[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
Coastal and Ocean Resources Planning An Assessment of Oregon's Coastal and Ocean Resource Issues and Management Capability A Basis for Needed Program Change- and Federal Coastal Management 309 Priority Funding Assistance Prepared by the Oregon Coastal Management Program for the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resources Management National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration U.S. Department of Commerce GB January 17, 1992 458.8 .C63 1992 Contents Section Page Executive Summary iii Introduction 1 Cumulative Effects of Development 3 Coastal Hazards 15 Wetlands 29 Ocean Resources 35 Low Priority Enhancements 45 of C@;c Library Oregon Co .astal Program Section 309 Assessment , I .I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I H t Executive Summary An Assessment of Oregon's Coastal and Ocean R-e-source Issues and Management Capability Oregon's Coastal Management Program (OCMP) mer traffic counts on Highway 101 climbed while has its roots in plans and policies developed in the winter counts remained low. The possiblity of oil, early 1970s. In 1977, Oregon's program was the gas and mineral development loomed offshore. Nations's second to be approved under the federal Salmon returns to some coastal watersheds Coastal Zone Management Act. The OCMP con- dropped while fishermen waited frustrated. sists of three major elements: overall statewide In early 1990, DLCD began a program to assess planning goals, local government comprehensive coastal growth issues and determine whether or plans and ordinances, and state agency programs. how Oregon's Coastal Management Program Since 1977, all cities and counties have adopted could be improved. Some 230 questionnaires comprehensive plans and ordinances, and state were sent to local governments, interest groups, agencies have prepared plans and programs to and involved citizens seeking views on major carry out state planning goals to manage growth resource management problems or issues. State and protect coastal resources. The Department of agencies were also surveyed. Land Conservation and Development (DLCD), Fifty-two respondents identified a variety of Oregon's coastal management agency, administers management issues and problems. These fell into the statewide goals, coordinates the various coas- five major topics: population growth; economic tal program elements, and assists local govem- development; ocean mineral development; water- ments. shed and ocean fish habitat; and HighwaylOl im- During the late 1980s Oregon's coast began to ex-' provements. Many respondents suggested perience profound change. Some communities program changes or improvements. grew rapidly with an influx of retirees and recrea- Oregon's assessment was initiated well ahead of tional development. Others lost population as the the "309" process begun by Congress in the 1990 timber industry shrank and mills closed. Demand Reauthorization of the Coastal Management Act. for oceanfront building lots continued unabated But the two programs dovetail. Responses to along with requests for seawalls and riprap. Sum- US T)7-Djrtrnint of Commerce --rvic@_,s cnnxtar Tibrary W llo'7)@-,ca 2@vonuo C__16Dton, .5C 29405_2@.'13 Oregon Coastal Program Section 309 Assessment DLCD's coastal questionnaire and state agency Oregon's priority topics because significant survey clearly show that four "priority enhance- management problems exist. Survey results show ment" topics listed by Congress in Section 309 that the other four 309 topics are not a high are of major concern to Oregon. These are: priority for Oregon because they are adequately cumulative effects of development; coastal addressed with existing programs. hazards; wetlands; and ocean resources. These are High Priority Improvements Cumudative Effects � Population Growth of Development Population growth and demographic changes have had significant impacts in some coastal com- Oregon's coastline extends nearly 350 miles from munities. Lincoln County, on the central coast, the Columbia River to the California border. and Curry County, just north of the California bor- While the coastal zone extends from the crest of der, are "hot." Both had population increases of the Coast Range Mountains to the sea, the land 10-15 percent. Even where poulation totals have available for development is mostly confined to a stayed relatively stable, there are shifts in narrow strip along the ocean shore, on level rem- demographics as the retirement sector grows and nant marine terraces, and on hillsides and filled the manufacturing sector shrinks. Retirement in- lands next to coastal wetlands and streams. The come C'transfer payments") is now the largest available land base is further reduced by subtract- economic income sector on the coast. Increased ing land owned by the state and federal govem- tourism and related facilities, including displace- ment, agricultural lands, flood plains and ment of full-time residents with weekend or vaca- commercial timber lands. Thus, Oregon's coastal tion rental housing, is a second factor affecting development pressures are directed to a relatively coastal growth and housing availability. The result small but very diverse and valuable land base. has been increased demands for social services, a Coastal growth creates more than physical im- loss of affordable housing and rapidly escalating pacts on the landscape and natural resources. land values. There are impacts to the economic and social Priority Program Enhancement: Provide structure of the many small communities of the technical assistance to local governments coast. The confluence of two opposing trends to plan for and manage development in the have created significant shifts in population in coastal zone, with emphasis on 1) some communities. An influx of retirees, attracted demographics of retirement and tourist- by the high environmental quality and slower based communities; 2) key growth areas; pace of life, has occured at a time when younger 3) service needs for a changing population working families are leaving due to job losses in structure; and 4) maintaining affordable the traditional resource based industries. In all housing. coastal areas, the increasing reliance on tourism, which depends on high environmental quality, � Infrastructure Needs means local economies are skewed to a three New development on the coast requires roads, month summer period with earnings tending to sewage treatment facilities, and water supplies. In the lower end of the wage scale. Finally, Oregon's many small communities, growth has outsripped coastal communities tend to be small and are over- the capability of local governments to provide ade- whelmed by sheer numbers and scale of develop- quate services. Most communities on the Oregon ment proposals; they simply do not have the. coast, whether incorporated or not, have neither financial resources or technical expertise to adequate public facilities to accomodate growth evaluate these proposals and assess cumulative im- nor resources to plan for and finance needed ser- pacts. vices. Comprehensive plans and ordinances to manage growth need to be updated and include public facility plans to meet increased population. iv Executive Summary Financing options are extremely limited due to policies and regulation of development in cutbacks in available federal funds and a 1989 hazard, wetlands, and sensitive habitat citizen initiative to limit local government proper- areas. ty taxes. � Water Quality Priority Program Enhancement: Prepare Oregon's 1988 Oregon Statewide Assessment of public facilities plans, identify funding Nonpoint Sources of Water Pollution shows that mechanisms, and construct new facilities to nearly all coastal streams are affected by at least accomodate new development while one nonpoint source problem or another. Coastal protecting environmental values through lakes are subject to somewhat different stresses environmentally sensitive siting and design. than the pollutants common in the coastal � Threats to Natural Resources streams; some coastal lakes are plagued by plant Development displaces coastal habitat and related growth fed by nutrients from surrounding septic natural resources. The increasing value of real es- tank drainfields. Although groundwater aquifers tate along the oceanfront, around estuaries and are not specifically affected by nonpoint source lakes, and on forested coastal terraces makes pollution today, they are vulnerable to the cumula- more likely the development of habitat in areas tive effects of future resource uses. The Assess- previously considered too expensive or dangerous ment demonstrates that every nonpoint pollution to develop. Resources affected by this conversion problem originates from a land use or resource include wetlands, beach cliffs, beach sand supply, management action. a variety of plant and animal species, including Much of the Assessment is based on observation some which are threatened or endangered, and and perception, rather than on verified data. Com- coastal watershed water quality. munities will not devote efforts to solve problems Priority Program Enhancement: Improve they don't believe exist. protection of sensitive resources threatened Priority Program Enhancement: Increase by development pressure, particularly the water quality monitoring network in lands along the ocean shore, around lakes coastal basins to substantiate and charac- and estuaries, and along stream corridors. terize nonpoint source problems identified � Planning for and Managing in the 1988 Assessment, and to provide a Cumulative Impacts basis for specific nonpoint source control Coastal cities and counties will continue to plan programs or projects. for and monitor growth through the comprehen- Oregon's nonpoint water quality problems could sive plan process. The 1991 Oregon Legislature be most effectively addressed at the basin, or significantly strengthened state law requiring all watershed level. A watershed approach would use cities and counties to keep plans current through a the resources and expertise of the existing sector- process known as Periodic Review. DLCD will based programs. It would link land uses in the work closely with each city and county on the watershed to water quality, and would make effec- coast to ensure that local plans are reviewed and tive use of citizen committees to build community updated in a timely manner to address impacts understanding and support for water quality im- from development. provements. Limited staff and financial resources currently restrict opportunities to use a watershed 0 Priority Program Enhancement: Monitor approach. As a result, existing water quality the quantitative and qualitative changes in programs are not well integrated into local com- coastal natural resources and other prehensive planning processes. "quality of life" indicators. Priority Program Enhancement: Organize Priority Program Enhancement: Assist an integrated, comprehensive, citizen-based coastal local governments to review and up- watershed approach to protecting water date comprehensive plans and ordinances quality in coastal basins and target prob- to meet growth and changing conditions, in- lem watersheds first. cluding public facility plans, and improved V Oregon Coastal Program Section 309 Assessment Local citizen committees are an excellent way to based approach by a lack of financial resources. involve citizens in long term basin-wide monitor- Priority Program Enhancement: Financial ing and understanding of water quality problems, assistance to local governments and state and in developing community support for water agencies to implement the federally-re- quality programs and non-regulatory solutions. To quired Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control be successful, however, citizen-based programs re- Program. Oregon will use a comprehensive quire extensive education, information, problem watershed approach, based on citizen invol- identification, and consensus-building. Such les- vement and community problem-solving, sons have been demonstrated in Oregon in the na- and will use various state and federal tionallY recognized Coquille River basin project, water quality control resources. part ofthe EPA Near Coastal Waters initiative. � Priority Program Enhancement: Establish CoasW Natuml Hazards citizen committees in coastal watersheds to The Oregon coast is an extremely dynamic en- foster community recognition of nonpoint vironment where many natural forces and active source problems; to promote personal geological boundaries meet. Development is con- resource stewardship; and to build support strained by many types of natural hazards, includ- for changes in comprehensive plans, local ing erosion, landslides, tsunamis, flooding, storm ordinances, watershed rehabilitation and surge, and earthquakes. Nevertheless, coastal enhancement projects, and public aware- property values have increased dramatically and ness. homes, condominiums and motels are being built � Priority Program Enhancement: Provide as close to the ocean's edge as possible with little financial and technical support for a regard for the geologic forces at work. As the citizen-based watershed approach to least hazardous sites are developed, development protecting water quality. is proposed for increasingly hazardous sites with Developing effective programs to link nonpoint attendant increase costs, both public and private. source pollution, water quality, and local com- Cities and counties are the level of government in prehensive plans will face several obstacles even Oregon which review and approve proposed if the watershed approach is logical. First, local development in their jurisdiction. Typically, most governments, which control land uses in coastal local governments are well prepared to review watersheds, have not historically been involved in proposals in natural hazard areas. They lack tech- preventing or reducing nonpoint source pollution. nical or quality control standards to guide prepara- Second, state and federal programs to protect tion or review of geotechnical consultant reports water quality are often mistrusted and unpopular which accompany, and often justify, development at the local level. Finally, many of the activities in proposals. Lack of review policies and standards the coastal zone that result in nonpoint pollution leaves local governments without the ability to as- are not subject to local (or state) permit reviews sure that hazards have been adequately identified, (for example, grazing on streambanks and erosion assessed or addressed in the project proposal. from grading or road building). Local governments have no standards or proce- dures to ensure that hazard avoidance is the first Priority Program Enhancement: Assist option and sirtictural solutions the last resort. As a local government planning and develop- result, individual developments are routinely ap- ment agencies to become more aware of op- proved with inappropriate protective structures. portunities to prevent nonpoint source pollution through local plans and regula- Priority Program Enhancement: Assist tions. local governments to develop and imple- ment technical standards for geotechnical Oregon has local comprehensive plans in place, reports and standards for reviewing, technical expertise in water quality, and a record analysing, and using geote6nical informa- of innovative work with citizens in watershed pol- tion in making decisions about develop- lution problems. However, Oregon is hampered in ment proposals. implementing this more comprehensive, citizen- Vi Executive Summary Public agencies must be able to incorporate new caused by sand dunes and certain bog areas on scientific understanding of underlying geologic uplifted coastal terraces. Nearly eighty percent of processes into programs and plans to manage Oregon's coastal wetlands have been lost, mostly growth and development on the Oregon coast. as a result of diking and draining estuarine Geologists have only recently confirmed that all marshlands for agriculture. The remaining coastal of western Oregon is likely to experience a wetlands are scattered and valuable. catastrophic subduction zone earthquake with In 1989, the Oregon Legislature enacted a major especially severe consequences for the coast. wetlands statute to coordinate the vaC ,us wetland Likewise, while some coastal landslide areas have regulatory and planning programs which had been known for years, the existence of long-term, developed over time. The new law requires the slow moving tension faults and landslide areas on state to adopt a definition of wetlands consistent coastal terraces has only recently been deter- with federal law and develop a statewide wetlands mined. Similarly, the detrimental effects of inventory. Oregon currently relies on the National seawalls on beach sand supply and beach loss Wetlands Inventory (NWI) prepared by the U.S. have been determined only in the past several Fish and Wildlife Service. This inventory is not years. Local governments and state agencies have sufficiently detailed to provide the kind of site- not yet had time or technical expertise to use this specific information envisioned by Oregon's wet- new information to prepare new policies and land strategy. Because wetland regulation is amend plans. related to land use, topography, streams, and other Priority Program Enhancement: Provide features, this inventory needs to be conducted and new geologic information to local govern- entered into a digital GIS format to allow better ments to ensure that comprehensive plans analysis and utilization by local governments and and ordinances and state agency programs state and federal agencies. address the potential for catastrophic earthquakes, tsunamis, ocean inundation, Priority Program Enhancement: Prepare a landslides, and other chronic natural coastal component of the statewide wet- hazards. lands inventory with a computerized GIS data base to supplant the existing National Much of the information on natural hazards affect- Wetlands Inventory data. ing the Oregon coast is new and few in the As a first step in implementing the 1989 wetlands general public are aware of the risk. Those who law, an interagency program is preparing a have become aware have expressed an interest in methodology to assess the the unique functional knowing more and taking action to address poten- values of wetlands in the Pacific Northwest. The tial effects. Further, as knowledge of natural methodology will be used to prepare a wetlands hazards affecting the Oregon coast has improved classification system. State and federal agencies and expanded, the need for local officials to have will incorporate the methodology and classifica- some level of technical expertise has increased. tion system into their programs, policies and Priority Program Enhancement: Increase regulations.- Local governments will use them to the level and quality of information avail- prepare wetland conservation plans or to meet able to the public and to local officials Goal 5 requirements for identifying and protecting about coastal natural hazards and their ef- wetlands. fect on existing and future coastal develop- Priority Program Enhancement: Complete ment through workshops, technical wettand assessment methodo1gy and wet- bulletins, audio-video presentations and lands classification s stem as a basis for all other means. y state agency and local government Wedwx1s programs to protect wetlands. While Oregon's rugged coastal mountains receive Local governments are encouraged by the 1989 upwards of 80 or more inches of rain annually, wetlands law to prepare wetland conservation coastal wetlands are limited primarily to narrow plans. These wetland conservation plans are in- flat river valley bottoms, estuaries, coastal lakes tended to provide local governments and state Vii Oregon Coastal Program Section 309 Assessment agencies with an opportunity to consider protec- ment extends well into the ocean realm hidden tion of wetland resources in a broader planning beneath the waves. Marine life abounds from and environmental context. An approved wetland coastal streams and estuaries seaward across the conservation plan will become the basis for state continental shelf and down the continental slope. permits and local development approvals and Human use is the greatest near the coastline mitigation proposals under the statewide planning where a variety of resources are most at risk, in- program. However, the extra costs to local govem- cluding marine mammals and seabirds, intertidal ments of preparing a wetland conservation plan species, and clean ocean water. Offshore oil and are an impediment to participation. gas and marine mineral development may not Priority Program Enhancement: Financial occur until the future, but other resource use con- and technical assistance to local govern- flicts and lack of detailed management programs ments to prepare wetland conservation threaten the health of Oregon's ocean environ- plans and incorporate these plans into ment and renewable marine resources. local comprehensive land use programs. The Oregon Legislature took action in 1987 and Restoration of coastal wetlands will focus on es- 1991 to establish ocean planning laws and allo- tuaries where most loss has occurred. The first cate state resources to the task. A plan for ocean step of such a program will be identifying es- resource management within the 200 mile U.S. tuarine areas appropriate for restoration. Then the Exclusive Economic Zone off Oregon has been wetlands methodolgy, above, and existing infor- prepared and adopted by the state. Ibis Ocean mation on estuarine functions will be used to Plan emphasizes stewardship of ocean resources develop techniques and standards to guide actual and protection of marine habitats. The state there- fore has a sound legal and policy framework for restoration field work. addressing ocean resources management issues. Priority Program Enhancement: Identify Oregon needs a more detailed plan and im- and prioritize estuarine areas for restora- plementing programs for the state's territorial sea tion to wetlands; develop standards and to address a variety of issues and problems raised policies to guide restoration work in es- during preparation of the Ocean Plan. An Oregon tuarine areas; use demonstration projects territorial sea plan, as required by the 1991 legisla- with monitoring to assess success. ture, will provide a mandatory framework for Because many coastal wetlands have been lost local, state, and federal agency plans, programs, and serious development pressures continue to rules and regulations to manage ocean resources threaten those which remain, coordination be- within Oregon's territorial sea. An Oregon ter- tween local governments and state agencies, such ritorial sea plan, when approved by as DSL, DLCD and DEQ, is increasingly impor- NOAA/OCRM as part of Oregon's Coastal tant. This state guidance to city and county offi- Management Program, Vl' ensure that federal cials can help ensure that local plans reflect water agency programs and decisions are consistent quality standards under the EPA, that local with the plan. decisions on individual wetland development re- Priority Program Enhancement: Prepare quests are considered in a broader coastwide con- and adopt a fully enforcable plan and im- text, and that statewide wetlands goals are met. plementing measures to manage Oregon's Priority Program Enhancement: Work territorial sea resources, uses, and ac- with local governments to provide informa- tivities. tion, coordinate agency programs and Certain of Oregon's marine resources, chiefly policies and develop local ordinances and marine mammals, seabirds, and rocky intertidal regulations to protect wetlands. areas, are at risk from encroachment on critical or OmmResouxves sensitive habitat and depletion or destruction of food resources. Some of these sites are habitat for Oregonians understand that the diversity, com- migratory gray whales, the threatened Steller sea plexity and productivity of the coastal environ- lion and other endangered species. Oregon must Viii Executive Summary develop interagency management plans and plan. Oregonians want to remain involved in and programs, public awareness and education efforts continue to be informed and educated about ocean and mandatory enforcement measures where resources planning and management issues. necessary to protect these resources. 