Project Completion Report Washington State Department of Ecology / Section 306 Coastal Zone Management Grant FY89, Grant Number G0089035 / Columbia River Estuary Study Taskforce (CREST)

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

PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT

Washington Department of Ecology
Section 306 Coastal Zone Management Grant
FY89, Grant Number G0089035

Columbia River Estuary Study Taskforce (CREST)

Grantee Project Coordinator: Mark Barnes

Summary Account

This project includes four principal elements. They are described in the
paragraphs below. Work products for each of the four elements are in Section
3 of this report, and are also referenced in the following paragraphs.

Draft amendments for Wahkiakum, County's Shoreline Management Master
Program were prepared by CREST staff in cooperation with representatives from
Department of Ecology, Department of Fisheries, US Fish and Wildlife Service,
and Wahkiakum County. This corresponds to scope of work Element 1. The
amendments focus on the review of houseboats in Wahkiakum County. The draft
amendments will be considered by the County Planning Commission during FY90.
They are attached as Exhibit 1.

CREST staff represented Washington members' interests before state and
federal agencies during FY89. Five programs were of particular interest to
the region. The Portland District Corps of Engineers is sponsoring a Long
Term Management Strategies Study (LTMS) of the main navigation channel in the
lower estuary. The study is examining dredging and disposal practices that
will affect Washington shorelines in Pacific and Wahkiakum Counties. CREST
staff participated in meetings and discussions on the LTMS project. During
FY89 the Department of Ecology and the Oregon Department of Environmental
Quality considered nominating the Columbia River Estuary for the National
Estuary Program. CREST kept its Washington member's abreast of developments
in the pre-nomination process. Changes in the way federal permit agencies
handle proposals for in-water dredged material disposal were monitored by
CREST staff fin FY89. CREST's Washington members, particularly the Port of
Ilwaco, were kept informed of developments related to sediment testing, and
monitoring of in-water disposal operations. CREST's Washington members have
asked to be informed of developments related to offshore oil, gas and mineral
development. CREST staff participated in review of Washington Sea Grant's
Ocean Resources Assessment Program, and kept CREST's Washington members
abreast of developments in this area. The Northwest Power Planning Council's
System Planning efforts were followed by CREST staff on behalf of CREST's
Washington members. A summary of CREST's involvement in all these programs is
attached as Exhibit 2. This corresponds with scope of work Element 2.

CREST staff provided technical support to its Washington members in the
form of staff reports, environmental assessments, and pre-application assis-
tance. Five staff reports were completed for CREST's Washington members in
FY89. These implement scope of work Element 3. Copies are attached as
Exhibit 3.

CREST acts as a regional forum for local governments in the estuary area.
The CREST Council conducted nine meetings during FY89. Meeting minutes are
attached as Exhibit 4. This implpments scope of work Element 4.

EXHIBIT 1

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE

WAHKIAKUM COUNTY SHORELINE MANAGEMENT MASTER PROGRAM

COLUMBIA RIVER ESTUARY STUDY TASKFORCE

Carol M. Rushmore, Planner
Mark Barnes, Director

The preparation of this report was financially aided through a grant from the
Washington Department of Ecology with funds obtained from the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration, and appropriated for Section 306 of the
Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972.

1. Title: Proposed Amendments to the Wahkiakum County Shoreline Management
Master Program

2. Authors: Carol M. Rushmore, Mark R. Barnes

3. Subject: Regulation of houseboats on the Columbia River Estuary in
Wahkiakum County, Washington

4. Date: 30 June 1989

5. Participants: Columbia River Estuary Study Taskforce
Wahkiakum County

6. Source of Copies: Columbia River Estuary Study Taskforce
750 Commercial Street, Room 214
Astoria, Oregon 97103-4513

7. Project Number: G0089035

8. Series Number: Not applicable

9. Number of Pages: 27

10. Abstract: Controversy about the placement of houseboats in the shorelines
of Wahkiakum County caused the County to consider amending their Shoreline
Management Master Program. This report contains a rationale for the proposed
amendments, background on houseboat placement, and the text of proposed
amendments. The proposed amendments were developed by CREST staff in cooper-
ation with the Department of Ecology, Wahkiakum County, the Department of
Fisheries, Department of Wildlife, and the US Fish and Wildlife Service. The
County Planning Commission will consider the amendments during FY90.

EXHIBIT 2

COLUMBIA RIVER ESTUARY PROGRAM AND POLICY REVIEW

COLUMBIA RIVER ESTUARY STUDY TASKFORCE

Carol M. Rushmore, Planner
Mark Barnes, Director

1. Title: Columbia River Estuary Program and Policy Review

2. Authors: Carol M. Rushmore, Mark R. Barnes

3. Subject: State and federal programs that affect coastal zone management in
the Columbia River Estuary

4. Date: 30 June 1989

5. Participants: Columbia River Estuary Study Taskforce
Pacific County
Wahkiakum County
Port of Ilwaco
Ilwaco
Wahkiakum Port District #2

6. Source of Copies: Columbia River Estuary Study Taskforce
750 Commercial Street, Room 214
Astoria, Oregon 97103-4513

7. Project Number: G0089035

8. Series Number: Not applicable

9. Number of Pages: 23

10. Abstract: CREST reviewed and commented on a number of state and federal
programs affecting shoreline master programs and coordination of estuary
planning efforts. Chief among these are the Corps of Engineers' LTMS Study of
dredging and disposal on the lower Columbia; the National Estuary Program, and
possible nomination of the Columbia River Estuary under that program; offshore
oil, gas and mineral development; and the Northwest Power Planning Council's
system planning program. This report briefly lists the principal meetings for
these programs that CREST staff attended, and includes copies of written
comments developed by CREST wiht respect to these programs.

750 Commercial Street, Room 214 Astoria, Oregon 97103 (503) 325-0435

April 26, 1989

Steve Stevens - PLRE
Portland District
US Army Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 2946
Portland, Oregon 97208

Dear Steve:

Pursuant to our conversation on Tuesday, April 25, enclosed please find
the Dredging and Dredge Material Disposal Standards for Wahkiakum County from
the County's Shoreline Management Master Program.

I have also enclosed use/activity matrices from the Columbia River
Estuary Dredged Material Management Plan and the Plan's revised Dredging and
Dredged Material Disposal Standards. The matrices are useful in comparing
certain permitted dredge and dredged material disposal activities between
counties and environmental designations.

The Columbia River Estuary Dredged Material Management Plan was designed
to be incorporated (during Periodic Review) into local Comprehensive Plans in
Oregon and Shoreline Master Programs in Washington. At this time, only the
Town of Hammond has completed their Periodic Review and adopted the Plan. The
remaining members of CREST should adopt all or part of the Plan during their
Periodic Review.

Although the Plan has not been officially adopted yet by the counties on
the lower Columbia River, I would recommend reviewing the consistency determi-
nation against the local dredging standards still in effect, as well as
against the proposed Plan.

If you have any additional questions or I can be of further assistance,
please do not hesitate to call me.

Very truly yours,

Carol M. Rushmore

Enclosure

CREST MEMBERS - WASHINGTON: Pacific County, Port Dist. No. 2 (WahkiakUm Co.), Port of Ilwaco, Town of Ilwaco
OREGON: Clatsop County. City of Astoria. Town of Hammond, City of Warrenton. Pori of Astoria

750 Commercial Street, Room 214 Astoria. Oregon 97103 (503) 325-0435

February 15, 1989

Joe Joy
Washington Department of Ecology
MS-LH14
Airdustrial Complex, Building 8
Olympia, WA 98504

Dear Mr. Joy,

Attached are the materials I agreed to send you after our telephone
conversation this morning. The document for the computer model has some of my
notes in it, which you should probably ignore. We put the model on a disk to
run on our IBM PC-XT. I can make a copy of that disk if you think it will
help your project.

I would be interested in learning the results of your investigation.
Please call me if I can be of further assistance.

Very truly yours,

Mark Barnes
Planner

Attachments
CREST

CREST MEMBERS - WASHINGTON: Pacific County. Pori Dist. No. 2 (Wahkiakum Co.), Port of Ilwaco, Town of Ilwaco
OREGON: Clatsop County, City of Astoria, Town of Hammond. City of Warrenton, Port of Astoria

750 Commercial Street, Room 214 Astoria, Oregon 97103 (503) 325-0435

November 1, 1988

Carol Carver, Commissioner
Wahkiakum Port District #2
541 W Birnie Slough Road
Cathlamet, WA 98612

Dear Carol:

The states of Oregon and Washington may soon ask the Federal government
to place the Columbia River Estuary in a new planning program known as the
National Estuary Program. The CREST Council has requested that I contact
individual CREST members to explain the program and determine whether or not
you wish to support it.

The National Estuary Program establishes a local, state, federal,
private partnership to develop long-term planning and management strategies
for the estuary. The strategies are oriented toward resolving present or
future problems that typically result from development/preservation con-
flicts. If your jurisdiction has recently been involved in obtaining dredg-
ing or wetland development permits, you are well aware of the current prob-
lems with regulatory programs. The attached question and answer sheet de-
scribes the National Estuary Program more fully.

The states w ish to determine the degree of local support before asking
the Federal government to consider the Columbia for placement in the program.
The CREST Council endorses this program; however, neither the CREST Council
nor I feel that we can speak for the individual jurisdictions on this matter.
I believe that the program will help to resolve some of the nagging permit
and planning issues that we now face and will allow the region to continue on
its path of well-managed use of estuary resources.

Please propose consideration of support for the program at the first
possible regular meeting of your Commission. A sample resolution expressing
support of the program is enclosed. I will gladly attend the meeting to
answer questions. Please call me and let me know how you wish to proceed
with this matter.

Sin rely,

David Fox
Director

Enclosure
CREST

Copy: Steve McClain

CREST MEMBERS - WASHINGTON: Pacific County. Port Dist. No. 2 (Wahkiakum Co.), Port of Ilwaco, Town of Ilwaco
OREGON: Clalsop County, City of Astoria, Town of Hammond. City of Warrenton. Port of Astoria

WAEKIAKUM PORT DISTRICT #2

RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF NOMINATING
THE COLUMBIA RIVER ESTUARY INTO THE NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM

WHEREAS: Wahkiakum Port District #2 is a local government authority with
management jurisdiction on the Columbia River Estuary; and

WHEREAS: The balanced use and conservation of estuary resources is vital to
maintaining the region's fisheries, waterborne commerce, recreation, and
tourist economies; and

WHEREAS: The estuary's commercial,fishing and waterborne shipping industries
are vital to the nation; and

WHEREAS: The National Estuary Program supports ongoing planning and problem
resolution in nationally significant estuaries; and

WHEREAS: The Governors of the states of Oregon and Washington are consider-
ing nominating the Columbia River Estuary as a significant estuary in
the National Estuary Program;

IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED THAT: Wahki.akum Port District #2 has determined that
nomination of the Columbia River Estuary as a nationally significant
estuary is in the region's and nation's interest and supports all
efforts by the states of Oregon and Washington to pursue the nomination.

Date

750 Commercial Street, Room 214 Astoria. Oregon 97103 (503) 325-0435

November 4, 1988

B. Glenn Ledbetter, ORAP Manager
Washington Sea Grant Program, HG-30
University of Washington
3716 Brooklyn Avenue, NE
Seattle, WA 98105-6795

Dear Mr. Ledbetter:

Thank you for the opportunity to review the draft "Offshore Oil and Gas
Countdown on the Washington Coast - A Synthesis of Information". I found the
report to be thorough and well written. I have several comments to offer
that may help improve the final report. The comments are keyed as mandatory
(M), non-mandatory (NM), and stylistic/editorial (SE). Your review checklist
is also enclosed.

SE 1) The writing styles vary among the sections. The entire report
should be edited by one person to correct this.

NM 2) The report is too long for a busy legislator or public official to
read from cover to cover. A shorter "executive summary" should be
produced which emphasizes the key points in the report. This
summary should be 10 to 15 pages long.

NM 3) P.4 - The discussion of Coastal Zone Consistency should be ex-
panded. I suggest adding a separate section to the report sum-
marizing coastal zone consistency and other legal aspects of
offshore oil and gas regulation. This will be important to public
officials.

M 4) P.83 and Figure 3.4-1 - There is a large nesting colony of Caspian
terns on Rice Island in the Columbia. Rick Vetter at the Lewis and
Clark National Wildlife Refuge has indicated that there may be up
to 5,000 nests on the island.

M 5) P.83 - The text states that there are a total of 154 nests in heron
nesting colonies in the Lewis and Clark Refuge. The total number
is greater than 154 as there are approximately 300 nests on the
Karlson Island nesting colony, alone.
CREST

CREST MEMBERS - WASHINGTON: Pacific County, Port Dist No. 2 (Wahkiakum Co.), Port of Ilwaco, Town of Ilwaco
OREGON: Clalsop County, City of Astoria, Town of Hammond, City of Warrenton, Port of Astoria

November 4, 1988
Page 2

M 6) P-83 - Gulls and double-crested cormorants nest in the Lewis and
Clark refuge in addition to the species listed on p.83.

M 7) Figure 3.6-1 - There are more harbor seal haulouts in the Columbia
River than shown on the map.

M 8) Fisheries Section - The fisheries section should state how the
statistics presented in the report handle fish caught in Oregon and
landed in Washington and 'visa-versa.

M 9) P.111-112 - The discussion of commercial gillnet fisheries is in
the recreation and tribal fisheries section. It should be placed
in the commercial fisheries section and expanded upon. In recent
years the gillnet fishery on the lower Columbia River has been
larger than the local salmon troll fishery.

M 10) P.112 - Tribal and Recreational Fisheries Section - The recrea-
tional sturgeon fishery in the lower Columbia has been larger than
the recreational salmon fishery during several recent years (see
ODFW and WDF "Status Report : Columbia River Fish Runs and Fisher-
ies 1960-86").

SE 11) Coastal Economics Section - This section is written in a conversa-
tional style and needs editing to match the remainder of the
report.

SE 12) P.142 - Section 4.2 should be section 5.2.

I hope these comments prove useful in your revision. Please call me if
you have any questions.
S y,*,nc, r ly
David Fox
Director

Enclosure

ORAP SUGGESTED CHECKLIST FOR REVIEWERS

Title ORAP Synthesis Document
Author(s) R. Strickland & D. Chasan, et al.

Special Instructions: Mark your comments using this key: M (Mandatory); N-M
(Non -Mandatory); or S-E (StylisticlEditorial).

Circle
One. 1. Should the report be limited to a specialized audience? If yes,
please suggest groups or individuals for the distribution list.
M
N-M
S-E 2. Is the report complete? If no, please indicate areas of omission.
M see attached comments.
N-M
S-E

3. Does the report contain errors of fact or interpretation? If yes,
M please describe.
N-M see attached commands
S-E

4. Is the report organized in such a way that will respond to reader needs and
interests? yes If no, please suggest appropriate changes.
M
N-M
S-E
5. Is the manuscript too long? Too short? About right
length? if too long, or too short, can you suggest sections that could be
omitted, condensed, or expanded?

M
N-M
S-E 6. Would additional illustrations or tables be helpful? Can you suggest
improvements in the illustrations or tables?
M
N-M
S-E
7. Is the title appropriate? if no, please suggest changes.
M
N-M
S-E
8. Other comments:
M see attached comments
N-M
S-E
9. Would you prefer to remain unknown to the author(s)? no

Signature Date

(If you need additonal space, please use reverse side or additional sheets)
To guarantee consideration of your comments, they must be received by 13 October 1988.

750 Commercial Street, Room 214 Astoria, Oregon 97103 (503) 3?5-0435

November 8, 1988

To: Bob Petersen

From: David Fox f

Subject: Resolution for support of National Estuary Program

Enclosed is a letter and attachments requesting that the Port of Ilwaco
consider supporting the nomination of the Columbia into the National Estuary
Program. I did not send a copy directly to your commission because CREST
does not yet have a delegate representative from the Port. Please call me if
you have any questions.
CREST

CREST MEMBERS - WASHINGTON: Pacific County, Port Dist. No. 2 (Wahkiakum Co.), Port of Ilwaco, Town of Ilwaco
OREGON@ Clalsop County, City of Astoria, Town of Hammond, City of Warrenton, Port of Astoria

750 Commercial Street, Room 214
Astoria, Oregon 97103 (503) 325-0435

November 8, 1988

Bob Petersen
Port of Ilwaco
P.O. Box 307
Ilwaco, WA 98624

Dear Bob:

The National Estuary Program establishes a local, state, federal,
private partnership to develop long-term planning and management strategies
for the estuary. The strategies are oriented toward resolvin present or
9
future problems that typically result from development/preservation con-
flicts. If your jurisdiction has recently been involved in obtaining dredg-
ing or wetland development permits, you are well aware of the current prob-
lems with regulatory programs. The attached question and answer sheet de-
scribes the National Estuary 'Program more fully.

The states wish to determine the degree of local support before asking
the Federal government to consider the Columbia for placement in the program.
The CREST Council endorses this program; however, neither the CREST Council
nor I feel that we can speak for the individual jurisdictions on this matter.
I believe that the program will help to resolve some of the nagging permit
and planning issues that we now face and will allow the region to continue on
its path of well-managed use of estuary resources.

