[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
PROPOSED" T -TO LCDC GO -#:16 ION AL RESOURCES) (ESTUARINE 11 V1d AND T TO THE C00S BA, ESTUARY PLA UNTY ,.AN ELEMENT oOF THE COOS CO COMPREHENSIVE -PLAN FOR THE BOAT BASIN EXPANSIO]NT JNTO THE AREA KNOWN AS "'COAS.TAL ACRES OOS CURRY COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS �rwz'11_0@ 4, XCEP SD EN ST QO@SfB@ @E IN BEHALF OF COOS COUNTY AT THE REQUEST OF, THE PORT OF COOS BAY MAY 1979 0 0 16 the Matter of an Ordinance Amending the Ordinance of May 16, 1979 Entitled "Coos Bay Estuary Plan: An Element of the Coos County Comprehensive Plan" ERRATA AND MINOR CHANGES Section Color Part No. Page No. Section Title Line No. Purple Acknowledgements 17 "Brodt" to Broodt* Purple Exec. Summary-Purpose 24 11property" to properly Blue 1 1-3 Summary-Conclusions 8 "More than 16 alternative sites..." Blue 1 1-3 Summary-Conclusions 17 "developed" to develop Blue 1 1-3 Summary-Conclusions 22 "Public use of*and access to the area..." (This error appears frequently) Blue 1 1-3 Summary-Conclusions 24 "expidite" to expedite Blue 1 1-4 Surmary-Conclusions 3 "concern that-long term-moorage needs be met." Goldenrod 111 111-15 Exception-Consistency 25 firestuarine" to estuarine Goldenrod 111 111-16 Exception-Consistency 10 11recuction" -.-o reduction Goldenrod 111 111-19,20,21 Exception@County All Cons,istency DELETE section on consistency with Coos County Plan Policies. Goldenrod III IIJ-43 Exception-Alternatives 3 Feas'ibility "Also, the largest size craft that can be stored in exi sting dry-l'an'd facilities is 30 feet." Goldenrod 111 111-54 Table-Env't'l. Assessment "cookle" to cockle 11macome" to Ma-coma Goldenrod 111 111-72 Exception-Long Term 32 "Cherleston" to Charleston Consequences Green V V-6 Environmental Assessment 14-15 "the calms which are being displaced during construction may grow back." Green V V-11 Environmental Assessment 17 "Pepartment of Environmental Qaulity" *Underlined portions reflect changes THE BOAT BASIN EXCEPTION TASK FORCE RECOMMENDS TO ALL REVIEWING BODIES THAT THE EXCEPTION DOCUMENT, PROJECT DESIGN, MITIGATION REOUIREMENTS, PER- MITS AND ANY OTHER RELATED PROCESSES BE EXPEDITED TO FACILITATE IMMEDIATE MOORAGE DEMANDS. lor Proposed Amendment to the Coos Bay Estuary Plan, an.Element of the'Coos County Comprehensive Plan and Exception to the Land Conservation and Development Goal #16 (Estuarine Resources) requiring "Coastal Acres" to be Designated as an Estuarine Conservation Management Unit or The Exception to Land Conservation and Development Goal Requirements for the Expansion of the Charleston Small Boat Basin Coos-Curry Council of Governments July, 1979 A revision of th-e Play, lq79,DocumPn.t The preparation of this document was financed in part through a PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT GRANT, under the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, administered by the Office of Coastal Zone Management of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. This document was also financed in part through a con- tract with the Coos-Curry Manpower Consortium under the provisions of the Comprehensive Employment and Train- i.ng Act of 1978. BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA 1. Report No. 2. 3. Recipient's Accession No. SHEET L-BBE N/A 4. Title and Subtitle Exceptions to LCDC Goal #16(Estuarine Resources) & 5. Report Date Amendment to the Coos Bay Estuary Plan, and Element of the Coos May 1979 County Comprehensive Plan for the Charleston Boat Basin Expansion 6. into the area known as "Coastal Acres." 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Repe. Coos-Curry Council of Governments No. 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Project/Task/Work Unit No. Coos-LCurry Council of Governments L-BBE P.O. Box 647 11. Contract/Grant No. North Bend, Oregon 97459 12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address 13. Type of Report & Period Department of Land Conservation and Development Covered 1175 Court Street, N.E. Plan Amendment/Goal Salem, Oregon 97310 Exception 14. 15. Supplementary Notes Project initiated in behalf of the Coos County Board of Commissioners at the request of the Port of Coos Bay. 16. Abstracts The document contains necessary information to support taking an exception to LCDC Goal #16 (Estuarine Resources) for the purposes of expanding the Charleston Small Boat Basin into the area known as Coastal Acres. The document pages, executive summary, statements of context, state of exception, plan" amendment, environmental assessment of preferred alternative, recommendation, and-appendices contain the information essential to considering the need and appropriateness of taking the exception. The exceptions pro- cess requires that need, alternatives, consequences, and compatability of the proposed use or a proposed site be assessed in order to determine that the LCDC goal cannot be trictly applied. 17. Key Words and Document Analysis. 117a. Descriptors Plan Amendment LCDC Goal Exception Assessment, Environmental Boat Basin Moorage 17b.Identifiers/Open-Ended Terms Public Need, Consequences, Alternative Sites, Compatability with adjacent and surrounding uses. 17c. COSATI Field/Group 18. Availability Statement 19. Security Class (This 21. No. of Pages Report) Limited Copies; unlimited Access UNCLASSIFIED 20. Security Class (This 22. Price Page 3.50 UNCLASSIFIED THIS FORM MAY BE REPRODUCED Acknovil edgements All contributors in a Drocess are never identified or-acknowledged.* How- ever, appreciation is expressed to the many citizens attending the public workshops, the local, state, and federal employees w4o, cooperated with the process, and the news media. Particular appreciation is extended to the Task Force members: Dick Vigue for leadership and pragmatism Jack Dunham for leadership and fairness Jeff Kaspar for detailed information and analysis Bob More for identifying key issues and conscientiousness Ruth Day for representing special perspectives and realities of Charleston Bill Mullarkey for presenting practical resource information and for 'good humor Bob Hudson for making good information a-vailable even when he couldn't attend specific meetings Bruce Meithof for asking hard questions and raising hard issues Glen Hale for monitoring the adequacy of citizen participation and for informally coordinating information sources Chuck Walters for patience, extensive background work, and raising alternatives. All Task Force members contributed far more to the quality of the process than one ordinarily finds in s,u-ch a group. In addition to contributing to this process, they also established the credibility of a diverse (public and private) group with opposing points of view being able to address issues on a.rational basis and in a reasonable way. The Task Force proved that different interests can function effectively together to complete a task. Special appreciation must be given to Senator Jack Ripper, Senator Ripper's Aide 'Tom Towsle'e". and Governor Atiyeh's Assistant Pat Amadcio. Their combined effort caused quick initiation of the process and helped obtain needed participation among resource agencies in the process. Whil,e s-eve-ral key. pa.rtici;p,alnlts oIr contributors will certainly be overlooked due to the number of thei-,I, the following person.s.or-groups quickly come to mind for special recognition: Charlie Kocher for excellent reporting 'Pauline Austin for timely reporting and cooperation Chet Lapp for providing key information Roy Gunnari for presenting good information Nancy Eickhoff for issue analysis and organizing participation Port of Coos Bay for support and cooperation Bob Cortwright for facilitating participation of agencies and defining parameters Charleston-Barview Neighborhood Planning Group for their courtesy and interest Division of State Lands for timely provision of information Lorance Eickworth for his special-interest in the process Delane Munson for providing good information Glen Carter and Barbara Barton for participating on a key issue CCD for providing good data Bill Brodt for providing good data Dave Simpson for evaluating a set of very difficult information. Again, appreciation is due all participants and contributors but a final special appreciation is given to Jan Willis and Kathy Olbekson of the Coos County Board of Commissioners' office for their assistance in maintain- ing a proper record. List of Participants Project Authority: Coos County Board of Commissioners Woodrow Robison, Chairman Jack Beebe, Commissioner Robert Emmett, Commissioner Project Proponent: Port of Coos Bay Robert,Younker,,President Laura Lee Craig, Commissioner Chet Lapp. Commissioner Larry Lillebo, Commissioner Larry Qualman, Commissioner Steve Felkins, Admi'nistrator Project Manager: Coos-Curry Council of Governments Kobert Pierce, Chairman William Tankersley, Vice Chairman C.W. Heckard, Treasurer Sandra Diedrich, Director Mike McAlvage, Senior Planner Pete Whitty, Planner Kathleen Mecone, Planning & Research Associate Sallie McNamara, Graphics Aide Terry McGourty, Office Manager Task Force: Ruth Day, Charleston Resident Jeff Kaspar, Port of Coos Bay Bob Hudson, All-Coast Fisherman's Marketing Association Bill Mullarky, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Dick Vigue, Port Advisory Committee Jack Dunham, Pacific Power & Light and Port Advisory Committee Chuck Walters, National Marine Fisheries Glen Hale, Land Conservation and Development Commi.ssion Bruce Meithof, County Ordinance Administrator Bob More, Coos Bay 40 TABLE OF MAPS Map 1 Charleston Boat Basin Page II-4 Property of Coastal Acres, Inc. Map 2 Charleston Boat Basin Page II-6 Surrounding and Adjacent Uses Map 3 Charleston Boat-Basin Page II-7 Recent Changes in Land Uses and Public Facility Detail Map 4 Clam Beds in the Coos Bay-Estuary Page II-7a Map 5 Alternative Boat Moorage Project Concept Page II-7b Map 6 Current Land Use Page II-8 Map 7 Property Ownership Page II-9 Map 8 Current Interim Zoning Page II-10 Map9 Authorized Project - Coos Bay, Oregon Page III-3 Map 10 Breakwater Extension and Groin Page III-4 Proposed Project" Map 11 Alternative Boat Moorage Project Concept Page III-7 (Hosie/Laird Plan) Map 12 Alternative sites Page III-38 Map 13 Map 2 Alternative Sites Page 111-39 TABLE OF TABLES Criteria for Moorage Facilities Page 11-17 Feasibility-Cost Matrix - Secondary System for Page 11-23 Evaluating Alternatives Vessel Classifications Page II-25 Excerpts from the various meeting notes concerning Page II-30 the Charleston Boat Basin Expansion Exception Process Excerpts from various meeting notes concerning Page II-34 citizen involvement and agency coordination Photo of view of Boat Basin, Channel, and break- Page III-5 water showing eastward bend formed in channel Photo of aerial view of entrance to Coos Bay Page III-6 Estuary County policies applying to proposed Boat Basin Page III-19 expansion Table III-1, Fish Landings -Coos County Page III-24 Table III-2, Estimated value at Fisherman's Page III-24 Level of Commercial Fish and Seafood Landings in Coos County Table III-3, Percentage of Estimated value Page III-25 at Fisherman's Level of Commercial Fish and Seafood Landings in Coos County Table III-4, Coos County Fish Landings by Page III-25 Species, High and Low years 1969-79 measured by weight and value Excerpts from the various meeting notes and Page III-32 questionnaires identifying the needs for additional moorage Feasibility Matrix Page III-40 Site 2-Proposed Moorage Major Siting Criteria Page III-44 Feasibility and Cost Matrix as applied to seven Page III-52 Alternative Sites Environmental Assessment of Alternative Locations Page III-54 Excerpts from the various meet-inqs and questionna-ire Page 111-57 results concerning the general discussion and site selection of the various alternatives Excerpts from the'various meeting notes discussing Page 111-61 the Charleston Boat Basin Expansion Alternatives DEQ,@Fecal Coliform.. Data for Coos Bay Page 111-71 Excerpts from the various meeting notes and ques- Page 111-76 tionnaires identlifying the'consequences of expanding the Charleston Boat Basin Excerpts from the various meeting notes and ques- Page 111-82 tionnaire results concerning the ccr,.,patibili+.y of the Charleston Boat Basin expansion to the surroundina and adJacent uses Environmental Checklist Page V-3 Table of Contents Title Page Funding Credit Bibliographic Data Sheet Introduction Acknowledgements List of Participants List of Tables, Figures, and Maps Table of Contents Executive Summary (to be included in text of proposed plan amendment ordinance) Part I: Summary of Task Force Proceedings Introduction Organization Conclusions Process and Scope Citizen Involvement Need for Expansion Summary of Alternatives to be Considered Consequences Consistency Part II: Context History of Site and Situation Adjacent and Surrounding Uses Scope of Consideration Relationsip to Plan's and Planning Processes Supporting and Related Documents Criteria for Moorage Facilities Primary Evaluation System Secondary Evaluation System Moorage Classification System Citizen Involvement Overall Processes Related to Proposed Project Exception Process Part III: Ex cepti on Statement of Site and Situation Consistency LCDC Goals Oregon Coastal Zone Management Program County Estuary Plan Element and County Plan Policies Exception Criteria Need for Proposed Use and Findings Evaluation of Alternatives and Findings Consequences of Proposed Uses and Findings Compatability with Adjacent and Surrounding Uses and Findings Part IV: Plan Amendment Portion of Estuary Element Statement of Amendment Part V: Environmental Assessment of Preferred Alternative Introduction and History Environmental Checklist Project Description Beneficiaries Area Description Impacts on Air Quality Impacts on Water Quality Impacts on Solid Waste Impacts on Transportation Impacts on Human Environments Related Projects Summary VI: Rec,ommendations of the Boat Basin Except ion Task Force Related Issues Recommendations Exception Recommendations Appendices A Bibliography B Administrative Record Summary C Initial Work Program D Newspaper Clippings E Mailing Roster. F Information Papers G Public Notices H Review Procedures 'I Miscellaneous Introduction On March 14, 1978, the Port of Coos Bay filed an application to the Division .of State.Lan.ds for removal of 130,000 cubic yards of material in order to expand the existing Charleston Boat Basin to the south into an area known as Coastal.Acres. The expanison of the basin was designed to provide 186 additional moorage slips for commercial and pleasure boats. During the summer months the application underwent the Di0sion of State Lands' waterway project permit review. 'A number of resource agencies and private individuals requested that the permtt be denied due to the biological importance.as a clam production area and the importance of this area as a recreational clam digging site. In the letter denying the permit application, dated November 15, 1978, the Division of State lands found that."in view of the significant clam popula- tion and the public clam fishery at the proposed expansion site ... the proposed project is inconsistant with the protection, conservation, and best use of the water resources of this State." In accordance to established regulations, the Port of Coos Bay requested a hearing on the denial of the permit application. The Division of State Lands set January 25, 1979,@as the* date of the hearing. At the hearing, a number of concerns were expressed by the interesied resource agencies. The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife testimony centered .,around concern 'over removalof aquatic resources and destruction of the clam bed. The National Marine Fisheries Service based their objections on the highly desirable use of CoastaJ Acres as a recreational clamming a.rea. Dr. Paul Rudy, -Di-rector of the Oregon Insititute of Marine Biology, was concerned that the ,area would be lost as an instructional area for students of 0111B. As a result of the hearing, it became@-,,ev.ident that an exception to one or more 6.f,LCDC,'s statewide and/.ore coastal goals would be needed prior to issuance of a permit. This document contains the essential information related to the proposal to take exception to portions of the Land Conservatio n and Development Goal #16 (Estuarine Resources) which, strictly applied, would require that the area known as "Coastal Acres" would be designated as a conserva- tion manaqement unit. Such designation would not allow new dredging for the proposed expansion of the Charleston Small Boat Basin into portions of "Coastal Acres". The exceptions process was initiated by the Coos County Board of Commis- sioners in late January-early February.- The process is described in the document. The Board initiated this consideration at the request of the Port of Coos Bay and State Senator Jack Ripper. Intially, the exceptions process - which is-the period during which the issue is examined according to need, alternatives, consequences, and .compatability - was expected to be concluded by the end of April. How- ever, the following circumstances or situations intervened in the original schedule thus necessitating an additional few weeks to present the results of the process to the Coos County Board of Commissioners for their consi- deration. 1. The unavailability of certain information which was believed to be accessible when the work program was developed. 2. The qualitativework of the Exceptions Task Force which examined certain issues in more depth thus requiring more time. 3. The fluctuating status of the estuary planning effort which was resolved mid-exception process but first obstructed certain timely considerations then diverted resources to accomplish the work program preparation for the estuary work prograril. 4. The development of expectation and need to do an environmental assessment of the preferred alternative, "Coastal Acres" as part of the exception process. External schedules which diverted staff resources this became a problem only as a result of the first four items because the original intent was to have the process complete before the other schedules came into play. If all information needed had been available and accessible, if the status of the estuary work had not fluctuated, and if no environmental assessment were needed, the process could have been completed and the proposed'excep- tion presented to the County Board of Commissioners by mid to late April. This background document for the proposed exception contains the context of the proposed project and the proposed exception; identifies the plan amendment; addresses site,situation, Land Conservation and Development Goals, and County Plan consistency, and process; assesses needs.- consequences, al ter- natives, compatability, and makes findings of facts relative to these excep- tion criteria; contains frameworks for evaluating moorage and'moorage faci- lities; assesses the environmental relationships of the preferred alterna- tives;,identifies recommendations of the Task Force; and contains essential information from the administrative record of the process. This document does not contain all information.related to the proposed pro- ject or the proposed exception. It contains summaries and key information. The annotated bibliography identifies other resources and references which can be used to amplify information. This document is not an exhaustive analysis of'long-term moorage needs and sites for the Coos Bay Estuary, i.e., it is not a moorage element for the forthcoming.Coos Bay Estuary Plan and Management Program. It does point direction and set the stage for an effort to resolve the multi-faceted, long-term moorage issues. EXECUTIVE SIUMIMIARY PROPOSED 'Exception to Land Conservation and Development Commission Goal #16 (Estuarine Resources) and PVnendment to the Coos Bay Estuary Plan, An Element of the Coos County Comprehensive Plan for the Charleston Boat -al Acres". Basin,Expansion into the Area Known,as "Coast PurDose: The Exceptions document contains relevant information to con- sider taking a goal exception for a site to be designated as.an estuarine development management. unit instead of an estuarine conservation management unit. Due to the presence of a "significant clam bed" thich L has a high level of recreational use,'.in-16-erpretation of Goal #16 require- ments were made,in such a way,that either the area would be in a con- servation management unit, potentially precluding nee., dredging, or an exception to the Goal would have to be "Caken to assure that the area proposed,for an expan.sion of the Charleston *moorage basin could be desia- nated as a development managernent unit. The exceptions p@ocess was initiated by the Coos County Board of Comris- sioners at the request of the Port of Coos Bay after the:pe@mflt for dredging the basin expansion site was denied by the Division of State Lands. The Division of State Lands' denial was r)rimarily based on State *and Federal resource agency objection to removing a significant and recrea-lCionally used -clam bed without a public policy process to determine need, consequences, alternatives, and compatibility, i.e., without a plan. for moorage. State and.Federa] agencies agree&to support an exception process i-n lieu of a,complete estuary plan consistent with the Oregon Coastal Zone Management Prog,ram,and agraed to abide by the exception,if property taken. The Boat Basin Exception document, therefore, contains the necessary and pertinent- 'infor-mation to the excePtion process and to the issues bei:ng addressed- Process: The Coos County Board of Commissioners assigned the preparation of the Exceptions to the Coos-Curry Council of 'Governments. A'wor'k pro- gram prepared.by the Coos-Curry Council of Governments i,,ras authorized by the Commissioners and a Task Force was selected to prepare a set of recomm,endations on the proposed exception, to consider the necessary issues and information, to monitor citizen involvement, to foster coordination, and review and comment on the material prepared for the exceptions process as well as other related tasks. While the Task Force proceedings served as the focal point for the process, public workshops, special local meetings, S"tate and Federal briefings, information distribution to interested parties, and progress reports to the Commissioners and the Port of Coos Bay occured before, during, and after the series of eight Task Force meetings. The process is reflected in the Boat Basin Exceptions document and the Administrative Record Work File, both of which are accessible to the public. Public Participation: All meetings, regardless of type, were open to the public. A mailing list of all known interested parties was developed and expanded throughout the process. This mailing list received notices and materials. Eight Task Force meetings, three public workshops, a meeting with the Charleston-Barview Neighborhood Group, two State and Federal agency briefings in Salem, a special open house session, a three-tession public hearing, several Port briefinas, and two special television pro- grams were conducted. All events were covered extensively by the news media including newspapers, radio, and television. Informal contacts with interested parties were maintained. All.requests for information were met. Coordination: 'The process was coordinated with the Coos County Planning Commission, the local special Purpose districts, State and Federal agencies via: 1. Briefings at meetings 2. Provision of materials 3. Mai I i-n-gs 4. Not-ice of hearings the Task Force 5. Membership on Context: Through the Task Fbrce considerat ion, the-situation was reviewed and found to be that the Port of Coos Bay was proposing to expand the Charleston Small Boat Basin into an area-known as the Charleston Triangle partially on an inter-tidal property known as "Coastal Acres". The expansion was proposed to be,adjacent to existing basin facilities and support facilities,as well as within an area which is recognized as the center of the commercial fishing industry. The resource-agencies and citi- zen objections to the proposed '@rdject'wbre rbt6ghized as for the removal of a recreationally used clam bed, removal of aquatic resources, proposing a moorage facility while the status of the estuary planning was uncerta'in, and concern that the project was a stop-gap which would fuel not meet moorage demand in a piecemeal basis. The Task Force established the fol.lowing parameters for the process: 1. Consideration of moorage need only for the 30' to 90' vessel 2. Consideration of alternative locations only between. the Highway 101 and Railroad Bridges and the Bar 3. Consideration of moorage solutions available imme- diately or in the short-range 4. Consideration only of moorage to meet the known demand not the long-range, undefined needs The Task Force recognized that overall moorage planning will occur in the context of the estuary plan wh'ich was-organ'i zed du'ring the@exceptions pro- cess. The',Task,Force utilized a major moorage siting criteria, a secondary timing-cost-feasibility evaluation system, and a moorage classification system for this work. These three tools were developed especially for this pro- cess and will carry forward to estuary planning'. Exceotion: The need having been quickly established, the major part of the proces,s focused on evaluation of alternatives. A total of nineteen alternatives were identified and evaluated by the -task Force and through the public workshops. The issues of consequences and compatibility were assessed while the alternatives were evaluated. The rnostt. probable alternatives finallv t,,,ere reduced to the followina: 1. Expansion of existing facilities 2. Expansion into "Coastal Acres" 3. Point Adams Breakwater 4. Sitka Dock 5. Barview Wayside 6. Swanson Properties .7. North Point The latter four were eliminated from this consideration and the reasons are detailed in the Boat Basin Exception document. Final consideration rested on two issues: 1. Amount of need to be met by alternatives 2. Availability of the alternative in the short-term In the final analysis, a combination of expanding existing facilities and modifying the design for "Coastal Acres" became the selected location, Point Adams breakwater ran a strong second but cannot be brought on line quickly enough, and needs detailed study to understand fully the resource and carrying capacit@y impacts. In selectine combination of the expansion of existing facilities and a modified "Coastal Acres" desion, the Task Force made findings that: 1. An immediate need existed and justified the project 2. Coastal Acres was the best general location 3. Environmental consequences could be mitigated. Economic consequences were bene-Ilicial. Social consequences were acceptabie. Energy consequences were very beneficial. 4. The proposal is cor-opatible v!ith adjacent and surrounding uses. 5. The reauirements of the LCOC goals had been met and th.e propos&d oro-ect -,vas cons-istent with the -(---oals by taking i i L j an exception to the -)roj.ect si-te being,design-ated as a (@onservation uni+ Plan Amendment: The.exception is proposed as an amendment to the 1975 It is Estuary Plan. I intended that the exception will be incorporated into -,%-.he revisions and update of.the 1975 plan. Related Issues: In addition to the recommendation on the proposed site, the Task Force also. recommended that new leases be offered only to vessels meeting the 1982 Coast Guard standards, that 'the "Hosie-Laird" plan be developed, that a citizen attitude survey be done as a part of the estuary planning, that the work of the Task Force be carried,into the estuary planning including further considera-OL--,ion.of alternative sites for other mooracie needs, and that all mat-L-,ers pertinent to the basin expansion be handled expeditiously by all concerned. Document: The Boat Basin Exception document is included by reference in the Executive Sumr,-,ary. It is organized so that the separate parts can be used independently or as a whole document. PART 1: SUMMARY OF THE BOAT BASIN EXCEPTION TASK FORCE PROCEEDINGS @INTRODUCTION Increasing pressure on inadequate moorage facilities at the Charleston small boat basin prompted the Port of Coos Bay to seek expansion of its present docks into the adjacent Coastal Acres tideland. On July 6, 1979,an exceptions process Task Force, after four months of workshops and hearings, agreed with the port and recommended the use of the Coastal Acres site for basin expansion. The Coos County Commissioners may.now include Task Force work in the county estuary plan as part of the moorage element, all part of the comprehensive land use process. The Task Force further recommended the Port proposal include design modifi- cations to reduce the biological impact on the clam beds which have been a recreational resource at the site. After discussion of the organization of the Task Force, this chapter offers Task Force conclusions and describes the process of boiling down findings of fact into a coherent decision. To do this the Task Force had to limit its scope, address issues of need, alternative sites, and impacts, as well as involve the public for advice and information. ORGANIZATION Many agencies and individuals have roles and responsibilities in the exceptions process needed for the ultimate approval of the proposed project. Coos County Commissioners selected a group of people from a wide range of interests to form a Task Force to assist with the exceptions work program, identify issues, evaluate the exceptions process, consider citizen input, and anticipate agency coordination, as well offer appropriate respo.nses. The Task Force included these people: Ruth Day, Charleston resident Jeff Kaspar, Port of Coos Bay Bob Hudson, All-Coast Fisherman's Marketing Association Bill Mullarky, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Dick Vigue, Port Advisory Committee Jack Dunham, Pacific Powers & Light and Port Advisory Committee Chuck Walters, National Marine Fisheries Glen Hale, Land Conservation and Development Commission Bruce Meithof, County Ordinance Administrator Bob More, Coos Bay restaurant owner Meeting eight times as a Task force from March 9 to July 6, 1979, several members also participated in three public workshops. CONCLUSIONS To reach its conclusions, the Task Force limited its scope to include a solution available,in the short tem,to a moorage problem at the Charleston Small Boat Basin and not try to complete the job of creating a moorage element of the county estuary.plan. Nevertheless, its work went a long way toward developing much of the needed information such an element would require. Pha ses of development were suggested. More than alternative sites throughout the exceptions process were con- sidered. The Task Force reduced these to Coastal Acres as its number one selection, with interest expressed in the Point Adams site as a long range solution if yet more moorage is needed. Task Force members largely felt that in the fare of an uncertain energy picture and restricted entry into the fishery a quick, efficient, and cost effective site was preferable to Point Adams. Two Port Commissioners-elect, Mike Hosie and Bruce Laird, offered the Task force a design proposal they believe to be mitigating action by the Port. At the final meeting of the Task Force, it recommended the port developed the "Hosie-Laird" plan which would maximize moorage along the channel without jeopardizing dredging operations necessary for channel maintenance. Also,.the suggested design change reduces the loss of biological resources; the plan calls for occupying only the outermost portion of the clam bed digging area.. Public use of the area would be guaranteed in perpetuity. The Task Force further recommended all the reviewing bodies of the exception document, project des ign, mitigation, permits and other processes expidite their efforts to facilitate immediate moorage expansion. Recommendations came with complete consensus from the Task Force, except for Bob More's vote to put Point Adams in first place on the selection list. He cited his concern long term moorage needs be met. 1-4 PROCESS AND SCOPE While the recommendations of the Task Force at.first glance seem straight forward, their simplicity belies the complex process an exception to land use goals necessarily requires. When the Port of Coos Bay first went to the Division of State Lands for a dredge permit for removal of a sand bar,at Coastal Acres, where the proposed moorages would go, the agency denied the permit for essentially two reasons: the project would disrupt a valuable clam bed, and the need for the moorage hadn't been addressed--in the absence of an estuary plan that dealt with moorage supply issues--in a public policy process. The port felt the need for the moorage was immediate. With State Senator Jack Ripper, the port went to the Coos County Commissioners for an exception to the estuary goals which co uld allow the construction of the new docks. The commissioners assigned the staffing duties to the Coos-Curry Council of Governments and created the exception Task Force to serve as a community resource--many of the group are specialists from government and indust: ry-_ to provide guidance, review, and evaluation for the, staff busy assembling the necessary documentation. With its first meeting, the Task Force began expanding the number of possible participants by seeking more citizen involvement groups and neighborhood associations from the Bay Area. Task Force members added new names to the mailing lists. And it began narrowing its scope. Alternative sites were limited to the lower bay, using the Highway 101 bridge as the eastern boundary. Locations beyond that were seen to be uneconomic be-cyause of the distance from the entrance of the bar. Proximity to processing plants, support facilities, and services were also cited as disadvantageous for commercial fishing moorages in the upper bay. T But limiting its review of moorages for under 90 foot commercial fishing boats, as well as leaving out the east bay, clarified the Task force's perception of its job in considering the exception. It could not write the entire estuary plan, let alone the moorage element. The Task Force would contribute what it could to the developing county comprehensive plan - which the estuary plan is a part. But the Task Force would have to begin with a specific proposal and consider its need, conse-. quences., compatability and alternatives. Following a work plan, the Task Force assembled eight times in four months, participated in three public workshops, took helicopter flights to examine the sites, and some members ventured to Portland to work out details with the Army Corps of Engineers under the guidance of Senator Hatfield's office. Now that recommendations are made, the County Commissioners may consider the proposed exception to the estuary plan. If done-, the contested fill and removal permit can be further considered. 'After review by affected agencies, the Division of State Lands and the Army Corps of Engineers must finally issue permits as well before construction can begin. CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT Essential to the exceptions process, public workshops and the distribution of questionnaires comprised the main features of the citizen involvement input to the Task Force. Task force members sought exp anded lists of those thought to have an interest in the project and an attitude survey was suggested early.in the-work of the Task Force. A questionnaire at a public workshop, for example, revealed respondants 40-0 believed there is a need for additional moorage. Of those 40, 29 said th"e Charleston basin should be expanded, although 9 offered conditions reflecting concern about the biological impacts on both the South Slough and the clam beds. Asked about alternative locations to Coastal Acres, 9 out of the 40 suggested sites up the bay from Charleston, except one suggesting the Barview Wayside. However, 28 felt that immediate e@xpansion necessitated the proposed expansion. Workshops were well attended with fishermen, and some members of the Task Force indicated that a more general survey be taken out of fear public attitudes weren't being expressed; the Task Force later recommended this be done for the estuary plan. Other members suggested 1-ack of response to the process showed support from the public. Two hundred and.forty workshop papers were distributed to interested people, and the Task Force concluded ample opportunities for citizen involvement were provided. At the June 1 meeting recommendations from the public workshops were examined by the Task Force. One member expressed concern the Task Force not be bound by the results but should consider them part of the citizen input to the exceptions process. NEED FOR EXPANSION Task Force members recognized moorage expansion reflected a short term solution to a problem of need with a future hard to see. Changes in the fishery will come from the tightening energy supply. The pbssibility of limited entry salmon trolling may reduce the,growth of moorage demand and keep it stable. The impacts of salmon ranching are. not yet known. And the equipment and the technology is changing; 90' or larger boats that can fish year round won't be able to use the small boat basin. Past trends in moorage demand growth suggest little. What the Task Force did see, however, was a current need expressed by the conditions of the current moorage and the three year waiting lists for slips. Many boats are inadequately moored with jerry rigged tie ups. Environmental pro.blems from boat bilges and sewerage disposal cause a degraded water q,uality. Expanded facilities will mean, for example, when the albacore fleet arrives in the summer, boats will not have to anchor unconnected to polluti,on control services. While thre expansion at Coastal Acres provides a short term solution to moorage problems for the commercial fleet, the flexibility of the docking systems proposed will mean through the long run the facility can be adjusted to suit new conditions. In that way, the expanded moorage can meet the needs of the future. SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED More than ten different approaches to the moorage problem were considered in the alternatives evaluation. These were reduced initially by comparing their features with moorage criteria. However, by mid process, it was apparent this was only part of the picture. The lack of design proposals didn't give the alternatives enough form and shape to evaluate them using only moorage siting criteria. A second evaluation tool focused the task. A matrix based on time, cost, and feasibility provided the needed tool. Through eight workshops the Task Force reduced the alternatives to two, Coastal Acres as the moorage site available in the short term and Point Adams as the potential long-term, next development phase. Before this recommendation is discussed much further, the Task Force's illumination of other alternatives needs description. By early April the Task Force made a significant reduction of its choices. Sites, such as Joe Ney Slough, which are south of the Charleston bridge were eliminated because of potential water quality problems affecti-ng the South Slough Sanctuary, which increased moorage that far South would bring. Dredge spoils problems and the impact on local aquaculture were also cited by the Task Force. Peterson Seafoods offers a potential site but space is needed there for Peterson's expansion, and rock under the surface means high dredging costs. Pony Slough was dropped because of proposals by the City of North Bend for a sport marina in Pony Slough. A commercial moorage basin would have much greater impacts t-han a sport marina which was already the source of -some controversy about aquatic and habitat impacts. It was believed that the Task Force should defer to the City of North Bend planning process and the Estuary Planning process to resolve Pony Slough issues. North Spit, which the port owns quite a bit of, would require too much dredging and would not be cost effective, although it may someday be feasible for larger dass boats, which only require transient moorage, than the commercial fleet, which requires permanent moorage. North Slough and Haynes Inlet were,seen by the Task Force as having good restoration potential and could be used for later mitigation. Also, moorage basin would necessitate both extensive dredging and some filling. A proposal by Karl Elving for an Aqua Center along the Empire Waterfront was seen as a possible long term solution, although it is outside the range of the exception process. At th-is point in the evaluation process several alternatives were given a closer look by the Task Force; these included extending the present docks into the channel, design alternatives for Coastal Acres, and dry land storage. Dry storage ultimately was eliminated from the consideration for water moorage because its criteria meets different moorage needs and the Task Force felt it more appropriate to be a part of the estuary plan as well as part of the support facilities for any moorage basin. By June 1 the Task Force was considering Coastal Acres, extending the existi-ng docks, Sitka Dock, and the Point Adams breakwater. The Task Force learned there would be less resource agency objections to the extension of the existing docks because of a smallerimpact on the aquatic life.- These agencies have objected to the Coastal Acres proposal because of the damaqe to clam bed. They want to see an intermediate length plan (4-10 years), and they suggest immediate needs wouldn't be met. But extending the existing facilities would bring other problems--importantly impairedchannel access and the reduction in the size of the turning basin-- and it would only bring 50 additional moorage spaces. The Task Force studied it, however, using the moorage criteria and had dropped the idea by its last meeting. With the alternatives reduced to Coastal Acres and Point Adams, several members of the Task Force traveled to Portland for discussions with the Army Corps of Engineers about the necessary breakwater the Point Adams project would require. Comparing the two sites, the Task Force found Coastal Acres would have a shorter time to come on line, would have a lower cost, fewer moorages and more potential environmental degradation. Point Adams on the other hand, would have larger capacity, would meet more needs than the immediate moorage demand, Would take longer to built, would cost more, but could have less aquatic resource environmental damage although could involve other environmental impacts. Returning from Portland the Point Adams subcommittee reported its results from the meeting with the Corps of Enginners. Estimates of a minimum 5 to 7 year development time were offered. At the final meeting, the Task Force recommended the Coastal.Acres tide- land as the site for the moorage expansion., Point Adams was seen to be the potential next phase of long-range moorage planning. However, the Task Force recognized that the long-range plans would be resolved in the Estuary process. To offset problems at Coastal Acres, the Task Force recommended the clam beds be deeded to the public, and new design for the docks cane from two port commissioners-elect, a plan which would further reduce the biological impact of the moorage and would only take the outermost portion of the clam beds. A detailed description of the Task Force,'.s work on assessing alternatives can be found in the Part III: Exception portion'of-the document. T 11 CONSEQUENCES Evaluation of the consequences of increasing the moorage capacity for the commercial fishing fleet involved the use of moorage criteria and a simplified matrix to rank alternative sites. While sites outside the South'Slough, such as North Spit or .Empire, would have d.-ifferent consequences because of the geographic location of support services, roads, and processing plants, more expansion at sites in Charleston create similar results, just differences in scale. The Point Adams site, which was recognized for its long term potential, represents an energy efficient, centrally located place to expand moorage capacity, and it would increase the need for more parking and improved traffic flow. In considering the consequences of expanding moorage facilities near the c,hannel--such as the Coastal Acres proposal, Barview Wayside, or expanded ex,isti,ng facilities--effects on the water quality, traffic flow, and economic impact are comparable. The Task Force studied the water quality situation and learned from the Department of Environmental Quality that pollution problems in the channel are more land related than marine. The Charleston area has failed septic tanks, heavy rains wash agricultural solid wastes into the slough, and more boats don't make that much difference. However, to offset future problems the Task Force recommended any moorage leases require 1982 Coast Guard standards for holding tanks,and sewerage systems. Pollution control and flushing facilities are already at hand. Differences were noted in marine traffic with the two proposals of Coastal Ac,re-s and extended existing facilities. The more the extension moves into the -cfi@annel, traffic is impared and the channel itself might have to be moved--at considerable cost and with the involvement of the Army Corps of Engineers. Importantly, the dredge "Pacific" would not beable to turn around in the channel, and the basin would loose the benefit of its service, a hopper type dredge that doesn't require a spoils site on land. Traffic in -the Charleston area has been slowed because of the poor road conditions following last winter's storms. Much concern has been expressed by residents that the clam beds not be paved for parking, something the Task Force addressed specificallywith its recommendation to deed the clamming area for that purpose in perpetuity. The Task Force learned Charleston residents, who seem well aware of the importance of moorage related traffic, welcome increased tourist traffic as a benefit to the local economy. In CONSISTENCY During its work the Task Force reviewed a consistency statement with the state planning goals. Members of the Task Force discussed goals with the staff, and the Task Force meeting as a group reviewed many of the goals in its discussions but not all. Developing a consistency statement early in the process drew criticism of "putting the cart before the horse." The statement was then modified to change the tone and presumption of approval some members felt the document had expressed. Two goals in particular received Task Force concern, Goal 5 (Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Natural Resources) and Goal 16 (Estuarine Resolurces). Problems with Goal 5, in particular the inventory of resources and habitats, were seen to be met in the exceptions process itself. Goal 5, in other words, was not in conflict but part of the procedure employed. Goal 16 has importance because of the clam bed, and the Task Force action sz,wqht to minimize the adverse impacts. To resolve the conflict between the clam bed and the expansion, the goal calls for the consideration of adjacent land character and existing use, compatibility with adjacent use, energy costs and benefits, the commitment of these waters to this use and not some other part of the estuary. Ultimately the goals will be addressed in the reconvened public hearing with 'the County Commissioners scheduled for July 25. The Task Force will present its findings and recommendations at that time as the Commissioners meet to consider the exceptions document as part of the estuary plan and the comprehensive land use plan. This hearing would have come sooner, but the Task Force sent a subcommittee to Portland to meet with representatives from-Senator tlark Hatfield's office and the Army Corp of Engineers about the Point Adams proposal. The subcommittee learned Point Adams would be a long term project and the July 25 date for the reconvened hearing was scheduled to give the Task Force the opportunity to complete its consideration of Point Adams. T 1 C; PART II: CONTEXT HISTORY OF SITE AND SITUATION Site The area known as "Coastal Acres" is a triangular-shaped, 11.2 acre area which is in a southwesterly,direction immediately adjacent to the existing outer basin areas of the Charleston Small Boat Basin. The site histori- cally has been in private ownership with the most recent change of owner@- ship occurring about a dozen years ago. The Port of Coos Bay holds an option to purchase the "Coastal Acres". The triangular area forms a wedge of which the apex is near Wasson Street. Historically, the site has been associ-ated with several significant acti- vities of the Charleston area: fishing fleet activities, fisheries support and processing facilities, residential uses, tourism, recreation, com- mercial uses, and the Institute of Marine Biology. It is located within the hub of Charleston activities. The Surrounding and Adjacent Uses Map, listed in the forward, demonstrates the mixed use character of the surrounding area. The triangular area is inter-tidal or submersible lands, primarily. How- ever, the outer portion is submerged and has an accreting, transit sand spit which is moving into the "mudflat" area. It has been popularly recognized as a clam digging area because of the aquatic resources' avail.ability. The access to the area is unobstructed. The area contains most aquatic resources ordinarily found in similar inter-tidal areas of the South Slough. In addition to use for recreation, the area has also been used as a visual attraction as well as an "outdoor classroom" for students of the Oregon Institute of Marine Biology. Although privately owned, no use restrictions have ever been imposed. The Oregon Institute of Marine Biology did not purchase the area when opportunity arose as use has been traditionally un- restricted. Situation Located adjacent to the existing basin facility and located in the hub of Charleston activity, the site affords an opportunity for an adjacent expansion of existing facilities. With moorage demands unmet, with sr)ace for existing facility expansion and with major portions of the site not proposed for dredging, "Coastal Acres" appears the preferred alternative.' Objections have been raised to the project. These are primarily the following: loss of a clam bed to which the public enjoys recreational access., loss of other unsvecified aquatic resource, insufficient accommo- dation of long-term and "trawler" class moorage, increased environmental and socio-economic impacts on Charleston, and loss of an "outdoor class- room However, the proposed expansion does not require altering the-majority of the area of the shoreline access. The public will continue to enjoy the recreation opportunities and the educational opportunities. With public ownership, public rights will be enhanced within the area of the site as long as no further development occurs. Portions of the aquatic resource will be disruDted during dredging and construction. But not all will be. The construction will involve floating piers so that the resource should re-establish on the bottom of the basin and the resource will be reasonably unrestricted. The basin expansion would meet current needs for sport and commercial vessels under 90 feet. This need has remained somewhat constant for several years. The "trawler" class moorage normally has differe'nt requirements - one of which is channel depth and width different from that in Charleston. 11-2 Many of the boats and/or owners on the waiting list are already located in the Charleston vicinity and are thus currently part of the Environmental and Socio-economic situation. The only difference for a majority of the boats and owners is the lack of permanent safe, reliable moorage. Gerry- mandering of leases, docking and tie-ups as well as unsafe "rafting" prac- tices are common. This is due to the fact that while the boats are there, the needed number of moorages don't exist. The general public as well as students from the Oregon Institute of Marine Biology will continue to enjoy the amenities of the Charleston triangle area to a large extent as the proposed Basin will use only about one-third of the entire area. 11-3 M A P I' r L 14 i7TT-r-I rl. j 1@S 1J.".4 Al.-M COA-5rAL Aci?zs ZVf. 0. CHARLESTON BOAT BASIN PROPERTr oF COASTAL ACRES IAIC. A Ft 4 G U4 ADJACENT AND SURROUNDING USES The accompanying map, Surrounding and Adjacent Uses, shows that there is a high degree of mixed use in the surrounding area. Please note that the large "marine" area in the upper left hand portion of the of the map is, in fact, the location of the Institute of Marine Biology. In addition to a mixture of'uses, there is also a diversity of ownership. Accompanying maps show ownership patterns' and interim zoning designations. It is important to recognize the diversity and the apparent compatability of uses in the Boat Basin vicinity. Land vehicular congestion is caused by an inadequate traffic-circulation system and inadequate surface transportation network. The congestion occurs most often during tourist seasons because Charleston and the env irons are attractive to recreation seekers and visitors to the area. The diversity of uses and ownerships contributes to the interesting character of Charleston which increases vehicular traffic. However, Charleston is a key residential area for people who work in the fishing industry. Since basin facilities support the livelihood of the majority of the residents, such facilities appear compatible and inter-related. People live in Charleston because it is the focal point of their economic base. Immediately adjacent to the 1:6roposed basin expansion is the existing outer basin. The proposed expansion site is also located adjacent to the Charleston authorized channel - see accompanying map - and surrounded by inter-tidal, submersible or submerged lands. The land support facilities for the basin are located immediately adjacent to the site proposed for basin expansion. .............. . . .... . ... . .... . ............. 14@1 ... ..... ILLIJ ......... .. . .... Lj 11 ............ ............ ............. ........ LL -j-LLj ....... . ... IFT .......... ............ .............. ------- ---- tj @-j . .. .. ...... . ..... ............ . .............. .......... ...... .......... ........................ ........... - ------- j:; RESIDENTIAL I V R\ "ITT OWNED LAND NO 001 CLAN BEDS C SANVV BEACH air RAP -3- ONE IIIAA MARINI COMMERCIAL COMMERCIAL PUBLIC FACILITT tLS. COAST GUARD CHARLESTON BOAT BASIP _Q- SURROUNDING & ADJACENT USES 41". b4 1,; -4-N gii:t @-- @In A It A G 13 C c tj C, U 2 NOTE: The area shaded as a clam bed was requested to be removed by the Boat Basin Exception Task Force a bec use the shaded area constitutes only a part of the clam beds-in the surrounding area. Because this map is on a mylar, the shading cannot be removed without damaging the mylar and there wasn't sufficient time to have a new mylar produced. its M A P S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..................... -7r V .............. t -7@ ......................... ......................... - - - - - -- I LLLLLI-LL@ j I j :,r Hi ...... H ....... p --------- N Y2a <1 CHARLESTON BOAT BASIN V V A A G RESIDENTIAL PORT OWNED LAND CLAM BEDS SANDY BEACH RIP RAP MARINE MARINE COMMERCIAL RECENT CHANGESIN LAND USES MARINE INDUSTRIAL COMMERCIAL r AND PUBLIC FACILITY DETAIL PUBLIC FACILITY & REST ROOMS U.S. COAST GUARD W SOLID, WASTE.COLLECTtON PW PROPOSED S.WC.P. SANITARY SEWER HOLDING TANK PUMP STATIONS 0 0 COO =O C= MAP 4 w all a a 0 IL 013 11 a a oil G 00 a a c 0 zz@;@c a L-, N it Charlestc n ' 11 o a 4z 0 of 0 -\00 Joe N T CLAM BEDS in the COOS BAY ESTUARY GAPER COCKLE & BUTTER SOFT SHELL MACOMA TELLINA H-7a MAP 5. H4-rr 71 M -T-T-FTTI CHARLESTON BOAT BASIN P4TH, L I "L -1 IF - F F ALTERtiATIVE BO'AT.MOORAGE PROJECT CONCEPT I 1-7b Reproduced with permission from Army Corps of Engineers, Portland Distri t. From Charleston Breakwater Extension a roin Structure Final EIS Supplement, No. 1 COO 9 oil IQ 0 0011 M o o il Id :71 X I M 09, a 13 0 0 S M M Charleston LL 0 44- 0 e x4e N T Current Land Use Marine Industrial Residential F4 (MH - mobile Commercial home) (M - Marine) Parking Go@ernment S - Scho.0 H-8 Reproduced with permission framM Corps of-Engineers, Portland is ict. C 0 From Charleston Breakwater E o and Groin Structure Final E Supplement, No. 1 oos 0 00 B W ------ co loo 0 it coil !:Z:L X :3 00 0 o 0 oa Charleston 0 r 0 Ito \0 13-4 CO joe Property Ownership Division of State Lands Private Note: All subtidal I ands are o-ned by state of cTagon Port of Coos Bay Division of State Lands U. S. Government School District No. 9 H-9 Reproduced with permission from Army Corps of Engineers, Portland Distric? -.9 . From Charleston Breakwater Extension and C oin Struct%iie Final EIS Supplement, No. 1 .005 C, zz,: -2 CL o o. B W o 111311 IRI L-j-:j L_ cot INA 0 j S C-) 0 INR IR2 0 WAS IRI o INA -@A 0 o On Z J/ C 0 011b z:1 "w% MI Charlest n IR2 0 IMS Cx0 joe N T Current interim Zoning' -The Ccos County Zoning IMI Marine Industrial IR1 Residential Ordinance, adopted 1973. wi!] IMC Marine Commercial exc.Mob.hcmes be in elfect until rep@aced ICJ Commercial IR2 Residential by a new -ing ordin,nce INR Natural Resource IRR5 Rural Res. and ap d- the C-9 IMS Marine Storage C.-'ty Plan. TT-in SCOPEOF CONSIDERATION The plan amendment and exception have a definedfocus. The proposed project or preferred alternative addresses an existing, immediate need for additional moorage for vessels in the 20 foot to 90 foot class. The plan amendment and exception do not address the long-term, full range of moorage needs for the Coos Bay Estuary. However, the evaluation of alternatives and the selection of the most feasible alternatives examined the need to address the overall moorage issue. The intent of the Task Force working with the exception process was to lay the base for further examination of the moorage issue for the overall Coos Bay Estuary Management Plan. Thus the purpose of the exception process has been to address the immediate situation. The exception process also lays a base for long-range moorage planning to be accomplished under the Overall Estuary Management Program. The amendment relates to theexisting Coos Bay Estuary Plan, an Element of the Coos County Comprehensive Plan which was adopted in 1975. But it is intended that the plan amendment and goal exception become a part, as appropriate, of the revision of that plan which will formulate a Coos Bay Estuary Management Plan in compliance with the Land Conser- vation and Development Commission statewide and coastal goals. 'The exceptions process was confined to consideration of moorage for the 30 foot to 90 foot vessel range. Recognition was given to the need for smaller sport boat launching, moorage, and storage as an an,Icillary function of marine moorage but, again, definitive resolution of this need was deferred to the overall estuary planning process. Moorage for "trawler" class vessels, i.e., vessels over 90 feet in length and deep draft vessels was notconsidered within the scope of this exception process. Since most vessels in excess of 90 feet or deep draft vessels do not, normally, require permanent but rather transient moorage, the resolution of long-range sites for this need was.deferred to the overall Estuary planning process. Further, the Task Force established other parameters for the scope of the exceptions process. These parameters relate to the portion of the Bay to be examined for alternatives. The examination of alternatives was confined to the Lower Bay because of the following reasons: 1. Problems with vessel traffic through the highway and railroad bridges. 2. Channel availability and channel access 3. Ocean access and proximity to the ocean fisheries resource. 4. Weather conditions affecting.smaller boats traversing substantial lengths of the Bay. 5. Economics of boat operations. 6. Time efficiency, 7. Energy efficiency 8. Proximity to processing plants 9. Proximity to support facilities and services The Upper Bay was not intended to be eliminated from consideration for other, non-commercial fishing fleet vessels. It was not considered to be a viable location for commercial fishing fleet or for commercial ocean charter moorage. In summary, the scope of the exceptions process was limited to assessing the current, immediate needs; to evaluating alternatives in the Lower Bay and alternatives capable of being on line in the immediate or near future; to addressing moorage needs of the commercial fishing fleet on a short- range basis; to amending an existing plan while laying the framework for the long-term planning process to address intermediate and long-range moorage needs and sites. 11-12 RELATIONSHIP TO PLANS AND PLANNING PROCESSES The exception is an amendment of the.Coos Bay Estuary Plan, An Element of Coos County Comprehensive Plan adopted in 1975. While it is recognized that the existing, in force plan does not address the LCDC goals in entirety, it is also recognized that the plan was developed prior to statewide and coastal goal jurisdiction. As an adopted plan, it has .jurisdiction over the current consideration of a site specific application of planning consistency. However, since it is not an acknowledged for goal compliance plan, it must be amended to address the relationship of the site specific issue and the situation specific issue in terms of goal consistency. Preliminary analysis indicated,that the site specific application of certain provisions of the Estuarine Resources Goal (#16 of the LCDC Goals) would not enable the proposed project to be consistent with the prescribed estuarine management unit for locations considered to be clam beds. Thus, existing plan and LCDC goal consistency required that an exception to the Estuarine Resources*Goal be considered. As it is clearly the intent of LCDC Goal #2 (Land Use Planning) that during the application of goals to specific sites and situations, it may not be possible to meet the goal provisions, an exception may be taken if there is a need for the use; if alternative locations have been considered; if consequences from not applying the goal or permitting the use have been considered; and if the use will be compatible with other adjacent uses. An exception which amends an existing plan is, then, an anticipated part of the planning process designed by the LCDC goal system. It is important to note that a goal exception does not mean a goal violation. It means, rather,_that generalized goal statements cannot be perfectly applied to every site and every situation; that the community through its planning process and the governing body through its legislative decision-making must determine the applicability-of goal provisions to certain situations or to specific sites. When it is found that strict application may not be possible, an exception is a planning tool to be used. 11-13 The exception amends an existing plan, conforms to a planning tool or process described in LCDC Goal #2, and is being coordinated wi,th.efforts to revise Coos Bay Estuary Planning and County Comprehensive plan develop- ment. The exception and the exception background document addresses these specific relationships and anticipates that the exception will become one part of an overall Coos Bay Estuary Management Program. It should also be noted that the Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Natural Resources Goal (#5 of the LCDC Goals) states in part protect scenic and historic areas and natural resources for future gener- ation. . .". The goal goes on to identify fish and wildlife areas and habitats as natural resources. The goal further states that where conflicting uses have been identified the economic, social, environmental and energy consequences of the conflicting uses shall be determined. By virtue of the exceptions process, these consequences are in fact being determined and re- solved. 11-14 SUPPORTING AND RELATED DOCUMENTS Economy of effort and cost-effectiveness of effort necessitates that existinq supporting and related documents be incorporated by reference rather than to extract and reproduce the information contained in these documents. The following documents are incorporated by reference into the exceptions document. These documents are all available for public use and inspection. Note: Documents are listed in relative order of importance, not alpha- betically or chronologically. Division of State Lands, In the Matter of the Denial of Port of Coos Bay's Removal Permit, Application No. 2867, January 25 and 26, 1979. This trans- cript of the contested case hearing contains pertinent pro and con.infor- mation provided under oath. The transcript with its exhibits and response letters delineates the site, situation, and arguements. It is available at the Coos-Curry Council of Governments' office, the Port of Coos Bay's office, the County Planning Department. Most Boat Basin Exception Task Force members have copies. Coos-Curry Council of Governments' copies will be made available in evenings and on weekends when requested. Copies can also be obtained from the Division of State Lands or Coos-Curry Council of Governments for a copying service charge if a permanent copy is desired. Coos-Curry Council of Governments, Administrative Record for the Boat Basin Exceptions Process, February to June, 1979. This file record contains the information of record for the exceptions process. It is available for public inspection at the Coos-Curry Council of Governments' office. Ancil- larv to the administrative record is the work file which is also available for public inspection. 11-15 Charleston Breakwater Extension and Groin Structure Draft and Final Environmental ImDact Statements SunDlement, No. 1. 1979, U.S. Army Engineer District, Portland, Oregon. This contains data and analyses pertinent to the site and situation. Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines, 1974 and 1976, Oregon Land Conservation and Development'Commission. This contains the entire goal requirements and describes the exceptions'process. Oregon's Seafood Industry, Its Importance to Oregon's Economy, Extension Circular 965, January, 1979, Sea Grant Marine Advisory Program, Oregon State University Extension Service. This details the economic charac- teristics of the fishing industry. Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy 1978-1979 Action Program, 1978, Coos-Curry-Douglas Economic Improvement Association. This contains economic need information, problem statements, and problem solving stra- tegies. Draft Coos County, Oregon, Economic Survey and Analysis Report, 1979, U.S. Amy Corps of Engineers. This contains economic profile information and analyses which focus on the Coos Bay Estuary. Channel Maintenance Dredging, Coos Bay Final Environmental Impact State- ment, 1976, U.S. Army Engineer District, Portland, Oregon. This contains overall estuarine information and context. Comprehensive Plan Background Document 1979, Coos. County Planning Depart- ment: This contains overall goal inventory information. 