximum of 100 additional slips to the existing 280-slip Marina. The expansion will occur both westward and waterward. The number of new slips accommodated by Alternative 1 is consistent with the approved Resort Plan and existing MPR regulations. The proposed project is within the designated MPR boundary and it will aid in maintaining Port Ludlow as Jefferson County's only Master Planned Resort. The expansion will provide additional slips for area residents and may also allow use of slips as satellite facilities for other yachts clubs. This may in turn, reduce the number of boats anchored-out in the Bay during summer months. Impacts to the adjacent resort and residential properties will include an incremental increase in noise (from boat engines and human voices), boat traffic, and vehicular traffic. Odors associated with a marina, such as exhaust from boats, will also likely increase incrementally. Extensive boat repairs are not allowed within the Marina, so odors from repair activities will not be significant. Impacts of Alternative 1 on adjacent land use relate primarily to potential impacts to the Scott Court residential properties. Alternative 1 will result in Port Ludlow docks lying within approximately 150 to 200 feet of the Scott Dock, and within 250 to 350 feet ofthe closest residential lot (currently undeveloped). Residents of Scott Court have expressed concerns I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I regarding the increased boat activity adjacent to their homes, the ability of boats and seaplanes to access their dock, and the ability to expand their dock if Alternative 1 were to be approved. The industry standard for "fairway width" (distance between individual docks) within a marina is 1.5 times the length of the boat, or 1.75 times boat length if maneuvering conditions warrant (Marinas and Small Craft Harbors, Tobiasson 2000 and Environmental Engineering/or Small BoatBasins, Manual No. 1110-2-1206, Army Corps of Engineers, October, 1993). The 1.5 times standard is considered appropriate for Port Ludlow Bay due to the absence of strong currents. Thus, a 40 -foot boat would require a 60 -70 foot fairway, and a 60-foot boat would require a 90-105 foot fairway. With Alternative 1, the closest portion ofthe expanded Port Ludlow C-Dock would provide an approximate 180-foot fairway for the Scott dock, and the D- Dock extension would provide an approximate 120-foot fairway for Scott Dock (assumes side- ties at both the Port Ludlow and Scott Docks). Impacts to views are addressed in Section 3.6 Aesthetics. Impacts of Alternative 1 on marine resources are discussed in Section 3.3. Alternative 2: Deep Water Alternative Alternative 2 will also add 100 slips to the Marina, but all new docks and slips will be placed waterward of the existing docks. The number of new slips will be consistent with the adopted Resort Plan and MPR regulations. As with Alternative 1, the expansion will provide additional slips for area residents and boating groups, and may reduce the number of boats anchored in the Bay during summer months. Impacts to adjacent residential properties will be minimized, as no new slips will be located closer than the existing 300 feet to the Scott Dock, or 300 to 400 feet to residential property. Impacts to views are addressed in Section 3.6 Aesthetics. Impacts of Alternative 2 on marine resources are discussed in Section 3.3. Alternative 3: 1993 Design Alternative 3 will result in a 100-slip expansion westward and eastward. As with Alternatives 1 and 2, the expansion will provide slips for area residents and boating groups, and may reduce the number of boats anchored in the Bay during summer months. Alternative 3 will have the greatest impact on adjacent residential properties. The 1993 configuration was developed prior to the construction of any other dock in the immediate vicinity and is now partially infeasible. As drawn, the expanded D-Dock will extend westward to the Scott Dock, providing no space to navigate between the two uses. The expanded D-Dock will block access to both the inside of the Scott Dock and to C-Dock. Ifthis alternative were to be selected, several slips on D-Dock will have to be relocated, probably to the outside of E-Dock. Impacts to views are addressed in Section 3.6 Aesthetics. Port Ludlow Marina Expansion Pre-Draft SEIS 3-37 June 2002 ~ Port Ludlow Marina Expansion Pre-Draft SflS 3-38 June 2002 ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Impacts of Alternative 3 to marine resources are discussed in Section 3.3. Alternative 4: No Action Alternative 4 will result in no expansion of the existing Marina. No new impacts to existing land uses will occur. Whether demand for additional docking space will result in proposals for other docks elsewhere in Port Ludlow Bay, or increased anchoring in the Bay, is unknown. 3.4.3 Mitigation Measures Proposetl: Construction Impacts · Hours of construction will be limited to 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., on non-holiday weekdays and Saturdays. · Stationary construction equipment will be positioned as far as possible from residential properties. · The construction contract will require that all mufflers are maintained in good working order · Any dust will be suppressed by utilizing wetting techniques. · Energy efficient equipment will be used to control emissions. Navigation Impacts · Alternative 1, 2, and 3 docks will be located to provide adequate fairway and maneuvering area for access to existing Scott Docks. 3.4.4. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts No significant unavoidable impacts to existing land uses are anticipated. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 3.5 Land and Shoreline Use - Relationship to Plans and Policies 3.5.1 AHected Environment Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan The Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan includes specific goals and policies related to the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort (MPR). The Goals and Policies related to the MPR and the Resort area are as follow: Goals: LNG 25.0 Maintain the viability of Port Ludlow as Jefferson County's only existing Master Planned Resort (MPR) authorized under RCW 36. 70A.362. Policies: LNP 25.1 Ensure that development in Port Ludlow complies with County development regulations establishedfor critical areas and that on-site and off-site infrastructure impacts are fully considered and mitigated. LNP 25.2 The provision of urban-style services to support the anticipated growth and development at Port Ludlow shall occur only within the designated MPR boundary. LNP 25.6 Support efforts to preserve and protect Port Ludlow's greenbelts, open spaces, and wildlife corridors. The Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan also includes goals and policies related to both Parks and Recreation and Shorelines. Regarding parks and recreation, the goal is to develop and maintain facilities that are responsive to the needs and interests of Jefferson County residents and visitors. The associated policies state that existing facilities should: not be overburdened; be planned to support designated residential development; and should include adequate infrastructure. The facilities should also be consistent with the needs and desires of the citizens of the area, and be compatible with the Shoreline Management Master Program. Policies related to Parks and Recreation are listed in Appendix F. Regarding shorelines, the goals relate to preserving the long-term benefits of shoreline resources and allowing development that is compatible with the natural environment. Associated policies establish a hierarchy of preferred uses, promote public access, and allow development that is compatible with the natural processes, conditions and functions ofthe shoreline. Policies related to Shorelines are listed in Appendix F. Jefferson County ShoreHne Management Moster Program The Shoreline Management Act (SMA) of 1971 (Revised Code of Washington, RCW, Chapter 90.58) was enacted to provide for the management of the shorelines of the state by planning for and fostering all reasonable and appropriate uses. It is the policy of the state to protect against Port Ludlow Marina Expansion Pre-Draft SEIS 3-39 June 2002 --- Port Ludlow Marina Expansion Pre-Draft SEIS 3.40 June 2002 ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I adverse effects to public health, land and its vegetation and wildlife, and the waters of the state and its aquatic life. Permitted uses in the shorelines are to be designed and conducted in a manner to minimize, insofar as practical, any resultant damage to the ecology and environment of the shoreline, and any interference with the public's use of the water. The SMA gives responsibility to the local governments in initiating and administering the regulatory program of the Act. As a result, Jefferson County developed and adopted a Shoreline Management Master Program (SMMP) in March of 1989. The SMMP is a regulatory ordinance with performance standards for development intended to implement adopted goals and policies. The SMMP is adopted as Section 5 ofthe Jefferson County Unified Development Code. All shorelines subject to the SMA are given a shoreline environment designation designed to locate the most appropriate uses in particular areas and to enhance the character of that shoreline environment. The environment designation for the area of the Port Ludlow Marina is "Urban." Shoreline environment designations are shown in Figure 10. The Urban shoreline environment is an area of high intensity land use, including residential, commercial, and industrial development. The policies and performance standards of the SMMP, Urban Environment give preference to water-dependent, water-related, and water-enjoyment uses (SMMP 4.105). Shoreline uses are classified as "primary," "secondary," or "conditional," in order of preference or appropriateness on a particular shoreline. The Marina is a use that is deemed as preferable within the Urban designation, and is thus classified as "primary"(SMMP 4.201). The SMMP defines marinas as facilities that provide launching, storage, moorage, and other services for six or more pleasure and commercial watercraft. Policies and Performance Standards for marina uses are listed in SMMP 5.110. The Policies and Performance Standards address construction of new marinas. The Port Ludlow Marina is an existing marina and the proposed action is to expand the Marina by 100 additional slips. The Policies and Performance Standards of marina uses also apply to expansion of existing marinas. The policies and performance standards are listed below: Marinas. Policies: 1. In locating marinas, special plans should be made to protect the fish and shellfish resources that may be harmed by construction and operation of the facility. 2. Marinas should be designed in a manner that will reduce damage to fish and shellfish resources and be aesthetically compatible with adjacent areas. 3. Marinas should be located at or near high use or potentially high use areas. Local as well as regional need data should be considered as input in location selection. 4. Special attention should be given to the design and development of operational procedures for fuel handling and storage in order to minimize accidental spillage and provide satisfactory means for handling those spills that do occur. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i:\ \24\99\014\permit\eis\4914shorelines 4) , , ~ I J.e6eNJ:) , l, I _ UR6AN . . HI . HI. sueuReAN GONseRV ANCY" ~ NATURAL.. Reid iddleton SHORELINE ENVIRONMENT DESIGNA TlONS Figure 10 PORT LUDLOW MARINA EXPANSION DSEIS 5. Shallow water embayments with poor flushing action should not be considered for overnight and long term moorage facilities. 6. The Washington State Department of Fisheries' guidelines should be consulted in planningfor marinas. 7. State and local health agencies have standards and guidelines for the development of marinas that should be consulted. 8. Floating breakwaters should receive valid considerations as an alternative to conventional breakwaters. Marinas. Performance Standards: 1. Marinas shall be located with regard to favorable conditions related to wind, current, and bathymetrics. 2. Marinas that provide overnight or long-term moorage facilities shall not be located in areas with poor flushing action. 3. Marinas shall be compatible with the general aesthetic quality of the shoreline area where they are located. 4. Marinas and ancillary facilities shall be located, designed, constructed, and operated to minimize adverse effects on fish, shellfish, wildlife, water quality, and existing geohydraulic shoreline processes. 5. Marinas shall be located, designed, constructed, and operated so as to not unnecessarily interfere with the rights of adjacent property owners, nor interfere with adjacent water uses. 6. Parking and loading areas shall be located well away from the immediate water's edge and beaches. 7. Design of parking and loading areas shall assure that surface runoff does not pollute adjacent waters or cause soil or beach erosion. 8. Provisions shall be made to facilitate orderly launching, retrieval, and storage of boats. 9. Provisions shall be made to facilitate the orderly circulation of vehicles and pedestrians in the vicinity of the marina. 10. Marinas shall make adequate provisions to minimize the probability of fuel spills during handling or storage. Provisions shall be made to handle accidental spills that do occur. Port Ludlow Marina Expansion Pre-Draft SEIS 3-42 June 2002 --- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 11. Marinas shall be equipped with vessel pump-out and on-shore sewage and waste disposal facilities. Pump-out facilities shall be available at no direct charge to the user. 12. No more than fifteen (J 5) percent of the wet slips within a marina shall be covered. In general, the SMMP policies place an emphasis on protecting the environment. The performance standards dictate the design for marinas with the intent of minimizing the impact on the natural environment while taking into consideration impacts to existing uses and adjacent property owners. 3.5.2 Environmental Impacts Alternatives " 2, and 3 - Expansion Alternatives JeHerson County Comprehensive Plan Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 are consistent with the goal and policies related to maintaining the viability of the Port Ludlow MPR, limiting urban services to locations within the MPR, and supporting efforts to preserve and protect certain open spaces. Consistency with critical area regulations related to fish and wildlife habitat for each of the alternatives is addressed in Section 3.3. The proposed project is also consistent with the Parks and Recreation Goals and Policies of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, Open Space Element that encourage development and maintenance of park and recreational facilities which are responsive to the needs and interests of Jefferson County residents and visitors. The expansion will relieve existing and potential overburdening of existing recreational areas and facilities. Currently, both the Seattle Yacht Club and Meydenbauer Bay Yacht Club have requested the use of marina slips at Port Ludlow for use as a "satellite facility." The request has been denied, due to the lack of available slips. ' As a result, the Meydenbauer Bay Yacht Club uses four slips at the west end of Port Ludlow Bay, as well as rafting and anchoring-out in the Bay for its satellite facility. The proposed recreational facilities will support areas designated for future residential development and adequate infrastructure will be available. The location, type, and amount of park and recreational facilities is consistent with the needs and desires of the citizens in the area and will accommodate a diversity of user groups. Regarding Shoreline goals and policies, consistency with the policies and performance standards contained in the Shoreline Management Master Program (SMMP) would result in consistency with the Shoreline goals and policies. This consistency is addressed below. The Marina expansion will increase public access to the water. Shoreline Management Master Program (SMMP) Expansion of this existing Marina will create an additional 100 slips with additional side-ties. The Marina use is a "primary" use within the urban environment, and thus is consistent with the intent ofthe SMMP. Impacts to marine resources (Policies 1 and 2) are addressed in Section 3.3. Port Ludlow Marina Expansion Pre-Draft SflS 3-43 June 2002 ~ Port Ludlow Morino Expansion Pre-Droft SEIS June 2002 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Aesthetic impacts (Policy 2) are addressed in Section 3.6. The proposed expansion is consistent with policies related to locating a marina at or near high use areas (Policy 3), and in areas with adequate flushing action (Policy 5). BMPs are in place to minimize potential fuel spills and to handle any spills that do occur (Policy 4). There are no state or local specific guidelines for dock design, as each site has unique conditions related to waves, winds, currents, users, etc. The Washington State Department ofFish and Wildlife (DFW) does, however, review each project on a case by case basis to determine consistency with current policies regarding protection of marine resources. Consistency with DFW policies will be determined via issuance of a Hydraulic Project Approval (HP A); that action has not yet occurred. A breakwater (Policy 8) is not proposed. A shoreline public access plan for the Port Ludlow Resort has been prepared and implemented through recording of a shoreline public access easement. The proposed project will not alter this Plan, although the expanded Marina will expand public recreational boating access to the water. Regarding SMP performance standards: the marina is favorably located in terms of wind, current, bathymetrics and flushing action (Standards 1 and 2); the marina is compatible with the general aesthetic quality of this shoreline area (Standard 3); the marina expansion has been designed to minimize adverse effects impacts on fish, shellfish, wildlife, water quality, and existing geohydraulic processes (Standard 4); parking and loading areas are located away from the water's immediate edge and beaches (Standard 6); design of parking and loading areas includes adequate storm drainage facilities (Standard 7); there is orderly pedestrian and vehicular circulation in the vicinity of the marina (Standard 9); the Marina Operations Manual includes procedures for minimizing fuel spills and handling spills that do occur (Standard 10); and sewage pump-out and waste disposal facilities are available (Standard 11). No slips within the marina are covered (Standard 12), and there is no boat launch facility at the marina (Standard 8). The expanded marina will, however, impact the views of the four adjacent Scott Court property owners (Standard 5). The proposed expansion must be consistent with local, state, and federal requirements regarding protection of marine resources, including water quality. Any expansion alternative must comply with the guidelines of the WDFW, the CaE, the NMFS and USFWS. Impacts to marine resources and the differences related to the alternative marina configurations are addressed in Section 3.3. Best Available Science (BAS; sensu WAC 365-195-900 et seq.) has been considered in the design of the expansion and coordination with WDFW is ongoing. BAS requires the use of current scientific information that is derived from a valid scientific process. BMPs related to the use and maintenance of the Marina will aid in protecting the shorelines. Impacts to adjacent property owners from the alternative expansion configurations are addressed in Sections 3.4 and 3.6. Alternative 4: No Action JeHerson County Comprehensive Pion Alternative 4 will result in no expansion ofthe existing Marina. No expansion ofthe Marina mayor may not effect the viability of the MPR. With regard to policies related to Parks and 3-44 --- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Recreation, Alternative 4 will not address the problem of overburdening the existing facility. Whether or not demand for additional docking space in Port Ludlow Bay will result in proposals for other docks elsewhere in the Bay, or increased anchoring in the Bay, is unknown. The No Actionaltemative will be consistent with policies related to preservation and protection of the shoreline environment (see Section 3.3). Shoreline Management Master Program (SMMP) The No Action alternative will retain the 280-slip Marina in its current configuration. This alternative is consistent with the SMMP. Public access to the shoreline is not increased with this alternative. The short-term benefit of preserving the existing environment is achieved, however the long term benefit would not be achieved if demand for additional slips increases and existing facilities become overburdened over time. 3.5.3 Mitigating Measures The permitting process for the expansion will require consistency with the Port Ludlow MPR Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan and Shoreline Management Master Program goals and policies as well as any other applicable ordinances, such as the Critical Areas Ordinance. 3.5.4 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts No significant unavoidable adverse impacts.are anticipated. Port Ludlow Marina Expansion Pre-Draft 5EI5 3-45 June 2002 --- Port Ludlow Marina Expansion Pre-Draft SEIS 3-46 June 2002 ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 3.6 AESTHETICS !VISUAL QUALITY A visual quality study was prepared by Reid Middleton, dated February 2002, to evaluate potential changes to visual qualities of the environment from the proposed project and alternatives. The study describes the existing landscape character, viewer groups, viewpoints, and identified visual impacts. Study and Methodology To evaluate potential visual impacts of a proposed project, both the visual quality of the existing site and viewer sensitivity to the proposed changes must be analyzed. Analyzing aesthetic and visual impacts includes concern for the nature of the visual experience and its quality. Because this type of analysis can be subjective, sets of proven evaluative measures have been developed. The methodology described below was developed from such evaluative measures as they apply to expansion of the Port Ludlow Marina. The methodology employs both quantitative and qualitative analysis of the described landscape components. The project site was first analyzed with respect to three key factors identified below. Ratings from 1 to 5 express the degree to which the landscape contains a high degree of each factor, with 5 being the highest rating. Table 4 summarizes the results of the Existing Scenic Quality Inventory. · General landscape (landform, vegetation, water, color, adjacent scenery, scarcity, and cultural or modifications) relative to the basic design elements of form, line, color, and texture. · Degree of visual interest (vitality, vividness, and variety). How memorable, striking, or distinctive are the elements of the landscape and the visual patterns inherent in it? · Sense (congruence, clarity, and coherence) and unity (fit, intactness, and harmony) are related and explore whether the landscape is compositionally harmonious. Are there visual encroachments to the essential quality of the site that detract from the overall experience? Do manmade elements add and fit within the natural elements of the landscape? Do the visual patterns in the landscape represent a confusing and chaotic quality rather than a coherent and congruent experience? Viewer sensitivity was then analyzed relative to the type of viewers, amount of use (i.e., frequency and duration), the level of public interest, adjacent land uses, and uniqueness of the scenery. Viewer sensitivity levels were identified for four viewer categories relative to six factors in Table 4. Other related analyses involve identifying key view or observation points, viewsheds in the area, and distance zones related to views of the site. Lastly, impacts were assessed by contrasting the visual quality of the existing area and viewpoints with the visual quality of the proposed changes, via the use of computer simulation I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I photographs. Contrast ratings are developed for each alternative, and an analysis of impacts is developed. The level of viewer sensitivity is factored into the impact assessment. Several of the inventory and analytical worksheets used for this analysis were adapted from the Bureau of Land Management's Visual Resource Management Manual (September 2001). Consequently, some of the charts may reflect their system of classification. 3.6.1 AHecled Environment Existing Visual Environment The Port Ludlow Marina is located on the north side of Port Ludlow Bay, on the western shore ofPuget Sound, just north of where Hood Canal enters Puget Sound. The intimately-sized Bay is partially enclosed by medium steep and rounded slopes that surround it on most of three sides. Although views east of the site may include some expanses of the larger Puget Sound, the more immediate views of the Marina area are of the protected Bay and surrounding hillsides. The relative steepness of the slopes gradually lessens to gentle banks to the north of the Marina and the flat promontory area (known as Burner Point), east of the Marina. Existing views of the site are shown below. Adjacent hillsides are mostly covered with a variety of deciduous and evergreen trees that provide a variety of interesting forms, textures, color, and patterns. The Bay is a dominant factor in the landscape. The J-shaped Bay lends a quality of protection that gradually spirals out to larger, more expansive vistas of the Sound as one leaves the immediate vicinity of the Marina. The Marina is located along the north shore of the Bay. The Marina itself provides visual interest to the scene. It provides texture, pattern, color, and movement, while generally fitting well in its natural setting and within the scale of the surrounding Bay. The upland area of the Marina is developed with parking, and small marina buildings. Beyond this to the north are undeveloped parking areas. The upland area to the east is flatter topographically and is developed with larger-scaled buildings including a restaurant, inn and condominium development. There is less natural and landscape vegetation here partially due to the amount of development, but also due to the nature of a less protected and windy promontory location. To the west ofthe Marina is an undeveloped wooded slope. An area of single-family residences Pori Ludlow Marina Expansion Pre-Draft SEIS 3-47 June 2002 ~ Port Ludlow Marina Expansion Pre-Draft SEIS 3-48 June 2002 ... I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I is located west of this slope; generally characterized by homes on individual lots surrounded by a combination of natural and landscaped vegetation. The visual analysis of the existing landscape is summarized in Table 4 below. The general landscape rating was based upon a site inspection, using a form adapted from the Scenic Quality Inventory and Evaluation Chart developed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for Scenic Quality Assessment of federal lands use, as published in the Visual Resource Management Manual 8400 BLM Standards. Visual Interest and Sense & Unity are described earlier in the Methodology section. In the table below, the General Landscape, Visual Interest and Sense and Unity Ratings are broken down relative to the elements of Landform, Vegetation, Water, Color, Influence of Adjacent Scenery, Uniqueness/Scarcity, and Cultural Modifications/Manmade Form. Table 4 Port Ludlow Marina Existing Scenic Quality Inventory and Evaluation Chart: Key Factors General Landscape Rating* 3 5 5 5 5 4 4 Visual Interest Rating Sense & Unity Rating Landform Vegetation Water Color Influence of Adjacent Scenery Uniqueness/Scarcity Cultural Modifications/ Manmade Form Subtotal 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 5 5 5 5 4 3 4 34 31 Total 96 *Visual Resource Management Manual 8400 BLM Standards, Scenic Quality Inventory and Evaluation Chart. Totals of 80 and above = High Visual Quality Totals of 79 to 42 = Medium Visual Quality Totals of 41 or below are of Low Visual Quality 31 Based on the scoring techniques used in this analysis, a total score of 80 or more is considered a high rating. The analysis resulted in a high rating of 96 points. It was rated slightly lower relative to only two issues, intactness and uniqueness/scarcity. Intactness relates to whether development has had a negative impact on the natural scenic quality of the setting. In the case of previously developed areas with high visual quality, intactness may also refer to whether new development is congruent with the existing pattern of built form that has been key to the visual I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I quality of the setting. Intactness is reflected in the factors of Influence of Adjacent Scenery, Cultural Modifications/Manmade Form, and would affect ratings under the General Landscape and Sense and Unity Ratings. In this case, much of the development has been well integrated into the natural setting (e.g., homes on well-vegetated lots). A few examples of more recent development are less successful in this regard and consequently the rating for Adjacent Scenery indicates a slight impact to the intactness of the scenery. Regarding Uniqueness/Scarcity, the Marina site cannot be characterized as being completely one of a kind in northwest Washington, but it is still a highly-valued example of this type of landscape setting in this area. Viewer Sensitivity Viewer sensitivity issues of the Port Ludlow Marina have been divided into four locations based on different views. These locations are: · Views from Oak Bay Road, above the Marina. · Views from Other Roads and public areas with views of the Marina. · Views from Adjacent or near-by Residential Properties. · Views from Other Residential Properties further inside, or across, the Bay. Viewer sensitivity levels were evaluated on the basis of the following factors: · Viewer type · Amount of use (i.e., duration and frequency) · Public Interest · Adjacent Land Use · Uniqueness/Cultural Value of the Areas · Other Factors such as Level of Impact Four viewer sensitivity categories listed above were identified and analyzed. Sensitivity levels for each of the four locations were then rated as High, Medium, or Low relative to the factors listed above. Viewer sensitivity ratings are shown in Table 5 below. Pori Ludlow Marina Expansion Pre-Draft SEIS 3-49 June 2002 ~ H L H L I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Table S Port Ludlow Marina Viewer Sensitivity Rating KEY FAOORS Oak Bay Road Other Roads Adjacent Residential Properties Single-family, and condominium full- time and vacation! part-time residents Other Residential Property Type of Users Passengers and drivers in vehicles, bicyclists Passengers and drivers in vehicles and pedestrians Single-family, and condominium full- time and vacation! part-time residents Amount of Use Public Interest Adjacent Land Use Uniqueness/eu ltural Value of Area Other Factors* M L H L TOTAL-H H L M+ L *This considers the level of impact likely to the group of viewer, such as the impact that is inherent from views that impact home environment. H H M-H H M-H L M-H L M+ L L+ L The analysis of viewer sensitivity issues for each location above, demonstrates that of the locations have significant levels of sensitivity to proposed expansion of the Marina: 1. Those related to viewing the site from Oak Bay Road, 2. Those related to viewing the site from Adjacent Residential Properties. Oak Bay Road provides important views for those traveling past the site. These views are public views, close to the site, on a well-traveled public road, and hence, important to a large number of viewers. This is the best, ifnot the only good view ofthis portion of Port Ludlow Bay from a public road. It is recognized, however, that most viewers are travelling at a speed that lowers sensitivity. Trees and vegetation obscure the Marina in many places. The over-all sensitivity level for views from Oak Bay Road is "High." The viewer sensitivity for views from adjacent and nearby properties have a "Medium to High" sensitivity level. The group of viewers associated with this view is relatively small and characterized by a private, as opposed to public interest. However, there is a higher potential for impact associated with this view because the views of the Marina extend over a greater period of time, at different view angles, at various times of day, with a range of light conditions, and it is unobscured. The viewers in this group view the Marina from their home environment. Views from other properties across the Bay or further away from the Marina and from public roads in the study area have lower sensitivity levels since the proposal site is obscured or too distant to have a significant impact. Port Ludlow Marina Expansion Pre-Draft SflS 3-50 June 2002 ... I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I View Analysis In a separate study by Reid Middleton, a View Analysis was conducted. Several viewpoints and their related viewsheds in three distance zones were identified (Figures 11 through 13). Five viewpoints,. noted below, were reviewed for potential impacts. Three of these viewpoints (Viewpoints #1,2, and 3) were identified as key viewpoints subject to a more detailed analysis in the following section. Viewpoint #1 represents views from Viewshed 1, that segment of Oak Bay Road located directly above the Marina. Views from this area are characterized by being high in frequency and high in public interest, but sometimes obscured by vegetation and the speed at which the viewer is movmg. Viewpoint #2 represents views from Viewshed 2, adjacent private residential waterfront property (known as the "Scott Court" property). These views are characterized by a limited number of viewers with a prolonged viewing time. Views of the Marina and Bay are unobscured. Viewpoint #3 represents views from Viewshed 3, private residential waterfront properties across the Bay. These views are unobscured by topography or vegetation, but are obscured by distance. Viewpoint #4 represents views from public roadways across the Bay. There are few views of the Marina from this viewshed; vegetation, buildings, and distance often obscure what views there are. Viewpoint #5 represents views from homes or residential streets that are distant. These views mayor may not be obscured by topography, vegetation, or buildings. The number of viewers is small and the public interest is low. 3.6.2 Environmental Impacts Key Viewpoints As stated above, one key viewpoint was identified in each of View sheds #1, 2, and 3 for a more detailed analysis through view simulation. These key viewpoints are: · View # 1 looking south from Oak Bay Road. For purpose of analysis, this view is divided into "Left," "Middle," and "Right" in order to adequately depict the expansive view of the Marina from this location. · View #2 from Scott Court. View #2 represents the view to the southeast from adjacent residential properties located immediately west ofthe Marina. · View #3 looking north from across Port Ludlow Bay. View #3 provides for further analysis ofthe visual impact to waterfront properties located further away. Port luelow Morino Expansion Pre-Draft SEIS June 2002 3-51 ~ NORTH * vleli'll sImulatIon IOGatlon (/) I~~~' 2~~~' ~ I I SCALE: II = I~~~' Reid iddletol1 i:\ \24\99\014\permit\eis\view ~ KEY VIEWPOINTS FIGURE 11 PORT LUDLOW MARINA EXPANSION DSElS I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~ X @north @ Fort l..udlo~ ea~ NORT~ * vl.~ elmulatlon loc.atlon (/) 1~~~' 2~~~' ~ I I 5CALE: 'I = 1~~~' Reid iddleton VIEWSHEDS FIGURE 12 I 1:\ \24\99\014\permit\eis\views PORT LUDLOW MARINA EXPANSION DSEIS f2S;J ~ mJ dl6tanCo. zon II * vl.~ 61mulatlon 10Coa f> I~~~ . 2~~~ ~ I I 5CALE: II = I~~~I { Reid idclleton DISTANCE ZONES PORT LUDLOW MARINA EXPANSION DSElS FIGURE 13 1:\ \24\99\014\permit\eis\views I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Contrast Ratings Photographs of each of the above views were taken in November and December 2001. Computer simulations of the proposed project and alternatives were then produced and compared to the existing views. The existing views were evaluated and contrasted to the simulation view of the proposed changes using the "Viewer Contrast Rating Sheet" shown below. The contrasts are evaluated and rated as "Strong," "Moderate," or "Weak." The existing and simulated views are shown in Figures 14 through22. Sample Viewer Contrast Rating: Existin Form Line Color Texture Pro osed: Form Line Color Texture 1. LandIW ater 2. Ve etation 3. Structures 1. LandIW ater 2. Ve etation 3. Structures Existin - Visual Sensitivit 1m acts- Construction 1m acts- Operational Comments The results of the Viewer Contrast Rating Sheets based on the photographic simulations prepared for the three key viewpoints are summarized in Table 6 below. A weak contrast rating means that the difference in the existing view and the view with simulated changes is very slight. Moderate contrast rating means that the change in the simulated view is more than discernible. A strong contrast rating means there is a good amount of difference between the computer simulated photograph and the photograph of the existing view. Alternatives # 1 - Proposed Project View #3 Across The Ba Weak-None # 2 - Deep Water # 3 - 1993 Design #4 - ExistingINo Action Port Ludlow Marina Expansion Pre-Draft SEIS 3-55 June 2002 ~ {Jp.o/Z ~rI/~ 11 If ;(;;S V?tu::J I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Figure 14 - Existing and simulated View, Alternative 1, View 1 Port Ludlow Marina Expansion Pre-Draft SEIS 3-56 June 2002 ... I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Figure 15 - Existing and simulated View, Alternative 1, View 2 Cl-q~ &z.4f'/IIt!. r; ;1z :;; SRtelTLJ Port Ludlow Marina Expansion Pre-Draft SEIS . 3-57 June 2002 ~ Figure 16 - Existing and simulated View, Alternative 1, View 3 ao~ &e~;IIL IJ / ;; ,!}.f :;/,$.2~'GO Port Ludlow Marina Expansion Pre-Draft SEIS 3-58 June 2002 ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Impact Assessment The contrast rating shown in Table 6 was then combined with viewer sensitivity shown in Table 5 and a determination was made as to how the view was different in order to evaluate the degree of visual impact (see Table 7 below). It is generally assumed that within areas exhibiting a high value of existing scenic quality (such as Port Ludlow Bay), any significant change results in a "Strong" contrast rating and potentially a high visual impact. On the other hand, a moderate contrast rating does not necessarily mean only a moderate visual impact; the degree of viewer sensitivity and other view analysis issues also may lead to a high impact. Alternatives Table 7 Port Ludlow Marina Visual/Aesthetic Impact Oak Bay Road - Scott Court - Viewshed #1 Viewshed #2 Across the Bay - Viewshed #3 # 1 - Proposed Project L H L # 2 - Deep Water H L L # 3 - 1993 Design L-M H L #4 - ExistingINo Action N N N . H = High M = Medium L = Low N = None The analysis of the contrast rating and visual impact for each key view for each alternative is summarized below: Alternative 1: Proposed Project Alternative 1 will expand the Marina primarily westward and waterward, and will be visible to some degree from all three key views. View #1. The simulation View #1 "Left" has no discernable change from the existing view. The View #1 "Middle" will have a very slight change and received a weak contrast rating. The change to View #1 "Right" was greater than the other portions ofthis view, but considering the speed at which the Marina is viewed and the location of trees that obscure the view of proposed modifications, the contrast rating is still relatively weak. View #1 is considered the most significant view because ofthe number of viewers, the greater public interest, and visual access to Port Ludlow Bay. In conclusion, the proposed project has a low visual impact on this key viewpoint (see Figures 14A, 14B, and 14C). View #2. The contrast rating for View #2 is rated strong. Some expansion of docks here could have a positive visual impact by providing a transition from the foreground structure (Scott Pori Ludlow Marina Expansion Pre-Draft SEIS 3-59 June 2002 ~ Port Ludlow Marina Expansion Pre-Draft SEIS 3-60 June 2002 ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Dock) to the background structures (houses and housing developments across the Bay). The degree of expansion is more than necessary for this transition and the positive aspects are outweighed by the negative impacts on this view. Although the contrast rating is strong for the photographic simulation, it should be stated that the photographic simulation does not encompass the total view available to the viewers in the viewshed. Views to the south and west would be unaffected by any marina expansion in thisviewshed. However, the proposed project has a high visual impact to this viewshed, especially when the length oftime viewers are exposed to the view is weighed. The view is part oftheir daily, home environment and has a great impact to those private residents that are subject to the changes proposed (see Figure 15). This key viewpoint is not as significant as View #1 because although its view is unobscured, it has a smaller number of viewers. View #3. The visual impact to View #3 is visible, but has only a weak contrast rating, so the impact is low (See Figure 16). Alternative 2: Deep Water Design Alternative 2 results in expansion of the Marina primarily waterward. The expansion will be primarily visible from View #1. View #1. This alternative has a moderate to strong contrast rating for View #1. This is important because this view received a high viewer sensitivity rating, although the visual impact is lessened by the speed at which viewers tend to see the Bay. While trees obscure portions of the existing Marina I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Figure 17 - Existing and simulated View, Alternative 2, View 1 Pori Ludlow Marina Expansion Pre-Draft SEIS 3-61 June 2002 ~ Pori Ludlow Marina Expansion Pre-Draft SEIS 3-62 June 2002 ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Figure 17 - Existing and simulated View, Alternative 2, View 1 /) / /1/)// Ie:.. G; J-O/L lJlelll J fl Jz J/;S2ffZ () I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Figure 17 - Existing and simulated View, Alternative 2, View 1 /I /''IIr'!It~ UJ...(J te (Vel ~ It :[;.sz;C!lTLJ Pori Ludlow Marina Expansion Pre-Draft SEIS 3-63 June 2002 ~ Pori Ludlow Marina Expansion Pre-Draft SEIS 3-64 June 2002 ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Figure 18 - Existing and simulated View, Alternative 2, View 2 {]1--lJd ~;I Fe, ;: 4 fts E~nl/ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Figure 19 - Existing and simulated View, Alternative 2, View 3 {?1-6d? a~;I/<- ;: 4 :Z;Sp,eru:J Pori Ludlow Marina Expansion Pre-Draft SEIS 3-65 June 2002 ~ Pori Ludlow Marina Expansion Pre-Draft SEIS 3-66 June 2002 ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I view, the area ofthe waterward expansion will be very visible from Oak Bay Road. The simulated photographs only partially capture this view due to constraints regarding the location of the photograph (see Figures 17 A, 17B, and 17C). This is a case where a medium to strong contrast rating based on a photo simulation does not result in merely a medium visual impact on this viewshed. A very important part of the view, the Bay itself, is being obscured. When considering that the view of the Bay is now obscured from the public on most of the public roads in the Port Ludlow areabytrees, especially within Distance Zone 1, it is evident that the alteration of the existing view from Oak Bay Road would have more than a medium impact. The traveling viewer in this viewshed does not have much of an opportunity to visually search for an unobscured view of the Bay. Views #2 and #3. The Deep~ Water expansion has a weak contrast rating and low visual impacts on Views #2 and #3 (see Figures 18 and 19). Alternative 3: 1993 Design Alternative 3 will result in a generally lateral expansion of the Marina, to both the east and west. The expansion will be visible, at least to some degree, from all three key views. Views #1 and #3. Since the expansion is spread throughout the Marina, the contrast ratings are weaker (see Figures 20A, 20B, 20C, and 22). The visual impact is low. View#2. View #2 will have a strong - moderate contrast rating anda high visual impact (see Figure 21). Alternative 4: No Action No expansion of the Marina will result in no changes to existing views. In summary, analysis of views, viewsheds, viewer sensitivity issues, and contrast ratings for photographic simulation of key viewpoints have been evaluated to identify the visual impacts to each viewshed for each alternative. Alternative 1 - Proposed Project has high visual impact on Viewshed #2. Alternative 2 - Deep Water has high visual impact on Viewshed #1. Alternative 3 - 1993 Design has spread out visual impacts so that its visual impacts range from low to high on all of the views, but has a high impact on Viewshed #2. In general, all of the expansion alternatives will result in visual impacts. The differences between the alternatives are related to which view the particular alternative would most impact and the number of viewers impacted. All alternatives including the existing/no action also share a visual impact that stems from the trend towards a preference for larger sized vessels. Because the proposals represent expansion of existing development, the impacts are relatively less than if new, different, and larger-scaled development was proposed. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Construction Impacts Short-term, construction-related impacts were also considered. During the first phase of construction, one or two barges will be used, one with a barge-mounted crane. One or two small workboats (around 20 feet) will also be present. It is anticipated that the new piles will be brought in by barge. The new floats will be assembled on-shore and dropped in place by the crane after the piles are driven. Typically, the construction will take place first in the vicinity of the more landward docks and then proceed waterward. After the piles. and floats are installed, construction activity will include installation of water and fire lines on the newly constructed docks. Pori Ludlow Marina Expansion Pre-Draft SEIS June 2002 ~ 3-67 /) /7 711~ L;Lr/e (ye/W7 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Figure 20 - Existing and simulated View, Alternative 3, View 1 - // ~ /0 p~. ~~sP/2no Pori Ludlow Marina Expansion Pre-Draft SEIS 3-68 June 2002 ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Figure 20 - Existing and simulated View, Alternative 3, View 1 /! ~I}f/~ C--6I-tJJe. ~ liE :;;S2/CrFLJ Pori Ludlow Marina Expansion Pre-Draft SEIS 3-69 June 2002 ~ Port Ludlow Marina Expansion Pre-Draft SEIS 3-70 June 2002 ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Figure 20 - Existi~g and simulated View, Alternative 3, View 1 {ZOR &?i9~;JIe.. rfi. & p~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Figure 21 - Existing and simulated View, Alternative 3, View 2 /) ~.a~;I/e CrJL(p~ 6-/6 I' ?: ;h Y;S~;2rEfl Pori Ludlow Marina Expansion Pre-Draft SEIS 3-71 June 2002 ~ Figure 22 - Existing and simulated View, Alternative 3, View 3 /l ~I)~;/ / ~ L 0 ),..