    [From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

                                                 COASTAL ZONE

                                             INFORMATION CENTER

                                       MITIGATION AND RESTORATION PLAN

                                       FOR THE COLUMBIA RIVER ESTUARY
       Go-
                                   Columbia River Estuary Study Taskforce

                 GC
                 856
                 .1458
                  C
              56L
                  1458
                 1987
         0)

                                                             PrOPertY Of CSC Library

                                         MITIGATION AND RESTORATION PLAN

                                         FOR THE COLUMBIA RIVER ESTUARY

                                     Columbia River Estuary Study Taskforce

                                                John L. Marshall

                                                  David Fox
                                                  Mark Barnes         U. S- DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA
                                                  Hilar West
                                                                      COASTAL SERVICES CENTER
                                                                      2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE
                                                                      C-PARLESTON  SC 29405-2413

                                                  September 1987

                                 Columbia River Estuary Study Taskforce. (CREST)
                                        750 Commercial Street, Room 214
                                              Astoria, Oregon 97103
                                                  (503) 325-0435

                     The preparation of this plan was financially aided through a grant from
                     the National Coastal Resources Research and Development Institute,with
                     funds obtained from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
                     and appropriated for Section 309 of the Coastal Zone Management Act of
                     1972.
             CZ)

            ry)i

                                                TABLE OF CONTENTS

                                                                                        PAGE

                     1.   Introduction                                                     1

                          1.1 Purpose and Content                                          1

                          2.2 The CREST Planning Area                                      2

                     2.   Summary of Federal and State Agency Definitions
                          Germane to Mitigation and Restoration
                          Policies and Regulations                                        11

                     3.   Existing Federal and State Mitigation   Regulations
                          and Policies                                   1:               11

                          3.1  Federal Agencies with Mitigation   Policy
                               Responsibilities                                           11

                          3.2  Federal Regulatory Jurisdiction over Wetlands
                               and Aquatic Areas                                          11

                               3.2.1      General Overview of Section 404
                                          Permit Process                                  11

                               3.2.2      The Legal Basis for Federal Mitiga-
                                          tion Policies                                   12

                               3.2.3      The Role of Federal Agencies in
                                          Implementing Mitigation Policies                13

                          3.3  State Regulatory Responsibilities over Wetlands
                               and Aquatic Areas in the Columbia River Estuary            17

                               3.3.1      Washington's Shoreland and Aquatic
                                          Area Permit Review Process Under the
                                          Shoreland/Coastal Zone Management
                                          Program                                         18

                               3.3.2      Oregon's Shoreland and Aquatic Area
                                          Permit Review Process Under Statewide
                                          Land Use Planning and Oregon's Removal/
                                          Fill Law                                        23

                               3.3.3      The Relationship Between Oregon's State-
                                          wide Planning Goals and Wetland Mitigation      23

                               3.3.4      The Relationship Between Oregon's Re-
                                          moval/Fill Law and Mitigation                   25

                     4.   Cumulative Wetland Impacts in the Columbia River
                          Estuary                                                         27

                                            TABLE OF CONTENTS -(Continued)

                                                                                         PAGE

                     5.   Numeric Model for Determining Estuarine Wetland
                          and Aquatic Area Mitigation Requirements                        29

                          5.1 Columbia River Estuary Habitat Classifica-
                                tion and Value Assessment                                 30

                     6.   Wetland Restoration in the Columbia River
                          Estuary Planning Area                                           39

                     7.   Technical Feasibility of Mitigation and Restoration             41

                          7.1 Mitigation and Restoration Implementation Tech-
                                niques                                                    41

                                7.1.1     Mitigation-and Restoration Site Selec-
                                          tion for Tidal Wetlands                         42

                                7.1.2     Compensatory Mitigation and Restora-
                                          tion Action Guidelines                          42

                          7.2 Future Mitigation Research Needs                            46

                     8.   CREST Mitigation Policies and Standards and Restora-
                          tion Policies for the Columbia River Estuary Area               49

                          8.1   Definitions                                               49

                          8.2   Mitigation Policies for Wetlands and Aquatic
                                Areas                                                     52

                                8.2.1     Mitigation Bank Policies                        55

                          8.3   Restoration Policies for Wetlands and Aquatic
                                Areas                                                     56

                          8.4   Restoration Standards for Wetlands and Aquatic
                                Areas                                                     57

                          8.5   Long Term Wetland and Aquatic Area Mitigation
                                and Restoration Policies                                  58

                          8.6   Restoration Policies for Resources Other than
                                Wetlands and Aquatic Areas                                58

                          8.7   Mitigation Standards for Wetlands and Aquatic
                                Areas                                                     59

                     9.   Site  Specific Mitigation Strategies for the Columbia
                          River Estuary                                                   67

                          9.1 Methods of Site Selection                                   67

                                                          iv

                                           TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

                                                                                         PAGE

                          9.2 Methods of Assigning Need and Protection Status
                               of Mitigation Sites                                        67

                          9.3  Landowner Concerns                                         74

                          9.4  Priority I Mitigation Site Descriptions                    76

                               9.4.1      Site   3. Tansy Point                           79@

                               9.4.2      Site   4. Holbrook Slough                       83

                               9.4.3      Site   17. Airport Mitigation Bank              89

                               9.4.4      Site   7. West Svensen Island                   93

                               9.4.5      Site   36. Erp Tract                           101

                          9.5  Priority  1 Development/Mitigation Site Match
                               -UPS                                                      104

                               9,5.1      Tansy Point Industr ial Park   Tansy
                                          Point                                          105

                               9.5.2      West Bank Skipanon Channel     Holbrook
                                          Slough

                               9.5.3      East Bank Skipanon Channel'- Holbrook
                                          Slough                                         119

                               9.5.4      Port of Astoria - Astoria Airport
                                          Mitigation Bank                                125

                               9.5.5      North Tongue Point - West Svensen
                                          Island                                         133

                               9.5.6      South Tongue Point - Erp Tract                 141

                          9.6  Priority  2 Development/Mitigation Site Matbh-ups         149

                               9.6.1      Hammond Boat Basin - Hammond Boat
                                          Basin                                          150

                               9.6.2      Hammond Boat Basin - Swash Lake                151

                               9.6.3      East Astoria Mooring Basin - Alder-
                                          brook                                          151'

                               9.6.4      Bradwood Mill - Bradwood                       152

                               9.6.5      Wauna Mill and Lower Westport - Wauna
                                          Mill                                           153

                                                           v

                                            TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

                                                                                         PAGE

                                9.6.6     Ilwaco Boat Basin    Jetty A                   154

                                9.6.7     Chinook Boat Basin    West Sand Island         155

                                9.6.8     Weyerhauser - Deep River                       156

                                9.6.9     Skamokawa - Skamokawa Vista Park               157

                                9.6.10    Elochoman Slough Marina - Elochoman
                                          River                                          158

                                9.6.11    South Astoria - Lee/Schwarz Tract              159

                                9.6.12    Oregon and Washington State Highway
                                          Projects                                       160

                          9.7 Mitigation and Restoration Site Descriptions
                                for Priority 2 and 3, Level 4 Sites                      160

                                9.7.1     List of Sites and Relevant Data                160

                     REFERENCES CITED                                                    175

                     APPENDIX 1      PERMIT GUIDELINES FOR ADDRESSING MITIGATION
                                     CONCERNS

                     APPENDIX 2      LETTER FROM CLATSOP COUNTY LEGAL COUNSEL REGARD-
                                     ING POTENTIAL REGULATORY TAKING LIABILITY ISSUES

                     APPENDIX 3      MEMORANDUM REGARDING EXPERIENCE IN SALMON RIVER
                                     DIKE BREACHING

                     APPENDIX 4      PLAN REVISION PARTICIPATION

                                                          vi

                                                  LIST OF FIGURES-

                    FIGURE                                                             PAGE

                    1.   Columbia River Estuary Study Taskforce Planning Area             3

                    2.   Washington's Wetland Development Permit Review
                         Process                                                         19

                    3.   Oregon's Wetland Fill and Removal Permit Review
                         Process                                                         24

                    4.   The Columbia River Estuary Habitat Classification
                         System                                                          32

                    5.   Relative Ranking of 19 Columbia River Estuary
                         Habitat Types                                                   35

                    6.   Relative Values of Selected Columbia River Estuary
                         Habitat Types                                                   38

                    7.   Mitigation and Development Sites in the Columbia
                         River Estuary Area                                              69

                    8.   Tansy Point Mitigation Site                                     80

                    9.   Holbrook Slough Mitigation Site                                 84

                    10.  Astoria Airport Mitigation Bank                                 90

                    11.  West Svensen Island Mitigation Site                             95

                    12.  Erp Tract Mitigation Site                                     102@

                    13.  Tansy Point Industrial Park Dredging Project                  106

                    14.  West Bank Skipanon River Proposed Fill Area                   112

                    15.  East Bank Skipanon River Proposed Fill Area                   120

                    16.  Port of Astoria Docks Proposed Fill Area                      126

                    17.  North Tongue Point Proposed Fill Area                         134

                    181* South Tongue Point Proposed Fill Area                         142

                    19.  Mitigation and Development Sites in the Baker Bay
                         Area                                                          167

                    20.  Mitigation and DeveloVment Sites in the Warrenton/
                         Hammond Area                                                  168

                    21.  Mitigation and Development Sites in the Astoria
                         Area                                                          169

                                                        vii

                                            LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)

                     FIGURE                                                            PAGE

                     22.  Mitigation Sites in the Lewis and Clark and Youngs
                          River Area                                                    170

                     23.  Mitigation Sites in the Svensen Island and Browns-
                          mead Area                                                     171

                     24.  Mitigation Sites in the Grays Bay Area                        172

                     25.  Mitigation and Development Sites in th@ Skamokawa
                          Area                                                          173

                     26.  Mitigation and Development Sites in the Bradwood
                          and Wauna Mill Area                                           174

                                                        Vill

                                                    LIST OF TABLES

                      TABLE                                                              PAGE

                      1.   U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Resource Categories              15

                      2.   Resource Value Rating Classes                                   33

                      3.   Habitat Value Ratings of 19 Columbia River Estuary
                           Habitat Types                                                   34

                      4.   Relative Ranking of 19 Columbia River Estuary Habitat
                           Types                                                           36

                      5.   Historical and Present Day Scarcity Weighting System
                           of Columbia River Estuary Habitat Types                         37

                      6.   Relative Values of Potential Habitat Types at
                           the Tansy Point Mitigation Site                                 79

                      7.   Relative Values of Existing Habitat Types at
                           the Holbrook Slough Mitigation Site                             83

                      8.   Relative Value of Potential Habitat  Types at
                           the Holbrook Slough Mitigation Site                             83

                      9.   Comparison Between Existing Freshwater Non-
                           tidal and Potential Brackish Tidal Values for
                           Holbrook Slough Mitigation Site                                 85

                      10.  Relative Values of Existing Habitat Types at
                           the Airport Mitigation Bank Site                                89

                      11.  Relative Values of Potential Habitat Types at
                           the West Svensen Island Mitigation Site                         93

                      12.  Potential Credits Available at West Svensen
                           Island Mitigation Site (Low Estimate)                           97

                      13.  Potential Credits Available at West Svensen
                           Island Mitigation Site (High Estimate)                          97

                      14.  Relative Values of Potential Habitat Types at the
                           Erp Tract Mitigation Site.                                     101

                      15.  Potential Credits Available at the Erp Tract
                           Mitigation Site (Low Estimate)                                 101

                      16.  Potential Credits Available at  the Erp Tract
                           Mitigation Site,(High Estimate)                                103

                      17.  Priority 1 Development/Mitigation Site Match-ups               104

                                                          ix

                                             LIST OF TABLES (Continued)

                     TABLE                                                               PAGE

                     18.  Tansy Point Industrial Park - Tansy Point
                          Match-up                                                       108

                     19.  West Bank Skipanon - Holbrook Slough Match-up   (Low
                          Estimate)                                                      115

                     20.  West Bank  Skipanon - Holbrook Slough Match-up  (High
                          Estimate)                                                      115

                     21.  West Bank  - Skipanon Airport Mitigation Bank Match-up         116

                     22.  East Bank  Skipanon - Holbrook Slough Match-up (Low
                          Estimate)                                                      122

                     23.  East Bank  Skipanon - Holbrook Slough Match-up (High
                          Estimate)                                                      123

                     24.  East Bank  Skipanon - Airport Mitigation Bank Match-up         123

                     25.  Port of Astoria Docks - Airport Mitigation
                          Bank Match-up (Intertidal Only)                                129

                     26.  Port of Astoria Docks - Airport  Mitigation
                          Bank Matcb-up (Intertidal and Subtidal)                        129

                     27.  Port of Astoria Docks - Holbrook Slough
                          Match-up (Low Estimate/Intertidai Only)                        130

                     28.  Port of Astoria Docks - Holbrook Slough    Match-
                          up (Low Estimate/Intertidal and Subtidal)                      130

                     29.  Port of Astoria Docks - Holbrook Slough    Match-
                          up (High Estimate/Intertidal Only)                             130

                     30.  Port of Astoria Docks - Holbrook Slough Match-
                          up (High Estimate/Intertidal and Subtidal)                     131

                     31.  North Tongue Point - West Svensen Island Match-
                          up (Low Estimate)                                              136

                     32.  North Tongue Point  - West Svensen Island Match-
                          up (High Estimate)                                             137

                     33.  North Tongue Point  - Erp Tract Match-up
                          (Low Estimate)                                                 137

                     34.  North Tongue Point  - Erp Tract Match-up
                          (High Estimate)                                                138

                     35.  South Tongue Point  - Erp Tract Match-up
                          (Low Estimate)                                                 144

                                                          x

                                             LIST OF TABLES (Continued)

                     TABLE                                                              PAGE

                     36.  South Tongue Point    Erp Tract Match-up
                          (High Estimate)                                               144

                     37.  South Tongue Point   West Svensen Island
                          Match-up (Low Estimate)                                       145

                     38.  South Tongue Point - West Svensen Island
                          Match-up (High Estimate)                                      145

                     39.  Summary of Credits Available
                          (Mitigation Sites) and Credits Needed
                          (Development Sites) for Priority 1
                          Mitigation Sites in the Columbia River
                          Estuary                                                       147

                     40.  Priority 2 Development/Mitigation Site                        149
                          Match-ups

                                                        xi

                                                  1. INTRODUCTION

                    1.1 PURPOSE AND,CONTENT

                         This document revises and updates the Mitigation Plan for the
                    Columbia River Estuary developed in 1983 by the Columbia River Estuary
                    Study Taskforce (CREST). The 1983 Plan designated mitigation sites in
                    the Columbia River Estuary. The Plan also provided a method to deter-
                    mine estuarine mitigation site area and type requirements [now adopted
                    into Oregon state estuarine mitigation law (ORS 541.626)].

                         After four years of reviewing permits requiring mitigation under
                    the 1983 Plan, it became apparent certain revisions were required. With
                    regard to policies, a more detailed review of government policy and
                    legislation was completed and CREST policies were revised to address
                    current local, state, and federal policy concerns. Also, recent re-
                    search on wetland mitigation feasibility and on cumulative wetland
                    impacts was used to help guide CREST mitigation policy revisions. New
                    information on potential development scenarios and mitigation site
                    designations is also included. This document embodies these Plan
                    alterations and will be incorpo rated into the 1987 Columbia River
                    Estuary Regional Management Plan (CREST Plan). The CREST Plan will be
                    submitted to local jurisdictions and recommended for adoption.

                         Mitigation is define d here as any action that diminishes the degree
                    of impact of development on wetlands and shallow subtidal aquatic areas.
                    Mitigation is categbriged as project design mitigation (planning devel-
                    opments to avoid impacts in orde*r to conserve wetland area and values)
                    and compensatory mitigation (wetland creation, restoration, or enhance-
                    ment at a site other than the impact site to compensate forzlost wetland
                    area and values).

                         Restoration is treated as a management strategy separate from
                    mitigation in portions of the Plan. That is, restoration of severely
                    diminished habitat types is consi'dered a worthwhile management directive
                    for its own sake. Unless otherwise specified, this document considers
                    restoration as a component of mitigation in the mitigation related
                    sections and as a separate management option in the restoration related
                    sections.

                         Section 2 of this Plan reviews current state and federal government
                    definitions that are used in statutes and policies pertaining to mitiga-
                    tion and restoration. These definitions were used to help form defini-
                    tions used in the policy and standard section (Section 8) of this Plan
                    and the mitigation and restoration section in the CREST Plan.

                         Section 3 discusses current federal and state regulations and
                    policies that guide mitigation and restoration efforts in the Columbia
                    River Estuary. These regulations and policies were used as a basis for
                    determining standards and policies listed in this Plan (Section 8) and
                    in the mitigation and restoration section of the CREST Plan.

                        Section 4 reviews a study by Duncan Thomas (1983) that compares
                   present day habitat types in the Columbia River Estuary with habitat
                   types mapped in the estuary in the mid 1860's and 1870's. Historical
                   changes in aerial extent and spatial distribution of habitat types are
                   discussed. Cumulative impacts on habitat types are documented. The
                   most severely depleted habitat types are used as the-basis for weighting
                   the relative ranking of present day habitat types in the Columbia River
                   Estuary (Smith 1983).

                        Section 5 summarizes the method used to determine the relative
                   values of estuarine habitat types and how those values are used to
                   determine mitigation requirements. A more detailed discussion of the'
                   method is discussed in the 1983 CREST Mitigation Plan (Smith 1983).

                        Section 6 briefly discusses state and federal efforts toward
                   restoration efforts outside of the context of mitigation. Potential
                   legal mechanisms and funding sources are described.

                        Section 7 briefly reviews recent ideas regarding the technical
                   feasibility of mitigation and restoration. It also reviews a series of
                   suggested approaches of implementing mitigation and restoration actions.

                        Section 8 lists CREST Mitigation and Restoration Plan policies and
                   standards that will be recommended for adoption in local Comprehensive
                   Plans in Oregon and Shoreline Master Plans in Washington. These poli-
                   cies and standards are based on information discussed in sections 1 - 7
                   of this Plan and recommendations from the Columbia River Estuary Mitiga-
                   tion and Restoration Plan Advisory Committee.

                        Section 9 discusses specific mitigation and restoration sites
                   available in the Columbia River Estuary. Sites are classified and
                   protected at different priorities and levels based on the certainty of
                   developments they are matched with. Private landowner rights vs. public
                   need issues concerning mitigation are briefly discussed. Site selection
                   strategies were reviewed by the Columbia River Estuary Mitigation and
                   Restoration Plan Advisory Committee and concerned landowners. Modifica-
                   tions of protection language and site selection were made using input
                   from the Advisory Committee and landowners.

                   1.2 THE CREST PLANNING AREA

                        The Columbia River Estuary planning area (Figure 1) includes
                   aquatic areas and shorelands from the mouth of the Columbia River,
                   upstream to the eastern border of Wahkiakum County in Washington (River
                   Mile 53) and the eastern border of Clatsop County in Oregon (River Mile
                   45). All tributary streams to the head of tide and adjacent shorelands
                   are part of the estuary planning area.

                        In Washington, the jurisdictional shorelands area includes all land
                   200 feet from the ordinary high water mark of designated shorelines of
                   the State, floodways and contiguous floodplain areas landward two
                   hundred feet from such floodways, and all marshes, bogs, swamps, and
                   river deltas associated with shorelines of the state (as defined by the

                                                    2

                                                                                                124W                                                                                                                                                             -7-                                                                         3T                                                                                            25r
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              +                                              +
                                                                                                 +                                              +                                             +                                              +                                            4                                                                                                                                                                                                            2F

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          U

                                                                       to.                                                                                                                                                                                                             4ia'
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              (D
                                                                                                                               QQ

                                                                                                BA    ER

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             Rocky Pt.     z
                                                                                                         BAY
                                                        d Canty                                                                                                                                                                                                RAYS
                                                                                   Send                                                                                                          Vim
                                                                                                                                                                                                    japten
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           P n.g.- P-,z-
                                              pit                                      d   il                                                                                                                                                                                ig
                                      P-c-1, 5                                                                                                                                                                               G'ays Pt.                                           o B1.ff
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           "61w"
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  H,,,i,gton Pt.                                                                                                   @@W@                       filooks
                                                                                                                                                                                              Cliff Pl.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          lin, Cr
                                                                                                         E. Sard island
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           t
                                                                                                                                                                           "taw                                  0
                                                                                                                                    Chio..k"@,.
                                                                                                                                                                                              +                                                                                                                                              -a
                                                                                                                                                          M                                                                                                                                                                                  _a
                    Is-                                                                                                                                                                                  @11v`

                                                                                                                                                                                licc                                                                                                                                   ria 1@nd,
                                                                                                                                                                           Pt. El lc@_@
                                                                                                                                                 PACIFIC      Nly                                                     Ta-yfor Sands                                                                                                          &            i-t-                       Al ich
                                                                                                                                                CLAFSOFT                                                                                                                                                                                                 sland

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 9

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             Asi.nd
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    e     'o        K-7
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      MarrP
                                                                                                            RESTLE                           COLUMBIA                                                          RIVER
                                                                                                                @AY                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              lsla@
                                                                                                                        Ada.s
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            T       Pt
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 1R.11
                                                                                                                                                            qn
                                                                                                                                                      De@@ssd mona nds_@
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         THLAMET                                                                 K.flson                                                  "4':
                                                                                                                     A  if".                                                                                                                                               61
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               r." "I [and          Q_@"
                                                                                                                              T                                                                                                                                  BAY
                                                                                                                                              T-y Pt.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 K,

                                                                                                                                                                                       ASTORIA
                                                                                                                                                                       so,kh N'
                                                                                                                                                              YOUNGS

                                                                                                                                                                                BAY@'
                                                                                                 +
                                                +                                                                                      ton                                                               j

                                               PACIFIC OCEAN
                                                                                                                                                                 OFA
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       hGUN

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Z. 0

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Z
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        C'

                                               +                                                                                                                                                                                             +                                                +                                              +                                                                                             +
                                                5'                                             124-00'                                                                                                                                                                                         4W                                                                                           a

                                                                                 Columbia River Estuary                                                                                                                                                                                                     Shoreline (limit of non-aquatic vegetation)                                                                     Major highways

                                                                                                                              Scale 1:160,000                                                                                                                                                               Intertidal vegetation                                                                                 M@gl@r Cities, towns
               Figure 1. Columbia River                                                               0       1      2        3   4       5       6       7      8     9        10 Kilometers
                                                                                                      E:      I      I        I    I              I       I      I  -
               Estuary Study Taskforce                                                                F_      ---7-           1                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    ____ Railroads
               Planning Area                                                                          0           1           2          3          4            5          6 Miles                                                                                                              L .......... Shoals and flats

                                                                                                       M p produced in 1983 by Northwest Cartography, Inc.
                                                                                                          ar
                                                                                                        fo the Columbia River Estuary Data Development Program                                                                                                                                              Lakes, rivers, other non-tidal water features                                                                   Other cultural features

                     Washington Shoreline Management Act).

                          In Oregon, the jurisdictional estuary shorelands area includes all
                     lands 50 feet of the landward limit of aquatic vegetation, or where
                     there is no vegetation, Mean Higher High Water. Land with the following
                     characteristics is also included (as listed in Oregon Statewide Planning
                     Goal 17):

                          a)   Lands subject to ocean flooding;

                          b)   Areas of geologic instability;

                          c)   Riparian Resources;

                          d)   Significant shoreland and wetland biological habitats;

                          e)   Areas necessary for water-dependent and water-related uses
                               (e.g., mitigation and dredge material disposal sites);

                          f)   Areas of exceptional aesthetic or scenic quality; and

                          g)   Coastal headlands.

                          In addition, dikes and their associated tow drains have been
                     included within shorelands in the CREST Mitigation and Restoration Plan
                     and in the CREST Plan.

                                                       5

                                2. SUM14ARY OF FEJ)ERAL AND STATE AGENCY DEFINITIONS
                                         GERMANE TO MITIGATION AND RESTORATION
                                               POLICIES AND REGULATIONS

                          The following definitions are excerpts from existing federal and
                    state (Oregon and Washington) policies and statutes. They are listed
                    here to Allow the reader to compare the various interpretations of these
                    terms. CREST Mitigation and Restoration Plan definitions (Section 9)
                    are based on definitions in this section.

                    Mitigation:

                          U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
                          U. S. Fish and Wildlife Servic
                          U. S. Army Corps of Engineers

                    Mitigation includes:

                    a.    Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking   a certain action or
                          parts of an action.

                    b.    Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or   magnitude of the
                          action and its implementation.

                    C.    Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring
                          the affected environment.

                    d.    Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and
                          maintenance operations during the life of the action.

                    e.    Compensation for the impact, by replacing or providing substitute
                          resources or environments.

                          Oregon Division of State Lands
                          Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development

                          The creation, restoration, or enhancement of an estuarine area to
                    maintain the functional charactei7istics and processes of the estuary,
                    such as its natural biological productivity, habitats, and s    ecies.
                    diversity, unique features   and water quality (ORS 541.626).

                          Washington Department  of Ecology
                          Washington Depa@rtment of Fisheries
                          Washington Department  of Wildlife
                          (WAC 197-11-768 State  Environmental Policy Act Rules and WAC

                          This definition applies to mitigation for impacts on all Section 9,
                          10 and 404 wetlands.

                          This definition specifically addresses estuarine wetlands. A
                          similar definition for nontidal freshwater wetland mitigation does
                          not exist in DLCD Goals or Oregon State Removal-Fill Law.

                                                         7

                   220-110-020 Hydraulic Code Rules).

                   Mitigation means:

                   a.   Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or
                        parts of a certain action;

                   b.   Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the
                        action and its implementation, by using appropriate technology, or
                        by taking affirmative steps to avoid or reduce impacts;

                   C.   Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring,
                        the affected environment;

                   d.   Reducing or elii@inating the impact over time by preservation and
                        maintenance operations during the life of the action;

                   e.   Compensating for the impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing
                        substitute resources or environments; and/or

                   f.   Monitoring the impact and taking appropriate corrective measures.

                   Restoration

                        Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development

                        Revitalizing, returning, or replacing original attributes and
                   amenities, such as natural biological productivity, aesthetic and
                   cultural resources, which have been lost or diminished by past altera-
                   tions, activities, or catastrophic events. For the purpose of Goal 16,
                   estuarine restoration means to revitalize or reestablish functional
                   characteristics and processes oi,the estuary diminished or lost by past
                   alterations, activities, or catastrophic events. A restored area must
                   be a shallow subtidal or an intertidal marsh area after alteration work
                   is performed, and may not have been a functioning part of the estuarine
                   system when alteration work began.

                        Active Restoration involves the use of positive remedial actions,
                   such.as removing fills, installing water treatment facilities, or
                   rebuilding deteriorated urban waterfront areas.

                        Passive Restoration is the use of natural processes, sequences, and
                   timing which occurs after the removal or reduction of adverse stresses
                   without other specific positive remedial action.

                   Wetlands:

                        U. S. Army Corps of Enginee

                        Areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at
                   a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal
                   circumstances do support a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted
                   for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include
                   swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas.

                                                     8

                          U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service

                          Lands transitional between terrestrial and aquatic systems where
                    the water table is usually at or near the surface or the land is covered
                    by shallow water. Wetlands must have one or more of the following three
                    attributes:

                    1.    At least periodically, the land supports hydrophytes,

                    2.    The substrate is predominantly undrained hydric soil,
                    3. .  The substrate is nonsoil 3 saturated with water or covered by
                          shallow water at some time during the growing season of each year.

                          Oregon Division of State Lands

                          "Wetlands" means those areas that are inundated or saturated by
                    surface or ground water at a frequency or duration sufficient to sup-
                    port, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of
                    vegetation typically adapted to life in saturated soil conditions.
                    Wetlands include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas.

                          Oregon Department.of Land Conservation and Development

                          Land areas where excess water is the dominant factor determining
                    the nature of soil development and the types of plant and animal commu-
                    nities living at the soil surface. Wetland soils retain sufficient
                    moisture to support aquatic or semi-aquatic plant life., In marine and
                    estuarine areas, wetlands are bounded at the lower extreme by extreme
                    low water; in freshwater areas 4 by a depth of six feet. The areas below
                    wetlands are submerged lands.

                          Washington Department of Ecology
                          Washington Department of Fisheries
                          Washington Department of.Game

                          Washington's Shorelands Wetland Definition:

                          Lands extending landward for 200 feet in all directions as measured
                    on a  horizontal -31ane from the ordinary high water mark; floodways and
                    contiguous floodplain areas landward 200 feet from such floodways; and
                    all marshes, bogs, swamps, and river deltas associated with streams,
                    lakes, and tidal waters which are subject to the provisions of chapter

                    3     Parent material (e.g., rocky shores or gravel  beaches).
                    4
                          Recent state legislation, Section 4 of HB 295.0.@.' stipulates that
                          state agencies or local governing bodies may not define areas that
                          are otherwise considered wetlands as wetlands if they were created
                          by human activity that is either directly or indirectly related to
                          development. This does not include wetlands that are created for
                          mitigation purposes or Section 404 Clean Water Act wetlands.

                                                        9

                        90.58.030 RCW.

                        Washington's Biophysical Wetland Definition:

                        Lands transitional between terrestrial and aquatic systems where
                   saturation with water is the dominant factor determining plant and
                   animal communities and soil development. For the purpose of this
                   definition, these areas must have one or both of the following at-
                   tributes:

                        �    At least periodically, the land supports predominantly hydro-
                             phytes, and/or

                        �    The substrate is predominantly undrained hydric soil.

                                                     10

                        3. EXISTING FEDERAL AND STATE MITIGATION REGULATIONS AND POLICIES

                         Mitigation regulations and policies are applied by federal, state,
                    and local levels of government in the Columbia River Estuary. Each
                    level consist of several agencies that share mitigation policy decision
                    responsibility and regulation authority within and between government
                    levels. This section discusses current federal and state regulations
                    and policies germane to mitigation and restoration efforts in the
                    Columbia River Estuary and the agencies that implement them. These
                    policies and regulations were used As a basis for derivation of CREST
                    Mitigation and Restoration Plan policies and standards listed in Section
                    8.

                    3.1 FEDERAL AGENCIES WITH MITIGATION POLICY RESPONSIBILITIES

                         Federal agencies involved with wetland permit issues and mitigation
                    requirements include the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE), Environ-
                    mental Protection Agency (EPA), U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS),
                    National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), and the U. S. Coast Guard
                    (CG). The COE has permit authority over waters of the United States
                    (e.g.j wetlands and aquatic areas) through Section 10 of the 1899 Rivers
                    and Harbors Act and Section 404 of the 1977 amendments to the Clean
                    Water Act. The Coast Guard has permit authority over all bridge and
                    causeway-projects over navigable waters through Section 9 of the Rivers
                    and Harbors Act. These agencies are further authorized, through the
                    National Environmental Policy Act and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination
                    Act, to make mitigation requirements conditions of permit approval.
                    Other resource agencies review permit applications and make comments to
                    the Corps of Enginee rs and the Coast Guard.

                    3.2 FEDERAL REGULATORY JURISDICTION OVER WETLANDS AND AQUATIC AREAS

                         Section 404 of the 1977 Amendments;'to the Clean Water Act gives the
                    Corps of Engineers regulatory jurisdiction over discharge of fill
                    material into the nation's waters, including wetlands, in accordance
                    with guidelines established by EPA. While the act was originally
                    interpreted to regulate water quality only in navigable waters, a
                    subsequent broader interpretation has been made by federal courts   to
                    include all waters of the United States (U. S. Congress, Office of
                    Technology Assessment 1984). This is important in the Columbia River
                    Estuary planning area because it broadens the responsibility of the
                    Corps of Engineers to freshwater nontidal wetlands. The Environmental
                    Protection Agency (EPA) recently ruled that isolated wetlands that
                    support migratory birds or endangered species shall be considered waters
                    of the United States and, therefore, regulated by the Corps of Engineers
                    (FR/51, 219/1986). All development in navigable waters is regulated
                    under-Section 10 of the 1899 Rivers and Harbors Act.

                    3.2.1 General Overview of the Section 404 Permit Process

                        Once the Corps of Engineers (COE) receives a wetland fill permit
                    application, notices are mailed to state and federal resource agencies
                    and other interested parties for review. This review is an effort to
                    determine if permit issuance is in the best public interest.

                        When considering permit issuance, the COE conducts a public inter-
                    ests review and must assure compliance with Environmental Protection
                    Agency guidelines stipulated in Section 404 (b)(1) of the Clean Water
                    Act (Shipley 1974). The COE must also obtain a water quality certifi-
                    cation statement from the state water quality agency (Department of
                    Environmental Quality in Oregon and Department of Ecology in Washing-
                    ton), and, for coastal areas (Section 307 of Coastal Zone Management-
                    Act), an approval from the coastal zone management agency (Department of
                    Land Conservation and Development in Oregon, and Department of Ecology
                    in Washington).

                        Federal agencies must also comply with Section 404(b)(1) guidelines
                    before discharging dredged or fill material into wetlands. All federal
                    agencies, except the Corps of Engineers must apply for a section 404
                    permit under the same process as a private applicant. The U.S. Army
                    Corps of Engineers addresses its.404 requirements in-house. While the
                    COE addresses project impacts under NEPA requirements, and project
                    notices are circulated to federal and state agencies, local governments,
                    and other interested parties, there is no actual permit issued. The
                    final decision on project approval is made by the Office of Chief
                    Engineers. The governor of the state with jurisdiction has an opportun-
                    ity to review and comment on the project. All federal projects in the
                    coastal zone must demonstrate consistency, to the extent practicable,
                    with the state's federally approved coastal zone management program
                    (Washington State Coastal Zone Management Program .1978).

                    3.2.2 The Legal Basis for Federal Mitigation Policies

                        Mitigation policy is authorized at the federal level through
                    several statutes: The 1969 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA),
                    1977 Clean Water Act (CWA), and the 1958 Fish and Wildlife Coordination
                    Act (FWCA).

                        Current federal mitigation policy stems largely from the National
                    Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). In 1978, NEPA guidelines were codified
                    (FR/43, 230/1978) to stress the following mitigation actions:

                    �   Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or
                        parts of an action;

                    �   Minimizing impacts by limiting degree or magnitude of the action
                        and its implementation;

                    �   Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring
                        the impacted environment;

                    �   Reducing or eliminating the impact over ti-me by preservation and
                        maintenance operations during the life of the action; and

                                                      12

                    0    Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute
                         resources or environments.

                    Any combination of the above mitigation actions may be required as a
                    condition of permit approval by appropriate federal agencies.

                         The Clean Water Act (CWA), Section 404(b)(1), requires all permit
                    applicants with projects that discharge dredged or fill material into
                    wetlands to demonstrate public need, water dependency and unavailability
                    of alternative non-wetland sites. The Corps must consider economic,
                    engineering, and environmental factors when evaluating "practicable"
                    alternatives. In addition, it requires permit applicants to demonstrate
                    that water quality will not be adversely affected by the project.
                    Mitigation for unavoidable adverse impacts in wetlands is also required
                    under this section. Federal and.state resource agencies must submit
                    comments on assessments of potential adverse project impacts to aid
                    decision-making regarding permit issuance and mitigation requirements
                    (Blomberg 1987).

                         The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA) emphasizes integra-
                    tion of public interest with economic and resource concerns (Blomberg
                    1987). It is implemented through coordination with state and federal
                    resource agencies who review project permits.

                         Under Section 662(b) of the FWCA, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
                    Service is required to prQvide a written analysis of development propos-
                    als that adversely affect wildlife. The reports must describe measures
                    to mitigate and compensate for damages to wildlife and wildlife habitat
                    (Blomberg 1987).

                    3.2.3 The Role of Federal Agencies in Implementing Mitigation Policies

                         U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)._

                         The USFWS reviews project impacts on fish and wildlife and deter-,
                    mines suitable mitigation strategies for the impacts. USFWS mitigation
                    policies (FR/46, 15/1981) uses four levels of habitat value or resource
                    categories (Table 1) for considering mitigation strategies during permit
                    review.

                         For wetland development projects, the USFWS will look most favor-
                    ably at projects that are clearly water-dependent, demonstrate a strong
                    public need, demonstrate all upland alternatives are impractical, are in
                    a Resource Category 2'site or lower (4 = lowest), and demonstrate a
                    sequential approach to mitigation has been applied; considering avoid-
                    ance first and out-of-kind/off-site replacement last. Also, creation
                    and restoration actions will be considered before enhancement.

                         The Service may use a Habitat Evaluation Procedure (HEP) to deter-
                    mine habitat values (U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1980). HEP is a
                    numerical wildlife habitat evaluation method. Users of HEP select key
                    indicator species and numerically compare their respective idealized

                                                        13

                    habitat characteristics with habitat conditions at a particular site. A
                    suitability index is derived that ranges from 0 to 1, with 0 being the
                    worst and I the best habitat conditions.for the indicator species. This
                    index is multiplied by the area of habitat to determine "Habitat Suit-
                    ability Units." These units become the measure of habitat value of the
                    areaI lost to development and of compensatory requirements.

                          Other evaluation methods may be used in cases where HEP is imprac-
                    tical.    The method used is often left to the discretion of the evalua-
                    tion team reviewing the project (often comprised of representatives from
                    other resource agencies).

                          U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

                          The EPA mitigation policy supports mitigation for all projects
                    subject to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, in accordance with the
                    sequential system outlined in the EPA Region 10 Mitigation Policy
                    consistent with requirements of National Environmental Policy Act
                    regulations, the USFWS Mitigation Policy and Section 404(b)(1) Guide-
                    lines (EPA 1985).

                          While EPA mitigation policies strongly resemble USFWS mitigation
                    policies, the Habitat Evaluation Procedures (HEP) are not addressed at
                    the same level of detail. EPA policy references a wider spectrum of
                    wetland values based on (Adamus'1983 and Adamus and Stockwell 1983):

                          �    Groundwater Recharge and Discharge

                          �    Flood Storage and Desynchronization

                          �    Shoreline Anchoring and Dissipation of Erosive Forces

                          �    Sediment Trapping

                          �    Nutrient Retention and Removal

                          �    Food Chain Support

                          �    Habitat for Fisheries

                          �    Habitat for Wildlife

                          �    Active Recreation

                          �    Passive Recreation and Heritage Value

                    HEP is acceptable to EPA on occasions where habitat value is the over-
                    riding concern and when other values are dealt with 'separately.

                          Differences in wetland assessment techniques applied by federal
                    agencies may materialize in the form of inconsistent decisions on degree
                    of impacts and mitigation requirements. However, the EPA does cooperate
                    with federal and state fish and wildlife agencies when making mitigation
                    decisions, particularly when habitat value is the primary or sole

                                                         14.

                   Table 1. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Resource Categories.

                   Resource Category 1

                   Habitat to be impacted is of high value for evaluation species and is
                   unique and irreplaceable on a national basis or in the Columbia River
                   Estuary section.

                   Mitigation Goal

                   No loss of existing habitat value.

                   Resource Category 2

                   Habitat to be impacted is of high value for evaluation species and is
                   relatively scarce or becoming scarce on a national basis or in the
                   Columbia River Estuary section.

                   Mitigation Goal

                   No net loss of in-kind habitat  value.

                   Resource C@tegory 3

                   Habitat to be impacted is of high to medium value for evaluation species
                   and is relatively abundant on a Tiational basis.

                   Mitigation Goal

                   No net loss of habitat  value while minimizing loss of in-kind habitat
                   value.

                   Resource Category.4

                   Habitat to be impacted is of medium to  low value for evaluation species.

                   Mitigation Goal

                   Minimize loss of habitat value.

                   Federal Register/Vol. 46, No. 16/1981

                                                      15

                   concern.

                        In cases where permit requirements are violated or unauthorized
                   wetland fills occur (Section 301 violations cited in the Clean Water
                   Act), the EPA has authority, under Sections 308 and 309, to pursue
                   appropriate civil and/or criminal penalties. With respect to mitiga-
                   tion, the following actions may be required:

                        �    Site Restoration;

                        �    On-Site, In-Kind Replacement;

                        �    Off-Site, Out-of-Kind Replacement;

                        �    Mitigation Bank Contributions; or

                        �    Enhancement of Existing wetlands.

                        The Environmental Protection Agency encourages measures that insure
                   mitigation success (e.g., monitoring and maintenance of mitigation
                   actions, remedial actions as determined by monitoring, mitigation
                   methods research, and pre-application conferences to help develop
                   acceptable mitigation proposals) and give the developer greater certain-
                   ty regarding mitigation requirements (e.g., pre-permit agreements to
                   determine project compliance with Section 404(b)(1) guidelines). On a
                   case-by-case basis, the EPA also supports mitigation banking. Mitiga-
                   tion banks, if implemented correctly, can give developers a cost effec-
                   tive way of satisfying their mitigation obligations and insure adequate
                   compensation for wetland impacts (EPA 1985).

                        National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS).

                        NMFS also serves an advisory role to the Corps of Engineers on 404
                   permit issuance and mitigation requirements along with other federal and
                   state agencies. However., NMFS focuses its habitat conservation goal on
                   "improved estuarine management" (NMFS 19;76 and Blomberg 1987). NMFS
                   follows roughly the same mitigation guidelines as USFWS and EPA (e.g.,
                   water-dependency, public interest criteria, alternative site considera
                   tions, and sequential mitigation'strategies).

                        In addition to previously mentioned legislation, NMFS derives its
                   management responsibilities from the Fishery Conservation and Management
                   Act of 1976 and the Marine Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act of
                   1972'. Under these federal mandates, NMFS habitat interests focus
                   primarily on commercial and sport fisheries and marine mammals.

                        U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE).