0 Priority Program Enhancement: Continue Priority Program Enhancement: Adopt to provide citizens with information about site specific management plans and protec- ocean resources and opportunities to par- tion measures for critical marine mammal ticipate in ocean planning. and seabird habitat. The responsibility to manage the resources and Substantial improvement is needed in the scien- values of the Pacific Ocean off Oregon is not tific inventory information base necessary for limited to the state alone. Many federal agencies Oregon to prepare and adopt a territorial sea plan have responsibilities and authorities for resources and implementation measures, including ad- and activities even inside Oregon's territorial sea. ministrative rules for Goal 19. Oregon has estab- Protection and proper management of these lished an ocean resources geographic information resources is a shared responsibility whose costs system to store, retrieve, and analyse information must be bom by both levels of government. These from a variety of sources. costs are not insignificant. But the loss of ocean Priority Program Enhancement: Conduct resources would be even greater. Federal agencies coordinated ocean research programs to ac- must assist the State of Oregon, and all states, to quire needed information. protect a common resource. Improve ocean resources GIS capability to Priority Program Enhancement: Coopera- support ocean planning and management tion and financial assistance from federal decisions. agencies, including the Office of Ocean and Hundreds of Oregonians participated in prepara- Coastal Resources Management, National tion of the 1990 Oregon Ocean Resources Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Fish and Management Plan. Public support was crucial to Wildlife Service, U.S. Geological Survey, 1991 legislation establishing an Ocean Policy Ad- Environmental Protection Agency, and the visory Council and reqquiring a territorial sea U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to plan, manage, and protect ocean resources. Low Priority Enhancements The-- 3-09- Assessment also examined four other is- Oregon coast. In addition, there are 645 identified sues: public access, marine debris, special area points of access to the ocean shore, 406 access management plans, and energy facility siting. points to estuarine shores, and 99 sites providing While Oregon continues to implement programs access to coastal lakes. Respondents to the coastal aimed at all four, none are considered to be questionnaire did not identify public access as a priorities for improvement at this time. Either sig- priority management problem. nificant problems do not exist, or there are effec- State and local governments are working on tive mechanisms in place for dealing with them. public access improvements within existing � Public Access programs including the federal 306A program ad- Ninety per cent of the Oregon coast is in public ministered by DLCD, and boating facilities ownership: 262 miles of sandy beaches and 64 funded by the state Marine Board. Some coastal miles of rocky headlands. The other 10 percent is governments are adding new requirements to their either estuary mouths or ocean shoreline in comprehensive plans to protect existing public ac- private ownership over which the public retains a cess sites. paramount right of access. Thus Oregonians have � Marine Debris legal access to virtually the entire length of the Oregon's Pacific Ocean shoreline receives its ix Oregon Coastal Program Section 309 Assessment share of debris brought ashore by winds and Only two major energy facilities have been sited waves. For years, beachcombers have delighted in in the past twenty years, a liquified natural gas hiking the early morning beach after a storm to (LNG) storage tank on Yaquina Bay in Newport hunt glass floats from Japanese fishing vessels. and a "wind farm" electric power facility at Whis- Today, however, much of the debris is less roman- key Run north of Bandon. tic plastic debris. Twice a year thousands of Most "major" energy facilities are sited and regu- Oregonians scour the beaches and collect tons of lated by the Oregon Energy Facility Siting Coun- trash. However, available beach cleanup data sug- cil (EFSQ. State law does not allow local gests that Oregon has far less of a beach debris governments to veto the siting of facilities regu- problem than other states. That perception is rein- lated by EFSC. However, state law requires EFSC forced by response to the OCMP questionnaire to "coordinate" its decisions with affected local which indicated that marine debris was not an im- governments. This is done by EFSC appointing portant issue on the coast. the local government as a "special advisory body" Nevertheless, various organizations are conduct- and requesting its comments. ing "grass roots" programs to reduce or clean up � Special Area Management Planning debris in Oregon. For example, the port authorities in Astoria, Newport, and Charleston Special area management plans are typically used operate their own recycling and debris disposal where statewide or regional land use planning is programs for sport and commercial fishing ves- not available to regulate land use, protect resour- sels. Oregon's bottle recycling law, begun as a ces and resolve disputes. In Oregon, the entire citizen ballot initiative, has reduced the "bottle" coastal zone, from the crest of the Coast Range component of the state's beach debris. Mountains to the valleys to the ocean white with foam (apologies to Irving Berlin), is covered by � Energy & Government Facility comprehensive and coordinated "special area Siting management planning". All lands and waters The siting of major energy and government governed by coastal cities and counties are sub- facilities, often important to the state or nation as ject to local comprehensive land use plans. In par- a whole, frequently stimulates local opposition. ticular, separate planning efforts were conducted However, these facilities are not typically for each of Oregon's 21 major estuaries as sub- proposed for the relatively remote Oregon coast. components of the comprehensive plans. X Introduction Beginning in the spring of 1990, the department state policies urging a "go-slow" approach began a systematic examination of both coastal and because state-federal studies showed high resource management problems and the desired fu- biologic values and low mineral potential off ture course of the Oregon Coastal Management the south coast. Program. Concerns over Highway 10 1 are being ad- We systematically surveyed other state agencies dressed thmugh an ambitious HighwaylOl participating in the coastal program as to their corridor planning process involving local areas of concern. We also sent out a questionnaire governments and citizens sponsored by the to over 230 local governments, interest groups, Oregon Department of Transportation. and involved citizens. We asked them to identify Other major resource management issues iden- major resource management issues. The 52 tified by the coastal questionnaire need attention: respondents identified management issues as- protecting fish habitat, wetlands, and ocean resour- sociated with the following five major topics: ces; and addressing the cumulative effects of population growth; economic development; off- population growth, and planning to avoid coastal shore mineral development; fish habitat; and High- hazards. The department is working with other waylOl improvements. state and federal agencies and local governments Since then, the department and other state agen- to make sure that programs to address these - cies have begun to address some of these issues. priority issues are coordinated and cost-effective. The department is developing an "urban The '"JW Pkpg@ growth management" program to help com- munities gr-appling with rapid population Coincidentally, in October of 1990, Congress growth. created the "309 Program". Oregon has a head start on qualifying for needed "309" funds be- In April 1992, the department will cosponsor cause of our own early strategic planning and the a 2-day conference on growth and develop- circulation of the questionnaire on coastal ment on the Oregon coast in Newport. resource management issues. Offshore oil and gas and hard mineral ex- ploration has been halted off Oregon due to Oregon Coastal Program Section 309 Assessment Aswssmeiat listing of priority program enhancements. Each of the eight 309 Program improvement is- Based on responses to the coastal questionnaire sues is individually discussed below. For each, a and on state agency assessments, it appears that legislative objective (the Congressionally stated four of the 309 improvement issues are, in fact, of objective of the 309 Program) is stated at the major concern to Oregon. These are: cumulative beginning of the discussion. The legislative objec- effects of development, coastal hazards, wetlands, tive is the overall standard against which the and ocean resources. These are considered Oregon management program is being measured. priorities because significant management The legislative objective statement is followed by problems exist. 14 resource assessment" and "management assess- At this point, it appears that the other four 309 ment" discussions. These discuss the status and Program issues are not high priorities for Oregon. trends of the resource and current management The reason is that either no significant manage- programs. The intent is to determine whether any ment problems exist or that Oregon already has ef- problems exist and what general solutions may be fective mechanisms for dealing with public possible. access, marine debris, special management plans, Each assessment concludes with a summary and and energy facility siting. 2 Cumulative and Secondary Adverse Effects Legislative Objective Adopt procedures for assessing, considering, and controlling cumulative and secondary adverse effects of coastal growth and development. Include the collective effect of various individual uses and activities on coastal resources, such as on coastal wetlands and fishery resources. Resource Assessment ----------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------- ----------------------------------------- ...... .. .. The purpose of the assessment is twofold: (1) to Oregon Department of Transportation recently es- assess major trends in use or development of coas- timated an overall population growth for me coast tal resources which may be affecting the health of of 15 percent over the next twenty years . the coastal environment and the livability of coas- The effects and the management of population tal communities; and (2) to assess whether growth were the major issue raised by respon- management policies are adequate to control and dents to the department's coastwidt questionnaire manage these effects in the future. about coastal management issues. E) This same Population Cxmwdu problem was also the "most compelling finding" by an Oregon Sea Grant c study of coastal The Lea&V CoasW L%sue communities in transition @s While population Recent census data (1) show that Oregon's coastal growth is accepted as a reality, managing the pace zone experienced only a 2 percent overall popula- of growth and making certain it occurs in ap- tion increase between 1980 and 1990. However, propriate locations is strongly felt. Respondents some counties and cities grew as much as four- expressed concerns about the effects of growth teen percent in population. Furthermore, the that are spelled out in detail below: that growth 3 Oregon Coastal Program Section 309 Assessment may overwhelm our ability to cope with it by ex- climate, its oceanfront setting and its proximity to ceeding the capacity of our infrastructure and af- California. Lincoln County is especially popular fecting the housing supply. Respondents are because of its oceanfront setting, the availability concerned that the state and local governments of supporting services and its proximity to the develop and implement more effective tools to Willamette Valley and Portland. The growth re- manage growth. lated problems these areas are experiencing are an � Demographics: Retirement indicator of problems likely to be faced by other and Tourism coastal communities in the coming years as Retirees are the principal component of the rapid development pressures continue and accumulate. population growth on Oregon's coast. Based on � Service Needs for a recent census data for Clatsop, Ti amook, Lin- Changing Population coln, Coos, and Curry counties, M the "sixty-five The increasing older population will create new and above" age group increased by 33 percent be- and expanded needs for health care, transporta- tween 1980 and 1990. That age group now makes tion, housing, and related services which cater to up 19 percent of the coastal population. The com- the needs of the elderly. The state and coastal bination of an attractive environment, affordable communities need a better long-range picture of housing, reasonable tax rates and necessary sup- the demographic makeup of coastal communities porting services makes coastal communities an at- and the supporting facilities that are likely to be tractive retirement location. The coast generally needed. Coordinated planning among local provides small town living opportunities with governments, health facility providers, and the reasonable proximity to larger metropolitan areas. state is needed to make sure that these needs are This trend is likely to continue or even increase properly addressed. given projected increases in the number of retire- � Maintaining Affordable Housing ment age people and the likely continuing relative affordability of housing in coastal communities. The increased popularity of the coast has reduced Oregon proximity to California will also be a the supply of affordable housing. Prices and rent major factor. levels of existing housing units have been bid up by increased demand. Virtually all new housing is Increased tourism is a second factor affecting being built for middle- and upper-income buyers coastal growth. The state's economic development and renters. The cost of housing, particularly for strategy has required multi-county regions of the average employees in the tourist industry, is be- state to collaborate to develop and implement a coming very expensive. Low-end housing is also common "regional strategy". AR but one of the being converted to second homes for out-of-town regions on the coast have selected tourism as the owners. major component of their economic development strategy. This effort has and will continue to result 1hfi-dstmcttnv Needs in increased development of largely seasonal tourist oriented businesses and the development New development creates a need for new and ex- of a year-around "second home" weekend popula- panded public facilities and services. Most of tion. Oregon's coastal communities are small and have not experienced or successfully managed raid � Key Growth Areas growth in the past. This creates both a need for The effects of coastal development are apparent new facilities and services and development of in all oceanfront communities, but they are most the capability at the local level to plan, finance pronounced in the urban areas of Lincoln County and built needed facilities. These problems are ag- and Curry County. These two counties have ex- gravated by a statewide reduction in property tax perienced the highest rates of growth on the rates which has reduced revenues traditionally coast-10 and 14 percent respectively since available for facility construction. 1980P) They are likely to continue t receive the most pressure for new development T7) Roads, sewer and water plants and other in- frastructure 110 support new development may Curry County is popular because of its temperate cause mom damage to the coastal enviromnent: 4 Cumulative & Secondary Adverse Effects - Roads run along or cross the ocean shore, es- plans and ordinances do not adequately assure tuaries and coastal wetlands. Widening roads that appropriate safeguards are in fact in place. At may unavoidably mean destruction of some the same time, the state has gathered new informa- sensitive areas. tion which suggests that hazards to oceanfront 0 New sewage treatment plants generally must development from flooding, erosion and locate in low lying areas near existing earthquakes may be greater than previously development. Agriculture lands and wetlands believed. As a consequence the staie needs to have been lost to such development in the reconsider its policies for development, particular- past. ly in hazardous areas. (This particular issue is dis- cussed ftirther in the Coastal Hazards section of Coastal stream flows and fisheries can be hurt this report.) by dams and water plants which take water from streams as well as from new sewer Development mid M=Vement plants which may overload streams with Thmats to Naturul Resoun" treated effluent. Natural resources in the coastal zone are under Careful planning can reduce the need for improve- pressure from both land development and manage- ments and their harm on the environment. For ex- ment practices on farm and forest lands. ample, access management alone can reduce the Urbanization along the coast has resulted in in- need for highway or road widening. Innovative creased pressure to develop along the ocean wastewater treatment techniques, such as con- shore, rivers, and wetlands, and to convert farm structing or enhancing wetlands to provide for ter- and forest lands to urban uses. Filling of coastal tiary wastewater treatment can accommodate new wetlands and rivers has been substantially infrastructure in a way which is compatible with reduced but the long-term effects of past activities protection of the natural environment. is not fully known. Also, concerns are increasing Existing state land use planning program rules re- about more subtle effects, such as urban runoff on quire detailed public facility planning by cities estuarine water quality. State and local govern- with 2,500 or more population. These require- ments need to more fully address these issues. Ad- ments may need to be revised or expanded to in- dressing these issues may involve: clude smaller local governments, particularly * Revision of comprehensive plans during peri- those which cater to tourism. odic review (either in response to new infor- Existing OCMP policies have assured that land is mation or new state policy initiatives) such as planned and zoned to provide for higher density wetland conservation plans. and affordable housing. However more effort is * Revised statewide anning goal or rule re- needed to assure that affordable housing in fact Pi gets built. quirements; particularly for regulating shoreline development and land use patterns. Developmentof 9 New or revised state agency authorities in Sen4five Lwids response to specific problems or issues. The increasing value of oceanfront real estate � Beach Sand Supply makes more likely the development of areas pre- Development along the shoreline together with on- viously considered to expensive to develop. This going natural processes has resulted in placement is especially true of lands at the edge of coastal of beachfront protective structures along many terraces, along the beach, and along coastal wet- developed pbrtions of the coast. Sea level rise and lands. foreseeable erosion and flooding events make it a The existing OCMP program only allows develop- certainty that much of the presently developed ment in hazardous areas if the development can coastline will be protected by revetinents at some be shown to be adequately protected from the time in the future. Although the state policies hazard. There are growing concerns that existing prohibit revetments in undeveloped areas and limit them elsewhere, concerns remain that the 5 Oregon Coastal Program Section 309 Assessment continued construction of revetments will increase bird's survival. Research on the murrelet and its erosion and narrowing of Oregon's beaches. habitat needs is in progress. Manyin the development community continue to The silverspot butterfly requires a combination of question both the severity of potential flooding old growth forests and salt-spray meadows for and erosion events and whether placement of food and shelter. Salt spray meadows support cer- revetments will harm the beach. An Oregon Sea tain flowers upon which the butterfly feeds. Grant er@ition of current shoreline policies is Residential and golf course development of the underway. This includes gathering additional remaining open meadows are major conflicts. information on the effects of shorefront protective Habitat enhancement plans which preserve and en- structures on beach erosion. hance portions of the salt spray meadow for the � Threatened & Endangered Species butterfly are accepted and apparently effective ways to enhance butterfly habitat and allow for Numerous threatened or endangered species are development. Butterfly habitat is known to exist directly affected - either positively or negatively and has been dealt with near Gearhart in Clatsop - by development activities along or near the County and at Big Creek in Lane County. ocean shoreline. One plant, the pink sand verbena, and one animal, the snowy plover, thrive only in Certain salmon species are the third group of or- open sandy areas along the ocean shore or beach . ganisms at risk from the cumulative and secon The snowy plover nests just above the high tide dary effects of continued development. Native line and is potentially threatened by most kinds of salmon stocks are threatened not by land develop- human activity. Both the verbena and the plover ment so much as by the cumulative effects of the have lost habitat as a result of the spread of following activities: (1) timber and agricultural European beachgrass (Ammophila arenaria) along management practices in coastal watersheds; (2) Oregon's oceanfront over the last 50-75 years. increased harvest pressure; and (3). construction of The presence and spread of beachgrass has hydroelectric dams in the Columbia River water- dramatically reduced the amount of open sand shed without adequate upstream and downstream above the high tide line, crowding out both the passage facilities for the salmon. )While manage- plover and the verbena. ment practices have dramatically improved, the cumulative effect of years of past abuse have Remedial actions for both the plover and the ver- brought many runs of salmon to the brink of ex- bena involve removing beachgrass. Ironically, tinction, which has motivated the federal govern- habitat for both species has been most successftil- ment to consider a "threatened and endangered" ly enhanced through placement of sandy dredged designation. material on the beach. Future remedial actions will likely build on this experience and may in- The state has made major strides to address water- clude eradication of European beachgrass in shed management issues in the coastal zone. The selected locations. However, locations must be Forest Practices Act has been and is being revised carefully selected in order to avoid increasing the to provide adequate buffers along coastal streams potential for flood or erosion damage to and to implement other measures to minimize oceanfront buildings. damage to fish habitat. The state's Salmon and Trout Enhancement Program - called STEP - The silverspot butterfly and the marbled murrelet has involved citizen groups in a stream-by-stream are endangered species which depend on old effort to restore habitat and reestablish successful growth forest habitat located very near to the runs of native fish. Minimum stream flows and in- ocean. The murrelet, a very fast flying small bird, stream water rights for fish are being established nests in trees in old growth and fishes along the to 'protect fish runs and other instrearn uses. While nearshore. Little is known about the bird's popula- more needs to be done on upland management tion or habits, and future research is needed to practices, other factors beyond local and state con- know how to enhance the population. Most of the trol, such as international open ocean fishing prac- known nesting areas are in national forest lands tices and retrofitting hydroelectric dams with along the coast. Consequently, the management of adequate fish passage facilities, are needed if forest lands is an important factor affecting the these efforts are to succeed. 