Enclos ure
CREST

CREST MEMBERS - WASHINGTON: Pacific County, Port Dist. No. 2 (Wahkiakum Co.), Port of Ilwaco, Town of Ilwaco
OREGON: Clatsop County, City of Astoria, Town of Hammond, City of Warrenton, Port of Astoria

PORT OF ILWACO

RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF NOMINATING
THE COLUMBIA RIVER ESTUARY INTO THE NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM

WHEREAS: The Port of Ilwaco is a local government authority with management
jurisdiction on the Columbia River Estuary; and

WHEREAS: The balanced use and conservation of estuary resources is vital to
maintaining the region's fisheries, waterborne commerce, recreation, and
tourist economies; and

WHEREAS: The estuary's commercial. fishing and waterborne shipping industries
are vital to the nation; and

WHEREAS: The National Estuary Program supports ongoing planning and problem
resolution in nationally significant estuaries; and

WHEREAS: The Governors of the states of Oregon and Washington are consider-
ing nominating the Columbia River Estuary as a significant estuary in
the National Estuary Program;

IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED THAT: The Port of Ilwaco has determined that nomi-
nation of the Columbia River Estuary as a nationally significant estuary
is in the region's and nation's interest and supports all efforts by the
states of Oregon and Washington to pursue the nomination.

Date

750 Commercial Street, Room 214 Astoria, Oregon 97103 (503) 325-0435

November 8, 1988

Dan'l Markham, Commissioner
P.O. Box 66
South Bend, WA 98586

Dear Mr. Markham:

The National Estuary Program establishes a local, state, federal,
private partnership to develop long-term planning and management strategies
f or the estuary. The strategies are oriented toward resolving present or
future problems that typically result from development/preservation con-
flicts. If your jurisdiction has recently been involved in obtaining dredg-
ing or wetland development permits, you are well aware of the current prob-
lems with regulatory programs. The attached question and answer sheet de-
scribes the National Estuary Program more fully.

The states wish to determine the degree of local support before asking
the Federal government to consider the Columbia for placement in the program.
The CREST Council endorses this program; however, neither the CREST Council
nor I feel that we can speak for the individual jurisdictions on this matter.
I believe that the program will help to resolve some of. the nagging permit
and planning issues that we now face and will allow the region to continue on
its path of well-managed use of estuary resources.

Please propose consideration of support for the program at the first
possible regular meeting of your Commisgion. A sample resolution expressing
support of the program is enclosed. I will gladly attend the meeting to
answer questions. Please call me and let me know how you wish to proceed
with this matter.
W
in r7l
v d
ai @o;@:
Director

Enclosure
CREST

Copy: Mark Carey

CREST MEMBERS - WASHINGTON: Pacific County, Port Dist. No. 2 (Wahkiakum Co.), Port of Ilwaco, Town of Ilwaco
OREGON: Clatsop County, City of Astoria. Town of Hammond, City of Warrenton, Port of Astoria

PACIFIC COUNTY

RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF NOMINATING
THE COLUMBIA RIVER ESTUARY INTO THE NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM

WHEREAS: Pacific County is a local government authority with management
jurisdiction on the Columbia River Estuary; and

WHEREAS: The balanced use and conservation of estuary resources is vital to
maintaining the region's fisheries, waterborne commerce, recreation-, and
tourist economies; and

WHEREAS: The estuary's commercial,fishing and waterborne shipping industries
are vital to the nation; and

WHEREAS: The National Estuary Program supports ongoing planning and problem
resolution in nationally significant estuaries; and

WHEREAS: The Governors of the states of Oregon and Washington are consider-
ing nominating the Columbia River Estuary as a significant estuary in
the National Estuary Program;

IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED THAT: Pacific County has determined that nomination of
the Columbia River Estuary as a nationally significant estuary is in the
region's and nation's interest and supports all efforts by the states of
Oregon and Washington to pursue the nomination.

Date

750 Commercial Street, Room 214 Astoria, Oregon 97103 (503) 325-0435

November 18, 1988

David Fritts, Acting Mayor
City of Ilwaco
P.O. Box 548
Ilwaco, WA 98624

Dear Mr. Fritts:

The states wish to determine the degree of local support before asking
the Federal government to consider the Columbia for placement in the program.
The CREST Council endorses this program; however, neither the CREST Council
nor I feel that we can speak for the individual jurisdictions on this matter.
I believe that the program will help to resolve some of the nagging permit
and planning issues that we now face and will allow the region to continue on
its path of well-managed use of estuary resources.

Please propose consideration of support for the program at the first
possible regular meeting of your Council. A sample resolution expressing
support of the program is enclosed. I will gladly attend the meeting to
answer questions. Please call me and let me know how you wish to proceed
with this matter.

Sinc rely
D 7vd ! 4F
Director

Enclosure
CREST

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ABOUT THE NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM

What is the National Estuary Program?

The National Estuary Program was established under the Federal Water Quality
Act of 1987 to identify nationally significant estuaries and promote prepara-
tion of comprehensive estuary management plans.

What is a nationally significant estuary?

A nationally significant estuary is an estuary with commercial, recreational,
and living resources that are valuable on a national scale. Examples of
nationally significant resources in the Columbia include salmon and the
waterborne shipping industry.

Who develops the estuary plans under the National Estuary Program?

The plans are developed by a group consisting of state and federal agencies,
local governments, affected industries, educational institutions, and the
general public. This is referred to in the National Estuary Program as the
"Management Conference".

How is the program funded?

The federal government provides 75% of the funding and the state provides 25%
matching funds.

How does the National Estuary Program differ from current estuary management
program ?

The National Estuary Program sets up a local, federal, state partnership that
ensures compliance with the management plan on all governmental levels.
Existing estuary management programs overseen by the estuary's local govern-
ments and CREST are largely ignored by federal agencies. This current
situation results in a significant loss of local control.

Will the program result in an added layer of regulations?

No. The program does not grant any new regulatory authority. The management
plan developed under the National Estuary Program would have to be implemen-
ted through existing regulatory program .

Will the program result in federal or state agencies dictating to the local
governments? How will local governments have control over the outcome of the
program?

The Management Conference will have local representatives involved in all
aspects of the program. Regulations state that the plan developed by the
Management Conference must be consistent with Oregon's and Washington's
Coastal Zone Management Program . Our local comprehensive plans and shore-
line master program are key components of the states' Coastal Zone Manage-
ment Programs. Therefore, any decisions made by the conference must be
consistent with the local plans and acceptable to local governments.

Is the National Estuary Program another sanctuary program?

No. The National Estuary Program is primarily set up to identify management
problems in the estuary and make long range plans for their solution. The
program is not intended to protect estuaries from development. Instead, the
program promotes planned and consistent use of resources. Examples of
estuaries in the program include San Francisco Bay and Long Island Sound.
These are two of the most heavily industrialized water bodies in the nation.

What problem does the Columbia River Estuary have that can be addressed by
the program?

A primary goal of the program would be to identify and prioritize problem to
be addressed. Some examples of problems include the following:

- The lack of wetland management plans has led to significant permit
delays and lost development opportunities in estuary shoreland areas.

- Present sediment contamination is greatly increasing the cost of dredg-
ing projects and is threatening estuary fish and wildlife.

- State and federal programs regulating estuary development are ineffi-
cient, uncoordinated, and result in severe permit delays and lost
development opportunities.

- Historic loss of fish habitat may limit current efforts to restore the
Columbia's salmon runs. No one knows the effects of this habitat loss.

- The estuary is running out of sites to dispose of sand dredged from
navigation channels. This threatens to curtail the ability to maintain
navigation facilities and may impact waterborne commerce conducted in
and through the estuary.

CITY OF ILWACO

RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF NOMINATING
THE COLUMBIA RIVER ESTUARY INTO THE NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM

WHEREAS: The City of Ilwaco is a local government authority with management
jurisdiction on the Columbia River Estuary; and

WHEREAS: The balanced use and conservation of estuary resources is vital to
maintaining the region's fisheries, waterborne commerce, recreation, and
tourist economies; and

WHEREAS: The estuary's commercial,fishing and waterborne shipping industries
are vital to the nation; and

WHEREAS: The National Estuary Program supports ongoing planning and problem
resolution in nationally significant estuaries; and

WHEREAS: The Governors of the states of Oregon and Washington are consider-
ing nominating the Columbia River Estuary as a significant estuary in
the National Estuary Program;

IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED THAT: The City of Ilwaco has determined that nomi-
nation of the Columbia River Estuary as a nationally significant estuary
is in the region's and nation's interest and supports all efforts by the
states of Oregon and Washington to pursue the nomination.

Date

750 Commercial Street, Room 214 Astoria, Oregon 97103 (503) 325-0435

October 6. 1988

John Gabrielson
EPA Region 10
Mail Stop WD-139
1200 Sixth Street
Seattle, WA 98116

Dear Mr. Gabrielson:

Thank you for sending me the information on the National Estuary Program. I
am enclosing some background information on CREST, including:

- a summary of recent CREST work,
- history of CREST, and
- publications list.

We would like to assist you and the states in every way we can in efforts to
nominate the Columbia as an estuary of national significance.

Please call me if you have any questions.

Since ely,

David ox,
Director
CREST

CREST MEMBERS - WASHINGTON: Pacific County, Port Dist. No. 2 (Wahkiakurr, Co.). Port of flwaco, Town of Ilwaco
OREGON: Cialsop County, City of Astoria, Town of Hammonc, City of Warrenton, Port of Astoria

750 Commercial Street. Room 214 Astoria, Oregon 97103 (503) 325-0435

October 6, 1988

Rudd Turner
US Army Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 2946
Portland, Oregon 97204

Dear Rudd:

I am writing to convey my comments on the draft LTMS Phase I report and the
September 16, 1988, LTMS meeting. In addition, I have enclosed completed
Phase II working group preference sheets for CREST staff.

Comments on the Draft Phase I Report

1) The report provided an excellent overview of dredging projects and
issues, natural resources, and deep-draft channel economics in the
Columbia River Estuary.

2) The discussion of sediment transport and other characteristics of
dredging and in-water disposal sites (p. 17-24) needs to be revised and
expanded to support conclusions made about the dredging and disposal
sites. For example statements made about the cause of shoaling at
Flavel Shoal (p. 18), sediment transport at Area D (p. 22), and sediment
transport at Tansy Point (p. 22) appear to contradict past studies.

3) Conclusion regarding sediment transport at dredging sites should include
discussions of both suspended and bedload transport.

4) P.8: Your methodology for computing the remaining disposal capacity at
East and West Sand Island (and other sites) should be specified.

5) P. 8 & 9: Disposal restrictions for Area D also allow for up to 100,000
cubic yards for non-federal projects.

6) P. 10: The discussion of local plan restrictions should include the
updated CREST policies developed in our DMD Policy Evaluation Study. I
gave you a copy of the Policy Evaluation report at the September 16,
1988, LTMS meeting.
CREST

CREST MEMBERS - WASHINGTON: Pacific County, Port Dist. No. 2 (Wahkiakum Co.), Port of Ilwaco, Town of Ilwaco
OREGON: Clatsop County, City of Astoria, Town of Hammonc. City of Warrenton, Port of Astoria

October 6, 1988
Page 2

The discussion lists the CREST dredging and disposal regulations only.
There are other local regulations that affect dredged material disposal.
For example, upland disposal site may be affected by policies regulating
uses in agricultural land, forest land, and water-dependent development
sites.

7) Figure 25: Additional resources that might appropriately be placed on
this map include:

- heron rookery on Price Island
- eagle nests on Tennasillahe Island
- cormorant nesting sites on Rice Island
- sanderling roosting site on Clatsop Spit

8) P. 64: The discussion of Port of Astoria facilities is outdated. The
Port no longer has a grain elevator. A new warehouse has been located
on Pier 2. Pier I has been enlarged and new mooring structures and a
loading ramp built on its riverward face.

Comments on September 16, 1988, Meeting

1) GIS mapping: CREST is developing resource maps for a revision of the
estuary Oil Spill Contingency Plan. These include a great deal of
information not shown on the maps in the CREDDP Atlas. The new CREST
maps may be useful in you project.

2) Phase II Specialty Teams: There was some concern at the meeting that the
speciality teams would diverge significantly in their recommendations,
making development of LTMS conclusions difficult. Interim meetings for
the entire advisory committee was suggested as a possible way to allevi-
ate this concern. I suggest that the three specialty teams always meet
on the same day. The teams can meet individually in the morning and get
together as a group in the afternoon to resolve differences in approach-
es and conclusions. In this way, agencies with personnel on more than
one team can save on travel expenses and additional interim meetings
will not be necessary.

I hope these comments are useful to you. Please call me if you have any
questions.

Sin 76-rely,

Director

COLUMBIA RIVER ESTUARY LTMS

PHASE II PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

WORKING GROUP PREFERENCE
NAME David Fox

AGENCY Crest

DISCIPLINE Resource Management

TELEPHONE (503)325-0435

WORKING GROUP PREFERENCE: FIRST PREF. C

SECOND PREF.A

COMMENTS

Return this form by 1 November 1988 to:
Usace, Portland District
P.O. Box 2946 ATTN: OP-NWO
Portland, OR 97208-2946

OR: Contact Sheryl Carrubba, 503/221-6085
or
Rudd Turner, 503/221-6463

COLUMBIA RIVER ESTUARY LTMS

PHASE II PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

WORKING GROUP PREFERENCE
NAME Mark Barnes
AGENCY Crest

DISCIPLINE Planner

TELEPHONE (503)325-0435

WORKING GROUP PREFERENCE: FIRST PREF. B. Navigation

SECOND PREF. C. Statory/Regulatory Comp.

COMMENTS

Return this form by 1 November 1988 to:
USACE, Portland District
P.O. Box 2946 ATTN: OP-NWO
Portland, OR 97208-2946

OR: Contact Sheryl Carrubba, 503/221-6085
or
Rudd Turner, 503/221-6463

750 Commercial Street. Room 214 Astoria, Oregon 97103 (503) 325-0435

August 12, 1988

Robert Butts
House of Representatives
AS-33
Olympia, WA 98504

Attached are the materials you recently requested. Draft sections from
the Columbia River Estuary Regional Management Plan, and a brief
explanation of CREST's responsibilities are included. I have
highlighted some sections that may be germane to Outer Continental Shelf
Mineral Develop@nent. Please call me if you have any questions on this
material or if I can be of further assistance.

Very truly yours,

Mark Barnes
Planner
CREST

CREST MEMBERS - WASHINGTON: Pacific County, Port Disi. No. 2 (Wahkiakum Co.), Port of Iiwaco. Town of Ilwaco
OREGON: Clalsop County, City of Astoria. Town of Hammond, City of Warrenton, Pori of Astoria

Friday 16 September 1988 - LTMS meeting - Portland office, US Army Corps of
Engineers

Tuesday 4 October 1988 - Meeting with US Army Corps of Engineers
regarding sediment quality standards for the
Columbia River Estuary, Portland District office

Wednesday 2 November 1988 Begin developing comments for Washington Sea
Grant's Ocean Resource Assessment Program (ORAP)

Friday 3 March 1989 - Meeting regarding National Estuary Program,
Portland, Oregon Department of Environmental
Quality

Wednesday 8 March 1989 National Estuary Program meeting at Astoria with
Environmental Protection Agency, Department of
Ecology and Oregon Department of Environmental
Quality

Monday 13 March 1989 Meeting with Department of Ecology regarding
sediment quality standards

Tuesday 18 April 1989 Meeting with Washington Department of Ecology,
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
regarding National Estuary program

Thursday 27 April 1989 - Annual dredging meeting, Portland District, US
Army Corps of Engineers

Thursday 27 April 1989 - Northwest Power Planning Council meeting
regarding salmon carrying capacity in the
Columbia River Estuary

Tuesday 2 May 1989 - US Army Corps of Engineers LTMS meeting, Astoria

Monday 22 May 1989 - Meeting with Bob Emmett, NMFS, regarding North-
west Power Planning Council project for salmon
carrying capacity in Columbia River Estuary

Thursday 8 June 1989 - National Estuary Program meeting at Port of
Ilwaco with Washington Department of Ecology

EXHIBIT 3

STAFF REPORTS

COLUMBIA RIVER ESTUARY STUDY TASKFORCE

Carol M. Rushmore, Planner
Mark Barnes, Director

1. Title: Staff Reports, FY89

2. Authors: Carol M. Rushmore, Mark R. Barnes

3. Subject: Implementation of Shoreline Management Master Programs

4. Date: 30 June 1989

5. Participants: Columbia River Estuary Study Taskforce
Wahkiakum County

6. Source of Copies: Columbia River Estuary Study Taskforce
750 Commercial Street, Room 214
Astoria, Oregon 97103-4513

7. Project Number: G0089035

8. Series Number: Not applicable

9. Number of Pages: i8

10. Abstract: The Columbia River Estuary Study Taskforce assisted its
Washington members in the implementation of their Shoreline Management Master
Programs. This assistance was in the form of pre-application consultation,
environmental assessments, and staff reports for shorelines permits. The
attached report contains copies of the documents that resulted from this
assistance.

750 Commercial Street, Room 214 Astoria. Oregon 97103 (503) 325-0435

July 11, 1988

Nora Jewett
Washington Department of Ecology
Mail Stop PV-ll
Olympia, Washington 98504-8711

RE: Shoreline Conditional Use Permit @590-14-7696;
Wahkiakum County Permit #4-88;
Skamokawa Vista Park Beach Nourishment

Dear Nora:

Attached is a sketch showing existing and proposed beach
profiles at Skamokawa Vista Park in Wahkiakum County, near
Columbia River Mil 33.5. The existing beach slope is about
1:30 (vertical:horizontal) in the flatest areas. The beach
nourishment will result in an approximately 1:11 slope.