{1 ~ ()--/C ~ 't: IfE J;U.2~nD June 2002 ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Port Ludlow Marina Expansion Pre-Draft SEIS 3-72 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I A fenced, contractor lay-down area will be located upland. Semi-trucks and trailers will visit the site to drop off materials and workers will be arriving daily. Although temporary, the visual impact of the construction stage is not only larger but also more intense than that of the long-term impacts of the proposed project. There will be temporary, visual, and aesthetic impacts on all views, especially on View #2. 3.6.3 Mitigation Measures Proposed Boats in excess of60' in length will not be side-tied to the west end ofD-Dock or E-Dock. 3.6.4 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Views from the four Scott Court properties will be impacted by the proposed marina expansion. Pori Ludlow Marina Expansion Pre-Draft SEIS June 2002 ... 3-73 3.7 Transportation 3.7.1 Affected Environment Vehicular Traffic The Port Ludlow community is currently accessed via both SR 19/0ak Bay Road and Paradise Bay Road. Roadways in the project area are shown in Figure 23. The Resort area, including the Marina, is accessed from Oak Bay Road. Approximately 1,400 linear feet of existing private internal roads (including Marine Drive, which provides access to the Marina) serve the Marina, restaurant, and the Inn. Traffic Volumes Port Ludlow Associates is required by Jefferson County to provide a yearly traffic-monitoring program for Port Ludlow. The purpose of the monitoring program is to provide a cumulative summary of traffic volumes in the area and an assessment of current operating conditions at critical intersections in the general area. The Washington State Department of Transportation had also expressed concern about traffic in Port Ludlow during July and August, particularly on weekends. Their comments were submitted for the 1993 programmatic EIS for the Port Ludlow Development Plan. The Port Ludlow monitoring program has thus focused on weekend counts by taking machine counts on a Saturday, Sunday, and Monday in August. These times also coincide with peak Marina usage. The year 2001 is the eighth year that data has been collected for this program. The 2001 detailed data, analysis, and conclusions of this monitoring program can be found in Appendix G of this Draft SEIS. Jefferson County collects weekday traffic data on a yearly basis. This information allows for a comparison between weekday and weekend traffic, and an analysis of the impacts that the Port Ludlow development has on local traffic volumes. The 2001 traffic volume patterns in the monitoring study represent the impact of recreational traffic on weekends during the summer months. The monitoring study generally concludes that overall, 2001 traffic volumes are higher than in 1994, although a few locations are still below the volumes recorded seven years ago. As noted in the previous monitoring reports, Port Ludlow traffic does not appear to be contributing significantly to the higher volumes. On SR 104, the 24-hour traffic volumes were higher on the weekend than during the week. The difference between the weekend and weekday volumes on the County arterials is relatively small. Previously, the higher weekend volumes have been attributed to travelers heading to the Port Angeles and Port Townsend areas for summertime recreation. The higher traffic volumes on the County arterials on a weekday have been attributed to the presence of commuter traffic. The County arterials serving Port Ludlow experience relatively low volumes when compared to the state highways. The overall rate of growth at the locations counted in the monitoring program ranged from approximately -3.5 to 4.3 percent per year over the past seven years, with most locations falling into the 1 percent growth range. Pori Ludlow Marina Expansion Pre-Draft SEIS 3-74 June 2002 ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I \ ~ "t \ ~ NORTH N.T.S. Reid iddletoll ROADWA Y NETWORK Figure 23 PORT LUDLOW MARINA EXPANSION DSEIS i:\ \24\99\014\permit\eis\4914ROADWAYNET SR-) 04/Beaver Valley Road Weekday Weekend A N/A- B D A E D F A F B F B D B C B E I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Traffic counts have also been conducted on Marine Drive just east of Oak Bay Road (which serves the Marina and Resort Area) since 1994. Traffic counts were highest on Saturday, but the 2001 Saturday, Sunday, and Monday traffic volumes on Marine Drive were lower than those recorded in 1994. Level of Service Level of service (LOS) ratings are a measure of the quality of service and efficiency provided by an area's roadways. Traditionally, the LOS ratings for roadways have been based on an A through F quantitative scale measuring roadway capacity, as defined in the Highway Capacity Manual prepared by the Transportation Research Board. These alphabetical ratings describe the quality of service provided at peak hours and average daily conditions. The standard for signalized intersections is based on seconds of delay.(:)n general, LOS A indicates free flow with no delays, while LOS F signifies very severe co~stion with slow travel speeds. In the middle is LOS C, which represents a condition of stable flow with slightly reduced speeds and reduced maneuverability. Level of Service (LOS) calculations have been conducted at five locations in and around Port Ludlow where p.m. peak hour traffic counts were collected for the monitoring program. The five intersections are: · SR 104 and Paradise Bay Road · SR 104 and Beaver Valley Road · Teal Lake Road and Paradise Bay Road · Oak Bay Road and Beaver Valley Road · Paradise Bay Road and Oak Bay Road Table 8 below shows the overall weekday and weekend peak hour LOS for the two intersections with SR 104 for the years 1992 to 2001. Year Table 8 Weekday and Weekend Peak Hour SR-) 04 Intersections - Overall Levels of Service . SR-) 04/Paradise Bay Road 1992 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Pori Ludlow Marina Expansion Pre-Draft SEIS Weekday A B A A F A A C A Weekend N/A- D D E D E C B B 3-76 June 2002 ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Table 9 below shows the overall weekday and weekend peak hour LOS for the remaining three intersections for the years 1992 to 2001. Table 9 Weekday and Weekend Peak Hour Overall Levels of Service Year Teal Lake Road/ Paradise Bay Road Weekday Weekend A N/A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A Oak Bay Road/ Beaver Valley Road Weekday Weekend A N/A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A Paradise Bay Road/ Oak Bay Road Weekday Weekend A N/A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A 1992 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 All of the intersections were at overall LOS B or better on the weekdays for 2001. During weekends, the intersections along SR-l 04 operated at a lower LOS than on the weekdays with SR 104/Paradise Bay Road and SR 1 04/Beaver Valley Road at LOS B and LOS E, respectively. The remaining intersections did not differ from their weekday operations. The year 2001 pattern was very similar to those of past years. Data collected for intersections with SR 104 vary significantly with the season. During the summer months, the volume of traffic will be much higher due to vehicles traveling to recreational destinations. During winter months, traffic volume is at a much lower level for the SR 104 intersections, which would result in better levels of service during the winter months. A traffic study prepared by Jefferson County for the year of2000 collected data on existing Level of Service and Average Daily Traffic (ADT) for road segments within the County. This study included the roadway segment of Oak Bay Road between Paradise Bay Road and Olympus Boulevard, the roadway used to access the Marina. The current LOS on this Oak Bay Road segment is C with an ADT of3,624 trips (ADT LOS "C" capacity is listed as 7,400, and the current Jefferson County LOS standard is C). It is not anticipated that the LOS or capacity of this roadway segment will be exceeded prior to 2021. Parking A Parking Management Plan - Port Ludlow Marina Expansion was prepared by the project sponsor and submitted to the Jefferson County Department of Community Development in July 2000. At that time, a standard of one parking space for every two slips was assumed. In Jefferson County, all marina projects are reviewed on a case-by-case basis, with parking Pori Ludlow Marina Expansion Pre-Draft SEIS 3-77 June 2002 ~ approved by the Administrator. Parking space requirements for marinas vary greatly between jurisdictions. In general, parking space requirements are typically one parking space for every two to four slips. As shown in the following table, Kitsap County, the City of Des Moines, andthe City of Tacoma all. have parking requirements of one space for every two to four slips. Table 10 Parking Requirements for Marina at various Washington State Oties and Counties All Sli s Using a general requirement of one parking space per two slips, the required number of parking spaces for the existing Port Ludlow Marina is 140. Existing off-street parking areas serving the Marina are shown in Figure 24. Currently, 89 paved parking spaces are located immediately adjacent to the Marina (Area PP). An additional 60 parking spaces are available in the first and second upper gravel lots located on either side of the Marina access road (Areas A and B). Overflow parking for 14 vehicles (Area C) is available off the resort road across from Area B. In addition, the Marina has a lease agreement with the Ludlow Maintenance Commission (LMC) for use of a minimum of 50 percent of the LMC parking area and a maximum of 100 percent for overflow parking. There are 56 parking spaces available at the LMC parking area located north of Areas B and C. Thus, a maximum of 56 parking spaces are available for the Marina use for overflow parking. A total of 219 parking spaces are now available for the existing 280 Marina slips, which is greater than one space per two slips. Parking requirements for the Resort area will be addressed in the upcoming Resort SEIS. Required parking for the Marina will be reviewed again at that time, once the use mix within the Resort is determined. Currently, peak parking demand occurs on summer weekend days, with the greatest demand during large events such as Ludlow Days. 3.7.2 Environmental Impacts For all expansion alternatives, it is anticipated that the majority of the new slips will serve residents of Port Ludlow. These residents will access the Marina from Paradise Bay Road and Oak Bay Road. Boat owners from outside Port Ludlow will access the Marina from SR 104, Beaver Valley Road, Paradise Bay Road, and Oak Bay Road. Pori Ludlow Marina Expansion Pre-Draft SEIS 3-78 June 2002 ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~ NORm N.T.5. // ~ .d~ /o~ :-- H=tffi Reid iddleton -- V'v/ !J PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN PORT LUDLOW MARINA EXPANSION SDElS FIGURE 24 i:\ \24\99\014\permit\eis\4914-PARK Pori Ludlow Marina Expansion Pre-Draft SEIS 3-80 June 2002 ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Vehicular traffic generated from the proposed 100-slip Marina expansion was included in the traffic analysis contained in the 1993 Port Ludlow Development Program EIS. The Transportation element ofthe Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan concludes that historically, traffic growth on SR 104 is influenced primarily by regional or through-traffic and is not as significantly increased by local developments. Thus, the proposed Marina expansion is not likely to have a significant influence on traffic growth on SR 104. Additional information regarding impacts on the County arterials follows: Alternatives 1, 2, and 3: Expansion Alternatives The proposed expansion will create additional traffic on Oak Bay Road, Paradise Bay Road and within the Resort area. The roadway segment most affected by the proposal is Oak Bay Road between Paradise Bay Road and Olympus Boulevard. The Institute of Transportation Engineer (ITEl's Trip Generation Manual (Sixth Edition) provides data of trip generation based on surveys of marinas in the metropolitan areas of San Francisco, San Diego, and Seattle. In addition to docks and berths for boats, some of the sites surveyed also had social and club activities, limited retail and restaurants. The ITE data indicates that an average of2.96 trips are generated per slip on weekdays, an average of3.22 trips per slip are generated on Saturdays, and an average of6.40 trips per slip are generated on Sundays. According to this manual, the proposed 100-slip expansion of the Marina will generate an additional 296 trips approximately on weekdays, 322 trips on Saturdays, and 640 trips on Sundays. Traffic from expansion of the Marina is not anticipated to exceed LOS standards. The greatest increase in traffic will occur on weekends. Currently, peak traffic use on Oak Bay and Paradise Bay Roads in the vicinity of the Marina is 3:15-4:15 p.m., on weekdays. The LOS for this segment of Oak Bay Road is C and the ADT capacity for LOS Standard of C is 7,400 ADT. Trip generation by the Marina is highest on Sundays and the additional 640 trips generated by the Marina expansion results in a total volume of 4,264 on Sundays, which is below the capacity for LOS Standard ofC. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Table 11 shows the estimated daily volumes along Oak Bay Road for Saturday, Sunday, and on weekdays with the addition of the Marina trips. Roadway Segment providing access 10 the Marina Oak Bay Road (between Paradise Bay Road and Olympus Boulevard) Table 11 Oak Bay Road;..; Estimated Traffic Volumes LOS Standard LOS Capacity Ex. Ex. ADJ ADJ after ADJ after ADJ after (ADJ) LOS expansion expansion expansion (Weekday) (Saturday) (Sunday) C 7,400 C 3,624 3,920 3,946 4,264 LOS at Oak Bay Road between Paradise Bay Road and Olympus Boulevard will remain at C despite the proposed Marina expansion. Parking The increase in the number of slips in the Marina will result in an increased demand for parking. Using a standard of one parking space for every two slips, an additional 50 parking spaces (for a total of 190 spaces) will be required. The total number of available proposed parking space for the Marina is 219, 29 more than what is required. Existing off-street parking provision is sufficient for the proposed expansion. Alternative 4: No Action No expansion of the Marina will result in no traffic or parking impacts associated with expansion. 3.7.3 Mitigating Measures No mitigation measures are required for this project. 3.7.4 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts No significant unavoidable adverse impacts to traffic or parking are anticipated from this project. Pori Ludlow Marina Expansion Pre-Draft SEIS 3-81 June 2002 ... Port Ludlow Marina Expansion Pre-Draft SEIS 3-82 June 2002 ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 3.8 Public Service And Utilities 3.8.1 Fire/Emergency Services 3.8.1.1 AHected Environment The Port Ludlow Resort is served by Jefferson County Fire Protection District 3. Fire District 3 operates from four fire stations: one in Port Ludlow, one in Paradise Bay, one on South Point Road, and one in Chimacum. The construction of the new Port Ludlow fire station is complete. The new Port Ludlow fire station received its final occupancy permit in early May 2002 and a dedication of the station was held on May 11, 2002. The new station is manned by two career fire fighters/EMTs 24 hours a day, 365 days per year and three volunteers and eight program volunteers. This station houses one pumper truck, one tender, an ambulance, and support vehicles. The Jefferson County Fire Protection District No.3 responded to a total of373 alarms in 2000 with 69 of those for North Bay/Port Ludlow and 52 for South Bay/Port Ludlow. The existing fire protection system at the Marina consists of three individual portable saltwater pump units located in small shed storage areas dispersed throughout the float system. The prior fire suppression system consisted of a wet line to fire standpipes located throughout the float system. The older pipe system was abandoned due to its deteriorated condition and replaced with the portable fire suppression system in 1997. The County Fire Marshall was consulted and approved the current fire suppression system when it was installed. Chapter 9 of the Port Ludlow Marina Operations Manual includes addresses marina emergencies, and outlines procedures for responding to emergencies such as person overboard, medical emergencies, fire control, safety, security, fueling, oil spills, sinking boats, hazardous materials, severe weather, earthquakes and threats. The Marina staff is trained to respond to emergencies per procedures set forth in this manual. 3.8.1.2 Environmentallmpacts For all expansion alternatives, the marina expansion is likely to increase the number of alarms generated. It is anticipated that this increase will not be significant. The fire-fighting system at the new station will accommodate the anticipated increase in number of alarms. In addition to the impacts to the fire station, there will be impacts to the fire suppression system at the marina. For all expansion alternatives, a piped fire suppression system with call boxes will be required for all new floats. The system will consist of a piped connection to the existing fire line on land near the existing Marina office. A double detector check valve, post indicator valve and siamese fire department connection will be provided in the vicinity of the Marina office. A dry line pipe will run from the landside, down the existing gangway and will be run along the docks under the walers. A fire department connection standpipe will be installed on the dock system per code such that no point on the new dock system will be more than 75 feet from a fire connection standpipe. In addition, a fire hose cabinet with a direct connection to the standpipe will be located at each fire standpipe location; a fire extinguisher will also be located at each ofthe fire hose cabinets. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Additional fire standpipes may be added to the existing floats on A-, B-, C-, D-, and E-Docks and along the existing central walkways to improve fire-fighting capabilities on these existing floats. Alternatives 1, 2, and 3: Expansion Alternatives The increase inthe number of boat slips will generate an incremental increase in service calls to the fire district. It is not anticipated this increase will be significant. The new fire suppression system will improve the ability to control and contain fires at the Marina. With the presence of a fire piping system, additional fire extinguishers, fire hose cabinets, and numerous fire connection ports, the ability to fight fires is greatly improved. This will reduce the pollution of the environment through faster containment of fires resulting in less sunken vessels, oils, and other debris that may occur in the event of a fire. Alternative 4: No Action No expansion of the Marina will result in no increased demand for fire/emergency medical services. There will also be no new additional fire suppression system, which may result in a longer containment time for fires than Alternatives 1,2, and 3, resulting in more debris and pollution from any fire events. 3.8.1.3 Mitigating Measures Proposed: · At least two fire hydrants and adequate emergency access will be provided in the area of the proposed Marina expansion. · A dry line piped fire suppression system will be provided on float C, down the central walkway, and on all new docks. Additional extensions to the existing docks may also be constructed. This new piped system will provide fire-fighting capabilities such that each area on the new float system is no more than 75 feet from a fire fighting apparatus. Improved fire fighting capabilities will reduce the potential for debris and pollutant contamination from fire events. · Marina personnel and liveaboard residents will receive mandatory training in emergency fire fighting procedures. · Fire call boxes will be provided on the new floats and down the main walkway. These alarms and the main fire alarm for the Marina will be linked to a monitoring service or other entity to assure automatic alert of appropriate authorities. · A connection will be provided between B-Dock and C-Dock to provide additional access to the docks for fire fighting crews and for egress for boaters from the docks in the event of a fire emergency. This will allow each dock to be accessed by two gangways instead of the current one gangway access system for Docks C, D, and E. Port Ludlow Marina Expansion Pre-Draft SEIS 3-83 June 2002 ~ Port Ludlow Marina Expansion Pre-Draft SEIS 3-84 June 2002 ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 3.8.1.4 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts No significant unavoidable adverse impacts to fire and emergency medical services are anticipated. 3.8.2 Electrical Service 3.8.2.1 Affected Environment The condition of the existing electrical system at the Marina varies based on the year of installation. The electrical systems on A-Dock are functional, but the system should be renovated to improve reliability and increase service capacity at several slips. The Marina is currently in the process of replacing the electrical system on A-Dock. The electrical system for B-Dock was recently rebuilt and is a state-of-the-art vessel power distribution system. In 2000, 100-ampere service was installed to the end tie slip on the west end ofD-Dock. The new service is routed under the waler from the nearest transformer. 3.8.2.2 Environmentallmpacts Alternatives 1, 2, and 3: Expansion Alternatives The addition of 100 slips will increase the demand for electrical service; and during construction, electrical service may be temporarily lost. The existing electrical distribution system is not capable of supplying power necessary for the expansion. This will require transformers to be placed onthe landside and on some dock structures to provide power supply for the new dock facilities. There is adequate capacity in the landside supply system to support the new loads. All electrical services on the floats will be run in conduits internal to the float system. Where the electrical service runs along existing dock structures, and the dock structure does not have the capacity for additional conduit, some sealed conduits will be run along the existing floats under the walers. Alternative 4: No Action No expansion of the Marina will result in no expansion of the electrical service. 3.8.2.3 Mitigating Measures Proposed: · Renovate the electrical service distribution system to A-Dock. · Install all electrical systems in conduit internal to the float or isolated in conduit from the water. · Install electrical system per code regarding safety and environmental requirements. 3.8.2.4 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts No significant adverse impacts to the electrical service are anticipated. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 3.8.3 Water Service 3.8.3.1 Affected Environment Domestic water service to Port Ludlow is provided by the Olympic Water and Sewer Company. The source of water is groundwater. The Port Ludlow development has water rights, which equal to 186 million gallons per year. Olympic Water and Sewer, Inc. produces an annual "Well Productions Report" to monitor their water usage. For the year 2001, the Port Ludlow development used a total of89.2 million gallons of water. Of the total 89.2 million gallons, the Marina accounted for approximately 1.7 million gallons (4,602 gallons per day), or approximately 2 percent of total water use. In the year 2000, the Marina accounted for approximately 3 percent of total water usage. Currently there are 280 slips at the Marina, as well as upland restrooms, showers, and laundry facilities. Annual water use for the Port Ludlow development is expected to stay well below the 186 million gallons of annual water rights. The adequacy of fire flow is addressed in Section 3.8.1, Fire/Emergency Services. 3.8.3.2 Environmentallmpacts Alternatives 1, 2 and 3: Expansion Alternatives All expansion alternatives will result in an increased demand for domestic water. Water will be used at the slips, as well as at existing upland facilities such as the laundry, restroom, and showers. The following summarizes past water use at the Marina and the anticipated increase in water usage: · Average Marina Water Usage (1991-2001) = 4,757 gallons per day (GPD)/1,736,305 gallons per year. · Number of Slips = 280 slips. · Water Usage per slip at the Marina = 4,757/280 = approximately 17.0 GPD. · Anticipated increase in daily water usage at the Marina = 1,700 GPD. · Anticipated total Marina Water Usage with expansion = 6,457 GPD/2,356,805 gallons per year. · Total annual increase in water usage = 620,500 gallons per year, or a 0.7 percent increase in year 2001 total Port Ludlow water usage. Pori Ludlow Marina Expansion Pre-Draft SEIS 3-85 June 2002 ~ Pori Ludlow Marina Expansion Pre-Draft SEIS 3-86 June 2002 ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Thus, with the Marina expansion, the annual water usage for the Port Ludlow development will not exceed their 186 million gallons of annual water rights. Future redevelopment/expansion of the upland restrooms, showers, and laundry facilities will be evaluated as part of the Draft EIS required for the Resort expansion. The Uniform Building Code does not address the number of restroom facilities required in marinas. Marina design guidelines recommend adding one additional bathroom stall per 100 slips for expansion (Tobiason, 2000). Alternative 4: No Action No expansion of the Marina will result in no substantial increased demand for domestic water from the Marina. Water previously allocated for the Marina expansion could be transferred to other uses. 3.8.3.4 Mitigating Measures Proposed: · A 100-slip expansion of the Marina was anticipated in planning for the water system. 3.8.3.5 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts No unavoidable adverse impacts are anticipated. 3.8.4 Sanitary Sewer Service 3.8.4.1 Affected Environment The existing sanitary sewer system consists of one stationary boat sewage pump-out system installed on the fuel float and a new portable pump-out facility. The stationary boat sewage pump-out is a Keco Model installed in the early 1990s. The existing discharge piping and system is in working condition and has sufficient capacity to support the Marina. The new portable pump-out facility was installed in April 2002. The draft Resort at Ludlow Bay Marina Regulations and Policies address discharge of gray and black water in Section III D., as follows: D. DISCHARGE OF BLACK WATER AND GRAY WATER 1. All vessels, which moor in the Marina, must be in compliance with all regulations established by the United States Coast Guard or other federal or state regulatory agencies. 2. Discharge of black water from vessels while in Ludlow Bay is prohibited. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 3. Sanitary waste disposal facilities are available at designated locations within the Marina a t no charge to users. All users shall use these facilities for the disposal of raw sewage. 4. Liveaboards must pump their holding tanks on a monthlybasis. 5. A pump out log is located on the fuel dock shed, all vessels utilizing the pump out must sign the pump out log. 6. The discharge of gray water is currently under review by the State, but discourage while in the Marina. Only Biodegradable soaps and cleaners may be used while in the Ludlow Bay Marina. Item 9 of the Resort at Ludlow Bay Liveaboard Agreement addresses sewage disposal as follows: . Vessels must be equipped with a Coast Guard approved holding tank. Liveaboards are required to use the pump-out station Monthly. Failure to do so will result in termination of the live aboard agreement. You will move off your boat or move the boat out of the Marina within ten (J 0) days of non-compliance. A liveaboard pump out log will be kept and updated daily. Boats at-anchor in the Bay (both transient and permanent at-anchor) can use Port Ludlow pump- out facilities, but cannot be required by Port Ludlow to do so (per existing state and federal laws). 3.8.4.2 Environmentallmpacts Alternatives 1, 2, and 3: Expansion Alternatives The expansion of the Marina will create an increased demand for sewage pump-out and enforcement services. A second portable sewage pump-out facility will be provided as part of the Marina expansion construction project. Alternative 4: No Action No expansion of the Marina will result in no increased demand for sewage services. 3.8.4.3 Mitigating Measures Proposed: · Two portable pump-out carts will be available for use in addition to the existing fixed pump-out facility. · Enforcement of rules regarding discharge of black water will be strictly enforced by Marina management. Pori Ludlow Marina Expansion Pre-Draft SEIS 3-87 June 2002 ~ . The Marina Live Aboard Agreement, Regulations and Policies, and Best Management Practices have been reviewed and revised to address current Marina issues, including discharge of sewage. 3.8.4.4 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts No significant adverse impacts related to sanitary sewer service are anticipated. Pori Ludlow Marina Expansion Pre-Draft SEIS 3-88 June 2002 ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Appendix A - Summary of Scoping Comments Summary of Scoping Process: The scoping period for the Port Ludlow Marina Expansion SDEIS extended from October 3,2001, to November 2,2001. Six comment letters were received. In addition, earlier comments received from the State of Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife and the Department of Ecology were considered. Written comments were submitted by the following: J. Anne Shaffer - Area Marine Habitat Biologist Washington State Department ofFish and Wildlife Letter dated September 12,2000, and e-mail dated October 11,2001 Kari Rokstad - SEP A Coordinator, Southwest Regional Office Washington State Department of Ecology Letter dated September 22, 2000 Grant and Lori Colby - Residents of Scott Court Letters dated September 18,2000, and November 2,2001 D. A. and Sandy Routt - Residents of Scott Court Letter dated September 20,2000, and November 31,2001 William and Katherine Funke - Residents of Scott Court Letters dated September 20,2000, and November 1,2001 Paul and Nancy Taylor Smith - Residents of Scott Court Letter dated October 29, 2001 Oral Comments A public scoping meeting was held on October 12, 2001, at the Bay Club in Port Ludlow. The meeting was directed by Josh Peters, representing the Jefferson County Department of Community Development. Representatives of the applicant (Port Ludlow Associates) and the EIS consultant (Reid Middleton) were present. Twelve area residents and a representative of the Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR) attended the meeting. Summary minutes ofthe scoping meeting are on file with Jefferson County. 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Oral comments were submitted by the following: Grant and Lori Colby - Residents of Scott Court D. A. and Sandy Routt - Residents of Scott Court William and Katherine Funke - Residents of Scott Court Paul and Nancy Taylor-Smith - Residents of Scott Court Herman Voss - Port Ludlow community resident Jeff Schreck, Washington State Department of Natural Resources Summary of Concerns Expressed: The written and oral comments regarding the proposed Marina expansion expressed the following concerns: · Impacts to views, private and public, and possible devaluation of properties. · Potential increase in odor in the vicinity of the marina from the anticipated increase in use. · Potential for increase in marina-related noise and its impacts to surrounding residential properties. · Potential impacts to private shellfish beds. · Potential impacts to eelgrass beds, if present. · Width and shading impacts of new kayak float. · Impacts to salmonid, crustacean, and baitfish habitat. · Impacts to water quality and marine habitat from increased turbidity/suspension of sediments. · Impacts of increased overwater coverage on marine animals, marine habitats, and migratory corridors for fish, especially in areas less than -20 feet Mean Lower Low Water. · Potential for decreased flushing actions due to the increase in over-water structures. 2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I . Potential decrease in water quality and pollution from gray and black water and bilge water discharge. . Potential for increased scour in nearshore areas and increased potential for bank erosIon. . Upland habitat enhancement in areas adjacent to the proposed expansion. · Impacts to ingress and egress and potential expansion of the Scott Court dock. . Need for additional sewage pump-out stations to handle the expansion and the effectiveness of existing Marina policies regarding use ofthe pump-out facilities. . Availability of adequate off-street parking. . Lighting. . Expansion ofthe marina is necessary to meet demands for moorage. . Potential impacts from flooding. . Proposal should address a waterward, rather than westward expansion. 3 I I I I SUBSURFACE SOIL CONDITIONS I Subsurface conditions within the project area were c."ploTcd by drilling seven borings from a barge to depths ranging from about 32 to 50 ft below the mudline. TIle boring locations are indicated on the Site Plan, Figure 2. Laboratory soil testing was accomplished on representative soil samples obtained from the borings. A discussion of field exploration and laboratory test procedures, together with detailed logs of the borings and laboratory test results, are presented in Appendix A. Based on conditions encountered in the borings, the area in the vicinity of the proposed improvements is generally Wlderlain by an upper unit of very soft., recent marine sediment over a lower Ul'Iit of lUeditnn dense/stiff, older marine sediment. Underlying the marine sediment is an upper unit of medium stiff glacial deposits and a lower unit of denselhard glacial deposits. The upper marine sediment is typically a very soft, silt with clay and variable a.mounts of sand and shell fragments. The upper marine sediment extendo; to a depth of about 4 ft in boring B-1 to about 2S ft in boring B-5. (n general, the thickness of these sediments increases with distance from the shoreline. The upper marine sediment also contains a variable amount of soft, woody material and other organics as observed in borings B-2 and 8-6. Below the very soft, upper marine deposit is a denser unit of older marine sediments rangi.ng in composition from silty, fine to nu~d.ium sand with gravel to fine sandy SilL The density of this lower nlarine sediment ranges from loose to dense and from stiff to very stiff. This unit also contains shell fragments and some woody debris. The lower marine unit was observed in borings B-2, B-3, and 8-4 and was encountered as shallow a.~ 8 Y: ft in boring B-2 and as deep as 29 ft below mudline in boring B~4. Two different glacial deposits were encountered during our explorations. The UPp'->r glacia.l unit was primarily soft to stiff, clayey silt with sand and fine b'T3ve1. The upper glacial unit includc!; soil consistent with unconsolidated or partially consolidated glaciomarine drift. The upper glacial unit was encountered in borings B-3, B-4, and 8-5 and was encountered between depths of27 ft and 42 ft below the mud line. A denser lower glacial unit was encotmtered underlyiog the softer upper glacial unit in borings B-3, B-4, and B-5 and diTCCtly below the marine sediments in borings B~ 1, B-2, 8-6, and B-7. The lower glacial unit had a variable composition including silty gravelly sand, sand with silt and gravel, and clayey silt with sand and gravel. The lower- unit includes soil consistent with consolidated glacial outwash, glaciomarine drift, and glacial till. The lower glacial unit was medium dense to very densclhard. TIle top of the lower glacial unit generally increases in depth with distance (to the south) from the shore ranging from about 7 ft below the mudline in boring B-1 to about 29 ft in boring 8-4. DRAFT I I I I, I I I I: I I I I I S:\Sf-L\REDOC\OS3\069\O I O\Pott Ludlow _SUbSIlrf.1CC CQnciitjon.~.cloe L3Ildau l\ssoci:llcs lne I I I I I I I I I I, I I ... UI UI :J: .. II> I .. ~ C,,) =' 0 on ... ,.. I Q .. a Iii t; I !!l 0 a: ~ 2' [; (; I ~ iil 0 0 ;; in I ~ ~ III I I I e~l5 /1~ oH~ MAJOR DIVISIONS =.!!i g~ii o!l ~ lig ~~~ ,."0 "'("';;c: u.I C r: (I) 22 0:: ..-= < -.. o.8e' O~:l GRAVel AND GRAvelLY SOIL LHuAU A~~uljAfE~ lH O['O?"" ''- 'I n 00'''11'1' IUI/lvi. .c::.. r.utiOu!.J Soil Classification System USCS GRAPHIC LETTER SYMBOL SYMBOL'" CLEAN GRAVEL (Lillie or no r_l .:q:g:c:~o. . C):o o'Q 0 '.j) 0; CLEAN SAND (Utle or IIQ fina' (Mo"" lhal\ 50'lC0 01 G VE WITH FINES alIlI'Je frKIion l'eQined RA L Cll1 No. 4 sieve) (Ajlpreci_'::.)"'unt of SAND ANa SANDY SOIL (M0fIl than 5lJ"1.o at caa,.. fraction _~ through No. 4 aieve) =~I o ,!fii W"8 c!... woo ~~~i ~"'4" C) ;~ .6.J! W.1i ~ -e ~:i.. -',l!! SILT ANO CLAY SAND WITH FINES fAppreo;iable amoul'l of lines) (Liquid d",1t leu th.... 50) SILT AND CLAY (Liquid .mll greater 1han 50) HIGHLY ORGANIC SOIL OTHER MATERIALS PAVEMENT ROCK WOOD DEBRIS GW GP GM GC SW SP SM SC ML CL OL MH CH OH PT TYPICAL DESCRlPTIONSlZlI~ Wd\.9r.Idcd gr.Mll: graveUland mixlllre{ I); litfle or no rilles Poorly Ilrllded gl1lVel; gravcUsand mil\lWe(s); RlIIe or no fllel Silty IlrllVeI: gravel/sandleill rnD.1uq(I) Clayey g/'llV41: gravellHncllday mixNre(ll) WeI'"llrad.d unci; Ill1lVeay sand: fillle or no lines Poor1y lIradlld und; graveOy $llnd: It\!<! or I'lO IIMS Silly sand: $'Ind/silt miwre{s) <:byey slllld: IlIIdIcley mbrture(I> Inorganic Iftt and vel'/ line und: lOCk naur, silly ar clayey r~ llIId or clayey lilt with &ligllC p1utiCity ,"~nic day of low to medium pIalticity, gravely day: sandy cllly; siIy Cllly: I.." clay Orglll1ic ,,It o~niC. siIy Cllly 01 lOW plaSlldrt Inor;anic IiIl: l1\iClleeous or diemmllC8ClU5 fine sand lrIorganlc clay of IIigh p1aaticity: fat clay Orgal1lc day of mecflUlTl ta high p1utidty: organic sit Peel: humus: IWIImp 10ft with hillh OllJll'lir: =1'\II!fI1 GRAPHIC LETTER SYMBOL SYMBOL TYPICAL DESCRIPTIONS AC or PC Asphalt concrele pevement or Por1lantl c:elMlll p;lvern_nl RK Rodr. (541. ~ock OllUification) WD Wood. lumb<<. wood chips DB Connuctian "btis. garbage Notes: 1. uses leller symbols ccm:spond to lfle symbols used by die Unified Sol CIas&lIiQtion 51$1_ and ASTU c1euiftc;atian mlllhclda. Ouat l8ttcr lymllClS (&.9., SP-SMl lor a sand Of gravel..dicate. soi willi an ".1irN1o:<I 5-15'110 fines. Llul~pIe lI!lIer Iymboll (e.ll.. MUCll irl<I;c,.t& botdl!rilrt& or 1IIu111p181OiI ctauific:alions. 2. Soi description. arc bllScd ... lhe Q4nen1lapproac/l pruell1ed in tho SIi2tl~ Prlla;~ (or Description and Id8lllificJfiOtl o( SeilS {VISU,/.M,nual Procem-}. as OII\IIIIed in ASTM D 2.88. Where Iabcra"'IY i/ldl!ll tesUng II.. been concluded. soft das:sira!icns lite DuelS on the Standard rest "'elhtxJ forC/aniflCatiDn of Soils tor Engineering Purpo:ses. I. auti nad in ASTM 0 2.117. 3. Soil desaiptian lam1inology is tulsed en visual es1im_ (in the abacnc:l: of IabotlUory teSI cllla) at the pereemagc$ of eac;h lOillyp<'l at>d is ".Iined IS fellowI; Primary Conlliluent: > 50% -"CRAVEL" 'SAND." 'SlLT:-CIAV; 41ll. ~"ary ConaIilllenta: > 30% and ~ 50%. -very tfa\I~;"Very I8ndy:"'VlIry $ilty." c~ > 15% Ind ~ 30"'" -"gravely; "lIlIllIly .n "Silly." etc. Additional eo...titwell\S: > 5.,(, and ::: 15% - "with llrawl;"wmIl sand; "Wilfl sat." ete. ~ 5% - "lnIce grav.... "trace And; -1/aCe s,ll; elC~ or not nollld. Drilling and Sampling Key SAMPLE NUMBER & INTERVAL SAMPLER TYPE Code Description .. 3.25-1nc1l 0.0.. 2.42-inch to. Spit spoon b 2.0o.inch 0.0 , 1.50.inchI.D. Split Spoon c Shelby Tube d Gl1Ib SIImph, e Otner - SeIe l8XI if applicable 1 30Cl-1b H~mer. 3floillCII crop 2 140.11I Hemmer, 3o-inch Drop J Puslle4 4 Other - See ll:xt if applic:lbl& r-" $ample Identification Number ~_ y- R_ry Depth Int8IV11I 1~ J ]...- SlImPlnDcplf!'"I_' ~ Portian tJI Sample Retained for NdIive cr Malyala Groundwater :sl Approximlt.t WOller elevadon allime of drililllJ fA TO) or on Gale noted. GlOunclwater A TO level. can IIl1Ct101al. d... to pl'eclptlllbon. ..8&On" concfll\Qn$. and 0_ raclotL rxllandau a Associates Port Ludlow Marina Expansion Port Ludlow, WA Field and Lab Test Data Code PP = 1.0 TV = 0.5 P\D = 100 W=,O D ~ 120 .200 . 60 GS AL GT CA DaQ"iption Pocko:t Penelromew. I3f Tcrane.1SI PhotlliOl'lit:ltlon DeteClOr VOC IcrMning. pSlm Mo;.lllr. COnlanl. % Dry Density. pet MaI.cri. ~"er tnall No, 200 sieve. % Grooin Size. See saP"18 figure for dat.'l A,Ul!rberll Umil!l- See sepiA1a figlolre for dati Oll\el' GeolllChnical Telling Chemical AnaIy$is Soil Classification System and Key Figure A-1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I fHl~ l1ij oH9 LA~~AU .~~~~(IArU IH ^'.""^ ,. '.1' nn~II\" UilUi/ui it:l~ (.uu./Un B-1 SAMPLE DATA SOIL PROFILE GROUNDWATER j '0 f Drilling Method: HolI~tem Auger v .a E ~ - E ::I :>. z- 0 ft! en Ground Elevation (ft). -25,5 (MLLW) g 0 >- .!!~ .. W: 1ij u en D .J:: Q.,!! i5. j 0 :c tI) Holocene [)riUing a Ec E ~ Q. u Driled By: .. 11I- ft! I! en c Cfloll Cfl III Cl ::l f-O SM/ Gtly.lltcwn, flrle to medium ulldy SILT and IAL silty. fill. to medium SAND with "wmCl'a\lS 5.') snellll'agrnems (very leese/soft, -t> (UJlllIII' Top of boring located below MLLW. a2 . W"S2 mariml ~imcnb) ., . SP. GI'3'f, line 10 caane SAND wiIIl gravel and -5 S-2~ 8M ant and lIum........ oIlell !t'oIg....nta (med:um - .2 *I den.., wet) Cmarine sedimcnts) . . - .. . . SM Gray-ten. silty to vary lilty.llne to medium , , SAND IoriIh trace _r.se _d ."d fine . gra".1 (mtMlium dill.. to very dCll$c. _0 . (lower ;Iaclel deposita) . Driling bec:Dmea harder/rough.. - 10 . . - 5-3~ ~ 501 W"'S SO GS . . . . . - , . - - - -'5 - S4~ 45 Willi Cll'8nge IIIlIInlng and t. l8n1i1l of fine III - e2 med"lUm SAND wiCh aill - - .... . . . . . . .. -20 - . . ,.comes mo", gray in colar ,.;!h leu ,iIt ... ~A)J S3 . D2 ii $-58 . . 8M/. Gray. IInIl to lXI._ '.ndy. clayey SILT and a1 ML Silly. line SAND (C1enslWhard. moil!) (lower ~ gt..c:ial dCP<l$iIs) ~ . - ., f- 25 ~ . I:) .,; I: f - H~ u b2 4t III ;; - a: ~ ~30 - i:i SP. GillY. fine \D medium SAND -.Alii sill and G ~ SM Vl1lvel and 112'" Ionse gf fllle ~dy SII.. T III _ (very dense. wet) (lower glacial dOpo$ib) Q S-7~ 0 ~ fa 811 cii . DRAFT ~ '. '. 35 - Notes: 1. Stralit,jrephic contlcl. IInJ bnecllln foelcl inlerpretalions and are appraxlmal.. .. 2. Referenee lo die text fA this rapcxt is n8C8Sury rer a proper underltanding of subsurface conditions. a <Ii 3. ReC.r to Sail ClalliflCation System In4 Key figure fat exp(analloll 01 gr8Jlllics lII1d symbols. ~ Figure Port Ludlow M.rina Expansion Log of Boring B-1 A-2 V6I landau Port Ludlow, WA Associates (1 of 2) Cl o Cl z I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ft4lJ 118 o4U9 LANDH .U~~~IAlt~ iL ui/uU~llo:l~ r.~uOul~ B-1 SAMPLE DATA SOIL PRO ALE GRoUNDWATER ... 0 ! 8- .Q (5 Drilling Method:~lIoWoStem AUQer E .D ::J ~ ! ,.., ~ Ground Elevation (ft). -25.5 (MU.W) g z- to CI) " ~ iii ~ lI.I .!!~ ~ a.. a. ... 0 I lI.I HoJocenll DriIIinlI i ;:i ; ~ ! 0 Dnlled By: I! lI.I 0 lI.Iod lI.I CD 0 :::l -3S SMI Gtay. silly. line SANO Wllh gr:zvet 10 fine . . ML sandy SILT (very denaelhatd, moiat Il:I ....1) (lower glaeial deposits) Top III bgrinlllclo:a~ bl:1Qw MlLW. 5-01) bt 9<41 W=21 U. -40 Bcril1ll Comple\e4 12106101 - T 1lI81 c.plh of Boring = 39.1 II. . -.5 - - -50 - - >-:55 - - - -60 - I - . . 1-65 - - . - - - - - .. . -7Q DRAFT - Netas: t. Slt:lligraphic Ollrucls Ife baeel on field inll:rpr$tions and are apptOXimall!. Z. Referanoc to the Icllt oIl11is repclnls necessa'Y for a proper underslarnflnll of :wbtvrfllCA; conditions. 3. Refer 10 SOU C1auifiC8tion System ilnd Key rlSl"lC ,.... ""planation d llrllpkics and symbols. Port Ludlow Marina Expansion Figure riI Landau Port Ludlow, WA Log of Boring B-1 A-2 Associates (2 of 2) " o ... C) z ~ o 1lI ... o tIJ ... ~ Q ~ ~ o ;; .- u a a: Go ~ z 6 15 '! iil ~ :! II> ~ 2i ~ I I I I I I I. I' I I I I I I I I I I I BI)' ~18 'pc 'f .. "': 0 , :.; \I I I." \ U I ~ ~ ' , I A . t' I\,' Lr.~Urt i1..ij~. in L ijl/01;O~ lo:IJ ~,OijJ/U2J B-2 SAMPLE DATA SOIL PROALE GROUNDWATER 0- J I) Drilling Method: Hollow-stem AU!let' .0 II "0 t. ! E JIJ '0 >- E Ground Elevation (ft). -38.4 (MlLW) g 0 .! (f) >- Jl~ .i u. ... .2 (f) z:: Go,S a. 1 0 z:: (/) Holocene Driling Ci Ec:: E ii a- U Drilled By: .. .- III ~ l! (f) c Cl)oO II) CD 0 ;:) 0 ~, ~u GI1I~,". gtganit; SlL T with s:sncl. Clay, OH nee ahel r~lMllta, ~d 10ft waCldJ dabris @ (lIllIY eo/t wel) (upper marine Hcfvnentll Top or llCr1nlllClCated DelaW MLLW, ~1J) D"31 e2 0 W-12' 0 AL I~ -5 - ~2)] 82 0 W=22 ~ ~ SMI G,*", fine U1"~ $lLT to diy, fine SAND MI. will all'" fl'llgrncmts and $O/t VIOO4y otetris -10 (lac.. lD medium denHlIliff 10 Vlry &tiff, - ~3)] -U 0-' ",eriN! udlments) ,2 18 . . 1-15 - 5-4)] a:l 32 " - SM Light II"Y \0 gray ..11\ IGI'l\C orange s~ning. silty. fllle SAND (medium denaolo f-20 ~]] "*'Y den.e, well (_r glacial deposilS) - ~ 55 W=2Q Dril1ing llecomea prOlllW6ively hal1lor , ' . . -25 HJ] - 82 8!J Willi 1/4H lansa of fln~ S8IlCly SILT ,," . . 0: - F-30 - ~7~ ' . g" b2 53 '. o.cr..ing ... ..onllInt z :; ... 0 0- . . ~ 8M Gray. silty. gravelly SAND (very deMe, wetl \II a- (\ower g~ depositsl DRAFT ~ -~5 - NOlI': ,. Stratill'ilPhic; contlcts <Ire b;acd on fllOld inletpretltiOn.s and ere Ipptoldmlla. 0 2. Rel.ranee ta 1he 18lll: of lhi5 ..pan i5 nccasury for <I P"'Iler IlIlderst.JndinSl of Stlb$urraCO! eonCliI;ons. .. 3, Refer to SOll (;IasllrlClllen Syslem and Key figul'll for lII<plllnetion 01 graphics and symbol$. ~ 1/1 Port Ludlow Marina Expansion Figure IiJ landau Port Ludlow, WA Log of Boring B-2 A-3 Associates (1 of 2) g ... CJ i: II< o CD ..I o '" ., ... IJ I ~ ... o I I I I I I I I I' I I Ii , I' I I I I I I eu~ i'~ bH~ LAN~AU A~~u(IAn~ IH B-2 SAMPLE DATA SOil PROFILE Gi I :g Drilling Method: Hollow-stem Auger .D tI E Co ::> ~ 15 >- E Ground Elevation (ft), -38.4 (MLLW) -- :z- 0 . U) .... e. .. ~ iii U) ii Il.. u :; ~ I 0 :E U) Holocene Drilling ~ Clo (J Drilled By: Go cS ~ .. - . II) 1I)..:l II) iii :::l -35 Jr 8M Gray. Silly, g...wly SAND (very clel\$". _I) - $-8 -1I b2 50( W:'",12 (Iolm' lll:lcial depOallS) - 6' BorinO CQlT1Ple1tO 12/Ot101 "0lIIl Depth or Boring. 38.5 ft. -010 -45 f-so . -55 \I) 0 - 0 Z ;0 0 III ... 5 ... .. eo lL \:) ~ V> 51 '" ~ u '"' .. 0 II: ... ~__6S :z ~ - ~ ;j - l!! . ~ <II S S ~70 Notea: C oi !i !2 1, S1taligraphic cOtl1ads are ~ed on (ll!ld intllrp...talions ilIt'Id an: apprcxlmate, 2. fb:!1::renee 10 me _ or tllis nJport i3 noccsRl'Y rOt a proper understandi"1l or sub$llrface col\dltlonl. 3 R.f.r to Soil CbSSilicatlon Syal8m IInd Key figure fot cXl'la/lalion of graphics and symbols, fXl Landau _ Associates Port Ludlow Marina E)(pansion Port Ludlow, WA Ol/ij1/~2 \0:15 ~.