11-16 CRITERIA FOR MOORAGE FACILITIES During the initial phases of the exceptions process, research was con- ducted to identify all potential items which coul-d be considered in moorage siting evaluation. After initial review by the Task Force, this list included the following items: Location of aquaculture facilities Institutional arrangements Fishery development potential Major fish and shell fish landings Fish processing plants location Fisheries stocks location Port capability Marketing, trends Processing trends Commercial fishing vessel distributioh Channel-capability Availability of land for support facilities Turning basin Surge Current supply of moorage facilities Curry supply of launching facilities Boat ownership distribution Boat characteristics, length, type, draft Boat activity patterns Ownership of upland and site Land access Water access Channel access Use patterns Availability of support facilities Demand for additional facilities Availability of support services Availabilfty of parking Energy - efficiency Trends in vessel size Proximity of market area Nessel traffic patterns Safe navigation access to cruising waters Adequate land access Adequate approach roads Adequate protected water area or lowland to be excavated to navigable depth Areas for future expansion Adequate perimeter land on lowland that can be filled for v.ehicle parkinq, harbor service structures, roads, aux- iiiary facilities includinq future expansion Utility service to the site includinq electrical Dower, water, telephone, qas,.and seweraq,e- Leqislative requirements Land ownershin problems Submerqed Tands Water qualitv Ecoloqical preservation River mouth Dredqed lowlands Bavs Roadsteads Open shorelines Riverside sites Zoninq Permit requirements Weather precipitation wind ice fog Drainage Wave factors sea and swell surge tsunamis tides Shoaling factors littoral drift river discharge nearby water area structures redistribution of bottom material Geological factors basin excavation foundation seismic activity material sources Environmental water quality ecology dredge disposal aesthetic Sociological adjacent development related recreation transportation facilities Protective features and entrances breakwaters entrance channel and structures wave and surge dissipation bank protection river front protection floating wave attenuators Lay-out capability Water area perimeter stabilization Basin depths 11-18 Interior wave barriers Berthing facility arrangements Fixed pier/floating pier structures Solid waste Noise Feasibility administrative engineering economic fiscal Traffic circulation EPA flushing requirements This list was then reviewed at the State and Federal Agency Briefing on March 22, 1979. 'The results from this review follows. The italicized print represents the input from this meeting. I: Important M: Moderately Important U: Unimportant Location of aquaculture facilities M Institutional arrangements U (private') M - site Fishery-development potential M - equally applicable --- I - moorage Major fish and shell fish landings same as above Fish processing plants location I (energy - consequences) (have to be able to get to processor) Fisheries stocks location same Port capability I Marketing trends (depe?@ding on types of boats) I Processing trends (depending on types of boats) I Commercial fishing vessel distribution anit Channel capability I (adequate depth) Availability of land for support facilities I Turning basin U for small - M for medium and,large Surge I Current supply of moorage facilities I Current supply of launching facilities I Boat ownership distribution M Boat characteristics, length, type, size draft I (need) Boat activity patterns (another marina would create another pattern) Ownership of upland and site (availability) Land access I -Water access I Channel access I Use patterns omit Availability of support facilities I Demand for additional facilities (is room to expand?) Availability of support services ? Availability of parking ? Energy - efficiencv (degree 2-3 miles or extreme) Trends in vessel size -1 Proximity of market area U Vessel traffic patterns omit Safe navigation access to cruising waters _T 11-19 Adequate land access (adequate potential not necessarily existing) Adequate approach access scme as above Adequate protected water area or lowland to be excavated to navigable depth (site or expansion?) Areas for future expansion I Adequate perimeter land on lowland that can be filled for vehicle parking, harbor service structures, roads, auxiliary facilities including future expansion T 'Utility service to the site including electrical power, water, telephone, gas and sewerage I (potential) Legislative requirements I Land ownership problems Submerged lands (adequacy of depth) Water quality Ecological preservation I - varies River mouth omit Dredged lowlands omit Bays omit Roadsteads@omit Open shorelines omit Riverside sites omit Zoning I Permit requirements VI (mitigation) Weather precipitation omit wind I ice omit fog omit Drainage design issue depends on fZoodpZain or not Wave factors sea and swell U surge I tsunamis U tides U Shoaling factors (potential for maintenance dredging) littoral draft rfver discharge nearby water area structures redistribution of bottom material (maintenance dredqinq) Geological factors basin excavation foundation I seismic activity U material sources,(for brea7<waters) Environmental water quality ecology dredge disposal I aesthetic design issue 11-20 Soci 61 ogi cal adjacent develooment I - compatabiZity issue related recreation I transoortation facilities Protective features and entrances breakwaters design issue entrance channel and structures design issue wave and surge dissipation design issue bank protection design issue river front protection design issue floating wave attenuators design.issue Lay-out capability design issue Water area perimeter stabilization (certain amount required;choice between Basin depths Zot or ZittZe is economics) Interior wave barriers design Berthing facility arrangements design Fixed pier/floating pier structures design Solid waste I Noise compatabiZity Feasibility administrative engineering economic fiscal Traffic circulation I Following these reviews and public workshop input, the following moorage major siting evaluation criteria was developed: Institutional Arrangements Environmental zoning water quality planning solid waste permits ecosystems ownership habitat mitigation energy efficiency weather Feasibility flushing administrative engineering Systematic - Estuarine economic channel capacity fiscal location of navigation channels protective features Geologic tides substratum currents dredging shoalinq spoil'ing waves and surne .drainage alternate uses maintenance dredging 11-21 Sociological Vessels traffic - land and marine use Datterns use patterns ch'aracteristics recreation draft turning Trends projections for demand permanent moorage vs. transitory resource economic Maintenance moorage demand dredging Support of Related Facilities and sewage/tidal waves utilities Services support facilities availability - current and future environmental quality accessibility public facilities, services and utilities ancillary services This evaluation system was applied to most of the alternatives. Because it did not yield a conclusive "sort" of the most viable alternatives, a secondary system was also developed. The Primary or Moorage Major Siting Criteria yielded usefulAnformation but did not isolate feasibility, cost, and timing. The secondary system addresses these issues. The following matrix identifies feasibility and cost factors which may be required for basin or moorage development. The factors in the matrix, time-lines, and costs were reviewed with the Corps of Engineers and private contractors. 11-22 FEASIBILITY-COST MATRIX SECONDARY SYSTEM FOR EVALUATING ALTERNATIVES FACTOR- DESCRIPTION TIME RELATIVE COST CONCURRENCY 1. Feasibility Study To determine suitability 2 months- $15,000-$75,000 None of site before commit- 1 year ments are made 2. Acquisition Options, purchase, 1 month- $10,000-$50,000/Acre with 3, 4, 9, 10 leasing, easements 2 years 3. Oesign Basin Engineering, etc., speci- 12-15 months $50,000-$200,000 with 2, 9 fications Breakwater Engineering, etc., speci- 12-15 months $50,000-$200,000 fications 4. EIS Basin Environmental evaluation 6-24 months $45,000-$1)00,000 with 2, 3 Breakwater Environmental evaluation. 6-36 months $45,000-$100,000 5. Support Facilities Utilities, services, 6months- $1.5-$14 million with 6, 7, 8, 9 parking, access, etc. 1year 6. Dredging/Spoiling Removal and deposition 6months- $1-$150 per cubic with 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 1year yard 7. Filling Increasing land surface ? $10,000 to $50,000 with 6, 8, 9, 11, 12 area per acre 8. Mitigation Off-setting environ- ? ? $10,000-$50,000 with 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12 mental consequences per acre 9. Administrative Permit 3months- $10,000-$36,000 with all others 2years Management N/A $60,000-$240,000 annual 2 FTE - 8 FTE 10. Public Rights ? ? with i 11. Streambank Protection Bank stabilitation and on-going 13% of original*cost on-going maintenance 12. Construction Basin Actual development 1-2 years $500,00043 million with 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11 Breakwater Actual deveTopment 1-2 years $1 '000 to $100,000 MOORAGE CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM The need for moorage during the exceptions process was limi*ted to consider- ation of vessels ranging from 30' to 90' in order to establish a reasonable framework. Moorage needs vary according to the class of vessels. De- pending on the class of vessels, moorage can be related to necessary draft, turning space requirements, need for water as opposed to dry storage, need for permanent as opposed to transient moorage, and support facilities re- quirements. Vessels were classed according to the following system: Sport Commercial Trawler Deep Draft While there are overlaps among the classes, there are sufficient distinc- tions to make the classification functional. The vessel classes are assessed according to requirements in the following matrix. It was recognized that the moorage issues for sport, trawler, and deeD draft will be addressed as part of the overall revision of the Coos Bay Estuary Plan.. The scope of the exceptions process was limited to focus on -Che moor- age needs of the commercial class of vessels. 11-24 SPORT COMMERCIAL TRAWLER DEEP DRAFT Required Draft Vessels less than 20% Vessels 301-901; re- Vessels generally over Ocean crossing ves- do not require main- qui'red shallow main- 901; can use shallow sels; need maintained tained channels tained channels of maintained channels deep draft channels 101-15' depending on design in excess of 30' generally Turning Space No special needs Turning space required Needs fairly large Needs extensive, turning space maintained, pro- tected turning basin Water or Dry Storage Can be dry stored with Smaller can be dry Water only Water only launching ramps avail- stored but presents able operational problems, Water most feasible for fishing vessels Permanent versus Both can be used. Permanent Transient; off-loading Transient Transient and supplies Support Facilities Minimal Requires support Requires support Limited for vessel systems and facili- facilities maintenance at ties such as pumping Coos Bay stations, repair, etc. CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT The most active group of participants in the exceptions process was the commercial fisherman. Other citizens participated in the process, but the most involved individuals represented the commercial fishing com- munity. It should be noted that commercial fishermen do not reqularly participate in public planning meetings as a rule. Their active partici- pation in the public meetings relative to the boat basin issue should serve as an indicator of their concern and their need for moorage. While other citizens and some citizens in opposition to the proposed ex- pansion into "Coastal Acres" participated in the process, the exceptions process did not attract that much general citizen interest as expressed in meeting attenance. 11-26 OVERALL PROCESSES RELATED TO PROPOSED PROjECT The exceptions process is not an isolated activity. It is and has been occuring within the context of several other public processes. It can- not, alone, determine the outcome of the proposed boat basin expansion into "Coastal Acres". It can, however, remove one of the barriers to the project, i.e., an inconsistency with a strict application of Land Conser- vation and Development Commission goals to a site and situation. The following is a summary of processes or requirements that affect the proposed project: The proposed project must meet the standards of the Coos County Zoning Ordinance and must pass a site review. This step has,been completed. The proposed project must be consistent With adopted County plans. The project does, but the Coos Bay Estuary Plan has not been acknowledged for compliance with Land Conservation and Development Commission goals as part of the overall County Comprehensive Plan. Since the County does not yet have an acknowledged for compliance comprehensive plan, the proposed project must be consistent with the Land Conservation and Development Commission goals. It has been determined that the pro- posed project does not meet a strict application of the Estuarine Resources Goal a possibly a portion of the Open Space, Scenic and Historic, and Natural Resources Goal. *since this is the case, an exception must be sought. If the exception is taken, then the proposed project will be consistent with Land Conservation and Develop- ment Goals. If an exception is taken, it will stand unless appealed and over-turned. 11-27 The proposed project must obtain a Fill and Removal Permit which can be issued by the Division of State Lands. The Division of State Lands can issue the permit if the exception is taken and if mitigation requirements are worked out. In addition, other requirements such as the Environmental Protection Agency's Flushing Regulations must be met. The permit, if issued, can be appealed. The proposed project must also obtain an ;Army Corps of Engineers permit for work in a navigable waterway. The Corps can issue this permit if the State permit is issued and if the proposed project is consistent with Oregon's Coastal Zone Management Program which will be determined by the exceptions process (unless overturned by appeal) and by the issuance of the State permit (unless over- turned by appeal). The Corps permit can be issued with- out an Environmental Impact Statement if the federal re- source age ncies "sign-off" on the permit which indicates they are satisfied that the environmental consequences of the proposed action are outweighed by the need and alternatives and that the action is mitigated according to the applicable Oregon Standards. However, any other party may request an Environmental Impact Statement. The above is an over-simplification of the ste'_@ps associated with a dredging project but the overall process context needs to be part of the consideration of the exception. 11-28 EXCEPTION PROCESS The purpose of the exception'is to show why the specific provision of-a goal cannot be applied to a site or a situation based on need for the proposed use, evaluation of alternatives, assessment of consequences, and the compatability of the proposed use with surrounding and adjacent uses., The exception, if taken, is in effect when it is adopted. Unless appealed or until received as a part of a reques-I'l- for acknowledgement of a plan's compliance with the Land Conservation and Development Commission goals, the exception is not considered by Land Conservation and-Development Commission. It remains a matter of local concern unless appealed or until reviewed as a part of planning compliance. 11-29 EXCERPTS FROM THE VARIOUS MEETING NOTES CONCERNING Question was raised as to whether*the exceptions THE CHARLESTON BOAT BASIN EXPANSION EXCEPTION PROCESS process was really looking at alternatives both immediate and long-range. March 9, 1979 ------------ The Task Force proceeded to review and discuss Boat Basin Exception the work program packet. The following changes It was explained that the entire moorage issue was Technical Task Force or additions were made, properly dealt with in the estuary planning process add #7 activity to Consistency Assessment to but that information from the proDosed exc eption be the review of County policies. Although i would be used in the estuary process. implied, Task Force members felt it should be specific. Whether "best-site" meant immediate or long-range. Assurance were given that alternatives were being What would be impact on South Slough Sanctuary. carefully considered bya Task Force and through Added to the moorage siting criteria was public workshops. Environmental Protection Agency flushing re- quirements. In further discussion, the following issues were It was noted that footagenot use should be the raised: issue. No moorage for boats under 301 is con- Status of submerged or submersible lands re- templated with the expansion. project site; re: private ownership. Moorage configurations for commercial frequently Glen Carter expressed concerns that it appears the allow some sport for wise, efficient use of Port is developing orojects on a piece-neal basis. space. It is obvious that the Port is looking in several Exceptions process should not consider deep different directions. water moorage. Exceptions process should consider sport only in terms of efficient use of space. (Periphery Question was raised as to the plan had been started" of moorage but not for vessels under 30' or over 501). before but what about now. It was noted that there is a need for better communication. No moorage for vessels over 90' should be con- sidered in the exceptions process. The impact on the Charleston Community should be a consideration of the exceptions process. Stan Hamilton said it appears that the exception process is focusing on the triangle site. He said The division of facilities in the inner and outer Poat basin should be considered. that there needs to be a look at the moorage element for the entire bay. March 22. 1979 ----------- An overview of the work program was presented. State and Federal It was again urged that the moorage issue for the Agency Briefing on It was suggested that the exception should deal with whole bay or at least the lower Bay be examined.' Boat Basin Exceptions Process the whole moorage question for the entire estuary so that moorage is not addressed piece-meal. The need to look at long-term needs was urged. Glen Carter suggested that it is important to A comment was made that if an Invironmenta) Impact set priorities, draw lines, because it is only Statement (EIS) is required, the exception would be possible to accommodate only so many needs. In programmed to handle this issue. looking at larger fishing ports, must make a good choice on site. A comment was made that the exception should be focused to a situation not a property. It was suggested that in terms of moorage, an issue which needs to be carefully examined is It was noted that an exception is taken for either a whether it is in the best interest of the estuary site or a situation but a situation exception implies to have focused or dispersed moorage, thus focused that a goal provision will be exempted for a whole or dispersed impacts. class of actions. The current proposed exception has been set in motion in order to except a site to It was noted that while it is difficult to fore- meet an overall situation or to except an action cast trends, it is known that the demand for within a class of-situation. commercial fishing vessel moorage will rise. It was noted by Tom Towslee that the triangle is pro- It was suggested that need as different from demand posed by the Port for moorage expansion because it is should be identified because maybe demand can't be an obvious location and because it is economical. met. It was suggested that the moorage question needed to A question was raised as to whether mitigation was be looked at as if all money, people, energy were the going to be covered. same, Jim Lauman said mitigation doesn't have to be A comment was made that if the Environmental Protec- addressed in the exception but will be dealt with fion Agency resources were being considered for the independently. expansion, the long-term economi-c costs need to be factors in evaluation. In terms of the exceptions process, Jim Lauman suggested not meeting the early deadline and urged In terms of evaluation, both site and means need to not doing a job that the majority cannot support. be considered. It was stated that needs for moorage He said it would be better in the long run to take facilities should be defined. It was noted that only more time to address issues and answer questions. cost should not cause alternative to be eliminated. A question was raised that if construction could Jim Lauman commented that the outline of the docu- start now on the proposed expansion, when would ment seems to basically consider the proposed site future facilities be needed. and that a broader look should be taken. Walters said it is important to know what next In response, it was noted that it depends on the fishing industry. It also depends on what moorage site is. happens at other ports. It also depends on what happens as boats get larger. There are limita- April 2, 1979 ------------ Draft Consistency Statement. Sandy explained the tions to forecasting. Some information is known Boat Basin Exception purpose of the draft consistency statement. Because of Technical Task Force because of demand, trends, vessel construction, time limitations, the statement could not be formally market analysis, etc., but financing, general reviewed by the Task Force at this meeting. Instead, economy, resource cycles, personal preferences, etc., arrangements were made for the next meeting and the make perfect predictions impossible. possibility of arranging a field survey of alter- native sites was disco ssed. Glen Carter noted that Coos Bay has been designated Following a break during which several members left, as a development estuary. He said there are four areas of controversy, four priority development areas: the following topics-received informal attention: Charleston, North Spit, Eastside, and the North 1. security needs for a boat basin; Bend Airport, 2. the relationship of NEPA and the EIS process to the project, 3, Sandy listed factors that effectthe total cost The participants then agreed to review the possible of a moorage project: moorage siting criteria. A system of noting "I" for feasibility dredging impor.tant, "M" for moderately important, and "U" mitigation spoiling acquisition filling for unimportant was agreed to be used. protective structures design Administrative costs i EIS public rights Elsewhere is the outcome of this review. The assign- AShoreline maintenance and drainage were added ment of levels of importance and relevant comments to the list by others); are noted in italics beside the list of possible 4. In response to Sandy's question Bill and Chuck criteria. answered that in terTns of the National Fisheries Conservation Management Act the cost of a pro- ject can be one of the variables considered when March 23. 1979 ----------- It was noted that an exception relates to specific assessing alternatives but cannot be the sole criterium for eliminating alternatives; Boat Basin Exception site and a specific situation. Technical Task Force 5. The first parts of the consistency statement were reviewed; For a site exception, the long-tem environmental, social, and energy consequences must be evaluated. April 13, 1979 ----------- The major items of business for the Task Force meeting Boat Basin Exception was the application of the moorage siting criteria to Technical Task Force each site. Materials available included earlie"r ootes, Walters expressed concern as to what if a project maps, documents, etc., a worksheet for eAch individual requires an Environmental Impact Statement. He felt person, and copies of the discussion draft consistency document must address issues to facilitate permits even if it takes longer. If it is done correctly, it statement for further discussion if time.. permi tted. will include many of same kinds of things required by National Environmental Policy Act. Ai5ril 25, 1979 ----------- It was'explained that the process has progressed nicely Small Boat Basin and the exception is coming together slowly. A draft Exceptions Process of the exception should be ready for review around Public Workshop #3 the end of May. It was pointed out that the need for additional moorage is well-documented. There is a current 180 vessels on the waiting list of which 77 are commercial vessels. In addition, there ha s never been a serious challenge of the need. It was explained that in the process a total of 19 sites had been identified. At the public workshop the list was narrovied to three. However, the Task Force felt that several other sites should be looked at closer before throwing them out. Sandra Diedirch then explained the matrix system that was displayed on the wall. It'was explained that this was the method used in order to get some idea on how long and how extensive a new moorage facility might take to get ready for use. The yesses on the matrix were explained as whether or not they would be needed. Sandra asked if the moorage issue should be looked at in the estuary planning process, as the potential is there. 'Consensus of the people was that it should be. A question was raised about the financial ability of the Port. Jeff Kaspar pointed out that no one else will come forward to do it. He said that there are some financial limitations. When asked about the cost he replied that it was around $1.2 million and that does not include mitigation. EXCERPTS FROM VARIOUS MEETING NOTES CONCERNING Ask Bob Hudson if he would like'to send an alternate CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT AND AGENCY COORDINATION when his very busy schedule prevents him from attend- ing Task Force meetings. Citizen involvement and agency coordination occured at all levels of the planning process. The local planning group meeting was attended to gather For future Task Force meetings, the specific task of input and invite them into the process. There were several well publicized evaluating citizen involvement was added to each meet- public workshops. A special meeting was field in Salem to brief the various inq agenda. agencies and gather their concerns. The Technical Task Force was comprised of agency representatives and interested citizens. The following are excerpts The following Task Force dates were set: Marc .h 23, from the various meeting notes at which citizen involvement and agency coor- March 30, April 6. All meetings to be held at 10:00 dination was discussed or took place. a.m. in the Coos-Curry Council of Governments' offices. March 9. 1979 ------ ----- Identify roles and responsibilities for County Com- Public workshop dates were scheduled for flarch 15 and Boat Basin ExcePtion mittee for Citizen Involvement and Neighborhood March 28 with the third to be determined later. Technical Task Force Groups as follows: Place to be announced. County CCI: Monitor citizen involvement process. Bay Area Neiahborhood Group: Provide input on Dick Vigue was selected to chair public workshops. alternatives and participate in process as appro- priate. Other County N!ighborhood Groups: Provide input Public workshops for-mat to be informal. as approp riate Preferred method for going from draft docunent to pro- It was noted that all Neighborhood Group Chairmen posed document is to keep draft intact and to supple- should receive a copy of the work program packet ment with an instruction sheet of chancies for the oro- with a cover memo stating their opportunity to pro- posed document. vide input and ask that they advise other persons in their Neighborhood Group of the process and the oppor- Additions to materials list are: tunity to participate. Groin expansion EIS Corps Dredge Spoil Study It was further noted that a presentation as well as Land Conservation and Development Commission Goals coordination should occur with the East Bay, Morth Fish and Uildlife Estuary Information Bay, and Isthmus Slough Neighborhood Groups. Fish and Wildlife Habitat Maps The status of the County's Regional Planning Groups Added to roster of key participants were: was discussed but their role cannot be determined due Charleston.Sanitary District to uncertainty of their status. Charleston Fire Protection District South Slough Sanctuary Commission, INSERT: In meeting separately with Bob More, he sug- gested that a survey be discussed at the next Task Force meeting. Added to the mailing list were: It was noted that perhaps if resource agencies were more of active participants in problem solving pro- Nancy Eickhoff Ottor Trowl Commission cesses, better local-State relationships would occur. South Coast Offshore Yacht Club All County Neighborhood Group Chairinen March 23, 1979 ----------- The Task Force evaluated the need to respond speci- Boat Basin Exceptions fically to Charleston-Barrview Neighborhood Group and Technical Task Force the first Public Workshop. NOTE: In talkinq with Chuck Walters, he suggested adding Jack Kinchlow (U.S. Fish & Wildlife), Oregon Environmental Council, Environmental Protection Agency, Ron Lee, and 1,000 Friends of Oregon. Dick Vigue noted the importance of getting results of questionnaire back to participants.via media. March 15, 1979 ----------- Dick Vinue, Chairman of the Technical Task Force Small Boat Basin for the Exception Process, presided over the workshop. It was suggested to evaluate questionnaire response Exceptions.Process at next public workshop. Public Workshop #1 Meeting began at-7:45 p.m.. Following the welcome, Dick explained the exceptions process, reviewed the public workshop schedule, and explained the objec- Bob More presented concerns that results are not re- tives of the Technical Task Force and the purpose,of flective of entire Port district. this night's workshop. Ruth Day said she felt it was reflective of people who March 22, 1979 ----------- A question was asked as to whether or not the local were interested as the meeting was well publicized. State and Federal agencies understand the problems posed for regula- Agency Briefing on At Bob Hudson's offer to have office help conduct Boat Basin Exceptions tory agencies when permits are submitted without the Process benefit of an overall plan against which to measure a random telephone survey. Bob More offered to re- specific activity. It was stated that it is hard to design questionnaire. make decisions compatible for everyone - which should be given nreference: develoPment or preservation. Bruce Meithof noted that if the exception is done, Some State agencies believe they have gone mostly a part of the estuary plan has to be done. He ques- with development. This is not the perception of lo- tioned to what an exception is being taken. cal agencies. It was commented that the State regu- latory agencies may not understand how difficult it Glen Hale said it is not the state's intent to stop is for local agencies to meet demands and needs while all development until all planning is done. planning process is underway. It was noted that the exception will be both an annd- It was commented by Jeff Kaspar that balance is needed ment to the existing estuary plan and will be incor- because no one wants to destroy fisheries resource in porated into the future plan. order to accommodate fishing facilities. It was emphasized several tines that the process at issue is an exception, not an estuary plan. T.he Task Force reviewed the alternatives identified get a cross-section of community opinion. He suggested at the earlier Task Force meeting and at the Public that a public attitude survey should be taken to test the waters not only on this issue but on a sciectrum of Workshop. estuary-related issues. March 29, 1979 ----------- Item 1. The meeting was called to order by Dick Vigue Small Boat Basin at 7:40 p.m.. Mr. Vigue then read and explained the Sandy: Over 240 work programs have been distributed. Exceptions Process goal of the exception process due to the number of new Public Workshop #2 people at the workshop, He also explained to the group Glen: Dave Richey said fie would call the Regional why the exception is being proposed. It was also Planning Groups into meeting whenever the Task Force pointed out that the purpose is not to plan for moorage would wish. needs in the entire estuary but to evaluate the pro- Jack Dunham to Glen Hile: Does LCOC have concerns posed site in terms of the moorage needs and the com- parison of alternative sites. about citizen involvement in this process? Item 2. Mr. Vigue explained that the minutes from the Glen: Mo. Would like to see it plug into County's task force meetings and the public workshop #1 as process better. Some of the issues Bob raised should well as the results f Irom the first questionnaire were be dealt with in the County process. available at the table. Bob: Attracted to City of Coos Bay's attitude survey. Item 3. Purpose of Workshop. Mr. Vigue briefly ex- Doesn't seem to be necessary for exceptions process plained what was to be covered during the workshop. but woul .d be very relevant for long-range moorage Sandy Diedrich read a letter from Wes Kvarsten which Issues. indicated that the State is very much interested in the process and that the State is listening to the The possibility of survey and its proper context (Port people. Attendance and participation at the meetings planning, County planning, estuary planning, or excep- are needed to show that the People do care. The let- tions process) were discussed at length. The Tasl@ ter also confirmed that the exception can deal with Force formally decided as follows: Since problems the problem and not deal with the entire estuary. related to the exception alone are narrow in focus and since there are many issues of broader scope asso- April 2. 1979 ------------ Item 2: Evaluation of Citizen Involvement and agency ciated with the estuary. the Task Force will include Boat Basin Excention coordination to date. in its findings a recommendations that the County use Technical Task Force an attitude survey in its estuary planning process. Dick reported that the public workshops were well attended, participation was high and many topics were Sandy reviewed agency coordination, reporting on the covered. Salem meeting with agency representatives. Acencies reviewed the list of possible site'critgria and eval- Bob expressed concern because the workshops tend to be uated them in terms of importance. ThAy.felt eval- representative of the fishing community and we need to uation of alternatives should include means (eg,, dry land storage) as well as sites. They alto expressed concern about doing an exception apart from the estuary plan. Some wanted the exception to become a moorage element, prompting a letter from Kvarsten regarding the fitness of doing this exception out- side.of the context of the whole estuary. The Salem meeting underlined the importance 'of doing a good job, particularly when documenting need and conse- quences. Agency contacts will receive everything that comes out of this process land will have a chance to respond. April 25, 1979 ----------- Sandra Diedrich asked if something was wrong with the Small Boat Basin process because no one was coming forward in opposi- Exceptions Process tion to the process. One gentleman stated that every- Public Workshop #3 thing is going smoothly because everyone wants the expansion. Questions were raised concerning possible mitigation and the question of public access. It was noted that mitigation (if any) would be deteftined by the Divi- sion of State Lands when they issued a permit. There were several questions about the process in the future and how long the project would take after the exception is finished. It was pointed out that a permit application would have to be made and that could'take another year. There were several comments about the way the bureaucratic process works and the time it took to accomplish anything no matter how good it may be. ......... PART'III: EXCEPTION STATEMENT OF STITE AND SITUATION The Port of Coos Bay, in response to current demand for immediate addi- tional boat moorage space, proposes to expand the Charleston Small Boat' Basin into a portion of an adjacent area known as "Coastal Acres". Coast- al Acres is a triangular shaped 111.2 acre tract, which exposes several stratum at- low tide making it accessible for clam digging. The Port of Coos Bay has rejected conventional moorage facility design involving bulk- heading and filling. The Port proposes to develop a more cost-ly floating to fill the estuary and pier and slip system which eliminates any need - allows normal estuarine flushing patterns to continue. Enviro,nmental impacts to the estuary from the construction phase would be limited to dredging operations only. The Coastal Acres Exception Task Force has adopted a motion reccmmending 4- the Coastal Acres area as the preferred site of several alternaLives exa- mined. , The Task Force has also adopted; a recommendation that the Port of Coos Bay develop a basin expansion plan that will maximize boat moorage along the channel without jeopardizing dredging operations whille decreasing 'he amount of biological resources removed and guaranteeing the public acc.-ss to the remaining biological.resource in perpetuity. The Task Force recom- mends development of the moorage design concept presented to the Task Force by Port Commissioners-elect Michael Hosie and Bruce Laird. The Hosie-Laird design concept would consume less of the Coastal Acres mudflat-'and.involves, expansion of existing facilities combined with additional moorage in Coastal Acres. The alternate moorage design plan submitted by the Port in its per- mit application No- 2867 would require dredging about 1/3 of the Coastal Acres mudfla-1C. It should be noted that the primary adverse ir-,.pact of developing moorage at Coastal Acres is a reduction of accessibility for clam digging by the public. Neither moorage design plan would eliminate clam bedaccessibilityj but would reduce the amount of accessible clam beds. Coos Bay has been designated a deep draft development estuary in the overall Oregon Estuary Classification. State Planning Goal No. 16 (Estuary Resour- ces), however, designates oyster and clam beds as conservation estuarine management units. Clam beds are found throughout the Coos Bay estuary. 'the exception process seeks to resolve the conflict created by proposed moorage I Jally desig- development in Coastal Acres, an estuarine area othen-iise potent nated-as a conservation manaaement unit by virtue of the existence of Clarl beds in the project area. Ii is to be emphasized that Goal 16 dces allow 4- development of tne sort proposed in two ways. First, regarding conserva ion management units; Partially altered areas or estuarine areas adjacent to exist inn development of rioderat.- ii1tensity shall also be included in this classification unless otherwise needed for preservation or devell- opment, consistent with theoverall Oregon Estuary Classification. The Ccas-Cal Acres area is adjac-2nt- to the present-ly developed Charleston Boat Basin and is bordered on the shore by well-developed mixed land uses whose primary character relates to the commercial fisheries. Moorage develop- ment i@ also consistent with the-designation of Coos Bay as a development estuary in the overall Oregon Estuary Classification. Goal No. 106 does not automatically prohibit development in Coastal Acres, the presence of clam beds notwithstanding. Second, permissible uses in conservation management units include; Water dependent us-Is requiring occupation of water surface area by means other the fill. The Coastal Acres project is.a water-dependent use, providing much-needed boat moorage. The project does not involve fill-Ing of estuarine waters. T he floating slip design requires excavation of about 130,000 cubic yards to be deposited upland. Occupation of the water surface by the moorage project is a permissible use, should Coastal Ac-16s be considered a Conservation Manage- ment Unit. Following are maps and photos describing the project area. The project's relationship to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers aut-horized channel project is also, shown. 111-2 CORPS OF ENGINEERS WeRr CL. Z5, Wd- C- CL. - 191 1Fr CL. @0 L-r 6 AUTHORIZED -e* An6ixage Basin 35ft deep, 800 ft. wide and 1000 ft. I ong. NORTH SEND 5 EMPIRE AUTHORIZED Turnirg Bas nnexed ?oCoQs Bay 1966) fin 35 ft. deep, 650 t- wide, 1,000 ft. long at AUTHORIZED City of North Bend Channel 35 ft. deep, 300ft. 4 wide, Guano Rock to Railroad Bridge. Z A UT ORIZED Turning Ba., 35 ft. deep, d.@ 650ft * ide, ft lon 3 opposiI, C arik 5 ough. TRuE NORTH C COOS BAY 0 2 AUTHORIZED Chanrief acloss O"fe' 45 ft deep and 700 ft. wide, di-ens,onS q,cid.al reduced to 3514.0=% Mcio'ing Basin '00 ft wide at Guandi Rock. - ft, . 900 ft, Channel loft d p, 15011, idis, @'z Ct ' ee C, as Head Brecitwoter and Bulkhead. Q I BARVIEW Cho n I CA PROJECT n i n 10ft-deep, AREA CHARLESTON. UPS ------- Data -ithin bo'ds pertain to Authorized Projdct. @Iz CL. - 5. YZWC4 @041011 .4amorIzed m 1970 not constructed)- Base "'bint of mileage it I /"@J' downstream from Coos H-j and is otout 800 feet seawat.0 Of a Outer ",a Of jetties CORPS OF ENGINEERS 4 VALUL ENGINEERING WILL INCREASE YOUR PROFITS 20- Class 'A"Sion as 10- ci,fMg 6-ak-,'e, 0 D D a- Beddi,g A,@,-wl 80 70 so 40 30 20 10 0 10 20 50 A-A c SECTION oo a, 06 a, Cli C@A oIr I A 20- 16' @ r-q 10- Class 'A" Stone 01 02 Care Stone /0, c 0 M.LLW \,Ca.nd Line 8edding mat-i'l 4 0. 03 t 60 110 30 zo 0 0 io 20 1. .1. 50 60 SECTION B-B 20- 16' I El. 14.0 C, 4 t w --K:@,O.nd Line Bedding Afnleiol 60 50 40 310 2LO 110 .1'. 4. 50 60 6 SECTION C-C 20 V. 16, 0 (c, El. Cl-s A So,e 5""Oce p-,", Sle,k. T - - -------- T T T T F cn- Slone 20 - 20 -A 1 J-J L I El 14 0 2800 2GDO 140() 2?1@) ZDI@,l 18100 16@ 14@N) 1200 10W Class - A'St-, -10 BREAKWATER AND EXTENSION PROFJ A Co- Stan. -0 C,.. 3 'A"S, Clas@-, Class 'A' 51.. 610"d --Bedliq,V ..... I I.) 4G 30 20 a 0 K) '0 30 40 50 60 SECTION 0-0 Reproduced with permission from Army Corps of Engineers, Portland District. From Charleston Breakwater Extension and Groin Structure Final EIS Supplement, No. 1 W A, , AP T-F WNW,, Figure 1-3. This view of the boat basin, channel, and breakwater shows the eastward bend formed in the channel (Photo by Ward Robertson in the summer of 1977). Tne South Sloug@ is shown at the top of the photograph. Reproduced with permission from Art-my Corps of Engineers, Portland District. From Charleston Breakwater Extension and Groin Structure Final EIS Supplement, No. 1 4. -v N sz, @nd Fig. 2-1. Aerial view of entrance to Coos Bay Estuary, Charleston Boat Basin, and the Charleston Channel. October 1978. 2-2 MAP I I TIT- t FTTTTTT.] IF F1 Lj CHARLESTON BOAT BASIN AFIXG @ r7, ALTER14ATIVE BOAT MOORAGE PROJECT CONCEPT I 11 -72, CONSISTENCY Land Conservation and.Development Commission Goals The following goal by goal assessment of consistency addresses the need to consider the Land Conservation and Development Commission Goals as part of the exceptions process. 1. CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT Citizens have proVided specific input to the Division of State Lands regarding the proposed permit. A public hearing on the denial of the removal permit was held January 25, 1979. Citizens are provided the opportunity to be involved in all phases of the goal exception process. Two-way communication with citizens is promoted by public workshops, press releases and media presentations, coordination with the Charleston-Barview Neighborhood Group and a public hearing-on the proposed exception. Technical information is available to citizens through the availability of reference information and the public workshops. Citi- zens' committees are reflected in the exceptions document. The monitoring and evaluation of citizen involvement and public input is performed by the Boat Basin Expansion Task Force. Coordination with Coos County's CIP, special purpose districts and State and Federal agencies was accomplished via mailings, special meetings and informal contact. 1@@ Meetings for the exceptions process have been publicized and have been open to the public. Specific Opportunities. have been provided in the following ways: 1. Meetings with special groups. 2. -Wid,,e A-istri.button of work program packets. 3. Media covenge. 4. Open Task Force meetings. 5. Three public workshops. 6. Informal i)ersonal and telephone contacts. 7. Special informal open house. 8. Mailings of meeting notes and exceptions document to all parties identAfied as interested in process., 9. Availability of information. 10. Public hearing. Citizen objections have been recorded and en'Cered.into the official record. Two special State and Federal agency briefings were held with a document review meeting planned to be held. All State and Federal agencies of record are included on 11-he mailing list. 2. LAND USSE PLANNIfIG. The creation of the goal exception has been accomplished within the context and framework of the on-gbing Coos County, district-wide and State of Oregon land use planning processes. See Part II: Context. III-a, 3. AGRICULTURA! LANDS -here are no agricul4-ural lands in the proposed project site Goal 3, Since 4L, Agricultural Lands, is not applicable. 4. FOREST LANDS -e. There- There are no forest lands in the proposed boat basin expansion sit fore, Goal 4, Forest Lands, -is not applicable. T 5. OPEN SPACES, SCENIC AND HISTORIC AREAS, AND NATURAL RESOURCES The intent of Goal 5 is to conserve open space and protect natural and scenic resources. Fish and wildlife areas and habitats are included as a natural resource, 11.-o be managed consistent with Goal 5. All sites within Coos Say for potential moorage develcpment may be clas.sified as fish and wildlife natural resource areas. Clam beds, crustacean, fish and wildlife habitats are found throughout the estuary. Conflicting uses such as indusirial development, commercial fishing, and shipping also occur through- Out portions of the estuary. Goal 5 requires that when conflicting uses have been identified, the economic, social, environmental and energy consequences of the conflicting uses must be determined and programs developed to meet the goal. The planning requirements of Goal 5 are similar to a portion of the exception criteria to be considered under the Goal 2 exceptions process. By engaging in the exception process the consequences of the conflicting uses are addressed and the procedural requirements of Goal'5 accomplished. It has been deter- mined, that moorage development in Coos Bay is a conflicting use by virtue of the existence of fish and wildlife natural resource areas throughout. the est- uary. one area where no conflicting uses have been identified, however, is the lower South Slough Estuarine-Sanctuary, the importance of which has been re- cognized on the local, state and national levels. The Sanctuary consists of 4,400 acres of tidelands and watershed and hasbeen set aside for complete restoration and preservation from development:.'; Other areas of the estuary have been identified as conflicting use areas and the consequences of the conflicting uses have been determined. Evaluation of envirGnmental, social, economic and energy consequences within the frame- work.of the @exception process has resulted in development of a program to meet- current, immediate demand.for vessel moorage below the 90' class. Following is a summary of these findings, incorporating the broader require- ments of the exceptions process. A need exists for additional boat moorage. Moorage development a' any feasible alternative si-@e 'involves loss of natural resource habitat. r_valua.tion of feasible alternative sites does not indicate a most appropriate site in terms of least environmental impact. -III-10 Environmental consequences may be mitigated by expansion of existing facili- ties thereby avoiding extensive shoreline alteration, inland dredging, and filling of estuarine waters. Moorage develo 'pment at or in proximity to existing facilities maximizes eco- nomic and energy benefits. Moorage develODment compatible.with adjacent areas promotes positive social consequences. Existence of commercial, fishing support facilities, related processing and infrastructure produce positive environimental, economic, social and energy consequences. -ing natural resources/moorage (Elaboration of the consequences of conflict development is contained in PART III: EXCCP-TON) 6. AIR, WATER AND LAND RESOURCES QUALITY .@The proposed boat basin expansion will not significantly affect air quality. Water quality in this portion'of the Estuary has known problems. The water quality is monitored by the Department of Environmental Quality whille the Coast Guard regulates marine sanitation. Problems with water quality are caused primarily by failed septic.systems and non-point source run-off. The Charleston Sanitary System has eased some problems and the Coast Guard is enforcing stricter standards. The'Department of Environmental Quality does not believe that the w_;:;*k1.-er quality consequences of the proposed expan- sion are sianificant enough to halt the project but recognizes the systematic relationship of the basin ac-f[,-ivitAes'. Monitoring and regulat-ions need @ - water Quality. Thie present to be strictly enforced for the area to protect L land quality is expected to be maintairled. Development of the boat basin -her location could cause an alteration of land resources, project at anot I since complete operating facilities would have to be constructed. This is not a problem if the boat basin is expanded at its present location. 7. AREAS SUBJECT TO NATURAL DISA@ITERS AND HAZARDS The proposed boat basin expansion project- is not located in an area subject to natural disasters and hazards, except for Ithe possibility of ocean flood- ing and damaqe from winter storms . T 1hese hazards would exist regardless of the location of the boat basin. 8. RECREATIONAL NEEDS The intent of Goal 8 is to satisfy the recreattional needs of the citizens of the state and visitors. Recreational boats are expected to constitute.30% of the vessels currently requesting r.-,oorage space. The Coastal Acres moorage design -concept recommended by the Task Force would consume only the outerrnos".-, portion of the intertidal area presently used for recreational clam digging. In the Past, accessibilitv to clam beds from shore has been a problem. The Port of Coos Bay, however, has opened new ar2as 'Co clam. diggers in the past two years. A road has been built on the JN!orth Spit, allo-wing 23--, to 3 n1i'lles of linear clam digging area to be newly accessible by the public. It has been a clam digging area of significant'l- activity since the Port opened the road. Other recreational activities associated v.,,ith. boaaatc; moorage include fishing and crabbing off the piers and simply looking at boats and enjoying the visual amenities which are characteristic of fishing fleets. Such activities do not promote energy consump't.-Jon or motor-driven recreation. Moorage development generally i's consistent with the overall intent of Goal 8 as additional moorage proposals have been par-'Ely generated by recreational 11 -he Coastal Acres alternative as the fifth most demand. A 1971 study showing 41- L. important recreational clamming area @vias the principal reason for the Di'vi- sion of State Land's refusal of the Port of Coos Bay's dredging permit. Since the 1971 study, however, opening of previously inaccessible clam beds to the public has offered alt-ernatives for the recreational resource of the relatively smali Coastal Acres site. The Task Force has recommended adop- tion of the moorage design concept for Coastal Acres as presented by PorL of Coos Bay Commissioners-elect, Michael Iflosie and Bruce Laird. The moorage plan concept would consume only the outtermost portion of the Coastal Acres 4 1 -o the remaining bio- ntertidal area and would guarantee the public access 41. logic resource in perpetuity. The legal status of recreation clam diqqers and students from the Oregon Institute of Marine Biology -using the area. as a laboratory is unclear as the Coastal Acres is currently in private own.- ership. The moorage design plan concept as well as public ownership would eliminate the possibility of legal access changes to recreational users and prevent- future owners from foreclosing use of the mudflat. 9. ECONOMY OF THE STATE The proposed boat basin expansion is consistent with Goal 9 in that it will aid in diversifying and improving the economy. Fishing is one of the pri- mary economic activities on the Oregon coast. Coos Bay is highly dependent on fisheries to maintain its economic viability. The proposed expansion will help in solving the problem of an insufficient number of moorage spaces. The proposed expansion will accommodate the larger size vessels coming into use. The present facility is not designed for t@e larger boats. There is a great potential for development of the under-utilizc@_ and unutilized fishery re- sources. This means a greater demand for moorage spaces to accoramodate boats in the 60-80 foot. range, especially if the hake fishery is realized. The fishery potential cannot be realized withou-Eadequate moorage for the larger boats. Go-al 9,st-ates ".economic growth and ac-tt-Avity... shall be en.couraged in areas I that have under-utilized human and natural resources capabilities and want increased growth and activity." The 1977-78 Overall Economic Develop-mert El %, 1-urry-Douglas Eccncmic Improvement Association recoanizes _@a by the roos-r "inadequate commercial fishing moorage accommodations in District Ports 1ticluding the Charleston Boat Basin" as an impediment to economic develop- ment. 111-12 10. HOUSING Goal 10 provides for the housing needs of the citizens of the state. Since there are no buildab.le lands within the project site, this goal does not apply. 11. PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES The intent of Goal 11 is to provide tirnely, orderly and efficienlt.- arrange- ment of public facilities. A new site would require providing water, sewer, telephone,'electricity and sanitary,facilitifes, as well as police and fire protection. It would also require access and parking. These facilities are alrea-dy available at the present boat basin expansion site. Therefore, I -e is consistent with Goal 1I. the proposed boat basin expansions sit 12. TRANSPORTATION Goal 12 involves the provision of a safe, convenient and economic transpor- tation system. The proposed boat basin expansion'qualifies as being safe, convenient and economic. It is protected relatively well from wave action and storm surge. Due to the project's nearness to the ocean it must be considered convenient. It is economic because the necessary operating fa- cilities can be foregone. The Tranportation Goal also stresses energy conservation. The expansion project will help to conserve energy. Due to its nearness to the ocean, less energy wil@ be expended on reaching the, entrance to the ocean than from an expansion site located a greater distance from the entrance. The boat basin expansion project must be considered consistent with Goal 12. However, existing traffic circulation problems and surface transportation construction in the area needs to be recognized. 13. ENERGY CONSERVATION Goal 13 states "land and uses developed on the land shall be managed and controlled so as to maximize the conservation of all forms of energy". The boat basin expansion project will aid in consiLrving energy because of the nearness of the proposed expansion to the ocean. Constructing a bcat basin expansi.on at another site would use much more energy than expanding the present boat basin. This is because most of the facilities necessary to the boat basin expansion are already in place at the present boat basin. 14. URBAN17ATIOM The,land adjoining the proposed expansion site is already relatively de- veloped. 15. WILLAMETTE G-REENWAY This goal is not applicable to the expansi.on project. JII@@-13 The intent of Goal 16 is: 16. ESTUARINE RESO-URCES To recognize and protect the unique environmental, economic and.social values of each estuary and associated wetlands; and To protect, maintain, whe re appropriate develop, and where appropriate restore the long-term environmental, economic and social values, diversity and benefits of Oregon's estuaries. Goal 16 requires that comprehensive estuary planning be conducted, which shall inter alia, result in classification of the estuary into management units. At a minimum, management units within an estuary shallconsist of Natural, Conservation and Development management units. Among the criteria for classifying portions of the estuary as Conservation management Units are oyster and clarn beds. The exception process has been necessitated by a finding by the Division of State Lands that a Port of Coos Bay permit appli- cation for dredging a portion of the Co astal Acres intertidal area W ould be inconsistent with Goal 16. The Coastal Acres area contains clam beds and would therefore be classified as a Conservation management unit. The exception process seeks to resolve the conflict created by proposed moorage development+ in Coastal Acres, an estuarine area otherwise potentially des- ignated as a Conservation management unit by virtue of clam, beds in the pro- j1-ct area. The exception process notwithstanding, it is emphasized that the-Coastal Acres project is not necessarily inconsistent with Goal 16 upon evaluation of the relationship of the project to Goal 16 requirements. Overall Oregon Estuary Classification LCDC has classified the Coos Bay estuary as.a deep draft development estuary in the overall Oregon Estuary Classification. The purpose of the statewide classification was to "assure diversity" among Oregon's estuaries, insuring that all estuaries would not be either exclusively developed or preserved. Moorage development is consistent with the overall classification of the Coos Bay Estuary. Reduction or Degradation of Natural Values Dredge, fill, or other reduction or degradation of these natural values by man shall be allowed only: 1. if required for navigation or other water dependent uses that re- quire an estuarine location; and 2. if a public need is demonstrated; and 3. if no alternative upl-and locations exist: and 4. if adverse impacts are minimized as much as feasible. The moorage development proposal satisfies the. estuarine development criteria. Moorage is a water-dependent use requiring an estuarine location. Public need has been demonstrated (see'PART III: EXCEPTION). Alternative upland 111-14 locations do not exist. Adverse impacts have been m-'Inimized'through project design. The floating pier and slip system allows moorage development wit-hout filling, and does not obstruct current, tidal and flushing patterns. The floating pier, non-fill design will involve twice the cost of conventional dredge and fill moorage facilities. The project loc.aticn has been designed to consume the minimum amount of intertidal area. Management Units When classifying estuarine areas into management units, the following shall be considered in addition to th,e.inventories: 1. Adjacent upland characteristics and existing land uses; 2. Compatibility with adjacent uses; 3. Energy costs and benefits; and 4.- The extent to which the limited water surface area of the estuary shall be committed to different surface uses. Classification of the Coastal Acres area, except for the existance of clam beds, in accordance with the classificattion criteria above, allows moorage development at the sit--. The adjacent upland characteristics and land uses consist of well-developed mixed uses whose distinguishing features relate to the commercial fisheries. Vessel support facilities and fish processing activities are adjacent. Moorage development has no significant energy ex- penditures associated with it, as rnost of the vessels needing moorage are presently active and many are using ternporary moorages in the Char!-eston area. Moorage development at the Coastal Acres site is energy-efficient by being close to +he entrance to the ocean and in not requiring energy expen-' diture on filling or breakwater construction during the construction phase. As the-project design does not involve filling of restuarine waters, the extent,which the water surface area is committed to another use is minimal. The floating pier system also involves less of an irreversible "commitment" than normal filling practices. CONSERVATION MXIAGEMENT1 UNITS CLASSIFICATION Partially altered areas or estuarine areas adjacent to existing development of moderate intensity shall also be included in this classification unless other- wise needed for preservation or development consistent with the overall Oregon Estuary Classification. The Coastal Acres area is adjacent to the presently developed Charleston Boat Basin and is bordered on the shore by well-developed land uses whose distin- guishing character relates to the commercial fisheries activity. Moorage development is also consistent will.-h the designation of Coos Bay as a develop- ment _astuary in the overall Oregon Estuary Classification. Goal 16 does not automatically classify the Coastal Acres sit-e as a ronservation Manage'ment unit because of the presence of clam beds. If the presence of clam beds alone determined classification of management units, the entire Coos Say 1, - unit. Such classi- estuary would be classified as a ronservation Management fication is inconsistent with the overall Oregon Estuary Classification. 111-15 Permissible Uses Permissible uses in conservation-areas shall be those allowed in (1) above; active restoration measures; aquaculture; and communication facilities. Where consistent with resource capabilities of the area and the purposes of this management unit, high-intensity water-dependent recreation; maintenance dredging of existing facilities; minor navigational improvements; mining and mineral extraction; water dependent uses requiring occupation of water surface area by means other than fill; and bridge crossings, shall also be appro- priate. If Coastal Acres should be considered a Conservation management unit, it would be so despite consistency with the conditions necessary for recuction of nat- ural values, consistency with the non-inventory management unit criteria, consistency with the overall Oregon Estuary Classification, and proximity to existing development. It would be so classified because of the clam beds. Within Conservation management units, however, development of the sort pro- posed is a permissible use. Comm@rcial and recreation'al"boat moorage is a water dependent use. The Coastal Acres project has been designed to occupy the water surface by means other than fill. Evaluation of the Coasll-al Acres project's relationship to the requirements of Goal 16 indicates consistency with th,e goal. 17. COASTAL SH-ORELANDS Goal 17 allows for the development, where appropriate of "the resources and benefits of all coastal shorelands, recognizing 4,-,heir value for . . . water dependent uses, economic resources and recreation and aesthetics. The management of these shoreland areas shall be compatible with the character- istics of the adjacent coastal waters". The Coastal Acres property is con- sidered as being appropriate for the development of water dependent uses and economic resources, i.e. the proposed boat basin expansion. The boat basin expansion is compatible with the characteristics of the adjacent coastal waters in that -@@I-he coastal waters adjacent' to the proDosed expansion site contain the present boat basin. The boat basin expansion is designed in a manner which will "reduce . . . the adverse effects upon . . . the fish and wildlife habitat, resulting from the use" of the Coastal Acres property. The floating piers will allow for mini- mal flushing and resource obstruction. The Coastal Shorelands Goal requires local, state and federal agencies to "mairv@a@n the diverse environmental, economic and social values of coastal shoreiands." Many of the sloughs and inlets of Coos Bay are rela t4 vely un- touched by development, and, therefore, maint-ain their environmental values. Development on Coos Bay takes place primarily in the Charleston area along the 15 mi 1 e ship channel Goal 1-7 also states "shorelands in urban and urbanizable area es.pecially suited for w,ater-deDendent uses shail be proCected for viater-dependent recrea- tional Commercial 'and indust-rial uses". Charleston must be Considered an 4- n urban or urbanizable area. Due to the proximity of the present boat, basi. of @L and the characteristics 11he adja@,,ent land us.es, the Coastal Acres property is considered 111-o be suitable for viate+r-dspendent Uses. 111-16 L The Coastal Shorelands Goal established general priorities for the overall use of coastal shorelands. The first pr 4ority is "to promote uses which maintain the integrity of estuaries and coastal waters". The second prior- ity is to "provide for water-dependent uses". Coos Bay is classified a deep draft development estuary. Areas have been set aside'for preservation ofnatural values and other areas remain in the natural state. Since the LI -e are engaged in coastal waters adjacent to the.proposed expansion sit water-dependent uses, the propc9ed use of the Coastal Acres property is considered to be a continuation of this water-dependent use. 18. BEACHES AND DUNES This goal is not considered significant to the proposed boat basin expansion pro'Ject because no beach areas will be altered by i-he project. However, there are beach areas near the project site. This goal is similar to the Coastal Shorelands Goal, in that it provides for the development, where appro- priate, of the resources and benefits of coastal beach avid dunes areas. There is not expected to be a "hazard to human life and property from . . . man-induced action" associated with the Coastal, Acres property. 19. OCEAN RESSOURCES Coal 19 isnot considered to be applicable to the boat basin expansion. This goal per',,-.A_ins to the "benefits and natural resources of the near-shore ocean and the continental shelf". Although the boat basin expansion may allq@j for greater u-ICilization of fishery resources, there are regulations which provide for the maintenance of the optimum sustainable yield while protecting the -em. natural marine ecosYst 111-17 Oreg.9n Coastal Zo.ne Management Program - a project is consis- The Oregon Coastal Zone Management Program states that tent with it by either: 1. being consistent with an acknowledged for compliance plan; 2. being consistent with the goals and any other applicable portion of State regulation cited in the Oregon Coastal Zone Management Program. If the exception is adopted,'if.