                        The COE administers the 404 regulatory program based on EPA
                   404(b)(1) guidelines. Ultimate permit issuance decisions lie with the
                   Corps unless EPA invokes a veto under 404(c) of the Clean Water Act.
                   The district engineer considers the sequential mitigation policy strate-
                   gy outlined in the NEPA laws and gathers input from all interested
                   federal, state, and local jurisdictions as well as private groups and

                                                     16

                    individuals before making permit decisions. This input, and COE re-
                    search, is used to determine the quality and quantity of the impacted
                    environment. For compensatory mitigation, the final permit decision
                    addresses appropriate on- and off-site areas for mitigation activities,
                    potential mitigation site acquisitions, enhancement, and management
                    recommendations for impacted sites (Corps of Engineers 1985).

                         The district engineer is not required to follow the recommendations
                    of any. other resource agency but is guided by the same national laws and
                    policies with regard to permit issuance and mitigation'requirements. If
                    the district engineer's recommendations for mitigation differ from other
                    agency recommendations, there must be adequate documentation for the-,
                    decision (e.g., relevant supporting data, discussion of how the favor-
                    able public interest determination has been made with less or different
                    mitigation than that recommended by the resource agencies, and a de-
                    scription of how mitigation measures were determined).

                    3.3 STATE REGULATORY RESPONSIBILITIES OVER WETLANDS AND AQUATIC AREAS
                         IN THE IN THE COLUMBIA RIVER ESTUARY

                         The Columbia River Estuary is divided between two state jurisdic-
                    tions - Washington and Oregon.  In Washington, state level mitigation
                    decisions are guided by several.agencies:

                         0    Washington Department of Ecology (DOE);

                         0    Washington Department of Wildlife (WDW); and

                         0    Washington Department of Fisheries (WDF).

                    Implementation of Washington's mitigation policies is the responsibility
                    of the DOE and local governments, through the regulatory phase of the
                    state Shoreline Management Program (SMP). Washington's SMP, applied in
                    its coastal zone, constitutes,a major component of its Coastal Zone
                    Management Program. Washington Department of Wildlife and Washington
                    Department of Fisheries regulate potential impacts on fish through
                    Washington's Hydraulics Code Rules (WAC 220-110-010 - 220-110-350).

                    Analogous Oregon agencies include:

                         �    Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development
                              (DLCD);

                         �    Oregon Division of State Lands (DSL);

                         0    Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW); and

                         �    Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ).

                    Implementation of Oregon's mitigation policies is the responsibility of
                    DSL through the state removal-fill law and local governments through
                    their comprehensive plans. The comprehensive plans, applied in Oregon's
                    coastal zone,-constitute a major component Oregon's Coastal Zone Manage-

                                                       17

                   ment Program.

                   3.3.1 Washington's Shoreland and Aquatic Area Permit Review Process
                          Under the Shoreland/Coastal Zone Management Program

                        Washington's shoreline management permit system is coordinated
                   between local, state, and federal agencies. Federal section 404 and
                   section 10 permits are forwarded to the Department of Ecology which
                   circulates the permits and coordinates the state's response. Mitigation
                   requirements may be appended as conditions of section 10 and 404 permit
                   approval. Federal permits will not be approved without local and state
                   permit approval. State and local level permit coordination is imple-
                   mented primarily through three state laws: the State Environmental
                   Policy Act (SEPA), the Shoreline Management Act (SMA), and the Hydraulic
                   Project Approval Law (HPA). All Washington state resource agencies and
                   local governments coordinate to implement these laws (Figure 2).
                   Mitigation requirements may be recommended under the SEPA process and/or
                   appended as a permit condition under the shoreline and HPA,permit
                   process.

                        The SEPA Process.

                        The Washington  State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) is adminis-
                   tered by a "lead agency" (WAC 197-11-922 - 197-11-948) and requires
                   coordination between local, state, and federal agencies to assess
                   environmental impacts and to ensure social, economic, and environmental
                   concerns are adequately addressed.

                        The lead agency, usually the local government, reviews the permit
                   under SEPA statutes and makes a ."threshold" determination regarding the
                   potential adverse environmental impacts of a project. A determination
                   of significance (DS) or non-significance (DNS) is made regarding project
                   impacts.

                        If a DNS is made, the DNS  is circulated with an environmental
                   checklist to the Department of  Ecology, agencies with jurisdiction, and
                   other interested parties. A 15-d  *ay review period is allowed for com-
                   ments. Unless evidence is received during the review period demonstrat-
                   ing a need for a Determination of Significance, the state Environmental
                   Impact Statement (EIS) is not required, and, unless contested, permit
                   processing continues. Pre-threshold determination agreements on mitiga-
                   tion measure between the developer and the lead agency may help avoid a
                   Determination of Significance and subsequent EIS requirements. This is
                   called a mitigated DNS.

                        If a Determination of Significance is made, the lead age3cy must
                   prepare a draft state Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS).     The DEIS
                   is then circulated to concerned agencies and other interested parties

                   5
                        Environmental Impact Statement preparations are usually relegated
                        to qualified environmental consultants.

                                                      18

                                                                                                                    6 T

                          rD

                          cn

                          UQ
                          rT
                          0

                          In

                          rr

                                                                                                                                                              79
                                                                                       2.. 0 W

                                                                                            ;c

                                                                                                               R. i
                          (D

                                                                                                                                            cc a                            'j.

                          CD

                          (D

                          Fj-

                          Fl-
                          (D
                          4

                          rD                                  -a -0
                          In                                    I i - -
                                                                                        3 C-6 C

                                                                                        a C6
                                                                                                       LM--.O- 9-1

                    for review and comment. Public hearings may also be required for
                    certain projects. After the review period a final Environmental Impact
                    State (FEIS), and perhaps a Supplemental Environmental.Impacts Statement
                    (SEIS), is circulated.

                         The lead agency is then authorized to deny or allow a development
                    proposal using the information in the Final Environmental Impact State-
                    ment as a basis for decision-making.

                         A State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) analysis review may result
                    in project denial, project authorization, or authorization with condi-
                    tions that may require project changes, including mitigation for un--'
                    avoidable adverse impacts (Blomberg 1987).

                         Under SEPA Rules (WAC 197-11-768), mitigation means:

                         a)   Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action
                              or parts of an action;

                         b)   Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the
                              action and its implementation, by using appropriate technol-
                              ogy, or by taking affirmative steps to reduce impacts;

                         c)   Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restor-
                              ing the impact over time by preservation and maintenance
                              operations during the life of the action;

                         d)   Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation
                              and maintenance operations during the life of the action;

                         e)   Compensating for the impact by replacing, or providing substi-
                              tute resources or environments; and/or

                         f)   Monitoring the impact and taking the appropriate corrective
                              measures.

                         If the lead agency denies a permit, it must demonstrate adverse
                    impacts that could not be reasonably mitigated. If a lead agency
                    approves a permit, it may require mitigation based on its policies,
                    plans, rules, or regulations. Mitigation requirements (WAC 197-11-660)
                    must be:

                         a)   Clearly related to adverse environmental impacts identified in
                              the draft and supplemental environmental impacts statements;

                         b)   Reasonable and capable of being accomplished;

                    6    With the exception of monitoring, this definition,is very similar
                         to the definition cited in the National Environmental Policy Act.

                                                      20

                         c)   The responsibility of the applicant only to the extent attri-
                              butable to the adverse impact; and
                         d)   Made'with prior research regarding other mitigation require-
                              ments for the identified impact from federal, state, or local
                              agencies.

                         Three Washington Departments (Washington Department of Fisheries,
                    Washington Department of Wildlife and Washington Department of Ecology)
                    review SEPA documents either as lead agencies or in a review capacity.
                    This allows the agencies to anticipate effects of development and to
                    respond with appropriate mitigation strategies.

                         The Washington Department of Wildlife (WDW) had adopted the SEPA
                    definition of mitigation in a draft mitigation policy and lists an
                    overall goal of the Department to be "that human-caused habitat altera-
                    tion shall result in no net loss of wildlife carrying capacity nor of
                    habitat characteristics indicative of carrying capacity."

                         The WDW draft mitigation policy uses the following sequential
                    strategy when considering mitigation actions:

                         a)   On-Site, In-Kind;

                         b)   Off-Site, In-Kind;_

                         c)   On-Site, Out-of-Kind;

                         d)   Off-Site, Out-of-Kind-; or

                         e)   A combination of the above.

                         The Department would like to use SEPA significance determinations
                    to judge appropriate mitigation strategies to apply to a project. That
                    is, a SEPA Determination of Nonsignificance for a project may only
                    require mitigation measures that minimize loss while a Determination of
                    Significance may call for total avoidance or total replacement.

                         There is an appeals process available, under WAC 197-11-680, to
                    applicants, agencies, and other interested parties for permits that are
                    denied or conditioned. Generally, an appeal must be filed within 30
                    days after notice. However, while WAC 197-11-680 relates to all agen7
                    cies, there is specific appeals language for various permits and differ-
                    ent forums under which appeals are heard.

                         Shoreline Master Program.

                         The Shoreline Management Act requires that local governments
                    prepare and adopt Shoreline Master Programs that incorporate extensive
                    planning regulations and policies for the state's shorelines (this Plan
                    only considers the Columbia River Estuary shoreline). The program is
                    administered by local jurisdictions with Department of Ecology acting in
                    a review and supportive capacity (see RCW 90.58.050). Program amend-
                    ments are routinely processed with an adoption process which includes

                                                       21

                   the SEPA Review process. The Department of Ecology, Washington Depart-
                   ment of Fisheries, and Washington Department of Wildlife, as well as
                   other interested parties, can comment on the proposed amendments and
                   collectively influence Shoreline Master Program (SMP) elements.

                        The Shoreline Management Act requires all local incorporated cities
                   and counties to develop shoreline programs using state goals and guide-
                   lines adopted by DOE as part of the state's Coastal Zone Management
                   Program. Generally, shorelines include all aquatic areas and adjacent
                   uplands extending 200 feet landward of ordinary high water.

                        While the Shoreline Management Act does not specifically require'
                   mitigation to be addressed in local master programs, some programs
                   include mitigation requirements as a development review standard. Of
                   the current CREST jurisdictions, only Pacific County has mitigation
                   requirements incorporated into their Shoreline Master Program.

                        A variety of projects (WAC 173-14-010 et seq.) are considered
                   exempt from permit requirements, but must remain consistent with the
                   Master Program regulations. Generally, any project that exceeds $2,500
                   in cost is considered a "substantial development" project and requires
                   issuance of a shoreline permit under the local shoreline master program
                   jurisdiction. Exemptions include but are not limited to (Washington
                   State Coastal Zone Management P.rogram 1976):

                        a)   Repair and maintenance of existing structures;

                        b)   Docks costing no more than $2,500;

                        c)   Protective bulkheads for single family residences;

                        d)   Navigational aides;

                        e)   Single family residences built by owners for their use; and

                        f)   Emergency construction.

                        Hydraulic Projects Approval Law.

                        The Washington Department of Fisheries (WDF) and Washington Depart-
                   ment of Wildlife ((WDW) also apply the 1986-1987 Hydraulics Projects
                   Approval Law (HPA, RCW 74.20.100 and 75.20.103). Under HPA, dredge and
                   fill in Washington's aquatic areas require hydraulic permit approval.
                   This allows the agencies to inspect hydraulic permit applications and
                   make recommendations addressing fish life concerns, including mitigation
                   (Blomberg 1987).

                        The Hydraulic Code Rules include a mitigation definition (Section
                   20 of WAC 220-110-020) that essentially duplicates the SEPA definition.
                   Under section 12 of WAC 220-110-030, WDF or WDG can deny a permit for a
                   project that is potentially harmful to fish life unless adequate mitiga-
                   tion is assured through permit requirements.

                                                      22

                        The Washington Department of Fisheries (WDF) is responsible for
                    setting regulations to control the commercial and sports harvest of food
                    fish and shellfish stocks and for protecting habitats of these species.
                    WDF also makes permit recommendations under the Fish and Wildlife
                    Coordination Act to federal, state and local jurisdictions regarding
                    permit issuance and mitigation requirements for impacts on the fisheries
                    resource.

                    3.3.2 Oregon's Shoreland  and Aquatic Area Permit Review Process under
                          Statewide Land Use Planningand Oregon's Removal-Fill Law

                        in Oregon, the Division of State Lands (DSL) has jurisdiction over
                    removal and fill of more than 50 cubic yards in Ore-gon "waters" and
                    coordinates Section 404 permit review responsibilities with the Corps of
                    Engineers (Figure 3). DSL circulates federal Section 404 permit appli-
                    cations for state and local agency review and consolidates the state's
                    comments in a letter from the state to the regulatory branch of the
                    Corps of Engineers.

                        Permit applicants are required to submit applications for develop-
                    ment activities to their local planning departments in addition to
                    state/federal applications. The local planning departments must deter-
                    mine whether the proposed activity is compatible with the local compre-
                    hensive plan and ordinances. If the activity is found not to comply
                    with the comprehensive plan, it must either be denied or the relevant
                    local jurisdiction must amend its plan. However, comprehensive plans
                    must continue to comply with statewide goals as administ,7 red under the
                    Department of Land Conservation-and Development (DLCD).

                        The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) participates in
                    the permit issuance and mitigation regulation process by reviewing
                    permit applications and making recommendations to the state agency with
                    regulatory authority (e.g., Division of State Lands). The Division of
                    State Lands compiles a report,which includes Oregon Department of Fish
                    and Wildlife comments and submits it to the U.S. Army Corps of Engine-
                    ers. ODFW recommendations often materialize as permit requirements,
                    especially with regard to mitigat,ion (Blomberg 1987).

                    3.3.3 The Relationship Between Oregon's Statewide Planning Goals and
                          Wetland Mitigation

                        Under Oregon's planning system, wetlands are addressed in Statewide

                    7   Under the authority of Land Conservation Development Commission
                        each county and municipality in Oregon is required to develop
                        comprehensive plans regarding future development in their jurisdic-
                        tion. The Commission's staff (DLCD) has developed 19 statewide
                        planning goals regarding land use in Oregon. County and municipal
                        comprehensive plans are required to comply with each of these goals
                        (OAR 660-31-005 to 660-31-040). The Division of State Lands is
                        also required to comply with these goals.

                                                     23

                                                                                                            VZ

                               OQ
                                                                                               0   0 1
                                                                                             2! v  --:                 a  0
                                                                                                                       (D 0
                                                                           I     Oll    10
                               (D                     v              1, 4  9     11on          I @a
                                                                                                   0        n
                                                                                             o              9o
                                                                                                                                             1! zi
                                                                                 0 0@                              0   p  m

                                                                                                                                             .0 10
                                                                     n                         0   0
                               Qx@                                                                          tj         0                     &
                                                                                                                                                                       0
                                                                                                                                             (o'      n     M0
                                                                     I     o
                                                                                           10                                                0                           0
                                                                                                                                                                       0
                                                                                                   0                                                         'n.
                                                                                                                                                      -4    m
                                                                                               t   ol
                                                                                                                                                            CL
                                                                                                                                                                       0
                               rr                                                                                                            OZ9AV    a      I
                                                                                                                                                                     8-4
                         rt    DO
                                                                                                   "M
                                                                                                                          0
                                                                                           two     n        Mz
                                                                                                                                             o-
                                                                                             n 7   0        m
                                                                                 -13    0          1        on
                                                                                                                                             mo
                         0     Z
                               r-L                                                                                                           n
                                                                                                            zm

                                                                                                                       M
                                                                                                   ol
                         00    r_

                                                          10,
                               rD
                               D)

                               (D

                                                                                                                   6-
                                                                                          ............
                                                                                                                                                            a-    CLw-0 wm
                                                                                                                                             >
                                                                                 cn                            1,4
                                                                     0
                                                                     o
                                                                        C. D, M                                               m c            m'o,                 @o 3- 'n'
                                                                        13, 0-  ll@m                                          CL

                                                                                                                              m              m0
                                                                                                                                             0  0
                                                                                                                                             ul
                                                                                                                                                                       0'
                                                                                                                                             0  0
                                                                        m  IL c                       3@0'         0
                               (D                                                                              ILR:
                                                                                                                              n 0            CL0lw* M"      -0    0
                                                                                        M  0
                                                                                                   n:.                        m 1            :3
                                                                                                   .  , c),, n ev w, P, @,    M
                                                                                                   M:;                        0-
                                                                                                                                             m  0           0     0
                                                                                                            45                                                       0 1@
                               rt
                                                                                                                                                            m     1. a :3
                                                                                                                                                                     0 :1
                                                                                        . ..........
                                                                                          ..............
                                                                                                                                                            (n
                               (D

                               rD

                                                          rl
                                                          -0 0
                                                          mm
                               0
                               0
                               (D                     OZ
                               U)                         0w
                                                      m      ID
                                                      m   00
                               C                      n      0
                                                          n
                                                          0  C:
                               (D                            W
                               m                             n
                               0

                                                                                           m
                                                                                 0
                                                                                           'a.
                               (D                                                lb     0                          ... . .......
                                                                                                      m                       0              rt
                                                                                                                              a              I        II I  >
                                                                                                                                             n@w "@t.m
                                                                                           (n         m                                      ,a @, 0"",On0  m
                                                                                           c                       M, og                              0     0       a  >
                                                                                           a                                                 'O"o "Am 0     '@l   p      am,
                                                                                           m
                                                                                                      m
                                                                                                                                             & al"I 0,
                                                                                                                              nr.,:                   (D M CL0         0
                                                                                                            m      &                         gv, tv Mr- P,             0
                                                                                                                                                      (L
                                                                                      'o
                                                                                                                   n

                                                                                                                                             W,

                                                                                                                                             @o @.Z

                    Goals 11, 11, and 1. Goal 16 applies directly to Oregon's estuaries and
                    intertidal estuarine wetlands and Goal 17 applies to Oregon's coastal
                    lakes and estuarine shorelands. Goal 5 applies to all significant
                    wetlands that are not connected to the estuary and are outside of the
                    coastal shorelands boundary. Mitigation is not required under Goals 5
                    and 17, although there is a guideline in Goal 17 to coordinate with Goal
                    16 planning requirements.

                      . Mitigation for dredge or fill in intertidal estuarine wetland areas
                    is defined under Goal 16 as:

                         The creation, restoration or enhancement of an estuarine area to
                         maintain the functional characteristics and processes of the
                         estuary, such as its natural biological productivity, habitats and
                         species diversity, unique features, and water quality.

                    Goal 16 requires local comprehensive plans to designate and protect
                    specific sites for mitigation and restoration which generally correspond
                    to the types and quantity of intertidal area designated for dredging and
                    filling. The Goal 16 mitigation definition and requirements are rein-
                    forced in Oregon State Estuarine Mitigation Law (ORS 541.626).

                    3.3.4. The Relationshi p Between Oregon's Removal-Fill Law.and
                           Mitigation

                         Oregon's Fill and Removal Law (ORS  541.605 et seq.) requires
                    permits for fill and removal of greater than 50 cubic yards of material
                    in all of Oregon's waters. The-Division of State Lands (DSL) has the
                    responsibility for administering this law. Under OAR 141-85-040, the
                    DSL director has authority to impose special and general conditions to
                    carry out the removal-fill law, Including "actions to reduce, eliminate,,
                    or mitigate (creation, restoration, or enhancement) adverse impacts to
                    water resources." Although mitigation for nontidal freshwater wetland
                    impacts is authorized throughAhis administrative rule, there are no
                    specific criteria for quantifying mitigation requirements.

                         Estuarine wetland mitigation requirements, however, are defined in
                    detail and quantified under Oregon's Estuarine Mitigation Law (ORS
                    541.626). The DSL  'director makes the following considerations when
                    reviewing estuarine project proposals for possible mitigation require-
                    ments: identifies adverse impacts of the activity; availability of
                    areas where mitigation activity could be performed; provision of land
                    use plans for the area adjacent to the proposed activity; recommenda-
                    tions from any interested or affected state agencies; and the type and
                    extent of compensating activity inherent in the proposed activity.

                         The DSL director may partially waive mitigation requirements is:

                         a)   There is no alternative manner in which to accomplish the
                              purpose of the project;

                         b)   There is no feasible manner in which mitigation could be
                              accomplished;

                                                       25

                        c)   The economic and public need for the project clearly outweigh
                             the potential degradation of the estuary;

                        d)   The project is for a public use; and

                        e)   The project is water-dependent or the project is publicly-
                             owned and water-related.

                        Mitigation may be waived wholly or in part for activities with
                   negligible impacts such as:
                                I                                                                     I
                        a)   Filling for repair and maintenance of existing functional
                             dikes;

                        b)   Riprap to allow protection of an existing bankline;

                        c)   Filling for repair of existing roads;

                        d)   Dredging for authorized navigation channels, jetty or naviga-
                             tional aid installation, or any Corps of Engineers repair or
                             maintenance work; and

                        e)   Dredging or filling required as part of an estuarine resource
                             restoration or enhancement project.

                   Maintenance dredging and aggregate mining at a historically used site
                   are exempt from mitigation requirements (Division of State Lands 1984a).

                        The director of DSL has authority to pursue civil and criminal
                   penalties, restoration actions, and substantial fines for illegal
                   (non-permitted) dredge and fill.operations in Oregon's waters.

                                                     26

                        4. CUMULATIVE WETLAND IMPACTS IN THE COLUMBIA RIVER ESTUARY

                        In order to formulate policies regarding mitigation and restoration
                   actions and to make habitat trade decisions, it is necessary to under-
                   stand which habitat types have been most seriously depleted and which
                   are currently scarce relative to other existing habitats. This informa-
                   tion is especially important when considering migratory birds, an-
                   adromous fish, and marinespecies that spend part of their life cycle in
                   estuaries (Good  1987).

                        For estuarine wetlands, habitat data from 1868 and 1873 surveys of
                   the Columbia River Estuary were compared with recent habitat data for
                   the same areas by Thomas (1983). Five estuarine habitat types were
                   determined and mapped from the historical data:

                        0    Deep water;

                        0    Medium-depth water;

                        0    Shallows and flats;

                        0    Marshes; and

                        0    Swamps.

                        These maps were compared with recent maps of existing habitat
                   types. The results of this comparison show an overall reduction in the
                   estuary's area from 156,190 acres in 1868-1873 to 119,000 acres in
                   recent times, a loss of 24 percent of the historical total. The great-
                   est change, both in acres and as,a percentage, is in the tidal swamp
                   (wooded wetland) category, which shows a reduction from 30,020 acres to
                   6,950 acres, a 77% loss. Tidal marshes (emergent wetland) are the next
                   most heavily impacted habitat,type with a reduction from 16,180 acres to
                   9,200 acres, a 43% loss. Most of this loss was due to diking of high
                   marsh habitat. Swamps and marshes together have lost 65% of their
                   former area; deep and medium-depth water acreages were reduced by 16
                   percent, while shallows and flats show a 10 percent increase in area.
                   The distribution of these changes within the estuary are highly uneven
                   (Thomas 1983).

                        Among human factors, diking and dredge spoil disposal appear to
                   have had the greatest impacts. Dredging, filling, and construction of
                   jetties and upriver dams are also important. Diking and fills that
                   create uplands remove area directly from the estuary. Human factors
                   have also accelerated shoaling in some areas in excess of that which
                   would occur naturally. This has reduced water volume and changed
                   relative areas of estuarine habitat types. Sedimentation does not
                   appear to have significantly altered the overall surface area of the
                   estuary, although it may be locally significant (Thomas 1983).

                        The Thomas (1983) cumulative impact study was used to help deter-
                   mine relative values (Section 5.1) of Columbia River Estuary habitat

                                                      27

                   types in the 1983 CREST Mitigation Plan (Smith 1983). That system has
                   also been adopted for use in this 1987 revision of that Plan.

                                                     28

                                   5. NUMERICAL MODEL FOR DETERMINING ESTUARINE
                                         WETLAND MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS

                         The 1983 CREST Mitigation Plan (Smith 1983) included a numerical
                    model for determining types and area of mitigation requirements for
                    estuarine development projects. Species abundance and diversity and
                    habitat scarcity criteria were used to rate and relatively rank 19
                    estuarine habitat types in the Columbia River Estuary (defined by
                    elevation, substrate, salinity, and vegetation). The model allowed
                    @habitat trade decisions to be made while theoretically allowing no net
                    loss of estuarine habitat value. This system has been modified and
                    adopted into Oregon State Mitigation law (ORS 541.626) as administered
                    by the Division of State Lands under the law's administrative rule (OAR
                    141-85-240 et seq.). It is currently used for estimating impacts and.
                    mitigation in all of Oregon's estuaries (Division of State Lands 1984a).
                    It is also used in this Plan to match mitigation sites with proposed
                    developments in the Columbia River Estuary.

                         The model was developad using estuarine resource data, provided by
                    the Columbia River Estuary Data Development Program (CREDDP), and other
                    research. These data were used to compare certain Columbia River
                    Estuary habitat characteristics with associated biota. The comparisons
                    were used to derive a list of habitat characteristics important in
                    defining biotic communities, and, subsequently, for habitat classifica-
                    tion purposes. The habitat classes were then numerAcally assessed for
                    their respective fish and wildlife habitat values.

                         A generalized habitat type value assessment was coxisidered the most
                    appropriate method given the level of scientific information available
                    and the state-of-the-art of assessment methods.  The system was based on
                    the following assumptions:

                         a)   The resource informati on available was adequate to develop a
                              management program that would meet the mandates of federal and
                              state agencies, protect estuarine values, and offset develop-
                              ment impacts.

                         b)   A numerical model incorporating physical and biological site
                              characteristics could @erve as the primary vehicle for program
                              implementation-

                         c)   A model that displays the relative values of Columbia River
                              Estuary habitat types would be adequate for mitigation decis-
                              ion-making purposes.

                    8
                         Wildlife and fisheries habitats (based on diversity, productivity,
                         and scarcity) were the only estuarine wetland and aquatic area
                         values assessed under the model. Other values (e.g., water quali-
                         ty, flood mitigation and desynchronization, and recreation) were
                         not addressed.

                                                      29

                    5.1 COLUMBIA RIVER ESTUARY HABITAT CLASSIFICATION AND VALUE ASSESSMENT

                         Four habitat characteristics were reviewed by CREST:

                         �    Salinity Regime';

                         �    Tidal Regime;

                         �    Vegetation; and

                         �    Substrate Type.

                    These characteristics were used to define 19 habitat classes (Figure 4).

                         Each of the habitat types were numerically assessed for their
                    11relative resource value." Resource value is defined as "fish and
                    wildlife habitat value based on total biomass production and diversity
                    criteria."

                         The CREST model uses numeric ratings to measure habitat values.
                    Numeric habitat values were estimated using five major steps:

                         1)   Resource value rating classes (Table 2) were defined for
                              selected taxa in the Columbia River Estuary [low = 0; medium
                              1; and high = 2)].

                         2)   Taxa were displayed in the habitat types in which they occur
                              along with their respective resource value rating classes
                              (Table 3).

                         3)   The subsequent resource value ratings (based on abundance or
                              productivity) for each habitat type were summed. This procedu-
                              re weights habitat.types higher as the number (diversity) of
                              taxa increases. The sum represents a habitat rating based on
                              productivity and diversity (Figure 5).

                         4)   Habitat ratings were divided into four ranks (I = lowest)
                              using a "natural break',' method (Figure 5). The habitats are
                              displayed by rank in Table 4.

                         5)   One point is added if the habitat type meets historical
                              scarcity criteria and one point is added if the habitat type
                              meets present-day scarcity criteria (Table 5).

                    The final numbers represent the relative values of the 19 respective
                    habitat types. These numbers are presented in a chart that displays
                    their association with the habitat characteristics used to determine the
                    habitat types (Figure 6). The habitat value assessment is used to make
                    numerical value trade decisions and mitigation requirements for develop-
                    ment projects. A relative value trade formula is used: AM      AD x
                    (RVd/RVm); provided AM/AD is not less than 1.0 where:

                                                       30

                        AM = area of mitigation site

                        AD = area of development site

                        RVm   relative value of mitigation site habitat

                        RVd   relative value of development site habitat

                        The requirement that AWAD is not less than 1 addresses a policy of
                   conservation of estuarine surface area. In words, the mitigation
                   formula reads:

                        The area required for mitigation (AM) is equal to the relative
                        value of the habitat at the development site (RVd) divided by the
                        relative value of the habitat at the mitigation site (RVm)
                        multiplied by the area impacted at the development site (AD),
                        provided that the mitigation area is never allowed to be less than
                        the development area.

                                                      31

                         Llevation                           Sa I inity                        Substrate

                                                        llig@ Salinity/Brackish (1)
                            Below -18' MLL
                              (Channel)             creshwater (2)

                                                     --High Salinity (3)

                            -31 to -18' MLLW            Brackish (4)
                             Medium Depth)           -Freshwater (5)

                                                                                            ____Coarse (6)

                                                         igh Salinity                          Medium (7)

                                                                                            -Silt/Fine (8)

                                                                                                edium/Coarse (9)
                            -3' MLLW to the line        Brackish
                       -aquatic emergent-                                                      Silt/Fine (10)
                            vegetation (flat)

                                                      L-Freshwate                               edium/Coarse (11)
                                                                                               Silt/Fine (12)

                                                         rackish   (14)
                            Line of aquatic
                       -vegetation to MHHW-
                            (Low Marsh)               -Freshwater (17)

                                                      -High Salinity (13)
                            MHHW to line non-
                       -aquatic vegetation-             Brackish (15)
                            (High Marsh)              -Freshwater (18)
                       1    Swamp                   F_-Brackish (16)
                                                        Freshwater (19)

             'Figure 4. The Columbia River Estuary habitat classification (Smith 1983).

                                                                     32

                           Table 2. Resource Value Rating Classes (Smith 1983).

                                                                                            -value
                               species or group                           low              moderate             high

                               Primary producer  s
                                  phytoplankton                                             shallows         deeper water

                                  benth.ic microalgae                     410                10-40            ),40
                                  (Mgc-M-2.  hr- I)

                                  emergent plants                      - all are high,           where vegetation
                                  (g dr wt-M-2.  yr_1                     cover is high

                                  eel grass beds                        - define in terms of presence or absence

                               Middle food chain orRanisms"
                                  Zooplankton (V'-M-2 )

                                     small forms (marine cope-          <1.000          1,000-10,000        >10,000
                                     pods, Eurytemora, Canuella,
                                     Cyclops, Daphnia)

                                     large forms (Archeomysis.            /1 100           100"1.000          x.000
                                     Neomysis)
                                  Benthic infauna U-=72)

                                     s=11 crustaceans (Coro-              < 100         1.000-10,000        >10,000
                                     phium and other amphipods),
                                     cligochaetes, small poly-
                                     chaetes (Hobsonia, etc.)

                                     bivalves, chironomid                 < 300            500-1,000          >1,000
                                     larvae, large polychaeces
                                     Qieanthes, etc.)
                                                               -2
                                  Epibenthic organisms (#-M

                                     epibenthic zooplankton            4 4,000          4.000-40,000        >40,000

                                     epibenthic t3-icrofauna                0.1            0-170.5             > 0.5

                               Higher trophic levels

                                  Fish                                    population estimates on these groups are
                                  Avifauna                                unavailable or uncertain. The abundant
                                                                          species will be listed
                                  Wildlife  and marine mammals

                                                                             33

                  Table 3. Habitat Value Ratings of 19 Columbia River Estuary Habitat
                                  Types (Smith 1983).

                                                                                                      Habitat types
                     Resource value                                              1  2   3  4   5  6  7   8  9 10 11 12 L3 14 15 16 17 18 19

                     Primary Producers
                     water column primary producers                              2  2   2  2   2  1  1   1  1   1   1  1
                     benthic primary producers (microalgae)                                          2   2  1   2   1  1  1 2    1      2  1
                     eel grass beds                                                               1  1   1
                     emergent plant primary producers                                                                     2   2  2   2  2  2   2
                     detrital production and potential export to
                     other areas                                                                                              2  1   1  2. 1   1

                     Middle Food Chain organisms
                     marine mysid. (Archeomvsis)                                 2      2  1      1  2   2
                     marine pelagic copepods (At  cartia, Calanus)               1      1
                     brackish/ freshwac e r mysid. (Neomysis)
                     bracklshpelagic copepods (furytemora, Canuella)             2  2   2  2      1  2 21   2   2
                     freshwater pelagic zooplankton (Daphnia, Cyclops)              1          1                    1  1
                     amphipods (mainly  Sorophium)                                         1   1            2   2   2  2      1         1
                     polychaetes                                                        .1 1      1  1   1  1   2
                     marinelbrackish bivalves (Macoma, tva)                             2  1      1 '2   2  1   1
                     freshwater bivalve (Corbicula)
                     qquatic chironomid larvae                                                                      1  1      2 1    11 2  1   1
                     adult terrestrial insects                                                                                2  2 2    1
                     epibenchic zoopiankcon                                      2 'l 1 2      1     2   2  2   2   1  1
                     dungeness crab
                      and shrimp (@@on franciscorurn)
                     crayfish                                                                                       I  1      2 z 21 z     z L

                     HiSher Trophic Levels
                     juvenile salmonid feeding/nursery area                                                     2   1  2      2         2
                     aradromous fish migration/transition area                   2  2      1   1            1   2
                     non-sal.monid fish feeding area - mainly pelagic            2  2   2  2   1  1  2   2  2   2   1  1
                     non-salmonid fish feeding area - mainly demersal                   I  I   1  1  2   2  1   2   1  2      1         1
                     non-salmonid fish nursery area                                 2      1   1     1   1  2   2   2  2      1         1
                     shorebirds and blue herons                                                   1  2   2  2   2   1  1  2   1         1
                     pisciverous pursuit divers (cormorants and grebes)          2  2   2  2   2  1  1   1  1   1   1  1
                     waterfowl feeding/nesting area                                     1  1   1  1  2   2  2   2   2  2  1   2  1   1  2  1   1
                  -'@.ld -egle -f..di.@g/n..,irig are.@@@                                                           1  1
                     small mammals                                                                                               I
                     aquatic furbearecs                                                                                       2  2   2 12  2   2
                     Columbian %.'hite-tailed deer                                                                                             2
                     marine Mammals

                    0 = low         I = medium          2 =,high

                                                                                    34

                                                                                                                                                                   ... ....... .. .....

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                GO

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       00

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       4-J

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       Lr

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                Ln                     "o

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       4-4

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                rn

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       co

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       ca

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      E-1              cz

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       J
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       4w
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       w
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       10,

                                                                                                                                                                                                          .................
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                Ln.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       .........
                                                                                                                                                                                                                        X

                                                                                                                       .... .......
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       Q)
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       >

                                                                                                                                                                                                               Ln                                                      a)
                                                           Cp                                                       Co                            Ln                                                                                                                   @4
                                                           m                                                                                      r4                            r-I
                                                                                                T

                 Table 4. Relative Ranking of 19 Columbia River Estuary Habitat Types (Smith 19033).

                     Habitat Type                                                        Rank

                                  7      Marine medium sediment.flats                     4
                                  8      Marine fine sediment flats                       4
                                  9      Brackish medium sediment flats                   4
                                 10      Brackish fine sediment flats                     4
                                 11      Freshwater medium sediment flats                 3
                                 12      Freshwater fine sediment flats                   3
                                  4      Brackish medium depth                            3
                                 14      Brackish low marsh                               3
                                 17      Freshwater low marsh                             3
                                  1      Marine/brackish deep        water                2
                                  2      Fresh deep water                                 2
                                  3      Marine medium depth                              2
                                  5      Fresh medium depth                               2
                                 19      Fresh swamp                                      2
                                 15      Brackishzhigh marsh                              1
                                 16      Brackish'swamp
                                 18      Fresh high marsh
                                  6      Marine coarse sediment flats
                                 13      Marine low marsh

                                                         3.6

                    Table 5. Historical and Present Day Scarcity Weighting System of
                              Columbia River E9tuary Habitat Types.

                    Habitat        Relative        Historical     Present Day    Relative
                    Type           Rank            Losses         Scarcity       Value
                    Number

                    1                2                                               2
                    2                2                 1                             3
                    3                2                 1                             3
                    4                3                                               3
                    5                2                 1                             3
                    6                1                 1              1              3
                    7                4                 1              1              6
                    8                4                 1              1              6
                    9                4                                               4
                    10               4                                               4
                    1-1              3                                               3
                    12               3                                               .3
                    13               1                                -              1
                    14               3                 1              1              5
                    15               1                 1              1              3
                    16               1                 1              1              3
                    17               3                 -              -              3
                    18               1                 -                             1
                    19               2                 1                             3

                    HABITAT TYPE KEY

                    Subtidal

                     I = Marine and brackish,channel, below    18 ft. MLLW
                     2 = Fresh channel, below - 18 ft. MLLW
                     3 = Marine, between - 18 ft.,and - 3 ft. MLLW
                     4 = Brackish, between - 18 ft. and - 3 ft. MLLW
                     5 = Fresh, between - 18 ft. and - 3 ft. MLLW

                    Intertidal

                     6 = Marine intertidal sand flats
                     7 = Marine intertidal sand/mud flats
                     8 = Marine intertidal mud flats
                     9 = Brackish intertidal sand/mud flats
                    10 = Brackish intertidal mud flats
                    11 = Fresh intertidal sand/mud flats
                    12 = Fresh intertidal mud flats
                    13 = Marine low marshes
                    14 = Brackish low marsh
                    15 = Brackish high marsh
                    16 = Brackish swamp
                    17 = Fresh low marsh
                    18 = Fresh high marsh
                    19 = Fresh swamp

                                                       37

                             uo
                             C:
                             @i
                             (D                                             A                               0
                                           CII     a) r-                   0     C:                         0      >
                                      M            >                                                                           ::c
                                                   --4 <                                                           C)          >       Cf)
                             rt       ::E
                                                                                                                               >       co
                             FJ-
                             .1@1                                                                                              n       co      m
                                                                                                                               --i     ---A    :zr
                             rD
                                      :io  (n                                                               0                  m
                                                      rn                                                                       ::o
                                                      En
                             F-
                             r:       >               >                                                     0                  CO              >
                             rD                       x                                                                                m       r-

                             0                        co                                                                       U)              m
                                                      >                                                                                        CD
                                           )>      0  G)
                             M                        M
                             (D
                             F-
                             (D            rn
                                                   3:
                                                                            co    (A    cw   ol,   (>j   C4    CQ   (.,I
                             rT       rrl  Co
                             (D
                             la,                      >               0    -,o    CD
                                                      C
                             0
                                                      -:0                                                                                   - co   m
                                      0    0          >
                                                   M
                                                                                                                                            >      m
                                           C)                                                                                                 C)
                                      0                                                            c",   oj                                        7,0
                                           0       co 0
                                                                                 .0     0          .0    0                  lll@14-
                                      0                                                                                        -41                 r-4   37>
                             Fl-                   >
                                           -0
                             rD                       >
                                      QI   -       -, r-                                                                                    .7@
                                                                            cn    (.4        C71
                                                                                                                                            m
                             U)       0                                           0     0          10    0     0                                   <D
                                           CD      rn                                                                                                    <
                                                      C>
                                                      0                                                        --
                                                      C=                                                                                                 m
                                                                                                                                    A/
                                           C->        C'>
                                           GO      C)
                                                      <
                             cr                    a)                      .0    10          <D                0
                             H-            >
                                           M                                                                                                C:)
                             rr                    0
                                                   rr)V                     co    (.W        (>j   co

                             10                                                                                                             )>
                             rD                                                                                                             --i
                                                      rr)
                             Cl)                                                                                                                   m

                                                      rn
                             Fl-                                                                   -TI         CD   --n
                                           )>                               cc)
                             Fl                    (n cl,
                             cn                       <                                                  >
                             H.,           m          rn                          m                      --u   >    m
                             0                                                    (,()                   -     C)   (r)
                                           4cn                                                                                    m
                             0                        -4              M                 rTl                                       G')       Cf)
                                           0                                                 C/)         m     co                           J>
                             cn                                                                                                   m
                                                                                                                                            -2,
                                           0-0
                                           0          U)
                             (D                       X)
                                           --I        M
                                           0

                                                      C)
                             El)           -0

                                           0
                             00

                                  6. WETLAND RESTORATION IN THE COLUMBIA RIVER
                                              ESTUARY PLANNING AREA

                         This section briefly reviews the existing framework for wetland
                    restoration, as a separate management strategy from mitigation, in the
                    Columbia River Estuary Planning area. Research shows significant
                    estuarine wetland losses during the past 100 years (Thomas 1983).   Given
                    that mitigation only preserves currently existing wetland values,
                    restoration outside of mitigation is the only method for regaining  a
                    substantial portion of this valuable resource.

                         Oregon's Coastal Zone Management Program, Goal 16 and, to a lesser
                    degree, Goal 17, directs federal and state agencies to help local
                    governments identify and restore certain resources. These resources
                    include: areas of riparian vegetation, heavy erosion or sedimentation,
                    degraded fish and wildlife habitat, anadromous fish spawning area,
                    abandoned diked estuarine marsh areas, and areas where water quality
                    restricts use of estuarine waters for fish and shellfish harvest and
                    production, or for human recreation (LCDC 1985). This directive is
                    being adm:tnistered by the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and
                    Development (DLCD). In the Columbia River Estuary, the Columbia River
                    Estuary Study Taskforce (CREST) is responsible for accounting for these
                    implementation requirements through planning and for submitting the
                    plans to local governments and recommending their adoption (this is also
                    done for Washington even though there is no clear directive for restora-
                    tion outside of mitigation in Washington revised codes). This section
                    focuses on restorations requiring fill removal or dike breaching in
                    areas formerly hydr6logically connected to the Columbia,River Estuary.