~~0/~l5 GROUNDWATER Top 01 bO',"glocal8d below "'_l1.W, DRAFT Log of Boring B-2 - - - - Figure A-3 (2 of2) I I I I I I I I I I I: I 1 I I I I I I U~l5 11~ bq09 LAN~!U A~~ij~l!H~ IN( Gltulfu2 io:lJ (.ijijllijlJ e.3 SAMPLE DATA SOIL PROFlLE GROUNDWATER ! "0 . t ~ "0 Orining Method: Hollow-stem Auger E ~ .c ;:I ... "8 E Ground EleVltion (It): -42.3 ~LLW) ~ z- .!! CI) :0- S. ftI . CI) .!l~ u.. .. .2 - Q z: a.. 0. . .&:: UJ Drilled By.~~e Drilling ii. ec E ) -0;; a. (.) ~ ..- . ~ I! ~ UJelI UJ ~ CI 1-0 ML Gray-t-n. SILTwillldayUld nc. shill r~menl$ (v=ry SIIl\ \lie\) (upp8f" marine Top of ~MO 1OeA1~ _IILLW. l8<IimlllU) " s.,Il 112 0 - W-tM -5 - .2]] 8Z 0 -10 - " . . . ~3A1J 0=80 a2 , $-3B W=64 With sand -1' - i- SM GI3Y. s~lY, IIn. SAND llWitll shill rragmants and .oft WOO<tt debris (medium c:lensc IQ ctcnta. moisllO we!) (lower marina ., HdilTlllnts) ~J] - .2 44 ) -20 - '. . . - . ~51 . . ~ 501 W"'7<l - 1-25 III 3" GS - ~ - % MLJ G131. dily~ SILT W;II\ rill. ,.nd to fme ... CL undy. c1ay~ SILT (soft IQ slJlf, _) (upper 0 gllCill depo&ill) ~ uJ] ... W=31 I~ ~ -30 b2 :1 - ; AI. I~ ~. z: ~ ::l - III . 8 % DRAFT ~ en a. II ~ ~ -35 - l'Io\cS: ,. Slrallgraphic con1Bda in:~"'" on field Inllll'p(alaliGna and.. apprvllimale. Ci 2. Rc:rc(ence to Ihe lut allhis I'lIport i. nec:.9A1)' fOf a proper undatal8nding 01 subsutface I;Ondi6ans. oft 3. R.far to Sea aassiflC:alkln Syalamllfld Kay /iglllo lor expl;apatlon of IIrnpllics and Iymbo~. S ~~ Figure iii Landau Port Ludlow Marina Expansion Log of Boring B-3 A-4 Port ludlow, WA Associates (1 of 2) <!l g ~ z ii! Ii ... is .. 2 I:) i ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1H2~ 11~ o~09 LAN~AU AS~ij~IAfE~ IN( iji/ull~2 10:16 P.ijij6!ul) B-3 SAMPLE DATA SOIL PROFILE GROUNDWATER j '0 Driling Method: Hollow-stem AU9!r " .a B e ... ~ :0 >- ~ E g z- ~ .:I CI) >- Ground Elellalion (ft)~ (MLLW) <II .! J2 CI) .!!Z C'I z:: c.. 0. I 0 $: rn Drilled By: Holocene Drilling Q. EO; E - Go 0 '" ~ 15 .o- ld .. en rnlCl CI) CD ~ :J -35 s:r:Kr ~ 11 W-28 I~ MU C;ray, dayey SILT with line a;I1Ii 10 r.... - CL Andy. ~y SILT (80ft Ul stilt, wet) (_ Top 01 boring !cleated below MLLW. . ~ glacial ~epolits) ~ ~)] ~ "-40 I~ - b2 12 1% SP. GAy. Ilravell'! SAND with &it (wry dense, " . SM wet) (lcwer glacial de~) OriGng becorn- ""'91' "-45 $-9 Jr1 " - b2 66 Bllring (;Qmpleted 1:VO~' T ocaI Depth or Borinll = 4'U It. . . -50 - -55 - , . . - ~6Q - - . - !!l '" - . -65 - Z ~ 5 '" 8 . ; DRAFT Vi ~~70 - NollIS; 1. Slnrtignrptlicc:ont.r.ds we !lased on (oeld inUlrpretalillM enclare llPPfOxllllate. .. 2. Relerence to lhelDl of this report itl\<<lls..'Y far e proper unde~tand'119 of su\lSt.lfaca conditions. I 3. Refer to soa OassWlcation Systllltt iIlld Key ligllle fOr e~natlon Of graphic:& and symbGls. ., Figure Ii] Landau Port Ludlow Marina Expansion Log of Boring B-3 A-4 Port Ludlow, WA Associates (2 of 2) CI o ... o 2 ;: g - o ., ~ 1ft ~ 8 l!! u o ! I I 1 I I I I I I: 1 I I I I I I I I I ens 11~ 0~09 LAN~AU ASSHIArES IH Ol/ij1/~2 10:\0 ~.ijij~/02~ B-4 SAMPLE DATA SOIL PROFILE GROUNDWATER j GO I "0 Drilling Method: Hollow-stem Augor E Q. .D :J ~ Cl ~ E Ground Elevation (fl). -42.3 (MU.W) g Z"ii 0 III :>> .!!~ ; !!:: n; .Y I/) .c 0..41 Q. .. 0 J: CI) Holocene Orilirlg ii. Ec E ~ -.; Co ~ Drilled By: .. .!l ..- .. ~ (5 1/)04 II) CD ::J f-D Ir1L GIIly-gr..n, SlL T 1Iitllclay and tr=e - 'r'lIlI-nm (v.ry sail. nil (ulll* IMrin~ T.... 01 boIingloc::ated be_ Ml.LW. - aedimenlS) - S-1 )] e2 0 ,...S - - ~z)] iI% 0 -10 - ~3J] iIZ 0 w=u -15 - . ~I .z 0 0- 59 - W=66 - . - - -20 - - Cl ~5AI - c a2 211 W=17 5M Gtly. Sity. Mt to medl.:m SAND willi glllv" -' 5-58 l:I GS (medium d~mc 10 Iknsc. well (loWer ..,..Ine :z ~ secfmenls) III : DtlJlllII Ileeomes harder oJ - 6 . .. . II> - .. -25 f; - : ai- ~I l!l a2 72J ~ 12" II> t - " . . w . .. 0 Gray. clayey SILT with fine s;nIlo flll<l a: I/' MU ~~30 CI. sandy. clayey SlL T (soft to very stilf. wel) - Z 1% (upper glKlal deposila) ~ ~7J] :r. ll.Z 2 I,~ ;:j ... c I~ c - DRAFT ~ . .. I~ .. ~H5 - Notea: 1. 5trlligraplllc conlacts ani based on field i~,.""iOlls ana are approximate. S 2. R.I.r....te to the '10)\1 Of Ulls Tepan is necessary fer iI proper IolIldenlllncfoflg 01 subsurface conditions. cri 3. Rarer to SaD ClilSSif'~tiOt\ SySll!fllllld ~y r",ulIllor .xpIaMlion 01 g~hi<;s OI/ld syrnllOlS. ~ '" Figure iii Landau Port Ludlow Marina Expansion Log of Boring B-4 A-5 Port Ludlow, WA Associates (1 of 2) I I I I I I I I I I I' I I I I! I I I I I U~l5 11~ o~09 I 11:'11! t,",". If"' II:' Lf.ll~d ,u~<\:^ C~ d OI/~1/u2 10:10 P'ijlu/ijl~ B-4 SAMPLE DATA SOIL PROALE GROUNDWATER .. "0 II Driling Method' Hollow-stem Auger .a ! ..:a II e E ::I I 1i ~ Ground EJey.lion (It), -42.3 ("'LL~ - z- .=l e- II ;;; (Il Sa: .. " &: Q.Q Q. 0 i: (Il Drilled By: Holocene DriDing Ci. E'C E - a. U lit e G) .- . ... VI Q en. en iii ~ C) ::l ~ Z MU GAIY. ~ SILT wIdI fi... And 10 Iino % Cl &lIIIdy. dayey SILT (soli 10 very S(;,t. 'Net) . s-a)] (upper jjI8Cl8I depoailS) Top cI boring Iocaled below MlLW. . b2 21 W=%2 ~ - - . - . - sp. Glay. fr.e kl medium SAND wilh sill (vetY - SM de~ -') (lClwet g1aC1aI deposita) """0 ,'. '. s-11. b2 6a Boring CDIftIlletad 12/05101 T alal Ollplh r:I BOrina = G.lllt -45 - - - -110 - - . -55 - . -80 - - . . -115 - - . DRAFT . . , -70 - Not.s~ ,. Slrltlgrephic contacts I'" Ioasocl an fic/cl i"""",...IaUCn. end .,. appt'Ollimate. 2. Reference to 1I1e lIIxt r:llI'1is leport is nec~ ror I po'op8l' und!l/'llanding of subsurface conditians. 3. Refer to 5011 CI8.slflClltion System and )(ey fig\lte "'r expl..,aUCn alllrapllics and symbolli. ... Figure iii landau Port Ludlow Marina Expansion Log of Boring B-4 A.5 Port ludlow, WA Associates (2 of 2) d o -' u z a: o .. - :il ... ... C) i :g ~ u w o '" ... ~ :z: b G z ~ .... o ~ II) a s c ... s II> I I I I I I I' I I: I I I 1 I I I I I I I 8425 lH oH9 LAN~AU A~~ij(IAf~S IN( OI/~111)2 10:10 ?,ijll/ijL) B-5 SAMPLE DATA SOIL PROFILE GROUNDWATER .. (5 . Dril&ng Method: Hollow-slam Auger .Q ! .c I E ~ ~ 0 Ground Elevation (1l)' -43.1 (MUW) ~ z- 0 .. en >- .R~ .. \6: iiii u CI) ..., G ~ 0._ a. III 0 ::E II') Drilled By: Holocene Drining l Ec E: ~ iii 0- 0 .. ..- .. CI .. ~ (I)" CI) ai ~ I::) -0 IAL GnMlHl\. SILT wi1h c:l&y III fil\e sal!dy SILT WiOl elaf and voce w. Iragmems Top Of tlOCillg IoC:lted below MLlW. (ve,., 10ft. wet) (upper marine sediments) . -5 ~1rr 112 0 - - - - - f-10 ~21J - e2 0 - - - - ....1S S~11 D=6J - a2 0 W,.SII Al - . 5-4)] . ....20 .2 0 W=34 - . ....25 >5) 23 - a2 . . SM Gray, ..~, rlllO SAND with fine ll....vl!l ...d . nee &aft'MlGCl dellri5 (10050, ,,-=U 0_' _ merine deooei1al - 1% ULJ Gray. fine sandy. d.Y"Y SILT with gravol C~ !!l j~ aM ;I\lerllelldecl va/)' silty, fine SAND (stiff - - lei v",., "Ii". wet) (upper 11l8clal dltpDslIs) - a: ~JJ OnlinlllH:c:OItlU h:llUr . ~ -30 82 40 W.'9 ~ - . 5 ~ G ,~ ~ . III / c 0 1% DRAFT ~ .. s..7A~ Will1l11in 1en5a5 of blade organic material ~~35 821 1% . 12 and 5he11 rr..llmenb - Notea; ,. Sttatig..phic: col'lKW a", ...eel IOn field in.....pnolat;c:o... a'" are AjIflfO>llmete. <> 2. R.r_ to 1M lield of this report ;.. nec:essary fat' '" pro".... Ul\derstalld'l\ll of sullsurface amdilions. .,; 3. Reter 10 Soil Claa,iflClltion System and K., ~rc fClr expl;lna\ign of gr3ptlic:S .snd symbols. ~ III Port Ludlow Marina Expansion Figure iii landau Port Ludlow, WA Log of Boring 8-5 A-6 Associates (1 of 2) Cl C ..J Cl z R CI III -' 5 ld ... D- C .. l!l ~ ! o I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 9425 l1ij o~09 LANDAU AS~u~[AHS IH Gl/ulli]2 10:10 r.uI2l~n B-5 SAMPLE DATA SOIL PROFILE GROUNDWATER ... "0 .! . .$l I Drillillg Method: Hollow-atem Auger E ~ e ::J .... ~ z- 0 .. en Ground Elevlltion (l). "'3,1 (ML1.W) g 0 >- ~~ .. j;! en at Ii!: .!.! ..c ~. 'ii. 1ft 0 ..c en Holocene Drinin!l is. Ec E ~ 0; 0- 0 Drilled By: lD ..- l\J 4) l! ~ 0 enol! CI) iii ~ e" -35 5-78 --... I~ MU GI1IY. fllle IIIIldy, dilycy SilT with gravel S-7e Cl aNllNerbadded very silly, filUl SAND (atiff toO wry $U'I. wetl (upper g1Xla1 deposits) Top of boring IOQlBd below MLlW, sp. GtAy. SiltY. fill. $AND 10 fine SAND llrith aUt - SM (del15o to vcfJ cIenK. mo;.l to wetl Qower :s.al! ~NI depasilll) IIZ 54 W=20 OS '.. -40 - - ~ H~ ':', 'Mill inl.tledded gravelly, fine to lIIedi<lm 112 38 SAND -45 '. . - 5-10~J ':1 . Sl.t Gray. gl1Mll,. ';11)', fine to medium SAND 5-108 b2 26 (m.dium de""e. _) ~OWlIr glacial depo$ib) ~50 . . Bering ca,"jHl<Id 12103101 - lallll Depth 01 Borillll = 49.9 ft. - -55 - - - - . -60 - - - - - >- - 6 . a: - ~-65 - z ~ . o . z ::; III 0 ~ DRAFT .. ~ -70 - Noles: '. Stta1l9raphle con1iICU _ based on flOkl intefpratatians "lid... epprcxirn.'.. ~ 2. R~"r.ne. to the tU1 d this r8llOrt is nllCeSAry Iat' a proper _slSnclinll er subsurface conditions, ., <ft 3. R~er 10 Soil ClassifICation Sys..m Ind Key figun: fvr cxpl,lftalion oIgt:l9l\ies and symllOIs. :!! Vi Figure iii Landau Port Ludlow Marina Expansion Log of Boring 8-5 A-6 Port Ludlow, WA Associates (2 of 2) g ..J III :c ii: o CD ..J o Co? .. .... III ~ 2 ~ I.J '" I I I I I I I I I: I I I I I 1 I I I I e~25 11~ oH~ LABAU .\S~ij([U:~ IH ij\lijl/u2 lo:l1 ~.ijlj!ul) B-6 SAMPLE DATA SOIL PROFILE GROUNDWATER . 15 '0 Drilling Method: Honow-stem Auger .Q ., .D E Q. e .D :J ~ <:J >- E Ground Elevation (It). -42.3 (MLLW) g z- 0 ftI CI) >- ... I ;; III ..112 iii: u .c Ii I 0 :c rn Holocene Drilling ! ~ ~ Cl. CJ Drilled By: l! CI) rnolS rn U ::J -0 I~ MU Ctlly-gl"Mn Ia Ii9ht llnlwn. O<l;la~ic SIlT wilh OH day. _ woody CIelltis. anc!lrace sh" I~ fragmcnb (""11' scft, wet) (upper I'NIrina Top d boring located below MLLW. ~1~ r. sedilMftt5) - 12 0 w..a1 f-5 I~ - S.2ll fa c3 -10 - - I' ~31 .:z 0 - f-15 - . ~AI a2 1 ~B Slot GI8Y. very lilly, fine SAND with ab\lOdo",1 S/led lragrnenlS (very Icose. wet) (upper ~:20 marine scdimem) - Ml Gray-gnoen 10 ighl t><owtl, $ll T IlIIlhChay 0 and ftCll 5he1 fr.Igmenb (soft. 'IlCl) (upper 0 ... ....atine sedhnents) C.!l z ~5]] ii! a2 7'. 0 . Unr~md\ll!! _ count ID ..J ~ - .. f- 25 lL 0 SN GJ'ay, dII~, Ility. a_ally. tine to medium .,; l!l .. . SANO (de..-. _t) (\<Mer g1adal doIpasita) ~ Dliffing lM<ilmel harder ~ . '. ~ '. <J 50/ . . i ~:.l a2 3" . . - ~ -30 . . z- g- , MU Gtlly. ailly CLAY and c1aY8)' SllTwi1h $lI1d 0- Z ~ Cl and tr.cal1na or"'. (hard. moist) (lower ~ glaQal deposi~l '" 0 c 1% DRAFT ;; ot _ s Il I~ . ~ f-J5 - Nows: 1. SInItigroophic con~ arallls'" on 1Ie1d imarplWllllioll5 and we aDPJOXimate. 0 2. Reforonc;e 10 lIle lell! r:llIlIS report Is necngry flK . pro!"r undllratal1lling of $V!>$~CIS COlldilions. ~ J. RlIfer 10 Soil Cl...ilicaticA SVS1elft and Kay (og"'" for ellpl8nation d lI~hiCl ;w,d symkfll. :n Figure Port Ludlow Marina Expansion Log of Boring 8-6 A-7 ~ landau Port Ludlow. WA Associates (1 of 2) I I I I I I I I I: I' I I I I I I I I I e~lJ 11~ o~G9 lAN~Aij AS~G~IAr~S I~~ Gl/G1fu2 10:11 ~.GI4/ul: 8-6 SAMPLE DATA SOIL PROFILE GROUNDWATER - ... I Ci .! ! .0 I Drilling Method: Hollow-stem Auger E .. I e: ::J ,. Ground Elevation (ft). -42.3 (MLLW) z;; 0 III tI) g 0 >- .!!~ lil \I: ~ u tI) .c l:I..!1 A. i :c U) Drilled By: Holocene Drilling ii. Ec E 0; ~ (J lD ..- .. ~ I! (I) Q tnocl tn iii, C) :) ....35 5-7 .Il b2 93/ W-18 1% MIJ eor.y, silty CLAY end dllJey SILT willi sand . I"~ AL CL and tnIce &"" grnvet (h<lnI, moist) (lOwer I~ gtaci81 deposi1&) Top oIl1orlng localed tloelCW MLLW. ~ ;/ ',I -40 $08 "Wl ',I - 112 ~~ I W=14 -/ - Boring ea...pet.t 12104101 Total Oeplh of BatiIIO = 41.0 fl -45 - -50 - . . . . . -55 - - ....60 - ... Cl .,; . ~ . 8 ;; ~ ., ... 0 Ill: ~ -115 - :z 0 15 z :; - ... 0 DRAFT . 0 3- <Ii. ~~70 - Nol8a: 1. Stratigraphic conlam ere baud on field IM8lpN18tianslII1d ara approximate. .. 2. Refe,."ca Ia ltIa llIXt of lhis report is necessary far a proper UIldl!l'sranding of subsurfllC8 conditions. di 3. Rr.h:r CO Soil Classlfocalian System and Kay figure for expllll1ation of lll'illlhiQ and symbols. ~ Figure iii Landau Port Ludlow Marina Expansion Log of Boring 8-6 A-7 Port Ludlow, WA Associates (2 of 2) C) o -' o z ;r g ,.! ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I a~l~ 11~ b~u~ Gl/ij1/u2 10:11 ~.~I~/ul~ lijuA~ A~~u(iH~~ iH B-7 SAMPLE DATA SOIL PROFilE GROUNDWATER j '0 I Drilling Method: Holow.stem Auger ! ~ e ~ ::0 '0 Ground Elevation (ft). -40.8 (MllW) ~l III en g .. 0 'Iii II !!:: u en .r: Q.1l 0.. .. a :c en Drilled By; Holocene DnlflOg 11. Ec E ~ iii A. tJ a .- . ... f en cno/S cn as )- 0 ::l ....0 LtL Gr8)'1ll'M/l. SILT with thy to fine ..nely - SILT willi cIa\I:an4 -nd r~ts (IIetV Top of borinvla<:lMed below LtLLW - 10ft. well (uppCt marine mlmentsJ 5-1 J] 112 0 . 5 - - . ~2)] - a2 0 W=26 -10 - . SM GAy. Mtt. very gravely, r_ \0 c;anlll . . SAND with ah.. fragm_ (medium dense, ~3J] wet) (u~ ",:I,'" ~J ;a 3\1 W=11 GS '. - -15 - MI" G~. SII" T willl dltt, IIlld, ./ld gf..," (soil. vrel) (lIpper ",~rine Rdimenl5J S-41J 112 W . unrepreselltaUve DIoW count " 20 - ~~ Gray, fine HIIc1y, dc~ SILT with fine pvel (very l!if 10 haril mail!] (tower p:t81 depoW} ~5)] D,ilIng becames progre:tsr"e1y hatde, - - a2 3a ..J - VI . ...-25 ~ - ... c:I ~ S-6~ 82 501 W=Z1 1% 'n 3" . 51 % ., E tHO % % - z . ~ ~7...JJ b3 50.! ~ :.. _~__6 :l - IU Q Boring COmpleleG 121O~01 ~ - Tolall Oeplll of Soting = 31,9"- DRAFT ~ ., ::! ~ -35 - Noles: 1, Stratigraphic conlactl .... billed on field iftterprelaUons and lIl'l appnl1Cimal8. 0 2. Reference 10lIIe relit 01"'1& report Is necessary fa a proper UII~l.Snding 0/ sullsUrfllee c:ondldons, en 3. Refe,1o $OiJ ClUsifoealiC" Syslem a,d Key filJU'" fat OflI~alion of l~hiQ;and ~Is. :s ~ Figure iii landau Port Ludlow Marina Expansion Log of Boring 8-7 A-8 Port Ludlow, WA Associates 8 .. ~ i2 o III is e~n 118 oH~ lAN~AU A~~u~IAH) IH I I I I I ... .. ;; Ii! e 'i. 2: I I I I .I E ::I 2: I .1 VJ CIi ::i I w '" j ~ I '" N ill :: 'i cr. (Jt .., I a. .., ~ J 8 ~ u .5 ~ .5 I a co .so cr. " .. ! ~ z ~ ~ .. ~ in I CIi I. :;; l3 ;i OJ I ~ c; ~ I I I 8 ci I ..- - 8 - - - - - - - - - - - - .. . . - - - - . . - - - ... S ...... ...... /' ( I .... V / r'" !) ./ .... til.... V' ~ v ,/ -L 51 1 V 1/ C> . - .. - r? - - - - .. ..... ... - - - - - . - . - - - .... .. n .. ... = - ::! J ~ .. ., ~ J ... - il ... .J. - - . . _Il . - - - . - . - - . - - . - - . -- - - - I ... . - ,; " ~ :! 11 - . - .. ~ - - - - - . - . - - - - . - - ... - ... - . - - - ... ". - lB' "1 - ... I ... - - - - - . - - - - ... - - - - - - - - - -- .. -... - - . - . - - . ~ ... o o <:) <:) ~ <:) Ql <:) .... Cl ID o If) 10 l'l 10 C'l ~ Cl ... o 00 lll6!OM .(q JOUY 'UOOJOd ..- c:i ~ e 4i E - S oS " ..-~ (I) c "iiI c"5 ! i:i: ~ c as en E ::I '6 G ~ G !! l'II 0 0 II C u: Ci) > as ~ II l!! l'II 0 0 s <:) o o f,""'n,) I' .- P nl~"" u:,'~/lvt. 0:11 .v viun >. III <3 .... o =~ 0= (I). "i~ :i :i:i $:1 II) (l)CI) 5.!! (.) I I I c ~ .S! is. 1JI ~ Q u .. 3= III 0 '"i 0 ... % 0 ~ i'i (I) 01 8 .5 ~ l - .z:; 0 E 'i z .s 0 i'i Cl c z :Ji Ie ~ 1 ~ "'" ?- Iii ... ClI i .. i ~ e II Iii "i' > ri i:"i:' . t;t; ~ # ii- ~!! QlN ... -::I ..- .... N ..- Z.!! 0 :i .c ...." <:) 'a. ciui ~ u_ ....t"'l 0 ,,~ oJl f1~ '<;' ~~ Cl)CI) CI) (1)% c: o~ ;e ...oD ~~ f1 CSE: ~~ 1O1O 1O W 0 ./!J .8 ~ ~ (I) - ijj CI) Q) :0 .c [3 ! 0') :J I ~<( c o '+:0 ::J ..0 .t:: - rn i5 ~ en ~ 'j,V ~ C> c: o Iii c III !~ III - 5~ ...- i'g ...I ~-e .-0 ''gl.l. ...J 1:: o l.l. I- u.. <( ~ C VI ~ ~CU (Q.- -oU cO ~~ BI I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 84lJ 118 6~~9 lAKDAU A~~~CIAiE~ IHC w '" => t!I ;:: w !:l II> Z :c II: <:I .. ~ ~ i 51 II> .s t .5 ... ... 0 -" '" 0& l A- . ~ ,. . !i q; iil vi a =i 0 ~ Uo ... Ii! ~ ;; '" ~ ... . '\; e e ~ :z: 0 0 ~ ~ . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ... - - - - - - t'" V V -' ,/ - . ~ J ..- Ii ~ ..- JI1 '" 0 - ... ./ L.o-'" 1/ ~ ~ - - ;15 - - - .- . - - - - J - - -) - - - - - -- . - - . lit -, - 2 ~ / J :! ~ J ... ; l' ... II 7 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . - - - - - / F .. ;; tJ g ) ~ - - - - _at' .- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ .- - - ~ ~V ... - .. - - - - - - - - . - - - - - - . - - - - - - - - . - - -- - - . '" 00 -2 o :;! 8 !! t ::l Z . ,. . iil iii ~ 8 5: ... o co o .... o <0 o on C) '<t c ,., c COol 8 lll6!oM ~Q JIUId SUOOJOd (; ... o d .- o ~ .l!! OIl ~ ~ .s S 'rfij C iii CD " C tV Cf) E :;J 1i ~ ~ III 0 (J III c: Ii: G) ~ 0 ~ " 0 () S! o 2 o uliullijl 16:11 r.ijll/~n ~ o L. o ~ (.is =~ 0- (I)'ai ~~ ::i :ii ~ 5:,1 (I) (I) c:. :J- 0 ~ .e :e- O ~ z < tI en Q ~ '0 en .. Cl u .s Cb 0 C c Z ~ < en 0 'ii ~ Z :> < I! 1 (I) ~ . Eft c: ~ Ie ~ ~ ~ .. .. ... ,.:; ,.:; ::0:; l! I! l! 0 C) C) ~ ;! r- CI - i;.3 ..... N ... ;e: .!! 0 ::E ii? II! CI:l It) N ~ N ~..... .- II~ 15..8 ED Cl .... i~ IIJ V, rh 0Z rh c: 0-- ;tI ....0 .,. ~r-:- ~E ED CD ED - .. !z 0 .0 .8 ~ ~ en GI c: u: en G) 15 .0 o o GO :Joe- ~J:: c: o :;:; ::J .Q .C 4-" UI o ~ (j) c: m '- (!) c; o Iii c; nI 0.< Jj3: ~~ -.:.2 nI"tJ :E::J ~...I 01:: -0 -go.. ..J 't:: o D.. ..... u.. <( ~ C en ~ ::J~ ~.- ""OU t:~ ~< ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I enJ 118 oH9 lANDAU U~u~IAlU l~: ul/Ollijllo:18 ~.OI~/un /' . CL CH / /' / / ~ / / ~ * ,/ CL-ML Y M orOL MHor bH 60 50 40 .- t )C u ~ .5 30 ?: '0 U ... 0:: 20 10 o o 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 UQuid Limit (Ll) '" r< :::J ~ iL ~ j ... " a: .... .. II: S ATTERBERG LIMIT TEST RESULTS son Desaiplion Unified Soil Classification asticity Natural Index Moi$ture (%) (%) 58 128 6 31 17 58 9 18 Liquid Plastic; Limit limit (%) r..4) 110 62 27 21 47 30 25 115 Explo...uon Sample ymbol Number Number Depth (Il) . B-2 $-1 2.0 \I: B-3 s-e 29.3 ~ B-6 8-3 14.7 * 8-6 S-7 34.4 GraYilreen, organic SllTwitl1 clay and wood pieces Gray, dayey SILT with fine 58nd GraY"9reen, 511. T with day Gray, silty ClAY with trace sand and gravel OH CL-ML Ml CL ~ II. '-' i on ~ ti UI 3 a: ... ~ z ~ " z :l ... o j cii ~ ASTM 04318 Test Method DRAFT Ci .,; ! ... IA fTllandau a Associates Port Ludlow Marina Expansion Port Ludlow, WA Figure A-11 Plasticity Chart I I I I I I I I I I I I I I: , Ii , , I I I I eU5 11~ o~~~ LAN~AU A~~ij(IAfE~ I~( t N I .. :3 ~ 9: ~ C. !!: ~ .. <: ii 2 A '6 " -' 1; ~ $l s $ 51 ~ :l ii: l i I 'IS " ... .:: i Not To Scale ijl/ij1/ij, [0:16 (.ijl~/ijl~ Map 1101'1I o<<'ar,". SIrWt~. 2000 DRAFT m. Landau a Associates Port Ludlow Marina Expansion Port Ludlow, Washington Figure Vicinity Map 1 I e~l: IH 6H~ LAN~A~_~~~Q~IAT~~ IH I OI/UlIP " l"!~ r ~l " ,.1, O/UlO I I I o WIDE MLL W I DINGHY "-- FLOAT ""'-.r-.-.. ~-- ~ ----....::...r:::;::. -~ I I I I I: I '" I: j ~ g t I .. i ~ . -= . 2 I I .3 1i ~ I. i 0; :a I ii: "i ! } B-5 ... S I ~ i A- I ~ landau 0 1 120 Associates 240 Seale in Feet 1 I enJ 118 oH9 lHDH U~u~IAre) IH ~.,^",r.' It 'c 0 O^.'1,12~ ullUl/d .:i, r. Li/U_ legend S~1 Approximate BOling Location and Designation A' ... Geologic Cross Section Location and Designation DRAFT &isUng Dock. _ Proposed Dock Ad<<p(etJ fn1m: Reid Middleton. October 25. 2001 Rgure Port Ludlow Marina Expansion Port Ludlow. Washington Site Plan 2 ,'. ens ilij oH~ I I I I I I I Ij I I " l! I a. ~ ~ t ~ I: ~ i " .J! " , ::E I: ! '" oJ C ~ j I .. ~ !3 >: j Cl. I i .I " " ... I 1i IL C Z Q .. CJ :> I 0 '0 '" Q, ~ .... l- 0 I f I I ~ ..I ~ E: c: o ... .. ~ lD iii r1A1landau a Associates LHuAU ASSu(iAr2S !~( A North o -10 -20 -30 -:1 ....;10 ...... Medium dlt'l$e, SAND/'...... with sUt and gravel (SP-SM): Marine Sediments 40 -50 -00 -70 -30 .go ul/u)/02 lij:U r.Uil/ULO 'g B.2 {ProJect.d ~ -- - - ~- -- ....... ':::......- -............. __ ',7~Ai '/ ...... 7_- ....... --.- ......tl..... --- .......- ---- ......._ --1.- - - -- - -7_ Medium dense to very dense, silly. gravelly SAND and SAND with silt and gravel (SM/SP-sM) and hard. clayey SILT with sand and gravel (MLlCL): Lower Glacial DClposlls - - Note The soD profile Is based on discrete soli borings. SoD comadS are interpolated between the borings and are therefore approximate. Information presented in the text of this report Is required for proper Understanding of the soli prollle. o I 60 ... Scale In F. Vertical Exagg9r. uii~;lu~ io:l~ r.OHiJlj LANuAU A~~O~IAi~~ iN: enJ 11~ H:J9 I I I A" South o -10 I I -20 .30 OUsting Mudline L. Em) ~ ..... :o!: E r:: o :> .. > II) ii:i 8-3 I -40 "' ~,~...' Very soft. SlLTwiUl clay and sand (MI.): Upper Martne Sediments 1--- -- -50 --- - ---1-- ____ -- -- ~ loose to dense. sOti line Ii" - _1_ _ I .....- -.. medium SAND with gravel ..... ..... -- - _ (8M) and stiff to wry stiff, rifle ..... ..... -il-- _ sandy 81L T (ML); lower .....?..... - -.. ..l!1arine Sediments ..... -- ..... -- '......... -7---------- ....... ........ Solt to stiff, ~yey ....... ..... SILT with sand end ........ fine gravel (MlICL): ........,.... UppQC'G~1 ............... Depo$its ..... ..... ----?- -60 I I I ----7- .70 -80 -- ----~- .90 I I I DRAFT t20 I Figure 3 Port Ludlow Marina Expansion Port Ludlow, Washington I ~eet ~I..., .. 4x Cross Section A.A" I . . ,. - ...- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I; I UH5 11~ 6~09 LANDAU AS~~(jArE~ INt GlI01/u2 lo:lu r.02~/O~j ~ ..J ~ - ...- c: I C 'J:! !: II !" i!j ! t g t i j[ I it f .3 , I ... l . 1 :f 2 ~ l ! ~ fi ::l D . c f cr: 0 ... r- 0 z I B West 0- -10 - -20 - -30 - -40- -50- -60 - -70 - -80- -90 - I'Xllandau a Associates ~ B-3 -7- --'~ ... '" '6..' "4....:~ 8-4 (ProJected 25. South) -------- ~ Loo-; 10 d~e. siiiY. rine to - - -- - _ medium SAND wIIh gravlll - -7- - - - - - - _ _ _ (8M) 2nd sdlJ to IIlary stiff, fine $ilndy SILT (ML); lower _ _ _ _ _ Marine Sediments __ _ _ _ _ -----~---------~----- ----~---- ----- ----- -? Sort to stiff. dayey SilT with sand :and gravel (MUCL); lJpJ:let Glacial Deposits 7____-------1---- - Note -I.... The soil proftle i$ based on discrete soil borings. Soil contaas are Interpolated between lI'Ie borings end ere therefore apprOllimale. Infonn:lllon presented in the text of this report is required for proper understaoding or the soB profile. o I 60 Scale In Fe Vertical Exaggenl e~lJ ';6 b4JS I \.. r, ,.: \ ( ( .' , . I . ., I U " L^)UtlU tl,),)Llr.d) on ui!Gl/u~ lo:~ij ~.Gn/uiJ I I I I I I I I I I 1-~----------3----------~------~-~-~----- ---~ ~ ~-~~---- ~~~ - ...-'!-- I-~----------~---~------ 8-5 (praJect.d 100' Narth) ',<<,~ V8lf'I solt SILT with day and sand (Ml): Upper Matlne Sediments I I I I I~ I I MecflUm dense to very deMe. silty, gnsveKy SAND and SAND with silt and gravel (SMlSP-SM) 8nd hard. clayey SILT wtth sand and gnrtel (MLlCL): lower Glacial Deposits - DRAFT 120 I :4lC Port Ludlow Marina Expansion Port Ludlow. Washington Cross Section 8-B' B' East -0 - .10 - -20 ~-30 B-e -~o ..... -50 --60 l- .70 ..... -80 '- L-_go Figure 4 I Resort at Ludlow Bay Marina Port Ludlow Associates, LLC. I REGULATIONS and POLICIES (Draft 2/15/02) I TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION PAGE I A. PURPOSE 1 B. NOTIFICATION 1 I C. APPLICATION 1 D COMMUNICATIONS 1 E. DEFINITIONS 1,2 I F. AUTHORIZATION TO ADMINISTER 2 G. DENIAL OF USE OF BERTHAGE 2 H. APPLICABLE STATUES. STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS 2 I. INVALIDITY OF PARTICULAR PROVISIONS 2 I II. GENERAL USER REGULA TIONS I A. ASSUMPTION OF RISK 3 B. VEHICLE TRAFFIC/PARKING 3 C. GARBAGE 3,4 I D. SWIMMING. FISHING. WATER-SKIING, AND DIVING 4 E. CONDUCT 4 F. CHILDREN 4,5 G. PETS 5 I H. SIGNS AND HANDBILLS 5 I. BICYCLES, SKATEBOARDS, MOTORCYCLES 5 J. FIREARMS 5 I III. BOAT OWNERS/OPERA TORS REGULA TIONS I A. VESSEL IDENTIFICATION 5 B. MANEURVERING 6 C. INSPECTION OF PREMISES 6 D. DISCHARGE OF SEWAGE 6 I E. WASTE OIL DISPOSAL 6,7 F. UNATTENDED VESSELS 7 G. STORAGE ON PIERS OR FLOATS 7 H. DINGHIES 7 I I. BERTHAGE ON FUEL DOCK 7 J. DOCK CARTS 7 K. FENDERS 7 I L. MODIFICATION OF BERTHAGE 7 M. TELEPHONE 8 N. ELECTRICITY 8 o. VESSEL MAINTENANCE 9 I P. LANDING STEPS 9 Q. FUELING OF VESSELS 9 R. OPTIMUM UTILIZATION OF BERTHAGE 9 I S. COLLECTION OF DELINQUENT MARINA CHARGES 9 T. WINTER MOORING COVERS 9 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I IV. LEASE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES A. WAIT LIST POLICY B. PROOF OF VESSEL OWNERSHIP C. DIMENSIONAL CONSIDERATIONS D. OCCUPANCY OF ASSIGNED BERTH E. STANDARD BERTH ASSIGNMENT F. TRANSFER OF BERTH ASSIGNMENT WITH SALE/PURCHASE OF VESSEL G. BERTH TRANSFERSfTRADES H. PARTNERSHIPS I. LEASED/CHARTERED VESSELS 9, 10 10 10,11 11 11 11 12 12,13 13 V. COMMERCIAL USE OF BERTHAGE A. POLICY STATEMENT 13 VI. SUBLEASING A. POLICY STATEMENT B.. AUTHORIZATION TO SUBLEASE C. TIME LIMITATION D. RESPONSIBILITIES OF LEASEE E. RESPONSIBILITIES OF SUBPERMITTEE 14 14 14 14,15 15 VII. LIVING ABOARD A. DEFINITION B. AUTORIZA TION C. RULES 15 15 15 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I LUDLOW BA Y MARINA REGULATIONS. POLICIES. AND PROCEDURES I. INTRODUCTION A. PURPOSE The purpose of the Marina Regulations. Policies, and Procedures is to promote the safe and efficient operation of the Ludlow Bay Marina and to provide equitable service for boaters and the public. B. NOTIFICA TION It is the user's responsibility to obtain a copy of the Marina Regulations, Policies, and Procedures manual from the Marina. The Marina does not accept responsibility for mailing or delivery of the Marina Regulations, Policies, and Procedures manual or for ensuring that Marina users have familiarized themselves with Marina regulations. Copies will be made available in the Marina Office for all interested parties. C. APPLlCA TION 1. Signature of permittee on Ludlow Bay Marina Moorage Agreement shall constitute applicant's agreement to become familiar with these Regulations and agreement to comply with the same, but moorage permittees and occupants of Marina property shall be bound by said regulations whether or not they have signed such application or agreement. 2. Anyone present on or in the Marina area and/or using Marina facilities or equipment is subject to and shall comply with any verbal or written signs of communication, including administrative and operational policies and procedures, issued or posted by the Marina Management. D. COMMUNICATIONS Marina Management may be contacted via telephone twenty-four hours per day by calling the Marina offices at 360.437.0513, during working hours, or calling the Marina Supervisor after hours @ 1-360-301-4729. Radio Call: Ludlow Bay Marina VHF Frequency: Channel: 68 E. DEFINITIONS 1. "Berthage" means any properties or facilities owned by the Ludlow Bay Marina which are capable of use for the berthage or storage of vessels. 2. "Marina" means all water, land airspace, buildings, and structures with the boundaries of the Ludlow Bay Marina complex. 3. "Marina Managemenf' refers to management of the Ludlow Bay Marina: General Manager, or Marina Operations Supervisor. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 4. "Permittee" means every person, firm, partnership, corporation, associate agent thereof, with actual or apparent authority, who expressly or implicit berthage, 5. "Marina" shall mean the "Resort at Ludlow Bay Marina" and/or its representatives. 7 "Subleasing" means allowing a person other than the permittee of record to place his/her vessel in a leased berthage, whether for rent, other consideration, or no consideration at all. 8. "User'~ is defined as any person, including boat owners/operators, marina permittees and the public, entering the Resort at Ludlow Bay Marina. 9. 'Vessel" means every manner of watercraft or other artificial contrivance designed for and capable of self-propulsion and as a means of transportation. 1 O. 'Vessel of Record" means the vessel which has been solely authorized by the Marina to occupy a leased berth age. F. AUTHORIZATION TO ADMINISTER REGULATIONS AND PROCEDURES 1. Marina Management may request persons violating these regulations to leave the Marina. Marina Management may enforce these regulations through any legal mean and also obtain the assistance of law enforcement officers for the purpose of protecting property, lives, the environment, or preserving the peace. 2. The violation of any regulation governing Marina berth ages or lands may result in the revocation of the privilege of use of such facilities, and the offender may thereupon become a trespasser and subject to prosecution accordingly. 3. If a trespasser's vessel is not removed from the Marina after reasonable efforts by Management to notify the vessel's owner, it may be impounded and removed by the Marirta or by private contractor. In non-emergency circumstances, notification may be delivered to the subject vessel twenty-four (24) hours prior to impoundment. In emergency circumstances, the vessel may be impounded and moved without notice to the owner. All charges incurred will be assessed against the vessel and/or its owner. 5. Marina Management may interpret the reasonable intent of these regulations, consistent with the policies and procedures adopted by the Marina, to carry out the purposes of these regulations. G. DENIAL OF USE OF BERTHAGE Marina Management may deny the use of any of the facilities of the Marina or berth age when such use would not be in the best interest of the Marina. H. APPLICABLE STA TUTES, STANDARDS, AND REQUIREMENTS All applicable Marina. Municipal, County, State, and Federal regulations and laws, and generally accepted safety standards and requirements, apply to users of the Marina. I. INVALIDITY OF PARTICULAR PROVISIONS If any term or provision of these regulations or the application thereof to any person or circumstance shall, to any extent, be invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of these regulations shall not be affected thereby and shall continue in full force and effect- 2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II. GENERAL USER REGULATIONS A. ASSUMPTION OF RISK Anyone visiting or using the Marina or its facilities does so at his/her own risk. The Marina does not assume any responsibility for personal injury, loss or damage to property, or to the environment caused by the user. B. VEHICLE TRAFFIC/PARKING 1. Marina Management may establish such reasonable traffic and parking regulations as may be required for orderly handling of motor vehicles on the Marina premises, including the posting of "No Parking" areas and such other regulations as may be required. A vehicle parked in violation of any such signs or regulations may be towed away and impounded and will be released only after all charges and costs have been paid. 2. The vehicle parking areas are to be used only for temporary vehicular in connection with the use of the Marina's facilities. 3. Except where specifically designated and posted by the Marina. No overnight camping in vehicles, tents, or otherwise is permitted on any Marina property. 4. Marina users will not store recreational vehicles, travel or boat trailers or any other personal property on any Marina property. 5. All boats or vehicles using facilities or space within the Marina are subject to all of the charges, rules, and conditions as prescribed by the Marina. C. GARBAGE 1. Dumpsters are provided throughout the Marina for the collection of boating generated refuse. All appropriate garbage will be deposited in these containers. No garbage, or trash, or other material, liquid or solid, shall be deposited in the water, or the land areas of the Marina facilities, or on any floats or piers. 2. Recycle containers are provided throughout the Marina for the collection of mixed paper, glass, and aluminum. Users are required to use these containers for these items 3. Depositing of non-marina related refuse in Marina containers is PROHIBITED. Violators will be prosecuted or subject to civil penalties. 4. If the Marina determines that an individual has caused the Marina to spend money to clean up any waste or debris as described above, such costs will be the responsibility of and charged to that individual or assessed against his/her vessel subject to being collected as a lien against the vessel and through foreclosure proceedings allowed by law. 5. Users shall not deposit any of the following items in garbage containers, unless specifically designated for that use: 3 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I a. Fuel/Oil or Other Petroleum Products b. Paintsrrhinners c. Batteriesrrires/Plastics d. Lumber/Stumpage e. Drywall/Sheet rock f. Roofing Materials g. Carpeting h. Fly Ash i. Concrete j. Oversize Items (larger than 6 % feet in length) k. Boat Fixtures (fuel or water tanks, etc.)/Appliances I. "Moderate-risk", "Dangerous wastes", "Hazardous substances", "Hazardous waste", or "Extremely hazardous waste" as defined in RCW 70.105.010; "Pesticide" as defined in RCW 15.58.020' or "Hazardous household substances' as defined in RCW 70.105.220. 6. The user is responsible for removing these items from the Marina. 7. Users of the Marina are encouraged to note vehicle license numbers of violators and to report such incidences to Marina Management. D. SWIMMING, FISHING, WATER-SKIING, AND DIVING 1. Swimming and water-skiing are prohibited within the Marina. 2. Diving within the Marina is prohibited, except for divers working upon the underwater portion of vessels, or employed by the Marina. Bottom cleaning of vessels with anti- fouling paint is prohibited by divers. Any diving done for vessels is done with a full assumption of risk by the parties involved and with no liability to the Marina. 3. Fishing from piers is prohibited with out prior permission from marina management. E. CONDUCT 1. Behavior, which disturbs or creates a nuisance for others in the Marina or on the premises adjacent thereto, is prohibited. 2. There will be no loud music or party gatherings on the docks after 11 pm. F. CHILDREN 1. Parents or other responsible adults shall supervise children under the age of twelve (12) years while on any floats within the Marina. 4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 2. Children under the age of sixteen (16) years shall not operate vessels within the Marina unless supervised by a parent or other responsible adult. 3. Children under the age of 12 years will be asked to wear a life jacket while on the marina piers and floats G. PETS 1. Pets must be kept on a leash or carried while on Marina premises. 2. Owners of pets are responsible for immediate and proper clean up and as per Port Ludlow's animal control regulations. 3. Any animal found wandering unattended within the Marina will be turned over to the nearest Animal Shelter. H. SIGNS AND HANDBILLS 1. Posting of signs on Marina premises shall be subject to the approval of Marina Management. 2. Distribution of advertising or handbills on vehicles or vessels is not permitted within the Marina complex. 3. A bulletin board is located in the breeze way just east of the marina office. All materials must be approved through the marina office. Material must be dated with the current date and must be boating related material only. I. BICYCLES, SKA TEBOARDS, MOTORCYCLES Riding of bicycles, skateboards, motorcycles, or similar vehicles on floats is prohibited. J. FIREARMS The display or use of firearms or airguns on Marina premises is strictly prohibited. III. BOA T OWNERS/OPERA TORS REGULA TIONS A. VESSEL IDENTIFICA TION 1. All vessels entering or leasing berthage in the Marina must have valid identification permanently affixed to the hull and clearly visible from the outside. 2. State or Coast Guard registered vessels shall display registration numbers and a valid registration decal. 3. Documented vessels shall have the documented name of the vessel and a valid registration decal displayed on the hull. 4. Failure to display either the registration number or the documented name of the vessel on the hull may be cause for refusal of berthage or other access to the Marina. 5 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I B. MANEUVERING 1 . The Marina defines all water areas east of and inside the breakwater floats of the Marina as narrow channels as defined by the U.S. Inland Rules of the Road. Therefore, a sailboat or any other craft does not have the right-of-way over another vessel based solely on its method of propulsion. 2. The movement of vessels within the Marina shall be for the purpose of mooring, fueling, entering, or leaving a slip only. No random sailing or cruising by motor vessels will be permitted. 3. Vessel operators will control their speed so as not to leave a wake and will be held responsible for any wake damage caused by excessive speeds. 4. Any vessel, vehicle, property, gear, or equipment, will be parked, stored, moored or maneuvered in the Marina in a safe and orderly manner. Whenever ice conditions are present within the Marina, there will be no movement of vessels. . C. INSPECTION OF PREMISES 1. Vessels in the opinion of Marina Management that are hazardous to Marina property or other vessels or facilities may be denied permission to remain on Marina premises. 2. Upon request, a boat owner must grant permission for an on-board inspection of his vessel by Marina Management for the purpose of determining compliance with applicable Marina regulations and policies. 3. See (0) Vessel Maintenance for more detail D. DISCHARGE OF BLACK WA TER AND GRA Y WA TER 1. All vessels, which moor in the Marina, must be in compliance with all regulations established by the United States Coast Guard or other federal or state regulatory agencies. 2. Discharge of black water from vessels while in Ludlow Bay is prohibited. 4. Sanitary waste disposal facilities are available at designated locations within the Marina at no charge to users. All users shall use these facilities for the disposal of raw sewage. 5. Live aboards must pump their holding tanks on a monthly basis 6. A pump out log is located on the fuel dock shed, all vessels utilizing the pump out must sign the pump out log. 7. The discharge of gray water is currently under review by the State, but discourage while in the marina. Only Biodegradable soaps and cleaners may be used while in the Ludlow Bay Marina. E. WASTE OIL DISPOSAL 1. The oil dump is owned and operated by Jefferson County. Boat owners are cautioned, however, that only oil can be dumped. No oil-and-water, oil-and-antifreeze, or oil-and-fuel mixes can be dumped. They have to be taken to the hazardous waste disposal site at the Port of Port Townsend Boat Haven or designated site. 6 I I I I I I I I I I I I I 2. The oil dump is located on the East Side of the marina parking lot. F. UNATTENDED VESSELS Vessels, when unattended, must be securely moored with adequate bow, stern, and spring lines. No lines shall cross walkways. G. STORAGE ON PIERS OR FLOATS 1. All users of the Marina or its facilities for berth age or otherwise, shall keep their vessel, dock box, and pier or finger pier in the vicinity of their vessel neat, clean and orderly, and shipshape at all times. 2. Storage of anything on piers or floats is prohibited, except in Marina approved dock boxes. Items or materials stored on the floats or piers may be impounded at the owner's risk and expense. 3. Storage of oily rags, open paints, gasoline, or other flammable or explosive material are prohibited on or within the Marina complex, except for gasoline stored aboard a vessel in U.L. or Coast Guard approved gasoline containers. . H. DINGHIES Dinghies, rowboats, skiffs, or other such vessels are not allowed on floats. They must be stowed on the permittee's vessel or, if small enough so as not to interfere with the regular berthage of any vessel (at the discretion of Marina Management), moored in the water so as not to exceed maximum overhang criteria. I. BERTHAGE ON FUEL DOCK Vessels will not be berthed at the fuel float, except for authorized purposes. J. DOCK CARTS Dock carts are provided throughout the Marina for the use of permittees. Carts must be returned to the foot of the ramp or to proper storage areas after each use. K. FENDERS 1. Permittee and vessel owners are responsible for adequate tendering to protect their vessels and adjacent vessels. I I I I I I 2. No fixed or permanent fenders shall be attached to any float without the consent of Marina Management. Only uniform, commercially produced, fender material will be approved. L. MODIFICATION OF BERTHAGE Customizing of slips will be limited to the addition of commercially available poly protectors, bumpers and wheels. Line holders may also be installed. The Marina management must approve the plan for the attachment of any item to the docks. Marina management will remove any non-commercial made fenders. The tenant must remove any customizations when he/she vacates the slip. Installations must be in a professional manner. M. TELEPHONE Telephone installation will be at the permittee's expense and must comply with Marina and general telephone specifications. 7 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I N. ELECTRICITY 1. Tampering or interfering with the electrical distribution panels, meters, circuit breakers, outlets, or other parts of the electrical system on any float is prohibited. 2. The use of another permittee's electrical outlet without their express permission is prohibited. o. VESSEL MAINTENANCE 1. All permanently moored vessels in Ludlow Bay Marina must be operable and seaworthy. 2. "Operable" means capable of safely maneuvering under its own power whether it is sailor engine, from the mooring to another port of call and back to its mooring. In cases where a vessel appears to have not left its mooring for a long period of time and the question of operability arises, Marina Management may require a demonstration of the vessel's operability. At least thirty- (30) days advance written notice must be given to the vessel's owner for such a request. In cases where a vessel is found to be inoperable, the owner shall have ninety (90) days to effect repairs. If after ninety (90) days the boat is still inoperable, the Moorage Agreement will be terminated. An extension of up to an additional ninety (90) days to complete repairs may be granted if the vessels owner has, in the sole opinion of Marina Management, made substantial progress toward completion of repairs. This section is not intended to apply to any brief period of repair common to most vessels. Marina Management may repeat this request to test operability as needed. 3. "Seaworthy" shall mean that the vessel's hull, decking, cabin and mast are structurally sound and generally free from dry rot or other similar defect or deficiency. If a dispute over the seaworthiness of a vessel arises, the opinion of a qualified independent marine surveyor may be obtained at the owner's expense. If a determination is made that the vessel is unseaworthy, ninety (90) days shall be granted to repair the vessel. If after ninety (90) days the vessel is still determined to be unseaworthy, the Moorage Agreement of said vessel shall be terminated. An extension of up to an additional ninety (90) days to complete repairs may be granted if the vessels owner has, in the sole opinion of Marina Management, made substantial progress toward completion of repairs. In cases where determination of operability, design and/or seaworthiness is in dispute, Marina Management's decision will be final. All non-documented boats must have current registration papers and registration numbers on the hull in a manner conforming to Washington State law. Documented boats must provide a copy of their documentation. 4. Vessel exteriors must be maintained in a seaworthy manner. There will be no excessive peeling of paint or varnish, gelcoat blistering, or build up of sea life, moss or algae on the vessel surface. All area below the water line must be cleaned at least once every two years. 5. All boats in slips and over 22' must have a working automatic electric operated bilge pump. Such bilge pumps shall be either directly connected to shore power or the boats D.C. electrical system.. Boats on side ties, Rear floats, and New Walk should have an AC operated pump. 6. The marina staff will mail "Courtesy Notices" to tenants when deficiencies that might affect this policy are noted. Courtesy Notices that are ignored may lead to a termination or non-renewal of their Moorage Agreement. Courtesy notices will be sent to billing address provided by owner. P. LANDING STEPS 8 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I No dock steps will be allowed on the finger piers deeper than 24" in order to provide the least hindrance to the use of the finger pier. All new boats entering the marina must use commercially built steps, any exceptions bv approval of the Marina Manaaer or Dockmaster. Q. FUELING OF VESSELS 1. Fueling of vessels is prohibited in moorage areas. 2. Vessels will be fueled at the fuel dock R. OpnMUMUT~~AnONOFBERTHAGE Vessels may be moved by Marina Management for the purpose of protecting life or property, to accommodate Marina repairs, improvement, maintenance, construction, or emergencies, and when necessary, to manage unapproved use of the facility, with or without advance notice to or consent of vessel owner. S. COLLECTION OF DELINQUENT MARINA CHARGES In the event that the permittee or user does not pay the fees and/or other charges which are accrued in favor of the Marina, the Marina may initiate collection proceedings as provided for in RCW 53.08.310 and 53.08.320. The Marina may retain a collection agency for the purpose of collecting public debt. as provided for in RCW 19.16.500. (See: X. Collection of Delinquent Port Charges) T. WINTER STORAGE The use of household tarps for protecting your vessel through the winter months is prohibited. Tarps become loose and rip causing a hazard in the water if blown off the vessel. All winter coverings must be approved before being installed on your vessel. Marina management may remove any tarps that appear to be loose or frayed. IV. LEASE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES A. WAIT LIST 1. A wait list for each slip length will be compiled and regularly updated. Regular moorage assignment for those seeking permanent moorage in the marina will be made from this list. 2. A non-refundable wait list registration and administration fee will be charged, and must be renewed on an annual basis. (Calendar year) 3. If any applicant on the wait list fails to accept moorage or can not be contacted with in 72 hours of the date moorage is offered the applicant will forfeit their spot on the wait list. # they wish to remain on the wait list they must resubmit a waitlist application. The date of the new application is your new waitlist date 4. If applicant agrees to the offered moorage, the applicant has 15 days to submit contract to marina office with all applicable moorage fees. The moorage contract will have first months prorated amount from the date of offer. 9 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 5. Applicants are responsible for keeping the marina advised of applicant's current address and phone numbers. 6. WAIT LIST APPLICATION IS FOR THE SLIP SIZE NOTED ON THE WAIT LIST APLLlCATION BY LOA AND BEAM. If you decide to purchase a larger or smaller vessel before assignment of moorage and want to move to a different size slip from what is noted on the Wait list application, there is a non-refundable charge of $10.00. You must submit a new waitlist application with all appropriate information regarding the new vessel. The date of the new application is your new wait list date. Please note the waiting times vary for each slip size. 7. It is the applicant's responsibility to provide an emergency contact for use by the marina office in the event that the moorage becomes available and the applicant temporarily can not be reached at the phone number listed on the application. B. PROOF OF VESSEL OWNERSHIP 1. All permittees must provide proof of ownership of the vessel that will occupy their assigned berth. This vessel will become the "vessel of record" for that berth. Original documents, including but not limited to the following, will be required to establish proof of ownership: a. Current Certificate of Title, showing the proper individual(s) as owner(s) of the vessel of record. b. Current State registration certificate, showing the proper individual(s) as owner(s). c. Current U.S. Coast Guard documentation papers, showing the proper individual(s) as owner(s). d. Financing papers showing the proper individual(s) as owner(s). e. Executed use tax return. 