6 Cumulative & Secondary Adverse Effects Water Quality identifies several nonpoint source problems and their likely causes - in the coastal basins. One important component of the cumulative and However, much of the assessment is based on ob- secondary effects of all activities in the coastal servation and perreeption, rather than on verified zone - not just development activities - is data. While confidence in the observations is water quality. Water quality itself can indicate the high, the existence of problems still must be severity of land and resource uses in the coastal verified before the Assessment. can be used as the zone. Rapid growth can indeed have adverse ef- basis for specific nonpoint sourrce control fects on water quality, but simple daily use of all programs or projects. Further, identified problems resources and areas in the coastal zone also must be validated by communities before pollu- results in persistent water quality problems. tion control programs can anticipate success. In The coastal onshore hydrologic system is made short, communities will not devote efforts to solve p of rivers, estuaries, lakes, and groundwater problems they don't believe exist. aquifers. It can be thought of as a single, con- The 1988 Assessment shows that nearly all coastal u tinuous, deep sheet of water - much or most of streams are affected by at least one nonpoint which is underground - that gravitates from the source problem or another. Turbidity, erosion, crest of a basin to the ocean by the easiest avail- sedimentation, and nutrients are the most able path. So any activity that affects water prevalent nonpoint source problems in coastal quality in one part of the system invariably affects streams. Many strearns have insufficient stream the remainder of the system downstream. The ef- structure. A few streams show high pathogen fect of a single "pollution event" on the whole sys- counts, elevated temperatures, or low dissolved tem is usually minor, but the cumulative effect of oxygen. thousands of such "events" could disrupt the in- tegrity of the entire system, and thus threaten the The 1988 Assessment also shows that coastal life forms and communities it supports. The fact lakes are apparently subject to somewhat different is, thousands of such events occur daily in stresses. According to the database, coastal lakes Oregon's coastal basins. are more affected by pesticides and toxics than Virtually all of Oregon's coastal waters are af- the pollutants common in the coastal streams. In fected to some degree by pollution. Yet even addition, though, increased aquatic plant growth within the network of resource management in some coastal lakes has been attributed to in- programs, some of this pollution can be ignored: creased nutrients entering the lakes. And if pollution does occur naturally, and some pollu- aquifers are not specifically affected by nonpoint tion, while caused by human activities, does not source pollution today, they are vulnerable to the affect water uses. cumulative effects of future resource uses. However, most pollution problems cannot be ig- The assessment indicates that the causes of non- nored. They either constitute health risks, reduce point problems in coastal basins include surface the vitality of aquatic life, or more generally erosion, landslides, road location, removal of vegetative cover, and a variety of water flow and restrict the ability to use the waters. Many non- channel alterations. point source (NPS) pollution problems - that is, the cumulative effects of thousands of minor pol- In general, nonpoint source water quality lution events - fall into this group: they simply problems are land-based resource use problems cannot be ignored. Thus, a primary task in any which manifest themselves in the water. In addi- strategy to reduce nonpoint source pollution will tion to causes identified in the assessment are be to identify water quality problems that can be problems of failing septic systems or residential solved through a variety of individual and com- development that is too dense for the watershed; munity efforts. problems of using pesticides too close to the Nonpoint source pollution seriously affects watervourse, or of not leaving a vegetative buffer several water bodies in Oregon's coastal basins. between certain uses and the stream; problems of The 1988 Oregon Statewide Assqjment of Non- earth movement resulting from construction ac- point Sources of Water Pollution specifically tivities, or improper surface drainage of nutrient- 7 Oregon Coastal Program Section 309 Assessment producing activities. Ibe list could go on. in point source pollution, slowing the division of short, every nonpoint pollution problem has a farm and forest lands, halting the extension of land use or resource management cause. urban services into rural areas, increasing the In the context of community planning and protection of estuaries and wetlands, and so on. development, many of these land use and Moreover, there have been fewer demands in the resource management issues related to water past to use coastal waters. Now, with the use of quality have been overshadowed by the need to coastal resources in general - and coastal waters address more pressing cumulative impacts. Com specifically - expected to increase dramatically - in the 1990s, the cumulative effects of many ap- munities have been properly devoted to reducing parently harmless activities must be addressed. Management Assessment ------------- ----------- ---------- ----- Implementation of Oregon's coastal management housing, and for protecting and enhancing the program is resulting in the refinement of policies coastal environment. The existing program and techniques for managing cumulative effects provides a mechanism for local governments; to of coastal development. However, more needs to update their plans in response to this new informa- be done. tion - through periodic review. The state and local government efforts described The department is continuing its assessment of below provide an opportunity to pursue cumula- coastal issues with local governments, state agen- tive effects issues. The department, as the state's cies, and other groups and interests involved in lead agency for coastal management, has a key the coastal management program. This ongoing ef- role to play in coordinating and integrating these fort will provide a basis for discussion and further efforts. Coordination and integration can assure efforts to reflne coastal program policies to better that the efforts do not work to cross purposes. address cumulative effects of development. Population Gmwth Pmssur-es Other agencies are also involved in long-range planning efforts to better address cumulative ef- The department has completed a detailed analysis fects of development. The Division of State Lands of urban growth patterns around the state includ- (DSL) is encouraging local governments to ing the Brookings area. The results of this study develop wetland management plans. DSL will show that substantial amounts of residential also be assessing wetland trends statewide to es- development are continuing to occur just outside tablish regional priorities for wetland mitigation of urban growth boundaries despite policies and restoration projects (see wetlands discussion which encourage development to occur within the below.) boundaries. The department is now beginning to develop proposals for rule and statute changes to The Oregon Department of Transportation implement the results of this study. (ODOT) is developing a corridor plan for the Pacific Coast Highway, Highway 101. Planning is- More information is needed on the unique sues facing Highway 101 mirror the broader coas- demographic character of the Oregon coast and its tal agenda. Coastal population growth and implications for future planning. We know the cur- especially expanded tourism place new demands rent trends for retirement and tourist development on the coast's major transportation route. These on the Oregon coast. We need an analysis of state, demands must be sorted out in a way which main- regional, and national trends in these areas to tains and enhances the coastal environment know if rates of growth in these industries will remain the same, grow more rapidly, or slack off. The Governor's priority for promotion of "Liv- We then need to translate this information into an able Communities" is also an important planning assessment of planning needs, such as for public effort which parallels the coastal program. "Liv- facilities planning, for maintaining affordable able Communities" is intended to address the is- 8 Cumulative & Secondary Adverse Effects sues of rapid population growth in a way which Water QuLaRty Programs accommodates growth but retains the quality of life to which people have grown accustomed. � State Agencies A minimum response to the "Livable Com- Oregon's system for addressing water quality munities" initiative would be to monitor and col- problems is the responsibility of several programs lect data on the changes in coastal natural within the Oregon Department of Environmental resources due to population growth. Specific Quality (DEQ). DEQ participates as a full "net- measures or indicators could be established which worked" partner in the Oregon Coastal Manage- could be used to research the status, trends, and ment Program. Among other responsibilities, forecasts for key "adverse effects areas". Data on DEQ administers programs for groundwater certain parameters are currently being collected, quality, water quality in lakes and estuaries, and such as population and demographic patterns. for nonpoint source pollution control .(5-i DEQ's What is needed are data related to quality of life programs reflect distinctions between the com- and to natural resource quality; such as acres of ponents of the hydrologic system for reasons of wetlands and riparian habitat; and development in convenience and familiarity. hazardous areas. As another example, the Oregon DEQ's water quality programs perform the follow- Progress Board has recommended numerous data ing differing functions: water quality monitoring; collection parameters that coull,,@e used to water quality assessments; water body prioritiz- monitor coastal natural health . These measures ing; research, planning, and education; and coor- monitor clean air, water, and land, as well as dination among other programs and agencies. agricultural lands, forest lands, wetlands, and en- Each distinct water quality program contributes to dangered species. these statewide planning and coordination func- Achieving the "Livable Communities" objectives tions. As a result, the state uses limited resources in the face of shrinking public funds will be a to address severe problems and to protect par- challenge. One potential solution may be an in- ticularly valuable waters. creased use of qualified citizen volunteers to per- Oregon's Nonpoint Source Management Plan form many of the needed planning tasks. This is a identifies and sets priorities for work tasks that positive manifestation of the dramatic increase in are to be accomplished as staff and budget resour- the retirement section of the coastal population ces allow. With additional financial resources, em- during the last decade. A recent Oregon Sea GrNt phasis on problems in coastal basins could be case study of coastal communities in transition increased. The increased coastal emphasis could provided the following conclusion regarding result in the creation and support of citizen com- volunteerism: mittees to monitor water quality, the identification One of the things that this study discovered of specific water quality problems, and the iden- was that the subject coastal communities have tification of water quality-related changes needed the potential to take advantage of currently in local comprehensive plans and their implemen- underutilized human capital. That is to say, tation. new residents who have recently settled in DEQ has twice produced statewide assessments these communities bring with them many of nonpoint pollution problems,pe most recent of skills and unique capabilities. Particularly which was completed in 1988 . " The assess- among the retired population, individuals with ments provide an excellent starting point for com- strong technical and professional back- munity discussions on nonpoint problems. But grounds can make significant and meaningful unfortunately, when most local comprehensive contributions to the community's economic plans were being developed, the cumulative water and social milieu. Leaders in these com- quality impacts of land uses were overshadowed munities mustfind innovative ways to draw by more immediate problems. So at this point, the these new citizens into positive contributions, Assessments have only been referenced by or in- the provision ofpublic services and support of corporated into a few coastal comprehensive plans. community activities. The 1988 Assessment must be updated or supple- 9 Oregon Coastal Program Section 309 Assessment mented before it can become a basis for com- less, local plan policies and provisions to protect munity decisions about water quality problems. lake water quality now need to be updated with However, state and local agencies do not have the new water quality and land use data. resources required to extend water quality 4- DEQ recently completed one of only three near- monitoring programs so as to help identify and ad coastal water quality demonstration projects in the dress basin-wide nonpoint source problems. So nation. The project focused on the Coquille River Oregon's water quality strategy is to work on the basin, where nonpoint sources contributed to most difficult problems first, and to immediately water quality degradation. The Coquille project protect high-quality waters. Given the limited was built on extensive public involvement in the resources compared to the magnitude of form of a Community Advisory Committee. The problerns, any broad effort to further identify and committee helped identify problem areas, par- control persistent water quality problems will ticipated in monitoring activities, and advised have to rely on extensive education, information, DEQ of practical solutions to the identified problem identification and consensus-building. problems. The committee is now developing a Since Oregon's local water quality projects in- "Strategic Watershed Plan", which will identify variably rely on public and local government par- priorities for the next decade. Since point source ticipation, citizen committees provide an excellent problems in the basin have now been rectified, the opportunity to begin long-term basin-wide citizen more complex nonpoint source problems are monitoring programs. being evaluated to determine the highest priorities Oregon's nonpoint source control program cur- for future projects. rently relies on "designated management agen- The Near Coastal Waters demonstration project cies" for its implementation. These agencies are successfully developed and supported a citizen- typically involved directly in managing a based approach to solving water quality problems. resource, whether by regulation, leasing, or techni- It provides one model for continued citizen-based cal assistance. Thus agencies are in an excellent coastal water quality improvement programs in position to use - or require the use of - "best coastal basins. It also demonstrates that com- management practices" for reducing nonpoint munity support and understanding am critical to source pollution. For example, the Oregon Depart- the success of nonpoint source pollution control ment of Forestry, the Oregon Department of programs. Agriculture, and the Bureau of Land Management are all involved in nonpoint source pollution con- In summary, Oregon's state-level water quality trol by virtue of their work with forest and agricul- programs are structured, first, according to water tural land management. Many state and federal body type; second, to address specific water agencies are involved in addressing the cumula- quality problems; and third, to participate in a tive water quality effects of coastal resource uses. process to identify water quality priorities However, only one - DEQ - has the reduction statewide. Limited financial resources have of water pollution as its primary responsibility. resulted in a strategy of addressing only the worst DEQ also has a water quality program for small water quality problems, and of restricting the use coastal lakes. The lakes program is currently char- of the more effective citizen-based watershed ap- acterizing the limnology of seventeen coastal proach. The different programs are not well in- lakes, so that water quality can be correlated with tegrated into the local comprehensive planning land uses in lake watersheds. The current objec- process. The separate prograins are effective at ad tive of the lakes program is to synthesize current dressing identified water quality problems, and they provide a strong foundation for an integrated knowledge about coastal lakes into a model that "watershed approach" to water quality problems can be used by local planning officials to deter- at the local level. mine the optimum level of different land uses in a lake watershed. Protection of coastal lakes � Local Governments receives more attention in local comprehensive Three factors complicate the involvement of local plans than do riverine nonpoint problems, but this planning and development authorities in nonpoint is probably due to the fact that lake shores are source pollution control. under tremendous development pressure. Nonethe- 10 Cumulative & Secondafy Adverse Effects First, local governments have not historically tunities to prevent nonpoint source pollution. been involved in the reduction of nonpoint source 0 Providing integrated state-level support for a pollution. Local authorities do review a consider- citizen-based watershed approach to protect- able number of land use and development ac- ing water quality. tivities, but their review has traditionally been restricted to the protection of other community 0 Increasing public awareness of the water pol- values. Minimizing urban sprawl, maintaining lution that results from a variety of individual land in viable blocks for farm and forest uses, and activities. prohibiting the inappropriate use of shorelines, Finally, an effective nonpoint pollution control among many other issues, have all required con- siderable resources at the local level. program must represent the coordinated efforts of several agencies to address problems systemically Second, state- and federally-driven programs to at the local level protect community values can be unpopular at the local level. They can be seen as the imposition of � New Federal-State-Local Programs solutions on problems that don't exist. Oregon's Congress recently passed legislation which can experience has been that the only valid way to make for a closer working partnership between manage an environmental protection program is DEQ's various water quality programs and the to organize a citizen-based process that results in Oregon coastal program. The legislation amended a community's definition of its problems. This les- the Coastal Zone Management Act to add the son has been learned in both the water pollution Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program. It is and local comprehensive planning programs. also called the "Section 6217" program, named Finally, many of the activities in the coastal zone after the section of the amending legislation. that result in nonpoint pollution are not subject to The "6217" program is likely to use "manage- local (or state) permit reviews. Virtually ment measures" to control the introduction of non- thousands of everyday activities affect water point source pollutants into coastal waters, quality as a matter of course. Lawn fertilizer, pet particularly from agriculture, forestry, and urban wastes, used crankcase oil and antifreeze, and im- sources. Since many of the measures identified by properly stored household chemicals are common federal agencies may already be in use in pollutants whose use or disposal are, appropriate- Oregon's present water quality control programs, ly, not regulated by water quality officials. It is Oregon's strategy in meeting the federal mandate not administratively or politically possible to regu- will rely heavily on community information and late all of these activities. problem-solving efforts. The coastal nonpoint Thus there are three significant challenges to source control will provide Oregon with an oppor- reducing the cumulative effects on water quality tunity to integrate various state and federal water of land and resource uses in the coastal zone: quality control resources - expertise, grants, data, programs, and project contacts - into a sys- Helping local planning and development temic watershed approach to address persistent authorities become more vigilant for oppor- coastal water quality problems. Priority Program Enhancements -------------------- - ------------------------- ------------------------- ----------------- -------------------- The category of cumulative and secondary effects revisions. It will also work closely with the is a priority for OCMP improvement. relevant state, local, and federal efforts mentioned The major process for refinement of Oregon's above to assure that they are aware of other ef- coastal program remains the periodic review and forts and are fully incorporated in local plan up- update of city and county comprehensive plans. dates. The department will provide leadership through its work on urban growth management policy Oregon Coastal Program Section 309 Assessment Population Growth Pressures dating of plans to respond to this new infor- mation. A full discussion of periodic review Oregonians are concerned about the future of the will be provided in the Strategies. Oregon coast. They wonder what their com- munities and environment will be like 50 years Develop and refine tools to better manage from now. They recognize that the beauty, natural and control urban development in the coas- resources, and way of life of the coast will con- tal zone. For example, small tourist com- tinue to lure new residents and businesses. At the munities on the coast could be encouraged same time they also recognize that this continued to do public facility planning. growth could destroy or alter the very qualities Increase the use of qualified volunteers to and values of the coast they know and love. perform needed studies, analyses, and Increasing year-around population growth, a high other planning activities. seasonal and weekend influx of tourists and Provide better protection of sensitive second home owners, and the depopulation of resources threatened by development pres- formerly viable timber-based communities have sure, particularly lands along the ocean all increased demands for social services and shore. caused a loss of affordable housing. New develop- ment has created a need for new and expanded Encourage environmentally sensitive siting public facilities, like roads and sewer treatment and design of new public facilities in the plants. The siting of such facilities can cause the coastal zone, particularly sewer and water loss of sensitive fish and wildlife habitat. facilities and roads. The increasing value of oceanfront real estate Monitor the quantitative and qualitative makes more likely the development of areas pre- changes in coastal natural resources and viously considered too expensive to develop due other "quality of life" indicators caused by to natural hazards or the mitigation of environ- the cumulative effects of increasing popula- mental damage. Residential development has tion growth. been occurring outside of urban growth boun- daries, often on agricultural and forest lands. Water Quafity Numerous "threatened and endangered" plant and A recent state water quality assessment shows that animal species have been losing habitat due to nearly all coastal streams are affected by at least development activities. one nonpoint source pollution problem. Many Several improvements could be made to the coastal lakes are also affected, and groundwater Oregon Coastal Management Program: aquifers are in danger. However, lack of staff and Develop better information on economic financial resources have prevented state water and demographic trends to assure develop- quality managers from making more use of effec- ment needs are accommodated with mini. tive citizen-based watershed management ap- mal loss of sensitive lands and resources. proaches. Consequently, current state-level water State agencies and local governments need quality programs are fragmented among different an analysis of state, regional, and national "hot spof 'pollution problems, and are not well in- trends in these areas to know if rates of tegrated in local comprehensive planning proces- growth in these industries will remain the ses. same, grow more rapidly, or slack off. We Several improvements could be made to the then need to translate this information into Oregon Coastal Management Program: an assessment of planning needs, such as Verify the existence of nonpoint source for public facilities planning, for maintain- problems. This will allow the Assessment to ing affordable housing, and for protecting be used as the basis for specific nonpoint and enhancing the coastal environment. source control programs or projects. Fur. NOTE: Fortunately, Oregon law em- ther, identified problems must be validated powers the Coastal Program, through the by communities before pollution control Periodic Review process, to require the up- 12 Cumulative & Secondafy Adverse Effects programs can anticipate success. citizen-based water quality improvement � Increase the water quality monitoring net- program. Community support and under- work in coastal basins. A primary task in standing are critical to the success of non- any strategy to reduce nonpoint source pol- point source pollution control programs. lution will be to identify water quality . Help local planning and development problems that can be solved through a authorities become more vigilant for oppor- variety of individual and community ef- tunities to prevent nonpoint source pollu- forts. tion. � Review, supplement, and substantiate the 0 Provide integrated state-level support for a data on nonpoint source pollution citizen-based watershed approach to problems in coastal basins. protecting water quality. � Increase emphasis on an integrated, com- 0 Increase public awareness of water pollu- prehensive approach - a watershed ap- tion that results from a variety of in- proach - to protecting water quality in dividual activities. coastal basins. - Increase financial resources to implement a Target problem watersheds and water the federally required Coastal Nonpoint quality problems in coastal basins. Pollution Control Program. Oregon's Increase community perception and recog- strategy will rely heavily on community in- nition of nonpoint problems in coastal formation and problem-solving efforts. watersheds. Oregon will integrate various state and federal water quality control resources - Increase coordination and integration of expertise, grants, data, programs, and water quality programs and land use plan- project contacts - into a comprehensive ning programs at the local level. The Near watershed approach to solving persistent Coastal Waters demonstration in the Co- coastal water quality problems. quille River basin provides one model for a References 1. Center For Population Research & Census. Sources of Water Pollution". Portland, Oregon. Population Estimates For Oregon, 1980-1990. August 1988. Portland State University. Portland, Oregon. 5. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. March 1991. "1990 Water Quality Status Assessment Report 2. Good, James. "Draft Shore Protection and (305b Report)". Portland, Oregon. (no date) Oceanfront Land Use Practices In Oregon: A Criti- 6. Oregon Department of Land Conservation & que". Oregon State University. Corvallis, Oregon. Development. "Analysis of Coastal Questionnaire 1991. Responses". Salem, Oregon. July 1991. 3. Martin, Michael et al. Coastal Oregon Com- 7. Oregon Department of Transportation. "Draft munities In Transition: A Case Study Approach. Demographic & Economic Forecasts, 1990- Oregon State University. Corvallis, Oregon. July 2012". Salem, Oregon. August 1991. 1991. 4. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. 8. Oregon Progress Board. Oregon Benchmarks: "1988 Oregon Statewide Assessment of Nonpoint Setting Measurable Standards For Progress. Salem, Oregon. May, 1990. 