Please call me if you have any questions.

Very truly yours,

Mark Barnes

MB/jh

Enclosures

cc: Steve McLain - Wahkiakum Port District #2
CREST

CREST MEMBERS - WASHINGTON: Pacific County, Port Dist. No. 2 (Wahkiakum Co.). Port of Ilwaco, Town of Ilwaco
OREGON: Clatsop County, City of Astoria, Town of Hammond, City of Warrenton, Port of Astoria

p I c j9 RK

5 L-

LLW
/A LVV

14--- $-W

750 Commercial Street, Room 214 Astoria, Oregon 97103 (503) 325-0435

June 28, 1989

To: Wahkiakum County Planning Commission

From: Carol M. Rushmore, CREST Planner

Re: Proposed amendments to Wahkiakum County Shoreline Management Master
Program addressing the issue of houseboat placement

Wahkiakum County and CREST are working with the Department of Ecology to
prepare Shoreline Management Master Program amendments that address the
concerns generated from houseboat placement in Wahkiakum County. CREST staff
attended meetings and work sessions with federal, state and local officials to
obtain their comments and hear their concerns regarding siting of houseboats
on shorelines in Wahkiakum County.

Attached for your review is an initial draft of the proposed amendments.
Additional work and a subsequent draft is necessary prior to presenting the
proposed amendments at a public hearing, which is tentatively scheduled for
July. CREST staff is still reviewing and evaluating comments from state,
federal and local resource agencies, so more changes may be forthcoming. We
would also like to receive any comments or suggestions, or answer any
questions that you may have regarding these proposed amendments.

If there are issues you would like to discuss, please do not hesitate to
call me at (503) 325-0435.
CREST

CREST MEMBERS - WASHINGTON@ Pacific County. Port Dist. No 2 (Wahkiakum Co.), Pori of l1waco, Town of Ilwaco
OREGON Clatsop County, City of Astoria. Town of Hammond. City of Warrenton, Port of Astoria

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO
WAHKIAKUM COUNTY SHORELINE MANAGEMENT 14ASTER PROGRAM

INTRODUCTION

Wahkiakum County has experienced some problems and opposition concerning
the siting of houseboats on the County's shorelines. The County requested the
assistance of CREST staff to address the issue of houseboat placement and
propose amendments to its Shoreline Master Program to resolve the concerns.
Wahkiakum County and CREST are coordinating work efforts with the Washington
Department of Ecology as well as other local, state and federal resource
agencies in preparing the proposed amendments. Some of the issues of concern
include maintaining navigable access, loss of and impacts on aquatic habitats,
wastewater discharges, the permitting process and spacing limitations. This
policy paper includes a discussion of the issues surrounding the controversy
of houseboat placement, the current applicable Shoreline Master Program policy
statements and standards, and the proposed amendments.

HISTORY OF HOUSEBOAT ISSUE

I. Background

In recent years there have been complaints by a few of the residents of
Wahkiakum County that some houseboats may not conform to the standards of the
Wahkiakum County Shoreline Management Master Program nor to Washington's
regulations governing aquatic lands. Complaints of sewage waste disposal
problems, size limitations being exceeded, debris, navigational problems,
water quality, consequences in the slough of the trend to build houseboats and
consequences of houseboats on fish habitats have been raised.

In 1986 an appeal was filed before the Shorelines Hearing Board concern-
ing an application denial by the WA Department of Ecology for a houseboat on
Welcome Slough. Another appeal was filed in 1988 by some Welcome Slough
residents to block the same houseboat and a second that had since entered the
slough. These appeals are described further in Sections III and IV.

Puget Island is predominantly agriculture or grazing lands. Welcome and
Bernie sloughs have residential development concentrated on shorelines of the
sloughs as well as houseboats in the aquatic environment. In Wahkiakum
County's Shoreline Management Master Program (p.113, Appendix C) the island
and sloughs, including Welcome and Bernie, are designated a Rural Environment.
The Master Program defines a Rural Environment as (p.4):

"Those shoreline areas with soil and land areas suitable for intensive
agriculture, capable of recreation site development, public access and
limited residential development."

1 DRAFT
A:HISTORY
REV: 6-28-89

Puget Island and the sloughs are "shorelines of statewide significance"
(RCW90.58.030(l)(e)). Uses of such shorelines are preferenced as follows:

1) recognize and protect the statewide interest over local interest;
2) preserve the natural character of the shoreline;
3) result in long term over short term benefit
4) protect the resources and ecology of the shoreline;
5) increase public access to publiclyowned areas of the shorelines; and
6) increase recreational opportunities for the public in the shoreline.

II. Previous Habitat Study in Welcome Slough

In March and May of 1975 an -ecological study of Welcome Slough was
conducted by Washington Department of Fisheries to determine the fish life
present there. The method used was electroshocking which temporarily
immobilizes fish causing them to come to the surface for observation.

The March investigation showed nothing but stickleback. On May 1, a
variety of fish (including but not limited to chinook fingerlings and smolts,
coho fingerlings and cutthroat) were observed. Salmonids and shad were found
in the shallows along the bank. Only cyprinids were found in the upper
slough.

The area was seined on May 16, 1975 to determine whether salmon juveniles
utilize the upper extent of Welcome Slough. There were still no salmon
juveniles in the extreme upper portion of the slough, although young salmon
had migrated farther up the slough.

These limited studies do verify that juvenile fish enter Welcome Slough,
but they do not help determine Welcome Slough's relative habitat value, nor do
they help identify possible adverse impacts of floating structures on aquatic
habitats.

III. The Iverson Houseboat Permit Application

Rodney and Patricia Iverson moved their houseboat into Welcome Slough in
1984. The Iverson's submitted their initial permit application for a Shore-
line Substantial Development Permit on January 21, 1986. The application and
associated paperwork was submitted after the fact.

A Notice of Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) was issued by Wah-
kiakum County on January 27, 1986. The DNS and Application for Shoreline
Development were printed in the Wahkiakum County Eagle on January 30, 1986 and
February 1, 1986. Comments were due by February 6, 1986 concerning the DNS by
March 8, 1986 concerning the Shoreline Development application. Wahkiakum
County received numerous responses as a result of the public notice.

The US Fish and Wildlife recommended denial of the permit application on
February 25, 1986 on the grounds that houseboat siting would affect moorage
availability and impact fish habitats.

2 DRAFT
A:HISTORY
REV: 6-28-89

-7F

The US Army Corps of Engineers and Washington Department of Ecology
posted notice for the permit application on February 11, 1986 and comments
were required by March 13, 1986.

The Department of Natural Resources recommended to the Corps of Engineers
on March 4, 1986 that the permit application be denied because placement of
houseboats would hamper navigation and because the beds and shores of state
navigable waters are owned by the state.

The Washington Department of Game objected to the permit application to
the Department of Ecology on March 6, 1986 because of their concern for
waterfowl and fish using the habitat area. They stated greater human intru-
sion and sewage discharge would affect the quality of the habitat.

Environmental Protection Agency, on March 12, 1986, made no objections to
the permit application based on environmental concerns, but did defer to the
US Army Corps of Engineers to review the application in light of Section 404
of the Clean Water Act.

On April 7, 1986, the County approved the Iverson's Conditional Use
Permit for a dock and houseboat, subject to standards for Residential and
Docks/Moorage Development.

Subsequent to the County's approval, the Washington Department of Ecology
denied the permit on May 13, 1986, claiming the project was inconsistent with
the Master Program and Conditional Use criteria established in WAG 173-14-140.

The applicant Iverson filed an appeal with the Shorelines Hearing Board
concerning the permit denial by the Washington Department of Ecology to place
a houseboat on Welcome Slough. The Board, however, remanded the matter back
to Wahkiakum County for review under variance standards because the develop-
ment exceeded the 50 foot limit requirement.

On December 29, 1987, one year after the remand, the Iverson's reapplied
for a Conditional Use/Variance Permit for their houseboat on Welcome Slough.
They were seeking a variance because the houseboat extended 53' into Welcome
Slough, 3 feet over the legal shoreline requirement. Wahkiakum County
approved the variance request and re-approved the Shorelines and Conditional
Use Permit.

A notice of the application was printed in the Wahkiakum County Eagle on
January 7 and 14, 1988 and written comments were due February 13, 1988.

On March 28, 1988, the Washington Department of Ecology approved the
Shoreline Variance Permit subject to Conditional Use approval.

In June of 1988, the approval was appealed to the Shorelines Hearing
Board by some residents of Welcome Slough. Out of court settlement discus-
sions are currently ongoing.

3 DRAFT
A:HISTORY
REV: 6-28-89

IV. The Brothers/Knudsen Houseboat Permit Application

Ms. Diane C. Brothers and Mr. Joel C. Knudsen submitted an application
on October 22, 1987 for a Shorelines Substantial Development and Conditional
Use Permit to place a houseboat on Welcome Slough. The application and asso-
ciated paper work was submitted after the fact.

A Notice of Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) was issued by Wah-
kiakum County on October 22, 1987. The Notice and Application for Shoreline
Development were printed in the Wahkiakum County Eagle on the 12th and 19th of
November. Comments were due by November 27, 1987 concerning the DNS and by
December 19, 1987 concerning the Shoreline Development Application.

The US Fish and Wildlife Service recommended denial of the permit on
December 4, 1987 and January 14, 1988, because of the potential effects
houseboats could have on water quality and fish habitats. The Service dis-
courages use of public waterways for what they consider non-water dependent
purposes.

The Department of Ecology posted Public Notice of Application for Certi-
fication of Consistency on December 16, 1987. The US Army Corps of' Engineers
also posted notice on December 16, 1987 and expected comments by January 15,
1988.

The US Environmental Protection Agency recommended denial of the permit
on January 7, 1988 because of their concern of the impact on wetlands and
shallow water habitat.

The Washington Department of Wildlife recommended denial of the appli-
cation on January 8, 1988, because of their concern that houseboats on the
slough would affect water quality, reduce shoreline habitat and interfere with
salmonid movement. The Washington Department of Natural Resources and NOAA
declined to make a recommendation until further investigation was completed.

The Washington Department of Ecology approved the Brothers/Knudsen
Shoreline Conditional Use Permit to allow the floating residence on March 8,
1988.

In June of 1988, some residents on Welcome Slough filed an appeal with
the Shorelines Hearing Board concerning permit approval for the Iverson's and
Brothers/Knudsen's houseboats on Welcome Slough. On August 22, 1988, Appel-
lants filed a "More Definite Statement of Issues" with the Shorelines Hearing
Board of the State of Washington detailing their concerns of the siting of the
two houseboats. As of May 1989, out of court settlement proposals are still
being discussed.

4 DRAFT
A:HISTORY
REV: 6-28-89

PROCESS BY WHICH PROPOSED AMEMMENTS WERE DEVELOPED

December 1988
- January 1989: CREST Staff, Wayne Rickert, Public Works Director, Wah-
kiakum County.. General discussions regarding the appeal.

March 13, 1989: CREST staff, Nora Jewett, Washington Department of Ecol-
ogy. Discussion of issues surrounding siting of' house-
boats.

April 10, 1989: CREST staff, Wayne Rickert, Wahkiakum County. Discussion
of the County's concerns with regard to the houseboat
issue.

May 8, 1989: CREST staff, Washington Department of Ecology, Department
of Natural Resources, US Fish and Wildlife Service,
Cowlitz-Wahkiakum Health District. A work session to
discuss the resource agencies' concerns relating to the
houseboat issue.

May 12, 1989: CREST staff distributed to interested parties a summary of
the discussion from the 8 May meeting. Additional com-
ments were requested, especially by those who were not
able to attend.

June 5, 1989: CREST staff, Wayne Rickert, Wahkiakum County. General
discussion regarding proposed amendments.

June 6, 1989: CREST staff distributes to all interested parties a
first draft of Proposed Amendments to Wahkiakum County
Shoreline Management Master Program.

June 19, 1989 Receive comments from reviewers on initial draft.

June 28, 1989: CREST staff and Wahkiakum County Planning Commission.
Introductory discussion of proposed amendments to the
Wahkiakum County Shoreline Master Program

In addition to the meetings, phone calls were made to local officials and
interested state and federal officials for obtaining and clarifying infor-
mation relevant to review of the Shoreline Master Program and the houseboat
issue. Phone calls were also made to other regional officials (i.e., Puget
Sound, Portland) that have authority over houseboat policies and regulations

5 DRAFT
A:HISTORY
REV: 6-28-89

to discuss concerns and issues encountered by them regarding houseboats as
well as to solicit any suggestions or helpful insight on the subject to
increase our own awareness.

Reports and publications were also solicited from agencies for background
and technical assistance in developing this policy paper and the proposed
amendments.

5.1 DRAFT
A:HISTORY
REV: 6-28-89

CURRENT SHORELINE MANAGEMENT MASTER PROGRAN GOALS,

POLICIES AND STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO HOUSEBOAT PIACEHENT

I. Wahkiakum County Objectives for Residential Development and Shorelines Uses

Certain objectives were established by Wahkiakum County in the Shoreline
Management Master Program to prevent haphazard trends in residential growth
patterns and to assure safe and appropriate use of the shoreline for present
and future developments (p.13). They are:

1. "To determine the suitable density of residential development with
regard to natural features, necessary supportive facilities, utilities
and sanitary requirements. '

2. To assure that proposed residential developments are compatible with
or enhance the aesthetic quality of the area.

3. To ensure that such proposed residential developments do not serve
as focal points for environmental degradation by wastes they generate or
as a magnet for other unwarranted development on the shorelines.

4. To the extent possible, planned unit development should be encour-
aged within the shoreline area."

Likewise, the County acknowledges in the goal for shoreline use (p.14) that
'Idevelopments within the shorelines of Wahkiakum County must be for the
betterment of the lifestyle of the citizens of Wahkiakum County and so located
and distributed as to prevent ecologically debilitating conglomerates from
occurring." Shoreline use should be considered so as:

1. "To encourage those uses which are necessary to maintain or improve
the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens when such uses must
occupy shorelines.

2. To locate those necessary uses and design facilities on the shore-
lines in such a manner as to retain or improve the physical and aesthetic
quality of the natural environment.

3. To encourage multiplicities of use in proposed shoreline area
developments.

4. To retain or improve the degree of public access to shorelines."

II. Policy for Residential Development in Aquatic Environments

A. Wahkiakum County does not permit residential development in aquatic
environments, except for floating homes or houseboats. The County's current
Residential Development policy (p.33) pertaining to floating homes along
shorelines of statewide significance is:

6 DRAFT
A:HISTORY
REV: 6-27-89

"Floating homes are to be located in moorage slips approved in accordance
with the guidelines dealing with marinas, piers, and docks. In planning
for floating homes, ensure that waste disposal practices meet local and
state health regulations, that homes are not located over highly produc-
tive fish food areas, and that the locations are compatible with the
intent of the designated environments."

B. As mentioned above, houseboat placement must also be in conformance with
the policies for establishing marinas, piers and docks. These policies, as
applicable to houseboats, are sununarized as follows:

MARINAS (P.27): "Marinas are facilities which provide boat launching,
storage, supplies and service for small pleasure craft." Special plans should
be made to protect as best possible the aquatic resources that may be harmed
by construction and/or operation. The design should be aesthetically compa-
tible with adjacent uses. US Fish and Wildlife Service guidelines for con-
struction should be consulted during planning and construction as well as
requirements by state and local health agencies.

PIERS (p.30): Piers or docks are "structures built over or floating upon the
water, used as a landing place for marine transport or for recreational
purposes." Floating docks should be encouraged in valuable scenic areas and
where potential conflict with recreational boaters and fishermen is low. The
proliferation of single purpose private piers and their locations, spacing and
length is a problem that must be addressed as well as the shoreline site
capacity to absorb discharge impact.

III. Permitted Use Standards for Residential Development in Aquatic
Environments

A. According to a note under the section describing Density Standards (p.77)
new residential developments over water are strictly prohibited with excep-
tions for houseboats or floating residences, which are addressed as a condi-
tional use in Conservancy, Rural, and Urban environments. Residential devel-
opment in Natural Aquatic environments is not allowed.

B. The Shoreline Master Program Residential Development standard specifi-
cally addressing houseboats, as stated on page 78, is:

"Only floating residences shall be allowed in aquatic areas. They shall
be located in accordance with this document's standards for docks/moor-
ages and piling/dolphin installation. They shall not be located over
productive fish feeding areas or in a location inconsistent with the
intent of the shoreline environment designation. Floating home waste
disposal practices shall meet all local and state health regulation."

C. As stated in "B" above, floating residences shall be located in accor-
dance with Shoreline Master Program standards for docks/moorages and
piling/dolphin installation.

7 DRAFT
A:HISTORY
REV: 6-27-89

Docks and moorages are addressed in the Shoreline Master Program (pages 48 and
49) as follows:

"Definition: A pier or secured float or floats for boat tie up or other
water uses ... Boathouses (which are used for boat storage, net drying
and similar purposes) and floating residences must also meet these
requirements."