8. Failure or inability to provide satisfactory proof of ownership will result in denial of berthage privileges or termination. 9. C. DIMENSIONAL CONSIDERA TIONS 1. Marina Management with regard to a vessel's overall length, beam and operational characteristics assigns Berthage. The overall length of a vessel shall be the measurement from the extreme point of the bow to the extreme point on the stern, including all gear and appurtenances. Management reserves the right to administer these policies on an individual basis to ensure fairness to all users. a. Minimum Requirements As established in the Marina Berthage Agreement, Marina Management must ensure that berths are utilized in a manner that will permit maximum efficient public utilization of the Marina's facilities. b. Maximum Requirements No vessel shall exceed the maximum length or allowable width of any assigned berth, except as may be permitted at the discretion of Marina Management, consistent with necessary turning radius and safety considerations. 10 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 2. A vessel may be transferred to an appropriate length or width berth if deemed appropriate by Marina Management to ensure proper utilization of the facility. D. OCCUPANCY OF ASSIGNED BERTH A berth may be subleased for a maximum of six (6) months in a twelve (12) month period with the approval of Marina Management.: ( See VI: Subleasing pg. 14) E. STANDARD BERTH ASSIGNMENT 1. To accept a berth assignment, each applicant is required to complete and sign a Ludlow Bay Marina Berthage Agreement, signifying that they agree to familiarize themselves with and comply with the conditions and policies of that lease and all Marina regulations, policies, and procedures. 2. When a berth is assigned, each applicant is required to pay a deposit equal to one month moorage, and the prorated current month moorage. 3. New permittees must provide proof of ownership of the vessel that will occupy their assigned berth at the time of signing the Marina Berthage Agreement. 4. In the event that a permittee does not own a vessel when accepting a berth assignment, the berth may be subleased in compliance with subleasing procedures outlined in section VIII. Subleasing. F. TRANSFER OF BERTH ASSIGNMENT WITH SALElPURCHASE OF VESSEL OF RECORD When a Moorage Agreement Tenant sells his/her boat, the buyer may keep the boat in its assigned slip until the expiration of the existing Moorage Agreement (typically until December 31 ~ or six months, whichever is greater. Rent must be paid and marina policies followed. The new boat owner may add his or her name on the Wait Ust for a slip if desired. If the new owner cannot secure a slip via the Wait Ust before the expiration of the Moorage Agreement or the six-month period, then he or she must vacate the marina. G. BERTH TRANSFERSflRADES 1. A moorage holder may fill out a "Request to Move" application to move from one berth to another providing that the berth is of an equal length as that already leased. Exceptions will be made for those tenants leasing variable side ties. Tenants leasing variable side ties may sign a request to move application for an appropriate size berth for their currently owned vessel. 2. If moorage holder is looking for a larger or smaller slip than currently leased, applicant must go on the wait list for that size berth. (See IV: Wait List pg. 9) 3. A "request to move" list for each berth length will be compiled, and regularly updated in the Marina office. Transferring of berths will be made from these lists based on seniority dates. 4. A non-refundable, annual, request to move application and administrative fee of $20.00 will be charged. 5. If an applicant on the musical boat list fails to accept the offered transfer slip, or cannot be reached in 72 hours of the date moorage is offered, the application will be canceled. Applicants are responsible for keeping the marina advised of applicant's current address and phone numbers. 11 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 6. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to make arrangements to move the vessel to the newly assigned slip within 72 hours of the accepted transfer. 7. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to provide an alternate contact party in the event applicant cannot be reached. H. PARTNERSHIPS 1. The Ludlow Bay Marina does recognize partnerships in an established vessel of record. a. Partnerships must be declared and the names of the partners recorded at the time that the individual(s) apply for moorage on the waiting list, or at least twelve (12) months prior to acquiring moorage. b. In the event that a berthage is acquired through the purchase of a vessel of record, the partnership will be declared, and the names of the partners recorded, when the transfer takes place. c. One partner must be designated as the "partner of record" and will be responsible for all berth age fees and berthage requirements. d. Proof-of-ownership of the vessel of record must be provided, showing each partner as an owner of the vessel. e. Each partner must own a minimum of twenty percent (20%) of the vessel, and must substantiate this ownership. In addition to regular proof of ownership documents. Partners may be. required to provide additional proof of the partnership arrangement. Acceptable documentation may include, but not be limited to, the following: 1) Personal property tax records; 2) Canceled checks/money orders, showing each partner's financial interest; 3) Purchase agreement/receipt; 4) Financial institution records; 5) Insurance policy; 6) Repair and expense records. I. LEASED/CHARTERED VESSELS 1. A permittee who leases or charters a vessel may establish it as their vessel of record, subject to the following limitations: a. A copy of the lease contract/charter agreement must be provided to establish the authenticity of this agreement. b. Copies of the vessel owner's business license(s) and tax registration must be provided, verifying that they are legitimately engaged in the business of leasing boats. c. The assigned permittee(s) shall lease or charter one hundred percent (100%) of the vessel named in the lease contract. 12 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I d. The lease/charter agreement must have a fixed expiration date. At expiration of the specified lease/charter period, the vessel must be removed from the premises or proof of ownership established. (See: V. Lease Policies and Procedures. A. Proof of Vessel Ownership) V. COMMERCIAL USE OF BERTHAGE A. COMMERCIAL VESSELS defined. Vessels primarily engaged in a trade or business for the generation of income including, but not limited to. fishing boats. dive boats, tugs. etc. B. AVAILABLE MOORAGE. 1. Fishing or dive boats may moor at the marina during their respective harvest season where the intent is overnight moorage. 2. Seasonal Moorage will be available to commercial vessels during the winter period provided that slips are vacated on or before April 15th. C. RESTRICTIONS. 1. No commercial activities can be conducted on the docks. 2. Product may not be off-loaded at the marina or on the docks. 3. No repair of nets, lines or equipment will be permitted on the docks. 4. Product may not be sold to the public or others from the docks or vessel while moored at the marina. 5. Vessels in extreme disrepair or deemed to be a hazard may not moor at the marina. 6. No permanent moorage will be available to commercial vessels. 7. No vessel may pollute the harbor by discharging bilge's, petroleum products, black water or fish by products or any hazardous material into waters. D. EXCEPTIONS. 1. Charter vessels may enter into a contract to moor at the marina where the intent is to engage in short term "for hire" trips for the general public. . 2. Charter vessels not moored at the marina may land for the purpose of picking up or discharging passengers provided they have obtained permission of Marina Management and the stay is less than four hours. 3. Police or emergency vessels, pollution control vessels, or tribal/state vessels whose purpose is the monitoring and enforcement of commercial activities in the general area. VI. SUBLEASING A. POLICY STATEMENT 13 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I In the event that a tenant will not be using his/her assigned berth for a period of time, the Marina does permit a sublease of the berth, provided that the arrangements are recorded in the Marina office and meet the provisions of the Marina sublease policy. B. AUTHORIZATION TO SUBLEASE 1. All subleases must be approved through Marina Management. Records of Sublease forms are available for this purpose. 2. Any time that a vessel other than the vessel of record will occupy a berth, a "Record of Sublease" must be recorded in the Marina office 3. Both the Moorage holder and Sub-Leasee are required to sign the "Record of Sublease" c. TIME LIMITATION Subleases are allowed for a maximum of six (6) months in a 12-month period. Extensions may be approved through marina management. D. RESPONSIBILITIES OF SUBLESSER 1. The Sub-Leaser is responsible for contacting the potential Sub-Leasee for its Arrangements, and for recording the Sublease with the Marina office. 2. The Sub-Ieaser is responsible for all charges that accrue to the Marina, and will continue to receive the billing statement. The Marina will not change the billing address to that of the Sub-Leasee. 3. The Sub-Ieaser may not charge the subleasee more than the prevailing berth rates. 4. The Sub-Ieaser is responsible for notifying his/her Sub-Leasee of pending sublease expiration and/or ensuring that subleasee removes their vessel from the slip E. RESPONSIBILITIES OF SUBLESSEE 1. The Sub-Leasee will be charged an one time administrative fee of $120.00 for the Sublease. 2. The Sub-Leasee is subject to the same regulations and procedures as Sub-Ieaser and must abide byall terms and regulations set forth by the Resort at Ludlow Bay. VII. LIVING ABOARD A. DEFINITION A liveaboard is defined as any person(s) residing on their vessel over 14 days in a one-month period. If you reside on your vessel over 14 days you are considered a liveaboard and must pay all applicable fees retaining to living aboard. B. AUTHORIZATION The Ludlow Bay Marina liveaboard policy requires written liveaboard authorization for person(s) residing on their vessel. A Liveaboard agreement may be picked up at. the Marina office. 14 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Only person(s) named on this agreement shall reside aboard the vessel. c. RULES 1. Liveaboard tenants shall submit to inspection of their vessels plumbing and mechanical systems to verify compliance with state and local public health and safety laws. Such inspections will be made at the sole discretion of marina management. 2. Pets are welcomed but not encouraged to reside on the vessel. All Pet owners must keep their pet on a leash at all times while on marina premises including the docks. Pet owners must clean up after their pets. Pooper Scoopers are strategically placed around the marina premises for your use. 3. Liveaboards must agree to enhance Marina security by calling to the attention of Marina staff any damage to boats on docks, unauthorized persons on docks, possible theft, unsafe practices, etc. In case of a fire, liveaboards are expected to dial 911 for assistance, and contact Marina management as soon as possible. 4. Liveaboards are required to use the pump out station on a monthly basis. Failure to do so will result in termination of the liveaboard agreement. A pump out log is stationed at the fuel dock. Dumping of black water will result in termination of the liveaboard agreement and moorage agreement. (See pump out rules and regulations Pg. 6) 5. Vessels must at all times meet Federal, State, and local laws which include those pertaining to navigational and safety equipment. Vessels must be completely seaworthy and ready for immediate cruising in local waters. A vessel that is being used only to Iiveaboard and not for the purpose of cruising is not eligible for moorage. . 6. Liveaboards must follow all rules and regulations stated in this manual. 15 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Resort at Ludlow Bay Marina Best Management Practices Best Management Practices The Port Ludlow Marina is committed to preserving and enhancing the environment through proper Management of activities, which occur at this facility. In accordance with the Department of Ecology, United State Coast Guard regulations, and the Federal Clean Water Act, we have established these Best Management Practices which we hope will ensure the safekeeping of our harbor and marine environment: I. Bilge Water Management and Fueling Practices . The discharge of contaminated bilge water is illegal. Do not discharge bilge water that is contaminated with oil, detergents, or bilge cleaners. The fine for discharging oil from your bilge can be as high as $20,000 per day/per violation. Use oil absorbent bilge pads or pillows in your vessel's bilge to soak up oil and fuel. Prevent oil contamination of bilge water. Do not drain oil into bilge. Fit a tray underneath the engine to collect drips. Put a couple of pads in the pan to make cleanup easier. Keep bilge area as dryas possible. Fix all fuel and oil leaks in a timely fashion. Disposal of oil soaked adsorbents, as a household hazardous waste is possible. Otherwise, wrap in newspaper; place in a plastic bag, and place into the garbage. II. Fueling Operations All fueling must take place at the fuel pier. Avoid topping off your fuel tanks. Estimate the amount of fuel needed prior to filling your tank. Catch any spills with an absorbent pad. Do not use detergents on oil/fuel spilled in the water. Detergents disperse spills, but do not eliminate them. Never leave fuel nozzles unattended. Oil absorbent pads are available at the fuel dock store. III Hazardous Chemicals, Cleaners and Waste Hazardous or flammable chemical/materials shall not be stored in the dock lockers or on the pier. Disposal of used oil, antifreeze, paints, solvents, varnishes and automotive batteries into the garbage is prohibited. These materials are not to be discharged to the sanitary sewage or to marine waters. Do not dispose of these wastes in the Marina garbage dumpsters and DO NOT leave these wastes on the dock. The Marina has a hazardous waste collection facility for your I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I use. Contact the Marina Office or call VHF Channel 68 for the appropriate handling of such materials (see this manual: Utilities: Hazardous Waste.) IV Waste Oil Used oil is to be disposed of at the oil recycle station (see this manual: Utilities: Waste Oil.) Contact the Marina Office for details or call on VHF Channel 68. For disposal of oil filters, contact the Marina Office or call VHF Channel 68. V Spill Prevention and Response Store oil absorbent materials on your vessel in case of spills. If a spill occurs, stop the spill or leakage source and contain the spill. In an emergency spill in the water, contact the Marina Office or call VHF Channel 68 immediately for needed assistance in containing a spill. The U.S. Coast Guard requires report of a spill immediately. Call the National Response Center at 1-800-424-8802 and the Department of Ecology at 1-800-0ILS-911 or VHF channel 16. Information for reporting spills is posted in the marina office. Do not use detergents on oil spilled in the water. Detergents disperse spills, but do not eliminate them Oil and detergents are toxic to fish and other marine life. VI Solid Waste Throwing garbage into the water or on the land is prohibited. Use trash dumpsters located at the marina for your use. Recycling dispensers for aluminum, glass, newspaper, tin and plastic are available (see this manual: Utilities: Recycling.) VII Sewage Management and Gray Water The discharge of sewage (black water) is illegal and is prohibited. The discharge of gray water is currently under review by the State, but is discouraged. Pump-out facilities and port-a-potty discharge stations are located at the Fuel Dock. If you are a liveaboard, see those procedures (see this manual: Monthly Moorage: Liveaboard.) Shore-side restrooms and showers are available for your use and we encourage you to use them instead of on-board showers. All pet droppings must be removed and disposed of in the garbage dumpsters or sewage disposal, not in Marina waters. VIII Boat Repair Activity I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Painting, scraping and refinishing of boats, when in the water, is limited to minor touch ups. Minor repairs, as defined by the Washington Department of Ecology, is limited to the vessel's superstructure, deck and hull above the waterline and is 25% or less of the vessel's surface above the waterline. Extensive repair work and bottom cleaning must occur in a commercial, permitted, boatyard. Any minor painting, scraping, and refinishing must be contained and all debris collected so that no debris can enter the water. All paint mixing must be done with the can(s) placed inside secondary containment that will catch spillage. Paint cans used in the pier area shall be no larger than one-gallon in size. The Marina provides instructions on secondary containment. Boat repair or storage of equipment, supplies, etc. is not allowed on the dock. Locker boxes are provided at each slip. IX. . Boat Hoist Following boat haul out, do not rinse the bottom of your boat in the marina. Please rinse your boat in a commercial, permitted boatyard where the rinse water is discharged to the sanitary sewage. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Resort at Ludlow Bay POLICY AND AUTHORIZATION TO LIVE ABOARD BOAT January 1,2002 - December31, 2002 Applicant's Name: Slip# Vessel Name: Boat Phone # Monthly Charge $ # of Persons on board Full Name of Person(s) Living on Boat: 1. 2. 3. 4. Emergency Information: Place of Employment Phone # Emergency contact Phone # IN CONSIDERATION OF THE RULES AND REGULATIONS HEREIN ATTACHED, THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. Boat Harbor Regulations and Port Policy require written live aboard authorization for persons residing on their boats. Only the persons named on this agreement shall reside aboard this vessel. No other person shall be permitted to live aboard vessel for any period in excess of 72 hours (three (3) days) in any seven (7) day period without advance authorization of Marina Office Management. 2. Permanent moorage customers are required to renew this agreement annually. 3. Sublessees must obtain written permission to live aboard from both the moorage agreement customer and Marina Management and must renew live aboard agreements each time a new sublease is signed. 4. Families with children are not encouraged to live aboard because of the lack of recreational opportunities and facilities, and inherent safety hazards. 5. Live aboards with pets are responsible for cleanup after them. If you have any pets, please list type of pet and describe: Type Description I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 6. Behavior which disturbs to creates a nuisance for others in the Marina is not permitted. Complaints concerning live aboard behavior may result in termination of the live aboard agreement. 7. Boat qualifications: A) Boat must, at all times, meet all Federal, State and local laws which include those pertaining to navigational and safety equipment. B) Boats must be completely seaworthy and ready for immediate cruising in local waters. A boat that is being used only to live aboard and not for the purpose of cruising is not eligible for moorage. 8. Security Responsibilities of Live Aboards: A) Live aboards must agree to enhance Marina security by calling to the attention of the Marina Attendant or Management damage to any boats on pier, unauthorized persons visiting pier, possible theft, unsafe practices, etc. B) In case of fire, live aboards are expected dial 911 for assistance. 9. Vessels must be equipped with a Coast Guard approved holding tank. Live aboards are required to use the pump-out station Monthly. Failure to do so will result in termination of the live aboard agreement. You will move off your . boat or move the boat out of the marina within ten (10) days of non- compliance. A Iiveaboard pump out log will be kept and updated daily. Management may limit the number of live aboards within the Marina. The following factors will be considered in determining the number of live aboards permitted: . Size of boat . Type of boat · Capacity of sanitary facilities at the Marina · Capacity of health facilities at Marina. Having read the above stated rules and regulations, I agree to comply. I understand and agree that the Marina Management may terminate this authorization to live aboard an any time and that failure to comply with all Boat Harbor regulations will result in termination of moorage agreement or authorization to live aboard. Signature Date Authorized Signature Date Marina Management Please note: Authorization is good for a period not to exceed one (1) year from date authorized. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I .. .. PENTEC ENvIRONMENTAL Delivering smarter solutions Port Ludlow Marina Expansion Biological Evaluation Revised Draft Prepared for: Reid Middleton, Inc. Prepared by: Pentec Environmental Project No. 007-040 120 Third Avenue S, Suite 110 Edmonds, W A 98020 (425) 775-4682 November 15, 2001 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Port Ludlow Marina Expansion Biological Evaluation Revised Draft Prepared for: Reid Middleton, Inc. 728 -134th Street SW, Suite 200 Everett, WA 98204 Prepared by: RobertE. Stuart Pentec Environmental Project No. 007-040 120 Third Avenue S, Suite 110 Edmonds, WA 98020 (425) 775-4682 November 15, 2001 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Introduction............................................................................................................ 1 2.0 Project Oescri ption ..................................................... ........................................... 3 2.1 Location and Description of Project Area ...................................................................... 3 2.2 Action Area.................................................................................................................... 3 2.3 Project Description ......................................................................................................... 3 2.4 Project Schedule............................................................................................................. 4 3.0 Species and Ha bitat............... ................................................................................ 6 3.1 Species Information........................................................................................................ 6 3.1.1 Chinook Salmon............................... ..... .................................................. ...... ..... 7 3.1.2 Coho Salmon......... .................. ..... ...................................................................... 9 3.1.3 Chum Salmon............... ...................................................................... .............. 10 3.1.4 Bull Trout (Native Char) .................................................................................. 12 3.1.5 Bald Eagle ....... .................................................................................................. 13 3.1.6 Marbled Murrelet.............................................................................................. 15 3.1.7 Steller Sea Lion......... ...................... ................................................................. 17 3.2 Existing Environmental Conditions ............................................................................. 19 3 .2.1 Noise................................................................................................................. 20 3.2.2 Water Quality and Stormwater .........................................................................20 3.2.3 Sediment Quality ........................................... .................... ............................... 21 3.2.4 Habitat.............................................................................................................. 22 3.2.5 Biota................................................................................................................. 24 4.0 Effects of the Action ............................................................................................ 27 4.1 Effects Analysis................. ............................................................................... ............ 27 4.1.1 Construction Disturbances............................. .... ............................................... 27 g 4.1.2 Water Quality .................... ............................................................................... 30 4.1.3 Sediment Quality ................................................................... ............... ............ 31 4.1.4 Habitat Conditions. .......................................................................... ................. 31 4.1.5 Biota................................................................................................................. 33 November 15, 2001 00007\040\ptludlowmarinabe_r.doc:res page ii I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) 4.1.6 Net Effects of Action ...................... ......... ......................................................... 35 4.1.7 Cumulative, Interdependent, and Interrelated Effects ...................................... 36 4.2 Take Analysis............................................................................................................... 37 4.3 Conservation Measures................................................................................................ 37 4.4 Determination of Effects.............................................................................................. 38 4.4.1 Salmonids ......................................................................................... ................ 38 4.4.2 Birds............................................................................ ..................................... 39 4.4.3 Marine Mammals................... ........................................................................... 39 5.0 References................. ........... ............. .......................... .................... ....... ............... 40 Figures Tables Appendices: A-Agency Response to Information Request B-Photographs C-Eelgrass Survey D-Assessment of Essential Fish Habitat for the Port Ludlow Marina Expansion Project November 15, 2001 00007\040\ptludlowmarinabe3.doc:res page iii I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Site vicinity map. Figure 2 Plan view of proposed marina. Figure 3 Timing of salmon freshwater life phases in the Qui1cene Basin. Figure 4 Foragefish spawning areas. LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Pathways and indicators for evaluating salmon habitat in the urban estuary. Table 2 Summary of sediment metals concentrations (mglkg) in Port Ludlow Marina sediments collected between 1987 and 1995 compared with their respective Sediment Quality Standards. Table 3 Net effects of the action on relevant pathways and indicators. November 15, 2001 00007\040\ptludlowmarinabe_r.doc:res pageiv I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I PENTr-c PORT LUDLOW MARINA EXPANSION BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION 1.0 INTRODUCTION The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) formalized the listing of Puget Sound chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and Hood Canal summer-run chum salmon (0. ketal as threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) on May 24, 1999, and March 25, 1999, respectively. NMFS has designated the coho salmon (0. kisutch) as a candidate for listing. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) listed bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) in Puget Sound as threatened, effective December 1, 1999. Section 7 of the ESA requires that any action by a federal agency is "not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any [listed] species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat of such species...." The Port Ludlow Marina Expansion project qualifies as such an action. Under ESA Section 7(c), the lead federal agency, in this case the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), must prepare a biological evaluation (BE) of the potential influence of its action (permitting the expansion of the Port Ludlow Marina) on listed species or their critical habitat. Depending on the conclusion of the BE, the Corps may be required to confer formally with NMFS or USFWS regarding the project. This BE is being prepared for Corps review and possible submittal to NMFS and USFWS as an aid to ESA decision-making regarding the potential effects of the Port Ludlow Marina Expansion project. This BE addresses the potential effects of the proposed project on chinook salmon, coho salmon, and bull trout, and their habitat. In addition, the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) and marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus) are federally listed threatened species that may occur in the project area and are addressed in this BE. The. Steller sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus), which has not been reported in, nor is it considered likely to be found in, Port Ludlow, is also addressed in this BE because of its status as a threatened species. Other threatened or endangered species that may occur in Puget Sound include the humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae; endangered) and the leatherback turtle (Dermochelys coriacea; endangered). However, these species are extremely unlikely to occur in the project area (defined November 15, 2001 00007\040\ptludlowmarinabe _r.doc:res page 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Port Ludlow Marina Expansion PENTEC in Section 2.1) and are therefore not covered in this BE. Appendix A provides copies of agency correspondence regarding listed species that may occur in the project area. November 15, 2001 00007\040\ptludlowmarinabe _r.doc:res page 2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Port Ludlow Marina Expansion PENTr-c 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.1 LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AREA The "project area" is where the proposed action will take place. In this case, Port Ludlow Marina is located in Port Ludlow Bay, Jefferson County, Washington (Township 28 North, Range 01 East, Section 16) (Figures 1 and 2). Port Ludlow Bay, located on the west shore of Admiralty Inlet at the mouth of Hood Canal, is a 2.2-square mile, J-shaped tidal basin. The bay extends from the mouth of Ludlow Creek 3.5 miles to Admiralty Inlet. The eastern approach to the bay is characterized by a submerged sill having an average depth of 24 feet mean sea level (MSL). This sill forms a submerged basin open to the north. The average depth at the mouth of the bay is 82 feet. From this point, the bottom of the basin slopes upward for a distance of 0.5 mile to a depth of 50 to 60 feet. From here, the depth of the bay remains fairly uniform between 50 and 60 feet throughout most of its length to within 0.5 mile of Ludlow Creek. The innermost 0.5 mile of the bay has an average depth of 16 feet MSL (Jefferson County 1993). 2.2 ACTION AREA The action area includes the project area and all the areas surrounding the proposed activity up to where effects related to the activity will no longer be felt (Corps 2001). Because pile driving will occur as part of the proposed activity, noise resulting from the pile driving may affect listed avian species as far as 1 mile from the project area (Corps 2001). Therefore the action area is defined as the area within a I-mile radius of the project area. 2.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Port Ludlow Marina has 300 slips in its current configuration and can accommodate vessels up to 170 feet in length. Under the proposed marina expansion, 100 slips will be added, with slips varying in length from 35 to 60 feet. The proposed expansion will create an additional 33,745 square feet (sf) of overwater structure. Of this total, only 966 sf of new overwater structure will be located at water depths of less than 20 feet. The remaining 32,779 sf will be November 15,2001 00007\04O\ptludlowmarinabe _r.doc:res page 3 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Port Ludlow Marina Expansion PENTC-C located at water depths of 20 feet or greater. Ninety-five steel piles will be installed using a barge-mounted pile driver. Only one of the piles will be located in water of less than 20 feet. An existing kayak float within the marina will also be upgraded. Currently there are two floats, connected together, that are designated for all kayaks and cover approximately 1,600 sf (Appendix B, Photo 7). The proposed replacement kayak float will be 2,850 sf and constructed using plastic pontoons for floatation and timber for the decking and connection system. The float cross section will consist of three pontoons. A space will be left open between each of the pontoons in the cross section. The new float design will incorporate light-transmission panels. The two gaps between the three pontoons will be spanned by grating or sandblasted plexiglass instea,d of timber decking, which will allow light to penetrate beneath the float. Currently a 680-sf dinghy dock is located at C dock at the junction of the main walkway and the lateral. The dinghy dock completely covers this area and extends between the walkway and the first finger to the south. The proposed new dinghy dock will be 300 sf. The floats will be 6 feet wide and attach to the sides of the main walkway and the C-dock lateral, opening up a side space between the dinghy dock and the first finger (Figure 2). Pile-driving equipment will be barge-mounted and will be either a diesel-powered hammer or vibratory driver. Pile-driving equipment will be sized according to the geotechnical characteristics of the substrate. The barge will be sized to accommodate the equipment used during the pile driving. The one piling to be installed in shallow water (18 to 20 feet deep) will be shorter than those to be installed in deeper water, requiring less energy to install than the pilings in deeper water. Installing the one piling in shallow water will take less than 1 day, minimizing the time of potential disturbance of any salmonids that may be present in the nearshore area. The remaining piles will be installed at water depths of greater than 34 feet. The barge will be maintained at sufficient depth to ensure that it will not ground. 2.4 PROJECT SCHEDULE It is anticipated that the work will begin in the late summer of 2002 and will require about 6 months to complete. To protect Puget Sound chinook salmon and Hood Canal summer-run chum salmon, in water work will not occur between March 1 and July 1, and no in water work will occur between February 16 and July 15 to protect bull trout (native char). November 15, 2001 00007\040\ptludlowmarinabe_r.doc:res page 4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Port Ludlow Marina Expansion PENTr-c The nearest recorded bald eagle nesting area to the Port Ludlow Marina is located approximately 4,900 feet west of the marina (Guggenmos, L., Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife [WDFW], pers. comm., 2000). Based on the proximity of a bald eagle nesting area, construction could possibly be restricted to a period outside of the nesting period of January 1 through August 15 (USFWS 1999a). Wintering bald eagles may occur within the action area, so that a no-construction window of October 31 through March 31 may potentially apply as well (USFWS 1999a). November 15, 2001 00007\040\ptludlowmarinabe_r.doc:res page 5 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Port Ludlow Marina Expansion PENTr-c 3.0 SPECIES AND HABITAT 3.1 SPECIES INFORMATION The action area has been defined as the area within a I-mile radius of the project area. Although no studies have been conducted on the river of origin of juvenile salmonids in Port Ludlow, it expected that salmonid use of Port Ludlow is extensive. Port Ludlow is located at the mouth of Hood Canal; thus, chinook salmon, coho salmon, and summer-run chum salmon, along with other salmonids from a number of river basins within the Hood Canal basin, may use Port Ludlow. The listed Hood Canal summer-run chum salmon are known to use the area, and Puget Sound chinook salmon likely use Port Ludlow (Cameron, R., WDFW, pers. comm., 2000). The larger rivers within the Hood Canal basin with summer-run chum, chinook salmon, and/or coho salmon include the Skokomish, Hamma Hamma, Duckabush, Dosewallips, and Quilcene river systems. The river basin closest to Port Ludlow that contains both Puget Sound chinook salmon and Hood Canal summer-run chum salmon is the Quilcene River system, located roughly 38 miles south of Port Ludlow, draining to Quilcene Bay on Hood Canal. The river contains runs of fall chinook, coho, and summer-run chum salmon (Williams et al. 1975). For purposes of this assessment the Quilcene River system is considered to be a representative source of chinook salmon, summer-run chum salmon, and coho salmon that occur in the action area. Surveys conducted in the Big Quilcene River indicate that there is not a distinct bull trout/Dolly Varden (see Section 3.1.4.2) stock in the river (WDFW 1998a). Hood Canal bull trout/Dolly Varden are currently separated into three distinct stocks, all located within the Skokomish River basin (WDFW 1998a). Thus, any bull trout that may occur in Ludlow Bay originate in rivers other than the Quilcene River system. In addition to chinook and coho salmon and bull trout, the bald eagle and marbled murrelet may also occur in the project vicinity. The life histories and stock status of these avian species are also discussed in this document. Discussion of Steller sea lions, which have not been recorded in Port Ludlow, but could potentially occur, is also included. November 15, 2001 00007\040\ptludlowmarinabe_r.doc:res page 6 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Port Ludlow Marina Expansion PENTC-C 3.1.1 Chinook Salmon 3.1.1.1 Life History Chinook salmon prefer to spawn and rear in the mainstem of rivers and larger streams (Williams et al. 1975, Healey 1991). In the Quilcene River system, the Big Quilcene River is the only system containing sufficient flows during the late summer-early fall spawning migration period to accommodate a sustained run of fall chinook. Occasionally a few chinook are observed spawning in the Little Quilcene River, although it is felt that these are strays from the run destined for the Big Quilcene. This is an introduced stock of chinook and a large portion of adult retum~ is attributed to hatchery production (Williams et al. 1975). The adult chinook spawning migration begins in early September and continues into mid-October. Spawning commences in mid-September and terminates early in November. The Federal Fish Hatchery at river mile (RM) 2.8 at the mouth of Penny Creek is the upper limit of salmon migration. The lower 2 miles of the river provide excellent spawning habitat and is used extensively by chinook spawners. Following incubation and subsequent emergence, the majority of chinook fry rear in the system from 90 to 120 days before entering the estuary, with the major outmigration between April and June (Figure 3) (Williams et al. 1975). In watersheds with an unaltered estuary, chinook smolts spend a prolonged period (several days to several weeks) during their spring outmigration feeding in saltmarshes and distributary channels as they transition gradually into more marine waters (Simenstad et al. 1982). Chinook fry and subyearlings in saltmarsh and other shallow habitat predominantly prey on emergent insects and epibenthic crustaceans such as gammarid amphipods, mysids, and cumaceans. As chinook mature and move to neritic habitat, they feed on small nekton (decapod larvae, larval and juvenile fish, and euphausiids) and neustonic drift insects (Simenstad et al. 1982; see also detailed life history review by Healey 1991). 3.1.1.2 Stock Status No stock status information was found for the Quilcene River system fall chinook stock. Because hatchery stocks have been mixed with wild chinook populations within the Hood Canal basin, Hood Canal chinook have been combined into a single stock for the purposes of stock November 15, 2001 00007\040\ptludlowmarinabe_r.doc:res page 7 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Port Ludlow Marina Expansion PENTC-C assessment (WDFW and WWTIT 1994). As of 1992, the stock status of the Hood Canal chinook salmon stock was rated as healthy (WDFW and WWTIT 1994). 3.1.1.3 Critical Habitat NMFS designated critical habitat for Puget Sound chinook salmon and Hood Canal summer-run chum salmon on February 16, 2000 (50 CFR Part 226). Critical habitat is defined in Section 3(5)(A) of the ESA as "(i) the specific areas within the geographic area occupied by the species.. .on which are found those physical or biological features (1) essential to the conservation of the species and (II) which may require special management considerations or protection; and (ii) specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species... upon a determination by the Secretary of Commerce that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species" (50 CFR Part 226). In designating critical habitat, NMFS considers the following requirements of the species: (1) space for individual and population growth, and for normal behavior; (2) food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or physiological requirements; (3) cover or shelter; (4) sites for breeding, reproduction, or rearing of offspring; and, generally, (5) habitats that are protected from disturbance or are representative of the historical geographical and ecological distributions of the species. In addition to these factors, NMFS also focuses on the known physical and biological features (primary constituent elements) within the designated area that are essential to the conservation of the species and that may require special management considerations or protections. These essential features may include, but are not limited to, spawning sites, food resources, water quality and quantity, and riparian vegetation (50 CFR Part 226). In Puget Sound, designated critical habitat for chinook salmon includes all marine, estuarine, and river reaches accessible to the listed species. Puget Sound marine areas include South Sound, Hood Canal, and North Sound to the international boundary at the outer extent of the Strait of Georgia, Haro Strait, and the Strait of Juan de Fuca, to a straight line extending north from the west end of Freshwater Bay, inclusive (50 CFR Part 226). Thus, all ofthe waters within the project area are designated as critical habitat for chinook salmon. November 15. 2001 00007\040\ptludlowmarinabe _r.doc:res page 8 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Port Ludlow Marina Expansion PENTC-C 3.1.2 Coho Salmon 3.1.2.1 Life History All accessible streams and tributaries draining the upper Hood Canal-Straits basin are used by coho salmon. Spawning occurs in almost every stream area where suitable spawning habitat and conditions permit, including the mainstem of the Big Quilcene River up to the diversion dam barrier at RM 9.4, and in the mainstem Little Quilcene River up to the City of Port Townsend diversion dam at RM 7.1 (Williams et al. 1975). Mature coho begin entering the basin streams in early October, with the peak of migration occurring in early November; spawning extends over the period from later October until the end of December. The fry emerge from the gravel starting in early March and generally remain in the system for more than a year. The normal outmigration occurs in the second year of freshwater existence from late February to mid-April (Figure 3) (Williams et al. 1975). Because of their larger size when entering salt water, coho are generally considered less dependent on estuarine rearing than chinook or chum salmon (Simenstad et al. 1982). Coho tend to move through estuaries more rapidly, using deeper waters along shorelines. Feeding is primarily on planktonic or small nektonic organisms, including decapod larvae, larval and juvenile fish, and euphausiids (Miller et al. 1976, Simenstad et al. 1982). Coho also eat drift insects and epibenthic gammarid amphipods, especially in turbid estuaries (see detailed life history review by Sandercock 1991). Ludlow Creek is the largest subbasin within the Port Ludlow Bay watershed and contributes the greatest discharge of fresh water (FishPro 1993). Waterfalls that occur approximately 1,800 feet upstream of the mouth of the creek serve as a migration barrier to anadromous salmonids. Fish usage of this lower section of Ludlow Creek is documented for coho and chum salmon as spawning and rearing habitat. Field surveys by Washington State Department of Fisheries (WDF; now WDFW) biologists were conducted in the lower 0.5 mile of Ludlow Creek during 1974, 1975, and 1984. Surveys indicated that both coho and chum salmon spawn in this section of the creek, although natural propagation of these species is limited by the short length of stream available (FishPro 1993). Data from 1974 indicated that the highest number of salmon spawning included 23 coho and 14 chum (FishPro 1993). No salmonids were observed in November 15, 2001 00007\040\ptludlowmarinabe _r.doc:res page 9 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Port Ludlow Marina Expansion PENTK Ludlow Creek during surveys conducted in 1984 and 1986 by WDF (Egan, R., WDFW, pers. comm., 2000). Currently it is believed that no native runs occur in the creek (Egan, R., WDFW, pers. comm., 2000). 3.1.2.2 Stock Status The status of the Hood Canal-Qui1cene/Dabob bays coho stock was considered depressed as of 1992 (WDFW and WWTIT 1994). 3.1.2.3 Critical Habitat No critical habitat has been proposed for Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia coho salmon. 