13 Oregon Coastal Program Section 309 Assessment .I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 14 1 Coastal Hazards Legislative Objective Prevent or significantly reduce threats to life and destruction of property by eliminating development and redevelopment in high hazard areas, managing development in other hazard areas,, and anticipating and managing the effects of potential sea level rise. Resource Assessment The Oregon coast is subject to a spectrum of and landsliding are events that fall into this natural hazards associated with processes that category. Being local in nature, the effects of occur across a range of spatial and temporal chronic hazards are generally less severe. How- scales. For the purpose of discussion, a distinction ever, their wide distribution and frequent occur- can be made between "catastrophic" and rence makes them a more immediate concern. "chronic" coastal natural hazards. The nature of both catastrophic and chronic Catastrophic hazards are those which are regional hazards that affect the Oregon coast is described in scale and scope. Instantaneous events, such as below. earthquakes, tsunamis, and hurricanes, fall into this category. Although the occurrence of such Catastmpblc Hazards events may be infrequent, their effects are severe. � Earthquakes, Coseismic Events more gradual in nature, but which have severe region-wide effects, such as sea level rise Subsidence, Tsunamis and subsidence, also fall into the catastrophic The regional tectonic setting of the Oregon coast hazard category. is that of a convergent margin, where the oceanic Juan de Fuca Plate plunges below the continental In contrast, chronic hazards are those which are North American plate at the Cascadia subduction local in scale and scope. River and ocean flood- zone. Seismic activity in both plates represents ing, beach and dune erosion, sea cliff recession, some risk, however the greatest potential for a 15 Oregon Coastal Program Section 309 Assessment major catastrophic.earthquake event in the Pacific 9.1 range.(18,20) Damage from such an event Northv t is associated with subduction zone seis- would not only include that resulting ft-om ground micity.Ml shaking, but also that resulting from earthquake- Although there is no historical record of a major induced liquefa n, landsliding, subsidence, and catastrophic earthquake event in the Pacific tsunami. MaU has outlined a scenario for Northwest, a body of evidence very recently has such an event. At the onset, severe ground shak- been developed which strongly suggests that ing occurs for several minutes. During this time, major subduction zone earthquake events do amplification and liquefaction effects occur in occuralong the Oregon coast. This evidence in- areas of unconsolidated, saturated sediment. Mas- cludes the discovery in Washington and Oregon sive ancient landslides are reactivated. Significant estuaries of sedimentary sequences consisting of structural damage to buildings, and the closure of marsh deposits overlain unconformably % i@tgrj roads and bridges all along the coast would result from the occurrence of these events alone. tidal niuds and/or tsunami-derived sands. I I . ) These deposits, suggestive of rapid subsidence Rapid, coastwide subsidence on the order of 0.5- and marine inundation, exhibit affinities to those 1.5 meters also occurs in association with the sub- produced in response to the 1960 Chilean and duction zone earthquake. Although flooding 1964 Alaskan subduction zone earthquakes. Other associated with subsidence would occur immedi- evidence for major subduction zone earthquake ately in some low-lying areas, the effects of sub- events includes submarine "turbidity current" sidence are more likely to be manifest over the deposits. Such landslide-induced deposition has longer term as increased flooding and coastal been shown to have occurred simultaneously over erosion during storms. This scenario is further large distances, suggestin6 tfigering by a single complicated by the likely occurrence of locally large scale seismic event. Geodetic data, generated tsunami arriving at the coast within a which indicate that uplift is occurring and strain is half hour a.%y initial ground shaking. A study by accumulating along the entire length of the Hebenstriet ) estimates the size of such a tsunami Oregon coast, also sugff@! TJ @eismic activity ac- to be on the order of 6-12 meters in height prior companies subduction. 2 , 6 Finally, native to run up. Maximum destruction from such a American legends and archaeological evidence tsunami would occur along the shorelines of bays, are consistent with a history of major catast@op% estuaries, and low lying sand barriers. These areas earthquake events in the Pacific Northwest.(l , would experience immediate flooding and Radiocarbon dating of buried marsh deposits, tree erosion. (18) 1 ring dating, and sedimentation rates, have all been As Madin notes, the possible occurrence of employed to estimate how often major earthquake such a catastrophic event is undoubtedly a con- events occur in the Pacific Northwest. Estimates cem for emergency managers, land-use planners, obtained from such analyses suggest that the last and public officials of coastal communities. Many major catastrophic earthquake event occurred ap- communities critical facilities, such as schools, proximately 350 years ago, the average return in- hospitals, and emergency response centers, are lo- terval is on the order of every 300-500 years, and cated in areas that are likely to be damaged by an return intervals range from mi3dy , mhort as 270 earthquake or associated tsunami. Yet, most years to as long as 850 years 71 These ob- people remain unaware that the possibility of a servations have led investigators to conclude that magnitude 8 or greater earthquake even exists, let there is a distinct possibility that a major alone the truly catastrophic nature of such an catastrophic earthquake event could happen in event. Oregon in the near future. NEED: Support efforts that lead to the Based on Pacific Northwest geodetic data and refinement of our scientific understanding analogies to other great subduction zone of the nature of major subduction zone earthquakes (e.g. Alaska, Mexico City, and Peru), earthquake events. In particular support investigators have suggested that the magnitude research efforts that further the under- of a subduction zone earthquake event in the standing of areas along the Oregon coast Pacific Northwest is likely to be in the Mw 8.0 to that are most vulnerable and how impacts 16 Coastal Hazards in these areas can be minimized. Support contrast, the central Oregon coast is being sub- efforts to increase public awareness of the merged by the rising sea at a rate of about 1-2 likelihood and nature of a major mm/yr. As Komar points out, these rates are small earthquake event in the Pacific Northwest. when compared to those common along the East With respect to tsunamis, the import of nonlocally- and Gulf coasts. Further, much of the Oregon generated tsunamis should not be overlooked. The coast is fronted by sandy sea cliffs rather than low most common source of significant tsunamis lying costal barriers. As a result, inundation and reaching the Oregon coast comes from shoreline retreat accompanying sea level rise are earthquakes in and around Alaska. Although the less of a direct threat to Oregon coastal com- occurrence of such tsunamis along the Oregon munities than they are to those situated on the coast is sporadic and unpredictable, two have East and Gulf coasts. struck the coast in recent years. This includes the Although local tectonic conditions moderate the tsunami generated by the Good Friday Alaska potential threats to coastal Oregon associated with earthquake in 1964, the largest recorded tsunami sea level rise, the coastwide differences described to hit the Oregon coast. During this event, four above have been @hown to affect the patterns of drownings and $700,000 in damage occurred. The coastal erosion.(' ) For example, Komar and damage involved the washing of logs and Shih(16) have examined the relationship between driftwood into motel units and the temporary the extent of cliff erosion and relative sea level flooding of low-lying areas. changes. They found that the greatest amount of NEED: Support efforts that lead to the sea-cliff recession has occurred on the central refinement of our understanding of which Oregon coast where the rate of relative sea level rise is the greatest. Apparently, the cliffs in this areas are most vulnerable to a tsunami, area are subject to more frequent direct wave at- and what impacts a tsunami is likely to tack and as a result their buffering capabilities are have in these areas. minimized. Should an accelerated rise in global � Sea Level Rise-Su6idence sea level occur during the next century in The occurrence of a major subduction zone seis- response to greenhouse warming, such effects mic event and its accompanying effects are only would be magnified. part of the cycle of tectonic activity that occurs at NEED: Monitor research on global sea the convergent margin. The extremely brief level rise, particularly as it pertains to the periods of sudden change that characterize a accelerated rates and effects of sea level major seismic event are separated by extended rise. Support efforts to refine our periods of gradual earth movement. During these knowledge of local effects of sea level rise. quiescent intervals uplift of the coastal margin oc- As such knowledge increases, public aware- curs as strain accumulates prior to its release in a ness of global-sea level rise can be aug- major seismic event. mented. Recent investigations suggest that, although uplift � Hurricanes is occurring along the entire length of the Oregon The Oregon Coastal Zone is at little to no risk coast, elevation changes are not uniformly dis- from the hazards associated with hurricanes. How- tributed. ne smallest rate of uplift has occurred ever major storms, with hurricane force winds and along the central Oregon coast. Higher rates of 7 meter high break' waves, batter the coast al- uplift have occurred alo @e northern and @N . Y_T416, most every w nte southern Oregon coast7f I These differen- i r. The beach and upland tial rates of uplift become significant when the ef- erosion, ocean and riverine flooding, and property fects of present-day sea level rise are damage associated with these events is considered superimposed upon them. Komar(M examined below. the rate of land-lcvel change relative to the chang- ChrollicHazards ing global sea level. He found the northern and southern Oregon coasts to be rising faster than the A prominent feature of chronic natural hazards rate of rising sea level by about 0. 1-0.2 mm/yr. In along the Oregon coast is their variety, both 17 Oregon Coastal Program Section 309 Assessment within and between the headland-bounded littoral coupled with high water levels return to the off- cells that together makeup the Oregon coast. shore the sand that has accumulated on beaches Episodic beach and dune erosion is the major and dunes during the summer period of low problem in some littoral cells. Commonly such waves. Changes in the direction of wind and Iit- erosion varies spatially as well as temporally. toral drift within the "closed" littorNOFT Ile are an Homess at one end of a littoral may succumb to integral part of this seasonal cycle. '@'Souther- storm waves, while at the same time homes at the lies, which move sand towards the northern ends other end of the same cell face burial due to sand of the littoral cells, are dominant in the winter. inundation. At any given time, erosion within an Northerlies, which move sand towards the entire littoral cell may be concentrated at single southern ends of the littoral cells, are dominant in site located at the head of a rip current embay- the summer. ment. ]h other littoral cells, or other parts of ht- Shifts in storm paths and temporary rises in sea toral cells, the major problem is landsliding and level associated with the with El Nifto events, sea-cliff recession. In these areas wave-induced have been shown to exacerbn Pj@elqAonal pat- beach erosion per se may be a contributor to such problems, but be a minor problem in and of itself. terns of erosion and accretion. Specifi- The myriad of events that fall under the category cally, all along the Oregon coast following the of chronic hazards act cumulatively. However, 1982-83 El Nifio, accretion was found to have oc- their effects are discussed independently below. curred at the northern ends of pocket beaches while the southern ends experienced major � Coastal Flooding-Storm Surge erosion. Erosion experienced at Alsea spit is According to the Federal Emergency Management directly attributable to the northward deflection of Agency (FEMA), the rive coastal counties of the channel that occurred during the 1982-83 El Coos, Clatsop, Tillamook, Lincoln, and Curry Nifio. Additionally, erosion problems that still con- have nearly every type of flood hazard found in tinue at Netarts Spit have been attributed in part the Northwest. In the three northern counties to the depletion of sand from the nearshore zone (Clatsop, Tillamook, and Lincoln), flood hazard that occurred when the same 1982-83 El Niflo (7) areas are nearly all developed. Most of this event swept sands into Netarts Bay. Also, Good development occurred before the adoption of has found a direct correlation between peaks in flood hazard regulations. In 1990, both Tillamook shore protection structure activity and El Nifto and Clatsop counties were declared disaster areas events. by President Bus @41S a result of coastal and During winter stonns large rip currents are a char- riverine flooding. acteristic feature of nearshore circulation along Flooding on the Oregon coast is attributable to the Oregon coast. Rip currents may exacerbate several factors including heavy rainfall, steep shoreline erosion locally, by hollowing out topography, low bedrock permeability, and exten- shoreline embayments in the process of funnelling sive flood plains. Catastrophic flooding is sand offshore. Erosion in the le6 of tip currents projected by FEMA as the 100 year flood. FEMA can be very rapid, removing up to 100 feet of forecasts the 100 year flood based on historical in- property in two or three weeks. A major episode formation on rainfall and a detailed analysis of of erosion that occurred at Siletz Spit in 1972-73 flooding patterns in each community. Each and involved the loss of homes and subsequent ar- municipality on the coast is subject to a 100-year moring of the spilPs been clearly associated flood. Along the ocean shore the 100 year flood with rip currents. Similarly, rip currents are level forecast is derived from information on high likely to have contributed to erosion that occurred tides and wind-driven storm waves. The projected at Nedonna BeacP ig 1977-78 and Netarts Spit elevation of such a flood along the Oregon coast since 1982-83. ,'L varies depending on shoreline characteristics, and Although beach and dune erosion is generally as- ranges from 19-29 feet above mean sea level. sociated with storm events, other factors have � Beach and Dune Erosion also played a role. The earliest erosion problems Erosion on the Oregon coast is confined mainly to on the Oregon coast were associated with the con- the stormy winter months. The high winter waves struction of jetties at the entrances to bays and es- 18 Coastal Hazards tuaries.(10) A notable example of erosion due to along their geaward-dipping, relatively imperme- jetty construction is the severe erosion and breach- able, basal mudstone contact. Storm waves, par- ing of' Bayocean spit opposite Tillamook Bay. ticularly when concentrated at rip embayments, Construction of the north jetty led to drift interrup- contribute to this instability by removing sediment tion. `17his caused the beach to accrete on the north from the base of the cliffs as well as under-cutting side of the jetty and erode on the south side of the the cliffs themselves. Development, including ex- jetty. In the process the community of Cape cavation and alteration of drainage patterns that Meares experienced major losses to erosion and accompany site preparation, also contributes to the resort community of Bayocean Park was com- slope instability in some instances. In other instan- pletel, lost to the sea. ces, cliff recession results simply from the erosion Y Although erosion associated with the winter storm that accompanies physical weathering of uncon- phase of the seasonal beach cycle is a primary solidated cliff surfaces. The creation of beach graf- concern, the import of hazards resulting from ac- fiti on cliff surfaces even plays a significant role in accelerating cliff erosion processes in some cumiflation of sand on beaches and dunes primari- heavily used areas.(16) ly during the summer months should not be neglected. At Pacific City, one home has been In some littoral cells, the primary source of sand comp4etely buried by sand. Sand inundation cur- comes from these eroding cliffs. The customary rently threatens homeowners at this and several response of a private property owner in Oregon other locations on the north coast. The practice of faced with eroding oceanfront property is to in- using European beach grass for dune stabilization stall some type of shore protection structure may be a contributing factor to the sand inunda- (riprap revetment or seawalls). The installation of tion problem. these structures essentially "locks-up" new sour- � Sea Cliff Recession ces of sand to the beach. Rising seas in our heavi- ly developed marine terrace-backed beaches may Many Oregon coast beaches are backed by ultimately result in the loss of sandy ocean beach, uplifted sea cliffs composed of unconsolidated especially during the winter months. Pleistocene marine sandstones overlying older seawa,rd-dipping Tertiary silt and mudstones. NEED: Encourage coordinated research ef- Development in many coastal communities is lo- forts that lead to an increased under- cated in these areas and therefore cliff recession is standing of the suite of chronic natural a significant problem in these areas. Half of the hazards that affect the Oregon coast. central Oregon coast, for example, is undergoing NOTE: Particular attention should be cliff erosion and slope failure of some kind. The given to those efforts that address inter- recent. loss of four developme%P this area is at- and intra-littoral cell process variability tributable to landslide activity. and its effects on coastal stability in an in- tegrated manner. Augment academic re- Sea cliff recession in the form of landslides, search by volunteer or other types ofdata slumps, and sloughing results from a combination collection and inventory effort& Increase of eff'ects. Heavy and prolonged winter rains public awareness of chronic natural saturate the porous sandy unconsolidated sedi- hazards. ments. They then become susceptible to sliding Management Assessment PolicyFramework statewide goals. Three of these goals contain policies which govern the location of new ne statewide land use planning program in development along the ocean shore. The general Oregon, administered by the Department of Land objectives of the policies contained within these Conservation and Development, has required goals are to direct development away from hazard- cities and counties to adopt comprehensive land ous areas, preserve and restore protective func- use plans and zoning ordinances to implement 19 Oregon Coastal Program Section 309 Assessment tions of the natural shoreline, and prevent or mini- and where appropriate the restoration and enhan- mize threats to existing populations and property cement of riparian vegetation. from coastal hazards. � Goal 18 (Beaches and Dunes) � Statewide Planning Goal 7 (Areas This goal sets specific standards for regulating Subject to Natural Disasters and new development in beach and dune areas. The Hazards) goal prohibits residential developments and com- This goal requires that development not be mercial and industrial buildings on beaches, ac- planned or located in areas of known hazards or tive foredunes, on other foredunes which are subject to natural disasters without appropriate conditionally stable and that are subject to ocean safeguards. The goal defines hazardous areas as undercutting or wave overtopping (areas of areas that are subject to natural events that are erosion or velocity flooding) and on interdune known to result in death or endanger the works of areas (deflation plains). Development in these man, such as stream flooding, ocean flooding, areas and in other beach and dune areas can only erosion and deposition, landslides, earthquakes, occur when it can be shown that the proposed weak foundation soils or other hazards unique to development is adequately protected from any local or regional areas. Plans are based on an in- hazards and adverse impacts are minimized. ventory of known areas of natural disasters and Under Goal 18, riprap and other structural means hazards. It is important to note that Goal 7 does of erosion control are only allowed on shorelines not prohibit development in areas subject to that were developed by January 1, 1977. For the natural hazards, rather, it recommends limits on purposes of this goal requirement, development is the density or intensity of uses based on the de- gree ofhazard present, and requires that ap- defined as houses, commercial and industrial propriate safeguards be used when locating buildings, and vacant subdivision lots which are development in hazardous areas. physically improved through construction of streets or the provision of utilities to the lots, or � Statewide Planning Goal 17 (Coas- areas where special exceptions have been ap- tal Shorelands) proved. Even in "developed" areas, shore protec- This goal requires that land use plans implement- tion structures are permitted only when it can be ing actions and permit reviews consider critical shown that visual impacts and impacts on ad- relationships between coastal shorelands and jacent property are minimized, beach access is resources of coastal waters, and of the geologic maintained, and long-term or recurring costs to and hydrologic hazards associated with coastal the public are avoided. shorelands. Coastal cities and counties have been Under Goal 18, the breaching of foredunes is required to inventory coastal shorelands areas, in- prohibited, except for temporary breaching in cluding those areas adjacent to estuaries, the emergencies, such as to drain floodwater from ocean and coastal lakes, areas subject to flooding, upland areas. Dune grading in oceanfront velocity coastal headlands, and areas of geologic stability flood zone (V-zones) is also prohibited by the for lands within 1000 feet from the shoreline. At a federal flood plain management program. Dune minimum areas subject to ocean flooding, lands grading or sand movement necessary to maintain within 100 feet of the ocean shore and 50 feet of views or prevent sand inundation is allowed under an estuary.or coastal lake must be identified as Goal 18, but only if the area is committed to coastal shorelands. In local plans policies and development or is part of an urban growth bound- uses of these areas have been established accord- ary, and then only as part of an overall foredune ing to standards in the goal. Goal 17 also requires management plan. Requirements on what must be that land use management practices and nonstruc- considered and included in a dune management tural solutions to problems of erosion and flood- plan are identified in the goal. ing be preferred to structural solutions. Where shown to be necessary, water and erosion control � The Oregon Ocean Shore Law (ORS structures must be designed to minimize adverse 390.605 -770) and Removal/Fill Law impacts on water currents, erosion and accretion (ORS 196.800 -990) patterns. This goal also requires the maintenance, In addition to the statewide planning goals, these 20 Coastal Hazards two laws are also relevant to managing develop- insurance purposes, whereas Oregon's Goal 18 re- ment on hazardous coastal areas, as they jointly quirements do prohibit development in areas sub- regulate the installation of shore protection struc- ject to wave overtopping. This includes those tures. The ocean shore law, or the "Beach Bill", areas identified on flood insurance rate maps as V- requires that a permit be obtained from the Depart- zones. Problems have arisen because V-zone ment of Parks and Recreation for all "beach im- maps are cursory in some areas and outdated in provements" west of a surveyed beach zone line. others. The beach zone line was established at the 16 foot NEED: Improve or update flood insurance elevation as surveyed in the late 1960's and can rate 'IV-zone" maps. only be changed through a legislative amendment. The removal/fill law and implementing regula- With respect to hazard avoidance and mitigation, tions contain specific standards and requirements the effectiveness of Goal 7 is predicated upon two for riprap and other bank and shore stabilization critical assumptions: (1) that local jurisdictions projects. Administered by the Division of State are able to accurately identify these hazards and Lands, jurisdiction extends on the Pacific ocean adequately asses the risks to proposed develop- shore to the line of established upland vegetation ment; and (2) that "appropriate safeguards" can or the highest measured tide, whichever is greater. and have been instituted which adequately These laws contain standards including those mitigate the hazard. which require that alternatives to structural shore protection methods be considered and adverse im- With the exception of flood hazards, Goal 7 has pacts to adjacent properties be minimized. Fur- not been very effective in either preventing ther, permit decisions are required to be consistent development from locating in known hazard areas with provisions of the local comprehensive plan. or in providing adequate safeguards. Most com- munities identified the most obvious or well Policy Evaluation known hazards and established hazard overlay Coastal cities and counties have responded to zones. In most of these zones, developers are re- these goals, statutes, and rule mandates with plan quired to have site-specific geotechnical reports provisions and implementing ordinances that regu- prepared as a precursor to development. However, late development in hazardous areas through a there is little control of the quality of the geotech- variety of techniques. These techniques include nical reports. There are no minimum standards for hazard overlay zoning, beach and dune overlay the types of information to be included in these zoning, site-specific geologic report requirements, reports. There is no independent or other peer setbacks, and density bonus awards to developers review of these reports. There are no requirements who avoid hazardous areas. The effectiveness of for a registered geologist/certified engineer to these techniques and the policies they are in- demonstrate competency in coastal processes or tended to implement, with respect to the objec- coastal engineering. (There have been cases tives of directing development away from where developers have "shopped around" for the hazardous areas, preserving and restoring the desired technical recommendation). As a result, protective functions of natural shoreline features, decisions on whether development should occur and preventing or minimizing threats to existing in a known hazardous location or whether struc- populations and property, is considered below. tural solutions to shoreline erosion are necessary, tend be deferred until a later time. Local govern- Each of the flood-prone municipalities has ad- ments are put in the position of relying on the dressed flood hazards under Goal 7. Local zoning professional opinion of the developer-hired ordinances have been adopted which meet or ex- geologist or engineer as the sole basis for such a ceed the Federal Emergency Management Agency de6sion. (FEMA) flood plain standards. It is interesting to Unfortunately, there are several examples illustrat- note that the FEMA velocity flooding area (V- ing the failure of this policy. The most notable is zone) standards do not prohibit development in the condominium constructed on an activ areas subject to ocean flooding. They prescribe landslide at "Jump-off Joe" in Newport.