The requirements for docks and moorages are as follows:

1. "Only one boat dock shall be permitted for each waterfront residen-
tial site or each community waterfront tract serving more than one
residence.

2. Boat docks shall not extend any further than 50 feet from the line
of ordinary high water mark; except that a variance may be requested to
satisfy those problems whereby either the water bottom contour or water
fluctuation is such that a dock of more than 50 feet in length is re-
quired to obtain a water depth suitable for moorage purposes.

3. Evidence shall be provided by the applicant that the size of the
dock or moorage is the minimum necessary to fulfill the purpose.

4. Open moorages are encouraged over covered or enclosed moorages,
except in connection with a commercial or industrial use where such
shelter is necessary for repair and maintenance of vessels and associated
equipment such as fishing nets, etc.

5. Open pile piers or secured floats shall be used for dock construc-
tion.

6. Floats in tidally-influenced areas shall be located such that they
do not rest on the bottom at mean high tide.

7. Docks and moorages shall be designed so that hydraulic effects on
adjacent shorelines are minimized to the degree possible.

8. Boat docks must be set back from adjacent property lines a minimum
of 10 feet; except that by mutual agreement of two abutting property
owners one dock to serve both properties may be sited adjacent to, or
astride of, the mutual property line. In the latter case no other dock
will be permitted within the two property boundaries.

9. If electrical service is provided to the dock that service must be
installed in such a manner that it complies with the safety requirements
as set forth in the Washington State Electrical Code.

10. Docks and moorages shall extend no further out into the water than
is needed to effect navigational accesses. Conflicts with other water
surface uses, such as commercial fishing, recreational boating and log
rafting shall be minimized."

8 DRAFT
A:HISTORY
REV: 6-27-89

Of these, only numbers 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9 and 10 appear to be directly applic-
able to houseboat siting.

D. The standards for pilings and dolphins are addressed in the Shoreline
Master Program chapter entitled "Shorelines Works and Structures" (page 87)
and are as follows:

1. "Piling/dolphin installation in Aquatic areas shall be permitted
only in conjunction with an allowed or conditional use for which no
feasible upland sites exist.

2. Piling/dolphin installation shall be the minimum necessary to
accomplish the proposed use.

3. Piling/dolphin installation shall be permitted only after it is
established that adverse impacts on navigation, estuarine habitat,
processes and function, water circulation and sedimentation patterns,
water quality, and recreational activities will be minimized.

4. The piling or dolphin and its placement shall meet all applicable
state and federal engineering standards."

E. According to the Shoreline Master Program permit standards for residen-
tial developments (p.77), residential developments in urban, rural and conser-
vancy aquatic (water) environments are subject to "conditional use".

1. Uses that are classified as conditional uses may be authorized
provided the applicant can demonstrate (p.x):

a. "That the proposed use will be consistent with the policies of
RCW 90.58.020 and the policies of the master program.

b. That the proposed use will not interfere with the normal public
use of public shorelines.

C. That the proposed use of the site and design of the project
will be compatible with other permitted uses within the area.

d. That the proposed use will cause no unreasonable adverse
effects to the shoreline environment designation in which it is to
be located.

e. That the public interest suffers no substantial detrimental
effect."

2. "Other uses which are not classified or set forth in the applicable
master program may be authorized as conditional uses provided the appli-
cant can demonstrate, in addition to the criteria set forth in WAC
173-14-140(a) above, that extraordinary circumstances preclude reasonable
use of the property in a manner consistent with the use regulations of
the master program."

9 DRAFT
A:HISTORY
REV: 6-27-89

3. "In the granting of all conditional use permits, consideration shall
be given to the cumulative impact of additional requests for like actions
in the area. For example, if conditional use permits were granted for
other developments in the area where similar circumstances exist, the
total of the conditional uses should also remain consistent with the
policies of RCS 90.58.020 and should not produce substantial adverse
effects to the shoreline enviroriment.ft

IV. Policy for Addressing Wildlife

The Shoreline Management Master Program establishes the following policy
for addressing wildlife issues (page 38):

"Hunting and fishing are major recreational activities for residents of
Wahkiakum County. Also, a large number of non-residents from other areas of
the state and neighboring Oregon visit the county to hunt and fish. The
wildlife resources of the county also provide a source of enjoyment for those
who desire to observe and photograph wildlife. Since wildlife (which includes
the fish in lakes and streams) constitutes a major use of the county's shore-
lines, the Shoreline Advisory Committee considers it necessary for the Master
Program to include wildlife as a shoreline use. Policies should be developed
which in order to maintain and enhance this valuable natural resource and to
discourage any destruction of their natural cycles.

(a) The impact of proposed development should be considered in areas
identifies as harboring rare or endangered species.

(b) Professional expertise should be solicited and seriously regarded in
considering the impact developments and uses might have on spawning beds,
rearing areas of fish and seasonal need areas of wildlife.

(d) Prior to the introduction of any new fish stock or wildlife species
into the streammays or onto the land of Wahkiakum County, notification of
the Board of County Commissioners, as to the anticipation of such action
should be made. At least one PUBLIC HEARING should be held in the County
Seat prior to any action being taken which may directly or indirectly
effect the native fish or wildlife of this area."

10 DRAFT
A:HISTORY
REV: 6-28-89

PROPOSED AMNDMENTS TO WAHKIAKUM COUNTY'S SHORELI[NE MASTER PROGRAM

I. Introduction

The following proposed amendments to the Wahkiakum County Shoreline
Management Master Program were developed after careful consideration by CREST
staff of the concerns presented to CREST and Wahkiakum County by interested
resource agencies and local parties. Only current policies and standards that
apply to houseboat placement are presented in the following sections. The
policies and standards with proposed changes are presented individually, each
on a separate page in order to provide space for any comments and suggestions
reviewers might have.

The terms houseboat, floating home and floating residences are synonymous
in this document. We have chosen to use the term houseboat and have tried to
be consistent throughout.

This draft is the first draft presented to Wahkiakum County Planning
Commission for review. We wanted to inform the Planning Commission as to the
progress of this project. CREST is still receiving and evaluating comments
from resource agencies during an informal review and comment period.

We would also like to request comments from the Planning Commission,
prior to preparing the document for the Public Hearing, tentatively scheduled
in July. If there are issues you would like to discuss, please do not
hesitate to call Carol Rushmore at 503-325-0435.

Il. Proposed Amendments and Alternatives

RESIDENTIAL PERMITTED USE POLICIES (SMMP, p.33)

CURRENTLY,

(a) Developments shall be designed so as to adequately protect the aesthetic
characteristics of the water and shorelines.

(b) Developers shall be encouraged to provide public, pedestrian access to
the shorelines within a subdivision.

PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES,

none

11 DRAFT
A:HISTORY
REV: 6-28-89

Residential Policies, cont.

CURRENTLY,

PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES,

(c-l) New residential development over water shall not be permitted, with
the exception of houseboats which are subject to the issuance of a
conditional use permit. No residential development should be
permitted in environments designated as Natural.

and,

(c-2) Should severe damage occur to a houseboat in existence prior to the
development of the SMMP, the houseboat may be restored to a state
comparable to its original condition within a reasonable amount of
time. Restored houseboats shall conform to the new houseboat place-
ment standards when possible. A variance permit shall not be denied
for restoration, however, unless the variance would adversely affect
water quality, navigability of the waterway or other shoreline
resource.

RATIONALE,

The policy statement was modified to address new residential development
over water (c-1) as well as houseboats that were in place on the effective
date of this Management Plan (c-2). The proposed change reflects more accu-
rately the policy of residential development over water in Wahkiakum County.
Although homes in aquatic environments built on pilings and dolphins are
prohibited, floating homes or houseboats are permitted, but subject to the
approval of a Conditional Use Permit.

An owner whose houseboat was in place on the effective date of this
Management Plan but damaged by fire or elements should maintain rights to
repair and restore the houseboat. Restored houseboats shall not exceed the
specifications of the damaged houseboat and should be rebuilt within a time
limit. This proposed alternative remains consistent with WAC 173-14-040 and
055.

12 DRAFT
A:HISTORY
REV: 6-27-89

Residential Policies, cont.

CURRENTLY,

(d) Floating homes are to be located in moorage slips approved in accordance
with the guidelines dealing with marinas, piers, and docks. In planning for
floating homes, ensure that waste disposal practices meet local and state
health regulations, that homes are not located over highly productive fish
food areas, and that the locations are compatible with the intent of the
designated environments.

PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES,

(d-la) Houseboats are to be located in areas compatible with the intent of
the shoreline and aquatic environmental designation and in such a
way as to minimize potential adverse impacts of the floating home on
aquatic habitat.

RATIONALE,

The current statement suggests that houseboats must be located in marina
moorage slips. Because of the nature of the development, many of the same
desirable location characteristics and potential problems pertaining to
location criteria will be similar for houseboats and marinas and docks.
However, this issue is more regulatory in nature and is addressed in
residential development standards for houseboats.

Proposed alternative (d-la) establishes fundamental considerations for
locating houseboats. Residential development standards address specific
criteria to consider for minimizing impacts on aquatic habitat.

13 DRAFT
A:HISTORY
REV: 6-27-89

Residential Policies, cont.

CURRENTLY,

(e) Developments should be designed at a level of density and of occupancy
compatible with the physical capabilities of the shoreline and water.

M Residential developers should be required to indicate how they plan to
preserve shoreline vegetation and control erosion during construction.

(g) Sewage disposal facilities, as well as water supply facilities, must be
provided in accordance with appropriate state and local health regulations.
Storm drainage facilities should be separate and not combined with sewage
disposal systems.

(h) Adequate water supplies shall be available so that the ground water
quality will not be endangered by overpumping.

PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES,

none

14 DRAFT
A:HISTORY
REV: 6-27-89

RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMITTED USE STANDARDS (SMMP, pp 77-79)

CURRENTLY,

RESIDENTIAL USES

DEFINITION: Development of land and structures for human occupancy as living
quarters. This category includes single and multifamily dwellings, floating
residences, mobile homes and subdivisions, mobile home parks and planned unit
developments.

Residential Standard Abbreviations for:

1. Shoreland Environments:
a. Urban (PS)
b. Rural (PS)
C. Conservancy (PS)
d. Natural (N)

2. Aquatic (Water) Environments:
a. Urban (C)
b. Rural (C)
C. Conservancy (C)
d. Natural (N)

PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES,

2. Aquatic (water) Environments: (applies to houseboats only)
a. Urban (C)
b. Rural (C)
C. Conservancy (C)
d. Natural (N)

NOTE: PS = permitted with standards
C = conditional use
N = not permitted

15 DRAFT
A:HISTORY
REV: 6-28-89

Residential Development Standards cont.

CURRENTLY,

Density Standards

Note: In all environments allowing residential development, all new
residential developments over water are prohibited, with exceptions
for houseboats or "floating residences" which are specifically
addressed in the following regulations.

PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE,

Density Standards for Shoreland Residential Uses

Note: New residential developments over water are prohibited, with
exceptions for houseboats which are specifically addressed in the fol-
lowing permitted use standards.

RATIONALE,

Development over water is not permitted except for houseboats (Residen-
tial Development Policy Statement c p.12 this document). The proposed change
specifically identifies the Density Standards (Standards not shown) as appli-
cable to Shoreland Residential Uses and rephrases the Note statement.

16 DRAFT
A:HISTORY
REV: 6-27-89

Residential Development Standards cont.

CURRENTLY,

Permitted Use Standards for Conservancy, Rural and Urban Environments

1. Subdivisions, mobile home parks and planned unit developments shall be
considered as conditional uses.

PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE,

Permitted Use Standards for Conservancy, Rural and Urban Environments

(1a) Subdivisions, mobile home parks, planned unit developments and houseboats
shall be considered as conditional uses.

RATIONALE,

The proposed change directly states that houseboats shall be considered a
Conditional Use.

17 DRAFT
A:HISTORY
REV: 6-27-89

Residential Development Standards cont.

CURRENTLY,

5. Residential development out over water areas shall be discouraged.

PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE,

Delete

RATIONALE,

All standards applicable to houseboats have been consolidated into one
standard (see p. 20, permitted use standard No. 7). This will provide clearer
review process and evaluation.

18 DRAFT
A:HISTORY
REV: 6-28-89

Residential Development Standards cont.

CURRENTLY,

6. Subdivisions, mobile home parks and planned unit developments shall be
designed to protect and compliment the aesthetic character of the shorelands
and adjacent aquatic areas (as viewed from the water or shorelands).

PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE,

(6a) Subdivisions, mobile home parks, planned unit developments and houseboats
shall be designed to protect and compliment the aesthetic character of
the shorelands and aquatic areas (as viewed from the water or shore-
lands).

RATIONALE,

Design and placement of houseboats should also consider and compliment
the aesthetic characteristics of shorelands and aquatic areas.

19 DRAFT
A:HISTORY
REV: 6-27-89

Residential Development Standards cont.

CURRENTLY,

7. Only floating residences shall be allowed in aquatic areas. They shall
be located in accordance with this document's standards for docks/moorages and
piling/dolphin installation. They shall not be located over productive fish
feeding areas or in a location inconsistent with the intent of the shoreline
environment designation. Floating home waste disposal practices shall meet
all local and state health regulations.

PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES,

-- All residential development standards and dock/moorage standards applicable
to siting of houseboats have been consolidated into one standard.

New residential development out over water areas is prohibited, with the
exception of houseboats. Houseboats are permitted in aquatic areas, subject
to review and approval of a conditional use permit, and compliance with the
following:

a) Design and placement of houseboats should allow thorough flushing of
the immediate aquatic area and not restrict the movement of aquatic life
requiring shallow water;

b) Houseboats shall preserve the natural bankline and be at least one
foot above the bed bottom at all times; and

c) No houseboat shall be located, relocated or enlarged so as to create
a navigational hazard for vessels typically using the waterway;

dl) Houseboat waste water disposal practices shall meet all local and
state health regulations. Holding tanks not connected to an approved
upland septic system will not be located over water unless permitted by
the Cowlitz-Wahkiakum. County Health District;

or:

d2) Houseboat waste water disposal practices shall meet all local and
state health regulations. They shall be connected to an approved upland
septic system or sewer line.

e) Houseboats may extend up to 50 feet waterward of the line of
ordinary high water, or 1/3 the distance to the opposite shore, existing
dock or houseboat, whichever is less;

20 DRAFT
A:HISTORY
REV: 6-28-89

f) New houseboats shall not exceed 25 feet in height above the surface
of the water;

g) Electrical service provided to houseboats must be installed to
comply with the safety requirements as set forth in Washington State
Electrical Code;

h) Houseboats must be setback from adjacent property lines a minimum of
10 feet; except that by mutual agreement of two abutting property owners,
one dock to service both houseboats may be sited adjacent to, or astride
of, the mutual property line. In the latter case, no other dock will be
permitted within the two property boundaries.

RATIONALE,

Consolidating applicable standards into one provides a clearer review and
permit evaluation procedure.

21 DRAFT
A:HISTORY
REV: 6-28-89

Residential Development Standards cont.

CURRENTLY,

10. Residential parking area shall be prohibited within 10 feet of the
ordinary high water mark; however, special situations may be considered,
judged by their merits on an individual basis.

11. Residential developers shall be required to indicate how they plan to
preserve shore vegetation, particularly trees. Erosion control methods
during construction must be filed with the application for a building
permit.

12. Storm drainage systems shall be separated from sewage disposal systems.
Sewage disposal systems shall be designed so that water quality of
adjacent coastal waters will not be impaired. An adequate water supply
shall be provided.

PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES,

-- No changes to standards Nos. 10 and 12.

(Ila) Residential developers shall be required to indicate how they plan
to preserve shore vegetation, particularly trees, wetlands and
shallow water habitats for fish and wildlife. Erosion control
methods during construction must be filed with the application for a
building permit.

RATIONALE,

The proposed change establishes additional criteria for consideration by
developers in order to minimize impacts to aquatic resources.

22 DRAFT
A:HISTORY
REV: 6-28-89

DOCKS AND MOORAGE PERMITTED USE STANDARDS (SMMP pp 48-49)

CURRENTLY,

Definition: A pier or secured float or floats for boat tie-up or other
water uses, often associated with a specific land use on the adjacent shore-
land, such as a residence or group of residences. Small, commercial moorages
(less than 25 berths) with minimal shoreside services and no solid breakwater
are also included in this category. Boathouses (which are used for boat
storage, net drying and similar purposes) and floating residences must also
meet these requirements. Floating residences must also meet the requirements
for residences.

Docks and Moorage Standard Abbreviations for:

1. Shoreland Environments

a. Urban (PS)
b. Rural (PS)
C. Conservancy (C)
d. Natural (N)

2. Aquatic (Water) Environments

a. Urban (PS)
b. Rural (PS)
C. Conservancy (C)
d. Natural (N)

PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES,

none

NOTE: PS = permitted with standards
C = conditional use
N = not permitted

23 DRAFT
A:HISTORY
REV: 6-27-89

Docks and Moorage Standards, cont.

CURRENTLY,

Permitted Use Standards for Natural, Conservancy, Rural and Urban Environments

2. Boat docks shall not extend any further than 50 feet from the line of
ordinary high water mark; except that a variance may be requested to satisfy
those problems whereby either the water bottom contour or water fluctuation is
such that a dock of more than 50 feet in length is required to obtain a water
depth suitable for moorage purposes.

PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES,

Permitted Use Standards for Conservancy, Rural and Urban Environments

2a. Boat docks may extend up to 50 feet waterward of the line of ordinary
high water, or 1/3 the distance to the opposite shore or existing dock or
houseboat, whichever is less.

RATIONALE,

Remove Natural form the Section title since docks and moorages are
prohibited in the Natural environment. Proposed change 2a ensures avail-
ability of the waterway for navigational purposes.

24 DRAFT
A:HISTORY
REV: 6-28-89

Docks and Moorage Standards, cont.

CURRENTLY,

6. Floats in tidally-influenced areas shall be located such that they do not
rest on the bottom at mean high tide.

PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES,

(6-a) Floats in tidally-influenced areas shall be at least one foot above
the bed bottom at all times.

RATIONALE,

Proposed alternative (6-a) modifies the current standard to establish a
one-foot height minimum distance between the float and the bed bottom to
address shallow water habitat concerns.

25 DRAFT
A:HISTORY
REV: 6-27-89

APPENDIX A

DEFINITIONS

CURRENTLY,

-- There is no definition for floating residence or houseboat.

PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES,

1. Houseboat: A single family dwelling unit constructed on a float and
normally incapable of self propulsion, which is usually permanently
moored, anchored or otherwise secured in waters. Also called a floating
home (modification of Aquatic Lands Management Act definition).

2. Houseboat: A structure, used as a residence and constructed on a float,
designed substantially as a permanent based structure by means of perma-
nent utilities, anchoring design, and lack of adequate self-propulsion.
(modification of Friday Harbor SMMP definition)

3. Houseboat: A structure constructed on a float which is usually perma-
nently moored, anchored or otherwise secured in water and is used as a
place of residence. A houseboat is not equivalent to a duck shack or
similar temporary use recreational structure. It is not equivalent to a
boat house, designed for storage of boats. A houseboat may provide boat
storage, but must still comply with the houseboat standards (modification
of no. 4 below).

4. Houseboat: A dwelling unit which floats on a water body and is designed
such that it does not come into contact with land except by ramp.
Houseboats may also be referred to as floating homes or floating resi-
dences. A houseboat is not equivalent to a duck shack or other similar
recreational structure designed for temporary use. It is not equivalent
to a boat house, designed for storage of boats (Columbia River Estuary
Regional Management Plan).

RATIONALE,

A definition for houseboat should be included in Appendix A since
standards are developed to specifically address the development and use of
houseboats.

26 DRAFT
A:HISTORY
REV: 6-28-89

750 Commercial Street, Room 214 Astoria, Oregon 97103 (503) 325-0435
April 28, 1989

To: CREST Members

From: Mark Barnes

re: Exxon Valdez oil spill

The damaged oil tanker Exxon Valdez will probably travel through the
estuary sometime during May or June on its way to Portland for repairs. Late
June seems to be the most likely arrival time. This memo is intended to help
local officials deal effectively with any potential problems arising from the
tanker's passage.

1. CREST prepared an oil spill protection plan for the Columbia River
Estuary in 1988. Unfortunately the final plan has not been published yet
because a subcontractor has not finished the plan maps. I have attached a
draft copy of part of the plan's text for your immediate use. A list of key
agency contacts is also included.

2. The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality will schedule a local
public meeting soon on the Oregon side regarding the Exxon Valez's passage up
the Columbia River Estuary. I will notify you as soon as a date and location
for the meeting are established. I will also encourage officials at the
Washington Department of Ecology to hold a similar meeting on the Washington
side of the estuary. These meetings will help keep local officials appraised
of the Exxon Valdez's arrival, and will help facilitate efficient response in
the event of a spill from the tanker.

3. The Corps hopper dredged Yaquina and Essayons are presently in Prince
William Sound in Alaska assisting with spill clean-up. This will affect the
1989 dredging schedule on the Columbia River Estuary and at other Oregon and
Washington harbors. The Corps will try to keep on schedule using contract
dredges and, for some projects, the agitation dredge Sandwick. Unfortunately
the Sandwick is down for repairs through May. It is not yet known when the
Yaquina and Essayons will return.

Distribution:
CREST Council Delegates
Curt Schneider, Clatsop County
Bob Petersen, Port of Ilwaco
Paul Benoit, City of Astoria
Bob Miller, Port of Astoria
Leslie Shephard, Town of Hammond
Steve McClain, Wahkiakum Port District #2
ORE

Mark Carey, Pacific County
Gil Gramson, City of Warrenton
Wayne Rickert, Wahkiakum County

CREST MEMBERS - WASHINGTON: Pacific County, Port Dist. No. 2 (Wahkiakum Co.), Port of Ilwaco, Town of liwaco
OREGON: Clatsop County, City of Astoria, Town of Hammond, City of Warrenton, Port of Astoria

750 Commercial Street, Room 214 Astoria, Oregon 97103 (503) 325-0435

July 13, 1988

Wayne L. Rickert, Jr., P.E.
Wahkiakum County
P. 0. Box 97
Cathlamet, Washington 98612

Dear Wayne:

Enclosed is a copy of the exemption letter for Dave Kohner's
hunting lodge.

Please let me know if the wording in the letter is adequate.

Sincerely,

David Fox, Director

DF/jh

Enclosure
CREST

CREST MEMBERS - WASHINGTON: Pacific County, Port Dist. No. 2 (Wahkiakum Co.), Port of Ilwaco, Town of llwaco
OREGON: Clatsop County, City of Astoria, Town of Hammond, City of Warrenton, Port of Astoria

July 13, 1988

Dave Kohner
3255 N. Country Club, #23
Tucson, Arizona 85716

Dear Mr. Kohner:

Your proposal for a fishing/hunting lodge (salmon valley
Ranch) and associated septic system improvements near the
Elochoman River (SE 1/4 of Section 16, T9N, R5W) is exempt
from the requirement of a substantial development or
conditional use permit. The exemption is issued pursuant to
WAC 173-14-040(l)(a) because the total cost of the
development does not exceed $2,500.00. The development, as
proposed, is consistent with the Wahkiakum, County Shoreline
Master Program. The improvements are also exempt from State
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) requirements under WAC
197-11-800(l)(b)(iii) and WAC 197-11-800(2)(d). Please note
that future improvements on the property may require a
shoreline permit and be subject to SEPA requirements.

Your fishing/hunting lodge proposal is intended for property
adjacent to your earlier proposal for a recreational vehicle
park (Shoreline Condition Use Permit #590-14-7125). It is
understood that the fishing/hunting lodge development
replaces the proposed recreational vehicle park.

DATE CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
WAHKIAKUM COUNTY

cc: David Fox - CREST
Nora Jewett - Department of Ecology

750 Commercial Street, Room 214 Astoria, Oregon 97103 (503) 325-0435

February 22, 1989

To: Wayne Rickert, County Public Works Director
From: Mark Barnes, CREST *

Subject: Staff report for Shorelines Substantial Development Permit Number
1-89; Ronald Tarabochia

Proposal: Construction of a boat shop, and repair of an existing boat hoist
on Brooks Slough.

Background: The applicant has requested a substantial development permit for
construction of a boat shop on Brooks Slough (application dated 20 January
1989). A SEPA Environmental Checklist was completed for this project (20
January 1989), and a Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) was issued by the
County (20 January 1989). Comments on the DNS were due 17 February 1989; none
were received. This staff report reviews the project against relevant pro-
visions of the County's Shoreline Master Program. CREST recommends approval
subject to conditions.

Facts-

1. The applicant is proposing to fill approximately 24,750 square feet of
intertidal marsh for construction of a boat shop and rehabilitation of a
boat hoist.

2. The shoreline at this site is in an Urban environment.

3. Urban environment areas are defined as "Those shoreline areas suitable
for intensive recreational, residential, industrial and commercial
development".

4. The Shoreline Master Program's Permitted Use Table for Shoreland Areas
indicates that industrial uses and fill are both permitted subject to
standards. The Permitted Use Table for Aquatic Areas also indicates that
industrial uses and fill are permitted subject to standards.

5. Industrial facilities are defined in the Shoreline Master Program as:
CREST

Public or private use of land or structures for manufacturing,
processing, deep water port development, and energy generation
facilities.

CREST MEMBERS - WASHINGTON: Pacific County, Port Dist. No. 2 (Wahkiakum Co.). Pori of Ilwaco, Town of Ilwaco
OREGON: Clalsop County, City of Astoria, Town of Hammond. City of Warrenton, Port of Astoria

February 22, 1939
Permit #1-89
Page 2

6. Fill is defined by the Shoreline Master Program as:

The placement by man of sediment or other material (excluding solid
waste) in an aquatic area to create new shorelands or on shorelands
to raise the elevation of the land.

7. The Shoreline Master Program establishes the following Permitted Use
Standards for industrial development in Urban environments:

(1) Industrial facilities should be designed, if possible, to permit
public viewing of the waterfront and/or operations from selected
viewpoints which would not interfere with industrial operations.
Maximum feasible public access to the shoreline and water, consis-
tent with security and safety, shall be provided.

(2) Where feasible, multipurpose and cooperative use of proposed moor-
age, parking, cargo handling and storage facilities should be
undertaken. When new facilities are proposed, the applicant shall
show that existing facilities in the area cannot be utilized. New
facilities should be designed to provide for cooperative use as
feasible.

(3) The location of industrial facilities shall take into account the
impact on views and vistas from adjacent roads or residential areas.
Facilities which have a decidedly negative impact shall provide for
buffering, screening or other design features to protect the views
or vistas.

(4) Parking facilities shall remain outside the shoreline area, except
where parking elsewhere is rendered impractical by topography or
constitutes a severe economic hardship, in which exceptional case it
shall remain as far from the ordinary high water mark as feasible.

(5) Facilities to treat and dispose of waste water, to clean up spills
and dispose of toxic materials or petroleum shall be available if
necessary.

(7) Industrial uses shall meet all applicable state and federal stan-
dards for water and air quality, noise and energy facility siting.

(9) Industrial uses shall be designed to minimize the adverse effects on
agricultural lands, wildlife and fish passage, feeding, migration
and spawning areas.

Standards 6, 8 and 10 area omitted because they do not apply to the
proposal.

8. The Shoreline Master Program establishes the following Permitted Use
Standards for fill in aquatic areas:

February 22, 1.989
Permit #1-89
Page 3

(2) Fill in aquatic areas shall be permitted only:

a. In conjunction with a permitted or conditionally permitted
water-dependent use for which there is a demonstrated public
need and for which no feasible upland sites exist; or

b. In conjunction with a permitted or conditionally permitted
bridge or navigational structure for which there is a public
need and where no feasible upland sites or routes exist; or

C. As part of an approved restoration project.

(3) Where fills are permitted, the fill shall be the minimum necessary
to accomplish the proposed use.

(4) Fills shall be permitted only after it is established that adverse
impacts on navigation, estuarine habitat, processes and functions,
water circulation and sedimentation patterns, water quality and
recreational activities will be minimized.

(5) Where existing public access is reduced, suitable public access as
part of the development project shall be provided.

(6) Aquatic areas shall not be used for sanitary landfills or the
disposal of solid waste.

Fill standard 1 is omitted because it is not germane to the project.

9. The Shoreline Master Program establishes the following use/activity
policy statements for industrial development:

(a) Water-dependent industries which require frontage on navigable water
shall be given priority over other industrial uses.

(d) The cooperative use of docking, parking, cargo handling and storage
facilities shall be strongly encouraged in waterfront industrial
areas.

Policy statements b, c, e, f, g, h and i are omitted because they are not
germane.

10. The Shoreline Master Program establishes the following use/activity
policy statements for fill in aquatic areas:

(a) Shoreline fills or cuts should be designed and located so that
significant damage to existing ecological values or natural resour-
ces or alteration of local currents will not occur, creating a
hazard to adjacent life, property, and natural resources systems.

February 22, 1989
Permit #1-89
Page 4

(b) All perimeters of fills should be provided with vegetation, retain-
ing walls, or other mechanisms for erosion prevention.

(d) Priority should be given to landfills for water-dependent uses and
for public uses. In evaluating fill projects and in designating
areas appropriate for fill, such factors as total water surface
reduction, navigation restriction, impediment to water flow and
circulation, reduction-of water quality and destruction of habitat
should be considered.

Findings:

1. The proposed boat shop, existing boat hoist, and existing netrack are
located in an area appropriate for such uses; e.g., an Urban environment.
This staff report reviews the proposed facility as an industrial use
because it involves, to some extent, manufacturing rather than retail
sales.

2. The proposed facility does not allow for public access to this pri-
vately-owned shoreline. Public access across this site would not be
consistent with security or safety (see Facts 7(1)).

3. The proposed boat shop will rely on parking, loading, moorage and storage
facilities on site. Opportunities for cooperative facilities are not
available on Brooks Slough because of the relatively low intensity of
commercial and industrial uses there (see Facts 7(2) and 9(d)).

4. Views from S.R. 4 will not be affected by the proposed improvements,
because S.R. 4 is higher than most of the site. Brooks Slough will be
visible from S.R. 4 over the top of the proposed boat shop and existing
.netrack (see Facts 7(3)).

5. Parking for this project will be located on-site, within the shoreline
area. There are no on-site parking opportunities outside of the shore-
line area. On-steet parking on S.R. 4 will not be used for this project
because of traffic safety concerns (see Facts 7(4)j.

6. The applicant has applied for, and is awaiting approval of, permission to
build an on-site wastewater disposal system consisting of a conventional
drainfield. This kind of system will be sufficient for all anticipated
wastewater disposal needs associated with the use (see Facts 7(5)).

7. The applicant has applied for a federal permit to place fill in a wetland
(a section 404 permit), and for a state permit for alteration of a
waterway (hydraulics permit). Applicable state and federal standards
will be addressed in the course of reviewing these permits (see Facts
7(7)).

February 22, 1989
Permit #1-89
Page 5

8. The proposal minimizes adverse effects on fish passage, feeding, migra-
tion and spawning by being located outside of known critical fish habitat
areas, and by minimizing the amount of in-water construction. The
project should have no impact on agricultural lands or wildlife (see
Facts 7(9)).

9. The proposal involves a water-dependent industry: boat building and
repair. It has priority over other types of industries for this reason
(see Facts 9(a)).

10. The proposed fill, covering-about 24,750 square feet, is the minimum
amount of fill that can accommodate the proposal, according to the
applicant (see Facts 8(3)).

11. Impacts of the fill on estuarine habitat, navigation, water circulation,
sediment transport, water quality, and recreation must be minimized (see
standard cited under Facts 8(4)).

Estuarine habitat in Brooks Slough has not been thoroughly studied.
Brooks Slough may support both resident and anadromous fish, though there
are no data on fish populations in the slough. Similar sloughs provide
feeding and resting areas for juvenile anadromous fish. The Corps of
Engineers and other state and federal resource agencies will review the
project for its impacts on estuarine habitat. They may require impact-
reduction measures or compensatory mitigation if impacts on estuarine
habitat are significant.

Navigation in Brooks Slough should not be affected by the project. All
project-related improvements will be made landward of existing in-water
structures and will not extend into the customarily-used channel.

Fill and in-water structures associated with the project are not so large
as to significantly affect circulation in Brooks Slough, except under
flood conditions. Under these conditions, other existing improvements
will have a more significant impact on circulation than will any of the
proposed structures.

Sediment transport in Brooks Slough is not well -understood. The fill
will be erosion resistant, consisting largely of rocks.

Water quality in Brooks Slough is influenced largely by tidal flushing.
No water quality problems are expected as a result of the project. The
applicant will install a subsurface wastewater disposal system on the
site to handle minimal amounts of wastewater associated with the use.

Recreational use of Brooks Slough are not expected to be influenced by
the project.

12. The proposal will not reduce existing public access. There is no public
access to the shoreline over the project site. Public access to the

February 22, 1989
Permit #1-89
Page 6

water is available at a public boatramp upstream from the project site,
and a Skamokawa Vista Park, downstream from the project site (see Facts
8(5)).

13. Fill material will be entirely clean rock: no solid waste will be used
for the fill (see Facts (8(6)).

14. The proposed fill location is not expected to result in significant
damage to existing ecological values or natural resources. It will not
alter currents in Brooks Slough to any significant extent. The proposed
fill should create no hazards to adjacent life, property or natural
resource systems (see Facts 10(a)).

15. The fill perimeter will consist of clean, erosion resistant rock (see
Facts 10(b) and 10(c)).

16. The proposed fill is for a water-dependent use: a boat shop. Total water
surface reduction will be about 24,750 square feet at extreme high tide.
Navigation across the project site is not possible. Wetland habitat on
the site has not been evaluated, but is believed to have relatively low
value because of the presence of nearby development (see Facts 10(d)).

Conclusion/Recommentdation: The proposed project meets the requirements for
industrial development and fills in an Urban environment. It should be
approved subject to approval of pending state and federal permits for the
proposed fill.

750 Commercial Street, Room 214 Astoria, Oregon 97103 (503) 325-0435

April 28, 1989

To: Wayne Rickert, County Public Works Director
From: Mark Barnes, CREST Ab

re: Staff report for Shorelines Substantial Development Permit #2-89; Duane
Smith

Proposal: Construction of floating moorage on Bernie Slough

Background: The applicant has requested permit approval for the installation
of up to 25 piling, 550 foot long floating dock, a small gear storage shed,
and a 30 foot long access ramp on Bernie Slough. This staff report reviews
the project against relevant provisions of the County's Shoreline Master
Program. CREST recommends approval subject to conditions.