- will meet Oregon Coastal Zone Management Program in the latter way. Coos County Estuary Plan E,lement and County Plan Po-licies The Coos' County Planning Department has indi cated that the following County policies apply to the proposed boat basin expansion: Section Page A-6.1 A-7 B-1.5 B-1 B-3.2a B-3 B-3.2b B-3 B-3.3- B-3 B-3.4 B-3 B-3.5 B-4 B-3.6 B-4 D-1.1 D-1 D-1.2 D-1 D-3.1 D-3 D-3.3 D-4 D-3.4 D-4 The following is a discussion of the consistency of the proposed expansion with applicable County policies. A-6.1 The County Parks Advisory Board should set priorities for,obtaining funds for recreational development, taking expressed public needs into account. The proposed expansion is consistent'with thi s policy in that Coos County has designated the Charleston Boat Basin as a possible marine site. There is also an expressed public need for the expansion, evidenced by the wait- ing'list,of over 150 people. B-1.5 Tourism and recreational development opportunities shall be identi- T'led and development will be encouraged. The proposed expansion includes construction of floating slips for pleasure boats. Therefore, the project is identified as a recreational development opportunity and its development is encouraged. B-3.2a Development of port facilities and continued maintenance of shipping channels shall be encouraged in appropriate locations as a means to promote P commercial, industrial and recreational activity. Th6 Coastal Acres property is considered to be an appropriate location for development of the boat basin expansion. Due to the proximity of the exis- ting boat basin and support facilities. The expansion would promote commer- cial, industrial and recreational activity. B-3.2b Coos County encourages estuarine channel maintenance and encourages improvements to all types of local shipping facilities in order to promote wood products, fishing and other import-export industries. The expansion project will be a substantial aid in promoting the fishing industry. EXpansion of the boat basin will lead to expansion of the fishing fleet. This in turn will lead to a greater utilization of the fishery re- source. IH_19 B-3.3 Protect and where appropriate, improve existing facility/service sys- tems that will enhance estuarine related commercial and industrial activities. Expansion into the Coastal Acres property will improve the existing facili- ties. The expansion will all,ow greater utilization of the fishery resource, which will enhance estuarine related commercial and industrial activities. B-3.4 In determining the locations of vessel moorage, all long-term econo- -mi-c-and environmental aspects of the proposed moorage site shall be consi- dered. The long-term economic and environmental aspects of the proposed expansion site were considered during the formation of the Coos Bay Estuary Plan, An Element of the Coos County Comprehensive Plan. The project area is desig- nated Marine Commercial and Marine Transport in the Estuary Plan. The economic and environmental aspects have also been considered during the formation of the Goal Exception. B-3.5 Coos County shall promote the local fishing industry by zoning suit- able areas in the estuary for fishing fleet moorage facilities adjacent to support facilities. Dredging activities and construction plans in boat basin are in compliance with the Coos County Interim Zoning Ordinance. The Coastal Acres property is zoned Marine Commercial. Boat launching and moorage facilities are per- mitted uses. The proposed expansion site is adjacent to Support facilities. ties'in close proximity to exist- B-3.6 Encourage multi-use docking faciliL 1-66transportation networks and support facilities. The proposed expansion into --',-he Coastal Acres property is adjacent to the existing navigation channel and the support facilities presently serving the boat basin. D-IJ Land use planning studies focusing on shoreland areas shall be con- cerned with bot4 the protection of natural resources and the develdpment potentials of the land while striving to maintain the integrity of estuaries and coastal waters. The Coastal Acres property is considered to be the most feasible site.for 'Che boat basin expansion. The proposed expansion has been designed as a compromise to allow for as much protect-ion as possible for natural resources. D-1.2 Dredge, fill or other reduction or degradation of the natural values shall be allowed only: 1. when required for navigation.or other water dependent uses that require an estuarine location; 2. a public need is demonstrated; 3. no alternative upland locat-ions exist; and 4. adverseArnpacts are minimized as much -as feasible. The proposed boat basin eXDansion is a water-dependent u.se. A public need has been demonst-rated by the waiting list of over 1-50 people, No feasible upland alternative locations exist. The proposed-expansion ha,s been designed to -minimize adverse impacts as much as pbssible. @ @ Tn- D-3.1 Areas of critical importance for fish and wildlife habitats shall be identified and their values conserved, in cooperation with natural resource agencies. The proposed expansion has been designed to have as li '" ttle effect as possi- L, - boat basin has not- interfered with or ble on the habitat. The present damaaed the Coastal Acres property as far as its being a recreational clam- -ming area. The proposed expansion is not expected to endanger adjacent habitat areas. wildlife habitats shall be identi- D-3.3 Critical m@rshes and significant fied and protected as consistent with the natural values of the area. The design of the proposed expansion will provide for as much protection of the wildlife habitat as possible. D-3.4 Coos County recognizes that marine productivity requires an interde- pendency and diversity of species and habitats. Habitat types vital to maintaining a functioning healthy estuarine system should be identified and protected. The small amount of habitat area a@fected by the proposed expansion is not expected to endanger the estuary as far as it being a functioning healthy -sem. estuarine syt The main idea behind the Statewide Planning Goals and Coos County Policies is to allow development, where appropriate, and to preserve natural values, where appropriate. The Coastal Acres property is considered to be an area -ing boat basin. This would be com- appropriate for expansion of the exist patt-Able to the existing uses in the adjacent coastal waters and shorelands. The proposed expansion has been designed to preserve natural values as much the habitat area will be as possible. In addition, only a small portion of affected by the expansion project. The proposed Charleston Boa-L-. Basin expansion into the Coastal Acres-pro- perty is1considered to be consistent,with the intentions of the Statewide Planning Goals and Coos County Policies. 111-21 EXCEP-rIIO,',,' CRITERIA Need For Proposed Use THE FOLLOWING SECTION ON ECONOMIC NEED IS AN EXCERPT FROM A DRAFT 1979 REPORT, COOS COUNTY, OREGON ECONOMIC SURVEY AND ANALYSIS BY DR. DONIALD H. FARINIESS, PROFESSOR OF ECONOMICS, OSU, CORVALLIS, OREGON AND DR. WILLIAM BOODT, REGIONAL ECONOMICST, PORTLAND DISTRIrT, U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENIGMEERS. THIS IS A CORPS OF rENGIi,,1EERS REPORT ADAPTABLE FOR REGIONAL AND LOCAL PLANNING. A good harbor with relatively safe access during adverse weather and proxi- mity to rich fishery resources have been responsible for the development of both commercial fishing, and fish and seafood processing in the Coos Bay area. Currently, the industry is the third most. important, in the County, ranking behind only forest products manufacturing and waterborne commerce. The industry is centered in and near -L-,he Charleston area, which - of the county's landings in recent years. has accounted for over 95 percent In 1975, an estimated 4.3 plercent (see table III-1) the county's basic income was derived from commercial fishing and another approximately 1.5 percent from fish and seaflood processing. In other recent years, when the value of the catch has been larger, the industry's impact on the county'S economy has been even larger. The boat basin at Charleston was initially constructed in 1956; it has since been periodically expanded. The Charleston area is served by a 10-foot channei, and has a capacity of about 540 berths. There are present- ly more than 2550 boats waiting for space. Approximately 350 of the vessels 'i, with about 250 of these in the boat basin are commercial fishing craf t, b@eing greater than 30 feel in length. Many of the trav,,lers range to 60 feet. In addition, there are approximately 050 large vessels using the channel to supply local plants and receiving stations. The area also has about 16 charter boats. The larger boats are: crabbers, shrimpers, bottom fish trawlers, or some combination thereof. The number of larger boats, which cost $100,000 or more, has been increasing, and some owners have two or more vessels. Estimates of the area's number of commercial fishermen vary somewhat. A 1976 report by Coos-Curry-Douglas (CCID) Economic Development District esti- mates the number of commercial fisherpersons at about 500, although part- time participants may be included; ol6er current estimates range @rom 400 ,to-620.persons. In 1976, there v;ere about 400 licensed commercial boat- Owners living or registered in Coos County and about 7150 commercial fish- ing license holdlers living there. Since the 'larger vessels are manned by 3 to 5 persons, the 500 commercial fisherperson estinate would seem reasonable. Historic data on the number of fishermen in the area are not ava1lable; however, harvest dat--a, the increasing number of sizes of cor..imer- cial b-oafl-s, and.the overall develop@nent of the area would indicate the nur,,b-.r,to be increasing. Local fish and seafood processing in the Charleston area has'also increased. There are presentiy six processing plants and three receiving stations at Char!eston and on-, processing plant atEmp4 I - re. Pro@celssing employment has. varied since t-he 1940's. Employment data inbicate that Coos County is fish.and seafood processing employmen-t- increased from 1-es.s than 50 persons I IJ - 22 in 19@8 to more than 509 persons in 1969. Although harvest aind landings 0 have continued to increase, processing employment has declined somewhat eff 4 as the local plants have increased I sciency by updating te%-hnology adding shrisr,,,Ip peelers and by other means. Present county processing em- ployment is about 340 persons, of which approximately 40 are enniployed in one additional county plaritat Bandon. In the county, there are presently 11 shrimp peelers 'in the Charleston-Empire area and 3 at Bandon. The recent trends of Coos County landings are illustrated in Table III-1. They rank second in Oregon, of which the Charleston-Empire area accounts for about 96 Percent. Landings of some species have varied widely; total landings have increased about 50 percent since 19660. Landings of tvio groups - shrimp and bottom fish - have increased significantly, and 4- each represent about one-third of the total landings by weighu. Salmon landings, however, often represent 40 percent or more of the total value of all Coos County landings. The cyclical character of the industry and of its specific sectors is indi- cated by both the data of Table 1II-l and the value data of Table 111-2; values,are expressed in both current and constant dollars. The value data indicate the recent upward trends, but.also considrable fluctuations from year to year. By species, the variation is even greater as indicated by -he total annual landings accounted 'or by the percentage of the value of 4L. I - I each one. See Table III- . Further indication of fluctuations are given by the high-year andlola-year landings for the period 1969 to 1976, which are reported in Table 111-4. By weight of catch, the high year expressed as a factor of the low year indicates that for. tthe principal-spocies, the best years were 3.5 to 10.7 times better than -[--he worst years. Contrary to what might be expected, except for crabs, significant compensating price adjustments did not occur. In fact, when the dollar value of the.catch is corrected for general price inflation, the value differences between the high and low catches are even greater than in weight terms for four of the six categories. 111-23 Tabl e III-1. FISH LANDINCS - COOS COUNTY. (000 lbs.) Bottom Year Salmon Shrimp Tuna Fish Crab Misc. Totil 1966 3,431. 2,589. 3,092 564 2,253 138 12,067 1967 3,273 2,526 8,555 758 1,758 113 16,983 1968 2,168 3,302 4,843 1,564 2,030 91 13,998 1969 1,749 3,552 2,687 3,655 1,593 80 13,316 1970 2,848 4,711 374 2,823 2,728 103 13,587 1971 2,740 1,521 378 2,695 1,919 87 9,340 1972 2,261 5,410 2,545 5,605 479 159 16,459 1973 3,468 8,826 2,144 4,064 256 63 18,821 1974 3,805 4,858 3,175 3,707 785 58 16,388 1975 2,655 7,736 3,614 4,237 775 78 19,091 1976 4,559 6,229 531 6.,346 1.443 ill 1.9.219 Source: Oregon Department of Fish-and Wildlife. Table 111-2. ESTIRATED VALUE AT FisHrRmENS LEVEL OF C011MERCIA), FISH AND SEAFOOD Ij,!1DINGS IN COOS COUNTY nf dnI.1;irs) Value of landings Value of landings measured in measured in constant Year current dollars 3,967 dollars 1969 2,571 2,342 1970 3,215 2,764 1971 2,110 1,739 1972 3,751 2,994 1973 6,161 4,629 1974 6,588 4,460 1975 5,567 3,490 1976 8,884 5,211 Source: Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 111-24 Table 1L.I-3. FERCENTAGE OF ESTIMTE'D VALUE, AT FISHER-MEN'S LFVLL OF CM-Mmr-RCIAL FISH AND FEAFOOD LANDINGS IN.COOS, COUNTY, 1,969-1976. Species 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 Chinook 12.3 16.3 4-4 7.2 25.8 19.1 20.7 13.4 Coho 17.9 34.2 38.0 27.7 17.5 25.2 16.0 47.1 Crabs 18.6 21.2 31.8 5.4 2.4 18.3 11.2 1.0.6 Shrimp 15.2 17.6 9.3 21.6 31.5 19.1 18.7 14.0 Tuna 23.5 3.2 5.3 23.1 14.4 19.8@ 21.9 2.9 Ground Fish 11.4 6.6 10.5 14.2 7.9 7.9 10.9 11.6 Other 1.1 .9 .6 .9 .4 .4 .7 .4 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Table 11-1-4. COOS COUNTY FISH LANDINGS BY SPECIES, HIGH AND LOW YEARS 1969-1976, MLASURED BY WEIGHT AND VALUE. BY WEIGHT S @cies I I i Lf -Ir Low Year High Year as a 1,000 lbs. - -y-'OO0 lbs. Factor of Roundweight Year Roundweight Year Low Year Chinook 1,793 1973 177 1971 10.1 Coho 3,793 1976 1,083 1969 3.5 Crabs 2,728 1970 256 197j 10.7 Shrimp 8,826 1973 1,521 1971 5.8 Tuna 3,561 1975 374 1970 9.5 Ground Fish 6,347 1976 2,695. 1971 2.4. BY VALUE Species High Year Low Year High Yearas a Value in Value in Value in Value in Factor of Current 1967 Current 1967 Low Year $1,000 $3,000 $1,000 $1,000 Chinook 1,589 1,194 93 7@ 15.5 Coho 4,183 2,453 461 420 5.8 Crabs 682 586 146 110 5.3 Shrimp 1,942 1,459 197 162 9.0 Tuna 1,220 757 103 89 8.5 Ground Fish 1,034 606 222 183 3..3 Source: Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 111-25 Fortunately, the highs and lows for the various species have-not generally coincided; however, the lows for all species, except crabs, did fall during the '1969 to 1971 period. Ccnsequently, these were relatively poor years for the fishing industry as a whole. More serious were the consequences for owners of specialized gear and labor skills which could not readily be shifted from one species or region to another. Insofar as the catch is processed locally, the fish and seafood processing industry experiences the same fluctuations which directly affect fishing. This industry had an annual average employment of 308 in '1977 and 354 for the first 8 months of 1978. In addition to annual fluc-'L:uations, the indus- try is also seasonal. The 1977 employment rang-e was from 171 in December to 451 in flay. Economic impact and multiplier effects of both fishers and processors, dils- cussed in the "Overview" section, are also important. The economic welli- being of many local firms - shipyards, machine shops, welding services, suppliers of fishing gear, marine radio and electronic services and equip- ment, fuel, transportation, and many others - is dependent upon fishers and processors. If present trends continue and current plans are brought to fruition, both fishing and fish processing will become even more important in the Coos County economy; and it is expected that the new developments will be more stable, both'annually and seasonally. Available fishery stocks are, of course, an important constrai.nt. In recent years, shrimp harvests have been high. This has enabled the Oregon product to expand its domestic marke-L-. area at the expense of New England and to develop foreign markets. Expansion or maintenance of these markets is con- tingent on the availability of shrimp stocks. At present, they appear suffi- cient to maintain present harvest levels but not to permitmuch, if any, expansion. One way in which the traditional constraints on the industry have been over- come has been through the development of new stocks, as in the cas(@ of aquaculture. At present, there is one salmon facility in the area, and a second one is in the development stage. Release and recapture feasibility tests and studies have been encouraging. . Another way of bypassing the traditional constraints has occurred through the harvesting of different species. In recent years, the harvesting and marketing of bottom fish have increased significantly. Available stocks -he coast of Oregon and Washington are reported to equal of rockfish off 41, 41 the present Northwest harvest for all species. In addition, there are very large stocks of flall.-fish, rays, and black cod. These available stocks, in total, are reported to be many times greater than are currently being har- vested. Given the new 200-mile fisheries jurisdiction, the large biomasses 'off the Coos Bay, and expa,nding markets for the harvest-, expan,..sion of this part 'of the industry may @e expected to continue. The potential for the .hake fishery is also large, with a pottential annual harvest of more than 200-,000 tons off the Oregon-northern California cost. Hake test, i',larketings and other developments have also been reported to be successful. Nonetheless, furLh&r developmen-t of the industry is a1so contingent on devel- opment of adequate moorage and bert-h-ing facilities, deeper draft harbors, 111-26 adequate plant sites and processing capacity, and handling and transportation facilities to accommodate increased tonnaqes. Some of these developments will probably. be in the North Spit area o@ the estuary. Related cold storage boa'- building and repair, and other industry-linked activities are also planned or likely if 11-he necessary facilitating public infrastructure devel- opment and planning decisions are reached. 111-27 The foregoing excerpt by Farness and Boodt points out the current si tuation of the commercial fisheries in Coos County. The future eco-omic situation for fisheries will become critical as exploitation of groundfish, including previously underutilized species assumes more importance due to the 200 mile limit. The Fisheries Conservation and Management Act of 1,976 gives the domestic seafood industry first oppor-1k.-unity at ary fishery 4000 miles or closer to the United States. The act will stimulate goundfish harvest of such species as Pacific hake. Groundfilsh landings have been the most stable species landing from 1959.1 Development of the stable groundfish resource f4 can be expected to stabiliz@ thecyClical na-'Cure of commercial isheries. Groundfish are harves-(-.ed by Vessels in the '50-90 foot class, with at least' 23 varieties of fish landed.2 The seafood industry yields one of the high- est income multipliers in Oregon. Substantial mull. 4plier effects occur to local fishing communit-ies and regions as fish are normally processed near the ocean resource shortly after harvest. Income multipl.' jlers for Coos County's commercial fisheries have not been detlermined, but multipliers for Clatsop, Tillamook and Douglas Counties, calculated from 1968 to 1973 were identical at 2.7.3 It is likely that, because of this remark able similarity the income multiplier in Coos County is near the 2.7 figure. The 2.7 sea- food multiplier indicates that for every $1,000 received by the fisher, another $1,700 of local busi,ness activity will be generated. The total local impact generated is $2,700. Seafood processors also generate rnultipliler effect but these multipliers are more difficult to speculate as no consis- tent multipliers have been shown for Oregon as a whole. Consideration of tile probable multiplier associated with Coos County's fisheries and the estimated value of landings in the county give an indication of the economic need fo!l commercial fisheries in Coos County. k"he economic importance of rommercial fisheries must also be considered in relation to Coos County's dependence on the forest products industry, which is expected to show short and long term decline. The COOS-CLirry-Douglas Economic Improvement Association has projected subtantial declines in the District and Coos County forest products industry. Coos County, on the basis of substantial and persistent unemployment was designated as a redevelopment area by the Economic Development Administration on April 6, 1968. -Coos County - and is a desianated continues to experience chronic and severe unemployment membe r of the Coos-Curry-Douglas Economic Development District. Coos County has experienced higher levels of unemployment than Oregon and the nat-ilon every year since 1960.4 1. Rompe, W., Smith F., and Miles, S. "Oregon's Seafood Industry: It's Importance to Oregon's Economy" Sea Grant, Oregon State University Circular 965, January 197/9. 2. Ibid 3. Ibid 4. Coos-Curry-Douglas Eccnomic Improvement Associaticin, Cop.,10rehensive ECo- nomic DeveloDment-Strattegy 1978-1979 Action Program., 1978. 111-28 In 1977, 21.5%, of the county's total employment was in the forest Dro- ducts industry, amounting to 5,060 jobs.5 @ec`ause of a number of facto'rs including declinina availability of suitable lZimber resources, competition frorp, other regions, and increasing productivity, the Coos-Curry-Douglas Economic improvement Association forecasts job losses ranging from 250 to nearly 2,000 over the next 20 years.6 Layoffs in t-he industry have begun already, as Georgia,Pacific will lay off 200 out of 260 workers at its plant in Coos Bay on August 1, 1979. 'he layoffs will be permanent. Further employment reductions are eXpect-ed to continue as studies show a forthcoming large decline in log exports, a modest decline in product, timber, plywood linerboard, and pulp and paper moving to other foreign and domestic portD The overdependence of the county on the declining forest products industry makes it critical for the county to diversify its economy to ease unemploy- ment and sustain income. One tactic is to provide support facilities to foster commercial fishing, allowing exploitation of the previously un0eruti- lized groundfish resource. The CCDEIA regards diversification as a funda- mental economic goal of its member count-ies and recognizes that inadequate moorage facilities for commercial vessels is an impediment to local economic development.8 Tourism is also a significant portion of the economy of Coos County. It is unknown what effect the energy supply situation will have on tourism develop- ment. It has been widely but informally noted by citizens, 'ask Force mem- bers and the media that out-of-state tourism has de@lined in'the summer of 1979. As a consequence, it is important to provide additional moorage to provide incentives and to provide facilities for water-based recreation/ tourism and to stimulate the fisheries to offset potential economic declines in tourism. 5. Coos-Curry-Couglas Economic Improvement Association, Comprehens.1ve Eco- nomic Development, Strategy 1978-1979 Action Proaram, 1978. 6. Ibid. 7. Baldwin, F.M. and Associates, Inc. The Feasibility of Port Development on Coos Bay --An Environmental Study 1977. S. Coos-Curry-Douglas Economic Improvemenl: Association, Economic Develop- ment Strategy. 111-29 Compelling Reasons and Findings of Fact Moorage Need The Charleston Small Boat Basin curren-f.-ly has about 540 i-iioorages available. Some 70% of these moorage spaces are used by commercial fishing vessels. Over 180 requests for moorage are on a wait-ing list with an esiimated sixty I d4 rg -ut not on the waiting list. to seventy addit4cnal vessels neel moorage b I L, Approximately 70'%' of the vessels on the waiting list are commercial fishing boats. Findings Commercial fishing and related processing are the third Most active econornic sector in Coos County. The fisheries sector of the economy is expected to hold an increasingly larger,share of the Coos County economy. The 200-mile fisheries Jurisdict-ion, the large biomasses near Coos Bay, the 4 variety of species available for harvest, and expanding markets all contri- bute to the expansion of the fisheries industry and to the increasing number of vessels employed in the fishing industry. The commercial fishing and related processing.are centered in Charleston in Coos Bay. Certain types of fisheries related expansion may occur in other parts of the 4- n -0, Coos Bay Estuary, but Charleston is expected to remain the cen.er for co..ier- cial fishing fleet activity due to facilities and services.already located in Charleston. There are Currently more vessels requiring moorage than there are moorage spaces available. Projections and trends indicate that the need for moorage @%,rill continue to be unmet unless additional moorage space is provided. Inadequate commercial fishing moorage has been recognized as an impediment to economic development of Coos County. Coos County is overdependent of the forest products industry with 21.5% of -all employment in this sector in 1977. Forest products employment has shown a-consistent decline from 1960 througin 1977. ,Grovith 'of the timber industry on Coos Bay, is Uncertain with a consensus that t @1 imber harvest levels will decline over the next 20-30 years. Log exports from Cobs Bay are predicted to shot-i a large decline. A niniodest decline is forcast for products, timber, plywood, linerboard and pulp and paper. Coos County is overdependent on a single industrY (forest products) whi0 inhibits industrial diversification that- could provide empTcyment opportu- nities to offset the anticipated decline in forest prod,ucts employment. YTT Coos County has experienced unemployment levels consistently higher than those of the State and nation and was designated by the Economic Development Administration as a redevelopment area on April 6, 1978. Coos County has been designated as a member of the Coos-Curry-Dougqlas Econo- mic Development District because of the county's persistent chronic and severe unemployment. Development of the commercial fisheries sector is essential to diversify the Coos County economy and mitigate projected unemployment caused by a decline in the forest products industry. 111-31 Discussion continued on the subject of need: EXCERPTS FROM THE VARIOUS MEETING NOTES AND QUESTIONNAIRES I'FNT.i@ING THE NEEDS FOR ADDITIONAL MOORAGE On windy days all the moorages are used. There is not enough for emergency tie-ups. Swells coming into the basin cause problems to those blown in March 9, 197@ ---- ------- That there are four types of moorage - each with on windy davs. Boat Basin Exception different space, land, channel, turn-around, and sup- The fishing industry is burdgeoning; more berths Technical Task Force Port facilities requirements. These categories are are needed. Nake and shrimp industries are devel- sport, commercial, trawler (over 90'), and deep water. oping. The Federal Government is encouraging the use of underutilized fish species like hake. Coos Bay is March 11, 1979 ----------- It was noted 8 to 9 boats have already arrived since in the qeographic center of that resource. Charleston-Barview the contested case hearing. There is a desparate Boats are getting bigger to cope with the rough Planning Group weather. The Port is in a bind because existing need for additional moorage. facilities were built for 59-foot vessels maximum. The bigger vessels will be here for a long time It was also decided dredging was badly needs, more because they are more versatile. moorage was needed but there were not any other possi- bilities. Roy Gunnari introduced Don Pease of the Southern Oregon Production Credit Association. His Company It was noted the Group should encourage more moorage, has done $30 million worth of volome on the Oregon and more boats. Coast, perhaps half of that in Coos Bay. His company has a lot of investment, he said, and the borrowers There is support for 60' boats in Charleston, but have alot invested and the facilities just aren't not for 90' elsewhere in the Bay. there. March 15. 1979 ----------- Dick then opened a discussion on the need for moor- Bob More stated that this meeting brought home that Small Boat Basin age. Comments included the following: immediate moorage needs are very pressing, but we Exceptions Process shouldn't lose sight of long-range needs. The pro- Public Workshop #1 There are many commercial vessels fishing in the posed expansion is a band-aide. We also need to area now that need moorage. They're now tied up at temporary moorages. remember that development costs go up rapidly and it Roy Gunnari said he had to give up his moorage, would be better to address the long-range needs when the person from whom he had subleased it wanted the space back. sooner than later. There are not enough moorage sites for the size and class of fishing vessels now operating. Roy Gunnari compared development of a new site for In response to questions, Jeff Kaspar, Port oper- remedying the immediate moorage shortage to construc- ations manager said there are currently 575 moor- ting a hotel when all we need is to add another room ages in the Charleston boat basins, about 30% of which are sport; the rest are commercial. At the to the house. time of the Division of State Lands(DSL) contested case hearing on the proposed expansion there were 182 boats on the waiting list (again about 30% recreational, 70%. commercial). t1arch 22,..1979 ----------- it was also noted that the moorage to be provided It was emphasized that a precise determination of State & Federal Agency at the triangle site would be long-term moorage for need should be made. Forecasting factors need to Briefing. on Boat Basin Exceptions Process 80 vessels. be used. It was stated it is most desirable to use existing facilities well first before expanding. Question was posed as to where would the situation be a year from now if you only provide 180 boat slips? The issue of meeting needs on a short-term as opposed to a long-tem. basis.was discussed. Concern was It was noted that the primary need attempting to be expressed that the Coastal Acres site only meets met was not the seasonal sport boat. short-term needs. In response to questions, it was noted that the cur- March 23, 1979 ----------- Bob More expressed concern that the long-range moor- rent distribution of moorage types at the Basin is Boat Basin Exception age needs be addressed as well as the immediate. Technical Task Force 70% comnercial and 30r sport. This same distribu- tion is what is on the waiting list. The issue of whether the moorage needs for vessels over 90' should be considered in this process. Comments were made that a plan is needed so that needs are targeted. Chuck Walters urged not looking at just immediate needs but also looking at needs for vessels over It was stated that a decision on meeting the imme- 90'. He urged a careful evaluation of alternatives. diate moorage need can't wait for the estuary plan to be done. If scope is narrowed, the adequacy of the proposed project must be assessed. It was commented that since there are about 180 on a moorage waiting list and since about 180 moorage The "need" needs to be defined not just in terms of slips will be created by the proposed expansion, it demand but also in terms of destination. seems a foregone conclusion that the Port will be back soon for another expansion. It was commented There is a documented need in the waiting list. that another expansion would be logical next to this one. It was noted that thp Barview Wayside area had It is very difficult to predict future demands in been also proposed in the 1963 CH2M Hill Study as terms of volume, type of moorage, and destination. well as the inner basin and the triangle expansion. Many fisheries resources are cyclical resources. As It was noted that the existing facilities have cer- resource moves, so does the fleet. tain capabilities, have some alternatives. Whi 1 e there is a need for more moorage, some can be accom- Walters urged that the exceptions process address modated without serious impairment of environment. phase 11" for moorage. Need to look at where the moorage situation will be in five years. It was again urged to look at alter- natives now. the larger boats don't need permanent moorage, Jeff Kaspar questioned whether or not vessels over only temporary tie up facilities. 90' require periianent year-around moorage. A question was raised that if it takes the Army Karl Elfving said 70' boats did not need permanent Corps of Engineers so long to do anything, why should moorage. we be planninq for only up to 4 years. It was also pointed out by another person that the 101+ foot Walters urged setting forth a complete rationa7e boats are now comina on line and there has to be a for demand. place for them to moor. The boat basin can't handle vessels over 90'. Further discussion occur,ed on future trends, eq: larger boats, growing interest in sailboats and in- Distinction for moorage must be made between daily creased number of sport boats. Again it was pointed access and transitory. out that the expansion is to meet present needs, not a future fleet. Hudson questioned why exceptions process was underway if there weren't a demand and need for immediate moor- One person state that that was an awfullv expensive age. "band aid" to meet 4USt the present moorage needs. Sandra Diedrich then explained the relative costs April 25, 1979 ----------- It was explained by Sandy Diedrich that the exceptions that would occur if another site was devplooed. Small Boat Basin process is designed to meet the immediate needs with- Exceptions Process in a short time period (1-4 years). She also ex- Public Workshop #1 Mr. Why pointed out that the Basin also has a biq plained that the intermediate and long range and the impact on the tourist trade and perhaps vie should long term-long range muorage needs have to be ad- be looking at a two phase process. 1. to meet the dressed in the overall estuary plan. present needs and 2. to meet the future needs. it was pointed out that the iffnediate needs could be A question was raised as to why the upper bay was. met at the Coast Acres site and extending the cut of the alternatives. It was explained the moorage existing facility because of the availability of needs were in the 50-80 foot class and the upper support.facilities economic importance and the in- bay was too far to go. It was pointed out that the creased tourist incorie. upper bay would be a good place for moorage of sport and sailboats. This was ident3fled as a long In discussion of alternatives it was felt by a major- range need that could be addressed in the estuary plan. ity of the people that only the Coastal Acres and extending existing facilities could.meet the imediate It was pointed out that within five years the needs needs. All the remaining sites should bi-i'looked at could increase as much as 50%. Several people pointed for long range moorage. The reasoning for,this was out that the trends are shifting to the larger boats. the high cost and the length of time until they could Other persons pointed Out that in the northern pofts be developed. The North Spit was also included as a long rance moorage possibility. March 15., 1979 ----------- Is there a need for additional moorage space in Needs from Question- Coos Bay? naire Results from Public Workshop #1 Yes - 40 No - 0 Don't Know 0 March 15, 1979 ----------- Is there a need for additional mooraqe space in Needs from Question-, Coos Bay? naire Results from Public I-lorkshop #1 Steelheaders Yes 3 No 2 Don't Know 0 Evaluation of Alternatives and Findings The major issue related to the Boat Basin Expansion Exceptions Process has been that of alternatives. The need for moorage and economic need for maintaining, diversifying, and expanding the fisheries sector has not really been at issue. The consequences have been fairly well accepted by consensus. Further, concerns about impacts on surrounding uses have not produced find- ings of incompatibity. The major focus of discussion throughout the exceptions process has been alternatives. The first type of alternative which quickly comes into play is alternative sites. Yet, site is one of four types of alternatives to be considered. The other three are alternatives of design, of management, and of means. Alternative Design This alternative is site specific and relates in this context only to the Coastal Acres site. The conventional design for boat basin facilities is to bulkhead the dredge area with dredge spoil deposited behind the bulkhead. The Port of Coos Bay has proposed a more environmentally sensitive design of floating piers on pilings. The design will provide habitat area, limit the amount of submerged area permanently in use, optimal flushing characteris- tics and sustain a reasonably high quality of aquatic resources. Use of the floating pier design substantially reduces resorrce loss although such a design involves twice the cost of conventional design. The Hosie/Laird design modifies the original design as applied for to the Division of State Lands. The Hosie/Laird plan involves shifting the concrete pier towards the channel, away from the shore, thereby reducing the proportion of inter tidal area to be dredged to the outermost portion of the Coastal Acres area. The Hosie/Lairdplan extends as far as feasible the existing pier and slip system toward the channel. The BoatBasin Exception Task Force has recommended that the Port develop the Hosie/Laird plan which also includes guaranteeing the public access to the biological resources in perpetuity. (See mapll). Alternative Means In addition to water moorage, dry land storage is an alternative for many boats. Particularly, dry land storage is suitable for sport vessels. The Port of Coos Bay currently has dry land storage available but cannot exclude sport vessels from the other basin due to federal funding convenants. Since the exceptions process generally focused on commercial - 30' to 90' - vessels dry land storage was not considered a feasible alternative for the large majority of unmet moorage need. However, the process recognized that dry land storage must always be an ancillary facility to basin moorage. Alternative Management This alternative suggests the considerations of a different alignment of present moorage leases to make more space. The Port of Coos Bay works with leases to make the most efficient use of existing moorages but recognizes the on-going nature of such management practices. Re-alignment could not produce adequate additional space to meet the current moorage need at this time. Alternative Sites Based upon the combined experience, knowledge of the estuary, knowledge of corriniercial fisheries from t-he. varled backgrounds of Task Force members, 16 alterna-II.-ives -L-,o the Coastal Acres site were assembled for evaluation. The range of alternatives kvas also developed -by citizen participation and com- ment and reference to earlier past development studies. The alternative of dry land storage for recreational vessels was also considered and incorpor- a 6 -o the other sites as an ancillary facility. The alternate sites '-ed int L were examined in terms of the criteria shown in the Feasibility Matrix (Page 111-40). Application of the matrix, public input into the review process, as well as application of -other criteria noted in the following site-by-site preliminary evaluation resulted in the emergence of seven sites as the most viable for small commercial boat basin needs. !H-37 MAP 12 t X .... . . .... . 4 ............. .. . ....... ..... 4 ... . . ..... Y1.7 ... . ....... ... . ............ . .... ...... . ... ..... ..... ... ....... COOS BAY -------------------- ............. ............. ... . ...... .... A LT G R Ad AT I V E SITE 4.[Development of an Inland site -9.NQr-th Point [Al' P:ierce propertyj ---- 6-a-Lipper, Haynes Inlet -iayne Bb.Lower F -s Inlet 7-Coos Bay Aqua Center r B.North Slough 9. S:tka Dock a. North Spit, [Roseburg L.mbr. I 'C-lb.Ncrth Spit[Rort prcpc7j-ry Prop2rcyCE(np; e @,7 7, MAP 13 SIL 'INT BARVIE W.: L MA P 2 7R N AT IV M sl WES 1. Chorleston Acres (proposed site] ac:iity 2. Extension of Existing F, 3-Ory Land Storage of Sport Boats 0 12.Barview Wayside 41 1'3.North of the Breakm/atec CPt. Aciarrw-A 70r 14-c-3ou uh Siough C zouth of Cho-leston .15.Petei,son Sea Food 17. jot2 Pjr _N Slougl-I 111-39 Al B IC D IE FI G I H i I OZ En FEASIBILTTY MATRIX UZ a) a: 0 rd <rd r. 0 (a a) .11, 0@1 00 @4 Z 0) 4J Q) 4-) 4) H > -A V) 41 ra 41 (0 41 1@ Q) 1_q Z Q r, - Q) -1 ro _ArU -q Q) @-4 WO 41 - 4-) $:; :@: @Q 4-3 for alternative means H < 4 r. M -,4,4 ,-1 .,-; Z 4-) 0 U ru @4 U) 15, ru r-q 4J Q) (U of -eet.-'Ino immediate -I @4 "A-4 41 (n -,A4J @A @4 0) ro U 4J 44 a) 4-4- En a) Xr Q) W a) V) R. fro .1 moorage needs 44 4J LH Z CO) 21 d" W-H 80 010 En U) LO x4 P@ F:4 (nr,@ 4J U rd M 0 10 (7@ N = limiting 1. Coastal Acres 0 0 0 ip 0 0 2. Extend existing docks 0 0 0 0 = potentially limiting; problems 3. Dry-land in basin + 0 0 0 0? o? 0 = not limiting (appart-.--ly) 4. Inland basin 9) * - "': * = not available; unknown 5. North Point 0?., 0 F-eep on processing 6a- Haynes Inlet, upper 0? F-sewer? ht. Assumption' is: N I D-dep on bridge -_- Moorage for immediate need 6b- Haynes Inlet, lower D-dep on bridge ht. F-sewer? (180-200 slips) CD 7- Coos Bay Aqua Center 0 0 0. A. Acres I 8- North Slough 0 0 B. Acres I 9- Sitka Dock 0 0 0? 0 0 0 0 0 C. Sand and/or mud ok; rock substrate 0 lOa- North Spit-Roseburg Lumber 0? 0 0 0 0 0? 0 F-sewer lOb- North Spit-Port property 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 95 0 D. $ as well as physica. 1 .1 1 1 E. 11- Pony Slough 0? 0? 0 P I10? 0? 0? 95? F-see 5 F. Available or existing-O 12. Barview Wayside 0 0 0 0 0 0 H-public opinion moderately expensive or physically difficult to 13. North of Point Adams Breakwater 0 0 provide - 0 ,0 0 0 0 9) 14. South Slough 0 0? q1? G. $ not taken into account H-dep o 15. Perterson Seafoods 0 9)? 0 0 0 N? selling n Pet. S.F. H_ Public opinion also taken jark. area r & size park. area into account where @t can 16. Swanson site 0 0 95'@ 0 0 0? reasonably be projecto(I 17. Joe Ney I 1 0 0 1N . 1 0 (11 S, 12, 14, 2) J__ - - I. critical- habitat=0 high- V,-1 r i. a h I C variable preSUITIOd T= parking -1-1 ;-I--f-;A,1 @r nn The Feasibility Matrix as presented assesses the feasibility-of these alter- nate siites. The sum of the Task Force review, public input and use of inforniation and evaluation criteria led to the following sites emerging as the most viable of the seventeen for a corrniercial boat basin: Co as -,I-. a 1 Barview Wayside Existing Facilities North of Breakwater North Point Swanson Property Sitka Dock In summary, sites were eliminated or retained for further consideration for the following reasons: 1. Coastal Acres: This was retained because it is the proposed site and is adjacent to existing facilities. 2. Extension.of Existing Facilities: This was retained because some very short-term or temporary moorage night be created to help until a basin could be constructed. 3. Dryland Storage: This was incorporated into all other sites as an ancillary farility. 4. Development. of a new inland site: This was eliminated because such a site would invclve a long-term process in excess of a timely meet- ing of immediate needs. 5. North Point: This was retained because is is a site*available for development. S T 6. The two Hayne Inlet sites: These were eliminated due to restora- tion potential and due to severe development limitations for a project such as a basin. 7. Coos Bay Aqua Center: This was eliminatLed as an immediately avai- able alternate site but should be considered in further moorage study. -ions for 8. North Slough: This was eliminated due to severe limitat navigation. 9. Sitka Dock: This was retained as an alternate site for further con- sideraticn. 10. North Spit: These sites were considered to be more appropriate for trawler facilities thus not considered further for a commercial moorage basin. 11. Pony Slough: This was considered as not appropriate for a commer- cial imtoorage basin. It was eliminated for further evaluation but recognition was given to North Bend's interest in a sport marina in the Pony Slough area. S4 12. Barview Way ide: This was retained due to its aeographiC location . and bal-I kup space. 13. North of Breakwater: This was retained for further evaluation as ter ev form a portion of a sbeltered area. --the new breakwa-@ Atension VI-i I 14. South Slough South of Charleston Bridge: This was eliminated due. to the bridge and location of the oyster beds. 111-41 15. Peterson Seafood: This was eliminated due to the substrate and the ..Potential for other more appropriate uses. 16. Swanson Property: This was retained due to location and buckup space. 17. Joe Ney Slough: This was eliminated due to the bridge and location of the oyster beds. FEASIBILITY/COST ASSESSMENT OF MOORAGE DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES The exception process then concentrated on evaluation of the remaining seven alternatives. Strong support for the Coastal Acres site was shown in neigh- borhood/community meetings and public workshops on the project alternatives. Citizen participation involved general assessment of the seven alternatives V4 bo'll-h in terms of feasibility/cost and en Ironmental impacts. Several salient points and issues were developed. The feasibilill.-Y of the Coastal Acres site received general consensus. The Point Adams site presented very high costs because of the breakwater .needed-for protection,of moored craft. The length of time in completing the Point Adams site was estimated to be from 8 to 10 years. The Barview Wayside site is used as'a recreat-ional site by many local resi- dents who voiced strong objections recent-ly when a small boat launching faci- lity was proposed there. Barview Wayside is also adjacent to marshland, un- like the Coastal Acres site. Development of Barview Wayside would also require completion of the Charleston Breakwater Extension. The Swanson property at Empire would also require breakwater construction to protect moored vessels from surge from passing ships. It was pointed out that all locations except Point Adams, Coastal Acres and Barview Wayside would involve higher energy expenditure because of the distance of the other sites from the ocean. The Swanson site was discussed at lenath and the presence of herring spawning grounds at the site was noted. Support facili-tties would also have to be constructed at the site. The Sitka Dock site was reviewed in terms of feasibility and found to be currently too costly. The Port of Coos Bay would have to purchase the necessary land and construct- a breakwater, filling the estuary. Complete - facilities would also be required. Sitka Dock construction of support I is also very near the prime herring spawning beds in Coos Bay. Further, Sitka Dock is one of the few relatively undeveloped sites in Coos Bay which has both backup space and deep water moorage, both of which is ideal h 4- for industrial uses. Given the special features of Sitka Dock, the ighesL. and best use should be determined by estuary planning. The North Point site possesses a primary disadvantage of being far removed from the entrance 4k-.o the ocean. Much higher fuel consumption would be involved in developing this site. Acquisition of property, breakwater con- st-ruction, construction of suppcrt facilities i.,iould also be required. The site is,a long instance from the fish processing plants in Charleston. A 4 the s t L. I I strong ncrthwest wind occurs at ite, his-@-or cally causing problems 401. with log rafting. The increased moorage at North Point could also con- flict with shipping channel traffic considerably. 111-42 The alternative of increasing dry land storage was examined but it was noted that demand for such storage has not exceeded supple. Also, the largest size craft that can be stored in dry - land facilities is 30 feet. The expansion of existing facilities alternative received considerable attention. While some expansion is possible, the major obstacle of subs- tantial expansion is interference with the access channel dredged into the South Slough. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers indicated that dredging a new channel further east of the existing facilities poses problems because of geologic foundations. Subtantial expansion of the existing facilities would interfere with the turning/maneuvering basin, regardless of channel location. Small-scale expansion, however is possible. Expansion of exist- ing facilities, however, can not meet current moorage needs. Expansion of existing facilities must occur in conjunction with provision of other moorage space. The seven alternatives which remained under consideration were reviewed in terms of the major moorage siting criteria. The most extensively evaluated alternative besides "Coastal Acres" was the extension of exis- ing facilities. This assessment is attached. Further, the siting cri- teria were applied to the other alternatives. The assessments of other sites according to the moorage siting criteria is contained in the excepts from the meeting notes. EVALUATION OF SITE 2 - EXTENSION OF EXISTING FACILITIES PROPOSED MOORAGE MAJ.OR SITING CRITERIA* In!@; L-itutional Arrangements Zoning: The area is not "zoned". Designated as ma@ine transport. Will problably be in a development management unit. Cannot restrict navigation. Planning: Not gain enough new moorage to solve problem. Couldn't get construction underway this summer. Maybe a few new slips - 20 --for short-range but not for long- range as new slips would encroach on.marine transport, designated channel, and turning basin. Long range would involve land acquisition on other side to re-locate channel. Might get conditional use for temporary encroachment,on turning basin. Permits.. Need to avoid running aground - transit pier to Peterson Seafood. Dredge wouldn't come in if. had extended slips becaus@ it cou *Idn't turn around. This would cut-off maintenance. Need Corps approval. 14ould invol@e leas.ing if submersible. -Need DSL clearance for pilings. DSL, Corps, Coast Guard, ODFW clearances take at least 90 days. Need Congressional approval for long-term. Ownership: Not a problem. Lease submerged lands. Change lease agreement from DSL. If slips in turning.basin, there is already a dedicated use. Mitigation: Not applicable for short-term but might be for long-term if channel had to be re-located. Also.could result in loss of the Pacific (dredge) Could come* off of fixed pier with floating side-ties not requiring dredging. Feasibility. Administrative: Management is greatest advantage. Capability already there. On sh4t- term could only extend floating dock and dry dock 20 moorages - there are longest docks and are for larger boats. Engineering: New breakwater is to be contracted in May or June. Minor engineering short-term. If gor beyond breakwater, long-term and need more engineering. 111-44 Economic: Captains never go outside o 'f an authorized channel because they lose license if caught. Good spin-off in-te,@ms of multiplier in basin-sector. Fiscal: Port t,,,ou I dfind money. Salvage so materials after'short-term could be re- cycled. Not do lst class pier for short-te*rm but re-use pilings. Geologic Substratum: Not applicable for short-tem. Long-term could'have problems if channel had to be re-located. Dredging: Pacific needs channel and t-urning area for maintenance and deepening of existing channel . If Pacific cannot work, then no problem with spoiling but problem if Pacific cannot dredge. Spoiling: No problem short-term. Long-term has a whole different set of problems. Corps has favorable cost-benefit to take channel to 15 feet. Environmental Water Quality: Last summer tuna fleet had,to moor in'Huhgry Harbor due to weather coliforn flushed into main channel. There is a problem anyway from run-off and sewerage. DEQ has never advised Port that the pollution is from the boats. 20 more boats not make a real impact. Pumping available. Crew needs to have way to get to beach. C dock and inner basin has pump-out. Recommend monitoring format for spills and water quality. Not against moorage but against further degradation. Issue more complex than face value; i.e. carrying capacity. Solid Waste: It confined to a set situation, easier to monitor solid waste, spills, and water quality problems. But if not concentrated, then greater dillution. Who-will be responsible for monitoring, testing, and police. Could recommend a management strategy. Port would allow only boats with new standards and have stickers. 111-45 Economic: Captains never go outside of an authorized channel because they lose license if caught. Good spin-off in terms of multiplier in basin sector. Fiscal: Port would find money. Salvage so materials after short-term could be recycled. Not do 1st class pier for short-term but re-use pilings. Geologic Substatum: Not applicable for short-term. Long-term could have problems if channel had to be re-located. Dredging: Pacific needs channel and turning area for maintenance and deepening of existing channel. If pacirfic cannot work, then no problem with spoiling but problem if Pacific cannot dredge. Spoiling: No problem short-term. Long-term has a whole different set of problems. Corps has favorable cost-benefit to take channel to 15 feet. Environmental Water Quality: Last summer tuna fleet had to moor in Hungry Harbor due to weather coliform flushed into main channel. there is a problem anyway from run-off and sewerage. DEQ has never advised Port that the pollution is from the boast. 20 more boats not make a real impact. Pumping available. Crew needs to have way to get to beach. C dock and inner basin has pump-out. Recommend monitoring format for spills and water quality. Not against moorage but against further degradation. Issue more complex than face value; i.e. carrying capicity. Solid Waste: If confined to set situation, easier to monitor solid waste, spills, and water quality problems. But if not concentrated, then greater dillution. Who will be responsible for monitoring, testing, and police. Could recommend a management strategy. Port would allow only boats with new standards and have stickers. III-46 Tides: Problem if channel not maintained - channel can't be maintained if dredge cannot get to it. If extend docks, Pacific not come in if silted in, boats have to come in on high tides. Breakwater will help. Currents: Not problem for short-term, but could be for long-term. Shoaling: Breakwater extension will significantly reduce shoaling. Waves and Surge: Limits extension but depends on breakwater extension. Drainage: Not applicable. Pattern of drainage not change, but impact could if had more use. Alternate Uses: Dredge access, turning basin, navigation channel. Maintenance Dredging: Could preclude ability to do maintenance dredging - separate Pacific from pipeline dredging. Sociological Traffic - Land and Marine: 1977 summer traffic county was 4,400; 1978 showed 10% increase. Isolate traffic from moorage and from community. Problem going to increase Tourist problem. synergistic traffic problem. Bridge problem. EcosysteMS: In this' particular,alternatIive, no negat'ive if can maintain the water quality as is. Watch for effect on oyster bed circulation. There has been improvement. Nped to address changes from recent improvements. -Most boats dump out past 3 mile limit. Habitat: No negative impact Energy Efficiency: Positive efficiency.-Breakwater will increase this. Weather: Storm surge problem which breakwater will.correct-eliminate 97% of surge. Keep channel flushed. Flushing: Inner basin has dead corners. Short-term extensi6n has no significant flushing problem. EPA requirements would be met: basin must flush with @ tidal cycles. Since hot enclosed, no problem with flushing. Port has mechanical ability,to flush. Labor constraints if have to do too much mechanical flushing. Crescent City controls should be checked but must remember costs. Systematic Estuarine Channel Capacity: Re:'channel & flushing can'n.ot put Port into double bind. How many use flushing stations - can create natural abuse if, not adequate facilities. User fees to finance to.finance support facilities. Get fishing.community involved in solving problem. Location of Navigation Channels: Current channel 10' - not maintained until at 7'. Proposed to go to 15' constricted width. Moorage should have access but could impede access. Protective Features: Breakwater extension soon to be constructed. T T T_A7 us e, patterns: Re: traffic:.residents don't mind visitors being sloaed down. Marina traffic could.handle additional b-oats but could have negative impact on Pacific'3 ability to navigate. Exclude sport unless charter for any new moorage. Recreation: Outer Basin must be open to sport by federal requirements. Could waiver be asked for? Trends Resource: Resource available. Salmon down but other up. Cycles in species. Economic: Need diversification. Capital available for financing. Market is rapidly expanding. New distrtbution methods and frozen food capability. Moorage Demand: Documented. Adequate. Emergency status. Site versus system. Support of Related Facilities and Services Availability - Current and Future: Yes. Accessibility: Yes. 111-48 Public Facilities, Services and Utilitie-s: Yes Ancillary Services: Yes Vessels Use Patterns: 60'-70' could be accommodated Characteristics: Most boats are self-sufficient Draft Turning: Would need to re-adjust leasing patterns. Use. area south of transit pier. Turning patterns could be inbibited. Couldn't extend short docks. Projections for Demand: Not applicable. Permanent moorage vs. transitory: Although short-term, gr'and to permanent type moorage. Would be restricted to such. Transitory not poss*ible due to space pro- blems and@channel encroachment. 111- 49 Maintenance Dredging: May be in use for only one yar. Can do for 1-1 1/2 years. Duration will affect maintenance dredging and channel deepening. Pacific needs turning room. slips not need dredging, per se. Sewage/Tidal Waves: Breakwater to handle this Utilities: Pumping stations available - part of general lease. Would have maintenance problem. Support Facilities: Some problem for emergency slips. Environmental Quality: See earlier discussion. III-50 Given the need to further assess feasibility of alternative sites to meet the moorage needs, the need-feasibillity was addressed in terms of immediate, short-range, intermediate and long-range. A site had immediate feasibility if new commercial moorage could be constructed momentarily; short-range if it could be on-line within 4 years; intermediate if it could be on-line in more than 5 years; long-range if the timing exceeds 5 years but cannot be generally pin-pointed with current information. Recognizing that several of the sites would be used for moorage given adequate time and financial resources, the Feasibility-Cost Matrix was applied to the seven sites. The summary is attached. III-51 FE A Sl -131 LFF\/ /CoST MATRI@ As APPLIC-D 70 SEV6N 4L_T6RN,9-r.,V6 Gil-.ES COaSTAL ACRES 6XISrIN4 FAcit-IrIcS /voqrf/ Poi.@jr 5jr,<A DOCK BMV16W W4 YSIVE A@ 0,r BReAKW I9T--,q FCASIBiuTy ST-uDq DoNc - .965 9es @e5 9e5 LaNG Ve5 6t4oQr Time-SH6crr . eS LON6 S F> ? crjs-r- i-OU) I M el ED I ATE M I- -rime -S+IoRr Gosr - N I G ii Acquisine; N c p ges ges - MCE)luft) wiciff no Lie5- Oeed 5 Sri9r-l 6UJN&-D f)o TIrna-5H6RT- P F_ PTX4 6 DIE D *@ cosr Good Fdq COM PLETED Porchoa LE;A5F_ LON4 7--ciRM med.I. 15 r-, 8QC.AKLA;ATGR E@otswtq Vi' C-asr Me;D( 1-1 EC D F_ D ? 0c) no r) 0 Jlpz@ no Yes (j e5 A.Opqc. T-ima 065iC,tl MEEOEO FoP, HIGH C,05.r SN),,s AS SiTA (i S (?@j ? Z)ot,)E gas y5 @e5 Lje 5 Q EA K W@)T6 R 01A Ij es, yes NIA no 141 Gti cosr Lj es P, E 0,,U 10 F_ D L) NC 6 R 7A'i PJ ? ges? @es ? ARE suppoRr 10% AddITIW4 to"/, AODIT16H qes qe5 too-/, 9es (jes GCD-/, Ije-5 (00.4 r-A,f(L:l I lp_,5 KZEDCO? T'iry%E - L.6"G Ti ry) E - ME D I U Al -ri ma - LON,$ -rime - SHoszr -rj@)s LO?4(@ Cos-r- @4iGtj C,Sr fncolum c6sr - 41 G 1+ COS-r- HIGH COST ftle-01I, CC el 5 _S P4QKJ@q(. PrOSI-EM5 L3 E5 y,5- snt4o Sro r4 E yes -yes ef, ges aGo- 300,004 too r.6, On 0 C.61C. R 3 00 a0c t@ E:r- c) rz D culoic-41vas 3.4"A 6 40 6,0,01) - 1.000, 000 YARz)-5 ATIlaoo ;tGa-36o'coo C# GO, 000 C@J/ud AT -% 5 !2-- Per Li d Per q A rz D QT37.50@qd AT$-7,Q-0/@' Fiu_ir,,i,,- Peoporso? no n 0 qe5 BRIEAKWATIeR 2WI! a lCujATe,- i3n;akw.47-t IT 19 AT ( 0 A MCL4 unvowc L@es could -66 6 O.L)) Re D hi&H Cc-.-r AS, LeSS ComPL64 CaMpl.6% - Dep6mv.. (@e5 Comple)L '3 e.5 Ljes Ccrnpl( epj V I r?orq ME NT 15 c,91 t" m i T- R ,, r e'6 iq F-P4 uiRamoicr4r 'R@_ 00 ( R 6 D @e5 es L@ E5 e5 25 ;,)EG0 ADWTlot@A(_ ? eS n o qeS es L; k R 1- 0 r) 0 C3 e5 Rcc@uiRED 7 f) 0 L3es no L@es ? n6 yes? r, 14 1 NM IS EMS? Oo 0 00 E@0@ L@PND l:;T6R6G6. 0 e-5 A VAL( rib I ys E PEAs I bLF-W E 'jV T LRON'MEINTAL ASSESSMENT OF MOORAGE DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES Precise evaluation of the environmental impacts of developing sufficient moorage at the seven alternative sites was not possible as specific engi- neering site plans would be required for each site to enable detailed withstand-Ing, it can be noted 'ha-'- all alterna-ives assessment. This not I., L' L except Coastal Acres/Existing Facilities and Barview-Wayside would require fi 114 Ing of estuarine waters. Filling alters estuarine flushing pat. 'I. e rn s permanently removes the estuarine bottom and water area from. biological activity and decreases the amount of estuarine surface. Filling may also produce unexpected effects i@. terms of cui-rent flows, wave action and accre- tion or deposition. Filling of estuarine waters is generally regarded as the most damaging of ran's activities in the estuarine ecosystem. Significant environmental features of the seven alternative sites are summa- rized in the Environmental Assessment Table. Results of the assessment show that the Coastal Acres area is distinguished from the alternat-ive sites because of its use as a recreation clam digging area. The recommended design of the Task Force, however, trAtigates the consequences of develop- ing the inter-tidal area as only the outermost portion of the mudflat will be dredged. The combination of the expansion of existing facilities, prc)(i- mity of the exist-Ing facilities to the Coastal Acres dredging area and t'he configuration of the land formi, work to mitigate adverse environmental con- sequences. These factors allow for a project desion that features rilini-mal contact with the more sensitive shoreline by using the existing facilities. This type of design may not be possible at the other locations. Development of the alternative sites would most likly involve intensive deVelopment- acti- Utt4 vities ab Ing the estuarine shoreline. In this fashion, the intensity or extent of the environmental disruption at Coastal Acres may be considered to be less severe than at t-he alternative sites. A small port-ion of the environ- mental features of the Coastal Acres area will be affected, whereas greater proportions of the environmental features of the alternative sites would likely be negatively impacted. T_ - -he Coastal Aores site, Cxcept for the presence of recreational clam beds at 4- no alternative clearly emerges as the most suitable development site in terms of minimal adverse environmental consequences. The fact remains that Coos Bay is generally a productive estuary 'Chat has been designated a development estuary. The need for moorage presents inevitable conflic-L'ts all- the al"L',erna- tive sites, and throughout the entire estuary. While certain environmental consequences cannot- be totally avoided at all alternative sites, the Coastal Acres site presents the best opportunity for inhibiting and managing waICer quality problems. Waste disposal stations, Coast Guard enforcement and the Charleston Sanitary System provide the means for reduction and prevention of water pollution caused by vessel activities. This combination of facilities is unavailable at [the alternative locations. Additionally, concentrating the development of commercial fisheries and re- lated processing facilities in the Charleston area allows for more ef-ficient water qualitY.management. Scatterej or dispersed commercial -1fisheriles devell- opmen,t at alternatives outside the South Slough does not prorlote efficient water quality management or a desirable land use pattern. I I 1 -53 0 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF ALTERNATIVE LOCATIONS A L T E R N A T I V E L 0 C A T 1 0 N S Coastal Existing North Sitka Barview Point Swanson Environmental Feature. Acres Facilities Point Dock wayside Adams Property Clam Digging yes * INCLUDES: Clam Beds yes Gaper, yes yes yes yes yes Cookle, TSpecies 51) ? 1-2 3-4 2 1 1-3 Butter, - Softshell, Crustacean Habitats yes yes yes yes yes yes yes Macome/tellina Species 4 1 2 4 1 1 3 Major Eelgrass Beds in prox- in prox- imity imity Important Waterfowl & Shorebird Habitat yes yes yes yes **INCLUDES: Important English Sole, Dungeness crab, Sand Sole & Speckled yes yes yes yes yes yes Amphipod, Sandab habitat. Ghost Shrimp, .Use of area by Marine -Mud Shrimp, Mammals. yes (Dungeness crab Important Juvenile Sal- assumed to monid Rearing Area yes yes yes yes yes yes exist through- out estuaxy) Important Striped Bass Rearing Area yes in prox- Herring Spawning Area in T)fox- imity imity Major Shoreward marshes yes yes yes Source: Clam Digging Map Gaumer, ODFW, 1971; All others - Coos County Planning Department Maps, 1979; See Also - Baldwin & Associates Feasibility of Port Development on Coos Bay (Supplement, 1977) Alternative Sites Evaluation of alternative sites proceeded despite the practical difficulty presented by the absence of specific engineering/design plans for each of the alternatives examined. Evaluation of alternative loca-@,-Jons consists of two elements: feasibility/cost of alternatAve moorage locations; environmetil--al impact of moorage development at altlernative locations. Following are reas- 4- ons and findings based upon evaluation of the seven alternatives no,, precluded from development by application of the malJor moorage siting criteria. COMPELLING REASONS AND FINDINGS OF FACT Feasibility/Cost All alternative sites except Coastal Acres require engineering feasibility studies to be conducted. Acquisition of property for moorage development has been negotiated by the Port of Coos Bay. Two other sites would not require the port to acquire t-he property. The Coastal Acres site is one of four sites not requiring breakwater cons"truc- tion. Basin design has been completed only for the Coastal Acres site. Except for the Coastal Acres area, all alternative sites would require sub- stant,ial provision/addition of commercial moorage support facilities. Composition of Coastal Acres substrate render it the most economical location in I.