(A, 24) standards to alleviate the flood hazard and are in- Despite a geotechnical report asserting the site tended to reflect the appropriate hazard level for 21 Oregon Coastal Program Section 309 Assessment couldbe stabilized, foundation failure forced the to problems of erosion, the "appropriate condemnation and ultimate demolition of the safeguard" of choice for development in an area building before construction was even completed. susceptible to erosion is the installation of an en- Other examples of homes that were constructed gineered shore protection structure. Even under on active landslides following recommendations the best of circumstances, the review standards of site-specific geotechnical investigations and for shoreline protection structures are vague. that were subsequently damaged or destroyed in- Also, because little attention is paid to shoreline clude Cedar Shores Beachland Estates, and the protection structures after their approval, the effec- Woodell residence. 4) tiveness of these structures over time is unknown. NEED: Develop and implement specific While these structures continue to be installed, it criteria to ensure that local jurisdictions, is only recently that there has been any attempt to through quality controlled site-specific evaluate their individual or cumulative impacts on geotechnical reports, are able to accurately sand supply, beach erosion, or public access and identify hazards and adequately assess the beach safety. risks to proposed development. Increase NEED: Develop and implement specific re- the local officials' technical expertise in quirements to ensure that hazard evaluating hazards and the quality of avoidance takes precedence over hazard geotechnical reports. mitigation as an appropriate safeguard in Goal 7 requires that development not be located the location of new development. Develop in known hazard areas without "appropriate and implement requirements to ensure safeguards". However, this term is not defined at that nonstructural solutions to shoreline the state level. Similarl although Goal 17 states erosion are employed when they can be Y, shown to adequately protect development a preference for land use management practices already established in hazardous areas. and nonstructural solutions to problems of Provisions insuring that adverse impacts erosion, the goal language is vague and does not and cumulative effects are adequately constitute a requirement, per se, to use nonstruc- evaluated before shoreline protective struc- tural solutions. Consequently, although a series of 64soft" options (such as setbacks, relocation, tures are emplaced should form an integral renourishment, vegetative enhancement and dune part of any such "appropriate building) may be available, implementing ordinan- safeguards/alternatives" requirements. En- ces in the local plans lack any requirement to courage research efforts aimed at evaluat- demonstrate that such options have been properly ing the individual or cumulative impacts of evaluated and ruled out as a means to mitigate the shore protection structures on sand supply, hazard prior to approval of a "harj"@ption such beach erosion, public access and beach as riprap revetments and seawaus. safety. Analyze hazard areas in association with increasing coastal populations, There is a strong indication that Oregon's land development patterns, and practices need use management policies as currently imple- to be analyzed. mented have actually increased the proliferation Hazard avoidance, through the application of coas- of engineered shore protection structures. In the tal construction setbacks for development along Siletz littoral cell, for example, it has been shown the ocean t is a preferred "appropriate that "hard" protected beach front incre6.,ed from safeguard!?p 0) State policies that prohibit new 14 percent in 1967 to 42 percent today ) An emer- development on beaches and dunes which are sub- gency, either perceived or real, has usually been ject to wave overtopping and undercutting also reached by the time structural shoreline stabiliza- restrict development in other hazardous areas. tion is required. As a result, state and federal However, they do not prescribe a setback. S?p) e regulatory agencies' requirements to consider al- jurisdictions have prescribed setbacks. Good ternative solutions and assure that adverse im- found in the Siletz littoral cell that 44 percent of pacts are minimized are often overlooked. Thus, the new homes constructed encroached upon the despite a stated policy preference for land use recommended oceanfront setback line. This has management practices and nonstructural solutions occurred in part because these setbacks, which are 22 Coastal Hazards determined on a case-by-case basis, have been prescribed circumstances were adopted in 1984. waived upon receipt of a developer-hired However, only one foredune management plan registered geologist/certified engineer geotechni- has been approved since that time. This plan was cal report. Problems with this approach were the result of a pilot dune management study at noted above. Nedonna Beach that the department conducted. In- Even in instances where prescribed setbacks have tensive dune management at Nedonna Beach, that been observed they have not been completely suc- has included grading, has not damaged the in- cessful. Good17.1 found in the Siletz littoral cell tegrity of the foredune or increased the potential that 30 percent of the lots that encroached upon for flooding. Rather, a wider, more continuous the required construction setback subsequently re- foredune has been created that is likely to provide quired a shore protection structure, while only 15 enhanced ocean storm and flood protection. Two percent of the lots that complied with the setback communities have recently prepared draft requirements subsequently required a shore protec- foredune management plans. Although the lessons tion structure. While Good's results show that lots learned from Nedonna Beach pilot project were in- where setbacks were followed have not had as corporated into a "how-to" dune management many problems as those that have encroached guidebook as a means of facilitating foredune seaward, he suggests that the problems ex- management plans, the department has had to and perienced by both groups demonstrate that the set- is continuing to prepare further guidance for these back provisions are unrealistic. Results of a two communities on what needs be addressed in a recently completed FEMA-funded Department of foredune management plan. Geology and Mineral Industries pilot project on Despite Goal 18 restrictions on foredune grading historical erosion rates appear to confirm Good's in the absence of an acknowledged foredune suggestion. Apparently, because erosion along the management plan, a number of property owners Oregon coast is episodic, highly localized, and have illegally graded dunes to maintain the views often results from a combination of effects, it has from their oceanfront homes. Some have done so been difficult to determine accurate erosion rates without any permission, while others have ex- and, therefore, appropriate setbacks. A gradual ceeded terms of approved permits. retreat-based methodology for determining set- NEED: Eliminate the ad-hoe alterations by back may be applicable to East and Gulf coasts, individual property owners, by supporting but has not been found to be applicable in Oregon. community preparation of foredune management plans. Increase technical as- NEED: Develop a methodology to deter- sistance on dune management policies and mine appropriate oceanfront coastal con- techniques, the development of volunteer struction setbacks, and implement in local groups that can assist in the cost-effective ordinances. NOTE: The development of collection of necessary baseline data, and such a methodology is a necessary prereq- the preparation of model enforcement or- uisite to the development and implementa- dinances. tion of effective "appropriate It is apparent from much of the preceding discus- safeguardstalternativeel requirements sion that a coastal shorelands designation has not referred to earlier. always provided the high level of protection in- Under Goal 18, foredune management planning tended in the goals. As noted above, many of the has had limited success. Frustration with the oceanfront portions of the goal requirements are vagueness of policies, prohibitive costs for ac- vague, and consequently there are few effective quisition of the required technical expertise, and implementing ordinances in the local plans. With the lack of local enforcement and/or inadequacy few exceptions, development along the oceanfront of enforceable ordinance has left communities (except for beaches and dunes) seems to be facing sand inundation problems with little incen- treated essentially the same as development tive to carry out foredune management plans. anywhere else in the state. As a result, develop- Goal 18 policies allowing dune grading under ment has not been prevented from occurring in some hazardous coastal areas and little regard has 23 Oregon Coastal Program Section 309 Assessment been given to the unique values of coastal earthquake, and a thorough examination of shorelands. policies and practices that may need to be applied Compounding this problem is the fact that, much to areas susceptible to the hazards associated with of the coast was developed to some extent prior to a major earthquake event is yet to commence. adoption of the goals and acknowledgment of the Greenhouse warming and global sea-level rise are local Comprehensive plans. Under the Goal 2 "ex- concepts that were probably unheard of at the ceptions " process, areas which were built and time the goals were first being considered. It was committed to development have been exempted not until 1989, that the Oregon Department of from certain other goal requirements. As a result, Energy began a coordinated effort to identify pos- development has been allowed to infill in pre- sible impacts on the state from global warming viously "developed" yet unbuilt and potentially and recommend how the state should respond. A hazardous areas. report, Possible Impacts on Oregonftom Global A recommendation following from the recently Warming, was prepared and recommendations for held Coastal Natural Hazards conference in New- actions were developed in 1990. One of the port is that special area management planning, in proposed actions was to "assist local govern- the form of littoral cell management plans, be con- ments, especially on the coast, to review and im- sidered for coastal shorelands. Such special area prove comprehensive plans to consider fully the management plans already exist for estuaries in effects of sea level rise and to take actions to Oregon. The idea of littoral cell management plan- direct private development and public facilities an ning is appealing because it would provide a away from areas that may be flooded or affected mechanism whereby distinct segments of coastal by sea level rise." However, communities and shoreland, with related characteristics, could be state agencies have not yet factored global warm- given detailed consideration in a coordinated man- ing and rising sea levels rise into their decision- ner. The need for such detailed, coordinated making because they lack of available resources management is likely to increase as increasing needed to affect change. development demands clash with conservation It should be noted that a coastal natural hazards goals. policy working group, comprised of local scien- The conce t of littoral cell management is appeal- tists, local government officials, state regulatory P agencies, private property owners, and environ- ing for another reason. It could provide the basis mental organizations among others is being for the implementation of a more comprehensive formed to examine natural hazards policy in policy framework of coastal zone management. Oregon. This group intends to evaluate the effec- Oregon's policies governing the location of new tiveness of existing policy and policy implementa- development along the ocean shore were tion in light of new scientific information. developed in the 1970s. It is apparent from the Problem areas will be identified, including re- resource assessment above that the scientific un- search and information needs, and suggested derstanding and appreciation of the diversity of policy options and implementation procedures coastal natural hazards has greatly improved in will be developed. the ten to twenty years since those policies were adopted. As a result, policy gaps exist in Oregon's NEED: Provide more precise, coordinated, coastal zone management framework, and comprehensive management of coastal The multiplicity and interdependency of processes natura@ hazards in Oregon. Focus immedi- controlling chronic hazards such as beach erosion ate improvement on effective implementa- and cliff recession were not appreciated at the tion of existing policies and the expansion of hazard inventories. Develop and imple- time the goals were developed. The role of plate ment policies that enhance and expand the tectonics was just beginning to be revealed. The existing coastal hazards management importance of these discoveries to earthquake framework, including a review of recom- hazards in Oregon is only just beginning to be un- mendations stemming from broad-based, derstood. Most people have yet to become aware independent efforts to evaluate and im- of the possibility of a magnitude 8 or greater prove the existing framework. 24 Coastal Hazards Priority Program Enhancements Managing coastal natural hazards is a priority for reports to ensure that local jurisdictions OCMP improvement. are able to accurately identify chronic Development on the Oregon coast is threatened hazards and adequately assess the risks by many types of natural hazards, including they pose to proposed development. erosion, landslides, tsunamis, flooding, storm Develop and implement a detailed "ap- surge and earthquakes. State and local policies propriate safeguards/alternatives" analysis governing the development of property bordering procedure to ensure that hazard avoidance the ocean coastline and the installation of shore takes precedence over hazard mitigation, protective structures have attempted to direct structural solutions to shoreline erosion are development away from hazardous areas, tried as a last resort, and the consideration preserve and restore protective functions of of adverse impacts and cumulative effects natural shoreline features, and prevent or mini- is an integral part of any such procedure. mize threats to existing populations and property Develop and implement new policies that from coastal hazards. enhance and expand the existing coastal Program improvement needs have been 'identified hazards management framework and lead through out the body of this text. These identified to more precise, coordinated, and com- needs can be grouped into three general prehensive management of coastal natural categories: 1) policy development and implemen- hazards in Oregon. tation; 2) technical knowledge and inventory infor- mation; and 3) communication and education. The TecluiicEd Knowledge mid paramount need is to make progress on the policy development and implementation front. However, Inventory Information it is recognized that success cannot be achieved The distinct possibility that a major subduction on this front without making progress in the other zone earthquake could occur at any time has only two. For policies to be effective, they must have a recently been discovered. As a result, little sound technical base and broad public acceptance. detailed information is known about areas which Needs" in each of the three improvement may be susceptible to earthquakes as well as other categories are summarized briefly below. catastrophic hazards. Also, methodology applied elsewhere to determine oceanfront setbacks has POHCY Development mid been found to be of limited use along the Oregon Implementation coast. Finally, little is known about the adverse im- pacts and cumulative effects of structural shore Little quality control exists in the preparation of protection methods on the Oregon coast. Priority site-specific geotechnical reports. As a result, program enhancements include the following: hazards are not always adequately identified. Improve understanding of which areas in When hazards are identified, hazard mitigation in- Oregon are most vulnerable to major sub- volving structural solutions is the preferred duction zone earthquake events, tsunamis, safeguard..As a result increasing amounts of the and sea level rise, and how adverse effects shoreline are being armored with little attention to in these areas can be minimized. the adverse impacts and cumulative effects of these actions. Further, recent advances in scien- Improve understanding of chronic natural tific understanding of the coastal natural hazards hazards that affect the Oregon coast, and that affect Oregon have not been integrated into develop methodologies to determine ap- the existing management framework. Priority pro- propriate oceanfront coastal construction gram enhancements include the following: setbacks from these hazards. Develop and implement quality control Improve understanding of the individual criteria for site-specific geotechnical or cumulative effects of shore protection 25 Oregon Coastal Program Section 309 Assessment structures on sand supply, beach erosion, technical expertise has increased. Priority pro- public access, and beach safety. gain enhancements include the following: Conmumication and Educadon 0 Increase public awareness of the entire spectrum of coastal natural hazards that Because much of the information on natural affect the Oregon coast. hazards affecting the Oregon coast is so new, few 0 Increase public involvement in policy people are aware of the risk they face. Those who have become aware have expressed an interest in evaluation and data collection efforts. knowing more and doing something. Further, as - Increase local officials' level of technical ex- knowledge of natural hazards affecting the pertise in chronic natural hazards tha't af- Oregon coast has improved and expanded, the fect the Oregon coast. demand on local officials to have some level of References 0XIAMMM 1. Adams, J., 1990. Palcoseismicity of the Cas- Program report, 87p. cadia subduction zone: Evidence from turbidites 10. Komar, P.D., 1979. Physical processes and off the Oregon-Washington margin. Tectonics geologic hazards on the Oregon coast. Beaches 9:569-583. and Dunes Handbook for the Oregon Coast, 2. Atwater, B.F., 1987. Evidence for great Oregon Coastal Zone Management Association, Holocene earthquakes along the outer coast of Newport, Oregon. Washington State. Science 236:942-944. 11. -, 1986. The 1982-83 El Nifto and erosion 3. - and Yamaguchi, D.K., 1991. Sudden, on the coast of Oregon. Shore and Beach 54.-3-12. probably coseismic submergence of Holocene 12. -, 1991. Ocean processes and hazards along trees and grass in coastal Washington State. Geol- the Oregon coast. Proceedings of Coastal Natural ogy 19:706-709. Hazards Conference, Newport, Oregon (in press). 4. Currin, George. September 10, 1991 letter from 13. - and Enfield, D.B., 1987. Short-term Sea- FEMA to Rocky McVay, Curry County Board of level changes and coastal erosion. In Sea Level Commissioners, Fluctuations and Coastal Evolution. Nummedal, 5. Darienzo, M.E. and Peterson, C.D., 1988. Coas- D., Pilkey, O.H., and Howard, J., ed. SEPM Spe- tal Neotectonic field trip guide for Netarts Bay, cial Pub. #41:17-27. Oregon. Oregon Geology 50:99-106. 14. - and Good, J.W. 1989. Long term erosion 6. --, 1990. Episodic tectonic subsidence of late impacts of the 1982-82 El Nifto on the Oregon Holocene salt marshes, Northern Oregon central coast. Proceedings of the Sixth Symposium on Cascadia Margin. Tectonics 9: 1-22. Coastal and Ocean Management 3785-3794. 7. Good, J.W., 1991. Shore protection and 15. -, Good, J.W., and Shih, S.M., 1989. Erosion oceanfront land use practices in Oregon: A criti- of Netarts Spit, Oregon: Continued Impacts of the que. Proceedings of the Coastal Natural Hazards 1982-83 El Niflo. Shore and Beach 56:11-19. Conference, Newport, Oregon (in press). 16.. - and Shih, S.M., 1991. Sea-Cliff erosion 8. Grant, W.C. and McClaren, D.D., 1987. along the Oregon coast. ASCE Conference Coas- Evidence for Holocene subduction earthquakes tal Sediments '91, Seattle. along the Northern Oregon Coast. EOS 68:1239. 17. Kraus, N.C. and McDougal, W.G., 1991. Shore 9. Hebenstriet, G.T., 1988. Local Tsunami Hazard protection and engineering with special reference Assessment for the Juan De Fuca Plate Area. to the Oregon coast. Proceedings of Coastal U.S.G.S. National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Natural Hazards Conference, Newport, Oregon 26 Coastal Hazards (in press). 23. Sayre, W.O. and Komar, RD., 1988. The Jump- Off Joe landslide at Newport, Oregon: history of 18. Madin, 1., 1991. Seismic hazards on the erosion, development and destruction. Shore and Oregon coast. Proceedings of Coastal Natural Beach 57:15-22. Hazards Conference, Newport, Oregon (in press). 19. Peterson, C. D., Darienzo, M.E., and Clough, 24. -, 1989. The construction of homes on four C., 1991. Recurrence intervals of coseismic sub- active landslides in Newport, Oregon: Unbeliev- sidence events in Northern Oregon bays of the able but true! Proceedings of Sixth Symposium on Cascadia margin. Final Technical Report to the Coastal and Ocean Management, ASCE, Charles- Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral In- ton. dustries 7/9/91. 25. Vincent, R, 1989. Geodetic deformation of the 20. Pezzopane, S.K., Weldon, R.J., Johnson, A.G., Oregon Cascadia Margin. M.S. Thesis, Univ. of and Scofield, D.H., 1991. Seismic acceleration Oregon, Eugene 86p. maps from Quaternary faults and historic seis- 26. Weldon, R.J., 1991. Active tectonic studies in micity in Oregon: Final Technical Progress Report the United States, 1987-1990. U.S.:National to the Oregon Deparunent of Geology and Report to International Union of Geodesy and Mineral Industries 7/9/91. Geophysics 1987-1990, Contributions in 21. Redfern, Roger. 1986. Nedonna Beach Geophysics, Am. Geophys. Union 890-906. Foredune Management Study: Technical Report, 27. Woodward, J., 1990. Paleoscismicity and the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and archaeological record: Areas of investigation of Development. the Northern Oregon coast. Oregon Geology 52:57-65. 22. Rosenfeld, C.A et al., 1985. Alsea Bay Interim Report. Oregon State University. 