Facts

1. The applicant is proposing construction of a 550 foot long boat moorage
on Bernie Slough. The project will consist of up to 25 piling, a 30 foot by 4
foot access ramp, a small gear storage shed, and several 4 foot wide floats
placed end-to-end with a total length of up to 550 feet.

2. The project site is in a Rural Aquatic environment. Adjacent shoreland
is in a Rural Shoreland environment.

3. "Docks and Moorage" are defined as:

A pier or secured float or floats for boat tie-up or other water uses,
often associated with a specific land use on the adjacent shoreland, such
as a residence or group of residences. Small, commercial moorages (less
than 25 berths) with minimal shoreside services and no solid breakwater
are also included in this category. (page 48, SMMP)

4. The Shoreline Master Program defines "Marinas" as:

Marinas are facilities which provide moorage, launching, storage, sup-
plies and a variety of services for recreational uses, commercial and
charter fishing vessels. They are differentiated from docks/moorages by
CREST

CREST MEMBERS - WASHINGTON: Pacific County, Port Oist. No. 2 (Wahkiakurn Co.). Port of llwaco. Town of Ilwaco
OREGON: Clatsop County. City of Astoria, Town of Hammond, City of Warrenton, Port of Astoria

April 28, 1989
Wahkiakum County
Permit #2-89
Page 2

their larger scale, the provision of significant landside services
and/or the use of a solid breakwater (rock, bulkheading, etc.). (page 68,
SMMP)

5. Dock and Moorage Development Permitted Use standards are listed on pages
48 and 49 of the County's Shoreline Management Master Program. Nine of the
ten standards are germane to this proposal. They are cited below:

(2) Boat docks shall not extend any further than 50 feet from the line
of ordinary high water mark; except that a variance may be requested
to satisfy those problems whereby either the water bottom contour or
water fluctuation is such that a dock of more than 50 feet in length
is required to obtain a water depth suitable for moorage purposes.

(3) Evidence shall be provided by the applicant that the size of the
dock or moorage is the minimum necessary to fulfill the purpose.

(4) Open moorages are encouraged over covered or enclosed moorages,
except in connection with a commercial or industrial use where such
shelter is necessary for repair and maintenance of vessles and
associated equipment such as fishing nets, etc.

(5) Open pile piers or secured floats shall be used for dock construc-
tion.

(6) Floats in tidally-influenced areas shall be located such that they
do not rest on the bottom at mean high tide.

(7) Docks and moorages shall be designed so the hydraulic effects on
adjacent shorelines are minimized to the degree possible.

(8) Boa t docks must be set back from adjacent property lines a minimum
of 10 feet; except that by mutual agreement of two abutting property
owners one dock to serve both properties may be sited adjacent to,
or astride of, the mutual property line. In the latter case no
other dock will be permitted within the two property boundaries.

(9) If electrical service is provided to the dock that service must be
installed in such a manner that it complies with the safety require-
ments as set forth in the Washington State Electrical Code.

(10) Docks and moorages shall extend no further out into the water than
needed to effect navigational accesses. Conflicts with other water
surface uses, such as commercial fishing, recreational boating and
log rafting shall be minimized.

6. The project site has about 700 - 750 linear feet of shoreline on the
north side of Bernie Slough. Bernie Slough at the dock site is about six feet
deep at Mean Low Water, according to the applicant. Bernie Slough is between
and 200 feet wide at the project site.

April 28, 1989
Wahkiakum County
Permit #2-89
Page 3

7. The proposed dock will provide 550 linear feet of boat moorage. It will
be parallel to, and about 30 feet waterward of, the Bernie Slough bankline.

8. No dredging, filling, or bank stabilization is proposed as a part of this
project.

9. No specific use of the adjacent upland has been proposed. Adjacent
upland under the applicant's ownership is about twenty feet wide.

10. The applicant has indicated (telephone conversation, 19 April 1989) that
the entire dock may not be built at one time. The first phase may include the
access ramp, piling and one or two float sections. Subsequent phases may
include additional float sections and a small gear storage shed.

Findings

1. The proposed dock is large enough to prov ide moorage for between ten and
twenty boats of the length typically found on Bernie Slough (30 to 50 feet
long).

2. Multiple vessel moorages like the one proposed may be reviewed as either
a marina or as a small commercial moorage. The definitions cited above (Facts
3 and 4) illustrate the difference.

3. Dock and Moorage Permitted Use Standard 2 (cited above under Facts 5)
limits the extension of docks to 50 feet waterward of the ordinary high water
mark. The applicant's drawings show a Mean High Water line. These two datum
are not identical, but on a steep bank like the one on Bernie Slough, they are
approximately the same. The applicant's drawings show the proposed dock
extending about 30 feet waterward of the Mean High Water line. The proposal
complies with Standard 2.

4. Dock and Moorage Permitted Use Standard 3 (cited above under Facts 5)
requires that the dock be no larger than necessary to fulfill its purpose.
The dock as proposed is capable of providing secure moorage for between 10 and
20 small boats. The Planning Commission can approve this request if the
applicant provides some justification for the proposed dock's size. Justifi-
cation should address the intended use of the dock, and should meet the
language in dock and moorage standard 3, cited under facts 5(3) on page 2 of
this staff report.- Justification may include oral testimony at the hearing,
or written testimony submitted in advance of the hearing, or both.

5. Dock and Moorage Permitted Use Standard 4 (cited above under Facts 5)
discourages covered moorages. The applicant is not proposing a covered
moorage. The proposal complies with Standard 4.

6. Dock and Moorage Permitted Use Standards 5 (cited above under Facts 5)
requires open pile or secured float construction methods for docks. The
proposed dock relies on floats connected to piling. It complies with Standard
5.

April 28, 1989
Wahkiakum County
Permit #2-89
Page 4

7. Dock and Moorage Permitted Use Standard 6 (cited above under Facts 5)
requires that floats in tidally influenced areas be located such that they do
not rest on the bottom at low tides. The drawing submitted by the applicant
indicates that the proposed floats will not touch the slough bottom even
during the lowest tides. The project complies with Standard 6.

8. Dock and Moorage Permitted Use Standard 7 (cited above under Facts 5)
requires that adverse hydraulic effects due to the dock's design or placement
be minimized. The Corps of Engineers will review the proposal for these
concerns when considering their Section 404 permit. There is no evidence that
the proposed design will adversely affect the hydrology of Bernie Slough. The
project complies with Standard 7.

9. Dock and Moorage Permitted Use Standard 8 (cited above under Facts 5)
requires that boat docks be set back from side property lines at least ten
feet. The project site has about 700 - 750 linear feet of shoreline. The
proposed dock is 550 feet long, so there is enough room to site the dock
within the setbacks. The project can be conditioned to comply with this
standard (see recommended Condition #I).

10. Dock and Moorage Permitted Use Standard 9 (cited above under Facts 5)
requires electrical service on docks to meet the relevant safety standards in
the Washington State Electrical Code. The applicant has indicated that
electrical service may be installed at a later date (telephone conversation 19
April 1989). See recommended Condition #2.

11. Dock and Moorage Permitted Use Standard 10 (cited above under Facts 5)
addresses conflicts between water users. Other water uses on Bernie Slough
include floating structures, small boat navigation, and recreation. The
proposed dock is sited close enough to the shoreline, and the slough is wide
enough at the project site, so as to minimize any potential conflicts. The
proposal complies with Standard 10.

Conclusion/Recommendation

The project complies with the applicable Shoreline Master Program
standards for docks in a Rural Environment, and should be approved subject to
the following conditions:

1. The dock shall be sited so that neither end is closer than ten feet from
the property line.

2. Any electrical installation on the dock shall comply with the state
electrical code.

3. The applicant must obtain all necessary state and federal permits before
undertaking construction of the proposed dock.

750 Commercial Street, Room 214 Astoria, Oregon 97103 (503) 325-0435

June 27, 1989

To: Wayne Rickert, John Tobin, Wahkiakum County Public Works Department

From: Mark Barnes, CREST

Re: Staff report for Shorelines Substantial Development Permit/Conditional
Use Permit #6-89; Verna Lechner

Proposal: Construction of a bridge across the Elochoman River at MP 5.1 on
State Route 407.

Background: The applicant has requested permit approval for installation of a
90 foot long steel bridge across the Elochoman River, plus associated fill for
the bridge abutments. The project is in a Rural Environment. This staff
report reviews the project against applicable provisions in the County's
Shoreline Management Master Program. CREST Recommends approval subject to
conditions.

Facts:

1. The applicant proposes construction of a 90 foot long bridge and about 60
cubic yards of fill material for bridge abutments.

2. The project site is in a Rural Aquatic and Rural Shoreland Environment,
on the Elochoman River, about five miles upstream from the river mouth.

3. The purpose of the bridge is to provide access between State Route 407
and the permit applicant's tree farm, on the east bank of the Elochoman River.

4. "Bridges" are included in the definition of "transportation facilities":

Highways, railroads, bridges and associated structures and signs which
provide for land transportation of motorized and/or non-motorized
vehicles (excluding logging roads). (Shoreline Management Master Program,
p.93)

5. Transportation facilities are permitted with standards in Rural Shoreland
Environments, and conditional uses in Rural Aquatic Environments.
CREST

CREST MEMBERS - WASHINGTON@ Pacific County, Port Dist. No. 2 (Wahkiakum Co.). Port of Ilwaco, Town of Ilwaco
OREGON: Clatsop County, City of Astoria, Town of Hammond. City of Warrenton, Port of Astoria

Verna Lechner
CUP #6-89
June 27, 1989
Page 2

6. Transportation facility permitted use standards are listed on page 93 and
94 of the Shoreline Management Master Program. Three of the six standards are
applicable:

(2) In all environments, highways, railroads and bridges shall be
designed and located to take advantage of the natural topography so
as to cause minimum disruption of the shoreline area. Causeways
across aquatic areas shall not be permitted except where no feasible
alternative shoreland up upland route exists.

(3) Careful consideration should be given to hydraulic effects of land
transportation facilities in Aquatic area; undesirable changes in
shoaling, currents, erosion and flood elevations shall be avoided.

(4) All private roads must be developed to county standards and follow
the same general locational shoreline requirements as apply to
public roads.

7. All filling associated with the bridge abutments will be placed above the
ordinary high water line on the Elochoman River shoreline.

8. The County Public Works Director made a determination of Non-Significance
for the project under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) rules.

9. Three criteria for reviewing and granting conditional use permits are on
page x of the Shoreline Management Master Program. They are:

(1) Uses which are classified or set forth in the applicable master
program as conditional uses may be authorized provided the applicant
can demonstrate all of the following:

a. That the proposed use will be consistent with the policies of
RCW 90.58.020 and the policies of the master program.

b. That the proposed use will not interfere with the normal public
use of public shorelines.

C. That the proposed use of the site and design of the project
will be compatible with other permitted uses within the area.

d. That the proposed use will cause no unreasonable adverse
effects to the shoreline environment designation in which it is
to be located.

e. That the public interest suffers no substantial detrimental
effect.

(2) Other uses which are not classified or set forth in the applicable
master program may be authorized as conditional uses provided the
applicant can demonstrate, in addition to the criteria set forth in
WAC 173-14-140(a) above, that extraordinary circumstances preclude
reasonable use of the property in a manner consistent with the use
regulations of the master program.

Verna Lechner
CUP #6-89
June 27, 1989
Page 3

(3) In the granting of all conditional use permits, consideration shall
be given to the cumulative impact of additional requests for like
actions in the area. For example, if conditional use permits were
granted for other developments in the area where similar circum-
stances exist, the total of the conditional uses should also remain
consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58.020 and should not produce
substantial adverse effects to the shoreline environment.

10. Applicable Shoreline Management Master Program policies are cited below:

Forest Management Policies:

(d) Proper road and bridge design, location and construction and mainte-
nance practices should be used to prevent development of roads and
structures which would adversely affect shoreline resources.

Transportation Policies:

(c) All debris, overburden, and other waste materials from construction
should be disposed of in such a way as to prevent their entry into
any body of water by erosion from drainage, high water, or other
means.

11. The bridge's east abutment will be in the Elochoman River's 100 year
flood plain.

Findings:

I. Transportation facility standard 2 requires that bridges be designed and
located to take advantage of natural topography so as to cause minimal disrup-
tion of the shoreline. The applicant has chosen an area where the river is
relatively narrow, thus minimizing the amount of fill needed for bridge
abutments.

2. Transportation facility standard 2 requires consideration of shoaling,
currents, erosion and flooding when reviewing bridges. Because the bridge
spans the aquatic area below ordinary high water, impacts on shoaling, cur-
rents and erosion should be avoided. The bridge's east abutment is in the 100
year flood plain of the Elochoman River. The applicant must obtain a flood
plain development permit from the County, if required, before proceeding (see
recommended Condition A).

3. Conditional use criteria (1a), cited in Facts 9, requires that condi-
tional uses be consistent with the policies in RCW 90.58.020 and the policies
in the Shoreline Management Master Program. The policies in the state Shore-
line Management Act at RCW 90.58.020 are essentially embodied in the County's
SMMP.

Shoreline resources affected by the project include riparian vegetation
on the river's east bank. The amount of vegetation disturbed is relatively

Verna Lechner
CUP #6-89
June 27, 1989
Page 4

minor compared to the amount along the Elochoman River. For this reason, the
project is consistent with transportation policy (c), and forest management
policy (d), cited in Facts 10.

4. Conditional use criterion (lb), cited in Facts 9, requires that condi-
tional uses not interfere with public use of public shorelines. Fishing along
the Elochoman River is the predominant public use of these shorelines. The
bridge is not expected to restrict angler access to the Elochoman River.

5. Conditional use criterion (1c), cited in Facts 9, requires that the
proposed bridge be compatible with other permitted uses in the area. A number
of uses are permitted in the Coun 'ty's Rural Environments. The bridge would
not be incompatible with any of them, with the possible exception of naviga-
tion. This bridge is above the head of tide on the Elochoman, so only small
boat navigation could be affected. The bridge design provides adequate
clearance for small craft. Between 10 and 15 feet of clearance between
Ordinary High Water and the bridge will be provided.

6. Conditional use criterion (1d), cited in Facts 9, requires that the
bridge cause no unreasonably adverse effects to the shoreline environment.
Loss of some riparian vegetation will accompany the project. Otherwise,
impacts to the shoreline are avoided.

7. Conditional use criterion (le), cited in Facts 9, states that the public
interest must not suffer any substantial detrimental effect as a result of the
project. No significant public losses associated with the permit are evident.

8. Conditional use criterion (2), cited under Facts 9, provides a mechanism
for reviewing uses not addressed in the County's Shoreline Management Master
Program. Since bridges are listed as Transportation Facilities in the Shore-
line Management Master Program, this criterion is not applicable.

9. Conditional use criterion (3), cited under Facts 9, requires that cumu-
lative impacts be considered. The cumulative impact of many bridges over the
Elochman would be undesirable, but this is not likely to occur. If there were
a significant demand for vehicle access to the east bank of the Elochoman
River, the County would probably build a public road network relying on a few
bridges. For this reason, the cumulative impact of bridges is, realistically,
minor.

Conclusion/Recommendation: The project complies with the applicable Shoreline
Management Master Program standards for bridges in a Rural Environment, and
should be approved subject to the following condition:

A. The applicant must obtain a flood plain development permit for the
bridge, if necessary.

EXHIBIT 4

THE CREST COUNCIL: A REGIONAL FORUM

COLUMBIA RIVER ESTUARY STUDY TASKFORCE

Carol M. Rushmore, Planner
Mark Barnes, Director

1. Title: The CREST Council: A Regional Forum

2. Authors: Carol M. Rushmore, Mark R. Barnes

3. Subject: Regional Management in the Columbia River Estuary

4. Date: 30 June 1989

5. Participants: Columbia River Estuary Study Taskforce
Pacific County
Wahkiakum. County
Port of Ilwaco
Ilwaco
Wahkiakum Port District #2

6. Source of Copies: Columbia River Estuary Study Taskforce
750 Commercial Street, Room 214
Astoria, Oregon 97103-4513

7. Project Number: G0089035

8. Series Number: Not applicable

9. Number of Pages: 28

10. Abstract: The CREST Council consists of delegates and alternates from the
ten local governments that are members of CREST. Washington members are
Pacific and Wahkiakum Counties, Ilwaco, the Port of Ilwaco and Wahkiakum Port
District #2. The Council meets monthly to discuss regional management issues
of concern to local governments in the Columbia River Estuary area. This
report includes the minutes from nine CREST Council meetings that occurred
during FY89.

MINUTES

August 11, 1988
CREST Council Meeting
Skamokawa Vista Park
Skamokawa, Washington

12:00 Lunch/Call to Order/Introductions

DELEGATESALTERNATES Carol Carver, Wahkiakum Port District #2'
Nils Lindholm, City of Warrenton
Steve McClain, Wahkiakum Port District #2
Don Wright, Wahkiakum County

CREST STAFF David Fox, Director
Mark Barnes, Planner
Marietta Doney, Secretary/Bookkeeper

GUESTS Jessica Fletcher, Friends of Skamokawa

Three CREST jurisdictions were present at the meeting; four jurisdic-
tions are needed for a quorum. David Fox received proxy votes from Paul
Benoit, City of Astoria, and Ted Bugas, Port of Astoria, to be used at
the meeting. David Fox asked if the proxy votes could be counted when
determining a quorum. Council members present reached a consensus
agreement that proxy votes constituted the jurisdictions' represen-
tation, thus a quorum was present at the meeting.