                         With regard to wetland habitat, federal and st@ate policies on
                    restoration are less developed than those for mitigation. Also, as with
                    mitigation, wetland restorationefforts have primarily focused on
                    estuarine wetlands as opposed to nontidal freshwater wetlands.

                         Specific areas.in the Columbia River Estuary were identified as
                    candidates for restorations in the US Fish and Wildlife Concept Plan for
                    ,Waterfowl Wintering Habitat Preservation (USFWS 1979). They include
                    Youngs River Valley, Lewis and Clark River Valley, Svensen Island and
                    Westport Slough.

                         Properties in these areas were recommended for acquisition through
                    fee simple purchase or protection with wildlife easements. Funding for
                    acquisition and/or protection was to come from Migratory Bird Funds. At
                    present, eight years after these areas were identified, no active
                    restorations have occurred outside of the context of mitigation in the
                    Columbia River Estuary.

                         Recently, a new funding instrument for wetland protection has
                    emerged that may also be helpful in encouraging wetland restorations. A
                    Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Farmers Home Administra-
                    tion (FmHA) and the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has been
                    established that will allow potential opportunities for protection and
                    restoration of significant or potentially significant wildlife habitat
                    on lands subject to FmHA loan obligations.

                                                      39

                        Essentially, the MOU allows FmHA to sell easements, development
                   rights, or fee simple ownerships to federal, state and local governments
                   and private nonprofit land trusts for the purpose of wildlife protec-
                   tion. Lease/deed restrictions are also measures available under the
                   MOU. The US Fish and Wildlife Service is the technical consultant to the
                   Farmers Home Administration on implementation of their obligations under
                   the Memorandum of Understanding. The legal basis for the MOU comes from
                   Section 1314 and 1318 of the 1985 Food Security Act and Executive Order
                   11990.

                        This tool promises to help strengthen the farm economy by providing
                   financial relief to farmers applying for or holding FmHA loans agains t
                   properties with existing or potential wildlife value. It serves as a
                   financial incentive for habitat protection and restoration. However,
                   funding is presently unavailable for implementing a restoration action
                   (e.g., excavation, dike clearing, or new dike building). Other funds
                   may have to be tapped to finance restoration implementation.

                        There are restoration efforts in other Oregon estuaries that
                   demonstrate potential funding sources for restoration implementation.
                   For example, an interagency analysis of potential flood control solu-
                   tions for about 60 acres behind the deteriorated Libby Dike in the Coos
                   River Estuary found a nonstructural approach (e.g., occupant evacuation
                   and dike breaching) to be the preferred alternative under economic and
                   environmental criteria (Corps of Engineers 1987). Funding is to be
                   provided by the federal government (75%) and the state of Oregon (25%).
                   A fisheries enhancement proposal is associated with the project and'i.s
                   considered to substantially increase the potential benefits obtainable
                   through dike breaching. Therefore, flood control and fisheries'enhance-
                   ment promise to be important levers for obtaining funds for restoration
                   actions, especially on marginally productive farm land (Sill 1987).

                                                     40

                             7. TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY OF MITIGATION AND RESTORATION

                         The technical feasibility of mitigation and restoration of wetlands
                    and aquatic areas in the Pacific Northwest is uncertain. Most permitted
                    mitigation sites in the Northwest are less than five years old (Kentula
                    1986). Monitoring of these sites has been inconsistent. However,
                    information is available and promises to increase dramatically in the
                    near future.

                         In 1978, a diked wetland was restored to tidal influence in the
                    Salmon River, Estuary, about 80 miles south of the Columbia River Estuary
                    (Mitchell 1981). The area was believed to have been high marsh priot to
                    diking. Considerable subsidence occurred during the period of diking.
                    After removing the dike, the area changed from an upland pasture charac-
                    ter to a low transitional salt marsh. While an estuarine wetland had
                    been created, the original wetland type was probably not restored.
                    However, marsh succession may eventually facilitate high marsh restora-
                    tion in this area (Jefferson 1974).

                         In the Columbia River Estuary, a 2.5-year study by the Corps of
                    Engineers,was done on Miller Sands Island. The study reviewed a wetland
                    rehabilitation/creation project on a dredged material disposal island in
                    the Columbia River. Pre- and post-project inventories documented changes
                    in physical and biological conditions on the island. Certain emergent
                    wetland plants were successfully established from sprigs at elevations
                    greater than 2 feet above MLLW. Almost no plants were established from
                    see ding (Kentula 1986).

                         Also in the Columbia River-Estuary, Oregon's first mitigation bank
                    was developed by relocating the Astoria airport dike to restore tidal
                    influence from Youngs Bay and the lower Lewis and Clark River to 33
                    acres of freshwater wetland (the area was historically diked and used
                    for agriculture). Since the restoration action was done in advance of
                    potential developments, credits are held in reserve until they are
                    needed as compensation for wetland and aquatic area impacts by develop-
                    ment. However, once credits were estimated for the Bank, there was no
                    attempt to retain their connection to the habitat types at the bank.
                    Therefore, in-kind mitigation cannot be calculated for developments
                    matched with the bank. Baseline data on hydrology and vegetation were
                    collected prior to dike removal in the summers of 1985 and 1986. Post
                    restoration monitoring is being implemented to determine the success of
                    this attempt at estuarine wetland restoration as a mitigation strategy
                    (Jackson, et al. 1986). Presumably, most existing trees and shrubs will
                    die and the area will revert to low and high brackish marsh (Figure 10).
                    The Oregon Division of State Lands owns the bank and administers the
                    bank's credits.

                    7.1 MITIGATION AND RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION TECHNIQUES

                         The state-of-the-art of wetland mitigation feasibility is in its
                    early developmental stages. However, considerable efforts are being
                    made in the Northwest to increase our knowledge on what techniques are
                    necessary to make a given mitigation action successful (Fishman et al.

                                                     41

                     1987). This section briefly explores the findings of several research-
                     ers and agencies involved in mitigation planning and implementation.

                     7.1.1 Mitigation and Restoration Site Selection for Tidal Wetlands

                          One of the first steps for wetland mitigation and restoration
                     implementation is to define a suitable location for the mitigation         site.
                     Generally, site selection-should be based on site characteristics within
                     the framework of related state and federal policies and economic consid-
                     erations.

                          In most cases, mitigation sites should be as close to potential
                     development sites as possible (in some cases the degraded nature of the
                     area by development activities will make off-site mitigation more
                     desirable). There is a federal and state agency preference for on-site/
                     in-kind mitigation. The site should demonstrate low suitability for
                     fish and wildlife (e.g., diked pasture or sparsely vegetated upland
                     accretion areas adjacent to estuarine waters) and have no substantial
                     structures or other potential conflicting uses. Lands that are produc-
                     ing a low or negative net income for the land owner are prime candidates
                     for mitigation uses. The sites should be located in areas that can be
                     zoned for mitigation use. Ideally, a reserve of a number of sites of
                     different sizes with a variety of potential salinity, sediment and tidal
                     inundation regimes is desirable. This will facilitate more in-kind/-
                     on-site mitigation options (Smith 1983).

                          Restoration sites can be inventoried using the sam6 criteria used
                     for mitigation sites. However,they do not necessarily have to be near
                     development areas and, in many cases, probably should be located away
                     from developments in order to avoid conflicting development uses and
                     competition with mitigation sites.

                     7.1.2 Compensatory Mitigation@and Restoration Action Guidelines

                          The next step is to plan and implement the mitigation or restora-
                     tion project (we will assume the.habitat type and area requirements have
                     already been determined). Two approaches are taken to provide guide-
                     lines for this phase of the mitigation plan. The first is a review of
                     recommendations by field biologists and agencies that have experience in
                     implementing mitigation projects. The second is a review of criteria
                     that have been developed to evaluate existing wetland characteristics
                     and subsequent values. The rationale here is that wetland characteris-
                     tics that are considered desirable in existing wetlands are desirable
                     characteristics to recreate in wetland mitigation and restoration
                     projects. These approaches are reflected in the following list of
                     wetland mitigation/restoration project guidelines:

                     Suggested Estuarine-wide goals (Goner 1979):

                          a)    Increase total area available at different tidal elevations to
                                maximize intertidal diversity (the lower the angle of slope,
                                the greater the area at each elevation).

                                                          42

                          b)   Maximize macrophyte production to increase the supply of plant
                               detritus to the estuarine system.

                          c)   Excavate shoreline in an irregula r fashion to maximize total
                               length of shoreline adjacent to the estuarine wetlands.

                          d)   Make conservation of total estuarine area a major priority.
                    Guidelines for Wetland Mitigation Projects (modified, Larson 1976):     9

                          a)   If possible, use mitigation sites to restore rare habitat
                               types and endangered species (e.g., restoring rare plant
                               communities and planting historically as sociated rare plants).

                          b)   Where appropriate, plant flora with high visual value.

                          c)   Where feasible, plan wetland type and vegetation community
                               configurations to allow the maximum amount of edge habitat.

                          d)   Where waterfowl habitat is desired, provide an adequate ratio
                               between open water and feeding and nesting areas (about 1:1).

                          e)   Where an option is available, select sites that have a high
                               opportunity for viewing, i.e., at the bottom of cliffs or in
                               valleys where a good overlook is available.

                          f)   In many cases, it is desirable to combine mitigation areas to
                               facilitate creation/restoration of a few larg@-_ sites as
                               opposed to a large number of small sites-(this option may be
                               selected when on-site mitigation is not possible or where
                               on-site mitigation includes an area designated to accumulate a
                               number of mitigation projects).

                          g)   If relatively proximate sites must be separate, link the sites
                               with vegetation and,surface water corridors.

                          h)   Where diversity is desired, plan for a variety of plant
                               community types and wetland classes.

                          i)   Locate mitigation sites adjacent to areas that are relatively
                               undisturbed and/or buffered by land forms or vegetation.

                          j)   Where appropriate, make the perimeter of the wetland irregular
                               in shape and plant a substantial vegetation buffer around
                               sections of the wetland subject to potential human disturbance
                               (e.g., where urban parks or industrial developments are
                               adjacent or near the wetland edge).

                          k)   Creation of a diversity of upland land forms in and near the

                    9     The original criteria were designed to evaluate freshwater wetla-
                          nds. Therefore, modifications were made to convert them to estu-
                          arine wetland mitigation guidelines.

                                                       43

                         wetland may be appropriate in some cases (e.g., islands, levees,
                         dunes, etc.).

                    Guidelines for Wetland Mitigation Projec ts (Garbisch 1986).

                         a)   In most cases, only indigenous perennial plants should be used
                              (sometimes exotic plants are used for their food values).

                         b)   Transplanted peat potted plants, plugs, springs, and dormant
                              underground plant parts are usually most successful.

                         c)   Marsh planting success is often correlated with spacing
                              distances. Generally, dense plantings (I plant per square
                              foot) will have higher success than sparser plantings but are
                              more expensive.

                         d)   Depending on the site, planting may be done mechanically or by
                              hand in temporarily drained areas. Plants adapted to a broad
                              tidal range or water regime have lower mortality.

                         e)   Small experimental plants should be established for plants
                              with questionable survivability.

                    Guidelines for Wetland Mitigation Projects (Josselyn, M. N., James W.
                   Buchholz and Paul Romberg 1984).

                         a)   Fine grained sediments (e.g., silt and clay) indicate low-
                              energy (low wave and current action) zones which have greater
                              potential for vegetation establishment. -_

                         b)   The fetch (dis tance which wind blows over the surface of the
                              water) strongly influences wave height at time of impact with
                              the shore. Plant establishment met with greatest success
                              where the fetch was less than I km (.62 miles).

                         c)   Planting success is greater in protected coves than near
                              headlands.

                         d)   Plants can help dampen wave impacts. Effectiveness, is
                              greater when water depth is less than plant height. There-
                              fore, periods where plants are emergent should coincide with
                              periods of heavy wave action.

                         e)   Emergent and submerged plants can reduce turbulence and,
                              therefore, indirectly contribute to sedimentation.

                         f)   Hydrology is a crucial aspect of marsh restoration projects.
                              Hydrology affects the growth rates of marsh vegetation,
                              movements of invertebrates, fish, nutrient and organic matter
                              exchange, species distribution, etc.

                         g)   Natural channels are very intricate and diverse compared to
                              artificially established channels. However, artificial
                              channels tend to adopt natural characteristics over time.

                                                      44

                         h)   Channel construction is expensive and unless area is de-
                              watered for a sufficient period of time, it is very difficult
                              to use heavy equipment.

                         i)   Once established, channels may go through a gradual filling,
                              partly from slumping of channel sides onto the bottom.

                         j)   Erosion occurring in a newly excavated channel is due to an
                              inadequate cross section area relative to tidal prism and
                              drainage volume, i.e., narrow channels facilitate higher
                              stream velocities and greater erosion.

                         k)   Since some channel filling is to be expected, it is probably
                              desirable to excavate below the level you wish to ultimately
                              maintain.

                         1)   Marsh design must account for hydrologic variables on a
                              case-by-case basis. The overall elevation with respect to
                              tidal flow, micro-topographical variations, location in the
                              estuary and vegetation all affect tidal velocity and distri-
                              bution.

                         m)   Marsh designers should establish criteria for shoreline
                              protection and channel construction.

                         n)   Vegetation structure is very important with respect to defin-
                              ing wildlife use of an area. Vegetation cover designs can be
                              used to develop conditions for preferred species or conditions
                              for a diversity of species.

                         0)   Generally, areas with-a dense vegetation  cover provide nesting
                              and escape cover for avariety of species.

                         p)   Vegetation is also very important to the community with
                              respect.to its food,production role, which includes its role
                              in detritus production.

                         q)   Generally filter feeders (e.g., bivalves and amphipods) are
                              abundant in areas where current is sufficient to suspend and
                              transport organic matter.

                         r)   Sediment types affect the types and abundance of organisms
                              that occupy an area (e.g., polychaetes tend to be more abun-
                              dant on soft muds along channels).

                         s)   High marshes frequently contain mosquito larvae. Drainage
                              ditches can be used to increase tidal flushing which, to some
                              extent, helps control mosquito populations. Also,     ome
                              research indicates larger open water ponds (> 100 M with <
                              30% vegetation) have fewer mosquito larvae.

                         t)   Sloughs and their tributaries form an important link   between
                              the marsh and the estuary. In addition to aquatic related
                              exchanges, vegetation along the corridors provides food and

                                                      45

                              nesting for a variety of wildlife.

                         u)   Suggested Monitoring Program:

                    Goal                 Technique                 Frequency          Time

                    Vegetation           Photos and Mapping        Annually         10 - 20 Days
                     Establishment

                    Vegetation           Minimum/Maximum           Twice Per Year 10 - 20 Days
                     Growth              Biomass at 10-12 Sites

                    Fish Habitat         Trawl or minnow           During seasons    3   6 Days
                                         trap in marsh             of use
                                         channels during
                                         summer

                    Bird Habitat         Population Surveys        During seasons 10    15 Days
                                         and nest site             of use
                                         determinations

                    Tidal Flushing       Sediment Markers          Twice Per Year 5     10 Days

                    Endangered Species   Monitor                   Once Per Year    5   10 Days

                    7.2 FUTURE MITIGATION RESEARCH NEEDS

                         The state-of-knowledge on the technical feasibility of mitigation
                    is at a rudimentary level of development. The ecological literature
                    documenting post-mitigation physical and biological data is sparse.
                    This section briefly reviews current mitigation research needs identi-
                    fied by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in their 1985 Wetlands
                    Research Plan (Zedler and Kentula 1985).,

                         The EPA identifies two major types of mitigation when determining
                    research needs:

                              �    impact avoidance and minimization; and

                              �    compensatory mitigation

                    This discussion focuses on compensatory mitigation research.

                         An overall goal of mitigation research is to develop a knowledge
                    base that may be used to improve mitigation project design and to judge
                    the potential success of a var iety of mitigation proposals. However,
                    before this can be accomplished "success" must be defined. The EPA
                    suggests that the barometers for success are "natural" systems. That
                    -is, the test of success will be when artificially created habitats
                    cannot be distinguished from the natural systems they are attempting to
                    emulate.

                                                       46

                          Since ecosystems are spatially and temporally complex, single
                     variable comparisons (e.g., vegetative cover) are inadequate. A number
                     of variables must be identified (e.g., plant height, number of species,
                     hydroperiod, salinity, and sediment type) and used to identify the
                     similarity of the artificially created system. Various multivariate
                     techniques can be used to make these comparisons.

                          While goals for habitat replication (mitigation) may be based on
                     comparisons with model "natural" habitats, the ultimate decisions
                     regarding types of habitats to replicate and when a replication is
                     successful are based on human centered concerns (Frenkel 1987). Thes    ,e
                     concerns should be addressed in the form of mitigation goals that are
                     stipulated in a mitigation plan. These goals can be used as a baseline
                     for determining mitigation project success. However, it is unclear at
                     this time what goals are reasonable and what methods are best applied to
                     achieve them.

                          The EPA recognizes this dilemma and subsequently has identified a
                     research approach that focuses on long term monitoring of mitigation
                     projects that can be artificially manipulated for experimental purposes.
                     This type of research promises to provide answers to specific research
                     questions (Zedler and Kentula 1985):

                          How do various hydrological conditions (e.g., flow rate and
                          inundation regime) affect the community structure and functional
                          values of a wetland?

                          What are the hydroperiod and depth inundation requirements of new
                          systems vs. mature systems, if any?

                          How should plant material used in mitigation projects be collected
                          and ha.ndled prior to planting?

                          What planting scheme will establish the desired vegetation most
                          quickly?

                          Should planting densities reflect diffe  rences in hydroperiods,.
                          soils and proximities to channels?

                          Under what conditions and time frames will natural colonization
                          occur?

                          What size wetl and is necessary to be functional?

                          What configuration and arrangement of individual wetlands is, most
                          attractive to water-dependent wildlife?

                          The Environmental Protection Agency will be using a variety of past
                     mitigation projects and dredge disposal sites to help them answer these
                     questions and others. While EPA is considering controlled experimental
                     research in the future, at this time,.very little work of this type has
                     been done or planned. Also, EPA research in the Northwest is focusing
                     primarily on freshwater nontidal wetlands (Zedler and Kentula 1985).

                                                       47

                                8. MITIGATION AND RESTORATION POLICIES AND STANDARDS
                                          FOR THE COLUMBIA RIVER ESTUARY

                         The purpose of this section is to present mitigation and restora-
                    tion policies and standards derived through review of existing federal
                    and state mitigation and restoration policies and through consultation
                    with a Mitigation and Restoration Plan Advisory Committee. With respect
                    to mitigation, the policies and standards outlined here assume water
                    dependency, public need and practicable alternative issues have been
                    considered and a permit will be issued with mitigation requirements
                    appended. The primary issues at this stage are the determination of the
                    Resource Category, as defined by the.U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
                    and appropriate mitigation strategies.

                         These policies and standards will be incorporated in the mitigation
                    and restoration element of the 1987 Columbia River Estuary Regional
                    Management Plan (CREST Plan). They are presented in seven major sec-
                    tions:

                         8.1 Definitions

                         8.2  Mitigation Policies for Wetlands and Aquatic Areas

                         8.3  Restoration PoliciesJor Wetlands and Aquatic Areas

                         8.4  Restoration Standards for Wetlands and Aquatic Areas

                         8.5  Long Term Wetl and and Aquatic Area Mitigation,and Restoration
                              Policies

                         8.6  Restoration Policies  for Resources other than Wetlands
                              and Aquatic Areas

                         8.7  Mitigation Standards  for Wetlands and Aquatic Areas

                         The 1987 CREST Plan will be presented to local jurisdictions in the
                    Columbia River Estuary (Clatsop Qounty, Port of Astoria, City of As-
                    toria, City of Warrenton, Town of Hammond, Pacific County, Town of
                    Ilwaco, Port of Ilwaco, Wahkiakum County and Town of Cathlamet. Each
                    jurisdiction will review the policies. Policies are recommended for
                    adoption and incorporation into local plans. Policies adopted by
                    Washington jurisdictions will be incorporated into local Shoreline
                    Master Plans and policies adopted by Oregon jurisdictions will be
                    incorporated into local Comprehensive Plans.

                    8.1. DEFINITIONS

                    Beneficiary (with respect to this Plan):

                    Any living organism, including human, that benefits from values and
                    functions of wetlands and aquatic areas.

                                                       49

                    In-Kind:

                    Any actions that duplicate the full array of wetland and aquatic area
                    characteristics that are lost or impaired by a development action.

                    Mitigation:

                    Any action that, to some degree, softens the impact of development on
                    wetlands and aquatic areas. This may include all or any one of the
                    following actions:

                         1.   Avoiding  the impact altogether by not taking a certain action
                              or parts  of an action;

                         2.   Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree of magnitude of an
                              action and its implementation;

                         3.   Rectifying the impact by repairing; rehabilitating; or restor-
                              ing the affected environment;

                         4.   Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation
                              and maintenance operations; and

                         5.   Compensating for the-impact by creation, restoration, or
                              enhancement of wetlands and aquatic areas to maintain their
                              functional processes., such as natural biological productivity,
                              habitats, and species diversity, unique features and water
                              quality.

                    Any mitigation action,or combination of actions may involve monitoring
                    and remedial follow-up measures.-

                    Off-Site:

                    An area separated from the impact area by a significant distance and
                    that offers little or no opportunity for reestablishing lost values and
                    functions to original beneficiaries.

                    On-Site:

                    An area adjacent to or near the impact area that offers a reasonable
                    opportunity for reestablishing lost values and functions    .to original
                    beneficiaries.

                    Out-of-Kind:

                    Any action that replaces wetland or aquatic area characteristics that
                    have been impaired or lost due to a development action with a different
                    set of characteristics that are judged to be of equal resource value.

                    Restoration:

                    Revitalizing, returning, or replacing original attributes and amenities,
                    such as natural biological productivity, aesthetic and cultural resourc-

                                                        50

                    es, which have been diminished or lost by past alteritions, activities,
                    or catastrophic events. For the purpose of Oregon Statewide Planning
                    Goal 16, estuarine restoration means to revitalize or reestablish
                    functional characteristics and processes of the estuary diminished or
                    lost by past alterations, activities, or catastrophic events. A re-
                    stored area must be a shallow subtidal or an intertidal or tidal marsh
                    area after alteration work is performed, and may not have been a func-
                    tioning part of the estuarine system when alteration work began.

                    Active Restoration involves the use of specific remedial actions, such
                    as removing fills, installing water treatment facilities, rebuilding .
                    deteriorated urban waterfront areas, or returning diked areas to tidal
                    influence.

                    Passive Restoration is the use of natural processes, sequences, and
                    timing which occurs after the removal or reduction of adverse stresses
                    without other specific positive remedial action.

                    Wetlands:

                    In Washington:

                    Shoreline Definition

                    Lands extending landward for 200 feet in all directions as measured on a
                    horizontal plane from the ordinary high water mark; floodways and
                    contiguous flood plain areas landward 200 feet from such floodways; and
                    all marshes, bogs, swamps, and riverdeltas associated @ith the streams,
                    lakes, and tidal waters.

                    Biophysical Definition

                    Lands transitional between terrestrial and aquatic systems where satura-
                    tion with water is the dominant factor determining plant and animal
                    communities and soil development. For the purpose     of this definition,
                    these areas must have one or more of the following    attributes:

                          1.   At least periodically,-the land supports   predominantly hydro-
                               phytes; and/or

                         2.    The substrate is predominantly undrained hydric soil.

                    In Oregon:

                    Land areas where water is the dominant factor determining the nature of
                    soil development and the types of plant and animal communities living at
                    the soil surface. Wetland soils retain sufficient moisture to support
                    aquatic or semi-aquatic plant life. In marine and estuarine areas,
                    wetlands are bounded at the lower extreme by extreme low water; in
                    freshwater areas by a depth of 6 feet. The areas below wetlands are
                    submerged lands or aquatic areas.

                                                        51

                    Wetland Creation:

                    Alteration, by excavation or other means, of upland areas to allow local
                    hydrologic conditions to convert soils and vegetation to a hydric
                    character.

                    Wetland Enhancement:

                    An action which results in a long-term improvement of existing wetland
                    functional characteristics and processes that is not the result of a
                    creation or restoration action.

                    8.2 MITIGATION POLICIES FOR WETLANDS AND AQUATIC AREAS

                         Policies in this section are applicable to estuarine restoration
                    and mitigation projects on Columbia River Estuary aquatic areas and
                    shorelands.

                    1.   Any dredge or fill activities that are permitted in the Columbia
                    River Estuary intertidal or tidal areas or fill activites in shallow
                    subtidal areas shall be mitigated through project design and/or compen-
                    satory mitigation (creation, restoration or enhancement of another area)
                    to ensure that the integrity of the estuary ecosystem is maintained. In
                    Oregon, Comprehensive Plans shall designate and protect specific sites
                    for mitigation which generally correspond to the types and quantity of
                    intertidal area proposed for dredging or filling, or make findings
                    demonstrating that it is not possible to do so.

                    2.   Mitigation for removal and fill in intertidal or tidal areas or
                    fill in shallow subtidal areas of the Columbia River Estuary planning
                    area shall be implemented, to the extent feasible, through the following
                    Mitigation actions:

                                         Project Design Mitigation Actions
                                                 i
                         a)   Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action
                              or parts of an action;.

                         b)   Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of
                              action and its implementation;

                         c)   Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restor-
                              ing the affected environment (this would include removing
                              wetland fills, rehabilitation of a resource use and/or extrac-
                              tion site when its economic life is terminated, etc.);

                         d)   Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation
                              and maintenance operations;

                                          Compensatory Mitigation Actions

                         e)   Creation, restoration, or enhancement of an estuarine area to
                              maintain the functional characteristics and processes of the

                                                        52

                                 estuary, such as its natural biological productivity, habi-
                                 tats, and species diversity, unique features and water qual-
                                 ity.

                           Any combination of the above actions may be required to implement
                      mitigation requirements. The compensatory mitigation actions listed in
                      section (e) shall only be implemented after impact avoidance, reduction
                      and rectification techniques have been considered, and there are still
                      unavoidable impacts.

                      3.   Pre-permit application meetings and site visits shall be encour7
                      aged.

                      4.   The initial site visit coordinated between the local government and
                      federal and state agencies shall be structured such that key issues will
                      be addressed and consensus, to the degree possible, is established on
                      each issue. This will require a structured format listing goals,
                      objectives, and specific activities.

                      5.   The full array of wetland and aquatic area benefits shall be
                      addressed when making mitigation site decisions and,when designing
                      mitigation action requirements. The list includes but is not limited
                      to: flood storage and desynchronization, food chain support, passive
                      recreation, shoreline anchoring and water purification functions.

                      6.   All mitigation actions shall be required to begin prior to or
                      c6ncurrent with the associated development action.

                      7.   Developments in low value diked freshwater nontidal wetlands can be
                      mitigated by treating estuarine restoration or creation as in-kind
                      mitigation actions.

                      8.   If out-of-kind  mitigation   is found to be the only option, the
                      applicant shall first seek restoration of historically and/or present-
                      day scarce habitat types.

                      9.   All completed mitigation sites shall be adequately buffered from
                      development and other ac  tivities-to minimize the potential adverse
                      impacts on the mitigation site.

                      10. No mitigation action shall endanger or obstruct adjacent proper-
                      ties. The potential for present or future endangerment or obstruction
                      shall be determined in advance of the mitigation action. Responsibility
                      shall be determined prior to permit approval.

                      11. CREST will cooperate with local jurisdictions in the Columbia River
                      Estuary area and state and federal resource agencies in the periodic
                      review of the-regio 'n's mitigation plan. Reviews shall occur every 4-7
                      years. The review shall include reexamination of site availability,
                      degree of plan implementation, changed policies and legal requirements
                      and possible new projects that may require mitigation.

                      12. Estuarine alterations in Washington can be mitigated by actions in
                      Oregon and vice versa.if:

                                                           53

                          Local and state authorities from both states and federal author-
                          ities with statutory responsibility for administering mitigation
                          requirements approve the mitigation site selected and the miti-
                          gation action proposed.

                     13. Mitigation can be considered a permitted or conditional use in any
                     zone, management unit, or environment adopted in a local comprehensive
                     plan or shoreline master plan except, in Oregon, on shorelands desig-
                     nated Especially Suited for Water Dependent Development (ESWD), Goal 3
                     agricultural lands and Goal 4 forest lands.

                     14. Full consideration shall be given to existing significant Goal 17
                     resources or Resource Category 1 and 2 habitats when designing a mitiga-
                     tion project that may potentially alter, impair or destroy all or any
                     portion of these resources. The minimum consideration will be to
                     discount existing values from the credit potential of the 1--itigation
                     action proportional to the value of the Goal 17 resource. A goal
                     exception shall be required where damage to Goal 17 resources is a con-
                     cern.

                     15. Any acquisition strategy for bringing designated mitigation sites
                     (pre or post mitigation action) into public ownership or into ownership
                     of a private nonprofit land trust is encouraged.

                     16. All mitigation sites designated on public lands shall remain in
                     public ownership.
                     17. An area in productive    use and considered for mitig@tion purposes
                     shall be evaluated for its   present use value and compared with its
                     potential value as a wet.land before conversion of the site is accept-
                     able.

                     18.. Adequate mitigation sites shall be designated and protected in the
                     Comprehensive Plan (in Oregon) and Shoreline Master Plans (in Washing-
                     ton) to satisfy anticipated mitigation credit and habitat needs in the
                     Columbia River Estuary.

                     19. Additional mitigation sites-shall be designated by local jurisdic-
                     tions as the need arises. New designations shall be coordinated with
                     CREST, local governments, state and federal resource agencies. New
                     sites shall be subject to the same policies and standards as sites
                     presently designated.

                     20. Mitigation sites designated in Wahkiakum County, Washington shall
                     be reserved only for development project match-ups that directly benefit
                     the economy of Wahkiakum County.

                     21. A developer may create, restore or enhance more wetland area than
                     required for immediate development impacts. Subject to federal, state
                     and local agency approval, this "excess mitigation" may be credited
                     against future development by the developer. The reserve wetland area
                     shall not be considered a mitigation bank unless it is acquired and
                     managed by a federal or state land and resource management agency.

                                                          54

                    8.2.1 Mitigation Bank Policies

                    1.   Any area where a mitigation action has taken place and mitigation
                    credits are available for future development and the site is owned and
                    managed by a federal or state land management agency, shall be desig-
                    nated as a mitigation bank. The federal or state agency shall be
                    responsible for administration of a mitigation bank area, throughout the
                    period it serves as a bank.

                    2.   A memorandum of agreement among local, state and federal authori-
                    ties shall serve as the implementing instrument establishing the mitAga-
                    tion bank and for continuing management of the bank. Such an agreement
                    is necessary to document the initial conditions of the bank's formation,
                    including the means by which the mitigation bank shall be administered.
                    The agreement shall also detail ownership of the site and include an
                    itemized presentation of project costs, a technical plan outlining the
                    habitat mitigation action, and include the number of mitigation credits
                    available in the bank. A plan for monitoring the mitigation site shall
                    be provided, including the goals, costs, and responsibility of the
                    monitoring program. The agreement shall specify the mechanisms by which
                    mitigation requirements for future estuarine development will be trans-
                    ferred to the bank, the type of activity qualifying for use of the bank,
                    and the means by which proportional mitigation bank development costs
                    will be assessed by development sponsors.

                    3.   Mitigation credits in mitigation banks shall be reserved for use by
                    small scale development'projects (5 acres or less of impacted wet'land
                    and/or aquatic area).

                    4.   A variety of habitats shall be created whenever possible, such that
                    the opportunity of replacement for wetland resources lost to a variety
                    of development activities is possible. The mitigation bank shall be of
                    sufficient capacity to meet the requirements of a number of expected
                    development projects.

                    5.   Mitigation banks, in Oregon, shall be created by written agreement
                    with the Director of Oregon Division of State Lands (DSL) and shall be
                    administered but not necessarily,owned by DSL. Such agreements shall
                    provide the basis for creation and operation of the bank and shall
                    specifically provide for the following:

                         a)   The exact location of the real property.

                         b)   Proof of ownership or control, i.e., deed or title report.

                         c)   The nature and extent of the mitigation action. This analysis
                              shall require information about the site salinity, elevation,
                              wave and current actions, substrate, and other physical and
                              biological characteristics.

                         d    How and when the mitigation action shall be performed.

                         e)   A statement of informed opinion as to what habitat shall
                              result from the action and a statement as to the relative

                                                       55

                                value of each anticipated habitat type.

                           f)   How the resulting changes shall be monitored and evaluated
                                [OAR 141-85-254 (12, 14)] and what contingencies are planned
                                if goals are not satisfied within areasonable time period.

                           g)   How the mitigation bank shall be protected, i.e., dedication,
                                conservation easement, deed transfer, etc.

                           h)   How funding for  necessary construction or alteration work and.
                                potential remedial action shall be guaranteed, i.e., bonding.

                           i)   The price that may be charged for credits from the bank.

                     6.    Applicants for removal and fill permits requiring mitigation are
                     not obligated, or automatically entitled, to use an existing mitigation
                     bank to meet the mitigation needs of any project. Permit applicants
                     shall negotiate directly with the owner of the bank to secure the right
                     to use the bank. Agreements between the owner of the bank and the
                     permit applicant are subject to the Planning Director's approval of the
                     number of mitigation credits charged against the bank.

                     8.3 RESTORATION POLICIES FOR WETLANDS AND AQUATIC AREAS

                     1.    Restoration of tidal and nontidal wetlands in the Columbia River
                     Estuary area may be done either as a mitigation action or as an action
                     outside of the context of mitigation.

                     2.    Potential restoration sites (areas sui   table for restoration but not
                     matched with a development action) may be designated as mitigation sites
                     until they are identified for restoration outside of the context of
                     mitigation. At this time, they shall be designated as restoration
                     sites.

                     3.    All restoration projects shall serve to revitalize, return, replace
                     or otherwise improve the wetland and aquatic ecosystems in the Columbia
                     River Estuary area. Examples include restoration of natural biological
                     productivity, fish and wildlife habitat, aesthetic or historic resources
                     that have been diminished or lost due to past alterations, activities,
                     or catastrophic events. In selecting projects, priority shall be given
                     to those projects which provide substantial public benefits and which
                     restore those wetland and aquatic habitat types, resources, or amenities
                     which are in shortest supply compared to past abundance.

                     4.    The following framework for restoration implementation is recom-
                     mended for the Columbia River Estuary:

                           a)   To develop and provide educational materials for 'landowners
                                explaining the benefits of natural area protection and various
                                options for restoring land to natural conditions and protect-
                                ing the restored land.

                           b)   T6 establish an incentive system in the Columbia River Estuary
                                area whereby landowners can effectively utilize a variety of

                                                          56

                               options for restoration and protection of their land.

                          c)   To Identify landowners with economically marginal production
                               land (e.g., forest or crop production), that was historically
                               wetland, and to inform them of the incentive-oriented restor-
                               ation system being devised and encourage their participation.

                          d)   To differentiate between areas that are mitigation site
                               candidates as opposed to restoration site candidates. Any
                               potential restoration that is not matched with a proposed
                               development can be a candidate.

                    5.    The following techniques are suggested as potential methods to
                    establish  a wetland restoration and protection incentive system:

                          a)   Development of effective acquisition power through private
                               nonprofit land trusts and federal and state grants.(acqui-
                               sition may be through sale, trade or land donations). Public
                               ownership is encouraged.

                          b)   Protection through restrictions while landowners retain title
                               to the land, i.e, conservation easements, mutual covenants,
                               deed restrictions and leases.

                          c)   Provide tax incentives for landowners that allow restoration
                               to take place on their land.

                          d)   Deed restrictions, wildlife easements or fee @cquisition on
                               Farmers Home Administration iarm foreclos-ure inventory lands.

                    6.    Restoration actions that flood farm properties, forest lands, sites
                    designated as Especially Suitedfor Water-dependent Development and
                    significant Coal 17 resources shall require full consideration to
                    trade-offs associated with each action.

                    7.    After a restoration takes place the local jurisdiction shall amend
                    its plan and implement a zone change to reflect the aquatic natural
                    character of the created wetland-and/or aquatic area.

                    8.    Restoration of economically marginal  an d unused low-lying diked
                    areas to estuarine wetland shall be encouraged; active restorations to
                    provide potential for diverse habitat (e.g., mudflat and marsh) as well
                    as passive restorations are encouraged. Except through public condemna-
                    tion procedures, removal of dikes or excavation on-private lands shall
                    not occur without consent of the landowner.

                    8.4   RESTORATION STANDARDS FOR WETLANDS AND AQUATIC AREAS

                    1.    In Oregon, a goal exception shall be required to implement restora-
                    tion  actions on Goal 3 agricultural land and Goal 4 forest land.

                    2.    In Oregon, a goal exception shall be required to implement restora-
                    tion  actions in areas designated Especially Suited for Water Dependent

                                                        57

                    Development (ESWD) and areas where restorati on may deleteriously affect
                    significant Goal 17 resources.

                    8.5 LONG TERM WETLAND and AQUATIC AREA MITIGATION and RESTORATION
                         POLICIES

                    1.   Federal and state resource agencies shall be-requested to intensi  fy
                    existing programs to identify Resource Categories of wetlands and
                    section 404 wetlands in the Columbia River Estuary area with the purpose
                    being to give greater certainty to developers regarding available
                    development sites and potential mitigation requirements. The net result
                    shall be greater certainty for developers and a more streamlined permit
                    process.

                    2.   CREST shall make an effort to develop a program to identify and
                    assess the relative values of the nontidal wetlands in the CREST plan-
                    ning jurisdiction. This inventory effort shall provide baseline data
                    that can be used to give greater certainty to development interests
                    regarding site potential for development. It will serve to help allevi-
                    ate the problem of.lengthy and costly after the fact permits and restor-
                    ation orders. It will also serve to give greater certainty to appro-
                    priate mitigation and dredge di sposal site selection.

                    3.   A method of quantifying enhancement credits for mitigation shall be
                    determined.

                    4.   A mechanism through which a transfer of developmen@ rights can
                    occur shall be researched and, if feasible, installed into local plan-
                    ning ordinances.

                    5.   A system shall be devised whereby wetland impacts that are allowed
                    under a regional or nationwide permit and that do not require a permit
                    procedure to be followed, shall be reported to the local government so
                    that an accurate record of cumulative wetland impacts can be maintained.

                    8.6   RESTORATION POLICIES FOR RESOURCES OTHER THAN WETLANDS AND AQUATIC
                          AREAS

                    1.   Consideration shall be given to restoring water circulation in
                    historically shoaled areas. Circulation enhancements must outweigh any
                    potential damages to wetlands before they are implemented.

                    2.   Old piling, navigational structures, and buildings that are a
                    hazard to  navigation and contribute to excessive shoaling, or pose a
                    threat to  life or property shall be removed. Prior to removal, the
                    costs and  benefits associated with removal shall be evaluated. Factors
                    requiring  consideration include:

                         �     Potential erosion or sedimentation problems that may result
                               from removal;

                         �     The structure's habitat value and probable longevity; and

                                                     58

                         0     The structure's historic and scenic values.

                    3.   Restoration of riparian vegetation around wetlands and waterways in
                    the Columbia River Estuary Planing area is a high priority. Protection
                    of these areas shall be implemented using various strategies, i.e.,
                    zoning, acquisitions, easements, transfer of development rights (if
                    possible), etc.

                    4.   Shoreland and wetland areas that have had the vegetation cover
                    removed by development activities shall be revegetated to the extent
                    practicable with wildlife value, aesthetics and erosion control being,
                    the primary objectives.

                    8.7 MITIGATION STANDARDS FOR WETLANDS AND AQUATIC AREAS

                         Standards in this section are applicable to estuarine mitigation
                    projects on Columbia River Estuary wetlands, aquatic areas and adjacent
                    shorelands.

                    1.   Any dredge or fill activities that are permitted it the Columbia
                    River Estuary intertidal or tidal areas or fill activities in shallow
                    subtidal areas shall be mitigated through project design and/or compen-
                    satory mitigation (creation, restoration or enhancement of another area)
                    to ensure that the integrity of the estuary ecosystem is maintained. In
                    Oregon, Comprehensive Plans shall designate and protect specific sites
                    for mitigation which generally correspond to the types and quantity of
                    intertidal area proposed for dredging or filling, or maie findings
                    demonstrating that it is not possible to do so.      -

                    2.   Mitigation for removal and fill in the Columbia River Estuary
                    intertidal areas or fill in shallow subtidal areas shall be implemented,
                    to the extent feasible, through the following Mitigation actions:

                                        Project Degign Mitigation Actions

                         a)    Avoidi ng the impact altogether by not taking a certain action
                               or parts of an action;-

                         b)    Minimizing impacts by limiting the-degree or magnitude of
                               action and its implementation;

                         c)    Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restor-
                               ing the affected environment (this would include removing
                               wetland fills, rehabilitation of a resource use and/or extrac-
                               tion site when its economic life is terminated, etc.);

                         d)    Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation
                               and maintenance operations;

                                         Compensatory Mitigation Actions

                         e)    Creation, restoration, or enhancement of an estuarine area to
                               maintain the functional characteristics and processes of the

                                                      59

                              estuary, such as its natural biological productivity, habi-
                              tats, and species diversity, unique features and water qual-
                              ity.

                         Any combination of the above actions may be required to implement
                    mitigation requirements. The compensatory mitigation actions listed in
                    section (e) shall only be considered when, after consideration of impact
                    avoidance, reduction or rectification, there are still unavoidable
                    impacts.