-erms of Cost of dredging per cubic yard. The Coastal Acres and Barview Wayside sites are the only locations allot-ling basin development without the necessity of filling estuarine waters. The Coastal Acres site is the sole location not requiring provision of addi- tional Port management. The Coastal Acres site and the North of Breakwater site are the only sites not requiring stream bank protection as a condition of development. Environmental Impacts Clam beds are found throughout the Coos Bay estuary, and at all alternat.4ve locations. In a 1971 study, the Coastal Acres area ranked fifth in importance of recrea- tional resource use of clam beds in the Coos Bay Estuary. Since that time the Port of Coos Bay has engaged in road construction on the North Spit, of Coos Bay opening up subtantial areas for clam digging accessible by auto. It is probable that the relatively small Coastal Acres site has dimished in importance for the recreational clam digger. 'Coastal Acres does not contain important eel grass beds, although one bed will be dredged. 111-55 4- -er fowl and shorebird habiat as are Coastal Acres is nct an impor-i'ant wat three other alterna-'Ce locations. All alternate locations -including Coastal Acres provide habittall.- for cructa- ceans, english sole, sand sole, speckled sandab and 'Juvenile salmonid feed- ing and rearing. Coastal Acres is among tthe sites that arenotstriped bass feeding and rear- ling areas. Coastal Acres 21s included in,the sites that are not used by marine mammals. There are no major marshes or other sensitive shoreland ecosystems at the Coastal Acres site, unlike two alternative sites. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS: EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES Interms of feasibility and cost, the plan to expand existing facilities and dredge the outermost portion of the Coastal Acres in-111-er-tidal area (Hosie/ Laird plan) is clearly the preferable alternative. Evaluation of environ- mental impacts to alternative locations indicatles that no one alternative 4 emerges as the least environmentally disruptive location. The distinguishing feature of the Coastal Acres alternative isits accessibility for recreational clam digging. The opening of much larger clam beds for digging and the fact that the recommended design plan will leave most of the inter-tidal area untouched mitigate the adverse -impacts of the project. 111-56 ....... .... Following is a compilation of Task Force and Public Workshop evaluation of It was mentioned there is a problem in deepening the these alternatives: channel opening.. EXCERPTS FROM THE VARIOUS MEETINGS AND QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS Alternative sites suggested were North Spit and Sitka Cock. CONCERNING THE GENERAL DISCUSSION AND SITE SELECTION OF THE VARIOUS ALTERNATIVES George Tracy commented the area W3S Prevlcuslv corsider@:d March 9, 1979 ------------ In discussing the scope of consideration of alter- by the Port, it Is not a new idea. This has been clanned Boat Basin Exception natives, Bill Mullarkey suggested limiting the con- since 1962. Condemnation of CA in 1965. He noted the Technical Task Force sideration to between the bar and the railroad bridge. area already has the channel dredged to the bridge. Dick Vigue suggested using the 101 bridge to the bar. March 15, 1979 ----------- At its first meeting, the Technical Task Force defined a Rationale for this limitation was set forth by Task Small Boat Basin perimeter within which it is logical to look for alter- Force members as follows: Exceptions Process native sites for moorage development; that area includes 1. Problems with vessel traffic through bridges Public Workshop #1 the lower bay from McCulloch Bridge to the .bar and south 2. Channel availability/ac@ess 3. Availability/access of Ocean to the beginning of the South Slough Sanctuary. 4. Weather conditions 5. Difficulty for smaller boats to traverse Several people asked questions directed at finding out if substantial length of Bay 6. Economics of operating boats moorage assignments could be altered to alleviate sorne 7. Time consumption 8. Energy use of the pressure. The following items were detemina-d 9. Proximity to processing plants during that discussion: 10. Proximity to support facilities and services Some of the cormercial craft moored in the basin Possible alternatives identified were: are under-utilized, but the economics are such 1. Dry land storage 8. Barview Wayside that it's hard to afford keeping a boat without 2. Creating new inland site 9. Northside of Breakwater fishing full-time. 3. Haynes Inlet north of Point Adams I 4. North Slouth 10. South Slough up beyond Jeff estimated that 60Y of the sport moorages are 5. Sitka Dock bridge or above held by Coos County residents. 6. North Spit Sanctuary 7. Pony Slough Joe Pugh, who owns an 85-foot boat and has only a temporary moorage, said he believed that moorage It was agreed that this list should be refined. assignments were properly made. Moorage rentals are open ended; they don't terminate March 11, 1979 ----------- Question was raised as to whether it was true there after a fixed time. Charleston-Barview were plans to eliminate the Port's launch ramp. Planning Group Bob More, who is also on the Technical Task Force, sug- Question was raised as to if the boat storage building gested that sport boats be located in a different marina was just built. and that Charleston be kept for ccmmercial vessels only. Jeff'replied that because of diffe'rence-s-in the funding The County Commission developed new launch ramps in source the inner basin could be regulated,that way but the other places. outer basin cannot. Others' pointed out that the inner Lauman noted that it can't be expected to accor-:-.odat@ basin is too small to hold large boats; 40 foot is all future moorage at one site. probably the maximum size that could be accommodated in the inner basin. Bob suggested that some 40-foot FDA Standards need to be considered re: impacts on vessels could be moved to the inner basin to make room cwnercial clam and oyster harvest. for more large vessels in the oiAer. Potential alternative sites were discussed. The It was agreed that it is important to set priorities rationale for the Task Force decision to limit the for moorage types and moorage sites. search for potential sites to the lower Bay area was A comment was made that perhaps a more regional a:):)!-oac:n outlined. Joe Pugh estimated fuel consumption for upper was required, e.q., moorage potential of Winchest@@.r Sav. Bay sites at an additional 60 gallons per trip. He also stated that most of the working boats tied up at Design questions and use of space were raised. It Coos Bay dock during the fishing season are albacore was noted that the mooraqe arrangerlients were as @:Cod boats that are out for 30 days at a time and like to as possible at the Basin and that the Outer Sasin co.,!d tie up in the middle of town. not refuse.moorage to sport craft due to federal fun@:ing. Sandy Diedrich spoke to the need to keep focus on Dry docking of sport craft was noted as a*qood alter- short-term needs during the Charleston Boat Basin native to reduce problems. expansion exceptions process. The County addresses long- term needs. Because specific alternative sites may be It was noted that the North Spit project is for deep eliminaIted from consideration now doesn't mean that water loading not shallow draft moot-age. they aren't appropriate for meeting long-range needs. It was noted that a critical consideration for -@oorac@ 'lar0 22, 1979 ----------- Jim Lauman felt objectives should be elaborated so as is backup facilities and services. Stat@ and @ederal not to obscure intent or requirements; felt alternatives 1@;ency Eriefing on should include site.aad means-, felt evaluation should 31cat @'asin EXCeDtiOnS The 1963 CH2M Hill Study for the Port of Coos B-ay for Process include environmental, social, and economic conse- moorage site alternatives was discussed. quences; felt six objectives should be delineated. It was emphasized that the exceDtion is focused on one Alternatives should be evaluated based on physical site because of the nature of the process but that characteristics for good moorage as Port can use con- alternatives were being given full examination. demnation. (Commentor unknown). It was suggested that alternatives should be evaluated It was suggested that what constitutes A good marina regarding gre Iater or lesser mitiga .tion requirements. should be identified. Suggested developing a model marina to compare sites against. It was suggested that a part of evaluation of alter- natives should consider adjacent and surrounding uses Longer boats require a lot of turning space. in terms of existing uses. 500' - 1000' apart (unknown relationship). Rough weather situations preclude many sites from permanent moorage without building breakwaters or, There was concern expressed that the Port would be similar protective structures. '.painting itself" into a corner by expanding into the In discussing any possibility for short-tenn use of Sitka Dock, it was noted that the pilot triangle. boats say the present dock is in pretty bad shape, the swell situation is bad, and the existing In terms of alternatives, it was suggested to look pilings are not stable- along shore, the sand spit, Pony Slough.. Corps of Engineers manage channel line-depth. Design options in t -erms of environment versus cost is part. of alternatives. A comment was made regarding a need for a scaled down Oregon Institute of Marine Biology never has version but meaning was obscured in meeting notes. offered to purchase Coastal Acres although it has been in private ownership and heavily used by the Institute. March 23, 1979 ----------- The Task Force reviewed and reaffi rmed limiting the b1hile most of the proposed Coastal Acres sit,@ i@ Boat Basin Exception con3idering of the alternatives from the 101 bridge submersible, a portion is submerqed v;hich would be Technical Task Force ]eased from the State. At extreMely low tide, to the bar. all of the area proposed for basin expansion 4s > submersible. Note: Specific alternatives discussed elsewhere. The Port's time-table for dealing with the miti- gation issue on Coastal Acres is 4-5 months. The Task Force also reviewed the siting criteria. It was suggested that some factors relate to compatibility March 15, 1979 ----------- Do You prefer another, immediate small boat basin ioca- Questionnaire Results tion besides the "Triangle"? If so, where? and consequences and should be noted as such. from Public Workshop Yes - 9 #1 Menasha area (not North Spit) Downtown Coos Bay April 13, 1979 ----------- Item B. Other; Concern was brought up about sport boats area - with water front development - again strict Boat Basin Exception and yachts taking up space that could be used for ecological limits. Technical Task Force commercial boats. Also talk was directed toward providing Why? Shift focus from only lumber and fishing to tourism as well. alternative site for boat launching. Possibly Joe Ney Slough area. Empire area - or old mill site, also roorn on the side - a dock where senior citizens or anyone car. fish and enjoy the day. At various points during the meeting the following Why^ Create more work - activity and interest - also increase tax monies through increased business points were made: and values. The moorage capability of Hungry Harbor was My particular concern is the long-term health of the assessed to be only for hang-ties. estuary which must not fall prey to the same fate The problem with untended boats in terms of as other tidal resources on the-west-coast. vandalism, theft, etc. was discussed. Across from present basin and Barv iew Wayside. Why? Because it is located in the basin area. It is more accessable than the oresent basin. It will-re- lieve congestion at the present basin. I'm sure that a .11 this takes is a little thinking. March 15, 1979 ----------- Do you prefer another, immediate small boat basin loca- Empire, North Bend possibly around the railroad questionnaire Results tion besides the "Triangle"? If so, where? bridge. from Steelheaders from Yes - 3 Public Workshop #1 Anyplace, that doesn't disturb the bays. Near McCulloch Bridge at the Pierce fill. Why? I don't believe in filling or dredging for Why? Protected - can be designated for sport - commercial industry. lets Charleston be primarily commercial - does not disturb clam beds - requires no dredging or Coos Bay or Pony Slough. very little for depth. Docks at Charleston will Why? If you want to fish upper Bay, it's too far to require dredging for large boats. travel. North Bend. Eastside or somewhere up channel from North Bend Why? To keep traffic off Empire Highway. Bridge. Why? Would be handier for many bay users. Empire or Pony Slough. Why? Better location. No 2 Not sure, perhaps farther towards Empire on the Empire side. Why? Boat basin is too much of an environmental concern. Empire, or mouth of Pony Slough, or between the railroad bridge and the highway bridge. (North Point) Why? To enlarge the present basin would: ()@ destroy accessable clam area; (2) take a field lab away from University of Oregon; (3) cause additional pollution in Sanctuary; (4) interfere with all sorts of marine life. No - 28 The current need can potentially cost the area hundreds of thousands of dollars lost in jobs, seafood products, tourist dollars, moorage, vessel repair and potential business opportunities. A study should be made to determine where the best site would be to meet the moorage needs for the next 10 years rather than just next summer. Not for sport boats! (Yes, I do own an 18' sport boat and trailer!) Land and water usage are too important for such frivolous and wasteful usage. Limited estuary and usable sites should be reserved for commercial docking facilities. Common sense. This place is the most immediate place available. EXCERPTS FROM THE VARIOUS MEETING NOTES DISCUSSING THE CON: Additional land traffic would be generated. CHARLESTON BOAT BASIN EXPANSION ALTERNATIVES Traffic is already a problem. Coastal Acres CON: Area is used by clamdiggers. March 11, 1979 ----------- There is trouble getting in and out of the Channel into CON: 0114B uses site as an outdoor lab. Charleston-Barview the boat basin. Planning Group A vote was taken to favor exception of Small Boat PRO: One recreational resource is being removed Basin with 32/36 aye votes, 6 nay votes and some but another is being created. abstentions. PRO: No breakwater construction is involved in the March 15, 1979 ----------- Coastal Acres (proposed project site) project. Small Boat Basin PRO: Development costs are considerably less. Exceptions Process March 23, 1979 ----------- Coastal Acres issue identification: Public Workshop #1 CON: Will the 18 10 moorages provided alleviate the problems? The proposed expansion will take care Boat Basin Exception removal of aquatic resources Technical Task Force potential viable alternatives only of immediate need. limited capacity: boat size and # of moorage PRO: It would take a lot of time to find and deve.lop limited channel depth another site.. We need moorages now. sand movement April 2, 1979 ------------ Coastal Acres. Sandy: Design alternatives need to Source of funds for the proposed expansion: Boat Basin Exception be considered as well as alternative locations. For .EDA and revenue bonds. Technical Task Force instance, the standard method of breakwater construc- PRO: The March 11 Charleston-Barview Planning Group tion, dredging behind the breakwater and depositing meeting was discussed. That group of local resi- the spoils as fill to create backup area ,.)as one dents voted overwhelmingly to support the expansion @design possibility considered for Coastal Acres. The project. current proposed design is more environmentally sound; CON: Virginia: Social cost should be taken into account, no additional fill is nrooosed and the floating docks She suggested the strip homes fronting the project promote good fishing. The chosen desiCn is about area would become unliveable. twice as expensive as the standard method. PRO: There were many responses to Virginia's comments. General feeling of the group was that social costs April 25, 1979 ----------- Charleston Acres: It was pointed out that the Port were small compared to need. Small Boat Basin is not trying to use the entire triangle. They Exceptions Process will not be dredging or filling the entire back oor- Mike Hosie: Backup facilities are already in place. Public Workshop #3 tion. There was no further discussion on the Oil spills could be easily contained. Risk of criteria for the Charleston Acres: spills would be confined to one area. PRO: Management costs would be less. March 15, 1979 ----------- Should the Charleston Small Boat Basin be expanded? Chuck-has Army Corps of Engineers been approached Questionnaire Results Yes - 29 No 7 about mooring channel to the east? Jeff: Yes, but from Public Workshop Uncertain - 4 Conditions - 9 won't because of rock. Consensus: keeping for fur- No damage to South Slough, estuary tidal regions ther review; recognition that there are limitations. or increased pollution of waters - strict dis- charge enforcement. Fish and Game could create a program to increase April 13, 1979 ----------- Most discussion at the meeting centered around clam beds in other parts of the Bay. Boat Basin Exception applying the moorage evaluation criteria to the site Unless a better site can be agreed on, there is a Technical Task Force 2 or extension of existing facilities. Attached is definite need now. the work sheet with notes from that discussion. Unless a better site can be chosen. We need more moorage for bigger boats. April 25,-1979 ----------- Extending existing facilities: When discussing the commercial docking only! No parking lots for sports Small Boat Basin criteria for extending the existing facility, L. boats are important enough to spend $, or time and effort on. Exception Process Public Workshop #3 Eickworth asked if expanding the facilities at Mitigation for the clam diggers (i.e. better access Hanson's Landing had been considered. It was pointed to another clam bed on the bay, for example Crab Flats area where clams are more abundant. out that this had been dropped because of the increased There is a real need for expansion and the area traffic through the bridge that might cause some 7 designated is the best use with the least environ- problems., It was also pointed out that the area above mental damage. the bridge was not being dredged out. March 15, 1979 ----------- Should the Charleston Small Boat Basin be expanded? Area North of the Existing Breakwater at Point Adams Ouestionnaire Results Yes - 2 No - 2 @rom Steelhcaders from Uncertain - 0 Conditions - 2 March 23, 1979 ----------- Note: All sites in Charleston have access problem. Public Workshop #1 Try to protect clam beds. Boat Basin Exception North of Point Adams - Breakwater (Possible Issues): Another boat basin uo the bay somewhere., Technical Task Force serge - send - prote*ctive structure - razor clams Extension of Existing Facilities March 29, 1979 ----------- North of existing breakwater (Point Adams): This Small Boat Basin site was dropped because of the high cost of breakwater March 23, 1979 ----------- Extension of existing docks (possible issues): Exception Process Boat Basin Exception require congressional authorization Public Workshop #2 protection from the ocean swells and surge. This site, Technical Task Force req .uire relocation of channel however, was identified as a possible location for vessels over 90'. Several people noted that this should !larch 29, 1979 ----------- Extending Existing Facilities: This was dronoed be- be kept in mind when looking at the long-term needs and S-nall Boat Basin cause of the congressional approved need to extend this should be addressed in the estuary plan. Exceptions Process into the channel. Public Workshop #2 It was also noted that this area has a unique Bay April 2, 1979 ------------- Extend existing docks. Jeff: Extending,docks would Razor Clam bed. It was brought out by Jeff KasDar that the Corps of Engineers at one time considered Boat Basin Exception interfere with channel and would cut off some existing Technical Task Force moorage.for larger vessels (they require turning room). the developmen t of a breakwater that would have created additional moorage north of Point Adams April 25, 1979 ----------- Barview Wayside: It was brought up that this area is but it was too costly at that time. Part of the reason Small Boat Basin in the State ownership and the Dort had tried to was the breakwater was to be used as a deterant to the Exception Process develop it in the past and the local residents had swell and surge problems in the existing basin. Public Workshop #3 stopped it. April 2, 1979 ------------ North of Point Adams breakwater: Chuck: Site has great Barview Wayside was mentioned as being a better siie Boat Basin Exception potential. Port agrees but there is strong local for small boats. The increased sDort/recreational Technical Task Force resistance because of the razor clam bed. Chuck: cost boat moorage would not help the ipinediate problens. of mitigation less at this site than for the proposed expansion. Jeff: There's still the high cost of con- Swanson Property (Empire) structing a breakwater. Consensus: keep for further March 15, 1979 ----------- Swanson Property: study. Small Boat Basin breakwater essential Exception Process cost of breakwater(s) would cause budget problems April 25, 1979 ----------- North of Breakwater; Members. of the audience pointed Public Workshop Rl protection would have to be provided from surge Small Boat Basin out that this area would need a third breakwater in Exception Process order to protect the boats. Jeff Kaspar of the Port from passing ships Public Workshop 113 pointed out that breakwaters may take 8 to 10 years March 23, 1979 ----------- Swanson Site (Possible issues): to get all the permits in order to build it. The Boat Basin Exception breakwater backup facilities cost of a breakwater is also very high. Technical Task Force substrate aquatic resources Barview Wayside March 29, 1979 ----------- Swanson Property Em 'Dire Waterfront. This site was discussed March 29, 1979 ----------- Barview Wayside. It was decided that this site should Small Bo 'at Basin' at great length. isted below are the Pro and Con of Sma7l Boat Basin be looked at more closely. This proDerty Is owned by Exception Process the site: Exce 'otion Process the State but they would release it if the public wanted Public Workshop #2 @on Public Workshop #2 @_ro it. Mr. Byler brought up that this area used to be for sale or lease lack of support facilities mud flats but had filled in. Several citizens pointed 40 acres would require dredo'Mo 18-20 foot depth would require brea@vzater on out that there had been strong citizen objections to 200' from chan*nel 2-3 sides this area beina used for a boat launching site just access is available through high continued mainten,,nce dedicated streets in clam beds over a year ago. Bob More suggested the citizen attitude Empi re herring spawning Crounds might have changed. 6 or 7 acres already not close to 'processors filled won't meet innz-iediate needs large fill areas for rock substrate April 2, 1979 ------------ Barview Wayside: A strip of it is privately owned; owner spoils disposal for basin development Boat Basin Exception is willing to make it available. Bob: The Charleston Technical Task Force breakwater extension makes this site more viable. Discussion continued about engineerina- ,studies @-nd the Consensus: keep for further study. cost of development. It was decided to keep this as a viable alternative. Also discussed ws,the need for moorage for larger boats in the over 90' class,and driving pilings into rock is impossible. Developing this site could be difficult because of substrate. this site might be appropriate. Forrest Taylor stated that with Hiilstrom building boats over 100 feet there March 23, 1979 ----------- Sitka Dock (issue identification) needs to be a place for mooring them. He suggests Boat Basin Exception need for protective structure keep the small boat basin and plan for a large boat basin. Technical Task Force serge Other comments were: ownership substrate Roy Gunnari said if the Swanson property was de- veloped to moor the 30' to 90' boats, where would you moor the larger boats. March 29, 1979 ----------- Sitka Dock: This site was kept as an alternative. Dick Vigue suggested that oerhaps phase II should be Small Boat Basin Reasons were same as the Swanson property. Problems considered. Exception Process with swell and surge were pointed out. Public Workshop #2 Bob Hudson - l4e must think-of what is workable and vie must also consider the cost. You can develop a fine Dlan but if workability and costs aren't April 2, 1979 ------------ Sitka Dock: Consensus: keep for further study realistic, the plan may not work. Boat Basin Exception April 2, 1979 ------------ Swanson property: consensus: merits further study. Technical Task Force Chuck: What about considering a combination of actions Boat Basin Exceotion rather than a single alternative? Are there short- 7 Technical Task @orce range things that can be done to cummulatively meet immediate needs? Carl: We should address ourselves to Aoril 25, 1979 ----------- Swanson property: The points that were raised were the needs of large boats (repair of gear, storage Small Boat Basin similar to those noted with Sitka Dock and the area Exception Project needs, etc.). Public I.-JorkshoD #3 north of the breakwater. April 25, 1979 ----------- Sitka Dock: It was discussed that south of Sitka Dock Sitka Dock Small Boat Basin there are good clam beds that might be affected if March 15, 1979 ----------- SIitka Dock: Exception Process moorage was to be developed at that site. Also, if Small Boat Basin needs dredging Public Workshop #3 a breakwater is needed, it may affect a much wider area Exceotion Project than just the basin. This would be because of different Public Workshop "I Gene Woods: without a project design it can't be.said whether dredging would be needed or not. Developing flushing Datterns and it could affect the currents site into a boat basin would be a big project and is and cause channel shifting, a long way off. Bob More: Site has lots of backup space. Dryland Bill Southerland pointed out that the Sitka Dock is storage could be develoned here. available for a long term lease. It was pointed out Gene: weather is a considerable factor. Breakwater by several persons that a breakwater is needed, there would be needed. could be high dredging costs and there is no suoport price was discussed. Larry Lillebo obinted out that facilities. Jeff Kaspar pointed out that the high the Port would be being asked to nut up a considerable amount of money. We're talking about a site that is capital cost would require a government grant and the owned versus a site that the Port would have to buy and develop. government does not like to provide grants for projects on leased lands so funding is not readily available. April 25, 1979- --------- North Point. Mike Hosie explained that-this site is a Small Boat Basin long way up the bay. He pointed'out that last year Exception Process there were 37 shrimp boats and this year there are 50. It was Dointed out that from.Fossil Point to Em *oi re Public Workshop #3 Sometimes they are moored six deep at the dock. In are the prime herring sPawning beds in the bay. addition to this, Peterson Seafood is planning an ex- North Point (Al Pierce property-North Bend) pansion so pressures for moorage are increasing. 1-1, e also raised the problem of the current fuel shortages March 15, 1979 ----------- Al Pierce (North Bend) site - about 120 acres. and, the impact it has had on the shrimp fleet. Bv Small Boat Basin Port Advisory Committee had considered site as having to moor so far up the bay, the shortage would Exception Process location for processors. Public Workshoo #1 Privately owned; owners want to develop it them- only be more acute. selves, not sell. In further discussion of the alternative sites, it was Northwest wind whips across site in the summer. pointed out that North Point has a very bad wind Joe considered site appropriate for fairly large problem. Historically a firm had tried to raft logs trawlers only. out of that area and the access channel k-ot fill-"nq There is a marker dolDhin offshore; denth between up. There would also be some rroblems witn EPA flushing regulations. There was also discussion dolDhin and shore is 4-5 feet or less. Much dredging would be needed. No structures could be put outside of dolphin. of traffic problems that would be generated and the Bert Johns asked w hy North Point is being considered impact on t he upland residential lands. when the 'oroblem now is finding moorage spaces for 50-60 foot boats. .0 Y Land Storaq6 @Iarch 23, 1979 ----------- North Point (possible i Issues) March 15, 1979 --- ------- Demand for dry land storage for boats has not Small Boat Basin exceeded supply. About 500 of the spaces in the dry Boat Basin Exception access Exception Process Technical Task Force channel proximity Public Workshop #1 storage facility area are used for boats (all recrea- aquatic resources tional crafts); the remainder is u sed for qear storage breakwater wind and storage of household goods. distance from ocean siltation critical to shipping lanes The largest size craft that can be stored in the bridge bottleneck facility is 30 foot. March 29, 1979 ----------- North Point: This area it was pointed out has heavy Dry storage is probably cheaper for the sPort user than Small Boat Basin exDosure to Northwest winds, might be in conflict with renting moorage space. Exception Process the shipping channel and is a good site for industrial Public Workshop #2 development but not moorage. March 23, 1979 ----------- Dry.Land issue identification: Boat Basin Exception vessel size restrictions Technical Task Force special capabilities .............. march '29, 1979 ----------- Dry Land Storage:' This alternative was kept although April 2, 1979 ------------ Haynes Inlet. Restoration potential. Sandy: There Small Boat Basin it would be appropriate for smaller boats only. Boat Basin Exception are docks there but current level of develooment Exception Process Technical Task Force doesn't @nterfere with restoration potential. .Public Workshop #2 - Discussion of taking out the smaller boats to make room for the commercial vessels. Bill: Points brought up at the public workshop Bob More pointed out that-any viable alternative are legitimate. should consider dry land storage as a part of the design. Coos Bay Aqua Center March 23, 1979 ----------- Coos Bay Aqua Center (possible issues): April 2, 1979 ------------ Dry Land Storage. Consensus: keep. Boat Basin Exception cost Boat Basin Exception Technical Task Force time of development Technical Task Force need for breakwater backup land require causeway Develop a New Site Inland surge substrate March 23, 1979 ----------- Inland Sites: This was dropped because of the high cost Boat Basin Exception of developing a new inland basin and it was hard to find March 29, 1979 ----------- Coos Bay Aqua Center. It was pointed out this was Technical Task Force an aPpropriate site with fewer environmental impacts. Small Boat Basin Karl Elfvings proposal. Also pointed out was Exception Process Swanson has first rights on the submersed lands. This April 2, 1979 ------------ Inland Sites: Bill: lower part of Henderson Marsh Public Workshop #2 proposal was dropped. Boat Basin Exception possible location. Jeff: under lease from Feds until Technical Task Force 1991. Bruce: lagoon would be good site. Glen': April 2, 1979 ------------ Coos Bay Aqua Center: Carl gave presentation: No breaching possibility if lagoon dredged. Consensus: Boat Basin Exception dredging is needed; plenty of space for fish processors. leave in as possible alternative. Technical Task Force Sandy: If Carl would provide written descri Iption, oer- haps Task Force would be-willing to include proposal J Haynes Inlet (both upper and lower areas) in terms of the sorts of things that are being thought March 23, 1979 ----------- Haynes Inlet A. Upper B. Lower (possible issues): of for long-term solutions to the moorage problem. Boat Basin Exception proximity Consensus: follow Sandy's suggestion. Technical Task Force bridge aquatic resources North Slough lower - no backup facilities - not accessible upper potential restoration area March 23, 1979 ----------- North Slough (possible issues): Boat Basin Exception dredging/spoiling Technical Task Force aquatic resources March 29, 1979 ----------- Haynes Inlet Upper and Lower. This was dropped because fixed bridge Small Boat Basin of rock bott*orn, distance and no support facilities. force lineal not concentrated development pattern Exception Process potential restoration site Public Workshop #2 active dunes March 29, 1979 ----------- North Slough. This site was dropped with no comment. April 2,' 1979 ------------ North Spit-Port Property: Comments: It's adjacent to Boat Basin Exception a turning basin; there are indications that some fisheries Small Boat Basin Technical Task Force may require or want deep draft capability; studies Exception Process Public Workshoo #2 would be needed to determine flushing characteristics. Chuck: Has Port considered developing ,.-,oorare here April 2, 1979 ------------ North Slough, Sandy: (regarding 8, 6a, and 6b). (rather than just off-loading capability)? Jeff: Boat Basin Exception These may be some of the few restoration sites we have Port considered but rejected because dredging costs are Technical Task Force on the Coos Bay estuary. Long-term moorage processes prohibitive (would be about 40@1' of total project cost); will need areas for restoration. Chuck: Using part (2) it would be difficult for the Port to amortize that of the County Plan's restoration element for miti- type of develonrinent, P) it's difficult to nredict the gation is Possible; restoration and mitigation can be needs of larger vessels. Difficulty of oredictinc-moorage the same in some instances. Carl spoke to the need demand for sPort vessels and vessels in the 90 foot for develoDing facilities for lash barges. Consensus: range was discussed. Consensus: keep for further study. drop. Pony Sloug North Spit - Both Roseburg Lumber Comnany land and the P2rt of Coos Bay property March 23, 1979 ----------- Pony Slough (possible issues): Boat'Basin Exception citizen objection March 23, 1979 ----------- North Spit-Area of Roseburg Lumber (possible issues): Technical Task Force dredqing/sDoiling Boat Basin Exception alternative proposed uses access problem Technical Task Force A. other use aquatic resources B. in flight path - public safety North Spit - Port Property (possible issues): March 29, 1979 ----------- Pony Slough: This site was dropped from further ccn- aquatic and habitat resource Small Boat Basin sideration because of the distance to the orocessor designated as sensitive Exception Process and the ocean and the amount of dredging that it v@xjld dredging/spoiling Public Workshop #2 water quality take to develop the facility. Peese Bender of Fish an" compatibility Wildlife pointed out that Pony Slough vias a critical flight path-public safety wildlife area. March 29, 1979 ----------- Both the North Spit sites were dropped from consideration. April 2, 1979 ------------ Pony Slough: Water ouality, fish and wildlife values Small Boat Basin The Port property it was felt was more appropriate for ExCe'Dtion Process industrial development, because of the deep draft caPa- Boat Basin Exception and North Bend's moorage plans were discussed. Consensus: Public Workshop #2 bilities. It was pointed out that the public may not go Technical Task Force drop from further consideration. for it. This was in reference to the*defeat of the bond South Slough-All the Sites Identified issue last fall. There would be a high cost of de- Past the Cape Araco Bridge in Cha,rleston velopment as the site lacks good access, sewer and water. March 15, 1979 ----------- South of Charleston Bridge. The Roseburg Lumber property was dropped because the Small Boat Basin S'ite was eliminated from discussion. land is not for sale or lease. Exce'Dtion Process A. to 'protect Sanctuary Public Workshop #1 B. because area is beyond Army Corps of Engineers' authorized channel. March 23 1979 ----------- South Slough (possible issues Peterson Seafood Boat Basin Exception bridge March 15, 1979 ----------- Peterson Seafoods near Charleston Bridge. Technical Task Force dredging/spoiling aquati.c resource Small Boat Basin dredgin4 would be needed oyster culture Exception.Process Pete Eames: It's best to keep boats close water quality Public Workshop #1 together. It's easier to provide services'. Joe Ney (possible issues): Processors are nearby. proximity to aquaculture aquatic resources dredging/spoiling March 23, 1979 ----------- Peterson Seafoods (possible issues): bridge Boat Basin Exception dredging/spoils water quality Technical Task Force access conflict with adjacent use aquatic resource March 29, 1979 ----------- Joe Ney: This site was dropped from the alternative list backup Small Boat Basin because of a too shallow channel, the problem with the Excention Process bridge, the proximity of the Oyster Beds and the possible March 29, 1979 ----------- Peterson Seafood: The consensus of the Deople at the Public Workshop #2 effect on the South Slough Sanctuary. Small Boat Basin workshop was the Peterson Seafood Site is not a viable Exception Process alternative because of the hard rock bottom. "here is South Slough: This alternative was drooped because of Public Workshop #2 approximately 5-6 feet of mud over the rock. That is 7 the problems with dredge access and the possible effects one o f the reasons Peterson Seafood filled out to on South Slough and the Oyster Beds in Joe Ney Slough. deeper water rather than dredging. April 2, 1979 ------------ Joe Ney: Chuck Walters added that there are few.good April 2, 1979 ----------- Peterson Seafoods: Dick recalled an earlier CH2M Boat Basin Exception growing waters in Coos Bay. Joe Ney might be closed Boat Basin Exception Hill report on the area that indicated substrate Technical Task Force to aquaculture if the facility were located there. Technical Task Force problems. Jeff pointed out that Peterson is one of the few plants with expansion capability; the land Consensus: not much to recommend this site. needed for backup facilities for moorage development here is the land that Peterson plans to expand onto. South Slough: Sandy has concerns about using the Consensus: to review CHN-Viill study. Sanctuary as the reason to eliminate any alternative. Chuck: it's dangerous to use the Sanctuary as atrade-' Other Sites Mentioned in the Excentions Process off; it needs to be treated carefully. Sandy: Also March 29, 1979 ----------- Mr. L. Eickworth brought up the point that the Coos true for Joe Ney. Chuck: the real factor is water Small Boat Basin Bay Waterfront should be used as a temporary tie up quality. Bob: There are also problems with the bridge, Exception Process for the fishing boais. Roy Gunnari asked if this was dredging and dredge spoils disposal. Chuck: Water Public Workshop #2 for permanent moorage or temporary, moorage. He quality and oyster production; if handled carefully continued saying this area was too far away from the there is potential for .small boat moorage development processing plants and from the ocean. Mr. Ei cKworth here. Consensus: drop consideration of'these sites then agreed but re-stated that this would still be a for the type of moorage development under discussion good place to tie up on a temporary basis. here. Mr. Byler said that historically the only fish It was felt that North Point might remotely be used buyer was in Coos Bay at the foot of Anderson for recreational moorage. However, because of the Street and all the vessels used to go there, suitability as an industrial site, the lack of energy efficiency and possible opposition from adjacent resi@ It was pointed out that that area i s owned by dential areas this alternative was drooned fron further the City of Coos Bay. consideration. Joe Pugh stated that the group should disregard Further discussion of Barview Wayside pointed out that the Coos Bay site. In reference to the historital this might be better used as a park area. Also use Byler was right, however, a very large invest- pointed out was the Waterfowl Habitat (Brandt) and ment has been made in Charleston., In Coos Bay the the past social opposition to development in the area. docks would be too close to the shipping channel 7 and there is a lack of backup space for su 'pport March 29, 1979 ----------- Of the 17 alternatives discussed tonight, which ones are facilities. The cost of gas and the extra amount Small Boat Basin most feasible: of fuel used must also be considered. it was Exception Process lst Choice 2nd Choice 3rd Choice Public Workshop #2 pointed out by another person that the boats are a Questionnaire Results Swanson ProPerty 4 2 (clos.er !cc lot larger now than when they used the Coos Bay Charleston Acres 9 waterfront area. Sitka Dock ID Coastal Acres 2 ADril 25, 1979 ----------- Recommendations of Alternatives Dry Land Storage 1 Barview Wayside Small Boat Basin Commercial Moorage Exception Process North of Breakwater 1 (closer look) Public Workshop #3 'Phase I (short -term/ imme- Phase 11 (long-range/ *Is the one to relieve the present situation. diate needs) future needs extend existing facility North of the breakwater Coastal Acres (this is for the larger boats) Sitka Dock (larger boats and development.time too long for Phase I) Recreational Moorage Phase I (short-tenn/imme- Phase 11 (long-range/ diate needs) future needs Barview Wayside (This area should be looked at as possible short-term but definite long-range moorage for sport boats) North Point (remote use Possible) Swanson Swanson (possible short and long range recreation moorage) LONG TERM CONSEQUENCES Environmental The primary objection raised to development of the Coasta Acres site is the loss of accessibility to recreational clam-diggers. This objection, however, was not based on the Task Force recommended Hosie/Laird plain which will con- sume only the outermost portion of the inter-tidal area. Concern was ex- pressed that development of moorage facilities would occur in the fifth most. important recreational clam digging area in Coos Bay. This ranking, however, is based upon a 1971 Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife study Which may no longer be accurate. The Port of Coos Bay has opened up considerably more clam digging areas to the public on the North Spit landform since the 1971 study. It is probable that Coastal Acres has decreased in relative impor- tance as a recreation clam bed. In any event, development of the moorage plan as recommended will require dredging of only the outermost portion of the clamming area. Dredging will occur in the most, waterward portion of the mudflat, the area used least by clam diggers. This area I also being en- croached upon by a transient sand bar, making long term use of this portion of the mudflat for clamming uncertain. While dredging will consume some of the mudflat, the recommended design plan guarantees the public access to the remaining biological resources in perpetuity. The lecal status of persons occupying the mudflat is uncertain at this time. Development of moorage facilities at Coastal Acres, as elsewhere in the Coos Bay Estuary, will result in removal of aquatic resource habitat. Signi- ficant: habitats are clam beds, crustacean habitats, english sole, sand sole, spekled sandab habitats and juvenile salmonid feeding and rearing areas. Approximately 10% of the Coastal. Acres habitat. will be dredged. It is unknown whether and to what extent the aquatic resource will re-establsh, in the dredged area. Deep water or dredged areas are believed to be clam. reseeding areas so that the dredged area may be used for that purpose in the long term The Coastal Acres project site is not an important waterfowl and shorebird habitat, nor is it an important striped bass rearing area or herring spawning site. There are no major eel grass beds in the site although a minor bed will be dredged. Coastal Acres is not adjacent to major marshes and is not used by any of various marine mammals. While air quality will not be affected, the moorage facility does have poten- tial water quality effects. Of most concern is the presence of fecal coli- form bacteria due to sewage. Oyster farming is currently limited to the South Slough as the State Board of Health has closed the upper bay due to high fecal coliform counts. Operation of the combined factors of the Charles- ton Sanitary System and the Coast Guard enforcement of Marine Sanitary De- vice System has resulted in, acceptable levels of fecal coliform contents in the South Slough. Data on fecal coliform counts shows that increased fishing and vessel activities in the South Slough have accompanied a general reduc- tion in bacteria! levels. Reduction of fecal coliform counts has been achieved by management of land-based sewage and imposition of Coast Guard Ma- rine Sanitary Device regulations and enforcement programs. Coast Guard standards will become stricter until 1982 when, all vessels, existing or newly constructed, must install Coast Guard. certified Marine Sanitary Services. 111-70 DEQ FECAL COLIFORM DATA FOR COOS BAY (DEC 1979). MEAN CONCENTRATIONS OF FECAL STATION 1978 1977 1976 1975 SOUTH SLOUGH SHELLFISH SANITATION PROGRAM (IBM code 14-12) 1 150 yds. east of flasing light at entrance of South Slough opposite fisherman's coop (44)**17.5 (3) 11.7 (3) 23.0 (12) 22.4 2 15 yds. east of 3rd (Southernmost) moorage flot at Charleston Small Boat Basin (48) 44.5 (3)192.0 (3)119.0 (12) 69.6 4 channcl, 50 vds. east of Hallmark 4. channel, 50 yds. east of Hallmark Fisherics dock, Charleston (49) 35.4 (3) 28.7 (3) 15.5 (12) 111.0 5 channel, 20 yds. west of Hanson's Landing docks, Charleston (46) 37.1 (3) 373.0 (3) 20.3 (12) 29.1 7 channel, 250 yds,south of Collver Point (46) 18.3 (3) 41.7 (3) 31.7 (12) 36.1 8 channel, 0.3 miles southwest of Station 7, 50 yds. west of bank (39) 14.3 (3) 6.7 (3) 17.8 (12) 20.8 11 Joe Ney Road Bridge (43) 44.8 (3) 36.3 (3) 28.5 (12) 120.0 COOS BAY SHELLFISH SANITATION PROGRAM (IBM CODE 14-10) 1 green light #7, 1/4 mile north of (51) 9.0 (3) 5.3 (3) 5.0 (12) 15.0 Fossil Point 2 red light #10, 1/4 mile north of (51)10.0 (3) 5.0 (3) 3.2 (12) 26.7 Pigeon Point 4 red light #16, 1/4 mile north of (51)25.7 (3) 7.3 (3)15.0 (12) 63.9 Empire Dock 5 green light#23, opposite Henderson (50)21.5 (3) 5.3 (3)15.3 (12) 22.4 Marsh 6 black can#27,1/4 mile west of (50)38.2 (3) 7.3 (3)84.0 (12) 51.9 Railroad Bridge 7 green light#35,mouth of Kentcuk (50)58.1 (3) 11.0 (3)46.3 (12) 85.4 Slough 8 red light#36,opposite north (50)107.0 (3) 12.0 (3)114.0 (12) 149.0 Cooston-Willanch channel 9 Coos Bay Yacht Club, opposite (51)214. (3) 48.3 (3)563.00 (12) 109.0 mouth of Mccurdy Marina 10 shipping channel, opposite mouth (48)244.0 (3)450.0 (3) 60.1 (12)136.0 of Marshfield channel 11 red light, 1 mile up Marshfield (47)156.0 (3)82.0 (3) 90.7 (12)267.0 channel 13 Coalbank Slough at Hwy.101 Bridge (50)172.0 (3)247.0 (3) 182.0 (12)267.0 14 Isthmus Slough at Eastside Bridge (51)92.3 (3)399.0 (3) 102.0 (12)261.0 15 Isthmus Slough at Coos City Bridge (51)68.4 (4)157.0 (3) 141.0 (12)64.2 *Most probable number/1000 ml. In marine and estuarine shellfish growing waters the median concentration shall not exceed 70/1000ml (CCPD 1978; ALWO APPENDIX-B) **Number of Samples Source: Coos County Planning Department; Coos Bay Estuary Inventory and Study, June 1979. Economic T ,he long term economic consequences of development of additional moorage have been, discussed in relation to the need criterion. The long terrr. consequences may be summarized as follows:' Inadequate commercial moorage has been 'Identified as an impediment to develop- ment of local commercial -fisheries. Stimulation of local fisheries is neces- sary to alter the county's overdependence on the declining forest produc-ICS industry. Coos County has, and continues to have, chronic and severe unem- ployment consistently higher.than state and national levels. Commercial fisheries have one of the highest income multipliers@ in Oregon. Creation of the 200 mile fisheries jurisdiction presents heretofore unrealized oppor- tunities for exploitation of the ground fish resource. Coos Bay ranked second in Oregon and seventh on the west coast in value of landings in 1977. Value of landings in Coos Bay are estimated at $8.4 million.1 With an assumed income multiplier of 2.7, approximately $14 million in additional local business ac-L.ivity was generated for a total com- munity,inpact of $22.7 million in 1977. The Coos-Curry-Douglas Economic Improvement Association notes t-1hat the United States General Accounting Office and 80 allied or supporting jobs may be assured has estimated that 33 direc.. to result per $1 million of fish larided.2 Development of Addill.-Jonal commer- L -imulatior. of the fisheries cial fishing mocrage.is essential to the economic st sector. Additional moorage can also be expected to curb anticipated declines in tourism, an important sector of the Coos County economy. Provision of recre.- tional moorage will create water-related recreational facilities for both sail and motor-powered vessels. Development and concentration of the commer- fishing fleet in Charleston will create consistent visual amenity and con- tribute to the fishing village character of Charleston, maintaining its tourism appeal. Social The foremost consequence of additional moorage of Coastal Acres is the pros- pect of increased traffic congestion. Many of the additional moorages, how- ever will be filled by vessels currently using temporary, storm, or otherwise inadequate facilities already in the Cherleston Basin. Additionally, most traffic problems in Charleston are caused by trailering of sport boats, not commercial fishing-related autos. Only 3101.0 of the additional moorages will be used for recreational boats, and IL-Irailering of these boats may actually be reduced if they are provided moorage space. The other primary cause of automobile congestion in Charleston is tourism on peak holidays during the summer. It has been informally noted by Task Force members and others that traffic congestion has not occurred during the summer of 19701, as a result of fuel shortages. Development of moorage space of Coastal Acres is not associated wil-lh Llilsafe, obroxiO'US, Unsightly or otherwise intrusive or objectionable land use activi- ties. Residents of Charlestonand students from the Oregon Institute of Marine Biol- ogy will continue to have access to the intertidal area. TTT 7'@ Economic stimulation of the fisheries sector will provide increased employ- ment opportunities, cont-ributing to the social good of an area possessing high unemployment. Energy Moorage development will consume non-renewable energy during the construc- tion phase. Availability of moorage facilities should not significantly induce fuel consUMDtion by vessels as most boats on the waiting list are already in use. The primary energy advantage to the Coastal Acres site lies in its relation to the locat ion of the alternate sites evaluated. Coastal Acres is the mosf- energy efficient site in terms of distance from the ocean resource and proximity to support facilities and fish processors. Two other L alternative sites (Point Adams and Barview Wayside) are equally location efficient, but would require higher energy expenditures during construction (Point Adams) or are otherwise not suitable (Barview Wayside). The Coastal Acres site is also energy-efficient due to the exis-tl-,ance of support facilities and related infrastructures that would have to be dupli- cated at most of the other sites. 1. Coos-Curry-Douglas Economic Improvement Association Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy, 1978-1979 Action Program, 2. !bid. I I T 1-73 q Economic stimulation of the fisheries sector will provide increased employ- ment opportunities, contributing to the social good of an area possessing high unemployment. Energy Moorage development will consum*e non-renewable energy during the construc-, tion phase. Availability of moorage facilities should not significantly induce fuel consumption by vessels as most boats on the waiting list are already in use. The primary energy advantage to the Coastal Acres site lies in its rela-IL-Jon to the locat ion of -IL-.he alternate sites evaluated. Coastal Acres is the mos-'I- energy efficient site in terms of distance from the oc ean resource and proximity to support facilities and fish processors. Two other alternative,sites (Point Adams and Barview Wayside) are equally location efficient, but would require higher energy expenditures during construction (Point Adams) or are otherwise not suitable (Barview Wayside). The Coastal Acres site is also energy-efficient due to the existance of support facilities and related infrastructures that would have to be dupli- cated at most,of the other sites. 1. Coos-Curry-Douglas Economic Improvement Association Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy, 1978-1979 Ac'ilon_Prcgram, (1978) 2. !bid. I I T 1-73 LONG TERM CONSEQUENCES' COMPELLIING REASONS AND FINDINGS OF FACT Envi ronmental Accessibility to the Coastal Acres intertidal area for clam digging would be reduced by about 110%. This reduction would occur in the most waterward portion of the area, used least by clam diggers. Air quality would not be negatively affected. Historically, fecal coliform counts in the South Slough including -111-he project area, have been reduced while vessel traffic and moorage have increased. Adverse water quality impacts from additional moorage are unlikely. Existing desirable land use pattern would be continued with commercial fisher- ies concentration in the Charleston area rather than dispersed throughout the Coos Bay estuary. Concentraft.ed spatial development of comjiercial fisheries would enable improved environ,riental management. Traffic congestion is not expected to increase significantly. Noise from additional moorage facilities is not expected to increase signi- ficantly. Minimal loss of aquatic resources will occur under development of the recom-. mended Hosie/Laird plan. Aquatic resources removed by dredging operalCions may re-establish over the long term. Economic Consequences Increased commercial moorage will help to diversify the local economy by improving commercial fisheries facilities. Multiplier effects of increased commercial fishing will aid economic develop- ment in other sectors of the local economy. 4- ur, iS 4 Increased commercial fishing will create employment oppor@ tie In commer- cial @isheries and relat-ed processing. Additional moorage space will encourage the development of -11.-ourisrn, mitigating potential tourism decline due to energy shortages. Additional moorage for commercial fishina fleet will encourage tourism by providing visual amenities and preserving the fishing village character of the Charleston area. Social Consequences The existing hL!man activity pattern will be complemented by main-1Caining Chal- T T T _7A leston as the hub of the southern Oregon commercial fisheries. The pres ent land use pat-tern will be continued as additional moorage will not disrupt corirrunity or neighborhood life by introduction of obnoxious, unsafe or Vi-4_S. otherwise incompatible land uses or act-i Lit Use of the intertidal area for recreational clam digging will continue virtually unchanged except that the public will be guaranteed use of and access to the biological resource in perpetuity under the recommiended de- sign plan. Students from -L-.he Oregon Institute of Marine Biology will continue to use the intertidal area as an "outdoor classroom". Increased economic diversification and stabilization as a result of increased commercial fishing will provide expanded employment opportunities and contri- bute to social well-being. Energy,Impacts The project area is the nearest protected site to the entrance from Coos Bay to the ocean resource. Commercial and recreational vessel support facilities are well-established at the project area. Development of the Coastal Acres site does not require energy expenditure or construction of breakwaters or other fill devices. The project site is the most energy-efficient location for cor..Fiiercial and recreation vessels. Existence of support facilities and other infrastructure at Charleston elimi- nates the need to expend energy in construction of shore-based facilities. Existence of support facilities and other infrastructure reduces energy con- sumption caused by operation of duplicate facilities at some other site. 111-75 Comment was made that the Land Conservation and EXCERPTS FROM THE VARIOUS MEETING MOTES AND QUESTIONNAIRES IDENTIFYING THE CONSEQUENCES OF EXPANDING THE CHARLESTON BOAT BASIN Development Commission goal is not necessarily limited to clam beds used for recreation. March 11, 1979 ----------- Parking problem was discussed. Charleston-Barview Traffic circulation problems were discussed. It was suggested that the number of clams per Planning GrOUD r Water Pollution, dredging was discussed. area should be the means to evaluate when an area having clams reaches the threshhold af, a clam, bed. March 15, 1979 ----------- Potential water quality problems were discussed. It.was noted for the record that Fish and Wildl,fe c5riall Boat Basin Dick said the effect of these on the proposed opposes the proposed.site. Exceptions Process expansion would be explored by the Technical Task Public Workshop #1 Force. It was noted that it is necessary to nake a decis.ion but that the ex!)ansion as proposed would adversely March 22, 1979 ----------- The definition of a clam bed as an area which has State and Federal a significant resource and as an area which has impact a clam bed. Agency Briefing on B,,at Basin Exceptions recreational use was set out. A comment was made that which environn@ert was to be Process sacrificed has to be weighed as the aquatic r@lrource Jim Lauman disagreed with this definition but was is only one of the overall environmental situations told it was provided.by the Oregon Department of regarding fisheries and estuarine use. Fish and Wildlife staff at Newport. He said he would forward a better description. It was noted that there is considerable confusion. as to what will be dredged. The wedge of Lhe trian- Jim Lauman also questioned the ability to re-create gle and the side towards the Oregon institute of habitat as it is unknown whether or not clams will Marine Biology will not be dredged. Much of what will accept different areas. The idea of experimenting be dredged is a sandbar. A part of the claim bed to enhance clam beds needs to be exPlored. will be disturbed but clams will be able to re- establish. What is being moved is a part of where It was agreed that Lhere had to be a threshhold for people dig clams. clams in an area before the language of the Land Conservation and Development Commission goals applied. It was commented that since moorage is needed and The prime determination as to whether -or not an area since most of the Coos Bay Estuary has scme sort of is a clam bed should be based on sam 'pling in both the clam bed, it is a question of which clam bed viill be inter-tidal area and the sub-tidal areas. sacrificed on the short-term. It was noted that the Gaumer Report was based on It was commented that if a clam bed is-sacrificed, recreation use. then it will be lost for quite a while--'., Glen Carter raised the point that when a need Situation needs to be discussed with Depart- for an estuarine use is accommodated, something ment of Environmental Quality. else is destroyed. This is why looking at alter- natives and overall planning is important. Would Port consider mandate to require boats to have facilities before getting moorage? Current March 23, 1979 ------------ Concerns were expressed in relationship to the moorage agreements.require lease or to agree to Boat Basin Exception fecIal colliform count in Charleston area. The comply with all standards, etc. Problem is with Technical Task Force impacts from data that acceptable levels are already monitoring as standards for protection are on the being exceeded. The impacts of new moorage on books. this pollution problem needs careful examination. March 29, 1979 ----------- Environmental Consequences Need to get statements of fecal colliforin standards Small Boat Basin Pro Con Exeptions Process Concentrate pollution Eliminate recreational use for rparine and estuarine waters from Department Public Workshop #2 in one area-easier (clam digging) of Environmental Quality. to handle More people-more pollution Increased flushing Poorer water quality Clams do well in a basin Several relevant forms of pollution were identified: but not publically access- Increased lights and noise protein wastes, fecal colliform, oil and greases, able Eelgrass bed is presently boat wastes. being studied Social Conseauences Need to assess Charleston Sanitary District system Pro Con and contracted design capacity. Need more light Possible more vandalism Need to differentiate between land population sewer- Concrete development Increased parking problem The process can U 'D- Possible taxing of age and boat population.sewerage. grade community Charleston's services Economic move forward More people Important to determine date of data re: fecal Processing plants are col 1 i form. Assess.relationship to recent hook-ups expanding to Charleston Sanitary System. Fishing industry is im- Dortant Dart of Charleston economy Bob More expressed concern that pollution problem be carefully assessed as he has heard that some- Economic Consequences one intends to file suit if development occurs% Pro Con There is a lot of Lose Dart of fleet if not The problem with baseline data and timing of data money gone into the expanded financing of the Lose resource to the foreign collection were discussed. local fleet fishing fleet if can't use Increase diversity in it locally fishing resource usage 7, Economic Consequences Con't There was some discussion about the area being Pro Con a clam bed and that it was also importa .nt to the Small business diversity pub7ic because of its accessability. Mike Hosle Large ex-vessel value pointed out that the clam population would not be of landings Secondary use of dollars lost because it would re-establish itself On the greater than that of botton of the basin. However, the issue 011 access- wood products industry ability was valid. Several people pointed out Cost of develo 'ping-this that because of past pressure this area was not a site vs. alternative sites good clam bed, it has been over used. Questions Ener2y Consequences of water quality were.raised in reference to the Pro Con edibility of the clams. Someone as@ed if the in- Closer to the resource Increased flight crease in boats would decrease the water qjalitv. Don't have to transport It was felt that the boats would not increase the to the processors pollution very much as all of the boats would be Use less fuel if moorage required to have holding tanks by the early 1980's. is near the processors The largest problem as seen by those a' the rne-eting Energy costs rising rapidly was the failure of septic tanks, especially durir4g April 25, 1979 ----------- The factor of economics was raised. Since there is periods of high runoff. Several eXaMDIeS Of SeDti .C tank failure and sewage pollution were sited. Final Small Boat Basin an incredible lag time, the process should start consensus was that a better clamming area could be Exceptions Process now looking ahead for future moorage needs. It was Public Workshop #3 pointed out that an 85 foot boat could bring as much developIed if access could be improved. The ezisti Ing as 8 million into the community if the boat is built clam bed in Coastal Acres area is about clai,-r-ed locally. It was noted that in 1976 a local 67 foot out and those that are left may not be fit to eat. boat brought in $1,300,000 into the community. Jeff Kaspar pointed out that in order to be econo-i- This is using a multiplier of 2.56/1,000 for ser- vice and 3,00/1,000 for Processing. It was also cally feasible a facility should be able to provide pointed out that the fishing industry has a very approximately 400 slips for S10,000 per slip.. The large economic impact on the community and it would proposed expansion would cost about @8 or S9.0@'C ter be a shame to louse it up. slip. If a new site was developed for 400 boats it could cost $25,000 per slip. A 400 slip miarina is Mike Hosie also mentioned that the Coast Guard is about the smallest marina that could be economically expanding the facility from 39 to over 50 people. feasible. If the 'port would go with developing a He also pointed out that by centralizing the fleet new site it could cost as much as S10 mi 'Ilion and they would have to go to the public. However, with the chances of having oil spills in several areas expanding the existing basin, the'fundiiiq could be would be lessened. done without going to the public. They-@an use Revenue Bonds. March 26', 1979 ----------- Do you think there'would be any adverse social Energy would be saved by the closeness of the faciliti es to this basin. [email protected] Results effects if the boat basin is expanded as proposed? from Public Workshop If yes, please list them. Because the Port wants to develop the North @2 Spit for a fish complex site for fish plants Yes - 3 and the fishing boats will have to run up The people of Charleston will have to endure there to unload. much more traffic and congestion. Traffic loss of recreational facilities in. March 29, 1979 ------------ 7--Do you think there would be any adverse economic? favor of commercial development. Questionnaire Results effects if the boat basin is expanded as proposed? People living near the basin would be effected from Steelheaders; at Please list. by the additional traffic,noises, etc. Public Workshop #2 Yes - 2 No - 9 To motels and trailer parks. I live right in Charleston and I think the expansion would helo. the town. Good effects to local business. I see nothing that will pose a great problem. No - 11 Do you think there would be any adverse environmental I think there could be adverse effects if the project is not approved. effects? Please list. Yes - 4 Because Charleston has @bout all it can handle right now. If a basin was developed in Loss of clam bed - Loss of opportunities for Ein'pire it would help to develop that area clamming. where there are More people and a lot more room. People - pollution. Destruction of clam beds and use of the site for University of Oregon Biology School. We would lose a very good accessable clam bed, and a laboratory field for the Institute of Marine Biology. More pollution would definitely be added that would float up into the South Slough Sanctuary. No - 9 Less by controlling in one area instead of spliting facilities. Not much more than there already is. Do you think there would be any adverse energy effects? Please list. No - 12 This site is the most conservative for energy. None at Coastal Acres or Barview Area excepting light increase. There would be more if they go somewhere else. COMPATIBILITY The adjacent land use pattern is well developed and of a mixed charac-t-er. The primary quality of the waterfront relates to the coastal environment and commercial fisheries. Moorage development involves expansion of a presently existing compatible desirable land use in an area zoned as Marine Commercial in the Coos County Comprehensive Plan. Additional moorage will contribute to the visual amenity currently provided by the fishing fleet. The commercial fisheries of Coos Bay are presently centered in Charleston. Support facilities and processing plants are located nearby. Additiona! moorage will complement the land use pattern already established. Moorage development is not an intrusive or objectionable land use activity. NO S W4 offensive, unsafe, obnoxious or otherwise incompattible activitie Ill dis- rupt t:he adjacent area. To 'the south of the Coastal Acres area and 'the Charleston waterfront lies the South Slough Sanctuary. This portion of the estuary has been preserved from development and con-tains a rich diversity of estuarine life, including a Great Blue Heron Rookery. The South Slough Estuarine Sanctuary contains some 4,400 acres of tidelands and watershed south of Velino Island. The greatest consequence of incompatibility between the Sanctuary and the Coastal Acres site would appear to be that of contributing to increased fecal coli- form counts. As noted earlier, however, most of the vessels expected to use the additional moorage are already using the upper South Slough witin no appa- rent contribution to increased fecal coliform levels. Air quality degrada- tion will not be a consequence of mcorage development and poses no threat to the lower South Slough Sanctuary. Increased traffic and,associated noise and air quality problems are not expected to occur as a consequence of r-oor- age developmen-t', so that the Sanctuary will not be thus affected. Loss of aquatic resource habitat in the Coastal Acres are may diminish to an unknown extent, feeding habitat for fish and wildlife inhabiting 'the Sanctuary. The fact that the project design does not contemplate filling of estuarine waters should mean -that tidal flushing and current patterns will not- be altered so as to affec-IC-the Sanctuary. The SanCtUary should be largely unaffected by moorage development at Coastal Acres. Ili-80 COMPATIBILITY COMPELLING REASONS AND FINDINGS OF FACT The adjacent land use pattern is well developed and mixed, the primary charac- ter relating to the coastal environment and commercial fisheries. The project site is designated as Marine Commercial by the Coos County Comprehensive Plan. The project is an expansion of a desirable, existing use. Additional boat moorage will enhance current visual amenities and surround- ing character. Fish processing and support facilities for commercial and sport vessels are already concentrated in the area. 111-81 EXCERPTS FROM THE VARIOUS MEETING NOTES AND QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS March 29, 1979 Is the proposed boat basin expansion project com- CONCERNING THE COMPATIBILITY OF THE CHARLESTON BOAT BASIN EXPANSION Questionnaire Results patible with surrounding land uses and activities? 