27 Oregon Coastal Program Section 309 Assessment .I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 28 I Wetlands Legislative Objective Protect, restore, or enhance existing coastal wetlands base or create new coastal wetlands. Resource Assessment ......................................................... "M Despite the fact that Oregon's mountainous coas- tides or storm conditions, low salt marshes which tal region can receive more than 80 inches of rain are inundated on a daily basis, fide flats which are a year, there are only limited wetlands in the alternately drained and flooded with the daily region. The rugged mountains of Oregon's coastal change of tides, and eelgrass beds which provide zone are incised by youthful strearn networks a distinct, productive habitat within the tidelands. which carry runoff rapidly to narrow river valleys The value of these estuaries has been well and then to sea through estuaries which are studied; they provide significant spawning, rear- drowned river mouths. Early settlers found that al- ing or feeding areas for a variety of marine fish most all the level land even remotely suitable for and shellfish. The plants in the surrounding mar- farming or settlement was on the narrow flood shes turn solar energy into food energy, the engine plains of coastal rivers or the marshlands sur- which drives biological productivity of the entire rounding coastal estuaries. Thus, these native wet- estuary. land areas, both freshwater and saltwater, were Oregon's estuaries have suffered the brunt of wet- the first to be diked, drained and converted to land losses. It is estimated that nearly 90 percent agricultural or other uses. of documented coastal n1ands losses are a result Estuaries have a variety of wetland plant and of diking for agriculture. 2 Only the Columbia animal communities, depending on the reach of River estuary has had a etailed evaluation of es- tide (salinity), inflow of freshwater, and current tuarine habitat changes,(9) and to date, no accurate velocity. Technically, estuarine wetlands include statewide inventory of historic losses of coastal high salt marshes furthest from the main channels wetlands has been compiled. Since the implemen- and which may be flooded only during highest tation of local estuary management plans through 29 Oregon Coastal Program Section 309 Assessment the Oregon Coastal Management Program, the draining was not completed, around lakes formed loss of estuarine wetlands has virtually stopped. by sand dunes where the aquifer rises and falls Of the 19,500 acres of tidal marsh in Oregon only seasonally, and certain bogs on level, uplifted 113.2 acres (0.6 percent) is designated for marine terraces with hard clay soil which prevents develq ment. percolation and drainage to the water table below p Freshwater wetlands are found along the margins the "hard pan." Each of these freshwater wetlands of coastal river floodplains where diking and provide different habitats which support unique as- semblages of plants and animals. Management Assessment MWORMW500 I IRgul Fouxulation and adopt wetland conservation plans as part Oregon's wetlands policy is guided by two fun- of their comprehensive plans to provide a damental state statutes, a federal law, and basis for- future permits and protection; Oregon's statewide planning goals. the presumption that estuary plans previously adopted by coastal local governments comply Responsibility for implementing wetlands policy with the legislative standards for wetland con- is divided among the Division of State Lands servation; (DSL), the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD), the Department of En- 0 exemptions for norTnal farming and ranching vironmental Quality (DEQ), the Department of activities in already altered wetlands; Fish and Wildlife (ODFW), and local govern- 0 a requirement for the state to adopt standards ments through comprehensive plans and ordinan- for mitigation of wetland loss. ces. DLCD is responsible for coordination among all agencies. � 1971 Removal-FiR Law � 1989 Senate BiR 3 Since 1971, Oregon has regulated both removal The 1989 Oregon Legislature enacted Senate Bill and filling of material within waters of the state 3 to ensure that the many different wetland under the authority of the state Removal-Fill Law. programs and responsiblities of the different state This law requires a permit from DSL for the and federal agencies and local governments were removal, filling, or altering of 50 cubic yards or more of material within waters of the state, includ- coordinated. This law clarified the relationship be- ing wetlands. The state's regulatory coverage of tween wetlands planning and the regulatory per- waters was extended to tidal wetlands in 1974 and mitting process and provided a coordinated nontidal wetlands in 1986. In recent years, atten- approach to wetlands management. Key tion has shifted to freshwater wetlands. The provisions of the statute include Removal-Fill law provides for � a requirement to define "wetlands" consistent 0 evaluation of cumulative impacts when per- with that used under the Clean Water Act by mits are reviewed by DSL; the COE and that the state use a single, uniform method for marking wetland boun- - administrative rules for certain exemptions; daries; 0 creation of artificial wetlands to compensate � a requirement that the DSL establish and for damage to existing wetlands; maintain an inventory of the state's wetlands. a conditions on Removal-Fill permits to require DSL is currently using the National Wetlands buffers, setbacks and other measures to Inventory (NWI) produced by the U.S. Fish protect wetlands; and Wildlife Service which is not as detailed as needed, especially on the coast; a compensation to the state for damages under � the option for local governments to prepare a permitted activity, including restoration of 30 Wetlands degraded wetlands; government plans and provide both a process and civil, criminal, and adminstrative enforce- an actual regulatory framework for wedand ment of the law, including fines up to $ 10,000 protection. On the coast, three goals are of par- per day. ticular importance to coastal wetlands: The strength in the Removal-Fill Law is that it is Goal 5, Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic easily understood and applied, unlike the Section Areas and Natural Resources, broadly re- 404 standards of the federal Clean Water Act. quires local governments to identify the "loca- However, there are a few "gaps" in wetlands tion, quantity, and quality" of wetlands, protection under the Removal-Fill Law. When no evaluate their significance, and adopt permit is involved, the law does not give DSL ex- measures to protect them. Few local govern- plicit authority to require buffers to protect wet- ments have had the resources to fully carry lands and or regulate the removal of vegetation out the inventory process envisioned under from a wetland. Also, drainage of wetlands is not Goal 5. regulated unless at least 50 cubic yards of Goal 16, Estuarine Resources, has provide the material are altered while draining. This has been policy basis for local governments to prepare a problem in instances in which the functions and and adopt estuary management plans based values of wetlands have been seriously impacted on the delineation of various estuarine habitat by drainage even though less than 50 cubic yards areas. This estuary plan approach has resulted of material were altered. in protection of all but a few percent of � Section 404 of the Clean Water Act Oregon's remaining estuarine wetlands. This is a federal law adminstered by the U.S. Goal 17, Coastal Shorelands, directs local Army Corps of Engineers. Oregon could, but has governments to conserve, protect, and, where not, assumed responsibility of the Section 404 per- appropriate, restore or develop coastal mitting process. However, the COE and DSL shorelands which include the majority of wet- have a joint application process that coordinates lands previously diked for agricultural or com- required state and federal permits. Recent mercial uses.It is anticipated that, as more proposed changes to the Federal Manual for Idcn- plans are developed and the advantages of tifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands, this process become well understood, many has resulted in confusion about the permitting more jurisdictions will choose to develop process. As of January 1, 1992, Oregon elected to plans. As described later, Oregon has received evaluate permits under the 1989 federal manual some federal grant money to pass on to local while the COE is using a 1987 manual, pending jurisdictions which wish to begin wetland con- adoption of a proposed 1991 manual. servation plans. � Mitigation Banking An Integmted State Program In 1987, the Oregon Legislature enacted a statute Oregon statute requires the integration and coor- to provide for mitigation banks and create wetland dination of statewide planning goals, local com- sites in advance of future permitted wetland los- prehensive plans and state and federal regulatory ses. Operation of the mitigation bank system is a programs in an effort to promote the protection, responsibility of the Division of State Lands. To conservation and best use of wetland resources. date, the state has established one 38 acre mitiga- tion bank in the Lower Columbia River Estuary. Several state agencies, DSL, DLCD, DEQ, and This mitigation bank process has not been put into ODFW, have joined with federal agencies and wide effect due to a lack of funds. local governments to develop an integrated � Statewide Planning Goals statewide wetlands management strategy. 'Me state has received a grant from EPA to help this Oregon's statewide planning goals provide process. specific policy direction to local governments and state agencies for identifying and protecting wet- Oregon's wetlands strategy, once implemented, lands. These goals are implemented through local will help local, state, and federal agencies in- 31 Oregon Coastal Program Section 309 Assessment volved in wetland regulation and management to Wetland conservation plans are optional and are more effectively coordinate and provide mutual developed through a cooperative effort involving support among various programs. The strategy the local community, DSL, DLCD, other state and will embody the recommendations of the National federal agencies, and interested citizen grourrs and Wetlands Policy Forum to achieve no net loss of individuals. At the current time, four coastal com- wetlands and will provide for public input to gain munities are developing wetland conservation local public support for the program. The com- plans. Several other jurisdictions wish to develop ponents of this comprehensive and integrated wet- plans also, but do not have financial resources to lands management strategy include the following: do so. State agencies are also hampered in their � Wetland Assesement Methodology participation in this process due to resource limita- Existing methodologies to evaluate and classify tions. wetland functional values have been developed � Wetland Water Quality Standards based ,marily on East Coast literature and condi- Oregon, like all states, must develop water quality R tions. Development of a unified methodology standards for wetlands by the end of fiscal VN3 focused on the Pacific Northwest region is critical to meet federal Clean Water Act and U.S. EPA to effective implementation of wetland conserva- regulations and guidelines. The Oregon Depart- tion plans and mitigation requirements. An inter- ment of Environmental Quality (DEQ), with EPA agency technical team has been convened to grant assistance, will establish wetlands water prepare this new methodology quality criteria and set beneficial uses for each � Wetland Classification System wetland class consistent with the state's wetland assessment methodology and wetlands classifica- The completed assessment methodology will be tion system. Standards will initially be narrative employed to classify the state's wetlands accord- but will be refined to include biological and ing to site-specific wetland inventory type, func- numerical criteria when available. Anti-degrada- tions and values, landscape level attributes and tion policies, use designations and water quality risk factors. This classification system will be criteria will also be developed specifically for wet- developed by an interagency technical team with lands and incorporated into state water pollution input and guidance from local governments and regulations. technical experts. � Water Quality Monitoring and The wetlands classification system will be incor- Disturbed Wetlands Evaluation. porated into state wetlands regulations and will be Oregon is seeking to bolster the scientific used by all state agencies and local governments credibility and reliability of its wetland conserva- to identify and protect wetland resources. Wetland tion strategy. DEQ, with funding assistance from mitigation, protection, and management policies EPA, is developing water quality data to assist in and regulations will be based on wetland value evaluating the function of disturbed wetlands and classes. monitoring how well the assessment methodolgy � Local Wetland Conservation Plans relates to water quality. Data is being collected in City and county governments play a pivotal role three areas: disturbed sites; representaive sitin in in identifying and protecting wetlands through the classification system; and sites statewide to local comprehensive plans. Under 1989 Senate test the assessment methodology. Bill 3, local governments are encouraged to per- pare wetland conservation plans that plans for wet- PublicInformation land protection, surrounding land uses and Information to the public and local government of- site-specific permit issues may be addressed at the ficials is crucial to Oregon's strategy. Both IXCD same time. These plans will contain a detailed in- and DSL are producing technical and program in- ventory and assessment of wetlands and will formation materials about wetland planning and designate wetland areas for protection, conserva- management in Oregon. DLCD is publishing a tion or development. Wetland conservation plans tecnical bulletin to aid local governments to plan- will also provide for full replacement through ning for wetland resources and DSL is producing mitigation of any planned wetland losses. information about the new wetland inventory 32 Wetlands standards, how to develop a wetland conservation workshops were held statewide by DSL, in con- plan, and about wetland restoration. Oregon State junction with DLCD, to explain wetlands science University Sea Grant Program is rewriting its pub- and regulation to local planners, realtors, lication "Obtaining Permits for Wetland and developers, attorneys, interested citizens, and per- Waterway Development," designed for prospec- sonnel from affected agencies. These workshops tive permit applicants. found widespread interest, were well attended and In addition to printed materials, eight public revealed a need to expand this sort of outreach. Priority Program Enhanceme-nts - ------- ------------------- -- --- -- Wetlands management is a priority for OCMP im- Several improvements to the Oregon Coastal Pro- provement. gram could be made: Oregon's coastal wetlands are especially in need 0 Prepare a coastal component or the of protection and restoration; approximately 80 statewide wetlands inventory with a com- per cent of original wetlands have been lost, puterized GIS data base to supplant the ex- primarily to agricultural uses around estuaries. isting National Wetlands Inventory data. Oregon's coastal local governments are well - Complete wetland assessment rnethodolgy suited to identify and protect local wetland resour- and wetlands classification system as a ces through comprehensive plans and ordinances basis for all state agency and local govern- but require technical and financial assistance ment programs to protect wetlands. through the coastal management program. Citizens in coastal communities can play a sig- Financial and technical assistance to local nificant role in wetland conservation both on a governments to prepare wetland conserva- community and a personal basis. tion plans, incorporate these plans into Oregon'state wetlands strategy will, when fully local comprehensive land use programs, implemented, coordinate several state and federal and involve citizens in wetland protection. statutes, various state agency programs and local Identify and prioritize estuarine areas for government comprehensive plans and regulations. restoration to wetlands; develop standards Oregon's 1989 comprehensive wetland law aims and policies to guide restoration work in es- to ensure no net loss of wetlands and requires tuarine areas; utilize demonstration completion of wetland inventories, development projects with monitoring to assess success. of a wetlands classification system, preparation of local wetland conservation plans, restoration of Work with local governments to provide in- lost wetlands, wetland water quality standards and formation, coordinate agency programs other measures. However, many of these program and policies and develop local ordinances elements are not yet developed because of a lack and regulations to protect wetlands. technical and financial resources available to the state. 33 Oregon Coastal Program Section 309 Assessment References I. Adamus, P.R., and L.T. Stockwell. 1983. A 4. Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Method for Wetland Functional Assessment: Development. 1987. The Oregon Estuary Plan Volume I. Critical Review and Evaluation Con- Book. 126 pp. cepts. 181 pp. 5. Oregon Division of State Lands and Oregon 2. Boule', M.E., and K.F. Bierly. 1987. "History Department of Parks and Recreation. 1989. of Estuarine Wetland Development and Altera- Oregon Wetlands Priority Plan. 75 pp. tion: What Have We Wrought"? The Northwest 6. Thomas, Duncan W. 1983. "Changes in Colurn- Environmental Journal 3(l):43-62. bia River Estuary Habitat Types Over the Past 3. Fishman Environmental Services. 1987. Es- Century." Report to CREST. 51 pp. tuarine Mitigation Evaluation Project: Mitigation 7. Akins, G.J., and C.A. Jefferson. 1973. Coastal Site Evaluation Notebook. Department of Land Wetlands of Oregon. Oregon Coastal Conserva- Conservation and Development and the Division tion and Development Commission. Florence, of State Lands. Oregon. 34 Ocean Resources Legislative Objective Plan for the use of ocean resources. Resource Assessment At the very western edge of North America, which shaped Oregon's coastline formed a narrow squeezed between rugged coast range mountains continental shelf over which sweep.the complex and the vast dynamo of the Pacific Ocean, the currents of the Pacific Ocean. In this sixty mile- Oregon coast is a visually stunning, ecologically wide zone, ocean currents interact with river diverse, and environmentally rich landscape. For runoff, respond to winter storms and summer three hundred twenty miles, these forested coastal winds, flow over underwater hills and create a mountains, incised by narrow, winding valleys, biological environment which is richly produc- provide a visual backdrop and an economic tive, heavily used, but only faintly understood.(4) mainstay for Oregon's coastal communities. This Marine life abounds from the shore across the en- coastline, world-renowned for its scenic beauty, tire shelf and down the continental slope. Close to supports a thriving tourist industry and attracts in- shore, human use ... and abuse ... is greatest. The creasing numbers of new residents. Broad es- rocks, islands and underwater reefs provide a mix tuaries ringed with saltmarshes, long sandy of abundant habitat for fish, shellfish, plants, beaches, cobble-strewn pocket coves, high rocky mammals and seabirds. Farther out, a multitude of Cliffs, offshore rocks and reefs, sand dunes, and fish and shellfish thrive on the broad sand and meandering coastal streams weave a dense, com- mud-covered plains, around rugged canyons and plex environmental pattern in this beautiful, ecologically diverse region.0) rocky banks, and in the unseen layers of water far below the surface. Oregon's ocean fishermen take Oregonians are beginning to understand that the their catch virtually everywhere over the continen- diversity, complexity, and productivity of this tal sh5lf and slope during all seasons of the coastal environment extends to the ocean realm year.( ) Marine mammals and sea birds routinely hidden beneath the waves. The geologic collision leave their shoreside rookeries and forage far off- 35 Oregon Coastal Program Section 309 Assessment shore at the shelf's edge. tion to prepare management plans, establish Marine scientists have pieced togethe Ir a broad out- resource programs, and adopt enforceable line of this complex environment puzzle but are measures to carry out plans and protect resources. missing many pieces, especially knowledge about Some information is available to form a manage- the impacts of human use. The ocean does not ment framework and make broad preliminary yield its secrets easily; marine scientific research decisions. But substantial new field woric is P-,- is time-consurning and costly. Governments at all quired to obtain scientific inventory information levels, local, state and federal, are not yet attuned sufficient to prepare a territorial sea plan, special to the need to investigate and manage ocean area management plans, resolve site-specific resources on a sustained, comprehensive, coor- resources or use conflicts and adopt rules and dinated basis. regulations. But in the mid 1980s, Oregonians came to under- The need for additional scientific information off stand that the State of Oregon must take the initia- Oregon is widely and commonly recognized by tive to plan, management and protect ocean marine scie4U.14 d ers throughout ,ngj. ji agency manag 4 2 1 resources off the coast of Oregon or see them lost. the region. In 1988, the Department of the The ocean encompasses a variety of distinct Interior Minerals Management Service held a resource categories with related management three-day symposium on Environmental Studies regimes and needed program changes. This assess- in the Oregon/Washington OCS planning area. ment groups these resources into six different That symposium concluded that the region is resource topics and combines both a resource as- biologically rich, environmentally complex, and sessment and management assessment for each that agencies do not have fundamental infornia- topic. tion necessary to plan for OCS leasing or make subsequent exploration or development decisions. ABiologicaUyRicli Major research and study recommendations were developed on a )ide variety of marine resources Marine Envimirimmt and conditions.(4 In 1990, the Pacific Northwest � Description OCS Task Force, a joint task force of Department of the Interior, the states of Oregon and The ocean environment off Oregon is itself, in all Washington, and northwest Indian tribal fish com- its complexity, a resource. Within this environ- missions, approved an environmental studies pro- ment many distinctive oceanographic conditions gram prepared by a scientific advisory committee (e.g. seasonal upwelling of cool, nutrient-rich which addressed %)broad and pervasive data waters; the Columbia River freshwater plume; gaps in the region. energetic winter storms) interact to create rich, primary marine food web supporting Me biologi- Federal marine research programs have not histori- cal productivity of the Oregon ocean."This cally been oriented toward management needs of productivity extends from coastal estuaries 35 to most concern to states on the nearshore continen- (9) tal shelf. Basic bathymetric and geophysical 80 miles seaward across the continental margin. reconnaissance of the Exclusive Economic Zone, The area is periodically affected by warm water focused far offshore and in deep ocean, provides pulses known as El Nifio which originate in the little information useful to nearshore management tropical western Pacific Ocean and which induce problems. Oregon's ocean resources planning and significant changes in marine productivity and management efforts have been frustrated by lack species composition. The Oregon ocean area is an 44 ecotone," a broadly fluctuating boundary area be- of information to address 1101) cult management is- tween the colder subarctic waigs to the north and su@s in the nearshore area. warmer waters off California. NEED: A coordinated effort among federal � Management Issues agency marine research and management, The primary ocean management issue facing state research and management programs Oregon (and all states and federal agencies), is and academic research programs to maxi- the lack of sufficient scientific inventory informa- mize research effort and support a variety 36 Ocean Resources of information needs. minerals revealed overwhelming support for con- NEED: Improved scientiflc inventory infor. servation and development of renewable, living mation to support ocean resources plan- resources. Yet there is little systematic informa- tion and understanding of majine habitats to sup- ning and management, including: port diverse and increap1gly complex ocean � detailed bathymetry (bottom topog- fisheries management. Mapping of fish catch raphy) of the territorial sea with em- areas in computer GIS format displays informa- phasis on rocky reef areas; tion on catch but does not show spawning, nurs- ery, or recruitment areas. Increasing demand for � delineation of seafloor habitat areas, in- fish products means more fishing pressure on ex- cluding rocky reefs, cobble fields, gravel isting stocks, development of new fisheries for beds, sandy bottoms, mud bottoms; previously unexploited stocks and potential con- flicts among fishing sectors and other ocean � characterization of seasonal and annual 66 users." State and federal agencies frequently changes in nearshore ocean currents, in- make fisheries allocation decisions with inade- terchanges with estuaries, topographic ef- quate information and fishery agencies have his- fects of headlands, banks and reefs; toricaUy focused on regulation of catch rather � description of habitat requirements and than management of habitat. State and federal identification of areas used for breeding, agencies currently lack regulations or manage- rearing, and feeding of marine mammals ment programs for new or exotic specieb. V and seabirds, with emphasis on NEED: Improved information base on: threatened or endangered species; � the distribution and abundance of key 0 population dynamics, life histories, fish, shellfish, and plant resources, with spawning, rearing, and recruitment of emphasis on habitat interrelationships; commercial fish stocks and relationship to marine habitat areas; � information on existing ocean uses and 0 predator-prey and trophic relationships conflicts with wildlife or other resource to support commercial fish stocks; uses; � seasonal migration, distribution and 0 distribution, abundance, life histories, abundance of fishes, mammals and birds; and population dynamics of nearshore in- vertebrates and plants of potential com- � characterization of species-habitat mercial or recreational interest. relationships. 