                    3.   If any of the compensatory mitigation actions are required, the,
                    local government shall request that the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
                    make a Resource Category determination for the site proposed for devel-
                    opment. The classification shall be listed on the permit application
                    and review notice. If the area subject to impact is in a Resource
                    Category 1 site, it shall be protected, if it is in a Resource Category
                    2 or lower (4 = lowes@8, the flowing sequence of mitigation options
                    shall be considered:

                         0    In-Kind/On-Site

                         0    In-Kind/Off-Site

                         0    Out-of-Kind/On-Site

                         0    Out-of-Kind/Off-Site

                         The following list summarizes the mitigation goal ior each resource
                    category:

                         a)   Resource Category 1:

                              Habitat to be impacted is of high value for evaluation species
                              and is unique and irreplaceable on a national basis or in the
                              Columbia River Estuary area.

                              Mitigation Goal: No loss of existing habitat value.

                         b)   Resource Category 2:

                              Habitat to be impacted is of high value for evaluation species
                              and is relatively scarce or becoming scarce on a national
                              basis or in the Columbia River Estuary area.

                              Mitigation Goal: No net loss of in-kind habitat value.

                         c)   Resource Category 3:

                    10   Generally, the requirements for considering each option before
                         moving on to the next shall be stricter for higher Resource
                         Categories.

                                                     60

                                Habitat to beimpacted is of high to medium value for evalua-
                                tion species and is relatively abundant on a national basis.

                                Mitigation Goal: No net loss of habitat value while minimiz-
                                ing loss of in-kind habitat value

                           d)   Resource Category 4:

                                Habitat.to be impacted is of medium to low value for evalua-
                                tion species.

                                Mitigation Goal: Minimize loss of habitat value.

                     4.    All initial mitigation site work shall be reviewed against predes-
                     ignated performance specifications, i.e., starting date, a negotiated
                     completion date, grade specifications, area and elevation specifications
                     of dike removal, channel specifications, seeding or planting specifica-
                     tions, etc. Any specifications not addressed or satisfied shall be
                     cause to require remedial follow-up measures to satisfy the performance
                     specification(s). Remedial work shall also be required for dredge or
                     fill impacts not specified in the permit.

                     5.    All mitigation actions shall be required to begin prior to or
                     concurrent with the associated development action.

                     6.    All mitigation permit requirements shall address specific mitiga-
                     tion goals, and to the extent practicable, measurable objectives (e.g.,
                     the amount of vegetative cover that will be established in a specific
                     area over a specified time period). These goals and objectives shall be
                     determined by the-local government in coordination with state and
                     federal resource agencies. The'purpose of the goals and objectives is
                     to provide a standard by which to measure the success of a particular
                     mitigation action. The permit shall not be approved until determination
                     has been made that the goal and objectiVe statements are satisfactory.
                     "Satisfactory" means that post-mitigation monitoring can use the goal
                     and objective statements on the permits to judge the success of the pro-
                     jects.

                     7.    Post-mitigation monitoring  of project'design and compensatory
                     mitigation sites shall be required over a 2-5 year time period, depend-
                     ing on the size and complexity of the mitigation project.

                           a. Local governments, in cooperation with state and federal
                             resource agencies, shall design and implement the monitoring.

                           b. Developer accountability requirements shall be based on
                             anticipated financial and environmental risk factors.

                           c. A bond, or any legal mechanism that serves as a bond, shall be
                             required to hold the developer accountable to remedial follow-up
                             requirements.

                           d. Potential remedial follow-up actions shall be identified in a

                                                        61

                             well structured contingency plan. The contingency plan shall be
                             required as a condition of permit approval.

                         e.  The developer shall not be responsible for project problems not
                             addressed in the contingency plan nor for any expenses over the
                             amount estimated in the contingency plan.

                         f.  Any portion of monies held and not used for remedial work shall
                             be refunded to the developer.

                         g.  A waiver of the 2-5 year monitoring requirement shall be granted
                             if, at any time during the 2-5 year period, the project is
                             judged successful.

                         h.  If a mitigation project fails to satisfy the original goals and
                             objectives after, the designated time period, and the developer
                             has met'all the site design and contingency plan requirements,
                             then the developer is not responsible for remedial action.
                             However monitoring may still be required up to a predetermined
                             time period to help agencies determine workable strategies for
                             future mitigation efforts.

                         i.  The contingency plan shall include statements of potential
                             courses of action, or corrective measures to be taken, in the
                             event of sub-optimal project performance (based on project goals
                             and objectives).

                    8.   For estuarine wetlands in Oregon, once a compensat6ry mitigation
                    action is required, the habitat types displayed in-Figure 4 shall
                    provide the basis for comparing development activities and possible
                    mitigation areas,.- The mitigation trade method described in Section 5.1
                    shall be used to determine acreage requirements for mitigation sites.

                    9.   For nontidal wetlands in Oregon, once a compensatory mitigation
                    action is required, local governments shall determine habitat trade
                    requirements in coordination with appropriate'state and federal agen-
                    cies. Mitigation requirements shall be made on a case by case basis
                    using determinations made by these agencies.

                    10. For estuarine and nontidal wetlands in Washington, once a compensa-
                    tory mitigation action is required, local governments shall determine
                    baseline habitat carrying capacity in coordination with appropriate
                    state and federal agencies. Mitigation requirements shall be made on a
                    case by case basis using the determinations made by these agencies.

                    11.  In Oregon, removal and1fill actions exempt from estuarine mitiga-
                    tion requirements include:

                    11   These activities are not necessarily exempt from federal mitigation
                         requirements. For example, with regard to riprap projects, the
                         U.S. Army Corps of Engineers may require design modifications.
                         Also maintenance dredging projects may have timing restrictions
                         imposed.

                                                      62

                         a)   Removal or fill of less than 50 cubic yards of material;

                         b)   Filling for repair and maintenance of existing functional
                              dikes where there is negligible physical or biological damage
                              to tidal marsh or intertidal area;

                         c)   Riprap to allow protection of existing bank line with clean,
                              durable material provided that the need for riprap protection
                              is demonstrated and that this need cannot be met with natural
                              vegetation, and no appreciable increase in upland occurs;

                         d)   Filling for repair and maintenance of existing roads.where
                              there is negligible physical or biological damage to tidal
                              marsh or intertidal areas;

                         e)   Dredging or fillin g required as part of an estuarine resource
                              creation, restoration, or enhancement project agreed to by
                              local, state, and federal agencies; and

                         f)   Maintenance dredging.

                         g)   Any proposed alteration that would have negligible adverse
                              physical or biological impact on the estuarine resources.

                    12.  Actions not considered as mitigation in Oregon or Washington
                    include:

                         a)   Conversion of an exis@ing wetland type to-another wetland type
                              as mitigation for impacts on another wetland shall not be
                              allowedi Diked nontidal wetlands with low wildlife value can
                              be discounted and restored to tidal influence as mitigation
                              for impacts in diked nontidal wetlands. Also, enhancement of
                              an existing wetland can be considered mitigation for impacts
                              in another wetland;@

                         b)   Transfer of ownership of existing wetlands to public owner-
                              ship.

                         c)   Dedication of existing wetlands for natural uses;

                         d)   Provision of funds for research; or
                         e)   Monetary compensation for lost'wetlands.

                    13.  The following criteria shall be considered when selecting and
                    including potential mitigation sites in the Columbia River Estuary
                    Mitigation Plan (not in order of priority):

                         a)   Proximity to potential develo pment sites.

                         b)   Opportunity to create or restore habitat conditions similar to
                              those at the impacted sites or historically and presently
                              scarce habitat types.

                                                    63

                         c)    Character of potential sites (e.g., low habitat value and no
                               conflicting uses).

                         d)    Potential for protection through zoning.

                         e)    Amount of new dike requirements

                    14. Mitigation site designations not established in the Plan shall be
                    made using criteria itemized in Standard 15. In addition, sites select-
                    ed shall have enough area and/or credits to accommodate the mitigation
                    requirement as stipulated by:

                         a)    In Oregon:

                               �    The Oregon Division of State Lands relative value trade
                                    formula (OAR 141-85-256) for Oregon's portion of the
                                    Columbia River Estuary.

                               �    The Habitat Evaluation Procedures, Adamas Model, or
                                    professional judgment of federal and state wildlife
                                    biologists for Oregon's nontidal freshwater wetlands.

                         b)    In Washington:

                               0    For estuarine and nontidal wetlands, once a compensatory
                                    mitigation action is required, local governments shall
                                    determine baseline habitat carrying capacity in coordina-
                                    tion with appropriate state and federal Agencies.
                                    Mitigation requirements shall be made on a case by case
                                    basis using the determinations made by these agencies.

                    15. The following approach shall be used to protect sites selected for
                    compensatory mitigation actions:'

                         a)    All mitigation sites shall be  designated in local Comprehen-
                               sive Plans in Oregon and Shoreline Master Programs in Washing-
                               ton.

                         b)    All sites are classified under one of three priorities (based
                               on need) and one of four levels of protection (based on need
                               and landowner concerns):

                    1. Priority     Need    Level        Protection

                         1          High      1

                    Matched         Landowner            Uses that preclude use of the site
                    with Med-       not concern-         for mitigation purposes (e.g., sub-
                    iated De-       ed about re-         stantial topographic alterations or
                    velopment,      strictions           alterations or structural improve-
                    Port Plan                            ments) are not allowed without a plan
                    or Permit                            amendment.

                                                      64

                    2. Priority     Need    Level        Protection

                          1         High        2

                    Matched         Landowner            Substantial topographic alterations
                    with Med-       concerned            and structural improvements allowed
                    iated De-       about prop-          under a conditional use permit. Con-
                    velopment       erty restic-         ditions are (1) no deviation from
                    Port Plan       tions                conditions allowed under existing
                    or Permit                            underlay zone (e.g., EFU) and (2) if
                                                         diked, demonstration that a predet   'er-
                                                         mined amount of dike frontage and
                                                         contiguous diked area be retained for
                                                         mitigation purposes. If upland, then
                                                         demonstration a predetermined amount
                                                         of contiguous area is available for
                                                         excavation to allow tidal influence
                                                         or capable of being inundated through
                                                         some water level control procedure.

                    3. Priority     Need    Level        Protection

                         2          Medium     3

                    Matched                              A 30 day freeze on permit applica-
                    with non-                            tions to give public agencies time
                    mediated                             to review potential effects on miti-
                    develop-                             gation use and currerit need for mit-
                    ment                                 igation use at-the site.

                    4. Priority     Need    Level        Protection

                         3          Low        4

                    Not                                  No res.trictions, listed for inventory
                    matched with                         purposes only.
                    a develop-
                    ment

                    16. For mitigation sites on Exclusive Farm Use land (in Oregon), farm
                    related structures valued at $ 5,000 or less shall be considered exempt
                    from permit requirements.

                    17. A Plan   amendment shall be required to remove a Priority I mitiga-
                    tion site from the mitigation overlay. A Plan amendment shall require a
                    demonstration that there is no longer a need for the site or that a
                    suitable alternative mitigation site has been designated and protected.

                    18. A Priority 2 site shall be totally removed from the mitigation
                    overlay if the landowner proposes a development that would preclude its
                    use for mitigation and, 3.0 days after the permit application has been
                    circulated, a negotiated agreement to sell the land, or certain land-
                    ownership rights, for mitigation use has not been made. The negotiation

                                                      65

                   shall be between the landowner and any interested buyer.  The site shall
                   not be removed from the overlay until the development is  completed.

                   19. A Priority 2 site shall be partially removed from the mitigation
                   overlay if the landowner proposes a development that would partially
                   preclude its use for mitigation and, 30 days after the permit applica-
                   tion has been circulated, a negotiated agreement to sell the land, or
                   certain landownership rights, for mitigation use has not been made. The
                   negotiation shall be between the landowner and any interested buyer.
                   The partial removal shall not take place until the development is
                   completed.

                   20. The local jurisdiction shall  make the determination of whether a
                   development will preclude all or some of the potential use of the site
                   for mitigation purposes.

                   21. If the landowner is a public entity, and the proposed mitigation
                   site is in a protected zone and managed under protection oriented
                   directives, a protection requirement shall not be imposed on the site.

                   22. After a mitigation action takes place, the local jurisdiction shall
                   amend its plan and implement'a zone change to reflect the aquatic
                   natural character of the create d wetland and/or aquatic area.

                   23. Private landowners shall be compensated, by the developer, with
                   payment equal to fair market value for land used for mitigation actions
                   on their ownerships.

                   24. The developer implementing  -a mitigation action-shall be responsible
                   for all costs associated with the mitigation project.

                                                    66

                      9. SITE SPECIFIC MITIGATION STRATEGIES FOR THE COLUMBIA RIVER ESTUARY

                         This section describes methods and results of pairing development
                    sites and mitigation sites in the Columbia River Estuary.

                    9.1 METHODS OF SITE SELECTION

                         Development scenario's are based on a review of the CREST Mediation
                    Panel Agreements (CREST 1981), Port of Astoria Marine Terminals Develop-
                    ment Plan (Port of Astoria 1986), Lower Columbia River Assessment of_,
                    Oregon Deep Draft Sites (Ogden Beeman and Associates 1986) and the CREST
                    Mitigation Plan for the Columbia River Estuary (CREST 1983). These
                    documents, in conjunction with zoning information and knowledge of CREST
                    staff, were used to determine the amount and type of intertidal and
                    shallow subtidal habitats that may be impacted by development in the
                    Columbia River Estuary. Development sites were mapped and classified by
                    habitat type. Acreages for these sites were determined either through
                    prior documentation or through planimeter measurements on 1:4,800 and
                    1:1,200 scale County Assessors maps.

                         Initially, 54 potential mitigation and restoration sites were
                    identified using prior inventories and an examination of 1:9,600 and
                    1:12,000 true color aerial photographs (Corps of Engineers Photogrametry
                    1977 and 1978). Diked tidelands and uplands adjacent to the estuary
                    were examined using these photographs. Areas that were not occupied by
                    structures (e.g., houses, farm buildings, etc.) and that did not appear
                    to support significant upland or freshwater nontidal we@land wildlife
                    habitat were selected. Each site was visitedand-s-creened under the
                    following criteria:

                         0   Low existing wildlife habitat value:

                             0     Low layer and cover type diversity

                             0     General absence of bodies of water

                             0     General absence of hydric plants

                         0   Low conflicting uses:

                             0     Absence of significant structures

                         Of these 54 sites, 34 were selected as final inventory sites.
                    Sites were eliminated that were not near identified potential wetland or
                    aquatic development areas or that required relatively large sections of
                    new dike work.

                    9.2 METHODS OF ASSIGNING NEED AND PROTECTION STATUS OF MITIGATION SITES

                         Each of the final inventory sites is assigned to a priority class
                    based on the anticipated future need of the site. There are three
                    priority classes with Priority 1 sites representing highest anticipated

                                                     67

                                                   12.'W                                                  w                          45                         4V                         35'                        30                        2                         123- M
                                                    +                                                     +                                                     +                          +                          +                         +                                  2W
                                 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
                                                                                                                                                 13

                        Ilwa   o Boa         ILA..                                                                                                    L

                                                                                                                                                                                                                            . .... ... ......   ...............
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               Igure 25:.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                              14
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      kamokawa Vista P.;rk
                                                                                                                                     Figure .-4
                                                                          im@-q@@at      Basin
                                                                                                                                   ..............   .........   ........ .
                                                     2
                          Figure      19
                          ........................................

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   U,
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          +
                          +                         +

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           15:
                                                                                                                                                                       re
                                                                                                                                                                   gq

                                                                                                      ...................................
                                                                .........                          Figure 21                                                                                                                                                  0
                                                                                                                                                                                                                              .... ...                        lochoman
                                                                                       --Basin                                                                                                                                                                 Boat Basin

                                                                                                      5
                                                                                                                                                                                                                            :Bradwoo         I
                                                             Tansy Po
                                                                                                                                        on
                                                                                          t o       tori
                                                                               3      Por                 a  Mooring Bas'
                                                    Eas     & w ;t
                                                             S        op    I                                   .................
                         +                          +                                                                                                                                                                 +
                                                                                                                                     36                                                                                         Wauna Mi
                                                                                                             4;j
                                                 Figure                                                                                                                                                                                            0
                                                 ............... ...
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  Lower Westpo
                                                                                                                       3                                                                                                     Figure 26
                                                                                                                              33                                                                                            .............................
                                                                                       :2                    2                34

                                    DEVELOPMENT SITE

                                 0 MITIGATION SITE                                                                                                                                       1   2    3   4   5   6   7    8  9   10 Kilometers
                                                                                                        23
                                                                                                                       29                                                                                                    6 Miles
                                                                                                                              28     +                                                     +                          +                         +                          +     46'05'
                          5'                       124-W                       5                  e   2   5W
                                                                                                                                     45'                        40'                        35'                        30'                       25'                        N

                  Figure   7. Mitigation and development sites                 in the Columbia       River Estuary.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          9
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 idwoodA

                                                                               69

                    need. Need is judged to reflect the degree a given site has been
                    committed to mitigation use. In 1981, CREST Mediation Agreement
                    Proceedings were held to discuss future development on the Oregon side
                    of the Columbia River Estuary. The product of those proceedings was a
                    document, referred to here as the Mediation Panel Agreement, that re-
                    flects negotiated development scenarios for certain controversial areas
                    in the Estuary. Negotiators included federal and state agencies and
                    local governments. A relatively high degree of certainty is associated
                    with development scenarios outlined in the Mediation Panel Agreements.
                    Therefore, any mitigation sites matched with developments outlined in
                    the Mediation Panel Agreement are considered to have a high certainty of
                    need. One development site, East Bank Skipanon, and one mitigation site,
                    Holbrook Slough, were specifically matched under the Mediation Agreement
                    Proceedings. Also, the Port of Astoria Development Plan and the Tansy
                    Point Industrial Park barge moorage permit application are considered
                    representative of highly certain development scenarios. Therefore,
                    mitigation sites matched with these developments are also given Priority
                    I status.

                         Priority I sites are discussed in detail. They were mapped by
                    elevation, and predicted habitat overlays were developed based on six
                    assumptions:

                    0    Areas below - 3 feet MLLW would develop into subtidal channel or
                         unvegetated flats.

                    0    Areas between - 3 feet MLLW and + 3 feet MLLW would develop into
                         intertidal channel or unvegetated flats.

                    0    Areas between + 3 feet and + 8 feet MLLW-wotr1cr develop into low
                         marsh habitat.

                    0    Areas between + 8 feet and + 11 feet MLLW would develop into high
                         marsh habitat.

                    0    Areas above + 11 feet MLtW would bd upland.

                    0    Once released to unrestricted tidal influence, these potential
                         habitats will eventually resemble nearby undisturbed habitats at
                         the same elevation.

                         There are potential development areas in the Columbia River Estuary
                    not discussed in the Mediated Panel Agreement. These are sites that
                    have historically demonstrated impacts on aquatic and/or wetland areas
                    and that are in shoreland and aquatic development zones. Any mitigation
                    site matched with one of these areas is considered a Priority 2 site.

                         Finally, mitigation sites were identified that are not attached to
                    any development. The anticipated need for these sites is low. They are
                    considered Priority.3 sites in the Plan.

                         In Oregon, Goal 16 implementation requirements state that "specific
                    mitigation sites shall be designated and protected to generally corre-

                                                     71

                    spond to the types and quantity of intertidal area proposed for dredging
                    or filling, or make findings demonstrating it is not possible to do so."
                    In order to address the protection language in this requirement, four
                    hierarchical levels of protection (1 being the highest) were attached to
                    mitigation sites. Levels of protection are proportional to anticipated
                    need of the site. They are, therefore, assigned a fixed association
                    with Priority classes. Priority 1 sites are associated with a higher
                    level of protection than Priority 2 sites and Priority 3 sites are not
                    protected.

                         Pacific and Wahkiakum counties, in Washington, have no implementa-
                    tion requirement to protect mitigation sites in their Shoreline Master
                    Plans. For these areas, CREST Mitigation and Restoration Plan recommen-
                    dations for sites are advisory and carry no statutory support from the
                    state of Washington. All sites identified in Washington were placed in
                    the Priority 2, Level 3 status.

                         This system of Priority classes and hierarchical protection levels
                    is also an attempt to address landowner concerns regarding restrictions
                    of property rights. It is an alternative to a blanket protection
                    mechanism with no flexibility or sensitivity to a realistic projection
                    of need or to property owner concerns. The system is outlined below:

                    Priority I Site:

                         Mitigation site linked with Mediated Panel Agreement, Port of
                         Astoria Development Plan or Tansy Point Industrial@Park barge
                         moorage development site.

                         a)    Landowner(s) not concerned with retaining development oppor-
                               tunities allowed priorto Mitigation Overlay designation.

                         Level 1 Protection:

                         No topographic or structural improVement without a plan amendment
                         in a fixed mitigation overlay zone.

                         b)    Landowner(s) concerned'about retaining development opportuni-
                               ties allowed prior to Mitigation Overlay designation.

                         Level 2 Protection:,

                         Topographic or structural improvements permitted, subject to a
                         conditional use permit, in a floating mitigation overlay zone.
                         Conditions for development would require (1) no deviation from
                         conditions allowed under existing underlay zone and (2) if diked,
                         demonstration that a predetermined amount of dike frontage and
                         contiguous diked area be retained for mitigation purposes. If
                         upland, then demonstration a predetermined amount of contiguous
                         area is available for excavation to tidal influence or capable of
                         being inundated through some water level control procedure.

                    Priority 2 Site:

                                                        72

                     Mitigation site linked to a development area that has bisto      rically
                     demonstrated impacts on aquatic and/or wetland areas or that are near
                     aquatic and wetland areas that are in development zones. No formal
                     permits or agreements regarding development exist.

                          Level 3 Protection:

                          Topographic and structural improvements are permitted uses within
                     the context of existing zoning restrictions but a 30 day freeze is
                     imposed on the permit decision to allow any potential developer/buyer
                     requiring a mitigation site, time to negotiate with the landowner for
                     use of the property.

                     Priority 3 Site:

                     Mitigation site not linked to any specific development sites.

                          Level 4: Inventory site with no restrictions.

                          These Priority 1 sites were matched to development sites based on
                     the following criteria:

                     0    The proximity of the mitigation site to the development site;

                     0    The present use of the proposed mitigation site (public ownership
                          was considered higher priority);

                     0    The availability of   in-kind mitigation credits; and

                     0    The availability of adequate credits with respect to credit re-
                          quirements.

                          These criteria were applied    to Priority I mitigation sites in the
                     following way. First, mitigation sites',that are in the general area
                     (within a 3 mile radius) and the same salinity regime as a given top
                     priority development site were considered high priority sites under the
                     proximity criterion. Second, a site was evaluated for its present use
                     and ownership. Sites that were not committed to preemptive alternative
                     uses, and those in public ownership were given higher priority. Third,
                     specific habitat types impacted at the development sites were matched to
                     mitigation sites with potential to develop similar habitat types.
                     Therefore, the potential for in-kind and acre-for-acre mitigation
                     actions is increased. Sites that demonstrated in-kind habitat trade
                     opportunities were given higher preference in mitigation/development
                     site match-ups.

                          Priority 2 site match-ups were based on proximity, present use and
                     ownership, existing habitat value, and conflicting use criteria. Areas
                     that were relatively near the development area, had relatively low
                     existing habitat values, displayed no conflicting uses, and were publiC7
                     ly owned were considered the best match-up candidates. Since develop-
                     ments associated with Priority 2 sites have no area delineations, it is
                     not possible to calculate credit trades for their respective mat      ch-ups.

                                                          73

                    Priority 3 sites were not matched with any,development areas.

                         It is *not possible to have complete adherence to these criteria in
                    all cases. For example, certain public lands were moved from the
                    Priority 2, Level 3 designation and placed in a Priority 2, Level 4 or a
                    Priority 3, Level 4 category because of ownership concerns regarding
                    designations on their properties.

                         Priority 2 sites are.listed in a match-up table and in an overall
                    inventory list that includes zoning, ownership, acreage, etc. Mitiga-
                    tion need and an analysis of compensation are briefly discussed.
                    Priority 3 sites are listed on the inventory list with information
                    regarding ownership, zoning, area, location, etc. These sites are not
                    matched with any developments. Therefore, need and compensation are not
                    discussed for these sites.

                         In Oregon, the number of mitigation credits needed at each develop-
                    ment site is determined by the trade formula in the Oregon Mitigation
                    Law Administrative Rule (OAR 141-85-256) and the number of mitigation
                    credits available at identified mitigation sites. This criterion ad-
                    dresses the Oregon Goal 16 implementation requirement to designate and
                    protect specific sites for mitigation which generally correspond to the
                    types and quantity of intertidal area proposed for dredging or filling.

                                                    @t
                         There are no Priority 1 mitigation sites in Washington. However,
                    even if there were, the Oregon credit trade system cannot be legally
                    applied in another state. Therefore, mitigation type and area require-
                    ments are made on a case by case basis in Washington.
                         The findings accompanying each match-up do n-ot- preclude or restrict
                    other potential mitigation match-up options. They are displayed to help
                    expedite the mitigation site search, acquisition, and mitigation action
                    implementation for developments that are required to provide compensa-
                    tory mitigation. It is recognized that new and innovative mitigation
                    actions not included in the Plan may beyroposed. The Columbia River
                    Estuary Mitigation and Restoration Plan'is flexible enough to accommo-
                    date such proposals provided they adhere to the mitigation policies and
                    standards contained in Section 8.

                    9.3 LANDOWNER CONCERNS

                         A great deal of effort has been made to develop a Plan that is
                    sensitive to landowners that have ownerships designated or inventoried
                    in the Plan. Hence, the prioritization and hierarchical levels assigned
                    the various mitigation sites. This Plan significantly reduces the
                    levels of restrictions imposed on many landowners in the 1983 Mitigation
                    Plan. It offers compromises that promise to allow landowners to realize
                    all or most of any use benefits allowed under their current zoning. The
                    Plan encourages active citizen involvement in formulating a just system
                    through which private landowners and the public can benefit from mitiga-
                    tion and restoration actions in the Columbia River Estuary.

                         During public Mitigation and Restoration Plan Advisory Committee

                                                        74

                    meetings, several landowners with ownerships under mitigation overlay
                    designations raised the issue of regulatory taking without just compen-
                    sation. The CREST staff have addressed this issue by reviewing mstric-
                    tions recommended for mitigation site designations in the Plan against
                    findings of three US Supreme Court cases: Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon
                    (1922), First English Evangelical Lutheran Church v. County of Los
                    Angeles (1987) and Nollan v. California Coastal Commission (1987). The
                    following text constitutes a summary of.our conclusions.

                        The test regarding a finding of a legally defined regulatory taking
                    appears to rest with one question. Does the landowner retain a reason-
                    able set of ownership rights and opportunities to realize a reasonable
                    economic benefit from his/her property? If the answer is yes, a taking
                    has not occurred. If the answer is no, it has. The answer, therefore,
                    depends on where the line between reasonable and unreasonable is placed.
                    When does a regulation go too far and, therefore, constitute a taking?
                    The criteria'for drawing this line have not been defined by past Supreme
                    Court decisions. Generally, courts have upheld that down zoning is
                    legal and necessary to regulate land use for the public good.

                        Protection levels and subsequent restrictions proposed for mitiga-
                    tion sites in the CREST Mitigation and Restoration Plan clearly do not
                    (emphasis added) take all reasonable property ownership rights nor
                    preclude all reasonable opportunities for the landowner to realize
                    economic benefits.

                        Under a Priority 1, Level 1 protection mitigation overlay zone, no
                    uses that would preclude the use of the site for mitigation purposes
                    (e.g., significant topographic changes or significant structural im-
                    provements) are allowed without a plan amendment. This level does not
                    restrict all potential use of the property. For example, under the
                    Clatsop County Comprehensive Plan, a site designated in an Exclusive
                    Farm Use zone could still be used to generate profits from raising,
                    harvesting and selling crops or by the feeding, breeding, management and
                    sale of, or the produce of, livestock, poultry, fur bearing animals or
                    honeybees or for dairying and the sale Of dairy products or any agricul-
                    tural or horticultural use or animal husbandry or any combination
                    thereof. Also, farm structures 4nder $ 5,000 in value are are not
                    considered "significant structural improvements" structures and are
                    exempt from restrictions imposed under the mitigation overlay zone.

                        Under a Priority 1, Level 2 protection mitigation overlay zone,
                    topographic or significant structural improvements are allowed to the
                    degree stipulated in the existing base zone. However, a floating zone
                    within the mitigation overlay zone is imposed. The floating zone can
                    take a variety of shapes and, therefore, allows the landowner flexibili-
                    ty in determining development locations. Within  the floating zone, no
                    uses that would preclude the use of the site for mitigation purposes
                    (e.g., significant topographic changes or significant structural im-
                    provements) are allowed without a plan amendment. With respect to the
                    floating zone, a stipulation is made that a predetermined amount of dike
                    frontage and contiguous diked area shall be protected for mitigation
                    purposes (area will be based on estimated requirement to compensate for
                    matched development based on formula cited in OAR 141-85-256).

                                                      75

                     Exemptions allowed under Priority 1, Level I also apply to the floating
                     zone.

                           This level is less restrictive than the Priority 1, Level 1 protec-
                     tion mitigation overlay zone. For example, an area zoned for Exclusive
                     Farm Use with this level of restriction would allow farm uses, roadside
                     stands for selling farm products, propagation or harvesting of a forest
                     product, utility facilities for noncommercial public service, single
                     family dwelling on a parcel 38 acres or greater if necessary for farm
                     use, operations for exploring geothermal resources, and a residence on
                     previously occupied lot if occupied by immediate relative of farm
                     operator in the area not occupied by the floating zone. Conditional
                     uses in this same area would include dwellings or mobile homes needed
                     for farm use on less than 38 acre parcels, single family dwellings not
                     associated with farm uses, commercial developments in conjunction with
                     farm uses (e.g., veterinary office, feed store, winery, or farmers
                     market), mining operations, government or nonprofit parks, playgrounds,
                     schools, golf courses, horse boarding for profit, personal airports,
                     solid waste disposal, or churches. In the floating zone, for areas
                     where a mitigation overlay is on an EFU base zone, all uses listed in
                     Priority 1, Level 1 are allowed including "non-significant" ($ 5,000 or
                     less) farm related structures.

                           Priority 2,  Level 3 mitigation overlay designations are initially
                     as restrictive as Priority 1, Level 1 designations, but only over a 30
                     day review period (beginning after a permit application is circulated).
                     During this time any developers interested in using all or part of the
                     site for mitigation have an opportunity to negotiate with the landowner.
                     If at the end of 30 days the landowner has agreed_to sell all or por-
                     tions of the site, or certain property rights, the permit would be
                     cancelled. If an.agreement could not be made, and the application
                     satisfies local zoning requirements, the permit would be granted.
                     During the 30 day review period, all uses allowed under the a Priority
                     1, Level 1 designation would be allowed, including exemptions.

                           Priority 3, Level 4 mitigation overlay zones impose no restric-
                     tions. They are listed for informational purposes. Existing base zone
                     regulations do apply to these sites.

                           Since reasonable uses and opportunities for economic benefit are
                     retained at each level of protection, and since the mitigation overlay
                     serves to facilitate the public good, and since the Supreme Court does
                     not define the threshold of a regulatory taking, CREST submits that the
                     mitigation overlay zone system described above does not constitute a
                     regulatory taking (for an opposing opinion, see Appendix 2).

                     9.4 PRIORITY I MITIGATION SITE DESCRIPTIONS

                           All sites listed in this section are considered Priority 1 Mitiga-
                     tion'Sites. They have been selected out of the inventory as the most
                     suitable sites for match-up with Mediated Panel Agreement, Port Develop-
                     ment Plan and Tansy Point Industrial Park permitted development sites in
                     the Columbia River Estuary.

                                                          7.6

                         Information contained in the general site descriptions of the
                    mitigation sites for salinity regimes, tidal range, elevation, vegeta-
                    tion and fauna were obtained from the CREST Columbia River Estuary
                    Regional Management Plan (McColgin et al. 1979), the CREST Inventory
                    (Seaman et al. 1979), the CREST Atlas (Fox et al. 1984), the 1983 CREST
                    Mitigation and Restoration Plan (Smith 1983) and site visits. Locations
                    of mitigation and restoration sites are provided in Figure 7 and Figures
                    19 through 26.

                         Since there were no Priority 1 Washington sites, credit values of
                    mitigation sites (potential) and development sites (existing) were
                    derived using the system defined in Oregon State Estuarine Mitigation@
                    Law (ORS 541.626) and its associated Administrative Rule (OAR 141-85-240
                    et seq.). Using this.system, credits were derived by:

                         0    Itemizing potential or existing habitat types at each site;

                         0    Assigning each habitat type a relative value as defined by OAR
                              141-85-256;

                         0    Determining the total acreage of each habitat type; and

                         0    Multiplying the acreage of each habitat type by its respective
                              relative value. These, numbers represent the number of credits
                              each habitat type is contributing or potentially contributing
                              to the site.

                         Development sites were matched with mitigation sites using this
                    system. Development credits were subtracted from mitigation credits
                    derived in the same habitat class. This was considered in-kind mitiga-
                    tion. If there were more credits available than required, the transac-
                    tion was termed a credit surplus. If a given mitigation habitat class
                    could not compensate for all the required credits for the corresponding
                    class at the development site, the transaction was termed a credit
                    deficit. In the case of a deficit, if there were surplus credits
                    available in another habitat type, the deficit credits were subtracted
                    from the surplus credits. This was termed out-of-kind mitigation.
                    Deficit or surplus acreages were,not determined. However, they can be
                    derived by dividing the deficit or surplus credits by the relative value
                    of each respective deficit or surplus habitat type:

                         Example

                                                   DEVELOPMENT

                              Habitat   Type      Relative Value      Acres      Credits

                              Brackish Inter-          5                2          10
                              tidal Low Marsh

                                                   MITIGATION

                              Brackish Inter-          5                 5         25
                              tidal Low Marsh

                                                       77

                                                   HABITAT TRADE

                              Credits Available    Credits Required         Net Credits

                                   25                   10                       15

                         15 Credits/5 Relative Value    3 acres brackish low marsh remaining

                                                      78

                    9.4.1 Site # 3. TANSY POINT (Figure 8)

                    Status: Priority 1, Level I

                    Location: T8N, RIOW, Section 9D

                    Size: Approximately .5 acres (Potential Low or High Marsh or Sand/
                          Mud Flats).

                    Potential Habitat Types/Relative Values:

                    Table 6. Relative Values of Potential Habitat Types at the Tansy Point
                              Mitigation Site.

                       Salinity    Tidal Regime    Vegetation     Substrate    Relative Value

                    1. Brackish   Low Intertidal      Marsh       Sand and/            5
                                                                  or Mud

                    2. Brackish   High Intertidal     Marsh       Sand and/            3
                                                                  or Mud

                    3. Brackish   Low Intertidal      None        Sand and/            4
                                                                  or Mud

                    Potential Credits: As a wetland-creation site, all three habitat type
                    potentials are feasible. Therefore, potential credits for each respec-
                    tive habitat type (1 - 3) are: 2.5, 1.5, and 2.0.

                    Site Description: The Tansy Point area j 's divided into two sections
                    based on land use. The northern section of the area is heavily devel-
                    oped while the southern portion still retains a predominantly natural
                    character. The southern portion encompasses the area to be used for
                    Mitigation. This site description focuses on the southern section.

                    Elevation: Variable

                    Vegetation/Wildlife: Significant stands of riparian vegetation border
                    the southern boundary of the proposed mitigation site. Species include:
                    Sitka spruce, Crabapple, hooker willow, hawthorn, and slough sedge. The
                    eastern section consists of Estuarine and Palustrine emergent wetlands
                    that form the vegetative transition between deep water wetland and
                    upland. These wetlands will link the mitigation wetland with the
                    estuary. The wetland transition is: intertidal high marsh (reed canary
                    grass, pacific silverweed, birdsfoot-trefoil), low marsh (water parsley,
                    cattails and bull rush) and intertidal sand/mud flats. Wildlife
                    observed in this area include King Fishers, Great Blue Herons, cot-
                    morants, gulls and variety of waterfowl.

                                                       79

                                                1
                                                  -7.-r-
                                                 L
                       Existing Tidal Wetlands

                             Low Marsh
                                          r
                                               swamp
                             High Ma                                                    N

                        Potential    Tidal Wetlands

                             Low Marsh                                             0
                                               Channel
                                               and Flats,
                             High Marsh

                                                              70@

                                                                  e. .... . ..... ..
                                               S'

                     NW 13th St.

                                                            k-

                                                 .... ....
                                                        -@ft 1:"
                                                                         a IChannel
                                                              r  4.

                                                 .........
                                                                         to be
                                                                    t -LO-TV
                                                               00.
                                                              'clWICerfli I-fvV-din the field)

                              Site Boundary

                                                                               o':

                                                                           '@L 4U-

                                                                vo

                            Datum Is MLLW     0.00

                         100    50
                                       0           100  Ft.

                    Figure 8. Tansy Point mitigation site (Barnes 1987).

                                                          SO

                     Zoning Authority and Designation:

                          City of Warrenton

                          Shoreland: Water Dependent Industrial
                          Aquatic: Aquatic Natural

                     Ownership:

                          Shoreland: City of Warrenton
                          Aquatic: State of Oregon

                     Potential Mitigation Action:

                          The creation of low and high intertidal marsh by excavation of
                     uplands to the intertidal regime and channel excavation to provide
                     adequate flushing with the estuary.

                     Estimated Cost of Mitigation (Karnosh pers. communication):

                          Excavation: $ 2.00 cubic yard
                          Loading:        .11 cubic yard
                          Short Haul:     .25 cubic yard/mile
                          Long Haul:      .20 cubic yard/mile
                          Disposal:       .25 cubic yard

                          Three possible  wetland creation scenarios were evaluated for
                     mitigation at Tansy  Point: 1. Excavation and immediate gide casting,
                     2. Excavation, loading, hauling-and disposing-near-excavation (less than
                     1 mile), and 3. Excavation, loading, hauling, and disposing five miles
                     from excavation. Assuming,the overburden at the Tansy'Point site is
                     about 6 feet deep, one acre of removal would constitute about 9,860
                     cubic yards. Factoring in a 3% slope, over a hypothetical 208 ft. run,
                     towards the shoreline leaves about 5000 cubic yards/acre. Based on this
                     standard,,the cost of the respective mitigation scenarios cited above
                     are projected:

                     1. Immediate Sidecasting:       $ 2.00 x 5,000 cu. yds.     $ 10,000.00/acre

                     2. Move Material (< I mile):    $ 2.00 + .75 + .25 + .25          $ 3.25
                                                     $ 3.25 x 5000 cu. yds. = $ 16,250.00/acre

                     3. Move Material (5 miles):     $ 2.00 + .75 + 1.25 + .25         $ 4.25
                                                     $ 4.25 x 5000 cu. yds. = $ 21,250.00/acre

                     1. .5 acres x $ 10,000.00 =   $   5,000.00
                     2. .5 acres x $ 16,250.00 =   $   8,125.00
                     3. .5 acres x $ 21,250.00 =   $ 10,625.00

                          It should be noted that the owners    of the wood processing    facility
                     own their own earth moving equipment and that the equipment and opera-
                     tors are available on a regular basis. Therefore, the costs of the
                     mitigation actions cited above may be substantially less than projected
                     here.

                                                           81

                   Potential Conflicting Uses:

                        There are no conflicting uses identified with the mitigation use of
                  .this site. However, additional mitigation actions  will probably be
                   precluded by industrial development on the north and west and signifi-
                   cant riparian and wetland vegetation on the south and east.

                   Conclusion:

                        A Priority 1, Level 1 classification of this site will adequately
                   protect the site from development pressures in adjacent areas.

                                                     82

                    9.4.2 Site # 4. HOLBROOK SLOUGH (Figure 9)

                    Status: Priority 1, Level i

                    Location: T8N, RIOW, Section 22 AC and AD; On Youngs Bay shore
                              immediately west of Holbrook Slough.

                    Size: 40 acres (Potential 24.2 acres low marsh, 11.5 acres high marsh
                          and 4.3 acres channel)

                    Existing and Potential Habitat Types/Relative Values:

                    Table 7. Relative Values of Existing Habitat Types at the Holbrook
                              Slough Mitigation Site.

                       Salinity     Water Regime* Vegetation      Substrate     Relative Value

                    1. Fresh        Semi-perman-     Marsh        Sand and/            3
                                    ently or Sea-                 or Mud
                                    sonally Inun-
                                    dated

                    2. Fresh        Seasonally       Marsh        Sand and/            1
                                    Inundated                     or Mud

                    3. Fresh        Semi-perman-     None         Sand- zfhd/          3
                                    ently Inun-                   or Mud
                                    dated

                    4. Fresh        Intermittently   Meadow/Shrub Silty Clay           0
                                    Flooded          Riparian     Loam
                                    (nonwetland)

                         (Cowardin  et al. 1979).

                    Potential Habitat Types:

                    Table 8. Relative Values of Potential Habitat Types at the Holbrook
                             Slough Mitigation Site.

                       Salinity     Tidal Regime   Vegetation     Substrate     Relative Value

                    1. Brackish   Low Intertidal     Marsh        Sand and             5
                                                                  or Mud

                                                        83

                                                                                        Existing Tidal Wetlands
                                                                                        El Low Marsh
                                                                                                                   High Marsh 0                                                                           Swamp                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    N

                                                                                        Potential Tidal Wetlands
                                                                                                                   Low Marsh                                                                              Channel
                                                                                                                   High Marsh El                                                                          and Flats

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                41
                                                                                                                                                                          D I k e                                                                                                                                                                                     190
                                                                                                                   Datum Is MLLW                                                                          0.00

                                                                                                    400                            200                                   0                                                       400                   Feet

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            A
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      IR
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              4-
                                                                                                                                                                                                                          ...........
                                                                                                                                                                                                                          . .......
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     , MIM..