141TH SURROUNDING AND ADJACENT USES from Public Workshop #2 Why do you think it is, or why do you think it isn't? Yes - 11 March 11, 1979 ----------- Most fishing jobs are seasonal and most jobs do Near plants-near ocean-near facilities near rrost Charleston-Barview not pay any sort of benefits. Most plants do not of fisherTqen's homes. Planning Group give benefits. This, type of employment is not the Fishing facilities and support services. head of household type of employment. Benefits Support facilities. come in the forTa of bonuses. There is a comparative Other boats already there. wage rate. Food processing is one of the lower It is compatible with the surrounding area. The surrounding area is used by commercial fisher- paying industries. 11hat are all the kinds of jobs men and processors. that fisheries bring? Because all facilities there lend to this type of development, Support facilities that are not low-paying such as The total acreage of Charleston is too small to "illstrom-Nelson are not in Charleston. accommodate the presently planned expansion. All business interests are dependent on - mostly the fishing vessel activities. 200,000/year payroll to a crew Everything is there already. 77,000 to shipyards No - 2 27,000,000 is financed through Southern Oregon Production Credit Association The facilities to handle the boats is already existing. 96,000 in land and office These are average values. Too much congestion in a small place. Not only congestion at the basin, but it @iould add 3 10' One 54' boat and one 65' boat supports 7 families. to the traffic on the En ,oire-Charleston highway, which is getting heavy traffic no,4. March 29, 1979 Compatibility with Adjacent Uses Small Boat Basin Pro Con Exceptions Process Existing parking and Crowded parking conditions Public Workshop #2 support facilities The Charleston-Barview Nei- Management is available ghborhood Group wants There is ice and fuel diversity in Charleston not available in area just parking Repair facilities The impact of.tourism Backup area PART IV: PLAN AMENDMENT PORTIION OF ESTUARY ELEMENT The amendment affects the following sections of the Estuary Element: 1. 11. INVENTORY OF THE AREA 2. 111. PROBLEMS 3. IV. GOALS 4. VII. IMPLEMENTATION 5. Add new section: IX. ESTUARINE MANAGEMENT UNITS No map changes are necessary. STATEMENT OF AMENDMENT Six specific items of amendment to the Coos Bay Estuary Plan, An Element of the Coos County Comprehensive Plan are hereby included in the Plan. These are as follows: 1. To II. INVENTORY OF THE AREA, P.4, add: The Exception to Land Conservation and Development Commission Goal Requirements for the Expansion of the Charleston Small Boat Basin, May, 1979, is added as inventory. 2. To III. PROBLEMS, A. Problem Areas for Study, P.5, add: r) Lack of small boat basin moorage. 3. To III. PROBLEMS, B. Problem Statements, P.7, add: 22. Lack of adequate small boat basin moorage for commercial fishing-to protect the public health, safety, and welfare; to promote utilization of ocean resources; and to assist in diversif@ing the economy of the area. IV-1 4. To IV. GOALS, P.9, add: 19. Site additional small boat basin moorage in a cost-efficient, energy-efficient manner with consideration of the resource base. 5. To VII. IMPLEMENTATION, P.32, A. Implementation of the Goals, P.32, add: GOAL 19 "Site additional . . . moorage This goal serves as a policy guide for the location of additional boat basin moorage in the Coos Bay Estuary. This goal also serves as a specific means of: allevial-lina the condition described by Problem Statenent 21 (inadequate fishing industry fa- Ci I i 4- LAes) ; and implementing Goal 18 (Encourage the location of new fishing industry facilities). 6. Add a P.36 for: IX. Estuarine Management Unit 5. The area known as "Coastal Acres", the Deep Water Navi- gation Channel, and the Charleston Channel shall be designated as development management units. These management units are defined and described consistent with the provisions of development management units .in Land Conservation and Development Commission Goal #16 (Estuarine Resources). IV-2 In so designating "Coastal Acres" as a development management unit, it is not the intent for the entire area to be intensively altered so that public the con- tinues to enjoy shoreline access to the inter-tidal area. The only area to be altered is the area between a line running parallel to, coter.-i-iinous with, and extendina from the location of the pro- posed anchor pier (where the final design places it) and the Charleston channel. Other estuarine management units will be established by the respective city, or in the overall Coos Bay Estuary Management Plan, or by similar amendments to this plan. The designation for "Coastal Acres" should be assessed as part of the overall revision of this plan. IV-3 PART V: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE "COASTAL ACRES" SITE INTRODUCTION AND HISTORY With greater activity in the fishing industry, primarily created by the 200 mile fishing limit, there is greater pressure for boat moorage in Coos Bay. Coos Bay is second only to the mouth of the Columbia in fishing activity both for tonnage of fish landed and value of the fish sold. The Charleston boat basin currently has moorage for 540 boats. It is filled to capacity and there are 180 applicants for space at Charleston. Approxi- mately 70% of the boats using the boat basin are commercial fishing vessels. 70% of those waiting for space are also commercial. The Port of Coos Bay, the owner of the Charleston Boat Basin, responded to these pressures by looking for a way to expand the existing boat basin. After looking at several alternatives, they acquired an option to the area adjoining the existing boat basin to the south from Coastal Acres Properties. The advantages to this site are by being adjacent to the existing boat basin, facilities can be shared and will not have to be duplicated creating an economic savings. It is also the closest site to the ocean which is immediately developable. Since the resource is located in the ocean, energy will be saved the closer the moorage is to it. The Port applied to the Division of State Lands for a Fill and Removal Per- mit to remove approximately 130,000 cubic yards of tideflat and transient sand bar material in order to expand the boat basin. The permit was denied due to the stated reasons of a significant clam popu- lation and Public clam fishery at or in the area surrounding the proposed expansion site. It was the finding of the Division of State Lands that the project is inconsistent with the protection, conservation, and best use of the water resource. V-1 Coos Bay is designated a Development Estuary in the overall Oregon Estuary Classification; however, areas within Development Estuaries which contain significant oyster or clam beds may be placed within the Conservation category even when they adjoin-a developed area. This is the case at Coastal Acres. Biologists from the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife have examined the area and have determined that it is of major biological and recreational value. Coos County, at the request of the Port, along with assistance from the Coos-Curry Council of Governments, has decided to pursue the process of taking an exception to Goal 16, Estuarine Resources. Toward this end, an Exception Task Force has been formed. They have been studying all poten- tial boat basin sites in Coos Bay and will be making recommendations in May, 1979.. Concurrently, work has begun on a Coos Bay Estuary Managemen t Plan which will be an up-date and revision of the existing estuary plan. This will be completed in about one year. This assessment deals only with the area designated as Coastal Acres for the expansion of the Charleston Boat Basin. General discussion of the environmental impact of the other sites is being developed as a part of the work of the Exceptions Task Force. V-2 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST The following construction activities or elements are or are not asso- ciated with the proposed projOct. YES NO UNKNOWN X Alteration of Natural Drainage X Surfacing, Paving X Cut and Fill X Fencing, and Other Barriers X Pipelines, Transmission Lines X Surface Excavation X Jetties, Gabions X Riprapping, Revetments X Canalization X Channel Alteration X Dredging X Dams , Impoundments X Renovation or Expansion of Existing Facilities X Demolition of Structures X Water Intake Structures X Wastewater Discharge Structures X Air Emission Source X New Facility Construction V-3 The following environmental resources may be or may not be affected by the proposed project. YES NO UNKNO14N a. Water X Surface (river, lake, reservoir) X Estuary X -Ocean X Underground X b. Existing Air Quality c. Flora X Trees X Shrub.s X Grasses X Crops X Aquatic Plants X Endangered Species d. Fauna X Birds X Land Animals, including rodents X Fish and Shellfish X Life ,,fforms on bottom of water bodies (benthQs) X Endangered Spe C4 es e. Land Use (Check uses that are directly affected or adjacent to affected property) X Wilderness (designated or roDosed under the Wilderness AW X Open Spaces X Wetlands X Forests X Grazing X Agriculture V-4 YES NO UNKNO14N x Residential x Commercial x Industrial x FloodPlain x Mining, Quarrying x Recreational x Transportation x Historical, Archeological site (Listed on the National Register of Historic Places or eligible for listing) x Shoreline x Beaches x Dunes x Steep Slopes x Aquifer Recharge Area x Wildlife Refuge V-5 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Port'of Coos Bay proposes to expand the Charleston Boat Basin into the area known as Coastal Acres. They will provide moorage for approxi- mately an additional 180 boats.. There are currently 180 boat owners on a waiting list for moorage in the area. This is a minimal expansion to meet the existing need. The project will necessitate the removal by dredge of 133,000 cubic yards of material which will be deposited upland on private property known as the Old Cranberry Bog. It is currently non-productive and is 15 acres in size. The area to be dredged is some inter-tidal mud flat and a transit sand pit which is currently moving into the mud flat. The Port will construct an elevated pier and floating docks to moor 180 commercial and pleasure boats. The area involved in the south slough is approximately 14 acres. The floating dock moorage construction puts very few permanent structures on the bottom of the bay, so that the clams which are being displaced during construction will grow back. The project design submitted by the Port involved dredging approximately 1/3 of an inter-tidal area known as Coastal Acres. Through the exception process issues have been raised and explored so that Port of Coos Bay Commissioners - elect Michael Hosie and Bruce Laird have developed an alternative project concept. While specific engineering studies have not yet been done, the alternative concept would require an estimated 10% of the inter-tidal clamming area to be dredged@@. The proposal also guarantees public access to the remaining biological resource in perpetuity. The alternative concept involves relocating the concrete pier further from the shoreward portion of the inter-tidal area, toward the channel, and compensating for lost moorage spaces by extending the existing pier system in the Charleston Boat Basin (See Map 11). The Task Force has adopted a motion recommending that the Port of Coos Bay develop a basin expansion plan that will embody the features of the alt ernative concept. Both the design plan and alternative concept will employ a fl oating dock system that will not require estuarine filling. The nature of the landform abutting Coastal Acres to the north allows moorage development involving minimal shoreline development or alteration. The configuration of the landform is such that the extent of envi.ronmental impacts at the site will be less than at other sites where extensive shoreline development would be required. The Port of Coos Bay currently has an option to purchase an 11.2 acre area of Coastal Acres. The dredging will remove a small portion of inter-tidal land, the vast majority of removal to occur in submerged lands. The submerged property will be leased from the Division of State Lands. V-7 BENEFICIARIES The fisheries industry which is an important part of the economic base of Coos Bay will benefit by having more boats adequately moored in Coos Bay to harvest the fish resource. The Port of Coos Bay will benefit through addi-IL-Jonal fees for moorage. Liquid wastes are controlled by the Coast Guard Standards. The Port provides facilities to place sewage residues and diesel residues. The Port provides two sewer collection pump-out stations currently and plans to prolvide two more in the future. These stations pump directly into the Charleston Sanitary Sewerage System. The diesel residue is recycled by the industries. Accidental oil-spills are under the jurisdiction of the Coast Guard. They have a station at Charleston and they have the capability to handle spills. Gases - none are involved with this project. Solid waste - The Port provides pick-up stations. There is a solid waste collector at the head of every dock. The franchised collector for the area is Les Sanitary Service. They dispose of solid waste in accordance with the Coos County Solid Waste.Plan in a Department of Environmental Quality approved sanitary land fill. V-8 AREA DESCRIPTION The project site adjoins the existing boat basin at Charleston. The land immediately adjoining the site is zoned marine commercial. The closest developed site contains a restaurant, the Port Side, which utilizes the view of the boat basin and the bay for its customers. Across Charleston Road is a=tel. Other land uses near the site are two fish processors, Barbey Foods and Hallmark Fisheries. There is also some housing, primarily utilized by commercial fishermen. Primary economic activities for the Charleston area relate to fisheries and tourism. The entire community of Charleston is developed with uses to provide services and goods to sports fishermen'and commercial fishermen. The project is located in the South Slough of Coos Bay, but it is not located in the sanctuary area which is located south of the Coastal Acres site. Coos Bay is established,as a development estuary'in the State's estuary classification system. A corner of the anchor pier will be built over an eel grass bed. This eel grass bed has not been identified as a significant eel grass bed in the Coos Bay Estuary. The project is also located over a portion of a clam bed which the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife has expressed the opinion that it is a significant clam habitat. The dredging operation will displace clams temporarily, but by using the floating dock moorage, they should return to the area. The clams along the shoreline should not be affected by the construction. Other standard life forms will also be disturbed during construction. Benthic organisms including razor clams, cockle clams, bull kelp, snails, and various worms and larvae will be effected. V-9 The area is designated as marine commercial in the Coos County Estuary Plan, an element of the Coos County Comprehensive Plan. The area is in the floodplain.although the land portion is at the 15 foot elevation and high tide does not exceed 10 feet. All land areas will be built to a 15 foot elevation. No recorded flooding has occurred since the-area has been fil'led to I'D feet. The project does not effect the channel. IMPACTS ON AIR QUALITY These are extremely minimal. The boat basin itself has no air degener- ating qualities. The boats are generally diesel powered and have little effect upon the air. Some particulates may arise from increased hauling of boats by automobiles and trailors, pri.marly caused by sports fisher- men presently using the launch facilities. Because of Wind conditions near the mouth of Coos Bay, circulation is very-good and air quality is high. V-10 IMPACTS ON WATER QUALITY The Department of Environmental Quality currently monitors water quality in Coos Bay and the Coast Guard regulates effluent standards for vessels. Current regulations call for every marine vessel to have a TypeIII Marine Sanitary Device or a Type II Marine Sanitary Device by January 30, 1981. A Type II device processes sewage aboard to a standard certified to be 200 fecal coliform per 100 mililiters and 150 miligrans per liter of total suspended solids before relase back into the water. Type III retains waste water aboard and allows no discharge. The Port will provide holding tanks for this discharge at the boat basin and will require that all boats moored at the boat basin meet the January 30, 1981, standards which mandate on board holding facilities as soon as space is available at the expanded facilities. The Port will provide sewer pump-out stations which will discharge into the Charleston-Sanitary Sewerage System. Water quality at Charleston does have some problems, however, it is difficult to determine how much of the problem is caused by boat traffic since there are cases of faulty septic tanks and drainfield allowing effluent to reach the bay. Department of Encironmental Quality has not found activities of the boat basin to contribute significantly to water quality degradation, nor enough to warrent stoppage of project. The Oregon Health Department has not closed the area to clam digging due to a high coliform count but some resident clam diggers consider the area to be limited in appeal for clams due to septic tank failures in the surrounding area. Water is supplied by the Coos Bay-North Bend Water Board. Low amounts are.needed by the boat basin. Treatment of sewage is handled by the Coast Guard and Department of Environmental Quality regulations. The facility is connected to the Charleston Sanitary District system. There is no erosion, sedimentation or storm water runoff. The Corps of Army Engineers is proposing to build an additional breakwater at the entrance of South Slough. This will reduce storm surge in the boat V-11 basin area. The potential impact to sceni'c or recreational water sources could be enhanced by more activity at the boat basin. The clam beds to which the public has access will not be totally removed. IMPACTS ON SOLID WASTE Facilities for disposal of solid waste are currently provided at the boat basin by the Port. There is a solid waste collector at the head of every dock. Solid waste is picked up by the franchised collector for the Charleston area and disposed of in a sanitary landfill approved by the Department of Environmental Qual,ity. IMPACTS ON TRANSPORTATION The boat basin will enhance commercial boat transportation. It is close to the ocean so it is more energy saving than some site further into the bay. The main road problem is caused, not by boats moored at the boat basin, but those that are trailored to the launching ramp. The road from Coos Bay-North Bend to this site is narrow as it passes through Charleston and it is often congested. A major bottleneck is the bridge over South Slough which is a drawbridge and which has limited clearance over the water, so it open frequently. The boats that will use the moorage are in the Charleston area now and 70% of the potential users of the boat ramps are in the Coos Bay area. The project won't add significantly to the congestion. Due to-development patterns in Charleston, there is an overall traffic problem which is only somewhat compli"cated by the boat basin development. V-12 IMPACTS ON HUMAN ENVIRONMENTS No relocation will be required. Some additional noise will result both from the dredging and construction operation and from the permanent lo- cation of additional boats in the area. Noise is primarily contained to the boat basin site itself. Boats do not have a high decibel rating. Visual appearance is consistent with existing local appearance. RELATED PROJECTS The Corps of Army Engineers plans to build a new breakwater north of the present boat basin. This involves'the construction of an 800 foot break- water extension north from the end of the present breakwater paralleling channel alignment and raising the top elevation of the existi ng breakwater. The Corps also has a proposal to deepen Charleston Channel from 10 feet to 15 feet and 150 feet wide from the existing boat basin to ddep water, and to extend the South Slough Channel 10 feet deep and 150 feet wide from the boat basin to the.highway bridge at Charleston. The United States Coast Guard at Coos Head provides navigational aid for the Coos Bay Channel. South Slough, an estuarine sanctuary jointly funded by the Offices@of Coastal Zone Management, the United States Department of Commerce, and the State of Oregon is located south of this project. OBJECTIONS The major objection-s,-q'xpressed by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife is that-this is 6 clam habitat with public recreation access. A hearing was held upon the denial of the original permit. There have been numerous news articles in the local press and on the local radio. Additidnal objections have been raised by the Oregon Institute of Marine Biology which uses the "Coastal Acres" area as an outdoor classroom. The area has been in private ownership but has been used by the public including the Institute's students. Large portions of the area will remain available for general public or student use as the Port of Coos Bay will be the new owner of the site. Other objections have relate.d to loss of a recreation area, increased traffic congestion, and the limitations of the site to meet long-term moorage demand. The first two of these objections are addressed in other* sections of the environmental assessment while the long-term moorage issue is addressed in other parts of the exceptions document. SUMMARY The proposed project will incur some environmental loss or dislocation., That loss will be mitigated,as appropriate,through processes outside the scope of the exceptions process and the environmental assessment. The dislocation will be addressed through construction practices and resource and project management. Other than the partial removal or dislocation of aquatic resources of "Coastal Acres", there are no significant en- vironmental effects of this project. V-14 VI: RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE BOAT BASIN EXCEPTION TASK FORCE The Task Force made the following recommendations: 1. Based onthe exhaustive work of the Boat Basin Exception Task Force, the Coastal Acres area is recommended as the preferred location for the boat basin expans'ion project. 2. The Boat Basin Exception Task Force recommends that the Port develop the Hosie/Laird plan that would maximize moorage along the channel without jeopardizing dredging operations while it would decrease the amount of biological resource that would be removed and would guarantee the public-use of and access to that remaining biological resource in perpetuity. 3. The Boat Basin Exception Task Force recommends to all reviewing bodies that the exception document, project design, mitigation requirements, permits and any other related-processes be expedited to facilitate immediate moorage demands. Related recommendations from the Boat Basin Exception Task Force. During the course of the work on the Boat Basin Exception the Task Force identified several issues and has made the following related recommendations: 1. The Boat Basin Exception Task Force recommends to the Port of Coos Bay that any new moorages leased should be leased to only those boats that comply.with the 1982 U.S. Coast Guard standards regarding waste disposal. This recommendation was made in order to minimize any impacts the additional moorages would have on the water quality in the vicinity 2. The Boat Basin Exception Task Force aiso recommends that a community attitude survey be taken as part of the Overall Estuary t-lanagement Program. VI-1 3. The Boat Basin Exception Task Force also recommends that all the alter- native sites considered and all information generated during the excep- tions process should be considered when the long-te@m moorage issues are discussed as part of the Overall Estuary Management Program. VI-2 APPENDIX A BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. Combs, Earl R. Inc., "Policy Analyses for the Fishery Development Task Force," 1979. .2. Coos Bay Estuary Plan, An Element of the Coos County Comprehensive P-lan, 1975 3. Coos County Planning Department, Coos County Comprehensive Plan, Background Document, 1979. 4. Coos County Planning Department, Staff Reports for the Charleston Small Boat Basin Expansion site plan review, 1978. 5. Coos-Curry-Douglas Economic Improvement Association, Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy 1978-1979 Action Program,-T9TT- 6. Donheffner, Paul E.; "Statewide Boating Facilities Plan: A Com- prehensive Report on Oregon's Marine Facility Improvement and Development Needs 1979-1983," Oregon State Marine Board, 1979. 7. Dunham, James W. and Finn, Arnold A., Small Craft Harbors: Design, Construction, and Operation, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Coas Engineering Research Center, 1974. 8. Gaumer, Tom, Demory, Darrell and Osis, Laimons, 1971 Coos Bay Re- source Use Study," Fish Commission of Oregon, 1973. 9. Oregon Land Conservation and Development Commission, "Statewide Planninq Goals and Guidelines," 1976. 10. Oregon State University Extension Service, "Oregon's Seafood In- dustry, Its importance to Oregon's Economy,", Extension Circular 965, 1979. 11. Pacific Coast Task Force for Whiting Nomenclature, Letter to Caeser A. Roy, Director, Food and Drug Administration, March 24, 1979. 12. Pacific Fishery Management Council, "1977-1978 Progress Report," 1979. 13. "Port of Coos Bay Charleston Boat Basin Hearing", Official Transcript of Proceedings, January 25 and 26, 1979. 14. Proposed Commercial Airport Siting Element: An Element of the City of V0_rth Bend, the City of Coos Bay and the Coos County Comprehensive Land Use Plans, 1978. 15. Slotta, L.S. and Noble, Scott M., Use of Benthic Sediments as Indi- cators of Marine Flushing, Oregon State University Sea Grant College Program, 1977. A-1 16. State of Oregon, Department of Economic Development, Fisheries and Seafood - Processing Industries Element of the Economic Development Plan, 1979. 17. Stevens, Thompson and Runyan, Inc., Pony Slough Small Boat Marina Feasibility Stud _, 1974. 18. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, "Coos County, Oregon Economic Survey and Analysis," 1979. 19. U.S. Army Engineer District, Channel Maintenance, Dredginq, Coos Bay Final EI@, 1976. 20. U.S. Army Engineer District, "Charleston Breakwater Extension and Groin Structure Environmental Impact Statement, Supplement No. I," 1979. A-2 APPENDIX C Initial Work Program The initial work program for the Boat Basin Exception Process is included for reference. This includes the summary, detail of activities, time-line, and roles and responsibilities. The initial work program was modified somewhat and the,time-line was extended. C-1 PROPOSED WORK PROGRAM GOAL: Preparation of an acceptable Estuary Plan amendment and goal exception for the consideration of the Coos County Board of Commissioners regarding the proposed ex.pansion of the Charleston Small Boat Basin into the area known as "Coastal Areas" or the "triangle" as described in the Port of Coos Bay's permit application to the Division of State Lands. OBJECTIVES: To identify needs, consequences, and compatibility of pronosed project; To evaluate alternatives to the proposed project; To provide -adequate citizen involvement and agency coordination. MAJOR TASKS: Develop Work Program Process Management Product Definition Consistency Assessment Define Need for Proposed Project Develop Parameters Evaluation of Alternatives Assess Consequences Assess Compatibility Citigen Involvement Agency Coordination Governing Body Consideration C-2 I L I @'1 01% K P 1N,I i t 1" A .I T A5 K PEVELOP PR06RAM PROCESS flANro;LfMI_NT NmNE AssE-;s Pfmpo@;t.r 1@izo- lqlTli LCDC OOAL'@; Arll, oLlIDLILINI-S, AND 0l,`l_6ZN COA@-;T L /0NE. illkNA61- MCNT ROGRAN 1. IDENTIFY ALL NAJOr 1. IDENTIFY AIND 1. IPENTiFY (@E I.. REV IEW, EACH LCDC TASKS. COLLE CT EX I Sl ING QUIREMENTS F@ GOA! IN%lERMS OF 2. DEVELOP STRATEGIES INFORMATION EXCEPTION PROZOSED PROJECT r 2. AND %lETH,-,Ds 2. ESTABLISH PRO- 2. ]:@ENTIFY DESCRIBE PRO- 11 - 3. ESTAFLISH FROCE- CEDURES FOR Al"MINI- TICULAR C'NS11' POSED PROJECT'S DURE STRATIVE RECORD MAIN- DERATIONS OF RELATIONSHIP TO EACH TENANCE S I TE/S 1 T U @@T 1 C N GO'L 4. IDENTIFY ROLES AND @@OLES _)F "STATE- RELATIONSHIPS IDENTIFY L 3. l_,,ENTlFY PoR 3. PREPARE COOS COUNTY C - os TICN OF LSTUA@Y MENT OF COMPLIANCE 5, ORGANIZE FLO@l OF COUNTY P@ANlll '. I ING,11EPT. PLAN TO H_' AMENDED 4. DISTRIBUTE DRAFT TASKS PORT OF COS PA. , PORT 1 11 DEVELOP DCCIJ,`@E' T STATEMcNT OF COkl- ADVISORY COMN117-TEE, .1 . N 6. INFORMALLY REVIEW i OUTLINE PLIANCEl FOR REVIEW TASKS RESOURCE AG@@Nf'IES , AS PART OF DRAFT CHARLESTON-SA __ I @:w 5. DEsc-i-n- PUR- AN A@@'@ENDPIENT AND ;`V' 07: ,@R 0 u P , POSE PROPOSED GOAL EXCEP- REVIEW Ex-,STING NE 1 G.HBORHOOD PL i@ECORDS CCC06 STAFF, CITI- SECTION' OF PRO- TION 8. EISTABLIs-i Ti to, E ZENS, ETC, POSED DOCUMENT FRAMES 4. DEVELOP ',401RK 5, REVIEW COMMENTS PROGRAM TASK FORCE ON DRAFT AND REVISE AS APPROPRIATE 5. DISTRIBUTE DRAFT 6. INCORPORATE WORK PROGRAM REVISED DRAFT IN 6. SOLICIT IMEDIA PROPOSED DOCUMENT COVERAGE 7. PREPARE BRIEFING PAPERS 8. PREPARE M.EETING/ WORKSHOP ANNOUNCEN.ENTS. 9. HAINTAIN CCIPPINGS FILE 10. DEVELOP PIAILING LIST 11. DEVELOP REVIEW PROCEDURES FOR DRAFT AND FOR PROPOSED DOCU- MENT 12. IDENTIFY KEY PARTICIPANTS REVIEW LCDC GOALS, R I ET _H0_D REVIEW RECORDS AND SELF-EVIDENT EVCIEWOAND ANALYZE MATERIALS, DEFINE AIRPORT SITING L D G ALS AND 0CF111P PRODUCTS, DEFINE RE- ELEMENT, DLCD IN TERMS OF PROPOSED QUIREMENTS FOR EXCEP- POLICY PAPERS; PROJECT; SYSTEMATIC- TION AND PRODUCT, MEETING MINUTES ALLY ADDRESS PRO- INFORMALLY DISCUSS JECT'S RELATIONSHIP TASKS AND STRATEGIES TO GOALS AND 0CZHP WITH INTERESTED PAR- TIES AND RESOURCE PERSONS, ANALYZE WORK PROGRAM FOR FEASIBILITY, PREPARE DRAFT WORK PRO- GRAM AND TIMELINES P_R 0 D_U C T DRAFT WORK PROGRAM 1. WORK FILE INCLUDING DRAFT DESCRIP_ SECTION FOR DRAFT AND TIMELINE LISTING OF RESOURCES TION OF PRODUCT, DOCUMENT AND PRO- AND REFERENCES ETC, POSED DOCU14ENT TO BE 2, ADMINISTRATIVE TERMED A "STATEMENT RECORD OF COMPLIANCE" 3. ROLES DESCRIPTIONS 4. TASK FORCE ROSTER 5. PRESS RELEASES 6. CLIPPING FILES, MEDIA RECORDS 7. BRIEFING PAPERS 8. MEETING/WOPI(SHOP ANNOUNCEMENTS 9. MAILING LIST I.Q. REVIEW PROCEDURES ROLES 9 CCCOG STAFF PR-EPPRE CCCOG STAFF CCCOG STAFF, THE BASIC ANALYSIS AND pollsl_ WORK PROGRAM AND PRE- PROPOSED PRODUCT DRAFTING By CCC06 SENT TO COOS COUHTY PLA14 AMEHI)ME11F STAFF, REVI W AND BD, OF COMMISSIONERS DEFINITl()!i, DOCUMENT OMMENT BY @Asl( FOR AUTHORIZATION OUTLIliE 2, PURPr,SE TO FORCE, REVIEW & BE DISTRIEUIED FOR COMMENT BY PUBLIC io REVIEW A A C-3 i I L I D W I) I\, i N A IM ok, r, "I AS K F I N- IN't F 13 F 0 R PLAN I-VALUAlItIN OF ALIE@- AssE. SS f.,NV I R, I N 11 L N TA 1 Rc,rosl-@) ho- I.N!,I'll NT AXI NAT I VLS SOk: I Al I NLRGY., C1 AkAM;__'1__NS PROji:C I , ALI ERNATI %1L'S NO AC1 ION S-- -,TABLISH CRITERIA COLLECT EX 1. DESCRIBE h IDENTIFY AND QUAN TING DATA SCoPE OF CON- F OR EVALUAT I ON TIFY, AS APPROPRIAIE, ? I NTERV I EW KEY SiDERATION 2. IDENTIFY PnSSISLE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSE- CLIENICS Or PROPOSED PARTIES 2. DIFFERENTIATE FOR E\',@LUAT; ON' O'l @ @T I r BETWEEN UPPER AND PR L FEASIBLE 3 . EXTRACT NEEDS 3. AssrESS EAC.il AL7E_R- ALTERNATIVES, AND NO D, LOWER DAY %TA FOR PU@LIC NATIVE ACCURDIN@, TO, ACT I ON RECORDS AND HEAR- 3. DEVELOP MATRIX CRITERIA 2. IDENTIFY S OC IA L INGS RECORDS SYSTEM FOR ANALYLING 4. COLI - LC.T DDATA FOR CONSEQUENCES 4, D R G AN I _2 E D A TA MOORAGE NEEDS ASSESSMENT I -), I DENT I FY ENERGY NPORMAT I ON, 4. DEFINE CRITERIA 5. RESEARCH 1:1"FORMA- CONSEQU :_ NC E S t ASSESSMENTS, ETC. F (),R t 10 0 R A G E S I T 1 NG TION AS APPR@P@,!:J 4, IDENTIFY ECONOM I C 5. PREPARE FINDINGS 5. IDENTIFY RE- 6. PREPARE FINDINGS CONSEQUENCES OF FACT SRCUCE CHARAC- ON EACH ALTE'@NATIVE 6. DRAFT NEEDS SEC- TERISTICS IN 5, COLLECTj ASSESS, TION OF DRAFT DOCUMENT QUESTIONS 7, HAP ALTERNATIVES ANALYZE DATA AND 7. DISTRIBUTE NEEDS 6, 1 DENT I FY APPLI- INFORMATION CASLE PORT[CN OF 6. PREPARE DRAFT CON- SECTION FOR REVIEW AND COMMENT ESTUARY PLAN TO BE SEQUENCES-SECTION OF A M E ND E D DRAF@ A @SSESS COMMENTS 7. IDENTIFY RE- 7. DISTRIBUTE DRAFT AND MOD I FY DRAFT AS APPROPRIATE LATIONSHIP OF FOR REVIEW PROPOSED AME'NDMENT 8, I-IAKE FINDINGS 9. PREPARE NEEDS TO ON GOING PLANNING SECTION FOR PROPOSED 9, REVIEW DRAFT DOCUMENT 8. IDENTIFY RE- LATIONSHIP OF PRO- 10, HiODIFY AS APPRO- POSED EXCEPTION TO PRIATE ON GOING PLANNING 11, PREPARE PROPOSED 9, IDENTIFY SECTION OF DOCUMIENT RELATIONSHIP OF.PRO- POSED EXCEPTION TO PERMIT PROCESSES 10. IDENTIFY AND ANALYZE ISSUES MIETHOD COLLECT EXISTING A14ALYZE FACTORS PREPARE CRITERIA ESTABLISH FACTORS OF INFORMATION AND FOR EACH ACTIVITYj SELECT ALTERNATIVES, CONSIDERATION, COL- DEVELOP ANY ADDI- PREPARE BRIEFING ASSESS ALTERN@JIV-Sj LECT AND ASSESS IN- TIONi,L NF,;R@,TON PAPEF@S DISTRISUTE EVALUATE ALTE@R'I4.T1V_=sj FORMATIONj AGENCY REQUIRED, ANALYZE BRIEFING PAPERS DEVELOP FINDINGS, RE- AND GROUP INPUT, MA- INFORMATION, PRE- INCORPORATE REVISED VIE@'-' DRAFT, MODIFY TRIX CONSEQUENCES, PARE SYSTEMATIC BRIEFING PAPERS INTO DRAFT, PREPARE PROPOSED SUPPORT FINDINGS FIHDINGS, REVIEW DRAFT DOCUNENT SECTION OF DOCUMENT WITH FACT, REVIEW, AND REVISE REVISE ROLES & CCCOGJ STAFF PRE- PREPARATION BY CCCOG STAFF PREPARA- CCCOG STAFF PREPARA- RESPONS I - PARATIoNj TASK CCCOG STAFF, RE- TIONj RESOURCE AGENCY TIoN, TASK FORCE RE- BILITIES_ FORCE REVIEN, VIEW By TASK INPUT, TASK F6RCERE- VIEW, PUBLIC AND AGENCY PUBLIC & AGENCY FORCE, PUBLIC VIEWj PUBLIC REVIEW INPUT AND REVIEW REVIEW & INPUT REVIEW PRODUCT NEEDS SECTION AND STATEMENTS OF SECTION OF DOCUMENT SECTION OF DOCUMENT FINDINGS OF FACT SCOPE, AREA OF ON EVALUATION OF ON CONSEQUENCES CONCERNj RESOURCE ALTERNATIVE SITES CHARACTERISTICS, APPLICABLE PORT1014 OF ESTUARY PLAN,- RELATIONSHIP, RELATIONSHIP TO PERMIT PROCESS, MOORAGE SITING CRITERIA; MOORAGE NEEDS MATRIX; ASSESS- MENT OF ISSUES C-4 A I L L L) w () F, K P 1, 0 A C ( @N , 1, -D-6 K ASS;-@@ COMPAT!- C.ITI'Z'CN INVOIATMENr Act-Ncy ovi-RNipm lini)), BlLiTV OF A I'l ON' 1) N @, 11) L i,A'I' 1 G N F 0 ' 6 D 1C WITH U ES RJ_I.LF@ 1. IDFNTIFY SUR- .1 , DiETRIBUIE tIORK PRO- 1, D[ST:-,lFLlT-__- WOR\ 1. DIRECT !)E--' ROUNDIN6 US@7S GRAM AND TIMLLINE PROGRAM AND TIME- VELOPMtNT OF 2. su@Rotj.%- 21 DISTRIBUTF RRIEFING L I NE PROPOSED EN- ING USES OR IN@:ORMATION' r-NPEFR@@ 9. DiSTRIBUTr CEPI I OIN BRI;:Fl%':' 03 'N@ n' 1DENTIFY 4 T ASSESS REL%- 3@ PRESS RELEASES AND FORMA P- PAiERS PROJECT ST@FF -I , L"@ S H I P OF F, MEDIA PRESENTATIONS - _!J E "K POSED PRIC T ll 0 4. PUBLIC WORKSHOPS ', PRESS RELEASES 3. REVIEW AND SURROUNDING USES AND ME@IA PRESEN- AUTHORIZE 4. COLLECT DATA 5. TASK FoRcc TATIONS 4, ;'10NITOR STAFF AND INFOZMATION 6. COORDINATION' WITH U s! Ic woRKSHops ACTIVITIES 5. DEVELOP C'HARLESTON-B:@,'%V! EW 5. ]ASK rORC.-__ 5. PARTICIPATE, FINDINGS -IGHB:ORHoor, 6Roup AS APPROPRIATE 6@ DisyRill"UTION AND IN MEETINGS' 6, DRAFT SECTION 7. COORDINATION WITH IDENTIFICATION' 0 'F AVAIL- WORKSHOPS COOS COUNTY PLANNING Y' AND DISTRIB@JTE ABLE KE NATERIALS FOR REVIEW AND Ss 10.114 WORK PROGR.;NN, --R!EFING 6. RECEIVE AND COMN.ENT 8. DISTRIBUTION 'AND PAPERS, DRAFT DOCU- REVIEW MATER- IDENTIFICATION OF MENT, PROPOSED DOCU- IALS 7. REVISE DRAFT AVAILABLE KEY MATER- MIENT, MI-N"UTES OF TASK 7, GOLD PUBLIC AS APPROPRIATE IALS : WORK PROGRAM, FORCE MEETIN'-S AND HEARINGS 8, PREPARE FRO- BRIEFING APERS, DRAFT WORKSHCPS POSED SECTION DOCUMENT, PROPOSED 7, AVAILABILITY OF 8. CONSIDERA- DOCUNENT, MINUTES OF TION OF ACCEP- TASK FORCE MEETI.NGS REFERENCE INFORMATION TINGj MODIFYING AND WORKSHOPS 8, RES 'F%CNSES TO IN- OR REJECTING PUT AND REVIEW PROPOSED PLAN 9. AVAILABILITY OF COMMENTS AMENDMENT & REFERENCE INFORMATION EXCEPTION 10. RESPONSES TO INPUT 9, PUBLIC HEARING AND REVIEW COMXENTS 10. CO._14T.ACTS WITH 11, PUBLIC HEARING AGENCIES 12. PREPARE RESPONSE 11. CONTACTS WITH To DSL LETTERS AGENCIES FOR DATA, ETC. 12. INFORMAL DIS- CUSSIONS METHOD, INVENTORY, ASSESS- PUBLICIZE OPPOR- PUBLICIZE OPPOR- CONSIDER POS7 MENTj AN'LYSIS, DE- TUNITIES, PROVIDE TUNITIES, PROVIDE SIBLE NEED FOR OPPORTUNITIES, RE- OPPORTUNITIES, RE- PLAN AMENDMENT FINDINGS, REk 'I I E@l, SPOND TO COMMENTS, MEET SPONID TO COMMENTSj & EXCEPTION, REVISION, PREPARA- WITH GROUPS, MAINTAIN MEET WITH GROUPS, DIRECT STAFF TION OF PROP8SAL AVAILABILITY OF INFOR- MAINTA114 AVAILABILITY WORK, MONITOR MATION AND DEVELOP MAILING OF, INFORMATION AND WORK PROGRAM, ROSTERS DEVELOP MAILING REVIEW MAT- ROSTER ERIAL.S, HOLD HEARINGS, CON- SIDER ADOPTION ROLES CCCOG STAFF PRE- CCCOG PROCESS MANAGE- CCCOG PROCESS .!"IANAGE- CCCOG STAFF RESPQN@l PARATION, TASK MENT, TASK FORCE RE- MENT, TASK FORCE RE- PROCESS MAN- BILITI S FORCE REVIEW, VIEW, MONITOR, AND VIEW, MONITOR AND AGEMENT AND PUBLIC AND ACENCY EVALUATE CITIZEN IN- EVALUATE CITIZEN IN- WORK PROGRAM INPUT AND REVIEW VOLVEMENT, PUBLIC VOLVEMENT, PUBLIC MANAGEMENT. ND A@ENCY INPUT, @Nl) AGENCY INPUT, BD. OF COMMI- tASK ORCE ASSIST IN TASK FORCE ASSIST SSIONERS RESPONSES IN RESP014SES MAKING DECI- SIONS PE-Oucl SECTION OF DESCRIPTION IN DESCRIPTION I N DECIS1014 DOCUMENT ON DOCUMENT OF PRO- DOCUMENT OF COMPATIBILITY CESSES, NOTICES, PROCESSES, NOTICES, MINUTES, ETC. ETC, C-5 01 PROPOSED TIMELINE Week of Week of Week of Week of Week of Week of Week of Week of Week of Week of Week of Week of Week of MAJOR ACTIVITY 1/29-2/2 2/4-2/10 2/11-2/17 2/18-2/24 2/25-3/3 3/4-3/10 3/11-3/17 3/18-3/24 3/25-3/31 4/1-4/7 4/8-4/14 4/15-4/21 4/22-4/28 Decide to prepare exception Preliminary Work Program Activities Develop Work Program Collect Records Collect Data Collect References Assign Roles Informal Contacts for Information Assess Parameters Define Product Review Exceptions Require- ments Assess Goals Develop Mailing Roster Develop Task Force Distribute Work Program Task Force Meetings Distribute Briefing Papers Meeting/Workshop Announce- ments Media Contacts Identify and Contact Key Particinant,; Week of Week of Week of Week of Week of Week of Week of Week of Week of Week of Week of Week of Week of M,,AJOR ACTIVITY (Con't) 1/29-2/2 2/4-2/10 2/11-2/17 2/18-2/24 2/25-3/3 3/4-3/10 3/11-3/17 3/18-3/24 3/25-3/31 4/1-4/7 4/8-4/14 4/15-4/21 4/22-4/28 Identify References, Define Site-Situation Assess Consistency Pre Dare Statement of Col.'Ipl iance Develop Needs & Findings Develop Moorage,System and Criteria Criteria for Evaluation Relationships to Plans,etc. Identify Alternatives Identify Issues Evaluate Alternatives Assess Consequences Assess Compatibility Coordinate with Charleston- Barview Neighborhood Group Coordinate with Coos County Planning Commission Press Releases Public Workshops Agency Meetings Rev i e,..is Responses to input @,eck or I-look of l4eek of Week of Week of Week of Week of Week of Week of Week of Week of Week of lejeek of At-T'VITY 1129-212 214-2110 2111-2117 2/18-2/24 2/25-3/3 3/4-3/10 3/11-3/17 3/18-3/24 3/25-3/31 4/1-4/7 4/8-4/14, 4/15-4/21 4/22-4/22" Public Hearing Hearing to Adopt Final Distribution CO ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES Coos County Board of Commissioners: Direct preparation of plan amendment/exception, review work program, monitor process, hold public hearing, consider adoption Coos-Curry Council of Governments' Staff: Process management, work program activities preparation, materials preparation, coordinati.on Coos County Planning Department: Provide materials, participate in Task Force, review products Coos County Planning Commission: Monitor process, review products, make recommendations to Board of C.ommissioners Port of Cogs Bay.: Monitor process, participate in Task Force, participate in public Workshops, review products, make recommendations to Board of Com- missioners, provide information Task Force: Assist with work program, assess materials, identify issues, evaluate process, evaluate citizen involvement, evaluate agency coordination, consider responses to input Charleston-Barview Neighborhood Group: Identify issues, provide input, participate in process, revieW materials Citizens: Provide input, review and comment Agencies: Provide materials, provide input, review and comment C-9 APPENDIX D Newspaper Clippings The following newspaper articles appeared between November, 1978 and April, 1979. In addition to these articles, meeting information was carried in short articles or in the community calendar section of the newspaper. The KCBY-TV as well as the local radio stations carried stories and meeting announcements. Only major-articles are included but all other newspaper clippings are available for inspectibn. D-1 Little opposition found for boat basin expanion By CHARLES KOCHER Staff Writer The Coastal Acres boat basin expansion is acceptable to The World 4/26/79 most people or there would be more opposition, participants at a public workshop declared wednesday night. "People may not like it, but they know it's a problem and that we've got to have something now," Jane Morgan, one of the participants in the workshop, said. "If the general public was against it, they'd be here," added Port of Coos Bay Commissioner-elect Mike Hosie. Their comments came in response to a question from the staff members preparing a land use exception for the expansion project. "We're not getting very much in terms of opposition," said Coos Curry Council of Governments Director Sandra Diedrich. "There are some people who have experienced concerns, but we're not seeing that large a turnout of people. "What are we missing?" she asked. "What are we doing wrong?" Fisherman Roy Gunnari had the quickest answer. "The majority favors ir and the minority doesn't," he said. "People are accepting where it is now," added Joan Kilby. "If you try to put it some other place, you're going to have problems." About two dozen persons participated in Wednesday's workshop, the third of a series which have drawn crowds of up to 70. One final workshop is planned for sometime in May, Diedrich said Wednesday night. The exception is being prepared for consideration by the Coos County Board of Commissioners to satisfy state requirements for the issuance of a permit for the project. The Port of Coos Bay is hoping to create 180 new moorage slips in the Coastal Acres, just south of the existing Charleston Boat Basin. Wednesday night, the workshop participants set priorities for the alternative moorage sites being considerded in the process, choosing the Coastal Acres project and expansion of the existing docks as the first project necessary for solving com- mercial fishing needs. The Swanson property along the Barview waterfront and the Barview Wayside across from Charleston were selected as both short-term and long-term solutions for sport boat needs. The area north of the Point Adams breakwater and the Sitka Dock property were chosen as long-term sites for commercial moorage, while the North Point site between the Highway 101 and Southern Pacific Railroad bridges in North Bend was chosen as a possible long-term solution for sport-boat moorage. The choices were made after the workshop participants discussed concerns about each of the sites based on a com- parison sheet drawn up by a task force earlier Wednesday. Wednesday's task force meeting also included helicopter flights over each of the sites being considered, provided by the U.S. Coast Guard. Some of the discussion Wednesday night raised concerns that the clam bed some people want to protect in the Coastal Acres area is not worth protecting. "The clam bed may be dug out and the clams may not be fit for consumption," Bruce Laird said, asking that the status of the popular clam digging site be checked out. D-2 Land use exception Workshop slated A third public workshop on the land use exception for expan sion of the Charleston Small Boat Basin has been set for 7:30 p.m. Wednesday at the Neighborhood Facility Building in Coos Bay. Coos County is preparing a possible land use exception for expansion of the boat basin by the Port of Coos Bay into the Coastal Acres property south of the existing Charleston Small Boat Basin. The exceptions process, coordinated by the Coos-Curry Council of Governments, is exploring alternative sites for the expansion, as well as other land use considerations for the ex- pansion. In addition to the public workshop, the task force guiding the process will meet Wednesday at 10 a.m. at the council offices in the North Bend county annex. D-3 Friday, April 13,1979 , THE WORLD, Coos Bay, Ore --Page 7 V j I J q NJ 44 ResItaurateur Bob More was named this week by .the Coos Bay Port Commission to serve on the Port Advisory Committee. Niore has been act;v.,e in the "Save the Bay" movement and on the Coastal Acres Exceptions Task Force for the Charleston Boat Basin. He will serve the remaining 21 months of tile term of North Bend City Administrator Al Roth, who recently resigned, port officials said. More operates the Knight of Cups coffeehouse and restaurant in Coos Bay. - World photo by Vince Kohler. D-4 COQUILLE - The cost of free courthouse telephone lines to, Dandon, Myrtle Point and Powers will be considered by the county budget committee this year, the Coos County Board of Commissioners decided Monday. The board tabled action on the free telephone service for budget committee review after hearing a complaint that the Bay areaa should not be favored with theonly toll-free lines. Commissioner Jack Beebe told The World that the matter was tabled because of the high cost - estimated to be $458.95 per month for all three cities. By comparison, the two toll-free lines to the Bay Area, which includes Lakeside, cost the county $139.75 per month, Beebe explained. "We insured it had to go to the budget committee," he said, Beebe noted that the outlying cities do have toll-free access to the sheriff's office for emergency situations. Those callers should ask their operators for Commerce 9416. In others, the board set aside an application by Us and Sheri Golbelk to oprate a waste dispsal site because site approval has not yet been considered by the county planning commission. The Golbeks hope to operate trash burners on the North Spit, recycling the energy created for use by a consortium of seafood processing firms. Beebe said the move to table the request for a waste disposal franchise was not a reflection on the project, but simply a procedural matter. "They were getting ahead of themselves," he said of the Golbeks. "They had the cart before the horse." The county recently voted to purchase two trash burners but offer them for sale to private parties, including the Golbek's, up until 30 days before the delivery, of the machines. The move assured that the county would be receiving the two trash bur- ners, regardless of who owned them, in time to solve its solid waste disposal problems. The board also heard Monday that the land-use goals ex- ception for expansion of the Charleston Boat Basin will' be completed one or two weeks late. Sandra Diedrich, director of the Coos-Curry Council Of Governments which is preparing the proposed exception, told the board the delay will result from better-than-expected citizen in the process. The delay will not consideration date for the com- from the end of April, as originally D-5 Friday, April 6, 1979, THE WORLD, By CHARLES KOCHER Staff Writer Two boat basin expansions were chosen as the top priorities for federal funding Thursday night by the Coos County Overall Economic Development Committee. The committee chose expansion of the Charleston Small Boat Basin as the county's top project with improvement of the Bandon Boat Basin as the second project. The priority list projects will be meshed with those from Curry and Douglas counties in May. the combined list will be used for disbursement of federal Economic Development Administration grants during fiscal year 1980 which begins next November. Projects which topped the list last year and are being funded at the present time include the Brookings-Harbor industrial water line and the Eastside water line. The two boat basin projects topped tow proposals by the Coos Bay-North Bend Water Board for substantial improvements of its Pony Creek water supply. Third-ranked project Raising the main Pony Creek dam by 21 feet to increase the capacity of the system ranked third on the committee's list. Replacing the Pony Creek treatment plant with a new and larger treatment system ranked fourth. The Port of Coos Bay is asking for $600,000 to help fund its proposed $ 1.2 million expansion of the Charleston Boat Basin. The project, which would be located south of the existing basing, would accommodate 185 boats, according to Port Manager Steve Felkins. State permits for the project have been held up while Coos County considers and exception to state land use goals for the project. Felkins told the committee that if the port does not receive the grant, it would require a "substantial" increase in all marina fees to pay for the project. If the expansion is forced to be relocated at some other site, he said the project would require voter-approved and tax-supported general obligation bonds. The Port of Bandon is seeking $ 1,435,320 in federal funds for the $1.8 million improvements to its boat basin, a project which it hopes would make the harbor usable during winter months. A new ratio The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has adopted a new cost-benefit ratio for the project, estimating that $10 in benefits would be derived from every $1 spent on the Bandon project. The former estimate was 60 cents in benefits from $1 in construction funds. The Bandon project was third on last year's priority list. "In no way are we in competition." Felkins said of the Bandon and Coos Bay projects, noting that any increased moorage at Bandon would relieve the pressure on Charleston. Bandon officials told the committee that 47 commercial fisherman live in Bandon but most moor their boats in Charleston during the winter, and many of those fish off the coast between Bandon and Port Orford. The Pony Creek Dam project would cost a total of $1.3 million, with a grant of $1,040,000 requrested, according to Water Board Manager C.W. "Cal" Heckard. Heckard said the water board, acting Thursday, authorized him to go ahead with a geological and technical study of the project, hopin that it can be under construction in 1980. "This is the maximum height we can take the dam to," he said. The project would increase the water supply from the creek by 20 percent or one million gallons per day. The new water plant would cost a total of $3.1 million, with the water board sending a federal grant of $2,500,000. It would replace the existing 53-year-old plant, Heckard said. The new equipment would provide better quality treatment and double the maximum capacity of treatment from the watershed. The committee also heard a proposal for a feasibility study of locating light industrial developments in Myrtle Point, sponsored by the Myrtle Point Chamber of Commerce, but delayed action on setting a priority because of another proposal that may be submitted. Crisis of Coos Bay estuary 'Attitude survey' urged By CHARLES KOCHER Staff Writer An attitude survey on uses of the Coos Bay estuary was recommended Monday by the task force guiding the land use exceptions process for the proposed Charleston Boat Basin expansion. But the task force recognized the survey could not be done just for the exception, and agreed to recommend that the attitude survey be conducted as the entire estuary plan is completed by the county. In other business Monday, the task force added possible moorage basin sites back to the list of feasible alternatives after reviewing public comments from a workshop last week. Calling the public workshops "productive" but lopsided with fisherman participating, task force member Bob More said the exceptions process is not reaching the general public. "We need a cross-section of affected citizens," he said. "An attitude survey would be a good thing, but I don't see how you can do a survey on just the exception." But other members felt the public workshops have been sufficient. "I'm glad there were a lot of fisherman there," said Ruth Day. "It feflected the make-up of Charleston." "I don't see why we're so concerned with the public when the pubic isn't concerned," she added, "I just don't see why we make such an intense effore to get people to express opinions when they really may not have any." Task force member Dick Vigue suggested the task force draft suggsted questions for the survey and finding the solution to attitude we could establish that this is force review of all possible alternative sites to the Coastal Acres property proposed to the Coastal Acres property proposed by the Port of Coos Bay. Vigue worried that discarding the North Spit site for current moorage needs might be used by opponents of the North Spit developments in future application processes. "It's two different uses," Jeff Kaspar of the Port of Coos Bay said the two projects, but admitted "The document could be used against us." "I don't want a state agency or anyone else to grab hold of this (exception) and say "your task force ruled that out," Vigue added. Public comments had left the Coastal Acres site, Barview Wayside, the Swanson property along Empire, Sieka Dock and dry-land storage as the alternative to be studied in depth in the process. Monday, the task force added property near Peterson Sea Foods, North Spit, north of breakwater at Charleston, expansion of the basin toward the channel, inland sites on North Spit, Pony Slouch, and Coos Bay Aqua Center along the Empire channel. D-7 Expansion alternatives aired By CHARLES KOCHER Staff Writer Property owned by Juluis Swanson along the Empire waterfront emerged Thursday as the strongest of alternatives to using the Coastal Acres site for a boat basin expansion. The Swanson property, 40 acres located between the current Empire docks and the Coos Bay Water Treatment Plant, was one of four sites pegged for further study after public discussion of the alternatives Thursday night. The meeting was held to gather public input about the proposed Coastal Acres boat basin expansion as the county prepares a possible exception to state land use goals for the project. The Coastal Acres project, proposed by the Port of Coos Bay, would expand the docks of the Charleston Boat Basin south, providing 180 new boat slips. The project, estimated to cost $1.2 million, would not involve expansion of on-shore facilites. A permit for dredging in the expansion area was denied by the Oregon Division of State Lands after public hearings earlier this year, with state officials complaining that the county's land use plands were not complete. These comments sparked the exception process. Other sites to be studied in depth as a result of Thursday's meeting include Sitka Dock and Barview Wayside, both along the Barview waterfront. The concept of dry land storage will also be studied, without a specific location attached to it, according to Coos-Curry Council of Governments Director Sandra Diedrich who is coordinating the exceptions process. But it was the Swanson property which drew the most comments, and tentative support, from the crowd of about 50 persons Thursday night. "I think this site would be pretty nice," said Forrest Taylor, North Bend. "We need something for the bigger boat; that's a very good site there." Horace Byler, Coos Bay, said he measured the water along the property at low water Thursday and found 18-20 foor depths. "It's a viable site that has been used in the past," he said. "The access is there and its away from ocean surge. But fishermen complained the site is not away from the surge of ships passing in the channels and the chop created by summer winds. "It would need a breakwater on three sides ot knock the wind and smell down," said Bert Johns, Coos Bay. "Otherwise the cost of repairing damage to boats and pilling would be high." "The capital investment is going to be enormous," said Bob Hudson, Charleston. "The cost difference (between Coastal Acres and the Swanson property) would be profound. Can we afford it?" Though utilities and road access are available, fisherman noted that marine support facilities are not available and duplicated management would be needed by the Port of Coos Bay. Comments about the Sitka Dock property were much the same as the Swanson property, with the cost of purchasing the Sitka Dock property in question. Barview Wayside, commented Port Commissioner Chet Lapp, "was a no-touch situation as far as the state was concerned a year ago." But Bob More, Coos Bay, said community attitues may have changed not that the need for moorage has become acute. "It's a good site to look at, More said. "There's a potential there for the future." Sites eliminated from serious consideration by the group Thursday included two sites south of the South Slough Bridge, three other sites in the immediate area of the existing boat basin, Pony Slough and North Point in North Bend, two water-front sites and two inland sites on North Split, two sites n Haynes Inlet and the Coos Bay Aqua Center proposal along the chanel off-shore of the Barview waterfront. D-8 Monday, March 26, 1979, The World, Coos Bay, Ore.-Page 13 Expansion of boat basin 'Careful groundwork' urgod for exception The scope of a exception Curry Counicl of Government Marketing Association also for the proposed Coastal Acres told Walters the review of all offered to make a random boat basin expansion was moorage needs on the bay is survey of port district question Friday by a the function of the county's residents to get a valid opinion federal official who said the entire estuary plan, a docu- sample on whether more exception may substitute for ment that is in the beginning moorage is needed on the bay, an environmental impact stages and not completed. and whether that moorage statement "We are not doing an should be at the Coastal Acres Chuck Walters of the Na- estuary plan in this process," property or elsewhere. tional Marine Fishery Service she said."There is an implied Participants at a public met with the task force guid- scope in the need described by meeting held recently on the ing the process which would the demand for moorage at Coastal Acres exception, take exception to state land the Charleston Small Boat answering similar questions, use goals for project in the Basin. Those 180 constituent indicated 40-0 that more moor- Cox County Comprehensive boats Ere not greater than 90 age is needed, 29-7 for expand- Plan. foot in size." ing the small boat basin, and Walters' questions about the Kaspar said the majority of 9-25 that another site should be document came when task the demand is for boats right used. force members mentioned at 30 feet long and between 60 they were not considering and 90 feet, the sizes that could deep draft docks to be within be handled by the proposed the realm of the search for expansion. alternatives In other discussion Friday, the task force asked Diedrich We have to be very careful to lay the groundwork" to gather information on the Walters warned "IF we just several forms of pollution in build this expansion for the the area of the basin which demand (the waiting list of may be involved, including vessels for the existing basin), that from fish wastes, human what care we going to do for sewage, oil and grease, and larger boats in six months to a garbage. year? Bob More of Coos Bay indi- cated that state monitoring of "If you do the exception the area already shows pollu- process correctly, you might tion by human waste, but not be asked to do an eco- other members of the task mental impact statement, "he force said U.S. Coast Guard argued, "and you know how rules will require holding long those can take." tanks on all boats within the "I'm afraid we'd bog next few years. down." said Bob Hudson, a The Ail-Coast Fishermen's that is going to exist for the net five years." agreed Jeff Kashar of the Port of Coos bay. Sandare Diedrich of the Coos- D-9 The World 3/24/59 Q: 1 WANT TO KNOW if there is a conflict of interest with Rep. Bill Grannell, D-North Bend, owning a portion of the Coastal Acres property which Sen. Jack Ripper, D-North Bend, is supporting for the boat basin expansion? A.: "I have not become involved in any way," Grannell says. "I've even told my staff to stay away from any meetings on the subject." Grannell is one of the eight owners of the Coastal Acres property which the Port of Coos, Bay has an option to proposed if it can get a state pen-nit for the expansion project. The proposed purchase price is $120,000. Ripper has no financial interest in the property, Grannell says. As a result of his interest, Grannell says he has not become involved in efforts to win the state permit and has even avoided the process. The group of eight owners purchased the property "10 or 12 years ago," Grannell says, for a price of $32,000. The official name of the group is Coastal Acres Inc., and involves seveeral former North Bend teachers, their friends and relatives. D-10 The World 3/16/79 Lack of moorage and solution to it aired at basin talks Complaints about the lack of moorage on the bay and The proposed moorage, according to Jeff Kaspar of the the "short-sighted" solution in expanding the Charleston Port of Coo s Bay, would provide space for about 180 vessels Boat Basin were aired Thursday night at a public workshop just South of the existing boat basin. on the project. Thursday's meeting was designed to discuss the need 'I'd be glad to move if they'd give us a place to park our for the expansion and possible alternative sites for moorage boat," said Charleston resident Jean Gunnari "It's worth on the bay. more than the house." "The boats are getting" bigger and because of the But opponents of the expansion into what is known as changeover, the port's been caughtt in a bind," said Pete the Coastal Acres property called the project "a Band-Aid Eames. "It was designed for 50-foot vessels and we're approach" that will be full as soon as it is completed. looking at 65 to 100-foot vessels. Those are the ones that can "It's very bad to lose sight of that," said Bob 'More, a catch a wide variety of products." member of the task force working on an exception to land Roy Gunnari, a member of the Pacific Fishery use laws for the project "this is going to be filled just as Management Council, complained that he had been given an soon as it's built." eviction notice on the slip he has subleased for two years. "I've been on the waiting list for two years for my The workshop, attended by about 30 persons including shrimper," Gunnari said, explaining that he subleased a slip two dozen fishermen and seafood industry employees, was in the meantime. "Now his boat has arrived here so I've got the first of three to discuss the exception for the Coastal to move. Acres project. "Boats are coming more and more all the time," Gunnari said. "We're going to need more facilities in the future." Like the task force guiding the work, the group Thur- sday night decided that any alternative sites would have to be located north of the South Slough Bridge at Charleston and south of the Highway 101 bridge at North Bend. Using those parameters, the workshop participants discussed: -North Point, located between Highway 101 and Southern Pacific Railroad bridges in North Bend. -Sitka dock, the former pulp mill site at Barview. -The Swanson Property between the existing Empire Dock and the Coos Bay Sewage Treatment Plant. -The Coastal Acres proposa It was the proposed expansion project which drew most of the debate among the workshop participants. "it would cost everybody less," said Joe Pugh of Charleston. "But that whole strip would be unlivable," countered another Charleston resident. "Consider that people do live there." At a meeting of the Charleston Barview neighborhood group last Sunday, residents voted overwhelmingly to support the project, according to Sandra Diedrich, director PETE EAMES of the Coos-Curry Council of Governments which is Port caught in a bind (Continued on Page?) OVER D-11 wou aA (Continued from Page 1) preparing the exception. "It's true it was largely fishermen, but most of therr live in Charleston," said Ruth Day, a member of the ex- "Those voting against it were ception task force. newcorriers. Lorance Eickworth of Coos Bayreminded the audience the state permit for Coastal Acres was originally denied because of the clam beds that would be disturbed. "All you've done is made the clarns-less accessible to the clam digger," countered workshop chairman Dick Vigue. "I have towonder if we're actually destroying clams or a recreational area.". Port officials noted the boat basin expansion would not -b the clam beds near the beach of the property which distui are most often used by clam diggers. 