3.1.3 Chum Salmon 3.1.3.1 Life History Chum salmon spend more of their life history in marine waters than other Pacific salmonids. Chum salmon, like pink salmon, usually spawn in coastal areas, and juveniles outrnigrate to salt water almost immediately after emerging from the gravel (Johnson et al. 1997). This ocean-type migratory behavior contrasts with the stream-type behavior of some other species in the genus Oncorhynchus (e.g., coho salmon and most types of chinook and sockeye salmon), which usually migrate to sea at a larger size, after months or years of freshwater rearing. It is believed that survival and growth in juvenile chum salmon depend less on freshwater conditions than on favorable estuarine conditions (Johnson et al. 1997). Chum salmon may enter natal river systems from June to March, depending on characteristics of the population or geographic location (Johnson et al. 1997). Of primary focus is the Hood Canal summer chum salmon, with spawning runs occurring between early September and mid-October (Johnson et al. 1997). Two distinct runs of spawning chum salmon are found in the Quilcene River basin in upper Hood Canal. The early run (summer) enters the system in later September and spawns from October 1 to 20, while the late-run (fall) spawners move upstream into the system the first week of November and spawn from mid-November to mid-December (Figure 3) (Williams et al. 1975). November 15, 2001 00007\040\ptludlowmarinabe _r.doc:res page 10 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Port Ludlow Marina Expansion PENTC-C Chum salmon juveniles, like other anadromous salmonids, use estuaries to feed before beginning long-distance ocean migrations. However, chum and ocean-type chinook salmon usually have longer residence times in estuaries than do other anadromous salmonids. The period of estuarine residence appears to the most critical phase in the life history of chum salmon and appears to playa major role in determining the size of the subsequent adult run back to fresh water (Johnson et al. 1997). Simenstad et al. (1982) summarized the diets of juvenile salmonids in 16 estuaries and concluded that small (:5 50- to 60-mm fork length [FL]) juvenile chum salmon feed primarily on such epibenthic crustaceans as harpacticoids copepods, gammarid amphipods, and isopods, whereas large juveniles (>60-mm FL) in neritic habitats feed on drift insects and on such plankton as calanoid copepods, larvaceans, and hyperiid amphipods. However, the early diet of juvenile chum salmon at localities also consists exclusively of neritic zooplankton. Surveys conducted by WDF in 1974 reported 14 chum salmon spawning in the lower reach of Ludlow Creek below the waterfalls (FishPro 1993). However, no chum salmon were reported in surveys conducted by WDF in 1984 and 1986 (Egan, R., WDFW, pers. comm., 2000). In the past, private citizens have attempted enhancement projects.for chum salmon in the lower section of Ludlow Creek, but have had minimal success (FishPro 1993). Currently, it is believed that the creek does not support native chum salmon runs (Egan, R., WDFW, pers. comm., 2000). 3.1.3.2 Stock Status No stock status information was found for summer-run chum salmon specific to the Quilcene River system, but instead the stock status for the entire Hood Canal summer-run chum salmon stock was assessed. Hood Canal summer chum spawn primarily in the Big Quilcene, Dosewallips, Duckabush, and Hamma Hamma rivers. As of 1992, this stock was classified as critical (WDFW and WWTIT 1994). 3.1.3.3 Critical Habitat Designated critical habitat for Hood Canal summer-run chum salmon includes all river reaches accessible to listed chum salmon (including estuarine areas and tributaries) draining into Hood Canal as well as Olympic Peninsula rivers between and including Hood Canal and November 15, 2001 00007\040\ptludlowmarinabe _r.doc:res page 11 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Port Ludlow Marina Expansion PENTC-C Dungeness Bay. Also included are estuarine/marine areas of Hood Canal, Admiralty Inlet, and the Strait of Juan de Fuca to the international boundary and as far west as a straight line extending north from Dungeness Bay. Excluded are areas above Cushman Dam on the Skokomish River and above naturally impassable barriers (50 CFR Part 226). 3.1.4 Bull Trout (Native Char) 3.1.4.1 Life History Newly hatched anadromous bull trout emerge from the gravel in the spring (WDFW 1998b). They typically spend 2 years in fresh water before they migrate to salt water, the mainstem of rivers, or reservoirs, although there are populations of bull trout that do not exhibit this behavior; these trout spend their entire lives in the same stretch of headwater stream. These fish may not mature until they are 7 to 8 years old, and rarely reach sizes greater than 14 inches in length (WDFW 1998b). Bull trout typically use pristine headwater areas to spawn (WDFW 1998b). Spawning begins in late August, peaks in September and October, and ends in November. Fish in a given stream spawn over a period of 2 weeks or less. Almost immediately after spawning, adults begin to work their way back to the mainstem rivers, lakes, or reservoirs to overwinter. Some of these fish stay in these areas while others move into salt water in the spring. Bull trout will spawn a second or even third time. Kelts feed aggressively to recover from the stress of spawning (WDFW 1998b). Bull trout are opportunistic feeders, eating aquatic insects, shrimp, snails, leeches, fish eggs, and fish. Early beliefs that these fish are serious predators of salmon and steelhead are generally not supported today (WDFW 1998b). Any bull trout that may occur in the action area likely originate from rivers other than the Quilcene River system, which does not have distinct stock of bull trout/Dolly Varden (WDFW 1998a). November 15, 2001 00007\040\ptludlowmarinabe 3.doc:res page 12 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Port Ludlow Marina Expansion PENTC-C 3.1.4.2 Stock Status The status and occurrence of anadromous populations of bull trout in Puget Sound are subject to some scientific debate; separation of anadromous bull trout from the closely related anadromous Dolly Varden char (s. malma) is very difficult and can only be accomplished using electrophoretic techniques (Leary and Allendorf 1997). The lead WDFW char biologist believes that there is one species of native char in the Puget Sound region that may have fluvial, adfluvial, and anadromous components in any given river system (Kraemer, C., WDFW, pers. comm., April 4, 2000). Until further resolution is possible, WDFW has made a decision to manage all Puget Sound stocks as if they were a single bull trout/Dolly Varden (native char) complex (Washington Department of Wildlife [WDW; now WDFW] 1993). 3.1.4.3 Critical Habitat The USFWS does not have sufficient information to conduct analyses required to determine critical habitat for bull trout (native char) in Puget Sound. As a result, the service has not yet proposed or designated critical habitat (Chan, J., USFWS, pers. comm., March 22, 2000; USFWS 1999b). 3.1.5 Bald Eagle 3.1.5.1 Life History Bald eagles historically ranged throughout North America except extreme northern Alaska and Canada and central and southern Mexico. The bald eagle's habitat includes estuaries, large lakes, rivers, and coastal areas. In Washington, resident bald eagle populations occur primarily near large bodies of water west of the Cascade Mountains (Rodrick and Milner 1991). Bald eagles are known to occur in the Puget Sound area. Nest trees are typically, but not always, tall conifers with most nest trees located within 1 mile of large bodies of water with adequate food supplies (Anthony et al. 1982). The diet of bald eagles at a site in Puget Sound (Discovery Park) has been studied by watching birds as they hunt and return with prey to an active nest site (Parametrix 1992-1995 and 1996). Marine and freshwater fish were identified as the preferred prey of these eagles during November 15, 2001 00007\040\ptludlowmarinabe_r.doc:res page 13 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Port Ludlow Marina Expansion PENTC-C five seasons of observation, comprising over 84 percent of all captures and deliveries. Birds contributed a much smaller proportion (7.3 percent) of the eagles' diet. Fish species that were identified visually when the adult eagles were observed feeding their young included salmonids, catfish, pollock, cod, rockfish, carp, dogfish, sculpin, perch, and hake. Eagle foraging is best described as opportunistic, as they will take advantage of whatever prey is easiest to obtain. Bald eagles generally begin courtship activities in November. Copulation occurs from December to March, with egg laying and incubation during March. Eggs usually hatch in April and brooding occurs through June. Eaglets generally fledge in June or July. Adults often depart from the nesting area in August. They return the following fall to commence the nesting cycle. Time .fluctuations in breeding activity can be attributed to weather changes affecting foraging or nest success (Parametrix 1992, 1993a, 1994, 1995, 1996). 3.1.5.2 Population Status After World War II, bald eagle populations declined significantly, largely as a result of the use of organochlorine pesticides and loss of nesting habitat (USFWS 1999c). In 1963, only 417 nesting pairs of bald eagles were known to occur in the lower 48 states. In 1978, the bald eagle was listed as an endangered species in the continental United States, except in Washington, Oregon, Minnesota, and Wisconsin, where it was listed as threatened (USFWS 1986). Due to recovery efforts, there are now an estimated 5,478 nesting pairs in the continental United States (USFWS 1999c). As a result, biologists believe that the bald eagle may no longer require special protection under the ESA. In July 1999, the USFWS proposed to remove the bald eagle from the list of threatened and endangered species. A final decision on delisting was expected in July 2000; however, that decision is still pending. 3.1.5.3 Critical Habitat No critical habitat has been designated for bald eagles in Puget Sound. November 15, 2001 00007\040\ptludlowmarinabe J.doc:res page 14 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Port Ludlow Marina Expansion PENTC-C 3.1.5.4 Preliminary Effects Determination Proposed project activities will be confined to limited intertidal and subtidal areas and will not significantly affect eagle foraging areas or prey. Thus, the proposed action may affect, but is not likely to directly or indirectly adversely affect, bald eagles that may occur in the project vicinity. Also, no interrelated or interdependent actions are expected to affect bald eagles. No further discussion of the effects of the project on the species is warranted or included in this document. 3.1.6 Marbled Murrelet 3.1.6.1 Life History The marbled murrelet, a small seabird that nests in the coastalj old-growth forests of the Pacific Northwest, inhabits the Pacific coast of North America from the Bering Sea to central California. In contrast to other seabirds, murrelets do not form dense colonies, and may fly 70 km or more inland to nest, generally in older coniferous forests. They are more commonly found inland during the summer breeding season, but make daily trips to the ocean to gather food, primarily fish and invertebrates, and have been detected in forests throughout the year. When not nesting, the birds live at sea, spending their days feeding and then moving several kilometers offshore at night (SEl 1999). The breeding season of the marbled murrelet generally begins in April, with most egg laying occurring in late May and early June. Peak hatching occurs in July after a 27- to 30-day incubation. Chicks remain in the nest and are fed by both parents. By the end of August, chicks have fledged and dispersed from nesting areas (Marks and Bishop 1999). The marbled murre let differs from other seabirds in that its primary nesting habitat is old-growth coniferous forest , within 50 to 75 miles of the coast. The nest typically consists of a depression on a moss-covered branch where a single egg is laid. Marbled murrelets appear to exhibit high fidelity to their nesting areas, and have been observed in forest stands for up to 20 years (Marks and Bishop 1999). Marbled murrelets have not been known to nest in other habitats including alpine forests, bog forests, scrub vegetation, or scree slopes (Marks and Bishop 1999). November 15, 2001 00007\040\ptludlowmarinabe_r.doc:res page 15 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Port Ludlow Marina Expansion PENTC-C Marbled murrelets are presumably long-lived species but are characterized by low fecundity (one egg per nest) and low nesting and fledging success. Fledging success has been estimated at 45 percent. Nest predation on both eggs and chicks appears to be higher for marbled murrelets than for other alcids, and may be cause for concern. Principal predators are birds, primarily corvids Gays, ravens, and crows) (Marks and Bishop 1999). At sea, foraging murrelets are usually found as widely spaced pairs. In some instances murrelets form or join flocks that are often associated with river plumes and currents. These flocks may contain sizable portions of local populations (Ralph and Miller 1999). 3~ 1.6.2 Population Status The total North American population of marbled murrelets is estimated to be 360,000 individuals. Approximately 85 percent of this population breeds along the coast of Alaska. Estimates for Washington, Oregon, and California vary between 16,500 and 35,000 murrelets (Ralph and Miller 1999). In British Columbia, the population was estimated at 45,000 birds in 1990 (Environment Canada 1999). In recent decades the murrelet population in Alaska and British Columbia has apparently suffered a marked decline, by as much as 50 percent. Between 1973 and 1989, the Prince William Sound, Alaska, murrelet population declined 67 percent. Trends in Washington, Oregon, and California are also down,. but the extent of the decrease in unknown. Current data suggest an annual decline of at least 3 to 6 percent throughout the species' range (Ralph and Miller 1999). The most serious limiting factor for marbled murrelets is the loss of habitat through the removal of old-growth forests and fragmentation of forests. Forest fragmentation may be making nests near forest edges vulnerable to predation by other birds such as jays, crows, ravens, and great-horned owls (USFWS 1996). Entanglement in fishing nets is also a limiting factor in coastal areas due to the fact that the areas of salmon fishing and the breeding areas of marbled murrelets overlap. The marbled murrelet is especially vulnerable to oil pollution; in both Alaska and British Columbia, it is considered the seabird most at risk from oil pollution. In 1989, an estimated 8,400 marbled murrelets were killed as a result of the Exxon Valdez oil spill (Marks and Bishop 1999). Marbled murrelets forage in nearshore waters where recreational boats are most often found. Disturbance by boats may cause them to abandon the best feeding areas (Environment Canada 1999). November 15, 2001 00007\040\ptludlowmarinabe _r.doc:res page 16 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Port Ludlow Marina Expansion PENTK 3.1.6.3 Critical Habitat No critical habitat has been designated for the marbled murrelet in Puget Sound. 3.1.6.4 Preliminary Effects Determination Proposed project activities will be confined to limited intertidal and subtidal areas and will not significantly affect murrelet foraging areas or prey. Thus, the proposed action may affect, but is not likely to directly or indirectly adversely affect, marbled murrelets that may occur in the project vicinity. Also, no interrelated or interdependent actions are expected to affect marbled murrelets. No further discussion of the effects of the project on the species is warranted or included in this document. 3.1.7 Steller Sea Lion 3.1.7.1 Life History The Steller sea lion was listed as a threatened species under emergency rule by NMFS in April 1990; final listing for the species became effective in December 1990. Steller sea lion habitat includes both marine and terrestrial areas that are used for a variety of purposes. Terrestrial areas (e.g., beaches) are used as rookeries for pupping and breeding. Rookeries usually occur on beaches with substrates that include sand, gravel, cobble, boulder, and bedrock (NMFS 1992). Haul-out areas are used other than during the breeding and pupping season. Sites used as rookeries may be used as haul-out areas during other times of the year. When Steller sea lions are not using rookery or haul-out areas, they occur in nearshore waters and out over the continental shelf. Some individuals may enter rivers in pursuit of prey (Jameson and Kenyon 1977). Steller sea lions are opportunistic feeders and consume a variety of fishes such as flatfish cod, and rockfish; and invertebrates such as squid and octopus. Demersal and off-bottom schooling fishes predominate (Jones 1981). Steller sea lions along the coasts of Oregon and California have eaten rockfish, hake, flatfish, cusk-eel, squid, and octopus (Fiscus and Baines 1966, Jones 1981, Treacy 1985); rockfish and hake are considered to be consistently important prey items (NMFS 1992). Feeding on lamprey in estuaries and river mouths has also been documented at November 15, 2001 00007\040\ptludlowmarinabe_r.doc:res page 17 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Port Ludlow Marina Expansion PENTC-C sites in Oregon and California (Jones 1981, Treacy 1985). Spalding (1964) and Otesiuk et al. (1990) have documented Steller sea lions feeding on salmon, but they are not considered to be a major prey item (Osborne 1988). The breeding range of Steller sea lions extends from southern California to the Bering Sea (Osborne 1988). Breeding colonies consisting of small numbers of sea lions also exist on the outer coasts of Oregon and British Columbia. There are currently no breeding colonies in Washington State (NMFS 1992), although three major haul-out areas exist on the Washington outer coast and one major haul-out area is located at the Columbia River south jetty (NMFS 1992). Jagged Island and Spit Rock are used as summer haul-outs, and Umatilla Reef is used during the winter (National Marine Mammal Laboratory, unpublished data). Other rocks, reefs, and beaches as well as floating docks, navigational aids, jetties, and breakwaters are also used as haul-out areas (NMFS 1992). Responses to various types of human-induced disturbances have not been specifically studied. Close approach by humans, boats, or aircraft will cause hauled-out sea lions to go into the water. Disturbances that cause stampedes on rookeries may cause trampling and abandonment of pups (Lewis 1987). Areas subjected to repeated disturbance may be permanently abandoned (Kenyon 1962), and/or the repeated disturbance may negatively affect the condition or survival of pups through interruption of normal nursing cycles. Low levels of occasional disturbance may have little long-term effect (NMFS 1992). 3.1.7.2 Population Status The worldwide Steller sea lion population is estimated at just under 200,000, with the majority occurring in Alaska. The range of the Steller sea lion extends around the North Pacific Ocean rim from northern Japan, the Kuril Islands and Okhotsk Sea, through the Aleutian Islands and Bering Sea, along Alaska's southern coast, and south to California (Kenyon and Rice 1961, Loughlin et al. 1984). 3.1.7.3 Critical Habitat No critical habitat for Steller sea lions has been designated in Puget Sound. November 15, 2001 00007\040\ptludlowmarinabe_r.doc:res page 18 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Port Ludlow Marina Expansion PENTC-C 3.1.7.4 Preliminary Effects Determination Steller sea lions are rare in the action area and are not expected to approach the project area because of low prey availability and because they are expected to avoid the relatively constant human activity in the Port Ludlow Marina area. Because of the innate escape responses of marine mammals and the pelagic habitats they use, there is virtually no risk of a direct take or injury that could result from project-related activities. Although Port Ludlow could potentially be used as a haul-out area for Steller sea lions, it would be unusual (Jefferies, S., WDFW, pers. comm., 2000). T~ere are no interrelated or interdependent action effects that are expected to any Steller sea lions that may use the action area. The conclusion of this BE is that the project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, Steller sea lions. No further discussion of the effects of the project on the species is included in this document. 3.2 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS The existing habitat in the action area is described in this section in the context of a series of "pathways" and "indicators" (NMFS 1999). Pathways represent groups of environmental attributes important to anadromous fish and their habitats. Indicators may be either metric (numeric) or descriptive and are measures of how near-optimal the habitat is for the pathway and species in question. Within the context of this BE, the concept of pathways and indicators is useful to frame discussions of how the proposed project will influence (improve, maintain, or degrade) each indicator. A list of pathways and indicators considered in this BE is provided in Table 1. Relevant pathways and indicators are discussed in the following sections. The net effect of an action is considered to be the overall effect on the species and habitat in the long term. For example, a short-term adverse condition (e.g., loss of in fauna during dredging or debris removal) may be necessary to achieve a long-term improvement in benthic habitat and quality; in such a case, the net effect is positive and would contribute toward improvement in the infauna indicator. Moreover, short-term adverse conditions that occur when few or no listed species are present do not constitute adverse modifications of the indicator species' habitat quality. November 15,2001 00007\040\plludlowmarinabe_r.doc:res page 19 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Port Ludlow Marina Expansion PENTEC 3.2.1 Noise Port Ludlow Bay is surrounded by the community of Port Ludlow, which consists of approximately 2,000 year-round residents. Background noise levels are expected to be similar to those that would occur within other residential communities throughout the Puget Sound basin. Existing sources of noise are expected from vehicular traffic, the operation of internal combustion engines associated with various maintenance activities, and other activities that would typically occur in a residential community. Existing activities associated with the Port Ludlow Marina also generate noise within the actio~ area and include boating and float plane traffic. Boating and float plane activities are greatest during the summer months. 3.2.2 Water Quality and Stormwater The Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) has classified all waters of Port Ludlow as Class AA. Water quality monitoring of Port Ludlow Bay since 1984 has demonstrated that overall water quality in Port Ludlow Bay is excellent, consistent with its Class AA designation (Jefferson County 1993). A National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) point-source monitoring program for the Port Ludlow Wastewater Treatment Plant was conducted from 1989 through 1997. This monitoring program documented water quality in Port Ludlow Bay during the environmentally critical months of May through October. The results of the point-source monitoring demonstrated continued excellent water quality in Port Ludlow Bay. The point-source monitoring program is no longer required by Ecology and was discontinued in 1998 (Berryman & Henigar 1999). A program to monitor nonpoint sources of pollutants to Port Ludlow Bay was initiated by Pope Resources, developers of the Port Ludlow Marina. Monitoring has continued since 1989, with the objectives of (1) establishing baseline water quality conditions, (2) evaluating the impacts of development activities and related nonpoint sources, (3) evaluating the effectiveness of nonpoint source controls such as stormwater management systems, and (4) monitoring long-term trends of bay water quality (Berryman & Henigar 1999). Pope Resources conducted November 15, 2001 00007\040\ptludlowmarinabe _r.doc:res page 20 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Port Ludlow Marina Expansion PENTEC its most recent nonpoint monitoring in 1998. This nonpoint-source monitoring program was designed to assess long-term trends in water quality during baseflow and stormflow conditions in the major tributaries to Port Ludlow Bay. Baseflow conditions are generally measured May through October, while stormflow conditions are measured during storm events. During the 1998 monitoring program, stormflow water quality was measured during December. Stations were monitored for flow, fecal coliform, conductivity, dissolved oxygen, pH, turbidity, and temperature. During some years, some stations were monitored for metals and pesticides. No long-term upward or downward trends in constituent concentrations are evident for any of the monitoring stations. Constituent concentrations, for the most part, have not been increasing along. with the increased population density of the watershed. Concentrations of most constituents (e.g., fecal coliform) have been higher during storm events than during baseflows, which is consistent with the findings of other watershed studies (Berryman & Henigar 1999). Concentrations of dissolved and total metals continue to be low during storm events and very low during base flows (Berryman & Henigar 1999). Nutrient (phosphorus and nitrogen) concentrations in the freshwater tributaries are in the typical range for rural watersheds during both baseflow and stormflow. Overall, nutrient loading to Port Ludlow Bay from these tributaries is extremely low (Berryman & Henigar 1999). Based on the results of the nonpoint-source monitoring program, water quality conditions in Port Ludlow Bay do not appear to be adversely impacted by watershed activities (Berryman & Henigar 1999). 3.2.3 Sediment Quality As part of the nonpoint-source monitoring program, sediment samples have been collected from the bay at locations where stormwater discharge is known to occur. Samples were analyzed for a variety of constituents, including oil and grease, total metals, pesticides, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Results of sediment quality monitoring have demonstrated sediment quality to be excellent within Port Ludlow Bay. Pesticides and PCBs were not detected, nor were mercury, selenium, and silver. Of those metals that were detected, November 15, 2001 00007\040\ptludlowmarinabe _r.doc:res page 21 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Port Ludlow Marina Expansion PENTC-C concentrations were well below Washington's Sediment Quality Standards (SQS) (Jefferson County 1993). Sediment samples collected within Port Ludlow Marina between 1987 and 1995 had concentrations of metals that were well below their respective SQS (Table 2) (Vasey Engineering 1995). 3.2.4 Habitat 3.2.4.1 Access/Refugia Juvenile salmonids have largely unrestricted access to and through the action area. Shoreline areas are crossed by elevated, fixed walkways that are relatively narrow (e.g., <8 feet) and are not expected to significantly shade beach areas or interfere with alongshore migration by juvenile salmonids. Port Ludlow Marina has floats that may provide refuge for juvenile salmonids using nearshore areas in the vicinity. Studies by Pentec Environmental (Pentec; 1997), Salo et al. (1980), and Ratte arid Salo (1985) have shown evidence that migrating juvenile salmonids use overwater structures as cover when they are disturbed by overhead activities. These studies also found no evidence that overwater structures in Puget Sound concentrate predators on juvenile salmonids. 3.2.4.2 Substrate Sediments under the manna are relatively fine-grained native sediments (Echelon Engineering 2000). Sediment samples collected in 1995 near the western end of C-dock were described as being black and anoxic and composed primarily of sand and shell fragments (Vasey Engineering 1995). Substrate available to organisms' is modified by growth of green algae (Ulva spp.) and probably several other species on cobbles in the middle and lower intertidal zone. No eelgrass has been reported in the action area. Eelgrass is generally present on suitable. substrates (sand/silt) at depths between mean lower low water (MLLW) and about -18 feet MLLW in the central Puget Sound region; however, an underwater survey conducted on December 10, 1999, found no eelgrass under the existing marina or in areas that would be directly affected by the project (Echelon Engineering 2000). An eelgrass survey conducted by Pentec on September 12, 2001, also found no eelgrass at suitable water depths. Existing November 15,2001 00007\040\ptludlowmarinabe _r.doc:res page 22 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Port Ludlow Marina Expansion PENTr-C pilings of the dock provide an additional substrate type that supports a dense epibiota dominated by barnacles and mussels in the intertidal zone. Hydroids, tubeworms, and anemones are expected to be the dominant piling organisms below about MLLW. Existing floats support dense growths of a variety of plants and animals, as well as some eelgrass, and can be expected to provide a rich feeding ground for migrating salmon (e.g., Kozloff 1987) (Appendix B, Photos 1, 2, and 8). 3.2.4.3 Slope The Port Ludlow Marina was constructed in the late 1970s, and the boat basin was created by dred~ng. The slope of the substrate beneath the marina was created as a result of the initial dredging. Existing underwater slopes that will not be modified by the proposed action range from 13 to 22 percent. Underwater slopes in the area of the new docks rangefrom 16 percent at the new D dock to 1.5 to 3 percent along the entire length of the new outer docks. The beach is composed of quarry spall and small riprap (Appendix B, Photos 3 through 6, and Photo 9). At the seaward extent of the marina, the slope decreases, with depths at the outer margin of the marina between 35 and 40 feet. From this point, there is a gradual slope to the middle of Port Ludlow Bay where bottoms depths vary between 50 and 60 feet. Most of the marina expansion will occur along the outer margin of the marina in water depths of 35 to ~40 feet. 3.2.4.4 Flow/Current Patterns The location, geometry, and orientation of Port Ludlow Bay is such that the strong offshore ebb-and-flood tidal currents in Admiralty Inlet create a large eddy in the outer portion of Port Ludlow Bay that appears to reverse direction with each tidal stage. Waters from Admiralty Inlet are drawn into the bay under a wide variety of tidal conditions. Current measurements, drogue observations, and salt balance calculations made in 1984 and 1986 indicated that the outer bay eddy is accompanied by a complex pattern of currents that exert influence into the central portion of the bay. Significantly more water is circulated into and out of the bay due to eddies and currents than would be the case if only a simple ebb-and-flood pattern existed. As a consequence, the bay may be better mixed and better flushed than many bays within Puget November 15, 2001 00007\040\ptludlowmarinabe _r.doc:res page 23 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Port Ludlow Marina Expansion PENTr-C Sound. Mixing is further enhanced by vertical currents and upwelling at the entrance and head of Port Ludlow Bay (Jefferson County 1993). Flushing of the bay is caused by tidal currents, fresh water from streams and rainfall, wind-mixing of the surface water, and local vertical mixing. Salt balance calculations indicated that the volume of water exchanged daily between Port Ludlow and Admiralty Inlet average 39 percent per day and vary from 20 to 50 percent of the total volume ofthe bay, dependent upon the time of year and prevailing tidal range. The time to exchange the water volume of the bay, including the innermost reaches, was estimated to be between 2 to 5 days. Localized portions of the bay may have longer or shorter flushing rates. The flushing time for the outer bay has been estimated to be 9 hours on average (Jefferson County 1993). 3.2.5 Biota 3.2.5.1 Prey-Epibenthic Zooplankton Epibenthic zooplankton, primarily crustaceans, and terrestrial insects are important prey for juvenile chinook salmon in estuaries (Simenstad et al. 1988, Healey 1991). Several of the habitat indicators listed above are important in determining the productivity and composition of the epibenthic community. No studies have been conducted within the action area that have examined benthic and epibenthic biota. 3.2.5.2 Prey-Pelagic Zooplankton Calanoid copepods are often abundant in the diet of juvenile chinook salmon in urban estuaries (Weitkamp and Schadt 1982). Production of calanoids and other potential pelagic prey of salmonids is largely dependent on water-column processes in outer Port Ludlow and adjacent marine waters. Pelagic zooplankton productivity is dependent on the presence of adequate light and nutrients to stimulate phytoplankton and is not influenced greatly by conditions along shorelines or in deeper water in the vicinity of the Port Ludlow Marina. November 15, 2001 00007\040\ptludlowmarinabe_r.doc:res page 24 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Port Ludlow Marina Expansion PENTC-C 3.2.5.3 Prey-Forage Fish Larval, juvenile, and adult Pacific herring (Clupea pallasi), surf smelt (Hypomesus pretiosus), and Pacific sand lance (Ammodytes hexapterus) are important forage fish for juvenile, sub adult, and adult salmonids (Healey 1991). Alteration of spawning habitat for these species may directly affect the abundance of forage for a range of age groups of chinook salmon. Surf smelt and sand lance spawn within Port Ludlow (Figure 4); however, there are no data indicating that spawning occurs within the project area (Bargmann, G., WDFW, pers. comm., 2000). A very large school of juvenile herring (e.g., 100 to 150 mm) was seen foraging in the west-central portion of the marina during a site visit on December 10, 1999. 3.2.5.4 Vegetation Eelgrass beds are recognized as habitats of statewide significance due to their high production rates of prey for salmonids and other fishes, for the structural diversity they provide, and as a site for herring spawning (e.g., Simenstad et al. 1988). Macroalgae also are recognized as a contributor to habitat complexity and primary productivity. In contrast to eelgrass, macro algae readily colonizes all appropriate rocky, cobble, or artificial substrates. Particular macroalgal beds (e.g., kelp forests) have more specific habitat needs. Aquatic vegetation occurs in the action area primarily attached to intertidal cobbles, docks, and pilings. No benthic eelgrass or kelp beds are reported within the project area (Echelon Engineering 2000), but macroalgae and eelgrass are both found on existing floats within the manna. Ulva sp. and Mastocarpus sp. were identified along the lower intertidal shoreline immediately north of the marina during visits on December 10, 1999, and February 9, 2000. Shoreline vegetation observed along the upper intertidal area north of the marina included pickleweed (Salicornia virginica), seaside plantain (Plantago maritima), gumweed (Grindelia integrifolia), fleshy jaumea (Jaumea carnosa), and saltweed (A triplex patula). An eelgrass survey was conducted by Pentec on September 12, 2001 (Appendix C). The survey conformed to the WDFW's preliminary protocols for conducting macrophytes surveys. The survey was confined to the fuel-dock and D-dock areas. Areas under the proposed offshore docks were not surveyed, because the depth of the water at which these proposed docks will be placed was not expected to support eelgrass. November 15, 2001 00007\040\ptludlowmarinabe _r.doc:res page 25 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Port Ludlow Marina Expansion PENTC-C No eelgrass was found during the survey. Laminaria saccharina and Ulva lactuca were the only macrophytes reported during the survey; however, abundance of these species was reported to be low. 3.2.5.5 Ecological Diversity Ecological diversity is an abstract concept relating to the variety of habitats and assemblages present in a given area. A greater ecological diversity is often considered to reflect a more stable, productive, and/or healthy ecosystem, although the tie to habitat quality for salmon is theoretical, not empirical. No studies have been conducted within the action area investigating ecological diver~ity; however, it is expected to be moderate to high, based on the diversity of habitats present and the gradient of conditions from the Ludlow Creek estuary to the deep central portion of Port Ludlow itself. November 15, 2001 00007\040\ptludlowmarinabe_r.doc:res page 26 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Port Ludlow Marina Expansion PENTr-C 4.0 EFFECTS OF THE ACTION 4.1 EFFECTS ANALYSIS This section discusses short-term and long-term, direct and indirect effects of the Port Ludlow Marina expansion project activities, as well as the net effects of those activities on salmonids listed and proposed for listing under ESA. Only those pathways and their associated indicators that are likely to be affected by the project in some way are discussed in this section. A primary factor reducing the risk of impact to juvenile salmonids is the restriction of inwater activities to periods when few juveniles will be present in the work area. No reports have been found that suggest that adult salmonids would be vulnerable to impact or take from the types of activities included in the proposed action. Net effect is considered to be the overall effect on the species and habitat in the long term. The net effects ofthe proposed project on each indicator are summarized in Table 3. 4.1.1 Construction Disturbances 4.1.1.1 Short-Term Effects Direct Effects-Approximately 95 steel pilings will be installed as part of the marina expansion project. Piles will be installed using a barge-mounted pile driver. Feist et al. (1996) investigated the impacts of pile driving on juvenile pink and chum salmon behavior and distribution in Everett Harbor, Washington. The authors reported that there may be changes in general behavior and school size, and that fish appeared to be driven toward the acoustically isolated side of the site during pile driving. However, the prevalence of fish schools did not change significantly with and without pile driving, and schools were often observed about the pile-driving rigs themselves. No impacts on feeding were reported. The study concluded that any effects of pile-driving noise on juvenile salmonid fitness would be very difficult to measure quantitatively. Once the pilings are in place, pre-constructed sections of walkways and finger piers will be floated into place and assembled. No significant noise or disturbance will be generated by these actions. Because the proposed inwater construction would occur outside of November 15, 2001 00007\040\ptludlowmarinabe _r.doc:res page 27 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Port Ludlow Marina Expansion PENTr-C time periods when significant numbers of juvenile salmonids are expected to be present, no significant effect or take is expected from project construction activities. Ambient noise levels will likely increase during pile-driving activities and may temporarily disrupt foraging behavior of bald eagles in the vicinity ofthe project area. The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) conducted monitoring studies to determine the potential impacts on wintering eagles associated with pile-driving activities at Orcas and Shaw Islands in San Juan County, Washington, from December 15, 1986, through March 15, 1987 (Bottorff et al. 1987). Each of the monitoring areas was associated with a Washington State ferry terminal, thus background noise sources included ferry whistles, boat motors, chain saws, aircraft, and other cons~ction noises including front end loaders, cranes, generators, diesel trucks, hammers, and other general noise sources associated with construction areas. Noise readings were taken at the construction sites and various intermediate points out to about 6,000 feet from the construction sites. Driving of wood piles did not visibly disturb the eagles observed during the course of the study. A steel pile, which produces some of the loudest noises during pile-driving activities, may have disturbed a bald eagle at a distance of 4,000 feet. However, this same pair of eagles had been in the same location during the driving of two steel piles earlier in the day and exhibited no visible disturbance reaction. The eagle pair returned to their preferred perch and no further adverse reactions were observed, even after over 100 wood piles were driven (Bottorff et al. 1987). According to the authors, between 0.25 and 0.5 mile from the construction site and beyond, construction noises were similar in level to background noise. Environmental factors such as wind and wave action, movement of tree branches and forest litter, barking dogs, bird noises, automobiles, airplanes, human voices, woodcutting, light construction activities, boats, and other unidentified noise sources create ambient noise levels that are similar to noise levels produced by pile driving at distances of 0.25 to 0.5 mile away from the point source (Bottorff et al. 1987). WSDOT also monitored noise levels during pile-driving activities at their Anacortes facility (Visconty, S., Washington State Ferries, pers. comm., March 9,2000). For comparison purposes, background noise levels were monitored at the Friday Harbor terminal. At the Friday Harbor terminal, ambient noise levels around the closest bald eagle nest (located near the terminal) November 15, 2001 00007\040\ptludlowmarinabe _r.doc:res page 28 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Port Ludlow Marina Expansion PENTC-C ranged between 45 and 72 dBA, 40 to 51 dBA for local harbor traffic noise, and 69 to 74 dBA from use of a 100-ton crane at the terminal. Pile-driving noise at the Anacortes facility ranged from 105 to 115 dBA at 15 m (50 feet) from the noise source. Noise levels were highest when a pile was first driven and decreased near completion because of a reduction of exposed surface area and increased stiffness as the pile became more embedded (Visconty, S., Washington State Ferries, pers. comm., March 9, 2000). Simultaneous readings taken at several distances to determine propagation loss at Anacortes indicated a 6-dBA decrease in sound pressure for every doubling of distance. Given this information, at 560 m (1,850 feet) from the noise source at Anacortes, the sound was 70 dBA, well within measured background ambient noise levels recorded at the Friday Harbor terminal (Visconty, S., Washington State Ferries, pers. comm., March 3, 2000). The nearest recorded bald eagle nesting area to the Port Ludlow Marina is located approximately 4,900 feet west of the marina (Guggenmos, L., WDFW, pers. comm., 2000). It is likely that residential development within the Port Ludlow area produces background noise levels typical of other communities of similar population and size. Indirect Effects-No short-term indirect effects due to construction disturbances are anticipated. 4.1.1.2 Long-Term Effects No long-term direct or indirect effects due to construction disturbances are anticipated. 4.1.1.3 Net Effects Pile driving will result in a brief period of increased noise during the Port Ludlow Marina expansion project, possibly causing salmonids and other species to avoid certain areas in the vicinity of the marina during active pile driving. This possible impact is only temporary and will not persist beyond the construction period and will not result in significant or measurable take of juvenile salmonids. Therefore, the net effect of pile driving and removal is to maintain noise levels in the project area (Table 3). November 15, 2001 00007\040\ptludlowmarinabe_r.doc:res page 29 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Port Ludlow Marina Expansion PENTr-C 4.1.2 Water Quality 4.1.2.1 Short-Term Effects Direct Effects-Pile driving may produce temporary and localized impacts to water quality. Elevated turbidity plumes are likely to occur in the immediate vicinity of the pile driving. However, the majority of the pile-driving activities will occur at water depths of 35 to 40 feet, away from intertidal areas that are used predominantly by juvenile salmonids. Because of the depth of the water where pilings will be installed, it is highly unlikely that any increased turbidity due to pile driving will affect areas frequented by juvenile salmonids. Pile-driving activities are not e~pected to appreciably affect dissolved oxygen concentrations in the project area. Juvenile salmon have been shown to avoid areas of unacceptably high turbidities (e.g., Servizi 1988), although they may seek out areas of moderate turbidity (10 to 80 NTU), presumably as cover against predation (Cyrus and Blaber 1987a,b). Feeding efficiency of juveniles is also impaired by turbidities in excess of 70 NTU, well below sublethal stress levels (Bisson and Bilby 1982). Reduced preference by adult salmon homing to spawning areas has been demonstrated where turbidities exceed 30 NTU (20 mgll suspended sediments). However, chinook salmon exposed to 650 mgll of suspended volcanic ash were still able to find their natal water (Whitman et al. 1982). Based on these data, it is highly unlikely that the locally elevated turbidities generated by the proposed action will directly affect juvenile or adult salmonids that may be present. Sediment chemistry data from the marina indicate that sediments beneath the marina do not contain elevated concentrations of any organic chemicals or metals. Pile driving, therefore, will not compromise water quality by the resuspension of contaminants in the water column. Indirect Effects-Few, if any, juvenilesalmonids are expected in the action area during construction activities; also, few adult chinook salmon or bull trout are expected in the project area during construction. Short-term and localized decreases in dissolved oxygen or increases in turbidity due to project construction may result in avoidance of immediate work areas. Should this avoidance occur, it would have only insignificant and unmeasurable effects on salmonids. November 15, 2001 00007\040\ptludlowmarinabe _r.doc:res page 30 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Port Ludlow Marina Expansion PENTEC 4.1.2.2 Long-Term Effects No long-term direct or indirect effects to water quality are anticipated for any of the construction activities proposed in the project area. 4.1.2.3 Net Effects Short-term effects resulting from increased turbidity may be expected during pile driving, but these effects due to sediment resuspension are expected to be only temporary, with no long-term effects. Therefore, the net effect of pile driving and installation is to maintain water quality in the project area (Table 3). 