There were no officers present to chair the meeting. David Fox sugges-
ted that the Council members present appoint a chair among themselves
for the purpose of running the meeting. Meeting attendants expressed
concern that they were not familiar with the CREST Council meeting
procedures. They asked David Fox to run the meeting as a staff person
responsible for announcing agenda items and recording motions, but not
in the capacity of a chair with voting privileges.

Because of the unusual nature of the meeting, David Fox suggested, and
the Council agreed, that all votes recorded would be ratified at the
next CREST Council meeting.

AGENDA ITEM #1: Announcements

David Fox announced that the next CREST Council meeting will be on
September 8, 1988. He also announced a Northwest Power Planning Council
public meeting at the Port of Ilwaco on August 23, 1988.

CREST member's notebooks were distributed to members who had not yet
received them.

AGENDA ITEM #2: Presentations

Steve McClain, Wahkiakum Port District #2, gave a presentation on
Skamokawa Vista Park developments over the past year. Jessica Fletcher,
Friends of Skamokawa, gave a presentation on the acquisition of Redman
Hall and on future plans for the Hall.

AGENDA ITEM #3: June Ainutes

Don Wright moved to approve the June minutes. Motion seconded by Nils
Lindholm. Unanimous

AGENDA ITEM #4: June and July Financial Statements

David Fox presented the Financial Statements and overbudget memos. Don
Wright asked about the overbudget on the medical insurance amount.
David Fox explained that the overbudget amount represents membership
dues for our insurance group (Special Districts of Oregon). This amount
was budgeted for June 1989 rather than July 1988.

Carol Carver moved to approve the June and July financial statements.
Motion seconded by Don Wright. Unanimous

AGENDA ITEM #5: June and July Financial Status Reports and Work Sum-
maries

David Fox explained the June and July Financial Status Reports and Work
Summaries. Don Wright asked about the source of carryover money. David
Fox explained that the carryover has been accumulated over several years
and represents unexpended funds that came from interest, copy machine
user fees, and other non-grant sources.

Don Wright discussed CREST's involvement with Wahkiakum County Shoreline
Master Program amendments. CREST staff stated that work with the County
on possible amendments would continue when comments on draft amendment
materials were received from Washington Department of Ecology.

AGENDA ITEM #6: Proposed CREST Bylaws Amendment

David Fox explained the proposed bylaws amendment for allowing CREST
Alternates to hold elected office positions on the CREST Council.
Council members present expressed concern that they were not involved in
pas,t discussion concerning the amendment. They did not feel that it was
appropriate to make a decision on the amendment at this meeting.

Nils Lindholm moved to postpone a vote on the amendment until the next
meeting. Seconded by Don Wright. Unanimous.

AGENDA ITEM #7: Election of Officers

Prior to the meeting, Paul Benoit, CREST Nominating Committee, gave
David Fox a written summary of officer nominations. David was to
present the nominations at the meeting. Since, the nominations were
dependent in the outcome of the vote on the Bylaws amendment, they could
not be acted on at the meeting.

Don Wright moved to postpone a vote on the election of officers until
the next meeting. Seconded by Carol Carver. Unanimous.

AGENDA ITEM #8: June and July Implementation Memos

Mark Barnes reviewed the implementation memos. There was discussion
concerning developments at Tongue Point and a permit for a hunting lodge
in Wahkiakum County.

AGENDA ITEM #9: FY89 CREST Budget

David Fox presented the approved CREST FY89 budget for the Council's
information.

Meeting adjourned at 2:00pm

MINUTES

September 8, 1988
CREST Council Meeting
Cafe Uniontown
Astoria, Oregon

12:00 Lunch/Call to Order/Introductions

DELEGATEVALTERNATES Roger Berg, Clatsop County
Ted Bugas, Port of Astoria
George Cooper, City of Warrenton
Bob Petersen, Port of Ilwaco

CREST STAFF David Fox, Director
Mark Barnes, Planner
Marietta Doney, Secretary/Bookkeeper

No CREST officers were present to chair the meeting.

George Cooper moved to appoint Roger Berg as Chairman Pro Tem. for this
meeting and to move agenda items 7 and 8 , Bylaws amendment and election
of officers, to the beginning of the agenda. Motion seconded by Ted
Bugas. Unanimous.

AGENDA ITEM #7: Proposed CREST Bylaws Amendments

David Fox explained the proposed CREST Bylaws amendment to allow alter-
nates to become CREST Council officers. The proposed language of the
amendment was presented in the meeting mailing packet.

George Cooper moved to amend the CREST Bylaws to allow alternates to
become CREST Council officers. Motion seconded by Ted Bugas.
Unanimous.

AGENDA ITEM #8: Election of Officers

Ted Bugas nominated Roger Berg as Chairman and Bob Petersen as Vice-
Chairman. Motion seconded by-George Cooper. Unanimous.

George Cooper moved to cast a unanimous ballot for Roger Berg, Chairman,
and Bob Petersen, Vice-Chairman. Motion seconded by Ted Bugas.

AGENDA ITEM #1: Announcements

David Fox announced that the next CREST Council meeting will be on
October 13, 1988.

AGENDA ITEM #2: Estuary of National Significance Program

David Fox explained the National Estuary Program and the possibility of
Oregon and Washington pursuing the nomination of the Columbia River
Estuary into the program. The purpose of the program is to establish a
local, federal, state group to identify and plan solutions to resource
management problems in the estuary. David Fox asked if the Council
would support nomination of the Columbia River Estuary into the program.

After some discussion, Council directed staff to gather additional
information on the program and draft resolutions expressing CREST's and
local jurisdictions' support of the program.

AGENDA ITEM #3: Ratification of August 11, 1988, Council Action

David Fox explained that it would be necessary to ratify Council votes
from the August 11, 1988, meeting.

Bob Petersen moved to ratify the CREST Council votes from the August 11,
1989, meeting. Motion seconded by George Cooper. Unanimous.

AGENDA ITEM #4: August Minutes

Ted Bugas moved to approve the August minutes. Motion seconded by
George Cooper. Unanimous

AGENDA ITEM #5: August Financial Statement

David Fox presented the Financial Statement and overbudget memo.

George Cooper moved to approve the August financial statement. Motion
seconded by Bob Petersen. Unanimous

AGENDA ITEM #5: August Financial Status Report and Work Summaries

David Fox explained the August Financial Status Report and Work Summar-
ies. Roger Berg asked why CREST staff was involved in reviewing the
proposed County landfill at Wauna. David Fox stated that Curt
Schneider, County Planning Director, requested CREST to review the
landfill with respect to possible estuary impacts.

AGENDA ITEM #6: August Implementation Memo

Mark Barnes reviewed the implementation memo. There was discussion
concerning the Fred Meyer permit, an upcoming wetland conference, and
the status of disposal at Area D.

Meeting adjourned at 12:50pm

MINUTES

October 13, 1988
CREST Council Meeting
Red's Restaurant
Ilwaco, Washington

12:15 Lunch/Call to Order/Introductions

DELEGATES/A,LTERNATES Paul Benoit, City of Astoria
George Cooper, City of Warrenton
Stephanie Hampton, Town of Hammond
Bob Petersen, Port of Ilwaco
Curt Schneider, Clatsop County

CREST STAFF David Fox, Director
Mark Barnes, Planner
Marietta Doney, Secretary/Bookkeeper

Vice Chairman Bob Peterson opened the meeting.

AGENDA ITEM #1: Announcements

David Fox announced that the next CREST Council meeting will be on
November 10, 1988.

He also announced that CREST has received a $25,823 grant from NCRI to
develop a program for evaluating sediment quality with respect to
in-water dredged material disposal.

David Fox announced that the Northwest Power Planning Council responded
to our request to examine the carrying capacity of the Columbia River
Estuary with respect to juvenile salmon. The agency wishes to set up an
advisory group to examine the matter further.

David Fox handed out revised Delegate and Alternate listings which
showed the new officer positions.

Bob Peterson suggested that the Council hold two meetings in Oregon for
every one in Washington to make attendance at the meetings more conve-
nient for Oregon members. Council members present stated that this
would not be necessary.

AGENDA ITEM #2: September Minutes

George Cooper moved to approve the September minutes. Motion seconded
by Paul Benoit. Unanimous

AGENDA ITEM #3: September REVISED Financial Statement

David Fox explained that the financial statement in the mailing was
missing the quarterly SAIF payment because we were waiting for some
information concerning the appropriate payment amount. He distributed a
REVISED Financial Statement and overbudget memo that included the SAIF
payment.

George Cooper moved to approve the REVISED September financial state-
ment. Motion seconded by Stephanie Hampton. Unanimous

AGENDA ITEM #4: September Financial Status Report and Work Summaries

David Fox explained the September Financial Status Report and Work
Summaries. There were no questions.

AGENDA ITEM #5: National Estuary Program

David Fox explained the memo, question and answer sheet, and proposed
resolution for support of the National Estuary Program. Paul Benoit
requested that the question and answer sheet described how the program
is funded. Bob Peterson suggested that the Council delay action on the
resolution until the individual jurisdictions consider support of the
Program.

George Cooper moved to approve our approach with the National Estuary
Program and proceed with asking local jurisdictions to consider suppor-
ting the program. Unanimous.

AGENDA ITEM #6: September Implementation Memo

Mark Barnes reviewed the implementation memo.

Curt Schneider discussed coordination problems with Oregon Division of
State Lands regarding local permits for Tongue Point Development.

Curt Schneider moved that CREST staff draft a letter to Division of
State Lands explaining the coordination problems and suggest improve-
ments. Motion seconded by George Cooper. Unanimous.

Meeting adjourned at 1:15pm

MINUTES

November 10, 1988
CREST Council Meeting
Pacific Rim Restaurant
Astoria, Oregon

12:20 Lunch/Call to Order/Introductions

DELEGATESALTERNATES Ted Bugas, Port of Astoria
Bob Ellsberg, City of Astoria
Stephanie Hampton, Town of Hammond
Bob Petersen, Port of Ilwaco
Curt Schneider, Clatsop County

CREST STAFF David Fox, Director
Marietta Doney, Secretary/Bookkeeper

Vice Chairman Bob Petersen opened the meeting.

AGENDA ITEM #1: Announcements

David Fox announced that the next CREST Council meeting will be the
Christmas luncheon on December 8, 1988.

AGENDA ITEM #2: November Minutes

Ted Bugas moved to approve the November minutes. Motion seconded by Bob
Ellsberg. Unanimous

AGENDA ITEM #3: November Financial Statement

Bob Ellsberg moved to approve the November financial statement. Motion
seconded by Ted Bugas. Unanimous

AGENDA ITEM #4: November Financial Status Report and Work Summaries

David Fox explained the November Financial Status Report and Work
Summaries. There were no questions.

AGENDA ITEM #5: Letter to OR Division of State Lands

David Fox presented the draft letter to OR Division of State Lands
concerning recent permit coordination problems. Curt Schneider re-

quested that the letter be amended to mention his recent conversation
with Martha Pagel. Ted Bugas stated that the letter could have been
stronger but thought that it should be sent as soon as possible without
major revisions.

AGENDA ITEM #6: November Implementation Memo

Mark Barnes reviewed the implementation memo.

There was some discussion of offshore oil issues. The Council stated
that we should define CREST's role in the recent offshore oil planning
efforts and in the review of future offshore development. Ted Bugas
stated that CREST should not establish a position for or against off-
shore development and should restrict its involvement to estuary im-
pacts.

Meeting adjourned at 1:15pm

MINUTES

December 8, 1988
CREST Council Meeting
Sanctuary Restaurant
Chinook, Washington

4:20 pm/Call to Order/Introductions

DELEGATES/ALTERNATES Roger Berg, Clatsop County
Ted Bugas, Port of Astoria
Richard Carruthers, Town of Hammond
Bob Ellsberg, City of Astoria
Stephanie Hampton, Town of Hammond
Bob Petersen, Port of Ilwaco
Wayne Rickert, Wahkiakum County
Curt Schneider, Clatsop County

CREST STAFF David Fox, Director
Mark Barnes, Planner
Marietta Doney, Secretary/Bookkeeper

GUESTS Pat Bugas
Nancy Carruthers
Claudia Ellsberg
Toshi Petersen
Les & Betty Peterson
Paul Polillo
Daphne Schneider
Robert & Donna Wilson

Chairman Roger Berg opened the meeting.

AGENDA ITEM #1: Announcements

David Fox announced that the next CREST Council meeting will be January
12, 1989. He handed out a list of meeting dates for calendar year 1989.

Wahkiakum Port District #2 informed CREST that they will be able to pay
dues for the first time in 3 years. Dues payment will amount to $125.

David Fox distributed some information on new ocean garbage disposal
regulations (Marpol Annex #5). A consultant will be availabe to provide
technical assistant to the Port of Astoria for complying with the
regulations. There is a tentative meeting December 20, 1988 at the Port
of Astoria to introduce the technical assistance project. Ted Bugas
asked everyone that was interested to come to the meeting.

David Fox distributed the response from OR Division of State Lands to
our letter summarizing permit coordination problems at Tongue Point.

AGENDA ITEM #2: December Minutes

Bob Ellsberg moved to approve the December minutes. Motion seconded by
Ted Bugas. Unanimous

AGENDA ITEM #3: December Financial Statement

Ted Bugas moved to approve the December financial statement. Motion
seconded by Bob Ellsberg. Unanimous

AGENDA ITEM #4: December Financial Status Report and Work Summaries

David Fox explained the November Financial Status Report and Work
Summaries. The negative cash on hand balance was due to a delayed grant
payment from DLCD. Checks written for outstanding bills were held until
we received the $10,000 payment. Our balance is now approximately
$7,000. There were no questions.

AGENDA ITEM #5: Nomination of Officers

Bob Petersen was present from the nominating committee. He explained
that rather than developing nominations before the meeting, the Council
should discuss possible nominations at the meeting. The Council dis-
cussed nominations. Bob Petersen said he was willing to be Vice-
chairman if needed but stressed the importance of having a Delegate for
Chairman. Stephanie Hampton offered to keep her position if needed.
Bob Ellsberg said that he could attend meetings on the Oregon side but
had difficulty attending Washington meetings.

The Council stated that it was difficult to nominate officers because
representatives from some of the CREST jurisdictions would change with
the new year. There was a consensus that the nominations be held over
to the January meeting.

AGENDA ITEM #6: Summary of CREST Work

David Fox explained the CREST work summary included in the mailing
packet. Ted Bugas discussed the transition of CREST from strictly a
long range planning agency to an implementation agency. He stated that
the Port uses CREST's services frequently. Bob Ellsberg remarked that
local jurisdictions save money by using CREST's services rather than
hiring staff. Bob Petersen discussed some upcoming issues, such as
offshore oil and gas development, that CREST should become involved in.

AGENDA ITEM #7: Update on National Estuary Program

David Fox updated the Council on efforts to seek local opinion on
nominating Columbia River Estuary into the National Estuary Program. He
explained the December 2, 1988, memo presented in the mailing packet.
Wahkiakum Port District #2 expressed their support of the program since
the memo was written. Ted Bugas, Bob Ellsberg, and Wayne Rickert
explained the concerns of their commissions as follows:

- There are no guarantees of local control;
- Federal interestes may override local interests in the program;
- The results of the program may hamper development opportunities or
there may be a moratorium on development during the program;
- There is a lack of confidence that additional planning will resolve
some of the permit and management problems we face now;
- The program may add additional regulatory layers;
- The local responsibility in funding the program and its
implementation is unclear.

The Council directed David Fox to write a letter to the state expressing
these concerns and to continue pursuing information to address the
concerns.

AGENDA ITEM #8: CREST Involvement in Offshore Oil Issues

David Fox outlined possible CREST involvement in offshore development
issues. The Council briefly discussed offshore issues. They stated
that CREST should focus its involvement on assisting local jurisdictions
in planning and plan implementation for on-shore support facilities
development and infrastructure impacts.

AGENDA ITEM #9: December Implementation Memo

Mark Barnes reviewed the implementation memo.

There were no questions.

Meeting adjourned at 5:30pm

MINUTES

January 12, 1989
CREST Council Meeting
Cafe Uniontown
Astoria, Oregon

12:00 pm/Call to Order/Introductions

DELEGATES/ALTERNATES George Cooper, City of Warrenton
Stephanie Hampton, Town of Hammond
Bob PetersenY Port of Ilwaco
Curt Schneider, Clatsop County

CREST STAFF David Fox, Director
Marietta Doney, Secretary/Bookkeeper

GUESTS Rita Chamberlain, Port of Astoria
Jim Flint, City of Astoria
Elizabeth Thompson
Krystyna Wolinakowski

Vice-Chairman Bob Petersen opened the meeting.

AGENDA ITEM #1: Announcements

David Fox announced that the next CREST Council meeting will be February
9, 1989.

David Fox announced that CREST and Oregon Division of State Lands are
holding a Wetlands Workshop on January 19, 1989.

AGENDA ITEM #2: Presentation by Krystyna Wolinakowski and Elizabeth
Thompson, of Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, on the National
Estuary Program.