'Die next public workshop on the exception process is Marc' 28 at the Neighborbood scheduled for 7:30 p.m. I I ROY GUNNARI Facility Building in Coos Bay. V,victed from his shp Ile exception should be ready for consideration by the Coos County Board of Commissioners by the middle of -April. D-12 The World 3/14/79 I F r 5 Li L An application calling on Coos developing comprehensive land use The completed application will go County to grant a planning ex- plan because state authorities have to the 6oos County Board of ception that would allow the Port of refused to grant a permit to build Commissioners for final action, she J COOS Bay to construct a con. the pier, which would provide new sa id. troversial pier at the Charleston moorages for commercial and In other action at Tu6sday's Boat Basin is expected to be pleasure boats at Charleston. meeting, held at the port offices in finished the ,veek of April 15, the the Fitzpatrick Building on the port's commissioners learned at However, officials of the Oregon Coos Bay 'Mall, the commissioners Division of State Lands have said a their reg,,ilar meeting Tuesday "tabled indefinitely" action on a ermit would probably be granted afternoon. P request for a lease option at the if Coos County decides to make an Charleston Boat Basin recently The 'commissioners listened to exception allowing the pier to.be submitted by Chuck's Seafood. reports on the stat-us of the ex@ constructed in its comprehensive ception application from Jeff land use plan. The firm wants to lease port- Kaspar of the port staff and Sandra The port district appealed the owned land at the basin to expand a Diedri ch, director of the Coos-Curry fish-processing plant there. I Council of Governments which is However, the commissioners said I writing the application. Chuck's must first submit to them -i Diedrich told the port com. Public involvement detailed plans for the project. @1, missioners that two series of due reports Diedrich Jeff kaspar told the com- meetings have been planned on the mi-sioners that work is expected to pfoposed exception - one series for a technical task force on the ap- get und .er way in June on a planned expansion of the U.S. Coast Guard plication and the other for the DSL's permit refusal at a hearing dock on the west shore of Coos Bay. public - in North Bend earlier this year, but . The work is expected to be She said the first of three "public also decided to apply 'for an ex- carried out between the time the involvement workshops" on the ception to the county plan. cutter Modoc leaves the port for boat basin issue will be held at the reassignment and the arrival of its Coos Bay Neighborhood Facility According to Diedrich, meetings larger@ replacement, the Citrus, Building on Hull Street at 7:30 p.m. of the technical task force on the Ka spar said, Thursday. The meeting will deal exception for the boat basin will be The Citrus is a buoy tender which with the exceptions process in held at the CCCOG offices in the will be refitted at Seattle, Kaspar general, issues involved in the county annex in North'Bend March said. The refitting is expected to - port's construction proposal, and 23, March 26, and April 6. All leave the Coos Bay dock vacant for alternitives,to it, she said. . . "one to 11/' months" this summer. meetings are set for 10 a.m., she 2 A second meeting will be held at sa id. he noted. the Neighborhood Facility Building re ' specially en- Kaspar also said that repair of at the 'same time March 28, and "Citizens a. e roads &t the Charleston Boat Basin ged to att-end the public in. is expected to take place in May. scheduling of a third is pending, she coura noted. volvement workshops at the Neigh- The roads at the basin have been, Ile port district is applving for borhood Facility Building," she severely damaged by winter an exception to Coos County s toldThe,World. weatheY, according to portofficials. D-13 The World 3/10/79 &_Xceptions procens under wre y h7N 9 9, P on uuums, 'he first public workshop Specific sites the com- JL in the Coastal Acres boat mittee suggested for study basin expansion exceptions include Sitka Dock, North process was set for Thurs- Bay industrial Park on -day night by the task force North Spit, the Empire overseeing the project waterfront, North Point in Fri da y. North Bend, Pony Slough, The Coos Curry Council of the Baryiew Wayside, the Governments is developing north side of the Charleston the exception to state goals breakwater, and south of the forthe courity in an effort to Cape Arago Highway allow expansion of the Bridge over South Slough. Charleston Small Boat Also mentioned were Basin. Haynes Inlet and North The public workshop was Sloukh, dryland st6rage set'for 7:30 p.m. in Room 2 of with a hoist and any possible the Neighborhood Facility upland site where a new Building. water aiea might be In other discussion dredged out. Friday, the task force Thursday the public w;ll reviewed the work program be asked to review the for developing the exception proposed worY program, and set some broad identify the issues parameters for possible surrounding the boat basin alternatives to the Coastal expansi 'on, discuss the needs Acres site. and criteria for an ex- The exception will review pansion and help identify the need for the boat basin alternativP-. expansion, the consequences Four r@@re task force of the project, alternative meetings and two morp' sites and the compatability public worksahops are of the Coastal Acres site to planned before the ex- existing adjacent land uses. ception goes to public In general, the task force hearing before the board of decided the altematives to commissioners, at the end of the Coastal Acres property April. lie between the Highway 101 McCullough Bridge on the north and the South Slough Estuarine Sanctuary boundary on.the south. D-14 17 Boat hason By CHARLES KOCHER pansion of an airport run. Four other task force Staff Writer way into the bay. meetings are planned in COQUILLE - A work According to the work later weeks. program for a planning program, six weeks of the 13. exception to a] low expansion week process have already The task force was form. of the Charleston Boat Basin elapsed. Diedrich said the ed,. Diedrich said, "for work is on schedule" at was authorized Wednesday, providing the project staff aiming toward a fi this time. nal with work program advice, consideration of the plan by A technical task force will review and evaluation.' (D the, end of April. begin meeting tb is Friday to Ul Coos Curry Council of assist with the work and 0 Key agencies par. -5 Governments Director public participation ticipating, in the project are CL Sandra Diedrich presented meetings on the exception Z the county, the port and its, the work program to the are scheduled to begin next 1: 11 advisory committee, tile week, Coos County Board of countY'A Charleston plan. Commissioners, who ap. Those who hav J e agreed to 1 ning group, Oregon Division cc 4 proved the detailed participat . in the*tisk force of State Lands, Oregon @J document. are Charleston resident Department of Fish and Ruth Day, Jeff Kasper of the Wildlife, Oreg. Depart, The work will lead to a decision on' whether an Port, Of Coos Bay, Bob i.@@ ment of Economic Develop. exception should be taken to Hudson of the All-Coast ment, National -Marine state goals to allow ex- Fisberman's Marketing Fisheries Service, All-Coast pansion of the boat basin Association, Bill Mullark into the Oregon Departmevy Of h an's Marketing the t If is erm what is called Association, and the U.S. Coastal Acres , propertv Fish and Wildlife, Dick A y orp rmv C s of Engineers. south of the existing basin. Vigue of the Port of Coos In general, the exception A state permit for the Bay Advisory Committee, dredging necessary to will assess whether the boat the Pacific Power and Light Co. project has been held up assin expansion is con. District Manager Jack Dun. b while the county prepares harn,.Chuck Walters of the SANDRA DIEDRICH sistent with adjacent land and considers the exception. National Marine Fisheries Presents details of program uses, define the need foi- the The . exception would Service, Oregon Land expansion, consider other become a part of the Conservation and alternative sites for a boat basin, and then work county's comprehensive Development- Field Meithof, Coos County The group will meet at 10 through citizens, advisory plan. The county has Representative Glen Hale, Planner Bill Nesmith, and a.m. Friday at the Coos groups and the board of already adopted a similar Coos County Ordinance Coos Bay businessman Bob Curry Council of Govern. commissioners toward document to allow ex- Administrator Bruce More. ments office in North Bend. approval. The World 3/5/79 .@J L4 -A A A L ByCHARLESKOCHER StaffWriter the Senate." Given a coice .between an income tax refund and an But the Senate could, he admitted, amend the plan or increase in highway repair funds, 50 Democrats told South send back its own plan. If the House refused the Senate's Coast legislators Saturday they favor increased highway solution, the whole tax matter would land in a conference funds.., committee. The vote was part of the give-and-talm at a legislative Grannell warned the House "is probably going to be forurri featuring Sen. Jack Ripper, Rep. Bill Grannell and pretty solid about this." Republican House members, in Ret). Ed "Doc" Stevenson Saturday under the sponsorship fact, avoided an endorsement of Atiyeh's plan at the annual of the Coos County Democratic Boosters. Dorchester Conference thisweekend. I With Ripper and Grannell present -7 two of the key Ripper in turn warned that whatever comes out of the figures in the current tax-reform battles - the subject of legislature needs the governar's signature. taxes,was easily the most prevalent Saturday. "The governor has a plan," Ripper said., "and whichever Both men prcclaimed Gov. Vic Atieyh's tax plan as comes out, they've got to have his a .pproval. He may veto dead and both explained the plans they are now backing, but our plan and say 'go back.' iffi little response from the crowd. "Hopefully the governor will take a milder approach to wi@ "The governor's plan is virtually impossible to make opposing our plan," Grannell said. "He received 375 coupons from a statewide newspaper ad. We mully don't work," said Ripper. "You can't build a wall on a broken think that's a groundswell of support." brich." Another change in the tax plans may be a move by Rep. As a result, he has proposed a plan to revamip state fund. Jeff Gilmour, D-Jefferson, to put the $100 million income tax ing of schools, giving property tax relief across the board surplus in a matching fund to get more federal highway and limiting increases in school spending. dollars. Grannell said flatly that his House Revenue Committee Grannell said the funds would be used only for the repair "has rejected the governor's plan" and will have its own of existing primary, secondary and county roads, and won plan ready for a House floor voto next Friday or Monday. an endorsement of the plan from the Democrats present. "We're looking for 40 to 50 votes (out of a possible 60) in That endorsement, he said, was the same at similar forums the House . for this pan," Grannell said, praising- the in Clackamas and Deschutes counties. ' bipartisan support the committee is receiving. I In other discussion, Stevenson, told the Democrats the I The committee's plan, he said, would have the state pay legislature and the governor are working together to solve 30 percent of homeowner and renter taxes, increase the the problems faced by coastal developments. Homeowner and Renter Relief Program to eliminate taxes "We realize there are restraints at the present time to for 95 percent of Oregon's senior citizens, give income boat basin expansions and new facilities," he said. taxpayers a rebate on 1978 taxes and lower income tax with. "We've met with the governor, 's assistant on natural holdings, and force. local governments to present any tax resources and talked about these problems," Stevenson levy increases in a separate election from the base budget. said. "We've come to an understanding. The governor said Ripper's plan would previde state funding for a basic we want agencies to go out and work with the local area t6 education based on the number of pupils in a district and the clear these hurdles." average state salary for teachers and principals. It would The exceptions process being undei taken for the proposed r 0 local also limit school taxes to SIO per 01,000 assessed value, and boat basin expansion at'Charleston lie said, will help I provide the same HARRP increases and income tax refunds agencies learn how to work with'the state rules. that the House Committee is proposing.' Questioned about state help for the production of Atiyeh has proposed the 1978 income tax rebate, a 1.5 methanol as an alternative fuel, Stevenson said "it really percent property tax Iii-nit on residences, and a tax limit isn't a paying proposition at the present time." equal to the 1978 tax fate for businesses. He added a $2 per He said both the state and local governments may be $1,000 assessed value refund for all property after asked to commit themselves to the purchase of legislative analysis showed most property would receive no methanol-created from agricultural and forest wnstes-to relief under the origina I plan. "It's a'hell of a lot harder to give money away tha' help assure a market, or the state may offer tax incentives try and raise it," Ripper said, n to to methanol producers. GrHnnell predicted that if the House plan receives the expected 40-to-59-vote support, "that's a strong message to D-16 The World 2-17-79 0 UO 0- 19' "Url M in error on a more fundamental level. the sites rejected for larger trawlers Let's move, The problems that confront, confound would be suitable for smaller boats, as and divide our community will never Mr. Eickworth has suggested. institute be resolved by resorting to personal Fifth, the problems in getting a attacks. comprehensive estuary plan together The World published a letter written In the first place, it is wrong to give are in no way attributable to Eick- Eickworth and Ashworth the credit for worth, Ashworth, et. al. There is one by Andy Nasburg a few days ago. His defeating the North Spit development basic reason for th6re being no last paragraph is worth repeating. bond. That defeat, by four-to-one,' was comprehensive estuary plan as yet: "I'm tired of the nonproductive, one of the largest margins of the last too much bureaucracy with too many retired or public servants, etc., who election. Or is Mr. Nasburg suggesting overlapping jurisdictions. don't need a job, dictating to us who that Eickworth and Ashworth have so In conclusion, I am tired of seeing pay more taxes than we di-aw. Let's much clout t .hat they can persuade important issues degenerate into getoff our duffs and fight!!" 1, too, have noticed the economic four-out-of-five voters? cheap shots taken at retired people or backgrounds of the more vocal op- Secondly, it is wrong to suggest that anyone else who works for their vision ponents of business and industrial the bond was defeated because it of a better community. We need more would have created minimum-wage rational discussion of issues, not expansion in the Coos Bay area. These jobs. The bond was defeated because it personalities. opponents are mostly people on the came up in a tax revolt year and Bob More public payroll, or retired from the because voters felt it cost more than it Coos Bay public payroll, or on welfar or food would directly return to those who stamps or some other form of public would have to pay for it. assistance. We, the silent majority, are paying for the economic support of our Moreover, itlis wrong to suggest that noisiest critics. the North Spit development is planned In the Feb. 12 iss .ue of The World primarily for a fisheries complex and Woody Robison is quoted or. moving to accommodate larger trawlers. The the UofO Marine Biology Center out primary reason for the North Spit of Charleston. Woody can rount on my development is to create the deep- full support of such a moire. The draft modern port facility that Coos center and its director may know all Bay lacks, and without which Coos about fishes and crawdads, but I don@t Bay will never fulfill its potential as a have any confidence in their modern port. knowledge of economics. " Fourth, consideration of North Spit Forrest Hales and alternative sites for a trawler Coquille basin was based on larger trawlers. The Port Advisory Committee has determined that the Al Pierce North Point site wo uld also be suitable for larger trawlers and for a fisheries Attack is complex. It might also qualify as a 'incorrect' moorage site for smaller boats. Mr. with the Port Eickworth worked Advisory Committee in studying these In response to Mr. Nasburg's angry sites and fully supports the letter over the boat basin expansion development of the North Point site problem: not only is his attack fac- f6r a fisheries cemplex. It also seems tually incorrect on all points, he is also an unexplored possibility that some of D-17 The World 2/3/79 BASIN EXPANSION EXCEPTION URGED By CHARLES KOCHER Staff Writer COQUILLE - The Coos-Curry establish the need for the boat basin Commissioner. Bob Emmett made Council of Governments was asked expansion, consider the alternative the commissioner's neutrality, the Friday to pave the way for an ex- sites for such a project, consider the Fish and Wildlife Department ception to state land use goals for the impacts of using each of the sites, and promise, and the promised aid of proposed Coastal Acres boat basin at show the compatibility of 'the Ripper and the state part of the Charleston. development to existing adjacent land motion. The action by the Coos County Board uses. "Sen. Ripper has great faith in the of Commissioners came after a LCDC Field Representative 'Glen county's desire to see this project meeting with Port of Coos Bay, council Hale said he expects the exception to completed" Towslee said. "The port of governments and Oregon Depart, -is gone through a great deal of be an amendment to the county's ment of Land Conservation and existing estuary element. "I don't feel planning on its own part. The value of Development officials. it's that big a job," he said. "You're this project is worth the inconvenience The council of governments, just incorporating the exception of this exception process." process into the plan." working with the port and county Sandra Diedrich, director of the planning departments, prepare council of governments, told the the proposed exception for con. commissioners the process should sideration by the board of corn. take six to eight weeks after her staff missioners.The need for the exception gets started. 'She plans to present a to state goals was pointed out in a work program to the board of com- contested case hearing on a state missioners as soon as it can. be permit for the project last week. developed. "There's no guarantees," said Tom Towslee, aide to state Sen. Jack "You have to consider that there has Ripper, D-North Bend, who called to be community involvement and Friday's meeting. "But it increases coordination with other agencies," she the chances of a permit. It satisfies the said. "As a result of the public process, needs of LCDC and it establishes a the board would then consider whether record of findings in case it pops up in it would take an exception to one part court." of one goal for this project. Towslee added, however, that the County Planning' Director David Oregon Department of Fish and Wild- Richey suggested the exception be life has promised to waive its ob- developed as part of the county's jections to the project should the regular estuary planning process, but exception to the state goal be taken. was told the exception need not in- volve the entire estuary. The exception would state the position for allowing expansion of the "The board of commissioners has boat basin south into the property held decided the course of action," be said by Coastal Acres Inc., which includes after the meeting. "What assistance a clam bed. Development in a clam our staff can provide, we will. From bed is now allowed under a section of that point we'll discover what cross- Goal 16, which says clam beds should roads face us when they come up." be placed in conservation manage. In making the motion to go ahead ment units of estuaries. with consideration of the exception, Bob Cor-tright of the Department of Commissioner Woody Robison said he Land Conservation and Development almost felt a conflict because of outlined the exceptions process for the previous work the county has done in commissioners, telling them ."most of planning the area. the information you need is probably "I support the project," he said. already available." "The Port of Coos Bay is an entity of "The county and the cities of North the council of governments. I feel, with Bend and Coos Bay went through the the load we're carrying in Coos process once before," Cortright said, County, Dave's hands are tied. I recalling the airport siting element. believe Sandy is willing to try to take "As far as we're concerned, the proper this project on." process was gone through at that time," Cortright said the exception needs to D-18 ,76 z v r, 7- vjq , id can, gee'? In the denial of the permit This brings up a very grave for the addition to the boat question about the intelligence basin in Charleston, you are and ability of our Legislators setting aside an area that can who took the control of the be used orly a few days a year economic and industrial for clarn digging and for the development out of the local use of a very small percento gge area. involved and created of the people of the area. But these bureaucratic agencies as a boat basin it would be and.gave tberft the control of used every day. the economic life or death of This area needs more boat local areas. it is necessary docks vc@y badly and this is an that this terrible situation be area the port can afford. corrected by our Legislature There are many commercial or by a referendum vote of the fishermen who would come people. - here if they could find a plpce More about '- LCDC @Land to dock their boats. They Conscription and Destruction would bring their catches to Committee) and DEQ the local processing plants, (Detramental Environmental creating many more jobs in Quacks) in the future. those plants. Most of these jobs are performed byNvomen Ernest Drew and this area is very short on Coos Bay, Ore. work for women. Many of these Fishermen p.S.: It has been apparent would bring their families to that there is a concerted effort this area, which would help all to curtail all industrial or phases of the economy of this economic development on the area. Oregon coast by interests Any decision about removed from our area. This enlarging the boat basin in is also state property- Charleston, or any other land development any other. place, should be made by the local people of the area involved, -not by a bureaucratic group far removed from the area who probably know nothing about the economic needs of the area involved. D-19 JIM ROSS, deputy director of the Land Conservation PURSUING the basin expansion a bit more, after and Development Commission, apparently believes that Sen. Jack Ripper, D-Nrth Bend, put some heat on DSL certain of Coos County's residents and officials have I director Bill Cox to reconsider his de4q6sqion. Cox suddenly rings in their noses, only to be led around by his all began talking about goals and guidelines and planninqg, powerful state agency. . not clam beds. A new element Ross tugged on t', rings last week when be an- Pient entered tqhe picture, nounced, rather coolly and officiouslyq' that if the boat conveniently, and we suspect in conjunction with both the I Fish and Wildqh@qfe DeDartment and tqhe LCDC. Tqhe hasn at Charleston is ever expanded by the Port of Coos sq1traqtegy began to crys0qUize. Bay, there will have to be "compensation." This is the Fish and Wildlife would defer to the DSI which 8qf8qf8qirst mention of cornpqonsation, or mitigation, of this qVI0- 10 e-noqthqing posed expansion, and Ross refers to it as a matter of fact. uld defer 'to the LCDC which would advis It isn't. could be done until the county acted and qtqhe cou, 'ty lo 'There are no rounds nor is there any proven and behold, to no one7s surprise ... qwas not prepared to act since qiqts planning q@ad not or-qogressed -far evidence that fqfqie boat basin expansion has to be miqu*_ Neat. Not only dqiqdi the state get out from under the heiat, gated This entire concept (of rnigalqiotnq) is under study bit wound up puttin,1 the blame on qChe county. a special task force, comprised of coastal officials who assume they will have some say on whether or not A clever package. qtl@econceptof rniqfqigationsurviv@, and inwatforrn. Meanwhile, tqhe Port of Coos Bay desperately arches for space to create more moorages for qUqhv- Should mitigation (environmental land and-or ,vatar se, Commercial fishing fleet ... one of the mainstays of the tradeoffs) apply to all proqiqnts? Should the state be L t' required to give financial assistance for all mitigation 40cal economy. efforts? Is mitigation even lawful? These anq@ oqdiqer I.n qtqh wake of last week's show, one wonders: Who is questions await answers, running the state really? It looks like it's qtqiic qJim Rcsses, Let's remember that tqhe entire mitigation guideline and qthey know it. And they are untouchable, it would in the LCDC plan was put there Nviqthout q6eneqf it of public Seem. input. We have brought this to tqhe attention of coastal and state officials before, but still to no one's interest, apparently. We find the mitigation guidelines illegal, lacking the public input requirement. YET, Ross comes down from Salem and tells us the basin project vill be compensated. We understand the "divine right" notqion that motivates such high and mighty officials such as Ross. We do not accept it, how- ever. As for the state's strategy regarding the expansion itself, it is almost classic. If you will: The Division of State Lands denied a Port of Coos Bay requq6st to expand at the basin because the area in question "would e:minaqte recreational clammina at this site" . . and "reduce the productivityof the dredged area for clams and other existing tidal life." The DSL rejection qwas based on a 1971 game da partment (now Fish and Wildlife Department) study of clam beds. That study was based solely on use of ac- cessible clarqn bed areas and not on overall clam pro- ductivity. In other words, there 8qmay be many more pro- ductive clam beds t4qhan the one at 6qt4qhe Charleston basin, but since they were not accessible to diggers they didn't enter into the department's thinking. Interestingly, t4qhe state's DSL, Fish and Wildlife ad qL8qCDC have seen fit now to build a case against dredging. 4qIqaqst year and before, state agencies fought filling. (We refer to the f0qi4qght against the proposed North Bend airqrq*rt q1q1qinway extension, eventually defeated ouqr0qt at 2qthe state cq' level). Economic growth qand maintenance is truly in the hands of agencies and these agencies are willing to strangle the local economies to death, unless their hard- fast niles are obeyed qto the letter. Dq-20 The World 1/31179 le C Q- Me 8 n caHled COQUILLE - The Coos County Board of Com- missioners has set a special meeting for Friday morning to discuss c oun I, y in- volvement in the proposed Coastal Acres boat basin expansion. The meeting was called at the request of Tom Towslee, legislative aide to Son. Jack Ripper,. D-North Bond, and may include representatives of the Oregon Depri rtment of ,Land Conservation and Development, Port of Coos Bay. Coos County PLanning Department and Coos-Curry Council of Governments. In bearings on a state permit for the boat basin project last week, a representative of the Department of Land Con. servation and Development tesfifiedtbat an exception in Coos County Com- prehensive Plan would be needed before theproject could proceed. Port of Coos Bay officials argued the project complies with state goEils and is comistent with the interim county zoning now in effect. the county hopes to com- plete its fina I ' com- prehensive plan and zoning ordinance this year. Before the hearings, Ripper wrote the Division of State Lands, which controls the state permit, in support of the project. Towslee said this morning the object of the meeting is "to get the process started so the county can request an exception to the coastal goals." D-21 Page 2-THE WORLD, Coos Bay, Ore., Saturday, January 27,1979 (Continued from Page 1.) Land"Conservatqion and Development sa yi ng that 13 more commercial Department. fishing vessels, each 65 to q85 feet long, Ross said that Coos County must are on their way to Coos Bay from the propose an exception to its unfinished Gulf of Mexico. comprehensive plan in order for the There is no moorage for them, DSL to grant the port a dredging 8qF I Gunnari said. permit. 'All the ports on the coast are pretty The county's interim zon well filled up," he explained. ng or- dinance and estuary plan are still in ou Lack of moorage c Id hamper effect and legally allow tqhe pier exploitation of underdeveloped fish project to proceed, Campbell main. Pacific whqi in' species such as. t tained. Gunnari said. The Pacific Fisheries Management "r don't think it was the intent of Council is comprised of represen LCDC to stop all development," he tativs appointed by the governors of said acknowledging that qlegrql Oregon, Washington, California, and opinions on the issue differ. .Idaho, as well as representatives of The state called no witnesses during the National MaqHn Fisheries Service the hearing's second sessior, ugershr and tqhe heads of the fish and wildlife Gant and 2qKr @ok hands at'the departments ol the memberStates. hearing's conclusion, and tA received Attorney Jeff Carripqbeeqlql, Co.3s Bay praise from the state hearing officer, qle argued in testimony that the port'. who called them "two higqlqAy com. plan is not in conflict with state'land petent lawyers who tried matters as gentlemen. use planning goals. Campbell said lie does not believe "that all qiocal Dale Snow of the Orcqon Depart- development must cease until the ment of Fish and Wildlife, Newport, county develops a comprehensive was one of those who testified at a plan. q1 don't think that follows the state 'hearing held in North Bend dictates of common sense." Thursday and Friday. Campbell qwoqk issue with testqiniony The World incorrectly reported ATTORNEY GEORGE CAN Thurs,qiay by James Ross of the state Snow's name as being Dori Snow. Argues case for Port of Cvqoqs 8qE I State hearing o boat basin appeal Port pleades 'rock solid' figures By VINCE KOHLER Staff Writer A state hearing on the denial of a permit to the Port of Coos bay to build a pier at the charelston Boat Bay moved into its second day this morning, with port official promising to produce "rock-solid" statistics showing that a shortage of moorages for commercial and recreational vessles at the basin is of critical proportions.port operations manager Jeff Kasper is expected to discuss the figures in testimony before state hearings officer Carlotta Sorensen, Salem, beginning at 9 a.m. Kasper will be called as a sitness bt the port's attorney, George Grant, and will be subject to crossexamination by Clarence Kruger of the Oregon Attorney General's office, representing the Division of State Lands which denied the permit application in November.The DSL rejected the port's application because it said the proposed project would disrupt clam beds. However, port manager Steve Felkis said Thurday that alternative pier sites are too expensive for the port to develop."I feel that the number of people using new recreational (boating) facilities would far exceed the number of people digging clams," he added.There is need for 150 to 180 new moorage spaces at the basin, according to testimony Thursday. The hearing's first day was also marked by testimony pro and con by state and federal officials and and scientists.James Ross, deputy director of the Department of Land Conservation and Development, said the state would conditionally approve the port's plan to build a moorage for 150 vessles in Coos County adopts an exeptio allowing it in the county's developing comprehensive land use plan. Sally Cramer, a biologist for the National Marine Fisheries Service in Portland, said her agency opposes building because dreaging at the seven-acre site would destroy the clam beds.Although Cramer described her prepared testimony as a general "policy statement" on behalf of her agency's regional director, Don Johnson, Seattle,the statement specifically addresses the Charelston project."Construction of marine facilitys in the proposed location would be a severe biological and recreational loss. which cannot be supported by NMFS.We recommend that alternative marine sites be investigated through a Coos Bay estuary plan," Cramer said.Grant objected to the inclusion of material described as policy statements in the hearing record, but was overruled by Sorensen.Also included in the record was a written policy statment from the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, which said that the pier proposal is "not consistent"with state land use planning goals for estuaries. However, the department added "If Coos County obtains an estuarian goal exeption for the development at the proposed site the department would withdraw its objection to use the site." Floyd Shelton a spokespersman for the Oregon Department of Economic Development, supported the port's scheme. Additional moorage ate the basin will help the area's developing Pcific whiting industry as well as recreational V % A CARLOTTASORENSEN DONSNOW Consulted water laws Displayed specimens Y" C-B PC r, 0i n 7, U ro (Continued f roin, Page 1.) fish, including shiner perch, boaters, Shelton testified. staghorn sculpin, English sole, Although Crarner described and starry flounder, Mullarkey her prepared testimony as sa id. merely a general "policy Another biologist from the statement" on behalf of depW@,tAnent, Mike Hosie, Johnson, the statement Charleston, said he supported specifically addressed the the port's plan, as did Ed Charleston plan. Condon, an extension The plan was also supported oceanographer for Oregon by Paul Donheffner of the State University, Corvallis. Oregon State Marine Board, "In Coos Bay, the b-noorage) who said ther 'e is a critical shortage is in excess of 100 shortage of moorage space in boats ... moorage space is Oregon's three largest deep cramped up and down the coast water ports - Coos Bay, ... Coos Bay is classed by Yaquina Bay, and the LCDC gs a port that cas, be Columbia River. developed," Condon said. One representative of the Oregon Department of Fish Also commenting at the hea r- Wildlife, Don Snow, ing was Tom Shields, North New,port, warned that dredging Bend, representing the 45- would disrupt marine life in tlie member South Coast Offshore area. Yacht Club, who said that the Bill Mullarkey, another need for recreational boating biologist for the Fish and facilities is growing. He added Wildlife Department, gave a that he believes that.the area review of marine life in the that would be disturbed by, general area. It is rich with dredging would be very small, Ll T L By JERrY F. BOONE News Editor Sen. Jack Ripper has called upon the "On top of that," lie added, "this Oregon Division of State Lands to project fits the criteria of a water approve plans to buii6 an expanded related use which appears to be the boat basin at Charleston - sa-6ng a catch phrase when deciding the fate of conflict between the DSL and local any project on or near Coos Bay. I governments "has gotten completely would be extremely disappointed if out of hand." this project were struck down on that The DSL two months ago turned basis." down a request by the Port of Coos Ripper added that "with the usual Bay to expand the boat basin into an exceptions" the project has support of area known as Coastal Acres. the community that has tried on The Coastal Acres. tract is owned by several occasions to improve the private individuals but has been of. economy of the area. fered for sale to the port for possible "The conflict between the DSL and expansion of the basin. local government has gotten com- The port has agreed to purchase the pletely out of hand," he charged, "The site - but onlv if it can secure the approval of this project would be a* permits needed'to expand the basin. - large step towards restoring the The Coastal Acres @ract lies between partInership between state and local the bridge to Charleston over the government." South Siough and the present boat basin. According to the DSL, the land is unsuitable for a basin because it is the fifth most productive clam bed on Coos Bay's system. "I guess it's a case of what is more important to the economy of the area," said Steve Felkins, manager of the port. "Is expansion of the boat basin needed more than a clam bed?" Apparently Ripper agrees. ,In his letter to William Cox, DSL director, he pointed to the site being zoned properly and the need for the basin for economic growth. He also said it has received review by state and federal agencies. "There is one more issue I am personally asking you to consider," he wrote. "This project is an importaht step toward maintaining Charleston as a viable Oregon coast fishing port. The completion of this project com- bined with new off-shore fisheries will do much to enhance the economic growth of the area, D-25 0 And the sparks fly By JOHN DEAN refusal by State Lands Director Bill We're in trouble Staff Writer Cox to allow the Port of Coos Bay to Cox noted in his opinion that the, Locat fishing barons and state construct a new boat basin in the area was the fifth-best site I or ficials parried, clashed and, Charleston harbor. clamming in the bay, a coniment the casionally, meshed at a "summit "If we don't get tlipt boat basin fishermen were uick to seize on. Conference" for the South Coast expansion, we're not going to get an "If this is the fifth largest clam bed fishing ilieustrv Tuesday at South. more industry here," waimed Bob western Oregon Community College. Hudson, manager- of All-Coast in the Bay Area, then we're in trouble," said Hudson. "There.', Producing the most sparks was the Fishermen's Marketing Association. snot that many clams in there," "Piece meal development in estuaries will no longer fly", Port officials have asked Cox to responded Rollie Rousseau. assistant review his decision, and a ful I hearing to the d;rector of Fish and Wildlife will be held Jan.5-26 in Coos Bay. Department. Hudson said that nearly every other Differnt attiutudes port on the South Coast is expanding, Rousseau contended that Coos including Brool@ings, Gold Beach. Port County's sluggishness in forming a Orford, Bandon, Winchester Bay and Newport. can't, and why the comprehensive plan played a part in Cox's decision. problorn seems to be uniue to Coos Referring to a harbor expansion in Bay I don't understancl. Newport, said, "You have to admit "We've got an awful,lot of boats tha t it, gang, the advantage Yauina Bay passed Coos Bay by because they has had is its attitude has been dif- couldn't firid moorage," Hudson said.' ferent. Their comprehensive planning "It was exposing a lot of local people is in advanced stages. to where the power is," port rnanager "We have to live with it," lie said of Steve Felkins said of the meeting. land-use planning. "But people here overall have been reluctant to accept that. That's why these problems arise." No more permits There's two sides to a coin," Hudson responded angrily. "You can hide behird,a state law as well as cite it Added Port of Coos Bay President Bob Younker, "There will be no more -1 permits issued in the Coos Bay area until we have a comprehensive plan. That's what I hear you saying." Referring to Rousseau and Jack Donaldson, state director of Fish and Wildlife, Younker said, "You both stand up there claiming you operate by the laws. It sounds to me you're adding editorial comment to your recommendations." Lands director Cox a month ago denied the Doll's reuest to dreadge a six-acre area just south of the present Charleston boat basin to harbor more boats. D-26 Protection for Charleston basin $2 million jetty project is announced by corps By JERRY F. BOONE News Editor Construction of a $2 million project Divers work to raise the Sea Mist about a year ago. Storms also aimed at curbing damage to boats and which sank at the Charleston caused damage to docks and mooring gear at the Charleston boat boat basin during a winter storm pilings: - World photo. basin could begin next April or May, according to Port of Coos Bay offi- cials. The Army Corps of Engineers has asked for comment on the project, which involves building an 800-foot extension of the jetty that now protects the boat basin. Corps of Engineers researchers estimate 41,000 tons of stone will be needed to construct the extension, which will be built 14 feet above mean low water levels. The existing break- water also will be raised by placing an estimated 24,800 tons of stone on the top and one side of the jetty. Jeff Kaspar, Port of Coos Bay oper- ations officer, said the design is ex- pected to eliminate about 90 percent of the surge that has plagued boat owners at the basin over the past few years. The jetty has been "overtopped" in recent years by waves, and some of the material has been washed out of the rock and sand formation, allowing wave surges to buffet the boats and docks there. Last winter, storms did an esti- mated $75,000 damage to the basin- with an unestimated amount of loss to boats moored there. The storms caused a couple boats to begin sinking, broke pilings, tore some of the boats loose from their moorings and sent large logs into the basin where they endangered boats moored there. Kaspar said the $2 million job is to be financed with federal funds admini- stered by the corps under its main- tenance budget. No local funds will be used in the project. A session on the proposed project was held last summer in Portland, at which time the Corps of Engineers unveiled results of its computer study of the effect it may have on the South Slough Santuary. The engineers determined the jetty would have little effect on the tidal flow and salinity of the sanctuary... a determination that may draw com- ments from managers of the sanc- tuary and the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, who said at the meeting they did not agree with the results. If formal objections are filed, the Corps of Engineers may have to delay the construction timetable until after hearings are held and the environ- mental concerns are resolved. D-27 Opinion page Editorials, columns, letters... Dick Cosgrove, publisher Jerry Baron, managing editor Big boat . . . shallow basin RUSSELL OTT'S problem - a boat too big to operate in its home port - is not unique. Ott and Tom Peterson own the Ocean Leader, a 120- foot modern fishing vessel designed to go after anything from Alaskan king crab to Pacific whiting. The boat draws 17 feet and is limited to using the main channels in "downtown" Coos Bay, Astoria and Newport. The channel at Charleston is only 12 foot deep. A 12-foot channel is fine for fishing boats in the 30-to- 50-foot range or for the pleasure craft that fill the basin moorages - but for a boat that can deliver up to 300,000 pounds of ocean products at a crack it just won't do. Ott and Peterson say they have another boat - a near twin to the Ocean Leader - on the drawing board in Seattle. They contend that most commercial boats built for multipurpose fishing ventures and species like hake will go in to 80-foot or greater range, and will require a minimum channel of 15 feet or more. Jack Wilskey, operator of MidCoast Marine in Eastside and a man with a more than passing interest in commercial fishing boats, agrees. "Our 86 footers can work in a 12-foot channel," he said, "but when they are coming in loaded, they draw better than 11 feet and it would be pretty risky. I wouldn't advise it." Most of the boats now under construction at Hilstrom Shipyards also draw far in excess of the 12-foot depth when loaded, and can't use the Charleston processing facilities. Unless something is done to upgrade the channel at the basin or provide a new basin, Coos Bay will find itself relying on a fishing fleet that is sadly out-of-date and out- of-pace with modern techniques and no longer able to hold its place against the title of modernization. Last summer the voters of the Port of Coos Bay district rejected a $10 million bond issue aimed at financing a new 20-foot basin on the North Spit. Luckily the port hasn't given up the drive to create such a facility in spite of the lack of support by the voters. ITS PORT advisory committee has been working on locating alternate sites and earmarked the Al Peirce tract below the McCullough Bridge as a top priorty. Members of the PAC appeared Tuesday before the North Bend City Council to talk about the possibilities of the site and the need for industrial expansion. The chief advantage of the North Spit site was that it is already owned by the Port of Coos Bay. The Al Peirce property has all the other North Spit attributes - with the exception of ownership. But it has one other advantage. It is located in an area that has been bordered by industry for quite a few years - the Johnson Rock facility and Empire Transfer - and may be more ac- ceptable to envieronmentalists than other tracts. It should be given careful consideration . . . not only in view of its acceptability for development but also in light of the consequences if that site or another one is not made available for the new wave of fishing boats. D-28 The World 11/211178 La ui a e, nu 5 a CHARLESTON - Because of the significant clam population, the Oregon Division of State Lands has turned down a Port of Coos Bay request to expand the Charleston Small Boat Basin. In a letler issued last week, Division Director Williarn Cox said permission for the six-to-seven acre dredging project would be "inconsistent with the protection, conservation and best use of the water resources of this state." The port' had applied for the dredging 'of the Coastal Acres property, south of the existing boat basin, under the Oregon removal and fill law. COX rioted that the site, in a 1971 study, ranked fifth in importance among 30 clamming sites on Coos Bay. "Dredging and subsequent marina activities and impacts .:-,ould eliminate recreational clamming at this site and wouid greatly reduce the productivity of the dredged area for clams and other existing tidal life," Cox wrote. The port has until Nov. 25 to request a rehearing, but Port. Administrator Steve Felkinq said this morning that because the port' does not own the property, it probably would not pursue the case. D-29 Page 2-THE WORLD, Coos Bay, Ore., Friday, November 10,1978. DR. PAUL RUDY LARRY LILLEBO RICHARD SCOTT Attended meeting 'Delays are provoking' Boat basin manager Port to install mooring buoys CHARLESTON - docks have been Port officials said they The port applied for additional storn Twenty-three new ship damaged during and obtained the mooring permits for the piers six protection in the basin mooring buoys will be shortly after storms due buoys free as surplus months ago, he said, They port officials indicated. installed off Pigeon Point to wave surges, they from the federal General would provide moorage Port commissioner near the Charleston boat recalled. Services Adminstration. for an additional 200 Larry Lillebo told the basin this month, Coos The announcement About 50 more such buoys ships, at a cost to the port audience, "Time and Bay's port com- are available and it costs of $750,000 to $1 million, again we are blocked by missioners said here came during the port the port district $100 to according to Caspar. groups and organizations Thursday night. commission's annual transport each one of the He also indicated that a meeting to hear public 3,000-pound units to the proposed project to build ... no matter how good The buoys will provide comments on the Bay Area, they said. an 800-foot extension of our intentions may be .. storm moorage on a first- operation of the boat Jeff Caspar of the port the Alaska Packers' jetty it is provoking to me, as it come, first served basis basin. About two dozen office attacked what the at the basin could be is to you folks." for fishing boats and people, many of them termed "delays" in delayed by environ- Audience member! other vessels, Bob local commercial approval by state mental requirements. agreed that facilities a Younker, port com- fisherman attended the bureaucrats of a port The jetty, to be built at the boat basin are no ission chairman said. gathering at the Coos Bay district project to build left angles to the existing adequate and that the past, vessels Power Squadron building two new floating piers at 1,800 foot jetty, is moorage space is at a Moored at the Charleston in Charleston. the basin, designed to provide premium. Thursday, May 17, 1979, THE WORLD, Coos Bay, Ore., Port to discuss lease option renewal request By VINCE KOHLER Staff Writer The Port of Coos Bay commissioners said Wednesday they will discuss a lease option renewal on port district lands on the North Spit with Ocean Search Inc., which wants to build a fish-processing plant there. A meeting between the port and the company is pending. The commissioners listened to a proposal to renew the lease option from Butch Schroeder of Ocean Search during their regular monthly meetin at the port offices in downtown Coos Bay. Schroeder said Ocean Search wants to renew an option on 46 1/2 acres of port property on the North Spit, adjacent to the proposed site of a boat basin. The boat basin and fish processing facility would probably serve a Pacific whiting fishing industry off the Oregon coast. In other action, the commissioners discussed a trespassing claim lodged against the port by two men who own land in Eastside , John Tomlin and Bob Allen. The pair's attorney, Kirk Johansen, told the commissioners a port-owned drainage pipe running through the 200-by-100 foot parcel is impeding construction of a "multi-family dwelling." The buried pipe was laid by the port when the land was owned by Coos County, but the port's application for an easement for the work didn't clear before the county sold the land to Tomlin and Allen, according to port officials. It was placed to drain port lands adjacent to the site, thy have said. Johansen threatened legal action against the port on behalf of his clients who also attended the meeting. However, he added they will sell the land-for which they reportedly paid $600-to the port for $15,000 or trade the parcel for comparable land elswhere. He permitted that a builidng permit applicaton the two men have filed has not yet been turned down, but added that permits for the boat basin project, state authorities have Tomlin and Allen "are satisfied it will not be granted." Even if the permit is granted, the chance the pipe will break substantially reduces land values, Johansen claimed. On the advice of their attorney, George Gant, the port commissioners said they will wait for comments from Coos Coiuntry authorities before considering action on the claim. Port commission president Bob Younker said that he and port manager Steve Felkins will meet soon with members of the All-Coast Fisherman's Marketing Association to discuss a projected 15 percent increase in moorage fees at the port's smal boat basin in Charleston. The request for the meeting came from Bob Hudson of the fishermen's group. He said that fishermen want to know what the port plans to do with the extra $20,000 which he stimated will be melted from the rate increase. The money could be used to dredge and expand the basin, Felkins noted. The port commissioners decided a workshop on the port's 1979-1980 budget will be held at the port offices at 7 p.m. Teusday. In a report on the proposed expansion of the Charleston boat basin, Sandra Diedrich of the Coos-Curry Council of Governments said work is proceeding on an exceptions document to be sent to the Coos County commissioners. The port wants to expand moorage at the boat basin, but state authorities have said a request for an exception to the county's developing comprehensive land use plan must be submitted. If the county grants the exception, the state will grant the necessary indicated. Diedrich proposed an Interagencey Estuary Planning Task Force - which would include the port district, local cities and other local agencies - be established. George Gant charged that Oregon Division of State Lands chief Bill Cox "is sitting on" makeing a decision on the port's appeal of the state ermit denials, the subject of a two-day hearing in North Bend in January. Cox hopes that the exceptions process on the local level will remove responsibility from to make a decision on the basin expansion, Gant charged. However, Steve Felkins said he believes the agency's hands "may be tied" by an agreement with the Oregon Land Conservation and Development Commission where the DSL - and many other state agencies - agreed not to make decisions or spend money inconsistent with land use planning goals. THE WORLD, Coos Bay, Ore., Monday, May 28,1979. 'Mitigating' Basin project HOLD on to your hat! Mitigation may rear its ugly head again. Even if expansion of the Charleston Boat Basin gets the go-ahead from the county, we understand the Division of State Land Will require that the expansion project be mitigated; that is, that the Port of Coos Bay somehow "compensate" for any loss of clams and recreational opportunities caused by the project. The port commission wants to extend the basin to the south of existing facilities to provide additional moorage spaces. The need for such spaces is underlined by a long waiting list of fishermen who would like to tie up at the basin, where space is a precious commodity. The project will require some dredging. Taking its cue from the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Department, the Division of State Lands earlier this year denied a permit to dredge the area, saying it (the area) is an important recreational clam digging site on the bay. The DSL later tied its objections to an LCDC coastal goal, that also has to do with clam beds. So, how do you mitigate clams and clam digging? IT SEEMS easy enough. Just create public access to new clam beds. Heck, the port commission has already done that. It ordered a road to be constructed on North Spit, opening the way for public access to extensive clam beds which previously had had but limited use. Could this, then, meet the mitigation requirement? And what about the economic benefits of the ex- pansion itself? Opening up moorage spaces to com- mercial vessels will help pump up one of the area's major economies - the fishing industry. Shouldn't that, in itself, be a part of the mitigation consideration? Sure, they both should, in our view. But will the DSL see it that way? FISH and Wildlife has stepped forward once again to object to a development on the bay, pointing to the im- portance of clams and clam digging. This has prompted Port Manager Steve FElkins to ask the straight- forward question: "If Fish and Wildlife is so concerned about clams and clam digging ... why hasn't it done something about it? What exactly, has Fish and Wildlife done on the bay to open up new clan, digging areas?" He notes that the ports, cities and counties have done a great deal to provide public access. Fish and Wildlife's role? Zip. Whatever mitigation is demanded by DSL and Fish and Wildlife, it cannot be too costly or impractical. Otherwise, mitigation will not be a means of compromise, but rather a tool to kill the expansion project 0 Ppi, "o" %so ru, ta n There appeared in The World on April 26 headlincs saying there was little op- position found for boat basin expansion. There is plenty of opposition to the pro- posed expansion, although there may not have been too many in oppositiwn at the April 26 meeting. There must be a reason or reasons for this, and I would sum it up by saying some pecple don't care to be harassed for express;ing their views. Others, I 'mow, feel that very little is being accomplished; that the taslk force is just going throughthe motions of look- ing for an alternate site, and really doing no in-depth study about any of the pro- posed albemate boat basin sites. There is a group of commercial fishermen that shov, up at the meetings wanting a place to tie up, and I don't blame them, but none of them, as far as I know, have offered any help in locating an alternate site, On Nov. 15,1978, the Oregon Division of State Lands denied dredging permit application No. 2367 to enlarge the boat basin. The Oregon Removal-Fill law states that the director of DSL may issue a permit, if he deterrnines that the removal described in the application will not be inconsistent with the protection, conservation and best use of the water resources of Oregon, as specified in ORS 541.610. The term water resources is defined by statute to include: "Not only water itself, but also aquatic life and habitat therein,. and all other natural resoul-ces in and under the waters of this state." A July 1977 Uological inve,."Ory of an L 11.5-acre parcel of submerged land at the proposed expansion site found 1,330,000 gaper (Empire) clams, 348,000 cockles, 289,000 native little neck clams, 119,000 butter clams, and 50,000 softshell clams. In addition, the inventory found nearly 8 million clams composed of species of little recreational value, but which are an integral part of the estuarine food chain. Mr. William S. Cox, director of DSL, denied the permit and rightly so. Now, out of the "bad" could come the good. Another boat basin site will be found that will meet the needs of all size boats, and large enough to take care of everyone for a long time to come. A wifted front can accomplish this, and I give my support to that end, Lorance W. Eickworth CoosBay D-33 THE WORLD 5/31/79 Copies available Review due for exception Copies of the proposed land use exception for the Charleston Boat Basin expansion are now available from the Coos-Curry Council of Governments. Copies are also being mailed to anyone who participated in the drafting of the exception or the public workshops which led to it. "The proposed Charleston Boat Basin expansion into the Coastal Acres property is considered to be consistent with the intentions of the statewide planning goals and Coos County policies," the draft document says. The exception has been prepared by the COG for the county at the request of the Port of Coos Bay. A technical task force has guided the work with the help of several public workshop meetings. The task force will meet to review the final documents at 10 a.m. Friday in the COG offices in the North Bend County Annex. A public open house to discuss the exception will be held Tuesday at the COG offices from 2 to 5 p.m. and from 6:30 to 9 p.m. During that time, according to COG officials, the staff and some task force members will be available to discuss any questions, concerns or comments on the process used or the draft document. The county planning commission will review the proposed exception next Wednesday at 7:30 p.m. in the county courthouse. The formal public hearing before the county commissioners is set for 10 a.m. June 8 at the county courthouse. The exceptions say state and county policies are designed to "allow development, where appropriate and to preserve natural values, where appropriate." The Coastal Acres property is an appropriate site for ex- pansion, the exception argues, and the development would be "compatible to the existing uses in the adjacent coastal waters and shorelands." It has been designed to preserve the natural values as much as possible, the exception says, and only a small portion of the habitat area would be affected. The Oregon Division of State Lands has turned down a permit for the expansion project; saying the project cannot go ahead unless an exception is developed for the county's land use plan. Objections to the project have included arguments that other sites are available and more suitable for long-term needs, there would be damage to aquatic resources and water quality, and there would be increased traffic problems in Charleston. D-34 The World June 8, 1979 Little testimony at hearing By LINDA MEIERJURGEN CCOG Director Sandra Diedrich ex- anyone who wanted to make a proposal." sTAFF Writer plained how the exception materials Eickworth said the Sitka Dock site would CoquilLE - Only one person were put togehter and at one point read be a better site for the project. testified at a hearing this morning before into the official record several letters Diedrich entered a thick exceptional Coos County Commissioners on a dealing with the proposed expansion. paper, an administrative work fil proposed "exception" to statewide land One letter from newly-elected port dating to June 30, 1977, and a second use goals which Would permit expansion Commissioner Bruce Laird contained a work file dating to June 7,1979, as well as of the Port of Coos Bays small boat basin letter from the Coos Head Timber Co. minutes of task force meetings into the Charleston. sales manager noting that the Sitka dock official hearings record. There were 17 people in the room, half property owned by the firm was "not She said the work file contains back- of them officials, staff and press for the available" as an alternative site for the ground information used to prepare the hearing on a lengthy exception prepared basin expansion at this time. exception. by the Coos-Curry Council of Govern- The sole person to testify, Laurence Commissioners ruled that the hearing ments and a task force tentatively Eickworth, said, however, that he had record and possibilities for further public recommending expansion of the basin spoken with firm owners Wiley and Willis input would remain open until the date onto the Coastal Acres Inc. property. Smith and they had informed him 10 days they expect to make a decision - June Prior to taking public testimony, ago that "they were willing to listen to 22. D-35 BY TOM BAILEY First of Two Parts Longlining for groundfish is one of the oldest fishing techniques, going back thousands of years. Mediterranean and Atlantic Europeans used oar and sail-powered craft to set their gear in Roman times. Old-timers around Coos Bay remember the halibut long-line fishery in the cartier part of this century. Today's techniques, with diesel-powered vessels, hydraulic pulling gear and electronic navigation aids have only partially modernized the industry. Polypropylene groundlines are still baited, stored and set in the old ways. But the philosophy of the men who fish the long lines has not changed. The 60-foot Kelton, longlining out of Charleston since November and skippered by Larry Smith, is an example. "Nobody else would work this hard," says Mike Martin. He runs the back deck of the Kelton. Martin has been specializing in this technique since 1963 when he acquired a skiff and began setting gear out of Orange County in California while still in high school in the early 1960's. The concept of longlining is simple. As its name implies, a long line sometimes miles long--with a baited hook every year or so is stretched along the bottom of the ocean. Anchored at each end and equipped with buoys at each end, the line is set, left to soak overnight, and retrieved the next day when the fish are taken off, hooks rebaited and the whole process repeated. Talking about it is one thing and actually fishing the longline is another matter entirely, especially with the ocean conditions here in Souther Oregon. Weather, current, the demands of mass market fishing and gear limitations all combine to make this simple idea devilishly complicated. The Kelton is a seaworthy boat approximately the same size as Sir Francis Drake's Golden Hind.She was built in Bayou La Battre, Ala. Powered by a GMC 671 diesel, she is planked with juniper over oak frames. Her sleek, sheer line and long, low dock house giver her the look of a Gulf Shrimper. Skipper Larry Smith brought her in Oregon through the Panama Canal. She has a fish hold capacity of 40 tons of fish and ice. With a full load of fuel, water, ice and food, she can stay offshore for several weeks. The wheel hosue is completely equipped with all the modern electronics such as Loran C. recording depth finder, radios and radar. She also carries survival suits for a crew of five and a modern, self-inflating survival raft in a fiberglass cannister mounted atop the deck house. The Kelton is about as well-equipped as modern technology could maker her. She is, as they say in the business, a highball show. I went fishin on the Kelton last week. Not counting a previous one-night trip which was called on account of weather, it was my first experience with offshore fishing or trip fishing, as it is called. It was all new to me. Highball skippers very rarely hire a green crew. I would get plenty of salt in my beard on this trip. START AT CAFE The trip began at 9 a.m. at the Galley Cafe in Charleston where the crew gathers each morning. Mike, who runs the back deck, Jerry, the supercargo, and Bob, deckhand, are already there when I arrive. We may go fishing and we may not. If we don't fish we'll paint the afterdeck. The crew doesn't seem to care which. Skipper Larry Smith has a dry sense of humer. "We've run out of excuses," he says to the crew. That means we're going fishing, hangovers or no. The weather, of