The Future of Ludlow Falls

by Evie Maxwell

Here is a conversation about the future of Port Ludlow’s cascading waterfalls, the ownership of the land around the Falls, and how development plans for that land might impact the community.

The Falls, as most of you know, refers to the waterfalls found on the western side of the Resort at Port Ludlow. As anyone who has visited the area will tell you, this is a spot of incredible natural beauty. A short loop trail, dotted with interpretive signs explaining the history, geology and more, has long been a must-see for Port Ludlow residents, guests, and visitors.  In addition, spectacular trails constructed by Port Ludlow’s volunteer trail group surround the area and are used frequently by local and non-local hikers alike.

Now, for the current situation: The area by the Falls is owned by Port Ludlow Associates, and the company has applied to use the land for a new housing development, aka the Falls Terrace Long Subdivision. The proposal calls for a 35+ acre plot of land including the existing PLA headquarters, the area around the Falls, plus the existing Port Ludlow RV park to be repurposed for 53 single-family residential lots. Those homes would occupy about half of the available land. The rest would be dedicated as open space, access and utility areas, and landscape buffer. The development would be served by Olympic Water and Sewer.

As required by law, the PLA has filed a State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) checklist with Jefferson County, answering a wide range of questions on the impact of the project. However, as the community has become more aware of the proposal, numerous objections have been submitted in response to the PLA’s filing. 

The official time for submitting written responses related to the SEPA review to be posted has now passed. However, the process is far from over. As noted by Jefferson County project manager for the Falls Terrace proposal, Mo-Chi Lindblad, “We will continue to accept comments until the issue goes to the Hearing Examiner.” Anyone interested in seeing posted responses can go to https://selfservice-op.jeffcowa.us/energov_prod/selfservice#/plan/2828977a-4082-4813-bdf3-01e8ae9b8ce6?tab=attachments. Scroll down to where the heading lists Consolidated Comments.

The deadline for the PLA to respond to SEPA comments is December 2. When that response is available, Lindblad says, “We will review all the comments and then schedule a hearing date” to determine the fate of the project.

That determination is bound to be contentious. Judging from the comments already on file, many Port Ludlow residents have strong objections to the proposed development. The objections range from the impact of the project on wildlife and existing habitat, to the ongoing water and sewage issues in the community, to the inevitable increase in traffic, and thus roads, in the area.

One overall question revolves around whether the SEPA process will be sufficient to decide the matter. As of September 1, more than 50 Ludlow residents had filed comments. Many of these revolved around whether the project should be subject to a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

But first, some background: For most of its existence, the PLA has followed requirements of a long-standing master development plan agreed upon by the PLA and Jefferson County. However, in May 2025, that agreement expired. As a result, Port Ludlow Associates now must conform to Washington State law, which has led many residents to suggest that the Falls project should undergo a full-fledged Environmental Impact Statement. A typical comment supporting this is, “Washington State strictly enforces a policy of ‘no net loss’ of ecological functions and values. A proposal must explicitly avoid, minimize, or mitigate impacts to both the water system (wetlands) and the biological system (fish and wildlife). A thorough environmental impact analysis must be done.”

In terms of wildlife, one resident noted, “Removing the forest canopy and adding roads and driveways directly degrades salmon habitat through three primary mechanisms.” The writer goes on to detail these mechanisms, and many have commented that the streams surrounding the Falls are currently spawning habitat for two species of salmon and two species of trout.

We could go on with the objections which, in addition to environmental issues and concerns about a development located next to the area’s crown jewel, address everything from: Port Ludlow’s precarious sewage and water situation (for example, the PLA has long been seeking new wells); to questions about whether the area needs additional housing given the number of vacant lots and unsold homes in the PLA’s Olympic Terrace area; to concerns about the local workers who reportedly make their home in the RV park.

Diana Smeland, president of the PLA, notes that the project plans for a 300-foot setback from the first stream before Ludlow Falls, and the group is developing about 16 acres out of the total 35 acres. She adds that “the density makes sense for walkability to the center” and says that “there is enough water to support the 53 lots.”

While wildlife, the environment, housing and water issues are all significant concerns when it comes to the proposed Falls development, they may all be overshadowed by something more prosaic: Traffic.

The planned development is bordered by two major roads serving the area: Oak Bay Road to the north, and Paradise Bay Road to the southeast. An addition of 53 homes in that area would inevitably result in a considerable increase in traffic. Thus, going beyond the environmental issues, there is the simple fact that the PLA now falls under the Jefferson County umbrella. This means that the cost of road improvements needed to serve the Falls Terrace area would land in the lap of the county, which can ill afford another budgetary issue.

On the bright side, there has been some discussion on the feasibility of a Port Ludlow group purchasing, and thus preserving, the property, which would be a lovely solution.