0 NEED: Management programs for harvest Divene AL-wim Fisheiies of marine fish and invertebrates not pre- viously harvested, including aquaculture � Description and introduction of new species. A variety of habitat conditions and seasonal 0 NEED*: Management techniques and oceanographic fluctuations provide the basis for a programs to address conflicts and interac- diverse fish population. More than 80 species of tions among fisheries sectors and with marine fish are caught off Oregon including sal- threatened or endangered wildlife. mon, halibut, tuna, Pacific whiting, pink shrimp, Dungeness crab, Dover and English sole, ling NEED: Marine habitat research areas of cod, black cod, several varieties of rockfish, and representative habitat types to better un- other "groundfish" species. Commercial and derstand the role of specific habitats in recreation ocean fisheries provid s nearly 20 per- overall fisheries production. cent of coastal earned income.0% Importazit Seabird Habitat � Management Issues Oregonians want and expect a healthy marine fish- � Description ing industry. Hearings on offshore oil, gas and Oregon's nearshore area (within three miles) has 37 Oregon Coastal Program Section 309 Assessment approximately 1400 rocks and islands; 33 of these near the mouths of estuaries. Two species of sea have been identified in the Oregon Ocean Resour- lions, the Steller (northern) and California, harbor ces Management Plan as sensitive habitat for seals and a few but increasing number of elephant birds or mammals. Although Oregon's coast is seals haul out or breed along the Oregon coast about one-quarter of U.S. Pacific coastline length, Porpoise and dolphins live in ocean waters over over one-half of all seabirds breeding along the the continental shelf and beyond. Several rock Pacific coast do so on Oregon's rocks, islands, and island areas, including Rogue, Orford and and headlands. Several bird species are listed as Simpson reefs on the south coast and Three Ar- "threatened" or "endangered" and require special ches Rocks on the north coast are crucial rookery, management consideration. In addition, ocean up- resting or feeding sites for sea lions and seals. welling and the Columbia ver plume make rich These and other rock and island sites are probably more diverse habitat offshore bird feeding areas. remnants of much larger 4P41 � Management Issues along the Oregon coast.0. U., Increasing threats to seabird habitat sites from � Management Issues people include disturbance from trespass on foot, All marine mammals on Oregon's coast are close overflight by military and civilian aircraft protected under the federal Marine Mammal (including sight-seeing tour flights), fishing or Protection Act. Some are listed under federal. law diving activities in waters adjacent to rocks, and as "threatened" or "endangered," including Steller personal water craft. Specific mp agement sea lions, elephant seals, and gray whales. problems vary from site to site.( ) Fragmented Steller sea lions represent a unique management jurisdictions and responsibilities among several challenge for the State of Oregon. Oregon's state and federal ageisies requires close coordina- population of these sea lions, which live on rocks tion and cooperation. ) Education and informa- and islands within the state's territorial sea as part tion to the public is crucial to reducing trespass and intrusion. Funds are lacking in all agencies to of the Oregon Islands National Wildlife Reffige, appears to be relatively stable and healthy. How- respond to seabird issues. ever, precipitous decline in the Steller population � NEED: Buffer zones, seasonal closures or in Alaska has resulted in listing the species as other appropriate management techniques threatened throughout its range. Continued popula- to protect the unique resources of specific tion declinf @n Alaska will result in listing as en- rocks, islands or reef complexes from dis- dangered. ( I Several of Oregon's Steller habitat turbance and environmental degradation. sites are the focus of urchin fishery activities, and � NEED: Coordinated efforts among af- are attractive for other fisheries, including recrea- fected state and federal agencies to ensure tional users, as well. Oregon must work closely that existing rules, regulations, and with federal agencies to devise programs to programs are used to the maximum extent protect and i&rage Oregon's Steller sea lion. possible. populations. In addition, other rocks and islands with relatively Marine easy shoreline access have significant human � Description trespass and consequent problems with distur- bance or harassment of mammals, especially The waters, rocks, islands, headlands and remote during summer pupping periods. Non-regulatory sandy beaches of the Oregon coast and territorial management (education and awareness) are cru- sea are important habitat for many marine mam- cial if shoreline sites are to be protected as more mals. Gray whales are an increasingly familiar and m,?re people move to or visit the Oregon sight from coastal vantage points during winter coast.( ) and spring migration; some appear to be year NEED: An interagency management plan round residents, feeding in rocky nearshore reef for critical habitat areas of the Steller sea areas. Other whales, blue, sperm, minke, and lion, including rock and reef haulout gind humpback migrate past Oregon farther offshore. rookery areas, feeding areas and interac- Orcas sometimes feed on fish, seals and sea lions 38 Ocean Resources tions with other ocean users, including com- Clean ()Ce= Water mercial and recreational fisheries, aircraft overflight and human trespass. � Description NEED: Buffer zones, seasonal closures and Oregon's ocean waters are relatively clean. other management techniques to protect Oregonians want to keep them that way. They are the unique resources of specific rocks, is- swept by the southward-flowing California Cur- lands or headlands from disturbance and rent during the summer which is displaced along environmental degradation. the nearshoT * , winter by a north-flowing David- . 1r son Current. There appears to be significant in- NEED: Coordinated efforts among af- terchange between estuaries and the nearshore fected state and federal agencies to ensure ocean. The Columbia River transports sediments that existing rules, regulations, and and pollutants into the Pacific Ocean and creates a programs are used to the maximum extent surface qr, e of freshwater far offshore in the possible. summer. Other coastal rivers, the Umpqua, Siuslaw, Nehalem, Coquille, Coos and numerous Sexi4tive Shomlim Ay%eas smaller coastal streams also deliver pollutants and sediments to the nearshore marine environment. � Description � Management Issues Oregon's coast has numerous rocky intertidal areas easily accessible at low tide. These intertidal There is very little information on existing marine areas contain dense, diverse assemblages of water quality conditions, little or no monitoring marine plants and animals unique to the intertidal and no standards for judging impacts to marine zone. Many of these si are within or adjacent to water quality. A few cities and industries (pulp designated state parks.lf,@) mills) discharge treated effluent directly into the ocean. All others discharge into estuaries or � Management Issues rivers. Increasing coastal population will require Tide pools are very attractive to coastal visitors increased sewerage capability. Questions of because they offer a glimpse of life beneath the whether ocean outfalls are more desirable than es- sea. Several sites, near heavily traveled U.S. High- tuarine outfalls and the conditions for siting out- way 101, are readily accessible during extreme falls are complex and unanswered. Neither the low tides of summer when there are many visitors state nor the federal government has a program to to the Oregon coast. Some sites receive over- establish baseline parNneters for monitoring whelming numbers of visitors and are being marine water quality. )The discharge of foreign destroyed or severely damaged by foot traffic and ballast water from large cargo ships into estuaries ignorant collecting. A variety of management and raises the issue of whether and under what condi- protection measures, including area closures, sig- tions discharge into the ocean would be nage, alternative education opportunities and infor- preferable. There is virtually no information on mation sites, have been proposed but all will background conditions of eithernarine or require coordija@ed programs with adequate fund- ocean waters to make decisions. ing to achieve. - NEED: Water quality baseline data for NEED: Coordinated, interagency, site selected ocean sites. specific management plans and regulations 0 NEED: Data on estuarine and nearshore to protect intertidal areas. ocean exchange, including pollutant dis- NEED: Increased public information charge. materials and programs to educate coastal a NEED: Standards for evaluating marine visitors about tidepool resources and need water quality and regulating the placement for protection. and discharge of municipal sewerage into the nearshore marine environment. 39 Oregon Coastal Program Section 309 Assessment Management Assessment ---------------------- - - -------- Oregon has a broad framework for planning and and Dev?lopment published The Oregon OCEAN- managing ocean resources. This framework is BOOK,( ) a comprehensive overview of the composed of state laws, agency programs, plans, geologic and oceanographic setting and living a process, political commitment and public sup- marine resources of the Pacific Ocean off Oregon. port. However, this framework needs to be filled Written and illustrated for the lay reader, the in with more specific plans, implementation OCEANBOOK provided a synthesis framework measures and better information to effectively for understanding more detailed scientific informa- manage and protect Oregon's ocean resources. tion about ocean resources or evaluating impacts The elements of Oregon's ocean management pro- from future ocean. uses. Preparation of the gram include: OCEANBOOK was supported with federal funds Statewide Mmning Goal 19 under the coastal zone management program. 0 NEED: Update and expansion of the OM=Resources OCEANBOOK to reflect improved under- Oregon's long-standing commitment to ocean standing of Oregon's marine resources and resources protection and management was environment. reflected in the work of the Oregon Coastal Con- � Oregon Ocean Resources servation and Development Commission which, Management Act of 1987 in 1975, adopted a policy of managing continental The 1987 Oregon Legislature, through Senate Bill shelf resources. 630, enacted the Oregon Ocean Resources In 1977, Oregon's Coastal Management Program Management Act ip, ow Oregon Revised Statutes was approved by the Secretary of Commerce as 196.405-196.515( ) and created the Oregon meeting the requirements of the federal Coastal Ocean Resources Management Program. The pur- Zone Management Act of 1972. The OCMP con- pose of the program is to plan for the coordinated, tains Statewide Planning Goal 19, Ocean Resour- comprehensive management of ocean uses and ces which, in addition to a broad policy statement, resources off the Oregon coast. 77he law includes includes two major requirements: 1.) that local, legislative policies for ocean management, includ- state or federal decisions about the use of ocean ing a primary policy which articulates in law the resources must give priority to the long-term meaning of statewide planning Goal 19, Ocean benefits of living marine, renewable resources Resources. The legislation created a Task Force, over use of nonliving, nonrenewable resources, required it to assess ocean resources, their uses and 2.) that ocean resource decisions, including and management and prepare a plan for managing agency programs and plans, must be based on ocean resources. The plan was required to be scientific "inventory information" sufficient to adopted by the Land Conservation and Develop- describe and understand the impacts of the ment Commission as part of Oregon's Coastal proposed activity. Management Program. Goal 19 has been broadly interpreted and applied � The Oregon Ocean Resources through the Oregon Ocean Resources Manage- Management Task Force ment Plan (below). Goal 19 has not been imple- The Task Force created under Senate Bill 630 was mented through administrative rules because of broadly representative. Seven state agencies, three lack of necessary information (see Resource As- public members, representatives of local govern- sessments, above). ments, fishermen, oil and mineral industries, ports NEED: Administrative rules to carry out and Indian tribes were appointed. Federal agen- Goal 19, Ocean Resources. cies were invited to participate and several provided crucial assistance. Hundreds of citizens � The Oregon OCEANBOOK were directly involved through workshops and In 1985 the Department of Land Conservation public hearings. Hundreds more received a peri- odic newsletter of activities and information. 40 Ocean Resources The Task Force turned its attention first to issues ocean resources. of oil and gas development raiWd by proposed The Ocean Plan contains two principle recommen- federal OCS Lease Sale #132.@@') It reviewed avail- dations: able information about ocean resources and condi- tions and concluded that Oregon's biologically Oregon must address growing demands on productive and highly dynamic ocean is not the ocean resources through a coordinated ocean place for oil and gas development. This con- policy council under the leadership of the clusion eventually led to the President's June, Governor and linked to Oregon's coastal 1990, cancellation of an oil and gas lease sale management program, scheduled for 1992. The Task Force also found that Oregon needs far more scientific information Oregon must prepare a plan for managing the to allow future marine mineral exploration. ocean resources and uses within the state three-mile territorial sea. Of greater consequence, however, the Task Force heard directly from hundreds of citizens, fisher- � Senate Bill 162: men, scientists, state and federal agency resource The Ocean Policy Advisory Council specialists that Oregon's ocean resources are im- The 1991 Oregon legislature accepted the recom- periled by overuse and misuse, uninformed mendations of the Task Force and established the management decisions, lack of adequate regula- Oregon Ocean Policy Advisory Council with a tion and uncoordinated programs among state and dual mission: to prepare a territorial sea plan for federal agencies even V there is no oil, gas or Oregon and to coordinate management o ean mineral development.( 1) resources within Oregon's territorial sea. RfThe The Task Force learned that increasin numbers legislature mandated that state agencies must act 9 consistently with the plan once the plan is adopted of people use the ocean, especially nearshore, for as part of Oregon's coastal management program. commercial or recreational harvest of fish, Thus, the territorial sea plan will, itself, constitute shellfish, and marine plants. Oregon's coast hosts a mandatory, enforceable mechanism for manag- more and more people pursuing a variety of ing ocean resources. Likewise, when the ter- marine recreation. Growing coastal cities must dis- ritorial sea plan is approved by NOAA/OCRM as pose of additional municipal sewage into estuaries an amendment to Oregon's federally approved or ocean. Ships and barges, some hauling oil, Coastal Management Program, it will provide an chemical or toxic cargoes, ply this nearshore area enforceable standard for determining whether and into coastal harbors. Marine mammals and federal agency programs and activities are consis- seabirds, including the threatened Steller sea lion, tent with Oregon's ocean management program. are under increasing pressure from human distur- The territorial sea plan will also provide the basis bance. for the Department of Land Conservation and � Oregon Ocean Resources Manage- Development to adopt administrative rules to im- ment Plan plement statewide Goal 19, Ocean Resources. The Task Force p r ared an Ocean Resources - NEED: A plan for Oregon's territorial sea . W Management Plan which was adopted by the as a framework for local, state, and federal Land Conservation and Development Commis- agency programs, rules and regulations. sion in late 1990 as part of the Oregon Coastal a NEED: Approval by NOAA/OCRM of the Management Program. The Ocean Plan has not been submitted to NOAA/OCkM for approval territorial sea plan as an element of under the federal Coastal Management Act; how- Oregon's Coastal Management Program. ever, the Oregon Department of Justice has deter- NEED: Administrative rules, special area mined that the Ocean Plan is binding on state management plans, educational programs agencies. The plan addresses uses, resources, and and other agency programs to carry out management within the 200-mile U.S. Exclusive the territorial sea plan. Economic Zone, establishes broad policies and makes numerous specific recommendations to im- prove management and protection of Oregon's 41 Oregon Coastal Program Section 309 Assessment � M-search and Information System (GIS) Service Center. nte Iniormation Development Oregon legislature has appropriated funds over Neither state nor federal agencies have adequate three successive bienniums to support the state's scientific baseline and inventory information to ocean GIS capability. In addition, Oregon has prepare management plans and programs or developed a working relationship with NOAA's specific implementation measures such as rules, Strategic Assessments Branch to utilize the COM- regulations, or standards to_Vrotect and manage PAS information management system developed Oregon's ocean resourccs.(V) Under statewide for use within NOAA and by cooperating states. planning Goal 19, Ocean Resources, local, state In both cases, development of an information and federal units of government are required to ac- base useful for regional or local scale planning quire inventory data to support plans and and management is hampered by deficient da,ta, programs. During preparation of the Ocean Plan as outlined above. 1987-1990, Oregon discovered the following: NEED: Additional scientific inventory and � available information on ocean conditions, en- resource information as listed in Resource vironment, and resources is often unavailable, Assessments, above, and as described in sparse, fragmented, imprecise, out of date or the research plans of the Oregon Depart- limited to relatively small areas; ment of Fish and Wildlife. Information gaps are extensive and will take time and � specific resource management problems can- funds to fulfill. not be defined or resolved through new laws rules, regulations or programs without far bej_ NEED: Commitments by federal agencies ter information than currently available; and with marine resource management respon- sibilities affecting Oregon's territorial sea � information has not been gathered in a sys- to increase data gathering and research ef- tematic way to support management forts and to coordinate these with the decisions. Oregon ocean resources management pro- The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife gram. (ODFW) has taken the lead in identifying and NEED: Increased coordination between coordinating new studies of ocean resources and Oregon's ocean resources GIS and all environment off Oregon. In 1989, ODFW com- branches of NOAA to enhance Oregon's in- pleted a two year effort to prepare an overall re- formation base for management and to im- search plan for the management of livp manne prove NOAA's data base about Oregon's resources over the continental margin. This ocean resources comprehensive strategy was developed in coopera- tion with an interagency advisory panel and tech- � PubHe and Agency Support nical commenters from throughout the region. Several factors contributed to the success of Task The plan lays out broad strategies to minimize en- Force and subsequent legislative action creating vironmental risk and describes detailed studies to an Ocean Policy Advisory Council. A crucial ele- describe ecosystem processes, assess biological ment was the participation in all phases of the resources, and understand environmental effects. Task Force work by many citizens, from the coast In turn, this plan has become the foundation for a as well as statewide. This involvement heightened more focused integrated study of nearshore public awareness and provides a base of support marine @Oitats and reef communities of southern for work on Oregon's territorial sea to improve Om8ull. This integrated study will be the protection and management of ocean resources. framework for a variety of academic and state and Similarly, all affected state agencies and many federal agency studies in the region. federal agencies seized the opportunity to enhance In addition to working toward obtaining new or build programs to address their resource respon- ocean information, Oregon has built an integrated sibilities and participated fully throughout the computerized ocean information system to store, Task Force process. This interagency cooperation retrieve, synthesize and analyses information. and coordination has built a common under- This system is located within the state Geographic standing and high level of trust for working on is- 42 Ocean Resources sues within Oregon's territorial sea. tion in all phases of the ocean planning � NEED: Continued and expanded public process. awareness of ocean resource issues and the NEED: Improved outreach to schools, planning process. libraries, organizations, and local govern- � NEED: Opportunities for public participa- ments to provide informational materials about Oregon's ocean resources program Priority Program Enhancements Ocean resources use planning is a priority for sensitive habitat and depletion or destruction of OCMP improvement. food resources. Oregon must develop interagency Oregonians place high value on a healthy marine management plans and programs, public aware- environment and productive ocean resources. This ness and education efforts and mandatory enforce- is reflected by legislative action in 1987 and 1991 ment measures where necessary to protect these to establish ocean planning laws and allocate state resources. resources to the task and by the participation and Priority Program Enhancement: Adopt interest of citizens in the 1987-1990 ocean plan- site specific management plans and protec- ning process. Oregonians want to remain involved tion measures for critical marine mammal in and continue to be informed and educated and seabird habitat. about ocean resources planning and management Substantial improvement is needed in the scien- issues. tific inventory information base necessary for Priority Program Enhancement: Continue Oregon to prepare and adopt a territorial sea plan to provide citizens with information about and implementation measures, including Ad- ocean resources and opportunities to par- ministrative Rules for Goal 19. ticipate in ocean planning. 0 Priority Program Enhancement: Conduct Oregon has a sound legal and policy framework coordinated ocean research programs to ac- for addressing ocean resources management is- quire needed information. sues but needs a more detailed plan and programs 0 Priority Program Enhancement: Improve for the state's territorial sea to address a variety of information management capability to sup- issues and problems. An Oregon territorial sea port ocean resources planning and manage- plan, as required by the legislature, will provide a ment decisions. mandatory framework for local, state, and federal agency plans, programs, rules and regulations to The responsibility to manage the resources and manage ocean resources within Oregon's ter- values of the Pacific Ocean off Oregon is not ritorial sea. An Oregon territorial sea plan, when limited to the state alone. Many federal agencies approved by NOAA/OCRM as part of Oregon's have responsibilities and authorities for resources federally-approved Coastal Management Program, and activities even inside the territorial sea. will ensure that federal agency programs and Protection and proper management of these decisions are consistent with the plan. resources is a shared responsibility whose costs Priority Program Enhancement: Prepare must be born by both levels of government. These and adopt a plan and implementing costs are not insignificant. But the loss of ocean measures to manage Oregon's territorial resources would be even greater. Federal agencies sea resources, uses and activities. must assist the State of Oregon, and all states, to Certain of Oregon's marine resources, chiefly protect a common resource. marine mammals, seabirds, and rocky intertidal - Priority Program Enhancement: Coopera- areas, are at risk from encroachment on critical or tion and financial assistance from federal agencies, including the Office of Ocean and 43 Oregon Coastal Program Section 309 Assessment Coastal Resources Management, to plan, manage, and protect ocean resources. -References -------- 1. Parmenter, Tish, and R. Bailey. The Oregon 7. Cicin-Sain, Biliana, et al. Improving Ocean OCEANBOOK. Department of Land Conserva- Management Capability in the Pacific Coast tion and Development. Salem, Oregon. 