                                                                                                                                                                              ..........
                                                                                                                                                                                 ............. .
                                                                                                                                                                               ....... ......

                                                                                                                                                                                                      .........

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             .. .. .. ......
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                N US,-
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     .. ........... .. .
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     .......... .
                                                                                                                                                                                                                            . . ......              -
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      . ..........
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  "'  4,79"

                                                                                                                                       ... . . . . . ...
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           . . . . . . . . . . . .

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       . . . ..... ..

                                                                                                                                                                                                      . .. .....,
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     -N

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            cr
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              TO
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  gg.;,
                                                                                                                                                                          . . ... . . . . . .
                                                                                                                                                                                      2,
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          M
                                                                                                                                                                                                          R

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     *'0
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 's
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       M

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          -v

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  MON.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            Harbor Street

                                                                    Figure 9. Holbrook Slough mitigation site (Smith 1983).

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 84

                     Table 8. Relative Values of Potential Habitat Types at the Holbrook
                               Slough Mitigation Site. (continued)

                     -2. Brackish   High Intertidal     Marsh         Sand and/             3
                                                                      or Mud

                     3. Brackish    Low Intertidal      None          Sand and/             4
                                                                      or Mud

                     Potential Credits: The Holbrook site contains existing nontidal fresh-
                     water wetlands over some.of its area. These wetlands are assumed to
                     have existing value and are, therefore, discounted in the credit evalua-
                     tion for the site. However, due to time constraints, wetland,boundary
                     and area calculations were not made. Two alternative credit assessments
                     (low and high) were derived. The low assessment assumes the entire area
                     is comprised of wetlands that are discounted from the post-restoration
                     value. The high assessment assumes there are no wetlands present at the
                     site and that zero credits need to be discounted. The outcomes of the
                     two assessments are suggested lower and upper limits to the range of
                     mitigation credits that may be available at Holbrook Slough.

                          The low estimate of available post-restoration credits was derived
                     by assuming the values displayed in the Oregon State Mitigation Law
                     Administrative Rule (OAR 141-85-256) for freshwater intertidal wetlands
                     are the same for freshwater nontidal wetlands with the game vegetation
                     and substrate types. The Holbrook Slough site was-then assessed both as
                     a freshwater and brackish wetland (Tables 7 and 8). The freshwater
                     credits were subtracted from the brackish credits and the net credits
                     were considered the minimum net value of the mitigation site after the
                     restoration action (Table 9).

                          A maximum post restoration value was derived by assuming the area
                     contains no freshwater wetlands and has zero value. Under this assump-
                     tion, zero credits are discounted against the maximum potential credits.
                     Therefore, the minimum number of.post restoration credits available is
                     75.7 and the maximum number available is 172.7. The actual credits will
                     be somewhere between these high and low figures, probably closer to the
                     high. Resource agencies will make the final determination.

                     Table 9. Comparison Between Existing Freshwater Nontidal and Potential
                               Brackish Tidal Values for Holbrook Slough Mitigation Site.

                     Habitat         Brackish Tidal        Freshwater Nontidal        Net Credits

                     Low Marsh              121.0                 72.6                     48.4
                     High Marsh              34.5                 11.5                     23.0
                     Channel                 17.2                 12.9                      4.3

                     Total:                 172.7                 97.0                     75.7

                                                         85

                     Site Description: The site is diked tideland that contains a few remnant
                     tidal channels. It is characterized by a predominantly nonwetland flora
                     with isolated areas of freshwater marsh (emergent) and scrub-shrub
                     (swamp) wetland.

                          Elevation: + 4 to + 11 feet MLLW

                          Vegetation/Wildlife: Vegetation is a mixture of mesic grasses,
                          blackberries, soft-rush, slough sedge, and willow shrubs. The area
                          gets some use by cattle. Small mammals., Short-eared Owls and
                          Northern Harriers use this area.

                     Zoning Authority and Designation:

                          City of Warrenton
                          Shoreland: Mediated Development with Mitigation and Dredge Disposal
                                     Overlay

                     Ownership:

                          Port of Astoria

                     Potential Mitigation Action:

                          Restoration through dike breaching. About 3,450 feet of new dike
                     will be constructed-ddja@cent to the ra'ilroad and on the northwest side
                     of Holbrook Slough. Once the new dike is stabilized, the existing dike
                     would be breac@ed in a way that would provide strong scour action to
                     keep the openings from filling in. Existing drainage channels would be
                     connected to facilitate flushing with Youngs Bay.

                     Estimated Cost of Mitigation:

                          Land Value:               $ 2,000/acre [based on appraisal of
                                                    similar land at the Airport Mitigation
                                                    Bank prior to breaching (Oregon Division
                                                    of State Lands 1985)].

                          Acres:                         40
                     Dike Construction Costs: $ 132/ft. (Bierly pers. com.)    12

                     Dike Length:               3,450 feet
                     total Land Cost:       $ 80,000
                     Total Dike Cost:       $ 455,400
                     Total Cost:            $ 535,400

                     12   This is a general estimate based on a 20% increase in the estimate
                          used in the 1983 CREST Mitigation and Restoration Plan. Figures
                          provided by Gamble (1987) and Karnosh (1987) roughly correspond to
                          this estimate.

                                                        86

                    Minimum Credits
                    Available:               75.7 (use for high estimate cost/credit)

                    Maximum Credits
                    Available:              172.7 (use for low estimate cost/credit)

                    Potential Conflicting Uses:

                         The Holbrook Slough Mitigation Site is in a development zone and a
                    designated dredge material disposal site. The Mediated Panel Agreement
                    allows for development of the site if the Skipanon peninsula is commit-
                    ted to developments that do not require fill. Therefore, the site could
                    conceivably be under development pressure at some time in the future.
                    Also, as a mitigation site, the area has been committed to potential
                    developments on the East Bank, Skipanon River through the 1981 CREST
                    Mediated Panel Agreement. If development at the East Bank reaches its
                    full potential, and credits lost are charged against Holbrook Slough,
                    the site may be unavailable for match-up with other projects.

                    Conclusion:

                         A Priority 1, Level 1, classification will adequately protect this
                    site from conflicting uses.

                         The recent history of development in this region indicates that it
                    is unlikely that Mediated Panel Agreement development scenarios will be
                    realized in totality. Also, should credits at Holbrook'Slough become
                    committed to other projects, and there are no-alternative Priority 1
                    sites available, it is possible to reclassify Priority 2 or 3 sites to
                    Priority I based on a judgement-of a need change. Under these assump-
                    tions, mitigation area requirements and subsequent protection measures
                    for this site are judged to be adequate.

                                                      87

                     9.4.3 Site # 17. AIRPORT MITIGATION BANK (Figure 10)

                     Status: Priority 1, Level I

                     Location: T8N, R10W, Section 25 and 24 DC

                     Size: 33.8 acres (Existing: 11 acres brackish intertidal marsh, 16.3
                            acres brackish intertidal swamp, 2.0 acres estuarine channel, 3.0
                            acres dike, 1.5 acres pond.

                     Table 10. Relative Values of Existing Habitat Types at the Airport
                                Mitigation Bank Site.

                          Salinity    Tidal Regime    Vegetation       Substrate    Relative Value

                     1. Brackish     Low Intertidal   Marsh/Pond       Sand and/           5
                                                                       or Mud

                     2. Brackish     High Intertidal  Marsh            Sand and/           3
                                                                       or Mud

                     3. Brackish     High Intertidal  Swamp            Sand and/           3
                                                                       or Mud

                     4. Brackish     Intertidal       None             Sand  and/          4
                                     Channel                           or Mud-

                     Potential Credits:   The Airport Mitigation Bank Credits have been dis-
                     counted for nontidal freshwater wetland values existing at the site
                     prior to dike breaching. There are curre tly 58.75 credits available at
                                                                 41
                     the Bank. These credits are not tied to any specific habitat type.

                     Site Description: This area was formerly diked tideland converted to
                     farm uses (e.g., pasture). In recent years freshwater wetland vegetation
                     had been invading the former pasture land as grazing pressure dimin-
                     ished. The Division of State Lands now owns the property and has imple-.
                     mented a restoration project through dike breaching. The.Division now
                     manages the site as a Mitigation Bank.

                           Elevation: + 6 to + 11 feet MLLW

                           Vegetation/Wildlife: The vegetation at the site is expressed in a
                           complex mosaic of wetland classes (low marsh, high marsh, scrub-
                           shrub and forested swamp). However, biologists expect most of the
                           trees and shrubs to die after prolonged tidal influence. Figure 10
                           displays the potential habitat types that will dominate after
                           several years of tidal exposure. Several tidal channels have been
                           established to facilitate tidal flushing of the site. Parts of the
                           old dike were left as "wildlife" islands. Wildlife observed in

                                                           89

                                                                                                                                                                                  V.

                                                                                                                                                                      lit

                                                                                                                                                             4.                                               it          fl.                                                                 3t
                                                         cz                                                                                                                                                                                                       I @ >77r,
                                                                                                                                                                                                              j,4
                                                                                                                                                141:                                                                                                   46
                                                                                                                                       41 i                                          it

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              1'..           A.
                                                                                                                                                                                                   jl,        -V It 4!,
                                                                                                                                                                                                                    t                                              41

                                                                                                                                                                     4      4
                                                                                                                                                4   4        4    4            4      4
                                                                                                                                                                                                                              :@ 1 1  4  1
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             .      I ' '41
                                                        w      L-j P                                                                                    1     4                                                                  o   t .4: 4        ,  I
                                                                                                                                                                                    1                         11    4jr,4i                          A, ;4 41
                                                                                                                                         0 pro 11
                                                                                                                                                                         14
                                                                                                                                                                                                                    '4i 4!@   I       (' @,                                    i
                                                                                                                                                                                                                          .   J@',                  , ,  41 14

                                                                                                             0.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            Wo
                                                                                              4      4
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           A
                                                         40                                                                                                                        4
                                                                                                                                                                                        I,: @      j 4" 4@11'f t
                                                                                                                               4     1          4
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              ft
                                                                                                                                   A     4      A                                                  41,4       ,
                                                                                                 1      4                                                          4                  4  :         '          AI                    ,       +       .41@
                                                                                                                                                                             1 1
                                                                                                                                                   1                            4;
                                                                      -0                                                    1      4     4      4
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            i
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    41
                                                                                                                                                                                                                          4                                           yI-
                                                      i    A.  ill  it                                                                                                                   -C        ".4,       4                         4       '4
                                                                                                                                   4     4      1
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         Al
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 -,1 4

                                                                                                                            1      4     1      1     1
                                                                                                                                                                                                   4

                                                                                                                                                             4     4            4      4

                                                                                                                                                                                 4                 4
                                                                                                         to                                                                         4              44                                                                              41 4:1  Jji.
                                                                                                                                                4 .1
                                                                                                                                                                                        I          .          4
                                                                                                                                                4                                                                                                                                    1     11.4
                                                                                                                                                                                                                          4   4     4               4          4
                                                                                                                                                                                    4              44         4     4     4
                                                                                                                                                                                        4                     4A    4                   4
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         1     4
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        4
                                                                                                                                                                                                                    4     4
                                                                                                                                                                                                                    4     4                4        1                              4       A
                                                                                  P41%                                                                                                                                                  4
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               @4    4             4       4

                         this area include Bald Eagles, Northern Harriers, Great Blue
                         Herons, deer, elk, muskrat and a variety of waterfowl.

                    Zoning Authority and Designation:

                         City of Warrenton
                         Industrial Development with Mitigation Overlay
                         (This will be changed to Aquatic Natural)

                    Ownership:

                         Oregon Division of State Lands

                    Potential Mitigation Action:

                         The mitigation action (restoration through dike breaching) has
                    already occurred. The credits are "banked" for compensation for future
                    development.

                    Cost of Mitigation:

                         Mitigation Credits are available from the Bank through the Division
                    of State Lands. Each Credit costs $ 4,800.00 (Bierly pers. com.).

                    Potential Conflicting Uses:

                         Recent Oregon legislation (HB 3382 added to and made part of ORS
                    541.605 - 541.685) places a 5 acre ceiling on size of d@velopments that
                    can be charged against mitigation banks in Oregon, -While this 5 acre
                    limitation is also a CREST Policy, the Port of Astoria has been consi-
                    dering charging development actions exceeding 5 acres against the Bank.
                    A decision from the Attorney General regarding this issue is pending.

                         A Memoranda of Agreement has been signed by Oregon Division of
                    State Lands, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Oregon Department
                    of Land Conservation and Development, US Fish and Wildlife Service,
                    National Marine Fishery Service, US Environmental Protection Agency, and
                    US Army Corps of Engineers regarding an establishment of a system of
                    interagency operating procedures and credit allocation for the Astoria
                    Airport Mitigation Bank. The Memoranda stipulates that the bank will
                    only be available for projects between the tip of Tongue Point and the
                    West Bank, Skipanon River along the Oregon side of the Columbia River
                    Estuary. However, additions to ORS 541.605 - 541.685 allow Oregon
                    estuarine banks to be used for projects within 40 miles and the same
                    estuarine ecological system. Details concerning projects chargeable to
                    the bank (e.g., projects approvable under Oregon's Removal-Fill Law and
                    federal Section 10 and 404 requirements) monitoring, credit accounting
                    and the price of credits are discussed in the Memoranda. Also, the
                    Memoranda would allow more than 5 acres of development to be charged
                    against the bank.

                                                       91

                    Conclusion:

                         Given the uncertainty regarding the size of projects and proximity
                    criterion for use of the bank, assumptions on these issues must be made
                    in order to project a plan. The assumptions made here are that the
                    Attorney General will determine use of the site is allowed for Port of
                    Astoria Dock projects and that the interagency agreement regarding range
                    of area that can be applied against the bank will override the 40 mile
                    range allowed under ORS 541.605   541.685. These assumptions are based
                    on the extent and history of the Port's involvement with the establish-
                    ment of the bank and on the fact that federal agencies are not bound by
                    the state statute.

                                                       92

                      9.4.4 Site # 7. WEST SVENSEN ISLAND (Figure 11)

                      Status: Priority 1, Level 1

                      Location: T8N, R8W, Sec. 15, Columbia River Mile 23 (Adjacent to Prairie
                                 Channel).

                      Size:  183 acres [92 acres low fresh nontidal marsh (non-significant
                             wetland), 59 acres low fresh nontidal marsh and swamp (significant
                             Goal 17 wetland), 16 acres fresh nontidal channel (significant
                             Goal 17 wetland), 8 acres of flood protection area with mixed
                             development and low fresh nontidal marsh].

                      Table 11. Relative Values of Potential Habitat Types at the West Svensen
                                 Island Mitigation Site.

                         Salinity      Tidal Regime Vegetation        Substrate     Relative Value

                      1. Fresh       Low Intertidal     Marsh         Sand and/             3
                                                                      or Mud

                      2. Fresh       High Intertidal    Marsh         Sand and/             1
                                                                      or Mud

                      3. Fresh       Intertida I         None         Sand and/,            3
                                     Channel                          or Mud

                      Potential Credits: The West Svensen Island site contains existing
                      soft-rush dominated nontidal freshwater wetlands over most of its
                      interior. Also, 75 acres of Goal 17 wetland divides the north and south
                      sections of the site. Since    a restoration action would also be fresh-
                      water, the credit discount system used for Holbrook Slough cannot be
                      applied (see Section 9.4.2). That system would allow no credit gain for
                      restoration at West Svensen   Island. A more refined system that is
                      sensitive to different levels of freshwater wetland     habitat values needs
                      to be developed. The system should also be designed to allow value
                      comparisons between tidal and nontidal wetlands. For current planning
                      concerns, an arbitrary discount factor of .2 (1/5) is used for comparing
                      nontidal freshwater soft-rush meadows with their potential value under
                      tidal influence. Also, an arbitrary factor of .6 (3/5) is used for
                      discounting the existing value of the Goal 17 wetland. Potential credit
                      availability is displayed as a range. High credit potential is deter-
                      mined by assuming no discount factors and a low credit potential is
                      determined by assuming the discount factors described above are fully
                      applied. Resource agencies will make the final decision regarding
                      credit availability. The,range of credits (317 - 509) displayed here
                      assumes about 8 acres with existing structures will be protected from
                      flooding by new dike.

                                                           93

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      Ch.annef
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         prairie

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           N
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                Site
                                                                                                                                                                               ... ...... .. ...                                                  .....
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           Boundary

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      'i iK
                                                                                                                             ...........
                                                                7.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                              ................

                                                                                                        .......... ...

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            T -7.

                                                                                            WZ.V@4

                                                                                                                M
                                                                                                          _%rg.
                                                                                           Vag V@.-avg-wg..
                                                                                                            0

                                                                                                    S.
                                                                                                                                                                                        . ...............
                                                                                                             g-F

                                                                                                                                                                                                            . ...................

                                                                                                     %g
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   Existing Tidal Wetlands
                                                                                                                                                                                              oo                          .........

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               Low Marsh
                                                                                                                                                                                                                    t
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           sm
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                -JSwamp
                                                                                                                                                                                                                        0412
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          L C.-
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               High Marsh
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    c?
                                             scate          1:s      o o al. -
                                                                              ---------------------
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   Potential Tidal Wetlands
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              9\0
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            a r s h
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     e(I                                                                                       Low M'
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          177-7-1
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     Channel

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       Z
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      and Flats
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               High Marsh
                                                        Settle     t:--'
                                          :7                                                @ensen island

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       Dik e
                                                                                                                     Significant                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               Datum Is MLLW                         0.00
                                                                                                                      Non-ticlal) W-etlands                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                Contour Interval 2 f eet
                                                                                         S ens n                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         400          200              0                        400 Ft.

                                      Figure 11. West Svensen Island mitigation site (Smith 1983).

                                                                                                                            '95

                       Table 12. Potential Credits Available at West Svensen Island Mitigation
                                 Site (Low Estimate).

                       Habitat         Acres            Relative       Discount        Credits
                       Type                            Value                           Available

                       Low Marsh       92                3                .2              220.8

                       Low Marsh       59                3                .6               70.8
                       (Goal 17)

                       Channel         16                3                .6               19.2
                       (Goal 17)

                       High Marsh        8               1                .2                6.4

                       Flood             8               0                N/A               0.0
                       Protection
                       Area

                                       183                                                 317.2

                       Table 13. Potential Credits Available at West Svensen Island Mitigation
                                 Site (High Estimate)-.

                       Habitat              Acres           Relative                   Credits
                       Type                                 Value                      Available

                       Low Marsh              92              3:                          276

                       Low Marsh              59              3                           177
                       (Goal 17)

                       Channel                16              3                            48
                       (Goal 17)

                       High Marsh              8              1                             8

                       Flood                   8              0                             0
                       Protection
                       Area
                                             183                                          509

                       Site Description: This area is former tidal wetland that has been diked
                       and converted to farm uses (e.g., pasture). In recent years freshwater

                                                           97

                    wetland emergent vegetation has been invading the pasture. Seventy-five
                    acres of freshwater swamp (forested wetland), marsh (emergent wetland)
                    and open water wetland divide the north and south sections of West
                    Svensen Island. @lso, there are significant structural improvements
                    located near the southern dike (Oregon Division of State Lands 1984b).

                         Elevation: 5 to 9 feet MLLW

                         Vegetation/Wildlife: Stands of willow border the previously identi-
                         fied marsh/open water wetland. Pastures have been invaded by dense
                         stands of soft-rush over much of their interiors. Much of West
                         Svensen Island could now be considered freshwater nontidal emergent
                         (marsh) wetland. Some of the area is grazed by cattle. Northern
                         Harriers, ducks, Canada geese and swallows represent some of the
                         animals using habitats found on West Svensen Island.

                    Zoning Authority and Designation:

                         Clatsop County

                         Exclusive Farm Use with Mitigation and Dredge Material Disposal
                         Overlay and Goal 17 Wetland

                    Ownership: Charles and Marie Haglund

                    Potential Mitigation Action:

                        .Mitigation by restoration of tidal wetlands through dike breaching.

                    Cost of Mitigation:

                         There are several alternative mitigation scenarios for West Svensen
                    Island. The cost figures displayed here represent costs associated with
                    building new dike to protect existing structures from flooding, raising
                    the elevation of the road accessing east Svensen Island and protecting
                    its landward bank and strengthening the cross dike between the eastern
                    and western portions of the Island. Dollar costs associated with this
                    alternative are compared with the dollar costs of purchasing the entire
                    site, including structures. The results of the comparison provides a
                    financial framework for reviewing other alternatives. Alternative
                    number one is recommended for adoption by Clatsop County.

                                        Alternative Number 1:

                         Land Value:   $ 800 - $ 1100/ acre (Jacobe pprs. com.)

                         Acres:

                              Low Estimate:   $ 140,000
                              High Estimate: $ 192,500

                                                       98

                         Dike Work:

                               Dike Construction Costs: $ 132/ft. (Bierly pers. com.)
                               Dike Length: 4,200 feet
                               Estimate: $ 554,400

                         Total:

                               Low Estimate: $ 694,400
                               High Estimate: $ 746,900

                                         Alternative Number 2:

                         Land/Structures: $ 243,121 (Oregon Division of State Lands 1984b)

                         Dike Work:

                               Dike Construction Costs: $ 132/ft. (Bierly pers. com.)
                               Dike Length: 2,500 feet
                               Estimate: $ 330,000

                         Total Estimate: $ 573,121

                   Potential Conflicting Uses:
                         Owners of property are considering-expanding pa'stur4ge of dairy and
                   beef cattle. Structural improvements currently exist near the southern
                   dike  and owners are considering other improvements.- Dredge material
                   disposal may also be a conflicting use.

                   Conclusion:

                         Alternatives 1 and 2 are considered,comparable with respect to cost
                   due to the coarse nature of the figures used to estimate dike work.
                   Since Alternative 1 protects existing structures without significantly
                   increasing the cost of mitigation or the availability of credits, it is
                   considered the preferred alternative. These estimates were also used to
                   consider two other alternatives:

                         �     Establish a floating mitigation zone; or

                         �     Purchase entire island, evacuate residents, and   breach dike.

                         With  respect to the floating mitigation zone, Alternative I demon-
                   strates the cost of minimum new dike work to protect 8 acres. A float-
                   ing zone may allow more than 40 acres to be protected from flooding.
                   The amount of dike work required to protect these kinds of acreages is
                   judged to be cost rohibitive.
                                       p

                         Purchasing the  entire island and evacuating residents would probab-
                   ly be the most cost   effective approach since new dike work would not be
                   required. However,    the uncertainty of need for this amount of mitiga-
                   tion credit and the   potential hardship this option would impose,on the

                                                       99

                     residents were judged to make this- a low priority option.

                          A Priority 1, Level I mitigation overlay designation for 175 acres
                     of the site and removal of the existing mitigation overlay on 8 acres
                     will allow the landowners reasonable flexibility to realize income
                     producing benefits of their property while maintaining the mitigation
                     potential of the sil--e.

                                                      100

                     9.4.5 Site # 36. ERP TRACT (Figure 12)

                     Status: Priority 1, Level I

                     Location: T8N, R9W, Sec. 24; Tax Lot    3400

                     Size: 15.6 acres (14.3 acres potential low marsh and 1.3 acres potential
                           high marsh)

                     Potential Relative Values:

                     Table 14. Relative Values of Potential Habitat Types at the Erp Tract
                                Mitigation Site.

                        Sali nity     Tidal Regime   Vegetation       Substrate     Relative Value

                     1.  Fresh        Low Intertidal     Marsh           Mud                 3

                     2.  Fresh        High Intertidal    Marsh           Mud                 1

                     Potential Credits: The Erp Tract contains existing soft-rush dominated
                     nontidal freshwater wetlands over much of its interior. However, since
                     a restoration action would also be freshwater, the credit discount
                     system used for Holbrook Slough. -cannot be applied-. - That system would
                     allow no credit gain for a restoration at Erp tract. A more refined
                     system that is sensitive to different levels of freshwater wetland
                     habitat values needs to be developed. For current planning concerns, an
                     arbitrary factor of .2 (1/5) is suggested for use when discounting
                     existing values of nontidal freshwater soft-rush marsh (Table 15 and
                     16). The 35.36 and 44.20 credit availability alternatives displayed
                     below represent the high and low limits to a range of credit availa-
                     bilit.y. Resource agencies will make the final determination with regard
                     to credit availability.

                     Potential Credits Available:

                     Table 15. Potential Credits Available at Erp Tract Mitigation Site (Low
                               Estimate).

                     Habitat          Acres          Relative         Discount         Credits
                     Type                            Value                            Available

                     Low Marsh        14.3              3               .2               34.32

                     High Marsh       1.3               1               .2                 1.04

                                      15.6                                               35.36

                                      -                 101

                                                                                         N

                                                                            0

                                           Coe/,)
                                                   004
                                                       C/

                                                                         . . . . . . . . . . .

                        Existing Tidal Wetlands

                             Low Marsh
                             High Marsh        Swamp

                        Potential Tidal We       flands

                                   a
                        EMI-ow M rah           Channel
                             High Marsh        and Flats

                                         Dike

                             Datum is MLLW = 0.00
                            Contour Interval 2 feet

                           400  200     0           400 Feet

                   Figure 12. Erp Tract mitigation site (Smith 1983).

                                                          @102

                     Table 16.. Potential Credits Available at Erp Tract Mitigation Site (High
                     Estimate).

                     Habitat              Acres          Relative                   Credits
                     Type                                 Value                     Available

                     Low Marsh            14.3              3                         42.9
                     (nonsig.)

                     High Marsh            1.3              1                          1.3
                     (nonsig.)

                                          15.6                                        44.2

                     Site Description: This area is former tidal wetland that has been diked
                     and converted to farm uses (e.g., pasture). In recent years some fresh-
                     water wetland vegetation has been invading the pasture.

                          Elevation: 5.3 to 6.2 feet MLLW

                          Vegetation/Wildlife: The pasture has been invaded by dense stands
                          of soft rush over some of.its interior. Some of the area is grazed
                          by cattle.

                     Zoning Authority and Designation:

                          Clatsop County

                          Residential/Agriculture with a Mitigation Overlay

                     Ownership: Wallace Erp

                     Potential Mitigation Action:

                          Mitigation by restoration  of tidal  wetlands through dike breaching.

                     Cost of Mitigation:
                          Land Value:          $ 800   $ 1,100/acre (Jacobe pers.'
                                                                      com.)
                          Number of Acres:            15.6
                          Dike Construction Costs: $  132/ft. (Bierly pers. com.)
                          Amount of Dike:             680 feet

                          Low Estimate: $ 800 x 15.6  acres    $ 12,480
                                        $  132 x 680 feet      $ 89,760
                                                              $ 102,240

                          High Estimate: $ 1,100 x 15.6 acres     $ 17,160
                                            $ 132 x 680 feet      $ 89,760
                                                                 $ 106,920

                                                       103

                    Potential Conflicting Uses:

                         Owner of property is currently grazing cattle.

                    Conclusion:

                         A Priority 1, Level 1 classification for this site will adequately
                    protect the site and impose no restrictions on current uses of the site.

                    9.5 PRIORITY 1 DEVELOPMENT/MITIGATION SITE MATCH-UPS

                         This section displays the match-ups of all development sites
                    discussed in the CREST 1981 Mediated Panel Agreement and their respec-
                    tive selected mitigation sites.

                         Table 17. Priority 1 Development/Mitigation Site Match-ups.

                         Development Sites                   Mitigation Sites

                         Tansy Point Industrial Park         Tansy Point

                         West Bank, Skipanon River           Holbrook Slough

                         East Bank, Skipanon River           Holbrook Slough

                         Port of Astoria Docks               Airport Mitigation Bank

                         North Tongue Point                  West Svensen Island

                         South Tongue Point                  Erp Tract

                                                      104

                    9.5.1 TANSY POINT INDUSTRIAL PARK     TANSY POINT

                    Development Action (Figure 13):

                         Dredging to -15 feet MLLW for barge moorage access.

                    Location:

                         TIN, R10W, Section ID; Columbia River Mile 10,

                    USFWS Resource Category:   2 (Ingles pers. com.)

                    Credits Required:

                         Area of Impact:      .84 acres (.34 acres brackish subtidal sand
                                              flats and .50 acres of intertidal sand flats)

                         ORS 541.626 Relative Value:    Brackish Subtidal Sand Flats (RV3)
                                                        Brackish Intertidal Sand Flats (RV4)

                         .50 acres x (RV4)    2.0 Credits
                         .34 acres x (RV3)    1.02 Credits 13

                    Zoning Authority and Designation:

                         City of Warrenton

                         Shoreland: Water-Dependent Development
                         Aquati c:   Aquatic Development.

                    Ownership:

                         Shoreland: City of Warrenton.
                         Aquatic: Oregon Division of State Lands

                    Site Description (Physical/Biological):

                         Shoreland: The upland region' (adjacent to the dredging area) is
                    characterized by predominantly sandy soils that have a perennial high
                    water table. The upland portion of the development is separated from
                    the aquatic portion by a Corps of Engineers riprap bank. The elevation
                    difference between the top and toe of the revetment is approximately 30
                    feet (+15 MLLW to - 15 MLLW). There is no riparian vegetation in this
                    area subject to damage from the development.

                         Intertidal: Sediments are medium to fine grain sand flats and
                    salinity is considered brackish. There is no marsh vegetation. Benthic
                    organisms may include: Corophium, Eohaustorius, nemerteans, and oligo-
                    cheates. Birds using the area include: Great Blue Herons, shorebirds,

                    13   There will be no mitigation requirement for the subtidal dredging.

                                                      105

                                    Columbia River
                         N
                               Existing Dock                      Tidal Wetlands
                                                                    EE Low Marsh
                    Tansy Point                                     E:1  High Marsh.
                                                                 Datum Is MLLW=0.00

                                      0
                                      0

                    -V4  wood chip                          Area to be dredged
                          storage                            for barge moorage
                                     E                                                                  I
                                     C
                                     E
                                     C
                                     C

                                     C

                                     C
                                     C -t

                                     C
                                     C
                                     C -4,4;_
                                  //-*,CC
                                     C
                         r p r a p
                                                   support
                                                      dolphins

                                                  @. . .. .......

                                                                    4

                             Scale In Feet

                      1 Oy  50     0          10 0@
                                                                                       00
                                                        7 1!,
                                                             A-

                   Figure 13. Tansy Point Industrial Park dredging  project (Barnes 1987).

                                                     106

                     waterfowl and terns.

                          Subtidal: Maximum salinity intrusion can be greater than 30 ppt
                     during low river flow but generally the area is considered in the
                     brackish water regime (.5 - 30 ppt). Sediments are subtidal sand flats
                     that range from medium sand to fine sand. Net primary productivity of
                     phytoplankto,n is rated relatively high and gross benthic primary produc-
                     tivity is rated relatively low. Total standing crop of benthic infauna
                     is rated high. Fish observed include Pacific herring, Northern anchovy,
                     Pacific staghorn sculpin, English sole, starry flounder, longfin smelt,
                     shiner perch, American shad, chinook and coho salmon. Birds include:
                     waterfowl, cormorants and gulls.

                     General Background (Development)

                          The proposed dredging will encompass a 110-foot x 400-foot rec-
                     tangle oriented north northwest. The intertidal portion of the develop-
                     ment consists of about 1/2 acre of brackish unvegetated sand flats. The
                     subtidal portion consists of about 1/3 acre of sand flats.

                          Since 1985, the Tansy Point Industrial Park has been developed to
                     accommodate an integrated wood products processing facility. All of the
                     existing development has occurred on uplands but the recently proposed
                     dredging may be a precursor to, further aquatic development in the area.

                          The Tansy Point Industrial Park is part of the CREST (1981) Medi-
                     ated Agreement and has been designated in the City of Warrenton Compre-
                     hensive Plan as a Water-Dependent Development area. This area was
                     designated for industrial'development for the following reasons:

                     0    It is relatively close to the Columbia  River Mouth (River Mile 10);

                     0    Fewer biological impacts associated with major development were
                          identified at this location than in other areas evaluated from
                          comparable development;@

                     0    A relatively large area (80-100 acres) is available for develop-
                          ment; and

                     0    The site location allows ship access to the longest tidal window in
                          the Columbia River Estuary.

                     0    The site is relatively close to deep water.

                     Alternatives Mitigation Sites:

                          1.   Tansy Point (Site 3)
                          2.   Swash Lake    (Site 2)
                          3.   Holbrook Slough (Site 4)

                     Findings:

                     1. Proximity: There is an on-site opportunity to create  (through upland
                     excavation) intertidal sand flats at Tansy Point. This   opportunity

                                                       107

                     ranks highest under the proximity criterion. The next closest site is
                     Holbrook Slough, which is about 1.5 miles from the Tansy Point Indus-
                     trial Area. Swash Lake is about 2.5 miles from the development area.

                     2. Present Use and Ownership: Tansy Point is in public ownership, City
                     of Warrenton, and designated for water dependent industrial uses. Much
                     of its shoreline aquatic area is in the Aquatic Development Zone. The
                     northern section of the area is currently committed to heavy industrial
                     uses. The southern portion of the area is more natural in character.
                     There are significant stands of riparian vegetation interspersed with
                     emergent freshwater wetland areas south of the developed area. Also,
                     the riparian fringe borders tidal wetlands that are zoned Aquatic
                     Natural. The City of Warrenton has agreed to allow 1/2 acre in this
                     area, an upland area adjacent to tidal marsh and riparian vegetation, to
                     be used for mitigation of development in the Tansy Point area.

                          Holbrook Slough is also publicly owned (Port of Astoria) and is
                     currently designated as a mitigation site in Warrenton's Comprehensive
                     Plan. However, it has been matched with developments on the East Bank,
                     Skipanon River.

                          Swash Lake  is publicly owned and managed as part of a state park.
                     However, it is reserved for state park, state highway, and Hammond Boat
                     Basin development projects.

                          Therefore, Tafisy Point is the preferred alternative under this
                     criterion.

                     3. Mitigation Trade: Tansy Point and Swash Lake both offer in-kind
                     mitigation opportunities and therefore@rank equally under this criter-
                     ion. Holbrook Slough mitigation would be out-of-kind.

                     4. Mitigation Credit Requirements and Availability:

                          Tansy Point Industrial Park - Tansy Point Credit Match

                               Tansy Point Industrial Park (Development)

                               Brackish Intertidal Sand Flats: 2 Credits

                               Tansy Point (Mitigation)

                               Brackish Intertidal Sand Flats: 2 Credits

                          Table 18. Tansy Point Industrial Park     Tansy Point
                                    Match-up.

                          Credits         Credits        Net             Mitigation
                          Available       Required       Credits         Trade

                             2.0            2.0              0            in-kind

                                                       108

                     Cost of Mitigation:

                          Assuming the creation (excavation) site is less than 1 mile   from
                     the disposal site, (see Tansy Point Mitigation Site Description), the
                     following represents an estimate of potential costs of lowering .5 acres
                     of upland at Tansy Point to intertidal sand flats:

                          $ 8,125.00 (see Section 9.4.1)

                     Conclusion:

                          The on-site/in-kind alternative ranks highest under the proximity,
                     mitigation kind, and ownership and use criteria. Adequate credits are
                     available for the mitigation action. Therefore, Tansy Point is consi-
                     dered the preferred alternative.

                          The Mediated Panel Agreement allowed  for 27 acres for Aquatic
                     Development off the shoreline west of the geographic Tansy Point.
                     Nearly all this area is deep subtidal sand flats. Strong currents in
                     the area have forced developers to move into Alder Cove where barge
                     moorage is sheltered from the currents (exchange of materials between
                     boat and land is considered hazardous in the channel). Any future
                     .development in this north shore area will probably be for deep draft
                     port facilities. Most or all Pf this development will probably use pile
                     supported structures, thereby minimizing impacts that would require
                     compensatory mitigation.

                                                      109

                   9.5.2 WEST BANK, SKIPANON RIVER - HOLBROOK SLOUGH

                   Development Action (Figure 14):

                        Filling of intertidal wetlands on the West Bank of the Skipanon
                   River.

                   Location:

                        T8N, R10W, Sec. 15, Columbia River Mile 11.

                   USFWS Resource Category: 2 (Ingles pers. com.)

                   Credits Required:

                        Area of Impact:     7.8 Acres (5.8 acres brackish intertidal high
                                            marsh and 2 acres brackish intertidal low
                                            marsh).

                        ORS 541.626 Relative Value:

                        Brackish Intertidal High Marsh (RV3)
                        Brackish Intertidal Low Marsh (RV5)

                        5.8 acres x (RV3) = 17.4 Credits     17.4 + 10   27.4 Credits
                        2.0 acres x (RV5) = 10.0 Credits

                   Zoning Authority and Designation:

                        City of Warrenton

                        Shoreland: Water Dependent I)evelopment
                        Aquatic:   Aquatic Development

                   Ownership:

                   Cavenham. Forest Products

                   Site Description (Physical/Biological):

                        Shoreland: The shoreland area consists primarily of heavily
                   developed log storage area and fringing marsh and tideflats. The upland
                   soils are primarily sandy dredged material.

                        Intertidal: The area consists of a brackish marsh that has estab-
                   lished on the lower elevations fringing the dredged material shoreland.
                   Species present at the high to mid marsh elevations include: reed canary
                   grass, birdsfoot-trefoil, Pacific silverweed, willow, Lyngby's sedge,
                   tufted hairgrass, and water parsley. Lower marsh species included:
                   Lyngby's sedge, cattail, yellow iris, and bullrush. Birds *observed
                   include: Great Blue Herons, shorebirds, Caspian Terns, gulls, Turkey
                   Vulture and Cedar Waxwings.

                        Aquatic: The general salinity regime of this area is brackish.

                     Tidal Wetlands                            River
                           Low Marsh              Columbia
                                                                                   N
                           High Marsh

                        ......  Dike

                         Proposed Fill Area

                        A I d e rCove

                         _4_

                      sewage
                       agoon
                                               CC

                                                                       7

                            0

                                           0
                                                         z           7_ 16
                         CO
                                          Q              m

                                        CO

                                                         90
                                                          >

                                                                                0

                                                                                   00
                                         ----Harbor Drive

                          Scale In Feet
                  fooo   Soo
                                0         1000

                  Figure 14. West Bank Skipanon River proposed fill area (CREST 1981).

                                                     112

                     Sediments are generally very fine, sandy silt. Net primary productivity
                     is considered high. Total benthic infauna standing crop is high. The
                     standing crop of epibenthic organisms is judged high based on samples
                     collected in Youngs Bay in the same habitat type (Tidal Flat Estuarine
                     Mixing). Fish commonly found in the area include: Pacific herring,
                     Pacific staghorn sculpin, English sole, starry flounder, longfin perch,
                     shiner perch, American shad and chinook and coho Salmon. A variety of
                     birds use these areas including: Loons, cormorants, grebes, waterfowl,
                     etc.

                     General Background (Development):

                          The west peninsula of the  Skipanon River is presently occupied by
                     the Cavenham lumbermill. Cavenham is the largest employer in the City
                     of Warrenton and continues to make substantial investments in its
                     facilities. Expansion has been discussed that would involve development
                     of a 2-berth log and lumber shipping facility on the Skipanon River.

                          The Mediation Panel Agreement would allow Cavenham, to develop a log
                     and lumber loading facility that would require approximately 20 acres of
                     "back-up" area next to the ship berths. This area would have to be
                     directly adjacent to the loading dock in order to avoid double handling
                     of logs and lumber at the mill site. A wide back-up area, of shallow
                     depth, is found to allow the greatest storage capacity per unit of area.
                     Adjacent storage reduces hauling distances, equipment requirements and
                     labor time commitments. In order to accommodate two ships, with approxi-
                     mately 1,500 feet of "loading edge", the 20 acre stora e area would be
                                                                              9,
                     580 feet in depth.

                         The construction of a shipping facility and    back--up area on the
                     west peninsula would have impact's on wetlands in  Alder Cove. The 580
                     ft.x 1,500 ft. storage area would require fill of about 7.8 acres of
                     intertidal marsh area. While there are no current actions being made      to
                     implement this development, it is considered allowable under the 1981
                     CREST Mediation Panel Agreement (CREST 1981).

                     Alternative Mitigation Sites:

                     1. Holbrook Slough (Site 4)
                     2. Airport Mitigation Bank (Site 17)

                     Findings:

                     1. Proximity: Holbrook Slough is the closest mitigation site alternative
                     (about 1 mile) to the West Bank, Skipanon development site. The next
                     closest site (Airport Mitigation Bank) is nearly 3 miles in distance and
                     it is uncertain whether the bank will be available to projects west of
                     the Skipanon River. Holbrook Slough, therefore, is the first priority
                     site under the proximity criterion.

                     2. Present Use and Ownership: The Holbrook Mitigation site is zoned for
                     Mediated Development with a Mitigation Overlay in the City of Warrenton-
                     Comprehensive Plan. It has traditionally been used for cattle grazing

                                                        113

                    and adjacent areas are used for dredge disposal. The site is owned by
                    the Port of Astoria. Public ownership and the mitigation designation
                    make this site an attractive alternative. However, the site is tied to
                    proposed developments on the East Bank, Skipanon River through the 1981
                    CREST Mediation Panel Agreement. If the maximum development agreed upon
                    for the East Bank occurs, there may be insufficient credits available at
                    the Holbrook site to trade for credits lost at the West Bank development
                    site.

                         The Airport Mitigation Bank is owned by the Oregon Division of
                    State Lands and administered as a mitigation credit reserve for rela-
                    tively proximate development projects in the Columbia River Estuary
                    (between Skipanon River and Tongue Point). Recent legislation'may
                    impose a limit (5 acres) on the size of development sites that can be
                    charged against the bank. If this occurs, the West Bank, Skipanon
                    development site may exceed this limit. Also, even if this limit is not
                    imposed on the bank, the Port of Astoria will most likely use most or
                    all of the credits available at the bank for proposed developments at
                    the Port of Astoria Docks.