Ms. Wolniakowski gave some background information on the program,
stressing the importance of examining the region's cumulative impacts on
the estuary and coordinating Oregon and Washington management of the
river. A discussion followed the presentation; CREST Council members
made the following comments:

Curt Schneider: We need to know what benefits the program will have for
locals and what EPA's objectives are in the program.

George Cooper: The upstream boundary of the estuary needs to be de-
fined. If it extends to Portland, lower river communities will be
less likely to support the program.

Jim Flint: There is a local skepticism about federal programs.

The CREST Council and Department of Environmental Quality personnel
discussed holding a public meeting on the program to answer local
questions and concerns.

Jim Flint moved to hold the public meeting on the National Estuary
Progr . Seconded by Curt Schneider. Unanimous.

AGENDA ITEM #3: January Minutes

Stephanie Hampton asked that we not restrict our involvement in offshore
oil issues to onshore impacts only (Agenda Item #8). She stated that we
should make it possible to address other types of impacts if it becomes
necessary. She noted that the minutes were correct as submitted but
would make a motion later in the meeting to change the policy on off-
shore oil impacts stated in Agenda Item #8.

Curt Schneider moved to approve the December minutes. Motion seconded
by Stephanie Hampton. Unanimous.

AGENDA ITEM #4: December Financial Statement

George Cooper moved to approve the December financial statement. Motion
seconded by Curt Schneider. Unanimous

AGENDA ITEM #5: December Financial Status Report and Work Summaries

David Fox explained the December Financial Status Report and Work
Summaries. David also mentioned that we are going to have trouble
meeting our match requirements for grants in the next fiscal year. A
Finance Committee meeting will be convened to address the issue. The
recommendation of the Finance Committee will be discussed at the
February CREST Council meeting.

AGENDA ITEM #6: Nomination of Officers

Bob Petersen was present from the nominating committee. He suggested
that we ask Richard Carruthers to accept the position of Chairman.

AGENDA ITEM #7: December Implementation Memo

David Fox reviewed the implementation memo.

There were no questions.

OTHER BUSINESS

Stephanie Hampton moved to broaden our possible involvement in offshore
oil issues to include both offshore and onshore impacts. Seconded by
Curt Schneider. Unanimous

Meeting adjourned at 1:30pm

MINUTES

February 14, 1989
CREST Council Meeting
Port of Astoria Offices
Astoria, Oregon

12:10 pm/Call to Order/Introductions

DELEGATES/ALTERNATES George Cooper, City of Warrenton
Henry Desler, Port of Astoria
Ted Bugas, Port of Astoria
Steve McClain, Wahkiakum Port District #2
Curt Schneider, Clatsop County
Paul Benoit, City of Astoria
Bob Ellsberg, City of Astoria
Stephanie Hampton, Town of Hammond
Wayne Rickert, Wahkiakum County
Bob Petersen, Port of Ilwaco,

CREST STAFF David Fox, Director

Vice-Chairman Bob Petersen opened the meeting.

AGENDA ITEM #1: Appointment of New Director

The Council discussed appointment of a new Director to replace David Fox when
he leaves CREST on February 28, 1989. Bob Petersen stated that George Blom-
berg expressed interest in the position but would not be available until
summer. Henry Desler recommended Mark Barnes for the Director position. He
also stated that we should look into adding PERS (Public Employees Retirement
System) to our benefit package to make CREST positions more attractive. Bob
Ellsberg and Stephanie Hampton also recommended Mark Barnes for the Director
position.

Henry Desler moved to appoint Mark Barnes as Director beginning March 1, 1989.
Seconded by George Cooper.

A discussion followed concerning Director job duties and Mark Barnes' qualifi-
cations for undertaking them.

The vote on the motion was unanimous.

Several Council members were concerned that the replacement for Mark Barnes'
current position (planner) have estuary resource expertise.

George Cooper moved to instruct Mark Barnes to fill the planner position with
a job applicant having expertise in estuary resources. Seconded by Henry
Desler. Unanimous.

Stephanie Hampton requested that we consider promoting Marietta Doney to
Administrative Assistant. Ted Bugas stated that we should consider this in
the future and that David Fox should instruct Mark Barnes to take this up at a
future Finance Committee meeting.

AGENDA ITEM #2: Budget and Operational Changes

David Fox summarized proposed budget revisions, including:

1) Changing item 100a Director to $2,300 for March, April, May, and June.

2) Changing item 100y Planner to $900 for March, and $1,800 for April, May,
and June.

3) Adding $1,920 to item 100m Vacation Pay for the month of February. This
will cover David Fox's outstanding vacation pay.

4) Adding $1,000 to item 800 Contracting for March to allow for contracting
out planning services.

George Cooper moved to adopt the budget revisions as presented. Seconded by
Henry Desler.

A discussion followed concerning the Director salary. Curt Schneider suggest-
ing raising the salary to $2,400 per month.

George Cooper amended his motion to change the Director salary to $2,400 for
March, April, May and June, and adopt the remainder of the budget revisions as
presented. Seconded by Henry Desler. Unanimous.

Note: The revised budget is attached.

Ted Bugas stated that we should consider the Planner salary to start at a
maximum $1,800 per month. If possible, Mark Barnes should fill the position
at a lower pay rate. David Fox stated that the position will be advertised at
a starting salary of $1,600 to $1,800 per month.

Paul Benoit suggested that we establish pay ranges for positions to better
manage personnel expectations. He also suggested that staff contact Jim Good
and Marc Hershman for information on possible applicants for the Planner
position.

AGENDA ITEM #3: Dues Increases

David Fox distributed and summarized a 1 February 1989 memo proposing dues
increases for CREST members (the memo is attached). A general discussion
followed concerning the reasons for the dues increases. Henry Desler sug-
gested raising the staff hourly rate for billings to jurisdictions. The
Council decided that Mark Barnes should be instructed to address a possible
hourly rate increase at a future Finance Committee meeting.

Henry Desler moved to approve the dues increases as presented in the I Febru-
ary 1989 memo. Seconded by George Cooper. Unanimous.

OTHER BUSINESS

George Cooper moved to commend David Fox for his work at CREST. Seconded by
Ted Bugas. Unanimous.

Steve McClain stated that Wahkiakum Port District 92 may be applying for a
Coastal Zone Management 306A grant for a foot bridge at Skamokawa Vista Park.
He requested that CREST write a letter of support for the project.

Henry Desler moved to write a letter of recommendation for the Skamokawa
project. Seconded by George Cooper. Unanimous.

Meeting adjourned at 1:10pm.

MINUTES

March 9, 1989
CREST Council Meeting
Pacific Rim Restaurant
Astoria, Oregon

12:20 pm/Call to Order/Introductions

DELEGATEVALTERNATES Richard Carruthers, Clatsop County
George Cooper, City of Warrenton
Bob Ellsberg, City of Astoria
Stephanie Hampton, Town of Hammond
Curt Schneider, Clatsop County

CREST STAFF Mark Barnes, Director
Marietta Doney, Secretary/Bookkeeper

GUESTS Bob Miller, Port of Astoria

Secretary Bob Ellsberg opened the meeting.

AGENDA ITEM #1: Announcements

Mark Barnes announced that he was happy to accept the position of Director.

Stephanie Hampton announced that this was her last CREST Council meeting as
she is moving to Corvallis to accept another job.

AGENDA ITEM #2: January and February Minutes

George Cooper moved to approve the January and February minutes. Motion
seconded. Unanimous.

AGENDA ITEM #3: January and February Financial Statements

George Cooper moved to approve the January and February financial statements.
Motion seconded by Stephanie Hampton. Unanimous

AGENDA ITEM #4: January and February Financial Status Reports and Work Sum-
maries

There were no questions.

AGENDA ITEM #5: Nomination of Officers

No one was present from the nominating committee.

George Cooper moved that the Council elect Richard Carruthers as Chairman.
Motion seconded by Stephanie Hampton. Unanimous.

AGENDA ITEM #6: January Implementation Memo

Mark Barnes reviewed the implementation memo. He explained item #11, page 28,
item #15, page 28, and item #16, page 28.

There was discussion on item #11. Mark Barnes urged that CREST should main-
tain a neutral stand regarding the National Estuary Program and that each
jurisdiction take an individual stand pro or con. The deadline for comments
on the National Estuary Program are March 31, 1989.

Mark Barnes distributed a copy of a memo to the Mayor of Astoria regarding
item #15. George Cooper stated that letters should be written preventing the
boats that are transporting the sea lions from the Puget Sound area to enter
the Columbia River should the sea lions follow them and stay.

Mark Barnes distributed a copy of the letter written to Wahkiakum County in
support of their footbridge as described in item #16.

Meeting adjourned at 1:20pm.

750 Commercial Street, Room 214 Astoria, Oregon 97103 (503) 325-0435

February 27, 1989

Board of County Commissioners
Wahkiakum County
P.O. Box 97
Cathlamet, Washington 98612

RE: Proposed footbridge over Skamokawa Creek

I am writing to express the Columbia River Estuary Study Taskforce's
(CREST) support for the County's grant proposal to construct a footbridge over
Skamokawa Creek. This project has been long-planned, will enhance existing
facilities in the Skamokawa community, and is fully consistent with the
County's Shoreline Management Program and the State's Shoreline Management
Act. The CREST Council has followed the development of Skamokawa Vista Park
and the rehabilitation of Redman Hall with a great deal of interest. The
Council directed me to write you regarding the proposed footbridge, expressing
their endorsement of and strong support for the project.

CREST first became aware of this project in 1986 when the report
"Skamokawa Tourism Facilities Preliminary Feasibility Study" was completed
(the report was funded by the Department of Ecology under a Section 306-b
grant). That report, prepared by Robert Peron for the Lower Columbia Economic
Development Council, identified construction of a footbridge over Skamokawa
Creek as a key element in Phase I of the program for developing visitor
facilities in Skamokawa. CREST reviewed a draft of the plan at the request of
Wahkiakum Port District 112 in 1986. We wrote that the plan components,
including the foot bridge, appeared to be in general conformity with the
County's Shoreline Management Program, and that permitting for the projects
should be relatively routine.

The footbridge project will go a long way toward linking the major
water-oriented visitor facilities in Skamokawa with each other. It will
enhance existing facilities at Skamokawa Vista Park and at the fairgrounds.
It will provide opportunities for increased access to the tidal waters of
Skamokawa Creek. Skamokawa Creek has a unique aquatic and riparian environ-
ment that will attract birdwatchers and anglers, as well as visitors to
existing facilities in the area. The footbridge site is well chosen, both for
its ability to provide access to the Creek, and because it avoids undesirable
impacts on the Creek's most sensitive areas.
CREST

February 27, 1989
Page 2

The project appears to be consistent with the County's Shoreline Manage-
ment Plan. The bridge site is in an Urban Environment, where it would be
permitted subject to standards. I have reviewed the relevant standards in a
preliminary fashion. Depending on the final bridge design, I do not believe
there will be any major difficulties with regard to the Shoreline permit. A
number of policy statements in the County's Shoreline Management Program
support development of the footbridge. Recreation Policy (a) establishes
priority for developments that facilitate public access to shoreline parks and
other public access points (page 31 of the County's Shoreline Management
Program). CREST will be able to help the County review the permit for the
footbridge and prepare the SEPA checklist as soon as plans for it are final-
ized.

CREST is pleased to lend our support to this project. It is an appro-
priate candidate for funding under the state's 306-A grant program. If there
is anything else we can do to help secure funding for the footbridge, please
let me know.

Very truly yours,

, I

Mark Barnes
Director

Copy: Wayne Rickert, County Public Works Director
Carol Carver, Wahkiakum Port District #2 Commissioner
Steve McClain, Wahkiakum Port District #2 Director
James Scott, Washington Department of Ecology
CREST Council

MINUTES

April 13, 1989
CREST Council Meeting
Red's Restaurant
Ilwaco, Washington

12:00 noon/Call to Order/Introductions

DELEGATEVALTERNATES Richard Carruthers, Clatsop County
George Cooper, City of Warrenton
Amy Emmett, Town of Hammond
Bob Miller, Port of Astoria

CREST STAFF Mark Barnes, Director
Carol Rushmore, Planner
Marietta Doney, Secretary/Bookkeeper

Chairman Richard Carruthers opened the meeting.

AGENDA ITEM #1: Announcements

Mark Barnes introduced CREST's new planner Carol Rushmore and the Town of
Hammond's new alternate Amy Emmett.

AGENDA ITEM #2: March Minutes

Chairman Richard Carruthers called for any corrections to the March minutes.
There were none. Chairman Richard Carruthers stated the March minutes were
approved as presented.

AGENDA ITEM #3: March Financial Statement

Chairman Richard Carruthers called for any corrections to the March financial
statement. There were none. Chairman Richard Carruthers stated the March
financial statement would be approved as presented.

AGENDA ITEM #4: March Financial Status Report and Work Summaries

Mark Barnes reviewed the March Financial Status Report and Work Summaries.
There were no questions.

AGENDA ITEM #5: Officers of the Council and their terms.

There were no questions.

AGENDA ITEM #6: Nomination of Officers

George Cooper Nominated Bob Petersen, Port of Ilwaco to the position of
Vice-Chairman.

George Cooper nominated Bob Ellsberg, City of Astoria to the position of
Secretary.

George Cooper nominated Amy Emmett, Town of Hammond to the position of Treas-
urer. Any Emmett declined. George Cooper withdrew his nomination.

George Cooper nominated Bob Miller, Port of Astoria to the position of Treas-
urer. Bob Miller accepted.

George Cooper moved that the Council cast a unanimous ballot for Bob Petersen
as Vice-Chairman, Bob Ellsberg as Secretary, and Bob Miller as Treasurer. The
motion was approved by the Council.

AGENDA ITEM #7: Director's Report

Mark Barnes requested the approval of the Council to write a letter to
Stephanie Hampton for her service to CREST. The Council directed him to write
the letter and to sign on behalf of the Council.

Mark Barnes requested the approval of the Council to write a letter to Clatsop
County Commissioners in support of the Eagle Sanctuary for the purposes of
enclosing the letter with the grant application. The Council directed him to
write the letter and to sign on behalf of the Council.

AGENDA ITEM #8: Implementation Report

Mark Barnes reviewed the implementation memo. He explained item #9 regarding
the National Estuary Program.

There was discussion on The National Estuary Program. Mark stated that he
would be attending another meeting on 17 April to get further information on
the program.

Meeting adjourned at 12:50pm.

MINUTES

June 8, 1989
CREST Council Meeting
Red Lion Inn Restaurant
Astoria, Oregon

12:00 Noon/Call to Order/Introductions

DELEGATESALTERNATES: Ted Bugas, Port of Astoria
George Cooper, City of Warrenton
Amy Emmett, Town of Hammond
Bob Miller, Port of Astoria
Bob Petersen, Port of Ilwaco
Curt Schneider, Clatsop County

CREST STAFF: Mark Barnes, Director
Carol M. Rushmore, Planner
Marietta Doney, Secretary/Bookkeeper

GUESTS: Bill Barrons, Clatsop County Manager

Vice-Chairman Bob Petersen opened the meeting.

AGENDA ITEM #1: Announcements

Mark Barnes introduced Bill Barrons of Clatsop County.

AGENDA ITEM #2: April Minutes

George Cooper moved to approve the April Minutes. Motion seconded by Bob
Miller. Unanimous.

AGENDA ITEM #3: April and May Financial Statements

George Cooper moved to approve the April and May Financial Statements. Motion
seconded by Bob_Miller. Unanimous.

AGENDA ITEM #4: April and May Financial Status Reports and Work Summaries

Mark Barnes reviewed the April and May Financial Status Reports and Work
Summaries.

George Cooper-asked if the jurisdictions were billed as they went over their
dues amount. Mark Barnes affirmed CREST's procedure.

Ted Bugas commented that they were pleased with the Work Summaries and the
information they provided.

There were no other questions.

AGENDA ITEM fl5: FY90 Budget

George Cooper moved to approve the proposed FY90 Budget. Motion Seconded by
Curt Schneider. Unanimous.

AGENDA ITEM #6: Director's Report

Mark Barnes reported that a letter was sent to Stephanie Hampton thanking her
for her support of CREST.

Mark Barnes also reported that a letter to Clatsop County was sent in support
of the Eagle Sanctuary.

Mark Barnes notified the Council that a letter will be sent out soon regarding
our FY91 grant proposal summaries. CREST would like to have comments by
Council members as soon as possible as the closing date is near.

Ted Bugas was interested in how much money would be involved for a study of
the MARPOL V laws.

George Cooper felt that CREST should apply for funds to do an oil spill study.

AGENDA ITEM #7: April and May Implementation Reports

Carol Rushmore reviewed the implementation memos.

Bob Miller asked about item #3 of the May memo, stating that the amount
referred to should be $60,000 rather than $50,000.

Bob Petersen thanked staff for the continual update information on the Exxon
Valdez and the progress being made (item #15 of the May memo).

There was a general discussion regarding sediment testing for the Port of
Astoria to enable them to apply for their dredging permit. George Cooper
asked if there had been any new information about the National Estuary
Program. Bob Petersen asked if CREST staff were commenting on the pulp mill
upriver.

1@ ,

NOAA COASTAL SERVICES CTR LIBRARY
1@
3 6668 14112760 7