1985 Region: State and Regional Perspectives. National 2. Good, James, and R. Hildreth. Oregon Ter- Coastal Resources Research and Development In- ritorial Sea Management Study. Oregon State stitute. Newport, Oregon. 1990. University. Corvallis, Oregon. 1987. 8. Technical Subcommittee, Pacific Northwest 3. 1987 Oregon Legislature. Senate Bill 630. OCS Task Force. Environmental Studies for Salem, Oregon. 1987. Washington and Oregon Relative to Lease Sale Planning Area 132. Seaside Oregon. 1990. 4. Minerals Management Service. PROCEED- 9. Oregon Ocean Resources Management Task INGS: Conference/Workshop on Recommenda- Force. The Oregon Ocean Plan. Portland, Oregon. tions for Studies in Washington and Oregon 1991. Relative to Offshore Oil and Gas Development. Los Angeles, California. 1988. 10. 1991 Oregon Legislature. Senate Bill 162. 5. Oregon Ocean Resources Management Task Salem, Oregon. 1991 Force. Interim Report to the Joint Legislative 11. National Marine Fisheries Service. Final Committee on Land Use. Portland, Oregon. 1988. Revision: Recovery Plan for the Steller Sea Lion. 6. Bottom, Daniel I., et al. Management of Living Seattle, Washington. 1991, Marine Resources: A Research Plan for the 12. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Washington and Oregon Continental Margin. DRAFT: Integrated Study of Nearshore Marine Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Habitats and Reef Communities of Southern Portland, Oregon. 1989 Oregon. Newport, Oregon. 1991 44 Low Priority Enhancements Public Access Legislative Objective Another 406 sites and 99 sites exist for "perpen- dicular" access to fgastal estuaries and coastal Attain increased opportunities for public ac- lakes respectively. cess to coastal areas with recreational, his- Another assessment of the current adequacy of torical, aesthetic, ecological, or cultural public access to coastal water bodies is the value. Include consideration of current and future needs forpublic access. department's recent OCMP questionnaire. It in- cluded "public water access" as one of the 28 management issues to be ranked for improvement. ResourmAssessment Public acceeA was ranked a distant 15th for im- Along Oregon's 362 miles of ocean shoreline, provement. there are 262 miles of sandy beaches and 64 miles MwiagementAwws@nt of rocky headlands which are acceMble to the public and set aside for public use. That � Laws amounts to 90 percent of the ocean shore. This ex- As mentioned above, Oregon's "beach I aw es- traordinary situation was created by the 1967 tablished lateral public access along 90 percent of Oregon Beach Bill. That legislation established the state's ocean shore. The beach law was sub- public ownership of the intertidal area and a sequently challenged in state courts and its con- public easemen the "dry land" area below the stitutionali was upheld at the state's highest 18T @, 1) vegetation line. court level. The Oregon Beach Bill created "lateral" access There is a current case in state court which will along the ocean shore. "Perpendicular access is give the court another opportunity to affirm the needed to allow the public to get to the shore beach law. This is the "Stevens" case. It involves from the uplands. Oregon enjoys 645 points of a proposed motel seawall which would encroach 1. perpendiFlIlar" public access along its ocean on the privately-owned area of public easement shoreline. created by the beach law. State and local agencies 45 Oregon Coastal Program Section 309 Assessment denied the needed permits, and the applicant ap- Department of Fish & Wildlife acquired six ac- pealed on grounds of an unconstitutional "taking". cess sites for $95,000, constructed six boat ramps, The defendant state government was upheld at the and received two donations of land for access, in- trial court level. Currently, the case is being ap- cluding a 145-acre parcel with one mile of river pealed to the Court of Appeals, and most likely to frontage valued at $210,000.(9) the Supreme Court. Oral argument before the Ap- � Access Management Plan peals Court will occur near the end of February As mentioned above, the Department of Parks & 1992. "Me department will continue to monitor this case and its implications on public access to Recre tion is developing an Oregon Beach Access the ocean shore. Plan.(@ As part of that planning effort, State Parks In 198.4, the department amended the statgide and the department prolff ,ed an inventory ofcoas- tal access sites in 1989. Since then, State Parks planning goal #17 for coastal shorelands. The has been using the inventory data to identify amendment addresses public access to all coastal priority acquisition sites to provide increased or water bodies. It requires two things. First, existing improved public access. A preliminary but un- public access in coastal shorelands must be published draft has been produced. Additional "retained or replaced if sold, exchanged or trans- work is needed to calculate acquisition costs,. land ferred." Second, if a shoreland "right-of-way" is use effects, local comprehensive plan com- vacated to allow redevelopment, public access patibility, etc. Unfortunately, agency budget cuts must be provided across the affected site. Local have reduced the staff level for s effort and it is government's are incorporating this new require- V ment into their comprehensive plans. This is currently "on the back bumee,.( ) I being done during the scheduled periodic reviews � Protection of Resources of local plans. and Property Rights � Acquisition Natural resources are protected from damage due to human access in the same manner as from any Public access site acquisition and improvement on other land use covered by the Oregon Coastal Oregon's coast is an ongoing activity by several Management Program. In adffon, Oregon's, agencies. recently adopted Ocean Plan ) requires access to be "restricted, if necessary, to protect endangered, In 1989, the department and the Department of Parks and Recreation, a full partner in the Oregon threatened, and sensitive species or their habitats Coastal Program, produced a detailed inventory Conclusion of all public access sites te the ocean shore, es- tuaries, and coastal lakes. State Parks is analyz- Public access is not a priority for OCMP improve- ing the inventory data to identify priority areas for ment. further access acquisitions. Unfortunately, this ex- Oregon does not lack for public access to its coas- ercise has stalled for lack yf adequate staff resour- ces within Parks'budget.( 1) tal water bodies. State law and ongoing acquisi- tion programs have provided a great deal of Several other state agencies have been funding access. In addition, minor refinements are being site acquisitions and improvements during the last made to the existing programs. For example, local biennium. The department, for example, used comprehensive plans are being amended to $192,000 in federal "306A" grants to local.age @75_) protect existing public access. Also, a limited cies to acquire or improve eight access projects amount of new access acquisition and develop- between 1989-91. The State Marine Board ment is happening through programs at the depart- provided $688,000 in state and federal [gnds for ment and at State Parks. 12 improvement projects on the coast.( )Me 46 Low Priotity Assessments Marine Debris Legislative Objective problem. Respondents ranked "marine d bris" a distant 16th out of 22 suggested coastal manage- Reduce marine debris which enters the ment issues. Most of the support for this ranking nation's coastal and ocean environment. came from "citizen activist" respondents rather Manage uses and activities which con- than local governments or coastal business inter- tribute to the entry of such debris. ests. PwsourmAssm9nient AanageinentAwwsment (3) Oregon's place in the "marine debris story" is, of Oregon's recently published Ocean Plan course, well known. The now internaeilral beach provides the following general description of the cleanup program began here in 1984. A pilot marine debris problem in the state: recycling program started at the Port of Newport "Nondegradable debris, such as plastic and glass, for the commercial fishing fleet has served as a enters Oregon's ocean from a variety of sources. model for dozens of similar recycling efforts at Prior to the recent MARPOL agreement to reduce other ports on the West coast and throughout the nation. The nation's first of nine state "bottle marine debris.... the primary source was the dump- bills" began here, and has reduced the "@ottle" ing of garbage at sea by domestic and foreign mer- component of the state's beach debris. chant marine vessels, military vessels, commercial fishing vessels, cruise ships, and Today, the above activities continue. Once a year recreational vessels. Even though the amount of in the fall, the Oregon Department of Fish and debris from vessels is decreasing under MAR- Wildlife and one or more nonprofit organizations POL, much plastic remains at sea. Rivers also sponsor a beach cleanup day. Data on quantity bring debris from urban areas and highways. and type of debris are collected and forwarded to Beach users contribute marine debris by littering." the nongovernmental Center For Marine Conser- One measure of the marine debris problem in vation for tabulation. Oregon is the types and quantities of debris col- In the spring, another beach cleanup day occurs. lected from the state's beaches. In the fall of This one is sponsored in part by the Oregon 1990, 44,007 pounds of debris were collected Department of Parks & Recreation. They provide from 135 miles of Oregon's bea @@cs during the na- cleanup equipment and publicity to support the lar- tional beach cleanup campaign.( That represents gely local cleanup efforts. Unfortunately, no data an average of 326 pounds of debris per mile of are collected during this cleanup. Oregon shoreline. Within the 50 states and Dis- Regardless of the real effect of these cleanup ef- trict of Columbia, the national avera e was 703 forts on reducing the "debris stream", they serve pounds of debris collected per mile.' ) Comparing an invaluable function of maintaining public the average cleanup rates for Oregon and the na- awareness and of giving the public a sense of tion, one can conclude that Oregon's beaches that "doing something about it". day were 54 percent cleaner than the national average. Of course, such a conclusion assumes Concerning "debris prevention", the port that Oregon beach cleaners were as efficient as authorities in Astoria, Newport, and Charleston those in the rest of the nation (they may even operate their own recycling and debris disposal have been more efficient). programs for sport and commercial fishing users. Another measure of Oregon's marine debris prob- These are locally initiated programs; they are not lem is the response to the OCMP questionnaire required or funded by state government. The (see questionnaire description above). Actually, types of debris being retrieved include cardbo this is more a measure of people's perception of a metal, wood, wire and cable, plastic, and nets. Unfortunately, no quantitative data are available. 47 Oregon Coastal Program Section 309 Assessment Another debris prevention effort is the Net Recy- tion efforts by OSU Sea Grant were a significant cling Program being conducted by the Marine part of the successful effort with the pilot recy- Habitat Project of the Pgcific States Marine' cling project at the Port of Newport. However, Fisheries Commission.( ) This program is operat- OSU Sea Grant is not conducting any marine ing in ports from Alaska to California; Astoria is debris education activit s as part of its current the single Oregon port participating. The program 1991-93 programming. @@i Marine debris education is using federal Saltonstall-Kennedy grants and has been taken on nationally by the Center For EPA grants to set up economically efficient recy- Marine Conservation. cling mechanisms for used fishing nets. Grant Within Oregon state and local governments, there monies are also being used for net recycling re- is no agency with a mission or mandate to search at Oregon State University. The .4manage" marine debris. university's engineering department has been con- tracted by the Marine Habitat Project to develop coxidusioTl an efficient technological means for separating gillnets by the type of nylon resin used in their Marine debris is not a priority for OCMP improve- manufacture. Such separation will greatly im- ment. prove the nets economic value to potential plas- Oregon's pioneering efforts in marine debris tics recycling operators. management were developed without assistance A third debris prevention mechanism in Oregon is from the OCMP. Furthermore, the "grass roots" the state's littering laws. ORS164.775 et seq. vir- nature and spirit of those pioneering efforts are tually prohibits any debris discharge in state being perpetuated in the ongoing marine debris waters or on the beaches. Enforcement is done by programs and, again, without an OCMP require- the state police department and the local police ment. There is no reason to spoil this success by a departments. In 1990, no enforce T ent actions by government mandate of "marine debris preven- local departments were reported.( ) During the tion" through the state's coastal management pro- same period, the state police reported 9 en orce- grain. ment cases; in 1989, there were 15 cases.(T)l Available beach cleanup data suggests that The Department of State Police has also increased Oregon has significantly less of a debris problem its instruction and direction given to coastal than the rest of the nation. That perception is rein- police cadets and game personnel regardin @2@ n- forced by respondents to the OCMP questionnaire hanced enforcement in the bays and ocean. who did not feel marine debris was as important The littering enforcement data above suggest that an issue as many others on our coast. Neverthe- enforcement is not an effective tool against less, debris reduction programs are being carried marine debris proliferation. Public education is on in the state without OCMP or other govern- often used as an alternative to regulation. Educa- ment mandates. Special Area Management Planning Legislative Objective cial area management planning". Prepare and carry out special management City and county comprehensive land use plans plans for important coastal areas. have been developed for all of the upland area in the coastal zone. These plans comply with Oregon's statewide land use planning program re- ResourmAssessment quirements for state agency coordination, citizen The entire Oregon coastal zone, from the moun- involvement, and natural resource protectiori. In tains to the valleys to the ocean white with foam particular, separate planning efforts were con- (apologies to Irving Berlin), is covered by "spe- ducted for each of Oregon's 21 major estuaries as sub-components of the comprehensive plans. All 48 Low Priority Assessments of these plans'have been approved by the federal and the rest of the state can now by handled government as part of the Oregon Coastal through another type of "special area management Management Program. plan!'. The 1989 Legislature authorized "wetland Within the marine portion of Oregon's coastal conservation plans" to be created for site specific zone, another "special area management pl@p)" has wetland areas by local governments and the been adopted. It is the Oregon Ocean Plan. Oregon Division of tate Lands which regulates wetland alterations.( ) The wetland protection re- NhnagementAssessimmt quirements of Statewide Planning Goal 5 (Natural (4) Resources) have been incorporated in the wetland The comprehensive planning statutes remain ap- conservation law. plicable to all land use actions in the coastal zone. This means that the comprehensive planning Conclusion process will remain as the basic framework in Special area management planning is not a which to resolve future land use conflicts. priority for OCMP improvement. Territorial sea planning also N a mandate to con- Special area management planning is already tinue. Recent state legislation created the being done in Oregon. The state has a long tradi- Oregon Ocean Policy Advisory Council, and re- tion of resolving its land and water use disputes quires the council to produce a more specific ter- through coordinated and collaborative decision ritorial sea management plan. making which involves all affected parties. This The management of wetlands in the coastal zone process and, indeed, this attitude are continuing. Energy & Government Facility Siting & Activities Legislative Objective 10 miles in length, greater than 230,000 volts, Adopt procedures and enforceable policies and crossing a local government boundary; which will help the siting of energy and Solar collecting facility using more than 100 government facilities and activities which acres of land, or generating more than 25,000 may be ofgreater than local significance. kw of power; Liquid fossil fuel pipeline at least six inches ResouxmAssessmemt in diameter and five or more miles in length; Natural or synthetic gas pipeline at least 16 in- � Mgjor Facilities ches in diameter and five or more miles in The siting of major energy facilities in Oregon is length; regulated by the Oregon Energy Facility Siting e Geothermal pipeline at least 16 inches in Council (EFSQ. The following facilities are regu- diameter and five or more miles in length; and lated (ORS469.300): Electric power generating plant (non-nuclear * Synthetic fuel plant which converts any fuel), capacity greater than 25,000 kw; naTral resource to a fuel equivalent of 2.0 x 10 Btu of heat per day (this would include * Nuclear power plant, capacity greater than oil refineries). 25,000 kw; The EFSC siting process is exempt from the * Any nuclear facility other than a nuclear 64 state agency coordinatioW' and the "comprehen- power plant; sive plan compatibility" requirements ?,,f the statewide land use planning program.( ) T'his 0 High voltage transmission lines greater than means that a local government cannot "veto" an 49 Oregon Coastal Program Section 309 Assessment EFSC-regulated facility through its comprehen- since "sunsetted", and is no longer in effect. sive plan. It is the state's policy that the siting of these major facilities be consolidated at the state MwWemntAssesment level and to be consistent with "state" policies regarding energy and environmental protection � Considering Facility Needs (ORS469.310). The department is developing new administrative Nevertheless, EFSC is required to "coordinate" its rules for public facility siting. This will be for decisions with local governments. To do this, public facilities other than those regulated ex, clusively through EFSC. The new rules will build EFSC must solicit comments from affected local on the concepts and recommendations provide@,@n governments (ORS469.350(3)) and appoint the af- the department's 1991 study mentioned above. fected local government as a "special advisory One of the major concepts being developed is a body" (ORS469.480(l)). "certificate of need". Under this concept, a peti- SinceEFSC was created in 1971, there has been tion would be filed with the Land Conservation & only one application filed for an EFSC site certifi- Development Commission to certify a (2) cate in the Oregon coastal zone. That was a pilot regional/statewide need for a specific project. project wind power electric generation power For EFSC-regulated facilities, the EFSC ad- plant @@ Curry County, and it was approved in ministrative rules (OAR Chapter345) require find- 1983. ings of need for the facility to obtain a site � Other Facilities certificate from EFSC. All other types and sizes of energy and govern- � Allow Siting and ment facilities are subject to the statewide land Protect Natural Resources use planning program. This means that the The siting , construction and operation of EFSC- facilities must meet local comprehensive plan and regulated energy facilities must be in "compliance zoning ordinance requirements as well as state with ... air, water, solid waste, land use and other agency regulatory requirements. The local and environmental protection policies of this state" state agency requirements, in turn, reflect require.- (ORS469.310). EFSC administrative rules (OAR ments in the statewide land use planning goals of Chapter345) carry out this mandate. in addition, the Land Conservation & Development Commis- EFSC has designated broad geographical areas of sion. There are no requirements in the statewide the state as to their suitability or unsuitability for planning goals or in other statutes of state agen- the siting of thermal (nuclear and fossil fueled) cies that would allow a state agency to override a and geothermal power plants (OAR34540). local government veto of a proposed energy or Suitability is based on the degree of a "substantial government facility. deterrent' 'to siting, on the degree of conflicting In 1991, the department contracted a study of uses, and on the ability to mitigate adverse effects regional and statewide facility siting in Oregon. (2) (OAR345-40-012). One finding of the study is that "the existing land All energy and government facilities not regulated use system, with a few exceptions, h M responded by EFSC are covered by the statewide planning to regional/statewide facility needs". The study program and the regulations of resource protec- further indicated that "there are options available tion agencies in the same manner as any other to improve facility siting and a@23id pressures to land use. As described above, the department has override the land use process". begun the process of amending its administrative There have been isolated incidents in the recent rules for local government siting of public past where the Oregon legislature was compelled facilities. The revised rules will likely contain to adopt short term "supersiting" legislation for specific requirements to evaluate alternat e sites specific uses or facilities. Examples have included based in part on natural resource effectVli@ regional prisons and light rail mass transit in the Conclusion Portland area. In each case, the purpose of the legislation was to preempt local governments' Energy and government facilities and activities facility siting authorities. All such legislation has 50 Low Priority Assessments siting are not priorities for OCUP improvement. denied by local government. 'Me existing The above assessment does not indicate that a mechanism are adequate. Nevertheless, improve- problem exists. There is no evidence of any ments are being made to the program; the depart- facilities of "greater than local interest" being ment is amending its administrative rules for local siting of public facilities not regulated by EFSC. References . . . ........ ... PublicAccess Mazine Debris 1. Benkendorf Associates Corp. Inventory of 1. Center For Marine Conservation. Cleaning Oregon Coastal Beach Access Sites. Prepared for North America's Beaches: 1990 Beach Cleanup the Department of Land Conservation & Develop- Results. Center For Marine Conservation, ment and the Department of Parks & Recreation. Washington, DC, 1991. Salem, Oregon. March 31, 1989. 2. Oregon Department of State Police. SJR14 2. Bond, Peter. Oregon Department of Parks & Compliance Report to State Legislature. State Recreation. Personal communication, 10 October Police General Headquarters, Salem, June 5, 1991. 1991. 3. Oregon Ocean Resources Management Task 3. Oregon Administrative Rules, Chapter660, Force. The Oregon Ocean Plan. State of Oregon, DivisionI5. Salem, Oregon, 1991. 4. Oregon Department of Land Conservation & 4. Oregon Sea Grant. Oregon Sea Grant Program Development. "Analysis Of Coastal Questionnaire Plan For 1991-93, Volume 2. ORESU-P-91-004. Responses". Salem, Oregon. July 1991. Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon, May 5. _. Field Guide: Oregon's Coastal Resour- 15,1991. ces Management Improvements Sites, 1990/91 5. Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission. Edition. Salem, Oregon. 1991. "Port Recycling Systems". PSMFC, Marine 6. Oregon Department of Parks & Recreation. Habitat Project, Depoe Bay, Oregon, 1990. Oregon's Beaches: A Birthright Preserved. Salem, 6. _. "Net Recycling Program". PSMFC, Oregon. September 1977. Marine Habitat Project, Depoe Bay, Oregon, un- 7. Oregon Ocean Resources Management Task dated. Force. The Oregon Ocean Plan. Oregon Depart- SpecidlAz-ea ment of Land Conservation & Development. Salem, Oregon. 1991. Management Planning 8. Oregon Revised Statutes. Chapter 390.605 et 1. Oregon Ocean Resources Management Task seq. Force. The Oregon Ocean Plan. Oregon Depart- merit of Land Conservation and Development. 9. Rawlins, Wayne. Memorandum, "Realty Section Portland, Oregon. January 1991. Biennial Report". Oregon Department of Fish & 2. Oregon Laws of 1989, Chapter 837. Wildlife. Portland, Oregon. 10 September 1991. 3.'Oregon Laws of 1991, Chapter 501. 10. Rhodehamel, Ron. Oregon Marine Board. Per- sonal communication, 8 October 1991. 4. Oregon Revised Statutes, Chapter 197. 11. State ex rel Thornton v. Hay. 254 OR 584; 462 EnezW & Govenment P2d 671 (1969). Facility Siting & Activities 1. Blanton, Dale. Department of Land Conserva- 51 A Oregon Coastal Program Section 309 Assessment 13 6668 141 1044133 tion & Development. Personal communication. 1 3. Meehan, Tom. Oregon Department of Energy. October 1991. Personal communication, 27September 1991. 2. Dorman, White & Company, et al. "Siting 4. Oregon Land Conservation & Development Process For Facilities And Projects Of Regional Commission. "State Agency Coordination Cer- Or Statewide Significance." Prepared for the tification Order 91-CERT-750". 29April 199 1. Department of Land Conservation & Develop- ment, Salem, Oregon. July 1991. 52