course, is the determining factor. A good trip would mean at least four days offshore and Oregon weather particularlu offshore weather, is not always predictable that far in advance. So the decision to go fishin is one part experience, one part prognostrication and several parts of gut feeling gamble. With Smith's decision made, Mike goes over his grocery list. His double duty as chef de galley puts him in charge of provisions for five men for up to a week and he takes it seriously. And he feeds the troops well. While he goes for groceries the rest of us head down to Hansen's dock where the Kelton is tied up. We stow some gear, cast off and head for Peterson's to ice up and take on bait. Now the Kelton is a highliner, no doubt about that, but one thing she does not have is a proper horn. This is soon revealed as we approach the South Slough Bridge. PUNY LI'L HORN Larry steps out of the wheelhouse, points a little bitty aerosol horn in the general direction of the bridge and gives four derisive warbles that rather resemble the mewlings of a baby hippopotamus with a terminal case of laryngitis. Its sound is so ridiculously funny that it even cracks up the usually somber skipper. And D-37 ...remains basically unchanged the bridgekeeper, who is prob- ably laughing too; opens the bridge. Crew spirits are high and building higher now that we are actually moving through the water. We take on 1,400 pounds of boxes. Jerry is in charge of stowage and it is serious business. Empty, the Kelton rides quite high in the stern. Slowing the eight tons of shaved ice well aft brings her waterline nearly level. Soon Mike arrives with the galley supplies--an incredible amount of bulging grocery bags and armfuls of milk by the half-gallon. Except for tonight's dinner makings, it all goes down in the ice, along with two cases of beer and two bottles of Cold Duck. Out we go, past Point Adams and into the main channel where we lower the trolling poles which are used to deploy provane stabilizers (or flopper stoppers), steel underwater kites that do a great deal to dampen the rolling of the boat. Skies are clearing with some. high culumus clouds and the wind is only moderate as we cross the bar over a light swell. The big diesels growl power- fully, well muffled, smooth, reassuring. We will run for a couple of hours to reach our fishing ground but the time is spent in preparation for our first set which we will make this evening. We begin work on the long, back deck. USING 6,000 hooks Now we are going to be. The 60-foot Kelton from the Gulf fishes longline for black cod out of Charleston. setting nearly hooks tied to nearly six miles of ground- A 35-gallon can holds 500 This first tub is tied to the swell and matching our seven on the deck. We find our first line. It is stored in ordinary fathoms (3,000 ft.) of buoy line second and so forth until all 12 knots. string. It has drifted its own galvanized wash tubs, 100 piled in loose coils. The top end tubs are empty. Then another They leap, twisting, smacking length during tile night. fathoms (600 ft.) to a tub. is tied to a ten-foot aluminum anchor, line and float go out. upside down or headfirst back north buoy is where we dropped The groundline is 3/8-inch pole with a weight on one end, a We have made out set, running into the water. They are an the south buoy last night. Loran polypropylene crab line--rope, if radar reflector and a black nylon north to South. incredible sight, coursing C navigation can find position you will. It looks like rope to a flag on the other end with foam The first anchor will strike through the blue clear sea. within 100 yards. carpenter. The No. 8 mustad, floats in the middle. bottom, hook and hold; the I rush to the foredeck and We snag the buoy and pull it single barbed Swedish hooks, THE RACE IS ON aboard over the side. There is a are tied to the groundline with a Bob heaves it over the stern Setting the gear- wide roller there and, across the short length of braided tuna and the race is on. The line Complex and dangerous boat from it, a hydraulic reel. cord called a gangion (rhymes ahead stedily, streaming the The line goes over the roller and with canyon.) buoy line in a sweeping semi- around the reel, then strips off They are arranged in order circle. the reel and piles itself in around the rim of the tub, stuck Near the bottom of the barrel buckets. into a soft strip of rubber, the a knotted loop appears. A The anchor comes up and I gangions radiating from the coil bower anchor is made fast and stow it. Now Larry appears on of line like the spokes of a cast over. Here the fun really deck at the roller where the bicycle wheel. begins. The tubs are lines up crane out over the stempiece. hydraulic controls are--at the This is the old-fashioned way on the port setting table which groundline will stream out There, almost in arm's reach, so gaffing station. Jerry and Mike of storing longlines, going back runs the length of the deck. The straight in the current, then the close I can feel their body heat, man the reef and Bob and I to antiquity. And its orderly first tub is made fast to the second anchor will pin it down. are two of them with their backs stand by. arrangement is absolutely criti- anchor line and is moved onto We make two more sets. out of the water. We are ready for fish and cal to both the safety of the crew the transom table. Our tasks are ranked in order They are riding, surfing on here they come. A plunge of the and the efficiency of the set. Mike stands by with what of danger and allocated in order the underwater shock wave of gaff and Black Cod No. One One at a time the hooks are looks like a plywood tennis of experience. As a green hand our rushing bow. They stay for flops on deck. The bare hook baited and draped over the edge racket in one hand. As the I am farthest from the action, long minutes then dive away. flies around the reel and into the outside the tub. A baited tub hooks begin to come flying. passing full tubs up the table Stuffed with salisbury steak, bucket, and for the next five wears a squid fringe, pink and snapping out quicker than the and stowing the empties. With baked potatoes, steamed broc- hours they fly, the hooks and the elegant. Bob and I bait hooks, eye can see, he must see that the gear all set we are through coli and tossed salads, buckets fish. Jerry chops bait (halving each the hooks deploy freely and the with the first day's work. of milk and hot biscuits Jerry and Larry bring them squid) and Mike fixes venison coils do not tangle. smothered with real butter and up, the rest of us coil ground- chili in the galley. We are all We all crack open beers and strawberry jam, we head for our lines in the tubs and stick the immediately hungry. man the galley table for a little bunks after our daily ration of hooks and around the tubs. After lunch we finish baiting It is the devil's own work with relaxation as a stereo tape deck one swig only from the brandy After lunch we rebait and set our first dozen tubs and arrive at hooks and coils of line shipping blasts out the sounds of a live bottle. our gear. The wind has picked our grounds in about 175 out over the transom at a Jimmy Buffet concert. The boat fathoms of water nearly due couple-hundred feet a second. heads north, running past our The skipper has shut the up, the current is running west of Coos Bay, barely within This is why the tubs must be buoys which are drifting a little engine down and we drift south strong and the seas begin to sight of land. arranged perfectly--crossed up southward--the current is run- in the, current, facing the beach, wear horse tails of spray. But we Our next task, setting the gangions or miscoiled line can ning stong tonight. broadside to the wind and are committed. We must ride , is a combination of jump out with lightening speed. Suddenly the water around across the swells. out the weather until we can pull complex ritual, hard work and A hook through the raingear or a our speeding craft explodes with A BUSY MORNING our gear in the morning. timing. It is also hand could drag a man over- porpoises, a hundred of them Things happen fast in the (Next Weeks board in a second. rolling smoothly through the morning. Dawn finds us fed and A Nose For Trouble) D-38 Force optimistic Breakwater is pursued By CHARLES KOCHER breakwater and the newly proposed Staff Writer breakwater as the four sides. Bouyed by the hopes offered from a Prelaminary estimates Monday were congressional office, the Coastal Acres that the extra breakwater would cost Task Force agreed Monday to pursue a about $10 million and provide space for $10 million breakwater extension some 600 boats. to see if it is actually possible. Questions about how long authorization The task force, studying a land use and construction would take, as well as exception to allow expansion of the how much local money would be Charleston Boat Basin, agreed to have a required, kept the task force from reach- subcommitteee meet with federal of- ing a decision, Dunham said. facials to gather more information. "This task force needs to allow if that's The subcommittee will ask the U.S. a viable alternative," Walters argued Army Corps of Engineers and Sen. Mark Monday. "If this task force came up with Hatfield's aides just how long it would a recommendation (to build the new take to create a new boat basin by build- breakwater), it would be interesting to ing a breakwater north of the Point know what the Corps' response would Adams jetty. be." It was a call to Hatfield's office during Even though the new breakwater Monday's meeting which hinted to the might involve relocation of a razor clam task force that the new breakwater bed along Point Adams, Walters might be more possible than members predicted no mitigation would be had believed. required for the project if no landfill Chuck Walters of the National Marine were involved for parking and support Fisheries Service and Steve Feikins of facilities. the Port of Coos Bay said Hatfield's aide "I feel our agency could support that offered more hope than they had ex- proposal very actively," Walters said. pected. "The Environmental Protection Agency "He was optimistic, but he couldn't could go along. Fish and Wildlife Service guarantee anything," Walters said. "I --I would hate to predict." was encouraged." Dave Simpson of the Corps told the "He was more encouraging that I task force it would help if Corps' officials expected him to be," Felkins agreed. fail to remember why the 800-foot jetty is Jack Dunham, who chaired Monday's being built. "If you put in a new break- meeting, said this morning he is now water to the north with no new structure confident the committee can come to a beyond that to protect the channel, the decision with the information from the Corps would be back in a position of neeting with the federal officials. having to solve that problem all over The meeting will be scheduled for again." some time next week in Portland, he "I don't believe that alone could said, and one more full task force preclude construction," Walters meeting should complete the work responded. "If the Point Adams project can be A proposal by Walters and Oregon Fish done in a reasonably short time and get and Wildlife Department biologist Bill 600 boats in it, maybe that's the answer," Mularkey to include temporary moorage Dunham said. "We're going to try to get at Winchester Bay in any task force a little more solid information on time proposal was met with strong opposition frames and dollars, then come back to Monday. one more session." "I'd sooner move my boats, business The task force went into monday's and family to the Columbia River than go session hoping to reach a decision and in Winchester Bay or Bandon," fisher- faced with three alternatives: man Roy Gunnari, citing the dangers to -The Coastal Acres expansion to the the bars at the ports. south which is projected to take two "The fishermen have already made years to complete, cost about $2 million that decision," added task force member and accommodate 180 boats. Bob Hudson. "It's naive on the part of -Expansion of the existing docks some of us to think that we can shift the toward the channel on the east, expected fleet. There's other consideration than to be the easiest to accomplish but ac- available moorage. The fishermen are commodate only 50 to 60 boats. choosing to stay here in a semi-transient -Construction of a new basin north of status rather than run 13 miles up the the Point Adams jetty using the shore way to Winchester Bay and a bad bar." the existing jetty, a planned 800-foot 0-39 The World June 19, 1979 Spit dock wins approval from Coos commissioners By CHARLES KOCHER action over the weekend to turned down a $10 million bond Staff Writer review those easements. In issue to develop the entire COQUILLE -The proposed the interim, the Port of Coos package last fall. dock for the North Spit in- Bay Commission reached In other action Monday, the dustrial site won the approval tentative agreement on two board appointed Coos Bay of the Coos County Board of leases for the site. builder Robert Jenkins to the Commissioners Monday The lease proposals were planning commission, filling despite concerns about road developed with Ocean Search the vacancy created by the access to the site. Inc. for 30 acres and J. Griffin resignation of former Chairman Woody Robison and Co. Ltd. for five acres. A Chairman Bill Lansing. said the board placed no third firm, New England Fish restrictions on the approval Co., is exploring a lease for The board took no action to even though there were property at the site. fill a seat vacated by Bill reservations about the exist- The dock, in a "T" shape, Mason, however, with the ing access. will be adaptable to future commissioners hoping the Robison said the port does plans for a trawler basin at the timber industry will suggest a have easements to the north site. The area that actually spokesman to fill the seat. and west of the existing road would be dredged for the Robison hinted that if no which may be used in im- trawler basin would be left suggestion is tendered by proving the route to the in- open as a "staging area" Thursday, the board will go dustrial site. under present plans. ahead with its own appoint- The board had delayed Voters in the port district ment. D-40 THE WORLD Schedule final session The final meeting of a task force considering the proposed Charleston Boat Basin expansion has been set for 11 a.m. Monday, according to the Coos-Curry Council of Governments. The task force is drafting a proposed exception to state land use rules for con- sideration by the Coos County Board of Commissioners in approving the project. At its last meeting the group narrowed its choices to the Port of Coos Bay's proposed Coastal Acres site, expansion of the existing docks east to- ward the main channel, creation of a new basin north of the Point Adams Break- water and a new basin at the Sitka Dock property on the Barview waterfront. The meeting will be held in the offices of the council in the North Bend County Annex. The public is invited to attend. D-41 0 The World June 23, 1979 Basin Meeting Planned By CHARLES KOCHER - Staff Writer COQUILLE - The official hearing on the proposed Coastal Acres boat basin expansion was held open again Friday while a task force researches alter- natives to the project. The Coos County Board of Com- missioners extended the public hearing until July 25 at 11 a.m. at its second session on the topic Friday. In the meantime, according to Coos Curry Council of Governments Director Sandra Diedrich, members of the task force will meet in Portland Monday with federal officials to pose questions about one of the alternatives. An aide to Sen. Mark Hatfield field out hope for expanding the Charieston Boat Basin to 'lie north of the Point Adams breakwater earlier this week, sparking the Portland session. Diedrich, who is coordinating the task force work on a land use exception for the project, said port officials are also working on other solutions to the moor- age problem involving exparsion of. the existing docks. "There's a lot happening," she told The World Friday. "A few more things need to be tied up and the task force will meet one more time" The solution being worked on involving the Coastal Acres property and existing docks would use floating piers and might meet moorage needs for up to five years, Diedrich said. "We're still trying to get that worked out," she said. The Portland meeting will include representatives of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Hatfield's office. Task force members expected to attend in- clude Port of Coos Bay President Bob Younkers, Port Administrator Steve Felkins, Land Conservation and Development field representative Glen Hale, National Marine Fisheries Service biologist Chuck Walters, and task force chairman Jack Dunham. Particular answers needed by the task force, Diedrich said, are what expansion of the boat basin north of the breakwater would cost local governnment and how quickly it could be designed, approved, funded and constructed. The expansion beyond the breakwater D-42 would use the jetty about to be coil- structed for the cast edge of the basin and require a new structure on the north. 0 THE WORLD June 25, 1979 Let's get job done A $10 million new boat basin facility at Charleston sounds mighty fine ... but at this stage of the basin's needs, it is Mighty unrealistic and impractical. The Port of Coos Bay heen trying for some time to win approval to expand. -moorage capacity directly to the south of existing faci1ities, on a piece of, property known as Coastal Acres. To this end, a special Coastal Acres Task Force was get up to try and bypass state rules and regulations governing such an expansion. The task force has been at work for the four months toiling with what is called an exception process. " The latter is supposed to provide a way for local governments to take exception to state I-and use goals. Part of that process entails coming up with alter- native sites to the prime target, so to speak, Coastal Acres. Well, last week a federal National Marine Fisheries Service representative sweet-talked the task force into looking at a Possible $10 million breakwater extension at the Charleston basin as the ultimate answer to the port's moorage needs. THE IDEA is eye-catching, but does riot respond to. immediacy of the issue. The moorage spaces are needed now for a long line of waiting fishermen, not 10 or 15 or 20 years-, from now. Designing such an extensive new facility, winning approval from federal agencies, getting money appropriated and finally available for spending will take years. Certainly die federal spokesman who wooed the task force away from its central theme knows this. The posture of the NMFS, like that of the state and federal Fish and Wildlife Service, is anti-development, and trying to push the task force into a monumental project at this stage plays into the hands of those who would like to stall, if not kill, the basin expansion at Coastal Acres. The task force has a bird in hard, however weak or mall at this point. It should not let it fly away into never- never land. Let's expand the basin and get the job that needs to be-done, done. We realize the task force 'needs to be thorough, in preparation for the appeals which are inevitably forth- coming from our local delegation of no-growth, no-noth- ing advocates. It's best the task, force sign off as quickly as possible,. however, so that everyone can get on with the next long path toward expansion to the Coastal Acres 0 THE WORLD June 26, 1979 National Marine Fisheries Scrvice, in citizen involvement" for the business Not exclusive plaything their infinite wisdom, also advocated community , they are told that the city moving many existing boats to Bandon and county represent them. Why doesn't and Winchester Bay, both notoriously that apply for the agencies, also? One, unsafe bars, as answer to the ad- state and one federal member should The "agency" representatives of the mitted shortage of mooring spaces in represent all of them. With each agency federal government have effectively Coos Bay. having a vote, they are numerous enough stopped another economic development The National Marine Fisheries Service to, and do, dictate all policies. "'Jr. project on Coos Bay. At the scheduled is also of the opinion that both de- Kvarsten's blatantly "Alice in Wonder- final" meeting of the task force working velopments cannot be allowed because it land" statement that the planning was the Coastal Acres expansion of the would adverselv affect the South Slough going to be 90 percent local and 10 per- Charleston boat basin, Chuck Walters, Sanctury. Maybe it is time we made a cent state and federal is an outrageous the federal National Marine Fisheries choice between this much-vaunted alba- be! Services representative in apparently tross of a sanctuary and economic de- Agency bureaucrats, paid salary, preplanned conspiracy with other velopment, since they are mking it an mileage and per diem with our tax agency" voters, completely side- either-or situation. Coos Bay was desig- dollars hassle and corrupt the de- tracked the plan at the last minute, sub- nated as a development bay. If the sanc- velopments of local governments at the stiluting the extensive and expensive tuary is incompatible with economic de- expense of the business economy that basin, expansion using a planned jetty velopment in the area, the sanctuary supports them. Business has to par- north of Point Adams. This option would- should be established elsewhere! . ticipate at its own expense and on its own cost about $9 million dollars more than As a designated development port, this time. the almost accented Coastal Acres, bay is not the exclusive plaything of the Time is fast running out! If you don't which is estimated at 10 percent of that government agencies and the environ- telegraph, phone, and write your state figure. Their proposal would also take mentalists. Yet, virtually all de- and federal elected representatives, and eight to 10 years, compared to the one- velopment has been effectively stopped, do it today, be prepared to see more eco- two years for the Coastal Acres. delayed or sidetracked by the cumber- nomical. enterprises, like Georgia-Pacific, Chuck Walters stated that the north some, environmentally weighted, permit reduce their operations due to lack of expansion could be finished in one to two and comprehensive plans system ("Yes, trees, shipping, dockage, etc. The fishing years. Any third grade student in this Virginia, Hughes Airwest did leave" industry, which could pick up some of the area knows that any bay project takes despite environmentalist assurances to declining woods products jobs, will years, and that any governmental action the contrary! ) locate where they can find support. Not adds years to that. and unavoidable court It has been mandated that each where space and services are promised challenges will add years to that! federal and state agency that handles eight to 10 yeras in the future. We need both expansions. but we need permits shall have a seat on these "task Bruce Benton them now, not in eight to 10 years. forces." Yet, when area leaders ask for Coos Bay D-44 0 THE WORLD 7/7/79 FORCE SUGGESTS CHANGE By CHARLES KOCHER there's anything wrong with one nay staff Writer vote." "As specific as we can become here, this document can be fairly politically Expansion of the Charleston Boat More made the motion on the second binding he said. "They would have to Basin into the Coastal Acres property recommendation, by the task force to use Oppose the exceptions process not Just Was formally recommended Friday by the task force considering a planning exception for the Project. missioners Michael Hosie and Bruce Laird. The exceptions process now moves to The task force also, however, That design,More said, would the county board of commissioners recommended changes in the design of "maximize moorage along the channel where a public hearing has been held the Port of Coos Bay project which would without jeopardizing dredging open waiting for a recommendation from reduce the biological damage and set operations and decrease the amount of the task force. The hearing will be aside most of a popular clam bed for biological resource area that would have reconvened July 25. permanent recreational use. to be removed and guarantee the public's The task force has been working on the use of and access to that remaining The task force asked that county,state exception process since spring after biological resource in perpetuity. and federal reviews of the task force state and federal agencies threatened to That design would move the anchor report be expedited to facilitate im- turn down permits for the project which pier away from shore and extend the new mediate moorage needs." The request involves dredging into the clam bed. and existing docks toward the channel of will be printed on the cover of the report, The Coastal Acres property is located South Slough, due to be distributed beginning Wednes- South of the existing boat basin and the Port of officials expressed concerns that day. project would provide moorage for about changing the design might cause 180 boats. The waiting list for moorage in problems with the permit process, but That request applies to work on the the existing boat basin is close to that National Marine Fisheries Service figure, according to port officials. new design, on mitigation requirements, spokesman Chuck Walters said he on the State and federal officials, or any Friday's recommendation brought doubted there would be much problem. only one dissenting vote, that of Coos Bay "This recommendation has a lot to do other necessary procedures, according restaurant owner Bob More who felt with it," he told the task force. "If it's to the task force motion. expansion north of the basin would solve just a matter of a design change, and I more of the port's long range needs. Participants in the task force included think this would be considered a minor "A lot of my concern was that possibly change. Port county, state and federal officials we could have come up with something Walters pointed out that the more as well as citizens and fishing industry that could have solved moorage specific the task force recommendation spokesman. Several public workshops were held to provide information and problems for the future," More told the was, the more weight it would carry with other task force members "i don't think reviewing agencies. comments for the work D-45 The Bay Reporter July 11, 1979 Coastal Acres gets approval Coastal Acres should house the expansion of the Charleston Boat Basin. That's the recommendation of a task force which wants the county commis- sioners at a July 25 hearing to approve a planning exception to provide in- creased moorage in Charleston. Task force members also favored design changes to reduce bilogical damage and setting aside clam bed areas for per- manent recreation use. One ask force member, Bob More, dissented on Coastal Acres, suggesting expansion north of the existing basin would better solve long range needs. D-46 APPENMIX E !-.lailina Roster Paqe 1 City of Coos Bay Wm. McLean COOS-COUNTY BOARD OF Bill Grile, Planning Dept. COOS County CCI COMMISSIONERS P.O. Box 1118 375 Ranch Road Coos Bay, or. 97420 North Bend, Or. 97459 Commissioner Woodrow Robison The Honorable Donald Poage Ron Cole Courthouse Mayor of Coos Bay Coos county CCI Coquille or. 97423 P.O. Box 1118 5815 Wildwood Dr. Coos Bay, or. 97420 North Bend, Or. 97459 Commissioner Jack Beebe City of North Bend Jerry Phillips, Courthouse Attention: Al. Roth, City Mgr. Coos County Cci Coquille, Or. 97423 City Hall St. Forestry Dept. North Bend, Or. 97459 300 5th - Bay Park ';____Coos Bay, Or. 97420 Commissioner Bob Emmett The Honorable B.L. Higgins COOS COUNTY PLANNING Courthouse Mayor of North, Bend COMMISSIONERS Coquille, Or. 97423 City Hall North Bend, or. 97459 Don Mosher Bill Lansing Coos County CCI. 5027 East Bay Terrace LOCAL GOVERNMENT Rt. 2, Box 717-A. North Bend, or. 97459 Coos Bay, Or. 97420 Coos Bay-North Bend Water Bd. Don Messerle Jim Mason Attention : Cal Heckard, Mgr. Coos County CCI P.O. Box 389 P.O. Box 539 Rt. 4, Box 231-R North Bend, Or. 97459 Coos Bay, Or. 97420 'Coos Bay, Or. 97420 Beryl Taylor, Board Chairman Lionel Youst Frances Ellen McKenzie Charleston Sanitary District Coos County CCI 380 4th Avenue Rt. 2, Box 840 Coos River Rt., Box 584 Powers, Or. 97466 Coos Bay, Or 97420 Coos Bay, Or. 97420 Lloyd Walker, Board Member Don Farr Bill Leslie Charleston Sanitary District Coos County CCI Rt. 1, Box 700 Rt 5 Box 410 P.O. Box 549 Coquille, or. 97423 Coos Day, or. 97420 Coquille, Or. 97423 Willis Sutton Jackie Denton, District Clerk Blair Holman Charleston Sanitary District Coos County CCI 608 Ridge Road 1802 Cape Arago Highway P.O. Box 610 North Bend, Or. 97459 Coos Bay, Or. 97420 Coquille, or. 97423 Howard Watkins Roger Erickson, Fire Chief Lou Felsheim Charleston Rural Fire Pro.Dist. Coos County CCI 270 Johnson Cape Arago Highway Coos Bay, or. 97420 Coos Bay,Or. 97420 P.O. Box 455 Bandon, or. 97411 City of Coos Bay Roland Dragoo Verlin Hermann Attn: Dick Kahanek P0. Box 1148 P.O. Box 95 Broadbent, or. 97414 Jeff Kaspar listed elsewhere Mrs. Flora Burch Page 2 9394 Coast Highway SPECIAL GROUPS North Bend, Or. 97459 Roy Peters Ruth Day Prosper Road Mrs. Anita Hale Boat Basin Task Force 1683 N. 14th Bandon, Or. 974.11 Coos Bay, or. 97420 Box 5350 Charleston, Or. 97420 Jeff Kaspar PORT OF COOS BAY CCINIMIS- Jack Wilskey Boat Basin Task Force SIONERS P.O. Box 692 175 N. 2nd Coos Bay, or. 97420 Coos Bay, Or. 97420 Robert Younker Jean Day Bill Mullarky P.O. Box 5500 P.O. Box'127 Boat Basin Task Force Charleston, or. 97420 Coos Bay, Or. 97420 Dept. of Fish & Wildlife 300 5th, Bay Park Coos Bay, Or. 97420 J. Larry Qualman Paul Heikkila Chuck Walters Rt. 2, Box 772 County Exten5ion Office Boat Basin Task Force Coos Bay, or. .97420 i 290 N. Central U.S.. Natl. Marine Fisheries Coquille, Or. 97423 2622 S.W. 7aylorsIFerry Rd. Portland, Or. 97219 C.E. Lapp Cpt. Art Hystad Glen Hale 4662 East Bay Drive Boat Basin Task Force P.O. Box 126 Coos Bay, or. 97420 North Bend, Or. 97459 D.L.C.D. 313 S.W. 2nd, Suite B- Newport, Or. 97365 Bruce Meithof Larry M. Lillebo Richard Vigue Boat Basin Task Force 1338 Buckingham P.O. Box'297 Coos County Ordinance Admin. North Bend, or. 97459 Coos Bay, Or. 97420 Courthouse Coquille, Or. 97423 Laura Lee Craig Jack Dunham Bill Ne gh- listed elsewhere Box 309-A, Coos River Route it B sk Force Pacific Power and Light Boat B n Ta Coos Bay, or. 97420 P.O. Box 989 Count Planning Dept. Coos Bay, Or. 97420 Cour use Coq i- le, Or. 97423 Bob More Bob More listed elsewhere Boat Basin Task Force PORT OF COOS BAY ADVISORY Knight of Cups COKMITTEE 1740 Ocean Blvd., N.W. Colos Bay, Or. 97420 Glenn Barton Steve Felkins, Manager South Coast Off-Shore Yaght P.O. Box 668 Port of Coos Bay Club Coos Bay, or. 97420 175 N. 2nd i Ne t t n P r usl e. Coos Bay, Or. 97420 Mr. Bob Hudson Tom Towslee Jim Mason - listed elsewhere P.O. Box 5382 c/o Sen. Ripoer's Offi-ce c+m+n rnn;+@i n___ rnn, Richard Benner Ms. Sally Cramer Monte Lund 1,000 Friends of Oregon South Slough Estuarine Mgmt. Com. District #ll 400 Dekum Bldg U.S. Natl. Marine Fisheries Yellow Creek 519 S.W. Third P.O. Box 4332 Myrtle Point, Or. 97458 Portland,Or. 07204 Portland, Or. 97208 Oregon Environmental Council Mr. Rollie Rouseau Clair Rood South Slough Estuarine Mgmt.Com. District #3, Chairman Dept. of Fish & Wildlife Box 450, N. Coos River 506 S.W. Mill St. Coos Bay, Or. 97420 Portland, Or. 97201 Otter Trawl Commission All Coast Fisherman's Marketing James Whitty Association, Inc. District #3, Vice-Chairman P.O. Box 5382 Box 658, Coos River Route Charleston, Or. 97420 Coos Bay, Or. 97420 Delayne Munson Patti Parker Linden Smith South Slouth Estuarine Sanc. District #1 Chairman District #4 P.O. Box 5417 653 North Way S. Coos River Route, Box 324-1 Charleston, Or. 97420 North Bend, Or. 97459 Coos Bay, Or. 97420 William S. Cox, Chairperson I Meredith Leegard Don Mosher - listed elsewhere DistricT South Slough Estuarine Mgmt.Com. District #2 Chairnan #5, Co-Chairman 3520 East Bay Drive Route 2, Box 717-H 1445 State Street Salem, Or. 97310 North Bend, Or. 97459 Coos Or. 97420 .Dr. John Donaldson Orvin Stanwood Dick Chambers Sol& Slouth Estuarine Mgmt.Com. District #2 District #5 Dept of Fish and Wildlife 284 Pierce Point Road Route 2, Box 769 506 S.W. Mill St. North Bend, Or: 97459 Coos Bay, Or. 97420 Portland, Or. 97201 Dr. Robert Holton Bill Nesmith David Baird South Slough Estuarine Mgmt.Com. District #13Chairman District #6 School of oceanography Oregon State University 1422 Flanagan 3500 Second Avenue Coos Bay, Or. 97420 Millington, Or. 97420 Corvallis, Or. 97311 Mr. J.E. Schoreder Lou Felshe�m - listed elsewhere Roy L. Johnson South Slough Estuarine Mgmt.Com. Distric #8 Chairman District #7 2600 State St. North B Road.. Route 1, Box 24-C Salem, Or. 97310 Bandon Or. 97411 Coos Bay, Or. 97420 Mr. William M. Sutherland Grant Combs Gay Noah South Slough Estuarine Mgmt.Com. District #10 Chairman District #7 P.O. Box 5358 (Dora Sub-District) Route 3, Box 66 Charleston, Or. 97420 Sitkum Route, Box 118 Coos Bay, Or. 97420 Myrtle Point, Or. 97458 William H. Young Georgia Grisham C.L. Kolkhorst South Slough Estuarine Mgmt.Com. District #10 District #7 D. Fairview Sub-District) P.O. Box 1152 P.O. Box 1760 Fairview Coos Bay, Or. 97420 Portland, or. 97205 Coquille, Or. 97423 Mr. Harold Sawyer South Slough Estuarine Mgmt.Com. Jack Warner Jack Gassett DEQ District #11 District #12 Gaylord. Bridge Route, Box 120-A raut: Allan Rumbaugh, Planner Dr. Paul Rudy, Director North Bend News CoQs County Planning Dept. University of.Oregon 1964 Shenuan North Bend, Or. 97459 Courthouse Oregon Institute of Marine Coquille, Or. 97423 Biology -Char le ston., Orm.. 97420 Lorance Eickworth Department of Environmental KCBY- 1260 Anderson Quality Coal Bank Slough Rd. Coos Bay, Or. 97420 P.O. Box 1760 Coos Bay, or. 97420 Portland, Or. 97207 Bay Area Environmental Commit. Department of Environmental 250 Hull St. I Quality KYNG Coos Bay, Or. 97420 Southwest Region Office Scoville Bldg. 1937 W. Harvard Blvd. Coos Bay, Or. 97420 Roseburg, or. 97470 Merrill Mosher Brad Morris KHSN Rt. 2, Box 717--A Oregon State Marine Board Fitzpatrick Bldg. Coos Bay, Or. 97420 3000 Market St., N.E. #515 Coos Bay, or. 97420 Salem, Or. 97310 Dale Evans,:bivision Chief Greg Geiger KBBR U.S. Dept of Commerce Army Corps of Engineers 1956 Meade N.O.A.A.--Env. & Tech. Ser.Div.1' P.O. Box 2946 North Bend, Or.'97459 P.O. Box 4332 Portland, or. 97208 Portland, Or. 97208 rps of Engineers Brent Forsberg Army Co Staff Biologist 1460 N. Bayshore Dr. CITIZENS- Dept. of Fish & Wildlife Coos Bay, Or. 97420 P.O. Box 3503 Portland, Or. 97208 J.'D. Fraser U.S. Dept. of Fish & wildlife Mike Hosie 777 S. 5th St. Attn: Jack Kinchloe 222 Hollow Stump Rd. Coos Bay, Or. 97420 727 NE.24th Avenue P.O. Box 5430 Portland, Or. 97232 Charleston, Or. 97420. STATE & FEDERAL AGENCIES Ron Lee Roy Gunnari Environmental Protection Agency Rt. 2, Box 692F 1200 6th Ave. Coos Bay, or. 97420 Seattle, Wa.' 98101 Floyd Shelton Nancy Eickhoff Dept. of Economic Development@: NEWS MEDIA Rt. 2, Box 855C 317 S.W. Alder St. Coos Bay, or. 97420 Portland, Or. 97204 Jim Ross Charlie Kocher Fred Anderson D.L.C.D. The World 1175 Court St., N.E. P.O. Box 779 Salem, or. 97310 Coos Bay, Or. 97420 Federal Fish & Wildlife Bay Reporter Pam Carpenter Attn: Don Sunbeem 75.7 Newmark 766 Harris Div-.Of Ecological Serv. Coos Bay, Or. 97420 nr Q7 A) n Paqe 5 Brian Dedmon Dave Richey 720 Wasson C014:4UNITY GROUPS Coos Bay, or. 97420 Coos County Planning Dept. Courthouse Coquille, Or. 97423 C913ay chamber of Commerce Curtis Gunnar-i Dick Kelley Cape Arago Hwy. Kelley Boat Works' A Don Bock P.O. Box 210 Coos Bay, Or. 97420 Charleston, Or. 97420 Coos Bay, or. 97420 Jay Farr, President Conrad & Lyn Muller Frark Downs Coos Bay Chamber of Commerce P.O. Box 5648 230 S. Wasson c/o Farr's True Value Hrdwr. Charleston, or. 97420 i Coos Bay, or. 97420 860 S. lst Coos Bay, or. 97420 . ....... . ..... Leon Loomis e- o*r" -g e- North Bend Chamber of Commerce Spaw Blvd. Box 5619, Hinch Road Attn: Paul Wegferd, Manager P.O. Box 220 Coos Bay, Or. 97/420 Coos Bay, Or. 97420 North Bend, Or. 97459 Roger Duvall, President Walter Razee 234 Mill Pete & Anita.Stafford North Bend Chamber of Commerce c/o Broadway Builders Coos Bayj Or. 97420.: 1 3571 Ash St. 231.5 Broadway -North Bend, Or. 97459 No-rth Bg@pd,. Or. '97459 M uerite Watkins Lester Wells Jim Stanley V'sue of Oregon Voters Rt. 2, Box 704 2nd 2243 Kentuck Way Charleston, or. 97420 Coos Bay, Or. 97420 North Bend, Or. 97459 Jim & Charlotte Straight Chester Lepley Rt. 2, Box 834 ADDITIONAL NAMES: P.O. Box 3304 Coos Bay, or. 97420 Those in attendance at Bay, Or. 97420 3@11/79 Charleston-Barview P anning Group Meet!' Mr. & Mrs. Dunn Rt 2, Box 2148 Kirk Johansen ADDITIONAL NAMES: Coos Bay, or. 97420 560 N. 4th Those in attendance at Coos Bay, or. 97420 4/25/49 Workshop Karl Schmidt Peter Eames Lester Johns Alaska Packers J. Griffin and Co. LTD Rt 2, Box 1020 2191 Hamilton Dr. 465 N. 3rd Court Coos Bay, Or. 97420 North Bend@ Or. 97459 Coos Bay, Or. 97420 Bert Johns Loretta Pennoch' David Haverstock 7. Libby Drive 10530 Cape Arago Hwy c/o Nasburg Ins. Co. Bay, Or. 97420 Coos Bay', Or. 97420 705 S. 4th Coos Bay, or. 97420 --ler Lena Hunton John & Martha Bul Andy.Nasburg Nasburg & Co. Lighthouse Way 705 S, 4th Paae6 Wm. MacDonald 411 6th, Bay Park Jeff spar- listed elsewhere Co.os Bay, or. !@7420 2036 E Bay Dr. North d, or. 97459 Jack ls y 1 i sted else4iere ADDITIONAL NAMES: Glynn McCeady 795 1 t, Ave P.O. Box 5661 Easts' Or. 9742b Those in attendance at I Charleston, Or. 97420 3/15/79 workshop. Herbert Huntemann Virginia KuensLer Renee Burks Rt, 2, Box 1713 P.O. Box 5596 P.O. Box 5661 Coos Bay, or, 97420 Charleston, or. 97420 Charleston, Or. 97420 Bruce Laird Richard Amundsen Karen Pugh 505 S. 12th 1865 Kingwood Ave. Rt. 5, Box 287 Coos Bay, or. 97420 Coos Bay, Or. 97420 Barview, or. 97420 Allen E. Woods Jeg@se Brubaker ADDIDITIONAL NAMES@: 1225 Anderson 930 S. Empire Blvd Those in attendance at Coos Bay, Or. 97 420 Coos Bay, or. 97420 3/29/79 workshop. Joe & Joan Pugh Gerald & Jean Gunnarl Mr. Edmoneton P.O. Box 5394 P.O. Box 5435 3410 Spruce Charleston, Or. 97420 Charleston, Or.-97420 Coos Bay, Or. 97420 Byron Gray Virgil Graves Mr. & Mrs. Timothy Pugh 2626 Newmark 3410 spruce Rik 5, Box 287 North Bend', or. 97459 Coos Bay, Or. 97420 Coos Bay, or. 97420 Forrest & Valerie Taylor Alan Gray OTHERS: 2580 Everett 2626 Newmark North Bend, Or. 97459 North Bend, or. 97459 C.C. Woodworth R. Burns John Mingus Rt. 2, Box 2006 P.O. Box 869 - Char,leston,.Or. 97420 Coos Bay, Or. 97420 Coos Bay, or. 97420 Hal Ford Betty Rogers Phil Quarterman Planning Department 1431 N. 10th Ct. 908 S, 5th Coos Bay, Or. 97420 Courthouse Coos Bay, Or. 97420 Coquille, Or. 97423 _p A 1;@', Cecil Ash MarquE Wins -listed else-' M. Robert Raven Coos River Rt. Box 666 270 jthn where P.O. Box 5617 Coos Bay, or. 97420 Z@rn Charleston, Or. 97420 Coos B@z'y,)Or. 97420 PAGE 7 Phil Thomas P. 0. Box 847 Coos Bay, Or. 97420 OTHERS Cont: f&Abrahamson Durelle Strader 'WE I A United-Farm Agency 874 S.E. Stephens 1865 McPherson Roseburg, Oe. 97470 North.Bend, Or. 97459 Jim Lauman Dr. William Bo-odt Oregon Dept.of Fish & Wildlife' Regional Economist P.O. Box 3503 Arm Corps of Engineers' y Portland, Or. 97208 P.O. Box 2946 Portland, Or. 97208 LIBRARIES: Elaine Steinhoff 922 Sycamore Modesto, Ca. 95350 Coos Bay Public Library Jody McNeely 525 Anderson Coos County Planning Commission. Coos Bay, Ore. 97420 Myrtle Point, Or.. 97458 0 rth Bend Public Library. Robert Jenkins 5 McPherson Coos County Planning Commission 'rth Bend, Ore. 97459 Coos Bay, Or. 97420 S.W.O.C.C. Tom Imanson Empire Lakes c/o Senator, Hatfield's office Coos Bay, Ore. 97420 Room 107, Pioneer Courthouse 555 S.W. Yarnhill St. Ic Portland, Or. 97204 Coquille Public Library, Gregory Creel North Birch P.O. Box 5617 Coquille, Ore. 97423 Charleston, or. 97420 Hearings officer Myrtle Point-. Public Library c/o Stan Hamilton 5th and 'Willow .Myrtle Point, Ore. 97458 i Division of State Lands Salem, Or. 97310 Bandon Public LIbrary Peter Linden y Hall. Coos County Counsel 011don, Ore; 97411 Courthouse Coquille, Or. 97423 Peter Kasting Asst. Coos county counsel. Courthouse APPENDIX F Information Papers Included in this appendix are three in-fFormation papers which are of special interest: a memo detailing the Port's moorage waiting list as of ,January, 1979; Tom Gaumer's Information Report 78-1 on the "Coastal Acres" clam resources; and a reproduction of the U.S. Coast Guard's Marine Sanitation Device Regulations. There are numerous other infor- mation items but users of this documen-1-1- will probably wish to have these available for quick reference. F-I Faa@* PORT OF COOS SAY S I zt TOTI@ ADMINISTERED BY THE 50' 8 CHARLESTON, OiIEGON 97420 P. 0. BOX 5409 PHONE 888-3716 60; 10 70- 7 80, TO. Steve Felkins 30'-50' traditionally salmon trollers are phasing out FROM: Richard Scott (tip for sale presently) DATE: January 24, 1979 .'SUBJECT: Charleston Boat Basin 3111oorage I-laiting List 30'-50' vessels on wa@iting list are mostly sport/co=crcia-l anc! sailing [email protected], at present. Anticipate over t-,..-o (hizen nc,,, boats co-ming (70'-.'0') in 1971'?--1111@. SiZE TOTAL OUT OF STATE TRENDS Considerable interest in moorage and local fish selling has been expressed by a nuriber of vessels not presently o-! Lh'2 r the Col- Under 18' 6 1 waiting list. They are @-,aiLin- fo rps to build our protective JLtLy and -roj .-n. 18'-20' 21 21'-23' 22 0 24'-25' 40 1 Sailing Vessels increasing now 30% 26'-3l 41 3 32'-39' 13 4 Mostly Sailing Vessels 40'-44' 6 2 1 Charter, 2.Sail4ng Vessels 45'-49' 7 4 2 Sailing Vessels 50' and over 26 2 19 of these are local people TOTAL 182 18 X t [email protected] 5ijkng Stan Hamilton D.S.L DSL # 8 CLAM RESOURCES IN A PROPOSED CHARLESTON BOAT BASIN EXPANSION SITE RECEIVED MAY INTRODUCTION The Port of Coos Bay is considering expanding their marina facilities CLAM RESOURCES IN A PROPOSED CHARLESTON BOAT BASIN EXPANSION SITE in Charleston. Several sites are being considered; one to the north of the present boat basin and one to the south (Figure 1). The southern proposal is for an area that historically has supported an important recreational clam fishery. A Fish Commission of Oregon resource use survey of that tideflat in 1971 showed that 974 clam digging trips representing 1,603 hours of effort were made to harvest nearly 20,000 clams (Table 1). Cockle, gaper and littleneck clams were the principal species collected. Because of the importance of this tideflat to recreational clam diggers, we conducted a biological inventroy of the clam flat during July 1977. Results of this survey are presented in this report. Table 1. Number of Digger Trips, Hours of Effort and Clams Harvested in South Slough at Coos Bay in 1971. Tideflat Boat Charleston South Peterson's Basin Flat Slough Flat Total No. Digger Trips 974 2,233 1,043 155 4,405 No. Digger Hours 1,603 3,656 1,701 264 7,224 No. Clams Harvested Cockle 9,690 14,310 7,663 221 31,884 Gaper 5,145 7,120 5,248 736 18,249 Littleneck 4,041 3,799 46 88 7,974 Butter 844 1,005 2,080 44 3,973 Softshell 0 935 371 0 1,306 Bentnose 113 654 0 0 767 - 3 - Methods Standard transects were established across the 11.5 acre (4.7 ha) tideflat (Figure 2). Transects were 150 feet (45.7 m) apart and parallel to each other. Sample stations were 100 feet (30.5 m) apart along each transect line. Samples were taken by ODFW scuba divers using a 6-inch (15.2 cm) suction pump that was fitted with a 1/2-inch (1.3 cm) mesh wire basket. 2 2 Forty-nine samples were collected. Each 2ft (0.2 m ) sample was excavated to a depth of approximately 12 to 18 inches (30.5 to 45.7 cm) or until the the operator was confident all clams had been removed. All retained pump material was emptied from the basket and sorted in the boat. All clams obtained were saved and taken to the laboratory where the gaper, butter, cockle and littelneck clams were measured, weighed and aged. Length measurements (in mm) were taken from all clams except cockle where height (rib length) was used. All clams were weighed to the nearest lower gram. The clams were weighed alive. Gaper clams were aged by counting the annual growth rings in the ligament scar. Butter, cockle and littleneck clams were aged by counting the annual rings on the exterior surface of the shell. Results Figure 2 shows the occurence and distribution of clams in the proposed South Slough marina site. Two different observed concentrations of clams per sample are illustrated; those with less than two clams/square foot 2 (0.092 m ) and those with more than two clams/square foot. Nine species of clams were recorded from the area. Five species, gaper Tresus caper, cockle Clinocardium muttallii, native littleneck Venerupie -4- COOS DAY g-*C,,;n, @-_j and, so.,tsh.@:, duj clim di,.-1@1-11-s. a t "'r3l to !@--n by biologically @G the L@sn-ry. Th@ jistributicn. ai-,@ CDOI Of the nl,nL sp,--ccs of clams ar.- in Fi@ures '3-11. t i t C@ t h -- t15 11 D n c Ii. -, s i i th-s 6.4, mfll;on @rus clams, 1.5 @;eirc gaper Cloms. The confidence Imits for c%ipcr cl,;,:-@ r e C, I'aittor, coc,"'le, g@pcr 3nJ "C'le c(, in Fisure I-,. Exc,@o,, '.-or tile 1-*, Clam, Cr shcwn of sel. app@@,s to Le sporadic. lrre@,Aar or C, I-,,,s also been noted an other sulitidal clann tied,,- ii@l Coos, T,*@' yaquina bays. 2/ ft2 Biomass estimates wel-2 buttcr, neck cla-ms and totaled 502,200 pcCinis (227.8 m.t.). Caper c c s - C a 1 SOLFFA SLOLGJ '-12,5CD pnu;-.@s (200.7 m.t.) of the total. Capers avcraSed - ---------- (153.0 gr@ms) each. .5:;o The leingih firequetcy for [email protected] c13TI'S iS in J : e13. of gaper cla-ris was 83-1 mr-1 (3.27 in.'. Size cc,-,-osition. .Or L,-, trc;-- C2 ar@d littlenec@ clamns is not shown d@ ,e to the small nu-,.@ers t--ken- i-.gure 2. Clam SL;rvey Project Area, South Slough of Coos Bay, 1977 Table 2. Summary of Numbers of Clams, South Slough,Proposed Marina Site, Coos Bay, 1977. Species Number Irus ........................................... 6,427,000 Bentnose ............................ * ......... 1,482,000 Gaper ................! .......................... 1,333,000 Cockle .......................................... 34B,000 Native littlene:ck ............................... 289,000 Butter ........................................... 119,000 Softshell ..................................... -.50,000 Jackknife ........................................ 20,000 r ID Piddock .......................................... 10,000 Total ........................................ 10,078,000 GAPER CLIVI Density O= 0.5 2/ft2 >2/ft2 Scale SOUtri ZLCU7ri (ft) 4 1 t Figure 3. Clam Survey Project rea. South Slough of Coos cay. 1977 COOS -BAY CIDOS BAY CHAIRLFSTON G@ARLF-STON RATIVE LITTLEN ECK COCKLE CLAIi CLAM Density Density C) - 0.5 - 2/rt2 0 - 0.5 - 2/ft2 0 - >2/ft2 - 2/ft2 SOUTH SLOUGH SOUIFH SLOUGA Scale scale (ft) (ft) 4 ct Area. Sou.th Slough of Coos Say. 1977 Figure 5. clam Survey Project Area, So-th Slough of Coos Bay.'197 7 Figure 4. Clam Survey Proje _10- ODOS BAY Cns PAY CRktk_ESTCN M%RLESTUI BUTT ER CLAM sOFTSHELL CLAN Density 0.5 - 2/ftz 0 0.5 2/ft2 >2/ft2 Scale S(YJTH SLOUGi SOLF11(i S!_C`:J:N (ft) Scale (ft) Figure 6. Clam Survey Project Area, South Slough of Coos Bay. 1977 Fi c Lire 7. Clan Survey Proiect Area@ -o: th Slou-,, of Coos Biy. 1377 -12- L Wos ar%y OCUS ELAY C? SEUTNOSE CLAM IRUS CLAM Dens i ty D---Isity 0 = 0.5 - 2/ft2 O= 0.5 - 2/ft2 0 = 21ftz 0 - >2/ft2 q MUTH -I-LOmi LC Scale Scale SCIUM SLO -f (f t) (f t) 54U ri gure 9. Clx-a Survey Proje- Area, South SlouSh of COOS B?Y. 1977 figure Clan Survey Project Area, South Slough of Coos Bay, 1977 -14- CDDS. BAY CD.,)" r""( k, WARLESTON C> CLAI-I PIDDOCK CLPJI Deni ty JACKKNIFE CLM 0 0.5 - 2/ft2 1@2 ns i tY o.5 21ft2 SOUTH SLOUGH Scale SuJIM SLG@Gi (ft) Scale (ft) Figure 1 M Clam Survey Project Area, SOutfi Slough Of Coos Bay' 1977 F i ou re 11, CIz!m Survcy Prnj@'Ct 11-ca, Soot!) S I o U "h of Coos Bay, 1977 -17- Littleneck Clam H-29 40 30. C3 20 D Gaper Clam C17M 14=134 co 40 30 20 10 Ln 0 Cockle Clarn N=35 60 CID CD 50- 40 30 U1 20 10 @2 0 Butter Clam N=12 30 10- 0 77 76 75 74 73 72 71 70 69 63 Year Class Figure 12. Age Composition of Clams, South Slough -IuaD Marina Site. Coos Bay, 1977. Z11' JDd PCh7t DISCUSSION < 4; Our observations on the clam resources of the proposed South Slough C marina site substantiates the fact that this area is not only an important component to the overall clam stocks of South Slough but is also a valuable i CHARLL--5T0i%1 resource to the recreationil clam digger in Coos Bay and Charleston. lough has substantial clam resources both intertidally il.VC0 Although South S and tubtidally, limited shore access has always been a problem. In the .1971 resource use survey of Coos Bay, only four areas. on South Slough were reached from shore. In numbers of clams harvested, the proposed easil' y marina site ranked second in production to the "Charleston" clam bed above the Charleston bridge on the west shore. Since 1971. reduced parking, due to new industrial development, and restricted access to the "Charleston" clam bed has substantially increased the importance of the @proposed marina site to recreational clam diggers. ilic I J,/ @Vl@ I ;A- C- COCI'LE Although much of Coos Bay and South Slough remains to be surveyed, it llr@E I/ ,-". P- PIDDOCK If/ s-@OFTSHELL seems reasonable that collver R t-GAPER other areas of the bay should be considered as alter n-LITTLE.NI:CK native sites for development. One of these areas is immediately north of U y@rk the existing boat basin. This area has been suggested for development for C some time and although the tideflat has not been surveyed for- Elams. historically this area has supported only an.f.Acidental razor clam fishery. It therefore seems appropriate that the proposed South Slough marina \C Ct site be@preserved as a clam producing ar6 and that any further development V. or encroachment into that area be strongly opposed by our agency. SCG/& Yotinkve fle, 1500 0 45 03 ------------ Oregm DePt. of Fish Wi!dlife -5sil Point Marine Scicace Dii-je a 9715 Newport, Cregi -Z5 @7' -H ARLESTON j, r7. -1 SAND %J SHELL SAND GRAVEL LI'l-J' ROCK 4-4 MUD pt, BEDROCK Scale bunker Pt 0 /500 3000 45@0 U.S.Departmentof Transportation United StatesCoast Guard BBE-WF 221-6333 Portland Introduction The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued regulations on 29 January 1976 which revised the Federal standards of performance for Federal marine sanitation devices (MSD's). The regulations Marine apply to all vessels on which toliet facilities have Sanitation been installed, but do not require the installation Device of toilet facilities on a vessel which does not Regulations already have an installed toliet. The Coast Guard Marine Toliets issued regulations which implement these standards on 12 April 1976. The term MSD includes any equipment for installation onboard a vesssel which is designed to receive, retain, treat, or discharge sewage and any process which treats such sewage. It does not include CG-485 "portable devices" which can be carried on off the vessel. These regulations are effective after 30 January 1977 for new vessels and 30 January 1980 for existing vessels; however, boat owners may comply earlier. After the effective date of the regulations (or the date of compliance for those vessels which comply early), vessels are exempt from state and local regulation of MSD's, with one exception. A state may completely prohibit the discharge from all vessels of any sewage, whether treated or not, into some or all of the waters within such state by making a written appilication to the Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, and by receiving the administrator's affirmative determination that adequate facilities for the safe and sanitary removal and treatment of safe and sanitary rem 2 3 sewage from all vessels are reasonably available on such devices and thereby may label them as for such wators to which the prohibition would Coast Guard certified. That label gives the apply. in such waters, flow-through devices must certification number and indicates whether the be secured to prevent any discharge to the equipment has been type approved for inspected receiving waters. The new standards of or uninspected vessels. performance, definitions of new and existing vessels, and the timetable for early and regular 2. Should I go flowthrough or no-discharge? compliance are set forth on the reverse side. There are two varieties of marine sanitation equipment. One variety treats the waste and then General Information 1. All Marine Sanitation Devices must be Coast discharges it into the water (Type I or Type 11). concerning equipment. Guard certified. The second retains the waste onboard or treats it If the unit was built before 30 January 1976, it in a manner which does not result in any discharge is considered an "existing device". This equipment, into 'he water (Type 111). This includes holding except no-discharge devices built before tanks, recIrculators and incinerators. You should 30 January 1975, was certified by official letter Investigate the area in which you will be operating from the Coast Guard. No-discharge devices built to determine whether it is a no-discharge or before 30 January 1975 were certified by regulation discharge area. Then you can decide on discharge without a letter, however some manufacturers or no-discharge equipment. There are two types of applied for and received letters certifying their no-discharge ireas: Federal, and state or local. devices. You should obtain a copy of this letter Federal regulations prohibiting discharges apply from the manufacturer or distributor as your either to a class of waters (see note on reverse record that the equipment is Coast Guard side) or to specific waters (contact your regional certified. if the unit was manufactured on or EPA office for exact areas). State and local after 30 January 1976 and is Coast Guard prohibition areas are controlled by the state certified, except certain no-discharge devices, boating authority or local police. If you are it will have a label on it. No-discharge devices operating in a no-discharge area, check on the being used solely for the storage of sewage and availability of pumpout facilities. You can then flush-water at ambient pressure and temperature decide on either retention equipment which will may be certified by definition. Such devices require periodic pumpout, or incinerating certified in this manner can not be labeled. equipment which does not. If you operate in both However, manufacturers may apply for certification discharge and no-discharge zones, you may want 4 5 to combine a Type I or Type It unit with Type [if Timetable for equipment to give the necessary flexibility. vessels with Installed toilets. Alb 1(k 1@b 1\11@ 3. What about capacity? P qP 0% 41% When you are selecting equipment, be sure to ):1Y choose a system with adequate capacity for your needs. Look at the maximum number of persons that will be,-aboard your vessel, including guests, and select accordingly. When choosing retention or recirculating devices, be sure to provide New Must install New installations sufficient capacity between pumpouls for your Vessel Type 1, 11, 111 MSD. must be cruising needs. Remember that it is illegal to Schedule Type 11 or III MSD. pqmp the contents of a holding tank overboard in U.S.waters.' Except 4. Other considerations When choosing marine sanitation equipment, if Type I Device is installed by 30 Jan 1980. then remember also the considerations involved in Type I Device may be used for the life of, the device. selecting any piece of equipment for your vessel. Do I have adequate space for it? Is the vessel's electricM systern capable of carrying the load? If needed, is my water supply of sufficient capacity? Existing Pust install Vessel Type 11 or III MSD. Remember, a little planning before you buy can Schedule result in years of trouble-free, safe operation Except of the vessel's marine sanitation system, and you- can take pride in your contribution to If Type I Device is installed by 30 Jan 1978. then protecting the quality of the Nation's waters for Type I Device may be used for the life of the device. future generations. 6 New Vessel Keel laid on or after 30 January 1975. Existing Vessel Keel laid before 30 January 1975. Type I Device USCG certified to 1000 fecal coliform/ 100 MI. no "visible floating solids" standard. Type 11 Device USCG certified to 200 fecal coliform/ 100 ml, 150 mg/I total suspended solids standard. Type III Device USCG certified to no-dischirge standard. -n Existing Device Those manufactured prior to 30 January 1976. Note The EPA standards state that in freshwater lakes, freshwater reservoirs or other freshwater impoundments whose inlets or outlets are such as to prevent the ingress or egress by vessel traffic subject to this regulation, or in rivers not capable of navigation by interstate vessel traffic subject to this regulation, marine sanitation devices certified by the U.S. Coast Guard installed on all vessels shall be designed and operated to prevent the overboard discharge of sewage, treated or untreated, or of any waste derived from sewage. The EPA standards further state that this shall not be construed to prohibit the carriage of Coast Guard-certified flow-through treatment devices which have been secured so as to prevent such discharges. SUMMOY OF SEDTING IN COASTAL ACTES PROPERTY DESIGNATED, AS H0.6 ON THE WEST SIDE OF SOUTH SLOUGH P.T_=9 Species 1/24 B 5/2 C 5/2 D 5/29 B Date and Site Chum Slamon 1 J 2 J (Refer to seirLmg map) Chinook Salmon Surf Smelt 500 J 10 1 500 J Shiner Perch 91 A 204 J+A 883 A Pen Point Gunnel. 1 A Saddleback Guraiel 4 A Pacific Sablefish -6 J Ling Cod Staghorn Sculpin 2 A 6A.-+ 1 J 15 A 250 A Speckled Sanddab 1 A + 8 J 7 1 A 38 meter bag seine was used at M10sh Sole 183 J 6 J 29 J 8 J 1-2 meter depth Starry Flounder 2 A 1 A Cur1fin Turbot Cabezon 5 J Kelp Greeraing 21 J J Snake Prickleback 2 J' Shrimp (Crago) 72 47 Unidentified Shrimp 10 Hermit Crab No. of,Species 3 3.5 12 Site Conditions Tide Outgoing Outgoing Outgoing Incoming Time 13;45 10.20 11.00 14-00 Wind 5-10 S, O-S 0-5 Ird 15-20 NW A. = Adult Temp 45 J = Juvenile Salinity Full Full Full Full Vegetation EelgraS3 Eelgrass Ulva Eelgrass Av 4'ei s F-19 .%,oastal Acres Property, Designated as HO.6 on. the West Side of South Slough. site Site B -----W)ate-1978 Species 3/15 5/?3. --.7/12 7/ 8/10 @8/24 ..9/22 Chinook Salmon Surf Smelt 200 450 M 20 J .50 A Top Smelt Shiner Perch 1800 A 200 A 175 M 500 M 500 M 5000 M 400M Pile Perch, J Saddleback Gunnel 1 A 15 A 1 A 0 ablefish PT 3 Lingeod Staghorn sculpin 162 M 180 M 25 M 50 50 25 A 50 A 4 A English Sole 3 J Starry Flounder I A 1 A 1 A Curlfin Turbot 'Dungeness Crab 1 J Crago Shrimp No. Species 3 5' 3 4 5 4 4 J.- Juvenile A Adult M Mixed JJ Lugworms were extremely dense on exposed mudflat. August 10, 1979 A 1-1 1-3 1-4 2.2 2-4 3-1 2-7 4-1 5-8@ 7- 0.6 Scining Sites - 0-4 0-31 Spine 11auls Swnpling Area Smake prickleback .... ........ 10 A Pacific butter ri (Pompano) Penpoint gunnel Sadd.lcback gunnel A 20 6 1 A Rockwood gunnel Bay goby Wolf-eel Pacific sand lane Black rockfish Blue rockfirh Copper rockfish .13ocaccio __3 J Unknown rockfi F Lingcod Kelp greenling Rock greenling Buffalo sculpin 1 -A I A A 25A Staghorn sculpin 25 M 25 A 2 A 25A 1CM I I Silver spotted sc 10 A .Cabezon 61 2!t.! R Bro,,m Irish lord .. ....- Red Irish lord En-lish sole i12 J 28 J 57J I X J 16J. W 5J Starry flounder Sand sole 6. J 1 A-- W 11J 54 3J 19 j 91 1 5J 3 J.. 5J ..... Du_nEencss crab 14J 10J 2M 2J ?cdrock crab 1pecklcd sand dal 141 J 1A ... ..... -- ------- * '-"- - _' _ __ _... I . . - .. . .. . . - - Shore crab t 10 ShrLnp crago ... . ...... Kelp.crab..._ No.__Spccie3_.._ 9. ..,;17- 7 _14 No. Fish 348 183, 2626-- 23530-- 5L- 8?+0 I 1 211 71 12791 9 3424 1 56 .U _-,,ver,0e-_ S,@b\e2f,@ L 5 17 . . ...... ..... August 10, 1978 Scining SiLG3 A H Seine HaU13 '1.41 2.2 2# 3.1 -7 1 7-5 7.6 7- Sampling Area 1.11 1-3 2 l 2 5-8- 7-1 a 0-4 _@0-5 o.6 0.9 Pacific lamprey Green sturgeon American shad Pacific herrin 1000i Northern anchovy Pink salmon Chun, salmon Ccho salmon 2 ji-24-4 3. @@hinook salmon :@-66keye saltnon Cutthroat trout Rainbow trout Wb4tebait smelt 150M, -.251, 5OA- Sqrf smelt_-. L-A! 19J JIAI-- .300A Eulachon A Jacksmelt Pacific tomcod, Tube-snout 9A 7A Threespine stickle Bay ish IA 102M 2 (A -1800j-. OCK@-l00J----150M-----500X-: 50CM Shinerperch lIDJ .75 ile perch pe-ric-yi-7, A Walleye surfperch 3 34J ... .... ilver surf perch....'-'- .-A @triped seaperch--,-: 19M.16J 22J.- 6A 9A 3A White seaperc F-21 APPENDIX G Public Notice Following are notices of the major public meetings or hearings held on the Boat Basin Exception process. Other meetings included Task Force meetings which wereopen to the public, the State and Federal agency briefings held in Salem, the meeting with the Charleston-Barview Neighborhood Group, and the "Open House" discussion session. In addi- tion the Boat Basin Exception was regularly discussed as an agenda item for Port of Coos Bay meetings and was discussed as an item of Coos County Board of Commissioners regular and special meeting agendas. Notices, agendas, minutes/notes from these meetings are contained in the administrative record which is available for inspection. DIVISION OF STATE LPLNDS NEWS RELEASE For release:, January.12, 1979 William S. Cox, Director Contact Stan Hamilton, 378-3805, 1445 State Street for additional information. Salem, Oregon 97310 Hearing Notice The Division of State Lands has scheduled a hearing in the International Woodworkers Hall, 2222 Broadway, in North Bend, Oregon., on" Thursday, January 25, 1979, at 9:00. a.m. to consider the denial of the Port of Coos Bay's Removal Permit Application No. 2867. The Port made application for this permit on March 14, 1978, seeking toexpand moorage facilities at the Charleston Boat Basin.. The Division denied this application on November 1.5, 1978. The basis for the denial was an evaluation that the project would not be consistent with the protection, conservation, and best use of the water resources of this itate. The hearing is open to the public and will be conducted as a contested case in accordance with ORS 541.625(4) and the Administrative Procedures Act. 00 A@10 1@- 4@1) SMALL BOAT BASIN EXCEPTICNS PROCESS KSHOP PUBLIC WORI MARCH 15., 1979 NEIGHBORHOOD FACILITY BUILDING, coos BAY 7:30 P. m. Open Workshop and Welcome (Please sign attendance roster, thank you) 2. Purpose of Workshop 3. Identify objective of the Technical Task Force 4. Brief overview-of work program Discuss need for moorage and related issues 6. Discuss scope of consideration in terms of type of moorage-and portion of Bay 7. Identify and discuss alternatives to Charleston Small Boat Basin Expansion using moorage siting criteria 8. Other 9. Notice of 2nd"Public Workshop and adjourn Second Public Workshop. Charleston Small Boat Basin Expansion LCDC Goal.Exception Process Neighborhood Facility Bldg. March 29, 1979 7:30 p.m. A G E N D A Item Welcome and Introductions Item 2. Materials,available for use of workshop participants. Item,3. Purpose of Workshop a. Evaluate alternatives b. Evaluate compatability of proposed expansion @with adjacentuses c. identify consequences of proposed.expansion d.. Discuss consistency with LCDC goals and county policies Item 4. Evaluate alternates a. Eliminate least feasible alternatives b. Select alternatives which should receive extensive evaluation Item 5. Identify environmental, social, economic, energy consequences of proposed expansion - both pro and con. Item 6. Discuss relationship of.proposed expansion to LCDC goals and county'plan policies. 'Item 7. Questionnaire Item 8. Other Item 9. Adjourn Note: Next workshop to review@draft exceptions document@will be-in,April with date and place to be announced in notice accompanying the mail-out of draft and by news media. PUBLIC WORKSHOP ANNOUNCEMENT On the Exceptions Process for the Proposed Charleston Small Boat Basin Expansion April 25, 1979 Neighborhood Facility Bldg., Coos Bay 7:30 p.m. The third public workshop on the Exception Process for the Proposed Small Boat Basin Expansion at Charleston will be held on Wednesday, April 25, 1979, at 7:30 p.m. in the Neighborhood Facility Bldg., Coos Bay. At this workshop, the overall status of the work on the proposed exception, recommendations of the Technical Task Force, and portions of the draft document will be discussed. Workshop participants will also be asked to re- view and comment on the evaluation summary of the alternatives for the moorage. A timetable of the remainder of activities for the process will be presented and discussed. Participants will be asked to decide if another public work- shop should be held before the exception is considered at a public hearing before the Coos County Board of Commissioners. Please-make every effort to attend.this workshop as the public's input is needed! Thank you. A G E N D A PUBLIC WORKSHOP-4`3 CHARLESTON SMALL BOAT BASIN EXPANSJON EXCEPTIONS PROCESS April 25, 1979 Neighborhood Facility Building .7:30 p.m.. Item 1. Convene and Welcome Item 2. Where process is. Item 3. Evaluation Process.es for Alternative Sites. Item 4. Discussion of the Seven Alternatives Re: Moorage Siting. Criteria and Process Criteria. Item 5, Establishing Priorities for Alternatives.' Item 6. Open Discussion on Exception.Process. Item 7. Adjourn. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED EXCEPTION TO THE ESTUARINE RESOURCES GOAL #16 TO THE LAND CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION STATE,1IDE AND COASTAL GOALS AS RELATED TO THE .PROPOSED EXPANSION OF THE CHARLESTON SAIALL BOAT BASIN INTO THE AREA KNOWN AS "COASTAL ACRES" Notice is given that the Coos County Board of Commissioners will conduct a public hearing to consider adopting an excep- tion to a portion of the Land Conservation and Development Commission Goal #16 (Estuarine Resources) for the purposes of the Charleston Small Boat Basin expanding into a portion of the area known as "Coastal Acres". Goal #16 requires that clam beds be designated as conservation management units which do not allow new dredging. Portions of a clam bed used for recreatio.nal purposes would have-approximately 133,000 cubic yards of material removed by new dredging for the siting of approximately 180 additional boat moorages if the exception is taken. The.purpose of the public hearing is to hear public testimony and to consider adopting the exception if it is found that an exception to a portion of Goal #16 should be taken based on consideration of need for the use, alternative locations for the use, compatability with adjacent and surrounding uses, and long-term environmental, social, economic, and energy conse- quences to the locality, the region, and the State. The proposed exception, if adopted, would be an amendment to the.Coos Bay Estuary Plan, An Element of the CQos County Com- prehensive Plan, adopted in 1975. Notice is particularly given that the document setting forth information pertinent to the proposed exception shall be avail- able to the public no later than Tuesday, May 22, 1979, at the Coos Bay, North Bend, Sbuthwestern Oregon Community College, Coquille, Myrtle Point, and Bandon Public Libraries, at the Coos County Planning Department offices, at the Coos-Curry Council of Governments offices, at the Port ofCoos Bay offices, at the Charleston Boat Basin offices, and at the Oregon In.sti- tute of T-Tarine Biology. Copies will be mailed to key partici- pants.in the public process and will be given or mailed, on request, to individuals who contact the Coos-Curry Council of Governments offices. The ordinance to be considered for adoption contains an emer- gency clause and, if adopted, would be in effect immediately as the matter of securing additional moorage is deemed to be in the interest of the public health, safety, and welfare being protected. The proposed ordinance-will reference the exceptions document being made available for public use. The exceptions document will contain an executive summary which will be included in the body of the ordinance. @The Hearing,3vill be held on June 8, 1979, at 10:00 a.m. in the Commissioners Hearing Room, Courthouse, Coquille. The public is encouraged to attend and participate in this 'hearing by submitting written statements 'for the record or oral arguments regarding the proposed exception and*plan amendment at the hearing.. The hearing record will be closed at the hearing. Published May 19, 21, 22 S'andra-Diedrich, Director Coos-Curry Council of Governments for Coos County Board of Commissioners cc: C60SICounty Board of Commissioners Peter Kasting 'Port of Coos Bay NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOS"ED EXCEPTION TO THE ESTUARINE RESOURCES GOAL #16 TO THE LAND CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPtILENT CONIMISSION STATE- WIDE AND COASTAL GOALS AS RELATED TO THE PROPOSED EXPANSION OF THE CHARLESTON SMALL BOAT BASIN INTO THE AREA KNOWN AS "COASTAL.ACRES" Notice is given that the Coos County Board of Commissioners will conduct a public hearing to consider adopting an exception to a portion of the Land Conservation and Development Commission Goal #16 (Estuarine Resources) for the purposes of the Charleston Small Boat Basin expanding into a portion of the area known as "Coastal Acres". Goal #16 requires that clam beds be designated as conservation management units which do not allow new dredging. Portions of a clam bed used for recreational purposes would have approximately 133,000 cubic yards of material . removed by new dredging for the siting of approximately 180 additiona I boat moorages if the exception is taken. The purpose of the public hearing is to hear public testimony and to consider adopting the exception if it is found that an exception to a portion of Goal 1#16 should be taken based on consideration of need for the use, alternative locations for the use, compatability with adjacent and surrounding uses, and long-term environmental, social, economic and energy consequences to the locality, the region, and the State. The proposed exception, if adopted, would be an amendment to the Coos Bay Estuary Plan, An Element.of the Coos County Comprehensive Plan, adopted in 1975. Notice is particularly given that the document setting forth information pertinent to the proposed exception shall be available to the public at the Coos Bay, North Bend, Southwestern Oregon Community College, Coquille Myrtle Point, and Bandon Public Libraries, at the Coos County Planning Department offices, at'the Coos-Curry Council of Governments offices, at the Port of Coos Bay offices, at the Charleston Boat Basin offices, and at the Oregon Institute of Marine Biology. Copies will be mailed to key participants in the public process and will be given or mailed, on request, to:individuals who contact the Coos-Curry Council of Governments offices. The ordinance to be considered for adoption contains an emergency clause and, if adopted, would be in effect immediately as the matter 6f.�ecuring additional moorage is deemed to be in the interest of the public health, safety, and welfare being protected. The proposed ordinance will reference the exceptions document being made available for public use. The exceptionsAocument will contain an executive summary which will be included in the body of the ordinance. The Hearing will be held on June 8, 1979 at 10:00 a.m. in. the Commissioners Hearing Room, Courthouse, Coquille. The'public is encouraged to attend and participate in this.hearing by submitting written statements for the record or oral arguments regarding the proposed exception and plan amendment at the.hearing. The hearing record will be closed at the hearing. To be'published the week of May 27-June 2, 1979 in the Coquille Sentinel and the Bay Reporter. Sandra Diedrich, Director Coos-Curry Council of Governments for Coos County Board of Commissioners cc: Coos County Board of Commissioners Peter Kasting Port of Coos Bay .KCBY KYNG KHSN -KBBR KWRO P. 0. BOX 647 NORTH BEND, OREGON 97459 TO: Recipients of the Charleston-Boat Basin Exception Document FROM: Sandy Diedrich SUBJECT: Status of the Process and the Draft Document DATE: June 6, 1979 DRAFT DOCUMENT STATUS. Enclosed is a copy of the "to-date" draft exceptions document. The Task Force review has produced several changes and directions for changes which will be mailed under separate cover. While there will be several changes in the draft document, it seems a 'pproloriate to distribute the original draft so that you can see the progress of the process and can see the results of the Task Force review when you re- ceive the additional or revised material. PLEASE NOTE: 'r)age 111-7 to 111-22 of the PART III: EXCEPTION (gold-eff-ro-d-color) will be substantially revised. You will be mailed copies of re-drafted or revised sections as so-on as they are Drepared. You will need to replace certain sections of the enclosed draft with the revised sections which will be mailed. Since everything is color- coded, it should be fairly easy. TASK FORCE STATUS While the Task Force met for nearly five hours on June 1, 1979, the members decided they needed one more meeting to complete their work. They reduced the number of alternatives under consideration from seven to four. Those remaining under Task Force consideration are: Expansion of existing facilities I'Coastal Acres" Extension of the breakwater (Point Adams) Sitka Dock Those eliminated1rom further consideration-for this process are: Swanson Property Barview Wayside North Point Atthe'last Task Force meeting, the'Task Force will make the following recommendations to the Coos County Board of Commissioners: findings on need findings on alternatives findings on consequences findings on compatibility recommendations whether or notto.take an exce.Dtion to the LCDC goals for the portion of "Coastal Acres" recommendations on the,proposed plan amendment other related recommendations They will also make any needed additional changes in the'draft document. PUBLIC HEARING, STATUS The June 8, 1979, Public Hearing will be held as scheduled. The Task Force has recommended that the Coos County Board of Commissioners be presented with information on the process to date, hear Public comment, and then recess until the Task Force has had its final meeting. FUTURE MAILINGS You may expect to receive the following ma-l'ings on. the Boat Basin Excep- tion process: 1. Changes in the 'draft document and notice of the date for the public hearing to reconvene. .2. Final Task Force recommendations. 3. Notice of action taken. If for some,.reason you.do not wish to receive any of the future mailings, please return the attached questionnaire to the Coos-Curry Council of Governments' offices. It is a self-addressed mailer. Thank you for your continued interest in and cooperation withthe boat basin exception pro- @'tess. P. 0. BOX 647 .NORTH BEND, OREGON 97459 TO: Recipients of "Boat Basin Exceptions Document" FROM: Sandra Diedrich SUBJECT: Notice of Public Hearing reconvening and Changes in the Draft Document DATE: June 18, 1979 Please be advised that the Coos County.Board of Commissioners will reconvene the Public Hearing on the prooosed exception to the Estuarine Resources goal related to the Coastal Acres boat basin expansion on Friday, June 22, 1979. The time of reconvening will be 12:00 noon with the record being kept oplen until 12:00 noon on the 22nd. Please have any letters or materials submitted to the Coos County Board of Commissioners by noon on the 22nd. Enclosed please find changes to the pink and gray sections based on ,Boat Basin Exception Task Force input. The Task Force is holding its final meeting today. The final recom- mendations of the Task Force as well as any other changes in the Draft Document will be mailed as soon as this information can be processed. After the public hearing has been completed and after a decision on whether or not to take a goal exception has,@een made, you wil.1 be,in- formed of action taken. Please do not hesitate to contact our office if you have any questions or comments, please don't hesitate to contact me. Thank you. SD/tam Enclosures HE-HRRY P. O@ BOX 647 NORTH BEND, OREGON 97459. TO:, Recipiernts of the Proposed Boat Basin Exception Document FROM: Sandra Diedrich SUBJECT: Revised Exception Document IDATE: July 13, 1979 Please be advised that the third session of the Public Hearing to consider the proposed coal exception for the proposed expansion of the Charl-eston Small Boat 6asin into the area known as Coasta'l Acres will :be held on July 25, 1979, at 11:00 a.in.. a-t Coquille in the Coos Countv Commils@sioner's Co-u.rthod'se Hearing Room. You-are especially invited to attend this heari,no. The public hearing, was opened on June 8, 1979, continued to June 22, 1979, and continued again to July 25, 1979. It is expected that the Coos County Board of Commissioners will make a decision on whether or,not to take the exceptiort on July 25. .Attached is a copy of the summary of the final Boat Basin Exceptions Task Force meeting on July 6, 1979. Enclosed also is a copy of the revised Boat Basin Exceptions document except for the appendices which are white. Since these are the same, please add them to 'the revised material we have sent to'you. Also, we have sent some additional information for appendices which are also white. Please place the white paper with the proper appendix. Thank you for your continued interestand participation in this process. G-13 HH-HR-R11, P. 0. -BOX 647 NORTH BEND, OREGON 97459 TO: Recipients of the Proposed Boat Basin Exception Document FROM: Sandra Diedrich D ,SUBJECT .%evised Exception Document DATE: July 13, 1979 Please be advised that the third session of the Public Hearina to consider the pro'posed goal exception for the proposed expansion of the Charleston Small Boat 3asin into the area kno@-/n as Coastal Acres will be held on Jul,,/-25, 1979, at 11:00 a.m. at Coquille in the Coos County Commissioner's Courthouse Hearing Room. You are especially invited to attend this meeting. The public hearing was opened on June 8, 1979, continued to June 22, 1979 and continued again to July 25, 1979. It is expected that the Coos County Board of Commissioners will make a decision on whether or not to take the exception on July 25. Attached is a copy of the summary of the final Boat Basin Exceptions Task Force meeting on July 6, 1979. The Boat Basin Exce.ptions document has been revised. Copies will be available at the same public places where the first drafts were available. These are: Coos County Planning Department offices Coos-Curry Council of Governments offices Port of Coos Bay offices Oregon Institute of vlarine Biology Coos Bay Library North Bend Library Southwestern Oregon Community College Library Coquille Library Myrtle Point Library Bandon Library For the sake of economy and to be conservative with tax dollars, we are reducing the number of revised documents being mailed out. If using a public place (library, port offices, etc.) copy is not convenient for you and if you would really like to have the revised document, please call our office so we can mail one to you or stop by our office to pick one up. Thank you for your continued interest in the Boat Basin Exception Process. G-14 APPENDIX I Miscellaneous Included in this appendix are the two questionnaires,and results from the questionnaires which were used at the first and second public workshops.. Also included are some correspondence of interest. Several of these letters are in objection to the project. While many letters of support are available or other letters were submitted in response to the Division of State Lands and the Corps permit review. The information on correspondence in this appendix is not intended to be all-encompassing of comments but intended to be illustrative of some concerns or issues raised. QUESTIONNAIRE SMALL BOAT BASIN EXPANSION EXCEPTION PROCESS PUBLIC WORKSHOP #2 1. of the 17 alternatives discussed tonight, which ones are most feasible? Which ones deserve a closer look? 2. Is the proposed boat basin expansion project compatible with surrounding land uses and activities? Why do you think it is, or why do you think it isn't? 3. Do you think there would be any adverse social effects if the boat basin is expanded as proposed? If yes, please list them. 4. Do you think there would be any adverse environmental effects? Please list. 5. Do you think there would be any adverse energy effects? Please list. 6. Do you think there would be any adverse economic effects if the boat basin is expanded as proposed? Please list. 1-2 16 coninleted SMALL BOAT BASIN EXPANSION EXCEPTION PROCESS PUBLIC WORKSHOP #2 3. 00 you think there would be any adverse social effects if the boat basin is expanded as proposed. If yes, please list them. QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS -J Yes - 3 1, The people of Charleston will have to endure much more traffic and 1. Of the 17 alternatives discussed tonight, which ones are most feasible: congestion. I lst Choice 2nd Choice 3rd Choice Traffic loss of recreational facilities in faVor of commercial develooment. Swanson Property 4 2 (closer look) People living near the basin would be effected by the additional traffic, noises, etc. Charleston Acres 9 1* Sitka Dock 1 1 No - 9 Coastal Acres 2 I live right in Charleston and I think the "pansion would help Dry Land Storage 1 the town. Barview Wayside I I see nothing that will pose a great problem. North of Breakwater 1(closer look) 4. Do you think there would be any adverse environmental effects? Please list. *Is the one to relieve the present situation. Yes - 4 Coss of clambed - Loss of opportunities for clamming. People - pollution. 2. Is the proposed boat basin exoansion project comoatible with,surrounding land uses and activities? Why do you think it is. or why do you think it isn't. Destruction of clambeds and use of the site for Univ. of Oregon biology school. Yes - 11 We would lose a very good accessable clam bed, and a laboratory field Near plants-near ocean-near facilities-near most of fisherman's homes.. for the Institute of Marine Biology.,More pollution would definitely Fishing facilit.ies and support services. be added that would float up into the South Slouth Sanctuary. Support facilities. No - 9 Other boats already there. Less by controlling in one area instead of spliting facilities. It is compatible with the surrounding area. The surrounding area is Not much more than there alreadyis. used by connercial fisherman and processors. Because all facilities there lend to this type of development. 5. Do you think there would'be any adverse-energy effects? Please list. The total acreage of Charleston is too small to accormodate the presently nlanned expansion. No - 12 All business interests are dependent on-mostly the fishing vessel. This site is the most conservative for energy. activities. None at Charleston Acres or Barview Area excepting light increase. Everything is there already. There would be more if they go some where else. Energy would be saved by the closeness of facilities to this basin., No - 2 Because the Port wants to develop the North Spit for a fish complex. The facilities to handle the boats is already existing. site for fish plants and-the fishing boats will have to run up there to Too much congestion in a small place. Not only congestion at the basin. unload. but it would add a lot to the traffic on the EmPire-Charleston highway, which is getting heavy traffic now. 6. Do you think there would be any adverse economic effects if the'boat basin is expanded as'proposed? Please list. Yes - 2 To motels and trailer parks. Good effects to loGal business. No - 11 I think there could be adverse effects If the project Is not aoproved. Because Charleston has about all It can handle right now. If a basin was develoPed,in Empire it would help to develop that area where there are more Oeople and a lot more room. A SMALL BOAT BASIN EXCEPTIONS PROCESS MARCH 15, 1979 PUBLIC WORKSHOP QUESTIONNAIRE IS THERE A NEED FOR ADDITIONAL MOORAGE SPACE IN Coos BAY? YES No DON'T KNOW .SHOULD THE CHARLESTON SMALL BOAT BASIN BE EXPANDED? YES No UNCERTAIN WITH CONDITIONS (SPECIFY) DOE YOU PREFER ANOTHERi IMMEDIATESMALL BOAT BASIN LOCATION BESIDES ? THE TRIANGLE YES No IF SO, WHERE? WHY? SMALL BOAT BASIN EXCEPTIONS PROCESS March 15, 1979 Public Workshop QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS Is there a need for additional moorage space in Coos Bay? Yes - 40 No - 0 Don't Know 0 -Should the Charleston Small..Boat%-Basin be expanded? Yes 29, No 7 Uncertain 4 -Conditions9 No Damage toSouth Slough, estuary tidal regions*or increased pollution of waters - strict discharge enforcement Fish and Game could create a program to increase clam beds in other parts of the-Bay Unless a better site can be agreed on. There is a definite need now. Unless a better site can be.chosen We-need more moorage for bigger boats. Commercial docking only! go parking lots for sports boats'are 'important enough to spend$, or time and effort on. Mitigation forlthe clam diggers (i.e. better access to another @clam,bed on the bay, for example Crab Flats Area where clams are more abundant.", There-is a real need for expansion a.nd-the@area designated is the best use with the least environmental damage. Do you preferanother, immediate small boat basin location besides the "Trianglell? Yes 9 If so, where? Menahsa area (not North Spit) Downtown Coos Bay area - with water front development - again strict ecological limits Why? Shift focus from only lumber and fishing to tourism as well. If'so,where? Empire area - or old mill site, also room on the side- a dock where senior citizens or anyone can fish and enjoy the day. Shy? Create more work - activity and interest also increase tax monies through increased business and values. If so, Where? My particular concern is the long term health of the estuary which must not fall prey to the same fate as other tidal resources on the west coast. If so, where? Across from present basin and Barview Waysides.* Why? Because it is located in the basin area. It is more accessable than the present basin. It will'relieve congestion at the present basin. If.so, where? I'm sure that all this takes is a-little thinking. Empire, North Bend possibly around the railroad bridge. If so, where? Anyplace. That doesn't disturb the bays. Why? I don't believe in filling or dredging for commercial industry. .If so, where? Coos Bay or Pony Slough. Why? If you want to fish upper Bay, it's too far to travel. If so, where? North Bend. Why? To keep traffic off.Empire highway. If so, where? Empire or Pony Slough. Why? Better location. If so, where? Not sure, perhaps farther towards Empire, on the Empire side. Why?. Boat basin is too much of.an environmental concern. If so, where? Empire, or mouth of Pony Slough, or between the railroad bridge and the highway bridge. (North Point) Why? To enlarge the present basin would: (l)* destroy accessable clam area, (2) take a field lab away from U. of 0.; (3) cause additional pollution in sanctuary; (4) interfere with all sorts of marine life Wt: No-- 28 The current need can potentially'cost the area hundreds ofthousands of dollars lost in jobs, seafood product, tourist dollars, moorage, vessel repair and potential business opportunities. A study,should be made to determine where the best site would be.to meet the moorage needs for the next 10.years rather than just next summer.@ Not for sport boats! (Yes, I do own an.18' sport boat and trailer!) Land and water usage are too important for such frivolous and wasteful usage. Limited estuary and usable sites should be reserved for commerdial docking facilities. Common sense. This place is the most immediate place available. (Steelheaders) SMALL BOAT BASIN EXCEPTIONS PROCESS March.15, 1979 Public Workshop QUESTIONNAIRE Is.there a need for additional moorage space in Coos Bay? Yes 3 No 2 Don't Know 0 Should the Charleston Small Boat Basin be expanded? Yes - 2 No - 2 Uncertain 0 With conditions 2 Try to protect clam beds. Another boat basin up the bay somewhere. Do you prefer another, immediate small boat basin location besides the "Triangle"? Yes 3 If so, where? Near McCullough Bridge at the Pierce fill. Why? Protected - can be desinated for sport - lets'Charleston be primarily commercial - Does not disturb clam beds - requires no dredging or very little for depth. Docks at Charlston will require drddging for large boats. If so, where? Eastside or somewhere up channel from North Bend bridge. Why? Would be handier for many Bay users. No 2 N A SB URGI:%(%@kC OM F ANY INS'URANCE June 20i 1978 U. S. Army Corps of-Engineers Portland District P. O.Box 2946- Portland, OR 97208 Re: Coos Bay L,'-%-pansion Proje@tt Public Notice 071-07A4-02922 Gentlemen: It has been brought-to our attention by our Port A&Linistrator that the Port may.expect sa-ne opposition to the proposed boat basin expansion and dredging pr03ject. Any opposition would be particularly bothersane frcm our standpoint; especially as our fishing fleet is now beginning to develop and.grow into a stable and-responsible econcadc factor in our ty - We are marine insurance brokers and risk managers. It is our business to place insurance for our local fishermen. The marine insurance business is volatile and dependent upon a certain w.-Iouht of stability in the comfor-t in moorage and availability of fish market/processors. An unsafe and overcrowded harbor is not attractive to processors and cannot offer comfort in moorage and marine insurance markets are definitely affected by such a situation. During the first half of 1978, we have seen insurance claims doubled in the area of grounding. Vessels are@aground at their moorings on occasion and are having problems with our ship channel to the basin. Und-exwriters will expect to pay over $75,000 in grounding claims.out of our office alone .during the year of 1978. Possibly the actual amount paid will be more by the end of the year. Insurance claim and 'difficulty in procuring marine insurance for our larger vessels will havea terrible effect on our fisheries growth. The average vessel value and new construction costs',have,soared in the past .3 years especially. our agency has seen a marine insurance growth of 50% in the past 2 years alone. This is a very strong indicator ofthe direction our Coos Bay fleet is heading. FOURTH & GOLDEN; MAIL TO: P. 0. BOX 720, COOS BAY, OREGON 97@10; TELEPHONE: 267-3165 u. s. Army Corps of Engineers June 20, 1978 Page 2. The fisheries resources directly offshore Coos Bay are currently being fished by domestic and foreign fleets. The foreign fleet is the greater. A great,amount of resource is leaving the area aboard foreign processor ships, a resource that could be utilized to a greater extent locally. However, processors and money lenders for development need a progressive and expanding Port facility responsive to their needs. Any decision to invest dollars so urgently needed and cooperation among marine insurers will be colored.greatly by port expansion or no port expansion. It is our agency opinion that the creativity and foresight shcFqn by our local fishermeni' busine's--uen and other related economic development in our Port should weigh heavily in the decision for construction of an expanded port facility. The comfort of a well-dredged, well-protected moorage is of utmost concern for us as marine insurers of an expanding fishing fleet. We since-rely pray our comments will be considered in this matter and a positive decision will be made on behalf of the port expansion project in question. Sincerely yours, NASB -and CMCLI%l David E. ver@@tock, Marine Broker C. Andrew Nasburg, CPCU DEIVds cc: Mr. Steve Felkins Administrator, Port of Coos Bay Department of Land Conservation and Development 1175 COURT STREET N.E., SALEM, OREGON 97310 PHONE (503) 378-4926 Ma rch 26, 1979 0, 00 oM 0 M E., 0 <- z< Ms..-Sandra Diedrich, Director C-1 go lo Coos-Curry Council of Governments rn '0 Coos County Annex r North Bend, OR 97459 Dear Sandy, I-understand the recent agency meetling-on Charleston Boat Basfn exception was,well attended and that good discussion occurred. Reportsfrom my staff suggest that one key issue needs to be addressed b this Department. y That is, does the exception need to be justified through a moorage element for the whole Coos Bay Estuary:, or can.the exception cover a limited area of the.bay? Ideally, the exception should be part of a plan for the Estuary. However, it is the Department's opinion that it would be possible to adopt an exception short of completing a estuary plan or a mooraqe element. To do this the exception should include specific findings explaining why it is appropriate to limit the exception to an area of the bay rather than the entire Estuary. The second key test is to carefully consider a range of alternative sites and means within theidentified area. We encourage you to explicitly address these issues as you prepare the exception. We are also copying -this letter to interested agencies. We expect them to comment on both issues when they review draft exceptions materials in early April. .If you need any additional assistance in preparing the exception, contact Glen Hale or Bob Cortright. Cordially, W.`J. Kvarsten @Dtrector WJK:RC:cf cc: Pat...,Amade.o Senator Jack Ripper Chuck Walters Jack Donaldson Kathi Larson Glen Hale Gl,en Carter Steve Felkins- Stan Hamilton April 29, 1979 Charleston, Ore. Ms. S@andra Dietrich, Director Cobs Curry Council o_f Govto Coos County Annex North Bend, Oreg. Subject: Coastal Acres Exemption Process. Dear Ms. Dietrich: By almost general agreement the Coastal Acres expansion of the boat basin is only a te,-porary band-aid solution toa small por- the tion of the problem, The much larZer problem of CoT)ing'.with/ap- parent burgeoning trend of off-shore fishing is untouched. The tonnage and size of the boats-being used is rapidly increasing and projections indicate that this trend will continue., It is also a $1,200,00 band aid. The nature of the fisheries is also goin,-, through a flux. Salmon 0 fishing appears to be on the wane, and the fishing effort appears to be concentrating on shrimp, bl-ack cod, and bottom trawling. Tuna fishing remains in its own unique but respectable position. In additi-on to the above, the whiting (hake) fishery, which is far from idle speculation, would begin to change-the predominatly private ownership picture prevalent in American fisheries to a corporate effort. It would also require increasing the size and tonnage of vessels en-a-ed in this fishery far above.the present le.vel, This.is the Port's problem. @,J`hy are they wasting the pod offices . ...... ... -2- o 'cCCOG in an effort to --rain an exempt-ion 'or Coas' f L I tal @-r-s. This expansion.so-lves nothing except to provide additional -moora-^,,e for a fevtm'ore boat s--Zenerally those. of existing 'size CD and at what cost. By insistinm on the band aid the Port i's also doing somethin@-.. else that is not too apparent in their presentation: 1. If the exemption is granted and the proposed dock is put in place, it will change the whole image of Charleston in' fact as well as intent. The Charleston area with its broad spec- trum of residential uses, businesses, and tourist attractions will be forced into becoming the hub of large scale fish proc- essinv for a corporate few. This is not a tourist attraction. It would also not be very attractive to the residents who would have to-put up with it for twelve months out of the year. Think @about it. 2. Imagine if you will, from the brid1ge to the- Co-op break- water, solid fishplant. The Port is not going to long refrain from filling behind its sou-ht for docks when there is such an obvious need for more parking even now. Processing plants would be even more productive in the Port's eyes. Chuck's Seafood, '(or Sinclair oris it Carter Oil) is the forerunner.' boat There certainly won't be room for sport/launching or moor- age facilities. This@-was the Port's intent approx. 15 years ago when they isisued approx. $1,.000-,,000 in bonds and create-d the inner "'basin. ..Thlis:wa's int-ended soley for sport boats at that time. This is an indication of how rapidly plans and future projections ,or err, .can change,., The Port has already made its:initial effort to drive out-the Oregon Institute of Marine Biology as you are, well aware. All this adds up to an indication of the Port's lona term intent. With reference to Step #1, the excepti on for Coastal Acres, although they state that they have no money of their own; they are willing to spend $1,200,000 of taxpayerts money for a solution that solves nothing. It is no wonder that the .taxpayers turned down.the Port's.request for $10,000,000 for them to spend at their discretion on North Spit. Even at the present time, right now, there are no plans for the moorage of boats at North Spit. For some unknown reason they want to cram them all into Charleston. Are commercial fishino- boats so unde- C.1 sirable that. they must be Quarantined'in Charleston! I think not. 3. Pause and consider the physical size of-South Slough Ato the entrance. Consider the level land in the surrounding area. On both counts they are very limited. South Slough is only a small portion of the Coos Bay Estuary and we are dealing with the Coos Bay Port Commission. Is their imagination so limited that when you talk about commercial boat moorage that Charleston is the only possiblel reasonable, rational, or acceptable loca- tion? It would seem so. Once again. Why is the Port wasting the time of the CCCOG and its apparently sincere Task Force? The Port is passing the buck to you. It should face up to its own problems instead of wasting your,staff, efforts, and money promoting band aids. Especially diamond studded band aids like this one. Charleston needs some open spaces-so it isn't turned into a ahetto of industrial fish handling and processing. ';ie have C-3 abused our estuaries enough without turning South Slough into a dumpino- o-round. It is by hearsay, the last portion of Coos B.ay that is qualified as an,oyster raising area and even now these.are threatened by high coeliform bacteria counts. I am a fisherman. I am in support of adequate moorage for the fishing fleet but not for all of it in South Slough. In conclusion, I obviously view the Coastal Acres exception with disfavor. My reasoning and my projections may be faulty but my sincerety is not. I have resided in Charleston for approx. twenty years and have seen many 'chan;@--es and have accepted them. There comes a point, however, when one has to stand up and be counted.. I feel that this is one of those times. So this letter won't be entirely ne-ative to your project of . IZ2 supplying reasonable additional moorage.in a relative short per- iod of time; one of your staff force members-suggested a line of piles, reenforced by ne,c.es,sary dolphins, to run south along the channels edge for whatever lenc-th. This would start at the ice-plant and/or buying station at the end of the south break-' water*of the present boat basin. This would provide 'an excellent transient dock,-for a number of boats, The Basin ne;.eds such a facility. It would be.a reasonable one from the point of view of cost , and it would require ve@ry'llittle, if any, dred@_7in.a- or spoil,dis.posal. This is obviously in its favor. Re-' All-Coast Fisherman's Marketing Association, Inc. P. O. BOX 5382 - CHARLESTON, OREGON 97420 TELEPHONE (503) 888-5215 May 22, 1979 Ms. Sandra Dietrich, Director C.C.C.O.G. Coos County Annex North Bend, OR 97459 Dear Sandra: After reading Mr. Sutherland's letter, it seems clear to me that Bill's concerns are due to lack of information, which quite likely may be our fault. With a salmon vessel moritoriom in the works and a shrimp vessel moritorium on the drawing boards, it seems unlikely that we will see continued expansion in the fleet of the magnitude experienced in the last decade in Charleston. Certainly, the expected 100' plus Hake (Whiting) vessles will not be able to utilize the Charleston Boat Basin be- cause of their size and draft. Charleston is indeed a broad spectrum use area, but its primary economic base is Commercial Fishing and has been for years. Tourism may have been a close second in the past, but with the fuel crisis doing again what it did to tourism in 1973, I doubt that Charleston residents can afford to wait for a return to substantial tourist income. Zoning and land use planning provides that there will not be wall to wall fish plants. Exhaustive public hearings on alternate moorage sites has pretty weel established Coastal Acres as the most viable location. Coliform counts reportedly high in the moorage area have had no:evident impact on the State's continued.allowing.of clam digging,,-in Coastal'Acres so we can only presume that the fect public health. level is not high,enough to eff In closing, I applaud Biil Sutherland's courage in standing up for what he.,:believes. Again, I feel that his absence from the area during the e_,@haustive public hearings is partly responsible for his concerns, and I encourage you to be as responsive as possible to "his queries. Thanks for your time@. Vbry truly yours, Bob.-Hudson Gen. Mgr. A.C.F.M.A. ccs Mr. Bill Sutherland WORLD.S LEADING FOREST PRODUCTS PORT '503) 269-1131 TELEPHONE POST OFFICE BOX 1226 COOS BAY, OREGON 97420 April 30, 1979 Mrs. Sandy Diedrich Coos-Curry Council of Gov'ts P.O. Box.647 North Bend, Oregon 97459 C.00S OIF Go@' Re: North Spit Clam Beds 1z Dear Sandy: Saturday and Sunday (April 28th &29th) were exceptionally good clam tides, being minus and also at convenient morning times. I was on the North Spit Sunday morning and talked to the State Police officer who was assigned to moniter the Spit for possible game violations. I asked his estimate of how many persons had come out the new Port road for the purpose of clam digging. His estimate was 1,000 persons each day. @Yours truly, Steve elkins Port ministraLtor SF/ea cc; All Commissioners 1-19 ROBERT YOUNKER, President CHET LAPP, Secretary ea", DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PORTLAND DISTRICT CORPS OF ENGINEERS P. O. BOX 2946 PORTLAND, OREGON 97208 NPPDN-RF-1 17 MAY 1979 Port of Coos Bay P. O. Box 1226 Coos Bay, Oregon 97420 RE: 0710YA-2-002922 Gentlemen: Inclosed is a copy of correspondence received in response to public notice 071-0YA-2-002922 to advise you of objections or questions concerning your permit application. As applicant, you should determine the proper approach for satisfying reaction to your proposed project. Possible methods may include: 1) clarify the elements of a misconception; 2) agreeing to observe appropriate coorective or preventive conditions; 3) redesign of contemplated work; 4) submission to this office of a covering agreement of approval from the objector; or 5) supplying the inquiring party with the information requested. Other methods, of course, may occur to you. ( ) Since the objection or question is from a Federal, State of local governmental or quasi-governmental agency, we ask that you reply directly to that agency unless a rebuttal to this office is indicated. (x) Since private individuals or groups are concerned, you may wish to reply directly to them to foster improved public relations. If you prefer, you may respond directly to this office with appropriate views, facts, or rebuttal. Please understand that you have the right to rebut any objections. How- ever, some agencies require their own permit, lease or other authoriza- tion; this should be considered, if appropriate to your case. Copies of all replies and of any final disposition of each problem should be fur- nished to us so that your solution can be fully evaluated before a final decision is made on your application. Sincerely, ltr dtd 14 May 79 Incl O.D. Dunn G. A. NEWGARD Chief, Regulatory Functions Branch ltr dtd 14 May 79 H.T. Ryler NPPFL IOID (Rev) APR 78 729 e. Fourth St. Coos Bay, OR. 97420 May 14, 1979 Portland District Corps of Engineers Natural Resources Section p. o. box 2946 Portland, OR 97203 Gentlemen I am asking for an Environmental impact study on the Port of Coos Bay removal Application #2867, which would expand the Charleston Boat Basin. Some of the reasons for your consideration include the f ollowing: 1. would cause more pollution. 2. 200 more boats would cause too much congestion, when congestion is already a problem. 3. An easily accessible clam digging area now used by many people 4. A larger boat basin would lead to more cars which have to travel an already crowded highway (Coos Bay to Charleston), and across the Charleston Bridge-- a bridge which is very inadequate. An area extensively used by the U. Of 0. Institute of Marine biology. 6. There are other available boat basin sites. I urge you to give the above matter your careful con- sideration and attention. Very sincerely, o. d.dunn 14 13a 21 -29 xPa `@'67 W, e. Q- CL-r-A,_ MAY 1 1979 Ry REG -ropy f 6,.C I UN 'Poo "Poo 02 2 100?A UcV Ali" ;e@ -;V4 , /I to. )-"-a o7a tz?olz@@ Poc 1-24 NA @lj 113 V- t\ IN NA 'IN IT (kz@, tN 10 1,0 IW Y7 @/ -c-2 44 4L@ -;P-w H-1 14o 4- -7 klm 47 46 V A IL 4J i2@ i.... @X f "i 4@ N, A!A 4.4: -Elf 41 -jW In @7 tA A@ ql e "Wa e `,,Jte J@ '10" t F4, N 4. CLAMMING Is a great way to spend a holiday -weekend In the Bay Area, Photo by Dennis Cameron Mr. Steve Felkins November 15, 1978 Page 2. ORS, 541.625(l) of the Pjemoval/Fill Law states: .*The Director of the Division of State'Lands shall issue a permit to remove material from the beds orbanks of any waters of this state..app-lied for under ORS 541.620 if he determines that the removal described in the application will not be inconsistent with the protection, conservation and best use of the water resources of this state as specified in ORS-541.610." The term "water resources" is defined by statute.to includet "Not only water itself but a'Iso aquatic and habitat therein and all other-natural resources in and under the waters of this state." In view of the significant clam population and public clam fishery at the proposed expansion site it is our finding that the proposed project is-inconsistent with the protection, conservation, and best use of the water resources of this state. Removal Permit Application No. 2867 is denied. ORS 541.625(4) provides that any applicant whose application for a pei;mit has been denied may request a hearing from the Director of the Division of State Lands within ten (10) days of the denial of the permit or the imposition of any condition. The Director will set the matter down for hearing, which shall be conducted as a contested case in,accordance with ORS 183.415 to 183.470. You may be represented by counsel,at the hearing.. - Please do,not hesitate to contact us if you have questions concerning this denial or appeal procedures. Sincerely, William S. Cox Director WSC:kp@, cc,.@ Oregon Dept. of Fish & Wildlife Water Resources:Departrnent .'@National marine Fisheries Service U..S. Fish '& Wildlife Service Soil & Water Conservation Co=ission Environmental Protection Agency U.S. Army Corps of.,Engineers Departntent @of Envir6ranental Qua`lity 1-29 Mr. Steve Felkins November 15, 1978 Page 2. ORS 541.625(l) of the Removal/Pill Law states: ."The Director of the Division of State Lands shall issue a permit to remove material from the beds or banks of any waters of this state applied for under ORS 541.620 if he determines that the removal described in the application will not be inconsistent with the protection, conservation and best use of the water resources of this state as specified in ORS-541.610." The term "water resources" is defined by statute to include: "blot only water itself but also aquatic llife and habita+- therein and all other natural resources in and under the waters of this state." In view-of the significant clam population and public clam fishery at the proposed expansion site it is our finding that the proposed project is inconsistent with the protection, conservation, and best use of the water resources of this state. Removal Permit Application No. 2867 is denied. ORS 541.625(4) provides that any applicant whose application for a permit has been denied may request a hearing from the Director of the Division of State Lands within ten (10) days of the denial of the permit or the imposition of any condition. The Director will set the matter down for hearing, which shall be conducted as a contested case in accordance with ORS 183.415 to 183.470. You may be represented by counsel at the hearing. - Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have questions concerning this denial or appeal procedures. Sincerely, William S. Cox Director WSC:kp cc: oregon Dept. of Fish & Wildlife. Water Resources Department National Marine Fisheries service U.S. Fish & wildlife service Soil & Water Conservation Co,--nission Environmental Protection Agency U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Department of Environmental Quality 1-29 r-- ws OF FRAXC.)-@CO BOAT I N EA P, FJ-51lrM19A1 -5 W H,'@ NOTE FIoA-rJN6 -.SR r-A AWA -,r,5 r a @l 4 @7- 77--, lw at '77-71 ij `75 @7 1-30 -S,4,Y C i5CO A N 5 A R -FI,5 MANS WHART:-, k1l A D SO 0- F %T @ JI, A clams vs. boats a tough one by RICK hILLMAN homes of long time Charleston Leonard Hall about the plan. one suggested that a residents. His home is near the tidal flats. Environmental Impact Summertime traffic jams, A 1971 state study assessed i'm not an ecologist, but I've ment would be appropriat bigger parking lots. overpro- the site as the fifth best clam been here since 1940 I live on PORT SEEKS. HEARIN duced clam beds, pollution of bed in the Bay Area. which the the beach and I'd hate to see it The Port of. Coos B the South Slough Sanctuary, State Land Board pointed to ruined.- Hall adds.* seeking. a new hearing o beach erosion, and not enough when they denied the dredging Cordell Berge, Trawler res-, moorage space for an expanded permit. taurant spokesman charged fishing fleet are some of the state and federal fishery issues surrounding the Port of related agencies recommended more beach erosion and the Coos Bay's plans for expanding the denial of the permit because shoreline would be threatened the Charleston Small Boat they feared negative impacts on by dredging. The tidal flats are Basin. not 'only the clam bed but the vital to the scenic view from the Recently the State Lands small fish who are a significant picture windows of tile res- Board turned down the Port's componcnt of the ocean food taurant. request for a dredging permit chain. Another affected land owner, which would allow 200 to 250 The state agency said title Eugene architect B. King new boat slips to be added to the dredging and moorage would Martin. wrote the decision , overcrowded. Fishery facilities. reduce the number of claims makers, "I am also looking for The problem for the land available for public harvest,, moorage for my boat, but I feel board was an easily accessible wipe out intertidal inverte- there are better suited site brates, reduce feed clam bed that fills a triangle for birds opportunities than the proposed shaped tidal flat between the and fish and increase pollution with far less devastation to present basin and Hallmark to bottom sediments. marine life and recreation." Fisheries. Nearby are the "They'd have a parking lot in Other critics were concerned Trawler restaurant and the front of my house," says about the dredging spoils and -79 Th'e pubk f9rum ----- ---- - - - exact thing the narrow-minded people of DSL, refused the port's permit to Slough Sanctuary. are trying to do to our public library. expand the boat basin in an area -Traffic at the boat basin is reach. Ms. Caryl Coley known as Coastal Acres. The port had ing the point of congestion at times; Coos Bay a chance to buy this land at one time 200 more boats would greatly add to for $40,000 but turned it down, saying this problem. Th@s is not the only place the price was too high. on the bay to build a boat basin. Here are some of the reasons why I I can testify to the quality of clam Why state Oak the state ruled correctly in digging in Coastal Acres, as I have dug refusing the permit- my limit there several times this last said no -The area does comprise a very fall - clams are in better shape in the important clam beed with a number of fall of the year. "Ripper enters fight," so says front different kinds of clams. When Senator Ripper says, "The page news in The World Jan..11. The -It-is an area very accessible to the conflict between DSL and local article says Sen. Jack Ripper has public. government has gotten completely out called upon the Oregon Division of -The marine biology school uses of hand," I don't understand just what State Lands (DSL) to approve plans to this area as a laboratory to -study he is trying to tell us. If the Division of build an expanded boat basin at marine life because the students can State Land decision didn't suit Nlr. Charleston. walk to the site. Ripper, I wouldn't say the "conflict" Sounds simple, but I question if the -Boats pollute the water, as every- is out of hand. senator has gone to any depth to study one knows, and on incoming tides the Lorance Eickworth the reasons why William Cox, director pollution would drift into the South Coos Bay 7 5@ The w%u.bi *A visitor gives view As a recent, much impressed visitor to the Oregon coast, I would like to com-' ment on the extension of the parking lot adjacent to the Charleston Small Boat Basin. Prior to this trip, I had never been west of New York state, and was immediately struck by the abundance of natural beauty that extended beyond the unde- veloped regions, into the residential and b@siness areas. I live in a rural area of New York, but have seen the expense entailed in reclaiming areas of city and countryside which were gouged earlier, without thought to heritage or aesthetics -20-20hindsicrht is usuallN impecca ble. To deprive the shore residents of their view, beach, and clam flats insults the very colonization thathe IDed the basin to grow, not to mention the damage done to their property values. If Charleston ever has to depend on a tourist economy, the local government has begun to cut its own throat in paving these clam flats and flowered shore yards. You have so much room, so much opportunity, no( to make the same mistakes as the'East did - -eTiiinent domain" should never be eminent, thoughtless tyranny. Susan Halpin Williams Caledonia, N.Y. 4 clam bed's defenders cite multiple resource by RICK HILLMAN and Wildlife biologist in New- ."It is one of the more of the tidal lands in the bay, dr important clam beds in the Larry Youmans, spokesman Port, Is responsible for the study r. _0M7_gger fi@Fi fo v,,@ 111111ting one ic for the All Coast Fishermen's ranking tile basin clam bed as' area," Gatimer figures. as s8a assn VV points to the aerial"" tile fifth' best clam bed in tile State and federal fisheries favorite C am ( 18.lting 146' photograph of tile proposed Bay Area. ligellcies contributed to the state -siteg---OllC wit easy pti ic location for 1he Charleston An extensive research survey Iiind board's denial of IT Small Boat Basin expansion. He study was made in 1971 %%,here --iicc@@sary dredging permit. --The basin plan calls for -10)j laughs, "It's the richest clam clam diggers were asked about About the denial of the Port's drcdging up to a third of' tile bed in tile world." the productive beds. reuest. "I call understand that clain-rich mud at the deeper end t0i f Coos Bay. Like the Port 0 BEST BEDS they are upset," says Bill of' tile tidal flats. The clanis Youmans would like to see For those keeping score. the Mullarkey, biologist for Oregon would presuniably return one expansion of the boat basin to. most productive clam beds ",ere State Fish and Wildlif"e in Coos day. but they ' Nvould be in t4i listed by Gaunier. In order of Bay. deeper water. Clam diggers b allow between 200 and 250 new slips for large fishing boats as production, they are: "Tlieyi:re doing their job- 11' ' als and shovels %vould b well as some recreational' Craft. North Spit, Pigeon Point which providing basil] have , harder time getting to t8j But the problem is 'that rich Charleston Flats, Mcnaslia e-but ours is rotecting a the deeper beds at low tides. spa' p b cla bed. Dike, Charleston Boat Basin. ic resource. I don't believe DREDGE PROBLEM 086 While it may not be the 'Barview, South Slough, Empire 6@Pwueblcan afford the trade off Mullat-key is concerned the 49 richest in the world, it neverthe- Flats and North Bend. Ten clairt he@re. if -- si Itcs were rate %v @I6w@@.pi ii-ie -slila-O2F less is a big issue. 6&,.'.)'ut of 30 tidal. MUllarkey is worried the fish tilai are all important part or- Tom GAurfier. Oregon Fish 6Mijs in thebay too much -tile lood,chain for more commer-_ t cia I fish. S Othcr-b:1olog_i@.!s_j)80ieve tile. b cifedging will chaii8e th2ellow of 1) 8P n _ZOUT(l upset (ielicac(T alancc 6Yncf risk [lie future prodUCtIVIty c the changes in (lie 6p flow and sediment caused by the b The public forum forum, The Port of Coos Bav should be looking Bull-dozing it through to other areas instead of trying to cram into Charleston the mish-mash that it talks about. Drive through the Charleston Boat Basin and observe the It was an interesting experience to "charm" and "orderliness" of its ac- observe the tactics of the Coos-curry tivities under the Port's guidance. This d at the present level of fish landings. Council of Governments when it move in and took over the Charleston-Barview If the enlargement should proceed as Neighborhood Group last Sunday planned, the citizens of Charleston can evening. The result was an endorsement we'll forget the Charleston they have for the Coos Bay Port Commission to known.' it's mixture of commercial expand the Charleston Boat Basin into fishing activity, tourist influx for sport the "Coastal Acres" area. Orchestrated fishing, recreational opportunities, 'and by Mrs. Sandra Dietrich, and backed by mixed residential and commercial uses a one time claque of supporters, they will be gone.There justwon't be room for bull dozed the endersement through with then they will recieve in exchange in very little meaningful -discussion of the high concentration, all the delights of problems involved. corporate industrialized fishing and If this is an example of the Task Force's approach to investigate the processi This rt of activity is proposed expansion, let's forget it. It too usually relegated to a remote or isolated clearly bears the mark of the Coos Bay area for obvious reasons, but then that may be- the way the Port commission Port Commission's usual heavy-handed, regards Charleston. arbitrary, do-it-our-way-or-else ap- proach to most of its problems. There is The CCCOG "Task Force" is well no reason to turn the rather limited named. The long itemized program resources of Charleston into a ghetto of reads very much like a military battle fish related expansion. It is an excellent plan. The Charleston-Barview Neigh- small boat basin, but it just isn't suited borhood Group was the first out-cog over for the expansions contemplated, or the run. No casualties fortunately, but I am type of corporate fishing that is ap- afraid that Charleston will be the parently in the offing. The proposed ultimate victim. expansion is a band-aid solution to a very Leonard N. Hall serious problem. ---Wow The pubk lor'ur ltla't is because of the overcrowded parking space.We have asked the county to provide-other@ launch@ing ramps for Trogress'T -recreational boaters." We can have economic development and also kee@ Progress apparently has a different what nature has given us if we just worktothatend. meaning to different people. I have been attacked for stopping progress. The port admits parking gets Now just what is progress? Is it overcrowded even now, and yet leases bulldozing out orange groves and covering fertile farmland with land to the Charter Oil Co., an outside asphalt? Is it bulldozing out fruit based company, to build a fish plant on orchards, as has been done around prime port property (our property, Eugene, and here again covering rich yours and mine). and to add to the farmland with asphalt and houses? Is congestion, the -port wants to add it dredging out lucrative clam beds, or moorage for another 150 to 200 boats. covering clam beds, that makes And we must not forget, the U.S. Coast ,progress? I can't agree to that which Guard is presently negotiating with the port for more land to increase their has been done, or that which is facilities. proposed for the future, is in the best M interest of "progress." I read in the paper the other day C.ertainly I think we need more boat where the Oregon Department of moorage on Coos Bay, but we don't' Economic Development wants to shift have to upset the ecology to get it. some of the activities from Portland, sarily means. to me that dredging There are too many good reasons W@y Eugene, and Medford because it is could destroy (and I maintain it does we should not "bulldoze" out one of getting too crowded. My question is, do destroy in this case) the resource, and nature's gifts and add congestion to we want a crowded area here, too? less accessible means if vou want to the Charleston boat basin. What's the advantage? Remember, dig clams you wi!l have- to wear a you're giving up. somethinLy if you are diving suit. _,ftuld like to quote from the Bay going to get something. I hope the er on Dec. *20, 1978 @vhen Bob young people won't be looking back 20, Clams, however, are not the only reason that 1, and a lot of other people W. Younker, president of the Port 30 or 40 years from now and saying, are concerned about the dre'dging Commission, said: "The surninertime "Boy we had it good around Coos Bay permit. Another concern, and -one traffic gets especially heavy during before it became so crowded." which should be monitored closely, is the holidays. Time may come when we Lorance Eickworth the quality of water in the South will have to close the launching ramp Coos Bay Slough system. As mentioned before, more boats in this area means more -pollution. The water is already con. taminated above the state standard pollution guideline. We have another problem, and that is congestion. Look- What about ing ahead in the years to come, can we afford to increase the size of the present boat moorage without increas- South Slough? ing the land to accommodate the traffic? Actually. there is very little If the Port of Coos Bay is going to level land around the basin. spend $1.2 million for the pier project The time is at hand to look for a new in Charleston, I would strongly location, and instead of putting out suggest this money be spent in an area $125,000 for Coastal Acres which is large enough to take care of future owned by Rep. Bill Grannell and asso- needs and accommodate all types of claies, I strongly suggest this money boats. With the shallow draft channel be used for a boat basin in another leading into the boat basin, and with area. Mr. C. Wylie Smith of the Coos larger boats coming, so the prediction Head Timber Co. owns the old pulp is, it is questionable if enlarging the mill site. and also' adjacent land, basin is the answer to the problem which is all available for purchase. with all the conflicting side effects. Mr. Julius Swanson owns land from 1. Certainly the area in Charleston is too the Empire dock south to the sewer small and the damaging effects too plant. He, too, will sell. Combined great to allow a seven-acre dredge there is about 11,22 miles of deep water permit in this location. frontage. I think it is time we look around a I cannot agree with George Gant, little more before crowding any more port attorney, when he says "dredging big projects in Charleston where space does not necessarily destroy the is already at a premium. resource (although) it does make it less Lorance Eickworth accessible io the people..." Not neces. J -36 MeMSER STATES EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ALASKA JOHN P. HARVILLE CALIFORNIA TREASURER IDAHO -PACIFIC MARINE FISHERIES COMMISSION G. L. FisHtpt 528 S.W. MILL STREET PORTLAND, OREGON 97201 PHONE (503) 229-5840 7j,7 4' .1 7- June 8, 1978 cll@ 1979 C=s Ms. Sandra Diedrich PZ ca"ERN, @E!'Ils Director' Coos-Curry Council of Governments P. 0. Box 647 North Bend, Oregon 97459 Dear Ms. Diedrich: ,At their October 1978 annual meeting, the five Pacific States which are members of the Pacific Marine Fisheries Commission unanimously approved a Resolution calling for coordinated planning and development of fishing harbor facilities along the Pacific coast. Attached is a copy of that Resolution. I believe the "whereas" sections comment effectively upon the crucial importance of improving these facilities, perhaps best summarized in the final statement: "WHEREAS, the construction of modern fishing port facilities within the coastal zone is necessary,@and must be coordinated to consider present and future regional berthing needs, present and future fish unloading needs, present and future regional on-shore support needs, and present and future regional fish processi-ng needswhile minimizing adverse environmental impacts, in order that the United States be able to fully utilize its fishery resources;" Because of the immediate interest of the Coos-Currv Council of Governments in port and harbor development in Coos Bay,' I request that this letter and attached Resolution be incorporated into the record of the Council's proceedings on this matter. Also I would appreciate it if my office might be placed on your mailing list for any technical reports developed by staff or steering committee's concerning plan.,, for harbor development in the Coos-Curry area. On the basis of those materials, we may wish to in support of the principles addressed in our Res lution. comment further 0 Pemit me to offer these general comments concerning the need for improved harbor facilities alon.g the Pacific Coast. Wdl"l before-passage of the Fishing' Conservation and Management Act of 1976, (the "200-mile bill".), the Pacific Coast generally faced a shortage of harbor and docking facilities of all kinds. Long walting-lists for berthing facilities have been the rule in most of our coastal harbors. Docking and shoreside support facilities have been generally inadequate for even small and medium-sized vessels, and grossly inadequate for modern larger fishing' vessels. C_@ U CWSC 1-37 -2- With establishment of U.S. jurisdiction.over:fisheries out to 200 miles from shore, this nation achieved preferential access to some 20110 of the world's fishery resources; yet at the present time, the United States is harvesting only about 4% of the world's catch. According to a Presidential policy paper released by the White House May 23, 1979, these figures suggest we should be able to triple our present fisheries harvest, and it is this goal which national. planners are using in setting forth new policies and programs for U.S. fisheries -development. Clea@rly any such quantum increase in commercial fishing activity will require major -improvements in both quantity and kind of shoreside support services for our fishing fleets. However, it is not possible at this time to quantify accurately how much, what kind, and where these augmented services must be provided. It is clear that significant development of presently under-utilized resources, (e.g., hake or Pacific Whi-ting) will require major changes in both at-sea and shoreside technology and support services. Certainly the trend will be toward larger vessels and more sophisticated fast-turnaround shoreside receiving and servicing facilities. these considerations underscore the need to move as promptly as practi c*able toward development of shoreside facilities which will enable our fishing fleets to use more fully the resources off our shores, and return the ,reby significant benefits in dollars, jobs, and economic growth for our coastal communities and for the'country as a whole. However, effective achievement of long term goals certainly will require systems-level planning which considers not only our direct needs for harbor improvements, docks, berths, and other moorages, and ancillary shoreside services; but also the transportation and community services infrastructure required to maintain those port and harbor facilities. 1 think it also important to underscore a condition inserted in the final "whereas" of PMFC's 1978 Resolution. That Resolution urges fishing port development and improvement..."while minimizing adverse environmental impacts"...The wording was carefully chosen; our States are deeply concerned about environmental impacts, but recognize that every action involves tradeoffs of benefits and costs. Clearly the Resolution calls for careful assessment of env 'ironmental costs, and for planning to minimize any negative impact. Please do not hesitate to call my office if,..J can provide further information. I will look forward to further`@details concerning plans for port development in,your area. Yours sincerely, aohn P. Harville Executive Director JPH:pc Attachment: Pacific Marine Fisheries Commission Resolution No. 5 Coordinated Planning of Fishing Harbor Development in The Coastal Zone 1-38 PACIFIC MARINL FISHERIES COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5- co6RDINATED PLANNING OF FISHING HARBOR DEVELOPMENT IN THE COASTAL ZCNE WHEREAS, Congress passed the-Coastal Zone Management Act of,1972 to facilitate the protection of coastal resources and the orderly development of coastal areas; and WHEREAS, many coastal States also passed legislation to protect coastal resources and provide for the orderly development of coastal areas including the States of California, Oregon and Washington, which have federally approved coastal programs; and WHEREAS, the federal agency responsible for coastal zone management is the Office of Coastal Zone Management in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration under the Department of Commerce; and WHEREAS, the federal agency responsible for fisheries development is the National Marine Fisheries Service in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration under.the Department of Commerce; and WHEREAS, there exists.a critical shortage of modern berthing, unloading, support and processing facilities in-Pacific coastal fishing ports; and WHEREAS, the need for larger berthing facilities, high volume unloading chinery, increased on-shore support facilities and additional processing 4ppabilities will increase as the U.S. fishing fleet begins to harvest many currently underutilized species; and WHEREAS, the lack of modern fishing port facilities will hinder the .growth and size of the U.S. fishing fleet, and hinder U.S. processors' abilities to modernize and expand to compete in the world market; and WHEREAS, present development of facilities i's seldom planned on a regional basi! and is often hindered by local planning and permit processes; and WHEREAS, the construction of modern fishing port facilities within the toastal zone is necessary, and must be coordinated to consider present -and future regional berthing needs, present and future fish unloadinq needs, present and future regional on-shore support -.needs, and-present and future regional fish processing needs while minimizing adverse environmental impacts, in order that the United States be able to fully utilize its fishery resources;, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Pacific Marine Fisheries Commission memorializes 'the Office of Coastal Zone Management and the National Marine Fisheries Servi-ce to support, coordinate and fund the planning by state coastal zone agencies anA state fisheriesagencies for fishing,port development and improvement within the coastal -zone. Adopted at Coeur d'Alene, Idaho October 19, 1978 by unanimous approval of the five Compact States: Alaska, California, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington 1-39 1260 Anderson Coos Bay, Ore..97420 July 81 1979 VIS7@,, % V@, Ms. Sandra Dietrich, Director Coos Curry Council of Gov't. _\0 Coos County Annex (LCJ @@ North Bend, Oregon 97459 Re: Coastal Acres boat basin expansion Ile Dear Ms. Dietrich, 61A I understand, after talking to one of the Task Force members just recently, they have, or most likely will give up on further con- sideration of the Sitka Dock property or the juliu!5 Swanson property in Empire. I still maintain no real effort or study was ever made on either of these properties. When I previously talked about the Swanson property at Empire, one of the objections by some of the Task Force members, was that it was too far away--'Luel was too hard to- get and too expensive. I never did uaderstand this objection.in view of the fact that there will most likely be fish plants on the port'property on the North Spit.* Also I have noticed that the Charter Oil Company, who has a fish processing plant in Charleston, is preparin- to unload boats at Empire aid truck the fish to Charleston. The Swanson property has many advantages and can be purchased for a reasonable price, probably around the $500,CCO figure. As mentioned before, there is approximately 40 acres with some 2700 feet of water frontage. If the Dresent Empire dock was extended south there would be 18 to 20 feet of water at mean low water. This same depth could be on the inside of the dock with a small amount.of dredg- ing, which would be necessary to increase the depth of water and get C) fill material for the.upland. Part of the upland has already-been filled by dredge material. Othere advantages are as-follows:- l.- All utilities are immediately available 2.- Less conjestion on the busy impire-Charleston highway 3.- There is already one fish plant already located close by 4,- The property is now available It would relieve Charleston of further conjestion Herewith attached are some pictures taken off of the Empire dock. The picture looking down the bay shows likely location for a boat basin. Picture to the north shows Eureka Fisheries fish plant. I would like to have this report be made a part.of your record Of the Task Force findings. Sincerely, L e W. Eickworta w tv (7-9 "J 5 tJ-* -:q HS I kl> a cyl OT PV -N Joe 50 7.1 ,IIOAA COA.IAL $ERVICES CTR LIBIRIA Y 3 6668 14111997 3