4.1.3 Sediment Quality 4.1.3.1 Short-Term Effects No short-term direct or indirect effects to sediment quality from pile-driving activities are anticipated in the project area. 4.1.3.2 Long-Term Effects No long-term direct or indirect effects to sediment quality from pile-driving activities are anticipated in the project area. 4.1.4 Habitat Conditions 4.1.4.1 Short-Term Effects No short-term direct or indirect effects to habitat conditions from pile-driving or other marina expansion activities are anticipated in the project area. 4.1.4.2 Long-Term Effects No long-term direct or indirect effects to habitat conditions from pile-driving or other marina expansion activities are anticipated in the project area. The square footage of overwater coverage November 15, 2001 00007\040\ptludlowmarinabe_r.doc:res page 31 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Port Ludlow Marina Expansion PENTC-C of deep water in the Port Ludlow Marina will be increased by 33,745 sfas part of the expansion project. Approximately 100 slips will be added to the existing marina facilities. Studies by Pentec (1997), Salo et al. (1980), and Ratte and Salo (1985) have shown evidence that migrating juvenile salmonids use overwater structures as cover when they are disturbed by overhead activities. These studies also found no evidence that overwater structures in Puget Sound concentrate predators on juvenile salmonids. The margins of new floating structures will support growth of a productive epibiota that will add to the overall biological production of the project area. Simenstad et al. (1999) examined the potential impacts of ferry terminal on juvenile salmon migrating along Puget Sound shorelines. The authors addressed three issues regarding the impacts of overwater structures on juvenile salmon: (1) alteration in migratory behavior, (2) reduction in prey production and availability, and (3) increased predation. An assessment of over 60 direct sources of information found evidence that juvenile salmon react to shadows and other artifacts in the shoreline environment created by shoreline structures. While changes in light have been shown to affect salmon migration behavior and thus potentially place them at increased mortality risk, the authors reported that they found no quantitative information on the significance of these behavioral responses to juvenile salmon survival. Juvenile salmon also encounter limited prey resources under shoreline structures when important habitats such as eelgrass (Zostera marina) are disturbed. Modifications to light, temperature, salinity, nutrient levels, and wave action beneath an overwater structure influence the rate of photosynthesis, plant distribution, and survival of specific plant species that directly or indirectly support prey resource composition and production. Despite considerable speculation about increased predation around docks, quantitative evidence for significant increases in predation on salmon associated with docks is lacking. Simenstad et al. (1999) also conducted short-term underwater diving and video surveys at five ferry terminals in Puget Sound (Clinton, Kingston, Port Townsend, Seattle, Vashon) during the major period of juvenile salmon migration to gather preliminary information on the relationships among variations in overwater structures, fish occurrence and relative abundance, light conditions, biological communities, and potential predators. Juvenile salmon were observed migrating under several structures. Existing information indicates that the effects of shoreline structures on migrating juvenile salmon may vary, depending on the design and November 15, 2001 00007\040\ptludlowmarinabe_r.doc:res page 32 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Port Ludlow Marina Expansion PENTEC orientation of the shoreline structure, extent of alteration of the underwater light field, and presence of artificial light. The surveys indicated that summer light intensities were above the critical 10-4 foot candles threshold level required for maintenance of juvenile salmon feeding and schooling, even under the darkest portion of the terminal, at four of the five terminals investigated. However, according to the authors, our understanding of the significance of short-term delays in the salmons' migration and cumulative or synergistic effects is insufficient to provide the quantitative relationships that would be necessary as the basis for developing retrofitting or design modifications to overwater structures. 4.1.4.3 Net Effects The Port Ludlow Marina expansion will not impact fish access, fish refugia, substrate, shoreline, riparian conditions, flow and hydrology, current patterns, or saltwater-freshwater mixing patterns, nor will it result in other habitat disturbances (Table 3). 4.1.5 Biota 4.1.5.1 Short-Term Effects No short-term effects to biota from the Port Ludlow Marina expansion are expected in the project area. 4.1.5.2 Long-Term Effects Direct Effects-The installation of 95 steel pilings in the project area at water depths of 18 to 40 feet will result in the destruction of benthic habitat within the footprint of each piling. Assuming that each piling is approximately 60 cm in diameter, the area covered by the foot of each piling is about 0.283 m2, or 26.9 m2 for 95 pilings. Benthic habitat within the footprint of each piling will be permanently destroyed. However, the pilings will provide additional surface area for colonization by marine plants and animals. Colonization by marine algae will, in turn, provide additional habitat for juvenile fish and invertebrates. Furthermore, adjacent benthic habitat will continue to provide ample foraging habitat for juvenile salmonids that may occur in the project area. November 15, 2001 00007\040\ptludlowmarinabe_r.doc:res page 33 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Port Ludlow Marina Expansion PENTr-C Expansion of the Port Ludlow Marina will result in an increase in the area of overwater structure within the project area, which will in turn result in increased shading of predominantly deep (>35 feet) subtidal habitats beneath the structures. Under existing conditions, the project area does not provide substantial habitat for aquatic vegetation except on marina floats and on intertidal hard structures. Increased shading of underlying substrates may result in minor decreases in microalgae and benthic productivity in the area directly beneath the new floats; however, the floats will also provide substantial additional surface area for colonization by aquatic vegetation and invertebrates. The Washington State Department of Fisheries conducted a study of Skyline Marina in north Puget .Sound in which fish, zooplankton, and water quality characteristics were compared to the marina's source water in monthly surveys conducted from March to October 1978 (Cardwell et al. 1980). The study concluded that the marina's fish populations were numerically larger, more diverse, and richer in species than those in the bay. The majority of the Pacific herring, coho salmon, and chinook salmon were captured within the marina, whereas most chum and pink salmon were captured in Burrows Bay. An experimental release of chum salmon fry into the marina suggested rapid emigration and a median residence time of one week or less. Predation on baitfish and salmon juveniles in the marina was judged to be low due to an apparent scarcity of potential bird and fish predators during the period of maximum juvenile fish abundance (May to September) (Cardwell et al. 1980). Surface zooplankton in the marina were less dense and rich in species than those in the bay, and several holoplanktonic species (e.g., siphonophores and tunicates) were either absent or present in reduced densities. Calanoid copepods, the primary prey of chum and pink salmon, surf smelt, and Pacific herring, were most abundant in the bay. Conversely, the principal prey of chinook and coho salmon, brachyura and teleost larvae, were most abundant in the marina (Cardwell et al. 1980). Illumination of the Port Ludlow Marina at night with artificial lighting is not expected to adversely impact salmonids that may use the marina area. Salo et al. (1977, as cited in Parametrix 1993b) and Prinslow et al. (1979, as cited in Parametrix 1993b) studied the effects of artificial lighting along the edges of a pier apron on Hood Canal. However, this study considered only the effects of lights at night. Young salmon, as well as other fish, were attracted to the November 15, 2001 00007\040\ptludlowmarinabe_r.doc:res page 34 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Port Ludlow Marina Expansion PENTr-C lighted areas at the edge of the aprons. In this situation, the lights were hung from the apron edges and directed at the water's surface. Light levels as low as 0.2 foot candles (ft-c) at the water surface caused young chum salmon to be attracted from an area of 5 to 10m during nighttime periods. These light levels also attracted young herring and sand lance. Light levels of 19 to 37 ft-c attracted substantial numbers of chum salmon and other fish. These attractions of young fish were to areas adjacent to the piers rather than under the aprons. Ratte and Salo (1985, as cited in Parametrix 1993b) studied the effects of artificial lighting under a Port of Tacoma pier apron. Generally they obtained higher catches in traps with the lights off than with the lights on. These results suggest that young salmon tended to avoid the artificjally lighted area to some degree. Indirect Effects-No adverse long-term, indirect effects on biota are expected to result from the proposed action. 4.1.5.3 Net Effects The expansion of the Port Ludlow Marina will result in biota in the project area generally being maintained in their current condition, but will increase the substrate available for colonization by plants and animals. Floats and upper portions of pilings will support production of epibenthic zooplankton preferred as prey by juvenile salmonids (e.g., Kozloff 1987) (Table 3). 4.1.6 Net Effects of Action The net effect of the proposed Port Ludlow Marina expansion will be to maintain all of the indicators for each of the six pathways in their current conditions. Short-term, localized, and minimal water quality degradation during pile driving will not impact habitat for juvenile salmonids because of seasonal work restrictions; thus, current water quality conditions will be maintained in the long term. November 15, 2001 00007\040\ptludlowmarinabe _r.doc:res page 35 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Port Ludlow Marina Expansion PENTr-C 4.1.7 Cumulative, Interdependent, and Interrelated Effects 4.1.7.1 Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects are those effects of future state or private activities, not involving activities of other federal agencies, that are reasonably certain to occur within the action area of the federal action subject to consultation (50 CFR 402.02 Definitions). Future federal actions that are unrelated to the proposed action are not considered in this section because they require separate consultation pursuant to Section 7 of the ESA. No significant future state or private activities have been identified in the Port Ludlow area. 4:1.7.2 Interdependent and Interrelated Effects Interrelated and interdependent actions are those actions associated with the proposed action and either are part of a larger complete action or have no independent utility apart from the proposed action. The direct and indirect effects of the interrelated and interdependent actions are considered along with those of the proposed action. The interrelated and interdependent actions are considered an integral part of the proposed action, such that if not for the proposed action, the interrelated and interdependent actions would not exist. The proposed expansion of the Port Ludlow Marina may include interrelated and interdependent actions to the extent that this project will likely result in increased boating activity in Port Ludlow Bay in the vicinity of the marina. Expansion of the Port Ludlow Marina to 100 additional slips will result in an increase in the number of vessels moored in the marina, as well as increased human activity and vessel traffic within the marina and Port Ludlow Bay. Increasing the number of vessels moored in the marina will also increase the area of deep-water substrate beneath the vessels that is shaded; however, because of water depths (>35 feet), increased shading is not expected to adversely affect habitat or biota in the project area. Because substantial boating activity already occurs within Port Ludlow and the marina, the expected increase in boat traffic is not anticipated to result in any adverse impacts to listed species in the project area or in Port Ludlow Bay. The increase in boating traffic within the marina will increase the potential for water pollution from boating-related activities (e.g., oil, transmission fluid, gasoline, and diesel spills). November 15, 2001 00007\040\ptludlowmarinabe_r.doc:res page 36 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Port Ludlow Marina Expansion PENTr-C Ecology and the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) regulate activities (including those that could negatively impact water quality) of commercial and recreational vessels operating in coastal waterways. These regulations include prohibiting bilge and sewage discharge, and requiring that any hazardous material spilled (i.e., diesel, gasoline, oil, and transmission fluid) be reported to marina authorities, Ecology, and the USCG. In the event a hazardous material is spilled into the marina, the marina has a hazardous-spill response plan and the appropriate equipment to contain and cleanup any spills (Port Ludlow Marina 1999). 4.2 TAKE ANALYSIS Section 3 of the ESA defines take as "to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, trap, capture, collect or attempt to engage in any such conduct." Under the ESA, "harm" is further defined as "significant habitat modification or degradation that results in death or injury to listed species by significantly impairing behavior patterns such as breeding, feeding, or sheltering," and "harass" as "actions that create the likelihood of injury to listed species to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavior patterns which include, but are not limited to breeding, feeding or sheltering." The proposed Port Ludlow Marina expansion project is unlikely to significantly modify or degrade habitat in the action area and is unlikely to impair or disrupt normal behavior patterns involving breeding, feeding, or sheltering. Therefore, the proposed Port Ludlow Marina expansion project is not expected to result in the taking of chinook salmon, Hood Canal summer-run chum salmon, coho salmon, or bull trout. 4.3 CONSERVATION MEASURES No significant or measurable effects are predicted from the proposed action. However, a number of conservation measures have been incorporated in the marina expansion project. Steel pilings will be used instead of treated wood pilings to prevent the introduction of any chemical contaminants that could leach from treated wood pilings. Light-transmission panels will be used on the proposed replacement kayak float, which will allow light to penetrate beneath the float. Furthermore, construction activities will occur when juvenile salmonids are not likely to be present in the project area. November 15, 2001 00007\040\ptludlowmarinabe _r.doc:res page 37 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Port Ludlow Marina Expansion PENTC-C The existing water and sediment quality monitoring plan, which monitors water and sediment quality in the marina and throughout Port Ludlow Bay, will continue after the marina expansion project. Water and sediment quality data collected since 1989 indicate that water and sediment quality throughout Port Ludlow meet or exceed state standards. Continued monitoring will provide a means to assess future trends in environmental quality within Port Ludlow Bay. The marina expansion will also include the purchase of two portable pump-outsfor use on C, D, E, and F docks. The availability of portable units will minimize the potential of discharging gray and/or black water into the bay. 4.4 DETERMINATION OF EFFECTS NMFSIUSFWS guidelines for the preparation of BEs states that a conclusion of "may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect" is the".. .appropriate conclusion when the effects on the species or critical habitat are expected to be beneficial, discountable, or insignificant. Beneficial effects have contemporaneous positive effects without any adverse effects...." Insignificant effects, in the NMFSIUSFWS definition, ".. .relate to the size of the impacts and should never reach the size where take occurs... [One would not expect to]...be able to meaningfully measure, detect, or evaluate insignificant effects." Based on the analyses in this BE, this is the expected nature and level of impact of implementation of the proposed project. 4.4.1 Salmonids The Port Ludlow Marina expansion project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, juvenile chinook, Hood Canal summer-run chum salmon, coho salmon, or bull trout (native char). While the conclusion is focused on chinook salmon and chum salmon, it is applicable to coho salmon and bull trout (native char) as well; however, because of their presumed lesser dependence on nearshore habitat, these species will be less affected by both the negative and positive aspects of each project component. The proposed action will result in no adverse modification or destruction of designated chinook or Hood Canal summer-run chum critical habitat. No measurable effects and no take of salmonids are expected. November 15, 2001 00007\040\ptludlowmarinabe_r.doc:res page 38 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Port Ludlow Marina Expansion PENTEC 4.4.2 Birds The proposed action may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, bald eagles' or marbled murrelets, or their critical habitat. 4.4.3 Marine Mammals The proposed action may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, the Steller sea lion or its critical habitat. November 15,2001 00007\040\ptludlowmarinabe_r.doc:res page 39 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Port Ludlow Marina Expansion PENTr-C 5.0 REFERENCES Anthony, RO., RL. Knight, G.T. Allen, B.R McClelland, and J.l. Hodges, 1982. Habitat Use by Nesting and Roosting Bald Eagles in the Pacific Northwest. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference, 47:332-342. Berryman & Henigar, 1999. Port Ludlow Non-Point Monitoring Program, 1998 Report. Prepared for Olympic Real Estate Development, Poulsbo, Washington, by Berryman & Henigar, Seattle, Washington. Bisson, P.A., and RE. Bilby, 1982. Avoidance of Suspended Sediment by Juvenile Coho Salmon. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 4:371-374. Bottorff, J., J. Schafer, D. Swanson, A. Elston, and D. Anderson, 1987. Noise Disturbance Study on Bald Eagles at Orcas and Shaw Island Ferry Terminals San Juan County, Washington. Washington State Department of Transportation, Olympia. Cardwell, RD., S.J. Olsen, M.l. Carr, and E.W. Sanborn, 1980. Biotic, Water Quality, and Hydrologic Characteristics of Skyline Marina in 1978. Washington State Department of Fisheries, Technical Report No. 54, Olympia. Corps (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers), 2001. Working Document for Preparation of a Biological Evaluation (BE) or Biological Assessment (BA). CENWS-OD-RG. Version: February 5, 2001. Cyrus, D.P., and S.J.M. Blaber, 1987a. The Influence of Turbidity on Juvenile Marine Fishes in Estuaries. Part 1: Field Studies at Lake St. Lucia on the Southeastern Coast of Africa. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 109:53-70. Cyrus, D.P., and S.J.M. Blaber, 1987b. The Influence of Turbidity on Juvenile Marine Fishes in Estuaries. Part 2: Laboratory Studies, Comparisons with Field Data and Conclusions. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 109:71-91. November 15,2001 00007\040\ptludlowmarinabe _r.doc:res page 40 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Port Ludlow Marina Expansion PENTr-C Echelon Engineering, Inc., January 11, 2000. Letter from S.D. Sommerfeld, Echelon Engineering, Inc., Seattle, Washington, to S. Kinsella, Reid Middleton, Inc., Everett, Washington. Environment Canada, 1999. Marbled Murrelet [online report]. Environment Canada, Quebec. http://www.speciesatrisk.gc.ca/Species/English/SearchDetail.cfm ?SpecieslD=3 9. Feist, B.E., J.J. Anderson, and R Miyamoto, 1996. Potential Impacts of Pile Driving on Juvenile Pink (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha) and Chum (0. keta) Salmon Behavior and Distribution. University of Washington, School of Fisheries, Fisheries Research Institute, FRI-UW -9603, Seattle. FishPro, 1993. Pope Resources Fisheries Resource Assessment for the Port Ludlow Development Program. FishPro, Port Orchard, Washington. Fiscus, C., and G. Baines, 1966. Food and Feeding Behavior of Steller and California Sea Lions. Journal ofMammology, 47:195-200. Healey, M.C., 1991. Life History of Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). Pages 311-394 in C. Groot and L. Margolis, editors. Pacific Salmon Life Histories. UBC Press, Vancouver, BC, Canada. Jameson, RJ., and K.W. Kenyon, 1977. Prey of Sea Lions in the Rogue River, Oregon. Journal of Mammology, 58:672. Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners, 1993. Final Environmental hnpact Statement for the Inn at Port Ludlow and the Port Ludlow Development Program. Jefferson County, Port Townsend, Washington. Johnson, O.W., W.S. Grant, R.G. Cope, K. Neely, F.W. Waknitz, and R.S. Waples, 1997. Status Review of Chum Salmon from Washington, Oregon, and California. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-32, Washington, D.C. November 15, 2001 00007\040\ptludlowmarinabe J.doc:res page 41 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Port Ludlow Marina Expansion PENTr-C Jones, RE., 1981. Food Habits of Smaller Marine Mammals from Northern California. Proceedings of the California Academy of Science, 42:409-433. Kenyon, K.W., 1962. History of the Steller Sea Lion at the PribilofIslands, Alaska. Journal of Mammology,43:68-75. Kenyon, K.W., and D.W. Rice, 1961. Abundance and Distribution of the Steller Sea Lion. Journal ofMammology, 42:223-234. Kozloff, E.N., 1987. Marine Invertebrates of the Pacific Northwest. University of Washington Press, Seattle. Leary, RF., and F.W. Allendorf, 1997. Genetic Confirmation ofSympatric Bull Trout and Dolly Varden in Western Washington. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 126:715-720. Lewis, 1., 1987. An Evaluation of Census-Related Distribution of Steller Sea Lions. Master's thesis, University of Alaska, Fairbanks. Loughlin, T., D. Righ, and C. Fiscus, 1984. Northern Sea Lion Distribution and Abundance: 1956-1980. Wildlife Management, 48:729-740. Marks, D., and M.A. Bishop, 1999. Interim Report for Field Work Conducted May 1996 to May 1997: Habitat and Biological Assessment Shepard Point Road Project - Status of the Marbled Murrelet along the Proposed Shepard Point Road corridor [online report]. U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Copper River Delta Institute, Cordova, Alaska. http://www.pwssc.gen.ak.us/-shepard/ docs/reports/interim/96mur.html. Miller, B.S., B.B. McCain, R.C. Wingert, S.F. Borton, and K.V. Pierce, 1976. Ecological and Disease Studies of Fishes near Metro Operated Sewage Treatment Plants on Puget Sound and the Duwamish River. University of Washington, School of Fisheries, Fisheries Research Institute, FRI-7608, Seattle. November 15, 2001 00007\040\ptludlowmarinabe_r.doc:res page 42 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Port Ludlow Marina Expansion PENTC-C NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service), 1992. Report to Congress on Washington State Marine Mammals. NMFS, Silver Springs, Maryland. NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service), 1999. A Guideto Biological Assessments. NMFS, Washington Habitat Conservation Branch, Lacey, Washington. Osborne, R., 1988. Marine Mammals of Greater Puget Sound. The Whale Museum, Seattle, Washington. Otesiuk, P., M. Bigg, G. Ellis, S. Crockford, and R. Wigen, 1990. An Assessment ofthe Feeding Habits of Harbor Seals (phoca vitulina) in the Strait of Georgia, British Columbia, Based on Scat Analysis. Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences No. 1730. Parametrix, 1992. Bald Eagle Monitoring, 1989-1991. 1991 Annual report to Metro. Prepared by Parametrix, Inc., Bellevue, Washington. Parametrix, 1993a. Bald Eagle Monitoring, 1992. 1992 Annual report to Metro. Prepared by Parametrix, Inc., Bellevue, Washington. Parametrix, 1993b. Light and Juvenile Salmon Under Pier Aprons - Literature Review. Prepared by Parametrix, Inc., Bellevue, Washington. Parametrix, 1994. Bald Eagle Monitoring, 1993. 1993 Annual report to Metro. Prepared by Parametrix, Inc., Bellevue, Washington. Parametrix, 1995. Bald Eagle Monitoring, 1994. 1994 Annual report to Metro. Prepared by Parametrix, Inc., Bellevue, Washington. Parametrix, 1996. Bald Eagle Monitoring, 1995. 1995 Annual report to Metro. Prepared by Parametrix, Inc., Bellevue, Washington. Pentec (Pentec Environmental, Inc.), 1997. Movement of juvenile Salmon Through Industrialized Areas of Everett Harbor. Prepared for Port of Everett, Washington. November 15,2001 00007\040\ptludlowmarinabe _r.doc:res page 43 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Port Ludlow Marina Expansion PENTC-C Port Ludlow Marina, 1999. Best Management Practices Handbook. Port Ludlow Marina, Port Ludlow, Washington. Ralph, C.J., and S. Miller, 1999. 1994 research Highlight: Marbled Murrelet Conservation Assessment [online report]. U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Redwood Sciences Laboratory, Arcata, California. http://www.pswfs.gov/highlights/ 94murrelet.html. Ratte, L.D., and E.O. Salo, 1985. Under-Pier Ecology of Juvenile Pacific Salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.) in Commencement Bay, Washington. University of Washington, Fisheries Research Institute, School of Fisheries, FRI-UW-8508, Seattle. Rodrick, E., and R. Milner, technical editors, 1991. Management Recommendations for Washington's Priority Habitats and Species. Washington State Department of Wildlife, Olympia. Salo, E.O., N.J. Bax, T.E. Prinslow, C.J. Whitmus, B.P. Snyder, and C.A. Simenstad, 1980. The Effects of Construction of Naval Facilities on the Outmigration of Juvenile Salmonids from Hood Canal, Washington, Final Report. University of Washington, Fisheries Research Institute, FRI-UW-8006, Seattle. Sandercock, S.K., 1991. Life History of Coho Salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch). Pages 397-445 in C. Groot and L. Margolis, editors. Pacific salmon life histories. UBC Press, Vancouver, Canada. SEl (Sustainable Ecosystem Institute), 1999. Endangered Species: Marbled Murrelet [online report]. SE1, Portland, Oregon. http://www.sei.orglmurrelet.html. Servizi, J.A., 1988. Sublethal Effects of Dredged Sediments on Juvenile Salmon. Pages 57-63 in C.A. Simenstad, editor. Effects of dredging on anadromous Pacific Coast fishes. University of Washington, Seattle. Simenstad, C.A., J.R. Cordell, RC. Wissmar, K.L. Fresh, S. Schroder, M. Carr, and M. Berg, 1988. Assemblages Structure, Microhabitat Distribution, and Food Web Linkages of November 15, 2001 00007\040\ptludlowmarinabe _r.doc:res page 44 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Port Ludlow Marina Expansion PENTC-C Epibenthic Crustaceans in Padilla Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve, Washington. NOAA Technical Report Series OCRM/MEMD, FRI-UW-8813, University of Washington, Seattle. Simenstad, C.A., K.L. Fresh, and RO. Salo, 1982. The Role of Puget Sound and Washington Coastal Estuaries in the Life History of Pacific Salmon: An Unappreciated Function. Pages 343-364 in V.S. Kennedy, editor. Estuarine Comparisons. Academic Press, New York. Simenstad, C.A., B.J. Nightingale, RM. Thom, and D.K. Shreffler, 1999. Impacts of Ferry Terminals on Juvenile Salmon Migration along Puget Sound Shorelines, Phase 1; Synthesis o~ State of Knowledge (Research Project T9903, Task A2). Prepared for the Washington State Transportation Commission, Olympia. Spalding, D.J., 1964. Comparative Feeding Habits of the Fur Seal, Sea Lion, and Harbour Seal on the British Columbia Coast. Bulletin of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada, 146:1-52. Treacy, S.D., 1985. Feeding Habits of Marine Mammals from Grays Harbor, Washington to Netarts Bay, Oregon. Pages 149-198 in R Beach, A. Geiger, S. Je, and B. Troutman, editors. Marine Mammals and their Interactions with Fisheries of the Columbia River and Adjacent Waters. Northwest Alaska Fisheries Center, Proc. Report 85-04, Mountlake Terrace, Washington. USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service), 1986. Recovery Plan for the Bald Eagle. USFWS, Portland, Oregon. USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service), 1996. Primarily Federal Lands Identified as Critical for Rare Seabird; Minimal Effects Predicted from Habitat Designation [online report]. USFWS, Portland, Oregon. http://www.rl.fws.gov/news/9625nr.htm. USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service), 1999a. Biological Assessment Preparation and Review: A Workshop Sponsored by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. USFWS, Western Washington Office, Lacey. November 15, 2001 00007\040\ptludlowmarinabe_r.doc:res page 45 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Port Ludlow Marina Expansion PENTr-C USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service), 1999b. Bull Trout and Endangered Species Act Commonly Asked Questions and Answers [online report]. USFWS, Washington, D.C. http://www.rl.fws.gov/new/bulltrout/bulltqa_fnl.htm. USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service), 1999c. The Bald Eagle is Back [online report]. USFWS, Washington, D.C. http://www.fws.gov. Vasey Engineering, July 6, 1995. Letter from A. Law, Vasey Engineering, Seattle, Washington, to L. Mueller, Pope Resources, Poulsbo, Washington. WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife), 1998a. 1998 Washington Salmonid Stock Inventory: Appendix - Bull Trout and Dolly Varden. WDFW, Olympia. WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife), 1998b. Washington's Native Chars [online report]. WDFW, Olympia. http://www.wa.gov/wdfw/outreach/fishinglchar.htm. WDFW and WWTIT (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and Western Washington Treaty Indian Tribes), 1994. 1992 Washington State Salmon and Steelhead Stock Inventory. Appendix One: Puget Sound Stocks. WDFW and WWTIT, Olympia. WDW (Washington State Department of Wildlife), 1993. Bull Trout/Dolly Varden: Management and Recovery Plan. WDW, Fisheries Management Division, Olympia. Weitkamp, D.E., and T.H. Schadt, 1982. 1980 Juvenile Salmonid Study. Prepared for the Port of Seattle, Document No. 82-0415-0 12F, by Parametrix, Inc., Bellevue, Washington. Whitman, R.P., T.P. Quinn, and E.L. Brannon, 1982. Influence of Suspended Volcanic Ash on Homing Behavior of Adult Chinook Salmon. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 111 :63-69. Williams, R.W., RM. Laramie, and J.J. Ames, 1975. A Catalog of Washington Streams and Salmon Utilization, Volume 1, Puget Sound Region. Washington State Department of Fisheries, Olympia. November 15, 2001 00007\040\ptludlowmarinabe_r.doc:res page 46 I I I I FIGURES I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Map prepared from USGS 7.5 Minute Quadrangle Port Ludlow, Washington APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET ,.-...-_ - I O' 1000' 2000' 4000' Pentec. Port Ludlow Marina Expansion BE Port Ludlow, Washington for Reid Middleton Figure 1 Site vicinity map. ENVIRONMENTAL 01/24/00 Fig_1.FH8 ------------------- 11/12/20011:23 pm b\24\H\OI4\0ESlGN\f'f UIdIow _\48'4-03.d.g C '"U r- > Z C '"U o ::D -t r- C C r- o ~ m > -< \ (' 'J \ \ ", \..... ........ s " ~ Z;;a 2! S a 8 ~'ij~I w-:r.t ~ u>8 . ~; i";!:l nJ:: t!il~ -oc p'" , ~,., i. -; ., . PORT LUDLOW ASSOC~TES PORT LUDLOW MARINA EXPANSION FEASIBILITY F1gure 2 72B lJ41h Street Sf . Suite 200 EverelI, WoshingIon 98204 Ph: 425 741-3800 2001 JARPA - ALTERNATIVE 2 Reid iddleton Plan view of proposed marlna. NO. DAft .., REVISION I I Port Ludlow Marina Expansion I PENIr-C Figure 3 Timing of salmon freshwater life phases in the Quilcene Basin. I Species Freshwater Life Phase Spring Chinook Upstream migration I Spawning Intragravel develop. I Juvenile rearing Juv. outmigration I Summer-Fall Chinook Upstream migration Spawning Intragravel develop. Juvenile rearing Juv. outmigration I I Coho Upstream migration Spawning Intragravel develop. Juvenile rearing Juv.outmigration I I Chum Upstream migration Spawning Intragravel develop. Juvenile rearing Juv. outmigration I I I I I I I July 6, 2000 00007\040\ptludlowmarinatbls.doc:res I J F M A S o N o 00OO7\04O\flgUre3.xls I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I \ J \_.,;J Map prepared from USGS 7.5 Minute Quadrangle Port Ludlow, Washington APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET ~--- o 1000' 4000' 2000' !Jl PfNTEC ~& A OlltWoa of Hut ~lJr" lm:. Figure 4 Port Ludlow Marina Expansion BE Port Ludlow, Washington for Reid MIddleton Forage fish spawning areas. 1111l101 BE FIgure 4.dwg I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TABLES I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Port Ludlow Marina Expansion PENTr-C Table 1 Pathways and indicators for evaluating salmon habitat in the urban estuary. Pathway Construction Disturbances Water Quality Stonnwater Sediment Habitat Conditions Biota July 6, 2000 00007\040\ptludlowmarinatbls.doc:res Indicator Noise Entrainment Stranding Turbidity Chemical contamination/nutrients Temperature Dissolved oxygen Stormwater quality/quantity Sedimentation sourceslrates Sediment quality Fish accesslrefugia Depth Substrate Slope Shoreline Riparian conditions Flow and hydrology/current patterns/saltwater-freshwater interface Overwater structures Disturbance Prey-epibenthic and pelagic zooplankton Infauna Prey-forage fish Aquatic vegetation Nonindigenous species Ecological diversity I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Port Ludlow Marina Expansion PENTC-C Table 2 Summary of sediment metals concentrations (mg/kg) in Port Ludlow Marina sediments collected between 1987 and 1995 compared with their respective Sediment Quality Standards (Vasey Engineering 1995). Metal 1995 1993 1991 1987 SQS Arsenic 2.8 1.5 2.8 2.7 57 Cadmium 0.46 0.93 0.3 0.3 5.1 Copper 11.2 9.32 7.0 7.0 390 Lead 4.76 2.56 < 10 <10 450 Mercury 0.074 0.053 <0.05 <0.05 0.41 Zinc 20.3 22.8 25.0 25.0 410 July 6, 2000 00007\040\ptludlowmarinatbls.doc:res I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Port Ludlow Marina Expansion PENTr-C Table 3 Net effects of the action on relevant pathways and indicators. Pathway Construction Disturbances Water Quality Stormwater Sediment Habitat Conditions Biota Effects of Action Improve1 Maintain2 Degrade3 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Indicators Noise Entrainment Stranding Turbidity Chemical contamination/nutrients Temperature Dissolved oxygen Stormwater quality/quantity Sedimentation sources/rates Sediment quality Fish access/refugia Depth Substrate Slope Shoreline Riparian Conditions Flow and hydrology/current patterns/ saltwater-freshwater mixing patterns Overwater structures Disturbance Prey-epibenthic and pelagic zooplankton Infauna X X Prey-forage fish Aquatic vegetation X Nonindigenous species X Ecological diversity X 1 Action will contribute to long-term improvement, over existing conditions, of the indicator. 2 Action will maintain existing conditions. 3 Action will contribute to long-term degradation, over existing conditions, of the indicator. July 6, 2000 00007\040\ptludlowmarinatbls.doc:res I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I APPENDIX A Agency Response to Information Request I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I RECORD OF TELEPHONE CONVERSATION PENTEC CONTACT (EMPLOYEE NAME) Karl Graves DATE March 29, 2000 JOB NUMBER 007 -040 . AGENCY National Marine Fisheries Service CONTACT Bob Donnelly CONVERSATION Bob has concurred with our letter, dated January 14,2000. 0OO07\040\correspondence\nmfsconcurrence-2.doc I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I RECORD OF TELEPHONE CONVERSATION PENTEC CONTACT (EMPLOYEE NAME) Bob Stuart DATE March 22, 2000 JOB NUMBER 007 -040 AGENCY National Marine Fisheries Service CONTACT , Tom Hooper CONVERSATION Tom concurred with our request letter (sent January 14, 2000) and requested that we also address Steller sea lion and Hood Canal summer-run chum salmon. 00007VJ401correspoINMFSconcurrence.doc I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Pen tee ';MENTAL January 14,2000 Mr. Steve W. Landino Washington State Habitat Branch Chief National Marine Fisheries Service Habitat Program/Olympia Field Office 510 Desmond Drive SE, Suite 103 Lacey, W A 98503 Request for Concurrence Endangered Species Act Listings Dear Mr. Landino: Pentec Environmental, Inc. (pentec), is preparing a biological assessment for a proposed action to expand a marina. The action will be conducted in Jefferson County at the following location: Port Ludlow, Washington, at Township 28 North, Range 1 East, Section 16 As directed by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), Pentec obtained information on endangered, threatened, proposed, and candidate species under NMFS jurisdiction in Puget Sound from NMFS's Habitat Conservation Division Web site (http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/lhabconl habweb/listnwr.htm). Based on the Web site, our assessment is that the following species of concern may occur within an area that could be affected by project impacts: Puget Sound chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and coho salmon (0. kisutch), identified as a candidate for listing as threatened. In letters we have received from NMFS regarding other actions, three other listed species have been identified as potentially occurring in Puget Sound: the Steller sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus), the North Pacific population of humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae), and the leatherback turtle (Dermochelys coriacea). The Steller sea lion, humpback whale, and leatherback turtle have not been reported in, nor are they considered likely to be found in, the action area; therefore, we believe that they need not be addressed in the biological assessment for the proposed action. -~i~~~2~~~:':;"~:':-;::;':"';:~': _<.o:;c:,>~.:, '~-'::";,"., . " - Pentec Environmental, Inc. · 120 Third A venue South, Suite 110 · Edmonds, WA 98020. Phone: (425) 7754682 · Fax: (425) 778-9417 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Mr. Steve W. Landino January 14,2000 page 2 Based on this information, our investigation will cover chinook and coho salmon. Please let me know whether or not you concur with this assessment. You may contact me by telephone at (425) 775-4682, fax at (425) 778-9417, or bye-mail at kari@pentecenv.com. Sincerely, Pentec Environmental, Inc. o~ ~r~,~ Kari M. Graves Biologist KMG/ds 00007\04O\correspolnmfsinforeq.J..doc . - "f~~ ;~-=~::~~~~E~:*~;:;\ :. .;-;.._" .-' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WlLDLIFE SERVICE North Pacific Coast Ecoregion Western Washington Office 510 Desmond Drive SE, Suite 102 Lacey, Washington 98503 Phone: (360) 753-9440 Fax: (360) 753-9518 FEB 1 02000 Dear Species List Requester: You have requested a list of listed and proposed threatened and endangered species, candidate species and species of concern (Attachment A) that may be present within the area of your proposed project. This response fulfills the requirements of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) under section.7(c) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). We have also enclosed a copy of the requirements for Federal agency compliance under the Act (Attachment B). Should the Federal agency determine that a listed species is likely to be affected (adversely or beneficially) by the proj ect, you should request section 7 consultation through this office. . If the Federal agency determines that the proposed action is "not likely to adversely affect" a listed species, you should request Service concurrence with that determination through the informal consultation process. Even if there is a "no effect" situation, we would appreciate receiving a copy for our information. Species of concern are those species whose conservation standing is of concern to the Service, but for which further status information is still needed. Conservation measures for species of concern are voluntary, but recommended. Protection provided to these species now may preclude possible listing in the future. . There may be other federally listed species that may occur in the vicinity of your project which are under the jurisdiction of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). Please contact NMFS at (360) 753-9530 to request a species list. . In addition, please be advised that federal and state regulations may require permits in areas where wetlanq.s are identified. You should contact the Seattle District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for Federal permit requirements and the Washington State Department of Ecology for State permit requirements. . I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Your interest in endangered species is appreciated. If you have additional questions regarding your responsibilities under the Act, please contact Yvonne Dettlaff (360) 753-9582 or Bobbi Barrera (360) 753-6048. Sincerely, t:!it:::g~ Western Washington Office yd Enclosure(s) c: CO:e WDFW Region 6 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ATTACHMENT A February 04,2000 LISTED AND PROPOSED ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES, CANDIDATE SPECIES AND SPECIES OF CONCERN WHICH MAY OCCUR WITIDN THE VICINITY OF THE PROPOSED PORT OF LUDLOW MARINA PROJECT IN JEFFERSON COUNTY, WASmNGTON . (T28N ROlE 816) FWS REF: 1-3-00-SP-0439 LISTED Bald e~gle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) - There is one bald eagle nesting territory located in the vicinity of the project atT28N ROlE S15. Nesting activities occur from January 1 through August 15. Wintering bald eagles may occur in the vicinity of the project. Wintering activities occur from October 31 through March 31. Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) - may occur in ocean waters adjacent to the project. Major concerns that should be addressed in your biological assessment of the project impacts to listed species are: 1. Level of use of the project area by listed species. 2. Effect of the project on listed species' primary food stocks, prey species, and foraging areas in all areas influenced by the project. 3. Impacts from proj ect construction (i.e., habitat loss, increased noise levels, increased human activity) wbich may result in disturbance to listed species and/or their avoidance of the project area. PROPOSED None. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SPECIES OF CONCERN The following species of concern may occur in the vicinity of the project: Long-eared myotis (Myotis evotis) Long-legged myotis (Myotis volans) Pacific lamprey (Entosphenus tridentata) Peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) River lamprey (Lam petra ayresi) I I ATTACHl\1ENT B I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I FEDERAL AGENClES' RESPONSmILITIES UNDER SECTIONS 7(a) AND 7(e) OF THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT OF 1973, AS AMENDED SECTION 7(a) - Consultation/Conference Requires: 1. Federal agencies to utilize their authorities to carry out programs to conserve endangered and threatened species; 2. Consultation with FWS when a federal action may affect a listed endangered or threatened .. species to ensure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by a federal agency is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. The process is initiated by the federal agency after it has determined if its action may affect (adversely or beneficially) a listed species; and 3. Conference with FWS when a federal action is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a proposed species or result in destruction .or an adverse modification of proposed critical habitat. SECTION 7(c) - Biological Assessment for Construction Projects * Requires federal agencies or their designees to prepare a Biological Assessment (BA) for constructionprojects only. The purpose of the BA is to identify any proposed and/or listed species which is/are likely to be affected by a construction project. The process is initiated by a federal agency in requesting a list of proposed and listed. threatened and endangered species Oist attached). The BA should be completed within 180 days after its initiation (or within such a time period as is mutually agreeable). If the BA is not initiated within 90 days of receipt of the species list, please verify the accuracy of the list with the Service. No irreversible commitment of resources is to be made during the BAprocess which would result In violation of the requirements under Section 7(a) of the Act. Planning, design, and administrative actions may be taken; however, no construction may begin. To complete the BA, your agency or its designee should: (1) conduct an onsite inspection of the area to be affected by the proposal, which may include a detailed survey of the area to determine if the species is present and whether suitable habitat exists for either expanding the existing population or potential reintroduction of the species; (2) review literature and scientific data to determine species distribution, habitat needs, and other biological requirements; (3) interview experts including those within the FWS, National Marine Fisheries Service, state conservation department, universities, and others who may have data not yet publish~d in scientific literature; (4) review and analyze the effects of the proposal on the species in terms of individuals and populations, including consideration of cumulative effects of the proposal on the species and its habitat; (5) analyze alternative actions that may provide conservation measures; and (6) prepare a report documenting the results, including a discussion of study methods used, any problems encountered, and other relevant information. Upon completion, the report should be forwarded to our Endangered Species Division, 510 Desmond Drive SE, Suite 102, Lacey, W A 98503-1273. * "Construction project" means any major federal action which significantly affects the quality of the human environment (requiring an EIS), designed primarily to result in the building or erection of human-made structures such as dams, buildings, roads, pipelines, channels, and the like. This includes federal action such as permits, grants, licenses, or other forms of federal authorization or approval which may result in construction. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I @~10 March 8, 2000 WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF Natural Resources JENNIFER M. BELCHER Commissioner of Public Lands Kari M Graves Pentec Environmental INC 120 Third Avenue South Suite 110 Edmonds W A 98020 SUBJECT: Port Ludlow Marina Expansion (T28N R1E 816) We've searched the Natural Heritage Information System for information on significant natural featur~s in your project area. Currently, we have no records for rare plants or high quality ecosystems in the vicinity of your project. The information provided by the Washington Natural Heritage Program is based solely on existing information in the database. In the absence of field inventories, we cannot state whether or not a given site contains high quality ecosystems or rare species; there may be significant natural features in your study area of which we are not aware. The Washington Natural Heritage Program is responsible for information on the state's endangered, threatened, and sensitive plants as well as high quality ecosystems. We have begun to add information on selected groups of animals of conservation concern, such as freshwater mussels, butterflies and bats, to our database. We now make this information available in our reports along with information on rare plants and high quality ecosystems. The authority for protection of animal species in Washington rests with the Department ofFish and Wildlife which manages and interprets data on wildlife species of concern in the state. To ensure that you receive information on all animal species of concern, please contact Priority Habitats and Species, Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife, 600 Capitol Way N, Olympia, WA 98501-1091, or by phone (360) 902-2543. If you have the opportunity, visit our website at www.wa.gov/dnr and click on ConservationIProtection. Please do not hesitate to call me at (360) 902-1667 if you have any questions, or by E-Mail: sandra.moody@wadnr.gov. Sincerely, SWtr<Stw~~ Sandy Swope Moody, Environmental Coordinator Washington Natural Heritage Program PO Box 47016 Olympia WA 98504-7016 FOREST RESOURCES I 1111 WASHINGTON ST SE I PO BOX 47016 I OLYMPIA, WA 98504.7016 FAX: (360) 902-1783 I ITY: (360) 902-1125 I TEL: (360) 902.1340 Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer RECYCLED PAPER 0 I I I I C o .j.J b'I C on ..c: Ul rU ~ IfG4-l .j.J0 Ul >'Ul ICI)~ C rU O...-l on P-I I~~ l-l...-l o =:l 4-lU I~~ (]) C't tTt(])O"I rU:>O"I 1.j.J 'n ...-l 0.-1.j.J l-l'n >, (]) Ul lO :I::C:8 (]) I~CJ) l-l'O =:l ~ .j.JlO I. ~.o C (]) o C I~~ "n Q) ..c:l-l Ul..c: I~: (]) l-l (]) b'I .c lO '0 C til I I I I I I ~ s:: ~...-l o tJ4-I o s:: O...-l fIl 1-1 Q) Q)b'1 I4-110 I4-lP-l ~ v." 'n-l< H'O o H +>0 C/) U on Q) ::r::p::; r-l-l< lO Ul H =:l Q).j.J "OrU Q).j.J ~CJ) Ul Q) =:l +>.j.J lO lO +>.j.J U)CJ) :I:::I:::I:: :I:: :I:: E-t H '0 Q)(])Q)(])Q)(])Q)(])(])(])Q)Q)(])(])@Q)(])Q)Q)(]) (])(]) Q) :> :> :> :> :> :> :> :> :> :> :> H :> :> :> :> :> :> :>:> :>:> :> .nonon.n'non'n-n.n.n.n Q)'n'no.-1on'n.n'rl'rl orlon 'n ~.j.J.j.J.j.J.j.J.j.J.j.J.j.J.j.J.j.J+>.j.Jb'I.j.J.j.J.j.J.j.J.j.J.j.J.j.J.j.J~.j.J.j.J~.j.J Q)on'n'rl.rl'rl'rl'n'rl'rl'non C-norl'n-rlorlonorl-rl (])orlorl Q)on 'n Ul Ul Ul Ul Ul Ul Ul U) Ul U) Ul rU U) U) Ul Ul Ul Ul U) U)orl Ul Ul'rl Ul :> C ~ C C C C C C C C C'O C C ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C:> C C:> C (]) Q) (]) (]) Q) (]) Q) Q) (]) (]) (]) Q) C (]) Q) (]) Q) Q) Q) (]) (]) (]) (]) Q) (]) Q) P::;CJ)CJ)CJ)CI)CJ)CJ)CJ)CI)CJ)CJ)CJ)tilCJ)CJ)CJ)CJ)CJ)CJ)CI)CI)P::;CI)CJ)P::;CJ) Q) ~ lO Z C o ~ o U >, .j.J =:l lO Q) '0 Ul Q) .0 lO U) U) 01 01 Q) =:l Q)..c: '0 i:: l-l Ul l-lU Q) ~..c: U) U.j.Ji:: Ul H.j.J lO ~Q)H 0.. '0 i:: U:>Q) (]) Ul...-lUl l-l 014-1 ~ OC lOQ) l-l.!<: 1.j.J on '0 b'I (]) 0. ~ ...-lQ) l-l (])o.. Q) :> I co Ul U) C/) on 0.. 0 C 01 Ul Q)..c::> '0 rU 4-l l-l Ul (1) on -~lO ~l-l '01b'lUllO (1)10.0 UlCO b'IH ...-l H i::(]) (])Q)'O=:l(1):>C I I CU)l-l(1)lO>' r-l >, tn 0 4-l U)...-l Q) \..I...-l lO -rl >. Ul 4-l -rl co tn b'I H ..c: rUl-l 01 Q) b'IUl.o(1) (1)CO...-lu)4-lCOl-l~104-l.j.J .j.J Q) '0 ~ Q) (1) tTt '0 c: .j.J U ...-l.j.J 'rl lO'rl .j.J b'I...-l H'n c: .j.J '0 (]) 0.. 01 '0 (]) (1) on '0 c: i:: U) I C...-l l-l...-l C (]) lO 4-l ><: >, =:l '0:> U) lO '0 (1) b'I H Ul Q) -rl lO U) .j.J =:l I b'I U lO =:l ~ on rU Ul ClOlO - H(1)U)'O(1) ...-llO...-llOl-lOC ...-l...-l...-l><:U) r-l(1).j.JC:b'lU) (1)~C:>,o.. HO~~C:U)o...olOrU 4-l U.o...-lH..c: >'U)OlO.j.J Ub'I~ rUl-l- UlUlrU 'n I 0 0 (1) '0 ...-l ...-l'n Ul c: orl >, C ~ 4-l (1) l-l co Ul rU _ Q) 0...j.J Q) ~'n...-l Q) .j.J .j.J 4-1 "0 I Q) 4-1 :> (1) 0 ..c: (]) ~ - ~ >'.c...-l E U) U i:: .j.J...-l Ul C I lO 01'0 -n H (])...-l ~ .j.J ~ U) >. Ul E U 1 :>, co i:: 0 ..j.J'n'rl =:l ~ c: i::...-l U =:l...-l...-l C H (]) lO lO lO tTt U) .j.J ...-l (]) lO 0 .j.J -rl 0 l-l...-l (]) lO 0 0 lO U 0.. (]) orl 0 l-l...-l l-l...-l >, .rl =:l OHH:8CJ)HU~~~UH~P-ICJ)CJ)~P-IZ~~~~P-IE-tU (]) :> .rl .j.J -n U) c: (]) CJ) c: H Q) 4-1 I i:: orl lO ..c: U rU U co orl lO (]) 4-1 (]) '0 orl lO 'n U tTt lO 0 rU 0 U 0.. 0.. (]) on H C ~ .~ ~ H co >'Ul~ Ul:>Ul co UU) ...-l on =:l on S :> .rl orl co 0.j.J.j.J H lOlO...-lCO =:l .j.JUl '0 lO U)CO E lO .j.J.j.JlO~ .j.JU) coucU) ~ .j.J H >, ...-l lO =:l ><: :> U lO i::...-l =:l ..-1 0.. l-l (]) orl 4-l co lO U O'n .j.J (]) Q) ...-l 'n 0 ...-l H H co co H.rl -rl ..-1 :>O(])HCO...-l lOlO UlOU4-I~O.j.J co ~lO~.j.J l-l l-lUlOi::o..lO HQ) ~(])~~~:>U)~uo..j.J...-l.cco .0 lOUC:~CE.j.J rUO'O :>U4-I~'O(])=:ll-lOUl=:l=:lUC ~ .j.J~lO=:l~~lO .j.Jr-l~CO(])i::4-lC~l-l...-l(])l-lUlC:>U)C ~ lOE...-l...-lo.U)~lOrU4-IOUlr-llOO(])O CO~U ~~~lO4-l U ~u)Ul~o..O ...-l ...-lEEo.(])COlOCOH.j.J~Ul HU)S~SSUO=:lU\..I...-110 lOo..S~ l-lEu~ Oco ~ ~ =:l ~ ~ =:l l-l E .j.J =:l on >"n rU ".-I Ul ~ orl co.o "rl...-l lO lO Ul c: on 4-l ...-l .rl 'n 'n .rl on 0.0 lO U .j.J (])"n l-l lO l-l C 0.-1 0 .j.J...-l 01 tJl'rl "n '0 lO..c:.c..c:..c:UUOo..UlUl...-li::CO ~OU)COtTtU(])COCOl-lb'lH U)tTtUUUU ...-lO(])Ul HU)(])lOHCHH>,=:110 ~lO>'>'>'>'><:><:><:><:><:><:~.j.J...-l~U)..c:COCO.j.JCO~4-l4-l..c:c:~ .ol-ll-lHl-ll-lQ)(])(])(])Q)(1).j.J>'..c:.j.JCO.j.JC...-l~ U~~.j.JlO'O lO.j.J.j.J.j.J.j.J.j.JHHHl-lHl-lUllOUo..>'>'l-l...-lCOCOU><:><:i::r-lO l-lUlOOOOlOlOlOlOlOCOrU...-lOOl-ll-lCO(])...-lO~COCO>, 0 ~~~m~~UUUUUUUUUUOtil~~~~~CJ)CJ)CJ) ~ (]) E lO Z U 0.-1 4-1 0.-1 .j.J i:: (1) orl U CJ) l-l lO :> , '0 (]) C (]) .j.J co (]) H ..c: E-t '0 Q) U) o 0.. o H P-I II E-t P-I , '0- (]) U) H =:l (]).j.J b'IlO C:.j.J rU Ul '0 C...-l tilCO orl 'OU (])'rl Ul4-1 04-1 0..0 o C H =:l P-I c: II lO til P-IC l-l ,(]) 'OU (]) C c: 0 (])U .j.J C04-l (]) 0 l-l ..c:U) E-t(]) -rl '0 'OUl-l (]) (]) 0 .j.J 0.. U Ul CI) Q) -rl H H II U II U'n CJ)H E-t 0 H ,.j.J b'IUl ,C 'n '0 orl ..c: (1).j.J H U) E (])-rl 0 O'l...-l H ~ . 4-1 lO l-l '00>' ~4-l...-l til i:: (]) 0 'O.j.J (]) co i:: .j.J '0 ~ u)orl 0 orl '0 ~ H~~ lO II U II tilll:I:: HU -l< -l< -l< I I I I I I I ~ o III ~ ~ H o III \0 li:loo t2N <N 8.-1 HI"- Il:~ li:l tI: u Jil li:l0 t<.0 H~O ..:! 0 o 0 ..:!ON HQI ~ III o 8 >t ~ H III [I) \0 I i:: o .~~ Q)t<. HO ~ [I) 8 t<.P'l P'l u[l) Ul tI: :H<1 8 J.J.-I H li:llllo ~ ..:!J.JP:: Cl Ul li:l ~.-I~ ~. lllN 8[1) OH8 Il: ~ ~~;,; ~~ .-I l%l~b ~~ ~ ~ Qi t<.li:l ~ ~ ~fii 05 ~ II s:: ~~ H Q) Ul 0 ~~t<. B:~ ~~~ l%l~.-I ~fii tI:..:!1ll uQ) 0[1) [I) 0 QlJ.J HIl: H8 Ullll~u [l)H t<.1l:J.J ;:IJ.JO H t<. t<.2~ Ul..:!Q) ~o o 0. 9~ z~ i~~ ~ ~~~~ ~~ 8 ~ Ulll s:: gl%l ~~ ",,"lll Q) llll:i g ~~Qig. 8~ ~QI p:: 8~~~ ~~ z ~ 8:111.g N[I) o H Ul llll"- 88 8 1,,:( g..-I [I) ~ .- --g--------~-~-~-~-~-- H ~.-Iu uO t<. tI: 0 UlIO \.I.... -0 [I) o UlCXl (]JJ.J8 ~ ~ ~~~~.~~~ o NU.-I~\.IZt:l Il: N I"-S::u 0 H .-I '<l' Ulli:l::O: :> I"-'<l' QlQ)..:! Z '<l'C'IuU'OClt<. li:ll u ~ ~ ~.-I ~ 0 CJ J.J O\.llll tI: ~ .g.;.;.g~~~~ Z IIlIllIllUS::,cl;O li:l ;:IQ);:IUQ)l%lZ III tl'>.tl'otn I I I I I I I I I I I 10 10 \0 \0 .. s:: s:: s:: i:: 0 0 0 0 .~~ ....li:l .M .~~ tn[l) tn (]Jt<. cut<. CU \.10 HO l-t l-t0 li:l ~ li:l ~ [I) [I) [I) 10 s:: o .~~ CU&: \.10 8~ t<.o P'l u[l) Ul ;:Ili:l J.J.-I li:llllo ..:!J.J1l: Cl Ul . ~.-i~ IIlN 0\.18 ~cuu 'Otll CUl-l ~J.J ~ ~ li:l ~ li:l o ~ t<. o III o 8 ~ Il: H t<. ltl .-I u[l) Ul ;:Ili:l J.J.-I III 0 J.J1l: Ul Z >t.-lCXl li:lIllN P::l-t8 lllCU" [I)'OUl OCU\.l ~J.J ~ ~ ~ u[l) Il: u[l) Ul li:lUl ;:I~ tI:;:Ili:l J.J.-I J.J.-I ~~ ~~~ UlZ jijUlZ >t.-lCXl .-100 li:lIllN 811lN ~ re~~ ~~~ ~ [I) '0 Ul P:: '0 Ul >t OCUl-t ClCU\.l.-l ~J.J ~J.J 00'1 u .. Ill. I .. Q) Ql OIZ CU Ql ~ ~~ ~~ '<l'6 ~~ ~~ o s:: i:: ZQ s:: s:: ~ c3~' ~ H~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~3 ~ ~ l%lJ.J l%lJ.J l%lJ.J [l)l%l ~J.J 8 l%lU Ul .-I ~ Ul.-l Ul .-I ~ [I) Ul.-l l%l Ul.-l "CU 8 uCU uCU li:l uQl ..:! uCU QlJ.J CUJ.J CUJ.J ~li:l CUJ.J ,cl; QlU Ullll~u Zo Ullll~u UlIll~u",P:: tlllIl~u ~ Ullll~u li:l ;:IJ.JOl-t ;:IJ.JO\.l ;:IuOl-l 88 ;:IuOH 8 ;:IUOH:> Ul..:!(]J Ul..:!CU Ul..:!CU Il: Ul":!Ql tII..:!CU H 9~ fii S~ 9~ re~ 9~ ~ 9~ ~ ~CJ s:: ~ ~CJ s:: li:lCJ s:: g~ ~CJ s:: [I) li:lU s:: H ;(u~Ql ;(u~Ql ~ ~u~CU:U1 ~u~Ql 8 ~u~CU 8~ III ~2 g ~ III ~~ g li:l ,cl; ~2 g t<. ~ III ~2 g ~ G'2 g ~ g "Ill Ql "" ulll Ql 8 ulll CU..:! "Ill Ql I-J ulll CU .-iC ~~Qig. tI.l ~~Qig. >t '~~Qjg. ~~ ~~Qig. 8 ~~Qig. Z:I ouSCU t<. OuSQl li:l OUSCU tI.l OUSQ) [I) ouSW ~~ UUi1!Ul t<. UUi1:lUl P:: UUi1:l1ll u~ UUi1:l1ll ~ UUi1:l1ll OC 8:111.g 0 8:1Il.g ~ 8:1Il.g ~ 8;1Il.g 8;1ll.g O;J -----= ~l~ ~.~-------~~-~~-~-~-_____:~_~ ~~.. ~~__-=-~_~ ~~_~__ ___~_~j~ ~i.; OOu uOIl: .-Iu uOH ~u..O li:l U')u uO[l) lOu..O o Ul \0 \.I.... l%l .-I Ul \0 H.... 0 .-I Ul \0 l-l.... Z li:l .-i III \0 H.... 0 .-I Ul 10 \.I.... _ E OUlCXlWJ.J OUlOOWUH o UlCXlwuOP:: o III 00 WU OUlOOWU8t IOIIlN~o.Z \OIIlN~o.P:: IOIIlN~0.1l:8 \OIIlN~o.u \OIllN~o.[I)= CXl.-lN ~H OO.-lN ~li:l OO.-lN ~li:l OO.-iN ~Il: CXl.-lN ~li:l~ NU.-I 101 NU.-I 101::0: NU.-I l-ltI:.-I NU.-I l-lll: NU.-I \.IZ N l"-s::u8 N I"-S::u N I"-S::u N I"-S::Uli:l N I"-s::u .-I ~ Ul[l) .-I '<l' Ulli:l .-I '<l' Ulli:lCXl .-I ~ Ul8 .-I '<l' Ulli:l~ I"-ltl WWli:l 1"-.-1 Q)W8 1"-.-1 CUQ)Poo 1"-.-1 WW 1"-0'1 WQl":!C '<l' 0'1 u U '0 Z "'" 0'1 u U '0 8 ~ 0'1 u U 'O..:! I ~ 0'1 u U 'OCl "'" 0'1 u U '0 Cl , C'IQlS:: C'IQlS:: li:l C'IQlS:: l%l[l) O'IWi:: 0 O'IQlS::,cl;~ u.-l'OQl.-l:>! u.-l'OQl.-l~ u.-l'OCU.-l 8 u.-l'OQl.-ll%l u.-l'OQl.-ili:l J.J O\.llllli:l U Ol-tlll J.J 0l-l1ll8[1) U o \.I III U Ol-llll : 0. u U l-I l-I Il: 0. ;. U 101 l-I 0. u U l-I \.I ,cl; li:l 0. u U H l-I ..:! 0. u U l-I l-I 0 I '0 H'O;:l Qllll 'Ol-l'O;:lW":! 'tll-l'O;:lQ)li:lZ 'tll-l'O;:lw,cl; 'tll-l'O;:lW..:!. III III lllu S::tI.l 1Il111IllUS::H 1Il111IllUS::1l: III llllllU S::li:l lllIllIllUS::~1 g.~g.g~o g.~g.g~~ g.~g.g~ClI"- g.~g.g~8 g.~g.g~l%ll P:: ~ ~ P'l M u[l) III ;:Ili:l U.-I III 0 ull: III ><.-I~ li:1111N P::l-l8 lllWu [I)'tllll OQll-l ~J.J o ..:! o .-I 1 0'1 CXl \0 '* u Ql ~~ s:: ~ Cl III o 8 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~ .. ~ o .~~ 140 ~ lI'l l"1 ..rn 00 ::lr>:l .w..-l III 0 .wI%: OOl2; ><..-100 r>:lI1lN 1%:1-18 p., QI .. rn '0 00 OQlI-I I.I-l.w ~ I%: r>:l ~ ~ ~ I%. o .. QI ~~ ~ ~ ~~ .w 00 III :t:8 ~.w rn ~; N ~~ tIll1l:::" ~ ::l.w01-l c:l_ l1.l...:lQl <.... 8~ g~ ~U ~ &15 ::C"~QI r>:l p., ~2 g ~ ~ "Ill QI :::~ ~~~g. H 8~~~ ~~ 8;11l.@ gre 00 III C"- <::IN 0l2; rnO'C"-"8H I:: a).. "Or>:lr<l ..-I 00 \0 \.I.,-i rn r<l Ol1.lOOQl.wOI%: \OI1lN~o...:l8 a) ..-I N .,-i U N U..-I \.I r<l N C"-I::U8::> ..-I ~ IIlrnH C"-M QlQI~...:I "<l'O'\"U'OZ 0'\ QI ~ l2; "..-1'0 QI~><O .w 01-l11l~ o."U\.I\.i1%:8 '01-I'O::lQlp.,rn I1ll1ll1lul::rn~ g.~g.g ~o \0 I:: o .~~ 1-10 ~ ..-I N ..tI) 00 ::lr>:l .w.-i III 0 .wI%: 1Ill2; ><~OO r<lI1lN 1%:\.i8 p.,QI.. rn'Ooo OQlI-I I.I-l.w .. QI ~~ I:: III ::l .w III ~.w 00 ~ ~ ..:l < r>:l 8 I%. o ~ H 8 U r>:l rn I%: r>:l t H ..-I I%. o r>:l rn p:: 8r:a 1%.1%. H 0:2; 00 IOU .. QI Ol.w 00 Ill::: .. ::l.w01-l 00 ..:l Ol 8~ 8~ ~ UI:: ~ ..:l ::C"~Ol I%. p.,>.ou UO up.,~ < "Ill Ol rnp., QlI-I..::l 10 'O::lOlO' r:a8 OuEQI c:l uuilltll 1:2; 8;11l.@ SH oo....~1O U8 .... O'lI'l rn tI) C"-~~~ 0'\.. "0 ..-I III \0 I-I',-i 8 . ~ ~~~QI~~~ oo..-lN .,-i Z N U..-I \.I r:a N C"-l::u8rn ..-I "<l' III rn H ~~..~~~~ O'\Ol~ ....-I'OOl..-I>< .w 0\.i11lr:ap., a... U\.i \.IC:: '01-I'O::lQlp.,S I1lIllIllUl::rn~ g.~g.g~o 10 I:: o .~~ \.10 ~ ~ ~ I%:..rn r>:llll :t:::lr<l .w..-l ~~~ SIlll2; ~oo 8l1lN t:j~~ I%: '0 III C)QlI-I I.I-l.w o 0'\ rn 8 rn ~ .. QI ~~ I:: lI'l ..-I ::: o ..:l !3 ..:l ~ o p., 11.l ::l .w III ~.w III .. Ol QI.w tIllll:::" ::l.w01-l OO..:lQl 8~ ~ r>:lU !:: tIl ~"~QI ~ >.0 u up., I:: .. III Ol ~~~g. OUEOl u U ill 11.l 8;1ll.@ III III 0'\ <::lM rn O'N .. 0 I::tJ 0.. "0 N III \0 I-I.,-i Z o 0000 QI.wo \OIllN~o.c:: OO~ N .,-i r>:l N U..-I \.I:t: N C"-~u ..-I "<l' Ill~ C"-O OlQlP "<l'O'\"u'O...:I O'\Ol!:: ~ "..-I'OQI~ .w 01-l11l8 a... U 1-1 1-1< '01-I'O::lQlr:a III III I1lU !::c:: g.~g.g~C) 10 !:: o .,-i ::: tJlrn OlI%. \.10 ~ M ..-I ..rn III ::l::: .w..-l III 0 .wI%: III Z ><~OO r:aI1lN C::\.I8 p., Ql .. rn'Olll OQlI-I I.I-l.w .. Ol ~~ ~ III ::l .w III ~.w III .-I c:l r<l ~ tJ o ...:I .. Ql Ql.w III Ill::: .. ::l.w 0 1-1 00 ..:l Ql 8~ ~tJ ~ :cl!"~Ol p., >'0 u up., !:: .. III QI ~~~g. OuEQl uui1l1ll ~ 8;11l.@ ~ III 11l0'\ <::lo c:l rn O'oo"r>:l ~8 .-I" "0< N III 10 I-I',-i tJ o III a) Ql.wO \0 III N~ o...:l a) r-I N ." NUr-I 1-1, N C"-!::u8 ..-I "<l' lllrn C"-N Ql Ql~ "<l'O'\"u'OZ O'\Ql!:: ".-I'OOlr-1>< .w Ol-llllr>:l o."UI-II-II%: 'Ol-l'O::lOlp., I1lI1lIllU~rn g.~g.g~o ~ 8 \0 !:: o ..,-i ::: tJlrn QlI%. 1-10 r>:l rn 8 1%.0 r-I ..rn 00 ::lr<l .w.-l r>:l11l0 ..:l.wl%: ~IllZ r>:lr-loo IllN c:l1-l8 HOl" <'0 III ~QlI-I 'I-l.w >< r:a ..:l ~ ::: ~::: ~~ Hrn OH p., rn I%.H O:t: 8 f@. r:ac:l r>:l Z8 tJ ~~ 8 ,rn C::Z HO I%.tJ ~~ C)~ l"1 p.,>< "Ol O..:l Ql.w 8..:l~ 1ll11l:::.. ::l.w01-l 00...:1 Ol ~tIl 8~ ~re rzl U !::: 0 ~ ~"~Ol p.,rn :x: >'0 U 0 P up.,!:: 80 "Ill Ql :x: ~~~g. ~r.. OuEQI ",0 uuilllll ..... 8;11l.@ ~~ OO<~gj tJ~ rn 0'10 .. 0 ~..:lrn N" ..0 N III 10 1-1'" ,Z o III a) Ql.w80 \OI1lN~o.rn . a) r-I N .,-i ~ rn 8 NU.-I I-IZHtIl N C"-!::u 0 ..-I "<l' III rzl rzl::E: C"-\O Ql Ql...:lrzl I "<l'O'\"U'OClC::Z O'\QlI:: <80:: ".-1'0 Ql.-lr>:l r>:l .w 0 1-1 III .:t: 0...UI-lI-lc:lrzl8 'tll-l'O::lQl..:lc:lC:: ~m~~~ia~~ O'>'O'OtJl QI ~~ !:: I%: rzl ~ ~ I%. o ::: rn ~ ..:l H ::E: III ::l .w III ~.w III \0 s:: o .~~ 1-10 rzl rn 8 I%.lI'l .-I ..rn 00 ::lrzl ..w .-I ~11l0 ..:l.wl%: C)1ll < Z r>:l~00 I1lN c:ll-l8 ..:l Ql .. <'000 ~Q)l-l I.I-l.w .. Ql ~~ I:: .. III ::l .w III ~.w III c:ll re~ p.,r<l O..:l E-<U I 5~ I%.U ~ gl%: ~~ ~~ o 8...:1 p.,[;; H~ 8C) Z HI%. o ::E:~ oc:l .-IH .-1m N~::: ..Ql OZ Q).w ~O 1Il11l:::" < ::l.u0l-l rn oo..:lQl ;:S QoS ~ S!3 E-<E-< r<ltJ !:: rn~p ~ "~Ql ~~O~ :t: >.0 U .... up.,~ r..~ "Ill QI 0::>0 ~~~g. rn~S 8~~~ c:lr<l>< o.l1l.@ ~I%:..:l ~<~gj ~i~ rn 0'10 .. 0 E-< l"1" .. s..:l~~ NIll\Ol-l."' p., 01ll00Ql.w8l2; \Ol1lNoSo.rn E-< a) r-I N !3'" ~ 8 rn ~U~!::b ~~ r-I "<l' 11.l ~ t-:l I C"-O'\ Q) Ol..:l M "<l'O'\"U'OClI%:O'\ O'\Ql!:: <HO'\ ".-I'OQl.-l~I%..-I .w 01-1 III Q,"U\.iI-lc:lCl . ~ ~~g ~~t:l8~ ::lQl::luOl~ H O'>'O'OtJl 10 .. ~ o .~~ \..10 ~ lI'l l"1 ..tI) III ::lr<l .wr-l III 0 .wI%: "Ill Z ><r-1oo rzllllN 1%:\..18 p., Ql .. rn '0 III OQl\..l l4-I.w .. QI ~~ ~ III ::l .w III ~.w III M .. Ql Ol.w OOIll:::" ::l.w01-l Ill...:l Ql 8~ ~tJ !::: ~"~Ql p., >'0 u U Po ~ .. III QJ ~~~g. OuEOl U U ill 11.l 8;11l.@ 00 III C"- <::IN rn O'C"- lI'l" .. N III \0 1-1 OIllOOQl IOIllN~ oor-lN NU..-I N C"-!:: .-I "<l' C"-"<l' Ql "<l'O'\"U O'\Qle .. .-I '0 Ql .w 01-1 o."UI-I 'tll-l'O::l III III III U g.~g.g I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~ H ... ~ H ~ ... o N P-.* o E-tE-t tIJ ~~ ~... , 0 .. til:I: ~E-t P-.~ ~~ \0 t: o '8,~ QI... 1-10 ~ \0 ...... ..tIJ ZlII H::ltil E-t.u...... ; III 0 .u~ 1II Z. til......oo ~IllN P-.I-IE-t ~QI" 0'0 III P-'QlI-I ~.u Ln 0'1 0'1 ...... Z H Q til H P-. o U U o tIJ til X o III .. QI ~&l t: 1II ::l .u III 1Il.u III .. QI QI.u III III :3: .. ::l.u01-l 1II ~ QI s1 OU t: tIJ E-t ~"~QI P-. >'0 0 OP-.t: E-t "lll QI < ~~Qj& OOEQI 00 ill 1II 8:111.e 1II<~~ ~ tIJ 0' .. H t:E-t 1"-" "OtIJ NIIl\OI-I',.;r>:J OIllOOQl.uZ \OIllN1P, 00 r-t N '''; Z NO...... 1-1 H N r--t:OE-t ...... ~ Ill; r-- Ln QI QI ~O'I"O'O . O'IQlt: ........'0 Qlr-ttil .u OI-lIO~ p,..o 1-1 I-IP-. '01-I'O::lQl~ 1010 IllU t:0 &~g.g ~P-. N ...... \0 t: o '8,~ QlI'<. 1-10 :3: tIJ Eo< "'C"'l C"'l ..tIJ III ::ltil .u...... tillllo ~.u~ t!>IIlZ ~r-t0'l IllN QI-IE-t ~ QI .. < '0 III IIlQlI-I ~.u E-t ... o \0 E-t tIJ < til ~ ;;: til ~ Q til P-. P-. o E-t til E-t~ :sg I'<. ... -0 til ::>til HQ ~H tIJ <:I: N tilE-t ..QI til~ ~~:3:" ~~ ::l.u 0 1-1 III ~ QI . Z s~ ;~ tilU t: E-t... ~>.~~ ~~ u P-. t: "10 QI ~~ ~~Qjg. 8 OU8Q1 r>:J uuilllll Z 8:1ll.e E-t~ 1Il<1ll~ ...~ tIJ g....... .. 0 t: 0 . 0'1" "ON~ NIIl\OI-I',,; til o III 00 QI.uE-tE-t \OIllN~P,tIJ< 00 r-t N '''; r>:J :3: N u...... 1-1 Z N r--t:u ::.: ...... ~ IIltilO r-- O'l QI QI ~ ~ ~O'l"U'Ot!>... O'lQlt: < ........'0 Qlr-ttil! .u 01-110 p,"UI-II-IQ 'g~'g5~~ ::lQl::lUQlIIlH 0'>'0'001 .. QI ~~ t: III ::l .u III 1Il.u III ~ i ~ ~ \0 t: o '''; :3: CItIJ QI... 1-10 :3: tIJ t!> ~~ ~~ ~~ III til ~<5 HIIl ~... :I:... E-t0 H :3:~ till><: tilO ~~ E-tlQ ~til H:I: I'<.E-t tIJ... :so t!>~ Otil ...... 8~ ..QI QU QI.u til 1II111:3:.. P-.P-. ::l.u01-l P-.O III ~ III 0 E-t ~~ E-ttil~ _!3 E-t:I: ~ ::su t: jE-tE-t :("~QI I'<.ZE-t P-. >'0 u OtIJ UP-.t: - til "lll QI ~QZ QlI-I"g. ~til '88 ~ QI z;;:~ uoilllll HUE-t 8:111.e ~88~ III III r-t 0 <::l~ tIJ tIJ tl'0'l .. ~ H E-t ........ .. g~E-t~ M III \0 1-1."; E-t tIJ :3: OlllOOQl.u r>:J \olllN1p,ZZtil 00 r-t N '''; H :I: NO...... 1-1 E-t N r--t:oE-t. ...... ~ IIltIJP-.O r--Ln QlQIr>:JOE-t ~O'I"u'OZE-t O'IQlt:. Q ........'OQlr-t:><tiltil ~..8~~~Hs;;: '01-I'O::llllP-. u lllllllllUt:tlJOO g.~g.g~OE-t~ O'l o ..tIJ 1II ::ltil .u...... III 0 .u~ 1II Z :><......00 tillllN ~I-IE-t P-. III .. tIJ'OlII Ollll-l ~.u III ~~ t: 1II ::l .u III lQ.u Ul \0 t: o .~~ 1-1.0 E-t~ ~Ln ...... ..tIJ III ::lPi! .u...... Pi!1ll0 ~.u~ t!>UlZ ~r-too ION QI-IE-t ~QI" <'01Il IIlQlI-I ~.u .. QI ~~ s:: III ::l .u III 1Il.u 1Il I g 8 Pi! ::> H ~ Q til P-. P-. o E-t I ~ ~ oqI Q Pi! P-. P-. o E-t I Z til l><: g III ~ o .. QI QI.u 1Il111:3:.. ::l.u01-l 1II ~ QI s~ Pi! U t: _:3: .;I .. ~ QI tIJ Ei! >'0 0 OP-.t: P-. "lll QI 0 ~~Qj& E-t ooEQI ~o UOitllll 8:111.e &: III 1ll0'l ~til <::100 ..~ tIJ 0'\0 .. ~ 0 t: :I: M" "Olt'ltIJ C"'llll\OI-I',,; OIllOOQl.uE-t~ \OIllN~o.tlJO 00 r-t N '''; r>:J ~ N or-t I-IZ~ N -r-- t: u ...... ~ lIltilE-t 1"-00 QI QI~... oqIO'l..u'Ot!> O'IQlt: <0 ........'OQlr-ttilO .u o 1-1 III ...... .g.j.;.g~~~~ llllllIllUt:<H ::lQl::lUQlIXl~ tl'>.tl'00l til Q H tIJ I I I I I I E-< rz1 I rz1 :I: m rz1 I ~ rz1 r:.. g:} m I m g tJ\O co ZN ON I C!).-i ><t'- ..:l'<l' 0 P-t..0 rz10 moo I :I: ON P-ttJ I ~~ t:lri ~o~ I ..:l III o 'e ..:l:3: HO,Q :3:..:l0l gr:.. I ~..:la; E-<-IJ :I:r:x:1ll moo HP-t r:.. -IJ I .. l-I r:..rz10 o ~ 0- ~z& I E-<~ ~o P-t rz1 0 I ~ E-< ~ H :I: I m ~ I I rz1 8 tJ rz1 m t:l ... rz1 o o tJ I ml :I: I P-tl I I I I I I \ I I I I I I I \ I O. :I: ... H ~ P-t I I I \0 00 I ~;: ;:;: g ... H HH ... H~ ~~ H ~P-t P-tP-t ~ P-t I I I P-t I I loe( ,c( oe( I I I p:j p:jp:jP-t P-tP-tp:jp:j... ... ... I...... ... I............ r:x: I r:x: rz1... rz1rz1H'" HHrz1rz1t:l... t:l I ~t~~~t~~~~~t~ I I ...@:3::I::I!P-t:3:P-tP-t@:I:rz1:3:rz1...... I ... E-< rz11 :3:'" I I \ ... ...... E-< 88 ~ ~~ I I I I I III III 1Ilp:jp:j ... I... I... ...... I rz1... rz1... rz1rz1rz1 ... ~i~i~~~;~ r:x: ! ~ o r:.. m ~ III \0 '<l' '<l' o ~ I '<l'lll llllll III .-i ri.-i \0\0 \0\0 \0 III llllll '<l''<l' '<l''<l' '<l' '<l' '<l''<l' '<l''<l' '<l''<l' '<l' '<l' '<l''<l' 00 00 0 0 00 ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ I I I I I I I I ON.-iNN'<l'ri'<l''<l'NN'<l'ri'<l'OOri\ONrlN.-iNNNOri O~IllIllIll\OIll\O\OIllIllIllIllIllOOIllt'-IllIllIllIllIllIllIllOIll ON'<l'NN'<l''<l''<l''<l'NNt'-'<l't'-OO'<l'IllN'<l'N'<l'NNNO'<l' 0'<l''<l''<l''<l''<l''<l''<l''<l''<l''<l''<l''<l''<l'00'<l'~'<l''<l''<l''<l''<l''<l''<l'0'<l' 000000000000000000000000000 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "*' ~ o P-t m :I: P-t .-iN~'<l'Ill\Ot'-CO~O.-iN~'<l'Ill\Ot'-CO~O.-iN~'<l'Ill\Ot'-CO .-i.-i.-i.-iri.-i.-iriri.-iNNNNNNNNN I I I I I I I ... ... ... ... ... ... 8'" ~... o P-< ~~ ril ~g >t~ ...:1 OtJe P-<Ze He tIl IN re ~ - ~~~ HOlll ...:1~:;j QHl-f ...:1~,Q H<!l s: I%. I ~tJ.. ~ril<!l :r:~~ tIlP-< H .u I%.~I-I 00 1%.1%.0. o <!l 8 ~ P-<... ril'" Q... ... Z... 0'" 8'" 0'" Z H :c tIl ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I "d m <!l '0 <!l 1-1 III .u III .a .u fll>, .uu lll.... .ur-! .... 0 ,QP-< III .aQl ~ 1-1.... Or-! ......'0 'Or-! i::.... 1llS: fll'O Qli:: .... III U <!l.a o.fll fll.... I%. tn i:: Ql .... > ~.... o.u r-! .... r-!fll o i:: \I.l<!l tIl <!l .as: .ul%. i::~ .... III Ql .u.a i::.u o u>, ,Q fll o.Ql ~.~ .u Ql.... fllfll Ql i:: .aQl 8fll !ls:s:s: 1000 ~1...:1..:l...:1 O:ggg OIl ...:1...:1...:1 I tIllE-lE-l8 Ol~~~ 1'./)1000 01P-<P-<P-< I I 1101010 I co co co INNN ~rilINNN og:~~~ OItJl'=l''=l''=l' I 1 ril I tIl I tIl >t tIl <rillE-l..:lE-l ~tJlP-<OP-< E-l!3:~€l~ <01~:C~ Otlll;I:P-<;I: I I rill rilQI tIlOI OtJll1)l1)l1) I I 1 I 1 ~ ~ ril ;I: ril ~Irilrilril 1(1..:1...:10 ZIOO..:l 1<<11) Zlrilril 018 ~:09ei 01~<P:: tJII1)I1)O I I ...... I ril 1 Orill OQI tJOI tJlrilrilril ~*:~~~ I .-l I r:. ~ 0 N ~ CJ p.. I .. .. .. Ql Ql Ql "Cl "Cl "Cl 0 0 0 U U U 0 .-l .-l I . .. >. >. CO >. .-l U U I:' U ~ III III III l-I l-I l-I ~ ~ o;jl ~ I ~ U U 0 U U U U 0 III .. III .. III .. p., Ql Ql QI ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ f'Cl f'Cl f'Cl .~ "Cl "Cl "Cl I ~ ~ 0 ~ p., E-c en I \0 \0 ~ 0 en :I: 0 :I: en .. en p., .s:: s:: ~ s:: &1 0 0 0 'M '''; 'M en ~ .u ~ I%l 'M ""; :I: 'M en I r:.O s:: j C en s:: ~ HO 'M '''; H 'M ..:lO ~ ~ :.:: ~ CJ AN QI p., QI CJ en Ql CJ H..... "Cl "Cl ~ ~ "Cl 0 3:\0 i .-l ltl ~ I ~~ ~ ~~ H p.. ::;, Cl I:'r:. l:l p., :I: en ~ ~ en ~ en.. en .-l..:l HQl ~ ~ I r:..u 'E-c ~ f'Cl s:: I s:: ~ .en 6 r:.A 0 en 0 I%l~ I%l 0 III >< III I%l .0 III ~ ~ III ~ III ::;:: OCJ III ~~ Ql Ql <II III III E-c Ar:. III I%l ~g. ..:l 0 E-c I en ~ en H ~~ en :S~ en ~ en E-cH ~ 8 !Xl I%l ~p., I%l 0 :I: p., A .. ~ en ~;! .. I Ql Cl ~~~ Ql ~ ~ III ~ I 0 III ~ en NO ~ E-c 0 >< ~~ ~ III E-c ~ lIl..:lE-c III en Ql H ~ QlE-c..:l Ql ~ >< H 'M ~ '''; r:a ~ E-cen 'M ~ I :I: U u:3;en CIlZ U en Ql I%l en Ql ~g Ql en ~ 0. E-c o.~ ~ 0. ~ ~en III :3;~ lIlr:a CJen III I%l E-cE-c 0 ..:l ~H ~~ I%l ~ ,~ ~ ~fJ 81%l I E-c0 <. enH r:a ~~ ..:lCJ 80 I%l~ I%l E-c~" en H Hr:a ..:l .. ZO 5: ~< ~ C ..:l ~ C s:: r:. 0 :3; \0 0 o .. p., 0 r:. .. 'M I~ '''; 8l1l 'M I%llll .. .u ..Z~ Cl"M ~ r.J'M I ~ 0. .u00. ZlIl ~ 0. III III '''; go IllH"M Ho. III 'M ~go ~ l-I .u Cl l-I :I: 0 ~ l-I 'M U O~ OM I%l U ~~ 'M U. ~~ .Q III .Q~lIl .Q III III Ql :I:lIl III Ql III Ql enlll ..c: .. "Cl ..c:.."Cl ..c: .. "Cl I .....Ql .....Ql .....Ql lIl~r-l .. lIl~.-l .. lIl~r-l .. Ql III Ql Ql ltl Ql Ol III Ql "M s:: l-I U "M s:: l-I U "M s:: l-I U UOlQl l-I UQlQl l-I UOlQl l-I Ql~S:: ::l Ol ~ s:: ~ Ql~S:: ~ o.'M Ql 0 o."M Ol 0 o."M Ol 0 I lIllllOl III lIllllOl III lIllllOl III N .-l o;jl Ltl Ltl \0 N o;jl o;jl o;jl o;jl o;jl I 0 0 0 ~ ~ ~ " I ~ ~ ~ I 0 0 0 ~ ~ 'I-l I I I I I I I I I III Ql 'M U Ql 0. III I ~ III r-l lU I ~ .g -M III > Ql -M -M '8 U Ql -M I 0. III ~ ~ 'M 'tl 'M Ql 'tl Ql I Ql l-l Ql .0 l-l .0 \i.l 0 \i.l 0 l-l I Ql III ~~ III lU r-l I:: U \I Ql .atll I r-l ~ III r-l tll >,\i.l \i.l lU 'j~ r-l [:t. 1::0 I ~8 ~z 'M Ql ~g ,t:: 1Il~ ..:l 'tl r-lQl I ME-! Qll-l 01:1: -riQl 00 \i.l.a U'llll tll:;i t"- r-l" I:: III Ol 'M Ol I O~ :;:'M 01:: HZ r-l0 r-lr-l ~~ 00 \i.lU 00 I r-lr-l Ol l-l 00 ,t::0 UU E-!\i.l oooooooooooooo~ooo "I r-l ~ Ql I:: l-l III ~ l-l Ol.. 0 .. r-l ilia: ~....~ 3 eM o.u~.a.. 0 ~ H_ UI::I::Ur-l J.J Ol OOl lUlU.ur-l '0 O"r-l J.J1ll 'Ol-ll-llU::l Ql aJ.J~.. ..tI) Oloouo..tll.. ..QlOl::l1:: r-lOl_e J.Jeel-l r-l~I::"Olr-lr-lC-ri viol IIlHHOl'Or-l'Ml-lI::l-lr-l~ \i.l l-l Ol 0 .. Ql 0 0 .u Ql ::l 3: Ol l-l l-l'M ::l III \i.l J.Jr-lJ.JJ.Jl-lUUIIlr-lO E-!Ol::l::lCO::l Ol'MtI)I::U >,r-l III E-!:tCl l-llll IlllU III IIlUO-riI::::l1:: IIlOl E-!1Ill-lOlJ.J-ri ~l-lOIllUI::I::I::U'tl e .a 0 r-l '0 tll ~ Ql U'M'M 0 O'M 0 Ol ~~ue.Q~lUOtllJ.J::lOoJ.JeOlIIlI::J.J 0l-llUH::llUr-llUI::IIlIll1ll0etlllll-ri\i.l ~OQlOOl-lOlr-l-riOlr-lIlll-lO-riIll,t::::l tl)rx.~UQ~Ill~I:I:3:0UCUIllUI:I:E-! J.J~ O-M Ql I:: tI) r-l '0 Ol rz1\i.lQl,t:: HQlJ.J~ Zl-llll o O. ..:l IIl'M III OQl'OOl U'M I:: J.J O'M III ~Ql a 0. IIl'M HlIllUJ.J ~ ),1Il ~ .QQl tI) J.J J.J" 1Il~1Il ~~. 1l E-!~J.J o 1Ill-l Z QlO HI:: ::r: J.JJ.J tl)1::1Il1:: <OQlQl 3: 'M.Q 0 J.J Ol .ul [:t.lUl-ll-l l-ll 0r-l0 01 ::s J.J 0.1 Cl 0. J.J III Ql I .00 I:: 0 1:1:1 ~Ill~= I III E-! Qllll Ol C 0 l-llll 'M U~J.J'tl I:: 0 QlOIllOl r-l .aZOlll 0 J.J =1Il U >. III '0 a.Q Ql r-l o .a U l-l l-l 0\ ~ 'M '+-ICXl J.J .0 0\1::0 lU I:: r-l 0 I:: Ol Ol 0. tI) ~1:l::SQl Ill'M H 0 Ql ~ 'tlQl'tl III .a 'tlOl)Ql Ol E-! IIlQlIll '0 'M III ,t:: III IIl-M 0 I.., J.J :;: lIl.Q I:: > Ol IN ::s 'M 00 0. I 0 J.J r-l 1Il..-4 H III I ~ H.Qr-lJ.J 0. I O::l III III ~ I 0000::l>J.J I I:: Ol 'tlHO r-l I 0 H "M Ql I:: '0 I -M r-l>1Il Ql I J.J IIlIll'M.QQl Ql I e 'M '0 0 H l-l ,t::J.J1:: Ql .0 J.J Ql'M 4-l ) 0 H \i.l \i.l I::.a tll III 0 I:: -ri 0 I:: H .. H 'M 'M oOl III I:: I::Ql'OI:l~ III 0 OOoQlO lU -.-4 '.-4 tI) Ql-M r-l J.J J.J l-l J.J I:: 0 III ~~.Q1ll1:: r-l l-l ::l I:: \i.l'~ 0 0 I 0. o Ql 0 r-l -M \i.l I 0 \i.l > .0 J.J Ie.. I:: Ql III ::l III III I 'M ~ ~ 0. 3 Ql Ir-l '0 I rtl Ql ::lQlOo 0 I~ ~~8fl8. U I 0 IE-! III l-l Ol ,t:: J.J o Ol I:: 8 'tl IllH ;:I-l-lO r-l1ll0\i.l o l-l e I:: I:: Ol H'M _'M .a 0 . 1Il .uUO l-l>'O I:: Ql ~ l-l .aeQlOl-l .u-'O 0 o ;:I1Il 1Ilr-l'O'O QlJ.JO'MQl 'Ol::co> ;:I Ill.n r-l l-l r-ll-l lllQl 00>, III clSltlO.Q 'M081::0 u- I:: 1 >, J.J tll OllU'Olll::l1:: 'M I IS I:: .u.Q-M .ul-Ill~-'O 0.1 lU Ql 'n I 1Il III l-l 1Il Ol H 1'O'OOl-ll-l o I 'M -M e Ol .0 III I OUH.a QlIr-lr-lOJ.JO '01l<(l<(UOZ ~ o -'M lIl.J.J J.J III Ql '8 l<(~UOI o .J.J o Ol 'n o l-l 0. H ::l o >, l-l o ~ .u III 'M tn o r-t o 'M .0 ~ ~ Ql .a J.J J.J o lU ~ I:: o o Ql III . III I:: Ql 0 r-l 'M Ill~ III o~ '00 Ql'+-l J.JI:: 1ll..-4 '0 ~ 1Il I:: 'M Ql o I:: Ql o H 'M J.JQl ~~ ~ a \i.lH I:: 0 'M \i.l 01 lU 'M Ql .al-l E-!rtl Ql ~ o I:: Ql III III Ql r-l III I. I I I 1 I I 0\ eo 0\ M . r-l III .l-l Ol ,t:: U ." \0 Oleo 1Il o.N Ol tnN ." .-I U s:lr- Ol Ol.., 0. :> 1Il Ol .. .l-lr:l S tnO 0 8S~ 1Il r-l III Il::tno 0 .g Or:lO ~!a ." 1Il :> 1l::0 Ol ." ~ "" '0 tIlOS: U s:: r:aUO Ol ." H ~ 0. ~~g 1Il tlI s:: ~H~ tlI '" 8~t1 s:l '0 ." Ol '0 Ol ~tIl2 Ol ~ Ol .Q HZ ~ ~ 0 .. .Q \1.1 8r:a 0 tIl~~ \1.1 0 l-I HZ Ol ::t: 1Il ~r.i ~H~ 1Il III S:o r-l s:: ~O U II Ol Oil:: ,t::tlI 0 r-l .l-llll C!l~ r-l 0 ),\1.1 ~ tlI \1.1 ~ III . 'j~ r-lZ ~ ~~ U :.:: Ql ~g '0 ""Ol ,t:: Oil:: ,t:: .u Z 1Il.l-l tIl '0 6 0 r-lOl .-I:> Ol l-I ~ O~ "" Ol ~ 00 \I.I,t:: Ll'lU tlI~ r- r-l .. s:: 1Il Ql ." Ol O~ ~." Os:: HZ r-l0 r-lr-l ~~ 00 \I.lU 00 ........ Ol ~ 00 .s::0 uu 8\1.1 I I I I I I I I I I I I 0000000000..,0000000 .., .... .l-l Ol s:: ~ III .l-l ~ Ol" 0 .. .... 1ll'Q) e....~ '3 eM O.l-l.l-l,t::.. C!l .l-l s:l_ us::s::u.... .u Ol OOl 1Il1ll.u.... '0 0...... .l-llll 'Ol-I~lIl::l Ol s.u.!<.. ..tn OlOOUC!l..tlI.. "OlOl::ls:l Q)'Oe ~ee~'O~~ea~~~<= ~ Ol 0 .. Ol 0 0 .l-l Ol ::l ::: Ol l-I l-I'.-I ::l III \1.1 .l-l.....l-l.l-ll-lUUlIl....C!l 8Ol::l::l<0::l Ol ..-1 tn s:: U ), r-l III 8 ::0: C!l l-I III III III III lIlUO~S::::lS:: lIlOl 8l1ll-lOl.l-l~ ~l-IOIllUs::s::s::U'O e .s::O....'OtlI.!< OlU~~OO~OOl ~.!<ue.Qs::IIlUtlI.l-l::lO'.l-leOlllls::.l-l Ol-llll~::lIllr-lIlls::lIlllllllU~tlIl1l~\I.I .l-lOOlOOl-lOlr-l~Ol""IIl~O~IIl,t::::l tn~~UO~Ill~Il::S:C!lU<UIllU~8 III Ql 'M U Q) P, Ul S Ul .... III .g -.-I III > Q) ..-1 ..-1 'g U Ol ".-I P, Ul ~ 01 '.-1 s:: '0 'M Ol '0 Ol Q) l-I Q) .Q 1-1 .Q \1.1 0 4-l 0 l-I Ol Ul ~r.i Ul III .... s:: U II ,.., Ol I .., ,t::tlI I 0 .ulll I .... I ),\1.1 I tlI \1.1 1 III 'j~ I .... I ~ ~~ I I ~ '0 I ..-1 Ol I ~ ,t:: I lIl.u I '0 I ....Ol I N Q) l-I I s:: 0 -.-I Ol I 0 0 4-l.!=: ..-1 tn 013: .l-l r- III .-I .. S::lIl .... Q) '.-1 Q) ::l g~ ):." 8' o s:l ....0 III ........ ~~ 00 .... 4-lU III 00 .u .... .-I Q) l-I 0 00 ,t::o 8 UU 8\1.1 OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOIC I 1 I , I I 1 I I I I .... .u Q) s:: l-I III .l-l l-I Q).. 0 .. .... 1ll'Q) e ~ .... elj o.u.u,t::.. g .l-l OQ) U~~E~ '0 ~..~ .l-llll 'Ol-Il-IlIl::l Ql E.l-l.!<:" t1) QlOOUC!l..tlI.. ..QlQl::lS:: ~'Oe ~ee~~~~ea~~~<~ l-IQ) 0 .. Q) 0 0 .u Q) ::l s: Q) 1-1 1-1".-1 ::l 1Il \1.1 .ur-l.u.uI-lUUlIl.-lC!l 8~a~<?~ Q) ..-1 t1) s:: U ),.... 1Il ""' "" '-' ... .... III III III lIlUO~s:l::lS:: lIlOl 8l1ll-lQl.u~ ~l-IOIllUS::S::S::U'O e .I<: '5 ~ Jj 'g ~ 'D tlI 2l g'8.'j ~ g'~ g 2l Ol-llll~::lIll""IIlS::lIll\llllU~tlIl1l~\I.I .uOQ)OOl-lQl....~Olr-ll\lI-lO~l\l,t::::l t1)~~UQ~Ill~Il:::::C!lU<UIllUIl::8 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I APPENDIX B Photographs I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I '~""""""'-'-"-"':"'>;"'--~"'-"~"-""" T ~"'--- Photo 1 Eelgrass on north side of E-dock. Photo 2 Eelgrass and growth on finger float on E-dock. March 8, 2000 00007\040\figs-tbls\photol Ds2.doc Pentec page 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Photo 3 Beach west of C-dock gangway. Photo 4 Beach east of C-dock gangway. March 8, 2000 00007\040\figs-tbls\photol Ds2.doc Pentec page 2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Photo 5 Beach between B-dock and C-dock gangway, looking west. Photo 6 Beach east of B-dock gangway. March 8, 2000 00007\040\figs-tbls\photol Ds2.doc Pentec page 3 I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I Photo 7 Kayak dock. Photo 8 Laminaria growing on north side of fuel-dock float. March 8, 2000 00007\040\figs-tbls\photol Ds2.doc Pentec page 4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Photo 9 Beach from fuel dock looking north. March 8, 2000 00007\040\figs-tbls\photol Ds2.doc Pentec page 5 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Photo 10 Beach looking west from inn. Photo 11 Great blue heron on beach east of fuel dock, looking west. March 8, 2000 00007\040\figs-tbls\photol Ds2.doc Pentec page 6 I I Pentec I I I I I I I I Photo 12 Oysters on beach east of fuel dock. I I I I I I I Photo 13 Oysters on beach west of fuel dock. March 8, 2000 I 00007\040\figs-tbls\photol Ds2.doc page 7 I I I Pentec I " C lIS .x (.) I 0 " . <I: c C1) C1) I :: - C1) .c = (.) I lIS C1) .c ... C1) . 0. III 0.>- I ::s lIS C :: O~ lIS lIS .- tn E.x I o (.) (.) 0 =" lIS. cnm it) I ,.. 0 - 0 = a.. I " c I lIS .x (.) 0 " ct I c C1) C1) :: Q) I .c = (.) lIS C1) .c ... I C1) . 0. III 0.>- ::s lIS C :: O~ I lIS lIS .- tn E.x o (.) (.) 0 =" I lIS. cnm o:t ,.. 0 - I 0 .r:. a.. I March 8, 2000 00007\040\figs-tbls\photoIDs2.doc page 8 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I APPENDIX C Eelgrass Survey I:: wwwJ2.entecenv.co..!.!.' 1~'!!!!~~l!!~RONMENT4L I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I October 24, 2001 Ms. Shannon Kinsella Reid Middleton, Inc. 728 - 134th Street SW, Suite 200 Everett, WA 98204 Re: Port Ludlow Marina Expansion - Eelgrass Survey, Revised Pentec #12007-48 Dear Ms. Kinsella: The Port Ludlow Marina (Figure 1) plans an expansion ?f its facility to include 100 new slips and an upgraded kayak float The project calls for 40 t6 60 steel or concrete piles to be installed and floating docks subsequently floated into place. To help evaluate potential impacts on subtidal habitat, permitting agencies require a survey of the project area. On September 12, 2001, as previously arranged with Reid Middleton, Pentec Environmental (Pentec) conducted an eelgrassfmacroalgae habitat survey at Port Ludlow Marina. The survey conformed to Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife "preliminary" protocols. Parallel transects were surveyed and information recorded regarding the presence and quantity of eelgrass, the presence of macroalgae, and the nature of the substrate. Vertebrate and invertebrate species observed during the survey were noted. All transects were 20 feet apart, and observations were made every 20 feet along each.transect. The areas surveyed included that beneath the fuel dock and the subtidal area west of "0" dock where additional moorage is planned (Figure 2). The areas around the proposed offshore docks were not surveyed. These areas are located in water depths of -36 feet mean lower low water (MLLW) or greater. Eelgrass is known to exist in Puget Sound only at depths of less than -22 feet MLLW (Puget Sound Research '95 Proceedings Volume 2, PugetSound Water Quality Authority); therefore, no eelgrass would be expected to exist in those areas.' This depth is also greaterthan the maximum depth of -32 feet MLLW that macroalgae Was observed during the Pentec surveys of the fuel dock and "0" dock. FUEL DOCK The existing fuel dock area was surveyed along'three parallel transects (Figure 2). The central transect was positioned along the centerline of the dock. Transects were begun at approximately +4 feet MLLW and extended beyond the end of the fuel dock. The transects were numbered G-1 through G-3, with G-1 along the west side of the dock. The bottom A Division of Hart Crowser. Inc. 120 Third Avenue South, Suite 110 Edmonds, Washington 98020-8411 FaK 425.778.9417 Tel 425.775.4682 Anchorage B')ste.n Chicago Denver Fairbanks Jersey City Juneau Long Beach Portland Seattle Reid Middleton, Inc. October 24, 2001 12007-48 Page 2 contour for all three transects was a gentle 14 percent slope to -15 feet MLLW about 140 feet from the inshore end of the dock. Between there and the end of the dock the slope increased to 20 percent. Thedepth at the end o~ the fuel dock was approximately -27 feet MLLW. Horizontal visibility was 3 feet to a depth of -25 feet MLLW, where it dropped to less than 1 foot due to a 3-foot layer of suspended silt. The transects began on the sloping riprap bank that gave way to a silt bottom at approximately -2.5 feet MLLW. Shell debris was present on all transects. At times the substrate was notably more consolidated and described as soft mud. The only substantial debris noted was a submerged, horizontal pile positioned across the center transect 88 feet along the fuel dock. Barnacles (Balanus glandula), oysters (Crassostrea gigas), and a mottled star (Evasterias troschelil) were observed on the nearshore riprap. Macrofauna observed on the silt bottom include an unidenJified flatfish and a graceful crab (Cancer gracilis). Along the outer transects several plumose anemones (Metridium senile) were observed on small pieces of scattered debris. " Macroalgae were limited to isolated specimens of Laminaria saccharina between the dock and the bank, and one VIva lactuca plant 72 feet along the dock on the west transect. No eelgrass was observed. I'D" DOCK The area west of "0" dock was surveyed along six parallel transects 180 feet long (Figure 2). The transects were positioned parallel with the c"enterline of the dock. The survey took place between -18 and -34 feet MLLW. Horizontal visibility was 3 feet. Transects were numbered 0-1 through 0-6 starting with the inshore line. The depth along the end of the dock followed a 16 percent grade from -25 feet MLLW on the inshore end to about -35 feet MLLW halfway along the dock face (in line with the linear dock), then leveled off for the remaining three transects. Along the length of the transects, depths shallowed slightly (4 to 5 percent slope), and the outer two lines were nearly level. The substrate was very soft silt at depths greater than ~25 feet MLLW. At shallower depths, coarser sandy silt to silty sand was observed. The sediment contained shell debris along 0-1, 0-2, and 0-3. . Animal life was not abundant along the transects. Thr'ee rock crabs (Cancer productus), four mottled stars (E'asterias troschelif), and a striped sun star (So/aster stimpsom) were observed in areas where macroalgae was present. A plumose anemone was seen along Transect 0-5 on a I... .All I I I I I 1 I 1 I 1 I I I I I I I I Reid Middleton, Inc. October 24, 2001 12007-48 Page 3 piece of debris. Along Transect 0-2, two 0.5-inch-diameter holes indicative of ghost shrimp were observed in the soft silt near the dock; two horse clams (Tresus sp.) were seen in the silty sand near the end of the transect. Laminaria was observed on all but the last transect. Occurrence was low (fewer than 20 plants total), and typically only one or two plants were present at any observation point. One VIva plant was observed at the end of Transect 0-2. There was no eelgrass. SUMMARY The substrate in the study area is predominantly a soft, fine silt, with some areas of silty sand to sandy silt. Shell debris is common, and human-d~posited debris is minimal. Fauna were sparse but typical for the environment. The low light levels and predominance of soft, fine sediment support _small quantities of Laminaria and VIva, but no eelgrass. Macrovegetation was observed to a depth of -32 feet MLLW. LIMITATIONS Work for this project was performed, and this letterreport prepared, in accordance with generally accepted professional practices for the nature and conditions of the work completed in the same or similar localities, at the time the work was performed. It is intended for the exclusive use of Reid Middleton for specific application to the referenced property. This report is not meant to represent a legal opinion. No'other warranty, express or implied, is made. Any questions regarding our work and this letter report, the presentation of the information, and the interpretation of the data are welcome and should be referred to the undersigned. We trust that this report meets your needs. Sincerely, PENTEC ENVIRONMENTAL ~~ GARY S. MAXWEll Field Operations Manager gary.maxwell@pentecenv.com Attachments: Vicinity and survey maps 00007\04Blplludlowhabilalsvy.doc I. I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I 1 1 I .., . Map prepared from USGS 7.5 Minute Quadrangle P~rt Ludlow, Washington APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET ~....- 0' t 000' 2000' Pentec ENVIRONMENTAL Port Ludlow Marina Expansion Port Ludlow, Washington for Reid Middleton . Figure 1 Site vicinity map. 01/24/00 Fl9-1.FH8 I 4000' 1-, I I I I I I I I- I I I I I I I I I I. (( \ . !). \ \ i iEZ Proposed' Add.ti . I on of 100 to an exist. slips . mg marina. PORT LUDLOW MARINA EXPANSION MACROALGAE SURVEY p"\ _ SCALE -J"l . O' ' 1 QO' 200' 300' In: Port Ludlow Bay ~t: Port Ludlow Marina ounty of: Jefferson By: Olympic Pro 10/4/2001 perty Group Figure 2 Plan view 0 - - f eelgrass survey transects. o . - atum: MLLW = 0 (NOS) - Section 16 of Township 2BN R . ange 01E I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I APPENDIX D Assessment of Essential Fish Habitat for the Port Ludlow Marina Expansion Project I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I ASSESSMENT OF ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT FOR THE PORT LUDLOW MARINA EXPANSION PROJECT ACTION AGENCY U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District LOCATION Port Ludlow Marina is located in Port Ludlow Bay, Jefferson County, Washington (Township 28 North, Range 01 East, Section 16) (see Figures 1 and 2 in biological evaluation [BE] report.) PROJECT NAME Port Ludlow Marina Expansion project ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT BACKGROUND The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), as amended by the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-267), requires federal agencies to consult with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) on activities that may adversely affect Essential Fish Habitat (EFH). EFH is defined as those waters and substrates necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity. "Waters" include aquatic areas-and their associated physical, chemical, and biological properties-that are used by fish, and may include aquatic areas historically used by fish, where appropriate. "Substrates" include sediment, hard bottom, structures underlying the waters, and associated biological communities (NMFS 1999). The MSA requires consultation for all actions that may adversely affect EFH, and does not distinguish between actions within EFH and actions outside EFH. Any reasonable attempt to encourage the conservation of EFH must take into account actions that occur outside of EFH, such as upstream and upslope activities that may have an adverse effect on EFH. Therefore, EFH consultation with NMFS is required by Federal agencies undertaking, permitting, or funding activities that may adversely affect EFH, regardless of its location. The objective of this EFH assessment is to determine whether or not the proposed action "may adversely affect" designated EFH for relevant federally managed commercial fisheries species within the proposed action area. It also Pentec Environmental 12007-040 November 15. 2001 Port Ludlow Marina EFH Page 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I describes conservation measures proposed to avoid, minimize, or otherwise offset potential adverse effects to designated EFH resulting from the proposed action. IDENTIFICATION OF EFH The Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC) has designated EFH for federally-managed fisheries within the waters of Washington, Oregon, and California. The designated EFH for groundfish (PFMC 1998a; Casillas et al. 1998), and coastal pelagic species (PFMC 1998b) encompasses all waters from the mean high water line, and upriver extent of saltwater to the boundary of the u.s. exclusive economic zones (370.4 km) (PFMC 1998a, 1998b). Freshwater EFH for Pacific salmon includes all those streams, lakes, ponds, wetlands, and other water bodies currently or historically accessible to salmon in Washington, Oregon, California, and Idaho, except areas upstream or certain impassable man-made barriers (as identified by the PFMC), and longstanding, naturally-impassable barriers (Le., natural waterfalls in existence for several hundred years (PFMC 1999). In estuarine and marine areas, designated salmon EFH extends from the nearshore and tidal submerged environments withinstate territorial waters to the full extent of the exclusive economic zone (370.4 km) . offshore of Washington, Oregon, and California north of Point Conception to the Canadian Border (PFMC 1999). Groundfish, coastal pelagic, and salmonid fish species that have designated EFH in Puget Sound are listed in Table EFH 1. Some or all of these species may occur in the project area. Refer to the relevant EFH designations (Casillas et al. 1998; PFMC 1998a, 1998b, 1999) for life history stages of these species that may occur in the project vicinity. Assessment of the impacts to these species' EFH from the proposed project is based on this information. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT Port Ludlow Marina has 300 slips in its current configuration and can accommodate vessels up to 170 feet in length. Under the proposed marina expansion, 100 slips will be added, with slips varying in length from 35 to 60 feet. Please refer Section 2.3 (Project Description) of the BE report for a detailed description of the proposed action. POTENTIAL ADVERSE EFFECTS OF PROPOSED PROJECT The proposed action may have both short- and long-term effects on EFH for groundfish, coastal pelagic, and salmonid species by temporarily altering Pentec Environmental 12007-040 November 15, 2001 Port Ludlow Marina EFH Page 2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I intertidal and subtidal habitat through construction activities (e.g., pile driving). Pile driving has the potential to adversely affect EFH by creating temporary increases in turbidity and a temporary decrease in dissolved oxygen concentration. Pile placement would also eliminate benthic and epibenthic habitat within the footprint of each pile. However, piles would also provide additional surface area for colonization by marine algae and invertebrates, providing additional habitat for juvenile fish and other invertebrates. Furthermore, the benthic habitat destroyed by the pilings is small in comparison to adjacent benthic habitat that will continue to function as forage area for groundfish, coastal pelagic, and salmonid species. Therefore, any adverse impacts to EFH due to piling driving are expected to be only temporary and insignificant. The proposed action will produce an additional 33,745 square feet (sf) of overwater structure, which will, in turn, result in increased shading of intertidal and subtidal habitats beneath the structures. 