                    3. Mitigation Trade: High and low marsh are available at both the
                    Holbrook site and the Airport Mitigation Bank. However, since the bank
                    is now operated on a credit system that is no longer connected to
                    habitat areas, in-kind vs. out-of-kind trade decisions cannot be made
                    using the formula in OAR 141-85-256. Nevertheless, these habitat types
                    are existing or pofentially existing on the site. Therefore, Holbrook
                    Slough and the Airport mitigation bank are not distinguished under this
                    criterion.

                    4. Mitigation Credit Requirements and Availability:

                         West Bank, Skipanon - Holbrook Slough.Credit Match

                                   West Bank (Development)

                                   Brackish Intertidal High Marsh: 17.4 Credits
                                   Brackish Intertidal Low Marsh: 10.0 Credits
                                                                  127.4 Total

                                   Holbrook (Mitigation)

                    The Holbrook site contains existing nontidal wetlands over some of its
                    area. Therefore, the nontidal wetland values are discounted in the
                    cree-It evaluation for this site (See Section 9.4.2). Two alternative
                    credit assessments (low and high) are used for-match-up purposes. The
                    low and high figures displayed here are suggested upper and lower limits
                    to the range of mitigation credits that may be available at Holbrook
                    Slough. The range of availability will affect the ability of the site
                    to compensate for credits lost to development. Tables 19 and 20 display
                    the effects of differences in credit availability on the West Bank
                    Holbrook Slough match-up.

                                                      114

                            Low Assessment (see Table 9):

                                 Brackish Intertidal High Marsh: 23.0 Credits
                                 Brackish Intertidal Low Marsh:      48.4 Credits
                                 Brackish Intertidal Channel:          4.3 Credits
                                 Minimum Total Credits:              75.7

                            Table 19. West Bank Skipanon - Holbrook Slough Match-up (Low
                                       Estimate).

                            Credits         Credits          Net             Mitigation
                            Available       Required         Credits         Trade

                              23.0            17.4           + 5.6           in-kind
                              48.4            10.0           + 38.4          in-kind
                                4.3           0.0            + 4.3           no trade

                              75.7            27.4              48.3 = Minimum Surplus

                            High Assessment (see Table 9):

                                 Brackish Intertidal High Marsh: 34.5 Credits
                                 Brackish Intertidal Low Marsh: 121.0 Credits
                                 Brackish Intertidal Channel:        17.2 Credits
                                 Maximum Total Credits:             T72.7

                            Table 20. West Bank Skipanon - Holbrook Slough Match-up (High
                                         Estimate).

                            Credits         Credits          Net             Mitigation
                            Available       Required         Credits         Trade

                              34.5            17.4           + 17.1          in-kind
                              121.0           10.0           + 111.0         in-kind
                              17.2              0.0          + 17.2          no trade

                              172.7           27.4              145.3 = Maximum Surplus

                      West Bank,  Skipanon -  Airport Mitigation Bank Credit Match

                                       West Bank (Development)

                                       Brackish Intertidal High Marsh: 17.4 Credits
                                       Brackish Intertidal Low Marsh: 10.0 Credits
                                       Total Credits:                     27.4

                                                           115

                                   Airport (Mitigation)

                    Credits are no longer linked to habitat types. Therefore, a deter-
                    mination on "kind" credit trade cannot be made.

                         Table 21. West Bank Skipanon - Airport Mitigation Bank Match-up.

                         Credits         Credits        Net             Mitigation
                         Available       Required       Credits         Trade

                            58.75          27.4         + 31.35            N/A

                                                           31.35 = Surplus
                                                          I .                                              I

                         A maximum size limitation'on development (5 acres) may be imposed
                    on projects that can use the bank. The West Bank, Skipanon development
                    (7.8 acres) would exceed this size limitation. If this limitation is
                    upheld, the Airport Mitigation Bank will not be a mitigation site
                    alternative for this project. Also, there is some uncertainty regarding
                    whether the Airport Mitigation Bank will be allowed to match with
                    development projectg--@iest of the Skipanon River (Section 9.4.3).

                    Estimated Cost of Mitigation (Holbrook Slough):

                         Land: $ 80,000.00
                         Dike: $ 455,400.00      (Section 9.4.2)
                         Total: $ 535,400.00
                         Cost/Credit: 14

                              $ 7,070 (use 75.7 for high estimate cost/credit)

                              $ 3,100 (use 172.7 for low estimate cost/credit)

                         High Cost Estimate: 27.4 x $ 7,070 = $ 193,720 with 48.3
                                                                   Credit Surplus

                         Low Cost Estimate: 27.4 x $ 3,100 = $      84,940 145.3 Credit
                                                                    Surplus

                    14   The actual cost of mitigation will be $535,000 for a developer that
                         does not own the land and $455,000 for the developer that owns the
                         site. The cost per credit is only valid if surplus credits can be
                         sold or traded in the future.

                                                      116

                          Moderate Estimate: (193,720 + 84,940)/2   $ 139,330

                     Estimated Cost'of Mitigation (Airport Mitigation Bank):

                          Cost/Credit: $ 4,800 (Bierly pers. com)

                          Estimate:      27.4 x $ 4,800/Credit-= $ 131,520.00 with 31.35
                                                                   Credit Surplus
                     Conclusion:

                          The Holbrook site is the first priority alternative based on
                     proximity and availability of in-kind mitigation credits. The sites'are
                     considered comparable in terms of ownership and use. Holbrook Slough is
                     considered to be the preferred alternative with regard to availability
                     of credits. While there is some concern regarding its overall availa-
                     bility, the availability of the airport site is even less certain. It
                     is also difficult to compare costs because the final credit availability
                     at Holbrook Slough is unknown and the cost per credit cited for the
                     mitigation bank is still'tentative (Bierly pers. com.). At this time
                     the Plan considers the costs comparable and does not distinguish the
                     Holbrook and Airport Bank sites using this criterion.

                                                       117

                     9.5.3 EAST BANK, SKIPANON RIVER - HOLBROOK SLOUGH

                     Development Acti n (Figure 15):

                          Fill for bulk storage area.

                     Location:

                          T8N, R10W, Section 15, Columbia River Mile il.

                     USFWS Resource Category: 2 (Ingles pers. com.)

                     Total Credits Required:

                          Area of Impact: 25 acres (6.9 Acres brackish low marsh and
                                          18.1 acres brackish high marsh).

                          ORS 541.626 Relative Value: Brackish Intertidal High Marsh (RV3)
                                                      Brackish Intertidal Low Marsh (RV5)

                           6.9 acres x (RV5) = 34.5 Credits   34.5 + 54.3   88.8 Credits
                          18.1 acres x (RV3) = 54.3 Credits

                     Zoning Authorization and Designation:

                          City of Warrenton

                          Shoreland: Mediated Water Dependent Development
                          Aquatic: Mediated Aquatic Development

                     Ownership:

                          Port of Astoria, Cavenham, State of Oregon

                     Site Description (Physical/Biological):

                          Shoreland: The shoreland area is predominantly dredge disposal sand
                     with a grass/soft rush-cover. It is currently used as pasture for
                     cattle.

                          Intertidal: The intertidal marsh is in the brackish salinity regime
                     with a substrate of very fine sand and silty clay. The higher elevation
                     areas of fringing marsh consist primarily of soft rush, Pacific silver-
                     weed, and water parsley. The mid to low elevations of the marsh were
                     represented by soft rush, Pacific silverweed, Lyngby's sedge (heavily
                     grazed), cattail and bulrush. Birds observed in August included:
                     Northern Harrier, Turkey Vulture, Caspian Terns, and Barn Swallows. Over
                     20 Caspian Terns were observed in the marsh.

                          Aquatic: The salinity regime is considered brackish. Sediments are
                     comprised of medium to fine sand and very fine sand, silt and clay.
                     Gross benthic primary productivity is considered low and net phyto-
                     plankton productivity is considered relatively high. Total benthic
                     infauna productivity is considered high. Standing crop of epibenthic

                                                      119

                                 Tidal Wetlands                                          Gotumbla                  River
                                            Low Marsh

                                                                                                                                                      N
                                            High Marsh                                                               1A

                                                      D I k e

                                     VAL-
                                       -t7
                                        Al

                                                                                                                      J4 Proposed. Fill Area

                                      sewage
                                        agoon

                                                                                                                                                 0

                                                0

                                                                              41
                                                                              0
                                                                                                                                                            Oil
                                                                             41
                                                                                                      z
                                                                                                      rn

                                                                                                       >

                                                                                                                                                  0

                                                                                                                                                       0 0
                                                                              Harbor. Drive

                                            Scale In Feet

                               1000       Soo          0                   1000
                                                                       mm=q

                              Figure 15. East Bank Skipanon River proposed fill area (CREST 1981).

                                                                                                120

                      zooplankton is high and standing crop of mobile macroinvertebrates is
                      considered moderate. Fish.species observed in this area include:
                      Pacific herring, Pacific staghorn sculpin, starry flounder, longfin
                      smelt, American shad, chinook and coho salmon. A variety of birds
                      including grebes, cormorants, and waterfowl use these areas.

                      General Background (Development):

                           The East Bank of the Skipanon River has been designated in the
                      CREST Mediated Agreement as a water-dependent development zone. De'vel-
                      opment potential is enhanced by proximity to the 40-foot Columbia River
                      channel and proximity to the river mouth (River Mile 11). ApproximAtely
                      200 acres of upland and 1,500 feet of Skipanon River frontage are
                      potentially available for construction of bulk commodity storage,
                      industrial development, and ship berthing.

                           The Skipanon Channel is maintained at 13 to 15 feet deep. However,
                      it is federally authorized to be dredged to 30 feet deep and 200 feet
                      wide. Conveyor galleries could provide an alternative to dredging with
                      regard to access to the main channel. While capital expenditure for the
                      conveyor may exceed initial dredging costs, the elimination of mainten-
                      ance dredging requirements may justify this alternative.

                           Filling of 25 acres of Youngs Bay intertidal wetlands adjacent to
                      the East Bank, Skipanon is allowed in the 1981 CREST Mediation Panel
                      Agreement. A fill project in this area will require mitigation.

                      Alternative Mitigation Sites:,

                      1. Holbrook Slough
                      2. Airport Mitigation Bank

                      Findings:

                      1. Proximity: Holbrook Slough is less than one mile from the East Bank,
                      Skipanon River development site. The  next closest site, the Airport
                      Mitigation site, is over two miles from the site. Therefore, Holbrook
                      Slough is the first priority with regard to the proximity criterion.

                      2. Present Use and Ownership: The Holbrook Slough site is zoned for
                      Mediated Development with a Mitigation Overlay Zone in the City of
                      Warrenton Comprehensive Plan. It has traditionally been used for cattle
                      grazing and adjacent areas are designated for dredge material disposal.
                      A public entity, the Port of Astoria, owns the site. While the Airport
                      Mitigation Bank is also publicly owned (Division of State Lands) and
                      designated for mitigation purposes, Holbrook Slough is directly tied to
                      the proposed 25 acre fill at East Bank, Skipanon through the 1981 CREST
                      Mediation Panel Agreement. Therefore, Holbrook Slough is the first
                      priority mitigation site option for East Bank, Skipanon under the use
                      and ownership criterion.

                      3. Mitigat ion Trade: Holbrook Slough offers in-kind compensation for the
                      high and low marsh in the East Bank proposed development areas. The

                                                       121

                     Airport Mitigation Bank credits cannot be tied to acreage. Theref6re,
                     Holbrook Slough is the preferred alternative under this criterion.

                     4. Mitigation Credi t Requirements and Availability:

                          East Bank, Skipanon - Holbrook Slough Credit Match

                          East Bank: Brackish Intertidal High Marsh: 54.3 Credits
                                      Brackish Intertidal Low Marsh: 34.5 Credits
                                      Total Credits:                    88.8

                          Holbrook:  The Holbrook site contains existing freshwater wetlands
                     over much of its interior. Therefore, the freshwater wetlands are
                     discounted in the credit evaluation for this site (See Holbrook Slough
                     Mitigation Site Description). Two alternative credit assessments (low
                     and high) were used for matching purposes. The low and high figures
                     displayed here are suggested upper and lower limits to the range of
                     mitigation credits that may be available at Holbrook Slough. The range
                     of availability will affect the ability of the site to compensate for
                     credits lost to development. Tables 22 and 23 display the affects of
                     differences in credit availability on the East Bank       Holbrook Slough
                     match-up.

                          Low Assessment (see Table 9):

                                Brackish-Intertidal High Marsh: 23.0 Credits
                                Brack,ish Intertidal Low Marsh:    48.4 Credits
                                Brackish Intertidal Channel:        4.3 Credits
                                Minimum Total Credits:             75.7

                          Table 22. East Bank Skipanon      Holbrook Slough Match-up (Low
                                     Estimate).

                          Credits          Credits         Net             Mitigation
                          Available       Required          Credits        Trade

                             23.0            54.3           - 31.3         in-kind
                             48.4            34.5           + 13.9         in-kind
                             04.3              0.0          + 4.3          no trade

                             75.7            88.8           - 13.1   Maximum Deficit

                                                      Iteration 1

                                13.9         31.3           - 17.4         out-of-kind

                                                      Iteration 2

                                 4.3       - 17.4           - 13.1         out-of-kind

                                                            - 13.1 Maximum Deficit

                                                          122

                      High Assessment (see Table 9):

                                 Brackish Intertidal High Marsh: 34.5 Credits
                                 Brackish Intertidal Low Marsh: 121.0 Credits
                                 Brackish Intertidal Channel:        17.2 Credits
                                 Maximum Total Credits;             172.7

                            Table 23. East Bank Skipanon     Holbrook Slough Match-up (High
                                       Estimate).

                            Credits         Credits          Net             Mitigation
                            Available       Required         Credits         Trade

                              34.5            54.3           - 19.8          in-kind
                              121.0           34.5           + 86.5          in-kind
                              17.2              0.0          + 17.2          no trade

                              172.7           88.8             83.9    Maximum Surplus

                                                        Iteration 1

                              86.5            19.8             66-7          out-of-kind
                              17*2              0.0            17.2          no trade

                              103.7           19.8             83.9    Maximum Surplus

                      East Bank, Skipanon     Airport Mitigation Bank Credit Match

                            The second priority alternative is the Airport Mitigation Bank.
                      The Airport Mitigation Bank is managed solely on a credit basis.
                      Therefore, in-kind habitat replacement@lconsiderations are precluded in
                      mitigation bank transactions. The following calculations assume all
                      58.75 credits currently in the Airport Mitigation Bank are available:

                            East Bank: Brackish Intertidal High Marsh: 54.3 Credits
                                        Brackish Intertidal Low Marsh: 34.5 Credits
                                        Total Credits:                     88.8

                            Table 24.  East Bank Sk ipanon - Airport Mitigation Bank Match-up.

                            Credits         Credits          Net             Mitigation
                            Available       Required         Credits         Trade

                              58.75           88.8           - 30.05         N/A

                                                               30.05 = Deficit

                                                           123

                          A maximum size limitation on development (5 acres) may be imposed
                     on projects that can use the bank. The East Bank, Skipanon development
                     (25 acres) would exceed this size limitation. If this limitation is
                     upheld, only 5 acres of the development may be chargeable to the bank.

                     Estimated Cost of Mitigation: (Holbrook Slough):

                          Land: $ 80,000.00
                          Dike: $ 455,400.00        See Section 9.4.2
                          Total:$ 535,400.00
                          Cost/Credit:  15

                               $ 7,070.00 (use  75.7 for high estimate cost/credit)

                               $ 3,100.00 (use  172.7 for low estimate cost/credit)
                          High Cost Estimate:   $ 7,070 x 7'5.7   $ 535,400 with 13.1
                                                                     Credit Deficit

                          Low Cost Estimate:    $ 3,.100 x 88.8   $ 275,300 with 83.9
                                                                     Credit Surplus

                          Moderate Estimate: ($ 535,400 + $. 275,300)/2    $ 405,350

                     Estimated Cost of M-itigation (Airport Mitigation Bank):

                          Airport Bank: 58.75 Credits

                          Total Costs:

                               Cost/Credit: $ 4,800
                               Estimate:       58.75 x $ 4,800/Credit    $ 282,000 with 30.05
                                                                   Credit Deficit

                     Conclusion:

                          Holbrook Slough is the preferred alternative due to its proximity
                     to the development area and its ability to provide in-kind mitigation.
                     Also, while both sites are publicly owned and designated for mitigation
                     purposes, the Airport Bank can only accommodate approximately 66% of the
                     required mitigation credits. Further, the bank may be limited to trades
                     with small developments of 5 acres or less. For these reasons, Holbrook
                     Slough is the preferred alternative over the Airport Bank. Costs of
                     mitigation are considered comparable at this time. This decision is
                     based on the uncertainty of credits available at Holbrook Slough and the
                     uncertainty of price and availability of credits at the Airport Bank.

                     15   The cost of mitigation will be $535,400 if the developer does not
                          own the land and about $455,500 if the land is already owned.
                          Credit surpluses are only valid if the credits can be sold or
                          traded at at future date.

                                                        124

                     9.5.4 PORT OF ASTORIA - ASTORIA AIRPORT MITIGATION BANK

                     Development Action (Figure 16):

                          Subtidal and intertidal fill at the Port of Astoria Docks.

                     Location:

                          T8N, R10W Sec. 12, R9W Sec. 7., Columbia River Mile 13.

                     USFWS Resource Category: 2 or 3 depending on use by juvenile salmonids
                                                 (Ingles pers. com.)

                     Total Credits Required:

                          Area of Impact:      27 acres (18 acres subtidal brackish sand/mud
                                                flats and 9 acres of brackish intertidal
                                               sand/mud flats).

                          ORS 541.626 Relative Value:

                                          Brackish Subtidal Sand/Mud Flats (RV3)
                                          Brackish Intertidal Sand/Mud Flats (RV4.)

                                          18 acres x (RV3) =    54 Credits Subtidal
                                           9 acres    (RV4) =   36 Credits Intertidal
                                                                90 Credits Total

                     Zoning Authority and Designation:

                          City of Astoria

                          Shoreland: Water Dependent Development
                          Aquatic:     Aquatic Development

                     Ownership:

                          Port of Astoria

                     Site Description (Physical/Biological):

                          Sh oreland: The shoreland consists almost entirely of fill material
                     and pile supported docks. All facilities are designed to cater to the
                     loading, unloading and berthing of ships.

                          Aquatic: The area is generally subtidal (depth - 8 to - 30 feet
                     MLEW) with some intertidal sand flats. The maximum salinity intrusion
                     is at the upper limits of brackish (25 - 30 ppt) in the finger piers and
                     marine (> 30 ppt) in the bottom of the channels. However, the mean
                     salinity intrusion is in the mid-brackish range (5 - 15 ppt). Sediments
                     are generally very fine sand, silt and clay in the finger piers and
                     coarser sand and silt near the river channel. Net phytoplankton produc-
                     tivity is in the medium-low range). Total benthic infauna standing crop

                                                        125

                               Pier I
                                                                                                             CO/Urn'ble n1ver
                                                                                      P I
                                                                                         rbe
                                                                                              C/
                                                      6
                                                     e                                              e
                                                 10
                                                                                                                                N

                              0 f f 1 c e s

            01\
                        Proposed,   Fill Area

                                                           WiAi

                                                              DMV

                                                                                             Scale In Feet
                                                           Hwy 101 & 30               300   150     0           300

                        Datum Is   MLLW    0.00

                 Figure 16. Port   of Astoria Docks proposed fill area (Port of Astoria 1986).

                      is medium-high.      Epibenthic zooplankton standing crops is relatively
                      high in this area while mobile macroinvertebrate standing crop is
                      relatively low. Fish typically found in the area include Pacific her-
                      ring, Northern anchovy, Pacific staghorn sculpin, English sole, starry
                      flounder, longfin smelt, shiner perch, American shad, chinook and coho
                      salmon. Diving birds (e.g., Western Grebes) are sometimes observed in
                      the finger piers.

                      General Background (Development):

                            While the Port of Astoria is ultimately working to diversify their
                      bulk cargo storage and loading facilities, they are now primarily
                      involved in log exports. Until recently, most of these shipments were
                      "in-water" log rafts. However, foreign preferences for dry logs have
                      motivated the Port to load logs from the docks rather than the water.
                      This method of shipping requires more on-land storage space. Other Port
                      interests include berthing, repairing, and servicing of ocean-going
                      vessels.

                            During the CREST Mediated Agreement Proceedings, the Port of
                      Astoria discussed two development proposals. The first proposal sug-
                      gested filling of about 21.5 acres of intertidal area (19.4 acres
                      between the finger piers, 2.1 acres west of the east tip of Pier 3) and
                      10 acres of subtidal area (located on the northwest tip of Pier 3). The
                      second proposal suggested filling the areas between Piers 2 and 3 and
                      about 30 acres west of Pier 3. This alternative was 'introduced late
                      into the mediation process and hence, was not considered by the media-
                      tion parties. Environmental impact concerns were raised during the
                      proceedings concerning this proposal.

                            More recently, the Port of.Astoria has developed     a Plan for Port
                      Development. This Plan proposes:about 27 acres of fill east of Pier 1.
                      About 10 acres of this area is considered brackish intertidal wetland
                      and the remainder is brackish shallow subtidal sand flat. Since this is
                      the most recent proposal by the Port, it is reasonable to assume it is
                      the most likely development scenario the Port will pursue. The Mediated
                      Panel Agreement proposals are, however, worth noting as they reflect the
                      general positions of the resource agencies regarding development in this
                      area.

                            The Port of Astoria's Plan for Port Development has two primary
                      goals:

                      1.    To show@staged progress toward full utilization     of all present
                            Port-owned lands between Youngs Bay and the Columbia River bridge.

                      2.    To maximize use of Port waterfront lands for a variety of marine
                            activities, those occurring today and those needed to meet future
                            requirements, to the extent they can be foreseen.

                      Alternatives Mitigation Sites:

                      1. Airport Mitigation Bank
                      2. Holbrook Slough

                                                          127

                     Findings:

                     1. Proximity: The Airport Mitigation Bank is the closest mitigation
                     site to the Port Docks (about 2 miles). Holbrook Slough is about three
                     miles from the Docks and other site alternatives are greater than five
                     miles in distance. Therefore, the Airport site ranks first under the
                     proximity criterion.

                     2. Present Use and Ownership: The Airport Mitigation Bank, owned and
                     administered by the Oregon Division of State Lands, is in an Industrial
                     zone (soon to be changed to Aquatic Natural) with a Mitigation Overlay
                     in the Ci ty of Warrenton Comprehensive Plan. Recent legislation (ORS
                     541.670) may impose a limit (5 acres) on the size of development sites
                     that can be charged against the Bank. While this 5 acre ceiling has
                     been a CREST policy for some time, the Port of Astoria's involvement in
                     the establishment of the bank was understood to be contingent on the
                     availability of credits from the bank'for Port projects. The Holbrook
                     Mitigation site is zoned for Mediated Development with a Mitigation
                     Overlay in the City of Warrenton Comprehensive Plan. It has tradition-
                     ally been used for low density cattle grazing and adjacent areas are
                     used for dredge disposal. The site is owned by the Port of Astoria.
                     Public ownership and the mitigation designation make this site an
                     attractive alternative. However, the:site is tied to proposed develop-
                     ments on the East Bank, Skipanon Rivet through the 1981 CREST Mediation
                     Panel Agreement. If-the.maximum development agreed upon for the East
                     Bank occurs, there will probably be in-sufficient credits available at
                     the Holbrook s-ite to trade for credits lost at the Port of Astoria Docks
                     development site.

                     3. Mitigation Trade: Neither site offers in-kind mitigation. Therefore,
                     there is no preference assigned under this criterion.

                     4. Mitigation Credit Requirements and Availability:

                     Port of Astoria Docks - Airport Mitigation Bank Credit Match

                          Port Docks: Brackish Intertidal Sand/Mud Flats: 36 Credits
                                      Brackish Subtidal Sand/Mud Flats:     54 Credits
                                      Total (Subtidal Compensation may
                                      not be required):                     90 Credits

                          The first priority alternative is the Airport Mitigation Bank. The
                     mitigation bank is managed solely on a credit basis. Therefore, in-kind
                     habitat replacement considerations are not considered-in mitigation bank
                     transactions. The following calculations assume all 58.75 credits
                     currently in the Airport Bank are available:

                                                        128

                          Table 25. Port of Astoria-Docks - Airport Mitigation Bank Match-up
                                     (Intertidal only).

                          Credits         Credits         Net            Mitigation
                          Available       Required        Credits        Trade

                             58.75          36              22.75           N/A

                                                            22.75 Credit Surplus

                          Table 26..Port of Astoria Docks - Airport Mitigation Bank Match-up
                                     (Intertidal and Subtidal).

                          Credits         Credits         Net            Mitigation
                          Available       Required        Credits        Trade

                             58.75          90             - 31.25          N/A

                                                           - 31.25 Credit  Deficit

                          A maximum size limi tation on development (5 acres)*may-be imposed
                     on projects that can use the bank. The Port of A.storia Docks (10 acres
                     intertidal and 17 acres subtidal) would exceed this size limitation. If
                     this limitation is upheld, the Airport Bank may not be a mitigation site
                     alternative for this project. Another possibility is that the Port will
                     charge 5 acres against the ba nk and look elsewhere for the balance.

                     Port of Astoria Docks - Holbrook Slough, Credit Match

                          Holbrook: The Holbrook site contains existing freshwater wetlands
                     over much of its area. Therefore, the freshwater wetlands are discount-
                     ed in the credit evaluation for this site (See Holbrook Slough Mitiga-
                     tion Site Description). Two alternative credit assessments (low and
                     high) were used for matching purposes. The low and high figures dis-
                     played here are suggested upper and lower limits to the range of mitiga-
                     tion credits that may be available at Holbrook Slough. The range of
                     availability will affect the ability of the site to compensate for
                     credits lost to development. Tables 27, 28, 29, and 30 display the
                     effects of differences in credit availability on the Holbrook Slough -
                     Port of Astoria Match-up.

                          Low Assessment (see Table 9):

                               Brackish Intertidal High Marsh: 23.0 Credits
                               Brackish Intertidal Low Marsh:     48.4 Credits
                               Brackish Intertidal Channel:        4.3 Credits
                               Minimum Total Credits:             75.7

                                                       129

                           Table 27. Port of Astoria Docks - Holbrook Slough'Match-up (Low
                                      Estimate/Intertidal Only).

                           Credits         Credits          Net             Mitigation
                           Available       Required         Credits         Trade

                             75.7             36             39.7           out-of-kind

                                                             39.7 Credit Surplus

                           Table 28. Port of Astoria Docks - Holbrook Slough Match-up (Low
                                      Estimate/Intertidal and Subtidal).

                           Credits         Credits          Net             Mitigation
                           Available       Required         Credits         Trade

                             75.7             90                            out-of-kind

                                                              14.3 Credit   Deficit

                           High Assessment (see Table 9):

                                Brackish Intertidal High Marsh: 34.5 Credits
                                Brackish Intertidal Low Marsh: 121.0 Credits
                                Brackish Intertidal Channel:        17.2 Credits
                                Maximum Total Credits:             172.7

                           Table 29. Port of Astoria Docks - Holbrook     Slough Match-up (High
                                      Estimate/Intertidal Only).

                           Credits         Credits          Net             Mitigation
                           Available       Required         Credits         Trade

                              172.7          36              136.7          out-of-kind

                                                             136.7 C redit  Surplus

                                                           130

                           Table 30. Port of Astoria Docks - Holbrook Slough Match-up (High
                                      Estimate/Intertidal and Subtidal).

                           Credits         Credits          Net             Mitigation
                           Available       Required         Credits         Trade

                            172.7            90              82.7           out-of-kind

                                                             82.7 Credit Surplus

                     Estimated Cost of Mitigation (Airport Mitigation Bank)-

                                Cost/Credit $ 4,800 (see Section 9.4.3)

                                if subtidal mitigation is not required:

                                Estimate: 36 x $ 4,800      $ 172,800 with 22.75
                                                              Credit Surplus

                                if subtidal mitigation is required:

                                Estimate: 58.75 x $ 4,800      $ 282,000 with - 31.25
                                                                 Credit Deficit

                     Estimated Cost of Mitigation (Holbrook Slough):

                           Land:  $ 80,000
                           Dike: $ 455,400 (See Section 9.4.2)
                           Total: @ 535,400

                           Cost/Credit:  16

                                      High Estimate: $ 7,070 (75.7 credits available)

                                      Low Estimate: $ 3,100 (172.7 credits available)

                                      High Estimate for Intertidal Only:

                                      $ 7,070 x 36    $ 254,520 with 39.7 Credit
                                                                            Surplus

                                      High Estimate for Intertidal and Subtidal:

                     16    The total cost will be $455,400 if the developer owns the land and
                           $535,400 if the land is not owned. Cost per credit are only
                           relevant if surplus credits can be sold or traded.

                                                          131

                                  $ 7,070 x 75.7   $ 535,200 with 14.3 Credit
                                                     Deficit
                                  Low Estimate for Intertidal Only:

                                  $ 3,100 x 36 = $ 111,600 with 136.7 Credit
                                                                      Surplus

                                  Low Estimate for Intertidal and Subtidal:
                                  $ 3,100 x 90 = $ 279,000 with 82.7 Credit
                                                     Surplus

                   Conclusion:
                        The Airport Mitigation Bank is t@e first priority alternative based
                   on proximity. There is some degree of uncertainty regarding availa-
                   bility of credits from the bank. There is a potential limitation on the
                   size of developments (5 acres) that may be charged against the bank.
                   However, it is possible this standard will be waived for the Port of
                   Astoria Docks project or that the Port will be able to charge 5 acres
                   against the bank and find the remaining credits at another site.

                        The Port of Astoria was the primary local agent responsible for the
                   establishment of the Bank. Their involvement was at least partially
                   based on a perception that they would be able to draw on the Bank's
                   reserves for creditsFthat-could be used.to compensate for credits lost
                   during construction of the Port Docks. Also, there is an interagency
                   agreement stipulating the Port's right to use the bank for Port Docks
                   projects (Oregon Division of State Lands 1987).

                        If subtidal mitigation is not required for the Port Docks project,
                   about 10 acres of intertidal brackish sand/mud flats would be the
                   maximum acreage charged against the Bank. Subtidal mitigation has not
                   often been required by the State of Oregon. The requirement is most
                   likely to be imposed at the federal level if at all. Ten acres (40
                   credits) is within the Bank's 58.75 credit reserve.

                        Given the history of the Port's involvement with the Airport
                   Mitigation Bank and the likelihood that only 10 acres would be charged
                   against the Bank, it is judged that the Port Docks - Airport Bank
                   match-up is a reasonable first priority option at this time.

                        Holbrook Slough, however, is still regarded as a second  priority
                   alternative. Costs and credit availability for the Holbrook and Airport
                   site are probably comparable. Neither site offers in-kind mitigation.
                   The major decision factors against a Holbrook - Port Docks match-up are
                   proximity and Mediated Panel Agreement commitments to use the Holbrook
                   site for projects on the East Bank, Skipanon.

                                                    132

                    9.5.5 NORTH TONGUE POINT - WEST SVENSEN ISLAND

                    Development Action (Figure 17):

                         Filling of medium depth freshwater subtidal sand flats between
                    finger piers at North Tongue Point.

                    Location:

                         T8N, R9W, Sec. 2, Columbia River Mile 18.

                    USFWS Resource Category: 2 or 3 depending on use by juvenile salmonid�
                                              (Ingles pers. com.)

                    Total Credits Required:

                         Area of Impact:      77 Acres (medium depth freshwater subtidal
                                              sand/mud flats)

                         ORS 541.626 Relative Value: Freshwater Subtidal Sand/Mud Flats
                                                       (RV3)

                         77 acres x (RV3)    231 Credits

                    Zoning Authority and Designation:

                         Clatsop County

                         Shoreland: Mediated Water Dependent Developmen.t
                         Aquatic: Aquatic Development

                    Ownership:

                         Oregon Division of State Lands

                    Site Description (Physical/Biological):

                         Shoreland: The shoreland is largely developed. It is predominantly
                    characterized by a large parking lot and several warehouses at the west
                    end. It was formerly developed as a Navel base.

                         Aquatic: The area proposed for fill is generally in a subtidal area
                    (-11 to - 18 feet MLLW). While maximum salinity intrusion during low
                    river flow is medium low (10 to 15 ppt), the mean annual salinity
                    intrusion is in the freshwater range (<.5 ppt). The area is considered
                    a freshwater system. Sediments are characterized by very fine sand,
                    silt, and clay. Net phytoplankton productivity is medium-high. Total
                    benthic infauna standing crop for the area is medium-high. Epibenthic
                    organism standing crop and densities are generally at a medium level in
                    this habitat type (Tidal Fluvial Demersal Slope). Fish using this area
                    include: Pacific staghorn sculpin, starry flounder, longfin smelt,
                    shiner perch, American shad, chinook and coho salmon, steelhead, cut-
                    throat trout, and sturgeon.

                                                      133

                                                       If.1
                                                                             N

                                                                           Mott

                                                                           Island

                                                        Proposed, Fill Ara

                     Nor   Ton  e Point

                                                                         v

                                                                K3

                                                                    'N

                                       0

                       Tidal Wetlands

                            Low Marsh

                            swamp

                       Datum Is MLLW   0.00
                      contour Inte.rval 6 f eet                               C3

                                            South Tongue Point                   -,1

                                 Scale In Feet                Proposed. Fill Area

                          1000 500     0        1000
                                             ---=mom

                 Figure 17. North Tongue Point proposed fill area (CREST 1981).

                                                  134

                        Resident and migratory birds using this area include: Double-
                   crested Cormorants, grebes, and a variety of waterfowl. Nearby tidal
                   flats and low marshes provide feeding areas for Great Blue Herons and
                   shorebirds. Bald Eagles use both deep aquatic and intertidal areas for
                   hunting.

                   General Background (Development):

                        North Tongue Point, formerly occupied by a naval base, is perceived
                   as a Port facility for bulk storage and shipping. Its proximity to the
                   railroad enhances its value as a transfer station between ocean import
                   cargoes and inland markets. While maintenance costs for the railway are
                   relatively low, capital and maintenance expenditures for dredging a deep
                   draft connection between the docks and the main Columbia River channel
                   may off-set this economic advantage. -Federal dollars may be needed to
                   establish the project.

                        The 1981 CREST Mediated Agreement allows filling up to 77 acres of
                   fresh medium-depth subtidal sand/mud habitat between the existing finger
                   piers. An access channel and turning basin between the existing piers
                   and the main Columbia River navigation channel are also proposed. This
                   will require extensive subtidal dredging and possibly the need for an
                   adequate upland dredge material  disposal site (See Section 9.5.6).

                   Alternative Mitigation Sites:

                   1. West Svensen Island (Site 7)
                   2. Erp Tract (Site 36)

                   Findings:

                   1. Proximity: The two closest potential mitigation sites to North Tongue
                   Point in the freshwater salinity regime  are the Erp tract and West
                   Svensen Island. Of these, the Erp tractis much closer (about 1/2 the
                   distance). Therefore it is the highest priority site under a strict
                   interpretation of the proximity criterion (e.g., distance). However,
                   the rationale for giving preference to closer sites is that these sites
                   are more likely to be important to the ecological functions of the area
                   impacted by development. Using this rationale, the West Svensen Island
                   site is judged to be more potentially effective than the Erp tract. The
                   location of Svensen Island (relative to North Tongue Point) enhances its
                   potential value to organisms likely to be affected by the proposed fill
                   action at North Tongue Point, i.e., one of its potential functions as an
                   estuarine wetland would be to provide feeding habitat for juvenile
                   salmonids originating from tributaries throughout the "accessible"
                   Columbia River Basin. Water quality problems and the relatively limited
                   size of the John Day River watershed limit its ability to serve this
                   function.

                        The Environmental Protection Agency and US Fish and Wildlife
                   Service give preference to mitigation sites that are "functionally"
                   linked to the areas of development they are mitigating. Functional
                   connectivity and relative environmental quality factors are judged to
                   override the proximity criterion in this case. Therefore, West Svensen

                                                    135

                      Island is the preferred alternative.

                      2. Present Use and Ownership: West Svensen Island is a private owner-
                      ship. It is in an Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) zone. The West Svensen
                      Island site was designated in the 1983 CREST Mitigation Plan (Smith
                      1983) as a mitigation site and was subsequently adopted as a mitigation
                      site in the Clatsop County Comprehensive Plan. The Erp tract, on the
                      John Day River, was also designated and adopted as a mitigation site in
                      the 1983 Mitigation Plan (Smith 1983). It is also privately owned. It
                      is zoned for Residential/Agricultural use with a minimum 2 acre lot
                      size. This level of zoning is generally considered less restrictive
                      than EFU zoning and therefore it might be construed that a Priority 1
                      mitigation designation on this site is more restrictive than the same
                      designation on an EFU site. However, due to historic and current
                      development trends in the John Day area, it is unclear whether this is
                      the case. Therefore, at this time, West Svensen Island and the Erp tract
                      are considered comparable-in priority.in terms of ownership and use.

                      3. Mitigation Trade: Both West Svensen Island and the Erp tract would be
                      out-of-kind mitigation actions and therefore are not distinguished under
                      this criterion.

                      4. Mitigation Credit Requirements and Availability:

                      North Tongue Point    West Svensen Island Credit Match

                           North Tongue Point: Freshwater Subtidal Sand/Mud Flats: 231
                                                 Credits

                           West Svensen Island   (Low Estimate):

                           Freshwater Intertidal Low Marsh (Goal 17):       220.8 Credits
                           Freshwater Intertidal Low Marsh:                   70.8 Credits
                           Freshwater Intertidal Channel (Goal 17):           19.2 Credits
                           Freshwater Intertidal High Marsh:                   6.4
                                                                            317.2 Total
                                                                                  Credits

                           Table 31. North Tongue Point     West Svensen Island   Match-up (Low
                                      Estimate).

                           Credits         Credits         Net              Mitigation
                           Available       Required         Credits         Trade

                             317.2           231.0         + 86.2           out-of-kind

                                                              86.2 Credit   Surplus

                                                          136

                           West Svensen Island (High Estimate):

                           Freshwater Intertidal Low Marsh (Goal 17):      276 Credits
                           Freshwater Intertidal Low Marsh:                177 Credits
                           Freshwater Intertidal Channel (Goal 17):          48Credits
                           Freshwater Intertidal High Marsh:                  8
                                                                           509 Total
                                                                               Credits

                           Table 32. North Ton gue Point - West Svensen Island Match-up (High
                                       Estimate).

                           Credits         Credits         Net             Mitigation
                           Available       Required        Credits         Trade

                             509              231          + 278           out-of-kind

                                                             278 Credit Surplus

                      North Tongue Point - Erp Tract Match-up

                           North Tongue Point: Freshwater Subtidal Sand/Mud Flat: 231
                                                Credits

                           Erp Tract Potential Credits (Low Estimate):

                           Freshwater Intertidal Low Marsh:      34.32 Credits
                           Freshwater Intertidal High Marsh:      1.04 Credits
                                                                 35.36 Total
                                                                        Credits

                           Table 33. North Tongue Point - Erp Tract Match-up    (Low Estimate).

                           Credits         Credits         Net             Mitigation
                           Available       Required        Credits         Trade

                             35.36            231          - 195.64        out-of-kind

                                                             195.64 Credit Deficit

                           Erp Tract Potential Credits (High Estimate):

                           Freshwater Intertidal Low Marsh:                     Credits
                           Freshwater Intertidal High Marsh:               1.3 Credits
                                                                           44.2 Total
                                                                                Credits

                                                         137

                           Table 34. North Tongue Point - Erp Tract Match-up (High Estimate).

                           Credits        Credits         Net             Mitigation
                           Available      Required        Credits         Trade

                             44.2           231           - 186.8         out-of-kind

                                                            186.8  Credit Deficit

                     Estimated Cost of Mitigation (West Svensen Island):

                           Land Value:               $ 800 - $ 1,100/acre (Jacobe pers. com.)
                                Number of Acres:       175 -
                                Total Cost:          $ 140,000 to $ 192,500

                           Dike Construction Costs:  $ 132/ft. (Bierly pers. com.)
                                Amount of Dike:          4,200 feet  17
                                Total Cost:          $ 554,400

                           Estimated Project Costs:

                                Low Estimate:    $ 694,400

                                High Estimate: $ 746,900

                                With 86 to 278 Credit Surplus

                      Estimated Cost of Mitigation (Erp Tract):

                           Land Value:               $ 800 - $ 1,100/acre
                                Number of Acres:       15.6
                                Total Cost:          $ 12,480 to $ 17,160

                           Dike Construction Costs:  $ 132.00/linear foot
                                Amount of Dike:      680 feet
                                Total Cost:       $  89,760.00

                           Estimated Project Costs:

                                Low Estimate: $ 102,240

                                High Estimate: $ 106,920

                                with 187 - 196 Credit Deficit

                     17    This estimate assumes 1,200 feet of cross dike strengthening,
                           (2,640/2) feet of diking to protect the road and 1,700 feet of
                           diking to protect existing structures are required.

                                                        138

                     Conclusion:

                          West Svensen Island is the preferred alternative mitigation site
                     for development actions at North Tongue Point based on functional
                     connectivity and credit availability.

                                                     139

                    9.5.6 SOUTH TONGUE POINT - ERP TRACT

                    Development Action (Figure 18):

                         Filling of intertidal freshwater swamp,

                    Location:

                         T8N, RIOW, Section 2 and 11, Columbia River Mile 18.

                    USFWS Resource Category: 2 (Ingles pers. com.)

                    Total Credits Required:

                         Area of Impact: 20 Acres (intertidal freshwater  swamp)

                         ORS 541.626 Relative Value: Freshwater Intertidal Swamp (RV3)

                         20 acres x (RV3) = 60 Credits

                    Zoning Authorization and Designation:

                         Clatsop County

                         Shoreland: Mediated Water Dependent Development
                           Aquatic: Aquatic Development

                     Ownership:

                         Corps of Engineers

                    Site Description (Physical/Biological):

                         Shoreland: South Tongue Point is characterized by open grasses and
                    forested upland bordered by an intertidal swamp, marsh and tide flat
                    fringe.

                         Intertidal: The intertidal swamp is characterized by a dense willow
                    middle layer with individual or small clumps of red alder scattered in
                    the overstory. Ground cover consists primarily of various densities and
                    configurations of lady-fern and slough sedge. Birds include Black-
                    capped chickadees, warblers, and bushtits.

                         Aquatic: Subtidal sand/mud flats predominate the surrounding
                    aquatic areas. While maximum salinity intrusion during low river flow
                    is in the medium-low range (brackish), mean salinity for the area is
                    less than .5 ppt (fresh). Sediments are characterized by very fine
                    sand, silt and clay. net phytoplankton productivity in the surrounding
                    aquatic areas is medium-high. Gross benthic primary productivity on the
                    fringe tide flats is medium high. Total benthic infauna is generally
                    medium high in the surrounding subtidal areas and high in the channel.
                    Fish observed using this area include Pacific staghorn sculpin, starry
                    flounder, longfin smelt, American shad, chinook and coho salmon.
                    Waterfowl, cormorants, gulls and Bald Eagles may also use this area.

                                                     141

                                                                                      N

                                                                                   Mott

                                                                                    Island

                                                                      V
                                                                ?CQ

                                                              Proposed. Fill Area

                       1`4 o rTon   e Point

                                                                                           AN

                                                                           'N

                                          0

                         Tidal Wetlands
                           E@l Low Marsh
                          r7 --TA Swamp

                         Datum Is MLLW = 0.00
                        Contour Interval 6 feet

                                                 South Tongue Point

                                    Scale In Feet                   Propos   d. Fill Area

                             1000 Soo      0         1000

                   Figure 18. South Tongue Point proposed fill area (CREST 1981).

                                                      '142

                     General Background (Development):

                          The South Tongue Point site consists of 100 acres of upland with
                     immediate rail and highway access. Development of South Tongue Point is
                     related to the North Tongue Point development. That is, it may become a
                     continuation of the docking area to the north or it may serve as dispos-
                     al site for subtidal dredging required to connect the North Tongue Point
                     docking area with the main Columbia River navigation channel.

                          While the dredge disposal portion of the Plan describes upland
                     areas to be the chief recipient of the dredged material, overflow onto
                     intertidal freshwater forested wetlands and nontidal freshwater wetlands
                     may occur. The areas  of overflow may be judged to require compensatory
                     mitigation actions.

                          Filling of about 20 acres of intertidal fresh swamp is allowed
                     under the CREST Mediated Panel Agreements.

                     Alternative Mitigation Sites:

                     1. Erp Tract (Site 36)
                     2. West Svensen Island (Site 7)

                     Findings:

                     1. Proximity: The Erp Tract is by far the closest site (about 2.5 miles)
                     to the South Tongue Point development area. West Svensen Island is
                     about 4 miles in distance. Therefore, the Erp tract isthe preferred
                     alternative (functional connectivity is not judged to be a significant
                     factor in this case).

                     2. Present Use and Ownership: West Svensen Island  is a private owner-
                     ship. It is in an Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) zone.  The West Svensen
                     Island site was designated in the 1983 CREST Mitigation Plan (Smith
                     1983) as a mitigation site and was subsequently adopted as a mitigation
                     site in the Clatsop County Comprehensivo Plan. The Erp tract is also
                     privately owned. It is zoned as Residential/Agriculture - 2 and is also
                     currently a designated mitigation site in the Clatsop County Comprehen-
                     sive Plan. This level of zoning'is generally considered less restrict-
                     ive than EFU zoning and, therefore, it might be construed that a Prior-
                     ity I mitigation designation might significantly impair the landowner's
                     ability to realize potential economic benefits of the property. How-
                     ever, due to historic and current development trends in the John Day
                     area, it is unclear whether this is the case. At this time, West
                     Svensen Island and the Erp tract are considered comparable in priority
                     in terms of ownership and use.

                     3. Mitigation Trade: Both West Svensen Island and the Erp tract would be
                     out-of-kind mitigation actions and are therefore not distinguished under
                     this criterion.

                     4. Mitigation.Credit Requirement and Availability:

                          South Tongue Point - Erp Tract Match-up

                                                      143

                           South Tongue Point: Freshwater Inte   rtidal Swamp 60
                                                 Credits

                           Erp Tract (Low Estimate):

                                Freshwater Intertidal Low Marsh: 34.32 Credits
                                Freshwater Intertidal High Marsh: 1.04 Credits
                                                                     35.36 Total

                           Table 35. South Tongue Point - Erp Tract Match-up (Low Estimate).

                           Credits         Credits          Net             Mitigation
                           Available       Required         Credits         Trade

                              35.36             60             24.6,4       out-of-kind

                                                               24.64 Credit Deficit

                           Erp Tract (High Estimate):

                                Freshwater Intertidal   Low Marsh: 42.9 Credits
                                Freshwater Intertidal   High Marsh: 1.3 Credits
                                                                     44.2 Total

                           Table 36. South Tongue Point - Erp Tract Match-up (High Estimate).

                           Credits         Credits          Net             Mitigation
                           Available       Required         Credits         Trade

                              44.20             60          - 15.8          out-of-kind

                                                              15.8 Credit Deficit

                     South Tongue Point - West Svensen Island Match-up

                           South Tongue Point: Freshwater Intertidal Swamp 60
                                                 Credits

                           West Svensen Island (Low Estimate):

                           Freshwater Intertidal Low Marsh (Goal 17):       220.8 Credits
                           Freshwater Intertidal Low Marsh:                   70.8 Credits
                           Freshwater Intertidal Channel (Goal 17):           19.2 Credits
                           Freshwater Intertidal High Marsh:                   6.4
                                                                            317.0 Total
                                                                                  Credits

                                                         144

                           Table 37. South Tongue Point - West Svensen Island Match-up (Low
                                      Estimate).

                           Credits          Credits        Net              Mitigation
                           Available        Required       Credits          Trade

                               317             60.0        + 257            out-of-kind

                                                             257  Credit Surplus

                           West Svensen Island (High Estimate):

                           Freshwater Intertidal Low Marsh (Goal 17)-             276 Credits
                           Freshwater Intertidal Low Marsh:                       177 Credits
                           Freshwater Intertidal Channel (Goal 17):                 48 Credits
                           Freshwater Intertidal High Marsh:                         8
                                                                                  509 Total
                                                                                      Credits

                           Table 38. South Tongue Point     West Svensen Island Match-up (High
                                      Estimate).

                           Credits          Credits        Net              Mitigation
                           Available        Required       Credits          Trade

                              509            60            + 449            '-out-of-kind

                                                             449 Credit Surplus

                      Estimated Cost of Mitigation:

                      Erp Tract:

                           Land Value:                $ 800 - $ 1,100/acre
                                 Number of Acres:       15.6
                                 Total Cost:          $  12,480 to $ 17,160 with

                           Dike  Construction Costs:  $ 132/ft.

                                 Amount of Dike:          680 feet
                                 Total Cost:         $ 89,760

                           Project Costs Estimates:

                                 Low - $ 102,240
                                 High - $ 106,920

                                 with 15.8 to 24.64 Credit Deficit

                                                          145

                   West Svensen Island:

                        Land Value:               $ 800 - $ 1,100/acre
                             Number of Acres:       175
                             Total Cost:          $ 140,000 to $ 192,500

                        Dike Construction Costs:  $ 132/ft.
                             Amount of Dike:          4,200 feet  18
                             Total Cost:          $ 554,400

                        Project Cost Estimates:

                             Low - $ 694,400
                             High - $ 746,900

                             with 257 to 449 Credit Surplus

                   Conclusion:

                        The Erp tract is much closer to South Tongue Point (about 2 miles)
                   than West Svensen Island (about 4 miles).      Both the Erp and West
                   Svensen Island sites are considered comparable under ownership and use.
                   Mitigation actions at both sites would be out-of-kind (although, given
                   time, tidal swamp could conceivably be established at either site). The
                   West Svensen Island-site -offers adequate credits under both the high and
                   low credit evalpation. The Erp tract does not offer adequate credits
                   under either the high or low credit evaluation. However, the Erp tract
                   would be a much less expensive alternative if adequate credits were
                   available. This could be the case if the development scenario at South
                   Tongue Point does not require the full amount of acreage stipulated in
                   the Mediation Agreement. Assuming adequate credits are unavailable it
                   still might be used if: (1) West Svensen Island were being used as
                   credit for another development and surplus credits were available or
                   if the deficit credits from the Erp tract could be applied against the
                   mitigation bank as compensation for development at South Tongue Point.
                   Otherwise, West Svensen Island will be considered the preferred
                   alternative based on credit availability.

                   18
                        This estimate assumes 1,200 feet of cross dike strengthening,
                        (2,640/2) feet of diking to protect the road and 1,700 feet of
                        diking to protect existing structures are required.

                                                     146

                       Table 39. Summary of Credits Available (Mitiga     tion Sites) and Credits
                                  Needed (Development Sites) for Priority 1 Mitigation Sites in
                                  the Columbia River Estuary.

                       Mitigation       Credits         Development     Credits           Net
                       Site             Available       Site            Needed

                       Tansy Point      2.0             Tansy Point         2.0            0.0
                                                        Industrial
                                                        Park

                       Holbrook         76.0 (low)      West              27.0             49.0
                       Slough                           Skipanon
                                       173.0 (high)                                       146.0

                       Holbrook        76.0 (low)       East              89.0            -13.0
                       Slough                           Skipanon
                                      173.0 (high)                                         84.0

                       Airport                          Port of         36.0 (in-          23.0
                       Mitigation                       Astoria         tertidal)
                       Bank             59.0            Docks           90.0 (in-         -31.0
                                                                        tertidal
                                                                        and (sub-
                                                                        tidal)

                       West Sven-                       North                 -
                       sen Island       317.0 (low)     Tongue          231.0              86.0
                                                        Point
                                        509.0 (high)                    231.0             278.0

                       Erp Tract        35 (low)        South             60.0            -25.0
                                                        Tongue
                                        44 (high)       Point             60.0            -16.0

                                                           147

                    9.6 PRIORITY 2 DEVELOPMENT/MITIGATION SITE MATCH-UPS

                         This section briefly discusses mitigation sites that have been
                    matched with areas that have historically demonstrated impacts on
                    aquatic and/or wetland areas or that are near aquatic areas and wetlands
                    that are in development zones. However, no formal permit or agreements
                    regarding development exist. Each respective development site is
                    described along with a brief statement regarding potential need for
                    mitigation and a brief analysis of compensation. The Priority 2 Develop-
                    ment/Mitigation Match-ups are displayed in Table 40.

                         Table 40. Priority 2 Development/Mitigation Site Match-ups.

                         Development Sites                  Mitigation Sites

                         Hammond Boat Basin                 Hammond Boat Basin

                         Hammond Boat Basin                 Swash Lake

                         East Astoria                       Alderbrook
                         Mooring Basin

                         Bradwood Mill                      Bradwood

                         Wauna Mill-Lower Westport          Wauna Mill

                         Ilwaco Boat Basin                  Jetty A

                         Chinook Boat Basin                 West Sand Island

                         Weyerhauser                        Deep River

                         Skamokawa                          Skamokawa V ista Park

                         Elochoman Slough                   Elochoman River
                         Slough Marina

                         South Astoria                      Lee/Schwarz Tract

                         Hammond Boat Basin is the only development site, other than Oregon
                         State Highway Department and Oregon State Parks projects, that will
                         be matched with Swash Lake. This is to insure reservation of
                         adequate mitigation site opportunities for State Park and State
                         Highway projects.

                         While Swash Lake will continue to be considered a Priority 2 site,
                         it will be classified under a Level 4 status of protection, that
                         is, no restrictions. This is done on the premise that state parks
                         are adequately protected lands and a commitment has been made by
                         the agency to designate these lands for mitigation use in the Fort
                         Stevens State Park Master Plan.

                                                     149

                         The Wauna Mill sites are reserved for use by the James River Corp.
                         which is both the landowner and developer. Therefore, a protection
                         requirement was judged unnecessary.

                         These are Corps of Engineer ownerships. The U.S. Army Corps of
                         Engineers cannot, under current federal authorization, relinquish
                         use of their Columbia River Estuary properties for the purpose of
                         mitigation activities. Therefore, the Corps does not concur with
                         or recognize the designation of their properties. These sites are
                         listed in the Plan for information purposes only. There are no
                         restrictions imposed on these sites.

                    9.6.1 Hammond Boat Basin/Hammond Boat Basin Match-up.

                    HAMMOND BOAT BASIN         Site    2. HAMMOND BOAT BASIN

                    Development Site                      Mitigation Site

                    Action: Dredging                      Mitigation: Creation (Excavation)
                    State: Oregon                         State: Oregon
                    County: Clatsop                       County: Clatsop
                    Location: T8N, RIOW, Section 5        Location: T8N, RIOW, Section 5
                    Landowner: Corps of Engineers         Landowner: Corps of Engineers
                                Leased to Town of                     Leased to Town of
                                Hammund                               Hammond
                    Zoning: Town of Hammond               Zoning: Town of Hammond
                             Recreation/Commercial                Recreation/Commercial
                    Habitat  Aquatic Development          Habitat Aquatic Development
                    Lost: Brackish Intertidal Sand        Gained: Brackish Intertidal Sand
                           Flats                                  Flats
                    Relative Value: 4                     Relative Value: 4
                    Area Lost: 10 - 15 acres              Area Gained: 5 acres
                    Credits                               Credits
                    Lost:       40 - 60                   Avail/Gained: 20/20 (in-kind)
                    Net                                   Conflicts: Development
                    Credits:    20 - 40  deficit

                    Need: Hammond Boat   Basin currently  has 178 berths. Immediate plans
                    involve addition of 50 - 100 slips. Long range plans call for a total of
                    350 berths. While much of the immediate dredging may be subtidal,
                    future encroachment on intertidal areas may also occur.

                    Analysis of Compensation: While on-site/in-kihd mitigation is generally
                    preferable, all acreage and credit requirements cannot be met on site.
                    Also, the Town of Hammond has plans to develop its waterfront property
                    near the Basin. Therefore, another alternative may be required.

                                                        150

                      9.6.2 Hammond Boat Basin/Swash Lake   Match-up.
                      HAMMOND BOAT BASIN                    Site # 1. SWASH LAKE    19

                      Development Site                      Mitigation Site

                      Action: Dredging                     Mitigation: Creation (Excavation)
                      State: Oregon                        State: Oregon
                      County: Clatsop                      County: Clatsop
                      Location: T8N, R10W, Section 5       Location: T8N, RIOW, Section 6
                      Landowner: Corps of Engineers        Landowner: State Parks
                      Zoning: Town of Hammond              Zoning: Clatsop County
                              Recreation/ Commercial                Conservation Shorelands
                              Aquatic Development
                      Habitat                              Habitat
                      Lost: Brackish Intertidal Sand       Gained:  Brackish Intertidal Sand
                            Flats                                   Flats
                      Relative                             Relative
                      Value: 4                             Value: 4
                      Area Lost: 10-15 acres               Area Available: 50 acres
                      Credits                              Credits
                      Lost:       40-60                    Avail/Gained: 200/40-60
                      Net Credits: about 150                               (in-kind)
                                                           Potential Conflicts: None

                      Need: See Match-up No. 1.

                      Analysis of Compensation: In-kind/off-site mitigation adequate.

                      9.6.3. East Astoria Mooring Basin/Alderbrook Match-up

                      EAST ASTORIA                    Site # 6. ALDERBROOK
                      MOORING BASIN

                      Development Site                         Mitigation Site

                      Action: Filling and Dredging         Mitigation: Restoration (Excavation
                                                                        and Enhancement
                      State: Oregon                        State: Oregon

                      19   Hammond Boat Basin is the only development site, other than Oregon
                           State Highway Department and Oregon State Park projects, that will
                           be matched with Swash Lake. This is to insure reservation of
                           adequate mitigation site opportunities for State Park and State
                           Highway projects. Furthermore, while Swash Lake will continue to
                           be considered a Priority 2 site, it will be classified under a
                           Level 4 protection status. There are no restrictions imposed under
                           this level. This is done on the premise that state parks are
                           adequately protected lands and a commitment has been made by the
                           agency to designate these lands for mitigation use in the Fort
                           Stevens State Park Master Plan.

                                                          151

                     County: Clatsop                      County: Clatsop
                     Location: T8N, R9W, Section 9        Location: T8N, R9W, Section 3D
                     Landowner: Port of Astoria           Landowner: Division State Lands
                                Div. State Lands
                     Zoning: City of Astoria              Zoning: City of Astoria
                             Marine Industrial                    Dredge Material Disposal
                             Aquatic Development
                     Habitat                              Habitat
                     Lost: Brackish Subtidal              Gained: Brackish Intertidal
                           and Intertidal Sand Flats              Low Marsh
                     Relative                             Relative
                     Value: 3                             Value: 5
                     Area Lost: Undetermined              Area Available: < 2 acres
                     Credits                              Credits
                     Lost':      Undetermined             Avail/Gained: 10/Undetermined
                                                          Potential Conflicts: Recreation

                     Need: The East Astoria mooring basin may require future expansion of
                     moorage facilities or other improvements involving dredge or fill
                     activities. There are no proposals at this time.

                     Analysis of Compensation: Compensation would be out-of-kind/off-site. If
                     deep draft development were to take place here, other mitigation oppor-
                     tunities would have to be considered. Also, the mitigation area desig-
                     nated is already high,marsh. While there are sign    'ifica nt uplands in the
                     area, the Alderbrook residents wish to   retain this land in upland for
                     low impact recreational uses (e.g., a park). Exchanging one wetland
                     type for another wetland type is not allowed under the Estuarine Mitiga-
                     tion Law Administrative Rule. However, this has been done in the past
                     by discounting existing wetland credits. Enhancement projects in
                     existing wetlands have also been done for mitigation credit. Also, the
                     landowner (Oregon Division of State Lands) retains the right to withdraw
                     this site from the mitigation designation if it is determined that it
                     will be used for development. A thorough analysis of these issues will
                     be required before the site can be used.for mitigation purposes.

                     9.6.4 Bradwood Mill/Bradwood Match-up

                     BRADWOOD MILL                        Site # 9. BRADWOOD

                     Development Site                     Mitigation Site

                     Action: Filling                      Mitigation: Creation (Excavation)
                     State: Oregon                        State: Oregon
                     County: Clatsop                      County: Clatsop
                     Location: T8N, R6W, Section  9       Location: T8N, R6W, Section 9
                     Landowner: Jason Whitelaw            Landowner: Jason Whitelaw
                     Zoning: Clatsop County               Zoning: Clatsop County
                             Marine Industrial                    Marine Industrial
                             Aquatic Development
                     Habitat                              Habitat
                     Lost: Fresh Intertidal               Gained: Fresh Intertidal
                           Low Marsh                              Low Marsh

                                                        152

                      Relative                              Relative
                      Value: 3                              Value: 3
                      Area Lost: about 4 acres              Area Available: 10 acres
                      Credits                               Credits
                      Lost:       12                        Avail/Gained: 30/12 (in-kind)
                      Net                                   Potential Conflicts: Development
                      Credits:    18 Surplus

                      Need: No active development exists    in the Bradwood area. The site was
                      used as a mill and a large wharf for shipping lumber during the 1960's.
                      The wharf is not serviceable at the present time. While recent investi-
                      gations into development suitability and requirements for the site have
                      not been made, there are about 4 acres of open water and marsh wetland
                      that may be a potential fill site. The rationale for filling this area
                      would be to connect separated developable lands in order to enhance
                      their development potential.

                      Analysis of Compensation: Compensation would be in-kind and essentially
                      on-site. Adequate credits are available with a net potential surplus of
                      18 credits that might be transferable to other projects.

                      9.15.5 Wauna Mill-Lower Westport/Wauna Mill Match-up

                      WAUNA MILL/LOWER WESTPORT            Site # 10. WAUNA MILL

                          Development Site                     Mitigation Site

                      Action: Filling                       Mitigation: Creation (Excavation)
                      State: Oregon                         State: Oregon
                      County: Clatsop                       County: Clatsop
                      Location: T8N, R6W, Sect.22 & 26      Location: T8N, R6W, Section 22
                      Landowner: James River Corp.          Landowner: James River Corp.
                      Zoning: Clatsop County                Zoning:  Clatsop County
                               Heavy Industrial                      Heavy Industrial
                               Lake & Wetlands
                               Aquatic Development                   Aquatic Development
                      Habitat                                        Habitat
                      Lost: Undetermined                             Gained: Undetermined
                      Relative                                       Relative
                      Value: Not applicable                          Value: Not applicable
                      Area Lost: Undetermined                        Area Available: Undeter-
                      Total                                                           mined
                      Credits
                      Lost: Not applicable
                      Net
                      Credits: Not applicable

                      .Need: Part of this site  is currently used as a paper manufacturing
                      industrial site. There    are no plans in the foreseeable future for
                      developments that would   involve dredging.or filling of wetlands or
                      aquatic areas. However, a large portion of the wetlands on the Wauna
                      Mill site are in a Heavy Industrial Zone and there have been consider-
                      able wetland acreages filled in the past. By the same token, there is

                                                          153

                     also a large amount of existing upland area currently not committed to
                     development. Therefore, while the potential for wetland impact exists,
                     it is considered extremely low for the 4-7 year time frame of the Plan.

                     Analysis of Compensation: Since there are no predicted development
                     scenarios for this area, potential impact avoidance or compensation
                     requirements are also difficult to predict. It is important to note
                     that Oregon's estuarine mitigation law (ORS 541.626) and associated
                     Administrative Rule cannot be considered legally administrable in this
                     case because the site is outside the legal boundary of the Columbia
                     River Estuary. However, the wetlands and aquatic areas on the Wauna
                     Mill site are under the jurisdiction of Oregon's Removal/Fill Law and
                     the federal Section 404 and Section 10 permit regulations. Therefore,
                     it is still likely mitigation will be required for any future wetland or
                     aquatic area impacts.

                     There are two wood chip fills in existingfresh intertidal forested and
                     emergent wetlands on the James River property. These fills could be
                     removed from the wetlands and treated as mitigation for impacts in other
                     wetlands nearby. Since the developer and the landowner are the same
                     entity, there is no need to impose restrictions on the potential
                     mitigation sites.

                     9.6.6 Ilwaco Boat Basin/Jetty A Match-up

                                                                               20
                     ILWACO BOAT BASIN                     Site # 11. JETTY A

                     Development Site                      Mitigation Site

                     Action: Dredging and  Filling         Mitigation: Creation (Excavation)
                     State: Washington                     State: Washington
                     County: Pacific                       County: Pacific
                     Location: T10N, R11W, Sect. 3304      Location: T9N, R11W, Section

                     Landowner: Port  of Ilwaco            Landowner: Corps of Engineers
                                 Town of Ilwaco
                     Zoning: Development Shoreland         Zoning: Conservation Shoreland
                             Development Aquatic                   Conservation Aquatic
                     Habitat                               Habitat
                     Lost: Brackish Intertidal             Gained: Brackish Intertidal
                           Sand Flats, Marsh                       Sand Flats, Marsh
                     Relative                              Relative
                     Value: N/A                            Value: N/A
                     Area Lost:  Undetermined              Area Available: 40 acres

                     20   The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers cannot, under current federal
                          authorizations, relinquish use of their Columbia River Estuary
                          properties for the purpose of mitigation activities. There, the
                          Corps does not concur with or recognize the designation of their
                          properties. Jetty A is listed in the Plan for information purposes
                          only. No restrictions are imposed on the site.

                                                         154

                     Credits                               Credits
                     Lost: N/A                             Avail/Gained: N/A
                     Net                                   Potential Conflicts: Corps
                     Credits: N/A                                    cannot allow
                                                                     mitigation use

                     Need: The Port of Ilwaco mooring basin provides berths for approximately
                     1,000 private, commercial and charter- boats. During peak seasonal use
                     1,300 to 1,500 boats usethe port facilities daily. There are three fish
                     processing operations on the Ilwaco shoreline that are served by a
                     growing number and variety of commercial craft. The Port's proximity to
                     the Columbia River mouth makes it attractive to a variety of potential
                     user groups.

                          The mooring basin is currently 1,200 feet long by 650 feet wide
                     with depths to 14 feet. The port may plan to expand its port facilities
                     to accommodate anticipated future increased demand for mooring space.
                     Expansion would require relocation of the breakwater and extensive
                     dredging. The impacts and subsequent mitigation requirements for these
                     activities may also be extensive.

                     Analysis of Compensation: Since the amount of expansion and subsequent
                     dredge and fill activities are at this time unplanned, mitigation area
                     requirements cannot be estimated. Compensation would be in-kind with
                     respect to tidal regime, salinity and substrate. Washington State
                     agencies often use a Habitat Evaluation Procedure (HEP) to determine
                     mitigation requirements. This is done on a case by case basis.

                     9.6.7. Chinook Boat Basin/West Sand Island Match-up.

                      CHINOOK BOAT BASIN                Site # 12. WEST SAND ISLAND   21

                       Development Site                    Mitigation Site

                     Action: Dredging                      Mitigation: Creation (Excavation)
                     State: Washington                     State: Oregon
                     County: Pacific                       County: Clatsop
                     Location: T9N, R10W, Sect.17          Location: T9N, R11W, Sect.
                     Landowner: Port of Chinook            Landowner: Corps of Engineers
                     Zoning: Water Dependent Shoreland     Zoning: Conservation Shoreland
                             Development Aquatic.                 Conservation Aquatic
                     Habitat                               Habitat
                     Lost: Brackish Intertidal &           Gained: Brackish Intertidal &
                           Subtidal Sand Flats, Marsh             Subtidal Sand Flats, Marsh
                     Relative                              Relative
                     Value: N/A                            Value: N/A

                     21   The Corps of Engin-eers cannot, under current federal authoriza-
                          tions, relinquish use of their Columbia River Estuary properties
                          for the purpose of mitigation activities. Therefore the Corps does
                          not concur with or recognize the designation of their properties.

                                                        155

                    Area Lost  Undetermined             Area Available: 6 acres
                    Credits                             Credits
                    Lost: N/A                           Avail/Gained: N/A
                    Net                                 Conflicts: Corps will not
                    Credits: N/A                                   allow mitigation use

                    Need: The Port of Chinook operates  the Chinook Mooring Basin. There are
                    slips for 323 commercial and recreational boats. Chinook is the third
                    largest mooring basin in the CREST area and provides access to both the
                    mouth of the Columbia River and the northern side of the estuary. The
                    authorized basin is 500 feet,by 590 feet, with depths to 18 feet. About
                    20,000 cu. yards of material are dredged annually from the basin. The
                    Port has considered expansion of the basin. However, the Chinook
                    Channel, which serves as a basin access channel, presents some problems
                    with regards to maintenance dredging. The Port would like to see these
                    problems resolved before expansion is seriously considered.

                         Expansion of the boat basin is limited on the east by the disposal
                    area and extensive shoaling. To the west, are the Chinook and Bumble
                    Bee facilities and a fringing tidal marsh adjacent to the maintained
                    channel inside the breakwater. Expansion would involve relocating all
                    or part of the present breakwater into the waters south of the Port
                    expansion.

                         Expansion would entail both dredging and filling in shallow sub-
                    tidal waters and pcFssibl-y in a tidal marsh. These operations may
                    require compenpatory mitigation. However since specific plans for
                    development have not been proposed, there is no means of determining the
                    extent of potential impacts and subsequent mitigation requirements.

                    Analysis of Compensation: Since the amount of expansion and subsequent
                    dredge and fill activities are at this time unplanned, mitigation area
                    requirements cannot be estimated. Compensation would be in-kind with
                    respect to tidal regime, salinity and substrate. Washington State
                    agencies often use a Habitat Evaluation Procedure (HEP) to determine
                    mitigation requirements. This is done on a case by case basis.

                    9.6.8 Weyerhauser/Deep River Match-up.

                    WEYERHAUSER LOG STORAGE SITE        Site   13. DEEP RIVER

                        Development Site                   Mitigation Site

                    Action: Filling and/or Dredging     Mitigation: Restoration (Dike Breach)
                    State: Washington                   State: Washington
                    County: Wahkiakum                   County: Wahkiakum
                    Location: T10N, R8W, Sect.29        Location: TION, R8W, Sect. 29
                    Landowner: Weyerhauser              Landowner: William Wright
                    Zoning: Urban                       Zoning: No Data
                    Habitat                             Habitat
                    Lost: Undetermined                  Gained: Fresh Tidal Marsh
                    Relative                            Relative
                    Value: N/A                          Value: N/A

                                                      156

                      Area Lost: Undetermined               Area Available: 12 acres
                      Credits                               Credits
                      Lost: N/A                             Avail/Gained: N/A
                      Net                                   Conflicts: None
                      Credits:    N/A

                      Need: The Weyerhauser log storage facility and the nearby community of
                      Deep River have a history of intensive use. Given the history of land
                      use, the urban land use designations of shoreline and adjacent aquatic
                      areas, the potential for development expansion into wetlands and aquatic
                      areas in this area is high. Also, the Washington State Highway Depart-
                      ment owns a right-of-way at a bridge site north of the Weyerhauser site
                      and Deep River. There are significant wetlands associated with the
                      bridge. Bridge maintenance and repair may require permanent or tempo-
                      rary filling of wetlands. Mitigation may be required for wetland
                      impacts in this area.

                      Analysis of Compensation: Since the amount of expansion and subsequent
                      dredge and/or fill activities are at this time unplanned, mitigation
                      area requirements cannot be estimated. Washington State agencies often
                      use a Habitat Evaluation Procedure (HEP) to determine mitigation re-
                      quirements. This is done on a-case by case basis.

                      9.6.9 Skamokawa/Skamokawa Vista Park Match-up.

                            SKAMOKAWA               Site # 14. SKAMOKAWA VISTA PARK

                          Development  Site                    Mitigation Site

                      Action: Filling  and/or Dredging      Mitigation: Restoration (Fill
                                                                        Removal)
                      State: Washington                     State: Washington
                      County: Wahkiakum                     County: Wahkiakum
                      Location: T9N, R6W, Sect.17,18        Location: T9N, R6W, Sect. 17,18
                      Landowner: Port Dist.# 2              Landowner: Port Dist. # 2
                      Zoning:                               Zoning:
                      Habitat                               Habitat
                      Lost: Undetermined                    Gained: Fresh Tidal Marsh/Swamp
                      Relative                              Relative
                      Value: N/A                            Value: N/A
                      Area Lost:  Undetermined              Area Available: 1.5 acres
                      Credits                               Credits
                      Lost: N/A                             Avail/Gained: N/A
                      Net                                   Conflicts: Recreation Uses
                      Credits:   N/A

                      Need: Proposals for expansion of camping and boating facilities (e.g.,
                      marina and boat docks) and bridge work, are cited in the Skamokawa
                      Tourism Facilities Preliminary Feasibility Study. These improvements may
                      impact intertidal wetlands.

                      Analysis of Compensation: The amount and distribution of development
                      and subsequent dredge and/or fill activities, are undetermined. There-

                                                           157

                      fore, mitigation area requirements cannot be estimated. Washington
                      State agencies often use a Habitat Evaluation Procedure (HEP) to deter-
                      mine mitigation requirements. This is done on a case by case basis.

                      9.6.10 Elochoman Slough Marina/Elochoman River Match-up

                      ELOCHOMAN SLOUGH MARINA              Site # 15 ELOCHOMAN RIVER

                         Development Site                    Mitigation Site

                      Action: Filling and/or Dredging      Mitigation: Restoration (Dike
                                                                        Breach)
                      State: Washington                    State: Washington
                      County: Wahkiakum                    County: Wahkiakum
                      Location: T8N, R6W, Sect.2           Location: T9N, R6W, Sect. 26
                      Landowner: Town of Cathlamet         Landowner: H.B. Schmitt
                     ,Zoning:                              Zoning: Rural
                      Habitat                              Habitat
                      Lost: Fresh Intertidal               Gained: Fresh Intertidal
                      Relative                             Relative
                      Value: N/A                           Value: N/A
                      Area Lost:  Undetermined             Area Available: 20 acres
                      Credits                              Credits
                      Lost: N/A                            Avail/Gained: N/A
                      Net                                  Conflicts: None known
                      Credits:    N/A

                      Need: The Elochoman Slough Marina has 75 boat slips in use at this time.
                      They are essentially evenly divided with regard to commercial and
                      recreational use. Moorage expansion may require additional dredging or
                      .filling.

                      Analysis of Compensation: The amount and distribution of development
                      and subsequent dredge and/or fill activities, are undetermined. There-
                      fore, mitigation area requirements cannot be estimated. Washington
                      State agencies often use a Habitat Evaluation Procedure (HEP) to deter-
                      mine mitigation requirements. This is done on a case by case.b.asis.

                      9.6.11 South Astoria/Lee-Schwarz Tract Match-up

                           SOUTH ASTORIA                   Site # 31. LEE-SCHWARZ TRACT

                          Development Site                    Mitigation Site

                      Action: Filling and/or Dredging      Mitigation: Restoration (Dike
                                                                       Breaching)
                      State: Oregon                        State: Oregon
                      County: Clatsop                      County: Clatsop
                      Location: T8N, R9W, Sect.17          Location: T8N, R9W, Sect. 28
                      Landowner: Corderman Oregon Inc.     Landowner: Richard Lee and Ron
                                  Pacific Power & Light               Schwarz
                                  Fluhrer Bros.

                                                          158

                        Zoning: City of Astoria               Zoning: Clatsop County
                                Marine Industrial                      AF-20
                                Aquatic Development
                        Habitat                               Habitat
                        Lost: Brackish Intertidal             Gained:  Fresh Intertidal
                              Low and High Marsh                       High and Low Marsh

                        Relative                              Relative
                        Value: 3 and 5                        Value: 3 and/or 5
                        Area Lost: Undetermined               Area Available: 35 acres
                        Credits                               Credits
                        Lost: Undetermined                    Available: Min. 105 - Max. 175
                        Net                                   Conflicts: Agriculture
                        Credits: Undetermined

                        Need: Most suitable development sites in this area have already been
                        developed. Industrial sites include the former Bumble Bee Boatyard, the
                        abandoned PP&L plant, the Fluhrer Brothers shingle mill and a boat shop.
                        Some dredging has been considered to provide access from the PP&L site
                        to the Youngs Bay channel.

                             The proximity of the site to the Youngs Bay channel enhances its
                        potential as a moorage facility, i.e., fishing boats. Dredging may be
                        required to provide access to the old Bumble Bee Boatyard and the.Youngs
                        Bay channel.

                        Analysis of Compensation: The   amount and distribution of development and
                        subsequent.dredge and/or fill   activities, are undetermined. Therefore,
                        mitigation area requirements cannot be estimated. The Airport Mitiga-
                        tion Bank offers an additional mitigation option-for development in this
                        area.

                        9.6.12 Oregon and Washington State Highway Projects

                             All mitigation sites that are matched with highway projects are
                        considered Priority 2 Sites in the Mitigation and Restoration Plan.
                        Potential highway development projects were identified through a review
                        of Washington's Proposed Highway Construction Program (Washington State
                        Department of Transportation 1987) and Oregon's Six Year Highway Im-
                        provement Program (Oregon Department of Transportation 1986). Two sites
                        were identified, one in Oregon and one in Washington.

                             The Oregon project is to replace the John Day Bridge where US
                        Highway 30 crosses the John Day River. Mitigation will be out-of-kind/
                        off-site at Swash Lake.

                             In Washington, the project is to replace the Deep River bridge
                        where SR 4 crosses the Deep River. On-site mitigation has already been
                        implemented.

                             An effort has been made to distribute Priority 2 and 3 sites
                        throughout the estuary in order to maximize mitigation opportunities for
                        future road and bridge work.

                                                            159

                    9.7 MITIGATION AND RESTORATION SITE DESCRIPTIONS (PRIORITY 2 AND 3,
                         LEVEL 4 SITES)

                         The sites listed in this section are considered low priority
                    inventory sites. They are low priority because they are either not
                    matched with a development or they are in an ownership that cannot allow
                    designation at a higher level. In most cases, future demands for use of
                    these sites are likely to be low. Since anticipated demand for these
                    sites is considered low, no measures are recommended to protect the
                    sites for mitigation. This means there are no restrictions on property
                    owners with ownerships that are listed as Priority 2 or 3, Level 4
                    sites.

                         Site select ion was based primarily on: site character (sites with
                    no or little wetland vegetation or with no structural improvements were
                    given highest priority), estimated ease of mitigation action (sites that
                    required little or no new dike work were considered preferable) and
                    ownership. Public ownerships were considered higher priority than
                    privately owned sites. The rationale here is: 1. an anticipated higher
                    degree of receptivity to the concept of mitigation uses and 2. an
                    anticipated greater degree of protection for the mitigation site.

                         An attempt was made to develop a distribution of various sized
                    mitigation options throughout the Estuary with a rough correlation of
                    density and size of sites to anticipated demand in a given area.

                         These sites are also proposed as potential restoration alternatives
                    outside of the context of mitigation. That-is, they are relatively low
                    cost restoration options and they are generally not potentially compet-
                    ing with mitigation sites.

                    9.7.1 List of Priority 2 and 3, Level 4 Mitigation and Restoration
                    Sites and Relevant Data

                                         COLMMIA RIVER (Clatsop County)

                    Site #: 5 Astoria Bridge
                    Landowner: Oregon State Highway Commission
                    Subarea: 42.13
                    Legal Description: T8N, R9W, Section 7CA
                    Tax Lot: 300 & 1800
                    Acres: .44
                    County: Clatsop
                    State: Oregon
                    Zoning: Tourist Aquatic Development
                    Value/Acre: $2,960 & $30,450
                    Elevations: Variable
                    Status: Designated Priority 3, Level 4
                    Potential Conflicting Uses: Commercial/Recreation

                    Site #: 8 Aldrich Point
                    Landowner: Gary Miller

                                                     160

                    Subarea: 4.29
                    Legal Description: T9N, R7W, Section 27
                    Tax Lot: 101
                    Acres: 73
                    County: Clatsop
                    State: Oregon
                    Zoning: EFU
                    Value/Acre: $800 - $1,100
                    Elevations: Undetermined
                    Status: Inventory Priority 3, Level 4
                    Potential Conflicting Uses: Agriculture

                                          COLUMBIA RIVM (Pacific County)

                    Site    11 Jetty "A"
                    Landowner: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
                    Subarea: 4.47
                    Legal Description: T9N, R11W, Section 15 & 16, Columbia River Mile

                    Tax Lot:
                    Acres: 40
                    County: Pacific
                    State: Washington
                    Zoning:
                    Value/Acre: n/a
                    Elevations: Variable
                    Status: Designated Priority 3, Level 4
                    Potential Conflicting Uses: Dredged Material Disposal/Corps Projects

                                       COLUMBIA RIVER (Clatsop County)

                    Site    12 West Sand Island
                    Landowner: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
                    Subarea: 4.47
                    Legal Description: T9N, R11W, Sections 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 23 & 24
                    Tax Lot:
                    Acres: about 6
                    County:,Clatsop
                    State: Oregon
                    Zoning:
                    Value/Acre:
                    Elevations: Variable
                    Status: Designated Priority 3, Level 4
                    Potential Conflicting Uses: Corps Projects

                                    LEWIS AND CLARK RIVER (Clatsop County)

                    Site    18 Jeffers Slough
                    Landowner: Roger Olson and Arthur J. Filliger
                    Subarea: 4.18
                    Legal Description: T8N, RIOW, Section 36
                    Tax Lot: 1500, 200 & 100

                                                      161

                    Acres: 35
                    County: Clatsop
                    State: Oregon
                    Zoning: EYU
                    Value/Acre: $800 - $1,100
                    Elevations:  Undetermined
                    Status: Inventory Priority 3, Level 4
                    Potential Conflicting Uses: Agriculture

                    Site #: 19 Fort Clatsop
                    Landowner: National Park Service; James & Shirley Roberts
                    Subarea: 4.18
                    Legal Description: T8N, RIOW, Section 36
                    Tax Lot: 2001
                    Acres: 17
                    County: Clatsop
                    State: Oregon
                    Zoning: EFU
                    Value/Acre: $800     $1,100
                    Elevations: Undetermined
                    Status: Inventory Priority 3, Level 4
                    Potential Conflicting Uses: Agriculture

                    Site It: 20 Miller Tract
                    Landowner: Elmer Miller
                    Subarea: 4.18 ,
                    Legal Description: T8N, R10W, Section 35
                    Tax Lot: 1100
                    Acres: 37
                    County: Clatsop
                    State: Oregon
                    Zoning: EFU
                    Value/Acre: $800 - $1,100
                    Elevations:   Undetermined
                    Status: Inventory Priority 3, Level 4
                    Potential Conflicting Uses: Agriculture

                    Site    21 Cavenham Tract
                    Landowner: Cavenham, Forest Industries
                    Subarea: 4.18
                    Legal Description: T7N, RIOW, Section    1
                    Tax Lot: 1000
                    Acres: 29
                    County: Clatsop
                    State: Oregon
                    Zoning: EFU
                    Value/Acre: $800 - $1,100
                    Elevations:   Undetermined
                    Status: Inventory Priority 3, Level 4
                    Potential Conflicting Uses: Agriculture

                                                       162

                      Site #: 23 Schneider Tract
                      Landowner: Mamie Schneider
                      Subarea: 4.18
                      Legal Description: T7N, R9W, Section 18
                      Tax Lot: 100
                      Acres: 20
                      County: Clatsop
                      State: Oregon
                      Zoning: EFU
                      Value/Acre: $800 - $1,100
                      Elevations:   Undetermined
                      Status: Inventory Priority 3, Level 4
                      Potential Conflicting Uses: Agriculture

                                           YOUNGS RIVER (Clatsop County)

                      Site #: 24 Daggett Point
                      Landowner: David Hess
                      Subarea: 4.20
                      Legal Description: T8N, R9W, Section 20
                      Tax Lot:
                      Acres: 35
                      County: Clatsop
                      State: Oregon
                      Zoning:,EFU
                      Value/Acre: $800 -$1,100
                      Elevations: Undetermined
                      Status: Priority 3, Level 4
                      Potential Conflicting Uses: Agriculture

                      Site #: 25 Binder Slough
                      Landowner: Benjamin Riekkola
                      Subarea: 4.20
                      Legal Description: T7N, R9W, Section 4
                      Tax Lot: 500
                      Acres: 38
                      County: Clatsop
                      State: Oregon
                      Zoning: EFU
                      Value/Acre: $800     $1,100
                      Elevations: Undetermined
                      Status: Priority 3, Level 4
                      Potential Conflicting Uses: Agriculture

                      Site #: 26 Haven Island
                      Landowner: Cavenham Forest Industries
                      Subarea: 4.20
                      Legal Description: T7N, R 9 W, Section 4
                      Tax Lot: 1000
                      Acres: 63
                      County: Clatsop
                      State:. Oregon

                                                           163

                    Zoning: F-38, Forestry
                    Value/Acre: Assessed at $ 566.00
                    Elevations: + 5.8' - + 6.2' MLLW
                    Status: Priority 3, Level 4
                    Potential Conflicting Uses:  Existing Wetlands (Potential   Enhancement
                    Project)

                    Site #: 27 Bjork/Cathcart Tract
                    Landowner: Laila Bjork and Virgil Cathcart
                    Subarea: 4.20
                    Legal Description: T7N, R9W, Section 4
                    Tax Lot: 201
                    Acres: 57
                    County: Clatsop
                    State: Oregon
                    Zoning: EFU
                    Value/Acre: $ 800.00 - 1100.00
                    Elevations: Undetermined
                    -Status: Priority 3, Level 4
                    Potential Conflicting Uses: Agriculture

                    Site #: 28 Tolonen Tract
                    Landowner: Waino Tolonen
                    Subarea: 4.20
                    Legal Description: T7N, R9W, Section    15
                    Tax Lot: 700
                    Acres: 14
                    County: Clatsop
                    State: Oregon
                    Zoning: EFU
                    Value/Acre: $800 - $1,100
                    Elevations:  Undetermined.
                    Status: Inventory Priority 3, Level 4
                    Potential Conflicting Uses: Agriculture

                    Site #: 29 Warila Tract
                    Landowner: John Warila
                    Subarea: 4.20
                    Legal Description: T7N, R9W, Section 15
                    Tax Lot: 600
                    Acres: 11
                    County: Clat 'sop
                    State: Oregon
                    Zoning: AF-20 Forestry
                    Value/Acre: $800 - $1,100
                    Elevations: Undetermined
                    Status: Priority 3, Level 4
                    Potential Conflicting Uses:  Agriculture/Forestry

                    Site #: 30 Tri-River Tract
                    Landowner: Tri-River Investment Co.