32,779 sf, or 97 percent, of the proposed overwater structure will occur in areas with water depths greater than 20 feet. Under existing conditions, the project area does not provide substantial habitat for aquatic vegetation. Increased shading of underlying substrates may result in minor decreases in microalgae and benthic productivity in the area directly beneath the new floats; however, the floats will also provide additional surface area for colonization by aquatic vegetation and invertebrates. Simenstad et al. (1999) synthesized existing information on the potential impacts of overwater structures on juvenile salmon migrating along Puget Sound shorelines. In the study, the authors addressed three issues regarding the potential impacts of overwater structures on juvenile salmon: (1) alteration in migratory behavior, (2) reduction in prey production and availability, and (3) increased predation. Their assessment of over 60 direct sources of information found evidence that juvenile salmon react to shadows and other artifacts in the shoreline environment created by shoreline structures. While changes in light have been shown to affect salmon migration behavior and thus potentially place them at increased mortality risk, the authors found no quantitative information on the significance of these behavioral responses to juvenile salmon survival. Juvenile salmon also encounter limited prey resources under shoreline structures when important habitats such as eelgrass (Zostera marina) are disturbed. Modifications to light, temperature, salinity, nutrient levels, and wave action beneath an overwater structure influence the rate of photosynthesis, plant distribution, and survival of specific plant species that directly or indirectly support prey resource composition and production. Despite considerable speculation about increased predation around docks, Pentec Environmental 12007-040 November 15, 2001 Port Ludlow Marina EFH Page 3 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I quantitative evidence for significant increases in predation on salmon associated with docks is lacking. Simenstad et al. (1999) also conducted short-term underwater diving and video surveys at five ferry terminals in Puget Sound (Clinton, Kingston, Port Townsend, Seattle, Vashon) during the major period of juvenile salmon migration to gather preliminary information on the relationships among variations in overwater structures, fish occurrence and relative abundance, light conditions, biological communities, and potential predators. Juvenile salmon were observed migrating under several structures. Existing information indicates that the effects of shoreline structures on migrating juvenile salmon may vary, depending on the design and orientation of the shoreline structure, extent of alteration of the underwater light field, and presence of artificial light. The surveys indicated that summer light intensities were above the critical 1 0.4 foot candles threshold level required for maintenance of juvenile salmon feeding and schooling, even under the darkest portion of the terminal, at four of the five terminals investigated. However, according to the authors, our understanding of the significance of short-term delays in the salmon's migration and cumulative or synergistic effects is insufficient to provide the quantitative relationships that would be necessary as the basis for developing retrofitting or design modifications to overwater structures. The Washington State Department of Fisheries ([WDF] now WDFW) conducted a study of Skyline Marina in north Puget Sound in which fish, zooplankton, and water quality characteristics were compared to the marina's source water in monthly surveys conducted from March to October 1978 (Cardwell et al. 1980). The study concluded that the marina's fish populations were numerically larger, more diverse, and rich in species than those in the bay. The majority of the Pacific herring, coho salmon, and chinook salmon were captured within the marina, whereas most chum and pink salmon were captured in Burrows Bay. An experimental release of chum salmon fry into the marina suggested rapid emigration and a median residence time of one week or less. Predation on baitfish and salmon juveniles in the marina was judged to be low due to an apparent scarcity of potential bird and fish predators during the period of maximum juvenile fish abundance (May to September) (Cardwell et al. 1980). Surface zooplankton in the marina were less dense and rich in species than those in the bay, and several holoplanktonic species (e.g., siphonophores and tunicates) were either absent or present in reduced densities (Cardwell et al. 1980). Calanoid copepods, the primary prey of chum and pink salmon, surf smelt, and Pacific herring, were most abundant in the bay. Conversely, the principal prey of chinook and coho salmon, brachyura and teleost larvae, were Pentec Environmental 12007-040 November 15, 2001 Port Ludlow Marina EFH Page 4 I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I most abundant in the marina (Cardwell et al. 1980). This study suggests that the principal prey of chinook salmon, a listed species, and coho salmon, a candidate species, were not adversely affected by the marina. Based on this study, it is unlikely that the proposed action would affect zooplankton in such a way to have any significant effects on EFH for either of these species. Illumination of the existing Port Ludlow Marina, as well as the proposed expansion, at night with artificial lighting is not expected to adversely impact salmonids that may use the marina area. Salo et al. (1977, as cited in Parametrix 1993) and Prinslow et al. (1979, as cited in Parametrix 1993) studied the effects of artificial lighting along the edges of a pier apron on Hood Canal. However, these studies considered only the effects of lights at night. Young salmon, as well as other fish, were attracted to the lighted areas at the edge of the aprons. In this situation, the lights were hung from the apron edges and directed at the water's surface. Light levels as low as 0.2 foot candles (ft-c) at the water surface caused young chum salmon to be attracted from an area of 5 to 10m during nighttime periods. These light levels also attracted young herring and sand lance. Light levels of 19 to 37 ft-c attracted substantial numbers of chum salmon and other fish. These attractions of young fish were to areas adjacent to the piers rather than under the aprons. Ratte and Salo (1985, as cited in Parametrix 1993) studied the effects of artificial lighting under a Port of Tacoma pier apron. Generally they obtained higher catches in traps with the lights off than with the lights on. These results suggest that young salmon tended to avoid the artificially lighted area to some degree. Groundfish, coastal pelagic, and salmonid species, particularly juveniles, may occur in the project area or immediately offshore at any time of the year. However, direct adverse effects to chinook and coho salmon are not expected, because inwater construction activities would be timed to avoid periods when large numbers of juvenile salmon are expected to be present. The project actions described above have the potential to adversely affect the EFH of managed species, but these effects are expected to be very localized, temporary, and not to reduce the overall value of the EFH to these managed species. CONSERVATION MEASURES No significant or measurable effects are predicted to EFH from the proposed action. However, a number of conservation measures have been incorporated into the marina expansion project. Construction will be confined to periods Pentec Environmental 12007-040 November 15,2001 Port Ludlow Marina EFH Page 5 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I when listed and candidate species are not likely to occur in the action area, thereby minimizing or preventing potential adverse impacts to these species. Steel pilings will be used instead of treated wood pilings to prevent the introduction of any chemical contaminants that could leach from treated wood pilings. Additionally, light transmission panels will be installed on the proposed replacement kayak float, which will allow light to penetrate to the substrate beneath the float. Additional conservation measures that are currently in place at the marina and that will continue following completion of the marina expansion project are those implemented to prevent degradation of water quality. The marina rules and regulations are issued to each boater that comes into contact with the main office when paying for moorage or signing up for long term moorage. These rules and regulations clearly articulate what is allowed and not allowed in the marina. The marina practices best management practices. The existing water and sediment quality monitoring plan, which monitors water and sediment quality in the marina and throughout Port Ludlow Bay, will continue after the marina expansion project. Water and sediment quality data collected since 1989 indicate that water and sediment quality throughout Port Ludlow meet or exceed state standards. Continued monitoring will provide a means to assess future trends in environmental quality within Port Ludlow Bay. CONCLUSION As described above, the proposed action may result in localized, temporary, and insignificant impacts to designated EFH for groundfish, coastal pelagic, and salmonids. However, we anticipate that implementation of the above-listed conservation measures and other considerations outlined previously will avoid, minimize, or otherwise offset potential adverse effects to EFH related to the proposed action. Pentec Environmental 12007-040 November 15, 2001 Port Ludlow Marina EFH Page 6 I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I REFERENCES Cardwell, RD., S.j. Olsen, M.1. Carr, and E.W. Sanborn, 1980. Biotic, Water Quality, and Hydrologic Characteristics of Skyline Marina in 1978. Washington State Department of Fisheries, Technical Report No. 54, Olympia. Casillas, E., L. Crockett, Y. deReynier, j. Glock, M. Helvey, B. Meyer, C. Schmitt, M. Y oklavich, A. Bailey, B. Chao, B. johnson, and T. Pepperell, 1998. Essential Fish Habitat West Coast Groundfish, Appendix. National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, Washington. NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service), 1999. Essential Fish Habitat Consultation Guidance. NMFS, Office of Habitat Conservation, Silver Spring, Maryland. NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service), 2001. Endangered Species Act - Section 7 and Essential Fish Habitat Consultation Biological Opinion: Port of Olympia Cascade Pole Sediment Remediation (WSB-00-453). NMFS, Northwest Region, Washington State Habitat Branch, Lacey. Parametrix, 1993. Light and juvenile Salmon Under Pier Aprons - Literature Review. Prepared by Parametrix, Inc., Bellevue, Washington. PFMC (Pacific Fishery Management Council), 1998a. Final Environmental Assessment/Regulatory Review for Amendment 11 to the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan (October 1998). PFMC, Portland, Oregon. PFMC (Pacific Fishery Management Council), 1998b. The Coastal Pelagic Species Fishery Management Plan: Amendment 8 (December 1998). PFMC, Portland, Oregon. PFMC(Pacific Fishery Management Council), 1999. Amendment 14 to the Pacific Coast Salmon Plan. Appendix A: Description and Identification of Essential Fish Habitat, Adverse Impacts and Recommended Conservation Measures for Salmon (August 1999). PFMC, Portland, Oregon. Prinslow, T.E., E.O. Salo, and B.P. Snyder, 1979. Studies of Behavioral Effects of a Lighted and an Unlighted Wharf on Outmigrating Salmonids, March-April 1978. University of Washington, Fisheries Research Institute, College of Fisheries, FRI-UW-7920, Seattle. Pentec Environmental 12007-040 November 15, 2001 Port Ludlow Marina EFH Page 7 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Ratte, L.D., and E.G. Salo, 1985. Under-Pier Ecology of juvenile Pacific Salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.) in Commencement Bay, Washington. University of Washington, Fisheries Research Institute, School of Fisheries, FRI-UW-8508, Seattle. Salo, M.E., E.G. Salo, and B.P. Snyder, 1977. A Preliminary Study on the Effects of Pier Lighting on Fishes. University of Washington, Fisheries Research Institute, FRI-UW-7712, College of Fisheries, Seattle. Simenstad, CA., B.j. Nightingale, R. M. Thorn, and D.K. Shreffler, 1999. Impacts of Ferry Terminals on juvenile Salmon Migration along Puget Sound Shorelines, Phase I: Synthesis of State of Knowledge. Prepared for the Washington State Transportation Commission, Research Project T9903, Task A2, Olympia. Pentec Environmental 12007-040 November 15, 2001 Port Ludlow Marina EFH Page 8 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Table EFH 1 - Fish Species with Designated EFH in the Estuarine Composite (NMFS 2001) Groundfish Species spiny dogfish, Squalus acanthias California skate, R. inornata spotted raffish, Hydrolagus colliei lingcod, Ophiodon elongatus cabezon, Scorpaenichthys marmoratus kelp greenling, Hexagrammos decagrammus Pacific cod, Gadus macrocephalus Pacific whiting (hake), Mer/uccius productus sablefish, Anoplopoma fimbria bocaccio, S. paucispinis brown rockfish, S. auriculatus copper rockfish, S. caurinus quillback rockfish, S. maliger English sole, Pleuronectes vetulus Pacific sanddab, Citharichthys sordidus rex sole, E"ex zachirus starry flounder, Platichthys stellatus Coastal Pelagic Species northern anchovy, Engraulis mordax Pacific sardine, Sardinops sagax Pacific mackerel, Scomber japonicus market squid, Loligo opalescens Pacific Salmonid Species chinook salmon, Oncorhynchus tshawytscha coho salmon, O. kisutch Puget Sound pink salmon, O. gorbuscha I I' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1\ I I 2000 1600 ::r Cit 1200 .= ., - ~ 800 Z 2000 1600 - -' Cit 1200 :I. .... ., ~ 800 Z 2000 - -' Cit 1200 :I. .... .! ~ 800 Z Ludlow Creek -:.:.:.:-: 400 :::::::::: :;::::::;: :::::::::: ~~!lll!' ;.;:.;.:. .:.:.;.:.; .......... ~~:=:;:; ~;;:~:f ;;~[~~lj~ :::~:;::: rJ .:.:.:.:.: :.;.:.;.:. ;;::;:;:;: 11iji .. .. .. .. .. :::::;:::; .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. _. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. o 10190 4192 12/93 1/95 11/95 3/97 12/98 2100 10100 Inner Harbor East Creek .:.;.:::.' 400 i~ -------- .~~~l-..--- ~.~.:. .:~::y.: .:........ .::::::::: . ::11: _ :~!Irfi :;:;:(::; -I :1.. - eo eo . .:;~;!;; 1- ~~l~~ o 10/90 4192 12/93 1/95 11195 3/97 12/98 2100 10100 Golf Course Creek 1600 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. _. .. _. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .... .;...... ................................................ 400 o 10190 4192 12/93 1195 11195 3197 12/98 2/00 10100 2000 i~~ .. :~:~;:::: jf;:ill: :::::,::::: .. ~::::;~: .. ~~~~:~: -I . @I . :t~I tl Salt Marsh Creek ;T ...~ "::::::=:: :~i!: ~d1 ~~~ft~ .......... ~tt. m~~t ~:~:~~~: .;.:.:.;.; ..x.. :::~::~ ~:;:jji:l :::::::::: ..~.. ';':0:':': ~.~.~:;.r.:.~..i~.:.:. :;::;::::: .~, :.:.;.:.:. ~t~ ft~. ;.:.:';0;- - ;;:::::::: ;::::::::;" :::::::::: :::::::::. n;~~~: .:.:.;.:.: :::::.<;;: _ ~~~~~~~~l ;:~::~:: .... }t~ :.:~.t.:.t.;.~.~.~.:." . ... .. ~:i,t.~..:.:.>.~.~:~: :JJt ". 1600 ::r Cit 1200 :I. .... ., - ~ 800 Z 400 2000 1600 ::r Cit 1200 .= ., ~ 800 Z 2000 1600 ::r Cit 1200 .= ., ~ 800 z o 1l: illl ;~r~ ':';0;.:- ;0;':';': 1- ::::*:: - ::::::::: .:::::~:: ::;::;;:: ~~f1 - ~:~:::: ~f:~l ~~~tj ~I .:.zo;.: - ~~~~l-------- ~~~~I~ ;1;~~1 I:i--- ...~ ~~1~~~~ - - - - ~~~~t~ 'X:::::: :l~ ili.:-~[.j ::~~~ - ...~ ~i;~f X' Ji t:'.~.r,.t.:.~.i:l.. '::::~::: '-... 10190 4/92 12/93 1195 11195 3/97 12/98 2/00 10100 Inner Harbor West Creek - -- - ---- ------ - - -- -- -- -- ------- ---- 400 o 10190 4192 12/93 1195 11195 3/97 12/98 2/00 10100 Ludlow Bay Rd Pond Outlet - - -- ----- - - -- - -- - - - -- - - - ---- - ------ -------- ---- --- --- - -- --- -- -- -- - ---- .. -... - .--. - -- - - - - --. - - - --- -- --- - -- 400 o -------------------- 10190 4/92 12/93 1/95 11195 3197 STORM FLOW NITRATE Long-term trenda In atormwater monitoring r.aulls for the alx major Port Ludlow Say tributary atatlons. Figure 8 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I APPENDIX F JEFFERSON COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Parks and Recreation and Shoreline Goals and Policies Goals: Open Space Goal 4.0 Develop and maintain park and recreational facilities that are responsive to the needs and interests of Jefferson County residents and visitors. Policies: OSP 4.2 OSP 4.3 OSP 4.6 Develop recreational opportunities such that: a. Existing recreational areas and facilities are not overburdened, b. Recreational facilities are planned to support areas designated for future residential development, c. Adequate infrastructure is available. Ensure that the location, type, and amount of park and recreation facilities are consistent with the needs and desires of citizens in the area, and that they accommodate a diversity of age, interest, and ability groups. Ensure that parks and recreation facilities along marine shores, lakes, and streams are compatible with the goals, policies, and performance standards of the Jefferson County Shoreline Management Master Program. Shoreline Goal ENG 4.0 Policies: ENP 4.1 Preserve the long-term benefits of shoreline resources. Shorelines shall be managed according to the following order of preferred uses as established in the Shoreline Management Act (RCW 90.58.020) 1. Recognize and protect state-wide over local interests; 2. Preserve the natural character of the shoreline; 3. Achieve long-term over short-term benefits; 4. Protect the resources and ecology of the shoreline; 5. Increase public access to publicly owned areas of the shoreline; 6. Increase recreational opportunities for the public on the shoreline; and, 7. Provide for any other element as defined in RCW90.58.100 and deemed appropriate or necessary. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ENP 4.4 Promote public access on shorelines in a manner that preserves or enhances the characteristics of the shoreline. Shoreline Goal ENG 5.0 Allow development along shorelines which is compatible with the protection of natural processes,. natural conditions, and natural functions of the shoreline environment. ENP 5.1 Regulate shoreline land use activities based on the best available scientific information. ENP 5.5 Coordinate with Department of Fish and Wildlife to protect and enhance fish and wildlife habitat and other marine resources. ENP 5.8 Promote best management practices to protect shorelines in land use regulations related to septic systems, forest practices, agricultural practices, industry, and other development. H:\DOC\24Wt\99\014Portludlow\PLA WORK\SEP A \DEIS\AppF.doc I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 2001 PORT LUDLOW TRAFFIC MONITORING SUMMARY REPORT NOVEMBER 2001 Prepared for: Port Ludlow Associates DAVID 1. HAMLIN AND ASSOCIATES 1319 DEXTER A VENUE NORTH - SUITE 270 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98109 (206) 285-9035 I I I I I" I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 2001 PORT LUDLOW TRAFFIC MO~T}TORING SUMMARY REPORT INTRODUCTION Port Ludlow Associates (formerly Pope Resources) is required by Jefferson County to provide a yearly traffic monitoring program for Port Ludlow as a condition of several plat approvals. The purpose of the monitoring program is to provide a cumulative summary of traffic volumes in the area and an assessment of current operating conditions at critical intersections in the area. The year 2001 is the eighth year that data has been collected for this program. A key comment in the Port Ludlow Development Program Final Environmental Impact Statement came from the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) which stated their concern about traffic during July and August, particularly on the weekends. Thus, the 1994 through 2001 monitoring programs have focused on weekend counts by conducting the machine counts on a Saturday, Sunday, and Monday in August. (Jefferson County has weekday data available, which is collected yearly.) This information will provide a comparison between weekday and weekend traffic and the impacts that Port Ludlow development has on these volumes. Weekday PM peak hour turning movement counts were conducted again at the same five intersections that were counted in the prior years, and will be compared to counts previously conducted in the area. No turning movement counts were conducted on the weekend, however, the intersection approach volumes from the mechanical counters have been used to estimate weekend peak hour turning movement counts that can be compared to the weekday peak hours. The remainder of this report summarizes the data collected for the year 2001. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TRAFFIC VOLUMES Traffic counters were placed at 18 locations within the Port Ludlow area and accumulated data for Saturday August 4th through Monday August 6th. Five of these counters are used in determining residential trip generation. The remaining 13 counters were placed at key jntersections and include the following locations (these locations are the same as those used in 1994 through 2000): Intersection - SR-104/Paradise Bay Road Leg Counted West, North - SR-104/Beaver Valley Road West, East, North - Beaver Valley Road/Oak Bay Road North - Oak Bay Road/Paradise Bay Road East, West, South - Oak Bay Road/Marine View Drive East - Paradise Bay Road/Teal Lake Road East, West, South A summary of the data is provided in the table on the following page. 2 I I I TABLE 1 I 2001 PORT LUDLOW TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY I DAILY VOLUME LOCATION SATURDAY SUNDAY WEEKEND AVG. MONDA Y SR-104/ I Par. Bay Rd. West Leg 19114 18386 18750 16397 North Leg 2776 2314 2545 2683 I SR..:104/ Beaver Valley Rd. I West Leg 12256 12335 12296 9675 East Leg 18408 17805 18107 15859 North Leg 7036 6206 6621 6870 I Beaver Valley Rd.l I Oak Bay Rd. North Leg 6826 5968 6397 6677 I Oak Bay Rd.l Paradise Bay Rd. East Leg 3793 3190 3492 3844 I West Leg 1140 1046 1093 1126 South Leg 3604 2932 3268 3873 I Oak Bay Rd.l Marine Drive East Leg 1289 1107 1198 1157 I Paradise Bay Rd.l I Teal Lake Rd. East Leg 2569 2172 2371 2596 West Leg 3311 2817 3064 3734 I South Leg 1430 1158 1294 1737 I The 24-hour volumes along SR-104 were again higher on the weekend than on Monday for 2001. Sunday volumes were all lower than Saturday or Monday at all of the I remaining locations. However, the results of the remainder of the counts on the County arterials and on Beaver Valley Road (SR-19)) were mixed, i.e., along some of the I . 3 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I roadways higher daily volumes were recorded on Saturday than on Monday and vice versa. Higher volumes on the weekend on the County arterials were also noted in the 1998 through 2000 programs, although overall the weekend volumes still have a tendency to be lower on the weekend than on the weekday. Prior to 1998 the County arterials almost always had higher weekday volumes than weekend volumes, and the State highways had higher weekend volumes. The difference between the weekend and weekday volumes on the County arterials is still relatively small. The higher weekend highway volumes have been attributed, in the past, to travelers heading to the Port Angeles and Port Townsend areas for summertime recreation. This still appears to be a reasonable conclusion. The higher traffic volumes on the County arterials on a weekday have been attributed to coinciding with the presence of commuter traffic. Figure 1 summarizes the data shown in the previous table. The 200 1 traffic volume patterns again represent the impact of recreational traffic on weekends during the summer months. However, as noted in the previous monitoring summaries, Port Ludlow traffic does not appear to be significantly contributing to these higher volumes. The County arterials serving Port Ludlow experience relatively low volumes when compared to the state highways. Overall, the 24-hour traffic volumes recorded in 2001 are higher than those recorded in 1994, although a few locations are still below the volumes recorded seven years ago, particularly the Sunday volumes. At the locations counted, the rate of growth ranged from approximately -3.5% to 4.3% per year, with most locations falling into the 1 % range. Table 2 summarizes the net change in volumes between 1994 and 2001. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TABLE 2 NET CHANGE IN TRAFFIC VOLUMES FROM 1994 TO 2001 CHANGE IN DAILY VOLUMES LOCA TION SATURDAY SUNDAY MONDA Y SR-104/Par. Bay Rd. West Leg + 1099 -135 + 1764 North Leg +398 +166 +110 SR-104/Beaver Valley Rd. West Leg +411 -177 +704 East Leg +729 -283 + 1719 North Leg +283 -291 +756 Beaver Valley Rd.l Oak Bay Rd. " North Leg +356 -149 +855 Oak Bay Rd.l Paradise Bay Rd. East Leg +122 -134 -318 West Leg -81 -135 -159 South Leg +252 +43 -217 Oak Bay Rd.l Marine Drive East Leg -131 -377 -81 Paradise Bay Rd.l Teal Lake Rd. East Leg +135 -1 -141 West Leg +245 +124 -3 South Leg +365 +170 +293 The 2001 weekday PM peak hour traffic volumes have been summarized on Figure 2. A comparison of these volumes with those collected in 1994 showed a range from a 7 % to 21 % increase at the intersections (1.0% to 2.8% annually). Figure 3 shows estimates of the weekend peak hour volumes at these same intersections. The 2001 estimated I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I weekend peak hour volumes differed from the 1994 weekend peak hour volumes by a rangeof-8% to +17% (approximately-1.1% to +2.3% annually). LEVEL OF SERVICE Level of service calculations were conducted at the five intersections in and around Port Ludlow where PM peak hour traffic counts were col~ected. The results of these analyses are shown in the table on the next two pages, along with the levels of service that were calculated in 1992 as part of the programmatic EIS, and the level of service results from the 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000 monitoring programs. The level of service calculations were modified in 1996 to reflect newer methodologies used in computing capacity, where level of service is reported in terms of seconds of delay rather than reserve capacity. The converted values for 1992, 1994 and 1995, along with the 1996 through 2001 values, are shown in Table 3. I I I I TABLE 3 WEEI\.1>A Y PEAK HOUR LEVELS OF SERVICE SR-I04/ SR-I04/ TEAL LAKE OAK BAY PAR. BAY PARADISE BEAVER RD./PAR. RD.lBEAVER RD.lOAK YEAR MOVEMENT BAY ROAD VALLEY RD..... BAY RD. VALLEY RD. BAY RD." 1992 EB EBLT A (4SEC) A ( 3 SEe) A(2SEC) A ( 2 SEC) WB A ( 5 SEC) WBLT A (4SEC) A ( 3 SEe) A(2SEC) A ( 2 SEC) NB B(7SEC) A(3SEC) A ( 5 SEC) A ( 3 SEe) SB C(19SEC) B ( 8 SEe) A(3SEC) A ( 4 SEC) SBLT A ( 3 SEC) OVERALL A ( I SEC) A ( 2 SEe) A ( 2 SEC) A ( 1 SEC) A(3SECl I - 1994 EB EBLT B ( 5 SEC) A ( 3 SEe) A ( 2 SEe) A (2 SEC) WB B ( 7 SEC) WBLT A ( 4 SEC) A ( 3 SEe) A(3SEC) A(2SEC) NB B ( 6 SEe) A ( 4 SEe) B (5 SEe) A ( 4 SEC) SB F (70 SEC) C (15 SEC) A ( 4 SEe) A ( 5SEC) SBLT A ( 3 SEC) OVERALL B(7SEC) B ( 6 SEe) A (l SEe) A ( 1 SEC) A(3SEC) 1995 EB EBLT A (4SEC) A(3SEC) A(2SEC) A ( 2 SEC) WB B(6SEC) WBLT A (4SEC) A ( 3 SEC) A ( 3 SEC) A ( 2 SEC) NB B ( 8 SEC) B(7SEC) A ( 5 SEC) A ( 4 SEC) SB D (29 SEC) C (13 SEC) A ( 4 SEC) B ( 5 SEC) SBLT A ( 3 SEC) OVERALL A ( 3 SEC) A (4 SEC) A ( 1 SEe) A ( 1 SEC) A (3 SEC) 1996 EB EBLT A ( 5 SEC) A(4SEC) A ( 2 SEC) A ( 2 SEC) WB B ( 7 SEC) WBLT A(5SEC) A ( 3 SEe) A ( 3 SEC) A ( 2 SEC) NB B ( 8 SEC) B ( 7 SEe) B ( 5 SEe) A ( 4 SEC) SB E (45 SEC) E (64 SEC) A ( 4 SEe) B ( 5 SEC) SBLT A ( 3 SEC) OVERALL A ( 3 SEC) o (24 SEC) A (1 SEC) A ( 1 SEC) A ( 3 SEC) 1997 EB A (2 SEC) EBLT B ( 6 SEC) A ( 4 SEC) A ( 3 SEe) WB B ( 6 SEC) A ( 3 SEC) WBLT B ( 6 SEC) A (3 SEC) A ( 3 SEC) NB C (10 SEC) C (10 SEC) B ( 6 SEC) A ( 4 SEe) SB F(>99SEC) C (18 SEC) A ( 4 SEe) A ( 2 SEC) SBLT A ( 3 SEC) OVERALL F (46 SEC) A ( 5 SEe) A ( I SEe) A ( 1 SEC) A (3 SEC) I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 7 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TABLE 3 (CON'T.) WEEKDA Y PEAK HOUR LEVELS OF SERVICE SR-104/ SR-104/ TEAL LAKE OAK BAY PAR. BAY PARADISE BEAVER RD./PAR. RD./BEAVER RD./OAK YEAR MOVEMENT BA Y ROAD V ALLEY RD..... BAY RD. VALLEY RD. BAY RD." 1998 EB A ( 1 SEe) EBLT A ( 4 SEe) A ( 3 SEC) A ( 3 SEe) WE B ( 7 SEe) A (2 SEe) WBLT A ( 4 SEe) A (3 SEC) A ( 3 SEe) NB B ( 5 SEe) B ( 7 SEC) B ( 6 SEe) A (3 SEe) SB E (39 SEC) C (15 SEC) A (4 SEe) A(2 SEe) SBLT A (3 SEe) OVERALL A ( 3 SEC) B ( 6 SEC) A ( I SEe) A ( 1 SEC) A (3 SEe) 1999 EB A (2 SEe) EBLT A ( 5 SEC) A ( 3 SEC) A ( 3 SEe) WE B ( 7 SEe) A (3 SEe) WELT A ( 4 SEe) A ( 3 SEC) A ( 3 SEe) NB B ( 8 SEe) A(5SEe) B ( 6 SEe) A ( 5 SEC) SB F (66 SEC) D (20 SEC) A ( 4 SEe) A ( 2 SEC) SBLT A ( 3 SEe) OVERALL A(5SEC) B ( 8 SEe) A ( 1 SEC) A ( I SEC) A (3 SEe) 2000 EB A ( 2 SEe) EBLT B ( 6 SEC) A ( 4 SEC) A (3 SEe) WE B(8SEC) A ( 3 SEe) WBLT A ( 5 SEC) A ( 3 SEC) A ( 3 SEe) NB B ( 9 SEC) B ( 5 SEC) B ( 6 SEe) A ( 5 SEe) SB F (>99 SEC) E (31 SEC) B(5SEC) A ( 2 SEC) SBLT A ( 3 SEC) OVERALL C (14 SEC) B ( 7 SEC) A ( 1 SEC) A ( I SEe) A ( 3 SEC) 2001 EB A ( 2 SEC) EBLT B ( 6 SEC) A ( 3 SEC) A ( 2 SEe) WB B ( 8 SEC) A (3 SEC) WBLT A ( 5 SEe) A ( 3 SEC) A ( 3 SEC) NB B ( 8 SEC) A ( 4 SEC) A(3SEC) B ( 6 SEe) SB F (65 SEC) 0(28 SEC) B ( 5 SEe) A ( 2 SEC) SBLT A ( 3 SEC) OVERALL A (4 SEe) B ( 7 SEC) A ( I SEe) A ( I SEC) A ( 3 SEC) * - Intersection modified to all-way stop in 1997 analyses. ** - Level of service for southbound movement with the use of merge/acceleration lane for the southbound left-turn. 8 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Where: LOS A B C D E F Delay ~ 5 seconds > 5 & ~ 10 seconds > 10 & ~ 20 seconds > 20 & ~ 30 seconds > 30 & ~ 45 seconds > 45 seconds A comparison of the results of the analyses between 1992 and 2001 showed very minor changes, if any, in the amount of delay at the intersections of Teal Lake Road/Paradise Bay Road, Oak Bay Road/Beaver Valley Road, and Paradise Bay Road/Oak Bay Road, with level of service grades staying essentially the same. The 2001 overall level of service at the intersection of SR-104/Paradise Bay Road was back up to "A" having been at "C" or better for all the years except 1997 when it fell into the "F" range. The level of service for the southbound movement at this intersection was again at "P" after rising to "E" in 1998. This movement has ranged from "C" to "F" in prior years. The overall intersection level of service at the intersection of SR-104/Beaver Valley Road was again at "B" in 2001, which is similar to previous years with the exception of 1996 when an overall level of service liD" was calculated. Both of the intersections along SR- 104 are showing increased overall intersection delay due to increased demand for the southbound left-turn movements and higher through volumes on SR-104. Level of service calculations were also conducted for these same intersections for the weekend peak hour using the estimated turning movement volumes that are based on the approach volumes from the mechanical counters. The weekend peak hours for the two intersections along SR-104 (at Paradise Bay Road and Beaver Valley Road) and at Oak Bay Road/Beaver Valley Road occurred on Sunday, whereas the weekend peak hour at the intersections of Oak Bay Road/Paradise Bay Road and Teal Lake Road/Paradise Bay Road occurred late Saturday morning. The results of these analyses are shown in the following table, along with the levels of service that were calculated as part of the 1994 through 2000 monitoring programs. I I I I I I TABLE 4 WEEKEND PEAK HOUR LEVELS OF SERVICE SR-I04/ SR-I04/ TEAL LAKE OAK BAY PAR. BAY PARADISE BEAVER RD.lPAR. RD.lBEAVER RD./OAK YEAR MOVEMENT BAY ROAD VALLEY RD..... BAY RD. V ALLEY RD. BAY RD." 1994 EB EBLT A(4SEC) A (3 SEe) A (3 SEe) A (2 SEe) WB B ( 7 SEe) WBLT B ( 9 SEe) B ( 6 SEe) A ( 3 SEe) A (3 SEe) NB C (IS SEC) B ( 7 SEe) B(6SEC) A ( 4 SEe) SB F (>99 SEC) E (32 SEC) A (4 SEe) A (S SEe) SBLT A ( 3 SEe) OVERALL D (27 SEC) D (30 SEC) A ( 1 SEC) A ( 1 SEe) A (3 SEe) 1995 EB EBLT A ( 4 SEe) A ( 3 SEe) A (2 SEe) A (2 SEe) WB B ( 8 SEe) WBLT B ( 9 SEe) B ( 6 SEe) A(3SEC) A (3 SEe) NB C (IS SEC) B ( 8 SEe) A (S SEe) A ( 4 SEe) SB F (>99 SEC) E (34 SEC) A(4SEC) B (S SEe) SBLT A ( 3 SEe) OVERALL D (20 SEC) E (36 SEC) A (1 SEC) A ( 1 SEe) A (3 SEe) 1996 EB EBLT A ( S SEe) A ( 4 SEC) A(3SEC) A(2SEC) WB B ( 9 SEe) WBLT B ( 9 SEe) A(4SEC) A ( 3 SEe) A (3 SEe) NB C (18 SEC) B ( 5 SEC) B ( S SEe) A ( 4 SEe) SB F (>99 SEC) F (>99 SEC) A(SSEC) B ( 6 SEe) SBLT A ( 3 SEe) OVERALL E (31 SEC) F (98 SEC) A (1 SEC) A ( 1 SEe) A ( 3 SEe) 1997 EB A ( 1 SEe) EBLT A (4SEC) A ( 3 SEC) A ( 2 SEC) WB B ( 8 SEe) A (3 SEe) WBLT B ( 9 SEe) B ( 6 SEe) A ( 3 SEe) NB C (1S SEC) B ( 8 SEe) B ( 6 SEe) A ( 4 SEe) SB F (>99 SEC) F (>99 SEC) A ( S SEe) A ( 2 SEe) SBLT A ( 3 SEe) OVERALL D (2S SEC) F (>99 SEC) A ( 1 SEC) A ( 1 SEC) A ( 4 SEC) 1998 EB A ( 2 SEe) EBLT A(4SEC) A ( 3 SEe) A (3 SEe) WB B ( 8 SEC) A ( 3 SEe) WBLT B ( 8 SEe) B ( 6 SEC) A ( 3 SEC) NB C (IS SEC) B ( 8 SEe) B(SSEC) A ( 4 SEC) SB F (>99 SEC) F (65 SEC) A (4 SEe) A ( 2 SEe) SBLT A ( 3 SEe) OVERALL E (34 SEC) F (>99 SEC) A ( 1 SEC) A ( < I SEC) A ( 3 SEe) I I I I I I I I I I I I I 10 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TABLE 4 (CON'T.) WEEKEND PEAK HOUR LEVELS OF SERVICE SR-104/ SR-I04/ TEAL LAKE OAK BAY PAR. BAY PARADISE BEAVER RD.lPAR. RD.lBEA VER RD.lOAK YEAR MOVEMENT BAY ROAD.... VALLEY RD. BAY RD. VALLEY RD. BAY RD." 1999 EB A ( 2 SEe) EBLT A ( 4 SEe) A (3 SEe) A ( 3 SEe) WB B ( 8 SEe) A( 3 SEe) WBLT B ( 8 SEC) B ( 5 SEe) A(3SEC) NB C (20 SEC) B ( 7 SEe) B ( 6 SEe) A (5 SEe) SB F (>99 SEC) E (32 SEC) A ( 4 SEe) A(2SEC) SBLT A ( 3 SEe) OVERALL C (13 SEC) D (24 SEC) A ( r SEC) A ( 1 SEe) A(3SEC) 2000 EB A (2 SEeL EBLT A ( 4 SEC) A ( 3 SEe) A ( 2 SEe) WB B ( 9 SEe) A (3 SEe) WBLT B ( 7 SEe) B ( 5 SEe) A ( 3 SEe) NB C (11 SEC) B ( 7 SEe) B ( 5 SEe) A (5 SEe) SB F (>99 SEC) E (45 SEC) A(5SEC) A (2 SEe) SBLT A ( 3 SEe) OVERALL B(7SEC) C (11 SEC) A(2SEC) A ( 1 SEe) A (3 SEe) 2001 EB A ( 1 SEe) EBLT A ( 4 SEe) A(4SEC) A ( 2 SEe) WB B ( 7 SEe) A (3 SEe) WBLT B(8SEC) A (4 SEC) A (3 SEe) NB C (13 SEC) B(5SEC) A(5SEe) A ( 4 SEe) SB F (>99 SEC) F (>99 SEC) A ( 3 SEe) A ( 2 SEe) SBLT A ( 3 SEe) OVERALL B ( 6 SEe) E (32 SEC) A ( 1 SEe) A ( 1 SEe) A ( 3 SEe) * - Intersection modified to all-way stop in 1997 analyses. ** - Level of service for southbound movement with the use of merge/acceleration lane for the southbound left-turn. The comparison of the 2001 weekend data with the weekday data was similar to most of the prior years when both the intersections of Paradise Bay Road/SR-104 and Beaver Valley Road/SR-104 operated at a worse condition on the weekend as compared to the weekday. The only exception to this pattern was in the year 2000 when there was a better weekend level of service at the SR-I04/Paradise Bay Road intersection than weekday level of service. The intersections in, or closer to, Port Ludlow continued to again operate much the same on the weekend as on a weekday, i.e., at a good level of service and have changed little since the monitoring program began. 11 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TRIP GENERATION Mechanical traffic counters used in calculating the trip generation for the residential units within Port Ludlow were again set at one of the locations used since 1994 (Windrose Drive), at three locations used since 1996 Gust north of Swansonville Road at Pioneer Drive East and West, and Fleet Drive), and at a location first used in 1998, Sea Vista Place. These locations are shown on Figure 4. Only those areas that can be completely cordoned off are used to gather this data. The Sea Vista Place location replaces counts foqnerly conducted on South Keel Way since it was able to provide a sample size of over twice the number of residences. The number of units used in the sample size is based on occupied units at the time of the counts. Utility records were again used to determine the number of occupied units. Table 5 summarizes the trip generation for the weekend and Monday. The average of the daily rates for Sunday and Monday were lower in 2001 than in any of the previous years of the program. The daily average rate for Saturday was roughly the mean for the prior seven years. The daily rates for 2001 at location 1 (WindroseDrive) were the lowest rates recorded in the eight year program. As noted at the bottom of Table 5, the peak hour rates are for the peak hour of the generator, which typically occurred in the late morning or in the afternoon. Overall, the trip rates for 2001 were the lowest, or close to the lowest, ever recorded for the monitoring program. As in previous years, the rates were the lowest for the largest sample, with the exception of Saturday when the largest sample had the highest rate. A review of the field data indicated some type of peaking at this location during the late morning that may have been associated with a summer party or reception. Rates, in general, appear to be lower in 2001. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TABLE 5 2001 TRIP GENERATION FOR RESIDENTIAL UNITS PORT LUDLOW LOCA TION 1 2 3 AVERAGE NO. OF UNITS IN 33 27 155 NA SAMPLE SIZE SA TURDA Y TRIPS 142 134 935 NA SUNDAY TRIPS 162 92 651 NA MONDA Y TRIPS 221 149 943 NA SATURDAY DAILY 4.30 4.96 6.03 5.63 TRIP RATE SUNDAY DAILY 4.91 3.41 4.20 4.21 TRIP RATE MONDA Y DAILY 6.70 5.52 6.08 6.11 TRIP RATE SATURDA Y PEAK HOUR 0.64 0.67 0.71 TRIP RA TE* (2:00P) (2:30P) (11: 15A) SUNDA Y PEAK HOUR 0.67 0.56 0.47 TRIP RATE* (12: 15P) (3:45P) (11 :30A) MONDA Y PEAK HOUR 0.76 0.74 0.61 TRIP RATE* (12:00P) (12:45P) (1:45P) NA - Not Applicable. * - Peak hour of generator, not of adjacent street. LOCATION 1 - Windrose Drive north of Paradise Bay Road LOCATION 2 - Sea Vista Place north of Crestview Drive LOCATION 3 - Pioneer Drive East, Pioneer Drive West, & Fleet Drive north of Swansonville Road 1'1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I CONCLUSIONS The 2001 traffic monitoring program for Port Ludlow provides the eighth in an ongoing series of area-wide analyses aimed at evaluating traffic demands and needs, particularly those associated with Port Ludlow development activities. The following items were noted. · The traffic counts that were conducted this year (2001) continue to show higher volumes along SR-I04 on the weekend as compared to a weekday. · The County arterials in and around Port Ludlow showed a mix of some higher traffic volumes on the weekdays than on the weekend, and vice versa. This is somewhat contrary to prior years, but the differences are fairly minor and not of a magnitude that would affect the level of service of the roadways. · The peak hour volumes indicate that the southbound movement at SR-104/Paradise Bay Road was again operating at level of service "F" on both a weekday and weekend (during the summer months). · The level of service results indicate that the southbound movement at SR-I04/Beaver Valley Road in 2001 rose to level of service "D" on the weekday but dropped to level of service "E" for the weekend peak hour. · All other roadway segments and intersections are functioning within reasonable capacity limits. Specifically, the roads and intersections within Port Ludlow continue to operate at good levels of service on both the weekdays and weekends. The 2001 monitoring program continues to support previous conclusions that indicate that development activity and growth in Port Ludlow are not creating level of service problems within Port Ludlow, with relatively little change since 1994. The level of service problems that are occurring are along SR-104, which is heavily influenced by tourist and commuter traffic and is of a regional nature. Due to the consistent nature of the findings over the past seven years, it is recommended that the traffic monitoring program be scaled back to a less frequent interval such as every other year or every third year. 1.1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 6826 (5968) [6677] 12256 (12335) [9675] xxx (XXX) [XXXJ - SATURDAY 24-HOUR VOLUME - SUNDAY 24-HOUR VOLUME - MONDAY 24-HOUR VOLUME 1289 (1107) [1157] 3311 (2817) [3734J \ I I I ------.L ~ : ___ 2569 \ -- (2172) J [2596] I 184-08 (17805) [15859] /-- f --------_ I " , \ ',------- \ \ '. HOOD CANAL BRIDGE 19114- (18386) [16397] 2001 DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES FIGURE 1 DAVID I. HAMLIN & ASSCIATES 2000 PORT LUDLOW TRAFFIC MONITORING & NORTH 2776 (2314-) [2683] PAGE F-1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 35 2+16 11 6 17 277151 42+25 39 113 11 8+132 179 11 9+1 6 6 1 1087'26 145 +71 2 12 68 62+18 82 87 6+79 126 3 2 6427791 576+573 0 23 o 2+15 17 263 t'--33 22 230 r 66 44 ,,-- , ---------.... I......., \ '-------- \ \ '. --;.------ J I ....) I ' ,. I I I I I I I I " I I I I ,-..... I I I I I I I 280 29+251 258 11 0 3627620 342 + 331 0 0 o 0+1 1 HOOD CANAL BRIDGE 2001 PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES (WEEKDA YS) FIGURE 2 DAVID I. HAMLIN & ASSCIATES 2001 PORT LUDLOW TRAFFIC MONITORING &. NORTH PAGE F-2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 12 10+1 5 7 1 7Bf" 154+85 1 16 62 34+16 51 88 6+80 110 2 2 500f628 '062+'059 0 18 11+10 11 276 t'--21 18 255 ( 55 37 247 t---16 309 32+277 236 5 0 543f 779 585 + 580 0 0 o 0+1 1 ---) .- .- I I I I ,,-- I --------""':"..... I -_ \ -- \ ----- \ \ '. HOOD CANAL BRIDGE 2001 ESTIMATED WEEKEND PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES FIGURE 3 DAVID i. HAMLIN & ASSCIATES 2001 PORT LUDLOW TRAFFIC MONiTORING A NORTH PAGE F-3 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I /--) I I / , O~ // \ ~ / , \:P / , ~\; / , o~ / " <?" / ,/ / I I I I I I l- /-- I --------_ I \ \ \ \ \ ..... .... .... ..... ........----- DAVID I. HAMLIN & ASSCIATES 2001 COUNT LOCATIONS USED IN TRIP GENERATION FIGURE 4 ~ NORTH ---) " " / / HOOD CANAL BRIDGE 2001 PORT LUDLOW PAGE TRAFFIC MONITORING F-4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I LIST OF ACRONYMS USED ADT - Average Daily Traffic BAS - Best Available Science BE - Biological Evaluation BLM - Bureau of Land Management BMPs - Best Management Practices COE - U.S. Army Corps of Engineers DNR - Washington Department of Natural Resources EFH - Essential Fish Habitat EIS - Environmental Impact Statement ESA - Endangered Species Act ft-c - foot candles HP A - Hydraulic Project Approval ITE - Institute of Transportation Engineer Leq. - Equivalent sound level LMC - Ludlow Maintenance Commission LOS - Level of Service MLL W - Mean Lower Low Water MPR - Master Planned Resort MSL - Mean Sea Level NMFS - National Marine Fisheries Service NTU - Nephelometric Turbidity Units (used in measuring turbidity) OHW - Ordinary High Water SEIS - Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement SMA - Shoreline Management Act SMMP - Shoreline Management Master Program UDC - Unified Development Code . USFWS - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service WDFW - Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife WSDOT - Washington State Department of Transportation 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I References Berryman & Heningar, 1998, 1999,2001. Port Ludlow Non-Point Monitoring Program 2000 Report. Bisson, P.A., and RE. Bilby, 1982. Avoidance of Suspended Sediment by Juvenile Coho Salmon. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 4:371-374. Brown, L. 1994. November 1992: the zoogeography and life history of native char (Report #94- 04). The Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife, Fisheries Management Division, Olympia, W A. . Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior, 2001. Visual Resource Management Manual. www.blm.gov/nstcNRM/8410.html (The Department of the Interior's website may not be available at this time.) Cardwell, RD., S.J. Olsen, M.I. Carr, and E.W. Sanborn, 1980. Biotic, Water Quality, and Hydrologic Characteristics of Skyline Marina in 1978. Washington State Department of Fisheries, Technical Report No. 54, Olympia. Cyrus, D.P., and S.J.M. Blaber, 1987a. The Influence of Turbidity on Juvenile Marine Fishes in Estuaries. Part 1: Field Studies at Lake St. Lucia on the Southeastern Coast of Africa. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 109:53-70. Cyrus, D.P., and S.J.M. Blaber, 1987b. The Influence of Turbidity on Juvenile Marine Fishes in Estuaries. Part 2: Laboratory Studies, Comparisons with Field Data and Conclusions. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 109:71-91. David 1. Hamlin and Associates, 2001. 2001 Port Ludlow Traffic Monitoring Summary Report. Prepared for Port Ludlow Associates. Seattle, Washington. Echelon Engineering, Inc., January 11,2000. Letter from S.D. Sommerfeld, Echelon Engineering, Inc., Seattle, Washington, to S. Kinsella, Reid Middleton, Inc., Everett, Washington. Environment Canada, 1999. Marbled Murrelet [online report]. Environment Canada, Quebec. http://'Www.speciesatrisk. gc.ca/Species/English/SearchDetail.cfm ?SpeciesID=3 9. Feist, RE., J.1. Anderson, and R Miyamoto, 1996. Potential Impacts of Pile Driving on Juvenile Pink (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha) and Chum (0. keta) Salmon Behavior and Distribution. University of Washington, School of Fisheries, Fisheries Research Institute, FRI-UW-9603, Seattle. FishPro,1993. Pope Resources Fisheries Resource Assessment for the Port Ludlow Development Program. FishPro, Port Orchard, Washington. Port Ludlow Morina Expansion Pre-Draft SEIS June 2002 ~ R-t Healey, M.C., 1991. Life History of Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). Pages 311-394 in C. Groot and L. Margolis, editors. Pacific Salmon Life Histories. UBC Press, Vancouver, Be, Canada. Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, 1998. Jefferson County Fire District No.3, Annual Report, 2000. Jefferson County, Inn at Port Ludlow Final Environmental Impact Statement, 1993. Jefferson County, Port Ludlow MPR Final programmatic EIS, 1993. Jefferson County Unified Development Code, 2000. Johnson, O.W., W.S. Grant, R.G. Cope, K. Neely, F.W. Waknitz, and R.S. Waples, 1997. Status Review of Chum Salmon from Washington, Oregon, and California. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-32, Washington, D.C. Kozloff, E.N., 1987. Marine Invertebrates of the Pacific Northwest. University of Washington Press, Seattle. Landau Associates, Inc., 2002. Draft Geotechnical Report. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2001. Species/life history stage lists for groundfish EFH composites in Washington State waters: Puget Sound estuarine. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Habitat Conservation Division, Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) & Essential Fish Habitat (EFH). < http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/lhabconlhabweb/msa.htm> NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service), 1992. Report to Congress on Washington State Marine Mammals. NMFS, Silver Springs, Maryland. Parametrix,1993b. Light and Juvenile Salmon Under Pier Aprons - Literature Review. Prepared by Parametrix, Inc., Bellevue, Washington. Pentec (Pentec Environmental, Inc.), 1997. Movement of juvenile Salmon Through Industrialized Areas of Everett Harbor. Prepared for Port of Everett, Washington. Pentec Environmental, Inc. Port Ludlow Marina Expansion, Biological Evaluation. November 15,2001. Pentec Environmental (Pentec). 2001. Port Ludlow Marina expansion biological evaluation (revised draft). Prepared for Reid Middleton, Inc. Everett, W A. Port of Seattle, Shilshole Bay Marina Dock ReplacementIMoorage Expansion Project. Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statement. February 2000 and 2001. Port Ludlow Marina Expansion Pre-Draft SEIS June 2002 ~ R-2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Raedeke Associates, Inc. 1992. Untitled. Ratte, L.D., and E.O. Salo, 1985. Under-Pier Ecology of Juvenile Pacific Salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.) in Commencement Bay, Washington. University of Washington, Fisheries Research Institute, School of Fish eries, FRI-UW-8508, Seattle. Rodrick, E., and R. Milner, technical editors, 1991. Management Recommendations for Washington's Priority Habitats and Species. Washington State Department of Wildlife, Olympia. Salo, E.O., N.J. Bax, T.E. Prinslow, C.J. Whitmus, B.P. Snyder, and C.A. Simenstad, 1980. The Effects of Construction of Naval Facilities on the Outmigration of Juvenile Salmonids from Hood Canal, Washington, Final Report. University of Washington, Fisheries Research Institute, FRI-UW -8006, Seattle. SEI (Sustainable Ecosystem Institute), 1999. Endangered Species: Marbled Murrelet [online report]. SEI, Portland, Oregon. http://www.sei.orglmurrelet.html. Servizi, J.A., 1988. Sublethal Effects of Dredged Sediments on Juvenile Salmon. Pages 57-63 in C.A. Simenstad, editor. Effects of dredging on anadromous Pacific Coast fishes. University of Washington, Seattle. Simenstad, C.A., B.J. Nightingale, R.M. Thorn, and D.K. Shreffler, 1999. Impacts of Ferry Terminals on Juvenile Salmon Migration along Puget Sound Shorelines, Phase I; Synthesis of State of"Knowledge (Research Project T9903, Task A2). Prepared for the Washington State Transportation Commission, Olympia. Simenstad, C.A., J.R. Cordell, R.C. Wissmar, K.L. Fresh, S. Schroder, M. Carr, andM. Berg, 1988. Assemblages Structure, Microhabitat Distribution, and Food Web Linkages ofEpibenthic Crustaceans in Padilla Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve, Washington. NOAA Technical Report Series OCRM/MEMD, FRI-UW-8813, University of Washington, Seattle. USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service), 1999b. Bull Trout and Endangered Species Act Commonly Asked Questions and Answers [online report]. USFWS, Washington, D.C. http://www.rl.fws.gov/newlbulltrout/bulltqa_fnl.htm. WDFW (Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife), 1998a. 1998 Washington Salmonid Stock Inventory: Appendix - Bull Trout and Dolly Varden. WDFW, Olympia. Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife (WDFW). 1998b. Washington's native chars [online report]. WDFW, Olympia, W A. <http://www.wa.gov/wdfw/outreach/fishinglchar.htm>. WDFW and WWTIT (Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife and Western Washington Treaty Indian Tribes), 1994. 1992 Washington State Salmon and Steelhead Stock Inventory. Appendix One: Puget Sound Stocks. WDFW and WWTIT, Olympia. WDW (Washington State Department of Wildlife), 1993. Bull TroutIDolly Varden: Management and Recovery Plan. WDW, Fisheries Management Division, Olympia. Port Ludlow Marina Expansion Pre-Draft SEIS June 2002 ~ R.3 Weitkamp, D.E., and T.H. Schadt, 1982. 1980 Juvenile Salmonid Study. Prepared for the Port of Seattle, Document No. 82-0415-012F, by Parametrix, Inc., Bellevue, Washington. Whitman, RP., T.P. Quinn, and E.L. Brannon, 1982. Influence of Suspended Volcanic Ash on Homing Behavior of Adult Chinook Salmon. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 111 :63-69. Williams, RW., RM. Laramie, and J.J. Ames, 1975. A Catalog of Washington Streams and Salmon Utilization, Volume 1, Puget Sound Region. Washington State Department of Fisheries, Olympia. Port Ludlow Marina Expansion Pre-Draft SEIS June 2002 --- R-4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I