                                                      164

                      Subarea: 4.20
                      Legal Description: T8N, R9W, Section 28
                      Tax Lot: 300
                      Acres: 55
                      County: Clatsop
                      State: Oregon
                      Zoning: EFU
                      Value/Acre: $800 - $1,100
                      Elevations: + 6' - + 6.7.' MLLW
                      Status: Inventory Priority 3, Level 4
                      Potential Conflicting Uses: Agriculture

                                        WALLUSKI RIVER (Clatsop County)

                      Site #: 32 Parhaniemi Tract 1
                      Landowner: John Parhaniemi
                      Subarea: 4.20
                      Legal Description: T8N, R9W, Sections 27 & 34
                      Tax Lot: 1000 & 300
                      Acres: 31
                      County: Clatsop
                      State: Oregon
                      Zoning: EFU
                      Value/Acre:
                      Elevations: + 3.6' to 8.1' MLLW
                      Status: Inventory Priority  3, Level 4
                      Potential Conflicting Uses: Agriculture

                      Site #: 33 Elliot Tract
                      Landowner: Frank Elliot
                      Subarea: 4.20
                      Legal Description: T8N, R9W, Section 34
                      Tax Lot: 200
                      Acres: 50
                      County: Clatsop
                      State: Oregon
                      Zoning: EFU
                      Value/Acre: $800 - $1,100
                      Elevations: + 3.8' - 4.9' MLLW
                      Status: Inventory Priority 3, Level 4
                      Potential Conflicting Uses: Agriculture

                      Site #: 34 Parhaniemi Tract 2
                      Landowner: Waino Parhaniemi
                      Subarea: 4.20
                      Legal Description: T8N, R9W, Section 34
                      Tax Lot: 500
                      Acres: 60
                      County: Clatsop

                                                      165

                    State: Oregon
                    Zoning: EFU
                    Value/Acre: $800 - $1,100
                    Elevations: 5.1' - 8.2' MLLW
                    Status: Inventory Priority 3, Level 4
                    Potential Conflicting Uses: Agriculture

                                        KLASKANINE RIVER (Clatsop County)

                    Site #: 35 Colvin Tract
                    Landowner: Alva Colvin
                    Subarea: 4.20
                    Legal Description: T7N, R9W, Section 14
                    Tax Lot: 401
                    Acres: 22
                    County: Clatsop
                    State: Oregon
                    Zoning: EFU
                    Value/Acre: $800 - $1,100
                    Elevations: Undetermined
                    Status: Inventory
                    Potential Conflicting Uses: Agriculture

                                                     166

                                                                                                      MI
                                                                                                         TIGATION SITES
                         N                                                                                     Priority I
                                    llwaco         I '@Faco. 130dit Bds.i A.
                                                                                                               Priority 2-

                                                                                                               Priority 3

                                                                                                    DEVELOPMENT SITES
                                                                     BAKER                                     Linked with
                                                                                                         EmPriority I Sites
                                                                                                               Linked with
                                                                                                               Priority 2 Sites

                             0.                                                    BAY

                                                       West
                                                     Sand Wand

                                                                                             Chinook     a
                                                                                                       Bo t, Bdskn,

                                                                                                                        Chinook

                                                                                   East Sand island

                              Scale 1: 50,000

                                                                                                                                Chino,o

                    Figure 19. Mitigation and development sites in the     Baker Bay area.

                                                                                                                                         MITIGATION SITES
                                                                                                                                            =Priority I
                                            TRESTLE                                                                      N                  rr-7-71
                                                                                                                                                     Priority 2
                                   1P
                                                                     t. Adams
                                                     BAY           /P
                                                                                                                                                 . J.
                                                                                                                                                     Priority 3
                                                                                                        Boat.  B (asin                 DEVELOPMENT SITES
                                                             A A
                                                                                                                                                     Linked with
                                                                             Hammond                                                                 Priority I Sites
                                                            Lake
                                                                                                                                            17,77,   Linked with
                                                                                                                                                     Priority 2 Sites
                                                                                                                        10

                                                                                                          K                                          General
                                                                                                                      nsy Pt.                        Developm*80
                                                                                                                >
                                                                                      Tansy     PoInt -"Ixx

                ON
                00
                                                                                                                           (PrioKiy:,.t.)
                                                                                                        J,
                                                                                                                        ALDER COVI

                                                                                                                                       x

                                                                                                                                                          YOUNG@
                                                                                              @West Ba       S ki p  n              @K
                                                                                        %
                                                                                                                                     X     E      Bank Skipanon

                                                                                                                                   /,xx

                                                                                                                                          x
                                                                                                                                        x
                                                                                                       Warrenton.
                                Scale 1: 50,000

                        L

                        Figure 20. Mitigation and development sites in                      the Warrenton/Hammond area.

                       MITIGATION SITES DEVELOPMENT SITES

                                                            Linked with
                                Priority I
                                                            Priority I Sites
                                Priority 2             ... Linked  with
                                                    LL@j    Priority 2 Sites                                                     N
                                                                                                                T   ePt.
                                Priority 3
                                                                                            0.
                                                            General  Develo rnefit-
                                                                           P
                                                                                       -,"Nort.h... Tono Poin

                                                                                                                       Mott
                                                                                                                       Island

                                                          is
                                         East  Astoria  Mo@rlno  13@d' i n,                       6

                                                W
                                            ri
                                      -5

              01,
                                                                                            South  To    e  Point
                                                                                                      n,
                                     ASTORIA'''
                                   t. @d Ast6--
                     Smith Pt.

                                                 South  Astoda

                                                      2W

                           BAY

                                                            t
                                                      .Da   P',

                                                                                   scale 1: 50,000                           0
                                                                                                                    36

                   Figure  21. Mitigation and development    sitcls in the Astoria area.

                                                      BAY

                                                                                                             Da
                                                                                                                                                                                     N

                                                                                                              24

                                  Port of Astoria
                                     Airport
                                      1.7-
                                 A
                                                                                                           )q
                                                                                                                                                               ......... .
                                                                                                  jj
                                                                                                                                 .. .........

                                                   7b
                                                                                                                                                                                   P.

                                                           18
                                                                                                                                                                        52
                                                                                                                                                                                                 33

                                                                                                                      2
                                                                                                                         5                                                                       34

                          20

                                                    21                                                                                                        27
                                                                                                                                                    -X

                                                                                                                                                X.

                                                                                                                                    J
                                                                                                                            )1P

                                                                                                                                                                                                     5-
                                                                                       3                       MITIGATION                     SITES
                                                                                                                                 Priority 1                               29

                              Scale 1: 50, 000                                                                                   Priority 2

                                                                                                                                 Priority 3

                       Figure 22. Mitigation sites in the                                         Lewis and Clark and Youngs River area.

                                                                                                                   170

                            mmmmm MIMI

                                                                                                                                                                                                   KO                                 wnsme d

                                                                                                                   PRAIRli
                                                                                                                                               . ............
                                                                                                                                                                  C

                                                                                                                            Karlson
                                                                                                                                                                                        Blind                     OUR

                                                                                                                                                                                         7
                                                                                                                                                                                              c)

                                             'Russian "llarld
                                                                                   Ile
                                                                                        @, P-

                                                                                                                                                                                        MITIGATION SITES

                                            C1                                                                                                                                                           Priority I
                                                 x   x
                                         x"'.
                                              @Itnsan PSI  d
                                      x X-      I                                                       Scale 1: 50                                                                                      Priority 2
                                                                                                                            )000
                                              x
                                                                                                                                                                                                         Priority 3

                           Figure 23. Mitigation sites in the                                      Svensen Island and Brownsmead area.

                                                              990DOO N

                                          N

                                              D
                                           z
                                           D I U0
                                           0
                                           U.7

                                             Pt
                                             f

                                                        --G-PAYS

                                                            BAY

                                             Rocky Pt.

                                          A

                                                                                                                Pigeon Bluff
                                      MITIGATION SITES

                                                     Priority I
                                                                                                            Harrington Pt.,                 Altoona
                                                     Priority 2                                                                                k

                                                     Priority         3

                                                                              Rice Island'

                                                                                                                                            Miller    Sand

                                             Scale     1: 50,000

                                 Figure      24. Mitigation sites in the Grays Bay area.

                                                                                                     172

                                                                 MITIGATION SITES

                                                                          Priority I
                                                         N

                                                                          Priority 2
                   14 (P i   2                                            Priority 3
                              kamokawa   Vista Park-,           DEVELOPMENT SITES
                             'Skamokowa
                                                                          Linked with
                                         Brooks                           Priority I Sites
                                                                   r ....TLinked with
                                                             4 ;
                                                                          Priority 2 Sites
                      N

                                     35'

                                              A
                                                                            15
                                               NA

                                                                              jjocho@0"
                                                                 0

                                                                 0
                        e1n a11. hnd

                                                                                         Ri-

                   b+
                                                                            0

                     Cliffo.

                                                                                    Cathfamet
                                                        h       obring.,.Ba'si-A.

                                       Brad.ood
                    Scale 1: 50, 000                      J1,

                  Figure 25. Mitigation and development sites in the Skamokawa area.

                                                       173

                                               ahe          Islat.nd
                                                                                                                                                                MITIGATION SITES
                                                                                                                                                                      =Priority I
                                                           N                                                                                                                           Priority 2

                                                                                                                                                                                       Priority 3

                                                                                                                                                             DEVELOPMENT SITES

                                                                                                                                                                                       Linked with
                                                                                                                                                                                       Priority I Sites
                                                                                         <
                                                                                                                                                                                       Linked with
                                                                                                                                                                                       Priority         2 Sites
                                                                                           riq.

                                                                                               Brq,,
                                                                             11119d

                                                                                                                          ---- --------- -

                                                                                                                                                           i Pugee-

                                                                                                                                                                                         ---- - - ----
                                                                                                                                                                                       Is and

                                                                                                                                          0

                                                                                                                                                                                                         77- ---
                                                                                                                                                                               Lower-                     t

                                                               Scale 1: 50, 000
                                                                                                                             '424i                     I
                                                                                                                                                      4

                                             Figure 26. mitigation                                 and development sites in the Bradwood                                                          and Wauna

                                                                        Mill area.

                                                                                                                                       174

                                                     REFERENCES CITED

                      Adamus, P.; Stockwell, L. 1983. A'method for wetland functional
                            assessment: Volume 1, Critical review and evaluation concepts. US
                            Dept. of Transportation, Federal Hwy. Administration. pp. 176.

                      Adamus, P. 1983. A method for wetland functional assessment: Volume
                            II, FHWA assessment method. US Dept. of Transportation, Federal
                            Hwy. Administration. pp. 139.

                      Barnes, M. 1987. Tansy Point Staff Report. Astoria, OR: Columbia
                            River Estuary Study Taskforce.

                      Bierly, K. 1987. Oregon Division of State Lands. Personal communica-
                            tion.

                      Blomberg, G. 1987. Development and mitigation in the Pacific North-
                            west. The Northwest Environmental Journal, Volume 3, No. 1. pp.
                            63-92.

                      Columbia River Estuary Study Taskforce. 1981. Final CREST Mediation
                            panel agreements. Astoria, Oregon.

                      Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F.    Golet, and E. La Roe. 1979.
                            Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United
                            States, Biological Services Program, U.S. Fishand Wildlife
                            Service, Washington D.C. 103 p.

                      Eiler, K. 1987. Letter addressed to Clatsop County Planning Director,
                            Astoria, Oregon.

                      Fishman, P. et al. 1987. Estuarine mitigation evaluation project: A
                            report by Fishman Environmental Services for the Department of Land
                            Conservation and Development and Division of State Lands, Salem,
                            Oregon.

                      Fox,  D.; Bell, S.; Nehlsen, W.;.Damron, J. 1984. The Columbia River
                            Estuary: Atlas of physical and biological characteristics. As-
                            toria, Oregon: CREDDP.

                      Fox,  D., M. Barnes and H. West. In press. Revised Columbia River
                            estuary Regional Management Plan. Astoria, Oregon: Columbia River
                            Estuary Study Taskforce.

                      Frenkel, R. 1987. Oregon State University, Dept. of Geography.
                            Personal Communication.

                      Gamble,, D. 1987. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Advanced Planning,
                            Personal communication, Portland, Oregon.

                                                           175

                    Garbisch, E.W. 1986. Highways and wetlands: Compensating wetland
                          losses. McLean, Virginia: Office of Implementation, Federal
                          Highway Administration. pp. 60.

                    Gonor, J.J. 1979. The scientific and technical basis for    mitigation
                          provisions in statewide estuarine resources (Goal 16). Report to
                          LCDC, Salem, Oregon.

                    Good, J.W. 1987. Mitigating   estuarine development impacts in the
                         .Pacific Northwest: From concept to practice. The Northwest Envir-
                          onmental Journal, Volume 3, No. 1. pp. 93-109

                    Ingles, K. 1987. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Personal
                          Communication.

                    Jackson, P.; Hamilton, J.; Smith, P.; Spear, T. 1986. Premitigation
                          site analysis of vegetation and microfluvial features at the
                          Astoria airport mitigation bank, Clatsop County, Oregon. Corval-
                          lis, Oregon: Dept. of Geography, Oregon State University. pp. 53.

                    Jacobe, A. 1987. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Real Estate Division.
                          Personal communication.

                    Jefferson, C.A. 1974. Plant communities and succession in Oregon
                          coastal salt marshes. Corvallis, Oregon: Oregon State University.
                          P.h.D. disserEation.
                    Josselyn*, M.N.', J. Buchholz, and P. Romberg 1984. Marsh guide
                          restoration in San Francisco Bay, Technical Report No. 3. Tiburon
                          Center for Environmental Studies, San Francisco State University.

                    Kentula, E. 1986. Wetland rehabilitation and creation in the Pacific
                          Northwest. Corvallis, Oregon: Northrup Services, Inc., Environmen-
                          tal Research Laboratory. pp. 21.

                    Karnosh, K. 1987. Oregon State Department of Transportation, Highway
                          Division. Personal communication, Salem, Oregon.

                    Larson, J.S. 1976. Models for assessment of freshwater wetlands.
                          Publication No. 32. Massachusetts: Water Resource Research Center,
                          University of Massachusetts. pp. 89.

                    McC'olgin, I. ed. 1979. A Columbia River Estuary regional management
                          plan. Astoria: CREST.

                    Mitchell, D.L. 1981. Salt marsh reestablishment following dike breach-
                          ing in the Salmon River Estuary, Oregon. Corvallis, Oregon: Oregon
                          State University. pp. 171. P.h.D. dissertation, in: Kentula, E.
                          1986. Wetland rehabilitation and creation in the Pacific Northwe-
                          st. Corvallis, Oregon: Northrup Services, Inc., Environmental
                          Research Laboratory.

                    Office of Technology Assessment. 1984. Wetlands: Their use and
                          regulation. Washington D.C.: U.S. Congress, OTA-0-206. pp.
                          141-183.

                                                      176

                     Odgen, Beeman and Associates, Inc.; Benkendorf Associates; Enviro
                          Science Inc. 1986. Lower Columbia River assessment of Oregon deep
                          draft sites. Portland, Oregon. Department of Economic Develop-
                          ment, Ports Division.

                     Oregon Dept. of Land Conservation and Development. 1985. Statewide
                          planning goals and guidelines. Salem, Oregon.

                     Oregon Department of Transportation, Highway Division. 1987. Prelimin-
                          ary six year highway improvement program. Salem, Oregon.

                     Oregon Division of State Lands. 1984a. ORS 541.626 and associated
                          Administrative Rule OAR 141-85-240 to 141-85-266. Estuarine
                          mitigation: The Oregon process. Salem, Oregon.

                     Oregon Division of State Lands. 1984b. Appraisal report: Svensen
                          Island, Astoria, Oregon. Seaside, Oregon: Weed and Associates.

                     Oregon Division of State Lands. 1985. Appraisal report: Clatsop County.
                          airport property, Astoria, Oregon. Seaside, Oregon: Weed and
                          Associates.

                     Oregon Division of State Lands. 1986. Astoria Airport Mitigation Bank
                          resource credit evaluation. Salem, Oregon.

                     Oregon Divison of State Lands. 1987. Memorandum of agreement concern-
                          ing Astoria Airport Mitigation Bank. Salem, Oregon.

                     Oregon State University Extention. 1982. Obtaining permits for waterway
                          development, SG 72.

                     Port of Astoria Commissioners. 1986. Port of Astoria marine terminals
                          development plan (1985-2020). Astoria, Oregon: Port of Astoria.

                     Seaman, M.H. ed. 1979. Columbia River Estuary Inventory of physical,
                          biological, and cultural characteristics. CREST: Astoria.

                     Shipley. 1974. The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act's application to
                          wetlands. In E. Zajonc, Section 404 assumption: The Oregon
                          experience, in: Reitz, Environmental planning: Law of land and
                          natural resources.

                     Sill, D. 1987. Libby Levee marsh restoration project, Siskyou Journal,
                          No. 29.

                     Smith, S. ed. 1993. A mitigation plan for the Columbia River Estuary.
                          Astoria: CREST.

                     Thomas, D.W. 1983. Changes in Columbia River Estuary habitat types
                          over the past century. Astoria, Oregon: Columbia River Estuary
                          Study Taskforce.

                                                      177

                      U.S.  Army Corps of Engineers. 1985. Implementation of fish and wild-
                            life mitigation in the Corps of Engineers regulatory program,
                            Regulatory guidance letter. Portland, Oregon: U.S. Army Corps of
                            Engineers, Portland District.

                      U.S.  Army Corps of Engineers. 1986. Regulatory programs of the Corps
                            of Engineers; Final rule. Federal Register, Volume 51, No. 219,
                            Rules and regulations. Washington D.C.: U.S. Army Corps of Engi-
                            neers.

                      U.S.  Army Corps of Engineers. 1987. Libby dike draft definite project
                            report and environmental assessment: Flood damage reduction study,
                            Englewood Diking District, Coalbank Slough, Coos County, Oregon,
                            Portland District.

                      U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency. 1985. U.S. Environmental Protec-
                            tion Agency - Region 10, 404 mitigation policy, Seattle District
                            Office, Seattle, Washington.

                      U.S.  Fish and Wildlife Service. 1979. Concept plan for wintering
                            waterfowl habitat preservation: Washington and Oregon coasts,
                            Region 1, Portland, Oregon.

                      U.S.  Fish and Wildlife Service. 1980. ESM 102 Ecological services
                            manual: Habitat evaluation procedures (HEP). Washington D.C.:U.S.
                            fish and Wildfife Service.

                      U.S.  Fish and Wildlife Service.    1981. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
                            mitigation policy. Federal Register, Volume 46, No. 15. Washing-
                            ton D.C.: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

                      U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service. 1976. A marine fisheries
                            program for the nation. Washington D.C.: Department of Commerce.

                      Washington State Department of Wildlife. 1986. Memorandum: Draft
                            mitigation policies, habitat evaluation study guidelines,
                            mitigation banking guidelines. Olympia, Washington.

                      Washington State Department of Ecology. 1976. Washington state coastal
                            zone management program. Olympia, Washington. pp. 153.

                      Washington State Department of Fisheries. 1981. Hydraulic Code Rules,
                            Chapter 220-110, Washington Administrative Code. Olympia,
                            Washington.

                      Washington State Department of Ecology. 1984. State Environmental
                            Policy Act rules, Chapter 197-11, Washington Administrative Code.
                            Olympia, Washington.

                      Washington State Department of Ecology. 1986. Shoreline Management Act
                            rules. Chapter 173-14, Washington Administered Code. Olympia,
                            Washington.

                                                            178

                   Washington State Department of Transportation. 1987. Proposed highway
                        construction program. Olympia, Washington: Washington State
                        Department of Transportation.

                   Zedler, J.B. and M.E. Kentula. 1985. Wetlands research plan.
                        Environmental Research Laboratory, Office of Research and
                        Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Corvallis,
                        Oregon.

                                                     179

     I
     I
     I
     I
     I
     I                                           APPENDIX I
     I                       PERMIT GUIDELINES FOR ADDRESSING MITIGATION CONCERNS
     I , @
     I
     I
     I
     I
     I
     I
     I
     I
     I
     I
     I

                         This Section provides planners and permit applicant writers, with a
                    check list of issues that may be considered (depending on the scope of
                    the project) with respect to mitigation requirements. An initial
                    application that thoroughly addresses local, state, and federal concerns
                    is less likely to be delayed and more likely to be approved. Many items
                    on the list may not be relevant to a particular project.

                    Mitigation Goals

                         The overall goals of aquatic area and wetland mitigation are to:

                         1.   Provide a system that allows no net loss of existing wetland
                              value.

                         2.   Helps to restore traditionally severely diminished habitat
                              types in the Columbia River Estuary.

                         3.   Address the full array of wetland values when designing
                              replacement strategies (e.g., food chain support, flood
                              mitigation, etc.).

                    Mitigation.Objectives

                         Mitigation objectives will address three primary concerns:

                    1.   Proje ct Impact Mitigation Conditions:

                         a.   Turbidity - Percent increase above background allowed as
                              measured 100 feet below project.

                         b.   In-Water Work Period - Time frame within which project cannot
                              be implemented.

                         C.   Containment Structures - Materials and engineering specifica-
                              tions.

                         d.   Source, transportation, and deposition of all bulk materials
                              (e.g., sand, rock, etc.,).

                         e.   Restoration of any on site vegetation damaged or destroyed
                              during the development.

                    2.   Permit Procedural Conditions:

                         a.   Permit application must include maps and drawings displaying
                              construction and mitigation site location and engineering
                              specifications.

                         b.   All mitigation actions shall be completed before final comple-
                              tion of construction activities.

                         C.   The permittee shall notify the permit authority (e.g., local
                              jurisdictions, Division of State Lands in Oregon, Department
                              of Ecology in Washington, and Corps of Engineers for both

                                                       1-1

                     States) at. least ten working days prior to initiation of
                     construction activities and at least five working days before
                     completion of each mitigation action.

                          d.    A construction monitoring program will be designed to meet
                                local, state and federal policies. The program is negotiable
                                on a project by project basis.

                     3.   Compensatory Mitigation Conditions:

                          a.    Specifications of mitigation action starting date and comple-
                                tion date.

                          b.    Site design specifications.

                          C.    For Oregon, ORS 541.626 Administrative Rule habitat value
                                replacement formula and any other numeric or qualitative
                                decision criteria may be used (e.g., HEP and Adamas) to help
                                discern mitigation requirements.
                                For Washington, any' habitat or estuarine wetland and aquatic
                                resource decision making tool may be used (e.g., HEP and
                                Adamus) to help discern mitigation requirements.

                          d.    Adequate notification of mitigation site completion will be
                                required- to allow agencies adequate time to schedule site
                                ins pection.

                          e.    An adequate monitoring and contingency program shall be
                                designated to address any potential remedial action require-
                                ments. The monitoring program shall include compliance
                                monitoring (e.g., annual revegetation report, pre- and post-
                                construction survey documenting area of impact and area of
                                mitigation, and photo documentation of construction and
                                compensatory mitigation sites. The contingency plan shall
                                include: identification of the total area potentially impact-
                                ed, development of a worst case scenario and subsequent
                                contingency requirements, and identification of criteria to
                                judge appropriate remedial action.

                                                         1-2

                                                   APPENDIX 2

                          LETTER FROM CLATSOP COUNTY LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING POTENTIAL
                                       REGULATORY TAKING LIABILITY ISSUES

                         ACLATSOP COUNTY
                     A      41                                   Courthouse . . . . Astoria, Oregon 97103

                                                                   September 25, 1987

                   Mr. Curtis J. Schneider, Director
                   Clatsop County Planning and Development
                   P.O. Box 179
                   Astoria, Oregon 97103

                   Re: CREST Proposed 1987 Mitigation and Restoration Plan

                   Dear Curt:

                        John Marshall of CREST has asked me to review their proposed 1987 Mitigation
                   and Restoration Plan in light of the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in the case
                   entitled 'First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale @vs. County of Los
                   Angeles, Cal.,    96 LEd 2d 250. The- relevant portions of that decision may be
                   summarized as follows:

                        1. Where   a municipal regulation takes all use of a property, the property owner
                   is entitled to  just compensation under the just compensation clause of the Fifth
                   Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

                        2. Temporary takings which deny a property owner all use of the property are
                   entitled to just compensation during the period of temporar7v taking.

                        The 1987 Miti-ation and Restoration Plan provides four levels of            restrictions
                   to certain cateaories of land. Level I provides that "no incompatible          uses can be
                   made . . . " Level 2 provides that structural or capital improvements or topographical
                   changes, normally denied by Level 1, can be allowed as conditional uses. The
                   conditions are that no development violate existing zoning regulations and that the
                                                                          0       Zn   C.
                   development not endanger the existing dike area. Level 3 provides a 30 day freeze
                   on all permits until specific conditions can be developed. Level 4 provides no
                   restrictions above current zoning-

                        A review of these levels suggests that Level I could deny "all use of property"
                   if "no incompatible uses" in reality means no uses. Level 3 clearly provides no use
                   for a period of 30 days although it appears that after this 30 day period some use
                        be allowed. For the sake      of review I will assume that Lev      el I provides that
                   no use can be made of the Property and that Level 3 provides that no use can be
                   inade for 30 days.
                               CL

                                                                2-1

                  Letter to Mr. Curtis J. Schneider
                  September 25, 1987
                  Page Two

                      As to Level 1, this restriction would appear to fall within the concerns expressed
                  by the Supreme Court and so require just compensation. I understand that all land
                  with Level I restrictions are public except for one and that property owner does
                  not object to the restrictions. Although the public and private landowners are in
                  support of these regulations it is always possible that their attitudes could later
                  change subjecting the County to liability. I would recommend that releases be
                  obtained from all property owners with Level I restrictions waiving their rights to
                  seek just compensation for any "taking" caused by imposition of Level I restrictions.

                      As to the Level 3 restriction of no permits for 30 days, that appears to parallel
                  the facts of the Supreme Court case. In that situation a flood destroyed the Lutheran
                  Church and all accessory buildings. Before the Church could rebuild the County
                  passed an interim ordinance barring construction or reconstruction of buildings in
                  the flood area. The Court ruled that a temporary taking also required compensation.
                  Consequently the County could be liable for compensation for 30 days. I have no
                  information to advise me what that figure might be although I would suspect that
                  it would be negligible.
                                  0

                      In conclusion, if Level 1 represents a regulation that denies all use of one's
                  property, then I believe such a- regulation constitutes a taking for which the County
                  would @e liable to pay just compensation. Level 3, at its worst, constitutes a 30
                  day taking within negligible liability for damages.

                      If I can provide any further information, please give me a call.

                                                              Very truly yours,

                                                              Kenneth S. Eiler
                                                              Clatsop County Counsel
                                                              P. 0. Box 179
                                                              Astoria, Oregon 97103
                                                              (503) 325-8615

                  KSE:dr
                  cc: John Marshall

                                                            2-2

     I
     I
     I
     I
     I
     I                                             APPENDIX 3
     I
                         MEMORANDUM REGARDING EXPERIENCE IN SALMON RIVER DIKE BREACHING
     I
     I
     I                                                                     I
     I
     I
     I
     I
     I
     I
     I
     I
     I                                        I.

                                                                                 DIVISION OF
                                                                                 STATE LANDS
                                    OREGON                                       OCT 1   9 10 AH '87
                                     STATE
                       Department of UNIVERSITY    Corvallis, Oregon 97331-5505 (503) 754-3141
                         Geography

                                                                          September 24, 1987

                TO:          Kenneth Bierly
                             Division of State Lands

                FROM:        Bob Frenkel

                RE:          Experience    in Salmon Riv  er Dike Breaching

                It occurrcd to me that there is need to document on-site
                experience of operators in restoration projects-              If this is not
                presently being done it can be instituted by requiring a simple
                after-project report prepared by the DSL or ACE staf f who have
                supervised the project.         In response to this need, I have
                compiled the following material and asked Jerry Sherrid, the
                Forest Service person who supervised the project, to review the
                information for accuracy and completeness.

                                                    Project

                According to      Permit 3924, the Project involved breaching about
                8,600 linear feet of dike by removing approxi-m-a-t-ely 31,000 cubic
                yards of dike material (originally locally dredged and excavated)
                and f illing adjacent ditches in the Salmon River Estuary.                About
                3,000 cubic yards of material was hauled within the project area.
                Project and purpose is described in Exhibit "B" of Permit _3924.
                Two sites are involved: YWCA Dike (south of river) and Basin
                Lands Dike (north of river).

                Both dikes were built in the early 1960's. The Basin Lands Dike
                was partially breached in 1978 to reestabl ish salt marsh.               The
                YWCA Dike has remained intact since construction but recently the
                tide gate has been inoperative.

                    Cost-.   Total cost, including add-ons, was $20,400.

                    Contractor. P.& H. Construction, Lincoln City, OR

                    .Equipment Deployment.      For the YWCA dike      I ) one , D-6
                    bulldozer for I I days to level dike; (2) three, ten-yard dump
                    truckS for 3 days to transport removed material for deposition
                    in ditches elsewhere an site; (3) one John Deere 790 excavator
                    for 13   days  to level dike and reexcavate tidal channels.

                    For the Basin Lands Dike:  (1) one John Deere 790 Deere 790 excavator for
                    four days to level dike and reexcavate tidal channels.

                                                      3-1

                Salmon River Breach Report.
                September 24, 1987
                Page 2

                                               Experience

                YWCA DIke   Equipment access was along flattened dikes (available
                at all times) and, before it became too soft, across pasture
                (east of Rowdy Creek) for dump trucks and bulldozer (both mired
                at various times).     A 48 inch culvert was placed temporarily
                across Rowdy Creek to permit creek flow and equipment access.
                There. were six tasks for breaching this dike.

                l.  The westernmost (east-west trending) dike was levelled by
                    excavator, dike material pushed  into ditches.   There was
                    sufficient dike material to fill ditches.     Three tidal
                    channels formerly crossing dike    were reconnected.

                    Western segment of outerdike (lining Salmon River) levelled,
                    material deposited in ditches on both sides of dike.         There
                    was sufficient dike material to     fill ditches.

                3.  The old "connection" of Rowdy Creek with river was excavated
                    to 3 feet below tide gate (below MLLW).       Tide gate culvert
                    pulled.   Width--of connection (Rowdy Creek mouth) is about 40
                    f e e tDike  material was also removed from this section to
                    lower the remaining creek "connection" to below MHW.  Excess
                    material trucked to north-south ditch.

                4.  Eastern segment of outer dike levelled and material disposed
                    of as in 2 (above).  Mouth of short creek reconnected to
                    river.

                5.  Long north-south dike levelled, material being pushed into
                    ditches on both sides of dike.      The east ditch served to
                    connect Rowdy Creek to the river and, over 25 years, had been
                    deepened through natural erosion processes by a combination of
                    Rowdy Creek and tidal flow.  Filling this ditch, required more
                    fill material than. available from the adjacent north-south
                    dike arid other dike material transported from the section
                    described in section (3) above.      Consequently, the final level
                    of filled ditch is 6 to 12 inches below marsh level.       It is
                    possible that this filled ditch might      be partially eroded in
                    the future.    In the second day of the project the tide washed
                    out a temporary plug at the south end of this ditch.

                                                  3-2

                Salmon River Breach Report
                September 24, 1987
                Page 3

                6. Temporary culvert across Rowdy Creek pulled and former creek
                   channel excavated to normal creek depth.    This was the last
                   task and was accomplished at high tide. Under high tide,
                   tidal water had backed up from the mouth of the now
                   reconnected Rowdy Creek such that, with the pulling of the
                   culvert, flood tide water rushed upstream.

                The relative elevational level of the pasture which had been
                enclosed by the dike was about 10 to 15 inches below the undiked
                marsh to east. This elevational loss is possibly due to
                oxidation of organic peat together with and build-up of marsh.

                Basin Lands Dike.   This diked area had already been returned to
                estuarine connection in 1978 and had been studied in detail by
                Dr. Diane Mitchell. However, in 1978, dikes were not completely
                removed and connection of tidal creeks was poor.

                The excavator accessed the  wetland from the public information
                sign (about diking) along Three Rox Road. Access to diked area
                across marsh was between transects 5104 and 5105. Main creek
                connection to west (area 51) was reexcavated about 2 feet below
                present level.' Similar excavation was done on all other creek
                connections.  Main dike along Salmon River (area 51) removed in
                two steps: (a) firstlevelled to within-2 feet of grade; (b)
                second, levelled to grade.   The removed material was mostly
                placed in ditch on Salmon River side. Level of grade could be
                determined by operator from the presence of bases of former grass
                lussocks now 25 years after dike emplacement.

                -Excavator travelled east, along outer dike area (slightly higher
                and firmer), to dike between area 50 and 51.    This dike was
                levelled by depositing material. in ditch, mostly on east side.
                Creek connections across dike made in five places. Return of
                excavator was by  route across northern margin of wetland.

                Map enclosed

                                               3-3

                                                             scale                     Legend
                                                                      1.0 km           Mudf lat (1 8HA)
                                                      0.0     0.
                                                                                       Salt Marsh (83HA)
                Pacific ocean              0>        Area56      Area 53
                                     Sand                                              Diked Pasture (93HA)
                                                                     Area 52            Diked Managed Pastu
                                                                                                 e Flood Plain
                                                                                        Estuarin
                                              Area 55                     Area 51
                                                                                 Area 50

                                                                                     Fill                    A

                                                               Area 54

                                                                       OL.

                                                                            17

                      Figure 5. Salmon River wetland types, and study locations.

                                                   APPENDIX 4

                                            PLAN REVISION PARTICIPATION

                                           MITIGATION PLAN REVIEWERS

                                                                  General Mitigation
                   Advisory Committee                               Plan Reviewers

         Steve Felkins             Sheryl Carrubba                Ken Bierly
         Port of Astoria           Corps of Engineers             Oregon Division of
                                   Natural Resources Br.          State Lands

         Frank Heer                Nancy Ellifrit                 Don Mathison
         Port of Ilwaco            US Fish & Wildlife Service     Cowlitz-Wahkiakum
                                                                  Governmental Conference

         Kent & Irene Martin       Karen Ingles                   Jim Hidy
         Interested Citizens       US Fish & Wildlife Service     US Fish and Wildlife
                                                                  Service

         Hal Beecher               Ed Murrell                     Gail McEwen
         Washington Deptartment    National Marine Fisheries      Department of Land Conser-
         of Widllife                                              vation and Development

         Stephanie Hampton         Patty Snow                     Jack Zimmerman
         Town of Hammond           Department of Land Conser-     Hammond Boat Basin
                                   vation & Development

         Don Leach                 John Carlton                   Al Cook
         Soil & Conservation       Department of Game             Oregon State Parks
         Service

         Kent & Irene Martin       Nora Jewett/Bill Alkive
         Interested Citizens       Department of Ecology

         Brian Gregor              Ken Franklin
         State Highway Dept.       Division of State Lands

         Curt Schneider            Bob McConnell
         Clatsop County Planning   National Marine Fisheries

         Paul Benoit               Mary Lou Mills
         City of Astoria           WA Department of Fisheries

         Robert Torppa             Brent Forsberg
         Wahkiakum County          Department of Fish & Wildlife

         Chuck Haglund             Jim.Rankin
         Interested Citizen        City of Warrenton
         and Landowner

         Ralph Rogers              Everett Groves
         Environmental Protec-     Wahkiakum Port District #2
         tion Agency

                                                    4-1

                                         MITIGATION PLAN REVIEWERS

                                                    cont.

                    Advisory Committee

          Jim Good                 Bob Petersen
          School of Oceanography   Port of Ilwaco
          Oregon State University

          Gerald Newgard
          Corps of Engineers
          Portland District

          Mitigation Advisory Committee Meeting Attendants

          Meeting 1:

          Roger Powers - OR Department of Transportation; Environmental Section
          Phil Quarterman - OR Department of Transportation; Environmental Section
          Patty Snow - Department of Land Conservation and Development
          Ralph Rogers - Environmental Protection Agency
          Jack Zimmerman   Town of Hammond
          Charles Haglund   Svensen Island Diking Improvement Company
          Gerry Black - US Army Corps of Engineers
          Nancy Ellifrit   US Fish and lWildli-fe Service
          Sheryl Carrubba   US Army-Corps of Engineers
          Jim Good - Oregon State University
          Ken Franklin - OR Division of State Lands

          Meeting 2:

          Frank Heer - Port of Ilwaco
          Jim Good - Oregon State University Oceanography
          Karen Ingels - US Fish and Wildlife Service
          Ralph Rogers - Environmental Protection Agency
          Gerry Black - US Army Corps of Engineers
          Patty Snow - Department of Land Conservation and Development
          Ken Franklin   OR Division of State Lands
          Marie Haglund   Svensen Island Diking Improvement Company
          Chuck Haglund   Svensen Island Diking Improvement-Company
          Don Leach - Soil Conservation Service
          Gilbert Kamara - Interested Citizen
          Annette Kamara - Interested Citizen
          Nora Jewett - WA Department of Ecology
          Carol Whitaker - James River Corporation, Wauna Mill
          Gerry Duvall - Cavenham Forest Industries
          Richard Lee - Interested Citizen
          David Miller - National Marine Fisheries
          Jim Rankin - City of Warrenton
          Byron Blankenship - US Army Corps of Engineers
          Ben Riekkola - Interested Citizen
          Phil Quarterman - State Highway Division, Environmental Section
          Daniel Hess - Interested Citizen
          John Warila - Interested Citizen

                                                      4-2

                                                                                                             I
                                                                                                             I
                                                                                                             I
                                                                                                             I
                                                                                                             I
                                                                                                             I
                                                                                                             I
                                                                                                             I
                                                                                                             I
                                                                                                             I
                                                                                                             I
                                                                                                             I
                                                                                                             I
                                                                                                             I
                                                                                                             I
                                                                                                             I
                                                                                                             I
                                               IN  668 0001 10411111                                         1
                                                36      0
                                                                                                             1